First Image of Russia’s Largest-Ever ICBM Unveiled

Donate

First Image of Russia's Largest-Ever ICBM Unveiled

Photo: http://makeyev.ru/

On Sunday, the Makeyev Rocket Design Bureau declassified the first image of Russia’s super-heavy thermonuclear armed intercontinental ballistic missile, the RS-28 Sarmat. The design bureau released an illustration of how the  weapon, expected to go into production as soon as 2018, actually looks.

The RS-28 Sarmat is the Russian answer to the threat of missile defense systems designed to undermine the global strategic balance.

“In accordance with the Decree of the Russian Government ‘On the State Defense Order for 2010 and the planning period 2012-2013’, the Makeyev Rocket Design Bureau was instructed to start design and development work on the Sarmat. In June 2011, the Russian Ministry of Defense signed a state contract for the Sarmat’s development. The prospective strategic missile system is being developed in order to create an assured and effective nuclear deterrent for Russia’s strategic forces,” the statement at the website reads

The text is signed by chief designers V. Degtar and Y. Kaverin.

First Image of Russia's Largest-Ever ICBM Unveiled

Click to see the full-size image

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • MeMadMax

    Hypersonic anything is extremely difficult in the atmosphere. There can be no flaws of any size/type in the vehicle otherwise it will be destroyed.
    I doubt that this could be pulled off in the manner that is suggested by the sarmat…

    They havent even tested the thing yet…
    A better way of doing it is literally hundreds of decoys in multiple directions.

    >_>

    • Jesus

      The longer range missiles in the S400 system move at 2000 meters per second, the Zircon, an anti ship hypersonic missile is being currently tested, with possible deployment in 2018. Hypersonic gliders off Sarmat missiles are realistic statements.

  • sólyomszem

    Nice dildo. :)

    • Gary Sellars

      Fantasing again are you?

      • sólyomszem

        fuck your mother, bobo!

  • Shhh

    Solid fuel ICBM is better than liquid. Western espionage prevents Russia from developing reliable solid fuel missile like DPRK. The solid fuel Bulova is not reliable.

    • Pave Way IV

      Solid fuel is only better (relatively speaking) in western ICBMs because the technology is mature and the payloads are (were) light enough. For heavy lifting like the Sarmat, you can’t beat liquid fuels. The Soviet’s old-school N2O4/UDMH rockets have been improved upon for generations. Any rocket engineer in the west would say the Russians have all aspects of THAT technology nailed today. The 2013 Baikonour launch accident was the first one in 30 years – that’s better than the U.S. LOX/hydrogen heavy-lifter track record.

      N2O4/UDMH is what powers their current Proton rocket series. It is not cryogenic fuel like NASA’s LOX/hydrogen. It’s toxic as all hell, but that never seemed to bother the Russians. Any USAF missileer understands exactly why the Russians would go with that propellant for the Sarmat. It stores at standard temperature/pressure indefinitely and is an excellent choice for a siloed ICBM that might sit for years.

      • Shhh

        Thanks …..so does the rocket with N2O4/UDMH stay fueled ready for immediate firing? Are maintenance costs low?

        • Pave Way IV

          Yes, they can stay fueled for years. No idea about maintenance costs/effort, but that’s obviously a concern in designing a siloed ICBM. I believe the maintenance costs are substantially below those of my wife’s American-made car. I warned her.

      • Shhh

        Does Sarmat have energy to reach multiple geo stationary orbit satellites at one strike?Could several Sarmat knock out all US satellites in high orbit? US could lose satellite info for its missile strikes.

        • Pave Way IV

          No idea, but I would guess ‘yes’. The Russians are 1) not dumb, and 2) not psychopaths. They would go for the satellites first before choosing to microwaving humans on the ground, military or civilian (unlike the U.S. who will counterstrike against any targets). Taking out the U.S. GPS satellites won’t effect U.S. ICBM or SLBM targeting – they built those with the assumption that they would need to rely on inertial navigation because there would be no GPS.

    • Gary Sellars

      That is rubbish. Liquid propellents are far more energetic than solids, so a heavy land-based ICBM uses liquids to maximise the throw weight.

      BTW the Topol, Topol-M and Yars land based ICBMs are all solid fuelled. Kinda ruins your stupid claims, doesn’t it ;-)

  • Shhh

    How many warheads can Sarmat put space to reach US satellites in geo stationary orbit? Sarmat is the satellite killer.