New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

zg18 wrote:

Unfortunately no.

Ok. Are there any specs available about the Project 4202 warhead? IOW, how is it different from the other warheads in other Russian ICBMs and SLBMs?

jhelb wrote:

zg18 wrote:

Unfortunately no.

Ok. Are there any specs available about the  Project 4202 warhead? IOW, how is it different from the other warheads in other Russian ICBMs and SLBMs?

Try https://www.russiadefence.net/t5225-russian-hypersonic-vehicle-object-4202

how much power have the Sarmatian missile and compares with the previous
Satan missile in terms of Megatons?

The power of a nuclear weapon suffers from the law of diminished returns...

Making a bomb twice as powerful does not make it twice as destructive or twice as capable.

In fact three smaller bombs can be rather more destructive than one big one.

The whole concept behind cluster bombs is a case in point... a 500kg HE bomb is a powerful weapon but in terms of lethality having 500 1kg bombs to spread around the damage is vastly more effective.

The only exception is against hard targets where the bigger bomb the better.

The simple fact is that if you want to destroy an enemy civilian population and infrastructure then larger numbers of smaller bombs is more effective than fewer bigger ones.

The other key ingredient is accuracy... a WWII bomb attack requires thousands of bomber aircraft dropping 10s of thousands of small bombs to ensure a target is hit and destroyed. A modern cruise missile with terminal guidance can do with a much smaller bomb what would take a whole air force of bombers took in the 1940s.

A 1980s Soviet cruise missile with a CEP of 250m (which is vastly better than any WWII bomber except dive bombers) still required a nuclear warhead to be effective... today the accuracy is down to less than 10m so conventional warheads are now effective.

Improvements in accuracy of strategic missiles means much smaller warheads are actually more effective than previous bigger warheads for most roles.

GarryB wrote:The power of a nuclear weapon suffers from the law of diminished returns...

Making a bomb twice as powerful does not make it twice as destructive or twice as capable.

Why not? A bomb twice as powerful will have twice the destructive power. Case in point the Tsar bomb can cause 10x time more destruction than the atomic bombs dropped in Hiroshima.

GarryB wrote:The whole concept behind cluster bombs is a case in point... a 500kg HE bomb is a powerful weapon but in terms of lethality having 500 1kg bombs to spread around the damage is vastly more effective.

How exactly will you drop 500 1kg bombs? You will need a few dozen aircraft. Cost of such an operation will go through the roof. Its effective but highly inefficient.

Diminishing returns only in the sense that the target cannot be destroyed to an arbitrary degree. If a 100 kiloton nuke is good
enough to do it in, then there is no point using a 1 Megaton nuke.

jhelb wrote:
Why not? A bomb twice as powerful will have twice the destructive power. Case in point the Tsar bomb can cause 10x time more destruction than the atomic bombs dropped in Hiroshima.

The "Tsar" bomb was designed to have a 100MT yield, but was only tested at ~50%. The "Little Boy" bomb dropped on Hiroshima was only 15kT, so the "Tsar" released ~3,3000x more energy. While the "Tsar" destruction footprint was immense, it wasn't 3300x greater than Hiroshima....

Why not? A bomb twice as powerful will have twice the destructive power. Case in point the Tsar bomb can cause 10x time more destruction than the atomic bombs dropped in Hiroshima.

Let me explain.

Think of a 1 Megaton bomb.

It is going to destroy most cities... especially on flat land.

Lets say a 1 MT bomb totally destroys all buildings and surface structures out to 5km and basically kills most people within 20km of the centre of the blast instantly.

A 10MT bomb will not destroy all buildings to 50km and kill most people within 200km.

In fact three 150KT bombs evenly spaced out might actually kill more people than the 1MT bomb if the city is a large one.

The more powerful the bomb the greater the destruction in the centre but the destruction does not spread very efficiently.

Using the cluster bomb analogy a 500kg bomb will kill very effectively anyone on the surface unprotected within 50m of the impact point, but at 200m someone might survive.

Break the bomb up into submunitions and spread them out evenly and you can cover a much larger area with lethal fragments.

It is cheaper and more efficient to make and deliver a few hundred 150KT bombs than a dozen 10MT bombs...

How exactly will you drop 500 1kg bombs? You will need a few dozen aircraft. Cost of such an operation will go through the roof. Its effective but highly inefficient.

Inside a cluster bomb.

Diminishing returns only in the sense that the target cannot be destroyed to an arbitrary degree. If a 100 kiloton nuke is good
enough to do it in, then there is no point using a 1 Megaton nuke.

Using 3 or 4 100KT bombs instead of one bomb in the megaton range can actually be rather more effective against area targets that are spread out, or are blocked by hills or natural features.

The "Tsar" bomb was designed to have a 100MT yield, but was only tested at ~50%. The "Little Boy" bomb dropped on Hiroshima was only 15kT, so the "Tsar" released ~3,3000x more energy. While the "Tsar" destruction footprint was immense, it wasn't 3300x greater than Hiroshima....

And the much greater power of the Tsar bomb would be wasted in heating the ground on the point of impact to a higher temperature and the blast wave will be much more destructive, but out to 5km or so both will be totally lethal...

Big_Gazza wrote:  While the "Tsar" destruction footprint was immense, it wasn't 3300x greater than Hiroshima....

Why not? If it has 3300x more the energy than the Hiroshima bomb obviously it is going to cause that much more destruction than the Hiroshima bomb.Check the link below that I have posted, you can select a city, a nuclear device and see for yourself that destruction is directly related to the yield.

http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

GarryB wrote:
The more powerful the bomb the greater the destruction in the centre but the destruction does not spread very efficiently.

Again Garry, I don't know why you have said that more powerful nukes will not spread the destruction effectively.Take a look at this link. You can choose the yield of a nuke and a city of your choice. You will notice that the greater the power of the nuke more the destruction that it causes.

http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

This explains why modern day nuclear weapons have much greater explosive power than First and Second gen nuclear weapons and would greatly increase the scale of the devastation because of enhanced blast radius, thermal radiation, and prompt ionizing radiation that will cause significant destruction within seconds or minutes of a nuclear detonation.

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/effects2.shtml

GarryB wrote:
And the much greater power of the Tsar bomb would be wasted in heating the ground on the point of impact to a higher temperature and the blast wave will be much more destructive, but out to 5km or so both will be totally lethal...

The most expensive part of the nuk is the pu239 pit and the detonators, means one 50 MT bomb waaay cheaper than 50 1MT bomb ,and the price of the 50MT bomb will be maybe twice as much as the 1 MT bomb.


However the weight will increase as well, and the other expensive part is the ICBM.

Again Garry, I don't know why you have said that more powerful nukes will not spread the destruction effectively.Take a look at this link. You can choose the yield of a nuke and a city of your choice. You will notice that the greater the power of the nuke more the destruction that it causes.

Thanks for that tool...

Look at this:



One ten Megaton explosion and three 1.2 Megaton explosions.

The ten Megaton explosion appears to cover a much bigger area, but the effect of three 1.2 MT explosions would actually be greater because it would be spread over a much larger area, plus the factor that three separate explosions means colliding shockwaves from different directions which would have more sheer damage effect... the centre of the three explosions would have the combined force of the shockwaves from all three explosions and so the centre would be devastated despite consisting of 3.6MT of force instead of 10.4 MTs like the bigger weapon.

This image is generated with a flat target area... the multiple explosions are even more effective in hilly terrain because the shockwaves of three explosions reach places one shockwave from one explosion can't reach.

Think in terms of bullets... once the bullet is powerful enough to kill making it bigger just makes a bigger mess and is a waste of energy.

Just look at what those rings actually represent... the really big rings are the thermal burns rings which are much bigger for the more powerful nuke but the grey ring showing blast radius... the rings are not that much different in size from the much smaller weapons.

I asked the question because Russia apparently is saying that their Sarmatian Nuclear
Bomb will have enough power to destroy UK ,France or a state of the size of texas
Just ONE of them.


Russia's New ICBM Sarmat Can Wipe Out Texas



So my questions are ..
1)how many megatons have in full the Sarmatian bomb?
if all the power was focused in just one warhead?


2)how it will work for a sarmatian bomb to wipe out a country of the size
of all France or State like Texas?  Thats huge territory.

Meh.... Sarmat wiping out Texas?  Sounds like hyperventilating media idiots to me.  Russian journalists can be just as brain-dead as their scumbag liar Western corporate counterparts, so I wouldn't get hung up over such sensationalist reporting.  I expect that Sarmat will be deployed with numerous weapon loads, eg Type 1 - 20x MIRVs of 100kT each,  Type 2 - 10x MIRVs of 300kT each,  Type 3 - 5x MIRVs of 5 MT each, Type 4 - 3x HGVs of 1MT ea

Type 1 is used to devastate large areas such as cities and industrial zones,  Type 4 is used to take out heavily defended and high value hardened targets.

These loadouts are PURE CONJECTURE, but you get the idea.

Sputnik is the former English RIAN.  It is staffed by 5th column clowns who spout all sorts of drivel that 1) reinforces NATO narratives
(e.g. "pro Kremlin parties" used to describe all real political parties in Russia) and 2) makes Russia look like primitives (e.g. the above
noted claim).

Here is the problem in terms of geometry.   Say you wanted a nuke that could wipe out Texas.  A nuclear bomb produces a sphere
of plasma when it detonates.   This sphere becomes the characteristic mushroom cloud thanks to thermal uplift and mass flow to
restore the initial blast cavitation.

To have such a plasma sphere glass Texas requires it to cover a good chunk of territory of Texas.   The problem is that while the circular
intersection area basically scales as the square of the radius of the plasma sphere, the volume of the plasma sphere scales as the cube
of the radius.   So the "glassing" efficiency of a nuclear detonation decreases as the inverse of the desired blast radius.   As discussed
already a 50 megaton nuke is not 50 times more potent than a 1 megaton nuke in terms of damage and this is the reason.   So some MIRVed
ICBM like the Sarmat can take out a dozen targets (e.g. cities) but it cannot glass an area the size of Texas.  For that you would need
thousands and thousands of warheads literally raining over the territory.   Thanks to the START arms limitations rounds no country has such
a collection of warheads and missiles needed to deliver them.

With the new compact warhead designs of 175KT you could probably manage about 20 in Sarmat... with the limitation of volume rather than throw weight.

In terms of destruction with 3 warheads hitting London it would be largely destroyed... add another two nukes for each other major population centre in England and you could probably reasonably expect the country to cease to function for quite some time....

The west is very urbanised and that makes it much easier to target and kill large numbers of people...

They could easily lace a few of the decoys with Ebola for good measure so when they land they spread disease... I doubt the health system could cope...

Wikipedia in English says Sarmata missile is 50 megaton.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-28_Sarmat


Are there any official numbers for the nuclear charge of the Sarma missile?

Vann7 wrote:
Wikipedia in English says Sarmata missile is 50 megaton.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-28_Sarmat


Are there any official numbers for the nuclear charge of the Sarma missile?

From the link:

10-24 MIRVs[1] (various type and yield; At the maximum reported throw-weight of up 10,000kg, the missile could deliver a 50 Mt charge (the maximum theoretical yield-to-weight ratio is about 6 megatons of TNT per metric ton, and the maximum achieved ratio was apparently 5.2 megatons of TNT per metric ton in B/Mk-41).

The combined payload is up to 50 Mt or 2.5 to 5 Mt per warhead. The only configuration that makes sense is a large number of warheads in the 1 Mt range.
A 2.5 Mt warhead is not efficient since most of the energy goes into forming a large mushroom cloud and not surface demolition.

franco wrote:My understanding was that the Sarmatian will be carrying 10-12 "object 4202". Not so?

Sounds right. The focus will be on the gliders and not on megatons per warhead.

Facility where they make the missile completed upgrade of the factory.

Arrow wrote:Sarmat will be vurnerable to boost phase interception. This missile use liquid fuel and has longer boost phase than modern solid propellant ICBM and SLBM. Event China new heavy ICBM DF-41 use solid propellant.

not the same.

Rubehz will be solid. Topol m and yars is too.

General speed of sarmat is fine. I'm pretty sure specialists are more knowledgeable of what the threats are. Not you or I. Hence why they are putting emphasis on this system.

And for being lightweight, yars and topol m sure pack a mean punch.