Russian General reports on schedule delivery of T-95 tank and project 955 sub.

I’m forced to repost;

A derivative of SS-23 was proposed for use as a satellite launch vehicle in 1993, known as Sphera. This SLV has a launch weight of 3,300 kg and can place a 415 kg payload into a low Earth orbit at 275 km altitude. There have been no reported launches of the Sphera SLV.

www.aeronautics.ru...

A question to senior members and moderators, what is usually done when certain characters clearly engage in disinformation and topic derailment?

This is getting to be rather ridiculous, because while some ATS member are working hard to bring factual information to the forum and share it with other members, others engage in juvenile and destructive trolling.

This simply destroys the efforts of members and pollutes the forum.

Something must be done because I see a clear pattern of good threads being regularly turned into a circus and eventually get derailed by childish bickering.

This is ridiculous.

edit:spl


[edit on 5-2-2008 by iskander]

A derivative of SS-23 was proposed for use as a satellite launch vehicle in 1993, known as Sphera. This SLV has a launch weight of 3,300 kg and can place a 415 kg payload into a low Earth orbit at 275 km altitude. There have been no reported launches of the Sphera SLV.

I went through this. You simply won't concede defeat.

275km orbit will require an orbital velocity ~7750 m/s
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

Do you follow?

We know we have a rocket with a fueled mass of 3300kg
Final mass will be payload (415kg) + inert weight of rocket.

Tsiolkovsky rocket equation
en.wikipedia.org...

Use your calculator and plug in

Delta V = Exhaust velocity * ln(initial mass/final mass)

For exhaust velocity, pick any exhaust velocity you like
Initial mass is 3300kg
Final mass is up to you, but it has to be at least 415kg (payload).

So what do you get. Remember Delta V has to be approx. 9.5 km/s to compensate for drag and gravity.

Where am I wrong?

Notice this site puts payload fraction at 3% for a 12000km range ballistic missile
npc.sarov.ru...


Anybody else on this board care to take a stab at my analysis?

KINGTIGER10 , nobody knows everything, but some people do know a thing or two, and that’s why people come to ATS, to share information and learn from each other.

If you wish to argue, please do it somewhere else, I’m just too old for that crap. If you wish to actually join a discussion and participate in a learning process, this is my last attempt.

It’s great that you got to the basics as I suggested right here;

As for throw weights, I’ll just list one name;

Konstantin Eduardovitch Tsiolkovsky.

Also thank you for the lesson and a link to an online calculator. Good to know that these days kids can just plug number in with out even knowing their values.

Here are some more words for you to look up.

rocket equation – energy-mass (payload) ratio&mass fraction/payload fraction/specific impulse (isp) in seconds&exhaust velocity/energy efficiency


Fact 1- liquid fueled rockets have higher specific impulse then solid propelled rockets.

Fact 2 - higher velocity requires higher power for the same amount of thrust, thus the power required has to be proportional to the exhaust velocity, all = to –higher velocities are less energy efficient.

That means if you want to go faster while covering the same distance, you have to carry more fuel thus forcing the increase of total weight.

Effective exhaust velocity and how to define rocket propellant efficiency - specific impulse as speed measured in thrust per unit mass flow of propellant, not per unit weight flow.

Calculated specific impulse in thrust per unit mass flow shows effective exhaust velocity, and from there given rocket info available it’s not that hard to calculate its throw weight and speed.

Give the available info, what is OKA/Iskander/Sfera energy/payload mass ratio, specific impulse and effective exhaust velocity?

A good starting point would be looking all the back into unique Shavyrin's work on solid-fuel vertical air-augmented engine (VRD).

His work was realized in PR-90, a subscale tactical missile with a total weight of 1500kg, 550kg payload delivered to the altitude of 40 km out to 100 km range.

Equivalent class missiles of the time, solid fuel French Pluton weighed 3 times as much, and American liquid fueled Lance weighed twice as much.

Other fascinating projects also come to mind, three-stage “Gnom”, RT-20P/8K99, etc.

When you get there, then we can talk about general solid fuel efficiency/stability verses speed&distance, and for that matter, things like RT-23&RT-23UTTh, “Bark” project, R-29RM "Sineva", which in fact has a much better mass ratio then D5.

There’s a very specific reason why Russian Navy is fighting for the Bulava even after its failures, especially considering the success of its liquid fueled competitor which clearly outperforms it in mass ratio.

While Bulava was supposed to be a modification of the Topol-M, it had to be redesigned from ground up, and a lot of people in the “works” don’t even think to ask why that is.

Even though currently I’m going through some old boxes in hopes of finding documents I need for another thread, I’ll still try to keep up with other threads, so it’s up to you KINGTIGER10, or what ever your actual ATS names is.

If you care to explore and not bicker, be my guest, but if you’ll keep up your chest pounding the way you have, have fun by your self, I’m simply not going to waste my time, especially when its clearly not appreciated.

Your choice.

*** Snip ***
[Removed personal insults]

Give the available info, what is OKA/Iskander/Sfera energy/payload mass ratio, specific impulse and effective exhaust velocity?

I went through this already. If you don't pay attention, it is not my fault.
But since you know so much, can you give me those figures?

Equivalent class missiles of the time, solid fuel French Pluton weighed 3 times as much, and American liquid fueled Lance weighed twice as much.

Lies lies lies. Lance weighed 1400kg, Pluton weighed 2400kg.

How about comparing the hades missile to the iskander?

R-29RM "Sineva", which in fact has a much better mass ratio then D5

Wrong!!!!
I was waiting for this.

In the view of the United States, and we believe in the view of the Soviet Union as well, subparagraph (a) was negotiated for the purpose of determining the throw-weight of a unique missile design represented by only one type of missile, the Soviet SS-N-23. However, late in the negotiations, after the language of this subparagraph and its associated defined terms had been largely agreed, the Soviets declared that they possessed no missiles of "type a" design, including the SS-N-23. In a July 29, 1991 statement, the United States declared that while it would allow the throw-weight of the SS-N-23 to be calculated as if it were not a "type a" missile, it reserved the right to contest in the Joint Compliance and Inspection Commission the throw-weight values of any new type or modified existing type of ICBM or SLBM that incorporated a design similar to the SS-N-23, if such throw-weight values are based on subparagraph (b). (See the discussion of "Other Statements" in this analysis.)

Subparagraph (b) provides that for ICBMs and SLBMs whose final stage does not execute a procedure for dispensing reentry vehicles (i.e., those that carry more than one reentry vehicle and dispense them from a self-contained dispensing mechanism, and those that carry only one reentry vehicle and dispense it from either the final stage or a self-contained dispensing mechanism), the throw-weight shall be the weight of the payload of the final stage or final stages. The phrase "final stages" is intended to clarify that if in the future a missile were to incorporate a design that utilized more than one final stage, the payload of all such final stages would be included as throw-weight.

www.fas.org...

Mod Edit: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.


As you see, the trident d-5 is a type "a" slbm, while the r-29rm is a type "b" slbm. The r-29rm payload is artificially inflated by the inclusion of 3rd stage inert weight.

specially considering the success of its liquid fueled competitor which clearly outperforms it in mass ratio.

Volume is more important then weight on subs.

hile Bulava was supposed to be a modification of the Topol-M, it had to be redesigned from ground up, and a lot of people in the “works” don’t even think to ask why that is.

I thought topol-m = bulava??

Mod edit:

Mod Edit: Civility and Decorum are Required
Please refrain from personal insults! Attack the post not the poster.

[edit on 7-2-2008 by Gemwolf]

Lies lies lies. Lance weighed 1400kg, Pluton weighed 2400kg.

First try to figure out what’s being compared. Again, you’re looking at the wrong numbers.

Ejection charge isp, sustainer isp in relation to the total propulsion system efficiency.

PR-90s carries only 300kg of propellant which = 550 sec isp.

Short range ballistic missile. Year: 1960. Country: Russia. Manufacturer's Designation: PR-90.

Short-range air-augmented ballistic missile. Tested concepts for Gnom ICBM.

Data is accurate. Orevo has sectioned hardware. 1 stage deployed solid fuel tactical range missile. Minimum range 40 km. Launch ejection charge of 200 kg, Isp 120 sec. Sustainer of Isp=550 sec (!), 300 kg propellant.

Total Mass: 1,500 kg (3,300 lb). Standard warhead mass: 550 kg (1,210 lb). Maximum range: 100 km (60 mi). Boost engine: 9D711.

The concept was evidently been proved on a subscale tactical missile, the PR-90, now on display at MAI's museum at Orevo, north of Moscow. The PR-90, with a launch mass of only 1500 kg, of which 550 kg was payload, could reach an altitude of 40 km and a range of 100 km. The booster unit used 200 kg of RAM-10 ballistite with a specific impulse of 180 seconds to get the missile up to ram-air ignition speed. Then the air-augmented unit, with a specific impulse of 550 seconds, cut in and used 300 kg of propellant to boost the vehicle to its 1 km/s cut-off speed. An equivalent liquid propellant missile (such as the American Lance) weighed over twice as much. A solid propellant equivalent (such as the French Pluton) would weigh three times more.

www.astronautix.com...

PR-90, 200kg ejection charge + 300kg sustainer +550kg warhead = 1050kg, thus leaving 450 kilos of the empty missile weight.

MGM-52 Lance – 1530 kilos, W70 nuclear warhead – 200 kilos.

Booster: 186 kN (42000 lb),

Sustainer: variable up to 20 kN (4400 lb)

Total propellant weight, empty missile weight?

Pluton 1974 launch mass - 2,423 kg, an-51 warhead - 500 kilos.

Same questions.

What is being compared, gross weight or energy-mass /acceleration ratio of the propulsion systems?

What for? For this, year 1965;

The Gnom was a three-stage rocket with a 'zero' booster assembly built as an integral part of the first stage. The four-chamber booster was arranged around the outside of the primary vehicle. The booster took the vehicle to Mach 1.75, at which point the first stage's direct flow VRD cut in. This accelerated the vehicle on an optimum aerodynamic trajectory, reaching Mach 5.5 within 60 to 70 seconds. After this the conventional solid propellant second and third stages took the 535 kg one-megaton warhead to near-orbital speeds.

The 29 tonne missile was designed as a sealed unit for quick-reaction firing over an 11,000 km range at any time during its ten year guaranteed storage life.

Manufacturer: Machine Production Design Bureau (KBM). to a: 11,000 km trajectory. Total Mass: 39,000 kg (85,000 lb). Core Diameter: 2.60 m (8.50 ft). Total Length: 16.14 m (52.95 ft). Standard warhead mass: 535 kg (1,179 lb).

www.astronautix.com...

Wrong!!!!
I was waiting for this.

Oh please, that’s a START1 classification negotiations bickering, not technical issue.

STRUCTURE AND OVERVIEW OF THE PROTOCOL

The Throw-weight Protocol consists of a preamble and two Sections and specifies the procedures used to determine the accountable throw-weight of each type of ICBM and SLBM.

Why the throw weight classification is an issue? Simple, MIRVing up from 4 to 10 warheads while scaling down the total delivery packages, thus all the bickering over the “total” throw weight designations which will then be subject to treaty limitations.

Volume is more important then weight on subs.

You want to compare throw weights/volume, compare RSM-54 (R-29RM / SS-N-23 SKIF), not RSM-52.

Weight: 40 METRIC tons (88,800 lb), Payload 2800 kg, maximum range: 8,310 km, Year; 1986.

88,800 lb Trident d-5: Payload 2800 kg Weight: 58.5 tonnes YEar: 1989

That’s 60 METRIC tons, range 11,100 km.

d-5 dimensions;

Length: 13.42 m
Diameter: 2.11 m

RSM-54/ R-29RM dimensions:

Length: 14.80 m
Diameter: 1.90 m

At just about the same size D-5 weighs 20 metric tons more.

2,790 km extra range at the price of 20 extra TONS of weight, which represents 1/3rd of RSM-54 total weight.

RSM-54s payload is 8% of its total weight.

D-5s is 4.6%, but with an extra 20 TONS of propellant behind it to take 44% farther.

At the expense of non essential 2.790 kilometers, RSM-54 delivers the same payload at 2/3rds of the D-5 weight.

Cut R-29RMs payload in half, give it extra 20 tons of propellant, and then let us see how far it will throw its payload.

If you want to compare range AND throw weight, then go with silo based ICBMs, here’s the Satan;

Housed in hard silos, the highly accurate fourth generation SS-18 ICBM is larger than the Peacekeeper, the most modern deployed US ICBM. The SS-18 opened a "window of vulnerability" of Minuteman silos (at 300 psi) by 1975, so that some analysts aregued that few Minuteman could be expected to survive a Soviet attack by 1980. The "window of vulnerability" of U.S. land based strategic missiles opened on schedule, and became one of the major issues in U.S. strategic debates in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

www.fas.org...

Star Wars ring a bell? Not the movie, but Reagan’s presidential address.

I thought topol-m = bulava??

Sure does. Russian Navy wants armored survivability, maneuverability, ECM resistance, and ABM breeching capabilities of the Topol-M in the compact package of the Bulava.

Simply comparing launch/payload weight/range and then attempting to imply something is exactly like comparing apples to oranges. “Apples are better because they are red (or green, and yellow!) and don’t have to be peeled, even though they are yellow as some of the apples!”

Each missile is designed around numerous and very specific requirements, fuel type, required range depending on the launching platform, throw weight, maneuverability, boost phase, midcourse/ terminal phase requirements, ECM countermeasures/ABM penetration capabilities, climate/transportation tolerances, total life span, everything is carefully considered depending on the target type, its defenses, distance from launching platform and optimum delivery method.

In consideration for other ATS members I’ll do one last thing. Since I’m still searching for stuff I need for the other thread, I came across a video brief from early 90s, so I’ll actually get a UTube account and put up. It clearly shows why Soviet/Russian ICBM/SLBMs are heavier, why “Star Wars” came about in the first place, why the change from liquid to solid propellants, and what kind of ABM systems (both kinetic and direct energy) are being developed to counter their ability to deliver their “payloads”.

Oh well, in any case, I gave it a good try, so enjoy the solitude of your stubbornness. Hopefully It’s just a phase and that with time you’ll joint the rest of us, the grown ups that realize that they don’t know everything, but do know what “live and learn” really means.

Cheers.

edit:spl/range




[edit on 6-2-2008 by iskander]

PR-90, 200kg ejection charge + 300kg sustainer +550kg warhead = 1050kg, thus leaving 450 kilos of the empty missile weight.

Thus, it is a 2 stage missile!!!

What is being compared, gross weight or energy-mass /acceleration ratio of the propulsion systems?

Your comparing a two-stage airbreathing engine to a pure rocket. At a rang e of 100km burnout velocity will only be ~1000m/s.

What for? For this, year 1965;

Ok, lets say that development continued, and by 1970 an icbm was deployed.
What did U.S.A. have in 1970???

Manufacturer: Boeing. Launches: 272. Failures: 5. Success Rate: 98.16%. First Launch Date: 1968-08-16. Last Launch Date: 2007-02-07. Launch data is: continuing. Apogee: 1,600 km (900 mi). Liftoff Thrust: 935.000 kN (210,196 lbf). Total Mass: 35,400 kg (78,000 lb). Core Diameter: 1.68 m (5.50 ft). Total Length: 18.23 m (59.80 ft). Span: 1.89 m (6.20 ft). Standard warhead mass: 1,000 kg (2,200 lb). Maximum range: 12,900 km (8,000 mi).

www.astronautix.com...

Compared to:

Manufacturer: Machine Production Design Bureau (KBM). to a: 11,000 km trajectory. Total Mass: 39,000 kg (85,000 lb). Core Diameter: 2.60 m (8.50 ft). Total Length: 16.14 m (52.95 ft). Standard warhead mass: 535 kg (1,179 lb).

www.astronautix.com...

A hypothetical icbm with half the throw weight, and greater volume then the minuteman III. When you are discussing Icbms, an airbreathing rocket contributes much less to the burnout velocity then in a tactical missile.

Conventional rockets have poor efficiency at low velocities, but as speed rises, more of rocket propellants energy is converted into kinetic energy.

Oh please, that’s a START1 classification negotiations bickering, not technical issue.
Why the throw weight classification is an issue? Simple, MIRVing up from 4 to 10 warheads while scaling down the total delivery packages, thus all the bickering over the “total” throw weight designations which will then be subject to treaty limitations.

Nope.

ss-n-23:

The third stage propulsion system and the post-boost vehicle propulsion system use the same fuel tanks.

www.fas.org...

The throw weight includes the PBV, but is not supposed to include the third stage. In the ss-n-23s case, you cannot separate the two. Thus, throw weight included the the third stage.!!

www.fas.org...
www.dod.mil...

the throw-weight shall be the weight of the payload of the final stage or final stages. The phrase "final stages" is intended to clarify that if in the future a missile were to incorporate a design that utilized more than one final stage, the payload of all such final stages would be included as throw-weight.

That’s 60 METRIC tons, range 11,100 km.

I thought it was 12,000km? If you understood start, you would understand relevant throw weights.

At the expense of non essential 2.790 kilometers, RSM-54 delivers the same payload at 2/3rds of the D-5 weight.

Increased range gives more capability with depressed trajectories.

Cut R-29RMs payload in half, give it extra 20 tons of propellant, and then let us see how far it will throw its payload.

Please read by whole post.

At just about the same size D-5 weighs 20 metric tons more.

So what is more important on subs, volume or weight?

Sure does. Russian Navy wants armored survivability, maneuverability, ECM resistance, and ABM breeching capabilities of the Topol-M in the compact package of the Bulava.

Russia wants an equivalent of the trident c-4. BArk failed.
Throw weight was designed to avoid comparing apples to oranges. If you you weren't so stubborn you would learn this.

Just to clear up an inaccuracy lambo rider posted. The ss-19, all mods, had a throw weight of 4350 kg, not 4950 kg as previously stated.


dtirp.dtra.mil...

The t-95 will be a tank with no variants...a very advanced tank.

reply to post by KINGTIGER10


they already have a trident equivalent.

Most sources say the C-4 warheads are 100kt, well the average Russian nuke is 550kt.

How does it matter in any way what kind of warhead the 955 is packing, or relvant for that matter. The sub will always be in relatively close range of its targets, payload, flightime, etc are non factors when its being used as a shotgun.

As for the T-90 and T-95, about time they phase-out those old T-72s.

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
How does it matter in any way what kind of warhead the 955 is packing, or relvant for that matter. The sub will always be in relatively close range of its targets, payload, flightime, etc are non factors when its being used as a shotgun.

As for the T-90 and T-95, about time they phase-out those old T-72s.

Well for one Russian subs like Typhoons can launch from harbor, two the bigger the punch the bigger the destruction.