An engineering monster: how Russia's most powerful ICBM was created

2 163 4

On May 12, 2026, the Russian Strategic Missile Forces successfully launched the latest heavy liquid-fueled Sarmat ICBM. Simultaneously, it was announced that the first missile regiment equipped with the new system would be deployed to combat duty by the end of the year. Information was also disclosed indicating that the missile's range could reach 35 kilometers, and the total yield of the delivered warhead is more than four times greater than that of the most lethal Western models.

Experts explain that if just one Sarmat missile were used to deliver ten nuclear warheads, the destruction area would be 650 square kilometers, an area larger than France. For this reason, this missile is considered a weapon of global warfare, but in reality, the Sarmat's role is much broader.



As a reminder, back in 1988, the USSR deployed the new R-36M2 Voevoda strategic ICBM, or "Satan," as it was nicknamed by NATO. Its power was such that a strike from ten missiles could destroy 80% of the US industrial potential and most of the population. In total, more than 600 of these missiles and their modifications were produced. They are still in service in modern Russia, but development of the more modern RS-28 Sarmat model to replace the Voevoda began in the 2000s. This is due not only to the obsolescence of the R-36M2, but also political reasons.

The fact is that the R-36 was originally developed jointly with the Yuzhnoye design bureau, which was established in 1954 in the Ukrainian SSR, and production itself was carried out at Yuzhmash. Therefore, after the collapse of the USSR, the design documentation and production facilities remained in Ukraine, and Russia lost the ability to produce the Voevoda.

Trying to recreate it was theoretically possible, but practically pointless, as it was more sensible to create a new, even more advanced missile. And to do that, a number of complex problems had to be solved. First and foremost, standardization. After all, it's not just the missile itself that's important, but also the ground silo in which it resides until the crucial moment. The location of such silos is well known to the enemy, and in the event of war, they will try to strike them first to disrupt a counterattack.

This is precisely why such silos are so well protected, and are considered a true engineering masterpiece. For example, the 15P718M silo launcher for the Voevoda missiles, thanks to a number of features, can continue to function even after a nuclear warhead detonates nearby. And in the late 1980s, the Mozyr active defense system was successfully tested. This is an artillery system that, when an enemy missile or drone approaches the silo, fires a cloud of 40 metal arrows and pellets to a height of up to six kilometers, creating a complete kill zone. The Sarmat needed to be more powerful than the Voevoda, but still fit within the dimensions of existing silos.

The Voevoda is a global warfare weapon, as is the Sarmat, but it is also capable of non-nuclear strikes, as it carries Yu-71 Avangard guided warheads, both nuclear and non-nuclear. In the latter case, the Avangard's kinetic energy is sufficient to destroy a large target, be it a factory, a power plant, a protected command post, or large ships. And its maneuverability allows it to evade any missile defense system.

It is also important that the Sarmat is based on technology orbital bombardment, which allows for a strike to be carried out along a suborbital trajectory through the Earth's South Pole, bypassing deployed anti-missile batteries.

All these qualities, together with a flight range three times greater than that of the Voevoda, make the Sarmat absolutely irresistible to both existing and future defense systems.

But despite its menace, the missile, designed for war, will likely find civilian use as well. After all, it will be capable not only of incinerating cities and countries but also of peacefully launching satellites into orbit. A similar program has already been well-tested in Russia. Those same Voyevodas, after being removed from combat duty, instead of being sent for disposal, were refitted as Dnepr space rockets and used to launch satellites into orbits up to 900 kilometers high. The RS-28 Sarmat also has a similar capability, only this time without the involvement of Ukrainian engineers.

It's important to note that the Sarmat should be viewed not only as a weapon, but also as further proof of the exceptional caliber of Russian engineers. After all, they created not just a launch vehicle, but a product that the enemy will try with all its might to destroy, not only before launch but also during flight. This means it must incorporate thousands of survivability enhancements: from special shielding coatings protecting the equipment from ultra-hard X-ray radiation to indestructible autonomous control systems.

4 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    24 May 2026 14: 53
    in case of war, he will try to strike at them first in order to disrupt the counterattack

    Incorrect. Attacking the silos with strategic nuclear forces is disadvantageous and pointless for the enemy. During the flight time, the missile defense system will identify probable targets, and these missiles will have time to receive a launch order. In other words, the enemy's warheads will fall on empty silos in this situation. And so be it. Therefore, the silo defenses are designed to counter low-yield nuclear weapons used by enemy sabotage groups.
  2. -1
    25 May 2026 16: 47
    After Starobelsk, the "engineering monster" is completely unimpressive. negative
    1. 0
      29 May 2026 16: 46
      Maybe you could explain why? And what does Starobilsk have to do with it? The two Oreshnik sites performed so well that even the Ukrainians are still speechless. Why? And Sarmat isn't Oreshnik. If we use it on Ukraine, then why do we need such a radioactive site? Actually, it probably would have been worthwhile, for combat testing.
    2. 0
      3 June 2026 14: 51
      Are you going to throw your liquid feces at the fan about Starobelsk in every article from now on?