Talk:RS-28 Sarmat

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Russian & Soviet

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Missile test citation does not support

Currently link (11), the article from state media organ TASS only references a future test date, and nothing to do with an actual test. Cursory internet searches yield only sources repeating official Russian statements on the supposed test. Given Russia's history of obfuscation and outright fabrication on military matters, it remains an open question as to whether any successful Sarmat flights have occured without 3rd party verification. This throws the article's credibility into question and should be redressed. Wikipedia is not for uncritical dissemination of state propaganda. 74.104.130.145 (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take a look at WP:TASS -- it's considered a generally unreliable source in most cases, and should be replaced with better sources when found. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and replaced all the TASS sources with other, more reliable sources. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

24 Avangards?

People keep writing that it can carry 24 of those HGVs. The only sources that verify it are some russian pages. I corrected it and even added two reliable sources, but someone deleted it and didn't even add a citation. Isopod gang 31 (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The armyrecognition.com image caption says Sarmat can carry 24 Avangard HGVs, but it also says that the payload is 10 tons. The CSIS page about Avangard gives an estimate of the mass as 2,000 kg. If the 10 ton figure is correct, that would mean a maximum of five Avangards. I think CSIS is a better source than armyrecognition.com, and the 2 ton figure is reasonable, so we need a source that says how many Avangards a Sarmat can actually carry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.140.108.51 (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes, you're right, that's what i'm talking about. i also checked the page about Sarmat specifically on armyrecognition.com and it said that only 3 can be carried, which would make sense speaking weight- and space-wise. Isopod gang 31 (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarmat absolutely cannot carry 24 Avangards, nor would it ever carry a completely full load of warheads due to a combination of treaty limitations, maintenance considerations, and the need to reserve warhead bus space for countermeasures and decoys. 3 is actually the generally accepted number in the arms control community, FWIW. We still need a reliable source to cite to, which is the OP's point and CSIS is a better sources than armyrecognition.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

definitely, but i think there isn't a specific number of Avangards carried written on CSIS Isopod gang 31 (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mozyr

The claims about Mozyr are pretty dubious -- other than Russian state media sources (propganda outlets) with poor reputations for fact checking, and repeats of statements from Russian government officials, there's no indication that reliable, independent sources have ever found Mozyr to be effective. This is further evidenced by the fact that Mozyr ceased development in the 1990's, and there's no evidence that it has been tested since. We should remove the entire sentence claiming that it can defeat incoming projectiles, given that there's zero indication that it actually can do so nor that it even exists in the field. — ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two dubious-templates removed

Crossswords: As part of a revert of vandalism by myself and 220 of Borg, two edits of yours to this article were reverted. If you would please reconsider doing your edits - this time with an WP:ES so others can assess your intentions - then that would be helpful. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am listening the dubious templates again for this talk page

on 3 sources = SBIRS is sensitive enough to detect a launch within seconds, meaning a short boost time does not significantly impact detection, and no nation in the world currently possesses a boost-phase intercept capability against the RS-28 in the first place.

on 5 sources = Mozyr was not a feasible system back in the 1980's when hit-to-kill missile defense was nascent, and there's no indication or evidence to suggest it was ever actually successful or capable of defending from real-world threats

That's just too much heavy handling for me, the text is already written in a very neutral language some examples in the text: allegedly making it , 'According to Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin' , ' According to Russian state media sources'. The text never claimed anything as face value. But these templates on top are too much where it doesnt look pretty to read and they cant be verified either, coming off as just opinion based. I am not sure if you simple can add citations on dubious template messages but it wouldn't look good eitherway. --Crossswords (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]