What do we know about Russia's hypersonic weapon?
Discussion
I've been trying to read exactly what it is and for obvious reasons I think it very much in the realm of speculation.
But I've read/heard speed figures from anything between Mach 3.5 and crazily up to Mach 27 !
There is also speculation on how it actually "flies". Is it a guided ballistic missile, or is it a "flying" guided missile?
To be able to reach anything like "orbital" Mach 27 speeds, then it must be ballistic to much of an extent (and with Mach 27 very short lived), but then this "format" is no different to existing ballistic missiles. So what is new exactly?
However, on the assumption that it is a "flying" guided missile (ie. stays within the atmosphere), then I struggle to see how it can even get close to the claimed Mach 27 speeds. I don't think the claimed SCRAM jet that it uses will be anywhere near powerful enough to reach or maintain such speeds within an atmosphere. Even the most powerful existing rocket motors would struggle - wouldn't they?
So if it is using SCRAM jets then it likely operates at high altitude and max. speeds of around Mach 8 as a pure guess. (Given that the X-15 reached Mach 6.7 on rockets and assuming the missile with a smaller surface area in to the airflow would achieve a few more "Mach points").
But I've read/heard speed figures from anything between Mach 3.5 and crazily up to Mach 27 !
There is also speculation on how it actually "flies". Is it a guided ballistic missile, or is it a "flying" guided missile?
To be able to reach anything like "orbital" Mach 27 speeds, then it must be ballistic to much of an extent (and with Mach 27 very short lived), but then this "format" is no different to existing ballistic missiles. So what is new exactly?
However, on the assumption that it is a "flying" guided missile (ie. stays within the atmosphere), then I struggle to see how it can even get close to the claimed Mach 27 speeds. I don't think the claimed SCRAM jet that it uses will be anywhere near powerful enough to reach or maintain such speeds within an atmosphere. Even the most powerful existing rocket motors would struggle - wouldn't they?
So if it is using SCRAM jets then it likely operates at high altitude and max. speeds of around Mach 8 as a pure guess. (Given that the X-15 reached Mach 6.7 on rockets and assuming the missile with a smaller surface area in to the airflow would achieve a few more "Mach points").
Mach 27 is way too high, as far as I've seen (and it is all speculation of course) it doesn't achieve orbit or any high altitudes, so it doesn't have the gravity well to assist acceleration to that kind of speed...
I would agree that it's in the 7-10 Mach number, but as noted it's quite manoeuvrable at that (or so they claim) which makes intercepts via missile/guns very difficult.
I would agree that it's in the 7-10 Mach number, but as noted it's quite manoeuvrable at that (or so they claim) which makes intercepts via missile/guns very difficult.
It's supposedly neither ballistic nor cruise, but a ballistic launch, hyper-sonic glide terminal phase.
It's the hyper-sonic glide (not at Mach 27) combined with supposed high manoeuvrability that makes it almost impossible to intercept.
However, it's ability to launch a strategic nuclear missile reliably, or able to deliver a conventional warhead accurately (i.e. at an aircraft carrier) is unknown in the public sphere.
It's the hyper-sonic glide (not at Mach 27) combined with supposed high manoeuvrability that makes it almost impossible to intercept.
However, it's ability to launch a strategic nuclear missile reliably, or able to deliver a conventional warhead accurately (i.e. at an aircraft carrier) is unknown in the public sphere.
A bit more information has appeared on wikipedia about this missile.
So, it is thought that the missile is launched using rocket motors whereby it will quickly get up to supersonic speeds, once at those speeds the SCRAM jet will kick in and continue to push it through the air at around Mach 8.
Its primary use will be naval, launched by ship over water, so whether this means it will operate similar to the exocet and skim sea level towards its target or whether it will be a missile that operates at altitude and then dives to its target is still not stated.
Interestingly, the reason its a "game changer" is as a result of the high Mach number, a plasma is likely to form around the missile and will be shielded from radar. (Plasma absorbs/deflects electromagnetic waves)
So, it is thought that the missile is launched using rocket motors whereby it will quickly get up to supersonic speeds, once at those speeds the SCRAM jet will kick in and continue to push it through the air at around Mach 8.
Its primary use will be naval, launched by ship over water, so whether this means it will operate similar to the exocet and skim sea level towards its target or whether it will be a missile that operates at altitude and then dives to its target is still not stated.
Interestingly, the reason its a "game changer" is as a result of the high Mach number, a plasma is likely to form around the missile and will be shielded from radar. (Plasma absorbs/deflects electromagnetic waves)
Hypersonic flight within the atmosphere is an extremely difficult nut to crack. A large part of the 1960s X-15 programme was specifically aimed at research in that area. Since then the US has, with varying degrees of success, tested unmanned hypersonic test vehicles such as the X-43.
ZeroGroundZero said:
A
Interestingly, the reason its a "game changer" is as a result of the high Mach number, a plasma is likely to form around the missile and will be shielded from radar. (Plasma absorbs/deflects electromagnetic waves)
Nope, it's because it travels at ballistic speeds but on a non-ballistic trajectory/relative high manoeuvrability in the terminal phase.Interestingly, the reason its a "game changer" is as a result of the high Mach number, a plasma is likely to form around the missile and will be shielded from radar. (Plasma absorbs/deflects electromagnetic waves)
We can track and hit conventional ballistic missiles.
Ballistic warheads follow totally predictable paths i.e. a parabolic arc. Therefore, in theory, even though they are fast, they can be intercepted given enough advanced warning.
A vehicle zipping about all over the place at speeds in excess of Mach 8 is very much harder to predict where it is going.
However, being able to fly continuously within the atmosphere at those high speeds creates a huge number of problems whether they be aerodynamic, thermodynamic, guidance or structural.
A vehicle zipping about all over the place at speeds in excess of Mach 8 is very much harder to predict where it is going.
However, being able to fly continuously within the atmosphere at those high speeds creates a huge number of problems whether they be aerodynamic, thermodynamic, guidance or structural.
Evanivitch said:
ZeroGroundZero said:
A
Interestingly, the reason its a "game changer" is as a result of the high Mach number, a plasma is likely to form around the missile and will be shielded from radar. (Plasma absorbs/deflects electromagnetic waves)
Nope, it's because it travels at ballistic speeds but on a non-ballistic trajectory/relative high manoeuvrability in the terminal phase.Interestingly, the reason its a "game changer" is as a result of the high Mach number, a plasma is likely to form around the missile and will be shielded from radar. (Plasma absorbs/deflects electromagnetic waves)
We can track and hit conventional ballistic missiles.
The first is the Zircon missile and the second is the Avanguard missile
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M22_Zircon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avangard_(hypersonic...
Two different 'solutions' to getting a fast missile to target.
Having read more due to the recent updates on the wiki pages, the Avanguard is the one that is claimed Mach 27, but as the article mentions, I would presume this is because its on the front of an ICBM that is above the atmosphere. So the Mach 27 will be short lived and will decelerate significantly as it comes down through the atmosphere and on to target.
The Zircon missile is the one with the SCRAM jet, so this will have to be in the atmosphere to burn oxygen. The Zircon missile is hidden because of the plasma - but if this is wrong you may wish to submit an amendment to the wiki page.
It's partially right and partially wrong.
The plasma would shield the missile from being tracked by radar. But the plasma itself also gives off plenty of detectable radiation - particularly in the visual and infra-red wavelengths. So, it's not really a stealthy form of attack. And a plasma cloud is detectable itself on radar.
Stealth works better at slow speeds where you sneak up quietly on the target emitting as little electromagnetic spectrum radiation as possible and shielding yourself from radar.
The plasma would shield the missile from being tracked by radar. But the plasma itself also gives off plenty of detectable radiation - particularly in the visual and infra-red wavelengths. So, it's not really a stealthy form of attack. And a plasma cloud is detectable itself on radar.
Stealth works better at slow speeds where you sneak up quietly on the target emitting as little electromagnetic spectrum radiation as possible and shielding yourself from radar.
Does anyone believe that any of these weapons are actually real and operational, as opposed to just a good old fashioned bit of Russian propaganda?
It’s highly doubtful that they have the capability or resources to achieve this extremely difficult task. But send out some info about a secret weapon that’s theoretically plausible, but not actually real and watch the West burn through massive amounts of resources to counter a non existent threat.....and then when it is maybe eventually achieved, copy it.
It’s highly doubtful that they have the capability or resources to achieve this extremely difficult task. But send out some info about a secret weapon that’s theoretically plausible, but not actually real and watch the West burn through massive amounts of resources to counter a non existent threat.....and then when it is maybe eventually achieved, copy it.
dvs_dave said:
Does anyone believe that any of these weapons are actually real and operational, as opposed to just a good old fashioned bit of Russian propaganda?
It’s highly doubtful that they have the capability or resources to achieve this extremely difficult task. But send out some info about a secret weapon that’s theoretically plausible, but not actually real and watch the West burn through massive amounts of resources to counter a non existent threat.....and then when it is maybe eventually achieved, copy it.
Yes and no. Can they do what the claim, most likely. Can they do it reliably? Maybe less likely. It’s highly doubtful that they have the capability or resources to achieve this extremely difficult task. But send out some info about a secret weapon that’s theoretically plausible, but not actually real and watch the West burn through massive amounts of resources to counter a non existent threat.....and then when it is maybe eventually achieved, copy it.
As part of the START programme the USA and Russia have to share/demonstrate their capabilities. I'm not sure how well that goes, or how much smoke and mirrors is involved, but supposedly this has already been shown to the US.
dvs_dave said:
Does anyone believe that any of these weapons are actually real and operational, as opposed to just a good old fashioned bit of Russian propaganda?
.
And they all fall in to the same issue as most "high performance" weaponry, in that they are too expensive to use against some guys with guns sitting in the back of a Hilux, and yet you couldn't use them against an equally armed enemy (say the USA) because that would just lead to global thermonuclear war as the situation escalated.........
stevesingo said:
When the claims of "highly manoeuvrable" and "Mach 8" are used in a sentence, I wonder what that means? I wonder what the turn radius is possible at 10,000kph for a given G loading, say 20g.
By my math a 20g turn has a radius of 38km
It's all relative, most missiles travelling at that speed would follow a ballistic trajectory. if it can complete any significant changes to the predicted path then it would cause issues for defensive systems.By my math a 20g turn has a radius of 38km
Evanivitch said:
stevesingo said:
When the claims of "highly manoeuvrable" and "Mach 8" are used in a sentence, I wonder what that means? I wonder what the turn radius is possible at 10,000kph for a given G loading, say 20g.
By my math a 20g turn has a radius of 38km
It's all relative, most missiles travelling at that speed would follow a ballistic trajectory. if it can complete any significant changes to the predicted path then it would cause issues for defensive systems.By my math a 20g turn has a radius of 38km
stevesingo said:
That is my question. Can they really perform a significant change in direction at Mach 10. At 1000kg and 20g, that is nearly 20tons of load on the control surfaces.
Even a small deflection would be quite significant though - the time to target is tiny at those speeds obviously.Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff