Russia and other developments in Hypersonic Research

GarryB wrote:Not when you can launch ICBMs from the back of a truck that is not bound by the new START treaty on where it can be located and where it can operate...  

Garry, what would be the weight of a Russian ICBM that can be launched from the back of a truck?

IIRC, the 100 ton ICBMs can only be launched from silos and not truck.

Depends how heavy your glider is... the TOPOL-M launches a 47 ton missile with a 1.2 ton payload 11,000kms... I am pretty sure that if the payload had its own propulsion a similar range could be achieved with a heavier payload...

Russia is working to create an "Airborne launch"

http://topwar.ru/32976-rossiya-rabotaet-nad-sozdaniem-vozdushnogo-starta.html

After 2-3 years the Russian aviation and missile system for space applications, developed within the framework of the project "Air launch", may conduct the first tests. Latest version ARCC "Air launch" was presented at the held in Zhukovsky near Moscow air show MAKS-2013. The implementation of this project deals with the State rocket center (SRC). Makeev, who developed it jointly with a private company "Flight". Leading specialist grts Sergey Egorov in an interview with the website "Socinformburo" noted that in 2-3 years we will know all. According to Yegorov, the company "Flight" is ready to provide for practical tests of the An-124-100 "Ruslan". In the initial phase of testing with the help of the layout will be observing the discharge of the cargo from the aircraft and the initial stages of launch.

Sergey Egorov noted that the interest in this innovative project has increased, including from the Ministry of defense of Russia, and therefore expressed the hope to achieve good results. The expert believes that this project can be used to launch military satellites. Air launch is a project, which is a system that orbit the Earth spacecraft with the help of the carrier rocket on environmentally friendly fuel, which starts aboard large transport aircraft A-124-100.

"Ruslan" with a missile, which is in a reusable container, in a given area at an altitude of about 10,000 meters performs a "hill". At this point the missile is ejected from the container with the help of parageneratorov, at a distance of 200-250 meters away from the plane it turns on the main engine and controlled flight starts on a given trajectory of the orbit. Specialist grts them. Makeev, highlighted some of the major advantages of the complex with this method start. In the first place is no need to build expensive starting ground complexes, the use of different areas of start-up, early planning exclusion zones for drop detachable stage of the rocket, as well as the possibility of increasing the payload.

GarryB wrote:

Not when you can launch ICBMs from the back of a truck that is not bound by the new START treaty on where it can be located and where it can operate...

They could load it on to an AN-124 and fly it to a small airfield in Cuba... drive down the ramp of the aircraft and launch... drive back into the Antonov and fly away...

It is not a nuclear weapon as such so it could be flown to Cuba or anywhere they want...

An-124 is in little nos and vulnerable for AAD. And why to Cuba? Cuba is about beautiful music, sexy ladies and very friendly people and Cohibas (as far as I had contacts with Cubans

Better airborne ICBM launch. Costs are not lowest but survivability in huge country like Russia is priceless! Technology looks like is not there is just in reach. And there are no legal problems with this since 2009 no starts salts and so on do not fobid Russia to do it (AFAIK previously US demanded to include airbocne ICBM launch guess why? ...

jhelb wrote:

GarryB wrote:Not when you can launch ICBMs from the back of a truck that is not bound by the new START treaty on where it can be located and where it can operate...  

Garry, what would be the weight of a Russian ICBM that can be launched from the back of a truck?

IIRC, the 100 ton ICBMs can only be launched from silos and not truck.

No so much pessimism, mate. There are mobile ICBMs on trucks like Rubezh/Yars

Yars ~49ton
Bulava ~36 tons

GarryB wrote:I am pretty sure that if the payload had its own propulsion a similar range could be achieved with a heavier payload...

Yes, MIRVs do have propulsion. That is also how they maneuver. However the propulsion comes into play only after the payload leaves the missile.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
No so much pessimism, mate. There are mobile ICBMs on trucks like Rubezh/Yars

Yars ~49ton
Bulava ~36 tons

That's what I said as well

The heavier 100 ton ICBMs can only be launched from silos and not trucks.

Object “4202”: to the shores of America by hypersonic attack aircraft
Extremely maneuverable, ultra-fast and elusive, the hypersonic Yu-71 can break through any missile defense system, military experts said. Russia has reportedly carried out four tests already.
Russia is test-launching a new hypersonic attack aircraft that can carry nuclear warheads and penetrate missile defense systems with an SS-19 missile trying to deliver the Yu-71 to space. The new hypersonic aircraft is part of Moscow’s plans to modernize its Strategic Missile Forces.

Russia is wasting its time and resources on this project . My opinion with some doubts :-

1) Why not go for a hypersonic glider vehicle which will work and launch as a conventional ICBM launching from your own or your ally's territory and striking the target in lesser time and doing much damage due to its high intensity . If chinese and yanks can make it work then why can't russians ? American defenses perormance against russian nukes is known to us already .Just imagine russians parking such gliders in cuba .


2) As russia defence stated they're making a hypersonic aircraft . Few more question arises

a) Whether this aircraft will be manned or unmanned ? If they are making it a manned plane then why are they risking pilot's life in the mission ?

b) Since it's a hypersonic plane it'll be performing the same role of what russian bombers ( Tupolev and others ) do isn't it ? The only advantage with this aircraft will be it can reach american territory faster nothing else .

Whether russians yu-71 will launch nuclear warhead from outside of american airspace or it'll enter american airspace to make a more resounding impact ?

Are russians counting on americans IADS inability or are they overconfident ? Americans for sure will track this plane coming towards their coast . They'll shoot it down using their IADS /SAM's before it comes near to launch its nukes . They can moreover use NORAD to shoot it down .Now what's the point of making such an expensive plane if it gets shot down before delivering the warhead .


When it'll get shot down the SS-19 nuclear warhead in it will become useless and will rather submerge in pacific ocean . Waste of nuclear missile .


c) Most important point is russians don't have pre-emptive nuclear strike doctrine . Then this plane's role becomes more useless . Because americans will be the first one calling for a nuke attack now when icbm's will be raining in thousands what exactly will this plane do in such a scenario ? It'll be futile to make it travel towards american coast at that time . Unless russians are targetting european nation with it then it's still viable otherwise it's of no use . If russia is bold enough to park it near american territories only then it's useful to go for such a project .

max steel wrote:Object “4202”: to the shores of America by hypersonic attack aircraft
Extremely maneuverable, ultra-fast and elusive, the hypersonic Yu-71 can break through any missile defense system, military experts said. Russia has reportedly carried out four tests already.
Russia is test-launching a new hypersonic attack aircraft that can carry nuclear warheads and penetrate missile defense systems with an SS-19 missile trying to deliver the Yu-71 to space. The new hypersonic aircraft is part of Moscow’s plans to modernize its Strategic Missile Forces.  

Russia is wasting its time and resources on this project . My opinion with some doubts :-

1) Why not go for a hypersonic glider vehicle which will work and launch as a conventional ICBM launching from your own or your ally's territory and striking the target in lesser time and doing much damage due to its high intensity . If chinese and yanks can make it work then why can't russians ? American defenses perormance against russian nukes is known to us already .Just imagine russians parking such gliders in cuba .


2) As russia defence stated they're making a hypersonic aircraft . Few more question arises

 a) Whether this aircraft will be manned or unmanned ? If they are making it a manned plane then why are they risking pilot's life in the mission ?

 b) Since it's a hypersonic plane it'll be performing the same role of what russian bombers ( Tupolev and others )  do isn't it ? The only advantage with this aircraft will be it can reach american territory faster nothing else .

   Whether russians yu-71 will launch nuclear warhead from outside of american airspace or it'll enter american airspace to make a more resounding impact ?

Are russians counting on americans IADS inability or are they overconfident ? Americans for sure will track this plane coming towards their coast . They'll shoot it down using their IADS /SAM's before it comes near to launch its nukes . They can moreover use NORAD to shoot it down .Now what's the point of making such an expensive plane if it gets shot down before delivering the warhead .


When it'll get shot down the SS-19 nuclear warhead in it will become useless and  will rather submerge in pacific ocean . Waste of nuclear missile .


c) Most important point is russians don't have pre-emptive nuclear strike doctrine . Then this plane's role becomes more useless . Because americans will be the first one calling for a nuke attack now when icbm's will be raining in thousands what exactly will this plane do in such a scenario ? It'll be futile to make it travel towards american coast at that time . Unless russians are targetting european nation with it then it's still viable otherwise it's of no use . If russia is bold enough to park it near american territories only then it's useful to go for such a project .

Lol.


The reason why the Russians might be making a hypersonic aircraft is because it is easier to make a hypersonic aircraft that then travels a distance and then deploy a hypersonic missile.

If you try to make a hypersonic missile that goes all the way to the target, it will be VERY expensive.

I believe that it has been mentioned that Russia is going for a global strike capability.

This will be carried out by the new 100-tonne ICBM that will have conventional capability.

http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20121214/914773044.html

commander of the Strategic Missile Forces, Colonel-General Sergei Karakayev wrote:The presence of a powerful liquid RVSN ICBM will implement and features such as the creation of a strategic precision weapon with non-nuclear equipment with nearly global reach, if the US will not give up its program of creating such missile systems

IF Sputnik is correct in its assumption that the Yu-71 aircraft is:

1. Manned

2. Actually an aircraft

Then it will occupy something far more significant of a role.

but my doubts still remain unanswered . 


The reason why russia isnt going for glider is due to cost thats the only reason ? 

Russia wants to achieve PGS via new Sarmat icbm ?

max steel wrote:but my doubts still remain unanswered . 


The reason why russia isnt going for glider is due to cost thats the only reason ? 

Russia wants to achieve PGS via new Sarmat icbm ?

You understand that there is a nuclear triad?

Submarine, Aircraft, and Ground based.

Russia has updated its Submarine-based nuclear forces with Borei-SSBN/Bulava SLBM

Russia is now updating its Aircraft-based nuclear forces with PAK-DA and/or Yu-71.

Russia is also now updating its Ground-based nuclear forces with Sarmat, which has hypersonic maneuvering capability. Just like your precious "gliders" you insist upon.

This talk of hypersonic aircraft is to update the air-based nuclear forces.

What this all means is that Russia might be getting both a ICBM with conventional MARV capability, as well as hypersonic aircraft capability.

Thanks for the additional info but consider a hypothetical case . Russia makes Yu71 to launch nuclear ss-19 at americans . Now read my doubts again ( from point 2 ) an help me in solving my queries .

Sarmat or the new icbm will have MARV capabilities ? I think you're wrong .  MARV's are without a doubt more viable as an anti-ABM strategy now that the U.S. has chosen the kinetic kill vehicle concept over the nuclear armed interceptor concept. A very slight trajectory shift of no more than a few feet is all that would be required to defeat a kinetic kv. That being said, the continued failures of Russia's MARV program are somewhat baffling. The basic, original MARV concept was simply the standard conical reentry vehicle with 4 simple thrusters flush mounted and arranged 90 degrees from each other. Yet, we now see images of reentry vehicles that look like hypersonic aircraft designs. This seems like an unnecessarily complicated means of making small trajectory shifts.

max steel wrote:Thanks for the additional info but consider a hypothetical case . Russia makes Yu71 to deliever nuclear ss-19 at americans . Now read my doubts again ( from point 2 ) an help me in solving my queries .

Perhaps instead of ordering me to read your "doubts", you should instead pick up a book about Nuclear triads and how they differ from each other. Thusly, place your hands firmly on the sides of the book, and accelerate the book to a significant velocity, with its vector pointing towards your head. Upon impact, pray that the required information from the book will find itself suddenly transferred to your brain through reverse osmosis.

One more time, Yu-71 will NOT deliver SS-19.

It will have different weaponry. Most likely Zircon.

Sarmat, will have your precious hypersonic glider.

The reason for a hypersonic aircraft is because using a ICBM to deliver a conventional payload is rather wasteful, and extremely alarming to other nations.

So the new ICBM will possess a conventional hypersonic strike capability, but the most likely delivery vehicle for a conventional hypersonic strike will be this aircraft.

Questions or concerns?

SS-19 missile was used to deliever Yu-17 to space in previous test . My bad . Ohk so it'll be carrying something else and some sources claim it's Mach 10 capable .

Sputnik has been really confusing with its article.

It says that it is an aircraft, yet tested off of SS-19.

Perhaps they tested the engine, or a small scale model?

Anyway, if it is an aircraft, then it is quite clever.


Russia replaces Tu-22, Tu-95MS, and Tu-160 in the conventional role, with Yu-71 replacing Tu-95MS and Tu-160 in the nuclear role.

I also had similar doubts . If its an aircraft then why are they using ss-19 to fire it to space , one will use it only in case of a glider vehicle or maybe they are confuisng hypersonic glider with an aircraft .


I've one question do you think it's viable to attack a nation having capable iads with a nuclear bomber ?

" Sarmat, will have your precious hypersonic glider.

The reason for a hypersonic aircraft is because using a ICBM to deliver a conventional payload is rather wasteful, and extremely alarming to other nations.

So the new ICBM will possess a conventional hypersonic strike capability, but the most likely delivery vehicle for a conventional hypersonic strike will be this aircraft "

Now is Sarmat and the new ICBM same or are they both different ? Do you've any source citing sarmat will carry gliders ? because acc to it russia isn't going for gliders at all . Maybe they'll be using this new ICBM to carry Yu-71 to space . Currently they're failing with SS-19 in tests maybe thats why they are going for new ICBM . Seems possible .

max steel wrote:I also had similar doubts . If its an aircraft then why are they using ss-19 to fire it to space , one will use it only in case of a glider vehicle or maybe they are confuisng hypersonic glider with an aircraft .


I've one question do you think it's viable to attack a nation having capable iads with a nuclear bomber ?

Now is Sarmat and the new ICBM same or are they both different ? Do you've any source citing sarmat will carry gliders ? because acc to it russia isn't going for gliders at all . Maybe they'll be using this new ICBM to carry Yu-71 to space . Currently they're failing with SS-19 in tests maybe thats why they are going for new ICBM . Seems possible .

The thing is, Russia has the most sophisticated IADS in the world, B-2s wont dare go in.

Russia having a hypersonic vehicle is a nightmare for America, while America having a hypersonic vehicle is simply another variable to account for in the design of the S-500.

I know for a fact that RS-26 has hypersonic maneuvering capability. Sarmat will most likely have conventional hypersonic capability is my guess.

Here is a link that you should read, about new generation of ICBM in RF forces.

http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20121214/914773044.html

I have no clue what Yu-71 is, again it might be a glider but Sputnik mentions it as aircraft.

I think they were testing the engine or a small scale model.

I think we need more information before making assumptions about failures.

2SPOOKY4U wrote:
Russia having a hypersonic vehicle is a nightmare for America, while America having a hypersonic vehicle is simply another variable to account for in the design of the S-500.

Superpowers as Lithuania and Poland might attack

2SPOOKY4U wrote:
I have no clue what Yu-71 is, again it might be a glider but Sputnik mentions it as aircraft.

I think they were testing the engine or a small scale model.

I think we need more information before making assumptions about failures.

They mention an aircraft maybe not without a reason - not a warhead but be a delivery vehicle - Ajax re-born?

Pls correct me if I am wrong but triad is kind but tiad is not a must but legacy when there were limits in technology - now orbital delivery systems and hypersonic could be classified as what?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Pls correct me if  I am wrong but triad is kind  but tiad is not a must  but legacy when there were limits in technology - now orbital delivery systems and hypersonic could be classified as what?  

\

Ground, Air, Sea,and Space.

I think we should wait before russian to conclusions.

2SPOOKY4U wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Pls correct me if  I am wrong but triad is kind  but tiad is not a must  but legacy when there were limits in technology - now orbital delivery systems and hypersonic could be classified as what?  

\

Ground, Air, Sea,and Space.

I think we should wait before russian to conclusions.

So no triad anymore, that was my point. Yet another question maybe you know is Rubezh modular? I have read recntly that this is a case (i need to Google-fu to find this link again) i.e number orf stages can vary. The reason I could see is having one platform (savings) for IRBM and ICBM same time.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

2SPOOKY4U wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Pls correct me if  I am wrong but triad is kind  but tiad is not a must  but legacy when there were limits in technology - now orbital delivery systems and hypersonic could be classified as what?  

\

Ground, Air, Sea,and Space.

I think we should wait before russian to conclusions.

So no triad anymore, that was my point.  Yet another question maybe you know is Rubezh modular? I have read recntly that this is a case (i need to Google-fu to find this link again) i.e number orf stages can vary. The reason I could see is having one platform (savings) for IRBM and ICBM same time.

Rubezh by some accounts is a 2-stage variant of the Yars missile (and I'm sure it's got some more surprises up its sleeve than just that).
The upcoming ICBM trains will use the Yars too.

However the launch platforms are different, and will be between IRBM and ICBM missiles too; or rather between the Rubezh and Yars.

2-stage and 3-stage missiles have considerably different weights and dimensions and need different vehicles.
Ho

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/06/russia-has-fourth-test-of-mach10-yu71.html

“Both are reportedly nuclear-oriented and the Chinese program seems more successful,” Schneider said, adding that Russian tests were reported to have been failures.

Another sample of western reporting on Russia. The country with decades of hypersonic research predating anything in China
is somehow behind China because of failure reports. This fuckwit doesn't even know the specification of the two systems.

kvs wrote:http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/06/russia-has-fourth-test-of-mach10-yu71.html

“Both are reportedly nuclear-oriented and the Chinese program seems more successful,” Schneider said, adding that Russian tests were reported to have been failures.

Another sample of western reporting on Russia.  The country with decades of hypersonic research predating anything in China
is somehow behind China because of failure reports.   This fuckwit doesn't even know the specification of the two systems.

I wish they would stop referring to them as aircraft.

Makes it confusing.

And yeah, the guy is a total fuckwit. Would take Soviet and Russian research over American/Chinese anyday.

max steel wrote:But project 4202 february test was apparently unsuccessful . 

The Yu-71 is not coming from a country with zero experience like China. It is not just another
maneuverable warhead bus like it is being described. Russia already has those for 10 years at least.
I think this system is more similar to the prompt global strike program of the USA. And China does
not have such a program and these idiots are confusing a Chinese attempt to create maneuverable
warhead buses with the Yu-71.

An-124 is in little nos and vulnerable for AAD. And why to Cuba? Cuba is about beautiful music, sexy ladies and very friendly people and Cohibas (as far as I had contacts with Cubans

The point is that with a glider for a payload this is not an ICBM, and so an An-124 should be able to fly where it likes unmolested. Flying to Cuba, because of the nice weather and the fact that US ABM sensors are looking the other way, so it likely wont notice the glider till it has done what it was going to do. In contrast the Russian over the horizon radars look in almost all directions with no obvious gaps and are being added to all the time.

Airborne launch is another option of course.

With Cuba being close to the equator, there is a speed boost you get when launching things into space from the rotation of the earth.

A smaller glider payload could be launched from a modified MiG-31 (or -41)

Yes, MIRVs do have propulsion. That is also how they maneuver. However the propulsion comes into play only after the payload leaves the missile.

We are talking about using a large booster rocket to get a glider up to speed and altitude... which has very little to do with MIRVs which generally sit in their warhead bus until they are approaching their target and they are jettisonned and use fairly limited basing manouvering capability to hit targets along the missiles flight path.
What we are talking about is more like a Proton or Angara launch where once the rocket has burned out the glider will do the rest.

The heavier 100 ton ICBMs can only be launched from silos and not trucks.

They wont need Satan class rockets to get the gliders into space...

Russia is wasting its time and resources on this project .

The technology they will develop and the capabilities it will achieve should return ICBMs back to invulnerable and restore MAD... clearly worth it.

Even if it is just for ICBM and SLBM warheads to skip across the atmosphere to extend range and to make them un-interceptible.

1) Why not go for a hypersonic glider vehicle which will work and launch as a conventional ICBM launching from your own or your ally's territory and striking the target in lesser time and doing much damage due to its high intensity . If chinese and yanks can make it work then why can't russians ? American defenses perormance against russian nukes is known to us already .Just imagine russians parking such gliders in cuba .

????... isn't that what the first paragraph of your post that is in bold says?

a) Whether this aircraft will be manned or unmanned ? If they are making it a manned plane then why are they risking pilot's life in the mission ?

An aircraft can be manned or unmanned... I suspect they mean both.

b) Since it's a hypersonic plane it'll be performing the same role of what russian bombers ( Tupolev and others ) do isn't it ? The only advantage with this aircraft will be it can reach american territory faster nothing else .

No. It will be a bomber and will drop bombs and over fly its targets... the US has no system that can intercept targets that manouver and fly at that speed.

Are russians counting on americans IADS inability or are they overconfident ? Americans for sure will track this plane coming towards their coast . They'll shoot it down using their IADS /SAM's before it comes near to launch its nukes . They can moreover use NORAD to shoot it down .Now what's the point of making such an expensive plane if it gets shot down before delivering the warhead .

Precisely which system will the US use to shoot this aircraft down?

When it'll get shot down the SS-19 nuclear warhead in it will become useless and will rather submerge in pacific ocean . Waste of nuclear missile .

The SS-19 is just being used as a booster rocket to get the Yu- into space and moving fast... it will fall away and the glider will fly to the US at very high speed and deliver bombs.

c) Most important point is russians don't have pre-emptive nuclear strike doctrine . Then this plane's role becomes more useless . Because americans will be the first one calling for a nuke attack now when icbm's will be raining in thousands what exactly will this plane do in such a scenario ? It'll be futile to make it travel towards american coast at that time . Unless russians are targetting european nation with it then it's still viable otherwise it's of no use . If russia is bold enough to park it near american territories only then it's useful to go for such a project .

It could be used as a preemptive strike or it could be used in retaliation. It wont be going so fast the US wont be able to see it coming... they just wont be able to do anything about it.

Its purpose for Russia is not a first strike capability... it is a weapon that is safe from current and projected ABM systems... it puts the Mutual back into MAD.

but my doubts still remain unanswered .

Perhaps you have to ask yourself why the B-2 is not a glider... they could carry it up to high altitude and release it from a B-52... WTF... why do you think a glider is better than a bomber?

The reason why russia isnt going for glider is due to cost thats the only reason ?

A glider would be cheaper than a powered bomber... Buran was a glider.

Thanks for the link , sputnik was confusing it with an aircraft . SO , Yu-71 is a HGV just like Darpa HTV and Chinese WU-XX . Both Russian and Chinese gliders will have speed Mach 10 but darpa's htv gained mach 20 speed in both the tests ( as mentioned on internet though they failed . ) Any idea how come yanks hypersonic glider attained mach 20 meanwhile Russian glider speed is only limited to Mach 10 .

max steel wrote:Thanks for the link , sputnik was confusing it with an aircraft . SO , Yu-71 is a HGV just like Darpa HTV and Chinese WU-XX . Both Russian and Chinese gliders will have speed  Mach 10 but darpa's htv gained mach 20 speed in both the tests  ( as mentioned on internet though they failed . ) Any idea how come yanks hypersonic glider attained mach 20 meanwhile Russian glider speed is only limited to Mach 10 .

Sputnik could have been wrong

They decided to test it at a certain altitude.

Lots of factors.

I think its because of altitude and they wanted to see the limits of the aircraft.

Btw, I doubt it is a glider.