Russia and other developments in Hypersonic Research

gaurav wrote:


YU-71 may not be the correct name , Till now the media name is only 4202. The hypersonic aircraft currently being readied for SARMAT tests.

Officially, these tests have not yet been reported. But, according to sources "MK", ​​a report on this fantastic success as it classifies
the developers, to be held in the near future. The test launch, according to our interlocutors, was carried from the Orenburg region with GMD Dombarovsky.

Then, some time on tests of this device could not hear. Probably because there is nothing to boast it was especially - it is no secret that the first stages of development testing often persecuted failures, which is quite natural. But now, according to our sources, it all behind. And "our answer to Chamberlain" almost ready.

Project 4202 test

Russia tests hypersonic warhead

Arrow wrote:There is no any official information about the current and previous tests Ju-71.

max steel wrote:No it's not Sarmat. They used SS-19 Stiletto for glider launch.

gaurav wrote:

Yaah it is RS-18 launch. Pentagon and Defense dept going crazy and shitting bricks after these tests.
They just dont know what to say. This test has really unnerved them to the hilt.

U.S officials react: Hypersonic warhead test

That SS-19 video launch looks so awesome(everytime I see that).

Actually the whole Sarmat infrastructure and technology development was planned/built around this hypersonic aircraft.

We saw last year that that Sarmat development was continuously getting postponed as this warhead/aircraft was not fully ready.
BUt now the  sarmat assembly and production is back to full swing . Initially Russia planned a whole regiment of SS-19 missiles carrying
this warhead.That regiment would have really changed the game. That plan was dropped unfortunately maybe due to development time cycle of this aircraft.

Big_Gazza wrote:

GarryB wrote:
The amusing thing is that these gliders are launched from what amounts to an ICBM, and both Russia and China have truck mounted systems that could be flown to almost anywhere to be launched, while the US has a few launch pads for testing and ICBM silos that likely wont be the right size to allow a large nose mounted payload to be fitted.

the second amusing thing is that ICBMs are faster than these weapons so when their launch is detected Russia and China will likely treat them as being ICBMs... if they decide the gliders are heading their way I rather suspect they will launch a full retaliation... one hour from launch to impact for the gliders... 5 minutes flight time for forward deployed SLBMs and 30 minutes for ICBMs from Russia... can you please remind me what makes these gliders so fucking fantastic and game changing?

Sounds like a slow motion attempt to punch the guy with a pistol in the face... in other words a guaranteed gunshot wound to the head...

Good news about the (apparently) successful test of the Yu-71 test vehicle    

I think the most utility for these systems may be to attack vital installations that are heavily protected by (future) ABM defenses.  Alternatively, the existence of precision-guided highly-maneuverable hypersonic glide vehicles may pull the rug out from under any large-scale ABM deployment.  Opponents of such systems will argue why proceed with a hugely expensive ABM system to defend against large-scale attack when HGVs can easily pierce such defenses, and the costs for large scale defense against HGVs would be utterly unfeasible?  These sorts of arguments provide far more traction than intellectual arguments (like the destabilizing nature of ABM systems where one sides strategic deterrent is threatened by a secure adversary).

I don't see the Global Strike BS as being such a great idea.  I can't imagine that there are too many 3rd world terrorist targets that would justify launching an ICBM, and for using such a weapon against a 1st-grade power like Russia or China?  That would be absurd as the target has no guarantee that the payload isn't a nuclear warhead on a decapitation strike, and I shudder to think of the consequences.

BTW is there any indications whether these vehicles use scramjets, or are they passive vehicles like MaRVs that are restricted to a quasi-ballistic trajectory and consume their kinetic energy as they change course (ie losing speed and limiting cross-range capabilities)?

magnumcromagnon wrote:
I'm shocked that we constantly allow neocons and NATO s.t.r.o.n.k. chuckle-heads to frame the debates, like how they claim A-235/Nudol is simply just a anti-satellite system.  Talk about "finally" developing HGV's is funny considering the Soviet's developed the Buran which is essentially a civilian version of a HGV, and that was back with antiquated 1980's electronics. It's a strong likelihood that Topol/Topol-M series uses HGV warheads aided by the miniaturization that came with the rise of digital electronics (the 1980's didn't have smartphones ), hence the reason why Almaz Antey has now stated that the S-500 can now "intercept  intercontinental ballistic missiles with the possibility of changing trajectory mid-flight."

https://www.russiadefence.net/t4954p675-s-300-400-500-news-russian-strategic-air-defense#149316

...The only way they can reliable state the S-500 could engage ICBM warheads that can change trajectory in mid-flight is if they already developed that technology and from that they developed practice targets mimicking the characteristics. As far as the use of scramjets, Almaz Antey has stated that the RS-26 will be abandoning the 'bus' system in favor of individual warheads with their own propulsion, and it isn't a mere coincidence that Zircon will be coming in to force approximately around the same time frame/window. It's no wonder VKS absolutely refused to let U.S. START officials see what the RS-26's warhead looked like.

max steel wrote:Buran was an OTV developed by Russia in 1980s just to check whether nukes can be delivered from space also. They had their answers. Meanwhile US X-37B is a similar OTV flying around these days.

max steel wrote:I thought Sarmat will be replacing Voyevoda R-36M2. As far as I know they have been testing projekt 4202 on SS-19 only, i guess hypersonic glider failure was the main reason.

max steel wrote:Good to see old posters coming back.

max steel wrote:Can you answer my few questions

this area of forum is simply too complicated for me. i lack alot of understanding of terms (what are "gliders",

"mirv-why couldnt be maneuvreable till now",

"balistic vs cruise",

"scramjet-and why their are better that ramjet", and others).

sepheronx wrote:The LII preparing to test an experimental hypersonic vehicle

max steel wrote: Strategic delivery systems being replaced with new systems or completely rebuilt with essentially all new parts.In defence US will use THAAD-ER to kill hypersonic gliding vehicles.

sepheronx wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

sepheronx wrote:The missile in question traveled at Mach 5, not Mach 10.

Still 5Ma for maneuvering object makes is hard to intercept. I thought however you were talking about PGS.

1) PGS speeds should reach any point in less then hour. Simplifying then Earth is a ball with then 10,000km/h is minimum ( >9 Ma)
2) Ceiling is to be exo-atmospheric up to 100km

In such conditions S-400 is apparently not enough that´s why explicit requirement for S-500 is to be able to cope with hypersonic missiles..

Magnum is correct for the most part.  Essentially, the interceptor does not have to travel at a greater speed than incoming missile does, especially the type of interception.  If it has to intecept it from behind, then it would be a problem, but in this case, the interceptor missile 48N6E3 is capable of Mach 6.2 and the missile in question is the X-51 which couldn't get higher than Mach 5 and as Magnum said, at last minute as it traveled much slower before hand.  If you are talking about the Global Strike system, then clearly this either isn't it or misquoting is happening in regards what it is supposed to achieve in terms of speed.  As Garry said, a Ballistic missile warhead travels at around Mach 25 or so and the S-500 is supposed to be able to engage those targets with their interceptor missiles flying slower.  Cause it is supposed to already calculate before launch when the point of the interceptor will meet up with the enemy missile at X distance.  Like how any other ABM system works.

http://www.deagel.com/Air-Defense-Systems/S-400_a000371001.aspx



Tagets max speed the S-400 can engage is Mach 14.5 or 4,800 mps

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Just my 2 cents kopecks here:


1) Orbital speed on sea level is ~24Ma (7,9km/s) so S-500 interception speed is not pulled out of the thin air

2) PGS is to fly high. 70-100km Not only atmospheric friction, also higher atmosphere layers can hamper radio waves propagation so detection might be too late...

3) Kinetic interceptors indeed are to hit gliders I do not recall explicit statement about maneuvering gliders

The case or maneuvering warheads is utmost important for Russia as US is steadily preparing for aggression.  I am not sure what benefit besides new technology gives PGS over MIRV warhead delivery? All in all Russians can use a glider on Voivoda class missile to with conventional warhead to send down any carrier in the World.

x_54_u43 wrote:

Patent for hypersonic weapon.

Arrow wrote:Zircon will be fly very high about 30 km. It will be easy to detect.