Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research

    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 5546
    Points : 5697
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research - Page 23 Empty Re: Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sat Mar 07, 2020 3:16 pm

    I think the most important thing to point out here is that:

    1.) He has no experience in engineering, sciences (let alone physics specialized background), just a mediocre social-"science" background. He would of been just as qualified with a degree in basket weaving. For whatever reason the US Senate thinks he's a qualified expert to form START treaties...the mental rot of the American establishment is eye-watering!pwnd

    2.) Highly amusing that he consider's W88 warheads and Trident SLBM's as Ferrari's but a Mach 27 maneuvering HGV (Avantgarde) as a Trabant...I'm surprised he didn't call them Yugo's or even Lada's. W88's were designed from the 70's, literally 50 year technology that relies on Tritium gas, which has a half-life of 12 years, and needs to go under maintenance every decade to retain them. Trident SLBM's were also designed in the 70's, that's another 50 year old design. But it fits the theme that US Nuclear Trident are also technological fossils, just like the B-52's which have +50 year old airframes; in comparison the Bears have much younger airframes and have seen less flight hours. As far as warheads go, Avantgardes were designed in the 2010's, which have a top speed of Mach 27, maneuvers through out it's flight, and has 6000km range independent of it's carrier.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 23785
    Points : 24325
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research - Page 23 Empty Re: Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research

    Post  GarryB on Sat Mar 07, 2020 11:02 pm

    These clowns love to trot the Trabant out as some sort of proof of inferiority. They just demonstrate their own mental inadequacy. The only issue with
    the Trabant is that is that it used a 2-cycle engine and thus necessarily burned oil. But 2-cycle engines produce higher horse-power compared to
    4-cycle engines of the same cylinder volume. Anyway, I saw ATVs being used as urban transport in Vienna a few years ago. The Trabant is like
    a cheap and small urban transport and was never intended as a limousine. These morons should start trotting out comparisons of ICBMs to bicycles.

    Their fibreglass structures don't rust like British cars do, and being simpler to maintain is a virtue not a vice.

    Personally prefer Japanese cars... comfortable, reliable and well made... and affordable.
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2678
    Points : 2676
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 43
    Location : Merkelland

    Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research - Page 23 Empty Re: Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research

    Post  Hole on Sun Mar 08, 2020 5:00 am

    Problem with the Trabi was that it was never modernised troughout its production. But that is Off Topic
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 23785
    Points : 24325
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research - Page 23 Empty Re: Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research

    Post  GarryB on Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:49 pm

    So effectively the US weapons are more like Trabants... they just do a job with maintainence but no upgrades.

    There was talk in the US military about lower yield warheads because they were afraid that the Russians might use super low yield nukes and then they would have to respond with much more powerful weapons... which is silly because the Russians only reduce warheads when accuracy improvements make smaller warheads just as effective on point targets.

    The Soviet Granat SS-N-21 cruise missile had a CEP of about 250m so there was no value in putting a 400kg HE warhead on it, but with the improvements in guidance and the addition of terminal guidance you don't need a huge nuclear warhead any more a more moderately sized lighter model could be used to get more range from the cruise missile.

    I rather suspect the US military was suggesting smaller nukes to make them seem more usable and potentially usable in certain roles where conventional weapons are less effective like blowing up a bio lab... you need heat so a thermobaric warhead or a nuke to destroy the bacteria as well as the facility, and of course the old faithful bunker busters... deep penetration into the ground means lots of metal and strong structure which leaves very little room for explosive... in WWI a heavy artillery round was more effective because if it buried itself within 20m of a trenchline even if it didn't land in the trench the underground explosion with a large HE charge made trenches and tunnels and underground rooms collapse.

    A soil penetrating nuke would create a sort of earthquake that collapsed all sorts of underground tunnels and bunkers... if you could justify using nukes in a conventional war agaisnt a country like Iran or Afghanistan who like underground bases...
    avatar
    Mindstorm

    Posts : 910
    Points : 1077
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research - Page 23 Empty Re: Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research

    Post  Mindstorm on Mon Mar 09, 2020 7:07 am

    GarryB wrote:So effectively the US weapons are more like Trabants... they just do a job with maintainence but no upgrades.

    There was talk in the US military about lower yield warheads because they were afraid that the Russians might use super low yield nukes and then they would have to respond with much more powerful weapons... which is silly because the Russians only reduce warheads when accuracy improvements make smaller warheads just as effective on point targets.

    The Soviet Granat SS-N-21 cruise missile had a CEP of about 250m so there was no value in putting a 400kg HE warhead on it, but with the improvements in guidance and the addition of terminal guidance you don't need a huge nuclear warhead any more a more moderately sized lighter model could be used to get more range from the cruise missile.

    I rather suspect the US military was suggesting smaller nukes to make them seem more usable and potentially usable in certain roles where conventional weapons are less effective like blowing up a bio lab... you need heat so a thermobaric warhead or a nuke to destroy the bacteria as well as the facility, and of course the old faithful bunker busters... deep penetration into the ground means lots of metal and strong structure which leaves very little room for explosive... in WWI a heavy artillery round was more effective because if it buried itself within 20m of a trenchline even if it didn't land in the trench the underground explosion with a large HE charge made trenches and tunnels and underground rooms collapse.

    A soil penetrating nuke would create a sort of earthquake that collapsed all sorts of underground tunnels and bunkers... if you could justify using nukes in a conventional war agaisnt a country like Iran or Afghanistan who like underground bases...


    Garry the problem behind those US measures (employing strategic capable platforms as carrier of low/very-low yield nuclear warheads) is the product of a new technological and an (old) numerical imbalance in Not-Strategic-Nuclear Forces .

    As said in this segment there existed since the Cold War an huge imbalance both in numerical terms (about 6800 warheads at the peack for the US against over 25000 for the СССР) and heterogeneity of carrying platforms between the two sides ,both a product of a substantial and historical technological backlog suffered by american specialists in this particular field.

    USA ,in those times, attempted to address this issue capitalising at maximum the geographical advantage offered by placement and dispersing of those few, less effcient not strategic nuclear warheads and theirs less survivable carrying platforms in the territory of vassal NATO nations in close proximity of the possibile first echelon CCCP forces in Europe.

    The situation since the '90 years changed utterly for both sides toward a further and substantial reduction of the number of the "tactical" nuclear weapons ,but if possible the imbalance continued to grow; this situation anyhow do not bothered US planners given the particular situation of conventional superiority enjoyed by NATO over the Federation at the time of the collapse of CCCP and expansion eastward of western military alliance.

    The product of this particular situation was that the already less efficient and survivable tactical nuclear means and carrying platforms of the US became 500 B-61 gravity bombs of which 160-180 present in foreign soil.

    As anyone can easily understand the notion of not-strategic nuclear deterrence entrusted to....gravity bombs...... in an era where opposing air defense systems are prepared and capable to defeat attacks with several hundreds if not thousands of stand-off missiles among very-intensive use of jamming and air delivered decoys, appear totally anachronistic; even more in a similar situation an entire air offenisve group consisting of several aircraft squadrons armed with B-61 nuclear gravity bombs, even within a mix group of UAVs and air decoys, could be easily defeated at several hundreds km of distance, with a percentage very near to 100%, by even only a single C-400 or C-300В4 launcher with nuclear warheads or also a single squadron of МиГ-31БМ armed with nuclear tipped Р-37M.

    This situation was utterly worsened not only by the systemic renovation of Federation's conventional Forces by also the latests domestic achievements in delivery platforms of completely new kind : Х-32, "Кинжал" all "Циркон" (leaving outside already mass produced Исканде́р and "Оникс") all distinguish themselves as perfect, almost impossible to defeat, delivery platforms for modern not-strategic nuclear strikes that hardly could be named in the same sentence with......B-61 gravity bombs.

    avatar
    Mindstorm

    Posts : 910
    Points : 1077
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research - Page 23 Empty Re: Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research

    Post  Mindstorm on Mon Mar 09, 2020 7:28 am


    The "solution" to employ mostly SLBM with very low yield warhead is nothing more than a stop-gap attempt by part of the US to provide its military Forces with a survivable carrying platform for not strategic nuclear deterrence at least until theirs program for hypersonic weapons ,where also a substantial technological backlog has been accumulated, will not bring the first operational fruits.


    About the chance of escalation toward a full scale strategic thermonuclear conflict with mutual destruction, it is necessary to say that several models was conceived in plain Cold War by both sides and almost in all of those there existed some thresholds within which the one side, in absence of a simmetrical and effcient not strategic nuclear response, would accept some limited gain by part of the opponent before condemening itself and the enemy to the utter destruction.


    Not strategic nuclear deterrence is therefore an area very important even if, unfortunately, very scarcely examined ,above all in its technical details and, from those, its doctrinal implications.
    avatar
    Arrow

    Posts : 550
    Points : 550
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research - Page 23 Empty Re: Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research

    Post  Arrow on Mon Mar 09, 2020 12:12 pm

    [quote="Mindstorm"]
    GarryB wrote:So effectively the US weapons are more like Trabants... they just do a job with maintainence but no upgrades.


    The situation since the '90 years changed utterly for both sides toward a further and substantial reduction of the number of the "tactical" nuclear weapons ,but if possible the imbalance continued to grow; this situation anyhow do not bothered US planners given the particular situation of conventional superiority enjoyed by NATO over the Federation at the time of the collapse of CCCP and expansion eastward of western military alliance.

    What are the proportions of conventional US / NATO forces today in relation to the conventional forces of the Federation? Proportions have changed in favor of Russia but NATO still has the powerful forces?
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 23785
    Points : 24325
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research - Page 23 Empty Re: Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research

    Post  GarryB on Mon Mar 09, 2020 8:29 pm

    What are the proportions of conventional US / NATO forces today in relation to the conventional forces of the Federation? Proportions have changed in favor of Russia but NATO still has the powerful forces?

    Tell that to Turkey... basically the determining factor as to whether it is a NATO fight or you are in this on your own comes down to the US... the US made conflicts in Serbia and Afghanistan into NATO missions even though it really had nothing to do with NATO in any of those cases... the US had an interest so forces were sent.

    However cases like the Ukraine and Georgia might get NATO support but when the shit hits the fan they wont get any actual NATO assistance except verbal and possible resupply if you survive.

    Turkey has found that their actions supporting terrorists leading to a huge migrant stream leading to Europe is not getting the EU excited to blindly back Turkey... in fact considering most of the people the Greeks are stopping crossing the border are Afghans suggests Turkey is using migrants to try and get its way... personally I suspect most Syrians just want to go back to Syria, while Afghans want running water and electricity and to not get shot at 24/7 for the rest of their lives in the paradise the US military has created there over their last decade and a half to two decades in country...

    The Soviets did a hell of a lot better in the 1980s even contending with an enemy supported by the west... they built more roads and apartment buildings and schools and hospitals than the west has in this current conflict and probably at a fraction of the cost... how many trillion have they spent there?
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2678
    Points : 2676
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 43
    Location : Merkelland

    Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research - Page 23 Empty Re: Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research

    Post  Hole on Tue Mar 10, 2020 5:43 am

    The west only has an big advantage in the number of Generals, Admirals, Colonels and so on because NATO alone got some 50+ "headquarters" where a bunch of well-fed officers and bureaucrats are scraching their balls and drink large amount of coffee.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 23785
    Points : 24325
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research - Page 23 Empty Re: Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 10, 2020 9:38 pm

    The west only has an big advantage in the number of Generals, Admirals, Colonels...

    And ironically in a real conflict that will be an enormous disadvantage... that will likely get a lot of NATO troops needlessly killed...
    avatar
    Mindstorm

    Posts : 910
    Points : 1077
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research - Page 23 Empty Re: Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research

    Post  Mindstorm on Wed Mar 11, 2020 8:41 am

    Arrow wrote:
    Mindstorm wrote:
    GarryB wrote:So effectively the US weapons are more like Trabants... they just do a job with maintainence but no upgrades.


    The situation since the '90 years changed utterly for both sides toward a further and substantial reduction of the number of the "tactical" nuclear weapons ,but if possible the imbalance continued to grow; this situation anyhow do not bothered US planners given the particular situation of conventional superiority enjoyed by NATO over the Federation at the time of the collapse of CCCP and expansion eastward of western military alliance.

    What are the proportions of conventional US / NATO forces today in relation to the conventional forces of the Federation? Proportions have changed in favor of Russia but NATO still has the powerful forces?


    Aggregate data for the Air Force and Navy show at today a substantial numerical, ISR and logistical (mostly thanks to geographical availability of bases for US units in European continent) advantage of NATO alliance as a whole in comparison with the Federation (unit vs unit), instead the latter enjoy a sizeable advantage in regional  (up to 2000-2500 km from border) exchange ratio in Air and Navy units taking into account analysis of not symmetrical means of destruction among the branches in discussion.

    The Federation would retain, at today, a distinctive advantage in Ground Forces operations up to about 3000 km from the border, also in the case that US would have managed to bring in the theatre the bulk of its Ground divisions, mostly thanks to a noticeable inbalance in Federation favour in density, availability and average characteristics of the weaponry available to both side and an initial advantage in number of troops by part of Alliance.

    This do not take into account possible intervention in alliance of China.....
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 5771
    Points : 5900
    Join date : 2014-09-10
    Location : Canuckistan

    Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research - Page 23 Empty Re: Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research

    Post  kvs on Wed Mar 11, 2020 9:43 am

    NATzO has only paper advantages. The USA will never be able to stage its whole land forces to invade Russia. The same goes for every
    other NATzO member. And whatever forces they pull together for an invasion can be nuked into oblivion since such conventional forces
    have nowhere to hide.

    NATzO is banking on some mythical decapitating first strike using its "stealthy B2s" and "cruise missiles". In other words, a plan drawn
    up by overgrown babies drinking their own koolaid.

    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 5546
    Points : 5697
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research - Page 23 Empty Re: Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Thu Mar 12, 2020 5:20 am

    HGV modelling in literature.

    Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research - Page 23 ESspj3yXkAIX8TW?format=jpg&name=medium
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 14317
    Points : 14816
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research - Page 23 Empty Re: Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research

    Post  George1 on Sat Mar 14, 2020 10:43 am

    Japanese plans for the creation of hypersonic weapons

    https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3959117.html
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 5771
    Points : 5900
    Join date : 2014-09-10
    Location : Canuckistan

    Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research - Page 23 Empty Re: Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research

    Post  kvs on Sat Mar 14, 2020 2:53 pm

    George1 wrote:Japanese plans for the creation of hypersonic weapons

    https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3959117.html

    Funny how all of these Russia haters now have hypersonic plans. Ones Russia stole from them.

    But five years ago there was nary a peep.

    Either they plan to steal Russia's real tech (and not fictional plans). Or they are trying to pacify themselves
    that if Russia can do it, then it must be easy peasy lemon squeezy.

    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 5546
    Points : 5697
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research - Page 23 Empty Re: Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sat Mar 14, 2020 5:05 pm

    kvs wrote:
    George1 wrote:Japanese plans for the creation of hypersonic weapons

    https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3959117.html

    Funny how all of these Russia haters now have hypersonic plans.   Ones Russia stole from them.

    But five years ago there was nary a peep.    

    Either they plan to steal Russia's real tech (and not fictional plans).   Or they are trying to pacify themselves
    that if Russia can do it, then it must be easy peasy lemon squeezy.


    Japan has no serious aerospace industry to justify the program. They're incapable of making F-16's without making them more expensive than they would normally be.
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 14317
    Points : 14816
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research - Page 23 Empty Re: Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research

    Post  George1 on Fri Mar 20, 2020 7:04 pm

    The second flight test of American hypersonic planning C-HGB unit

    The U.S. Department of Defense reported that on the evening of March 19, 2020, a missile was launched from the Pacific Missile Range in the Hawaiian Islands with a universal guided maneuverable planning hypersonic warhead of the Common-Hypersonic Glide Body (C-HGB). It is stated that the C-HGB combat unit, during a successful test, developed hypersonic speed and reached a predetermined point. The test was jointly carried out by the US Army and Navy with the participation of the United States Missile Defense Agency, which monitored the test.



    https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3964648.html
    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 1839
    Points : 1841
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research - Page 23 Empty Re: Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research

    Post  Big_Gazza on Fri Mar 20, 2020 7:39 pm

    Pfftt...  nothing but a face-saving "test" intended to deflect criticism of the Pentagon and MIC, and to give the flag-waving Murican trolls something to crow about.  Its probably nothing more than a dumb glide body intended to test ablative materials and demonstrate flight control stability  Laughing Laughing Laughing

    Pathetic, as always... Twisted Evil   Russia attains IOC of an intercontinental strategic HGV that can defeat all current (and future) US ground based ABM systems, and the US responds with some bullshit PR stunt with a pip-squeak SRBM that does little more than pump more public cash into the ever-hungry pockets of the corrupt US MIC monster.

    Yee-haaa!! Heya Cleetus, lets go find us a few beers and a pig to fuck...
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 5546
    Points : 5697
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research - Page 23 Empty Re: Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Thu Apr 02, 2020 12:00 pm

    What we could potential see in the future.

    Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research - Page 23 EUlGreYU0AE2QMG?format=jpg&name=large
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 5771
    Points : 5900
    Join date : 2014-09-10
    Location : Canuckistan

    Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research - Page 23 Empty Re: Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research

    Post  kvs on Thu Apr 02, 2020 12:09 pm

    Very plausible. There has been a solid rocket fuel revolution in Russia that can downsize silo missiles into mobile form factors
    without any loss of payload and speed of delivery.

    Russia should keep advancing and growing its ABM capability. The yanquis started this race and Russia going to finish it.

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 23785
    Points : 24325
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research - Page 23 Empty Re: Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 02, 2020 10:21 pm

    The concept of missile families is fully in keeping with Russian military practises, where families of weapons reduce risk and cost but maximise performance.

    I would say to being with a big solid rocket booster would be the quickest and easiest and safest way to boost range for ground launched weapons and they have a range of trucks suitable for the purpose... but the maturity of scrajet technology means over time the solid rocket boosters are going to get smaller and instead of being the primary source of speed and range and altitude they will become an excessively powerful burst to get the whole missile up and running where its scramjet motors will take over and accelerate more efficiently and to even higher speeds and altitudes and greatly extend range and speed.

    Sponsored content

    Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research - Page 23 Empty Re: Russia, US and other developments in Hypersonic Research

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Apr 09, 2020 7:05 pm