Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle:

not true, look at efficiency to SCramjet vs speed only in 10Ma range it trops, it also needs high drag to get compression.

Blah blah blah... perhaps the problem is that you are looking at scramjets burning fossil fuels and not slush hydrogen fuels like the more powerful rockets...

I agree. At such low fuel efficiencies and superfluous engine mass, after already being propelled up to Mach 27 using an ICBM, it makes more sense that Avangard would use onboard rocket engines rather than a scramjet. Better energy density for the mission profile. Less risk of engine (re)ignition failure too if it continues to skip.

You think that a vehicle being dropped into an oxygen rich atmosphere at enormous velocity would be better if you put a tank of oxidiser inside it plus fuel?

As the fuel burned the actual weight sectional density would plummet and as a projectile moving through the air it will become like a balloon and rapidly slow down.

A smaller design carrying only fuel would be smaller and lighter but retain more momentum/mass despite offering the energy thrust to maintain velocity despite operating inside the atmosphere...

this you should post on Burevestnik thread (nuclear cruise missile), thanks for sharing BTW

Perhaps you should read it again yourself... in particular the chart at the top of page 6, where it shows performance... please especially note the dotted line showing the theoretical max for hydrogen fuels.

Notice the only two propulsion options above mach 6 are scramjets and rockets and while not fuel efficient compared with turbojets or turbofans the scramjet is rather more fuel efficient than the rocket...

Interesting read, but the photos on page 38 are clearly not Zircon missiles those look like rather old anti ship missiles to me.

yet their heating due to solar light and cooling in space can be detected. For heavy objects is different then for lighter one.

Are you suggesting surface heating is effected by the mass of the object?

Bigger objects tend to retain heat longer because bigger objects have less surface are per mass, but that doesn't mean anything regarding solar heating... you could paint all the decoys black so they heat up faster or silver so they heat up a lot less... I would say surface colour and material would effect solar heating, whereas mass would not.

The outer surface will be ablative material that is seriously heat resistent that wont heat up very easily anyway...

Either way the whole point of avantgard gliders is for them to drop out of ballistic trajectory well short of enemy air defences so these warheads will be entering the atmosphere over the north pole and travelling through the atmosphere in an unpredictable non ballistic path for 6K kms to their targets so they are hard to intercept or spot. (low trajectory plus unpredictable flight path).

if you modify real warheads as decoys then it is exactly same situation I've talked about 1 decoy + = 1 Avagard -. Great you agreed

Of course... just like the flare released from a fighter plane is the same size and weight as a fighter plane to fool the incoming IR guided missile... that is why an F-15 only carries one flare...

Russians never said anything about scram jet used there. I've never hear official info about any active propulsion either. The only thing in TV Rossiy 1 was : designed to Ma 20 accelerated to Ma=27. Nobody said it is about constant speed and not max velocity reached because fo ICBM energy. Nobody said 27Ma was constant in atmosphere either.

The Russians didn't say anything at all about the propulsion method used but the only options at that speed are Scramjet and Rocket.

To get a glider to accelerate inside the atmosphere you are now trying to say there is no proven propulsion and claim that while they stated that it accelerated to mach 27... I wonder why I bother talking to you sometimes... your position is that they didn't say it was a Scramjet, that scramjets don't work at that speed, yet you acknowledge that it accelerated inside the atmosphere to mach 27 when all the laws of physics suggest it should slow down if it is an unpowered glider.

If the glider covers 6,000km then it needs to be POWERED because 6,000kms of flight inside the atmosphere would slow it down and not accelerate it.

At mach 27 that is 8km per second, which means a 6,000km flight would take more than 12 minutes... please do list all the types of rocket engine that can operate for 12 minutes overcoming the drag of a reentry vehicle and maintaining a reasonable flight speed including what was likely an increase in flight speed from about 7km/s to 8kms... if the glider came down at more than 7km/s then it would not have come down... the ISS is in orbit at about 400km altitude at 7.4km/s so if the glider was moving at 8km/s it would have remained in orbit...

BTW talking about dicks in internet I am a nice guy but If I were not the one I'd say that technically you are also a dick form net

Saying you are a nice guy and then saying a moderator on this forum is a dick. You are clearly lucky I am a nice guy.

I can only assume when I said that some dick on the internet comes up with a speed limit of mach 14 for scramjet engines you thought I meant you and not the sources you got your figures from... or you were actually being a dick...

only Avangard locations are will known to us. So to US(A) will be known as well .

Who gives a fuck... the point of Avangard is that it manouvers at enormous flight speeds that means you can see it but it is hard to shoot down... who cares if the US knows where they are what difference would that make?

Besides... what they actually know and what they think they know are not necessarily the same thing.

in case of Avangard? yes I do.

Well you must be pissed about those blow up S-400 batteries because they are not going to be shooting down anything and when enemy forces attack them it will just be a huge victory for the west when they pop.

So standard MIRV is much better and harder to intercept. You can use more MIRV in ICBM. UR 100NUTTH carry only one Awangard.

Actually what he is really saying is like the argument for guided or unguided weapons... unguided rounds are cheaper and easier to make and can be mass produced in enormous numbers, but guided rounds are more expensive and will be made in fewer numbers.

He is not totally wrong... instead of Avangard, the Russians could simply make 10,000 MIRV warheads and a few really big missiles to carry and release them and just rely on the fact that sneaky tactics could make them even more effective... like an EMP device or neutron device on the ground placed near US defences that are critical to their ABM system.

Avangard is not replacing MIRVS and with it moving through the atmosphere at higher speeds than it would move on a ballistic path it will get to targets faster than the MIRVS and could take out elements of the US or other ABM system so the rest of the warheads get through too.

They are talking about a dozen Avangards at the moment.. not thousands.

Avangarde flies from 27M only at the beginning. Then it loses speed very quickly. It is slower than MIRV, it is much bigger and more expensive. MIRV have additional decoys.

Mach 27 is about 8km/s if it was moving that fast when it entered the atmosphere it wouldn't have entered the atmosphere... there can only be three assumptions... rocket launch and rocket powered in atmosphere, rocket launch and unpowered glider in atmosphere, and rocket launch and scramjet inside atmosphere. The fact that it accelerated to mach 27 inside the atmosphere we can eliminate unpowered glider as an option especially considering the distance it needs to travel inside the atmosphere... which also makes rocket propulsion an option... to be honest if it did have rocket propulsion then why didn't they have it 30 years ago?

There are reports work started on this in 1992...

For a rocket launched glider or rocket powered aircraft to enter the earths atmosphere at 8km/s it would need a rocket burn to dive down because ballistically at 8km/s it is in orbit and wont be coming down... the ISS moves at about 7.4km/s and is in a stable orbit at an altitude of about 400km or so.

For a scramjet it would need a rocket burn to dive down into the atmosphere at that speed because the scramjet would not work in space to get it to come down into the atmosphere.

The only other way to accelerate from 7km/s in space to 8km/s in the atmosphere in an unpowered craft would be a steep dive and with an acceleration of 9.8m/s/s that is going to be one hell of a dive to accelerate from 7km/s to 8km/s... so every second of falling... ignoring the atmosphere, it will get 10m/s faster... so how long would it need to fall to accelerate to 1km/s... and remember for each of those seconds you are moving at 7km/s and getting faster every second...

MIRV have additional decoys.

Well more decoys less Mirv.

MIRVs need decoys because they are unpowered ballistic targets that are moving fast but are also moving on a fairly limited and predictable path.

The US and Soviets have been putting satellites on specific orbital paths for all of this century and a third of the last... matching something you launch with a rocket to the path of something you are tracking is just the same thing...

The Ministry of Defense refused to discuss the latest Russian weapons with pseudo-experts

The ministry said that all information available to the public about the Avangard missile system was announced immediately after the test.

MOSCOW, January 17. / TASS /. The Russian Defense Ministry does not intend to enter into discussions with pseudo-experts on the development of Russian weapons, despite attempts by foreign initiators of such discussions to use such information channels to obtain the necessary information about new weapons.

So commented in the department published in the Novaya Gazeta interview with Andrei Gorbachevsky, called the publication "an expert in the development of the radar station", who, having no relation in the development of strategic weapons, said the missile system with the planning avant-garde hypersonic combat unit unpromising.

According to the Defense Ministry, all of Gorbachevsky’s conclusions about the complex are based on his own speculations and conclusions. "The Russian defense ministry certainly understands the heightened interest in this unique weapon from both the scientific community and, above all, various foreign intelligence structures. Therefore, an attempt to draw the Russian Defense Ministry with provocative statements of various pseudo-experts into the discussion for such structures to receive information on the principles of action unique Russian open-source weapons are expected and will have no results, "the ministry said.

The Defense Ministry noted that all information about the created missile system with the planning avant-garde hypersonic block that could be presented to the general public was already announced on the day of the successful test launch of the complex on December 26, 2018.

"We urge the editors of the Russian media to be attentive to the deliberately provocative statements of various pseudo-experts on the newest Russian weapons on new physical principles. The final" beneficiaries "of this kind of discussion are far from being in Russia and will use any methods, including the artificial creation of" information reasons "for obtain the information they need in order to weaken our country's defense, "the military department stressed.

“We add that the conclusions of Gorbachevsky, who previously proved the" unpromising "of recreating the production of the deeply modernized Russian strategic missile carrier Tu-160M2, show only the broad gaps in his knowledge of the essence of aerodynamic processes at hypersonic speeds. Not to mention the lack of knowledge of the general laws of physics, it seemed would be known to him in the field of radiolocation ", - added the ministry.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/6011287

Perfect answear to Gorbachevsky and others like him.

Fantastic Characteristics of New Russian Weaponry (Ruslan Ostashko)

https://youtu.be/nlqwrvhu7lk

GarryB wrote:

I agree. At such low fuel efficiencies and superfluous engine mass, after already being propelled up to Mach 27 using an ICBM, it makes more sense that Avangard would use onboard rocket engines rather than a scramjet. Better energy density for the mission profile. Less risk of engine (re)ignition failure too if it continues to skip.

You think that a vehicle being dropped into an oxygen rich atmosphere at enormous velocity would be better if you put a tank of oxidiser inside it plus fuel?

Leaving aside that Avangard is reported to be a glider, providing it only manoeuvres in the mesosphere, then it doesn't need an engine at all. Why would it want one? Its range, which is more than sufficient, comes entirely from the launch vehicle (an ICBM) and atmospheric skipping to preserve momentum.

Since scramjets cannot get it to orbit, and it cannot maintain a Mach 20+ velocity in the mesosphere anyway without thermal destruction, then adding a drag inducing engine and reducing payload to hold the extremely voluminous cryogenic hydrogen are completely superfluous. Any velocity adjustments (if the suggestion that it can speed up are true) can be provided by simpler hydrazine thrusters (or similar) which are reliable tech across a flexible range of pressures down to vacuum and provide a better net thrust at higher velocities than the scramjet will.

GarryB wrote:A smaller design carrying only fuel would be smaller and lighter but retain more momentum/mass despite offering the energy thrust to maintain velocity despite operating inside the atmosphere...

Albeit lighter, slush hydrogen is actually more voluminous and would take more internal volume... detrimentally so.

GarryB wrote:

this you should post on Burevestnik thread (nuclear cruise missile), thanks for sharing BTW

Perhaps you should read it again yourself... in particular the chart at the top of page 6, where it shows performance... please especially note the dotted line showing the theoretical max for hydrogen fuels. Notice the only two propulsion options above mach 6 are scramjets and rockets and while not fuel efficient compared with turbojets or turbofans the scramjet is rather more fuel efficient than the rocket...

You are being confused by Specific Impulse. Yes it's more fuel efficient, but you are ignoring the drag being created inside the scramjet, which squares, cubes, etc as the Mach value increases (due to incremental turbulence created by supersonic airflow inside the combustion chamber). A scramjet will always exceed a rocket in terms of pure Isp, but the net thrust of the scramjet eventually reaches zero as internal drag exceeds thrust generated. A simple rocket may have to carry its oxidiser, but only has to produce a steady thrust and briefly cope with external geometry drag. This is why rockets easily reach orbit and scramjets don't.

GarryB wrote:The outer surface will be ablative material that is seriously heat resistent that wont heat up very easily anyway...

The longest sustained hypersonic burn in atmosphere was the X-51a which lasted only 210s, somewhat short of the hoped for 300s of the mission planners and only managed a modest Mach 5.1. The Falcon HTV tests reached Mach 20 but both failed after just 9 minutes due to thermal overloading of the aeroshell. However, the in-atmosphere altitude this happened at seems to be classified. The best I can find is a quote...

"Aerodynamic assumptions and extrapolations from known flight regimes proved inadequate
when preparing for HTV-2 inaugural flight test. The data from second flight revealed that
extrapolating from known flight regimes and relying solely on advanced thermal modeling and
ground testing could not successfully predict the harsh realities of Mach 20 atmospheric
flight." - Maj. Chris Schulz, DARPA

ICBM warheads are designed to last for approximately 50s, the period it takes for them to transition from 150km down to airburst altitude. In that time the warhead suffers something like a 40g deceleration from Mach 27 to Mach 3, due to ram pressure. During this 'brief' period, the the ablative cone burns away over a 1cm depth over its nose... and that takes into account that peak cooling occurs about the 35-40 second mark, and its actually cooling slightly prior to detonation.

Now imagine how thick you are going to have to make that heat shielding to survive a sustained 6,000 km trip through the thicker atmosphere. This is why the HTVs failed and possibly why Avangard 'skips' back up above the mesosphere, to help cool it.

GarryB wrote:

Russians never said anything about scram jet used there. I've never hear official info about any active propulsion either.  The only thing in TV Rossiy 1 was : designed to Ma 20 accelerated to Ma=27.  Nobody said it is about constant speed and not max velocity reached because fo ICBM energy. Nobody said 27Ma was constant in atmosphere either.

The Russians didn't say anything at all about the propulsion method used but the only options at that speed are Scramjet and Rocket.

I have to agree, with GunshipDemocracy. There is no mention of any active propulsion.

GarryB wrote:To get a glider to accelerate inside the atmosphere you are now trying to say there is no proven propulsion and claim that while they stated that it accelerated to mach 27...

I assume it was accelerated to that velocity by the SS-19 launch vehicle.

GarryB wrote:your position is that they didn't say it was a Scramjet, that scramjets don't work at that speed, yet you acknowledge that it accelerated inside the atmosphere to mach 27 when all the laws of physics suggest it should slow down if it is an unpowered glider.

Of course it slows, if it is just a warhead with a hypersonic glide body.

GarryB wrote:If the glider covers 6,000km then it needs to be POWERED because 6,000kms of flight inside the atmosphere would slow it down and not accelerate it.

Not necessary if it atmospherically skips.

GarryB wrote:At mach 27 that is 8km per second, which means a 6,000km flight would take more than 12 minutes... please do list all the types of rocket engine that can operate for 12 minutes overcoming the drag of a reentry vehicle and maintaining a reasonable flight speed including what was likely an increase in flight speed from about 7km/s to 8kms...

Any rocket could do that if it started at 50km altitude after being boosted to 7km/s. For example the Ariane 5 upper stage can maintain a 16 minute duration burn.

It all depends on what altitude the Avangard is gliding. Your premise that Avangard must have a hypersonic engine is based on the confusing statement that it reached Mach 27 instead of the expected Mach 20. Also it was not said anywhere that Mach 27 was its cruising velocity.

Even if Avangard is powered, simple rocket thrust can still accelerate it quite easily. If a BrahMos booster can accelerate its missile up to Mach 5 in the competitively thick atmosphere of 14,000m, why don't you think a rocket can boost a vehicle by an additional 5 Mach at 50km altitude where it is a 150th of the pressure/drag?

GarryB wrote:to be honest if it did have rocket propulsion then why didn't they have it 30 years ago?

Lack of materials science to produce suitable thermal shielding, lack of computational modelling of the fluid dynamics of hypersonic flight, lack of processor capability to run the avionics software autonomously, lack of high speed comms to penetrate plasma sheath, lack of permission to waste entire SS-19 missiles on live experiments, and so on. Plenty of reasons. Its a multi-discipline field.

As a final point, here is another quote from a 2012 DARPA report on hypersonics:

"The aerodynamics technology area focuses on future vehicle designs for different missions
and addresses the effects of adding vertical and horizontal stabilizers or other control
surfaces for enhanced aero-control of the vehicle. Aerodynamics seeks technology solutions
to ensure the vehicle effectively manages energy to be able to glide to its destination. Desired
technical advances in the GNC technology area include advances in software to enable the
vehicle to make real-time, in-flight adjustments to changing parameters, such as high-altitude
wind gusts, to stay on an optimal flight trajectory.

The range/instrumentation area seeks advanced technologies to embed data measurement
sensors into the structure that can withstand the thermal and structural loads to provide
real-time thermal and structural parameters, such as temperature, heat transfer, and how the
aeroshell skin recedes due to heat. Embedding instrumentation that can provide real-time air
data measurements on the vehicle during flight is also desired. Unlike subsonic aircraft that
have external probes measuring air density, temperature and pressure of surrounding air,
vehicles traveling Mach 20 can 't take external probe measurements. Vehicle concepts that
make use of new collection and measurement assets are also being sought.

The propulsion technology area is developing a single, integrated launch vehicle designed to
precisely insert a hypersonic glide vehicle into its desired trajectory, rather than adapting a
booster designed for space missions. The propulsion area also addresses integrated rocket
propulsion technology onboard vehicles to enable a vehicle to give itself an in-flight rocket
boost to extend its glide range. "

The longest sustained hypersonic burn in atmosphere was the X-51a which lasted only 210s wrote:

What about Cirkon missile? Could fly during the testo longer.

Arrow wrote:What about Cirkon missile? Could fly during the testo longer.

Sadly I haven't found any data concerning the duration of the latest Mach 8 Zircon scramjet burn. They appear to have a similar range, but travel faster than the X-51 test vehicles. Thus from the basic physics I doubt they achieved a duration record. However, they do beat them on higher sustained velocity.

It certainly seems the Russians have a superior tech level in thermo-materials science, as both Avangard and Zircon appear to be in production now.

@Teshub: you seem to have some solid physics background, maybe you can assess what role active plasma aerodynamics may play in Avangard? Couldn't plasma itself be used as an active heat shield and to reduce drag / friction? I really don't think this achievement is only about materials but about something smarter...

Leaving aside that Avangard is reported to be a glider, providing it only manoeuvres in the mesosphere,

It was reported to have accelerated up to mach 27, which suggests some form of propulsion...

then it doesn't need an engine at all. Why would it want one?

Because control surfaces would create drag, which along with the atmosphere would slow it down.

Its range, which is more than sufficient, comes entirely from the launch vehicle (an ICBM) and atmospheric skipping to preserve momentum.

So a skipping stone skips forever because momentum is preserved... right... gotcha...

Since scramjets cannot get it to orbit, and it cannot maintain a Mach 20+ velocity in the mesosphere anyway without thermal destruction, then adding a drag inducing engine and reducing payload to hold the extremely voluminous cryogenic hydrogen are completely superfluous.

The SS-19 rocket gets it to orbit... WTF would it use a scramjet for that for?

Who says what speed it maintains?

And the Mesosphere is from 10km to about 100km which is quite a wide piece of the sky... the MiG-31 can operate in the first 10km of that quite easily but not so much the rest... I doubt Avangard gets anywhere near 20km altitude except going up and coming down for the last time.

Any velocity adjustments (if the suggestion that it can speed up are true) can be provided by simpler hydrazine thrusters (or similar) which are reliable tech across a flexible range of pressures down to vacuum and provide a better net thrust at higher velocities than the scramjet will.

So you say, but the charts provided seem to contradict this...

I assume it was accelerated to that velocity by the SS-19 launch vehicle.

The guy said the GLIDER accelerated to Mach 27... if the SS-19 accelerated the Glider to Mach 27 then why is it reentering the atmosphere that is moving faster than the ISS.

Any rocket could do that if it started at 50km altitude after being boosted to 7km/s. For example the Ariane 5 upper stage can maintain a 16 minute duration burn.

And how many Ariane 5 upper stages can you fit inside the nosecone of the SS-19?

If a BrahMos booster can accelerate its missile up to Mach 5 in the competitively thick atmosphere of 14,000m, why don't you think a rocket can boost a vehicle by an additional 5 Mach at 50km altitude where it is a 150th of the pressure/drag?

Brahmos moves at mach 2.5 tops...

As a final point, here is another quote from a 2012 DARPA report on hypersonics:

DARPA is American... wouldn't believe that shit if it told me water was wet.

LMFS wrote:@Teshub: you seem to have some solid physics background, maybe you can assess what role active plasma aerodynamics may play in Avangard? Couldn't plasma itself be used as an active heat shield and to reduce drag / friction? I really don't think this achievement is only about materials but about something smarter...

Sorry its taken a couple of days to answer. Fluid dynamics is not my speciality and it took a while to read through what research I could trawl from unclassified military and science papers.

In summation, it doesn't appear that the plasma sheath that forms around a hypersonic vehicle provides any sort of overall benefit save for the absorption of radio waves at certain frequencies/velocities. Other than that, the magnitude of the shock wave drag overwhelms any viscosity advantage of it becoming a plasma in the first place.

However there are some interesting developments in both reducing drag, and avionics.

Hypersonic drag reduction research is now focused on older aerospike and reactive surfaces combined with more modern counter-flow jet injection and forward energy deposition. All of these techniques work by pushing the bow shock, terminal shock and reattachment shock boundaries away from the leading edges of the vehicle.

Counterflow jet injection is the pumping of a gas or plasma between the bow shock and the vehicle, forming a buffer layer. Cooler gas helps to mitigate heat transfer to the body, but hot gas or plasma (generated within the vehicle rather than from the ram) more successfully reduced drag (up to 55% according to one paper I read), probably due to the increase in mach speed in higher temperature fluids.

Upstream energy deposition works in a different way, by beaming energy into the atmosphere ahead of the shockwave, which reduces the pressure of that area prior to ram formation. This can be done by laser, microwaves, electric arcs etc. However, as altitude increases, the amount of power required increases. This also applies to increasing velocity too, as you have less time to heat. So for high altitude hypersonic flight the energy requirements become prohibitive very quickly. Whilst it can provide up to 50% drag reduction at mid-range mach numbers, this is only possible for small diameter objects and comes with the downside of increasing the thermal load on the aeroshell.

The other area of active plasma aerodynamics are in flight control.

To control a hypersonic vehicle you still need some sort of control surfaces to change pitch, yaw etc. Previously this has done with aerodynamic fins which just kiss the inside edge of the shock-boundary layer passing over the vehicle. However, these in themselves create drag and suffer extreme heating.

In an attempt to bypass these engineering weaknesses, military projects are now experimenting with plasma aerodynamics, using
electrohydrodynamic and magnetohydrodynamic actuators to modify laminar/turbulent shock wave flow over the vehicle body. They are not only low profile, but have no moving parts either, relying solely on pulsed electrical current or magnetic interaction with the ionised plasma flow. There are quite a few ways to do this, but the physics becomes more involved.

We haven't yet seen a detailed image of Avangard. All we can deduce (assuming the Russian military concept video wasn't an obfuscation) is that it is a triangular wedge shaped vehicle less than 3-4m in length, with two upper stabiliser fins and two rear indentations (which may be rocket thrusters). From that perspective Avangard is probably using electrohydrodynamic or magnetohydrodynamic actuators in order to change orientation, as there are no ailerons or elevators.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-Xe9Ehop3g

If you look carefully at that video, you will see two rectangular projections from the rear along the bottom edge. These are obviously not scramjet outlets, as they don't run along the bottom surface of the aeroshell. But assuming a very basic design, they could be the actuators which control roll and pitch when descending (deeper) into the atmosphere, whereas climbing can rely solely on thrust and the shape of the lifting body.

Of course if it is more advanced, then subsurface actuators all over the aeroshell could control pitch by simply inducing boundary shock turbulence above or below.

In conclusion, you are undoubtedly correct LMFS. There is a lot more to this baby than just material science. Lots of cutting edge concepts which Russia has managed to get working ahead of anyone else.

Does that help?

@Teshub:

wow, many thanks, that is more than I expected or asked for

In the end such breakthroughs often mean more than just pumping money on technology. Fundamentally new principles and theoretical foundations are needed, otherwise everyone would have these weapons already. Of the three mechanisms that you mention, first and third look highly interesting an one may say "within reach". But I wonder if the device does not combine also some form of the second one in order to create/manage a stable plasma layer surrounding it, that can then be controlled through electromagnetic fields. This may be more economic than generating plasma through feeding of gas, especially if the very speed of the Avangard is already going to make creation of plasma quite easy. Such layer could be kept away from the surface reducing overheating to a level where advanced materials can withstand it for prolonged periods of time. And of course effects on radar tracking, and eventual ABM weapons as laser or RF weapons and even plasma "holes" could maybe be addressed by such a plasma sheath... just my intuition, but again many thanks for bringing facts to the discussion, much appreciated

@Teshub:
Superb post!

Who will catch up with "Avangard"

After the presentation of the newest strategic weapons of Russia, a large-scale information campaign was launched against him. For example, the Americans claim that their missile defense system is capable of shooting down hypersound missiles, which this year will begin to supply our troops. Leading military experts from the General Staff of the Armed Forces and the Ministry of Defense of Russia exclusively analyzed the “Rossiyskaya Gazeta” and analyzed what opportunities our breakthrough weapon has and whether anyone has any chance to resist it.

The material was prepared jointly by Alexander Khryapin (Doctor of Military Sciences, Leading Researcher of the Center for Military Strategic Studies of the Military Academy of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation) and Oleg Pyshny (Candidate of Technical Sciences, Head of the Central Research Institute of the Russian Ministry of Defense).

Sensors - in space, anti-rocket - in the air
The breakthrough achievements of Russia in the field of strategic armaments, supported by a series of successful tests of the newest models of strike and defense complexes, are a blow to the image of the United States as the only military superpower. This is confirmed by the rather painful reaction of the American public and the expert community to the President of the Russian Federation V.V. made in March 2018. Putin's statement about the creation in our country of the latest models of weapons.

Of course, this situation is unacceptable for the American administration, since it is directly related to the ineffective implementation of the world's largest military budget and, consequently, the incompetence of the highest military-political leadership of the United States.

To understand the concerns of the American establishment, let's dwell on the new concept of the development of the US missile defense system. It was conceived as a kind of response to Russia's military-technical achievements in the field of strategic weapons.

Based on the analysis of open sources, a number of key points can be distinguished, fundamentally distinguishing the new concept of US missile defense development from the current one.

Full article:
https://rg.ru/2019/01/31/pochemu-giperzvukovoj-avangard-neuiazvim-dlia-liuboj-pro.html

Very good article, thanks!

By making it capable of operating in dense layers of the atmosphere, Russia has protected Avangard from the cheapest and most effective means of interception US could exploit. And together with Poseidon it forces US to disperse further their investment in a shield against strategic weapons not only on sea, land and space but also in the depths. Who thinks Russian leadership is foolishly hoping to be friends with US is clearly missing the huge level of understanding of the Western empire and strategic depth of their planning. US lets now the mask fall and state their goal is to shield themselves against all strategic missiles, the truth is in the open for all to see and the need for Russia to act like they did after the US ditching the ABM treaty proven fully correct. Only a true retard could have thought the aim of US was Iran and North Korea, but still.

Further speculation: the fact that Avangard flies shrouded in plasma is truly interesting and opens a whole new set of possibilities: what about using the plasma itself as propulsion? It could be accelerated, be it by electric or magnetic fields, and maybe allow Avangard to maintain speed for very long periods of time and attack from unpredictable directions. Maybe a nuclear battery could produce the energy needed for this and rest of needs onboard

LMFS wrote:Who thinks Russian leadership is foolishly hoping to be friends with US is clearly missing the huge level of understanding of the Western empire and strategic depth of their planning. US lets now the mask fall and state their goal is to shield themselves against all strategic missiles, the truth is in the open for all to see and the need for Russia to act like they did after the US ditching the ABM treaty proven fully correct. Only a true retard could have thought the aim of US was Iran and North Korea, but still.

IMHO if we consider historical context this seems not to be so bad of US planning:

1) in 90s Russia barely stopped disintegration, AFAIK US estimated that by 2005 Russian strategic forces cease to be serviceable.

2) Planning ABM then had sense, especially that Avangrds/ Poseidon were not know to US intel

3) ABM could be also part of economic warfare: no need to lunch any missile if Russia spends to much on arms...economy collapses, liberal maidowns take over...


IMHO west still tries to rely on brute financial force. Like " we can spend 10x more" + sanctions to slow down Russian economy. If Putin's leap forward (economical one) will succeed then West lost...

LMFS wrote: Further speculation: the fact that Avangard flies shrouded in plasma is truly interesting and opens a whole new set of possibilities: what about using the plasma itself as propulsion? It could be accelerated, be it by electric or magnetic fields, and maybe allow Avangard to maintain speed for very long periods of time and attack from unpredictable directions. Maybe a nuclear battery could produce the energy needed for this and rest of needs onboard

IMHO unlikely, as this would increase both size and weight + Burevestnik is already there.

Talking about the range of Avangard - if Space Shuttle was loosing momentum hard by decelerating yet still had 8000km range!

If Avangard flies not so much, as Shuttle, in dense layers of atmosphere, then irreversible looses of energy can be enough low to let it fly much longer distance. Mind that 27Ma on 70km is 8,1km/s (Ma~ 300m/s ) - over orbital speed on sea level. Speed of sound on 80-90km is 275m/, so 27Ma it's close to orbital speed (7,425 km/s). Looks like from the South Pole to Fashington DC should be enough.

After the firing takes place, it is about another 25 minutes before the shuttle will descend to a point that it first encounters the effects of the atmosphere, usually at an altitude of about 129 kilometers (80 miles) and a range of more than 8,047 kilometers (5,000 miles) from the landing site.

https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/basics/landing.html

GarryB wrote:And the Mesosphere is from 10km to about 100km which is quite a wide piece of the sky... the MiG-31 can operate in the first 10km of that quite easily but not so much the rest... I doubt Avangard gets anywhere near 20km altitude except going up and coming down for the last time.

Actually the Mesosphere starts at roughly 45-50km up.

The guy said the GLIDER accelerated to Mach 27... if the SS-19 accelerated the Glider to Mach 27 then why is it reentering the atmosphere that is moving faster than the ISS.

Possibly because it was flying in a direction opposite to Earth's rotation and/or at a latitude way above the equator? Either of which would require a higher velocity to achieve orbit.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:IMHO if we consider historical context this seems not to be so  bad of US planning:

Their path as rabid Überfascists was always clearly drawn in front of them. It was the incompetence / naivety of Russian leadership that was a cause of concern. They were up to the task, thanks to God

IMHO west still tries to rely on brute financial force. Like " we can spend 10x more" + sanctions to slow down Russian economy.  If Putin's leap forward (economical one) will succeed then West lost...      

Yeah of course. My fear is that they don't realize how close we are to the endgame and blink where they need to assert themselves. There is really nowhere to hide anymore.

IMHO unlikely, as this would increase both size and weight + Burevestnik is already there.

This has nothing to do with Burevestnik. The capacity of Avangard to operate in dense layers of the atmosphere where neither kinetic interceptors nor lasers can operate effectively is a huge hedge against the most probable future ABM developments. But of course that means overcoming huge drag for long time and that is big issue.

Talking about the range of Avangard - if Space Shuttle was loosing momentum hard by decelerating yet still had 8000km range!

Avangard needs to be way faster on impact. And needs to be capable of avoiding ABM sites. And also is not executing lofted re-entry from orbit but getting as fast as possible in the atmosphere where it can be protected. So it would be indeed good to have some sort of propulsion. I don't know if necessary right now but beneficial in any case.

Russophile wrote:Fantastic Characteristics of New Russian Weaponry (Ruslan Ostashko)

https://youtu.be/nlqwrvhu7lk

Spsibo Vladimir Vladimirovitch

[quote="LMFS"]

IMHO west still tries to rely on brute financial force. Like " we can spend 10x more" + sanctions to slow down Russian economy.  If Putin's leap forward (economical one) will succeed then West lost...      

Yeah of course. My fear is that they don't realize how close we are to the endgame and blink where they need to assert themselves. There is really nowhere to hide anymore. [/quot]

once I've seen comment in Russian internet (abuot Us leadership) :

You can build a nuclear shelter in your backyard yet you still need to reach it...

LMFS wrote:

IMHO unlikely, as this would increase both size and weight + Burevestnik is already there.

This has nothing to do with Burevestnik. The capacity of Avangard to operate in dense layers of the atmosphere where neither kinetic interceptors nor lasers can operate effectively is a huge hedge against the most probable future ABM developments. But of course that means overcoming huge drag for long time and that is big issue.

hmm I must disagree. For Avangard the main problem here was not too short range or maneuvering but heat resistance. If you want to fly longer go up bit and you got to (almost) circular orbit with no/little energy dissipation and no adiabatic compression caused heating. You cn fly much faster on 120km then on 50-70

LMFS wrote:

me wrote:Talking about the range of Avangard - if Space Shuttle was loosing momentum hard by decelerating yet still had 8000km range!

Avangard needs to be way faster on impact. And needs to be capable of avoiding ABM sites. And also is not executing lofted re-entry from orbit but getting as fast as possible in the atmosphere where it can be protected. So it would be indeed good to have some sort of propulsion. I don't know if necessary right now but beneficial in any case.

Very true but Shuttle was provided as an example of range. That means we re talking about thousands kilometers r range. Avangard doesn't need really a lot of fuel on board
Sorry for very simple model but: Avangard receives some energy form carrier-missile. It can go sy on 500km and then get down. Energy = kinetic + potential. In atmosphere you obviously dissipate some but still it might be possible to have thousands kilometers of range and ability to jump up and down. Say you slow down form 27Ma to 20Ma.


Till atmosphere can use jet rudders. In dense layers you can use control-surfaces no need for engines.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:hmm I must disagree. For Avangard the   main problem here was not too short range or maneuvering but heat resistance. If you want to fly longer go up   bit and you got to (almost) circular orbit with no/little  energy dissipation and no adiabatic compression caused heating.  You cn fly much faster on 120km then on 50-70  

No, you are no understanding me. The strategic advantage of Avangard is that, by flying in dense layers of the atmosphere, it gets protection from small kinetic interceptors and lasers, which would be the main forms of ABM systems to be deployed in space, so the point is precisely not flying outside the atmosphere. The same drag that protects it also creates a lot of heat and consequently a reduction of its speed / range.

Very true but Shuttle was provided as an example of range. That   means  we re talking  about thousands kilometers r range.  Avangard doesn't need really a lot of  fuel on board
Sorry for very simple model but: Avangard receives some energy form carrier-missile. It can go sy on 500km and then get down. Energy = kinetic + potential. In atmosphere you obviously dissipate some but still it might be possible to have thousands kilometers of range and ability to jump up and down.   Say you slow down form 27Ma to 20Ma.

This cannot be assessed qualitatively, you need to do some numbers to see what is the range and what is the sped reduction after what number and type of manoeuvers. And those numbers are not possible for us to calculate, given the many factors we ignore about the system.

If it has no propulsion and only physical control surfaces then it can only manoeuvre inside the atmosphere... so when it is in vacuum it is a sitting duck with no control moving ballistically on a fixed predictable trajectory until it hits the atmosphere again...

And more importantly it can only slow down and not speed up inside the atmosphere or outside...

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:hmm I must disagree. For Avangard the   main problem here was not too short range or maneuvering but heat resistance. If you want to fly longer go up   bit and you got to (almost) circular orbit with no/little  energy dissipation and no adiabatic compression caused heating.  You cn fly much faster on 120km then on 50-70  

No, you are no understanding me. The strategic advantage of Avangard is that, by flying in dense layers of the atmosphere, it gets protection from small kinetic interceptors and lasers, which would be the main forms of ABM systems to be deployed in space, so the point is precisely not flying outside the atmosphere. The same drag that protects it also creates a lot of heat and consequently a reduction of its speed / range.

I have to disagree,mate . Why would I assume  that US sensors dont see anything on 30-50-80km-90? clouds? over 50km?  only those AFAIK methane ones cloud like sometimes.  All is clear.  atmospheric absorption? in visible light? Optically you can see anything, especially a hot ball of plasma...





"in my IMHO" Avangard's advantage is enormous speed + unpredictive trajectory.  Why dense layers of atmosphere then? to have "jojo" bouncing effect - with much less fuel being able to glide long long way. Then you need pretty small amount of fuel (gas rudders) + control lyers. Your Ek is so high you wont loose it on thousands of km.  

it is not spacecraft but glider


[quote="LMFS"] This cannot be assessed qualitatively, you need to do some numbers to see what is the range and what is the sped reduction after what number and type of manoeuvers. And those numbers are not possible for us to calculate, given the many factors we ignore about the system.

We cannot assess many thongs here but we can assume one: no large fuel tanks due to mass/size restrictions.

BTW that's why I presented Shuttle s one example how hrd is to loose energy by steady descending .  Couple of years ago MoD displayed such drawing of post-boost warhead for Yars I can imagine that amplitude is more attenuated but frequency rther higher.

GarryB wrote:If it has no propulsion and only physical control surfaces then it can only manoeuvre inside the atmosphere... so when it is in vacuum it is a sitting duck with no control moving ballistically on a fixed predictable trajectory until it hits the atmosphere again...

And more importantly it can only slow down and not speed up inside the atmosphere or outside...

there is such thingy called RCS thrusters to provide with control without atmosphere. Perhaps a small tank for boosting but unless Avangard is restricted by size/weight.

In every case Russians called this thingy: a hypersonic gliding vehicle (sorry if my translation w imperfect) :. What we know for sure weighs cannot be more than 4,35kg s it is be carried on UR-100N

@Gunship
You don't need a glider for fast speed and manoeuvring. The glider part is the key. There was a good article some posts above, you may want to check it (or check it again), it is very enlightening.

So, again: US can see Avangard as much as they want (at least in IR), but they cannot touch it. The jojo effect you mention is only making you lose energy, for the same effect but better you just keep in near space. Goal is as said to fly protected by dense atmosphere were interceptors cannot operate. Plasma will protect against radar detection. And both against lasers. That is why the glider concept is so crucial

LMFS wrote:@Gunship
You don't need a glider for fast speed and manoeuvring. The glider part is the key. There was a good article some posts above, you may want to check it (or check it again), it is very enlightening.

So, again: US can see Avangard as much as they want (at least in IR), but they cannot touch it. The jojo effect you mention is only making you lose energy, for the same effect but better you just keep in near space. Goal is as said to fly protected by dense atmosphere were interceptors cannot operate. Plasma will protect against radar detection. And both against lasers. That is why the glider concept is so crucial

Hmm  I dont see here anything what contradicts with "my IMHO".  Perhaps I was not clear enough, apologies. Yes speed and unpredictability is THE key factor.  To have this also Avangard has  changed  " pitch and trajectory" during tests. "In my IMHO"  this means is jumps up and down .

If jumps over Kraman line or flies only  in mesosphere is the other question.  So far any of ABM cannot react so quick to intercept anything so fast.  So Russia has like 10-20 year before Us can field anything that can intercept  Avangard



let me draw your attention to the following facts:

1)  you dotn loose energy by going up and down but by dissipation due to air compression mainly . You know you go up  you loose kinetic energy  but increase potential  one.   The question here is what part of energy would you loose ( this also then speed)  in function of atmosphere density.  AFAIK   ~99,9% mass of the atmosphere is below the mesosphere i.e. 50km.

2) I m not  a physicist but plasma AFAIK with high energy lasers can have self focusing properties to actually increase laser beam  behind plasma layer . It would be good to check with physicists round

Teshub? SingularT?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Yes speed and unpredictability is THE key factor.

Other ICBMs already have manoeuvring warheads and extreme speeds, Avangard would not be needed for this. What makes it unique is its capability to sustain flight in dense layers of the atmosphere for extended periods of time.

So far any of ABM cannot react so quick to intercept anything so fast.

If you refer pure speed, they indeed can. They can intercept satellites relatively easy.

So Russia has like 10-20 year before Us can field anything that can intercept  Avangard

Probably even more, due to the reasons I explained before.

1)  you dotn loose energy by going up and down but by dissipation due to air compression mainly . You know you go up  you loose kinetic energy  but increase potential  one.   The question here is what part of energy would you loose ( this also then speed)  in function of atmosphere density.  AFAIK   ~99,9% mass of the atmosphere is below the mesosphere i.e. 50km.

I mean, I you go into dense layers of the atmosphere to be able to change course aerodynamically, you would loose energy. Better to have thrusters and keep higher... if it was not for the exposure of the warhead that I explained.

2) I m not  a physicist but plasma AFAIK with high energy lasers can have self focusing properties to actually increase laser beam  behind plasma layer . It would be good to check with physicists round

That would be very interesting to see.