Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle:

GunshipDemocracy wrote: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?

I don't know of any ability to increase the laser's power through plasma. By its very nature, plasma disrupts lasers by de-phasing the laser beam/pulse, leeching energy and causing scattering via several physical processes. It is a major problem for laser welding for example. There is an effect called laser wakefield acceleration, which produces an electron plasma wave in a plasma. Current experiments are using this technique to create powerful x-rays via laser/plasma interaction... however, it relies upon static, contained plasma fields formed from dilute gas at specific densities. As a weapon it has no practical application... Well, not unless you want to miniaturise particle accelerators to battleship turret size.

When it comes to direct energy weapons, the plasma sheath formed around HGVs is effectively proof against most radio and microwave wavelengths. Even if a fraction of a percent of signal could penetrate, it would not have the magnitude to harm the vehicle. The only other wavelength you can use for a laser weapon specifically designed to inflict material damage is at the Infrared. But there are tremendous problems facing these too.

1) They are currently only effective over very short distances, i.e. a handful of kilometres. Due to atmospheric attenuation the transmitted power drops off exponentially. With a moderate powered FLWS you lose over 90% of the power at 10km range in clear air. To have a hope of maintaining power levels up to the mesosphere you will need megawatt scale lasers. However...

2) Simply boosting the power of the laser doesn't work. Above a critical point thermal blooming occurs due to the air the laser passes through becoming a plasma itself, further draining the power of the beam/pulse and causing yet more scattering. There is a diminishing limit to how much energy the atmosphere can transmit, so you cannot just pack a thousand laser fibres side by side, they must be spaced (diluting the power over a greater target zone) or the duration of the pulse shortened (increasing the engagement period the beam must be held on target).

3) Thus a surface based laser projector (i.e. at sea level) which tries to pump out a high megawatt laser pulse (let alone a gigawatt) will immediately blast its own projector, plus the immediate area around the weapon) with a massive plasma blast, the effects of which may cause frosting of the projector lens, and a pretty nasty radio and microwave backwash (screwing up your own comms). You wouldn't want any personnel anywhere near when it fired. There was a reason why the YAL-1 ABL was mounted in a jumbo jet.

4) Firing such a laser from low orbit avoids most of the atmospheric attenuation problems, thus you can maintain higher power transmission even over several hundred kilometres. Yet no satellite is going to be able to pump out high energy laser shots without frying itself, because the satellite cannot dump the waste heat fast enough. The best infrared diode lasers have an efficiency of around 64%, so for each shot you fire at the target your orbital killsat needs to handle one third of the energy. There are some engineering workrounds to help with thermal buildup, but since the sat will zip by the target in a matter of less than 20 seconds or so, you are going to need to make a lot of shots in a very short period.

5) Assuming you can rotate your laser projector and maintain a currently unfeasible accuracy of 1cm (to generate a burn through)  over a distance of either 50-80km (surface) or 250-300km (space), then you are still facing the problem that the plasma sheath surrounding the HGV is literally going to wash away most of the laser's remaining energy. First of all the plasma is turbulent so you cannot set up an optimal penetrating wavelength. Secondly the plasma density is likely an unknown to the firing platform since the HGV will be at a variable velocity and altitude. Thirdly, fresh atmospheric particles will be washing past in microseconds, carrying away your laboriously heated plasma before (or during) penetration.

6) Last but not least, the HGV has a surface designed to handle high thermal loads for extended periods. Thus it is inherently resistant to infrared lasers.

In conclusion it makes sense for Avangard to remain low enough to generate a plasma sheath for self protection, or at least dipping down when approaching enemy air defence for both plasma shield and manoeuvring.

From my personal perspective, firing lasers directly at the HGV is pointless. You cannot project sufficient energy, quickly enough to harm the vehicle. What would be better perhaps, is for multiple laser sources to turn the atmosphere directly ahead of the vehicle into plasma, in order to create uneven turbulence in an attempt to cause it to tumble. If successful this would destroy the HGV very efficiently.

LMFS wrote:
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.

True but still it is jumping within some range. .  BTW somehow this speed needs to be reached. And if not carrier rocket then what i providing this? Is ICBM then it goes up then descents till can use aerodynamic controls and glide.

LMFS wrote:

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.

only if trajectory is well known then you can just leave  an iron anvil  on its way      

LMFS wrote:

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.

perhaps, however I would not underestimate US potential and resources both money and scientific.  
BTW ICBM silos protection was about to be tested in USSR.   Project Mozyr. But this was point of deference for  ICBM

LMFS wrote:

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.

Agreed 100%.  In my IMHO  the idea is not to carry to much fuel in vehicle but use surfaces.  "in my AFAIK" for orbital vehicle  descent "dense layers" can mean anything below 100km. Then using control surfaces make sense.

Below 50km unlikely s then is  borderline where most of meteorites burn. Since Avangard   is gliding up to 7,6 km/s and range is to be "intercontinental" it can take ~15 mins of pretty hot temp.

LMFS wrote:

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.

edit: too late Teshub has spoken

Teshub wrote:
From my personal perspective, firing lasers directly at the HGV is pointless. You cannot project sufficient energy, quickly enough to harm the vehicle. What would be better perhaps, is for multiple laser sources to turn the atmosphere directly ahead of the vehicle into plasma, in order to create uneven turbulence in an attempt to cause it to tumble. If successful this would destroy the HGV very efficiently.

hmm to either you use so called a plasma shield or kinetic launching of old anvils. One hit with HGV shll do



And last but not least

Big Thanks

No problem. Glad to help.

@Teshub: Bravo!!

From my personal perspective, firing lasers directly at the HGV is pointless. You cannot project sufficient energy, quickly enough to harm the vehicle. What would be better perhaps, is for multiple laser sources to turn the atmosphere directly ahead of the vehicle into plasma, in order to create uneven turbulence in an attempt to cause it to tumble. If successful this would destroy the HGV very efficiently.

This was commented in the forum by Mindstorm and maybe others I am not aware. Apparently it was a Soviet idea that was even proposed to the US during the 90's for a common ABM shield, probably it will be revisited soon motivated by Avangard... in any case the target is very fast and can change course so I guess it is going to be hard to make this work for all possible attack vectors. Plus further development of possible plasma generating or handling capabilities of the Avangard may help in a future overcome such sort of barrier / plasma turbulence

LMFS wrote:@Teshub: Bravo!!

From my personal perspective, firing lasers directly at the HGV is pointless. You cannot project sufficient energy, quickly enough to harm the vehicle. What would be better perhaps, is for multiple laser sources to turn the atmosphere directly ahead of the vehicle into plasma, in order to create uneven turbulence in an attempt to cause it to tumble. If successful this would destroy the HGV very efficiently.

This was commented in the forum by Mindstorm and maybe others I am not aware. Apparently it was a Soviet idea that was even proposed to the US during the 90's for a common ABM shield, probably it will be revisited soon motivated by Avangard... in any case the target is very fast and can change course so I guess it is going to be hard to make this work for all possible attack vectors. Plus further development of possible plasma generating or handling capabilities of the Avangard may help in a future overcome such sort of barrier / plasma turbulence

And as I've said before - the problem with that is that the atmosphere is transparent to light. What will the laser heat? Just criss-cross multiple lasers onto a point in thin air in front of the missile?

Teshub, what do you think about the innovative Pereswet laser?

flamming_python wrote:And as I've said before - the problem with that is that the atmosphere is transparent to light. What will the laser heat? Just criss-cross multiple lasers onto a point in thin air in front of the missile?

Apparently the idea was to use RF, obviously at a frequency that can be absorbed conveniently by atmosphere. And of course, combining beams is always the secret  


Power needed was nevertheless estimated to be simply huge. So I don't know if this is possible and in which time frame to be honest.

Arrow wrote:Teshub, what do you think about the innovative Pereswet laser?

I have no real opinion as yet, since I have seen very little published about its actual field purpose, let alone ballpark specs. Overall it looks like a generic mobile HEL system, albeit one which the Russians have put into serial production before anyone else. But I await further details with interest.

Teshub wrote:

Arrow wrote:Teshub, what do you think about the innovative Pereswet laser?

I have no real opinion as yet, since I have seen very little published about its actual field purpose, let alone ballpark specs.  Overall it looks like a generic mobile HEL system, albeit one which the Russians have put into serial production before anyone else. But I await further details with interest.

A generic HEL with a NPP? A NPP likely in the 1 MW range?

LMFS wrote:
Apparently the idea was to use RF, obviously at a frequency that can be absorbed conveniently by atmosphere. And of course, combining beams is always the secret  

didnt't tDeep State Dept say that: " US was always ahead in hypersonic they only choose not to weaponize it", Perhaps in plasma too.
Now they want to, so in 20 years can catch Russians up

Power needed was nevertheless estimated to be simply huge. So I don't know if this is possible and in which time frame to be honest.

isnt it what Teshub was talking about? Interesting about Soviet plasma weapons. WRT Teshub heating gases: from 24" :00'

In USSR in 80' there were works to create "controlled clouds of ionized atmosphere" 50km over protected area. Due to heating density of gases drop significantly. An incoming missile suddenly looses pressure ( air compression) changes direction / trajectory,. Then hits on dense gases against. Disintegrating as "car crashing against the wall" .


Then came to power Gorbi...


28:52 1992 tests of plasma cloud vs 152mm artillery projectile .

flamming_python wrote:

LMFS wrote:@Teshub: Bravo!!

From my personal perspective, firing lasers directly at the HGV is pointless. You cannot project sufficient energy, quickly enough to harm the vehicle. What would be better perhaps, is for multiple laser sources to turn the atmosphere directly ahead of the vehicle into plasma, in order to create uneven turbulence in an attempt to cause it to tumble. If successful this would destroy the HGV very efficiently.

This was commented in the forum by Mindstorm and maybe others I am not aware. Apparently it was a Soviet idea that was even proposed to the US during the 90's for a common ABM shield, probably it will be revisited soon motivated by Avangard... in any case the target is very fast and can change course so I guess it is going to be hard to make this work for all possible attack vectors. Plus further development of possible plasma generating or handling capabilities of the Avangard may help in a future overcome such sort of barrier / plasma turbulence

And as I've said before - the problem with that is that the atmosphere is transparent to light. What will the laser heat? Just criss-cross multiple lasers onto a point in thin air in front of the missile?

Transparent to diffuse light. But this diffuse light still gets scattered giving us our blue sky. No consider a photon flux orders of magnitude higher and consider
what happens to the scattering. You are also completely missing the aerosol effect. Aerosols have a large impact in the planetary boundary layer (below 2 km) and
are not negligible in their impact at higher altitudes. In fact, it is the hydrophobic fine mode black carbon aerosol fraction that dominates in the upper troposphere.
Black carbon is a show stopper for any wavelength that matters. Water vapour is another factor that significantly impacts transmissivity. Atmospheric water vapour
concentrations peak near the surface and fall off approximately exponentially with height, but clouds are present in some form though the whole troposphere. Near
the tropopause we have ice clouds.

Any infrared laser gets clobbered by H2O, CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) and aerosols in the atmosphere. Visible band lasers experience less attenuation but
they still heat the air if they are high energy. This leads to thermal blooming attenuation:

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a096797.pdf

Sutch systems would require entire nuclear power plants dedicated to them and would require setting aside large amounts of the city you are trying to protect in order to make room for such a system.

Also I suppose one could say the the US has neither the expertise nor the funds (left over for the actual development)

magnumcromagnon wrote:A generic HEL with a NPP? A NPP likely in the 1 MW range?

I'm sorry, I don't read Russian and haven't found a source confirming that. Thus far I have only seen speculation that it has a NPP. Happy to revise my opinion if you can provide more details.

......

The-thing-next-door wrote:Sutch systems would require entire nuclear power plants dedicated to them and would require setting aside large amounts of the city you are trying to protect in order to make room for such a system.

Also I suppose one could say the the US has neither the expertise nor the funds (left over for the actual development)

plasma clouds? absolutely not. This is not destroying ICBM with plsm "bolt" but just heating up restricted area. ICBM  kinetic energy does the rest.  Imagine - Aikido.

Teshub wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:A generic HEL with a NPP? A NPP likely in the 1 MW range?

I'm sorry, I don't read Russian and haven't found a source confirming that. Thus far I have only seen speculation that it has a NPP. Happy to revise my opinion if you can provide more details.

But Hittite you do, huh?

In Peresvet thread was article bout small nuclear energy source. With range up to ~ 1 MW That's why so large truck is used.

Yes however in order to create a plasma could of sufficient dencity to over a city you would need a garguantuan amount of power and an instalation in every suburb.

You would also need a weather controll station so that you energy shield does not simply blow away in the wind.


And that then ofcourse the is the issue of creating and sustaining said colud without frying the city you are trying to protect.

It is one thing to use a plasma torch in a well ventilated area but a cloud big enough to cover a city where would all that heat go?

You can't deploy powerful enough emitters in low earth orbit and you simply cannot hope to project enough energy from the ground into the upper atmospere for such a system to be feasable.


What you would need are towers many kilometers high to house all of you projectors and keep them at a safe distance from you city.

But then you enemy will just set their missiles to aproach you at a low angle and avoid you "shield" entirely, infact missiles could be fitted with sensors to dectect you plasma cloud in order to probe for weakspots or evade it.

Although wait a minute wouldn't it be possible to deploy such a plasma shild on your HGV so that enemy intercetors will be diverted or destroyed?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:didnt't tDeep State Dept say that:   " US was always ahead in hypersonic  they only choose not to weaponize it", Perhaps in plasma too.
Now they want to, so    in 20 years can catch Russians up      

Of course, Russians lie even when they are right and Americans win even when they lose, its in their DNA

isnt it what Teshub was talking about? Interesting about Soviet plasma weapons.

 
Yes of course, this is what he was referring to, if I am not wrong. Currently there are projects in the US to use plasma to deviate ATGM and RPGs for instance. Good video BTW, I didn't new of this technology having been used against artillery already...

Teshub wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:A generic HEL with a NPP? A NPP likely in the 1 MW range?

I'm sorry, I don't read Russian and haven't found a source confirming that. Thus far I have only seen speculation that it has a NPP. Happy to revise my opinion if you can provide more details.

Holy Crap lol! It's like you didn't even attempt to read the prior pages of the relevant thread lol! Literally every major Russian source has stated it's a NPP, and I've been posting the relevant sources (with translations) over the last few months but I suppose I could repost them.

Check the 5:20 mark (English subtitles provided)

The first combat laser systems "Peresvet" took over on duty this fall. Peresvet is one of the most mysterious items in the army’s arsenal. It is known that the basis of the system is a nuclear power plant. It is the NPP that provides the unique power capacity of the new system. At the same time, there is still no answer to the most important question: what tasks does the combat laser solve?



There are only a few assumptions. The laser burns out the optoelectronic intelligence systems installed on airplanes, helicopters and UAVs. Perhaps Peresvet’s power will be enough to bring out or at least blind for some time the optics of satellite reconnaissance aircraft.

According to another version, the Peresvet beam heats the body and the structure of the aircraft. This disables the control system, onboard electronics and engines, and leads to fires. As a result, a drone, plane or cruise missile in a matter of seconds fails and falls to the ground.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fvpk.name%2Fnews%2F239990_zaglyanuli_za_gorizont_novoe_rossiiskoe_oruzhie_operedilo_vremya.html

Russia is also creating new small-sized nuclear reactors



Over the next 6 years our country will be ready small-sized atomic power plant (MAEU) with a capacity of 100 kilowatts and 1 megawatt for serial production. For the first time since the Soviet Pamir project (pictured above) will be revived the theme of a mobile nuclear reactor with new technology. While such installations in the world no one.

From public information we can understand the following: 2 new type of MAAO will be funded through the Ministry of defense of Russia and officially designed for the exploration of the Arctic. As reported by a number of domestic media reports, the new energy source megawatt class can be made in a transportable version and can be moved on a transport platform to the towing vehicle with high cross, which allows him to be mobile and to provide energy to the non-stationary objects.On a more "modest", a 100-kilowatt reactor data yet, but such a development would be truly revolutionary if its creators manage to provide the relative compactness.

Some Russian "experts" have suggested that we are talking about installations for creating laser weapons. Indeed, on the basis of such small reactors, it can be designed, but if you move away from formulaic approaches, the use of prospective, MAEU opens up broad opportunities in different spheres – from the already mentioned development of the far North to use nuclear energy for the construction of bases on the moon and Mars.

https://z5h64q92x9.net/proxy_u/ru-en.ru/http/tehnoomsk.ru/node/2836

Peresvet could very well be powered with a 100kw to 1 Megawatt nuclear power plant.

Since soviet times (80's) they've been attempting to create mobile NPP's with potential power output of 1 MW and they've succeeded:

And for interplanetary space missions and solving utilitarian tasks in near-earth orbit in Russia, an unparalleled transport and energy module (TEM) with a one-megawatt nuclear engine is being created - a kind of hybrid of tugboat, pusher and mini-AES. To cool such a reactor in an airless space, a unique and seemingly very fragile design was invented, based on the drip cooler-radiator.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fvpk.name%2Fnews%2F240350_novyie_samoletyi_proektiruyut_na_rossiiskih_superkompyuterah_i_programmah.html

I think that the plasma weapon was not very effective and its development was stopped. Actually, there is no information about the work on plasma weapons. Maybe Teshub knows something more about it?

The-thing-next-door wrote:Yes however in order to create a plasma could of sufficient dencity to over a city you would need a garguantuan amount of power and an instalation in every suburb.

no, not what that vid I posted said

You would also need a weather controll station so that you energy shield does not simply blow away in the wind.

shield is on 50km, not winds there anymore

And that then ofcourse the is the issue of creating and sustaining said colud without frying the city you are trying to protect.

no sustaining needed is created AFAIK. It is activated only for short period of time just to knock down missiles

It is one thing to use a plasma torch in a well ventilated area but a cloud big enough to cover a city where would all that heat go?

no torch , they tried to have "bolts in cane" but energy requirements were too high, shield is just loclly heated-up volume of atmosphere

But then you enemy will just set their missiles to aproach you at a low angle and avoid you "shield" entirely, infact missiles could be fitted with sensors to dectect you plasma cloud in order to probe for weakspots or evade it.

you can evade kinetic interceptor but to evade suddenly appearing, say a square km cloud is unlikely. Not sure how you want to detect it in rel time and pass info to maneuvering warhed?

LMFS wrote:
Of course, Russians lie even when they are right and Americans win even when they lose, its in their DNA  

the probme they never loose! Ive never watched any Hollywood movie to confirm they've lost

LMFS wrote:

isnt it what Teshub was talking about? Interesting about Soviet plasma weapons.

 
Yes of course, this is what he was referring to, if I am not wrong. Currently there are projects in the US to use plasma to deviate ATGM and RPGs for instance. Good video BTW, I didn't new of this technology having been used against artillery already...

then lets wit to be on Russian ships with nuclear rectors
The thing plasma shield wont work would be plasma gun of course

Tody Im gonna skip horoscopes but quote some funnies instead



Evil Ruskies !

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/feb/27/russian-missile-threat-to-us-homel

The commander of the military’s Northern Command warned this week that Moscow is deploying conventionally armed missiles that for the first time are capable of striking targets deep inside the United States.

Air Force Gen. Terrence O’Shaughnessy, who is also commander of the U.S.-Canadian North American Aerospace Command (NORAD), stated in prepared congressional testimony that while Russian nuclear missiles have threatened the country for more than 50 years, Moscow “only recently developed and deployed capabilities to threaten us below the nuclear threshold.”

The new threats include offensive cyberattacks and a new generation of air- and sea-launched cruise missiles.

The missiles can be fired farther from U.S. borders with “significantly greater standoff ranges and accuracy than their predecessors, allowing them to strike North America from well outside NORAD radar coverage,” he told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

+++
“Finally, Russia has an active stockpile [of] up to 2,000 nonstrategic nuclear weapons, which are not accountable under the New START Treaty,” he said. “These include air-to-surface missiles, short-range ballistic missiles, gravity bombs and depth charges for medium-range bombers, tactical bombers and naval aviation, as well as anti-ship, anti-submarine and anti-aircraft missiles and torpedoes for surface ships and submarines, and Moscow’s antiballistic missile system.”
+++

Additionally, Russia is planning to deploy surface warships in Arctic waters armed with the modular Kalibr-NK cruise missile.

The Kalibr “will offer highly precise land-attack capabilities and introduce a new cruise missile threat from our northern approaches,” the four-star commander said.

+++

In addition to the Kalibr, the Russians are bolstering Arctic defenses by deploying K-300 Bastion coastal defense cruise missiles on the New Siberian Islands, missiles that will significantly increase Russia’s control over a large stretch of the northern sea route, he said.

“Russia’s growing non-nuclear capabilities provide Moscow a range of options to dissuade an adversary from escalating and to terminate a conflict on terms favorable to Moscow, increasing the potential for miscalculation or opportunistic actions,” he added.


+++
Another new weapon that poses a threat to the homeland is the Avangard hypersonic missile that travels at a reported 20,000 miles per hour — fast enough to defeat current missile defenses and capable of striking the homeland within 15 minutes of launch atop a ballistic missile.

Asked what is the most significant threat he is facing as commander, Gen. O’Shaughnessy said in the near term it is Russia’s missiles, both conventional and nuclear, and cyberattacks.



+++
Gen. Hyten said the large stockpile of Russia’s nonstrategic weapons supports Moscow’s nuclear doctrine of coercion.

“Combined with its large nuclear weapons infrastructure and ready production base, this underscores Moscow’s commitment to having nuclear weapons underpin its security and commitment to maintaining its nuclear forces for the indefinite future,” he said.

“Their doctrine of coercive use further enhances their ability to challenge the United States and NATO across the full spectrum of political, diplomatic, military and information warfare.”

Gen. Hyten explained during the committee hearing that Russian military doctrine calls for “escalate to win.”

Translating liars' lingo to human language:

1) Evil Ruskies can defend their OWN Arctic sector

2) Evil Ruskies have tactical nukes in ABM round Moscow

3) No more US impunity in bombing Russia or other protected countries.

4) Ruskies want to keep nukes forever they must be gressors

5) Evil Ivans dare to put missiles CLOSE to US only acceptable way is missiles in Poland/Baltics/other doggies as all few world kows



6) shiiiiiiit Avangard needs 15 min to say Helo CONUS - how Ivans dare to threaten us. We are the only who can bomb and threaten