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...