Posted on 12/27/2018 7:15:07 AM PST by C19fan
Russia has tested a new hypersonic anti-ship missile that can travel a blistering 6,138 miles an hour, or 1.7 miles a second. The missile, known as Zircon, will attack ships at sea and land-based targets. It is in all likelihood unstoppable by modern air defenses.
CNBC reports that Russia has tested the Zircon anti-ship missile five times, with the latest test occuring on December 10. The December test hit a top speed of Mach 8, or 6,138 miles an hour. CNBC quoted two anonymous U.S. government officials with direct knowledge of an intelligence report on the test. The latest test proved the Russians were capable of achieving sustained flight—a difficult goal in hypersonic flight research.
The network’s source also said that it was clear Zircon was being diversified away from being a purely anti-ship missile to also strike land targets. It is expected to enter production in 2021 and service with the Russian Navy in 2022.
(Excerpt) Read more at popularmechanics.com ...
[Even without a warhead an object going that fast will cause catastrophic damage.]
Kinetic weapons. I thought we were supposed to outfit a boomer sub with Polaris type missiles with strictly kinetic warheads. They screw a big boxing glove onto the tip. (grin)
You can’t out run a Directed Energy Weapon.
Could be they rapid fire these missiles as the engines are fairly simple and inexpensive to produce, much like the kamikazes of WW2, one or more will get through.
Ok ok ok ..per second. For the record I’m only on 2nd cup of coffee ;)
THanks!
Right, considering the ships are at sea a nuke would be more effective..in a real shooting war.
These particular missiles are designed to use vertical launch tubes on a submarine or surface ship.
I thought that was MPS, not MPH. Am I wrong?
Considering a modern carrier is a big, slow moving target and unlike WW2 we can’t practically mass produce Carrier’s of today as they are to complex as many of today’s weapons are so you take out a number of our carrier groups the enemy will have blunted the US’s ability to project its power globally. We forgot the lessons of WW2 and mass production.
All kidding aside, why isn’t there hypersonic commercial air travel by now? Yeah, I know that the aviation industry is hamstrung by noise regulations, etc., but I continue to marvel at how little innovation has occurred in the last 50 years in the technology of air travel compared to the first 50 years when it went from the Wright Bros to the Comet, 707 etc
Trump responds....
I see your Zircon, and raise you Rods from God.
Now very late night is a different story.
Building a hypersonic commercial air is very complex and expensive compared to a unmanned hypersonic missile..
>>I would assume we have similar capabilities, although who knows at this point.
Barack opposed new weapon development, who knows what he monkeywrenched.
Plus friction with atmosphere at sea level would disintegrate the object right quick. Unless the Russians have discovered a deposit of Vibranium somewhere.
The major innovation in commercial air travel is how many seats they can now cram in the same jet body built in 1978.
Russia cannot win an arms race, and they’d bankrupt their economy (even more than it is now), if they tried to keep up with the U.S. This is all propaganda, meant to instill patriotism in their citizens who clamor getting back their old Soviet Russia.
No doubt they can produce the weapons, but keeping up with the U.S. would require an economy perhaps 10 times the size of what they have now. Russia is a third-world economy.
The problem with using nukes, is whoever starts has no certainty that it won’t rapidly escalate.
That’s right. I think a couple of our ships have rail guns which are being tested at sea. I haven’t kept up on it and you probably know.
Thanks.
And we’re $20+ Trillion in debt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.