The test launch reportedly used an UR-100N strategic ballistic missile (file photo)
Posted on 04/23/2016 6:45:31 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Russia has reportedly tested a new hypersonic glide vehicle designed to breach missile defences and deliver nuclear warheads beyond enemy lines, state media has claimed
The test of the hypersonic cruise vehicle was reportedly carried out using a strategic ballistic missile in Orenburg, near the border to Kazakhstan, on Tuesday.
This follows reports that Vladimir Putin's armed forces currently have the highest number of attack submarines patrolling the Scottish and Scandinavian coastlines since the Cold War.
The hypersonic glide vehicle would be able to get past missile defences as they make it impossible to calculate the warhead's ballistic trajectory, RT.com reports.
The government-funded news website reported that Russian Strategic Missile Forces's test of the hypersonic cruise vehicle was successful, citing news agency Interfax.
The test launch used an RS-18A strategic ballistic missile (UR-100N, NATO designation SS-19 Stiletto), the website said.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3554135/Russia-tests-new-hypersonic-glide-vehicle-capable-breaching-missile-defences-launching-nuclear-warheads.html#ixzz46eoPzXsA Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
The test launch reportedly used an UR-100N strategic ballistic missile (file photo)
what’s hypersonic?? do we really not have ANYTHING to stop these?
thanks in advance.
“What’s hypersonic?”
Hypersonic means velocity well above the speed of sound, typically by at least a factor of 2 or 3. Supersonic means anything above the velocity of sound, so hypersonic is very supersonic.
So that’s it? game over? what do we have, a Cuisinart? nothing to stop them?
The US also has hypersonic vehicle programs. Most of the ones in the media are tied to applications that are rather civilian or generic.
These vehicles/warheads don’t travel in a typical ballistic missile trajectory - in simple terms, they travel very fast, but also glide or dive irregularly on their course, in ways that make it difficult to calculate their path and to shoot down.
The USA is testing them as well.
Nothing that we want to talk about......
While our government civilians have been milking hypersonics for decades now. My last work with hypersonics was 20 years ago. The traitors are talking another round of base closings too. BRAC.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3106539/posts?page=1
Missile knuckleballs?
Freegards
The fact is that there are few fully effective defenses against ICBMs or reentry vehicles like this. We have done pretty well in exercises hitting one in tests....on test day.
That’s a far cry from dozens, or hundreds of missiles incoming, with no notice, where the test missile defense ship isn’t in position, sitting on ready.
This is something we should probably consider when we think about starting conventional wars with Russia. This principle served us well for decades in the cold war.
This is an interesting development, but the speed is a secondary issue. Mach 5 is actually relatively slow in missile defense terms. ICBMs, even IRBMs are considerably faster than Mach 5 (2 to 3+ times as fast) through much of their flight. It isn't the speed that makes these a tough target, it is their ability to maneuver off a ballistic trajectory that presents the challenge.
However, in the eternal game of offense vs defense the defense has a couple of advantages here. At high speeds, turning implies either gradual maneuvers, or high G loads. The offensive missile is heavier - carrying along the warhead/payload. The defensive missile/interceptor is lighter, it just has to get in the way and make contact, kinetic energy does the rest... The offensive missile is coasting. Maneuvers take energy, Newton's F=ma still applies. You want to accelerate to the side (maneuver) you've got to apply a force. If that force comes from aerodynamic controls, well, they scrub off speed. So on offense you have a limited "energy budget" for maneuvers. The more you maneuver, the slower you go, the easier the target you become...
The practical/pragmatic engineer in me says this is a new development, but not a particularly difficult or alarming one. These things are going to be relatively slow. They are going to be hot from dragging in the atmosphere. They've got a limited maneuver space. Yes, they won't be ballistic. But intercepting maneuvering targets is a well-known problem. We've had air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles for decades. The guidance control algorithms are very refined.
wow. there’s some crazy stuff going on that most, including me, have no idea of.
I know Obama has destroyed morale, but I hope he hasn’t destroyed our advances and readiness.
we’re still spending a lot.
The moslem outreach hypersonic missile program is well underway. The only question left is how many musselmen does it take to light the fuse?
The speed probably has little impact on our ability to destroy it because of current computational speeds and the ability to fly missiles very accurately. Not a particularly difficult issue.
And you are correct about the need slow down the missile if one is to jink the missile into different paths. It would have to be much slower in order to keep from ripping control surfaces off in flight among other issues.
So back to basics:
A single 1 inch ball of uranium or tungsten if placed in front of the missile will not quite go end to end along the length of the missiles but the warhead will be nothing more than very hot dust.
At the speeds spoken of in the article any charge which would move it from its intended orientation would stress the missile to the point of catastrophic failure.
So, what can we use? A shock wave which at altitude would compress nitrogen and oxygen into a solid mass. As the missile contacted that shock wave it would simply be shredded. If it were manned, it might have the same effect as the legendary Impala with a JATO rocket in the trunk found high on a cliff in Arizona, ie., teeth buried in the steering wheel.
The Patriot system comes to mind as entirely adequate for this purpose. I believe the Israelis have one that is quite good. Possibly called the Arrow.
This is also how we could defend against Shkvall torpedo. Collapse the air bubble in front of the torpedo, or simply change its position and the torpedo may as well be hitting concrete.
So, I am not worried about this development.
I wonder where they got the blueprints?
My dear departed aunt used to say “ain’t no tellin”
She could cook one helluva pork chop.
It will be the last one they fire
In Russia, missile tests you.
What served us well during the Cold War was mutually assured destruction (MAD). Neither side took seriously the effectiveness of an ABM system against a full-on attack by MIRV missiles.
Ah...the fruits of Hillary’s proud nuclear negotiations w Russia....
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.