[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/AKM/ - Guns, weapons and the art of war.

"War can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun." - Chairman Mao
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon


I see a lot of talk about how Russia n China could shit on the west with hypersonic missiles. which is cool af but I also don't know if thats even true or what a hypersonic missile even is(I assume it goes faster than sound?). Are they a big deal? I really do hope the hype lives up this time


File: 1678323651900.png (408.52 KB, 1100x540, ClipboardImage.png)

>If thats even true
It is, there is no reason to doubt it
>what a hypersonic missile even is
Hypersonic is to reach speeds over 5 machs (5x the speed of sound. There are thermal and physical mechanics that make this a unique barrier in speed, primarily due to the brute force required to get there. Supersonic is anything over mach 1 (speed of sound).
>Are they a big deal
A) Sheer kinetic force of such high-speed projectiles magnifies their capabilities on impact
B) the speed makes it nigh-impossible for current air defenses to target, or for SAMs to catch up to them.

The most important part is that the USA has still to make a functional hypersonic missile of their own


I saw some criticism from a guy in the comments section of a video about a simulated battle between a US carrier Fleet and the PLA in the South China Sea, about how actually Hypersonic missiles are rubbish because they can't change their course quickly enough to correct for changes in a moving target's location and how they can't carry large payloads because they would be too heavy otherwise.

Any truth to this, or was it just some guy who didn't know what he was talking about/ bought into US propaganda about how awesome and dominant US military tech is?


yeah seems like bs, have fun trying to 'move' out the way of a mach 5 missile with tracking


File: 1678384561352.gif (2.89 MB, 635x287, p-700 ship wrecks.gif)

A hypersonic missile isn't going to be supermaneuverable like a fighter jet, but no cruise missile is. A nuclear aircraft carrier is 1000+ feet long and is 100,000 tons, It's fast in a straight line for a ship because of the nuclar reactors, but 30-40 knots is nothing to a mach 9 missile. A ships speed is meaningless, and a missile locks on and corrects its course over time as it approaches.
As for payload, there's nothing stopping the payload from being standard cruise missile weight (100-500kg) and nuclear warheads can be as small as an artillery shell at this point. Not to mention that kinetic force alone is going to create kinetic burns like a tanks APFSDS. Current generation carriers also lack the armored deck of the older carriers, so there is nothing stopping the missile in the physical sense & AEGIS SAMs and CIWS cannot respond fast enough against such a fast, low-flying target.

Pic rel is the impact of a much slower Supersonic cruise missile of Russian origin. The kinetic force alone has the missile go right through the ship.

Also on carrier vulnerability: https://www.quora.com/Why-have-big-battleships-e-g-USS-Iowa-and-the-Bismarck-become-obsolete-in-modern-navies/answer/Chuck-Garen


TheoryTime: The supermaneuverable tic tacs were countries demonstrating their new delivery systems to peers. Don't fuck with us.


If you want a short summary, this is a great video. The main advantage of hypersonic missiles is that they can quickly reach the target area, thus making the area of uncertainty (the area to which the ship could have moved to since the last detection) around the detected ship relatively small. On the other hand, physical limitations make it so that on their final approach, even hypersonic missiles have to slow down to supersonic speeds (to around mach 3-4), as their high speed would ionize the air around the missile, making any onboard detection equipment (such as radars) useless, practically blinding the missile, which is really bad if you have to hit a moving target. And guess what, NATO ships were designed to intercept exactly these types of targets since the 70's.


>ATO ships were designed to intercept exactly these types of targets since the 70's
LMAO in the 70s NATO AEGIS could only illuminate 4 targets at a time, & no, Navy CIWS or SAM systems were not well capable of intercepting even subsonic missiles, let alone supersonic ones that heavily maneuvered (see any Exocet ship strike in the past couple decades).

Also your statement that they have to drop to supersonic is incorrect, if anything they often stay supersonic on launch, then after the target is in range, go to hypersonic.

>ionize the air around the missile, making any onboard detection equipment (such as radars) useless

Yeah, which is the reason they have multiple methods of detection pegboard too, from aircraft, ships & satellites feeding them data. Not to mention the shape of the missile & the material coating permitting tip-point sensors to continue functioning.


The problem is that no country has any defense against 60 year old nuclear missiles. Hypersonics are the kind of thing that are really cool, but until someone figures out how to stop an ICBM they're not adding anything to the equation.


1) ICBMs can absolutely be defeated by at least 2 countries, China & Russia. Every single one launched on a full attack? Maybe not, but sure as hell more than the USA's THAAD & Patriot. Russia & China also have constantly updated ICBMs, the USA is reliant mostly on tired Minuteman III upgrades that still run on Floppy Discs & have constant accidents.
The only modern(ish) ICBM that the USA has is the Trident II SLBM.
2) Hypersonic missile technology is also included in ICBMs making US countermeasures nigh obsolete.
3) Hypersonic missiles are still game changing in conventional combat & the cruise missiles can carry nuclear warheads too.


File: 1680487382135.png (95.61 KB, 262x240, 1679958179479613.png)

>ICBMs can absolutely be defeated by at least 2 countries, China & Russia.


>again complete confusion when describing what Hypersonic weapons are, let me reiterate it again I will repeat it as many times as necessary. Hypersonic weapons what we accept today as such as the type of the Weaponry is not what used to be haphazardly applied to such things as for example satellites. satellites fly with when we would measure as something like mach 27. intercontinental ballistic missiles fly with huge Hypersonic speeds.

>the issue here however is the fact that all those weapons all those ballistic missiles and satellites and even International Space Station while flying at very high Hypersonic speeds they are not really Hypersonic anything. the reason being that they fly in space they fly without the resistance of the atmosphere there's a minuscule couple molecules here in there at the elevations they fly but generally they fly in the vacuum. in in vacuum you can accelerate from Mach 27 to Mach 270 and you will not feel that much difference. however this is not the case with the atmosphere and this is where it all comes down to. are those ballistic missiles, for example, are there multiple re-entry vehicles hypersonic theoretically, because when you have their independent re-entry vehicle from the ballistic missile separating from this bus and entering Earth atmosphere it becomes Hypersonic in the not formal but technological sense.

>it's still flying within incredibly fast speed albeit it is still being slowed down by the Earth atmosphere but here's the point: when you fly at Mach 27 entering a relatively dense atmosphere which would be about their the altitude of about 60 50 kilometers gets a little bit denser of course it's highly dense on the elevation or altitude of about 10,000 meters so you experience all those impacts with the Hypersonic weapon real Hypersonic weapon as we know it today, should experience, but of course with such speed you'll cover this distance in like an instant basically and by the time you hit the target it doesn't matter.

>Hypersonic weapons which are real deal what we're talking about those are weapons which fly within a atmosphere within their relatively dense atmosphere if you take a look at the Russian Hypersonic glider Avangard the first Hypersonic strategic weapon which is now officially deployed a whole regiment has been deployed and a second one is coming on line. they fly with the velocities way higher than mach 20 and they Glide and basically like bouncing Stones across the water they bounce of the atmosphere. they experience forces which the Warheads or independent Vehicles do not experience and they experience them for a fairly significant length of time.

>it's also true about what is known as quasi ballistic iron ballistic ballistic air launch ballistic it's not really truly well it is ballistic but again it's it's a such a difference because for example classic ballistic missiles they hit the space outer space essentially with such things as iskandar for example they also can fly very high but Kinzhal which is a derivative of iskandar flies all its flight including its acceleration phase it's all within the atmosphere.

>then we go to Zircon, Zircon is not just atmospheric weapon it is been driven by the air breather scramjet and except for Russia nobody has it, and that's what is the difference and when people are kind of confused when I mentioned that the Grom-2 Ukrainian missile is Hypersonic. it is Hypersonic in a sense that when it enters atmosphere it flies around Mach 6. the same as does iskandar. iskandar, another matter, is a much more sophisticated weapon and much more mature and what it can do also it Maneuvers

<all modern Hypersonic weapons maneuver and that's what many people do not understand
>in ballistic missile you can actually predict it. you can calculate and predict extra trajectory and you can calculate the point at which the anti-missle and the missile meet with whatever is going to be Grom-2 what have you.

>Iskander flies on the what would be called suppressed trajectory, much suppressed. Iskander maneuvers, does a Grom-2 maneuver? I don't know but the Grom-2 is being shut down by Russian air defense and there you have it. talking about this type of the Hypersonic weapons and that is where United States fails dramatically it cannot develop that type of the Weaponry <Which flies on the either suppressed causi-Ballistic trajectories within atmosphere,

>let alone we are talking about something like Zircon that nobody except Russia has so I hope this clears it a little bit so yes anything Which flies back Mach 5 is Hypersonic

>think about it from the other point of view, even the definition. Hyper. Sonic. Sonic means of course what acoustic properties you know they're flying with this speed of sound or more or faster than the speed of sound. guess what there is no sound in space. remember aliens or alien nobody can hear you screaming in space because there is no air there. in this case when we speak about that oh yeah the ballistic missile is working flew at mach 27, well it's not a technically correct because they fly in space. they fly in their environment which lacks any air, and obviously in this particular case it experiences completely different types of impacts than for example Zircon or Kinzhal experience. so and I hope that helps


Just read about "super-fuzing", apparently a retro fit to existing US ballistic missiles that happened around 2009. It reportedly increased the accuracy so much that it changed the balance of nuclear deterrence and gave the US a chance of winning a first strike scenario or a decapitation strike. The implication is that super-fuzing and US threats spurred the russian development of hypersonics and all the other related wonderwaffen (mega subs, satan missiles, tsunamis).


don't buy it, if russians can see it on a radar it's not going to be much of a victory.


File: 1680534430657.jpg (367.69 KB, 1023x681, Russian_Air_Force_MiG-25.jpg)

>Russia makes advance in military technology
>holy shit bros it's over for AmeriKKKa
>US makes advance in military technology
>yeah nah I don't buy it



The improvement in accuracy meant that hundreds of missiles designated to destroy Russian missile silos could be retasked to softer targets, thereby significantly increasing the odds of success of a first strike. It came along with an uptick in belligerent political activity, so maybe the Russians got spooked. Understandable considering that a US think tank this week effectively advocated physical threats to the Iranian ruling class.


This defection is really powerful. Shows how evil the Empire of Russian Socialist Republics is.
Isn't there still going to be some kind of a retaliation strike with the ready for launch missiles? Not much of a victory destroying yourself in the process even if you manage to kill the enemy twice more.


We all remember when Vladimir Putin announced these wonder weapons in his March 2018 address to his nation [and the world]. The response from the US media was loud guffaws about ‘CGI’ cartoons and Russian ‘wishcasting.’ Well, neither Nato nor the Biden team are guffawing now. Like the five stages of grief, the initial denial phase has slowly given way to acceptance of reality—as Russia continues deploying already operational missiles, like the Avangard and the air-launched Kinzhal, now in Syria, as well as finishing up successful state trials of the Zircon, which is to be operationally deployed aboard surface ships and submarines, starting in early 2022. And in fact, there are a whole slew of new Russian hypersonic missiles in the pipeline, some of them much smaller and able to be carried by ordinary fighter jets, like the Gremlin aka GZUR.

The word hypersonic itself means a flight regime above the speed of Mach 5. That is simple enough, but it is not only about speed. More important is the ability to MANEUVER at those high speeds, in order to avoid being shot down by the opponent’s air defenses. A ballistic missile can go much faster—an ICBM flies at about 6 to 7 km/s, which is about 15,000 mph, about M 25 high in the atmosphere. [Mach number varies with temperature, so it is not an absolute measure of speed. The same 15,000 mph would only equal M 20 at sea level, where the temperature is higher and the speed of sound is also higher.]

But a ballistic missile flies on a straightforward trajectory, just like a bullet fired from a barrel of a gun—it cannot change direction at all, hence the word ballistic.

This means that ballistic missiles can, in theory, be tracked by radar and shot down with an interceptor missile. It should be noted here that even this is a very tough task, despite the straight-line ballistic trajectory. Such an interception has never been demonstrated in combat, not even with intermediate-range ballistic missiles [IRBMs], of the kind that the DPRK fired off numerous times, sailing above the heads of the US Pacific Fleet in the Sea of Japan, consisting of over a dozen Aegis-class Ballistic Missile Defense ships, designed specifically for the very purpose of shooting down IRBMs.

Such an interception would have been a historic demonstration of military technology—on the level of the shock and awe of Hiroshima! But no interception was ever attempted by those ‘ballistic missile defense’ ships, spectating as they were, right under the flight paths of the North Korean rockets!

The bottom line is that hitting even a straight-line ballistic missile has never been successfully demonstrated in actual practice. It is a very hard thing to do.

But Zircon is also a technological tour de force. The unique feature of the Zircon is its scramjet engine. This is the first time that the world has a production engine of this type—something which has long been a goal for both the US and Russia.

If you increase flight speed to M 2, the pressure rise at the engine face due to ram effect is seven-fold! At this speed, you don’t even need a compressor or turbines.

This is the idea of the ramjet engine—you need no moving parts, just an air inlet that is designed to slow down the airflow to below sonic velocity, turning kinetic energy into pressure energy. The combustion chamber is simply a pipe with fuel squirters, where that compressed air is burned with fuel, and then expelled through a nozzle, exactly as on the turbojet. In fact the afterburner on supersonic fighter jets works exactly like a ramjet engine—fuel is squirted in and combusts with air that was used for cooling the combustion chamber walls upstream [only a small amount of air is burned in a turbojet engine, with air to fuel ratios of over 50, compared to about 15 for a car engine.] An illustration of an afterburner shows the simple basic geometry.

So the speed limit comes because most of that ram pressure is not recoverable—it is simply dissipated into heat by the inlet shockwaves.

Enter the scramjet. Here, the flow is never actually slowed to below sonic velocity. That’s why it’s called a SCramjet, for supersonic combustion—the airflow through the combustion chamber is well above Mach 1, perhaps closer to Mach 2. By comparison, the flow in a turbojet enters the burner at just M 0.2, ten times slower—and in the afterburner and ramjet, it is about M 0.5.

This solves the speed limit issue of not having any more pressure energy available. But it comes with HUGE challenges. At a flight speed of M 6 or 7, the craft is moving at a speed of about 2,000 m/s. The main challenge is the flame front speed of combustion. Even if it took only one hundredth of a second to combust the air-fuel mixture, it would require a combustion chamber 20 meters long! That is hardly practical of course, but is in line with the flame propagation speed of aviation kerosene. That is why the afterburner jetpipes on supersonic aircraft are several meters long.

So we see that each type of airbreathing engine, turbojet, ramjet and scramjet, has its own speed limit, as shown graphically here. Even the scramjet will run into a wall at some point. The vertical measure is specific impulse [ISP], which is engine efficiency, per mass of fuel burned. We see that ISP decreases the faster we go, in any type of engine—it simply means that fuel use rises much faster than flight speed!

But back to the main challenge of the scramjet, which is flame speed. This is strictly a limit of the chemical physics of fuel combustion. Hydrogen burns ten times as fast as kerosene, but is not a practical fuel—it must be cooled to near absolute zero to be liquid, and so is not storable, and cannot be launched at will without time-consuming fueling. All of the previous scramjet experimental prototypes, both US and Russian, used cryogenic liquid hydrogen fuel. But the Zircon uses a kerosene-based fuel innovation that the Russians call Detsilin-M.

The exact means by which the Russians have achieved this fuel chemistry is of course a tightly held secret, but it is clearly a remarkable breakthrough in chemical engineering—comparable to the breakthrough in materials science that led to the closed-cycle, oxygen-rich staged combustion rocket engine in the 1960s [which the US still has not demonstrated].



>Isn't there still going to be some kind of a retaliation strike with the ready for launch missiles? Not much of a victory destroying yourself in the process even if you manage to kill the enemy twice more.
My thoughts exactly. They gamed it all out apparently. I'll post the link later, it seems persuasive but wtf do I know.



Interesting read, thanks


1) 2009 - it's nearly a decade & a half for tech to improve
2) There's only so much upgrading you can do for a Minuteman III missile that has 1/10th the payload capacity of even its Soviet contemporaries * still runs on big floppy discs.
As for accuracy, this is the accuracy that the USSR had back in the 80s, yet that still didn't mean MAD wasn't still assured. 10-100 meters Accuracy is meaningless in the face of a nuclear bomb. The important part is maneuverability of the payload & the number of dummy decoys against air defense.

North Korea lacks the amount of nukes to cause significant damage (in the grand scale) to any enemy, but even a single nuke has enormous consequences, thus the seething about Iran's possible nuclear capability by NATO shills for the past 3 decades.

>The implication is that super-fuzing and US threats spurred the russian development of hypersonics and all the other related wonderwaffen (mega subs, satan missiles, tsunamis).

Nah, the USSR had been developing these since the 80s at minimum, the only reason these haven't come out earlier is because of the 90s.

>The improvement in accuracy meant that hundreds of missiles designated to destroy Russian missile silos could be retasked to softer targets
That's the entire point of early warning, so that emergency launches are sent before those silos are taken out. Not to mention mobile ICBM launchers the USA lacks. Moreover Russian missiles can not only penetrate and destroy American missile silos, which are hardened to only 300 psi, but its own silos are hardened to 6000 psi. Making anything but an exact direct impact , all but useless. Especially since there's also the dead-hand launch system.


Hypersonic missiles are largely misunderstood, but most misunderstood of all, is the idea that speed doesn’t matter that much. It matters, A LOT. Intercepting missiles isn’t as easy as drawing a line and saying, at some point the missile will be here, so launch one of our missiles to hit it exactly there. Missile change trajectory, and hitting it requires intense accuracy, and when the missile is faster than the interceptor, there is zero correction possibility in the terminal phase.

Point defense, is the mode in which an anti air system defends it’s own location, it is the optimal mode of engagement for an anti aircraft missile. If 32 attempts in the optimal mode for an anti aircraft missile fails, it should tell you that in area defense mode (defending targets in an area away from the launcher against targets not coming at the launcher) the system will perform far worse.

Even if a Hypersonic missile "slows" down on attack (unconfirmed), it's still a matter of how much. Moreover for a ground attack munition this matters even less as the downward path ensures a high maintained speed and if the velocity is even just Mach 5, this is sufficient to essentially ignore SAMs and blow past them. This is discounting EW and decoy systems used on hypersonic missiles and their reduced signatures due to their construction and speed (plasma formation at hypersonic speeds can mask them from RADAR).


Patriot fail in Saudia Arabia


Not very patriotic then.


File: 1686407198373.png (426.66 KB, 755x756, ClipboardImage.png)



>10-100 meters Accuracy is meaningless in the face of a nuclear bomb.
did you read the link at >>2839 ?
my understanding of it is that level of accuracy is critical against a hardened missile silo. The point is that it allows fewer missiles to be assigned to silos and therefore allows them to be tasked to softer targets as part of an overwhelming first strike doctrine.


A hardened missile silo is a vague statement. How much PSI can it withstand is important - As I stated, American silos are typically around 300 PSI (i.e. able to withstand a midrange shockwave) while the silos in Russia are closer to 6000 PSI, able to withstand everything short of a direct impact. 100 meters is fucking meaningless, because even a 1 kiloton explosion will flatten and tear apart CBRN defended tanks within that radius (the Soviets tested this with the T-55, using 1000 tons worth of TnT to simulate a nuclear explosion) thus an American silo is good as dead and even if it isn't glassed outright, it'll be damaged beyond launch capability. Moreover a modern nuke on a cruise missile (taking into account the advancement of technology and generally the capabilities of a thermonuclear/hydrogen bomb compared to a standard A-bomb) can easily hit the megaton range. A hypersonic missile's kinetic force only increases this as the impact will bury it like a fougasse before detonation, increasing underground impact.

Detonating above a target is retarded because you're still hitting it with a shockwave in the 10-100 meter mark. Impacting through the ground has more likeliness to damage the internals of a silo (similar to how explosive force of an HE shell creates immense craters, pushing the earth aside) compared to an aerial explosion. This is especially silly, as the nuclear explosion of the Tsar Bomba demonstrated that an aerial explosion even 50 meters over the ground can cause the majority of the nuclear explosion to "bounce", essentially sending the worst of the explosion upwards through the force of the advancing shockwave being reflected by the ground. Meaning the silo is going to be hit with only the shockwave, which it is designed to survive by default, rather than the main explosive force of the warhead.



Yes, it's fucking rubbish and sounds more like American propaganda than anything actually legit. Nukes detonating above targets is nothing new, it's been fairly standard for decades at the very least.


>Nukes detonating above targets is nothing new, it's been fairly standard for decades at the very least.
again, the point of the article is that the improvement in accuracy is something new. fwiw the article is the limit of my knowledge on this, I posted it because it seemed serious and well sourced and relevant to the thread. It was posted on moonofalabama to support Russian claims of Western intransigence on technological advances that disturb the balance of power.


That's my point, they're crying about some improvement of accuracy, but really it's just a slightly new twist on an old as hell trick.

I don't disagree that the USA seeks to disturb the balance of power, but my point is that their idea is a failure in the making and they're deluding themselves by redressing old ideas with some new technology and a fancy name. The most alarming thing the article tells me about the missile capabilities is that the USA was negligent in its missile capability prior and just brought its SLBM warheads up to a better standard… which really changes little, in spite of Pentagon bluster. It's all the same rubbish as the Reagan era, trying to convince people that "in case of nukes the USA is stronger!" even though it's a pyrrhic victory at best, and an outright lie at worst, especially given the drop in nuclear stocks of the USA since the 90s.


>especially given the drop in nuclear stocks of the USA since the 90s.
anon, I…
how many they have now? I know they just poomped out a ton yeah


File: 1686680068686.png (976.93 KB, 1200x848, ClipboardImage.png)

Compared to the stocks during the peak of the Cold War, the US "increase" of nukes is fucking nothing. A couple hundred warheads more isn't going to make much of a difference if you lack the missiles to launch them.
There are 14 active SSBN submarines in the USN, Each Trident II is capable of carrying up to 12 warheads. The Submarines has 24 tubes, but as part of the New START treaty, four tubes on each SSBN were deactivated in 2017, reducing the number of missiles to 20 per boat. Thus at full launch capability currently, assuming maximum warheads, the SLBM launch capability is 3,360 nuclear warheads in the less than 0.5 Megaton range (475Kt to be exact). Realistically THIS is the entire actual Nuclear payload capable to reaching Russia as the Trident II is the only missile of the US military with comparable nuclear capabilities to modern Russian ones. The Minuteman missiles are a joke and the idea of bombers being launched is laughable as they lack proper cruise missile capability (unlike Tu-160s and Tu-22Ms) and the stealth aspect of a B2 is going to matter very little in a nuclear conflict, which is why the USSR never focused on stealth but on countering it (such as the MiG-1.22 and it's enormous RADAR arrays).

Comparably Russia has a similar throw weight, mostly because it has constrained itself to the START treaties. They have also focused on making missiles with increased breakthrough capability, reducing warhead throw for the ability to evade ABM systems like THAAD.
SLBM systems in Russia are currently reduced after the retirement of the only remaining Akula submarine, so right now the throw weight as dropped. But as of that article (2017) the warhead number available was 1035 warheads.
Land based systems for Russia carry 1191 warheads ready to launch. Out of those 603 warheads are launched by mobile systems, so over half of the active nuclear ICBM warheads in Russia are not static and the US military lacks the capability to keep track of all their whereabouts accurately. That "increase in accuracy" isn't going to be much use if you don't know what the coordinates are to begin with, and you can't just nuke the entire landmass. Even if you took every single nuclear warhead in the US stockpile (including those not actually ready to fire) and hit China for example, then you're only going to destroy like 1-2% of the landmass at best.
According to Russian MoD the launch readiness at any one time is 1735 warheads. So half the active nuclear warheads in Russia. The USA in the meantime, according to New START data, has 1,365 active warheads ready for launch. Ergo equivalency.

This equivalence is immediately upset by one thing, China. The majority of US nuclear attacks will have to cross China, or go by it, China will immediately activate its nuclear launches as this would appear an attack on it, and the US likely would attempt to nuke it. Thus putting in jeopardy any semblance of a survivable nuclear conflict. Thus MAD is assured, again, making any ideas about accuracy a futile play.


Similarly on topic
The X-59 QueSST being designed by NASA is attempting to make supersonic flight with less sonic boom and optimized aerodynamics. An admirable progression although it reminds me of the Douglas X-3 Stiletto and the Republic F-104 Starfighter, which sacrificed maneuverability for pure speed. Although the wing structure is closer to the CL-1200 Lancer project.



<“Right now, we’re helpless,” Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in advocating for more investment in hypersonics, along with missile defense.
<But in congressional testimony last week, Hyten conceded U.S. missile defense cannot stop hypersonics. He said that the U.S. is instead relying on nuclear deterrence, or the threat of a retaliatory U.S. strike, as its defense against such missiles.


Lockheed-Martin is working on the NGI as a counter to new ballistic missiles, probably a result of the Kinzhal and Iskander missile systems demonstrating how useless the Patriot and other current Western SAM systems are.



File: 1698546692394.png (1008.5 KB, 1024x576, ClipboardImage.png)

The Kinzhal hypersonic missile has gotten in-air correction capability, which will greatly increase the targeting capabilities of those missiles, and make them an even greater threat.


So just as a reference as to why I stated these new warheads, even if significantly more effective than prior ones (they're not, it's old as fuck technology already long implimented).
US groundbased ICBMs are outdated as fuck, running on big floppy discs and poorly maintained. Only SLBMs (Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles) like the Trident II are any real threat.
July 2022 as an example - a complete launch failure: https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/american-icbm-strategic-capabilities-issues


File: 1698560681207.png (556.29 KB, 731x608, ClipboardImage.png)

The DPRK having hypersonic missiles is honestly an impressive capability feat, considering that the US military has yet to field a functioning hypersonic missile, with its prototypes only recently not failing outright… the sanctioned North Koreans advanced an immensely hard rocket science before the United States military industrial complex!


>Yeah, which is the reason they have multiple methods of detection pegboard too, from aircraft, ships & satellites feeding them data
The plasma blackout that >>2817 is talking about also prevents the missile from receiving incoming communications


>the US military has yet to field a functioning hypersonic missile
>what is the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon


The weapon is in testing phase with only 2 successful launches so far. It isn't currently fielded by the military, and isn't combat ready at all.


I somehow forgot that the LRHW is the only hypersonic weapon that the U.S. has made. Enjoy

>Here from 1968: A BGRV was launched on February 26, 1968, from Vandenberg Air Force Base by an Atlas F to the area of Wake Island in the Pacific, collecting data that proved valuable in developing later maneuvering reentry vehicles.

Link: https://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/B/BGRV.html

>HyFly Mach 6 Scramjet Missile Test

Link: https://thefutureofthings.com/5667-hyfly-mach-6-scramjet-missile-test/

>HIFIRE/HyCAUSE Scramjet Mach-8+ success with Australia/USA collaboration 2017

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKipc5LpCU

>Advancing Hypersonics –Aerojet Rocketdyne’s Scramjet Engine Makes Hypersonics History

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YJyBf8x83Q

>Hypersonic missile successfully hits Ronald Reagan

MACH8 Link: https://www.theregister.com/Print/2011/11/18/hypersonic_weapon_pacific_test/

>In November 2011, AHW was launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Kauai, Hawaii, to the Reagan Test Site on the Marshall Islands. The glide vehicle successfully hit the target, which is located about 3,700km away from the launch site.

Link: https://www.army-technology.com/projects/advanced-hypersonic-weapon-ahw/

>Department of Defense Tests Hypersonic Glide Body March 2020

Link: https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2119458/department-of-defense-tests-hypersonic-glide-body/
Short vid in this link: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/35369/army-shows-first-ever-footage-of-new-hypersonic-missile-in-flight-and-impacting









File: 1699220134944.png (176.05 KB, 320x240, ClipboardImage.png)

Checked and thanks for all the interesting links. I would suggest saving and uploading the videos as mp4s or webms in case they get deleted from Youtube.


Sorta related
A rocket-propelled (intendedly) hypersonic, guided APFSDS that failed in everything but Warthunder.


>1) ICBMs can absolutely be defeated by at least 2 countries, China & Russia.
Russia has like a 50% intercept rate for subsonic cruise missiles and single digit for low altitude cardboard drones.


Oh look the /k/ope shitter is back and with retarded takes comparing drones and low-flying cruise missiles with ICBMs. LMAO

Neither of these claims is true. Going by the most recent cruise missile strike attempt by Ukraine, Russia intercepted 85% of the "stealth" Storm Shadow missiles even though a large number of HARM and MALD decoys were used and none of them were able to hit the actual target, the shipyard and instead hit a ship in a dry dock, with the damage being relatively minimal.
Also cardboard drones are not a thing in the war you mong, and if you're referring to the small FPV drones, then that's still untrue, since most of them are taken down with suppression systems or shot down. Only a few get through because their RADAR profiles are almost nonexistant. The Bayraktars are all but eliminated, even most tactical ballistic missiles like Tochka-U and ATACMs are being shot down and the latter only had an impact because of the usage of cluster munitions, which means tha they spread after being shot down.

And it should be noted that not a single instance of Iskanders or other such ballistic missile systems have been shot down by the analog to the S-400 and S-300 system - the Patriot or the IRIS T or any other SAM system sent to Ukraine and historically the Patriot has had an almost 100% FAILURE rate against old tactical ballistic missiles like the Scud.


>Russia intercepted 85% of the "stealth" Storm Shadow missiles even though a large number of HARM and MALD decoys were used and none of them were able to hit the actual target, the shipyard and instead hit a ship in a dry dock, with the damage being relatively minimal


If you're genuine in asking for proofs, don't s*ge please.

The proofs are in the reports of the actual attack and the video footage which demonstrates 2 impacts, with some debris*. 2 impacts out of 15 launched SCALP missiles and numerous MALD and HARM missiles deployed in a mass attack. That's 13% success rate for the Storm Shadows, which is a 87% kill score for Russian air defense. The actual target was the shipyard itself, as that would a critical hit indeed, limiting repair facilities and production facilities of the Russian Navy.

*The impacts are not full on hits, had the cruise missile actually directly hit the Corvette the damage would have been significantly higher, the 2 missiles that hit were likely clipped by SAMs but were still flight capable enough to roughly reach target coordinates.

The damage looks bad visually, but if you've ever seen footage of WW2 destroyers in Dry Dock, you'll see that this is essentially surface damage, not a write-off of the ship. It was essentially nil. The repairs of the Askold will be pricey, at least several million dollars to replace the damaged RADAR array, siding and burnt sections, but considering that each Storm-Shadow is priced at 3 million dollars each, the ADM-160B MALD is 120,000 dollars each and that AGM-88 HARM missiles are 284,000 to 847,000 dollars each + fuel expenses for putting that many Su-24s and MiG-29s into the air (the Su-24 can only carry 4 Storm Shadows at a time, so that's a minimum of 4 Su-24s + escort and decoy launches) means the combined cost for the entire operation is going to be roughly the same as the cost of repair for the ship, making it a pyrrhic victory for Ukraine at the very least.

Ukrainian telegram channels actually claimed 18 Storm Shadows were launched and 3 hit the ship, but the Russian MoD stated otherwise and someone anonymously released footage before that where only 2 impacts are seen.



>Ukrainian telegram channels actually claimed 18 Storm Shadows were launched and 3 hit the ship

>Su-24 can only carry 4 Storm Shadows at a time,

Never seen them carrying more than two.


NTA but
>Never seen them carrying more than two.
Which is only proving the point, they're very large missile and require a lot of launch platforms to carry, which in turn creates larger fuel and prep expenditures.
Ukrainian Telegram channels claimed this, although the official airforce of Ukraine later stated it was 15, the post you're replying to links the latter


>Ukrainian Telegram channels claimed this, although the official airforce of Ukraine later stated it was 15, the post you're replying to links the latter
No, it doesn't. Links two Russian sources that contradict each other.


File: 1702948552472.jpg (247.31 KB, 1600x900, Lander_1600x900_1-17-1.jpg)


File: 1710975876457.png (2.2 MB, 1236x1409, ClipboardImage.png)

The USA is testing for a 5th time its first supposedly hypersonic missile - AGM-183 ARRW
How well that's going is anyone's guess but I suppose after decades of failure they'd eventually create something.


Wouldn't there be a risk for such a thing to be mistaken for a nuke on early warning radars? If so, that's a fucking stupid idea. Imagine triggering MAD for sending a bunch of ammo crates to the other side of the globe.


wait are hypersonic missiles not even explosive?


They usually are (though some designs are kinetic penetrators). I think your confusion is from the warhead glide vehicle looking like that.

My thoughts exactly.


It says 'force equivalent to a powerful bomb' which makes me think it's not explosive


Maybe. Like I said, some designs use kinetic force, but I know that hypersonic missiles like the Kinzhal and Zirkon have explosive warheads, and obviously ICBMs with nuclear hypersonic warheads have atomic explosives.


This is cope. It is impossible to stop a nuclear warhead once fired, because not only do you have to hit tens of thousands of decoys mixed in with legitimate warheads coming in at speeds way faster than hypersonic missiles.

Subs are also still the king of nuclear war, giving people little to no warning before the initial strike.

The USA lags behind on hypersonics because if war breaks out vs another nuclear superpower, it's just nuclear war at that point. There's no reason to bullshit around with speedy warheads with conventional payloads

Hypersonics are a fucking meme unless you're fighting an asymmetrical war against a target unwilling to open pandora's nuke box.


File: 1711896872692.png (714.04 KB, 3343x2959, ClipboardImage.png)

In similar news the Talon TA-1 had its first successful test earlier this March and the Talon TA-2 is coming next, intended to be a multi-use hypersonic vehicle and the TA-3 is already supposedly in development. The launch-platform is the Stratolaunch Roc, the company is the same one involved in the private space venture SpaceShipOne over a decade back.

On a tangent, Russia confirmed the use of Zircon missiles on Ukraine.


File: 1712449176064.png (540.17 KB, 515x737, ClipboardImage.png)


>it's impossible to build larger rockets with high TWR
imagine trying to push this nonsense when Kerbal Space Program exists to teach people that yes, high TWR is possible. in fact the moar boosters meme comes about from the need to strap boosters to big ships, said boosters also being heavy but having a high TWR
ICBMs are optimized for range. if you don't need range you can sacrifice specific impulse (~efficiency) for thrust
>Was it Russia's windiest day?
If he thinks there was some jump with the flag that lines up with the rocket…does he not know what a shockwave is?

The sad part is, someone ignorant will think this is correct. The point about ICBM's as someone else posted is that they're meant for long-distance (and even then Soviet ballistic missiles still launch with relatively high TWR). The A235 which is the replacement/upgrade of the Soviet A135, and is an ICBM INTERCEPTOR. It's meant to hit the hypersonic Ballistic missile warheads in space, high TWR is not only possible, but absolutely necessary given the minimum response time it has.


File: 1713545422002.png (321.69 KB, 678x381, ClipboardImage.png)

The USA has presented a new 'hypersonic missile' to take out air-defense. Despite the grand-claims, the failures of missile tests so far make me think it's nothing more than a demonstrative model and not a functional missile, let alone combat ready. At least the name is cool, 'Mako'.


When people said Iran landed hypersonic missiles on Israel through the most sophisticated air defense systems in the world (costing NATO+ almost $2B) this is a misnomer. Iran did not fire their new hypersonic glide weapons or anything. They launched ballistic missiles which reach hypersonic speeds at the end of their flight path, amidst a swarm of inexpensive drones serving as chaff.
Hypersonic glide weapons are a whole different beast. I don't know if any have been used in the field. Can any Ukraineheads comment if they haven't abandoned the site yet? It's literally like a weird plane drone thing which drops the missile or MIRV in the last stage.


I don't know who claimed they were hypersonic, the Iranians didn't. The missiles are definitely fast, but they rely on small, hypersonic warheads as you said, not a hypersonic rocket.


File: 1714264161681.png (1.6 MB, 761x1200, ClipboardImage.png)

The funniest thing about this missile is that by making it an external mount for the F-35 (because it's probably too large for internal mounting, or if not, will only fit one such missile) it completely negates the F-35's stealth, because of just how much pylons fuck with that.


Why would it be any harder for a faster missile to correct course? It still takes 1 second for it to travel the distance it travels in 1 second. If anything it means you can make smaller adjustments because the extra distance you are moving per second will magnify how much that changes your final destination. Potentially it would be harder to calculate corrections on the fly, but given the payload these things carry that shouldn't be that big of a deal.


Checked for another F-35 'L' moment

>Says this
>Posts a MiG-25 and Belenko's defection
What did he mean by this?


>This is cope. It is impossible to stop a nuclear warhead once fired, because not only do you have to hit tens of thousands of decoys
Don't exaggerate, at most a couple thousand, see >>3401
>Hypersonics are a fucking meme unless you're fighting an asymmetrical war against a target unwilling to open pandora's nuke box.
Its a weapon that both helps guarantee MAD in terms of a retaliatory strike and as a conventional missile capable of hitting well defended targets.

NTA but
>The plasma blackout that >>2817 is talking about also prevents the missile from receiving incoming communications
Is incorrect. Plasma makes it HARDER to receive or send signals but not impossible. Furthermore, the plasma effect also masks the missile from RADAR, meaning that the missile will be hard to target, let alone actually intercept, as demonstrated when Patriot missiles failed to shoot down Kinzhal's and got taken out by them.


File: 1714702227232.png (318.53 KB, 640x663, ClipboardImage.png)

China has demonstrated its Aero-Ballistic hypersonic missile. It is obviously a copy of the Russian Kinzhal.


Unique IPs: 38

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]