Unstoppable - Russian next gen stealth hypersonic ramjet/scramjet cruise/anti-ship missiles.

page: 12
5
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 08:54 AM
link   
While sometimes the Russians have made some cool things I think we can all agree that they have allot of catch up to do. Even you Steller with your over quoting self. Russia is having a hard time feeding its army and most of their troops don't even get socks. They build all these great weapons with their wonderfully claims of being unstoppable with not one shred of proof. The Russians can build some great rockets and I will give them that, This is something we know that they are good at. The question needs to be will any Russians be alive to pull the trigger in a real war situation. I think as of now one can only say that their nuclear ICBM arsenal is one that they can rely on. Their Navy and air force is just to far behind right now to say otherwise. This is my opinion and the opinion of most of the intelligent world so I wont sit here and argue the point. So lets have some more of the fantasy land Plasma stealth type BS claims and over quotes from Steller and the other Soviet lovers who are not even Russian.




posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sky watcher
While sometimes the Russians have made some cool things I think we can all agree that they have allot of catch up to do.


I really don't mind convention as long as it's not obviously false. The Russians have in fact do more than just make 'some cool things' and while in many respects i believe the US could have or in fact were first in the REAL world the USSR gained the strategic upper hand around the late 70's. Do i believe that was a given or that the US did not have the capacity to compete or win the cold war outright , well no, i don't. All i do is report on what apparently happened and that most certainly involves a great deal of traitors and foreign agents in the US defense establishment.


Even you Steller with your over quoting self. Russia is having a hard time feeding its army and most of their troops don't even get socks.


It's not having a hard time feeding it's army and for the vast majority of the last nearly 60 years that's just not been the case. As to having socks and shoes as far as i know that's not a problem but the absence of such means did not help the Union much in the civil war. As i stands i don't believe the Russian federation will need to do much more than employ it's strategic weaponry ( from bunkers where socks and shoes are not required) to 'win' a war with the US.


They build all these great weapons with their wonderfully claims of being unstoppable with not one shred of proof.


And the US keeps 'proving' their weaponry against third world nations that rarely if ever had a credible chance for basic survival. The difference is that the USSR and later RF have always designed it's weapons for a WORLD war where design intent and functions are in many ways radically different. What seems like a perfectly good weapon against pajama clad peasants in Vietnam might not be very useful in the aftermath of the tactical and strategic employing of chemical and Nuclear weaponry. Do not confuse a global police force with a a force designed to fight and win a third world war.


The Russians can build some great rockets and I will give them that, This is something we know that they are good at.


They are no better at it than the American defense establishment but early US rocket development were hampered by US political decisions that thus allowed the USSR a early lead ( which they quickly lost before retaining it in the mid 70's ) in the space race. You seem to have a quite shallow idea of just how great a effect political decision making has on what abilities a armed force will be allowed to muster.


The question needs to be will any Russians be alive to pull the trigger in a real war situation. I think as of now one can only say that their nuclear ICBM arsenal is one that they can rely on.


If a nuclear war would happened after the expected prolonged build up the US population may suffer many tens of millions of casualties in the short run and many more in the long run. It's not that the majority of such casualties can not be prevented ( as they will be in the RF) but that the US political decision makers have decided that their population is entirely expendable while the Russian policy makers have apparently decided that they are not willing to concede losing more than a few percent of their population base.


Their Navy and air force is just to far behind right now to say otherwise.


I would have tended towards a general agreement ( i don't think the RF requires a massive navy or air force anymore ) but planeman once did a interesting analysis where he attempted to compare firepower and the like and it showed the Russian navy were by no means as impotent as some believe it to be. Be that as it may i don't believe the third world war will be decided on the oceans or in the skies given all the other options now available to both sides.


This is my opinion and the opinion of most of the intelligent world so I wont sit here and argue the point.


Sorry.
I don't intend to 'upset' you in having this relatively different view of the world.....


So lets have some more of the fantasy land Plasma stealth type BS claims and over quotes from Steller and the other Soviet lovers who are not even Russian.


At least you have by now decided to believe me when i say i am not Russian. Now we just need to work on why plasma stealth is not entirely BS and how i have no love for either the former SU or the current gangland style free market/racketeering going in that country. If i had to choose which system to attempt fixing it would most certainly be the American one but i fear the opportunity might be lost on us all if the idea of a prostrate Russia keeps on being so widely propagated. The RF is a far greater threat to the US today than it was twenty years ago and when that knowledge begins to sink in ( hopefully sooner rather than later) i think people might find it quite easy to explain many of the calamities that have recently befallen the US.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


A force designed to win a 3rd world war? How do Russian logistics hold up to American logistic standards and being able to support massive amounts of troops and machinery? That's what it takes to run a war machine (especially in a world conflict).

Where do you see a 3rd world war being decided?

If you mean winning a world war by defensive means and surviving through it than I agree that Russia could be very successful in this approach. I doubt Russia would fair very well in an offensive situation unless you are talking nuclear options.

I'm very impressed with Russian missile tech at the moment. They are currently keeping up with and surpassing USA missile defense systems. The question is can they continue producing missile technology that will in the future surpass railgun and laser tech being developed as we speak by the US. Where is the plateau of missile tech?


[edit on 16-3-2008 by Bugman82]

[edit on 16-3-2008 by Bugman82]



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Bugman82
 



What do you think about the advances in Railgun technology Iskander? Do you believe it has the possibility of ever being a threat to missiles such as these? I believe its projectile can be fired well beyond hypersonic speeds.


Bugman82, honestly, this is high school math. Just do the numbers. A kinetic intercept of a maneuvering hypersonic target is simply not happening.

Interception of ballistic targets on a basic trajectory is not a big deal, but that ended in the mid 60s.

Since then targets maneuver violently, and are programmed to perform deceptive/defensive maneuvers which simply render kinetic intercepts useless.

Only direct energy weapons can deal with such threats, and they are decades from reaching the power levels needed for effective application.

While currently it’s possible to engage the very basic targets like mines, mortar shells and obsolete liquid fuel rockets, modern threat are out their reach.



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   
If the Russians say they can do this any that wothour any actual proof, then it must be true. No one here knows what will work and what won't. What one side is really developing.
So basically Iskander and Stellar really are just playing guessing games, which they shouldn't be passing off as some informed opinion, it simply isn't.

And Stellar silly notion of Russia building it's forces to survive nuclear wihih they will initiate with the US is ridiculous. Everyone loses.



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1 Everyone loses.


That is fiction...

Nuclear war IS surfivealble.

Iff you have enough ABM systems and as diverse as possible, then you will be able to deflect and destroy every Nuclear weapon that has been fired on to you.

An example off diversifieng the ABM systems is that Russia is now developing and constructing rotary launchers off the S-400 system onboard modernised IL-76 aircraft and Navalizing the same system to counter Ageis.

And with the rise off Russia`s plasma weaponary, they will also have a system that almost mimics the Iron Curtain in the video game RED ALERT.

Here a youtube film about what Plasma weapons can do:

And watch the last bit: plasma weapons destroying ATGM rounds comming out off a SPA

nl.youtube.com...


Nuclear war IS surviveable and the ones that are gonna survive are the Russians.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   

If the Russians say they can do this any that wothour any actual proof, then it must be true.


READ THE SOURCES!

I’m simply SICK of this.


So basically Iskander and Stellar really are just playing guessing games, which they shouldn't be passing off as some informed opinion, it simply isn't.


GO READ THE SOURCES!!!

What is your major malfunction?!!

This is ATS, where ignorance is NOT bliss.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Had to do a little bit of my high school math as Iskander pointed out......however it is not easy on forums to use mathematics, and eventually when the mathematics gets more and more complicated in nature you get to a point where nothing can be proved. There are serious scientific philosophical flaws as you move towards the more fundamental mathematical ideas. Anyways.......

This Russian site claims the Sunburn can perform evasive maneuvers at "exceeding" 10 g. I doubt any "hypersonic" anti-ship missile can perform any better in this regard.

www.testpilot.ru...

As far as RAM is concerned the sidewinder missile that it is built around can turn at 50 g.

www.novia.net...

Ok, taking into account the 5 to 1 ratio as far as maneuverability goes the hypersonic activity of a missile is possibly nullified to a large extent. Especially when one considers the fact that both missiles will be approaching one another at possibly more than mach 8. The difference between a hypersonic and supersonic approach becomes very slim at these speeds and ranges.

The US navy has reported successful very successful kill ratios against supersonic missiles with terminal-maneuverability, a greater than 95% kill rate.

findarticles.com...

Actually it was used against supersonic Vandal target missiles (Mach 2.5) and can operate at 8g.
navysite.de...

Iskander, your idea that Sea Ram would fail against a hypersonic target is pure speculation. The reaction times between a supersonic intercept and hypersonic intercept would be below a 10 second difference in all actuality. It's pure speculation from both sides actually. You say, "do your high school math" throughout this thread.....well, the numbers show that Sea Ram is extremely effective in all areas.

You truly don't know the answer to the situation. I don't either. All we know is that in its current form Sea Ram is EXTREMELY effective against supersonic maneuverable missiles.

....predicts he will be thoroughly degraded and slapped on the wrist for speaking such nonsense.

Oh, and Iskander you can degrade and call people stupid (in a slightly less obvious way) as often as you like, but it makes conversations with you far less appealing. It makes people defensive and you're attacking people's intelligence in a forum format (which isn't all that easy of a way to communicate). The least you can do is show people who are "trying" to do research and present ideas with respect because honestly 80%+ of this stuff is speculation.

Another question.........why does this site define hypersonic as mach 3.5-7? Is there some speculation as to the use of this term?
www.global-defence.com...

Is hypersonic relative in some way?

[edit on 17-3-2008 by Bugman82]



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Bugman82
 



ingone


Why? I've watched the video, and what they say is true.

Way before HAARP, Soviets ran all of the tests on their own array back in the 60s, under the project called “Woodpecker”.
It was a pat of the total commitment “Dead Hand” initiative.

It’s actually perfectly relevant to this topic.

edit:exit bracket


[edit on 17-3-2008 by iskander]



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Bugman82
 



Had to do a little bit of my high school math as Iskander pointed out......however it is not easy on forums to use mathematics, and eventually when the mathematics gets more and more complicated in nature you get to a point where nothing can be proved. There are serious scientific philosophical flaws as you move towards the more fundamental mathematical ideas. Anyways.......


What do you mean nothing can be proved? There are no questions about “serious scientific philosophical flaws” and “fundamental mathematical ideas”, it’s basic math and physics.


This Russian site claims the Sunburn can perform evasive maneuvers at "exceeding" 10 g. I doubt any "hypersonic" anti-ship missile can perform any better in this regard.


Kh-41 is a supersonic weapon which is obsolete by Russian standards, thus they are openly marketing it for export and even setting up their manufacture abroad under license.

As to your doubts, I hope you understand that by gong faster, the g-load decreases while providing a greater course deviation.
In turn, a slower chase craft will have to pull more Gs and bleed more energy to increase the lead required for the intercept.
With air-to-air missiles it’s called F-pole, and as with numerous MiG-25 encounters, just by having sheer speed, a low G tolerance Foxbat was able to repeatedly outrunning all kinds of missiles with out having to perform violent maneuvers.


As far as RAM is concerned the sidewinder missile that it is built around can turn at 50 g.


Yep, and will immediately bleed al of its energy.

Ok, taking into account the 5 to 1 ratio as far as maneuverability goes the hypersonic activity of a missile is possibly nullified to a large extent. Especially when one considers the fact that both missiles will be approaching one another at possibly more than mach 8. The difference between a hypersonic and supersonic approach becomes very slim at these speeds and ranges.


Sorry, all wrong. The approach is not head on, and given the reaction time (calculate that one and see what it actually is), SeaRam simply does not have the energy needed.

The US navy has reported successful very successful kill ratios against supersonic missiles with terminal-maneuverability, a greater than 95% kill rate.


Supersonic, not Hypersonic, and this entire thread is about Hypersonic threat.

Iskander, your idea that Sea Ram would fail against a hypersonic target is pure speculation.


Please elaborate on that. SeaRAM was never tested against hypersonic targets, nowhere in its tech sheets is it even hinted that it has hypersonic threat interception capability, so by default it’s not a speculation on my part, it’s a logical deduction supported by NUMBERS.


The reaction times between a supersonic intercept and hypersonic intercept would be below a 10 second difference in all actuality. It's pure speculation from both sides actually. You say, "do your high school math" throughout this thread.....well, the numbers show that Sea Ram is extremely effective in all areas.

Not at all actually.
Subsonic targets like Tomahawk are engaged and intercepted out to 4 nautical miles. Guns engage out to 2 miles.
The biggest challenge is the detection of low flying threats, short reaction time for its interception, and the zone of detection is determined by the radio horizon.
Average detection zone is about 30 kilometers. With the novel speed of 1 kilometer per second, the total system reaction time is only 30 seconds, which includes target detection, establishing of radar lock/target tracking, and deployment of the weapon systems to destroy the target.
A hypersonic target traveling at a minimum speed of Mach 5 will cover those 30 kilometers in less then 1 second. To be exact with that high school math, at Mach 5 that missile covers 45 kilometers per second.

You truly don't know the answer to the situation. I don't either. All we know is that in its current form Sea Ram is EXTREMELY effective against supersonic maneuverable missiles.

....predicts he will be thoroughly degraded and slapped on the wrist for speaking such nonsense.


Well, I just laid it all out, yet again, so unless you can explain how a SeaRam can simply be launched towards a Mach 5 target in less then a second, with out all that detection, tracking, calculation of the firing solution, and engagement/locking on of the SeaRams Stinger IR tracker, I’ll firmly reaffirm that the interception of a hypersonic cruise missile with the means currently available is a PHYSICAL impossibility.
And it has nothing to do with degrading or wrist slapping, just the good old ATS Deny Ignorance stand.


Oh, and Iskander you can degrade and call people stupid (in a slightly less obvious way) as often as you like, but it makes conversations with you far less appealing. It makes people defensive and you're attacking people's intelligence in a forum format (which isn't all that easy of a way to communicate). The least you can do is show people who are "trying" to do research and present ideas with respect because honestly 80%+ of this stuff is speculation.


I don’t call people stupid, lazy and closed mined, yes, stupid, no, simply because it lead to nowhere.
If that comes across to you as degrading, I’m sorry, during my education days teachers were actually encouraged to educate their students, and they sure as hell did not tolerate the nonsense which is poisoning our kids these days.

Rule number one is that knowledge and the search for it is not an attack upon any given individuals intelligence or the lack there of. It’s simply a process, and if some find it to harsh for their inner egos, then they should watch Fox news and feel all cozy while they are spoon fed the type of crap that makes them feel all safe and confident inside.
As for 80% of speculation, the only way I can respond to that is in the same manner I usually do, please feel free to go through the resources which were provided in this thread over and over again, because the information they contain is not speculation, but cold hard fact.


Another question.........why does this site define hypersonic as mach 3.5-7? Is there some speculation as to the use of this term?



I don’t know, and as much as I hate wiki, here’s a quick table of speed definitions;


In aerodynamics, hypersonic speeds are speeds that are highly supersonic. In the 1970s, the term generally came to refer to speeds of Mach 5 (5 times the speed of sound) and above. The hypersonic regime is a subset of the supersonic regime.



High speed flight can be roughly classified in five categories:
• Subsonic: Ma < 1
• Sonic: Ma=1
• Transonic: 0.75 < Ma < 1.2
• Supersonic: Ma > all airflow above mach 1. Plane must be above mach 1.2
• Hypersonic: Ma > 5


en.wikipedia.org...


Is hypersonic relative in some way?


Just as the title of this entire thread. As it stands, hypersonic missiles are unstoppable by conventional means.

They had them since the 80s while we’re just getting into supersonic, and having to literally pay the Russians for their hypersonic test data, so we can get our own projects of the ground.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Average detection zone is about 30 kilometers. With the novel speed of 1 kilometer per second, the total system reaction time is only 30 seconds, which includes target detection, establishing of radar lock/target tracking, and deployment of the weapon systems to destroy the target.
A hypersonic target traveling at a minimum speed of Mach 5 will cover those 30 kilometers in less then 1 second.




Actually, at mach 5 a missile would be moving at approximately 1.7km per second.

6150 km/h
102 km/m
1.7 km/s

At mach 2.5 (which the SeaRam system has a 95% success rate against)

3075 km/h
51.25 km/m
0.85 km/s

So for 30km, 35.2 seconds for the missile to arrive at the mach 2.5 mark. 17.6 seconds for the missile to arrive at the hypersonic mach 5 speed. Sorry, had to point out the obvious mistake of you saying that a mach 5 missile would move 45km per second. That's why math sucks so much in a forum setting. You're trying to calculate quickly and so forth and the numbers are fumbled easily. It messes up the entire flow of everything.

Also, it is extremely important to point out the fact that SeaRam does stand up to all current anti-ship threats. It has a proven effectiveness of greater than 95% against supersonic missiles that fly in the range of mach 2.5. So, the real question is when will these unstoppable hypersonic missiles be deployed? Will they be so unstoppable when that day comes? (I have a feeling it will be a while.........)


edit: trying to figure out to post quotes in an edit


[edit on 18-3-2008 by Bugman82]



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 12:02 AM
link   


With air-to-air missiles it’s called F-pole, and as with numerous MiG-25 encounters, just by having sheer speed, a low G tolerance Foxbat was able to repeatedly outrunning all kinds of missiles with out having to perform violent maneuvers.


Actually, F-pole is defined as the distance between a shooter and target when a missile timeouts (usually at impact). Not sure where you got your definition from.



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
If the Russians say they can do this any that wothour any actual proof, then it must be true. No one here knows what will work and what won't. What one side is really developing.
So basically Iskander and Stellar really are just playing guessing games, which they shouldn't be passing off as some informed opinion, it simply isn't.

And Stellar silly notion of Russia building it's forces to survive nuclear wihih they will initiate with the US is ridiculous. Everyone loses.
You should read from page 1 of this thread, and you'll see Stellar posted the U.S. admitting Russia preety much has those weapons, Lasers, Direct Engery Stuff.



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Bugman82
 



Sorry, had to point out the obvious mistake of you saying that a mach 5 missile would move 45km per second. That's why math sucks so much in a forum setting. You're trying to calculate quickly and so forth and the numbers are fumbled easily. It messes up the entire flow of everything.


Hey, I can only say thanks for catching that one, and I’m sure is sick and tired of keep having to convert from metric to imperial and back, not to mention that I’ve been repeating all of it in this thread over and over again.

To cover 45km/s it’ll have to be going around Mach 130, which is obviously out of the question.

I got sloppy, instead of Sunburn I ran a quick conversion on GLL Igla which covers about 4.5 km/s at Mach 13 and missed the decimal point. Going flat out at just over Mach 14, Igla covers around 4.7 km/s which allows for only 6 seconds of total reaction and interception time from 30ks, thus leaving the SeaRam out of the loop any case, and less then a second reaction time is for the Phalanx when the missiles reach their terminal attack phase point.

I just bundled everything together I a nice big mess. It happens.


Also, it is extremely important to point out the fact that SeaRam does stand up to all current anti-ship threats. It has a proven effectiveness of greater than 95% against supersonic missiles that fly in the range of mach 2.5.


Which missiles? Do you recall the purchase of Russian Kh-31s?
Not against “smart” maneuvering AShMs such as SS-N-19 Shipwreck/Granit, SS -X- N - 26 Yakhont, Moskit, Brahmos, Sunburn, 91RE2, etc.
It’s all about electronics suit and ability to perform “complex tactical maneuvers”, so a simple stinger IR seeker in a sidewinder body is far from being capable of defeating targets that even most of the advances air-to-air missiles can barely touch.

The Yakhont designers assume that at a distance of 300 km the enemy may detect a missile launching and do whatever necessary to destroy the missile. But being "deaf" to jamming a Yakhont missile, flying at a speed of 750 meters per second and performing complex tactical maneuvering during the flight, will reach its target anyway. No navy in the world has effective means against the Russian missile.

kursk.strana.ru...

[qupte]So, the real question is when will these unstoppable hypersonic missiles be deployed? Will they be so unstoppable when that day comes? (I have a feeling it will be a while.........)

I’ve posted the pictures on the first page.

Maneuvering hypersonic warheads have been officially in service for years, while hypersonic cruise/AShMs are still a touchy political subject, and while they officially existed since the 80s, to this day they are not on the military “books”.

When it comes to the private sector though, the very GLL Igla is a perfect example, look into it. It carries a payload, so, there you go.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 09:47 PM
link   


while hypersonic cruise/AShMs are still a touchy political subject, and while they officially existed since the 80s


You are bit confused. The cruise missiles such as the X-90/AS-19 Koala have top speeds of Mach 3 at altitude. Forget about mach 5 at sea level.

The russian fastest anti-ship missile is the 3M-54E, which can reach nearly mach 3 at sea-level due to its rocket motor. In terms of hypersonic low altitude flight, the record has been moving between the U.S. and Europe. Currently the record stands at mach 7 with the 140 kg HFK e1. This missile was designed primarily for an ant-air mission, although a 2 stage air launched anti-ballistic missile version is proposed , The much smaller HATM missile reached mach 6.66 at speed. It was an anti-tank missile.

BTW GLL IGLA has only undergone static tunnel testing. No flights. TsIAM presented a mock-up of their aircraft and promised a flight back in 2004. Now it is scheduled for 2009. The IGLA tests where not unlike the ones done in the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory in the 60's and 70's that simulated scramjet flight to mach 10. The only recent test of a hypersonic maneuvering warhead (no scramjets) was tested on a ss-19 that failed upon reentry. On a an icbm reentry vehicle a scramjet is redundant and stupid.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by KINGTIGER10
 


KINGTIGER10, please do us all a favor and just walk away now.

Sensible ATSers already looked at all of the links provided at the starting pages, and knowing your past patterns, you simply intend to turn this thread into a mud sling fest, and I wont stand for it.

Moderators, please assume your position and get ready to do your jobs, because I won't allow this thread to be turned into a pile of crap.

edit:typo

[edit on 21-3-2008 by iskander]



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 12:55 AM
link   
Stick to the topic and leave the modding to the mods. If somebody does something wrong, tell us, not them.

The topic is Russian hypersonic missiles, and that's plenty of topic for one thread without anyone threatening to call the mods in or trying to coach the enforcement of T&C, thankyou.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 01:14 AM
link   
Interestingly. The HFK e0, mach 6.6, was tested with lateral accelerations of 100 gs. Such a missile would be quite effective against unstoppable hypersonic maneuvering warhead, don't you thin iskander?



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 01:32 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by KINGTIGER10
 


NO.



EADS, the Netherlands-based aeronautics, defense and space company, has successfully tested a low-flying missile that can fly at Mach 6.6, fast enough to intercept ballistic missiles. "Extreme speeds are always an advantage to the person who fires first," said Program Manager Peter Gleich at a recent EADS-sponsored technical conference in Paris. The development of the missile, shown here, is part of a new European effort to develop a military force with technology comparable to that of the United States, but independent of the authority of U.S.-controlled NATO.


www.popularmechanics.com...

I’ll repeat – “fast enough to intercept ballistic missiles”, NOT maneuvering HYPERSONIC missiles.


Patriot – Mach 5
S-300 - Mach 6
S-400 - Mach 6.2

S-300 is capable of intercepting non-maneuvering BALLISTIC hypersonic targets traveling at the maximum speed of Mach 8.5





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join