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Kh-41 is a supersonic weapon which is obsolete by Russian standards, thus they are openly marketing it for export and even setting up their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