Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US INSPECTORS SEE RUSSIA SHOW OFF HYPERSONIC NUCLEAR MISSILE PUTIN SAYS WILL ......
Newsweek ^ | 11/26/2019 | David Brennan

Posted on 11/27/2019 2:54:25 PM PST by DarthVader

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-42 next last
To: DarthVader

Not even close


21 posted on 11/27/2019 3:44:29 PM PST by eyedigress ((Old storm chaser from the west))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Freedom_Is_Not_Free

Russia has a monstrous supply of gold....He’s not broke.


22 posted on 11/27/2019 4:03:25 PM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 17th Miss Regt

By my calculations, which could be wrong, it works out to roughly 4 1/4 miles per second. Does that jive with you?


23 posted on 11/27/2019 4:14:38 PM PST by VMI70
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DarthVader

Supposedly, it’s maneuverable, not ballistic. We have had maneuverable reentry vehicles (MARVs) for many decades, going back at least to the Pershing II, with it’s mach 8 MARV. A high-G maneuvering vehicle traveling at mach 20 would certainly be a very, very, challenging target. That said, Russia has had serious problems with previous supersonic missiles suffering catastrophic failure when attempting the high-G maneuvers required to avoid modern air defenses. Historically, Russia has always over stated the capabilities of their weapons, while we tend to understate ours. If we decided that we didn’t want this ability, it’s likely there was an unacceptable trade off in reliability and accuracy. Or we decided on an alternative technology, like stealth or decoys, to ensure a kill.


24 posted on 11/27/2019 4:47:35 PM PST by ETCM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: 17th Miss Regt

Hey! Math is, like, HARD Dude!


25 posted on 11/27/2019 5:21:43 PM PST by doorgunner69 (Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading - T Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: VMI70

About right. Nowhere near 1 mile per second.


26 posted on 11/27/2019 5:21:47 PM PST by 17th Miss Regt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ETCM
...it’s likely there was an unacceptable trade off in reliability and accuracy.

I think you are correct, especially the part about accuracy. If there were no winds or the winds were predictable then maneuvering would be more precise. Note that although the atmosphere is thin at 50 miles or so it may be moving fairly fast which can throw off a calculated post maneuver trajectory rather significantly. Unless you want to put in a much larger yield to cover that type of slop you may miss by enough to fail to destroy a hard target.

27 posted on 11/27/2019 5:32:44 PM PST by 17th Miss Regt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ETCM

[A high-G maneuvering vehicle traveling at mach 20 would certainly be a very, very, challenging target.]


How does a vehicle not built like a tank stay intact while traveling at Mach 20? How does a vehicle built like a tank fly at Mach 20?


28 posted on 11/27/2019 5:39:35 PM PST by Zhang Fei (My dad had a Delta 88. That was a car. It was like driving your living room.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei
How does a vehicle not built like a tank stay intact while traveling at Mach 20?

The vehicle is 50 miles or higher during the transit phase. The air is so thin that it offers just enough resistance to allow maneuvering wedges to function.

The vehicle must shed velocity when it re-enters the atmosphere in its' terminal approach. Otherwise it would break up in the lower elevations where the air is denser.

The re-entry phase is a point of vulnerability for such weapons.

29 posted on 11/27/2019 6:41:06 PM PST by flamberge (The wheels keep turning)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: DarthVader

How does the supersonic Russia missiles protect the Russian Commonwealth from retaliation from SLBMs?


30 posted on 11/27/2019 7:04:14 PM PST by HapaxLegamenon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DarthVader
Newsweak has it wrong, Putin is claiming a Mach 27 speed. Vladimir Poop-tin might be good at breaking fingers but he sure is a moron when it comes to aerospace. He might scare somebody that matters if he wasn't so blatantly the town-liar. If you're missile is going Mach 27, it's no longer sub-orbital. You better have a way of slowing it back down again or it will come down next fall after picking up enough atmospheric drag, and it has a better than even chance of coming down over water.

The lame-ass MSM is buying this crap of an "unstoppable missile". We have them too. They're called Minuteman III. As for maneuverable re-entry vehicles, McDonnell Douglas developed and implemented them into our missiles in the 1970s. What was that about "technical innovation"? Vladdy thinks that vodka improved to taste marginally better than the gasoline in his Zhiguli's tank is technical innovation.

31 posted on 11/27/2019 7:05:28 PM PST by Excuse_My_Bellicosity (Liberalism is a social disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DarthVader

How’s their nuclear-powered missile doing?


32 posted on 11/27/2019 7:06:15 PM PST by Excuse_My_Bellicosity (Liberalism is a social disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DarthVader
Much ado about nothing.

Too fast to intercept? I doubt that. What was it, a couple of years ago the US shot down that satellite to prevent Hydrazine from reaching the ground? Well, that was the story, right? It also demonstrated that we could hit something travelling at orbital speeds. This system is sub-orbital, starting at a lower velocity. Yes it can maneuver - to some extent. Every maneuver scrubs off speed and energy. Ultimately it dives towards a target, not significantly different from other "standard" ICBMs. Terminal intercept systems shouldn't see it as being much different from anything else.

But that's just technical fun. Big picture, even if it works as designed (a big if with new tech) and even if it cannot be intercepted - BFD most of Russia's existing ICBMs cannot be intercepted. Oh sure, we can probably knock down the first 30 or 40. Russia has nearly 300 ICBMs. So at best we get what, maybe 10%...

The US missile defense system isn't designed to counter a massive doomsday strike. It is supposed to stop terrorists and nation-states such as Iran and North Korea. Iran and NK are far more likely to use their weapons than Russia or China. We don't see eye to eye with either Russia or China, but they are at least nominally sane and rational by our standards. They "get" mutually assured destruction. However, Iran and their cultists...not so much. They just might go for it, even knowing they'll become a glass-topped self-lighting parking lot, figuring their reward is waiting in paradise. Ditto NK, so power-mad that if they see it all coming apart, they'll probably launch on us, Japan, and SK just out of frustration and petty BS. I don't trust the leadership of either of those countries.

33 posted on 11/27/2019 7:08:06 PM PST by ThunderSleeps ( Be ready!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kozak

Newsweak has it wrong anyway, the USAF link and every other MSM article is citing Mach 27. Guess what? At that speed, your missile is no longer sub-orbital. It’ll come down next fall after picking up enough atmospheric drag in low-earth orbit. The thing probably won’t even come down in the hemisphere that you want it to. The whole thing is a bad joke.


34 posted on 11/27/2019 7:08:24 PM PST by Excuse_My_Bellicosity (Liberalism is a social disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ThunderSleeps
Yep! Not to mention, we demonstrated an ASAT missile launched from the F-15 in the early 80s. I love how China and Russia keep doing things that we did in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s to "prove" that they're on the leading edge of technology. And it's blatantly obvious that they don't have it because they're such poor liars.


35 posted on 11/27/2019 7:12:29 PM PST by Excuse_My_Bellicosity (Liberalism is a social disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: JPJones

“Boy I wish we had some of those hypersonic Avangard missiles...”

We don’t need them. After all, we spend 7 times as much on defense than he does - therefore we’re protected, not him.


36 posted on 11/27/2019 7:39:56 PM PST by BobL (I drive a pickup truck to work because it makes me feel like a man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

Bush plotted to withdraw from START from 2002 if not earlier. The phony ‘missile defence’ in East Europe was about this in the first place.


37 posted on 11/27/2019 7:40:15 PM PST by NorseViking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Freedom_Is_Not_Free

“China is by far and away our most dangerous enemy.”

Naa, we spend 5 times as much on our military as China, so therefore China cannot be a threat to us.


38 posted on 11/27/2019 7:43:05 PM PST by BobL (I drive a pickup truck to work because it makes me feel like a man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: McGruff

Not long ago on an overseas tour I got to talking with a Russian who served in their Army, which runs their ICBMs. He told me that by the end of the Cold War, their star-tracking systems were landing their ICBMs within 100 meters of their targets (after traveling thousands of miles).

Some people here may not like Putin, but Russia (like China) still teaches math CORRECTLY to their kids, and therefore they both have a HUGE advantage over us when it comes to engineering.


39 posted on 11/27/2019 7:46:12 PM PST by BobL (I drive a pickup truck to work because it makes me feel like a man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Freedom_Is_Not_Free

Yep, broke. Drive over an average highway in Michigan and in Russia and see what’s broken. Then go to downtown LA and some third-tier Siberian city for more comparison. It is no comparison though.
Which country is 23 trillion in debt and which has a positive trade balance and a creditor nation?
All despite the fact that the latter is under economic war by half of the world.


40 posted on 11/27/2019 7:51:07 PM PST by NorseViking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-42 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson