Russia and other developments in Hypersonic Research

Quotes: Probably, Probably Apparently, Probably......

Oh well, it's alright to post it, just don't take it at face value, like claims that Russia cannot make anti sat weapons then all of a sudden they did and tested it.

sepheronx wrote:Quotes: Probably, Probably Apparently, Probably......

Oh well, it's alright to post it, just don't take it at face value, like claims that Russia cannot make anti sat weapons then all of a sudden they did and tested it.

Read those hyperlinks and links in comment . They've reported it completely.

max steel wrote:

sepheronx wrote:Quotes: Probably, Probably Apparently, Probably......

Oh well, it's alright to post it, just don't take it at face value, like claims that Russia cannot make anti sat weapons then all of a sudden they did and tested it.

Read those hyperlinks and links in comment . They've reported it completely.

I guess we'll have to wait for a successful flight test to see an official report on Project 4202 and learn more about the system.

Thats from last li regard last test. So nothing has been official. So on again, speculations. Since it is from your source you linked us, it will satisfy you on why we are concerned, and why we do not take it at face value.

So Russia could make the Buran which landed from orbit on autopilot, but can't make a toy version of this? Get f*cking real.
Nothing in the NATzO associated press, which includes most of the 3rd world media, pertaining to Russian technology and
science capacity can be taken seriously. It is all transparent, chauvinist, racist BS of pure wishful thinking and projection.
There is no actual reporting of facts, just an endless stream of delusional masturbation.

kvs wrote:So Russia could make the Buran which landed from orbit on autopilot, but can't make a toy version of this?   Get f*cking real.
Nothing in the NATzO associated press, which includes most of the 3rd world media, pertaining to Russian technology and
science capacity can be taken seriously.   It is all transparent, chauvinist, racist BS of pure wishful thinking and projection.
There is no actual reporting of facts, just an endless stream of delusional masturbation.    

+1

The Problem with the Pentagon's Hypersonic Missile




Military officials say their superfast weapons of the future won’t carry nuclear warheads. But will other nuclear nations believe it when the missiles start flying?


The U.S. military is pouring money into hypersonic research, and it’s making China and Russia —which have their own similar programs — nervous. But the accelerating effort to build missiles that fly at speeds between Mach 5 to Mach 19 is also alarming some in the nonproliferation community. Despite Pentagon officials’ assurances that superfast weapons will carry only conventional warheads, some believe that other nations may well treat any hypersonic launch as a potential nuclear strike.

It’s been a good year for hypersonic researchers, who got a 50 percent bump in the Defense Department’s 2017 budget request. The Air Force plans to test a hypersonic missile by the end of the decade.

The Pentagon, whose long record of hypersonic research stretches from the X-15 rocket plane to Boeing X-51 scramjet and beyond, is today funding the Lockheed Martin Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 program, the Raytheon Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept (HAWC), and the Raytheon/Lockheed Tactical Boost Glide. The Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency gave Raytheon $20 million and Lockheed $24 million for the latter.

Raytheon is pouring tens of millions of its own dollars into hypersonic research.

“These are very specific point design weapon systems. We have picked design points where the technology is available today and we can put these things together as systems now,” said Thomas Bussing, vice president of Raytheon’s Advanced Missile Systems. He added that 3D printing and additive manufacturing have reduced the complexity of hypersonic devices. “Not only can you build them, you can build them affordably.”

The company is working on two kinds of hypersonic missiles. One is a boost glide system that rides a rocket into space, then reenters the atmosphere and glides to its target at up to 14,000 miles per hour. The other is an airbreathing missile, a close cousin to the ramjet, that scoops up oxygen as it flies a flatter, Mach-10 path to its destination.

The primary challenges in the boost glide system were “materials, stability control, the aerodynamics of the vehicle itself,” according to Bussing. In the air-breathing missile, “it’s all about the engine and having the engine operate over a range of conditions.”

Unlike the ballistic path followed by an ICBM plummeting toward its target, a cruise missile can steer its way past defenses, or, in some cases, sneak in below radar coverage. Being able to strike so quickly has distinct advantages, if you’re trying to penetrate sophisticated air defenses.

Interest abounds; the Navy is considering arming its ships with a tactical boost glide weapon, said Joe Doychak, the associate director of aerospace technology for the assistant defense secretary for research and engineering.

What do you do with a rocket that can travel that fast over intercontinental distances? A 2014 RAND report noted hypersonic technologies “could be used in future nuclear-armed systems.” The Pentagon could—if it chose to—turn hypersonics into an entirely new type of nuclear weapon.  

“At this point, our hypersonics program is really a technology development program, purely focused on conventional” payloads, said Stephen Welby, assistant defense secretary for research and engineering. “There’s nothing in the budget” related to modeling, researching, or exploring nuclear-armed hypersonics.

While the U.S. is also planning to spend more on modernizing U.S. ICBMs, the “two things are uncoupled” Welby said Wednesday at a National Defense Industrial Association, or NDIA, event here.  

Asked about potential payloads, a Raytheon spokesman said only that “the hypersonics programs on which Raytheon is currently a performer are focused on advancing the technologies that support hypersonic flight. The eventual application of those technologies in support of a customer mission is for the customer [the U.S. government] to answer.”


Superfast Strike Jet

The ultimate goal of today’s hypersonic research, military leaders say, isn’t a nuclear missile but a re-usable hypersonic jet.

“We see this as being a long-range program,” David Walker, the U.S. Air Force deputy assistant secretary for science, technology and engineering said at the NDIA event. “It’s 2020 for the missile, 2030 … until you get into something that’s refurbishable” [meaning an aircraft you could potentially use again] and probably 2040 until you get into something that’s a totally reusable type of capability.”

In his presentation, Walker laid out the Air Force hypersonics roadmap. It starts with a quick-firing tactical strike missile, ready around 2020. Around 2030, it foresees an ISR craft capable of “deep strike of high value targets.” And finally, a “re-usable and persistent” ISR and strike craft labeled “tech ready by 2040.”

The military sees hypersonic airplanes as one answer to the rise of more capable programmable radar. “Our ability to operate in a stealthy mode is starting to lose its advantage because of the advanced radars,” Dick Urban of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, told the crowd at NDIA. “We think that speed is going to give us that extra advantage.” (Welby called advanced programmable radars “a challenge” but said that they did not necessarily make stealth obsolete.)

But that doesn’t mean that hypersonics are invisible. They’ll have a bright infrared signature visible from space.

Inherently Destabilizing?

The same speed advantage has alarmed members of the non-proliferation community, who believe hypersonics raise the risk of nuclear conflict.

“I see hypersonics as weapons whose only plausibly logical use would be a niche role in a strategic first strike vs. Russia or China. So the nuclear standoff already exists, and this road is taking us closer to war,” physicist Mark Gubrud said by  email. (He also says the speed advantage of hypersonics is overstated; ICBMs are still faster.)

An enemy would have no way to know whether or not such a missile was carrying a conventional or nuclear warhead.

“If I see a cruise missile flying over, I have to assume it’s nuclear,” William Perry, a former defense secretary, said at a recent event in Washington.

He is not unique in that concern. Tong Zhao, an associate in the Carnegie Endowment’s Nuclear Policy Program, echoed this concern in a June essay for the Bulletin for Atomic Scientists. “Some analysts in China suspect that the United States is seeking the ability to eliminate Beijing’s nuclear deterrent in a first strike—and if Washington successfully develops hypersonic missiles, Beijing’s confidence in the credibility of its nuclear deterrent would only erode,” Zhao wrote. “Already, some in China are discussing whether Beijing should, in the face of new conventional threats to its nuclear arsenal, alter its unconditional no-first-use policy.”

China is also working to develop hypersonic cruise missiles and has already conducted six tests of a hypersonic weapon, the WU-14. Russia and India are also planning to test a hypersonic missile called the BrahMos capable of reaching Mach 7, in 2017.

In the same series of essays for the Bulletin, Gubrud called for banning even tests of hypersonic weapons, arguing that such a prohibition “stands out as an easy and highly significant opportunity to resist an onslaught of destabilizing weapons technology.”

The history of U.S. advances in hypersonics is intertwined with nuclear weapons research, Gubrud points out. “The US has tested maneuvering reentry vehicles which were intended for nuclear delivery. The Advanced Hypersonic Weapon, successfully tested in 2011, was derived from the Sandia SWERVE [Sandia Winged Energetic Reentry Vehicle Experiment] maneuvering reentry vehicle, which was intended as a nuclear warhead,” he told Defense One.  

“The US may not be planning to use hypersonics for nuclear delivery, but US statements allege that Russia and China do intend to do so, and the technical possibility is clear,” he says. “More importantly, even non-nuclear hypersonic weapons would be mainly intended to attack strategic targets including nuclear weapons and the infrastructure of nuclear war.

The best way to prevent this needless uptick in the nuclear arms race would be to initiate a moratorium on hypersonic missile testing (both glide vehicles and cruise missiles) and challenge Russia and China to reciprocate and to negotiate a permanent ban.”  

The unique advantages that the Pentagon sees in hypersonic technologies suggest that is unlikely to happen.

USAF using X-51 lessons learned to weaponise hypersonic vehicles



The X-51A Waverider carried under the wing of a B-52. The programme has become the basis for several follow-on weapons aimed at producing a hypersonic capability for combat aircraft

A 2013 demonstration of the Boeing X-51A Waverider is the basis for the US Air Force's plans to weaponise hypersonic vehicles, an Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) official told IHS Jane's

"We're taking lessons learned from X-51 and using them in development of HSSW [high-speed strike weapon]," said John Leugers, the principal aerospace engineer at the AFRL munitions directorate.

HSSW is a Lockheed Martin Skunk Works concept under which the company plans to demonstrate hypersonic flight and to provide the basis for future hypersonic programmes, including both expendable missiles and reusable aircraft.

On 1 May 2013, the X-51 performed a successful flight on its fourth test. The vehicle detached from a B-52H and was powered to Mach 4.8 by the booster rocket. It separated from the booster and ignited its own engine. The X-51 then accelerated to Mach 5.1 and flew for 210 seconds until running out of fuel. The USAF collected telemetry data for 370 seconds of flight.

Leugers said the emphasis on hypersonic technology is based on a threat assessment and highlighted a particular need for long-range systems.

He added that ordnance and a guidance system are under development via two demonstration programmes: the high-speed air-breathing weapon concept (HAWC) and the tactical boost glide (TBG). Leugers said the warhead under development for a hypersonic missile is in the 250 lb class, about the size of a small diameter bomb (SDB).

The Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in April awarded Raytheon USD20 million to continue development of the TBG programme. The goal is to accelerate a weapon to Mach 5 or greater and allow it to glide to its target. Such weapons would have to be highly heat-resistant and manoeuvrable. TBG could ultimately fly at altitudes of nearly 200,000 ft.

Could the US's new hypersonic missile spark World War 3?

The US has reportedly created a new missile as part of the Pentagon's development of hypersonic technology. But the US military has insisted that the weapons will carry conventional missiles rather than nuclear ones, as the arms race with China and Russia grows more intense.

The new missiles – according to information released on 13 April – will reportedly fly at five times the speed of sound (3,800mph) and make them virtually impossible to detect using radar. Researchers are still working on manoeuvre techniques and developing ways of being able to fully control the weapons.

The Pentagon's Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency (Darpa) has spent over $34m (£48m) on hypersonic aircraft and weapon projects. Hypersonic aircraft would be able to fly at between five to 10 times the speed of sound.

New nuclear fears

In an article titled The Problem With The Pentagon's Hypersonic Missile, published by Defense One, three hypersonic projects – including the Lockheed Martin Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 program, the Raytheon Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept (HAWC), and the Raytheon/Lockheed Tactical Boost Glide – are being examined over whether they would remain conventional weapons, or whether they would spurn the other military superpowers, China and Russia, into developing more nuclear weapons.

The concerns are that hypersonic missiles will allow the US to launch nuclear weapons that could strike targets at longer ranges, in less time than conventional ballistic missiles require, and move so fast current missile defence systems and fighter jets could not intercept them.

Reports suggest that the new generation of missiles can switch between two modes: scramjet –which uses air flowing at supersonic speeds through its engine to further accelerate the missile – and a "boost glide" system – this would extend the range of missiles by making them 'skip' across the Earth's upper atmosphere.

"Hypersonic weapons can be more survivable because of the extreme speed and high altitude. They would be hard to stop,' said JR Smith, director of Raytheon's Advanced Land Warfare Systems.

"At this point, our hypersonics program is really a technology development program, purely focused on 'conventional' payloads, said Stephen Welby, assistant defense secretary for research and engineering at The Pentagon. "There's nothing in the budget related to modelling, researching, or exploring nuclear-armed hypersonics.

"It's 2020 for the missile, 2030…. until you get into something that's refurbishable and probably 2040 until you get into something that's a totally reusable type of capability."

Last year, four flight tests of the X-51 WaveRider – the US's prototype hypersonic aircraft – had taken place in June. During the last test the aircraft flew more than 230 nautical miles at Mach 5. It was launched from under the wing of a B-52 bomber and travelled at a height of 70,000 ft.

If you didn't know better you would think these hypersonic weapons were unstoppable super weapons that no one would be safe from... the thing is that most ICBMs and SLBMs are actually much faster... Mach 26 or thereabouts...

GarryB wrote:If you didn't know better you would think these hypersonic weapons were unstoppable super weapons that no one would be safe from... the thing is that most ICBMs and SLBMs are actually much faster... Mach 26 or thereabouts...

but global strike is about range, non  ballistic trajectory and hypersonic cruise where last 2 are not featured in ICBMs warheads.

Even then, the S-400 48N6 flies at Mach 6 so it would b able to have a chance to still take down a hypersonic cruise missiles. That said, it is still a threat and there is a reason why countries like Russia and China are also building it. But countermeasures still exist and does limit the threat these weapons pose.

sepheronx wrote:Even then, the S-400 48N6 flies at Mach 6 so it would b able to have a chance to still take down a hypersonic cruise missiles. That said, it is still a threat and there is a reason why countries like Russia and China are also building it. But countermeasures still exist and does limit the threat these weapons pose.

Cruise missile with Ma=10-12 and changing course and not on ballistic trajectory? unlikely IMHO...

The missile in question traveled at Mach 5, not Mach 10.

sepheronx wrote:The missile in question traveled at Mach 5, not Mach 10.

Still 5Ma for maneuvering object makes is hard to intercept. I thought however you were talking about PGS.

1) PGS speeds should reach any point in less then hour. Simplifying then Earth is a ball with then 10,000km/h is minimum ( >9 Ma)
2) Ceiling is to be exo-atmospheric up to 100km

In such conditions S-400 is apparently not enough that´s why explicit requirement for S-500 is to be able to cope with hypersonic missiles..

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

sepheronx wrote:The missile in question traveled at Mach 5, not Mach 10.

Still 5Ma for maneuvering object makes is hard to intercept. I thought however you were talking about PGS.

1) PGS speeds should reach any point in less then hour. Simplifying then Earth is a ball with then 10,000km/h is minimum ( >9 Ma)
2) Ceiling is to be exo-atmospheric up to 100km

In such conditions S-400 is apparently not enough that´s why explicit requirement for S-500 is to be able to cope with hypersonic missiles..

Nonsense, S-400 is designed to engage Mach 16 targets, Mach 9 is almost half that speed, and what makes you think the hypersonic missiles tested by DARPA has the range to be intercontinental? They barely pass the Mach 5 threshold and only last minutes at a time, many times leading to failure.

S-500 is designed to engage Mach 20-22 targets btw.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

sepheronx wrote:The missile in question traveled at Mach 5, not Mach 10.

Still 5Ma for maneuvering object makes is hard to intercept. I thought however you were talking about PGS.

1) PGS speeds should reach any point in less then hour. Simplifying then Earth is a ball with then 10,000km/h is minimum ( >9 Ma)
2) Ceiling is to be exo-atmospheric up to 100km

In such conditions S-400 is apparently not enough that´s why explicit requirement for S-500 is to be able to cope with hypersonic missiles..

Magnum is correct for the most part.  Essentially, the interceptor does not have to travel at a greater speed than incoming missile does, especially the type of interception.  If it has to intecept it from behind, then it would be a problem, but in this case, the interceptor missile 48N6E3 is capable of Mach 6.2 and the missile in question is the X-51 which couldn't get higher than Mach 5 and as Magnum said, at last minute as it traveled much slower before hand.  If you are talking about the Global Strike system, then clearly this either isn't it or misquoting is happening in regards what it is supposed to achieve in terms of speed.  As Garry said, a Ballistic missile warhead travels at around Mach 25 or so and the S-500 is supposed to be able to engage those targets with their interceptor missiles flying slower.  Cause it is supposed to already calculate before launch when the point of the interceptor will meet up with the enemy missile at X distance.  Like how any other ABM system works.

http://www.deagel.com/Air-Defense-Systems/S-400_a000371001.aspx



Tagets max speed the S-400 can engage is Mach 14.5 or 4,800 mps

Boeing X-51 waverider is a scramjet used to increase the propulsion speed of missiles.The Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept (HAWC) program is a joint DARPA/U.S. Air Force (USAF) effort that seeks to develop and demonstrate critical technologies to enable an effective and affordable air-launched hypersonic cruise missile upto mach 5 speeds (achieved Mach 5.1 with X-51 scramjet).


Tactical Boost Glider is the main weapon for US PGS program. TBG, a high-speed glide weapon launched from a common vertical launch silo, follows in the Mach 20 contrails of the Falcon HTV-2 experiments that failed in 2010 and 2011.

The U.S. military is pouring money into hypersonic research, and it’s making China and Russia —which have their own similar programs — nervous. But the accelerating effort to build missiles that fly at speeds between Mach 5 to Mach 19 is also alarming some in the nonproliferation community. Despite Pentagon officials’ assurances that superfast weapons will carry only conventional warheads, some believe that other nations may well treat any hypersonic launch as a potential nuclear strike.

TBG is not Mach 5 but much higher than that. After 2 failed test US hasn't tested it yet. Meanwhile China conducted some 6-8 tests & all of them were a success ( But China's TBG speed is only Mach 5 ) . Russia's Yu-71 is already talked about. They will be testing it again in 2016( 1 test only.)

The history of U.S. advances in hypersonics is intertwined with nuclear weapons research . The US has tested maneuvering reentry vehicles which were intended for nuclear delivery. The Advanced Hypersonic Weapon, successfully tested in 2011 .

So it means till date US nuclear warheads RV weren't maneuvering ?  U.S. is also planning to spend more on modernizing U.S. ICBMs which includes to extend the life of a number of nuclear warheads (refurbishing the warheads  to last for the next 30-50 years). Strategic delivery systems being replaced with new systems or completely rebuilt with essentially all new parts.In defence US will use THAAD-ER to kill hypersonic gliding vehicles.

Just my 2 cents kopecks here:


1) Orbital speed on sea level is ~24Ma (7,9km/s) so S-500 interception speed is not pulled out of the thin air

2) PGS is to fly high. 70-100km Not only atmospheric friction, also higher atmosphere layers can hamper radio waves propagation so detection might be too late...

3) Kinetic interceptors indeed are to hit gliders I do not recall explicit statement about maneuvering gliders

The case or maneuvering warheads is utmost important for Russia as US is steadily preparing for aggression. I am not sure what benefit besides new technology gives PGS over MIRV warhead delivery? All in all Russians can use a glider on Voivoda class missile to with conventional warhead to send down any carrier in the World.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Nonsense, S-400 is designed to engage Mach 16 targets, Mach 9 is almost half that speed, and what makes you think the hypersonic missiles tested by DARPA has the range to be intercontinental? They barely pass the Mach 5 threshold and only last minutes at a time, many times leading to failure.

S-500 is designed to engage Mach 20-22 targets btw.

once you read what is PGS about (with understanding) there will be no lols anymore

Finally a successful test


Project 4202 flight test(Yu-71)


Russia conducted a flight test of a "hypersonic warhead" earlier this week (on April 19). The missile carrying the warhead was launched from the Dobarovsky site. The test is said to be successful.

Now mainstream media (Interfax) confirm the story and say that the test took place on Tuesday, April 19. As expected, the UR-100NUTTH/RS-18/SS-19 missile was used to carry the vehicle.

Arrow wrote:There is no any official information about the current and previous tests Ju-71.

There is about the current test. Read the thread,links.

once you read what is PGS about (with understanding) there will be no lols anymore

The amusing thing is that these gliders are launched from what amounts to an ICBM, and both Russia and China have truck mounted systems that could be flown to almost anywhere to be launched, while the US has a few launch pads for testing and ICBM silos that likely wont be the right size to allow a large nose mounted payload to be fitted.

the second amusing thing is that ICBMs are faster than these weapons so when their launch is detected Russia and China will likely treat them as being ICBMs... if they decide the gliders are heading their way I rather suspect they will launch a full retaliation... one hour from launch to impact for the gliders... 5 minutes flight time for forward deployed SLBMs and 30 minutes for ICBMs from Russia... can you please remind me what makes these gliders so fucking fantastic and game changing?

Sounds like a slow motion attempt to punch the guy with a pistol in the face... in other words a guaranteed gunshot wound to the head...

max steel wrote:There is about the current test. Read the thread,links.

Start ICBM warheads "Sarmat" ,  the developers have called "fantastic success"

YU-71 may not be the correct name , Till now the media name is only 4202. The hypersonic aircraft currently being readied for SARMAT tests.

Officially, these tests have not yet been reported. But, according to sources "MK", ​​a report on this fantastic success as it classifies
the developers, to be held in the near future. The test launch, according to our interlocutors, was carried from the Orenburg region with GMD Dombarovsky.

Then, some time on tests of this device could not hear. Probably because there is nothing to boast it was especially - it is no secret that the first stages of development testing often persecuted failures, which is quite natural. But now, according to our sources, it all behind. And "our answer to Chamberlain" almost ready.

Project 4202 test

Russia tests hypersonic warhead