Russia and other developments in Hypersonic Research

Arrow wrote:ICBM is much more difficult to shoot down.

so is Zircon

The whole concept behind fast anti ship missiles is to reduce reaction time...

The air launched Kh-22M was not just fast... it also flew at a very high altitude... both of which made it hard to intercept.

I am pretty sure Zircon will not just fly at mach 7-8, it will also be flying at 50-60km altitude making it pretty much safe from 99% of in service SAMs today.

The fact that it is powered rather than just a rocket boosted glider means it can manouver on its way to the target area without losing speed... most systems that can engage targets at that speed are for use against ballistic path targets that don't change track much if at all.

do you think in future when railguns arrive on ship they can successfully shoot down supersonic or hypersonic ASMs ? Because they go hypersonic too plus Zumwalt like ship having 78-megawatt array of turbine generators. So, firing a rail gun once would take almost a third of the most advanced ship's whole capacity.

Zivo wrote:

x_54_u43 wrote:

Patent for hypersonic weapon.

So it gets off the ground with a booster. When it reaches altitude, the booster drops and the scramjet kicks in. When it reaches the target the scramjet drops and it glides to the target and a hypersonic velocity.

this is probably done by the impulse wich the scramjet add to the glider but without the weight of the scramjet.....basically as much those things are light as more speed will be obtained ..... and what is matter also is the difference in weight between the scramjet and the glider ..... a smaller glider means more velocity

GarryB wrote:The whole concept behind fast anti ship missiles is to reduce reaction time...

The air launched Kh-22M was not just fast... it also flew at a very high altitude... both of which made it hard to intercept.

I am pretty sure Zircon will not just fly at mach 7-8, it will also be flying at 50-60km altitude making it pretty much safe from 99% of in service SAMs today.

The fact that it is powered rather than just a rocket boosted glider means it can manouver on its way to the target area without losing speed... most systems that can engage targets at that speed are for use against ballistic path targets that don't change track much if at all.

a glider can maneuver too....think that that is done via mechanic moving of wings ..... and is not need a huge mechanic to move the glider ....think you can use two smaller pairs of wings to turn ....with no fuel consumtion
also you told me about the fact that at turn a missile burn alot of fuel. not at low G. think that the speed can be slow and make the turn then remake the high speed

max steel wrote:do you think in future when railguns arrive on ship they can successfully shoot down supersonic or hypersonic ASMs ? Because they go hypersonic too plus Zumwalt like ship having 78-megawatt array of turbine generators. So, firing a rail gun once would take almost a third of the most advanced ship's whole capacity.

right now the railguns are not so good because they broke at first use or first uses. but there is a solution to that: multiple warheads for a railgun projectile...mean that a single railgun shoot can have multiple projectiles that are released during flight ....maneouvreable ones

Big_Gazza wrote:

max steel wrote:do you think in future when railguns arrive on ship they can successfully shoot down supersonic or hypersonic ASMs ? Because they go hypersonic too plus Zumwalt like ship having 78-megawatt array of turbine generators. So, firing a rail gun once would take almost a third of the most advanced ship's whole capacity.

I think rail-guns are massively hyped and will likely prove to be an impractical weapon.  They consume vast amounts of electrical energy, are slow to recharge and require pin-point accuracy to hit a hypersonic target which I doubt can be reliably achieved on a seaborne platform. The tremendous closing speeds of a rail gun projectile and an oncoming hypersonic missile will likely preclude any use of proximity fusing or pre-programmed detonation delay, so kinetic kill will be needed.  Good luck trying to detect, track, compute a firing solution, move your rail gun to the precise elevation & heading, run through your firing sequence and fire your one-and-only projectile in the 10 seconds that it takes a mach 6 bogey to cross 20kms.

Let the Uh'Murikkkanz waste their declining national treasure on sci-fi wonder weapons that won't deliver the golden bullet solution that MIC salesmen have been pumping into the heads of Pentagon warmongers....

lets think that the hypersonic missile could have a little radar on it ...detect the incoming railgun and have a 10-15 degrees evasive movement ...that screw all the trajectory calculation ....
even more a 3 degree evasive maneuver is insesizable by the sofisticated machines of enemy ..and at that speed means alot of space between hypersonic and incoming railgun....that if you put some special paint that screw the doppler shift of radar waves .....
also i wanna ask: would not work a pre heated air by a electric owen like machine in a missile? the initial heat + the one from fuel could do a very heated air ...

do you think in future when railguns arrive on ship they can successfully shoot down supersonic or hypersonic ASMs ? Because they go hypersonic too plus Zumwalt like ship having 78-megawatt array of turbine generators. So, firing a rail gun once would take almost a third of the most advanced ship's whole capacity.

During WWII large anti aircraft guns took thousands of shots per hit to kill an aircraft... I don't think railguns will be that much better... whatever guides the shells can be spoofed or confused.

and what is matter also is the difference in weight between the scramjet and the glider ..... a smaller glider means more velocity

That is like saying a motor car is lighter if you take the engine out so a motor car with no engine should be faster than one without...

think in terms of aircraft... use an engine to climb up to high altitude and then drop the engine and glide back down.

a glider can maneuver too....think that that is done via mechanic moving of wings ..... and is not need a huge mechanic to move the glider ....think you can use two smaller pairs of wings to turn ....with no fuel consumtion
also you told me about the fact that at turn a missile burn alot of fuel. not at low G. think that the speed can be slow and make the turn then remake the high speed

You are confusing a glider, a powered aircraft, and a rocket...

A glider has height that it can turn into speed by diving and converting height directly into speed... it would be no good for climbing except very short climbs.

A scramjet powered aircraft can turn and manouver and burn fuel efficiently.

A rocket burns at a set rate until all the fuel is gone.

Very simply a rocket will rapidly reach max velocity and will not go any faster than that and will burn fuel at the maximum rate until it is all gone.

A scramjet powered aircraft can increase its throttle setting to the point where it stops accelerating. You could use full throttle but find that the altitude and aircraft shape means it wont go faster than mach 7 whether you have full throttle or 3/4ths throttle. A rocket will be full throttle all the time so that extra thrust and extra fuel burnt is wasted.

The Scramjet can run at 75% throttle and therefore burn for 25% longer so it wont go faster than a rocket powered missile... it will operate for longer.

Either way when the engine has burned all its fuel it will fall away and the remaining weapon will fall down and hit the target at a fairly steep angle... because it will be falling pulling hard manouvers on the way down wont reduce speed too much.

During WWII large anti aircraft guns took thousands of shots per hit to kill an aircraft... I don't think railguns will be that much better... whatever guides the shells can be spoofed or confused.

A railgun firing guided ammunition? The induced magnetic field will probably damage whatever electronic of the guided warhead is mounted onto the shell anyway. Guided Railgun ammunition has to be proven first like railguns being useful on battlefield bythemselfs have to be proven.

Werewolf wrote:A railgun firing guided ammunition? The induced magnetic field will probably damage whatever electronic of the guided warhead is mounted onto the shell anyway. Guided Railgun ammunition has to be proven first like railguns being useful on battlefield bythemselfs have to be proven.

Totally agree. Although the articles claimed that the electronics of their 'smart' rounds survived launch, I doubt whatever they were carrying were sophisticated enough to be able to track, calculate and intercept an incoming super or hypersonic threat. I might be wrong but wasn't the launch tests performed at low power? So whilst the electronics might have survived the g-forces, I can't see a modern high-speed processor chip surviving the launch magnetic field. Its literally sending the round down a focussed EMP tunnel of love!

Lets face it, railguns are only useful in terms of range and cheapness of ammo. Firing smart rounds is automatically contradicting this paradigm. If you can't fire the round at full speed (mach 7ish) , well you've lost the impact energy/range advantage and even if you do manage to 'harden' it against the magnetic field, then it won't be able to either 'see' its target or receive communication to intercept the target because of the plasma sheath which forms at hypersonic speeds at low altitude.

Unproven weapon. Too damned expensive and finicky to be practical in a war situation, restricted to platforms easily taken out by a single cruise missile and subject to low firing rates without open water based cooling systems.

I don't know who said them 2025. 2025 ? Why not in 2050, or 2500 ?
Jane's defence is a shit, not more, not less. U can see the sad level of western media today.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/05/russia-plans-to-deploy-24-hypersonic-yu.html

Russia plans to deploy 24 hypersonic Yu-71 missiles by 2025

Russia is test-flying a new, hypersonic glide vehicle that follows the contrails of China’s WU-14, a delivery vehicle reportedly capable of carrying nuclear warheads at Mach 10 and less susceptible to U.S. anti-ballistic countermeasures.

Moscow has spent several years developing the new Yu-71 hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV), which was first test-flown in February, according to this month’s Jane’s Intelligence Review. It is part of an ongoing escalated effort by the Kremlin to overcome U.S. missile defenses, known as Project 4202.

Project 4202 could turn out a limited number of glide vehicles armed with nuclear warheads by 2020, and up to 24 with new hypersonic payloads could be deployed at the Dombarovsky base between 2020 and 2025, the Intelligence Review said.

Reports indicate that by then, Russia could potentially deploy a new ICBM that could carry the Yu-71.

The advantage of the U-71 is about its speed and maneuverability. The vehicle is said to develop the speed ten times the speed of sound.

The vehicle carries nuclear warheads and was designed to overcome the US missile defense system

I don't know who said them 2025. 2025 ? Why not in 2050, or 2500 ?

Janes is total garbage. This news article is very old. Janes failed to report the recent test success of so called 4202.

I guess what needs to be R&D would be launch systems and improving the missiles. A multi launch system for ground based system (like 8 pack) and EW type missiles. This would keep costs very low and also be very effective.

gaurav wrote:
Janes is total garbage.

In my view worst than a garbage, as most of the western media.
Moreover -I forgot to add- what it amazed me, who said them 24 hypersonic missiles ? Where is the source of this so called news ? Why not 240 ?  2.400 ? The bets are openned ....

nemrod wrote:

gaurav wrote:
Janes is total garbage.

In my view worst than a garbage, as most of the western media.
Moreover -I forgot to add- what it amazed me, who said them 24 hypersonic missiles ? Where is the source of this so called news ? Why not 240 ?  2.400 ? The bets are openned ....

oh no no no, Janes is not a garbage but just yet another western outlet with anti-Russian info war propaganda, You know economy dead, Russians drunk and population decrease 2mln year...

They keep talking about hypersonic gliders like the Russians want what the US wants... ie a global murder system like their UCAVs but faster.

In actual fact the Russians want a system to defeat any ABM system... so it would actually make sense for them to build some gliders, but it would actually make more sense for them to adapt their MARV warheads on their SLBMs and ICBMs to do exactly the same thing... ie a ballistic launch but pop out of ballistic flight 1,000km away from the enemy ABM system and to glide in and nuke those ABM systems...

Recent headlines mention withdrawing from the new start treaty if the US continues with its ABM systems around the place... that could only be because they want to increase the number of missiles they have carrying these gliders.

And it suggests they will also therefore withdraw from the INF treaty and use cheaper medium range missiles too.

Hahahahaha... serves them right... I can't wait to see what they say when Russia withdraws from both treaties... I remember when the US wanted the ABM treaty folded up it was because it was an out of date cold war dinosaur of an agreement... wonder what they will say if Russia uses the same argument for the INF treaty that the US has now made a joke of with its ABM systems in europe and those planned in Asia and elsewhere.

GarryB wrote:They keep talking about hypersonic gliders like the Russians want what the US wants... ie a global murder system like their UCAVs but faster.

'This & tech development is behind it IMHO. PGS wrt to Russia makes no sense as regardless on number response will be devastating and nuclear. I can only imagine that one more objective to take over a territory w/o radio active fall out. Just ol good colonial style.






Recent headlines mention withdrawing from the new start treaty if the US continues with its ABM systems around the place... that could only be because they want to increase the number of missiles they have carrying these gliders.

And it suggests they will also therefore withdraw from the INF treaty and use cheaper medium range missiles too.

Hahahahaha... serves them right... I can't wait to see what they say when Russia withdraws from both treaties... I remember when the US wanted the ABM treaty folded up it was because it was an out of date cold war dinosaur of an agreement... wonder what they will say if Russia uses the same argument for the INF treaty that the US has now made a joke of with its ABM systems in europe and those planned in Asia and elsewhere.[/quote]

I am sure INF is dead already, just not formally made void. START too if needed. btw 2-3 weeks ago one of Russian politicians told press. As response to ABM we work on new nuked missile. But this was not about Sarmats... IRBM? I cannot find it now though. Maybe Rubezh can be modular and cheaper to fulfil IRBM/ICBM roles?

Nemrod wrote:Moreover -I forgot to add- what it amazed me, who said them 24 hypersonic missiles ? Where is the source of this so called news ? Why not 240 ?  2.400 ? The bets are openned ....

Actually Janes advertised leader of defence news. Only they had reporters capable to inform the public about Russian strategic weapon tests. But Russian weapon tests started appearing in other news channels also.They want to keep the news acceptable to U.S interests thats why maybe 24 missiles.


Russia building missiles

This shows why Russia carries out missile tests in secrecy due to heavy U.S reconnaisance

"Of late, there was a boom in the development of systems monitoring the tests of our missiles and special weapons, which allow for tracking the entire flight path of the delivery vehicles and warheads. This does not suit us for obvious reasons. Nevertheless, there are no immediate plans for creating more major test sites

nemrod wrote:
Moreover -I forgot to add- what it amazed me, who said them 24 hypersonic missiles ? Where is the source of this so called news ? Why not 240 ?  2.400 ?

Russian HGV will be nuclear capable so no point in adding 240 or 2400 as it will violate START Treaty. Jane’s Intelligence Review reports that Russia may be able to deploy up to 24 hypersonic nuclear delivery vehicles from their Dombarovsky air force base between 2020 and 2025.

max steel wrote:

nemrod wrote:
Moreover -I forgot to add- what it amazed me, who said them 24 hypersonic missiles ? Where is the source of this so called news ? Why not 240 ?  2.400 ?

Russian HGV will be nuclear capable so no point in adding 240 or 2400 as it will violate START Treaty. Jane’s Intelligence Review reports that Russia may be able to deploy up to 24 hypersonic nuclear delivery vehicles from their Dombarovsky air force base between 2020 and 2025.

well ABM first kills INF then start...

Australia and partners Boeing, BAE Systems and DLR (German Aerospace Center) have a successful mach 7.5 hypersonic missile test

Good news from western side.



Chief Defence Scientist Dr Alex Zelinsky today congratulated an Australian-United States team on the success of an experimental hypersonic flight at the Woomera Test Range.

The experimental rocket reached an apogee of 278 km, achieving the targeted speed of Mach 7.5 . The team estimates that its engine could get you from London to New York in 35 minutes, and London to Sydney in 2 hours. The experimental flight was undertaken as part of a joint research program, HIFiRE (Hypersonic International Flight Research Experimentation Program) being conducted by the Defence Science and Technology Group and the US Air Force Research Laboratory with Boeing and the University of Queensland providing expert technical design and analysis.

“The success of this test launch takes us one step closer to the realisation of hypersonic flight,” Dr Zelinsky said.



HIFiRE 5b is one of a series of 10 flight experiments under the Australia-US collaborative project Hypersonic International Flight Research and Experimentation program aimed at investigating physical phenomena of flight at more than five times the speed of sound. The knowledge gained from these experiments will be applied to develop future flight vehicles and testing of advanced air-breathing hypersonic propulsion engines known as supersonic combustion ramjets (scramjets). HIFiRE partners include the University of Queensland, Boeing, BAE Systems and DLR (German Aerospace Center).

Hypersonic flight, involving speeds of more than five times the speed of sound, has the potential to provide immense social and economic benefits.

“It is a game-changing technology identified in the 2016 Defence White Paper and could revolutionise global air travel, providing cost-effective access to space,” Dr Zelinsky said.

The program is aimed at exploring the fundamental technologies critical to the realisation of sustained hypersonic flight.

Boeing’s chief scientist for hypersonics Kevin Bowcutt said the HIFiRE program will accelerate the development of operational hypersonic systems by producing valuable scientific flight data.

Professor Michael Smart from the University of Queensland praised the highly skilled individuals involved in the program and said they were placing the Australian aerospace industry on the international stage.

The HIFiRE team has already achieved some significant milestones such as the design, assembly and pre-flight testing of the hypersonic vehicles and the design of complex avionics and flight systems. More test flights are scheduled in the next two years.

Who’s Ahead in Hypersonics?

China is “way ahead” in hypersonics, Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work said Wednesday night. Speaking at an AFA Mitchell Institute event in Washington, D.C., Work said hypersonics technology is “part and parcel” of his “third offset” strategy to recapture a wide lead over adversaries, but competitors are pouring resources into the field as well.

“The Chinese are way ahead in terms of hypersonics. The Russians are behind them, and I would say, we’re somewhere in between,” Work assessed. China’s “got hundreds of hypersonic wind tunnels,” he said, wondering “how do they pay for the overhead? But they are pursuing it in a big, big way.” The US wants hypersonic weapons because their speed offers value in penetration of anti-access, air defense networks, and such weapons will have to have a degree of autonomy to react to that environment. Hypersonics expert Mark Lewis, head of IDA’s Science and Technology Institute and former USAF chief scientist, said Work’s observation about China’s wind tunnels is correct. “You use small wind tunnels for research, and big ones for development of vehicles,” Lewis explained. “China’s biggest hypersonic tunnel is about twice the size” of the biggest one in the US. He was slightly less pessimistic than Work, however, saying the US probably has a narrow lead in hypersonics for another two years or so, and could preserve it with proper investment in programs and facilities.

Russia is behind and they will be deploying Hypersonic Missiles within 2-3 years and 20 HGV by 2020(as claimed by media) meanwhile no such news from US or China.

airforce magazine. Hmm, now why would I trust that?

Of course Russia is ahead, since they will be having the units ready before 2020. But as stated before, they have been working on hypersonic missiles for quite some time.

PROPAGANDA , everyone does. See the above comment they tested Mach 7.5 missile. US Hypersonic missile like X-51 Waverider(Mach 5) will only appear in mid-2020's( as claimed rest who knows) .