Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle:

GarryB wrote:

100 km is just the start of atmosphere not sure how dense it is say compared to  80 or 50 or 30 km I expect to be less dense.

Most of the atmosphere is below 15km altitude but you can fly well above 40km altitude.

In a 320km orbit altitude the ISS often runs into small pockets of escaping gas, which slows it down ever so slightly... so every few months it needs to do a fuel burn to accelerate it to keep it at the height it operates at.

Atmosphere can reach 1500km but 100km is Karman line. Around this level control planes can be used above only thursters. In case of hypersonic gliders make sense.

Austin wrote:I wrote an article today on Russian Avangrad Program and Hypersonic Glide Vehical let me know how this is 


AVANGRAD HYPERSONIC GLIDE VEHICLE

Great!
Very detailed!

Austin wrote: Thank You Mate.

conplains ,critics? you can always count me on

Austin wrote: On HGV being carried in single launch platform  , Yes I was in dual mind to mention Sarmat with can carry multiple HGV but I avoided then but now mentioned it.

Sarmat can carry 10-16 depending on size according to wiki but nobody stated or confirmed that how many Avangards. What is for sure U%-1000N can carry up to 4350kg so surely
Avangard doesnt weight more.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A3%D0%A0-100%D0%9D

Austin wrote: Decoys and Jammers are needed because they can expontially increase the survivability of missile , Weather HGV needs it or not can be debatable but it cant be done with HGV for sure but atleast post Boost Phase they need to deploy Decoys and Jammers till HGV gets detached.  Not sure how long is the midcourse phase till HGV gets detached. 

since to intercept 1 Avangard with current tech US needs 500+ ABM this is already increase of missiles by order of magnitude (currently US has 30? ABM) . And 2 is to be installed so to stop avangards only they'd need 6,000 ABMs vs 30 deployed now. It is like pike men in XVII c, with increased effectiveness of firearms they lost their importance.

Austin wrote:Yes agree on Range Part I removed it and mentioned ICBM ranges , I think HGV are like FOBS because they can come in and out of atmosphere and can simply dive in between sub-orbital flight to the target , What is your opinion on this , Would love to hear it. 

with energy / velocity 7,9 km/s + this is not actual suborbital flight. Can be orbital i.e. get Avangard to orbit and wait for months till is drops down. IMHO technically that option exist, now it's not exercised tho.

As for their "natural flight" around 100km - is they jump higher only rocket thruster can be used, if go too deep temperature / pressure gets very high. So they are "wobling around" or more technically changing pitch and direction) . This not same as FOBS to me rather as space ship descent.

Austin wrote:100 km is just the start of atmosphere not sure how dense it is say compared to  80 or 50 or 30 km I expect to be less dense.
Another point is HGV can still fly at 200 km what prevents it from doing so ? 

Technically - nothing, but then neither H nor G can be used. Above ~100 km . Control only by control thrusters. Gliding is when aerodynamic effects enable using control planes/ wings. Space Shuttle started descent on 122km and needed to slow down to below Ma=25 to start descent (7,8kms according ot NASA) . Then gliding started . Above no surface made any difference. Above 25Ma is not hypersonic speed anymore - it can be orbital or at most re-entry speed.

Nasa says about 50miles (i.e 80km ) surfaces are ineffective. what makes nice coincidence with scramjet max height = 75km

Link below I've googled for you

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/BGH/hihyper.html

This makes me think - if scramjets are used then 70-80km altitude. Russian call Avangard "winged" this implies control surfaces are applied then again less 100km (however still ineffective) till - around 80 (vide scramjets application).

Yet orbital speed (27Ma reached theoretical one is 30Ma) can do "jump up a bit".


Considerations:

re-enrty of shuttle started at 7,8kms which is ~26,5Ma (Ma changes with altitude - at Karman line is ~290m/s )


But this is only IMHO

Austin wrote: Do you also blog ?

nope, my all non proffesiona internet activity is here with this forum

GarryB wrote:The sad thing is that Superman is obvious...

Iprefer MArvell's TheAnus

Sorry dude, but America is a joke.... and not a good one either.

I would not mix political class with average American. I dont like, mildly speaking, of US deep state and Establishment but I dont have anything against average American.
Do you really think any Clinton &co mafia cares about ANY farmer, teacher, engineer or worker? I dont

GarryB wrote:
Sorry dude, but America is a joke.... and not a good one either.

To the extent it can be called a joke, the reality of US power has made it a very unfunny one for a great deal of people.

GarryB wrote:
Perhaps the solution is a hypersonic glide vehicle... what you need to do BKP, is get all your politicians... all of them... democrat and republican... into one building out in the middle of nowhere in Utah at a specific time and organise a live test with Mr Putin... he is going to get the blame anyway...

I'll decline to say anything about that. The sainted Obama rescinded habeus corpus, and I see no need to risk having to send my future posts from Guantanamo. "Land of the Freeee!"



Now, for something really funny, get a load of this, from VoA:

"The following day (after the televised launch of Avanguard), the U.S. Department of Defense reacted to the Russian announcement.

'While the United States has been the world leader in hypersonic system research for many decades, we did not choose to weaponize it,' said a department official, Lieutenant Colonel Michelle Baldanza."

Bwahaha! Consider what sort of a gullible moron you would have to be to believe that statement, then realize that plenty will do just that. Have fun in the forums!

https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/us-reacts-to-russian-test-of-hypersonic-weapons/4720305.html

BKP wrote:

'While the United States has been the world leader in hypersonic system research for many decades, we did not choose to weaponize it,' said a department official, Lieutenant Colonel Michelle Baldanza."[/i]

Bwahaha! Consider what sort of a gullible moron you would have to be to believe that statement, then realize that plenty will do just that. Have fun in the forums!

She is right, the problem here is what does she understand as "the world".  US + Canada? + UK?  

BTW so they didnt want to weaponize prompt global strike ? how cute

^Ikr? And, also, I suppose we are meant to swallow that weaponizing hypersonic technology is somehow beneath their moral standing.  Yeah, sure, they'll concoct all sorts of lies and false-flags to kick off lots of horrible wars, it's all out in the open to anyone who does a little serious  research, but they would never stoop to that! I mean, what the he'll is wrong with you?

What a scream!

Do you really think any Clinton &co mafia cares about ANY farmer, teacher, engineer or worker? I dont

Neither side do, but the real question is... why do these farmers and engineers and teachers and other normal Americans put up with it?

They are sheep that have been taught to vote for two parties only... democrat or republican.... anything else is a waste of a vote... really?

And if some independent got 70% of the vote, would they still think that?

People seem to vote republican or democrat, but against the party they don't want in, rather than the actual party they support.

I rather suspect most of the people who voted Trump did so because they couldn't bring themselves to vote for Hilary... and to be honest... looking from the outside... that would probably have been me too... the salty salty tears of the democrats... how they hate to accept election results that don't suit them...

I would not mix political class with average American.

I don't, but at the end of the day if gay people can get together and organise groups to promote their rights, then why can't your average american do something about getting the criminals out of politics?

I agree with Jesse Ventura... I think US politicians should be forced to wear shirts that show their major financial supporters like Nascar drivers do... they go on about Russian meddling in US elections... lets see how much jewish or european or chinese influence there is...

To the extent it can be called a joke, the reality of US power has made it a very unfunny one for a great deal of people.

How funny a joke is usually depends on the audience...

Bwahaha! Consider what sort of a gullible moron you would have to be to believe that statement, then realize that plenty will do just that. Have fun in the forums!

Yet again those evil aggressive Russians have forced our hand and made us invest in war and death and destruction to get the peace and security that we so love and crave for all people...

Sorry for going off on a tangent but what I find hardest to believe is that the American people will accept their media telling them that the Russians must have hacked the DNC and released all that embarrassing info about Hilary so she would lose the election... yet it only takes a few minutes to realise that when the Clintons bought that election and therefore pissed all over democracy and Saunders that DNC insiders that were supporting Saunders might have had good reason to leak the dirt on Hilary to block her road to power.

I mean a hack that leaves no evidence of a hack at all, or a leak... I know which I would believe....

Sadly though, the US media does not work for the American people any more... it works for the rich and powerful that own it and they don't want to rock the boat and change things... this is the environment they got rich and powerful within... the dinosaurs didn't want it to get colder...

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

a) Only a single HGV can be carried by Launch Platform making its application limited to Very High Value Target in a Nuclear Conflict  

no, not necessairly, UR-100N will carry one but this doesnt mean other (Sarmat) cannot carry more.  Nobody yet stated it cn only 1

b) Im not sure why lack of decoys is bad here? decoys are just rendered obsolete. Pls. you check this thread a bit earlier, according to Russian military (AFAIR en  Bondaryev)  USA need to use 500+ antimissiles to intercept 1 Avangard. This makes even with 12 t be installed by 2027 unfeasible by USA.

Sarmat will have the option to carry multiple Avanguards. I think probably up to 5 going by what I've seen (see below pic).....but it doesn't necessarily mean that all Sarmat's will be armed with it initially

AlfaT8 wrote:I wonder if it's possible that Avangard may be using Plasma Stealth??

I know it's pretty much considered Vaporware today, but i wonder if it's possible here, considering these extreme speeds.

I was watching an interview with a scientist who says the Plasma cloud makes the Avanguard difficult to track as radar waves bounce off the plasma shroud. He also says it makes it immune to lasers

They are also apparently planning to deploy silo launched version of te RS-26 RUBEZH missiles armed with Avanguard...possibly as an answer to the US leaving the INF treaty

Also,

he also mentioned that the Zircon Hypersonic Anti-Ship missile was also tested at the start of December

But in the infrared it shines like a torch

And it will look so pretty, but being able to see an incoming threat and actually being able to intercept it are two different things.

Without trajectory information including distance... it might as well be a pretty star in the night sky because if you don't know the distance how could you possibly intercept it?

The point of the system is that... you are going to detect me coming, but I am going to be flying so fast and turning so much you wont get an interceptor within a kilometre of my position... so who cares if you can see me from thousands of kms... if you can't hit me then it makes no difference...

When the US introduced aircraft carrier based AWACS platforms that could see well over the radar horizon around the ships of a US carrier group then flying low was no longer an effective way of attacking US ships.

Excellent radar coverage means you need to accept the enemy will detect the attack early and will be ready, so the two options to penetrate any defence is speed and numbers... and that is what they did... their first high speed missiles are enormous and heavy which was OK because they speed meant they would likely get through anyway. However US defences have improved, but Russian missiles have gotten smaller and faster and now even their corvettes can carry them, so they will have large numbers as well as speed...

BTW they could make decoys that are just shells with scramjet engines and fuel tanks that could be stacked inside each other... you could have quite a few in the space that one would normally occupy because they just need a front and an engine and a fuel tank... you could slot 4-5 inside each other in the space of one weapon.... from the direction of the target you would just see the front and not the rear and it would be hard to tell a real weapon from a decoy...

Arrow wrote: But in the infrared it shines like a torch

Actually not only IR. ~2000k is like early sunrise. You can see it coming...if it is closer to 3000k then wow you got like bright led lamp.




and you can of course intercept! only 500 + antimissiles are required per Avangard!
Although  USA has 30 deployed,  then easy, till 2027 only 6,000 more  needs to be procured and installed. Then all 12 Avangards perhaps can be intercepted. And perhaps not.      

GarryB wrote:BTW they could make decoys that are just shells with scramjet engines and fuel tanks that could be stacked inside each other... you could have quite a few in the space that one would normally occupy because they just need a front and an engine and a fuel tank... you could slot 4-5 inside each other in the space of one weapon.... from the direction of the target you would just see the front and not the rear and it would be hard to tell a real weapon from a decoy...

yes Sir, they can. But the question here is why?! if for one Avnagard ony USA neededs ~500 ABMs intercept and in one ICBM you can have 1-5 Avangards,  then why to use those small number of "slots" on something which is not going to do destruction anyway? It is wast of resources IMHO.

yes Sir, they can. But the question here is why?! if for one Avnagard ony USA neededs ~500 ABMs intercept and in one ICBM you can have 1-5 Avangards, then why to use those small number of "slots" on something which is not going to do destruction anyway? It is wast of resources IMHO.

It would be fairly simple and straight forward and would make the problem of the enemy to stop your attack exponentially harder without being very much more expensive... it could also be used in testing and training as a decoy simulator...

Thank You GD and others for reviewing the write up , I have made quite a few changes.

Added more information on US HGV program
Added more information on Yu-71 FOBS like capability 
Added more information on Sarmat HGV capability.

Give reference to Russia Defence and others who helped me here.

As always comments and suggestions welcome

https://austinstalk.blogspot.com/2018/12/hypersonic-glide-vehical.html

In the time "our friends and partners in the west" build 6000 interceptor missiles Russia could easily build 100+ Avangard and carrier missiles for them.

Poor murican taxpayer.
But the MIC will love it!

Russia should receive some reward for that.

Hole wrote:In the time "our friends and partners in the west" build 6000 interceptor missiles Russia could easily build 100+ Avangard and carrier missiles for them.

Poor murican taxpayer.
But the MIC will love it!

Russia should receive some reward for that.

meh why 100? next 12 makes in total 12,000 interceptors required

Russian tax payer done need to overpay too.

GarryB wrote:It would be fairly simple and straight forward and would make the problem of the enemy to stop your attack exponentially harder without being very much more expensive... it could also be used in testing and training as a decoy simulator...

not really, ir is much more expensive. Yet bringing very little in return.  You need very same   Avangard just with no nuclear warhead. You loose "place" on ICBM which is very expensive.
While every Avangard takes already 2 orders od magnitude ABMs. Why to waste place on ICBMs?

Austin wrote:Thank You GD and others for reviewing the write up , I have made quite a few changes.

your welcome, mate

Arrow wrote:How is Avangard flying? Does most of the flight perform in the atmosphere or  is reflected from the atmosphere by making an unintentional maneuver and spends most of the flight in space like an ordinary RV, and the atmosphere only enters to reflect and change direction. I hear that there are different versions about how it's fly.

different like sources?id how it is in reality it can fly and change its course/altitude. Below just IMHO

technically jumping out to hundreds of km makes little sense (besides cooling perhaps) since only rocket thrusters then can be used and what you gain with this? Russians use "winged" in name. As long as you are to use control surfaces and scramjets to have control flight you dont jump over 120km and not go really deeper then 70km.

Arrow wrote:How is Avangard flying? Does most of the flight perform in the atmosphere or  is reflected from the atmosphere by making an unintentional maneuver and spends most of the flight in space like an ordinary RV, and the atmosphere only enters to reflect and change direction. I hear that there are different versions about how it's fly.

Most flight is along the Karman Line as it is a sweet spot for many reason.

How they manouver likely by using a Reaction Confrol System while in Space ( US AHW uses nitrogen for propulsion as part of RCS ) and once they are in the atmosphere they will uses a combination of Wing and RCS to manouver .

Most manouvering would be done in near space since that is the place they would fly most of its trajectory and those Zig Zag trajectory needs some help from RCS once they enter atmosphere they dont need much manouvering

Arrow wrote:At such altitude, HGV quickly loses speed. In the final part of the flight, maybe it's from 3M. HGV has no drive. Scramjet motors do not work at this height.
A flight at 100 km requires a lot of energy.

It depends on how well one design the HGV its both a science and art , Depends on what altitude its injected and then drop to that altitude. 

It possible the design might have some fixed thrusters based on liquid fuel , it does not need much plus RCS for controlled manouvering.

The fact that it flew at Mach 27 shows how good the design is and they wont revel all the cards

Arrow wrote:

The flight at 27M was probably in the initial phase. The question with what speed it ended. HGV quite quickly slows down probably.

Could easily be the speed along the entire trajectory , Depends on well crafted the HGV are and what active propulsion it uses. Considering this is a huge vehical I am sure it has these for its long flight. 

Yes during reentry it will slow down but it will still provide better lift due to huge glider like wings which translates to long cross range post re-entry or better ability to manage its energy compared to normal RV , So speeds will not be below 5 km/sec as it hits the target