18 ms·
Russia deploys Avangard hypersonic missile system
- dullgiulio 7y agoPerhaps a stupid question, but during the re-entry glide I'd expect the glider to be shrouded by plasma. Doesn't it stop radio signals? How does the glider get information on the route?
- KboPAacDA3 7y agoIt may get last-minute trajectory telemetry during the boost phase, but after that it's all internal measurements and timing by the IMU.
- dullgiulio 7y agoMakes sense. The video simulation shows satellites correcting the glider's path after it has left the booster. They even drew the hot plasma around it...
- ohazi 7y agoPlasma shield also means no radar to scan for missile defenses, so I guess the maneuvering is just random? Big bright ball of plasma might also make a great target for said missile defense kill vehicle.
- icegreentea2 7y agoWestern sources routinely dismiss claims that plasma stealth is in practical use / is of practical use. We'll have to see of course. And yes, plasma generated by re-entry fireballs are plenty detectable in other areas of the spectrum.
- jhayward 7y ago> Western sources routinely dismiss claims that plasma stealth is in practical use / is of practical Given that the A-12/SR-71 were designed to use A-50 fuel addition for plasma stealth I am confused by this statement.[1] [edit: reworded from definitive statement of actual use] [1] https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29787/the-sr-71-blackbirds-predecessor-created-plasma-stealth-by-burning-cesium-laced-fuel https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29787/the-sr-71-blackb...
- icegreentea2 7y agoWell, my wording was a little imprecise. Plasma stealth as a physical concept is real, there's little doubt about that. I wasn't aware of the linked application (that's so cool! Thanks for sharing), but I would argue that that demonstrates a limited application of plasma stealth (rear aspect and plume RCS reduciton). Typical claims of plasma stealth involve somehow cloaking the entire fuselage and providing all-aspect stealth. I guess what I was trying to get at is that western sources typically downplay the threat posed by any mention of plasma stealth, typically usually some combination of "we don't actually know if their systems use plasma stealth in a meaningful manner" and "even if they did, we don't believe that it poses of a significant threat".
- thematt 7y agoNot a stupid question. What you're referring to is the blackout period during reentry. It's a challenge not just for missiles but spacecraft too. Lots of research has gone into it: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20100008938.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/201000... Beyond the advanced research concepts though, I believe the leading solution is typically inertial navigation (or a variation thereof): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_navigation_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_navigation_system https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016SPIE10158E..13L/abstract https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016SPIE10158E..13L/abstra...
- jandrewrogers 7y agoI don't know how this system works but US hypersonic missile designs suggest how it could work without requiring radio signals. Inertial guidance gets you into the general area of the target, at which point you switch to active terminal guidance i.e. the missile can identify and maneuver toward the selected target. This is much more difficult than it sounds. At hypersonic velocities, your entire terminal guidance system is being actively destroyed by atmospheric ablation. Decades of research went into how to make a terminal guidance system that survived just long enough while retaining sufficient precision of control to hit the target. It is an exotic materials science problem.
- baybal2 7y agoDoes a piece of cork amount to "exotic material science." Disposable heatshields are certainly used on all of them.
- LargoLasskhyfv 7y agoAnd i always thought the whole point of a missile would be its one time use..
- mycall 7y ago> They have a "glide system" that affords great maneuverability and could make them impossible to defend against Determine range of maneuverability and make appropriate size explosion in it's path.
- jacobush 7y agoSo shoot it down with a nuke? This has its own problems, EMP being notable.
- PhantomGremlin 7y agoThere is a long history of using nukes to intercept missiles. Here's one of the USA's (ancient) efforts:[1] Both missiles [long range and short range] used nuclear warheads, and they relied on destroying or damaging the incoming warhead with radiation rather than heat or blast. The technology was quite impressive for its time. A Youtube video is titled "SPRINT ABM - Zero to Mach 10 in 5 Seconds", with a caption in the video pointing out "white hot skin". [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safeguard_Program#Operation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safeguard_Program#Operation [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msXtgTVMcuA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msXtgTVMcuA
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- LargoLasskhyfv 7y agoYes, that was very impressive. But you forgot to mention the operational range of the used missile system. [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_(missile) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_(missile) says 25miles/40km Think about how many you'd need to reliably protect your denser populated metropolitan areas? And the accompanying radars? When i first saw this 'Temple of Doom' [4] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/SRMSC_MSR_HAER_ND-9-B.jpg/1280px-SRMSC_MSR_HAER_ND-9-B.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/SR... i immediately had to think of the Planet of the Apes movies. OTOH they'd make really good anchor points in the seawalls we need to build because of rising oceans!1!!
- ohazi 7y agoI was under the impression that "shoot the missile down with another missile" style ICBM defence doesnt work, and that everyone already knows this. Or rather, it has a ~50% success rate, which is essentially the same thing if your adversary can launch multiple rockets or if any of them have MIRV capabilities. Does this hypersonic maneuverability thing actually change anything or is it just sabre rattling?
- will4274 7y agoIt reached a 50% success rate in 2005 and since then, hard data has been hard to come by. We are talking about classified military projects. It wouldn't surprise me if what "everyone already knows" based on 90s news stories is wrong in 2019.
- nradov 7y agoThe Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system has conducted 9 live fire tests since it became operational in 2005 and 6 were successful (67% success rate). The data is publicly released and easy to find. https://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/testrecord.pdf https://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/testrecord.pdf
- jackpirate 7y agoThose tests are also highly contrived and do not match real world scenarios. Experts mostly agree that ICBM intercept capabilities remain essentially untested, and are likely to fail in the real world. The armscontrolwonk.com blog site has tons of relevant articles from defense experts explaining the limitations of current missile defense: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aarmscontrolwonk.com+missile+defense https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aarmscontrolwonk.com+m... The tl;dr is that it's all advertising.
- nradov 7y agoIt doesn't have to actually work reliably. It just has to present the appearance of possibly working some of the time in order to complicate an adversary's targeting plan and act as an effective deterrent.
- pcestrada 7y agoThis appears to be a destabilizing first strike weapon.
- ohazi 7y agoI fail to see how this is any better than existing first strike weapons. Anti-anti-ballistic-missile technology doesn't mean much when anti-ballistic missiles barely work, and all your adversaries have lots of rockets each with lots of reentry vehicles.
- roamerz 7y agoMaybe destabilizing means we, the US now have less time to make a decision on a first strike by Russia and the potential for an incorrect analysis leads to a retaliatory strike before we lose the ability to do so.
- peteretep 7y agoThat sounds like it would be a net negative for Russia
- imtringued 7y agoMissiles are worthless if you can destroy them before they are launched.
- scottlocklin 7y agoYou mean it appears to bring us back to the situation before the US invalidated the ABM treaty, causing an arms race, right?
- mytailorisrich 7y agoNot necessarily. Dissuasion must be credible and that requires credible delivery systems (missiles). Thus, if for example the US develop anti-missile systems that are able to shoot down Russian missiles then Russia no longer has a credible dissuasive arsenal. Consequently Russia must develop new missiles that evade anti-missile systems. This does not mean that they are designed for first strikes, it just tells the US "don't hit us because we can really still hit you back". It's the age old race between offensive and defensive systems.
- melling 7y agoAny peace dividend for the research? Are we a step closer to hypersonic commercial flight?
- vixen99 7y agoOr rather, back to it.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde
- jessriedel 7y agoAt Mach 2, Concorde was supersonic, not hypersonic
- coldtea 7y agoYes, but we're worst from that now, for commercial flights. From supersonic back to subsonic...
- jessriedel 7y agoConcorde was a loss-making government-subsidized program, and you can always make things "advance" by burning money. Although on occasional years it was (barely) operationally profitable, it never made a profit once depreciation of assets was considered, much less the cost of the development program. Given the available technology and society's decision to ban sonic booms over populated areas, this (we know now) was inevitable.
- reaperducer 7y agoIt's worse than that. In order to conserve fuel, most commercial jets fly slower than they used to.
- LargoLasskhyfv 7y agoI hear that often, but it seems this doesn't apply to the flights between Asia and France which go over my town. I know this because when i'm awake in the night i can hear them trough double paned glass in closed windows and then click on flightradar24.com to see who it is. And then see them between 10.5km to 11.5km up, with speeds between 950 and 1050 kph above ground. Airbus 380 or Boeing 777-ER usually. This goes both ways between Paris/CDG and many large locations in Asia, easily a dozen per night and direction.
- qwerty456127 7y agoI wouldn't believe it's anything close to operational and reliable. The only weapon Russia is capable of deploying today is cheap propaganda (which turns out to be quite efficient nowadays, thanks to how much stupid people it can reach via the Internet).
- wazoox 7y agoHistorically, USSR then Russia never boasted about non existing weapons, on the contrary, they tend to deny their existence until they deem it useful.
- jacquesm 7y agoHistorically. But these are different times and we've been in a propaganda war for a while now.
- FpUser 7y ago"I wouldn't believe" Sure let's base military defense strategy on "believe".
- AnimalMuppet 7y agoWell, those planning military defense strategy might have more information to go on than Russian PR releases...
- FpUser 7y agoThey sure do. I also sure they do not consult qwerty456127 on those matters
- qwerty456127 7y agoAn example of a typical technique Russian trolls use in discussions. Funny to observe one here on HN.
- papermachete 7y agoThe USA has had Mach 23 ICBMs [1] and Mach 10 anti-ICBMs [2][2.2] since the 60s and 70s respectively. The Sprint rocket actually glows white hot because of its high speed. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_(missile) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_(missile) [2.2] https://youtu.be/msXtgTVMcuA?t=20 https://youtu.be/msXtgTVMcuA?t=20
- jessriedel 7y agoAll ICBM reach near-orbital velocities (~7.8 km/s, ~17,000 mph, ~Mach 23), including the Russian R-7 (the world's first ICBM in 1957) and the modern ICBMs on which Russia's Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle will ride. This is only possible while outside the atmosphere. The difference is that the traditional re-entry vehicles quickly slow down to mere supersonic speeds (Mach 1-5) when they re-enter the atmosphere, making them somewhat more vulnerable on final approach. Hypersonic glide vehicles, in contrast, maintain hypersonic speeds (Mach 5-10) until very late.
- magwa101 7y agoyeah more propaganda they can't even feed their people.
- neonate 7y agoAgriculture exports, at $20.7 billion in 2017, have overtaken the arms industry as Russia's No. 2 earner. Wheat makes up about a quarter of the total. Russia harvested an area of wheat almost twice as large as the U.S. in the year ended in June, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture https://www.wsj.com/articles/grain-is-our-oil-russia-is-besting-the-u-s-as-a-wheat-powerhouse-1537719747 https://www.wsj.com/articles/grain-is-our-oil-russia-is-best... Russia was the world's largest exporter of wheat in 2017-18: https://www.export.gov/article?id=Russia-Agricultural-Equipment https://www.export.gov/article?id=Russia-Agricultural-Equipm...
- coldtea 7y agoHmm? Where you've got that? They're doing quite fine. In fact Moscow is one of the most expensive cities in the world... Perhaps your sources confuse them with USSR or even SK?
- lm28469 7y agoIt's not Stalin's USSR anymore.
- jorblumesea 7y agoRussia has a history of announcing weapon systems for propaganda purposes, and then it turns out they're mostly on paper, half done or of low quality. That doesn't mean this is the case here, but they do have a history of over promising and under delivering. The reality is that Russia's conventional or "normal" ICBM weapons are far more of a threat to the US than any hypersonic platforms. The Chinese are the ones to watch. They have been much more thoughtful about their hypersonic weapons development and are trying to develop tactical hypersonic weapons in addition to strategic assets.
- trhway 7y ago>Such "boost-glide" systems, as they are known (Avangard appears to be one of these), are launched like a traditional ballistic missile, but instead of following an arc high above the atmosphere, the re-entry vehicle is put on a trajectory that allows it to enter Earth's atmosphere quite quickly, before gliding, un-powered, for hundreds or thousands of kilometres. [ ... ] Indeed the glide vehicle's trajectory, "surfing along the edge of the atmosphere" as one expert put it to me recently ... Almost a century later we're still implementing weapons program as conceived by Nazis. In case of Avangard even the gliding phase speed of 20 Mach is the same as in the Nazi design : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silbervogel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silbervogel "The design was a significant one, as it incorporated new rocket technology and the principle of the lifting body, foreshadowing future development of winged spacecraft such as the X-20 Dyna-Soar of the 1960s and the Space Shuttle of the 1970s. In the end, it was considered too complex and expensive to produce. The design never went beyond mock-up test. The Silbervogel was intended to fly long distances in a series of short hops. The aircraft was to have begun its mission propelled along a 3 km (2 mi) long rail track by a large rocket-powered sled to about 1,930 km/h (1,200 mph). Once airborne, it was to fire its own rocket engine and continue to climb to an altitude of 145 km (90 mi), at which point it would be travelling at about 21,800 km/h (13,500 mph). It would then gradually descend into the stratosphere, where the increasing air density would generate lift against the flat underside of the aircraft, eventually causing it to "bounce" and gain altitude again, where this pattern would be repeated. Because of aerodynamic drag, each bounce would be shallower than the preceding one, but it was still calculated that the Silbervogel would be able to cross the Atlantic, deliver a 4,000 kg (8,800 lb) bomb to the continental United States"
- LargoLasskhyfv 7y agoThis lacks a 'now playing:' [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJC-_j3SnXk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJC-_j3SnXk (O Fortuna - Carmina Burana - Carl Orff, 3m28s)
- trhway 7y agoStrong move! I'll raise you the "Götterdämmerung will fly" scene - https://youtu.be/gwsPLciYPyU?t=32 https://youtu.be/gwsPLciYPyU?t=32 - in particular and the whole movie in general :)
- exabrial 7y agoYay. We've found another way to wipe out populations with no benefit to other populations. Is there any scenario where weapons of mass destruction deescalate?
- chriselles 7y agoI tend to think the likely explanation of Russian hypersonic weapons is akin to commercial sector marketing of AI, all too often hype over substance. Russia is simply unable to conventionally compete economically and militarily with the US. So in order to buttress domestic and international support for Russia’s Putin regime, the result is hypersonic information operations. Unlike conventional precision guided weapons for tactical use, hypersonic missiles are strategic and nuclear in focus. So not as likely to be exposed as vapourware in operational use. So a likely area for empty chest puffing and peacocking. Empty theatrics is a real possibility. Russia is not likely to share hypersonic missile telemetry. Nor is the US DOD and industry, as keeping quiet allows for opportunity to seek addition funding to counter hollow capability.
- stevespang 7y agoThis sort of development is what will encourage the US military industrial empire to shake us down for a new Star Wars satellite laser system and to continue to expand nuclear submarines, perhaps not as a first strike, but as a viable counterstrike weapon.