Russia’s hypersonic weapon

[wdfifteen]

Supposedly travels at Mach 27. How does it move through the atmosphere at that speed ? How does it not burn up?

[Evans, Marv]

Launched on top of an ICBM type missile and skips along the upper atmosphere like a rock across water. I'm wondering just how far along they really are. We've supposedly been working on something similar for quite a while.

[sammyg2]

The US has a habit of making it look like we're doing something outlandish, only to force the rooskies to play "catch-up" and spend lots O'money.
We're really good at spending their money.

[onewhippedpuppy]

There’s been a lot of recent articles about how the USA has lost their edge in hypersonics because the efforts have been underfunded for years now. Many of which are NASA projects. I hope it’s a misinformation campaign but it’s coming from a lot of different sources.

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

There’s been a lot of recent articles about how the USA has lost their edge in hypersonics because the efforts have been underfunded for years now. Many of which are NASA projects. I hope it’s a misinformation campaign but it’s coming from a lot of different sources.

$20,000,000,000 a year doesn't go as far as it used to.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by Evans, Marv

Launched on top of an ICBM type missile and skips along the upper atmosphere like a rock across water.

My question is how does it get through the atmosphere to damage a target. Or does it just it just create EMP or some kind of radiation that damages earth based targets from the upper atmosphere?

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

$20,000,000,000 a year doesn't go as far as it used to.

NASA spends too much money!!! Wait it costs money to INVENT entirely new aerodynamic and propulsion technology from scratch?! No free lunch dude.

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

My question is how does it get through the atmosphere to damage a target. Or does it just it just create EMP or some kind of radiation that damages earth based targets from the upper atmosphere?

Most of them are kinetic energy based. They move so fast that there is no actual warhead needed.

[Gogar]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

The US has a habit of making it look like we're doing something outlandish, only to force the rooskies to play "catch-up" and spend lots O'money.
We're really good at spending their money.

In the same way, our military convinces our gubmit to give them "more money!" so the Russians don't get the edge. They're really good at spending our money.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

Most of them are kinetic energy based. They move so fast that there is no actual warhead needed.

Let me ask another way. How does ANYTHING move through the atmosphere at 27 times the speed of sound without being destroyed by friction before it strikes a target on earth?

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

Let me ask another way. How does ANYTHING move through the atmosphere at 27 times the speed of sound without being destroyed by friction before it strikes a target on earth?

The space shuttle was in the ballpark of Mach 25 upon re-entry. That was for a large glider with a manned crew and complex equipment. The million dollar question is how to quickly propel an object to that speed without putting it into orbit and at a practical cost. After that point kinetic energy takes care of the rest. KE is 1/2*mass*velocity^2, so that means that kinetic energy is an exponential function of velocity. We are talking about a glorified lawn dart moving very very fast that can do a lot of damage. And conventional defenses would be useless against it.

[Gogar]

If you make something that's -not necessarily- trying to slow down as much, I bet it doesn't get terminally hot. Really hot, sure.

[RSBob]

Not to worry, we will have the Space Force. Seriously, the money going to create the bureaucracy of that endeavor would best be used on the Air Force developing our own hypersonic systems and/or defense systems. Why add more money sucking overhead when the Air Force is already in the saddle?

[Arizona_928]

Thaad can prolly track it. Those radars are freaking insane though. But stopping it. Yeah right.
Tbm are hard to stop when they're going fast.

[sc_rufctr]

At Mach 27 how would you steer it to a target?

How's this for innovative thinking? (Conceived around 1955)

Nuclear powered - Mach 3 at sea level, complete with multiple war heads!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_Low_Altitude_Missile

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

The space shuttle was in the ballpark of Mach 25 upon re-entry.

That was no where near the surface, where air density is much greater. Maybe Russia's claim is that it can go Mach 27, but isn't going that fast in the lower atmosphere. Ho hum. We already have vehicles that do that.

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by Gogar

In the same way, our military convinces our gubmit to give them "more money!" so the Russians don't get the edge. They're really good at spending our money.

UH you said the exact same thing i did.
But you felt that you made a point somehow? Good for you.

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by RSBob

Not to worry, we will have the Space Force. Seriously, the money going to create the bureaucracy of that endeavor would best be used on the Air Force developing our own hypersonic systems and/or defense systems. Why add more money sucking overhead when the Air Force is already in the saddle?

You have no clue what you are talking about, yet you still managed to make it about trump in a forum that is not supposed to be political.

TDS is treatable if caught early, shame.

[Seahawk]

I love this so much: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3689325/Russia-reveals-hypersonic-stealth-bomber-launch-nuclear-attacks-space-Radical-plane-begin-testing-2020.html

2020, soon, we're this close....



Mach 27 in the atmosphere:

[flipper35]

A couple years ago in the summer my brother in law, daughter and I were using the heavens above app watching sats and we spotted one that looked normal until it started doing S turns. It was not the mini shuttle either.

There is a lot up there that very few people know what it is or what is up there.

For kinetic energy, they did some calculations years ago and if they dropped a 2500 pound steel dart from a bird from the Blackbird family when it was at speed and altitude it would go through 30 feet of reinforced concrete, or straight through the deck and out the bottom of a carrier.

Paul, that would be interesting if Russia can develop an engine by 2020 when they can't get the one in the PAK-FA down yet.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

That was no where near the surface, where air density is much greater. Maybe Russia's claim is that it can go Mach 27, but isn't going that fast in the lower atmosphere. Ho hum. We already have vehicles that do that.

Also have to remember that in order to get the space shuttle to that velocity took two big booster rockets and a huge fuel tank, and it had to be propelled through our atmosphere to get there. This is something small enough that it could be launched from an aircraft or ship. Every aspect of a hypersonic weapon is technology that has to be invented. Hypersonic manned aircraft? THAT would be an interesting project.

Originally Posted by flipper35

A couple years ago in the summer my brother in law, daughter and I were using the heavens above app watching sats and we spotted one that looked normal until it started doing S turns. It was not the mini shuttle either.

There is a lot up there that very few people know what it is or what is up there.

For kinetic energy, they did some calculations years ago and if they dropped a 2500 pound steel dart from a bird from the Blackbird family when it was at speed and altitude it would go through 30 feet of reinforced concrete, or straight through the deck and out the bottom of a carrier.

Paul, that would be interesting if Russia can develop an engine by 2020 when they can't get the one in the PAK-FA down yet.

Per the excellent Ben Rich book Skunkworks, they actually marketed the Blackbird as an attack platform but the USAF balked because it made the struggling B-1 platform obsolete. Because of their arrogance and inability to admit that the B-1 program was floundering, they ignored the relatively low risk and cost path of using the SR-71 for attack purposes. Which is also, btw, why the Space Force is a pretty decent idea if well executed. The USAF still has a lot of guys that are only interested in loud fast jets, space has in many ways been an afterthought. Considering that it's really the next battlespace, at least between developed nations, it deserves more attention.