The Avangard
Thread Starter
The Avangard
Putin unveils a new weapon in the Russian armoury, a hypersonic missile with up to a 2MT warhead. Named the Avangard, it ..."cruises at M27 and execute sharp manoeuvres to avoid interception....."
One wonders how much Gz would be generated during these alleged sharp manoeuvres and if indeed we are being fed something other than fact.......
One wonders how much Gz would be generated during these alleged sharp manoeuvres and if indeed we are being fed something other than fact.......
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
If that is Mach 27, that's greater than orbital velocity, so would very much doubt it. ( Mach 1 is 660 kts, Mach 27 is 17820 Orbital velocity is, I believe 14,760, obviously at orbital height.) Figures approximate.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,819
Received 2,796 Likes
on
1,191 Posts
So they get there quicker, but as launch would be probably detected all that means is they would pass the outgoing at a different point in space and it would still be game over for Earth Plc or am I missing something? Allowing for the amount on both sides, being unable to knock a few down will make squat difference in the scheme of things.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is not a surprise for those concerned with the matter, or at least following the media. After the US withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2001 (probably hoping that toys like SM-3, GBI and THAAD would provide the defense), it was said many times (in public) in Russia that maneuvering warhead blocks would leave no chance for current (and near future) interceptors.
The design itself is not new, but is dated back to mid 80's when Reagan was keen on his SDI. Then in early 90's the programme was discontinued, but revived in mid 2000's after Bush Jr buried the ABMT. Nothing breakthrough technologically, also no big costs (the launcher itself if pretty old).
For those interested and ready to spend some time in online translation, here is the URL in Russian: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90...5%D0%BA%D1%81)
P.S. To Herod
Mach 1 at the sea level is about 340 m/s, while at the altitude of 80 km it is only around 280+ m/s. I agree that M=27 is likely a journos' or politicians' error, but 25+ sounds more real (see e.g. the Shuttle re-entry profile).
The design itself is not new, but is dated back to mid 80's when Reagan was keen on his SDI. Then in early 90's the programme was discontinued, but revived in mid 2000's after Bush Jr buried the ABMT. Nothing breakthrough technologically, also no big costs (the launcher itself if pretty old).
For those interested and ready to spend some time in online translation, here is the URL in Russian: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90...5%D0%BA%D1%81)
P.S. To Herod
Mach 1 at the sea level is about 340 m/s, while at the altitude of 80 km it is only around 280+ m/s. I agree that M=27 is likely a journos' or politicians' error, but 25+ sounds more real (see e.g. the Shuttle re-entry profile).
Last edited by A_Van; 28th Dec 2019 at 05:50.
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is not a surprise for those concerned with the matter, or at least following the media. After the US withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2001 (probably hoping that toys like SM-3, GBI and THAAD would provide the defense), it was said many times (in public) in Russia that maneuvering warhead blocks would leave no chance for current (and near future) interceptors.
The design itself is not new, but is dated back to mid 80's when Reagan was keen on his SDI. Then in early 90's the programme was discontinued, but revived in mid 2000's after Bush Jr buried the ABMT. Nothing breakthrough technologically, also no big costs (the launcher itself if pretty old).
For those interested and ready to spend some time in online translation, here is the URL in Russian: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90...5%D0%BA%D1%81)
P.S. To Herod
Mach 1 at the sea level is about 340 m/s, while at the altitude of 80 km it is only around 280+ m/s. I agree that M=27 is likely a journos' or politicians' error, but 25+ sounds more real (see e.g. the Shuttle re-entry profile).
The design itself is not new, but is dated back to mid 80's when Reagan was keen on his SDI. Then in early 90's the programme was discontinued, but revived in mid 2000's after Bush Jr buried the ABMT. Nothing breakthrough technologically, also no big costs (the launcher itself if pretty old).
For those interested and ready to spend some time in online translation, here is the URL in Russian: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90...5%D0%BA%D1%81)
P.S. To Herod
Mach 1 at the sea level is about 340 m/s, while at the altitude of 80 km it is only around 280+ m/s. I agree that M=27 is likely a journos' or politicians' error, but 25+ sounds more real (see e.g. the Shuttle re-entry profile).
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,819
Received 2,796 Likes
on
1,191 Posts
But surely a response would already have been launched when the intial launch was detected?
I thought we'd moved away from "launch on warning"?
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEEMONKEY:
Sprint is an obsolete retro stuff. Extremely expensive, very short range, no really proved effectiveness, out of ops since long ago. IMHO, even modern PAC-3 is better. But the problem with such short-range "pencils" is that (assume they can really hit the target) they should be deployed in many thousands to protect the whole US territory. Even huge Pentagon budget would blow up :-)
Sprint is an obsolete retro stuff. Extremely expensive, very short range, no really proved effectiveness, out of ops since long ago. IMHO, even modern PAC-3 is better. But the problem with such short-range "pencils" is that (assume they can really hit the target) they should be deployed in many thousands to protect the whole US territory. Even huge Pentagon budget would blow up :-)
Surely, if this thing is real, this is merely strategic military posturing by Putin harking back to the cold war years? This "capability" if used would only invite a strategic nuclear response, so it is madness!
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEEMONKEY:
Sprint is an obsolete retro stuff. Extremely expensive, very short range, no really proved effectiveness, out of ops since long ago. IMHO, even modern PAC-3 is better. But the problem with such short-range "pencils" is that (assume they can really hit the target) they should be deployed in many thousands to protect the whole US territory. Even huge Pentagon budget would blow up :-)
Sprint is an obsolete retro stuff. Extremely expensive, very short range, no really proved effectiveness, out of ops since long ago. IMHO, even modern PAC-3 is better. But the problem with such short-range "pencils" is that (assume they can really hit the target) they should be deployed in many thousands to protect the whole US territory. Even huge Pentagon budget would blow up :-)
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pr00ne: madness was the US withdrawing from the ABM treary... And now they don't want to prolong the START that expires in 2020....
