|
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....... |
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.
|
Orbital sounds about right...:8
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-50927648 https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....0f190351d.jpeg |
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. |
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). |
Originally Posted by A_Van
(Post 10648771)
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). |
Decoy launches will frustrate a space defence in launch phase. By the time it’s obvious which are re entry vehicles it’s too late. |
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"?
|
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 :-) |
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!
|
Originally Posted by A_Van
(Post 10649818)
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 :-) |
Originally Posted by weemonkey
(Post 10649888)
Deary me. In your enthusiasm you must have mistaken the meaning of "Mk2".
pr00ne: madness was the US withdrawing from the ABM treary... And now they don't want to prolong the START that expires in 2020.... |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:09. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.