I agree. That velocity is not achieved from simple acceleration due to gravity. A large component of that is its initial velocity, which is what I was attempting to explain.

Yes, he did. With decreasing altitude there is increasing air density, hence more drag. He slowed down at lower altitude. The comment I was responding to implied that every projectile on a ballistic path achieves some zero vertical speed then plummets to the ground with a final velocity depending on its maximum altitude. This is true for a vertical shot, but with any horizontal component there is a vector that does not go to zero at maximum altitude and carries a horizontal component that determines, with the altitude, the final velocity of the projectile. This is energy imparted to the projectile at launch and it does not vanish as the projectile achieves its maximum height, except for drag.

Again, I agree, except that we don't live in a vacuum. The lower you go the slower you go until you hit the ocean, when you stop. The final velocity of the rocket at impact is not only dependent on its maximum altitude during flight. This is a vector thing.

Russia's latest submarine commander. :}

Still as a means of avoiding arty, his posture was pure genius, could be new

Guinness

ad. Now, is it possible to get the whole Russian army to emulate the latest anti-arty technique and park all of their mighty scotts pines T-72's in the sea of Azov? In one chicken fowl swoop they would save Russian lives of those that can swim, and save Russia from the antics of the gang that couldn't shoot straight.

I am no marine warfare expert, but that sub (if it is a sub as suggested) seems to be rather close to the shore. I've no idea what are the capabilities of UKR Navy against submarines nowadays, but they did sink Moskva and other vessels.

I'd quit while you're ahead ...

For those that want to play there is a calculator at the bottom.

Weight of an ATACMS is 3690lbs and drag coefficient is below 0.7. Have to guess at the cross section, I put in 3ft. Gave a terminal velocity of 3100 f/s - between M2.5 and M3.0.

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/rocket/termvr.html

For those that doubt that missiles go supersonic on descent I refer you back to the Falcon 9 video and the double crack boom on landing - and that after burning back down range to the launch site and a long deceleration burn during the descent to reduce horizontal speed.to zero and reduce vertical speed prior to the last second landing burn.

But again you are using freefall NOT powered, by your logic the fastest aircraft in the world would max out at 120MPH

military aviation content is a bit hard to come by, but here's a little something to keep the thread on topic.

6 Minutes in May
 

Nichols Shakespeare wrote a historically accurate account of just how close it was " 6 Minutes in May" a gripping read, even though you know the outcome. Well recommended.

Just to bring this sub-forum back to its roots and noting that many of us have dropped stuff from altitude, we can categorically assert that stores can go supersonic with ease when dropped from the high block on a level delivery profile. If not effectively mitigated this can be rather problematic for guided bombs as their control surfaces tend not to work (in a rather dramatic way) when Ernst Mach comes-a-knocking.

With the reference to parachuting one should express some sympathy for those whose job entails leaving an aircraft at altitude that flies at an IAS with a parachute that effectively, at opening, respects TAS. Even with an aircraft that can drop safely from (for example) 135kts from the 30-block, with the relative comfort of a static-line delivery, will find themselves at 0.4~0.5M as the canopy inflates. All that energy from the rapid deceleration is taken by the crotch straps. When you have to drop with a delayed canopy, higher, faster and with large amounts of equipment, the careful packing of manhood is as much of a priority as the chutes.

Lets put some numbers on that claim to see how it smells.

Firstly, lets assume that at the apex of its flight (that point where its vertical velocity IS zero), the rocket motor has finished burning.
The energy in the system is the kinetic energy due to its momentarily horizontally velocity plus the potential energy from having climbed that high.
If it travelled 200km over 30min, horizontal velocity averages 400kmph or 111m/s.
The kinetic energy due to its velocity at the apex is 0.5mv^2, roughly 6.2e3 x m, where m is the mass of the missile with no fuel left.
(the horizontal velocity at the apex won't exactly equal the average velocity but it will be of that order)

The energy in the system when it hits the ground at Mach 2.5 (3087kmph) is 367.6e3 x m

The initial velocity gets it up there but the velocity at impact is very much caused by "simple acceleration due to gravity"

As you've admitted to pedantry for the sake of accuracy, I'm sure you'll accept my correction of your errors...

The bullet would experience a force from gravity of 9.8 . (mass in kg). The 9.8 m/sec^s quantity you wrongly claim to be the force acting upon it is in fact the acceleration it would experience.

Also, in 1 second, the bullet (or any falling object) would reach a vertical velocity of 9.8m/s, but it would only have fallen only 5m (S = u.t + 1/2.a.t^2), not 9.8m as you claim.

Gob smacked, Steven Seagal appears to be working for the Russians.

To be fair, he got this part right:

So, basically, it was a rant against fake hair?

Beamr - I think that clip has been miss-reported and what is being seen is the rocket booster phase burning out. The boosters have thrust vectoring, hence the trajectory flown as revealed by the smoke trail.

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....bbc741f8c2.jpg

That's right, it was the first phase burning out and the jet engines kicking in seen in the clip. The actual interception was not shown on that film. However my point with the film was the close proximity of the sub, and I was just wondering if it is very heatlhy for the crew to loiter so close to the hostile shore.

Is replenishment not to replace a possibly lost item? or just badly worded, or is he talking ammunition for them?
In the future, please use "preview post" to detect, and thus avoid, the kind of visual clutter that you created.
Thank you for going back and cleaning up the mess. :)
T28B

I don't think you need to analyse his writing Nutty, English isn't his first language, and please don't revert to "page-sized" graphics.

To replenish is to refill not replace.

Since the question of language has been raised, it would be good if you could sort out the difference between "its" and "it's " e.g. " unaware of what hit it and it’s range.. win win either way."

It's very simple and necessary because the more this bloody mistake is repeated, the more difficult it is to eliminate it.