User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/5/2022 9:23:45 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This isn't my forte. I know nothing about the technical side of ICBMs. But that number seems crazy high. Right? No, the reentry phase sees those speeds |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2022 9:27:33 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: COC COC 6 ~ Bollocks44 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2022 9:30:32 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryF'in nailed it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2022 9:33:46 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: COC Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: COC COC Both of you are right and both of you are over looking the other side of the engineering issue. Yes, to have a steerable, in atmosphere Mach 5+ missile requires a shit ton of thermal handling. If you want it to be hypersonic on its entire trajectory, not just shoot to the Karman line and fall back to Earth at speed, you need an enjine capable of burning fuel with the atmoshpere at those speeds. Take all the challenges of the SR71 and multiply them by 8 or more. Keeping a flame lit in a combustion chamber utilizing air rushing in at well over 4000 mph is a massive challenge. Suck it up you two, youre both half right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2022 9:35:46 PM EDT
[#5]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2022 9:38:50 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This isn't my forte. I know nothing about the technical side of ICBMs. But that number seems crazy high. Right? What was the top speed of the space shuttle? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2022 9:39:56 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Both of you are right and both of you are over looking the other side of the engineering issue. Yes, to have a steerable, in atmosphere Mach 5+ missile requires a shit ton of thermal handling. If you want it to be hypersonic on its entire trajectory, not just shoot to the Karman line and fall back to Earth at speed, you need an enjine capable of burning fuel with the atmoshpere at those speeds. Take all the challenges of the SR71 and multiply them by 8 or more. Keeping a flame lit in a combustion chamber utilizing air rushing in at well over 4000 mph is a massive challenge. Suck it up you two, youre both half right. I agree with what you have said 100%. I wasn’t wrong. I just stated that we flew Sprint to M10 in 75 and it pissed him off. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2022 9:54:03 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I agree with what you have said 100%. I wasn’t wrong. I just stated that we flew Sprint to M10 in 75 and it pissed him off. Sprint wasnt maneuverable. Hypersonics in the true sense are basically Mach 5+ cruise missiles. Sprint wasnt that although every step made in that regard help get us to where we are now. The engine (keeping it burning fuel with atmpsheric O2 at those speeds) and control surfaces (thermal capacity of Mach 5+ air over a leading edge) require a stupid amount of engineering to overcome the physics of atmospheric flight and if the US pulled that off without just being a steerable ballistic missile is a massive achievement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2022 9:57:37 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What was the top speed of the space shuttle? In orbit? ~26,000 KPH over the ground. Hell, watch a SpaceX launch video, you can see how fast the 2nd stage gets and you also see how fast the 1st stage (booster) gets as it falls back to Earth. A typical Falcon 9 launch is the equivalent of an ICBM launch as far as speeds go to get into orbit and how fast they fall up until the landing burning. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2022 9:59:50 PM EDT
[#10]
Plot twist, Joe Biden bought it from Russia. /s
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2022 10:26:26 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: COC  COC |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2022 10:31:20 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Both of you are right and both of you are over looking the other side of the engineering issue. Yes, to have a steerable, in atmosphere Mach 5+ missile requires a shit ton of thermal handling. If you want it to be hypersonic on its entire trajectory, not just shoot to the Karman line and fall back to Earth at speed, you need an enjine capable of burning fuel with the atmoshpere at those speeds. Take all the challenges of the SR71 and multiply them by 8 or more. Keeping a flame lit in a combustion chamber utilizing air rushing in at well over 4000 mph is a massive challenge. Suck it up you two, youre both half right. No, thermal management technology is not what is holding us back, it's being able to get the ramjets/scramjets to work properly. The thermal tech is not much different than it's been for decades. Ablative ceramic surfaces is not cutting edge. Also thermal and even ionizing issues at Mach 20 reentry is far worse than Mach 5 sustained. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2022 10:31:45 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: COC Id argue its been "solved". We have ways of mitigating thermal effects, but there is no magic bullet I know of short of ceramics when you get close to mach 9 and that shit is super fragile. Remember, this is edit>> NOT<< space exploration, this is military use with rough handling being part of the equation. Youre over looking how good that shit is, hint its not that great and its also bulky and hard to retain under stresses of sustained Max Q |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2022 10:39:31 PM EDT
[#14]
I thought the purpose of hypersonic was for low altitude travel, negating radars .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2022 10:54:04 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I thought the purpose of hypersonic was for low altitude travel, negating radars . HGVs are surrounded by a ball of plasma and easily detected, they don't care a flip about radars. At Mach 5 and steerable, its attitude is catch me if you can. Altitude is still high at the outer edges of the atmosphere, you don't last long or go far going mach 5 at low altitudes. Although ICBMs are much faster at Mach 20ish, they aren't steerable and so you can easily map out its trajectory for interception. Not so with hypersonic missiles which zig and zag on their way to their targets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2022 11:07:01 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: HGVs are surrounded by a ball of plasma and easily detected, they don't care a flip about radars. At Mach 5 and steerable, its attitude is catch me if you can. Altitude is still high at the outer edges of the atmosphere, you don't last long or go far going mach 5 at low altitudes. Although ICBMs are much faster at Mach 20ish, they aren't steerable and so you can easily map out its trajectory for interception. Not so with hypersonic missiles which zig and zag on their way to their targets. I have a much better picture. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2022 11:10:33 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sprint wasnt maneuverable. Hypersonics in the true sense are basically Mach 5+ cruise missiles. Sprint wasnt that although every step made in that regard help get us to where we are now. The engine (keeping it burning fuel with atmpsheric O2 at those speeds) and control surfaces (thermal capacity of Mach 5+ air over a leading edge) require a stupid amount of engineering to overcome the physics of atmospheric flight and if the US pulled that off without just being a steerable ballistic missile is a massive achievement.  Yes it was, phased array radar on the ground sent steering commands to the missile. One of the technological breakthroughs of the Sprint was keeping the RF link through the ionized air that surrounded the missile. Missile was capable of steering in both 1st and 2nd stage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2022 11:18:34 PM EDT
[#18]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2022 11:27:25 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes it was, phased array radar on the ground sent steering commands to the missile. One of the technological breakthroughs of the Sprint was keeping the RF link through the ionized air that surrounded the missile. Missile was capable of steering in both 1st and 2nd stage. You show me a Sprint in horizontal flight steering on plane and maintaining velocity. Steering on ballistic trajectory is magnitudes easier than steering like a Tomahawk at 10x the speed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2022 11:30:01 PM EDT
[#20]
china has test launched in the hundreds of hypersonic missles..in the HUNDREDS.. we have tested less than 12...
 Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2022 11:34:32 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I thought the expansion of propellant gases was limited to something like 5000 ft/s. Does that only apply to solid gunpowders? I honestly don't know. Trying to learn here. I had a .220 Swift one time and I thought 4200 ft/s was fast.  Well I mean of course we let all our weapon systems that would give us an upper hand to be released immediately, especially to FOX news. If it is in the realm of code word clearance you won't hear a thing about it till we use it. You may hear rumors or dis information, but honest specs and uses. Not, unless you get an Edward Snowden type, but even he was not cleared for anything that shocking. How many of us knew much about the Switchblade drone before Ukraine? Or the fact that is a whole series with different capabilities? There are much the public doesn't know or need to know if we are to be effective in war, especially for the type of war we are on the edge of. it goes Clearance, Need to Know, then Access ... once read into a SAP you have to be Read out which lists all the scary things they can do with you if you leak, and the damage you can do to our countries security. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2022 11:41:20 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You show me a Sprint in horizontal flight steering on plane and maintaining velocity. Steering on ballistic trajectory is magnitudes easier than steering like a Tomahawk at 10x the speed. I mean sure, an airburst at a distance is better than a direct hit, but still... Good thing we never had to use them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2022 11:41:25 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You show me a Sprint in horizontal flight steering on plane and maintaining velocity. Steering on ballistic trajectory is magnitudes easier than steering like a Tomahawk at 10x the speed. Some people just can't admit they are talking through their arses. You said "Sprint wasnt maneuverable" Truth: " Phased-array radars and high-speed computer processing allowed the warhead to be tracked, steering commands for the Sprint to be calculated, and uplinked to the missile via a radio connection of the frequency and power to be received through the ionized missile exhaust and plasma sheath surrounding the missile. The missile steered itself using fluid injection in the first stage and small vanes on the second stage. " http://www.astronautix.com/s/sprintabm.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2022 11:43:38 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ICBMs are really just rockets that carry warheads instead of monkeys or Teslas or whatever. Mercury was launched on Redstone or Atlas missiles, and Gemini was on top of Titan missiles. Just swap out the nuclear warhead for a manned capsule and bam, off to orbit we go! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2022 11:54:35 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Some people just can't admit they are talking through their arses. You said "Sprint wasnt maneuverable" Truth: " Phased-array radars and high-speed computer processing allowed the warhead to be tracked, steering commands for the Sprint to be calculated, and uplinked to the missile via a radio connection of the frequency and power to be received through the ionized missile exhaust and plasma sheath surrounding the missile. The missile steered itself using fluid injection in the first stage and small vanes on the second stage. " http://www.astronautix.com/s/sprintabm.html Youre talking about a steerable missile which is different than a hypersonic cruise missile. If you want to be right, fine, its steerable so long as its falling towards the ground or going straight up and not able to avoid areas of interception on the fly aka a ballistic missile (either going up or coming down) If you want to be pedantic about what a hypersonic missile is, its one that can travel horizontal to the ground while maintaining hypersonic speeds AND steerable in that trajectory. Sprint wasnt that AT ALL, I dont care how it was controlled |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2022 11:56:17 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I laugh when the media hypes some new enemy technology and then laments that we have nothing like it. There is so much classified shit that has never been revealed that it would shock people. I always thought the "UFO's" around Area 51 were nothing more than classified experimental aircraft. Actually everyone believes that. I think the scary thing is that there's so super secret sauce, the next gen is coming but it's not going to blow any minds, like every previous one. The real conspiracy is that area 51 etc don't have any big jumps in tech or lethality at all, because the government and defense sector has lost its edge and is only good for stealing money from the taxpayers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2022 11:57:13 PM EDT
[#27]
I seriously doubt that a hypersonic missile would be anything remotely resembling quiet.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2022 12:03:58 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I seriously doubt that a hypersonic missile would be anything remotely resembling quiet. Depends on how far away and how long you wait from the time it passes over you Guns are loud as fuck and if youre down range, you could be looking at your own brain matter before you hear it. If youre still around to hear it, youll hear a nice bang a few seconds later. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2022 12:04:02 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I seriously doubt that a hypersonic missile would be anything remotely resembling quiet. By the time you heard the boom, it’s too late |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2022 12:07:27 AM EDT
[#30]
Technically a hypersonic weapon can maneuver over Mach 5. The Phoenix air to air missile on the F-14 came close. Pershing Ii has maneuverable reentry vehicles.
The so-called Russian Hypersonic missile used un Ukraine is just an air launched version of their Iskander ballistic missile As a practical matter it means something that has level flight like a cruise missile but > Mach 5. The whole point is to limit the enemy's reaction time. Stealthy cruise missiles might achieve this even better. Mike |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2022 12:22:37 AM EDT
[#31]
Hypersonic. Air. Breathing. Missile.
DARPA HAWC https://www.darpa.mil/program/hypersonic-air-breathing-weapon-concept hypersonic Airbreathing propulsion https://www.jhuapl.edu/content/techdigest/pdf/V26-N04/26-04-VanWie.pdf What it’s like to design and launch a hypersonic missile https://www.raytheonmissilesanddefense.com/news/2022/03/15/what-it-is-like-to-design-and-launch-a-hypersonic-missile Airbreathing Propulsion for Missiles and Projectiles https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA257018 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2022 1:00:02 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Youre talking about a steerable missile which is different than a hypersonic cruise missile. If you want to be right, fine, its steerable so long as its falling towards the ground or going straight up and not able to avoid areas of interception on the fly aka a ballistic missile (either going up or coming down) If you want to be pedantic about what a hypersonic missile is, its one that can travel horizontal to the ground while maintaining hypersonic speeds AND steerable in that trajectory. Sprint wasnt that AT ALL, I dont care how it was controlled This is so annoying. Your rants and other people's rants about thermal management, maneuverability etc.. show you have no clue what you are talking about. Maneuverability is not hard, we've done that with faster missiles for decades. Going Mach 5 is not hard, we can easily go 4X faster with conventional technology, whether solid or liquid fuel engines, and have done so for decades. Dealing with the heat and ionization is nothing we haven't been able to do for decades. The breakthrough with the current HGVs are the air breathing engines. The Russians have touted "hypersonic" missiles which were solid fuel and people in the know just rolled their eyes. Breathing air means it does not have to carry its own oxidizer which means greater specific impulse which means greater range. We and every other superpower have been working on air breathing hypersonics for decades and for decades we've made little progress. The primary obstacle has been getting scramjets to work in reality like we have them working in theory. The entire idea is to use shockwaves to compress air/fuel in a way we don't need moving parts inside the engine. No turbine blades, no nothing. Shockwaves take care of all of that. We modeled them on the ground, on supercomputers, and in the air they acted in erratic ways. It's only recently air breathing HGVs have been able to demonstrate the promise of scramjets that we've chased for decades. This is what the hype is about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2022 1:16:22 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My guess would be the relative ground speed while the missile is in space. Well the highest velocity is going to be at booster burnout or right before atmospheric re-entry, not at the apogee. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2022 1:23:26 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: HGVs are surrounded by a ball of plasma and easily detected, they don't care a flip about radars. At Mach 5 and steerable, its attitude is catch me if you can. Altitude is still high at the outer edges of the atmosphere, you don't last long or go far going mach 5 at low altitudes. Although ICBMs are much faster at Mach 20ish, they aren't steerable and so you can easily map out its trajectory for interception. Not so with hypersonic missiles which zig and zag on their way to their targets. That's not entirely true. They fly low enough that the curvature of the earth can obscure radar detection. Hypersonic Glide vehicles present a number of challenges to missile defense. They greatly reduce the engagement window. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2022 1:25:21 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What was the top speed of the space shuttle? I will offer only these factoids. In low Earth orbit, it takes 90 minutes (1 1/2 hours) to circle the globe. Let's see now,... Earth is about 25,000 miles around. So 25,000 miles divided by 1 1/2 hours is 16,667 mph. For you bullet speed freaks, that's over 24,000 fps. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2022 1:27:39 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I will offer only these factoids. In low Earth orbit, it takes 90 minutes (1 1/2 hours) to circle the globe. Let's see now,... Earth is about 25,000 miles around. So 25,000 miles divided by 1 1/2 hours is 16,667 mph. For you bullet speed freaks, that's over 24,000 fps. So they are orbiting the earth at ground level? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2022 1:29:17 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's not entirely true. They fly low enough that the curvature of the earth can obscure radar detection. Hypersonic Glide vehicles present a number of challenges to missile defense. They greatly reduce the engagement window. RADAR in spaaaaaace! It sounds like a kid's scifi show. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2022 1:31:00 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: RADAR in spaaaaaace! It sounds like a kid's scifi show. I never said the radar was in space. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2022 1:34:04 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is so annoying. Your rants and other people's rants about thermal management, maneuverability etc.. show you have no clue what you are talking about. Maneuverability is not hard, we've done that with faster missiles for decades. Going Mach 5 is not hard, we can easily go 4X faster with conventional technology, whether solid or liquid fuel engines, and have done so for decades. Dealing with the heat and ionization is nothing we haven't been able to do for decades. The breakthrough with the current HGVs are the air breathing engines. The Russians have touted "hypersonic" missiles which were solid fuel and people in the know just rolled their eyes. Breathing air means it does not have to carry its own oxidizer which means greater specific impulse which means greater range. We and every other superpower have been working on air breathing hypersonics for decades and for decades we've made little progress. The primary obstacle has been getting scramjets to work in reality like we have them working in theory. The entire idea is to use shockwaves to compress air/fuel in a way we don't need moving parts inside the engine. No turbine blades, no nothing. Shockwaves take care of all of that. We modeled them on the ground, on supercomputers, and in the air they acted in erratic ways. It's only recently air breathing HGVs have been able to demonstrate the promise of scramjets that we've chased for decades. This is what the hype is about. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Youre talking about a steerable missile which is different than a hypersonic cruise missile. If you want to be right, fine, its steerable so long as its falling towards the ground or going straight up and not able to avoid areas of interception on the fly aka a ballistic missile (either going up or coming down) If you want to be pedantic about what a hypersonic missile is, its one that can travel horizontal to the ground while maintaining hypersonic speeds AND steerable in that trajectory. Sprint wasnt that AT ALL, I dont care how it was controlled This is so annoying. Your rants and other people's rants about thermal management, maneuverability etc.. show you have no clue what you are talking about. Maneuverability is not hard, we've done that with faster missiles for decades. Going Mach 5 is not hard, we can easily go 4X faster with conventional technology, whether solid or liquid fuel engines, and have done so for decades. Dealing with the heat and ionization is nothing we haven't been able to do for decades. The breakthrough with the current HGVs are the air breathing engines. The Russians have touted "hypersonic" missiles which were solid fuel and people in the know just rolled their eyes. Breathing air means it does not have to carry its own oxidizer which means greater specific impulse which means greater range. We and every other superpower have been working on air breathing hypersonics for decades and for decades we've made little progress. The primary obstacle has been getting scramjets to work in reality like we have them working in theory. The entire idea is to use shockwaves to compress air/fuel in a way we don't need moving parts inside the engine. No turbine blades, no nothing. Shockwaves take care of all of that. We modeled them on the ground, on supercomputers, and in the air they acted in erratic ways. It's only recently air breathing HGVs have been able to demonstrate the promise of scramjets that we've chased for decades. This is what the hype is about. FFS, I said you were right about engine breathing. I know that is an insanely hard thing to do. OTOH, Going Mach 10 into thinning atmosphere (going into space) for a few seconds is also not hard, nor is doing it from space back to the ground What you seem to overlook is doing this below the stratosphere and do it for minutes to potentially 10s of minutes and manuever at the same time. Thermal management of a missile traveling at Max Q (max pressure and also max temperature) doing this for the equivalent of an entire ICBM launch to orbit is entirely ground breaking. Russia hasnt dont this nor has China, they are showing off gliding ballistic missiles, not true hypersonic cruise missiles. You are arguing about shit that is irrelevant to what a hypersonic cruise missile is, something that a ballistic missile or hypersonic anti-missile system isnt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2022 1:45:25 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So they are orbiting the earth at ground level? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I will offer only these factoids. In low Earth orbit, it takes 90 minutes (1 1/2 hours) to circle the globe. Let's see now,... Earth is about 25,000 miles around. So 25,000 miles divided by 1 1/2 hours is 16,667 mph. For you bullet speed freaks, that's over 24,000 fps. So they are orbiting the earth at ground level? Given the size of Earth, the extra few miles of altitude doesnt change speed all that much compared to the ground. For an easy comparison to speed, Falcon 9 did the Transporter-4 mission 4 days ago and orbital velocity is at 27207 km/h. Thats 16,905 mph at 661 km alttitude. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2022 1:48:13 AM EDT
[#41]
Gotta love those "CNN unnamed sources"
 5 years of Trump Russia Collusion hoax, but now we believe the media again?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2022 2:38:31 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The real Dirk Pitt already knows that answer. "That's a name I haven't heard in awhile" |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2022 2:41:16 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:  Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: How many warhead carrying monkeys do you think we have? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2022 2:54:48 AM EDT
[#44]
Mach number is not speed. It's the ratio of the vehicle speed to the speed of sound in the atmosphere.
The speed of sound is not constant. Up to about 75 miles altitude it ranges from 761 mph at sea level to 613 mph at 295000 feet. The speed of sound is constant at 660 mph between 40000 and 65000 feet. Also, the speed of sound does not decrease uniformly with altitude, it increases with altitude through some zones; don't interpolate the numbers here, your answer will be wrong. These are US Standard Atmosphere numbers, good for planning and analysis. The real atmosphere yields slightly different values depending on local temperature. Good luck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2022 8:46:52 AM EDT
[#45]
Arms race any one?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2022 9:12:23 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thanks! I learned something today. The entire point in using solid fuel in an ICBM is to avoid long term storage problems with liquid fuels. Cryogenic fuel, like liquid hydrogen, would especially suck for an ICBM. ICBM's are much faster than hypersonic weapons. This misses the point. Hell, the Scuds launched by Saddam Hussein in the early 90's reached hypersonic speeds. Those weapons are ballistic weapons which basically fly a profile like an artillery shell. Hypersonic weapons being referred to are more like very fast versions of subsonic cruise missiles. There are different flight profiles. There are also different engine options. Some of them are just rocket engined missiles. The US tested air breathing scramjets in the early 2000's and then again, more successfully a few years later. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2022 9:37:47 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Some people just can't admit they are talking through their arses. You said "Sprint wasnt maneuverable" Truth: " Phased-array radars and high-speed computer processing allowed the warhead to be tracked, steering commands for the Sprint to be calculated, and uplinked to the missile via a radio connection of the frequency and power to be received through the ionized missile exhaust and plasma sheath surrounding the missile. The missile steered itself using fluid injection in the first stage and small vanes on the second stage. " http://www.astronautix.com/s/sprintabm.html Sprint is an interceptor for incoming ballistic missiles. It has nothing to do with hypersonic attack missiles. The sprint is basically flying directly up to meet incoming targets. It can steer to intercept targets at altitude. But it isn't steering much because it has to be deployed around the target and has a really short flight duration. It only flys for about 15 seconds at most and is moving to thinner atmosphere the entire time. It's like comparing a deep sea diving sphere with a nuclear attack sub and saying we could dive much deeper in the 1950's than Titanium attack subs. Completely irrelevant to advanced hypersonic weapons especially air breathing hypersonics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2022 9:39:24 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Youre talking about a steerable missile which is different than a hypersonic cruise missile. If you want to be right, fine, its steerable so long as its falling towards the ground or going straight up and not able to avoid areas of interception on the fly aka a ballistic missile (either going up or coming down) If you want to be pedantic about what a hypersonic missile is, its one that can travel horizontal to the ground while maintaining hypersonic speeds AND steerable in that trajectory. Sprint wasnt that AT ALL, I dont care how it was controlled |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2022 9:41:45 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I seriously doubt that a hypersonic missile would be anything remotely resembling quiet. Unless they have sensors mounted on the approach path and even that might not work depending on flight profile. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2022 11:53:50 AM EDT
[#50]
lots of misconceptions here. typical. let me simplify. it's a missile that flys fast as a speeding pistol bullet. ca·peesh?
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File