Russia creates 'unstoppable' hypersonic Zircon missile

>>33479127
>The US Navy warns it could be fitted to Russia's nuclear-powered Kirkov warship, where it would have a range of up to 500 miles.
The missile or the ship?

>>33479127
I find it hilarious that the picture is the Boeing X-51

File: 1475212195803.png (14KB, 615x550px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 615x550px

>>33479141

File: 5F11S.jpg (30KB, 670x450px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 670x450px

Out of the 6 tests, only the last 2 were successful. It's only starting naval testing this year. It's just a prototype.

>>33479149
Kek.

>>33479127
>Mach 7
>sea-skimming
Pick one

>Carriers : - heavy missile cruiser on nuclear on pr.11442 "Petr Veliky" - the the after the upgrade, the the which is Planned for the 2019-2022 the gg Composed launchers 3C-14 ( a--source ). - heavy missile cruiser on nuclear on pr.11442M "Admiral Nakhimov" - the the after the upgrade, the the which is conducted as with the with the of 2016 is the of IT Planned use of the 3C-14-11442M (launchers -source ). - perspective PLAKR 5th generation "Husky's's" the the status

It's launcher is 3C-14 UKSK. Even a small ship like Buyan-M can carry it.

>>33479295

Who says it needs to be sea-skimming?

>>33479161
This.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vp-XDVauic

>>33479295
It probably only flies fast and high before it descends like all cruise missiles, at which point the sea skimming is a bit slower. Flying at sea level is very stressful.

File: 1490647838904.jpg (135KB, 434x640px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 434x640px

>>33479141

File: 1481661647669.png (680KB, 619x612px) Image search: [Google]

680KB, 619x612px

>>33479127

>only one defence system in the world can destroy – that system is owned by Russia

>>33479127
Sounds like it might be extremely painful

>>33479127
>The Kremlin's Zircon missile has been called "unstoppable", "unbeatable" and "undefendable" with a 4,600mph speed that only one defence system in the world can destroy

Who looks at that sentence, and doesn't see a contradiction

File: when game is of balans ))))))).png (236KB, 595x528px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 595x528px

>>33479933
>Who looks at that sentence, and doesn't see a contradiction

>>33479933
>that only one defence system in the world can destroy

is that russias economy?

Funny how everything Russia makes is """unstoppable"""

File: 1468470311991.gif (2MB, 390x277px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 390x277px

>>33479127
Sure, but Russia can't afford to build any in the first place, so it's a non-issue.
>>33479141

>>33479127
Hypersonic vehicles have shit turning ability and are relatively easy to intercept.

>>33479933
That defense system happens to be Russian as well. If only the creator has the ability to destroy it, then it's indestructible.

Why are we believing Russian propaganda? I bet you think Putin is absolutely loved, too and that Russia is really a democratic country and not an ATM for Putin & friends.

>>33480281
And what magical defense system would that be?

>>33480233
Like ICBM reentry vehicles?

>>33480348
Why are you assuming OP is anything other than a vatnik?

>>33480366
That is a valid point. I supposed if I lived in a mafia state in the midst of an economic and HIV crisis I'd try to escape to the internet as much as possible.

>>33479127
you just must love how kremlin uses the ironic quoting marks, since they just know how it just will never achieve this.

this was irony in case a vatnik got assblasted too hard

>>33479141
keked hard

>>33480354
The Russian military budget relying on being able to sell oil for $50 a barrel

>>33480379
Don't forget the Krokodil

>>33480445
Russia truely is africa tier: corrupt goverment, many resources but cant do apeshit with it beside selling and wasting it, many people with HIV and crocodil is killing people.

>>33480348
Clickbait.

File: 1482191769117.jpg (67KB, 413x395px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 413x395px

>>33479141
FPBP

>>33480523
Putin must feel like a boss with all the leftist media in the West hyping up his countries abilities and giving him credit as an excuse for their failures.

>>33479127
I like how OP's picture features the X-43 and doesn't even have the DARPA, USAF AFRL, etc logos photoshopped out.

>>33480523
>>33480608
The claims by Democrats that Trump is Putin's puppet are as ridiculous as claiming that he is Mugabe's puppet and that Zimbabwe interfered with our election process.

>>33480354
S-400 obviously

>>33480608
>>33480699
+15ruble

>>33480820
Yup, totally chillin' at the Kremlin dude. It's not like the CIA has access to all the same tools Russia does and could plant fake evidence after taking data off of DNC servers through the back doors and exploits that they have on every piece of software in existence. That's just crazy, but it's totally plausible that Russia convinced half the voters in the US to change their vote.

>>33480869
sorry mistook you, you are just like your mom, you whore yourself out for free, the sluts of propaganda so to speak.

>>33480892
>My mother is a raging feminist liberal who voted for Hillary and thinks I'm a Nazi for voting Trump
Reality is fucked man.

>>33480919
did you say something, son of a whore and whore of russia? could not really understand you with that russian semen pouring from you mouth.

>>33480760
Which is fun because the AEGIS paired with the SM-3 and SM6 missile is superior to the S-400.
I don't see any unique features this new missile has that can defeat the latest US missiles.
Going that fast it's not going to maneuver in any meaningful way and if it want to reach beyond spitting distances it will have to fly very high giving the target ample reaction time.

>>33481101
Russia will launch it from a satellite, you will just see a line in the sky and suddenly your entire city is rubble.

>>33479161
HAH.

>>33481101
Proofs?

>>33481264
>>33480650
>>33479313
>>33479161
American hackers stole this from Russia.

>>33481271
does the S-400 Years In Gulag have antisat capability

>>33481353
40N6 maybe. S-500 will certainly.

>>33481101
>Going that fast it's not going to maneuver in any meaningful way
This is bullshit, you know.
The faster you go, the more Gs you can pull. Lift is proportional to the square of speed.

>>33481759

>The faster you go, the more Gs you can pull

More G's doesn't necessarily mean a tighter turning radius.

>>33481900
You're right, but it doesn't mean larger turn radius either. If you ignore gravity and assume all lift goes to centripetal action, turn radius is completely independent of speed. If you CONSIDER gravity, turn radius actually DOES get slightly smaller with increasing speed.

Both of these cease to be the case when you reach mechanical/structural/physiological load limits, however.

>>33480985
>being this triggered on a Nepalese underwater welding forum.

>>33481759
>go mach 6
>pull a 15g turn
You'd still have a turn radius measured in several dozen nautical miles, retard.

>>33481998
>You're right, but it doesn't mean larger turn radius either.
It exactly means that you fucking idiot.
acceleration=(v^2)/r

>>33482010
>errr... emmm... you are triggered
Calling him butthurt is the next thing you wanted to say, isnt it?

>>33481759
>The faster you go, the more Gs you can pull.
NO.

For a given turn radius, the faster you are going the more Gs you'll have to pull. A missile can only withstand so many Gs, that's a function of it's structure. If you're going faster, you need to make wider turns to stay within the engineered G limit of the missile.

>>33481998
>Russian physics
No wonder you people can't make anything new in the last decades.

>>33482335
It appears we entered the twilight zone of russian physics, behold /k/, it is the bermuda triangle of logic, where the laws of the univers must bow to the glorious vatnik thought construct in order to defend the next russian bullshit.

>>33479322
>Flying at sea level is very stressful.

Well, shit. Give it some beta blockers and wire down the throttle. These missiles have to learn by doing.

>>33481759

>can
That's not how physics works.

>>33479570

You're a big guy

File: F-35 Rightning II.jpg (21KB, 700x400px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 700x400px

>>33480650
>X-43
X-51

I thought the same thing. You google this missile and pretty much every result is the X-51.

I'm getting serious J-20 vibes here.

>>33480869

>The CIA hacked the Democrats and framed the Russians, then trickled documents to Russian shillbot wikileaks in order to hurt the Clinton campaign, so they could later use it as ammunition against Trump because they hate Trump but still wanted him to win.

F-for sure anon.

File: 1442550579697.png (295KB, 570x640px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 570x640px

>>33481101
>Which is fun because the AEGIS paired with the SM-3 and SM6 missile is superior to the S-400.
yeah I'm sure random fatass on /k/ knows the truth about top secret missile systems from two separate military superpowers

>>33481759
>Lift is proportional to the square of speed.
Until you reach aerodynamic seperation due to high AOA

File: assadlaughing.jpg (25KB, 459x278px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 459x278px

>>33480158
Okay, even as a shameless slavaboo, that was good.

>>33480158

Underrated (You).

>>33479127
>be russia
>have missile that can go super speeds
>shot down
>whatnow.jpeg

>>33480158
kek

>>33479141
The picture says the range of the missile is only 186.4 miles, so they're pretty obviously referring to the ship.

>>33483449

OP here, that picture is a shoddy mock-up. The article is reporting that the missile could have a 500-mile radius. Not that there's actually any reliable information about Zircon's range, that I know of.

>>33481759
>The faster you go, the more Gs you can pull
The more Gs you will pull moron.

baka desu senpai

>>33480869
I don't know anon. The people who voted for trump's not the brightest bulbs around :^)

>>33480699
KGB pls

File: duet.jpg (57KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 1280x720px

i like how when the most advanced newest cutting edge technology russia makes the entire world instantly knows almost every detail about it

but when the west creates ultra advanced technology nobody knows about it for decades if ever.

>>33480390
>yahoo
>kremlin

File: 1464735522992.png (2MB, 1064x983px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1064x983px

>>33479141

File: 1454100388740.jpg (1MB, 2100x1500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2100x1500px

>>33480650
Ok good, I thought I was going crazy for a minute there

>>33484245
From a previous X-planes thread

In the ‘90s, Pratt & Whitney had developed a hydrocarbon-fueled scramjet engine (as opposed to the traditionally hydrogen fueled). Originally planned to be mounted on the X-43C, it would be applied to a separate Air Force scramjet project in 2003. After the X-43C was cancelled, the USAF project, now designated X-51, took priority. The X-51 was designed to be propelled by a solid rocket booster to Mach 4.5 to allow the scramjet to deploy, bringing the vehicle to Mach 6. Compared to the X-43 before it, the X-51 is considerably heavier (4,000lb empty compared to 3,000lb loaded) and longer (7.6m to 4m). Ground testing began in 2006, continuing until Mach 5 flight was successfully simulated in 2007. Test flights were scheduled to begin in 2009, but they would be delayed until 2010.

File: 1454100452284.jpg (1MB, 2816x2112px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2816x2112px

>>33484275
The first test flight took place on May 26, 2010, with the X-51 successfully reaching Mach 5 at 70,000ft. Though it failed to reach the planned 300 second flight duration, it set a record for the longest hypersonic burn time at 140 seconds shattering the X-43’s previous record of 12 seconds. The second test occurred in 2011, but it ended in failure after the scramjet failed to transition from the ethylene used to start it to the JP-7 it would run on. The next flight in 2010 would also end in failure after control was lost over one of the fins, causing the vehicle to crash into the Pacific. The fourth test flight in 2013 would mark the X-51’s first fully successful mission. It accelerated to Mach 5.1 with a 210 second burn time, flying for a total of 370 seconds before crashing into the Pacific. With the end of the fourth test, the X-51 program came to an end. The Air Force plans to use the data collected for research into a future hypersonic platform.

>>33484201

The art of war. When you're weak, act like you're strong. When you're strong, act like you're weak. Russia is constantly saying that they have the best shit because they're really just begging for people to buy their stuff, whereas the US has enough geopolitical influence that they can just force people to buy their stuff.

>>33484278
yeah selling products isn't what i was referring to.

russian weaponry is much more known about than western technology, for various reasons.

poor intelligence service?
lack of interest of gov officials to keep secrets?
all rus scientists on cia payroll?

who knows but regardless of cause this is a true observation.

>>33484322

Marketing and Propaganda. Most of the time its marketing so they can sell them to countries. Propaganda usually backfires on them with spectacular results.

>1950s
>Soviet propaganda screams we have the most nuke missiles
>US bumrushes into testing and producing several dozen different nuclear weapons and deploys so many that they outnumber the soviets several hundred to one.
>Soviets succeed in causing the US to waste a lot of money but also creates a strategic nightmare as the US now can lay waste to them with horrifying numerical superiority.

>>33484322

Sometimes it is the Russian government intentionally just making shit up to make themselves sound more powerful. Every few months, they will announce that they just had a radar breakthrough which is going to render stealth obsolete forever. Just wait, and like clockwork it will happen again. They never unveil this supposed radar, but they are very insistent that it is always "right around the corner."

>>33484407
so their tech is fake?
they lie about the capabilities of their tech just to sell it?

or maybe they aren't lying but they don't shut up about it because they want to sell it.

>>33484407
Russia
>WE HAVE THE LATEST AND GREATEST WEAPON
>IT CALLED THE SU-30000
>HERE ARE ALL THE AMERICAN WEAPONS THAT ARE OUTCLASSED BY OUR NEW WEAPON
>LONG RANGE, BIG BOOM, VERY LARGE
>AMERICA CANNOT COMPETE

US
>Here is our latest weapon.
>Its designed to do this and that.
>All we did was put in a new processor, a software update and a new motor.
>Designation is the same
>whatever...

File: 1024495560.jpg (140KB, 1000x541px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1000x541px

>>33484438

>so their tech is fake?

I wouldn't generalize like that, but after following the defense industry for a while I've learned to be skeptical of Russian claims. Remember this thing?

>>33484527
potemkin village is part of Russia's foreign tools. On the one hand it diverts attention from the areas that are lacking, on the other hand it diverts attention on what Russia is actually focusing on.

File: 1023666319.jpg (32KB, 705x375px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 705x375px

>>33484527

Or this thing?

>17500-ton guided missile destroyer

>>33484438
Its part of their propaganda strategy. Russians have the reputation of being insanely deceitful not only to enemies but also allies.

In the Cold War the Kremlin distributed military gear on basis that one would find backwards. Where the Western governments tend to give their front line units the latest and greatest the Soviets tend to give their frontline units secondhand or less than state of the art. Why? War strategy. Frontline Units would be given older and proven weapons systems while secondline units were given more powerful and state of the art equipment.

From most advanced to least advanced the order goes like this:

>Second Line units
>Frontline Units
>Exports

So frontline East German, Polish, Czech, Hungarian and Soviet forces, would be armed with mostly T-62s and early or export model T-72s at most while second line units located in Belarus, the Baltics and Russia would be armed with T-72s, T-80s or better.

>>33484541
Stealth shaping is all messed up. Considering that the earth is curved, some of the upwards slopes on that thing might reflect even more radar waves than a convention ship will.

>>33484572

I don't think that either of the ships presented are necessarily bad designs, but I am highly skeptical of claims that these ships would actually be built.

>>33484543
What sort of a retarded strategy is that. I can understand the thinking; "We don't want the enemy recovering our state of the art weapons". But you don't have any state of the art weapons. You have potato canons and tanks made out of sheet metal.

>>33484649
Russian really likes its buffer zones. Hell, you could argue that's why they invaded Georgia and Ukraine. They don't like the idea of NATO possibly (emphasize possibly) bordering good ol Russian Federation territory.

They don't care much for how the buffer zone is armed or taken care of as long as it exists.

File: 1478626480364.jpg (62KB, 860x320px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 860x320px

>>33484541
i want this thing built.

i have such a hard on for heavy destroyers

>>33484667
Well that behaviour is pretty obviously a preemptive strike against the future EU militarised industrial complex.

>>33479127
Is western media purposely playing dumb again for more gibs to the military?

I thought SM-3 can go at mach 10-15 against ballistic vehicles. Is this not true or ICBMs trajectories are predictably fixed?

>>33484759
A big problem with the regular non-defense media is they take a headline and the quotes from a defense official and just run with it.

If the Russian MoD says that "NATO has no answer to this new missile" they'll say that the Russian source said: XXXX.

I've seen this in the news agency I volunteer in. People who focus more on other topics will get carried away with the report and not look at how lethal it actually is.

>>33484572
It also means its mast radar can pick up targets much farther. But it doesn't hide the fact that ships are 100m+ long objects going at at 34 mph. Surface ships can't hide and are always trackable.

File: Ch-STHHWkAIlHWe.jpg large.jpg (42KB, 540x335px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 540x335px

>>33479141

>>33484649
The strategy is post-ww2 russian thinking: Frontline units will cease to exist in a high intensity conflict after a period of time which attrition takes a toll on both equipment, personnel and logistics. Frontline units stationed in Warsaw pact nations would be equipped with export or no longer state of the art equipment in the hopes that NATO would expend their advanced equipment on those units first. Second line units will then be moved in with superior equipment and NATO will have to contend with increasingly superior Soviet units.

This was the case until 1991. Persian Gulf happened and everyone around the world saw how the US utterly dismantled Saddam's army that was armed and equipped with export grade Soviet equipment. Unlike previous events where Operation Rimon 20 and Bekka Valley saw Soviet allies or the Soviets themselves get utterly trounced in relatively isolated incidents, Persian Gulf war was the bellweather of "slavshit" as media showed pictures of soviet equipment either on fire or blasted hulks. Not very good marketing.

>>33484759
SM-3 is for ballistic missiles only.

SM-6 have been shown to intercept ballistic missiles on terminal approach and the speed of incoming ballistic missiles often approaches high hypersonic. Considering that gravity is often acting against the SM-6 on that regard (its going near vertical), it might be just perfect to engage hypersonic antiship missiles (if said ashm is sea skimming). Cooperative Engagement will increase the interception envelope as well.

>>33484807
>A big problem with the regular non-defense media is they take a headline and the quotes from a defense official and just run with it.
They do that with any kind of headline.
"Celeb X is not guilty" (says his lawyer)
"Activists were armed with deadly weapons when police opened fire" (according to police spokesperson

They just like reporting quotes as headlines because it's a) easy and b) kind of clickbait

>>33484649
>What sort of a retarded strategy is that. I can understand the thinking; "We don't want the enemy recovering our state of the art weapons".
Also trust.
They want their own, centrally controlled, forces to be able to curb-stomp the provinces if they get uppity. And they want the provinces to know it.

>>33484407
>Sometimes it is the Russian government intentionally just making shit up to make themselves sound more powerful
That's internal propaganda as much as external. Part of Putin's thing is Making Russia Great Again. His party appeals to the USSR STRONK type of patriots/nationalists so they come out with this type of shit to keep the party base faithful.

>>33485044
>Clickbait
Not really. Attention grabbing headlines are the oldest trick in the book. Same method, different execution and era.

File: flat,1000x1000,075,f.jpg (75KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1000x1000px

>>33479141

File: 20140322_WWD000_0.jpg (119KB, 595x387px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 595x387px

>>33480158

>>33485101
Lets sing a song

>1940s
>1950s
>1960s
>rawr
>1980s
>1990s
>2000s
>rawr

>>33484541
That pagoda would put WW2 Jap battleships to shame.

>>33485101
Its like for every 30 years of shit, Russia only gets to be powerful for like around a decade.

>>33484971
Giving front line units older gear also helped insure that if any Pact nations outright broke with the USSR they'd be at a military disadvantage when the tanks inevitably rolled in.

>>33482248
>>33482335
What part of
>you can pull more Gs the faster you go
do you not understand?
>Acceleration = (v^2)/r
>Acceleration = force/mass = Cl*S*0.5*rho*(v^2)
>BOTH are proportional to v^2
>Solve for r and v cancels out entirely
Do you even algebra bro?

>>33485514
I missed an /m in there but my point still stands.
>r = m / (Cl*S*0.5*rho)

>>33485514
You're structurally limited to a certain load factor. Any higher and you'll rip your wings off. So the faster you go, the larger your safe turning radius gets.

>>33484541
>Or this thing?
You do know the background of this shit right? With all the hubris you're yelling about following the defense industry, atleast you can give the name of the college that the students made this thing for. Right?

>>33485101
>>33485159

I feel bad for Russia desu.

Although I wouldn't count on history repeating itself again. It's in China's interest to nurture its economic vassal.

>>33485631
>You're structurally limited to a certain load factor. Any higher and you'll rip your wings off.
This is a missile though. How do you rip your wings off if there are no wings to begin with?

Missiles are usually either aerodynamically limited or mechanically-limited by the strength of their steering actuators. Structural limits are rarely an issue because missiles are always so stoutly-proportioned.

File: Vatnik 2.jpg (312KB, 1100x1700px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 1100x1700px

>>33479141

File: gela.jpg (47KB, 850x600px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 850x600px

>>33479127
motherfuckers can't even be bothered to pick an image that Russian at least.

>>33485514
>>33485705
>obvious backpaddling
>that obvious lying
>that obvious try to act like others said something else so it looks like you are right again
russian/10

You literally said:
>You're right, but it doesn't mean larger turn radius either.
Which is simply bullshit.

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-31 at 12.25.12 AM.png (86KB, 668x453px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 668x453px

>>33486087
The posts are all me. I ain't backpedaling shit. It's not my fault you're too much of a fucking brainlet to deal with the counterintuitive fact that increased speed will not widen the turn radius of an aerodynamically-limited airframe.
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/media/00-80T-80.pdf
Read page 180, dipshit.


I don't know why you're all making such a huge deal over radius anyways. It's not like radius matters at all even for a fighter, let alone a missile. It's all about turn rate and G.

>>33484527
>Russian claims
Which Russian claims? Official State claims or Fanart tier claims?

You do realize, since you're 'following the defense industry' that your pic is not official State claim but some firm's push/design. Right?

Development is expected to be 10 years, depending on tech advancement in that 10 years, a lot will be different once the design is affirmed by the Russian State.

Or you also believe that Russia can airdrop bullets and fire them without a barrel, right?

>>33486263
You are one dense motherfucker, your own diagram literally says that with higher speed leads to higher radius, Dont get me started with the "sweet spot" in the middle, which is irrelevant to missles flying multiple machs, guys like you are always the same: endlessly vague statements, to create wrong vibes around stuff in order to push your agenda of "its russian, it works, who cares about physics" and declare everyone for an idiot for doing so the second it aint about russian stuff. Seriously, fuck off.

By the way your moms could be a whore, not saying she is, just wanting to make a statement to create a certain vibe. You cant say it aint true, because the possibilty is given and so the statement is true.

>>33484667
Russia is already bordering NATO.

>>33486429
While i do enjoy seeing the local vatnik population getting recked, my guess would be, that the guy you are responding to is just one of those idiots who wants to add something irrelevant to the discussion because they know something. But it is really hard to say, since the vatniks are lying scumbags and will always say they arent vatniks or prorussian, even when almost everything they say simply is.

>>33486263
You are simply wrong.

https://defenseissues.net/2015/03/01/missile-and-aircraft-turn-performance/
>IRIS-T can achieve 60 g at Mach 3, which at 30.000 ft would be 909,3 m/s.
>AIM-120 can achieve 40 g at Mach 4, which at 30.000 ft would be 1.212,4 m/s
>S-400 can achieve 60 g at Mach 4,5 and sea level (1.531,3 m/s), and 20 g at Mach 4,5 and 30 km (1327,05 m/s?).

>Thus turn radius is:

>Rafale (instantaneous): 267,16 m
>Rafale (sustained): 367,38 m
>F-15 (instantaneous): 444,49 m
>F-15 (sustained): 958,59 m
>F-4 (instantaneous): 649,72 m

>IRIS-T (instantaneous): 1.404,73 m
>AIM-120 (instantaneous): 3.745,96 m
>S-400 (instantaneous): 3.983,8 m / 8.975,85 m

>>33481759
Jesus Christ you are retarded

>>33486263
You have been shown to be wrong in several posts. It is time to discontinue posting and have a period of time to reflect on your errors.

>>33485672
>Although I wouldn't count on history repeating itself again. It's in China's interest to nurture its economic vassal.
No, China has eclipsed Russia but don't like to show their power level and Putin is so unreliable that they don't want to work closely with him.

China desires to play a mature, statesmen like detachment from the squabbling of lesser nations while prodding just enough to try and keep the US and Russia at each other's throats. They really, want Trump out of the way because he's too friendly to Russia and this makes them the odd one out on the world stage.

>>33486638
>defenseissues.net

stop that

>>33486899
>Can't accept facts from other sites
>But wholly believes the Jane's website when it has shit information on Russian tech

>>33480360
If ICBM warheads would need to actually slam into their target, yes. Guess why nobody makes a non-nuclear ICBM.

>>33486922
>random blog is right
>Janes is wrong tovarisch

Nah, you take your random blogs and get fugged m8

File: 1459452112313.jpg (110KB, 874x488px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 874x488px

>>33479127

>Russian infographic
>didn't even bother to shoop the USAF icons off of the Boeing X-51 prototype

What did they mean by this?

>>33479250
>implying this is not of advanced soviet evasion techniques to confusing simple minded American missile defenses
>do you even communist

>>33486899
The article is literally just crunching the numbers for the idiots, nothing wrong here.

>>33486981
>doesn't say where it gets the numbers at all
>not even any sources on the page

Nah, blogs are never a reliable source on anything

>>33486988
They dont even have to be extra correct, fact simply is the faster you go the bigger your turn radius is going to be. Its literally middle school physics.

>>33486638
I just want to point out that the turn rates used seem wrong, just off the top of my head based on EM diagrams I've studied (most at 50% fuel, 2 IR missiles, @ 30,000ft)

There's no way an F-4E, even clean, is sustaining 14.7 degrees. Even the lighter and more powerful Superphantom with stronger engines could only manage 12.1d/s

>>33487157
Its the technical turnrate combined to the maxium g force they can withstand, it aint about the actual performance at every given moment. This becomes even more revelant when you are flying at the speed of the missile, because THERE you hit the g limit of the flying object even with kilometer(s) of turning radius.

File: 1490503827975.jpg (22KB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 600x338px

>>33486263

>Turning radius doesn't matter for a fighter jet
>Turning radius doesn't matter for a missile

>>33479322
Probably goes terminal before impact like the klub.

>>33479127
translation: we need mo money fo dem projects

>>33487215
At least so much money, so they can make their own mock up photos, instead of just using pictures of US stuff.

>>33479127
>>33479127
> 4,600mph

It's funny because the SM-3 goes twice as fast.

>>33487192
Ok, but the F-4E can only pull 5gs and remain energy neutral, which gives it a turn radius of roughly 1,500 meters at 20,000ft AGL.

That's the very definition of a sustained turn rate, one in which neither altitude nor speed are sacrificed to maintain turn rate.

>>33487244

SM-3 is only useful against ballistic missiles.

>>33487284
What does that have to do with missles? Why are you so desperate to drag more useless stuff into the discussion?

>>33487326
I really like the F-4.

>>33487366
Then make a thread about it.

File: image.png (741KB, 779x645px) Image search: [Google]

741KB, 779x645px

>>33485705
>missiles don't have wings or structural capacity

Boy, you sure are fuckin stupid

>>33487303

Nah, anything that flys high enough for its stage 3/4 to kick in is fair game with TDACS/SDACS.


Its not like this missile will be flying that fast anywhere near the earth, or will be able to out turn the SM-3 IB and still hit its target.

To the "higher speed = can pull more G's" etc bullshit guy :
Kill yourself, seriously you're a fucking waste of space.

>>33484277
My dad was on that project, was pretty cool hearing about it from him on a daily basis

File: Laughrica.gif (4MB, 298x224px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 298x224px

>>33480158

>>33488264
>pretty cool hearing about it from him on a daily basis
Really? Most stuff i hear over work projects are stuff like:
>we worked for 3 month on this part of the project, now it is scrapped because something has been changed
>it didnt work, someone did something, now it works somewhat, nobody knows why and no one wants to risk anything by trying something else
>if i have to do <X repetive annoying work process> again after doing it for month i will kill somebody
>...

>>33486882

I think you're right that China wants to maintain a balanced and opaque strategic position to the greatest extent possible. Trump, however, has been a great windfall for Beijing, and they know it. Blowing up TPP by itself may be worth everything else that his administration will try to put them through. And Putin and Xi are far closer to one another then Trump is to Putin.

On a somewhat related note: http://www.defensenews.com/articles/raytheon-radar-executes-first-ballistic-missile-test

>>33483021
No more than you or Yahoo News would.

File: 1483721737725.gif (3MB, 640x266px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x266px

>>33479141

>>33489095
If you think China wants balance, just check out the South China Sea. All they do is flex their kegels all day.

>>33490169

Beijing's conception of balance (for now) includes owning the SCS, and running Southeast Asia.

>>33484527
>>33484541
There are already very similar projects being constructed in absolute secrecy. They have the expertise and the workspace to do so. You will see both designs slightly altered and in line with current needs irl in a few years.
Yes, the model business will be booming.

>>33484672

It's a heavy cruiser at that point, I would say.

>>33479127
>Ultra-fast unstoppable scramjet
Reminds me of a certain U.S. project named after a certain dwarf planet...

>>33482878
uuuu

>>33492396
I was wondering why no one had brought up our favorite doomsday device.

The Cobalt dream: Project Pluto.

>>33484543

Zergling rush then send in the heavy hitters.

>>33493369
B R O O D L O R D
R
O
O
D

L
O
R
D

>>33493145

Also known as the seven-year-old's version of a MIRV.

>>33483021
Well, considering that both quite a lot is known about both systems and that the US owns both, I'd say it's more likely he knows than the vatniks.

Zircon is like the American Aurora.

There's no photograph of it or official state rendering, only fan arts and speculations. The only thing we know is its real. Since it's in the national budget.

>>33485705
Beating a dead horse but anyway. There are two ways to turn a missile : either have the propulsion vector that isn't centered, or use part of its structure to add some sideways lift, like wings. The propulsion vector won't be affected positively by the speed of the object. This means that no matter the speed, the force would be constant, meaning that for example you will never go over 20g turns, no matter the speed. The second method provides turning rates proportional to the speed (not necessarily linear but that isn't the point). But it's a structural part that will have to withstand the forces, and therefore can break off. Not only that, but this energy directly comes from the kinetic energy of the missile, with some losses. This means that the turns are not only limited by the structure of the missile, the missile will also lose energy depending on how tight they are.

This is the difference between comparing a missile to a material physicist point, and actually paying attention to the reality of a missile.

>>33495346
If the tests are done in Kapustin Yar, there are 0 chances they will show anything until it's 100% finished. The media is rarely allowed to get in there.

>>33495346
>The only thing we know is its real. Since it's in the national budget.
You know that means it's a cover for drugs.

>>33495356
>The second method provides turning rates proportional to the speed (not necessarily linear but that isn't the point).
For turn rate, it SHOULD increase almost linearly with speed, at all speeds below maneuver speed/structural limit, unless there are radical changes in available lift coefficient for whatever reason.
>But it's a structural part that will have to withstand the forces, and therefore can break off.
Yes, but ONLY if aerodynamic loads are heavy enough to exceed the structural limit - which is only possible above a certain speed/dynamic pressure. Below that point, structural limits are not a factor, and increasing speed DOES improve instantaneous maneuverability in every respect until structural limits are reached (at which point G plateaus, radius increases and rate declines).
>Not only that, but this energy directly comes from the kinetic energy of the missile, with some losses. This means that the turns are not only limited by the structure of the missile, the missile will also lose energy depending on how tight they are.
And bleeding energy will slow the missile down, which GENERALLY reduces it's ability to maneuver in endgame. Which is why it's easier to evade a missile at long range, after it's lost energy and speed and maneuverability, than at short range where it still has plenty of smash at it's disposal.

In any case, it's HIGHLY erreneous to claim that a missile or ANY aircraft for that matter is ever going "too fast to maneuver." The opposite, however, can be very true - without airspeed you cannot make lift, and cannot maneuver at all (thrust-vectoring aside, I suppose).

>>33486953
>katehon.com
>Russian infographic
It's a random serb news site, quit acting as if it's some official piece from Russian MOD.
>What did they mean by this?
That they are incompetent.

File: 1442628534061.jpg (72KB, 956x960px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 956x960px

>>33479127
we already have missiles that go m10 so its already obsolete gud jewb ruzzaianz.

>>33479127
If Trump builds a high enough wall around the U.S., no missiles can get through.

>>33495346

Aurora ain't shit but a meme.

>>33494946
If you think a MIRV is cooler than a Nuclear RamJet then you've got some crazy priorities.

>>33499282

I think it's an overthought idea. I can get more genocide for my dime with solid-fuel missiles.

>>33499481
That's bitch talk anon.

>>33499492

o-ok

>>33479127
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_X-43

>thinking hypersonic is new

catch up Ivan.

File: zi90m.jpg (158KB, 1000x684px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1000x684px

>>33485891
That`s not Zirkon. That`s an earlier prototype cruise missile.
Picrelated is Zircon/BrahMos 2. And yes, it looks much like US counterpart. Aerodynamics is a bitch, you know. And the faster you go, the more so...

File: X-15A2.jpg (17KB, 500x178px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 500x178px

>>33499538
>Thinking hypersonic is new

russians have the best missiles, this shouldn't come as a surprise

File: image.gif (2MB, 330x188px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 330x188px

>>33479127

>>33500335

Source?

>>33501299
Looks like a carry on movie