Let's talk hypersonic weapons for a moment

7,908 Views | 81 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by eric76
Ghost Mech
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:00p, 3/19/22

Quote:
Russia Confirms It Is Using Hypersonic Missiles In Ukraine

Russia said it fired a hypersonic aero-ballistic air-to-ground missile for the first time in the three-week invasion of Ukraine, destroying a weapons bunker in the southwestern region of the country, according to Bloomberg.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-19/russia-says-it-used-hypersonic-kinzhal-missiles-for-first-time

Russian Ministry of Defense spokesman Igor Konashenkov told a daily briefing that the Kh-47M2 Kinzhal (also known as "dagger") hypersonic missile struck an underground warehouse containing rockets and ammunition in the village of Deliatyn in the Ivano-Frankivsk region on Friday.





https://www.zerohedge.com/military/russia-says-hypersonic-kinzhal-missile-destroyed-ukrainian-weapons-bunker
The twitter video is interesting if it can be believed.

The missile runs pretty fast across the sky. I am sure the engineers out there could estimate how fast it was traveling.

Is the first boom the sonic boom the missile creates as it passes, then the second boom is the explosion from the blast??????
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
Esteban du Plantier
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:02p, 3/19/22
AG
If **** gets spicy with nuclear gear, we'll probably see if America has rods from god. Those would be hypersonic, right?
Reply Quote
9
Polaris75
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:03p, 3/19/22
I am not an engineer but My calculations point to Fast to very fast.

Reply Quote
38
dead
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Esteban du Plantier • 7:08p, 3/19/22
AG
Esteban du Plantier said:
If **** gets spicy with nuclear gear, we'll probably see if America has rods from god. Those would be hypersonic, right?
Wiki article about a 2003 proposal from the USAF about it. Mach 8.8 at impact
Reply Quote
3
GAC06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:15p, 3/19/22
AG
Using them here is either a statement to NATO or a result of running low on other missiles, or both.

Also needing an aircraft launch platform is an obvious weakness. Not sure they'd have them for long in a real war with NATO
Reply Quote
15
1 edit
MouthBQ98
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:23p, 3/19/22
AG
They are intended to operate outside the detection and intercept envelope of anti missile systems. They stay low enough that you can't see them coming from a huge distance but come in so fast that interception time is extremely limited and difficult to achieve physically. You can't get the interceptor missile very far in the available time.
Reply Quote
10
1 edit
C@LAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Esteban du Plantier • 7:27p, 3/19/22
Esteban du Plantier said:
If **** gets spicy with nuclear gear, we'll probably see if America has rods from god. Those would be hypersonic, right?
we are apparently behind both Russia and China when it comes to these missiles, because the dumbasses in charge could not keep their mouths shut when it became clear they had better missiles than us.

Yes we have them, but our are slower than theirs.
Reply Quote
8
1 edit
TheEternalPessimist
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dead • 7:28p, 3/19/22
icrymyselftosleep said:
Esteban du Plantier said:
If **** gets spicy with nuclear gear, we'll probably see if America has rods from god. Those would be hypersonic, right?
Wiki article about a 2003 proposal from the USAF about it. Mach 8.8 at impact
Isn't an object hitting something at Mach 8+ speed powerful enough to create a massive explosion without even a warhead on it? aka --- %100 kinetic?
Reply Quote
5
C@LAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TheEternalPessimist • 7:31p, 3/19/22
TheEternalPessimist said:
icrymyselftosleep said:
Esteban du Plantier said:
If **** gets spicy with nuclear gear, we'll probably see if America has rods from god. Those would be hypersonic, right?
Wiki article about a 2003 proposal from the USAF about it. Mach 8.8 at impact
Isn't an object hitting something at Mach 8+ speed powerful enough to create a massive explosion without even a warhead on it? aka --- %100 kinetic?
from the shape alone? not like you think.. Then would tend to penetrate into the ground or crater due to their slender shape and velocity.
Reply Quote
6
1 edit
TheEternalPessimist
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to C@LAg • 7:36p, 3/19/22
C@LAg said:
TheEternalPessimist said:
icrymyselftosleep said:
Esteban du Plantier said:
If **** gets spicy with nuclear gear, we'll probably see if America has rods from god. Those would be hypersonic, right?
Wiki article about a 2003 proposal from the USAF about it. Mach 8.8 at impact
Isn't an object hitting something at Mach 8+ speed powerful enough to create a massive explosion without even a warhead on it? aka --- %100 kinetic?
from the shape alone? not like you think.. Then would tend to penetrate into the ground or crater due to their slender shape and velocity.
Insanely scary weapons. May render traditional ICBM's in the future as antiquated.

What do the Ukrainians have to offset? Anything even close?
Reply Quote
1
bloom
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:38p, 3/19/22
TAMU Professor leading on hypersonic research. They are launching Monday

https://www.afrl.af.mil/News/Article/2967247/afrlafosr-to-conduct-rocket-launch-at-nasa-wallops-for-hypersonics-research/

And A&M is building a hypersonic research facility

https://wtaw.com/rellis-hypersonic-research-and-testing-facility-update/


Reply Quote
9
GAC06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TheEternalPessimist • 7:38p, 3/19/22
AG
Nothing. They can just keep doing what they've been doing. The only real defense against these things is keeping them from being launched and Ukraine doesn't have the capability to strike the airfields to do that
Reply Quote
9
dead
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TheEternalPessimist • 7:38p, 3/19/22
AG
TheEternalPessimist said:
icrymyselftosleep said:
Esteban du Plantier said:
If **** gets spicy with nuclear gear, we'll probably see if America has rods from god. Those would be hypersonic, right?
Wiki article about a 2003 proposal from the USAF about it. Mach 8.8 at impact
Isn't an object hitting something at Mach 8+ speed powerful enough to create a massive explosion without even a warhead on it? aka --- %100 kinetic?
Mach 10 impact would be 11.5 tons of TNT, per the USAF report
Reply Quote
3
C@LAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TheEternalPessimist • 7:38p, 3/19/22
TheEternalPessimist said:
C@LAg said:
TheEternalPessimist said:
icrymyselftosleep said:
Esteban du Plantier said:
If **** gets spicy with nuclear gear, we'll probably see if America has rods from god. Those would be hypersonic, right?
Wiki article about a 2003 proposal from the USAF about it. Mach 8.8 at impact
Isn't an object hitting something at Mach 8+ speed powerful enough to create a massive explosion without even a warhead on it? aka --- %100 kinetic?
from the shape alone? not like you think.. Then would tend to penetrate into the ground or crater due to their slender shape and velocity.
Insanely scary weapons. May render traditional ICBM's in the future as antiquated.

What do the Ukrainians have to offset? Anything even close?
nope.

only the usual suspects have them or programs to develop them:
Australia, India, France, Germany, Japan and the Big 3.

Reply Quote
Shoefly!
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to C@LAg • 7:43p, 3/19/22
AG
C@LAg said:
Esteban du Plantier said:
If **** gets spicy with nuclear gear, we'll probably see if America has rods from god. Those would be hypersonic, right?
we are apparently behind both Russia and China when it comes to these missiles, because the dumbasses in charge could not keep their mouths shut when it became clear they had better missiles than us.

Yes we have them, but our are slower than theirs.


We're more worried about having enough flight suits for pregnant pilots.
Reply Quote
57
FratboyLegend
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to C@LAg • 7:48p, 3/19/22
C@LAg said:
Esteban du Plantier said:
If **** gets spicy with nuclear gear, we'll probably see if America has rods from god. Those would be hypersonic, right?
we are apparently behind both Russia and China when it comes to these missiles, because the dumbasses in charge could not keep their mouths shut when it became clear they had better missiles than us.

Yes we have them, but our are slower than theirs.


We spend trillions per year on defense, an amount larger than the GDP of Russia.

I seriously doubt we are behind them in any respect.
#CertifiedSIP
Reply Quote
27
Funky Winkerbean
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FratboyLegend • 7:56p, 3/19/22
AG
FratboyLegend said:
C@LAg said:
Esteban du Plantier said:
If **** gets spicy with nuclear gear, we'll probably see if America has rods from god. Those would be hypersonic, right?
we are apparently behind both Russia and China when it comes to these missiles, because the dumbasses in charge could not keep their mouths shut when it became clear they had better missiles than us.

Yes we have them, but our are slower than theirs.


We spend trillions per year on defense, an amount larger than the GDP of Russia.

I seriously doubt we are behind them in any respect.
Leadership
It is so easy to be wrong—and to persist in being wrong—when the costs of being wrong are paid by others.
Thomas Sowell
Reply Quote
43
aTmAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:05p, 3/19/22
AG
To be honest.. that doesn't look hypersonic to me. It seems low since sonic boom came so soon after it flew by and if it was going that fast that low, it have gone from horizon to horizon much quicker than that.

I didn't do any math.. that's just my gut feel.
Reply Quote
11
FratboyLegend
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Funky Winkerbean • 8:07p, 3/19/22
Funky Winkerbean said:
FratboyLegend said:
C@LAg said:
Esteban du Plantier said:
If **** gets spicy with nuclear gear, we'll probably see if America has rods from god. Those would be hypersonic, right?
we are apparently behind both Russia and China when it comes to these missiles, because the dumbasses in charge could not keep their mouths shut when it became clear they had better missiles than us.

Yes we have them, but our are slower than theirs.


We spend trillions per year on defense, an amount larger than the GDP of Russia.

I seriously doubt we are behind them in any respect.
Leadership


I'm just saying all that money translates to unpublicized hardware.

Remember Desert Storm when entire squadrons of never before seen F-117's just showed up on the battlefield? I'm sure we have good stuff.
#CertifiedSIP
Reply Quote
24
2 edits
GAC06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:13p, 3/19/22
AG
Russia went this way because they feel they have to. We can obliterate Russia with nukes or conventionally. Building missile defense in Poland scares them so this is the result. It's a threat to Europe and Alaska but even with a first strike the result is the same for them.
Reply Quote
6
Esteban du Plantier
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TheEternalPessimist • 8:13p, 3/19/22
AG
TheEternalPessimist said:
icrymyselftosleep said:
Esteban du Plantier said:
If **** gets spicy with nuclear gear, we'll probably see if America has rods from god. Those would be hypersonic, right?
Wiki article about a 2003 proposal from the USAF about it. Mach 8.8 at impact
Isn't an object hitting something at Mach 8+ speed powerful enough to create a massive explosion without even a warhead on it? aka --- %100 kinetic?


Kinetic impact with every equivalent to a nuclear weapon with almost no way to intercept.

Very cool.
Reply Quote
No Spin Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FratboyLegend • 8:14p, 3/19/22
FratboyLegend said:
Funky Winkerbean said:
FratboyLegend said:
C@LAg said:
Esteban du Plantier said:
If **** gets spicy with nuclear gear, we'll probably see if America has rods from god. Those would be hypersonic, right?
we are apparently behind both Russia and China when it comes to these missiles, because the dumbasses in charge could not keep their mouths shut when it became clear they had better missiles than us.

Yes we have them, but our are slower than theirs.


We spend trillions per year on defense, an amount larger than the GDP of Russia.

I seriously doubt we are behind them in any respect.
Leadership


I'm just saying all that money translates to unpublicized. hardware.

Remember desert storm when entire squadrons of never before seen F-117's just showed up on the battlefield? I'm sure we have good stuff.


True, the military industrial complex keeps moving forward year in and year out regardless of who is in the White House.
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the later ignorance. Hippocrates
Reply Quote
5
Esteban du Plantier
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dead • 8:16p, 3/19/22
AG
icrymyselftosleep said:
TheEternalPessimist said:
icrymyselftosleep said:
Esteban du Plantier said:
If **** gets spicy with nuclear gear, we'll probably see if America has rods from god. Those would be hypersonic, right?
Wiki article about a 2003 proposal from the USAF about it. Mach 8.8 at impact
Isn't an object hitting something at Mach 8+ speed powerful enough to create a massive explosion without even a warhead on it? aka --- %100 kinetic?
Mach 10 impact would be 11.5 tons of TNT, per the USAF report


A tungsten telephone pole traveling at 3 miles a second has a lot more energy than 12 tons of tnt. Kilotons maybe?
Reply Quote
1
aTmAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Esteban du Plantier • 8:21p, 3/19/22
AG
Esteban du Plantier said:
icrymyselftosleep said:
TheEternalPessimist said:
icrymyselftosleep said:
Esteban du Plantier said:
If **** gets spicy with nuclear gear, we'll probably see if America has rods from god. Those would be hypersonic, right?
Wiki article about a 2003 proposal from the USAF about it. Mach 8.8 at impact
Isn't an object hitting something at Mach 8+ speed powerful enough to create a massive explosion without even a warhead on it? aka --- %100 kinetic?
Mach 10 impact would be 11.5 tons of TNT, per the USAF report


A tungsten telephone pole traveling at 3 miles a second has a lot more energy than 12 tons of tnt. Kilotons maybe?
3 miles/sec is ~ 14 mach. 40% extra speed wouldn't add 3 zeros to that.
Reply Quote
1
GAC06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Esteban du Plantier • 8:25p, 3/19/22
AG
Esteban du Plantier said:
TheEternalPessimist said:
icrymyselftosleep said:
Esteban du Plantier said:
If **** gets spicy with nuclear gear, we'll probably see if America has rods from god. Those would be hypersonic, right?
Wiki article about a 2003 proposal from the USAF about it. Mach 8.8 at impact
Isn't an object hitting something at Mach 8+ speed powerful enough to create a massive explosion without even a warhead on it? aka --- %100 kinetic?


Kinetic impact with every equivalent to a nuclear weapon with almost no way to intercept.

Very cool.


11.5 tons of TNT

versus

15,000 tons of TNT for Hiroshima

400-500,000 tons of TNT for most of the warheads in ICBM's and SLBM's
Reply Quote
7
Funky Winkerbean
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:28p, 3/19/22
AG
Is it accurate?
It is so easy to be wrong—and to persist in being wrong—when the costs of being wrong are paid by others.
Thomas Sowell
Reply Quote
aTmAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Funky Winkerbean • 8:30p, 3/19/22
AG
Funky Winkerbean said:
Is it accurate?
Nothing else the Russians make seem to be.
Reply Quote
15
C@LAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FratboyLegend • 8:37p, 3/19/22
FratboyLegend said:
C@LAg said:
Esteban du Plantier said:
If **** gets spicy with nuclear gear, we'll probably see if America has rods from god. Those would be hypersonic, right?
we are apparently behind both Russia and China when it comes to these missiles, because the dumbasses in charge could not keep their mouths shut when it became clear they had better missiles than us.

Yes we have them, but our are slower than theirs.


We spend trillions per year on defense, an amount larger than the GDP of Russia.

I seriously doubt we are behind them in any respect.
in this case you would apparently be wrong.

our "analysts" and a few congress critters could not keep their mouths shut a few months ago
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
dead
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Esteban du Plantier • 8:38p, 3/19/22
AG
20 ft long x 1 ft diameter tungsten rod at Mach 10. The wiki page says 11.5 tons of TNT equivalent, but I also can't find any technical data in the report that is referenced.
Reply Quote
TheEternalPessimist
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aTmAg • 8:51p, 3/19/22
aTmAg said:
Funky Winkerbean said:
Is it accurate?
Nothing else the Russians make seem to be.
Accurate for destroying apartment buildings when they say they are just targeting military targets.
Reply Quote
3
aTmAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TheEternalPessimist • 8:53p, 3/19/22
AG
TheEternalPessimist said:
aTmAg said:
Funky Winkerbean said:
Is it accurate?
Nothing else the Russians make seem to be.
Accurate for destroying apartment buildings when they say they are just targeting military targets.
Since their crap is so inaccurate, them "targeting military targets" is probably something like "shoot it east".
Reply Quote
4
Matt_ag98
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:53p, 3/19/22
Also they are just doing this as a test of concept anyways, way cheaper to just use "dumb" artillery rounds and shell indiscriminately into Ukrainian towns and villages and if you accidentally hit something you shouldn't say "no we didn't"...Russian winning IO formula
Reply Quote
TChaney
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:58p, 3/19/22
The only thing I have ever seen fly that fast was the Space Shuttle on reentry coming in for a landing.
I have no idea what speed it travels at, but it was insanely fast from horizon to horizon.
Reply Quote
1
Funky Winkerbean
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TChaney • 9:00p, 3/19/22
AG
TChaney said:
The only thing I have ever seen fly that fast was the Space Shuttle on reentry coming in for a landing.
I have no idea what speed it travels at, but it was insanely fast from horizon to horizon.
Did you see the Pujols homer off Lidge?
It is so easy to be wrong—and to persist in being wrong—when the costs of being wrong are paid by others.
Thomas Sowell
Reply Quote
54
TChaney
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ghost Mech • 9:01p, 3/19/22
Quote:
Is the first boom the sonic boom the missile creates as it passes, then the second boom is the explosion from the blast??????
It's possible the first boom is the sonic boom and the second boom is the sound bouncing off of a structure or part of the landscape.

Second seems to come too fast after the first.
Reply Quote
2
Last Page
Page 1 of 3 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.