russian hypersonic missiles

[Sparky49]

It was. Some people are currently investigating if they can retrieve one that sunk in a lake according to eyewitnesses. Seems like a long shot, but would be very interesting to see the technology used up close. What I don't understand is how they appear to have navigated autonomously given the technology at the time.

Would be cool to see that, for sure. I suppose it depends on how advanced the navigation was - straight lines were pretty much nailed with pendulums and gyrocompass in the V1, which were put into a dive with an odometer to count distance and explosive bolts/guillotine to jam control surfaces. Seeing how advanced other mechanical machines could be, I think it's a possibility that a more intricate version could be made to perform slightly more advanced maneuvers, considering the automata built in the in the 16th century I think it would be marvelous to entertain the idea that similar devices could fly a rocket around before (electronic) computers. 

[CatalinaWOW]

At least since WWI there have been efforts to develop overwhelming superweapons.  Many have been developed and deployed.  All with claims of how the opposition will be helpless against them.

Some have been used in battle over the years.  And in many cases the results on the battlefield were dramatically different from the pre-use marketing hype.  Reasons include lack of real capability, inadequate quantities, poor application, unpublished capabilities from the other side and many others.

No one has the sole set of keys in this area.  All players have weapons with very high lethality.  I suspect if they are used in earnest there will be many surprises on both sides of the conflict.  The only sure path is to not use them and convince others not to also.  Which is unfortunately in the same difficulty class as developing these super weapons.

[001]

why not just ban Russia from owning weapons? 

[TheNewLab]

 :

why not just ban Russia from owning weapons? 

  LOL,  Kind of like simply banning all wars? 

[wraper]

why not just ban Russia from owning weapons? 

It's like me banning you from your home. I may try to do so but somehow reality check tells me you will just say me to fuck off.

[CatalinaWOW]

I made two errors in my previous post.  First, I meant to say that the real solution is to not develop such weapons, and to convince others to also not develop them.  And second, I suggested that not developing the weapons is in the same difficulty class and developing the super weapons.  It is clearly in a much higher difficulty class.

[apis]

Would be cool to see that, for sure. I suppose it depends on how advanced the navigation was - straight lines were pretty much nailed with pendulums and gyrocompass in the V1, which were put into a dive with an odometer to count distance and explosive bolts/guillotine to jam control surfaces. Seeing how advanced other mechanical machines could be, I think it's a possibility that a more intricate version could be made to perform slightly more advanced maneuvers, considering the automata built in the in the 16th century I think it would be marvelous to entertain the idea that similar devices could fly a rocket around before (electronic) computers. 

I love those old automatons, it's amazing what you can do with only gears, cams and linkages!

The main difficulty with navigation is that errors tend to accumulate over time. That is why IMUs are difficult to make since the tiniest amount of noise and bias will quickly add up to a catastrophic error. You really need additional information from sensors to give you absolute location data every now and then. I wonder if they might have used some, for the time, advanced radio navigation system, or radar or some such. If they were supposed to take photos/video, knowing the correct position would have been important.

[Mr. Scram]

I love those old automatons, it's amazing what you can do with only gears, cams and linkages!

The main difficulty with navigation is that errors tend to accumulate over time. That is why IMUs are difficult to make since the tiniest amount of noise and bias will quickly add up to a catastrophic error. You really need additional information from sensors to give you absolute location data every now and then. I wonder if they might have used some, for the time, advanced radio navigation system, or radar or some such. If they were supposed to take photos/video, knowing the correct position would have been important.

It's not just IMUs. You can measure the magnetic field, airspeed, altitude, time and more. Combined you should be able to pull off some fairly fancy flight patterns. Considering some of the navigational tricks that were pulled off with radio beacons in WWII, that seems a real possibility too.

[ajb]

The main difficulty with navigation is that errors tend to accumulate over time. That is why IMUs are difficult to make since the tiniest amount of noise and bias will quickly add up to a catastrophic error. You really need additional information from sensors to give you absolute location data every now and then. I wonder if they might have used some, for the time, advanced radio navigation system, or radar or some such. If they were supposed to take photos/video, knowing the correct position would have been important.

As early as the 60s some aircraft (including the SR-71) and some missiles (including the SM-62 intercontinental cruise missile) have used automated astro-inertial navigation systems, where star positions are used to automatically correct the inertial guidance.  This article, conveniently posted the other day, gives a bit of information how these systems work.  Even modern military aircraft like the B-2 still have celestial navigation systems to supplement/backup their GPS/radio positioning systems.

[raptor1956]

STOP!!!!!!!!!!

NO AIR IN SPACE!
SO SOUND SPEED IS ZERO!!
ANY ROCKET CAN BE NAMED AS "SUPERSONIC"

STUPID RUSSIAN MARKETING 

Yet another instance proving how clueless you are. It's hypersonic glider. And there is a lot of difference between supersonic and hypersonic.

Hypersonic and glider are mutually exclusive terms -- if you use a rocket to boost the missile to hypersonic speeds and then the missile "glides" it will rapidly cease being hypersonic.  Drag and Physics is a bitch. 


Brian

[Sparky49]

Hypersonic and glider are mutually exclusive terms -- if you use a rocket to boost the missile to hypersonic speeds and then the missile "glides" it will rapidly cease being hypersonic.  Drag and Physics is a bitch. 


Brian

Sorry, but to say hypersonic and glider are mutually exclusive is incorrect - hypersonic glide vehicles utilise a skip-glide trajectory. HGVs (and not just the lorry flavour) are a well established category of vehicle.

[Mr. Scram]

As early as the 60s some aircraft (including the SR-71) and some missiles (including the SM-62 intercontinental cruise missile)[/img] have used automated astro-inertial navigation systems, where star positions are used to automatically correct the inertial guidance.  [url=http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17207/sr-71s-r2-d2-could-be-the-key-to-winning-future-fights-in-gps-denied-environments]This article, conveniently posted the other day, gives a bit of information how these systems work.  Even modern military aircraft like the B-2 still have celestial navigation systems to supplement/backup their GPS/radio positioning systems.

That gives a new meaning to "sending a message with snark"!

[wraper]

STOP!!!!!!!!!!

NO AIR IN SPACE!
SO SOUND SPEED IS ZERO!!
ANY ROCKET CAN BE NAMED AS "SUPERSONIC"

STUPID RUSSIAN MARKETING 

Yet another instance proving how clueless you are. It's hypersonic glider. And there is a lot of difference between supersonic and hypersonic.

Hypersonic and glider are mutually exclusive terms -- if you use a rocket to boost the missile to hypersonic speeds and then the missile "glides" it will rapidly cease being hypersonic.  Drag and Physics is a bitch. 


Brian

Nice to make conclusions without knowing what you are talking about.

[001]

This tread looks like old myth about russian cavalery on bears
https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/Bear_Cavalry

[wraper]

This tread looks like old myth about russian cavalery on bears
https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/Bear_Cavalry

https://youtu.be/t-eT0EAlC14

https://youtu.be/Su5-PG19dQE

[raptor1956]

STOP!!!!!!!!!!

NO AIR IN SPACE!
SO SOUND SPEED IS ZERO!!
ANY ROCKET CAN BE NAMED AS "SUPERSONIC"

STUPID RUSSIAN MARKETING 

Yet another instance proving how clueless you are. It's hypersonic glider. And there is a lot of difference between supersonic and hypersonic.

Hypersonic and glider are mutually exclusive terms -- if you use a rocket to boost the missile to hypersonic speeds and then the missile "glides" it will rapidly cease being hypersonic.  Drag and Physics is a bitch. 


Brian

Nice to make conclusions without knowing what you are talking about.

Hey, I'm not stopping you, go on and tell me how a missile is both a glider and hypersonic?  About the only way that makes sense is if the missile is a powered missile for most of its flight and then, as it nears the target, the engine is cut and it 'glides' to the target.  That might reduce the thermal image a tad, but only a tad as the nose and leading edges are going to be frickin hot. 

But, again, please do enlighten me...


Brian

[raptor1956]

Hypersonic and glider are mutually exclusive terms -- if you use a rocket to boost the missile to hypersonic speeds and then the missile "glides" it will rapidly cease being hypersonic.  Drag and Physics is a bitch. 


Brian

Sorry, but to say hypersonic and glider are mutually exclusive is incorrect - hypersonic glide vehicles utilise a skip-glide trajectory. HGVs (and not just the lorry flavour) are a well established category of vehicle.

One could argue that ANY missile, particularly ICBM's, are gliders as they are unpowered after separation from the booster.  The idea as I understand it is that this missile remains in the atmosphere the whole time and for that to be a glider is, well, ridiculous.


Brian

[Sparky49]

One could argue that ANY missile, particularly ICBM's, are gliders as they are unpowered after separation from the booster.  The idea as I understand it is that this missile remains in the atmosphere the whole time and for that to be a glider is, well, ridiculous.


Brian

One could argue many things, including both the truth and the fatuous.

[coppercone2]

can a scramjet do vector thrusting at those velocities to change course, the russians love vector thrusting. its actually superior to american technologies afaik, they developed fluidic circuits. maybe they have a hypersonic fluidic circuit directing some kind of ceramic nozzle.. but the momentum is intense

[wraper]

Hypersonic and glider are mutually exclusive terms -- if you use a rocket to boost the missile to hypersonic speeds and then the missile "glides" it will rapidly cease being hypersonic.  Drag and Physics is a bitch. 


Brian

Sorry, but to say hypersonic and glider are mutually exclusive is incorrect - hypersonic glide vehicles utilise a skip-glide trajectory. HGVs (and not just the lorry flavour) are a well established category of vehicle.

One could argue that ANY missile, particularly ICBM's, are gliders as they are unpowered after separation from the booster.  The idea as I understand it is that this missile remains in the atmosphere the whole time and for that to be a glider is, well, ridiculous.


Brian

It has huge kinetic and potential energy and glides in upper atmosphere layer where drag is tiny compared to drag at sea level. At such altitude it's more difficult to reduce speed rather than keep it high. The issue is withstanding high temperature for prolonged time.

[raptor1956]

Hypersonic and glider are mutually exclusive terms -- if you use a rocket to boost the missile to hypersonic speeds and then the missile "glides" it will rapidly cease being hypersonic.  Drag and Physics is a bitch. 


Brian

Sorry, but to say hypersonic and glider are mutually exclusive is incorrect - hypersonic glide vehicles utilise a skip-glide trajectory. HGVs (and not just the lorry flavour) are a well established category of vehicle.

One could argue that ANY missile, particularly ICBM's, are gliders as they are unpowered after separation from the booster.  The idea as I understand it is that this missile remains in the atmosphere the whole time and for that to be a glider is, well, ridiculous.


Brian

It has huge kinetic and potential energy and glides in upper atmosphere layer where drag is tiny compared to drag at sea level. At such altitude it's more difficult to reduce speed rather than keep it high. The issue is withstanding high temperature for prolonged time.

If the missile is generating a lot of heat that heat is draining energy -- there is no free lunch.


Brian

[apis]

The main difficulty with navigation is that errors tend to accumulate over time. That is why IMUs are difficult to make since the tiniest amount of noise and bias will quickly add up to a catastrophic error. You really need additional information from sensors to give you absolute location data every now and then. I wonder if they might have used some, for the time, advanced radio navigation system, or radar or some such. If they were supposed to take photos/video, knowing the correct position would have been important.

As early as the 60s some aircraft (including the SR-71) and some missiles (including the SM-62 intercontinental cruise missile) have used automated astro-inertial navigation systems, where star positions are used to automatically correct the inertial guidance.  This article, conveniently posted the other day, gives a bit of information how these systems work.  Even modern military aircraft like the B-2 still have celestial navigation systems to supplement/backup their GPS/radio positioning systems.

Interesting. That would work well for aircraft that fly above the troposphere (those ghost rockets were supposed to fly very low though). I'm curious how they could pull off astro navigation in the 60s without CCDs and computers (CCDs were invented 1969 according to wiki) was there other types of image sensor before that?

[Sparky49]

If the missile is generating a lot of heat that heat is draining energy -- there is no free lunch.


Brian

I don't think anyone is saying that there is a free lunch... There are numerous varieties of missiles, and plenty of ways they travel. Many missiles flying at ground level have a motor which burns for a short period, leaving the vehicle to travel along a ballistic trajectory to target. Other missiles such as the BGM71 have much longer burns, and can flown to target with wired controls - so long as the motor produces more thrust than the weight of the vehicle it will fly (ie, thrust to weight ratio > 1).

Planes, gliders, and hypersonic gliders, have mechanical features which also generate lift. Most planes use wings to do this. Other aircraft, such HGVs, rely on the shape of the body to generate lift. HGVs rely on skipping on a boundary of thicker air, similar to how a stone may skip on water. The stone 'flies' along this boundary for quite some distance, skipping multiple times and rising into the air despite having no form of thrust. An analogy can be drawn to the mechanisms behind HGV flight.

You are correct when you say there is no free lunch. You are incorrect when you say hypersonic and glider are mutually exclusive terms.

[Sparky49]

Interesting. That would work well for aircraft that fly above the troposphere (those ghost rockets were supposed to fly very low though). I'm curious how they could pull off astro navigation in the 60s without CCDs and computers (CCDs were invented 1969 according to wiki) was there other types of image sensor before that?

I'd also be interested to learn about this tech. I've heard stories about it, but nothing in any detail.

[Canis Dirus Leidy]

Interesting. That would work well for aircraft that fly above the troposphere (those ghost rockets were supposed to fly very low though). I'm curious how they could pull off astro navigation in the 60s without CCDs and computers (CCDs were invented 1969 according to wiki) was there other types of image sensor before that?

Use the vacuum tube, Luke!  (Either photomultiplier or image-tube).