Sergeant Foley
Well-known member
Subscribed and following this huge discussion mega-thread very closely with intriguing interest.Aircraft and helicopters, the sky is the limit.
Warbirds Thread
- Thread starter PsihoKekec
- Start date
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
yay, early stage prototypes being compared to actually working and in some cases field tested missiles.
As to the Russian ones not being aircraft-launched, well, Kinzhal says hi.
Kinzhal is not any more of a hypersonic missile than Pershing-2 or many other decades old ballistic missiles because it can't maneuver at hypersonic speeds.
Putin Lied When He Called Russia’s Kinzhal Missiles ‘Hypersonic.’ We Unraveled the Truth
Putin’s new missile is not breaking the laws of physics—just stretching the truth.
www.popularmechanics.com
Navy had those in the 80s.
Yep.
Nothing they have in China or Russia is new.
Just need to them and the world
SRBM not ICBM.
Also Skybolt was a thing, and didn't need a supersonic fighter to get it to hypersonic speeds, just a B-52. Got cancelled for low accuracy, but that was in the 60's.
Yeah, this is nothing new. US has been doing this shit since the early cold war
Correction: was cancelled because it competed with SLBMs, which were McNamara's pet project.
While McNamara *was* admittedly correct about the long term potential of SLBMs as a concept, his habit of aggressively shutting down competition for his favorites was *not* a good thing since he blatantly did so regardless of any factual basis. He was just that convinced of his own brilliance...
Last edited:
Kinzhal is overrated. From what I've learned from pro-Russian commentators, the Patriot can't even intercept Iraqi Scud Missiles from over thirty years ago, and yet somehow still managed to intercept these so-called Russian Hypersonic Missiles. The Russians should've invested more in Scud Missiles instead of their stupid post-Soviet SuperScience bullshit wonder weapons.
Kinzhal Missile!!! (Laughs in Klingon). Dude the US could launch Ballistic Missiles from a plane consistently since the late 1950s. It ain't nothing special. And the Kinzhal can't fit in the weapons bay of a F 35.
The vaunted Kinzhal is nothing more than an air-launched variation of the Iskander -- so it's basically a broad equivalent of the cancelled Skybolt.
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
The claim in the video is that no one has a plain-launched hyper-sonic missile and only this yet untested prrototype is the only one.Kinzhal is not any more of a hypersonic missile than Pershing-2 or many other decades old ballistic missiles because it can't maneuver at hypersonic speeds.
Putin Lied When He Called Russia’s Kinzhal Missiles ‘Hypersonic.’ We Unraveled the Truth
Putin’s new missile is not breaking the laws of physics—just stretching the truth.
The Kinzhal is air-launched, it can move at hypersonic speeds, it has been used repeatedly in combat.
Invest in an Anglo-Polish dictionary and thesaurus already!
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
I Slavic languages it means dagger.
And it works, including in actual battlefield conditions.
Yours is a prototype, oh and the name Maco is idiotic and it sounds like "da poppy".
Mako is a type of shark.
Ok, in that case USA had an air launched hypersonic missile in the 60's and no one gives a crap about old tech like that.
Invest in some sense before trying to pull the dictionary against people who know the shit you are talking about better than you do.
The hype about hypersonic weapons is for a different kind, if you want to pretend you don't know that and pull the dictionary on people, ok, by your definition it's a total nothingburger, a tech discarded as uninteresting before we were born.
You have drunken the Russian Kool Aid so much you take their bullshit without critical thinking. The Russians took an existing Ballistic missile. Figured out a way to mount it to an aircraft. And claimed it was a Hypersonic missile. So Mr Wanting to play word lawyer let's see the exact definition of a Hypersonic Missile.
U.S. Hypersonic Weapons and Alternatives
At a Glance The Army, Navy, and Air Force are each developing hypersonic missiles—nonnuclear offensive weapons that fly faster than five times the speed of sound and spend most of their flight in the Earth’s atmosphere. Those missiles are intended to be maneuverable and capable of striking...
www.cbo.gov
After many decades of conducting basic research, the Department of Defense (DoD) recently increased its spending to develop technology for hypersonic weapons. The Air Force, Army, and Navy all plan to field hypersonic missiles within the next few years. China and Russia have stated that they are also fielding such weapons.
The term "hypersonic weapon" is often misapplied. Strictly speaking, it refers to a missile that travels at speeds at least five times the speed of sound in air (Mach 5 or above) and that spends most of its flight inside the Earth's atmosphere (rather than in space), where it can use aerodynamic design features to maneuver.
The combination of long range, high speed, and maneuverability distinguishes the hypersonic weapons that DoD is developing from the conventional strike weapons in the U.S. military's current inventory. Hypersonic missiles are considered a possible counter to the antiaccess and area-denial (A2/AD) systems that potential near-peer adversaries such as China and Russia are deploying to prevent U.S. forces from operating freely in their regions. In theory, hypersonic weapons could be launched from outside the range of those systems and could reach targets within minutes over medium to intermediate ranges (from hundreds to a few thousands of kilometers), with a high degree of accuracy and less vulnerability to defenses than existing missiles.1
The Congressional Budget Office analyzed the relative capabilities and possible costs of hypersonic missiles and potential alternatives in scenarios in which long-range, rapid-response weapons might be useful. CBO found that hypersonic missiles with sufficient ranges for A2/AD scenarios—at least 1,000 kilometers (km), or about 600 miles, for missiles launched from aircraft and at least 3,000 km, or about 1,900 miles, for missiles launched from the ground or sea—have the speed to be useful in the early stages of a conflict with a near-peer adversary.
Hypersonic missiles with those ranges, however, would be more expensive than similar ballistic missiles and pose much greater technical challenges (see Figure S-1). CBO estimates that hypersonic missiles would cost roughly one-third more than ballistic missiles with maneuverable warheads that had the same range and accuracy and traveled at similar speeds. (The United States does not currently field such ballistic missiles, but the technology for them is well developed.)
Last edited: