Russia tests supersonic GTA missile to prevent TWO! - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2019, 02:00:55 am
content: Russia have successfully tested a supersonic GTA missile! Its kinda quick! Or is it doctored and fake news?https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-05/watch-russia-test-fires-hypersonic-interceptor-missilehttps://twitter.com/i/status/1135788660778000384

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 08, 2019, 02:05:08 am
content: Better video of actual launch

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2019, 02:10:34 am
content: I wonder what kind fuel can make it take off like that and kept into one piece unless doctored? So doctored for propaganda or real or not?

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2019, 02:30:35 am
content: Shit your pants already?

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2019, 02:33:09 am
content: Did you shit in yours?

author: Housedad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2019, 02:54:35 am
content: Please notice what They are actually showing. They are only showing a launch. They are not showing a track, they are not showing a Target, and they are not showing if they can even maneuver at that speed to hit a stationary or moving Target like a ship. That video really doesn't tell us much. The US has been able to launch simple missiles like that since the 60s at those speeds. The trick is maneuverability at those speeds. That is where the technological problems really begin. All that it does show is that they have solved the issue of launch at the massive pressures involved and that it did not break apart right after launch. That's all.Heck it doesn't even tell us whether or not they have solved the ablative layer problem to protect it from the massive Heat during the ENTIRE flight.Edited for spelling

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 08, 2019, 02:56:43 am
content: Quote from: Housedad on June 08, 2019, 02:54:35 amIt's interceptor missile, what stationary target?

author: scatha
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2019, 03:28:29 am
content: Quote from: MT on June 08, 2019, 02:10:34 amProbably fairly standard solid fueled. For reference, the Nike Sprint ABM from the 60's looks like it was as least as fast (allegedly it was doing mach 1 by the time it left the silo).

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 08, 2019, 03:40:55 am
content: Quote from: Housedad on June 08, 2019, 02:54:35 amHeck, you don't even know how much it weighs or the size of it.

author: KaneTW
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2019, 04:33:43 am
content: Maneuvering is my main issue with this system, both the actual velocities involved (a m/s^2 thrust when you're going at km/s is going to take a while to adjust the velocity vector) and the control loop involved to hit another missile (~centimeters) at those velocities.

author: maginnovision
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2019, 04:43:21 am
content: Quote from: KaneTW on June 08, 2019, 04:33:43 amManeuverability is why this can work. You know the trajectory of the target(and they won't be taking evasive maneuvers) and you know the dynamics of your own rocket. You can pre-compute your own intercept trajectory and then launch. It'd be pretty unlikely for it to track anything, just a fire and forget system.

author: KaneTW
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2019, 05:06:07 am
content: That would only work on ballistic missiles, not guided missiles. And even then it requires some supremely precise calculations.

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2019, 08:43:09 am
content: Ok, fast rocket/missile isn't new, compared to 60s, as smartness, latency and accuracy are major factors, just curious on how much the controlling electronics (sensor tech included) aka the brain for the missile has been evolved ? I mean compared to 60s, pretty significants right ?

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2019, 08:56:41 am
content: Propaganda or not, the part about US military taking Russian and Chinese hypersonic programs seriously is real.http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2018/January%202018/China-Leads-Hypersonics-US-Still-Game.aspx

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2019, 09:42:55 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on June 08, 2019, 09:06:45 amYes, that is how it works."The US are beating the <foreigners> = Cold War is over"."The <foreigners> are catching up = they are starting a Cold War"."US hegemony" is just "US empire" by another name.

author: Towger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2019, 09:55:08 am
content: What is the noise before it leaves the silo? You would expect to see it before hearing it. Not a second before.

author: Electro Detective
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2019, 09:57:13 am
content: Who in 2019 would buy this '1984' styled 'nation vs nation' pr0paganda crap?The rich wealth hoarders running these shows need to buy lives, and go easyon their simpleton factory/cannon fodder that supply them the wealth.They already have too much power as it is, and need to be worded up they won't be taking any of it to Hell's Basementwhen their short wasted time on Earth is over = good news..well, till the next ratasses move in and start over, and history repeats

author: SparkyFX
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2019, 01:42:33 pm
content: Quote from: maginnovision on June 08, 2019, 04:43:21 amNot really. The surrounding air has plenty of up-, down- and sideward streams in it, based on sunshine, ground structure or weather in general. Of course the faster you go, the less it affects its vector, but still, small deviations lead to huge course deviations.Measuring these despite all the vibrations in the machine, might need some proper filtering going on. This is where modern processing power and signal processing comes into play. In the 60s this might have been mechanical regulators of all sorts, precise but heavy.Quote from: Towger on June 08, 2019, 09:55:08 amThe silo structure probably acts like a flute with the gasses.

author: maginnovision
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2019, 05:50:48 pm
content: Quote from: SparkyFX on June 08, 2019, 01:42:33 pmYes it will have some course correction but I don't think it would alter it's actual trajectory, for instance actually tracking the target. Maybe they can't precompute the intercept trajectory but that's what I would expect.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 08, 2019, 07:06:19 pm
content: Quote from: maginnovision on June 08, 2019, 05:50:48 pmYou don't have any idea how interceptor missiles work.

author: maginnovision
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2019, 08:04:25 pm
content: So tell me. Open eyes and ears. (Preferably supersonic missile systems)

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2019, 08:33:04 pm
content: How about an American hypersonic anti-nuke missile from the '70s?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_missile#BackgroundQuote

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 08, 2019, 08:44:50 pm
content: Quote from: maginnovision on June 08, 2019, 08:04:25 pmFor example S-300/ S-400 tracks the target until it hits it. Do you really think it's possible to hit a high speed target up to hundreds of km away by just predetermined trajectory?

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 08, 2019, 08:55:07 pm
content: Russians also have old anti-ballistic missile system with nuclear warhead. They just nuke the nuke. BTW they survive up to 210G longitudinal and up to 90G transverse acceleration just fine.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-135_anti-ballistic_missile_system

author: maginnovision
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2019, 01:01:04 am
content: Quote from: wraper on June 08, 2019, 08:44:50 pmI'm not sure about STRICTLY pre-calculated but I DO think it's possible these days to model the trajectory based on tracking and intercept by pre-computing the intercept trajectory and make minor corrections mid-course. They should be targeting these things before atmosphere re-entry because after that it's going to be difficult to stop.Quote from: wraper on June 08, 2019, 08:55:07 pmI've read about that system before but it is pretty old. I'm basically trying to take into account that we have much newer technology that wasn't around when most of the current systems were designed. I'm probably wrong and they won't try anything new though, just use the same old strategies but rely on better tracking? I'm not sure. I suppose if this is going to be part of the A-235 then it'd be cheaper not to change the guidance. They must do something though if they're not going to be using nuclear warheads since they have to be even more accurate. Or just use a bigger warhead?Most of what I know about missiles is from talking to (very) old navy men. Even then 1 of them primarily worked on missile EMP countermeasures, another worked on the the tracking systems. I don't know if I know anyone who would really be able to say much about current missiles, much less what's coming. If anyone knows some good books on ICBM's and countermeasures I'd like to read them.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 09, 2019, 01:25:17 am
content: Quote from: maginnovision on June 09, 2019, 01:01:04 amThat's why 53Т6 rocket (A-135) flies at extremely fast and has nuclear warhead. It's not that old actually, in operation since 1995. They had A-35 before that.QuoteIt got faster speed and accuracy, so they resolved to using conventional warhead instead of nuclear.Launch of 53Т6 (A-135), also extremely fast (5.5 km/s) but slower than this newer one:

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 09, 2019, 01:29:24 am
content: US counterpart is a joke in comparison

author: maginnovision
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2019, 02:16:14 am
content: Quote from: wraper on June 09, 2019, 01:25:17 amInterception isn't just harder because they change speed after re entry but with MIRVs they multiply. The A135 was operational in 95 but I think it was developed 10+ years before that. Perhaps it wasn't developed with MIRVs in mind and these newer missiles can intercept well before they could deploy? I suppose they could have had them in mind and targeted individual warheads too.Quote from: wraper on June 09, 2019, 01:29:24 amThey're too busy trying to pay for new jets.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2019, 12:38:34 am
content: https://russia-insider.com/en/leading-us-military-magazine-says-russia-years-ahead-missile-technology-russian-tv-news/ri27201

author: Echo88
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2019, 01:13:20 am
content: Speculation, propaganda and an author with the name Tyler Durden on the first mentioned link. Yeah, sounds like this threat will get us detailed behind the scenes infos.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures#/media/File:Military_Expenditures_2018_SIPRI.pngSaudi Arabia is already spending more than Russia.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2019, 02:38:13 am
content: Ok as far as fast missiles go,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_(missile)Missiles don't work on speed alone, its the speed you have at the time you reach the destination of intercept and what kind of sensor data you have available at the time of intercept.All this missile speed bullshit is like dick measuring. Also acceleration matters (i.e. with the sprint missile it was meant to be a essential CIWS for ICBM falling down).You just need to have something in the correct point in time. With modern missiles something slower and more stealthy might actually be beneficial unless its in the terminal reentry phase so enemy sensors cannot change course to waste the interceptors fuel, speed, manuverability, etc. (Though it might effect intelligent decoy deployment systems that time decoy deployment if such systems exist). I think a decoy will slow down more then the missile so if you release it too early you can be identified).With how random the missiles are getting, I think you would need a two stage device, one to get it near and one to finish for the kill within where the missile can be based on its random avoidance guidance, since I doubt the same motor can get both the distance and the acceleration to avoid dodging (eventually, I don't think its so bad yet).

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2019, 02:41:53 am
content: Quote from: scatha on June 08, 2019, 03:28:29 amThe sprint missile is not standard fuel. They use all kind of weird shit (the fuel is a meta material IIRC using things like tantalum matrix etc).

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 11, 2019, 03:09:18 am
content: Quote from: scatha on June 08, 2019, 03:28:29 amSprint does not even even have half of it's speed. It's actually 40% slower than old 53T6 (A135).

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2019, 03:44:26 am
content: did you read? the sprint is quoted at mach 10, and its built for acceleration more then anythingI think you are confusing target intercept speeds vs missile speeds in shady documentation (that russia article is a joke, instead of specs they answer questions like 'what are the targets'. Really, you have to ask?? LOL) That article is useful if you woke up from a coma you entered in fucking 1935Boris, are there still nazis??You can't really built a sprint missile any other way, the acceleration the thruster provides is probably not surmountable unless a different form factor (longer). Sprint has a range of25 miles.Notice how weird its shaped? That cone is not aesthetic. You are comparing watermelons to walnuts. If you read about the documentation the short acceleration causes such heat a plasma field forms around the missile body which acts as a RF attenuator. You need high power RF transmitter systems to guide it, the missile itself is blind. The sensors can't see through the plasma if they tried to add them."The first stage was exhausted after only 1.2 seconds, but produced 650,000 pounds-force (2,900 kilonewtons) of thrust. On separation, the spent first stage disintegrated due to aerodynamic forces. The second stage fired within 1 to 2 seconds of launch. Interception at an altitude of one to eighteen miles' altitude (1.5 to 30 km) took at most 15 seconds. "http://www.nuclearabms.info/Sprint.html" When in flight, the missile was surrounded by a plasma sheath which the command signals from the MSR were able to penetrate. This was achieved due to the sheer high power of the MSR(a beam that was less than 1 degree wide, and had a power of at least 1MW)."I also don't think that a reentry vehicle can be made to be very maneuverable when its traveling at a deadfall trajectory at 5 miles a second. It would be interesting to know the angle of attack of reentry vehicles when they are near the ground.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2019, 04:02:31 am
content: Also be sure to read about the HiBEX missile on that additional page (not listed in wikipedia).400G accelerator.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 11, 2019, 12:34:15 pm
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on June 11, 2019, 03:44:26 amSprint: 3403 m/s (Mach 10)53T6 (A135): 5500 m/sI previously incorrectly copy pasted Mach 7 for 53T6, but it was actually for decommissioned long range 670 km altitude rocket for A135.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2019, 02:05:07 am
content: ok, then thats a very similar system developed after development of the american version ceased with a faster missile with a similar size and slightly longer range developed with technology 20 years newer

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 12, 2019, 02:05:21 am
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on June 12, 2019, 01:52:56 amA135 also had 51T6 missile (decommissioned in mid 2000s) which was slower but worked at up to 350 km distance and 670 km altitude.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2019, 02:15:54 am
content: So Nike-X vs A-135 (Gorgon) systemProject scope:Nike-X -40 billion required to protect major us cities (what is this exactly?)A-135 :protect Moscowlong range interceptor component:51T6 20x2.6 m at mach 7 with a range of 900km vs the nuke-x missile which was 16x1 m at mach 3 with a range of 500km. It looks like the long range part is much more expensive because its twice as thick and a more then a bit longer.short range interceptor component:53T6 at mach 17 with a range of 60km vs Sprint missile at mach 10 with a range of 40km (same size, clearly better developed by Russia for some reason)I think this was a cost related issue, since the US wanted to defend its entirety vs the russian system which pretty much just wanted to defend the kremlin in some regard (but I don't understand it because it would just get saturated with more missiles aimed at it).This will come down to project details and how russia managed to push it through (maybe this is because Russian political leadership is more centralized then in USA).I want to know what cost of a gorgon vs a nike-x base is.I think the reason why russia developed it more is because they can silence complaints like this regarding short range interceptor deploymenthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike-X#Small_City_Defense,_PAR"During the project's development phase, the siting and size of the Nike-X bases became a major complaint of smaller cities. Originally intended to protect only the largest urban areas, Nike-X was designed to be built at a very large size with many missiles controlled by an expensive computer and radar network. Smaller sites were to be left undefended in the original Nike-X concept since the system was simply too expensive to build with only a few interceptors. These cities complained that they were not only being left open to attack, but that their lack of defenses might make them primary targets. This led to a series of studies on the Small City Defense (SCD) concept. By 1964 SCD had become part of the baseline Nike-X deployment plans, with every major city being provided some level of defensive system."Russian leadership may have simply not cared to listen to complaints from small cities, so the budget may have not been interrupted as much. (given that most people say Moscow is the 'rome' of russia in terms of spending where it suddenly gets all ghetto and decrepit outside of Moscow). Not sure you would notice a before and after of some locations in russia after nuclear attack....

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 12, 2019, 02:24:03 am
content: The purpose of Russian system was avoiding country being beheaded thus ensuring opportunity to strike back.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2019, 02:55:13 am
content: why does DC not have a operational one, as in a <100km range one(nuclear, hyperspeed).Is it just confidence in the patriot missile?

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2019, 09:34:25 am
content: More missile porn

author: Electro Detective
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2019, 11:03:25 am
content: What a waste of awesome machinery that could be used to pull a plough and help out farmers doing it tough