Not to be political, but just for general information, is there any other country than Russia that has these? Astonishingly quick.
Hypersonic missiles
- Thread starter Smokescreen
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted by Smokescreen
Not to be political, but just for general information, is there any other country than Russia that has these? Astonishingly quick.
No idea what the Ruskies have or do not have . But I take what WE say with a grain of salt . I take what the Ruskies say with a truck load of salt . Just because some one says something , does not mean it is true . Or works . Or they have it in significant quantities .
The Ruskies have been known to use a bluff , in the past .
And to answer your question , I do not know if the Chi-Coms have anything like this or not .
Not to be political, but just for general information, is there any other country than Russia that has these? Astonishingly quick.
No idea what the Ruskies have or do not have . But I take what WE say with a grain of salt . I take what the Ruskies say with a truck load of salt . Just because some one says something , does not mean it is true . Or works . Or they have it in significant quantities .
The Ruskies have been known to use a bluff , in the past .
And to answer your question , I do not know if the Chi-Coms have anything like this or not .
Originally Posted by Smokescreen
Not to be political, but just for general information, is there any other country than Russia that has these? Astonishingly quick.
I'm not convinced that Russia has half of what they say they do, or the money/ability to reliably field any of it.
Not to be political, but just for general information, is there any other country than Russia that has these? Astonishingly quick.
I'm not convinced that Russia has half of what they say they do, or the money/ability to reliably field any of it.
Originally Posted by Onetor
Since the end of WW2, the Russians have been one step ahead of us in lift (Rocket/Helicopter technology). We can't even send our own Astronauts to the Space Station or moon. Appearances can be deceiving though.
Huh? I guess you missed the Apollo missions.
Since the end of WW2, the Russians have been one step ahead of us in lift (Rocket/Helicopter technology). We can't even send our own Astronauts to the Space Station or moon. Appearances can be deceiving though.
Huh? I guess you missed the Apollo missions.
When you say "hypersonic missiles" can you be more specific? For pretty much any ICBM, the reentry vehicles are hypersonic, and it's been that way for many decades--it's just the basic physics of something reentering our atmosphere from space.
However there are also cruise missiles, air-to-air missiles, surface-to-air missiles, etc. Even with ballistic missiles you've got short, medium and intercontinental types, all with widely differing performance capabilities. My guess is that you're asking about cruise missiles? That's about the only type of missile where raw speed is the overwhelming priority--it's deployed against fixed targets which don't manuever, and the shorter the flight time means the shorter reaction time the enemy has to respond.
You have to keep in mind that the only two countries currently with the financial means and who have placed military buildout at the very top of their national priorities right now are Russia and China. You can virtually guarantee that both of those countries have a hypersonic cruise missile design at some stage of development.
However there are also cruise missiles, air-to-air missiles, surface-to-air missiles, etc. Even with ballistic missiles you've got short, medium and intercontinental types, all with widely differing performance capabilities. My guess is that you're asking about cruise missiles? That's about the only type of missile where raw speed is the overwhelming priority--it's deployed against fixed targets which don't manuever, and the shorter the flight time means the shorter reaction time the enemy has to respond.
You have to keep in mind that the only two countries currently with the financial means and who have placed military buildout at the very top of their national priorities right now are Russia and China. You can virtually guarantee that both of those countries have a hypersonic cruise missile design at some stage of development.
Originally Posted by Onetor
Since the end of WW2, the Russians have been one step ahead of us in lift (Rocket/Helicopter technology). We can't even send our own Astronauts to the Space Station or moon. Appearances can be deceiving though.
This statement is false on so many levels since you failed to research any part of your statement I will not attempt to show where this statement is false it will take up so much of my day.
Since the end of WW2, the Russians have been one step ahead of us in lift (Rocket/Helicopter technology). We can't even send our own Astronauts to the Space Station or moon. Appearances can be deceiving though.
This statement is false on so many levels since you failed to research any part of your statement I will not attempt to show where this statement is false it will take up so much of my day.
Originally Posted by dave1251
Originally Posted by Onetor
Since the end of WW2, the Russians have been one step ahead of us in lift (Rocket/Helicopter technology). We can't even send our own Astronauts to the Space Station or moon. Appearances can be deceiving though.
This statement is false on so many levels since you failed to research any part of your statement I will not attempt to show where this statement is false it will take up so much of my day.
Yeah, bigger isn't always better. Just one aspect of that is that they didn't know how to make their stuff smaller so it needed more lift. If you can make things smaller/lighter that does the same thing, then you don't need as much lift. Sorta like would you like to carry something around all day that weighs 100 pounds or 10 pounds?
Although for the last 8 years or so since the end of the space shuttle, the US hasn't been able to go to the space station without the use of Russian rockets. As for the moon, the last people who landed on it were from the US.
Originally Posted by Onetor
Since the end of WW2, the Russians have been one step ahead of us in lift (Rocket/Helicopter technology). We can't even send our own Astronauts to the Space Station or moon. Appearances can be deceiving though.
This statement is false on so many levels since you failed to research any part of your statement I will not attempt to show where this statement is false it will take up so much of my day.
Yeah, bigger isn't always better. Just one aspect of that is that they didn't know how to make their stuff smaller so it needed more lift. If you can make things smaller/lighter that does the same thing, then you don't need as much lift. Sorta like would you like to carry something around all day that weighs 100 pounds or 10 pounds?
Although for the last 8 years or so since the end of the space shuttle, the US hasn't been able to go to the space station without the use of Russian rockets. As for the moon, the last people who landed on it were from the US.
When we & the Ruskies started developing ICBM's , We had reduced the weight of our " special weapons " to some extent .. Compared to those of the USSR .
Therefore , out rockets were designed to handle ledd throw weight . And the USSR was coming up short on manned bombers , leadind them to pursue ICBM's more aggressively , than we were .
All the early " civilian " rockets were either ICBM's or basted on them . So , the Ruskies were ahead of us . That latter changed as we pulled ahead of them and made it to the Moon .
Therefore , out rockets were designed to handle ledd throw weight . And the USSR was coming up short on manned bombers , leadind them to pursue ICBM's more aggressively , than we were .
All the early " civilian " rockets were either ICBM's or basted on them . So , the Ruskies were ahead of us . That latter changed as we pulled ahead of them and made it to the Moon .
I can tell you that Boeing has been working on this particular subject for over 30 years. This is nothing new.
But then the "News" is always looking for something to throw in the news to keep from reporting the real news!
But then the "News" is always looking for something to throw in the news to keep from reporting the real news!
Last edited:
Originally Posted by dave1251
Originally Posted by Onetor
Since the end of WW2, the Russians have been one step ahead of us in lift (Rocket/Helicopter technology). We can't even send our own Astronauts to the Space Station or moon. Appearances can be deceiving though.
This statement is false on so many levels since you failed to research any part of your statement I will not attempt to show where this statement is false it will take up so much of my day.
I'll give the guy the benefit of the doubt, and assume that " We can't even send our own Astronauts to the Space Station or moon" is just referring to the last 10 years or so since the Shuttle was retired.
not taking the time to look things up, have we seen any REAL progress from the Orion program?
Originally Posted by Onetor
Since the end of WW2, the Russians have been one step ahead of us in lift (Rocket/Helicopter technology). We can't even send our own Astronauts to the Space Station or moon. Appearances can be deceiving though.
This statement is false on so many levels since you failed to research any part of your statement I will not attempt to show where this statement is false it will take up so much of my day.
I'll give the guy the benefit of the doubt, and assume that " We can't even send our own Astronauts to the Space Station or moon" is just referring to the last 10 years or so since the Shuttle was retired.
not taking the time to look things up, have we seen any REAL progress from the Orion program?
Originally Posted by Onetor
Since the end of WW2, the Russians have been one step ahead of us in lift (Rocket/Helicopter technology). We can't even send our own Astronauts to the Space Station or moon. Appearances can be deceiving though.
I'm sorry, but as someone that has actually been a student at Kremenchug Flight College and is intimately familiar with Russian hardware, you couldn't be more wrong. Their planes are junk, rotary or otherwise.
The reason we use the Russians to get us to the ISS is because in the beginning it was cheaper per seat than developing a new vehicle. Now that they're charging what they charge, there are new space vehicles in development.
Since the end of WW2, the Russians have been one step ahead of us in lift (Rocket/Helicopter technology). We can't even send our own Astronauts to the Space Station or moon. Appearances can be deceiving though.
I'm sorry, but as someone that has actually been a student at Kremenchug Flight College and is intimately familiar with Russian hardware, you couldn't be more wrong. Their planes are junk, rotary or otherwise.
The reason we use the Russians to get us to the ISS is because in the beginning it was cheaper per seat than developing a new vehicle. Now that they're charging what they charge, there are new space vehicles in development.
If you really want to look at the great Russian technology go back just to the 80s and Chernobyl.
Originally Posted by Smokescreen
Not to be political, but just for general information, is there any other country than Russia that has these? Astonishingly quick.
Pretty easy to do an unmanned hypersonic that is 80 mikes or under in range, to be hypersonic for longer than that requires a huge rocket if in the lower atmosphere or some sort of guided re-entry vehicle from the stratosphere. You just reach a point of diminishing returns if trying to do it with chemical rockets...the space shuttle was technically a hypersonic vehicle...look at the fuel it had to carry to deliver a relatively small payload into space.
Not to be political, but just for general information, is there any other country than Russia that has these? Astonishingly quick.
Pretty easy to do an unmanned hypersonic that is 80 mikes or under in range, to be hypersonic for longer than that requires a huge rocket if in the lower atmosphere or some sort of guided re-entry vehicle from the stratosphere. You just reach a point of diminishing returns if trying to do it with chemical rockets...the space shuttle was technically a hypersonic vehicle...look at the fuel it had to carry to deliver a relatively small payload into space.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by JohnnyJohnson
If you really want to look at the great Russian technology go back just to the 80s and Chernobyl.
Ziiiiiiing!
They also had a MIG that was supposedly capable of hitting the SR-71's cruising speed. However, if achieved, the engines required a complete rebuild upon return.
If you really want to look at the great Russian technology go back just to the 80s and Chernobyl.
Ziiiiiiing!
They also had a MIG that was supposedly capable of hitting the SR-71's cruising speed. However, if achieved, the engines required a complete rebuild upon return.
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by JohnnyJohnson
If you really want to look at the great Russian technology go back just to the 80s and Chernobyl.
Ziiiiiiing!
They also had a MIG that was supposedly capable of hitting the SR-71's cruising speed. However, if achieved, the engines required a complete rebuild upon return.
Foxbat, never claimed to hit SR-71 speeds but it was built as an interceptor for our bombers. 2.8 was its normal max speed but it had a reserve capacity to go slightly more than 3, not the fuel to do it but the possibility technically existed for it to do so in very short bursts.
Originally Posted by JohnnyJohnson
If you really want to look at the great Russian technology go back just to the 80s and Chernobyl.
Ziiiiiiing!
They also had a MIG that was supposedly capable of hitting the SR-71's cruising speed. However, if achieved, the engines required a complete rebuild upon return.
Foxbat, never claimed to hit SR-71 speeds but it was built as an interceptor for our bombers. 2.8 was its normal max speed but it had a reserve capacity to go slightly more than 3, not the fuel to do it but the possibility technically existed for it to do so in very short bursts.
Well, think about this. The United States has used the backbone of the aircraft carrier since 1940 to project power worldwide. The aircraft carrier put the battleship out to pasture. Everyone knows that whoever controls the skies, wins.
The Chinese, Russians, and everyone else have had decades to brainstorm ideas and ideas to mitigate and counter the threat, of the United States aircraft carrier. They all know that they cant compete with ships, they cant compete with air craft carriers, and they cant compete with planes. If US goes to war with Russia, or with China, do you think their military planners are just going to allow the threat of the US aircraft carriers to exist? I can guarantee that the FIRST thing they do is take out the aircraft carriers. A GOOD submarine crew could do it. Or a high speed supersonic missile. Or a tactical nuke that would take out the entire carrier battle group. Four tactical nukes could take out four carrier groups, and then bam, instantaneously, the war doesn't look so good for the Americans.
The day is soon approaching that the aircraft carrier group is put out to pasture, old, obsolete, like the battleships. Their will be new weapons, new technologies, that can just kill these carrier battle groups, or at least cripple them.
Also, Ive read many military books, manuals, training guides, etc, and almost all of them say to never underestimate your opponent. We have for years and years underestimated the opponent, because everyone told us how good we are, we have the best technology, we have the best planes, etc. Well, a bunch of goat herders armed with WW2 bolt action rifles defeated a Russian super power in 1989. Using skill, determination, a will to fight, and sometimes luck, an inferior component can beat, or outlast, a much superior force.
The Chinese, Russians, and everyone else have had decades to brainstorm ideas and ideas to mitigate and counter the threat, of the United States aircraft carrier. They all know that they cant compete with ships, they cant compete with air craft carriers, and they cant compete with planes. If US goes to war with Russia, or with China, do you think their military planners are just going to allow the threat of the US aircraft carriers to exist? I can guarantee that the FIRST thing they do is take out the aircraft carriers. A GOOD submarine crew could do it. Or a high speed supersonic missile. Or a tactical nuke that would take out the entire carrier battle group. Four tactical nukes could take out four carrier groups, and then bam, instantaneously, the war doesn't look so good for the Americans.
The day is soon approaching that the aircraft carrier group is put out to pasture, old, obsolete, like the battleships. Their will be new weapons, new technologies, that can just kill these carrier battle groups, or at least cripple them.
Also, Ive read many military books, manuals, training guides, etc, and almost all of them say to never underestimate your opponent. We have for years and years underestimated the opponent, because everyone told us how good we are, we have the best technology, we have the best planes, etc. Well, a bunch of goat herders armed with WW2 bolt action rifles defeated a Russian super power in 1989. Using skill, determination, a will to fight, and sometimes luck, an inferior component can beat, or outlast, a much superior force.
bubbatime, your ideas "appear" to make sense on the surface. But here in reality, they do not. You seem to think that the aircraft carrier is just some big, dumb, slow, defenseless floating island, but it's not even close to what you've imagined. There are a whole lot more layers to the onion of "taking out" an aircraft carrier than you simplify it to.
- Status
