hypersonic missiles

[John Smith]

Russia seems to have these. Claim is they go 5 times the speed of sound.

I'd have to think they don't like turning at that speed.

Seems, as of this AM, two of them have hit targets in Ukraine.

If anyone has more info, I'd like it.

[LeeG]

Don’t have any info, I was reading on another site that it was “messaging” to the US/NATO about Russian capabilities like other “messages” we and other nations have made with weapons but not much strategic significance.

[TomF]

As one a analyst I read observed, it still depends on intelligence about what to try to hit. The hypersonic missiles used in Ukraine were still targeting fixed locations, buildings. Not the high value targets like troop formations or mobile artillery batteries or etc which would be key to destroy using weapons which are the most likely to be able to evade defenses.

In that, I think their use in Ukraine was a message to NATO, rather than to Ukraine. As well as an admission that Russia’s intelligence in Ukraine presently kinda sucks.

[John Smith]

I would imagine something going that fast can only go that fast in a fairly straight line. Any turning would, IMO, change the aerodynamics considerably. That, I'd think, would make it difficult to change course in flight.

[TomF]

Apparently the warhead is somehow steerable, at least to a degree. Though what you say makes sense, and it leads me to wonder how.

[CWSmith]

I think part of the point is that the anti-missile weapons have a hard time bring a hypersonic missile down.

This is a war of terror and I think Russia's goal is to break the will of the Ukrainian people. Unstoppable weapons demoralize the opposition much like the thermobaric weapons.

[CWSmith]

Apparently the warhead is somehow steerable, at least to a degree. Though what you say makes sense, and it leads me to wonder how.

I saw them described as hypersonic cruise missiles. If true, they may make flight adjustments early when adjustments are small and then follow a smooth flight path.

[LeeG]

I think part of the point is that the anti-missile weapons have a hard time bring a hypersonic missile down.

This is a war of terror and I think Russia's goal is to break the will of the Ukrainian people. Unstoppable weapons demoralize the opposition much like the thermobaric weapons.

Anti missile systems have a hard time hitting missiles.

[ERGR]

Was the hypersonic missile more valuable than the target it hit? The US using million dollar missiles on medium value targets isn't the same as poor Russia doing it.
/Erik

[LeeG]

Was the hypersonic missile more valuable than the target it hit? The US using million dollar missiles on medium value targets isn't the same as poor Russia doing it.
/Erik

There you go. One missile vs one aircraft carrier. What a message.

[David W Pratt]

Sounds like an excellent opportunity to gather information on its flight characteristics.

[Corvida]

The US had hypersonic missiles back in the 70's. Not sure what ended the program, probably lack of a targeting system. They were intended to stop incoming ICBM's at low altitude. My bet would be 1970's radar tech wasn't up to the challenge of targeting at those speeds, probably why the Russians are using them on ground targets. Some current US systems can intercept hypersonic projectiles, but apparently have operations problems. So they aren't deployed much, and have a less than stellar reputation. Mostly they're around our remaining ICBM launch sites to make sure we have return strike capability, and sold to other countries.

[Henning 4148]

According to the German news, if I understand correctly, two uses of the hypersonic missiles have been against military targets: One Army Barack with sleeping soldiers, several victims and one underground airforce ammunition depot.

https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/eu...krieg-105.html

https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/eu...krieg-107.html

More about the missile here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-47M2_Kinzhal 1.200 miles range, mach 10.

[TomF]

I'd heard the same about the hypersonic missiles being launched against military targets. I heard one report though, that the targeted ammo dump wasn't hit, and the missile went into a farmer's field instead. Which may or may not be true, as either story supports the narrative the respective side would benefit from telling.

[CWSmith]

I'd heard the same about the hypersonic missiles being launched against military targets. I heard one report though, that the targeted ammo dump wasn't hit, and the missile went into a farmer's field instead. Which may or may not be true, as either story supports the narrative the respective side would benefit from telling.

I remember when the Soviet Union fell my father went on and on about how the CIA always overestimated the military threat of Russia. He was aware of the nuclear threat, but he meant other than that. I keep thinking about his comments now. The Russian hardware doesn't seem to be as unstoppable as we thought.

Of course, a near miss with a nuke is still a bad day.

[Dave Hadfield]

It's a priceless opportunity for weapons-testing.

[Dave Hadfield]

And as for Tech, I watched the Russians get my brother's rocket out of a building at -41C, move it down a rail siding, onto a launch-pad, erect it vertical, and lower it into the silo, ready for fueling.

It took 2 hours and there wasn't a hitch.

SoyuzRising.jpg

[skuthorp]

Your point is well made Dave, we should not be lulled by our own propaganda or indeed hopes into underestimating Russian military capabilities. But it would not be the first time their internal politics has nobbled Russian military capabilities.

[gypsie]

They sound expensive. Too expensive for Russia.
So you hit a gust of wind 100km out, how many seconds (degrees) do you have to be knocked off before you can't hit the target precisely.
Good way to carry a tactical nuke...?

[dutchpp]

The WIKI page has some good information;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M22_Zircon

[ERGR]

Considering that the Ukrainians most likely don't have anti-missile systems for the targets that were hit with with hypersonic missiles, why didn't they fire conventional missiles? Are they low on them, or did they just want to show off their new shiny weapon?
/Erik

[LeeG]

The WIKI page has some good information;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M22_Zircon

speed kills. The kinetic energy of the Zircon is a couple hundred times greater than the Tomahwk cruise missile, not sure if that includes explosive payload.

[John Smith]

They sound expensive. Too expensive for Russia.
So you hit a gust of wind 100km out, how many seconds (degrees) do you have to be knocked off before you can't hit the target precisely.
Good way to carry a tactical nuke...?

I would think they are very expensive and not guaranteed to hit their target. Course corrections would be quite limited, I'd think.

Why would they use some now; intimidation I'd guess.

[TomF]

I think they're intended to intimidate NATO, more than Ukraine.

[SKIP KILPATRICK]

Russia seems to have these. Claim is they go 5 times the speed of sound.

I'd have to think they don't like turning at that speed.

Seems, as of this AM, two of them have hit targets in Ukraine.

If anyone has more info, I'd like it.

I believe your assumption is incorrect.

They are winged and can manuver in unpredictable flight paths and are hard to track. That is what makes them dangerous as a first strike weapon.

[SKIP KILPATRICK]

Since there is no pilot, they aren't limited by the amount of G-force a human can endure.

[Boatbum]

This article clears up some of the facts around the Russian hypersonic Missile


WHY CALLING RUSSIA’S KINZHAL A ‘HYPERSONIC MISSILE’ IS A STRETCH

https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/why-cal...-is-a-stretch/

[John Smith]

Since there is no pilot, they aren't limited by the amount of G-force a human can endure.

No, but they are limited by laws of physics. Something going very fast in one direction would be unable to make sharp turns. Inertia would want to keep it on course. Maintaining its straight ahead speed when turning would seem difficult, if not impossible.

Course could be corrected, but I'd guess only slightly.

[CWSmith]

I think they're intended to intimidate NATO, more than Ukraine.

I have to think that the NATO military is watching the whole Ukraine war very closely and I'll bet they are rethinking strategy.

[John Smith]

I have to think that the NATO military is watching the whole Ukraine war very closely and I'll bet they are rethinking strategy.

Resetting the 'red line'?

I see this morning that more sanctions can be imposed. Why haven't all possible sanctions been imposed?

[CWSmith]

Resetting the 'red line'?

No, I'm thinking that they are thinking the Russians have greatly exaggerated the performance of their weapons.

[Decourcy]

Resetting the 'red line'?

I see this morning that more sanctions can be imposed. Why haven't all possible sanctions been imposed?

Maybe stop buying Russian oil for a start

[Canoez]

Intelligence doesn't seem to be able to confirm or deny their use:

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/ar...fense-official

[LeeG]

Resetting the 'red line'?

I see this morning that more sanctions can be imposed. Why haven't all possible sanctions been imposed?

Once used can’t use them again. Also Russian oil is vital to world economy.

[TomF]

Once used can’t use them again. Also Russian oil is vital to world economy.

Google tells me 12% of the global oil trade is from Russia. Seems to me that it's a fairly vulnerable percentage, once folks start to get actually serious about climate change. In the medium term, Russia could find itself with very few buyers.

Consider how Canada's bitumen reserves are vast, but a variety of factors make it less attractive to buyers, in part because of cost, but in part because of the "dirty" nature of the stuff, in refining and ecological terms. Russia's oil may be cleaner, but they'll find that people can do without quite a bit of it.