Can somebody explain how this is not a blatant lie?The kinzhal is a hypersonic ballistic missile. But that's not a new thing, the US had the Skybolt since the 60s. And the skybolt reached higher speeds and had further range.So why the fuck is the entire world pretending that Russia somehow invented something new? Or is it just meant "first hypersonic weapon used in battle"?
>President Kennedy officially cancelled the program on 22 December 1962.so not only wasn't it ever used. it didn't even enter service. are you dyslexic, by any chance?
maybe they mean in combat?though they'd still be wrong there, as iskander was used in georgia.
>>62878867>maybe they mean in combat?that would be SCUD missiles.
>>62878829>skybolt had further range.but the did the US was too dumb to include the range of the jet carrying it to inflate the numbers
>ballistics missile>hypersonic...
>>62878829Who cares about the Kinzhal? Every indicator I've seen shows that the Iskander is more effective.
>>62878888you're correct, since scud is hypersonic (mach 5), but you know how people say you need a maneuverable vehicle to be "hypersonic".
>>62878900yeah. kinzhal is faster, but since it's dropped from a high altitude bird, you have far more warning it's on the way. iskander-m quickly climbs to altitude, but then immediately drops down lower if its target is well within range so it doesn't need to fly mostly ballistic to reach it.
>>62878829>usedactually I don't know if that's true
>>62878829the V-2 was also hypersonic and it was also used, so there's thatthe internet is full of barely literate retards who blindly parrot whatever sensationalist bullshit they heard last.
>>62878888The V-2 did about mach 5-6 on reentry. If we're using zigger definitions, hypersonics have been in combat use since 1944.
Let's pretend that ballistic missiles don't exist, yes.
>>62878995>If we're using zigger definitionsThey're correct when they say Iskander and Kinzhal are modern hypersonics as they're quasi-ballistic missiles that can maneuver. This is one of the categories of modern hypersonics.Zircon is also one, but of the hypersonic cruise missile variety.
>Can somebody explain how this is not a blatant lie?Easy. If you step out of /k/+reddit bubble you understand that russia has many good weapon design teams.
>>62879029This post convinced me that Puccia is mighty and we must apologize and give them the Ukraine.On topic, you are retarded, the question is how the claim that this is the first hypersonic is true, as it's 85 years too late for that.
If you press that number you got the source. https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2024/01/china-evaluates-russias-use-of-hypersonic-daggers-in.html
>>62879039Yes the original source says used in battlefield . Always refer to original source and fix the wiki its just low IQ people who contribtes to it.
>>62879041The source has literally only one relevant mention of first:>Russia's invasion of Ukraine witnessed the first use of hypersonic weapons on the battlefieldBut once again, is this really true?
American television and news have been a blight on the development of human beings.
>>62879053>But once again, is this really true?No. Iskander in Georgia for the modern definition of hypersonic. Then Kinzhal and Zircon in Ukraine for different munitions.Iran may or may not have used a IRBM with a maneuverable RV with their attack some months back.
>>62879164> for the modern definition of hypersonicWhat's the modern definition of hypersonic?
>>62879218Basically just hypersonic speed + maneuverable munition, whether it's a ballistic missile, cruise missile or boost-glide vehicle.Plenty of purely hypersonic muntions have been fired in war before.
>>62879014>They're correct when they say Iskander and Kinzhal are modern hypersonics as they're quasi-ballistic missiles that can maneuver.No, they are not modern hypersonics. Kinzhal is nothing more than an air launched ballistic missile. In order for something to be considered a modern hypersonic missile its need to sustain mach 5+ and have the ability to maneuver. Neither sustain mach 5 + or have the ability to actually maneuver. >Zircon is also one, but of the hypersonic cruise missile variety. Even Zircon is not a modern hypersonic missile, it flies in a ballistic trajectory and does not sustain mach 5+. Please stop believing vatnik propaganda. Only one country has demonstrated the have actual modern hypersonics(sustain mach 5+ and maneuver) and its the US. China is second place, they have missile that can sustain mach 5+ but still fall short in the maneuvering department.
>>62879218Sustained mach 5+ and the ability to maneuver at that speed.
>>62879374Both Kinzhal and Iskander fly at mach 5+ and maneuver by all open source information. As does Zircon. If you have info that says otherwise, then share that.All three of them will slow down to mach 4.5 during terminal when at low altitude, but this is what happens to all hypersonic missiles. Even ICBM RVs slow down to around mach 4.5 at low altitude.
>>62879430>and maneuver by all open source informationMay we see it?
>>62879374Japan has fielded and air to air, radar seeking, maneuvering hypersonic missile for the F-2 for almost two decades now.
>>62879599That's easy information to find. Including government or university sources, papers and journals, not just the usual think tanks and organizations.As an aside, Pershing II will be the first deployed hypersonic since it had a maneuverable RV, even if the pop-up maneuver wasn't intended for evasion, it had the same effect as those that do.
>>62879430>>62879430>Both Kinzhal and Iskander fly at mach 5+ and maneuver by all open source information.You mean propaganda? There is a reason why all the designers were sent to the gulag after several of them got shot down over Kyiv. There was a leak from a patriot operated in Ukraine who said it's terminal velocity was around mach 3.>but this is what happens to all hypersonic missiles.No it's not. US hypersonics are terminal at mach 5+. So are the chink ones. You really need to stop believing propaganda.
>>62879780>As an aside, Pershing II will be the first deployed hypersonic since it had a maneuverable RV, even if the pop-up maneuver wasn't intended for evasion, it had the same effect as those that do.You are confusing what you believe as maneuverability vs what actual maneuverability is.
>>62878829Russian lie. What a surprise
>>62880387>No it's not. US hypersonics are terminal at mach 5+. So are the chink ones. You really need to stop believing propaganda.That's not how physics works. The air pressure at low altitude slows down ICBM RVs to mach 4-5, when they enter the atmosphere at mach ~20. It's the same for hypersonic glide vehicles. Some computer simulations show mach 7 might be possible for the latter, but it's theoretical right now.>...several of them got shot down over Kyiv. There was a leak from a patriot operated in Ukraine who said it's terminal velocity was around mach 3.All hypersonics can be shot down in the same way during terminal because as above, they slow down, and Ukrainians themselves said they slowed down to around mach 4 (not 3), which is in line with the physics.
>>62880393Then Iskander is the first deployed maneuverable hypersonic.
>>62882397Retarded vatnigger
>>62882407>hypersonic>maneuverableAnd is secure tradoc propaganda?
>>62879164>Iran may or may not have used a IRBM with a maneuverable RV with their attack some months back.They were manuverable all right, you could see damaged warheads missing control fins wobble on their way down as the guidance system tried to keep them on course.
>>62879374>Even Zircon is not a modern hypersonic missile, it flies in a ballistic trajectory and does not sustain mach 5+.Zircon is an air breathing scramjet, it does not fly in a ballistic trajectory.
>>62879430>Both Kinzhal and Iskander fly at mach 5+ and maneuver by all open source information. As does Zircon. If you have info that says otherwise, then share that.imagine believing russians in 2024
>>62882793What does tradoc say about Iskander and Kinzhal?>>62882774PAC-3 is fully capable of shooting down Kinzhal, especially when they're being targeted.
>>62879218>What's the modern definition of hypersonicThe term itself It has always meant greater than mach 5."Hypersonic" as a non-meme general term has been used for at least 2 decades to refer to the use by aircraft or missiles of advanced air-breathing jet engines capable of sustained flight above mach 5. (i.e, not boost then glide, but actual sustained propulsion from an engine). See: Scramjets, ramjets. Turns out, this is really fucking hard to do and thus far nobody has achieved more than prototypes (one example being the X-51). I'm going to guess that materials science just isn't there yet. The recent "we have operational hypersonics )))" meme is pure rules-lawyering marketing wank that is simply using the mere fact that the missiles are reaching mach 5 at some point during their flight.
>>62882934>X-51Zircon is the same thing. Hypersonic scramjet.
>>62882944>ZirconGood call, forgot about that one.Based purely on my ass and with the amount of absolute nonsense the russians put out I severely doubt that it's a scramjet. Ramjet maybe.
>>62882982It's definitely a scramjet, but its design is a little different than many of the depictions you see that make it look like a Waverider. It's more elongated with the intakes at the nose; Ukraine released an accurate schematic.
>>62878829Wait a minute ... You're saying that the vatniggers are LYING to us? I thought that was illegal.Nothing means anything anymore, I am rudderless in a confusing world of fuck. Who oh who ... and what ... can anyone believe anymore?
>>62878990>the internet is full of barely literate retards who blindly parrot whatever sensationalist bullshit they heard lastOne of them recently got elected president of the U.S. doing that, if you can imagine that shit.
>>62882934>See: Scramjets, ramjets. Turns out, this is really fucking hard to do and thus far nobody has achieved more than prototypes (one example being the X-51).>going to guess that materials science just isn't there yetMaterials science is fine to make such a missile. The insurmountable problem (so far, that we know of) is that those speeds generate a plasma layer around the object travelling at those velocities ... which negates almost all known ability for sensors to operate and guide. And, there's no such thing as stealth when a Mach 7 plasma bolt is burning its way through atmosphere. It's detectable by a kindergartner with a kaleidoscope from the other side of the planet.
>>62883089>Materials science is fine It isn't. MS doesn't just refer to 'can we literally just make a material with the required specs'>can we make it>can we make it at scale>can we make it at scale without spending a gorillion bucksThere is a vast, vast gulf between 'we made it' and 'we made it useful in a pragmatic sense'Materials science, the most important and boring of all science.
>>62883089They actually turn on the active radar when they slow down to high supersonic speeds. Which works fine, because they're going to slow down to those speeds regardless when they get near the target.IIRC, mach 5 is generally the limit for accurate targeting (not just landing near the target).
>>62879430>Both Kinzhal and Iskander fly at mach 5+ and maneuverNo they don't. Kinzhal, is around mach 5-8 at burnout, and rapidly slow to mach 3.8 in its terminal phase. Also, neither can maneuver rather well, as they're quasi-ballistic missiles just as the ATACMS is. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/g3ufp8wcyh83uim9z1fpa/Kh-47M2-Kinzhal-missile-analysis-PA27-redacted-ver-3.pdf?rlkey=f19wpwdtdrl8qgggje5eux7ny&e=1&dl=0>>62882392>The air pressure at low altitude slows down ICBM RVs to mach 4-5No, ICBM RVs are different, as they're coming in at extremely high velocities at high angles. They impact at mach 21+ as they speed a relatively short amount of time in the thicker atmosphere i.e. 60k ft and below, due to the high reentry angle.>It's the same for hypersonic glide vehiclesThese do slow down, especially since they have a relatively low, and flat trajectory compared to an ICBM, and have nowhere near the kinetic energy as an ICBM RV. Once they get to 100k ft and below they rapidly slow down, as the dynamic pressures are extremely high, as are the heat flux, which means they have to be made of advanced ultra-high temp materials to survive.>Some computer simulations show mach 7 might be possible for the latter, but it's theoretical right now.Mach 7 at 90k ft is easily reachable, as the X-43 demonstrated decades ago, as is mach 10 at 110k ft. HACM and HAWC both cruise at mach 7 at 65k ft. Kinzhal is a meme, though, and I doubt the chinks are much better, as they've always lacked advanced material science ability.https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2008/RM3475.pdfhttps://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/171371main_fs-040-dfrc.pdf
>>62882777>Zircon is an air breathing scramjetProof? By all accounts, it's a dual-combustion ramjet (DCR), just as the FASTT and Boeing HyFly were that it copied.https://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/hyfly.html
>>62883173>never heard of the space shuttle> and every other space probe that returned to Earthyou're ngmi, kid
>>62882944>Zircon is the same thingNo, it's not. The CGI they use is of the X-51A, though, the parts and schematics from Ukraine show it to be a dual-combustion ramjet (DCR) Boeing HyFly copy.https://x.com/John_A_Ridge/status/1757074493099462920https://kyivindependent.com/hypersonic-zircon-missiles-russias-latest-threat/
>>62883325>never heard of the space shuttleSo, you're going to line your missile with hand made, extremely fragile TPS tiles, now? Are you also going to be doing energy bleed maneuvers while entering the atmosphere at a high angle of attack, too? Shut the fuck up, you retarded chimp.
>>62883335>Are you also going to be doing energy bleed maneuvers while entering the atmosphereThat's what quasi-ballistic missiles do, yes
>>62883327Zircon is too fast for a ramjet. Russians say it hit mach 7, whereas the US has it listed at 9. You can have intakes on the nose for a scramjet. One of the first Russian scamjets had a similar configuration to the schematic of Zircon.
>>62883325I know I'm giving you's to a dickhead but the space shuttle utterly failed at point 3: Can we do it without spending a gorillion bucks. The estimated cost of the whole 'we can save money by refurbishing it between launches' turned out to be woefully optimistic (post shuttle program analyses also found that the risk profile of the program generally was massively underestimated)
>>62879014>quasi-ballistic missiles that can maneuverso that's like every ballistic missile made since the 60s
>>62883306>burning straight through the lower atmospherewhy did you simulate it like that? it goes up in a parabolic arc like every other ballistic missile.
you can say kope any way you want about the kinzhal,why doenst the US have their own version?why not?explain
>check the talk page>all agree this is bs>someone keeps adding it back in anywaywikipedia, c'mon your reputation is bad enough as it is. don't make it worse.
>>62883707Read the actual paper.
>>62883440>Zircon is too fast for a ramjet.Ramjets work to mach 6.5>Russians say it hit mach 7So, right at where a ramjet starts to flame out. >whereas the US has it listed at 9.The US is a country, not a person. WHO has it listed at mach 9?>You can have intakes on the nose for a scramjet.Yes, you can, though it will only work at extremely narrow mach regimes.>One of the first Russian scamjets had a similar configuration to the schematic of Zircon.That thing literally never worked, and never made more thrust than drag. kek.
>>62878931That's bullshit, hypersonic is just anything in the range of mach 4 and above. Granulating goal posts are the worst kind.
>>62886288Hypersonic is when the flow regime meets certain criteria. Roughly around mach 5.
>>62886334
>>62884973Because we have better tools to achieve smarter objectives.
Does the Kinzhal have active guidance of any kind? Than it slows down to below hypersonic speed in its terminal phase. Period. Millimeter band radar is said to be able to get through the plasma sheath but that is much too short-range to be of use to such a missile. If it slows down on approach to the target, the “hypersonic” feature is only to speed up time-to-target and does not offer any special AD resistance on approach so that any relatively modern AD can handle it, not just ABM systems. It’ll evade AD during its midcourse phase, but that’s no different than a ballistic missile.Read the government accountability report on these US programs and you’ll see that even the military doesn’t have a real mission statement for these things and going by the older definitions for hypersonic programs of the past the use case is simply too niche to be worth the cost. It pretty much states these programs are going forward simply because Congress has been made to believe in a capability gap, ie, the MIC is running a scam.
>>62884973what does it do that existing weapons don't?
>>62886344>Because we have better tools to achieve smarter objectives.may we see proof?>>62886430>what does it do that existing weapons don't?reaches the target so quickly, "enemy" defenses either cannot react, or the reaction window is so small, that it greatly increases the odds they will FAIL to intercept the incoming missile>>62886381
>>62886506Where, exactly, is the location of your WebM?
>>62886506Sure just look up any of the literally hundreds of videos of HIMARS, ATACMS, and tomahawks deleting their targets time after time after time. There's really an absurd amount of evidence out there that even our most dated weapons are consistent, reliable performers - especially when paired with a capable and professional force.
