china's new hypersonic WU-14 missle Mac 10! wow

Does anyone know where in China they are actually making these because that makes all the difference in the world whether or not it works.

If its made in the part of China where they make pet food, light bulbs and children's toys I am not worried because it will fall apart mid flight. If it is made in the part of China where they make Apple products and Samsung smart phones then I am worried a bit.

 

Source for this claim?

 

A Mach 7 surface skimmer? Must have a helluva engine.

 

That ain't the half of it. It must be made out of solid diamond, too. That's about the only thing that might stand up to the aerodynamic heating.

 

"The chief executive officer of BrahMos Aerospace, A Sivathanu Pillai, on Friday said the next target of the Indo-Russian joint venture is to develop a hypersonic cruise missile with a speed of Mach 7.

While delivering the 26th CSIR NAL Foundation Day lecture on self-reliance in aerospace technologies, Pillai said the missile would fly at seven times the speed of sound.

“We are venturing into the hypersonic world where speed is the power. We want to reach Mach 7,” he said.

The Centre of Excellence in High Speed Aerodynamics at the Indian Institute of Science and the Moscow Aviation Institute will play a key role in the research and development of the missile.

The present BrahMos which is the only supersonic cruise missile in service has been inducted into the Indian Navy and Army. It has a range of 300km and can fly at a speed of Mach 3. The hypersonic version will have a scramjet engine in place of a ramjet.

Pillai added that while a submarine version of the BrahMos is under development, work on the air launch version for the Indian Air Force, to be fit on the Sukhoi-30 MKI aircraft, has been completed.

“The missile is ready, once the modification on the Sukhoi-30 MKI’s is completed trials would be carried out,” Pillai added."
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-next-brahmos-missile-targets-mach-7-1726585

 

We can look in to see how they're doing 30 years from now.

 

That's what I thought. India might be testing something, but they're not flight testing the Brahmos 2. That isn't scheduled to start for another three years. And I note that the source says that 'the missile would fly at seven times the speed of sound' but doesn't say at what altitude. It will be interesting to see what, if any, impact the reported blow up between India and Russia will have on the program.

 

Nothing is "to fast to hit" when it is coming at you.

Hitting an inbound target is simply a matter of geometry. Where is it going to be at X time, when do you have to launch your own weapon to get at that point, fire when the paths will intersect.

An inbound SCUD falls at around MACH 8.5, and we had no problems hitting those once we got the bugs worked out of the system.

The only time speed is of a major difference is when the object is moving away from the target, not towards it.

 

In theory, yes. Another factor that always needs to be considered is when you pick the missile up on radar. Depending on when this May be, there may be only a matter of seconds.

 

Nope, it will not. This is where RADAR Horizon comes in. Even at MACH 10, with a target at an altitude of 100 meters and the RADAR at 10 meters, the crew has around 90 seconds to react to this object. And with more sophisticated search systems like AWACS, it literally is as far as they can see, from 35,000 feet altitude.

But hey, you can believe what you like. As for myself, this was my profession for over 6 years.

 

Me thinks you need to learn the difference between "testing" and "developing".

 

And also between "testing", "developing" and a "deployed weapon system".

 

Lies. Otherwise there won't be any target speed limitations for AA units. Double the case, when incoming missile perform maneuvers. Interceptor might lack kinetic energy to ecounter that.

You had no problems hitting a missile from late 50-th. Got it. A remarkable achievement indeed.

Oh yeah, forgot to mention, Scud speed is MACH 4,1.

Why it is always a single target against entire US navy? Throw in a dosen and US navy won't have enough time to shot them down.

AWACS is terrible at searching objects against the background of sea, as I've heard.

 

"Lack kinetic energy"? WTF? I am not even sure how to respond to that. Are you implying that somehow these miracle missiles can shake off 200-400 kg masses of weight slamming into them?

And how is it going to maneuver? Objects moving that fast are not exactly "maneuverable" you know. We are talking about objects traveling at such a high speed that they can not do much direction change at all. We are not talking Star Trek here, but real physics.

Such high speed missiles are pretty much locked into a direct line course to their target by physics. They are not going to be "jinxing" all over the place, the change of a millimeter on one of their control surfaces is going to be shooting it hundreds of meters to the side.

All I can say is to go back to video games, we are talking real life here.

Which SCUD?

I am not talking SCUD as in the A-B-C exported by the Soviet Union. I am talking about the faster and more sophisticated variants of the design that we have seen in the last 25 years. You are trying to get me on semantics here, I am using the generic term.

Al Hussein Missile, terminal velocity MACH 5
Al-Samoud 2 Missile, terminal velocity MACH 6.8
Rodong-1 Missile, terminal velocity MACH 9+ (this is questionable - was the re-entry as predicted or out of control?)

So yes, SCUD missiles do go considerably faster then MACH 4.1. Those SCUDs however are simply not made by the Soviet Union.

 

I'm glad so many foreign govts. and militaries think they know all there is to know about U.S. capabilities; they're going to be very unpleasantly surprised if they're ever stupid enough to think they have some sort of advantage re ECM tech, AWACs capabilities, etc. and decide to launch hostilities.

 

The problem is really not that.

Pretty much every country knows what the US is capable of, and we know what they are capable of.

The problem is that you then get the amateurs in the peanut gallery that do not understand, and they come in here going "We got dupersonic missile!" "We gots undefeetable missile!", and things like that. They talk about things they have seen in movies and games, and think that is what real life is like.

And I especially laugh when such discussions move into missiles and missile defense, because at least as far as I am concerned, we really start to separate those that understand how it works, from those that spend to much time playing video games. I am familiar with our capabilities. That is why when I try to "break it down", I go into things like RADAR horizon, CEP and Terminal Velocity. But the rank amateurs go on about maneuverable MACH 10 missiles and kinetic resistance.

Thankfully, the governments are much smarter then that.

 

Let's hope so.

The U.S.'s dominant position has drastically reduced the percentages of the world population dying in wars and other violence since WW II, and hopefully its hegemony continues. No other country would bother with such a goal, much less have such an influence even if they wanted to.

 

AWACS, Hawkeyes are great for SA and air control, but not a fire control solution. The AA unit engaging the target needs to see it on it's radar as well. Also, not all radars are the same, heck even the same type of radar won't even give you the same ranges every time. A lot of hit has to do with atmospherics. Also, your posts seem to rule out the possibility of the missile doing any high speed maneuvers before homing on its target.

Big deal. I've been in the navy for the past 12 years. What does that mean exactly?

 

I am aware of that. But it is early warning, so the air defense guys can be ready.

And yea, all RADAR is different. Myself, I am most familiar with the AN/MPQ-65, basically a smaller portable version of the AEGIS system.

I am aware that missiles can maneuver. The problem is that when people talk about that 95% of the time they are thinking of movies where they zig and zag on a dime (often with a human controlling them as if it was a video game). I am well aware that missiles maneuver, but it is not in the way that most people think.

My hat is off to you then brother. My last MOS was actually operating the PATRIOT missile system, Air Defense Artillery. So for 6 years this is what I did for a living, which involved a lot of study on what the capabilities were of the systems of the other guys (specifically Iran).

 

This man cals himself a "specialist". How cute. Doesn't the specialist know, that solid fuel rockets' engines work for the matter of several seconds, and the missile simply moves by it's own inertion afterwards---->it can't perform instant manuevering all day long, manuevering leads to the loss of missile energy and decreases it's speed. That leads to a simple conqlusion thatbalistic missile, which performs manuevers, will be a way more harder target to intercept.

Loled at this pretty "Such high speed missiles are pretty much locked into a direct line course to their target by physics. They are not going to be "jinxing" all over the place, the change of a millimeter on one of their control surfaces is going to be shooting it hundreds of meters to the side." Teh specialist is not aware, that some balistic missiles can pull 30 G.

No, seriously, your attempts to save your face are amusing. You've clearly said "incoming Scud missiles at MACH 8.5".
Scud is not an acronym for ballistic missile, you know. Scud is a NATO codename for Soviet R-11 and R-17 missiles ONLY!

So, tell me again...which MACH 8.5 missiles you have no problem shoting down again in dem Iraq?

 

OK, now kindly stick to one kind of missile, will you? Are we talking about flat trajectory missiles, or ballistic missiles? Because you can't be swapping them in and out interchangeably.

But let's just move your 30G to a flat trajectory, just for a theoretical argument, ok?

Now, you are riding on top of a flat trajectory missile, traveling at MACH 10 (that is 7,700 mph). Now you make a change in direction, involving 30 Gs. I am not saying you can not do that.

But now answer me this, how far have you altered your trajectory? And how long has it taken to make that adjustment in trajectory?

Because remember, you are traveling at 7,700 mph!

Let me scale it down. You are traveling in a car going 5 mph in a parking lot. You want to run over a 1 foot wide foam tube sticking out of the ground. A few people walking around and a parked car or two to avoid. Wow, pretty simple, piece of cake.

OK, now I am going to increase your velocity to 60 mph. Same tube, same obstacles you have to avoid (pedestrian, other cars, etc). Not so easy now, is it?

Now let's try the same thing. Except now you are in a Formula 1 race car going over 200 mph.

Now tell me, how much maneuvering are you going to be doing at 60 or 200 mph? Are you going to be zigging and sagging all over the place? No, because anything other then even the slightest twitch is putting you way off course and you cover a long distance doing it.

This is what I have been talking about. The faster an object goes (especially once you move to supersonic) the harder it is to maneuver. Not because of anything other then the distance traveled during the change in direction.

OK, can I stop laughing now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodong-1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Hussein_(missile)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwasong-6

Need I continue?

SCUD has become the name for any missile that was developed from the original SCUD. Kind of like Kleenex, it has not been the exclusive name of a Soviet missile for decades.

There are literally dozens of "SCUD"s in use now around the world. All of which share one thing in common, they are modifications of the original Soviet era design.

Much like the word Katyusha is now generally used for any small, solid fueled portable rocket artillery that is based upon the Soviet design of WWII. Even those made in garages along the Gaza strip.

 

Well, the SCUD is a medium range ballistic missle.

http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_missile_system_vehicle_uk/scud_scud-a_scud-b_ss-1_9k72_r-11_ground_to_ground_medium_range_ballistic_missile_data_sheet_uk.html

 

You heard wrong

 

*giggle*
So it is me, who is switching betweendifferent missile types, despite that was you' who brought in a completelly irrelevant Scud example? Oh....okay.

Сentrifugal acceleration for the circular movement:
a=(V^2)/R
1 G~10 m/s^2
30 G~300m/s^2
R= (3600m/s)^2 / (300m/s^2)=43 200m=43,2 km
Angular velocity:
W=V/R=(3600 m/s)/(43 200 m)~0,083 rad/s=4,77 deg/s
-------------------------------------------------------------------

So...you've failed to understand that ballistic missiles (and my comment originally refered to a ballistic missile) are initially in superior position to antimissiles due to their (usually) superior speed and, consequently, higher energy, which results into more opportunities for manuevering. Moreover gravity plays for them as well. That is the reason one of the main goals of AMM development is an increase in their maximum speed
-->increase in their energy supplies, which brings us again into how many G AMM can pull themselves and how effective their controls are.

Using the analogy, hitting a bullet with another bullet is way easier objective, than hitting a bullet with an arrow.
Another issue I havn't mentioned is locking a radar on fast travelling objects. To avoid further sophistry I am just going to say that you are free to search for each and every AMM complex specifications and find out that nearly every one of them contains the following words:
"has a limited capability against ICBM" with an exception of two systems.


Your claim, that "speed does not matter" is an utter BS. Speed is what matters the most.

Yep, you can start searching some prooflinks that you shot down a MACH 8.5 Scud instead. And good luck with that.
Tell me, when I can stop laughing.

It is. But not every ballistic missile is a SCUD.

I am not convinced.

 

The question was could a missile track and hit an incoming object at speed, nothing about changing directions. But I know you just have to argue no matter what, so argue with the wall.

Very pretty. I am not talking about centrifugal forces at all, I could care less about them to be perfectly honest.

I am talking about the distances traveled during those changes in direction, and the length of time it takes to make them. But feel free to continue to sidetrack it to something else, I will just continue to pull it back to the point I actually made.

If ballistic missiles are superior as anti-ship missiles, then why have there never been any in service?

Yea, and do you know why it is limited against a Ballistic Missile?

Primarily it is because of range. Only now are the first generation of real "Anti-Ballistic Missile" defense systems starting to go online. What you are looking at otherwise is typically 1970's era anti-aircraft systems that have been kludged and upgraded to offer a limited ABM capability.

So once again, thank you Captain Obvious.

Dude, why are you another one that even when proved dead wrong, continues to knuckle down and can't even go "Yea, those are SCUDs, my bad" and move on? Instead you simply move the question in another direction, trying to get everybody to forget your claim in the first place.

Oh well, does not really matter because all you ever do is blow smoke all over the place.

Oh, and you are right. However, pretty much every medium-long range ballistic missile that is a copy or upgrade of a SCUD is called a SCUD.

We even call the Shahab-3 a "SCUD-B" when it appears on the scopes, because this is what it behaves like (burn rate, ascent speed, and other flight characteristics). Of course, the modern missiles travel much further then the original SCUD line ever did, but they still behave in generally the same ways.