Hypersonic weapons change the global strategic balance. Infographics

Hypersonic weapon can seriously affect the established strategic balance in the world. It reduces the response time for the enemy to the limit, and high-precision maneuvering hypersonic warheads of ballistic missiles can pass through any missile defense system.

Comments

[Arkady Gaidar]

Yes, we are on the verge of a new military-technical revolution. And it’s easier to live in a new technogenic world))

[ProkletyiPirat]

I don’t see any “revolution” here, let’s say they created a rocket with the first cosmic speed (7,9 km / s), let’s say there is a long-range air defense system (S-500) with a detection range of 500 km. 500 / 7,9 = 63,29 seconds before the destruction of the object. If we take into account that automation is now launching the missiles, and not a person, and take into account that the air defense systems also have hypersonic missiles, we will get an interception zone in tens and hundreds of kilometers from the protected target. If we take into account that there will be more than one air defense system and part of the air defense system will be located at a great distance from the protected target, we will also take into account the connection of all these air defense systems to a single network. Then we get all the same that is now. So where is the revolution? no her ..

[Arkady Gaidar]

Perhaps you `re right. They just forgot to recall the recent attack by the American cruise missiles of the Syrian air base, covered by Russian modern air defense. American missiles, having a flight speed below supersonic, "passed" to the objects of attack, as to their home. And for some reason they were not intercepted by the extolled Russian air defense systems, which supposedly completely covered the sky over certain Syrian areas. Conclusion: If such "sorties" are capable of performing obsolete subsonic Tomahawks, then the chances of hitting targets with hypersonic missiles increase many times.

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: Arkady Gaidar

covered by Russian modern air defense.

It was not covered by our air defense systems, they only cover our base, and the Syrians did not have air defense there (our modern air defense!). And according to the agreement between the Russian Federation and the USA, if we open fire after warning about the attack, it will be an attack on the USA (the opposite is also true).
more...

Quote: Arkady Gaidar

If such "sorties" are able to carry out obsolete subsonic Tomahawks, then the chances of hitting targets with hypersonic missiles increase many times.

A hypersonic low-flying rocket simply cannot fit into the terrain due to its high speed.

[Arkady Gaidar]

But after all, rockets of this class have not yet been exploited and have not been widely used. So, the concepts of their successful application have not yet been developed. And besides, in order not to go around the terrain, stealth technologies can be applied. Thus, the detection and response time will be reduced by at least two. And given the flight speed of such missiles, the ability to shoot down such missiles on approach is reduced by 3-5 times. These technologies are just starting their combat path and it is too early to talk about their successes and failures. Nevertheless, if they were useless and ineffective, so much effort would not have been put into their development.

[ProkletyiPirat]

A low-flying rocket sheltered behind the terrain is already a "stealth", and the most inconspicuous "stealth"!

As for the development of hypersonic missiles, they are primarily designed to work at heights, and not near the ground.

[Arkady Gaidar]

Your explanation about stealth "on the ground" is understandable. It is also clear that from 50 meters and below radars do not see. But you misunderstood me. I considered the question of the future combination of technologies, in this case, hypersonic missiles and stealth technologies, which reduces the visibility of the object by several times, and it means the response time and attacks on it. In addition, the development of electronic warfare does not stand still. Which can be used in future hypersonic missiles to break through enemy defenses. So still I think we are on the verge of a new military-technical revolution, with all its consequences. And naturally, the confrontation between the sword and armor will continue, as well as overtake and overtake. Good luck!))

[ProkletyiPirat]

Well, why do you need EW missiles with hypersonic speed? it just doesn't make sense. Even if it is done, the SAM can communicate both through a shielded cable and through an optical cable and even a laser. (This is subject to the appearance of electronic warfare missiles with hundreds of km coverage, which is generally unlikely due to its small size and therefore small antenna size)
Yes, and stealth + hypersound is also not a panacea, for example, a rocket was detected at a distance of 200 km 200 / 7,9 = 25,31 seconds before the target was destroyed, the reaction time of the system was 2-3 seconds (making a decision, throwing a rocket and starting its acceleration), we have 22-23s per missile flight, with an initial speed of 0,5-1km \ s and a maximum speed of 2,5km \ s (data on the 48N6E3 missile), let's say the missile reaches full speed in 5s (after 2,5-5km from launch points) we have 200km- (7,9km \ s * 8s) = the enemy missile is located at a distance of 136,8km from the target, we further consider the speed of approach of the missiles 7,9 + 2,5 = 10,4km \ s, time per grip 136,8 / 10,4 = 13,15s, range interception 13,15 * 2,5 = 32,87km from the target, that is enough.
It was a calculation for one air defense system, and we have several of them, and even spaced at a distance of up to 100 km from the target of protection. So even with today's missiles, there is no revolution, because existing ones can fight them using network-centric technologies.

[gridasov]

I want to note one important physical effect that will not allow hyper speeds to be achieved with any non-vertical flight relative to the center of gravity. Of course, if you use direct-flow turbines. The essence of the effect is the gyrographic rotation of any body, and it is the rotor of any engine. This means that the rotating part tends to take the axis of rotation according to the line of gravitational force at high speeds of rotation. Or another example. Try to hold any electric machine with your hand and change the direction of the axis of rotation. All this means that hyperspeed aircraft can fly only on engines with the axis of rotation of the rotor directed only along the axis of gravity.

[ProkletyiPirat]

nonsense, in hypersonic engines, rotating parts (compressors) are not used at all, because they impede the flow of air from the air intake into the combustion chamber.

[gridasov]

Yes, this is also the reason. But it’s reasonable to achieve controlled flight at different speeds and hyper speeds, as a separate stage. Therefore, what did you perceive as nonsense? The fact that there is an obvious physical phenomenon or that you will fly at hyperspeed always and non-stop. What do you dream and think about?

[Arkady Gaidar]

Gridasov! Tell me, how then does a bullet fly along a flat trajectory and rotate at the same time? Here is a physical phenomenon, with the desire to take an upright position. Especially direct-flow engine. Here I agree with the Cursed Pirate. All that remains is the preservation of the ease of construction required by the aircraft, combined with the possibility of a set of different speeds, up to hypersound.

[gridasov]

Flying a bullet is a low-grade physical effect. And rotation occurs precisely because the medium, elastic or potential in its energy, forms the distribution of magnetic fluxes not only in the pool itself, but also with respect to the potential of this medium. If you paid attention, then many flight technicians with high flight speeds. Relatively high speeds. Under certain flight conditions, overloads on the control levers were experienced. An analysis of these phenomena suggests that there are forces causing this effect. The issue is not the ease of construction, but the fact that any engines that will be created by scientists and engineers will have to achieve rotation of the rotor part at very high rotational speeds. This is necessary to increase the productivity of air flows. So the engines will have to be positioned this way. so that the axis of rotation of the rotor coincides with the axis of rotation of the gyroscope or the axis of precession of the rotating part relative to the gravity vector .. Then having reached an excess of not the engine power, but its relative energy efficiency with respect to the air medium or its potential, we can generally neglect any aerodynamic forms of the aircraft, as well as weight. And all of these requirements are precisely our concept of future engines or turbines.

[gridasov]

I want to note why there should be a desire to achieve ultrahigh speeds of rotation of the rotor part of the engine. Because high speeds, this is comparable to ultra-high transmission frequencies of email. current, which means we get higher energy parameters of the devices. How to combine all this and use it is another question.

[Arkady Gaidar]

Wait. What are the magnetic fields? A gyroscope is a branch of mechanics. Mechanical physics tells us that if matter combined into a single system is given centrifugal acceleration, it will tend to catch the equilibrium point. The bullet rotates around its axis, as it was given acceleration (up to several thousand revolutions per second!). And do not try to take the vertical position of the gyroscope, despite the huge number of revolutions, around the longitudinal axis. And in a ramjet engine there’s nothing to spin at all. It’s just a pipe that delivers fuel and sets it on fire. The injection of the necessary air pressure occurs precisely due to the high flight speed. In such a device, any obstacles to the air flow will only interfere. You are considering engines for low flight speeds. Considering their mass and size, some redistribution of magnetic fields is possible in them. But the whole structure has a firmly fixed axis of rotation. So, they cannot accept the vertical position of the gyroscope under any circumstances. Those overloads on the control levers to which you refer are the result of addition and interaction primarily of various mechanical energies. And, if the weight of an aircraft can be neglected, then why are all the designers striving to maximally lighten those same aircraft? And why, when designing, they set strict requirements for the mass of all structural elements? The ideal rotary engine you are describing has not yet been created! And while there is no reason to think that he will ever be created! Scientists are more likely to create engines on new physical principles than to spend tremendous energy on a huge speed of rotation, in order to eventually come to characteristics, like in a direct-flow hypersonic engine, without rotation axes.

[gridasov]

Your right to reason as you like. However, do not forget that everything that you perceive as a distinguished physical event is only a particular phenomenon in the process of changing this phenomenon. Therefore, try for example to describe the process of polarization of the surface of the outflow by a hydro-gas-dynamic flow, taking into account quantitative mathematical definitions plus geometric and plus physical ones.
The rotation of the gyroscope is, first of all, the electromagnetic support of mechanical rotation. The distribution of magnetic fluxes from the axis to the plane of rotation provides all the effects of rotation of the gyroscope.

[ProkletyiPirat]

Gridasov, you simply cover your ignorance with abstruse phrases, collected in a coherent set of text, so that it would be more difficult to parse the other person. Perhaps this is not so, and you are a super-duper scientist with a super-duper brain, and we are ala Neanderthals, but here is something I strongly doubt it.
First, try to structure the information somehow and not jump from round to hot ..

[gridasov]

First, I have never belittled anyone or rude anyone, contrary to others. Secondly, I do not stick out to seem abstruse. Third, search for analysis methods
complex processes is the scientific task of the entire scientific world. But if you think that interactions can happen just like that without thoroughly, then this is your personal opinion. And fourthly, it is ungrateful to give advice. You cannot understand simple things - this is not my problem.

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: gridasov

the search for methods for analyzing complex processes is the scientific task of the entire scientific world

I completely agree. That's just it is impossible to create. After all, in order to create an analysis system you need to have three things
1) data collection system
2) data storage system
3) data processing system
4) a system for displaying information in a human-readable form
And here the dog is buried, there is no first and third , there are no sensors capable of detecting the structures that make up the atoms. There are huge installations like a hadron collider, but even there the probability of detecting and detecting particles tends to zero. But there is still no so-called “theory of everything” that would combine in itself different areas of science. So what you say is a distant future so far ...
And once again you say that what you wrote is “simple things”, then why do you describe them with complex mental images? These are "simple things"!

[Arkady Gaidar]

By the way, Cursed Pirate! I want to add. Your calculations need to be recognized as correct and objective, only for today. And in the future, with the development of technology, the stealth of air objects may well decrease from 200 to 50 kilometers. And according to electronic warfare, it is worth recalling the flight of Donald Cook with a Russian fighter equipped with the Khibiny complex. That is, already now a small aircraft (in comparison with the same ship), is able to deceive the tracking and guidance systems of the memory. And laser guidance can also deceive. And guidance over the wires, with hypersound, will simply reduce the characteristics of the missiles, because the wires themselves and the mechanisms of their unwinding will begin to create obstacles to the acceleration of the rocket.
I meant exactly this - the progress of military technology. And I repeat that your calculations are valid for today and from the strength of 10 years into the future.

[ProkletyiPirat]

"nothing lasts forever" any technological solutions become obsolete.
Next
You do not understand me, the shielded cable and the laser are used to transmit information between the radar, launchers and the control center, and not between missiles and something else. Also, even if the detection of an enemy missile is at a distance of 10 km it does not change anything, just the number of subsystems in the anti-aircraft system is increasing.
Next
As for the limitation of the system by the level of technology, there is only one thing here, it is the reflection of electromagnetic radiation, and here everything is just fine, because all objects consisting of atoms have it. For example, there are already radars capable of detecting even a balloon filled with helium. (such radars were shown in the same "training ground" and "military reception"), so that even composites can be detected. Another thing is that these detection systems are currently too complicated, expensive and have poor sensitivity at a distance of over 50 km.

[Arkady Gaidar]

ProkletyiPirat,
Our argument has dragged on. There are arguments in my favor and yours. In my favor, it is already known today that missiles are often attacked by packs and exchange information about how best to go and where, what to fly. the use of laser technology is very sensitive to weather (fog, rain, cloud cover, smoke). In your favor, it is indicated by the author in this article that the hypersonic glider creates a plasma cloud in front of itself. And this means that even the most primitive radar will see this cloud, over hundreds and hundreds of kilometers. And by improving the design of the airframe, giving it “invisible” forms, you won’t save the situation, because we are talking about a cloud outside the airframe itself. So your point of view is most likely correct. But it is best to wait for the development of technologies and their mass application. This will certainly put everything in its place))
And besides, it may turn out that the development of other weapons systems will generally make attack and defense with missiles unnecessary. For example, I had to deal with the results of more Soviet tests of email. magnetic tank guns. In the USSR, such were created and are already prepared for trial operation. There was only one problem, such a tank should carry a small power station to provide firing. And what engineers from the USA are now showing is the level of development of the USSR 40 years ago))
Railguns, with their projectile speeds of tens of kilometers per second. Explosive magnetic generators that can hit all electrical engineering hundreds of meters from the site of the explosion. Thus turning any aircraft into a semblance of a simple meteorite. The development of combat lasers.
So the technology of the future is likely to be more interesting than our different points of view))
Yours!

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: Arkady Gaidar

But it is best to wait for the development of technologies and their mass application. This will certainly put everything in its place))

But in this I disagree with you, I believe that too many resources in the defense industry are thrown into the wind, and I personally don’t like it, the fate of the USSR is sad. And in order not to spend money on the wind (on the development of useless garbage), it is necessary to carry out a conceptual and technical analysis in the field of technology. First of all, to determine the most promising areas in order to over-finance them. And hypersonic weapons are not promising technologies, because they do not provide strategic and / or tactical advantages. The same goes for railguns and lasers and heaps of other useless technologies. It is better to use resources instead of them for something more useful, especially since there are many truly promising technologies.

[gridasov]

ProkletyiPirat,
Firstly, thanks for not being rude. And now on the case.
I don’t know for what reason, but the wrong planetary system of interactions of atoms and molecules was chosen. Therefore, the discovery of smaller, but denser structures of interaction is a task that no longer fits the system .. The problem is that the human brain analyzes processes in nature at its abstract discretion, which leads away from objectivity. So, to describe all natural and natural processes simply need to duplicate these processes as equivalent to information that can be expressed by a number by a vector and polarization. . In other words, the dimension, the direction of the development of the process and the interaction of the proportionality of the points of space. Again in other words. we can build analysis on the basis of process, rather than objectivity and particular computational analysis. Therefore, all interactions at the fundamental micro level must be analyzed through the distribution of electronic pulse. magnetic interaction and express this number. In doing so, use the number in its more advanced fundamental properties. This means that using not only a function of a variable value of a number to obtain mathematical sequences for describing processes and doing calculations, but also using a function of a constant value of a number that allows you to construct a mathematical “unbroken” space in the entire volume of equivalence of the description of this space as fractal and dynamic in Description by numbers of streams of the same numbers. Then we can see the basis of all physical interactions not as a certain point or material particle, but as the interaction of these particles forming impulses and further interconnections. And then, using this technique of using the "new-old" properties of numbers, there are no problems in the problem of mathematical input and output of super-large data mat. There are not only structural problems in the construction of any transformations and changes, but there are no energy problems in the transfer of interaction from one mat. definitions to another. That is, we consider the mat. space as dense and unchanging, but allowing to transmit impulses through the interaction of flows of this information. Then everything becomes clear and understandable from the beginnings to everything that is difficult to fit into the mind so far. But the main thing is everything is interconnected and systemic

[gridasov]

Thoughts are complex only because you rely on the binary logic of analysis, and I rely on multipolar and such fundamental principles, which still need to be talked about. that is, in other words, I understand that we seem to speak the same language, but on fundamentally different semantic principles expressed by this language.

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: gridasov

the human brain analyzes processes in nature at its abstract discretion

This is not so, the human brain uses not only abstract comparison.

Once upon a time I read an article on neuroinformatics (a sub-section of bioinformatics) there the researchers coined the term “quart” (in short, this is a group of neurons describing a certain system perceived by the brain) so, the problem of all quarts in “information garbage” is in neurons creating spurious connections. And so your posts do not add up to a quart. Once again you wrote a lot of words, and maybe you tried to put some kind of mental image into them, only you stuffed a lot of informational garbage and as a result, you figure your posts out of figs ...

[gridasov]

Ie you want to say that I am not there as there was no sex in the Soviet Union? And there is no my reasoning, which is simply not because it is nonsense and only because they consider it impossible, according to individual subjective assessments. You know, but many people looking into the eyes of death also do not believe that it is in the blink of an eye from them.

[ProkletyiPirat]

Your post is again informational garbage in no way connected with other posts. You just litter the discussion with information that is logically unrelated.

[ProkletyiPirat]

all your nonsense about "numbers" and "property of numbers", etc. eeeetooooh taaak interesting I once had a dispute with a super-duper mathematician on a similar topic, and all the mathematics nonsense ran into one simple problem, he could not calculate the complexity of the algorithm Well, as a programmer, I declare you responsibly, take your nonsense and calculate the complexity of the algorithm from memory and time. As soon as you do this, you will immediately understand the futility of abstruse speeches on this topic, because no one needs a modeling system occupying iottobytes of memory and / or working over a trillion years.

[gridasov]

I can only please you, that I myself call my reasoning "nonsense." But everything is too affirmative and clear so that I could not distinguish my hallucinations from reality. Therefore, I immediately and long ago understood. that I don’t want to prove anything to anyone. I just give out information.
I doubt that anyone could explain at such a fundamental level (certainly not here) what I came into contact with. And I will not comment on all your statements, but only the last sentence. In that analysis technique, which I position, I’m not talking about computational mathematics, this time. Secondly, I do not think of such a definition as memory, which should be associated with some accumulated information capacity potential. After all, a person with a good and long-term memory or the ability to fantasize does not differ in brain volume from an ordinary person. This memory, you see, is what seems to be an opportunity to restore that imaginary scene or event that contains only the key elements of the memory. So the brain is capable of simply quickly restoring the process elements of those that create the imagination associated with what we want to remember on these key elements. So, memory is not a storehouse of what we remember and store as an object of information, but the ability to quickly restore what we associate with what we want to present on key elements. In general, it’s difficult for a simple person to explain that his present is a short stage of the algorithmic process from the past to the future. And the future with the past is always an equilibrium balance of potential. Well, in general, this is not a topic for conversation. Why did I tell all this. To the fact that I'm not going to replace computational mathematics with anything. I can only say that modern mathematics is only a private technique of the possibility that lies behind the fundamental properties of numbers. And already on these properties it is possible to build an analysis, rather than private calculations of episodic decisions.

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: gridasov

Therefore, I immediately and long understood. that I don’t want to prove anything to anyone. I just give out information.

Psychos also "just give out information" and also "do not want to prove."

Quote: gridasov

I doubt that anyone could explain at such a fundamental level (certainly not here) what I came into contact with.

What you come into contact with is called "information garbage", when the brain overloads the incoming information, as a result of which the brain ceases to establish logical connections between quarts and subquarts. As a result, the brain begins to connect the quarts not into logical chains of information, but into associative and / or temporary (by the date of input / output of information) and / or chaotic chains of information.

For example, previously there was a logical chain: a system for modeling some phenomena => property of a number => a post about the complexity of the algorithm in memory and time.
You’re trying to continue this chain with words about a certain "not estimated (not computational) mathematics "(all mathematics is calculating something!), with words about the brain, the process of fantasizing and supposedly everyone's brain is the same. But all this is logically unrelated to the above described logical chain. Yes, you put out a verbal-associative connection in the form of text but there is no logical connection!

[ProkletyiPirat]

Also, regarding the topic "everyone has the same brain," it's a delusion!. If everyone has the same brain, why do some nations (groups of people) launch rockets into space, while others still have not even mastered cattle breeding and farming (still sitting on hunting and gathering food instead of producing it)? Why have some nations developed over the years and others not? Why do some nations degrade, while others do not?
Since in practice we see the difference in the form of more or less developed groups, it means that there is a certain difference, a certain factor, a certain catalyst, something that leads to different practical observable results.
At the moment, it has been proven that this “something” is not genetics (heredity), neurophysiology (brain chemistry), society (environment). The best and most reliable explanation of this difference (from the ones I read) is a series of articles on quarts, in fact, in these articles a group of researchers explained that it was the variety and purity of quarts in the brains of individuals that determines the level of development of one or another observed group. And all changes in the level of development are described by processes of contamination and purification of quarts (purity of a quart means the amount of informational garbage in a quart).

[gridasov]

I don’t even want to try to explain that everyone cannot be highly developed, and the world is created on a harmonious combination of multivariations. . At the same time, I see that you always rely on my arguments and quote them, but do not try to reason yourself. It is very offensive to feel with garbage in your head while communicating with a model of harmony and development. I wish you success.

[ProkletyiPirat]

You are mistaken, I did not claim that I was somehow "developed". You apparently perceive the concept of “developed” or more precisely “more developed group” in the form in which it is perceived in the “West”, that is, in the form of the concepts “Intelligence coefficient (IQ) and General Intelligence Factor (g factor)”, and in this areas of "quarts" come into conflict with them, because in the case of quarts "scalability" is taken into account. In quarts, a group with a high IQ may be less developed than a group with a low IQ (this is different from the "g factor"). Moreover, a group with a minimum IQ but high purity of quarts may be the most developed, and a group with a high IQ but low purity is the least developed (this is a contradiction with the "g factor").

As for me personally, I understand the principle of quarts and therefore I do not throw in informational garbage in my posts, but I carefully clean other people's posts from it, only that is what distinguishes us.

[gridasov]

You see, but I'm not so alone in trying to understand how the implementation of complex highly dynamic physical and information processes is possible. Life - It is still real. Therefore, there are mathematical concepts - scale-invariant structures, matroids and matrices. And in this direction we have evolved to turn them from static structures into dynamic ones with a set of properties that cannot be achieved on a function of a variable value of a number. Therefore, I will skip what you call "information junk." After all, this is precisely what makes the analysis possible to take into account the totality of huge flows of information as superhigh mathematical data, and not the selection of subjectively oriented and selected data. . Do not forget that you also cannot know what will happen at the next moment in time both with you and with others. Rather, you can’t know all the factors of the space in which you live and move. And I’m talking about such methods of forecasting and just as mathematically sound ..
I will not dispute the desire to find a panacea and that which is determined by the concept of quarks or otherwise. Because . I see that this is the deep fallacy of the analysis of that. what happens and what can happen in one or another local interaction. I believe that for this there must be absolutely accurate mathematical justification, and not the creation of unreasonable terms and concepts.

[ProkletyiPirat]

it seems useless to have a discussion with you, forgive you for this sim, at least until you provide information about the complexity of your algorithm in memory and time in the format of "Big O notation".

[gridasov]

And you can be called sober-minded after these words. And so I laid everything out and everyone. Wait. All this is done quite wrong. But this is where the ability to calculate event algorithms for different levels of perspectives lies. Your level, and it’s not me who invents “without levels” for you, and for this you can’t get sick. Goodbye. And do not consider my words for humiliation and insult. Regards and thanks for the discussion.

[ProkletyiPirat]

I therefore asked you calculate complexity your algorithm, because the algorithm itself you will not provide. And according to the notation of your algorithm, no one can calculate the principle of its operation.

[gridasov]

I once communicated with a Russian American, so he asked questions so close to the essence of my discovery that sometimes it seemed to me. that he knows what I'm talking about. But it only seemed to me. Because he often pierced in that. that nevertheless, everything was not completely harmonized with his thoughts. In any case, I can note that the Americans are very persistently working in the direction that we have opened and are already developing. They just like everyone cannot understand in which part of the process to look for fundamental changes, so that super-large data can be systematized. Indeed, a change in approaches to mathematical analysis now allows us to understand what the same processor in a computer can and should be in order to create an impulse equivalent to the value of a number. This is a very simple technique when a number, at the core of its function, is also a carrier of an information code, essentially the same as in modern technology. That is, a code is “hung” on a number, which forms its position and disposition of what it allows to describe the whole space in the possibilities and variations of its transformations. This means that if modern approaches are aimed at increasing the number of processors, then In our case, one is enough. to make it possible to distribute all information flows through it. Well, probably, in vain I again diverge. All the best .

[Boris Radevich]

Glory to Russian weapons as Suvorov used to say!