Pentagon: hypersonic or hyper bluff


Words by Russian President Vladimir Putin that for the first time since the creation of the nuclear missile weapons our country has won a solid and unquestioned superiority in the field of creating the latest weapons, obviously, they are given a terrible pain in the hearts of the generals of the American military department.


The fact that Russia is not lagging behind the US, having to “catch up” with them, but setting the pace in this area for the whole world, frantically trying to acquire something like that, does not give them rest neither day nor night. Surely for this reason, from time to time, reports appear in the information space that the United States "is on the verge of creating hypersonic weapons", "has begun testing it" and is about to be able to "give a worthy rebuff to the intrigues of the Kremlin." How are things really?

This week, the United States military has pleased its fellow citizens with the news that its Office of Advanced Research Projects (DARPA) has signed a contract with Lockheed Martin to "conduct the third phase of the creation of a complex of hypersonic weapons." Apparently, in this case we are talking about a ground-based Operational Fires system designed for the ground forces, capable, according to the assurances of the military, "to act from positions that cannot be predicted." What is characteristic, the announced cost of the contract is about 32 million dollars. For Lockheed Martin, who usually devours budget money with the speed and ruthlessness of Australian forest fires, it is somehow not even solid. The point, obviously, is that this is, as mentioned above, the third stage. Probably, all that remains is to tint the casing and squeeze a couple of bolts ... Recall that the previous orders received by the corporation last year were just on the “hypersonic” topic, but in the air-based version: Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon (HCSW) and Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW) were calculated using completely different numbers. In total, this "pleasure" cost the American taxpayers one and a half billion dollars almost.

By the way, with the first of these ambitious programs, it seems that there was some kind of inconsistency. At the end of last year, the Pentagon announced the search for "having sufficient technical capabilities and qualified employees" contractors for testing, called Hypersonic Test Engineering, Mission Planning and Systems or HyTEMPS. What's the matter? Does the developers, Lockheed Martin themselves, have problems with the equipment or qualified personnel? Or did something go wrong and the project was transferred to someone else? Complete obscurity and mystery, covered in darkness. Although, perhaps, we are talking about another development altogether - for example, again, the land Common Hypersonic Glide Body (C-HGB). Above it, according to one of the Pentagon generals, experts from the national laboratory of the American Ministry of Energy are working tirelessly, not the creators of the F-35. On the other hand, tests on this project were announced no earlier than 2021. Again does not converge ...

Generally speaking, all these statements more than anything resemble persistent attempts to convince the American taxpayer that his hard-earned money, which regularly flows into the increasingly grandiose US military budgets, is used "to the fullest." The work is in full swing: specialists are working tirelessly, industrialists in four shifts “forge the hypersonic sword of the motherland”, and the brave warriors conduct tests one after another.

Regarding the tests, one can recall the bikes walking in the US media about the fate of the first model of hypersonic weapons developed in the USA, Falcon HTV-2. Its launch supposedly took place ten years ago and during this test the “miracle rocket” rushed into the stratosphere as much as 20 Machs! True, after that she rushed on - no one knew where ... An attempt made a year later was crowned with the same “success” - the test model did not last in the air for half an hour. After that, the project was curtailed as hopeless. It turns out that instead of hypersound in the USA there is still a hyperbluff. Another "Star Wars" on a different scale. Bluffing to the extreme - for the sake of allocating funds - as an option.

And what is hyperbluff?

Most likely, the confession made at the end of last year by Pentagon chief Mark Esper regarding the fact that the real work to create “hypersound” was completely stopped by the United States several years ago and now they really have to catch up with Russia should be considered as close to the truth. At what pace and with what success is another question. Apparently, the words of Vladimir Putin that no country on the globe has hypersonic weapons, and even more of their intercontinental samples, are a bitter truth for the United States with which they will have to live for quite some time.
Author:
Photos used:
Wikipedia
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

48 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Andrey Mikhaylov 17 January 2020 17: 37 New
    • 5
    • 6
    -1
    where the comments, expert experts, well, in short all new, here.
    1. Hunter 2 17 January 2020 17: 44 New
      • 11
      • 8
      +3
      Quote: Andrey Mikhaylov
      where the comments, expert experts, well, in short all new, here.

      And what is there to comment? As the saying goes "Saw, Shura - saw ... they are Golden" laughing well or - give me money, we’ll build everything!
      Since Matrasnikov is so puffed up, it means they are as hypersonic as walking to the Moon!
      1. Chaldon48 17 January 2020 21: 41 New
        • 1
        • 3
        -2
        Well, why on foot? Our astronauts didn’t refuse to carry our money to the station. So, Uncle Sam, we’ll get money for a barrel and a breeze, though not yet to the moon, but still prestigious, an American astronaut is exploring space!
        1. Range 17 January 2020 23: 05 New
          • 1
          • 4
          -3
          Come on! And what does this have to do with hypersound? So far from the West on this subject only hyperPUK.
    2. Bar2 17 January 2020 18: 02 New
      • 11
      • 13
      -2
      To illustrate our hypersonic missile, they show an American missile whose tests were unsuccessful. That's all we know about this racket.
      1. dauria 17 January 2020 21: 55 New
        • 5
        • 2
        +3
        That's all we know about this racket.


        I’ve thought about it ... Let's say we overtook it for a while, created a ramjet. Do not carry the oxidizing agent with us, but take oxygen from the air. What do we get? We can throw out the mass of the oxidizing agent (from 3 to 5 masses of fuel) in comparison with liquid or solid fuel. But both liquid and solid propellants long ago fly in hypersound to an intercontinental range.
        They have been entering satellite orbit for a long time, they can slow down and dive toward maneuvers with maneuvers.
        Where to apply it, this ramjet? Against sea targets at a range of over 500 km? So target designation is needed, but it is not. Against stationary targets? So conventional missiles are simpler, more reliable and no more expensive.
        Where to? As an engineering solution is interesting, but almost now what is the advantage of drop dead?
        1. KCA
          KCA 18 January 2020 08: 25 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          The gain in mass, in the case of using ramjet, is very doubtful, for its operation it is required to achieve a certain speed, i.e. another engine / accelerator required. Ballistic missiles are what they dive and it’s not easy, but it’s really possible to shoot down, diving from a height of about 100 km, they are easily detected by radars, it’s impossible to calculate the flight of hypersonic CR
    3. Morrrow 18 January 2020 22: 40 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      And what is there to comment? The author did not write anything interesting. Not a single fact news
  2. Thrifty 17 January 2020 17: 37 New
    • 6
    • 4
    +2
    Sometimes, and this is the case when a potential adversary is better to overestimate than underestimate! Our rivals in hypersound are not only the United States, but also at least the Chinese! So we need to go forward, looking around, so as not to start pushing us. ..
    1. Edik 17 January 2020 20: 14 New
      • 5
      • 5
      0
      Quote: Thrifty
      but also at least the Chinese!

      We cross out the Chinese! They have a weak material science base!
  3. taurtaurov 17 January 2020 17: 41 New
    • 10
    • 28
    -18
    Yes yes yes we are great and terrible, and they run with ragatki
    1. NEXUS 17 January 2020 18: 12 New
      • 15
      • 7
      +8
      Quote: taurtaurov
      Yes yes yes we are great and terrible, and they run with ragatki

      Before writing an idiotic comment, you would first look at the doctrines of our states. Who is terrible here? How many bases do we have outside our country and how many favorite mattresses do you have? How many wars after WWII have we unleashed and how much is the USA?
      If they didn’t run with slingshots in the matter of hypersound, they wouldn’t have such a stench.
      1. taurtaurov 17 January 2020 18: 24 New
        • 7
        • 16
        -9
        Quote: NEXUS
        Quote: taurtaurov
        Yes yes yes we are great and terrible, and they run with ragatki

        Before writing an idiotic comment, you would first look at the doctrines of our states. Who is terrible here? How many bases do we have outside our country and how many favorite mattresses do you have? How many wars after WWII have we unleashed and how much is the USA?
        If they didn’t run with slingshots in the matter of hypersound, they wouldn’t have such a stench.

        They’re not my favorites. You’re doing dances with a tambourine in front of the palasatiks, they have the whole world except us and Iran, that’s all, and the fact that we are contrallers and patrol the border Turkey Syria while they just pump oil and wet everyone who approach, and ride around Syria Iraq at home, as in all countries wherever they want, and pump oil, then you hold the flag in your hands and dance further with the tambourine, the flag in your hands
  4. Operator 17 January 2020 18: 25 New
    • 8
    • 7
    +1
    The competition between the Russian Federation and the United States is only in the field of so-called motor hypersound: in the form factor of cruise missiles with hypersonic ramjets (each side has planning and controlled non-motorized warheads).

    At the time of the Russian Federation, it was able to develop an economical and stably working scramjet, the USA does not even know how to do it.
    1. Thrifty 17 January 2020 18: 35 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      Operator, back in the USSR they created the world's first scramjet! Based on it, an engine was made for our modern hypersonic missiles!
      1. Operator 17 January 2020 18: 42 New
        • 5
        • 3
        +2
        No - according to an interview with the general director of KB Fakel (developer of the State Reserves Committee) of the Soviet period.

        For Soviet and American scramjet engines, fuel consumption was 3-4 times higher than that of the Russian scramjet, surging of Soviet and American engines occurred during any maneuver of cruise missiles (i.e. they could only fly in a straight line).
    2. gridasov 17 January 2020 19: 09 New
      • 5
      • 4
      +1
      So I also want to say that let there be an engine, but there is no propulsion device accelerating the flow to hyper speed. Therefore, on the one hand, it was well verified that the Americans are not able to refute such achievements, but on the other hand, who will take responsibility in a couple of years when making sure that all this is a bluff. Of course, these will not be
    3. Morrrow 18 January 2020 22: 42 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Can I look at this scram?
      1. Operator 18 January 2020 22: 46 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Of course, you can - at the address: Moscow, st. Bolshaya Lubyanka, d. 1/3 laughing
      2. gridasov 19 January 2020 18: 52 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Yes, they have nothing. Look at the same other models of technology in the rank of strategic technologies and you will understand that everything is old. But about the new energy levels, the conversation is full.
  5. Sergey Averchenkov 17 January 2020 18: 27 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    I remember the USSR - they didn’t talk about anything at all. In 86, I saw the ka-50, even photographed it, although it was impossible ... I saw the forms in which it was printed - the number of controlled space ... I think now I can say this.
  6. The comment was deleted.
  7. rocket757 17 January 2020 18: 33 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    There is nothing to condemn yet, because there is nothing besides “saw her saw”.
  8. Voyager 17 January 2020 18: 49 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    and the ruthlessness of the Australian forest fires

    Still, it is not good for ironic comparisons to bring such a tragedy. We would hardly like it to write about the recent fires in Siberia, right?
  9. Prisoner 17 January 2020 19: 03 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Pleasant, positive, but too optimistic. Resting on our laurels is fraught. You will not refuse to mattresses in persistence and ability to work for the future. Yes, and their financial capabilities, plus the weakening in principles of some representatives of our population, can give them something that they do not yet have. Designers should not be kept in a black body and special officers should not be allowed to cover themselves with fat, because the later they catch up with us, but they catch up with us - it's a matter of time, the better.
  10. 7,62h54 17 January 2020 19: 35 New
    • 3
    • 8
    -5
    Our hypersound will pump your hyperloop
    1. vadimtt 18 January 2020 08: 48 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Something seems to me that the first hyperloop will also be ours laughing
      Russian Railways is completely cooperating with Mask (I don’t know how declarative it is).
  11. Old26 17 January 2020 20: 02 New
    • 12
    • 4
    +8
    Quote: Hunter 2
    Quote: Andrey Mikhaylov
    where the comments, expert experts, well, in short all new, here.

    And what is there to comment? As the saying goes "Saw, Shura - saw ... they are Golden" laughing well or - give me money, we’ll build everything!
    Since Matrasnikov is so puffed up, it means they are as hypersonic as walking to the Moon!

    For information. The first tests of Russian hypersonic weapons - the so-called "Product 102" (sometimes called 15Y70) was launched in 1990 and lasted until 2011. 7 flight tests were conducted. Then, in 2013, the study of a modernized version of this 15Yu70 began - the 4202 Avangard product (sometimes called 15Y71). LCI continued until 2018. 5 flight design tests were conducted. And only at the end of December 2018 the product was put into service. A total of 12 flight tests during TWENTY EIGHT YEARS. How much we drank over the years. In the end they built. And it’s not worth it condescendingly-ironically to the potential of the United States. Their technical potential is very large. And financial - even more

    Quote: Bar2
    To illustrate our hypersonic missile, they show an American missile whose tests were unsuccessful. That's all we know about this racket.

    Most often, the American X-51 is used as illustrations when talking about the Zircon. When it comes to "Vanguard" - use the illustration of the American apparatus too. In fact, now we do not even know the "appearance" of these systems
    1. NEXUS 17 January 2020 22: 10 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Old26
      a modernized version of this 15Y70 - products 4202 "Vanguard" (sometimes called 15Y71).

      Now they are talking about 15J74. hi
    2. Octopus 17 January 2020 22: 45 New
      • 3
      • 5
      -2
      Quote: Old26
      a modernized version of this 15Y70 - 4202 Avangard products

      As far as I understand, you are talking about a "hypersonic maneuvering unit." That is, a system moving by inertia. For some reason, the author of the note compares it with rockets that have an engine.
      Quote: Old26
      Eventually built

      As far as I remember, this whole story is connected with the SDI and overcoming the orbital means of missile defense. Accordingly, it’s a little strange to talk about some kind of leadership (for example, this time they don’t lie to us). States to overcome the orbital missile defense so far without the need.
    3. Mityay65 18 January 2020 03: 44 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      Quote: Old26
      "Product 102" (sometimes called 15Y70) was launched in 1990 and lasted until 2011. 7 flight tests were conducted. Then, in 2013, the study of a modernized version of this 15Y70 - the 4202 Avangard product began

      Vladimir, in other words, all the real talk about domestic hypersound is on the table. moment - the atmospheric glider "Vanguard" and the ballistic missile air launch "Dagger"? Those. conversation about scramjet hung in zero gravity? Both products, as I understand it, do not have a scramjet on board?
      Then what is the argument about? Both the Vanguard and the Dagger in technology are quite achievable by the United States in a fairly short time. It should be understood that neither the first nor the second option of the so-called "hypersonic weapons" do not fit into the US doctrine, they simply are not needed.
      And we must be aware that neither the atmospheric glider nor the ballistic missile air launch are "hypersonic weapons." Rejoicing was considered a hypersonic missile only KR with scramjet. Well, or a transatmospheric glider like "Senger", also with a scramjet, or some kind of hybrid.
      Those. in reality, we have only the prospective anti-ship “Zircon”, of unknown range with unknown speed, and the year of adoption. And for the photo of which the Yankee product photo is constantly given out.
      And this should scare the Pentagon and make it fall into a stupor? lol
      They scared the woman with high-heeled shoes ...
      1. Octopus 18 January 2020 04: 32 New
        • 5
        • 3
        +2
        Quote: Mityai65
        The avant-garde and dagger in technology are quite achievable in the United States in a fairly short time. It should be understood that neither the first nor the second option of the so-called "hypersonic weapons" do not fit into the US doctrine, they simply are not needed.
        And we must be aware that neither the atmospheric glider nor the ballistic missile air launch are "hypersonic weapons."

        There is also the position of Russophobes on this issue. Russophobes argue that the Russian kulibins, who sold to the commander of the VKS (tanker), the ministry of defense (firefighter) and the commander in chief (special forces) a wonderful idea from the time of Reagan, focused on overcoming precisely the orbital missile defense, eliminated several problems for the enemy at once:
        1. Selection of false goals. In the atmosphere, light false targets will not fly, they must be completely identical to the Vanguard, which makes senseless undertaking.
        2. Defeat. Unlike an armored warhead, very resistant to damage, to destroy a hypersonic unit it is enough to damage its thermal protection, the rest will be done by this very hypersonic speed, which we are so proud of.
        3. The accuracy. In a cloud of plasma, a glider cannot use any navigation methods other than inertial, even astronavigation, which gives a HFA of hundreds of meters, if not kilometers.
        4. Missile defense. Everything you need to defeat such a thing, including control ten-hypersonic atmospheric anti-missile (did someone say something about primacy there, no?) through a cloud of plasma, the Americans did and put into service 50 years ago. Safeguard - Sprint.
        1. Mityay65 18 January 2020 16: 00 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Quote: Octopus
          There is also the position of the Russophobes on this issue. Russophobes claim

          Not aware of the position of Russophobophus on this issue. But if it really exists and is exactly the way you describe it, then certainly Russophobes once again got into a puddle for each of the items you listed. It is much more effective to focus on studying the opinions of other socio-political groups, for example, the neocons of the USA or the functionaries of the CCP.
          1. Octopus 18 January 2020 16: 43 New
            • 2
            • 2
            0
            Quote: Mityai65
            certainly Russophobes once again got into a puddle for each of the items you listed.

            Right there certainly.
            Quote: Mityai65
            other socio-political groups, such as US neocons or CCP functionaries.

            You see, the opinion of the mentioned groups is a constant. It consists in the fact that one does not regret money for the holy work of money.

            I would really like to understand what is happening at the level of iron and the laws of nature (again, we take for the working hypothesis that we are not lying about the very existence of the product). Old26 like a man in topic, maybe could explain, yes, apparently, a lack of time.
  12. Old26 17 January 2020 21: 00 New
    • 6
    • 5
    +1
    What, minusculers, do not like when the "truth-uterus" is cut? Then at least teach the materiel. Maybe then, by looking at the launch tables of UR-100N UTTX from 1072 to 2019, there’s something left in the brain, not just a fuss about the fact that we all “have no analogues in the world”
    1. NEXUS 17 January 2020 22: 14 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Quote: Old26
      Maybe then, by looking at the launch tables of UR-100N UTTX from 1072 to 2019, there’s something left in the brain, not just a fuss about the fact that we all “have no analogues in the world”

      In fairness, I must say that Stilettos are one of the most reliable ICBMs in the world. hi
  13. Aleks2000 17 January 2020 21: 13 New
    • 3
    • 10
    -7
    We are accustomed to bluffing, and to hyperbluff too.
    At least remember that a nuclear propulsion missile / torpedo, which is, that is, not, is being developed, that is, a couple of something, then again not ...

    Or the armature, about which for the third time they write that the first batch was transferred to the troops ...
    Relight, which remarkably knows how to leave the building a little ...

    And Su 57, about the development of the cabin cover - 50% of the stealth was announced a year after the Indians refused, but somehow I do not follow the engine - there are roofing felts, there are no roofing felts ...

    In general, we are well done ...
  14. eklmn 17 January 2020 21: 55 New
    • 6
    • 9
    -3
    “The fact that Russia is not lagging behind the US, having to“ catch up ”with them, but setting the pace in this area for the whole world, frantically trying to acquire something like that, does not give them rest neither day nor night.”
    Author, with your pride “ahead of all the planets”, handle carefully - your jacket may be heard in your shoulders, your pants will burst somewhere!
    The people for whom you write did not all live in the USSR, and for him it may not be clear why such joy and pride.
    Americans (the military) sleep quite calmly because of the lag.
    Because Russia has such systems, they are neither cold nor hot.
    Well there is - it is. And “we will have them, but in different kinds - tactical / strategic land, air force and sea-based.”
    “.... For Lockheed Martin, who usually devours budget money with the speed and ruthlessness of Australian forest fires, it’s somehow not even solid. ”
    The author, do not be tempted by zeros with dollars, zeros with rubles for some reason much more!
    For the curious -
    what makes DARPA c Lockheed Martin
    “2018 Aerojet Rocketdyne (daughter of LM) will develop the concept and technology of the power plant for the new ground-based tactical weapon system under a contract with the United States Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), whose cost is potentially estimated at $ 13,4 million. The DARPA OpFires program seeks to develop a mobile missile system capable of delivering a variety of tactical warheads at different ranges and which can quickly and accurately hit targets.
    The first phase of the OpFires program focuses on the design and development of an advanced solid-fuel rocket engine and is valued at $ 4,6 million over a 12-month period. The contract contains an option for Phase 2, according to which Aerojet Rocketdyne will collect and test at least two versions of the booster. This option, if implemented, will cost $ 8,8 million over 12 months.
    OpFires are designed to meet the needs of the US armed forces in the creation of a long-range tactical missile capable of penetrating the enemy’s air defense in order to hit valuable, time-sensitive targets. The system will be rapidly deployable, flexible and fits into existing ground-based infrastructure. ”
    And here is the info for specialists (I'm not special).
    “Aerojet Rocketdyne supplies both solid-fuel and air-propelled propulsion systems for hypersonic flight. The company provided both types of systems for the joint WaveRider Air Force-DARPA-NASA X-51A, which completed the first practical hypersonic flight in a hydrocarbon and cooled jet engine ship. More recently, the company has successfully tested a dual-mode ramjet engine, a technology that, in combination with a gas turbine engine, can one day transfer a vehicle from a standstill - modern scramjet engines can only work at high speeds - to hypersonic. speed, which is usually defined as Mach 5 or higher. ”
    In English. the last paragraph reads like this:
    “More recently, the company successfully tested a dual-mode ramjet / scramjet engine, technology that when combined with a gas turbine engine has the potential to one day propel a vehicle from a standstill - current scramjet engines can only operate at high speeds - to hypersonic speed, which is generally defined as Mach 5 or faster. ”
    The fact is that the same company is developing in parallel an engine for an airplane on the same principle as a glider.
    I will continue ...
    Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon (HCSW) and Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW).
    Both Air Force systems ordered for themselves and will be developed by LM. Indeed, they paid a lot, the author is right.
    In 2018, the Air Force signed a contract with LM in the amount of up to $ 480 million. to “start the development of a second prototype hypersonic weapon,” which will be called the AGM-183, or ARRW, rapid-response weapon.
    ARRW is a planing system in which the aerodynamic form is accelerated to hypersonic speed by a rocket accelerator. Then the booster crashes, allowing the rocket to move and maneuver at hypersonic speed toward the target. The Air Force said that ARRW and HCSW are "unique capabilities for a military fighter, and each of them has different technical approaches." The service representative said that "the two systems offer different flight profiles and payload sizes, offering additional features." Both will be airborne. ”
    “It’s believed that in addition to ARRW, HCSW, TBG and HAWC, Lockheed’s Skunk Works are still working on high-speed strike weapons, whose sources say it is a tactical missile in Mach 3 plus category that resembles its D - 21 drone that the U.S. Air Force fired with the SR-71 and B-52 in the 1970s. HSSW is a derivative of the program Lockheed explored with the Navy in the early 2000s.
    HCSW will be guided by a GPS / inertial guidance system and have a warhead to be chosen by the government. The Air Force did not say whether the ARRW carries a warhead or achieves an explosive effect with a simple kinetic strike. All hypersonic weapons of the US Air Force are designed to be used against time-critical targets launched from aircraft - conditionally, B-52 or F-15E - outside the enemy’s air defense zone. ”
    A. Kharaluzhny, the author, has the phrase “At the end of last year, the Pentagon announced the search for“ contractors with sufficient technical capabilities and qualified personnel ”to conduct tests called Hypersonic Test Engineering, Mission Planning and Systems or HyTEMPS. What's the matter? Does the developers, Lockheed Martin themselves, have problems with the equipment or qualified personnel? Or did something go wrong and the project was transferred to someone else? Complete obscurity and mystery, covered in darkness ”
    The author of super-patriotic bulging disappeared understanding of common sense. Here's how it sounds in the original:
    “The US Army has requested information on potential manufacturers that can provide personnel, equipment, and technical skills to support hypersonic vehicle testing.
    The notice request indicated that the service would use the answers for market research as it was working on an acquisition strategy for Hypersonic Test Engineering, Mission Planning and Systems or HyTEMPS. ”
    Why does the army go for it? For cheapness! Surely someone in the business has something similar-needed and cheaper to attract a ready-made enterprise to work than to create your own from scratch! Since last year, the Pentagon has a new cartoon for the development of new products - first find something similar to a civilian, and if nothing is there, then develop it! Economically? Yes! Faster? A lot!
    In Russia, it’s hard to take something from a citizen into the army, except perhaps pipes.
    Finally. In about 2-4 years, the US Army will receive various versions of hypersonic weapons of various bases, and the latest engines for passenger and military aircraft will be a side effect.
  15. Operator 17 January 2020 22: 22 New
    • 6
    • 4
    +2
    Quote: eklmn
    I'm not special

    Who would doubt that laughing
    1. Mityay65 18 January 2020 01: 53 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Operator
      Quote: eklmn
      I'm not special

      Special thanks to all the authors of long posts that put a warning "I'm not special" at the very beginning of their long distressed thought, with which they decided to make the world happy.
      Because I don’t read further, I’m very pleased with the author, myself, the government, in the morning and in general everything wink
      1. eklmn 18 January 2020 05: 44 New
        • 2
        • 3
        -1
        I honestly admitted that in a specific technical paragraph I did not understand anything. If you are familiar with this technique and able to clearly explain it, I will be grateful.
        “More recently, the company successfully tested a dual-mode ramjet / scramjet engine, technology that when combined with a gas turbine engine has the potential to one day propel a vehicle from a standstill - current scramjet engines can only operate at high speeds - to hypersonic speed, which is generally defined as Mach 5 or faster. ”
        If you have problems with English, then there’s a great chance to get noodles on your ears, which the author of the article did with you.
        1. Operator 18 January 2020 12: 07 New
          • 3
          • 3
          0
          WASHINGTON, Jan 17, 2020 - RIA News.

          The United States was the world leader in hypersonic weapons, but developments have failed and it will take years to regain ground, said General John Hayten, deputy chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

          “In the field of hypersound, we are now seriously competing with a number of competitors in the world. We were ahead ten years ago. We had two programs, two prototypes ... They didn’t work very well. What did we do after they failed? We started many years research into the causes of the failures and then canceled these programs, "said Heiten, speaking at the Center for International Strategic Studies in Washington. He acknowledged that now, after the development was stopped, “it will take years to recover,” and called for speeding up this process, which, he said, has not yet been done.
  16. 75 Sergey 18 January 2020 01: 30 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    I think they blind, they have everything they need.
  17. Volder 18 January 2020 01: 52 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: eklmn
    In about 2-4 years, the US Army will receive various versions of hypersonic weapons of various bases, and the latest engines for passenger and military aircraft will be a side effect.

    That is unlikely. For such a short period, only the modernization of existing weapons is possible. They are still at the design stage, since all previous prototype tests have been unsuccessful. 10 years will surely slip, no less ...
  18. Old26 18 January 2020 10: 51 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Quote: NEXUS
    Quote: Old26
    a modernized version of this 15Y70 - products 4202 "Vanguard" (sometimes called 15Y71).

    Now they are talking about 15J74. hi

    I heard. But what is it so far no one knows. It is possible that this is a lighter block, which is being developed under the theme of "Anchar" ("Anchar-RV" EMNIP)

    Quote: Mityai65
    Quote: Old26
    "Product 102" (sometimes called 15Y70) was launched in 1990 and lasted until 2011. 7 flight tests were conducted. Then, in 2013, the study of a modernized version of this 15Y70 - the 4202 Avangard product began

    Vladimir, in other words, all the real talk about domestic hypersound is on the table. moment - Vanguard atmospheric glider and dagger ballistic missile? Those. talk about scramjet hung in zero gravity? Both products, as I understand it, do not have a scramjet on board ?.

    That's right, Dmitry! Moreover, I have vague doubts that these "products" have passed the whole range of tests. I will explain why
    1. "Vanguard". Of the 5 tests, only four were successful, after which the products were adopted. There is no crime here. At one time, Korolev also sent Gagarin to flight after 3 successful launches. The question is different. The Yasnaya – Kura flight route has a length of approximately 6000–6500 km. But at a distance of about 900 km from Kamchatka on the island of Shemiya, the Americans have an “eye” that monitors our tests - an SPRN locator. kilometers. I am "tormented by doubts" that in the sight of this locator we checked the maneuverability of the "glider." This is about the same as taking all the test materials with the findings to pass to the Americans as a "goodwill gesture." There were tests, but IMHO not maneuverable qualities of the device, which means that it is impossible with a 4% guarantee that he "will tear up their missile defense system" and it is "impossible to bring down"
    2. The "Dagger". If in 2018 - early 2019, victorious reports were periodically dumped in the media that the “Dagger” hit the target at the test site during the tests, that the rocket flew 804 km - now there is grave silence. I don’t know what was shown to the president during the exercises in the Black Sea - I doubt that he saw the direct launch of the “Dagger” (in the stratosphere at an altitude of 18-20 km), but they showed us the same launch according to the “zomboyaschik” as with the first mention of "Dagger", The same angle, the same "picture"

    Quote: Mityai65
    Then what is the argument about? Both the Vanguard and the Dagger in technology are quite attainable by the United States in a fairly short time. It should be understood that neither the first nor the second option of the so-called "hypersonic weapons" do not fit into the US doctrine, they simply do not need ..

    We will not talk about the American doctrine, this is a "separate song", but the technologies of these two products are quite achievable for any country that has serious scientific and technical potential.
    And while they still have problems with the American analogue of Vanguard, they tested the analogue of Dagger in the late 50s. Repeat it now, at a modern level - only time is needed. Moreover, it is already being tested on the B-52.
    But with hypersonic cruise missiles with scramjet, the Americans are still plugging. But with their scientific and technical potential, this is also not a problem. Time and money. Nobody knows how things are with us in this respect. Periodically, we are fed information about the near completion of the Zircon test program, but even its appearance is not known to us. Not to mention performance characteristics

    Quote: Mityai65
    And we must be aware that neither the atmospheric glider nor the ballistic missile air launch are "hypersonic weapons." Rejoicing was considered a hypersonic missile only KR with scramjet. Well, or a transatmospheric glider like "Senger", also with a scramjet, or some kind of hybrid.
    Those. in reality, we have only the prospective anti-ship Zircon, of unknown range with unknown speed, and the year of adoption. And for the photo of which the Yankee product photo is constantly issued ..

    Now two new terms have even appeared - “non-motor” and “motor” hypersound. Representatives of the first - our "Dagger" and "Vanguard", the representative of the second - "Zircon". Products of the first option can be made in any country with a developed rocket industry. Products of the second type - very few countries with developed industry and technologies can make such.

    Quote: Volder
    That is unlikely. For such a short period, only the modernization of existing weapons is possible. They are still at the design stage, since all previous prototype tests have been unsuccessful. 10 years will surely slip, no less ...

    I think that the term can be halved. The "initial stage" in the creation of such products has already passed, and we and they. With one or another success. It only remains to bring the samples to working condition, and this will take significantly less time than starting from zero.
  19. Bratkov Oleg 18 January 2020 23: 20 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Russia is not able to do jeans and a chewing gum.
    In the USSR, everything was oriented towards heavy industry; it was precisely it that did not allow a repeat of 1941. But the layman judges the economy by American chewing gum. You can do it - it means you are at the top of science, you cannot - it means that hypersound is in principle inaccessible to you. Learn first "malbor" about and chewing gum to let out.
    I consider this approach to be flawed-liberal.
    1. Mordvin 3 18 January 2020 23: 44 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Bratkov Oleg
      Russia is not able to do jeans and a chewing gum.

      Quote: Bratkov Oleg
      Learn first "malbor" about and chewing gum to let out.

      They made chewing gum, little jeans too, and American tobacco, unless Jack Vosmerkin grew.
  20. Old26 19 January 2020 13: 06 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Quote: Bratkov Oleg
    Russia is not able to do jeans and a chewing gum.

    And why do what is cheaper to buy. Moreover, some do these items in a larger assortment and better. And chewing gum is not a matter of prime necessity in order to use it as a marker, what Russia can and cannot do. During the Iron Curtain, the USSR tried to produce EVERYTHING itself. Now, thank God this is not necessary. And if someone makes something better from consumer goods than we do - let them do it.

    Quote: Bratkov Oleg
    In the USSR, everything was oriented towards heavy industry; it was precisely it that did not allow a repeat of 1941. But the layman judges the economy by American chewing gum.

    I do not know. The vast majority of people understand that the economy is not only light industry (things, products), but also heavy industry. And judges based on these criteria. And who judges by jeans and chewing gum is their problem ...

    Quote: Bratkov Oleg
    You can do it - it means you are at the top of science, you cannot - it means that hypersound is in principle inaccessible to you. Learn first "malbor" about and chewing gum to let out. I consider this approach to be flawed-liberal.

    However, what is your circle of acquaintances ...
    1. Bratkov Oleg 29 January 2020 19: 14 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Old26
      And why do what is cheaper to buy. Moreover, some do these items in a larger assortment and better. And chewing gum is not a matter of prime necessity in order to use it as a marker, what Russia can and cannot do. During the Iron Curtain, the USSR tried to produce EVERYTHING itself. Now, thank God this is not necessary. And if someone makes something better from consumer goods than we do - let them do it.
      .
      However, what is your circle of acquaintances ...

      The USSR made radiation-resistant microcircuits, the world's first handheld computer with a 16-bit processor was made in the USSR, before that there were 4-bit ones, and now of course it’s cheaper to buy phones in China, only where is the electronic industry now? If they do, then it costs orders of magnitude more. And your own chewing gum, it is also your own food chemistry, without which there’s nowhere to go, just do it yourself, or buy over the hill?
      .
      Maybe this is your circle of acquaintances? I do not like liberals.