Military Review

Pentagon admits Trump's C-HGB "Super Duper Rocket" exists

52

The US Department of Defense confirmed that the "super-duper missile" that US President Donald Trump spoke about with such fervor over the past months is indeed there and has already been tested.


We are talking about a new hypersonic missile, which, however, is not the fastest weapons in the world, as the American president said. The Super Duper Missile is a hypersonic missile tested in March 2020. The speed of the rocket is Mach 17, while the Russian Avangard has a high speed, which refutes Trump's claims of the world's fastest rocket.

We are building hundreds of new ships, bombers, jet fighters and helicopters; new Tanks, military satellites, rockets and rockets; We even have a hypersonic missile that travels 17 times faster than the fastest rocket currently in the world, and can hit a target 1000 miles away, within 14 inches of the center point.

- Donald Trump said not so long ago.

Apparently, entrepreneur Trump is not strong in military terminology, so his statements about a new missile have always been somewhat confused, and for a long time no one could understand what exactly the American head of state meant by "super-duper missile." Dots over the "i" were placed at the Pentagon: the military department said that the president was talking about C-HGB. This rocket was tested in March 2020 at the Pacific Proving Ground in Barking Sands, Hawaii.

American military analyst Kyle Mizokami emphasizes that hypersonic weapons are those weapons that have a speed of Mach 5 and faster. Such missiles are designed to suppress enemy air defense systems, since the latter takes less than a minute to identify, identify, track and shoot down a hypersonic missile moving at a similar speed. Currently, according to Mizokami, the leadership in the field of hypersonic weapons belongs to Russia and China, since the United States was unable to take advantage of its achievements in the development of hypersonic weapons in time.

It is clear that the American president, describing the C-HGB as the world's fastest weapon, was cunning or mistaken. So far, the Americans have not been able to achieve the speed that the Russian system of hypersonic weapons "Avangard", that is, 20-27 Machs, has. Moreover, even all long-range ballistic missiles, including not only the Russian Topol-M, but also the American Minuteman III, have a higher speed in the terminal phase of flight than the presented C-HGB.

A video from the tests of an American hypersonic missile at the Pacific test site also appeared on the Web:


Mizokami also debunks the myth that Russia allegedly received plans to create hypersonic weapons from Trump's predecessor, President Barack Obama. In February 2020, speaking to state governors, Trump spoke of the new rocket this way:

We have super-fast rockets - a huge number of super-fast rockets. We call them "super-fast" because they are four, five, six, and even seven times faster than a conventional rocket. We need this because, again, Russia has such a missile. I'll tell you how Russia got it. She got it, presumably from the Obama administration, before we did it. And it's very bad.

Apparently, Trump made such a statement to hurt Obama, but in reality nothing like this happened, the American analyst is sure.
Author:
52 comments
Ad

The editorial board of Voenniy Obozreniye urgently needs a proofreader. Requirements: impeccable knowledge of the Russian language, diligence, discipline. Contact: [email protected]

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Irek
    Irek 21 July 2020 09: 57 New
    +7
    Aha and everyone believes you, this is from the category, "How America flew to the moon."
    1. aleksejkabanets
      aleksejkabanets 21 July 2020 10: 31 New
      -1
      Quote: Irek
      Aha and everyone believes you, this is from the category, "How America flew to the moon."

      Harmful hats, only outright betrayal.
      1. orionvitt
        orionvitt 21 July 2020 11: 17 New
        +5
        Quote: aleksejkabanets
        Harmful hats

        What kind of hat? The Pentagon then officially declares that they have nothing, and will not be at least until 2025, then immediately expresses that they say everything is there, do not worry. It is clear, you need to put on a good face when you play badly and not lose face. And Trump, in general, as a politician, grinds his tongue like a broomstick. On the other hand, the states have already caught lies so many times that it is somehow naive to believe all their statements. Then the Russians interfere in everything and they cannot do anything, then Moscow pays money to the Taliban for the murder of Americans, then "super-duper unsurpassed "destroyer" Zumvolt "will do which in fact turned out to be worthless, then what kind of crap. In our time, a very narrow-minded person can take the Americans' word for it.
        1. aleksejkabanets
          aleksejkabanets 21 July 2020 11: 25 New
          +5
          Quote: orionvitt
          What kind of hat?

          Most commonly, the United States is a strong and unscrupulous enemy, with a powerful economy and powerful military. The United States cannot be underestimated.
          1. orionvitt
            orionvitt 21 July 2020 11: 35 New
            +4
            Quote: aleksejkabanets
            USA is a strong and unprincipled enemy

            Perhaps I agree with this. But the economy, my grandmother said it in two. The lion's share of its powerful economy is in the bloated banking sector and virtual stock exchange. (as well as in the national debt of $ 25 trillion) And it collapses at the snap of your fingers, somewhere on Walt Street. This has already happened, we know, passed. The Soviet Union also had an economy, Mama do not worry, the second in the world, the army is so in general, so what? Everything flew to hell, literally in one day.
            1. Vladimir16
              Vladimir16 21 July 2020 12: 26 New
              -5
              The rocket in the video seemed to walk into the sky.

              The video with the start of Nudol shows other speeds.
              Yes, that there is Nudol, even the S-400 starts much faster.
    2. Vol4ara
      Vol4ara 21 July 2020 14: 44 New
      +3
      Author, Vanguard is not a rocket
      1. Voyager
        Voyager 21 July 2020 16: 14 New
        -1
        As well as the discussed American "rocket" C-HGB. The abbreviation stands for Common-Hypersonic Glide body... So the comparison with the Vanguard is absolutely correct here.
  2. neri73-r
    neri73-r 21 July 2020 09: 57 New
    0
    Today it doesn't matter whether you have a super-duper rocket, but it is important whether you have the ability to shoot it down! We have! And you?
    1. Hunter 2
      Hunter 2 21 July 2020 10: 22 New
      +4
      Today, this is not even important, there is a missile - no missile, we can - we cannot shoot down ... it is important that Adequate Presidents make decisions! A massive blow will not withstand not that some Country, even the Planet Earth will not withstand it!
      1. Roman123567
        Roman123567 21 July 2020 11: 46 New
        -3
        The earth could withstand even more terrible .. nothing will happen to it ..
        As for the rest, you are right - in the case of kipesh, no one will hide from the blow ..
      2. Grim Reaper
        Grim Reaper 21 July 2020 15: 42 New
        +2
        Quote: Hunter 2
        Today, this is not even important, there is a missile - no missile, we can - we cannot shoot down ... it is important that Adequate Presidents make decisions! A massive blow will not withstand not that some Country, even the Planet Earth will not withstand it!

        Will withstand. But patience is not unlimited. Sooner or later, if we do not calm down, the Earth will shake us off, like some kind of parasite, which seems to be small, but a lot ...
        Settled down and eats, eats, eats.
        It would be fine, but it’s gray, gray, gray ...
    2. Roman123567
      Roman123567 21 July 2020 11: 45 New
      +2
      We have!

      Blessed is he who believes ..))
      1. neri73-r
        neri73-r 21 July 2020 13: 26 New
        -4
        Quote: Roman123567
        We have!

        Blessed is he who believes ..))

        S-500, Nudol, A-135 Cupid, do you need cartoons? tongue
        1. mvg
          mvg 21 July 2020 20: 17 New
          +1
          do you need cartoons?

          We have!

          Blessed is he who believes ..)) belay
  3. The comment was deleted.
  4. rocket757
    rocket757 21 July 2020 10: 04 New
    +1
    ... It is clear that the American president, describing the C-HGB as the world's fastest weapon, was cunning or mistaken.

    Well, this is how they have it, Mr. PRESIDENT!
    Themselves, themselves, they chose this.
    On the other hand, he seems to be doing everything for HIS country, at least for some, "better" part of his compatriots !!!
    1. NordUral
      NordUral 21 July 2020 10: 43 New
      0
      On the other hand, he sort of does everything for YOUR country, at least for some, "best" part of their compatriots !!!
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 21 July 2020 11: 04 New
        0
        This is logical. He is the very same and that "best part" !!!
        1. NordUral
          NordUral 21 July 2020 11: 09 New
          -2
          Victor! But the quotes are superfluous. He is for the America that attracted the whole world. True, Trump himself is a little rude, but he is an apical Anglo-Saxon. These are in their blood.
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 21 July 2020 11: 15 New
            0
            A question of personal .... criteria for evaluating everything and everyone. The capitalist, for me, cannot be good, better.
            1. NordUral
              NordUral 21 July 2020 11: 26 New
              -1
              Victor! Capitalists are different. Some creators like Ford, while others are parasites like "our" oligarchs. I am one of those who believe that the new socialism in our country, and throughout the world, will be a combination of the public sector in the main sectors of the economy and the private sector in the consumer sphere.
              1. rocket757
                rocket757 21 July 2020 11: 40 New
                0
                A bad example, if you take a closer look ... especially how he HELPED the Fuhrer.
                When a capitalist implements an idea, he thinks about nothing else but PROFIT! So it was, so it will be.
                Any concessions to the working class, they have to wrestle with ... very hard.
                1. NordUral
                  NordUral 21 July 2020 11: 44 New
                  -1
                  Complex issue. Henry got the financial Jewish capital, so he helped Hitler. Yes, and had to survive during the Great Depression.
                  1. rocket757
                    rocket757 21 July 2020 11: 58 New
                    0
                    I do not discuss. I have an established PERSONAL opinion.
                    I do not impose, but I am not going to change either.
                    1. NordUral
                      NordUral 21 July 2020 12: 13 New
                      -1
                      Let's disperse peacefully. I also try not to impose my own.
                      Life itself will judge what is true.
    2. AllBiBek
      AllBiBek 21 July 2020 11: 07 New
      +6
      "Choosing between Clinton and Trump, I understand that I was choosing between liver cancer and hemorrhoids. Therefore, when my ass hurts now, I understand that, although it is unpleasant, but still not fatal" (c)
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 21 July 2020 11: 17 New
        +1
        Quote: AllBiBek
        "Choosing between Clinton and Trump, I understand that I was choosing between liver cancer and hemorrhoids. Therefore, when my ass hurts now, I understand that, although it is unpleasant, but still not fatal" (c)

        There is a difference, of course ... if it really existed. I don’t argue because I’m not sure.
      2. NordUral
        NordUral 21 July 2020 11: 31 New
        -1
        It is not fatal for America, but for us, if the situation in the country does not change dramatically, it is very dangerous. If Trump manages to return production to the country and fulfills all his plans.
        Oddly enough at first glance, for Russia, let it be better for liberals of their suit to win. These will ruin the country, cleaner than any volcanoes there.
        Let us recall what this liberalism did to the mighty (without any irony) Union.
        1. rocket757
          rocket757 21 July 2020 11: 43 New
          0
          But this is more understandable and there are such suspicions. If Trump makes America great again, it may not be very fun for many around.
  5. The comment was deleted.
  6. sara.tzin
    sara.tzin 21 July 2020 10: 08 New
    +2
    Naturally there is who would doubt it.
  7. Sidor Amenpodestovich
    Sidor Amenpodestovich 21 July 2020 10: 09 New
    0
    We need this because, again, Russia has such a missile. I'll tell you how Russia got it. She got it, presumably from the Obama administration, before we did it.

    It turns out strange. If they didn't do it then, then what did they transfer to Russia?
    And the second thing. How did it happen that Russia, having received something that the Americans themselves did not have at that time, actually made a missile, but the Americans themselves did not yet?
  8. Selevc
    Selevc 21 July 2020 10: 09 New
    +3
    We need this because, again, Russia has such a missile. I'll tell you how Russia got it. She got it, presumably from the Obama administration, before we did it. And it's very bad.
    Again, American fingers like a fan ... If Russia stole a rocket from you, admit that she stole it faster than you yourself developed it !!! Russia must have stolen an American missile straight from the brain of its developers !!!
    1. Poetry
      Poetry 21 July 2020 10: 20 New
      +3
      Russian combat psychics. In the next room with hackers. laughing laughing
    2. Klingon
      Klingon 21 July 2020 10: 47 New
      +4
      no they do not know that we have developed a time machine long ago. we stole their technology from their future wassat
    3. Voyager
      Voyager 21 July 2020 16: 16 New
      0
      By the way, Bolton promoted this topic, like these russkies stole something that doesn't exist yet laughing
  9. Dzafdet
    Dzafdet 21 July 2020 10: 28 New
    -7
    So the Americans found the mole and stole the same technology. I wonder who the bad boy is?
  10. Klingon
    Klingon 21 July 2020 10: 45 New
    +1
    Quote: rocket757
    ... It is clear that the American president, describing the C-HGB as the world's fastest weapon, was cunning or mistaken.

    Well, this is how they have it, Mr. PRESIDENT!
    Themselves, themselves, they chose this.
    On the other hand, he seems to be doing everything for HIS country, at least for some, "better" part of his compatriots !!!

    they themselves elected their president, and our SELF and his entourage chose wassat
  11. iouris
    iouris 21 July 2020 10: 49 New
    +1
    The Pentagon, gritting its teeth, admitted that our Trump was right.
  12. An64
    An64 21 July 2020 11: 02 New
    +1
    Explain to me the fool. An ordinary ICBM that we have, the Americans and the Chinese, flies at a speed of about 7 km / sec. And this is more than 20 Machs. Is it hypersound or not? The Vanguard is a payload for an ICBM, naturally, it flies at a speed of more than Mach 20. Does Avangard have its own engine? I do not know. If not, how is it different from a conventional warhead?
    I think that hypersonic missiles are those that fly in the atmosphere on their engines and also maneuver. Like "Dagger". The "Dagger" has a maximum speed, as they say, 10-12 Machs, which is about 4 km / sec, like OTR. And the S-400 easily hits targets with such speed.
    So what is the advantage of hypersound? And where is it?
    They clouded the heads of the people with a buzzword, so politicians are being conducted ...
    1. alexmach
      alexmach 21 July 2020 11: 15 New
      +2
      Does Avangard have its own engine?

      Definitely, otherwise how could he maneuver and generally maintain the flight path?
      If not, how is it different from a conventional warhead?

      Flight trajectory, it does not fly in a ballistic trajectory.
      I think that hypersonic missiles are those that fly in the atmosphere on their engines and also maneuver

      Yes, gliders in the flying upper atmosphere of the Vanguard type, and a rocket flying in dense layers, let's say the same anti-ship missile is not the same thing, and the speeds there are completely different.
      So what is the advantage of hypersound?

      Well, in speed. In the speed of striking - overcoming a long distance. And the difficulty of intercepting them at such a speed.
  13. tralflot1832
    tralflot1832 21 July 2020 11: 21 New
    0
    You can't deceive me, an old, sick "sailor", judging by the torch this is an old Pershing, they were kept in their warehouses. We blew up ours under the control of amers. Mizokami is such a great authority. Who needs to know that the Americans launched and are silent. About such a launch of ours 100% warned the Americans themselves, so that ours would not get scared and not put on alert what they needed. When the EBN norgi fired a racket without warning, the next day there was a noise all over the world.
  14. CBR600
    CBR600 21 July 2020 11: 30 New
    -3
    Selling technology? Or minus or delete. Bad thoughts creep into the tower, probably, this space has something to do with it. And yes, even not to swing
  15. Charik
    Charik 21 July 2020 12: 39 New
    0
    I did not receive it, but rather took it myself during the administration of OBABA-as VVP-zap-scratch said
  16. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 21 July 2020 13: 44 New
    0
    They made a ballistic missile with a warhead glider.
    Analogue of the Vanguard.
    But the Americans placed the glider on the MRBM, and the Russians on the ICBM.
  17. Rusticolus
    Rusticolus 21 July 2020 14: 37 New
    0
    She got it, presumably from the Obama administration, before we did it.
    Is it that Trump is hinting that a time machine was invented in Russia? Or is he just delusional? laughing
  18. Old26
    Old26 21 July 2020 14: 57 New
    +1
    Quote: An64
    Explain to me the fool. An ordinary ICBM that we have, the Americans and the Chinese, flies at a speed of about 7 km / sec. And this is more than 20 Machs. Is it hypersound or not?

    In principle, this can be called hypersound, although it is rather incorrect to speak of hypersound and Mach speeds. But they say. "hypersound" is now in trend and journalists simply cannot not "cover" this problem. the main part of the trajectory is for missiles (both ICBMs and IRBMs) in outer space. And while talking about speed, as about the speed of sound in the atmosphere - you yourself understand, means to sign your own ignorance.

    Quote: An64
    The Vanguard is a payload for an ICBM, naturally, it flies at a speed of more than Mach 20. Does Avangard have its own engine? I do not know. If not, how is it different from a conventional warhead?

    "Vanguard" is the "payload" (combat equipment) for ICBMs. Of course, it flies at a speed of about 7 km / s. You can, of course, translate this speed into the speed of sound in the atmosphere and say that it flies at a speed of 20-27M, but this would be an incorrect statement. The hypersonic speed of the same "Vanguard" can only be said when it enters the atmosphere.
    In fact, it is no different (in terms of speed) from a conventional warhead. It has an engine, but with extremely limited capabilities. And the meaning of this engine is to make "evolutions" when entering the atmosphere, and not so "sharp" at that. as many people think. In this respect, the aircraft performing aerobatics makes more "abrupt" evolutions than the same "Vanguard"

    Quote: An64
    I think that hypersonic missiles are those that fly in the atmosphere on their engines and also maneuver. Like "Dagger". The "Dagger" has a maximum speed, as they say, 10-12 Machs, which is about 4 km / sec, like OTR. And the S-400 easily hits targets at such a speed.

    You're right. it makes sense to talk about hypersonic missiles only in the context of their flight in the atmosphere. And here it is worth distinguishing between two options.
    The first is the flight of a ballistic missile, the so-called. "non-motorized hypersound". When hypersonic speed is achieved exclusively by a rocket engine. After the fuel burns out, such a hypersonic rocket starts to lose speed and at the surface it no longer has a hypersonic, but a supersonic speed. This applies to all ground-based and air-based OTRs (this option includes our "Dagger" and ballistic weapons of other countries.
    The second option is "motor hypersound". In fact, it is the missiles operating on this principle that are completely "hypersonic weapons." The ramjet hypersonic engines maintain hypersonic speed. But now (yet) there is not a single such missile in service. The American projects X-43A and X-51 are either mothballed or "ordered to live long."
    It is more difficult to shoot down a hypersonic cruise missile than a hypersonic ballistic missile. But progress does not stand still. The principle of "Shield and Sword" has not yet been canceled ...

    Quote: An64
    So what is the advantage of hypersound? And where is it?

    The only advantage is that it takes less time. The same Granit cruise missile with a speed of 2,5M will cover a section of 600 km in about 13 minutes, and the same hypersonic cruise missile with a speed of 9M in about 4 minutes. The time for the reaction of air defense systems will decrease

    Quote: alexmach
    Does Avangard have its own engine?

    Definitely, otherwise how could he maneuver and generally maintain the flight path?

    The flight path for the Avangard is set by the ballistic trajectory of the rocket, which takes it into space

    Quote: alexmach
    If not, how is it different from a conventional warhead?

    Flight trajectory, it does not fly in a ballistic trajectory.

    Before entering the atmosphere, he flies through the ballлhistorical trajectory. The difference is that, unlike a conventional warhead, it can enter the atmosphere more gently and much earlier. And only then can he perform "body movements in the atmosphere". And quite limited ...

    Quote: tralflot1832
    You can't fool me as an old, sick "sailor", judging by the torch it's old Pershing

    I am afraid that this is a symptom and you should consult an optometrist. How does the torch of a rocket launching in the plot differ from the torch of any launching rocket with a solid fuel engine ??? I will answer - NOTHING

    Quote: tralflot1832
    this is the old Pershing, they were stored in their warehouses. We blew up ours under the control of amers

    Urgently write an application to the Main Military Prosecutor's Office. Such things cannot be left unpunished. Demand those inspectors. who so blatantly lied to the Party and the Government of the USSR that the Americans destroyed the "Pershing" and "Griffons" stages they suffered deserved punishment. Who is still alive - to deprive of titles, awards, pensions and "caulk" for life. Traitors am They sold themselves to the Americans and said that they were fulfilling their obligations ...


    Quote: Vladimir16
    The rocket in the video seemed to walk into the sky.

    The video with the start of Nudol shows other speeds.
    Yes, that there is Nudol, even the S-400 starts much faster.

    Nda, knowledge in the field of rocketry and rod. Delighted !!!
  19. fa2998
    fa2998 21 July 2020 15: 57 New
    0
    Quote: An64
    If not, how is it different from a conventional warhead?

    Of course, there is no engine (the speed from ICBMs there is already decent.) A conventional warhead just falls on the target. Of course, the trajectory is carefully calculated. But missile defense systems can also "calculate" it and send a missile towards it. The avant-garde is a warhead with wings. It maneuvers , it is impossible to calculate what he will turn the next second, as well as his target.
    I think there are drawbacks. If earlier up to a dozen battlegrounds were placed on ICBMs, I think one Vanguard will fit.
  20. Old26
    Old26 21 July 2020 21: 42 New
    +1
    Quote: fa2998
    Of course, there is no engine (the speed from ICBMs there is already decent.) A conventional warhead just falls on the target. Of course, the trajectory is carefully calculated. But missile defense systems can also "calculate" it and send a missile towards it. The avant-garde is a warhead with wings. It maneuvers , it is impossible to calculate what he will turn the next second, as well as his target.
    I think there are drawbacks. If earlier up to a dozen battlegrounds were placed on ICBMs, I think one Vanguard will fit.

    If we want a winged vehicle to evolve in the atmosphere, changing its position relative to the ballistic flight path, it simply must have an engine. A small one, possibly either on mono-fuel, or some kind of gas engine running on at least compressed carbon dioxide. But such an engine simply must exist. Here either-or. Either this apparatus makes some kind of "body movement" in the atmosphere and has an engine, or it has no engine, but its "evolution" is insignificant and predictable. ..
    You can calculate everything. Just like that and with a short turning radius (it will not turn "sharply"). Here is the question, incl. and about permissible overloads. It is impossible to make a sharp, unpredictable turn on a winged vehicle entering the atmosphere at a speed of 20-25M. It will just fall apart. And if the turning radius is 50-100 kilometers, then you can calculate it ...
    And why exactly the "Vanguard" was needed is unclear. The work was carried out from the mid-80s and NEVER until 2018 were brought to the series.
    And even with the "avant-garde" not everything is clear. He had only 4 successful tests. And showing how he maneuvers in front of the Americans is not the best option. so IMHO it is unlikely that the tests involved such vigorous maneuvering
  21. Tugarin
    Tugarin 21 July 2020 23: 44 New
    10
    There is no need to listen to exclamations from across the ocean. We work, develop our own.
  22. certero
    certero 22 July 2020 16: 24 New
    0
    Quote: orionvitt
    The lion's share of its powerful economy is in the bloated banking sector and virtual stock exchange. (as well as in the national debt of $ 25 trillion) And it collapses at the snap of your fingers, somewhere on Walt Street.

    Again you slip into underestimation.
    Half of the entire world flies on Boeings that are made in the United States, a dozen aircraft carriers and several thousand modern combat aircraft are all made in America.
    Therefore, the US economy is undoubtedly one of the most powerful in the world. Even the Union could not overtake her.
  23. Prisoner
    Prisoner 22 July 2020 16: 28 New
    0
    Trump American Khrushchev, EPRST! laughing
  24. Prisoner
    Prisoner 22 July 2020 16: 28 New
    0
    Trump American Khrushchev, EPRST! laughing