I ran across an interesting link this morning while reading Moon of Alabama. Moon’s post—'Drinking The Kool-Aid' On The War In Ukraine—is interesting in its own right for students of military affairs. However, the link—which is to a blog post dating back to 2016—is critically important for understanding the dynamics of the West’s war against Russia and Russia’s responses.
I remain extremely confused about this topic of hypersonic missiles. On the one hand, it appears to be established fact that Russia and China have deployed hypersonic missiles. On the other hand, the physicists say that these are unlikely to exists in any usable form. See this video by Sabine Hassenfelder:
There are two fundamental problems with hypersonic missiles. First, most known metals will melt at hypersonic speeds in the atmosphere. Second, air breathing engines don’t work at hypersonic speeds in the atmosphere.
Hypersonic means faster than five times the speed of sound in the surrounding medium. In air, the temperature increases as the square of the mach number (see Hassenfelder video.) At sea level, at mach 5 (= 3,805 mph), the temperature is 1,880 F. At mach 8 (= 6088 mph), the temperature is 4,940 F.
Titanium melts at 3,034 F, and seems like it could be used for a hypersonic missile, but this does not account for expansion and weakening of the metal before it gets to the melting point. The SR-71 blackbird leaked fuel on the ground, but the titanium airframe expanded and sealed the leaks at mach 3 in the upper atmosphere. The obvious expansion weakening properties of titanium would seem to rule it out for hypersonic missiles.
Hassenfelder says hafnium carbide and tantalum carbide would be promising materials. Both of these melt at around 7,000 F. Is there any information on the materials used in the Russian and Chinese hypersonic missiles?
That leaves the second problem: air breathing engines (ramjets and scramjets) can’t function in the lower atmosphere because of the physics of air compression and keeping a fire lit in a hurricane with wind speeds >3,800 mph. You can run ramjets and scramjets in the upper atmosphere, but they flame out in the lower atmosphere.
Thus, ramjets and scramjets have to carried up on a B-52 and launched on the back of a ballistic missile just to get them to the speed needed to burn the engine. Apparently, Boeing’s X-51 scramjet set the world record of flying for only 3.5 minutes at mach 5.
So where does this leave us with hypersonic missiles as a military threat? Are there really submarine-based launchers and land-based launchers boosting hypersonic missiles into the upper atmosphere to ignite scramjets to fly around and look for targets? Or are these just glide vehicles boosted to hypersonic speeds with conventional ballistic missiles that release them on a trajectory to target?
Lastly, as Hossenfelder explains in the video, there was an MIT paper that debunked many of the claims for the advantages of hypersonic missiles. For instance, any hypersonic missile would be extremely hot and could be tracked easily by satellites with infrared detectors. Also, over a distance of 8,500 km, with an optimized ballistic trajectory, a conventional ballistic missile could reach its target faster than a hypersonic missile.
Does anyone have any good info on these Russian and Chinese hypersonic missiles, i.e. what they are made of, how far they travel, at what speeds and altitudes, where they are launched from, etc.
Mark, both the wikipedia article and the above link fail to explain the physics problems in the Hassenfelder video. Again, why don't they burn up at hypersonic speeds in the lower atmosphere? And how do these scramjet engines work in the lower atmosphere? No one answers these questions.
I get the distinct impression that all the media about hypersonic missiles is just propaganda to make us believe that our enemies have these super fast weapons that we can't build. I still don't see the evidence for hypersonic cruise missiles in the lower atmosphere running on a scramjet for hours on end searching out targets. All I see is conventional ballistic missiles lobbing glide bombs over the horizon. And the MIT paper seems to say that conventional ballistic missiles are just as good.
The X-15 was a rocket, not a hypersonic jet. After being carried aloft by a B-52, the rocket detached and the liquid fueled rocket engine boosted the X-15 to sub-orbital altitudes where it reached its max speed. After running out of gas, it glided back to earth and landed at 200 mph. All it proved was that you can pilot a rocket at hypersonic speeds in the upper atmosphere. None of those achievements solved the heat and air-breathing engine problems in the lower atmosphere.
Who woulda thunk that our leaders foolish war with Russia would ultimately save us peons from the wrath of the new liberal world order great reset fantasia. Whew.
Just have to remember that these folks prefer to operate in a fantasy world rather than the real world. I’ve also come to believe that none of them ever heard of Hans Christian Anderson and continue to believe that the Emperor having no clothes is referring to a wardrobe malfunction.
Probably also think that Teddy Roosevelt said, “Walk softly and carry a big schtick”!
The fact that the article was from 2016 indicates that this malady has been festering for quite some time. Wow.
He has been very patient.... I think the West is going to find very soon.... Putin does not bluff. The deaths of civilians, several children by NATO/US supplied weapons and intel in Donetsk may be the last straw. Whatever he does, I do not think the West will be ready. They are slow learners. Won't be pretty either. Perhaps the preparations for a response to Kalingrad blockade may be a harbinger. MoD said this weekend Russia was ready to act.
"A recent talk by a high ranking Ukrainian general confirms the high rate of attrition of the Ukrainian army. He says that 'western' weapon deliveries only cover 10 to 15% of the Ukrainian losses. In fact the 'west' can no longer produce enough new weapons and ammunition to cover those losses."
NATO has deactivated enough armored and mechanized units to equip several armored divisions from scratch. They should not have to produce any weapons at all in order to keep the UKR in business. Whether they should hand this stuff over is another matter, but the problem isn't a lack of productive capacity, as the weapons and ordnance have already been produced. The British army now has more horses than main battle tanks. The collapse of Bundeswehr combat power has been equally dramatic. NATO reaction has been to declare support for Ukraine, declare proxy war on Russia, and then sit back and watch while Ukraine loses. What NATO lacks above all else is serious and competent people, and no amount of productive capacity can, or ever could make up for this.
John Boyd said that to win a war you need people, ideas, and hardware, in that order. The war in Ukraine has, to date, not proven him wrong.
Top shareholders of ONEOK were outfits like Vanguard & Blackrock. The BOD was a rather odd bunch. I'm going w/speculation that it was an insurance scam ahead of another Obiden admin tightening of the vice on US fossil fuel production.
In O/T; gotta beef up those freebie's and give-away's...
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2022/07/08/france-to-request-multibillion-dollar-defense-budget-boost-in-2023/
I remain extremely confused about this topic of hypersonic missiles. On the one hand, it appears to be established fact that Russia and China have deployed hypersonic missiles. On the other hand, the physicists say that these are unlikely to exists in any usable form. See this video by Sabine Hassenfelder:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTEhG8zzftQ&t=3s
There are two fundamental problems with hypersonic missiles. First, most known metals will melt at hypersonic speeds in the atmosphere. Second, air breathing engines don’t work at hypersonic speeds in the atmosphere.
Hypersonic means faster than five times the speed of sound in the surrounding medium. In air, the temperature increases as the square of the mach number (see Hassenfelder video.) At sea level, at mach 5 (= 3,805 mph), the temperature is 1,880 F. At mach 8 (= 6088 mph), the temperature is 4,940 F.
Titanium melts at 3,034 F, and seems like it could be used for a hypersonic missile, but this does not account for expansion and weakening of the metal before it gets to the melting point. The SR-71 blackbird leaked fuel on the ground, but the titanium airframe expanded and sealed the leaks at mach 3 in the upper atmosphere. The obvious expansion weakening properties of titanium would seem to rule it out for hypersonic missiles.
Hassenfelder says hafnium carbide and tantalum carbide would be promising materials. Both of these melt at around 7,000 F. Is there any information on the materials used in the Russian and Chinese hypersonic missiles?
That leaves the second problem: air breathing engines (ramjets and scramjets) can’t function in the lower atmosphere because of the physics of air compression and keeping a fire lit in a hurricane with wind speeds >3,800 mph. You can run ramjets and scramjets in the upper atmosphere, but they flame out in the lower atmosphere.
Thus, ramjets and scramjets have to carried up on a B-52 and launched on the back of a ballistic missile just to get them to the speed needed to burn the engine. Apparently, Boeing’s X-51 scramjet set the world record of flying for only 3.5 minutes at mach 5.
So where does this leave us with hypersonic missiles as a military threat? Are there really submarine-based launchers and land-based launchers boosting hypersonic missiles into the upper atmosphere to ignite scramjets to fly around and look for targets? Or are these just glide vehicles boosted to hypersonic speeds with conventional ballistic missiles that release them on a trajectory to target?
Lastly, as Hossenfelder explains in the video, there was an MIT paper that debunked many of the claims for the advantages of hypersonic missiles. For instance, any hypersonic missile would be extremely hot and could be tracked easily by satellites with infrared detectors. Also, over a distance of 8,500 km, with an optimized ballistic trajectory, a conventional ballistic missile could reach its target faster than a hypersonic missile.
Does anyone have any good info on these Russian and Chinese hypersonic missiles, i.e. what they are made of, how far they travel, at what speeds and altitudes, where they are launched from, etc.
Help me, I’m confused.
What this article and others like it say is that this is actually old technology:
https://www.defenceiq.com/defence-technology/articles/hypersonic-missiles-what-are-they-and-can-they-be-stopped
Mark, both the wikipedia article and the above link fail to explain the physics problems in the Hassenfelder video. Again, why don't they burn up at hypersonic speeds in the lower atmosphere? And how do these scramjet engines work in the lower atmosphere? No one answers these questions.
I get the distinct impression that all the media about hypersonic missiles is just propaganda to make us believe that our enemies have these super fast weapons that we can't build. I still don't see the evidence for hypersonic cruise missiles in the lower atmosphere running on a scramjet for hours on end searching out targets. All I see is conventional ballistic missiles lobbing glide bombs over the horizon. And the MIT paper seems to say that conventional ballistic missiles are just as good.
Let me know when you figure it out.
Thanks.
"Help me, I’m confused."
The link to the Wikipedia article was supposed to be a help.
Old tech. Someone needs to clue in the German physicist.
The X-15 was a rocket, not a hypersonic jet. After being carried aloft by a B-52, the rocket detached and the liquid fueled rocket engine boosted the X-15 to sub-orbital altitudes where it reached its max speed. After running out of gas, it glided back to earth and landed at 200 mph. All it proved was that you can pilot a rocket at hypersonic speeds in the upper atmosphere. None of those achievements solved the heat and air-breathing engine problems in the lower atmosphere.
Who woulda thunk that our leaders foolish war with Russia would ultimately save us peons from the wrath of the new liberal world order great reset fantasia. Whew.
Just have to remember that these folks prefer to operate in a fantasy world rather than the real world. I’ve also come to believe that none of them ever heard of Hans Christian Anderson and continue to believe that the Emperor having no clothes is referring to a wardrobe malfunction.
Probably also think that Teddy Roosevelt said, “Walk softly and carry a big schtick”!
The fact that the article was from 2016 indicates that this malady has been festering for quite some time. Wow.
In Pipeline Poker, Canada Folds: Will Release Sanctioned Russian Gas Turbine
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/pipeline-poker-canada-folds-will-release-sanctioned-russian-gas-turbine
And Germany is still scheduled to v cb lose their last nuke plants…
Greens hate nuclear, and the ruling coalition needs their votes.
Alinsky RULE 4:
“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
I wonder what Putin will do next…
He has been very patient.... I think the West is going to find very soon.... Putin does not bluff. The deaths of civilians, several children by NATO/US supplied weapons and intel in Donetsk may be the last straw. Whatever he does, I do not think the West will be ready. They are slow learners. Won't be pretty either. Perhaps the preparations for a response to Kalingrad blockade may be a harbinger. MoD said this weekend Russia was ready to act.
"A recent talk by a high ranking Ukrainian general confirms the high rate of attrition of the Ukrainian army. He says that 'western' weapon deliveries only cover 10 to 15% of the Ukrainian losses. In fact the 'west' can no longer produce enough new weapons and ammunition to cover those losses."
NATO has deactivated enough armored and mechanized units to equip several armored divisions from scratch. They should not have to produce any weapons at all in order to keep the UKR in business. Whether they should hand this stuff over is another matter, but the problem isn't a lack of productive capacity, as the weapons and ordnance have already been produced. The British army now has more horses than main battle tanks. The collapse of Bundeswehr combat power has been equally dramatic. NATO reaction has been to declare support for Ukraine, declare proxy war on Russia, and then sit back and watch while Ukraine loses. What NATO lacks above all else is serious and competent people, and no amount of productive capacity can, or ever could make up for this.
John Boyd said that to win a war you need people, ideas, and hardware, in that order. The war in Ukraine has, to date, not proven him wrong.
Top shareholders of ONEOK were outfits like Vanguard & Blackrock. The BOD was a rather odd bunch. I'm going w/speculation that it was an insurance scam ahead of another Obiden admin tightening of the vice on US fossil fuel production.