Spar
Posts: 443
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:14 am

Planeflyer wrote:
I think Russia is using this weapon such as it is for deterrence rather than offensive purposes.

Such a weapon if it existed, would be offensive. That's not to say that potential offense cant be use for deterrence.
But I fail to see your logic suggesting that Putin is using it "defensively".

Putin is on offense. Putin is always on offense, and this showpiece is an attempt to make him appear dominate in his relationship with the west.

I don't believe that he was ever certain that it could be developed into a stable dependable part of Russia's arsenal. I think he wanted to get it to the level of a technology demonstrator and use it for his intended Machiavellian purposes. The real cost was always likely to mushroom in the revision level 2,3 and 4 stages which would have been unnecessary for his political purposes. He just wanted to be able to make Russia appear more potent.
 
Spar
Posts: 443
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:17 am

tommy1808 wrote:
Spar wrote:
OK so the 7,000 mph claim is valid to you.

I'm not so sure about that.


i think that speed is unlikely, but not impossible to achieve. I don´t think the whole project makes sense though.

best regards
Thomas
I think you're wrong.
There is no possibility of it even achieving 2,000 mph at low altitude.
The 7,000 mph claim is bogus.
 
Spar
Posts: 443
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:21 am

tommy1808 wrote:
Spar wrote:
OK so the 7,000 mph claim is valid to you.

I'm not so sure about that.


i think that speed is unlikely, but not impossible to achieve. I don´t think the whole project makes sense though.

best regards
Thomas
You're wrong
There is no possibility of it going faster than 2,000 mph at low altitude.

None
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 9773
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:27 am

Spar wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Indeed, this supposed missile is a misguided concept, thus obsolete from the get-go.

Maybe, maybe not, it depends on your point of view.

If he could have presented the thing as a working weapon it might have been a useful weapon in the political sphere.

Now, not so much.


Sure, it might be a political weapon, but mostly for internal use, not so much for the global political agenda. Heck, the internal political agenda needs to be furthered for our autocrat, so that doesn't really matter anyway.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
Spar
Posts: 443
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:36 am

Dutchy wrote:
Spar wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Indeed, this supposed missile is a misguided concept, thus obsolete from the get-go.

Maybe, maybe not, it depends on your point of view.

If he could have presented the thing as a working weapon it might have been a useful weapon in the political sphere.

Now, not so much.


Sure, it might be a political weapon, but mostly for internal use, not so much for the global political agenda. Heck, the internal political agenda needs to be furthered for our autocrat, so that doesn't really matter anyway.
Yea, he has his internal world there in Russia. I honestly don't know much about that. And I have no interest in going there to find out about.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10777
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:56 am

Spar wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Spar wrote:
OK so the 7,000 mph claim is valid to you.

I'm not so sure about that.


i think that speed is unlikely, but not impossible to achieve. I don´t think the whole project makes sense though.

best regards
Thomas
You're wrong
There is no possibility of it going faster than 2,000 mph at low altitude.

None


And you think a Bold "none" sattles it? Lots of things went faster than 2000 mph at how altitude. A minuteman warhead impacts at 10.000 mph plus....

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1402
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Fri Aug 16, 2019 11:25 am

Spar wrote:
Planeflyer wrote:
I think Russia is using this weapon such as it is for deterrence rather than offensive purposes.

Such a weapon if it existed, would be offensive. That's not to say that potential offense cant be use for deterrence.
But I fail to see your logic suggesting that Putin is using it "defensively".

Putin is on offense. Putin is always on offense, and this showpiece is an attempt to make him appear dominate in his relationship with the west.

I don't believe that he was ever certain that it could be developed into a stable dependable part of Russia's arsenal. I think he wanted to get it to the level of a technology demonstrator and use it for his intended Machiavellian purposes. The real cost was always likely to mushroom in the revision level 2,3 and 4 stages which would have been unnecessary for his political purposes. He just wanted to be able to make Russia appear more potent.



The problem with using nukes offensively is this only works if the other side can’t retaliate in kind.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were such examples.

Putin might not be our cup of tea but I don’t think he wants to see Russia destroyed.

Now could he be using this to intimidate his way to expand Russia? More likely but also very risky.
 
GST
Posts: 829
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 10:27 am

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:22 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
MH370 didn´t have a 100MW or so beacon shouting "look at me, shoot at me" during its whole flight.


This is something I've seen taken as assumed in this thread. I may well have missed it, but i there any evidence that this cruise missile is being designed for high speed flight requiring an extremely high power output engine? If it were optimised for lower speed (possibly still supersonic but maybe not, especially if stealthy) high endurance, you could essentially have a turbofan with a nuclear core, and a heat signature not necessarily that different from many of today's combat (or even commercial) aircraft. Can we spot and track their exhausts in real-time from space? Sure, you'd have a radiation signature also, but if taking an oceanic route to target, it could be days before the wind blows any of its plume into any radiation sniffers dotted about the world. For the purposes of detecting an incomming strike, that would be far too late.
 
AtomicGarden
Posts: 372
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:57 pm

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Sat Aug 17, 2019 12:47 am

tommy1808 wrote:
Spar wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

i think that speed is unlikely, but not impossible to achieve. I don´t think the whole project makes sense though.

best regards
Thomas
You're wrong
There is no possibility of it going faster than 2,000 mph at low altitude.

None


And you think a Bold "none" sattles it? Lots of things went faster than 2000 mph at how altitude. A minuteman warhead impacts at 10.000 mph plus....

Best regards
Thomas


I think what they mean is that a guided, maneuverable missile cannot fly at that speed at low altitude, while, AFAIK, a Minuteman is an ICBM (basically it makes a controlled fall, no?). A bullet can fly much faster than 2000mph.
You killed a black astronaut, Cyril! That's like killing a unicorn!
 
Ozair
Posts: 4145
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:12 am

AtomicGarden wrote:
I think what they mean is that a guided, maneuverable missile cannot fly at that speed at low altitude, while, AFAIK, a Minuteman is an ICBM (basically it makes a controlled fall, no?). A bullet can fly much faster than 2000mph.

The 3M54K is a sea skimming missile that accelerates to Mach 2.5-2.9 during the terminal phase of flight and likely include some maneuver.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 2890
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Sun Aug 18, 2019 2:21 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
So, you fire your hard to intercept missile, which probably can be detected all the way out at Jupiter, and everyone in your country is dead because the counter strike gets there about 60 minutes before your missile hits it, and every single country it flew over on the way is out for vengeance?


Who says the launch can be detected? For all we know, only the failures were detected.
Be even if, are you going to nuke Russia just because they launch it? In theory they could fly for months. They may even be able to recover again. Russia could have an entire flock circling in a remote area of the world. That alone doesn't justify a nuclear retaliation any more than an SSBN patrolling under the Arctic ice cap does.

tommy1808 wrote:
MH370 didn´t have a 100MW or so beacon shouting "look at me, shoot at me" during its whole flight.


Again, who says it can be tracked instantly when operating normally?
Even if they could, would the tracking be able tell if there was a formation of multiple missiles fast enough for anybody to react accordingly?

tommy1808 wrote:
France would probably vaporize where the missile came from for just sending it over its territory.


Turning the entire area of France below it into the next Chernobyl or Fukushima in a spat between Poland + the US and Russia? Doubtful.

tommy1808 wrote:
Yeah. If you want to be sure that every time someone detonates a nuke in or near a harbor everyone automatically assumes you did it and may retaliate before figuring out where the Plutonium came from, then a nuclear Torpedo makes absolute sense. The "beauty" of ballistic missiles is that it is pretty hard to not know where it came from.

best regards
Thomas


The Americans have placed large parts of it's missile shield on ships. Nuclear torpedoes would take out an Arleigh Burke with ease.
 
FW200
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:35 pm

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Sun Aug 18, 2019 9:34 pm

VSMUT wrote:
The Russians are understandably paranoid about this, they were invaded by Western nations in 1812 by the French, 1856 by the British, Turks and French, 1914 by the Germans and Austrians, 1919 by the Americans and British and 1941 by the Germans. They have a history of being attacked and threatened by the west.


In August 1914 no single German soldier crossed the Russian border. Instead two Russian armies (!) crossed the German border and invaded East Prussia (as they had done in 1757 and 1758). That they didn't make it to Danzig and Berlin (as in 1760) was quite a disappointment for them at the time.

And in 1956 they were invaded by Hungary, in 1968 by the CSSR and in 1979 by Afghanistan. Oh no, wait, I am probably mixing up something here?
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6954
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Mon Aug 19, 2019 4:00 am

tommy1808 wrote:
Lots of things went faster than 2000 mph at low altitude. A minuteman warhead impacts at 10.000 mph plus....
Best regards
Thomas

… and it spends like one single second at low altitude, and during that one second air drag reduces its speed from like 15,000 mph to 10,000.

If it spent a few seconds more at low altitude and 10,000 mph, then it would evaporate before impact. In fact a substantial part of the warhead - its outer shell - does evaporate during its one second low altitude flight.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2928
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Mon Aug 19, 2019 4:36 pm

FW200 wrote:
And in 1956 they were invaded by Hungary, in 1968 by the CSSR and in 1979 by Afghanistan. Oh no, wait, I am probably mixing up something here?


These incident would be similar to the 1919 incident with the American incursion. They are related to an internal civil conflict where the external forces were "invited" by one side of the "civil war". So, it only counts for the side that won the conflict. IE. To the North Vietnamese, the American were an invasion force. But to the South Vietnamese, they were "invited guests". The South lost so the American will go down in history as an invasion force. The reverse will be said about Korea once North Korea collapse and the South gets to re-write history.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
Spar
Posts: 443
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Sat Aug 24, 2019 1:07 am

AtomicGarden wrote:
I think what they mean is that a guided, maneuverable missile cannot fly at that speed at low altitude, while, AFAIK, a Minuteman is an ICBM (basically it makes a controlled fall, no?). A bullet can fly much faster than 2000mph.
Few bullets travel as fast as 2,000 mph, which is almost 3,000 feet per second, which is a higher velocity than a 50 caliber machine gun and faster than military .223 loads. No bullet travels much faster than 2,000 mph.

On the guided, maneuverable vehicle example you are absolutely correct; the premise that any kind of actual aircraft could achieve 2,000 mph at sea level is nonsense.
 
Ozair
Posts: 4145
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Sat Aug 24, 2019 3:56 am

Spar wrote:
AtomicGarden wrote:
I think what they mean is that a guided, maneuverable missile cannot fly at that speed at low altitude, while, AFAIK, a Minuteman is an ICBM (basically it makes a controlled fall, no?). A bullet can fly much faster than 2000mph.
Few bullets travel as fast as 2,000 mph, which is almost 3,000 feet per second, which is a higher velocity than a 50 caliber machine gun and faster than military .223 loads. No bullet travels much faster than 2,000 mph.

On the guided, maneuverable vehicle example you are absolutely correct; the premise that any kind of actual aircraft could achieve 2,000 mph at sea level is nonsense.

Again, the Kaliber ASCM is capable of those speeds at sea level.

It is a Sea-skimmer with a final stage flight altitude of 4.6 metres (15 ft) and a supersonic terminal speed of Mach 2.9 (3,550 km/h; 2,210 mph).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M-54_Kalibr

The Kh-22 also fly at approx M3.5, above 2000mph, during its terminal phase at close enough to sea level to be a valid comparison.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2928
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Sat Aug 24, 2019 4:14 am

But at terminal stage is the war head maneuverable? What about those SAM? What velocities are they going during the engagement stages?
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
Spar
Posts: 443
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Sat Aug 24, 2019 5:16 am

Ozair wrote:
It is a Sea-skimmer with a final stage flight altitude of 4.6 metres (15 ft) and a supersonic terminal speed of Mach 2.9 (3,550 km/h; 2,210 mph).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M-54_Kalibr
The Kh-22 also fly at approx M3.5, above 2000mph, during its terminal phase at close enough to sea level to be a valid comparison.

I really don't understand the point of trying to support the Russian claim that an airplane can fly thousands or tens of thousands of miles at 7,000 mph at low level as is the claim for their nuclear contraption. We know that the SR-71 was at the outer limits of technology and it had titanium skin. At its approximately 2,300 mph air speed, while operating at 70,000 feet or so, parts of the SR-71 skin approached 1,200 degrees even in the thin air fourteen miles up. I have just been trying to make what should be an obvious point that the Russian claims are bogus.

Your Sea-skimmer example doesn't make the case that you are trying to sell, it flys most of its mission at sub-sonic speeds and only it's warhead section continues on to its target. From your link: {it has} "a second stage that performs a supersonic sprint in the terminal approach to the target". Calling this missile an "aircraft" is quite a stretch IMO.
Image

The Kh-22 flying at mach 3.5 during its terminal phase only compares to other such missiles, not to aircraft. It certainly doesn't compare to anything that would be large enough to carry a sustaining nuclear reaction on intercontinental flights.
 
Ozair
Posts: 4145
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Sat Aug 24, 2019 6:18 am

Spar wrote:
Ozair wrote:
It is a Sea-skimmer with a final stage flight altitude of 4.6 metres (15 ft) and a supersonic terminal speed of Mach 2.9 (3,550 km/h; 2,210 mph).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M-54_Kalibr
The Kh-22 also fly at approx M3.5, above 2000mph, during its terminal phase at close enough to sea level to be a valid comparison.

I really don't understand the point of trying to support the Russian claim that an airplane can fly thousands or tens of thousands of miles at 7,000 mph at low level as is the claim for their nuclear contraption. We know that the SR-71 was at the outer limits of technology and it had titanium skin. At its approximately 2,300 mph air speed, while operating at 70,000 feet or so, parts of the SR-71 skin approached 1,200 degrees even in the thin air fourteen miles up. I have just been trying to make what should be an obvious point that the Russian claims are bogus.

Your Sea-skimmer example doesn't make the case that you are trying to sell, it flys most of its mission at sub-sonic speeds and only it's warhead section continues on to its target. From your link: {it has} "a second stage that performs a supersonic sprint in the terminal approach to the target". Calling this missile an "aircraft" is quite a stretch IMO.
Image

The Kh-22 flying at mach 3.5 during its terminal phase only compares to other such missiles, not to aircraft. It certainly doesn't compare to anything that would be large enough to carry a sustaining nuclear reaction on intercontinental flights.

The thread moved from a nuclear accident to the potential that it was a nuclear cruise missile and its capability to fly at high speeds. The examples I have linked demonstrate that higher speeds than you are stating are possible and both the US and Russia are about to bring hypersonic missiles into service that fly at higher speeds than previous generations.
 
Spar
Posts: 443
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Sat Aug 24, 2019 6:47 am

Ozair wrote:
The thread moved from a nuclear accident to the potential that it was a nuclear cruise missile and its capability to fly at high speeds. The examples I have linked demonstrate that higher speeds than you are stating are possible and both the US and Russia are about to bring hypersonic missiles into service that fly at higher speeds than previous generations.

The thread was about missiles from the first post, the text of the introductory article pointed out several times that this was a missile testing site and speculated that it was nuclear fuel for a missile that exploded. Post #3 directly mentioned Putin's nuclear missile claim, in post 4 it was referred to as a "flying Chernobyl".

The examples you provided gave example of missiles that could make a short dash in the terminal phase. These kinds of tactical missiles have nothing in common with an intercontinental vehicle capable of flying evasive routes at 7,000 mph (at sea level) as claimed by Putin.
 
User avatar
SQ22
Moderator
Posts: 1301
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:29 am

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Sat Aug 24, 2019 7:47 am

Thanks to all, helps me to get a better understanding of some of these technological things.
 
User avatar
stasisLAX
Posts: 2947
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:04 am

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Tue Aug 27, 2019 4:34 am

The Russian government meteorological service stated today in a statement that several nuclear isotopes were indeed released into the environment after the explosion, removing nearly all doubt (according to Western nuclear scientists) that a "Skyfall" nuclear powered cruise missile malfunctioned during testing on a platform on the White Sea. This leads to questions as to the whereabouts of the nuclear reactor, which is likely embedded in the seafloor.

A flying Chernobyl, indeed...
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
 
Spar
Posts: 443
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Sun Sep 01, 2019 7:32 am

Here is a well done 1970s era video explaining the US effort to created a nuke powered rocket engine. It's quite informative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm7PNlK5Aco
 
User avatar
SQ22
Moderator
Posts: 1301
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:29 am

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Sun Sep 01, 2019 4:03 pm

Spar wrote:
Here is a well done 1970s era video explaining the US effort to created a nuke powered rocket engine. It's quite informative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm7PNlK5Aco


Thanks for sharing.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Topic Author
Posts: 3513
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Mon Sep 02, 2019 5:12 pm

Spar wrote:
AtomicGarden wrote:
I think what they mean is that a guided, maneuverable missile cannot fly at that speed at low altitude, while, AFAIK, a Minuteman is an ICBM (basically it makes a controlled fall, no?). A bullet can fly much faster than 2000mph.
Few bullets travel as fast as 2,000 mph, which is almost 3,000 feet per second, which is a higher velocity than a 50 caliber machine gun and faster than military .223 loads. No bullet travels much faster than 2,000 mph.

On the guided, maneuverable vehicle example you are absolutely correct; the premise that any kind of actual aircraft could achieve 2,000 mph at sea level is nonsense.


Several Weatherby cartridges have loads where the projectile comfortably exceeds 3,600 FPS or 2,400 mph along with dozens of other loads. Not to mention sabot AP tank rounds exceeding 4,000 mph.

GF
 
WKTaylor
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 9:36 pm

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Wed Sep 04, 2019 5:20 pm

7000-mph at any altitude, with exception of very short duration, within the atmosphere will result in catastrophic aero-friction heating.

Nike Sprint ABM Missile accelerated at ~100G and attained such a high velocity [less than 7000-mph] at low altitude that the intercept vehicle became 'white-hot' within just a few seconds after launch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvZGaMt7UgQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk9mvLFNqMQ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bar11 and 25 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos