
Russia deploys Avangard hypersonic missile system - ZeljkoS
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50927648
======
ohazi
I was under the impression that "shoot the missile down with another missile"
style ICBM defence doesnt work, and that everyone already knows this. Or
rather, it has a ~50% success rate, which is essentially the same thing if
your adversary can launch multiple rockets or if any of them have MIRV
capabilities.

Does this hypersonic maneuverability thing actually change anything or is it
just sabre rattling?

~~~
Tuna-Fish
The actual reason why Russia (and others) are going for maneuverable
hypersonic missiles is that everyone believes that Brilliant Pebbles would
work, if it was ever deployed.

And the reason why Brilliant Pebbles suddenly became more relevant was that
the reason it was considered unworkable in the 80's was high launch costs.
SpaceX has already seriously cut those, and they openly talk about future
plans that cut them by an order of magnitude or more. Starship will probably
take a lot longer to bring to service than SpaceX says it will, but if it ever
reaches the kind of capability Musk talks about, it will be possible for a
person to go to sleep in a world where ICBMs work and wake up in a world where
one power has a five-nines capable shield against them.

~~~
credit_guy
> it will be possible for a person to go to sleep in a world where ICBMs work
> and wake up in a world where one power has a five-nines capable shield
> against them.

The only rational thing to do if you have a 99.999% capable ABM shield is to
perform a decapitation strike, since you know this advantage cannot be
permanent. And therefore a rational opponent will perceive such a shield as a
mortal danger, and will need to perform a pre-emptive strike before the shield
is in place. From their point of view, once the shield is up, they'll be hit
anyway, better strike first.

SpaceX does not enter this picture, as they use liquid fuel rockets, not solid
fuel. But from Russia's point of view, it's hard to truly believe the US is
not secretly seeking such a shield, no matter what assurances they receive
that the US missile defense is only limited in scope. The ABM defense is a
matter of capability first, and quantity after. Once the capability is
properly tuned up (and the US appears to be close to that point), the quantity
could be built in a sprint of 12 months. This is not a likely scenario, but
it's a plausible one, and Russia needs to plan for it.

~~~
Tuna-Fish
> SpaceX does not enter this picture, as they use liquid fuel rockets, not
> solid fuel.

The point of Brilliant Pebbles is to put several thousand ABM satellites into
permanent orbit. This can, and should, be done with liquid fuel rockets.

> The only rational thing to do if you have a 99.999% capable ABM shield is to
> perform a decapitation strike, since you know this advantage cannot be
> permanent. And therefore a rational opponent will perceive such a shield as
> a mortal danger, and will need to perform a pre-emptive strike before the
> shield is in place. From their point of view, once the shield is up, they'll
> be hit anyway, better strike first.

The saner alternative is to seek second-strike capability that cannot be
intercepted by that shield. Such as hypersonic glide strike vehicles.

And the reason Starship is such a threat is that once there exists a proof-of-
concept ABM satellite, a launch vehicle that can take up 150 tons per vehicle,
several times a day, times multiple vehicles working at multiple launch sites,
can deploy Brilliant Pebbles in a few hours.

------
dullgiulio
Perhaps a stupid question, but during the re-entry glide I'd expect the glider
to be shrouded by plasma. Doesn't it stop radio signals? How does the glider
get information on the route?

~~~
jandrewrogers
I don't know how this system works but US hypersonic missile designs suggest
how it could work without requiring radio signals. Inertial guidance gets you
into the general area of the target, at which point you switch to active
terminal guidance i.e. the missile can identify and maneuver toward the
selected target.

This is _much_ more difficult than it sounds. At hypersonic velocities, your
entire terminal guidance system is being actively destroyed by atmospheric
ablation. Decades of research went into how to make a terminal guidance system
that survived _just_ long enough while retaining sufficient precision of
control to hit the target. It is an exotic materials science problem.

~~~
baybal2
Does a piece of cork amount to "exotic material science."

Disposable heatshields are certainly used on all of them.

~~~
LargoLasskhyfv
And i always thought the whole point of a missile would be its one time use..

------
exabrial
Yay. We've found another way to wipe out populations with no benefit to other
populations. Is there any scenario where weapons of mass destruction
deescalate?

------
jorblumesea
Russia has a history of announcing weapon systems for propaganda purposes, and
then it turns out they're mostly on paper, half done or of low quality. That
doesn't mean this is the case here, but they do have a history of over
promising and under delivering. The reality is that Russia's conventional or
"normal" ICBM weapons are far more of a threat to the US than any hypersonic
platforms.

The Chinese are the ones to watch. They have been much more thoughtful about
their hypersonic weapons development and are trying to develop tactical
hypersonic weapons in addition to strategic assets.

------
melling
Any peace dividend for the research?

Are we a step closer to hypersonic commercial flight?

~~~
vixen99
Or rather, back to
it.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde)

~~~
jessriedel
At Mach 2, Concorde was supersonic, not hypersonic

~~~
coldtea
Yes, but we're worst from that now, for commercial flights.

From supersonic back to subsonic...

~~~
reaperducer
It's worse than that. In order to conserve fuel, most commercial jets fly
slower than they used to.

~~~
LargoLasskhyfv
I hear that often, but it seems this doesn't apply to the flights between Asia
and France which go over my town.

I know this because when i'm awake in the night i can hear them trough double
paned glass in closed windows and then click on flightradar24.com to see who
it is.

And then see them between 10.5km to 11.5km up, with speeds between 950 and
1050 kph above ground. Airbus 380 or Boeing 777-ER usually.

This goes both ways between Paris/CDG and many large locations in Asia, easily
a dozen per night and direction.

------
pcestrada
This appears to be a destabilizing first strike weapon.

~~~
ohazi
I fail to see how this is any better than existing first strike weapons.

Anti-anti-ballistic-missile technology doesn't mean much when anti-ballistic
missiles barely work, and all your adversaries have lots of rockets each with
lots of reentry vehicles.

~~~
roamerz
Maybe destabilizing means we, the US now have less time to make a decision on
a first strike by Russia and the potential for an incorrect analysis leads to
a retaliatory strike before we lose the ability to do so.

~~~
peteretep
That sounds like it would be a net negative for Russia

------
mycall
> They have a "glide system" that affords great maneuverability and could make
> them impossible to defend against

Determine range of maneuverability and make appropriate size explosion in it's
path.

~~~
jacobush
So shoot it down with a nuke? This has its own problems, EMP being notable.

~~~
PhantomGremlin
There is a long history of using nukes to intercept missiles.

Here's one of the USA's (ancient) efforts:[1] _Both missiles [long range and
short range] used nuclear warheads, and they relied on destroying or damaging
the incoming warhead with radiation rather than heat or blast._

The technology was quite impressive for its time. A Youtube video is titled
"SPRINT ABM - Zero to Mach 10 in 5 Seconds", with a caption in the video
pointing out "white hot skin". [2]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safeguard_Program#Operation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safeguard_Program#Operation)

[2]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msXtgTVMcuA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msXtgTVMcuA)

~~~
LargoLasskhyfv
Yes, that was very impressive. But you forgot to mention the operational range
of the used missile system.

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_(missile)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_\(missile\))
says 25miles/40km

Think about how many you'd need to reliably protect your denser populated
metropolitan areas? And the accompanying radars?

When i first saw this 'Temple of Doom' [4]
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/SR...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/SRMSC_MSR_HAER_ND-9-B.jpg/1280px-
SRMSC_MSR_HAER_ND-9-B.jpg)

i immediately had to think of the Planet of the Apes movies.

OTOH they'd make really good anchor points in the seawalls we need to build
because of rising oceans!1!!

------
trhway
>Such "boost-glide" systems, as they are known (Avangard appears to be one of
these), are launched like a traditional ballistic missile, but instead of
following an arc high above the atmosphere, the re-entry vehicle is put on a
trajectory that allows it to enter Earth's atmosphere quite quickly, before
gliding, un-powered, for hundreds or thousands of kilometres. [ ... ] Indeed
the glide vehicle's trajectory, "surfing along the edge of the atmosphere" as
one expert put it to me recently ...

Almost a century later we're still implementing weapons program as conceived
by Nazis. In case of Avangard even the gliding phase speed of 20 Mach is the
same as in the Nazi design :

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silbervogel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silbervogel)

"The design was a significant one, as it incorporated new rocket technology
and the principle of the lifting body, foreshadowing future development of
winged spacecraft such as the X-20 Dyna-Soar of the 1960s and the Space
Shuttle of the 1970s. In the end, it was considered too complex and expensive
to produce. The design never went beyond mock-up test.

The Silbervogel was intended to fly long distances in a series of short hops.
The aircraft was to have begun its mission propelled along a 3 km (2 mi) long
rail track by a large rocket-powered sled to about 1,930 km/h (1,200 mph).
Once airborne, it was to fire its own rocket engine and continue to climb to
an altitude of 145 km (90 mi), at which point it would be travelling at about
21,800 km/h (13,500 mph). It would then gradually descend into the
stratosphere, where the increasing air density would generate lift against the
flat underside of the aircraft, eventually causing it to "bounce" and gain
altitude again, where this pattern would be repeated. Because of aerodynamic
drag, each bounce would be shallower than the preceding one, but it was still
calculated that the Silbervogel would be able to cross the Atlantic, deliver a
4,000 kg (8,800 lb) bomb to the continental United States"

~~~
LargoLasskhyfv
This lacks a _' now playing:'_

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJC-
_j3SnXk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJC-_j3SnXk) (O Fortuna - Carmina
Burana - Carl Orff, 3m28s)

~~~
trhway
Strong move! I'll raise you the "Götterdämmerung will fly" scene -
[https://youtu.be/gwsPLciYPyU?t=32](https://youtu.be/gwsPLciYPyU?t=32) \- in
particular and the whole movie in general :)

------
chriselles
I tend to think the likely explanation of Russian hypersonic weapons is akin
to commercial sector marketing of AI, all too often hype over substance.

Russia is simply unable to conventionally compete economically and militarily
with the US.

So in order to buttress domestic and international support for Russia’s Putin
regime, the result is hypersonic information operations.

Unlike conventional precision guided weapons for tactical use, hypersonic
missiles are strategic and nuclear in focus.

So not as likely to be exposed as vapourware in operational use.

So a likely area for empty chest puffing and peacocking.

Empty theatrics is a real possibility.

Russia is not likely to share hypersonic missile telemetry.

Nor is the US DOD and industry, as keeping quiet allows for opportunity to
seek addition funding to counter hollow capability.

------
qwerty456127
I wouldn't believe it's anything close to operational and reliable. The only
weapon Russia is capable of deploying today is cheap propaganda (which turns
out to be quite efficient nowadays, thanks to how much stupid people it can
reach via the Internet).

~~~
wazoox
Historically, USSR then Russia never boasted about non existing weapons, on
the contrary, they tend to deny their existence until they deem it useful.

~~~
jacquesm
Historically. But these are different times and we've been in a propaganda war
for a while now.

------
magwa101
yeah more propaganda they can't even feed their people.

~~~
neonate
_Agriculture exports, at $20.7 billion in 2017, have overtaken the arms
industry as Russia 's No. 2 earner. Wheat makes up about a quarter of the
total. Russia harvested an area of wheat almost twice as large as the U.S. in
the year ended in June, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture_

[https://www.wsj.com/articles/grain-is-our-oil-russia-is-
best...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/grain-is-our-oil-russia-is-besting-the-
u-s-as-a-wheat-powerhouse-1537719747)

Russia was the world's largest exporter of wheat in 2017-18:

[https://www.export.gov/article?id=Russia-Agricultural-
Equipm...](https://www.export.gov/article?id=Russia-Agricultural-Equipment)

------
papermachete
The USA has had Mach 23 ICBMs [1] and Mach 10 anti-ICBMs [2][2.2] since the
60s and 70s respectively. The Sprint rocket actually glows white hot because
of its high speed.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman)
[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_(missile)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_\(missile\))
[2.2] [https://youtu.be/msXtgTVMcuA?t=20](https://youtu.be/msXtgTVMcuA?t=20)

~~~
jessriedel
All ICBM reach near-orbital velocities (~7.8 km/s, ~17,000 mph, ~Mach 23),
including the Russian R-7 (the world's first ICBM in 1957) and the modern
ICBMs on which Russia's Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle will ride. This is
only possible while outside the atmosphere.

The difference is that the traditional re-entry vehicles quickly slow down to
mere supersonic speeds (Mach 1-5) when they re-enter the atmosphere, making
them somewhat more vulnerable on final approach. Hypersonic glide vehicles, in
contrast, maintain hypersonic speeds (Mach 5-10) until very late.

