Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Russia Today..New hypersonic missile to be 'uninerceptable'

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-08 12:02 PM
Original message
Russia Today..New hypersonic missile to be 'uninerceptable'

A joint Russian-Indian company has started the development of a cruise missile capable of flying at Mach 5, which will make it 'impossible to intercept'. BrahMos-2 will be the next generation of the highly successful the BrahMos missile already used by Indian military.

The news came from the head of BrahMos company, Sivathanu Pillai during the visit of Russian Defence Minister Anatoly Serdiukov.

The BrahMos missile (the acronym stands for Brahmaputra-Moscow) has been in development since 1998 and had its first successful test launch in 2001.

Russia provided the design of its P-800 Oniks missile as the basis of the project while India developed its guidance system. It has a maximum speed of Mach 2.8, making it is the world's fastest cruise missile.

The BrahMos-2 is expected to have twice the speed of the current version, which, the developers say, will make it practically immune to all existing missile defence systems.

http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/31123
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
cobalt1999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-08 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
1. Still slow compared to lasers
Even Mach 5 is a snails crawl to light and computers can work out trajectories so fast that Mach 5 is far from un-interceptable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-08 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Good point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-08 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. But the current ABM system (which we've already sunk billions into) isn't based on lasers
We've spent the past decade trying to design an anti-missile system based on the theory we could shoot down one missile with another. It's cost us many billions of dollars and is still far from reliable.

How many more years, and how much more money, will it take to develop an anti-missile system based on lasers shooting down missiles? I'm aware of the 747-based anti-missile laser system they've had since the Star Wars Program, but that's pretty much stalled out developmentally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-08 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. However, we don't have lasers that will deliver enough of a punch yet
This is what is wrong with the arms race. We come up with something, they come up with something to counteract it and it just never ends.

Between servicing the GOP debt and bloating our military, we have impoverished this country. Our infrastructure is crumbling, we're getting sicker as a people, our education system has been dumbed down and gutted and we get poorer every year. All we've been exporting is raw materials and our debt. It has to stop.

Every empire falls into this trap of concentrating on military matters and ultimately rotting and collapsing from within. There have been no exceptions.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-08 12:12 PM
Response to Original message
2. un-interceptable?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Winterblues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-08 12:23 PM
Response to Original message
4. Well we better spend another ten billion on Star Wars Defense then..
Is it that people just can not fathom that whatever they build will be countered in short order? Why not spend resources on Diplomacy which could make all the Military investment moot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DavidDvorkin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-08 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
6. Minor quibble: It's a contraction, not an acronym.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 08:27 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC