Putin oversees testing of new hypersonic missile system: report

[ffr]

Source: The Hill

Russia's Vladimir Putin appeared Wednesday at a weapons test for his country's new hypersonic missiles, where the Russian leader predicted that the weapons would be impervious to rival missile defense systems.

The Associated Press and Reuters report that Putin oversaw Wednesday's test of Russia's Avangard missile system, which Russia previously said could fly at 20 times the speed of sound, too fast for missile defense systems to intercept.
<snip>

“The Avangard is invulnerable to intercept by any existing and prospective missile defense means of the potential adversary,” Putin boasted Wednesday, while adding that no other country possessed hypersonic weapons.

Read more: https://thehill.com/policy/defense/422862-putin-oversees-testing-of-new-hypersonic-missile-system-report

---

Somebody on the right in the U.S. senate better be waking up to the reality that the known Russian asset in the White House is selling us down the river. Russia is not our friend.

Damn it! We need Hillary Clinton as president right now!

[cstanleytech]

1. Sounds like the same grand boasts his predecessors in the old USSR made

but then again thats hardly surprising considering he is cut from exactly the same cloth as them.

[ffr]

2. Only, it's not their first successful test of a hypersonic offensive weapon

Russia again successfully tests ship-based hypersonic missile — which will likely be ready for combat by 2022 - 20 Dec 2018
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/20/russia-tests-hypersonic-missile-that-could-be-ready-for-war-by-2022.html

[cstanleytech]

3. I am not talking about its flying rather the boast that nothing now or for the near future

can stop it.

[FreepFryer]

5. Exactly. But the purpose of this article is not describing actual mil. advance, it's psyops. (n/t)

"

[FreepFryer]

4. You're posting this again?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=525513

[Juneboarder]

6. We need to stop living in the past...

Hillary is past tense and we do not need her right now. Loved the Clinton era, but it's time for bigger, better and newer to overcome this trumpwad of a "president" that's currently ruining our country.

[ffr]

7. What? Toss out someone with experience and a proven record for what's behind

door #2?

That's insane!

[Juneboarder]

12. We need someone new and fresh.

We don't need the Clinton Dynasty extended any further. I'm not bashing Hillary, loved her in times past, but her time has since passed.

[ffr]

14. I don't know what a Clinton Dynasty is. Did you just make that up? It's not self evident.

What I'm more interested in isn't someone fresh. I want someone who's already respected around the globe, someone with a proven track record of leadership and who polled consistently upwards of 69% favorability WHILE IN A POSITION OF GOVERNMENT.

Remember Hillary Rodham Clinton and the conventional wisdom about how polarizing a figure she is? Well, think again. - FEB. 22, 2005
<snip>

In two recent back-to-back surveys, pollsters for Quinnipiac University, in Hamden, Conn., also found a notable decline in the number of New York voters who expressed a negative view of Mrs. Clinton.

At the same time, Senator Clinton's job approval rating has increased to 69 percent from 58 percent in October 2002, according to the Times poll. - NYT

So yeah, no. Hillary Clinton would have and should have been a great AND popular 45th president, one that we desperately could use right at this very moment.

[Juneboarder]

15. No.

That's not a new term, but it is an unfavorable term. I agree Hillary is a well-respected person; however, I have to respectfully disagree with you in that we do not desperately need her at this very moment. Additionally, your quote above is from 2005... 13 years ago.

[ffr]

16. Her popularity with you seems to be a moving target. So I'd suggest her favorability #s while SoS

Which were correspondingly high as well.

Now, I'm no expert, but if you bothered to read about how she was labeled, almost exclusively by the RW media, then contrast it to her meteorically high favorability numbers while in office, you might question what was driving the right-wingers so mad to make up labels which completely didn't fit. I mean, 69% favorability is basically a rock star candidate, wouldn't you agree?

So her favorability rating from her time as a U.S. Senator is being brushed aside by you, because it was from 2005, 13 years ago, ffr, for Pete's sake! That's old history man! Here is her #s from 2013, when she left her only other government position as Secretary of State:

Hillary Clinton Exits With 69% Approval Rating
Jan 17, 2013 5:00 pm ET

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton leaves the post as an overwhelmingly popular figure on the national political stage.

An eye-popping 69% of Americans approve of the job she has done as the country’s top diplomat, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, with a scant 25% disapproving of her performance. - WSJ

If I'm not mistaken, 2013 is just a couple years before 2016, when she ran for president. I suppose that's old hat too?

What was I thinking?!!!

[Juneboarder]

17. I still don't feel we need her right now.

She was popular, she has done many great things, but her time has passed.

[ffr]

19. So I've overwhelmingly answered your questions and refuted your reasoning, but you're holding fast?

That's your prerogative, in light of the evidence to the contrary and your lack of justification for your own closely held proposition.

[Juneboarder]

21. Question...

Did you vote for Bernie? If I gave you supportive evidence that Bernie is better, would you change your mind? We are both ultimately progressive individuals and it's okay to disagree, but this is not something you are able to change my mind on. I am not a fan of Hillary.

[ffr]

24. If I gave you supportive evidence that XYZ is better, would you change your mind?

Change my mind? That's not really part of my thought process. As a liberal, the answer, without changing my mind, would have to be yes, regardless of what XYZ is.

I'd reverse your closing proposition though. Even if I wasn't a fan of XYZ, it doesn't matter, XYZ would get my vote. The answer is self evident.

[Juneboarder]

25. I'm not here to close anything...

But thank you for your input. Hope you have a great day!

[LanternWaste]

20. Be great if you supported your sentiments with objective evidence

...rather than simply reading off a list of meaningless bumper stickers.

[Juneboarder]

22. Who says I'm reading off a list of meaningless bumper stickers?

I stated my opinion that apparently doesn't coincide with some folks. It's okay to have a difference in opinion, and I wasn't making my statement to change anyone's opinion or have anyone change my opinion.

[LanternWaste]

18. Fresh and New is great for hygiene products. Irrelevant in regards to leadership, though.

[Juneboarder]

23. Not necessarily true...

That is exactly what Obama was... fresh and new. I loved every second of his 8 year presidency.

[pazzyanne]

9. Seriously, a former Secretary of State is not needed in the discussion at this point?

I will take a whole committee of former Secretaries of State to brain storm this fiasco. We need people with knowledge and experience with world problems to advise/ formulate a plan to move forward. People without working knowledge are dangers to our country, as the present administration is proving!

[Juneboarder]

13. Luckily...

Democrats do not have a track record of fucking shit up... that's all on the repukes. If we're looking to resolve our issues while bringing in votes from those that voted for Trump, then we truly need someone aside from Clinton IMHO.

[pazzyanne]

26. I totally agree that Hillary should not run in 2020.

Breaks my heart to say this, but she doesn't need to put herself through that again.

[haele]

8. I'm sure it was successful because the Russian press and gov. said it was.

That is, it didn't blow up during launch and could go as supersonic as they could immediately observe.

However, a half ton or so object (I suspect that's the weight of one of these missiles carrying a payload) travelling around 20 times the speed of sound (speed of sound = just over 767 miles per hour) is pulling a lot of g's.

Lt's see - 1 g acceleration happens travelling around 21 mph per second.
(So I cheated, and used an online calculator that indicates just an acceleration up to speed of sound per second is around 35 G's.)

If it takes 10 seconds to get to the speed of sound, an object is pulling 3.5 g's. Roller coasters generally go between 2 and 5 g's at speed, but don't stay at 5 g's for more than a few seconds, or the average person will black out. Fighter pilots can spend around a minute or so at 9 g's if they work their way up to that speed with special suits that offset the effects of that level.

According to an article I read, the Russians claim it can do "evasive maneuvering at around 15K mps" (that's miles per second). However, comparing this with a typical missile, which technically can only travel from launch a max of around 5K mph to the trajectory apogee, where it re-enters into it's downward trajectory - then can reach a velocity of anywhere from 15K mph before it hits a target.
And so far as I'm aware (having been a Fire Control technician back in the day test firing supersonic missiles from ships) - despite the hype about Tomahawks and all other sexy big boy missiles beloved by movies and media alike, most supersonic missiles can't change direction once they start the final trajectory, or they start experiencing failures - the internal components start experiencing major force impacts.

So, all this hype is accurate and it's able to maneuver at 15K mps (not mph/s) as advertised, this new Russian missile has been developed to be able to endure pulling approximately 41K g-force.

Color me skeptical, but I've not been that impressed with Russian manufactured technology over the years. Theoretically, they're pretty good engineers. Practically? - as in once those impressive toys actually start getting produced by a general population who have been systematically beat down by recessions, privations, and Russian Mafia rule with the airframe materials that are ready on hand?

So far as I know, Vibranimum doesn't really exist, there are still stress limits to most physical components, and, as the old saying goes, the Laws of Physics don't stop at borders...

Haele

[tclambert]

10. Such a missile would be a "first strike" weapon threatening to destabilize the "balance of terror."

It might tempt a crazy Russian leader to think he could "win" a nuclear war.

[Sherman A1]

11. That's nice

More for the Pentagon's budgetary "Inflatable Russian Thread Doll"