NationStates Jolt Archive

DR-13 Chert

http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/wmd/ballistic/ballistic/ss25_002.jpg


Introduction:

RDU has never had in its possession a cruise missile that would be able to travel intercontinental distances and not be shot down by enemy missile defenses. DR-13 Chert (Devil, rus.) was a concept thought up by Stepan Fedotov a head of Institut Rocketnoye Effectivnosty (Institute of Missile Effectiveness). The RDU military gave him funding and the project has been in development ever since until now that it has passed trials and is ready for commissioning with RDU military forces.

Length:
-Total: 47.1m
-DR-13V cruise missile: 18.2 m
Diameter:
-Total: 3.1 m
-DR-13V cruise missile: 2.2 m
Weight:
-Total: 122 tonnes
Speed: Mach 4.5 (avg)
Flying Altitude: Quasiballistic
Engine: Booster (DR-13A): 4x RD-12 Solid Fuel Rocket Engine
Mid Section (DR-13B): 2x RD-91 Ramjet
Cruise Missile (DR-13V): 1x RD-95 Ramjet
Guidance: VRPB
Warhead: Up to 6500 kg
Protection systems: SPTP-1
Onboard Computer: Almaz-IX

Cruise Missile Variants:

DR-13V-V1:
Maximum Range: 10000 km
Minimum Range: 500 km
Warhead: 5 Mt nuclear, 4944.7 kg

DR-13V-V2:
Maximum Range: 9238 km
Minimum Range: 500 km
Warhead: 5500 kg, HE

MPP-1231-V1-21 Launch Vehicle:

Length: 31.8 meters
Width: 4.3 meters
Height: 2.7 meters
Weight: 21 tonnes without the missile
Wheels: 7x7
Engine: MD-MV-1513 diesel, 2341 hp
Speed:
-On-road: 42 km per hour
-Off-road: 21 km per hour

ICCM? I take that it has the option of nuclear warheads?

Price?

SIC

We would like to enguire as too how much Anthrax one of these can hold? Max number and average would be most beneficial.

Sincerely
Horus Langley
Minister of War
The Republican Monarchy of Granate

End Message

[You expect a missile the size of a Sunburn (which uses the same propulsion method) to achieve 75 times the range? Does this have some FT handwavium fuel? For an ICCM to be an ICCM, it needs to be nearly the size of an ICBM.]

[You expect a missile the size of a Sunburn (which uses the same propulsion method) to achieve 75 times the range? Does this have some FT handwavium fuel? For an ICCM to be an ICCM, it needs to be nearly the size of an ICBM.]

I made this missile based on Buran and Burya cruise missile projects which were experimental in the soviet union and had a range of 8500 km. The dimensions listed in the specifications are for the actual cruise missile part after it is deployed from the booster. The cruise missile in itself is equivalented in RL by KH-55 Granat with maximum traveling distances of 3000 km and very similar dimensions. The booster stage uses a Nitric Acid fuel.

I guess I should have sorted out different dimensions and speeds for different stages of the missile's deployment but I was kind of lazy, I guess I should fix that and I will in the near future. But the technology behind it is legit MT.

Either way I don't plan on selling this any time soon I posted this for reference.

Yeah I'd love to know how this is the size of the Kh-55 and has 3x the range and is hypersonic and how much it weighs and the true warhead weight since 6500 kg is a definite typo. Both the Buran and Burya are massive.

Yeah I'd love to know how this is the size of the Kh-55 and has 3x the range and is hypersonic and how much it weighs and the true warhead weight since 6500 kg is a definite typo. Both the Buran and Burya are massive.

It uses a booster as is described in the procedure, I was already asked about this. 6500 kg is not a typo. The dimensions I listed are for the cruise missile part only.

It uses a booster as is described in the procedure, I was already asked about this. 6500 kg is not a typo. The dimensions I listed are for the cruise missile part only.

So something the size of the Kh-55 has a warhead of 6500 kg in addition to its airframe and engines and fuel and goes Mach 10.1?

EDIT

That warhead is 3.8235294117647058823529411764706x the weight of the Kh-55 as a whole...

Yeap. Notice how it says up to 6500 kg potentially one could fit that much into a shell that big, take out the engine on the cruise missile part, make it a glider all is possible.

--EDIT--

Kh-55 doesn't have a booster.

Alright so what's the weight of the whole system, size of the whole system, what's the available warhead options? I'm trying to find reasons not to ignore it as a wank.

Eh, well I could discredit Sabertooth as a wank with its 3800 RHA values...but I don't, so leave this be, I don't have time to explain, Im busy.

Eh, well I could discredit Sabertooth as a wank with its 3800 RHA values...but I don't, so leave this be, I don't have time to explain, Im busy.

Actually the Sabertooth is fully explained (one of the few systems of mine that was fully explain and it was also developed in conjunction with Doomingsland and is not a wank mobile). I'm not saying right this minute but give us something more to work with here. Scandavian States raised concerns earlier that I feel ought to be properly addressed in full.

Actually the Sabertooth is fully explained (one of the few systems of mine that was fully explain and it was also developed in conjunction with Doomingsland and is not a wank mobile). I'm not saying right this minute but give us something more to work with here. Scandavian States raised concerns earlier that I feel ought to be properly addressed in full.

Yeah I read your armor scheme for the Sabertooth but I fail to see how you came up with the 3000+ RHA values, that is a bit excessive and most if not all people will agree that values like that are not MT. Yeah, I guess I should give more explanation and I will once I get some time, I kind of forgot about this and moved on.

Yeah I read your armor scheme for the Sabertooth but I fail to see how you came up with the 3000+ RHA values, that is a bit excessive and most if not all people will agree that values like that are not MT. Yeah, I guess I should give more explanation and I will once I get some time, I kind of forgot about this and moved on.

Funny, I never got anything from anyone. I wonder where these people are, especially since my RHA values are only slightly more than Doom's because it is more or less the same armor scheme with a little bit of difference.

Edited, please stop whining. Now before you ask questions, a W-91 US nuclear warhead weighs 310 pounds and has the yield of around 1.1 Mt, using the magic of math I have took those numbers and calculated how much a 40 Mt warhead would weigh in kg. I have increased the range because the missile is bigger then Buran (24 m) thus bigger booster and bigger range.

Edited, please stop whining. Now before you ask questions, a W-91 US nuclear warhead weighs 310 pounds and has the yield of around 1.1 Mt, using the magic of math I have took those numbers and calculated how much a 40 Mt warhead would weigh in kg. I have increased the range because the missile is bigger then Buran (24 m) thus bigger booster and bigger range.


It doesnt...... the W-91 was a selectable yield up to 100kT design. The 475kT warhead supposudely utilised on the Trident Missile apparently weighs ~360kg

I was being guided by this:

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html

(look down the page for W-91)

But anyways, yeah 40 Mt is way too much (wrote this at 3 in the morning), I'll reduce it to 5

I was being guided by this:

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html

(look down the page for W-91)

But anyways, yeah 40 Mt is way too much (wrote this at 3 in the morning), I'll reduce it to 5

Your Isp is WAY too low for this. Your range of Isp at Mach 4.5 on this would be well... about 2000. This reduces your range considerably. Your weight is IMPOSSIBLE. Your Isp is IMPOSSIBLE. Your range is IMPOSSIBLE. Your max warhead weight is IMPOSSIBLE.

I don't care HOW you try to reason this. Your fuel is not JP10, but your Isp is NEARLY the same. So based on that reason I can CLEARLY see that you will NEVER get 10000km on this missile. JP10 is meant for short-range hypersonic missiles, but those missiles have terrible range.

The reason why I am so against this is not just the fact the fuel ratio to thrust is outright insane, but the weight. Your missile is less then half (with or without the warhead) then a similar run LGM-30. Though the difference is far more then that alone. You pull fuel out of NOWHERE and use it in the worst possible way. At burnout this thing wouldn't even FUNCTION. It would go so fast the compression would blow the missile apart in mid-flight.

Congratulations you just built the most-expensive firework in history.

How about you read up on this before you talk out of your ass eh buddy? Buran an intercontinental cruise missile that is only 24 meters long had a range of 8500 km. The range is not an issue, neither is warhead size, you can fit 6500 kg worth of explosives into a 12 meter missile, that is not a problem. Im pulling fuel out of nowhere? How about the fuel tank in the back of the booster like in any other missile. The speed of Buran is even less then that of my missile yet 8500 km was achieved. Now be quiet if you don't know what the hell you're talking about. The weight of the whole system with the booster and mid-section is 122 tonnes about the same as Buran.

I would just like to point out a few disparancies between the original Buran cruise missile that you refér to and this thing here. Firstly, length. The cruising stage of the original Buran is some 23.3 meters long according to FAS[1] while yours is no more than 11.2 meters, less than half the size. Yet you claim to have a range of some 10,000 kilometers, which is some 17.6 % more than the original Buran had. Granted, the Buran used liquid fuel and not solid fuel, but still.

Additionally, you don't have wings, so how can you manouver this extremely heavy thin that is supposed to cruise in the air? Through thrust-vectoring? You'll still need wings to provide lift, as a 122,000 kilograms of mass just simply won't fly horizontally without anything to keep it flying. If it was going directly up into ballistic orbit, I wouldn't have any problems with this as IRBMs/ICBMs don't need wings. ICCMs do, so listing the wingspan of the missile would be a very good idea.

Next, speed. The original Buran achieved an absolutely maximum range of 8,500 kilometers while flying at a maximum speed of Mach 3[1][2]. You claim to have a range of 10,000 kilometers while flying at an average speed of Mach 4.5, some 50 % faster than the original thing, in a smaller vehicle (as pointed out earlier). Let's not even start on the warhead, which is twice the size of the original Buran, which is to be carried in a launch vehicle less than half the size of the original thing. Am I the only one who see a disparancy here? It should also be pointed out that the range of the Buran was an estimate, as there was never a test launch of the missile, and even then, it needed a launch pad and not a mobile launcher. 122 tons on a mobile launcher seems a little bit too heavy to me, but then again, I'm no expert on TEL(AR)s.

My humble recommendations would be to reduce the range with, let's say half, while increasing the missile and/or reducing the payload. Also, providing a thurrough writeup of the weapon would be a good idea where you can explain the various things that supposedly makes this a great missile, because quite frankly, it isn't at the moment. Another recommendation would be to post this in the NS Draftroom (http://s13.invisionfree.com/The_NS_Draftroom) and not here, as the Draftroom is better suited to provide critizism than Jolt. Quite frankly, I don't see the need for an ICCM as an IRBM can do the exactly same thing, far easier.

One last thing: How much will this system cost?
_______________________________________

[1] = http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/icbm/burya.htm
[2] = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_cruise_missile#Cruise_missile_.28M-42.29

How about you read up on this before you talk out of your ass eh buddy? Buran an intercontinental cruise missile that is only 24 meters long had a range of 8500 km. The range is not an issue, neither is warhead size, you can fit 6500 kg worth of explosives into a 12 meter missile, that is not a problem. Im pulling fuel out of nowhere? How about the fuel tank in the back of the booster like in any other missile. The speed of Buran is even less then that of my missile yet 8500 km was achieved. Now be quiet if you don't know what the hell you're talking about. The weight of the whole system with the booster and mid-section is 122 tonnes about the same as Buran.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/icbm/burya.htm

Your average speed is 50% faster then the maximum on the Burya.
Your missile is smaller then the Burya by alot.
Your propulsion system is 75% less efficent
You have no method of controling with wings.
You do no list thrust, but using your Isp I can figure it. It is not enough.

Also speed does NOT mean range. Your reduced size means reduced fuel. I refuse to let you godmod your fuel and your fuel efficency when you CLEARLY cannot push that.

Now about your propulsion as a RAM. The force within the engine is faster then what can ever be pushed by the engines with your frame. You would make it explode. You would need a SCRAM jet, of which is past MT and is even more impossible with the fuel requirements of this missile for the range.

Seriously learn a few things about fuel and speed and force BEFORE you try to insult me. You've tried to cut this down too much too fast. You're using even less efficent propulsion and in the worst way possible to begin with. You have no idea of the fuel and what it takes to actually ensure that it is able to steer and in your case even work.

This missile is impossible and the speed ensures that outright. The force on the engine at that speed is just too much and it will surely fail. Your usage of the fuel is TERRIBLE as well because in your rush and failure to look up propulsion (the russians are some of the best at it) you doomed this to never even get off the ground.

Cotland filled many of my side-arguements. When I get home I'll post a more full one. Though this thing clearly is a godmod.

I was being guided by this:

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html

(look down the page for W-91)

But anyways, yeah 40 Mt is way too much (wrote this at 3 in the morning), I'll reduce it to 5

That page says 100kt max for the W-91 design. B-83 was last megaton yield weapon built, up to 1.2 Mt. If you want a 5 Mt weapon, use the W-71.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/icbm/burya.htm

Your average speed is 50% faster then the maximum on the Burya.
Your missile is smaller then the Burya by alot.
Your propulsion system is 75% less efficent
You have no method of controling with wings.
You do no list thrust, but using your Isp I can figure it. It is not enough.

How can you judge my propulsion system efficiency?

Also speed does NOT mean range. Your reduced size means reduced fuel. I refuse to let you godmod your fuel and your fuel efficency when you CLEARLY cannot push that.

Once again, fuel efficiency, you're judging it by nothing.


This missile is impossible and the speed ensures that outright. The force on the engine at that speed is just too much and it will surely fail. Your usage of the fuel is TERRIBLE as well because in your rush and failure to look up propulsion (the russians are some of the best at it) you doomed this to never even get off the ground.

Oh shut the fuck up already. This thing not being torn apart be easily fixed by using the proper materials, hey we got fucking ICBMs flying into space breaking through gravity and then their warheads falling back down at hypersonic speeds, somehow they don't break apart.

Cotland filled many of my side-arguements. When I get home I'll post a more full one. Though this thing clearly is a godmod.

Once again shut the fuck up.

I would just like to point out a few disparancies between the original Buran cruise missile that you refér to and this thing here. Firstly, length. The cruising stage of the original Buran is some 23.3 meters long according to FAS[1] while yours is no more than 11.2 meters, less than half the size. Yet you claim to have a range of some 10,000 kilometers, which is some 17.6 % more than the original Buran had. Granted, the Buran used liquid fuel and not solid fuel, but still.

I'll fix the size, somehow at 3 am I got into my nuggen that 24 meters is the size of the whole system, although even without that, my whole system is 31 meters, the booster providing most of the propulsion.

Additionally, you don't have wings, so how can you manouver this extremely heavy thin that is supposed to cruise in the air? Through thrust-vectoring? You'll still need wings to provide lift, as a 122,000 kilograms of mass just simply won't fly horizontally without anything to keep it flying. If it was going directly up into ballistic orbit, I wouldn't have any problems with this as IRBMs/ICBMs don't need wings. ICCMs do, so listing the wingspan of the missile would be a very good idea.

The cruise missile itself does have wings, I edited that one out it was in the procedure, I'll put it back in.

Next, speed. The original Buran achieved an absolutely maximum range of 8,500 kilometers while flying at a maximum speed of Mach 3[1][2]. You claim to have a range of 10,000 kilometers while flying at an average speed of Mach 4.5, some 50 % faster than the original thing, in a smaller vehicle (as pointed out earlier). Let's not even start on the warhead, which is twice the size of the original Buran, which is to be carried in a launch vehicle less than half the size of the original thing. Am I the only one who see a disparancy here? It should also be pointed out that the range of the Buran was an estimate, as there was never a test launch of the missile, and even then, it needed a launch pad and not a mobile launcher. 122 tons on a mobile launcher seems a little bit too heavy to me, but then again, I'm no expert on TEL(AR)s.

You can pack 6500 kg of HE into this, it defenetly has the space all that needs to be done is to reduce the size of the engine or remove it completely and make it a glider that would be propelled by a booster to its destination, released and then would glide to its target at still rather large speed.

My humble recommendations would be to reduce the range with, let's say half, while increasing the missile and/or reducing the payload. Also, providing a thurrough writeup of the weapon would be a good idea where you can explain the various things that supposedly makes this a great missile, because quite frankly, it isn't at the moment. Another recommendation would be to post this in the NS Draftroom (http://s13.invisionfree.com/The_NS_Draftroom) and not here, as the Draftroom is better suited to provide critizism than Jolt. Quite frankly, I don't see the need for an ICCM as an IRBM can do the exactly same thing, far easier.

You sir haven't provided a through out write-up on any of your designs and quite frankly 3800 RHA on a tank turret is not quiet realistic (I know its Lay's design but you seem to use and praise it rather frequently). I will defenetly not reduce the range, however I will up the size. IRBMs have top ranges in the 5000 kilometers, ICCM can have 8500 and with modern fuel and engines more than that, yeah ICCM is defenetly needed. In addition I don't have time to make a through out write up, I intend to use these things against you then you come knocking.

One last thing: How much will this system cost?

Not that money is never a problem with a 24 trillion USD defense budget but I'd put it around 7 million per missile.

Length upped.

Fuck it I'll revise the whole thing, as long as Eralinetera shuts the fuck up with his incoherent bullshit about fuel efficiency. My Kh-55 cruise missile variant has enough range to take out TOA ships for now.

1. Never attack a player. That is wrong. I'm trying to help you turn this thing from blatent godmod into something workable.

2. You gave me enough information to perform the mathmatic operations to test for speed, structural measurements and range. Thus I can safely say that your ICCM is clearly a godmod.

Let me go over all of this again, now that I have time.


Introduction:

RDU has never had in its possession a cruise missile that would be able to travel intercontinental distances and not be shot down by enemy missile defenses. DR-13 Chert (Devil, rus.) was a concept thought up by Stepan Fedotov a head of Institut Rocketnoye Effectivnosty (Institute of Missile Effectiveness). The RDU military gave him funding and the project has been in development ever since until now that it has passed trials and is ready for commissioning with RDU military forces.

Length:
-Total: 47.1m
-DR-13V cruise missile: 18.2 m
Diameter:
-Total: 3.1 m
-DR-13V cruise missile: 2.2 m
Weight:
-Total: 122 tonnes
Speed: Mach 4.5 (avg)
Flying Altitude: Quasiballistic
Engine: Booster (DR-13A): 4x RD-12 Solid Fuel Rocket Engine
Mid Section (DR-13B): 2x RD-91 Ramjet
Cruise Missile (DR-13V): 1x RD-95 Ramjet
Guidance: VRPB
Warhead: Up to 6500 kg
Protection systems: SPTP-1
Onboard Computer: Almaz-IX

Cruise Missile Variants:

DR-13V-V1:
Maximum Range: 10000 km
Minimum Range: 500 km
Warhead: 5 Mt nuclear, 4944.7 kg

DR-13V-V2:
Maximum Range: 9238 km
Minimum Range: 500 km
Warhead: 5500 kg, HE

MPP-1231-V1-21 Launch Vehicle:

Length: 31.8 meters
Width: 4.3 meters
Height: 2.7 meters
Weight: 21 tonnes without the missile
Wheels: 7x7
Engine: MD-MV-1513 diesel, 2341 hp
Speed:
-On-road: 42 km per hour
-Off-road: 21 km per hour

-Total: 122 tonnes
This is the limiter. 122 tonnes. All calculations are based off this maximum for the entire system.

Speed: Mach 4.5 (avg)
Mach 4.5 = 1531.305 m/s
Time(s)to max range: 6530.3776843933768909524882371572
Minutes to max range: 108.83962807322294818254147061929
Time total flight: 1 hr, 49 minutes.

Clearly your missile is not averaging 4.5 a second under any circumstance. Based on a typical curve it needs to be over 3x faster. Maybe more.

Note: RAMJet peaks power at Mach 6 before SCRAMJet becomes best choice.
Note2: You are not forcing the air in with the proper design, you need a turbine-based combined cycle (and then some) to get the proper fuel efficency. (discussed later)

Source1:
Engine efficiency dictates using the ramjet until Mach 5–6. At around Mach 6, decelerating airflow to subsonic speeds for combustion results in parts of the airflow almost halting, which creates high pressures and heat-transfer rates. Somewhere between Mach 5 and 6, the combination of these factors indicates a switch to scramjet operation. When the vehicle accelerates beyond Mach 7, the combustion process can no longer separate the airflow, and the engine operates in scramjet mode without a precombustion shock. The inlet shocks propagate through the entire engine. Beyond Mach 8, physics dictates supersonic combustion because the engine cannot survive the pressure and heat buildup caused by slowing the airflow to subsonic speeds.

Conclusion: Your missile combusts as it surpasses the critical point. Reentry or otherwise, the RAM jet either has to deaccerlate before reaccelerating to a speed of 4.5 (lag time is dangerous and will cause easy interceptability).

Fuel Conclusion: Averaging Mach 4.5 your missile will need over 90,000 kg of propulsion in fuel. Though this is based on the J-7 standard and the previous conclusion. Such volume of the fuel alone exceeds the missile specifications.


Total conclusion: Not possible and unless it moves VERY slow it will never be an effective ICCM or ever work.

Additional Sources:

Range maximization method for ramjet powered missiles with flight path constraints -Schoettle, U. M.

Ramjet propulsion for missiles in the Mach 3 to 4.5 range
Laurent, Jean-Marie; Garnero, Pascal

Oh shut the fuck up already.
Once again shut the fuck up.

Fuck it I'll revise the whole thing, as long as Eralinetera shuts the fuck up with his incoherent bullshit about fuel efficiency.

You lose at rule-following. Cost: one warning and one locked thread.

Start over without the flaming, and try leaving out the godmodding while you're at it. There's no requirement that NS designs follow known laws of physics, but if you want others to play with you, it's a good place to start.