All targeting solutions for sublight speed are computable.

  • MinusPi@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It takes a hell of a lot more than a single clock cycle to run a targeting algorithm.

        • Crass Spektakel@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Written in hand coded assembler language: Maybe 100 cycles. Actually Quake from 1997 used a very similar prediction for network coding and not joking, it took less than 60 cycles and the very same code has been used to guide the IRIS-T system - which by the way uses an 1.4Ghz ARM Quadcore.

          Written in Dotnet: Your computer is to old. No matter which computer.

  • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    hypersonic during launch phase only, at the target it's more like Mach 3.5 if we're talking about Kinzhals downed by Patriot some months ago

  • Korkki@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s not about the targeting computers not being powerful enough. It’s about the counter missile not being fast enough and the hypersonic missile being able to zig-zag like a cruise missile, but with similar speeds as ballistic has in it’s decent phase.

      • Korkki@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Then how does it react when the missile is going 3x as fast and sweeps right when the counter missile is sweeping to left towards the missiles previous position and misses, in that case it needs to be faster than the incoming missile itself. Yes, the speed would not be a problem towards a predictable trajectory, that’s how ballistic missiles are intercepted even if they go super fast. it’s basically a high school math problem in that case to calculate the point of interception in a firing solution. It’s also fine if missile can change course, that’s how cruise missiles are shot down, because the counter-missile can still race with them when they turn, but when the missile is fast and can change directions mid flight then it doesn’t much help how fast the computer calculates if the hardware can’t react fast enough. it’s basically like if your mind were able to move at superhuman speed but your body is still human and you get shot and only thing you can really do is to watch the bullet approaching but being unable to dodge fast enough.

        • mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The issue with hypersonic missiles is that they go so fast that the air around them heats up enough to become a plasma. This prevents radio, microwave, and infrared based comms and radar systems from working. So any proper hypersonic missile is stuck with using either optical sensors (which require a ton of processing power and is slow) or inertial sensors (which aren’t very accurate due to drift) in order to plot its course.

          The Russians are the only ones with “hypersonic missiles” because they’re using a different definition. Theirs are just ballistic missiles that move at hypersonic speeds, which by definition can’t change course and have a huge IR and radar signature, so it’s not that difficult to set a slower patriot missile to be in it’s way to intercept.

          • Korkki@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Khinzal for example is meant to be both a ground targeting missile and a “carrier killer”. That alone should mean it’s indeed maneuverable in flight.

            • mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              There’s always a significant difference in what the Russian MOD says their equipment is meant for and what it’s capabilities actually are.

              Also, if Khinzal was really that maneuverable then how were the Ukrainians able to intercept multiple with the much slower Patriot missiles?

              • Korkki@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Also, if Khinzal was really that maneuverable then how were the Ukrainians able to intercept multiple with the much slower Patriot missiles?

                One can put serious doubt on their claims. Ukrainain MoD has every incentive to lie and on top of that they did show off some empty soviet era bombshells as remnants of a shot down Kinzhal.

                • mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Ukrainain MoD has every incentive to lie

                  And Russia doesn’t? Besides, it’s already common knowledge that Khinzal is just a ballistic missile