> incorrect. no, he's correct. maybe avangard is equipped with a marv, but, i've never seen an actual picture of its rv, nor have i seen any test data to indicate it actually has a marv. especially one that has cross range maneuvering, and able to do more than a dive and pop-up maneuver before gliding in a straight line and diving when terminal. this would be a very basic hypersonic rv that is barely classifiable as 'maneuvering'. those maneuvers are going to have to be pre-programmed into the rv's guidance system as waypoints and judging russia's ee abilities and the accompanying production facilities, i seriously doubt they can program too many waypoints. nor do i think their guidance systems are robust and sophisticated enough to reliably control and stabilize a hgv at below 150kft where dynamic weather and atmospheric conditions are wrecking havoc on your center of pressure and center of gravity that would allow for more than very basic climbs or dives. maybe once it gets to 50kft and mach 4 it can start a corkscrew down in it terminal phase, but that's about as sophisticated as they're going to be. > bulava and sarmat are both maneuverable and hypersonic. neither of them have marvs, unless you want to show me theirs, or ones they derive from with test footage, data? anyway, both are pretty shit launch vehicles reliability wise. both are in the range of 50%-60% successful from boost to terminal testing. mostly because russia could never get there second and third stages to ignite reliably, or not burn something out causing uncontrollable thrust direction and it going off course. we got pretty spiral light from a couple of them, and a crater from one just recently. > sarmat is also fobs capable. fobs hasn't mattered since the 70s and is a meme, and that if ever becomes reliable to even get to a fob mid-course trajectory.
United States