Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Rise of Hypersonic Weapons

thecipherbrief.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 120 posts

Re: The Rise of Hypersonic Weapons

#51

Post by M_Grey »

regularfry wrote: post #49
ch4s3 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, clearly. If you slam into the water at Mach 6, there won't be anything left of you weapon more than a few meters down.

Interesting question: is it possible to build something capable of hypersonic speeds which can survive a surface impact and go straight into supercavitation? Alternatively, how deep do you have to go to escape the damaging effects of the shockwave from something slapping into the surface of the sea at mach 6?

At hypersonic speeds, hitting the water starts to resemble slamming into the side of a tank. I'm not sure how that could be managed while keeping the warhead intact, and of course, you'd need to lift all of that armoring in the first place, and the drive to make it work underwater and produce cavitation effects.

As to how deep... not that deep, especially for a boomer.

Re: The Rise of Hypersonic Weapons

#52

Post by ryanmarsh »

M_Grey wrote: post #51
regularfry wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting question: is it possible to build something capable of hypersonic speeds which can survive a surface impact and go straight into supercavitation? Alternatively, how deep do you have to go to escape the damaging effects of the shockwave from something slapping into the surface of the sea at mach 6?

At hypersonic speeds, hitting the water starts to resemble slamming into the side of a tank. I'm not sure how that could be managed while keeping the warhead intact, and of course, you'd need to lift all of that armoring in the first place, and the drive to make it work underwater and produce cavitation effects. As to how deep... not that deep, especially for a boomer.

Having hit the water at 60mph. Can confirm, felt like hitting the side of a tank.

Re: The Rise of Hypersonic Weapons

#53

Post by M_Grey »

eternalban wrote: post #44
mikeash wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That capability has been around since the 1950s, and has been deployed widely enough to wreck civilization on a moment's notice since the 1960s. What do hypersonic weapons do in this respect that ICBMs don't? Is it just that they're cheaper and so could potentially be more numerous?

ICBMs are held in mutual check by MAD. US enjoys conventional dominance due to ability to project conventional force anywhere. This capability is in part supported by the ability to effectively shield remote force projection platforms from conventional threats. (For atomic, see MAD.) HS conventional weapons can neutralize the defensive shields. This undermines the projection platforms. That would make US insecure. If…

You think that blowing carrier battle groups out of the water wouldn't lead to a nuclear strike?

Re: The Rise of Hypersonic Weapons

#54

Post by sosuke »

regularfry wrote: post #49
ch4s3 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, clearly. If you slam into the water at Mach 6, there won't be anything left of you weapon more than a few meters down.

Interesting question: is it possible to build something capable of hypersonic speeds which can survive a surface impact and go straight into supercavitation? Alternatively, how deep do you have to go to escape the damaging effects of the shockwave from something slapping into the surface of the sea at mach 6?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunker_buster

They've dealt with base penetration problems before and I'm sure there has been progression since.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_Ordnance_Penetrator

Re: The Rise of Hypersonic Weapons

#55

Post by M_Grey »

ryanmarsh wrote: post #52
M_Grey wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At hypersonic speeds, hitting the water starts to resemble slamming into the side of a tank. I'm not sure how that could be managed while keeping the warhead intact, and of course, you'd need to lift all of that armoring in the first place, and the drive to make it work underwater and produce cavitation effects. As to how deep... not that deep, especially for a boomer.

Having hit the water at 60mph. Can confirm, felt like hitting the side of a tank.

Damn... how did that happen to you?

Re: The Rise of Hypersonic Weapons

#56

Post by ryanmarsh »

This got me wondering, how low would the cost to reach LEO have to get for it to start making sense to use Falcon 9 + Dragon to deliver an SF team (e.g. commanders in-extremis force) to an objective?

Then that got me thinking about the reality of drop ships. Isn't that the next logical progression? I mean, currently we can put a battalion of paratroopers anywhere in the world with 48 hours notice. We can put a Ranger company anywhere in the world with 24 hours notice.

Re: The Rise of Hypersonic Weapons

#57

Post by mikeash »

eternalban wrote: post #50
mikeash wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the main things allowing for MAD at this point were the ability of retaliatory ICBMs to launch quickly before incoming weapons destroy them, and the ability for ballistic missile submarines to survive a strike by being hidden, and thus retaliate at leisure. I don't see how hypersonic weapons change either of that. They're not any faster than a missile, so the response time isn't worse, and they don't do any…

There is less critical ambiguity in the triad weapons. HS weapons introduce ambiguity in the above calculus. So with former, the global mafia could (safely) play proxy war in far flung location. Now, they can't do so, safely. All members of the global mafia cartel are concerned, since proxy wars are very good for [(settling)] business.

There's no ambiguity only because nobody has bothered to mount conventional weapons on ICBMs. There's nothing preventing that, and indeed the US has seriously considered it as a way to implement Prompt Global Strike. Those plans have been held back by the fear that launching such a weapon could be mistaken for a nuclear launch, of course.

Is the problem with hypersonic weapons just that it looks like the players won't make that same choice?

Re: The Rise of Hypersonic Weapons

#58

Post by eternalban »

M_Grey wrote: post #53
eternalban wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ICBMs are held in mutual check by MAD. US enjoys conventional dominance due to ability to project conventional force anywhere. This capability is in part supported by the ability to effectively shield remote force projection platforms from conventional threats. (For atomic, see MAD.) HS conventional weapons can neutralize the defensive shields. This undermines the projection platforms. That would make US insecure. If…

You think that blowing carrier battle groups out of the water wouldn't lead to a nuclear strike?

The side using these weapons hopes that US is rational and would rather lose face and backdown rather than take down the whole world with it.

So it is true, these new weapons are destabilizing.

The fact that US stumbled like a drunk into these conflicts that allowed these test cases by Russia and China to be on the table has to be one of the line items against the treasonous criminals that have been running this country for the past few decades. It did not have to be this way.

Re: The Rise of Hypersonic Weapons

#59

Post by M_Grey »

eternalban wrote: post #58
M_Grey wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think that blowing carrier battle groups out of the water wouldn't lead to a nuclear strike?

The side using these weapons hopes that US is rational and would rather lose face and backdown rather than take down the whole world with it. So it is true, these new weapons are destabilizing. The fact that US stumbled like a drunk into these conflicts that allowed these test cases by Russia and China to be on the table has to be one of the line items against the treasonous criminals that have been running this coun…

It didn't, but I think you're still underestimating the panic reaction of a country losing its major strategic assets. There is a reason that superpowers fight through proxies; we all have nuclear recourse if it goes sufficiently wrong.

Re: The Rise of Hypersonic Weapons

#60

Post by jessriedel »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #43
ekianjo wrote: post #26

> would be able to knock out a target’s nuclear capabilities fast enough and thoroughly enough to pre-empt any attempt at a retaliatory strike. Did the author completely forget about nuclear subs?

Or nuclear tipped cruise missiles on ships or in-air bombers. The nuclear triad is still unbeatable. The article is pretty terrible in general. Hypersonics won't change the balance of anything, especially considering what a decent sized one can do. If you're delivering nuclear-levels of destruction with hypersonics then your opponent will retaliate with nuclear weapons. There will be no exception for "Oh, you used hy…

> or in-air bombers.

It's no longer the case that the US and Russia maintain nuclear bombers in air continuous.

Post reply on HN