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

61–70 of 120 posts

Re: The Rise of Hypersonic Weapons

#61

Post by theptip »

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…

I think the nuclear angle is a red herring, and that the real destabilizing aspect of hypersonic weapons is that they can take out carriers, at much lower cost.

The entire foundation of US force projection is built upon the carrier battle group. If putting your $5b carrier in the South China Sea makes it vulnerable to getting taken out by a $5m missile, then the balance of power has changed.

Obviously there's nuclear weapons as the ultimate backstop, but if your adversary is China or Russia then that's MAD.

Re: The Rise of Hypersonic Weapons

#62

Post by Kroniker »

theptip wrote: post #61
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think the nuclear angle is a red herring, and that the real destabilizing aspect of hypersonic weapons is that they can take out carriers, at much lower cost. The entire foundation of US force projection is built upon the carrier battle group. If putting your $5b carrier in the South China Sea makes it vulnerable to getting taken out by a $5m missile, then the balance of power has changed. Obviously there's nuclear…

I wanted to say exactly this- people seem to be overlooking, but this is entirely correct- it is a monetary balance changer.

Re: The Rise of Hypersonic Weapons

#63

Post by jehanson »

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.

There may be some survivorship bias here. Pleanty of people report that hitting water at high speed "feels like" hitting something solid. Very few people are alive to tell us what hitting somehting solid at high speed feels like.

Re: The Rise of Hypersonic Weapons

#65

Post by M_Grey »

jehanson wrote: post #63
ryanmarsh wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There may be some survivorship bias here. Pleanty of people report that hitting water at high speed "feels like" hitting something solid. Very few people are alive to tell us what hitting somehting solid at high speed feels like.

No, water is essentially incompressible, and at hypersonic speeds? BANG

Re: The Rise of Hypersonic Weapons

#66

Post by dredmorbius »

ethagknight wrote: post #39
CapitalistCartr wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The SR-71 did it fine slightly above Mach 4. If you call taking a few states to make a turn evasive.

Requiring a few states to hang a left makes it difficult to both evade and defense hit a target, right?

Your attacker is going to have roughly the same problem turning as you do. Though an unmanned attack vehicle (missile, drone) isn't limited by physiological g-force limitations.

At some point though your airframe becomes airframes and flight dynamics change considerably.

Re: The Rise of Hypersonic Weapons

#67

Post by idoh »

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.

How did that happen? Fall off a speed boat?

Re: The Rise of Hypersonic Weapons

#68

Post by EdHominem »

throwanem wrote: post #32
mxvzr wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This pretty much sounds like the scenario used, successfully, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

Very much so, yes. Unfortunately, in a real conflict, you can't just "refloat" your sunk ships and rewrite the game so that the good guys win.

But, would that tactic really have worked or was it just exploiting some less-tested close-battle rules that didn't actually represent reality? As in, those tiny torpedo-boats are incredibly flimsy and a CIWS fires a lot of bullets.

When they wrote the rules did they just arbitrarily assign a carrier a certain number of attacks per round? Because four attacks doing d100 damage aren't like one-hundred attacks doing d4 damage...

If a real carrier group would have survived the attack then they should change the rules.

Re: The Rise of Hypersonic Weapons

#70

Post by mikeash »

jessriedel wrote: post #60
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It hasn't been for a long time, too. The US discontinued continuous air alert in 1968, when it became apparent that it was just too risky (planes kept crashing with live weapons on board) and ICBMs and SLBMs made it unnecessary.

I'm sure it could be restarted now if it looked to be necessary, but it doesn't seem to be.

Post reply on HN