91–100 of 131 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there might be a grammar problem in your statement. What did you mean?
It's relatively common to use "anymore" to mean "nowadays". I think it must have come from hearing things like "They don't do that any more" and not recognising "any" and "more" as separate words, but rather as a concept that just means "now", such that "They do that anymore" is equally valid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd love to pick this article apart, but instead I'll just offer this: The Phoenix missile (which used to be carried by the F-14) is borderline hypersonic [0]. And it is shot at airplanes. Now imagine an Exocet-type missile but at a much higher speed. A fast missile does one very important thing - it reduces the time the defender has to react, and thereby increases the odds of the attack succeeding. Glide-paths, targ…
See also: Supercavitating torpedos, which reportedly can travel at 300-350 mph.
Or so I recall from reports after the fact.
How much of this is hype and boasting about military advances. According to this article hypersonic missiles are far from practical https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-physics-and-h...
I'd love to pick this article apart, but instead I'll just offer this: The Phoenix missile (which used to be carried by the F-14) is borderline hypersonic [0]. And it is shot at airplanes. Now imagine an Exocet-type missile but at a much higher speed. A fast missile does one very important thing - it reduces the time the defender has to react, and thereby increases the odds of the attack succeeding. Glide-paths, targ…
Probably just us flexing that we have them too. Likely have had them, but kept it quiet as no need to declare our capabilities. Since others are crowing about it, just letting them know we also have same.
Absolutely. I also don't believe that they "only" go 5x the speed of sound. That's most likely just the speed they're willing to disclose, and the actual speed is classified.
The real technological linchpin isn't so much the speed, but would be things like guidance, precision and manuevering at those speeds, or perhaps other things like stealth, heat management materials (lot of friction from the air when you're ripping through it at those speeds), transatmospheric flight, advancements in hybrid (sc)ramjet engines, etc.
Going hypersonic in and of itself is nothing new. We've been doing that since the 60's. Shit we made a manhole cover go hypersonic before the Russian's ever launched sputnik. It's what something can do after its moving at hypersonic speed that's of real consequence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Pentagon does this every decade. They constantly need some sort of existential threat to respond to in order to justify budget increases.
Consider the possibility that technology changes with each decade and the previous system is...you know...now obsolete. I assume you have a smart phone and not an Amiga. By analogy, if your enemy has "iPhone" level weapons, would you want to face them with an "Amiga" level weapon? I doubt it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not practical for US who has platforms to hit global targets at much lower costs, i.e. money spent on hypersonic research can build up enough JASSMs to last until WW5. But IMO useful backup if adversaries manage to negate platforms like carriers and long range bombers. Basically, establishing conventional MAD with CONUS Prompt Global Strike using icbm/hypersonics. Flip side is this is massively benefitial to PRC (or…
Honest question, how would you describe MAD as being practical? Bearing in mind that the treaties to maintain it were abandoned, and both sides invest (and act) heavily in rocking the boat?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>All ballistic missile reentry vehicles are hypersonic too Sure, but ballistic trajectories are trivially interceptible. It's not just about speed. The new arms race is with hypersonic glide vehicles that are capable of maneuvering all the way to the target at mach 8+. With that, the weapon becomes impossible to intercept with any existing technology.
Bah... A SLBM (sub-launched ballistic missile) can reach a coastal target in less than five minutes depending on the exact trajectory. Good luck trying to intercept that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bah... A SLBM (sub-launched ballistic missile) can reach a coastal target in less than five minutes depending on the exact trajectory. Good luck trying to intercept that.
Presumably addressing this threat is what America's 50+ SSNs are for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honest question, how would you describe MAD as being practical? Bearing in mind that the treaties to maintain it were abandoned, and both sides invest (and act) heavily in rocking the boat?
I think it's hard to argue that MAD isn't in effect right this second. If there was no threat of massive retaliation and possible resulting extinction is there any doubt Russia would have used nuclear weapons in it's Ukraine invasion?