Live data from Hacker News

US hypersonic missile fails in test- 2nd consecutive failed attempt

bloomberg.com

71–80 of 171 posts

Re: US hypersonic missile fails in test- 2nd consecutive failed attempt

#71
post #45

One problem with these hypersonic endeavors and DOD development in general is there are too few tests (And done too slowly) to iterate. The developers do not get lots of opportunities to learn from real-data, like at SpaceX. Instead, there are low-single-digit numbers of tests with tons of political attention ready to pounce at the smallest (And most common!) failure.

A lot of the success of SpaceX can be attributed to their rapid incremental development model that they established with Falcon 9 and continued with Starship.

But at least with civilian rockets all the competitors have clear success metrics: they all launch with some regularity, and it's obvious if those launches were a success. Lots of weapon systems have one or two tests and then take a decade before they see any action, if at all.

Fore example the Patriot system is operational since 1981, but when first used in combat a decade later its accuracy came under heavy scrutiny, and continues to look suspect on a per-missile basis [1]. But that's one of the weapons systems that actually sees active combat, and sees improvements based on that. Now think of all the systems that are deployed but never used.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot#Operational_hi...

Re: US hypersonic missile fails in test- 2nd consecutive failed attempt

#72

I often wonder why defense companies openly advertise their failures. Maybe it's for optics.

Major failures are a little hard to hide probably. Advanced adversaries can see it probably, so better to control the story and report on it, rather than let the Chinese or the Russians reports on "US hypersonic missile fails, again!".

Another reason is to highlight the need for more funding. "We obviously need more money to run even more tests".

Re: US hypersonic missile fails in test- 2nd consecutive failed attempt

#73

I often wonder why defense companies openly advertise their failures. Maybe it's for optics.

According to the article this was published by the Defense Department, not the contractor. Sure, they also don't look good, but they have to justify their spending (to a degree). This is more or less a heads-up that the program will be delayed and cost more.

Re: US hypersonic missile fails in test- 2nd consecutive failed attempt

#74

Given that the bomber gap, missile gap and the cruiser gap was all shown to be fictional, I do wonder if the perceived hypersonic gap is real.

I generally find that the US lags in weapons technology whose biggest utility lies in countering American superweapons - carriers and stealth fighters. I think it's quite understandable why this is the case - imagine spending hundreds of billions on carrier procurement, and simultaneously developing a weapon that more or less renders them obsolete. The situation has changed in that there's news that the Russians and…

It seems more likely that Russia and China are still decades behind the US but considerably more willing to hype up technology they don't actually have. China has made some progress but they are a long ways behind. Russia, well, ... Ukraine is demonstrating how stagnant their military capability has become. I kinda wonder how many of their nukes would actually fly right now if they were crazy enough to push the button.

Re: US hypersonic missile fails in test- 2nd consecutive failed attempt

#75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very reasonable question, though in cases like these it seems prudent to err on the side of being too paranoid rather than the opposite.

but this is gobs of money that could be much better spent by the military just off the top of my head: - dramatic improvements in military IT (search for recent story "just give us new computers") - more investments in unmanned combat systems - just buy more of the things that work...numbers matter etc etc

more investments in unmanned combat systems

Isn't that why we should invest in hypersonic missiles? It is a relatively cheap unmanned alternative to building aircraft carriers (and the obligatory fighters), and other large vulnerable systems.

Re: US hypersonic missile fails in test- 2nd consecutive failed attempt

#76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct. No one has "real" hypersonic missiles that travel in the atmosphere for extended periods(*1). The heating problems for shock impingment in non-"simple conicals" has *not* been overcome and won't be. "Hypersonic" missiles are mostly just ICBMs with a very brief passage through the dense lower atmosphere where there's enough lift. And if they try to go higher up to escape the heat flux there's not enough for l…

"Sprint accelerated at 100 g, reaching a speed of Mach 10 (12,300 km/h; 7,610 mph) in 5 seconds. Such a high velocity at relatively low altitudes created skin temperatures up to 6,200 °F (3,430 °C)" This is in 1975.

Mach 10 is almost too fast to be hypersonic! Hypersonic is the range around Mach 5-8.

There are various types of ballistic missiles that go faster than this (and have been doing for decades) but since they are old they aren't as sexy as "hypersonic missiles".

Re: US hypersonic missile fails in test- 2nd consecutive failed attempt

#77
post #44

Hypersonic is very unfortunate term, because it makes people assume that hypersonic speed is the new thing in these. X15 was manned hypersonic vehicle in 1959. Pershing II had maneuverable hypersonic re-entry vehicle in the 80s. ICBM's are hypersonic or high hypersonic. Space shuttle was a hypersonic glider, so is X-37 currently operated by the US Space Force.

If it keeps the money rolling it's a successful term, and that is after all the most important factor to a military term.

Re: US hypersonic missile fails in test- 2nd consecutive failed attempt

#78
post #3

hypersonic is fascinating - missile goes so fast it changes the behaviour of air molecules, which behave then behave in unpredictable ways. You basically need wind tunnels and lots of tests. US will get this right, no question, just a matter of when

It's literally just faster supersonic...

Not to mention that PAC-3 and the like can intercept such targets.

Re: US hypersonic missile fails in test- 2nd consecutive failed attempt

#79
post #45

One problem with these hypersonic endeavors and DOD development in general is there are too few tests (And done too slowly) to iterate. The developers do not get lots of opportunities to learn from real-data, like at SpaceX. Instead, there are low-single-digit numbers of tests with tons of political attention ready to pounce at the smallest (And most common!) failure.

If I were a company in this space, I would try to keep my tests secret for exactly that reason. If I was successful, they would not be available for scrutiny by hacker news.

Public tests are still independently necessary and failing them is still an embarrassment, of course.

Post reply on HN