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

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

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 171 posts

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

#121

Post by trasz »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #105
torginus wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The new Chinese carrier needs a takeoff ramp and isn't even nuclear powered. Paper tiger.

Perhaps because China is focused on defensive capabilities, not offensive?

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

#122

Post by trasz »

option wrote: post #80

meanwhile, russia already used its hypersonic missile to strike a target in Ivano Frankovsk, Ukraine. less than 100 miles from NATO border. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-uses-hypersonic-...

It's the same ammo depot that later turned out to be a barn?

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

#124

Post by killjoywashere »

govg wrote: post #107
killjoywashere wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

@edenceover is probably referring mainly to the boost-glide vehicles that are moving at up to mach 20 ... through atmosphere. The air-breathing cruise missile type designs go slower (only mach 6-ish) but at that speed you can have a sane discussion about guidance. This rocket-guidance problem, by the way, is where the Black-Scholes model came from.

Do you mean Ito's Lemma? As far as I know, Black-Scholes itself had nothing to do with rocket guidance.

yes, thanks.

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

#125

Post by imtringued »

petre wrote: post #82
jeffbee wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget the ekranoplan gap.

Useless in rough seas and on the ocean. There's a reason they operated on the Caspian Sea.

Useless you say? The problem is they were too small!

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

#126

Post by imtringued »

ryanmarsh wrote: post #95
edenceover wrote: post #5

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.

Would a (the) global superpower want its rivals to believe its capabilities are ahead or behind of their current state? This leads me to believe we're never going to get an accurate picture of the state of a weapon development program through the press. Is the F-35 program in trouble, or not? If it was why would you let your adversaries know this? It's an interesting question to consider.

You want your enemy to overestimate your capabilities if you don't intend to fight them. If you want them to start a defensive war, you want them to underestimate you so you have a greater chance of successful provocation where you get to counterattack and destroy their unprepared forces.

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

#127

Post by dividedbyzero »

lettergram wrote: post #99

I always hate the discussion around “hypersonic missiles” The US has had some version since the 1960s. What do you think ICBMs are? Real discussions should quantify precision, error rate, speed, payload of missiles, etc.

Isn't the difference that hypersonic missiles are supposed to be able to cruise at such speeds, not "just" fall along a ballistic (or, for the newer models, ballistic-ish) trajectory with a bit of steering at certain points, but powered flight all the way, with the maneuverability and potential stealth that entails?

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

#128

Post by imtringued »

adidar83 wrote: post #65

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

When something you don't want to get leaked is about to reach the public you are better of telling your side of the story to form public opinion before anyone else.

If you commit a crime and tell the whole neighborhood that someone else did it, they are less likely to suspect you.

E.g. Putin calls Ukrainians neo Nazis even though he is acting like a Nazi.

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

#129

Post by dividedbyzero »

lttlrck wrote: post #81
adidar83 wrote: post #65

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

"Hey world! Look what we're building - we're not afraid of you or our failures!" It's a very strong message. It's also propaganda, to control the narrative, distract and deceive. Maybe they already know it's a dead end, or this is a test bed for something else. The cancelled rail-gun seemed like a giant materials science project, but maybe the Navy got _exactly_ what they needed.

If they aren't afraid of the world, why build such weapons?

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

#130

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

jvanderbot wrote: post #109
jandrese wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be noted that the Patriot was being used outside of its original design goal when tasked with shooting down missiles. It was designed to shoot down Soviet interceptors, but had to pivot when the Soviet Union collapsed. Missiles were a stretch goal of the original project, but ended up being its primary mission.

And in particular, many of the failures were from lack of proper operation, such as keeping the system on far too long, causing timer overflows. https://www-users.cse.umn.edu/~arnold/disasters/patriot.html

Yeah, one last point on this subthread is, the modern Patriot system is also not at all the same beast, with a lot of upgrades in the decades since.
Post reply on HN