US hypersonic missile fails in test- 2nd consecutive failed attempt • Hacker News Board

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

#141

Post by jasonwatkinspdx » Fri, Jul 01, 2022, 7:06 PM UTC

torginus wrote: post #67

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.

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…

You are simply mistaken on this topic, probably due to only reading click bait or nationalistic articles on the topic.

Carriers are by no means obsolete, and ballistic missile defense is one of the things the Navy prioritizes heavily, and has done, for ages. Even for the DF-21 a carrier strike group is a tough nut to crack.

China's carriers are still a couple generations away from being at parity to the US fleet.

Sensationalized bait headline articles are not a good source for learning about this stuff. https://twitter.com/RickJoe_PLA writes for the large media brands with some regularity, and is strict about sticking to a substantive factual basis for everything.

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

#142

Post by jasonwatkinspdx » Fri, Jul 01, 2022, 7:14 PM UTC

jandrewrogers wrote: post #90

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…

When developing advanced military capabilities, the US usually runs offensive and defensive programs in parallel. Beyond the "what if our enemy had this" aspect of the conversation, having a good model of what an advanced defensive system might look like informs design choices on the offensive side. Too many people conflate the US deeming a weapons technology relatively ineffective given the (classified) capability m…

This is entirely correct. A basic example is how the US doesn't prioritize SAM systems to the same degree as Russia. This doesn't mean the US isn't capable of producing similar or even superior systems at volume, it's just that it doesn't make sense given the overwhelming scale of the US Air Force. Likewise there's a similar relative de-emphasis on some forms of artillery.

Now after shaking off decades of counter insurgency warfare and pivoting to address a multipolar world instead it's not surprising they want to change up the mix. It doesn't mean there's some dire technology or capability gap fundamentally however.

Military stuff is entire operational systems vs other operational systems, yet nearly all these forum warrior conversations treat it as some sort of swipe left or swipe right pairwise comparison of two pieces of specific equipment.

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

#143

Post by JumpCrisscross » Fri, Jul 01, 2022, 7:35 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #136

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why does it matter what order the strikes are in? If you know where the other nation's leader is, first strike allows you a better chance at eliminating them. It's a marginal benefit. And Russia is more vulnerable to it. (Putin disappearing could create a violent scramble for power that diminishes its military's retaliatory capabilities in a way that taking out the President and say half the Cabinet would not.)

Or not, because Putin is a structure, not a man. Propaganda makes us personalize these things in a way that distorts the decisions we make. edit: if western intelligence had managed to cultivate the number of traitors and the amount of influence that it would take to quickly replace the Russian system, it would already have assassinated Putin. An assassination of Putin right now would unite the Russian public in its…

> assassination of Putin right now would unite the Russian public in its hatred for the US, not fragment it

Public opinion is irrelevant when considering decapitations. In Russia or anywhere else. The generals and intelligence agencies are the beginning and end of power in Moscow.

Putin is, as a dictator, personally the institution of power. That contrasts blindingly with America’s institution-oriented system. Taking out Putin is roughly similar to taking out the President and his Cabinet and the leaders of Congress. This is the dilemma of dictatorships. It’s weak in a way monarchies weren’t. (It is a weakness the Soviet Union and China (until Xi) didn’t suffer.)

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

#144

Post by dxdm » Fri, Jul 01, 2022, 7:38 PM UTC

dividedbyzero wrote: post #129

lttlrck wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

Could it be that they aren't afraid _because_ they have superior weapons, and want to keep that edge? The world still appears to be a scary place when others may assume that you can't defend yourself.

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

#145

Post by jeffdn » Fri, Jul 01, 2022, 7:43 PM UTC

newaccount2021 wrote: post #38

edouard-harris wrote: post #12

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

Right now, for instance, the American military:

- desperately needs a new self-propelled howitzer, as the M109 is a 60-year-old design that has been upgraded to its limit, and can no longer perform adequately in a modern near-peer engagement

- the AIM-120 AMRAAM is outclassed by other beyond visual range air-to-air missiles developed in the last 30 years

- the OH-58 Kiowa, based on the Bell JetRanger, was the Army's scout helicopter for decades -- but was retired in 2020 without a replacement

- the Ticonderoga-class cruiser, which was the first incarnation of the Aegis anti-air and anti-ballistic-missile system, is being retired without a replacement, forty years after it entered service -- its planned replacement, CG(X), was cancelled, and so more Arleigh-Burke class destroyers with larger Mark-41 VLS cells are being shoehorned in

- the Arleigh-Burke class destroyer, which also has the Aegis system, is still in production after 34 years because the Zumwalt-class that would've replaced it was a total flop due -- its eight-inch Advanced Gun System requiring bespoke ammunition on the order of $800,000 per round

These are all replacement programs that could have been (and in some cases were) started over a decade ago, but we are just now seeing the fruits of some of the very long development processes.

- the ERCA (Extended-Range Cannon Artillery) is not forecasted to enter service until 2025

- the AIM-260 is meant to enter production this year

- there is currently an ongoing competition between Sikorsky and Boeing to build the Army's next scout helicopter

- the DDG(X) program will replace both ship classes eventually, but is not even meant to begin construction until 2028

Meanwhile, one shining example of the successful replacements of older programs is the Virginia-class submarine. It remains one of the few examples of American military procurement that was delivered ahead of schedule and under budget, while still being a success.

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

#146

Post by JumpCrisscross » Fri, Jul 01, 2022, 7:44 PM UTC

CSMastermind wrote: post #92

rootusrootus wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 butto…

My impression was that Russia's failures in Ukraine mostly stemmed from failures in their logistics and doctrine rather than their technology.

> Russia's failures in Ukraine mostly stemmed from failures in their logistics and doctrine rather than their technology

Russia’s reactive armour had egg cartons in place of explosive. The same oligarchs are delivering these weapons. Meanwhile, Moscow’s “smart” weapons missed entire airfields.

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

#147

Post by jandrewrogers » Fri, Jul 01, 2022, 7:47 PM UTC

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #134

jandrewrogers wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has a lot of experience designing hypersonic missiles -- I remember when they were testing various material configurations in hypersonic guided missiles 30 years ago. Some of those platforms exist as operational systems today. Design of hypersonic missiles is largely limited by material physics and configurations thereof. The US ability to fabricate unique exotic materials allows them to search a much larger p…

The sensor stuff is a common but exaggerated discussion point in online discussions about this. There's a ton of previous work. Pershing II used terrain matching of SAR images for terminal guidance ages ago. The main technology for making this work is just electrically neutral ablative heat shields, which there are a variety of companies making commercially today. Other historical examples for say visual IR use quart…

Quartz isn't durable enough for hypersonic IR windows in dense atmosphere. When tested decades ago, actively-cooled sapphire, diamond, and even more durable exotics ablated too quickly for that purpose. I don't know what they are using today but the inability to find an IR transparent material that could survive long enough was a central design problem. This can be seen in the odd compromises made to the seeker design of e.g. THAAD, which doesn't spend much time in the lower atmosphere.

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

#148

Post by softcactus » Fri, Jul 01, 2022, 8:04 PM UTC

LegitShady wrote: post #138

softcactus wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, hypersonics would be too fast and have too low of a flight profile for our early warning systems to work. Our second strike facilities would be destroyed before they could launch a counter-attack. Game theory-wise, the winner would be whoever struck first, since they would get to use their full arsenal. Retaliation could only be done reliably with submarines. That's what frightens me the most about hypersonic dev…

only if you pretend nuclear submarines don't exist, and that russia knows where all second strike facilities are, and can target all of them with supersonic missiles. I don't think so.

> only if you pretend nuclear submarines don't exist

Did you read my comment? I acknowledged that submarines would be the most reliable second strike option.

Those are a lot of "ifs" sure, but it's a numbers game. If deployed hypersonics were as numerous as ICBMs in the 80s, then it would be about who strikes first. If a first strike can reduce the enemy population by 90%, and reduce their second strike capability to kill only 70% of your own population, then striking first is in your best interest.

I am talking about the 21st century as a whole. Can we really be so sure that at some point MAD will cease to exist and someone pulls the trigger? I wouldn't be so complacent about it.

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

#149

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 » Fri, Jul 01, 2022, 8:31 PM UTC

jeffdn wrote: post #132

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's not the _new_ Chinese carrier, that's the Type 002 class carrier _Shandong_[0]. Their latest carrier, the Type 003 class Fujian[1], was launched last month and has a catapult system, just like American and French carriers. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_aircraft_carrier_Shand... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_aircraft_carrier_Fujia...

You are correct. Got them confused.

No ski jump but still only conventionally powered.

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

#150

Post by trhway » Fri, Jul 01, 2022, 9:35 PM UTC

jjoonathan wrote: post #79

JDulin wrote: 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.

I think keeping actual hypersonic flight tests secret is pretty hard. At least in IR they should be very well visible from space.

>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

i suppose cost is among the major reasons. The SpaceX had an objective to take the cost down which is synergetic/self-enforcing with the many tests and iterations approach. DOD is opposite - the goal for the contractors is the smallest number of tests done at the highest billed price to DOD as that maximizes the contractor's profit.