The Rise of Hypersonic Weapons
thecipherbrief.com
The Rise of Hypersonic Weapons
1–10 of 120 posts
Re: The Rise of Hypersonic Weapons
#2This reminds me of Project Thor [1]. The idea was to drop tungsten rods from orbit on the target. It would also be a weapon that is very hard to defend against with similar implications to these hypersonic missiles.
Re: The Rise of Hypersonic Weapons
#3I'm not sure these are as destabilizing as the article makes them sound. If Russia and China didn't already have the capability of destroying US carrier battle groups, I could see the sense in the argument, but Moskits are cheap, capable of Mach 3, and easily able to swamp antimissile defenses when launched en masse. (And they can carry a nuclear payload, too, not that it's likely they would in such a scenario, nor would they need to.)
Re: The Rise of Hypersonic Weapons
#4This reminds me of Project Thor [1]. The idea was to drop tungsten rods from orbit on the target. It would also be a weapon that is very hard to defend against with similar implications to these hypersonic missiles. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment
It's not really "dropping" them - they're in orbit and already not falling. You'd need to fire them backwards with a rocket engine (or railgun?) to deorbit. At that point, why not just fire them as a ballistic missile?
Re: The Rise of Hypersonic Weapons
#5This reminds me of Project Thor [1]. The idea was to drop tungsten rods from orbit on the target. It would also be a weapon that is very hard to defend against with similar implications to these hypersonic missiles. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment
It's not really "dropping" them - they're in orbit and already not falling. You'd need to fire them backwards with a rocket engine (or railgun?) to deorbit. At that point, why not just fire them as a ballistic missile?
Faster reaction time, less obvious launch, and ability to attack from any direction (not just the direction that your bases and submarines happen to be in). There were also proposals to just launch nuclear warheads into orbit, for deorbiting in case of war, but they were banned by treaty because they were considered too destabilizing - as were partial orbital weapons, which just went into orbit for long enough to attack from unusual directions.
Re: The Rise of Hypersonic Weapons
#6This reminds me of Project Thor [1]. The idea was to drop tungsten rods from orbit on the target. It would also be a weapon that is very hard to defend against with similar implications to these hypersonic missiles. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment
What about the Sprint ABM - 0 to Mach 10 in 5 seconds!
Re: The Rise of Hypersonic Weapons
#7> However, hypersonic weapons do not need to be nuclear in order to be disruptive, as demonstrated by the United States’ focus on conventional hypersonic weapons.
Does China and Russia believe that? It takes a few minutes to swap conventional and nuclear warheads.
If anything US is the leader in this new cold war.
Re: The Rise of Hypersonic Weapons
#8There's nothing 'hypothetical' about them like the article says, both Russia ( http://www.ibtimes.com/russias-secret-hypersonic-nuclear-mis... ) and China ( http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/china-successfully-tests-7000-mph-d... ) have operational hypersonic missiles. Whether they would use them when conventional weapons work just as well and are cheaper is debatable but they already have them.
Re: The Rise of Hypersonic Weapons
#9This reminds me of Project Thor [1]. The idea was to drop tungsten rods from orbit on the target. It would also be a weapon that is very hard to defend against with similar implications to these hypersonic missiles. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment
It's not really "dropping" them - they're in orbit and already not falling. You'd need to fire them backwards with a rocket engine (or railgun?) to deorbit. At that point, why not just fire them as a ballistic missile?
They're not vulnerable to boost-phase intercept. And potentially more deniable at least historically (with a ballistic launch any radar track will point you to the launch site, whereas to detect the origin of kinetic bombardment you'd have to be continuously tracking everything in orbit back to its original launch nation).
Re: The Rise of Hypersonic Weapons
#10The article frequently mentions the agility of these hypersonics. Doesn't 'flies super fast' usually require 'flies in a straight line'? Do we have suitable materials for control surfaces that can withstand the drag/heat/pressure of an evasive, quick turn at Mach 5?