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

Hypersonic HAWC missile flies, but details are kept hidden

airforcemag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 209 posts

Re: Hypersonic HAWC missile flies, but details are kept hidden

#131

Post by throwawaylinux »

lumost wrote: post #125
gonzo41 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an expensive asset though. You'd think planners would only considered large missiles like this for nuclear weapons. There's got to be a risk that using a conventional warhead would get mistaken for a nuclear attack. I think hypersonic weapons will be largely stranded assets.

A ballistic missile at Mach 25 is an easily detected threat that the other side wouldn't be able to determine was inbound for the mainland or some fleet off the coast. Odds are inbound hypersonic weapon would avoid detection until it's directly within radar range. This would likely mean the weapon hits its non-mainland target prior to the other side taking notice for a retaliatory strike. In the event the other side…

> This would likely mean the weapon hits its non-mainland target prior to the other side taking notice for a retaliatory strike. In the event the other side did notice - it's likely they wouldn't treat it as a nuclear incursion unless the weapon was heading inland towards missile silos or other infrastructure that would motivate a nuclear retaliation.

Why not? If it was carrying a nuclear payload and was destined for strategic sites on the mainland, it could be too late to retaliate if they waited to see where it is going, particularly if it was aimed inside the first island chain.

Re: Hypersonic HAWC missile flies, but details are kept hidden

#132

Post by throwawaylinux »

varjag wrote: post #62
echelon wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The trick isn't to take out one aircraft carrier: its to to be able to take them all out. Hypersonic missiles and nukes cost a lot less than a carrier. Assuming their surveillance doesn't get taken out, they can spam missiles. China will have to have good signals intelligence for this to work, though.

A nuclear attack will ensure proportional response.

What is a proportionate response if most of China's army and navy are on the mainland? Nuclear strikes on the mainland?

Re: Hypersonic HAWC missile flies, but details are kept hidden

#133

Post by fnord77 »

nautilius wrote: post #122
SonicScrub wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my understanding, the primary benefit of the Hypersonic Missile over the ICBM is not the speed of payload delivery, but the amount of warning given to the target. An ICBM needs to ascend 100s of kms, thus enabling it to be detected by very far away radar systems. Those same radar systems that would be over the horizon at the lower altitudes within the atmosphere. Launching an ICBM almost immediately announces to…

And the maneuverability - if you just adjust the course slightly ten seconds before impact, at these speeds, that’s a big difference. Ballistic mostly just falls down, i.e. you know what it will hit when you observe the launch (somewhat simplified).

Missiles since the 80s or so don't just fall down. The discontinued Pershing MARV could perform 25G maneuvers/corrections and was radar guided and had terrain mapping.

Re: Hypersonic HAWC missile flies, but details are kept hidden

#134

Post by throwawaylinux »

tkojames wrote: post #106
echelon wrote: post #2

As I understand it, China has hypersonic missiles and nukes, whereas the US does not. Should a conflict in the South China sea break out, China could nuke US carrier groups assuming their satellites aren't taken out first. That spells game over for US projection of power if successful. China could deploy air and submersible drones to get around downed satellites, but these have the potential of being jammed with EMP,…

China is not going to nuke a carrier group sorry but that is insane. The second that happened say goodbye to entire world. There is reason we have boomer subs. One Ohio class sub could legitimately end the world.

> One Ohio class sub could legitimately end the world.

Not even close. It carries about 200 low yield warheads. Not even enough for 1 each for 1/3rd of the cities in China if you could spread them out that far. There have been over 500 atmospheric tests, many with vastly higher yield and fallout, the biggest tests had yields equivalent to all 200 warheads combined.

One could strike a huge blow to China's capability to carry on war by destroying many of its large ports.

Re: Hypersonic HAWC missile flies, but details are kept hidden

#135

Post by nradov »

post_from_work wrote: post #118
tptacek wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has the belief that these platforms are survivable ever been tested in a meaningful scenario (ie, a conflict between two carrier-group-capable adversaries)? I get that the Navy does a lot of stuff to mitigate this threat, but it's a hell of a threat to mitigate.

>>>Has the belief that these platforms are survivable ever been tested in a meaningful scenario (ie, a conflict between two carrier-group-capable adversaries) Not since WW2.....but the US Navy built up a LOT of invaluable experience on damage control practices and ship design based on the pounding our carriers took fighting the Japanese. Our current Ford and Nimitz CVNs are the refined iterations of a design lineage…

The USS Bonhomme Richard fire was a worst case scenario. Only a fraction of the crew was onboard to do firefighting. And many of the damage control systems were shut down for yard maintenance.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/34832/veteran-sailor-o...

Re: Hypersonic HAWC missile flies, but details are kept hidden

#136

Post by nradov »

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #121
tptacek wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has the belief that these platforms are survivable ever been tested in a meaningful scenario (ie, a conflict between two carrier-group-capable adversaries)? I get that the Navy does a lot of stuff to mitigate this threat, but it's a hell of a threat to mitigate.

In terms of actual conflict no. There's been no large scale naval conflict since WW2. The closest is the Falklands war, which did show anti ship cruise missiles can be effective, but is not a good basis for generalization. The Navy does do large scale wargaming exercises of course, though any of the interesting details aren't going to be public so that doesn't really help shed any light on it.

There have been a few small scale anti-ship cruise missile attacks in recent years near Syria and Yemen.

Re: Hypersonic HAWC missile flies, but details are kept hidden

#137

Post by nradov »

vkou wrote: post #116
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not going to target one link. They're going to target the whole kill chain. Satellites, sure, and the satellite ground stations, and the missile launch sites, and the update path from the satellite ground stations to the missile launch sites, and jamming radio reception for the missiles in flight, and optical chaff or some other kind of confusion, and radar chaff, and probably some I haven't thought of.

> They're going to target the whole kill chain. Satellites, sure, So, their plan in the event of war is to make space inaccessible for all of humanity, by filling it with debris from killed satellites?

Yes that is exactly the plan. In any major conflict the satellites will be the first casualties.

Re: Hypersonic HAWC missile flies, but details are kept hidden

#138

Post by FpUser »

coupdejarnac wrote: post #96
bllguo wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, then give me the reasons to believe in imminent Chinese military aggression. And why I should take the word of a nation that has been basically ceaselessly at war for decades, off the heels of yet another senseless conflict in Afghanistan. I think you are projecting the warlike tendencies of the US onto China.

Are you completely oblivious to China's provocations in the South China sea? I know how things are being spun back in China, but I assume you occasionally read non-CCP-approved news, right?

>"but I assume you occasionally read non-CCP-approved news, right?"

I assume your reading list is approved in Langley

Re: Hypersonic HAWC missile flies, but details are kept hidden

#139

Post by yardstick »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #131
lumost wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A ballistic missile at Mach 25 is an easily detected threat that the other side wouldn't be able to determine was inbound for the mainland or some fleet off the coast. Odds are inbound hypersonic weapon would avoid detection until it's directly within radar range. This would likely mean the weapon hits its non-mainland target prior to the other side taking notice for a retaliatory strike. In the event the other side…

> This would likely mean the weapon hits its non-mainland target prior to the other side taking notice for a retaliatory strike. In the event the other side did notice - it's likely they wouldn't treat it as a nuclear incursion unless the weapon was heading inland towards missile silos or other infrastructure that would motivate a nuclear retaliation. Why not? If it was carrying a nuclear payload and was destined for…

Isn’t this why some countries have ICBM carrying submarines, so a retaliatory strike can be performed even if the mainland was hit?

Re: Hypersonic HAWC missile flies, but details are kept hidden

#140

Post by throwawaylinux »

yardstick wrote: post #139
throwawaylinux wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This would likely mean the weapon hits its non-mainland target prior to the other side taking notice for a retaliatory strike. In the event the other side did notice - it's likely they wouldn't treat it as a nuclear incursion unless the weapon was heading inland towards missile silos or other infrastructure that would motivate a nuclear retaliation. Why not? If it was carrying a nuclear payload and was destined for…

Isn’t this why some countries have ICBM carrying submarines, so a retaliatory strike can be performed even if the mainland was hit?

I don't know exactly how the game goes. I'm sure there is no one single solution to it.

If China detected nuclear capable missiles heading toward their country then they would have to consider the possibility their second strike capability is not a sufficient deterrent (including being compromised in various ways such as their subs being all located) so there seems like a large incentive to retaliate before missiles land.

Would there be enough time for them to watch and wait it out and see if it approached their missile installations? If it was a very stealthy missile, could they be sure they had detected them all?

Post reply on HN