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

161–170 of 171 posts

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

#161

Post by greedo »

trasz wrote: post #159
greedo wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has nothing to do with offensive/defensive capabilities (which is really a straw man). They simply are proceeding with their carrier development in an incremental fashion, learning as they go. Almost every weapon or weapon system can be described as defensive or offensive, depending on the motives of the person discussing said systems.

What’s would be the defensive purpose of a nuclear aircraft carrier? The offensive part is obvious - makes a whole lot of difference when you are invading someplace on the other side of the world, which is what US Navy is optimized for.

You can defend international sea lanes (so shipping can go through), you can defend your territorial waters, etc etc etc. Defense is in the eye of the beholder.

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

#162

Post by superkuh »

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #137
superkuh wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The new thing is trying to go hypersonic in the atmosphere for more than a couple minutes so you can use it for lift. But either there's too much heat or not enough lift.

No, this is in fact not categorically new. MaRV and related demonstrated 60 G pull up to horizontal glide maneuvers. The technology of a HGV and a maneuverable re-entry vehicle are essentially the same. The main reason for talking about "hypersonics" as a separate category today is to emphasize flight profiles that would not be interpreted as nuclear strikes.

Yeah, ICBMs have slightly glidy, menuevering entry vehicles. But these don't fly. It's more like falling with style. And they certainly don't have shapes that aren't simple conicals. Otherwise the heat from compression and where the shockwaves impinge on the complex structure completely overcomes materials tech and any possible heat soak or re-radiation.

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

#163

Post by trasz »

greedo wrote: post #161
trasz wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s would be the defensive purpose of a nuclear aircraft carrier? The offensive part is obvious - makes a whole lot of difference when you are invading someplace on the other side of the world, which is what US Navy is optimized for.

You can defend international sea lanes (so shipping can go through), you can defend your territorial waters, etc etc etc. Defense is in the eye of the beholder.

And how exactly is nuclear propulsion necessary for any of this? Because it it makes a whole lot of difference when there are no allied harbors nearby, ie you are on the other side of the world, ie you’re invading someone again.

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

#164

Post by softcactus »

myrandomcomment wrote: post #155
softcactus wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

US boomers have enough firepower to wipe out everyone in Russia without the need for other weapons. That is the point. There is no 70%, it is 99.999%. At the end of the cold war a Soviet naval admiral said they had managed to track a US boomer twice for a few minutes. The MAD balance is still there for the most part. The most part being it is unclear what % of Russian nukes still work given the shit show of maintenan…

My point is not that Russia is going to overpower us. My point is that without significant second-strike capabilities like submarines, hypersonic weapons could destabilize MAD at some point in the next 100 years. Early detection becomes moot meaning that bombers and possibly some silos become useless.

Also I don't know what a "boomer" is, do you mean submarine?

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

#165

Post by greedo »

trasz wrote: post #163
greedo wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can defend international sea lanes (so shipping can go through), you can defend your territorial waters, etc etc etc. Defense is in the eye of the beholder.

And how exactly is nuclear propulsion necessary for any of this? Because it it makes a whole lot of difference when there are no allied harbors nearby, ie you are on the other side of the world, ie you’re invading someone again.

Funny how those international sea lanes that are important for world trade just happen to be far away? Because it's foreign trade you're protecting. Oil, etc. If all the US was protecting was US shipping going from US port to US port, then yeah, we wouldn't need nuclear power, though it still might make sense depending on the threat.

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

#166

Post by ryanmarsh »

greedo wrote: post #139
ryanmarsh wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you understood the assignment. The public knows about US and NATO weapons what the US and NATO wants the public to know. Individuals in a position to know the truth, who violate the narrative, are dealt with harshly. Case in point: The public had relatively little knowledge of the battlefield performance of current gen ATGM's prior to Russia's recent offensive in Ukraine. This is in spite of the fact "current ge…

This is ridiculous. Anyone could have looked at the test results for Javelin and seen that it would be successful against modern armor. Same with the Ukrainian Skif and Stugna ATGMs, the UK's Brimstone and the NLAW. All of these had been extensively tested by multiple parties and found highly effective. And the threat posed by ATGMs to improperly deployed tanks has been well understood since the 73 War where Israel f…

Anyone could have looked at the test results for Javelin and seen that it would be successful against modern armor.

Agreed, but most didn't. I believe it was downplayed.

ATGMs didn't play a big role in either Iraq or Afghanistan

I said they played a "decisive" role. I should have said a "key" role. The battle of Debecka Pass is one such example.

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

#167

Post by greedo »

ryanmarsh wrote: post #166
greedo wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is ridiculous. Anyone could have looked at the test results for Javelin and seen that it would be successful against modern armor. Same with the Ukrainian Skif and Stugna ATGMs, the UK's Brimstone and the NLAW. All of these had been extensively tested by multiple parties and found highly effective. And the threat posed by ATGMs to improperly deployed tanks has been well understood since the 73 War where Israel f…

Anyone could have looked at the test results for Javelin and seen that it would be successful against modern armor. Agreed, but most didn't. I believe it was downplayed. ATGMs didn't play a big role in either Iraq or Afghanistan I said they played a "decisive" role. I should have said a "key" role. The battle of Debecka Pass is one such example.

I guess I would differ in describing it that way as well. Anything north of Baghdad on Day 18 was not a key battle at all, despite the Javelin playing a somewhat exaggerated role. Reading the wiki entry, it sounds like the ODAs were almost overrun despite the Javelin, and were saved by F-18s flying CAS.

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

#168

Post by ryanmarsh »

greedo wrote: post #167
ryanmarsh wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone could have looked at the test results for Javelin and seen that it would be successful against modern armor. Agreed, but most didn't. I believe it was downplayed. ATGMs didn't play a big role in either Iraq or Afghanistan I said they played a "decisive" role. I should have said a "key" role. The battle of Debecka Pass is one such example.

I guess I would differ in describing it that way as well. Anything north of Baghdad on Day 18 was not a key battle at all, despite the Javelin playing a somewhat exaggerated role. Reading the wiki entry, it sounds like the ODAs were almost overrun despite the Javelin, and were saved by F-18s flying CAS.

Anything north of Baghdad on Day 18 was not a key battle at all

Agreed. Key in the battle, not a key battle.

saved by F-18s flying CAS

That's not how the team explained it.

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

#169

Post by trasz »

greedo wrote: post #165
trasz wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how exactly is nuclear propulsion necessary for any of this? Because it it makes a whole lot of difference when there are no allied harbors nearby, ie you are on the other side of the world, ie you’re invading someone again.

Funny how those international sea lanes that are important for world trade just happen to be far away? Because it's foreign trade you're protecting. Oil, etc. If all the US was protecting was US shipping going from US port to US port, then yeah, we wouldn't need nuclear power, though it still might make sense depending on the threat.

Funny how other countries manage to protect their trade without invading Middle East.

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

#170

Post by myrandomcomment »

softcactus wrote: post #164
myrandomcomment wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US boomers have enough firepower to wipe out everyone in Russia without the need for other weapons. That is the point. There is no 70%, it is 99.999%. At the end of the cold war a Soviet naval admiral said they had managed to track a US boomer twice for a few minutes. The MAD balance is still there for the most part. The most part being it is unclear what % of Russian nukes still work given the shit show of maintenan…

My point is not that Russia is going to overpower us. My point is that without significant second-strike capabilities like submarines, hypersonic weapons could destabilize MAD at some point in the next 100 years. Early detection becomes moot meaning that bombers and possibly some silos become useless. Also I don't know what a "boomer" is, do you mean submarine?

A "boomer" is slag for a nuclear missile submarine. Hypersonic missiles do not change the logic behind MAD which is "you can launch a first strike, but we can still respond with enough damage that it makes doing so untenable."
Post reply on HN