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

21–30 of 171 posts

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

#21

Post by dr-detroit »

superkuh wrote: post #14
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.

Correct. No one has "real" hypersonic missiles that travel in the atmosphere for extended periods(*1). The heating problems for shock impingment in non-"simple conicals" has *not* been overcome and won't be. "Hypersonic" missiles are mostly just ICBMs with a very brief passage through the dense lower atmosphere where there's enough lift. And if they try to go higher up to escape the heat flux there's not enough for l…

the Standard Missile "SM-3" goes Mach 8 we have had hypersonic weapons since the 1930s. This is a goalpost shift to say they have to cruise AND be hypersonic which is impossible due to the curvature of the earth which is really the premise of the entire argument is that russiaboos think the earth is flat and Nato isnt like 100 years ahead of Russia in military technology.

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

#24

Post by jeffbee »

swamp40 wrote: post #7
newaccount2021 wrote: post #4

I predict they will keep pouring money into this pit until they get a success...and then quietly wind down the program. The cost-per-mission will end being ridiculously high with no meaningful gains over just using Tomahawks in volume, overwhelming any defense with numbers. Recall that we also once thought it was imperative to develop a "stealth" destroyer

Russia already has hypersonic. And there is no realistic defense against them. They scare the crap out of DC because a Russian sub could pop up off the coast of New Jersey and 5 million people including 99% of all US politicians would be dead 6 minutes later. So of course the US needs them.

This seems irrelevant. It has been conclusively demonstrated that the U.S. (like everyone else) lacks any kind of meaningful ready air defense. Some trucker crashed a Cessna into the White House, and DCA flights pass within 5km of the Capitol. If you wanted to decapitate the U.S. you wouldn't need a submarine, you'd just load your weapon into a 747 and file a flight plan for DCA. Nobody will stop you.

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

#27

Post by JumpCrisscross »

swamp40 wrote: post #7
newaccount2021 wrote: post #4

I predict they will keep pouring money into this pit until they get a success...and then quietly wind down the program. The cost-per-mission will end being ridiculously high with no meaningful gains over just using Tomahawks in volume, overwhelming any defense with numbers. Recall that we also once thought it was imperative to develop a "stealth" destroyer

Russia already has hypersonic. And there is no realistic defense against them. They scare the crap out of DC because a Russian sub could pop up off the coast of New Jersey and 5 million people including 99% of all US politicians would be dead 6 minutes later. So of course the US needs them.

> a Russian sub could pop up off the coast of New Jersey and 5 million people including 99% of all US politicians would be dead 6 minutes later

Anyone pitching this is talking tripe. Russia can already do this. They’ve been able to do this since the 60s. We have no missile defence against a MAD attack, which is what you propose involves.

Also, mechanically, Russia’s hypersonics are air-to-ground, anti-ship and ballistic or semi-ballistic. They evade naval and missile defences with more kinetic energy. Even theoretically, a gliding hypersonic missile (a) screams a heat signature more trivially detectable than a ballistic and (b) rapidly bleeds off the kinetic energy that separates it from a cruise missile. In summary, it’s not some magic new category of weapon, but a trade-off between ICBMs and cruise missiles. (Note: not best of both worlds. More expensive, more detectable and less accurate than ballistic. More expensive, more detectable and less manoeuvrable than cruise.)

The real threat hypersonics pose is to carrier groups. With Russia that’s mostly hypothetical, since they apparently can’t even get their subsonic weapons to hit targets with accuracy.

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

#29

Post by Hayvok »

swamp40 wrote: post #7
newaccount2021 wrote: post #4

I predict they will keep pouring money into this pit until they get a success...and then quietly wind down the program. The cost-per-mission will end being ridiculously high with no meaningful gains over just using Tomahawks in volume, overwhelming any defense with numbers. Recall that we also once thought it was imperative to develop a "stealth" destroyer

Russia already has hypersonic. And there is no realistic defense against them. They scare the crap out of DC because a Russian sub could pop up off the coast of New Jersey and 5 million people including 99% of all US politicians would be dead 6 minutes later. So of course the US needs them.

“Mutually assured destruction” is still the defense in this particular case.

Anybody who thinks that America wouldn’t retaliate and turn half of east-Asia into a sheet of radioactive glass is kidding themselves.

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

#30

Post by bufferoverflow »

superkuh wrote: post #14
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.

Correct. No one has "real" hypersonic missiles that travel in the atmosphere for extended periods(*1). The heating problems for shock impingment in non-"simple conicals" has *not* been overcome and won't be. "Hypersonic" missiles are mostly just ICBMs with a very brief passage through the dense lower atmosphere where there's enough lift. And if they try to go higher up to escape the heat flux there's not enough for l…

"Sprint accelerated at 100 g, reaching a speed of Mach 10 (12,300 km/h; 7,610 mph) in 5 seconds. Such a high velocity at relatively low altitudes created skin temperatures up to 6,200 °F (3,430 °C)"

This is in 1975.

Post reply on HN