Interesting to ponder the US need for hypersonic capabilities. PRC + Russia needs it to asymmetrically challenge the USN. Not many time-sensitive targets for the US to hit in PRC or Russia outside of mobile TELs to take out road mobile nuclear forces. For context, US dumping ~4B into hypersonics = ~3000 JASSMs which is probably a better investment for peer naval warfare. Politically, this program feels like air force trying to stay relevant for China pivot, grabbing a slice of the pie, and obviously good for MIC.
Hypersonic HAWC missile flies, but details are kept hidden
51–60 of 209 posts
Re: Hypersonic HAWC missile flies, but details are kept hidden
#52As 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 could nuke US carrier groups assuming their satellites aren't taken out first. That spells game over for US projection of power if successful. Incorrect, the USA will probably just shrug, and call in the other 11 super-carriers and 9 amphibious assault ships. At the same time they will invoke NATO article 5 and a few other Asian mutual-defence treaties. 2 UK, 1 Spanish, 1 French, and 2 Italian carriers will a…
Article 5 only applies to attacks in Europe or North America. The SCS is definitely in neither.
Re: Hypersonic HAWC missile flies, but details are kept hidden
#53Interesting to ponder the US need for hypersonic capabilities. PRC + Russia needs it to asymmetrically challenge the USN. Not many time-sensitive targets for the US to hit in PRC or Russia outside of mobile TELs to take out road mobile nuclear forces. For context, US dumping ~4B into hypersonics = ~3000 JASSMs which is probably a better investment for peer naval warfare. Politically, this program feels like air force…
The PRC is developing a blue water navy and is heavily ramping up on carrier shipbuilding.
It makes sense that the US would want to build similar, land-based defensive strategies as a deterrent.
Re: Hypersonic HAWC missile flies, but details are kept hidden
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. Incorrect, the USA will probably just shrug, and call in the other 11 super-carriers and 9 amphibious assault ships. At the same time they will invoke NATO article 5 and a few other Asian mutual-defence treaties. 2 UK, 1 Spanish, 1 French, and 2 Italian carriers will a…
Article 5 only applies to attacks in Europe or North America. The SCS is definitely in neither.
Fair point. 2/3 of the armada (modulo dry dock) is still coming to the fight.
Re: Hypersonic HAWC missile flies, but details are kept hidden
#55As 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 could nuke US carrier groups assuming their satellites aren't taken out first. That spells game over for US projection of power if successful. Incorrect, the USA will probably just shrug, and call in the other 11 super-carriers and 9 amphibious assault ships. At the same time they will invoke NATO article 5 and a few other Asian mutual-defence treaties. 2 UK, 1 Spanish, 1 French, and 2 Italian carriers will a…
That’s absolutely right if course. Taking out a carrier group, or even several carrier groups is if course doable, but by itself it isn’t an objective. It’s a means to an end, so without a strategic context it doesn’t mean anything.
Re: Hypersonic HAWC missile flies, but details are kept hidden
#56As 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 could nuke US carrier groups assuming their satellites aren't taken out first. That spells game over for US projection of power if successful. Incorrect, the USA will probably just shrug, and call in the other 11 super-carriers and 9 amphibious assault ships. At the same time they will invoke NATO article 5 and a few other Asian mutual-defence treaties. 2 UK, 1 Spanish, 1 French, and 2 Italian carriers will a…
> 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.
Re: Hypersonic HAWC missile flies, but details are kept hidden
#57As 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,…
From what I understand, we aren't particularly afraid of hypersonic missiles because nobody even has defenses against conventional ICBMs.
Re: Hypersonic HAWC missile flies, but details are kept hidden
#58> The HAWC is exploring air-breathing hypersonic flight > propelling the cruiser at a speed greater than Mach 5 I wonder if they are running a scramjet engine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramjet
"In order for the scramjet engine to ignite,..."
These engines (ramjets, including scramjets - the 'sc' means supersonic combustion, which is the hard part) rely on forward airspeed to compress the air as it enters the engine. You can't have a ramjet without some sort of booster stage (or non-ramjet mode of operation).
In this case, there's probably a conventional rocket engine to get it up to speed, which is then sustained by the (sc)ramjet engine.
Re: Hypersonic HAWC missile flies, but details are kept hidden
#59> The HAWC is exploring air-breathing hypersonic flight > propelling the cruiser at a speed greater than Mach 5 I wonder if they are running a scramjet engine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramjet
There's a sort of fuzzy line betwwwn high supersonic and hypersonic, but the secret sauce that definitely separates them - and the hardest part by far - is supersonic combustion in the scramjet. You basically have to figure out how to make something sit still long enough to impart a thrust impulse, while at the same time sitting in an airstream that's starting to act like a cutting laser. Very little tech data from working scramjet shots have been made public, but it's likely the most successful use some kind of incredible heat exchange system to take at least some of the energy out of the flow. Maybe pipe it into the fuel.
The Skylon / Sabre engine justa went "fuck it" and liquified the air at lower speeds, then transitioned to liquified oxidizer like a rocket when hypersonic time came around. If that sounds like some kind of miracle heat exchanger that's because it is. It's not been worked out.
Pulse Detonation is something I always wondered why we didn't see more of it, but apparently when you make a PDE big enough it hammers the plane apart like an infant with a frying pan. Who knew?
Re: Hypersonic HAWC missile flies, but details are kept hidden
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
"In order for the scramjet engine to ignite,..."
These engines (ramjets, including scramjets - the 'sc' means supersonic combustion, which is the hard part) rely on forward airspeed to compress the air as it enters the engine. You can't have a ramjet without some sort of booster stage (or non-ramjet mode of operation). In this case, there's probably a conventional rocket engine to get it up to speed, which is then sustained by the (sc)ramjet engine.
"In order for the scramjet engine to ignite, the vehicle must be moving at hypersonic speed, so a booster is used for that portion of the flight."