16 ms·

Hypersonic HAWC missile flies, but details are kept hidden

95 points by mzs 5y ago

echelon 5y ago
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, other drones, etc. It could become a game of cat and mouse, and if the carriers get close enough, China's land-based missile defenses are toast. Is the US developing hypersonics for close combat? How does this fit into a South China sea conflict, or does this assume the battle is closer to home? (If China goes blue water, is this meant to combat their carriers?) If, when, and where will the theater be? What will the outcome be? Would the conflict be limited to the coastal regions, or would it spill over into nuclear MAD? Will either side back down? I'm super curious about all of this, and I'm interested in more sources to follow. I don't know enough to understand military/navy Twitter.
- masterof0 5y ago
  > What will the outcome be? Judging by what we did in Afghanistan, not good. I hope we don't send thousands to die and/or kill other people. If they invade the US, we fight, otherwise, we shouldn't be policing the world. I don't see the benefits of a war with China, or any other country at all.
  - emaginniss 5y ago
    What if they decide they want to gobble up Taiwan, Vietnam, Japan, Australia, etc? Should we just sit back and say "it's not us, so this is fine?"
    - jjoonathan 5y ago
      Does Taiwan have nukes? EDIT: google thinks no.
      - patagurbon 5y ago
        No, but they have been identified as a "nuclear latent state", in that they possess the capabilities to create one. How long that latency is I'm sure no one really knows.
      - protomyth 5y ago
        Hasn't the rumor always been that they got a nuke from Israel or South Africa?
    - justicezyx 5y ago
      Legally Taiwan and Mainland are in a civil war for the legitimate government of the one China. One China is the "policy" of US China and Taiwan. Of course, Taiwan want to get rid of that. China will risk a nuclear war to prevent that, and US is OK with either, preferably let China bleed the most with minimal cost. These are as obvious as the sun hanging over the sky. China had no ambition for territorial expansion other than defending herself. That's the pattern for 2 thousands years. China indeed has historical claim over Taiwan and South China Sea. How strong that translate to modern legal system, that's up to debate. But extending China's territorial ambition beyond historical claims is not only disgenious, it's propaganda. Hi, propagandist?
      - emaginniss 5y ago
        Perhaps you haven't noticed that China has been building islands and claiming the sea around them. In fact, they claim the entire South China Sea as territorial waters. They routinely send their fishing fleets into the legitimate territorial waters of other nations. As they are starting to struggle again with the size of their population, expansion will seem like a natural solution.
        justicezyx 5y ago
        > China has been building islands and claiming the sea around them Of cuz, that's known everywhere. Chinese netizens are ecstatic about this ingenious move that fenced off SEA countries from meddling the water area in any way that could affect China's claim over them. > They routinely send their fishing fleets into the legitimate territorial waters of other nations They are just self directed business man. Just like the numerous business man who invaded almost every Asian countries in the early 1900s. These fisherman would have been invading all-over the places if they were in 1900 as well. Of cuz, not like the 1900s, these fisherman are not going to be protected (very strongly) by their home country when they were caught. > they are starting to struggle again with the size of their population, expansion will seem like a natural solution. Well, almost everyone is expecting the population to be dwindling from now on. A lot have calling the recent census fake, because they all expect a population drop. Not sure why this population driven expansnism holds itself...
    - masterof0 5y ago
      Are they going to gobble up Japan, Australia and Vietnam tho? I'd say nope, doesn't makes sense, for them. What's up with the war fetish? Do you enjoy watching people killing each other? I really don't understand.
    - bllguo 5y ago
      I think citizens of the most violent nation in recent history should do some introspection before projecting their misdeeds onto others..
      - throwaway6734 5y ago
        How recent is recent history?
        2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
        Clearly more recent than April 15th, 1989.
        zeusk 5y ago
        or the on-going uyghur concentration camps
        bllguo 5y ago
        Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, coup after coup in South America - you think Tiananmen was more reprehensible than any of these? I'll also remind you Tiananmen was internal, whereas all of our wars are just that - wars. Directed against other nations. edit: to clarify, I don't see how Tiananmen suggests China will go to war, but I do see how a sordid history of spurring violence across the globe suggests the US will go to war again.
        bllguo 5y ago
        at least a century?
      - evilos 5y ago
        "What if X happens?" "Shut up, Y is bad." Uh.
        bllguo 5y ago
        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.
  - mrlonglong 5y ago
    On the other hand, if China was to adopt the Taiwainese constitution and embrace democracy then yes, they could reunify.
- newaccount2021 5y ago
  there is no chance a US carrier could be nuked without a proportional response
  - justicezyx 5y ago
    The hypersonic missle won't carry nuclear war head. The impact is enough to render a CV lose combat capability. The modern weaponry are delicate machines. A 50s computer might withstand an earthquake. The modern one probably won't survive a drop less than 1 meter.
    - lampington 5y ago
      A 50s computer would have been largely glass vacuum tubes and dropping it would cause quite a lot of problems. And a modern computer would be fine in an earthquake if it didn't fall off something or have something heavy fall on it.
      - jamiek88 5y ago
        Yeah was just thinking that! That analogy may have worked 20 years ago but everything, including notably storage, is solid state now and way more durable.
    - post_from_work 5y ago
      The US Navy does shock tests, where it detonates large explosives underwater close to its carriers, for exactly this reason. These ships are way more durable than you give them credit for. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/41181/shocking-images-americas-newest-aircraft-carrier-endured-explosive-tests-off-florida https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/41181/shocking-images-...
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
        Lol, no. The water stops explosions. A direct hit by a 10 ton mass going at Mach 7 will destroy any ship. the Navy won't make tests for that because it's a foregone conclusion.
- mzs 5y ago
  DF-17 + DF-ZF & Xingkong-2 https://gjia.georgetown.edu/2021/01/27/chinas-hypersonic-weapons/ https://gjia.georgetown.edu/2021/01/27/chinas-hypersonic-wea...
- 3pt14159 5y ago
  Follow Arms Control Wonk. There's a bunch of OSINT folks in the podcast slack channel including friends of mine that have been interviewed by magazines like The Economist. I'm there more for the cyberwarfare takes, but from what I understand nobody is seriously worried about a power imbalance between China and America regarding missile speed since interceptors aren't accurate enough, but that's just me regurgitating what I see tweeted around and talked about. Edit: And don't be intimidated by people reverse engineering sidewinders in the Slack. The community is very open to humble, curious newcomers. They'll teach you how to analyze satellite imagery for free, haha.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - justicezyx 5y ago
    https://openosint.slack.com/?redir=%2Fmessages%2Fosint%2F https://openosint.slack.com/?redir=%2Fmessages%2Fosint%2F This one?
    - 3pt14159 5y ago
      Should have mentioned, it's a private slack for supporters, mostly to keep the quality high. https://www.patreon.com/acwpodcast https://www.patreon.com/acwpodcast
- PerkinWarwick 5y ago
  Generally, I'd say that anti-carrier strike group tactics involve simply (well, maybe not so simple) overwhelming the defenses. Quantity can work as well as quality. You might look into Russian missile work. Of course, as a land power (and not as invested in trade as China), their answers are different.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    The answers of China and Russia are pretty similar. Use air power or submarines to locate the carrier, fire hypersonic missiles.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- tptacek 5y ago
  Is the premise here that carrier groups would be survivable in the absence of hypersonic missiles? They... aren't at all, are they?
  - WrtCdEvrydy 5y ago
    Carrier groups are supposedly survivable except for the stealth subs and hypersonic missiles but noone has tested that theory. I wonder if the future will be just a cheap ship with a large number of single-use missile launchers.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
      How are the hypersonic missiles guided and what is their range?
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
        They are guided by active radar, passive radar, and optical sensors. Their range is anywhere from 5000-700km, but many can be air-launched.
        2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
        If they are hypersonic in the atmosphere then they have radio opaque plasma around them. How do they transmit and receive radar pulses? How do they see with optical sensors?
        sudosysgen 5y ago
        That is not how plasma stealth works. The temperature of the plasma determines the minimum frequency of RF that gets through. So you have to use a higher frequency radar and make sure the temperature of the plasma is not too high in front of the radar. You don't have to put the radar on the nose. For optical sensors you would be imaging off-axis. So you can put the sensors pointing, say, 30 degrees below forwards relatively far back and there will not be much plasma in front of the sensors as it comes from compression and not friction. There's a NASA PDF floating around that cites ~7000 K as the temperature of a plasma in front of hypersonic aircraft and concludes that radar is feasible then.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Should a conflict in the South China sea break out, China could nuke US carrier groups If China wants to start a nuclear exchange, sure. The US probably wouldn't go nuclear in response to an invasion of Taiwan, but it absolutely would in response to a nuclear attack on US forces.
  - bb101 5y ago
    And our reality would segue into the storyline of Threads. The 1984 BBC film should be mandatory viewing for all people in positions of power. The bombing is only the start of the horror. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgT4Y30DkaA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgT4Y30DkaA
    - wahern 5y ago
      The Cuban Missile War Timeline: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/the-cuban-missile-war-timeline.65071/ https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/the-cuban-mis...
  - zionic 5y ago
    > but it absolutely would in response to a nuclear attack on US forces. But apparently not without phoning China about it first, if recent news is to be believed.
    - pmdulaney 5y ago
      Ouch.
- willvarfar 5y ago
  Somewhat related to a China tech angle, I submitted this article about what Chinese stealth boats look like to the newest commercial radar satellites: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28686121 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28686121
  - numpad0 5y ago
    Is that a big deal? Internet told me the reason why ships go only halfway YF-117 is because surface radar expects sea clutters, and an awkward black patch created by stealth features gives out its position and nature.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    ... From the top. That is, the exact angle from which stealth doesn't matter.
- throwaway210222 5y ago
  > 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 arrive soon afterwards. As will 4 Japanese, 3 French, 2 Australian and 2 South Korean helicopter carriers. The trick isn't to take out one aircraft carrier: its to to be able to take them all out.
  - Armisael16 5y ago
    Article 5 only applies to attacks in Europe or North America. The SCS is definitely in neither.
    - throwaway210222 5y ago
      Fair point. 2/3 of the armada (modulo dry dock) is still coming to the fight.
    - AlexAndScripts 5y ago
      Fair, though in practice they would join in anyway - China would be going for them next. Better to fight with the US than alone.
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
        Presumably the US would find itself in such a situation because it tried to stop the invasion of Taiwan. China will never have the interest or capabilities of going after Europe.
    - throwawaycuriou 5y ago
      Interesting. Edge case: if French Guyana (off the north side of South America but considered part of France and the European Union) is the victim of an attack by some means, are NATO members obliged to act in its defense?
- Aunche 5y ago
  From what I understand, we aren't particularly afraid of hypersonic missiles because nobody even has defenses against conventional ICBMs.
  - HPsquared 5y ago
    Perhaps hypersonic missiles could play a part in ICBM defense. You need something very fast and maneauverable.
    - LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
      That existed from 1975 to 1976 as: [/] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_(missile) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_(missile) Problem was it needed many of these [\] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safeguard_Program#/media/File:SRMSC_MSR_HAER_ND-9-B.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safeguard_Program#/media/File:... for support. (see caption)
- dd444fgdfg 5y ago
  IMHO, the risk of nuclear war is higher than we think. Can you imagine the number of expected casualties of all-out-war with China? We've played this game before. Japan/WW2. The US _will_ nuke China and justify it under number of lives saved.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > . Can you imagine the number of expected casualties of all-out-war with China? We've played this game before. Japan/WW2. The US _will_ nuke China Japan didn't have a nuclear second-strike capability with the range to hit the US. (Or, literally, any part of that taken independently.) The US leadership can't even make a remotely plausible argument, after emerging from their bunkers after the exchange is done, to have “saved lives” by nuking China.
    - jcun4128 5y ago
      Would suck "starting over". Irradiated land, regression in progress with fallout.
- tkojames 5y ago
  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.
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    > 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.
x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
What does hypersonic mean? I thought all missiles were largely supersonic, except for maybe cruise missiles.
- heydabop 5y ago
  Reading the article or simply typing "hypersonic" into Google would've gotten you an immediate answer, but it means faster than Mach 5.
- mchristen 5y ago
  > In aerodynamics, a hypersonic speed is one that greatly exceeds the speed of sound, often stated as starting at speeds of Mach 5 and above.
- dsr_ 5y ago
  It's a speed regime. Under Mach 1 is subsonic. From Mach 0.9 through 1.2 or so is transsonic. 1.0 and greater is supersonic. Above Mach 5ish is hypersonic. Mach 25 is approximately orbital velocity, but since Mach is actually related to air pressure, it's not a very meaningful comparison except to note that anything moving that fast isn't going to be in-atmosphere for very long.
  - HPsquared 5y ago
    In subsonic flight, the air behaves as if it's incompressible (like a liquid). In transonic flight, some parts of the airflow are starting to become supersonic, and compressibility starts to become a factor. Something called "wave drag" is important in this regime, as the compression wave is moving along with the aircraft. In supersonic flow, compressibility of the air becomes the main thing and the flow is defined by the positions of the various shock waves. Ramjet engines work in this regime (the aircraft is moving fast enough that the forward movement is enough to compress the incoming air to the engine, without compressor blades). In a conventional ramjet engine, the flow within the engine is subsonic (the compressed air, being more dense, moves more slowly within the engine), so combustion works the usual way. In hypersonic flow, temperatures are getting very high (air is heated by compression). Scramjet engines become a thing (the "SC" is for supersonic combustion: air flowing through the combustion stage at supersonic speed).
TrainedMonkey 5y ago
> 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramjet
- heywherelogingo 5y ago
  "In order for the scramjet engine to ignite,..."
  - HPsquared 5y ago
    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.
    - varjag 5y ago
      "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."
- MilStdJunkie 5y ago
  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?
dirtyid 5y ago
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.
- echelon 5y ago
  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.
  - dirtyid 5y ago
    >The Air Force has said it plans to pursue both the ARRW and the Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile (HACM), as initial and future hypersonic attack capabilities, respectively. These are offensive standoff weapons launched from air designed to hit time sensitive targets. The question is really what targets, like I said, spending the money on 3000 JASSMs is already enough to sink every major PLAN combatants with room to spare. Need to consider what these hypersonics can hit that traditional standoff weapons can't. Or just the politics behind aquisition between branches. I'm not saying this is bad/wasteful defense spending, but curious what it's exactly for.
    - nradov 5y ago
      It's for prompt global strike against high value, time-sensitive targets when there are no platforms capable of launching JASSMs (or similar weapons) within range.
      - dirtyid 5y ago
        Right, I'm just curious what targets fits such profile. Ostensibly US doesn't need this new capability unless there are new threats.
hmm320 5y ago
Don't the Russians have missiles that fly >5x faster than this, at mach 27? https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a30346798/russia-new-hypersonic-weapon-mach-27/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a30346798/...
- thunderbird120 5y ago
  Air breathing hypersonic missiles and hypersonic glide vehicles really shouldn't be compared. They have different operational uses. Air breathing missiles are slower but can also be significantly smaller and can fly for sustained periods at lower altitudes. This missile is more comparable to the Russian Zircon missile.
- SonicScrub 5y ago
  That vehicle is a sub-orbital vehicle with a re-entry trajectory similar to a ballistic missile . It reaches it's highest speeds only at altitudes where the atmosphere is more individual particles than a continuous gas (it's apogee of 62 miles is well above the Karmen line). The definition of Mach number only makes sense within a fluid. A vehicle that travels 20,716 miles per hour is NOT travelling Mach 27. You can say it's travelling roughly 27 times the speed of sound at sea-level like conditions to get a sense of the scale of the speed, but it is not travelling Mach 27. Once it slams into the atmosphere on re-entry, you can say it is travelling at Mach 27, but by then it's not undergoing sustained flight. This specific vehicle is merely gliding. This distinction is important, because all of the difficulties associated with flying at hypersonic speeds are due to the problems associated with flying through the fluid. It's comparatively easy to accelerate to the high speeds of sub-orbital vehicles once outside a meaningful atmosphere. Militarily this is an important distinction as well. An intercontinental ballistic missile needs to go significantly above the earth's atmosphere. During this phase, it's easily detectable, since the horizon is much further away. A vehicle flying much lower well within the earth's atmosphere at very high speeds gives much less early warning. This specific vehicle strikes a sort of middle ground between these concepts. It's half sub-orbital ballistic missile (it's still required to go above a meaningful atmosphere), half hypersonic cruise missile. Although very critically it is not undergoing sustained flight at hypersonic speeds
fnord77 5y ago
would a MARV-tipped ICBM be able to reach a target faster than flying straight at it at Mach 5? I was looking for MARV reentry velocities, couldn't find any numbers. A regular ballistic missile hits mach 20+ on reentry but I don't know if it maintains that speed all the way to the target.
- hindsightbias 5y ago
  Marvs are just Mirvs that maneuver. They will go the same speed until they maneuver.
- SonicScrub 5y ago
  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 the world "I am launching a nuclear warhead", thus enabling countermeasures to be readied, and a retaliatory strike to be launched. The time between this warning and the strike is indeed small (measured in 10s of minutes), but that's much more time than a hypersonic missile gives.
  - nautilius 5y ago
    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).
    - fnord77 5y ago
      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.
      - 5y ago
micromacrofoot 5y ago
Uhh... is this NOT propaganda for the US Air Force? I'm always a little surprised when I see vaguely technical articles for US military equipment on the front page. If you look up the publisher, Air Force Association, this is from their about page: >Our mission is to promote dominant U.S. Air and Space Forces as the foundation of a strong National Defense; to honor and support our Airmen, Guardians, and their Families; and to remember and respect our enduring Heritage. That statement alone doesn't pass the smell test for me. Am I being paranoid?
everyone 5y ago
I've read in a few places that the US is way behind China and others in hypersonic missiles. Would like to hear what HN has to say on that.
- baybal2 5y ago
  May be, but I don't understand the obsession regarding hypersonic missiles. There are dozens of other surprise attack weapons to knockout a superpower level enemy to select from. Hypersonic weapons are just few of them. It's more of a psychological weapon as ICBMs are. As in most cases, a new wunderwaffe will lose out to oldschool war tricks.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    Really not. Hypersonic missiles are a game changer because, without any risk of escalation, they are un-interceptable and can hit very important and high value assets very fast without requiring survivable targeting platforms.
    - baybal2 5y ago
      If somebody takes out the GHQ of a superpower tomorrow with this, that is certainly "very escalateable," but unlike other options it still requires conventional follow up to deliver defeat, and keep the enemy occupied in immediate aftermath. And it surely lacks the intimidation factor of a massive nuclear ballistic missile attack. No amount of surgical strikes will be enough to behead a well trained military of a superpower, unless somebody on the ground goes, and routes them after the initial strike, preventing the enemy chain of command from recovering. Tanks, and troops on the ground will still be needed to capture enemy's capital, and surround, and immobilise major enemy concentrations.
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
        No one is trying to invade a superpower. Certainly not China. The point of hypersonic missiles is to paralyze the force projection abilities of an exceptionally powerful military. For that striking only 30-40 very high value targets is enough.

95 points by mzs 5y ago

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, other drones, etc. It could become a game of cat and mouse, and if the carriers get close enough, China's land-based missile defenses are toast. Is the US developing hypersonics for close combat? How does this fit into a South China sea conflict, or does this assume the battle is closer to home? (If China goes blue water, is this meant to combat their carriers?) If, when, and where will the theater be? What will the outcome be? Would the conflict be limited to the coastal regions, or would it spill over into nuclear MAD? Will either side back down? I'm super curious about all of this, and I'm interested in more sources to follow. I don't know enough to understand military/navy Twitter.

masterof0 5y ago
> What will the outcome be? Judging by what we did in Afghanistan, not good. I hope we don't send thousands to die and/or kill other people. If they invade the US, we fight, otherwise, we shouldn't be policing the world. I don't see the benefits of a war with China, or any other country at all.
- emaginniss 5y ago
  What if they decide they want to gobble up Taiwan, Vietnam, Japan, Australia, etc? Should we just sit back and say "it's not us, so this is fine?"
  - jjoonathan 5y ago
    Does Taiwan have nukes? EDIT: google thinks no.
    - patagurbon 5y ago
      No, but they have been identified as a "nuclear latent state", in that they possess the capabilities to create one. How long that latency is I'm sure no one really knows.
    - protomyth 5y ago
      Hasn't the rumor always been that they got a nuke from Israel or South Africa?
  - justicezyx 5y ago
    Legally Taiwan and Mainland are in a civil war for the legitimate government of the one China. One China is the "policy" of US China and Taiwan. Of course, Taiwan want to get rid of that. China will risk a nuclear war to prevent that, and US is OK with either, preferably let China bleed the most with minimal cost. These are as obvious as the sun hanging over the sky. China had no ambition for territorial expansion other than defending herself. That's the pattern for 2 thousands years. China indeed has historical claim over Taiwan and South China Sea. How strong that translate to modern legal system, that's up to debate. But extending China's territorial ambition beyond historical claims is not only disgenious, it's propaganda. Hi, propagandist?
    - emaginniss 5y ago
      Perhaps you haven't noticed that China has been building islands and claiming the sea around them. In fact, they claim the entire South China Sea as territorial waters. They routinely send their fishing fleets into the legitimate territorial waters of other nations. As they are starting to struggle again with the size of their population, expansion will seem like a natural solution.
      - justicezyx 5y ago
        > China has been building islands and claiming the sea around them Of cuz, that's known everywhere. Chinese netizens are ecstatic about this ingenious move that fenced off SEA countries from meddling the water area in any way that could affect China's claim over them. > They routinely send their fishing fleets into the legitimate territorial waters of other nations They are just self directed business man. Just like the numerous business man who invaded almost every Asian countries in the early 1900s. These fisherman would have been invading all-over the places if they were in 1900 as well. Of cuz, not like the 1900s, these fisherman are not going to be protected (very strongly) by their home country when they were caught. > they are starting to struggle again with the size of their population, expansion will seem like a natural solution. Well, almost everyone is expecting the population to be dwindling from now on. A lot have calling the recent census fake, because they all expect a population drop. Not sure why this population driven expansnism holds itself...
  - masterof0 5y ago
    Are they going to gobble up Japan, Australia and Vietnam tho? I'd say nope, doesn't makes sense, for them. What's up with the war fetish? Do you enjoy watching people killing each other? I really don't understand.
  - bllguo 5y ago
    I think citizens of the most violent nation in recent history should do some introspection before projecting their misdeeds onto others..
    - throwaway6734 5y ago
      How recent is recent history?
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
        Clearly more recent than April 15th, 1989.
        zeusk 5y ago
        or the on-going uyghur concentration camps
        bllguo 5y ago
        Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, coup after coup in South America - you think Tiananmen was more reprehensible than any of these? I'll also remind you Tiananmen was internal, whereas all of our wars are just that - wars. Directed against other nations. edit: to clarify, I don't see how Tiananmen suggests China will go to war, but I do see how a sordid history of spurring violence across the globe suggests the US will go to war again.
      - bllguo 5y ago
        at least a century?
    - evilos 5y ago
      "What if X happens?" "Shut up, Y is bad." Uh.
      - bllguo 5y ago
        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.
- mrlonglong 5y ago
  On the other hand, if China was to adopt the Taiwainese constitution and embrace democracy then yes, they could reunify.
newaccount2021 5y ago
there is no chance a US carrier could be nuked without a proportional response
- justicezyx 5y ago
  The hypersonic missle won't carry nuclear war head. The impact is enough to render a CV lose combat capability. The modern weaponry are delicate machines. A 50s computer might withstand an earthquake. The modern one probably won't survive a drop less than 1 meter.
  - lampington 5y ago
    A 50s computer would have been largely glass vacuum tubes and dropping it would cause quite a lot of problems. And a modern computer would be fine in an earthquake if it didn't fall off something or have something heavy fall on it.
    - jamiek88 5y ago
      Yeah was just thinking that! That analogy may have worked 20 years ago but everything, including notably storage, is solid state now and way more durable.
  - post_from_work 5y ago
    The US Navy does shock tests, where it detonates large explosives underwater close to its carriers, for exactly this reason. These ships are way more durable than you give them credit for. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/41181/shocking-images-americas-newest-aircraft-carrier-endured-explosive-tests-off-florida https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/41181/shocking-images-...
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      Lol, no. The water stops explosions. A direct hit by a 10 ton mass going at Mach 7 will destroy any ship. the Navy won't make tests for that because it's a foregone conclusion.
mzs 5y ago
DF-17 + DF-ZF & Xingkong-2 https://gjia.georgetown.edu/2021/01/27/chinas-hypersonic-weapons/ https://gjia.georgetown.edu/2021/01/27/chinas-hypersonic-wea...
3pt14159 5y ago
Follow Arms Control Wonk. There's a bunch of OSINT folks in the podcast slack channel including friends of mine that have been interviewed by magazines like The Economist. I'm there more for the cyberwarfare takes, but from what I understand nobody is seriously worried about a power imbalance between China and America regarding missile speed since interceptors aren't accurate enough, but that's just me regurgitating what I see tweeted around and talked about. Edit: And don't be intimidated by people reverse engineering sidewinders in the Slack. The community is very open to humble, curious newcomers. They'll teach you how to analyze satellite imagery for free, haha.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- justicezyx 5y ago
  https://openosint.slack.com/?redir=%2Fmessages%2Fosint%2F https://openosint.slack.com/?redir=%2Fmessages%2Fosint%2F This one?
  - 3pt14159 5y ago
    Should have mentioned, it's a private slack for supporters, mostly to keep the quality high. https://www.patreon.com/acwpodcast https://www.patreon.com/acwpodcast
PerkinWarwick 5y ago
Generally, I'd say that anti-carrier strike group tactics involve simply (well, maybe not so simple) overwhelming the defenses. Quantity can work as well as quality. You might look into Russian missile work. Of course, as a land power (and not as invested in trade as China), their answers are different.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  The answers of China and Russia are pretty similar. Use air power or submarines to locate the carrier, fire hypersonic missiles.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tptacek 5y ago
Is the premise here that carrier groups would be survivable in the absence of hypersonic missiles? They... aren't at all, are they?
- WrtCdEvrydy 5y ago
  Carrier groups are supposedly survivable except for the stealth subs and hypersonic missiles but noone has tested that theory. I wonder if the future will be just a cheap ship with a large number of single-use missile launchers.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
    How are the hypersonic missiles guided and what is their range?
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      They are guided by active radar, passive radar, and optical sensors. Their range is anywhere from 5000-700km, but many can be air-launched.
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
        If they are hypersonic in the atmosphere then they have radio opaque plasma around them. How do they transmit and receive radar pulses? How do they see with optical sensors?
        sudosysgen 5y ago
        That is not how plasma stealth works. The temperature of the plasma determines the minimum frequency of RF that gets through. So you have to use a higher frequency radar and make sure the temperature of the plasma is not too high in front of the radar. You don't have to put the radar on the nose. For optical sensors you would be imaging off-axis. So you can put the sensors pointing, say, 30 degrees below forwards relatively far back and there will not be much plasma in front of the sensors as it comes from compression and not friction. There's a NASA PDF floating around that cites ~7000 K as the temperature of a plasma in front of hypersonic aircraft and concludes that radar is feasible then.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Should a conflict in the South China sea break out, China could nuke US carrier groups If China wants to start a nuclear exchange, sure. The US probably wouldn't go nuclear in response to an invasion of Taiwan, but it absolutely would in response to a nuclear attack on US forces.
- bb101 5y ago
  And our reality would segue into the storyline of Threads. The 1984 BBC film should be mandatory viewing for all people in positions of power. The bombing is only the start of the horror. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgT4Y30DkaA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgT4Y30DkaA
  - wahern 5y ago
    The Cuban Missile War Timeline: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/the-cuban-missile-war-timeline.65071/ https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/the-cuban-mis...
- zionic 5y ago
  > but it absolutely would in response to a nuclear attack on US forces. But apparently not without phoning China about it first, if recent news is to be believed.
  - pmdulaney 5y ago
    Ouch.
willvarfar 5y ago
Somewhat related to a China tech angle, I submitted this article about what Chinese stealth boats look like to the newest commercial radar satellites: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28686121 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28686121
- numpad0 5y ago
  Is that a big deal? Internet told me the reason why ships go only halfway YF-117 is because surface radar expects sea clutters, and an awkward black patch created by stealth features gives out its position and nature.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  ... From the top. That is, the exact angle from which stealth doesn't matter.
throwaway210222 5y ago
> 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 arrive soon afterwards. As will 4 Japanese, 3 French, 2 Australian and 2 South Korean helicopter carriers. The trick isn't to take out one aircraft carrier: its to to be able to take them all out.
- Armisael16 5y ago
  Article 5 only applies to attacks in Europe or North America. The SCS is definitely in neither.
  - throwaway210222 5y ago
    Fair point. 2/3 of the armada (modulo dry dock) is still coming to the fight.
  - AlexAndScripts 5y ago
    Fair, though in practice they would join in anyway - China would be going for them next. Better to fight with the US than alone.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      Presumably the US would find itself in such a situation because it tried to stop the invasion of Taiwan. China will never have the interest or capabilities of going after Europe.
  - throwawaycuriou 5y ago
    Interesting. Edge case: if French Guyana (off the north side of South America but considered part of France and the European Union) is the victim of an attack by some means, are NATO members obliged to act in its defense?
Aunche 5y ago
From what I understand, we aren't particularly afraid of hypersonic missiles because nobody even has defenses against conventional ICBMs.
- HPsquared 5y ago
  Perhaps hypersonic missiles could play a part in ICBM defense. You need something very fast and maneauverable.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
    That existed from 1975 to 1976 as: [/] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_(missile) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_(missile) Problem was it needed many of these [\] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safeguard_Program#/media/File:SRMSC_MSR_HAER_ND-9-B.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safeguard_Program#/media/File:... for support. (see caption)
dd444fgdfg 5y ago
IMHO, the risk of nuclear war is higher than we think. Can you imagine the number of expected casualties of all-out-war with China? We've played this game before. Japan/WW2. The US _will_ nuke China and justify it under number of lives saved.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > . Can you imagine the number of expected casualties of all-out-war with China? We've played this game before. Japan/WW2. The US _will_ nuke China Japan didn't have a nuclear second-strike capability with the range to hit the US. (Or, literally, any part of that taken independently.) The US leadership can't even make a remotely plausible argument, after emerging from their bunkers after the exchange is done, to have “saved lives” by nuking China.
  - jcun4128 5y ago
    Would suck "starting over". Irradiated land, regression in progress with fallout.
tkojames 5y ago
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.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  > 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.

x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago

What does hypersonic mean? I thought all missiles were largely supersonic, except for maybe cruise missiles.

heydabop 5y ago
Reading the article or simply typing "hypersonic" into Google would've gotten you an immediate answer, but it means faster than Mach 5.
mchristen 5y ago
> In aerodynamics, a hypersonic speed is one that greatly exceeds the speed of sound, often stated as starting at speeds of Mach 5 and above.
dsr_ 5y ago
It's a speed regime. Under Mach 1 is subsonic. From Mach 0.9 through 1.2 or so is transsonic. 1.0 and greater is supersonic. Above Mach 5ish is hypersonic. Mach 25 is approximately orbital velocity, but since Mach is actually related to air pressure, it's not a very meaningful comparison except to note that anything moving that fast isn't going to be in-atmosphere for very long.
- HPsquared 5y ago
  In subsonic flight, the air behaves as if it's incompressible (like a liquid). In transonic flight, some parts of the airflow are starting to become supersonic, and compressibility starts to become a factor. Something called "wave drag" is important in this regime, as the compression wave is moving along with the aircraft. In supersonic flow, compressibility of the air becomes the main thing and the flow is defined by the positions of the various shock waves. Ramjet engines work in this regime (the aircraft is moving fast enough that the forward movement is enough to compress the incoming air to the engine, without compressor blades). In a conventional ramjet engine, the flow within the engine is subsonic (the compressed air, being more dense, moves more slowly within the engine), so combustion works the usual way. In hypersonic flow, temperatures are getting very high (air is heated by compression). Scramjet engines become a thing (the "SC" is for supersonic combustion: air flowing through the combustion stage at supersonic speed).

TrainedMonkey 5y ago

> 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramjet

heywherelogingo 5y ago
"In order for the scramjet engine to ignite,..."
- HPsquared 5y ago
  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.
  - varjag 5y ago
    "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."
MilStdJunkie 5y ago
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?

dirtyid 5y ago

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.

echelon 5y ago
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.
- dirtyid 5y ago
  >The Air Force has said it plans to pursue both the ARRW and the Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile (HACM), as initial and future hypersonic attack capabilities, respectively. These are offensive standoff weapons launched from air designed to hit time sensitive targets. The question is really what targets, like I said, spending the money on 3000 JASSMs is already enough to sink every major PLAN combatants with room to spare. Need to consider what these hypersonics can hit that traditional standoff weapons can't. Or just the politics behind aquisition between branches. I'm not saying this is bad/wasteful defense spending, but curious what it's exactly for.
  - nradov 5y ago
    It's for prompt global strike against high value, time-sensitive targets when there are no platforms capable of launching JASSMs (or similar weapons) within range.
    - dirtyid 5y ago
      Right, I'm just curious what targets fits such profile. Ostensibly US doesn't need this new capability unless there are new threats.

hmm320 5y ago

Don't the Russians have missiles that fly >5x faster than this, at mach 27? https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a30346798/russia-new-hypersonic-weapon-mach-27/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a30346798/...

thunderbird120 5y ago
Air breathing hypersonic missiles and hypersonic glide vehicles really shouldn't be compared. They have different operational uses. Air breathing missiles are slower but can also be significantly smaller and can fly for sustained periods at lower altitudes. This missile is more comparable to the Russian Zircon missile.
SonicScrub 5y ago
That vehicle is a sub-orbital vehicle with a re-entry trajectory similar to a ballistic missile . It reaches it's highest speeds only at altitudes where the atmosphere is more individual particles than a continuous gas (it's apogee of 62 miles is well above the Karmen line). The definition of Mach number only makes sense within a fluid. A vehicle that travels 20,716 miles per hour is NOT travelling Mach 27. You can say it's travelling roughly 27 times the speed of sound at sea-level like conditions to get a sense of the scale of the speed, but it is not travelling Mach 27. Once it slams into the atmosphere on re-entry, you can say it is travelling at Mach 27, but by then it's not undergoing sustained flight. This specific vehicle is merely gliding. This distinction is important, because all of the difficulties associated with flying at hypersonic speeds are due to the problems associated with flying through the fluid. It's comparatively easy to accelerate to the high speeds of sub-orbital vehicles once outside a meaningful atmosphere. Militarily this is an important distinction as well. An intercontinental ballistic missile needs to go significantly above the earth's atmosphere. During this phase, it's easily detectable, since the horizon is much further away. A vehicle flying much lower well within the earth's atmosphere at very high speeds gives much less early warning. This specific vehicle strikes a sort of middle ground between these concepts. It's half sub-orbital ballistic missile (it's still required to go above a meaningful atmosphere), half hypersonic cruise missile. Although very critically it is not undergoing sustained flight at hypersonic speeds

fnord77 5y ago

would a MARV-tipped ICBM be able to reach a target faster than flying straight at it at Mach 5? I was looking for MARV reentry velocities, couldn't find any numbers. A regular ballistic missile hits mach 20+ on reentry but I don't know if it maintains that speed all the way to the target.

hindsightbias 5y ago
Marvs are just Mirvs that maneuver. They will go the same speed until they maneuver.
SonicScrub 5y ago
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 the world "I am launching a nuclear warhead", thus enabling countermeasures to be readied, and a retaliatory strike to be launched. The time between this warning and the strike is indeed small (measured in 10s of minutes), but that's much more time than a hypersonic missile gives.
- nautilius 5y ago
  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).
  - fnord77 5y ago
    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.
    - 5y ago

micromacrofoot 5y ago

Uhh... is this NOT propaganda for the US Air Force? I'm always a little surprised when I see vaguely technical articles for US military equipment on the front page. If you look up the publisher, Air Force Association, this is from their about page: >Our mission is to promote dominant U.S. Air and Space Forces as the foundation of a strong National Defense; to honor and support our Airmen, Guardians, and their Families; and to remember and respect our enduring Heritage. That statement alone doesn't pass the smell test for me. Am I being paranoid?

everyone 5y ago

I've read in a few places that the US is way behind China and others in hypersonic missiles. Would like to hear what HN has to say on that.

baybal2 5y ago
May be, but I don't understand the obsession regarding hypersonic missiles. There are dozens of other surprise attack weapons to knockout a superpower level enemy to select from. Hypersonic weapons are just few of them. It's more of a psychological weapon as ICBMs are. As in most cases, a new wunderwaffe will lose out to oldschool war tricks.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Really not. Hypersonic missiles are a game changer because, without any risk of escalation, they are un-interceptable and can hit very important and high value assets very fast without requiring survivable targeting platforms.
  - baybal2 5y ago
    If somebody takes out the GHQ of a superpower tomorrow with this, that is certainly "very escalateable," but unlike other options it still requires conventional follow up to deliver defeat, and keep the enemy occupied in immediate aftermath. And it surely lacks the intimidation factor of a massive nuclear ballistic missile attack. No amount of surgical strikes will be enough to behead a well trained military of a superpower, unless somebody on the ground goes, and routes them after the initial strike, preventing the enemy chain of command from recovering. Tanks, and troops on the ground will still be needed to capture enemy's capital, and surround, and immobilise major enemy concentrations.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      No one is trying to invade a superpower. Certainly not China. The point of hypersonic missiles is to paralyze the force projection abilities of an exceptionally powerful military. For that striking only 30-40 very high value targets is enough.