5 ms·

Though it means mach 5+ in terms of weapons systems it indicates a capability for a long highly maneuverable period at those speeds. https://www.gao.gov/blog/f

• lumost 5y ago
  It's worth noting that at these speeds a "long" period need only be ~1 hour to reach a target from launch. A flight from Hawaii to Taipei would be 1.3 hours at Mach 5, and 54 minutes at Mach 7. These weapons represent an ability for both the US and China to conventionally intervene from their mainlands to any location within the Pacific.
  • gonzo41 5y ago
    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.
    • lumost 5y ago
      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 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. To your point on stranded assets - these weapons make performing any large military action in the pacific much riskier with greater probability for missteps or stalemates. Assuming a cost of 20-100 million dollars per missile I wouldn't be surprised if they are cost competitive with high risk carrier based F-35 operations in a hypothetical Pacific conflict. It's probably cheaper to stock pile such missiles than maintain additional carrier strike groups for the sole task of participating in a great power conflict.
      • throwawaylinux 5y ago
        > 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.
        • yardstick 5y ago
          Isn’t this why some countries have ICBM carrying submarines, so a retaliatory strike can be performed even if the mainland was hit?
          • throwawaylinux 5y ago
            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?
            • kubanczyk 5y ago
              No, armies do not have their finger on nuclear trigger with a time horizon of 30-ish minutes. We are not in the 1960s when at times it was literally true. The concept of nuclear triad is that, yes, armies very strongly depend on their second-strike capability. So, the game is for the subs to not to become compromised.
  • throwawaylinux 5y ago
    > It's worth noting that at these speeds a "long" period need only be ~1 hour to reach a target from launch. A flight from Hawaii to Taipei would be 1.3 hours at Mach 5, and 54 minutes at Mach 7. > These weapons represent an ability for both the US and China to conventionally intervene from their mainlands to any location within the Pacific. Is that the kind of range these have? Almost 9,000 miles from LA to the South Western most corner of the Pacific. If you meant the North Pacific then even the western edge of the US to the yellow sea is over 5,500 miles. Ballistic missiles of course have these kind of ranges and can carry conventional payloads.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    • zardo 5y ago
      >Ballistic missiles of course have these kind of ranges and can carry conventional payloads. Just call while the missile is on the way to let the people it's going to kill know its not a nuclear bomb headed their way so they shouldn't fire a nuclear bomb back.
      • throwawaylinux 5y ago
        On the same call you could also tell them not to worry about the nuclear capable hypersonic intercontinental cruise missile that's on the way.