2 ms·

Thrust is not the issue, the issue is net thrust. Essentially the missile/engine is compressing so much air that trying to get more air to produce more thrust d

Thrust is not the issue, the issue is net thrust. Essentially the missile/engine is compressing so much air that trying to get more air to produce more thrust doesn't work, you have to manage to increase efficiency, by increasing compression, without melting or blowing apart your engine Once you manage to make significant net thrust making a bit more isn't that big of deal, it's really a critical point you have to pass.

jhgb 5y ago
Yes, that's what makes it even worse. Flying as fast as you can means you have very little reserve for velocity losses from extensive maneuvering.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> once you manage to make significant net thrust making a bit more isn't that big of deal You’re still limited by your fuel and flight envelope. The latter which bleeds the former. Hypersonic missiles will be harder to intercept than cruise missiles. Due to their novelty, they’ll also be harder than ballistics. (Ballistic projectiles don’t continuously illuminate their flight path. That permits for subterfuge options an air-breathing missile forfeits.)
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  These maneuvers are in the terminal phase. Knowing the reaction speed and the moment at which LOS is achieved as well as estimating the speed of the missile and it's acceleration one can calculate a relatively short period under which interception is possible. Outside of that there is basically no risk and thus no need for any maneuvers. As for flight envelope we know from the X-15 that not that much is required to pull 10Gs at hypersonic speeds. There is no need for much more.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > maneuvers are in the terminal phase One, this leaves the missile, which is screaming through the atmosphere, vulnerable in a way ballistics are not. (And visible in a way cruise missiles aren’t, either.) Two, if you have a carrier strike group in the middle of the ocean, this strongly restricts how much manoeuvring can be done. The target knows where you’re ultimately headed—if you tactfully manoeuvre into a blank patch of ocean, the strike group is fine. > flight envelope we know from the X-15 that not that much is required to pull 10Gs at hypersonic speeds The flight envelope restriction isn’t a structural one. If you have a known target, there is only so much manoeuvring the vehicle can aerodynamically do without slowing down to sub-scram speeds. Yes, you could supercharge the engine, but that cascades through another host of factors.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      By the time that you're close enough to the strike group that you have a serious risk of seriously missing, it's already too late for the faster interceptors to be effective. As far as only so much maneuvering you can do before being too slow for the engine, yes that's probably an issue for the HAWC, but scramjet missiles have been demonstrated to achieve Mach 9 in atmospheric flight which allows a lot of energy to bled out before you drop out below Mach 4.

jhgb 5y ago

Yes, that's what makes it even worse. Flying as fast as you can means you have very little reserve for velocity losses from extensive maneuvering.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> once you manage to make significant net thrust making a bit more isn't that big of deal You’re still limited by your fuel and flight envelope. The latter which bleeds the former. Hypersonic missiles will be harder to intercept than cruise missiles. Due to their novelty, they’ll also be harder than ballistics. (Ballistic projectiles don’t continuously illuminate their flight path. That permits for subterfuge options an air-breathing missile forfeits.)

sudosysgen 5y ago
These maneuvers are in the terminal phase. Knowing the reaction speed and the moment at which LOS is achieved as well as estimating the speed of the missile and it's acceleration one can calculate a relatively short period under which interception is possible. Outside of that there is basically no risk and thus no need for any maneuvers. As for flight envelope we know from the X-15 that not that much is required to pull 10Gs at hypersonic speeds. There is no need for much more.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > maneuvers are in the terminal phase One, this leaves the missile, which is screaming through the atmosphere, vulnerable in a way ballistics are not. (And visible in a way cruise missiles aren’t, either.) Two, if you have a carrier strike group in the middle of the ocean, this strongly restricts how much manoeuvring can be done. The target knows where you’re ultimately headed—if you tactfully manoeuvre into a blank patch of ocean, the strike group is fine. > flight envelope we know from the X-15 that not that much is required to pull 10Gs at hypersonic speeds The flight envelope restriction isn’t a structural one. If you have a known target, there is only so much manoeuvring the vehicle can aerodynamically do without slowing down to sub-scram speeds. Yes, you could supercharge the engine, but that cascades through another host of factors.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    By the time that you're close enough to the strike group that you have a serious risk of seriously missing, it's already too late for the faster interceptors to be effective. As far as only so much maneuvering you can do before being too slow for the engine, yes that's probably an issue for the HAWC, but scramjet missiles have been demonstrated to achieve Mach 9 in atmospheric flight which allows a lot of energy to bled out before you drop out below Mach 4.