4 ms·

> Ukraine just showed that regular ol' cruise missiles are still sufficient The attack on Moskva wasn't simply a pair of R-360 missiles. It was a coordinated

> Ukraine just showed that regular ol' cruise missiles are still sufficient The attack on Moskva wasn't simply a pair of R-360 missiles. It was a coordinated attack using drone threats to distract the target combined with poor weather conditions and the naivety and perhaps (in)competence of the Russian Navy. A hypersonic weapon, at least while they remain unstoppable, could forego these sort of preconditions. A cruise missile salvo requires a salvo launching platform. A large ship with many launchers and a large magazine, for example. A hypersonic weapon could forego that as well; a small, agile and far lower cost platform such as a single aircraft or frigate class ship could deliver the same result. The high probability of destruction means a stealthy long range aircraft such as B2 armed with air launched hypersonic missiles could deny entire oceans to enemy ships. That is far too compelling and ensures the pursuit of this capability. Like it or not this arms race is already under way. The argument is already settled.

dragontamer 5y ago
> It was a coordinated attack And modern AIs can coordinate those attacks for us automatically. Not even a "deep learning" AI either, we're talking about old-school flocking behaviors that's well studied and understood. It will be cheaper to write an AI to coordinate those attacks, rather than building larger engines to break the hypersonic barrier. Defeating the enemy air-defenses with cheap computers automatically swarming the enemy at 500mph is a lot cheaper than trying to build a 3000mph rocket.
- topspin 5y ago
  > It will be cheaper to write an AI to coordinate those attacks, rather than building larger engines to break the hypersonic barrier. 'Cheaper' has to factor in all costs, including salvo launching platforms and logistics. Not everyone has (as you speculated on in another reply) an abundance of aircraft carriers and their F-35 squadrons and those that do will still place a high value on having the choice. This is why those than can are all developing hypersonic weapons and no amount of arm chair theorizing will stop it. In any case, my original question, prompted by our brand new Moskva data point, was can surface ships be protected? They've already proved vulnerable to existing anti-ship missiles and the future will inevitably include hypersonics and flocks of AI missiles and anything else we here can dream up to make already poor defense even less viable. The implication being that they can't, and that this is the important question. If one seeks a clever way to save money perhaps the costly floating targets that are large surface ships should be at issue.

dragontamer 5y ago

> It was a coordinated attack And modern AIs can coordinate those attacks for us automatically. Not even a "deep learning" AI either, we're talking about old-school flocking behaviors that's well studied and understood. It will be cheaper to write an AI to coordinate those attacks, rather than building larger engines to break the hypersonic barrier. Defeating the enemy air-defenses with cheap computers automatically swarming the enemy at 500mph is a lot cheaper than trying to build a 3000mph rocket.

topspin 5y ago
> It will be cheaper to write an AI to coordinate those attacks, rather than building larger engines to break the hypersonic barrier. 'Cheaper' has to factor in all costs, including salvo launching platforms and logistics. Not everyone has (as you speculated on in another reply) an abundance of aircraft carriers and their F-35 squadrons and those that do will still place a high value on having the choice. This is why those than can are all developing hypersonic weapons and no amount of arm chair theorizing will stop it. In any case, my original question, prompted by our brand new Moskva data point, was can surface ships be protected? They've already proved vulnerable to existing anti-ship missiles and the future will inevitably include hypersonics and flocks of AI missiles and anything else we here can dream up to make already poor defense even less viable. The implication being that they can't, and that this is the important question. If one seeks a clever way to save money perhaps the costly floating targets that are large surface ships should be at issue.