14 ms·
US hypersonic missile fails in test- 2nd consecutive failed attempt
- ren_engineer 4y agonon-paywall: https://archive.ph/Cga4V https://archive.ph/Cga4V
- hunglee2 4y agohypersonic is fascinating - missile goes so fast it changes the behaviour of air molecules, which behave then behave in unpredictable ways. You basically need wind tunnels and lots of tests. US will get this right, no question, just a matter of when
- H8crilA 4y agoIt's literally just faster supersonic... Not to mention that PAC-3 and the like can intercept such targets.
- newaccount2021 4y agoI predict they will keep pouring money into this pit until they get a success...and then quietly wind down the program. The cost-per-mission will end being ridiculously high with no meaningful gains over just using Tomahawks in volume, overwhelming any defense with numbers. Recall that we also once thought it was imperative to develop a "stealth" destroyer
- nine_k 4y agoI wonder if one hypersonic missile would cost like 10 Tomahawks? 20 Tomahawks? Overpowering defenses is not always easy. One Tomahawk is about $2M. Also, time to reach the target may play a role, given that the launching platform cannot come closer than, say, 500 miles in either case. We assume that the adversary can detect the launch in either case; the time to react would be very different for a Tomahawk (about 0.75M; 1 hour) and a hypersonic missile (say, 5M; 10 min).
- coredog64 4y agoSaddam Hussein allegedly wouldn’t spend more than 90 minutes in any one location during the Gulf War because he was afraid of being taken out by a Tomahawk.
- swamp40 4y agoRussia already has hypersonic. And there is no realistic defense against them. They scare the crap out of DC because a Russian sub could pop up off the coast of New Jersey and 5 million people including 99% of all US politicians would be dead 6 minutes later. So of course the US needs them.
- jpm_sd 4y agoThe US having our own hypersonic missiles is not actually a defense against this scenario you have outlined?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- softcactus 4y agoNo, hypersonics would be too fast and have too low of a flight profile for our early warning systems to work. Our second strike facilities would be destroyed before they could launch a counter-attack. Game theory-wise, the winner would be whoever struck first, since they would get to use their full arsenal. Retaliation could only be done reliably with submarines. That's what frightens me the most about hypersonic development. Whoever cracks the secret and can field the most will potentially upend MAD.
- LegitShady 4y agoonly if you pretend nuclear submarines don't exist, and that russia knows where all second strike facilities are, and can target all of them with supersonic missiles. I don't think so.
- softcactus 4y ago> only if you pretend nuclear submarines don't exist Did you read my comment? I acknowledged that submarines would be the most reliable second strike option. Those are a lot of "ifs" sure, but it's a numbers game. If deployed hypersonics were as numerous as ICBMs in the 80s, then it would be about who strikes first. If a first strike can reduce the enemy population by 90%, and reduce their second strike capability to kill only 70% of your own population, then striking first is in your best interest. I am talking about the 21st century as a whole. Can we really be so sure that at some point MAD will cease to exist and someone pulls the trigger? I wouldn't be so complacent about it.
- edenceover 4y agoGiven that the bomber gap, missile gap and the cruiser gap was all shown to be fictional, I do wonder if the perceived hypersonic gap is real.
- kristopolous 4y agocorrect me if I'm wrong here, but I believe institutionally those were thought to be real by the people working on them at the time.
- edouard-harris 4y agoThat's a very reasonable question, though in cases like these it seems prudent to err on the side of being too paranoid rather than the opposite.
- newaccount2021 4y agobut this is gobs of money that could be much better spent by the military just off the top of my head: - dramatic improvements in military IT (search for recent story "just give us new computers") - more investments in unmanned combat systems - just buy more of the things that work...numbers matter etc etc
- WillPostForFood 4y agomore investments in unmanned combat systems Isn't that why we should invest in hypersonic missiles? It is a relatively cheap unmanned alternative to building aircraft carriers (and the obligatory fighters), and other large vulnerable systems.
- JackFr 4y ago> - just buy more of the things that work...numbers matter That's not always true. Numbers can matter but certain technological leaps render whole classes of weapon systems obsolete.
- jeffdn 4y agoRight now, for instance, the American military: - desperately needs a new self-propelled howitzer, as the M109 is a 60-year-old design that has been upgraded to its limit, and can no longer perform adequately in a modern near-peer engagement - the AIM-120 AMRAAM is outclassed by other beyond visual range air-to-air missiles developed in the last 30 years - the OH-58 Kiowa, based on the Bell JetRanger, was the Army's scout helicopter for decades -- but was retired in 2020 without a replacement - the Ticonderoga-class cruiser, which was the first incarnation of the Aegis anti-air and anti-ballistic-missile system, is being retired without a replacement, forty years after it entered service -- its planned replacement, CG(X), was cancelled, and so more Arleigh-Burke class destroyers with larger Mark-41 VLS cells are being shoehorned in - the Arleigh-Burke class destroyer, which also has the Aegis system, is still in production after 34 years because the Zumwalt-class that would've replaced it was a total flop due -- its eight-inch Advanced Gun System requiring bespoke ammunition on the order of $800,000 per round These are all replacement programs that could have been (and in some cases were) started over a decade ago, but we are just now seeing the fruits of some of the very long development processes. - the ERCA (Extended-Range Cannon Artillery) is not forecasted to enter service until 2025 - the AIM-260 is meant to enter production this year - there is currently an ongoing competition between Sikorsky and Boeing to build the Army's next scout helicopter - the DDG(X) program will replace both ship classes eventually, but is not even meant to begin construction until 2028 Meanwhile, one shining example of the successful replacements of older programs is the Virginia-class submarine. It remains one of the few examples of American military procurement that was delivered ahead of schedule and under budget, while still being a success.
- ren_engineer 4y agoboth test failures seem to have been during the booster rocket phase and they weren't even able to test or collect data on the missile component Lockheed is in charge of development, just like the SLS program. I'm curious how hard it would be to have SpaceX make an attempt or if they would even be willing. Seems safe to say they know rockets far better than Lockheed
- mannykannot 4y agoThis article describes the first test as ending in a booster failure, but describes the problem here as the failure of the test asset to ignite. I would guess that the test asset is the hypersonic device itself.
- jlmorton 4y ago> Lockheed is in charge of development, just like the SLS program Lockheed tried to buy Aerojet Rocketdyne a couple years ago, the maker of the Shuttle's RS-25 engines, which are being re-used on SLS, but abandoned the acquisition. Boeing is the lead contractor for the launch vehicle.
- thereddaikon 4y agoLockheed is not running the SLS. They have had their share of bad programs you can point to but SLS isn't one of them.
- deelowe 4y ago> Lockheed is in charge of development, just like the SLS program. Several big defense contractors are involved, but Lockheed isn't one of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System
- monocasa 4y agoULA is a Lockheed and Boeing joint venture, and the Orion capsule itself is a straight up Lockheed built ship. Now, the fuckups seem to be mainly on Boeing's side of the fence, but it's incorrect to say that Lockheed isn't involved.
- zlawrt 4y ago
- helloooooooo 4y agoGive it up. Why are you so bent on pushing nonsense?
- de6u99er 4y agoI wonder if intelligence out of Ukraine is being used to develop those missiles.
- bannedbybros 4y ago
- candlemas 4y agoOur rockets always blow up.
- ddalex 4y agoI mean, that's their purpose. The only question is WHERE.
- MonkeyMalarky 4y agoAt least no one has to fly in these ones.
- lkxijlewlf 4y agoI think that is the point. The problem is, they're blowing up non deterministically.
- hindsightbias 4y agoHypersonics is the old/new fusion.
- aaaaaaaaaaab 4y agoToo bad there’s nowhere to import nazi scientists from this time :/
- idlehand 4y agoThe US does attract plenty of scientists from other parts of the world, including China and Russia.
- pessimizer 4y agoLeave it to the US to make their first priority at the end of WWII to save the Nazis. If you helped murder a million children and you wanted to die of old age a respected multimillionaire in your bed surrounded by your great grandchildren: 1) Get out of Poland, now. 2) Get out of anywhere to the east of Poland. 3) Get to American-controlled Germany. Register with the Americans, and say you were a low level bureaucrat. You will be immediately released, possibly with a stipend, and rearrested a couple of years later. Go to trial, be sentenced to life or death. You will be released before 1954. There will be a network of people you killed children with to help you get back on your feet, leaders of government and industry. Your fate after this relies on how much your peers respected your ability to kill. If you were good at it, and never complained, the sky is the limit.
- juanani 4y ago
- midislack 4y agoSmall one didn't work so we're making a big one instead. Sheesh.
- dylan604 4y agoThere are times when this makes perfect sense. Increasing size can make other things easier even if it takes more things like weight/fuel/size/etc. Making things small that work will sometimes add complications/complexity that otherwise could be avoided.
- nabla9 4y agoHypersonic is very unfortunate term, because it makes people assume that hypersonic speed is the new thing in these. X15 was manned hypersonic vehicle in 1959. Pershing II had maneuverable hypersonic re-entry vehicle in the 80s. ICBM's are hypersonic or high hypersonic. Space shuttle was a hypersonic glider, so is X-37 currently operated by the US Space Force.
- SiempreViernes 4y agoIf it keeps the money rolling it's a successful term, and that is after all the most important factor to a military term.
- HelloNurse 4y ago"Technically", "hypersonic" means "scary because it's hard to intercept" and "NATO is behind Russia and China on this". Elementary military marketing.
- ryanmarsh 4y agoYes, you understood the assignment. The public knows about US and NATO weapons what the US and NATO wants the public to know. Individuals in a position to know the truth, who violate the narrative, are dealt with harshly. Case in point: The public had relatively little knowledge of the battlefield performance of current gen ATGM's prior to Russia's recent offensive in Ukraine. This is in spite of the fact "current gen" dates back to the 2003 US invasion of Iraq where they played a decisive role. Today, according to the press, ATGMs are the savior of Ukraine.
- greedo 4y agoThis is ridiculous. Anyone could have looked at the test results for Javelin and seen that it would be successful against modern armor. Same with the Ukrainian Skif and Stugna ATGMs, the UK's Brimstone and the NLAW. All of these had been extensively tested by multiple parties and found highly effective. And the threat posed by ATGMs to improperly deployed tanks has been well understood since the 73 War where Israel first faced the Sagger ATGM. Also, ATGMs didn't play a big role in either Iraq or Afghanistan, especially against armored vehicles. In Afghanistan the Javelin was used primarily as a bunker buster or knocking on cave doors. In Iraq, both TOW and Javelin were used for breaking up fortifications. Hellfire was used in the abortive Apache raid that showed how useless helicopter gunships were in a contested environment with lots of AAA. This idea that there's a secret arsenal with staff and personal briefed on a need to know basis is just conspiracy theory. Sure, there are weapons in development that are secret, and specific capabilities are secret, but there's very few silver bullets hiding out in Tonopah or White Sands.
- JDulin 4y agoOne problem with these hypersonic endeavors and DOD development in general is there are too few tests (And done too slowly) to iterate. The developers do not get lots of opportunities to learn from real-data, like at SpaceX. Instead, there are low-single-digit numbers of tests with tons of political attention ready to pounce at the smallest (And most common!) failure.
- wongarsu 4y agoA lot of the success of SpaceX can be attributed to their rapid incremental development model that they established with Falcon 9 and continued with Starship. But at least with civilian rockets all the competitors have clear success metrics: they all launch with some regularity, and it's obvious if those launches were a success. Lots of weapon systems have one or two tests and then take a decade before they see any action, if at all. Fore example the Patriot system is operational since 1981, but when first used in combat a decade later its accuracy came under heavy scrutiny, and continues to look suspect on a per-missile basis [1]. But that's one of the weapons systems that actually sees active combat, and sees improvements based on that. Now think of all the systems that are deployed but never used. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot#Operational_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot#Operational_hi...
- jandrese 4y agoIt should be noted that the Patriot was being used outside of its original design goal when tasked with shooting down missiles. It was designed to shoot down Soviet interceptors, but had to pivot when the Soviet Union collapsed. Missiles were a stretch goal of the original project, but ended up being its primary mission.
- jvanderbot 4y agoAnd in particular, many of the failures were from lack of proper operation, such as keeping the system on far too long, causing timer overflows. https://www-users.cse.umn.edu/~arnold/disasters/patriot.html https://www-users.cse.umn.edu/~arnold/disasters/patriot.html
- jollybean 4y agoI'm far more concerned with defence against them than otherwise.
- softcactus 4y agoThe best defense is probably still going to MAD with second strike capabilities. Assuming that a hypersonic first strike would destroy a majority of our silos and bombers, we'll probably have to beef up our submarine fleet.
- jollybean 4y agoNo, we can defend against these weapons just like we defend against regular cruise and ballistic missiles ... just 'better'. If it flies we can stop it.
- softcactus 4y agoThe problem is that the cost of an interceptor is a magnitude higher than a single missile. So it's easier to just build 10 missiles for every interceptor. You can also put multiple warheads on a single missile, or use decoys/countermeasures to defeat an interceptor. Our current mid-course interceptors only have about a 50% success rate if I remember correctly, and terminal interceptors only cover a small range. There is a reason why we only deploy interceptors to geo-politically important theaters like Israel or Korea: 1. Because we only need to intercept intermediate-range or short range ballistic missiles 2. They are pinpoint areas that yield large amounts of coverage (of human lives) for a single deployment It wouldn't be possible to blanket the US population centers in interceptor sites. Even if we could, our current radar systems wouldn't detect hypersonic missiles before its too late, meaning we would need a satellite fleet to detect launches from space. MAD is going to be the best option.
- tablespoon 4y ago> The best defense is probably still going to MAD with second strike capabilities. Assuming that a hypersonic first strike would destroy a majority of our silos and bombers, we'll probably have to beef up our submarine fleet. For MAD scenarios, wouldn't attacking the US with stuff like fractional-orbital bombardment be more effective than hypersonic weapons? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment...
- juanani 4y ago
- countvonbalzac 4y agoThey need to test often, fail often, and iterate more quickly to build an effective missile.
- adidar83 4y agoI often wonder why defense companies openly advertise their failures. Maybe it's for optics.
- rdtsc 4y agoMajor failures are a little hard to hide probably. Advanced adversaries can see it probably, so better to control the story and report on it, rather than let the Chinese or the Russians reports on "US hypersonic missile fails, again!". Another reason is to highlight the need for more funding. "We obviously need more money to run even more tests".
- wongarsu 4y agoAccording to the article this was published by the Defense Department, not the contractor. Sure, they also don't look good, but they have to justify their spending (to a degree). This is more or less a heads-up that the program will be delayed and cost more.
- lttlrck 4y ago"Hey world! Look what we're building - we're not afraid of you or our failures!" It's a very strong message. It's also propaganda, to control the narrative, distract and deceive. Maybe they already know it's a dead end, or this is a test bed for something else. The cancelled rail-gun seemed like a giant materials science project, but maybe the Navy got _exactly_ what they needed.
- dividedbyzero 4y agoIf they aren't afraid of the world, why build such weapons?
- dxdm 4y agoCould it be that they aren't afraid _because_ they have superior weapons, and want to keep that edge? The world still appears to be a scary place when others may assume that you can't defend yourself.
- 4y ago
- option 4y agomeanwhile, russia already used its hypersonic missile to strike a target in Ivano Frankovsk, Ukraine. less than 100 miles from NATO border. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-uses-hypersonic-missiles-strike-ukraine-arms-depot-2022-03-19/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-uses-hypersonic-...
- trasz 4y agoIt's the same ammo depot that later turned out to be a barn?
- option 4y agonot sure about the target. the rocket is the one which can be equipped with nuclear warhead
- trasz 4y agoEvery missile can, but it won’t help much if you don’t have working guidance, like in this case. Of course you’re also assuming that a country that can’t even manufacture a car is somehow able to maintain nukes.
- hsnewman 4y agoWhy can't they just have some Spacex falcon 9's outfitted with multiple small missiles as payload? The falcon can boost the missiles and upon release they can easily go hypersonic while the falcon comes back for more?
- antihero 4y agoWhat if missiles all launched their own missiles, and went infinitely fast
- lettergram 4y agoI always hate the discussion around “hypersonic missiles” The US has had some version since the 1960s. What do you think ICBMs are? Real discussions should quantify precision, error rate, speed, payload of missiles, etc.
- ARandomerDude 4y agoYeah, any time somebody says "this thing goes Mach <number>" the first question should be "at what altitude?" and the second should be "for how long?".
- chmod600 4y agoAn AR-15 fires a bullet at Mach 3. Low altitude, maybe a second or so before it's lost a lot of speed.
- onmobile2022 4y agoPerhaps I'm stupid, but I thought they were differentiated from classic missiles by actively diverging from a birds eye path at random during flight. Do ICBMs already do this?
- throwaway894345 4y agoWhile the terminology is imprecise, ICMBs tend to go up in a big arc making them visible to radar well in advance of a strike, whereas “hypersonic” missiles fly close to the earth, effectively hiding behind its curvature.
- dividedbyzero 4y agoIsn't the difference that hypersonic missiles are supposed to be able to cruise at such speeds, not "just" fall along a ballistic (or, for the newer models, ballistic-ish) trajectory with a bit of steering at certain points, but powered flight all the way, with the maneuverability and potential stealth that entails?
- mattacular 4y agoGood?
- KBme 4y agomuh diversity and inclusion muh alphabet pride muh preggo flight suits results incoming
- WalterBright 4y agoThe V2 had an awful lot of catastrophic failures at launch and in flight. It would also mysteriously disintegrate at supersonic speed. See "V2" by Dornberger.
- timcavel 4y ago