4 ms·
I 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 qu
by lettergram 4y ago
I 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?