4 ms·

Is the only point of these to evade treaty requirements on ICBMs?

by dsr_ 4y ago

dragontamer 4y ago
Missile defense systems seem able to defend against normal rockets. Hypersonics beat the defense by flying faster. To defend against a hypersonic missile, you yourself need to build a hypersonic air defense missile. -------- I still don't know if it's a practical weapon though. It seems like normal missiles / rockets are working vs Russia (Moskova and these ammo dumps this past week). Maybe Chinas air defense is a worthy adversary. But it's clear we ain't building these for Russia...
- rich_sasha 4y ago
  I believe modern ICBMs are not really so defensible against. Perhaps some of the simpler ones like North Korean or Iranian ones. If nothing else, dropping a fast projectile from space is an easier way to create hypersonic speeds than using an air-breathing engine, and there's nothing stopping you implementing manouvreability into these (and I believe that's what modern ICBMs do at the end). US has missile defence programs but they don't seem like a huge priority in the grand scheme of things (just an amateur defence follower here). The main thing about hypersonic weapons seems to be that others have them and US don't so it better close the hypersonic weapons gap. I suppose you never know where the technology might lead. But for example, during the Cold War, Russia had weaponry specifically designed for destroying US carrier groups, which were thought to be a major threat. Whereas US didn't need such weapons, since Russia didn't have carrier groups. So there can be a bit of asymmetry built in from the get-go.
- waffleiron 4y ago
  > Hypersonics beat the defense by flying faster. ICBMs go hypersonic speeds. These "hypersonic" weapons don't fly a ballistic trajectory and are therefore: - Easy to discriminate from ICBMs (e.g. potentially not start a nuclear war if you need a conventional "fast" weapons). - Later/harder detectable, because they fly lower it can be more difficult to detect them. - More manoeuvrable. - Harder to intercept, an ICBM doesn't always fly at top speed, and travels in a predictable arc. - Fancy / cool sounding, other countries have them, so none of the major players want to feel left out.
  - lambdaba 4y ago
    Sounds like the Magic Bullet in Worms II.
- beerandt 4y ago
  >Hypersonics beat the defense by flying faster. No- ICBMs at re entry are just as fast or faster than current hypersonic weapons. Upwards of Mach 20, depending on how you want to define the Mach number, whereas hypersonic are typically in the range of Mach 5-10. The "hypersonic" term originally comes from describing the engine type of these weapons, not the vehicle speed. But the term has somewhat evolved over time to describe most any hypersonic (speed) vehicle that's maneuverable throughout its various flight regimes (that don't already fit an existing weapon category, like some air to air missiles). Which means they don't follow a predictable flight trajectory like ICBM's. The lack of a predictable flight path is what makes missile defense so much more difficult, not the speed.
  - booi 4y ago
    I feel like the speed is what makes it difficult vs non-hypersonic missiles. Patriot/Aegis/Iron Dome/S-300/400/even CIWS seem to be relatively effective at defending against non-hypersonic maneuverable missiles.
- ranger207 4y ago
  ICBM reentry vehicles are hypersonic as well, but are (mostly) ballistic. The modern usage of the term "hypersonic missile" refers to maneuverable hypersonic missiles that can more effectively evade missile defense systems Hypersonics are being made primarily to ensure MAD. The US is building a number of ballistic missile defense (BMD) systems, including Aegis BMD, THAAD, Patriot (to an extent), and GBI. There's enough of these to defend against a handful of missiles launched from North Korea or Iran, but not against all of Russia's fleet (assuming significant numbers of them still work of course). China has a significantly smaller nuclear arsenal, so they may be worried that the US could eventually have enough BMD to render their threat of MAD non-credible. Plus, they also want conventional hypersonics to better attack carrier strike groups I'm not totally sure why the US wants to build nuclear hypersonics, since they have enough nukes in high enough readiness that nobody's going to be able to eliminate the threat of US MAD anytime soon. I think it's being done for simple research purposes so they have an idea what their enemies' hypersonics are like, and for prestige reasons
Enginerrrd 4y ago
Not necessarily, ICBMs follow predictable ballistic flight paths. There's some space for weapons that are really hard to defend against due to unpredictable trajectories and really high speeds.
- H8crilA 4y ago
  Iskander's reported (by the Russians) g tolerance is insane, they are supposed to handle something on the order of 50g. From what I understand this level of maneuverability makes missile defense extremely difficult.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > are supposed to handle something on the order of 50g Minutemen did 30+ g decades ago [1]. [1] https://minutemanmissile.com/documents/ReentryVehicleDesignAndPhysics.pdf https://minutemanmissile.com/documents/ReentryVehicleDesignA...
    - H8crilA 4y ago
      I see 10g in that document, no? Also, it's important to distinguish the acceleration along the axis (much easier to handle) from the perpendicular acceleration which is caused by aggressive maneuvering. Also, Iskander is a short range ballistic missile, it is not the equivalent of the Minuteman. I don't think there is anything anywhere else that's closely comparable in capabilities to the Iskander.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > see 10g in that document, no? “Acceleration up to 10 g's,” with tolerance for “experiencing g forces more than an order of magnitude higher.” The tough bit is guidance system survival. For Russia, reliant on Chinese solid state tech, 50g is an accomplishment. For China or the U.S., the task is more trivial. (There is a broader point of blinded sensors.) > don't think there is anything anywhere else that's closely comparable in capabilities to the Iskander Because there are better tactical tools for almost every mission. Russia can’t maintain that diversity of materiel, so they monobody onto the Iskander.
tim333 4y ago
I think the idea is they fly zig zags making them hard to intercept rather than ICBMs doing a predictable arc.

Is the only point of these to evade treaty requirements on ICBMs?

by dsr_ 4y ago

Is the only point of these to evade treaty requirements on ICBMs?

Missile defense systems seem able to defend against normal rockets. Hypersonics beat the defense by flying faster. To defend against a hypersonic missile, you yourself need to build a hypersonic air defense missile. -------- I still don't know if it's a practical weapon though. It seems like normal missiles / rockets are working vs Russia (Moskova and these ammo dumps this past week). Maybe Chinas air defense is a worthy adversary. But it's clear we ain't building these for Russia...

rich_sasha 4y ago
I believe modern ICBMs are not really so defensible against. Perhaps some of the simpler ones like North Korean or Iranian ones. If nothing else, dropping a fast projectile from space is an easier way to create hypersonic speeds than using an air-breathing engine, and there's nothing stopping you implementing manouvreability into these (and I believe that's what modern ICBMs do at the end). US has missile defence programs but they don't seem like a huge priority in the grand scheme of things (just an amateur defence follower here). The main thing about hypersonic weapons seems to be that others have them and US don't so it better close the hypersonic weapons gap. I suppose you never know where the technology might lead. But for example, during the Cold War, Russia had weaponry specifically designed for destroying US carrier groups, which were thought to be a major threat. Whereas US didn't need such weapons, since Russia didn't have carrier groups. So there can be a bit of asymmetry built in from the get-go.
waffleiron 4y ago
> Hypersonics beat the defense by flying faster. ICBMs go hypersonic speeds. These "hypersonic" weapons don't fly a ballistic trajectory and are therefore: - Easy to discriminate from ICBMs (e.g. potentially not start a nuclear war if you need a conventional "fast" weapons). - Later/harder detectable, because they fly lower it can be more difficult to detect them. - More manoeuvrable. - Harder to intercept, an ICBM doesn't always fly at top speed, and travels in a predictable arc. - Fancy / cool sounding, other countries have them, so none of the major players want to feel left out.
- lambdaba 4y ago
  Sounds like the Magic Bullet in Worms II.
beerandt 4y ago
>Hypersonics beat the defense by flying faster. No- ICBMs at re entry are just as fast or faster than current hypersonic weapons. Upwards of Mach 20, depending on how you want to define the Mach number, whereas hypersonic are typically in the range of Mach 5-10. The "hypersonic" term originally comes from describing the engine type of these weapons, not the vehicle speed. But the term has somewhat evolved over time to describe most any hypersonic (speed) vehicle that's maneuverable throughout its various flight regimes (that don't already fit an existing weapon category, like some air to air missiles). Which means they don't follow a predictable flight trajectory like ICBM's. The lack of a predictable flight path is what makes missile defense so much more difficult, not the speed.
- booi 4y ago
  I feel like the speed is what makes it difficult vs non-hypersonic missiles. Patriot/Aegis/Iron Dome/S-300/400/even CIWS seem to be relatively effective at defending against non-hypersonic maneuverable missiles.
ranger207 4y ago
ICBM reentry vehicles are hypersonic as well, but are (mostly) ballistic. The modern usage of the term "hypersonic missile" refers to maneuverable hypersonic missiles that can more effectively evade missile defense systems Hypersonics are being made primarily to ensure MAD. The US is building a number of ballistic missile defense (BMD) systems, including Aegis BMD, THAAD, Patriot (to an extent), and GBI. There's enough of these to defend against a handful of missiles launched from North Korea or Iran, but not against all of Russia's fleet (assuming significant numbers of them still work of course). China has a significantly smaller nuclear arsenal, so they may be worried that the US could eventually have enough BMD to render their threat of MAD non-credible. Plus, they also want conventional hypersonics to better attack carrier strike groups I'm not totally sure why the US wants to build nuclear hypersonics, since they have enough nukes in high enough readiness that nobody's going to be able to eliminate the threat of US MAD anytime soon. I think it's being done for simple research purposes so they have an idea what their enemies' hypersonics are like, and for prestige reasons

Enginerrrd 4y ago

Not necessarily, ICBMs follow predictable ballistic flight paths. There's some space for weapons that are really hard to defend against due to unpredictable trajectories and really high speeds.

H8crilA 4y ago
Iskander's reported (by the Russians) g tolerance is insane, they are supposed to handle something on the order of 50g. From what I understand this level of maneuverability makes missile defense extremely difficult.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > are supposed to handle something on the order of 50g Minutemen did 30+ g decades ago [1]. [1] https://minutemanmissile.com/documents/ReentryVehicleDesignAndPhysics.pdf https://minutemanmissile.com/documents/ReentryVehicleDesignA...
  - H8crilA 4y ago
    I see 10g in that document, no? Also, it's important to distinguish the acceleration along the axis (much easier to handle) from the perpendicular acceleration which is caused by aggressive maneuvering. Also, Iskander is a short range ballistic missile, it is not the equivalent of the Minuteman. I don't think there is anything anywhere else that's closely comparable in capabilities to the Iskander.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > see 10g in that document, no? “Acceleration up to 10 g's,” with tolerance for “experiencing g forces more than an order of magnitude higher.” The tough bit is guidance system survival. For Russia, reliant on Chinese solid state tech, 50g is an accomplishment. For China or the U.S., the task is more trivial. (There is a broader point of blinded sensors.) > don't think there is anything anywhere else that's closely comparable in capabilities to the Iskander Because there are better tactical tools for almost every mission. Russia can’t maintain that diversity of materiel, so they monobody onto the Iskander.

tim333 4y ago

I think the idea is they fly zig zags making them hard to intercept rather than ICBMs doing a predictable arc.