3 ms·

There's no need for air breathing, or other, thrust for this. Maneuverable reentry vehicles have existed for quite a while. We can call them hypersonics for nat

There's no need for air breathing, or other, thrust for this. Maneuverable reentry vehicles have existed for quite a while. We can call them hypersonics for nationalistic reasons but the speed is only achieved after the atmosphere and very briefly in it going down. If the goal is to avoid looking like an ICBM trajectory to avoid the other nation states thinking it's a nuclear attack then it makes sense. But it's still not achieveable for long periods of flight so the ICBM is required regardless.

nautilius 4y ago
> "[Hypersonic] Maneuverable reentry vehicles have existed for quite a while" I keep reading this comment on HN. It's like saying "What's the deal with Chuck Yaeger breaking the sound barrier, we've had supersonic bullets that do that for a long time". There is zero overlap between the two. Maneuverable reentry vehicles can wobble around a bit while falling, whereas the point of hypersonic weapons is maneuverability for a significant part of the trajectory.
- tomatotomato37 4y ago
  Not just maneuvearable, but actively maneuverable, aka able to sense some type of input inside the cone of visibly superheated air around it. This is different than an ICBM RV drifting around with RCS before re-entry or a cruise missile idling about before it's accelerated to attack speed. Unrelated but that's also why any talk of stealth with hypersonic is stupid; everything around the projectile is going to give off more of a signature than the projectile itself
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Not just maneuvearable, but actively maneuverable, aka able to sense some type of input inside the cone of visibly superheated air around it. For ICBMs these are called MARV warheads and they were first demonstrated in the early 1980s, and every major power has had them, though many don't have any operational now.

3 ms·

There's no need for air breathing, or other, thrust for this. Maneuverable reentry vehicles have existed for quite a while. We can call them hypersonics for nat

by superkuh 4y ago

nautilius 4y ago
> "[Hypersonic] Maneuverable reentry vehicles have existed for quite a while" I keep reading this comment on HN. It's like saying "What's the deal with Chuck Yaeger breaking the sound barrier, we've had supersonic bullets that do that for a long time". There is zero overlap between the two. Maneuverable reentry vehicles can wobble around a bit while falling, whereas the point of hypersonic weapons is maneuverability for a significant part of the trajectory.
- tomatotomato37 4y ago
  Not just maneuvearable, but actively maneuverable, aka able to sense some type of input inside the cone of visibly superheated air around it. This is different than an ICBM RV drifting around with RCS before re-entry or a cruise missile idling about before it's accelerated to attack speed. Unrelated but that's also why any talk of stealth with hypersonic is stupid; everything around the projectile is going to give off more of a signature than the projectile itself
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Not just maneuvearable, but actively maneuverable, aka able to sense some type of input inside the cone of visibly superheated air around it. For ICBMs these are called MARV warheads and they were first demonstrated in the early 1980s, and every major power has had them, though many don't have any operational now.