4 ms·

Hypersonic missles aren't really new or a gamechanger. When Russia and China flaunt it, there's a reason they never point to any real use cases for it. At those

Hypersonic missles aren't really new or a gamechanger. When Russia and China flaunt it, there's a reason they never point to any real use cases for it. At those speeds, you can barely even communicate with the rocket.

dirtyid 4y ago
They're absolute gamechangers for US adversaries that makes fortress America vunerable. US military preemenence rests on assumption that US adversaries lack capability to conventially disrupt CONUS homefront. PRC's new science of military strategy specifically calls for prompt global strike program. Think port strikes to destroy major US capital power projection assets anywhere in the world. Plenty of RD reports on onboard terminal guidance as well. Don't need complex killchain/OODA loop for fixed targets. There will be massive strategic implications once US loses ability to operate out of CONUS with impunity i.e. entire US industrial bases is sustained by ~130 refineries that current missile tech has CEP to hit.
- ramses0 4y ago
  Basically high APM clicking in StarCraft becomes a transferible skill...
- daemoens 4y ago
  What platforms would they launch from? So far, they've only got land based hypersonics with nuclear warheads. In what way is that conventional?
  - dirtyid 4y ago
    Mate hypersonics with conventional warheads, which is within current PLA rocket force posture. On the deterrence/political layer, build nuclear deterrence to parity (see massive silo build outs) and maintain NFU while communicating that CONUS is subject to conventional strikes. It's basically just US PGS program that US dropped decades ago because US has/had massive conventional platform lead and can project conventional fires using cheaper weapons with carriers or long range bombers so it wasn't worth increasing destability. PGS wasn't/isn't game changer for US because they already possess cheaper capabilities for conventional fires supported by global basing. For PRC, it will take decades to build out carrier and long range bomber force that can threaten CONUS with additional difficulty of securing forward basing that makes US posture relativety economical. So short/medium term it's feasible to build out rocketry, simply because that's the only option.
    - daemoens 4y ago
      Apologies, I must've gotten some wrong info because I thought the DF-17 carried only nuclear payloads until I checked it's wiki just now.
      - dirtyid 4y ago
        No worries, currently PLA rocket force deliberately entangles nuclear with conventional capabilities for deterrence - hard for PRC adversaries to math the cost of striking rocket force because can't know if launchers mated with nukes or not. That'll probably change once PRC builds up sufficient nuclear deterrence. Sidenote: Entire PRC PGS talk is where PLA literature and strategic posture is trending towards - they're short/medium term future capabilties with little open source info other than PRC is doing 100s of missile tests and year and pouring massive resources into hypersonics. IMO there's a reason US reaction to PRC GFOBs demonstration was much louder than those of carrier killer missiles. The former is designed to hit fixed targets CONUS that are hard to disrupt/defend, the latter on carrier groups with difficult kill chain and many counter measures.
- danenania 4y ago
  Doesn't MAD make all of that irrelevant anyway?
  - dirtyid 4y ago
    MAD game theory are recalibrated when new capabilities are introduced. Just like when survivable nuclear triad introduced second strike options from hair trigger LOW. Consider every major US power projection platform have nuclear capable options, but US adversaries can't afford to default assume that cruise missiles from carriers air wings or subs or long range bombers are nuclear tipped. They know US wouldn't escalate to nuclear right away when there are conventional options. MAD around ICBM is based on presumption that up until recently, terminal guidance for intercontinental strikes aren't accurate or cost effective enough warrant anything but nuclear delivery. But that changes when conventional global strikes becomes technnologically and economically viable. US can claim they'll maintain launch on warning to any inbound ICBMs, but in a shooting war, when US is using forward assets to conventionally strike targets of adversaries on their homeland, but said adversaries has the capability to hit back to disrupt strategic targets on CONUS, they're absolutely going to. IMO CONUS being vunerable to conventional strikes will open up another layer of MAD / deterrance strategies for conventional attacks. Which is to say US will lose unilateral ability to deter with conventional attacks it historically had because geographic isolation of CONUS was more or less immune to conventional rocket fires. There's already assumed MAD on cyberwarfare - Biden/US position on attack of critical infra is equivalent to conventional attack - result of network technology making US homeland vunerable. Hypersonics will be no different, but this time it will be US adversaries who can also dictate conventional attacks on their soil will be met with convetional attacks on US soil. Say US attacks mainland PRC in TW scenario or if blockade of PRC energy imports turn into shooting war to deprive PRC of 80% oil imports, why would PRC not also use cyber/hypersonics to take out 80% of US refinery capacity? Should create stability-instability paradox for conventional warfare unless huge progress in ABM/missile defense.
    - danenania 4y ago
      It seems to me that major conventional attacks between nuclear powers are already factored into MAD and won't be undertaken by the US or its rivals for this reason. It's a huge stretch to imagine that a war where 80% of US refinery capacity was destroyed wouldn't already have gone nuclear. If the gloves come off anywhere close to this extent, both sides have to figure the war will inevitably go nuclear, in which case the incentive becomes to strike first and strike as hard as possible. That's why in a Taiwan confrontation, US won't first-strike mainland China. China would strike US mainland in some way in response, and then it quickly escalates to nuclear war.
- steve76 4y ago
  [dead]

dirtyid 4y ago

They're absolute gamechangers for US adversaries that makes fortress America vunerable. US military preemenence rests on assumption that US adversaries lack capability to conventially disrupt CONUS homefront. PRC's new science of military strategy specifically calls for prompt global strike program. Think port strikes to destroy major US capital power projection assets anywhere in the world. Plenty of RD reports on onboard terminal guidance as well. Don't need complex killchain/OODA loop for fixed targets. There will be massive strategic implications once US loses ability to operate out of CONUS with impunity i.e. entire US industrial bases is sustained by ~130 refineries that current missile tech has CEP to hit.

ramses0 4y ago
Basically high APM clicking in StarCraft becomes a transferible skill...
daemoens 4y ago
What platforms would they launch from? So far, they've only got land based hypersonics with nuclear warheads. In what way is that conventional?
- dirtyid 4y ago
  Mate hypersonics with conventional warheads, which is within current PLA rocket force posture. On the deterrence/political layer, build nuclear deterrence to parity (see massive silo build outs) and maintain NFU while communicating that CONUS is subject to conventional strikes. It's basically just US PGS program that US dropped decades ago because US has/had massive conventional platform lead and can project conventional fires using cheaper weapons with carriers or long range bombers so it wasn't worth increasing destability. PGS wasn't/isn't game changer for US because they already possess cheaper capabilities for conventional fires supported by global basing. For PRC, it will take decades to build out carrier and long range bomber force that can threaten CONUS with additional difficulty of securing forward basing that makes US posture relativety economical. So short/medium term it's feasible to build out rocketry, simply because that's the only option.
  - daemoens 4y ago
    Apologies, I must've gotten some wrong info because I thought the DF-17 carried only nuclear payloads until I checked it's wiki just now.
    - dirtyid 4y ago
      No worries, currently PLA rocket force deliberately entangles nuclear with conventional capabilities for deterrence - hard for PRC adversaries to math the cost of striking rocket force because can't know if launchers mated with nukes or not. That'll probably change once PRC builds up sufficient nuclear deterrence. Sidenote: Entire PRC PGS talk is where PLA literature and strategic posture is trending towards - they're short/medium term future capabilties with little open source info other than PRC is doing 100s of missile tests and year and pouring massive resources into hypersonics. IMO there's a reason US reaction to PRC GFOBs demonstration was much louder than those of carrier killer missiles. The former is designed to hit fixed targets CONUS that are hard to disrupt/defend, the latter on carrier groups with difficult kill chain and many counter measures.
danenania 4y ago
Doesn't MAD make all of that irrelevant anyway?
- dirtyid 4y ago
  MAD game theory are recalibrated when new capabilities are introduced. Just like when survivable nuclear triad introduced second strike options from hair trigger LOW. Consider every major US power projection platform have nuclear capable options, but US adversaries can't afford to default assume that cruise missiles from carriers air wings or subs or long range bombers are nuclear tipped. They know US wouldn't escalate to nuclear right away when there are conventional options. MAD around ICBM is based on presumption that up until recently, terminal guidance for intercontinental strikes aren't accurate or cost effective enough warrant anything but nuclear delivery. But that changes when conventional global strikes becomes technnologically and economically viable. US can claim they'll maintain launch on warning to any inbound ICBMs, but in a shooting war, when US is using forward assets to conventionally strike targets of adversaries on their homeland, but said adversaries has the capability to hit back to disrupt strategic targets on CONUS, they're absolutely going to. IMO CONUS being vunerable to conventional strikes will open up another layer of MAD / deterrance strategies for conventional attacks. Which is to say US will lose unilateral ability to deter with conventional attacks it historically had because geographic isolation of CONUS was more or less immune to conventional rocket fires. There's already assumed MAD on cyberwarfare - Biden/US position on attack of critical infra is equivalent to conventional attack - result of network technology making US homeland vunerable. Hypersonics will be no different, but this time it will be US adversaries who can also dictate conventional attacks on their soil will be met with convetional attacks on US soil. Say US attacks mainland PRC in TW scenario or if blockade of PRC energy imports turn into shooting war to deprive PRC of 80% oil imports, why would PRC not also use cyber/hypersonics to take out 80% of US refinery capacity? Should create stability-instability paradox for conventional warfare unless huge progress in ABM/missile defense.
  - danenania 4y ago
    It seems to me that major conventional attacks between nuclear powers are already factored into MAD and won't be undertaken by the US or its rivals for this reason. It's a huge stretch to imagine that a war where 80% of US refinery capacity was destroyed wouldn't already have gone nuclear. If the gloves come off anywhere close to this extent, both sides have to figure the war will inevitably go nuclear, in which case the incentive becomes to strike first and strike as hard as possible. That's why in a Taiwan confrontation, US won't first-strike mainland China. China would strike US mainland in some way in response, and then it quickly escalates to nuclear war.
steve76 4y ago
[dead]