6 ms·

Summary: Space based directed energy (DE) weapons are the only thing capable of reliably intercepting hypersonic glide vehicles --- and the USA does not have th

Summary: Space based directed energy (DE) weapons are the only thing capable of reliably intercepting hypersonic glide vehicles --- and the USA does not have them at this time.

gerikson 3y ago
Bring back Star Wars, all is forgiven.
- clessg 3y ago
  Seems to be a reference to this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative The 80s seemed like a blast, jealous!
  - Arubis 3y ago
    The money poured into this without effect was astonishing.
    - gerikson 3y ago
      Some say trying to compete with it bankrupted the Soviet Union.
  - mustacheemperor 3y ago
    The author worked on this project, and does remark that the only way to power the jet-borne laser at the time was to essentially pack a liquid rocket inside a 747 - but advancements in laser tech over the last 20-30 years have created alternatives like solid state systems.
paganel 3y ago
> and the USA does not have them at this time. If the US would have still had smart strategists in positions of power we wouldn't have had to deal with all this hysteria about Russian hypersonic wunderwaffen. After all, how much damage can the Russians inflict with 10 or 20 or, let's say, with 50 such missiles? Not much, maybe they'll damage a building or two, maybe there will be some casualties on US soil, but not enough, and by a large margin, to win a war. Or, to put it another way, if the US were to militarily fold as a result of 50 such missiles hitting them on their home turf then they wouldn't have stood a chance anyway, hypersonic missiles or not. But this guy (otherwise pretty smart when it comes to tech) is not in the business of ensuring a strategic win for the US in a possible confrontation against Russia or China, he's in the business of selling his new tech (apparently some new laser gun?) and of making money for himself and for his investors. If it hadn't been clear, I'm ignoring the nuclear component in all this, as a Russian/Chinese nuclear hit on US soil, no matter the "transport" procedure (via "hypersonic" thingie or not) will very soon be matched by the US hitting Russian/Chinese soil in return. But, again, that's a totally different discussion to have, having "hypersonic missile" capabilities or not is quite orthogonal to it.
- zamnos 3y ago
  Ten or twenty buildings on the continental US being hit by Russian hypersonic missiles may seem like basically nothing, but on 9/11 we lost two buildings, plus minor damage to the Pentagon, and the US collectively lost it's shit. It's still looking for it, more than a decade later. It's not the destruction from the Russian missiles I'm worried about, it's the US's totally unhinged response that I'm afraid of.
  - paganel 3y ago
    > but on 9/11 we lost two buildings, Yeah, I'm aware of that, I also think that the US response was a huge strategic blunder, 20 years of Afghanistan and Iraq proved it.
    - mensetmanusman 3y ago
      "We can rebuild Russia!"
- golergka 3y ago
  > After all, how much damage can the Russians inflict with 10 or 20 or, let's say, with 50 such missiles? 50 nuclear or thermonuclear warheads? Quite a lot, actually.
  - paganel 3y ago
    I mentioned that all that discussion ignored the nuclear dimension, that it is a totally diferent thing (for the sake of the argument/discussion being made).
- c37d8bc 3y ago
  > After all, how much damage can the Russians inflict with 10 or 20 or, let's say, with 50 such missiles? Not much, maybe they'll damage a building or two, maybe there will be some casualties on US soil, but not enough, and by a large margin, to win a war. Or, to put it another way, if the US were to militarily fold as a result of 50 such missiles hitting them on their home turf then they wouldn't have stood a chance anyway, hypersonic missiles or not. You (and the article, frankly) are pointing them at the wrong targets: the best application of hypersonics is to shoot them at the US's blue water navy. The combination of perfect, real-time information via synthetic aperture radar and highly maneuverable hypersonics turns an aircraft carrier into an extremely expensive floating coffin.
jandrese 3y ago
However, it is not clear that the Russians have working maneuvering hypersonic glide vehicles. If they do, they may be too expensive and rare to actually deploy to the front lines.

Summary: Space based directed energy (DE) weapons are the only thing capable of reliably intercepting hypersonic glide vehicles --- and the USA does not have them at this time.

gerikson 3y ago

Bring back Star Wars, all is forgiven.

clessg 3y ago
Seems to be a reference to this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative The 80s seemed like a blast, jealous!
- Arubis 3y ago
  The money poured into this without effect was astonishing.
  - gerikson 3y ago
    Some say trying to compete with it bankrupted the Soviet Union.
- mustacheemperor 3y ago
  The author worked on this project, and does remark that the only way to power the jet-borne laser at the time was to essentially pack a liquid rocket inside a 747 - but advancements in laser tech over the last 20-30 years have created alternatives like solid state systems.

paganel 3y ago

> and the USA does not have them at this time. If the US would have still had smart strategists in positions of power we wouldn't have had to deal with all this hysteria about Russian hypersonic wunderwaffen. After all, how much damage can the Russians inflict with 10 or 20 or, let's say, with 50 such missiles? Not much, maybe they'll damage a building or two, maybe there will be some casualties on US soil, but not enough, and by a large margin, to win a war. Or, to put it another way, if the US were to militarily fold as a result of 50 such missiles hitting them on their home turf then they wouldn't have stood a chance anyway, hypersonic missiles or not. But this guy (otherwise pretty smart when it comes to tech) is not in the business of ensuring a strategic win for the US in a possible confrontation against Russia or China, he's in the business of selling his new tech (apparently some new laser gun?) and of making money for himself and for his investors. If it hadn't been clear, I'm ignoring the nuclear component in all this, as a Russian/Chinese nuclear hit on US soil, no matter the "transport" procedure (via "hypersonic" thingie or not) will very soon be matched by the US hitting Russian/Chinese soil in return. But, again, that's a totally different discussion to have, having "hypersonic missile" capabilities or not is quite orthogonal to it.

zamnos 3y ago
Ten or twenty buildings on the continental US being hit by Russian hypersonic missiles may seem like basically nothing, but on 9/11 we lost two buildings, plus minor damage to the Pentagon, and the US collectively lost it's shit. It's still looking for it, more than a decade later. It's not the destruction from the Russian missiles I'm worried about, it's the US's totally unhinged response that I'm afraid of.
- paganel 3y ago
  > but on 9/11 we lost two buildings, Yeah, I'm aware of that, I also think that the US response was a huge strategic blunder, 20 years of Afghanistan and Iraq proved it.
  - mensetmanusman 3y ago
    "We can rebuild Russia!"
golergka 3y ago
> After all, how much damage can the Russians inflict with 10 or 20 or, let's say, with 50 such missiles? 50 nuclear or thermonuclear warheads? Quite a lot, actually.
- paganel 3y ago
  I mentioned that all that discussion ignored the nuclear dimension, that it is a totally diferent thing (for the sake of the argument/discussion being made).
c37d8bc 3y ago
> After all, how much damage can the Russians inflict with 10 or 20 or, let's say, with 50 such missiles? Not much, maybe they'll damage a building or two, maybe there will be some casualties on US soil, but not enough, and by a large margin, to win a war. Or, to put it another way, if the US were to militarily fold as a result of 50 such missiles hitting them on their home turf then they wouldn't have stood a chance anyway, hypersonic missiles or not. You (and the article, frankly) are pointing them at the wrong targets: the best application of hypersonics is to shoot them at the US's blue water navy. The combination of perfect, real-time information via synthetic aperture radar and highly maneuverable hypersonics turns an aircraft carrier into an extremely expensive floating coffin.

jandrese 3y ago

However, it is not clear that the Russians have working maneuvering hypersonic glide vehicles. If they do, they may be too expensive and rare to actually deploy to the front lines.