4 ms·

Well, I guess it's some sort of public gesture of false reassurance, since all I have been hearing about these past two years is Russia's hypersonic missiles wi

by eggy 3y ago

Well, I guess it's some sort of public gesture of false reassurance, since all I have been hearing about these past two years is Russia's hypersonic missiles with plasma shields that cannot be shot down, and China's hypersonic arsenal. I am old enough to remember how Ronald Reagan was roasted about the SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative, or "Star Wars") program aimed to develop space-based systems to protect the United States from nuclear missile attacks. Hey, it mentioned lasers and particle beams, so as a Trekkie I was all ears. It would be interesting to see the fits and starts of that program over the past 40 years. It was renamed the MDA (Missile Defense Agency).

dotnet00 3y ago
What's the "false reassurance" in this? It isn't the SDI, and plus, times have changed since then, launching and maintaining a constellation of a few hundred satellites communicating over radio and inter-satellite lasers is realistic now, that part is already in commercial use. They also aren't talking about space based interceptors. Tracking hypersonics from orbit is relatively straightforward, they get hot enough to produce plasma, and thus will be very obvious in infrared. The challenge isn't tracking, it's reacting fast enough to the information.
- eggy 3y ago
  I meant to convey that the headline, "SpaceX launches military satellites tuned to track hypersonic missiles" makes it sound like we will have military satellites in position to counter Russian/Chinese/?'s hypersonic missiles, but this is in the deployment, pre-testing phase, so I am intimating it may seem to relieve the scare that has been in the media about hypersonic missiles, but it is 'false reassurance' because it is not a proven system. The headline would better read: "SpaceX launches military satellites tuned to track hypersonic missiles for testing", or something to that effect. Hypersonic missiles fly low and fast and are highly maneuverable, and given one hasn't been verified as shot down to date (I wouldn't include Ukraine's press release of shooting down 6 Russian Kinzhal missiles), should lend some skepticism about how effective we would be in countering them. Even Israel's Iron Dome lets missiles through and those are old tech. I agree with your last line, although tracking is one thing. Predicting trajectory is another, and hypersonics are maneuverable enough to thwart predictive trajectory intercepts.
jjk166 3y ago
It is the hypersonics which are overhyped. They suffer some severe disadvantages compared to traditional ballistic missiles. Their only real advantage is that since they fly on a very different trajectory, traditional missile tracking systems are not good at detecting them; hence the need for dedicated tracking satellites. Once you can track them, hypersonic weapons are just lower, slower warheads that can not deploy countermeasures.
- eggy 3y ago
  It is the maneuverability that makes them hard to actually hit, since it is not a simple parabolic or dumb ballistic missile trajectory, even if the ICBM or SRBM is going Mach 5, or hypersonic. That's why they usually don't include ICBMs and SRBMs in the 'hypersonic' category. A military arsenal needs to be diverse and hypersonic missiles have their uses for sure.
  - jjk166 3y ago
    The maneuverability actually doesn't make them harder to hit, they are still far less maneuverable than the interceptors, and critically they can't make course alterations en route based on sensor data to avoid an interceptor. Also, most ballistic missiles don't actually fly in dumb, parabolic arcs, they have some limited maneuvering capability. Really there are two categories of hypersonics - hypersonic cruise missiles (HCM) and hypersonic glide vehicles (HGV). HGV's are very comparable to ICBMs, it's really just the trajectory that's different, staying within the atmosphere. HCMs are dramatically slower but they actually have some genuine maneuverability and are more in the regime of aircraft SAM defenses than ballistic missile defense. It's the HGVs that these satellites are meant to counter. The issue is that interceptors need some time to launch and close the distance, and by the time a traditional missile warning system detects a relatively low flying hypersonic weapon, it's practically at the target. With in flight tracking by satellite, you can engage hypersonics at similar distances to traditional ballistic missiles. Hypersonics really only are useful for getting past a missile defense system set up to counter traditional ballistic missiles. If your adversaries don't have such systems, or if those systems can be defeated by other, cheaper means, or if they are hypersonic defense capable, then there isn't much argument for hypersonics. Certainly it's good to have options, but assuming your military budget is finite, spending those dollars just about anywhere else will be more beneficial.

by eggy 3y ago

dotnet00 3y ago

What's the "false reassurance" in this? It isn't the SDI, and plus, times have changed since then, launching and maintaining a constellation of a few hundred satellites communicating over radio and inter-satellite lasers is realistic now, that part is already in commercial use. They also aren't talking about space based interceptors. Tracking hypersonics from orbit is relatively straightforward, they get hot enough to produce plasma, and thus will be very obvious in infrared. The challenge isn't tracking, it's reacting fast enough to the information.

eggy 3y ago
I meant to convey that the headline, "SpaceX launches military satellites tuned to track hypersonic missiles" makes it sound like we will have military satellites in position to counter Russian/Chinese/?'s hypersonic missiles, but this is in the deployment, pre-testing phase, so I am intimating it may seem to relieve the scare that has been in the media about hypersonic missiles, but it is 'false reassurance' because it is not a proven system. The headline would better read: "SpaceX launches military satellites tuned to track hypersonic missiles for testing", or something to that effect. Hypersonic missiles fly low and fast and are highly maneuverable, and given one hasn't been verified as shot down to date (I wouldn't include Ukraine's press release of shooting down 6 Russian Kinzhal missiles), should lend some skepticism about how effective we would be in countering them. Even Israel's Iron Dome lets missiles through and those are old tech. I agree with your last line, although tracking is one thing. Predicting trajectory is another, and hypersonics are maneuverable enough to thwart predictive trajectory intercepts.

jjk166 3y ago

It is the hypersonics which are overhyped. They suffer some severe disadvantages compared to traditional ballistic missiles. Their only real advantage is that since they fly on a very different trajectory, traditional missile tracking systems are not good at detecting them; hence the need for dedicated tracking satellites. Once you can track them, hypersonic weapons are just lower, slower warheads that can not deploy countermeasures.

eggy 3y ago
It is the maneuverability that makes them hard to actually hit, since it is not a simple parabolic or dumb ballistic missile trajectory, even if the ICBM or SRBM is going Mach 5, or hypersonic. That's why they usually don't include ICBMs and SRBMs in the 'hypersonic' category. A military arsenal needs to be diverse and hypersonic missiles have their uses for sure.
- jjk166 3y ago
  The maneuverability actually doesn't make them harder to hit, they are still far less maneuverable than the interceptors, and critically they can't make course alterations en route based on sensor data to avoid an interceptor. Also, most ballistic missiles don't actually fly in dumb, parabolic arcs, they have some limited maneuvering capability. Really there are two categories of hypersonics - hypersonic cruise missiles (HCM) and hypersonic glide vehicles (HGV). HGV's are very comparable to ICBMs, it's really just the trajectory that's different, staying within the atmosphere. HCMs are dramatically slower but they actually have some genuine maneuverability and are more in the regime of aircraft SAM defenses than ballistic missile defense. It's the HGVs that these satellites are meant to counter. The issue is that interceptors need some time to launch and close the distance, and by the time a traditional missile warning system detects a relatively low flying hypersonic weapon, it's practically at the target. With in flight tracking by satellite, you can engage hypersonics at similar distances to traditional ballistic missiles. Hypersonics really only are useful for getting past a missile defense system set up to counter traditional ballistic missiles. If your adversaries don't have such systems, or if those systems can be defeated by other, cheaper means, or if they are hypersonic defense capable, then there isn't much argument for hypersonics. Certainly it's good to have options, but assuming your military budget is finite, spending those dollars just about anywhere else will be more beneficial.