Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

Hypersonic Missiles

For anyone who might want to have a side conversation...you're welcome here!
Hypersonic Missiles
Post by cthia   » Tue May 07, 2019 7:27 am

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 11274
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:10 pm

Hypersonic missiles. Frightening. It reminds me of Apollo, the game changer in the Honorverse. Insane speeds that will defeat all current missile defense systems.

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: Hypersonic Missiles
Post by cthia   » Thu May 09, 2019 6:00 am

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 11274
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:10 pm

Just like the SKM's Apollo, will the development of this tech become game changers and decisively tip the balance of power?

What would become of aircraft carriers?

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: Hypersonic Missiles
Post by TFLYTSNBN   » Sun May 12, 2019 7:40 pm

TFLYTSNBN
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1386
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:58 am

I am unimpressed.

We have had ICBMs for over half a century. RV velocity of Mach 20+. The US had precision guided manauverable reenty vehicles with an Earth pentrator warhead on the Pershing II back in the 1980s.

President Trump has provoked a shitstorm with a request for a LOWER yield warhead for the Trident II missile. I guarentee you that the low yield warhead is to arm a precision guided MARV that can destroy a hardened missile silo. It will be able to take out a silo with essentially zero, off site casualties from blast effects, thermal radiation or initial nuclear radiation, and minimal fallout.

Here is a very good analysis of current counterforce capability.

Web results
The New Era of Counterforce: Technological Change and the Future of Nuclear Deterrence - Belfer Center
PDFBelfer Center › isec_a_00273_LieberPress

I vividly remember a very hostile interview with the FBI after writing a paper with a similar analysis back in the 1980s.


A SCRAMJET powered hypersonic vehicle will mass several tons. To get intercontinental range you will have to deMIRV an ICBM, replacing ten warheads with only one warhead. Aircraft launched hypersonic vehicles will be much shorter range, will have to cruise at 100,000 feet altitude to avoid melting, can NOT be stealthy and will give defenses significant time to shoot them down.

This being said, hypersonic missiles will enhance certain capabilities. An example is giving the proposed F-15X and may be the proposed B1R the ability to provide 1,000 kilometer range, air to air fire support for F-22 and F-35. (Lauching a hypersonic missile from a B-52 requires a solid fuel rocket booster massing twice the missile. F-15X and B1R would require a much smaller booster or may be even no boister.)

A plausible SCRAMJET, Mach 10 capable, hypersonic missile is NOT going to be able to manauver as much as presumed. Even with a 20 g turn capability, the turning radius is going to be over 50 kilometers. A Mach 20 hypersonic vehicle would have a turning radius of 200 kilometer! If the hypersonic missile is compelled to evade an interceptor missile, it will not be able to hit its target. In the unlikely event that an interceptor can not outmanuver a hypersonic vehicle, put a low yield nuke on the interceptor missile like we had on the Falcon interceptor missiles back in the 1960s and the hypersonic vehicle is toast.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-26_Falcon

I am not suggesting that hypersonic weapons are not an advancement over traditional ballistic missiles. However; they will not be quite so revolutionary.
Top
Re: Hypersonic Missiles
Post by Dilandu   » Mon May 13, 2019 7:07 am

Dilandu
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: Russia

TFLYTSNBN wrote:
President Trump has provoked a shitstorm with a request for a LOWER yield warhead for the Trident II missile. I guarentee you that the low yield warhead is to arm a precision guided MARV that can destroy a hardened missile silo. It will be able to take out a silo with essentially zero, off site casualties from blast effects, thermal radiation or initial nuclear radiation, and minimal fallout.


Wrong.

The main goal is to restore tactical nuclear abilities, which seriously degraded since the end of Cold War.
------------------------------

- Who would won in battle between strawman Liberal-Democrat and strawman Conservative-Republican?
- Scarecrow from Oz; he was strawman before it became political.

P.S. - And he have Russian twin, to watch his back)
Top
Re: Hypersonic Missiles
Post by TFLYTSNBN   » Tue May 14, 2019 5:56 pm

TFLYTSNBN
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1386
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:58 am

Dilandu wrote:
TFLYTSNBN wrote:
President Trump has provoked a shitstorm with a request for a LOWER yield warhead for the Trident II missile. I guarentee you that the low yield warhead is to arm a precision guided MARV that can destroy a hardened missile silo. It will be able to take out a silo with essentially zero, off site casualties from blast effects, thermal radiation or initial nuclear radiation, and minimal fallout.


Wrong.

The main goal is to restore tactical nuclear abilities, which seriously degraded since the end of Cold War.



Wrongo!

Tactical nukes were never truly useful except against concentrated forces. The most obvious targets were Soviet tank formations. Even then, mild dispersal seriously limited the effectiveness of tactical nukes and those pesky German towns were less than a kiloton apart. The US couldn't use tactical nukes without nuking Germany. The US has plenty of conventional, precision guided weapons for use against troops and armored vehicles.

Russia might be motivated to deploy tactical nuclear weapons to offset numerical disadvantage in conventional forces. However; most of the new systems that Russia is developing or deploying seem to be Intermediate Range or Medium Range systems with higher yield warheads designed to be used as strategic or counterforce weapons against emerging nuclear armed states in its backyard. Russia legitimately seeks to have shorter range nukes to deter local adversaries while reserving its strategic weapons to deter the US. The US has similar motivation to be able to engage Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and may be Brazil with weapons that are not part of the strategic reserve.
Top
Re: Hypersonic Missiles
Post by cthia   » Wed May 15, 2019 10:10 am

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 11274
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:10 pm

TFLYTSNBN wrote:I am unimpressed.

We have had ICBMs for over half a century. RV velocity of Mach 20+. The US had precision guided manauverable reenty vehicles with an Earth pentrator warhead on the Pershing II back in the 1980s.

President Trump has provoked a shitstorm with a request for a LOWER yield warhead for the Trident II missile. I guarentee you that the low yield warhead is to arm a precision guided MARV that can destroy a hardened missile silo. It will be able to take out a silo with essentially zero, off site casualties from blast effects, thermal radiation or initial nuclear radiation, and minimal fallout.

Here is a very good analysis of current counterforce capability.

Web results
The New Era of Counterforce: Technological Change and the Future of Nuclear Deterrence - Belfer Center
PDFBelfer Center › isec_a_00273_LieberPress

I vividly remember a very hostile interview with the FBI after writing a paper with a similar analysis back in the 1980s.


A SCRAMJET powered hypersonic vehicle will mass several tons. To get intercontinental range you will have to deMIRV an ICBM, replacing ten warheads with only one warhead. Aircraft launched hypersonic vehicles will be much shorter range, will have to cruise at 100,000 feet altitude to avoid melting, can NOT be stealthy and will give defenses significant time to shoot them down.

This being said, hypersonic missiles will enhance certain capabilities. An example is giving the proposed F-15X and may be the proposed B1R the ability to provide 1,000 kilometer range, air to air fire support for F-22 and F-35. (Lauching a hypersonic missile from a B-52 requires a solid fuel rocket booster massing twice the missile. F-15X and B1R would require a much smaller booster or may be even no boister.)

A plausible SCRAMJET, Mach 10 capable, hypersonic missile is NOT going to be able to manauver as much as presumed. Even with a 20 g turn capability, the turning radius is going to be over 50 kilometers. A Mach 20 hypersonic vehicle would have a turning radius of 200 kilometer! If the hypersonic missile is compelled to evade an interceptor missile, it will not be able to hit its target. In the unlikely event that an interceptor can not outmanuver a hypersonic vehicle, put a low yield nuke on the interceptor missile like we had on the Falcon interceptor missiles back in the 1960s and the hypersonic vehicle is toast.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-26_Falcon

I am not suggesting that hypersonic weapons are not an advancement over traditional ballistic missiles. However; they will not be quite so revolutionary.

ICBMs aren't generally used as tactical weapons and launched at the pride of the navy—aircraft carriers—possibly leveling the playing field and simultaneously threatening to reduce decades of investment to SL scrap.

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: Hypersonic Missiles
Post by Daryl   » Wed May 15, 2019 11:57 pm

Daryl
Admiral

Posts: 2827
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Queensland Australia

The V2 rockets in WW2 were hypersonic missiles. The sound arrived after them.
Top
Re: Hypersonic Missiles
Post by Dilandu   » Thu May 16, 2019 9:08 am

Dilandu
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: Russia

TFLYTSNBN wrote:
Wrongo!

Tactical nukes were never truly useful except against concentrated forces. The most obvious targets were Soviet tank formations. Even then, mild dispersal seriously limited the effectiveness of tactical nukes and those pesky German towns were less than a kiloton apart.


Wrong again.

Tactical nukes are the quick & cheap way to deliver the amount of firepower comparable with several hours of artillery division fire in ONE moment. Which is invaluable on battlefield, because it did not left enemy time to react or counter. And forced dispersion basically means, that the opponent's troops are harder to control & coordinate. Which means, that their striking power is limited.

The NATO doctrine of Cold War wasn't about nuking Soviet tank battalions on the frontlines. It would simply be ineffective - tanks are rather nuclear-resistant. The main idea was, that tactical nukes could be used to quickly open breaches in Soviet defense positions, thus allowing NATO armor to launch flanking attacks. And the time was crucial for that. NATO commanders could not allow to waste time, penetrating the flanks of Soviet advancing armies by conventional means. Even short delay would allow Soviet commanders to pinpoint the direction of planned counterattack, and reinforce it.

The tactical nukes allowed armor to destroy opponent defenses very quickly, and advance through irradiated battleground - WHERE ENEMY INFANTRY COULD NOT STALL THE TANKS. With the advent of portable anti-tank missiles, it became too easy for entrenched infantry to stall the armor attack. And Soviet doctrine since World War 2 put heavy emphasis on protecting the flanks of advancing armies, so the opponent could not launch the counterattack. The tactical nukes were effective solution in such situation.
------------------------------

- Who would won in battle between strawman Liberal-Democrat and strawman Conservative-Republican?
- Scarecrow from Oz; he was strawman before it became political.

P.S. - And he have Russian twin, to watch his back)
Top
Re: Hypersonic Missiles
Post by TFLYTSNBN   » Thu May 16, 2019 11:40 pm

TFLYTSNBN
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1386
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:58 am

Daryl wrote:The V2 rockets in WW2 were hypersonic missiles. The sound arrived after them.



By convention, hypersonic is Mach 5 plus.

The burnout velocity of the V2 was just a bit shy of Mach 5.

Velocity at impact was a bit over Mach 2.
Top
Re: Hypersonic Missiles
Post by TFLYTSNBN   » Thu May 16, 2019 11:45 pm

TFLYTSNBN
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1386
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:58 am

cthia wrote:
TFLYTSNBN wrote:I am unimpressed.

We have had ICBMs for over half a century. RV velocity of Mach 20+. The US had precision guided manauverable reenty vehicles with an Earth pentrator warhead on the Pershing II back in the 1980s.

President Trump has provoked a shitstorm with a request for a LOWER yield warhead for the Trident II missile. I guarentee you that the low yield warhead is to arm a precision guided MARV that can destroy a hardened missile silo. It will be able to take out a silo with essentially zero, off site casualties from blast effects, thermal radiation or initial nuclear radiation, and minimal fallout.

Here is a very good analysis of current counterforce capability.

Web results
The New Era of Counterforce: Technological Change and the Future of Nuclear Deterrence - Belfer Center
PDFBelfer Center › isec_a_00273_LieberPress

I vividly remember a very hostile interview with the FBI after writing a paper with a similar analysis back in the 1980s.


A SCRAMJET powered hypersonic vehicle will mass several tons. To get intercontinental range you will have to deMIRV an ICBM, replacing ten warheads with only one warhead. Aircraft launched hypersonic vehicles will be much shorter range, will have to cruise at 100,000 feet altitude to avoid melting, can NOT be stealthy and will give defenses significant time to shoot them down.

This being said, hypersonic missiles will enhance certain capabilities. An example is giving the proposed F-15X and may be the proposed B1R the ability to provide 1,000 kilometer range, air to air fire support for F-22 and F-35. (Lauching a hypersonic missile from a B-52 requires a solid fuel rocket booster massing twice the missile. F-15X and B1R would require a much smaller booster or may be even no boister.)

A plausible SCRAMJET, Mach 10 capable, hypersonic missile is NOT going to be able to manauver as much as presumed. Even with a 20 g turn capability, the turning radius is going to be over 50 kilometers. A Mach 20 hypersonic vehicle would have a turning radius of 200 kilometer! If the hypersonic missile is compelled to evade an interceptor missile, it will not be able to hit its target. In the unlikely event that an interceptor can not outmanuver a hypersonic vehicle, put a low yield nuke on the interceptor missile like we had on the Falcon interceptor missiles back in the 1960s and the hypersonic vehicle is toast.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-26_Falcon

I am not suggesting that hypersonic weapons are not an advancement over traditional ballistic missiles. However; they will not be quite so revolutionary.

ICBMs aren't generally used as tactical weapons and launched at the pride of the navy—aircraft carriers—possibly leveling the playing field and simultaneously threatening to reduce decades of investment to SL scrap.


Good luck hitting a manuavering aircraft carrier with a Mach 20 MARV that has a turning radius of 200 kilometers that will have to evade ABM capable SAMs launched by escort ships.
Top

Return to Free-Range Topics...