Slashdot Mirror
War Tech the US, Russia, China and India All Want: Hypersonic Weapons
An anonymous reader writes: They can hit any target in 30 minutes or less. They travel anywhere from Mach 5 to Mach 25. All the major powers want them, and many look at them as a military game changer — if only they can make them work. Are hypersonic weapons the future of military doctrine?
Hypersonic weapons — or ballistic weapons that can hit a target flying many times faster than the speed of sound — have been hyped since the 1970s. Currently almost all of the major powers are trying to build them. The U.S. and China seem to be the furthest along, and are working on various types of systems. China hopes such weapons could be a game changer and deter any U.S. actions in Asia. There is, however, one big problem (besides the insane amount of technology to make them work, considering their speed): a possible arms race that could lead to a nuclear war:
"According to some analysts, the development of hypersonic weapons creates the conditions for a new arms race, and could risk nuclear escalation. Given that the course of hypersonic research has acknowledged both of these concerns, why have several countries started testing the weapons?"
Hypersonic weapons — or ballistic weapons that can hit a target flying many times faster than the speed of sound — have been hyped since the 1970s. Currently almost all of the major powers are trying to build them. The U.S. and China seem to be the furthest along, and are working on various types of systems. China hopes such weapons could be a game changer and deter any U.S. actions in Asia. There is, however, one big problem (besides the insane amount of technology to make them work, considering their speed): a possible arms race that could lead to a nuclear war:
"According to some analysts, the development of hypersonic weapons creates the conditions for a new arms race, and could risk nuclear escalation. Given that the course of hypersonic research has acknowledged both of these concerns, why have several countries started testing the weapons?"
hypersonic *airbreathing* missiles are about as likely as me setting foot on Mars.
Even supersonic aircraft have problems, simply because you have to slow the air down before it enters the combustion chamber - otherwise it's travelling too fast to ignite the fuel. That's why you have baffles and diverters in supersonic intakes. They are LARGE. Check out Concorde's engines, those intakes were huge and the diverters completely obscured the view of the turbines, in fact the precombustion section was the single largest component of the entire engine and it was mostly empty space.
Hypsonic baffles would be a: too bulky and b: too heavy to use in a missile where the whole idea for a military application is to make it as small a cross-section as possible - not so much for targetting (what's going to catch a missile doing 6,000mph?), but for detection. Even a 4 minute warning, which is what you're going to have, is better than nothing.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Power will shift eventually, it always does, but we can hope America is replaced by somebody equally or more benevolent.
The problem with that hope is that odds are, the USA is going to have to go even more sharply downhill (with terrible global consequences) before that can happen. I still don't think this nation is beyond redemption, if the people are catalyzed.
* This isn't to excuse the actions of either the British Empire, or anything the Americans have done, but they have certainly been a force for good in the grand scheme of things.
Those days are over, at least for the USA. We're definitely a net drain today.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So in other words the carriers had a more than adequate defense in the F-14 and the Phoenix missile. Those Tu-22s would have fallen like leaves.
Anyway, everybody knows the real carrier killer is the submarine, and there is not the slightest semblance of a credible defense against it.
Do you really think any of that would happen? Pretense is the name of international politicking. Make a plan, choose a scapegoat, and wait for something convenient to use as a trigger. From the invasion of Iraq with false evidence to blaming North Korea for the Sony hack with evidence pointing in every direction the gears keep turning all the same.
A single nuke goes off without a clearly visible vapor trail behind it? The responsible party is whomever the powers that be say it is regardless of intent, action, proof, or anything resembling a fact.
jetliner wheel brakes don't have to last much beyond bringing an aircraft to a dead stop. Hypersonic airframes have to withstand constant high temperatures and aerodynamic stress. CC can't do the former without oxidising (threshold of oxidation on carbon composite is about 1650C while the skin temperature is tested at 2000+) so a coating is needed that only needs to withstand the high temperature without decomposing. Elemental metals are out, as are superalloys, silicon composite is definitely out since at these temperatures it does as designed on SSO heatshields: it evaporates giving the airframe a shield made of hot plasma (which will not only disrupt the airfoil but the oxide coating as well), something else has to be found. More info here: Hypersonic Technology for Military Application (National Academies, 1 Jan 1990)
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Even the Navy commanders themselves openly admitted that F-14 and AIM-54 was an product borne out of desperation and didn't have much of a chance against threat scenarios presented before it. AIM-54 was a vastly flawed attempt to make a long range air to air missile which was largely a failure - hence its retirement after the only platform ever made capable of launching and guiding it was retired. Suggesting that a bomber with significant jamming and chaff dispensing capability would "fall like a leaf" from such a missile is like suggesting that "Mike Tyson at his best would have been knocked out by the impact of that little girl's slap".
As in it is in the realm of possibility, just not a very realistic scenario. But if was a scenario where there was at least an ability to detected and fire something at the bomber that would have a chance of connecting with it. Which is a whole lot more than current situation with F/A-18Es and the upcoming F-35Cs, which will never be able to even engage the bomber.
In some ways he was better. There was a lot more social mobility in Napoleon's empire than in much of the rest of Europe at the time. The main problem was that he was a great general but a terrible politician. He had no idea how to run a country without a war and he didn't have an economy that could sustain perpetual war. On the other hand, he did abolish the metric time system that the French Revolution introduced...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News