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?"
Absolutely nothin!
Because they're all bastards.
Joe Biden is a square shooter. Joe Biden for 2016
The process of power shifting from a set of hands to another set of hands has happened before many times throughout the course of human history.
Maybe something similar is about to happen again.
http://moneymorning.com/ext/ar...
If this is true, the mystery of why all these countries want these weapons, disappears.
Them Russians are ironically the most advanced in this aspect, kinda makes those trillion dollar carrier groups big targets if you can lob multiple cheaper hypersonic bombs at them. Not really any reference to that in this piece.
I don't see how this can work.
ICBMs are already hypersonic weapons. Problem is launching one gets everyone else twichy because they might have a bunch of nuclear warheads on the end.
Whereas hypersonic missiles don't. So won't make anyone twitchy. Until someone sticks a nuclear warhead on them which is about the first thing they'll do. Then they'll make everyone just as twitchy as before except that they flight path will be a bit different.
About 3 years after the first practical hypersonic air breathing missile comes online, they'll be in *exactly* the same place as ICBMs with similar flight times, hitting capabilities and unusuableness due to everyone else thinking you're staring WWIII.
On the other hand, hypersonic arbreathing engines are cool, so whatever.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The game changer for nuclear weapons is not a faster delivery system, it's an effective shield. That was why the Soviet Union was so worried about Star Wars. If it had worked, then it would have meant that the USA could have launched a first strike without worrying about the USSR's second strike capability. Hypersonics just make it harder to develop any kind of active shield (it's hard for an interceptor to hit something travelling at Mach 5-25).
Of course, the real game changer for nuclear weapons would be someone who doesn't care about second strike. The easy and cheap way of building something that has the same military impact as a fully functional shield is to simply not care about your civilian population. This is why everyone is nervous about North Korea: if they wanted to fire a nuke at South Korea or Japan, the threat of nuclear annihilation of their cities in response wouldn't be very likely to dissuade them.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Firstly, plenty of stuff is already hypersonic. This artilce is really only about hypersonic CRUISE MISSILES. The article mentions some this, but the summary is just crap.
Secondly, the definition cited is wrong. Cruise missles are not ballistic weapons, because they are NOT BALLISTIC.
Thirdly, the idea that you can opt out of an arms race is asinine. If you opt out, you die.
Fourthly, not all arms races are bad. Nuclear arms races are bad, because nuclear weapons, when used, cause vast amounts of collateral damage. An arms race based on fast precision weapons with tiny warheads has no such downside.
Yeah. For the clarity to other readers, this statement is not supported by any logic nor by any argument. It is just that "some analysts" (i.e. probably some dude the author met in a pub) say that something could lead to "nuclear escalation". It is there to attract eye balls and clicks. Now that we have agreed that the whole talk about "nuclear war" or "nuclear escalation", we can focus on discussing this pretty cool sounding hypersonic weaponry stuff.
"Given that the course of hypersonic research has acknowledged both of these concerns, why have several countries started testing the weapons?"
This is a pretty typical case of the prisoner's dilemma. The world would be a better place if no country had them, however if only one has them the rest would be at a significant disadvantage so everybody wants to have them. I guess you could say the same thing about nuclear weapons as well.
Is that supposed to mean
ballistic weapons that can hit a target which is flying many times faster than the speed of sound
or
ballistic weapons that are flying at many times faster than the speed of sound when they hit the target
Also, "many times faster than the speed of sound" sucks.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Weapons that use directed energy, electromagnetism, lasers, radio waves, light waves, work at the speed of light and are already deployed.
The usual distribution method is satellites and radar that basically image, track, and can target any area with waves. To dustify a building, knock out planes, kill and mind control humans, and knock even an hypersonic nuke out of the sky before it can even move.
The defense platform against this is SDI/strategic defense initiative. 25 haarp type arrays and hundreds of satellites are deployed today to direct energy where we need it. We image and track any nuke, missile, human, plane, car, bird, or projectile device remotely, computers automate the tracking. Like Cruz control.
Raytheon has patented the back end.
obamasweapon.com
War Tech the US, Russia, China and India All Want:Sonic Weapons (screwdriver)
Fixed that for you.
I'm too lazy to do the googling now, but to me, it looks like a thinly veiled "MOAR DOLLAHS $$!$" from the military-industry complex. The same they're doing probably in China and Russia/India.
I even wouldn't be surprised if those goons were secretly in contact, to develop strategies on how best extracting money from their respective gov^H^H^H working idiot classes.
1) I hate that expression.
2) The game was already changed in the 1970s with the Sprint ABM. The game changed for one day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Dr. Strangelove needs to control his right arm.
Yes, it can lead to an arms race. The problem is that if you hold off and your enemy doesn't, you're a sitting duck. Avoiding the arms race is only possible if everybody involved holds off, and you don't/can't trust any of them to hold off so you have to proceed as if you're already involved in an arms race whether you want to be or not. Because the only thing worse than being in a Mexican standoff is being the one guy in a Mexican standoff without any guns.
Let me point out three problems:
First, it's another obvious military/industrial complex boondoggle, like so many others I could mention. That industry has indeed become too entrenched and makes too much too good money out of endlessly failing to come up with working military technology. We've already seen "star wars" come and go, but there are so many other examples. Also note that the Chinese merely mentioning having an outlandish capability will easily tie up "over nine figures" (or 12, or 15) of budget for years to come to "face the threat". They might be announcing they might have some such capability in the near future just for that reason, you know. And of course the USA will feel they can't afford not to take the bait anyhow. Oh happy porkfest all over again.
Second, is it a useful weapon? Not for the wars the USA is fighting (and losing) currently. That type of conflict, where the other side consists of hardy hill hicks already dwelling in caves means bombing them back to the stone age does nothing. Not with daisy cutters, not with ballistic anything. Your fancy weapons are useless. The only way to do it is to go in and win them over, the old "hearts and minds" type of thing. Something the USA has shown again and again it cannot even try without having it backfire in some spectacular way. No cookie for you.
Third, what does this weapon really do? Suppose the Chinese do manage to cook it up, naturally far cheaper than the USA ever could. Flatten the white house? To what end? There are better ways to do that. No, what it does really really well is send the carriers after the battleships, right back to port. And who has carriers? There's only one country with enough of those to matter. So what good does having a carrier-killer weapon do you, hm?
We've got rules and maps and guns in our backs but we still can't just behave ourselves,
Even if to save our own lives
So says I:
We are a brutal kind
From "So Says I" (Official Video).
"It's in your nature to destroy yourselves."
"Given that the course of hypersonic research has acknowledged both of these concerns, why have several countries started testing the weapons?"
I guess my answer would be "all of human history"?
Only the categorically naive wouldn't understand why someone wouldn't research a new, more efficacious weapon.
I guess it's a good sign of how utterly benign our world must be that people can exist with such sentiment.
-Styopa
No mention of Peace on Earth POE, OPE...
A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
They might like to have them to play with, few of the rest of us do. They are dangerous and expensive.
If they are really that important: there ought to be an interlock that means that they will only fly if there is a 5 star general strapped on board. If he is willing to give up his life as well as those that the missile will hit - then I will agree that it is important. Not otherwise.
...and China continues to excel at stealing all the IP they can get their hands on. I guess in the long run it ends up being the same thing.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
US. Trident warhead enter the atmosphere in hypersonic speed.
Russia. RS-26 rubezh warhead enter atmosphere at mach 12 speed, with S-curve flight profile. SS-18 satan warhead enter atmosphere at mach 20 speed. Enough speed for you?
China DF-31D anti ship ballistic warheas enter atmosphere at hypersonic speed. And it also have terminal maneuvering rockets. And china just successfully tested their mach 12 hypersonic S-curve maneuvering cruise missile.
India. Brahmos is a mach 5-6 anti ship weapon (with a goal of sustain 8-12 mach speed). R&D combined together with russia. And the missile based on the already proofen russian P-800 oniks hypersonic missile.
So, who thinks those countries doesn't have hypersonic weapons??
TFA's contention that the hypersonic weapons could lead to nuclear war is nothing but fear mongering
The development of hypersonic projectiles is precisely to avoid nuclear war --- by stopping aggressors to use their existing might, such as the USA with their fleets of warship, to be used as the launching pads of nuclear tip missiles
The only way the hypersonic weapons can become the trigger of nuclear war is when the USA does not want other countries, such as China, to own hypersonic weapons so much so that the US will launch the first nuclear strike on China
In other words, hypersonic weapon is not the problem. The USA is
Credibility of the source article is harmed by being dated "December 30, 2015." I realize it must be a typo, but if they can't get that right it makes me wonder.
The world is going to hell in a hand-basket and everyone is focused on trying to make a bigger gun than the next guy.
Penis envy is so counterproductive.
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
The development of non-ballistic hypersonic weapons is one of the reasons that the U.S. is heavy into making the laser weapons functional, affordable and usable. Something like the one on the USS Ponce, maybe not that one but the next generation of the weapon. Now, defense against something like Pournelle and Nivien's project Thor is another story.
Passionately Indifferent
"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?" The answer lies in the short game. Quickest move to checkmate to get to GAME OVER. Long wars have been a problem with the cost of deployment, supply routes, tracking assets etc. Getting a destructive payload on a target has so many advantages. Taking out an operative before he can end his call. Knocking out a battalion just as it makes it's first move. Stopping a terror cell when it is still locking and loading before they reach civilian areas. Even sinking a pirate operation approaching a merchant ship. They could all be reasons for the fast and now deployment and taking control.
"I do not know what weapons we will fight World War Three with, but World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones."
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The only thing worse than getting involved in an arms race is losing one.
Great weapons allow superior cultures to be safe from traditionalist rebels against progress. It's that simple.
Given that the course of hypersonic research has acknowledged both of these concerns, why have several countries started testing the weapons?"
Because every country has a Military Industrial Complex that needs to be fed, and every country has people that... well in the words of General "Buck" Turgidson: "Mr. President, we must not allow a mineshaft gap!"
So asking questions like "Why?" is silly, it's obvious why.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
If the delivery system is now hypersonic why attach a nuclear warhead to it? Why not use kinetic energy to destroy the target? Mach 5 - 25 an object hitting a target has to have immense force.
Instead of waiting 100 or more years for radiation to dissipate the area can be re-inhabited immediately.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Hypersonic weapons — or ballistic weapons that can hit a target flying many times faster than the speed of sound...
The summary is flat wrong in its terminology. A key point about hypersonic weapons, from a tactical and strategic standpoint, is that they aren't ballistic. They're potentially faster and sneakier.
Aside from acceleration during boost and (generally limited) manoeuvering during descent, ballistic weapons are - by definition - coasting unpowered for most of their flight time. Ballistic missiles put their warheads into an elliptical orbit that happens to intersect the surface of the earth (typically somewhere around Moscow) and let gravity do most of the work.
Hypersonic weapons, in stark contrast, are in powered flight for most or all of their journey. Instead of being lobbed up and coming back down, they can go straight to their target (modulo the curvature of the earth). They can travel a path and a velocity that is limited by their own engineering rather than by orbital mechanics. From a strategic standpoint, they would allow delivery of warheads (particularly nuclear warheads) in shorter times by less-detectable and less-interceptable courses, with all the attendant consequences for the calculus of nuclear war, first strikes, and mutually assured destruction.
~Idarubicin
Our development of these are for stopping just this situation.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
There is a reason for railguns and lasers.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I would imagine that the development of Hypersonic weapons would also necessitate increased development and deployment of laser defense weapons since they might be the ONLY way you can target and destroy them before they reach their targets.
Designer Barnes Wallis talked about how difficult it was for him to convince the General Staff to review, just review, his water skipping/skimming bomb that could attack a dam jumping over the anti-torpedo nets. He could succeed only because was already a well known bomber designer (Wellington bomber, R100 blimps). The General Staff is very averse to really unconventional weapons, and are preoccupied by what they already know. But it was easy for some German gun maker to get funding for a humongous artillery weapon. It was so huge and the logistics to support it was so enormous, it was commanded by a full Colonel. Imagine a Colonel commanding one stupid gun. I think it was fired just once.
They could not believe aircraft could destroy ships before WW-II. French could not believe armour could penetrate Ardennes forest. They were using tactics developed during Napoleanic wars where the rate of fire of mustets was something like 1 or 2 shots per minute during 100-rounds-per-minute Civil war. Never learnt from that carnage. Happily throwing cannon fodder in trench warfare in WW-I in 500 rounds per minute machine guns.
Yes, the generals may be dreaming about hypersonic weapons, but their tails are going to be chewed by something they never imagined.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
we could be spending all that money, time, and brainpower on helping people, not killing them.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
Combine the technology hypersonic deployment with drone capabilities at the destination, could be pretty powerful,
I was just thinking if we had a hypersonic drone to quickly go on-site and do searches in emergencies like that recent asian air disaster, that could possibly save lives a lot faster than current methods.
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
We already have communicators, tricorders and PADDs, If these governments want photon torpedoes, they have to invent warp drive and transporters first..
Make it so!
They can hit any target in 30 minutes or less.
How about drone pizza delivery world wide!
AB HOC POSSUM VIDERE DOMUM TUUM
Made the entire island into a Navy base that you had to have permission to go to unless you were born there. Only changed that in the late 60s.
We've long touted M.A.D. (and nuclear weapons as a result) as the invention of peace-ensuring weapons. Can't launch a nuke without being guaranteed that someone else will nuke you a few moments later, so you never launch yours.
But thirty minutes is shorter than the administrative effort for a launch-back. That's a big huge problem.
Ready the dead-man switches.
>> Because we're all bastards.
Fixed that for you.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Hypersonic weapons, rail guns, tanks, naval vessels, drones ... all are expensive relics of another century. If the goal is to kill, there are better, cheaper ways for which there is no current defence.
Chemicals and bio weapons are so cheap, so easy to develop and distribute to large and small populations that any money spent on stupid hardware is a ridiculous waste. Any college student (much less an angry mob or small nation) with some talent could wipe out a large population right now in 2015.
Those with the tech, money and talent should be thinking seriously about how to defend against these weapons. This is a new century- wake up!
...omphaloskepsis often...
>> Because we're all bastards.
Fixed that for you.
I'd gladly accept your opprobrium if you'll arrange for me to have a hypersonic weapon to test. Until then, speak for yourself... I'm not part of your "we".
It BOOMS since WWII but that's all it does... It just booms the air with lots of hype. This thing is like the Philosophical Rock of the good Middle Ages. The difference is that, from the early start, someone tries to tell you how hard, heavy and look-alike the rock is.
Which means all these quests are a total failure. For one simple reason - Speed vs. Maneuverability. You can't have both in one basket. Either you sacrifice one for the sake of the other or you get nothing (eeeee, not so straight. You may get something you believe it works but usually it becomes bloody expensive).
Hypersonics are very peculiar on this cost. It's mega-speed, so it means you have near-zero maneuverability. Worse, even miserable deviations to a planned trajectory may be deadly to your mega-cannonball. X-15 and the Shuttle have magnificent examples of such cases, down from the drawing board and up to, somehow, Columbia's tragedy. They all show that hypersonics is not a place to play with fire. Because it's fire all over. Everything burns, even the best alloys and composites we created for this task. And a small deviation of parameters/environment and you are dealling with Sun temperatures in a place you may have not taken into account. In such cases, the result can be nothing but catastrophic.
This does not mean there is nothing to do in hypersonics. Well, nuclear heads and space systems fly on it! So there is something to do there. Maybe even a hypersonic rocket could have a role, if we count all caveats of the field. However, most hypersonic research is linked to the idea of creating a "TOP GUN" system, with Buck Rogers at the helm and even less brainy politicians and generals feeding the whole thing with mega-budgets and napoleonic dreams on World Peace.
To end, let me note that this whole story has a historical scent of sinister. The first idea of an hypersonic mega-weapon was first studied in The Third Reich! Its name - Silbervogel. It was a madness like many things nazis did then but it is not just a crazy idea "floating in the air". In fact, the nazis tried some follow-ups and one of those was pushed by von Braun's boss - general Walter Dornberger. Later, after getting a solid feet in the US, Dornberger will lobby several times for hypersonic mega-weapons. In the end he became the father, forefather and grandfather of the BOMI, X-15, X-20 Dyna-Soar and Space Shuttle.
You don't need great weapons. Just Drop A "Heat bomb" In Antarctic Ice Sheet. You'll Drown The World.
Casteism
Wouldn't a senator be better? I mean, they wanted those missiles done, they approved the war, and they should represent the nation in good and bad. Generals are just doing their job. Senator supply will refresh faster than general supply.