Slashdot Mirror


The US And Australia Are Testing Hypersonic Missiles (engadget.com)

schwit1 quotes Engadget: Both the U.S. and Australia have confirmed that they recently completed a series of mysterious hypersonic missile tests. All the countries will say is that the flights were successful, and that they represented "significant milestones" in testing everything from the design assembly to the control mechanisms. They won't even say which vehicles were used or how quickly they traveled, although past tests have usually relied on Terrier Orion rockets and have reached speeds as high as Mach 8.

The tests are part of the long-running HIFiRE (Hypersonic International Flight Research Experimentation) program, whose first launch took place way back in 2009. They should help bring hypersonic flight to a "range of applications," according to HIFiRE partner BAE. That could easily include ultra-fast aircraft, but it's widely believed the focus here is on missiles and similar unmanned weapons. A hypersonic missile would fulfill the US military's goal of building a conventional weapon that can strike anywhere within an hour, and it would be virtually impossible to stop using existing missile defenses. In theory, enemy nations wouldn't dare attack if they knew they'd face certain retaliation within minutes.

Originally NASA was involved in the project, which has been ongoing for more than eight years. But it's timeline may have shortened after reports that foreign powers including Russia and China are already building their own hypersonic missiles.

100 comments

  1. It a ppears we, (the US of A) are kinda behind... by bogaboga · · Score: 0

    You see, it's reported that Russia has already tested such a missile.

    In fact, the Russians claim that because of the missile they tested, our missile defenses are already obsolete.

    That doesn't mean we were completely safe before this missile.

  2. Great...another infallible defense by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    In theory, enemy nations wouldn't dare attack if they knew they'd face certain retaliation within minutes.

    LOL-tech solution:

    Step 1: Frame an enemy.

    Step 2: Open bag of popcorn.

    Step 3: Enjoy the show.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:Great...another infallible defense by dknj · · Score: 2

      This is the reason why we can't have nice wars

  3. "testing"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean the Sprint missile from the 1960s wasn't enough?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  4. Re: It a ppears we, (the US of A) are kinda behind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm about 70% certain that I witnessed one of these being tested. I live outside of Fort Leonard Wood. Was jogging last month and happened to be looking up at the sky. In a tiny fraction of a second there was the fastest moving object I've ever seen, basically a thin silver blur followed by a quickly dissipating trail of smoke.

    I've been around this base most of my life. Have probably seen a few secret things flying around, but nothing ever like this.

  5. Missile defenses by techdolphin · · Score: 2

    "[I]t would be virtually impossible to stop using existing missile defenses." I thought I read recently that the U.S. just deployed a new laser weapon that could shoot down missiles.

    1. Would this be a defense against hypersonic missiles?
    2. Does anybody know if it was developed as a defense against hypersonic missiles?

    1. Re:Missile defenses by MangoCats · · Score: 2

      Lasers are faster than missiles, but can a laser tracking system successfully track a hypersonic missile and deliver enough energy to stop it?

    2. Re:Missile defenses by afaiktoit · · Score: 2

      I'd say the front of a hypersonic missile is probably pushing the limits of thermal protection and a laser wont have much work to do to make it burn up

    3. Re:Missile defenses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The laser cannot attack targets below the horizon or very close to it. With very high speed, the missile is not within range of the laser for very long (a few seconds) and much of that time is taken up with detection and targeting. Then add to this, there will be many incoming at once, not simply one, and the laser can only focus on one at a time...

      In this race, attackers win, defenders lose. The US wants in on the game (Russians have deployed hypersonic missiles since the 1980's), in a kind of non-nuclear MAD. If you do this to us we will do it back to you.

    4. Re:Missile defenses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      can a laser tracking system successfully track a hypersonic missile and deliver enough energy to stop it?

      Even if it can, it cannot do that for many at once, so some will always get through.

    5. Re:Missile defenses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kim Jong-un maybe listening you!

      The rockets and missiles are 2 separated pieces: the former can transport nuclear warheads, and the latter conventional explosives.

      The former are few units, the latter thousands of units.

    6. Re:Missile defenses by fnj · · Score: 1

      Are you sure shining a laser on something already designed to withstand unthinkable heat wouldn't be more like threatening the devil with a match?

    7. Re:Missile defenses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would imagine a network of laser defense elements.

    8. Re:Missile defenses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      France has supersonic cruise missiles that carry a nuclear warhead. Other countries have researched or deployed that capacity.

      Kim Jong Un has tens thousands artillery rockets. They are usually described as rockets rather than missiles, and are an alternative to WW1-style or "tank"-looking artillery guns and are fired from civilian-looking trucks.

      Perhaps you thought of strategic vs tactical?

    9. Re:Missile defenses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, there is only one on any ship. They are very expensive and it takes a lot of power to run it. There is currently no ship with more than a single one, nor are there any plans for such.

    10. Re: Missile defenses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A cruiser can deploy a towed blimp, which can deploy a largish, spinning mirror. That reflects enough of the energy from a high enough height, to shoot well over the carrier visible horizon.

    11. Re:Missile defenses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Already untrue.

    12. Re:Missile defenses by PPH · · Score: 1

      If N Mach 8 hypersonic missiles can overwhelm a laser defense, then 10*N Mach 0.8 missiles can do so as well.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    13. Re: Missile defenses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Won't work, there aren't enough dentists available to aim it.

    14. Re:Missile defenses by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Are you sure shining a laser on something already designed to withstand unthinkable heat wouldn't be more like threatening the devil with a match?

      That would be the case for an ballistic reentry vehicle or a hypersonic cruise missile relying on satellite and inertial navigation but ships move. How does terminal guidance on a hypersonic missile work? The forward surfaces have to be both heat resistant and permeable to whatever sensor is used. The front cannot be just a titanium dart.

      Further you can count on laser power to increase significantly once this sort of anti-missile defense is deemed necessary now that a low power version is being tested in the field and newer ship designs are taking this into account already.

    15. Re:Missile defenses by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      The published articles I've read have all indicated that it might be capable of working as a missile defense system but that the military had not commented on that. The problem with using it for that purpose is going to be speed of target acquisition and engagement. When faced with a missile moving at such high mach speeds there simply isn't likely to be time to fire more than once or twice given the distance to the horizon, and that is ignoring whatever the engagement range actually is on the laser and targeting system.

      Such a system deployed in orbit would have a much better chance of successfully engaging targets. That is essentially what the Star Wars System of the last century was trying for. The problem with such a system though is its location is both an advantage and a handicap, being subject to destruction via ground based or orbital energy weapons. Which of course brings up the thorny issue of weaponizing outer space, which violates standing treaties.

      There has been some published work regarding putting such systems in large planes. The operating altitude of the system would help by granting more time for targeting, but I'd bet that the main limitation would be the laser having a limited effective range because of the atmosphere. So you might have a few minutes to pick targets but in the end you only have a few seconds to fire before the missiles have passed out of range again.

    16. Re:Missile defenses by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      "[I]t would be virtually impossible to stop using existing missile defenses." I thought I read recently that the U.S. just deployed a new laser weapon that could shoot down missiles.

      1. Would this be a defense against hypersonic missiles? 2. Does anybody know if it was developed as a defense against hypersonic missiles?

      The big issue is probably more that there are currently no hypersonic missiles in service, so nobody has bothered to build a system to defend against them. Once they actually exist, then defenses will start being built. This is why many of these tests are secret, to give the offense a head start on the defense at the very least. Still, I wonder if the developers of the our missiles are also trying to come up with defenses?

    17. Re:Missile defenses by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      I'd agree - the Air Force's experimental scramjet aircraft has had a lot of problems with that in the past, to the point where it's slammed into the ocean most of the time due to the shielding heating up and expanding in unexpected ways, changing the airflow and making it lose control. At that point, as long as the laser can get line-of-sight on the target fast enough, and deliver enough power so that it heats up and crashes before it reaches the target, you should be okay. Your targeting systems have to be really fast though.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
  6. What enemy "nations" . . . ? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

    No enemy "nation" will attack the US. The US armed forces already have enough firepower to do a whack-a-mole job on any "nation" in the world.

    The folks to worry about don't have a nation, but wear beards and rags on their heads. The US won't be able to use a s00per-s0nic-giga-Internet-Of-Things-Blockchain rocket against them anyway. Where should the US fire the rocket? Into the country "hosting" them . . . ? If the government even is actively supporting them . . . ? Is it a case of a bunch of Kalashnikov and meth'ed up Koran Kooks bullying a bunch of ignorant primitive peasants into religious submission . . . ? Frankie, says, "pre-teen war-bride sex slaves for all true believers!"

    Actually, screw the giga-sonic missile . . . just give me Colonel Kurtz and ten divisions of his men, and "our troubles here would be over very quickly."

    Of course, our current Western morals and ideals would never permit us to commit such atrocities.

    I've often wondered how Muslims living in the West deal with living in such a modern society: surrounded by Kafir, to fruit of the flesh of the devil. Do they really believe that they can live in tolerance of other folks?

    This is the real security concern for the world of the future: not which country has the biggest, fastest missile. When Korea's Jar of Kimchi lobs a missile at Japan or the US, everyone knows how that one will end . . . really ugly. Go to your local airport, and observer the "Islamic Security Tax" paid by all the folks in the world because of the threat of Islamic Terrorism. That is a far bigger threat that will not be solved by any conventional weapons . . . or even an armed conflict.

    We need desperately to find a way to live in peace with each other, without resorting to violence. But up until now . . . I have only seen solutions involving violence. Maybe we don't yet want peace enough . . . ?

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re: What enemy "nations" . . . ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody ever wanted peace for himself. Just peace for the other guy. As in, rest in peace. Try to keep up.

    2. Re: What enemy "nations" . . . ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      North Korea wipe out that fat boy before they can even respond

    3. Re:What enemy "nations" . . . ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe we don't yet want peace enough

      The problem of asymmetric, low intensity warfare. It just never ends because both sides think they are winning to the end of the world or people, which ever comes first.

  7. Re: It a ppears we, (the US of A) are kinda behind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You seeing things. Army don't have no need for missles. Pershing 2 was the end of that nonsense.

  8. Re:It a ppears we, (the US of A) are kinda behind. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    Russia has already announced the roll out of hypersonic missiles on ships.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  9. Re: It a ppears we, (the US of A) are kinda behind by thereitis · · Score: 1

    That must have been impressive. I remember as a kid a jet fighter flew pretty low overhead - one second it's a tiny speck in the sky, the next it's just *voom!* crossed overhead and gone in a fraction of a second. And I don't think it was even supersonic, let alone hypersonic.

  10. In theory, enemy nations wouldn't dare attack if t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...In theory.

  11. Re: For protecting the climate change. by Deadstick · · Score: 0

    Or not a native Anglophone.

  12. Is irt the early 90's arleady? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yah just that

  13. Re:It a ppears we, (the US of A) are kinda behind. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are two types of tests. The ones that test functionality (which probably happened 20 years ago) and the ones that are designed as a show of force (the ones you and I hear about). My guess is that these "tests" are in response to North Korea and have nothing to do with Russia.

  14. Re:Dynamite with a lazer beam by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 0

    I'm guessing the AC is Russian--an American would know that impeaching Trump yields President Pence.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  15. Re:It a ppears we, (the US of A) are kinda behind. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, and they have had hypersonic air to sea missiles since forever.

    KH90: mach 6-10 deployed since 1980
    KH22: mach 4.6 deployed since 1962
    Zircon, in 8.5 km/sec, produced since 2012, now in trials

    The Russian missiles have very long ranges, sometimes 1000 nm, for use from very long standoff distances against aircraft carrier groups. They knew they could not compete with the US carrier v carrier, so their doctrine was to oversaturate the carrier group's defenses with almost invulnerable very high speed missiles. Maybe a few are shot down but the rest sink the ships.

    This is also now Chinese doctrine.

  16. Re:It a ppears we, (the US of A) are kinda behind. by hey! · · Score: 1

    Which in a sense isn't such a big deal. Yes, it may go at hypersonic speeds, but the fact that it's deployed to ships means it's not really the same thing at all.

    What where talking about is something that could be fired from the US mainland and hit any place on the Earth in under an hour. Such a weapon has profound political implications; it removes the single biggest political risk involved with the use of force: putting the men and women who wield that force in harm's way.

    Basically the US president will be able to say, "I want so and so dead," and if the military knows where that person will be in an hour that person is as good as dead, unless that place is some kind of bunker.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  17. Low Orbit Ion Canon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Charging.....
    Low power (fuuuck) .....Charging complete.
    Select target. (Hmmmm. >:)
    Zaaaaappppp!
    Ion Canon charging.
    Silos needed (fuuuck)
    Warning nuclear warhead approaching. (Fuuuuuck!)

    1. Re:Low Orbit Ion Canon by mrbester · · Score: 1

      "Silos needed" == "Build more units". C&C 101.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
  18. Re:It a ppears we, (the US of A) are kinda behind. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if the military knows where that person will be in an hour

    Uh huh, although that is not as easy as it sounds. Bin Laden was on top of the US shitlist for year after year, and stayed alive (for quite a while at any rate) because nobody knew where he was. Once he was located Navy Seals took care of him, but that took a long time, and often a missile cannot be used anyway due to proximity to civilians.

  19. Re:It a ppears we, (the US of A) are kinda behind. by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The reason they didn't use a cruise missile on Bin Laden wasn't civilian casualties. They've never been excessively concerned about collateral damage when going after lower level Al Qaeda officials, why start worrying then? Because they wanted the body -- hard physical evidence that the job was done. It could have been called either way.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  20. Re:It a ppears we, (the US of A) are kinda behind. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

    You could high tech this today with an XB-37 launch and some 'rods from God'. Throwing rocks from the high ground has worked for a long, long time. GPS helps.

    We could low tech the problem and toast 'Lil Kim and his barber with a boring old 1 million dollar cruise missile. As usual, the political ramifications of doing so, tend to er, Trump, the straight military application of force.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  21. Re:It a ppears we, (the US of A) are kinda behind. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  22. Re:It a ppears we, (the US of A) are kinda behind. by Frank+Burly · · Score: 1

    Collateral damage in the middle of nowhere is one thing. Collateral damage a couple miles from an ostensibly friendly military academy is another . . . especially if you can't find the body.

  23. Re:It a ppears we, (the US of A) are kinda behind. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But it is the reason they didn't use one against al-Baghdadi several times that his location was known. The point wasn't about any given person, it was about the general case.

    "ISIL is believed to be headquartered in a series of buildings in Raqqa, but the proximity of civilians makes targeting the headquarters off limits under U.S. rules of engagement."

  24. Re:It a ppears we, (the US of A) are kinda behind. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The Russian missiles have very long ranges, sometimes 1000 nm, for use from very long standoff distances against aircraft carrier groups."

    That's not a very long distance. My PCs CPU has circuits longer than 1000nm. Or do you mean nmi? Jk we got your point ;)

  25. Re: It a ppears we, (the US of A) are kinda behind by Deadstick · · Score: 1

    If it had been supersonic, you'd know.

  26. Re:It a ppears we, (the US of A) are kinda behind. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Russia announces a whole lot of things but it is a big jump from announcing to deploying. China follows the same protocol. But unlike the US if a Russian or Chinese group or individual even thinks about releasing classified military data that group or person and anyone tangentially related or connected to them turn up dead or missing. If Snowden was Russian or Chinese his family would have been rounded up and placed in an undisclosed location until he voluntarily returned to their jurisdiction. The longer he procrastinated the smaller his family would get. And the world response to this type of heavy handiness would be silence. Most likely the only one who would even know about the threat to his family would be him since there is no free press in either Russia and China and their citizens are well trained proles who know exactly what happens if released any information that did not support the government line.

  27. Not peace DESTABILIZING ? by redelm · · Score: 3, Interesting

    While options might in principle be a good thing, how is this particular weapon system anything other than destabilizing? Short hang time, hair-trigger.

    We already have hypersonic missiles, they're called ICBMs (US Trident 3) and MRBMs. Launch one, any everybody watching assumes multiple incoming thermonukes. With the new toys, it might just be conventional explosives. That's going to make anyone abandon "launch-on-warning"? Least of all the US!

    Consider the current crop of countries the US considers [potential] hot-war enemies: Would hypersonics keep the Russians out of Ukraine, let alone Crimea? The Chinese off the Pacific sandbanks? The NorKs from developing missiles? ISIS out of Raqqa? Iran from developing nukes? Short-fuse helps _none_ of these situations, and it is tough to think of one which it would.

    1. Re:Not peace DESTABILIZING ? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Would hypersonics keep the Russians out of Ukraine, let alone Crimea? The Chinese off the Pacific sandbanks? The NorKs from developing missiles? ISIS out of Raqqa? Iran from developing nukes?

      Except: the hyper-aggressive military power in desperate need of containment is not on your list. It's the rest of the world that needs protection from American imperialism, not America needing to protect itself from the rest of the world.

    2. Re:Not peace DESTABILIZING ? by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      An in-atmosphere Anti-Ship missile with a 200 mile range won't destabilize the world or risk nuclear Armageddon. You are talking about ICBM Ballistic missiles, not short or mid range air breathing missiles. This will lead to the resumption of MAD (mutual assured destruction) among the major world powers, and neutralize the spread of anti-aircraft and anti-missile defenses to the third world.

    3. Re:Not peace DESTABILIZING ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > ICBM Ballistic missiles

      Don't you mean intercontinental ICBMs?

      captcha: tedious

  28. Re:It a ppears we, (the US of A) are kinda behind. by hey! · · Score: 1

    Well, I doubt they know the position of Al-Baghdadi with enough precision to use either cruise missiles or even precision-guided bombs. You'd have to take a shotgun approach, which has never worked very well. It certainly wasn't how we got Saddam. The political cost/benefit of trying doesn't work out.

    But there's lots of uses for a weapon that could take out any person or group of persons at a known location, deep inside well-defended or remote territory, without the need of bringing in naval assets, although those will still be useful.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  29. Dr Strangelove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mr. President we MUST NOT ALLOW, a HYPERSONIC MISSILE GAP!!

  30. Re: Dynamite with a lazer beam by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    That doesn't even make sense.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  31. Re:Dynamite with a lazer beam by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    Check the thread again--the AC's not the one who made the Queen reference.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  32. Re: It a ppears we, (the US of A) are kinda behi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Oh yeah, put the fuckers who brought us the DMCA back in charge. It's funny you keep saying impeach Trump, then you recommend someone who's actually been impeached as a replacement.

  33. Purpose of Military tech has changed by gurps_npc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Look, once you got nukes, the purpose of advancing military tech is no longer to attack other super-powers.

    Instead, it becomes a combination of two possibilities:

    1) Defeat lesser powers, including both non-nuclear nations and terrorists. They can't match our tech, so we do not need to go head to head against them.

    2) BANKRUPT your competitor superpowers. The idea is to force other super powers to spend so much on defense that to keep up, that it limits their other options.

    We are not trying to shoot down Russia's missiles. Instead we are trying to make it damn expensive for them to match us.

    Which is why they are using other means besides their regular army. Ukraine, hacking, etc.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Purpose of Military tech has changed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Option 3, invest in ideas/plans/infrastructure that circumvent nuclear, i.e. disable / blind the systems; this would be followed by other systems to perform decapitation strikes, whilst considering options 1 & 2 happy benefits. This leads to a checkmate of power X. With "we can strike first, &/or we can financially topple power x" & effectively render the society X a nonentity.

      Bonus round, Boomers help to prevent this, except where space assets can render boomers very visible (USA has had such capabilities to render moving subs very visible since late 90's), so the next move would be to build non metallic boomers / stealth boomers.

      TL;DR;
      there is a cycle of one of checks & counter checks. We are now leaving the era of the nuclear trumping plateau.

    2. Re:Purpose of Military tech has changed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the most obv evolution is weapons in space pointed at earth, amass momentum.

    3. Re:Purpose of Military tech has changed by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Which is why they are using other means besides their regular army. Ukraine, hacking, etc.

      Western Exceptionalist Swiftboating - taking your absolute worst flaws and projecting them onto someone else. It was the State Department and the CIA that overthrew the elected government of Ukraine, and hacking is what the U.S. does Angela Merkle's personal cell phone.

    4. Re:Purpose of Military tech has changed by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      #2

      As other have posted hyper sonic missiles already exist in the form of ICBM's.

      I also assume these are shorter range, likely smaller and have less payload. I also assume that they are a lot cheaper to produce than ICBM. The trouble about ICBM's is that if you actually launch one, it is assumed nuclear, and "bad things will happen" TM. While possible that potentially a small yield nuclear warhead might be attached, unless you have a lot of these and close to everything, it would probably be inadvisable.

      #1

      Nations aren't all that hard to attack, most are going to have pretty static defenses, and you more less are going to know where they are going to be. That would make using these missiles a bit wasteful, as they are probably a lot more expensive than say more conventional means that would do just as good a job. I really only see two uses for them. Large high value targets, most of which would be naval, warships, CARRIERS, and the like. Though considering that the US has 10x as many Carriers as everyone else you'd think they'd be a bit reluctant to design these devices in the first place! Though it could be just as much of the development is looking into possible counters to the technology. The other use is rather wasteful for what the technology is, but it is there none the less. That would be in terms of locating terrorist leadership and quickly knocking them out. I only say this because it is likely that intel on things like that might not be valid for very long, so getting something on target as quickly as possible is going to increase their odds of being successful. However again in terms of technology it is the likely equivalent of using a super fast sledgehammer on a fly.

  34. Re: Dynamite with a lazer beam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whaddya mean? Fake beau is obviously AC.

  35. This is short range by RhettLivingston · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Existing ICBMs are hypersonic on entry. This is being considered something new because it is hypersonic through atmosphere while still under propulsion. That requires a lot more fuel than coasting through space and letting gravity pull you in. This could not hit "anywhere" in minutes because it wouldn't have enough fuel to go through that much atmosphere. It is an advance in short to perhaps medium range missile technology in that it is fast enough to get to a plane or from a submarine to a target before a response can be made.

  36. Re:It a ppears we, (the US of A) are kinda behind. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    You see, it's reported

    Reports are just international power masturbation. They have no relevance into how far anyone is in any program. Both sides have been working on hyper-sonic missiles for 10 years already. How far along either side is is known only to a select few with just enough information in the media to let either side know the other side thinks its ahead.

    Except for the Russians, because Trump wouldn't keep secrets from his BFF Putin.

  37. Re:It a ppears we, (the US of A) are kinda behind. by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

    Russia announces a whole lot of things but it is a big jump from announcing to deploying. China follows the same protocol.

    Yes, but they released video footage of it being launched from a fighter jet. Oddly the Chinese pilot looked a lot like Tom Cruise and the plane he launched it from looked a lot like an F-14 Tomcat. But they sure had some catchy Kenny Loggins music being played along with the footage.

  38. Anti-missile Missile? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    Actually, I would have thought that a hypersonic missile might be good against the other, ICBM hypersonic missiles. If it goes fast enough it might be able to get to the ICBM while it is in space and possibly easier to hit since it is ballistic at that point. It will not be enough to stop all the ICBMs launched by another superpower so it will have no effect on the overall balance of power but it should be enough to stop the smaller number of missiles rogue nations like North Korea possess.

    1. Re:Anti-missile Missile? by redelm · · Score: 1

      Well, HS as an ABM it might be able to do an earlier intercept (not likely useful except possibly against EMP targetted) or extend the coverage range of the ABM system. Not likely more detectable than SLBM, and certainly more detectable than cruises.

  39. Re:We are not trying to shoot down Russia's missil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We are not trying to shoot down Russia's missiles. Instead we are trying to make it damn expensive for them to match us."

    That certainly was a plan that worked when it came to the Soviets and I'm pretty damn sure that Russia knows that and how it happened and they have in fact let the US bankrupt itself in its attempts to go on playing the game you mention. The odd fact that the US is paying its bills while still playing at a game the world-population growth numbers don't even consider sensible (where ex. europe 5% of total world product in mere decades amongst the trends) .. doesn't make your understanding correct either. It should be: "We no longer try to shoot at Russian missiles because their good stuff is all hypersonic now. They dont fly pigs there."

    This is not the war our parents had. Its also not the US you know from the rhetoric in the brochure.

  40. Launch will be very hard to detect. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ICBMs are detectable at launch because of satellite and radar coverage either at launch sites or upper atmosphere, and are vulnerable to laser/kinetic defense systems during re-entry. Hypersonic cruise missles, which this article is referring to, are most likely to travel along the horizon and below detection floors of most radar systems. This would prevent "launch-on-warning," as you call it, because they'll be nearly undetectable when launched, and traveling at too high of a velocity to react by the time they could be detected by their target..

  41. Real meaning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... knew they'd face certain retaliation within minutes.

    We already have mutually assured destruction via nuclear missiles: What the US means is, they want first-strike advantage against all other countries. If hyper-sonic weapons can be launched from a plane, this may allow the US to attack the nuclear weapons of other countries, finally creating the shield over the US empire envisioned by the 'Star wars' project.

  42. Attacking enemy nation? by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    enemy nations wouldn't dare attack if they knew they'd face certain retaliation within minutes.

    Enemy nations already do not dare attacking US, and the fact that NATO spends 80% of worldwide military expenses is probably the reason. These supersonic missiles are not for defense, they are to bolster offensive power.

    1. Re: Attacking enemy nation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best defense is a good offense.

    2. Re:Attacking enemy nation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " fact that NATO spends 80% of worldwide military expenses"

      citation needed

  43. Re:It a ppears we, (the US of A) are kinda behind. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

    8.5 km/s? Is that an orbital weapon? ;) Anyway, it used to be the case that information on Russian/Soviet systems ought to be take with a grain of salt. There's quite often a caveat somewhere in it. Especially when you see claims of Mach 10 scramjets allegedly in service in the 1980s USSR when the reality is that Mach 5-6 with a scramjet is hard enough in the 2000s-2010s everywhere else in the world.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  44. Flawed Logic at the Core by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "In theory, enemy nations wouldn't dare attack if they knew they'd face certain retaliation within minutes."

    Yeah, we've tried these sorts of solutions. The Gatling Gun was supposed to be so terrible it would end war. The Wrights actually thought that flying would end war (the theory being, surveillance flights would reveal everything the enemy was doing, and they would know everything you were doing).

    It's all bollocks. No technology ends war, not ever. There is no dark well of ethical madness that mankind will not plumb when in conflict. Make the weapon and it will be used; then some naïve personality comes along and thinks they can "out terrible" the most terrible weapon in existence.

    There is some logic to "become strong so you do not have to fight." However the real end to war is to change the heart and nature of humanity and that is nowhere on the horizon.

    1. Re: Flawed Logic at the Core by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However the real end to war is to change the heart and nature of humanity and that is nowhere on the horizon.

      impossible, it's in the genes. If an AI does take over the world, one big benefit is no more war, assuming it is not fighting another AI.

    2. Re: Flawed Logic at the Core by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AIs consume similar resources to humans. AIs with self-preservational instincts would fight to survive, ergo
      AIs would make war with humans.

  45. Re:Dynamite with a lazer beam by hattable · · Score: 1

    I actually argue that the AC is certainly American. There are roughly 4 Americans that actually know the definition of "impeach."

    --
    OMG facts!
  46. Re: It a ppears we, (the US of A) are kinda behind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think you understand, Russia has already deployed hypersonic missiles as in ready to go awaiting orders to fire. Then there are also the sort of newish hypersonic cruise missiles, because they were put into service in 2015. The West is woefully behind in military technology.

  47. Re:It a ppears we, (the US of A) are kinda behind. by rtb61 · · Score: 1

    Well, it you really want total planetary extermination. How about energy targeted some of the key essential molecular structures of life, where a minor exteneded disruption will terminate all cellular life, think of something simmilar to the microwave and it's transfer of energy into water. So pick the right frequency and type and you could sweep a city from orbit exterminating all life, not just people but all of it. Be the first and wont you be a fucking champion. Keep trying to kill each other and it is a matter of inevitability that we will eventually succeed but in the interim consider the glorious possibility of a death ray that can pass through most objects but that will disrupt an essential to life molecular reaction and kill all it passes through, won't you fuckers be proud then.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  48. Re: It a ppears we, (the US of A) are kinda behind by dryeo · · Score: 2

    When I was a kid, I was doing some farm labour in a field besides the Abbotsford airport the day before the airshow begun. The Blue Angels were practicing and decided to use us as strafing practice or such. Wow, jet fighters flying perhaps a hundred feet up at 500 odd miles an hour, so close that one that went by upside down, I'd swear I saw the pilots eyeballs, but they were going so fast that they almost seemed foreshortened and you wouldn't hear them until they were gone. Quite an experience and I sure as hell wouldn't want to be an actual target.
    Another time, living in the interior, not too far up a mountain, a small fleet of Apache attack copters went by, I was looking down at them, just the noise would have been pretty demoralizing if they were hunting me, though there it was possible to imagine responding to them as they were slow and broadcast their presence. Lots of supersonic bangs back then too.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  49. Re:It a ppears we, (the US of A) are kinda behind. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2017 hey? The Aus/US tests were going back at least as far as 2010 https://www.space.com/8099-hypersonic-rocket-test-launched-australia.html

  50. Re: It a ppears we, (the US of A) are kinda behind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I long for the days of my childhood during the Cold War and the Cuban missle crisis. The leaders of the US and USSR seemed to realize they almost killed their own children and grandchildren. Certain weapons are inherently destabilizing and make nuclear war much more likely.
    Now I fear for my children and grandchildren. Both sides seem to be rushing to develop weapons that will make such a war inevitable. This is not a partisan issue. I have had a good life, but many of you are early on in yours. If you keep fighting bitterly over partisan politics and personalities of politicians, you may lose them.

  51. Re:It a ppears we, (the US of A) are kinda behind. by slashrio · · Score: 2

    Can anybody now actually show us this 'hard physical evidence'?

    --
    "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
  52. I expect sanctions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a clear threat to peace and to other nations security. Sanctions should follow just like when North Korea does this kind of shit.
    Of course it's unfair to compare the USA with North Korea, they haven't bombed anyone in decades, something the US never stops doing.

  53. dunno man ... by KingBenny · · Score: 1

    seems a bit after the fact compared to this supersonic vs photon cannon :x ... i still cant think of anything that could even get close if they set up a wall of those, no clue what the energy requirement would be but seeing as theres ALWAYS money for the military it shouldnt be that hard ? maybe fly over some coke from bolivia or colombia to finance it and Trump's your uncle, right :p (oops i did it again, im sorry guys but the dude is really pssing off more than he has hacked so far)

    --
    Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
  54. Re:slashdot cheers nuclear first strike on Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ugh dude... I see you're from the asshole of Putler... anyways, noone wants war. You can calm down. Developing armament, preparing for war is in the nature of the man. A good little competition always brings progression. Which is good for the mankind.
    now go back to kremlin and tell Putler that he should continue finance and partake in ISS. That's the most important thing, everything else is just a harmless game of competition.

  55. Re:It a ppears we, (the US of A) are kinda behind. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep. These missiles basically shit on the already dodgy accuracy of current anti-missile tech.
    They've been in active deployment for a few years now.
    It's about time someone else caught up, having any one group have superiority in anything is never a good thing.
    The western bloc were horribly behind in this area. They were too complacent and content with decades old tech.

    The big downside of these, however, is it makes an accidental situation vastly worse because it brings a target even closer to being accidentally hit.
    There's been plenty of military mistakes in the past. One with this sort of accuracy and speed is a certain war-starter.
    By the time the launch happens, there'll be hardly seconds to hit that cancel button.

  56. Re: It a ppears we, (the US of A) are kinda behi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Impeached for lying about a blowjob, not for selling us out to the Russians.