China Thread

[Orangeburst]

I doubt they are going 17M in lower atmosphere. Just too dense or maybe that is why they are so difficult to develop. Not sure the missile even impacts and would think the kill vehicle separates at altitude. Don’t know.

 

[85SugarVol]

The Physics and Hype of Hypersonic Weapons

These novel missiles cannot live up to the grand promises made on their behalf, aerodynamics shows

www.scientificamerican.com

Ukraine and the Kinzhal: Don’t believe the hypersonic hype

Reporting of Ukraine’s shootdown of Russian hypersonics tells only a partial truth. Russian hypersonic missiles do not yet pose the dire threat to Western interests.

www.brookings.edu

Hypersonic Missiles Are Game-Changers, and America Doesn’t Have Them

The U.S. military is pouring resources into the superfast weapons but has struggled to develop them. China and Russia are far ahead.

www.wsj.com

General Says Countering Hypersonic Weapons Is Imperative

Missile threats to the U.S. homeland and allies and partners abroad will only continue to grow, the commander of U.S. Northern Command and the North American Aerospace Defense Command said.

www.defense.gov

Difficult to know the truth..could be MIC, anti weapons scientists or just plain national pride,
If the Ukraine stories of Patriots (not sure which type) shooting down missiles, really makes me wonder. I am sure they are useful for high value targets but will never be ubiquitous. Apparently the cost orders of magnitude greater than BMs.

Yea I never bought the idea that they are “indefensible” against. Even good ones. Russia’s are just crappy.

Anything can be intercepted… given time and angle.

Hypersonics just reduce time and angles. To borrow a football analogy - their speed collapses the defender’s angle.

 

[hog88]

Chinese Radars. The super high end radars that could potentially track F-35 or B-21.

Those might be priority targets for these hypersonics in their initial (static target) configurations.

Yeah, I could see them being used to take out radar installations but at what cost? It would take several of these missiles to blind the Chinese.

 

[85SugarVol]

I doubt they are going 17M in lower atmosphere. Just too dense or maybe that is why they are so difficult to develop. Not sure the missile even impacts and would think the kill vehicle separates at altitude. Don’t know.

The kill vehicle separates at altitude, after being “boosted” to hypersonic speeds by the missile.

The kill vehicle, alone, then glides at hypersonic speed to the target.

Boost Glide Vehicle

 

[85SugarVol]

Yeah, I could see them being used to take out radar installations but at what cost? It would take several of these missiles to blind the Chinese.

Oh cost is whole nother convo. Yea they’re expensive.

SM-3 is $20M a shot
SM-6 is $5M a shot
Tomahawk is $1M a shot

These would cost more than SM-3

I was just discussing pure capability.

 

[hog88]

Oh cost is whole nother convo. Yea they’re expensive.

SM-3 is $20M a shot
SM-6 is $5M a shot
Tomahawk is $1M a shot

These would cost more than SM-3

I was just discussing pure capability.

Whatever the cost they'd be worth it when they could take out a carrier on the move from over 1000 miles away.

 

[Orangeburst]

Whatever the cost they'd be worth it when they could take out a carrier on the move from over 1000 miles away.

could you imagine a super carrier being struck or even sunk? Might as well start pressing nukes

 

[hog88]

could you imagine a super carrier being struck or even sunk? Might as well start pressing nukes

Hopefully they would be simple deterrents.

 

[AM64]

Only if they get it to where it can hit a moving target and by moving I mean zig-zagging or other evasive tactics. Otherwise the missile would only be good for ships in port.

I always wonder what goes on (or more possibly doesn't go on) in the minds of the people developing our new "wonder weapons". So many of the concepts have holes you could fit TX in. A hypersonic missile is going to be extremely expensive, non maneuverable, and only as accurate as the last fix before it's fired. I can see spending a lot of money drilling holes in the earth, sea, and sky without accomplishing anything of substance. If you put a nuclear warhead on it so it's like grenades and horseshoes that's one thing ... of course, in that case it would be an even more expensive "wonder weapon" sitting on the shelf never to be used.

 

[AM64]

The Physics and Hype of Hypersonic Weapons

These novel missiles cannot live up to the grand promises made on their behalf, aerodynamics shows

www.scientificamerican.com

Ukraine and the Kinzhal: Don’t believe the hypersonic hype

Reporting of Ukraine’s shootdown of Russian hypersonics tells only a partial truth. Russian hypersonic missiles do not yet pose the dire threat to Western interests.

www.brookings.edu

Hypersonic Missiles Are Game-Changers, and America Doesn’t Have Them

The U.S. military is pouring resources into the superfast weapons but has struggled to develop them. China and Russia are far ahead.

www.wsj.com

General Says Countering Hypersonic Weapons Is Imperative

Missile threats to the U.S. homeland and allies and partners abroad will only continue to grow, the commander of U.S. Northern Command and the North American Aerospace Defense Command said.

www.defense.gov

Difficult to know the truth..could be MIC, anti weapons scientists or just plain national pride,
If the Ukraine stories of Patriots (not sure which type) shooting down missiles, really makes me wonder. I am sure they are useful for high value targets but will never be ubiquitous. Apparently the cost orders of magnitude greater than BMs.

I'm going with the national pride. Once Russia and China started mouthing off about theirs, we had to have ours. Almost like China is playing the Reagan game, and we are playing the patsy.

 

[hog88]

I'm going with the national pride. Once Russia and China started mouthing off about theirs, we had to have ours. Almost like China is playing the Reagan game, and we are playing the patsy.

Then again it could be like Star Wars during the Regan years, make the other side think that they have a new game changing wonder weapon.

 

[AM64]

Chinese Radars. The super high end radars that could potentially track F-35 or B-21.

Those might be priority targets for these hypersonics in their initial (static target) configurations.

Long wavelength radars can apparently track stealth airplanes right now. However those radars are not targeting radars, and they are too large to fit in airplanes even if they were. Iran claims (and maybe truthfully for a change) to have been tracking with radar our stealth aircraft.

 

[AM64]

Yeah, I could see them being used to take out radar installations but at what cost? It would take several of these missiles to blind the Chinese.

That's assuming the radar installations are fixed, and a lot of systems are being made mobile to avoid becoming targets. Fire and move. They might be effective against the long range systems used for national air defense like NORAD radars and facilities, if they have the range and the oomph - which is probably not going to take out a bunker buried in a mountain in CO. Sometimes it's like developing products with no clear market.

 

[Orangeburst]

That's assuming the radar installations are fixed, and a lot of systems are being made mobile to avoid becoming targets. Fire and move. They might be effective against the long range systems used for national air defense like NORAD radars and facilities, if they have the range and the oomph - which is probably not going to take out a bunker buried in a mountain in CO. Sometimes it's like developing products with no clear market.

Those radar arrays are massive from my understanding.

 

[AM64]

Those radar arrays are massive from my understanding.

I think you are right.

 

[85SugarVol]

I always wonder what goes on (or more possibly doesn't go on) in the minds of the people developing our new "wonder weapons". So many of the concepts have holes you could fit TX in. A hypersonic missile is going to be extremely expensive, non maneuverable, and only as accurate as the last fix before it's fired. I can see spending a lot of money drilling holes in the earth, sea, and sky without accomplishing anything of substance. If you put a nuclear warhead on it so it's like grenades and horseshoes that's one thing ... of course, in that case it would be an even more expensive "wonder weapon" sitting on the shelf never to be used.

I certainly understand that sentiment. It has always been there to greet new “wonder weapons”. Too expensive, won’t work, what’s the strategy, etc.

Air warfare
Submarines
Jet propulsion

Radar was probably the ultimate in scoffed at wizbangs

“What? You’re gonna do what?? Remove yourself, sir. We haven’t the time to entertain your magical, nonsensical fantasies.”
“Track enemy planes on a screen, without anyone seeing them? At what range? Leave now you silly man”

 

[85SugarVol]

Long wavelength radars can apparently track stealth airplanes right now. However those radars are not targeting radars, and they are too large to fit in airplanes even if they were. Iran claims (and maybe truthfully for a change) to have been tracking with radar our stealth aircraft.

They can see our stealth assets.
But when can they see them. That’s the problem.

By the time they can “see” an F-35, target it, and fire upon it - it is far too late.

They can’t engage it before they’re already dead. They can’t see it at range.

 

[AM64]

They can see our stealth assets.
But when can they see them. That’s the problem.

By the time they can “see” an F-35, target it, and fire upon it - it is far too late.

They can’t engage it before they’re already dead. They can’t see it at range.

There's the other part for anybody paying attention. Let's say you use long wave acquisition radars to detect and track stealth fighters, and let's say they can't be reliably targeted by either air or ground launched radar missiles as givens. Go back to the old Soviet strategy where fighters were directed by ground controllers to their intercepts. Stealth fighters aren't invisible, and they still produce heat signatures for air launched IR missiles. It seems that stealth aircraft just may not be as invincible as advertised if the right tactics are used. Is the military playing the same game that Billy Mitchell fought against?

What you are talking about is radar cross section for air and ground targeting radar - that's what stealth has been designed to defeat. Yes, the cross section is small and can't be seen at long distances. The planes can have much larger cross sections to longer wavelength radars (lower frequency), which means more detectable and at longer range. It's a lot like the difference between light waves in the visible and the infrared frequencies - some things invisible in one spectrum are very visible in the other.

The other way to visualize this is to look at an old TV antenna. You have short and increasingly longer receiving elements - all defined around TV broadcast frequencies - shorter elements for shorter wavelengths (higher frequency). Aircraft size sets antenna size which favors higher frequency radars. You have to think stealth designers based their design parameters around those, but the stealth design is by definition going to be a compromise between reflection characteristics, aerodynamics, and use of radar absorbing materials. For the record, I still strongly believe that EEs who design antennas and are steeped in the black arts of fields wear black capes and pointed hats.

This article gives a perspective on detection but not tracking/guiding and then a concentration of unguided missiles to a predicted intercept point. It's also a lesson of sorts in why air defense systems use radars with differing wavelengths ... it's hard to jam them all at once.

An In-Depth Analysis of how Serbs Were Able to Shoot Down An F-117 Stealth Fighter during Operation Allied Force - The Aviation Geek Club

An In-Depth Analysis of how Serbs Were Able to Shoot Down An F-117 Stealth Fighter during Operation Allied Force

theaviationgeekclub.com

 

[85SugarVol]

There's the other part for anybody paying attention. Let's say you use long wave acquisition radars to detect and track stealth fighters, and let's say they can't be reliably targeted by either air or ground launched radar missiles as givens. Go back to the old Soviet strategy where fighters were directed by ground controllers to their intercepts. Stealth fighters aren't invisible, and they still produce heat signatures for air launched IR missiles. It seems that stealth aircraft just may not be as invincible as advertised if the right tactics are used. Is the military playing the same game that Billy Mitchell fought against?

What you are talking about is radar cross section for air and ground targeting radar - that's what stealth has been designed to defeat. Yes, the cross section is small and can't be seen at long distances. The planes can have much larger cross sections to longer wavelength radars (lower frequency), which means more detectable and at longer range. It's a lot like the difference between light waves in the visible and the infrared frequencies - some things invisible in one spectrum are very visible in the other.

The other way to visualize this is to look at an old TV antenna. You have short and increasingly longer receiving elements - all defined around TV broadcast frequencies - shorter elements for shorter wavelengths (higher frequency). Aircraft size sets antenna size which favors higher frequency radars. You have to think stealth designers based their design parameters around those, but the stealth design is by definition going to be a compromise between reflection characteristics, aerodynamics, and use of radar absorbing materials. For the record, I still strongly believe that EEs who design antennas and are steeped in the black arts of fields wear black capes and pointed hats.

This article gives a perspective on detection but not tracking/guiding and then a concentration of unguided missiles to a predicted intercept point. It's also a lesson of sorts in why air defense systems use radars with differing wavelengths ... it's hard to jam them all at once.

An In-Depth Analysis of how Serbs Were Able to Shoot Down An F-117 Stealth Fighter during Operation Allied Force - The Aviation Geek Club

An In-Depth Analysis of how Serbs Were Able to Shoot Down An F-117 Stealth Fighter during Operation Allied Force

theaviationgeekclub.com

Yea that was dumb. We flew 1st generation stealth aircraft without EW support on a known route, and they got a shot close enough to knock it down. Dumb.

That was almost 25 years ago though, and we’ve never lost another one. Don’t think a B2 has ever even been fired at.

Nothing is completely impervious to attack. But our stealth fleet has a pretty good record all in all

 

[Orangeburst]

http://www.analysis.williamdoneil.com/Stealth.pdf

 

[Velo Vol]

https://archive.ph/nc9ub

 

[AM64]

https://archive.ph/nc9ub

View attachment 585080

Gonna need some people to keep the plants running when the nationalize them. Besides the biden regime pays well to get captives released; they might see a flock of US executives as good collateral against the US debt they hold.

 

[Orangeburst]

This Is A Ramjet Artillery Shell Right As It's Fired Out Of A Howitzer

A ramjet artillery shell has flown further than ever before and could more than double the range of existing and future 155mm howitzers.

www.thedrive.com

40 plus miles..impressive

 

[Orangeburst]

However, Steve Trimble of Aviation Week reported in March that the hypersonic missiles the Navy is eying will cost $38 million each, which is an unusually expensive way of delivering a non-nuclear warhead.


ouch

 

[85SugarVol]

However, Steve Trimble of Aviation Week reported in March that the hypersonic missiles the Navy is eying will cost $38 million each, which is an unusually expensive way of delivering a non-nuclear warhead.


ouch

I bet they’ll push $50M a pop when it’s said and done. These ain’t Hamas rockets.

They’re a strategic weapon, a critical tool of deterrence. And would be a vital tool in the opening stages of a near-peer conflict.