Notices
Results 1 to 70 of 70
Like Tree10Likes
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 1 Post By dan hunter
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 3 Post By cosmictraveler
  • 1 Post By jonio
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 1 Post By MacGyver1968

Thread: Stealth vs. Hypersonics

  1. #1 Stealth vs. Hypersonics 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    6
    In the event the U.S. government actually makes real budget cuts, which of these two is better than the other, and why? In other words, if you HAD TO CHOSE...


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Hypersonics would go because the costs involved for the benifits gained we would get wouldn't be worth the money input.


    Stealth can be very useful in many ways and other ways to use it should be explored with more money input.


    Last edited by cosmictraveler; April 10th, 2014 at 04:32 PM.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,691
    Quote Originally Posted by motgnisrep View Post
    which of these two is better than the other, and why?
    Under what conditions?
    What are the envisioned scenarios/ enemies?

    SUV vs. Formula 1 race car: which is better?

    (In short, it's a badly-formed question).

    Edit:
    if you HAD TO CHOSE...
    There is no choice.
    The USA currently has stealth.
    Nobody has hypersonics (except for a handful of missile types round the world).
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; April 10th, 2014 at 09:04 PM.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    We've had stealth for more than 2 decades so I don't really understand the question.

    Hypersonic deserves huge research dollars to break the military and commercial air transportation out of speeds they've been using for decades.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    I don't see hypersonics becoming attractive to the commercial air industry anytime soon. The fuel cost of flying that fast has got to be really bad. And since right now in the transportation industry fuel cost is the dominant cost, the tickets for a hypersonic flight would probably be more expensive than most people are willing to pay.

    Maybe a few CEO's would want to get it for their private jets, so they can get to their super-important meetings faster.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Remember the Concord supersonic transport? Well those cost millions to maintain and were only accessible by those with allot of money not for the general public. Of course anyone could fly onboard but not many had $10,000.00 US for a one way trip. hypersonic will be just like that, very costly to maintain and very expensive to fly. I do think that hypersonic one day might be useful for the general public I don't think it will be anytime soon.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Nothing we are researching now is going to be used for commercial ventures "Any time soon." An "any time soon" would be a terrible metric for basic research or engineering, which would effectively stall pretty much all research.

    The Concorde did not employ fundamental supersonic technology--it used a slightly higher flying level, thin aerodynamic shape and huge conventional engines to achieve supersonic flight. It was 50 year old technology.

    Boeing continues to work to improve air-breathing scramjet technology the last model exceeding mach5 for several minutes at about 60K ft.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,691
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    The Concorde did not employ fundamental supersonic technology--it used a slightly higher flying level, thin aerodynamic shape and huge conventional engines to achieve supersonic flight. It was 50 year old technology.
    Um, I'm not sure what you mean by "fundamental supersonic technology".
    And I'm especially not sure about your claim that Concorde didn't "use" it.
    It took quite a while to design the wing for example - lift/ drag ratios were optimised for supersonic flight (supercruise in fact - take THAT F-22!).
    The engines were civilianised derivatives of the of the afterburning supersonic Olympus 593 (originally developed for the TSR2) with variable intake ramps.
    Materials and structure were also designed for supersonic flight.

    By your argument NO aircraft - military or civilian used "fundamental supersonic technology".

    Boeing continues to work to improve air-breathing scramjet technology the last model exceeding mach5 for several minutes at about 60K ft.
    Supersonic != hypersonic.
    Apples and oranges.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post

    Boeing continues to work to improve air-breathing scramjet technology the last model exceeding mach5 for several minutes at about 60K ft.
    Scramjets are a thing of beauty. But they're bogged down by the need for fine tuning exact conditions of air speed, density, etc.

    Would be nice if it were possible to have it both ways: have a fan driven jet engine that can ditch the fan at high speeds. And also be able to change its own geometry to allow different air speeds to be optimal. As things stand, I wouldn't want to fly in a scramjet.


    I do agree that it would be nice to have drones that could get to their targets faster, though. I imagine that it would make it possible to provide air support over a wider area using fewer drones, and not have the soldiers be sitting there waiting under heavy fire when they need a bad guy blown up from above.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I do agree that it would be nice to have drones that could get to their targets faster, though. I imagine that it would make it possible to provide air support over a wider area using fewer drones, and not have the soldiers be sitting there waiting under heavy fire when they need a bad guy blown up from above.
    I'm pretty sure most drone strikes have Soldiers on the ground--even when they happen in foreign nations and no one knows the Soldier is present.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; April 13th, 2014 at 10:31 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Bachelors Degree GoldenRatio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    415
    Considering it is the US government. I seriously see war related budget to be the last to be cut.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I do agree that it would be nice to have drones that could get to their targets faster, though. I imagine that it would make it possible to provide air support over a wider area using fewer drones, and not have the soldiers be sitting there waiting under heavy fire when they need a bad guy blown up from above.
    I'm pretty sure most drone strikes have Soldiers on the ground--even when they happen in foreign nations and no one knows the Soldier is present.
    Yeah. I was thinking when the soldiers call in and say they need an airstrike, it might be better to have a hypersonic drone in the air so it can arrive faster.

    Or did you mean that the other way around? Are there pretty much always drones in the air nearby whenever soldiers are on the ground?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman thedrunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    48
    The us military has a single for of stealth, which isnt really that ninja like...

    so the question hypersonic vs stealth, which should we dump tax dollars in to well the answer is simple

    Stealth, true stealth no dampening of radar signals or the use of optic reflection but true stealth..

    the tv show night hawk is a perfect exzample of stealth, yet it showed a object.. what needs to be done is to be able to cloack like star treck be able to project the image around and make a craft dissapere. the technology is there just needs a little R&D to perfect it.

    Hypersonic would be good yet not as effective as stealth because of the noice pulution of incomming and going even though speed is crusial stealth is nessary,
    have you ever seen a ninja ??
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,691
    Quote Originally Posted by thedrunk View Post
    The us military has a single for of stealth
    What?
    Your posting style lives up to your user name... That's utterly incoherent.

    Stealth, true stealth no dampening of radar signals or the use of optic reflection but true stealth..
    the tv show night hawk is a perfect exzample of stealth, yet it showed a object.
    You do realise that's fiction, don't you?
    (Presumably - I've never heard of Night Hawk).

    what needs to be done is to be able to cloack like star treck be able to project the image around and make a craft dissapere. the technology is there just needs a little R&D to perfect it.
    All very well to talk about "perfecting" a technology, but there are limits to what can be done. And aircraft are weight-critical - it may not be possible to fit such systems with degrading the capabilities in another area.

    Hypersonic would be good yet not as effective as stealth because of the noice pulution of incomming and going even though speed is crusial stealth is nessary
    Er, yeah.
    You're aware that stealth and hypersonics have different missions aren't you?
    That they are intended for completely different uses?
    No matter how good stealth is it can't peforrm the duties intended/ planned for a hypersonic aircraft - prompt global strike.
    It's rather silly to claim that "hypersonics would not be as effective as stealth" - that's equivalent to claiming that a garden rake isn't as effective as a water hose: they're different roles altogether.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    America seems to think hypersonics can be used as a replacement for nuclear ICBMs.
    The Russians said they would respond with nuclear weapons if they are attacked with hypersonic missiles anyhow.
    Prompt Global Strike - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    China seems to think hypersonics should make good antiship missiles for sinking aircraft carriers.
    Anti-ship ballistic missile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,691
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    The Russians said they would respond with nuclear weapons if they are attacked with hypersonic missiles anyhow.
    Wow!
    I hadn't come across that little titbit before.
    Talk about disproportionate response...
    dan hunter likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Talk about disproportionate response...
    That is what nuclear deterence is about.
    Nuclear deterence is the idea that the guy with nukes has a big gun pointed at the other guy's face and will pull the trigger if anybody messes with him.
    His only problem is to convince everybody else that he is actually crazy enough to do it.

    The idea that it is about preventing one side from nuking the other is just PR to calm the public.

    NATO (USA) have been playing a bit loose with their definitions of what a hypersonic missile is and have been calling ballistic missiles like the old minuteman missiles hypersonics in an attempt to get around treaty restrictions on how many ICBMs they can have ready. In this case a launch of a hypersonic missile would be indistinguishable from the launch of any other ICBM.

    According to what I can see on the web it seems the Chinese and Russians are working on hypersonic tactical strike missiles instead of just relabelling their strategic missiles.
    The Chinese seem to be concentrating more on defeating naval assets and the Russians seem to be working more on hypersonic gliders for attacking land based targets.
    I am getting the weird idea of hypersonic speed cruise missiles from them according to what I read.

    But how reliable are internet sources?
    I might be, probably am, getting what is actually going on completely wrong.
    Dywyddyr likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,691
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    In this case a launch of a hypersonic missile would be indistinguishable from the launch of any other ICBM.
    Ah.
    I'd been thinking more along the lines of the manned air vehicle launching hypersonics, as opposed to the "ICBM substitute" variant.
    Yeah, I can see the Russian position now - if it's ground/ sub-launched and coming fast you don't wait to see it impact and realise it's not a nuke or not before retaliating.
    dan hunter likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Can someone define these better. The ICBMs are all hypersonic. But the hypersonic missiles if based on scram tech for example aren't ballistic. Of course current tech are using rockets and conventional jet engines to achieve hypersonic speeds.
    --

    There's no way to determine if any cruise missile, such as a Tomahawk, has a nuke warhead or not other than by prior inspection of its launch platform.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; April 17th, 2014 at 11:08 AM.
    dan hunter likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Would a stealth aircraft be as effective at delivering a nuclear attack as an ICBM? In theory, an ICBM can be shot down. (Though the way I've heard of the defense system working is that you send a small nuclear missile to intercept it, so you don't have to hit it dead on.)

    But with stealth, presumably they wouldn't even see the nuclear weapon coming until it had already gone off, right? Is stealth good enough to actually do that?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    The latest stealth fighter

    kojax, Lynx_Fox and jgoti like this.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,691
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Can someone define these better. The ICBMs are all hypersonic. But the hypersonic missiles if based on scram tech for example aren't ballistic.
    The main one being: [planned] hypersonics are intended to have conventional warheads. (And, to a lesser or greater extent, will rely on the kinetic energy to cause damage to to the target).

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Would a stealth aircraft be as effective at delivering a nuclear attack as an ICBM?
    Unlikely.

    But with stealth, presumably they wouldn't even see the nuclear weapon coming until it had already gone off, right? Is stealth good enough to actually do that?
    Stealth aircraft are not invisible: all that stealth confers on a 'plane is a reduced signature, which means that it's less detectable not indetectable. That means that it will be closer to where it plans to release its weapons before being (conclusively) spotted than would otherwise be the case. Reduced detection range = reduced warning/ reaction time.
    A stealth plane is an order of magnitude slower than an ICBM, and easier to engage.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    354
    Hypersonic . Unless you can make atoms disappear (literally ) then there will always be away to spot it. I think stealth is too costly to achieve ( properly ) compared to speed. Unmanned Hypersonic drones, with incredible maneuvering packed with nukes or any missiles, bombs is the terrifying future I feel.....until ( if ) lazers appear as a valid source of defence. We are decades away from creating a power source capable of creating valid lazer systems if we ever will....Jammer tech may turn out to be an option....Stealth? Yes but I feel its too easy ( considering costs to produce these stealth planes etc ) to catch up and build radar to spot them. Hitting a bullet with a bullet will be much harder. So really the faster you can move the harder you will be to hit. Once stealth loses its stealth then its finished. It will have to rely on its speed. As with so many of Americas stealth planes...they just turn into a waste of money.

    http://article.wn.com/view/2014/04/2..._Russian_Radar
    Last edited by jonio; May 15th, 2014 at 04:01 PM.
    dan hunter likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,691
    Quote Originally Posted by jonio View Post
    We are decades away from creating a power source capable of creating valid lazer systems if we ever will.
    Er... really?

    As with so many of Americas stealth planes...they just turn into a waste of money.
    New U.S. Stealth Jet Can
    Not exactly a valid criticism of stealth qua stealth: the F-35 isn't typical of all stealth systems (it's a dog all round anyway).
    It was designed to a specific, lower-level, spec.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jonio View Post
    We are decades away from creating a power source capable of creating valid lazer systems if we ever will.
    Er... really?
    I read the linked article. That's just wonderful.

    So which category shall we put laser guns into? Stealth? Hypersonics? (The beam does travel a great deal faster than the speed of sound.)
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    354
    Lasers lose lots of power. There are so many obstacles in their way that by the time they hit the target they have lost lots of their effectiveness. So ( I could be wrong ) to make them truly effective you would need to make them extremely powerful. To overcome the atmospheric problems and defences.such as smog, heat resistant paints etc . Its very hard to find real ( non American military ) facts on their effectiveness. My bet is its just hype as with many of the American military projects. Once the Chinese or Russians started using coated paints, or heat conductors, I feel the power needed to the effectiveness will make them not very viable ( unless you want to set fire to a boat). Also what is their true range...not on a clear, non humid day ??? Can anyone but the American military answer This? Why don't we just put giant magnifying glasses in space and burn missiles, like school kids do to ants. Be cheaper wouldn't It? Rail guns are a much better idea ( although they do take huge power to be effective also ) . At least its solid hitting solid. Not much defence against those.

    Is Navy laser a game changer? | UTSanDiego.com Mobile

    As for stealth over hypersonics, The Russians and Chinese feel they have found ways to spot them. They say over and over that their radars can find Americas stealth planes....So as I said to begin with...I would make drones they cannot catch...loaded with weapons. The G.forces would not be a factor on pilots....only jammers...which by the looks of the incident that happen in the black sea....The Russians are looking like they could possibly jam American radars ( although propaganda being what it is.???...I am actually worried the chinese and Russians are beginning to move a few steps ahead of Nato, with certain weapon systems. Their tactics are becoming increasingly aggressive.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorentho...didnt-work-out
    Last edited by jonio; May 19th, 2014 at 01:09 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,691
    Quote Originally Posted by jonio View Post
    As for stealth over hypersonics, The Russians and Chinese feel they have found ways to spot them. They say over and over that their radars can find Americas stealth planes.
    Yep.
    So what?
    Only the uninformed press and fools have ever claimed that "stealth" means "non-detectable".
    Stealth is about reducing detectability, not eliminating it.

    So as I said to begin with...I would make drones they cannot catch.
    Not possible.

    I am actually worried the chinese and Russians are beginning to move a few steps ahead of Nato, with certain weapon systems.
    What makes you think that hasn't always been pretty much the case?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    354
    Well I think hypersonics will be cheaper to produce and harder to defend against than not so stealth stealth....:-) . also with drone tech you can remove the problems of g.force with pilots. The Russians and Chinese are investing in it....


    http://defensetech.org/2014/03/21/pe...efense-systems
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,691
    Quote Originally Posted by jonio View Post
    Well I think hypersonics will be cheaper to produce
    Untrue.
    Hypersonics have been pursued for at least 50 years and we still don't have affordable, reliable, workable tech.
    Stealth, on the other hand... oh, it's in service.

    and harder to defend against than not so stealth stealth.
    Hypersonics are massively detectable.
    Given lasers and (your claimed) cheapness to produce then wouldn't hypersonic interceptors stop them?

    also with drone tech you can remove the problems of g.force with pilots.
    And as soon as you start making "aircraft" to withstand high g you add weight: the bane of all aircraft designs.
    There's a limit of diminishing returns, especially as the faster you go the less manoeuvrable you are (turn radius varies with the square of speed - regardless of how many g you pull at hypersonic speeds you're talking about tens of miles (approaching hundreds) to make a turn).
    That's why current fighters are capable of out-turning (considerably faster) air-air missiles.
    jonio likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Cooking Something Good MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    2,051
    Forget stealth and hypersonic technology...I think we should invest more in pointy stick technology.
    cosmictraveler likes this.
    Fixin' shit that ain't broke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    354
    Well the Chinese might be well on their way.

    Inside the Ring: Pentagon goes hypersonic with long-range rapid attack weapon - Washington Times

    On the point of making faster missiles to shoot down the hypersonic missiles.....that is far more difficult than upgrading radar systems to spot stealth. Every missile defence we have now proves that point. Like Americas missile defence now in place. A big waste of money. Only partially effective is no good for thousands of nuke flying at you. The faster they come the less chance we all have. Hitting a bullet with a bullet is incredibly difficult. Its not about being faster....I think Russia's S400's may even be better than the patriot and look at their defence budget compared to Americas??

    We should be investing in building relationships with nations...that's the best defence of them all.
    Last edited by jonio; May 19th, 2014 at 02:53 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,691
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver1968 View Post
    Forget stealth and hypersonic technology...I think we should invest more in pointy stick technology.
    You have to work up to pointy stick technology - start with fresh fruit:
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    354
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver1968 View Post
    Forget stealth and hypersonic technology...I think we should invest more in pointy stick technology.
    Whatever turns you on man...:-)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    and harder to defend against than not so stealth stealth.
    Hypersonics are massively detectable.
    Given lasers and (your claimed) cheapness to produce then wouldn't hypersonic interceptors stop them?

    also with drone tech you can remove the problems of g.force with pilots.
    And as soon as you start making "aircraft" to withstand high g you add weight: the bane of all aircraft designs.
    There's a limit of diminishing returns, especially as the faster you go the less manoeuvrable you are (turn radius varies with the square of speed - regardless of how many g you pull at hypersonic speeds you're talking about tens of miles (approaching hundreds) to make a turn).
    That's why current fighters are capable of out-turning (considerably faster) air-air missiles.

    The other problem with trying to hit a very fast moving object is trying to estimate its speed accurately enough to hit it even if it doesn't turn. You've either got to match its exact direction of travel exactly, or come at it from a sideways/diagonal angle. If you're coming at it from a somewhat sideways direction and misguess its speed, you miss entirely.


    It would probably be even more difficult if its speed varies as it travels, especially if the varying speed were deliberately designed to vary randomly.


    Quote Originally Posted by jonio View Post

    We should be investing in building relationships with nations...that's the best defence of them all.
    The only way to maintain good relations with a superpower is to trade with them at a loss, like the USA does with China.

    And if we do that, then the cost may not show up on the federal budget, but there is most definitely a cost.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,691
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    The other problem with trying to hit a very fast moving object is trying to estimate its speed accurately enough to hit it even if it doesn't turn. You've either got to match its exact direction of travel exactly, or come at it from a sideways/diagonal angle. If you're coming at it from a somewhat sideways direction and misguess its speed, you miss entirely.
    Yeah.
    These days we use something called "radar". That normally works out better than "guessing".
    And there's also another fallacy: if it's not turning you don't need a particularly accurate "guess" - all you have to do is put something in its way. It'll run into it...
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    [QUOTE=Dywyddyr;569677]
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    The other problem with trying to hit a very fast moving object is trying to estimate its speed accurately enough to hit it even if it doesn't turn. You've either got to match its exact direction of travel exactly, or come at it from a sideways/diagonal angle. If you're coming at it from a somewhat sideways direction and misguess its speed, you miss entirely.
    Yeah.
    These days we use something called "radar". That normally works out better than "guessing".
    Yeah. I guess the Doppler Effect simplifies speed calculations. The matter, then is just getting the speed right on the interceptor, so the two cross paths on time.

    The trouble is predicting how fast it will travel over the time required for interception to happen. If this were in empty space, with no atmosphere, then it would be a simple matter of using the present velocity. But in a real atmosphere, and dealing with an object that is attempting to travel at supersonic speed through that atmosphere, I don't see how you can reliably assume that an object presently traveling at a given speed is going to stay traveling at exactly that same speed.

    Over the distances in question, and approaching from an angle off center, even a slight change in speed could lead to the interceptor arriving miles from its target.

    And there's also another fallacy: if it's not turning you don't need a particularly accurate "guess" - all you have to do is put something in its way. It'll run into it...
    You'd need incredibly accurate targeting in order actually, physically, collide. Heck, at large distances, it's hard to even hit a stationary target from far away without using GPS.

    But really, the question for me is - can you intercept a hypersonic flyer from a straight on angle? Would you send a rocket on a course so that it arrives very far in front of the hypersonic, then have it turn and travel straight on along the hypersonic's path from in front of it?

    And what happens if the hypersonic decides to vary its course away from a straight line? Like maybe fly in a slightly curved path toward its destination? Or veer to the right and left?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    So maybe the question of intercepting hypersonics resembles the problem of a batter and pitcher in a baseball or cricket game?
    I wonder if the numbers would be similar too?

    In baseball Ty Cobb has a .366 batting average. In other words out of three times at bat he would likely manage only one base hit.
    The other two times he would be struck out.

    In cricket the batting averages are usually in a similar 30% range.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,691
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Yeah. I guess the Doppler Effect simplifies speed calculations.
    It does, but it's not required.
    The space/ time differential between two consecutive return signals can be used to compute speed.

    The trouble is predicting how fast it will travel over the time required for interception to happen. If this were in empty space, with no atmosphere, then it would be a simple matter of using the present velocity. But in a real atmosphere, and dealing with an object that is attempting to travel at supersonic speed through that atmosphere, I don't see how you can reliably assume that an object presently traveling at a given speed is going to stay traveling at exactly that same speed.
    Uh, homing systems?
    (Active/ semi-active/ passive).

    You'd need incredibly accurate targeting in order actually, physically, collide. Heck, at large distances, it's hard to even hit a stationary target from far away without using GPS.
    A) Bung a large number of "dumb" unpowered objects directly in its path.
    B) Bung a smart powered object into the general volume (missile).

    But really, the question for me is - can you intercept a hypersonic flyer from a straight on angle? Would you send a rocket on a course so that it arrives very far in front of the hypersonic, then have it turn and travel straight on along the hypersonic's path from in front of it?
    Why does it have to be a "straight on angle"?
    No one uses that sort of interception, take a look at lead collision or lead pursuit.

    And what happens if the hypersonic decides to vary its course away from a straight line? Like maybe fly in a slightly curved path toward its destination? Or veer to the right and left?
    Like I've already pointed out, at hypersonic speeds the turn radius is on the order of tens (high tens) of miles: that limits - very strongly - the paths available and the avoidance manoeuvres possible.
    Even if the thing doesn't get shot down it's likely to end up so far off-target that a new line-up and second run isn't possible with the fuel load - a mission kill (not as "good" as a hard kill but still 100% effective).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    But really, the question for me is - can you intercept a hypersonic flyer from a straight on angle? Would you send a rocket on a course so that it arrives very far in front of the hypersonic, then have it turn and travel straight on along the hypersonic's path from in front of it?
    Why does it have to be a "straight on angle"?
    No one uses that sort of interception, take a look at lead collision or lead pursuit.
    If it's not coming from straight behind or straight in front, then it should be possible to dodge it by speeding up or slowing down rapidly.

    And a hypersonic can at least slow down rapidly. That part's easy. Just turn off your thrusters for a second. At hypersonic speed, the air resistance will slow you down real quick.

    And what happens if the hypersonic decides to vary its course away from a straight line? Like maybe fly in a slightly curved path toward its destination? Or veer to the right and left?
    Like I've already pointed out, at hypersonic speeds the turn radius is on the order of tens (high tens) of miles: that limits - very strongly - the paths available and the avoidance manoeuvres possible.
    Even if the thing doesn't get shot down it's likely to end up so far off-target that a new line-up and second run isn't possible with the fuel load - a mission kill (not as "good" as a hard kill but still 100% effective).
    Right, but you don't need to get very far into a turn in order to move very far sideways. At hypersonic speed, a small angle will still move you very far very fast to the right or left.

    If you are traveling at say 6000 km/h and you turn just 1 degree to the left, then Sin(1degree) * 6000 = 104 km/h. So you'd be moving 104 km/h toward the left. If you were able to turn by 10 degrees, you'd be moving left at 1041 km/h. (Which I will admit is odd, since the Sin function isn't supposed to be linear.)
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,691
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    If it's not coming from straight behind or straight in front, then it should be possible to dodge it by speeding up or slowing down rapidly.
    A) at hypersonic speeds it's not physically possible to "speed up or slow down rapidly".
    B) you don't think a small unmanned one-shot interceptor will have a higher performance than a large reusable vehicle?

    And a hypersonic can at least slow down rapidly. That part's easy. Just turn off your thrusters for a second. At hypersonic speed, the air resistance will slow you down real quick.
    Oh yeah...
    "Real quick" is relative. If you do that what stresses get placed on the airframe? What happens then? Oh, you have a large target that's slow(er) 1 and can't regain energy. With an incoming missile.
    That's not expected to be a career - or life - enhancing move.

    Right, but you don't need to get very far into a turn in order to move very far sideways. At hypersonic speed, a small angle will still move you very far very fast to the right or left.
    If you are traveling at say 6000 km/h and you turn just 1 degree to the left, then Sin(1degree) * 6000 = 104 km/h. So you'd be moving 104 km/h toward the left. If you were able to turn by 10 degrees, you'd be moving left at 1041 km/h. (Which I will admit is odd, since the Sin function isn't supposed to be linear.)
    And 1 degree is effectively still a straight line - it's ONLY a "diversion from course" over the long term.
    At 6000km/ hr + (for the interceptor) a difference of 104 km/ hr is negligible.
    (Oh, and the Sin function isn't linear - but at low values - such as you're using, it might as well be).

    1 It won't "slow down real quick" because it will still have the KE it had when the engines were shut down 2 - air drag takes time. Do bullets "slow down real quick"? (Hint: no 3).
    2 I dread to think what happens to the engines if you do that, surge, structural damage...
    3 As an example tank (APFSDS) rounds which are in the same ballpark for speed (<2000 m/ sec) lose ~50 m/ sec per kilometre when they leave the barrel (i.e. after "the engine is shut down").
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    We're also leaving out the question of countermeasures, like radar jamming or GPS jamming. The enemy already knows you're there, so you might as well go all out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    3 As an example tank (APFSDS) rounds which are in the same ballpark for speed (<2000 m/ sec) lose ~50 m/ sec per kilometre when they leave the barrel (i.e. after "the engine is shut down").
    In other words it loses half its speed in just under 15 seconds.

    But I well imagine that kind of rapid deceleration might put a strain on the pilot, since over that time it would be averaging around 6.6 g's of acceleration.
    Last edited by kojax; May 23rd, 2014 at 11:30 AM.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    354
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    We're also leaving out the question of countermeasures, like radar jamming or GPS jamming. The enemy already knows you're there, so you might as well go all out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    3 As an example tank (APFSDS) rounds which are in the same ballpark for speed (<2000 m/ sec) lose ~50 m/ sec per kilometre when they leave the barrel (i.e. after "the engine is shut down").
    In other words it loses half its speed in just under 15 seconds.

    But I well imagine that kind of rapid deceleration might put a strain on the pilot, since over that time it would be averaging around 6.6 g's of acceleration.
    Hypersonics in military dog fight applications would only be for unmanned drones ( I would have thought ). Commercial flights with passengers is completely different. Rather than dog fighting, Hypersonic jets will be for strategic bombing ( using missiles and gravity to unleash their Hell from way up in the atmosphere). Pilotless to reduce G force damage to humans would help make them more maneuverable and possibly give them fighter capabilities. They could also be used for low flying hit and run attacks on radar and anti aircraft stations.

    Hypersonics nuclear missiles are already here some may Say???

    Hypersonic Interceptors will be very difficult to make effective against maneuvering hypersonic targets. The ones we have today are ineffective as it is. Iron dome claiming to be the best ( although there are lots of critics to Israeli stats ). There has been lots of research done claiming to show their pitfalls. Missile defence sounds more hype than effectiveness.

    I enjoy reading about all the different hypersonic projects out there though...The different ideas of how achieve it....

    Russia, China, and America’s Hypersonic Missile Race | The Diplomat

    The Boeing Company: Today Tomorrow Beyond - X-51 WaveRider

    BBC News - Could hypersonic flight become a reality?

    Lockheed Martin announces plans for SR-72 hypersonic spy drone ? RT USA

    China Conducts First Test of New Ultra-High Speed Missile Vehicle | Washington Free Beacon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by jonio View Post

    Hypersonics nuclear missiles are already here some may Say???
    ICBM's are all hypersonic. At least, they become hypersonic during re-entry.


    Hypersonic Interceptors will be very difficult to make effective against maneuvering hypersonic targets. The ones we have today are ineffective as it is. Iron dome claiming to be the best ( although there are lots of critics to Israeli stats ). There has been lots of research done claiming to show their pitfalls. Missile defence sounds more hype than effectiveness.
    Yeah. It seems the main problem is not so much how to make an interceptor, but how to make the interceptor cost effective.

    If you're sending multiple one-shot interceptors out in order to take down a single re-usable hypersonic, and those one-shot interceptors are just as expensive as the re-usable hypersonic they're meant to destroy, then you might be spending 50 million dollars to destroy your enemy's 10 million dollar plane. (Or some other ratio like that.)

    That's like trying to win a hand to hand fight by knocking the boot leather off your enemy's boot with your face.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,691
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    We're also leaving out the question of countermeasures, like radar jamming or GPS jamming. The enemy already knows you're there, so you might as well go all out.
    That would simplify the interceptor's task: home on jam.

    In other words it loses half its speed in just under 15 seconds.
    Huh?
    It won't have 15 seconds.
    An incoming hypersonic interceptor will close and shoot it down well inside that time.

    and those one-shot interceptors are just as expensive as the re-usable hypersonic they're meant to destroy
    Why on Earth would a one shot interceptor cost the same as (or anywhere near close to) a reusable one?
    It will be considerably smaller (shorter range, no undercarriage, fewer on-board systems...) and size ~ weight while weight ~ cost.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    We're also leaving out the question of countermeasures, like radar jamming or GPS jamming. The enemy already knows you're there, so you might as well go all out.
    That would simplify the interceptor's task: home on jam.
    So basically, it needs to be dropping counter measure devices out the back. So the rockets can home in on the decoys.

    In other words it loses half its speed in just under 15 seconds.
    Huh?
    It won't have 15 seconds.
    An incoming hypersonic interceptor will close and shoot it down well inside that time.
    It also doesn't need to drop down to half its speed. If it only dropped by 50 meters/second (which takes just over half a second), then one second from now the plane will be located 50 meters away from where it was projected to be.

    However, it is possible that we're operating from different assumptions here. Are you assuming the hypersonic is choosing a flight path that brings it right up next to the missiles' launching base? I was thinking you'd use hypersonics to bomb regions that were defended by missiles, but not located right next to those missiles.

    Clearly speed is not going to help you if you're flying directly toward the missile. Then you're doing the missile's work for it. Even a non-hypersonic defense missile would be sufficient if the re-usable is flying right up next to the launching base.

    I'm thinking an enemy won't have their hypersonic defense missiles located everywhere, but rather, most likely they'd be concentrated at a few sites. A hypersonic bomber could hit locations that were a ways away from those specific sites.

    to
    and those one-shot interceptors are just as expensive as the re-usable hypersonic they're meant to destroy
    Why on Earth would a one shot interceptor cost the same as (or anywhere near close to) a reusable one?
    It will be considerably smaller (shorter range, no undercarriage, fewer on-board systems...) and size ~ weight while weight ~ cost.
    [/quote]

    How many one-shots will it take to hit the re-useable? If it takes 2, and each costs half the price of the re-useable, then you're just breaking even. Or well, breaking even unless you miss.

    But you should have a look at Jonio's first link. It looks to me like even the one shot hypersonics are going to cost quite a lot. Here. I'll repost it.

    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,691
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    So basically, it needs to be dropping counter measure devices out the back. So the rockets can home in on the decoys.
    Won't work: devices dropped out the back don't move at anywhere near the same speed (less dense = quicker deceleration) so Doppler radar sorts them from the genuine target and ignores them.

    It also doesn't need to drop down to half its speed. If it only dropped by 50 meters/second (which takes just over half a second), then one second from now the plane will be located 50 meters away from where it was projected by be.
    You are aware that target solutions are continuously updated in real time aren't you?

    Are you assuming the hypersonic is choosing a flight path that brings it right up next to the missiles' launching base? I was thinking you'd use hypersonics to bomb regions that were defended by missiles, but not located right next to those missiles.
    No, I'm assuming that any smart enemy would site its defensive systems near to high-value targets.

    Even a non-hypersonic defense missile would be sufficient if the re-usable is flying right up next to the launching base.
    Not true.
    Slow missiles have a shorter reaction time - ergo a much shorter engagement range. The faster the target the easier it for it to evade slow missiles (SR-71 vs SA-2 for example).

    [quote]I'm thinking an enemy won't have their hypersonic defense missiles located everywhere, but rather, most likely they'd be concentrated at a few sites. A hypersonic bomber could hit locations that were a ways away from those specific sites.[quote]
    You think a massivley expensive hypersonic system would be used to attack low-value targets?

    How many one-shots will it take to hit the re-useable? If it takes 2, and each costs half the price of the re-useable, then you're just breaking even. Or well, breaking even unless you miss.
    But you should have a look at Jonio's first link. It looks to me like even the one shot hypersonics are going to cost quite a lot. Here. I'll repost it.
    Yeah, one more time: cost is roughly "equal" to weight (for comparable systems).
    You think an interceptor missile will be half the weight of (possibly manned) reusable attack system?
    Compare a current fighter/ bomber with a current SAM.

    As for cost...
    According to the linked article the X-51 has TOTAL prgramme costs of $140M. That's less than one F-22.
    Or even "the Pentagon is said to have spent about US$2 billion on six hypersonic projects in the past decade alone" ooh, $2B. What's that? About 2 B-2 bombers?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    So basically, it needs to be dropping counter measure devices out the back. So the rockets can home in on the decoys.
    Won't work: devices dropped out the back don't move at anywhere near the same speed (less dense = quicker deceleration) so Doppler radar sorts them from the genuine target and ignores them.
    Ignore them or not, its radar is still jammed and now it has nothing to home in on.


    It also doesn't need to drop down to half its speed. If it only dropped by 50 meters/second (which takes just over half a second), then one second from now the plane will be located 50 meters away from where it was projected by be.
    You are aware that target solutions are continuously updated in real time aren't you?
    Right, so long as the missile is actually able to turn sharply enough to readjust.

    Probably 50 meters is probably not to hard to adjust for, but that number is only accurate if the missile were 2000 meters or so away when the deceleration starts. And in that scenario, the missile has only one second to correct before impact.

    I guess I'm wondering how precise a missile's steering ability is. At that speed, it's like trying to throw a dart at a dart board. You've got kilometers of open sky in front of you, and you're trying to hit an object that's only a few meters wide.


    Are you assuming the hypersonic is choosing a flight path that brings it right up next to the missiles' launching base? I was thinking you'd use hypersonics to bomb regions that were defended by missiles, but not located right next to those missiles.
    No, I'm assuming that any smart enemy would site its defensive systems near to high-value targets.
    Wouldn't a good strategy be, then, to start bombing lower value targets that are further away, in an attempt to goad the enemy into launching it's hypersonic rockets?

    All we lose if they don't launch their rockets, is fuel and bombs. They have to launch if they want to cost us a plane.


    You think a massivley expensive hypersonic system would be used to attack low-value targets?
    If they can't protect low value targets, then we are free to nickel and dime them to death.

    I once undid the "unbeatable" chess strategy of a friend of mine in chess club, by simply focusing on killing off all of his pawns.

    People often make the mistake of equating "low value" with "no value".


    How many one-shots will it take to hit the re-useable? If it takes 2, and each costs half the price of the re-useable, then you're just breaking even. Or well, breaking even unless you miss.
    But you should have a look at Jonio's first link. It looks to me like even the one shot hypersonics are going to cost quite a lot. Here. I'll repost it.
    Yeah, one more time: cost is roughly "equal" to weight (for comparable systems).
    You think an interceptor missile will be half the weight of (possibly manned) reusable attack system?
    Compare a current fighter/ bomber with a current SAM.

    As for cost...
    According to the linked article the X-51 has TOTAL prgramme costs of $140M. That's less than one F-22.
    Or even "the Pentagon is said to have spent about US$2 billion on six hypersonic projects in the past decade alone" ooh, $2B. What's that? About 2 B-2 bombers?
    Good point. Although admittedly it looks like the rockets don't work yet, so it's probably going to cost more to get the project up and going for real.


    I think the real goal of the hypersonic race is to make the other team spend money. We don't need to ever actually attack with a hypersonic. Just force them to spend more money than they can afford in trying to prevent us from attacking.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    354
    Missile Defences?????? They are not going to make hypersonic intercepting missile Defences, just because they can achieve hypersonic speeds. The missile Defences the world has now are fighting a losing battle against China, Russia etc....at 50% effectiveness the world is a fireball . At 80% The world is a fireball. They just make more missiles than you can intercept. Plus it is very very difficult ( unless you are on a computer game ) , to have a missile that can hit another missile. Unless the missile you re trying to hit is doing exactly what you planned it to do. Yes maybe they do ok against old missiles from 70's tech but not against modern missiles from Russia, China or possibly Iran, India and most of Europe. You think they are just going to build simple hypersonic interceptors?? No chance. Not until years after they have normal hypersonic missiles, will they have any other defence than we can hit you back. Like its been since Russia got nukes . I put my hope in lasers or maybe rail gun tech. . Although that at the moment seems nothing but hype...like the missile defence program.



    Will Hypersonic Capabilities Render Missile Defense Obsolete? | The Diplomat

    http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/...CC=1101981055&

    Does missile defense work? | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,691
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Ignore them or not, its radar is still jammed and now it has nothing to home in on.
    If it's JAMMED then home on jam works.

    ]Right, so long as the missile is actually able to turn sharply enough to readjust.
    A missile ALWAYS has a higher g-capability than a large (manned) system.

    I guess I'm wondering how precise a missile's steering ability is.
    Considering that we have - in service - missiles capable of distinguishing where the cockpit is on an aircraft and adjusting course to hot that (i.e. add an offset from the centre of [radar/ thermal] mass...

    At that speed, it's like trying to throw a dart at a dart board.
    It's like throwing an INTELLIGENT & STEERABLE dart at a dart board.

    [quote]You've got kilometers of open sky in front of you, and you're trying to hit an object that's only a few meters wide.[quote]
    Um, most missiles aren't intended to actually hit.

    Wouldn't a good strategy be, then, to start bombing lower value targets that are further away, in an attempt to goad the enemy into launching it's hypersonic rockets?
    Only dumb enemies would fall for that.
    And only dumb attackers use high-value assets against low-value targets.

    I think the real goal of the hypersonic race is to make the other team spend money.
    Whose "goal" is that?
    Did Australia's hypersonics project force anyone to spend money? Did France's? How about all the money that potential enemies poured into THEIR projects as result of British hypersonic research in the late 60s? Oh, wait...

    Quote Originally Posted by jonio View Post
    Missile Defences?????? They are not going to make hypersonic intercepting missile Defences, just because they can achieve hypersonic speeds.
    Yah think?
    One truism of military tech is that, if we can build it they'll field it.

    The missile Defences the world has now are fighting a losing battle against China, Russia etc....
    Citation needed.
    "Losing battle"?

    Plus it is very very difficult ( unless you are on a computer game ) , to have a missile that can hit another missile.
    Um, Seawolf.
    British. 1960s onwards. Not only hit missiles but also managed to shoot down a 4.5" artillery shell.

    You think they are just going to build simple hypersonic interceptors?? No chance.
    Whut?
    If you can build a hypersonic attack aircraft a defence missile is vastly less complex and thus vastly less costly.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    354
    [QUOTE=Dywyddyr;570100]
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Ignore them or not, its radar is still jammed and now it has nothing to home in on.
    If it's JAMMED then home on jam works.

    ]Right, so long as the missile is actually able to turn sharply enough to readjust.
    A missile ALWAYS has a higher g-capability than a large (manned) system.

    I guess I'm wondering how precise a missile's steering ability is.
    Considering that we have - in service - missiles capable of distinguishing where the cockpit is on an aircraft and adjusting course to hot that (i.e. add an offset from the centre of [radar/ thermal] mass...

    At that speed, it's like trying to throw a dart at a dart board.
    It's like throwing an INTELLIGENT & STEERABLE dart at a dart board.

    [quote]You've got kilometers of open sky in front of you, and you're trying to hit an object that's only a few meters wide.
    Um, most missiles aren't intended to actually hit.

    Wouldn't a good strategy be, then, to start bombing lower value targets that are further away, in an attempt to goad the enemy into launching it's hypersonic rockets?
    Only dumb enemies would fall for that.
    And only dumb attackers use high-value assets against low-value targets.

    I think the real goal of the hypersonic race is to make the other team spend money.
    Whose "goal" is that?
    Did Australia's hypersonics project force anyone to spend money? Did France's? How about all the money that potential enemies poured into THEIR projects as result of British hypersonic research in the late 60s? Oh, wait...

    Quote Originally Posted by jonio View Post
    Missile Defences?????? They are not going to make hypersonic intercepting missile Defences, just because they can achieve hypersonic speeds.
    Yah think?
    One truism of military tech is that, if we can build it they'll field it.

    The missile Defences the world has now are fighting a losing battle against China, Russia etc....
    Citation needed.
    "Losing battle"?

    Plus it is very very difficult ( unless you are on a computer game ) , to have a missile that can hit another missile.
    Um, Seawolf.
    British. 1960s onwards. Not only hit missiles but also managed to shoot down a 4.5" artillery shell.

    You think they are just going to build simple hypersonic interceptors?? No chance.
    Whut?
    If you can build a hypersonic attack aircraft a defence missile is vastly less complex and thus vastly less costly.

    Did you read any of the links I put Up? Please research current anti missile interceptors. See how much they cost to produce. Patriots being very expensive. You don't think they need multiple radar systems to make them Accurate? Its not just about the missile interceptor. Its the whole package. Its not clay pigeon shooting ( and that can be difficult with pellets moving multiple times faster than its target ). Yes some systems are better than others but these systems are not cheap. Yes of course there have been successes, but usually on targets that follow the right flight paths and are extremely predictable. Unlike many of missiles that Russia, China and others are producing. Hypersonic will make it even more difficult. They are not close to 100%. Israel may be good at stopping missiles the poorly equipped palestinians may fire, but many scientists and ballistic experts out there feel that's still hype. With the Israelis obviously creating hype over its effectiveness. Look how much America has spent on its patriot systems....then look at its effectiveness.

    When I say losing battle.....I mean in defending against their missiles....mutual destruction is our only real defence. Like its always been since we all got nukes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,691
    Quote Originally Posted by jonio View Post
    Did you read any of the links I put Up?
    Yup.

    Please research current anti missile interceptors. See how much they cost to produce. Patriots being very expensive.
    Yeah. <$4M. Compared to an F-22 ~$150M.
    And a manned hypersonic vehicle would be... what?
    The basic fact is that an interceptor missile will ALWAYS cost less than the manned (or even unmanned) reusable vehicle that it's intended to shoot down.
    Because it will have fewer on-board systems, less fuel etc. and be lighter and smaller.

    You don't think they need multiple radar systems to make them Accurate?
    You don't think we have radar systems available?
    Admitted they'd need a software upgrade (to handle the faster interceptions), but...

    When I say losing battle.....I mean in defending against their missiles....mutual destruction is our only real defence.
    I.e. those nations are ALSO in a losing battle against "OUR" incoming ICBMs.
    In other words it's all par for the course.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    354
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jonio View Post
    Did you read any of the links I put Up?
    Yup.

    Please research current anti missile interceptors. See how much they cost to produce. Patriots being very expensive.
    Yeah. <$4M. Compared to an F-22 ~$150M.
    And a manned hypersonic vehicle would be... what?
    The basic fact is that an interceptor missile will ALWAYS cost less than the manned (or even unmanned) reusable vehicle that it's intended to shoot down.
    Because it will have fewer on-board systems, less fuel etc. and be lighter and smaller.

    You don't think they need multiple radar systems to make them Accurate?
    You don't think we have radar systems available?
    Admitted they'd need a software upgrade (to handle the faster interceptions), but...

    When I say losing battle.....I mean in defending against their missiles....mutual destruction is our only real defence.
    I.e. those nations are ALSO in a losing battle against "OUR" incoming ICBMs.
    In other words it's all par for the course.
    If they did make Hypersonic jets...I feel it would be unmanned drones. They would fly them very low on flight paths avoiding known sams etc, making it difficult for radar and interception. like we do with jets now.just travelling much much faster. Also with defences we have now on these jets.

    The question this thread asked was Stealth vs Hypersonics....As there is no such thing as real stealth considering the American military admits itself Russian and Chinese radar can pick up its stealth planes. The extra distance they may achieve before being detectable will be closed down by a Hypersonic enemy. Therefore if I have to choose to put money in Hypersonics or stealth...Hypersonics...before the enemy gets them.It does matter if you can see an enemy if you can't catch it.

    I suppose your for stealth.... That has its benefits too....so I hope we keep investing in both.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,691
    Quote Originally Posted by jonio View Post
    They would fly them very low
    No they wouldn't.
    Atmospheric density (among other things) militates against that.
    Kinetic heating would be horrendous. And probably insurmountable.

    like we do with jets now.just travelling much much faster
    Yeah, and the number of jets even capable of - let alone actually doing so normally - flying Mach 1 at low level is in the handful.

    As there is no such thing as real stealth considering the American military admits itself Russian and Chinese radar can pick up its stealth planes.
    Perhaps you missed my earlier post (#22): all that stealth confers on a 'plane is a reduced signature, which means that it's less detectable not indetectable.
    Stealth was NEVER (except maybe by the likes of Discovery Channel) claimed to provide "invisible aircraft".
    Stealth is a technology with a specific use.

    Therefore if I have to choose to put money in Hypersonics or stealth...Hypersonics...before the enemy gets them.
    Except that we already have stealth.
    And all we have to show for hypersonics is ~60 years of throwing money at the problem.

    is It does matter if you can see an enemy if you can't catch it.
    Uh yeah.
    If you can build a hypersonic drone/ manned aircraft you can certainly build a smaller cheaper interceptor missile.
    In other words: you CAN "catch it".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    354
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jonio View Post
    They would fly them very low
    No they wouldn't.
    Atmospheric density (among other things) militates against that.
    Kinetic heating would be horrendous. And probably insurmountable.

    like we do with jets now.just travelling much much faster
    Yeah, and the number of jets even capable of - let alone actually doing so normally - flying Mach 1 at low level is in the handful.

    As there is no such thing as real stealth considering the American military admits itself Russian and Chinese radar can pick up its stealth planes.
    Perhaps you missed my earlier post (#22): all that stealth confers on a 'plane is a reduced signature, which means that it's less detectable not indetectable.
    Stealth was NEVER (except maybe by the likes of Discovery Channel) claimed to provide "invisible aircraft".
    Stealth is a technology with a specific use.

    Therefore if I have to choose to put money in Hypersonics or stealth...Hypersonics...before the enemy gets them.
    Except that we already have stealth.
    And all we have to show for hypersonics is ~60 years of throwing money at the problem.

    is It does matter if you can see an enemy if you can't catch it.
    Uh yeah.
    If you can build a hypersonic drone/ manned aircraft you can certainly build a smaller cheaper interceptor missile.
    In other words: you CAN "catch it".
    I agree, the factor of how hot the air got around the fighter drone, makes it very difficult to achieve and yes we are years, away from achieving it ( ?? ). You are the one who keeps going on about f.22s ( which Russian, Chinese and others radar can spot, making them not stealthy and requiring the same techniques as non stealth planes to defend themselves) · I was just making the point if they did achieve Hypersonic jets ( like f22's ) , they would just do what they do now. Fly low keeping out of the way of sams. Just at much faster speeds. How they would achieve that on a manouverable fighter is the stuff of science fiction ( for the moment ).

    If you go back to what I originally wrote. Hypersonic bombers/spy planes would be used to fly in high altitudes as carrying vessels. Hypersonic missile defence systems would face the same odds as they do now..they would require a whole new set of problems to be able to hit the target. Manouvarbilty being one of them...strategic bombers would not be as complexed as the missile systems needed to shoot them down. They would just release the missiles and bombs but would need far less time to reach their targets. Hypersonic nukes would be incredibly difficult to destroy as Russian non Hypersonic missiles are now.....Russian radar and Chinese make all the billions spent on f22's a waste of money. Despite the massive defence budget America has....its still in the same stale mate its always been. America can wipe Russia out and Russia can wipe America out. Hypersonics are here now ( in missiles ) and plane are the near future. Hypersonic vehicles have been flown by America and China and yes are not very effective...the same I am afraid to say as stealth.. New radar tech makes all the f.22's stealth capabilities a waste of money. It just becomes another fighter jet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,691
    Quote Originally Posted by jonio View Post
    You are the one who keeps going on about f.22s
    Um, that's simply because I'm comparing cost/ capability of a current state of the art fighter against cost/ capability of current state of the art missiles. Like for like.

    ( which Russian, Chinese and others radar can spot
    Citation needed.

    I was just making the point if they did achieve Hypersonic jets ( like f22's ) , they would just do what they do now. Fly low keeping out of the way of sams. Just at much faster speeds.
    No.
    If they fly low they will NOT fly at faster speeds.
    Current fighters do not (and most CANNOT) even do supersonic at low level.

    they would require a whole new set of problems to be able to hit the target. Manouvarbilty being one of them.
    No.
    It's not particularly different from current "problems": supersonic aircraft being shot down by supersonic missiles.

    strategic bombers would not be as complexed as the missile systems needed to shoot them down
    Utter and arrant nonsense.
    A strategic bomber needs undercarriage. It needs to carry sufficient fuel to return home. It needs cooling systems for the crew. It needs crew stations.
    One more time: If you can build a hypersonic drone/ manned aircraft you can certainly build a smaller cheaper interceptor missile.

    Russian radar and Chinese make all the billions spent on f22's a waste of money
    You keep saying this, but you haven't shown it to be so.

    Hypersonics are here now ( in missiles )
    Only in ICBMs - which have been available throughout most of the Cold War.
    Other than those all that's "available" are test beds and experimental vehicles.

    are not very effective...the same I am afraid to say as stealth.. New radar tech makes all the f.22's stealth capabilities a waste of money. It just becomes another fighter jet.
    Wrong.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Ignore them or not, its radar is still jammed and now it has nothing to home in on.
    If it's JAMMED then home on jam works.
    If the jamming device was a countermeasure ejected from the aircraft itself, and you home in on it, then all you're going to blow up is the countermeasure. - Which is great, because it means a hypersonic missile was used up destroying something a lot less expensive.

    I thought it was clear from context that that is what I was talking about.

    I guess I'm wondering how precise a missile's steering ability is.
    Considering that we have - in service - missiles capable of distinguishing where the cockpit is on an aircraft and adjusting course to hot that (i.e. add an offset from the centre of [radar/ thermal] mass...

    At that speed, it's like trying to throw a dart at a dart board.
    It's like throwing an INTELLIGENT & STEERABLE dart at a dart board.
    So now I'm curious.

    Is it possible to design darts that do that? Or maybe arrows? It would be really cool to bring the bow and arrow back onto the battlefield. Maybe not entirely practical, but definitely cool.

    The precision of missiles' steering ability has been a question of mine for a while.



    You've got kilometers of open sky in front of you, and you're trying to hit an object that's only a few meters wide.
    Um, most missiles aren't intended to actually hit.
    Right. Horseshoes and Hand Grenades. It only has to get close.

    But it still does have to get close.


    Wouldn't a good strategy be, then, to start bombing lower value targets that are further away, in an attempt to goad the enemy into launching it's hypersonic rockets?
    Only dumb enemies would fall for that.
    And only dumb attackers use high-value assets against low-value targets.
    I will have to disagree on that. It depends on the probability such that you lose the high value asset. If the probability of losing it is near to zero, and target has low, but non-zero value, then you're losing nothing and destroying something.

    When I'm playing chess, I will not hesitate to use my queen to destroy a pawn. I just make double sure that part of the board has no traps in place for her first.

    After a while, after I have been killing enough of my enemy's pawns so I have twice as many pawns on the board as my opponent, I can take advantage of my side's superior blocking ability to start sniping higher value pieces off the board.


    I think the real goal of the hypersonic race is to make the other team spend money.
    Whose "goal" is that?
    Did Australia's hypersonics project force anyone to spend money? Did France's? How about all the money that potential enemies poured into THEIR projects as result of British hypersonic research in the late 60s? Oh, wait...
    I don't think anything France or Australia does with their militaries ever motivates anyone to do anything in response.

    Plus it is very very difficult ( unless you are on a computer game ) , to have a missile that can hit another missile.
    Um, Seawolf.
    British. 1960s onwards. Not only hit missiles but also managed to shoot down a 4.5" artillery shell.
    That somewhat answers my earlier question.
    Last edited by kojax; May 24th, 2014 at 04:59 PM.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,691
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    If the jamming device was a countermeasure ejected from the aircraft itself, and you home in on it, then all you're going to blow up is the countermeasure. - Which is great, because it means a hypersonic missile was used up destroying something a lot less expensive.
    If the countermeasure device isn't moving at the same speed (or even close to that speed) then it gets filtered out of the returns as a likely target.

    I thought it was clear from context that that is what I was talking about.
    Yeah, so did I when I wrote: "devices dropped out the back don't move at anywhere near the same speed (less dense = quicker deceleration) so Doppler radar sorts them from the genuine target and ignores them."

    So now I'm curious.
    Is it possible to design darts that do that? Or maybe arrows? It would be really cool to bring the bow and arrow back onto the battlefield. Maybe not entirely practical, but definitely cool.
    The precision of missiles' steering ability has been a question of mine for a while.
    As I've mentioned: some missiles are capable of directing themselves to the cockpit of an aircraft, some have shot down a 4.5" artillery shell in flight.
    Good grief Bofors even have demonstrated guided (i.e. steerable in flight) 40mm shells.
    And people are investigating even smaller rounds that can be steered - under 5.56mm ... caliber.

    Right. Horseshoes and Hand Grenades. It only has to get close.
    But it still does have to get close.
    And, with a hypersonic target, already under enormous aerodynamic stress close doesn't have to be that close. Disrupt airflow, let alone put holes in the airframe, and the thing's in trouble.

    I will have to disagree on that. It depends on the probability such that you lose the high value asset. If the probability of losing it is near to zero, and target has low, but non-zero value, then you're losing nothing and destroying something.
    And unless you know for CERTAIN that the probability is low you don't use high-value assets against low-value targets.
    Hypersonic attack aircraft will be in short supply, and held in reserve: they won't be thrown willy-nilly at every available target.
    Even current aircraft are held back until it's known that the target is worth the risk.

    After a while, after I have been killing enough of my enemy's pawns so I have twice as many pawns on the board as my opponent, I can take advantage of my side's superior blocking ability to start sniping higher value pieces off the board.
    Except in this case you're still having to fly expensive aircraft into heavily-defended target areas. Taking out low-value targets doesn't reduce air defences around the high-value ones.

    I don't think anything France or Australia does with their militaries ever motivates anyone to do anything in response.
    Then the claim about what the "real goal of the hypersonic race" would essentially apply only to particular nations?
    And thus couldn't that "real goal" also be claimed for ANY system (from those nations) that is under test/ discussion?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    If the jamming device was a countermeasure ejected from the aircraft itself, and you home in on it, then all you're going to blow up is the countermeasure. - Which is great, because it means a hypersonic missile was used up destroying something a lot less expensive.
    If the countermeasure device isn't moving at the same speed (or even close to that speed) then it gets filtered out of the returns as a likely target.
    So, the countermeasure fails to jam the radar? It's quite possible that I need to look deeper into how radar jamming works.

    I guess every signal, even a spurious jamming signal, has a determinable point of origin, so it makes sense the radar array could filter out all signals coming from the direction of the ejected countermeasure. They can't use doppler effect to determine its speed, but I guess they can watch for the signal origin to move.


    Right. Horseshoes and Hand Grenades. It only has to get close.
    But it still does have to get close.
    And, with a hypersonic target, already under enormous aerodynamic stress close doesn't have to be that close. Disrupt airflow, let alone put holes in the airframe, and the thing's in trouble.
    Hadn't thought about air flow disruption.

    Or maybe fragmentation? Each fragment that hits the plane would be traveling at supersonic speed. So basically like getting pelted with extremely high velocity bullets.

    I will have to disagree on that. It depends on the probability such that you lose the high value asset. If the probability of losing it is near to zero, and target has low, but non-zero value, then you're losing nothing and destroying something.
    And unless you know for CERTAIN that the probability is low you don't use high-value assets against low-value targets.
    Hypersonic attack aircraft will be in short supply, and held in reserve: they won't be thrown willy-nilly at every available target.
    Even current aircraft are held back until it's known that the target is worth the risk.

    After a while, after I have been killing enough of my enemy's pawns so I have twice as many pawns on the board as my opponent, I can take advantage of my side's superior blocking ability to start sniping higher value pieces off the board.
    Except in this case you're still having to fly expensive aircraft into heavily-defended target areas. Taking out low-value targets doesn't reduce air defences around the high-value ones.
    Opens a useful direction for discussion. How useful are hypersonics against enemies that are too underdeveloped to have them?

    Say in Afghanistan. I would think the ability to cover a wider area with a more rapid response would be useful. Even if the area already has coverage by normal means, maybe keep a few hypersonics in a central location, ready to send just in case as backup.

    I'm thinking if it has the ability to arrive rapidly, then it's not quite as important to have them constantly in the air.

    I wonder if they can be made to have enough range to get to Afghanistan from the sea?



    I don't think anything France or Australia does with their militaries ever motivates anyone to do anything in response.
    Then the claim about what the "real goal of the hypersonic race" would essentially apply only to particular nations?
    And thus couldn't that "real goal" also be claimed for ANY system (from those nations) that is under test/ discussion?
    Yes. It would only apply to superpowers.

    Russia and China are probably not terribly worried about what Australia is doing with its airforce right now. Australia or France would be unlikely to initiate hostility against any advanced nation on their own initiative. They'd wait until they had at least the passive blessing of at least one nation on the UN security council, and even then they'd probably only do it if they were part of an alliance with one of the big 5.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,691
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    So, the countermeasure fails to jam the radar? It's quite possible that I need to look deeper into how radar jamming works.
    If the jamming remains (relatively static) then it's not a hypersonic aircraft, is it?
    Even IF a radar is being jammed that jamming shows up as "noise" - which has a centroid. If the centroid isn't moving at Mach 5+ it's more likely to be a decoy than the intended target. Thus the interceptors can be told to ignore that noise.

    Hadn't thought about air flow disruption.
    It's killed many an aircraft.

    Or maybe fragmentation? Each fragment that hits the plane would be traveling at supersonic speed. So basically like getting pelted with extremely high velocity bullets.
    That too. Or even a continuous rod warhead. Or, possibly, an updated Starstreak-type warhead - which uses 3 long-rod sub-projectiles.

    Opens a useful direction for discussion. How useful are hypersonics against enemies that are too underdeveloped to have them?
    One proposed use is/ was/ will be to employ them to hit underground facilities (like biological warfare factories): the added speed from the launch aircraft gives any missile (or even an unpowered "bomb") phenomenal kinetic energy. Thus it will be effective at deep penetration. And have a small nuclear warhead - going off entirely underground there'll be (ideally) no fallout, but it WILL destroy the bio-agent completely. Current weapons would only release bio-agents from facilities into the general area (and wind patterns - no telling where they'd end up).

    Say in Afghanistan. I would think the ability to cover a wider area with a more rapid response would be useful. Even if the area already has coverage by normal means, maybe keep a few hypersonics in a central location, ready to send just in case as backup.
    And, with the penetration ability as mentioned above, it would be effective at strikes on deep cave complexes.

    I'm thinking if it has the ability to arrive rapidly, then it's not quite as important to have them constantly in the air.
    I wonder if they can be made to have enough range to get to Afghanistan from the sea?
    It's unlikely they'll be small enough to fit on/ operate from a carrier, but the proposals are for global strike capabilities. Even the (tentative) manned systems would/ will have intercontinental range+. (I.e. CONUS to the Pacific).

    Yes. It would only apply to superpowers.
    Rather amusing. Especially since ONERA (France) and Australia made notable advances in scramjet propulsion in the last decade or so...
    Ya have to keep an eye on everyone.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    354
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    So, the countermeasure fails to jam the radar? It's quite possible that I need to look deeper into how radar jamming works.
    If the jamming remains (relatively static) then it's not a hypersonic aircraft, is it?
    Even IF a radar is being jammed that jamming shows up as "noise" - which has a centroid. If the centroid isn't moving at Mach 5+ it's more likely to be a decoy than the intended target. Thus the interceptors can be told to ignore that noise.

    Hadn't thought about air flow disruption.
    It's killed many an aircraft.

    Or maybe fragmentation? Each fragment that hits the plane would be traveling at supersonic speed. So basically like getting pelted with extremely high velocity bullets.
    That too. Or even a continuous rod warhead. Or, possibly, an updated Starstreak-type warhead - which uses 3 long-rod sub-projectiles.

    Opens a useful direction for discussion. How useful are hypersonics against enemies that are too underdeveloped to have them?
    One proposed use is/ was/ will be to employ them to hit underground facilities (like biological warfare factories): the added speed from the launch aircraft gives any missile (or even an unpowered "bomb") phenomenal kinetic energy. Thus it will be effective at deep penetration. And have a small nuclear warhead - going off entirely underground there'll be (ideally) no fallout, but it WILL destroy the bio-agent completely. Current weapons would only release bio-agents from facilities into the general area (and wind patterns - no telling where they'd end up).

    Say in Afghanistan. I would think the ability to cover a wider area with a more rapid response would be useful. Even if the area already has coverage by normal means, maybe keep a few hypersonics in a central location, ready to send just in case as backup.
    And, with the penetration ability as mentioned above, it would be effective at strikes on deep cave complexes.

    I'm thinking if it has the ability to arrive rapidly, then it's not quite as important to have them constantly in the air.
    I wonder if they can be made to have enough range to get to Afghanistan from the sea?
    It's unlikely they'll be small enough to fit on/ operate from a carrier, but the proposals are for global strike capabilities. Even the (tentative) manned systems would/ will have intercontinental range+. (I.e. CONUS to the Pacific).

    Yes. It would only apply to superpowers.
    Rather amusing. Especially since ONERA (France) and Australia made notable advances in scramjet propulsion in the last decade or so...
    Ya have to keep an eye on everyone.
    I was looking through all the different articles about hypersonic flight, its difficulties, how far we are from it , the materials needed ( to withstand the stresses, heat etc ) , and came across this article...

    Its an old one but an interesting read on an opinion of where the 6th generation of fighter may lead us.

    The Sixth Generation Fighter

    I actually think this thread is one where no-one is right....only that if you have a radar that can spot stealth ( as the Chinese and Russians claim) , all s400 missile systems can shoot them Down. We cannot stop a hypersonic missile.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,691
    Quote Originally Posted by jonio View Post
    I was looking through all the different articles about hypersonic flight, its difficulties, how far we are from it , the materials needed ( to withstand the stresses, heat etc ) , and came across this article...
    Its an old one but an interesting read on an opinion of where the 6th generation of fighter may lead us.
    The Sixth Generation Fighter
    Yeah, "The possibilities for a sixth generation fighter seem almost the stuff of science fiction.".
    The possibilities.
    Unfortunately (for that article) aerospace engineering is engineering: which is about delivering an affordable workable solution.
    Pie in the sky stuff just won't cut it.

    I actually think this thread is one where no-one is right....only that if you have a radar that can spot stealth ( as the Chinese and Russians claim) , all s400 missile systems can shoot them Down.
    Some error here.
    As I've already pointed out we already have stealth.
    We can't, as yet, make hypersonics.
    Ergo: there is no choice to be made.

    We cannot stop a hypersonic missile.
    Really?
    I wonder what the ABM system (Sprint, Spartan, Galosh etc.)designers, manufacturers and operators think of that comment.
    In fact, one intercept resulted in physical contact. (My emphasis).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    I wonder how hard it would be to build a bunch of hypersonic radar jamming missiles?

    Building a missile to shoot down a hypersonic aircraft is easier than building the aircraft itself, right? Because size tends to be proportional to cost, and an unmanned non-reusable missile is smaller than a reusable manned/unmanned plane.

    So, taking that one step further, would building a missile that has radar jamming as its sole purpose, then, be cheaper than building a missile to shoot down a plane? Presumably, a missile designed to shoot down a plane has to be big enough to carry an explosive payload, and whatever mechanical components it uses to maneuver, as well as the electronics to home in on its target. A jamming missile only needs to carry jamming electronics. No payload. And possibly it might be ok to forget about maneuverability also, since it's only a decoy.

    So, I'm thinking that, if we launched 20 or 30 cheaper hypersonic jamming missiles, and then one hypersonic plane among them (which is also emitting jamming signals), then the enemy would have too many targets to shoot them all down. They still might get lucky, of course.

    Real modern warfare between superpowers is mostly just a game of "break the bank". The lesson the Soviets learned in Afghanistan in the 1980's, where the USA supplied stinger missiles to insurgents, knowing a stinger only cost a few thousand dollars, and could shoot down a helicopter that cost over a million. The same idea applies to hypersonic building. The real goal is to spend a small amount of money in a way that forces your opponent to spend a large amount of money.
    Last edited by kojax; June 2nd, 2014 at 07:44 AM.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,691
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I wonder how hard it would be to build a bunch of hypersonic radar jamming missiles?
    Of what use would one be?
    Sure, it'll jam.
    And then disappear over the horizon taking the jamming with it, leaving the sky clear.

    So, I'm thinking that, if we launched 20 or 30 cheaper hypersonic jamming missiles, and then one hypersonic plane among them (which is also emitting jamming signals), then the enemy would have too many targets to shoot them all down. They still might get lucky, of course.
    Uh okay...
    And where do you carry a warload in the aircraft that's just launched 20-30 jammers?
    In aircraft weight is at a premium, as is space (hardpoints).
    Even on subsonic aircraft (with far fewer aerodynamic constraints) you have to give up an actual weapon to carry a jammer (pod).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    [QUOTE=Dywyddyr;572017]
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    So, I'm thinking that, if we launched 20 or 30 cheaper hypersonic jamming missiles, and then one hypersonic plane among them (which is also emitting jamming signals), then the enemy would have too many targets to shoot them all down. They still might get lucky, of course.
    Uh okay...
    And where do you carry a warload in the aircraft that's just launched 20-30 jammers?
    In aircraft weight is at a premium, as is space (hardpoints).

    I was thinking the jammers get launched from the same place as the plane, or from outside the enemy's airspace (so from their perspective both the jammers and the plane were always moving at the same velocity.) But now that I think about it, the plane itself would have a longer range than the jammers, so they can't really launch from the same place.

    I was thinking this, and then you gave me the answer:

    Even on subsonic aircraft (with far fewer aerodynamic constraints) you have to give up an actual weapon to carry a jammer (pod).
    Launch the jammers from a subsonic aircraft. The subsonic aircraft carries them into the target area, and then leaves.

    Unless the enemy's tracking is good enough so they can remember the whole history of the jammers (that they were going slower before they appeared.) But even then, a possibility would be to make the jammers fly near the plane before they turn on their jamming.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,691
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Launch the jammers from a subsonic aircraft. The subsonic aircraft carries them into the target area, and then leaves.
    Brilliant!
    Have subsonic aircraft precede a strike. (They'd have to, because they'd be moving about 1/5 as fast at best...).
    And don't forget to have protective escorts for them.
    That way the hypersonic strike will be a complete surprise.

    Plus, of course, the entire reason for hypersonics is prompt response: the whole idea is to be able to hit the target as rapidly as possible. That's sorta ruined if you're involving subsonic aircraft as part of the package.
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; June 2nd, 2014 at 11:00 PM.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Launch the jammers from a subsonic aircraft. The subsonic aircraft carries them into the target area, and then leaves.
    Brilliant!
    Have subsonic aircraft precede a strike. (They'd have to, because they'd be moving about 1/5 as fast at best...).
    And don't forget to have protective escorts for them.
    That way the hypersonic strike will be a complete surprise.

    Plus, of course, the entire reason for hypersonics is prompt response: the whole idea is to be able to hit the target as rapidly as possible. That's sorta ruined if you're involving subsonic aircraft as part of the package.
    Are you suggesting that surprise would have been be a factor anyway? Sure hypersonics go fast, but they're also easy to spot, and sort out from civilian traffic to quickly identify them as a threat.


    I would almost suggest launching an entirely decoy attack. No real bomber in the mix. Just a bunch of fakes to make them waste missiles shooting them down. They don't really have much choice. They either have to respond to every credible threat as if it were real, or just not bother defending themselves.

    Mind you, I am thinking from the perspective of the USA. In a budget war, the USA will typically win even if it spends a little bit more money than its opponent. (As long as it doesn't spend a lot more.)
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,691
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Are you suggesting that surprise would have been be a factor anyway?
    No.
    The idea behind hypersonics is to hit mobile but high value targets before they've relocated.
    That's what the speed is required for: to get in, hit and (hopefully) get out again before the target has moved.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Are you suggesting that surprise would have been be a factor anyway?
    No.
    The idea behind hypersonics is to hit mobile but high value targets before they've relocated.
    That's what the speed is required for: to get in, hit and (hopefully) get out again before the target has moved.

    Sometimes in chess, the reason you threaten the king is not because you actually plan on taking the king. It's to force your opponent to do something disadvantageous in order to avoid losing the king. A similar strategy can be used by threatening the queen, or etc.

    Actually hitting a high value target is great, but merely putting it in the crosshairs might be a pretty effective strategy also, if the enemy is going to have to spend a lot of money trying to prevent it.

    Sometimes an enemy can put so much effort into avoiding a loss that they actually might have done better by simply letting it happen,.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,691
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Sometimes in chess, the reason you threaten the king is not because you actually plan on taking the king. It's to force your opponent to do something disadvantageous in order to avoid losing the king. A similar strategy can be used by threatening the queen, or etc.
    Actually hitting a high value target is great, but merely putting it in the crosshairs might be a pretty effective strategy also, if the enemy is going to have to spend a lot of money trying to prevent it.
    Sometimes an enemy can put so much effort into avoiding a loss that they actually might have done better by simply letting it happen,.
    Yeah, and if the weapon never gets used then it's essentially money down the drain. (If it only "puts them in the cross hairs" with no actual strikes how long is it going to retain its credibility?)
    Like I said: a defensive hypersonic interceptor (missile) will always be cheaper than a manned strike system.
    Or maybe the enemy can largely ignore defensive systems and simply build more "high value mobile targets".
    That way they force YOU to spend more money in order to get more systems that can target them.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Sometimes in chess, the reason you threaten the king is not because you actually plan on taking the king. It's to force your opponent to do something disadvantageous in order to avoid losing the king. A similar strategy can be used by threatening the queen, or etc.
    Actually hitting a high value target is great, but merely putting it in the crosshairs might be a pretty effective strategy also, if the enemy is going to have to spend a lot of money trying to prevent it.
    Sometimes an enemy can put so much effort into avoiding a loss that they actually might have done better by simply letting it happen,.
    Yeah, and if the weapon never gets used then it's essentially money down the drain. (If it only "puts them in the cross hairs" with no actual strikes how long is it going to retain its credibility?)

    Are nuclear weapons losing their credibility? It's been over half a century since one was used in war.

    Like I said: a defensive hypersonic interceptor (missile) will always be cheaper than a manned strike system.
    Or maybe the enemy can largely ignore defensive systems and simply build more "high value mobile targets".
    That way they force YOU to spend more money in order to get more systems that can target them.
    Yes, and that would make them useless if the various participants had equal amounts of finances.

    But if the USA spends 6 billion forcing some other country to spend 2 billion countering it, and that second country's GDP is 1/3 as big as the USA's, then the USA has actually held its own in the price war.

    If the second country's GDP is 1/6 the size of the USA's GDP, then the USA won the price war, even though the USA spent more money.

    Suppose you're in a fist fight with a 300 kg gorilla, and you manage to land 10 punches, hitting the gorilla in the face with all your strength each time. Then the gorilla manages to punch you once, hitting you in the face with all of his strength. Who do you think will have won that fight?

    That's why don't want to get into a fist fight with a 300 kg gorilla. And it's also why you don't want to get into a budget war with the USA.
    Last edited by kojax; June 18th, 2014 at 07:42 PM.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Radar to detect stealth planes
    By Always.Asking in forum Military Technology
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: February 16th, 2014, 11:51 AM
  2. what is the latest stealth technology currently in development?
    By knowsci in forum Military Technology
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: January 8th, 2014, 09:30 PM
  3. To detect STEALTH PLANES position.
    By anand.p.h in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 31st, 2012, 09:40 AM
  4. STEALTH PAINT : HOW TO MAKE ?
    By Pandemie in forum Military Technology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: June 1st, 2011, 05:34 PM
  5. How to catch a stealth airplane
    By (In)Sanity in forum Military Technology
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: January 15th, 2007, 03:41 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •