Hypersonic Missiles

Dilandu wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:
Wrongo!

Tactical nukes were never truly useful except against concentrated forces. The most obvious targets were Soviet tank formations. Even then, mild dispersal seriously limited the effectiveness of tactical nukes and those pesky German towns were less than a kiloton apart.

Wrong again.

Tactical nukes are the quick & cheap way to deliver the amount of firepower comparable with several hours of artillery division fire in ONE moment. Which is invaluable on battlefield, because it did not left enemy time to react or counter. And forced dispersion basically means, that the opponent's troops are harder to control & coordinate. Which means, that their striking power is limited.

The NATO doctrine of Cold War wasn't about nuking Soviet tank battalions on the frontlines. It would simply be ineffective - tanks are rather nuclear-resistant. The main idea was, that tactical nukes could be used to quickly open breaches in Soviet defense positions, thus allowing NATO armor to launch flanking attacks. And the time was crucial for that. NATO commanders could not allow to waste time, penetrating the flanks of Soviet advancing armies by conventional means. Even short delay would allow Soviet commanders to pinpoint the direction of planned counterattack, and reinforce it.

The tactical nukes allowed armor to destroy opponent defenses very quickly, and advance through irradiated battleground - WHERE ENEMY INFANTRY COULD NOT STALL THE TANKS. With the advent of portable anti-tank missiles, it became too easy for entrenched infantry to stall the armor attack. And Soviet doctrine since World War 2 put heavy emphasis on protecting the flanks of advancing armies, so the opponent could not launch the counterattack. The tactical nukes were effective solution in such situation.

Daryl wrote:Whatever happened to the Neutron Bomb. Lethal radiation and high EMP, with less blast damage? Some said it was the ideal capitalist weapon, killing people while leaving property to be acquired.

cthia wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:I am unimpressed.

We have had ICBMs for over half a century. RV velocity of Mach 20+. The US had precision guided manauverable reenty vehicles with an Earth pentrator warhead on the Pershing II back in the 1980s.

President Trump has provoked a shitstorm with a request for a LOWER yield warhead for the Trident II missile. I guarentee you that the low yield warhead is to arm a precision guided MARV that can destroy a hardened missile silo. It will be able to take out a silo with essentially zero, off site casualties from blast effects, thermal radiation or initial nuclear radiation, and minimal fallout.

Here is a very good analysis of current counterforce capability.

Web results
The New Era of Counterforce: Technological Change and the Future of Nuclear Deterrence - Belfer Center
PDFBelfer Center › isec_a_00273_LieberPress

I vividly remember a very hostile interview with the FBI after writing a paper with a similar analysis back in the 1980s.


A SCRAMJET powered hypersonic vehicle will mass several tons. To get intercontinental range you will have to deMIRV an ICBM, replacing ten warheads with only one warhead. Aircraft launched hypersonic vehicles will be much shorter range, will have to cruise at 100,000 feet altitude to avoid melting, can NOT be stealthy and will give defenses significant time to shoot them down.

This being said, hypersonic missiles will enhance certain capabilities. An example is giving the proposed F-15X and may be the proposed B1R the ability to provide 1,000 kilometer range, air to air fire support for F-22 and F-35. (Lauching a hypersonic missile from a B-52 requires a solid fuel rocket booster massing twice the missile. F-15X and B1R would require a much smaller booster or may be even no boister.)

A plausible SCRAMJET, Mach 10 capable, hypersonic missile is NOT going to be able to manauver as much as presumed. Even with a 20 g turn capability, the turning radius is going to be over 50 kilometers. A Mach 20 hypersonic vehicle would have a turning radius of 200 kilometer! If the hypersonic missile is compelled to evade an interceptor missile, it will not be able to hit its target. In the unlikely event that an interceptor can not outmanuver a hypersonic vehicle, put a low yield nuke on the interceptor missile like we had on the Falcon interceptor missiles back in the 1960s and the hypersonic vehicle is toast.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-26_Falcon

I am not suggesting that hypersonic weapons are not an advancement over traditional ballistic missiles. However; they will not be quite so revolutionary.

ICBMs aren't generally used as tactical weapons and launched at the pride of the navy—aircraft carriers—possibly leveling the playing field and simultaneously threatening to reduce decades of investment to SL scrap.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Good luck hitting a manuavering aircraft carrier with a Mach 20 MARV that has a turning radius of 200 kilometers that will have to evade ABM capable SAMs launched by escort ships.

cthia wrote:I was under the impression they have the ability to fly very low, defeating radar. For whatever reasons, they are described as defeating current defenses, which includes SAMs, no?

If a railgun's maneuverable, radar guided, hypersonic "shells" can target warships, why can't hypersonic missiles?

Dilandu wrote:

cthia wrote:I was under the impression they have the ability to fly very low, defeating radar. For whatever reasons, they are described as defeating current defenses, which includes SAMs, no?

No, they could not fly very low. The air friction would rise exponentially.

The main idea behind hypersonic missiles is that they move fast (i.e. they traverse the air defense radius very quickly, leaving only a very limited time to react), and they could maneuver in flight. Combining with their impressive velocity, their maneuvering ability made interception very complicated: the intercepting missile have quite hard time trying to predict the correct interception point.

If a railgun's maneuverable, radar guided, hypersonic "shells" can target warships, why can't hypersonic missiles?

Because railgun shells aren't radar-guided. They are radar-corrected, i.e. they are tracked in flight and correction commands are send onboard. They could not find the target by themselves - they need someone to observe the target & gave them instructions.

The missile must have means to find warship by itself, since on large distances outside guidance could not be guaranteed. So, it required the array of sensors, capable of working correctly through heated plasma around.