Hypersonic Missiles

I thought we didn’t have the materials needed to produce hypersonic missiles and that’s why they delayed production, same with the javelins. The sanctions hurt us from getting the materials needed I think, could be wrong. Also heard Russia is rich in the precious metals needed for production and that’s why they have tons of them. Maybe the years of fighting 3rd world countries with inferior armies and big military contracts that are actually just money laundering schemes have made America take a step back in the arms and economic race.

a reply to: TTU77

The united states had a stealth bomber in service before the world knew it even existed. They were circling Baghdad undetected waiting to drop their bombs.

Honestly we have no idea what's in development or how far along it is.

originally posted by: Kenny2xx
I thought we didn’t have the materials needed to produce hypersonic missiles and that’s why they delayed production, same with the javelins. The sanctions hurt us from getting the materials needed I think, could be wrong. Also heard Russia is rich in the precious metals needed for production and that’s why they have tons of them. Maybe the years of fighting 3rd world countries with inferior armies and big military contracts that are actually just money laundering schemes have made America take a step back in the arms and economic race.

My exact thought. All the money wasted in 20 years is enough 10x or ever 40x to develop hypersonics and who knows what else. Now Russian and China have the drop on the USA. They lost decades of innovation to merely peddle the status quo with their heads in the sand, apparently,

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: TTU77

The united states had a stealth bomber in service before the world knew it even existed. They were circling Baghdad undetected waiting to drop their bombs.

Honestly we have no idea what's in development or how far along it is.

20 years ago, I might have believed that, but to even be outclassed in this one case of hypersonics, which isn't a small issue, is proof enough imo that the reality could be different I fear. If they are really so sophisticated, they should have been able to lick hypersonics the moment Russian and China sucessfully tested their HM, or at the least, since this adjusted the power balance, showed their hand a bit of there classified tech, to retip the scales back into balance. It does no good geopolitically to be perceived to lose in a tech race, to this degree. The whole world can see the US is a step behind in the latest technology. It would be high time to reveal something, to change that perception, I'd say. Yet, they havent.

What if there is no mystery technology, just rusting old military tech and complacency. No shiny secret ufo's I'm a fraid, and if there are, maybe the elected officials don't even know about it.

a reply to: Kenny2xx

Materials aren't the problem, it's the fact that hypersonics are really really hard. The reason the US is "behind" is because Russia and China have been working on straight rocket powered systems, while the US is developing scramjet powered systems. That would allow a hypersonic cruise missile, something no one has developed yet, with only Russia and the US developing them. There are also as many as 70 different systems on the books in the US programs, with somewhere between 8 and 10 reaching flight test status. Since 2010 eight scramjet powered cruise missiles have been tested, with a 50% success rate. Two of the failures were related to other systems besides the engine. Since 2013, there have been three tests, with two successes.

The HAWC program has had two successful test flights, each using a different scramjet engine. The ARRW program had two failures before a successful first flight a couple of weeks ago. The first failure occurred when the weapon failed to separate from the B-52. The second failed when the booster failed to ignite after separation from the B-52. The third test reached over Mach 5, and hit their range and speed goals.

a reply to: Kenny2xx

While the hypersonic missiles are fast the west is the leader in the development of Laser and energy based anti missile defence systems, these systems are more than fast enough to take down hypersonic missiles but are also new so have never been tested against a hypersonic target.

Meanwhile the US is actually much further along in it's own hypersonic technology than it will ever let on, black budget projects such as the infamous Aurora for example were hypersonic aircraft and possibly delivery systems dating back well over ten years but still in the hands of the black budget guy's.

Likely much of the supposed leap that China has was by hacking and stealing from US corporate and government computer systems.

The future defence against hypersonics will be energy based warfare systems, laser missile screen's and quantum radar tracking nets from ground to space that will detect anything moving too fast even if it is stealth enabled.

Russians short lived supposed advantage in the arene is just that short lived and likely it won't last much longer if at all.

However we have entered a new cold war and it is one where the doomsday clock is much closer to midnight than at any time in the old cold war.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Kenny2xx

Materials aren't the problem, it's the fact that hypersonics are really really hard. The reason the US is "behind" is because Russia and China have been working on straight rocket powered systems, while the US is developing scramjet powered systems. That would allow a hypersonic cruise missile, something no one has developed yet, with only Russia and the US developing them. There are also as many as 70 different systems on the books in the US programs, with somewhere between 8 and 10 reaching flight test status. Since 2010 eight scramjet powered cruise missiles have been tested, with a 50% success rate. Two of the failures were related to other systems besides the engine. Since 2013, there have been three tests, with two successes.

The HAWC program has had two successful test flights, each using a different scramjet engine. The ARRW program had two failures before a successful first flight a couple of weeks ago. The first failure occurred when the weapon failed to separate from the B-52. The second failed when the booster failed to ignite after separation from the B-52. The third test reached over Mach 5, and hit their range and speed goals.

Thanks for the info, since the USA is so far from Russia and China, I heard that it would need to be mach 20 to make up for the distance to be equivalent to the short range systems they have. Do you know how fast those systems are capable of? Is mach 5 the limit or just a test phase?

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Kenny2xx

While the hypersonic missiles are fast the west is the leader in the development of Laser and energy based anti missile defence systems, these systems are more than fast enough to take down hypersonic missiles but are also new so have never been tested against a hypersonic target.

Meanwhile the US is actually much further along in it's own hypersonic technology than it will ever let on, black budget projects such as the infamous Aurora for example were hypersonic aircraft and possibly delivery systems dating back well over ten years but still in the hands of the black budget guy's.

Likely much of the supposed leap that China has was by hacking and stealing from US corporate and government computer systems.

The future defence against hypersonics will be energy based warfare systems, laser missile screen's and quantum radar tracking nets from ground to space that will detect anything moving too fast even if it is stealth enabled.

Russians short lived supposed advantage in the arene is just that short lived and likely it won't last much longer if at all.

However we have entered a new cold war and it is one where the doomsday clock is much closer to midnight than at any time in the old cold war.

Interesting info, thanks. May i ask why you think now is more dangerous than the cold war? China seems to be perceived as the bigger threat, but they also seem very willing to come to agreements on nuclear arms etc, and agreeing on no first strike deals etc. Yes, they are likely to snatch up tawaiin given half a chance soon, but atleast, with this in place, it won't go nuclear, but stay conventional, and yes, semi condoctor chip manufactoring monopoly in tawaiin raises the stakes, but if the USA is really that advanced, what is 10 years behind in semi condoctor tech. If China can steal US tech, why can't US steal Tawain tech, lol.

a reply to: TTU77

The US is developing hypersonic cruise missiles using scramjets. The only other people even working on a cruise missile are Russia, with their 3M22 Zircon. The maximum range of that is 620 miles, using special fuel. It's significantly shorter in most profiles, with 460 miles in a semi-ballistic profile, up to 311 miles low level, and an average of 280 miles. The HAWC program has successfully flown 400 miles at up to 65,000 feet in its second test. The ARRW, which just had its first successful test (the first two failures were failures of other systems) has a designed range of 1,000 miles at Mach 5.

There's a lot of confusion over the words operational and effective. Russia and China both say they have operational hypersonic missiles, but that doesn't mean that they are effective. The Kinzhal is proving less than effectively claimed in Ukraine use. The Chinese DF-17, the only currently operational system they have, has a targeting problem. They have to find the ships to target them, and even with satellites that's not the easiest thing to do.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Aurora was nothing of the sort. The word Aurora was seen in a classified budget slide and someone made the leap to it being a Mach 6+ PDWE powered aircraft. The simple reality is that it was the classified funding for the B-2 program before it went public.

a reply to: TTU77

Speed has nothing to do with being able to reach them. It only has to do with how long it would take them to get there and how difficult they would be able to stop. HAWC and ARRW are air launched systems, that will be launched from strategic bomber platforms. The bombers will be the first stage, the booster the second, and the weapons system the third. Most programs have classified design speeds, so are just "in excess of Mach 5", which is considered hypersonic. Several programs are developing variable cycle engines, which will be game changing in terms of hypersonic technology.

a reply to: TTU77

No it was the third test that we know about. Three different platforms with all considered successful with the latest launched from a B52. All three platforms exceeded Mach 5. From what I read, the problem with the US hypersonic program was that they were too fast and basically destroyed themselves after deployment.

Hypersonic missiles are not exactly what I would call maneuverable since the course change would need to be changed again and again, you are not going to be swerving nor dogging anything. Simple speed would be its best defense, small corrections over long distance could be made.

The US program admittedly is further behind both Russia and China but I feel not by far. The US is usually much more secretive with these programs, the SR71 was testing and operational for 25 years or longer before anyone knew what it was. We have a mini space shuttle cruising space autonomously for over 750 days straight at over Mach 22.8 or 17400mph and what it has in the back of it remains to be known.

It is capable of dynamic course corrections, orbital changes, and avoidance of satellites all autonomously. It’s not up there taking pictures although it likely has that capability too. All three countries have the capability to annihilate every citizen multiple times over. So one more platform hypersonic or not really doesn’t change those facts.

a reply to: TTU77

I feel the same way. Maybe 20-25 years ago I would believe America secretly has something up its sleeve to balance the power. But in reality this country is incompetent, and most likely snatched the money that was meant to go to these black budget high tech military programs for themselves. They most likely didn’t expect Russia and China to be this advanced militarily. Most likely thought they could end both countries economically and didn’t need to invest in military tech. All they had to do was have people think they were working on these weapons but never would have to deploy them in battle. Especially against 3rd world countries we’ve been beating up on for the past wars.

originally posted by: SkittlesgiveyouSkills
the SR71 was testing and operational for 25 years or longer before anyone knew what it was.

That's actually a commonly believed story that isn't entirely true. President Johnson announced the A-11 interceptor (YF-12) in February of 1964. In July of 1964, he announced a 2,000 mph reconnaissance aircraft capable of flying over 80,000 feet that would begin flight testing in 1965 named the SR-71. That's the press conference where the myth of the misspeak that required the name to be changed to SR-71 came from. The first SR-71 was delivered for flight testing in October of 1964, with first flight in December 1964.

a reply to: Kenny2xx

The US has always known that China and Russia were developing these systems. As I said before, there's a huge difference between "operational" and "effective". Russia and China both have been known to declare systems operational before they were actually effective, and have had problems with them in the early years of them being operational that required a lot of work and improvements. The Su-34 is a great example. When it was first declared operational, the first 16 aircraft had to be grounded due to production problems. They finally got them fixed, but the Su-34 has had issues against Ukrainian defenses with a number of them being shot down, and being found with commercial GPS units attached to their instrument panels. Both Chinese and Russian planes have serious deficiencies in their engines. They're effective engines, for what they need, but their time between failures and overhaul are significantly lower than similar Western engines.

a reply to: Zaphod58

My mistake and once again you have “learned” me something. It was and still is a remarkable aircraft that paid its way with the mission undertaken.

a reply to: TTU77

Not saying this is the case necessarily with hypersonics - it could be - but sometimes one acts like they're interested in developing a technology in order to get your adversaries to waste time, money and resources playing catch-up.

One could have already investigated an advancement, found it to be not feasible or possible for whatever reason, ended your research into it and still leave breadcrumbs and hints that you're onto something super secret-squirrel cool in an attempt to force your peers or near-peers to HAVE to invest in the research, espionage, whatever - just in case there really is something to it.

Not only does this waste your enemy's time in pursuit of a fruitless and/or flawed technology, but it leads them to NOT invest some of their resources in the stuff that would actually help them hurt you; all the while freeing you up to commit to some real Star Trek stuff.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Brotherman
If China didn’t steal the technology from the USA who did they steal it from????

In the late 1930s Austrian engineer Eugen Sänger and German physicist Irene Bredt designed the first hypersonic aircraft, called the Silbervogel. If the technology was stolen from anywhere, by anyone, it was stolen from the Germans (and the USA was one of the first thieves).

I'm not sure defeating Germany in WW2, despite their advanced technology, and getting some of their engineers to work for us after the war, is "stealing," certainly nothing on the level of China literally stealing our tech through espionage.

a reply to: Zaphod58

How do you keep all this stuff straight in your head man? You're a walking encyclopedia haha great info all up and down this thread.

a reply to: face23785

I regularly purge my memory of irrelevant things like anniversaries, birthdays, and junk like that.