[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/AKM/ - Guns, weapons and the art of war.

"War can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun." - Chairman Mao
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon


 No.2782

I see a lot of talk about how Russia n China could shit on the west with hypersonic missiles. which is cool af but I also don't know if thats even true or what a hypersonic missile even is(I assume it goes faster than sound?). Are they a big deal? I really do hope the hype lives up this time

 No.2783

File: 1678323651900.png (408.52 KB, 1100x540, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2782
>If thats even true
It is, there is no reason to doubt it
>what a hypersonic missile even is
Hypersonic is to reach speeds over 5 machs (5x the speed of sound. There are thermal and physical mechanics that make this a unique barrier in speed, primarily due to the brute force required to get there. Supersonic is anything over mach 1 (speed of sound).
>Are they a big deal
Yes.
A) Sheer kinetic force of such high-speed projectiles magnifies their capabilities on impact
B) the speed makes it nigh-impossible for current air defenses to target, or for SAMs to catch up to them.

The most important part is that the USA has still to make a functional hypersonic missile of their own

 No.2785

>>2783
I saw some criticism from a guy in the comments section of a video about a simulated battle between a US carrier Fleet and the PLA in the South China Sea, about how actually Hypersonic missiles are rubbish because they can't change their course quickly enough to correct for changes in a moving target's location and how they can't carry large payloads because they would be too heavy otherwise.

Any truth to this, or was it just some guy who didn't know what he was talking about/ bought into US propaganda about how awesome and dominant US military tech is?

 No.2786

>>2785
yeah seems like bs, have fun trying to 'move' out the way of a mach 5 missile with tracking

 No.2787

File: 1678384561352.gif (2.89 MB, 635x287, p-700 ship wrecks.gif)

>>2785
A hypersonic missile isn't going to be supermaneuverable like a fighter jet, but no cruise missile is. A nuclear aircraft carrier is 1000+ feet long and is 100,000 tons, It's fast in a straight line for a ship because of the nuclar reactors, but 30-40 knots is nothing to a mach 9 missile. A ships speed is meaningless, and a missile locks on and corrects its course over time as it approaches.
As for payload, there's nothing stopping the payload from being standard cruise missile weight (100-500kg) and nuclear warheads can be as small as an artillery shell at this point. Not to mention that kinetic force alone is going to create kinetic burns like a tanks APFSDS. Current generation carriers also lack the armored deck of the older carriers, so there is nothing stopping the missile in the physical sense & AEGIS SAMs and CIWS cannot respond fast enough against such a fast, low-flying target.

Pic rel is the impact of a much slower Supersonic cruise missile of Russian origin. The kinetic force alone has the missile go right through the ship.

Also on carrier vulnerability: https://www.quora.com/Why-have-big-battleships-e-g-USS-Iowa-and-the-Bismarck-become-obsolete-in-modern-navies/answer/Chuck-Garen

 No.2788

>>2787
TheoryTime: The supermaneuverable tic tacs were countries demonstrating their new delivery systems to peers. Don't fuck with us.

 No.2817

If you want a short summary, this is a great video. The main advantage of hypersonic missiles is that they can quickly reach the target area, thus making the area of uncertainty (the area to which the ship could have moved to since the last detection) around the detected ship relatively small. On the other hand, physical limitations make it so that on their final approach, even hypersonic missiles have to slow down to supersonic speeds (to around mach 3-4), as their high speed would ionize the air around the missile, making any onboard detection equipment (such as radars) useless, practically blinding the missile, which is really bad if you have to hit a moving target. And guess what, NATO ships were designed to intercept exactly these types of targets since the 70's.

 No.2818

>>2817
>ATO ships were designed to intercept exactly these types of targets since the 70's
LMAO in the 70s NATO AEGIS could only illuminate 4 targets at a time, & no, Navy CIWS or SAM systems were not well capable of intercepting even subsonic missiles, let alone supersonic ones that heavily maneuvered (see any Exocet ship strike in the past couple decades).

Also your statement that they have to drop to supersonic is incorrect, if anything they often stay supersonic on launch, then after the target is in range, go to hypersonic.

>ionize the air around the missile, making any onboard detection equipment (such as radars) useless

Yeah, which is the reason they have multiple methods of detection pegboard too, from aircraft, ships & satellites feeding them data. Not to mention the shape of the missile & the material coating permitting tip-point sensors to continue functioning.


Unique IPs: 8

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]