US Hypersonic Missile Fails In Test In Fresh Setback For Program (bloomberg.com) 65
A flight test of a hypersonic missile system in Hawaii ended in failure due to a problem that took place after ignition, the Department of Defense said, delivering a fresh blow to a program that has suffered stumbles. Bloomberg reports: It didn't provide further details of what took place in the Wednesday test, but said in a statement sent by email "the Department remains confident that it is on track to field offensive and defensive hypersonic capabilities on target dates beginning in the early 2020s." [...] The trial marked the second unsuccessful test flight of the prototype weapon known as Conventional Prompt Strike. There was a booster failure in its first flight test in October, which prevented the missile from leaving the launch pad. The Conventional Prompt Strike weapon is envisioned to be installed on Zumwalt destroyers and Virginia-class submarines. "An anomaly occurred following ignition of the test asset," Pentagon spokesman Navy Lieutenant Commander Tim Gorman said in the statement. "Program officials have initiated a review to determine the cause to inform future tests." he said. "While the Department was unable to collect data on the entirety of the planned flight profile, the information gathered from this event will provide vital insights."
For those who prefer plain English (Score:5, Funny)
"An anomaly occurred following ignition of the test asset,"
means, "the fucking thing blew up", and
"While the Department was unable to collect data on the entirety of the planned flight profile, the information gathered from this event will provide vital insights."
means "and we have no fucking clue why..."
Re: (Score:2)
Actually they'll probably have a very good clue why very soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Ya, it is will known that Stingers and Javelins will defend against a hypersonic targeting Chicago.
Re: (Score:1)
If someone targets Chicago with a hypersonic missile, nothing else will matter for more than a few minutes.
Re:For those who prefer plain English (Score:5, Interesting)
All ballistic missile reentry vehicles are "hypersonic", and impractical to defend large targets like a major city from. You can't defend Chicago from a Russian R-36 "Satan" missile either, because the reentry vehicles are, and always have been, hypersonic. The "hypersonic missiles" used by Russian in Ukraine are actually just air launched medium range ballistic missiles. Calling it a "hypersonic weapon" is largely PR posturing to bolster Russia's image as a technologically advanced military power. However if the KH-25 is a "hypersonic missile", so is a Pershing 1 missile from the 1960s.
More sophisticated "hypersonic" systems are either ballistic missiles with steerable reentry vehicles or are scramjet-powered cruise missiles. The world is in a classic arms race situation with these things; military powers are rushing to create them but their practical significance is uncertain, particularly in light of their cost. A functioning hypersonic cruise missile is *estimated* to cost in the 100 million dollars/unit range. And that's a *military procurement cost estimation*; so realistically you have to double that..
These missiles could be highly effective at attacking compact targets like ships or ammunition dumps, but if they are, will they actually be cost effective? Would one hypersonic missile really be more effective than salvo of 200 tomahawk cruise missiles, or 28 Minutemen ICBMs? Probably not. But it's not rational calculation that's driving the development of these things, it's arms race emotion in which everyone is imagining themselves helpless in the face of the enemy's Wunderwaffen. So pretty soon everyone's going to have these things, and then either we'll figure out a use for them or we'll end up with some kind of arms limitation treaty that enables countries to stop wasting billions of dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
their practical significance is uncertain, particularly in light of their cost.
That is their practical significance. We will pay defense contractors billions to trillions to design and produce these weapon systems that we arguably do not need.
Re:For those who prefer plain English (Score:5, Interesting)
You are correct that ballistic missiles have the same, or usually better, military characteristics than these hypersonic systems - but they are not the same. The hypersonic systems do fly in the atmosphere and have air-breathing engines.
The key feature of the 3M22 Zircon for example claimed as advantages is "plasma stealth", the fact that the super-heated plasma envelope in front of the missile reduces its radar signature by absorbing radar energy. But it is not clear that this works better than regular stealth using shapes and materials. The plasma stealth for example is not going to work as well from the side and rear, where tracking radars may be located.
The trajectory of the Zircon is going to be lower than a true ballistic missile, so a shorter radar horizon, but still quite long since the hypersonic flight is at high altitude. But this thing is an intense IR emitter and will be easily acquired and tracked by IR sensors. So how this is a win for "stealth" is unclear.
The U.S. developed a strikingly similar weapon - way back in the late 1950s. It was called the Navajo and was an air breathing cruise missile, that flew at hypersonic speeds, at extremely high altitude and was very hard to intercept, could fly very long distance, and was stealthy. It used "regular" stealth, and did not fly as fast -- Mach 3.1, still hypersonic (barely).
But is was not deployed because ballistic missiles with similar capabilities, but were faster and even harder to intercept, came along at the same time.
Re: (Score:3)
The other aspect is that an atmosphere-maneuvering hypersonic vehicle is a harder target for intercept than a ballistic missile with only limited atmospheric maneuvering time and limited maneuvering capacity.
Re ICBMs, IMHO, the more I've thought about it, the more I keep thinking that low-altitude microsatellite constellations are the solution. Namely: nuclear warheads have difficulty scaling down beyond a certain point. But microsatellites can get vastly smaller. So launch polar orbit rings of tens or eve
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure filling up LEO with large numbers of military satellites is a good idea. They might be seen as weapons and lead to the militarization of space too.
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO: The militarization of space is (A) inevitable, and (B) preferable to nuclear annihilation.
Re: (Score:2)
Navaho was a fast supersonic cruise missile. With a cruising speed of mach 3.1, it’s about two mach below hypersonic.
The Skybolt air-launched ballistic missile, developed in the 50s and cancelled before deployment, is a better comparison — flying the same mission profile as the Russian Kinzhal, more or less. Good job Russia, you’re only 70 years late to this technology!
Interestingly, the Navaho was originally intended as a boost-glide missile, along the lines of Chinese hypersonics and th
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The key feature of the 3M22 Zircon for example claimed as advantages is "plasma stealth", the fact that the super-heated plasma envelope in front of the missile reduces its radar signature by absorbing radar energy. But it is not clear that this works better than regular stealth using shapes and materials. The plasma stealth for example is not going to work as well from the side and rear, where tracking radars may be located.
Where did you read that? If that is what they are relying on for radar stealth, then it is not going to work at all. Plasma is an excellent radar reflector which is why meteor scatter works so well for communications.
Re: (Score:2)
Hypersonic missiles are tactical weapons. More worrying are their new drone nuclear tipped torpedoes. Thousands of kilometres of range, very difficult to detect during the stealthy travel phase, and very hard to hit during the high speed attack phase. They can also run very deep.
With ICBM defences improving I think Russia will probably switch most of its retaliatory submarine force to those things.
Re: (Score:2)
With ICBM defences improving I think Russia will probably switch most of its retaliatory submarine force to those things.
I hope they do. Rationally, the Russians should worry more about developing useful, nuclear powered submarines that operate quietly. Those sooper-dooper torpedoes won't do much good if Russian subs can be detected thousands of kilometers away and preemptively sunk before they're in range for a useful torpedo launch.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, here comes the tricky part: if Russian subs can be detected thousands of kilometers away
If you figure a way to do that: you will either be very early very dead, or very rich.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, it is PR, that Russia has hypersonic missiles, in the sense of the word, not in your stupid idea of "hypersonic reentry" - and China has them, too: but USA not?
So, the cities in Ukraine get bombarded by hypersonic PR missiles - which do not exist? What fucking news channel are you on?
Re: (Score:2)
Whether Ukraine is getting bombarded by "hypersonic missiles" depends on your definition of "hypersonic missile". I follow the same news channels as everyone else -- channels whose reporters have no idea what a "hypersonic missile" means and takes Russian MOD propaganda at face value.
It is completely accurate to say Ukraine has been bombarded with KH-47 Kinzhals, air launched ballistic missiles which reach unguided hypersonic speeds during reentry. You *could* call that a "hypersonic missile", but in that
Re: (Score:2)
A hypersonic missile is a missile that goes 4 time, or above, the speed of sound.
Sorry, no idea about what you want to nitpick. We are talking about hypersonic missiles not about "ballistic missiles" that achieve hypersonic speeds.
Can't be so hard to grasp the difference.
Usually what is meant by a hypersonic missile is either (a) a ballistic missile reentry vehicle that can *maneuver* , no, that is not what hyperssonic means. That is a ballistic missile.
Neither of these weapons has been used in Ukraine No i
Re: (Score:2)
You mean solid-fuel ballistic missiles? whuppity-fuckin-doo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The difference between a subsonic and supersonic cruise missile is arguable, esp. in terms of survivability vs. payload mass. An air breathing scramjet hypersonic weapon is one with subsonic missile mass but achieving velocities that currently only solid-fuel rocket powered weapons (i.e. big, heavy, bulky and expensive) can manage. They're an absolute fucking gamechanger.
Re: (Score:2)
A gamechanger no matter what the unit cost?
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing "defends" against a hypersonic targeting anything. Just like there isn't any defence against nukes, so that's kind of a silly argument.
Re: (Score:2)
We have galvo-operated excimer LASERs that will easily track and follow a hypersonic threat. There isn't a thing on this planet faster than light, excepting maybe a Republican sex session.
Re: (Score:2)
Or sharks?
Re: (Score:1)
I am not completely sure I should talk about this, but the pictures have been up for years. https://htyp.org/design_to_cos... [htyp.org]
At the design spec of 4 GW and coupling ten percent to the missile, it will vaporize 3 mm of steel per second on the target. Uses phased locked fiber lasers, a million of them at 4 kW each. Philip Lubin of UC Santa Barbara has proposed one for frying asteroids or comets that is 25 times larger.
Funding for study might come available in the next year. If anyone qualified want to wor
Re: (Score:2)
We don't need to know why any more than we need hyperdoopersonic missiles in general. What Russia has more than adequately demonstrated that we need a fuckton of is (a) Javelins and (b) some replacement for the Stinger. Scrap the hyperdooper toys and use the money to churn those two out at the maximum possible rate.
Whilst I agree that wars since the industrial age have been fought with the weapons you can build, not the weapons you have (and the weapons you can build won't necessarily be the best you can have, the Sherman was outclassed by almost every equivalent tank, but it was the one we could build and in numbers to outfit the armies of several nations).
However Javelins and stingers (the Ukraine is using a lot of the UK's Starstreak missiles for the MANPAD role) aren't useful weapons for fighting an offensive c
Re: (Score:2)
Glad you're not in charge of defense because you'd be crushed quickly with your total lack of understanding of what those weapons are capable of.
Re: (Score:3)
Javelins and Stingers absolutely aren't winning the artillery battle in Donbas. One-size-fits-all solutions don't work in the real world.
Stingers are only effective in Ukraine because Ukraine also has long-range air defense systems. This forces Russian aircraft to risk flying lower to avoid detection and engagement, as well as to maintain the element of surprise. Without the former, they could just fly high and carpet bomb with impunity, regardless of how many Stingers Ukrainian troops had.
Javelins are gr
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, stupids comment ever.
Russia is bombarding Ukraine cities with hypersonic missiles. Everyone knows that, except you.
They shoot them from planes that are 1000km away from their target, good luck shooting down a plane that is 1000km with a Stinger. A Javeline is an anti tank weapon. Has nothing to do with hypersonic missiles.
A hypersonic missile flies at roughly 5000km/h that is ~4000mph -> there is no damn anti air missile in existence on the world that can intercept one.
If you do not want to build/de
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"An anomaly occurred following ignition of the test asset,"
means, "the fucking thing blew up", and
"While the Department was unable to collect data on the entirety of the planned flight profile, the information gathered from this event will provide vital insights."
means "and we have no fucking clue why..."
There is a difference between scientific talk and YouTube comment language.
Re: (Score:2)
Was the rapid unscheduled disassembly caused by the boost motor, or the scramjet?
Re: (Score:2)
That early in the launch sequence probably a boost system or structural failure (the scramjet systems should not be operational yet)
Re: (Score:2)
"unable to collect data on the entirety of the planned flight profile"
Also means "there wasn't much left after the kaboom"
Failed tests mean the test is real. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Failed tests mean the test is real. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, just think of where our covid vaccines would be if we just stole the Russian and Chinese versions...you know, the ones other countries are rejecting because they do not work. So far, all we have is those countries' claims that their hypersonics work. They are well-known to only publish the truth.
Re: (Score:3)
Their vaccines work. They're just not as good.
That's kind of the result of not cooperating world wide, but trying to do everything in-house.
Re: (Score:1)
Um the Pfizer vacc was actually a rebranded German creation. Nothing to see here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Failed tests mean the test is real. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The Russian and Chinese version do work.
Actually long term: very well. The first two shots are not as effective as BioNtech/Pfitzer, but instead of dropping after 6 month to low effectiveness, they have a long lasting effect. Albeit, it is only 70% effective (2 shots) while BioNtech and similar vaccines are at 95%.
No idea how you can come to the super stupid idea that a vaccine that is based on the original virus does not work: dumbass.
Re: (Score:1)
China and Russia stole IP to build most their tech, haha. do we really have to bring up the history of Russian and Chinese knock-offs here?
Re: (Score:2)
You will never...ever...hear of a failed test of a Chinese or Russian missile. You have to be a goddamn retard to think that's a good thing for them.
There is truth to what you say. The governments of Russia & China have much more control of not only the daily narrative, but of their citizens in general.
Justt know there are political leaders in the West who would very much like this level of control for themselves.
Be vigilant.
Re: (Score:2)
You will never...ever...hear of a failed test of a Chinese or Russian missile. You have to be a goddamn retard to think that's a good thing for them.
Although we sometimes see the booms and light shows they make.
And for the smaller minds out there, we sometimes seem like incompetent terrible nincompoops, because we do air our mistakes instead of cloaking everything.
Re: (Score:2)
You will never...ever...hear of a failed test of a Chinese or Russian missile. You have to be a goddamn retard to think that's a good thing for them.
Perhaps not from their official news sources, but when you nuke yourself, it’s kind of hard to hide [nytimes.com].
Test launch (Score:2)
What part of test did the writer not get. When you are testing there are failures, that is how we learn.
The difference between the US and Russia and China is that we publish our failures, they do not.
There are two possibilities (Score:2)
Too successful? (Score:2)
"An anomaly occurred following ignition of the test asset,"
offensive and defensive hypersonic capabilities
Maybe it detected a nearby hypersonic missile (itself) and shot it down
pour another $500m on it (Score:2)
It'll work after they sink another bucket of money on it. These systems are extremely complex and in the West, we opt for upgraded paint, lighting package, leather interior, and in-seat air conditioning. Other nations opt for just working.
Our defense projects are overpriced, over budget, and always late. It needs to be fixed.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. - Dwight Eisenhower
Re: (Score:1)
500 million is nothing, not a "bucket of money"
Re: (Score:2)
1) Our defense projects are overpriced
2) , over budget, and always late.
1 -> maybe
2 -> what it really costs, and how long it really takes: you know when it is finished.
1) happens because some idiots believe (in) the lowest bidder who can do it in the shortest time. Obviously those are good in marketing but not good in delivering, so 2) happens.
In hind sight for most projects you can simply reevaluate why it costed so much and took so long. And the result always is: someone else told you before. But y
REMINDS ME OF EARLY CRUISE MISSLE TESTS (Score:2)
In Other Words, A Normal Develomental Program (Score:2)
Hahaha, as usually (Score:1)