CDR Salamander has a good post about hypersonic weapons and the challenges they present. He focuses on ASCM's but it is a looming problem on several fronts.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Hypersonic Weapons
- Thread starter Flash
- Start date
Interesting article and on many levels I agree. Still, I did some historical work for DoD and my travels to the haunts of the former USSR showed me that a country that still has issues making a light bulb that lasts more than a month juuust might not be fielding really spectacular super-weapons...despite all the hype. I agree that the USN should be in the business of destroying the fleet of any enemy but I don't think it is time to declare us in the backseat of naval weapons advancements.
While the current Russian military isn't the military superpower the USSR was at it's peak one underestimates their weapons development capability at their peril, they still produce and field some of the most capable weapon systems in the world. But it isn't just Russia researching and developing these weapons, one of the articles I linked was about China testing their own hypersonic weapon. The fact that the three most powerful militaries in the world are each pouring money into hypersonic weapons is a good indicator that they are a looming threat on the horizon.
Overall, no. But in terms of anti-ship weapons development, my friend, forget about the backseat, we've been stuffed in the trunk for years...
Also, be very careful about the "Made in China" or the 'light bulb' line of thinking you bring up; I think we've been underestimating and wishing-away these two navies for way too long now.
Again, I agree that the USN should be working on improved systems - of that there is no debate. That said, having a good rocket and using it in combat with the consolidated systems that make such a weapon effective (and not just a target pre-identifer) are two vastly different things. Neither the Chinese Navy nor the Russian Navy have ever fought an oceanic war against a seasoned opponent (unless you count the Russo-Japanese War...which actually aids my point). CDR Salamander is correct to note that having the best doesn't mean it is used the best.
But, as I said, the USN should always be looking to counter the rising technology out there on the horizon.
Last edited:
We have only fought one oceanic war in the last 200 years and we didn't do so bad. Not only that but they will likely be playing on their home field, the Chinese especially.
I try not to be alarmist but I think CDR Sal hit the nail on the head with this one, and even then only scratches the surface of a looming threat. Missile defense is hard and weapons like these only make it a tougher nut to crack.
When discussing these topics, it's worth remembering a quote from rather (in)famous Russian: Quantity has a quality all its own...
Yeah, that's what we got aegis for in the first place. As far as ascm there are two issues. The harpoon is an antiquated missile, and ROE will make it difficult to employ, especially if near a shipping lane.
We've been way behind in the ascm technology for a long long time when it comes to Russia, not sure what is in the works to change that. I think current systems would find it tough to deal with multiple hypersonic weapons. I don't even think we have drones fast enough to test the current systems against that kind of threat. In an area where microsends count wrt fusing warheads, I would think hypotheticals aren't enough. Having been at white sands missile range and seen what happens with early fusing it effectively nullifies a weapon.
Once more...I am not arguing with you about weapons development. I am all for developing the next best thing and the anti-next best thing. That said, you could not be more wrong, historically, about US Navy war-making capability. By 1941 the US Navy had about 160 years of long-range, always modern (contemporary), fleet experience. US Naval vessels were raiding British commerce, including seaports in 1778, inserting power over-the-shore by 1801, operating in two oceans by 1812, porting in Japan by 1845, and conducting global fleet operations by 1900. The only navy matching the US in operational ability at the dawn of the 20th Century were the British. The Russians have never conducted a naval battle more than a few hundred miles from their coast while the Chinese haven't won a naval battle since 1633.
Put simply, modern USN aviators did not create how to operate in complex combat airspace, TF 58 figured that out and you built on their experience. TF 58 did not create the trans-oceanic logistics system that helped them operate, the Great White Fleet did that and TF 58 worked off their experience. The GWF did not create a functional signal system, they relied on the experiences and lessons of the Mississippi Squadron of 1863 and so on and so forth. Nazi Germany fielded the very best tanks of WWII, but had no operational history to guide their use and thereby failed.
As I noted earlier, it is one thing to develop and fire a really cool, super fast missile. It is entirely another to make it an effective weapon system in a global, trans-oceanic conflict.
Yup. There's been...room for improvement in the target drones side for a while now, not just for these emerging threats.
That said, the overall answer for this problem probably isn't to go out and spend a bazillion dollars trying to pump up hard kill, but to look at better integrating unmanned systems, EW, and networked platforms.
Laws of physics and probability just aren't in our favor if we try to win an offense/defense slugging match.
I think you are sorely underestimating some of our adversaries, especially when it comes to their goals and capabilities. The Russians and Chinese aren't looking to win a trans-oceanic war, they just want to make sure they have the ability to hurt us significantly enough that we will stay out of their way while they accomplish their goals. Kind of like the Japanese in WWII where their goal wasn't invading the US but taking the oil fields in the Dutch East Indies.
China's A2AD strategy doesn't want to wrest global naval supremacy from the US Navy, it just wants to make sure we don't mess with them and their plans within the first and second island chains. Utilizing hypersonic weapons to do that is just another tool to accomplish that, one of many.
You are absolutely correct that to have a weapon is one thing and to use it effectively is another, but again don't think we are the only ones who can utilize sophisticated weapons properly. The Chinese aren't just investing in cool weapons like stealth fighters and hypersonic weapons but also cargo aircraft and logistics ships. To think they would develop hypersonic weapons without the attendant targeting systems is foolish.
Spoken like a true IWC guy. And as a SWO, I agree with you 100%.
Why bother with ships then? When you've got a missile covering one mile per second the hard kill is going to matter. Will lasers have enough time to heat up and destroy seekers? How long doe the applied energy need to be there? At 30 ft above the deck that's what, 13 miles of LOS? which gives you less than 13 seconds for DTE. Hell, the easiest ship in the fleet to get a mission kill on is the CG, can do that one with a couple RPGs from a dhow.
A few thoughts:
A Mach 3 missile at sea level will see stagnation temps in excess of 800 degrees C. Stagnation pressures are on the order of 36 atmospheres or higher (530 psi), making drag and aerodynamic heating substantial problems. At Mach 4 it goes up to 1200C and over 150 atmospheres (2200 psi). Anyone care to guess what the pressures are at Mach 5? Hint: It's not a linear progression*. There's a reason things that go really fast generally also go up really high. Keep in mind this sea skimming engineering marvel also has to also maneuver and gain acquisition of the target at some point during its flyout, despite dealing with aerodynamic heat and pressure that many jet engine combustors can't contain.
Long story short, the design considerations of a sea-skimming hypersonic missile are robust. Not impossible, but very/extremely difficult challenges even viewed from a basic aero, materials, and propulsion standpoint. These kinds of weapons can hardly come cheap, especially if they want a combat-effective Pk. In an era where ballistic missiles are a fairly proven technology, I have to wonder if there isn't a very good reason we haven't focused on the sea-skimming hypersonic threat.
A final thought: As others have said, our strength can best be found in integration. If we have an integrated network of assets controlling (and defending) air and sea space far enough out, even robust threats such as these can be minimized. If.
*Answer: At sea level and Mach 5, stagnation temperature is 1728C, and pressure is 529 atm, or roughly 7800PSI. [source: NPS Ramjet modeling tool, NPS613 graduate curriculum]
A Mach 3 missile at sea level will see stagnation temps in excess of 800 degrees C. Stagnation pressures are on the order of 36 atmospheres or higher (530 psi), making drag and aerodynamic heating substantial problems. At Mach 4 it goes up to 1200C and over 150 atmospheres (2200 psi). Anyone care to guess what the pressures are at Mach 5? Hint: It's not a linear progression*. There's a reason things that go really fast generally also go up really high. Keep in mind this sea skimming engineering marvel also has to also maneuver and gain acquisition of the target at some point during its flyout, despite dealing with aerodynamic heat and pressure that many jet engine combustors can't contain.
Long story short, the design considerations of a sea-skimming hypersonic missile are robust. Not impossible, but very/extremely difficult challenges even viewed from a basic aero, materials, and propulsion standpoint. These kinds of weapons can hardly come cheap, especially if they want a combat-effective Pk. In an era where ballistic missiles are a fairly proven technology, I have to wonder if there isn't a very good reason we haven't focused on the sea-skimming hypersonic threat.
A final thought: As others have said, our strength can best be found in integration. If we have an integrated network of assets controlling (and defending) air and sea space far enough out, even robust threats such as these can be minimized. If.
*Answer: At sea level and Mach 5, stagnation temperature is 1728C, and pressure is 529 atm, or roughly 7800PSI. [source: NPS Ramjet modeling tool, NPS613 graduate curriculum]