Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons
03 Jun 2014 Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.

"...“There’s nothing magic about Mach 5,” Brink himself told me. “Why not four or seven? We are all looking at all of those,” he said. The Air Force is studying high-speed turbines going Mach 2.5, ramjets going Mach 3 to 4, and boost-glide systems reaching Mach 8 to 10, as well as hypersonic “scramjets” like the X-51.

“There are other capabilities that could get us faster missiles sooner [than hypersonics],” Laird told me. “I think we need to look at missiles across the board.” After committing hundreds of billions to the F-22 and F-35, often called fifth generation jet fighters, he said, “we’re flying fifth generation aircraft with third and fourth generation weapons.” Hypersonics could be one way for the weapons to catch up to the planes that carry them.

“It’s not the Manhattan Project,” Laird said. “I would make a moderate, steady investment” — preferably in partnership with the Australians, who have a hypersonics project of their own — “and see how the technology matures.”

Source: http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/spee ... c-weapons/

Hmm, a good idea.
Just one problem, there are critics of the AMRAAMs (and other current missiles) due to unreliability (rockets won't fire, they miss, it's a dud, it explodes when it launches).
If we go ahead and try to work on an even MORE advanced missile going at high Mach speeds, it'll meet some opposition saying we can't even get a relatively simple missile to work properly most of the time.
But eventually this will be the weapons we front (not in the foreseeable future though). And stealth aircraft (fighters and bombers) will be rendered obsolete and useless (hypersonic standoff weapons provided we can make them with enough range).
But then this will all route back into massive amounts of ICBMs, no?

Some evidence for your faulty missile claims would be nice.

For it missing, a little bit of logic and testing: (this is the biggest factor, and applies to hypersonic weapons)

Due to AMRAAM's operating parameters, the circumstances upon which it is fired determine how likely the kill will be.
The kill probability is determined by several factors, including aspect (head-on interception, side-on or tail-chase), altitude, the speed of the missile and the target, and how hard the target can turn. Typically, if the missile has sufficient energy during the terminal phase, which comes from being launched at close range to the target from an aircraft with an altitude and speed advantage, it will have a good chance of success. This chance drops as the missile is fired at longer ranges as it runs out of overtake speed at long ranges, and if the target can force the missile to turn it might bleed off enough speed that it can no longer chase the target.

For rockets not firing: (it is kind of fixed now)
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... es-379611/

Duds are always a concern in any air force. By this, I mean it may not be the rocket's fault per se, it could be a mounting problem or a problematic link-up. Shouldn't happen, and not broadcasted in the news (usually), but it does happen.

As for missiles exploding on wingtips, a bit of levity and never heard of that happening before, but if you have, share links please.

Some evidence for your faulty missile claims would be nice.

10 minutes ago, the kid thought Norway was buying the F-35B and talked about all them Harriers Germany used to operate. Oh man... this could get interesting.

One more point, not sure but I suspect high hypersonic missiles may have the potential to defeat laser defences as lasers will need time to disable the missile. Considering the amount of $ spent on developing laser weaponry, that's possibly a cheap counter due to the maturity of technology. Having said that, it won't defeat a hard-kill + laser defence combo but it'd certainly complicate defences esp the amount of time needed for defensive OODA.

I like the rail gun firing shrapnel rounds that blast hundred of tungsten rods.. a hypersonic shotgun blast in effect. One not enough? Shoot of several more, they're that affordable. That will disintegrate any incoming the threat. NAVY is testing one at sea a couple of years hence. Should make mince meat out of AShBm as well.

God Bless the USN eh 'popcorn'.

I like the rail gun firing shrapnel rounds that blast hundred of tungsten rods.. a hypersonic shotgun blast in effect. One not enough? Shoot of several more, they're that affordable. That will disintegrate any incoming the threat. NAVY is testing one at sea a couple of years hence. Should make mince meat out of AShBm as well.

Small problem: the projectile is less than 10 kg, and the rep rate on that isn't very impressive.

I like the rail gun firing shrapnel rounds that blast hundred of tungsten rods.. a hypersonic shotgun blast in effect. One not enough? Shoot of several more, they're that affordable. That will disintegrate any incoming the threat. NAVY is testing one at sea a couple of years hence. Should make mince meat out of AShBm as well.

Small problem: the projectile is less than 10 kg, and the rep rate on that isn't very impressive.

Velocity itself enhances the energy yield. Lot of pockmarked holes in the underwater hull is still going to sink a ship eventually if the water volume can't be contained.

I like the rail gun firing shrapnel rounds that blast hundred of tungsten rods.. a hypersonic shotgun blast in effect. One not enough? Shoot of several more, they're that affordable. That will disintegrate any incoming the threat. NAVY is testing one at sea a couple of years hence. Should make mince meat out of AShBm as well.

Small problem: the projectile is less than 10 kg, and the rep rate on that isn't very impressive.

Do you have a source documenting the specs for the weaponized rail gun system and ammo? Note what they will put out to sea initially is a,prototype with a 100nmi range if memory serves. The Navy hopes,to,weaponize a rail gun with twice that range. Please,share rate-of-fire info for,a,rail gun but also keep in mind there will be more than one rail gun in a CSG.
Somebody can do the physics but anything coming i at hypersonic,speed,i.e Mach 5 and above impacting with another object, even if only the size of a metal ball bearing at a similar,speed... not good for the i,coming package. Now multiply that by thousands of hypersonic marbles forming a gauntlet ... ouch.

I like the rail gun firing shrapnel rounds that blast hundred of tungsten rods.. a hypersonic shotgun blast in effect. One not enough? Shoot of several more, they're that affordable. That will disintegrate any incoming the threat. NAVY is testing one at sea a couple of years hence. Should make mince meat out of AShBm as well.

Small problem: the projectile is less than 10 kg, and the rep rate on that isn't very impressive.

Do you have a source documenting the specs for the weaponized rail gun system and ammo? Note what they will put out to sea initially is a,prototype with a 100nmi range if memory serves. The Navy hopes,to,weaponize a rail gun with twice that range. Please,share rate-of-fire info for,a,rail gun but also keep in mind there will be more than one rail gun in a CSG.
Somebody can do the physics but anything coming i at hypersonic,speed,i.e Mach 5 and above impacting with another object, even if only the size of a metal ball bearing at a similar,speed... not good for the i,coming package. Now multiply that by thousands of hypersonic marbles forming a gauntlet ... ouch.

There is a bore life (as well as 20kg packages).
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a528667.pdf

Although meant for army rail gun (studying penetration of tank armor), this study gives a nice formula to calculate penetration based on mass, RHA, velocity etc.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a443240.pdf

God Bless the USN eh 'popcorn'.

I'm just waiting for ARMY to jump on the band wagon... immediate application for air and missile defense which are in their mandate.. but hey, let NAVY spend the money perfecting their hi-tech pumpkin chunker..

Add edit: apologies to Army,,apparently they do have a rail gun initiative though not as high-profile as Navy's.

For what Popcorn has mentioned, its the cargo round that carries the multiple tungsten "bullets", see 5th slide from end.

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007armaments/Fair.pdf

This appeared to be an older spec (110 lbs with unitary payload).

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004fuze/pomeroy.pdf

"hi-tech pumpkin chunker" way to go.