The key advancement is supersonic. A supersonic guided missile has the potential to circumvent current (known) missile defense tools.
The space program also serves as a demonstration of capacity and deterrent. ICBMs are not launched at Cape Canaveral, but the launches there demonstrate the nation’s capabilities to the world. MAD only works if your enemies know what you can do.
Hypersonic is just a buzzword without any real meaning - once you’re past the sound barrier there’s no other supersonic barrier to cross. The key is guided. ICBMs were already supersonic, the new development is having missiles that can fly low like a fighter and avoid detection. For that they can’t be ballistic, they have to have enough fuel to maneuver all the way to the target. And to keep size reasonable, you need a launch system that won’t require your missile to have a massive fuel tank just to get going. Enter the new Chinese rocket launcher.
You’re correct, but hypersonic is an important term because there’s different design considerations for machines that operate near and above the sound barrier, usually they commonly broken into transonic, supersonic, and hypersonic, used in aerospace industry and science. My physics master’s degree is in compressible fluid dynamics. With supersonic, you want something that pierces the air like the Concord, with hypersonic, you want something that is more blunt and can withstand the heat (think space shuttle or space re-entry capsule)
China is definitely the leader in hypersonic anti-ship missiles, Russia is second. Also Russia/USSR was a major leader in supercavitating torpedos launched from submarines, probably still the leader today. All-in-all, it doesn’t matter too much who’s in the lead, the very existence of these technologies makes all surface navy ships nothing more than targets to be sunk within hours, the asymmetry between offensive and defensive capabilities is extreme.
If you really want to know what the US so-called experts admit to when it comes to US vs China capabilities, the best things to read are the “national defense strategy” the “DoD budget request” and the actually budget bill, known as the NDAA, that’s where they admit that China is ahead in many technologies, or that the US has no way to defend against them.
They’re copying the NASA model where they thinly mask their military research as science, but you’re not smart enough to see that.
ICBMs already exist. Why the fuck would they add a huge, easily spotted, immobile railroad to that.
The key advancement is supersonic. A supersonic guided missile has the potential to circumvent current (known) missile defense tools.
The space program also serves as a demonstration of capacity and deterrent. ICBMs are not launched at Cape Canaveral, but the launches there demonstrate the nation’s capabilities to the world. MAD only works if your enemies know what you can do.
deleted by creator
Hypersonic is just a buzzword without any real meaning - once you’re past the sound barrier there’s no other supersonic barrier to cross. The key is guided. ICBMs were already supersonic, the new development is having missiles that can fly low like a fighter and avoid detection. For that they can’t be ballistic, they have to have enough fuel to maneuver all the way to the target. And to keep size reasonable, you need a launch system that won’t require your missile to have a massive fuel tank just to get going. Enter the new Chinese rocket launcher.
You’re correct, but hypersonic is an important term because there’s different design considerations for machines that operate near and above the sound barrier, usually they commonly broken into transonic, supersonic, and hypersonic, used in aerospace industry and science. My physics master’s degree is in compressible fluid dynamics. With supersonic, you want something that pierces the air like the Concord, with hypersonic, you want something that is more blunt and can withstand the heat (think space shuttle or space re-entry capsule)
China is definitely the leader in hypersonic anti-ship missiles, Russia is second. Also Russia/USSR was a major leader in supercavitating torpedos launched from submarines, probably still the leader today. All-in-all, it doesn’t matter too much who’s in the lead, the very existence of these technologies makes all surface navy ships nothing more than targets to be sunk within hours, the asymmetry between offensive and defensive capabilities is extreme.
If you really want to know what the US so-called experts admit to when it comes to US vs China capabilities, the best things to read are the “national defense strategy” the “DoD budget request” and the actually budget bill, known as the NDAA, that’s where they admit that China is ahead in many technologies, or that the US has no way to defend against them.
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/us-army-unlikely-to-meet-end-of-year-hypersonic-goal
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/us-army-unlikely-to-meet-end-of-year-hypersonic-goal
Owned
the link at the end of your comment is paywalled, any chance you could share the content here?
If they were copying the NASA model they’d hand 1960s tech to an oligarch and defund their space programme.