Hypersonic Weapons - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Military vehicles, aircraft, ships, guns and other military equipment. Plus any general military discussions that don't belong elsewhere on the board.

Moderator: PoFo The Lounge Mods

User avatar
By Sandzak
#15143572
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... s?from=mdr

Image
China today announced that it has successfully tested its first cutting-edge hypersonic aircraft which could carry nuclear warheads and penetrate any current generation anti-missile defence systems. The Xingkong-2 or Starry Sky-2, was launched in a target range located in Northwest China on Friday last, the state-run China Academy of Aerospace Aerodynamics (CAAA) said in a statement.

The United States and Russia have been carrying out similar experiments.

Launched in a rocket, ..

Read more at:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... aign=cppst
#15143574
@SaddamHuseinovic

Building hyper-sonic nuclear weapons just make all the major powers like China, Russia and the U.S. more trigger happy now to use nuclear weapons. Plus, the Russian strategy of threatening to use small tactical nukes to escalate a conventional conflict in an attempt to de-escalate or to get settlement terms in their favor caused the U.S. to install small tactical nuclear weapons on their ballistic missile submarines in response so that Russia would then not have that option of using small tactical nuclear weapons to get a settlement to any conventional conflict on their terms. So if Russia uses small tactical nuclear weapons we would respond in kind by launching them from our submarines from some unknown location that nobody knows.

So, that basically denies Russia that option. However, the problem is that both sides might now view using small tactical nuclear weapons more tempting but I personally see where that would quickly spiral out of control where the US, and Russia would launch their big strategic nuclear weapons at each other and each other's allies.

So, both these hyper-sonic nuclear weapons and small tactical nukes make nuclear war more likely and all sides more trigger happy to use their nukes. Which makes the world a more dangerous place and threatens the survival of humanity. This is not good. The only way such a situation can be resolved is if ALL THREE major powers, namely, China, Russia and the U.S. enter into arms control agreements and allow each other to conduct reconnaissance of each other over each others territory with all parties consent.

This would lower the risk of nuclear war and the annihilation of mankind as a species. Nuclear war very much is still a real threat to the survival of mankind. You mentioned to me you were Bosnian. I don't know how old you are, but if you are young fellow, some of the older Bosnians would probably tell you that nobody wins in the end in such a situation.
User avatar
By Sandzak
#15143717
Politics_Observer wrote:@SaddamHuseinovic

Building hyper-sonic nuclear weapons just make all the major powers like China, Russia and the U.S. more trigger happy now to use nuclear weapons. Plus, the Russian strategy of threatening to use small tactical nukes to escalate a conventional conflict in an attempt to de-escalate or to get settlement terms in their favor caused the U.S. to install small tactical nuclear weapons on their ballistic missile submarines in response so that Russia would then not have that option of using small tactical nuclear weapons to get a settlement to any conventional conflict on their terms. So if Russia uses small tactical nuclear weapons we would respond in kind by launching them from our submarines from some unknown location that nobody knows.

So, that basically denies Russia that option. However, the problem is that both sides might now view using small tactical nuclear weapons more tempting but I personally see where that would quickly spiral out of control where the US, and Russia would launch their big strategic nuclear weapons at each other and each other's allies.

So, both these hyper-sonic nuclear weapons and small tactical nukes make nuclear war more likely and all sides more trigger happy to use their nukes. Which makes the world a more dangerous place and threatens the survival of humanity. This is not good. The only way such a situation can be resolved is if ALL THREE major powers, namely, China, Russia and the U.S. enter into arms control agreements and allow each other to conduct reconnaissance of each other over each others territory with all parties consent.

This would lower the risk of nuclear war and the annihilation of mankind as a species. Nuclear war very much is still a real threat to the survival of mankind. You mentioned to me you were Bosnian. I don't know how old you are, but if you are young fellow, some of the older Bosnians would probably tell you that nobody wins in the end in such a situation.



Just USA and Russia have enough nuclear weapons for Armageddon. China has just 300
User avatar
By Brandenski
#15147397
Politics_Observer wrote:@SaddamHuseinovic

Building hyper-sonic nuclear weapons just make all the major powers like China, Russia and the U.S. more trigger happy now to use nuclear weapons. Plus, the Russian strategy of threatening to use small tactical nukes to escalate a conventional conflict in an attempt to de-escalate or to get settlement terms in their favor caused the U.S. to install small tactical nuclear weapons on their ballistic missile submarines in response so that Russia would then not have that option of using small tactical nuclear weapons to get a settlement to any conventional conflict on their terms. So if Russia uses small tactical nuclear weapons we would respond in kind by launching them from our submarines from some unknown location that nobody knows.

So, that basically denies Russia that option. However, the problem is that both sides might now view using small tactical nuclear weapons more tempting but I personally see where that would quickly spiral out of control where the US, and Russia would launch their big strategic nuclear weapons at each other and each other's allies.

So, both these hyper-sonic nuclear weapons and small tactical nukes make nuclear war more likely and all sides more trigger happy to use their nukes. Which makes the world a more dangerous place and threatens the survival of humanity. This is not good. The only way such a situation can be resolved is if ALL THREE major powers, namely, China, Russia and the U.S. enter into arms control agreements and allow each other to conduct reconnaissance of each other over each others territory with all parties consent.

This would lower the risk of nuclear war and the annihilation of mankind as a species. Nuclear war very much is still a real threat to the survival of mankind. You mentioned to me you were Bosnian. I don't know how old you are, but if you are young fellow, some of the older Bosnians would probably tell you that nobody wins in the end in such a situation.


Hypersonic weapons make all American carriers fish farms in under 60 minutes
#15147399
@Brandenski

The Russians shouldn't be worried about our aircraft carriers, they should be worried about our submarines that they can't locate which have nuclear weapons on board. More than enough to wipe out the Russian continent.
User avatar
By Brandenski
#15147401
Politics_Observer wrote:@Brandenski

The Russians shouldn't be worried about our aircraft carriers, they should be worried about our submarines that they can't locate which have nuclear weapons on board. More than enough to wipe out the Russian continent.


LOL, as if the USA is immune to nuclear blast.

Try again kid
#15147405
@Brandenski

Attack our aircraft carriers then it could escalate to the world being engulfed in a nuclear blast there paco. Not to mention our submarines have the technology to fire and target your nuclear weapons and destroy them even with hardened silos underground with very little warning and very little time to respond. I just wouldn't attack our aircraft carriers if I were you.
User avatar
By Brandenski
#15147410
Politics_Observer wrote:@Brandenski

Attack our aircraft carriers then it could escalate to the world being engulfed in a nuclear blast there paco. Not to mention our submarines have the technology to fire and target your nuclear weapons and destroy them even with hardened silos underground with very little warning and very little time to respond. I just wouldn't attack our aircraft carriers if I were you.

Is this an FBI high school equivalency exam test? Because people like you are really dangerous because of complete one sided ignorance. American subs do not have anti missile weapons, the tomahawk is being retrofitted for this I believe however this is irrelevant unless all American subs are at missile launching depth at the moment the attack is launched WHICH NONE WILL BE and furthermore it takes way too much time to launch a missile from a sub and the enemy missiles are already thousands of miles away. So even if the missiles that you claim exist existed, which they do not, zero percent could be launched in time.
#15147425
@Brandenski

Is this an FBI high school equivalency exam test?


Nah this is a test for the big leagues. And given your answer below:

Brandenski wrote: Because people like you are really dangerous because of complete one sided ignorance. American subs do not have anti missile weapons, the tomahawk is being retrofitted for this I believe however this is irrelevant unless all American subs are at missile launching depth at the moment the attack is launched WHICH NONE WILL BE and furthermore it takes way too much time to launch a missile from a sub and the enemy missiles are already thousands of miles away. So even if the missiles that you claim exist existed, which they do not, zero percent could be launched in time.


You were the one who was talking about attacking our aircraft carriers and I am just reminding you THAT is dangerous to do. I am not the one who is being dangerous. Those missiles DO exist by the way that I told you about (superfuze technology). If you take the time to read my other posts here on this section of the forum, you will find where I provide that proof from the Federation of American Scientists website. I will not hold your hand.
User avatar
By Brandenski
#15147429
Politics_Observer wrote:@Brandenski



Nah this is a test for the big leagues. And given your answer below:



You were the one who was talking about attacking our aircraft carriers and I am just reminding you THAT is dangerous to do. I am not the one who is being dangerous. Those missiles DO exist by the way that I told you about (superfuze technology). If you take the time to read my other posts here on this section of the forum, you will find where I provide that proof from the Federation of American Scientists website. I will not hold your hand.


Again American subs do not have anti missile missiles, not in anything except testing stages at least. The feasibility of this would be very limited as subs are NEVER ready to launch against a missile that is hypersonic or not.
User avatar
By Brandenski
#15147430
Politics_Observer wrote:@Brandenski



Nah this is a test for the big leagues. And given your answer below:



You were the one who was talking about attacking our aircraft carriers and I am just reminding you THAT is dangerous to do. I am not the one who is being dangerous. Those missiles DO exist by the way that I told you about (superfuze technology). If you take the time to read my other posts here on this section of the forum, you will find where I provide that proof from the Federation of American Scientists website. I will not hold your hand.


No aircraft carrier has a prayer against a hypersonic missile. Furthermore no carrier has been attacked by a world power since WW2, and planes dropping bombs are no longer of consequence. However carriers can still attack camel equipped nations
User avatar
By Sandzak
#15152807
USA as an deintustrialised nation can not build ships as fast China can (the factory of the world).

After a Conflict, China Can Quickly Out Build the U.S. Navy
Beijing's industrial capacity and its shipyards are cranking out vessels quicker than Washington can.

by James Holmes
Here's What You Need to Remember: A seafaring society without a vibrant shipbuilding industry (along with aerospace firms, weapons firms, and associated trappings of modern marine strategy) is a brittle seafaring society. It cannot take a flurry of heavy blows from a peer pugilist and counterpunch for long.

The United States could lose a Western Pacific naval war because Communist China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) can regenerate combat power more readily than the U.S. sea services can. Or, more precisely, China’s sprawling industrial base could replace hardware lost in action faster than could U.S. industry. That’s a message General David Berger, the commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, will reportedly broadcast in a forthcoming directive entitled Naval Campaigning: The 2020 Marine Corps Capstone Operating Concept. Breaking Defense reported on an advance copy of Naval Campaigning last week.

Among the document’s money quotes: “Replacing ships lost in combat will be problematic, inasmuch as our industrial base has shrunk, while peer adversaries have expanded their shipbuilding capacity. In an extended conflict, the United States will be on the losing end of a production race—reversing the advantage we had in World War II when we last fought a peer competitor.” This is incontestable. In the Pacific, for instance, the U.S. economy was nine or ten times the size of Japan’s. Industry was already roaring by the time the United States entered the war. After all, the nation had commenced riveting together what amounted to a second complete U.S. Navy under the Two-Ocean Navy Act of 1940. That isn’t the case today.

General Berger may sound like a Cassandra spinning lurid prophesies. But remember, the Greek god Apollo blessed Cassandra with the gift of foresight. Her prophesies were accurate. Her curse—also courtesy of Apollo, whose amorous overtures she had rebuffed—was that no one ever believed her words, no matter how prescient they were.

Agony!

One hopes Commandant Berger finds a more receptive audience. His chances are better than Cassandra’s. Like the mythical soothsayer, he is no stranger to stark forecasts. Unlike her, he wields substantial authority. He can impose his views on the Marine Corps for the most part. He enjoys a bully pulpit vis-à-vis the Pentagon and Congress, and he uses it to hold forth. Almost immediately after assuming his post last summer, Berger released Commandant’s Planning Guidance that scrapped cherished shibboleths. For instance, dogma long held that the U.S. Navy must operate thirty-eight lumbering amphibious transports to ferry sea soldiers to the shores of Tripoli or other distant battlegrounds in numbers large enough to accomplish their goals. Yet large surface vessels are increasingly vulnerable to shore missile batteries, missile-armed aircraft flying from airfields on land, and submarines and surface craft sporting anti-ship missiles of their own.

Traditional ways of amphibious warfare are less and less tenable.

Rather than cling to the past, says Berger, the U.S. Marine Corps and Navy should put their trust in swarms of lighter, fleet-of-foot yet heavy-hitting craft suitable for “standing in” within the PLA’s Western Pacific weapons engagement zone. Losing a big ship constitutes a major setback for a fleet made up of a few big ships. It subtracts a major percentage from the force’s aggregate fighting power. A fleet abounding in winsome ships, by contrast, can lose one or a few in action yet fight on. Each vessel embodies only a small fraction of the fleet’s fighting strength. It is expendable.

Marine “littoral regiments” embarked in stand-in vessels will flit from island to island, lofting anti-ship and anti-air missiles the PLA’s way in a fight. If successful the joint force will seal the first island chain to Chinese maritime movement—cramping China’s export-driven economy along with the PLA’s capacity to project military power outward. They will bring some pain. Robust capability backed by obvious willpower to use it may deter Beijing. Or, should deterrence crumple, resilient capability will bolster the sea services’ prospects of prevailing in action.

Two thoughts from masters of politics and strategy, old and new. First an old commentator. Berger is making a point about U.S. grand strategy with which maritime sage Alfred Thayer Mahan would wholeheartedly agree. In the nautical realm, peacetime grand strategy means marshaling national resources to fit out ships and other implements of maritime might. Mahan catalogs the “number of population” and “character and policy of government” among six determinants of a society’s fitness for sea power. America is standing into danger if it no longer meets these Mahanian standards.

By the number of population Mahan means more than raw numbers of people. He means a society needs the right demographic mix, including a critical mass of specialists in industries relating to the sea. And so it does. Great Britain commonly outfaced France at sea during the age of sail, even though the British Isles were home to fewer citizens. Yet Britons were more plentiful in trades necessary to field merchant and naval fleets. France had to worry about land defense and, oftentimes, was ruled by kings with a penchant for offensive land warfare. Royal preferences multiplied the demands on tradesmen while distracting the kingdom from seaward ventures. As an island state with its own moat, Britain had the luxury of concentrating on marine pursuits.

Britons were fewer in numbers than the French on the whole—but they outnumbered their ancient rival in sectors that mattered.

Try a thought experiment. Mahan might ask: who is playing the role of Great Britain in the U.S.-China competition, and who is France? Mahan hoped the United States would emulate Britain, the gold standard for sea power in his day. Does it still measure up by Mahanian indices? Or perhaps Communist China is supplanting the United States by some measures. Or maybe there’s a hybrid answer. It could be that America is Britain in that it operates the better fighting fleet and that America is France in that it can no longer manufacture ships, planes, and armaments in bulk, in quick time, to replace battle casualties.

The latter conforms to Berger’s critique.

A seafaring society without a vibrant shipbuilding industry (along with aerospace firms, weapons firms, and associated trappings of modern marine strategy) is a brittle seafaring society. It cannot take a flurry of heavy blows from a peer pugilist and counterpunch for long. Even a weaker antagonist able to regain its strength swiftly after an initial shock commands a significant advantage in a prolonged struggle. If the United States has let its sea power turn brittle, officialdom in Washington DC has soul searching to do and laws and policies to revise. The shade of Mahan would instruct them to get cracking.

Let a modern commentator have the last word. A few years ago trader and probability guru Nassim Nicholas Taleb published Antifragile, the capstone volume in a series of books investigating the nature and consequences of highly improbable events. (Among the series The Black Swan garnered arguably the most fame among military folk.) In Taleb’s parlance General Berger seems to be urging stewards of strategy to restore resiliency to the U.S. maritime sector. On the operational level, fielding resilient expeditionary forces means fielding forces that can absorb a blow, shake it off, and continue fighting. Hence the trend toward a fleet design centered more numerous platforms, none of them inordinately precious.

On the grand-strategic level, making maritime industry resilient means upgrading shipyards and other defense-related infrastructure—along with the affiliated workforce—so that stricken vessels can be repaired or replaced in a hurry. The sea services will find new staying power once industry can readily replenish matériel lost in battle. That’s what the commandant means by regenerating combat power after a tussle.

Taleb gives resiliency its due—better resilient than fragile—but he thinks it is possible to design systems that go beyond it. Resiliency implies restoring a system to the capability and capacity it boasted before absorbing damage. “Anti-fragile” systems, he postulates, can not just withstand a shock; they positively benefit from the resulting disorder. They take a heavy hit and come back better and stronger than before. How does this insight apply to fleet design? It affirms the trend toward lighter, simpler combatant and amphibious ships. If American yards can produce new generations of vessels in bulk and in haste, it may be possible to improve each generation as feedback comes in from the combat zone detailing what does and doesn’t work in action against this particular foe.

New-construction vessels will be better—and better fitted to tactical and operational circumstances—than the ones they replace.

Bottom line, General Berger may be righter than he knows about the incipient new mode of sea combat. There may be a lesson from aviation history. Think about the dizzying array of combat aircraft designed and built during World War II. New generations of warbirds replaced old in quick succession. The air arm was an anti-fragile force. But building even a technologically advanced plane is straightforward by contrast with building a massive, intricate ship of war. If ships were smaller and easier to construct—if they were more like aircraft—then manufacturing a ship would come to resemble manufacturing an airplane. Fast design improvements would become thinkable even as mass production replenished numbers of hulls. Let’s revivify the marine industrial base—and put it to work laying the keels for an anti-fragile fleet.



https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboo ... avy-176695
Election 2020

They just understood that as things in the Weine[…]

What you saying Hammond....

Also nobody knows the danger of mass borrowing ye[…]

So whats the point of middle management? To de[…]

Hollywood films are inaccurate generally , when d[…]