Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Hyper sonic Missiles

Ummm...we would have to revert back about 70 years to only have hyper sonic weapons......




https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...reds-hypersonic-weapons-tests-us-done-9/

I said that in a different post. The media dipschitz are all ablather that a hypersonic warhead can do five times the speed of sound. Seemingly unaware that an ICBM warhead comes in at Mach 15.

The difference is that a hypersonic glide bomb can come in at a much shallower angle, thus lower altitude, giving much less time to be detected and tracked. Then, it can maneuver somewhat, making it much more difficult to be hit by defensive weapons. That does make such weapons problematic, but not immune to counter.

Not exactly true. Back around 1970, I worked with a team devising interceptors for ICBMs. While they go 15,000 MPH or so, they slow down drastically once they hit the atmosphere. IIRC US warheads impacted at about mach 2 and Soviet warheads were subsonic at impact. We could defend against missile silos by basing two very high speed rockets at each silo and firing against anything that came within 50,000 feet. That would not be decoys because if you can enter the atmosphere, you might as well do so with a real warhead, not a decoy. While this plan would have made our silos impervious to Soviet strikes, it would not do much to defend cities.

That's why I said "come in at Mach 15" and not impact at. But your point is valid.

Correct you are sir. When we planned long range carrier defense (aka the Outer Air Battle, OOA) we set up defensive rings out to 1200 plus NM. The key is to shoot the archer before they unload their arrows. Even with a Supersonic missile, if you launch it too far out, a carrier going 30 plus KTS, ain't gonna be there by then time the missile arrives. And that before counter-measures, ECM, missiles, ducks, etc are launched. Now ask me how we're going to do this without fighters with legs and no real areal refueling capabilities... hint.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_R._Mickelsen_Safeguard_Complex

Anti ICBM site.
"The site achieved initial operating capability on 1 April 1975, and full operational capability on 1 October 1975 costing over $15 billion adjusted for inflation. The House of Representatives voted to decommission the project on 2 October 1975 after they deemed it ineffective."

The subject I never hear talked about is the vulnerability of our satellite networks. Can't orbital detentions screw up our GPS and comm satellites pretty bad.

I'm sure you meant to type "orbital detonations" and I assume you mean of nukes. The answer is yes, and maybe. The EMP pulse from a nuke detonated in space would almost certainly wipe out any and all commercial satellites in line-of-sight and within some unknown range. Most military satellites are hardened to withstand some degree of EMP, but we wouldn't know how well until it happened.

Any satellites out of direct sight - meaning below the horizon - would be safe. As would many or most beyond some undetermined distance, presumably.

To add to what Rocky said, the moment you start blasting things in space, everything becomes real messy, real fast, for everybody. If you blow up their GPS satellites, the leftover bits and pieces become shrapnel for your GPS satellites, ad infinitem.