• The new US stealth bomber may be taken by surprise by ultra-fast missiles coming from near space with the unpredictable ‘Qian Xuesen trajectory’
  • Beating the American bomber will be pivotal in any future conflict with China, as it has the potential to slip behind China’s core defence
  • krayj
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Hypersonics don’t make any sense against an airborne target.

    Why not? Aren’t all modern active counter measures dependent on reaction time? And isn’t there simply a lot less reaction time against a hypersonic inbound?

      • krayj
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Is there some law of physics saying you can’t target and destroy a plane from above?

        • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          From a ground launched system that requires a ballistic path to hit a agile moving target, it wouldn’t be practical at Mach 6.

    • JohnDClay
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, a bomber doesn’t really have any reaction time based countermeasures like hard maneuvering or accelerating. They might be able to latch a decoy, but I don’t know how likely it would be to carry one, and you’d be very vulnerable with the payload doors open. Stealth bombers countermeasures are all dependent on stealth, so if you know exactly where it is, most any missile should be able to take it down.

      • krayj
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You made the general comment that hypersonics don’t make sense “against airborn targets”, so that’s whst I was asking about…not bombers specifically. Fighters are airborn targets also, and those are what I was immediately thinking about when you said hypersonics make no sense against airborn targets.

        • JohnDClay
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oh okay, makes sense. Yeah, but the boost glide hypersonics that China has right now don’t necessarily have a quicker response time than direct missiles because they need to go most all the way to the karman line to get the potential energy to glide down. Future direct attack hypersonics would likely make sense, but the current ones seem pretty anti carrier optimized.