The Coming Hypersonic Age

[seahawk]

16 minutes ago, TrustMe said:

In a possible Taiwan fighter with 1991 era technology the J7's have a very limited range. China would have to build airforce bases right at the coast line to get to Taiwan with enough fuel to do anything worthwhile. These J7's would be neutralised simply from lack of fuel and be of no value in combat. Where as Taiwan's F16's and F5's could operate all over China's coast.

The best equiped J7's (not all of them) were equiped with Israeli made Python 3 IR missiles which were as good as the AIM-9L that Tiawan had, but are certainly outmatched by the BVR AIM7's employed by Taiwans F16's. Tiawans air combat kill ratio would be like cricket score's.

Then you have to factor in the human element. After a unit takes around 50% losses it's pilots would start to avoid combat to the point of cowardice unless you point a gun at the Chinese pilots to get them into the air. 

I'm not saying that numbers are not important, they are. But a certain numbers to technology ratio has to be maintained.

At that time it has been war gamed more than enough and shown over and over gain that a larger (2-3 times) force of cheap fighters with all aspect IR missiles will achieve a draw against a force with AIM-7 style radar guided missiles and the IR missiles. 

And to be honest those Shaeeds are just proofing the value of numbers again.

 

[bfng3569]

11 hours ago, Josh said:

Technical superiority doesn't always win a war but it certainly has lost a few.

I think the threat of boost-glide hypersonics is somewhat overblown and the costs/benefit favors rather bespoke targets. However I think in the near future we will see scramjets become nearly cost competitive with conventional cruise missiles, and that this will heavily change the offense/defense dynamic.

i guess it all depends on what you use it for....

i would think the ability to launch satellites during wartime cheaply, easily and unpredictably wouldn't be bad.

or to carry a reconnaissance package

or to carry out conventional strikes..... how many shipyards or dry docks in the U.S. to repair large surface combatants or submarines?  same for other strategic assets that would cripple or severely hamper our ability to fight a prolonged conflict of attrition.

all i keep reading about is China's area denial abilities limited to the south china sea.  Why wouldn't they want to strike strategic assets in the continental U.S.

then there's this....

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42772/china-tested-a-fractional-orbital-bombardment-system-that-uses-a-hypersonic-glide-vehicle-report

skip the rocket......

[bfng3569]

16 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Good luck getting that to cleanly separate at mach 30. Skunk works couldnt figure out how to do it reliably at Mach 3.5.

maybe they werent going fast enough then,,,

 

+

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Windtunnel. Lets see them do it on the edge of space and Ill be impressed.

[TrustMe]

20 hours ago, seahawk said:

At that time it has been war gamed more than enough and shown over and over gain that a larger (2-3 times) force of cheap fighters with all aspect IR missiles will achieve a draw against a force with AIM-7 style radar guided missiles and the IR missiles. 

And to be honest those Shaeeds are just proofing the value of numbers again.

 

That maybe, but I wouldn't want to be the one that gets picked to fly first towards the enemy.

[seahawk]

1 hour ago, TrustMe said:

That maybe, but I wouldn't want to be the one that gets picked to fly first towards the enemy.

Still beats being picked to land on the beaches.

[bfng3569]

10 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Windtunnel. Lets see them do it on the edge of space and Ill be impressed.

i didn't have time to read this or research much, but i did remember reading about this a little ways back...

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2022-01/news/chinese-hypersonic-glider-said-fire-projectile

The newspaper, citing U.S. intelligence sources, first reported in October about the alleged July 27 test in which a nuclear-capable hypersonic glide vehicle, carried on a rocket, flew through low-orbit space and circled the globe before striking within two dozen miles of its target. (See ACT, November 2021.) On Nov. 21, it reported that the vehicle fired a separate projectile, which had “no obvious target of its own,” in the middle of its flight “in the atmosphere over the South China Sea.” The projectile fell into the water, the article said.

[Josh]

Request for information regarding rewiring the B-52's AGM-86 pylons for MIL-1760 to enable a future weapon:

"This proposal seeks to study, engineer, and prototype a modified SUU-67/A Pylon with MIL-STD-1760 aircraft interface. AFGSC is developing a new conventional High Speed, Air-breathing cruise missile capable of range >1000 miles. Such a missile carried by the B-52 will likely exceded the capacity of the existing conventional weapons pylon and Heavy Stores Adapter Beam (HSAB). AFGSC is exploring other means of missile carriage on the B-52. One option is repurposing the existing SUU-67/A Aircraft Pylon for conventional use. The SUU-67/A is currently used to carry the AGM-86/B Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM)."

I would say this weapon is definitely the HACM except that the range seems too great for that to be the case. But it isn't AGM-158, since the HSAB can carry that, and it isn't LRSO, because that is neither conventional nor high speed. This SBIR strongly implies that HACM is in the ~3000lb weight range of the AGM-86 and that the USAF would like to carry a dozen of them externally ("The B-52 carries eight missiles internal and twelve missiles on external underwing pylons, each pylon carries six missiles. Without a capable external pylon, B-52 carraige is diminished 60%."). The SUU-67/A pylon is apparently wired for nuclear stores (PAL interface) but was never rewired for PGMs. Until fairly recently the internal bomb bay was not wired for MIL-1760 either; it is a relatively new thing that the B-52 can carry PGMs internally.

https://www.sbir.gov/node/2479843

[DB]

Unless the specification explicitly states that it's for carriage of three munitions, I wouldn't necessarily assume that is true. Sure, the unmodified pylon has mounts for 3 ALCM, but a modified pylon could be different - the modification might be to add an extra piece that attaches to the ALCM points (it would be a bastard hybrid, and you'd still need to rewire for 1760, but see the Storm Shadow/SCALP pylon conversions for Su-24 for an "adapter plate" solution to a problem.)

Without knowing more about the missile, all we can really infer is that there is a hypothetical missile that fits the description.