Hacker News Reader

Comment by JumpCrisscross | Hacker News Reader

As a former aerospace engineer, I’m sceptical of the strategic value of hypersonics. Tactical? Sure. They’d have a better chance of taking out SAMs, light radar, et cetera. But the talk about these being carrier killers is, based on everything we’ve seen, off the mark. (Spending the cost of one hypersonic on a swarming attack would probably do more damage.)

View on HN

The biggest difference between hypersonics and swarms of slow missiles is that the hypersonics can get there fast enough that you might not need high-quality targeting information. That's definitely a strategic advantage!

Also the 3M22 is estimated to only cost around 2 million dollars.

> hypersonics can get there fast enough that you might not need high-quality targeting information

The strategic systems hypersonics are hyped to hit have been hardened against ballistics. Hypersonics are slower than ballistics. (Their plasma envelope also makes them easier to track by satellite.)

This is a tactical evolution. Meaningful. Helpful. But not a strategic shift.

The big issue is that a ballistic missile may not be able to deviate as much from the expected position as it can search away from it.

I agree that they're not that different from ballistics but they still have considerable advantages.

> that you might not need high-quality targeting information

I don't see how this would work, unless of course you're talking about nuclear weapons. With a conventional warhead you still need to hit your target.

You can locate your own target if it's close enough - say 10-30 miles or so - from where you expected it to be. With a slower missile your target will have drifted a lot more.

I think taking out SAMs is huge thing. Or I am wrong?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com