rickair7777

Hypersonic weapons are misunderstood. All of the ICBM's going back to the 1950's were and still are VERY, VERY hypersonic... like mach 20+

That has not changed and neither has the approx 30 min timeline from launch to impact (for something coming from asia)

The new hypersonic weapons fall into one of two categories:

- Hypersonic glide vehicles: very similar to old-school ICBM RV's, but with better maneuver ability (think space shuttle vice apollo capsule). Value-added is possible ability to evade ABM defenses.

- Hypersonic cruise missiles are air-breathers so smaller and cheaper than an ICBM. Realistic cruise speed mach 3-5. Value-added is low altitude, harder to detect and intercept. These are further out in development, and are more likely to be conventional... same role as TLAM, just faster ToT and harder to intercept.

HCM's are a bit problematic because they *could* be nukes and could be used as a strategic first-strike weapon if launched from close-in (ships or subs). But so can sub-launched SLBMs, and that's nothing new at all.

Russian (and PRC) interest in nuclear HCMs probably has to do with their concerns that our ABM system invalidates their ICBM deterrence. We setup the ABM capability to protect against rogue nations with small inventories or possibly one-off accidental launches... it has nothing like the capacity to defend against a full Russian strategic attack. But they still worry about it anyway.

SonicFlyer

If I see nukes from the air, I think I'll just divert to Mexico

CBreezy

If you see nukes from the air, it's already too late.

Cyio

Always made me nervous thinking about an EMP going off while flying considering we would all be bricks at that point.

DarkSideMoon

Everyone talks bad about the -200 but that thing would still be flying after an EMP 😂.

rickair7777

Yup.

700 not so much.

Rocinante

Fascinating discussion. I'd be curious about minimum safe distances for EMP and shockwave effects, but that's probably sensitive information.

That said, here's an account from an Air Force pilot whose job it was to fly as close to several nuclear tests as possible.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-s...pilot-2769219/

SonicFlyer

Couldn't pay me enough to volunteer for that flight!

rickair7777

EMP risk is actually pretty low for a "typical" nuclear weapon employment, ie to blow up targets on the ground. If you're close enough to that suffer major EMP effects, you probably have bigger problems (thermal flash, radiation, shockwave).

To achieve a serious EMP effect, the device needs to detonated in the upper atmosphere. This was tested and demonstrated in the 1950's.

Rocinante

So in this hypothetical, we'd probably be fine at cruise from all effects? At least there's that.