This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hypersonic weapon article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello @Andrew Davidson: you have reverted most of my edit without any explanation, as if it had been vandalism. Do you really think it was so very wrong to add
to this list? Could you please explain why. --SI 12:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
My apologies. I was making several changes and, when I looked at your edit, the diff highlighted the correction of the Avangaard spelling so I didn't notice the addition of those other entries too. I have restored them, ok? Andrew🐉(talk) 13:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This page could use some more additions, main areas of concern would be additional background + making the list a bit more expansive. I discuss this because the page would be extensively restructured by such an edit. Anthropophoca (talk) 06:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
One of the references is Scientific American's Overhyped: The Physics and Hype of Hypersonic Weapons.[1] Would it be reasonable to mention some about this? Gah4 (talk) 12:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've removed the section for Nazi Germany's V-2 rocket, as its own Wikipedia article lists its maximum speed as 5,760 km/h, which is below mach-5, and thus not hypersonic. It was a very fast missile for its day, but it wasn't a hypersonic missile. -2003:CA:871C:DEB:AFE8:C123:13A3:CC0F (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hypersonic: The US Army (August 2018) has no tested countermeasure for intercepting maneuverable hypersonic weapons platforms,[1][2][3] and in this case the problem is being addressed in a joint program of the entire Department of Defense.[4] The Army is participating in a joint program with the Navy and Air Force, to develop a hypersonic glide body,[5] by mutual agreement between the respective secretaries[5][6] In order to rapidly develop this capability, a dedicated program office was established,[7][8][9][10] in behalf of the joint services.[11] A division of responsibility was agreed upon, with researchers who demonstrated hypersonic capability in 2011, teaching industrial vendors, to transfer the technology.[12] Joint programs in hypersonic are informed by Army work;[13][14] however, at the strategic level, the bulk of the hypersonic work remains at the Joint level.[15][16][6][17][12]Long Range Precision Fires (LRPF) is an Army priority, and also a DoD joint effort.[14] The Army and Navy's Common Hypersonic Glide Body (C-HGB) had a successful test of a prototype in March 2020.[18] After the US realized that a catch-up effort was needed, billions of dollars were expended by 2020.[17] A wind tunnel for testing hypersonic vehicles is being built at the Texas A&M University System' RELLIS Campus in Bryan, Texas (2019).[19] The Army's Land-based Hypersonic Missile "is intended to have a range of 1,400 miles".[11]: p.6 [12] By adding rocket propulsion to a shell or glide body, the joint effort shaved five years off the likely fielding time for hypersonic weapon systems.[20][21]
Countermeasures against hypersonic[22][23][24] will require sensor data fusion: both radar and infrared sensor tracking data will be required to capture the signature of a hypersonic vehicle in the atmosphere.[25][26][27][28] In 2021 the GAO counted 70 separate hypersonic projects, in both offense and defensive categories overseen by DoD's Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, which oversees only research and development, and not DoD's Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment —DoD's acquisition and sustainment office, which do not need oversight until the hypersonic projects are ready for the acquisition phase.[29][30]
By 2021, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) realized that it almost had a countermeasure to hypersonic boost-glide weapons, by using existing data on the adversary hypersonic systems which were gathered from existing US satellite and ground-based sensors.[31] MDA then fed this data into its existing systems models, and concluded that the adversary hypersonic weapon's glide phase offered the best chance for MDA to intercept it.[32] MDA next proffered a request for information (RFI) from the defense community for building interceptors (denoted the GPI —glide phase interceptor) against the glide phase of that hypersonic weapon.[32] GPIs would be guided by Hypersonic and Ballistic Tracking Space Sensors (HBTSS).[25][33] These GPI interceptors could first be offered to the Navy for Aegis to intercept using the C2BMC,[34][35] and later to the Army for THAAD to intercept using §IBCS.[32][36][37][35]
References
^In, for example Waverider hypersonic weapons delivery, China has flown a Mach 5.5 vehicle for 400 seconds, at 30 km altitude, demonstrating large-angle deviations from a ballistic trajectory, as well as recovery of the payload. See
^Jen Judson (20 August 2019) US Missile Defense Agency boss reveals his goals, challenges on the job Increase the discrimination of the radars and other sensors. Use Large aperture sensors. Use Space-based missile sensors. An SM-3 Block IIA missile test against ICBM is scheduled for 2020. Plan out the detection, control and engagement; the sensors, the command-and-control, the fire control, and the weapons (the kill vehicles).
^Center for Strategic & International Studies (7 Feb 2022) Complex Air Defense: Countering the Hypersonic Missile Threat Dr. Tom Karako, Director of the CSIS Missile Defense Project; Ms. Kelley Sayler, CRS; Dr. Gillian Bussey, Director of the Joint Hypersonics Transition Office; Dr. Mark Lewis, Executive Director of NDIA's Emerging Technologies Institute; Mr. Stan Stafira, Chief Architect at the Missile Defense Agency (MDA)
Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
According to the Iranian officials fattah 2 is a hypersonic cruise missile! the English Medea has miss informed the public when they reported it as another ballistic missile. 88.236.65.96 (talk) 11:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
@Jules Agathias:, you made this change and this one. I don't know Fattah (missile) is a hypersonic weapon or not, but the point is that Iranian officials insist that "Fattah-1" can maneuver at hypersonic speeds + I don't have enough information about Fattah-2. -- Iri1388 (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=small}
