[fancyfredbot]

For many many reasons this engine only has one economic application - delivery of a nuclear payload in a way which is very hard for missile defences to stop.

ICBMs can go faster than this already but as I understand it they go higher allowing for earlier detection and they follow a more predictable trajectory which makes interception more realistic.

I find super fast missiles far scarier than advanced AI. I suppose they maintain the "mutually assured destruction" which might be the main reason there hasn't been a nuclear war since WW2, but it's not a huge comfort.

[octaane]

My take is also a missile, but as an interceptor, not offensive purposes. North Korea has shown that they can deliver a payload to Japan if they want. If the NKs do decide to launch something at Japan, it's not going to be tipped with conventional explosives. It'll be a nuke. Hypersonic interceptor seems the more likely application is this tech to me.

[fancyfredbot]

I think that hypersonic interceptors would use a rocket motor and not a ramjet, but I'm not sure.

I think this is for offence because I understood the advantage of this engine (compared to a rocket engine) is that you don't carry oxygen so you can carry more fuel and get more range. I think range is much more useful for offence than defence.

I am possibly making myself look foolish now as I'm not an expert on either rockets or ramjets and I might have incorrectly dismissed defensive applications.

[nine_k]

Historically, it was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_(missile)

Would be handy today.

[mrguyorama]

That era of ballistic interceptors all relied on large nuclear warheads to have any effect.

The modern, hard problem is avoiding using a nuke, because detonating a nuclear warhead above your own country is Bad

[musicale]

> I find super fast missiles far scarier than advanced AI

But what about super fast missiles with advanced AI?

[newsclues]

I find fast missiles with AI to be pretty scary. Heck a slow drone with AI targeting chasing me is bad enough...

[Quarrelsome]

> I find fast missiles with AI to be pretty scary

Not sure I entirely appreciate the use-case vs classical targeting. I'd imagine you're going so fast that you don't really have the opportunity to engage in thought that is particularly useful.

[loloquwowndueo]

You only need to draw a fake moustache on yourself to fool it, or something.

[airstrike]

like a backpack from which a cardboard version of a soldier springs out, with the operator being shielded with an aluminum foil pane

[emptyfile]

Well here's an economic application without nuclear tipped warheads.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_(missile)

[throwaway2037]

The Wiki pages says top speed is about Mach 4. There are already multiple rockets from US, Russia, and China that can achieve the same (or more) but with a solid-fuel rocket motor. What is the advantage of a ramjet here? It just seems way more complex and much less well tested (in labs and in combat). Also, has this missile (Meteor) been used in any combat scenarios? To be clear, the max speed for any fighter jet is about 2.5 Mach. Once one (or two) of these missiles has locked on, you are done. I read some funny commentary once about how to shoot down a modern fighter jet: Two missiles. They can dodge the first one, but sacrifice so much speed, that the second one can easily find its target.

[ranger207]

Missiles versus aircraft is a fight between very high kinetic energy in the missile, and relatively low kinetic energy in the plane, but with the ability to generate more kinetic energy. Missiles don't have a lot of fuel, so they need to generate a lot of kinetic energy to still be effective by the time they reach the target. Typically a missile will accelerate to its top speed in the first few seconds of flight and coast the rest of the way. At very long ranges, all the energy generated when launched has bled off, so there's two common solutions for long-range missiles to generate more energy: a "dual pulse" motor is basically a second rocket motor that fires later in the course; or a ramjet, which can be throttled up and down and is more fuel efficient than a rocket engine.

[tclarke142]

A ramjet drastically increases range against maneuvering targets. The 'maximum range' quoted for missiles like the AIM-120D (Likely 140-170km) is normally for a front on shot at extremely high altitude (10-15km+) with no evasive actions. With an evading target the No Escape Zone (where a target likely can't kinetically evade the missile) will only be 15-25km.

The Meteor has a longer sustainer and a terminal boost meaning that the No Escape Zone is though to be upwards of 60km. Qatar might have used Meteors to shoot down Iranian Su 24's just a few months ago based on the range they were shot at.

[flohofwoe]

You really need to play combat flight sims (like DCS) to understand why a ramjet AA missile makes a lot of sense ;)

It's not mainly about top speed, but about endurance (e.g. flying under power for the entire flight time of the missile).

The gist ist that traditional BVR AA missiles are only powered at the start of an engagement (and a lot of that power is used to gain height) until their rocket engine runs out of fuel. For a large part of its flight, traditional AA missiles glide without power towards the target, meaning the missile will lose speed from the moment the rocket engines are switched off, and even more for each required maneuver that needs to be performed afterwards (that's why it is a valid strategy for the targeted airplane to evade the missile by forcing it into a turn during its unpowered flight phase - e.g. instead of doing a 180 and flying straight away from the missile, fly a roughly 90 degree course to the incoming missile to force it into a wide turn, which means the missile will lose more energy than it would when remaining on a straight course).

A ramjet powered missile on the other hand flies under power for the entire engagement, it can 'cruise' towards the target and then for the final phase of the engagement speed up and home in on the target (or generally do complex maneuvers) without losing speed, which gives the target airplane much fewer options to evade the attack.

> I read some funny commentary once about how to shoot down a modern fighter jet: Two missiles. They can dodge the first one, but sacrifice so much speed, that the second one can easily find its target.

With a ramjet missile you don't need a second missile to exploit the target's depleted energy. And the two-missile strategy also doesn't really work when the other aircraft fires a single Meteor from a greater distance first ;)

[nradov]

It's not that simple. If the target aircraft is outside the minimum abort range then they can still evade multiple missiles, regardless of whether the shooting platform or the missiles themselves are locked on. Typically they would do so by descending into denser air and beaming the missile to bleed its limited energy. On larger missiles a ramjet can potentially allow it to retain more energy into the terminal phase.

There are a variety of other defenses including countermeasures, signature reduction, EW, and decoys which also complicate the issue.

[b65e8bee43c2ed0]

judging by what we saw so far in Russia, Ukraine, and Israel, defensive missiles don't require particularly sophisticated offensive missiles to overwhelm.

[RicardoLuis0]

yeah, but those are using conventional explosives, only countries like the US and Russia have enough nukes to do the same with nuclear explosives, a country like japan would need a sophisticated missile instead

[ses1984]

You can fire a lot of decoys and one nuke.