Moreover, it would be hard to avoid being partially vaporized before reaching the target. So hitting something at Mach 10-20 seems much more difficult than filling the missile with explosives and detonating it.
Weapons based on kinetic energy alone seem practical only against satellites or against targets that fly in the upper atmosphere.
> The U.S. Air Force said on Monday it had conducted a successful test of a hypersonic weapon, which flew at five times the speed of sound.
But to your question:
> around Mach 10-20 is where the tradeoff could become non-obvious, depending on how much you value weighing less?
The same logic holds at mach 5-8 (ie current hypersonics), which is why they’re being developed:
You want a weapon that can surprise, evade, or penetrate better — even if that’s less destructive overall.
It seems like around Mach 10-20 is where the tradeoff could become non-obvious, depending on how much you value weighing less?