[HeXetic]

What's the problem with that? He's talking about the future, where hypersonic missiles will be a reality. Anti-missile defences like the Phalanx CIWS have a range of only a couple of miles. A theoretical missile flying at Mach 20 will cover that range in less than half a second, making it extremely difficult to shoot down. A Phalanx only fires at 50 rounds per second. We're talking about a few dozen bullets on target which have got to shred or detonate the warhead or else it's going to head.

Granted we are not at mach 20 missiles or even mach 5 missiles yet, but this is an article about the future, after all.

[avmich]

But low altitude? I'd consider that, say, 5 km or even less; why a hypersonic missile would be low-flying cruise missile? Why confront that awful aerodynamic drag?

[HeXetic]

> Why confront that awful aerodynamic drag?

Mainly for exactly the reason of making the missile too difficult to detect until it's far too late to do anything about it.

IIRC there's also two additional reasons: striking from a low angle means a better chance of damaging the ship at or below the waterline in order to sink it, and because sea-skimming means the sensors have a much easier time picking out the ship from the sea.

[avmich]

I mean, the aerodynamic drag is going to be forbidding high. One can't today make a low flying 20M cruise missile, no such technologies by a long shot.