[robonerd]

All ballistic missile reentry vehicles are hypersonic too. Talk of "hypersonic" without specifying the technology and actual capabilities is quite silly. Presumably hypersonic cruise missiles is implicit context.. but I don't believe the general public understands that and the media is doing a generally terrible job of communicating it.

[thereddaikon]

The Russian "hypersonic" missile is just the upper stage of a short ranged ballistic missile launched from an aircraft. Its just an existing weapon with more steps.

The Chinese hypersonic weapons everyone is worried about is a boost glide vehicle. Basically a ballistic missile with a hypersonic lifting body as its warhead as opposed to a blunt body RV you usually see. This makes it more maneuverable and potentially harder to hit.

The weapon the air force tested today is similar to that but meant to be launched from bombers instead of ground launched.

The actual scary ones are hypersonic cruise missiles. Nobody has fielded one operationally yet. But the US is by far the furthest ahead in this technology. In march they had a successful test of HAWC the Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept. Scramjet powered cruise missiles like HAWC are more dangerous than conventional ballistic missile or boost-glide missiles because they actually fly. And therefore can do the things normal cruise missiles like Tomahawk can do. They can take circuitous routes. They can change their altitude. They can fly somewhat evasively. They can fly to an area and pick targets of opportunity. And other things.

Why does it matter? We've gotten much better at shooting down conventional cruise missiles. A few years back an Arleigh Burke destroyer had a number of Chinese built subsonic anti ship missiles fired at it by Houthi Rebels. It shot down every single one of them. These missiles are comparable to the Neptunes that recently sank Moskva in terms of performance. So modern warships aren't as vulnerable as Soviet era antiques. You need better weapons to kill them. hypersonic cruise missiles are much harder to intercept. Boost glides are of dubious utility in my opinion.

[sudosysgen]

Russia also has an air-breathing hypersonic missile with a scramjet engine - 3M22 Zircon. It is being field-tested and is already starting production after more than a dozen successful tests including hitting moving target - making them much further in development than HAWC which only recently managed to fly for any distance without blowing up and never actually struck a target.

So your impression is not correct. The Russians and the Chinese actually are much further along for all classes of hypersonic missiles.

[thereddaikon]

No they don't. They claim they do but if you believe Russian claims after the last three months then I can't help you.

They steal money from their military to buy yachts and mansions. Russia's wunderwaffe are not operational. The US spends more on its nuclear arsenal alone every year than Russia spends on its entire military. Where is the T-14? Where is the Su-57? They exist in propaganda videos and parades. That's it. You wont find them or zircon on the battlefield. Russia can't even afford to mass issue red dot sights to their infantry. Something America did 20 years ago. Do you really think they can afford some ridiculous scramjet cruise missile that does nothing to improve their national security?

[sudosysgen]

Do you know why I believe them? Because of this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kholod?wprov=sfla1

The Russians/Soviets flew hypersonic missile prototypes before the millennium (at hypersonic speeds) - and NASA verified it. I see no reasons they can't do it again.

The rest of your response is not relevant.

And besides, if the Russians really lied about these tests conducted within US AWACS range, they'd be called out. That they haven't is tacit confirmation.

[thereddaikon]

A test article form the cold war proves nothing about what's going on today. And a test does not mean there is an operational weapon. The US has been testing scramjets for years very publicly but I know you will be the first to jump up and say they don't have an operational weapon.

Russia cannot afford to field these wunderwaffe. Its simple economics.

[eternalban]

(Kamil Kazani has excellent threads on RF and Russia in general. Recommended reading.)

https://nitter.net/kamilkazani/status/1526323072483065857

Russian ex-Military and his prophetic (uncannily precise) predictions of what awaited RF in Ukraine and world at large. He discusses the fabled missiles in passing. (Google translate does a good job.)

https://nvo.ng.ru/realty/2022-02-03/3_1175_donbass.html

[ramesh31]

>All ballistic missile reentry vehicles are hypersonic too

Sure, but ballistic trajectories are trivially interceptible. It's not just about speed. The new arms race is with hypersonic glide vehicles that are capable of maneuvering all the way to the target at mach 8+. With that, the weapon becomes impossible to intercept with any existing technology.

[robonerd]

My money is still on Aegis BMD intercepting the missile during the terminal phase. Hypersonic glide-boost weapons are mainly for avoiding mid-course interception. When you're going hypersonic, 'maneuverable' is relative; the turning radius is quite huge and such missiles will be easy for Aegis to track during the terminal phase.

[hdjjhhvvhga]

Moreover, even if Aegis fails to intercept it, the manoeuvre to avoid the intercepting missiles in the terminal phase at hypersonic speeds means a huge miss, at least for conventional warheads.

[greedo]

I don't know of any missiles that have enough situational awareness to attempt to actively avoid an interceptor. They might dispense decoys (like the Iskander does), but a hypersonic cruise missile won't have the appropriate radar to detect an incoming interceptor. It might have an ECM/ECCM package that can tell when it's being targeted by a radar system, but that's about it.

[rad88]

SSSHHHHHHHH we need more atom bombs! Raytheon has what we need!

[ramesh31]

>When you're going hypersonic, 'maneuverable' is relative; the turning radius is quite huge and such missiles will be easy for Aegis to track during the terminal phase.

Except the associated plasma shielding makes it invisible to radar. And the Russian ones are capable of sea skimming and maneuvering at mach 8 in the terminal phase. At those speeds, you're talking horizon to impact in seconds. We really have nothing that can touch it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M22_Zircon

We like to think of ourselves as massively advanced beyond Russia and China, and we are to an extent. But the reality is that the US military has wasted the last 20 years in pointless counterinsurgency operations that have narrowed our view to the actual threats we face, and de-prioritized this kind of cutting edge stuff. There's some serious catching up we'll need to do (both technologically and organizationally) to maintain deterrence against the rising conventional threats of authoritarian major powers.

[thereddaikon]

>Except the associated plasma shielding makes it invisible to radar.

You mean makes it very visible to radar but blocks any rf emissions to and from the vehicle itself right? This is no different than reentry effects we see on spacecraft. They are easily tracked by radar but have a radio blackout period until they slow down enough.

>And the Russian ones are capable of sea skimming and maneuvering at mach 8 in the terminal phase. At those speeds, you're talking horizon to impact in seconds. We really have nothing that can touch it.

The Russian missile is a paper invention for propaganda. It effectively does not exist. And if it does then they only built one. It is not an operational weapon and never will be. Russia is a poor country that is run by thieves who siphon money from their military to buy mansions and yachts. Just like T-14 and Su-57, Zircon is a propaganda wunderwaffe that will never be in combat.

China is bigger problem. But at the moment they have just fielded boost-glide vehicles. Not scramjets.

[robonerd]

> Except the associated plasma shielding makes it invisible to radar.

All hypersonic ballistic missile reentry vehicles have this plasma stealth. That doesn't stop Aegis BDM from tracking and intercepting them. Have you ever seen a reentry vehicle coming in? They're as bright as meteorites, very easy to see.

> And the Russian ones are capable of sea skimming and maneuvering at mach 8 in the terminal phase.

These are the hypersonic cruise missiles; very different from hypersonic boost-glide missiles. This is what I mean about the media talking about "hypersonic" generically without specifying the technology they're actually talking about; it leads to people believing that 'hypersonic' is itself the technology.

[throwaway0a5e]

>Except the associated plasma shielding makes it invisible to radar.

Anything moving mach 8 is gonna light up like a Christmas tree in other parts of the EM spectrum.

[hdjjhhvvhga]

I think it is definitely a problem: not because we do not actually have the tech required (I believe we do, to some extent), but because Putin has so broken intelligence process he might come to the conclusion we don't, and makes some stupid moves because of that (although I'd have found this idea laughable ta best before 24 February). Therefore I expect a couple of carefully worded Reuters articles related to successful intercepting mach 5 missiles at first.

[Aunche]

Iron dome can't even intercept all of the subsonic rockets fired by terrorists with very limited budgets. Even if the entire US GDP was directed towards missile defense, I doubt that China or Russia would have any trouble overwhelming these systems simply by throwing enough conventional MIRVs at it.

[towaway15463]

Being able to ensure a strike with a single missile is a force multiplier especially when it comes to deterrence. If you need 10 missiles to ensure one hit your enemy may think they have favourable odds in a first strike. If you only need 1 missile per hit then the outcome of a first strike is not so good if they don’t get every single one of your missiles.

[rad88]

A ballistic missile could be within a few hundred miles of any point near the coast and be there in less than 5 minutes. You're saying this is "trivial" to intercept, what does that mean?

[greedo]

Bah...

A SLBM (sub-launched ballistic missile) can reach a coastal target in less than five minutes depending on the exact trajectory. Good luck trying to intercept that.

[robonerd]

Presumably addressing this threat is what America's 50+ SSNs are for.

[greedo]

Presumably, but the ocean is a big place. Now todays threats are far different than at the peak of the Cold War. The Russian SSBN fleet is a shell of itself, and the PLAN is still just dabbling in sub-based deterrents. The diminished threat is matched by the absolute disrepair of USN anti-sub warfare skills. These have atrophied beyond description in the last 30 years.

[tmccrary55]

If only someone had directed energy weapons...

[hungryforcodes]

Existing. Soon to be found.