[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.