2 ms·

For hypersonic weapons, yes. Firstly, the interceptor has to climb up to the altitude of it's target. Then, it has to fly through very thick atmosphere. It also

For hypersonic weapons, yes. Firstly, the interceptor has to climb up to the altitude of it's target. Then, it has to fly through very thick atmosphere. It also has to do so rapidly enough for it not to be too late. It needs to be much cheaper than the weapon it's intercepting for it to make economic sense, also. Because of this, they won't be airbreathing, and even if they were they would be slower.

ALittleLight 5y ago
I can imagine interceptors fired off near the enemy launch site that run down the hypersonic while it's still accelerating. Or, interceptors fired down from space either at the incoming hypersonic or along an expected path intending to converge.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  There's two problems with your first idea. The primary issue is that such an interceptor would need to be more expensive and more capable than the missile it's gonna hit, not even taking into account all of the supporting infrastructure necessary. The second issue being that if you're going to be operating near (horizon distance, so let's say 200km) of a missile launch site, you're going to be bombed or missile'd to smithereens. If you can prevent that, you could just bomb the launch site to begin with. As for interceptors fired down from space, you'd need to expend all the energy to get them into orbit, and then expend the energy to get them back into atmospheric flight, which itself is going to be 10x more expensive than it's target. There's also the issue that while in suborbital flight, the hypersonic missile can just adjust it's trajectory a bit and the whole trajectory is now useless.
thfuran 5y ago
>It needs to be much cheaper than the weapon it's intercepting for it to make economic sense, also. Certainly it would be nice if it were cheaper than the incoming missile, but doesn't it really just have to be cheaper than whatever the missile is targeting for it to make economic sense?

ALittleLight 5y ago

I can imagine interceptors fired off near the enemy launch site that run down the hypersonic while it's still accelerating. Or, interceptors fired down from space either at the incoming hypersonic or along an expected path intending to converge.

sudosysgen 5y ago
There's two problems with your first idea. The primary issue is that such an interceptor would need to be more expensive and more capable than the missile it's gonna hit, not even taking into account all of the supporting infrastructure necessary. The second issue being that if you're going to be operating near (horizon distance, so let's say 200km) of a missile launch site, you're going to be bombed or missile'd to smithereens. If you can prevent that, you could just bomb the launch site to begin with. As for interceptors fired down from space, you'd need to expend all the energy to get them into orbit, and then expend the energy to get them back into atmospheric flight, which itself is going to be 10x more expensive than it's target. There's also the issue that while in suborbital flight, the hypersonic missile can just adjust it's trajectory a bit and the whole trajectory is now useless.

thfuran 5y ago

>It needs to be much cheaper than the weapon it's intercepting for it to make economic sense, also. Certainly it would be nice if it were cheaper than the incoming missile, but doesn't it really just have to be cheaper than whatever the missile is targeting for it to make economic sense?