5 ms·

History tells us a lot. Exocets punished the UK in the Falklands. The USS Stark got nailed by Iraqi Exocets. The Georgians actually scored a missile hit on t

History tells us a lot. Exocets punished the UK in the Falklands. The USS Stark got nailed by Iraqi Exocets. The Georgians actually scored a missile hit on the very same Moskva in 2008. Apparently naval defensive systems -- even with the depth of Moskva, which was festooned with anti-missile defenses -- are not capable of protecting vessels under all conditions. Every case can be endlessly Monday morning quarterbacked, but it appears to me that if your navies defensive systems are not fully automated, continuously available or compromised by tracking limitations, including those induced by tunnel vision-ed crews, weather or any other conceivable condition, then you risk having your capital ships blown apart by a relatively inexpensive bit of ordinance that can be launched from hundreds of kilometers away using a variety of platforms. The missiles involved weren't even all that extraordinary. They're based on an old Soviet design (Kh-35). Not especially stealthy. Not hypersonic. Yet here we are. What is the actual feasibility of protecting surface ships? An important question because everyone has sea skimming anti-ship missiles.

dragontamer 5y ago
> The missiles involved weren't even all that extraordinary. They're based on an old Soviet design (Kh-35). Not especially stealthy. Not hypersonic. Yet here we are. I mean, that's what I've generally heard about "hypersonic" missiles. Sure, they're harder to shoot down. But regular-ol' cruise missiles are already hard to shoot down. Its probably more worthwhile to just fire 20x simultaneous cruise missiles rather than to develop 1x hypersonic missile.
- topspin 5y ago
  Seeking arguments against hypersonic weapons is as futile as arguing against every other leg of the perpetual arms race. The advantages are clear; the speed of hypersonic missiles makes all current anti-missile systems (limited as they already are,) obsolete. The first iterations of hypersonic missiles are already in service with two major powers and a third will join soon. Everyone else will follow.
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    > The advantages are clear; the speed of hypersonic missiles makes all current anti-missile systems (limited as they already are,) obsolete But if two Neptune cruise missiles are all that was needed to destroy one of Russia's cruisers (with some of Russia's latest anti-missile CRAMs / anti-missile RADARs), why should the USA develop hypersonic missiles? That's the thing. Ukraine just showed that regular ol' cruise missiles are still sufficient to destroy Russian warships. There's no point making an "unbeatable hypersonic missile" if the Russian equipment/training can't even beat a regular-ol cruise missile. ------ In contrast, Russia / China *MUST* create hypersonic missiles, because USA's CRAMs and USA's defense systems have proven to defeat subsonic and even supersonic missiles. USA should have hypersonic missiles ready just in case Russia/China suddenly shows off world-class missile defense systems. But... under the current estimations, regular old cruise missiles / Tomahawks / Harpoons remain an efficient weapon, and aren't obsolete yet. I'm sure that Russia / China will eventually develop adequate missile-defense systems. But this Moskva sinking event (especially a Flagship / cruiser) proves that the Russians don't have an adequate defense yet vs a cruise missile, let alone a cruise missile salvo.
    - gamblor956 5y ago
      I think the idea is to have hypersonic missile capability if it is needed, but keep the loadout stocked with cheaper regular missiles that have proven themselves capable of taking out Russian/Chinese warships.
      - dragontamer 5y ago
        There's also the option of developing subsonic cruise missiles further: ex... random movement patterns, or "cruise missile swarms" (intelligent cruise missiles that communicate with each other to maximize the chance that at least one hits the target), etc. etc. Hypersonic is the brute force and "obvious" approach to defeating enemy defense systems. But its important to not let the hype get carried away.
        topspin 5y ago

dragontamer 5y ago

> The missiles involved weren't even all that extraordinary. They're based on an old Soviet design (Kh-35). Not especially stealthy. Not hypersonic. Yet here we are. I mean, that's what I've generally heard about "hypersonic" missiles. Sure, they're harder to shoot down. But regular-ol' cruise missiles are already hard to shoot down. Its probably more worthwhile to just fire 20x simultaneous cruise missiles rather than to develop 1x hypersonic missile.

topspin 5y ago
Seeking arguments against hypersonic weapons is as futile as arguing against every other leg of the perpetual arms race. The advantages are clear; the speed of hypersonic missiles makes all current anti-missile systems (limited as they already are,) obsolete. The first iterations of hypersonic missiles are already in service with two major powers and a third will join soon. Everyone else will follow.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  > The advantages are clear; the speed of hypersonic missiles makes all current anti-missile systems (limited as they already are,) obsolete But if two Neptune cruise missiles are all that was needed to destroy one of Russia's cruisers (with some of Russia's latest anti-missile CRAMs / anti-missile RADARs), why should the USA develop hypersonic missiles? That's the thing. Ukraine just showed that regular ol' cruise missiles are still sufficient to destroy Russian warships. There's no point making an "unbeatable hypersonic missile" if the Russian equipment/training can't even beat a regular-ol cruise missile. ------ In contrast, Russia / China *MUST* create hypersonic missiles, because USA's CRAMs and USA's defense systems have proven to defeat subsonic and even supersonic missiles. USA should have hypersonic missiles ready just in case Russia/China suddenly shows off world-class missile defense systems. But... under the current estimations, regular old cruise missiles / Tomahawks / Harpoons remain an efficient weapon, and aren't obsolete yet. I'm sure that Russia / China will eventually develop adequate missile-defense systems. But this Moskva sinking event (especially a Flagship / cruiser) proves that the Russians don't have an adequate defense yet vs a cruise missile, let alone a cruise missile salvo.
  - gamblor956 5y ago
    I think the idea is to have hypersonic missile capability if it is needed, but keep the loadout stocked with cheaper regular missiles that have proven themselves capable of taking out Russian/Chinese warships.
    - dragontamer 5y ago
      There's also the option of developing subsonic cruise missiles further: ex... random movement patterns, or "cruise missile swarms" (intelligent cruise missiles that communicate with each other to maximize the chance that at least one hits the target), etc. etc. Hypersonic is the brute force and "obvious" approach to defeating enemy defense systems. But its important to not let the hype get carried away.
      - topspin 5y ago