3 ms·
You are right, sorry for not being clear. Neither ballistic nor hypersonic cruise missiles were intercepted because of the lack of capabilities. However, US ha
by hkpack 4y ago
You are right, sorry for not being clear. Neither ballistic nor hypersonic cruise missiles were intercepted because of the lack of capabilities.
However, US has such capabilities, and I think the results would still be very similar with the only difference that ballistic warhead (or its parts if disintegrated) will land not that far from the target when intercepted after the apex.
I just wanted to tell that intercepted missiles resulted in different outcomes - they go off course, explode right away, disintegrate and fall in big parts, fall and explode, or fall almost intact without exploding.
- gggggg5 4y ago>However, US has such capabilities, and I think the results would still be very similar with the only difference that ballistic warhead (or its parts if disintegrated) will land not that far from the target when intercepted after the apex. When it comes to ballistic missile interceptions, they tend to occur (if they occur) at a minimum of tens of kilometers from/above the target. Ballistic missile interceptions are fundamentally different from cruise missile interceptions too, cruise missiles are often disabled by shrapnel from the interceptor merely exploding near the missile. This isn't a great approach for terminal phase ballistic missiles, so for those you mostly see kinetic interceptors that actually have to directly hit their target. In the case of a successful interception, you're unlikely to see anything but disintegration.