3 ms·

It is the maneuverability that makes them hard to actually hit, since it is not a simple parabolic or dumb ballistic missile trajectory, even if the ICBM or SRB

by eggy 3y ago

It is the maneuverability that makes them hard to actually hit, since it is not a simple parabolic or dumb ballistic missile trajectory, even if the ICBM or SRBM is going Mach 5, or hypersonic. That's why they usually don't include ICBMs and SRBMs in the 'hypersonic' category. A military arsenal needs to be diverse and hypersonic missiles have their uses for sure.

jjk166 3y ago
The maneuverability actually doesn't make them harder to hit, they are still far less maneuverable than the interceptors, and critically they can't make course alterations en route based on sensor data to avoid an interceptor. Also, most ballistic missiles don't actually fly in dumb, parabolic arcs, they have some limited maneuvering capability. Really there are two categories of hypersonics - hypersonic cruise missiles (HCM) and hypersonic glide vehicles (HGV). HGV's are very comparable to ICBMs, it's really just the trajectory that's different, staying within the atmosphere. HCMs are dramatically slower but they actually have some genuine maneuverability and are more in the regime of aircraft SAM defenses than ballistic missile defense. It's the HGVs that these satellites are meant to counter. The issue is that interceptors need some time to launch and close the distance, and by the time a traditional missile warning system detects a relatively low flying hypersonic weapon, it's practically at the target. With in flight tracking by satellite, you can engage hypersonics at similar distances to traditional ballistic missiles. Hypersonics really only are useful for getting past a missile defense system set up to counter traditional ballistic missiles. If your adversaries don't have such systems, or if those systems can be defeated by other, cheaper means, or if they are hypersonic defense capable, then there isn't much argument for hypersonics. Certainly it's good to have options, but assuming your military budget is finite, spending those dollars just about anywhere else will be more beneficial.

by eggy 3y ago

jjk166 3y ago

The maneuverability actually doesn't make them harder to hit, they are still far less maneuverable than the interceptors, and critically they can't make course alterations en route based on sensor data to avoid an interceptor. Also, most ballistic missiles don't actually fly in dumb, parabolic arcs, they have some limited maneuvering capability. Really there are two categories of hypersonics - hypersonic cruise missiles (HCM) and hypersonic glide vehicles (HGV). HGV's are very comparable to ICBMs, it's really just the trajectory that's different, staying within the atmosphere. HCMs are dramatically slower but they actually have some genuine maneuverability and are more in the regime of aircraft SAM defenses than ballistic missile defense. It's the HGVs that these satellites are meant to counter. The issue is that interceptors need some time to launch and close the distance, and by the time a traditional missile warning system detects a relatively low flying hypersonic weapon, it's practically at the target. With in flight tracking by satellite, you can engage hypersonics at similar distances to traditional ballistic missiles. Hypersonics really only are useful for getting past a missile defense system set up to counter traditional ballistic missiles. If your adversaries don't have such systems, or if those systems can be defeated by other, cheaper means, or if they are hypersonic defense capable, then there isn't much argument for hypersonics. Certainly it's good to have options, but assuming your military budget is finite, spending those dollars just about anywhere else will be more beneficial.