5 ms·

Can a large ship, or any ship, intercept a hypersonic missile? Because that's the reality of today.

greedo 2y ago
Yes. Patriot has intercepted Kinzals in Ukraine (and older versions of Patriot at that), so the tech is well established. SM3/SM6 missiles on Aegis equipped ships can defend themselves against hypersonic missiles.
- sudosysgen 2y ago
  Patriot has not reliably intercepted Kizhals, they needed an uneconomic interceptor ratio which in a ship would lead to interceptor depletion and failure; at the same time Kizhals is even slower than something like the DF-21 or DF-ZF. It's a similar story for SM-2/3, in the Red Sea they faced massive interceptor depletion and had to leave, and even then many missiles were not intercepted, we just got lucky that they missed.
  - indymike 2y ago
    > faced massive interceptor depletion and had to leave Depletion is the problem with destroyers. Something like an arsenal ship (think instead of 90-120 missiles, being loaded out with 300) would make more sense. Cheap drones are more of a depletion problem than are hypersonics.
  - greedo 2y ago
    Again, the versions of Patriot handed over to Ukraine are not the latest versions, so their performance might not be illustrative. And we don't know the strategy used by Ukraine; they might feel like bigger salvos are worth bringing down hypersonics. SM6 is the primary USN weapon against hypersonic, not the SM2/SM3. SM3 is primarily designed for ballistic missile defense.
    - openasocket 2y ago
      Ugh, this is why the term "hypersonics" is misleading. Ballistic missiles ARE hypersonic systems, they travel faster than Mach 5. And that's not just me being pedantic. The Kinzhal missile is regularly touted as a "hypersonic" including in this thread. But the Kinzhal is just a ballistic missile, it's actually just an air-launched version of the Iskander. Which interceptor would be used against a target largely comes down to whether the intercept is endo- or exo-atmospheric. The SM3 is an exo-atmospheric intercepter: it's designed to collide with the target in the vacuum of space. The SM6 is an endo-atmospheric interceptor. SM3 can be used against ballistic missiles, including both traditional re-entry vehicles and hypersonic glide vehicles, before they enter the atmosphere. The SM6 can be used against anything in the atmosphere: including ballistic missiles in the terminal descent phase.
    - sudosysgen 2y ago
      > Again, the versions of Patriot handed over to Ukraine are not the latest versions, so their performance might not be illustrative. And we don't know the strategy used by Ukraine; they might feel like bigger salvos are worth bringing down hypersonics. So why even bring it up? Kinzhal is just a slightly faster ballistic missile, the fact that it can be intercepted in ideal conditions is not new. What matters is the interception probability and the engagement envelope, so what's the point to bring it up and then immediately discredit whatever useful inference can be made while still jumping to a conclusion? SM6 is just an upgraded SM2, it's intended for BMD just the same - it's just better at it, but not better enough for the Red Sea situation.
FuriouslyAdrift 2y ago
CIWS does a pretty decent job but the reality is that a hypersonic missile would be met with a large nuclear response as it's a first strike weapon. If you can read between the lines of the posture reviews, any potential full scale war with China would include a massive nuclear first strike by necessity. Everyone is aware of this and is avoiding a large scale engagement. Most likely a regional war with China (probably over Taiwan or less likely, the Philippines) would draw in lots of regional players because everybody want's to pick China apart.
openasocket 2y ago
The term "hypersonic" is not a particularly helpful one. The generic term refers to an missile system traveling faster than Mach 5, but there are 3 distinct types of weapons that fall into this category, which are very different. 1. Ballistic missiles: most ballistic missile systems are hypersonic. We've had ballistic missiles since WW2, the very first American ballistic missile (the redstone) was hypersonic, and that was back in the 1950s. This is not new. People make a lot of missile like the Khinzal, but this is just an air-launched version of the Iskander missile, which is from the 1990s. 2. Hypersonic glide vehicles: normal ballistic missiles drop a re-entry vehicle that just falls to earth. It might have some stabilizing fins, and some ability to make minute adjustments to its course to improve accuracy, but this is limited. In a hypersonic glide vehicle, the re-entry vehicle is meant to be more of a glide body, and is able to make actual maneuvers and turns. The technology here is also not new. For example, the Space Shuttle is an example of a hypersonic glide body. Research in this field has been around for a long time, though it's only in the last few years that countries have begun actually fielding weapons featuring glide vehicles. The annoying part with this is that the term "hypersonic glide vehicle" implies that the reason these are so difficult to intercept is because of their speed. But it's actually the opposite: in order to maneuver, a hypersonic glide vehicle actually has to travel slower than a traditional ballistic re-entry vehicle! The advantage of a HGV is not its speed, but its ability to maneuver, which makes it harder to intercept. 3. There are also hypersonic cruise missiles. These are missiles that use ramjet or scramjet engines to fly at hypersonic speeds. These tend to be even slower than HGVs, and will have much shorter ranges because they have to consume fuel to maintain this speed. Several of these are in development, but I don't believe any have been fielded. The main advantage of these is even further maneuverability, and a lower flight altitude which should make them harder to detect. Additionally, because they are flying in the atmosphere, it requires a different type of interceptor to defeat.
bluGill 2y ago
There are trade offs. That missile is expense and (see other discussion) might not even hit. A ship is mobile and moves erratically - the enemy needs to find it (not as easy as it sounds even with satellites all over). A missile that lands in the sea 100 feet from a ship does no damage. Hyper sonic often means limits to how you can maneuver it, so you have a chance of figuring out where it can be and thus getting the ship away (depending on your ability to detect it and predict where it is going). The rest of interception was covered by other comments. A ship lets you get closer to the action. The closer you get the easier it is to overwhelm electric warfare - either because the slow drones can be programed and so don't need a radio (or fiber connections), or because you can make your signal strong enough to overcome it. Missiles don't have infinite range. Different ones have different limits. Longer range costs both more money and payload. A ship can laugh off anything a tiny drone can do (even a commercial ship). The above are all trade offs. However navy warfare is not dead and unlikely to die.

Yes. Patriot has intercepted Kinzals in Ukraine (and older versions of Patriot at that), so the tech is well established. SM3/SM6 missiles on Aegis equipped ships can defend themselves against hypersonic missiles.

sudosysgen 2y ago
Patriot has not reliably intercepted Kizhals, they needed an uneconomic interceptor ratio which in a ship would lead to interceptor depletion and failure; at the same time Kizhals is even slower than something like the DF-21 or DF-ZF. It's a similar story for SM-2/3, in the Red Sea they faced massive interceptor depletion and had to leave, and even then many missiles were not intercepted, we just got lucky that they missed.
- indymike 2y ago
  > faced massive interceptor depletion and had to leave Depletion is the problem with destroyers. Something like an arsenal ship (think instead of 90-120 missiles, being loaded out with 300) would make more sense. Cheap drones are more of a depletion problem than are hypersonics.
- greedo 2y ago
  Again, the versions of Patriot handed over to Ukraine are not the latest versions, so their performance might not be illustrative. And we don't know the strategy used by Ukraine; they might feel like bigger salvos are worth bringing down hypersonics. SM6 is the primary USN weapon against hypersonic, not the SM2/SM3. SM3 is primarily designed for ballistic missile defense.
  - openasocket 2y ago
    Ugh, this is why the term "hypersonics" is misleading. Ballistic missiles ARE hypersonic systems, they travel faster than Mach 5. And that's not just me being pedantic. The Kinzhal missile is regularly touted as a "hypersonic" including in this thread. But the Kinzhal is just a ballistic missile, it's actually just an air-launched version of the Iskander. Which interceptor would be used against a target largely comes down to whether the intercept is endo- or exo-atmospheric. The SM3 is an exo-atmospheric intercepter: it's designed to collide with the target in the vacuum of space. The SM6 is an endo-atmospheric interceptor. SM3 can be used against ballistic missiles, including both traditional re-entry vehicles and hypersonic glide vehicles, before they enter the atmosphere. The SM6 can be used against anything in the atmosphere: including ballistic missiles in the terminal descent phase.
  - sudosysgen 2y ago
    > Again, the versions of Patriot handed over to Ukraine are not the latest versions, so their performance might not be illustrative. And we don't know the strategy used by Ukraine; they might feel like bigger salvos are worth bringing down hypersonics. So why even bring it up? Kinzhal is just a slightly faster ballistic missile, the fact that it can be intercepted in ideal conditions is not new. What matters is the interception probability and the engagement envelope, so what's the point to bring it up and then immediately discredit whatever useful inference can be made while still jumping to a conclusion? SM6 is just an upgraded SM2, it's intended for BMD just the same - it's just better at it, but not better enough for the Red Sea situation.

FuriouslyAdrift 2y ago

CIWS does a pretty decent job but the reality is that a hypersonic missile would be met with a large nuclear response as it's a first strike weapon. If you can read between the lines of the posture reviews, any potential full scale war with China would include a massive nuclear first strike by necessity. Everyone is aware of this and is avoiding a large scale engagement. Most likely a regional war with China (probably over Taiwan or less likely, the Philippines) would draw in lots of regional players because everybody want's to pick China apart.

openasocket 2y ago

The term "hypersonic" is not a particularly helpful one. The generic term refers to an missile system traveling faster than Mach 5, but there are 3 distinct types of weapons that fall into this category, which are very different. 1. Ballistic missiles: most ballistic missile systems are hypersonic. We've had ballistic missiles since WW2, the very first American ballistic missile (the redstone) was hypersonic, and that was back in the 1950s. This is not new. People make a lot of missile like the Khinzal, but this is just an air-launched version of the Iskander missile, which is from the 1990s. 2. Hypersonic glide vehicles: normal ballistic missiles drop a re-entry vehicle that just falls to earth. It might have some stabilizing fins, and some ability to make minute adjustments to its course to improve accuracy, but this is limited. In a hypersonic glide vehicle, the re-entry vehicle is meant to be more of a glide body, and is able to make actual maneuvers and turns. The technology here is also not new. For example, the Space Shuttle is an example of a hypersonic glide body. Research in this field has been around for a long time, though it's only in the last few years that countries have begun actually fielding weapons featuring glide vehicles. The annoying part with this is that the term "hypersonic glide vehicle" implies that the reason these are so difficult to intercept is because of their speed. But it's actually the opposite: in order to maneuver, a hypersonic glide vehicle actually has to travel slower than a traditional ballistic re-entry vehicle! The advantage of a HGV is not its speed, but its ability to maneuver, which makes it harder to intercept. 3. There are also hypersonic cruise missiles. These are missiles that use ramjet or scramjet engines to fly at hypersonic speeds. These tend to be even slower than HGVs, and will have much shorter ranges because they have to consume fuel to maintain this speed. Several of these are in development, but I don't believe any have been fielded. The main advantage of these is even further maneuverability, and a lower flight altitude which should make them harder to detect. Additionally, because they are flying in the atmosphere, it requires a different type of interceptor to defeat.

bluGill 2y ago

There are trade offs. That missile is expense and (see other discussion) might not even hit. A ship is mobile and moves erratically - the enemy needs to find it (not as easy as it sounds even with satellites all over). A missile that lands in the sea 100 feet from a ship does no damage. Hyper sonic often means limits to how you can maneuver it, so you have a chance of figuring out where it can be and thus getting the ship away (depending on your ability to detect it and predict where it is going). The rest of interception was covered by other comments. A ship lets you get closer to the action. The closer you get the easier it is to overwhelm electric warfare - either because the slow drones can be programed and so don't need a radio (or fiber connections), or because you can make your signal strong enough to overcome it. Missiles don't have infinite range. Different ones have different limits. Longer range costs both more money and payload. A ship can laugh off anything a tiny drone can do (even a commercial ship). The above are all trade offs. However navy warfare is not dead and unlikely to die.