NicolaSacco
Full Member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2016
- Messages
- 2,961
- Supports
- Ipswich
There's two meanings for hypersonics:
A) What you described, which have been around for decades and decades, and the last part of your sentence is bullshit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Burnt_Frost
https://www.defense.gov/News/Releas...-iia-intercept-test-against-an-intercontinen/
SM-3, SM-6 and THAAD were all designed with hypersonic ballistic missiles in mind. By your definition, most ballistic missiles are hypersonic and even patriot pac-1's in the gulf war, designed to intercept anything BUT ballistic missiles, could intercept them. SCUDs were by your definition hypersonic.
So no, it's not too fast for all defense systems to intercept. It's the other way around. A ballistic trajectory mach 5 missiles is a sitting duck for the layered CSG air defense of SM-2, SM-3, SM-6 and ESSM.
B) What people actually mean when they say hypersonic: Is an air breathing scramjet Cruise missile capable of going Mach 5+ at Sea level and have high levels of interchangibility in movement and trajectory.
This is actually a game changer because radar curvature means it's harder to detect, with a much lower response time, and ultimately harder to intercept with ground based VLS / Batteries.
Nobody has this in service. US has a working prototype. Nobody else comes close to developing this.
Now, let's imagine Iran has the magical Mach 5 Hypersonic missiles that for some reason is "too fast" for a Strike Group Missile Shield to intercept: Pray tell how it even locks on to the carrier?
The kill chain for anti ship missiles is incredibly complex, and trying to guide a missile to a carrier in the open ocean is like looking for a 5p coin in an olympic swimming pool by looking through a straw and then sucking up the 5p with said straw.
US has invested billions into ISR assets and redundancies on top of redundancies on their kill chains, with Link 4 integrations, huge numbers of AWACS assets, gigantic multi Kw powered AESA radars, Satalitte imagery integrations, just to provide a stable kill chain for their navy. Each piece missing would highly reduce the effectiveness of their missiles.
Iran has none of that. So pray tell how an Iranian Mach 5 even gets a weapon-level constant firing solution on a moving CSG in the Persian gulf.
Tl;dr stop talking shit.
I bet he's going to link an article by Pierre sprey or the National Interest to support his argument. The two worst sources in mankind on military affairs.
Have you ever thought about adjusting your style of delivery to actually get complicated ideas across to people who don’t have your knowledge base? Feels like you take a little too much pleasure in telling people they are wrong.