How to defeat Hypersonic threats?

Regarding the topic of the threat of hypersonic manouvering weapons... Russia is currently in the best position to defend itself and also in the best position to attack, with long experience of trying to penetrate the air defences of US carrier groups.

Right now Russian SAMs like S-400 and S-350 can intercept targets moving at about 4.8km/s and their new S-500 will extend that capacity to 7km or more, but these are current and new to service weapons that can intercept anything the US has in service or is likely to have in service over the next few years.

On the other hand HATO would struggle to stop a full scale Kh-101/2 attack, let alone Iskander and Kh-32, or Kinzhal which are all already in service.

The Zircon and related scramjet powered weapons just makes things worse for HATO.

Of course the Russians will be working on methods and weapons and tactics to defeat their own method of attack, but as they will have real scramjet powered targets to practise with their progress should be fairly good. The scrapping of the INF treaty means IRBMs can be used as cheap targets too... which will make things easier.

BTW some of the targets the US used to test their ABM systems probably violated the INF treaty too...

All USN CVNs have 4 CIWS mounts each, to engage AShMs, low flying aircraft, & boats.
IMO, the US won't be attacking Russia directly, but to keep the pressure on, they'll deploy land, submarine & air based C/IRBMs within striking ranges.
If need be, a few more older Ohio SSBNs can be converted to SSGNs w/o compromising 2nd strike capability, esp. after they r replaced with Columbia SSBNs.
As we all know, HSMs r useless against submerged subs.

Hahahaha... four... like a Soviet destroyer would have....

The one Russian carrier has the equivalent of 24 TOR systems plus 8 Pantsir vehicles with gatling guns replacing the twin 30mm cannon plus 6 further single 30mm 6 barrel gatling guns...

CIWS in any of the variants out there has no effectiveness against hypersonic missiles.

The usual imagery of supersonic anti-ship missiles hitting from the side should be considered only one of the modes
of attack. A hypersonic missile can strike a ship from above. I suspect the Kinzhal is designed for such a mode.
Why bother? Speed. There is more drag in near the surface. The need for radar avoidance is not that important
for hypersonic missiles so skimming the surface becomes an unnecessary cost.

Actually to achieve max speed most hypersonic weapons will be flying at over 25km altitude and a terminal steep dive on a target would both maximise terminal speed but also render most CIWS ineffective simply because of the speed they are moving at.

Even assuming SEA RAM or PHALANX or GOALKEEPER can point vertically the target would only remain in the engagement range envelope of such system for a 2 seconds at most... the effective range of Phalanx is about 1.8km so half a second... less than that because the muzzle velocity of the rounds is only about 1km/s... so it could start engaging at say 2km altitude but if the intercept time is more than half a second the rounds will actually be aimed ahead of the target with a lead to hit it in motion... meaning after the target is 1km away the shells will start hitting the deck of the ship under attack...

SEARAM is unlikely to get a lock in time to launch at the target before impact... the Standard SAMs radars can't look vertically up so they can't engage targets diving vertically on them and are not tested against targets flying at that height or speed...

GarryB wrote:They were talking about extending its range up to 20km and that is why it is being delayed because presumably they are using a bigger more powerful booster rocket motor stage.

This would be a serious improvement but not increase costs by too much.

No radar so enemy air power would have a hard time finding this vehicle, while it will be using optical sensors as well as shared air defence network information to find enemy aircraft to passively shoot them down.

It should also be excellent for shooting down all kinds of drones in a cost effective way.

VDV will probably operate under the S-400, S-500 umbrella.

However, NATO will strike VDV along with the S-400, S-500 with hypersonic cruise missiles.

Modern day SAM systems like S-400, S-500, THAAD, PAC-3 are not designed to defeat hypersonic cruise missiles.

RTN wrote:

GarryB wrote:They were talking about extending its range up to 20km and that is why it is being delayed because presumably they are using a bigger more powerful booster rocket motor stage.

This would be a serious improvement but not increase costs by too much.

No radar so enemy air power would have a hard time finding this vehicle, while it will be using optical sensors as well as shared air defence network information to find enemy aircraft to passively shoot them down.

It should also be excellent for shooting down all kinds of drones in a cost effective way.

VDV will probably operate under the S-400, S-500 umbrella.

However, NATO will strike VDV along with the S-400, S-500 with hypersonic cruise missiles.

Modern day SAM systems like S-400, S-500, THAAD, PAC-3 are not designed to defeat hypersonic cruise missiles.

NATO hypersonc missiles have however a weak point: THEY DON'T ACTUALLY EXIST.

S-500 was designed to do exactly this. Of course, when western hypersonic missiles enter service Russia will already field the S-600 system.

Hole wrote:S-500 was designed to do exactly this. Of course, when western hypersonic missiles enter service Russia will already field the S-600 system.

S-500 was designed as a mobile A-135 whose primary task would be to intercept ICBMs.

S-500 can't destroy incoming hypersonic cruise missiles.

RTN wrote:

Hole wrote:S-500 was designed to do exactly this. Of course, when western hypersonic missiles enter service Russia will already field the S-600 system.

S-500 was designed as a mobile A-135 whose primary task would be to intercept ICBMs.

S-500 can't destroy incoming hypersonic cruise missiles.

S-400E can destroy some types of hypersonic cruise missiles, why wouldn't S-500. Makes no sense.
They can even destroy some types of HGV

dino00 wrote:S-400E can destroy some types of hypersonic cruise missiles, why wouldn't S-500. Makes no sense.
They can even destroy some types of HGV

Do you realize how difficult it is to track a hypersonic missile leave alone destroying it? DEW may provide an answer but that's at least 10 year away.

S-400 is designed to destroy IRBMs, S-500 for ICBMs.

The russian MoD has clearly stated that S-500 is capable of shooting down hypersonic missiles.

RTN wrote:
S-500 can't destroy incoming hypersonic cruise missiles.

Why would Russia want to destroy it's own hypersonic missiles? There won't be any other hypersonic missiles to shoot at.

Do you realize how difficult it is to track a hypersonic missile leave alone destroying it?

That is your problem - not Russia's.

RTN wrote:VDV will probably operate under the S-400, S-500 umbrella.

However, NATO will strike VDV along with the S-400, S-500 with hypersonic cruise missiles.

Modern day SAM systems like S-400, S-500, THAAD, PAC-3 are not designed to defeat hypersonic cruise missiles.

Depends... If VDV is used for quick deployment from one Russian region to another, than they will be absolutely under S-400 and S-500 umbrella. But if they will be deployed somewhere outside Russia, than most probably not. In than case air force will be their cover.

NATO doesn't have hypersonic cruise missiles, Russia have. US tests of their hypersonic missile up to now failed.

VDV will probably operate under the S-400, S-500 umbrella.

Unlikely... the VDV would operate in enemy rear areas and likely would be out of range of the S-400 and S-500 systems.

Their mobility together with short and possibly medium range air defence from the ground, and probably air power support.

The focus against a strong enemy would likely to seize a port or airport so other support platforms can be brought in...

However, NATO will strike VDV along with the S-400, S-500 with hypersonic cruise missiles.

Not many good reasons for the VDV to attack deep behind HATO lines... at best they might deliver them to Kaliningrad to support defence against HATO attack, but it will be Russian hypersonic and IRBM and IRCM that will be hitting HATO targets...

Modern day SAM systems like S-400, S-500, THAAD, PAC-3 are not designed to defeat hypersonic cruise missiles.

Not at the moment, but testing and development work could create algorythms that make them able to get pretty close to the hypersonic targets... especially with fake signals from the SAMs that make the hypersonic weapons think the SAMs are somewhere else so they manouver towards where the SAMs are instead of away from them... and of course a decent nuke warhead on the SAM to make up the difference...

S-500 was designed to do exactly this. Of course, when western hypersonic missiles enter service Russia will already field the S-600 system.

The S-500 already can intercept much faster targets, but would need further work to attack targets actually manouvering to evade interception... ATM it is designed for predictable targets on a predictable trajectory even if they are moving very fast along that trajectory, but it would not be impossible for them to improve its performance against a manouvering target... especially currently while they don't exist... their makers of manouvering hypersonic missiles can give them information about what manouvers they might use to evade interception which could allow them to work out counters to such evasion manoeuvres.

S-500 was designed as a mobile A-135 whose primary task would be to intercept ICBMs.

It was designed to hit fast moving targets including ICBMs, SLBMs, and satellites in low earth orbit.

Current hypersonic threats move much slower than 7km per second... Zircon for instance moves at 3.2km/s which is actually slower than the 4.8km/s speed of targets the S-400 and S-350 can intercept BTW... but they would need to do some work to compensate for a manouvering target.

S-500 can't destroy incoming hypersonic cruise missiles.

It was not designed to intercept manouvering hypersonic missiles, but that does not mean it cannot be adapted to do so... they have time on their hands and real missiles to test against.

Do you realize how difficult it is to track a hypersonic missile leave alone destroying it? DEW may provide an answer but that's at least 10 year away.

Tracking is not the problem... tracking has never been the problem.

S-400 is designed to destroy IRBMs, S-500 for ICBMs.

S-400 can be used against targets moving at up to 4.8km/s and S-500 against targets at 7km/s or faster.

Depends... If VDV is used for quick deployment from one Russian region to another, than they will be absolutely under S-400 and S-500 umbrella. But if they will be deployed somewhere outside Russia, than most probably not. In than case air force will be their cover.

Being deployed to Kaliningrad or the Kuriles would allow them to operate under S-400 and S-500 systems, but most other places not likely...

Realistically, Poland and the Ukraine are the most likely adversary nations they'd be deployed to in the case of conflict which would actually put them under the S-400/500 umbrella.

I am not so sure.... they are certainly hostile to Russia but there is no value in sending VDV forces into either country... if there is something in each country that represents a threat to Russia like a US base or US ABM system then it makes more sense to srike with hypersonic ground or air launched missiles to destroy the problem.

An invasion to "take over" makes no sense at all... there is no value in Russia seizing and occupying a territory that does not already see itself as Russian... otherwise Kiev and Tiblisi would already be occupied.

Russia doesn't need that sort of BS... let them sort out their own problems.

Those 2 countries are the most rabidly russophobic in Eastern Europe and close enough to Russian territory to make a nuclear strike less desirable.

Russian technology has grown to the point where nukes are not really required... they have shown in Syria that they can find and hit targets deep in enemy territory with a level of accuracy that seems to have upset the west...

Other countries they could potentially be deployed to is Serbia to secure the airport for deliveries of S-400's to protect them from receiving Yugoslavia 2.0.

That would be more like a peaceful deployment, plus Serbia would be much safer getting lots of Panstir systems and perhaps S-350.... smaller and mobile but still with good range and altitude performance and easier to hide.

S-400 doesn't create a bubble of 400km.

At 400km radar horizon will make it impossible to fire at targets flying at low altitude and ground terrain will never be flat so there will always be hills and mountains to restrain it detection area.

S-400 doesn't create a bubble of 400km.

On its own it does not.

At 400km radar horizon will make it impossible to fire at targets flying at low altitude and ground terrain will never be flat so there will always be hills and mountains to restrain it detection area.

But airborne platforms like A-50 and A-100 as well as other radar and OTH radar scanning the area can give target information good enough to launch an ARH missile to engage.

When attacking a target nearly 400km away the missile launched will be lofted to rather high altitude and as it approaches the target it will be diving down on the target in a steep dive using its own radar to scan for and find the target from almost directly above... an angle most aircraft are not stealthy at all...

It will also be coming down at rather high speed, so the chances of seeing it and dodging it are pretty low to zero.

On its own it has limitations of course but as a part of an IADS network it becomes even more powerful... in Syria it provides a view of the airspace over Syria that means the Russians know exactly what is happening.

Israeli deceit where they used Russian planes to cover attacks were seen through because the Russians had a good air picture of the region... their problem was that Syrian AD forces didn't see that same picture of the airspace and mistakenly fired missiles that ended up bringing down a Russian aircraft. The result was that Syria is now part of the Russian AD network in Syria so they are no longer kept in the dark.

Isos wrote:S-400 doesn't create a bubble of 400km.

At 400km radar horizon will make it impossible to fire at targets flying at low altitude and ground terrain will never be flat so there will always be hills and mountains to restrain it detection area.

You're saying as if that's not the point entirely. In air combat altitude confers kinematic and sensory advantages so forcing the enemy to begin every engagement at a lower starting position would heavily tip the scales for your own jets. A lower altitude would also expose enemy aircraft to the more numerous and mobile air defences which normally would be overflown.

Low flight altitude huge fuel consumption and a smaller radius of action of the fighter

Low flight altitude huge fuel consumption and a smaller radius of action of the fighter

It reduces your top speed to about mach 1 at best, which is going to burn a lot of fuel if you try that all the way to the target and back... and will reduce the weapon payload of the aircraft an also introduce the danger of flying into wires and birds and trees and the ground.

Look down radars are widely in use and very effective...