SEE IT: Russia claims to test fire new hypersonic interceptor missile

Fox News > https://www.foxnews.com/world/...-interceptor-missile

Russia’s defense ministry on Tuesday said it had successfully test launched a new hypersonic interceptor missile system with a precision unmatched by any other country.

The reported launch took place at Sary-Shagan, an anti-ballistic missile testing range in Kazakhstan, according to a tweet from the ministry. The tweet included a video of the test launch which showed missiles shot from the ground at high speeds, leaving behind trails of smoke.

Russia-24, a state-owned news channel, reported that the new missile will be used to protect Russia's borders from incoming aerospace weaponry.

The new interceptor missile, launched by Russia’s Aerospace Defense Forces, successfully completed its tasks by striking an assigned target “with prevision,” the report said.

Military excerpts, cited by the channel, said no other countries have matched the ABM’s capabilities. TASS, another state-run news agency, reported that the last trials took place on Dec. 1, 2018.

RUSSIAN MILITARY, MODERNIZING QUICKLY, PLANS TO SELL MISSILE SYSTEM TO TURKEY: US COMMANDER

Hypersonic missiles can be launched from land, sea, or air, and can fly more than nine times the speed of sound. The U.S. once led in the development of hypersonic missile technology but has lagged for the last 60 years, according to Iain Boyd, a professor of aerospace engineering at the University of Michigan.

Citing hypersonic advancements by China and Russia, the State Department announced last year that hypersonic capabilities are the “highest technical priority,” according to Defense News.

I saw that article and video this morning. To say that thing takes off like a rocket is an understatement. It goes on to say the US lead hypersonic technology 60 years ago, think they meant rocket tech. We’re certainly well behind the curve now. This trend was predictable dating back to scrapping of shuttle program and contracting Russians for rides to space.

Yeah, they have a fast missile, but do they actually have the tech / computing power to make it do something useful?

Time will tell.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Yeah, they have a fast missile, but do they actually have the tech / computing power to make it do something useful?

Time will tell.

I bet that sucker can take out incoming Teslas.

We are behind the curve for almost all technology in the mil sector... Our competitors are ramping up much faster than we are and will soon catch and then surpass us unless we change the way we do business in a drastic way.

I see the Russians will be selling them to Turkey; the fact that the ruskies are willing to do so (NATO member) tells you all you should know about trusting Turkey.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Yeah, they have a fast missile, but do they actually have the tech / computing power to make it do something useful?

Time will tell.

Bingo.

For all the speed readings that come out of these displays, can it get to the destination, intact or the right target. Most ballistic missiles have decoys and whatever interceptor that gets sent up, is going to have to discern what it's going to hit.

The show the launch, the don't show the impact. Who know if the thing has any maneuverability or accuracy.

BTW were were launching hypersonic test vehicles not long ago. Remember this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-51_Waverider

I'm wondering if we still are, but they've gone black.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
The show the launch, the don't show the impact. Who know if the thing has any maneuverability or accuracy.

BTW were were launching hypersonic test vehicles not long ago. Remember this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-51_Waverider

I'm wondering if we still are, but they've gone black.

...maybe, possibly.

I also wonder if the modern updates to our anti-aircraft/anti-missile systems might be able to deal with this missiles better than the pundits think. Patriot has been heavily update, with essentially an all new missile, the PAC-3, which is more oriented toward missile defense than aircraft. It's an extremely maneuverable missile. even it's been updated with a larger motor, so it now has greater range. There's also the THAAD system. In addition, we've bee working with the Israelis on anti-missile systems, and can use that technology.

As was said, we've built test vehicles similar to what the Russians and Chinese have built, and know their capabilities.

We will catch up eventually. They can destroy us more quickly but I will forever be thankful for the Navy submarines and their crews patrolling the seas ready to respond and make them pay for their aggression.

How much of a threat to our aircraft carriers is this technology?
Can our Aegis system stop them?
If it can, would they just need to fire enough of them to deplete the Aegis batteries before they got through?
Missile technology that can take out our ships must be a top priority for the Russians and Chinese.


Bruce

We (and they) have a shitton of stuff that has never been fully tested under full stress combat conditions. The carrier air defenses are one of those things.

I'm sure the AEGIS radars and computers can track these things. The question is whether the missiles we have can hit them. I don't know if that's ever been tested. I know AEGIS has been tested against ballistic missiles with some, but not complete, success.

quote:

Originally posted by RNshooter:
How much of a threat to our aircraft carriers is this technology?
Can our Aegis system stop them?
If it can, would they just need to fire enough of them to deplete the Aegis batteries before they got through?
Missile technology that can take out our ships must be a top priority for the Russians and Chinese.


Bruce

quote:

Originally posted by ACTEG:
We are behind the curve for almost all technology in the mil sector... Our competitors are ramping up much faster than we are and will soon catch and then surpass us unless we change the way we do business in a drastic way.

Bullshit.

They steal or copy our tech.

But we aren't "behind", not by a long shot, Chicken Little.

quote:

Originally posted by RNshooter:
How much of a threat to our aircraft carriers is this technology?
Can our Aegis system stop them?
If it can, would they just need to fire enough of them to deplete the Aegis batteries before they got through?
Missile technology that can take out our ships must be a top priority for the Russians and Chinese.

Bruce

The OP's article is reference to a anti-missile interceptor...missile defense. Hyper sonic tech is a threat to our CV's however, there's a few things that such a missile would need to give-up in order to achieve such speed. These weapons need to fly higher in the atmosphere where there's less air friction, which also means that all of our sensors can detect them. The distance at which these newer missiles launch requires a larger size and supported guidance with updates via satellites. Keep in mind that the carriers are the fastest ships of the surface fleet; these missiles need constant guidance updates to track the ship (remember it's coming over the horizon)...meanwhile dealing with counter-threats being shot at by the CV's escorts. Speed makes up for a lot of short comings, the threat envelope from launch, to detection and targeting will be measured in seconds; the furthest out escort of the battlegroup would have seconds with the closer escorts a few more seconds to engage. I can only image how crowded the airspace would get with a saturation threat.

Aegis was designed in the early 70's to defend against Soviet air launched cruise missiles at very long range. My understanding it's a very capable system but, is reliant on separate fire control radars to provide mid-course guidance which is not necessary with the newer PAAMS system which our European allies use. Somebody else can fill-in capability details.

If you want to read more on our ability to defend the fleet, the blog Navy Matters breaks it down.

quote:

A carrier group, for example, will consist of 3-4 carriers (4 is ComNavOps preferred number) and 20+ escorts (25-30 being ComNavOps preferred number) (see, "Carrier Task Force"). Let’s assume that each escort is a Burke with 96 VLS cells and that 50 are Standard missiles, 30 are quad packed ESSM, and the remainder are Tomahawks and VL-ASROC, neither of which are relevant to this discussion.

So, let’s do the anti-air warfare (AAW) math.


Standard Missiles: 20x ships X 50 Standards per ship = 1,000 Standard missiles

ESSM Missiles: 20x ships X 30 cells X 4 ESSM/cell = 2,400 ESSM missiles

Total = 3,400 AAW missiles


This ignores any SeaRAM point defense missiles the group might have.


So, in order for reloads to even be required, the group would have to fire off well over three thousand missiles! Given that the enemy’s anti-ship missile inventory is limited just like ours, does anyone really believe a single battle will see the enemy bring over three thousand anti-ship missiles to bear on a single carrier group???

Not mid-course guidance but terminal illumination for the semi-active homing missiles. The USN is getting away from semi-active homing, but will still have it for a while. The new SM-6 missile is fully active capable and in service. The ESSM Block II is fully active, and is in testing now. Likely in service 2020. And they're looking at an active version of the SM-2 (range between the 150+ mike SM-6 and 25 mile ESSM. The new frigate they're planning won't have illumination radars, so the SM-2 Active will need to be, well, active by the time that's in the water.

However the SMs 2 & 6 are the same old Standard airframe. I don't know if they have the kinematics to deal with a Mach 5++ target, especially one that can maneuver. They might want to look at either a navalized version of the Patriot PAC-3 MSE or maybe the "Israeli" (in quotes because Raytheon was a major contractor for that program) Stunner missile. Both are fully active (the Stunner has a tri-mode active radar / infra-red / visual seeker system.)

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:


Aegis was designed in the early 70's to defend against Soviet air launched cruise missiles at very long range. My understanding it's a very capable system but, is reliant on separate fire control radars to provide mid-course guidance which is not necessary with the newer PAAMS system which our European allies use. Somebody else can fill-in capability details.

quote:

state-run news agency

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
I see the Russians will be selling them to Turkey; the fact that the ruskies are willing to do so (NATO member) tells you all you should know about trusting Turkey.

If they do, then sooner or later Turkey will sell or lend them to us.

Let's see how well they work after a couple of dozen nukes hit Moscow.

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
I see the Russians will be selling them to Turkey; the fact that the ruskies are willing to do so (NATO member) tells you all you should know about trusting Turkey.

Turkey needs to be kicked the hell out of NATO.

They were brought in at a time when geography mattered and muslims knew their place. The former no longer matters and the latter has become a problem that needs to be solved.

They serve no strategic interest whatsoever and need to be smacked down.