Erik Prince on Sunday Morning Futures: The US has “No Means” to Shoot Down Russia’s Mach 9 Hypersonic Ballistic Missiles that Were Just Fired on Ukrai

[martybegan]

The US has “No Means” to Shoot Down Russia’s Mach 9 Hypersonic Ballistic Missiles that Were Just Fired on Ukraine​

....that we're willing to tell you about.

And when did old fashioned ballistic missiles have their named changed to "hypersonic"?

All the modern ones are just updates of a freaking V-2 made by the Nazis.

 

[Deadstick]

And when did old fashioned ballistic missiles have their named changed to "hypersonic"?

All the modern ones are just updates of a freaking V-2 made by the Nazis.

Well thousands of civilians were killed by the V-2 and don't forget the SCUD, but the Russian missiles of today are Hypersonic a different animal, we saw that a few days ago when they demonstrated it.

 

[martybegan]

Well thousands of civilians were killed by the V-2 and don't forget the SCUD, but the Russian missiles of today are Hypersonic a different animal, we saw that a few days ago when they demonstrated it.

How are they any different?

They follow a ballistic parabolic arc and go boom.

The last big change in the tech was the introduction of MIRV's in the 70's.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The industrial military complex won't make any money.

This Is Why Our "Allies" Could Afford to Creep Up on Us Economically

Yes, it will if we get out of NYETO and the Pacific Rim. The dozens of rich parasite countries will have to buy weapons from us instead of mooching off the American taxpayer.

What would we think if the Chinese filled the Caribbean with bases and ships? Let them have their Nine-Dash Line; it's none of our business.

 

[Deadstick]

How are they any different?

They follow a ballistic parabolic arc and go boom.

The last big change in the tech was the introduction of MIRV's in the 70's.

Well the V2 hit a speed of about 3.8k mph that Russian missile more than 8000 mph, you could tell by the vid the speed was unstopable.

 

[martybegan]

Well the V2 hit a speed of about 3.8k mph that Russian missile more than 8000 mph, you could tell by the vid the speed was unstopable.

Yes, it's an IRBM, and they have had those since the 60's.

An ICBM actually goes much faster.

 

[justoffal]

Yes, it's an IRBM, and they have had those since the 60's.

An ICBM actually goes much faster.

But the more important question here is can these be intercepted? If so....then why were they not intercepted?

 

[martybegan]

But the more important question here is can these be intercepted? If so....then why were they not intercepted?

There is no reliable way to intercept a true ICBM, especially one with MIRV warheads.

Short range ones are handled by Patriot and Aegis systems.

IRBMs are possible to intercept there has just not been many chances to try it.

 

[justoffal]

There is no reliable way to intercept a true ICBM, especially one with MIRV warheads.

Short range ones are handled by Patriot and Aegis systems.

IRBMs are possible to intercept there has just not been many chances to try it.

So despite everyone saying that nothing has changed there has actually been a substantial change. The missiles are effective enough to make Ukraine think twice about trying it again.

 

[martybegan]

So despite everyone saying that nothing has changed there has actually been a substantial change. The missiles are effective enough to make Ukraine think twice about trying it again.

IRBM's aren't usually used for conventional attacks. Since they are between an SRBM and an ICBM obviously the chance of intercepting is between those two.

 

[justoffal]

IRBM's aren't usually used for conventional attacks. Since they are between an SRBM and an ICBM obviously the chance of intercepting is between those two.

My point is that this was a poor strategy with nothing really to be gained by it.
Russia did not collapse in fear and the retaliation was formidable.

 

[martybegan]

My point is that this was a poor strategy with nothing really to be gained by it.
Russia did not collapse in fear and the retaliation was formidable.

Oh, the whole current western strategy is suspect, I Just point out hypersonic is way of calling old tech to pretend it's something new.

 

[Mushroom]

OK, now to be accurate, the US does have systems that can shoot it down. However, none of them are actually in the theater.

Now take a good hard look at that "article". Notice what was missing? Go on, take a look and see if anything actually stands out.

What US missile defense systems are there that might intercept it?

Gee when you are talking about missile defense, if you want to sound actually knowledgeable you might want to actually discuss the actual systems that are available. Otherwise, it just comes off as either somebody talking our their arse, propaganda, or both.

Now of the missile defense systems in the theater, that actually is correct. There are none that are capable of intercepting an IRBM. However, as the only real missile defense systems in the region are PATRIOT, and S-300/400, that once again means nothing. The PATRIOT was never intended to be used against an IRBM. And while Russia claims that the S-300/400 can intercept an IRBM, most pretty much dismiss that claim. In fact, the entire S-300/400 reliability and ability has largely been called into question because of the many failures of it on both sides in this conflict.

Then another important question, was there actual air defense assets in place where this missile hit? No nation has any kind of "blanket shield" that can defend everywhere. You place your ADA assets around critical targets, and only engage inbound threats to those targets. If kinda sucks, but if your mission is to defend a military hospital and you see an inbound missile has targeted a civilian housing area nearby, you just have to let it go. Because the civilian housing is not your defended asset.

But what does the US have that can defend against an IRBM? Well, two come to mind immediately.

First off, there is THAAD. But there is no THAAD in theater, so other than the theoretical there is not much reason to discuss it other than IRBMs are indeed within it's capabilities.

Then you have the one system that is in the region but not in the theater that can also take out that missile. And I find it particularly puzzling that myself, a retired Marine and Soldier has to bring up something that a former Naval Officer failed to mention. The AEGIS missile system and the SM-3 missile. The Navy has put a lot more work into missile defense like this than the Army has, because they have ships. And it is easy to throw a 6 million watt RADAR onto a ship, it's kinda impossible to make any mobile RADAR system that is much more powerful than around 500 watts. And when it comes to threats like IRBMs and ICBMs, ultimately the power of the RADAR used to track the threat is of critical importance.

Which is where we reach the strange hybrid that is AEGIS Ashore. Something that Poland and Romania have, which pisses off Russia. In essence, a shore mounted AEGIS system, with the SM-3 missile intended to take out ICBMs and all lesser threats. However, it is not portable at all. But it would not surprise me when this is over if Ukraine elects to but some of those systems as well.

Then finals you have GMD. But no, that one is off the table as it is for use against ICBMs. Sure, it can intercept an IRBM, but that is not their job. Plus where they are located, they could never intercept an IRBM in Europe.

 

[Mushroom]

I Just point out hypersonic is way of calling old tech to pretend it's something new.

Hell, the US played with the idea of an "Air Launched Ballistic Missile" about seven decades ago.

They designed it, tested it, even put some into service. Then after only a couple of years tossed them all away as ultimately it was a rather silly weapon concept.

However, the younger generations love their buzz words. In essence, throw exciting buzz words on almost anything, and they absolutely eat it up.

 

[martybegan]

Hell, the US played with the idea of an "Air Launched Ballistic Missile" about seven decades ago.

They designed it, tested it, even put some into service. Then after only a couple of years tossed them all away as ultimately it was a rather silly weapon concept.

However, the younger generations love their buzz words. In essence, throw exciting buzz words on almost anything, and they absolutely eat it up.

Didn't the AIM-54 Pheonix use a ballistic arc?

 

[whitehall]

Prince has been out of the game for more than 15 years. What's his angle? He would have gotten a visit from the FBI years ago for an opinion relating to America's missile capability but times have changed.

 

[Zavulon]

Russia failed to demonstrate, again, that they can hit a high value target with any degree of accuracy. When we test our weapons, like cruise missiles, we hit a building on a target often hundreds, if not thousands of miles away, and usually can hit with zero CEP.

"Zero" if you count it in miles. Tens and hundreds meters if you count it as a "precise" weapons. This is one of the reasons why "The Global Prompt Strike" program was de-facto cancelled.

What was the target for this IRBM with a conventional or dummy warhead in Ukraine? What did they actually destroy?

They put 36 warheads in one Yuzhmash plant. Every warhead as they said, hit their targets within 2 meters. Isn't it good enough to kill a Minuteman III silo?

 

[Zavulon]

How are they any different?

They are precise, reliable, mobile and easy clandestinable. And they bear a lot of warheads.

 

[martybegan]

They are precise, reliable, mobile and easy clandestinable. And they bear a lot of warheads.

According to who?

Ballistic Missiles have been going "hypersonic" since the 60's.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

And when did old fashioned ballistic missiles have their named changed to "hypersonic"?

All the modern ones are just updates of a freaking V-2 made by the Nazis.

It just sounds sexier and dangerous!