Defense against Hypersonic Glide Vehicles

So, sort of like european gpi? Any deployment timetable available? Mid to Late 2030s maybe?
 
totoro said:
So, sort of like european gpi? Any deployment timetable available? Mid to Late 2030s maybe?
Click to expand...
Yes, I think so, but it seems intended to cover a fairly broad range of threats.
TRL 6 - 2030
TRL 9 - 2035

Two consortiums are competing for the next phase of EU funding : HYDEF and HYDIS (Aquila).

https://www.forcesoperations.com/duel-de-haut-vol-entre-hydis-et-hydef/
Which of the 2 hypersonic threat interceptor projects will continue its path with the support of the European Union? Only one concept will receive a new allocation from the European Defence Fund (EDF). For the other, the next chapter will depend on self-financing and possible state support.

In the end, will only one remain? Far from the tropical atmosphere of a certain reality TV show, 2 endo-atmospheric interceptor programs are putting everything on the line in an attempt to secure funding from the EDF.
On one side is HYDIS, led by MBDA France on behalf of France, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands. The United Kingdom is participating as an observer.
On the other side is HYDEF, led by Spain’s SMS and Germany’s Diehl, representing Belgium, Germany, Spain, Norway, and Poland.

For each of them, a 3-year conceptual phase will end this year or in 2027. Managed by OCCAr, this stage will lead to the selection of one concept per consortium. This should be completed by next August for HYDEF. Out of the 11 initial concepts, the 19 partners of HYDIS “have selected two potential concepts, and the selection will continue until reaching a single concept by the end of the year,” explained MBDA CEO Éric Béranger last week in Paris.

The next steps fall within the call for projects launched in December 2025 by the European Commission. The €100 million in subsidies it provides will allow the program to enter a maturation phase expected to lead to demonstrators (TRL 5) and lay the groundwork for two major upcoming milestones: achieving technological maturity at TRL 6 by 2030, and then an operational system (TRL 9) as of 2035.

Unless there is a last-minute reversal, the funding will be allocated to only one proposal. It is therefore difficult to imagine any outcome other than a head-to-head competition between HYDIS and HYDEF. For one of the 2 consortia, the next steps will have to be considered without European backing. OCCAr is not hiding this fact: any activity planned beyond 2026 remains subject to “approval of the second phase.” The HYDIS team goes even further, explicitly conditioning the continuation of its work on the results of the European call for projects.
Click to expand...

Hydef is mainly Patriot & Mk41 users (Spain/Germany lead + Poland/Belgium/Norway)
The Programme coordination within the HYDEF Consortium is led by the Spanish company SMS, based in Madrid, Spain, while the Technical Coordination, from the development of the overall system, is the responsibility of the German air defence systems company Diehl Defence, based in Lake Constance.
The Consortium integrates the following members: SONACA from Belgium; Diehl Defence from Germany; NAMMO from Norway; ILOT and ITWL from Poland; SMS, EM&E, GMV, Instalaza, INTA, Navantia and Sener from Spain.
Click to expand...

Hydis is mainly SAMP/T & Sylver users (France lead + Italy/Germany/Netherlands + UK as an observer)
The HYDIS Consortium is led by the French company MBDA FR who acts as prime contractor, and integrates the following companies: MBDA IT, MBDA DE, MBDA SP, ROXEL FR, Ariane Group SAS (FR), LYNRED (FR), ONERA (FR), Bayern Chemie (DE), TDW (DE), DLR (DE), OHB System AG (DE), Avio Aero GE Avio S.r.l. (IT), AVIO SpA (IT), C.I.R.A. (IT), Fokker Aerostructures B.V. (NL), Thales Nederland B.V. (NL), TNO (NL), THALES LAS (FR).
Click to expand...
 

Golden Dome Could Cost $1.2 Trillion Over 20 Years, CBO Says​

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/golden-dome-could-cost-1-2-trillion-over-20-years-cbo-says/
The architecture laid out in CBO’s report assumes four interceptor layers designed to target multiple missile types and to operate either independently or in concert with an associated command-and-control network:

  • A space-based constellation of 7,800 satellites each designed to take out up to 10 intercontinental ballistic missiles launched near simultaneously as well as hypersonic glide vehicle threats
  • An upper wide-area surface layer comprised of three Ground-Based Midcourse Defense sites, each with 60 Next-Generation Interceptors or Ground-Based Interceptors focused on engaging ICBM threats
  • A lower wide-area surface layer with four U.S.-based sites, each equipped with 48 SM-3 Block IIA interceptors to defeat ICBMs or hypersonic glide vehicles*
  • A “regional sector” layer with 35 interceptor and radar sites loaded with THAAD, SM-6 Block IB, and Patriot interceptors that can target ICBMs, glide vehicles, and cruise missiles
Click to expand...
*Presumably will include GPI too.

7,800 Interceptors In Space At Core Of $1.2 Trillion Golden Dome Cost Estimate​

https://www.twz.com/space/7800-inte...ore-of-1-2-trillion-golden-dome-cost-estimate

1778745344799.png
 
Last edited:
$60B a year is not that bad. Add some space based conventional strike weapons capable of strategic counter-force and we could probably cut the nuclear forces by ~90%. That would save anywhere from ~$40B/yr on warheads alone to ~$100B/yr if you include the cost of all the delivery platforms. The SSBNs could easily be converted to CPS and/or cruise missile platforms. ICBMs can either be retired or repurposed as interceptors carrying EKVs. Nuclear cruise missiles could be the bulk of our deterrent, and even conventional weapons can have massive counter-value effects these days.
 
CastleBravo said:
$60B a year is not that bad. Add some space based conventional strike weapons capable of strategic counter-force and we could probably cut the nuclear forces by ~90%. That would save anywhere from ~$40B/yr on warheads alone to ~$100B/yr if you include the cost of all the delivery platforms. The SSBNs could easily be converted to CPS and/or cruise missile platforms. ICBMs can either be retired or repurposed as interceptors carrying EKVs. Nuclear cruise missiles could be the bulk of our deterrent, and even conventional weapons can have massive counter-value effects these days.
Click to expand...
I've been assuming that any "Brilliant Pebbles" garage/lifejacket would also have a conventional kinetic brick to drop on any ground station engaging the Brilliant Pebbles constellation. Orbital mechanics says that the unit shooting back cannot be the same garage/lifejacket as the one getting engaged, at least not in a reasonable length of time.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I've been assuming that any "Brilliant Pebbles" garage/lifejacket would also have a conventional kinetic brick to drop on any ground station engaging the Brilliant Pebbles constellation. Orbital mechanics says that the unit shooting back cannot be the same garage/lifejacket as the one getting engaged, at least not in a reasonable length of time.
Click to expand...

I think we are going to see a variety of space based weapons for offense and defense, and yeah each bird will likely carry multiple types. Space is going to be the cheapest place to deploy strike weapons from once Starship is up and running. Elon still says it will be $10/kg to orbit. At that price, you can loft a Minuteman III size missile to orbit for about half a million and drop it more or less straight down. But the weapon doesn't need to be so big. You can cut the rocket motor to ~20% the size for ~3km/s Delta-V (about a 20-30% payload mass fraction), and you have something that can drop from ~250km to the surface in about a minute and a half, or less if you use lift to pull into a vertical dive as it enters air dense enough. How's that for a prompt strike weapon? And other weapons with a lot less rocket motor can be far cheaper and still strike as fast as current ballistic missiles. If you go all in on a space arsenal you really only need weapons on warships to defeat threats that are detected less than a few minutes away.
 
Last edited:
CastleBravo said:
I think we are going to see a variety of space based weapons for offense and defense, and yeah each bird will likely carry multiple types. Space is going to be the cheapest place to deploy strike weapons from once Starship is up and running. Elon still says it will be $10/kg to orbit. At that price, you can loft a Minuteman III size missile to orbit for about half a million and drop it more or less straight down. But the weapon doesn't need to be so big. You can cut the rocket motor to ~20% the size for ~3km/s Delta-V (about a 20-30% payload mass fraction), and you have something that can drop from ~250km to the surface in about a minute and a half, or less if you use lift to pull into a vertical dive as it enters air dense enough. How's that for a prompt strike weapon? And other weapons with a lot less rocket motor can be far cheaper and still strike as fast as current ballistic missiles. If you go all in on a space arsenal you really only need weapons on warships to defeat threats that are detected less than a few minutes away.
Click to expand...
What happens when a disabled satellite drops out of orbit after its attacked? A warhead designed to penetrate atmosphere and especially if containing heavy metals isn't going to burn up on re-entry.
 
DJK said:
What happens when a disabled satellite drops out of orbit after its attacked? A warhead designed to penetrate atmosphere and especially if containing heavy metals isn't going to burn up on re-entry.
Click to expand...

If an individual weapon is intact, it can be commanded to detonate over an unoccupied area. The fusing might also be designed to automatically detonate when it enters atmosphere if it hasn't been given a target. Otherwise, the Earth is big, and odds are highly in favor of no one getting hurt.
 
DJK said:
What happens when a disabled satellite drops out of orbit after its attacked? A warhead designed to penetrate atmosphere and especially if containing heavy metals isn't going to burn up on re-entry.
Click to expand...
Depends on the nature of the impact. If the KKV hits the warhead it will fragment it. If not, well, the warhead won't be hitting its target.
 
Sferrin said:
Depends on the nature of the impact. If the KKV hits the warhead it will fragment it. If not, well, the warhead won't be hitting its target.
Click to expand...
Its not just kinetic weapons, lasers or other things could inadvertently damage the comms or computers, so the self destruct mechanism isn't guaranteed to work. If the disabled sat hits the wrong country...
 
DJK said:
Its not just kinetic weapons, lasers or other things could inadvertently damage the comms or computers, so the self destruct mechanism isn't guaranteed to work. If the disabled sat hits the wrong country...
Click to expand...
Not our problem.
 
DJK said:
Its not just kinetic weapons, lasers or other things could inadvertently damage the comms or computers, so the self destruct mechanism isn't guaranteed to work. If the disabled sat hits the wrong country...
Click to expand...
Beats a nuke hitting some place important - it's a low bar but a relevant one.
 
Sferrin said:
Not our problem.
Click to expand...
The owner of whatever is hit might make it your problem, reasonably so or not. Sure they would blame whoever shot at it, but you put it up there.
 
DJK said:
Its not just kinetic weapons, lasers or other things could inadvertently damage the comms or computers, so the self destruct mechanism isn't guaranteed to work. If the disabled sat hits the wrong country...
Click to expand...

The weapon is an orbital spacecraft. Either it is intact and can be commanded to self destruct somewhere safe, or it is damaged and will not survive reentry. Even if it is just damaged electronics, the weapon can't survive reentry unless the deorbiting motor fires in the correct orientation to scrub off enough velocity, the weapon enters at the correct attitude, and the weapon flies the correct controlled lifting flight path to make it impact with max KE. Any additional heat the weapon gains from losing more KE to the atmosphere prior to impact than its ablative heatshield is designed to handle will result in the weapon being destroyed in the air.
 
If there are lumps of heavy metals on the spacecraft like tungsten or uranium (something that might make a useful kinetic weapon), they will survive reentry whether intended or not. Aluminium tends to burn up because of its melting point and tendancy to oxidise, and the tendancy to be spread around as structural element.
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/2060891063456342137
View: https://x.com/NatSecLedger/status/2060891063456342137?s=20

Two operational programs sit at the frontier of what non-kinetic warfare can reach. Talon LURCHER is designed to deliver non-kinetic effects against targets moving faster than Mach 20. At those speeds, data latency in the track and fire control loop makes conventional targeting geometry unreliable before a solution can even be computed. LURCHER develops and integrates technology specifically designed to close that gap, enabling consistent and accurate delivery of effects to fast-moving, long-range targets, and serving as the key technical enabler to properly aim the weapon system at hypersonic threats.
Click to expand...
Talon UPCYCLE operates in a different domain entirely. Using Compass Call SPEAR Gen 3 pods, it develops tactical counter-space EW systems capable of degrading, denying, disrupting, and deceiving adversary SIGINT and IFTU satellites in proliferated low Earth orbit. An aircraft that has spent decades dismantling adversary ground networks is now being extended into space. Electromagnetic Battle Management connects all of it to the force with real-time spectrum situational awareness, targeting Early Operational Capability in early FY2028.
Click to expand...
 
Can't really understand why there's a 1000km reduction in range for ASBM intercept capability vs general MRBMs. Also must note 3500km would be an IRBM.

Will it still be capable of exo-intercepts because it would be useful given Oreshnik and Iranian MRBMs/IRBMs? You really don't want to wait for Oreshnik to get back into the atmosphere, or start disseminating warheads.
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
Can't really understand why there's a 1000km reduction in range for ASBM intercept capability vs general MRBMs.
Click to expand...
I was wondering the same. Apparently, the MRBM range is based on a purely ballistic trajectory (reentry speed of 4500–4700 m/s), whereas the ASBM is expected to maneuver during the later stages of reentry.
 
With the growing Aster user base, now more than a dozen countries and most recently Greece, Sweden, Denmark and Portugal, with the Netherlands likely to follow, I really hope it goes to MBDA.

Especially because the two main Hydis countries, France and Italy, cannot really do without these systems, for their navies and their GBAD.

By contrast, the HYDEF countries are already major Patriot/Mk41 users, and in Germany’s case even Arrow 3 and soon AEGIS/SM-6 … How much is this a priority for them ?

Just as an example, is a consortium centred around Germany, Spain and Poland really going to design its interceptor around compatibility with a European VLS, non aegis CMS and integration into SAMP/T NG ?
 
Titus K said:
With the growing Aster user base, now more than a dozen countries and most recently Greece, Sweden, Denmark and Portugal, with the Netherlands likely to follow, I really hope it goes to MBDA.
Click to expand...
So is IRIS-T for that matter with a lot of small users.
Titus K said:
By contrast, the HYDEF countries are already major Patriot/Mk41 users, and in Germany’s case even Arrow 3 and soon AEGIS/SM-6 … How much is this a priority for them ?
Click to expand...
So just because they have a different system they don't need it?
Patriot gets used because its one of the best systems on the market with many of it users having it longer than Aster exists.
AEGIS is another huge player that whas choosen because currently it delivers capabilities no other western system has.
Titus K said:
Especially because the two main Hydis countries, France and Italy, cannot really do without these systems, for their navies and their GBAD.
Just as an example, is a consortium centred around Germany, Spain and Poland really going to design its interceptor around compatibility with a European VLS, non aegis CMS and integration into SAMP/T NG ?
Click to expand...
For one i believe a larger issue here is the fact that those programms aren't requiered to be designed for "open" use within EU systems and the other is how easily would EUROSAM make it for the HYDEF consortium so they can actualy integrate there system? In fact it would be more logical if instead of everyone doing there own system one would open but to creating a common baseline but this means lost business and revenue so of course it wont happen. While i can't say for certain if HYDIS could fit Sylver but SAMP/T shouldn't be a problem at all compared to Sylver but someone needs to create the demand and market for it.

Edit:
This goes both ways of course.
 
Last edited:
UK is observer on HYDIS, but is also pursuing solutions via AUKUS.
If one wants UK involvement in HYDEF .....
 

Lawmakers Push for More New Sensors to Track Hypersonic and Ballistic Missiles​

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/l...-ballistic-missiles-warning-polar-satellites/
“In the spirit of the Acquisition Transformation Strategy’s focus on delivering capability at speed and scale, embracing proven capabilities that are ready now, the committee directs the U.S. Space Force to prioritize acquisition and operational deployment of a full constellation of at least 45 space vehicles equipped with proven HBTSS payloads,” the committee wrote in a report accompanying the bill.
Click to expand...
 
Promising...

Forest Green said:

House panel ties Pentagon microreactors to Golden Dome mission​

https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/house-panel-ties-pentagon-microreactors-golden-dome-mission
House appropriators are urging the Pentagon to evaluate advanced nuclear reactors as a power source for Golden Dome, missile defense and Space Force missions, a move that comes as the Defense Department is establishing the organizations and regulatory framework needed to begin deploying military microreactors. In report language accompanying its mark of the FY-27 defense appropriations bill, the House Appropriations Committee wrote, “advanced reactors and microreactors have unique attributes that can ensure reliable power, have geographic flexibility
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 

The Last Frontier: European Manufacturers Move Ahead on Ballistic Missile Defense​

https://missilematters.substack.com/p/the-last-frontier-european-manufacturers
Frankenburg Technologies, which recently opened its first production facility in Latvia, is finalizing 100 million euros in Series B funding to develop and manufacture an anti-ballistic missile defense system.

According to the report, Frankenburg seeks to build a system competitive with the American Patriot at a substantially lower price point.
Click to expand...
European customers have had access to essentially two ballistic missile defense systems: the American Patriot, equipped with either PAC-3 MSE or PAC-2 GEM-T interceptors, and the Franco-Italian SAMP/T NG system, equipped with Aster 30 B1 and, soon, Aster 30 B1NT interceptors.

Supply chains for both systems are stretched.
Click to expand...
Diehl Defence is developing the IRIS-T SLX, which will reportedly offer some capability against theater ballistic missile threats
Click to expand...
*They've neglected to mention Israeli systems here.

The key metric in today’s environment is arguably not how reliably a single interceptor destroys a single missile, but rather what it costs to achieve a required intercept probability across multiple shots and salvos, and the ability to reconstitute arsenals in an ongoing conflict environment. Here, low-cost, mass-producible interceptors have an advantage — as shown in the figure below — provided they meet minimum requirements.
Click to expand...
1782651374830.png
Assuming a per-unit cost of $7 million (export cost is $6-7m, US internal cost is $4m) per Patriot PAC-3 MSE, as per recent export contracts, and a (generous) individual intercept probability of 70 percent per shot, it will typically be necessary to allocate two to three interceptors per target to meet operational requirements of 80 to 95 percent intercept probability per engagement, resulting in an engagement cost of $14-21 million per incoming ballistic missile.
Click to expand...
Several low-cost, lower-intercept-probability ballistic missile defense interceptors outperform the PAC-3 MSE at the engagement and salvo levels. For example, a ballistic missile defense interceptor with an intercept probability of “only” 20 percent but a per-unit cost of around $1 million falls below the PAC-3 MSE cost curve at relevant operational thresholds.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:

The Last Frontier: European Manufacturers Move Ahead on Ballistic Missile Defense​

https://missilematters.substack.com/p/the-last-frontier-european-manufacturers



*They've neglected to mention Israeli systems here.


View attachment 816516
Click to expand...
sure but looking at cost is not always the answer because the 1M dollar missile could take a similar amount of time to manufacture compared to the Pac 3 and therefore you neeed more misssiles for the same target, you also need t take into account the amount of missiles that can be fired from a single Ad sytem(including all launcher and and radars) at a time. So you need more launchers for the same capability and the launchers themselves cost a lot of money.



Not that easy to calculate.
 
lmaoxd said:
sure but looking at cost is not always the answer because the 1M dollar missile could take a similar amount of time to manufacture compared to the Pac 3 and therefore you neeed more misssiles for the same target, you also need t take into account the amount of missiles that can be fired from a single Ad sytem(including all launcher and and radars) at a time. So you need more launchers for the same capability and the launchers themselves cost a lot of money.



Not that easy to calculate.
Click to expand...
It does actually mention that in the article. Launchers can be reloaded between attacks but yeah, you have to keep up on manufacturing rate for it to work, however, a cheaper missile is cheaper for a reason, generally because it's simpler and quicker to make.
 
HYDIS/Aquila will be integrated on Mk41, great for the Netherlands whose FuAD would probably feature ESSM + Aster + HYDIS/Aquila + Tomahawk … we really need Aster integration.
Also good for the UK who has observer status.

It will also not use a ramjet by bayerchemie but a traditionnal SRB from AVIO.

The list of the main partner companies also suggests that Germany is focusing on HYDEF rather than HYDIS.

https://www.mbda-systems.com/hydis-...stone-towards-definition-european-interceptor

HYDIS REACHES ANOTHER KEY MILESTONE TOWARDS THE DEFINITION OF A EUROPEAN INTERCEPTOR​


The HYDIS Project has just achieved another significant milestone for the concept development of the future European counter-hypersonic and anti-ballistic interceptor by successfully completing its Final Concept Review. One interceptor concept has proven its relevance and has been selected by the Participating States (France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands), over the two concepts from the Initial Concept Review. This marks a significant step before the conclusive milestone of the Concept Phase in May 2027.

Over the past few months, the consortium partners led by MBDA have worked hard in all domains of the interceptor and weapon system design, renowned institutes, academics and start-ups - on the design and technology maturation activities. The technical activities encompassed the design studies to refine the solid rocket motor-based concepts to match our customer requirements.

The HYDIS team specifically established an extensive performance assessment to evaluate the interception capabilities and the area protection of the most promising concepts based on a simulation with enhanced representation of the several phases of the interceptor fly-out.

The selected interceptor concept has also benefitted from the unique expertise of consortium members, notably
  • AVIO for the Solid Rocket Motor propulsive architecture,
  • ArianeGroup and ROXEL for the final interceptor stage control mechanism
  • LYNRED for the terminal IR sensor.
All integrated in a coherent concept based on MBDA’s expertise in complex weapon systems.

The consortium has also made progress on integrating this interceptor into a complete weapon system.
  • Thales Netherlands has provided refined performance data for both naval and ground sensor suite options
  • GKN Fokker has gotten forward on the integrability assessment of the ammunition into the MK41s naval launcher.
The results of these studies were scrutinised by the HYDIS customer community (OCCAR – the Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation - and the 4 Participating States) along a period of six weeks, allowing a solid exchange and fruitful iterations among the customers and the consortium. The convergence week provided the opportunity to address, resolve and converge on all the technical questions, allowing the consortium to present a clear and agreed picture to the HYDIS nations Steering Committee on July 10th. This new milestone demonstrates the consortium's full expertise in the fields of hypersonic and ballistic threats, backed by in-depth knowledge of air defence systems. Together, the HYDIS team members leverage on a robust capability to design a sovereign, advanced interceptor, that is timely responding to Europe’s operational needs.

From now on until the end of the Concept Phase in 2027, the consortium will put all its effort into the refinement of a unique concept, paving the way for a strong technical basis for the following Programme phases.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • image.png
    image.png
    513.7 KB · Views: 7
Last edited:
Titus K said:
HYDIS/Aquila will be integrated on Mk41, great for the Netherlands whose FuAD would probably feature ESSM + Aster + HYDIS/Aquila + Tomahawk … we really need Aster integration.
Click to expand...
"GKN Fokker has gotten forward on the integrability assessment of the ammunition into the MK41s naval launcher."

Depends entirely on the US if they can same for HYDEF.....

The list of the main partner companies also suggests that Germany is focusing on HYDEF rather than HYDIS.
Click to expand...
If Bayern-Chemie GmbH offered the ramjet then its likely they where one of the 2 other concepts engine producer under HYDEF.
OHB and TDW as well as Mbda will probaly still do the usual minor stuff
 
kqcke for you said:
Depends entirely on the US if they can same for HYDEF.....
Click to expand...
Yes of course, but the prefered missiles for FuAD are rumoured to be ESSM+Aster+Tomahawk + hypersonic interceptor (either HYDIS or HYDEF).
If the US block Mk41 integration, the NL can always mix Sylver and Mk41, since HYDIS will be integrated in Sylver anyway for France and Italy… for example 48 Sylver (Aster/HYDIS) cells and 32 Mk41 (ESSM/Tomahawk)

kqcke for you said:
If Bayern-Chemie GmbH offered the ramjet then its likely they where one of the 2 other concepts engine producer under HYDEF.
OHB and TDW as well as Mbda will probaly still do the usual minor stuff
Click to expand...
I'm confident Bayern-Chemie was part of HYDIS.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom