the coming hypersonic revolution = end of the age of ICBMs?

[avatar]

Alright ladies and gentlemen ,
I propose to start a discussion on the implications of new generation hypersonic aircraft on issues such as interceptibility of ICBMs and indeed in the payload delivery role , wherein they may replace ICBMs.

prof Paul Czysz's interview with AAG has set me thinking.

 

[sferrin]

No offense but shouldn't this be in the bar? It's not a project after all. (And do you have a link to Czysz's interview? )

 

[avatar]

none taken,


mods may shift it to the bar , no issues
here's the link
http://www.americanantigravity.com/articles/573/1/Paul-Czysz-Interview/Page1.html

However it does say aerospace discussions on any topics you like .....

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Aerospace forum is for non project discussions, so this is pefectly acceptable.

Not sure that the ICBM is *less* vulnerable than a hypersonic weapon, though?

 

[avatar]

right, aren't ICBM trajectories somewhat more predictable than the flightpath of a hypersonic plane?
even after taking into account the rather conspicuous heat signature?

 

[flateric]

What if ICBM - not HCV - carries several maneuvering CAVs (the aspect of FALCON program many are forget about)? Their trajectory is quite unpredictable as well.

 

[sferrin]

Probably depends on a lot of things. Are you talking about an ICBM type of vehicle that flies a depressed trajectory and then releases a hypersonic vehicle 500 - 1000 miles from it's target or something that is a hypersonic air-breather the full distance?

 

[sferrin]

What if ICBM - not HCV - carries several maneuvering CAVs (the aspect of FALCON program many are forget about)? Their trajectory is quite unpredictable as well.

It's vulnerability during boost-phase would be the same as an ICBM then. Maybe even midcourse as well. The CAVs don't begin manuevering IIRC until they're back in the atmosphere.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Folks,

This might help in the discussion. Things that make you go ,"hmm"

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/x-41.html

 

[sferrin]

Folks,

This might help in the discussion. Things that make you go ,"hmm"

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/x-41.html

that's the one Flateric was talking about.

 

[avatar]

Alright, one stream says that an ICBM system with the right kind of payload CAV launched in a depressed trajectory may offer greater "stealth". I have a feeling this type of thing would work better if operated as a Fractional orbital Bombardment system. for otherwise the ICBM would have to be launched in a general trajectory nevertheless , or the CAVs themselves would have to perform some deft maneuvering , as it were .

 

[sferrin]

Alright, one stream says that an ICBM system with the right kind of payload CAV launched in a depressed trajectory may offer greater "stealth". I have a feeling this type of thing would work better if operated as a Fractional orbital Bombardment system. for otherwise the ICBM would have to be launched in a general trajectory nevertheless , or the CAVs themselves would have to perform some deft maneuvering , as it were .

Well the launch would still be visible with a ballistic missile booster and thus still be detectable and interceptable in boost phase no different than any other ballistic missile. Midcourse would probably be the same.

 

[avatar]

yup it's correct that the launch would always be detectable .

however look at FOBS for what it is, a semi pre-positioning system in space that deploys stuff which doesn't really follow a predictable path ....

 

[SOC]

With massive heat signatures, I'd be willing to bet that SBIRS or a development thereof could track hypersonic vehicles operating at very high altitudes, making them vulnerable as well. Just a thought.

 

[avatar]

alright that brings me to the question ,

will a NCADE type system be able to intercept an ICBM , when launched from existing fighters , or will a hypersonic carrier be required here?

 

[SOC]

NCADE kill an ICBM? No. It's designed for shorter ranged and much slower targets of the SRBM/IRBM variety.

 

[sferrin]

alright that brings me to the question ,

will a NCADE type system be able to intercept an ICBM , when launched from existing fighters , or will a hypersonic carrier be required here?

NCADE is designed to hit the missiles at launch so you have to be in the vicinity of the launch site to hit it, and it doesn't have anything like the range of KEI. Wouldn't really matter what kind of ballistic missile it was.

 

[sferrin]

NCADE kill an ICBM? No. It's designed for shorter ranged and much slower targets of the SRBM/IRBM variety.

It's designed to hit them at launch, not at reentry, so I'd think what type of ballistic missile it is wouldn't matter.

 

[avatar]

I mean a NCADE derivative , larger ..., but then probably even flankers won't be able carry such a missile .


what kind of speeds will a hypothetical air-launched missile have to fly at if it is to intercept an object coming in at 7km/sec (beyond the obvious) . Of course I am not talking about the boost phase here . or



here's something from a thesis presented at maxwell in 2005

Survivability in a high threat environment is one of the hypersonic bombers most important characteristics.146 The hypersonic bomber’s high operating speed and flight altitude provide inherent defenses against fairly robust and integrated air defense systems (IADS). Current fighters will not be able to engage a hypersonic bomber. Few surface-to-air missiles
SAMs) have the capability to intercept a highflying hypersonic bomber successfully.
Consider for example, a Mach 7 hypersonic bomber against capable threats. The SA-5,
10, and SA-12 are used because they are capable high-altitude missiles that have unclassified parameters listed in Jane’s publications. Using the last test of the X-43 as an example a hypersonic bomber, parameters are 4900 mph (Mach 7) at 100,000 feet.5’s best missiles fly at speeds up to Mach 8 and are capable of striking targets at 130,000 feet.148 However, the maximum target velocity for the SA-5 is approximately 2600 mph, and therefore cannot hit a hypersonic bomber.
The SA-10 can fly at speeds up Mach 6 and hit targets as high as 150,000 feet but its maximum target speed is 2610 mph and thus cannot hit a hypersonic bomber at 100,000 feet. However, Jane’s claims the SA-12’s maximum target speed is over 6500 mph, or Mach 9.5. This is greater than the notional Mach 7 hypersonic bomber speed. Nevertheless, Jane’s claims the SA-12’s maximum effective altitude is 98,000 feet. Therefore, a hypersonic bomber can also operate unimpeded near an SA-12 “Giant” surface-to-air missile system.

The previous examples demonstrated that a hypersonic bomber stands a good chance of surviving against the best air defenses currently available. Survivability chances only go up as the speed increases. The Air Force Scientific Advisory Board claims a Mach 15 hypersonic bomber could elude any enemy missile defense systems.149 An anti-ballistic missile system (ABM), such as Russia’s Gazelle ABM-3 system could be a threat, but standoff weapons can counter it. Thus, it appears that air defense systems will have considerable difficulty against a hypersonic bomber and its fast flying warheads.

 

[sferrin]

I mean a NCADE derivative , larger ..., but then probably even flankers won't be able carry such a missile .


what kind of speeds will this hypothetical air-launched missile have to fly at if it is to intercept an object coming in at 7km/sec (beyond the obvious)



here's something from a thesis presented at maxwell in 2005

Survivability in a high threat environment is one of the hypersonic bombers most important characteristics.146 The hypersonic bomber’s high operating speed and flight altitude provide inherent defenses against fairly robust and integrated air defense systems (IADS). Current fighters will not be able to engage a hypersonic bomber. Few surface-to-air missiles
SAMs) have the capability to intercept a highflying hypersonic bomber successfully.
Consider for example, a Mach 7 hypersonic bomber against capable threats. The SA-5,
10, and SA-12 are used because they are capable high-altitude missiles that have unclassified parameters listed in Jane’s publications. Using the last test of the X-43 as an example a hypersonic bomber, parameters are 4900 mph (Mach 7) at 100,000 feet.5’s best missiles fly at speeds up to Mach 8 and are capable of striking targets at 130,000 feet.148 However, the maximum target velocity for the SA-5 is approximately 2600 mph, and therefore cannot hit a hypersonic bomber.
The SA-10 can fly at speeds up Mach 6 and hit targets as high as 150,000 feet but its maximum target speed is 2610 mph and thus cannot hit a hypersonic bomber at 100,000 feet. However, Jane’s claims the SA-12’s maximum target speed is over 6500 mph, or Mach 9.5. This is greater than the notional Mach 7 hypersonic bomber speed. Nevertheless, Jane’s claims the SA-12’s maximum effective altitude is 98,000 feet. Therefore, a hypersonic bomber can also operate unimpeded near an SA-12 “Giant” surface-to-air missile system.

The previous examples demonstrated that a hypersonic bomber stands a good chance of surviving against the best air defenses currently available. Survivability chances only go up as the speed increases. The Air Force Scientific Advisory Board claims a Mach 15 hypersonic bomber could elude any enemy missile defense systems.149 An anti-ballistic missile system (ABM), such as Russia’s Gazelle ABM-3 system could be a threat, but standoff weapons can counter it. Thus, it appears that air defense systems will have considerable difficulty against a hypersonic bomber and its fast flying warheads.

There have been efforts in the past to address these kinds of targets (in studies anyway). Basically you need something like an atmospheric KKV. Very manueverable and uses thrusters for manuever. They generally don't have a lot of range though. You'd need something like an X-51 to run down a Mach 6 bomber.