Scrapping ICBMs and converting to Hypersonic Missle systems

While I was reading through this paper and some of the related books and articles on the subject I thought about how the change over from an ICBM arsenal to a Hypersonic Missle system would impact US defense posture and what effect this would have on deterrence.

Assessing the Influence of Hypersonic Weapons on Deterrence: carlcgsc.libguides.com...

MAD was working fairly well during the Soviet cold war era but we must be more flexible in our deterrent now that there are more players involved and how quickly they can potentially attack us or our allies. The time from launch to hit the target at the speed of hypersonic missiles is too short to stop with current anti-missile systems. The paper linked above is a good place to start your query into this subject matter if you are interested.

a reply to: machineintelligence

Yeah but it's rather a cash cow. A golden dildo. Submarines would still kick asses. Hundreds of missiles would be needed without being spotted. The same caste who created China want to cash it out second time

a reply to: machineintelligence

An ICBM is most vulnerable in it's launch phase but once it's reached orbit it's pretty much going to get to it's target.

Hypersonic missiles are not really any different, just faster.

Want to stop them?
Better do it in space.
It's almost like we need a space force......😏

hybrid ICBMs regular ICBMs with guided Hypersonic reentry warheads.
these should be hard to hit and a wider inpact area for the warheads

a reply to: machineintelligence

Orbital velocity is around 18,000 mph. Mach 5 (generally the lower limit for something hypersonic) is about 3,700 mph.

ICBM's are suborbital rockets and normally would reach velocities of about 6-7 kilometers/second.

So, all ICBM's are hypersonic.

However, I think this paper refers to cruise missiles, which operate at a lower altitude, and can navigate through terrain that can hide their trajectory.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Hypersonic missile systems barely penetrate space, that said most nations dabbling in this tech are still in the testing phase.

The only way to intercept them in space would be to have a weapons platform directly above the launch area which wouldn't be accepted by any nation.

Accuracy will be their biggest problem, even nuclear weapons are useless 50 miles off their intended target.

a reply to: ANNED

I foresee hybrid ICBMs that replace MIRVs with HSGV delivery systems. Likely a Minuteman for instance will have fewer MIRVs and fewer but more capable hypersonic glide body systems that are more maneuverable and faster than predecessors. Peacekeeper missile systems on subs will likely be retrofitted similarly. In the same way, a precision-guided ordinance for tactical threats has allowed missile payloads to become smaller and more directed these hypersonic missile systems might allow tighter tactical nuclear strikes on critical hard targets.

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: Bluntone22

Hypersonic missile systems barely penetrate space, that said most nations dabbling in this tech are still in the testing phase.

The only way to intercept them in space would be to have a weapons platform directly above the launch area which wouldn't be accepted by any nation.

Accuracy will be their biggest problem, even nuclear weapons are useless 50 miles off their intended target.

Another problem with a space-based defense system against low altitude hypersonic missile attacks is the launch-to-intercept distance: space-based defense platforms would be required to cover hundreds of miles just to intercept their targets, especially if the (easily tracked) defense platform was "off point" when the attack was initiated.

A better solution might entail a defense platform "parked in 'near-space'" near expected targets, thus enabling a "Look Down, Shoot Down" arena denial defense.

You might want to look into the details of "Project Hazel", as well.

a reply to: machineintelligence

The united states better build some. That is if we haven't already.

Only thing that has gotten me worried about stability in the world are those new missiles. And now china has them.

How many other countries are russia and china sharing the tech with?

a reply to: Bluntone22

It's almost like we need a space force

Have needed one for a while.

Best thing trump did.

a reply to: machineintelligence

its too late for us... our rocket tech sucked compared to russias the past 40 years
and chinese already has the tech, they have the money,
brains....(1.4 billion more than us) and the dicipline..and teach REAL SUBJECTS.

no matter what we come up with, we will ALWAYS be 10 years behind them.
and russia already has s500 that is capable of shooting ours down..
IF WE EVER GET ONE THAT WORKS..
as for icbms.... we will use ours to install a glider on top, like russias Avanguard
our minuteman 3 icbm has maximum speed 15,000 mph (mach 23 )
so our glider dont really need to work,... just fall to earth without exploding first

and our problem WILL ALWAYS BE: the left vs. right, which states get contracts,
and just given to one of 2 manufacturers... IF THEY CAN EVER AGREE FIRST..

by then, 10 diffrent chinese companies with 100,000 employees EACH, are
all working on competing projects, with as much funding as needed,
the largest supercomputerS on earth,,, and THE ONLY WORKING QUANTUM NETWORK
with INCREDIBLE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE..
now i am done.




maybe thats why the left just rolled over, GAVE UP, gave in, and already surrendered us to china

a reply to: machineintelligence

ICBM's are already hypersonic.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yes, but I am sure you know the difference. ICBMs go out of the atmosphere and miles into space, then come back down in a very easy to plot trajectory. When talking about hypersonics we are talking about close to ground avoidance and maneuverability. This is a different task and a different weapon system but more updated for modern threats. It can use the same launch tubes if needed.

a reply to: machineintelligence

Have you followed the GMD tests at all? That "easy to plot course" is a hell of a lot harder to hit than you seem to think. Since 1999, they've run a total of 20 hit to kill tests, with a 55% success rate. The last hit to kill test was in 2019, and there hasn't been a threat representative test yet. The 2019 test was one of the only tests to use multiple kill vehicles, with one hitting the warhead, and one detecting other warheads or decoys. It's estimated that the system has a 56% chance of hitting a single warhead, if of kill vehicle is launched. That goes up to 97% if four are launched.


And that is for a system designed to hit in the mid course phase of flight. We still don't have anything to hit an ICBM in the terminal phase.

I recently read an article about the Navy swapping out deck guns on their stealth destroyers with hypersonic missiles:

Link
One of the stated reasons for swapping out the ships 155mm cannon with hypersonic missiles. I was trying to figure out how it could be possible that a newly developed, sophisticated missile system could be *cheaper* than what are presumably artillery shells? Well, turns out the 155mm cannons currently deployed with the ships are not firing just ordinary shells.

155mm Advanced Gun System

The Advanced Gun Systems and its automated magazines, each storing roughly 300 rounds, take up the vast majority of the ship forward of its deckhouse. The LRLAP round itself is a rocket-assisted and GPS/INS guided shell that weighs 230 pounds. It can fly up to around 75 miles from the ship and strike with pinpoint precision, even attacking at near vertical angles in dense urban and mountainous terrain.

a reply to: machineintelligence

Looks like this was addressed already, they aren't nearly as accurate as you seem to think.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

Personal opinion here but I think they're just trying to justify the costs of an expensive weapons system that was mostly scrapped. The ship was designed around that weapons system. Brilliant weapons system in theory, though I'd question the necessity of ships designed around close naval support which would most likely be part of a fleet which will have cheaper and effective alternatives. Especially when air superiority is usually a given with the US military.

Somewhat conventional munitions with over the horizon capabilities are cool yet missiles are tried and tested, work with past systems and have a lot more range. The Zumwalt class has integration issues apparently. An expensive stepping stone imho.