Russian Avantgard hypersonic missile officially commissioned

[Skybird]

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/...142922561.html


This is a potential game changer. If successful, it could neutralise a whole defence dogma. The US is working on such missiles itself, but lags behind by several years. A working defence against these missiles so far has not been proven to exist anywhere.



Who said the cold war ever ended?

[Onkel Neal]

The best move now is to join up with Russia.

[ikalugin]

This is not a new thing - HGVs have been in development for a long time. This specific desighn has roots in the Soviets counter SDI efforts and is going to be fielded in a very limited/nichie manner, with ~12 craft (2 now, 4 next year and 6 in 2021).

[mapuc]

I guess right now the best defense USA have is their THAAD.

I'm pretty sure in the future USA and it's allied will have developed some SAM-system to take care of these missile
Maybe not a 100 % safe system.

I remember when S-400 was developed. I remember how some of my friends said, there is no cure against these SAM...month perhaps years later I saw an interview with some high ranked office who said we have found a way to deal with this S-400 System.

Markus

[ikalugin]

The isssue with HGVs (and MaRVs for that matter) is that hit-to-kill exo atmospheric interceptors do not work well against them and this is what US is focussed on.


The other issue is with sensors - US would need to deploy a new sensor network to detect and reliably track them post boost (boost is detected just fine with existing space based sensors).


But yes, it is not magical and is there to compliment the overall Russian force, not to replace it. Now, the announcement of desire to buy 120 Sarmat heavy ICBMs by 2027 - that would be spicy.

[Jimbuna]

This certainly looks like a game changer if even for only a short while.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

This is not a new thing - HGVs have been in development for a long time. This specific desighn has roots in the Soviets counter SDI efforts and is going to be fielded in a very limited/nichie manner, with ~12 craft (2 now, 4 next year and 6 in 2021).

Even without being MIRVed, 12 of these missiles are fully sufficient to guarantee a fully believable second-strike capability. 12 such missiles could wipe out Paris, London, Berlin, New, Washington, Los Angeeles, Bejing, Tokyo...


Tracking the glider in flight and concluding on its target, is impossible, since it can change flight path while being enroute. Existing missile interceting technology cannot keep up with it due to tracking problems and the immense speed.


Right now, if its tehcnology works reliable, Putin is eright, This beast currently is invincible. And I think it will stay this way for long time. Laser weapons in space, a whole network of these, are still a long time away.


And I wonder if we really want to go this way. Its all madness, and its not as if on earth we already are running short in supply for madness.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Even without being MIRVed, 12 of these missiles are fully sufficient to guarantee a fully believable second-strike capability. 12 such missiles could wipe out Paris, London, Berlin, New, Washington, Los Angeeles, Bejing, Tokyo...
Tracking the glider in flight and concluding on its target, is impossible, since it can change flight path while being enroute. Existing missile interceting technology cannot keep up with it due to tracking problems and the immense speed.
Right now, if its tehcnology works reliable, Putin is eright, This beast currently is invincible. And I think it will stay this way for long time. Laser weapons in space, a whole network of these, are still a long time away.
And I wonder if we really want to go this way. Its all madness, and its not as if on earth we already are running short in supply for madness.

There is a bit more of nuance here. In order to work as a second strike weapon it needs to be launched on early warning data (so called LoW stance) before the enemy attack arrives, because with 12 silos it is not unlikely that the enemy may destroy them all in one go. If this is indeed the method that they are operating under then there is a trade off - the same booster can carry 6 independent RVs with penetration aids package, which present more targets to the enemy, have better destructive capability and so on.

My hypothesis is that those specific weapons (two regiments of six for total of twelve) are there to ensure the LoA stance (attacking after detonations are confirmed on home soil) for the rest of the force (surviving silos, mobile launchers, submarines and so on) by being on LoW stance themselves and taking out key missile defense enabling targets in US, which would allow other surviving missiles to pass through the now dead missile defenses.

Moreover if the attack is not confirmed (via detonations on the home soil) they, unlike ICBMs, may, in theory atleast, be recalled if proper measures are taken (ie comm gear on the gliders themselves) before striking their targets and thus removing the most significant problem with LoW stance - launch on false warning.
There is some circumstancial evidence towards this being the case but nothing conclusive so far that I am aware of.

In any case - this is a low scale (12 vs 1200) early adoption type deal - to work out how the new technology works, how it should be employed and so on.

[Skybird]

Thats a bit like concluding from that a Tomahawk cruise missiles can be emergency-detonated via remote control this means it was the primary intention to design a weapon that can break off an attack it was laucnhed on. Or that a plane was designed with the primary purose of ejecting the pilot with a rocket seat.

All this is secondary, and backup. Not the project-leading idea. You do not buy a car so that you can wear seat-belts. You buy a car to drive from A to B. Seat-belts are just part of the deal.

And personally I found this differentiation between first and second strike weapons, defensive and offensive weapons, always misleadding and more aiming at the PR and propaganda side of things. There are just defensive and offensive decisions. And if i decide to strike the enemy first, then even a shield that I use to break the other's head turns into an offensive weapon.