It's all fun and games until you get punched in the face. Keep us posted. We don't have systems to protect carriers from hypersonic missiles. Shit's about to get interestiing.
Better check your facts, fren. S3 is for ICBM at high altitude and ASAT and LEO sats. S6 is multi role but not designed for hypersonic. Phalanx or laser probably best bet.
You don't think carrier groups are threatened by ballistic missiles? Need to get up to speed with what the Chinese have developed and why the SM3 was developed. The satellite shot was only a demonstration, but it's good to have the capability.
The SM6 is capable of negating high-altitude and terminal ballistic missiles. The latter are close to hypersonic vehicles. The block IB version in development since 2018 will be specifically capable against current hypersonic missiles.
I checked my facts. You are still wrong. There is something else you are forgetting. Currently demonstrated hypersonic missiles are good against fixed targets only. They would need more development to be able to engage a moving target. A Mach 10 shockwave is a terrible thing for a sensor to try to look through.
Wrong. There are 44 interceptors in the Ground-Based Missile Defense (GMD) system, portioned between Alaska and California (vs. polar and oceanic threats).
The 44 missiles (and there are only 44) in the GMD have a very bad effectiveness rating of around 40%. North Korea and Russia combined have over 2,000 warheads ready for launch from silos or untraceable submarines at any time. The GMD is barely any protection at all against a real attack.
Our enemies could annihilate the U.S. in about 45 minutes if they decided to. The only deterrent is the fact that we are ready to do the same.
So, you were wrong on your original claim and now you are pettifogging over what constitutes an "adequate" defense. In the last 14 test flights from 2008 onward, only the last one was not a success, and they are working a corrective design to deal with that. The official estimate of single-shot kill is 56%, but a 4-on-1 engagement would be 97%. Our situation could be far better than this, but the SDI program (which I worked on) was denigrated and only grudgingly supported by Congress. No real popular support, so the paltry system we have is not a surprise.
Nuclear war strategy has long been against enemy military capability. Mutual Assured Destruction no longer is based on mutual genocide. North Korea's capability is next to zero. They have not demonstrated the ability to fuze a weapon at altitude, nor develop the required accuracy on target at operational range. They are exceedingly vulnerable to deterrence. Russia has no interest in attacking with ICBMs, unless attacked in kind. If tactical nuclear weapons are used in theater, that will be a signal to back off and not escalate any farther. Only a complete idiot would double down on nuclear combat. (But, hey, we have Joe Biden and his puppeteers...)
It's all fun and games until you get punched in the face. Keep us posted. We don't have systems to protect carriers from hypersonic missiles. Shit's about to get interestiing.
Tyson anon
Wrong. Standard 3 and Standard 6 missiles in escort vessels.
Better check your facts, fren. S3 is for ICBM at high altitude and ASAT and LEO sats. S6 is multi role but not designed for hypersonic. Phalanx or laser probably best bet.
You don't think carrier groups are threatened by ballistic missiles? Need to get up to speed with what the Chinese have developed and why the SM3 was developed. The satellite shot was only a demonstration, but it's good to have the capability.
The SM6 is capable of negating high-altitude and terminal ballistic missiles. The latter are close to hypersonic vehicles. The block IB version in development since 2018 will be specifically capable against current hypersonic missiles.
I checked my facts. You are still wrong. There is something else you are forgetting. Currently demonstrated hypersonic missiles are good against fixed targets only. They would need more development to be able to engage a moving target. A Mach 10 shockwave is a terrible thing for a sensor to try to look through.
We don’t have any systems to protect the continental US from ICBMs or hypersonic missiles, interestingly
Wrong. There are 44 interceptors in the Ground-Based Missile Defense (GMD) system, portioned between Alaska and California (vs. polar and oceanic threats).
The 44 missiles (and there are only 44) in the GMD have a very bad effectiveness rating of around 40%. North Korea and Russia combined have over 2,000 warheads ready for launch from silos or untraceable submarines at any time. The GMD is barely any protection at all against a real attack.
Our enemies could annihilate the U.S. in about 45 minutes if they decided to. The only deterrent is the fact that we are ready to do the same.
So, you were wrong on your original claim and now you are pettifogging over what constitutes an "adequate" defense. In the last 14 test flights from 2008 onward, only the last one was not a success, and they are working a corrective design to deal with that. The official estimate of single-shot kill is 56%, but a 4-on-1 engagement would be 97%. Our situation could be far better than this, but the SDI program (which I worked on) was denigrated and only grudgingly supported by Congress. No real popular support, so the paltry system we have is not a surprise.
Nuclear war strategy has long been against enemy military capability. Mutual Assured Destruction no longer is based on mutual genocide. North Korea's capability is next to zero. They have not demonstrated the ability to fuze a weapon at altitude, nor develop the required accuracy on target at operational range. They are exceedingly vulnerable to deterrence. Russia has no interest in attacking with ICBMs, unless attacked in kind. If tactical nuclear weapons are used in theater, that will be a signal to back off and not escalate any farther. Only a complete idiot would double down on nuclear combat. (But, hey, we have Joe Biden and his puppeteers...)