You might want to put the hypersonic part in quotes, they’re basically just really expensive ballistic missiles that fly slightly faster. Considering their price tag, Russia would have probably been better off never developing them anyways
Yes, but afaik the hypersonic term applies to weapons over mach 4. NATO also adds additional requirements for hypersonics, such as manourerability. But they have enough speed to qualify.
Yes exactly, also each icmb would qualify (during re-entry they also pickup “some” speed)… but it seems like hypersonic is sort of a marketing sticker thing, like “green” and “low fat”.
The NATO hypersonics that are being worked on should be able to make evasive manouvera at speed, will be interesting to see.
They are also used against hypersonic missiles the Russians have (kinzal etc.) and ballistics like s300 and s400.
You might want to put the hypersonic part in quotes, they’re basically just really expensive ballistic missiles that fly slightly faster. Considering their price tag, Russia would have probably been better off never developing them anyways
Yes, but afaik the hypersonic term applies to weapons over mach 4. NATO also adds additional requirements for hypersonics, such as manourerability. But they have enough speed to qualify.
One could argue that, sure but if only the speed is important the nazi V-2 would qualify as a hypersonic
Yes exactly, also each icmb would qualify (during re-entry they also pickup “some” speed)… but it seems like hypersonic is sort of a marketing sticker thing, like “green” and “low fat”.
The NATO hypersonics that are being worked on should be able to make evasive manouvera at speed, will be interesting to see.
The S-300 and S-400 are anti-aircraft missile systems.
Yes they are, but in this conflict the Russians reconfigured some of them and use them in a ground to ground attackrole.
They had shortages of other tactical weapons and apparently a nice stockpile of these missiles.
Missile on missile violence?