Russian Navy to have nigh-unstoppable hypersonic missiles by 2018

[Deleted]

I know they're extremely well protected. I just don't know what their protection entails that could intercept and deflect or destroy a hypersonic missile.

or more importantly, the 80-100 you can buy for 150 million.

[Kellhound]

I know they're extremely well protected. I just don't know what their protection entails that could intercept and deflect or destroy a hypersonic missile.

They, at a minimum, have the ability to destroy the launch and targeting platforms, and depending on reaction times they have a chance to mission kill an incoming missile even at 6000km/h.

[Schattenlied]

Hence why nearly every US ship the past ten years has been built as being net-energy generators and older ones are being retrofitted with hybrid-electric drives and/or drive shafts.

Lasers and rail guns will need a LOT of power, and the Navy has been building a fleet ready for them for years.

Considering the immense power draws these weapon systems will have, it surprises me that so many of our warships still run on conventional fuels instead of nuclear reactors... Even the Zimwalt Destroyers still use gas turbine engines, and they are the most likely candidates to be fitted for these weapons.

[Stacyrect]

https://www.rt.com/news/340397-russi...es-hypersonic/

The military race sure is heating up. How will Russia's enemies respond to this news?

I'm absolutely positive America has hyper sonic missiles. Years ago we were testing drones flying at mach 21-22 that were flying out of their skins. At those speeds you could go from LA to New York in 7 minutes.

[Skroe]

Considering the immense power draws these weapon systems will have, it surprises me that so many of our warships still run on conventional fuels instead of nuclear reactors... Even the Zimwalt Destroyers still use gas turbine engines, and they are the most likely candidates to be fitted for these weapons.

Well that's a bit of a complicated thing that happened.

The last nuclear powered cruiser the Navy had was the Virginia class (not to be confused with the Virgina Class attack sub, which came later). They were very modern, but they came along when two things happened.

(1) the Aegis Combat system and the VLS tubes showed up. Virgina-class subs had neither although they could be retrofitted to support both (and both was on the table).

(2) It became clear that at the time, it would be cheaper to operate conventionally powered destroyers and cruisers.

Fundamentally what got the Navy out of the nuclear surface fleet business is actually #1 up there. Every large surface ship ship that was pre-Aegis, pre-VLS or was scheduled to recieve the New Threat Upgrade (kind of semi-aegis retrofit) ended up surving a decade and a half less than their porjected lives. The decision was made to just go with an all new-Aegis design, which was the 1991 Areligh Burke-class (which lets be clear, is really a post-Cold War vessel... the Spurance class and the Ticonderiga class were the late Cold War destroyers). Similarly the Spruance class was rapidly retired and rapidly scrapped in the early 2000s.

The fact that the Arleigh Burke class was conventional, as opposed to nuclear, was cost driven, but it was really the fact that the Virginas didnt have VLS and Aegis that drove them to an early retirement while the Spruance-based Ticondgergia were kept. And they were real cruiser-hull forms. The Ticondergia was classified as a Destroyer originally.

In the early 2000s, the navy planned to replace both the Arleigh Burke destroyers and the Tichondergia cruisers with the DDG(X) and the CG(X), which would have a common hull-form (the CG(x) being much larger), but the DDG(X) would have been conventional and the CG(X) would have been nuclear. CG(X) was canceled due to the DDG(X) program, now know as the DDG-1000 program, having substantial delays and cost overruns. The CG(X) role will filled starting in 2018 by the Flight III Arliegh Burke Destroyers, which are designed for air defense (the first 6 are being build now).

Last year the Navy began very initial outlining of the future large surface combatant program... basically a unified Cruiser/Destroyer, to replace all the Ticondergia cruisers and the Flight I, Flight II and Flight IIA Arleigh Burke-Destroyers, sequentially, starting around 2028-2032 (yes, a warship is a 15 year program nowdays, easily). By order of congress, the Navy is required to report if it would be more economical that they be nuclear powered, because it turned out, that due to the cost of oil in the 21st century, it would have been more economical to have a nuclear surface fleet.

What makes the Navy away from nuclear power is the cost of mid-life refueling... basically the period halfway through the life of a ship where the ship comes in for about three years to be cut open and have it's nuclear core refueled and refurbished. It's expensive and takes a ship out of the fleet, for years sometimes.

In the past decade, advances in designs have enabled the development of "life of the ship" reactors that will make ships not need Nuclear refueling. While the Ford Class carrier is not compatible with this technology, the Ohio (ballistic missile submarine) Replacement Program is, which is why the Navy is asking for 12 subs instead of 14... it will get more deployments out of 12 that never need mid-life refueling over the next 35 years (starting in 2025 that is), that it would 14 that need mid-life refueling.

A life of the ship reactor would make a nuclear destroyer/cruiser very attractive, which is why it is being looked at.

This entire story by the way, is why the Navy will never buy diesel electric submarines. They'll never let that technology get a foothold incase it replace the nuclear attack submarine force, as it has elsewhere. That said, US defense firms are deeply involved in that technology and the US is very content with letting our European allies make very advanced diesel-electric attack subs. That's great for the waters around Europe, the North Sea, and the Atlantic. But 60% of the US Navy is in the Pacific, far from a safe harbor. It's not something they want to get involved in.

As far as the question of ship power generaiton goes, we posted some stuff a few threads ago, and Ill see if I can dig it up.

Off the top of my heads, the hybrid-energy generation of the DDG-1000 class generates 78 Megawatts. For a Laser powerful enough to destroy almost any ballistic missile or cut a hole in any ship, you'd need ~20MW. However for anti-ship misiles, cruise missiles, guided bombs, aircraft, drones, gliders, attack aircraft (that sort of thing), you can make due with 500kw-5MW. The Arleigh Burke class gas turbines currently generate around 9 MW, but with a retrofit, turbines exist in their size ranged that can go up to 12MW now. This is an improvement from 20 years ago, when they were generating around 4MW and like all ships going back to whenever, had to turn off systems when not in use (the ship operated at a net energy deficit).

Basically, the DDG-1000, with a conventional hybrid engine, are powerful enough to carry a laser or rail gun capable of destroying basically anything, while the DDG-51 class can do smaller-midsized things, but not things on the level of intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Notably also, the Ford Class carrier's energy usage is between one quarter and one half it's generating capability. They navy will put big defense lasers on it in the future, but also, that power is there just in case electric-powered drones and aircraft show up in the ship's projected 50 year life range (in fact, the last of the Ford-class, likely highly modified, if built around 2055 as expected, will serve into the first decade of the 22nd century, so that's how forward thinking they need to be)

A slides to help put things in perspective.



- - - Updated - - -

I'm absolutely positive America has hyper sonic missiles. Years ago we were testing drones flying at mach 21-22 that were flying out of their skins. At those speeds you could go from LA to New York in 7 minutes.

As I wrote, America's Hypersonic program is fundamentally different.

China and Russia are focusing on (comparatively) limited range "gliders", that rely on a boost phase, typically a rocket or ballistic missile, and a second (or third) stage that takes the place of a ballistic warhead and can fly a guided hypersonic trajectory. They, like ballistic warheads, unpowered. The way to think of this is they get a boost into the air, then the "sprint" past missile defenses with their powered rocket stage, while the glider detaches and manuevers to it's target.

While the US has worked for years on such weapons, but mostly as experimental platforms to get the shape of a hypersonic vehicle right. What the US wants is completely different. Instead the US is aiming for POWERED Hypersonic Flight. The drone or missile or vehicle based around this technology would be mostly (missile, drone) or entirely (vehicle) self propelled. Such vehicles would not only have incredible speed, but incredible range.

One reason the Obama Administration has put so much money into this type of hypersonic program is it is believed that such a system could allow the US to drastically cut it's nuclear arsenal. It wouldn't have to target every ballistic missile Russia has with a ballistic missile of it's own. instead, it could use Hypersonic Global Strike Weapons, and have a lot more of them per target, relying on pure kinetic energy (or conventional explosives) rather than nuclear ones.

It would also give the US a medium deterrent... above an air or drone strike, but below a nuclear strike, to give a President more military flexibility. For example if China blew up a US carrier or something, it would give the US an option other than launching a nuclear war.

This type of hypersonic is at least a decade, probably more, beyond what China and Russia are capable of experimentally testing. But they're often confused in the popular press (and sometimes, intentionally so by lobbyists for more money in op-eds and interviews). But they're very different. Russia and China are basically militarizing a technological test bed, while the US has moved well past that test bed and is working on a global weapon. You can't turn Russia and China's hypersonic missiles into more than A2/AD platforms.


The truth is, the Pentagon doesn't want a glider like China's. Those are too defensive. They want a powered drone that can attack the outskirts of Moscow or Beijing in under 30 minutes after being launched from Texas.

- - - Updated - - -

or more importantly, the 80-100 you can buy for 150 million.

As I wrote, you'd 100 wouldn't be nearly enough. You;d need on the order of 10,000, and that wouldn't even be near enough.

Let me put it this way. In 2003, US used around 850 Tomahawk cruise missiles attacking a shitty military like Saddam Hussein's iraq, a fraction the size and potency of the US. That's after 415 five years earlier during Operation Desert Fox. That was one quarter the stockpile at the time. It took 2.5 years to build it back up. The only reason it's so large now is the Tomahawk line was scheduled to go idle while the US planned the Tomahawk successor program, and it's been producing Tomahawks non-stop (wth limited usage) since 2003.

For the US to attack china with purely ballistic missiles, would require many, many thousands.

[Deleted]

Nothing new here, just more RT propaganda. Move along.

Yes, about every month Russia are annons a major new amazing project, every month in silence Russia cancels or pospond a old major amazing project.

[Annoying]

Those puny lasers couldn't even fry an egg.

That's cute. I'll let you pull out a thermodynamics textbook and see what a 10kw laser can do (old tech...) much less a modern one. We have publicly released videos of them shooting down modern drones, and a missile can't steer like a drone can.

[Skroe]

That's cute. I'll let you pull out a thermodynamics textbook and see what a 10kw laser can do (old tech...) much less a modern one. We have publicly released videos of them shooting down modern drones, and a missile can't steer like a drone can.

Nevermind the 150kw lasers being tested now, or the 500kw lasers about five years out.

[Crispin]

Those puny lasers couldn't even fry an egg.

My knowledge of lasers is pretty much non-existent, but this one is doing more than frying eggs tho.



And that video is from 2014.


Dissapointed that they didnt add some kind of red laser light to it tho

[Deleted]

These are basically Aircraft Carrier killers, aren't they? They don't even have to directly hit them, a close enough detonation is enough.

Some people claim lasers can hit them. I think they could in theory, but I am not sure if it's even possible to actually get one targetted on hypersonic missile. Anyone got any idea about that?

[Deleted]

Let me put it this way. In 2003, US used around 850 Tomahawk cruise missiles attacking a shitty military like Saddam Hussein's iraq, a fraction the size and potency of the US. That's after 415 five years earlier during Operation Desert Fox. That was one quarter the stockpile at the time. It took 2.5 years to build it back up. The only reason it's so large now is the Tomahawk line was scheduled to go idle while the US planned the Tomahawk successor program, and it's been producing Tomahawks non-stop (wth limited usage) since 2003.

For the US to attack china with purely ballistic missiles, would require many, many thousands.

We were talking about a naval engagement.
Not large scale war - Because if we aren't, naval engagements doesn't even matter.

- - - Updated - - -

These are basically Aircraft Carrier killers, aren't they? They don't even have to directly hit them, a close enough detonation is enough.

Some people claim lasers can hit them. I think they could in theory, but I am not sure if it's even possible to actually get one targetted on hypersonic missile. Anyone got any idea about that?

The problem is ultimately cost.
For capital ships, you can have 1/100 effectiveness ratio of the missile and its still a very good deal.

[Skroe]

We were talking about a naval engagement.
Not large scale war - Because if we aren't, naval engagements doesn't even matter.

Even for a Naval engagement, you'd still need many, many hundreds.

A single carrier strike group would have hundreds of SM-3s and SM-6s, not to mention ESSMs at it's disposal. The only attack that would be effective against defenses would be a saturation attack. That would require hundreds upon hundreds of missiles.

Keep in mind what 1000 of your $150 million missile would cost you - $150 billion. Suddenly your defense system is something pretty much only the US could afford.

[Deleted]

Even for a Naval engagement, you'd still need many, many hundreds.

A single carrier strike group would have hundreds of SM-3s and SM-6s, not to mention ESSMs at it's disposal. The only attack that would be effective against defenses would be a saturation attack. That would require hundreds upon hundreds of missiles.

Keep in mind what 1000 of your $150 million missile would cost you - $150 billion. Suddenly your defense system is something pretty much only the US could afford.

no i said a 100 missiles could cost about 150 million.
which would make the 1000 you would need to make a sizeable dent cost 1.5 billion, within reach of other states - Which still is dwarfed by the cost a single US carrier, or the group as a whole.
Put it this way, No other state could (or would want to) put sufficient money into building a naval force to match yours in capabilities.
Building one that could deny yours, much cheaper and more doable.
In a scenario where Russia can negate your navy, it doesn't even need to do anything else, it can just leave you on the other continent - It would then have Eurasia, which is what both of you want.

[Deleted]

We have publicly released videos of them shooting down modern drones, and a missile can't steer like a drone can.

Try to aim at the same spot of supersonic missile, particularly when it rotates around its own axis.... practical anti missile lasers are still far into the future.

[Skroe]

no i said a 100 missiles could cost about 150 million.
which would make the 1000 you would need to make a sizeable dent cost 1.5 billion, within reach of other states - Which still is dwarfed by the cost a single US carrier, or the group as a whole.
Put it this way, No other state could (or would want to) put sufficient money into building a naval force to match yours in capabilities.
Building one that could deny yours, much cheaper and more doable.
In a scenario where Russia can negate your navy, it doesn't even need to do anything else, it can just leave you on the other continent - It would then have Eurasia, which is what both of you want.

Sounds like a job for a B-21 stealth bomber, a stand off cruise missile, or a prompt global strike weapon to kick down the door and destroy the launch sites.

A2/AD is a waste of money. It's always easier for an attacker to overwhelm the defender. The US could just hold it's carriers back and do it's own saturation strike against the A2/AD sites.

[l33t]

Please. They can't even get a rocket to space after Ukrainian rocket-building company stopped making hardware for them.

[Deleted]

Sounds like a job for a B-21 stealth bomber, a stand off cruise missile, or a prompt global strike weapon to kick down the door and destroy the launch sites.

Once again, we were talking naval engagements, Missile ships, and submarines.

A2/AD is a waste of money. It's always easier for an attacker to overwhelm the defender. The US could just hold it's carriers back and do it's own saturation strike against the A2/AD sites.

You mean force the US to not have their carriers in forward positions, essentially negating them?
Think that's the point...

[Skroe]

Once again, we were talking naval engagements, Missile ships, and submarines.

You mean force the US to not have their carriers in forward positions, essentially negating them?
Think that's the point...

But that's not how it would work at all... the US would use all means at it's disposal to defend it's carriers.

You're describing something so abstract as to be basically worthless.

The US doesn't need to have it's carriers in a forward position day one... until long range attacks from the US onto the enemy's A2/AD allow them to be on day two.

This isn't hypothetical. This is the model the US deployed during the attacks on Iraq when Saddam Hussein fired Slkworms at US ships and Scuds at US bases. Once the A2/AD was broken, carriers moved in closer.

I think you're mistaking a carrier for a kick-down-the-door platform. It isn't. Those are stealth platforms and long range missiles of our own.

[Deleted]

Anti-Access/Area-Denial

It is the new(ish) term in use for a set of defense technologies designed to keep the US (or somebody else) from operating in a region due to the risk of being present in a region. For example a Surface to Air missile system like the Patriot or S-400 is an A2/AD system.



It's not that straightforward. We talk as ofit would be one $150 million missile versus one carrier, but really, it would be dozens of missiles. Perhaps hundreds.

Think back to whenever we get into one of those dumb talks with Ulmita about the S400. I keep saying the same thing "how many shots does your S400 have?) The answer is like 4-16 depending on what the US is flying against it. That's not nearly enough. Between long range glide bombs, cruise missiles, decoys, drones and actual aircraft, the S400 will find itself utterly saturated quickly.

That's the basic idea of how you attack a carrier, or anything else. Your need to fire enoug shots to make sure - really sure - that one gets through.

This is also why the US and USSR built tens of thousands of warheads at their peak. Because they didn't expect to use them all. They expected actually that upwards of 95% of their arsenal would be destroyed before it got off the ground or out of the sea. Or at their target. They built more, and MIRVd, so that that 5% could make a dent.

If China launches one $150 million Missile at a US carrier, it'll be faced with many hundreds of SM-3s and SM-6s, not to mention things like Evolved Sea Sparrows or whatever ballistic missile defense is on land near the carrier, or lasers that will be put out. It is a multi-layered defense in depth strategy. One missile? Won't get through. The kill chain is too big and complicated. Dozens of missiles would have a hard time.

And the thing is, if you actually struck a carrier, that's 5000 dead Americans, right there. Way more than even D-Day. So you need to prepare for the retaliation as well, so you're not just launching hypersonic gliders against one carrier, you're launching them against every warship there is, every air field in range, and the B-2 bomber force in Missouri.

Suddenly your $150 million missile has multiplied into a $1.5 trillion defense system as you need 10,000 of these things. And you'll probably need more. The US defense aparatus will need way more than 10,000 missiles if you aim to launch at things continuously. This is, after all, how we got to 30,000 Soviet warheads. The exact same thought process.

They scale very poorly.

Yes, with current tech, there are many multiple layers of defense, thus requiring many combined attacks to overwhelm them.

But isn't the entire point of a hypersonic missile to bypass at least some of those defenses, primarily by not giving them enough time to identify and react to the threat, and secondarily by simply being harder to intercept?

[caervek]

This may be a dumb question, but as missiles are much easier to defend against than torpedos, why does nobody try building long range high speed guided torpedoes? A quick Google shows Russia has 400 kph rocket torpedoes but they are a design from the late 70's, why don't they try and improve on this?