Putin's Hypersonic Missiles Should be Announced by the West As Escalation

[ancianita]

Russia's missiles are unseeable, unstoppable, and nuclear capable. That right there is escalation. Of course, the idea is that the West has to cower in fear at this spectre of nuclear annihilation. Putin gives the likely story that he only developed these weapons because the West forced him to, because the US withdrew from the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002. The US is third in hypersonic missiles, behind Russia and China.

Perhaps this is the pivot point of support for Russia by China. In that sense, their pincer formation could become stronger. Could they both strike? Yes. But in the economic sense, the cost to China of supporting Russia is not really worth China's short and long term economic weakening.

This is just the Zircon...

Hypersonic weapons such as Russia's 3M22 Zircon fly so fast and low -- at speeds of up to Mach 6 and at a low atmospheric-ballistic trajectory -- that they can penetrate traditional anti-missile defense systems.

The missile flies with an advanced fuel that the Russians say gives it a range of up to 1,000 kilometers. And it's so fast that the air pressure in front of the weapon forms a plasma cloud as it moves, absorbing radio waves and making it practically invisible to active radar systems.

U.S. Aegis missile interceptor systems require 8-10 seconds of reaction time to intercept incoming attacks. In those 8-10 seconds, the Russian Zircon missiles will already have traveled 20 kilometers, and the interceptor missiles do not fly fast enough to catch up.

According to Popular Mechanics, even if a U.S. ship were to detect a Zircon missile from 100 miles away, it would have only one minute to do something about it.

In order to intercept a Russian Zircon missile, the U.S. would either need to intercept it at launch or fly an object into its path.

Russia's shift to hypersonic weapons is likely a means of contending with American superiority in size, technology and sheer number of aircraft carriers. The U.S. Navy intends to maintain a force of 12 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.

By contrast, Russia has one -- and it deploys with a tugboat in case its engine breaks down.

While at sea, any of Russia's 15 Buyan-class corvettes will be able to carry up to 25 Zircon hypersonic missiles. It would take fewer than a half-dozen of those missiles to sink even the most advanced American aircraft carrier, such as the USS Gerald R. Ford.

Some say that innovations like the Zircon are moving the development of military technology away from aircraft carrier-based systems, calling for the U.S. Navy to reconsider the role of the carrier entirely.

Now for the nuclear capable Kinshal hypersonic ...

According to TASS, the first launch of Kinzhal in the Arctic took place mid-November, 2019. Reportedly, the launch was carried out by a MiG-31K from Olenya air base. The missile hit a ground target at "Pemboy" proving ground, reaching the speed of Mach 10.[31] In June 2021, a Kinzhal missile was launched by a MiG-31K from Khmeimim Air Base, on a ground target in Syria.[32] A separate aviation regiment has been formed, armed with MiG-31K aircraft with the Kinzhal hypersonic missile in 2021.[33]

Rumours in early February 2022 suggested that several MiG-31 interceptors armed with Kinzhal missiles were dispatched from Soltsy Air Base, Novgorod Oblast, to Chernyakhovsk Naval Air Base in Russia's western Kaliningrad exclave.[34][35][36][37] Russia's Aerospace Force launched Kinzhal hypersonic aeroballistic missiles on 19 February 2022.[38]

During the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the missile was reportedly used for the first time in combat. The Russian military said that it used Kinzhal missiles to destroy an underground weapons depot of the Ukrainian armed forces in Deliatyn on 18 March 2022.[39][40]

And then there is the Avangard (hypersonic glide vehicle)

a Russian hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV) that can be carried as a MIRV payload by the UR-100UTTKh,[7][8] R-36M2 and RS-28 Sarmat heavy ICBMs. It can deliver both nuclear and conventional payloads.[9][10][11]

The Avangard is one of the six new Russian strategic weapons unveiled by Russian President Vladimir Putin on 1 March 2018.

China and Russia know that if they hit anywhere beyond Ukraine, they'd best get ready.

[dchill]

1. K&R!

[NickB79]

2. Hypersonic missiles against US aircraft carriers

Is the naval version of Javelins vs Russian tanks.

Small, cheaper weapons rendering massive, expensive ones obsolete.

Warfare is poised to change dramatically in the 21st century.

[ancianita]

3. One minute the aircraft carrier has to live. The Javelins have been shown more successful,

but we should hate to see such an event play out. Still, Putin's missiles could take out our entire carrier fleet.

What "objects" could our Air Force even use to block them.

[Abnredleg]

4. I wouldn't consider this a major escalation

It is extremely fast but has a relatively small conventional warhead (~ 1,000 lbs). It is essentially an airborne version of the Iskander ground to ground rocket, something the Russians are using liberally to little effect.

[ancianita]

6. It is nuclear capable. Ukraine is practice. A test run. The more time we give Russia, the more

proficient at delivery they get. As you can see, we crashed in a practice run in Finland today.

I'd rather err on loud pronouncements from the West and more operations training.

[Abnredleg]

11. They don't need a test run to deliver nukes

The weapon is fully tested and the crews are trained. Furthermore, they have multiple systems that can deliver nukes it is pointless to fixate on one particular weapon.

[ancianita]

15. Thank you. A good reason for anyone to be scared.

[ancianita]

16. And no one is fixating. Notice I brought up three systems, not one.

With the implication that they have many more.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

5. When did "hypersonic" missiles become so scary?

[ancianita]

8. Scary? What are you trying to say?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

24. I'm saying that most missiles are hypersonic at some point, so "hypersonic" shouldn't be a scare

word. Different missile systems have different reason for being difficult to defend against, but its speed alone isn't the issue. It's when and where it's that fast.

[ancianita]

27. So based on what you know, I should just accept a "not much to see here" explanation?

Different missile systems have different reason for being difficult to defend against, but its speed alone isn't the issue. It's when and where it's that fast.

You think that's common knowledge? Seriously? On a partisan political site? Thanks for the info, but please consider this a request:
For those who enter threads to correct OP's, I request they post some OP's of their own and actually explain weapons in this war as those appear in the media, so that we civilians aren't twisting in the "need to know" breeze.

There is a civilian audience here, which I'm part of, that needs to know -- as in "need to know" -- better information about war weapons and their uses than we've gotten. Maybe this will be covered on the news, maybe not.

For that civilian audience, I consider conveying any weapons information to others helpful; if some want to take issue with its content, provocative questions-as-challenge seem unhelpful and premature at this stage of the war.

[WarGamer]

9. because they're barely detectable and unstoppable.

Oh and they travel in a low arc, unlike an ICBM in its terminal phase.

[Abnredleg]

13. That's important against carriers

Or delivering nukes. However, cruise missiles in general are a very inefficient way to deliver explosives so this is going to have very limited effect on the ground war.

[WarGamer]

14. I think it's more about the threat...

Like I said... this is the first time since WW2 that a US carrier group is basically vulnerable and obsolete.

But you're right... tactically, this is no better than a dumb bomb when dropped on the ground.

[Abnredleg]

19. I wouldn't go that far

It’s a serious weapon system but you still need effective targeting against a moving target hundreds of miles away and I don’t think the Russians are there yet. Weapons such as these are designed to operate in a complex command and control environment, and to evaluate effectiveness you need to evaluate the entire system.

[WarGamer]

26. Good point... can a hypersonic missile track a 22 knot ship zig-zagging?

I don't think anyone knows. But at 2 miles a second... can't be easy (for either side)

[NickB79]

17. Carrier battle groups are hugely important to US military tactics

And our Phalanx systems can't detect and fire upon a hypersonic weapon in time to stop it.

Expect these weapons to proliferate globally. Pretty soon non-nuclear powers will have a weapon capable of putting $10 billion of US hardware on the ocean floor.

[Abnredleg]

20. Targeting is going to be the issue

You have to know where to fire these things, and that’s extremely hard at long ranges. As to defenses, that’s why the Navy is spending so much money on directed energy weapons. Nothing is faster than the speed of light.

[NickB79]

23. Very good points.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

21. A Kinzhal is just an air-launched Iskander, which have been used plenty over the past couple

weeks without the "hypersonic" hype.

[WarGamer]

7. It's an expected response to the weapons shipments to Ukraine from the West.

No surprise, really.

[ancianita]

10. Glad to get an "expected response" explanation. Didn't know that was part of war tactics.

[WarGamer]

12. It's more about politics.

Putin needs a viable threat to ATTEMPT to control the situation in Ukraine.

Ukraine is flooded with Javelins, Stingers, Panzerfaust 3 and now Switchblade cutting edge drones...

So Putin "upping his game" was to be expected... right?

[ancianita]

18. Sure. And upping our game is accusing him of escalation. If it's a wrong move by the West,

how many more moves does he get before we civilians in the West get short shrift on "need to know" when the ambush comes?

[ancianita]

22. It's not just his feudal politics, it's his 21st Century tech backing up a feudal war of attrition.

How long does the West tolerate this creep of totalitarian terror management.

[WarGamer]

25. I'm not sure...

I just want this all to be over.

[ancianita]

28. Neither is the military, from all appearances. But this is no dress rehearsal.

I suggest all those with weapons knowledge put together an OP to explain what shows up on the news, because news assumes civilians know what the military knows, but they don't.

Hell, it just took SecDef Lloyd Austin two fucking weeks to explain why a "No-Fly Zone" doesn't work in conflict zones! That's bullshit.

If the U.S. military is to be seen as trustworthy, then now is the time for it to stop making the civilian population roil and stew, and start trusting and informing the country's citizens enough to engage their trust.

[maxrandb]

29. Again with the "hypersonic" missiles? It's nothing but Russian propaganda

Last edited Tue Mar 22, 2022, 08:26 AM - Edit history (1)

If the past 4 weeks of watching the Russian military have taught us anything, it is what those of us who have served in the US Military know. They fucking suck, and wouldn't last a weekend if we brought our force to bare.

I swear, people must think that a US Carrier Battlegroup just sits there bobbing in the water. They are constantly moving, have a top speed in excess of 60 MPH, and nothing, absolutely nothing gets within 300 miles of a carrier without the carrier knowing about it, let alone shooting at it.

Even if you believe the Russian hype of 1 minute of warning, a carrier has the capability of moving and turning quickly. Within a minute, we could be a mile away from where we were, going 45 knots in a different direction.

Then, you have to consider, if they were stupid enough, crazy enough and lucky enough to not only launch at a carrier, but hit it, the response would be such overwhelming force that Russia would be left with a Navy purchased from the Sears Catalog.

If we were not concerned about escalating to a real war with Russia, we could make Ukraine, Russia and everything from Asia Minor to Taiwan a "No-Fly Zone" in about 6 days.

Putin might be insane, but the folks that would need to pull the trigger aren't.

Shoot at a US or Nato warship and the Russia we know would not longer exist.

In fact, I think the most likely outcome of this Russian action against Ukraine will most likely be regime change in Russia.

[ancianita]

30. It's my first time. You're welcome to ask why I posted it. You can post other links, too.

I'm only a Vietnam war Army officer's wife, and so didn't serve, and of course I don't know about the Russian military or naval carriers, though my brother was a Seaman recruit, later an electrical Apprentice out of San Diego.

Putin might be insane, but the folks that would need to pull the trigger aren't.

Shoot at a US or Nato warship and the Russia we know would not longer exist.

In fact, I think the most likely outcome of this Russian action against Ukraine will most likely be regime change in Russia.

Your confidence makes me feel a lot better about the weapons and tactics. I hope to see an OP from you on these things in upcoming weeks, because lord knows how much more seriously sanctions (he's stealing humanitarian aid from Ukraine) will affect Putin's military.

[maxrandb]

32. I apologize. Wasn't meant to give you that impression

I sometimes forget I am no longer in the Navy and write like I am.

Yes, hypersonic missiles can be a serious threat, but any military is only as good a their command and control, leadership, training and logistics are. Russia's is not very good.

Even Nukes. He may get one off, but the response would turn Russia into glass.

I am not an expert, but I believe the main reason we haven't done a no-fly zone, or sent planes and troops to help Ukraine, is because of the cost in blood and sacrifice of a full scale war with Russia.

I am well versed enough to be confident that the reason is not that we fear the Russian military. It also appears that Ukraine is doing a good job of bloodying Russia's nose.

As heartbreaking, disgusting and infuriating the scenes coming out of Ukraine are, a full scale war with Russia would bring those scenes to Russia, Hungary, Latvia, Belarus, Poland and the entire Baltic Region.

Make no mistake. We would win either a conventional, or...God help us...nuclear war with Russia. The same scenes coming from Ukraine would spread.

We don't target civilians, but we do drop bombs and break things. That is the job of the military.

All I can say is; "THANK GOD JOE BIDEN IS PRESIDENT"

That orange doofus would have us at war by now, probably on Putin's side, and it would be run about a well as any Donnie Dipshit "business".

Anyway, sorry for being a jerk.

[ancianita]

33. We're straight.

THANK GOD JOE BIDEN IS PRESIDENT! Long may he run!

[Tree-Hugger]

31. Wow.

Great analysis.

[EX500rider]

36. US carriers top out in the 30+ knot range (56 km/h; 35 mph)

In one minute they will have moved 1/2 mile or so.

[maxrandb]

39. The "official" speed from the Navy is "in excess of 30 knots"

The actual speed is, and always has been "classified".

The "official" speed of the Battleship I served in was "on excess of 32 knots", but I was on the bridge when we made 41.

[EX500rider]

41. Well...

...one of the faster ocean liners, the QEI (1,031ft x 118ft) weighted (displaced) 83,000 tons, and had 200,000 shaft HP, the Nimitz Class (1,092ft x 134ft) displaces over 100,000 tons with 260,000 shp...The QEI topped out at 32knts...so the Nimitz Class wide open might make mid 30's I'd guess....but no where near 60kts.

The SS United States was only 47,000 tons with 240,000shp and topped out at
35 knots (65 km/h; 40 mph) (service)
38.32 knots (70.97 km/h; 44.10 mph) (trials)
43 knots (80 km/h; 49 mph) (claimed)

[AntiFascist]

34. More jets should be patrolling the Black Sea. Where they come from is immaterial n/t

[FreepFryer]

35. How on earth would such a declaration be of any help whatsoever (Nt)

[ancianita]

37. Would the West's silence help in the face of Putin's use of hypersonic missiles?

Seriously. What do you think would whatsoever help.

[FreepFryer]

38. Silence and declaring this an escalation are far from the only two responses available.

Why the illogic?

[ancianita]

40. Great. As far as they are from the only responses, what have you got?

[FreepFryer]

44. Well I don't provoke others with logical fallacies. Think thru what such an announcement would do.

[ancianita]

45. If you don't think I've thought it through, then what would it do.

[FreepFryer]

46. Nope. Conversation in good faith isnt commanding others. Not cool. (Nt)

[ancianita]

47. "Should" isn't "Commanding" or "bad faith." Talk about illogic.

[FreepFryer]

48. I said if you're just going to attack, rather than converse, I'm done. Bye. (Nt)

[ancianita]

49. Talk about projection. You've made no-effort posts. You start with dismissal, refuse to explain

my illogic, and refuse to answer one question. Nothing.

[pecosbob]

42. Beginning to look like it was staged.

We Have Questions About Russia's Claimed Kinzhal Hypersonic Missile Use In Ukraine

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44840/we-have-questions-about-russias-claimed-kinzhal-hypersonic-missile-use-in-ukraine

[ancianita]

43. Well, good, then. Planet Lab's higher level satellite geolocation technology now gives us a clearer

picture than the ground level fog of war tweets did; you know, that thing where it's hard to see the forest for the trees.

So if it's not fog of war news, and it was staged, it means that when Ukraine uses only UK and Slovakian donated planes, and no such missiles were used, Ukraine will be clearer in their threat assessment of Russian weapons and tactics. And they'll read the skies better, and so they'll be safer.

Intel analysts at Planet Labs are good on nailing the content seen, timelines of the photo, video, news distribution, and the likelihood of such a missile being used in so unlikely a spot near the Russian border.

You posted a great intelligence source I'm going to keep using.


Thank you so much for the link!