“Dagger” and “Vanguard” are too dangerous. The Americans will make an interceptor!
The Department of Defense's Promising Research Projects (DARPA) at the exhibition, dedicated to the agency’s 60th anniversary, presented the concept of a hypothetical interceptor for Russian dagger and Avant-garde Russian hypersonic complexes. The tentative name of this miracle is “Glide Breaker”.
First, let's look at a little misunderstanding, which is now being actively replicated in the Russian media. Almost all sources, it is not known, with whose light hand, they write that the interceptor is a kind of hypersonic aircraft. And in confirmation of this, they offer an illustration from a presentation on which something conditionally similar to an airplane collides with something remotely resembling a warhead.
The problem is that the illustration from DARPA has been misinterpreted by someone. It schematically depicts something similar to Avangard (in any case, as depicted by the multipliers of the Russian Ministry of Defense), which is knocked down by some kind of “interceptor”, similar to either a projectile, or a cut-off rocket. Therefore, be careful when you read the "analytics", in which the intended interceptor is called an "aircraft".
What can we confidently infer from the very fact of such a presentation? So far, unfortunately, a bit. But above all, we must breathe a sigh of relief: it turns out that the Americans still do not have adequate means of intercepting hypersonic aircraft, and they also quite highly appreciate the threat posed by this type weapons.
Nothing more intelligible about this presentation is impossible to say. This is not surprising: the complexity and secrecy of the topic overlap, which complicates the analysis many times.
In general, it is necessary to clearly understand that the concept is just a “rough draft”, a kind of abstract vision, which is still very far from some kind of technical implementation. Moreover, any concept can be rejected or revised if research shows that it is either incorrect, too complex to implement, or cost too much money. Therefore, the fact that the Americans submitted, while you need to be considered only as an application for obtaining appropriate funding. Although there is no doubt that they will receive it in the end.
The timing of such a project is also very difficult to clearly define. But they can make a decade, and even more. For example, take the comparable in complexity project of the American combat information management system "Aegis" (Aegis). Its development began in the 1969 year, and the first ship equipped with it was put into operation only in 1983 g. In this case, the task may be even more difficult: the development of appropriate means of destruction, and high-precision guidance tools that can ensure an interceptor hit the target, rushing at a speed of more than three kilometers per second. Given that the speed of the interceptor must also be very high, the total speed of convergence of objects may exceed five kilometers per second or more. Agree, to miss at such speeds quite easily.
The stated kinetic method of defeating hypersonic objects also raises great doubts. Although for scientists any defeat of a target with the help of a subject will be exactly kinetic, the military still have several auxiliary definitions. In particular, by kinetic they usually understand the defeat of a target by a single object (a bullet, a projectile, a nucleus, etc.) that does not have a charge and acts only through kinetic energy. Using the same warhead and, for example, shrapnel or other damaging elements, rather, will receive the designation "defeat by the method of remote undermining of the warhead" with further clarification of what it was for the warhead.
However, since we are still dealing with scientists rather than military ones, the “kinetic defeat” indicated by them may still be common in such cases with a fragmentation warhead with thousands of previously prepared destructive elements. In any case, it’s still a bit easier to believe in than a direct hit on a maneuvering target flying at a speed of 3 km / s or even higher.
Separately, it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that the goal in this case does not descend along a stable and well-calculated ballistic trajectory, but has the ability to maneuver. This means that the planned interception system will not, as before, have an opportunity to calculate in advance the trajectory and accurately deliver the antimissile system to the meeting point with a target. The speed of the interceptor will have to correspond to the speed of the “Dagger” and “Avant-garde”, it will need to be able to actively maneuver and withstand truly huge overloads.
Of course, all this is quite realizable even in the framework of modern technologies. However, none of the existing types of interceptor missiles does not yet possess all the necessary qualities, and it is very likely that a new missile (if this is, of course, a rocket) will have to be built from scratch.
The likelihood that something more exotic will be used as an interceptor is quite small. Neither electromagnetic guns, nor more classical tools are powerful enough and, moreover, will not be able to provide the necessary accuracy. It is possible to use multi-barreled anti-aircraft guns as a weapon of the last line of defense, but they can be assumed in advance to be extremely low. Rather, it is a weapon of despair, and not a line of defense from the "Dagger." As for the use of mythical aircraft, then at the moment it looks even more strange and unpromising.
Therefore, we venture to suggest that the development of "Glide Breaker" will take Americans for many years, if not a whole decade. What time it will cost them is difficult to judge, but certainly not very cheap.
The question of efficiency remains open. We must assume that neither our nor the Chinese designers will not sit idly by. So, the mentioned hypersonic weapons of the “Dagger” type can acquire more advanced homing systems, better maneuvering algorithms, and other surprises for the mythical interceptors.
First, let's look at a little misunderstanding, which is now being actively replicated in the Russian media. Almost all sources, it is not known, with whose light hand, they write that the interceptor is a kind of hypersonic aircraft. And in confirmation of this, they offer an illustration from a presentation on which something conditionally similar to an airplane collides with something remotely resembling a warhead.
The problem is that the illustration from DARPA has been misinterpreted by someone. It schematically depicts something similar to Avangard (in any case, as depicted by the multipliers of the Russian Ministry of Defense), which is knocked down by some kind of “interceptor”, similar to either a projectile, or a cut-off rocket. Therefore, be careful when you read the "analytics", in which the intended interceptor is called an "aircraft".
What can we confidently infer from the very fact of such a presentation? So far, unfortunately, a bit. But above all, we must breathe a sigh of relief: it turns out that the Americans still do not have adequate means of intercepting hypersonic aircraft, and they also quite highly appreciate the threat posed by this type weapons.
Nothing more intelligible about this presentation is impossible to say. This is not surprising: the complexity and secrecy of the topic overlap, which complicates the analysis many times.
In general, it is necessary to clearly understand that the concept is just a “rough draft”, a kind of abstract vision, which is still very far from some kind of technical implementation. Moreover, any concept can be rejected or revised if research shows that it is either incorrect, too complex to implement, or cost too much money. Therefore, the fact that the Americans submitted, while you need to be considered only as an application for obtaining appropriate funding. Although there is no doubt that they will receive it in the end.
The timing of such a project is also very difficult to clearly define. But they can make a decade, and even more. For example, take the comparable in complexity project of the American combat information management system "Aegis" (Aegis). Its development began in the 1969 year, and the first ship equipped with it was put into operation only in 1983 g. In this case, the task may be even more difficult: the development of appropriate means of destruction, and high-precision guidance tools that can ensure an interceptor hit the target, rushing at a speed of more than three kilometers per second. Given that the speed of the interceptor must also be very high, the total speed of convergence of objects may exceed five kilometers per second or more. Agree, to miss at such speeds quite easily.
The stated kinetic method of defeating hypersonic objects also raises great doubts. Although for scientists any defeat of a target with the help of a subject will be exactly kinetic, the military still have several auxiliary definitions. In particular, by kinetic they usually understand the defeat of a target by a single object (a bullet, a projectile, a nucleus, etc.) that does not have a charge and acts only through kinetic energy. Using the same warhead and, for example, shrapnel or other damaging elements, rather, will receive the designation "defeat by the method of remote undermining of the warhead" with further clarification of what it was for the warhead.
However, since we are still dealing with scientists rather than military ones, the “kinetic defeat” indicated by them may still be common in such cases with a fragmentation warhead with thousands of previously prepared destructive elements. In any case, it’s still a bit easier to believe in than a direct hit on a maneuvering target flying at a speed of 3 km / s or even higher.
Separately, it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that the goal in this case does not descend along a stable and well-calculated ballistic trajectory, but has the ability to maneuver. This means that the planned interception system will not, as before, have an opportunity to calculate in advance the trajectory and accurately deliver the antimissile system to the meeting point with a target. The speed of the interceptor will have to correspond to the speed of the “Dagger” and “Avant-garde”, it will need to be able to actively maneuver and withstand truly huge overloads.
Of course, all this is quite realizable even in the framework of modern technologies. However, none of the existing types of interceptor missiles does not yet possess all the necessary qualities, and it is very likely that a new missile (if this is, of course, a rocket) will have to be built from scratch.
The likelihood that something more exotic will be used as an interceptor is quite small. Neither electromagnetic guns, nor more classical tools are powerful enough and, moreover, will not be able to provide the necessary accuracy. It is possible to use multi-barreled anti-aircraft guns as a weapon of the last line of defense, but they can be assumed in advance to be extremely low. Rather, it is a weapon of despair, and not a line of defense from the "Dagger." As for the use of mythical aircraft, then at the moment it looks even more strange and unpromising.
Therefore, we venture to suggest that the development of "Glide Breaker" will take Americans for many years, if not a whole decade. What time it will cost them is difficult to judge, but certainly not very cheap.
The question of efficiency remains open. We must assume that neither our nor the Chinese designers will not sit idly by. So, the mentioned hypersonic weapons of the “Dagger” type can acquire more advanced homing systems, better maneuvering algorithms, and other surprises for the mythical interceptors.
Information