ComNavOps never ceases to be amazed at the deceptive spin
(I’ll refrain from using the word fraud, in this case) put out by
manufacturers, the Navy, and complicit ‘news’ sources. As you know, the ability of defensive systems
to intercept hypersonic attacking missiles is questionable. Well here’s a headline from a Naval News
website article that sounds like a piece of great news:
Aegis Combat
System Demonstrates System’s Capability to Counter Hypersonic Threats[1]
A Burke class destroyer, USS Pinckney (DDG-91) conducted a
successful intercept of a hypersonic missile.
Well, that certainly sounds like good news. Aegis performed a successful intercept of a
hypersonic missile. Great!
However, as we read a bit further into the article, we note
the following:
Wait, what now? The intercept used a simulated SM-6 defensive missile???? So, in reality, all the destroyer’s Aegis system did was track the hypersonic target. It didn’t engage. No actual intercept occurred.
Well, that changes the tone of the article and essentially
refutes the headline, doesn’t it?
So, what did the test actually accomplish? I don’t know the test objectives but it
certainly didn’t demonstrate a successful intercept. At best, it demonstrated the ability to track
a hypersonic target which we already knew we could do. At worst, it was a purely theoretical,
software exercise that proved nothing.
The main thing all of this demonstrates is the need for us
to be very careful and diligent in our reading of articles. Take nothing for granted. Assume whatever you’re reading is deceptive
and make sure you really understand what you’re reading.
Congratulations Lockheed and Navy. You theoretically shot down a target drone
with a theoretical missile.
Theoretically … good job.
Congratulations Naval News website. You managed to parrot a Lockheed press
release without adding any analysis or value whatsoever. You’re a credit to news reporters everywhere.
_________________________________
The USS Pinckney (DDG 91) successfully completed Flight Test Other 40 (FTX-40), also known as Stellar Banshee, using Lockheed Martin’s Aegis Combat System to detect, track and perform an engagement against a live advanced hypersonic Medium Range Ballistic Missile (MRBM) target using a simulated SM-6 Block IAU.[1][emphasis added]
Wait, what now? The intercept used a simulated SM-6 defensive missile???? So, in reality, all the destroyer’s Aegis system did was track the hypersonic target. It didn’t engage. No actual intercept occurred.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/03/u-s-navy-downs-maneuvering-hypersonic-missile-in-sm-6-block-iau-test/
You don't have any hypersonic missiles, how do you test and prove that you can intercept one? Have you bought one from China?
ReplyDeleteMid and long-range ballistic missiles frequently fly above Ma 5 but they are not categorized as hypersonic missiles. To be qualified as a hypersonic missile, it must be able to maneuver during it flies to make its path unpredictable.
Even so, gliding hypersonic missiles (like China's DF-17) can still be intercepted at their terminal stage if you have good tools. This is because gliding ones' terminal fly paths are relatively straight. This is why people are more interested in powered (scramjet, etc.) hypersonic missiles. Sadly, China is closer despite US started R&D much earlier.
Still, you need to have a hypersonic missile so you can prove that you can intercept.
As you noted from reading the article referenced in the post, the test used an unspecified medium range ballistic missile with a hypersonic glide vehicle (the 'warhead') so, yes, we do have hypersonic missiles. In fact, the old Pershing missiles were Mach 8, if I recall correctly.
Delete"To be qualified as a hypersonic missile, it must be able to maneuver"
No. Hypersonic is a definition based on speed. Hypersonic missiles may have maneuverability to varying degrees but that is not part of the definition.
"China is closer despite US started R&D much earlier."
As noted, the US fielded hypersonic weapons like the Pershing series many decades ago. The US has possibly been lagging a bit on developing the latest versions of a hypersonic weapon (air-to-air and cruise missile) but not by much. For example, as recently as Jan of this year, China claimed to have been still testing and just finishing up testing an air-to-air hypersonic missile while the US has been testing the Common Hypersonic Glide Vehicle with a claimed successful end-to-end test in December.
There is no functional hypersonic glide vehicle otherwise Pentagon would have declared. LRHW is close but not done yet.
DeleteIt is a simulation, not physical tests.
Deletehttps://www.twz.com/air/sm-6-missile-closer-to-proving-hypersonic-weapon-intercept-capability-after-aegis-destroyer-test
Actually the previous claims of tracking hypersonic targets
ReplyDeletewere deceptive, so now they a put on a new test & presser saying
this time, we promise on a stack NDAs this time we really
did track a hypersonic target.
-------
What is the difference between a used car salesman
and a LockMart salesman ?,
The used car salesman knows when he lying.
A big difference is that our missiles can exceed Mach 5 to be called hypersonic, but their nose cone quickly melts away so range is very limited. From what I've been told, the Russians are more advanced with metallurgy and developed a metal nose cone that can resist such heat much longer. They give these nose cones to nations like and Iran and Yemen who use them for their missiles. The USA has been unable to develop/steal this Russian secret.
ReplyDeleteX-15 : It set altitude and speed records that still stand today, including a peak altitude of 354,200 feet (67 miles) and a speed of Mach 6.72 (4,534 mph).
DeleteThe X-15 program aimed to study hypersonic aerodynamic performance, heating rates, structural behavior, stability and control, and pilot performance and physiology. " So do we have the trechnology/metalurgy now ?
There have been tests with hypersonic rockets recently but no published data on meltdowns of metallic parts. So perhaps there is secrecy or ongoing testing of differing metallurgies.
Deletehttps://sintx.com/hypersonic-technology/
Delete" Silicon Nitride – A Game Changer for Hypersonic Technology" ( but we have a company touting their product,) Has this material been tested in a hypersonic vehicle ? We may not know.
It's one thing to be able to sustain hypersonic flight at over 100K feet where the atmosphere is so sparse you are on the edge of space. It's quite another thing to do it during your terminal attack run on the target. The heating effects at Mach 5+ at low altitude are horrendous. I suspect that may be where we are still having problems. Also, the plasma generated at low altitude tends to shut down sensors like radar, and any sort of communication such as GPS.
Delete" the plasma generated at low altitude tends to shut down sensors like radar"
DeleteI'm aware of, and fascinated by, the plasma effect. Supposedly, the plasma effect makes the target hard to track and, I assume, it would also tend to blind the target's on-board sensor. In other words, the negative impact on sensors works both ways. However, I've been able to find very little (almost none) information on the plasma effect beyond very vague descriptions. Do you have any slightly detailed, authoritative references?
There is a ton of information out there, but most of it has been developed because of the problems communicating with a re-entering spacecraft. Re-entry plasma issues are comparatively brief because you are trying to slow down. Hypersonic missiles are the opposite of course.
DeleteI used "Plasma effects on communications during re-entry" as a search. Worked well including some scholarly articles above my pay grade.
I like this Scientific American article. Covers the basics. Its 15 years old now, but at least it lays out the problem.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/piercing-the-plasma/
I used the translation function to read a Chinese article about this, and the Chinese are making fun of the fact that the US can only use “simulation” these days to make itself look less incompetent. https://user.guancha.cn/main/content?id=1412175&s=zwyess
ReplyDeleteBear in mind that China's number one export to the US is propaganda. Everything China does is perfect and succeeds brilliantly, according to them ... until we find out that their missiles are filled with water instead of fuel.
DeleteDiscount 90% of what China says and you'll be about right.
After seeing IShowSpeed stream in Chine, I don't believe our news anymore.
DeleteLocal man blasts opening day home run off Phillies' starter Zack Wheeler
ReplyDeleteWisconsin (AP) - A local man calling himself Lutefisk hit a titanic blast off of the Phillies' ace starter Saturday in MLB action.
Lutefisk tracked the pitch on his 60" flat screen television and successfully swung a bat in his living room, simulating a solid connection with Wheeler's four-seam fastball.
"I really felt good about it when it simulatively came off the bat," Lutefisk said in a post-game monologue with his wife, who briefly looked up from a crossword puzzle. "I don't see any reason why I wouldn't have the same result live-action."
Lutefisk
Can't argue with the logic! The Navy certainly believes it!
DeleteI don't mind a test where things are simulated as a step on the path towards full, realistic, end to end, physical testing. The problem is when simulations REPLACE reality as has all too often happened in Navy/military exercises and tests. I also have a problem with deceptive spin in articles which is what triggered this post.
I look forward to seeing your simulated bust in the Hall of Fame!
DeleteIt will be glorious.
DeleteI'm thinking of going to work for the navy devising creative simulations for things like rust protection for navy ships.
Lutefisk
Simulated rust protection. That's genius!
DeleteOr the Navy could be using RustAll on their their to lull
Deletethe PLAN into overconfidence ?
http://www.zscalemonster.com/rustall/
I'd like to take full credit for the idea, but to be truthful about it, the navy has already been working on simulated rust protection for a number of years.
ReplyDeleteLutefisk
Apparently they have the same opinion!
ReplyDeletehttps://www.armyrecognition.com/news/navy-news/2025/exclusive-us-navy-validates-aegis-combat-system-on-arleigh-burke-class-destroyer-in-live-ballistic-missile-test