Kinzhal is not really a hypersonic missile if you are strict about the definition. It is an airborne ballistic missile with relatively limited maneuvering capabilities. If Kinzhal counts as hypersonic then DF-15 should as well.
No. The definition of hypersonic is that something is hypersonic. i.e. it travels at Mach 5 or greater. Which it does.
Nope, to qualify being a hypersonic weapon it has to have maneuverability in its flight path.
There's a difference between
hypersonic speed and
hypersonic missile.
Hypersonic speed is a
scientific term in the field of
aerodynamics referring to speeds above Mach 5 which is when the aerodynamic characteristics of flight begins to significantly diverge from that that at speeds of Mach 1 (or Mach 1.2 if you exclude transonic flight) to Mach 5. Similarly you can find references to
hypersonic flight.
Hypersonic missile is a
popular term in the field of
journalism that originally described missiles that travel at hypersonic speeds over the majority of their flight.
Therefore:
- If you refer to hypersonic speed or hypersonic flight you are using a precise, scientific language and you can be either right or wrong depending of how you use it.
- If you refer to hypersonic missile you are using a non-scientific popular term and you are wrong by default because there's no thing such as a hypersonic missile only a missile capable of hypersonic flight under specific parameters.
- You should always use precise language.
"Hypersonic missile" is a media buzzword similar to "fifth generation fighter". It's dependent on other definitions and not very useful for anything than pointless arguments and posturing. It's manipulative on purpose and mostly targeted at ignorant individuals. It is therefore used for propaganda purposes by everyone.
Russians specifically used it to make Kh-47M2 seem more than what it is precisely because of the imprecise but emotionally potent nature of the term "hypersonic missile". Kindzhal is - just like
@siegecrossbow described it - an air-launched ballistic missile. Whether it travels at a steep or depressed trajectory is irrelevant. Similarly neither Kh-22 nor any other missile travelling at peak speed of >5Ma is a "hypersonic missile".
I haven't found a paper describing a "hypersonic missile" in precise terms because I don't think scientists see this as a meaningful exercise. I think it may be possible to introduce such definition if we define "hypersonic missile" by velocity (vector) rather than speed (scalar) but this is not my field so I can't say for certain and it would certainly not be very productive since a more precise language is already in use, and it's not significantly more cumbersome.
Whenever it's used in technical context it's a
shorthand.
HGV or Hypersonic
Glide
Vehicle is a precise term because it refers to
gliding maneuvers during hypersonic flight which is a very specific problem in the field of aerodynamics and HGV necessarily requires a technical solution for it. Or in other words: HGV is not a
hypersonic glide vehicle but a
hypersonic glide vehicle. There's a difference between "subsonic glide" and "hypersonic glide" and youn ask your friendly neighbourhood rocket scientist to explain it to you in complicated mathematical terms.
It's the same as supersonic jet aircraft which rarely cross the sound barrier because of consequences and mostly fly at high subsonic or transonic speeds. This is why supercruise was a major advancement because it allowed to enter high transonic flight regimes - technically supersonic flight - for longer periods of time. Most people who comment on military aviation are not aware of that and genuinely think that fighters with maximum speed of 2,5Ma fly at 2Ma all the time. So far I know of only two aircraft that consistently travelled at supersonic speeds - SR-71 and MiG-31 - but both were specifically designed to do so.
Recently I have seen people increasingly argue that ballistic missiles are "hypersonic" because they engage in posturing contests where they prove that the opponent doesn't have a technical advantage. Which in a way is correct since the whole discussion is started by manipulative statements. The only thing that is hypersonic here is the rate of intellectual retardation.
As for whether Kindzhal can be intercepted. Yes, without much problem - provided that you have a sufficiently capable anti-ballistic defense system. In fact because Kindzhal travels at flat trajectories it is possible to intercept it with more traditional air defense radars because the velocity is horizontal rather than vertical as in the case of steep ballistic trajectories.
For example S-300 had two variants:
- S-300P (later S-400) for air defense forces - optimised against aerodynamic targets and low flying targets
- S-300V for ground forces - optimised against ballistic targets.
One of the main differences between them is the radars because antenna architecture matters:
S-300PMU/S-400 early warning radar
S-300V early warning radars
S-400 guidance radar (S-300PMU uses 30N6)
S-300V guidance radar
The point of the above is to illustrate where the relevant factors in sword vs shield arms are located.
Modern radars have sufficient capability to be universal but the software needs to be updated to "flip" the working of the system on its side, so to speak, which is what happened to AN/SPY-1 and AEGIS when they were modernised for SM-3 and ABM.
Similarly a "genuine" hypersonic missile can be easily intercepted by say PAC-3MSE provided that it can be successfully guided to target. Here the problem is flight altitude because cruise missiles capable of hypersonic flight are designed to fly at very low altitudes thus reducing reaction time. Other air launched systems aim to travel at 15-20 Ma to disrupt guidance regime of most anti-ballistic missiles in horizontal plane.
Hypersonic velocity is a tool against another very specific tool which is a defense system using sensors and effectors designed to engage targets with very specific flight parameters. Hypersonic velocity changes those parameters and makes the existing defense systems ineffective. It's no different than how ATGM were invented to combat thick RHA armour, which led to development of ERA which led to development of high performance APFSDS which then led to development of NERA etc.
The hypersonic systems don't even have to be particularly effective because if the current defense system will have effectiveness reduced by an order of magnitude then what previously took 20 traditional missiles to ensure 1 hit on target will now take 4 or 2 hypersonic missiles. It doesn't matter that there are obvious problems with precision and guidance. Every threat reduction is about probability and probability means that sometimes an unguided weapon will hit on the spot. If that probability increases beyond acceptable margins action must be taken which consumes resources. Both economy and morale are resources. All wars are wars of attrition but sometimes the attrition is not obvious.
If we factor in the information from Perun (an Australian YouTuber who has been using osint to deliver his take on certain aspects on the conflict) about Russian internal politics and previous altercations between the MoD and Wagner+Chechens, the latter scenario is very much probable.
Yeltsin wanted to become a Central Asian dictatorial type of president for life, but began his career by feigning democratic sentiment, attempted to unsuccessfully centralise power. That discredited democratic reforms in Russia and provided the conditions for soft FSB coup. The Russian military is an independent and largely parallel structure that has been always isolated from power for political reasons. It is not like the PLA an arm of the political establishment, let alone a specific party. Wagner and Kadyrov (don't call them "Chechens" as those people traitors to Chechnya) are FSB assets. Military is therefore naturally in conflict with them and FSB/Putin's clique has to constantly fight against them because as far as popular support goes the military has always had more support from the Russian people.
Russian internal politics and FSB vs GRU/military is very much a parallel of the CIA vs Pentagon rivalry in DC. After all both contemporary Russia and US are direct continuations of the cold war regimes as democratic/pro-peace reform failed in largely the same manner in both countries and at the same time.
The mirror rise of Putin in Russia and neocons in America is not an accident.
