"no it's solid boosters that do not follow the usual ballistic trajectory"

Hypersonics do not. They are extremely fast and extremely low flying.

No, hypersonic is a marketing term here that indicates 'difficult to intercept'.

It does not imply anything about speed, just automatic or controlled maneuvering later in the stage than normal missiles do.

▲

esseph 19 hours ago | parent [-]

The very definition of hypersonic requires at least Mach 5 in terms of speed.

sigh

▲

fooker 18 hours ago | parent [-]

We have had mach 5 missiles for about 60-80 years now, that's not what the novelty is.

▲

esseph 16 hours ago | parent [-]

Mach 5, high maneuverability, inside the atmosphere. Normally a non-ballistic trajectory. That's been the goal for a very long time.

https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/NCO-Journal/Archive...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersonic_weapon

Do you have something to add to this discussion?

We just redoing definitions, or what?

▲

fooker 14 hours ago | parent [-]

> Mach 5, high maneuverability, inside the atmosphere.

Out of these, Mach 5 and inside the atmosphere have been doable for several decades. Pretty much all countries that make missiles can make missiles with these two characteristics.

My point, which you seem to either misunderstand or deliberately misrepresent, is the other one - "maneuverability" - being the distinguishing factor for what we call hypersonic missiles. That makes these difficult to defend against.

Think of it like calling humans hyper-limbed animals, but limbs being not what really distinguishes humans from, say, chimpanzees.

▲

esseph 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Maneuverability isn't new either, aim-9x's can pull 60Gs.

MUTANT missiles will take that a step further as the tech works through the Program Office trials.

I'm not sure what point it is you're trying to make here, this whole thread seems like a silly waste of time.

There are people on this site that work directly in the offices of these programs.

▲

fooker 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> I'm not sure what point it is you're trying to make here, this whole thread seems like a silly waste of time.

Yeah, step one before replying to something should be trying to understand the point.

> There are people on this site that work directly in the offices of these programs.

Maybe even in this thread!

	▲	esseph an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> Maybe even in this thread! Maybe! :-)