• @flyboy_146
      link
      English
      1111 months ago

      I think it’s more about how wide the area to defend is.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      611 months ago

      They are also used against hypersonic missiles the Russians have (kinzal etc.) and ballistics like s300 and s400.

      • @100_percent_a_bot
        link
        English
        411 months ago

        You might want to put the hypersonic part in quotes, they’re basically just really expensive ballistic missiles that fly slightly faster. Considering their price tag, Russia would have probably been better off never developing them anyways

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          111 months ago

          Yes, but afaik the hypersonic term applies to weapons over mach 4. NATO also adds additional requirements for hypersonics, such as manourerability. But they have enough speed to qualify.

          • @100_percent_a_bot
            link
            English
            011 months ago

            One could argue that, sure but if only the speed is important the nazi V-2 would qualify as a hypersonic

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              111 months ago

              Yes exactly, also each icmb would qualify (during re-entry they also pickup “some” speed)… but it seems like hypersonic is sort of a marketing sticker thing, like “green” and “low fat”.

              The NATO hypersonics that are being worked on should be able to make evasive manouvera at speed, will be interesting to see.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          111 months ago

          Yes they are, but in this conflict the Russians reconfigured some of them and use them in a ground to ground attackrole.

          They had shortages of other tactical weapons and apparently a nice stockpile of these missiles.