Reply to post:

@WolfFan.

An interesting read, but unfortunately, somewhat missing the point. Simply reading Wikipedia and posting is not really very good.

The level of the reply can be assessed by its assumption that Mach 3 missiles cannot engage Mach 5 or 6 missiles. The engaging missile doesn't need to chase the incoming one, so outright speed is not important. If you think about it, the Mach 5 or 6 missile is coming at you, so the intercepting missile can be doing 100mph provided it's in the right place!!

Also, whilst hypersonic missiles have an advantage in speed, they have big disadvantages in other areas. Of prime concern is manoevering. If you're flying at those speeds, turning is a big issue, especially turn rate. Whilst the time the target has to engage you is low, your ability to avoid their incoming fire, trying to shoot you down, is pretty close to zero.

This isn't about top trumps and fastest is best etc. For each, there are many parameters with many different pros and cons. Although details are light, do you really think the USA would fund the development of LRASM if it was simply a sitting duck and stood no chance of getting through defences? As has been demonstrated many times in history, having huge technical advantage is not necessarily the best answer. You might like to think that the reason Russia is spending so much money on hypersonic missiles (and they are hugely expensive to develop and maintain) is that they are trying to make up for deficiencies elsewhere? Don't forget at one point, fighter aircraft were getting faster and faster each iteration and then suddenly, it all stopped. Not because it wasn't technically possible to keep going faster at the time, but because speed wasn't everything. Stealth is a good example. A LRASM fully stealthed will be a lot harder to detect and therefore intercept than a hypersonic missile, which basically, can't be stealthed!!