Yes, well, I am no expert of the technology but I think the term they are using is up around Mach 25 or greater. 'High' Hypersonic weaponry enters a field of physics where all the aerodynamics, guidance physics, structural heating - everything - seems to change dynamically. I have to admit I am doubtful that we really lack such technology; the old X-15 was capable of Mach 6.7; the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird circulated fuel through the skin to compensate for heat and I think it only claimed a little above Mach 3 ???? 🤷♂️
At any rate, whoever possesses this 'secret' ultra high speed technology, I doubt that they would loan it to Iran. From the way you use the term 'hypersonic' I guess any ballistic missile could be called 'hypersonic'.
That Chinese balloon that raised such a fuss a while back was capable of hanging 5 'hypersonic' missiles below it - I have posted a picture of that configuration. I called it a 'first strike' configuration.
All are that's why they are so hard to shoot down. Maybe we have Mach 25, we admit Mach 20. I doubt anyone else that is human has that.
From the way you use the term 'hypersonic'
I'm using it correctly, Mach 5 is hypersonic. There are levels to it but @ the top end only the US has demo'ed that with a weapon. The Kinzhal shredding Uke F-16 reportedly goes Mach 10.
If we weren't governed by a moron, the balloon activity would never occur. 'first strike' capable? You don't expect much before you get what is due. No real damge vs annihilation.
They are NOT hypersonic when they really need to be which is on final approach to their target. Due to their high speed, they are not very maneuverable making them easy to target.
I would much rather have a sub-sonic missile with great accuracy and maneuverability over a hypersonic missile, especially if I am shooting at a mobile target.
SpyNavy
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
There is a whole lot of mumbojumbo being used by media folks trying to describe what they think the Irans are shooting at Israel. The terms “ballistic” and “Hypersonic” are just being mangled.
One needs to know just what the heck the Persians are using. “Ballistic” means that a vehicle has accelerated to escape velocity, 17,000 MPH , or so, and has escaped earth’s atmosphere and gravity, to fly to it’s target. When it gets to escape velocity its fuel is spent and it just “coasts” so ground observers don’t see a tail flame. Calling a short range missile Ballistic is nonsense.
One can’t call something “hypersonic” without calling out the medium the thing is flying in. At ground level, in the atmosphere, Mach 5 would be heckuva fast and qualify. “Sonic”, at say 100,000 feet is a way different number. Then “Sonic” out of the atmosphere is meaningless.
Nobody reports a sonic boom from any of these missiles which means they ain’t super fast anyway? Cruise missiles use a jet engine which has to run to keep the thing flying so they are not even “supersonic” let alone “hypersonic.”
Then, to maintain a Hypersonic speed in any atmosphere, air, water, whatever, requires a constant fuel burn and when the fuel is gone its speed is not Hyper anything.
If the mediots would just tell us how fast the Persian rockets are we could figger out the rest ourselves. And remember this: In the ground level atmosphere it’s really tough to make something fly faster than a rifle bullet.