Heya TXnMA, nice to hear from you! Happy, healthy, and prosperous New Year to you in 2019...:)
I make the assumption that detection technology will be at a far enough range to make unguided hypersonic munitions ineffective to evasive targets that can detect at a far enough range to change course appropriately.
Of course, if a hypersonic weapon traveling at speed (2 miles/sec) close to the earth that is only detected when it crosses a horizon nine miles away doesn’t give more than four or five seconds reaction time would be very different.
I make the assumption that a hypersonic munition can be detected much further out. Even at 20 miles that would only give ten seconds to an impact. I am just guessing at this, but the distance at which an incoming weapon can be detected is the key parameter, as well as the distance at which a non-guided weapon is fired at. The combination of those two factors dictates whether a ship traveling at a certain speed will be able to maneuver to evade, and how much.
Obviously if an unguided hypersonic munition is fired to hit a course and speed solution made from a platform ten miles away where a target ship 500 feet in length can only travel 35 feet/sec when traveling 20 knots...well, that’s a no miss solution. Can’t miss when a course and speed is calculated from ten miles away and the round lands at its solution in five seconds...the ship could only travel 175 feet in five seconds...which is a third of a ship length.
But...if the solution for a non-guided munition is targeted from a platform that makes a solution from 100 miles away and an incoming round can be detected by a target at 20 miles...crap. I am overthinking it.
Ah hell. It all comes down to time of flight and detection distance. Unguided hypersonic munitions are going to be deadly at short ranges and less effective further out...heh, like old naval gunfire, just on a different scale!
You're going to dislike my saying this, but, when I wrote:
"Leaving the matters of of threat detection/recognition time, crew decision/reaction time, and vessel response time out of the equation..."
I did so, because I had in mind the performance of the Fitzgerald's leadership and warfighting crew.
And, when you factor in the command/response lag times inherent in passing spoken commands, person-person control commands via engine telegraph, and the (physics-controlled) lag times in ship delta speed and turning response... Bad news!
Even best case -- as long as we have humans in the C&C loop, (not just on ships) our vulnerability to fast-moving weapons is not going to be dominated merely by mechanical rate equations...
Frankly, I don't see target maneuvering as any sort of solution...
Assuming Naval fire control systems are even remotely on par with the Canadian fire control system for the MI Abrams tank that I saw demonstrated in 1978 -- I fear that Naval combat may well be becoming an attacker's game.
YMMV... '-)
All the best,
TXnMA
