Probably the best performance of hypersonic weapons is their ability to burn through money at 10X the speed of sound. For the rest, it's mediocre.
thebulletin.org
A very interesting article on hypersonic missiles and HGVs.
Some of the bullet points are:
- Hypersonic missiles are not really a solution to all as it is made out to be.
- They spend a very long time (around 30 minutes) in dense atmosphere which affects their speed detrimentally, as well as the difficulties with high surface temperatures that they have to tackle.
- Existing weapon systems such as ballistic missiles already travel at hypersonic speeds, and spend much less time in atmosphere.
- What distinguishes hypersonic weapons from these weapons is therefore their ability to glide at low altitudes, staying within the atmosphere for most of their flight.
- Manoeuvring HGV’s is not that easy. It also detracts from their speed.
- Because
drag slows hypersonic weapons, they are no faster—and can actually take longer to reach their targets—than other warhead delivery systems, such as ballistic missiles flown on depressed trajectories.
- Hypersonic missiles and HGVs are not as stealthy as they are made out to be and are easily detectable and can be engaged and intercepted by Terminal Missile Defence Systems.
- HGVs and Hypersonic missiles, especially scramjet powered ones, cost more than ballistic missiles.
- Manoeuvrable Reentry Vehicles (MaRV) mounted on ballistic missiles can reach their targets providing the combination of speed, accuracy, range, and survivability (without being intercepted) , just as good as hypersonic counterparts.
Reading between the lines of this article, one can not help but think that we are probably in the right direction with the development of high speed ballistic missiles like our Bora, Tayfun and Cenk. Thus logically, our next stage of development could be in to MaRVs. After all Iran and Pakistan have them too.