The\u00a0BQM-167 drone “served as surrogates for Russian cruise missiles” during a demonstration of the Air Force’s Advanced Battle Management System that’s designed to enable the rapid detection and destruction of incoming missiles.<\/p>\n
The HVP was fired from an Army M109 Paladin-based 155mm howitzer and a Navy deck gun during the demonstration, according<\/a> to Breaking Defense.<\/p>\n \u201cTanks shooting down cruise missiles is awesome,” Dr. Will Roper, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, technology, and logistics, told reporters<\/a>. “Video game, sci-fi awesome.”<\/p>\n Originally developed starting in 2013 as specialized ammo for the Navy’s much-hyped (and decidedly stagnant<\/a>) electromagnetic railgun, the Pentagon’s Strategic Capabilities Office (SCO) has since transitioned the HVP for use from conventional powder weapons like Army howitzers and Navy deck guns.<\/p>\n In 2018, the Navy reportedly test-fired<\/a> 20 next-generation HVP shells from the USS Dewey’s Mk 45 five-inch deck guns during the service’s annual Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) maritime exercise.<\/p>\n The advantage of the HVP over conventional missile defenses is a matter of cost<\/a>: While the standard Evolved Seasparrow Missile or Rolling Airframe Missile cost several million dollars apiece,\u00a0HVP program manager Vincent Sabio pegged<\/a> the cost of an HVP at around $85,000 apiece.<\/p>\n The same logic applies to the\u00a0standard Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) interceptors that fill mobile THAAD batteries around the world, Sabio added.<\/p>\n \u201cOur finger pauses over the fire button just because we know every time we push it we\u2019re pushing a fair amount of money out of that launcher,\u201d he said of the Patriot. But with HVPs, \u201cYou can shoot a lot of those things and not feel badly about it.\u201d<\/p>\n And while the DoD\u2019s existing land- and sea-based interceptor vehicles perform fine against ballistic missiles, they don\u2019t offer an optimal chance of success against incoming cruise missiles or hypersonic weapons which have become a major focus for the China and Russian militaries\u00a0 \u2014 and, in turn, necessitated<\/a> a similar technological response from the Pentagon.<\/p>\n “We need to be able to address (all) types of threats: subsonic, supersonic; sea-skimming, land-hugging; coming in from above and dropping down on top of us,” Sabio said <\/a>at the time. “There are many different trajectories that we need to be able to deal with that we\u2026 cannot deal with effectively today.”<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.fie.undef.edu.ar\/ceptm\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/batalla1.jpg\")
(U.S. Navy via Congressional Research Service)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n