I appreciate you taking the time to respond.
Do you believe hypersonic weapons of that nature will be limited to targets of strategic priority or tactical priority?
If you want a time critical strike capability, a SH(s) still has to be launched to carry and fire a hypersonic missile(s). Will the SH(s) be in a holding pattern, waiting for the call to strike? If so, then the proximity to the target provides a benefit. But if not, then the speed and travel of the ship-based hypersonic missile will outpace the sudden launch of a SH and provide a faster reaction time.
Going further, what is the nature of the target? Is it going to be used for mudhuts or legitimate C2 targets? That changes the application of the SH in the equation due to the possible threats and detection. If an air-assault is required, USAF assets like the B-1, B-2, & B-52 provide perfect air-launched platforms due to the magazine size.
The Navy has traditionally enjoyed the capability of launching ship-based missiles to attack targets, I think the scope of application needs to be defined for the SH and where the benefit is. I don't believe it would be as nearly difficult to accommodate hypersonic weapons on Navy ships as you make it out to be, they don't even have to be internalized. The modular container-esque design philosophy of some of these new weapon systems provides a more plug & play feature that can be enjoyed by all services thanks to the efforts for continued joint integration of systems.
It's like the discussion about the F-15 as a hypersonic launch platform, the application is limited and can be argued for & against depending on the nature of the target.
