7 ms·
Don't Believe the Hype About Hypersonic Missiles
- khuey 6y agoRecent American military interest in hypersonic missiles definitely feels like a case of "Russia and China are playing with these, we want to play with one too".
- _jal 6y agoThere's logic to the idea that, if your adversaries are suddenly interested in something, it is probably worth your time to make sure you're not missing anything. Of course, there's also logic to generating red herrings to waste your adversaries' resources, and the US has done that to others.
- phkahler 6y ago>> Of course, there's also logic to generating red herrings to waste your adversaries' resources, and the US has done that to others. Or at least that's the story we tell when the budget it spent with nothing to show for it.
- SiempreViernes 6y agoTheir logic is known though, and it's simply to deliver nukes in the face of American ballistic missile defence (BMD) systems. The US doesn't face any BMD to defeat, so they just want hypersonics because the others have them. And with the heating mentioned in the text being such that you can't put any good sensing into them, a hypersonic without a nuke is simply a very fast missile that almost always misses its target.
- redis_mlc 6y agoRussia and China can't compete with the US on airceaft carriers, so they're investing in cheaper hypersonic missiles. The fact that China is specifically targeting the US should be a wake-up call.
- the_snooze 6y ago>I think it would be extremely naive of us, Mr. President, to imagine that these new developments are going to cause any change in Soviet expansionist policy. I mean, we must be... increasingly on the alert to prevent them from taking over other mineshaft space, in order to breed more prodigiously than we do, thus, knocking us out in superior numbers when we emerge! Mr. President, we must not allow... a mine shaft gap!
- PaulHoule 6y agoActually the US fielded this hypersonic glide vehicle in the late 1970s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pershing_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pershing_II This was a big upgrade on the original Pershing missile that kept the same launcher but was competitive with the Soviet SS-20 that weighed three times as much because it had an autonomous guidance that could directly impact a target even when the mobile launcher was at an unsurveyed location. This is not advanced or exotic technology for a missile with the P II's range, you don't need exotic materials (that little dome on the bottom is a radar antenna, not a heat shield) and it can get 25 g acceleration with those little fins that you might not notice if you don't look carefully. Thus it is something third-world countries can field if they want to. That kind of missile can break unpredictably two or more times on reentry and thus confound anti-missile defenses of all kinds. The Russians had a nuclear-armed ABM system in the Moscow area at that time (and still do) and they found it intimidating. That kind of nuclear-armed ABM might be able to fire a large number of shots and get lucky, but the kinetic kill systems that we use to protect our naval groups would be helpless against it. That's why China is developing an anti-ship weapon with similar capabilities; instead of soaking up the inaccuracy of the launch point, the missile can handle the uncertainty of where a ship is going to be when the missile arrives. With a nuclear warhead that kind of missile could obliterate an aircraft carrier -- but even with conventional warheads it could cause a lot of trouble, this is what a smaller ship looks like when it has been hit by 4 2000 lb conventional bombs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Direct_Attack_Munition#/media/File:Ex-Schenectady_(LST-1185)_sinking.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Direct_Attack_Munition#/... That won't sink a carrier but it could stop flight operations for a while and have them steaming back to San Diego.
- aerostable_slug 6y agoWe also had the Mk.500 Evader and AMaRV programs, nuclear-armed SLBM and ICBM ballistic missile warheads designed specifically to evade missile defenses with nuclear warheads. We didn't produce them because they weren't needed at that time against their near-term target sets, not because they didn't work.
- khuey 6y agoThat answers the question of how China benefits from a hypersonic missile program. It doesn't answer the question of how the US does. The US doesn't need to hold American aircraft carriers operating in East Asia at risk.
- lm28469 6y ago> merely evolutionary change that isn't worth the price > These missiles are, in reality, an old technology with a massive price tag Isn't that the entire point of the military–industrial complex ? (Or even capitalism in general) Come up with new products with various level of real world benefits, it doesn't matter as long as it keeps people busy and money flowing
- macinjosh 6y agoThe government's corrupt relationship with the military-industrial complex is about as far away from capitalism as you can get. It is corporatism. It is trillion+ dollar corporate benefit program for defense contractors. Big buying decisions are made by Congress mainly based on what they think is best for their reelection, not actual needs. Government has a monopoly on violence and the products are highly specialized so they are the only customer, which means there is no market in place. With no market and only one customer that makes terrible decisions none of the mechanisms of capitalism would even have a chance to have an effect.
- lm28469 6y ago> as far away from capitalism as you can get. How do you call a system in which for profit private companies generate trillions of $ every year and come up with new products every few years to keep the machine going ?
- samizdis 6y agoAh, that reminds me of the classic film Robocop. Dick Jones [big exec at Omni Consumer Products talking about the ED 209 enforcement robot after it wastes a middle-ranking exec during a demo/presentation]: I had a guaranteed military sale with ED209! Renovation program! Spare parts for 25 years! Who cares if it worked or not!
- Jtsummers 6y agoI started my career in an aerospace parts company, what they made was fairly unique globally (and through various acquisitions they had no real domestic competition in the US, which guaranteed them many contracts). Many of my colleagues could not understand how the company was so well off when our products were being sold so cheap. I had to remind them that everything we made had a 5-10 year mandatory refresh cycle and no commercial, and few military, aircraft operators were going to manage that on their own (actually testing the LRUs and sensors, refurbing them, and replacing them). Everything came back to us for a guaranteed income stream over 20-100 years, depending on the expected life of the aircraft. If you can swing a DOD or DOD-adjacent supply contract for an aircraft, you're probably set for life.
- pnutjam 6y agobut, what if I have a substantial financial stake in pitching new tech to the military...
- everyone 6y agoIsnt the US way behind on this tech tho? Also whatever is currently being developed would be top secret. How can IEEE know what they are talking about if their information is incomplete and out of date.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jcims 6y agoCool video of the (hypersonic) Sprint anti-ballistic missile, designed to intercept incoming ICBMs once they get below the ionosphere and are more visible to radar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dl9Ovwmnxw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dl9Ovwmnxw It looks fake. I'm bummed I'll likely never see something like that in person...at least in a test.
- Deadron 6y agoStrategic missile defense almost entirely a complete waste of money. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/disastrous-us-approach-strategic-missile-defense https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/disastrous-us-approach-stra...
- PaulHoule 6y agoYes, David Wright, the guy who wrote that article, recycles the same opinion piece about how the Patriot Missile wasn't very effective in Gulf War I and never mentions that every part of that system has been upgraded 2 or 3 times since then.
- Finnucane 6y agoYeah, I guess you could argue that the SDI program wasn't a complete failure, just oversold, and did waste a lot of time and money pursuing ideas that never panned out.
- PaulHoule 6y agoRobert Jastrow wrote a book titled "How to Make Nuclear Weapons Obsolete" and quite a bit of that happened with the application of cybernetics and advanced technology to war. For instance there was the old doctrine of holding back a Russian invasion of Europe with small yield tactical neutron bombs. Then weapons like this were invented: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-97_Sensor_Fuzed_Weapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-97_Sensor_Fuzed_Weapon A stick of those dropped from a B-52 will do more damage to a tank division than a single 1kt warhead. Similar sorts of devices were demoed but not fielded for use on land (think of a vehicle that can fire and control hundreds of anti-tank missiles from concealment with no detectable radio signature made from off-the-shelf parts) Progress on lasers has been steady like progress in semiconductors, sometimes I am shocked at how easy it is to buy a dangerous laser. There have been very good laser weapon demos since the 1990s the main practical problem has been moving away from dangerous chemistry to fiber laser modules that can be integrated with the rest of the weapon and duplicated to increase output. These are being fielded now against drones. There are handheld anti-personnel lasers that will heat the outermost 1 mm of your clothes to 20,000 K which has an effect like a flash bang and also makes an electromagnetic pulse that directly stimulates pain sensations: it can knock you down (e.g. with the impact of expanding plasma) and discombobulate you pretty bad without causing much tissue damage. Word of it got out and the fear that people would use it as a torture device shut it down. If SDI failed at anything it was replacing the Space Shuttle.
- npilk 6y agoReminds me of Gravity's Rainbow – they explode first, and then you hear them coming in...
- droopyEyelids 6y agoWhat a frustrating article! Another case of 'no threat model security analysis' Hypersonic missiles are the perfect anti-aircraft-carrier weapon. Thats why China and Russia have invested. It's a cheap counter to America's greatest strength. That means the article is basically correct! It's a waste of money for the USA- we are not an underdog looking to counter a power that outspends us by trillions. But the article is also completely backwards and wrong! In the USA we've run a near-austerity budget for decades to support an enormous war machine premised on aircraft carriers being important, and now that has been if not neutralized, severely nerfed.
- valuearb 6y agoThe US doesn’t need hypersonic anti carrier missiles, since no potential adversary has any appreciable number of carriers.
- thoughtstheseus 6y agoYeah, the U.S. navy already knows this. They’re shifting to a more distributed fleet architecture.
- josefresco 6y agoNot to mention an existing robust fleet of nuclear submarines.
- randomopining 6y agoHow long will it take for them to make the change?
- sitkack 6y agoAircraft carriers were always an expensive, eggs-in-one-basket liability since they were invented. Rather than allocate resources to our own hypersonic missiles and carrier defense, we should be using something other than massive floating targets. Massive aircraft carriers primary purpose is to burn money.
- alex_young 6y agoIsn’t the real issue the Russian’s nuclear propelled version though? If we shoot it down it still leaves a huge fallout problem right?
- okl 6y agoIsn't that true for any nuclear warhead that you shoot to bits?
- yodelshady 6y agoNope. Fissile material is relatively calm unless it's actually fissioned, which usually requires more than just shooting it. And the radiation it does emit won't penetrate skin. Basically, don't eat, snort or attempt relations with it and you're probably fine.
- drtillberg 6y agoEh, not sure how the word "Russian" ended up in that comment. It was an American design before it was a Russian one.[1] Plus, there was an added feature in some American plans I've read about (but can't immediately locate) of long-term loitering over adversarial territory and discharge of radioactive material. What would it matter if it were hypersonic? [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto
- detritus 6y agoPresumably the choice of noting Russia here is because they are presently and actively suggesting they're going to field one of these soon, and are apparently developing the concept - whereas Project Pluto was the sort of standard fantastical deployment of nuclear technology popular in the 60s, subsequently discounted as being A Bad Idea. ed- typos
- jjoonathan 6y agoYeah, I thought the Russians did field a long-term-high-speed-loiter nuclear submarine drone in the last few years. My military-tech-enthusiast friends were all very worried and I'd be lying if I said none of it rubbed off.
- ben7799 6y agoThis stuff could all be false flag on the US side. We worked on this stuff for so long and have so much experience with ballistic missiles it's probably pointless as the article said. For all anyone knows the X-37 is fully operational with orbital ballistic weapons that would greatly outclass hypersonic missiles. Weapons accelerated from orbit would be very fast, require way less energy, be smaller so it could be holding more of them than we realize, give a target far less warning & time to react. All the research stuff could be a smokescreen. It's been hanging around in orbit for more than a decade cloaked in mystery.
- thoughtstheseus 6y agoThey are also more visible, hypersonic missiles stay low so the curvature of the earth makes tracking and neutralizing them (missile defense) difficult and costly.
- spiritplumber 6y agoThat also makes it easier to track by satellite, though.
- ben7799 6y agoA weapon launched from space is hypersonic by definition, the X-37 itself travels at hypersonic speed all the time and moves faster than these missiles. The X-37 is very hard to track because it can make dramatic orbit changes using the earth itself as cover and appear from a different direction. It's all theoretical but a weapon like that launched from space is going to accelerate faster (it's already hypersonic when it comes off the rail) & generate less heat signature until it re-enteres the atmosphere. And if carrier groups can be sunk by these missiles it would make way more sense to have them on a space platform or a submarine platform than on ships.
- ncmncm 6y agoThe X-37's very long missions suggest that it doesn't really have any uses, and these long missions are just to park it someplace where it looks less like it has just been mothballed.
- rich_sasha 6y agoWhat about hypersonic anti-ship missiles? I guess generally speaking, missiles against moving targets. Perhaps that's useful? US Navy sure seems concerned about those being deployed by China. That said, ballistic missiles can actually maneuver quite a bit during the terminal. Also, I always understood that the very impossibility of confusing them with ballistic missiles headed for Moscow was the decisive feature.
- unchocked 6y agoArticle makes the case for exoatmospheric ballistic missiles as a superior technology based on lack of drag. For intercontinental ranges, the argument probably holds. For short and medium ranges, particularly air-to-ship and ship-to-ship, the advantage of hypersonic trajectories becomes apparent in that there is very little time from launch to impact and very little time for interception / countermeasures. TLDR: This seems to be about boost-glide vehicles, where the real action is in really fast conventional missiles like these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M22_Zircon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M22_Zircon.
- nathanfig 6y agoYeah I was bothered by the lack of nuance in considering possible use cases.
- nathanfig 6y agoUhh so the author is saying that missiles designed to go faster will actually be slower because of drag? Is there a source on that claim or is it just speculation? I'm imagining someone at DARPA reading this and thinking, "Drag! Of course! That's why our missiles keep going so slow! If only we had thought of that!"
- tyingq 6y agoThe drag argument is that ballistic missiles spend a fair amount of time above the atmosphere, and that hypersonic missiles don't. Such that in the end, the ballistic missiles get there faster. The article, though, doesn't mention that the arc trajectory of ballistic missiles means they are spotted faster: https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20190406_STC905.png https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-e...
- aardvarkr 6y agoThat’s a great visual! Thanks for sharing. One thing to note from the article is these hypersonic weapons will generate insane amounts of heat which will show up on satellite imagery so they’re not as stealthy as that visual purports. Additionally, they’re powered by the same type of rocket boosters as an icbm so the same type of early launch detection system would still work to alert the moment a missile has been launched.
- calaphos 6y agoFor ground based targeting radar at the destination at least. Not sure how relevant this is with satellite based radar or infrared detection systems.
- danbruc 6y agoThe article, though, doesn't mention that the arc trajectory of ballistic missiles means they are spotted faster. But such missiles are nowadays - as far as I know - primarily detected via infrared from space and not radar stations near the target which turns the atmospheric trajectory into a disadvantage due to heating of the vehicle which is also mentioned in this article.
- alecmg 6y agoThis article sounds like "sour grapes". Keeps comparing hypersonic missiles to ballistic. Concluding there is no benefit. But what about cruise missiles and air launched long range missiles? Also assumes that all hypersonic weapons will use rocket engines. But that is exactly why interest is back, there are now air-breathing jets that power hypersonic missiles. Meaning range, maneuverability, size improve compared to rockets. And US is way behind in this.
- GartzenDeHaes 6y agoThis article ignores the primary use case for China and Russia: US carrier battle groups. In this roll, these missiles target the human element in the defensive systems by reducing the the time from detection to impact below human response capability. Humans monitor sensors, make decisions, and activate active defense systems. Until these systems are fully automated, hypersonic missiles are a huge advantage for China.
- jvanderbot 6y agoAutomated point defense systems are not a very far leap from the existing PDS systems which auto-acquire and auto-track. The difference, I think, is the effective range.
- NovemberWhiskey 6y agoExactly. The point of a ballistic missile is that it's ballistic - the trajectory is defined during the launch phase with only limited control during midcourse phase and essentially none during the terminal phase. This is fine if you're delivering a payload against a stationary target with an exact fix, and with a nuclear payload you get to be smart about fuzing to achieve maximum overpressure if your downrange distance isn't quite right. For a target that's less than precisely fixed, and that's maneuvering (which is going to be a case for a carrier battle group), and for a conventional explosive munition, this isn't good enough.
- topspin 6y agoNot very convincing. Citing a conclusion about cost from WW2 era Germany isn't a great argument. Every such product cost more in the distant past when prevailing techniques are only just barely feasible. Dyna-soar was a Space Plane; a human rated space vehicle. Yes it ultimately found no useful role and was shut down. There is little meaningful overlap between such a program and an unmanned missile system; the relevance of Dyna-soar is close to zero. Twice it is stated that hypersonic missiles have "few" advantages over cruise or ballistic technologies. But few isn't zero and the difference could be crucial. Doubtless the authors would love to credibly claim there are zero advantages, but they can't, because that is false. The implicit advice here is that we learn about the importance of these "few" advantages when they're applied to our forces by an opponent. We then end with the classic "pressing needs elsewhere" cop-out. "Pressing needs" are infinite. We seek value in our policies and investments and this writing fails to convince that hypersonic weapons have no value.
- sandworm101 6y ago>> There is little meaningful overlap between such a program and an unmanned missile system; the relevance of Dyna-soar is close to zero. Except that part of Dyna-soar was dipping back into atmosphere for plane change maneuvers. That dipping in and out of atmosphere to make course changes would seem very relevant to missiles. But this quote is more telling of the author: "Thus, while hypersonic weapons fly a more direct path to their targets, they lose much of their speed throughout flight, ultimately taking longer to reach their targets than comparable ballistic missiles." No. A ballistic missile follows a ballistic trajectory. That means it is on a very fixed schedule, a tight min/max flight time to the target based on predictable spheres-in-a-vacuum physics. A hypersonic missile on a lower trajectory can indeed get to some targets sooner. It will require more fuel/energy to do so, as opposed to following the higher ballistic path, but fuel efficiency isn't a big deal when you are delivering nukes.
- topspin 6y agoSorry but citing technical similarities doesn't salvage the Dyna-soar argument for me. Dyna-soar program was a manned bomber/reconnaissance platform. The recent efforts of advanced nations centers on missile development. The lack of a mission for the former has nothing to do with the latter. The difference is so great that I feel the use of Dyna-soar in this context to be misleading, and that probably deliberate.
- jvanderbot 6y agoHypersonics is mired in controversy, and may or may not be usable against strike groups, but there is a class of fast-moving missiles that certainly will be viable STS missiles in a conflict, are ready now, and are fast enough to cause concern. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silkworm_(missile) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silkworm_(missile) especially https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-301 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-301
- u678u 6y agoWhile we're on missiles its a bit scary how widespread rocket launches. 10 years ago the thought of N Korea and Iran launching long range rockets seemed a an impossible task, now I'm losing count of the commercial companies launching satellites into space. I aint rocket science any more.
- danbruc 6y agoWhen it comes to going fast through the atmosphere I always think of the Sprint anti-ballistic missile [1]. From zero to Mach 10 in five seconds, accelerating at 100 g, glowing white with a skin temperature of thousands of degrees, to intercept an incoming ICBM that is less than 10 seconds away from impact by detonating its own low-yield thermonuclear warhead in front of the target. There are also a few bits of footage [2] on YouTube. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_(missile) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_(missile) [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msXtgTVMcuA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msXtgTVMcuA
- dingaling 6y agoSprint was awesome, but was designed to intercept non-manouevering targets using hard x-ray flux. Both of which are sub-optimal against hypersonics.
- LargoLasskhyfv 6y agoHmmm. Also MIRVs. How many Sprints does one need against a dispersed swarm of those?
- V_Terranova_Jr 6y agoFrom the article: > the claim that hypersonic weapons can reach their targets faster than existing ballistic missiles The majority who are seriously working in these fields do not advocate for such systems based on this class of claims. > This extreme heating limits performance in two ways. First, it constrains glider geometry, as features like sharp noses and wings may be unable to withstand aerothermal heating. Everybody working in this field understands this and has various approaches to the problem. > Second, this heating renders hypersonic missiles vulnerable to detection by the satellite-mounted sensors that the United States and Russia currently possess, and that China is reportedly developing. Also well-known. While you are going to be thermo-structurally constrained, Boyd's Energy-Maneuverability theory is decades old and relevant to these systems. > Yet the performance of hypersonic weapons against missile defenses is strategically meaningful only if it offers a new capability (i.e., if these weapons do something existing missiles cannot). This is not the case. The speed and what it confers is a new capability. > the technical basis fails to justify the price. In the U.S., this is more a reflection of the U.S.' failure to maintain its leadership in hypersonics since the 1960s and 1970s. NASP was a disaster of a program and a bad idea (though it did provide huge benefits in terms of learning and technology programs). As is typical in U.S. behavior, upon the cancellation of NASP, there was a slamming shut of funding to hypersonics that undermined healthy sustainment of expertise and facilities. Present-day expenditures are helping the country get out of the pit it entered. There are a number of valid technical & programmatic criticisms of hypersonic systems and the U.S. hypersonic efforts. This article touched only on cost without any compelling support. While I'm not a credentialist, neither of the authors appear to be aerospace engineers, and it shows in this article. They would have been well-served by vetting this through people actually involved in the programs referenced.
- SiempreViernes 6y ago> The majority who are seriously working in these fields do not advocate for such systems based on this class of claims. Come now, just openly admit it is and important claim to dispel, don't hide behind careful conditionals like "most" and "serious". It's not like the "few" and "nonsensical" actors are unimportant: "Hypersonic weapons move faster than anything currently being used, giving adversaries far less time to react, and they provide a much harder target to counteract with interceptors" DOD News, "Hypersonics Testing Accelerates" "New tanks, military satellites, rockets and missiles, even a hypersonic missile that goes 17 times faster than the fastest missile currently available in the world." US Commander in Chief, West Point graduation speech.