The Navy is looking to deploy Mach 5+ hypersonic missiles (called Conventional Prompt Strike missiles, CPS) on the Virginia, Zumwalt, and Burke class ships.
Let’s see how the effort is coming along.
To briefly review, the missile is a joint development effort with the Army to produce hypersonic missiles with a common hypersonic glide body (CHGB), booster, and overall design. Each service will then develop its own launchers and any warhead-specific capabilities it needs. The Navy is taking the lead in developing the CHGB while the Army focuses on establishing an industrial production base. The Navy’s version is called the Conventional Prompt Strike missile and the Army's version is the Long Range Hypersonic Weapon (possibly referred to as ‘Dark Eagle’). Requested funding for hypersonic research in FY22 is an almost unbelievable $3.8B ! It would seem almost impossible to spend that amount of money in a year’s worth of research! But, I digress …
As a reminder, there are two broad types of hypersonic weapons:
- Boost/Glide – These missiles are boosted to very high altitudes where the warhead separates and then glides, unpowered, to the target.
- Cruise – These are low level, ramjet/scramjet powered missiles.
Boost/glide hypersonic missiles, which are what we are discussing in this post, use a two-stage, solid fueled rocket motor to boost to hypersonic speeds at the edge of the Earth’s atmosphere, just short of space, where they glide along the atmosphere before dive/gliding at unpowered hypersonic speeds to the target. The ‘warhead’ is non-explosive and relies on kinetic energy for its destructive effects. Range is reported to be >1700 miles. [2] The missile is reportedly around 3 ft wide and will not fit into standard Mk41/Mk57 VLS cells. It is unknown if the hypersonic weapons currently being developed will have anti-ship capability or if it is just land attack. Likely, it will initially just have land attack capability with a goal of later adding moving target (anti-ship) capability.
 |
| Concept For A Hypersonic Glide Body |
As explained in a Popular Mechanics article,
CPS is a boost glide weapon system, using a rocket booster nearly 3 feet wide to propel the weapon into the upper reaches of Earth’s atmosphere. Instead of continuing into low-Earth orbit like a ballistic missile warhead, the glide body stops short of entering space, pitching its nose downward toward the target. The glide body then streaks down upon the target at hypersonic speeds, decreasing the amount of time the defender has to shoot it down. [1]
The missile's range is also secret, but the Union of Concerned Scientists estimates the May 2020 test weapon flew a total distance of 2,485 miles, while noting it was half the distance originally forecast for the weapon. [1]
The big question about CPS is how the Navy will fit the weapon on the Burke-class destroyers. The Burkes, largely considered the backbone of the surface fleet, are heavily armed, and there isn’t much room for new weapons. Each destroyer has between 90 and 96 vertical launch missile silos, but the silos are too small to fit a weapon nearly 3 feet in diameter. [1]
One possibility: Perhaps the Navy installs larger silos as it upgrades older Burkes. The lead ship, Arleigh Burke herself, was commissioned in 1991 and needs to be retired or refurbished by 2026. That said, it may not make financial sense to refurbish the new ships. [1]
The Navy also wants more silos in the fleet, and bigger hypersonic silos will come at a cost of smaller silos capable of carrying a broader array of both offensive and defensive weapons. Or, as Defense News writes, the Navy could instead develop a smaller version of CPS that can fit in the existing silos. [1]
Here’s a few aspects for further consideration:
Detection. There are claims that hypersonic missiles will be difficult to detect. It is not intuitively obvious why this would be. In fact, given the altitude of their flight, the opposite would seem to be true with very long detection ranges possible. Raytheon seems to believe missile detection is straightforward [3] although they are attempting to sell a radar system so, of course, they would make such a claim.
A CRS report offers the likely explanation for the seemingly contradictory claims by referencing radar line-of-sight.[4] Hypersonic missiles are fairly easily detected with the detection range limited by the earth’s curvature (radar line-of-sight) and, of course, the power/capability of the radar itself (hence the Raytheon claim of enhanced detection range due to gallium based radars). However, given the speed of the missile, even very long range detection still only provides a very short time period in which to take defensive measures. So, it is not that hypersonic missiles are difficult to detect, it’s that their speed makes effective defense difficult regardless of detection range.
For example, a missile flying at 18 miles altitude (98,000 ft) has a maximum radar detection range of 434 miles [5] – plenty of range! However, at Mach 5 the missile would cover that 434 miles in just 6.8 minutes which is not much time to conduct an effective defense.
Zumwalt and Mk57 VLS. It appears that the first Navy application of hypersonic weapons will be on the Zumwalt class. The hypersonic missile systems will be retrofitted to the space currently occupied by the defunct Advanced Gun Systems. This will require the development of a new type of ?vertical? launch system referred to by the Navy as the Advanced Payload Module launcher (everything the Navy touches has to be ‘advanced’ and ‘modular’, doesn’t it?).
This touches on one of the long-standing mysteries about the Zumwalt - what was the point of the Mk57 Peripheral Launch VLS system? The Mk 57 was touted as the VLS of the future with larger cells than the standard Mk41 but it appears to have been designed and procured with no suitably sized missiles in development or even contemplated and now we see that the hypersonic missiles won’t fit in the Mk57 cells, either. Why did anyone think the Mk57 was a good idea? The peripheral location is interesting and debatable but could have been achieved with standard Mk41 cells simply arranged differently.
Burkes and Hypersonics. Unlike the Zumwalts, the Burkes have no available, unused space in which to install large hypersonic magazines and launch systems. Presumably, significant portions of the existing VLS cells would have to be removed to make room for new hypersonic launch systems. This would mean reduced AAW (Standard and ESSM) and strike (Tomahawk) capacities although, presumably, the reduced Tomahawk capacities would be at least partially offset by the added hypersonic strike weapons. Still, reducing the AAW capacity on a ship whose primary purpose is AAW seems like an undesirable situation.
Installing even a minimally useful hypersonic capacity of, say, 30 missiles, would likely require the total removal of one of the two current Mk41 VLS clusters which would eliminate either 32 or 64 VLS cells depending on whether it was the forward or the aft cluster. This strongly suggests that a purpose built hypersonic-capable ship would be a better option. This might even be justification for the ever elusive, but never built, arsenal ship/barge.
Destructive Effect and Target Set. We’ve discussed this in previous posts and comments. Kinetic weapons (no explosive warhead) depend on the transfer/conversion of their kinetic energy into thermal energy and resulting shock/pressure effects. In order for this to happen, the kinetic projectile must encounter sufficient resistance to quickly and efficiently transfer/convert the kinetic energy. This is the bullet/paper problem: a bullet (lots of kinetic energy) fired at a piece of paper, will do very little damage, leaving only a bullet size hole as it passes through the paper and the paper will emerge virtually undamaged because the paper offers insufficient resistance to transfer/convert any of the bullet’s kinetic energy to the paper target. Similarly, a hypersonic kinetic projectile that encounters a soft target like a ship will likely pass through, causing relatively little damage. Conversely, a substantial, solid target such as a concrete bunker, fortification, or hardened aircraft shelter will offer sufficient resistance to facilitate the energy conversion and the target will be destroyed.
This suggests that the target set of hypersonic weapons will be limited to substantial, fixed structures. Hypersonics would be useless against an army in the field since the combination of mobility (tanks, vehicles, men on foot, etc.) and softness would preclude effective hypersonic performance.
Infrared. One aspect that I’ve not seen discussed is the heating of the glide body and how that relates to detection and defense. A glide body will develop significant heat due to high speed friction with the atmosphere. On the one hand, in addition to blinding the glide body’s sensors, if it had any, this should be easily detected at very long ranges which would seem to facilitate defensive efforts. On the other hand, defensive missiles would suffer the same effect and be blinded in their attempt to intercept the hypersonic missile.[5]
Conclusion
It appears that we are spending nearly unbelievable sums of money on a weapon system with a very limited target set. Hypersonics weapons seem to offer little advantage at the tactical and operational level although the ability to impact strategic concerns is, potentially, significant. For example, hypersonic weapons offer the possibility to quickly and efficiently destroy an enemy’s port facilities, warehouses, airfields, key factories, and the like. Of course, the converse is also true and an enemy can similarly impact our facilities. This suggests that a revised approach to facility design and operations may be required.
Another implication of hypersonic weapons is that they are most useful when used against an enemy’s military infrastructure which, almost by definition, is located in the enemy’s mainland. This means that, in order to be effective, combat must be expanded beyond proxy wars or distant battlefields and brought home to the enemy’s homeland. Depending on the initial scope of a war, this might well be a major escalation in scope. This implication holds true until such time as hypersonic weapons can be ‘down-scaled’ to the tactical level for use against small, mobile, fleeting targets. Of course, we already have effective weapons for those targets so there may be no need for hypersonics at that level and certainly not for the cost required.
Given the incredible expenditures involved, I hope the military has carefully, realistically, and thoroughly gamed out the ‘CONOPS’ for hypersonic weapons so as to completely understand how and under what circumstances they would be used and what their effectiveness would be and, most importantly, how they would support our [non-existent] geopolitical and military strategies. Unfortunately, given the Navy’s utter disdain for CONOPS, I’m not hopeful.
____________________________________
[1]Popular Mechanics website, “All 69 Navy Destroyers Are Getting Hypersonic Missiles”, Kyle Mizokami, Oct 22, 2020,
[2]Naval News website, “Latest Details on Hypersonic Missile Integration Aboard Zumwalt-class Destroyers”, Peter Ong, 28-Oct-2021,
[3]Investor’s Business Daily, “Army's New Raytheon Radar To Detect One Of The Deadliest Emerging Threats”, Gillian Rich, 17-Oct-2019
[4]https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11623
[5]https://satelliteobservation.net/2018/11/15/detecting-hypersonics/
This is nice tech and all, but what's the advantage in combat?
ReplyDeleteIf they're harder to shoot down than ballistic missiles, I guess they could be useful unless the cost per unit is huge?
That said, maybe we're missing the main point of this program being pork.
"There are claims that hypersonic missiles will be difficult to detect"
ReplyDeleteI've read in a couple of places that these vehicles may be fast enough so that they produce a plasma shell around them when travelling through the atmosphere, and the plasma may absorb radar waves. That would reduce the radar cross section. How much? No idea.
I imagine they would be a strong IR source, although that gives you direction but not range. Unless, of course you have multiple sensors and can triangulate.
"plasma may absorb radar waves."
DeleteI haven't seen that. Do you have a reference I can look at?
If true, that would, presumably, also blind any onboard glide body targeting radar which means the glide body would be a pure blind fire shot with no terminal guidance.
Would GPS or other guidance signals also be affected by a plasma shell?
"I haven't seen that. Do you have a reference I can look at?"
DeleteWell, there's this:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2021/06/17/radar-equipped-drones-may-protect-us-navy-ships-from-mach-10-hypersonic-missiles/?sh=6c7a571771be
which in an article that is mostly about using drones to extend detection range also talks about physics problems:
"But even with better radar detection, the physics of hypersonic weapons will still vex the defenders. The high speeds of hypersonic missiles flying through the atmosphere generate plasma clouds that absorb radar waves. "
The "plasma clouds" phrase is a link to this article:
https://www.defenceaviation.com/plasma-stealth/
which is largely about using plasma as a stealth technology for aircraft. With aircraft, a large part of the problem is making the plasma. For a hypersonic projectile, that problem largely goes away because the motion through the air heats up the air enough to make plasma.
There's also a Wikipedia article on "Plasma Stealth" which talks about it in more detail. Apparently in a plasma, there's a critical "frequency". For low frequency radar, the plasma simply reflects the signal like a metal. But for frequencies near the critical frequency (or maybe above, not sure about that) it reacts differently and may absorb the signal.
"Would GPS or other guidance signals also be affected by a plasma shell?"
DeleteDon't know. Seems like it might, but the effect does seem to be frequency dependent so there may be a workaround.
Hmm, interesting. This suggests that a multi-frequency radar would be able to readily detect a hypersonic object.
Delete"This suggests that a multi-frequency radar would be able to readily detect a hypersonic object."
DeleteTrue. This is also true for our existing stealth technology, by the way. Lower frequency radars can more easily detect stealth fighters (although not, I believe, bombers). But the lower frequency also gives worse resolution so often can't achieve enough accuracy for targeting.
Once again we are chasing a technology without doing the systems work to figure out if it offers a combat advantage. What is the terminal accuracy? For the Navy can it hit a moving ship? What is the optimal targeting angle? Perpindicular to the ship so it opens it ot the water? Grazing so it hits broadside and passes through with no flooding? I like the comparison to shooting through paper, but what are the shipboard effects of a passing through spaces? Collateral damage effects, even without massive kinetic effects? Good point on what is the cost per missile SYSTEM? Is this a tech to experiment with, yes! Plan on deploying? Not even close yet. Remember the SDI? Where is that system?
ReplyDeleteNo way you can hit a moving target with this, regardless of what they might claim, targeting will be in the future or even never.
DeleteIt's a land attack technology, now and for the close future.
I am a proponent of armored ships.
ReplyDeleteBut would an armored ship be more vulnerable to this weapon, as it would then be less 'soft'?
Lutefisk
Ironically, it's possible. There were cases in WWII of large caliber, armor piercing shells that passed straight through thinly armored destroyers, doing little damage, whereas those same shells would have exploded against a more heavily armored cruiser or battleship.
DeleteNow, before you start a campaign for the construction of ships made out of paper, bear in mind that most of the sources of damage a ship might face will not be from hypersonic weapons so armor is still a very good idea.
The larger point is that the Navy desperately needs to do some experiments involving weapons and REALISTIC ship plating. Think about it … every rail gun video you've seen involved shooting the projectile at massive steel blocks multiple feet thick, right? And then everyone says, wow, that's impressive! It is, IF THAT'S YOUR TARGET SET. Well, how about a test where we shoot a rail gun at a 3/16 or 1/4 inch plate which is what a real ship is built with? Let's see what happens then. I strongly suspect that we'd see the bullet-paper example play out, meaning no significant damage to the plate other than a small hole the size of the projectile … simple pass-through.
Finally, bear in mind that the purpose of armor is not just to completely stop a weapon but to mitigate the scope and spread of the damage.
It's a regular problem for the army.
DeleteThe discarding-sabot tank round is a solid penetrator dart that is designed to punch through the thick armor of main battle tanks.
But they will pass right through a thin skinned vehicle like a truck making only a small hole. For those you need an explosive round.
There are trade-offs with everything.
I'd rather have an armored ship and take my chances with these hypersonic kinetic weapons.
Lutefisk
My thought exactly, not like it matters since there's no way to actually target a ship with such a weapon for the foreseeable future.
DeleteAnd of course you're getting an advantage against hypersonic weapons (rare) in exchange for a weakness against "almost everything else", which tends to be a more commonly used set of weapons.
Still, pretty amusing.
An interesting and thought-provoking post. I dont know much at all about this new tech, but it certainly seems to have more strategic than tactical implications, in that theyre potentially a threat to things like the land based legs of the triad. It seems their utility to the Navy is limited. Is being a kinetic weapon the only choice here due to heating or G forces?? If we're chasing a larger sized missile that doesn't fit in current VLS, and have to to have new launchers and platforms, would a more conventional missile, like say a modernized, faster, agile Tomahawk, with a significantly bigger warhead be more useful, at least for the Navy? Lots more questions than answers...
ReplyDelete"seems to have more strategic than tactical implications"
DeleteIf so, does this alter your thinking about the Navy's use of the weapons? Does it make sense to reduce the Burke's overall AAW capacity to accommodate a hypersonic capability that is limited?
Why is the Navy latching onto hypersonics? Is it because the Navy sees some operational/tactical utility for them or is it just a budget grab?
"Is being a kinetic weapon the only choice here due to heating or G forces??"
DeleteNo. The Russian Avangard, for example, includes a nuclear warhead. And I don't know about the Chinese weapons. I believe the argument for many conventional weapons is that the energy of the explosive is small compared to the kinetic energy of the warhead, so there may not be a point to including explosives. Except for the bullet/paper analogy, of course.
"...does this alter your thinking about the Navy's use of the weapons"
DeleteIt does for me.
I agree that this seems like a strategic weapon. I could see this being used against Iranian nuclear facilities, or the Three Gorges Dam in a general war with China, or something associate with an enemy's version of Cheyenne Mountain.
But all of that seems more like an Air Force responsibility.
Why the Navy?
Why the Army?
Lutefisk
"Why the Navy?
DeleteWhy the Army?"
As always … budget grabbing.
No service is willing to allow another service to establish a monopoly on what might be (is !!!) a heavily funded and Congressionally-favored weapons program. The risk to their budget slice is unacceptable and the only alternative is to duplicate the capability regardless of whether it makes military sense.
Follow the money!
It seems that "Advanced Payload Module" or APM launcher (that will come in a "three-pack configuration") will not be a vertical launcher.
ReplyDeleteAccording to some recent info, only the the AGS mounts will be removed; so that the APM itself could resemble the TEL devoleped for the Army.
That would mean that the huge automated magazines for 155 mm projectiles would remain for... nothing.
The Virginia class subs will, apparently, have vertical launch cells that fit into the VPM cell spaces (3 missiles per launch cluster, is what I've read). Perhaps the Zumwalts will use an adaptation of the Virginia VPM? Pure speculation on my part.
DeleteIf the hypersonics use ONLY the AGS gun space, that would limit the number of available missiles that could fit in the gun area to a relative few - maybe around 9 missile per gun area???? Again, pure speculation.
However, there is a certain difference between adapting the VPM launchers planned for the Virginia and "gutting" the Zumwalt, ie remove the AGS and the underlying magazines for some new (and unknown) vertical launchers.
DeleteIt could be complex, costly and time-consuming work.
All things the US Navy cannot afford ...
IMHO
I'm pretty sure they think they can get 4 tubes per gun. Question is whether they do it for both guns.
DeleteCPS missile Costs.
ReplyDeleteBloomberg reported on the Pentagon cost estimate of the Navy CPS (hypersonic) missile program as $21.5 billion for 200 operational missiles by 2040.
Development $10.1 billion (40 missiles), production $11 billion (200 missiles) and Milcon $0.4 billion. Production 4 in 2025, 14 2026, 16 in 2027 and 2028 and continues to 2040, initially for Zumwalts in 2025 and Virginia subs from 2028
The cost drivers for these very, very expensive missiles ~ $107 million each (including development) is the new tech materials and processing required for the thermal protection needed for the hypersonic missile flying at the very high Mach numbers.
To be remembered the above costs exclude the launchers which will be funded as part of the build cost of the Virginia Block Vs, which include the new mid hull plug for the ~2,500t 84' long Virginia Payload Module with four VLS tubes (derived from the Trident 87" VLS tubes) each tube said to capable of fitting 3 of the 34.5" dia CPS missiles, for a total 12 CPS missiles per sub, Block V's cost an additional ~$500 million over and above the build cost of the Block IV's.
So for 200 CPS missiles expect Navy spending total ~$27.5 billion (CPS program $21.5 billion, the 10 Virginia Block Vs VPM~ $500 million each, $5 billion plus another $billion or so for converting the three Zumwalts to fire the CPS missiles.
Understand Navy needs a new gen missile to replace the 1980's ~ $1 million Tomahawk but costs totally out of control and pathetic numbers. Do wonder if the AoA justifying the CPS included the above cost numbers, if not think CPS should be cancelled asap as too expensive.
PS Understand flying at very high Mach numbers is very expensive as the drag increases as square of the speed, mention the CPS is Mach 5 plus
PPS Costs exclude Army hypersonic variant of the CPS.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-12/hypersonic-sticker-shock-u-s-weapons-may-run-106-million-each
That is an insane price for a munition. Targets are going to have extremely high value for it to be worth firing one.
DeleteHow much is hitting a weapons factory in the Chinese mainland worth?
Delete"How much is hitting a weapons factory in the Chinese mainland worth?"
DeleteHitting a single factory isn't worth much at all given the many dozens/hundreds of critical factories involved just in weapons manufacture. Toss in aircraft, sensors, vehicles, etc. manufacturing and you've got many hundreds of factories. Destroying a significant portion of them would require many thousands of hypersonic weapons and that's the problem. At $100M apiece for a single use weapon, that puts it on the losing side of the cost equation. Consider that the Navy is straining to acquire and operate just 9 air wings (around $80M per aircraft) with a total of around 500 combat-ish aircraft and you can see that paying for thousands of $100M single use weapons is likely prohibitive.
I agree that the hypersonics are going to have be reserved for a very small number of very, very, very high value targets (nuclear weapons sites, top headquarters locations, a critical dam, or some such) because we won't be able to afford many of the weapons unless the cost comes way down. We're struggling to afford sufficient quantities of Standard missiles at just a few million dollars each!
"Hitting a single factory isn't worth much at all given the many dozens/hundreds of critical factories involved just in weapons manufacture. Toss in aircraft, sensors, vehicles, etc. manufacturing and you've got many hundreds of factories. Destroying a significant portion of them would require many thousands of hypersonic weapons and that's the problem."
DeleteSure, but you don't need to strike everything.
As long as one critical component cannot be produced, the system won't be completed.
And there are LOTS of criticalities, single-sourcing, etc.
Example: Navy gets radars from Raytheon only.
Radars are highly complex systems requiring lots and lots components.
Strike the little-known, defenseless factory Raytheon gets a key component from and there's no more radars for the entire Navy until it's rebuilt.
Still, at 100 million a pop not many will be acquired, even assuming they're worth the price.
Your point about critical vulnerabilities is valid but China has much greater redundancy than we do, from what I can discern. In addition, while there are some single source suppliers, most equipment can be sourced from multiple sources. Regardless, there is a lesson here regarding single points of failure and our US government should be looking to address those as part of a comprehensive strategic industrial support plan.
Delete" no more radars for the entire Navy until it's rebuilt."
Which suggests that a wise Navy would be stockpiling critical components against that very possibility. Our Navy, on the other hand ...
RE: the question of having to remove Mark 41 launchers on the Burke to make room for hypersonic.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if it might make sense to trade off the helicopter hanger for hypersonic missile launchers. The helicopters aren't of much use in AAW. They're just there mostly for ASW.
Of course, I suppose there could be other problems, like weight.
"trade off the helicopter hanger"
DeleteYes!!!!
Good idea, and might be used to justify buying other Constellations/USVs for ASW (since we're currently pretending that Burkes will actually do ASW and they're going to need a replacement for that), so it might even happen.
DeletePerhaps this expands the target set:
ReplyDeletePentagon scientists can't figure out how China’s hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV) fired another missile in mid-flight. Neither the US nor Russia has the ability to launch a missile from a parent vehicle traveling five times the speed of sound. During a weapon test in July, the hypersonic missile released a separate missile that rocketed away, falling harmlessly into the South China Sea.
The Financial Times found no consensus among military experts as to the purpose of the missile–a nuclear-capable, maneuverable spacecraft–which was directed into the South China Sea. General Mark Milley, Chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, described China’s weapons test as a “Sputnik moment”, and US officials voiced concerns about a hypersonic weapons capability gap between China and the US.
https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/3157006/chinese-hypersonic-test-included-path-breaking?utm_source=rss_feed
"It appears that we are spending nearly unbelievable sums of money on a weapon system with a very limited target set."
ReplyDeleteLots of money produced no products, another display of incompetency of military R&D
Once they are cheap enough, they can be used on attacking many targets, just like today's missiles.
"proxy wars"
Once a nation has many levels of hypersonic weapons, they can sell some 2nd tier products to nations doing proxy wars for them. A small nation with this kind of weapons this a headace as you cannot nuke them but they can create lots of damages to you.
"The ‘warhead’ is non-explosive and relies on kinetic energy for its destructive effects."
ReplyDeleteThe Popular Mechanics article says just the opposite, "Pentagon has said all hypersonic weapons in current development will carry conventional warheads."
Are you sure that this means conventional with explosives, as opposed to conventional rather than nuclear?
DeleteI think it means non-nuclear. Every other article I've read describes the 'warhead' as inert, kinetic-only.
DeleteI'm pretty sure we're talking non-nuclear warheads. Though, what size remains to be seen. Given the speeds involved and size of the missile, I'd guess no more than 300 to 500 pounds.
DeleteThe primary motivation in obtaining hyersonic systems has nothing to do with tactical considerations. It is instead is is cover song for an old hit tune: "The Commies have them so we should too."
ReplyDeleteThe entire cold war was replete with this nonsense. Sometimes with good results sometimes with bad. The Russians developed the Mig-25 to fight the B-70 that we cancelled. It was partly about fears over Soviet anti-ship missiles that justified pulling the Battleships out of mothballs during the Reagan era.
The Russians made what may have been the worst carriers because of our perceived advantage with carriers.
So the Chinese and Russians are testing hypersonic missiles so of course we have to counter.
But they are testing not deploying these things. Could the Chinese use these for a new "Pear Harbor"? Yes. Would they? That is hard to say.
You have brought up some vaild points about deployment. Even the vaunted Chineese ASBM is really only good for destorying a ship in port, not in fluid combat. Great for hitting bunkers in Taiwan but fleet killers a bit less so.
The question is do we have to have them just because the enemy does? We freaked when the Russian super-cavitating torpedo came out. But it is still a bit of a niche weapon, and we never built one of our own.
Preparing to fight a second Cold War should mean learning a few things from the last one not repeating it move by move.
Okay, you've raised the question and issued a cautionary warning but you haven't answered the question. Is there a valid reason for pursuing hypersonic weapons? Do they offer a military advantage for us? If so, what? They certainly would appear to have some destructive capability but is it enough to justify the effort and enormous expenditure or are there better ways to achieve the same military ends?
DeleteYou've raised the right question, now give us your take on the answer!
My answer is No, we shouldn't be pumping money into yet another wonder weapon until we can replenish our REAL gaps in things like minesweeping and ASW coverage. Yes, that will give a slight advantage in limited way to China/Russia but not the game changer that it purports to be. A stealthier version of Tomahawk or LRASM would be more cost effective, more versatile, and more likely to actually affect a conflict.
DeleteA good analogy would be the Nazis and the V2. The V2 was a genuine leap ahead in technology. It was so far in advance of what we had that we took their entire technical staff (Von Braun etc.) after the war and used them to build our own. But the V2 didn't win the war. Like the Hypersonic weapon, it was devastating to a target and completely incapable of interception. But it was not mature enough for an actual battle field game changer. It that case the weakness was partly the accuracy but even then, the amount of actual damage to cities like London was less than conventional bombing raids were doing to German ones. A few hundred 1 ton warheads did less than tens of thousands of conventional bombs. One hundred hypersonic missiles may be better at getting through than 100 Tomahawks, but we can afford to fire 1000 tomahawks for the price of those 100 hypersonic ones. Even if only 50% of 1000 tomahawks makes it, they will still do more damage for less money than if 100% of 100 Hypersonics get through.
In major wars, math beats technology. Germany had the first modern assault rifle, the first jet fighter and first jet bomber planes in combat, the first surface to air missile, the first cruise missle (V-1), etc. But they lost the war.
Good answer!
DeleteChinese HGV's targets are American ships.
ReplyDeleteAmerican's HGV's targets are Chinese land targets (cuz, their ships are going to hunker down within 1st chain, under their land based A2AD coverage.)
So, the solution already stands out for the Americans. Don't use ships, but planes (i.e. bomber) to launch HGVs, at least in the beginning anyway. American's true opponent will be Chinese land based damage control/recovery, not their ships. At the same time, if we send out ships to launch these missiles, we simplify China's problem by presenting them with slow & sinkable steels with long reload turn around time. B-52's (or whatnot) are much better.
Btw, don't assume Chinese can't find moving surface targets. They have built a railroad track 50-60mile long with (disposable) moving platforms loaded with electronics (including countermeasures) to simulate American warships. We have to assume when they shoot missiles at them they are simulating war time conditions (without or limited SAT info) including targeting.
Btw, don't assume Chinese CAN find moving surface targets. They can't. Not at the ranges that this entails. No one can.
DeleteThe real challenge is not the terminal targeting, it's the initial targeting. To even initiate a launch requires a definitive target fix and that can only come from multi-thousand mile sensors and no one has such a thing - at least not a survivable one.
I often talk about US military fantasies; well, this is a Chinese military fantasy, if they actually believe it - and I doubt they do.
China is going at the hypersonic route not only for the missiles, but also at the recon drone (its WZ-8 supposedly can travel up to 5000km). It'll be like replay of WW2 Pacific where both sides sent out scout planes, this time around with higher speed to shrink time & distance. I also googled the distance between that moving track test ground (in China interior) to China's coast. The distance is about 1500 miles (or 4800km round trip). Theoretically, China can conduct all its test flights (both missiles and drones) without our prying eyes (except SATs of course).
DeleteAlso, if you google 'China, wind tunnel', it seems China is building another wind tunnel that can go up to Mach 30 (they already have one doing Mach 10). Given what we found out about their FOBS releasing payload at hypersonic speed, this might not be hype or fantasy.
At this moment, Chinese hypersonic weapons still can NOT strike moving targets. DF-17 cannot. China has not claimed that it can. Of course, they have R&D activities on this front.
ReplyDeleteQuestion is when?
Really lament on incompetency of military R&D. They started earlier than China but ... you know.
It is even worse down in pipeline as less and less bright high school graduates choose STEM in college. You will have smaller and smaller pool of talent.
Why did anyone think the Mk57 was a good idea?
ReplyDeleteCompatible with Mk 41 cannisters yet can take 45% more exhaust and 9k lbs in the cannister. People talk about China's new ships having larger cells but I really haven't seen anything official on that. I also hear theirs can do both hot and cold launch some how, but again I haven't seen hard evidence. Based on that we are really looking at a system that still outperforms Russian gear. It will be interesting too see what dimensions KVLS-II lands on.
The new Army short range ballistic missile, Precision Strike Missile, PrSM, recently demonstrated 500 km / 270 nm range, mention that it could perhaps reach farther. The Army plans to purchase 110 missiles in FY2022 for about $166 million.
DeleteWhat is interesting the Army will soon be testing new variant with new seeker designed to target moving targets, specifically ships, the new multimode seeker will be government furnished, planned for in-service date of 2025 and Army looking at giving the warhead maneuvering ability to present an adversary with exponentially more complicated threat trajectories to deal with.
Of interest assume PrSM will be same 24"dia as the current Army ATACMS missiles launched from HIMARS which will be used for launching the PrSM, if true assume PrSM could be fired from a Mk57, too large a dia for the Mk41.
"Compatible with Mk 41 cannisters yet can … "
DeleteThe question/issue is not whether the system is slightly superior in performance but whether there was any use for it and the answer appears to be that there was no planned or anticipated missile that would take advantage of the system. So, for no actual use, we took on another system with its own supply train requirements, spares, training, and maintenance. In other words, the Navy took on the added expense of a whole new system for absolutely no application. Just one more of a nearly endless series of idiotic decisions.
We created an entirely new gun system that had no ammo.
We created an entirely new VLS that had no missiles.
This is how acquisition and operating/maintenance costs skyrocket.
June 4 acting Navy Secretary Thomas Harker said the Navy in FY2023 had only the funding for only one major new system and the Navy had to make a choice between the DDG(X), NGAD or the SSN(X).
ReplyDeleteIf funding is so tight what is the rationale/CONOPS in funding the mouth watering expensive multi-$billion CPS program for the pitfall number of 200 missiles by 2040.
https://news.usni.org/2021/06/08/secnav-memo-new-destroyer-fighter-or-sub-you-can-only-pick-one-cut-nuclear-cruise-missile
If this is fast and difficult to intercept, it has a potential role in taking out air defense systems to enable a conventional cruise missile strike to be more effective. Against a well protected target, 10 of these could play a SEAD role and save 100 Tomahawks. And I'm still not sure the math would make them worth it...
ReplyDelete"play a SEAD role"
DeleteTo an extent, yes. Bear in mind that hypersonic weapons require targeting and from thousands of miles away, the only effective targeting would be against known, fixed targets that can't/don't move. Today, many/most SAM systems are mobile and in a war would certainly be relocated frequently to prevent just this scenario of becoming a 'fixed' target. So, unless the hypersonic weapon has a sensor suite that can search large areas and pick out and identify the desired targets (no easy imaging task under the best of circumstances!) it would be ineffective against mobile/relocated targets.
Also, even if it could identify valid targets on its terminal approach, it would need to be able to maneuver in order to deviate from its straight line approach to hit the identified target and US hypersonic glide bodies appear to have no terminal maneuvering capability.
Lastly, bear in mind that the relatively tiny glide body would only be able to carry a very small sensor (and I've seen no indication that US glide bodies will carry any sensor at all !) which means fairly short range sensing. Given the Mach-several speed of the body, the available time for the body to sense a target AND MANEUVER TO LINE UP ON IT would be near zero.
In short, there's just a whole lot of challenges in trying to attack targets without known, fixed locations and none of the potential solutions seem to be incorporated into US hypersonic weapons.
Much of this is speculation on my part but it's reasoned speculation and seems correct based on what we currently know about US hypersonics … which isn't much!