The Navy (and US military, in general) has latched on to hypersonic weapons and, as is typical of the Navy, with absolutely no supporting evidence or testing that demonstrates that hypersonic weapons will be effective enough to justify their cost and other negative impacts. We touched on this in a previous post (see, “Conventional Hypersonic Prompt Strike Missile”).
Speaking of cost,
Based on internal Defense Department estimates on the number of weapons planned, that amounts to about $106 million per missile for the Army and $89.6 million for the Navy.[1]
One time use missiles that cost a hundred million dollars! How can that possibly be justified?
Here’s a cost for integrating – not producing! – hypersonic missile components:
Lockheed Martin won $347 million to integrate at least eight of those glide bodies with guidance systems, rocket boosters, protective canisters, and so on, arming a battery of four Long Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW) launchers.[2] [ed. = $43M each]
The 2021 GAO Annual Weapons Assessment report cites a program cost of $3.96B ($FY21) for a quantity of 11 missiles ($360M each) without specifying what’s included in the cost.
While there are no reliable unit cost figures for hypersonic weapons, yet, it is clear that they’re going to be very expensive. The first reference, citing a cost of $90M per missile for the Navy, is the most authoritative estimate that I’ve been able to find.
Now, with that kind of staggering cost in mind, how do we justify hypersonic weapons?
Well, one way would be if the destructive effects were several levels beyond devastating - a near nuclear bomb level of destructive power from a single weapon. However, the destructive effects are nowhere near that level. They will either depend on kinetic energy alone or use a conventional warhead which limits the size of the explosive power to conventional levels although that would be added to whatever kinetic effects there are.
As we’ve repeatedly demonstrated via calculations, kinetic energy, alone, is rarely sufficient to produce a useful destructive force. Kinetic energy is also a tricky phenomenon to effectively harness. For example, the bullet through paper analogy that I’ve often cited renders kinetic energy unusable. Even when a physically substantial target is hit, the kinetic energy is likely to be gradually released (on a relative time scale) as opposed to the instantaneous release from a conventional explosive. The gradual release ‘dilutes’ the destructive effect of the kinetic energy release/conversion.
Here’s an illustrative example of the kinetic energy effects of a hypersonic weapon. The data is all speculative as there are no publicly available specifications, that I’m aware of.
Mass of common glide body = 900 kg
Velocity = Mach 5 = 3800 mph = 1699 m/s
k.e. = 0.5 * mass * (velocity)squared
k.e. = 0.5 * 900 * (3800)squared
k.e. = 6,498,000,000 J
By comparison, a kg of TNT releases 4,184,000 J. Thus, the hypersonic weapon is equivalent to 1553 kg of TNT (3417 lb). A Tomahawk missile has a 1000 lb conventional warhead so a hypersonic weapon would be equivalent to 3.4 Tomahawk missiles. That’s substantial, to be sure, but it’s nothing approaching near nuclear bomb type of destruction.
Of course, if the warhead is heavier or lighter or the speed is greater or lesser, that would change the calculation.
The point is that while a weapon that is equivalent to 3.4 Tomahawk missiles is potent, it does not justify a hundred million dollar price tag when that hundred million dollars could buy 50 Tomahawk missiles.
We’ve discussed in previous posts that 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.
Closely related to this resistance problem is that a hypersonic missile will release/convert its kinetic energy slowly as opposed to a conventional explosive, such as a Tomahawk missile, which releases its energy instantaneously. When you see videos of rail gun projectiles impacting targets, the targets are, invariably, steel blocks multiple feet in thickness and the projectile produces an impressive fireworks display. However, how many real world targets consist of steel blocks a few feet thick? A hypersonic body impacting a real world target, such as a building, is likely going to penetrate straight through the target, releasing/converting only a portion of its energy. The remainder will be released/converted in the ground as the body continues to penetrate until it stops. In fact, the body might well pass straight through the building, leaving only a small hole, and bury itself in the ground (the bullet through paper analogy). What effect that underground release/conversion of energy would have on the above ground structure/target is unknown. I’m not aware that anyone has done any realistic testing of hypersonic weapon destructive effects. We desperately need realistic testing before we continue down the staggeringly expensive hypersonic weapons path. It’s going to be very difficult to justify a hundred million dollar, one time use weapon.
A final consideration about target sets is that the hypersonic missile inventory will likely be quite small.
The [Pentagon] internal assessment, made available to Bloomberg News, shows an expected total of … 240 missiles for the Navy.[1]
Thus, we have to not only take into account the cost of a hypersonic missile but also the inventory level. With very few missiles, we can’t waste them against anything but extremely high value targets. We also can’t waste them against heavily defended targets.
Moving on, we’ve noted that hypersonics have a fairly limited target set. With no guidance package, they can only be used against fixed targets. In order to effectively release/convert their kinetic energy, the target has to be physically substantial. Even a ship is likely to see a hypersonic weapon pass straight through (this phenomenon was seen often in WWII when large caliber, armor piercing shells would pass straight through a smaller target ship, causing very little damage.
What does all of the preceding tell us about the hypersonic weapon target set? It tells us that valid targets must be:
- Fixed targets since hypersonic weapons don’t have guidance packages
- Extremely high value targets to justify the cost
- Physically hard targets to trigger an effective degree of energy release/conversion
- Less defended so as not to waste expensive missiles
This excludes:
- Area bombardment / suppression fire
- Mobile targets
- Physically soft targets such as trucks, tanks, artillery, aircraft, most buildings
- Heavily defended targets
Now, let’s consider how many real world targets fall into the valid target set? The answer is … not many. Examples might be a very large headquarters building, hardened aircraft hangars, underground bunkers, nuclear missile silos, and Chinese submarine pens built into mountains. Even within this set, some of the potential targets are questionable. For example, is it really cost-effective to destroy a hardened aircraft hangar with a hundred million dollar missile as opposed to a couple of Tomahawks?
The harsh reality is that the vast majority of targets are not valid hypersonic weapon targets. These would include trucks, tanks, artillery, people, ships, aircraft, radars, and almost every worthwhile target one might find on a battlefield.
Thus, hypersonics would seem to be more a one-shot, sniper type weapon for use against very high value, very constrained targets rather than a general warfare weapon.
_____________________________________
[1]Bloomberg website, “Hypersonic Sticker Shock: U.S. Weapons May Run $106 Million Each”, Anthony Capaccio, 12-Nov-2021,
[2]Breaking Defense website, “Hypersonics: Army Awards $699M To Build First Missiles For A Combat Unit”, Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., 30-Aug-2019,
This is the ultimate absurdity regarding missile costs: a missile almost as expensive as the plane used for launching it.
ReplyDeleteSuch missile does more damage to the economy of the owner country that the enemy's! XD
JM
I wonder how much each hypersonic missile costs the PLA?
ReplyDeleteI know it pays $1 billion for Type-55, Arleigh Burke class, ships that we spend $7 billion apiece on.
This is absurdly incorrect. For starters, the Burke costs does not even remotely approach $7B even factoring in all the Navy's accounting games and deferred construction costs. Budget docs shown around $1.8B - $2.5B.
DeleteChina's Type 055 does not cost $1B. Chinese naval shipbuilding is HEAVILY subsidized by the state.
If you wish to comment on costs, do your homework, assemble real data, factor in state subsidies, and present factual information. Commenting on this blog requires facts and accuracy.
But what cost are we talking about? Also, figures touted are almost always nonsense unless you look at the actual contract. Then there are different ways to think about this: acquisition cost, unit cost, life cycle cost... I prefer life cycle cost (think total cost of ownership), because every acquisition is effectively an obligation or blank check written against the treasury that only stops when the item is disposed of.
DeleteGAB
Unfortunately the hypersonic missiles have hit their intended targets, the defense contractors, with a LARGE transfer of money. And the collateral effect is that the Congress members get to say they are strong on defense, bringing jobs, and wisely spending money to combat a threat. And of course the Military Brass gets to feather their cushy retirement jobs with even more reasons for high salaries and large expense accounts. This is a very successful weapon system according to the MICC requirements.
ReplyDeleteI'd have to disagree in one aspect, we would want to use them against the most heavily defended targets, as there is no known defense by China/Russia against them. But $100 mil or 80 is pure BS, these should not cost more than 5-10x for the largest variety versus a JASSM-X which is coming and will be sub 10 mil a copy. If anything, the latest version of the SM- family is supposed to be able to with a wider missile body have hypersonic speeds, and it sure as crap won't be 80 mil or for that matter 10 mil. Perhaps work on an extreme warhead and some potential range extensions and then these monstrosities should not be needed, or just use them for what seems most logical, as an alternative to building a new nuke cruise missile. Therefore you don't need anywhere near as many and leave it at that. Once they have years of understanding with the new SM- set of missiles maybe then they can scale up rather than spend the equivalent of a new Carrier on a single battalion with replacements or one VLS filled set of tubes on a Zumwalt.
ReplyDeleteI'd add I am not calling BS to the figure, it's BS that we'd spend that much.
Delete"as there is no known defense"
DeleteI'm glad you brought that up. Aside from people speculating with no factual basis, there is no test-based public information that I'm aware of regarding this. Therefore, I have no idea whether hypersonic weapons can be defeated or not. I do, however, note that the Navy believes that they can defeat supersonic missiles with ESSM and RAM. That leads me to suspect that hypersonics can be defeated with suitable defense systems. Hence, my comment about avoiding heavily defended targets especially factoring in the cost of each missile. However, if any actual defense data, good or bad, emerges, I'll of course modify my view accordingly.
This demonstrates that we need to conduct realistic tests and find out whether hypersonics can or cannot be defended against. If they can, we have to ask why we're pouring money into incredibly expensive weapons. If they cannot, we have to ask about the security of our various forward bases and forces.
Let me know if you find any relevant data.
DARPA is working on hypersonic defence,
DeleteGlide Breaker, complete with lovely renderings.
https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2022-04-15
"DARPA is working on hypersonic defence,"
DeleteDARPA works on lots of stuff, most of which never pans out. They're doing research, not weapon development, and that's great. However, that's not an actual, functioning defense. Maybe something will come of it ... maybe not.
As a relevant reminder, recall the anti-torpedo torpedo system which made it through development and was installed on a carrier ... and was found to be ineffective and was removed as a failed program. Simply researching and developing does not guarantee results. The reality is that most developmental projects fail. That doesn't mean we shouldn't conduct research but it means that we can't count on research as we make our actual plans.
Inside Defense October 7 reported Pentagon now delaying hypersonic flight test to next year, 2023. Trying to assess the root cause of last June's hypersonic missile test failure, flight test of the long-range hypersonic weapon was originally to be executed no later than last month.
ReplyDeletehttps://insidedefense.com/daily-news/pentagon-delays-major-hypersonic-flight-test-assessing-root-cause-june-failure
The link is behind a paywall. Please be cautious about citing blocked links.
DeleteGood point, though it follows after the Bloomberg article that shows up in full on Yahoo. June 30 "US Hypersonic Missile Fails in Test in Fresh Setback for Program"
Delete"A flight test of a hypersonic missile system in Hawaii ended in failure due to a problem that took place after ignition. “An anomaly occurred following ignition of the test asset,” Pentagon spokesman Navy Lieutenant Commander Tim Gorman said in the statement.
The trial marked the second unsuccessful test flight of the prototype weapon known as Conventional Prompt Strike. There was a booster failure in its first flight test in October, which prevented the missile from leaving the launch pad. The Conventional Prompt Strike weapon is envisioned to be installed on Zumwalt destroyers and Virginia-class submarines."
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-hypersonic-missile-fails-test-032014300.html
Will be of interest to see if Congress funds procurement of the Navy Conventional Prompt Strike Hypersonic Missile and the Army Long Range Hypersonic Weapon with their Common-Hypersonic Glide Body in FY23 after zero successful test flights? would be classic case of concurrency.
Air Force Secretary Kendall re the expensive AGM-183 hypersonic ARRW says cost remains a major challenge, adding that the Air Force shouldn’t “blindly embrace hypersonics as a panacea.” “They’re a valuable tool to have in the toolbox,” he said. “We have to think about what targets they’re most appropriate for, where that increased cost and so on has value, and returns on investment.” [the business case for the boost glide hypersonic missiles vs the scramjet hypersonic missiles?]
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022/09/09/kendall-more-optimistic-on-hypersonic-effort-after-successful-tests/
So if we have a huge bunker complex that also has air defense. and we fire 10 hypersonic missiles against a bunker at 100 mil each that's a billion. If against the hard-but not impossible--to kill hypersonic missiles the target shoots down 10%, that leaves only 9 hitting the target. Now lets for the same cost we could fire 160 tomahawks at the bunker and the air defense takes out a whopping 90% of them (which is ludicourous). That still leaves 16 missiles of similar (if not better) damage to the hypersonic attack.
ReplyDelete$90M per missile??? Thats unreal!!! While Im not well informed about all this, Ive seen lots of press about other nations being ahead of us in hypersonics. To what level and how true that is I have no idea. But it seems as if we want to jump on the hypersonic bandwagon, and are throwing cubic dollars at them playing catch up. Sadly I don't think anyone is evaluating their true utility, at least at this point of development. It seems to be a case of "we need a super fast missile, too!!" If they dont have that much utility, then we really dont need them. There are plenty of historical examples of nations not following trends that others did, and it didnt relegate them to Loser status in war because of it. Quantity vs quality, doctrinal changes, and the passage of time among other things all made "super weapons", or the "hot new thing" irrelevant. With all the current shortcomings the USN has, now is not the time to push so hard and spend so much on this. Do some R&D. Fine. But keep it in the lab until you can first, demonstrate their utility, and second, find a way to fix the God-awful pricetag!!!
ReplyDeleteIt may actually make more sense for at least some of the other countries since they are putting nuclear warheads on them. The cost benefit picture becomes much different then.
DeleteI don't see any realistic application for this weapon.
ReplyDeleteYes, it would be adequate to fire at major Chinese installations, monstrous price aside, but bombing mainland China seems unlikely given how Contemporary Pentagonal "Leaders" are.
Of course, attitudes may change when a real war occurs but you make a very good point about current attitudes. If we won't fight to prevent Iran from illegally seizing our riverine boats and crews, I can't see us attacking mainland China.
DeleteI think someone once said that about the aircraft carrier.
DeleteGotta wonder how much of this is designing and building the "hypersonic weapon" aspect (boost-glide vehicle) and how much applies to any long-range ballistic weapon. If vanilla MRBM/IRBM/SRBMs are MUCH cheaper, do hypersonic boost-glide vehicles really give us anything? Or are they tech for tech's sake.
ReplyDeleteSeems to me we always jump to the most complex, technically risky solution, when maybe just iterating on vanilla cruise missiles and ballistic missiles would be a better use of funds.
I think any weapon can be countered. As far as defending against super-duper fast missiles/ unguided warheads, six-decade old technology (Sprint ABM) was promising.
ReplyDeleteApparently it was accurate enough to actually hit ballistic test targets. I’m sure its cost, reliability and accuracy could be improved on with modern electronics.
ACES & EIGHTS
RE: Sprint. Remember that Sprint had a nuclear warhead. The aiming requirements are different for those.
DeleteYes, the sprint did have a Thermo nuclear weapon and the target was to be destroyed by neutron flux. But, I did read, that during some test firings the Sprint missile was intentionally directed to miss the test target. It’s not clear how accurate the Sprint was; also the Sprint was a guided missile, not a ballistic object. In addition it could be equipped with a command-detonated, conventional explosive. It would seem to me that it would be a more fruitful path of development to follow than a purely ballistic solution such as the rail gun approach.
DeleteSo...the Russian's hypersonic missiles cost them what? Are these weapons expensive for them as well? Is it even an apples vs oranges type comparison? I mean, the Russian military budget is WAY smaller than what the Pentagon has to play with.
ReplyDelete-A
Of the three service branches that are developing (or trying to) hypersonic missiles, the Air Force seems to be on its way, albeit slowly. Back in May of this year, after the first three test launches failed, a B-52H successfully launched an AGM-183A ARRW (Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon). The other Air Force hypersonic weapon in development is the Hypersonic Attach Cruise Missile (HACM).
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. Army will conduct at least two additional tests of its hypersonic missile (known as Dark Eagle being co-developed with the U.S. Navy)) before it will field its first hypersonic missile unit by the end of the 2023 fiscal year.
Incidentally, hypersonics are not new to the U.S. The Boeing X-20 Dyna-Soar:
The PRC supposedly liked it:
https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/x-20-dyna-soar-americas-hypersonic-space-bomber/
https://www.boeing.com/history/products/x-20-dyna-soar.page
Supporting articles:
https://www.airdatanews.com/us-air-force-accelerates-development-of-hypersonic-missiles/
https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/ausa/2022/10/14/us-army-plans-two-more-tests-of-hypersonic-missile-ahead-of-fielding/
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11623
The sensible thing to do is continue with the Tomahawks as they are certainly a cheaper but more importantly, a proven weapon. The other, more sensible thing, to do is develop it in secrecy. The AIM-260 JATM program began in 2017 and IOC is expected to be now.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28796/new-aim-260-missiles-are-so-secretive-they-will-require-a-custom-storage-bunker-at-hill-afb
The only "defense" against hypersonic weapons is the SM-6B which is under development.
https://www.theinfographicsshow.com/sm-6-missiles-hypersonic-weapons/
A lot of the hype over hypersonic weapons is just that, hype; we have flown hypersonic vehicles for many decades (e.g the MGM-31 Pershing missile). For comparison, a 120mm Rheinmetall L55 cannon commonly used in European and American tanks has a muzzle velocity of ~ 1,600 m/s: just shy of being hypersonic. Works great for some targets, not so well for others.
ReplyDeleteGAB
Hi CNO,
ReplyDeleteThis was an interesting post. I'd make a couple of points. There was no mention of the hypersonic missile having a warhead. That'd change the damage spread, and might make them worthwhile.
The way I look at hypersonic weapons is the speed is not for delivering kinetic energy, but to reach the target faster, and be more difficult for anti air defences to hit.
I recall a story that Bill Clinton had authortised a missile strike to kill Bin Laden, but the Tomahawks, at sub mach 1, took about 2 hours to reach him, by which time he'd moved and survived. I can't find a link, so I could be wrong. I think someone like Bin Laden would be "a High Value target"
Anyway, if you really wanted just kinetic energy damage on a fixed target, you could just use a ballistic missile, without the nuclear warhead.
Cheers,
Andrew
ps: sorry for the "test" post above. The last 2 weeks I've not been able to post to your site from my work computer- keeps giving me some error message.A
Surprised to see a discussion of hypersonic missiles without mention of the Russian 47M2 Kinzhal and 3M22 Zircon.
ReplyDeleteKinzhal has been in service for a while and was successfully used to destroy a former Soviet underground hardened nuclear weapons storage bunker at Dalyatin.
The Russian missiles do not cost $100milllion a pop.
Kinzhal is a development of the land based Iskander which is reported to cost $3million each. Kinzhal twice that?
Zircon is likely expensive by Russian standards, and requires special fuel, adding to its cost, but they appear to be planning a large production run so it must only be relatively, not stupidly, expensive.
With respect to the bullet through paper analogy, a Zircon diving on a Burke at an angle of 70 or 80 degrees may somehow find a spot where it can penetrate only decks and bulkheads and nothing else, (odds of that?), but it will them impact the sea beneath and explode there like a torpedo if not before. Question, is Zircon's terminal guidance capable of distinguishing and targeting VLS or engine spaces?
It seems certain the Russians have hypersonic missiles in service today for well under $10million each.
If the US defense industry cannot produce an equivalent weapon at comparable cost, there is something seriously wrong.
Russian hypersonic weapons are technically hypersonic by virtue of their speed but are not up to the standards of what are commonly referred to as hpyersonics today. The Russian use of hypersonic missiles in Ukraine has reportedly been disappointing in terms of accuracy.
Delete"The Russian missiles do not cost $100milllion a pop."
No one knows what Russian hypersonic weapons cost and the use of government supports and subsidies further clouds the issue. If you have authoritative cost information, please share it. Otherwise refrain from presenting supposition as fact.
"impact the sea beneath and explode"
I am unaware of any test ever conducted of the result of a missile impacting the sea beneath a ship. I seriously doubt an instantaneous explosion would occur.
As a general statement, your comment was full of supposition, unsupported by any common knowledge or data. I am very tempted to delete this comment but I'd like you to understand why the comment is problematic. This blog has standards and your comment does not meet those standards. If you'd like to collect data to support your statements, you're welcome to repost.
"a hypersonic kinetic projectile that encounters a soft target like a ship will likely pass through, causing relatively little damage."
ReplyDeleteIf a hypersonic missile plunged through your flight deck and exited through the bottom of the hull, I'm skeptical the carrier captain would say "no big deal, very little damage, slap a patch over it and carry on."
This exact scenario of shells passing through their targets happened repeatedly in WWII. Study your naval history.
DeleteAlso, please offer a substantive, informative comment next time. Thanks.