President Putin announced the success of the hypersonic missile tests at a TV press conference. The announcement comes after a so far rather “did/didn’t” dispute with the US regarding medium range ballistic missiles in Europe. The US claims Russia is violating the treaty, Russia says it isn’t.
Hypersonic missiles basic issues
Hypersonic missiles are obviously much faster missiles, powered by highly efficient engines which deliver far more thrust. Current conventional ICBM speeds are about Mach 3, or 3 times the speed of sound. These missiles travel in stages in to space, and descend extremely quickly, meaning a conventional missile can be delivered from America to Russia in about 20-30 minutes. The Russian missiles are about twice as fast.
Hypersonic missiles, however, are much faster than conventional ballistic missiles, and, most importantly, come in various classes and types, including tactical systems. The Russian hypersonic cruise missile Tsirkon has a range of 500 miles, and has been successfully tested against naval targets. This gives Russia a very efficient tactical system for use against land and sea targets.
The very big deal
The story with hypersonic missiles is that they’re theoretically too fast to be intercepted. If they can duck and weave, they’re even harder targets. It’s not quite 100% accurate to say they can’t be stopped, because missile interception systems don’t have to chase them. Interceptors just have to be on target. A target traveling at Mach 8 can be hit if you can predict its course, make the calculations, and get your interceptor to where the hypersonic missile will be.
However – Hypersonic missiles aren’t going to wait for interceptors to take a second shot. Their speed drastically reduces the window of opportunity to intercept them. Given that most missile interceptors have a success rate against conventional missiles of about 50-70%, sometimes better, (very general figure, because these systems vary a lot in effectiveness) they’re less likely to be as effective against hypersonic missiles.
A hypersonic arms race? More than likely
Defending against, and matching firepower with, hypersonic missiles can only mean one thing – A massive arms race. Scenarios may include:
1. Space-based interception. Something like the old Star Wars idea, but with artificial intelligence and other fly by wire systems in place.
2. Pre-emptive strike theories. These “hit first” theories posed the greatest possible risk of World War 3, with many advocates in the US and USSR, and they’re likely to do so again in the new environment.
3. New weapons systems like proximity area weapons. If you can’t do a direct hit, you can do a “proximity” hit which can damage the hypersonic missile’s ability to fly and stay on target. Frame damage can make anything travelling fast very un-aerodynamic, causing it to shear off from course. This means very powerful weapons able to affect an entire sector of the missile’s trajectory. Don’t be too surprised to see a lot of trial and error, mainly error, trying to make these big bang area weapons effective.
4. New generation beam weapons, railguns, and similar weapons. Some of these systems were specifically designed as interceptors, and are deployed to stop small missiles on ships, etc. Getting them in shape to manage hypersonic weapons, however, will mean all “fly by wire” systems, and a tough trail of research and logistics.
5. High yield electromagnetic cannon. Not specifically interceptors, they can deliver serious firepower and in theory could be used to create areas of denial on the same principle as proximity hits. Again, it’d be a long tech haul to achieve that.
6. Electronic counter measures (ECM). ECM is used against conventional guided weapons systems, but the hypersonic missiles may or may not have built in counter measures, or even just a simple cutoff system, so ECM doesn’t work.
7. System hacks. These would be the front line of the cyber war, and if the US does have a few advantages, the Russians are perfectly capable of fighting on pretty much the same level. In about 20 minutes it wouldn’t matter who won, anyway.
8. Artificial intelligence. This is a semi-imponderable, which will impact weapons systems of all kinds in future. Can AI manage hostile missiles in flight? Anybody’s guess, and it’d take quite a while to deploy AI systems for combat roles.
The much less amusing strategic side of hypersonic systems
The current Tepid War has a few quirks. One of them is Vladimir Putin, who tends to act first, then speak. He must be pretty satisfied that these systems work to make any kind of statement at all. That fact alone should be bothering someone in the United States. This new move is a sort of nuclear cow prod for the West, and that, of itself, is a whole new strategic ball game.
The theory of strategy is that if you have the initiative, you can force the other guy to respond to your moves. If you can predict the response, you’re basically controlling your enemy’s actions. The US, which isn’t totally devoid of initiatives, but does seem to be spraying them around in strategic terms, could be falling for this very simple, and potentially deadly, scenario.
Consider:
• React as predicted to hypersonic weapons, and the Russians will have a pretty good idea what you’re doing before you do it.
• You’re reacting to a known threat, as posed by a country which has been working on hypersonic systems for the best part of a decade. What don’t you know about the next wave of research?
• You’re faced with a clear and obvious need to reconfigure a huge defensive system, plan against strikes against your own missiles, etc. Like to consider time/cost/tech/training?
Yes, those are inevitable more trillions of dollars for the US military industrial gravy train, Gladys. That’s not unusual. The basic problem is that in this case, unless there are unknown systems in play, the military industrial complex has really been caught napping.
The other, exceptionally big, problem is China. What the Russians can do, the Chinese can do, and do quickly. Russia probably isn’t providing much in the way of advanced military tech to anyone, but they do work together, more often than not.
China’s enchanting array of militarized bus stops currently aren’t really much of a military threat to anyone. That said, if hypersonic systems are deployed around the Pacific and South China Sea, they could become serious threats with long range hypersonic systems, particularly the anti-shipping variety. Tactical nukes are another option.
This is an op-ed, remember?
So far I’ve just been pointing out the obvious, trying to clarify for readers the bigger picture. I won’t take cheap shots at the US military, which has been lumbered with a Congress which is to put it mildly made up of obsolete thinkers. This geriatric money farm thinks of nothing but tax cuts and how to make health care unaffordable for everyone. When they have time, they figure out how to allow US infrastructure fall to bits, and write insane laws targeting real and imaginary enemies. They’re pretty good at focusing on everything but critical issues, sometimes for generations at a time.
In military terms, however, these quaint, folksy hobbies are of dubious value. Even in the most cynical perspective, which says that arms races are just an excuse to make money, it’s not a good look, let alone a fact. The US has been allowing its very high level of technological advantages to corrode and erode since before the big Chinese boom. New systems are basically old systems, upgraded, not the new classes of tech which will be what actually fight major wars.
DARPA, future warfare designs, and other research will obviously play a role in whatever happens next. The big issue is that they’ll now have to react, rather than take the initiative, simply due to the decay of the old, highly effective, US military tech and strategic initiative mechanisms.
This is how to lose a war, and lose a peace, at the same time. The US does have hypersonic systems well in to development, but not necessarily on this scale, and that’s big possible trouble – The US military industrial complex could also get a long overdue comeuppance for its decades of insularity and smugness. Eisenhower, the “last real Republican”, warned against it, and if it fails now, at the point of a real test, he’ll be proven right.
In my opinion, the US needs hardcore cynics, not windbags, in public office to manage this hideous emerging situation. You need people who can see through the fakery, the ridiculous cost structures, and the disingenuous claptrap which have prospered in the decay for so long. If you want to manage the threat of these new systems, hope that these people show up a lot sooner, rather than later. When you lose the initiative, it’s hard to get it back.
