Playing catch up: "Hypersonic" weapons now top US military research priority

Playing catch up: "Hypersonic" weapons now top US military research priority

Hypersonic Weapons Could Transform Warfare. The U.S. Is Behind.

Dave Deptula

In this video grab provided by RU-RTR Russian television via AP television on March 1, 2018, a computer simulation shows the Avangard hypersonic vehicle maneuvering to bypass missile defenses en route to target. President Vladimir Putin declared Thursday that Russia has developed a range of new nuclear weapons, claiming they can't be intercepted by enemy. (RU-RTR Russian Television via AP)

Machine guns. Fighter jets. Nuclear weapons. When a new facet of military technology gains operational capability, sometimes it changes the rules of the game. Hypersonic weapons—that travel over five times the speed of sound—are difficult to detect and harder to intercept, offer that potential.

The impending promise of hypersonic weapons is so great that Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Dr. Michael Griffin recently explained: “I’m sorry for everybody out there who champions some other high priority, some technical thing; it’s not that I disagree with those. But there has to be a first [priority], and hypersonics is my first.”

This sense of urgency is driven by two key variables: burgeoning capability gaps the American military seeks to close and the very real risk that China and Russia may field this technology in advance of the United States.

From a military perspective the desire to field hypersonic weapons makes sense. First, these weapons travel in excess of 3,600 miles per hour (1 mile per second) and currently, no military possesses a credible defense. Finding, tracking and intercepting something that fast is unprecedented. Given that Russia and China have invested heavily in advanced defensive technologies that now hold most of our traditional forms of power projection at risk, this is a significant advantage—it’s one that would impose major costs upon a defending nation.

Second, hypersonic weapons will allow commanders to close the window between identifying a target and striking it faster than historically possible. Potential future conflict will involve targets deep inside enemy battlespace, some mobile and difficult to find, so speed will provide a significant advantage. Standard flight speeds involve hours of transit time, allowing targets to slip away. Hypersonic weapons reduce hours of flight required for weapons today to minutes tomorrow.

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

However, America is not alone in recognizing these advantages. Russia and China have long recognized the benefits afforded by hypersonic weapons and have spent considerable time and money advancing their own capabilities. Putin has been testing nuclear-capable hypersonic weapons since 2016. Similarly, China recently tested the experimental “Starry Sky-2” and publicly lauded its ability to travel at Mach 5.5 for 400 seconds. According to Griffin, “The rest of the world is not stupid, and they are catching up to us. And, in some areas, have caught up.” In concurrence, Vice Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Paul Selva explains that while, “We have lost our technical advantage in hypersonics…we haven’t lost the hypersonics fight.” In this context one thing is clear: it’s time for America to “push it up” in this contest.

Here is why. Given the lack of any realistic defense, ships at sea and stationary land-based forces would be vulnerable to an attack from hypersonic weapons. Such circumstances risk a Pearl Harbor-like knockout blow in the opening phases of a war. Nor is the US military postured to absorb the losses that a concerted attack with hypersonic weapons could impose. The combined impact of the post-Cold War draw-down; the overwhelming focus on counter insurgency operations since 9/11; arbitrary budget limits imposed on defense spending; and multiple continuing resolutions have yielded an American military that lacks sufficient reserve forces to make up for large-scale attrition. Those margins were written off as “budget efficiencies” years ago.

The only way for US forces to prevail against advanced threats is to possess the capability and capacity to project overwhelming, decisive power. The American military currently lacks the depth necessary to sustain a rapid war against an adversary with the kind of decisive edge hypersonic weapons present. Furthermore, the complexity of modern military hardware and the limited scale of today’s defense industry limits the ability to rapidly surge production. Nor could trained personnel be generated in an expeditious time-frame.

General John Hyten, Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, explains how we are boxed in today without a defense against these weapons or an offensive advantage that would allow us to deter there use: “We don't have any defense that could deny the employment of such a [hypersonic] weapon against us, so our response would be our deterrent force, which would be the triad and the nuclear capabilities that we have to respond to such a threat.” Clearly, better options are required.

We have two offensive options. One centers around a missile launched from the surface, which releases a warhead that will glide at hypersonic speeds to the target. The second pathway is an air-launched hypersonic missile. A prudent path forward will see both technologies advanced to operational status. Besides being complementary in the types of missions they can execute, a dual approach is a smart way to balance risk in fielding cutting-edge technology. Two systems also complicate an enemy’s defensive calculus.

The good news is that after years of too little attention, the US military is now taking this threat seriously. Defense leaders like Griffin are saying the right things, and budgets increasingly match the pronouncements. For years, the Department of Defense treated hypersonics like a mildly interesting science project—spending just enough to keep the concept alive, but too little to realize any operational capability. Today both the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) and the Air Force are leading the way with key industry partners on contracts to develop operational capabilities. Lockheed Martin has been awarded over a billion dollars in contracts to develop two hypersonic weapons and DARPA is soliciting ideas for a “Glide Breaker” hypersonic missile defense system. Aerojet Rocketdyne, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing also are engaged in this realm.

From a broader perspective, it’s important to understand this is a contest that matters. The US will face severe consequences if it cannot regain the lead in fielding operationally viable hypersonic weapon systems. To those who think winning the hypersonic weapons race is expensive, think about the bill associated with coming in second place.

Note: The Mitchell Institute receives some funding support from companies mentioned in this article.

Contributor

Dave Deptula

I write on defense, strategy, the profession of arms, and aerospace.

I currently am the Dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies and also a Senior Military Scholar at the Air Force Academy. I was the principal attack planner for the 1991 Operation Desert Storm air campaign; commander of no-fly-zone operations over Iraq in the late 1990s; director of the air campaign over Afghanistan in 2001; twice a joint task force commander; was the air commander for the 2005 South Asia tsunami relief operations; a fighter pilot with more than 3,000 flying hours–400 in combat–multiple command assignments in the F-15; served multiple tours in the Pentagon; and participated in several defense reviews. My last assignment was as the USAF first deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), where I transformed America’s military ISR and drone enterprises. I served more than 34 years, and work to stimulate innovative thought on defense, strategy, and information age operations.