Is that a Hypersonic Missile in Your Pocket

Is that a Hypersonic Missile in Your Pocket

Or Are You Just Unhappy to See Me?

Intended to replace our existing nuclear aircraft carrier fleet over the next decade, CVN-78, the Gerald R. Ford, cost over $12.8 billion (plus $4.7 billion in R&D), carries a complement of aircraft that currently add $3 billion to that total. Commissioned in 2017, this newest carrier has the most advanced missile defense system on earth and a very efficient electromagnetic launching and landing system ever devised. Plans were set in 2005, but construction (which went way over budget) did not begin until 2007. According to the Navy Times (May 2nd), “The carrier encountered multiple technical problems, equipment malfunctions and delays as at least 23 new technologies were incorporated into the design after construction of the ship kicked off in 2005. Systems like the advanced weapons elevators and the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System also experienced challenges.” It only went into full deployment this spring.

This technology is beyond controversial. So many billions of dollars, 2,600 sailors, not to mention a fleet required to protect it involving dozens of support ships… well, carriers are such obvious targets that entire national offensive weapons development programs are focused on taking out US carriers… and often on being able to deliver unstoppable nuclear strikes against the United States itself. The delivery platform that has been most feared has been the hypersonic missile, with Russia, China and North Korea as those of our foes most committed to this delivery platform.

Despite Vladimir Putin’s assertion that his hypersonic missiles were incapable of being shot down, that’s exactly what happened recently when US Patriot Missile batteries in Ukraine successfully downed several such Russian hypersonics. Should we lean back and feel safe? By the new standards set by the Peoples’ Republic of China, their brand-new DF-27 (Dongfeng-27) hypersonic missiles are the stuff that Putin may have dreamed of, so clearly no. So much faster. After all, like most military tech, it keeps getting deadlier. Writing for the May 24th Conversation, Iain Boyd, professor of aerospace engineering sciences at the University of Colorado, Boulder, digs both into the technology… and the risks and reactions to these advanced missiles:

“Describing a vehicle as hypersonic means that it flies much faster than the speed of sound, which is 761 miles per hour (1,225 kilometers per hour) at sea level and 663 mph (1,067 kph) at 35,000 feet (10,668 meters) where passenger jets fly. Passenger jets travel at just under 600 mph (966 kph), whereas hypersonic systems operate at speeds of 3,500 mph (5,633 kph) – about 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) per second – and higher… All of the intercontinental ballistic missiles in the world’s nuclear arsenals are hypersonic, reaching about 15,000 mph (24,140 kph), or about 4 miles (6.4 km) per second at their maximum velocity… There are three different types of non-ICBM hypersonic weapons: aero-ballistic, glide vehicles and cruise missiles…

“How hypersonic missiles threaten to upend the relative stability of the current era of nuclear weapons… In the case of the U.S., if the determination were made that the weapon was nuclear, then there is a very high likelihood that the U.S. would consider this a first strike attack and respond by unloading its nuclear weapons on Russia. The hypersonic speed of these weapons increases the precariousness of the situation because the time for any last-minute diplomatic resolution would be severely reduced.

“It is the destabilizing influence that modern hypersonic missiles represent that is perhaps the greatest risk they pose. I believe the U.S. and its allies should rapidly field their own hypersonic weapons to bring other nations such as Russia and China to the negotiating table to develop a diplomatic approach to managing these weapons…

“The primary reason nations are developing these next-generation hypersonic weapons is how difficult they are to defend against due to their speed, maneuverability and flight path. The U.S. is starting to develop a layered approach to defending against hypersonic weapons that includes a constellation of sensors in space and close cooperation with key allies

“With all of this activity on hypersonic weapons and defending against them, it is important to assess the threat they pose to national security. Hypersonic missiles with conventional, non-nuclear warheads are primarily useful against high-value targets, such as an aircraft carrier. Being able to take out such a target could have a significant impact on the outcome of a major conflict.” China claims that its DF-27 most certainly can take out any US carrier without risk of being shot down. Maybe. Maybe not. There are new defense systems coming online designed to counter that assumption. China also claims that the DF-27 could reach Hawaii with no fear of interception.

The problem is heightened when we explore alternatives to large aircraft carriers carrying 80 (plus or minus) jet aircraft, from drones that operate with much smaller launch platforms to weapons targeting from space. What is the wisdom of investing so much in one ship, the loss of which would be devastating? The last battleship used in combat, USS Missouri, was a WWII beast that was upgraded for its final deployment in Vietnam.

We are building new carriers with a deployment life of 30 years, that cost billions of dollars each per year to maintain. When will the last carrier be deployed? Trust me, Russia and North Korea may be worrisome, but China is downright terrifying. U.S. officials believe China’s hypersonic glide vehicle technology is further advanced than the U.S. system and that their use of AI is years ahead of our own.

I’m Peter Dekom, and I suspect we are at the edge of a military paradigm shift for offensive and defensive weapon systems where we must build smaller, smarter and less expensively.