Streetwise Professor

February 8, 2025

Wunderwaffe: The Next Generation

Filed under: China,History,Military,Russia — cpirrong @ 2:35 pm

Friend of SWP James T sent along an article titled “Hypersonic Overhype” and thought I might be interested and that the subject is worth a post. Both thoughts are correct!

I’ve long cast a skeptical eye at hypersonic missiles. These have been hyped repeatedly over the last 10-15 years as wunderwaffe that will transform warfare, and in particular will dramatically shift the correlation of forces against the US (and in particular the US Navy) in favor of China and Russia, who claim to have deployed operationally effective hypersonic missiles. In contrast, US development efforts have been plagued by problems and delays.

My skepticism rests on two propositions: (1) wonder weapons are almost never as transformative as advertised, in part because even if they work (which they often don’t–see 2) countermeasures are typically developed relatively rapidly, and (2) wonder weapons often don’t work, or don’t work as advertised.

The linked article highlights the extreme technological challenges of producing hypersonic weapons. These challenges are myriad. And as this article demonstrates, these are exactly the challenges that have dogged US efforts.

Which leads to two possibilities about supposed Russian and Chinese advances and deployments: (1) either the US really sucks at this, or (2) the Russian and Chinese systems , though allegedly deployed, have the same issues but unlike the US those nations decided to rush unreliable systems into service.

Of course (1) is possible, but I consider it much less likely than (2). (Remember the US had manned hypersonics, e.g, the X-15 in the 60s!) This is particularly true with regards to Russia. FFS, Russia has serious–and I mean serious–problems with getting decades-old ballistic missile technology to work. Hell, simply to avoid catastrophic explosions on launch or soon thereafter. This casts serious, serious doubt on their ability to get a far trickier technology to function. Perhaps the Chinese are better, though their defense efforts generally involve widespread theft or copying of US technology, so if our technology sucks, why wouldn’t their’s?

One more comment about hypersonics in the nautical domain in particular. Yes, hypersonics are fast, but that relates only to the last leg of the OODA loop–what happens after “A” (act). Hypersonics are at best complementary to technologies and assets that relate to the other legs, specifically observe and orient. The oceans be big. Ships move, and can move unpredictably. Successful deployment of hypersonics against a carrier task force require the intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (“ISR”) and communications assets necessary for observation and orientation, and for deciding on a course of action.

(The Battle of Midway is a classic example of this. The US had superior ISR that allowed it to target the Japanese fleet–and even that almost failed due to a course change that the US fliers only detected by accident. Conversely, a breakdown in Japanese reconnaissance, namely the delayed launch of some search planes and a radio failure on one of them, led them to detect the presence of the American fleet only belatedly).

China is certainly working on those capabilities. That’s reallly what a lot of its space program is about. But just as there will be countermeasures for the terminal element of a hypersonic strike, there will be (and are) countermeasures to the ISR elements.

For all these reasons, I remain skeptical that hypersonics will be as transformative as claimed. As a result, it’s also an open question whether hypersonic development is a wise use of US defense funds, especially inasmuch–as the Hypersonic Overhype article discusses–there are other more mature and reliable technologies that can serve the same operational purpose.

In some respects, the raving about hypersonics and the US’s laggard status reminds me of earlier hysterias like “the bomber gap” and “the missile gap.” We allegedly face a “hypersonic gap” now, but I suspect that this will prove as chimerical as those earlier gaps.

Which brings me to the public choice aspects of this issue. Defense contractors and the officers and civilians in programs like hypersonics have a vested interest in hyping both adversary capabilities and American infirmities. This is what gets the money to flow. So be very skeptical about those who are talking their book, and cast a jaundiced eye on hypersonic hype.

5 Comments »

  1. First of all we need to agree what do we call hypersonic missile. Every ballistic missile is technically hypersonic.
    Russian Kynzhal is an aero ballistic missile. Israelis use aero ballistic missiles as well.
    Are we talking about a missile that moved in hypersonic speed in atmosphere? I don’t see any advantage for this missile.

    Comment by Yan Naroditsky — February 8, 2025 @ 3:31 pm

  2. @Yan_Naroditsky I think the term “Hypersonic” has become shorthand for boost-glide type missiles that launch like a ballistic missile, then dive to low altitude maybe 100 miles from the target, and then move in horizontally at mach 5, as contrasted with straight-up ballistics (which go hypersonic just by gravity) or hopped-up cruise missiles that muscle their way to mach 5 but have short range. The strategic (or propaganda) allure is that these missiles, though expensive themselves, could deter even more expensive aircraft carriers, make Taiwan indefensible, and so on.

    They do not, however, change the basic physics of air combat, where defenders don’t have to fly as far as attackers, and therefore can afford the energy required to be faster and more maneuverable. A properly-designed missile defense will always have the advantage. Hypersonics, in particular, fly so fast that they create a cone of plasma, making them easy to detect and blinding on-board radar. The latter issue can be solved the way the space shuttle did it for re-entry, having a backward-facing antenna and another, slower vehicle behind, it. I can’t think of any way to make a hypersonic even remotely stealthy, though.

    Comment by M.Rad. — February 8, 2025 @ 4:29 pm

  3. ‘earlier hysterias like … “the missile gap.”’

    It wasn’t hysteria: JFK knowingly lied about it. There was an election on, after all.

    Comment by dearieme — February 10, 2025 @ 12:02 pm

  4. Hypersonics – 25 years back I was a sub-sub-sub-sub-contractor on a thing for scramjets. They needed hafnium carbide for the coating of the inside – thought, then, the only thing that would withstand the temperatures.

    Got the work done in Moscow. Which I still think is rather fun.

    Comment by Tim Worstall — February 11, 2025 @ 5:30 am

  5. This reminds me of the hoo-ha 120 years ago over torpedoes. Land based batteries of them were going to make the littoral sea a no-go area for ships, and when aircraft got big enough to lift them, that would be the end of surface navies everywhere.

    This is why there are no longer any surface navies.

    Comment by Green as Grass — February 15, 2025 @ 1:45 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress