Do Hypersonic Missiles Make Defense Systems Obsolete? 365
An anonymous reader writes "The Diplomat's Zachary Keck wonders why the U.S. government is doubling down on missile defense systems even as hypersonic missiles threaten to render them obsolete. Keck notes that hypersonic missiles pose two distinct challenges to current missile defense systems. First, they travel far faster than the missiles the defense systems are designed to intercept. Second, they travel at lower altitudes and possess greater maneuverability than the missiles the current systems have been built to destroy. Nonetheless, the U.S. was planning on spending $2 billion a year on missile defense through 2017, and now the Pentagon is asking for an additional $4.5 billion over the next five years."
Not Obsolete At All (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, there may be these incredible "Hypersonic" missiles, but only the people with the capability to build or purchase them will have those missiles. Everyone else will be using conventional sub-sonic missiles. Also consider the many, many missiles (hundreds of thousands? I don't know) that currently exist right now and will be used in the future.
Today's anti-missile systems will be useful for many years to come.
Exactly what I was thinking (Score:5, Insightful)
You are in a pretty good place if the only missiles that can successfully attack you are hypersonic, since they would be very expensive to build and take a lot of engineering prowess to work reliably.
Also how much of a payload can one missile really carry? Not much, good only for targeted strikes. But the more recent missile attacks we have seen have been more blanket attacks, like the Palestinian missiles constantly bombarding Israeli cities. Anything that can protect civilian populations from that kind of madness absolutely has a place.
Re: (Score:2)
Also how much of a payload can one missile really carry? Not much, good only for targeted strikes.
Yeah? I'm not sure exactly what kinds of missiles they are trying to protect against, but a MIRV ICBM is a missile too you know.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah? I'm not sure exactly what kinds of missiles they are trying to protect against
An ICBM would be one of them because you have such a long lead time between continents (even at hypersonic speeds) you can work an intercept of some kind.
The "hypersonic missiles" being talked about are launched from relatively close range, and then hug the terrain to reach the target at hypersonic velocity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also the claim of maneuverability simply can't be justified.
Hypersonic missiles would tear themselves to shreds trying to maneuver at those speeds. Its not particularly hard to intercept a very fast object that you know can't make sharp turns.
Re: (Score:3)
When exactly, have hundreds of incoming missiles been a problem for the US? Saddam Hussein may have a different view.
But nobody is going to launch hundreds of hypersonic missiles at the US (or any other country for that matter).
There are two types of defenders against massive missile attacks, those who have no viable defense, (in which case conventional cruise missiles are good enough) and those who could mount a serious defense and/or retaliation, (in which case such an attack would be suicide).
Hypersonic
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps in your rush to reply, you didn't read all the way to my second paragraph.
No country is going to pick a fight with any country that can produce hundreds of hypersonic missiles. Anyone using them in massive numbers would be looking at the same number back, or a nuclear response.
Also because hypersonics don't have that much maneuverability they would make a poor anti-ship missile. (These are designed as long range weapons, it takes them a hundred miles just to get up to speed). They would have to cha
Re: (Score:3)
Agree on the anti-ship bit. In order to fire a conventional missile at a ship you only need to know its location within a few miles, and if you know its direction of travel you can have even less certainty. The missile is programmed to fly to a particular point and turn on its radar, then to travel along a course looking for something to destroy. If the missile spots a ship within a few miles to either side of its flight path then it turns towards it and attacks it. A conventional missile has no trouble
Re: (Score:3)
Hypersonic missiles are designed to destroy targets within minutes of detecting their position. Detection can be via satellite or done or submarine etc. You need to get a good fix but then you can get the missile there so quickly that the target doesn't have time to move very far.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also how much of a payload can one missile really carry? Not much, good only for targeted strikes.
I think a targeted strike would be the specific purpose of a hypersonic missile, or really any missile for that matter. It's probably also fair to assume that any nation with the capability of developing and fielding a hypersonic missile can also stick a nuclear warhead on it.
Re: (Score:2)
I think a targeted strike would be the specific purpose of a hypersonic missile, or really any missile for that matter.
It's not though. As stated, many modern uses of missiles have been non-targeted blanket strikes to just randomly destroy buildings or people. That goes for Palestinian strikes, for Al-Qaeda in Iraq just trying to blow up a few things in U.S. bases (well OK mostly they were using mortars and not rockets, but the point is the same and mortars get closer to being rockets all the time).
Re: (Score:2)
It's not though. As stated, many modern uses of missiles have been non-targeted blanket strikes to just randomly destroy buildings or people. That goes for Palestinian strikes, for Al-Qaeda in Iraq just trying to blow up a few things in U.S. bases (well OK mostly they were using mortars and not rockets, but the point is the same and mortars get closer to being rockets all the time).
You're confusing your terms, rockets and missiles are not the same thing, particularly in military terms [wikipedia.org]. The difference is guidance, rockets are not guided. Palestinians are firing rockets (essentially rocket-propelled mortars), not missiles. Therefore, all missiles by definition are for targeted strikes. Rockets are just point and shoot weapons. The Palestinians are trying to field a low-tech version of rocket artillery [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Also how much of a payload can one missile really carry? Not much, good only for targeted strikes.
That depends on what your warhead/payload is. With a hypersonic missile to disperse it, how much territory could you effectively cover while dispersing, say, a hundred kilos of weaponized anthrax spores?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
None.
The air friction would kill the spores.
Re:Not Obsolete At All (Score:5, Interesting)
Add to that the targeting dilemma where missiles at that speed are practically blind. Hypervelocity missiles are good for "journalists" in order to sell paper but not so much against the US Navy.
Re: (Score:3)
They may have difficulty hitting moving ships but port facilities and moored ships are vulnerable. Also, with a large enough warhead, say a small nuke, the hyper velocity missile only has to get close to put ships out of action. Ships are not the only target They can be used to take out command and control facilities, storage depots, staging areas, etc. If you can not stop the missiles front line troops may lose all support.
Re:Not Obsolete At All (Score:4, Insightful)
Senkaku, Taiwan, Phillipines.
Three reasons for the Chinese to have a nice toy that scares the shit out of US carrier groups.
Anyone closer than Okinawa will be likely to get sunk, and missiles are a lot cheaper than carriers.
The journalist isn't playing chicken little, the military complex wants funding to prepare for a significant threat to the US hegemony.
Re: (Score:2)
Add to that the targeting dilemma where missiles at that speed are practically blind. Hypervelocity missiles are good for "journalists" in order to sell paper but not so much against the US Navy.
Wait, what?
Are you really saying blind supersonic ordinance doesn't present a threat to the US Navy?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We also have to remember that anti missile systems will soon be laser based, meaning that said missiles won't be able to dodge them, unless they can go faster than the speed of light..
Re:Not Obsolete At All (Score:4, Interesting)
A missile that can handle the heat of hyper velocity can probably handle a laser hit. It is also difficult to track and lock on to an object moving that fast. A hyper velocity missile with a little software to jink around may be able to evade the laser.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I leave the problems of power and focus as things that research will eventually solve.
Therefore hyper sonic missiles will eventually become obsolete. Until that time they will be effective. At that time better shielding may be invented to defeat the laser making them effective again.
Re:Not Obsolete At All (Score:5, Funny)
No, when hypersonic missiles become obsolete, they'll just be replaced with ludicrousonic missiles.
Re: Not Obsolete At All (Score:2)
Not quite true. The big problem with the ABL is maintaining target lock long enough for the laser to burn through.
Unless the lasers are firing from a handful of targeting positions. It is a bitch to track in real time.
Re: (Score:3)
Conventional missiles have been supersonic for oh, 60 years or so now.
But yeah, I agree, the question is a stupid one. No, missile defense isn't obsolete, it'll just have to evolve to handle faster targets. Dare I say it...it's an arms race, and always will be.
Re: (Score:2)
Conventional missiles have been supersonic for oh, 60 years or so now.
Yeah. That's why we're talking about the new hypersonic missiles.
It would be like saying "My Nissan GT-R is faster than a Ferrari 360, so I'm sure I can win a Formula 1 race."
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why we're still making kneepads. Kneepads are completely ineffective at protecting knees from hypersonic missiles, but spending on kneepads continues to rise. Kneepads are obsolete and we should be focusing our efforts on knee-mounted lasers to defend against this new hypersonic threat.
Re: (Score:3)
Today's anti-missile systems will be useful for many years to come.
Are today's anti-missile systems useful? Or are they just meant for posturing? I remember during the first Gulf War that not a single PATRIOT missile shot down a SCUD. Is there anything better today?
Re: (Score:2)
How many SCUD launches were not made due to the presence of the defense systems?
Re: (Score:2)
remember that in the last phases of the operational life of the SR 71 Blackbird [wikipedia.org], their payload was a high mach number drone.
Re: (Score:3)
Remember that in the last phases of the operational life of the SR 71 Blackbird [wikipedia.org], their payload was a high mach number drone.
Not quite. That was in the last phases of its development life, and the idea was scrapped because they could not get supersonic separation to work reliably, resulting in the loss of airframes and pilots during testing.
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't ICBMs already hypersonic?
So presumably they are refering to tactical stuff.
I remember there was a missile around a few decades ago called Helstreak or Starstreak. It was an anti air and antitank weapon, laser guided.
(it was in the game Gunship 2)
Of course like any laser guided weapon, if you can take out the vehicle thats pointing the laser at you, the missile will miss.
Speaking of missing, I will miss classic slashdot
Re:Why use missiles? (Score:4, Informative)
Who needs expensive hypersonic missiles when you got religion and fanatics.
The side without the religious fanatics.
Re: (Score:3)
Which one is that? As far as I can see all the major wars in recent years were started by religious fanatics on both sides. Yeah, I could Bush and Blair. They thought the imaginary man in the sky was on their side too.
And this is why... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please....the push is to be allowed a front seat at the money trough, nothing else matters.
While I admire your pessimism, I think you're a little off. The personality traits that help one last the 20-30 years in the military necessary to be promoted to a position to make those kinds of decisions do not normally include greed.
I'm more inclined to believe their drive lies with "blowing shit up", and "America! Fuck ya!".
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think keeps them there when they get old?
Re:And this is why... (Score:5, Insightful)
And once the anti-missile lasers are well-established, there will be a push for faster-than-light missiles.
And then of course, we will have the technology we need to explore other star systems.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not lasers. Crowbars: they don't suffer from the optical distortion problems of lasers. Look up the history of "Project Thor" to understand the tremendous advantage of simply de-orbiting any long, narrow, dense objects from earth orbit.
Re:And this is why... (Score:5, Funny)
And then of course, we will have the technology we need to explore other star systems.
...and blow them the hell up!
Re: (Score:2)
Googling didn't immediately bring up anything more than sho
hypersonic hypershmomic (Score:4, Interesting)
So maybe it's because a lot of people's jobs rest on these missile defense systems being implemented?
Also, I am curious how hypersonic weapons will fare against a ship equipped with either a Gauss cannon, or more importantly, a laser. Wouldn't both of these be an adequate defense against a hypersonic missle, if implemented properly?
Re: (Score:2)
Every defensive system takes time to operate, staring with detection, identification, classification, target selection, weapon / ammunition selection, engagement, assessment, and reengagement (if necessary). Hypersonic weapons really cut down on the amount of time you have to do that as well as make the actual engagement more difficult, and that is just based on speed. If you add any countermeasures, such a stealth technology or jamming it gets even harder. Think of the SR-71. It was never successfully
Re: (Score:3)
Gauss cannon
There is a lag between the time the shell is fired and the time the shell hits. That requires leading the missile. If the incoming missile jinks the outgoing shell will miss. To hit would require in flight tracking and guidance and even then misses would be likely.
Laser
Lasers are also non instantaneous as hey need time to burn through the missile. This requires precise tracking and fast beam manipulation. If the hyper velocity missile jinks well enough the laser energy will spread out and be ineffective. Also hy
Re: (Score:2)
The other thing is, all these 'oh, but laser!' arguments assume the other guy is going to play nice and only attack one at a time, like a bad martial arts movie. Sure, maybe you can shoot down one missile heading your way, but what happens when there are five? ten? one hundred?
You wouldn't want to fire a hundred missiles at a tank, but those hundred missiles would probably be much cheaper than replacing the aircraft carrier you just sank with them.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to kink much for a small object to dodge another small object or spread laser energy so it will not burn through. A couple of degrees back and forth in a random pattern would be enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, "if implemented properly", any missile defense system would be adequate against any missile. But yeah, if they aren't putting money into developing anti-projectile lasers, then they're probably wasting time and money. Lasers could even protect against artillery or tank shells. If the army could field a tank that has a laser defense system then it would pretty much rule the battlefield, until it meets an energy weapon. Something like this [youtube.com] would make a tank pretty unstoppable if it could shoot down
Defense Gap (Score:4, Insightful)
Because Hypersonic missiles are ridiculously expensive and none of the probable combatants in near to mid term future wars are likely to have them. Even after they become viable weapons, only advanced military forces like China or Russia will be able field them for quite a while. The US is not going to war with China or Russia any time soon. We need defense platforms that deal with realistic enemies, and they will use missile tech that these defense platforms are capable of deal with.
Also, Beta sucks. Long live Classic!
Re: (Score:2)
The US is not going to war with China or Russia any time soon.
Umm, I wouldn't wish to bet on that. And definitely not on the US needing to deter their militaries, especially China's. Think of Taiwan, the Japan/China disputes and Russia's tendency to invade states it thinks it ought to still own when they don't do what they're told.
Still, it's obviously not the only threat.
missiles (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Lasers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hypersonic missiles (Score:2, Informative)
It would be great if someone launched a hypersonic missile towards Beta.
Here's an idea (Score:2)
Second, Just because a certain missile defense system might not work against the most advanced missiles, doesn't mean it is ineffective against less advanced missiles. Maybe the investment should be considered in light of which countries' missiles you are concerned about shooting down.
Third, while an insane country will shoot missiles at you even as they are starving, you sh
Re: (Score:2)
here's the thing (Score:5, Informative)
If the enemy doesn't have good targets, these missiles don't accomplish much.
According to Richard Clarke:
As early as Sept. 12, 2001, Clarke says, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld urged bombing Iraq despite repeated assurances from intelligence officials that the threat emanated from Afghanistan.
"Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq," Clarke said on Sunday's 60 Minutes. "I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.' "
Do Hypersonic Styles Make Slashdot Obsolete? (Score:5, Informative)
No, Because Not Everyone Can Afford Them (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Note that the US loves supercarriers too and keep building them, even while more rational people know that they'll be sent to the bottom within minutes of an high-intensity, high-tech war breaking out.
This is harder than you think........
Re: (Score:2)
Carriers are not for fighting a major power, they are for keeping the provinces in line.
Re: (Score:3)
Note that the US loves supercarriers too and keep building them, even while more rational people know that they'll be sent to the bottom within minutes of an high-intensity, high-tech war breaking out. The Chinese allegedly have ballistic missiles with reentry vehicles which can find and hit moving ships.
They haven't quite gone out of style yet. The Chinese are building aircraft carriers as well, and are on their way to having four of them. The first Chinese aircraft carrier battle group did a demonstration cruise not long ago. The Indians are building up their carrier fleet as well. The British navy is building two new large carriers.
The Chinese allegedly have ballistic missiles with reentry vehicles which can find and hit moving ships.
The US Aegis air defense system typically found on destroyers has a well proven anti-ballistic missile capability.
The start of WWI, with light horsemen charging into, and getting cut up by, machine gun fire. The officers had their ideas -- and that was _it_.
On the Western front in WW 1 cavalry and mounted infantry
Re: (Score:3)
The situation is far more complicated than that.
China cannot do a simultaneous strike on everything, simply because US assets are so widely dispersed. China can start shooting down US satellites, but it would take time to get them all. The hypersonic missiles will be largely ineffective against ships at sea; they'd be better off using nuclear subs (although I don't know how effective that will be.)
The US has capabilities that we can only speculate about, because nobody's talking. (It's a lot easier
Yes and no.... its an arms race. (Score:2)
Its an arms race. Yes, hypersonic missiles will render obsolete different types of interceptors. However, hypersonic missiles tend to have shorter ranges as they burn their fuel less efficiently. As as result, missile interceptors at longer range will probably be effective. Closer in... Lasers... or something else fast enough to deal with such a missile.
Its all a tug of war.
First thing's first... we need to render all legacy systems obsolete. The current missile defense system should be able to protect us f
Re: (Score:2)
Unlikely.
They sell things they're not afraid of other people having.
They don't sell their top of the line kit unless they're not afraid of it. And if they're not... then neither should we.
Seriously... do you know how many russian tanks we popped in Iraq? It was funny.
*FLU$$$H!* (Score:2)
Pentagon: What?
I think they don't understand missile defense (Score:4, Interesting)
Experience in the US Navy here, specifically the targeting and tracking systems. But you don't have to know what I know to know what R2D2 with a hard-on does. It is missile defense and quite effective. It works by sending projectiles at the incoming missile to disrupt it.
Anti-aircraft is a similar notion -- send up fireworks which spread particles into the air in front of aircraft and hope it interferes with the planes. A missile defense system doesn't "chase" missiles, it is launched in front of them. They then explode in front of them in hopes of disrupting them in some way. Advanced systems, in my mind, would be a CWIS at the end of a missile system. It's not hard to imagine.
Re: (Score:3)
What's the tracking distance of Phalanx?
My only concern with CIWS is how far out it can track a ground-hugging hypersonic missile. You don't have a lot of time to engage it when you can't see it over the horizon. Even at 60 ft elevation on a ship, the horizon is only 8-9 miles away.
That gives you, what, maybe 5-6 seconds from detection at the horizon to impact. You'd have to have your Vulcan firing 2 seconds after detection to hit it.
The "Gap" Debate All Over Again (Score:2)
This sounds like the Bomber Gap [wikipedia.org] or the Missle Gap [wikipedia.org] all over again.
Re: (Score:2)
No such thing (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Just ignore the pork and campaign contributions. It's DEFENSE, so we need it.
Goverment solution to everything. (Score:2)
In year 2000 we will all have flying cars. (Score:2)
The same kind of overexcited journalists makes such assumptions. "Oh, the new shiny will be everywhere now!"
By the way - take your time to read comments while they last - many good commenters (called "audience" by /. owners) will go away when Beta is forcefully rammed down our eyes.
Which do you think is more likely... (Score:2)
The defensive part of anti-missile technology is mostly based on IT - detecting what is a threat and what is not a threat and targeting the threats. It also needs the same speed you developed above.
So, which do you think develops quicker - the missile technology or the IT technology? My bet is on IT. It's a newer science with an established higher rate of d
Funny, missile defense has been augmented to... (Score:2)
...counter ballistic missiles over the past two decades and it wasn't designed for this either (and, by the way, they're REALLY hypersonic...)
They will continue to be upgraded for ABM capabilities as well.
Is there some reason why hyper sonic low level missiles couldn't be adapted to either? BTW, the Navy is spending a lot of time and money on lasers for this very reason.
No (Score:2)
No, its not obsolete, not by a long shot (Score:2)
Also, hypersonic technology is hard. Do the math. Its a lot harder than either politicians or reporters might think. Just because somebody can test a vehicle for a short distance (ie tens of seconds) does not mean it is a viable solution to anything. Making one that actually flies for any duration and
When a military becomes too invulnerable.... (Score:4, Insightful)
...and asymmetric, then the only legitimate targets for an adversary become the public citizens that fund the efforts.
If no military response can ever be effective, it is the only thing left. We call it terrorism now, but it will be business as usual in the near future. Drones bombing your weddings?
Bomb their weddings. And schools and anything else.
The only limits to empire are consequences. When an empire can inflict with no fear of retribution to overtly military assets, other targets of retribution will be placed at risk.
Re: (Score:2)
When you stir up a colony of bees, they buzz around angrily and try to sting you. On the surface, they appear mad, but I think some of them secretly enjoy it. Otherwise, they'd probably go back to the business of making honey as soon as they could.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When you stir up a colony of bees, they buzz around angrily and try to sting you. On the surface, they appear mad, but I think some of them secretly enjoy it. Otherwise, they'd probably go back to the business of making honey as soon as they could.
And then when you replace their hive with a plastic beach ball in a week, both they and you will be surprised and astonished when honey production drops to zero and stays there.
Re: (Score:2)
" On the surface, they appear mad, but I think some of them secretly enjoy it. "
I think it's pretty safe to say that if they are stinging, they are genuinely angry. After all... it kills them.
/. contributors are any more masochistic than bees are.
I could be wrong, but I don't think
Re:Bee Keepers and the Audience (Score:4, Insightful)
That's actually been my concern: Slashdot becomes so polluted with "f* beta" that nobody wants to read or contribute to it anymore. We keep hearing that the main value of the site is its interesting/insightful/funny comments (true enough), yet most of the comments from yesterday were none of the above.
Yes, the bees are angry. You know it, I know it, the beekeepers know it. So let's all go back to making honey and see how they sort out the hive problem. Otherwise, without honey, the colony won't make it through the winter.
(Sorry for carrying the beehive metaphor a bit too far. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bee Keepers and the Audience (Score:5, Insightful)
Old-school Slashdot user from the 90s here.
I think what everyone is trying to say is that Slashdot should be left alone. No big makeovers, no big changes. We like it the way it is, and want it to be immune from the pile of suck that has taken over the rest of the web.
Slashdot has remained one of the few sites that has changed little over the years. It is already perfect the way it is, and any change is just going to make it worse. Leave it the hell alone. There is nothing wrong with its usability, readability, etc. the way it is.
Not only that, but... if you are trying to attract a different type of user to the site, you need to keep in mind that the people who are here LIKE the current company. If you attract scores of new users, it will be like an awesome small club opening its membership to all the drunk hobos in the city. The atmosphere and feel of the site are just not going to be the same, and us core, loyal, long time users will LEAVE.
Do what you must, I hope my advice is at least read.
Re:Bee Keepers and the Audience (Score:4, Insightful)
The core, loyal, long time users need to be generating some revenue, because that's all that matters to sites like this. Sure, they may have core, loyal, long time users. But companies would cash in all of them for some knitting forums if that would bring in revenue somehow.
Or to use a more relevant example, the news site Newsvine once had many core, loyal, long time users who contributed stories to the site much as we have editors here submitting stories (several times over in most cases). The community at Newsvine thrived on the discussion model and generally had a good time even when there was disagreement.
Then MSNBC bought Newsvine, let it become a festering cesspool of political attacks -imagine if EVERY story on /. became red state versus blue, and insightful posts were reduced to the commentary version of apes flinging poo. Sure Slashdot has some of that. But imagine it ALL like that. That's what Newsvine became. And then, they used it to develop what is now the current NBC news website. You need to see it. Oh golly you should see it.
All of that crap was done in the name of generating revenue. That's what happens when dollar signs become the most important thing. Dice is already heading that way with Slashdot. Eventually they will push the button and flush Slashdot. Cash is king. And we don't generate enough. I don't think we ever could either because no matter WHAT we do, there will always be this thought in their heads that they can get more money, if only... if only they do THIS or sell THAT.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like you would on Usenet. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
My mention of Usenet was only to point out that smart people have been around longer.
Re: (Score:2)
But what about the Doomsday Device Gap?!
I see you and I raise you. What about a mineshaft gap?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
However, when I interned at NASA years and years ago, the one thing that I remembered was the parking lots. They were filled exclusively with ancient, shitty, cheap c