5 août 2019 | International, Aérospatial

Hypersonic threats need an offense-defense mix

By: Melanie Marlowe

Next week, people from across the missile defense community will gather at an annual symposium in Huntsville, Alabama, to consider how to adapt U.S. missile defense efforts to the challenge of renewed competition with Russia and China. A centerpiece of their discussions will be the emergence of advanced hypersonic missile threats and what to do about them.

Over the past few years, the Pentagon has prioritized the development of offensive hypersonic strike weapons, with billions of dollars in contracts already awarded for each of the major military services to acquire hypersonic strike missiles of their own.

The counter-hypersonic mission, however, received surprisingly short shrift in recent defense budgets, with progress on hypersonic defense thus far piecemeal and halting. Some leading military officials charged with procuring hypersonic strike missiles have said that defending against hypersonic missiles is too hard, so we shouldn't even try.

That short-sighted approach is at odds with the vision of newly confirmed Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, who stated to Congress that he will advocate hypersonic missile defense, to include the development of new sensors, interceptors, and advanced command-and-control systems.

Public commentary on hypersonic threats has been somewhat hyperbolic. Yes, hypersonics are fast — five or more times the speed of sound — but that's slower than many ballistic missiles. Aerodynamic maneuver makes for a less predictable flight path, but this also means that atmospheric friction would remove the kind of decoys that might accompany a ballistic reentry vehicle. Whether a boosted glide vehicle, a scramjet cruise missile or a maneuverable quasi-ballistic missile, hypersonics pose a complex air defense challenge, but they are not invulnerable.

The strategic significance of hypersonics is nevertheless quite real. Today's Patriot, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense and Aegis defenses protect American carrier groups and ground forces against aerial and ballistic missile attack. Designed to go around or under those defenses, hypersonics are a more sophisticated means to hold forces at risk, and thereby undermine our broader defense goals and alliance system. Even if the United States catches up with the Chinese and Russians on hypersonic strike, our adversaries' ability to hold U.S. carriers and forward bases at risk will push back U.S. forces. They could certainly also be used to target the American homeland, but the more urgent threat is regional. Passive defense only goes so far — ships can only go so fast, and air bases cannot be moved. Active defenses must be part of a balanced strategy.

The first priority here is a space sensor layer. Unlike ballistic missiles, hypersonic missiles fly at lower and changing altitudes, are harder to see, and travel an uncertain flight path. Current early warning satellites can detect the launch of boost-glide vehicles but are unsuited to tracking them during the glide phase. Today's surface-based ballistic missile radars would only be able to spot a weapon once it crosses the horizon. Only space sensors can provide birth-to-death, fire-control quality tracks for hypersonic missiles.

Unfortunately, recent budget requests have been rather tepid in their commitment to space sensors. The administration's 2020 request virtually divested the program, and for the second year in a row the Missile Defense Agency listed the space sensor layer as its No. 1 unfunded priority. Thankfully, Congress seems to be in the process of restoring $108 million to return the program to the MDA to move out on development this year.

The second element of hypersonic defense is interceptors. Although existing interceptors may well be improved, Secretary Esper has affirmed that new interceptors will have to be developed that are better suited to the mission's stressing thermal and high-maneuver environment. The MDA's third-highest unfunded priority for 2020 — $720 million for hypersonic defense — seems unlikely to be restored this year, but should be restored in the 2021 budget. Directed-energy weapons could potentially target hypersonic threats in their cruise phase or jam them in their terminal phase, but the mission's complexity will almost certainly require both kinetic and nonkinetic effectors.

The most challenging element will be developing a command-and-control architecture that ties everything together. A long-range hypersonic glide vehicle of significant range could cross continents and multiple combatant commands. Even with better interceptors and an adequate sensor layer, information and fire-control solutions must be developed and rapidly passed to commanders. The Command and Control, Battle Management, and Communications network that supports the Ballistic Missile Defense System may be the foundation of such an architecture, but more dramatic upgrades will be required.

The advent of the hypersonic era is central to the efforts by Russia and China to counter U.S. power projection in the world. The Pentagon's recent focus on hypersonic strike is necessary but insufficient. It falls now to congressional leadership and those assembling the 2021 budget to rebalance it with a more appropriate mix of hypersonic strike and defense.

https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2019/08/02/hypersonic-threats-need-an-offense-defense-mix/

Sur le même sujet

  • Poland to buy Lockheed Martin missile launchers for navy

    1 février 2024 | International, Terrestre

    Poland to buy Lockheed Martin missile launchers for navy

  • Singapore, Israeli firms team to develop new ship-killing missile

    29 juillet 2020 | International, Naval

    Singapore, Israeli firms team to develop new ship-killing missile

    By: Mike Yeo MELBOURNE, Australia — Singapore's ST Engineering believes that a new joint venture with Israel Aerospace Industries, to market and sell advanced naval missile systems, will leverage both companies' strengths and track records to address a growing demand for guided munitions. The joint venture, announced in mid-July, is called Proteus Advanced Systems, with ST Engineering's land systems arm and IAI each having a 50 percent share. According to the news release announcing the joint venture, the new entity will “market and sell advanced naval missile systems, including a next generation anti-ship missile system.” ST Engineering confirmed to Defense News that its next generation anti-ship missile is called the Blue Spear, a system that it says it has been working with IAI over the past few years, although it declined to divulge the exact timeline. A spokesperson from the company added that Blue Spear, which was also known as the 5G SSM, is “is an anti-ship missile system that introduces an advanced and novel approach which addresses the challenges of the modern naval arena for years to come,” and confirmed reports elsewhere that ST Engineering's role in the Blue Spear's development includes the design, development and production of major subsystems like the booster motor and warhead. The spokesperson added that the land systems arm of the company, ST Engineering Land Systems, was chosen to participate in the development of the missile as it “has been in the business of conventional munitions for many years.” The division has manufactured NATO-standard ammunition for small arms and artillery systems, and has been involved in license-production of both the Rafael Spike anti-tank and the Russian 9K38 Igla surface-to-air missiles used by Singapore's military. No other technical details of the Blue Spear were made available. IAI has previously developed the Gabriel family of anti-ship missiles, with the latest being the Gabriel 5, which the Israeli company says is designed to penetrate modern hard- and soft-kill anti-missile defenses. ST Engineering says that the development of the Blue Spear and the formation of the joint venture was a commercial venture by both companies and is “not driven by any ongoing customer requirement.” However it has not escaped notice that the Republic of Singapore Navy's current anti-ship missile is the Boeing RGM-84C Harpoon, a weapon that was introduced in the early 1980s. The Harpoon is used by Singapore's six Formidable-class multi-role frigates and a similar number of Victory-class missile corvettes, while the air-launched AGM-84C can be carried by Singapore's Fokker 50 maritime patrol aircraft and its Lockheed-Martin F-16C/D multi-role fighter jets. The service plans to buy six multi-role combat vessels, starting the middle of this decade, to replace its missile corvettes, and will almost certainly equip these with a new anti-ship missile given several of Singapore's neighbours are introducing much more modern capabilities. The Singaporean frigates, which entered service between 2007 and 2009, will likely receive new missiles in the future as part of a continuing program to refresh its capabilities. Singapore's defense ministry has yet to respond to questions from Defense News about potentially acquiring a new anti-ship weapon. Singapore and Israel have enjoyed a close defense relationship spanning several decades, with the latter providing extensive assistance in setting up Singapore's military when it became independence in 1965. The relationship extends to both countries defense industries, and Singapore is a major user of Israeli defense equipment although the relationship is usually kept low-profile. https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2020/07/28/singapore-israeli-firms-team-to-develop-new-ship-killing-missile/

  • How 5G factors in the Army's future | C4ISRNET Conference Highlight

    2 mai 2022 | International, C4ISR

    How 5G factors in the Army's future | C4ISRNET Conference Highlight

    Two top Army officials talk about they need to faster data speeds in a modern fighting force, and say resiliency and cybersecurity are critical to the service.

Toutes les nouvelles