Michael Griffin, defense undersecretary, gave a rough estimate for deploying space-based interceptors can be calculated on the $20,000 per kilogram is costs to send material into low earth orbit. Thus a force of 1,000 space-based interceptors each weighing 1,000 kilograms would cost $20 billion.
Pictures for an anti-hypersonic weapons program called glide breaker have been released.
There was also a graphic illustrating how space-based sensors and interceptors would conceptually operate.
MDA’s proposed space sensor layers: #SMDSymposium pic.twitter.com/asYitVflin
— CSIS Missile Defense (@Missile_Defense) August 8, 2018
First artist’s concept for Glide Breaker, a Darpa-funded technology to defeat hypersonic weapons, revealed at #darpa60. More coverage to follow in @AviationWeek. pic.twitter.com/Ep6HmBVHzu
— Steve Trimble (@TheDEWLine) September 6, 2018
SpaceX is currently using block 5 Falcon 9 rockets. The block 5 first stages could be re-used dozens of times. The first stage is 70% of the rocket cost. SpaceX is also close to recovering the $6 million nose cone farings.
If the US military purchased 100 launches to launch ten one ton space-based interceptors each launch they could get a volume discount for the launches. Although NASA and military launches tend to be two or three times as expensive as regular commercial launches. Instead of double the cost the price might be 1.5 times the $62 million launch cost of a regular Falcon 9.
This would $90 million. Thus 100 launches would be $9 billion.
If they could fill up a Falcon 9 with interceptors with less overhead weight for delivery and storage equipment then as many as ten interceptors could be deployed per launch. This would bring the launch cost down to $4.5 billion.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
This has nothing to do with nukes or weaponizing space…did you even read the article?
There is a treaty that forbids weapons in space. Does any one really want nukes orbiting 100 miles above them?
This has nothing to do with nukes or weaponizing space…did you even read the article?
There is a treaty that forbids weapons in space. Does any one really want nukes orbiting 100 miles above them?
What’s stopping China from putting 1000 interceptor-interceptors into space?
While they aren’t nukes, the Outer Space Treaty prohibits the testing of any weapon in space. Are defensive weapons covered? Needs revisiting in this day and age.
There is a treaty forbidding intermediate range missiles but Russia still has Iskanders doesn’t it?
So much for Putin’s imaginary hypersonic gliders…
What’s stopping China from putting 1000 interceptor-interceptors into space?
While they aren’t nukes the Outer Space Treaty prohibits the testing of any weapon in space. Are defensive weapons covered? Needs revisiting in this day and age.
There is a treaty forbidding intermediate range missiles but Russia still has Iskanders doesn’t it?
So much for Putin’s imaginary hypersonic gliders…
Yah. There is that. Hypersonics looks (to me) to be “the magic bullet” that flies below “space” and yet is fast enough to be nearly indefensible if under attack. This article’s glib rebuttal notwithstanding. ICBMS without the Sanctions. For instance, if one were to have nuclear armed hypersonic weapons at the ready aboard all those black-budget secret-squirrel submarines … plying the planet’s depths, well … one could get away with quite the nuclear war without ever venturing out to space. Violating the treaty. All that. Moreover, “strategic forward naval groups” become something of a fleet of sitting ducks. From the cockpit (robotic) of a hypersonic incoming drone. Anything moving at 2+ kilometers per SECOND can make it from the stratosphere to hitting a ship right in the sensitive parts … in like 15 seconds. Indeed… 1 minute out, and the offensive aircraft-killer running at Mach 8+ (2.5 km/s) is 150 km away, almost 80 nautical miles range away. 5 minutes out, and it is WELL beyond even the most sophisticated RADAR range. So since a carrier group ain’t going to see it until its a minute or two away, there’s precious little time to (1) confirm, (2) authenticate, (3) determine accurate flight path of the unfriendly, then (4) target it, (5) shoot off a hopefully well-guided anti-missile-missle, and hit the dâhmned thing. Which is going to do its own counter-maneuvers you can count on it. Jamming, faking, fading, banking. Thing is, a sophisticated attack won’t rely on a single incoming. More like 25+. From all angles. That’s the part that makes the Carrier Group a flock of sitting ducks. Might be able to shoot down 5 or even 10 in that precious 60 second window. But all 25? Mmmm… not. So to a military tactician, you’ve got a twenty five billion dollar Carrier Group which has the maneuverability of a pod of whales (compared to hypersonics), which will almost certainly lose its Flag carrier and most of its larger aircraft support and refueling
Well, yes. ⊕1
What ever the US already has in orbit most likely … also, the cost. Maybe China should stick to trying to get their 1 Aircraft Carrier up and running.
Yah. There is that.Hypersonics looks (to me) to be the magic bullet”” that flies below “”””space”””” and yet is fast enough to be nearly indefensible if under attack. This article’s glib rebuttal notwithstanding.ICBMS without the Sanctions.For instance”” if one were to have nuclear armed hypersonic weapons at the ready aboard all those black-budget secret-squirrel submarines … plying the planet’s depths well … one could get away with quite the nuclear war without ever venturing out to space. Violating the treaty. All that. Moreover”” “”””strategic forward naval groups”””” become something of a fleet of sitting ducks. From the cockpit (robotic) of a hypersonic incoming drone. Anything moving at 2+ kilometers per SECOND can make it from the stratosphere to hitting a ship right in the sensitive parts … in like 15 seconds. Indeed… 1 minute out”” and the offensive aircraft-killer running at Mach 8+ (2.5 km/s) is 150 km away almost 80 nautical miles range away. 5 minutes out and it is WELL beyond even the most sophisticated RADAR range. So since a carrier group ain’t going to see it until its a minute or two away there’s precious little time to (1) confirm (2) authenticate (3) determine accurate flight path of the unfriendly then (4) target it (5) shoot off a hopefully well-guided anti-missile-missle and hit the dâhmned thing. Which is going to do its own counter-maneuvers you can count on it. Jamming faking fading banking.Thing is a sophisticated attack won’t rely on a single incoming. More like 25+. From all angles. That’s the part that makes the Carrier Group a flock of sitting ducks. Might be able to shoot down 5 or even 10 in that precious 60 second window. But all 25? Mmmm… not. So to a military tactician you’ve got a twenty five billion dollar Carrier Group which has the maneuverability of a pod of whales (compared to hypersonics) which will almost certainly lose its Flag carrier and most of its larger aircraft sup”
Well yes. ⊕1″
What ever the US already has in orbit most likely … also the cost. Maybe China should stick to trying to get their 1 Aircraft Carrier up and running.
Sorry, I just glance at the Title of the article and saw “space-based” and just assumed it was about space-based weapons. Next time I promise to read the entire article before commenting.
Sorry I just glance at the Title of the article and saw space-based”” and just assumed it was about space-based weapons. Next time I promise to read the entire article before commenting.”””
Even though it seems like it violates the spirit of it, anti-ballistic missiles in space would not violate the outer space treaty.
There’s a point of confusion here that needs cleared up: We already have hypersonic nuclear weapons. They’re called Tridents, and they have a range of 7500 miles, they travel at Mach 20+, and they don’t have to go into space. What would change things is a short range hypersonic missile with a nuclear package, like in the realm already controlled by the ballistic missile treaty that the above mentioned re: Iskander. And Ohio class subs already carry Tridents. Fleets of ships are already sitting ducks for nuclear strikes of this kind and always have been. The points you make about hypersonic missiles threatening carrier groups (even conventional ones) is quite valid and is the impetus for all this anti-hypersonics research in the first place. The USN needs to seriously step up its timetable in getting the SM-3 IIA and IIB fielded fully and fully combat proven, and in getting a faster, more advanced SM-6. A fully realized SM-3 IIA/B will be a fairly effective anti-hypersonic anti-ship missile mitigation. I mean it has a top speed of Mach 15. The only reason your scenario isn’t of big concern is because nobody has a platform that can fire 25 hypersonic anti-ship missiles, whether nuclear or conventional. Swarm attacks are a current concern for supersonic anti-ship missiles, however, because even mitigating those is currently a challenge for BMDS. The SM family is the way to go, its shown itself to be extremely versatile and for the most part, the test record is pretty good. SM-3 IIA had a failure recently because they were pushing the envelope and doing something nobody is prepared for an SM-3 to do, which is pretty damn sexy. I’m not entirely sure it was made public in the MDA press releases just what that was, so… But it’s sexy. Smexy smexy. tl;dr we need to keep throwing money at Raytheon for SM-3’s and SM-6’s. Starting over on a whole new platform isn’t necessary.
The treaty actually forbids weapons of mass destruction in space, it does not forbid conventional weapons.
Even though it seems like it violates the spirit of it anti-ballistic missiles in space would not violate the outer space treaty.
There’s a point of confusion here that needs cleared up: We already have hypersonic nuclear weapons. They’re called Tridents and they have a range of 7500 miles they travel at Mach 20+ and they don’t have to go into space. What would change things is a short range hypersonic missile with a nuclear package like in the realm already controlled by the ballistic missile treaty that the above mentioned re: Iskander. And Ohio class subs already carry Tridents. Fleets of ships are already sitting ducks for nuclear strikes of this kind and always have been. The points you make about hypersonic missiles threatening carrier groups (even conventional ones) is quite valid and is the impetus for all this anti-hypersonics research in the first place. The USN needs to seriously step up its timetable in getting the SM-3 IIA and IIB fielded fully and fully combat proven and in getting a faster more advanced SM-6. A fully realized SM-3 IIA/B will be a fairly effective anti-hypersonic anti-ship missile mitigation. I mean it has a top speed of Mach 15. The only reason your scenario isn’t of big concern is because nobody has a platform that can fire 25 hypersonic anti-ship missiles whether nuclear or conventional. Swarm attacks are a current concern for supersonic anti-ship missiles however because even mitigating those is currently a challenge for BMDS. The SM family is the way to go its shown itself to be extremely versatile and for the most part the test record is pretty good. SM-3 IIA had a failure recently because they were pushing the envelope and doing something nobody is prepared for an SM-3 to do which is pretty damn sexy. I’m not entirely sure it was made public in the MDA press releases just what that was so… But it’s sexy. Smexy smexy.tl;dr we need to keep throwing money at Raytheon for SM-3’s and SM-6’s. Starting over on a whole new platform isn’t necessary.
The treaty actually forbids weapons of mass destruction in space it does not forbid conventional weapons.
We need to protect more than just ships in blue waters. We need to protect the entire US and for that there is nothing like space based kinetic and laser interseptors. You are almost right about this “nobody has a platform that can fire 25 hypersonic anti-ship missiles, whether nuclear or conventional”. Nobody but the good old USA.
We need to protect more than just ships in blue waters. We need to protect the entire US and for that there is nothing like space based kinetic and laser interseptors. You are almost right about this obody has a platform that can fire 25 hypersonic anti-ship missiles” whether nuclear or conventional””. Nobody but the good old USA.”””
Even without working weapons, a constellation of high definition sensors in orbit can provide the critical coverage and extend the offensive and defensive punch of weapons by locating targets well beyond the on board sensor range of most ships and aircraft.
Hypersonic missiles aren’t without vulnerabilities. They are hot, against a benign background. Sensors have a difficult environment, maneuverability is limited & all you have to do is put something in it’s way. Not a trivial task, but not impossible either.
Even without working weapons a constellation of high definition sensors in orbit can provide the critical coverage and extend the offensive and defensive punch of weapons by locating targets well beyond the on board sensor range of most ships and aircraft.
Hypersonic missiles aren’t without vulnerabilities. They are hot against a benign background. Sensors have a difficult environment maneuverability is limited & all you have to do is put something in it’s way. Not a trivial task but not impossible either.
At the moment it’s the price China would have to pay to loft them into orbit. And when China has its answer to the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy sometime in the mid 2020’s, America will have the BFR and BFS. And I presume that when China has its answer to BF’s then SpaceX, Blue Origin etc will be on the next generation. As I see it – China can’t copy the Falcon 9 because it can’t get its hand on the hardware. Not saying it can’t steal the software as it did with American fighter aircraft. And SpaceX is nimble. China inc is not.
At the moment it’s the price China would have to pay to loft them into orbit.And when China has its answer to the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy sometime inthe mid 2020’s America will have the BFR and BFS.And I presume that when China has its answer to BF’s then SpaceX Blue Originetc will be on the next generation.As I see it – China can’t copy the Falcon 9 because it can’t get its hand on the hardware. Not saying it can’t steal the software as it did with American fighteraircraft.And SpaceX is nimble. China inc is not.
At the moment it’s the price China would have to pay to loft them into orbit. And when China has its answer to the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy sometime in the mid 2020’s, America will have the BFR and BFS. And I presume that when China has its answer to BF’s then SpaceX, Blue Origin etc will be on the next generation. As I see it – China can’t copy the Falcon 9 because it can’t get its hand on the hardware. Not saying it can’t steal the software as it did with American fighter aircraft. And SpaceX is nimble. China inc is not.
At the moment it’s the price China would have to pay to loft them into orbit.And when China has its answer to the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy sometime inthe mid 2020’s America will have the BFR and BFS.And I presume that when China has its answer to BF’s then SpaceX Blue Originetc will be on the next generation.As I see it – China can’t copy the Falcon 9 because it can’t get its hand on the hardware. Not saying it can’t steal the software as it did with American fighteraircraft.And SpaceX is nimble. China inc is not.
Even without working weapons, a constellation of high definition sensors in orbit can provide the critical coverage and extend the offensive and defensive punch of weapons by locating targets well beyond the on board sensor range of most ships and aircraft.
Even without working weapons a constellation of high definition sensors in orbit can provide the critical coverage and extend the offensive and defensive punch of weapons by locating targets well beyond the on board sensor range of most ships and aircraft.
Hypersonic missiles aren’t without vulnerabilities. They are hot, against a benign background. Sensors have a difficult environment, maneuverability is limited & all you have to do is put something in it’s way. Not a trivial task, but not impossible either.
Hypersonic missiles aren’t without vulnerabilities. They are hot against a benign background. Sensors have a difficult environment maneuverability is limited & all you have to do is put something in it’s way. Not a trivial task but not impossible either.
We need to protect more than just ships in blue waters. We need to protect the entire US and for that there is nothing like space based kinetic and laser interseptors. You are almost right about this “nobody has a platform that can fire 25 hypersonic anti-ship missiles, whether nuclear or conventional”. Nobody but the good old USA.
We need to protect more than just ships in blue waters. We need to protect the entire US and for that there is nothing like space based kinetic and laser interseptors. You are almost right about this obody has a platform that can fire 25 hypersonic anti-ship missiles” whether nuclear or conventional””. Nobody but the good old USA.”””
At the moment it’s the price China would have to pay to loft them into orbit.
And when China has its answer to the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy sometime in
the mid 2020’s, America will have the BFR and BFS.
And I presume that when China has its answer to BF’s then SpaceX, Blue Origin
etc will be on the next generation.
As I see it – China can’t copy the Falcon 9 because it can’t get its hand on the
hardware. Not saying it can’t steal the software as it did with American fighter
aircraft.
And SpaceX is nimble. China inc is not.
Even though it seems like it violates the spirit of it, anti-ballistic missiles in space would not violate the outer space treaty.
Even though it seems like it violates the spirit of it anti-ballistic missiles in space would not violate the outer space treaty.
There’s a point of confusion here that needs cleared up: We already have hypersonic nuclear weapons. They’re called Tridents, and they have a range of 7500 miles, they travel at Mach 20+, and they don’t have to go into space. What would change things is a short range hypersonic missile with a nuclear package, like in the realm already controlled by the ballistic missile treaty that the above mentioned re: Iskander. And Ohio class subs already carry Tridents. Fleets of ships are already sitting ducks for nuclear strikes of this kind and always have been. The points you make about hypersonic missiles threatening carrier groups (even conventional ones) is quite valid and is the impetus for all this anti-hypersonics research in the first place. The USN needs to seriously step up its timetable in getting the SM-3 IIA and IIB fielded fully and fully combat proven, and in getting a faster, more advanced SM-6. A fully realized SM-3 IIA/B will be a fairly effective anti-hypersonic anti-ship missile mitigation. I mean it has a top speed of Mach 15. The only reason your scenario isn’t of big concern is because nobody has a platform that can fire 25 hypersonic anti-ship missiles, whether nuclear or conventional. Swarm attacks are a current concern for supersonic anti-ship missiles, however, because even mitigating those is currently a challenge for BMDS. The SM family is the way to go, its shown itself to be extremely versatile and for the most part, the test record is pretty good. SM-3 IIA had a failure recently because they were pushing the envelope and doing something nobody is prepared for an SM-3 to do, which is pretty damn sexy. I’m not entirely sure it was made public in the MDA press releases just what that was, so… But it’s sexy. Smexy smexy. tl;dr we need to keep throwing money at Raytheon for SM-3’s and SM-6’s. Starting over on a whole new platform isn’t necessary.
There’s a point of confusion here that needs cleared up: We already have hypersonic nuclear weapons. They’re called Tridents and they have a range of 7500 miles they travel at Mach 20+ and they don’t have to go into space. What would change things is a short range hypersonic missile with a nuclear package like in the realm already controlled by the ballistic missile treaty that the above mentioned re: Iskander. And Ohio class subs already carry Tridents. Fleets of ships are already sitting ducks for nuclear strikes of this kind and always have been. The points you make about hypersonic missiles threatening carrier groups (even conventional ones) is quite valid and is the impetus for all this anti-hypersonics research in the first place. The USN needs to seriously step up its timetable in getting the SM-3 IIA and IIB fielded fully and fully combat proven and in getting a faster more advanced SM-6. A fully realized SM-3 IIA/B will be a fairly effective anti-hypersonic anti-ship missile mitigation. I mean it has a top speed of Mach 15. The only reason your scenario isn’t of big concern is because nobody has a platform that can fire 25 hypersonic anti-ship missiles whether nuclear or conventional. Swarm attacks are a current concern for supersonic anti-ship missiles however because even mitigating those is currently a challenge for BMDS. The SM family is the way to go its shown itself to be extremely versatile and for the most part the test record is pretty good. SM-3 IIA had a failure recently because they were pushing the envelope and doing something nobody is prepared for an SM-3 to do which is pretty damn sexy. I’m not entirely sure it was made public in the MDA press releases just what that was so… But it’s sexy. Smexy smexy.tl;dr we need to keep throwing money at Raytheon for SM-3’s and SM-6’s. Starting over on a whole new platform isn’t necessary.
The treaty actually forbids weapons of mass destruction in space, it does not forbid conventional weapons.
The treaty actually forbids weapons of mass destruction in space it does not forbid conventional weapons.
Sorry, I just glance at the Title of the article and saw “space-based” and just assumed it was about space-based weapons. Next time I promise to read the entire article before commenting.
Sorry I just glance at the Title of the article and saw space-based”” and just assumed it was about space-based weapons. Next time I promise to read the entire article before commenting.”””
Yah. There is that. Hypersonics looks (to me) to be “the magic bullet” that flies below “space” and yet is fast enough to be nearly indefensible if under attack. This article’s glib rebuttal notwithstanding. ICBMS without the Sanctions. For instance, if one were to have nuclear armed hypersonic weapons at the ready aboard all those black-budget secret-squirrel submarines … plying the planet’s depths, well … one could get away with quite the nuclear war without ever venturing out to space. Violating the treaty. All that. Moreover, “strategic forward naval groups” become something of a fleet of sitting ducks. From the cockpit (robotic) of a hypersonic incoming drone. Anything moving at 2+ kilometers per SECOND can make it from the stratosphere to hitting a ship right in the sensitive parts … in like 15 seconds. Indeed… 1 minute out, and the offensive aircraft-killer running at Mach 8+ (2.5 km/s) is 150 km away, almost 80 nautical miles range away. 5 minutes out, and it is WELL beyond even the most sophisticated RADAR range. So since a carrier group ain’t going to see it until its a minute or two away, there’s precious little time to (1) confirm, (2) authenticate, (3) determine accurate flight path of the unfriendly, then (4) target it, (5) shoot off a hopefully well-guided anti-missile-missle, and hit the dâhmned thing. Which is going to do its own counter-maneuvers you can count on it. Jamming, faking, fading, banking. Thing is, a sophisticated attack won’t rely on a single incoming. More like 25+. From all angles. That’s the part that makes the Carrier Group a flock of sitting ducks. Might be able to shoot down 5 or even 10 in that precious 60 second window. But all 25? Mmmm… not. So to a military tactician, you’ve got a twenty five billion dollar Carrier Group which has the maneuverability of a pod of whales (compared to hypersonics), which will almost certainly lose its Flag carrier and most of its larger aircraft support and refueling
Yah. There is that.Hypersonics looks (to me) to be the magic bullet”” that flies below “”””space”””” and yet is fast enough to be nearly indefensible if under attack. This article’s glib rebuttal notwithstanding.ICBMS without the Sanctions.For instance”” if one were to have nuclear armed hypersonic weapons at the ready aboard all those black-budget secret-squirrel submarines … plying the planet’s depths well … one could get away with quite the nuclear war without ever venturing out to space. Violating the treaty. All that. Moreover”” “”””strategic forward naval groups”””” become something of a fleet of sitting ducks. From the cockpit (robotic) of a hypersonic incoming drone. Anything moving at 2+ kilometers per SECOND can make it from the stratosphere to hitting a ship right in the sensitive parts … in like 15 seconds. Indeed… 1 minute out”” and the offensive aircraft-killer running at Mach 8+ (2.5 km/s) is 150 km away almost 80 nautical miles range away. 5 minutes out and it is WELL beyond even the most sophisticated RADAR range. So since a carrier group ain’t going to see it until its a minute or two away there’s precious little time to (1) confirm (2) authenticate (3) determine accurate flight path of the unfriendly then (4) target it (5) shoot off a hopefully well-guided anti-missile-missle and hit the dâhmned thing. Which is going to do its own counter-maneuvers you can count on it. Jamming faking fading banking.Thing is a sophisticated attack won’t rely on a single incoming. More like 25+. From all angles. That’s the part that makes the Carrier Group a flock of sitting ducks. Might be able to shoot down 5 or even 10 in that precious 60 second window. But all 25? Mmmm… not. So to a military tactician you’ve got a twenty five billion dollar Carrier Group which has the maneuverability of a pod of whales (compared to hypersonics) which will almost certainly lose its Flag carrier and most of its larger aircraft sup”
Well, yes. ⊕1
Well yes. ⊕1″
What ever the US already has in orbit most likely … also, the cost. Maybe China should stick to trying to get their 1 Aircraft Carrier up and running.
What ever the US already has in orbit most likely … also the cost. Maybe China should stick to trying to get their 1 Aircraft Carrier up and running.
Even without working weapons, a constellation of high definition sensors in orbit can provide the critical coverage and extend the offensive and defensive punch of weapons by locating targets well beyond the on board sensor range of most ships and aircraft.
Hypersonic missiles aren’t without vulnerabilities. They are hot, against a benign background. Sensors have a difficult environment, maneuverability is limited & all you have to do is put something in it’s way. Not a trivial task, but not impossible either.
We need to protect more than just ships in blue waters. We need to protect the entire US and for that there is nothing like space based kinetic and laser interseptors. You are almost right about this “nobody has a platform that can fire 25 hypersonic anti-ship missiles, whether nuclear or conventional”. Nobody but the good old USA.
Even though it seems like it violates the spirit of it, anti-ballistic missiles in space would not violate the outer space treaty.
There’s a point of confusion here that needs cleared up: We already have hypersonic nuclear weapons. They’re called Tridents, and they have a range of 7500 miles, they travel at Mach 20+, and they don’t have to go into space. What would change things is a short range hypersonic missile with a nuclear package, like in the realm already controlled by the ballistic missile treaty that the above mentioned re: Iskander. And Ohio class subs already carry Tridents. Fleets of ships are already sitting ducks for nuclear strikes of this kind and always have been.
The points you make about hypersonic missiles threatening carrier groups (even conventional ones) is quite valid and is the impetus for all this anti-hypersonics research in the first place. The USN needs to seriously step up its timetable in getting the SM-3 IIA and IIB fielded fully and fully combat proven, and in getting a faster, more advanced SM-6. A fully realized SM-3 IIA/B will be a fairly effective anti-hypersonic anti-ship missile mitigation. I mean it has a top speed of Mach 15.
The only reason your scenario isn’t of big concern is because nobody has a platform that can fire 25 hypersonic anti-ship missiles, whether nuclear or conventional. Swarm attacks are a current concern for supersonic anti-ship missiles, however, because even mitigating those is currently a challenge for BMDS. The SM family is the way to go, its shown itself to be extremely versatile and for the most part, the test record is pretty good. SM-3 IIA had a failure recently because they were pushing the envelope and doing something nobody is prepared for an SM-3 to do, which is pretty damn sexy. I’m not entirely sure it was made public in the MDA press releases just what that was, so… But it’s sexy. Smexy smexy.
tl;dr we need to keep throwing money at Raytheon for SM-3’s and SM-6’s. Starting over on a whole new platform isn’t necessary.
The treaty actually forbids weapons of mass destruction in space, it does not forbid conventional weapons.
What’s stopping China from putting 1000 interceptor-interceptors into space?
What’s stopping China from putting 1000 interceptor-interceptors into space?
While they aren’t nukes, the Outer Space Treaty prohibits the testing of any weapon in space. Are defensive weapons covered? Needs revisiting in this day and age.
While they aren’t nukes the Outer Space Treaty prohibits the testing of any weapon in space. Are defensive weapons covered? Needs revisiting in this day and age.
Sorry, I just glance at the Title of the article and saw “space-based” and just assumed it was about space-based weapons. Next time I promise to read the entire article before commenting.
There is a treaty forbidding intermediate range missiles but Russia still has Iskanders doesn’t it?
There is a treaty forbidding intermediate range missiles but Russia still has Iskanders doesn’t it?
So much for Putin’s imaginary hypersonic gliders…
So much for Putin’s imaginary hypersonic gliders…
Yah. There is that.
Hypersonics looks (to me) to be “the magic bullet” that flies below “space” and yet is fast enough to be nearly indefensible if under attack. This article’s glib rebuttal notwithstanding.
ICBMS without the Sanctions.
For instance, if one were to have nuclear armed hypersonic weapons at the ready aboard all those black-budget secret-squirrel submarines … plying the planet’s depths, well … one could get away with quite the nuclear war without ever venturing out to space. Violating the treaty. All that.
Moreover, “strategic forward naval groups” become something of a fleet of sitting ducks. From the cockpit (robotic) of a hypersonic incoming drone. Anything moving at 2+ kilometers per SECOND can make it from the stratosphere to hitting a ship right in the sensitive parts … in like 15 seconds. Indeed… 1 minute out, and the offensive aircraft-killer running at Mach 8+ (2.5 km/s) is 150 km away, almost 80 nautical miles range away. 5 minutes out, and it is WELL beyond even the most sophisticated RADAR range.
So since a carrier group ain’t going to see it until its a minute or two away, there’s precious little time to (1) confirm, (2) authenticate, (3) determine accurate flight path of the unfriendly, then (4) target it, (5) shoot off a hopefully well-guided anti-missile-missle, and hit the dâhmned thing. Which is going to do its own counter-maneuvers you can count on it. Jamming, faking, fading, banking.
Thing is, a sophisticated attack won’t rely on a single incoming. More like 25+. From all angles.
That’s the part that makes the Carrier Group a flock of sitting ducks. Might be able to shoot down 5 or even 10 in that precious 60 second window. But all 25? Mmmm… not.
So to a military tactician, you’ve got a twenty five billion dollar Carrier Group which has the maneuverability of a pod of whales (compared to hypersonics), which will almost certainly lose its Flag carrier and most of its larger aircraft support and refueling ships. Davy Jones’ Locker, boys.
Hence the urgency of coming up with effective and READY-TO-USE countermeasures. Now.
GoatGuy
Well, yes. ⊕1
This has nothing to do with nukes or weaponizing space…did you even read the article?
This has nothing to do with nukes or weaponizing space…did you even read the article?
There is a treaty that forbids weapons in space. Does any one really want nukes orbiting 100 miles above them?
There is a treaty that forbids weapons in space. Does any one really want nukes orbiting 100 miles above them?
What ever the US already has in orbit most likely … also, the cost. Maybe China should stick to trying to get their 1 Aircraft Carrier up and running.
What’s stopping China from putting 1000 interceptor-interceptors into space?
While they aren’t nukes, the Outer Space Treaty prohibits the testing of any weapon in space. Are defensive weapons covered? Needs revisiting in this day and age.
There is a treaty forbidding intermediate range missiles but Russia still has Iskanders doesn’t it?
So much for Putin’s imaginary hypersonic gliders…
This has nothing to do with nukes or weaponizing space…did you even read the article?
There is a treaty that forbids weapons in space. Does any one really want nukes orbiting 100 miles above them?