back to article US amends hypersonic weapons strategy: If you can't zoom with 'em, boom 'em

No longer content to trail its rivals in the development of hypersonic weapons, the US military is turning to development of hypersonic weapon interceptors. "Turning to" may be a bit of an exaggeration since the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's (DARPA) Glide Breaker program has been around since 2018, and two …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Destructive Uber Bomb Mentality

    The Nike anti-ICBM missile systems used up to the 1960's, whose launch pad relics can be found all around major US metropolises, were generally armed with nuclear charges of up to 30 kilotons, aiming to mitigate the destructive effect of incoming ICMB's in the final seconds before they hit their targets. Cost/effect ratio was pretty low, which was why it was abandoned.

    The threat of nuclear retaliation - doomsday - was ultimately judges to be more cost effective. The problem with first strike hypersonics is that the decision to retaliate needs to be made much sooner in order to be effective, increasing the risk of error.

    1. Ken Hagan Gold badge

      Re: Destructive Uber Bomb Mentality

      ICBMs are already hypersonic and the ability to retaliate exists unless the "first strike" is also the last, taking out every missile silo, bomber and submarine. These new weapons would appear to be interesting for active and ongoing conflicts, since they are harder to stop, but don't appear to change the strategic calculus.

    2. hugo tyson
      Mushroom

      Re: Destructive Uber Bomb Mentality

      Nike and Nike Hercules were primarily anti-aircraft missiles, radar-guided by humans looking at screens and twiddling knobs to guide the missile in, each battery of 4 launchers could control only one missile at once; the intent was to detonate 30-50 miles off the coast of San Francisco for example, when the bombers were 3 or 4 minutes out.

      Sure, they were nuclear tipped, to take out multiple high altitude bombers - same characteristics, >70,000ft, >0.9mach as our V-force - without having to be too accurate. But they weren't designed to stop ICMBs.

      I can believe that in extremis launching some to a predetermined place and detonating would have been considered as a tactic if ICBMs were incoming but it wasn't their design goal, that was definitely centred on guiding to the radar return from relatively slow planes.

      1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

        Re: Destructive Uber Bomb Mentality

        I'm kinda curious how effective a nuclear-Nike may have been anyway. ICBMs are hardened against radiation and thermal, but I guess anything close to the detonation is still going to have a very bad day.

        1. richardcox13

          Re: Destructive Uber Bomb Mentality

          As the previous posted said: this was from the before ICBMs

          Once ICBMs replaced bombers as the delivery platform for enemy nukes, these SAMs were withdrawn.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Destructive Uber Bomb Mentality

        radar-guided by humans looking at screens and twiddling knobs to guide the missile in

        "Missile Command" was a pretty accurate simulation then...

    3. Binraider Silver badge

      Re: Destructive Uber Bomb Mentality

      Given 1950's guidance technology, throwing a nuke blast up in the way of an incoming nuke seems a pretty effective solution to the otherwise difficult-to-solve intercept problem.

      The intercept stage is especially complex versus a potentially manoeuvring target. A 1 degree course shift at hypersonic speeds and ranges being an enormous difference in distance to have to compensate for on your interceptor.

      Killing the shooter is undoubtedly the more effective solution, but who gets to pull the trigger first...

  2. Pascal Monett Silver badge
    Trollface

    "Both China and Russia said they've tested hypersonic weapons"

    Oh yeah, Russia has tested them.

    It blew up on the launch pad, but they tested it !

  3. Chris Gray 1
    Mushroom

    Pebbles

    Given how fast the hypersonic stuff is going, can't you "just" arrange to have a bunch of very hard "pebbles" in front of it? Ideally the pebbles are moving in an arc to maximize their interception likelihood. How about a bit of spent uranium as their core, even though that won't be viewed very well by those living below.

    1. Richard 12 Silver badge

      Re: Pebbles

      Gravel is sufficient, no need for special materials. At those speeds it takes very little to disrupt flight surfaces or destroy the engine, and they cannot be effectively armoured due to the weight.

      The trouble is that you need to scatter the gravel in front of the incoming weapon, sufficiently accurately that it will pass through the bulk of the cloud, and sufficiently close to it that it cannot avoid the collision.

      That's a pretty tight box to aim at, especially as the entire point of hypersonic weapons is that they can manoeuvre. You have to launch the "kill vehicle" before you know where to scatter the gravel.

      On the bright side, it doesn't need to go as fast or as far, so it can stay in flight regimes that are better understood and use simpler rocket engines.

      1. Ribfeast

        Re: Pebbles

        Metal Storm has entered the chat :)

  4. DS999 Silver badge

    Ukraine

    Has apparently been able to knock out some of Russia's hypersonic missiles with the US Patriot antimissile system and the Israeli equivalent. They weren't designed for that, and it doesn't work every time, but it is impressive it works at all.

    1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

      Re: Ukraine

      Has apparently been able to knock out some of Russia's hypersonic missiles with the US Patriot antimissile system and the Israeli equivalent. They weren't designed for that, and it doesn't work every time, but it is impressive it works at all.

      They claim to have, but haven't really produced much in the way of convincing evidence, ie video and photos of something they call a Kinzhal, but almost certainly isnt. But in theory, they were designed for that, ie an ICBM on it's descent phase from low orbit is often hypersonic. But then there's a long history of disputed claims around the Patriot dating back to their success rate against Scuds during the Gulf War. Bush claimed '97%', but never trust anyone who's 97% certain without strong evidence to support that.

      There were also disputed claims around testing, so the use of specially designed targets that would explode nicely. A big issue with missile defence was realised in the GW. So a SCUD with a chemical (or nuclear) warhead is on it's descent. You may poke a few holes in it, but gravity is still going to win, and the missile is coming down. If the warhead is still viable, it's still going to do damage although if a chemical warhead, that might be localised if it doesn't airburst. But this is also the other problem. Both missile and interceptors are coming down, and may cause damage to civilian buildings, as has happened in Israel, and is happening in both Ukraine and Russia's territory.

      On the plus side though, I assume we're collecting a ton of performance data about these missiles, so next-gen systems might perform better. Still a wicked problem to solve given the velocities involved, and the need to kill rather than just wing an incoming missile.

  5. Kev99 Silver badge

    Sounds like another job for the old Nike system. Which could use regular warheads.

    1. TDog

      MagThor

      Well one of the reasons you won't find many of the systems in museums is that the missile bodies were made of Magthor (A generic name for magnesium thorium alloys). This had the minor issue that thorium is radioactive - not such a worry when built but unacceptable now. The general idea was to lob low yield (about Hiroshima effect sized) warheads into approaching packs of Soviet bombers. These would in general have been subsonic, Tu-4 Bulls (B29 copy), jet powered Badgers and Bears. At maximum speeds none of these would excede about 650mph and were definitely subsonic. It was a lot better than nothing and preferably used during a time of offshore winds...

      Nikes were intended as inaccurate weapons and would not affect hypersonic missiles, particularly as the missile wouldn't be ready to launch untill well after the hypersonic chappie was well past it.

  6. cookieMonster Silver badge

    Hypersonic marketing bollox

    IF I was the US (or any nuclear armed country), here’s what my stand would be..

    If any country launches a hyper sonic weapon at my country, our response will be immediate and ferocious. I will release enough nuclear weapons to turn your country into a radioactive crater, irrespective of the civilian casualties. Period. You have been warned.

    1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

      Re: Hypersonic marketing bollox

      If any country launches a hyper sonic weapon at my country, our response will be immediate and ferocious. I will release enough nuclear weapons to turn your country into a radioactive crater, irrespective of the civilian casualties. Period. You have been warned.

      This is really the problem with MAD and arms races. With MAD, one side launches, everyone dies so it hasn't been a great idea. As missile defences have improved, that's started to fall apart. If one side can shoot down the other's missiles, it can launch it's own with impunity. If missiles are based closer to likely targets, reaction times are lowered and you might be able to launch a first-strike without triggering a counter-strike. So you might be able to 'win' a nuclear war. Then if one side has good anti-missile tech, the obvious counter is to make better missiles that are harder to counter. Or make more of them, but so far limits on total numbers of warheads and missiles have kind of prevented an overmatch.

      So we've been heading to a situation where first-strike capabilities have been improving. Along the way, there have also been some other bad ideas.. Like fitting ICBMs with conventional warheads. A little risky given targets won't know if they're carrying conventional warheads or instant sunshine until they detonate. So detect launch, launch counterstrike. Or, if response times are shortened, more likely to think about the old 'fail deadly' systems that automatically launch a counter-strike. Then hope they aren't false alarms, false flags etc. There's also been pressure to use tactical nuclear weapons as bunker busters or in other battlefield situations.. Again, really not a good idea.

      And sadly, the number of nations with nuclear capability has been growing, not shrinking.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like