back to article Engineers risk blasting US missile defense to smithereens, say auditors

Engineers at the US Missile Defense Agency (MDA) continue to ignore concerns about their next-generation missile interceptors, leaving serious technical shortcomings on the table and threatening the program's 2028 deadline. The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) made the conclusion following an eighten month audit of …

  1. beast666 Silver badge

    They should asking nicely if they can buy some fantastic S-500 systems.

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge
      Facepalm

      beast666,

      I see what you did there! Top work.

      [checks posting history]

      Oh, was this not a joke? Oh dear.

      Doesn't S500 use the same ballistic missile interceptor round as both S400 and S300? The one that doesn't even seem to reliably work on ATACAMS - which is only a mach 3 SRBM.

  2. cyberdemon Silver badge
    Mushroom

    Modelling

    Never a complete substitute for actual real-life testing

    But if you think it's bad in the world of defensive interceptor missiles, it's much worse in nuke-land.

  3. Dostoevsky Bronze badge

    Bah!

    Either the GAO report's authors had no clue about this topic, or the article's author didn't. The "aging" GBMD interceptors are not meant to stop an attack from China or Russia. They're meant to stop or blunt a small attack from North Korea or Iran.

    They are also not meant to intercept "hypersonic weapons" or anything besides nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles from Eurasia and the Pacific. Neither are the NGI. Those will have multiple kill vehicles to hit more missiles with fewer shots, but only a limited force (~30) is planned. Currently we have ~50 GBMD interceptors deployed in Alaska and California. That won't stop even the first wave of missiles in a real nuclear exchange.

    1. veti Silver badge

      Re: Bah!

      I suspect this level of confusion is purposely injected by politicians bent on proving that the present administration is incompetent and failing to protect the homeland. By talking about threats that are outside the scope of the project, they make it look doomed and pointless.

      Lockheed Martin, naturally, are happy to play along with this politicking, because in it they can see the potential of monstrous scope creep, cost overruns and, in a word, profit. Which is, of course, the likely outcome, as the GAO is trying to warn us.

    2. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: Bah!

      Dostoevsky,

      Either the GAO report's authors had no clue about this topic

      I'm not the only one thinking something similar then...

      As NGI lacks the capabilities to respond to the latest missile technologies, and because it's not being accurately simulated to provide the MDA with good data, the GAO is worried that the program, like so many other government initiatives, will end up over deadline and costing far more than initially anticipated.

      So the GAO is looking at a program that is currently on time, and on budget. But arguing that all these programs suffer delays and budget overruns. Well Duh!

      But is also arguing that the limited aims the project has set itself - of getting this missile finished and deployed should be CHANGED HALFWAY THROUGH!

      Now they've seen the data, and I haven't, so maybe they have reason to be worried. But I can guarantee you that if the project office consult intelligence to work out what all possible threats might be and then redesign the missile halfway through the procurement program - then the fucking program is fucking guaranteed to be over-time and over-budget.

      What the fuck!?!?!

      Also, there are zero hypersonic missiles! China have launched one prototype hypersonic glide vehicle. It was exo-atmospheric - although it may have dropped some kind or missile / bomb / sub-munition / decoy during its flight. The US have a hypersonic missile program where they are budgeting for each missile to cost $50m!

      Russia claims to have 2 operational hypersonic missiles. Kinzhal is just an Iskander SRBM launched from an aircraft at 40,000ft and at mach 2 - thus giving it a nice boost. it has been shot down by Patriot batteries in Ukraine. It'll be hypersonic at some stages of flight, but in a mostly ballistic arc.

      Plus the Zircon "cruise" missile. That they claim can do mach 9 but can also climb to 90,000ft. Well it it flies at 90,000 feet then it ain't being a cruise missile but a ballistic one. So maybe they've build a hybrid - because I don't believe they can build a missile that can do mach 9 at sea level and not melt. So it's maybe a supersonic cruise missile and an SRBM (short range ballistic missile) - although that sounds like it might lead to some odd design compromises. Ukraine also says it's shot some down, again with Patriot and SAMP/T (the French/Italian land based version of what the Royal Navy calls Sea Viper (I suppose it's better than sea slug)).

      1. Zolko Silver badge

        Re: Bah!

        I think that real hypersonic missiles – those that really matter – are some sort of small space-shuttles loaded with atomic bombs and sitting on top of intercontinental missiles. They do mach 9 at atmospheric re-entry, and can maneuver at high altitude making it impossible to calculate their trajectory thus impossible to intercept. Unlike pure ballistic warheads that have a predictable trajectory (since they're ballistic !) ... which might still be difficult to intercept as they use many warheads and many decoys to confuse the interceptor radars.

        Cruise missiles able to do Mach 5 instead of Mach 1 are less capable and less lethal, but still effective at short range.

        A better defense against those hypersonic missiles is good diplomacy. Oups, did I say the taboo word ?

      2. Dostoevsky Bronze badge

        Re: Bah!

        Great points! Asking contractors to redesign the platform to avoid problems WILL cause problems—there ain't no two ways about it.

        Also, general observation, the US is *behind* in hypersonics because they don't make sense, except for a very limited subset of missions. The real juicy use-case is a hypersonic sea-skimming cruise missile for anti-ship work, but that's the hardest to design and build. Everyone is getting there, but no one's made one yet.

        We invested in stealth because it made existing tech more survivable. Interestingly, stealth weapons are a cheaper option than hypersonic weapons...

        1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

          Re: Bah!

          Hypersonic missiles are absolutely great for that priority target you just have to hit immediately right now I mean yesterday. For everything else you can spend the same money on 50 stealth cruise missiles, which travel at only 600mph. Even the 20 year old Storm Shadow / SCALP is doing pretty well against Russian air defences in Ukraine. For its replacement the French wanted a hypersonic cruise missile, but that project is still in development. So what we're actually getting is probably a supersonic upgraded version. With more stealth.

  4. martinusher Silver badge

    Not feeling very confident

    At this time based on the track record of development lead times of US aerospace firms and the capabilities of US systems used in Ukraine I'd suggest that "we don't have a missile defense" and, furthermore, we're unlikely to get one in the foreseeable future.

    Rather ominously there was a media report yesterday about Chinese scientists have developed a tool that allows radar detection of a small balloon (or, alternatively, if we're talking radar cross sections, a F-35 stealth aircraft). The sting in the tail isn't that its some super fantastic multi-billion dollar project but rather its an add-on to a common weather radar.

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: Not feeling very confident

      The Chinese tell us that they can sink US aircraft carriers in a heartbeat with their shiny DF21 anti-ship ballistic missiles. And thus US aircraft carriers are pointless.

      The Chinese have just completed the hull of their 4th aircraft carrier (the 3 previous all based on the Russian Kuznetzov design and basically experimental and of limited use). The new one is in the same size class as the US large carriers. They have at least two others building. And are believed to have plans for more.

      The Chinese (and Russians) also regularly claim that Western stealth aircraft are useless and can easily be detected by their radars.

      The Chinese have built a class of stealth carrier fighters, that look rather similar to the F35. And have another class of stealth fighters of a different design about to become operational. As well as a stealth bomber program, and various other stealth aircraft and drones in design.

      Conclusion: The Chinese Communist Party don't always tell the truth.

      1. Irongut Silver badge

        Re: Not feeling very confident

        Aircraft carriers by country: (2021)

        United States 11

        China 2

        France 1

        India 2

        United Kingdom 2

        Italy 2

        Can you see that you have more than 5 times the number of aircraft carriers of any other country? I'd argue that more than half of them are, in fact, pointless.

        > The Chinese Communist Party don't always tell the truth.

        And western politicians are paragons of virtue. Sure.

        1. ChrisC Silver badge

          Re: Not feeling very confident

          In order to be able to guarantee having ONE carrier (or indeed any type of warship) available, you ideally want to have THREE in your fleet - one out at sea, one alongside having just been replaced by the one at sea, or getting ready to replace the one currently out there, and one in dock for routine maintenance, refurbishment etc.

          As you scale up the size of the fleet, you may be able to reduce this from being a hard 3:1 ratio to something inbetween 2:1 and 3:1 - i.e. depending on how long a carrier can go between visits to the dock for maintenance etc vs how long they're on patrol/alongside, you won't necessarily always have one in dock for every pair that are at sea/alongside, but even in the best of circumstances you wouldn't want to drop below 2:1 if your intention is to always be able to place carriers at sea.

          So with that in mind, having a fleet of 11 carriers actually fits in rather nicely with current US doctrine re how many carrier groups it likes to have at sea at the same time... It also means the US Navy avoids breaking the law which requires them to maintain at least 11 carriers.

          1. EvilDrSmith

            Re: Not feeling very confident

            I'll add that when you absolutely positively want to guarantee 1 vessel on station at all times (i.e. Nuclear missile boats), it rises to 4 (allowing for an accident or other unexpected event), and I think the US navy worked / works on the basis of 5 (i,e, 14 submarines to guarantee 3 on patrol at all times)

      2. Zolko Silver badge

        Re: Not feeling very confident

        that look rather similar to the F35

        that's the J-31 and I think it looks better. It is obviously copied from the F-35, but lacks the vertical take-off hybris, is dual engine, and has a flat underside. It is probably way better than the F-35 in dog-fight, and probably stealthier and much less expensive. It is what the F-35 should have been. May-be the Chinese could give back the – corrected – plans to Lockheed ?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Not feeling very confident

          Right, you want to change the F-35 because the Chinese attempted clone "looks better".

          From this, you posit that it's "probably stealthier". But you note it has a "flat underside" - which means it's almost certainly less stealthy.

          Not very bright, are you?

      3. martinusher Silver badge

        Re: Not feeling very confident

        This "they have to copy us in everything" ducks reality. Of course the Chinese are going to build similar aircraft and ships, its called institutional inertia and its also how they find out the limitations of a particular technology. What Ukraine has told us -- and its not a new lesson -- is that if you build large, expensive, all encompassing do-it-all devices then you might be able to take on umpteen adversaries but your adversary only has to be lucky once to reduce you capability to zero.

        Its worth pointing out that stealth technology was first used by the Russians for hiding unwanted radar reflections from harbor radars. It was adopted and improved for aircraft use by the US where we discovered that it not only requires aircraft to have the general aerodynamic properties of a brick but its also rather fragile. Its also not magic, it would be only a matter of time before detection technologies get good enough to see a particular generation of stealth aircraft. Everyone copies ideas from everyone else, adapting them as they see fit, its normal engineering practice. The problem we (US) have is that we're not only generating a lot of duds in recent years (some failures are inevitable, note) but they're really, really, expensive duds.

    2. ChrisC Silver badge

      Re: Not feeling very confident

      Don't presume that the effectiveness of the stuff fielded by Ukraine is truly representative of its effectiveness when deployed by whichever armed forces it was originally designed for/supplied to.

      Whilst we have to give the Ukranians massive credit for getting up to speed on a varied bunch of equipment rather different to the Soviet-era stuff they were largely experienced with previously and being able to use it rather more effectively than your appraisal might suggest, we also have to realise that they haven't had the time to get as much training in as would be ideal.

      More importantly, we also have to remember that thanks to the piecemeal nature of what we've supplied them, they're not always able to deploy it in the same way we would as part of a more integrated setup, supported by all the other stuff we have but they don't... e.g. the way they're using Patriot is somewhat different from the way the US would use it, because a) they don't have as many units, b) replacing any that get lost isn't as easy, and c) they're having to use it to tackle threats that the US might be able to deal with using one of the myriad of other options open to them.

    3. Dostoevsky Bronze badge

      Re: Not feeling very confident

      Everyone can *see* stealth aircraft with

      A) a radar operating right next to it, or

      B) a radar operating at such a low frequency that all it can do is say "there's a plane in this 30-mile-wide area."

      What not everyone* can do is get a high-frequency weapons lock on a stealth aircraft. The exceptions are the flying-wing stealth bombers, which presumably can't be locked *or* detected by radars, long- or short-wave.

      ———

      * read: no one

  5. Jimmy2Cows Silver badge

    Somehow doubt that it's the "engineers" who are actually designing and building these things ignoring the warnings.

    Far more likely it's their managers a few tiers up (who may have been actual engineers some time in the distant past but have advanced up the chain of command and are now desperately covering their own arses and figuring out who they can throw under the bus), and whichever general is in charge of this programme, not wanting embarassing shortcomings that highlight their glaring incompetence blighting their record.

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