Hypersonic Superweapons Are a Mirage, New Analysis Says
Military consultants name hypersonic warheads the subsequent large factor in intercontinental warfare. They see the rising arms, which might ship nuclear or typical munitions, as zipping alongside at as much as 5 miles a second whereas zigzagging via the environment to outwit early-warning satellites and a few interceptors. The superfast weapons, consultants say, lend themselves to shock assaults.
President Trump has bragged about his “super-dupers,” even referring to the deliberate weapon as “hydrosonic,” a model of electrical toothbrush. Last yr, his price range requested the Pentagon to spend $three.2 billion on hypersonic arms analysis, up $600 million from the earlier yr’s request. And as President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. takes command of the nation’s navy, he must take into account whether or not to maintain the protection work undertaken within the Trump years.
Now, unbiased consultants have studied the technical efficiency of the deliberate weapon and concluded that its marketed options are extra illusory than actual. Their evaluation is to be revealed this week in Science & Global Security.
In an interview, David Wright, a physicist on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an writer of the brand new evaluation, known as the superweapon a mirage.
“There’re lots of claims and not many numbers,” he stated. “If you put in the numbers, you find that the claims are nonsense.”
Military officers known as the paper insubstantial, saying it was primarily based on outdated knowledge. But they declined to reveal new findings.
“Due to the classified nature of hypersonics technologies, we are not at liberty to publicly discuss current capabilities,” Jared Adams, chief spokesman for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or Darpa, said in an email.
Richard L. Garwin, a physicist and longtime adviser to the federal government, called the paper “very good and important.” He added that he had provided his own similar criticisms of hypersonic warheads to defense officials.
James M. Acton, a nuclear analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, called the paper “a serious, credible and important piece of work.”
Dr. Wright is affiliated with M.I.T.’s Laboratory for Nuclear Security and Policy and did the analysis with Cameron L. Tracy, a materials scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a private group based in Cambridge, Mass., that often backs arms control.
By definition, hypersonic vehicles fly at more than five times the speed of sound — or up to dozens of times faster than jetliners. The warheads rise into space atop a traditional long-range missile but then descend quickly into the atmosphere to bank, careen and otherwise maneuver. They’re basically stubby gliders. The curved upper surfaces of their wedge-shaped bodies give them some of the lifting power of an airplane wing.
Dr. Wright and Dr. Tracy based their analysis on the Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 — an experimental warhead developed by the Air Force and Darpa. Their findings, they say, also apply to other American prototypes, as well as devices being developed by China, Russia and other countries.
The computer simulations drew on the physics of moving bodies and public disclosures about the Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 in order to model its most plausible flight paths. The team zeroed in on signature phases of hypersonic flight — when the vehicle zooms through the atmosphere and then plunges to hit a target.
The two experts say their computer modeling fills in public gaps on the weapon’s overall performance as well as its potential interactions with existing military systems for detecting and defeating weapons launched from distant sites.
In their paper, they see the weapon as essentially failing to outwit early-warning satellites and interceptors. For instance, current generations of space-based sensors, they report, will be able to track the weapon’s fiery twists and turns during most of its flight through the atmosphere.
And surprisingly, given the weapon’s speedy reputation, they say their analysis shows it will fly intercontinental distances more slowly than ballistic missiles and warheads fired on low flight paths known as depressed trajectories. In war, such tactics are seen as a good way for attackers to evade interceptors and lessen warning time.
Dr. Wright and Dr. Tracy conclude that the envisioned new weapon is, at best, “evolutionary — not revolutionary.”
In their paper, the authors contrast their findings with military claims. For instance, they quote the 2019 Senate testimony of Gen. John E. Hyten, the Air Force officer then in charge of U.S. Strategic Command, which controls the nation’s nuclear missiles. The time it would take a hypersonic warhead to complete an attack, General Hyten said, “could be half” that of a standard missile. “It could be even less,” he added.
The clashes between public views of hypersonic warheads and their actual abilities, the two experts conclude, arise from overstated official claims meant “to justify the expenditure necessary” for their development and deployment.
The team’s analysis, he noted, focuses on an underlying issue of physics that he said casts doubt on the new class of weapons in general.
It’s what aeronautical engineers call the lift-to-drag ratio. The esoteric term is a measure of lifting power versus drag. Lift pushes a speeding aerodynamic body up and atmospheric drag tries to counteract the forward motion, at worst prompting a stall.
Dr. Wright said the team’s analysis of the hypersonic vehicle used a lift-to-drag ratio of 2.6. In contrast, jetliners and some birds have a ratio approximately eight times higher. In other words, the warheads at best are unimpressive fliers.
The limited power of the curved, blistering hot surfaces to generate a substantial lifting force without also producing lots of drag undermined claims that the weapon can fly long distances on complex trajectories, he said.
“Unless they’ve found some magical way to keep these systems up,” Dr. Wright said, “they’re going to have problems.”
Policy experts expect the Biden administration to focus on fostering arms control, and it seems likely that the Trump administration’s plans for hypersonic warheads will get close scrutiny. Hypersonic arms are among the topics that defense experts see administration officials as addressing in early talks with Russia and China, including the possibility of finding ways to impose restraints.
Ned Price, a spokesman for the Biden transition team, declined to comment on the issue of hypersonic warheads.
“President-elect Joe Biden will have an experienced team to sort through these complicated issues,” Hans Binnendijk, a former National Security Council official, wrote last month in suggesting ways to reinvigorate arms control. “But it will take time and creativity to be successful.”
