Research Analyst Shawn Rostker wrote an op-ed in RealClear Defense on the lacking utility of hypersonic missiles.
The United States has been exploring research and development of hypersonic weapons technologies for decades. Historically, such funding has been relatively modest, but in recent years the Department of Defense (DoD) has grown more vocal in its desire to accelerate development and deployment of these systems. Arguments calling for increased funding for hypersonic weapons are gaining traction with lawmakers, based on illusory assumptions about adversaries’ capabilities and despite the absence of a compelling technical or strategic rationale for their need. Before rushing to pour additional money into these platforms, the Pentagon must make the case that hypersonics do more than simply materially match our international counterparts, but in fact further the strategic interests of the United States. Thus far, the case hasn’t been made.
Hypersonic weapons, often collectively referred to as hypersonics, are typically divided into two primary categories: hypersonic glide vehicles (HGVs)—of which there are long-range and theater-range—and hypersonic cruise missiles (HCMs). HGVs are launched from rocket boosters into space and then reenter the atmosphere, gliding unpowered to their targets. Long-range HGVs are designed for strategic global strike missions and can operate at speeds exceeding Mach 15. In contrast, theater-range hypersonic weapons are designed for shorter-range regional missions. These systems typically operate at lower speeds, around Mach 5-10, and are intended to overcome regional missile defenses. Alternatively, HCMs are also launched from rocket boosters and are powered during part of their flight by scramjet engines that draw in air from the atmosphere to burn their fuel. They are built to operate within the Mach 5-10 range. Read more
