Wow: DARPA seeks to develop ‘counter-hypersonics’ capable of intercepting game-changing weapons

Great Power War ^ | 1/18/19 | USA Features

[SleeperCatcher]

As Russia and China get closer to actually fielding nuclear-armed hypersonic ICBMs, the Pentagon has been hard at work on a pair of concepts designed to meet the threat.

In addition to developing its own hypersonic missiles, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, is also working on a game-changer of its own: ‘Counter-hypersonics.’

As reported by Warrior Maven, DARPA is working on an interceptor that can take on incoming hypersonic warheads traveling at speeds in excess of Mach 5. As such, the secretive agency is soliciting proposals for a concept known as “Glide Breaker,” which seeks to “develop an enabling technology critical for an advanced interceptor capable of defeating hypersonic vehicles,” according to FedBizOpps.gov.

[Tallguy]

“...much less so the Chinese brag on hitting moving ships with one.”

I’ve always been skeptical of using large ballistic missiles to target ships. leaving aside the difficulty in getting real-time targeting data (a pretty daunting task), the real problems are quickly calculating the trajectory and distinguishing that ballistic missile from a Nuke. IOW’s the Chinese take a shot at one of our CBG’s and quickly draw a salvo of Minuteman III’s in response. Even if ballistic carrier-killers make tactical sense, they are a strategic disaster.

[sparklite2]

the Chinese brag on hitting moving ships with one.

---

At the Battle of Midway, the US tried bombing the Japanese attack fleet from altitude. Out of 621 bombs dropped the number of bombs to hit anything but water was ... zero.

[alexander_busek]

Seems to me satellites with lasers would be an effective weapon against them.

At least until the Russians / Chinese develop a counter-countermeasure that's faster than light.

Regards,

[alexander_busek]

I think that's an artifact of trying to apply an existing label to a totally new type of threat. They aren't ballistic, they are basically intercontinental cruise missiles.

Thanks for noting that! I speculate that you are correct in your surmise.

Regards,

[alexander_busek]

So, no, they are not intercontinental cruise missiles. They are ballistic missiles with maneuverable re-entry warheads.

Since most countermeasures call for destroying enemy ICBMs during the launch / booster phase, or in midflight, there would be little to be gained by developing an ICBM that was just as vulnerable to attack during the launch / booster phase and in midflight, and deployed its "mojo" (hypersonic speed) only after re-entry into the atmosphere near the target.

I am hence very skeptical of your interpretation.

Regards,

[G Larry]

IF not for obstructing Dem's during Bush 43 admin, we'd already have superior first strike capability against rogue nations.

Only takes one member of the Senate Select Committee to kill an R&D program.

[TexasGator]

“Ballistic means an unpowered descent, right?”

YOU are correct in challenging their use of ICBM but your definition is incorrect.

Ballistic refers to uncontrolled descent under gravity alone.

Hypersonic missiles may be boosted to a high altitude and the descend under gravity or powered all the way to the target but in both cases their flight path is controlled.

[Mariner]

“They are ballistic missiles with maneuverable re-entry warheads.”

That is the current Russian and Chinese model, your skepticism notwithstanding.

[sparklite2]

As I said, powered all the way must have an awesome engine to do that without having a boxcar load of fuel.

[jdsteel]

The issue is the speed and the fact that it can maneuver.

The greater the speed the less the maneuverability...ESPECIALLY in atmosphere.

[PIF]

Obama killed so much of our missile defense programs that they actually had to restart some of it.