The hype around hypersonic missiles (the big ones, not the tank killers) implies or directly supposes that hypersonic missiles are an important innovation once in service.
This requires that
- air-breathing cruise missiles either could not do the job for want of sufficient energy or would not penetrate defences
- relatively normal (quasi-)ballistic missiles would not penetrate defences
Some hypersonic missiles might possibly have a range advantage over ballistic ones, but this is hardly a game-changer. A bigger yet still simpler ballistic missile could reach just as far.
Failure due to insufficient energy is unlikely. Cruise missiles can use a shaped charge precursor to penetrate very thick reinforced concrete objects and they can also use a shaped charge to insert an explosive warhead as a shot into the hole. This precursor shaped charge approach is by now ancient (WW2-era) technology, mass-produced for portable bunker-busting munitions and I suspect that a driver behind procurement of cruise missiles with such warheads isn't just military bunkers (munition depots and hardened aircraft shelters mostly), but also the destruction of bridge pillars.
This largely leaves the possibility that the air defence technology progress since the 1970's may have defeated subsonic terrain-following cruise missiles even if they're designed for radar stealth. The ballistic missile defence obsession since the 1980's (and especially since 1991) may furthermore have produced enough technological progress to defeat (quasi-)ballistic missiles.
This is not a binary issue, though. The existence of effective defences doesn't mean that an attacking missile wouldn't accomplish its mission. The costs, quantity, location and readiness are still hugely important factors.
So let's look at readiness.
I very, very strongly suppose that a large missile salvo at the beginning of a war would hit its targets to the limit of the technical reliability of the attacking missile systems. The defences would simply not be deployed and ready. Such a strategic surprise attack could easily be done even with slow cruise missiles. They might need 90 minutes to the last target, but that wouldn't matter much. Hardly any defences of a surprised country or alliance would activate properly within 90 minutes. Almost no fighters are equipped with actual air combat missiles in peacetime, for example. Air defence battery radars and air defence fire control cabins are parked in barracks; they're targets, not defences.
A surprise attack on NATO could take out the majority of European air power and just about every important bridge, about half of the European warships and hundreds of other high value targets. This wouldn't even be expensive; maybe € 2 bn of investment.
Such an aggressor would thus not expect to face much BMD capability for days, either. Only after maybe a week or two he'd face some BMD clusters that would protect certain critical areas (very likely large airbases, maybe a capital or a bridge). Normal air defences might by then protect military bridging over certain rivers, a port and a main supply route.
Would the ability to overcome these few BMD clusters with hypersonic missiles make much of a difference? I doubt it very much. The effect of a couple more hits on the conflict would be very small and a saturation attack of other missiles would very likely succeed even against deployed defences.
Hypersonic missiles may be interesting to bolster nuclear deterrence in face of BMD, and they might be relevant to carrier-centric naval warfare scenarios, but I see very little reason for any elevated relevance in European land warfare.
(This is merely a personal opinion, of course. I have no insider knowledge about technical capabilities of hypersonic missiles or air defences/BMD. Then again, my reasoning doesn't require either as critical input.)
related
/2010/07/first-week-of-peer-vs-peer-air-war.html
/2018/10/inf-i-dont-hold-back-this-time.html
/2020/02/disruptive-technologies.html
S O
defence_and_freedom@gmx.de
.
I agree with your point here completely. Saturation attacks with cheaper munitions is the largest threat. Hypersonic missile tech will not be that relevant until it can be miniaturized enough to use in anti-tank roles, or against surface ships(and it proves better than the current Brahmos or the Russian multi-stage missiles with supersonic terminal stages). A hypersonic missile small enough to carry several on an armoured vehicle of decent mobility, now that is a game changer. It could render current tanks obsolete, and combined with cheap drones that could deliver the munitions, that would force a huge change in force structures...
ReplyDeleteHypersonic anti-tank missiles were feasible around the year 2000 already. The LOSAT project proved this, CKEM miniturized it to more nromal ATGM dimensions and there were German hypersonic SAM projects in the late 90's that delivered about the same mass propelled to about the same velocity at similar overall missile weight. So at the very least Germany and the U.S. could have built hypersonic anti-tank missiles 15...20 years ago, and I have little doubt that Russia could have done so as well.
DeleteAre hypersonic missiles also suitable to take out hard targets such as deep bunkers?
ReplyDeleteThey could be. A properly hardened and dense hypersonic missile coul bury deeply into soil and or penetrate reinforced concrete with its great kinetic energy. It would need to be well-oriented (nose really pointing forward almost exactly) upon impact.
DeleteI did already write in the blog text that such a potential is no unique selling proposition of hypersonic missiles, though.
There seem to be less options to defend against hypersonic weapons during a war, enabling them to take out any key sites that appear.
DeleteFor the start of hostilities, a global surprise strike can be timed within a much shorter time window, making it less likely to be detected and fouled such a strike that takes out all carriers and most of the submarines.
These two aspects might be important for strikes across the ocean against the US mainland, and from the US mainland against Eurasia.
MRBMs are quicker than hypersonic missiles and would leave less than 11 minutes till impact. Hitting the most distant places with seaborne missiles from nearby would further reduce the duration of a first alpha strike.
DeleteThe only thing that protects high value targets from such a first alpha strike is to not be at the aimpoint. The best deterrence against a first alpha strike is to depend little on HVTs and to keep the HVTs' locations uncertain.
HVTs may make sense for carrier-killing and I'm sure they make sense for tank-killing so far, but they seem largely redundant against HVTs in Europe.
China is going full on MAD doctrine. I think the minimal deterrence policy is dead in all but name.
ReplyDeleteAlso, as far as I see there is a desire in the Chinese military to open the continental US to Chinese strikes to deter the US from intervening into a Taiwan conflict. They want to achieve this in the medium term (so no build up of 500 bombers and 15 carriers). They cannot station forces close to the USA and the US holds a lot of geographical advantages like ownership of a lot of islands in the Pacific. The Chinese idea is to use intercontinental range weapons. The nuclear build up may serve as a deterrent in this case. (If you strike me I strike you and don't lash out with nukes.) An interesting idea to be honest. I think the opportunity cost would be too high so the PLA wouldn't adopt the idea.
DeleteBlockade breaking capabilities and a strong enough airforce to destroy the bases in Japan would be better uses of money.
DeleteIt would be a poor choice to attack CONUS, even in wartime. CONUS is covered by the North Atlantic Treaty and would add the naval and air power of Europe to the fight.
DeleteGuam, Hawaii and American Samoa are fair game to the Chinese in this regard.
https://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2017/07/just-reminder-about-north-atlantic.html
I have doubts NATO deters a Chinese attack on CONUS, because prior interventions showed a weakness of European logistics for fighting abroad and the area of conflict between the US and China is likely the Western Pacific and the Indian Ocean.
DeleteI would assume that the amount of power Europe brings to the fight can be neglected compared to the potential gains by striking the CONUS.
But rather than technology, how would psychology affect this, would people voluntarily sign up for a full blown peer conflict in the US or would the professional military have to reinstate the draft to have recruits? Would this be worse in China where young people from single child families would die with a strong pressure for reproduction and ancestor worship by the next generation?
Doesn't NATO only cover defensive wars? And the Chinese publications I see suggest starting to strike the CONUS only after a US strike on the Chinese mainland. I think the main motivation is destroying the US Naval assets in piers, and aircraft factories if the Taiwan conflict transforms into a war with the USA.
DeleteTwo days ago something came out from Global Times that supports the opinion of most China/PLA watchers on the current nuclear build up.
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202110/1236541.shtml
" China will certainly improve the quality of its nuclear deterrence to ensure that the US completely eliminates the idea of nuclear blackmail against China at any critical moment and its idea of using nuclear forces to make up for the weakness that US' conventional forces cannot crush China.
Greater survivability and penetration ability of Chinese nuclear missiles is clearly being accelerated through a variety of new missiles. Such development will ensure that neither country's nuclear forces will be used as a tool to solve regional problems. This would ensure that the damage to peace, if any, would be limited and that the region would not see a deadly collision between major powers. "
The article is anonymous. This is important. In the Chinese state-owned media, if an article is written after an order from a high-level government official, it is published anonymously.
"I have doubts NATO deters a Chinese attack on CONUS, "
China actually cares about Europe a lot. Even though what Europe can bring to the SCS and ECS is not much, Europe is the largest trading partner of China and Europe can still harass the Chinese shipping around the Mid-East and East Africa, the places where half of China's oil come from. And as you can see from multiple articles on the state media and military magazines, they want to keep the fight between the USA, Taiwan and China. This is also why they didn't sign a formal treaty with Laos, Cambodia and Russia. They don't want to offend Europe or want the war to go global.
"But rather than technology, how would psychology affect this, would people voluntarily sign up for a full blown peer conflict in the US or would the professional military have to reinstate the draft to have recruits? "
As someone who lived in China, I would say that depends on the context. If that context is the US intervention to reunification (as they call it) then the answer is yes. The PLA, PAP and the militia would have 100+ million volunteers to choose from. Emotions run very high on this topic. It is actually a topic the government doesn't like talking on much because it radicalizes the people very fast. A few weeks ago the Chinese government suggested stocking food in homes. It was to prepare for a possible COVID lockdown but a lot of people in Weibo were cheering while writing: "Hooray we are finally ending the Taiwan problem"
Nationalism is loud in China and does have supporters, especially young women that are "little pinkies", so I agree that initially a lot of young men and some women would sign up for the reunification of China. I just question how deep it will continue to actually run if people have to pay increasing taxes for it and lose all their offspring to it.
DeleteSame goes for the US that has higher taxes, albeit the rich evade a lot and would have to supply more money in a peer power conflict. I'm not sure the all volunteer force is able to stomach the losses even just a naval conflict with China would entail.
If you look at the track record of WWII, the democracies were able to extract more disposable income from their population and utilize it in a more efficient system to produce their gear. The Nazis in Germany were a mix between socialist and nationalist policies, who talked the talk, but didn't walk the walk regarding a well organized national effort. Their MIC was beset with inefficiencies due to cronyism and corruption and the German people were only willing to supply a smaller share of their income to the war effort than people in the US or the UK. This requirement to "pay" people to be happy with the conduct in a crisis is prevalent in countries, where the solution of problems via parliament doesn't work well to create solidarity in misery.
DeleteMy point about China is that they talk a lot about national goals, but how much would the individual sacrifice for it?
Ever since the milk powder scandal in China, I see massive shipments of German milk powder going to China, because the Chinese rather trust German than their own quality control. What does work on a national level, is some, probably extralegal, cooperation to keep the German big brand milk powder companies from directly exporting to the Chinese market. Instead there's a secretive network of many small Chinese companies in the business. These numerous small companies don't care about the proper handling of the shipments nor about vitamin deficiencies in baby nutrition due to the drying process of milk.
So I expect a vocal support for reunification with lots of volunteers, but an attempted Chinese conduct that avoids losses in own lives and avoids an arms production race. Items such as hypersonic missiles might be helpful for a limited war plan to quickly establish a fait accompli.
I hope this better explains my view.
"Doesn't NATO only cover defensive wars?"
DeleteThe North Atlantic Treaty wasn't meant for something as 9/11, either.
Warmongers will try to drag Europeans into such a war. British and French politicians are already working on getting their countries involved in Pacific issues for no good reason whatsoever. Germany sent a frigate there recently, for no good reason.
The Americans would claim to defend themselves in the event of war, and so would the West Taiwanese.
The geographic limitation of the treaty on the other hand is indisputable - if only it gets brought up in the mass media.