February 21, 2020
Contributors Latest News | Paul LePage | Bangor Metro | Central Maine Power | Today's Paper

Russia’s new hypersonic missiles are much ado about nothing

Courtesy of the Russian Defense Ministry Press Service via AP
Courtesy of the Russian Defense Ministry Press Service via AP
In this photo taken from undated footage distributed by Russian Defense Ministry Press Service, an intercontinental ballistic missile lifts off from a truck-mounted launcher somewhere in Russia. The Russian military said the Avangard hypersonic weapon entered combat duty on Friday. The Kremlin has made modernization of Russia's strategic nuclear forces one of its top priorities.

Hypersonic missiles are not a terrifying new weapon. They are just another cog in the terrifying but remarkably stable strategy called nuclear deterrence.

“The Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle entered service at 10:00 Moscow time on 27 December,” Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu boasted — and nobody quailed in their boots.

The new Russian missile can deliver nuclear weapons, of course, and the Russians are very proud of it. As President Vladimir Putin said, “Not a single [other] country possesses hypersonic weapons, let alone continental-range hypersonic weapons.” They’ll all be green with envy.

A hypersonic missile’s warheads launch on a rocket, just like the traditional intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). However, instead of going very high and traveling most of the distance through space in a predictable “ballistic” trajectory before plunging back down into the atmosphere and striking their target, the hypersonic missile’s warheads go low early.

The hypersonic missile launches on a “depressed” trajectory, and then a “glide vehicle” detaches from the rocket and skips along the edge of the atmosphere, traveling at up to 20 times the speed of sound. It only comes over the horizon and becomes visible to the enemy’s missile defense radars when it’s much closer to the target.

Even better, it can maneuver on the way in to its target, which makes it harder to intercept. As Putin proudly said, “The Avangard is invulnerable to intercept by any existing and prospective missile defense.” Indeed, he claimed, everybody else is “playing catch-up with us.”

This would be deeply alarming to Russia’s potential adversaries if all the orthodox, traditional ICBM had suddenly become vulnerable to interception. Then only the Russians would have missiles that could get through the other side’s defences, and so they would rule the world. But in fact there are no effective defenses against mass attacks by conventional ICBMs.

The United States has been working on anti-ballistic missile systems since Ronald Reagan’s “Star Wars” fantasies of almost four decades ago, and it does have one active anti-ballistic missile site in Alaska. It might be able to stop one or even two incoming ICBMs launched by, let’s say, North Korea. It certainly couldn’t stop the hundreds of ICBMs that Russia would launch in any real nuclear war.

The problem with any kind of anti-missile defense system is that it’s relatively cheap and easy to overwhelm it by sheer numbers. The dumb old ICBMs will still get through any anti-ballistic missile defenses if used in quantity, which is how they would certainly be used in any great-power war. Hypersonic missiles are wonderfully fast and clever, but they’re also expensive and quite unnecessary.

So why has Russia spent what is clearly a great deal of money to develop a snazzy but pointless weapon? Because the “metal-eaters’ alliance,” the Russian equivalent of the U.S. military-industrial complex, is still alive and kicking despite the demise of the old Soviet Union. Developing new weapons is what it does, whether they are needed or not.

But the long strategic stalemate will not be destabilized by some flashy new gadget like hypersonic missiles. As long as no effective defense is available against mass attacks with nuclear-armed missiles, mutual deterrence will persist. The only technological development that could really undermine it is directed-energy weapons.

High-energy lasers and particle-beam weapons would be far more effective than the ground-launched missiles employed in today’s rudimentary anti-ballistic missile systems. They would function at light speed, they would have absolutely flat trajectories (which allows precise targeting), and above all they would be able to switch almost instantaneously from one target to the next.

In theory, therefore, directed-energy weapons would make effective defense possible against any nuclear attack using missiles, whether they are ICBMs, cruise missiles, or hypersonic gliders. In practice, however, nobody has come up with an operationally credible directed-energy weapon in 40-plus years of trying.

Maybe one day they will, but until then innovations like hypersonic missiles are just minor new wrinkles in an essentially unchanging strategic scene. Both the Americans and the Chinese have been experimenting with the same hypersonic technologies, but neither is in any rush to deploy them.

Gwynne Dyer’s new book is “Growing Pains: The Future of Democracy (and Work).”

 


Have feedback? Want to know more? Send us ideas for follow-up stories.

You may also like