Laughably misinformed and naive article. But thanks for proving that the National Review is now garbage political propaganda aimed at simpletons.
There is no reason that we shouldn’t immediately begin to acquire more of our current interceptors for all of our systems
Uhhh, yes there is. Our current interceptors are totally ineffective against hypersonic missiles which our largest enemies have now deployed.
In order for a "bullet to hit a bullet", the interceptor must travel significantly faster than the target. Otherwise, the target will be gone by the time the interceptor gets there. Also, getting up to the speed required to intercept takes time. And, last but not least; the target bullet must follow a predictable trajectory.
Fast forward and try to apply this logic to a maneuverable target missile travelling really fast --- like 5-10X the speed of sound --- hypersonically. By the time the target is detected and acquired and the interceptor is fired and gets up to speed, it's game over --- the target missile has either changed it's trajectory or already struck.
The only thing with a realistic chance of reliably shooting down a hypersonic missile is a "Star Wars" directed energy weapon of some kind with nearly instantaneous flight time. Which doesn't exist yet.
Proposing more money thrown at our "current interceptors" may make for "feel good" political propaganda but it won't make us any safer --- and the top brass at the Pentagon know this and have said as much.
With respect to the technological statements: this is to suggest that foreign adversaries have perfected the technology (they haven't) and that the west is defenseless against them (they aren't). The article is missing some crucial details in the advancement of this space to be fair.
that the west is defenseless against them (they aren't).
The only defense we currently have comes from the threat of nuclear retaliation --- not our "current interceptors" which were never designed for this .
Both China and Russia have tested and deployed these weapons. Russia has used some of them in Ukraine. Any chance we have of "intercepting" them is still in the thinking stage.
There is no reason that we shouldn’t immediately begin to acquire more of our current interceptors for all of our systems
Uhhh, yes there is. Our current interceptors are totally ineffective against hypersonic missiles which our largest enemies have now deployed.
In order for a "bullet to hit a bullet", the interceptor must travel significantly faster than the target. Otherwise, the target will be gone by the time the interceptor gets there. Also, getting up to the speed required to intercept takes time. And, last but not least; the target bullet must follow a predictable trajectory.
Fast forward and try to apply this logic to a maneuverable target missile travelling really fast --- like 5-10X the speed of sound --- hypersonically. By the time the target is detected and acquired and the interceptor is fired and gets up to speed, it's game over --- the target missile has either changed it's trajectory or already struck.
The only thing with a realistic chance of reliably shooting down a hypersonic missile is a "Star Wars" directed energy weapon of some kind with nearly instantaneous flight time. Which doesn't exist yet.
Proposing more money thrown at our "current interceptors" may make for "feel good" political propaganda but it won't make us any safer --- and the top brass at the Pentagon know this and have said as much.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/china-hypersonic-missile-sputni...