Matthew Griffin, described as “The Adviser behind the Advisers” and a “Young Kurzweil,” is the founder and CEO of the World Futures Forum and the 311 Institute, a global Futures and Deep Futures consultancy working between the dates of 2020 to 2070, and is an award winning futurist, and author of “Codex of the Future” series. Regularly featured in the global media, including AP, BBC, Bloomberg, CNBC, Discovery, RT, Viacom, and WIRED, Matthew’s ability to identify, track, and explain the impacts of hundreds of revolutionary emerging technologies on global culture, industry and society, is unparalleled. Recognised for the past six years as one of the world’s foremost futurists, innovation and strategy experts Matthew is an international speaker who helps governments, investors, multi-nationals and regulators around the world envision, build and lead an inclusive, sustainable future. A rare talent Matthew’s recent work includes mentoring Lunar XPrize teams, re-envisioning global education and training with the G20, and helping the world’s largest organisations envision and ideate the future of their products and services, industries, and countries. Matthew's clients include three Prime Ministers and several governments, including the G7, Accenture, Aon, Bain & Co, BCG, Credit Suisse, Dell EMC, Dentons, Deloitte, E&Y, GEMS, Huawei, JPMorgan Chase, KPMG, Lego, McKinsey, PWC, Qualcomm, SAP, Samsung, Sopra Steria, T-Mobile, and many more.
WHY THIS MATTERS IN BRIEF
All of today’s military machines and apparatus are defenceless against hypersonic weapons, and the US military needs an answer to this growing threat and fast.
All of the world’s major military powers are currently locked in an arms race to develop and deploy everything from autonomous and semi-autonomous Artificial Intelligence (AI) powered cruise missiles, drone swarms, kill chains, missiles, nuclear submarines, robots, and hypersonic aircraft and weapons that travel at anything between Mach 5 and Mach 27, and above. It’s this latter development especially that has led to Russia re-instating it’s allegedly autonomous AI deadhand system that will launch Russia’s nuclear arsenal if its senior leaders are killed and non-responsive, and led to the US military now seriously considering putting AI in charge of autonomously responding to enemy threats using nuclear weapons that they think human operators would be too slow to counter or react to – especially as a hypersonic missile, like the one’s Russia recently deployed, can cross an ocean in mere minutes which would dramatically reduce the available response time.
So, as you can see, countries are taking the threat of hypersonic weapons seriously and when it comes to trying to figure out new ways to defeat such fast moving agile targets it’s fair to say everything’s on the table, so as a result DARPA, the bleeding edge research arm of the US military, have announced a new project that they call” Counter-Hypersonics.” Meanwhile the rest of us would call it a project to find new ways to stop nuclear warheads coming down on our heads at 20 times the speed of sound.
DARPA desparetely wants a new type of interceptor that can stop weapons that are hypersonic, and the agency has begun soliciting proposals for what they’re calling Glide Breaker, their project to stop boost-glide vehicles that are lofted high into the atmosphere atop a ballistic missile, and then glide down to Earth. The current leader in the field is Russia’s Avangard system, that was just pushed into active service in Russia, and that’s touted by President Vladimir Putin as “unstoppable by anti-missile defenses.” The Avangard is lofted by a giant RS-28 Sarmat ICBM, and then glides down to its target at Mach 20, but China and the US are also developing boost-glide vehicles that “ride their own shockwaves.”
DARPA seeks to “develop and demonstrate a technology that is critical for enabling an advanced interceptor capable of engaging manoeuvring hypersonic threats in the upper atmosphere.” And it wants this technology in a hurry: Glide Breaker should be tested in late 2020. Meanwhile, the Missile Defense Agency – the Pentagon organization charged with stopping ballistic missiles – also has its program to develop defenses against hypersonic weapons.
There’s a reason for the rush. Hypersonic weapons may be able to penetrate US missile defenses or streak past the defenses of US aircraft carriers. Even more worrisome, they might be armed with conventional warheads to destroy targets – notably ICBMs in hardened silos – once thought invulnerable to anything but nuclear weapons.
DARPA’s solicitation is light on unclassified details, though it says it wants “innovative solutions” to stop boost-glide vehicles. That’s putting it mildly. If shooting down ballistic missiles is hard, then boost-glide vehicles, also known as hypersonic glide vehicles (HGVs), is even harder.
For starters, the gliders don’t traverse outer space like an ICBM, but instead soar through the thin upper atmosphere, where they can achieve extremely high speeds while flying too low to be easily detected by early warning radars designed to track ballistic missiles arcing through outer space. For another, while an ICBM warhead follows a predictable, and Mach 23, path as it descends through the atmosphere, a boost-glide vehicle – like a hobby glider – can manoeuvre, which make it much harder to an interceptor to hit.
Intercepting a ballistic missile with an anti-missile has been likened to “hitting a bullet with a bullet.” Imagine if the bullet were taking evasive action.
Or put another way, counter-hypersonics encounters all the difficulties of ballistic missile defense against ICBMs, and then some. “The most obvious challenge is the manoeuvrability of HGVs, which makes it very difficult to maintain track on the vehicle and plan an intercept course using our current capabilities,” George Nacouzi, an engineer at the RAND Corp. think tank, told the National Interest . “Flight altitude is also challenging for our current systems. The HGV may fly too high for many endo-atmospheric interceptors and too low to be detected and tracked early by long range radars.”
Nacouzi believes there are ways to shoot down HGVs, “but they would involve using a nearly ubiquitous surveillance and tracking system accompanied by strategically positioned very high performance interceptors or, possibly in the future, directed energy weapons.” The U.S. is developing these solutions for intercepting ballistic missiles, but they all have drawbacks: directed energy weapons such as lasers can be affected by weather, while having armed drones or aircraft constantly hovering over North Korean missile sites could trigger a war.
James Acton, an arms control expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, argues that despite their speed, hypersonic weapons can be destroyed by some ballistic missile defense systems such as the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system. The problem is that THAAD is a point-defense weapon designed to protect a small area: covering the entire United States with THAAD-like defenses would be prohibitively expensive.
So, given current technology, a leak-proof shield that can reliably stop a massed salvo of hypersonic glide vehicles seems doomed to failure. But maybe the value of counter-hypersonics isn’t shooting down these lethal gliders?
DARPA may have captured the real value of counter-hypersonic defenses in a notice for a July 2018 Proposer’s Day , where industry had a chance to learn about the project. The notice stated that “a key figure of merit is deterrence: the ability to create large uncertainty for the adversary’s projected probability of mission success and effective raid size.”
Note the significance of that phrasing: anti-hypersonic defense is successful not by necessarily destroying every incoming boost-glide vehicle, but by making a potential adversary uncertain of which hypersonic vehicles will get through. It’s the equivalent of body armor that will stop only 50 percent of bullets fired at it — but the attacker can’t be sure of whether a particular bullet aimed at a vital spot will hit its target.
That’s been the whole basis of nuclear deterrence since the early days of the Cold War. Even if a first strike could destroy much of the enemy’s nuclear missiles and bombers, an attacker couldn’t be sure that enough nukes would be left over to mount a devastating retaliation.
However, the Achilles heel of ballistic missile defense has been that it’s cheaper for an attacker to build an overwhelming mass of missiles and warheads than it is for the defender to build interceptors to stop them. It remains to be seen whether the economics of hypersonic missile defense will be the same.