This is a continuation of Hypersonic Strategies Parts 1 – 6. (Defense News Daily) Pentagon terminates program for redesigned kill vehicle, preps for new competition. Quoting, “Ending the program was the responsible thing to do,” Mike Griffin, undersecretary of defense for research and engineering, said in the statement. “Development programs sometimes encounter problems. After exercising … Continue reading Hypersonic Strategies Part 7; Directed Energy Weapons →

Disclaimer. The Strangelovian nature of what follows is disturbing. I can’t change that. It takes a nuke  to kill a nuke. It did, before the advent of hit-to-kill, and it may again, if BB’s, gumballs, and miniature projectiles don’t work. A nuke only has to get near. In the 1960’s the technology for a hit-to-kill … Continue reading Hypersonic Strategies, Part 6 →

Why can’t we put a space cadet from the newly formed Space Force in the nose of the interceptor, and have him shoot at the warhead as he zooms by? Intuition fails us with the speeds and acceleration. The space cadet would be mashed flat in the high-g blast-off. The speed of his bullets is … Continue reading U.S. Hypersonic Strategies Part 5 →

Let’s put another nail in the coffin for kinetic-kill vehicles. An EKV (exoatmospheric kill vehicle) has a  chance only if the adversary warhead climbs above the atmosphere for some portion of flight, and Avangard may never do so. If a hypersonic warhead descends enough to maneuver in flight, that contest is over. There is a … Continue reading U.S. Hypersonic Strategies Part 4 →

You played the board game, which demonstrated an odd fact. By making random sideways movements, the red checker “evaded”  your black checker, which you attempted to guide with your purposeful hand. How could the brainless strategy of the red checker outwit your intelligent black checker? There will be no math in this post, which continues … Continue reading U.S. Hypersonic Strategies Part 3 →

The problem of interception is hard for non-math people to understand. There is a gap between engineers and policy makers. What follows is an entertainment for a rainy Sunday, in the form of a board game. You will need: a checker board one red checker one black checker a coin for tossing some curiosity A … Continue reading U.S. Hypersonic Strategies Part 2; Board Game for a Rainy Day →

A good place to start is Iain Boyd’s understated article, (CBS News) U.S., Russia, China race to develop hypersonic weapons.  It may be the only article in the popular press that offers measured assessment. But the most important statement, somewhat overshadowed by the depiction of U.S. inferiority, appears towards the end as a tentative suggestion. … Continue reading DARPA’s Glide Breaker; U.S. Hypersonic Strategies Part 1 →

I originally wrote this as a preface to Preface to Hypersonic Strategies, Part 6. Then I thought the better of it. The current readership prefers the concrete and technical to soft ice-cream humanist. I just thought again. With the current distractions of domestic politics, only the most widely ranging readers will bother with Intel9.  So … Continue reading Why the New Arms Race? →

(Reuters) North Korea’s Kim says missile test a warning to South Korean ‘warmongers’. While North Korea weapons tests tend to be analyzed for specific accomplishments, this focus distracts from looking at the trend. All over the world, countries with formerly primitive military establishments have adopted  similar development paths towards advanced, “semi-ballistic” missiles that are much … Continue reading North Korea Missile Launches & Distributed Military Assets →

With grave concern for the defense of the U.S., the purpose of this series is to constructively undermine the report (download (pdf): Providing for the Common Defense; The Assessment of the National Defense Strategy Commission.) The report contains substitutions of sentiment for reason. We will explore why the substitutions occur, consequences, and possible  remedies. By … Continue reading Providing for the Common Defense; Report of National Defense Strategy Commission, Part 1 →