US hypersonic missiles still not ready for combat use amid China, Russia dominance
Although the Pentagon says it intends to deploy its first hypersonic weapon by September 30, more than three years later than planned, its testing office says the weapon managed by the army has yet to prove it would be effective in combat.
Advertisement
The army also must show it can produce enough of the highly manoeuvrable missiles before fielding them after the Pentagon invested more than US$12 billion since 2018 attempting to develop, test and deploy hypersonics.
Delivering the new missiles will be a major test of Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth's vow to improve the lethality of US forces, including catching up with a next-generation weapon that Russia already has used in its war on Ukraine and China also has deployed.
'We have to develop hypersonics,' Steve Feinberg, President Donald Trump's nominee for deputy defence secretary, said at his confirmation hearing last week. 'We can't allow the Chinese to be faster than us, both in their weaponry and aircraft.'
Lockheed Martin Corp. is the systems integrator for the army's hypersonic weapon. Dubbed the 'Dark Eagle,' it has a reported range of 2,780km (1,725 miles) and consists of a ground-launched missile equipped with a hypersonic glide body and related equipment. A variant will be used by the navy. The Defence Department has said little about how much each missile will cost.
Advertisement
There's now reason for optimism because the army 'successfully executed a joint test' with the navy in December 'that demonstrated end-to-end performance of the system,' according to a Pentagon statement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South China Morning Post
an hour ago
- South China Morning Post
How dependent is America's arsenal on China's critical mineral supply?
The US defence sector is dependent on critical minerals for its advanced weapon systems, but it has relied on China for most of those inputs. As Beijing tightens export restrictions, there is a growing risk to the Pentagon's military readiness and supply chain security. The big picture China dominates the global supply of rare earths , including controlling more than 90 per cent of the world's processing and refining. It also has an edge in most other critical minerals, such as refined gallium, of which it controls 98.8 per cent of the output. 05:00 US defence chief Pete Hegseth warns of 'imminent' China threat during Shangri-La Dialogue US defence chief Pete Hegseth warns of 'imminent' China threat during Shangri-La Dialogue A closer look In recent years, Beijing has leveraged its dominance in critical mineral production and refining as a key negotiating point in trade wars, as well as targeting defence industries in the US and its allies. In July 2023, Beijing imposed controls requiring exporters to seek permission to ship eight gallium-related and six germanium-related products abroad. The list was expanded to include antimony in August 2024. In December, the Chinese commerce ministry imposed export bans on gallium, germanium and antimony to the US, which affects American military end users. In April, Beijing imposed trade restrictions requiring a special export licence for seven categories of medium and heavy rare earth elements (REE) – samarium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, lutetium, scandium and yttrium – as well as magnets and other finished products that contain them to be shipped out of China. Why it matters
Asia Times
an hour ago
- Asia Times
Australia's trade would be fatally exposed in a US-China war
If war breaks out between the United States and China someday, one of the major concerns for Australia is the impact on its trade. Our trade routes are long and exposed. Every year, thousands of merchant ships — bulk carriers, tankers, container ships and other types — visit Australian ports to deliver imported goods and pick up exports for delivery at distant ports. When a cargo ship of petroleum leaves the Persian Gulf for refining in East Asia, then sails for Australia, the total trip is approximately 20,000 kilometers. The ship passes through lonely stretches of sea and numerous choke points, such as the Strait of Malacca in Southeast Asia, often within range of missiles and other weapons. Such attacks could come from Chinese ships in the event of a war, or as we've seen in the Middle East with the Houthi rebels, they could also come from militants seeking to disrupt global shipping. Australia's current defense strategy cites the security of our 'sea lines of communication and maritime trade' as a priority. The aim is to prevent an adversary from cutting off critical supplies to our continent in a war. To achieve this, the government has embarked on the lengthy process of expanding the Royal Australian Navy surface and sub-surface fleet, including the acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines. As I explain in my forthcoming book, The Big Fix: Rebuilding Australia's National Security, the problem with the government's maritime plan is that it is built on a deeply flawed foundation and cannot deliver what it promises. Defense documents insist on a need for the Australian Defense Force to be able to project naval power far from Australia's shores in order to protect the nation's trade. The presence of these warships would ostensibly deter attacks on our vital shipping. However, those who developed the maritime plan do not appear to have considered whether the merchant ships delivering this trade would continue to sail to Australia in the event of a war — presumably with China. The reality is that Australia's A$1.2 trillion (US$778 billion) of exports and imports are carried in ships owned by non-Australian companies, flying foreign flags and largely crewed by citizens of other countries. Decisions about whether to continue sailing to Australia during a conflict would be made in overseas boardrooms and capitals. The Australian government has no leverage to force the owners of these ships to continue to service our continent. Australia's national interests may well not be the paramount concern. Nor does the Australian government have the option to turn to Australian-flagged vessels. Australia's shipping list contains only a handful of domestically owned and flagged cargo ships available in case of war. In fact, the biggest vessel (by length) that the government could take into service is the Spirit of Tasmania IV ferry. If all goes according to schedule, at some point in the 2040s, Australia will have at most 26 surface warships and perhaps eight nuclear-powered submarines, the navy hopes to acquire through the AUKUS deal. Australia is expected to acquire three Virginia-class submarines from the US under the AUKUS deal. Photo: Colin Murty / AAP via The Conversation Due to training and maintenance requirements, the total number of vessels available at any one time would be more on the order of ten. In other words, the government's future maritime plan, costing hundreds of billions of dollars, may result in just ten available ships at any given time to protect the nation's trade over thousands of kilometers. Fortunately, Australia has other options for safeguarding its trade that don't necessitate the building of warships. Our first investment in security should be diplomatic. The government should prioritise its investment in diplomacy across the region to promote security, including trade security. Regional countries are best placed to secure the waterways around Australia, particularly from the most likely future threat: Houthi-like militants. The Australian government should also modernize its shipping regulations and include in the budget provisions for war-risk insurance. Such insurance could compensate owners for the potential loss of ships and cargoes as an inducement for them to sail to and from Australia during war. The government must also encourage greater investment in our national resilience. Currently, the biggest risk during a conflict is an interruption to the nation's liquid fuel supply. We must greatly expand our onshore reserves of fossil fuels in the short term, while initiating a nation-building project to electrify the economy in the long term. Electrification would eliminate a considerable vulnerability to national security. Additionally, the government should identify and subsidize vital industries, such as fertilizers and certain medicines, which are essential to the continued functioning of our society in the event of a war. This would reduce our reliance on imports of critical materials. Lastly, Australian industries, with the government's assistance, should further diversify their trading partners to reduce over-dependence on one or two main destinations. Trade is undoubtedly important to Australia and the government is correct to protect it. But it is also true that not all security problems are best answered by the military. This is particularly important since the size of our planned fleet is obviously insufficient for the enormous task it will face. Either Australia invests in impossibly large numbers of warships or it takes a different path. The art of war requires a balance between the desired ends and the means to achieve them. This simple statement underpins the formation of all good strategy, which a state ignores at its peril. Unfortunately, in the case of the nation's maritime plan, the ends and means are seriously out of whack. Instead of setting itself up for failure, the government needs to put aside its ineffectual maritime plan and choose the means that do align with the ends. Only then will it be possible to protect Australia's trade. Albert Palazzo is adjunct professor in the School of Humanities and Social Sciences at UNSW Canberra, UNSW Sydney This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
HKFP
an hour ago
- HKFP
China ‘firmly rejects' US accusation of violating tariff deal
China said Monday it 'firmly rejects' US claims that it had violated a sweeping tariffs deal, as tensions between the two economic superpowers showed signs of ratcheting back up. Beijing and Washington last month agreed to slash staggeringly high tariffs on each other for 90 days after talks between top officials in Geneva. But top Washington officials last week accused China of violating the deal, with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick saying Beijing was 'slow-rolling' the agreement in comments to 'Fox News Sunday'. China hit back Monday, saying Washington 'has made bogus charges and unreasonably accused China of violating the consensus, which is seriously contrary to the facts'. 'China firmly rejects these unreasonable accusations,' its commerce ministry said in a statement. US President Donald Trump said last week that China had 'totally violated' the deal, without providing details. Beijing's commerce ministry said it 'has been firm in safeguarding its rights and interests, and sincere in implementing the consensus'. It fired back that Washington 'has successively introduced a number of discriminatory restrictive measures against China' since the Geneva talks. The ministry cited export controls on artificial intelligence chips, curbs on the sale of chip design software and the revocation of Chinese student visas in the United States. 'We urge the US to meet China halfway, immediately correct its wrongful actions, and jointly uphold the consensus from the Geneva trade talks,' the ministry said. If not, 'China will continue to resolutely take strong measures to uphold its legitimate rights and interests,' it added. Trump-Xi talks? US officials have said they are frustrated by what they see as Chinese foot-dragging on approving export licences for rare earths and other elements needed to make cars and chips. But Washington's Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent looked to ease the pressure on Sunday, saying the two sides could arrange a call between their respective heads of state to resolve their differences. 'I'm confident… this will be ironed out' in a call between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, Bessent said on CBS's 'Face the Nation'. He added, however, that China was 'withholding some of the products that they agreed to release', including rare earths. On when a Trump-Xi call could take place, Bessent said: 'I believe we will see something very soon.' China has been less forthcoming, and the commerce ministry's statement on Monday did not mention any planned conversations between the two leaders. The Geneva deal was 'an important consensus reached by the two sides on the principle of mutual respect and equality, and its results were hard-won', the ministry said. It warned Washington against 'going its own way and continuing to harm China's interests'. Global stocks finished mixed on Friday after Trump made his social media post accusing Beijing. The Hong Kong stock exchange was down around 2 percent shortly after opening on Monday.
