The Advantages of Hypersonic Missiles by Experts

The hypersonic missile developed by the Navy, called the Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) missile, is capable of hitting targets 2,200 nautical miles away within just 30 minutes, surpassing fighter jets and subsonic missiles in terms of speed and precision.

Countries equipped with a large number of long-range hypersonic missiles have various options when it comes to engaging their adversaries. Firstly, these hypersonic missiles have the capability to destroy or cripple enemy shore facilities and parked ships. Secondly, ships armed with hypersonic missiles can engage and sink enemy vessels deployed at the frontlines as well as supply ships shuttling between the front and rear positions. Lastly, hypersonic missiles can be launched from long distances to weaken and attack enemy fleets deployed at the frontline.

The latest model of the subsonic Tomahawk cruise missile has a range of 900 nautical miles; the operational radii of F/A-18 and F-35C attack aircraft are 444 and 600 nautical miles, respectively. Carrier-based strike missions require time-consuming take-off processes, aerial refueling, and hours of flight to reach the target. The Tomahawk subsonic missile has a faster launch speed but still takes almost two hours to reach a target 900 nautical miles away.

Currently, hypersonic missiles consist of two components: a booster and a glide vehicle. After accelerating to hypersonic speeds (one mile per second or faster), the booster separates from the glide vehicle, which then glides unpowered towards the target. During the descent in the atmosphere, the glide vehicle becomes extremely hot and upon impact, causes destruction and fires.

To ensure the destruction of a large warship, multiple ships, or shore facilities, a significant supply of readily available hypersonic missiles will be required.

In the early 21st century, China and Russia focused on developing hypersonic missile technology, while the United States concentrated on disarmament treaties.

Currently, China possesses the Dongfeng-21 “carrier killer” missile with a range of 1,100 nautical miles and has also developed and deployed a series of hypersonic missiles: Dongfeng-17 (medium-range), Dongfeng-27 (anti-ship missile), and Dongfeng-41 (intercontinental range).

If the U.S. does not vigorously pursue a hypersonic missile program, China could use hypersonic missiles to arm its fleet, gaining the initiative and threatening America’s naval superiority. In a conflict, the U.S. Navy would find itself at a range disadvantage in combatting China’s long-range hypersonic missiles.

Initially, the Navy considered deploying hypersonic missiles on four Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines (SSGN). However, due to cost constraints and the submarines’ age, the Navy abandoned this idea.

The Navy’s current plan to deploy hypersonic missiles on warships is divided into two phases: the first phase involves retrofitting three Zumwalt-class destroyers, each carrying six missiles for a total of 18 hypersonic missiles. The second phase will utilize the Virginia Payload Module (VPM) to equip Block 5 and Block 6 Virginia-class submarines with 28 subsonic Tomahawk missiles or 12 larger CPS hypersonic missiles.

This Navy’s plan is expected to put it at a disadvantage in confronting the Chinese Navy. The small number of surface ships with hypersonic missile capabilities (18 missiles per vessel) is inadequate compared to the growing threats posed by the Chinese Navy. Additionally, to reach the current deployment quantity of 608 subsonic missiles on Ohio-class cruise missile submarines, the plan would require the construction of 20 Block 5 submarines and six Virginia-class submarines starting in the 2020s and ending in 2044. By 2044, the Navy will deploy 560 subsonic missiles or 240 CPS hypersonic missiles.

If the Navy continues with the current missile deployment strategy, it will face a severe missile deployment shortage in the 2030s, with a deployment capability of only 62% compared to the present.

The number of active Navy ships has decreased from 594 in 1987 (built during the Reagan era) to the current 295 ships.

Despite plans to increase the fleet size to 350, U.S. shipyards face challenges due to skilled labor shortages, full production capacity, and difficulties in completing tasks on time and within budget.

Throughout history, the U.S. Navy has reconfigured decommissioned warships as platforms for new weapons.

In the 1950s and 60s, the Navy removed 6-inch and 8-inch turrets from cruisers dating back to World War II, replaced them with the Tartar and Talos missiles, and converted nine ships into missile cruisers.

In the early 21st century, four Ohio-class SSBNs carrying Trident missiles were converted into SSGNs equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles.

With the Columbia-class SSBNs joining the fleet, the Ohio-class SSBNs will be considered for retirement. If the Navy converts all 14 Ohio-class SSBNs into SSGNs armed with CPS missiles, each carrying 66 hypersonic missiles, the U.S. would deploy an additional 924 hypersonic missiles.

The cost of converting Ohio-class SSBNs into SSGNs in the early 21st century was $4 billion per submarine, with inflation bringing the refit cost per submarine to $5 billion, resulting in a total refit cost for the class of $70 billion.

The current plan involves retiring one Nimitz-class carrier for each new Ford-class carrier commissioned.

By installing 100 missile launch tubes on the carrier flight deck, a refitted Nimitz-class carrier could carry 300 CPS hypersonic missiles. Utilizing flight deck and hangar space, the carrier could accommodate double the defense missiles and anti-submarine helicopters compared to an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer.

The refurbishment process entails removing or deactivating catapults, elevators, ammunition handling systems, landing systems, and arresting gear. Furthermore, refitting requires rebuilding the island or installing an upper structure equivalent to the DDG-125 Flight III destroyer. With the addition of nuclear reactor refueling, the refit cost per ship is approximately $7 billion, resulting in a total class overhaul cost of $70 billion.

The refitted Nimitz-class carrier and Ohio-class submarines will be equipped with nuclear reactors with service lives of 50 and 40 years, respectively. To meet the power demands of artificial intelligence and electric vehicles, commercial operators are renewing licenses for commercial nuclear reactors. Similarly, the Navy’s nuclear reactor life extension program can extend the service life of reused ships and submarines by decades.

The cost per CPS missile is $41 million, with prices dropping to $10 million each through mass production. The purchase of 7,848 missiles for refitted vessels (one spare missile per launch tube) will cost $78 billion.

Refitting 24 warships carrying 7,848 missiles will cost $218 billion, spread over 15 years, averaging $14.5 billion per year.

Each refitted Ohio-class submarine will have a crew of 155, equivalent to the current Ohio-class SSGN.

The Nimitz-class carrier equipped with 100 CPS hypersonic missiles and 200 defense launch tubes will require a crew of 1,000 sailors, three times the crew of an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer.

Combining the current hypersonic missile deployment plan (18 missiles on three Zumwalt-class destroyers, 240 missiles in 20 Vertical Launch System modules, and missile deployments on refitted vessels such as 924 on 14 Ohio-class SSBNs and 3,000 on 10 Nimitz-class carriers), the Navy will ultimately deploy 4,182 hypersonic missiles.

By 2035, the Navy’s planned deployment of 158 CPS missiles against China will have minimal deterrent effect. However, by refitting three Nimitz-class carriers (900 CPS missiles) and four Ohio-class submarines (264 CPS missiles), deploying 1,322 CPS missiles would provide a more reliable deterrent.

At the end of the Cold War, the Navy deployed about 4,000 nuclear warheads on SSBNs. While CPS hypersonic glide vehicles and nuclear warheads are fundamentally different weapons, both must convince the adversary’s leadership that hostile actions will result in severe consequences. Like the nuclear weapons of the Cold War era, 4,000 glide weapons may help restrain China’s naval expansion.

Although the United States leads in carrier-based naval aviation and submarines (SSGNs), it must establish a robust carrier-based hypersonic missile capability to form a comprehensive deterrent. Due to a shortage of technical labor, U.S. shipbuilding output cannot compare with China’s. Repurposing existing warships is an economically efficient method, perhaps the only way to increase the number of operational Navy ships without building new ones.

The current CPS implementation plan fails to provide the Navy with a sufficient number of hypersonic missiles to counter China’s aggressive expansion. To fill the gap, it is proposed to retrofit the retiring Ohio and Nimitz-class warships as hypersonic missile carriers. Whether the Navy chooses to refit warships or pursue alternative methods is less important than building an overwhelming hypersonic missile force to thwart China’s expansion in the Pacific and Southeast Asia.