Hypersonic Weapons: Evolution or Revolution?

Abstract

Hypersonic strike systems have become a driving force in the development of offensive weapons. Academic literature offers two perspectives on the prospects of their impact on the military-strategic situation. One approach tends to position hypersonic weapons as a revolutionary technology, while the other proceeds from the premise that hypersonic strike systems represent an evolutionary development of offensive systems. The objective of this article is to establish the specifics and limits of the hypersonic weapons impact on the existing military-strategic balance. The paper analyzes the problem of hypersonic weapons classification, their role and place in military strategy, as well as the evolution and prospects of the Russian, U.S. and Chinese programs on hypersonic weapons. The authors conclude that the advantages of hypersonic weapons cannot automatically be transformed into a guaranteed success amid a full-scale military conflict and are largely available to other strike systems based on less advanced technological solutions. The key scenario, where the benefits of hypersonic weapons can be realized the most, is a limited conflict, in which they are used for the surprise defeat of highly-protected priority targets and the establishment of theater domination. This is evidenced by the hypersonic development programs of the leading military powers – Russia, the United States, and China, – each of which is more or less committed to developing medium- and short-range systems. The implications of the unfolding hypersonic arms race for strategic stability are ambiguous. On the one hand, forward deployment of such systems increases the risks of escalation; reduced flight time to enemy strategic infrastructure facilities encourages the adversary to adopt more aggressive retaliation postures based on the principle of launch-on-warning rather than post-attack. On the other hand, the possession of hypersonic weapons by both sides in the same theater increases their mutual vulnerability and can thus play a stabilizing role.