Last week it came out that the U.S. Navy had test-fired over 20 hypervelocity projectiles. This test actually happened in the summer of 2018 when the USS Dewey (DDG-105) fired 20 hypervelocity projectiles (HVP) from a standard Mk 45 5-inch deck gun. The test showed the importance of new guns responding to new technological threats and undermines a traditional narrative seen from many analysts.
The Mk deck gun is a technology that is over 40 years old. This was designed as a close-in weapon system that could supplement the Aegis systems and missile defense on the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. This in turn allows the destroyer to better engage and focus on threats toward carriers and capital ships. It applies to both of the major bad actors in Putin’s Russia and China.
This test counters the many annoying boasts from Putin about his hypersonic missiles, or the fearmongering from establishment politicians trying to secure more funding for a supposed hypersonic gap. The current defenses against missiles are effective, but often expensive. For example, one ship was threatened by Iranian-backed rebels in Yemen. Yet those three missiles ended up making it a multimillion dollar engagement. In contrast, the hypervelocity missile would cost $75,000 apiece on the high end and $10,000 on the low end. So instead of pouring millions (sometimes billions) of dollars into the military industrial complex on some kind of magical super weapon, the Pentagon field-tested an amazing improvement to existing technology at a fraction of the price.
The current missiles are also in danger of being overwhelmed by large amounts of enemy missiles. The new guns help prevent potential bad actors and adversaries from that preferred strategy. This mostly applies to China and their Anti-Access Area Denial (A2AD) strategy, but also to the seemingly overwhelming firepower that Russia can bring to bear against the Baltic States just by being extremely close in proximity. This strategy worries some analysts, though I tend to think it’s overstated.
With existing defenses, even if those attacks failed (as I think they would) they would exhaust the limited supply of expensive cruise missiles. This would mean either the American ships would remain in theater with fewer systems available, or they would have to leave the theater to reload. It may also result in overburdening the already exposed supply lines.
In what should concern potential adversaries, the American military is testing how to use these same weapons with paladins, howitzers, and other naval guns. In response to Chinese or Russian missile swarms, those competitors would be met with a hive of hypersonic guided weapons that can fire cheap rounds 10-15 times a minute, on top of the firepower brought by cruise missiles and F-35s. They could bring so much extra firepower to a fight that it is Russian or Chinese platforms that would worry about being overwhelmed.
In short, this is one of those times when a test of a new weapon does represent a significant development. It’s a year old, which suggests the military has already tested or implemented it in better fashion. But it also addresses the conventional and hypersonic missile threat by upgrading existential technology with cheap countermeasures with a probability they will be incredibly effective.
