Hypersonic weapons, space sensors, GPI interceptors: why attack is advancing faster than defense, and what physics is blocking.
In summary
Hypersonic weapons are not just about “going fast.” They combine a speed of at least Mach 5 with an ability to maneuver in the atmosphere that breaks the detection and interception patterns inherited from the Cold War. Two families dominate: boost-glide vehicles, which “glide” after a boost, and aeroballistic hypersonic cruise missiles. The offensive promise is brutal: strike high-value targets in minutes, compressing the enemy’s decision-making chain. Defense, on the other hand, must solve a problem of geometry and time: see early, track without interruption, then engage during the glide phase. Hence the layers of space sensors (HBTSS and tracking constellations) and the dedicated Glide Phase Interceptor. But physics comes into play: extreme heating, materials, and partial “blackout” related to plasma. The result: the attack progresses, the defense is being built, and the cost-effectiveness remains uncertain.
The reality behind the word “hypersonic”
We talk about hypersonic when a vehicle exceeds Mach 5, or about 6,100 km/h (3,800 mph). The figure is striking, but it is also misleading. Many objects already travel very fast: a ballistic warhead travels through space at much higher speeds. The key difference lies elsewhere: modern hypersonic technology targets a trajectory in the atmosphere, with maneuverability, and therefore uncertainty for the defender.
Two broad categories structure the landscape.
- The first category is gliders: a launcher accelerates them, then they separate and continue to glide at high altitude. These are known as hypersonic glide vehicles. Their strength is not “pure speed,” but their ability to change altitude and course, making it difficult to predict their point of impact.
- The second category consists of hypersonic cruise missiles: these remain propelled in the atmosphere, typically with architectures targeting ramjet/scramjet engines depending on the speed. The promise is a less “ballistic” and more “aerial” trajectory, making them more difficult to intercept with defenses designed for predictable arcs.
In both cases, the defender loses what they value most: time, predictability, and continuity of track.
The operational shock: speed that crushes decision-making
The marketing narrative says: “a missile that goes fast.” The real military problem is: “a system that shortens the war by the minute.” At 6,000 km/h, you can travel 1,000 km in about 10 minutes. Even if reality includes phases of acceleration, flight, and variable energy, the strategic effect is clear: the window for detecting, identifying, deciding, authorizing, engaging, and evaluating is shrinking.
This changes three things, very concretely.
- First, air defense becomes an exercise in continuity. A ground-based radar can see far, but not around the curvature of the Earth. The lower the target flies or the more it “plays” with altitudes, the more the line of sight deteriorates.
- Second, defense becomes a “handoff” problem: it is not enough to detect, you have to transfer a usable track to a firing system without interruption. This is precisely the claimed benefit of a layer of space sensors capable of maintaining trajectories and providing quality firing data.
- Finally, defense becomes a question of doctrine: who has the authority to engage, with what level of certainty, when the attack plays on ambiguity and time compression?
In this context, hypersonic technology is not just a weapon. It is a method of forcing the enemy to make mistakes.
Offensive programs: striking far, fast, with a theater logic
Powers investing in hypersonics rarely pursue “pure” intercontinental capabilities as a priority. Many efforts are aimed at theater ranges: far enough to threaten bases, command centers, ships, and depots, and fast enough to reduce the margin for maneuver.
The Congressional Research Service points out that the United States is structuring its efforts around conventional systems, with timelines that remain challenging and operational entry that is not immediate.
On the American side, the trajectory is instructive: ambitions exist, but programs stumble, reorient themselves, and are arbitrated in Congress. The AGM-183A ARRW, once a showcase, has had its system funding halted, illustrating the difficulty of the transition from “demonstrator” to ‘capability’ and the difficulty of industrialization.
At the same time, efforts are shifting toward hypersonic cruise missiles that are more integrable and potentially more “scalable,” with a simple logic: if you can’t produce, you can’t deter in the long term.
The key point to remember is brutal: offense often advances through iterations and budgetary trade-offs, but it remains “easier” than defense, because it only takes a few successful mission profiles to create a strategic effect. Defense, on the other hand, must succeed at almost everything, almost all the time.
Defense against hypersonic weapons: see before intercepting
The core of the defensive challenge can be summed up in one sentence: a fast-moving weapon makes tracking and prediction unstable, so interception depends on the quality of the track and the engagement window.
Modern concepts refer to multi-layered defense: sensors, tracking, engagement in different phases of flight. In practice, the sequence is unforgiving.
- Initial detection and continuous tracking.
- Production of a “firing” track (low error, frequent updates).
- Launch of an interceptor at the right time, on the right geometry.
- Terminal: discrimination, guidance, energy, and lethality.
However, hypersonic technology seeks precisely to break the chain between 1 and 2: blind spots, course changes, altitude variations, and speed that reduces update time.
The space layer: the challenge of seamless tracking
This is where space sensors come back into play. The idea is not new: space sees far. But hypersonic technology requires a more precise, more frequent level of tracking, geared towards “shooting quality.”
The HBTSS (Hypersonic and Ballistic Tracking Space Sensor) program aims to fulfill this role: maintaining a track, supporting the handoff, and feeding interceptors with more actionable data. Prototype HBTSS satellites were launched with satellites from the Space Development Agency’s tracking layer in February 2024, specifically to demonstrate these functions in orbit.
In words, it’s simple: an architecture with wide-field sensors for cueing, then finer sensors for tracking and firing quality. In reality, it’s an integration project: latency, fusion, resilience, and management of a massive volume of data.
The cost dilemma: defense that can cost more than the attack
Let’s be frank: interception is as much a political economy as it is a technical feat. If an interceptor costs tens of millions, and the attacker can saturate with less expensive vectors, the defender loses out. This point is not “theoretical”: it dictates the architecture (multi-layer, mix of effectors, target prioritization) and pushes some states to favor deterrence through the threat of retaliation rather than airtight defense.
In this context, defense against hypersonic weapons must prove that it can be credible, not perfect.
The Glide Phase Interceptor: interception where it counts
The most emblematic concept on the defense side is the Glide Phase Interceptor. The idea is to strike the hypersonic weapon during its glide phase, before the terminal phase, at a time when the target is still in the upper atmosphere but not yet “ground level.” This is precisely the area where conventional defenses are uncomfortable: too high for some, too maneuverable and too fast for others.
The GPI program took a significant step forward when the Missile Defense Agency selected Northrop Grumman as the prime contractor to continue development, following an initial competition.
Public contract announcements also reveal the duration of the project: development, design maturation, and a schedule spanning several years.
The GPI reveals a broader point: intercepting hypersonic missiles is not simply a matter of developing a “new missile.” It is a system of systems: space and ground sensors, command architecture, naval integration (Aegis), and engagement doctrine. If one of the links breaks, the rest is useless.
The “plasma” problem: when physics cuts off radio communications
At these speeds, the atmosphere becomes an adversary. Friction and air compression generate extreme heat. This is often referred to as a “plasma shield,” a layer of ionized air that can disrupt or block radio communications, a phenomenon similar to atmospheric reentry blackout.
In a military context, this has two major effects.
- For the attacker: navigation and guidance become more difficult. Maintaining high accuracy while experiencing electromagnetic and thermal disturbances requires robust guidance architectures, suitable sensors, and serious thermal design.
- For the defender: the thermal signature can aid infrared detection, but predicting the trajectory remains a headache if the target is maneuvering and the sensor → fire chain is not perfectly synchronized.
The literature and defense analyses explicitly highlight the challenges: heating, ionization, RF/GNSS disruption, and constraints on communication and control.
In short: hypersonics is not just a matter of algorithms. It is a war of materials, high-energy aerodynamics, and resilient embedded systems.
Sensors, data fusion, and the reality of tracking
Radar does not “see” the truth. It produces a noisy measurement. With a conventional aircraft, corrections are made by multiplying observations. With hypersonic aircraft, there is not enough time, and maneuvers amplify uncertainty. Hence the obsession with multi-sensor fusion: space infrared, ground-based radars, naval radars, possibly airborne sensors, and architectures capable of consolidating all of this into a coherent track.
This is exactly what space tracking architectures seek to demonstrate: providing continuity of tracking and enabling engagement. Official communications and analyses describe this need for “target-quality track” to support interceptors.
The sticking point is the transition from demonstration to industrialization: a constellation is not a prototype. It involves launch, maintenance, communications, cybersecurity, and resilience to jamming and anti-satellite actions.
The blind spots in the discourse: “virtually impossible to intercept” does not mean invincible
We often read that hypersonic weapons are “impossible to stop.” This is an exaggeration, but not an innocent one.
What is true is that current defenses have been optimized for two different threats: ballistic missiles (more predictable trajectories, exo-atmospheric interceptions) and subsonic/supersonic cruise missiles (slower, closer to the ground). Hypersonic technology falls into an intermediate zone that requires the chain to be reinvented.
But “difficult” does not mean “unsolvable.” A response exists, and it is structured around three axes.
- Detect earlier and track without interruption, using space-based layers and adapted radars.
- Engage in the glide phase using dedicated interceptors such as the GPI.
- Accept that perfect defense is an illusion, and work on “sufficient” defense: protection of priority sites, hardening, dispersion, decoys, and retaliation capability.
The burning question then is: how much will it cost, and how long will it take?
Timelines: the offensive scores points, the defense plays catch-up
US institutional documents and analyses describe the reality of the programs: hypersonics is a priority, but the path to robust operational capability is longer than political announcements suggest.
On the defense side, the GPI and the space tracking layer are gaining momentum, but these are long-term programs with demonstration and integration stages that are spread out over time.
Let’s be clear: defense against hypersonic weapons is becoming a “national system” on the same level as nuclear deterrence or ballistic missile defense. It is not a catalog purchase. It is an architecture.
The strategic question: what is hypersonic technology really for?
The point is not just to strike “quickly.” It is to strike while reducing the ability to respond, thereby increasing the probability of neutralizing rare assets: strategic radars, command centers, runways, ships, critical depots. It is also a political weapon: it creates permanent pressure on the opposing side, forces investment in defense, and feeds conventional deterrence.
In crises, hypersonic weapons add another layer of complexity: ambiguity. Certain trajectories and profiles may resemble strategic vectors. This ambiguity can increase the risk of escalation, because it takes time to understand what has been fired, from where, and at what target.
And this is where “counter-hypersonic” becomes more than a technical challenge: it is a matter of stability.
The endgame is looming: defense will have to be smart, not just powerful
What is coming is not a “magic bubble” that will stop everything. It is a mix.
- Space sensors that reduce blind spots and improve tracking.
- Specialized interceptors for certain phases, including the Glide Phase Interceptor.
- More traditional terminal defenses for the last layer.
- And above all, non-kinetic measures: hardening, dispersion, deception, redundancy, and the ability to continue fighting after a hit.
The verdict is simple: hypersonic technology is advancing because it offers an immediate strategic advantage, even if it is imperfect. Defense, on the other hand, cannot afford to be approximate. It must be robust, integrated, and financially sustainable. That is why it appears to be “behind”: it has no choice.
Sources
- Congressional Research Service, “Hypersonic Weapons: Background and Issues for Congress,” August 27, 2025.
- Congressional Research Service, “Hypersonic Missile Defense: Issues for Congress,” May 15, 2025.
- U.S. Department of Defense, MDA/SDA press release on the HBTSS + Tranche 0 launch, February 14, 2024.
- Space Development Agency, “SDA, MDA confirm successful launch…”, February 15, 2024.
- MIT Lincoln Laboratory, note on MDA space sensor testing, December 11, 2024.
- Northrop Grumman, “Northrop Grumman to Produce First Hypersonic Glide Phase Interceptor,” September 25, 2024.
- DefenseScoop, “MDA taps Northrop Grumman to move forward in Glide Phase Interceptor program,” September 25, 2024.
- Defense News, “Missile Defense Agency to pick hypersonic interceptor vendor…”, August 9, 2024.
- Arms Control Today, “Congress Eliminates ARRW System Funding”, Jan.-Feb. 2024.
- IISS, “The end of the US Air Force’s ARRW hypersonic program,” November 30, 2023.
- Wikipedia, “Hypersonic and Ballistic Tracking Space Sensor,” update consulted in 2025.
Live a unique fighter jet experience