Guys

 are a lil behind the times to be:

a Retired U.S. Navy Rear Adm. 

a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank. 

And to have previously served as policy director of the Senate Armed Services Committee under Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and as director of operations (J3) at U.S. Pacific Command. 

Bradley Bowman is the senior director of the Center on Military and Political Power at FDD. 

(Foundation for Defense of Democracies)

He previously served as a national security adviser to members of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, and was an officer in the U.S. Army.

The US is failing to quickly field hypersonic missile defense

By Rear Adm. Mark Montgomery (ret.) and Bradley Bowman

I've been saying the same thing for years 

and all anybody seems to want to do is:

Read those credentials again.

It's not me saying it yo.

It's people with the means to know 

who are saying it.

I'm just saying what they say.

AND iVE BEEN DOING IT FOE YEARS.

Be mad at them if you wanna be mad at somebody.

It aint gonna change the truth.

"The Pentagon warned in its annual report to Congress last year that China already possesses “the world’s leading hypersonic arsenal” and is sprinting to field even more advanced offensive capabilities. These weapons would give Beijing a capability to conduct a prompt strike that paralyzes America’s command-and-control and missile-defense capabilities.

(Translation?

Kinda hard to fight a war without a headquarters yo.)

"The good news is that the United States is making progress on its own offensive hypersonic weapons. The bad news is that American efforts to develop systems that can defend against Chinese hypersonic capabilities are not keeping pace. If Washington does not act quickly to expedite the Pentagon’s fielding of hypersonic missile defense capabilities, deterrence may fail in the Pacific."

(My argument is deterence has already failed or China wouldnt be:

"sprinting to field even more advanced offensive capabilities")

"That combination of speed and maneuverability presents a daunting challenge for existing U.S. ballistic and cruise missile defense radars and interceptors, making it difficult to track and destroy the adversary’s incoming glide vehicle or cruise missile. The fact that hypersonic glide vehicles can also operate at unusual altitudes — well above cruise missiles but below ballistic missiles — adds an additional layer of complexity."

"To match China’s effort, the United States has spent more than $8 billion on offensive hypersonic missile development over the past two years alone. Despite delays and challenges, some of these efforts are making headway. The Army’s Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon, the Air Force’s Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile, and the Navy’s Conventional Prompt Strike and Hypersonic Air-Launched Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare programs could all field weapons this decade.

(That's part of the problem, three different branches of the armed services each getting their own program. I wonder why that is? Couldn't be defense contractors wanting business as usual could it? This isn't no time for business as usual. And a decade away? China is ready to go right now and has said as much after the last war games off the coast of Taiwan.)

"his failure to prioritize hypersonic defense has consequences: The Department of Defense said in April that it did not expect to field a hypersonic defense system until fiscal 2034."

(Way to late.)

"If there is any current research and development effort that warrants risk taking, hypersonic missile defense is it."

(We do not have ANY "hypersonic missile defense". None. Zero. Nada.

"That combination of speed and maneuverability presents a daunting challenge for existing U.S. ballistic and cruise missile defense radars and interceptors, making it difficult to track and destroy the adversary’s incoming glide vehicle or cruise missile. The fact that hypersonic glide vehicles can also operate at unusual altitudes — well above cruise missiles but below ballistic missiles — adds an additional layer of complexity."

"...the DoD needs to quickly select one company for a rapid acquisition effort as soon as feasible. If the Pentagon believes that decision alone is too risky, it could also fund a second research and development effort that delivers in the 2030s."

(Unfortunately?

it's already to late.

And China knows it.)