Atlantic Council 12-10-25: Hypersonic Style (Patreon)

I'm not going to lie: last week's excursion to the Atlantic Council was a major letdown despite the promise of some juicy NATO dirt. Instead, I was treated to a master class in evasion.

This week's outing was much more productive. The subject was hypersonic weapons, something that would be nearly impossible to make uninteresting. The scheduled speakers were Representatives Mark Messmer (R-IN) and Donald Norcross (D-NJ) while the moderator was reporter Valerie Insinna. Here's Insinna's official bio:

".... covers the congressional and defense industry beat for Breaking Defense. Valerie has extensive national security reporting expertise, having served as the air warfare beat reporter for Defense News for five years. During that time her work was recognized by numerous awards, including the prestigious National Press Club Michael A. Dornheim Award for defense journalism. Valerie most recently covered commercial aerospace for Reuters. She also previously worked at Defense Daily and National Defense Magazine."

Elsewhere she's described as a "point person for major Pentagon policy and strategy developments." Nothing like a journalist who also moonlights as a "point person" for the Pentagon.

As for the discussion, it ended up only being between Messmer and Insinna. Supposedly Norcross had some big Congressional thing he couldn't get out of. Nonetheless, Messmer was able to carry on without his hypersonic partner. Messmer and Norcross launched the Congressional Hypersonics Caucus in July 2025 with a mission to advocate “the importance of hypersonic missile technology as a crucial component in America’s national security platform."

Based on what Messmer revealed about the latest National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the caucus seems to be leaving its mark on defense appropriations. He characterized the 2026 NDAA as a "big win" for US hypersonic weapons initiatives. The headlines were $500 million earmarked for hypersonic missile production and a whopping $800 million for hypersonic weapon conceptions. He also noted that "a lot of policy was in the NDAA," and he characterized this as a big win as well.

Beyond this, not all of the money is designated for offensive capabilities, but also defensive. The Pentagon is putting a major point of emphasis on developing its own Golden Dome with an eye towards countering hypersonic missiles. There are also initiatives to develop hypersonic aircrafts.

Despite all the big figures and initiatives Messmer talked up, it was clear the United States faces a lot of challenges going forward. At the onset, Messmer noted that the US had largely abandoned hypersonic weapons research roughly twenty years ago while the Russians and Chinese kept plugging away. This has left a significant gap. He insisted the US already has hypersonic capabilities via the Air Force's "ARRW" missiles and that the Army would have its own hypersonic capabilities online by the December 31, 2025 (i.e. 21 days...). Nonetheless, he confessed on a number of occasions that the situation "is not ideal."

Then there was the question of both producing the missiles and the costs. Messmer conceded that the US currently doesn't have a work force capable of producing hypersonic missiles anywhere near to the scale that it's rivals can. To address this, graduate programs are being put into place to train an appropriate work force. Naturally, Messmer's home state of Indiana is taking the lead, especially Norte Dame. Go Irish?

Still, a work force can be trained. Getting the costs of producing the missiles down is another matter. Messmer waxed about how multi year purchasing contracts would go a long way to keep costs down.

How low?

Per Messmer, in the $2-3 million range.... per missile.

At this point, I will remind the reader of China's latest announcement of being able to produce hypersonic missiles for under $100k. So, in a best case scenario, the US will only be paying 20x more per missile than China. I really wanted to ask Messmer how much he estimates the cost would be for the US's proposed Golden Dome to counter these $100k hypersonic missiles from China, but I want to still be able to go to these engagements. They're comedic gold, if nothing else.

By the way, no matter how much money may be thrown into the Golden Dome, it won't be able to protect the entire continental US. Messmer noted that Pentagon would need to "prioritize" among population centers.

Fear not, the US has a plan to gain the upper hand over the Chinese and the Russians in the hypersonic field. While all the military services are currently developing their own hypersonic capabilities, it was obvious the real prize is the one the Navy is working on. When asked whether the US viewed hypersonic missiles as strategic or tactical weapons, Messmer could barely hide his smugness in talking up the Navy.

The end game is to develop a hypersonic missile that can be fired from a submarine. This will enable the Navy to have nuclear-tipped hypersonic missiles in its stealth submarines. The United States has historically had a significant advantage in stealth technology. While China and Russia have been rapidly advancing their own capabilities as well as countermeasures, the US probably still maintains a decent advantage in that field.

Equipping stealth submarines with hypersonic missiles would be a game changer. In theory, stealth technology allows a submarine to creep right up to a hostile nation's shores undtected. Even firing a regular missile in such a scenario would be akin to shooting someone at point blank range with a gun. A hypersonic missile would be like having the gun literally at the target's forehead.

Messmer indicated that the Navy was three to five years away from developing hypersonic missiles that could be outfitted on their subs. This creates an interesting, and worrying, dynamic in regards to Russia and China. For the next few years, they'll enjoy a significant advantage in this field. Increasingly, this summer's Iran-Israel flap looks like an excuse to test out the world's most advanced missiles against the most advanced missile shield. The advantage was clearly to the former even before factoring in the staggering cost of shooting down those missiles.

The question becomes: Do Russia and China press this advantage while they have it, or wait for the US Navy to park hypersonic missile-armed subs off their shores? Messmer certainly believed that this would be a significant deterrent and the US is clearly not being coy about its plans.

Interesting times indeed.