An American think tank called the Hudson Institute (Hudson Institute) discussed the issue of missile defense. The experts of this community, including representatives of the military sphere, are worried about the situation in which the Pentagon is making multibillion-dollar investments in the missile defense system, and the effectiveness of this system has not yet been proven by anyone. Moreover, there are a number of examples of how elements of the US missile defense system showed unsatisfactory results when attempting to intercept missiles.
During the conference on space and missile defense, which (conference) was organized by the Hudson Institute, the following thesis was made:
If a missile defense system cannot protect, then is such a system needed? This is something that Pentagon planners need to think about, including considering new ways to deploy limited funds. But this also carries with it new risks.
It is noted that with the advent of high-precision and high-speed weapons (referring to hypersonic missile units) there are doubts that the missile defense system being built by the United States can be used with great efficiency. Speakers pointed out that the US Army is unlikely to be able to regain its advantage by using "slightly better interceptor missiles and radars" in the missile defense system.
During the conference, the topic of the appearance of hypersonic weapons in Russia and China was raised. From the report:
The parameters of the combat use of this weapon are such that today we simply have nothing to oppose to them.
Commenting on the situation, representatives of the Hudson Institute complain that the Pentagon has spent a lot of money on the proliferation of missile defense elements, including positional areas in Romania and Poland, and today all these investments are "close to zero" in their effectiveness.
The authors of the report say they understand "the unattainability of 100 percent protection against missiles." At the same time, they call on the US Department of Defense to reconsider its approach to building a missile defense system.
From the materials of the conference:
Pentagon leaders need to invest more effectively in missile defense and make decisions about positioning areas.
As one of such areas, it is proposed to strengthen Okinawa, the Japanese prefecture, where several US military bases are located.
From the report:
You may have to spend every dollar allocated not on buying a new Patriot battery, but on updating the runways of airfields, because aviation component is extremely important in matters of missile defense.
The authors of the report also call on the Pentagon to take measures to neutralize electronic countermeasures, which are becoming more effective when used by the enemy.
From the materials of the Hudson Institute conference:
The architecture of anti-aircraft and missile defense could combine the integrated combat system Aegis Combat System as a command and control unit with disparate stationary and mobile radars, electronic warfare systems and mobile missile launchers to harmonize the capabilities of air defense and missile defense, taking into account the tactics and needs of a potential adversary. This needs to be linked to various guarded objects.