Golden Dome: An aerospace engineer explains the proposed nationwide missile defense system
President Donald Trump announced a plan to build a missile defense system, called the Golden Dome, on May 20, 2025. The system is intended to protect the United States from ballistic, cruise and hypersonic missiles, and missiles launched from space.
Trump is calling for the current budget to allocate US$25 billion to launch the initiative, which the government projected will cost $175 billion. He said Golden Dome will be fully operational before the end of his term in three years and will provide close to 100% protection.
The Conversation U.S. asked Iain Boyd, an aerospace engineer and director of the Center for National Security Initiatives at the University of Colorado Boulder, about the Golden Dome plan and the feasibility of Trump's claims. Boyd receives funding for research unrelated to Golden Dome from defense contractor Lockheed Martin.
Several countries, including China, Russia, North Korea and Iran, have been developing missiles over the past few years that challenge the United States' current missile defense systems.
These weapons include updated ballistic missiles and cruise missiles, and new hypersonic missiles. They have been specifically developed to counter America's highly advanced missile defense systems such as the Patriot and the National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System.
For example, the new hypersonic missiles are very high speed, operate in a region of the atmosphere where nothing else flies and are maneuverable. All of these aspects combined create a new challenge that requires a new, updated defensive approach.
Russia has fired hypersonic missiles against Ukraine in the ongoing conflict. China parades its new hypersonic missiles in Tiananmen Square.
So it's reasonable to think that, to ensure the protection of its homeland and to aid its allies, the U.S. may need a new missile defense capability.
Such a defense system requires a global array of geographically distributed sensors that cover all phases of all missile trajectories.
First, it is essential for the system to detect the missile threats as early as possible after launch, so some of the sensors must be located close to regions where adversaries may fire them, such as by China, Russia, North Korea and Iran. Then, it has to track the missiles along their trajectories as they travel hundreds or thousands of miles.
These requirements are met by deploying a variety of sensors on a number of different platforms on the ground, at sea, in the air and in space. Interceptors are placed in locations that protect vital U.S. assets and usually aim to engage threats during the middle portion of the trajectory between launch and the terminal dive.
The U.S. already has a broad array of sensors and interceptors in place around the world and in space primarily to protect the U.S. and its allies from ballistic missiles. The sensors would need to be expanded, including with more space-based sensors, to detect new missiles such as hypersonic missiles. The interceptors would need to be enhanced to enable them to address hypersonic weapons and other missiles and warheads that can maneuver.
Intercepting hypersonic missiles specifically involves several steps.
First, as explained above, a hostile missile must be detected and identified as a threat. Second, the threat must be tracked along all of its trajectory due to the ability of hypersonic missiles to maneuver. Third, an interceptor missile must be able to follow the threat and get close enough to it to disable or destroy it.
The main new challenge here is the ability to track the hypersonic missile continuously. This requires new types of sensors to detect hypersonic vehicles and new sensor platforms that are able to provide a complete picture of the hypersonic trajectory. As described, Golden Dome would use the sensors in a layered approach in which they are installed on a variety of platforms in multiple domains, including ground, sea, air and space.
These various platforms would need to have different types of sensors that are specifically designed to track hypersonic threats in different phases of their flight paths. These defensive systems will also be designed to address weapons fired from space. Much of the infrastructure will be multipurpose and able to defend against a variety of missile types.
In terms of time frame for deployment, it is important to note that Golden Dome will build from the long legacy of existing U.S. missile defense systems. Another important aspect of Golden Dome is that some of the new capabilities have been under active development for years. In some ways, Golden Dome represents the commitment to actually deploy systems for which considerable progress has already been made.
Israel's Iron Dome air defense system has been described as the most effective system of its kind anywhere in the world.
But even Iron Dome is not 100% effective, and it has also been overwhelmed on occasion by Hamas and others who fire very large numbers of inexpensive missiles and rockets at it. So it is unlikely that any missile defense system will ever provide 100% protection.
The more important goal here is to achieve deterrence, similar to the stalemate in the Cold War with the Soviet Union that was based on nuclear weapons. All of the new weapons that Golden Dome will defend against are very expensive. The U.S. is trying to change the calculus in an opponent's thinking to the point where they will consider it not worth shooting their precious high-value missiles at the U.S. when they know there is a high probability of them not reaching their targets.
That seems to me like a very aggressive timeline, but with multiple countries now operating hypersonic missiles, there is a real sense of urgency.
Existing missile defense systems on the ground, at sea and in the air can be expanded to include new, more capable sensors. Satellite systems are beginning to be put in place for the space layer. Sensors have been developed to track the new missile threats.
Putting all of this highly complex system together, however, is likely to take more than three years. At the same time, if the U.S. fully commits to Golden Dome, a significant amount of progress can be made in this time.
President Trump is requesting a total budget for all defense spending of about $1 trillion in 2026. So, $25 billion to launch Golden Dome would represent only 2.5% of the total requested defense budget.
Of course, that is still a lot of money, and a lot of other programs will need to be terminated to make it possible. But it is certainly financially achievable.
Similar to Iron Dome, Golden Dome will consist of sensors and interceptor missiles but will be deployed over a much wider geographical region and for defense against a broader variety of threats in comparison with Iron Dome.
A second-generation Golden Dome system in the future would likely use directed energy weapons such as high-energy lasers and high-power microwaves to destroy missiles. This approach would significantly increase the number of shots that defenders can take against ballistic, cruise and hypersonic missiles.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Iain Boyd, University of Colorado Boulder
Read more:
China's hypersonic missiles threaten US power in the Pacific – an aerospace engineer explains how the weapons work and the unique threats they pose
Israel's Iron Dome air defense system works well – here's how Hamas got around it
Is Russia looking to put nukes in space? Doing so would undermine global stability and ignite an anti-satellite arms race
Iain Boyd receives funding from the U.S. Department of Defense and Lockheed-Martin Corporation, a defense contractor that sells missile defense systems and could potentially benefit from the implementation of Golden Dome.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Oil tanks 6% as Iranian retaliation against US spares energy supply
Oil futures slid 6% on Monday as Iran appeared to spare the energy market while the country launched missiles targeted at a US air base in Qatar in retaliation for US bombings on Iranian nuclear sites. Brent crude (BZ=F), the international benchmark, dropped to $72 per barrel. West Texas Intermediate (CL=F) also fell roughly 6% to trade below $70 per barrel. The declines came after Iranian state media said it launched missile attacks against a US air base in Qatar, matching the number of bombs dropped by the US over the weekend, in a move the Associated Press said signaled "a likely desire to deescalate." Prior to the retaliatory move, Wall Street weighed various scenarios after President Trump announced on Saturday that the US struck three Iranian nuclear facilities, including the threat of Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for oil flows. On Monday morning, President Trump posted on social media: "To The Department of Energy: DRILL, BABY, DRILL!!! And I mean NOW!!!" "The main reason for this stability is that energy infrastructure has largely been spared from direct attacks, with number of oil tankers transiting through the Strait of Hormuz remaining steady," JPMorgan's Natasha Kaneva and her team wrote on Monday morning. On Sunday, futures spiked after Iran's parliament voted to close the Strait of Hormuz, but the final decision rests with Iran's Supreme National Security Council and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The oil market is now factoring in "a one-in-five chance of a material disruption in Gulf energy production flows, with potential for crude prices to reach the $120-130 range," Kaneva wrote. "Yet, beyond the short-term spike induced by geopolitics, our base case for oil remains anchored by our supply-demand balance, which shows that the world has enough oil," she added. She also noted that "with fewer reliable partners in the Middle East and limited regional appetite for a broader conflict, Iran faces a constrained set of options and a heightened set of risks as it deliberates its course of action." Other possible retaliatory moves from Iran could include supporting Yemen's Houthi rebels in renewed attacks on commercial shipping, or going after energy infrastructure in neighboring countries. If crude climbs into the $120 to $130 range, analysts predict gasoline and diesel prices could rise by as much as $1.25 per gallon. "Consumers would be looking at a national average gasoline price of around $4.50 per gallon — closer to $6.00 if you're in California," Lipow Oil Associates president Andy Lipow said in a Sunday note. The key issue isn't just the potential for supply disruption, but how long it lasts, Rebecca Babin, senior energy trader at CIBC Private Wealth, told Yahoo Finance on Sunday. "If infrastructure is hit but can be quickly restored, crude may struggle to hold gains," she said. "But if Iran's response causes lasting damage or introduces long-term supply risk, we're likely to see a stronger and more sustained move higher." Last week, JPMorgan analysts noted that since 1967 — aside from the Yom Kippur War in 1973 — none of the 11 major military conflicts involving Israel have had a lasting impact on oil prices. In contrast, events directly involving major regional oil producers, such as the first Gulf War in 1990, the Iraq War in 2003 and the imposition of sanctions on Iran in 2018, have all led to meaningful and sustained moves in oil markets. "During these episodes, we estimate that oil traded at a $7–$14 per barrel premium to its fair value for an extended period," JPMorgan's Kaneva wrote. They added that the most significant and lasting price impacts historically come from "regime changes" in oil-producing countries, whether that be through leadership transitions, coups, revolutions, or major political shifts. "While demand conditions and OPEC's spare capacity shape the broader market response, these events typically drive substantial oil price spikes, averaging a 76% increase from onset to peak," Kaneva wrote. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies (OPEC+) had raised output in the months leading up to Israel's strike on Iran on June 13. Ines Ferre is a Senior Business Reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow her on X at @ines_ferre. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fed officials are starting to break rank and join Trump
Some Federal Reserve officials are joining President Donald Trump in calling for lower interest rates as soon as July. Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman on Monday downplayed the potential impacts of Trump's tariffs on prices and said the US central bank should swiftly lower rates to preserve the labor market's health. 'It is time to consider adjusting the policy rate,' Bowman said. 'Should inflation pressures remain contained, I would support lowering the policy rate as soon as our next meeting in order to bring it closer to its neutral setting and to sustain a healthy labor market.' Bowman is the second Fed official to join Trump in calling for lower borrowing costs. On Friday, Fed Governor Christopher Waller said tariffs will likely only result in a 'one-off' increase in inflation. Both Bowman and Waller are Trump appointees. For months, Fed officials have said they prefer to wait to see how Trump's major policy shifts affect the US economy first before considering further rate cuts. At its policy meeting earlier this month, the Fed kept its benchmark lending rate unchanged for the fourth consecutive time. But that strategy hasn't sat well with Trump, who has relentlessly lashed out at the central bank and its leader, Fed Chair Jerome Powell, for not lowering rates. Trump has hurled various insults at Powell, describing him as a 'fool' and a 'numbskull.' Now, the Fed's wait-and-see posture is slowly crumbling, even as tensions in the Middle East heat up, which raises the risk of higher global energy prices. And the jury is still out on the ultimate impact of Trump's tariffs. Bowman said it's possible the Israel-Iran conflict — which escalated over the weekend with the US striking at three Iranian nuclear sites — results in higher commodity prices. And there's still the lingering possibility of Trump's trade war also pushing up prices, she said. Still, that may not even result in higher consumer prices because businesses don't have much leverage to hike prices this time around, Bowman said. 'I am certainly attentive to these inflation risks, but I am not yet seeing a major concern, as some retailers seem unwilling to raise prices for essentials due to high price sensitivity among low-income consumers and as supply chains appear to be largely unaffected so far,' Bowman said. Bowman isn't the only Fed official seemingly not worried about the potential economic impact of the Israel-Iran conflict. Powell has said higher energy prices spurred by the conflict will likely be short lived. 'When there's turmoil in the Middle East, you may see a spike in energy prices, but it tends to come down. Those things don't generally tend to have lasting effects on inflation, although of course in the 1970s, they famously did,' Powell said in a news conference following the Fed's June 17-18 policy meeting. 'But, we haven't seen anything like that now. The U.S. economy is far less dependent on foreign oil than it was back in the 1970s,' he added. Economists have said the economic impact of the current conflict largely depends on how out of hand it gets. A forecast from analysts at EY-Parthenon shows that the US economy could contract by a massive 1.9% annualized rate if the Middle East plunges into an all-out regional war. But in a 'contained' scenario, the US economy could contract only slightly. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Gold ETFs Shine in 1H: Will the Bloom Continue in 2H?
Gold has been on a powerful upward trajectory this year, fueled by strong safe-haven demand amid Trump's tariff chaos and escalating geopolitical tensions, weakening U.S. dollar and growing expectations of Federal Reserve rate cuts. The yellow metal has posted monthly gains for five straight months as of May, its longest run since 2017. It hit a new all-time high of $3,500 in April and then retreated from this level. Gold has moved up 27% since the start of the to a report by Axis Securities, gold is on track to reach a milestone with a six-month winning streak not seen in over two decades (read: Gold Up 27% YTD: How Long Will the Rally Last?).Given the surge in gold prices, gold mining ETFs are blooming in the first half, with many analysts expecting further gains in the second half. The mining companies act as leveraged plays on the underlying metal prices and, thus, tend to experience more gains than their bullion cousins in a rising metal Gold Miners ETF SGDM is leading the pack, jumping 65% since the start of the year, followed by gains of 63.7% for Themes Gold Miners ETF AUMI, 61% for VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF GDXJ, 59.7% for Global X Gold Explorers ETF GOEX, and 58.8% for iShares MSCI Global Gold Miners ETF have highlighted several reasons for the solid rally in gold and its outlook: President Donald Trump's set of tariffs has lured investors to shift to defensive investments. Gold is often used to preserve wealth during financial and political uncertainty and usually does well when other asset classes struggle. Additionally, the inflationary pressure caused by new tariffs will benefit the precious metal's status as a hedge against rising prices. A weaker dollar and sustained central bank buying also buoyed gold's rally this year. The central banks are dominant buyers of gold as they seek to diversify their reserves away from the U.S. dollar. According to a recent survey conducted by the World Gold Council, about 95% of central banks believe their gold reserves will increase over the next 12 months. Though the Fed has kept interest rates steady at the latest meeting, an imminent rate cut can be in the cards in the next couple of months. Lower interest rates reduce the opportunity cost of holding non-yielding assets like gold, increasing its attractiveness over fixed-income investments such as now forecast gold to trade between $3,500 and $3,700 as investors seek refuge from escalating geopolitical tensions and rising inflation risks. Goldman Sachs reiterated its bullish long-term view on gold, highlighting strong central bank demand. Goldman forecasts gold to reach $3,700 by the end of 2025 and $4,000 by mid-2026. In a recession scenario, accelerating ETF inflows can lift gold to $3,880 by year-end. Year to date, the two largest gold ETFs — SPDR Gold Shares GLD and iShares Gold Trust IAU — have attracted more than $11 billion in combined inflows, according to SPDR Gold Shares alone has taken in nearly $7 billion, ranking it No. 13 among all ETFs by asset flows (read: Why Gold ETFs Offer the Best Safe Haven Right Now). Let us delve into each ETF below:Sprott Gold Miners ETF (SGDM)Sprott Gold Miners ETF follows the Solactive Gold Miners Custom Factors Index, which aims to track the performance of larger-sized gold companies whose stocks are listed on Canadian and major U.S. exchanges. It holds 37 stocks in its basket. Canada takes the top spot at 75.2%, followed by 17.6% in the United States. Sprott Gold Miners ETF has amassed $418.6 million in its asset base and trades in a lower volume of around 42,000 shares a day. It charges 50 bps in annual fees from investors. Themes Gold Miners ETF (AUMI)Themes Gold Miners ETF seeks to track the Solactive Global Pure Gold Miners Index, which identifies the largest 30 companies by market capitalization, deriving their revenues from gold mining. It holds 28 stocks in its basket, with Canadian firms accounting for 58.6% of the portfolio, followed by Australian firms with a 27.5% share. Themes Gold Miners ETF has accumulated $10.4 million in its asset base. It charges 35 bps in fees per year and trades in a lower average daily volume of 7,000 Junior Gold Miners ETF (GDXJ) VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF offers exposure to small-capitalization companies that are involved primarily in the mining of gold and/or silver and tracks the MVIS Global Junior Gold Miners Index. Holding 92 stocks in its basket, Canadian firms dominate the fund's portfolio with a 47.8% share, whereas Australia (20.4%) and South Africa (6.4%) round out the top three. VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF has an AUM of $5.7 billion and charges 51 bps in annual fees. It trades in a heavy volume of around 5 million shares a day on X Gold Explorers ETF (GOEX) Global X Gold Explorers ETF provides exposure to companies involved in the exploration of gold deposits and tracks the Solactive Global Gold Explorers & Developers Total Return Index. It is home to 51 stocks. Canadian firms dominate the fund's return at 54.1%, followed by Australia (27.6%) and the United States (8.8%). Global X Gold Explorers ETF is unpopular and illiquid, with an AUM of $66.5 million and an average daily volume of 17,000 shares. The expense ratio comes in at 0.65% (read: Should You Buy Gold or Gold Miners Now?).iShares MSCI Global Gold Miners ETF (RING) iShares MSCI Global Gold Miners ETF offers exposure to companies that derive the majority of their revenues from gold mining. It follows the MSCI ACWI Select Gold Miners Investable Market Index and holds 42 securities in its portfolio. Canadian firms take more than half of the portfolio, while the United States takes the next spot at 17.2% share. RING is the cheapest choice in the gold mining space, charging just 39 bps in fees and expenses. iShares MSCI Global Gold Miners ETF has been able to manage assets worth $1.5 billion and trades in a good volume of 275,000 shares per day. Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report SPDR Gold Shares (GLD): ETF Research Reports iShares Gold Trust (IAU): ETF Research Reports VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF (GDXJ): ETF Research Reports iShares MSCI Global Gold Miners ETF (RING): ETF Research Reports Sprott Gold Miners ETF (SGDM): ETF Research Reports Global X Gold Explorers ETF (GOEX): ETF Research Reports Themes Gold Miners ETF (AUMI): ETF Research Reports This article originally published on Zacks Investment Research ( Zacks Investment Research
