5 ms·

There's nothing 'hypothetical' about them like the article says, both Russia ( http://www.ibtimes.com/russias-secret-hypersonic-nuclear-missile-yu-71-can-breach

by Cozumel 10y ago

There's nothing 'hypothetical' about them like the article says, both Russia ( http://www.ibtimes.com/russias-secret-hypersonic-nuclear-missile-yu-71-can-breach-existing-missile-defense-1987590 http://www.ibtimes.com/russias-secret-hypersonic-nuclear-mis... ) and China ( http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/china-successfully-tests-7000-mph-df-2f-hypersonic-missile-says-pentagon-source-1557121 http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/china-successfully-tests-7000-mph-d... ) have operational hypersonic missiles. Whether they would use them when conventional weapons work just as well and are cheaper is debatable but they already have them.

dfsegoat 10y ago
The article you cite for the PLAN system states that it completed it's 7th test flight. This is not operational. For instance the F-35 only recently became "operationally capable" - but it has been flying since 2006.
- paulmd 10y ago
  And on the flip side, the P-51 Mustang took 149 days from placement of the order to the flight of the first prototypes (and the near-immediate order of a run of 300 further aircraft for evaluation). I'm not disagreeing with you that a test firing is vastly different from serial production, but the F-35 is the poster child for an unreasonably protracted and dysfunctional development process. It's a massively complex system with a dozen different major players all trying to pull it in conflicting directions with dozens of contractors all trying to make sure they diffuse the project across all 435 Congressional districts. The overall implication that because the F-35 is a trainwreck that it's not possible to ever develop a weapons system on a fast timeframe - that I disagree with. The fact that we are dysfunctional does not make everyone else so.
  - dfsegoat 10y ago
    Oh for sure - F-35 is a dog and I could have picked a better example, and I would even support your point to the extreme with: http://breakingdefense.com/2016/10/holy-smoke-gm-army-turn-out-new-hydrogen-car-in-9-months/ http://breakingdefense.com/2016/10/holy-smoke-gm-army-turn-o... They went from rfp => selection => 1st prototype in 9 months. Obviously, a car is a bit different than a 5th gen fighter. But still.
whalesalad 10y ago
I sat down with someone not too long ago who is leading the engineering effort on these for a Fortune 500 defense company. It's definitely a thing. It's interesting hearing about the types of materials that needed to be invented to hit a speed like mach 6 without completely disintegrating.
- paulmd 10y ago
  You would probably have to be going with an ablative approach at that point. Letting a sacrificial material like ceramic or injected water vaporize. It's not enough to withstand a high temperature, or to try and move the heat away from the surface. At some point you need to dissipate that heat somehow or the payload will just melt. A material undergoing phase change is one of the most efficient ways to do it. This is why ice is so much more effective at cooling a drink than one of those hokey "whiskey stones".

by Cozumel 10y ago

dfsegoat 10y ago

The article you cite for the PLAN system states that it completed it's 7th test flight. This is not operational. For instance the F-35 only recently became "operationally capable" - but it has been flying since 2006.

paulmd 10y ago
And on the flip side, the P-51 Mustang took 149 days from placement of the order to the flight of the first prototypes (and the near-immediate order of a run of 300 further aircraft for evaluation). I'm not disagreeing with you that a test firing is vastly different from serial production, but the F-35 is the poster child for an unreasonably protracted and dysfunctional development process. It's a massively complex system with a dozen different major players all trying to pull it in conflicting directions with dozens of contractors all trying to make sure they diffuse the project across all 435 Congressional districts. The overall implication that because the F-35 is a trainwreck that it's not possible to ever develop a weapons system on a fast timeframe - that I disagree with. The fact that we are dysfunctional does not make everyone else so.
- dfsegoat 10y ago
  Oh for sure - F-35 is a dog and I could have picked a better example, and I would even support your point to the extreme with: http://breakingdefense.com/2016/10/holy-smoke-gm-army-turn-out-new-hydrogen-car-in-9-months/ http://breakingdefense.com/2016/10/holy-smoke-gm-army-turn-o... They went from rfp => selection => 1st prototype in 9 months. Obviously, a car is a bit different than a 5th gen fighter. But still.

whalesalad 10y ago

I sat down with someone not too long ago who is leading the engineering effort on these for a Fortune 500 defense company. It's definitely a thing. It's interesting hearing about the types of materials that needed to be invented to hit a speed like mach 6 without completely disintegrating.

paulmd 10y ago
You would probably have to be going with an ablative approach at that point. Letting a sacrificial material like ceramic or injected water vaporize. It's not enough to withstand a high temperature, or to try and move the heat away from the surface. At some point you need to dissipate that heat somehow or the payload will just melt. A material undergoing phase change is one of the most efficient ways to do it. This is why ice is so much more effective at cooling a drink than one of those hokey "whiskey stones".