8 ms·

It is noted in the article that this airplane has no real mission profile. I mean hypersonic cruise speed is an impressive feat on its own, and may result in ne

It is noted in the article that this airplane has no real mission profile. I mean hypersonic cruise speed is an impressive feat on its own, and may result in new methods and applications in space travel. But the military usage of a plane like this is questionable. Recon aircraft have long since been abandoned in favor of satellites, and a fleet of bombers might not be maintainable because of the huge costs involved.

Xylakant 9y ago
Recon aircraft still exist. The USAF for example still operates U2 planes. Satellites lack the critical ability to stay in place and cannot necessarily move to a designated spot at short notice. While spy satellites are certainly more maneuverable than regular satellites, they still must obey orbital physics, a plane is not bound to those restrictions.
- melling 9y ago
  How maneuverable are you at 6000 mph? You’ll flyover the US in 30 minutes.
  - Xylakant 9y ago
    You don’t need to fly 6000mph, however. Planes have the ability to adjust their speed, satellites don’t.
    - melling 9y ago
      Sure, and at what speed to you become a target to local missiles? I’d like to see a hypersonic plane for the engineering it will solve, but I think as a spy plane, it has limited utility.
      - Xylakant 9y ago
        It’s not like satellite killer missiles would be a new thing, they’ve been developed since the 1950s
        melling 9y ago
        Space isn’t owned by anyone. You are legally allowed to have satellites over another country. Flying over another country is completely different.
        Xylakant 9y ago
        Which is why the USAF never had a plane shot down over the USSR as Gary Powers will certainly be glad to confirm. It’s also the reason no US planes ever fly over Syria, Irak, Afghanistan, Pakistan or any of the numerous conflict zones that the US is involved in. Also note: My point is not that satellites are useless, they are much more useful for continuous spying and surveillance, but there are numerous mission profiles that a plane can fulfill much better.
        melling 9y ago
        You’re all over the place. We are now allowed to overfly Russia. http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/news/a26026/russian-military-plane-overfly-us-canada/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/news/a2602... When you control the sky’s you don’t need to fly at 6000 mph. We have bases in Pakistan and Afghanistan, for example. Which mission profiles are you describing that are actually needed to fly at hypersonic speed? A lot of these countries are quite small for that speed. A 100 miles a minute.
        Xylakant 9y ago
        I’m pointing out that the legality of overflying a country has always been and still is a lesser concern. Mission profiles better suited to a plane than a satellite: anything that requires loitering, returning to a target, anything that requires a curved path that a satellite cannot fly or anything that requires close up - optics on satellites are good, but fundamental physics limits the achievable resolution. Hypersonic speed might not be required to fulfill the actual mission, but it allows shorter response times on all spots. It also would allow evading most intercept attempts.
  - kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
    You deploy autonomous drones that will loiter for an extended period.
  - vpribish 9y ago
    our existing spy planes and drones are subsonic and work just fine loitering over poorly-defended targets. stealthy or speedy aircraft could work over more hostile places and add to the satellite capabilities. Maybe there are things you can sense from 10 miles up that you can't at 100mi. And maybe there's some brand new gear that you don't have in space yet. And maybe you want to time your picture with some unpredictable events on short notice. there are a ton of reasons to have this variety of capabilities.
  - CapitalistCartr 9y ago
    With a roll of film nearly a foot wide and lenses that can pick a gnat off a flea pointed at the target, the pilot can get instructions in the air immediately before penetrating "contested" airspace and get crystal pics of everything on the fly at any speed he wishes. Max potential velocity over the target is mainly to insure survivability; it doesn't affect photo performance.
  - mulmen 9y ago
    That's exactly the point. If an unexpected threat pops up you can get there now.
dingaling 9y ago
Satellites can be re-oriented into different orbital inclinations but that requires fuel and in the absence of a Shuttle fleet they cannot be refuelled. So despite movie depictions they don't go swerving hither and thither to follow a camel up a mountain track. Such limited manoeuvring also requires planning and 90 minutes between passes. Lots of opportunity for bad guys to push their missile back into a hangar. An atmospheric aircraft can follow an arbitrary course to take in as many targets as required, can be rerouted on a moment's notice and can approach from unexpected vectors to catch the target out in the open.
- ams6110 9y ago
  Sure, but don't we have drones for that now? The high altitude spy planes (U2, SR-71) were mostly to prevent being shot down; surviving to return the film to base. Drones don't need to bring film back, and it's not such a big deal if a few of them are lost.
  - saulrh 9y ago
    If it can be shot down, I think that it's probably safe to assume that it won't be able to see anything particularly interesting. I'd expect something like Groom Lake to be surrounded by an impenetrable wall of interceptors and SAM sites. Though I suppose that you could try to make your drones so cheap and in such volume that shooting them down becomes logistically and economically infeasible, but that's another strategy entirely.
    - mabbo 9y ago
      > I'd expect something like Groom Lake to be surrounded by an impenetrable wall of interceptors and SAM sites The whole idea of the SR-71 was that it went so fast that SAMs could just barely not catch up to it before they ran out of fuel. Any other plane couldn't outrun them, but the Blackbird? Well, Mach 3.4 will give you some breathing room.
      - astdb 9y ago
stcredzero 9y ago
1. How big a fleet does one need for a useful 1st strike capability? Perhaps not so many. 2. Higher resolution imaging could still be quite useful. For example, if we could possibly find all of the Chinese DF-21B anti-ship ballistic missile launchers, this erodes the deterrent effect of that weapon, which then increases the value of the US aircraft carrier groups.
philip1209 9y ago
Why would a propulsion system like this not be put on missiles first? Seems like there are many more tactical applications.
- ceejayoz 9y ago
  Some missiles already travel at these sorts of speeds.
- csours 9y ago
  Turn it around: Why would a propulsion system like this be put on a missile? Missiles are generally powered by rocket motors - they don't need air intake. Missiles are also generally one-time-use - you send it somewhere and don't expect to reuse it (also it usually explodes) I suppose it might be possible to increase payload per fuel efficiency, but the only reason the military would probably care about that is cost, and the rocket engineering is already paid for and proven.
  - Xylakant 9y ago
    The first missiles (V1) were basically ramjet engines, so it’s not exactly unheard off. The advantage of such an engine is that it doesn’t need to bring its oxidizer along like a rocket engine would need to, so depending on how the engines weight compares to a rocket engine, it would allow for more payload at the same total weight which might be interesting in various places.
    - mulmen 9y ago
      The second and essentially all subsequent missiles were rockets though.
      - Xylakant 9y ago
        Yes, since ramjets with performance such as this one were outside our engineering capabilities. As the article states, even this one was not possible a few years ago. It’s also not entirely true, tomahawk cruise missiles for example use turbofan engines with a solid state booster.
jerkstate 9y ago
here's a hint at one possible mission profile: https://taskandpurpose.com/kinetic-bombardment-kep-weaponry/ https://taskandpurpose.com/kinetic-bombardment-kep-weaponry/
hammock 9y ago
Are you a disinfo plant? Recon aircraft still exist, perhaps more than ever when you consider the use of drones. And of course bombers are still a critical part of US global defense strategy
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> But the military usage of a plane like this is questionable I could see utility in being able to rapidly deploy a team of special ops, or specialized unanticipated equipment, to a faraway location. That it can do things a missile can without being a missile is also useful. (Suppose you need a bunch of drones over a random location. You could launch a missile and risk (a) breaking your birds in launch and (b) someone thinking you're flying nukes. Or, you could use this plane.)
- gaius 9y ago
  I could see utility in being able to rapidly deploy a team of special ops, or specialized unanticipated equipment, to a faraway location. This won't be landing on any improvised airstrips, and a hypersonic configuration won't be able to go slow enough to drop paratroopers.
  - adventured 9y ago
    Couldn't you put the paratroopers in a drop vehicle, purpose built for that? We bring astronauts back at mach 23-25. That's not to say it wouldn't be quite an engineering effort. I'm sure they can find a billion dollars to build it if someone decides it's worth doing. The more interesting impact would be on the design of the plane doing the drop. While I think you could keep the paratroopers alive, I'm skeptical there's any way you can go that fast and drop a large container. I would expect the process to destroy the plane by making it too unstable.
    - gaius 9y ago
      Couldn't you put the paratroopers in a drop vehicle, purpose built for that? The Osprey is probably the fastest troop carrier, so you would need to identify some use cases it can’t do then figure out if the cost is worth it. Traditionally SF get there by jumping in and then hiking cross-country, is there a use case for getting them on the ground in a couple of hours?
- arca_vorago 9y ago
  This was my first thought too, because I've heard they've been working on deployment systems to get groundpounders to an AO very quickly, for example one of the rumored applications of the x37b being for HALO insertion. Galus, what do you base your claim on that a hypersonic config can't go "slow enough"?
indubitable 9y ago
The military has to have contingencies in place for if all satellite communication were disabled, through some method or another. Should symmetric warfare between modern nations ever break out, satellite comms would be one of the most valuable and ostensibly poorly defended targets. You can't really assume much of anything about the status quo in planning for war.
chiph 9y ago
The advantage that recon aircraft have over satellites is that they're not in predictable orbits. Assuming any new aircraft has better stealth than the SR-71 (say, on the order of what the first-gen stealth F-117 had), it can overfly the area of interest before anything can be moved under cover.

Xylakant 9y ago

Recon aircraft still exist. The USAF for example still operates U2 planes. Satellites lack the critical ability to stay in place and cannot necessarily move to a designated spot at short notice. While spy satellites are certainly more maneuverable than regular satellites, they still must obey orbital physics, a plane is not bound to those restrictions.

melling 9y ago
How maneuverable are you at 6000 mph? You’ll flyover the US in 30 minutes.
- Xylakant 9y ago
  You don’t need to fly 6000mph, however. Planes have the ability to adjust their speed, satellites don’t.
  - melling 9y ago
    Sure, and at what speed to you become a target to local missiles? I’d like to see a hypersonic plane for the engineering it will solve, but I think as a spy plane, it has limited utility.
    - Xylakant 9y ago
      It’s not like satellite killer missiles would be a new thing, they’ve been developed since the 1950s
      - melling 9y ago
        Space isn’t owned by anyone. You are legally allowed to have satellites over another country. Flying over another country is completely different.
        Xylakant 9y ago
        Which is why the USAF never had a plane shot down over the USSR as Gary Powers will certainly be glad to confirm. It’s also the reason no US planes ever fly over Syria, Irak, Afghanistan, Pakistan or any of the numerous conflict zones that the US is involved in. Also note: My point is not that satellites are useless, they are much more useful for continuous spying and surveillance, but there are numerous mission profiles that a plane can fulfill much better.
        melling 9y ago
        You’re all over the place. We are now allowed to overfly Russia. http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/news/a26026/russian-military-plane-overfly-us-canada/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/news/a2602... When you control the sky’s you don’t need to fly at 6000 mph. We have bases in Pakistan and Afghanistan, for example. Which mission profiles are you describing that are actually needed to fly at hypersonic speed? A lot of these countries are quite small for that speed. A 100 miles a minute.
        Xylakant 9y ago
        I’m pointing out that the legality of overflying a country has always been and still is a lesser concern. Mission profiles better suited to a plane than a satellite: anything that requires loitering, returning to a target, anything that requires a curved path that a satellite cannot fly or anything that requires close up - optics on satellites are good, but fundamental physics limits the achievable resolution. Hypersonic speed might not be required to fulfill the actual mission, but it allows shorter response times on all spots. It also would allow evading most intercept attempts.
- kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
  You deploy autonomous drones that will loiter for an extended period.
- vpribish 9y ago
  our existing spy planes and drones are subsonic and work just fine loitering over poorly-defended targets. stealthy or speedy aircraft could work over more hostile places and add to the satellite capabilities. Maybe there are things you can sense from 10 miles up that you can't at 100mi. And maybe there's some brand new gear that you don't have in space yet. And maybe you want to time your picture with some unpredictable events on short notice. there are a ton of reasons to have this variety of capabilities.
- CapitalistCartr 9y ago
  With a roll of film nearly a foot wide and lenses that can pick a gnat off a flea pointed at the target, the pilot can get instructions in the air immediately before penetrating "contested" airspace and get crystal pics of everything on the fly at any speed he wishes. Max potential velocity over the target is mainly to insure survivability; it doesn't affect photo performance.
- mulmen 9y ago
  That's exactly the point. If an unexpected threat pops up you can get there now.

dingaling 9y ago

Satellites can be re-oriented into different orbital inclinations but that requires fuel and in the absence of a Shuttle fleet they cannot be refuelled. So despite movie depictions they don't go swerving hither and thither to follow a camel up a mountain track. Such limited manoeuvring also requires planning and 90 minutes between passes. Lots of opportunity for bad guys to push their missile back into a hangar. An atmospheric aircraft can follow an arbitrary course to take in as many targets as required, can be rerouted on a moment's notice and can approach from unexpected vectors to catch the target out in the open.

ams6110 9y ago
Sure, but don't we have drones for that now? The high altitude spy planes (U2, SR-71) were mostly to prevent being shot down; surviving to return the film to base. Drones don't need to bring film back, and it's not such a big deal if a few of them are lost.
- saulrh 9y ago
  If it can be shot down, I think that it's probably safe to assume that it won't be able to see anything particularly interesting. I'd expect something like Groom Lake to be surrounded by an impenetrable wall of interceptors and SAM sites. Though I suppose that you could try to make your drones so cheap and in such volume that shooting them down becomes logistically and economically infeasible, but that's another strategy entirely.
  - mabbo 9y ago
    > I'd expect something like Groom Lake to be surrounded by an impenetrable wall of interceptors and SAM sites The whole idea of the SR-71 was that it went so fast that SAMs could just barely not catch up to it before they ran out of fuel. Any other plane couldn't outrun them, but the Blackbird? Well, Mach 3.4 will give you some breathing room.
    - astdb 9y ago

stcredzero 9y ago

1. How big a fleet does one need for a useful 1st strike capability? Perhaps not so many. 2. Higher resolution imaging could still be quite useful. For example, if we could possibly find all of the Chinese DF-21B anti-ship ballistic missile launchers, this erodes the deterrent effect of that weapon, which then increases the value of the US aircraft carrier groups.

philip1209 9y ago

Why would a propulsion system like this not be put on missiles first? Seems like there are many more tactical applications.

ceejayoz 9y ago
Some missiles already travel at these sorts of speeds.
csours 9y ago
Turn it around: Why would a propulsion system like this be put on a missile? Missiles are generally powered by rocket motors - they don't need air intake. Missiles are also generally one-time-use - you send it somewhere and don't expect to reuse it (also it usually explodes) I suppose it might be possible to increase payload per fuel efficiency, but the only reason the military would probably care about that is cost, and the rocket engineering is already paid for and proven.
- Xylakant 9y ago
  The first missiles (V1) were basically ramjet engines, so it’s not exactly unheard off. The advantage of such an engine is that it doesn’t need to bring its oxidizer along like a rocket engine would need to, so depending on how the engines weight compares to a rocket engine, it would allow for more payload at the same total weight which might be interesting in various places.
  - mulmen 9y ago
    The second and essentially all subsequent missiles were rockets though.
    - Xylakant 9y ago
      Yes, since ramjets with performance such as this one were outside our engineering capabilities. As the article states, even this one was not possible a few years ago. It’s also not entirely true, tomahawk cruise missiles for example use turbofan engines with a solid state booster.

jerkstate 9y ago

here's a hint at one possible mission profile: https://taskandpurpose.com/kinetic-bombardment-kep-weaponry/ https://taskandpurpose.com/kinetic-bombardment-kep-weaponry/

hammock 9y ago

Are you a disinfo plant? Recon aircraft still exist, perhaps more than ever when you consider the use of drones. And of course bombers are still a critical part of US global defense strategy

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> But the military usage of a plane like this is questionable I could see utility in being able to rapidly deploy a team of special ops, or specialized unanticipated equipment, to a faraway location. That it can do things a missile can without being a missile is also useful. (Suppose you need a bunch of drones over a random location. You could launch a missile and risk (a) breaking your birds in launch and (b) someone thinking you're flying nukes. Or, you could use this plane.)

gaius 9y ago
I could see utility in being able to rapidly deploy a team of special ops, or specialized unanticipated equipment, to a faraway location. This won't be landing on any improvised airstrips, and a hypersonic configuration won't be able to go slow enough to drop paratroopers.
- adventured 9y ago
  Couldn't you put the paratroopers in a drop vehicle, purpose built for that? We bring astronauts back at mach 23-25. That's not to say it wouldn't be quite an engineering effort. I'm sure they can find a billion dollars to build it if someone decides it's worth doing. The more interesting impact would be on the design of the plane doing the drop. While I think you could keep the paratroopers alive, I'm skeptical there's any way you can go that fast and drop a large container. I would expect the process to destroy the plane by making it too unstable.
  - gaius 9y ago
    Couldn't you put the paratroopers in a drop vehicle, purpose built for that? The Osprey is probably the fastest troop carrier, so you would need to identify some use cases it can’t do then figure out if the cost is worth it. Traditionally SF get there by jumping in and then hiking cross-country, is there a use case for getting them on the ground in a couple of hours?
arca_vorago 9y ago
This was my first thought too, because I've heard they've been working on deployment systems to get groundpounders to an AO very quickly, for example one of the rumored applications of the x37b being for HALO insertion. Galus, what do you base your claim on that a hypersonic config can't go "slow enough"?

indubitable 9y ago

The military has to have contingencies in place for if all satellite communication were disabled, through some method or another. Should symmetric warfare between modern nations ever break out, satellite comms would be one of the most valuable and ostensibly poorly defended targets. You can't really assume much of anything about the status quo in planning for war.

chiph 9y ago

The advantage that recon aircraft have over satellites is that they're not in predictable orbits. Assuming any new aircraft has better stealth than the SR-71 (say, on the order of what the first-gen stealth F-117 had), it can overfly the area of interest before anything can be moved under cover.