3 ms·
The proposal is indisputably harebrained, but the question is why the authors decided to publish it? One of the authors is a former US Air Force colonel. And i
by credit_guy 7y ago
The proposal is indisputably harebrained, but the question is why the authors decided to publish it? One of the authors is a former US Air Force colonel.
And in particular why they choose to propagate falsehoods like "Hypersonic cruise missiles are powered all the way to their targets using an advanced propulsion system called a SCRAMJET. These are very, very, fast. You may have six minutes from the time it’s launched until the time it strikes." Lest it be any confusion, scramjets are fast, but are nowhere as fast as ICBM's (Mach 5-10 vs Mach 20-23).
- LyndsySimon 7y ago> One of the authors is a former US Air Force colonel. I was curious, so I looked it up. There are about 3,300 colonels in the US Air Force: https://www.statista.com/statistics/239365/total-military-personnel-of-the-us-air-force-by-grade/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/239365/total-military-pe... > Lest it be any confusion, scramjets are fast, but are nowhere as fast as ICBM's I agree that's weird phrasing and incorrect on its face. That said - as I understand it, cruise missiles don't have the launch signature ICBMs have. While it would take longer for a cruise missile to travel the same distance as an ICBM, it might in fact give the target country less time to react if they aren't detected until they are well on their way.
- objectivetruth 7y agoThe point is that enemy can launch a "slower" hypersonic cruise missile from a surfacing missile sub or a disguised freighter 100 miles off the US coast. The point of hypersonic cruise missiles is NOT to replace ICBMs in land-based silos a hemisphere away. It's to replace "normal" supersonic cruise missiles carried on subs, missile boats, etc.