5 ms·

It's interesting... you'd think the military would have gone down this path already, and perhaps came up short? The ability to fly supersonic NOE (Nap-of-the-E

by Alupis 6y ago

It's interesting... you'd think the military would have gone down this path already, and perhaps came up short? The ability to fly supersonic NOE (Nap-of-the-Earth) into enemy territory without leaving a trail of very loud sonic booms seems like it would be something of interest. B1-B Lancer's exist to do exactly this, but are quite noisy. Which either means I'm wrong and the military doesn't care about being quiet, or Boom will eventually reach the same conclusion... or Boom has something truly revolutionary that nobody else has achieved.

dillondoyle 6y ago
Or maybe the military has technology we don't know about yet?
- Alupis 6y ago
  I'm not so sure. Airplanes are hard to keep secret when they're flying around, and existing planes have their capabilities pretty well figured out by now. It's not every day a new airframe is built. I'd expect the $100MM USD F-35 to have all the latest tech, being the newest fighter available.
  - jazzyjackson 6y ago
    I expect the $100MM USD F-35 to cost half as much as they report, Area 51 style ;)
  - WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
    Airplanes, yes, UFOs, no, you want people to post grainy pictures of those :)
- paulmd 6y ago
  likely the same answer as to why the SR-71 is discontinued - advances in satellite reconnaissance and UAV technology made it irrelevant. What advantage exactly does a B-1B have over a cruise missile? What advantage does it have over some UAVs sent on an autonomous mission? Bearing in mind that you can easily fire off a couple dozen cruise missiles just for the airframe cost of a B-1 let alone the training, etc. A manned pilot is some better in some respects, but is it enough better to justify the additional cost, training, and the downsides that come along with a manned mission (political risk, etc)? For certain missions, the B-2 and the B-52 etc have their merits, and close-air-support with a UAV in non-permissive airspace seems like a bad idea. But by and large the trend has been and continues to be using unmanned and expendable platforms to replace a lot of roles. The B-1 doesn't do anything that a cruise missile really cannot replace.
stevehawk 6y ago
the military doesn't need to. they can boom as needed. most training is subsonic and during combat they aren't going to care if someone complains about the boom.
- Alupis 6y ago
  NOE flying is designed to come in fast and low, to avoid radar coverage. Announcing you're coming, and your heading, by breaking everyone's windows for miles around is quite noticeable.
  - kgermino 6y ago
    (Big fat disclaimer: I don’t understand anything I’m about to say) Wouldn’t the windows be broken _behind_ the plane? In my mental model, you’re flying below radar so anyone on the ground will know you’re there anyway. If you’re sub-sonic people hear/see the plane and you hope they don’t have time to do anything before you strike. If you’re supersonic they hear/see the plane, their windows break, and you hope they don’t have time to do anything before you strike. What am I missing?
    - chemeng 6y ago
      You would leave a long trail of broken windows and reports from the moment you went supersonic in their territory, charting your trajectory. Threat detection is a network, not a single point. However, if you're moving fast enough and the target is close enough, your premise is valid. They would not have time to react. Cruise missiles tend to be used for those mission profiles.
      - callamdelaney 6y ago
        Has it perhaps occured to any of you that flying at below radar altitude at supersonic or above speeds, would be dangerous and would have no benefit? If the enemy doesn't know you're there, you don't need to go fast.
jabl 6y ago
> The ability to fly supersonic NOE (Nap-of-the-Earth) into enemy territory without leaving a trail of very loud sonic booms seems like it would be something of interest. B1-B Lancer's exist to do exactly this, but are quite noisy. Wikipedia claims B-1B max speed at low altitude is Mach 0.96. High speed flight at low altitude consumes fuel like crazy due to the high density atmosphere.

by Alupis 6y ago

dillondoyle 6y ago

Or maybe the military has technology we don't know about yet?

Alupis 6y ago
I'm not so sure. Airplanes are hard to keep secret when they're flying around, and existing planes have their capabilities pretty well figured out by now. It's not every day a new airframe is built. I'd expect the $100MM USD F-35 to have all the latest tech, being the newest fighter available.
- jazzyjackson 6y ago
  I expect the $100MM USD F-35 to cost half as much as they report, Area 51 style ;)
- WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
  Airplanes, yes, UFOs, no, you want people to post grainy pictures of those :)
paulmd 6y ago
likely the same answer as to why the SR-71 is discontinued - advances in satellite reconnaissance and UAV technology made it irrelevant. What advantage exactly does a B-1B have over a cruise missile? What advantage does it have over some UAVs sent on an autonomous mission? Bearing in mind that you can easily fire off a couple dozen cruise missiles just for the airframe cost of a B-1 let alone the training, etc. A manned pilot is some better in some respects, but is it enough better to justify the additional cost, training, and the downsides that come along with a manned mission (political risk, etc)? For certain missions, the B-2 and the B-52 etc have their merits, and close-air-support with a UAV in non-permissive airspace seems like a bad idea. But by and large the trend has been and continues to be using unmanned and expendable platforms to replace a lot of roles. The B-1 doesn't do anything that a cruise missile really cannot replace.

stevehawk 6y ago

the military doesn't need to. they can boom as needed. most training is subsonic and during combat they aren't going to care if someone complains about the boom.

Alupis 6y ago
NOE flying is designed to come in fast and low, to avoid radar coverage. Announcing you're coming, and your heading, by breaking everyone's windows for miles around is quite noticeable.
- kgermino 6y ago
  (Big fat disclaimer: I don’t understand anything I’m about to say) Wouldn’t the windows be broken _behind_ the plane? In my mental model, you’re flying below radar so anyone on the ground will know you’re there anyway. If you’re sub-sonic people hear/see the plane and you hope they don’t have time to do anything before you strike. If you’re supersonic they hear/see the plane, their windows break, and you hope they don’t have time to do anything before you strike. What am I missing?
  - chemeng 6y ago
    You would leave a long trail of broken windows and reports from the moment you went supersonic in their territory, charting your trajectory. Threat detection is a network, not a single point. However, if you're moving fast enough and the target is close enough, your premise is valid. They would not have time to react. Cruise missiles tend to be used for those mission profiles.
    - callamdelaney 6y ago
      Has it perhaps occured to any of you that flying at below radar altitude at supersonic or above speeds, would be dangerous and would have no benefit? If the enemy doesn't know you're there, you don't need to go fast.

jabl 6y ago

> The ability to fly supersonic NOE (Nap-of-the-Earth) into enemy territory without leaving a trail of very loud sonic booms seems like it would be something of interest. B1-B Lancer's exist to do exactly this, but are quite noisy. Wikipedia claims B-1B max speed at low altitude is Mach 0.96. High speed flight at low altitude consumes fuel like crazy due to the high density atmosphere.