4 ms·

This stuff could all be false flag on the US side. We worked on this stuff for so long and have so much experience with ballistic missiles it's probably pointl

This stuff could all be false flag on the US side. We worked on this stuff for so long and have so much experience with ballistic missiles it's probably pointless as the article said. For all anyone knows the X-37 is fully operational with orbital ballistic weapons that would greatly outclass hypersonic missiles. Weapons accelerated from orbit would be very fast, require way less energy, be smaller so it could be holding more of them than we realize, give a target far less warning & time to react. All the research stuff could be a smokescreen. It's been hanging around in orbit for more than a decade cloaked in mystery.

thoughtstheseus 6y ago
They are also more visible, hypersonic missiles stay low so the curvature of the earth makes tracking and neutralizing them (missile defense) difficult and costly.
- spiritplumber 6y ago
  That also makes it easier to track by satellite, though.
- ben7799 6y ago
  A weapon launched from space is hypersonic by definition, the X-37 itself travels at hypersonic speed all the time and moves faster than these missiles. The X-37 is very hard to track because it can make dramatic orbit changes using the earth itself as cover and appear from a different direction. It's all theoretical but a weapon like that launched from space is going to accelerate faster (it's already hypersonic when it comes off the rail) & generate less heat signature until it re-enteres the atmosphere. And if carrier groups can be sunk by these missiles it would make way more sense to have them on a space platform or a submarine platform than on ships.
  - ncmncm 6y ago
    The X-37's very long missions suggest that it doesn't really have any uses, and these long missions are just to park it someplace where it looks less like it has just been mothballed.
    - LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
      Is that so? How about systems testing of sensor and power packages in orbit, and conveniently upgrading them after a while? edit: I mean with less lead time and mission planning, systems integration like for conventional satellite launch methods.

thoughtstheseus 6y ago

They are also more visible, hypersonic missiles stay low so the curvature of the earth makes tracking and neutralizing them (missile defense) difficult and costly.

spiritplumber 6y ago
That also makes it easier to track by satellite, though.
ben7799 6y ago
A weapon launched from space is hypersonic by definition, the X-37 itself travels at hypersonic speed all the time and moves faster than these missiles. The X-37 is very hard to track because it can make dramatic orbit changes using the earth itself as cover and appear from a different direction. It's all theoretical but a weapon like that launched from space is going to accelerate faster (it's already hypersonic when it comes off the rail) & generate less heat signature until it re-enteres the atmosphere. And if carrier groups can be sunk by these missiles it would make way more sense to have them on a space platform or a submarine platform than on ships.
- ncmncm 6y ago
  The X-37's very long missions suggest that it doesn't really have any uses, and these long missions are just to park it someplace where it looks less like it has just been mothballed.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
    Is that so? How about systems testing of sensor and power packages in orbit, and conveniently upgrading them after a while? edit: I mean with less lead time and mission planning, systems integration like for conventional satellite launch methods.