4 ms·

I'm a little unclear on what this project offers, vis-a-vis 1950s-era ICBMs. Is it considered OK to use in warfare because it doesn't look like a missile and d

I'm a little unclear on what this project offers, vis-a-vis 1950s-era ICBMs. Is it considered OK to use in warfare because it doesn't look like a missile and doesn't carry nukes?

jessriedel 15y ago
It's OK to use in warfare because it doesn't carry nukes. That's an enormous difference. However, it is a good question to ask what this offers over ICBM equipped with conventional weapons. (The speed is about the same.) I'd imagine it's cost.
- VladRussian 15y ago
  >(The speed is about the same.) I'd imagine it's cost. Both system consist of booster (which need to provide 20 Mach delta-v to its payload) and payload - upper stage which is warhead carrying vehicle. ICBM is cheaper because it follows dumb ballistic trajectory which puts no specific structural requirements on the warheads and their enclosure. The warhead vehicle traveling at 20 Mach in the upper atmosphere would cost enormously more ( and possibly would be much heavier, thus requiring bigger booster). I.e. ICBM is cheaper. The dumb ballistic trajectory was a weak spot of the ICBM system, and thus modern ICBM warheads perform evasive maneuvers during final atmosphere re-entry.
fleitz 15y ago
ICBMs are perfectly acceptable to use in warfare but like all warfare it comes with political ramifications. What I'm not sure of is what advantages over an ICBM this might offer. ICBMs can carry non-nuclear warheads but it's a VERY expensive way to get a payload on target.
- _delirium 15y ago
  It's not just expense; due to nuclear early-warning systems mostly being keyed off ICBM launches, it's risky to launch one. You're gambling that other nuclear-armed powers will believe you that it's conventionally-armed and not heading at them, which is a decision they only have several minutes to make. So in practice ICBMs have usually not been considered a normal part of the conventional-force arsenal.
  - VladRussian 15y ago
    >You're gambling that other nuclear-armed powers will believe you that it's conventionally-armed and not heading at them yep, and when this http://www.panoramio.com/photo/13572904 http://www.panoramio.com/photo/13572904 sees such a highly maneuverable vehicle flying 20 Machs over Europe you don't think it would cause questions that must be answered during next few minutes? At least in case of ICBM it is clear where it flies to once it launched.
    - yingjow1 15y ago
      I think it is pretty funny that our country is trillions of dollars in debt and here our military is making toy FN planes that cost 125 million dollars. What the f is wrong with this picture!
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
sliverstorm 15y ago
I personally see these hypersonic flight tests as being more about research into flight. They are exploring the absolute limits of aircraft (I know it's not a plane in the traditional sense) aerodynamics and maneuvering, and I like to think that's useful for something besides payload delivery.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
SkyMarshal 15y ago
Another possible use, besides the mentioned 'Global Strike': next-gen SR-71. The benefits: 1. Can't be shot down by any known SA missile technology (which the Russians are pretty good at) 2. Isn't a sitting duck like satellites, can't be shot down with anti-satellite weapons. 3. Can go anywhere anytime, so adversaries can't time their troop movements and other clandestine activities around your spysat flyover schedule. 4. Perfect for keeping tabs on China's opaque military buildup, since the US's sats and humint isn't as effective at that as desired.
runjake 15y ago
Read the article. It's a test platform for a strike weapon capable of striking anywhere in the world in an hour. Our current capabilities, ICBMs included, aren't capable of that to my knowledge (I worked on such platform up into the 90s).
teyc 15y ago
A plane can land and take off again. This is actually scramjet technology, which has very general applications beyond delivering a bomb.

I'm a little unclear on what this project offers, vis-a-vis 1950s-era ICBMs. Is it considered OK to use in warfare because it doesn't look like a missile and doesn't carry nukes?

jessriedel 15y ago

It's OK to use in warfare because it doesn't carry nukes. That's an enormous difference. However, it is a good question to ask what this offers over ICBM equipped with conventional weapons. (The speed is about the same.) I'd imagine it's cost.

VladRussian 15y ago
>(The speed is about the same.) I'd imagine it's cost. Both system consist of booster (which need to provide 20 Mach delta-v to its payload) and payload - upper stage which is warhead carrying vehicle. ICBM is cheaper because it follows dumb ballistic trajectory which puts no specific structural requirements on the warheads and their enclosure. The warhead vehicle traveling at 20 Mach in the upper atmosphere would cost enormously more ( and possibly would be much heavier, thus requiring bigger booster). I.e. ICBM is cheaper. The dumb ballistic trajectory was a weak spot of the ICBM system, and thus modern ICBM warheads perform evasive maneuvers during final atmosphere re-entry.

fleitz 15y ago

ICBMs are perfectly acceptable to use in warfare but like all warfare it comes with political ramifications. What I'm not sure of is what advantages over an ICBM this might offer. ICBMs can carry non-nuclear warheads but it's a VERY expensive way to get a payload on target.

_delirium 15y ago
It's not just expense; due to nuclear early-warning systems mostly being keyed off ICBM launches, it's risky to launch one. You're gambling that other nuclear-armed powers will believe you that it's conventionally-armed and not heading at them, which is a decision they only have several minutes to make. So in practice ICBMs have usually not been considered a normal part of the conventional-force arsenal.
- VladRussian 15y ago
  >You're gambling that other nuclear-armed powers will believe you that it's conventionally-armed and not heading at them yep, and when this http://www.panoramio.com/photo/13572904 http://www.panoramio.com/photo/13572904 sees such a highly maneuverable vehicle flying 20 Machs over Europe you don't think it would cause questions that must be answered during next few minutes? At least in case of ICBM it is clear where it flies to once it launched.
  - yingjow1 15y ago
    I think it is pretty funny that our country is trillions of dollars in debt and here our military is making toy FN planes that cost 125 million dollars. What the f is wrong with this picture!

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

sliverstorm 15y ago

I personally see these hypersonic flight tests as being more about research into flight. They are exploring the absolute limits of aircraft (I know it's not a plane in the traditional sense) aerodynamics and maneuvering, and I like to think that's useful for something besides payload delivery.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

SkyMarshal 15y ago

Another possible use, besides the mentioned 'Global Strike': next-gen SR-71. The benefits: 1. Can't be shot down by any known SA missile technology (which the Russians are pretty good at) 2. Isn't a sitting duck like satellites, can't be shot down with anti-satellite weapons. 3. Can go anywhere anytime, so adversaries can't time their troop movements and other clandestine activities around your spysat flyover schedule. 4. Perfect for keeping tabs on China's opaque military buildup, since the US's sats and humint isn't as effective at that as desired.

runjake 15y ago

Read the article. It's a test platform for a strike weapon capable of striking anywhere in the world in an hour. Our current capabilities, ICBMs included, aren't capable of that to my knowledge (I worked on such platform up into the 90s).

teyc 15y ago

A plane can land and take off again. This is actually scramjet technology, which has very general applications beyond delivering a bomb.