8 ms·

That plane will render anti-ballistic missiles useless and make possible long-range targeted assassinations.

Groxx 15y ago
ICBMs have been going roughly this speed for a while now, so anti-ballistic missiles either have been useless for a while, or will continue to work. The shuttle goes a good deal faster (mach 25) on re-entry. And as soon as you strip away the need to land and be re-used (the hallmarks of an "airplane"), your anti-super-fast-airplane missiles become much cheaper and faster than the plane, so even a small success rate serves as an effective deterrent in many cases. This is a tech experiment. It may lead to advances in airplanes, but I highly doubt it is cost-effective compared to an equivalent missile that just slams home.
- iwwr 15y ago
  ICBMs can go fast, but they follow a predictable ballistic trajectory. They can also be intercepted by anti-missile missiles. You will need another scramjet to catch a scramjet while in the atmosphere.
  - sehugg 15y ago
    Not necessarily .. reentry vehicles have been able to maneuver as far back as Gemini by rotating (they have a slight amount of lift) -- this works best in the upper atmosphere where small velocity changes can make large changes to your landing zone. Both the US and Russia designed maneuverable warheads to evade each other's ABM systems.
  - Sharlin 15y ago
    Your point stands, I'd like to clarify that the HTV-2 vehicle[1] is an unpowered glider, boosted to cruise velocity by a rocket stage, not a scramjet. Unfortunately, most of the popular news reporting has used the term "airplane" which usually refers to an aircraft capable of powered flight. Although the eventual goal of the FALCON project is to develop a scramjet-powered strike aircraft, the current record holder is still NASA's X-43[2] with a maximum attained speed of Mach 9.68. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Falcon_Project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Falcon_Project [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-43A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-43A
- cleaver 15y ago
  ICBM's fly outside of the atmosphere and they don't turn... IE. they're ballistic. I could see that something designed to hit the predictable path of a ballistic missile at mach 20 would fail to hit an aircraft which can turn at mach 20. (How well this thing can actually turn is another question.)
  - Groxx 15y ago
    Granted, the 'ballistic' part does decide it. But what says ICBM tech can't be adapted to simply turn slightly while re-entering? It's not like this plane will be making hair-pin turns, I find it extremely hard to believe something with no need to fly back can't match it for maneuverability.
    - hugh3 15y ago
      But what says ICBM tech can't be adapted to simply turn slightly while re-entering? Mostly the letter "B" for "ballistic". You can turn while flying. You can't turn while falling. You can stick out a little control vane to try to change course a little bit, but at that sort of speed, in that sort of atmospheric density, and bearing in mind that during re-entry anything that is at all pointy will get burned off, I doubt you could do much at all.
      - Groxx 15y ago
        Hence adapted, and referring to the tech, not the object. Making a ballistic missile not-ballistic makes it into something else. That this was a "plane" is inconsequential, and not even interesting, in terms of missiles - that they had at least minimal control at that speed is either a breakthrough, or duplication of existing techniques that can be applied to big-ass missiles (there, swap the B with "Big") more easily and more cheaply than to something designed to be re-used. Which, given the difficulty in adding controllable movement at such speeds to something way more complex than a one-use missile, implies to me that the techniques have existed for a while in cheaper forms, and this is just the first time they've been able to do it and (nearly) recover the device. That's significant, but it's not a game-changer for missiles or making things go boom.
- wisty 15y ago
  I think it's mostly there so the Air Force can pretend it will still be relevant in 20 years time. Pilots in planes will be replaced by UAV, or cruise missiles. But they want to cling to the romance of real humans in the sky.
dantheman 15y ago
1. Assassinations are against US Law. 2. The US already has long-range assassination hit squads, e.g. Osama Bin Laden's Assassination
- conover 15y ago
  Solely addressing number 2, I think the factor here is time. The strike window for this weapon as I understand it is 1 hour anywhere in the world. Navy SEAL operations on the order of killing Bin Laden have lead times measured in months. Even Tomahawk missiles take time to position (warships) and fire. When it absolutely, positively has to be destroyed or killed within a hour, Mach 20 is the only way to go. Plus its non-ballistic flight path and high degree of maneuverability probably allows it to evade most anti-aircraft and anti-ballistic missile defenses. Scary stuff. Edit: Grammar and spelling.
  - niels_olson 15y ago
    "highly maneuverable" is an odd term here. What's the radius of an 8 g turn at mach 20? 555 km. The diameter is slightly smaller than the N-S length of California.
    - demallien 15y ago
      Sure, but by the same reasoning, you don't need to change your heading by more than a fraction of a degree before the interceptor has to massively change it's intercept trajectory. A scramjet powered missile randomly making slight adjustments around the desired trajectory would make it extremely difficult to intercept.
- true_religion 15y ago
  I wasn't aware that it was a law. I thought it was merely a prohibition put into place by an Executive Order signed by President Ford. In either case, it seems moot in today's day and age. What's the difference between firing a missile at enemy headquarters with the intention of killing the general and senior staff, and an assassination? It seems today that 'assassination' is simply pursuing the usual methods of war against a specific target.

Groxx 15y ago

ICBMs have been going roughly this speed for a while now, so anti-ballistic missiles either have been useless for a while, or will continue to work. The shuttle goes a good deal faster (mach 25) on re-entry. And as soon as you strip away the need to land and be re-used (the hallmarks of an "airplane"), your anti-super-fast-airplane missiles become much cheaper and faster than the plane, so even a small success rate serves as an effective deterrent in many cases. This is a tech experiment. It may lead to advances in airplanes, but I highly doubt it is cost-effective compared to an equivalent missile that just slams home.

iwwr 15y ago
ICBMs can go fast, but they follow a predictable ballistic trajectory. They can also be intercepted by anti-missile missiles. You will need another scramjet to catch a scramjet while in the atmosphere.
- sehugg 15y ago
  Not necessarily .. reentry vehicles have been able to maneuver as far back as Gemini by rotating (they have a slight amount of lift) -- this works best in the upper atmosphere where small velocity changes can make large changes to your landing zone. Both the US and Russia designed maneuverable warheads to evade each other's ABM systems.
- Sharlin 15y ago
  Your point stands, I'd like to clarify that the HTV-2 vehicle[1] is an unpowered glider, boosted to cruise velocity by a rocket stage, not a scramjet. Unfortunately, most of the popular news reporting has used the term "airplane" which usually refers to an aircraft capable of powered flight. Although the eventual goal of the FALCON project is to develop a scramjet-powered strike aircraft, the current record holder is still NASA's X-43[2] with a maximum attained speed of Mach 9.68. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Falcon_Project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Falcon_Project [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-43A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-43A
cleaver 15y ago
ICBM's fly outside of the atmosphere and they don't turn... IE. they're ballistic. I could see that something designed to hit the predictable path of a ballistic missile at mach 20 would fail to hit an aircraft which can turn at mach 20. (How well this thing can actually turn is another question.)
- Groxx 15y ago
  Granted, the 'ballistic' part does decide it. But what says ICBM tech can't be adapted to simply turn slightly while re-entering? It's not like this plane will be making hair-pin turns, I find it extremely hard to believe something with no need to fly back can't match it for maneuverability.
  - hugh3 15y ago
    But what says ICBM tech can't be adapted to simply turn slightly while re-entering? Mostly the letter "B" for "ballistic". You can turn while flying. You can't turn while falling. You can stick out a little control vane to try to change course a little bit, but at that sort of speed, in that sort of atmospheric density, and bearing in mind that during re-entry anything that is at all pointy will get burned off, I doubt you could do much at all.
    - Groxx 15y ago
      Hence adapted, and referring to the tech, not the object. Making a ballistic missile not-ballistic makes it into something else. That this was a "plane" is inconsequential, and not even interesting, in terms of missiles - that they had at least minimal control at that speed is either a breakthrough, or duplication of existing techniques that can be applied to big-ass missiles (there, swap the B with "Big") more easily and more cheaply than to something designed to be re-used. Which, given the difficulty in adding controllable movement at such speeds to something way more complex than a one-use missile, implies to me that the techniques have existed for a while in cheaper forms, and this is just the first time they've been able to do it and (nearly) recover the device. That's significant, but it's not a game-changer for missiles or making things go boom.
wisty 15y ago
I think it's mostly there so the Air Force can pretend it will still be relevant in 20 years time. Pilots in planes will be replaced by UAV, or cruise missiles. But they want to cling to the romance of real humans in the sky.

dantheman 15y ago

1. Assassinations are against US Law. 2. The US already has long-range assassination hit squads, e.g. Osama Bin Laden's Assassination

conover 15y ago
Solely addressing number 2, I think the factor here is time. The strike window for this weapon as I understand it is 1 hour anywhere in the world. Navy SEAL operations on the order of killing Bin Laden have lead times measured in months. Even Tomahawk missiles take time to position (warships) and fire. When it absolutely, positively has to be destroyed or killed within a hour, Mach 20 is the only way to go. Plus its non-ballistic flight path and high degree of maneuverability probably allows it to evade most anti-aircraft and anti-ballistic missile defenses. Scary stuff. Edit: Grammar and spelling.
- niels_olson 15y ago
  "highly maneuverable" is an odd term here. What's the radius of an 8 g turn at mach 20? 555 km. The diameter is slightly smaller than the N-S length of California.
  - demallien 15y ago
    Sure, but by the same reasoning, you don't need to change your heading by more than a fraction of a degree before the interceptor has to massively change it's intercept trajectory. A scramjet powered missile randomly making slight adjustments around the desired trajectory would make it extremely difficult to intercept.
true_religion 15y ago
I wasn't aware that it was a law. I thought it was merely a prohibition put into place by an Executive Order signed by President Ford. In either case, it seems moot in today's day and age. What's the difference between firing a missile at enemy headquarters with the intention of killing the general and senior staff, and an assassination? It seems today that 'assassination' is simply pursuing the usual methods of war against a specific target.