5 ms·

The stated goal is apparently to be able to strike anywhere on earth within an hour. What's the advantage of something like this above an ICBM? I can imagine on

by hencq 15y ago

The stated goal is apparently to be able to strike anywhere on earth within an hour. What's the advantage of something like this above an ICBM? I can imagine one advantage would be that the target can't be easily inferred from the flight path? Also an ICBM launch is immediately associated with a nuclear attack, while this might not be? Although I could imagine an enemy detecting multiple of these hypersonic vehicles heading towards it, wouldn't want to wait to find out.

melling 15y ago
I thought the goal was to evevtually build a plane that could be anywhere in the world within an hour. There are many more uses for this, of course. Next generation SR71 Blackbird, fire missiles on enemy vehicle, sink pirate ship, etc.
- jballanc 15y ago
  Yeah, but consider: the SR-71 was intended to replace the U-2. Which one was retired? Which one is still in active use?
  - LockeWatts 15y ago
    They were both made obsolete by satellites and now drones.
    - bdunbar 15y ago
      Disagree: the reasons why the SR-71 was retired, and the U-2 is scheduled for retirement, are not technical but political and fiscal.
      - watmough 15y ago
        I don't really believe that either. Improved missiles are now able to shoot down the U2, and maybe get close to the SR-71. That makes these planes a liability now, when over developed territories such as the former USSR. Both were formerly useful, and have been brought out of retirement, when required for tasks that a satellite could not perform, or was not in position for. I wouldn't be surprised if the x37 mini-spaceplane was primarily useful as a surveillance platform.
        bdunbar 15y ago
        Improved missiles are now able to shoot down the U2 This has probably been true since at least 1960. I wouldn't be surprised if the x37 mini-spaceplane was primarily useful as a surveillance platform. Eh. It takes an Atlas V to launch the X-37. At 90 million a launch, and months to prep, it's not exactly something one can crank out with a frag order on a day's notice.
jballanc 15y ago
With multiple kill vehicles that are capable of repositioning themselves in flight (like the ones shown here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9mNNA2gEF8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9mNNA2gEF8), I don't even think you can call that an advantage. The only advantage I can think of is the possibility of a return flight, but that only matters if reuse is economical vs an expendable vehicle (probably not), or if the cargo is "precious", i.e. a human. Given the prevalence of drone aircraft (including some that can stay airborne indefinitely), increasing capability of satellite optics, and literally decades of refinement on ICBMs, I'd have to say that this pursuit is more likely purely for research. (Of course, as a researcher you always have to "sell" your experiments to the decision makers with lines like "strike anywhere in under an hour".)
jonnycowboy 15y ago
Nuclear weapon use is no longer warranted and big nation/states like the US, Russia and China will definately not be using them for any kind of attacks. This Mach-20 glider is for a more targeted attack. A similar concept is presented in "The Gold Coast" by Robinson, where a hypersonic glider tracks and destroys target using only kinetic energy (no explosives). This also allows you to hit targets in high-density (ie. urban) environments without affecting the surrounding area.
- lwat 15y ago
  Mutually Assured Destruction is alive and well and many countries still maintain a good stock of nuclear weapons for this purpose.
nickgully 15y ago
A vehicle like this can be controlled for more of it's flight phase, giving more flexibility in targeting moving objects, or strikes of opportunity. Also, as you said, this is less likely to start World War III.
andrewpi 15y ago
> Also an ICBM launch is immediately associated with a nuclear attack You got it. An ICBM would set off early warning alerts about a nuclear attack, prompting a possible counter-attack.
iwwr 15y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minotaur_IV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minotaur_IV The lifter rocket costs $50mil, so there are few targets in the world worth throwing this hardware at.
drzaiusapelord 15y ago
Have you looked at the US's defense budget? When you have money like this you don't need to worry too much about practical uses. Imagine if this money went unspent, Americans would get a tax break or heaven forbid better healthcare or something. Seriously, a good chunk of what the US researches is done strictly because we don't question the defense budget and the contractors and bureaucrats know how to game the system and create jobs/fortunes for the defense industry. As far as the whole "herp derp its not an icbm," well something tells me that if the Chinese had this and hit our carrier groups with it(1), we'd respond with nuclear strikes instantly. If we send 10 of these towards downtown Beijing, its nuclear war as usual fellas. I think the subtleties between kinetic and nuclear will be lost on the generals and leaders who make retaliatory strike decisions. (1) The PRC is playing with all manner of kinetic kill vehicles and probably have a carrier killer mounted on several warships and subs, so this isn't purely conjecture
- lchengify 15y ago
  Lets not get too carried away here. At least in the US, the defense department, specifically DARPA, invests a lot in research that doesn't have immediate value but has a proven track record for being invaluable years or decades later. 50 years ago someone might have made an argument that investing 380m in health care would be more useful than some crazy thing called 'ARPANET', but i think in the end it turned out better for everyone. Add GPS and self-driving cars to that list too.
  - drzaiusapelord 15y ago
    If ARPANET failed then some other network would have evolved into the internet. Its not like networking technology was unknown outside of the military, heck most advances in networking and CS happen in universities, not via defense contracts. Heck, the French had Minitel in the 80s while we had a loose network of BBS's and to be frank it wasn't the lack of network technologies that was the problem back then, it was the lack of a killer app. TBL delivered that in the form of the WWW. The WWW is network agnostic. There wasn't a day when people went "Whoa, T1s are now affordable for my LEC to sell to my ISP, I better get a shell account pronto!" It was "Whoa, there's email and colors and pictures and text and even video on my computer's modem via this thing called the web I'm seeing advertised on movie trailers and on product packaging?!?!"

by hencq 15y ago

melling 15y ago

I thought the goal was to evevtually build a plane that could be anywhere in the world within an hour. There are many more uses for this, of course. Next generation SR71 Blackbird, fire missiles on enemy vehicle, sink pirate ship, etc.

jballanc 15y ago
Yeah, but consider: the SR-71 was intended to replace the U-2. Which one was retired? Which one is still in active use?
- LockeWatts 15y ago
  They were both made obsolete by satellites and now drones.
  - bdunbar 15y ago
    Disagree: the reasons why the SR-71 was retired, and the U-2 is scheduled for retirement, are not technical but political and fiscal.
    - watmough 15y ago
      I don't really believe that either. Improved missiles are now able to shoot down the U2, and maybe get close to the SR-71. That makes these planes a liability now, when over developed territories such as the former USSR. Both were formerly useful, and have been brought out of retirement, when required for tasks that a satellite could not perform, or was not in position for. I wouldn't be surprised if the x37 mini-spaceplane was primarily useful as a surveillance platform.
      - bdunbar 15y ago
        Improved missiles are now able to shoot down the U2 This has probably been true since at least 1960. I wouldn't be surprised if the x37 mini-spaceplane was primarily useful as a surveillance platform. Eh. It takes an Atlas V to launch the X-37. At 90 million a launch, and months to prep, it's not exactly something one can crank out with a frag order on a day's notice.

jballanc 15y ago

With multiple kill vehicles that are capable of repositioning themselves in flight (like the ones shown here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9mNNA2gEF8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9mNNA2gEF8), I don't even think you can call that an advantage. The only advantage I can think of is the possibility of a return flight, but that only matters if reuse is economical vs an expendable vehicle (probably not), or if the cargo is "precious", i.e. a human. Given the prevalence of drone aircraft (including some that can stay airborne indefinitely), increasing capability of satellite optics, and literally decades of refinement on ICBMs, I'd have to say that this pursuit is more likely purely for research. (Of course, as a researcher you always have to "sell" your experiments to the decision makers with lines like "strike anywhere in under an hour".)

jonnycowboy 15y ago

Nuclear weapon use is no longer warranted and big nation/states like the US, Russia and China will definately not be using them for any kind of attacks. This Mach-20 glider is for a more targeted attack. A similar concept is presented in "The Gold Coast" by Robinson, where a hypersonic glider tracks and destroys target using only kinetic energy (no explosives). This also allows you to hit targets in high-density (ie. urban) environments without affecting the surrounding area.

lwat 15y ago
Mutually Assured Destruction is alive and well and many countries still maintain a good stock of nuclear weapons for this purpose.

nickgully 15y ago

A vehicle like this can be controlled for more of it's flight phase, giving more flexibility in targeting moving objects, or strikes of opportunity. Also, as you said, this is less likely to start World War III.

andrewpi 15y ago

> Also an ICBM launch is immediately associated with a nuclear attack You got it. An ICBM would set off early warning alerts about a nuclear attack, prompting a possible counter-attack.

iwwr 15y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minotaur_IV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minotaur_IV The lifter rocket costs $50mil, so there are few targets in the world worth throwing this hardware at.

drzaiusapelord 15y ago

Have you looked at the US's defense budget? When you have money like this you don't need to worry too much about practical uses. Imagine if this money went unspent, Americans would get a tax break or heaven forbid better healthcare or something. Seriously, a good chunk of what the US researches is done strictly because we don't question the defense budget and the contractors and bureaucrats know how to game the system and create jobs/fortunes for the defense industry. As far as the whole "herp derp its not an icbm," well something tells me that if the Chinese had this and hit our carrier groups with it(1), we'd respond with nuclear strikes instantly. If we send 10 of these towards downtown Beijing, its nuclear war as usual fellas. I think the subtleties between kinetic and nuclear will be lost on the generals and leaders who make retaliatory strike decisions. (1) The PRC is playing with all manner of kinetic kill vehicles and probably have a carrier killer mounted on several warships and subs, so this isn't purely conjecture

lchengify 15y ago
Lets not get too carried away here. At least in the US, the defense department, specifically DARPA, invests a lot in research that doesn't have immediate value but has a proven track record for being invaluable years or decades later. 50 years ago someone might have made an argument that investing 380m in health care would be more useful than some crazy thing called 'ARPANET', but i think in the end it turned out better for everyone. Add GPS and self-driving cars to that list too.
- drzaiusapelord 15y ago
  If ARPANET failed then some other network would have evolved into the internet. Its not like networking technology was unknown outside of the military, heck most advances in networking and CS happen in universities, not via defense contracts. Heck, the French had Minitel in the 80s while we had a loose network of BBS's and to be frank it wasn't the lack of network technologies that was the problem back then, it was the lack of a killer app. TBL delivered that in the form of the WWW. The WWW is network agnostic. There wasn't a day when people went "Whoa, T1s are now affordable for my LEC to sell to my ISP, I better get a shell account pronto!" It was "Whoa, there's email and colors and pictures and text and even video on my computer's modem via this thing called the web I'm seeing advertised on movie trailers and on product packaging?!?!"