Slashdot Mirror

The Outlaw weights 120 pounds and has a maximum speed of 120 mph, a ceiling of 16,000 feet, and a 17HP two-cylinder two-stroke piston engine http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-170.html.

Lockheed, get back to me when your ground-based ATHENA system can shoot down a multi-Mach Soviet aircraft that can pull more than seven Gs.

That's not acceleration. THIS

http://www.designation-systems...

is acceleration.

The real purpose of stealth isn't to be invisible, but is to avoid being visible enough to hit. The bird I worked on, the HAWK missile was a semi-active radar homing missile operating in the military portion of the x-band, 10GHzish and was 37 cm, or 14.5 inches in diameter which is about 10 wavelength in diameter which is the rule of thumb for getting enough angular resolution for to hit what your shooting at. By having to go long-wave any semi-active homer isn't going to be able to resolve the target clearly enough to really hit it, having missiles flying close misses to your aircraft is still freaky enough to make a pilots asshole tighten considerable just like you don't want a blind man throwing knives at your sound, which brings us to the other components of stealth which are not being where your expected to be and not doing what your expected to be doing.

They can be pre-programmed and reprogrammed in flight. Frequency range of GPS is within it's capability. These can also be programmed to loiter for a limited time waiting for detection.

Newer loitering air missiles with vastly improved loiter time, ability to return and be refueled and major guidance, radio, processing improvements have been developed. An area can be saturated with these and restricted to their own area waiting for a transmitter to go active.

The original AGM-88A missiles were also classed as Block I. The AGM-88A Block II, introduced in 1986, had a new seeker with software in an EEPROM, which could be reprogrammed for new types of threats at short notice. In 1987, the production switched to the AGM-88B. This variant had the Block II seeker from the beginning, but had improved computer hardware in its WGU-2B/B guidance section, compatible with the forthcoming Block III software. This Block III update, available from 1990, improved the in-flight reprogramming (a.k.a. flexing) capabilities of the AGM-88B, as well as the PB mode targeting capabilities. The AGM-88B Block III was very widely and successfully used in the 1991 Gulf War, with more than 2000 HARMs fired at Iraqi radars. However, because the Block III update required fully powering up the missile, the U.S. Navy decided to retain its Block II missiles on aircraft carriers for safety reasons (powering up live missiles in the shops below deck was considered too risky). The ATM-88B, CATM-88B, and DATM-88B are the training variants of the AGM-88B, equivalent to the corresponding -88A versions
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-88.html

They have a system http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/codenames.html for some names.

Agreed for the most part, except I'm not so sure the Taliban could reach 60,000 feet. The stinger missile, for example, reaches 26,000 feet. The SA-7, only 5000 feet, the SA-16 and SA-18, 11,000 feet. What defence could the Taliban possibly mount?

Even the far smaller Predator can carry up to 750 pounds and stay aloft for at least 40 hours. Though I guess you could still throw in a bunch of Spikes and still have a nice Macross Missile Massacre.

Actually, there don't seem to be photos of the spike on Wikipedia. Here is a list of links:
Here is an in-flight photo of the spike.
Here is a photo (on a .ru site!) of the X-37B hull with the structural opening for the spike.
Another photo of the composite fuselage and load-bearing structure.
Similar photo on .tw site.
The X-40A precursor vehicle to X-37B, landing with spike extended.

Photos and drawings which do not show the spike:
This official USAF photo seems to chop the interesting area out of the frame.
A drawing used all over the web, but I'm not sure of the source.

Not doubting any of that. Other articles I've read do point out the Phoenix as the end of the Falcon development, not that a project only had to have a single predecessor but I do find it interesting that the airframe of the Phoenix looks more like the Falcon's than the Eagle's which maybe more to do with it being a Hughes project.

Was the decision to use the Taurus to keep launch costs down? Launching from Vandenberg, I'm assuming they were aiming for a steep inclination. Just wondering if anyone knows why they didn't go with a Delta II....

I'd guess that yes, launch costs were the main determinant of the vehicle used. You can probably launch two Taurus XLs for the cost of a Delta II launch. And in this case they may.

Not knowing anything except the time of the launch, I'd guess they were going for a polar sun synchronous orbit with nodes at 6am and 6pm.

Was the decision to use the Taurus to keep launch costs down? Launching from Vandenberg, I'm assuming they were aiming for a steep inclination. Just wondering if anyone knows why they didn't go with a Delta II....

In an attempt to bring the World closer to the hardcore warmonger's taste, Lockheed Martin is preparing to release new cluster munitions, a violent 'hack and slash' type of bomblet loaded with shrapnel and high explosives. This has brought attention from family-conscious lobbies: 'The decision to release a violent weapon from a nation which has based its reputation on family fun has shocked anti-violence pressure groups. Mediawatch-UK, Britain's longest-running pressure group campaigning for decency in TV, films and warfare, said Lockheed Martin will "spoil" the World.' The weapon features drab steel casings, except for the bomblets which are in brilliant yellow. Cluster bombs are widely available, but new ones are announced to be released in early 2009.

link FTW.

At least Nintendo isn't laying off it's employee's in droves.

In an attempt to bring the World closer to the hardcore warmonger's taste, Lockheed Martin is preparing to release new cluster munitions, a violent 'hack and slash' type of bomblet loaded with shrapnel and high explosives. This has brought attention from family-conscious lobbies: 'The decision to release a violent weapon from a nation which has based its reputation on family fun has shocked anti-violence pressure groups. Mediawatch-UK, Britain's longest-running pressure group campaigning for decency in TV, films and warfare, said Lockheed Martin will "spoil" the World.' The weapon features drab steel casings, except for the bomblets which are in brilliant yellow. Cluster bombs are widely available, but new ones are announced to be released in early 2009.

link FTW.

It might be useful to learn something about military technology before you make such pronouncements. The weapons system that was used was the RIM-161 SM-3 ABM. It was designed to engage and destroy tactical ballistic missiles. It doesn't even have the capability to reach most satellites -- this one was within range because it's orbit was decaying.

This weapons system has nothing to do with the "deployment of weapons in space", unless the USS Lake Erie has some sort of secret warp drive that we don't know about.

The device was called "Pluto VSLAM".

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/slam.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto

It's from the 1950/60s. What a naive and stupid era.

The YF-12was a high altitude and high speed interceptor. It fired Air Intercept Missiles (AIM-7's)which are already aircraft in their own right. It did not drop free fall munitions at high speed.

Back in 2004, just before I left the Navy, I had a conversation with a contractor who was doing work on the RIM-161 Standard SM-3 defense system out at sea. I asked him what he thought about the Chinese strategy, and explained what I'd been reading about.

The Chinese are following a doctrine of asymmetric warfare, in that they know they can't stand against us toe-to-toe. We've got bigger, faster, stronger ships, planes and weapons. Our defenses are very powerful, and we can sink 20 of their ships in minutes.

So they've been building twenty-one ships for everyone one of our attack ships. Not only that, our defenses are built around sub-sonic missiles and munitions? So the Chinese have developed hyper-sonic weapons, such as the SS-N-22 Sunburn anti-ship missile, against which we have no effective defense.

And lastly, I explained how the Chinese didn't spend billions of dollars on growing their own, proprietary C4I network. Instead, they approached the most advanced, NON-MILITARY businesses in the world-including the US-and said, "We'll give you exclusive rights to business in China if you build us the best C4I network you can design. We'll pay all your expenses and supply free labor."

The result is that they have a C4I network that, while it doesn't match ours, come exceptionally close. On top of that, their C4I uses satellites as an augmentation, not the foundation of their strategy. If we shoot down their satellites, they won't be as blind as we would be if they shot down ours.

Next to last, their coastal and landward borders are protected by a layered defense grid that doesn't rely upon the network as it's sole source of input. Rather, they use a combination of communications strategies to keep each unit in touch with the others, as well as the central command network. Sure, we have the same thing, but they've developed and deployed it along their entire border. NIMBY doesn't seem to be a problem in Communist China like it is elsewhere in the world.

And now we have this.

Up until now, the Pentagon has been aware of Chinese defensive capability and it's ability to severely restrict our ability to launch an effective attack against mainland China. Heck, the Chinese sent us copies of their war doctrine back in 2003, just to brag about it! The gentleman contractor I was speaking with dismissed each of my concerns, saying, in effect, "We know what they can do and have them in the bag. Don't worry, they can't touch us."

I wonder what he's thinking now?

This isn't a warning? This isn't even a threat. This is the Chinese pulling a Nelson and going "HA-HA!" in front of the whole world-and that gentleman contractor-and there's not a whole lot we can do about it.

Here's the details on the MQ-8: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app2/q-8. html

Not quite... "Conventional" wisdom now says that then president Lyndon B. Johnson messed up the designation in his public announcement and called it the SR-71 - and nobody wanted to correct the president. Because the strike mission had been cancelled anyway, "SR" was quickly reinterpreted as "Strategic Reconnaissance". However, a first-hand witness of those events recently revealed in Aviation Week & Space Technology, that LBJ did not misread anything. In fact, then USAF Chief of Staff LeMay simply didn't like the "RS" designator - he already objected it when the RS-70 was discussed, preferring "SR-70". When the RS-71 was to be announced, he wanted to make sure it would be called SR-71 instead. He managed to have LBJ's speech script altered to show "SR-71" in all places. Using archived copies of LBJ's speech, it can actually be verified that it reads SR-71 both in the script and on the tape recording. However, the official transcript of the speech, created from the stenographic records and handed to the press afterwards, shows "RS-71" in three places. It seems that not the president but a stenographer did accidentally switch the letters, and thus create a famous aviation "urban legend". http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/nonstan dard-mds.html#_MDS_SR71

That's a sounding rocket. In terms of performance, it seems comparable to the WAC Corporal of 1944, or maybe the Aerobee of 1947.

Nothing wrong with building one cheaply, but it's not a step forward.

Drive around randomly blasting a half dozen points with the MAC addresses starting with 00008F (Rayethon Systems and the fine maker of these). Unfortunaly those in the Middle East would be the only ones to get the joke.

The Nike based part of Sentinel was Spartan. It detonated high up, so an ordinary nuke was used. (Spartan apparently used a 5MT W-71 instead of the 20KT W-31 used by Nike Zeus). http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-49.html

The close in part of Sentinel, Sprint, used an enhanced radiation warhead (neutron bomb), the W-66, to try and make the incoming warhead fizzle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_(missile)

Orbital Science's Pegasusalready does this - launched from Tristar flying much lower and slower than this XB70 thing is supposed to have done. Can somebody who really knows about this do the actual math for us?

Primary contractor for the interceptor missile system is Boeing. Four previous tests have been successful as tests of at least some parts of the system. At least 1 previous test was spectacularly unsuccessful after the missile boost stage failed to separate, and others have had less obvious problems.
Orbital Sciences Corp. is an alternate contractor for a booster system in case the Boeing design doesn't meet final acceptance, and several companies such as Lockeed-Martin also have standby programs.
The warhead that may ultimately be deployed is technically an EKV (Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle). Raethon has the contract for this design. It contains a sensor suite that is supposed to descriminate between actual nuclear devices and decoys. Tests so far have had balloon decoys whose IR characteristics were relatively easy to discriminate vis-a-vis an actual warhead. This test would have been against a wider selection of balloon decoys.

For more info, and some nice photos, try:

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/gbi. html/

If the fuel is cut there:

vf^2=vo^2-2*a*s or 1000^2/(2*9.8)=50km

That sounds a bit better. Loki Darts could do that.

One kilometer?? DEBI was a real rocket. [pictures] About 30 feet long, two stage solid fuel. With 40 G's acceleration it reached mach 10 in a little under 30 seconds (below 40km altitude) and sailed to a apogee of about 800km. Since the rocket had a ballistic trajectory we needed clearance through the pentagon to circumvent the anti-ballistic missle treaty.

Even little baby Loki Dart's will reach 50km on a good day.

They were more successful in 1985, with a successful intercept and kinetic kill of a satellite with an F-15 launched ASAT prototype. The program was terminated in 1988.

The Air Force has messing with this stuff for quite some time.

In 1959, they launched a missile nicknamed "King Lofus IV" from a B-58 as an early test of satellite intercept using Explorer V as a target...the test was a miserable failure.

They were more successful in 1985, with a successful intercept and kinetic kill of a satellite with an F-15 launched ASAT prototype. The program was terminated in 1988.

Just trying to identify my three 'worst moments with electronics', seems like there are more than I can go into... 1. Learning about the magic smoke that lives in integrated circuits while miss wiring a bread board in electronics lab. 2. Realizing that the FMU 113b that I just pulled out of an alcohol tank still had the detonator in it. 3. 'Discovering' that the fan in the powersupply of my daughters recently upgraded PC had failed by frying my hand on the top of the case. Luckily, all situations were survivable and cost me nothing more than an elevated heart rate ;)

Thus ended the career of the 'city buster', the most awesome strategic weapon ever deployed.
R-36M:Encyclopedia Astronautica

I suppose a bomb with a rocket attached to it is classified as a missile.

Technically speaking, as far as I remember, a missile has to be guided. An explosive device with a rocket attached to it that just flies in a straight (or curved, natch) line is still called a rocket. The same device with internal or external guidance is a missile.

Most everything the US military has produced in a long time has been a missile, so we tend to think of that as a generic term. But in the past, the US has created some pretty fascinating rocket weapons as well...

Of course, I could be wrong. And I frequently am.

I bet not.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/mald.h tm

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-160.htm l

Hey, you can read about the Nike surface-to-air nuclear-tipped missles. But hey, if you're so creative with names, can you suggest some???

And nothing lame like Spherion or Accenture. Of course, those where companies that changed names, but I can't tell you WTF they do...remind me of their old name, and I'll know...

Your response link is BS, fabricated by someone who doesnt like the truth exposed. Yes yes, bowling for columbine is very biased and manipulative, but is a lot more truth in it than any gun loving bastard would admit to.

Here is a list of the submarine launched nuclear ballistic missiles MADE BY LOCKHEED-MARTIN

KABOOOM

Gee I thought they only made rockets to launch satellites!

Well now since thats the first big chapter of that page debunked as false, There's no point trusting any of the rest of it. The author was merely using the same tactics he accuses Moore of using.

THIS is their space anti-piracy task force.