Slashdot Mirror
DARPA Looking into Hypersonic Bombers
while(true) writes "As reported previously here on Slashdot, hypersonic jets from NASA has recently been in the news. Now DARPA is showing interest in the military applications and is to host a conference on hypersonic unmanned bombers. These bombers could be based in the US and yet strike from space at any place in the world within 2 hours. BBC has a report about these air/spacecraft that could be operational by 2025."
What the U.S. Army needs is, invisible hypersonic GIs. It appears, winning a war is not a matter of throwing bombs alone, see Iraq, see Vietnam...
So we can respond in two hours, now all we need is intel that isn't two DAYS old...
And these would be useful how? The USA already has the capacity to project massive physical force anywhere in the world within a matter of tens of hours (or minutes, if you include the Minutemen). How much more do they need? In any case, B-52s are more than good enough for the kind of wars they've been fighting lately.
It seems that the U.S. government has an endless amount of money for killing people and destroying property, but not very much for making good relationships.
The least sophisticated way of relating to other people is killing them.
It should make us wonder if this sort of rapid response is always a good thing to have? Perhaps having more than two hours to decide to blow someone up is a good thing given some folks apparent rash decisions.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
An unmanned system to deliver a bomb to any point on the Earth's surface within two hours... Well, what's wrong with an old-fashioned ICBM? Seems a whole lot of money to spend, and the only benefit I can see is that this thing is reusable. Reusability isn't necessarily all that great - look at the Shuttle...
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
I think the point with hypersonic bombers as opposed to ICBMs is 1.) they are reusable
Next destination :
North Korea? no they have some A bombs.
Iran? no they have some A bombs.
France? no they have hundreds of H bombs.
uh...
It's sadly a HUGE AND INDECENT waste of money for bombing innofensive third world countries and people...
In the next war the enemy combatants will be in the US on student visas.
In case people make fun of our President's
penis or the economy goes into a severe recession.
The thing I don't see any of these articles discussing is the technology that has been hiding in the wide open for this project for years. The aerospike technology of the X-33 has been an engine test-bed for this bomber for years now. Darpa funding has simply allowed a direct competition from manufacturers for the project now that a major technological hurdle has been passed. Come to think of it, this is kinda how stealth technology came about. Only when proof of concept was demonstrated with that program, everything went black.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Active threats sometimes have more influence than passive ones. Even in Checkmate situations where the end is guaronteed, one can conceed early and forego the end result of being blown to tiny bits.
"I think the point with hypersonic bombers as opposed to ICBMs is 1.) they are reusable ... ICBM's are not, and if I'm not mistaken these are the type that skim the atmosphere to get oxygen then benefits from no resistance of space thus making them more fuel efficient"
I don't mean to be mean, but this is the stupidest thing I've read in a long time. We have a stockpile of over 10,000 ICBMs. they only reason reusability comes in to play is if we plan on running out. The same can be said for fuel efficiency.
Also, do you have any idea how much it costs to design, test, and roll out a few hypersonic planes? Neither does the government, because they've tried three times and dropped it after severe cost overruns and technical problems. I don't think saving a hundred thousand dollars on fuel is valid justification for spending 30 billion designing a superfluous 'defense system.'
Kevin Fox
One good reason for this vs. ICBMs.
There are treaties in effect that limit the number and types of ICBMs we can have and use. AFAIK, there is no treaty that currently limits the number of bombers we can have ready to use.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
But for some reason, the mainstream media in the US has chosen to simply roll over and play dead for the government. Remember all the play given to that boring and irrelevant Lewinsky case? But the fact that the government lied to get us into a war, the fact that the government has marked the enquiry on what went wrong on 9/11 as classified, crucial things involving life and death for thousands of Americans, have barely been mentioned here in the US.
You wonder whether the Republican Party doesn't simply have thousands of incriminating photographs in a file somewhere...
... which is apparently the peak US-bashing time on Slashdot. The US is wants to control everything. The US wants to burn fossil fuels until the planet chokes and eveyone dies. The US wants to poison everyone's language with transliterated American English. The US wants to destroy everyone's culture by building McDonalds and Walmarts everywhere. Blah blah blah.
Stow the rhetoric, please. Not everyone accepts that blather at face value.
An incredible amount of technology that we take for granted exists today because DARPA spent money on it and people complained about the size of the US defense budget (he says while sending his comment of the *internet*).
Hypersonic flight, whether ballistic or not, is incredibly hard to control. Manned or unmanned, incredibly hard to control. This sort of project will develop the skills and capabilities needed to engineer such an audacious plan. That knowledge barely exists now. How do you build something so insanely complex and difficult to control? How do you make it reliable? Someday, that knowledge of how to build impressive stuff will be used to build impressive stuff you'll use everyday.
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog, its too dark to read.
The only supersonic passenger plane (the Concorde) is being retired and DARPA wants to build a bomber that travels three times as fast. There's something screwed up in this country when we place a higher value on delivering bombs than people.
It seems to me that this is a defense department end run around an incompetent NASA.
For a while, the Space Shuttle was the only government sanctioned method of putting anything in orbit, then the first shuttle disaster happened and the military insisted on redeveloping non-reusable boosters.
Now the second disaster. The military might just think that they need their own space plane. This can put small satellites into orbit. It carries a payload to the edge of space. That payload is bombs but could be other items. It can survive the worst part of re-entry.
In the US, sadly, it is much easier to spend billions on a weapon then on a NASA budget item, especially given NASA's track record.
If this thing gets off the ground, with a few changes, after 10 or 20 years as a weapon the tech transfers into a cheap launch vehicle, and/or a hypersonic commercial airliner. DARPA does have a track record of sponsoring projects others cannot do that turn out to have non-military applications (the Internet is just one). The military purpose is just a way to get money into the research.
Your national security is threatened because your president is corrupt and wants to rake profits and he doesn't care what it might cost the rest of the world, including the country he's supposed to be president of. Peace and liberty? Hey, he's the one who started the war with false excuses, where's the WMD now huh?
...the U.S. has learned that it can't depend on too many countires for support. Especially when those countries are making a profit from savage dictators or bent on restoring the European status quo to where it was around 1680.
So, the U.S. has decided not to be in a position to have to depend on anyone.
If we're attacked, we'll be able to respond without having to listen to complaints from Middle Eastern kleptocracies, European hegemonists, etc.
Good move, IMHO.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
It seems to me that this is a regular "run-up-the-flagpole" idea that comes around every so often. It is rooted in the Sanger Anti-podal bomber project of Nazi Germany during World War II. Every 20 years or so since then, someone brings this up again.
Don't believe that this is right? Check out the x-20 Dyna-Soar project of the 1960's, or the Trans-Atmospheric vehicle projects of the 1980's. Remember the Reagan "Orient Express" speech?
Okay, move forward another 20 years, and now they are hypersonic bombers, not freighters or passenger vehicles. Now we are making no effort to conceal the military applications.
So it's supposed to be "cool" and all that, but it is just a re-tread and do we really need weapons of mass destruction? What happens when somebody cracks the system and uses one to attack our allies or attacks us? What then?
These things have always been too costly and too unproven to be workable. We haven't developed the engine technology as anything more than a drawing board idea.
It is the gee-whiz kind of idea that causes the rest of the world to crap their pants as we drum up another arms race that we don't need. It is a solution in search of a problem.
All Ad hominem replies happily ignored as the sender shall be deemed to lack the faculties to comprehend the equation.
Those camel-fuckers in Iraq are out there day and night making a sherade of what we worked so hard to establish on this earth... peace and liberty.
And one wonders why so many people hate Americans.
People like you that blindly follow and support whatever our leadership pushes are killing America. Ie. Lets bomb/liberate Iraq and give their people the right to freedom... while taking away our own rights and freedoms for "our own protection". America is falling.
Why do you assume that a Cav can carry a non-nuclear weapon, but a MIRV can't?
A MIRV could carry a conventional weapon, but why would you?
Accuracy sucks. ICBM's are flying a long way, over basically uncharted territory. The specific gravitational anomalies and wind conditions have never truly been mapped. Yes, they launch regularly from Vandenburg to some islands out in the Pacific, but they've been doing that so much, they know how to adjust. Over the pole has never, for obvious reasons, been done.
Modern smart bombs and air to ground missiles can hit within inches. Or hit a truck on the move. The pilot can adjust at the last minute, or decide not to drop at all, because the intel was bad, and there is a large group of civilians in the way. An ICBM merely drops on their heads.
Throw weight. An F-15 Strike Eagle can probably carry as much as an ICBM in terms of explosive weight.
Image An ICBM launch would start a whole chain of reactions, in a lot of countries. The plume will be detected, and someone might launch in retaliation (Use it or lose it), even though they were not the target.
"We want to bomb you before we have time to actually think about it."
:\
The faster the planes can bomb, the faster the damage is done. Do you really want to live in a world where: a ruler can do something imprudent yet, not worthy of anhiliation and have his entire country bombed before dinner.
I don't.
I just wasted your mod points! HA!
Don't leave it out overnight or in inclement weather
Never allow the Flag to touch the ground or get dirty
The Flag can only be disposed of by a proper burning or by burial
When hanging above a street, the Union faces East on North/South roads and North on East/West roads
There are plenty of other rules too. Does anyone follow these? I have a neighbor up the road (A vietnam vet I might add) who has a nice flag pole with flowers all around it. And atop this nice pole? A tattered flag that hasn't been taken down in the year that I've lived here. Through rain, sleet, wind, and snow.
I see people driving with flags on their car antennas flapping and beating against the car, ripping more and more everyday. Then you get the people who tape them down to the hoods of their cars... holding the front of the flag down by slamming their hood down on its corners.
Immediately after 9-11 American Flags were in a shortage. Being sold by the thousands to people who were never interested in them before, and don't know how to properly care for them. Sold for outrageous prices (I personally saw a small 6"x8" flag sell for $25) to people who then turn around and stick it on their car only to have it shredded by the wind in a week or so.
Even worse than that... The same people who were spending $25, $50, and $100 for a flag are many of the same people who couldn't afford to donate to the funds set up for the families and survivors of the attack on 9-11.
Many people were proud to be an American after the 9-11 attack. Personally I was ashamed and disgusted.
Well, given that they can hop about and what not, and are smart enough to interact/communicate with each other, I'd assume cleaning them up wouldn't be a problem. Simply send out a signal, have them disarm themselves, gather into a central area, and then go and pick em up.
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
It's fun to be a smart ass.
But the figures for US foreign aid and how much goes to military "aid" are accurate. Google for it, and you will find many reliable sources.
As for the other figures, they're just from a survey. From the Boston Globe, if I recall correctly.
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
As long as there are threats, the US will need to have a strong military. And the rest of the world should be glad that the US is not in the business of building an empire.
And to fund this war mindset continually, we'll invent the threat, continually.
The US is building an empire, and the rest of the world is not glad about it.
This whole "peace through strength" mindset is total bullshit and if we could
rid the world of people that think that way, the rest of us would be better off.
Yeah, I know, I'm dreaming.
To save you time, here's your response:
"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who
rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions
the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you," and went
on your way."
While we are still trying to get manned space flight in order, they are developed unmanned hypersonic bombers that can kill many people in little time..
Great, just great
Excuse me, I don't mean to impose, but I am the ocean
Yes, but you've completely brushed over the fact that we have every reason to believe that 10 years from now the people of Iraq will be many times better off than they would have been had Sadaam remained in power.
"Oh!," you will whine, "How are they better off with their country being looted and much of their infrastructure damaged?".
Now, right now, they are already better off simply in virtue of no longer being subjugated to the whims of Sadaam's political party. And no, the U.S. is not presently "just as bad as Sadaam". Yes, there have been some questionable issues with unnecessary force, and the soldiers involved should be punished if this is true. However, we are not there to subjugate them to our will. We are not equivalent to Sadaam. That is a horrible insult.
Within 10 years, all of this will be rebuil. The people will have better access to education. They will be able to speak their minds about their leaders without putting the lives of their families at risk. They will participate in free and open elections. The average income and wealth will increase. They will have access to media of their own choosing. They will be able to raise them families in peace.
If you think for a second that the U.S. will not relinquish its tight control over the situation long, long before 10 years is up, then it is you who is being naieve.
Thousands died, but many millions will be free and not have to fear death to have it. These are the prices that must be payed. No, these people did not deserve to die, but for the good of the many, there was no other option. We have every reason to believe that there was no other option which would result within 10 years in the freedom and betterment of those millions who will see it come.
Are you aware of the U.N. universal declaration of human rights?
We, and the global community do not believe that it is "none of our business" when our brothers and sisters are being oppressed. We have an obligation to free them, even if the costs are sometimes high (and yes, there is obviously a limit).
The U.S. has not always fulfilled these obligations, and sometimes has acted recklessly and without regard for them, and for this those leaders and the people who supported them should be ashamed.
But that does not change the fact that we do have these obligations.
How dare you say that it is none of our business.
As human beings it is as much our business that a cruel and horrible man is torturing and harming people in Iraq, as it is were there a man or woman committing similar atrocities in Idaho or Texas, or any other state of this particular nation.
Is that all this is to you, a game? Should we just divide our planet up into imaginary little sections and ignore what happens on the other side of these imaginary lines?
Do these iamginary lines free us of our obligations as human beings?
NO, not for a second.
> Percentage of budget of US foreign aid: 1.0% (dead last among western nations).
b al health/aids/PWGFundingReport.pdf
Yes, if you ask what the US Federal government spends, as a portion of the total Federal budget, we look like punks. If you look at Federal expenditure as a portion of GDP, we look like punks. But when you look at the bottom line, we end up spending more dollars than anybody else. But that makes for bad anti-US rhetoric.
Take, for example, spending on AIDS/HIV prevention. Look at this document:
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/nr/downloads/glo
The US government contributes more dollars to prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS than anyone else. (see page 34.) Should we spend more so that our percentage of GDP is more inline with the UK? That might be a good plan. But to assert that we do nothing because our percentage of GDP is too low - that's ridiculous. Everything you could ever want to know about the amazing work that done with that money is here:
http://www.usaid.gov/
Go there, look at the work that money does, and come back and tell me it means nothing.
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog, its too dark to read.
Nothing has happened yet. Writing a story about this is like saying that the US is drawing up contingency plans for an evacuation of Liberia. News flash! Military planners have detailed mission plans for a variety of operations in every country on the globe. By the same token, DARPA investigates new technologies all the time, but doesn't necessarily fund research with equal emphasis.
DARPA has nothing to do with whether the Democrats or Republicans are in charge of the government. Just as Colin Powell and hundreds of thousands of career military personnel have served under various Democratic and Republican administrations, the folks at DARPA do their job regardless of who decides what projects get priority.
I'm not thrilled about the direction this country has taken since 9/11 either, but let's not equate this DARPA story with the end of American innocence. Calling Chicken Little on all things military only makes non-Bushites look simplistic and ill-informed.
Don't blame DARPA. Blame your elected officials. More accurately, blame the American public for failing to exercise their democratic responsibilities. Blame those who don't vote, blame those who make excuses about why they don't pay attention to their own government. Blame the fat and happy Americans who wave the flag when we send the boys and girls to Iraq, then are totally shocked that the war isn't truly over.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Bush will invade shortly to prevent the construction of these weapons. You can't have these dangerous WMDs. I hear there are nucular facilities in the same country too.
dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
But for some reason, the mainstream media in the US has chosen to simply roll over and play dead for the government.
Jesus, why must everything be a conspiracy theory? When I read this article on the BBC (before Slashdot posted it), my first thought was, "Cool, but why the hell is this one of the BBC's top news stories?" I mean, ok, the government wants to build a fancy new bomber. And if it works it'll be big news, and if it goes into production it'll cost a lot of money. But Jesus, we have 22 years before we'll find out. It's nowhere near ANYTHING right now except for more research.
When the military researches body armor that can make soldiers stronger, it's also cool, but that wouldn't be on the BBC. This kind of stuff should be in Popular Science and the like, not the top news of the day. Believe me, there's a lot more important things going on today.
Are all of our military thinkers as anachronistic? The enemy of tomorrow will operate like Hamas, not the Red Army. These bombers are pointless playthings that demonstrate a serious inability to grasp the evolving threat scenario.
True. But war has historically been a great spur to innovation (computers, rockets, etc.), and technology developed for the military often has peaceful uses. If the military can fund the expensive design and testing work on hypersonic engines, we may eventually see a mach-7 airliner.
As long as you're going to drag politics into the discussion with such a non-sequitur, maybe you could pull your head out of your ass long enough to realize that this would mean the US doesn't need airbases all over the world. This would mean we could close all those airbases and stop 'oppressing' all the poor indigent people everywhere (and let them go right back to slaughtering each other for important reasons like who has "stars upon thars").
Beat the dead horse further, be my guest.
-Styopa