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."
in my understanding, the speeds of manned fighters and bombers have been limited by the need to keep the human inside alive during excessive G forces.
... haha
I wonder what the upper limit of these speeds might be, that wouldn't tear up the ship itself (like some falling meteor).
But the article did mention that a simple titanium rod would serve as an adequate 'bunker buster' only from the speed it would be traveling from space. In rod we trust
Robo-Blogs of the world: UNITE!
Two hours was the striking distance for the roving bombers in Dr. Stragelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
The real things is bombers are recallable.
Launch, hold at the predesignated point. If the situation resolves itself, come home. If not, go forward and blow something up.
Once you get past 'launch' with an ICBM, it is out of your hands.
I thought the hopping mines story was the most interesting today.
A minefield full of networked anti-tank mines that can leap up to 30 yards per hop (and up to 100 hops per mine). You can't lay down a strip of C4 and clear a path. The mines decide as a group what configuration is best and then move to fill the gap. It would be incredible to watch.
...
Much as I abhor the idea of war, I find myself fascinated by the instruments with which it is waged. I am ashamed of this.
American society needs to get over this Cold War fascination with ever larger, more powerful, and more complex military technology. The military is not the solution to every problem, they are just a last resort when we have no real solution.
We need to expend more effort developing technologies that will really improve our lives, no matter how gee-whiz hypersonic bombers, planetary annihilation lasers, and the like, may be.
Even human cloning would be better than this. Honestly.
With the leadership of this country seriously questionable, the developement of these bombers may further encourage irresponsible wars/police actions/whatever.
On the other hypersonic bombers sound really really cool.
http://yetanotherpoliticalrant.blogspot.com
I'm not sure that's fair. I'm sure these aren't planned to replace the manned bomber fleet, but rather to provide a new alternitive for certain things.
Carriers provide the ability to project power and do so well, but they only cover a small circle on the surface of the Earth. Our forward bomber bases similarly have a fairly small footprint, though bigger than a carrier. This still leaves huge portions of the world out of US reach. While an extended bomber mission with in-air refueling brings these areas into range, such a mission is expensive and very rough on the pilots.
The other side of this option is the balistic missile. ICBMs and MRBMs are both very accurate weapons, though AFAIK they do not approach the accuracy of the guided munitions we've seen our government cooking off in Iraq recently. Accuracy aside, however, people see a ballistic inbound and tend to get jumpy. Doubly so if it's launched from the United States or the former Soviet Union.
A hypersonic bomber allows the kind of responce time an ICBM exhibits (ok, a bit longer) while not encouraging everyone and their brother to whip out the 2,000,000 sunblock. A small contingent of these weapons would allow limited airstrikes on specific and high priority targets. A larger number would allow a massive projection of power at a moments notice.
A lot of this depends on what the pricetag is on these things. If Boeing can churn them out for $250 Million to $500 Million I think they'll be a valuable asset. If they come with a price tag like the B-2 Spirit maybe we need to rethink these things.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
Its a difficult question to entertain but, should you place a disarm code in the mines? It allows for easy collection and safety and whatnot, but it would be difficult to stop the mines from being comprimised and turning what was expected to be a closed front into a one sided slaughter.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
Yes, the USAF and DARPA have been interested in hypersonic bombers for a long time. Hence the X-15 hypersonic test aircraft and the NASA X-43 hypersonic ramjet test aircraft. The stunning success of the SR-71 coupled with the shootdown of the F-117 over Serbia has soured the USAF's opinion of stealth slightly in favor of higher speeds for avoiding air defenses.
That is why the "Future Strike Aircraft" (which shall probably be designated "B-3") will be relying on high speed rather than purely signature reduction.
*Note that the FSA will not be hypersonic, it will cruise at 2-4 Mach.
"Catapult - Harry and I Build a Siege Weapon" is a book about exploring "the mind of the weapon maker". An artist in (inevitably) California got an art grant to build a catapult by claiming it was conceptual art, to find out what it's like psychologically to build a tool of destruction.
He concluded that the project was a failure, because building the catapult felt just like building anything else. Bzzt! It was a success.
If you're like me, you're just as fascinated by the unarmed SR-71 as you are by weapons. The fascination is with the height of the technology the military uses, not with the horrors that it can produce.
I bet you're not at all fascinated by the machetes used in the Rwandan genocide.
What's shameful is failing to apply our critical thinking skills to the political process.