USAF Launch Supersonic Bomb Firing Technology

coondoggie writes "Boeing and the US Air Force today said they have tested new technology that for the first time will let military aircraft launch bombs from aircraft moving at supersonic speeds. Researchers from Boeing Phantom Works and the Air Force Research Laboratory used a rocket sled in combination with what researchers called "active flow control" to successfully release a smart bomb known as MK-82 Joint Direct Attack Munition Standard Test Vehicle (JDAM) at a speed of about Mach 2 from a weapons bay with a size approximating that of the U.S. Air Force B-1 bomber, Boeing said. Active flow control is a tandem array of microjets upstream of the weapons bay that, when fired reduces the unsteady pressures inside the bay and modifies the flow outside to ensure the JDAM munition travels out of the bay correctly."

Comments

Wow, very much incorrect.

[Brett Buck]

Bombing from a supersonic platform was successfully conducted in the mid-60's, from modified A-12 (later YF-12) aircraft, at mach 3+ speeds

        Brett

Re:Wow, very much incorrect.

[Anonymous Coward]

At risk of sounding like Wikipedia, can we get a link or something to peer at?

Re:Wow, very much incorrect.

[gerf]

Well, perhaps this is more reliable. It doesn't sound like it, as there seem to be way too many moving parts in a chaotic environment to be 100% reliable. In this case, any misfire or malfunction, and the plane blows up, not the target, so it's imperative to be rock solid.

Re:Wow, very much incorrect.

[Anonymous Coward]

He's all like, "we've done that already, bitches", and I'm like "[citation needed]", and under my breath, I'm like, "bitches".

Re:Wow, very much incorrect.

[Gerhardius]

The B-58 could drop at supersonic speeds, and the A-5 Vigilante may also have had this capability. During the 50's the USAF had a serious hard-on for all things supersonic. Given the generally limited supersonic capabilities of aircraft from that era the ultimate utility of the concept must have been called into question. The supersonic cruise ability of the new generation of aircraft has simply re-awakened a dormant idea. Much like the fashion industry, the institutional memory is so limited that many folks inside have no clue what has been done before.

Re:Wow, very much incorrect.

[Somegeek]

The B-58 had no internal bomb bay to launch bombs out of, which is the whole point of TFA. It's one thing to detach a weapon on a pylon that is already in a supersonic airstream, it's another to try to force one out of a stagnant weapons bay into a supersonic airstream.

Re:Wow, very much incorrect.

[6th time lucky]

it's another to try to force one out of a stagnant weapons bay into a supersonic airstream
Interesting, from TFA "wind tunnel testing indicated that without active flow control, the JDAM munition would have returned to the bay."

I think that would classify as having a bad day

Re:Wow, very much incorrect.

[encoderer]

"In this case, any misfire or malfunction, and the plane blows up, not the target"

Why would you assume that? These are smart-bombs. They are programmed with a target. While I'm not certain, I'd wager that they don't arm themselves until they're in-transit.

I do think that a collision with the bomb would cause some damage, but it wouldn't "blow up."

Re:Wow, very much incorrect.

[Gerhardius]

True, the B-58 used an external pod to carry the weapon and the new system uses a bomb bay, but in what sense is that contrary to the hype of the article? There is mention of "first time ever" but no mention of a weapons bay other than as the location of the new system. Use of a weapons bay at supersonic speeds is not entirely new, the A-5 could drop its payload at supersonic speeds from an internal bay...granted the weapon was ejected out the back of the aircraft from a bay between the engines.

Re:Wow, very much incorrect.

[gerf]

Well, plane damage at Mach2 can't be good at least. Maybe it kills the plane, maybe it doesn't. Either way, I'd hate to be the pilot.

Re:Wow, very much incorrect.

[DougF]

One "nit" on the article: The Mk-82 is a basic 500lb class of munitions, though it can be dropped as a "dumb" bomb. The GBU-30 is the JDAM version designed to be extremely accurate and not have to use lasers or other targeting techniques that could expose aircrews to longer periods of hostile fire.

Release bombs at supersonic speeds?

[Finallyjoined!!!]

We miss often enough at sub-sonic speeds. Great.

Re:Release bombs at supersonic speeds?

[Un pobre guey]

We miss often enough at sub-sonic speeds

...and with this exact same test weapon. For a few dollars more, they'll develop an even better JDAM!

Re:Release bombs at supersonic speeds?

[modecx]

Oh, the bombs don't miss too badly. Intelligence on the other hand...

Re:Release bombs at supersonic speeds?

[jmv]

You're really buying that whole "intelligence screwed up" explanation for Iraq? I believe the intelligence was 100% accurate. If the CIA had really believed Iraq had WMDs, I doubt the US would have invaded (see North Korea and Iran).

Re:Release bombs at supersonic speeds?

[thegrassyknowl]

Now we can miss faster! It's win/win. The quicker we miss the first target and kill a bunch of non-related civillians the quicker we can launch a second attack and kill even more civillians.

Off on a tangent though, it seems we (collectively as the human species, but some nations more than others) are putting so much time and effort into finding better ways of killing each other off. Wouldn't it seem that a better expenditure for most of that energy would be a little patience so we can all get along and resolve our differences?

Re:Release bombs at supersonic speeds?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I believe Iran is next on the list...

Re:Release bombs at supersonic speeds?

[d12v10]

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but the USAF rarely misses when it's bombing places. As a poster noted, it tends to be the intelligence supplied about the targeted location that's awry.

Re:Release bombs at supersonic speeds?

[Duhavid]

It's win/win/win. Your two wins, plus the additional win
for the defense contractor selling the items, in that they
can miss at a higher sortie rate.

Re:Release bombs at supersonic speeds?

[Anonymous Coward]

> We miss often enough at sub-sonic speeds. Great.

Dude, check your history. In WW2, we used to send hundreds of bombers (sometimes over a thousand), each of which dropped dozens of dumb bombs, all just to hit one ball-bearing factory or bridge. We'd lose 10-20% of the attacking aircraft, and we'd send the survivors (and their replacements) out again later that week because we still didn't hit the target.

Towards the end of WW2, we realized that the most efficient way of destroying target X was to drop enough incendiaries around target X that the resulting firestorm would sweep over target X, destroying it in the process. We killed as many people in the firebombing of Tokyo as we did a few months later using goddamn nukes.

I'm not saying we're perfect. I'm just saying we're a hell of a lot closer to perfection than WW2-era pilots (or even Vietnam-era pilots) could have dreamed of. We spend a hell of a lot of money every year making sure we miss as infrequently as possible. If we were willing to accept the levels of collateral damage our parents were, never mind our grandparents, this war would have been over in a week, and there would have been tens of millions of civilians incinerated.

Be angry that we miss as often as we do -- it not only keeps weapons designers employed, sometimes it's their motivation for their career choice. But be damn grateful that we don't miss anywhere near as often as we used to.

Re:Release bombs at supersonic speeds?

[Nutria]

You're really buying that whole "intelligence screwed up" explanation for Iraq?

Or could grandparent be referring to the 1999 bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade?

Re:Release bombs at supersonic speeds?

[modecx]

Actually, no. That's not at all what I was referring to. I'm referring to fact that the Air Force likes to drop 500lb bombs where they think the top ranking baddies are, and yet with all of the sophisticated air borne weapons, they've managed to get pretty much nobody of any importance with an air strike--ever. They do a pretty good job of disintegrating women and children, though.

I'm saying that all of the precision guided munitions in the world are only as good as the intelligence that directs them. In other words, it doesn't matter if you can fly a 2000lb laser guided bomb into a window, if the people you really want to get are a mile away.

Anyway, it's been demonstrated that the CIA did not believe that Iraq had or was in the process of acquiring, making or otherwise using any kind of WMD--and that the people with this knowledge in the CIA repeatedly called on the White House to correct misinformation in politicians speeches and shit. The WMD thing was probably, almost exclusively, invented by the white house.

At any rate, it was pretty obvious that Iraq had squat to do with 9/11, and the top echelon were inventing reasons to invade.

Re:Release bombs at supersonic speeds?

[jmv]

Actually, no. That's not at all what I was referring to. I'm referring to fact that the Air Force likes to drop 500lb bombs where they think the top ranking baddies are, and yet with all of the sophisticated air borne weapons, they've managed to get pretty much nobody of any importance with an air strike--ever.

Sorry about the confusion. I definitely agree here.

In other words, it doesn't matter if you can fly a 2000lb laser guided bomb into a window, if the people you really want to get are a mile away.

Then you just need a more powerful bomb, right?

Anyway, it's been demonstrated that the CIA did not believe that Iraq had or was in the process of acquiring, making or otherwise using any kind of WMD--and that the people with this knowledge in the CIA repeatedly called on the White House to correct misinformation in politicians speeches and shit.

So the fact finally hit the US media at last (don't live in the US, so I don't follow those media)?

Re:Release bombs at supersonic speeds?

[timeOday]

WWII was really a low point, though, rather than a long-lived status quo. It was the only modern total war (with both sides freely slaughtering civilians, up to tens of thousands per day, using every weapon up to and including WMD). My point being, let's not only compare ourselves to the greatest catastrophe in human history. Bombing a wedding or shooting down an airliner are still awfully bad things, even if we do it with super-cool weaponry.

Re:Release bombs at supersonic speeds?

[Auraiken]

Depends on how super cool those weapons are :O

Seriously, wielding the power of a million suns to destroy an entire galaxy would be freaking awesome.

Re:Release bombs at supersonic speeds?

[jotok]

Dude, check your history. During Iraq 1/2 & Afghanistan we STILL had pilots dropping on the wrong building, missing the target, etc. This is with laser and GPS guidance.

The comparison should not be with WW2, it should be with the last bombing exercise. That's what we're improving over.

Re:Release bombs at supersonic speeds?

[dave1791]

Oh that hit the media years ago. It just takes people a while to change their religion.

Re:Release bombs at supersonic speeds?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only a brainwashed American would believe the pile of trite you just spilled!

Re:Release bombs at supersonic speeds?

[khallow]

That's not a particularly useful observation to make. Bombs will never work perfectly and even if they did, they would still hit the wrong target on occasion simply because the wrong target was targeted, say due to faulty intelligence or because the enemy had moved out earlier. My take is that US bombs work well enough that the real hurdle is getting good, timely intelligence on a potential war target. I don't know how much you can improve a bomb dropped out of a plane. Maybe some sort of "nonlethal" ordinance (that is, something that isn't expected to kill you).

Re:Release bombs at supersonic speeds?

[jotok]

My take is that US bombs work well enough that the real hurdle is getting good, timely intelligence on a potential war target.

Fine, but you were going on about how great this was compared to WW2. My take is that comparing modern warfare and technology to the state of the art in WW2 is a canard...we should be looking to improve on the last war, not the one 60 years ago.

Re:Release bombs at supersonic speeds?

[modecx]

quote me: Anyway, it's been demonstrated that the CIA did not believe that Iraq had or was in the process of acquiring, making or otherwise using any kind of WMD--and that the people with this knowledge in the CIA repeatedly called on the White House to correct misinformation in politicians speeches and shit.

Quote you: So the fact finally hit the US media at last (don't live in the US, so I don't follow those media)?

Actually, as far as I'm aware, this claim was presented on 20/20 or some other national news program precisely twice. They interviewed a former CIA guy, who wasn't at liberty to divulge too much, but hinted at the general nature of the things I said, and then they interviewed Valerie Plame, the CIA operative who got outed (surely) by the head honchos at the white house, in retaliation for her husbands' (who is Joseph Wilson--a guy who was a diplomat to both Iraq and some African countries during his career) claim that the white house manipulated intelligence to make a case for invading Iraq. He was sent to Niger to research the claim that Saddam was trying to buy yellowcake, and then went around telling everyone that the idea of Iraq seeking uranium from African countries was just plain idiotic, because the claim had already been debunked. They only pretended to not listen, of course...

Re:Release bombs at supersonic speeds?

[Anonymous Coward]

True, we have improved in accuracy and efficacy quite a bit since WW2.

However, are these gains partially responsible for the current attitude
that it is more and more acceptable to USE such weapons BECAUSE they are
more accurate now and less likely to kill "non-combatants"?

Clinton sent a swarm of tomahawks after a chemical weapons plant, which
turned out to probably have been a benign pharmaceutical manufacturing plant.

He NAILED it though. Only 1 missile failed to hit the target. OUTSTANDING.

The point : The better our weaponry, the more discriminating and accurate,
the more likely we are to use it, and thus, the more likely to use it indiscriminately.

Good intel is always the most important circuit in missile flight control.

Re:Release bombs at supersonic speeds?

[khallow]

I believe the point of that poster was that sure, things don't look much improved from the last war, but over the long term there's been steady improvements (at least by the US) that result in fewer civilian deaths.

Re:Release bombs at supersonic speeds?

[eh2o]

Actually one or two high-ranking Al-Qaeda guys were taken out by air strikes, including one by a missile launched from a UAV (can't remember exactly who right now).

Then again we bombed the hell out of some marketplace in Iraq based on a rumor that Saddam might have been there

Re:Release bombs at supersonic speeds?

[severoon]

A "low point"? If WWI was the beginning of air warfare, then WWII was the beginning of industrialized air warfare. It wasn't so much a "low point" as a "beginning point".

The real point is, we're far more intolerant of collateral damage these days than previous generations. And some people think that the threat of collateral damage used to go a lot farther to temper the actions of governments (or the governments allowed by societies comprised of potential collateral damage). War used to be very, very bad...by those standards, today war is a fairly sterile affair. (For those who actually took the time to read and understand this point, prepare for the histrionics that will inevitably result from those who didn't...)

Re:Release bombs at supersonic speeds?

[Firethorn]

We have leafelet bombs for propaganda- they aren't intended to kill anyone, along with some carbon fiber bomb that's supposed to short out electrical substations.

Don't know if you'd count the kinetic kill 'bombs' or not, but they exist now.

There's a few others, like a mine dispensor that at least isn't immediately lethal.

Re:Release bombs at supersonic speeds?

[modecx]

Well, in all fairness, air strikes were probably pretty effective in Afghanistan, where the assholes and their supporters were relatively more concentrated and less embedded in the civilian population. If you say there have been a couple wanted guys bombed in Iraq, I'll take your word on it. I just haven't heard of it.

Re:Release bombs at supersonic speeds?

[jotok]

Well, that's true.

Re:Release bombs at supersonic speeds?

[Grishnakh]

I thought those Al-Qaeda guys were killed in Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.

Re:Release bombs at supersonic speeds?

[mi]

We miss often enough at sub-sonic speeds. Great.

Bombing a wedding or shooting down an airliner are still awfully bad things, even if we do it with super-cool weaponry.

The bombed weddings were targeted (by mistake) — the "super cool" weapon worked perfectly fine. You'll need a better example to substantiate Finallyjoined's one-liner.

Re:Release bombs at supersonic speeds?

[Reaperducer]

I'm still waiting for the 30,000 to 40,000 American troops killed in the first two months of the Iraq War that Hillary and friends promised me on the Sunday morning talk shows. If we're ever going to meet the Democrats' goals, we're going to have to try to bring the violence level in Baghdad up closer to Detroit.

Anyone know

[427_ci_505]

Can powered munitions (stuff with a rocket motivating it instead of just gravity) be fired without this new technology? ie. Is the new research just applicable to iron bombs?

Re:Anyone know

[Tmack]

Can powered munitions (stuff with a rocket motivating it instead of just gravity) be fired without this new technology? ie. Is the new research just applicable to iron bombs?

I think most supersonic fighters already have that capability, since the missiles they fire tend to travel much faster than the jets they are chasing down (even the old AIM-9 sidewinder hit mach2.5+), and when launched, are already under power and moving forward in the supersonic flow relative to the aircraft and can thus navigate themselves clear. See Here, scroll to SRAM, and that was 1969.

The challenge with dropping bombs at supersonic speed is to get them to clear the bomb bay or wing pylon without the shock of the surrounding air flow blasting it back into the aircraft or otherwise tossing it about or ripping it apart. Not to mention designing a bomb bay and aircraft that can withstand the supersonic shock when the doors are opened.

Tm

Re:Anyone know

[Anonymous Coward]

why we push the stuff out the bottom - where the air pressures have to be pretty significant (I mean its part of holding the bloody thing up) - instead of dropping it behind - even if it needs a sphincter...

Re:Anyone know

[khakipuce]

I think is about stealth, hanging things off pylons gives a lot more surfaces for radar reflections and would mean making the missiles/bombs out of appropriate materials. Put them in a bomb bay and these problems are much reduced.

Huh?

[DerekLyons]

Huh? The USAF was launching bombs (and missles) out of bomb bays (and off of pylons) at supersonic speeds back in the 1950's.
 
This new system is probably needed because the rotary launcher used by the B-1 doesn't allow enough clearance for, or won't take the stresses associated with, the kicker systems used back then.

Re:Huh?

[soundscape]

Do you have any links to back up this claim?

Re:Huh?

[solitas]

I can't figure out the article: they're talking about "launching" bombs. I normally take it that 'bombs' are dropped and 'missles' are launched; bombs use gravity and missles are powered.

Are they trying to say that they're firing the bombs backward to the direction of flight so that they end up with significantly lower forward-velocity and, thus, fall with a shorter ground track?

I can figure it must be merry hell trying to sight a target SO far ahead (at your given speed and altitude) that you have to drop the bomb SO far away and hope its trajectory holds to the target.

Re:Huh?

[hax0r_this]

Keep in mind, air resistance increases exponentially with velocity. I believe it is also increased by traveling at supersonic speeds. The point being that if you are traveling twice as fast the bomb will travel less than twice as far if dropped from the same height.

Re:Huh?

[c_forq]

Modern bombs are launched (at least precision guided ones). The type of bomb you are thinking of is actually called a Gravity bomb.

Re:Huh?

[Karthikkito]

Almost -- it's proportional to the square of velocity (F=-bv^2). At low velocities, you can approximate it linearly...but we're quite clearly out of that range now =).

Re:Huh?

[6th time lucky]

I can figure it must be merry hell trying to sight a target SO far ahead...

Apparently from the F22 at mach 1.5 and 50,000 ft, these "falling" bombs can travel 24 nautical miles (45Km!) and hit a target (under test conditions). Thats at least 1.5 minutes travel time ignoring any real world physical constraints...

How much did this cost

[Un pobre guey]

How much did we pay for this?

Re:How much did this cost

[Anonymous Coward]

Your mother's virginity. A pretty high price, IOW.

Re:How much did this cost

[Artraze]

Less than the cost of a plane, it's cargo and it's crew, I'd wager.

Re:How much did this cost

[Anonymous Coward]

So, less than 100 million dollars? I doubt it.

Great news everyone!

[Bragador]

There is no such thing as investing TOO MUCH in the military. People that are saying we should focus more money on social problems and the economy don't understand that military technology can be applied to fix social problems eventually.

Rejoice for now we can drop food and medical supplies at supersonic speed! I can't wait to see the look on those African kids!

Re:Great news everyone!

[Cassius Corodes]

Why drop food, which fixes the problem for a few days at most, when dropping a bomb will permanently fix the problem.

Re:Great news everyone!

[josteos]

Build a Man a Fire, and he is Warm for a Day
Set a Man on Fire, and he is Warm for the Rest of His Life

Re:Great news everyone!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you teach a man to fish, you further the extinction of ichthians everywhere. Blow the man to peaces, you reduce the threat global warming.

Re:Great news everyone!

[mruizcamauer]

Can it drop leaflets at supersonic speed? You do know, the word is mightier than the sword, after all...

Re:Great news everyone!

[modecx]

You do know, the word is mightier than the sword, after all...

No, I'm pretty sure you've got that wrong. It's the pen. The pen is mightier than the sword.

Of course, whoever penned that immortal phrase certainly had no inkling of how true it really could be! Oh the damage that thousands upon thousands of supersonic pens could reap... It's enough to make a man giggle in glee.

Re:Great news everyone!

[Traf-O-Data-Hater]

Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you give up your monopoly and IP rights on fishing.

Re:Great news everyone!

[pesho]

"Death is the solution to all problems. No man - no problem." (J Stalin)

The only thing I don't get is why do you need to drop the bomb at supersonic speed.

Re:Great news everyone!

[Dr. Eggman]

Totally off-topic, but you just gave me an odd idea. I wonder if perhaps bunker-buster bombs could be fired into a patch of land at such an angle and to such a depth that the blast propelled the soil up and as low to the ground as possible (to prevent it from blowing aside and forming a hole,) essentially tilling a patch of land all at once for us! Back on topic, now what I just said done in Africa at supersonic speeds!

Re:Great news everyone!

[xSauronx]

No no no youve got it all wrong. Its like this:

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day.

this is *not* mine.

Re:Great news everyone!

[Anonymous Coward]

You should stop being so cynical. I'm sure the Air Force has been developing this technology in conjunction with Santa Claus for the entire world's benefit. Just think of the toy delivery possibilities.

Merry Christmas everybody!

Re:Great news everyone!

[Anonymous Coward]

That only applies to the technologically illiterate. Think dead man's handle on a doomsday device. Many /. residents could probably produce a windows virus that only causes chaos in the event of their death (Myself, I'm fond of the idea of a virus/worm that quietly messes with excel spreadsheets and numeric MS-SQL database entries, etc. rather than doing anything too blatant). Since you'd be dead, it wouldn't really matter much if there was collateral damage, either, so you could just indiscriminately target all the people you dislike on the off chance one of them was responsible for your death.

Re:Great news everyone!

[brusk]

That's what franchising is for.

Re:Great news everyone!

[deroby]

Obligatory quote :

"Oh My GOD!
  Do you mean the USAF now has a working version of the Penis Mightier ?? They're sitting on a goldmine I tell you ! If it works I'll order a dozen !"

(or something among those lines, here's a link to the actual transcript : http://snltranscripts.jt.org/98/98pjeopardy.phtml (still makes me laugh out aloud =))

Boeing Phantom Works?

[NJVil]

Sounds like a prime supplier of vaporware to me.

Re:Boeing Phantom Works?

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to work at Boeing. You're more right than you know.

Re:This is very handy

[gujo-odori]

It's not a matter of how fast a target on the ground may move. It's a matter of how fast:

A) SAMs move
B) Enemy fighters aircraft move

If a bomber can fly by at Mach 2 at a high altitude and kick out its load of smart bombs, it becomes much harder to hit it with either a SAM or an air-launched missile. Let's say you make your bombing run at 40,000 feet going Mach 2 and a SAM battery a few miles away takes a shot at you. You kick out the bombs and firewall the throttle for any more speed you can get, and punch out chaff. The SAM is going maybe Mach 5 and you're maybe now at Mach 2.5. At a closure rate of only Mach 2.5, the SAM may run out of fuel before it reaches you, even if it doesn't get fooled by the chaff. If you'd had to slow down to sub-sonic speeds to make your bombing run, the SAM would have a much better chance of catching you.

If there is a CAP up, it's going to have a lot more trouble catching and firing on a bomber going Mach 2 than a bomber going Mach .7.

While these have not been particularly great threats recently (I believe the Viet Nam War was the last time an American heavy bomber was brought down by enemy fire), it wouldn't be wise to assume that the situation will always remain this way, so it's good to have that technology in our back pockets.

Even at lower altitudes, that would take a lot of light anti-aircraft systems off the table, and at least make it harder even for large SAM systems. Imagine being a guy with a shoulder-fired AA missile trying to get a bead on something going at Mach 2. Even if you get a successful lock on it and fire, it's unlikely your missile will be able to catch it even if it's on a low-level bombing run (something I wouldn't expect a B-2 to do, anyway).

Very very incorrect.

[Rank_Tyro]

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.

This current little trick is probably a proof of concept for a change to the F-22, which carries free fall bombs such as the JADM in a recessed bomb bay. The B-1b can only do about Mach 1.25 at altitude where the air is thinner. The B-1b was designed as low level penetrator to sneak under Soviet radars. With the end of the cold war, the B-1b started taking over as a high altitude bomber with GPS guided weapons, and not risk itself to ground fire to drop.

The F-22 can cruise at Mach 2 without using afterburners, and I believe it can only carry two Mk-82 JADM weapons. The ability to fly in at Mach 2 while being practically invisible to radar, AND not having to slow down to deploy weapons would be a huge advantage.

Re:Very very incorrect.

[Brett Buck]

One of the weapons devised for the YF-12/proposed B-12 was the original "kinetic energy" weapon - effectively, just a mass that acted much like a meteorite strike. It got to the point of successful testing but the program was cancelled. I will dig up a reference, but it was probably Ben Rich's book.

          Brett

Re:Very very incorrect.

[GIL_Dude]

That's what I was thinking; the drop would be at high speed, but since the bomb is leaving the bay at much higher than its terminal velocity the fact that it is going mach 2 at drop really isn't going to add to the impact the device has (for example if you read Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress they dropped "rocks" from the moon onto Earth. If big enough to not disintegrate in the atmosphere you didn't need an explosive payload for an impressive destructive force). With this though, the bomb would be slowing the whole way down I would imagine. The benefit then being as you surmised - the plane is less susceptible to enemy fire as they remain at high speed.

Re:Very very incorrect.

[TopSpin]

The F-22 can cruise at Mach 2 without using afterburners The F-22 can not 'cruise' at Mach 2. That would be even more buck rogers than the aircraft is already. Exceeding Mach 2 in an F-22 requires afterburners and this, in the parlance of military aircraft, is not 'cruise.' What an F-22 can do is supercruise (exceed Mach 1 without afterburners, thus high fuel efficiencies which means good range and therefore viable in bombing missions) at about Mach 1.7.

The F-22 can dogfight (maneuver at high-G and operate weapons) above Mach 1 which is a major advantage as most of it's contemporaries must be below Mach 1 to do much more than cover ground. Dropping JDAMS at high speed and altitude is another huge advantage which is, as you speculate, what this is probably intended to validate.

Re:Very very incorrect.

[tjstork]

The F-22 can not 'cruise' at Mach 2. That would be even more buck rogers than the aircraft is already.

Actually, the big poop is that, in fact, it probably can. I've read that the engines on that thing are so powerful that with afterburner the aircraft would be capable of Mach 3 but the airframe simply isn't strong enough to take it, so the flight control software intentionally limits the speed so the plane doesn't break up. It's a very aerodynamic design coupled to a fantastically powerful engine, and the result is that the F-22 is quite a burner. One has to wonder if there might be a covert block with a stronger airframe for reconaissance.

Re:Very very incorrect.

[Anonymous Coward]

> With this though, the bomb would be slowing the whole way down I would imagine

Not if the bomb were shaped like a piece of rebar and made of titanium or sheathed in ceramic, and not if you googled "Rods from God".

Kinetic energy weapons dropped from orbit have been of military interest since the 60s. It's unclear from the public literature whether or not an operational weapon has been developed.

Re:Very very incorrect.

[twiddlingbits]

I seriously doubt that. F22 airframe is mostly titanium and it's got to take 9G turns which are much more stressful then Mach3 level flight. The PW119 engines are very powerful but only about 25% more than what is on the F16 and the plane is much bigger. The benefit of these engines in their high efficency which allows supercruise w/o afterburners which saves 40% on fuel consumption. Go look at http://www.f22fighter.com/

Re:Very very incorrect.

[sholden]

The F-22 can not 'cruise' at Mach 2. That would be even more buck rogers than the aircraft is already. Exceeding Mach 2 in an F-22 requires afterburners and this, in the parlance of military aircraft, is not 'cruise.' What an F-22 can do is supercruise (exceed Mach 1 without afterburners, thus high fuel efficiencies which means good range and therefore viable in bombing missions) at about Mach 1.7.

A less than 20% error is fine for government work...

Re:Very very incorrect.

[jafiwam]

Rumor has it some laser guided bombs were filled with cement and used as k-kill devices during the last Iraq war to take out tanks next to civilian targets.

At sub-orbital re-entry speeds, you don't need an explosive to fark up a tank. And if you can hit it reliably you don't need to go boom, it just shatters because a big block of stuff just came through the top, out the bottom and into the dirt below.

Re:Very very incorrect.

[tjstork]

I've been to the F-22 web site, its really nice. But you should check out this:

http://www.airplanes.com/forums/military-aircraft/1411-mach-2-0-supercruise-60-000ft-altitude.html

There, you have a claim by a Major Robert Garland to have flown the F-22 at Mach 2 in level flight.

If you google around, you'll find Air Force guys saying that this plane will do Mach 2.5, and, more than a few people have pointed out that the F-22 has a better thrust to weight ratio than the SR-71... thus, all things being equal, this ought to be one fast bird.

Re:Very very incorrect.

[Runefox]

Actually, it's not structural, it's more the fact that the air inlets are fixed rather than variable, so the engines can't get the optimal amount of air intake at different flight envelopes. Because of this, pushing the aircraft beyond mach 2.0 for any extended period of time will cause structural failures in the air intake. Presumably, this is a feature designed either to increase stealthiness or decrease overall weight and/or surface area, or perhaps to optimize air intake for supercruise. I'm not a flight engineer or rocket scientist, only an aircraft buff, so I can't really say.

Re:Very very incorrect.

[TopSpin]

the aircraft would be capable of Mach 3 Highly unlikely. Large, fixed geometry wings and an apparent lack of variable inlets precludes that sort of speed. An example of what is required to attain Mach 3 is the Blackbird; those large cones at the inlet of each engine adjust to control the shock front of incoming air. This is a requirement of extreme velocity jets and the F-22 simply doesn't have this or anything equivalent. This is qualified by the fact that not every aspect of F-22 design is public.

The F-22 is a fast aircraft, but not in the classic sense of absolute velocity at altitude. It cruises fast and it dogfights fast. Usable speed the competition can't match.

It's a very aerodynamic design coupled to a fantastically powerful engine F-22 aerodynamics are compromised for stealth and optimized for maneuverability (large wings, less wing loading.) Without variable inlets those fantastically powerful engines can not play in the Mach 3 regime. Accelerate vertically, yes. >Mach 1 turns, yes. Mach 3? Not likely.

Re:Very very incorrect.

[YrWrstNtmr]

Rumor has it some laser guided bombs were filled with cement

Not rumor, fact.

A 2000lb guided rock hitting a particular vehicle/tank is just as effective as a 2000lb MK-84.

Re:Very very incorrect.

[peektwice]

ok, nitpicking again... can a pilot do high-g turns and operate weapons above mach 1 and withstand it?

Re:Very very incorrect.

[Anonymous Coward]

A 5-g turn at 5,000 MPH is no harder on your body than a 5-g turn at 100 MPH. You will cover vastly different amounts of ground, during those two maneuvers, but 5-g's is 5-g's. It's the number of G's that matter to your body, not the speed of the vehicle you are in.

Re:Very very incorrect.

[mk_is_here]

With AGSM(Anti-G Straining Maneuver) and G-Suit, yes.

Re:Very very incorrect.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more than likely the fact that the airframe is heavily composite, and at Mach 3 the expoxies would simply come apart from being baked in flight.

Re:Very very incorrect.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, that's a mischaracterization. It is clear in the public literature that such a weapon has not been developed. What isn't clear is whether the secret literature agrees.

Re:Very very incorrect.

[tygt]

I'm sure I'll be corrected, but your typical bomb's purpose is to explode, isn't it?

Yes, the kinetic smash is good, and if you had a chunk of something moving at some km/sec velocity, there'd be no point of explosives, but the speed of a free-fall air drop bomb doesn't get you that good of 0.5mv^2 such that you can get rid of the explosives.

Re:Very very incorrect.

[timeOday]

What would survive 1 ton of concrete landing directly on it at terminal velocity?

Re:Very very incorrect.

[DigiShaman]

An umbrella?

Re:Very very incorrect.

[Brett Buck]

The (very substantial) energy has to go somewhere. At some point the yield from the kinetic energy alone exceeds the yield from any explosive. And to get a high terminal velocity, you need to make the projectile as dense as possible - and high explosive is not nearly as dense as tungsten, tantalum, DU, etc. So putting in explosives is actually a loss.

        That meteorite that killed the dinosaurs didn't explode in the sense you mean, either, yet it managed to vaporize a fair bit of the ancestral area around the Yucatan peninsula.

          The collateral damage advantages should be clear as well. The same energy, and smaller dispersal, provides very high energy density in the target area and far less flying debris.

        The only thing missing from the 50's/60's experiments was the accurate guidance, and the fact (still true) that nuclear weapons needed no guidance to speak of, and are extremely cost-effective.

          Brett

Re:Very very incorrect.

[6th time lucky]

A 2000lb guided rock...

That's a seriously funny thought. Looks like Einstein wasn't too far off the mark saying "World War IV will be fought with... stones". *Guided* stones!

Re:Very very incorrect.

[Power_Pentode]

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.

IIRC, the missile developed for the A-12/YF-12 was the AIM-47 "Superfalcon". In photos it resembled the not-yet-developed AIM-54 "Phoenix" of F-14 fame. Hmmm, my memory wasn't too far off. Here are a couple of references: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/aim-47.htm/ http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-47.html/

Re:Very very incorrect.

[Calinous]

Also, tanks are built to fight tanks. Their top armour is shamefully thin (this goes for russian AND american tanks). This is the reason recent anti-tank rockets are fired upward, and will attack the tank in a descending trajectory (hitting the top armour, not the front or side armour).

Re:Very very incorrect.

[TooMuchToDo]

I believe the metal of choice to build "Rods from God" is tungsten.

I wanted to say you could wrap the tungsten with something else (metal, composite, carbon nanotubes), but there's no need. There goes my "Killer Corn Dogs from Space" idea.

Re:Very very incorrect.

[tygt]

Said meteorite was also doing in excess of 25,000mph when it hit.

Terminal velocity, even for a small compact object, falling from 60,000 feet isn't huge still.

Re:Very very incorrect.

[Chrisq]

An umbrella?

I don't know. You might need an unbreakable umbrella.

Re:Very very incorrect.

[Anonymous Coward]

> 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.

If you're trying to be a smart-ass, get your facts right.

The missiles were AIM-47.

Re:Very very incorrect.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the reason recent anti-tank rockets are fired upward, and will attack the tank in a descending trajectory (hitting the top armour, not the front or side armour).

Ah, good ol' trusty mortars ... all simple, reliable, easily maintainable, WWII old tech, fast firing, hitting from above, wide range, hard to locate without fancy, expensive, specialized radars, reaches entrenched enemy, destroys tanks, easily mounted on pickup trucks and or tractor trailers,.. the best friend light infantry unit can have!

Re:Very very incorrect.

[Lost Penguin]

"What would survive 1 ton of concrete landing directly on it at terminal velocity?"

Wiley Coyote?
Daffy Duck?

Re:Very very incorrect.

[hcdejong]

F22 airframe is mostly titanium and it's got to take 9G turns which are much more stressful then Mach3 level flight.

9G turns require the aircraft to withstand kinetic loading, with Mach 3 flight, heat is the problem. Mach 3 generates so much heat that it starts to dictate the entire design: you'll need fuel that won't boil off inside the wing, you need to cool the cockpit, electronics, bomb bays, etc. At Mach 2 it's much simpler: you can get away with using simple materials and fuels, and you don't need a massive cooling plant.

Re:Very very incorrect.

[fitten]

Not to say which has a better drag coefficient, but drag will quickly sap power. The thrust/weight ratio is fine, but drag can kill that very fast, limiting the top speed.

Plus, Mach is relative to altitude. Mach 2 at 60,000ft is not the same velocity as Mach 2 at 10,000 ft. I'm not sure (and don't have time to look it up) but the supercruise capability set in the specifications were defined for a certain altitude. Also, it was a minimum, not a maximum, so even if they say supercruise (Mach 1+) at 90% power, it certainly didn't limit the team from making a plane that could supercruise (Mach 2+) at 90% power.

Re:Very very incorrect.

[YrWrstNtmr]

I'm sure I'll be corrected, but your typical bomb's purpose is to explode, isn't it?

The purpose of the weapon is to destroy something else, or render it unseable. A tank, for instance. If it can be done without the big boom, so much the better.
Previously, you needed the explosion and shrapnel, because 'close' was a good as it got. If you can actually hit the object, you may not need the boom.

WWII, you needed an entire squadron of aircraft to take out one bridge. They'd drop a couple hundred bombs, in the hope that one actually hits the bridge in a vulnerable spot. Now, it can (sometimes) be done with one bomb.

2000lb @ 500mph is more than enough to disable/destroy a tank. Provided you actually hit it.

Re:Very very incorrect.

[fitten]

A 2000lb guided rock hitting a particular vehicle/tank is just as effective as a 2000lb MK-84.

Actually, it may even be more effective against some targets. Explosive force and kinetic-kill weapons are two different things.

Re:Very very incorrect.

[Cornelius the Great]

The PW119 engines are very powerful but only about 25% more than what is on the F16 and the plane is much bigger.
First off, you're forgetting that the F-22 has two of them. The F-16 only has one, capable of about 29,000 lbs of thrust. Each Pratt&Whitney power plant puts out over 35,000 lbs each (w/ afterburner), so that means 70,000+ lbs total thrust.

Second, they're completely different aircraft with completely different goals. So don't compare the two. The F-22 was designed to be an air-superiority fighter to replace the F-15 (they're about the same size). The F-16 is light multi-role fighter with shorter range and payload. Have you ever seen an F-16 next to an F-15? BIG difference... the F-15 is a mammoth, the F-16 is a lawn dart.

Despite this difference, the F-22 has a much larger thrust-weight ratio due to having 2 powerplants (~1.26) compared to the F-16 (~1.1, with updated engine). Fascinating fact: the YF-23 (the ATF competitor to the F-22) had a thrust/weight ratio of over 1.36, which could theoretically push the bird into Mach 3 at altitude (though its top speed is still classified).

Re:Very very incorrect.

[PhxBlue]

The F-22 can cruise at Mach 2 without using afterburners, and I believe it can only carry two Mk-82 JADM weapons.

Or eight small-diameter bombs.

Re:Very very incorrect.

[aliasrush]

I would like to add that everyone is purely speculating when it comes to the technical specifications and abilities of the F-22. The key is no one knows because all the above information is classified top secret--at least the government will never really release what it is fully capable of regardless of what you might read or hear. Notwithstanding, all your arguments about how many Gs the jet can handle have nothing to do with the integrity and strength of the airframe. Trust me when I say even the airframe can certainly withstand more Gs than any pilot could ever survive. There is an on-board digital flight control computer that prevents the jet from pulling more Gs than the pilot can handle--generally speaking no more than 9 Gs. The other factor is the jets payload... the more it carries the less Gs it can handle.

Re:Very very incorrect.

[Anonymous Coward]

As pointed out above, the purpose is to destroy the target. If you have the necessary accuracy, a kinetic kill has the advantages of lower cost (powdered cement is cheaper than HE), and, even more importantly, less collateral damage. It's a Good Thing to be able to kill an enemy tank without killing nearby civilians.

Explosives aren't always necessary, or desirable.

Re:Very very incorrect.

[MechaStreisand]

Uranium's much better, because it's about as dense (possibly denser), has better after-armor effects (it's pyrophoric), but most important of all: it's much cheaper, and you can get it somewhere other than China.

Re:Very very incorrect.

[Firethorn]

As the other posters mentioned, yes they can.

However, I still think that we'll see F22's converted to drone operation during their operational combat lifetime.

I figure they're probably the last traditionally manned fighter plane the USA will develop. With advances in technology, removing the pilot from the plane will increase the plane's maneuverability enough to increase it's survivability.

This hasn't happened yet because we don't have drone technology good enough that the *big boys* like China and Russia wouldn't be able to jam the control signal and render the craft pretty much useless. Since I don't think that we can ever count on jamming not working, it means drone tech has to become good enough to complete the mission without human intervention. Still, it's coming.

Re:Very very incorrect.

[TooMuchToDo]

I'm assuming depleted uranium, correct?

Re:Very very incorrect.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think the concrete bomb would penetrate the armor of a tank. However, an impact on the top or side of the turret will:

1) Wreck the traversing mechanism
2) Crush the suspension system
3) knock the gun sights so far out of alignment they couldn't be re-zeroed in the field
4) If it hit the engine compartment, probably drive through the hatch and turn the power plant into a nice boat anchor
5) Give the crew one hell of a headache provided the concussion didn't kill them.
6) make really cool bonging sound when it hits. :)

Re:Very very incorrect.

[Hal_Porter]

Naah, fuck 'em.

Re:Very very incorrect.

[davidsyes]

These microjets ahead of the missile make me think of not just the adjustable inlet ramps/scoops on the faster aircraft, but of the Inui Bow, and Taylor/et al bulbous, for naval (combatant AND supply ) and commercial tanker/container ships:

www.dt.navy.mil/hyd/tec-rep/dev-bow-nav/

www.brayyachtdesign.bc.ca/article_bbows.html

www.nykline.co.jp/engliSH/seascope/200010/index.htm

It's amazing that in all this time that nautical analogies existed, we (those outside of the research/not tracking it) just now see that it seems even EXPERTS are just now fielding this tech.

Re:Very very incorrect.

[rbanffy]

"more than a few people have pointed out that the F-22 has a better thrust to weight ratio than the SR-71... thus, all things being equal, this ought to be one fast bird."

The SR-71 went very fast at very, very high altitudes. I am sure the F-22 is not capable of flying that high, thus, it must negotiate that thrust in much denser air. It may be able to accelerate faster, but it's maximum speed is, probably, much lower. There are also considerations on engine design - how fast the intake airflow can go before the engine stops functioning. Usually this is a major PITA.

I also think that using afterburners more or less eliminates much of the stealthiness of any plane. It will have a huge glowing IR plume right behind the plane. Easily visible if you have the right sensors.

Still, since it's a fighter, it must be designed to fast acceleration and high-G maneuvers, not top speed.

Re:Very very incorrect.

[Richard Steiner]

Claire the Cheerleader would survive it, and so would Peter Petrelli. Maybe also Superman. :-)

Re:Very very incorrect.

[Richard Steiner]

Sounds like Project Thor to me.

Re:Very very incorrect.

[Guysmiley777]

A G is a G is a G. A 9G turn at Mach 3 is the same structurally as 9G at 300 knots. Also, TANSTAAFL. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. The F119 engines are hugely powerful, no doubt. But just because they aren't in afterburner at supersonic speeds does NOT mean they aren't chugging down fuel. There's nothing magical that makes them super efficient. Where do you see 40% reduction in fuel? That site says 40% fewer PARTS, which is a good thing. But the AF has been (understandably) tight lipped about SFC of the F119.

Re:Very very incorrect.

[morcego]

My mother-in-law ? :)

Re:Very very incorrect.

[mfrank]

If a bunker buster has enough kinetic energy to go through 6 feet of reinforced concrete (11 feet for a good one), it can go through a tank hull. Heck, even if it doesn't, all the optics and most of the hardware on the thing will be destroyed and everyone inside will be dead, so it'll be unusable.

Re:Very very incorrect.

[MechaStreisand]

Correct. The main reason is not toxicity or radioactivity, however, since natural uranium is only mildly radioactive (and depleted uranium is just as toxic). It's simply more useful to enrich it for nuclear reactions and to use the depleted stuff for weapons, armor, etc.

*sigh*

[Kelz]

How many millions/billions spent on this that could've gone to the people of the US?

As I see it, any enemy we'd have to use this against would be throwing ICBMs with nukes at us. Why the fuck are we building bigger and better and more expensive bombs when all of our operations are counter-terrorist ops?

Re:*sigh*

[Anonymous Coward]

How many millions/billions spent on this that could've gone to the people of the US?

Or not come from them in the first place?

Don't worry though, we've got the best fleet of destroyers, subs, and jet fighters so that we can take on bin Laden's troops over, on, or under the sea!

Re:*sigh*

[Dr. Eggman]

Well, for one, its not a new bomb. Its a system that allows us to use a bomb under different conditions. Considering its using an existing bomb, an existing flight platform, and really just an improved version of existing technology; I'd wager it was in the low millions range, and I'm probably grossly over-estimating it. As far as I'm concerned, looking at other things congress would waste the money on, I'd rather have something cool to read about like this than some mule museum in a place I'll never care about. Let the states deal with the US people and the Federal worry about the US. Sadly, the states seem to be floundering in that reguard and we end up looking to the Feds.

Re:*sigh*

[phantomcircuit]

low millions? um surrrrreeeee

Re:*sigh*

[Dr. Eggman]

Oops, that was supposed to be a comment about the development costs, not deployment or production of the whole setup. What I was saying is that there was very little actually developed here for this.

Re:*sigh*

[Karthikkito]

Probably low millions -- a team of PhD's over a few years.

Re:*sigh*

[pete-classic]

Gone to us? It was ours in the first place!

Abolish the income tax!

-Peter

Re:*sigh*

[Blakey Rat]

Why do you assume that investing in defense technology does *not* help the people of the US?

As I see it, any enemy we'd have to use this against would be throwing ICBMs with nukes at us. Why the fuck are we building bigger and better and more expensive bombs when all of our operations are counter-terrorist ops?

You're right, we should be like France before WWII and just invest all our military spending on a single type of defense because it made sense when we started building it. How stupid of us to diversify!

(When France started building the Maginot Line, it was actually impossible for tanks at that time to cross through the forested regions they decided to leave undefended; by the time war actually broke out, tanks could do it with ease and the entire installation was useless.)

Re:*sigh*

[evilviper]

Why the fuck are we building bigger and better and more expensive bombs when all of our operations are counter-terrorist ops?

It's ironic...

It seems like half the country condemns the US military for preparing to fight the last war, while the other half, like yourself, condemns them for preparing for anything different than the last war.

Re:*sigh*

[Achromatic1978]

Re your sig: remind us again why domain speculating on the back of Wikipedia is somehow acceptable - in the sense of 'I'm not sure if you actually expect sympathy at an appraisal scammer trying to scam a domain spammer?'

Re:*sigh*

[bagsc]

How many millions/billions spent on this that could've gone to the people of the US?

How many billions are going to American consumers to buy neon toothbrushes instead of being spent to win a war we happen to be in? Soldiers are "at work" 24/7, and getting paid maybe $2500/mo with all the combat zone bonuses. Many aren't making minimum wage, because they're working >100 hours a week, and the military is exempt from minimum wage laws. The VA is denying claims for injured vets, because they don't have the money to take care of them. Where, indeed, are our national priorities?

Your other point is mostly valid. Worth noting that nuclear weapon development facilities are typically protected with lots and lots of SAMs...

Re:*sigh*

[Yehooti]

How many millions/billions spent on this didn't end up in the pockets of the aerospace worker citizens of the US?

Re:*sigh*

[argStyopa]

Dateline 1913: "How many millions have been spent on these fancy "aeroplanes" that could've gone to the people of the US?

As I see it, any enemy we'd have to use this against would have armies of hundreds of thousands like back in the Civil War - these planes are too feeble and trivial to have any impact on a conflict between nations. Besides, look at the Philippines, the Spanish-American War, and the Boer War - why the fuck are we building bigger and better and more expensive bombs when all of our operations are counter-insurgency ops? War between mighty industrialized nations is impossible these days!"

I'm sure Kellogg & Briand would have agreed with you.

Re:*sigh*

[Blakey Rat]

Uh, huh?

For what it's worth, I do have a plan to develop that domain name into a site, I just don't have the free time to do it. In the meantime, it's on Sedo so someone can make me an offer if they want it. If you looked at my Sedo account, you'd see I own less than 10 domains; I'm not a "domain spammer" by any stretch of the imagination.

(But I also don't see anything wrong with being one; with the current domain registration rules, you can make a lot of cash that way. If you want to get rid of "domain spammers" you need to go to the source and change the registration rules.)

Off-topic, sorry.

Re:*sigh*

[imgod2u]

I don't see this research going towards better geared infantry. If it had, it might be fairly justifiable. That being said, if said money went towards the education system, maybe, just maybe, we'd have a more well-informed public that would've sneered at any politician on their first attempt at scaring up a war.

Re:*sigh*

[sgt_doom]

Obviously, this is a much needed item to keep the American Empire intact. And Americanskis wonder why people so despise them......

Re:*sigh*

[Firethorn]

these planes are too feeble and trivial to have any impact on a conflict between nations

As others have noted, this ability increases the reach and survival chances of an aircraft. Even if it can only carry two bombs - it can be used on high value targets not otherwise reachable, like taking out major SAM sites. Once air defenses have been sufficiently supressed the B1 and B52 can come along and plow under opposing forces.

Besides, look at the Philippines, the Spanish-American War, and the Boer War - why the fuck are we building bigger and better and more expensive bombs when all of our operations are counter-insurgency ops?

This can be used in counter-insurgency(get a bomb on target faster and from further away).

War between mighty industrialized nations is impossible these days!"

No it isn't. They said that after WWI, 'The war to end all wars'. It was repeated after WWII. The difference I see is that conflicts are a low smaller in scale today, but I'd be careful about throwing 'impossible' around.

As others said - you don't want to just prepare for the current war, you want to look to the future.

Re:*sigh*

[argStyopa]

Actually, I was being sarcastic. In 1913, everyone was convinced that every subsequent war was going to be a guerilla/insurgent war, due to their recent experience. There is some justification that this 'certainty' that a general European war couldn't happen (haven't had one since 1815!) might have contributed to an underestimation of the danger leading to WWI.

I just find it ironic and sad that in 2007 we have people seriously claiming "all of our future wars will be insurgencies" when people were saying precisely the same thing 100 years ago, only to have a century filled with the most lethal, widespread, and deadly extended general war in human history (WWI+II).

soon enough...

[SECProto]

soon enough we'll be able to fire proton torpedos from warp.

Re:soon enough...

[J_Darnley]

Sorry, but you fire photon torpedos from warp and proton torpedos from hyperspace.

Re:soon enough...

[TubeSteak]

Sorry, but you fire photon torpedos from warp and proton torpedos from hyperspace. Ahh... but can you still jam someone while going at ludicrous speed?

Re:soon enough...

[Auraiken]

Only one man would dare give me the raspberry!

Not to be outdone...

[YU5333021]

... upon hearing the news, the Russians have taken the concept to the next, logical extreme. Code named "Mamushka" the first supersonic plane will fire a smaller plane traveling twice as fast, which will fire yet another smaller plane traveling 4 times faster than the first one, and so on until the very last, smallest plane (traveling an nearly the speed of light) will fire a potato that will hit the original big plane in the back, thus demonstrating that like many other US expenditures, they are at least good for HUMOR.

Next up, basketballs that bounce 10 times as high. Is gonna change the game!

Re:Not to be outdone...

[Harmonious Botch]

They can't do that. That idea is the intelectual property of Dr. Suess.

Re:Not to be outdone...

[temojen]

Next up, basketballs that bounce 10 times as high. Is gonna change the game!

Try this one on for size.... stack up a small playground ball on top of a medium one anmd stack those on top of a large one... drop the 3 of them from about six feet and watch the little one hit the ceiling...

Re:Not to be outdone...

[YU5333021]

shhhh... don't let the Russians find out.

This is a REAL sled.

[Detritus]

The sled train accelerated to more than 13 g's to get to peak velocity, then decelerated at 7.5 g's for more than a mile to stop," the company said.

I want a ride on that.

Re:This is a REAL sled.

[stox]

If I am not mistaken, at 7.5 negative G's, your eyeballs would pop out of your head. The human body can take significantly more positive G's than negative. Oh, and at 13 positive G's, sustained, you would pass out. Doesn't sound like much fun to me.

Re:This is a REAL sled.

[LuNa7ic]

But I wear sunglasses!

Laymen's terms?

[Dr. Eggman]

[arm chair general] It'll be just like the Aurora Supersonic Bomber from Command and Conquer:Generals, except you can drop two and your desperate, last minute airstrikes on Iran's superweapon won't have to be suicide missions! How long until we have the Air Fuel bomb version from the Zero Hour's turtler General? That'll show those Al Quaeda tunnel/stinger-missile sites: lets see you rebuild your hole now! [/arm chair general]

Re:Laymen's terms?

[colganc]

There already are fuel air bomb's like the one from Zero Hour.

Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone set us up the (supersonic) bomb.

Good tactics bad strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

Haven't we reached the point where we can forget manned bombers? With every passing decade, the advantages manned bombers have vs. drones, decrease. If you have to have human controllers, they can be in a command plane hundreds of miles from where the action is.

The judgment of individual pilots is over rated. Often they misinterpret what they see and end up bombing friendly troops. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20070924/ai_n20517694

It also has to be a lot cheaper to train the technicians who control drones. The drones are much cheaper than a B1. You can send several drones at a target and, with any luck, the enemy will use up all his SAMs trying to hit them.

Any way I can think of looking at it, we shouldn't be spending a lot of money on the B1 any more. Yes, it is a better plane because it can drop its bombs when traveling fast but was it really worth the expense when you consider the other things we could be doing with the money?

I also suspect that the Russians (and Chinese too) can shoot down a B1 fairly easily. Remember the U2 spy plane that was supposed to fly too high and fast to be shot down. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Gary_Powers

Re:Good tactics bad strategy

[nrgy]

Well the one thing you never hear talked about with the whole "Drones are the future" topic is what about jamming technology in the future? Your over sized RC plane with some bombs on it isn't gonna do much if it cant relay its data link back to base or a satellite.

If I remember correctly during the beginning of the war in Iraq, some cruise missiles were thrown off target when they were jammed by GPS jamming devices. What is to say that technology in the future wont advance to also include jamming the drones you plan to fly over a foes city? Yes I'm sure as technology advances ways of dealing with it will probably be thought of, however as is most often the case with technology (especially military technology) its a back and forth between counter measure and threat.

Being unable to fly your fancy Quake engine virtual reality RC plans over a target does you little good in warfare.

Maybe one day it will be the future, but right now as it stands I wouldn't be holding your breath for it to be the norm for quiet a while.

Those pushing the drones as the next thing tend to remind me of the militarys thinking back when the US entered the Vietnam war. The military believed dog fighting was a thing of the past and all future air engagements would be with missiles from far away. They stopped training pilots in dog fighting skills and instead believed in what they thought the future air engagements would be. It wasn't long before it was apparent this just wasn't the case, the military soon found itself scrambling to train its pilots in air to air combat; the birth of Top Gun.

Re:Good tactics bad strategy

[tsotha]

This is just wrong for a lot of reasons. First, jamming is spectacularly ineffective. Not only is the other responder correct in pointing out antennas can be designed to reject signals coming from the wrong direction, but also spread spectrum communications operate over such wide bands it's impractical to jam them - it takes too much power. Finally, any source of a jamming signal has a big bullseye on it, since the signal can be used for homing. No jammer will last more than a few minutes after the engagement is joined. Also, the JDAM isn't designed to hit moving targets. Once the target is programmed in to the drone, the operator doesn't need to do anything, so even if you could jam communications with the drone, it would finish its mission.

Re:Good tactics bad strategy

[evilviper]

What is to say that technology in the future wont advance to also include jamming the drones you plan to fly over a foes city?

The laws of physics.

You can't jam such a highly directional signal, unless you're located directly between the drone and the satellite... in which case, you can probably think of better options.

The only real option is to disable the satellite, which isn't an easy proposition.

Re:Good tactics bad strategy

[Magada]

Disabling satellites is very very easy (read: can be done with 1970's tech). No satellites means no talking over the horizon if you want to stay relatively un-jammed. That poses a bit of a logistical challenge.

Re:Good tactics bad strategy

[evilviper]

The technology to disable satellites dates back to the 1970s... in about the same way that modern fighter jets date back to the 1900s...

ICBMs were ridiculously, unbelievably expensive then, and are now just ridiculously expensive, beyond the means of all but a few of the top world powers.

Short of a war with Russia or China, the satellites are plenty safe. ICBMs aren't the kind of weapons that can be quietly smuggled out of a country and sold on the black market.

And even in that case, the sheer number the US Military has in orbit should make that an impractical strategy... Far easier to send up a few fighter jets to shoot down the slow, stupid, flying computers.

Re:Good tactics bad strategy

[Magada]

You don't need an ICBM to whack out satellites. You need either:
a. a way to lift and detonate a huge-ass (in terms of radiation yeld) nuke beyond the ionosphere
b. a way to lift and disperse buckets of birdshot (literally) into likely satellite orbits
c. a way to VERY accurately chart a satellite's course and send a couple hundred grams of tungsten flechettes on an intercept course.
Option A is high-tech (what with it involving nukes and all) and it was tested by the US in the 1960's (google for starfish prime).
Option B is very low tech and probably the way Iran would do it if they ever really really have to (seeing as it would interdict space for everyone for a long, long time, it's not an option that any nation with space ambitions would pursue).
Option C is very high tech, it's the best option strategically speaking (no messy "omg you just nuked everybody" reactions, no shutting off humanity from space) and was tested by the US in the seventies (in the form of a modified (two-stage) AA rocket shot from a high-flying jet).
Options A and B can be pursued with MRBM-sized missiles, but are way easier on the precision requirements than actual ICBM shots, since you don't intend for the payload to come back down at any particular spot.

Also, fighter jets arguably date back to at most the 1940's (campini caproni CC. 1) if not the 1910's (coanda 1910).

So I'm not quite sure what your point is.

Re:Good tactics bad strategy

[evilviper]

Options A and B can be pursued with MRBM-sized missiles,

You're just splitting hairs here. There's little effective difference between ICBMs and MRBMs. Nearly all off the (very few) countries that posses MRBMs also have ICBMs.

Re:Good tactics bad strategy

[Magada]

No, I'm not. I said MRBM-sized rockets, not actual mrbm's. Heck, you could probably get 50 kilos of something into LEO with just a Scud D and an undergrad to do the math.

The B-58 could do this

[stox]

almost 50 years ago. The B-58C, if it had been built, would have been able to do it at Mach 3.

Re:The B-58 could do this

[Rank_Tyro]

The B-58 Hustler was dropping Nuclear weapons, with a substantially larger blast radius than the 10 meter CEP of a JDAM. They could afford to be off of the target a bit.

Re:The B-58 could do this

[Waffle Iron]

The B-58 carried its bomb externally.

Re:The B-58 could do this

[Nimey]

No, it carried three in that big permanently-attached pod under its belly, in addition to a couple on pylons under the wings.

Re:The B-58 could do this

[Waffle Iron]

According to its wikipedia article:

The B-58 typically carried a single nuclear weapon in a streamlined MB-1C pod under the fuselage. From 1961 to 1963 it was retrofitted with two tandem stub pylons under each wing, inboard of the engine pod, for B43 or B61 nuclear weapons for a total of five nuclear weapons per airplane

No mention of an internal bomb bay. I don't think that the pod was permanently attached either. IIRC, I've seen pictures of the plane without any external attachments.

Re:The B-58 could do this

[phayes]

The MB-1C pod was also the B-58's primary fuel tank.

The mission scenario would have been for the B-58 to use the fuel in the pylon on it's way to the target, drop the pod & it's integrated nuclear weapon onsite, then use internal tanks to return to base.

As the B-58's range was severely impacted without the MB-1C's fuel tank & stocks of these expensive pods were limited, they were not expended unnecessarily.

Pylons maybe, but not bomb bays

[quanticle]

Maybe we were launching bombs off pylons as supersonic speeds, but probably not bomb bays. As the article indicates, supersonic airstream around the plane would have blown the bomb back into the bomb bay, with obviously disastrous results. What this technology does is use small jets to locally slow down the airstream around the bomb bay so that the bomb can fall out of the bay without getting pushed back inside.

As another poster indicated, this technology would be useful for the F-22, which has to carry its weapons in internal bays to maintain its stealth and aerodynamic characteristics.

Re:Pylons maybe, but not bomb bays

[DerekLyons]

Maybe we were launching bombs off pylons as supersonic speeds, but probably not bomb bays.

Wrong. The A-12 launched its missles from bomb bays. The B-70 dropped its bombs from bomb bays. Then there is the F-102 and -106.
 
 

As the article indicates, supersonic airstream around the plane would have blown the bomb back into the bomb bay, with obviously disastrous results.

That's true for bombs/missiles dropped under gravity alone. That's not true for bombs/missiles ejected rather than dropped.
 
 

What this technology does is use small jets to locally slow down the airstream around the bomb bay so that the bomb can fall out of the bay without getting pushed back inside.

Back in the fifties and sixties they either used an ejector system to force the bomb/missile clear of the aircraft or a 'trapeze' to lower the bomb/missile clear of the bomb bay.

Re:Pylons maybe, but not bomb bays

[TooMuchToDo]

I would be interested in seeing how much of the stealth capability is lost when the doors are opened (radar/heat profile).

Re:Pylons maybe, but not bomb bays

[quanticle]

The heat profile isn't affected terribly, as there aren't usually large heat sources in/around the bomb bay. However, the radar profile of the jet is affected to quite an extent. I suspect this is one of the reasons for this exercise - devise a system that will minimize the amount of time the jet spends with its bomb-bay doors open.

What The Fuck??

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody in their right mind would argue this technology has benefits other than military. It's a nice strawman to think that this "can be applied to fix social problems eventually."

You tree hugging hippies should get over yourselves. Military technology has been ongoing since the dawn of man, and to think that it will stop anytime soon is pie in the sky thinking.

Those African kids wouldn't have been any richer or healthier because money was spent on this.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

in other news, non sequitur

In case anyone was wondering...

[palegray.net]

The tagging beta includes the word sopwith, a reference to "Sopwith Camel", a game I used to place on an 8086 box as a kid :). Your goal was to drop bombs on ground targets in a simplistic side-scroller sort of map. You can install a modern-day Linux version (pretty close to the original) by doing "sudo apt-get install sopwith" on Debian-based distros.

Maybe not as much fun as dropping real bombs out of a supersonic jet, but pretty darn close :).

Re:In case anyone was wondering...

[Runefox]

Which, while being an awesome game, was also (for the clueless) a WWI fighter plane.

Re:In case anyone was wondering...

[FusionDragon2099]

Actually, the game was just called Sopwith. I'm stuck with that strangely catchy PC-speaker theme in my head now that you mentioned it...

Re:In case anyone was wondering...

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize the tag was probably a reference to the REAL Sopwith camel, don't you? The one your game was also name for.

Re:In case anyone was wondering...

[TheModelEskimo]

Thanks, I just blew my eardrums out with that music. :-) Fun little game though.

Re:In case anyone was wondering...

[palegray.net]

Oh my God, why oh why did you have to remind me of that? I'll probably have regression dreams of my childhood tonight filled with "BZZZZZZZZZ"... :)

Re:In case anyone was wondering...

[schotty]

Sopwith Camel is actually an old biplane.

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

And for the linux game, some screenshots:
http://sdl-sopwith.sourceforge.net/sshot.shtml

Re:In case anyone was wondering...

[Limburgher]

"yum install sopwith" on Fedora. :)

Re:Afghan workers die in US-led attack

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he didn't. He conscripted thousands of your friends and neighbors to do it for him.

Drones vs. cruise missiles

[Anonymous Coward]

A drone with a very directional communication system is very hard to jam. I am assuming that the first thing China or Russia would do is shoot down all the GPS birds. GPS is easy and cheap but it is by no means the only accurate way to guide a missile. Human guided drones are cheap and effective. Given enough altitude of the controlling airplane, the drones can be controlled from a couple of hundred miles. (Use the radar range equation for an exact solution.)

The drone can have a quite directional antenna. It isn't much of a problem to get a 20 dB rejection of signal coming from the 'wrong' direction. Techniques like boxcar averaging increase the noise immunity by many many more dB. Generalized jamming isn't likely to succeed. Directed jamming would work but you would need to continuously jam every individual drone coming at you. You would be better off trying to blast them with a laser. That would also work against a B1. In fact the B1 is a bigger, easier to hit, target.

Re:Afghan workers die in US-led attack

[Anonymous Coward]

Wake up there 60's druggie...the draft is over.

Well

[Sycraft-fu]

Please remember that military spending isn't without benefit. Often technologies are developed there that then later become useful for civilians that are just the kind of thing you aren't likely to see developed on the commercial market.

Best example is GPS. No way a company was going to build something like that. Even a government wouldn't do that for civilian reasons. However the military felt it was worth it. Out of that we now have an awesome navigation system used the world over, and finally because of its success there IS interest in building a civilian system in Europe (though it is not going well).

While military spending isn't what one would call the best use of money, let's not pretend like it is a black hole that nothing comes out of. There are an amazing amount of technologies that are directly owed to the military (trauma surgery would be another, the Internet yet another).

Also there's just the sad truth that there are assholes in the world and nations have a need for defense. Don't think for a second North Korea would be nearly so well behaved if South Korea just disarmed their allies all left.

Re:Well

[san]

If we'd have spent the amounts of money we're spending on the military on just research, we'd be flying in fusion powered cars right now, controlled by THz CPUs that have 1nm transistors.

Your argument is ridiculous given the $5e11 dollars per year the US alone is spending on its military (without Iraq war funding!); compare that to the $3e10 that goes to NSF+NIH (the primary funding sources for research in the US). And this is just the US.

Re:Well

[TooMuchToDo]

I agree that a lot of technological advances come from places like the DoD and NASA. I also agree that a lot of these advances would never come from private enterprise. But then it becomes gray on a tech-by-tech basis. GPS? Of course navigation was going to be big. People didn't see it then, but now it's apparent. This tech is a little different though. I believe it'll be more difficult to find non-military uses for shoving something big from a bomb bay at supersonic speeds. Perhaps it'll come in hander for space technology (assisted vehicle to orbit launches).

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but necessity is the mother of invention. If you look at the pace of technological innovation during, say, WWII, you'll see an amazing amount of work being accomplished in a very short time.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait till low flying supersonic paperboys hit my doorstep w/ a paper @ mach 2.

Re:Well

[PhxBlue]

However the military felt it was worth it.

And even in the military, some of the brass had doubts. Air Force brass at the Pentagon tried to kill GPS a couple of times before it got off the ground -- no one needed space-based navigation, they said, because all their aircraft already had inertial navigation systems.

Also there's just the sad truth that there are assholes in the world and nations have a need for defense. Don't think for a second North Korea would be nearly so well behaved if South Korea just disarmed their allies all left.

Now, this I'm not so sure I agree with. The United States has national interests in the region, but we've been confusing national interests with national security for nearly 60 years. Let's say the U.S. didn't have any forces in South Korea, and North Korea invaded tomorrow. It would probably hurt our economy, and it would threaten Japan; but how would it threaten U.S. national security directly?

Re:Well

[7times9]

Socialized Terrestrial Locating!

YOU COMMUNIST PIG.

So much money

[kylehase]

I'm glad to see my tax money put to good use to keep our country safe. I'm sure supersonic bombs are the answer to stopping hijacked US airlines or car bomb wielding extremist. [/sarcasm]

Re:So much money

[DougF]

That would suppose the U.S. Government is only working on one project at a time, fairly linear thinking. The military was/is criticized for fighting the current war with the last war's technology, so when we do try to get ahead of the game, we get criticized for working on non-existent threats or not enough work on someone else' pet project. Ever consider that by taking the war to the enemy we haven't had anymore hijackings or car bombs in the U.S.? No, I suppose not, that would require actually considering the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are succeeding in their goals to combat the terrorist threat from Islamic fanatics. Ever consider that developing new methods of delivery help keep us ahead in the Air Dominance requirement? No, of course not, that would require knowledge that NO U.S. soldier, sailor, or marine has died from enemy air forces since the Korean War, primarily because the USAF has dominated the skies over the battlefield. While the USAF can't stop RPGs or snipers, we can keep the average soldier from having to look up and wonder if the noise above him is friend or foe...

Sweet merciful crap!!

[ichthyoboy]

from a weapons bay with a size approximating that of the U.S. Air Force B-1 bomber I'm sure glad that we have planes with weapon bays that can hold a f&@%ing B-1 bomber!!!

wouldn't bet on that

[r00t]

It's normal to keep these secret: max speed, max range, max altitude, etc.

It's possible that most pilots don't know. They may be prohibited from exceeding the unclassified limits. The plane might even normally be restricted by software.

Re:wouldn't bet on that

[Anonymous Coward]

The plane might even normally be restricted by software.

Of course it's controlled by software, this isn't the 1950's any more.

Re:!! JESUS, HELP ME KILL MORE PEOPLE FASTER !!

[Joren]

We so need a 'WTF' mod...

You're quite mistaken..

[caveat]

Capt. John Stapp withstood a 46.2G decceleration when his rocket sled going 632 mph plowed into a water brake. His eyeballs were completely filled with blood, but cleared overnight.

They don't do it like they used to

real *sigh*

[toddhisattva]

Why the fuck are we building bigger and better and more expensive bombs These are better, which means they will use the smaller ones. Small enough for counter-terror ops, maybe even the explosive-free kinetic rock bombs. A Bone can get one where it's needed in a hurry. Okay, it can get quite a few where they are needed, without decelerating for each drop. Saves gas. Saves lives. Good thing.

Standoff airstrikes save infantry lives

[Steve Hamlin]

any enemy we'd have to use this against would be throwing ICBMs with nukes at us

No, they'd just have to have good anti-aircraft capabilities defending what we're attacking - much more common than nuclear-tipped ICBMs. Think: the U.S. attacking Iran, N. Korea, Pakistan-gone-rogue (GULP - trust me, I try not to think about those possibilities. No ICBMs yet, just long-range intra-continental BMs and known early-generation fission weapons. Whew, we're safe!)

It seems to me that this would allow U.S. airstrikes to release precision-guided weapons from farther away, decreasing losses of aircrews and planes, and increasing effective air superiority. Hopefully cheaper than a cruise missile.

For most warfare other than urban counter-insurgency (which, granted, seems to be what the majority of our warfighting will be over foreseeable future), air superiority is a force multiplier, lessening the number of troops needed on the ground. Air superiority leads to saving lives of infantry on the ground. Longer-distance release of precision-guided weapons seems like it would lead to safer air-superiority.

Although, why not just remote-pilot a heavy UAV with current JDAMs over target? Lose a few aircraft to AA - so what? How many of those could we build for the price of these super-sonic iron bombs?

Note re: shooting down aircraft during the Iraq War 2003-2007: I can only find references to 2 Coalition-forces fixed-wing aircraft being shot down ( Wikipedia, of course). And that was against a supposedly a semi-world-class military (or was that only good ground forces?).

Re:Standoff airstrikes save infantry lives

[stjobe]

It seems to me that this would allow U.S. airstrikes to release precision-guided weapons from farther away

Just love those laser guided bombs, they're really great for righting wrongs.
You hit the target, and win the game, from bars 3,000 miles away. 3,000 miles away.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range.
-- Roger Waters, The Bravery Of Being Out Of Range

Re:!! JESUS, HELP ME KILL MORE PEOPLE FASTER !!

[Anonymous Coward]

no we don't. I love the new speed jesus killing machine.

Fixed geometry inlets

[calidoscope]

Actually, it's not structural, it's more the fact that the air inlets are fixed rather than variable, so the engines can't get the optimal amount of air intake at different flight envelopes. Because of this, pushing the aircraft beyond mach 2.0 for any extended period of time will cause structural failures in the air intake.

The first sentence is correct, the second is not.

The problem with a fixed geometry inlet is that it is inefficient. At Mach 2.0 and above, a significant portion of the thrust from a properly designed inlet is coming from the inlet itself. The A-12/F-12/SR-71 cruising at Mach 3.0 gets between 55 and 60% of the total thrust from the inlet - this is accomplished by the positioning the shock wave just inside the inlet (the cons on the front of the engine can be moved in and out specifically for this purpose). One of the early issues with the Blackbirds was figuring out how to handle "unstarts" where the shock wave pops out of the inlet - and gives the crew a wild ride in the process - this was also a problem with the B-58.

The F-16 was also limited to Mach 2.0 because of the fixed geometry wing. OTOH, the F-104 was rated top speed was Mach 2.2, but it could easily achieve Mach 2.4, but at the cost of weakening the aluminum alloy in the airframe.

Re:Fixed geometry inlets

[Runefox]

That makes a lot more sense, thanks for the clarification. Like I said, I don't know much about the dynamics of supersonic flight, so this is interesting to know.

Re:Fixed geometry inlets

[cmseward]

the F-104 was rated top speed was Mach 2.2, but it could easily achieve Mach 2.4,

Mostly straight down, unfortunately.

low priority

[SoyChemist]

That seems like a very low priority in comparison to developing better armor and medical supplies for the guys on the ground.

Re:low priority

[geekoid]

Really? even if it means fewer people needed on the ground?

However, that doesn't matter because the military can do more then one thing at a time.

Your point is understood, and as much as I think it was wrong(morally and legally) to have gone to war in Iraq, we should have geared up at home and started sending them what they need.
This mean better armor, food, more people, and medics.

OTOH, if you are a trained nurse, do you join the military and make 1000 bucks a month, or do you go as a civilian and make 10,000 dollars a month?

Re:This is very handy

[Brett Buck]

To add a bit to the above - as an example, the SR-71, cruising along at a typical mission speed of mach 2.8, was never successfully engaged by SAMs (or anything else, for that matter). I certainly wouldn't want to count on complete invunerability now*, but it gves some additional information about how hard it is to shoot down something going so fast.

        Brett

* from speed alone. I think the recent Israeli attack on the Syrian weapons facility indicates another approach to consequence-free overflights.

Re:This is very handy

[TooMuchToDo]

My favorite feature of the SR-71 was that it burned bright but flew fast. Stealth may have been limited, but being able to simply outrun ordinances in cruise/above-cruise speeds (without afterburner) is definitely cool.

Re:!! JESUS, HELP ME KILL MORE PEOPLE FASTER !!

[voidphoenix]

Second that.

tens of millions???

[Anonymous Coward]

How many people live in Iraq???
Or how precise those bombs are?

"active flow control"

[sonictheboom]

had me worried just then , "active flow control" sounds like something Microsoft would produce, but maybe they would call it 'live flow control' now..

Re: "active flow control"

[Anonymous Coward]

Active flow control is a descriptive term, rather than marketing speak. There are static flow control systems, such a vortex generators, that have been around for a long long time. Active flow control techniques employ actuators that can be enabled or disabled as needed. The trick with these techniques is deciding when to fire the actuators.

Some active flow control schemes are passive, meaning that the actuators are dynamic, but they lack a feedback mechanism in control system. Other active flow control schemes employ feedback mechanisms.

This particular article suggests that the researchers are using a series of jets, it would not have surprised me to hear that they were using glow discharge or dynamic vortex generators instead, located near the inlet of the cargo bay. I suspect that the researchers are sensing pressure, wall shear-stress - via hot films, or using some other such sensing mechanism to identify the state of the flow and then feed that state information to the controller to determine how the actuators should be fired.

It's worth noting that flow control for drag reduction, noise suppression, and to resolve other problems associated with shear layers is an area of research that the ARL has been funding for some time.

Re: "active flow control"

[sgt_doom]

Nope, sonictheboom, I believe this is what they meant by active flow control.....

Re:This is very handy

[stjobe]

the SR-71 [...] was never successfully engaged by SAMs (or anything else, for that matter).

I love the SR-71. Really, I do. It's in my eyes the most beautiful aircraft ever. While the Swedish airforce never engaged the SR-71 for obvious reasons, they managed to intercept (and get missile lock on) it a number of times with the Viggen aircraft and, had the situation been different, could have engaged it. See for instance this post corroborated by the Swedish Air Force's own magazine here (pdf in swedish).

To the Blackbird's defense, it was slowing down to about Mach 2.5 over Sweden before punching it over the Baltic, and it flew right at the edge of the Viggen's flight envelope, but still it's an impressive feat.

Re:This is very handy

[Anonymous Coward]

> The SAM is going maybe Mach 5 and you're maybe now
> at Mach 2.5. At a closure rate of only Mach 2.5, the
> SAM may run out of fuel before it reaches you

SAMs, other than shoulder-launched SHORAD, do NOT tailchase.

Any area defence SAM since the 1950s have used at least
collision-course guidance; the guidance computer predicts
where your Mach 2 aircraft is going and aims ahead.

Knocking a Mach 2 aircraft down from 40K ft was a piece of
cake in 1960. Nike Hercules was intecepting Corporal ballistic
missiles in June 1960. Today it's laughably easy.

Ummmm..OK?!?

[HomeLights]

Why would I want to bomb someone at Superonic speed anyhow? Last I checked, I can't see that fast, so I think I'd miss the target anyhow. We're all in too much of a rush, how about slowing down a little bit so you can be sure to hit the target?

I'm no expert but logic will always win the facts - politics will win the argument of course.

High-tech no-tech weapons

[jdickey]

Didn't Einstein say "I do not know how the third World War will be fought, but I can tell you what they will use in the Fourth--rocks!"?

Robert Heinlein, call your agent.

Re:This is very handy

[kqc7011]

How much has the range of the dropped bombs increased? With this much extra speed and altitude one could drop from a protected airspace and still hit well inside a defended zone.

Virtual insanity.

[dimethylxanthine]

How can we live, when fools can be kings?

not world class

[Anonymous Coward]

Iraq was bombed near daily for over a decade before the latest invasion. Their anti aircraft ability was severely degraded by that time as it was a near constant target. The "war" never ended, it started in 1991 and continues to this day in Iraq. Thousands and thousands of missions were flown before the latest "war" started. A somewhat better picture of abilities might be the balkans war, where even an f117 was knocked down and most air missions had to be flown at high altitudes using a lot of standoff munitions because the serbs had the ability to hit coalition of maximum profits planes if they got too low or too close.

FWIW, they really don't know full capabilities of russian tech, because russia never exports any top shelf stuff, even to rich client states. They did after all finally get the ability to hit u2 aircraft once they got pushed into it. If I can use a software analogy here, they export *near* to top shelf,a basic new "release" say, but not their best, the "point releases" they have with the final tweaks and enhancements are always held back until such a time as they are "old" tech. So far though, their grade B stuff isn't good enough, the recent israel strike on syria showed some disadvantages with their Tor-as -exported models, and you can be sure they are working on that real world test data at a rather fast pace right now.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

OTOH it is a cure for death by cancer

Bad days...

[icebrain]

Apparently the A-5 had a little problem of its own... nuclear bombs were designed to be "pooped out" of the weapons bay (a tunnel above and between the engines), but sometimes they tended to get caught in the wake, so to speak, and follow the airplane for a little while. There were also a few incidents of them pooping out during a catapult launch, leaving the bombs sitting on the carrier deck.

An F-14 once shot itself down during a test-firing of the AIM-7; the missle came back up and hit the aircraft right after ignition. Crew bailed out safely, IIRC. The aircraft was later modified with stronger ejectors.

Re:Bad days...

[Jonathan_S]

Apparently the A-5 had a little problem of its own... nuclear bombs were designed to be "pooped out" of the weapons bay (a tunnel above and between the engines), but sometimes they tended to get caught in the wake, so to speak, and follow the airplane for a little while. There were also a few incidents of them pooping out during a catapult launch, leaving the bombs sitting on the carrier deck.

An F-14 once shot itself down during a test-firing of the AIM-7; the missle came back up and hit the aircraft right after ignition. Crew bailed out safely, IIRC. The aircraft was later modified with stronger ejectors.

Could be worse. Back in '56 an F-11 Tiger shot itself down with its onboard cannon.
Let's just say going into a supersonic decent, in a straight line, after firing, isn't the world's brightest idea.

matroishka ;)

[StandardDeviant]

I think the dolls you're referring to would be rendered in english phonetics as "matroishka". Mamushka sounds like "babushka", which would be a plane-load of supersonic grandmothers. Holy Christ, that is a disturbing thought. They'd descend on our troops with an unstoppable rain of warm soups and freshly-knitted sweaters would be everywhere!

(I took russian many years ago in college, so please pardon any errors.)

Re:matroishka ;)

[steveo777]

Now that was a good laugh, thanks.

Re:matroishka ;)

[YU5333021]

If a world war broke out that was only fought by carpetbombing citizentry instead of bombs, US would clearly win. We have some heavy loads...er.... big bombs. High Fructose Corn Syrup FTW!

Also, thank you for the correction. A quick google on the topic informs me that it's "matryoshka" in fact. We were both wrong. Them fighting words. Let's have a war!

Re:matroishka ;)

[StandardDeviant]

Hehe, "bomba" was in my collegiate russian slang dictionary for, uh, a woman of exceptional size. (I don't recall if it was in equivalent usage for men.) The sad thing re: the dolls is that I can remember how to spell it in russian, I'm just not sure exactly how that would canonically be rendered in english phonetics.

Re: bomb accuracy in WWII

[CodeShark]

Not 100% true in terms of WWII history, at least in some places. High altitude bombing was never very effective, but the naval bombers in the Pacific theater got very very good at hitting their targets with less civilian casualties. How do I know? Because I lived in Japan for two years about thirty years ago, and once had friends nearby who took me to the site of an old, bombed out munitions factory that was completely surrounded by really really old Japanese houses and a nearby religious temple. I was told by WWII generation Japanese people that lived there that the day the factory was bombed was quite amazing because sometimes they would see the "little planes" come in at really quite bizarre angles to literally pitch their bombs past the temples, etc. into the factory area only.

Their kindness towards me is probably the highest compliment that I can give a military flyer -- the so called enemy noticing that the American's weren't out to kill all of them, and describing it to a youngster like me that wasn't even there, 30+ years after the fact.

Re:This is very handy

[eth1]

Even at lower altitudes, that would take a lot of light anti-aircraft systems off the table, and at least make it harder even for large SAM systems. Imagine being a guy with a shoulder-fired AA missile trying to get a bead on something going at Mach 2. Even if you get a successful lock on it and fire, it's unlikely your missile will be able to catch it even if it's on a low-level bombing run (something I wouldn't expect a B-2 to do, anyway).

Not to mention, if the guy with the shoulder-fired missile didn't get his shot off *before* you flew over him at 1000ft at mach 2, he'll be too busy holding his ears and screaming to worry about shooting at you. AND they can't hear you coming, so their main method of detection won't work.

This is while maintaining stealth.

[geekoid]

It is in stealth and dropping the bombs at supersonic speed. This is the first time. Actually a few months of go was the first time, but close enough.

So at max altitude for this ordinance, by the tinme impact happens, they will be 15 or so miles away, and still hard to detect.
If someone analysis the radar and figure out where the plane was, the plane will be past the border of most countries.

Re: bomb accuracy in WWII

[geekoid]

Yes, and that was the exception.
Pilots often tried to miss civilian targets, but in WWII they just weren't very good at it...in general.

NOW we can drop a bomb at a precise angle with a 3 nano second delay so the angle of the blast will protect the building across the street. We're talking buildings smaller then a city block, surround by other buildings.

We even drop bombs so the inside of the building is destroys, but the outer structure is still standing.

Sometime we miss. But overall we can do some pretty damn amazing things so we can get an objective and kill fewer people.

I don't think

[geekoid]

yiour suppose to do that. In fact, I'm pretty sure it would at least mean the country you released from would be considered to be at war with the country you bombed if you did that.

That's why you use a get that goes mach 2+ and can drop a bomb, all while still stealthed.
However, I think the make range is about 3 miles.
Check the bombs stats on wiki.

Re:I don't think

[kqc7011]

Last that I read was that the jdam has a range of near 60 miles from it's release point. Remember part of the jdam kit is a set of wings that pop out after dropping. The wings might have to be changed for supersonic travel.

I love that quote

[snowwrestler]

nt :-)

Cart before horse?

[PPH]

We've already thrown billions of dollars down the DoD rathole toward the development of supersonic aircraft. And only now somebody asks, "How are we gonna drop a bomb out of one of these things?"

And what if the answer is: The airframe we just finished developing needs to be completely redesigned? Give us more money and its back to the drawing board.

Snaaaaaaaaaakkeeee!!!!

[Pescar]

Anyone else think of metal gear upon reading the title?

Re:!! JESUS, HELP ME KILL MORE PEOPLE FASTER !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you hate our freedom?
Do you want the terrorists to win?
If you aren't with us, you're against us.
It is for our security.
It is for our country.
Just think of the [American] children!

Re:!! JESUS, HELP ME KILL MORE PEOPLE FASTER !!

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

This looks like a job for...

TASERMAN!

That's not really how that stuff works

[Jsohc]

Flying higher and faster is an excellent way to avoid certain surface to air missile threats, but an SA-10 isn't going to care if you're going mach 1 or 2; it's going to kill you regardless if you fly inside of its engagement envelope (which is well above the 40k you've mentioned). You aren't going to be dodging or outrunning a modern SAM at mach 2. Why would a SAM operator fire at you when you're flying away from the site, when they can just as easily fire at you as you're heading towards them, effectively using your speed against you? Unless you're doing some sort of low altitude ingress (which the F-22 is not), they're going to see you way before you start flying away from them (stealth nonwithstanding).

Shoulder fired missiles are the same way, and most operators will try to shoot you with a head on aspect. Speed may make the envelope you're in smaller, but they will still be able to acquire, track, and fire on you. However, even newer generation shoulder fired missiles have a hard time getting above 20k (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K38_Igla).

SAMs are a huge threat on the modern battlefield, and there were several shootdowns in the first Gulf War as well as in the Kosovo conflict. Scott O'Grady's F-16 was shot down by an SA-6 in 1995, and while I doubt his Viper was supersonic at the time, the SA-6 is far from a modern system. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_O%27Grady)

There are advantages to dropping bombs while going supersonic, but they don't have to do with SAM avoidance.

and this is useful how?

[hahn]

Somebody much less cynical than me, please explain how this is a useful development? Have pilots in bomber aircraft been complaining that they wished they were able to drop bombs at supersonic speeds?

The current day military and the government's use of it is why this country is going down the tubes. We either solve problems that don't exist, or our solutions create problems that didn't exist before.

Re:and this is useful how?

[DougF]

Actually, yes, pilots have been complaining for many years that they've had to slow down to deliver munitions, increasing their time over target and hence, vulnerability. As Ground to Air missiles get better, it becomes more important to be able to move fast enough to keep such times to a minimum. While supersonic bombing may not be important over Iraq and Afghanistan, the military has to plan/prepare for encounters with much more sophisticated defenses in other countries. Otherwise, when our jets start getting knocked out of the sky in the theoretical next war, some wisenhammer will wonder why we didn't do the work between wars to avoid just that...

Re:!! JESUS, HELP ME KILL MORE PEOPLE FASTER !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially considering his uid

"Re:Wow, very much correct." sounds less negative.

[Dr. Cody]

True, the B-58 used an external pod to carry the weapon and the new system uses a bomb bay, but in what sense is that contrary to the hype of the article? There is mention of "first time ever" but no mention of a weapons bay other than as the location of the new system. Use of a weapons bay at supersonic speeds is not entirely new, the A-5 could drop its payload at supersonic speeds from an internal bay...granted the weapon was ejected out the back of the aircraft from a bay between the engines.

Now, there have been a lot of phallic airplanes over the years, but I've never heard of one that was downright scatological.

Sopwith = WW I era bomber plane

[StefanoB]

The Sopwith Camel was the name of a popular airplane in the WW I era.