Slashdot Mirror
US Military Seeks Hypersonic Weaponry
Dr. Eggman writes "In an interview with the Star-Telegram, the Air Force's chief scientist, Mark Lewis, talks about the USAF's latest research direction. The service is working on hypersonic missile and bombers for the purposes of reconnaissance and attack. In response to Chinese and Russian anti-satellite developments, the Air Force plans to develop weapons capable of sustained travel at Mach 6 to allow them to deploy against and take out anti-satellite launch sites before the enemy can fire their missiles. Furthermore, should the US spy satellite network be brought down, the Mach 6 recon flight systems would be capable of filling in. Air Force officials hope to deploy a new interim bomber by 2018, followed by a more advanced, and possibly unmanned, bomber in 2035." We've discussed on a number of occasions the scramjet technology that would power such vehicles.
The device was called "Pluto VSLAM".
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/slam.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto
It's from the 1950/60s. What a naive and stupid era.
What makes you think we can't do it as well as or better than they do?
+++ATH0
The B-52 will likely outlast it, too. Its planned to be in active service until the 2040s.
I think that you have it exactly backwards. For example, one of the primary goals of the Geneva conventions, other than laying out the rules for treatment of POWs, was to ensure that only weapons which deliver a quick and certain death, with the minimal amount of suffering, were used in warfare between signatories. This is why weapons such as the crossbow and others not deemed lethal enough were banned because they caused more agonizing deaths too frequently to justify their use in the face of better available weaponry (i.e. the only reason they would be chosen over a standard rifle would be to increase the suffering of the enemy which was not a valid reason under the agreement).
How is that different from any other way of dying in modern warfare?
Bullets, bombs, missiles, grenades, lasers, modern cannons, etc.: You will be dead before you know what's coming.
Arrows, poison gas, mortars, knives, crowbars, flames, etc.: You may have a split second or so to understand what is about to happen to you. Then you die.
No fair calling out radar or other sophisticated sensing systems, here. You could know that a V2 was coming through intel or visually or through crude radar even during WWII. You didn't have much time, no, but RF signals travel much faster than a V2. Even then: If you are the target coordinate of pretty much any modern weapon, you are on the fast track to fine-pink-mist-ification.
War is hell. Nothing can change that. Killing has become our most efficient national product. From the standpoint of a potential victim, I think I'd rather be instantly killed than mortally wounded so that I can spend a few days in agony before I die and my blood and organs are infected beyond use to anyone else.
Frankly, I don't want to see the V2 or missile or bomb coming for me. I want either an early warning system that would allow me enough time to have a chance of survival (like we have already, the phalanx or CIWS- it has saved my ass); or else I want to go from a state of stupefied boredom to dead in the time it takes a fast explosive shockwave to dissociate my neurons.
There, I said it. Call me a coward, but I've actually dealt with the whole idea of staring death in the eye, and it is over-rated.
-b
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
The fact that there may be public healthcare for the poor is irrelevant to most people, who aren't poor enough (or don't have the requisite children) to get in the plan, but don't have a pristine health history that allows them to buy individual insurance.
Face it, the thousands of privately managed risk pools, middlemen, ever-changing contracts, murky and confusing billing procedures, etc. make our healthcare system an insane, broken expensive nightmare unless you work at a large corporation. (Which is probably by design, as it creates a feudal-like system to keep corporate employees loyal at the risk of losing coverage for their families.)