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.

Comments

Dead before you hear it coming

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, Pynchon in his Gravity's Rainbow frequently made the point that the V-2 was an especially inhumane weapon because, falling faster than the speed of sound, it killed you before you even knew it was coming.

Re:Dead before you hear it coming

[Ykant]

Funny, that seems rather the most humane possible way of obliterating someone. After all, as you said, they don't even know it's coming. I might call it the least *sporting*, though...

Re:Dead before you hear it coming

[khallow]

Uh, I didn't know there was a humane way to kill people with military hardware. I must know more.

Re:Dead before you hear it coming

[Anonymous Coward]

It never ceases to amaze me how civilized people lay down rules on how to take each others' lives in a 'humane' manner. We are one bizarre race.

It's hysterical

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Seeing the picture of the prototype being dropped from a 50 year-old B-52. And the design is 60 years old! They just don't build 'em like that anymore.

Wasting resources?

[bogaboga]

I wish I could say that this is not wasting resources, but it is. All these plans would not be that necessary if the USA kept out of other countries' business. But we will not leave them alone.

There are greater threats to USA's security than these mach 6 planes will address. Things like terror are far worse. Imagine six 9-11's on our [critical] infrastructure.

These plans also assume that Russia and China are sitting idle. Once again, we shall be surprised just like we were when Russia put into service, a nuclear capable missile with independent, multiple war-heads. This made our missile shield obsolete.

This confirms to me that my president and his administration are just incompetent.

Re:Wasting resources?

[bigdavex]

Things like terror are far worse. Imagine six 9-11's on our [critical] infrastructure.

The 9-11 attacks were horrible for the people actually involved, but they're really, really small compared to a nuke going off in a city. Terrorism is bad, but it's not a threat to our nation's survival.

Re:Wasting resources?

[Dr. Eggman]

Aircraft capable of sustained speeds of Mach 6 doesn't just have to have military purposes. This research could be applicable well beyond, in space exploration and more. As a launch veichle, a reusable hypersonic design is one of NASA's prime goals. Materials capable of withstanding the forces present at Mach 6, and even more so, for sustained periods of time could bring great advances in material sciences and result in stronger commercial airplanes, enhance the durability of electronics, or at the very least provide materials more capable of dealing with extreme friction. Military spending just happens to be one of the easier ways to get approval for a range of applicable technologies.

Re:Wasting resources?

[j. andrew rogers]

Undoubtedly, the most important "non-medical" factor is the fact that close to 1/4 of the population doesn't have proper access to the medical system in the first place, thereby exacerbating any medical problems that they have until it's too late. You can't just sweep that under the rug.

If you eliminate accidents and homicide from the statistics, Americans live longer. Period. Do you realize how radically better US healthcare would have to be for your assertion to hold up in the statistics? Direct healthcare outcomes for the average American, rich or poor, are better than the rest of the industrialized world, but not that much better. You cannot juggle the numbers to make that fact go away, and its reality is well documented in the medical journals (e.g. the recent Lancet Oncology study). The problem with Americans is demographic, genetic, environmental, and behavioral.

You can try and dodge the elephant, but it is quite large. A poor person with cancer in the US has better survival odds than a poor person in the UK's NHS. Every state in the US has a public healthcare system for the poor, incidentally, since the US Federal government has no jurisdiction in these matters. The idea that there are people without access to medical care in the US is false; most of the argument is over whether there is a more efficient way. As someone raised on free public healthcare in the US in multiple states, it never ceases to amaze me that it supposedly does not exist. This is mostly just ignorance from foreign perspectives that fail to realize that individual US States are essentially the equivalent of countries in the EU and that public healthcare is dealt with at that level of government.

Groovy, but will the Chinese be willing to fund it

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's going to pay for this, other than the Chinese? I doubt they'll enjoy seeing the continued armament of the USA against Chinese interests being funded with Chinese credits.

Advanced Military Systems are Great

[Phoenix666]

and their deterrent power shouldn't be downplayed.

But amidst news of new systems a lot of folks forget that the greater part of U.S. strength is so-called "soft power." Economic strength, alliances, energy security, cultural strength, and good-old fashioned good will are examples.

They are harder to develop but are also harder to fight and confer an immeasurable advantage. Building hypersonic weapons is a good thing, but it's a lot easier for your geopolitical competitors to steal the plans and copy it than it is for them to steal your alliances or international good will.

Sources of soft power aren't usually included in defense planning because areas like economic policy and cultural strength appertain variously to non-military departments or even the private sector. But they should be, because our competitors (like China) are.

That said, the United States has a lot of work to do to restore the soft power that eight years of the Bush administration has squandered. Let's hope the next administration is more astute and capable.

Re:Advanced Military Systems are Great

[SvetBeard]

Demonstating a willingness to invade an ill-behaved country (Iraq) is a form of soft power that your ideology prevents you from seeing.

I don't think you quite understand the meaning of "soft power."

From the Wikipedia article on Soft Power:

Soft power is a term used in international relations theory to describe the ability of a political body, such as a state, to indirectly influence the behavior or interests of other political bodies through cultural or ideological means.

and

Soft power . . . distinguishes the subtle effects of culture, values, and ideas on others' behavior from more direct coercive measures called hard power such as military action (hard power) or economic incentives.

"Willingness to invade" is classic hard power. Please make sure you know what you are talking about before reflexively posting a defense of whatever policy you espouse.

Re:Advanced Military Systems are Great

[onkelonkel]

So your definition of "ill-behaved" is that the country's rulers horribly mistreated some of its citizens. Tell me why this definition wouldn't apply to North Korea, Burma(Myanmar), Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, Syria, Cuba or China or ....the list goes on and on. And why haven't we invaded them yet?

Re:28 year planning?

[Coffee Warlord]

It's how military R&D works. We're using stuff now that was developed what...20 or so years ago, if not more in many cases? The life cycle of this stuff is a lonnnnnnnng time (a combination of your standard red tape and just the time it really does take to properly push out this kinda stuff).

'Course, this often causes R&D to be fighting the last war. They're developing advanced technology that would be nice now, but not always useful for the next brand of warfare.

I am so tired of stupid "leave them alone" crap

[nunyadambinness]

"All these plans would not be that necessary if the USA kept out of other countries' business."

And just exactly how is that supposed to happen? How the fuck is the LARGEST ECONOMY IN THE WORLD supposed to "keep out of other countries' business"?

"But we will not leave them alone."

Again, how the fuck is that supposed to happen? The US withdraws totally and walls itself off from civilization? Total isolationism? Not only is that not possible, it doesn't do anything about the fact that the US has resources that some country somewhere will eventually want.

What then, Mr. Waste-of-Resources? I guess you could always complain on Slashdot if they invade...

We're part of the world. All the dumbass pie in the sky wishful thinking, passed off as peacenik wisdom, doesn't change that fact. Pretending it's possible to "leave them alone" just illustrates how far removed from reality you are.

And you'll notice, all the well thought out posts listing the very real reasons why your post is stupid sit there unloved, while your steaming pile is modded up. That says it all about the quality of thought that goes into moderation these days.

Re:Black Helicopters

[Mr2cents]

Because The military industry think they can sell it to congress. And I have to admit, they have come up with a nice threat to make it sellable.

Re:Black Helicopters

[explosivejared]

Well since you and the mods have replied seriously to what was a light-hearted joke, I'll respond seriously to you. Having a potent strike capability that nigh instantaneous (as in a few hours) is pretty handy to have for merits that are obvious. I don't buy the whole satellite warfare line. Once we start blowing up satellites, then the orbitals become unusable. So barring a mad scientist destroy the world scenario, I don't believe satellite warfare is a real threat. It would be like poisoning a well that you drink from as well as the enemy.

The point flew over your head

[aepervius]

Quote : "How the fuck is the LARGEST ECONOMY IN THE WORLD supposed to "keep out of other countries' business"?

There is a difference between being the largest economy of the world, and the largest bully. Nothing in being the largest economy of the world force you to have a big army, and a big nuclear arsenal beyond what is necessary for retaliation, and certainly nothing force you to invade other country which never heard of you, and nothing force you to blackmail other country against producing cheaping anti aids drug (a pet peeve of me, international treaty allow it for emergency situation but the US blackmail a lot of country against doing this, or even retaliate). The fact is that the US seems to be quite trigger happy and forget what diplomacy is. If it was not the case, you would not have so-unhappy-ally and falling out with decades old ally. In case you don't remember you had a lot of support a few years ago before you decided to squander it into what i would call bullying Iraq. Nobody ask you to be isolationist. But sometimes, sometimes, it would be nice if you could leave people which are not disturbing you alone in their own FUCKING country. And I am not even speaking of Irak alone. Nicaragua. Chile. Panama. And so on. You are part of the world, but most of the time your extern politic amount to "do whatever we say or we crush you, crush you so bad you won't believe it".

Remember kids, respecting others [person,country] goes into a long way to get respect back. Bullying other make you a nice target. And spitting on your friend make you look like an idiot.

hahaha

[StarKruzr]

"They just don't realize it yet." Uh huh. They OBJECTIVELY have the best standards of care in the world and have had their programs going for decades. When are they going to "realize" it?

"230+ years of watching government fuck up everything it touches." You're absurd. Government has fucked up the military? It's fucked up the road system? Boy, I sure hate driving on that Eisenhower Interstate system, don't you? Government fucks up the sewers and sanitation? Please pull your archlibertarian head out of your ass and think.

Why are we allowing HMOs and insurance companies to make healthcare choices? Why are we allowing them to make LIFE OR DEATH DECISIONS based on the fucking profit motive? We don't do it in this country with ANYTHING ELSE life-or-death -- JUST health care because so many politicians' best buddies happen to be health care execs.

"And why, oh WHY, would you allow your government ANY hand in your healthcare choices? Doesn't it worry you that such a system can be used to punish malcontents?" No one is going to allow that. Social Security isn't used to "punish malcontents."

Here is my favorite part of your ridiculous libertarian rant: "And how come the privacy wonks famously disappear when nationalized healthcare is discussed? Doesn't it bother you that your private health information can be used for more than treatment choices?" LULZ. You honetly think this isn't happening RIGHT NOW? Why do you think the (ineffective) HIPAA was passed? Because EXACTLY this is already happening. At least with national health care some kind of democratically-driven transparency can be enforced.

Re:This is just corporate welfare

[noewun]

The real serious immediate threat facing America is the possibility of a terrorist group smuggling in a low grade weapon, nuclear, biological or chemical into the country and detonating it.

Actually, the chance of any of those happening is slight because of the technology required to create them. Nuclear and biological weapons, in particular, require a technological infrastructure which terrorists groups--especially the modern, non-state, distributed groups--don't have and, frankly, don't want. The insurgents in Iraq are doing fine with nothing more complicated than explosives, detonators, cel phones and RPGs. Even 9/11 was a decidedly low tech attack: hot building with big, flammable thing. Modern terrorism is about sascading system failures, and you don't need a nuke to do that. Look at the steadily declining amount of electricity available to the residents of Bagdhad to see how you can paralyze an entire city with nothing more than simple explosives and carefully chosen targets.

The real issue here is the Air Force's refusal to acknowledge that its force structure is out of step with the threats we're facing now. The Air Force wants more and more F-22s, even though the F-22 hasn't been near Iraq and Afghanistan and it won't go near them, as it's payload and loiter time are too small for close air support, which is all our pilots and aviators are doing over there. Air Force brass also continues to give short shrift to the A-10, even though it's uniquely suited to the present, and potential future, conflicts.

Take a look at the Air Force budget request for the next budget and you'll see it's stuffed full of shit we don't need. Meanwhile things we do need, like more airlift capacity, more tankers, etc., are being ignored because they don't go Mach 2. All of the services are having to adapt to the current realities. The Air Force is doing the worst job.

The other side of the issue is that the procurement system is completely broken, but that's a whole 'nother thread.

Regan talked about welfare queens.

And he was telling a lie and continued to tell even when called on it. If you want to do some research you will find that, before Welfare "Reform", the average stay on welfare was 1.9 years. Only about 5% of welfare recipients were on welfare for more than 5 years. It was actually one of the most efficient and effective social programs this country has ever undertaken.

That said, I do agree with you that the broken procurement system has enabled corporate welfare of the worst kind.

Rendering the Orbitals Useless

[qbzzt]

So barring a mad scientist destroy the world scenario, I don't believe satellite warfare is a real threat. It would be like poisoning a well that you drink from as well as the enemy.

If you're about to lose a war, you do what it takes to survive and ignore the long term consequences. Life without satellites is better than life without life.

Re:Now, wait just one second

[Smoke2Joints]

Please step down from your high horse for a moment - every nation has a right to have an army. If theirs is somewhat bigger than yours in some way, that does not make them automatically your enemy. By Xenu, the US is one of the most aggressive and militant countries in the world, should we (the rest of the planet) consider you an enemy? Your logic is absurd.

And dont make me bring up the illegitamacy of the Iraq war, because noone needs the inevitable clusterf*** that will ultimately ensue.

Maybe your country should, you know, actually try diplomacy with these people rather than throwing around words you might regret. ie. Stop trying to be the world police.

Re:Wasting protoplasm

[TripMaster Monkey]

I said you could start with manifest destiny. Now that you've admitted that your initial claim of "The only land the US has taken is for cemeteries for their dead soldiers." is false, perhaps now you can move on and actually learn something...

...or perhaps you can't. Judging from the quality of your posts thus far, I doubt that you have much capacity to learn.

I really don't care either way. As I said earlier, it's not my job to educate you.

Re:This is just corporate welfare

[Xest]

I'm not convinced nuclear terrorism really is a threat, a nuclear strike on US soil would result in a nuclear response by the US and even people as nutty as Osama know that whilst they've been able to hide from conventional forces they can't hide from a nuclear retaliation.

Russia is heading further and further towards it's cold war state with it's assassination of Litvinenko on British soil, it's incursion into Japanese airspace, it's buzzing of US aircraft carrier in the pacific, silencing of opposition parties in election, threat to aim nuclear weapons at Europe and the Ukraine and so on and so forth. As such I'd argue that it's not unreasonable to keep up military equipment capable of dealing with a conventional enemy like Russia as the way things are going, Russia seems quite content with the idea of pushing for a new cold war.

Re:There was no point, only rhetoric like yours

[crabpeople]

"And just exactly how is that supposed to happen? How the fuck is the LARGEST ECONOMY IN THE WORLD supposed to "keep out of other countries' business"?"

Oh i dunno.. the ron paul platform?

- no tarrifs, especially retaliatory corporatist based ones
- stop secretly (or recently overtly) overthrowing other peoples governments (theres about 60 years for you to say sorry for currently)
- no sanctions against "misbehavior" (the very fact that americans are so arrogant to think they can tell people how to behave underlines this all. why can't iran have nuclear power again? why cant most countries legalize drugs?)
- stop acting like usa corporations write the worlds laws
- do not attempt in any way to be the worlds police or to think you know "better" for another country.

Its pretty simple. No ones saying don't trade with people, but speaking as a canadian, learn to trade fucking fairly. The US doesnt even follow its own trade body rulings. You can look up the history of softwood lumber or sugar cane to see the kind of "economy" and "trade" the USA wants.

"Pretending it's possible to "leave them alone" just illustrates how far removed from reality you are."

Pretending that its some how the USA's mission to do, well, anything "missionary" on the world stage pretty much ignores your own constitution.

Re:This is just corporate welfare

[philwx]

No, the real threat is China. Not some boogieman terrorist distraction from our real problems and competitors.