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.
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.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Imagine six 9-11's on our [critical] infrastructure.
Wait, do you want me to imagine 5466, or -12?
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.
Imagine six 9-11's
I tried to, but I couldn't figure out what part of the pentagon the 6th would hit.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
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.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
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.
Demented But Determined.
Because, there is a government agency called the WCGI (Wicked Cool Gadgets Initiative) which is responsible for developing kickass technology for the military. The charter of this agency is simply to "develop the most awesome, wicked cool gadgets possible". If they can come up with something that sounds really sweet, they'll put money into developing it regardless of whether or not anyone needs it. If the tech is cool enough, the military will find some way to use it.
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.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
What kind of order of operations did the teach where you learned to do algebra?
Clearly he meant 43.
Which, incidentally, is one better than the answer to life, the universe, and everything.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
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.
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.
I am a believer of momentum and curves.
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.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
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.