Slashdot Mirror
US Army Completes First Test Flight of Mach 6 Weapon
Stirling Newberry writes "In a terse press release, the U.S. Department of Defense announced the first test of the the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon, which launches on a staged rocket and then glides to its target, in a manner similar to the Space Shuttle's re-entry. Earlier, ABC News posted a story with a video animation of the concept. Over at DefenseTech, they argue that the trajectory being different from an ICBM is meant to show that it is not a first strike device, but even the commenters don't think that explanation flies. The speed of deployment and the ability to strike targets without going high enough to be seen by many advance warning radars makes it a precision surprise attack weapon, a kind of super-cruise-missile for surprise, asymmetric attacks."
It is clear that this is not a "first" strike weapon. The summation is correct, it is simply a "surprise" strike weapon. Which is OK, because, hey, who does not like surprises!?
Amazing the USA still has the funds allocated to develop such things
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
I don't see how my side having the capability to make "surprise, asymmetric attacks" could be considered a bad thing on its own. Whats the price tag?
"His name was James Damore."
We can spend billions of dollars for useless weapons, but can't bother to spend the necessary money to keep our infrastructure from crumbling. What a fine use of our tax dollars!
I don't get it. Element of surprise is is a war tactician's wet dream.... Sun Tzu and all that jazz.
Besides, a sniper on the rooftop could be a first strike too, you know.
Saab tests hypersonic missile news (http://www.domain-b.com/defence/def_prod/20071228_saab.html)
28 December 2007
In an advanced test, Swedish conglomerate Saab, launched three hypersonic missiles to demonstrate controlled flight at extreme speeds. The missile, of which three were built, was test fired at maximum velocity, exceeding Mach 5.5, corresponding to 6500 km/h. Saab Bofors Dynamics, a subsidiary, developed the experimental missile, in a technology programme financed by the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV). The successful test makes Saab the first company to demonstrate that it is possible to manoeuvre missiles at hypersonic speed.
Don't worry. This is not part of what was sold to China...
Another big Wack a Mole hammer. I can never win at Wack a Mole why does the Defense Department think they will be able to?
This was a different design with an easier test objective. It's explained here: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/11/2400-miles-in-minutes-hypersonic-weapon-passes-easy-test/
You just know that nations such as China, Russia, India, Iran...etc so want to get their hands on this technology! Now would be a perfect time to setup honeypots to find and track suspected moles within the defense industry. Round up the H1B fuckers caught and kick them out of the country if on US soil.
Actually a lot of leaks come from Good o'l boys
I did a google search for the mph and a lot of results came back. News sites being the most inaccurate I expect. I've seen results between 4,000 & 5000 mph posted. I would take the average at 4,500 mph; but instead I've decided Mach 6 is very fast. Not as fast as light; but still really fast. I've given up until the neutrino faster than light thing gets fixed. It's Friday and two hours until beer o'clock?
Finally a slashdot article that doesn’t go *WHOOSH* over my head.
"Place me in the company of those who seek Truth, but deliver me from those who believe to have found it."
No, it's around 27% -- including all levels of government -- not 50%.
Also, if you're including state and local taxes, then the taxing organization is not "the US government".
I remember reading several months ago that this was being developed in response to the Al-Qaeda leadership hunting that was going on in Afghanistan. Apparently there were cases where the U.S. had intel (via satellite) about targets, and the only option that would have been fast enough to be useful was nuclear (and therefore was not an option). This weapon allows the U.S. to deploy the equivalent of a conventional aerial strike without the time required for a plane / drone to fly there.
I agree with you completely, and it could get much, much worse for the people who have to defend against these weapons if they are deployed from the launch tubes of attack submarines. Then defenders will be faced with a hypersonic weapon that suddenly pops up thousands of miles closer to an intended target than expected than if they were land based. The warning window will be much smaller, and the direction of attack may be completely unexpected.
Interestingly, the political value of this weapon system may far outweigh its military utility. Just knowing that the US has these weapons, especially sub-launched versions, will force potential adversaries to rethink their entire defensive strategy, possibly futilely. They'd have to extend their radar coverage and air defenses to all possible avenues of approach to lucrative targets, or relocate those high-value assets, or both, along with the necessary extensions of command and control infrastructure, and swallow the concomitant expense associated with any of those decisions. The very existence of such a system could force an adversary to the realization that a viable defense against it is neither militarily nor economically feasible.
Big difference between becoming a nuclear power and having ICBM capability. Even the USA back in the day had nukes long before being able to create the ICBM delivery system.
Just look at North Korea and their failures. Making an ICBM isn't easy by any stretch. Actually it was only a few years ago that Iran got caught trying to fake its failed rocket experiments with bad photoshoping... If they are 10 years from nuclear, they are an additional 20 for ICBM technology. It is after all, rocket science... :)
Said video is an animation of the Falcon HTV-2 which was tested several weeks ago.
While this thing might be very good for evading a country's terminal defenses (like Patriot missile batteries), there isn't any indication whatsoever that this weapon would be any more stealthy; it still uses staged launch vehicles.
A country doesn't know it is being attacked when warheads start appearing in the skies above it, it (or at least the great powers) know it is being attacked when it sees the missiles coming out of their silos (or out of the ocean from subs). Then in the 5-30 minutes it's got, it decides whether it is a false alarm. I guess if tensions are really bad and it is SURE that this is an actual attack, it will "launch on warning" that is launch before the attacking missiles start exploding. Otherwise it'll just ride things out (that's why ground missiles are in hardened silos, bombers are aloft in time of crisis and subs are at sea) and wait to see what the "fallout" is (groan) before counter-attacking.
What does this hypersonic warhead do to a great power other than (as I said) possibly evading terminal defenses? Nothing except get to the target slower than a ballistic missile. The launch had already been detected by infra-red sensors in orbiting satellites and the coarse trajectory already tracked by long-range radar (remember NORAD?). Since no country has a good ABM system (even the U.S. only has one capable of knocking down a few primitive missiles from rogue nations), a hypervelocity MANEUVERABLE warhead would provide no additional benefit. It would get there slower, cost more and carry less.
For possible REAL applications think of it as a conventional weapons system of uncommon speed. (You can look at my post about marrying it with MOPs).
(I should've added this to the above)
So, if the booster is big enough, can they use this thing with a MOP as a payload?
http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/11/17/1445237/boeing-delivers-massive-ordnance-penetrator [slashdot.org]
A big 30,000 warhead designed to blow up things DEEP underground might even do a better job if delivered at hypersonic speeds, think "rods from god". (It'll have to be redisgned to take the much higher impact speed but that's what engineers are for!) The fact that it is delivered on a (much) more expensive booster is mitigated by the fact that you don't need to use a B-2 to deliver it. This gives you two advantages: 1) the (admittedly low) risk of human crew loss (and loss of a $2B bomber) goes to zero and 2) you can now attack IN DAYLIGHT (B-2s lose their stealth advantage because they are not invisible to visible light, just radar and have low infrared profiles. So I figure any Iranian fighter pilot could easily shoot down the subsonic aircraft during the day).
Paradoxically they may NOT be as good a first strike weapon as a B-2 bomber against a great power because presumably Russia (and China?) can detect missile launches anywhere in the world more easily than a stealthy B-2. Against some country like Iran or North Korea however, they give the commander in Chief the ability to hit a target very quickly, with almost zero chance of interception, with the power of redirection (or abort) and during daylight (which would be very useful if you want to KILL all THE high value PEOPLE working there). Combined with a MOP you can go after even the deep ultra-high value targets although in order to do so you'd probably need to develop a new heavily solid fuel launcher (the old minuteman and MX don't have the throw weight and liquid fueled rockets aren't exactly things you can launch on a moment's notice).