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!?
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."
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?
As long as people are willing to lend you money, you have funds...
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/
We may not have the best healthcare, education, economy, spaceflight resources, elderly care, poverty rates, or political climate, but you better believe we have all of the time, energy, and funding in the world when it comes to bombs. Maybe it's because it's one of the few things at which we're still number one. U S A! U S A! U S A!
The USA just opened a new military base ... in Australia. Nobody even knows how many foreign bases the USA has, but we have them in at least 130 foreign countries
If you focus on just two things in the world, the distribution of wealth, and the distribution of military power, you may conclude like I that the US is a de facto empire, and that the world's wealth is migrating to a de facto plutocracy. I can't prove that those two situations are related, but it seems more likely they are, than not.
Being amazed that the debt-bound USA is still developing weapons systems is like being amazed a thirsty pit bull still pisses on trees.
these may get seized, but I imagine part of having them is that we can give them to our creditors very quickly, delivery free of charge, in less than an hour!
"If you owe a country a billion dollars, you have a problem;
If you owe a country a trillion dollars, they have a problem"
-Jon Stewart
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Printing presses still work.
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... :)
Well, there's a pretty thorough list on Wikipedia - found trivially by googling "number of US overseas bases". But really, the US only has bases worthy of the name (I.E. supports significant operational or support capability) in only a dozen or so countries. The vast majority of US military installations overseas are nothing more than offices for military attache's or liason officers. That those looking to find reasons to complain are unaware of the difference is unsurprising.
In other words, so long as you disregard the things that actually define an empire - the US is an empire.
No, being amazed that this activity is still going one is like being amazed that debt bound private individual still eats and buys clothes. I.E. it's supremely ignorant. Just because somebody or someone is in debt doesn't meant that normal activities cease.
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).
Nah, I'm good.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.