Missing: One Hypersonic Glider

[01101001]

Aviation Week: DARPA Investigates Hypersonic Glider Loss

Lockheed Martin and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency are investigating why contact with the first HTV-2 test vehicle was lost soon after launch on a mission to demonstrate technology for high-performance, long-endurance hypersonic flight.

The third stage of the Orbital Sciences Minotaur IV Lite booster successfully completed energy-management maneuvers, released its clamshell payload fairing and deployed the HTV-2 at the edge of the atmosphere, but telemetry signals from the hypersonic glider were lost about 9 minutes into the mission, DARPA says.

Launched from Vandenberg AFB, Calif. on April 22, the unmanned HTV-2 was planned to cross the Pacific and impact the ocean north of Kwajalein Atoll in the first of two flights to demonstrate technology for a prompt global strike weapon capable of flying 9,000nm in less than 2 hours.

[swampyankee]

Their stealth technology was too successful.

[danscope]

Your tax dollars at "loss" ? At those speeds, better use an internal antenna.

[KaiYeves]

Their stealth technology was too successful.

Duh. Is STEALTH craft!

[Garrison]

Obviously the X-37B swooped down and vaporized it with the ray gun in the payload bay before returning to orbit...

[mugaliens]

Launched from Vandenberg AFB, Calif. on April 22, the unmanned HTV-2 was planned to cross the Pacific and impact the ocean north of Kwajalein Atoll in the first of two flights to demonstrate technology for a prompt global strike weapon capable of flying 9,000nm in less than 2 hours.

Let's see...

In 1959, more than 50 years ago, ICBMs capable of flying to their targets for a prompt "global strike weapon capable of flying 9,000 nm in less than..."

...35 minutes were developed. Now we're working on vehicles which can do it in just "2 hours?"

Wow. What am I missing, here?

Either it landed for some R&R in Bali, or this is a cover for hidden funds. If the latter, I'd like to meet the knucklehead who mistakenly thought this would fool anyone.

Ok, yeah, sure. It's a hypersonic glide vehicle test bed. Perhaps they'll use the technology to improve future follow-ons of the X-37B.

I dunno...

Obviously the X-37B swooped down and vaporized it with the ray gun in the payload bay before returning to orbit...

Ah, the stuff of sci-fi. The missing vehicle was probably a space-based target for the X-37B's testing a space-based laser or something. Who knows?

[joema]

...In 1959, more than 50 years ago, ICBMs capable of flying to their targets for a prompt "global strike weapon capable of flying 9,000 nm in less than..."

...35 minutes were developed. Now we're working on vehicles which can do it in just "2 hours?"...Wow. What am I missing, here?...

There's great military interest in conventionally-armed ICBMs, or something similar. It's called "Prompt Global Strike". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_Global_Strike

But current ICBMs can't be used due to possible confusion with a nuclear-armed version. This requires something with a totally different trajectory design, which means either hypersonic airbreathing or a depressed trajectory missile.

[slang]

But current ICBMs can't be used due to possible confusion with a nuclear-armed version. This requires something with a totally different trajectory design, which means either hypersonic airbreathing or a depressed trajectory missile.

What stops the new design from carrying a nuclear payload, of from being suspected to do that? Is the gain solely that there is more time to respond (or choose not to)?

[joema]

What stops the new design from carrying a nuclear payload, of from being suspected to do that? Is the gain solely that there is more time to respond (or choose not to)?

The main problem is decades of warning systems are designed around ICBMs and their unique trajectory. Nothing else besides nuclear-armed ICBMs looks like that. Change out the warhead for a precision-guided conventional one, and it still looks like an ICBM launch to infrared satellites and radar tracking.

A hypersonic airbreather or depressed trajectory missile doesn't look like that, so wouldn't be mistaken for a nuclear ICBM launch. Of course you could put a nuclear warhead on it, but the plan is resolve that through on-site inspection.

[mugaliens]

There's great military interest in conventionally-armed ICBMs, or something similar. It's called "Prompt Global Strike". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_Global_Strike

But current ICBMs can't be used due to possible confusion with a nuclear-armed version. This requires something with a totally different trajectory design, which means either hypersonic airbreathing or a depressed trajectory missile.

Neither sea nor air-launched cruise missiles, both of which were originally designed for nuclear strike capability, appear as ICBM's, either. And stealth versions are available...

The issue is that the 129s are being reduced, if not phased out, in response to the Moscow Treaty. Since similar efforts to reduce our nuclear arsenals on other fronts are in effect, I just don't see the connection with the idea of using a hyperglider as a nuclear payload delivery platform.

[joema]

Neither sea nor air-launched cruise missiles, both of which were originally designed for nuclear strike capability, appear as ICBM's, either. And stealth versions are available...

The issue is that the 129s are being reduced, if not phased out, in response to the Moscow Treaty. Since similar efforts to reduce our nuclear arsenals on other fronts are in effect, I just don't see the connection with the idea of using a hyperglider as a nuclear payload delivery platform.

The goal of Prompt Global Strike is worldwide intervention in hard-to-reach places within 1-2 hrs using conventional warheads. Only ICBMs or functionally equivalent hypervelocity systems can do that. Cruise missiles cannot.

The goal is using conventionally-armed (not nuclear armed) precision-guided hypervelocity delivery platforms with worldwide reach. ICBMs with conventional warheads can do that but could be misinterpreted as a nuclear strike. Thus the need for conventionally-armed delivery platforms with roughly similar range, reaction time and transit time.

[joema]

Neither sea nor air-launched cruise missiles, both of which were originally designed for nuclear strike capability, appear as ICBM's, either. And stealth versions are available...

The issue is that the 129s are being reduced, if not phased out, in response to the Moscow Treaty. Since similar efforts to reduce our nuclear arsenals on other fronts are in effect, I just don't see the connection with the idea of using a hyperglider as a nuclear payload delivery platform.

The goal of Prompt Global Strike is worldwide intervention in hard-to-reach places within 1-2 hrs using conventional warheads. Only ICBMs or functionally equivalent hypervelocity systems can do that. Cruise missiles cannot.

The goal is using conventionally-armed (not nuclear armed) precision-guided hypervelocity delivery platforms with worldwide reach. ICBMs with conventional warheads can do that but could be misinterpreted as a nuclear strike. Thus the need for conventionally-armed delivery platforms with roughly similar range, reaction time and transit time.

A space-based hypersonic glider is another way to achieve that.

[mugaliens]

The goal of Prompt Global Strike is worldwide intervention in hard-to-reach places within 1-2 hrs using conventional warheads. Only ICBMs or functionally equivalent hypervelocity systems can do that. Cruise missiles cannot.

The goal is using conventionally-armed (not nuclear armed) precision-guided hypervelocity delivery platforms with worldwide reach. ICBMs with conventional warheads can do that but could be misinterpreted as a nuclear strike. Thus the need for conventionally-armed delivery platforms with roughly similar range, reaction time and transit time.

A space-based hypersonic glider is another way to achieve that.

"On 11 April 2010, United States Secretary of Defense Robert Gates indicated that the United States already has a Prompt Global Strike capability." - Source

As for the concern: "It is currently unclear what designs or precautions would be certain to assure these countries that launched missile is not nuclear-tipped."

The answer is simple: None, as all options can be nuclear-tipped.

[Garrison]

Ah, the stuff of sci-fi. The missing vehicle was probably a space-based target for the X-37B's testing a space-based laser or something. Who knows?

There was supposed to be a smiley at the end of my post, it is also apparently missing...

[Ilya]

Let's see...

In 1959, more than 50 years ago, ICBMs capable of flying to their targets for a prompt "global strike weapon capable of flying 9,000 nm in less than..."

...35 minutes were developed. Now we're working on vehicles which can do it in just "2 hours?"

Wow. What am I missing, here?

Most likely the part "and return to the base after destroying the target".

[JustAFriend]

They used an illegal pinewood car component and discovered Warp Drive.

Baby Fark McGee-zax will be around soon to find out who launched it....

Clip here....

[Antice]

hypersonic craft are detectable in the same manner as any other craft or missile. the escalation issue is also the same. no nation can afford to ignore an all out attack no matter the weapon delivery method. There is no correct way to make an all out conventional attack on a nuclear state. the result is the same regardless.
A large state may adopt a wait and see position in regards to a single inbound missile, but an all out attack. no chance.

[Polyrealastic Observer]

As it happens, I serve food and beverage to a board member of Orbital. He told me the HTV is "not lost" and troubleshooting efforts are being considered. He seemed to be slightly confidant contact could be reestablished. Sorry I can't add more, but it doesn't seem hopeless from what he said.

[Nicolas]

You mean that it likely made it to the ground in one piece? Because whatever happened, it ain't flying around no more by now.

But...

the unmanned HTV-2 was planned to cross the Pacific and impact the ocean north of Kwajalein Atoll

So what you're implying doesn't make any sense to me.

[Polyrealastic Observer]

Good point. It was, after all, a sub-orbital flight. I admittedly was confused by the title of this thread into thinking the vehicle was still travelling. When I had the short conversation with my patron, we were both distracted, and I must have misunderstood him somehow. Just reporting the disjointed information I recieved. I guess what they say about, "They'll rip you to shreds around here{pp is true.

[Nicolas]

As long as it's a gentle, factual ripping eh.

[Polyrealastic Observer]

I guess that's the only way to get to the bottom of things. Good catch.

[doma]

Perhaps a possible use of a hypersonic craft such as this would be to replace the current missions where B2s lift off in the U.S., then travel non stop around the world to a target, refueling along the way, drop their conventional bombs, then fly all the way back. If the hypersonic, pilotless, craft work and can replace those missions you have far less risk (no risk of losing a B2 or pilots), greater timeliness, (around the world in 4 hours instead of (12?)) and no need to return as the sled could be expendable ... or after dropping weapons they can ditch it somewhere in the ocean offshore of their target for possible pickup and reuse. In this manner it might be just a cheaper faster (better?) bombing system.

The timeliness issue might be a big draw too. Right now, if you see bad guys you want to hit, and you don't have an asset nearby (say, a drone with more than just a camera onboard circling in the nearby skies) you need to launch a plane or a cruise missile (about the same speed) or worse send in a team. But if you can launch a hypersonic craft then perhaps the bad guys won't have finished their meeting, had dinner, and gone home by the time your conventional strike arrives at the target.

I wonder how much you can scale up this technology. If this craft was launched by an Orbital Sciences rocket then it will be much smaller than a B2 ... and hence not be able to carry a payload as massive as a B2's. However, if you just 'make it bigger' perhaps you could carry as many bombs as a B2 or more.

[mugaliens]

Perhaps a possible use of a hypersonic craft such as this would be to replace the current missions where B2s lift off in the U.S., then travel non stop around the world to a target, refueling along the way, drop their conventional bombs, then fly all the way back.

Ok...

If the hypersonic, pilotless, craft work and can replace those missions you have far less risk (no risk of losing a B2 or pilots), greater timeliness, (around the world in 4 hours instead of (12?)) and no need to return as the sled could be expendable ... or after dropping weapons they can ditch it somewhere in the ocean offshore of their target for possible pickup and reuse. In this manner it might be just a cheaper faster (better?) bombing system.

I look forward to your proposal around 2030. ETA: Actually, why build a delivery system? Our approach for guided munitions since the Vietnam war as been to simply strap a guidance package onto a dumb bomb. Some of those include wings. Why not simply encase a dumb bomb in small, disposable, bomb-sized reentry vehicle/hypersonic sled?

The timeliness issue might be a big draw too. Right now, if you see bad guys you want to hit, and you don't have an asset nearby (say, a drone with more than just a camera onboard circling in the nearby skies) you need to launch a plane or a cruise missile (about the same speed) or worse send in a team. But if you can launch a hypersonic craft then perhaps the bad guys won't have finished their meeting, had dinner, and gone home by the time your conventional strike arrives at the target.

(offensive comment deleted) ETA: Seeing the bad guys is actually far more difficult than Hollywood leads one to believe. If the US were watching me, for example, I can defeat 100% of all satellite surveillance by leaving my apartment under an overcast sky, and similarly defeat all on-Earth surveillance by exiting with one disguise, entering a nearby crowded area, and changing to a second disguise before leaving. In Afghanistan, the bad guys all wear either the same robes or similar pants/shirt as does everyone else in the population. They have roughly the same build, same color hair, and it's almost impossible to track them through a bizaar, even if one is just 50' behind them and on foot.

I wonder how much you can scale up this technology. If this craft was launched by an Orbital Sciences rocket then it will be much smaller than a B2 ... and hence not be able to carry a payload as massive as a B2's. However, if you just 'make it bigger' perhaps you could carry as many bombs as a B2 or more.

(offensive comment deleted) ETA: While it can certainly be scaled up to the size of a B2 or larger, larger isn't necessarily better. The F-22, for example, can carry 2 JDAMs or 8 SDBs internally (stealth), and has four external hard points under the wings, each capable of holding 5,000 lbs for either fuel tanks (inner points only) or rail launchers (air-to-air missiles).

It might surprise you to know that a single F-22 with 8 SDBs is several times more effective than an entire squadron of WWII B-17s dropping dumb bombs.

It hasn't been about "make it bigger" since the Regan years. (offensive comment deleted)

[joema]

Perhaps a possible use of a hypersonic craft such as this would be to replace the current missions where B2s lift off in the U.S., then travel non stop around the world to a target, refueling along the way, drop their conventional bombs, then fly all the way back. If the hypersonic, pilotless, craft work and can replace those missions you have far less risk (no risk of losing a B2 or pilots)

The B-2 replacement may simply be an unmanned subsonic bomber: http://www.afji.com/2009/06/4040349

...The timeliness issue might be a big draw too. Right now, if you see bad guys you want to hit, and you don't have an asset nearby (say, a drone with more than just a camera onboard circling in the nearby skies) you need to launch a plane or a cruise missile (about the same speed) or worse send in a team. But if you can launch a hypersonic craft then perhaps the bad guys won't have finished their meeting, had dinner, and gone home by the time your conventional strike arrives at the target.

That is the exact thinking behind Prompt Global Strike. Whether the delivery platform will be a hypersonic airbreather or a conventional missile is unknown: http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...litary/4203874

I wonder how much you can scale up this technology. If this craft was launched by an Orbital Sciences rocket then it will be much smaller than a B2...

Excepting rare circumstances, current precision makes B-52 or B-2-size payloads unnecessary. For one example see the Small Diameter Bomb: http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...itions/sdb.htm

If they need more payload on target, they'll simply launch more unmanned strike vehicles.

[captain swoop]

please grow a brain and help the rest of us 9 billion on our planet survive

Mugaliens, please remember the rules on Civility and Decorum. This is uncalled for.

[mugaliens]

Regarding "Unmanned and Nuclear" - Having been a "tip of the spear" part of our nation's nuclear Triad, I have grave misgivings concerning the delivery of nuclear weapons by unmanned aircraft. It's not a matter of capability, as the Global Hawk's success has proven that it can be done. Rather, it's a matter of what happens when things go wrong. Even the Global Hawk has crashed. The last thing I'd ever want to read about in the paper is a Broken Arrow where one went down and NEST arrived to find the weapons missing.

And yes, NEST's scope of operations is limited to the U.S., so it would be another team...