Missing: One Hypersonic Glider (again?)

[NEOWatcher]

My point was...

Gee, I forget one smiley and I get taken seriously.

Considering we know absolutely nothing and have no examples of alien technology, I considered it an absurd statement which I thought throwing in Roswell as an example put the icing on the cake. Plus, it was a good tie-in to the 3 score.

[ravens_cry]

Gee, I forget one smiley and I get taken seriously.

Considering we know absolutely nothing and have no examples of alien technology, I considered it an absurd statement which I thought throwing in Roswell as an example put the icing on the cake. Plus, it was a good tie-in to the 3 score.

Yes, text does not convey sarcasm well. I would continue, but I have already dragged this topic off topic, twice in-fact.
ON-topic, DARPA may be having trouble with this, but it would not be the first time an advanced new form of propulsion has had issues.

[Gsquare]

Well . . .
Imagine if we gave a broken SR-71 to the Wright Brothers. It wouldn't do them much good ....

Yeah, they would probably be smart enough to keep the time machine that brought it there rather than the useless piece of steel it delivered.

G^2

[Gsquare]

So instead of being detected as a possible nuclear-armed ICBM, it will be detected as a possible nuclear-armed hypersonic bomber. I don't really see the advantage here.

Really?
How's about being able to beat anyone on the planet with nuclear retribution within a few minutes of an enemy's nuclear launch. .... way before their icbm's even got 1/2 way to America.??
In the Air Force its all about speed of delivery.

How's about being able to out run any enemy's ICBM shoot down capability? Its VERY hard to hit a speeding bullet.

It basically sets up a new set of deterents for those who have developed shoot down capabilities or those with the capability to overwhelm us with multiple nukes and it prevents them from foolishly thinking they can shoot first and escape retribution.

Course, it doesn't work on fanatical idiots like Iran who don't care if their people are obliterated after the fact. )


G^2

[jlhredshift]

Really?
How's about being able to beat anyone on the planet with nuclear retribution within a few minutes of an enemy's nuclear launch. .... way before their icbm's even got 1/2 way to America.??
In the Air Force its all about speed of delivery.

How's about being able to out run any enemy's ICBM shoot down capability? Its VERY hard to hit a speeding bullet.

It basically sets up a new set of deterents for those who have developed shoot down capabilities or those with the capability to overwhelm us with multiple nukes and it prevents them from foolishly thinking they can shoot first and escape retribution.

Course, it doesn't work on fanatical idiots like Iran who don't care if their people are obliterated after the fact. )


G^2

Don't forget sub launch, seven minutes from launch to impact!

[slang]

I don't understand this fixation on comparing ICBMs with hypersonic craft. MAD (mutual assured destruction) is no longer the dark cloud that it used to be, hovering over every single military plan. Remember that when the ICBM was introduced, the thinking was that bombers would no longer be necessary. Of course that was when ICMBs were a nuclear option only, thankfully an option not very popular, and global political changes have diminished the value of ICBMs compared to regular good old aircraft, with bombs (with varying levels of smartness).

A hypersonic vehicle gives a military planner or commander options. An ICBM, with kinetic warhead or otherwise, goes up... goes down. I'm not sure how much re-targetting options a*commander has, but I imagine it's not much. A more "normal" vehicle has more options to delay or re-target. Imagine a Predator hovering around, keeping eyes on a high-value target. If it moves... the ICBM burns a hole where the target was... the hypersonic vehicle may have more options to change the mission based on the new information.

In the new world, with terrorists and all that badness, targets have become much smaller, and much more mobile. Key is to get assets near the target as quickly as possible (the primary reason for arming the recce drones), assets with enough precision to hit what must be hit, and miss what must be missed. I don't think an ICMB-like weapon can fill that role, although they might still be useful against fixed locations (I imagine a properly designed kinetic impact on a buried bunker will do terrific damage).

[cjameshuff]

Really?
How's about being able to beat anyone on the planet with nuclear retribution within a few minutes of an enemy's nuclear launch. .... way before their icbm's even got 1/2 way to America.??
In the Air Force its all about speed of delivery.

That'd be quite convenient. But we're talking about a hypersonic glider bomber, not a magic teleportation device. Mach 20 max, unpowered and constantly decelerating, 2 hours to travel 17000 km.

How's about being able to out run any enemy's ICBM shoot down capability? Its VERY hard to hit a speeding bullet.

It's inherently slower on arrival than objects on orbital or near-orbital trajectories (ICBM payloads reentering atmosphere, for example), and no faster at getting moving. We're not developing this thing because it's faster, we're developing it because people who won't believe us when we say a missile isn't nuclear-armed will supposedly believe us when we say an unmanned hypersonic bomber isn't nuclear-armed.

[Gsquare]

Don't forget sub launch, seven minutes from launch to impact!

Yep; and with this new hypervelocity vehicle, the possibility of putting it on an aircraft carrrier as far away as 300 miles at sea will reduce that impact time to about 86 seconds! That's music to the ears of Air Force or Navy Commanders....

Subs are about all our commanders have going for them at this point in order to ensure untargeted "strike back" capability ; Icbm land based launch pads are sittin' ducks.

Our nuclear subs are pretty well hidden and are a real terror for China and the like who certainly make plans for full suppression of a U S nuclear RESPONSE.

No doubt the Air Force generals KNOW if the new Hypersonic killer ever gets perfected it will be a great stategic leap forward; that's why they put so much effort into it.

It will not only give assurance of response capability from US mainland (in case of overwhelming attack), it is possible to adapt it to sea based critters like Aircraft carriers, etc. making it a first strike response within minutes of an attack, with a speed far greater than conventional jets (Mach 20 !), making it almost impossible to defend against....even if the enemy had missile interceptors.

G^2

[cjameshuff]

Yep; and with this new hypervelocity vehicle, the possibility of putting it on an aircraft carrrier as far away as 300 miles at sea will reduce that impact time to about 86 seconds! That's music to the ears of Air Force or Navy Commanders.

86 seconds into its launch, it's still in the early stages of acceleration. The HTV-2 takes 270 seconds to reach its maximum speed.

Subs are about all our commanders have going for them at this point in order to ensure untargeted "strike back" capability ; Icbm land based launch pads are sittin' ducks.

To what? Other ICBMs? As you point out, they take some time to reach their targets. Responding with a vehicle that takes even longer, is easier to track, and is more vulnerable to explosions in atmosphere isn't particularly going to help matters. And how will the bases that these rocket-launched hypersonic bombers operate out of be any less vulnerable? In case it's escaped your notice, the HTV-2 is launched on an ICBM.

No doubt the Air Force generals KNOW if the new Hypersonic killer ever gets perfected it will be a great stategic leap forward; that's why they put so much effort into it.

Where, precisely, is the strategic leap in a slower, less stealthy, more vulnerable delivery system that requires larger rockets to deliver a given payload to the target?

It will not only give assurance of response capability from US mainland (in case of overwhelming attack), it is possible to adapt it to sea based critters like Aircraft carriers, etc. making it a first strike response within minutes of an attack, with a speed far greater than jets (Mach 20 !), making it almost impossible to defend against....even if the enemy had missile interceptors.

Why will technologies developed to defend against smaller, even faster moving targets be inapplicable against hypersonic bombers?

[Solfe]

In reading this thread and a little more on warfare, I don't think that a weapon derived from HTV2 would be deploy-able vs a technologically advanced force. I think the intended targets would have to be operating without advanced logistics or is target that can't move. Its one thing to fire off a dozen hypervelocity weapons at a target that has no idea something like it is in the area. It is something different to antagonize an enemy in to reply with their biggest and best weapon, likely being some sort of missile with huge city busting warhead.

I suspect that the primary targets would be either stationary features like buildings with huge defenses or small forces that are either too far from support or too small to be granted support or one that doesn't have any support at all. The targets would have to be of low enough value (in terms of human life, cost, and combat value) to avoid the enemy prioritizing an ICBM as a response. And it would have to be in the right place and time so an enemy's neighbor doesn't reply with an ICBM because your HTV2-type weapon came to close for their comfort.

I bet that if such a weapon was refined enough for combat, it would be disliked by soldiers as much as artillery or landmines for its completely random ability to injure or kill soldiers. Aside from aiming one at a clear rallying point or defensive structure, hitting individuals would be very fluky (if that is a word). And carries a very real liability if the weapon hits something it shouldn't like a hospital. Perhaps as Gsquared noted, it would be used on or by ships. I think a navy would really hate that sort of weapon if they didn't have something like it to use back.

It really sounds like the opposite of a nuke, not something better (better meaning more destructive) than a nuclear weapon.

[slang]

In reading this thread and a little more on warfare, I don't think that a weapon derived from HTV2 would be deploy-able vs a technologically advanced force.

Leaving aside if this statement is true, you may have noticed that for the past several decades those on the receiving end of US weaponry were exactly that, not very technologically advanced forces. That doesn't mean those forces should be underestimated, but it does require different strategies and tactics. Read a little more about warfare, especially about the asymmetric type.

I think the intended targets would have to be operating without advanced logistics or is target that can't move.

Why? That's "dumber" bomb territory. Smart, fast weapons are able to attack small mobile targets. That's why you go through all that trouble to get them near the target.

Its one thing to fire off a dozen hypervelocity weapons at a target that has no idea something like it is in the area. It is something different to antagonize an enemy in to reply with their biggest and best weapon, likely being some sort of missile with huge city busting warhead.

MAD is sooo last century..

I suspect that the primary targets would be either stationary features like buildings with huge defenses [...]

No, that's cruise missile territory. Preferably after something fast and/or stealthy has degraded air-defenses. Remember those people stating emphatically that Baghdad was too well protected to be attacked by aircraft?

[...]or small forces that are either too far from support or too small to be granted support or one that doesn't have any support at all.

This is probably closer to the intended targets, but still a lot to lump together. It depends on circumstances. If it's already full out war, and regular air assets have already been deployed to the area, then the targets you mention are fodder for regular ground attack planes. But setting up and executing a regular strike mission, with (as needed) fighter protection and/or jamming help takes time. Time to plan, time for aircraft to get there, and back, safely. Having an option to put precision weapons near mobile high value targets quickly at very short notice is priceless.

The targets would have to be of low enough value (in terms of human life, cost, and combat value) to avoid the enemy prioritizing an ICBM as a response. And it would have to be in the right place and time so an enemy's neighbor doesn't reply with an ICBM because your HTV2-type weapon came to close for their comfort.

Step away from the ICBM! You're stuck in "old thinking".

I bet that if such a weapon was refined enough for combat, it would be disliked by soldiers as much as artillery or landmines for its completely random ability to injure or kill soldiers.

Where does this come from? All we know about a hypersonic vehicle is that it can put assets on or near one spot on the Earth very, very quickly. It's not an ICBM. It's not like an ICBM. It can be a delivery vehicle, to put precision weapons on a target quickly, or something to give "eyes" on any area very quickly (instead of waiting for a satellite pass).

Aside from aiming one at a clear rallying point or defensive structure, hitting individuals would be very fluky (if that is a word). And carries a very real liability if the weapon hits something it shouldn't like a hospital. Perhaps as Gsquared noted, it would be used on or by ships. I think a navy would really hate that sort of weapon if they didn't have something like it to use back.

This is not an ICBM. It's not a weapon that is targeted before launch. Why go through all the trouble of developing this if it had as few practical applications as you seem to think?

It really sounds like the opposite of a nuke, not something better (better meaning more destructive) than a nuclear weapon.

True. It gives the option to put precision guided weapons near a target very quickly to destroy it with pinpoint accuracy, rather than smashing it with a huge nuke hammer and hoping it didn't move away far enough into some bunker to survive.

Stop thinking about this thing as a Cold War weapon, put it into the perspective of current (and future) military operations.

[CJSF]

That said, Opportunity is getting pretty close to Spirits last stomping grounds, but that is a rover roving rather than a precision landing.

These two rovers are still on opposite sides of Mars. What made you think Opportunity was nearing Gusev crater?

CJSF

[cjameshuff]

Step away from the ICBM! You're stuck in "old thinking".

No, this thing is what's stuck in "old thinking": Silbervogel. This approach has been tried before, and was dropped when ICBMs made it obsolete and it turned out to have no mission.

Where does this come from? All we know about a hypersonic vehicle is that it can put assets on or near one spot on the Earth very, very quickly. It's not an ICBM. It's not like an ICBM. It can be a delivery vehicle, to put precision weapons on a target quickly, or something to give "eyes" on any area very quickly (instead of waiting for a satellite pass).

It's basically identical to an ICBM, except being somewhat slower, carrying lighter payloads, having more difficult control and thermal management problems, and perhaps being better able to shift a nuclear payload to another target late in its flight.

This is not an ICBM. It's not a weapon that is targeted before launch. Why go through all the trouble of developing this if it had as few practical applications as you seem to think?

It's not an ICBM only because it's a glider. I don't know why you think it's not targeted before launch, it certainly doesn't seem to be remote piloted.

Lack of practical applications is why I expect it to get canceled...just like Dyna-Soar was.

True. It gives the option to put precision guided weapons near a target very quickly to destroy it with pinpoint accuracy, rather than smashing it with a huge nuke hammer and hoping it didn't move away far enough into some bunker to survive.

We have that option, just give ICBMs conventional armament. The reason typically given is that ICBM launches would be assumed to be armed with nuclear weapons. This hypersonic glider-bomber is just as capable of carrying nuclear weapons, however...the same objections must apply to it.

Stop thinking about this thing as a Cold War weapon, put it into the perspective of current (and future) military operations.

It only makes any sense as a Cold War weapon...the cross range capability being used to allow reassignment of targets due to successful hits and/or defenses successfully taking down warheads heading for other targets. And that's a stretch, given the increased vulnerability and required sacrifices in payload.

[ravens_cry]

These two rovers are still on opposite sides of Mars. What made you think Opportunity was nearing Gusev crater?

CJSF

My mistake ,I thought Spirit Crater had something with the defunct, RIP, Spirit rover. My bad, but my original point still holds that for science related missions spreading your probes makes more sense then landing them next to each other.

[CJSF]

Spirit Point was, indeed, named in tribute of the Spirit rover. Your point does hold, in a general sense, although much science and practical information could be gleaned by visiting defunct spacecraft, in my opinion.

CJSF

[ravens_cry]

Spirit Point was, indeed, named in tribute of the Spirit rover. Your point does hold, in a general sense, although much science and practical information could be gleaned by visiting defunct spacecraft, in my opinion.

CJSF

Yes, that's why we had Apollo 12 visiting Surveyor III.
When we send a manned mission to Mars, we can take a look around some of our earlier probes, maybe even bring some of them home.
They deserve it.

[Solfe]

Why? That's "dumber" bomb territory. Smart, fast weapons are able to attack small mobile targets. That's why you go through all that trouble to get them near the target.

True, but to not have to deploy ANY people or equipment for this kind of attack is a win-win situation, even if you miss.

MAD is sooo last century...

Yes, but a single launch as a face saving move stinks. Some people are crazy enough to do that.

No, that's cruise missile territory. Preferably after something fast and/or stealthy has degraded air-defenses. Remember those people stating emphatically that Baghdad was too well protected to be attacked by aircraft?

I would say that a hypervelocity weapon followed by cruise missiles would be much better. Launch the cruise missiles and aircraft, then launch the hypervelocity weapons which will hit first. The missile and aircraft have a field-day over the shocked target. The time on target would be very short.

This is probably closer to the intended targets, but still a lot to lump together. It depends on circumstances. If it's already full out war, and regular air assets have already been deployed to the area, then the targets you mention are fodder for regular ground attack planes. But setting up and executing a regular strike mission, with (as needed) fighter protection and/or jamming help takes time. Time to plan, time for aircraft to get there, and back, safely. Having an option to put precision weapons near mobile high value targets quickly at very short notice is priceless.

True enough, I haven't considered anything other than a first strike, last strike mission.

Step away from the ICBM! You're stuck in "old thinking".

Yes, I am sort of stuck. My thought pattern is that if we have a hypervelocity weapon and no one else does, then you need to consider the fact that they are "old thinking" because that is the only option they may have unless they care to invade us or shoot at Navy ships.

Where does this come from? All we know about a hypersonic vehicle is that it can put assets on or near one spot on the Earth very, very quickly. It's not an ICBM. It's not like an ICBM. It can be a delivery vehicle, to put precision weapons on a target quickly, or something to give "eyes" on any area very quickly (instead of waiting for a satellite pass).

I ascribe this to the horrors of war. Imagine being a company commander protecting a facility and one of these things destroys that facility desire your efforts. You would look like a fool. Now imagine that it also takes out 4 of your men who were napping or having meal. You couldn't pay me enough to be that guy. Perhaps that is a little too much imagination on my part.

This is not an ICBM. It's not a weapon that is targeted before launch. Why go through all the trouble of developing this if it had as few practical applications as you seem to think?

I will have to think more on this one.

True. It gives the option to put precision guided weapons near a target very quickly to destroy it with pinpoint accuracy, rather than smashing it with a huge nuke hammer and hoping it didn't move away far enough into some bunker to survive.

Agreed.

Stop thinking about this thing as a Cold War weapon, put it into the perspective of current (and future) military operations.

Again I will think about this one more.

[slang]

It's not an ICBM only because it's a glider. I don't know why you think it's not targeted before launch, it certainly doesn't seem to be remote piloted.

Well, I'm not talking about these demonstration models, AFAIK only designed to investigate the hypersonic flight regime, but rather the kind of craft that will follow from this. And I don't expect that to be Minuteman launched. If this specific vehicle were to be used ... then yeah, it probably won't be very useful.

[slang]

I will have to think more on this one.

To be fair: I cheated. I'm not talking about this actual vehicle, but the type of craft I expect to follow from this. If it works.

[Solfe]

To be fair: I cheated. I'm not talking about this actual vehicle, but the type of craft I expect to follow from this. If it works.

Cheated!?!?! Thats not fair!

I wonder how close this system would be to the weapons described in The Dragon and The Bear? They have a gliding bomb that dispense homing warheads the size of a crow that can independantly strike over 100 targets. They kill tanks with a hit on the top armor (or lack thereof.) The seem to be of the hypervelocity type of missile.

[cjameshuff]

Well, I'm not talking about these demonstration models, AFAIK only designed to investigate the hypersonic flight regime, but rather the kind of craft that will follow from this. And I don't expect that to be Minuteman launched. If this specific vehicle were to be used ... then yeah, it probably won't be very useful.

So look at a scaled up version...instead of a Minuteman, you're using a Titan I. Giving it a bigger booster rocket and making the whole thing big enough to carry a typical ICBM's payload doesn't make it any less like an ICBM. Launching one will still take everything you need to launch a particularly large ICBM, and won't be able to achieve anything you couldn't achieve with ICBM-delivered payloads.

[joema]

....We're not developing this thing because it's faster, we're developing it because people who won't believe us when we say a missile isn't nuclear-armed will supposedly believe us when we say an unmanned hypersonic bomber isn't nuclear-armed.

There are probably multiple reasons for a hypersonic boost/glide warhead:

(1) Increased accuracy. Mostly, ICBM warheads don't maneuver in the atmosphere but fly a ballistic trajectory. Even with improved GPS terminal guidance, accuracy may not be sufficient if using conventional warheads. A maneuvering vehicle obviously has much better accuracy.
(2) Trajectory control to optimize target impact. E.g, shape terminal trajectory for vertical approach to better penetrate underground targets.
(3) Use cross range to dispense submunitions either side of the ballistic heading.
(4) Use cross range or L/D ratio to minimize or avoid problem of 3rd booster stage falling on someone's territory.

Re confusing with a nuclear ICBM launch, the below viewpoint discusses this for the proposed Conventional Trident Modification (CTM). Based on this viewpoint a boost/glide warhead isn't needed for this reason, but it may be needed for other reasons, such as those above. I think CTM was cancelled, partially due to the mis-identification problem.

http://armed-services.senate.gov/sta...2003-28-07.pdf

"The most frequently cited concern is that a CTM launch could be misinterpreted
as a nuclear attack, prompting Russian retaliation. The CTM report states that the risk is
extremely low and can be managed effectively. Few states have the sophisticated
technology required to detect and track a ballistic missile launch. However, the Russian
Federation has these detection and tracking systems and is generally able to evaluate
quickly a ballistic missile’s flight path and determine within tens of miles the missile’s 9
aimpoint. In that respect, if Russian sensors detected and tracked a CTM launch, the
Russian command would quickly identify it as non-threatening. Moreover, the Russian
command would readily distinguish between a CTM launch and a massive nuclear first
strike."

[Garrison]

The two applications I can think of are a high penetration bunker buster, similar in concept to the 'Rods from God'concept, or indeed as an area effect weapon without attracting the kind of response the use of tactical nuclear weapons would, and I'm thinking of diplomatic/political reaction rather military response.

[ravens_cry]

If they get a manned version done, it could have potential for really, really, high speed insertions. You need a squad there, like yesterday? It's the best thing for it besides a time machine.

[GeorgeLeRoyTirebiter]

That's actually a separate program.

[cjameshuff]

(1) Increased accuracy. Mostly, ICBM warheads don't maneuver in the atmosphere but fly a ballistic trajectory. Even with improved GPS terminal guidance, accuracy may not be sufficient if using conventional warheads. A maneuvering vehicle obviously has much better accuracy.
(2) Trajectory control to optimize target impact. E.g, shape terminal trajectory for vertical approach to better penetrate underground targets.
(3) Use cross range to dispense submunitions either side of the ballistic heading.

This doesn't require a hypersonic glider-bomber, though. A bomb capable of flying to its target after reentry...well, much of the work has already been done, and it would be far simpler to develop than a hypersonic bomber that glides across half the planet.

(4) Use cross range or L/D ratio to minimize or avoid problem of 3rd booster stage falling on someone's territory.

Now that's a justification I haven't seen before. The lower, slower trajectory could drop the boost stages closer to home, and the cross range could allow the craft to be launched in a safer direction that drops them in a remote area or outside of someone's territory. That's an actual advantage of this approach...though I'm still skeptical of it being worth the cost. A sea-launched conventional precision-guided ICBM system seems to achieve this while being simpler, cheaper, faster to develop, and capable of more rapid response in situations where such weapons are likely to be used.

I didn't say the supposed confusion with a nuclear ICBM was a good reason, I think it's a quite poor one...it's just one of the more often stated purposes I've seen for this thing.

[joema]

If they get a manned version done, it could have potential for really, really, high speed insertions. You need a squad there, like yesterday? It's the best thing for it besides a time machine.

That would be unlikely, if the HLV-2 is anything like the previous AMARV (Advanced Maneuvering Reentry Vehicle), which it's similar to in concept. AMARV pulled pulled 100 G during reentry maneuvering. Below is a photo of an AMARV test.

[ravens_cry]

That's actually a separate program.

Interesting. I love how one of the followup pages is "space marines", which Wikipedia discusses in its delightfully clinically detached style.

[Solfe]

I wonder if E. E. "Doc" Smith's Lensman series is any good. Smith's series seems to be mentioned in every real life space weapon article on Wikipedia.

[ravens_cry]

I wonder if E. E. "Doc" Smith's Lensman series is any good. Smith's series seems to be mentioned in every real life space weapon article on Wikipedia.

I've read "The Skylark of Space" by the same author and, well, it is a two-fisted tale of super science. I don't think it has aged all that well, but it was an easier read than "John Carter of Mars".