Experimental Aircraft to Go From Zero to 13,000 in Hypersonic Test Launch - Page 2

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Experimental Aircraft to Go From Zero to 13,000 in Hypersonic Test Launch (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 8/10/2011 10:31:51 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
why not just arm space and be able to nuke it from orbit in less than a minute? it seems easier to weaponize satellites. have the satellite constantly beam info to its target. like a tv channel that all it showed is an image of its gun camera focused in on the enemy house. It would be demoralizing to say the least./

The hypersonic glider launch from orbit with a small motor might be good for that.

Posted: 8/10/2011 10:34:36 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
What is it made of?

Barackium Obamaloy. It's 87% slicker than teflon, produces a lot of hot air at speed and according to most sources in the media, the stuff is indestructible.

Posted: 8/10/2011 10:36:43 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If only they could put a warhead on that.......

It's called an ICBM.

Would a large conventionally armed ICBM from a specific launch area so we don't spook the Chicoms or Russians make more sense? A 2000 pound PGM that could hit anywhere on the planet in 30 minutes might make sense if the cost/benefit ratio is right.

Posted: 8/10/2011 10:40:09 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
What is it made of?

The pure distilled awesomeness that is Prompt Global Strike.

Posted: 8/10/2011 10:44:12 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Would a large conventionally armed ICBM from a specific launch area so we don't spook the Chicoms or Russians make more sense? A 2000 pound PGM that could hit anywhere on the planet in 30 minutes might make sense if the cost/benefit ratio is right.

That was considered several years ago. The problem is at the current time land launched ICBMs don't have the precision required for the mission. Conventional Trident was also considered (in that case it WAS potentially accurate enough) but was rejected because you can't tell a nuke D5 from a conventional one when it's launched at sea.

So other options are being explored, this test is one of them.

Posted: 8/10/2011 10:56:30 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:
why not just arm space and be able to nuke it from orbit in less than a minute? it seems easier to weaponize satellites. have the satellite constantly beam info to its target. like a tv channel that all it showed is an image of its gun camera focused in on the enemy house. It would be demoralizing to say the least./

I forget the title, but there is an international treaty to keep space from being militarized. We don't want the Russians or the chinese having space weapons, anymore than they want us to have them.

But ICBMs and SLBMs are ok.

Kinda like how you have to ride with a seatbelt on in a car because of the law, but riding a motorcycle is ok, even without a helmet in some states.

Posted: 8/10/2011 11:05:24 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:
why not just arm space and be able to nuke it from orbit in less than a minute? it seems easier to weaponize satellites. have the satellite constantly beam info to its target. like a tv channel that all it showed is an image of its gun camera focused in on the enemy house. It would be demoralizing to say the least./

I forget the title, but there is an international treaty to keep space from being militarized. We don't want the Russians or the chinese having space weapons, anymore than they want us to have them.

But ICBMs and SLBMs are ok.

Kinda like how you have to ride with a seatbelt on in a car because of the law, but riding a motorcycle is ok, even without a helmet in some states.

You can't fix stupid, man....

Posted: 8/10/2011 11:06:09 AM EDT

[#8]

Today's launch has been scrubbed due to weather. Launch has been rescheduled for tomorrow morning.

http://twitter.com/#!/DARPA_News
DARPA is on twitter?!

Posted: 8/10/2011 11:09:01 AM EDT

[#9]

At that speed do you even have to worry about anti-aircraft technology?

Posted: 8/10/2011 11:17:16 AM EDT

[#10]

http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/TTO/Programs/Falcon_HTV-2/Falcon_HTV-2.aspx
Interesting stuff
ETA: I guess DARPA frowns upon linking to their images

Posted: 8/10/2011 11:20:02 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

At that speed do you even have to worry about anti-aircraft technology?

doubt it. reaction time would be close to zero...

Posted: 8/10/2011 11:29:31 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

Quoted:
At that speed do you even have to worry about anti-aircraft technology?

doubt it. reaction time would be close to zero...

Hard to hit something moving at 3.6 miles per second...

Posted: 8/10/2011 11:37:49 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:
why not just arm space and be able to nuke it from orbit in less than a minute? it seems easier to weaponize satellites. have the satellite constantly beam info to its target. like a tv channel that all it showed is an image of its gun camera focused in on the enemy house. It would be demoralizing to say the least./

I forget the title, but there is an international treaty to keep space from being militarized. We don't want the Russians or the chinese having space weapons, anymore than they want us to have them.

But ICBMs and SLBMs are ok.

Kinda like how you have to ride with a seatbelt on in a car because of the law, but riding a motorcycle is ok, even without a helmet in some states.

They are ok because they are non-orbital - just like this test is non-orbital.

If you (and your enemies) put nukes on orbital platforms in LEO, you're not going to have any warning time. Not a position I'd want to be in.

Posted: 8/10/2011 7:35:35 PM EDT

[#14]

Posted: 8/10/2011 7:59:02 PM EDT

[#15]

We can't have arms in space, but we can launch thing into space really quick to strike anywhere in the world within a few minutes?

Sounds like we're just pushing the envelope so when the truth comes out that we've had missiles strapped on a satellite for 30 years it won't be so shocking.

Posted: 8/10/2011 7:59:03 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:

why not just arm space and be able to nuke it from orbit in less than a minute? it seems easier to weaponize satellites. have the satellite constantly beam info to its target. like a tv channel that all it showed is an image of its gun camera focused in on the enemy house. It would be demoralizing to say the least./

I forget the title, but there is an international treaty to keep space from being militarized. We don't want the Russians or the chinese having space weapons, anymore than they want us to have them.

But ICBMs and SLBMs are ok.

Kinda like how you have to ride with a seatbelt on in a car because of the law, but riding a motorcycle is ok, even without a helmet in some states.

They are ok because they are non-orbital - just like this test is non-orbital.
If you (and your enemies) put nukes on orbital platforms in LEO, you're not going to have any warning time. Not a position I'd want to be in.

A few hundred or thousand nukes aimed at your country doesn't mean shit to you either. You are gonna die or be completely fucking miserable after they hit. What does the warning time give you personally? Time to pray. If they had orbiting weapons, we would too, and I'm sure we could still detect a launch and counterattack as they attack, not that that matters much thanks to our massive number of warheads out at sea in our Ohio class SSBNs.

Posted: 8/11/2011 8:07:05 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
A few hundred or thousand nukes aimed at your country doesn't mean shit to you either. You are gonna die or be completely fucking miserable after they hit. What does the warning time give you personally?

It gives me 2 very important things.

1) it gives the intereceptors time to take out missles (If Obama doesn't dismantle the 'shield').

2) but more importantly it gives us enough reaction time to launch a devastating counter attack before their warheads hit.

If they can launch & hit with little to no warning there is NOTHING stopping them from nuking us when it's convienent because there is little chance of 'payback'.

However if they know in the 15-30 minutes it will take for their missles to strike we've have launched our own salvo then they won't be so quick to push the button.

I'm sure we could still detect a launch and counterattack as they attack,

Is youre assurance based on working with STRATCOM or are you just talking out of your ass?

massive number of warheads out at sea in our Ohio class SSBNs.

Please tell me more about these 'massive' number of warheads on our D5 laden SSBNs.

Posted: 8/11/2011 8:25:56 AM EDT

[#18]

Meh....

Wake me up when they have the Imporbability Drive

Posted: 8/11/2011 8:55:34 AM EDT

[#19]

The U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency says contact with its experimental hypersonic glider was lost after launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base on the central California coast.

Link

Vulcan94

Posted: 8/11/2011 9:00:24 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
The U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency says contact with its experimental hypersonic glider was lost after launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base on the central California coast.

Link

Vulcan94

Your avatar shot it down, didn't it?

Posted: 8/11/2011 9:03:50 AM EDT

[#21]

The first one was lost after booster separation, in April.

Posted: 8/11/2011 9:22:49 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
The U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency says contact with its experimental hypersonic glider was lost after launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base on the central California coast.

Link

Vulcan94

Obama will just cancel it, anyway

Posted: 8/11/2011 9:38:12 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Obama will just cancel it, anyway

Probably true.

Posted: 8/11/2011 1:40:11 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency says contact with its experimental hypersonic glider was lost after launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base on the central California coast.

Link

Vulcan94

Your avatar shot it down, didn't it?

Not me, I forgot to fuel up with 100LL this morning.

Vulcan94

Posted: 8/12/2011 10:42:46 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
It gives me 2 very important things.

1) it gives the intereceptors time to take out missles (If Obama doesn't dismantle the 'shield').

Do you really think the current anti-ballistic missile system in place can deal with the number of missiles Russia could throw at us? Last I heard it was still all in the testing stages and it has been shown to be feasible, but there's still no actual "shield" in place. They have retrofitted AEGIS ships, but there are only a handful of them and they can't be everywhere at once.

2) but more importantly it gives us enough reaction time to launch a devastating counter attack before their warheads hit.

See below

If they can launch & hit with little to no warning there is NOTHING stopping them from nuking us when it's convienent because there is little chance of 'payback'.

However if they know in the 15-30 minutes it will take for their missles to strike we've have launched our own salvo then they won't be so quick to push the button.

see below

Is youre assurance based on working with STRATCOM or are you just talking out of your ass?

Holy crap, have you never heard of hypothetical situations? In a hypothetical situation where there were nuclear armed space stations/satellites orbiting the Earth and aimed at our country, I think that hypothetically we'd have a network in place to detect launches, as well as our own weapons in place too. Also hypothetically you need better reading comprehension skills.

Please tell me more about these 'massive' number of warheads on our D5 laden SSBNs.

I guess 1300+ nukes isn't massive to you. That's more than enough to obliterate all of the military bases and medium to high population centers of multiple countries on the planet at the same time. It would be more than that if it weren't for the treaties undermining our ability to have our subs at maximum firepower. Ignore the treaties and there could potentially be 4000+ total warheads on our SSBNs.

Posted: 8/12/2011 11:06:44 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Do you really think the current anti-ballistic missile system in place can deal with the number of missiles Russia could throw at us? Last I heard it was still all in the testing stages and it has been shown to be feasible, but there's still no actual "shield" in place.

Not as currently installed - but it could be upgraded to significanly reduce the number of warheads getting through. However in a war with the Chi-coms it COULD stop them.

2) but more importantly it gives us enough reaction time to launch a devastating counter attack before their warheads hit.

See below

'See Below' is a silly cop out.

The fact is ONE OF US actually does this kind of thing for a living, and I know it aint you. Reaction time is a very important consideration.

Holy crap, have you never heard of hypothetical situations?

I deal with 'Hypothetical situations' all the time. The difference is I have access to data to make such scenarios realistic.

You are talking fantasy and BS.

In a hypothetical situation where there were nuclear armed space stations/satellites orbiting the Earth and aimed at our country, I think that hypothetically we'd have a network in place to detect launches,

Detecting the launch isn't the problem. Detecting it in time to do something about it is.

as well as our own weapons in place too.

It doesn't help if.
1) you were taken out before you can react.
2) if they have orbital platforms pointed at you - what's to stop them from having a platform or killer satellite aimed at YOUR weapons. You can't hide them in space - if you put something up everyone knows about it.

Also hypothetically you need better reading comprehension skills

There you go again making ASSumptions. My reading comprehension skills are just fine - it's your scenarios, factual information, and lack of analysis skills that need work.

I guess 1300+ nukes isn't massive to you.

There are those 'bad' facts again.

I'll tell you right now we don't have 1300 nukes in SSBNs patrolling in the ocean at any one time.

That's more than enough to obliterate all of the military bases and medium to high population centers of multiple countries on the planet at the same time.

No it's not, especially as some target require multiple warheads to be targeted at them.

Since you don't have a clue about SSBN ops, why don't you start a thread about how we don't need land based nukes as the subs have everything covered. I'm sure LimaXray could use a laugh.

Posted: 8/12/2011 11:16:36 AM EDT

[#27]

no it is not.

This would not have a ballistic trajectory. It would be a hypersonic cruise missile - harder to detect a launch, harder to detect in flight.

Quoted:

Quoted:
If only they could put a warhead on that.......

It's called an ICBM.

Posted: 8/12/2011 11:21:44 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Do you really think the current anti-ballistic missile system in place can deal with the number of missiles Russia could throw at us? Last I heard it was still all in the testing stages and it has been shown to be feasible, but there's still no actual "shield" in place.

Not as currently installed - but it could be upgraded to significanly reduce the number of warheads getting through. However in a war with the Chi-coms it COULD stop them.

2) but more importantly it gives us enough reaction time to launch a devastating counter attack before their warheads hit.

See below

'See Below' is a silly cop out.

The fact is ONE OF US actually does this kind of thing for a living, and I know it aint you. Reaction time is a very important consideration.

Holy crap, have you never heard of hypothetical situations?

I deal with 'Hypothetical situations' all the time. The difference is I have access to data to make such scenarios realistic.

You are talking fantasy and BS.

In a hypothetical situation where there were nuclear armed space stations/satellites orbiting the Earth and aimed at our country, I think that hypothetically we'd have a network in place to detect launches,

Detecting the launch isn't the problem. Detecting it in time to do something about it is.

as well as our own weapons in place too.

It doesn't help if.
1) you were taken out before you can react.
2) if they have orbital platforms pointed at you - what's to stop them from having a platform or killer satellite aimed at YOUR weapons. You can't hide them in space - if you put something up everyone knows about it.

Also hypothetically you need better reading comprehension skills

There you go again making ASSumptions. My reading comprehension skills are just fine - it's your scenarios, factual information, and lack of analysis skills that need work.

I guess 1300+ nukes isn't massive to you.

There are those 'bad' facts again.

I'll tell you right now we don't have 1300 nukes in SSBNs patrolling in the ocean at any one time.

That's more than enough to obliterate all of the military bases and medium to high population centers of multiple countries on the planet at the same time.

No it's not, especially as some target require multiple warheads to be targeted at them.

Since you don't have a clue about SSBN ops, why don't you start a thread about how we don't need land based nukes as the subs have everything covered. I'm sure LimaXray could use a laugh.

I will say again, hypothetical situations are HYPOTHETICAL. I don't care what "data" you have access to regarding completely hypothetical situations, neither you nor anybody else can possibly know how events will play out if the aforementioned situation was reality. And sure my 1300+ number was an optimal figure, just like your talk about optimal effectiveness of our ABM capabilities. You don't see me here insulting your intelligence for being intellectually dishonest. It's pointless to try and continue a discussion about this though. You have asserted that you are a grown ass man and that your word on such matters is the gospel, so... yeah. Never mind that you are insinuating that I don't believe we need land based ICBMs. Talk about putting words in my mouth.

Oh and my "see below" comments were there due to the fact that those statements by you were addressed in my response BELOW in one generalized response.

Cop out? JFC.

Posted: 8/12/2011 11:25:26 AM EDT

[#29]

didn't we get 114 seconds of telemetry (or something like that) before we lost contact? At mach 20 that means it went a pretty fair distance haha....

Posted: 8/12/2011 11:35:02 AM EDT

[#30]

This flight actually lasted a few seconds longer than the first.

Posted: 8/12/2011 11:46:13 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
[I will say again, hypothetical situations are HYPOTHETICAL.

By your standards Harry Poter is a 'Hypothetical' movie about a boy in the UK.

I don't care what "data" you have access to regarding completely hypothetical situations,

Well see here in the real world you need data to start making assumptions to generate a hypothetical scenario and how to come up with a response for the best possible outcome.

possibly know how events will play out if the aforementioned situation was reality.

Wanna bet?

And sure my 1300+ number was an optimal figure

Optimal is not the same as darn near impossible. Try again.

, just like your talk about optimal effectiveness of our ABM capabilities. You don't see me here insulting your intelligence for being intellectually dishonest.

Please point out where I was being intellectually dishonest.

It's pointless to try and continue a discussion about this though.

That we can agree on. We cannot have a discussion about a technical topic when one person doesn't understand the issues or capabilties of the technology in question.

Never mind that you are insinuating that I don't believe we need land based ICBMs. Talk about putting words in my mouth.

You were the one claiming the subs along could take out every enemy military base and city. If that were the case why would we have land based missles?

Posted: 8/12/2011 11:55:48 AM EDT

[#32]

We need to figure out how to deliver men, vehicles, and equipment using this type of aircraft.

If we could deliver something similar to an SBCTs via a Hypersonic aircraft we could eliminate our need and expense of maintaining overseas basing. It would be an incredible game changer that would save us a massive amount of money.

Between that to deal with rouge nations and terrorists and a strong nuclear triad and ballistic missile defense shield to deal with rival nations we could have a very small military that was incredibly effective and likely less expensive.

Posted: 8/12/2011 12:10:29 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
We need to figure out how to deliver men, vehicles, and equipment using this type of aircraft.
.

This type of 'aircraft' is meant for a one way mission with an extreamly high 'landing speed' (yeah uh that's the term). Don't expect to be able to scale it up to deliver men anytime in the near future.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Experimental Aircraft to Go From Zero to 13,000 in Hypersonic Test Launch (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us