hypersonic

SpaceNut · 2006-01-31 08:21:21

When I searched for the term hypersonic, I found that we had been discussing it in as many as 13 different threads but that none were truely meant as a proper item to be of topic but was rather off topic to some extent in most.

The space plane research into hypersonic flight has been though its ups and downs but mostly it was chosen to be passed off as not needed for the vision.

Fisrt of there has been some recoords set but none to the speed level that would make them ready for getting us into space just yet.

Work does continue own though with High-speed air vehicles designed for rapid global reach

For an aircraft to achieve hypersonic speeds, ranging from 6,000 to 15,000 mph (Mach 9 to Mach 22), and reach altitudes between 100,000 to 150,000 feet, it needs an airframe structure designed to survive intense heat and pressure.
Such technology is in development by scientists and engineers with the Falcon hypersonic technology vehicle, or HTV, program.

PurduesUSAFguy · 2006-01-31 09:03:34

I'm courious as to what exactly the firs FALCON flight is supposed to test. It's essentially a Hypersonic Glide Vehicle, something that isn't exactly new. The details still lurk in the etheral mists of DOD clssification but we developed and at least had one or two flight tests of an HGV designed to be launch from B-52 that could carry one or two warheads into the Soviet Union at an altitude, speed, and trajectory that it would likley be undetected, and more importantly unintercetable by the then feared soviet ABM program....

I'll grant you it was a purley expendable a program, so prehaps this flight will serve as a materials test bed, but this seems like an example to me of what's old is new again.

RobertDyck · 2006-01-31 10:29:40

The Air Force wants the ability to launch a fighter from the contiguous States to any country in the world, drop a precision bomb, then fly somewhere for recovery. This way the don't rely on an aircraft carrier, so it's Air Force instead of Navy. This isn't for a thermonuclear warhead, that could be accomplished by an ICBM. When dropping a multi-megaton fusion bomb you don't need centimetre accuracy, within a kilometre of the target is enough. This is for rapid deployment of a surgical strike, like the assasination attempt of Libyan president Muammar Qaddafi in April 1986.

Hypersonic glide capability permits a fighter launched on top of an expendable rocket, like the X-20 Dynasoar. You're right, what's old is new again. But HTV-2 and HTV-3 appear to work toward a true SSTO, RLV spaceplane. That would permit surgical strike of an identified target before it's moved, without relying on slow deployment of a ship, without relying on foreign nation's air bases, and as an Air Force operation instead of Navy.

GCNRevenger · 2006-01-31 11:22:02

I don't know about SSTO, but at least hypersonic once-around-the-Earth suborbital for sure.

The reason why we need the glide test vehicle is we don't quite know how to make an airplane that can withstand Mach 10-15 flight in the thicker lower atmosphere where a Scramjet would operate, or at least be able to reenter nose-first from suborbital velocity for a bombing run.

RobertDyck · 2006-01-31 13:55:32

Once around, so it can land at home rather than using the SCRAM jet for launch. Interesting.

If it can ascend into the stratosphere after the bombing run, it can fly at mach 10 without difficulty. X-43A flew mach 9.6 at 109,000 feet with only a titanium hull, no heat shield. The linked article said HTV-1 and HTV-2 will glide, entering the atmosphere at mach 19 and 22 respectively. The space shuttle enters at mach 25, but it falls out of orbit. The mach 22 speed implies entry from a suborbital trajectory. So they want to launch on an expendable rocket, go ballistic through space, enter the atmosphere and slow to mach 9, launch a high precision weapon, ascend to the stratosphere then sustain mach 10 back to the continental United States.

The article title is "High-speed air vehicles designed for rapid global reach". It also says this is for the "joint warfighter". The term "joint" implies integration of branches of the military. Do you think they want to make aircraft carriers obsolete?

GCNRevenger · 2006-01-31 14:29:44

When you are going that fast, its too much trouble to turn around

The bomber could:
-Take off under jet or rocket power to Scramjet ignition
-Go suborbital over the target, and drop bombs
-Fly home suborbital

-Take off under jet or rocket power to Scramjet ignition
-Stay under Scramjet power to target, and drop bombs
-Go suborbital and coast home

-Take off under jet or rocket power to Scramjet ignition
-Go suborbital to target, drop bombs
-Fly home under Scramjet power

-Take off under jet or rocket power to Scramjet ignition
-Stay under Scramjet power to target, drop bombs
-Stay under Scramjet power, fly home

Since the Pentagon is working hard on making a reentry vehicle for bombs, it seems more likly the first case where bomber will go suborbital over the target, drop a reentry vehicle (the CAV), and stay suborbital all the way home.

RobertDyck · 2006-01-31 15:02:53

I don't see the point. If you're going to drop bombs from suborbit, why bother with the fighter? Dropping bombs from suborbit is no different than direct throw with an ICBM. If the fighter requires an expendable rocket to get into space, you might as well stick to a missile. The only advantage of that scenario is if the bomber is fully reusable. I doubt they're anywhere near that.

The alternative is a high precision bomb deployed from suborbit. Instead of a blunt body aeroshell, use a hypersonic lifting body. But why bother with that? Wouldn't it be simpler to use a standard aeroshell with drogue chute, then air deploy a standard smart bomb?

The only reasonable application for HTV is a relatively low speed, low altitude bombing run to launch a high precision smart bomb or guided missile. I doubt the body shape in the picture could sustain slower than mach 5, and the text says mach 9, so we're still talking about hypersonic deployment; but that's a lot slower than mach 22.

PurduesUSAFguy · 2006-01-31 15:18:31

I don't see the point. If you're going to drop bombs from suborbit, why bother with the fighter? Dropping bombs from suborbit is no different than direct throw with an ICBM. If the fighter requires an expendable rocket to get into space, you might as well stick to a missile. The only advantage of that scenario is if the bomber is fully reusable. I doubt they're anywhere near that.
The alternative is a high precision bomb deployed from suborbit. Instead of a blunt body aeroshell, use a hypersonic lifting body. But why bother with that? Wouldn't it be simpler to use a standard aeroshell with drogue chute, then air deploy a standard smart bomb?
The only reasonable application for HTV is a relatively low speed, low altitude bombing run to launch a high precision smart bomb or guided missile. I doubt the body shape in the picture could sustain slower than mach 5, and the text says mach 9, so we're still talking about hypersonic deployment; but that's a lot slower than mach 22.

Well the point of the program is to develop fully reuseable horizontal suborbital bomber to carry the CAVs. The CAV is supposed to provide thermal protection and guidance for a variety of payloads, part of the point of hypersonics is the kinetic energy kill. I know one of the payloads the CAV program office is very excited about is a cluster of depleted uranium flechetes depending on the size of the payload and the dispersion power you could completely decimate a few square miles with nothing but kinetic energy.

GCNRevenger · 2006-01-31 15:45:49

I don't see the point. If you're going to drop bombs from suborbit, why bother with the fighter? Dropping bombs from suborbit is no different than direct throw with an ICBM. If the fighter requires an expendable rocket to get into space, you might as well stick to a missile. The only advantage of that scenario is if the bomber is fully reusable. I doubt they're anywhere near that.
The alternative is a high precision bomb deployed from suborbit. Instead of a blunt body aeroshell, use a hypersonic lifting body. But why bother with that? Wouldn't it be simpler to use a standard aeroshell with drogue chute, then air deploy a standard smart bomb?
The only reasonable application for HTV is a relatively low speed, low altitude bombing run to launch a high precision smart bomb or guided missile. I doubt the body shape in the picture could sustain slower than mach 5, and the text says mach 9, so we're still talking about hypersonic deployment; but that's a lot slower than mach 22.

Expendable? Who said anything about being expendable? I'm talking about a fully reuseable Scramjet powerd bomber, which would probobly be X-43 shaped.

Such a bomber would probobly drop the CAV (Common Aero Vehicle or something like that), which is basically a hypersonic shroud for bombs or kenetic energy weapons.

In the mean time, the USAF wants to develop an expendable rocket (air or ground launch maybe) able to carry the CAV anywhere on Earth in short order for superhigh value strikes. This would be more HTV shaped probobly.

RobertDyck · 2006-01-31 21:33:34

That's a bit encouraging, and a bit disturbing. Fully reusable SCRAM jet technology would enable safe, frequent, affordable access to space; but the military found a way to turn it into a weapon. This research will enable the space shuttle that was supposed to be the successor to the current shuttle. Remember in the 1960s NASA intended the current shuttle to be fully reusable TSTO, with a lifting body orbiter and piloted fly-back booster instead of expendable ET and "recoverable" SRBs. The second generation was touted to be SCRAM jet based, and operational about 1990. So much for the vision of the late 60s / early 70s. Well, I guess military funding will make SCRAM jet & hypersonic airframe technology happen. However, I can't help but cringe at the idea of depleted uranium fléchettes dropped from a suborbital SCRAM jet bomber. That's quite a perversion of peaceful technology.

PurduesUSAFguy · 2006-01-31 22:08:14

That's a bit encouraging, and a bit disturbing. Fully reusable SCRAM jet technology would enable safe, frequent, affordable access to space; but the military found a way to turn it into a weapon. This research will enable the space shuttle that was supposed to be the successor to the current shuttle. Remember in the 1960s NASA intended the current shuttle to be fully reusable TSTO, with a lifting body orbiter and piloted fly-back booster instead of expendable ET and "recoverable" SRBs. The second generation was touted to be SCRAM jet based, and operational about 1990. So much for the vision of the late 60s / early 70s. Well, I guess military funding will make SCRAM jet & hypersonic airframe technology happen. However, I can't help but cringe at the idea of depleted uranium fléchettes dropped from a suborbital SCRAM jet bomber. That's quite a perversion of peaceful technology.

Um, Civilian airliners were a direct result of the military need for large bombers. Rockets grew from ICBMs. Ever use a cell phone? GPS? The internet?

Our military has always been at or near the bleeding edge and funds tons of high risk technology development that wouldn't otherwise get funding. I for one am terrified of the possibility of living in a world where our countries technological superiority has been whittled down to parity? Why cringe at the thought of a flechettes being dropped from a bomber when you can rejoice in the fact that those are ChiComs/Terrorists/Enemy de jours that won't be threatening freedom and security or sending Americans home in body bags?

If your just uncomfortable with the military in general just repeat this mantra, "aerospace tech dev is good no matter what"

RobertDyck · 2006-01-31 22:31:54

I guess it's personal because I bought into the marketing in the 1960s of Apollo being for peaceful exploration and utilization of space. I also proposed to the local candidate in our federal election that Canada build a fully reusable space taxi based on SCRAM jet technology: 4 person, no cargo, SSTO, RLV, HTHL. The proposal was detailed, I pointed out the railway maintenance shops in our riding that are now mostly unused and recommended them for the development and construction of this craft. I pointed out a airport for private aircraft just outside the city as the test and primary launch site, with the secondary site being a similar airport behind Canadian Space Agency headquarters. Now this technology is demonstrated to be bleeding edge military. Um, it wasn't my intention to spend Canadian dollars on something like that. I want Canadian dollars on something peaceful yet leading edge. Oh well, my candidate didn't get elected and her party lost the election. The new Prime Minister wants to spend money on armed heavy icebreakers in the arctic, underwater microphones, and more soldiers.

Austin Stanley · 2006-02-01 01:01:16

I think the DOD/Airforce's program for a suborbital bomber/fighter is kind of pointless. As Robert pointed out, an ICBM/SLBM does essentialy the same thing, and we've got those (and fairly acurate re-entry vehicles to go with them) in spades. Of course, there may be political consiquences of an ICBM launch which makes it politcaly unacceptable. I can understand that. However, the conventional options the US has in it's arsenal right now can generaly achive the same thing, at a much lower costs.

I have a hard time imaging what a sub-orbital bomber could achive that conventional options could not. Our strategic bomber fleet, of B-52s, B-1s, and B-2s all have global range (with refueling). The B-1s and B-2s especialy are practicaly un-interceptable. Even the B-52s, using standoff stealth cruise missles (like the AGM-129) are practicaly invincible. It might take them a little longer to get to their target, but even with-refueling operations they would probably be much cheaper to operate. And their payloads are much greater.

If a fast time on target is desired, than cruise missles launched from our nuclear submarines (SSNs) can hit most a wide range of targets inland, and are likewise virtualy undefetable in the oceans depths. Their Tomahawks have ~1000km range, which is enough to hit most inland targets. A single sub's payload of 12 missles probably has more payload than our orbital bomber as well. We have more than enough of them, and they have enough endurance for them to be pre-positioned out at potential hot-spots. I have no doubt their are some off the cost of North Korea right now (as well as Iran).

Then we have our Carrier aircraft, which with refuling can again hit virtualy any-inland target, and while not as tough as our bombers, are still at least even with their opponents. When the JSF comes on line (if it ever does), it should easily remedy any problems we have their. A flight of F/A-18 Hornets carries more payload then the the sub-orbital bomber would as well.

----------

So what does the sub-orbital bomber have that conventional options don't? I suppose from a certian point of view it doesn't have to violate other nations air-space to hit it's target. Frankly, I think our political concurns about air-space are overblown. Most countries lack the ability to do anything about a US violation of their air-space, and even those that do few would actualy do anything about it (besides some diplomatic complaints). Heck, generaly if a B-2 or Cruise Missle overflew most countries (including, in some respects, the US) they likely wouldn't even know it unless we told them.

They have the ability to deploy "KE" weapons. Frankly, "crowbars from space" are overated. Even with a good re-entery vehicle air friction saps a lot of there velocity to begin with. Let's say you drop an at orbital velocity, ~30km/s or so. Even without friction losses, that's only ~34MJ/kg. Which is good, but FAE explosives can do about this good, without being dropped from orbit. And if you lose half of that energy to the atmosphere (not an absurd proposition, you would still be coming in at Mach 12) you would have only ~8MJ/kg, which is only twice as good as TNT, and no doubt worse or comparable to military explosives (which I don't have figures for on hand). You could get a lot of penetration, but conventional explosives have already proven capable of penetrating most any bunkered target. And a conventional bomber would be able to carry thousands of pounds of bombs, and have no issues with trying to hit a small target at Mach-12.

-----

Although I suppose if military development of a sub-orbital bomber is the price I have to pay for scramjet technology, I guess it's worth it. But the whole concept seems rather pointless to me.

GCNRevenger · 2006-02-01 10:38:19

"I want Canadian dollars on something peaceful yet leading edge."

Virtually all technology is ultimatly dual use, all the way down to gunpowder and metalurgy to sticks and rocks... there are plenty of pretty rocks, which would hurt someone quite nicely if used as a weapon. Why should spaceflight technology be any different? Even nuclear technology, despite (and I think because of) its potential for weapons has earned respect. Make no mistake, military technology (nuclear weapons imparticularly) largely advanced by the United States was pivitol in discouraging the Soviet empire from making the cold war very, very hot as the economic and political noose tightend. Just because it can be used as a weapon doesn't make it a bad thing, weapons can be a positive and bennefical force.

"Canada build a fully reusable space taxi based on SCRAM jet technology: 4 person, no cargo, SSTO, RLV, HTHL"

You're kidding, right? The X-30 NASP couldn't even hit Mach-15, which makes it all but impossible to pack enough conventional rocket fuel for the final nudge to orbit and deorbit, and thats just for the dry vehicle much less a crew cabin, LSS, power, controls, etc.

But more importantly... where would you fly it to? The ISS? Please...
___________________________________________________________

"ICBM/SLBM does essentialy the same thing"

ICBMs:
-Aren't reuseable and expensive
-Have light payloads (esp. volume)
-Not very accurate (best is +/- 100m)
-Not well suited to kinetic weapons (impact angle)
-Can't loiter or be recalled
-Can't be retargeted in flight (limited fuel supply)

"B-52s, B-1s, and B-2s all have global range (with refueling). The B-1s and B-2s especialy are practicaly un-interceptable. Even the B-52s, using standoff stealth cruise missles (like the AGM-129) are practicaly invincible. It might take them a little longer to get to their target, but even with-refueling operations they would probably be much cheaper to operate. And their payloads are much greater. "

Not really. Time sensitive strikes are what its all about, to be able to hit anywhere within an hour or so of the order is impossible by any sub- or low super-sonic bomber or cruise missile unless the bomber is stationed close to the target. They do take longer, and that makes all the difference in the world in today's wars. If we lack a nearby base of operation, which is increasingly likly, they are all but useless for time sensitive strikes.

The B-52 is a sitting duck to modern air defenses, and the B-1 is not much better with its only slightly higher speed. The B-2, as nice as it is, is only a few in number with most reserved for SAC bombers. Its stealth isn't perfect either, and doesn't work at all when it rains. Adsorbed water vapor also wrecks its stealth, which makes upkeep quite hard and expensive.

Cruise missiles are also not a panacea of weapons either, the Tomahawk warhead is not very powerful and the ALCM supply is low after the Bosnia campaign. A modern attack submarine or Ageis warship only carries a dozen and a few dozen respectively, which will take time to rebuild and have to be reloaded in port. A hypersonic bomber could be reloaded multiple times per day with inexpensive munitions. And they do have to be prepositioned, which a hypersonic bomber does not. This is a big deal.

No current cruise missile is suited for deep penitration attacks either, and advanced low-altitude air defenses can indeed counter them. Why do you think Iran bought all those Russian low-altitude missiles when JDAM-armed jets could fly above them? 1000km is also not always enough, unless the launch vehicle is close enough to be attacked.

"Then we have our Carrier aircraft, which with refuling can again hit virtualy any-inland target, and while not as tough as our bombers, are still at least even with their opponents. When the JSF comes on line (if it ever does), it should easily remedy any problems we have their. A flight of F/A-18 Hornets carries more payload then the the sub-orbital bomber would as well."

Carriers are sitting ducks to modern antiship cruise missiles, and are likewise pretty slow. The F/A-18, as good as it is, is barely a match for modern Russian air and ground launch missiles. Its pretty slow too. The JSF, which will be great for light strike, can't carry heavy penitrator weapons except externally which sacrifices stealth and its advantages.

FAE explosives can't hold a candle to the destructive power of a kinetic weapon, they can't blow up deeply buried bunkers or even armored vehicles very well, since the pressure wave is slow moving and dissapates rapidly. A carefully shaped KEM should retain most of its velocity even through reentry.

Sheer payload carriage is less important anymore to the power of said weapons, ICBMs and cruise missiles can't carry big and heavy weapons and conventional bombers and fighters can't deliver them with speed and impunity.

And lets not forget, no weapon in our arsenal (other then the 9MT coldwar megabombs) can defeat a really deeply buried bunker. Not even the big 5000lbs bunker buster. Thats where kinetic weapons may make all the difference.

PurduesUSAFguy · 2006-02-01 10:55:47

One more thing I'd like to point out, is while for most missions FALCON will be carrying KE weapons, which are tons of fun, just wait till the have pure fusion warheads in the quiver (if they aren't there now) :twisted:

Fallout free (and uncontroled by treaty) is the way to be !

RobertDyck · 2006-02-01 13:05:40

But more importantly... where would you fly it to? The ISS? Please...

Yes, ISS. Then use ISS as a staging location for a reusable vehicle to travel from LEO to Mars orbit and back to LEO. Astronauts to return to Earth via the space taxi. I presented my mission plan at the 2005 Mars Society conference. If you want a copy of the .ppt file of my presentation, it's here

If you think American engineers can't build such a spaceplane, fine, step out of the way and let Canada do it.

Dook · 2006-02-01 14:04:14

On Dec 26th this year I was awake early, 6am, and standing outside of my hotel room in Fort Worth looking at how bright Venus was. There were no clouds at all.

Out of the right corner of my eye I saw a streak of a high airplane but I didn't pay much attention to it because Venus was beautiful. I wished I had a telescope.

Then I noticed the object again. It was moving incredibly fast and had a long pinkish streak (just guessing, 50-100 miles?) behind it that disappeared completely. The head of the object seemed to be faintly glowing orange but I can't say for sure.

This thing was very high, over 50,000 feet at least and it crossed my entire view of the sky in three minutes. It was on a course of SSW.

I don't know what distance the entire range of view from the ground covers but I think this vehicle was moving at SR-71 speed.

GCNRevenger · 2006-02-01 14:18:35

The ISS is a joke, all indications point to the station being long gone and abandoned by the time a Mars mission could possibly take place, and infact given the amount of money required no space agency could do both the ISS and Mars without a large infusion of cash.

And if you have the spaceplane and you aren't going to be doing much in the way of orbital construction, then what in the world do you need the ISS for? For goodness sakes, just send the plane up and dock with it in equitorial orbit. The taxi could be based right here in a hanger on the ground, not on the worthless good-for-nothing ISS.

And even before the plug is pulled, the ISS is a worthless piece of junk, and zero-G space science has been a red herring for decades, a fraud, perpetrated to prop up manned spaceflight budgets and political types. It really is a net loser, a net bad investment.

I don't think anybody could build such a spaceplane for a reasonable amount of money right now, its just too new and too demanding of a technology.

Dook · 2006-02-01 14:26:50

I think there are two debates going on. One about big war (USA vs Russia or China) and another about insurgent/terrorist attacks. We need to be able to conduct both.

Perhaps the best technology for hitting time sensitive targets is the CIA's hellfire missiles fired from drones. Now if they can just get their intelligence right.

Like any weapon, it has to be used correctly. Having a B-2 fly over Pyongyang at low level in daylight isn't the smart thing to do.

The B-52 is a sitting duck to modern air defenses but twenty-five of them launching ALCM at distances of hundreds of miles away can really really ruin your electric, communications systems, and runways.

EA-6B's can jam or trick missile radars and we can also use drones like we did in the first Persian Gulf War si the enemy turns on their missile radar. If they turn it on, we can turn it off with an anti-radar missile that determines their position once they turn on their radar even if they then turn it off.

Carriers are not sitting ducks to anything except submarines, and their 50-60 mph speed may be slow when compared to a anti-ship missiles 800+ but how is an enemy going to get that anti-ship missile through the Aegis, E-2's, F-18's providing guard, and the CIWS? I saw a CIWS take pieces off of a flying drone passing overhead at maybe one mile altitude.

If the enemy had a good stealth aircraft, one with a large internal bay, then maybe they could do something but aircraft carriers are built to take damage. They have armor plating, blast doors, and extensive fire fighting equipment.

Maybe a 5,000 lb bunker buster won't reach a bunker buried a mile deep but after it goes off you can bet your way out is blocked for months.

RobertDyck · 2006-02-01 14:41:39

At the current published schedule from NASA, it's questionable whether they ever will get to the Moon. Since their plan is to do that before even starting toward Mars, what does that tell you? To me it's time for another country to take the lead. Canada may not have that much money, the US population is 9.25 times that of Canada, and Canada's per capita GDP is 78% after converting to US dollars; however, Canada can control costs. One big advanatage is Canada's federal government hasn't had a deficit in 9 years (unless our new Prime Minister screws it up).

GCNRevenger · 2006-02-01 14:44:34

A hypersonic bomber would be well suited to both roles

An unmanned drone has to have a base nearby, and actually be close to the target to execute a time-sensitive attack. They are also not immune to air defenses, and the Hellfire anti-tank missile is not powerful enough to destroy large targets (ships, factories, etc) or deeply bruied ones (bunkers).

Again, the ALCM and Tomahawk missiles are not that numerous, and are not suited for long-term operations of any sort. The USAF is so low on ALCMs, they are taking old ones from the nuclear stockpile and swapping out conventional warheads. USN ships and submarines just can't carry that many of them either.

A bomber or ship/sub attack with such missiles would be unable to reach really deeply inland without itself being exposed to counter attack, which is not good for time sensitive or small scale strikes (especially if you have to soften up defenses first).

Cruise missiles and drones themselves can be hit and shot down too, which will become an increasing problem with these weapons due to the proliferation of advanced Russian air defense weapons.

Well Dook, maybe you haven't been keeping up with modern cruise missile technology... look up the SS-N-22 "Sunburn" missile, a monster weapon built by Russia and sold to China and Iran, which travels at Mach 2-3 only nine feet from the water, and can perform high-G manuevers in the last moments to impact. France is developing supersonic SSM/ASMs too. Then you have missiles launched by submarine at close range to worry about. And yes, then you have submarines with long-range torpedos or even the scarry Shkval underwater missile...

Of all the branches of the US military, the navy is probobly the most vunerable today.

Knocking the doors closed of a deeply bruied bunker is good and all, but not a sufficently "final" solution.

Austin Stanley · 2006-02-01 16:42:59

ICBMs:
-Aren't reuseable and expensive

They may be expensive, but the development costs are already paid for. We only have to pay the per-unit cost. And the Billions that developing an orbital space bomber would cost buys you alot of Minutemen. They are only $7Mill a pop.

-Have light payloads (esp. volume)

And just what sort of payload is the orbital space bomber going to carry? Using current tech it's going to have a hard time carrying a hell of a lot of anything.

-Not very accurate (best is +/- 100m)

Whatever re-entery vehicle that is going to give you pin-point accuracy at mach-12+ could be mounted on the ICBM as well. If indeed you can produce such a vehicle.

-Not well suited to kinetic weapons (impact angle)

?? an ICBM can generaly put it's payload into any of the same orbits a space bomber would use. Their impact angles (for it's worth) could be exactly the same.

-Can't loiter or be recalled

If you actualy have intellegence that HAS to be acted upon within a matter of hours, then you don't wan't to recall the thing. But of course, how much can an the orbital bomber loiter? It either is in orbit, in which case it has limited windows in which it can attack, and you could put a payload up there with an ICBM to do the exact same thing. Or it is re-entering in which case it's not going to have alot of fuel to hang around anywhere, and you wouldn't want it hanging out over it's target anyways.

-Can't be retargeted in flight (limited fuel supply)

Agian if you have intellegence that has to be acted upon in an hour or so, you generaly don't want to retarget it. But an ICBM or other launch option could pre-position a payload in space to be targeted as you wish as well. Finaly with there MIRVs (which are re-entering service now that SALTII is dead) can easily target multiple targets 1000's of km apart.

Not really. Time sensitive strikes are what its all about, to be able to hit anywhere within an hour or so of the order is impossible by any sub- or low super-sonic bomber or cruise missile unless the bomber is stationed close to the target. They do take longer, and that makes all the difference in the world in today's wars. If we lack a nearby base of operation, which is increasingly likly, they are all but useless for time sensitive strikes.

Time sensitive strikes are a myth. Frankly, our intellegence isn't good enough to give us these sorts of targets. And if it is, it's generaly because we have conventional forces staged close enough to gather the intel and then carry them out. The turn around time on other intellegence assets (spy satilites, wire tapping, radio intercepts, human intell), is still a matter of days. Furthermore, most time-sensitive targets (people) are mobile, and could still easily leave the location in the time it takes for ANY weapon to get there (an hour or so at best).

The B-52 is a sitting duck to modern air defenses, and the B-1 is not much better with its only slightly higher speed. The B-2, as nice as it is, is only a few in number with most reserved for SAC bombers. Its stealth isn't perfect either, and doesn't work at all when it rains. Adsorbed water vapor also wrecks its stealth, which makes upkeep quite hard and expensive.

The B-52 and B-1s can launch stand-off AGM thousands of km away from it's target, and never come within range of it's air-defense systems. While the B-1 is getting rather dated, it is still a tough target and can get to it's target much faster. In any case, buying more B-2's (even at a billion or so each) is probably more economical than building the orbital space bomber.

Cruise missiles are also not a panacea of weapons either, the Tomahawk warhead is not very powerful and the ALCM supply is low after the Bosnia campaign. A modern attack submarine or Ageis warship only carries a dozen and a few dozen respectively, which will take time to rebuild and have to be reloaded in port. A hypersonic bomber could be reloaded multiple times per day with inexpensive munitions. And they do have to be prepositioned, which a hypersonic bomber does not. This is a big deal.

The Tomahawk carries a 1000lb warhead. Which is more than enough to destroy everything but hardened bunkers. Most ALCM have a payload of about twice that. And while the supplies may be low now, how many orbital space bombers do we have in inventory? And I have a hard time believing they are going to be able to turn the hypersonic-cryogenicly fueled orbital space bomber around multiple times per day. Even if they could, we certianly won't have that many "time critical" targets to use it on. Nor do I suspect it's KE weapons, which have to have pin-point accuracy at hypersonic speeds are going to be cheap either. Now sea-launched delivery methods have to be pre-positioned, but they already are. And would continune to be even if we deployed a orbital space bomber.

No current cruise missile is suited for deep penitration attacks either, and advanced low-altitude air defenses can indeed counter them. Why do you think Iran bought all those Russian low-altitude missiles when JDAM-armed jets could fly above them? 1000km is also not always enough, unless the launch vehicle is close enough to be attacked.

The latest ALCM (the AGM-129) incoporate stealth technology, specificly designed to defeate such weapon systems. And 1000km away is generaly more than enough to defeate most air-defense systems, which have at best a range of several hundread km. Furthermore, developing a new cruise missle/payload with the ability to make deep penetration attacks (a rocket assisted warhead) would cost less than the orbital space bomber.

Carriers are sitting ducks to modern antiship cruise missiles, and are likewise pretty slow. The F/A-18, as good as it is, is barely a match for modern Russian air and ground launch missiles. Its pretty slow too. The JSF, which will be great for light strike, can't carry heavy penitrator weapons except externally which sacrifices stealth and its advantages.

An orbital space plane doesn't make carriers any safer, and won't change our deployment patterns of them. Upgrading their defences or even developing an entirely new line of highspeed-highpayload-stealth delivery aircraft would cost less. And as I here it, a new generation of rocket assisted penetrators is in the works, which will alow conventional air-craft to deploy weapons with nearly as much penetration power as a KE weapon.

FAE explosives can't hold a candle to the destructive power of a kinetic weapon, they can't blow up deeply buried bunkers or even armored vehicles very well, since the pressure wave is slow moving and dissapates rapidly. A carefully shaped KEM should retain most of its velocity even through reentry.
Sheer payload carriage is less important anymore to the power of said weapons, ICBMs and cruise missiles can't carry big and heavy weapons and conventional bombers and fighters can't deliver them with speed and impunity.
And lets not forget, no weapon in our arsenal (other then the 9MT coldwar megabombs) can defeat a really deeply buried bunker. Not even the big 5000lbs bunker buster. Thats where kinetic weapons may make all the difference.

If you want to dig deep enough, you can always put enough concreate/granit over your head to defeat a penetrator. No KE weapon is going to be able to hit Cheyenne Mountain for example, with the better part of a mountain above it, or any Russian/Chinese counterpart that might exists, or even some of the Terrorist camps in deep caves. For these sorts of super-heavily armoured targets, your only solution is to bomb the entrances every few days or so, and deny their utility to the enemy. I suspect the range of hardened bunkers that an KE penetrator can destroy that a more conventional weapon couldn't is rather limited, as such bunkers are rather expensive. And vrs anything but these super-hardened bunkers conventional weapons do the job just as well, for a lot less. KE weapons have no advantage over conventional weapons other than their penetration ability. And we don't have to worry if they can achive termial guidance at Mach-12+ which won't be easy. When/if we develop more powerful rocket-assist conventional penetrators the range will be even less.

Austin Stanley · 2006-02-01 16:50:53

Sorry for the double post.

Dook · 2006-02-01 18:00:36

Current stockpiles of ALCM's and Tomahawks are a very classified thing. If you happen to have that information you certainly wouldn't release it so readily. I'm sure that if we needed to we could up production at any time but how many do you need to take down Iran?

Hit all key power distribution centers: 20
Hit key runway intersections once: 50

That same night you can get in clean with B-2's to completely destroy the runways followed by B-1's escorted by EA-6B's and F-22's to demolish the powerplants, communication towers, bridges (also takes out communication and electricity links that pass over rivers), key roads, and military/government buildings.

Everyone's afraid of a war with Iran because we supposedly don't have enough ground troops when...you don't need ground troops at all. Bomb them back into the stone age and declare victory.

That Sunburn missile has a 90 mile range and active radar homing. No way a large bomber is going to get past a JSTARS and AWAC's and even if it does it certainly won't get within 90 miles of an aircraft carrier undetected. E-2's radar detection exceeds 200 miles. Also an EA-6B could jam it at any time.

The references for this missile say that it would take two of these to take out a modern destroyer and while they would damage a modern carrier it would likely be repaired and back in operation in 2 days. Also, if you don't have any runways how is your large bomber going to take off?

The entire navy is not the most vulnerable. Nothing has more stealth than a submarine. As far as the carriers are concerned, the navy has conducted tests out at sea and it seems they are not as easily found as you would think.

RobertDyck · 2006-02-01 19:38:08

I have an even better idea: leave Iran alone. Russia offered to produce fuel rods for Iran so their nuclear power plant doesn't require uranium enrichment technology within their borders. Accept that. But this thread is about hypersonic; I think the point has been made that you don't need a hypersonic suborbital bomber to take out a third world country.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2006-01-31 08:21:21

Re: hypersonic

#2 2006-01-31 09:03:34

Re: hypersonic

#3 2006-01-31 10:29:40

Re: hypersonic

#4 2006-01-31 11:22:02

Re: hypersonic

#5 2006-01-31 13:55:32

Re: hypersonic

#6 2006-01-31 14:29:44

Re: hypersonic

#7 2006-01-31 15:02:53

Re: hypersonic

#8 2006-01-31 15:18:31

Re: hypersonic

#9 2006-01-31 15:45:49

Re: hypersonic

#10 2006-01-31 21:33:34

Re: hypersonic

#11 2006-01-31 22:08:14

Re: hypersonic

#12 2006-01-31 22:31:54

Re: hypersonic

#13 2006-02-01 01:01:16

Re: hypersonic

#14 2006-02-01 10:38:19

Re: hypersonic

#15 2006-02-01 10:55:47

Re: hypersonic

#16 2006-02-01 13:05:40

Re: hypersonic

#17 2006-02-01 14:04:14

Re: hypersonic

#18 2006-02-01 14:18:35

Re: hypersonic

#19 2006-02-01 14:26:50

Re: hypersonic

#20 2006-02-01 14:41:39

Re: hypersonic

#21 2006-02-01 14:44:34

Re: hypersonic

#22 2006-02-01 16:42:59

Re: hypersonic

#23 2006-02-01 16:50:53

Re: hypersonic

#24 2006-02-01 18:00:36

Re: hypersonic

#25 2006-02-01 19:38:08

Re: hypersonic

Board footer