Well, the Army made it happen, it successfully tested its own hypersonic weapon prototype that could lead to a class of conventionally-armed missiles capable of striking any target on Earth in less than two hours.
The Advanced Hypersonic Weapon was launched from Hawaii this morning at 6:30 Eastern time and flew roughly 2,400 miles to Kwajelien atoll. No word yet on how fast the AHW glide vehicle, (the part that would carry a weapon), powered by a three-stage booster rocket, made the journey. The Pentagon says it reached hypersonic speeds; that means it had to be flying at more than Mach 5 at some point.
The AHW stayed well within the Earth’s atmosphere, followng a “non-ballistic” trajectory as it sped toward its target. Why is that detail important? Here’s an excerpt from an interview I did with Boeing officials working on a similar project in September:
Basically, a ground-launched PGS weapon would cut a much lower and flatter path through the air than a nuclear-armed ICBM, something that would instantly show other nations that this isn’t preemptive nuclear strike.
“This is a depressed trajectory and if your were to track [the PGS’] ballistic profile” it’s much lower than a regular ICBM, said Boeing’s Rick Hartle during a briefing on Tuesday at the Air Force Association’s annual conference in National Harbor, Md.
Today’s test was meant to “collect data on hypersonic boost-glide technologies and test range performance for long-range atmospheric flight. Mission emphasis is aerodynamics; navigation, guidance, and control; and thermal protection technologies,” reads a Pentagon press release on the flight.
Remember that the Air Force has been working on it’s own versions of this technology; experimenting with scramjet tech and a system that uses former Peacekeeper ICBM’s to launch a glide vehicle to hypersonic speeds. The Army’s less ambitious effort sounds like it is off to a better start, so far anyway.
Click through the jump to read the press release and see a rough sketch of how a PGS weapon would fly to avoid being confused for an ICBM.
Here’s the Pentagon’s announcement of the flight:
Today the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command conducted the first test flight of the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon (AHW) concept. At 6:30 a.m. EST (1:30 a.m. Hawaii-Aleutian Time), a first-of-its-kind glide vehicle, designed to fly within the earth’s atmosphere at hypersonic speed and long range, was launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility, Kauai, Hawaii to the Reagan Test Site, U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll.
The objective of the test is to collect data on hypersonic boost-glide technologies and test range performance for long-range atmospheric flight. Mission emphasis is aerodynamics; navigation, guidance, and control; and thermal protection technologies.
A three-stage booster system launched the AHW glide vehicle and successfully deployed it on the desired flight trajectory. The vehicle flew a non-ballistic glide trajectory at hypersonic speed to the planned impact location at the Reagan Test Site. Space, air, sea, and ground platforms collected vehicle performance data during all phases of flight. The data collected will be used by the Department of Defense to model and develop future hypersonic boost-glide capabilities.
The AHW program is managed and executed by the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command program office in Huntsville, Ala. The booster system and glide vehicle were developed by Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, N.M. and the thermal protection system by the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Research Development and Engineering Center, Huntsville, Ala.
The Department of Defense is using AHW to develop and demonstrate technologies for Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS). As part of the CPGS effort, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency conducted boost-glide flight tests in April 2010 and August 2011, results from which were used in planning the AHW flight test.
Here’s a drawing Hartle did for me (hey, it gets the job done) showing the PGS’ trajectory versus a nuclear missile. The nuke is the line that curves high up what should be the Y-axis while the PGS is the squiggly line that stays close to the X-axis.
{ 140 comments… read them below or add one }
This is cool, but the idea that a flat trajectory won't alarm people assumes they think a PGS vehicle could NEVER carry a nuke. Kind of stupid logic, no?
It has to do more with the ideal trajectory for delivering a nuke. If you put a nuke on this type of system, ignoring the developement that would have to go into fitting it… its delivery would be less than ideal and would require some difficult final stage maneuvering.
Second, we have stealth cruise missiles that can carry a nuclear payload, and despite the increadible easy with which such a weapon could be carried on a B2, the only thing keeping us from doing that is a treaty that says no stealth weapon on stealth aircraft. This to me seems more open to abuse than a easily detected and distinguished special delivery system, that requires the design a new payload.
Agreed on the engineering point, but doesnt a cruise missle have an even flatter trajectory that a PGS? I dont see why you need an arc for a nuke, if that's what you meant. Also, please tell me there is no treaty stopping stealth on stealth… How stupid would that be?
The arc is part of a nuclear ICBM design because of the "inertial guidance" system, which was designed before GPS and is more reliable for it's strategic objective of MAD (because destroying GPS satellites won't stop this missile). A tomahawk is nuclear capable and has an optical guidance system which fills another niche.
the arc is part of the ballistic component of the design. JDAMs don't arc-and they use an INS as a backup guidance system to the GPS.
Go read a book on "inertial guidance." Or maybe even inertial guidance.
PGS and cruise missiles will use similar trajectories, though cruise missiles can maneuver, and I don't know if PGS will have that kind of ability. BM's arc, PGS is also intended for high altitude and gradual glide to target, whereas CM's tend to be close to the ground.
I think of PGS as "direct fire", the ballistic missile as "indirect fire", and the TLAM as a guided weapon capable of reasonably long range and capable of evasive action and attempting nape-of-the-earth to evade known radar systems.
You wouldn't do this with a nuke because it can be tracked with a passive radio receiver. The edges glow so hot, it emits significant and detectable microwave and radio frequency energy. They shoot ballistic missiles up out of the atmosphere so they don't drag a big trail through the air like these do.
Yeah. No. Re-entry vehicles all glow with plasma. Doesn't make them easier to intercept.
Any long range weapon system that is viable with a conventional high explosive payload is viable as a nuclear payload delivery system because the precision requirement for a conventional payload is much much higher than for a nuclear payload. The argument that usage of this system cannot be mistaken for a nuclear attack is simply bogus. I just dont understand what you mean with "difficult final stage manuvering". This thing just dives in on its target and blows up. Thats as simply as it gets.
Depends on what kind of nuke you intend to deliver. Nukes have been miniaturized to fit things like 406mm or 155mm artillery shells, or even spigot mortars like Davy Crockett, and that warhead is also used in the nuclear demolition munition.
It would be an engineering problem to test, but in a no-new-detonation-testing environment it might involve finger-crossing in wartime to hope that your weapon doesn't actually turn out to be a fizzle.
If we put a nuke on board this weapon it would be very good at doing preemptive nuclear strikes. It would both be very hard to detect and will have significant range.
We have better options for a preemptive strikes with a nuclear weapons, and given these programs intent to design a distinguishable launch platform to avoid confusion, it would be counter productive to then produce something that adds to that confusion.
No it is not a good preemptive strike platform. It doesn't have the same range or time of flight as a ballistic missile, yet it still has the same launch detection signature as an ICBM.
Sure about your range claim? Really?
It's too early to tell. This is a gen1 system that went as far as the the standard test range (which we send our Peacekeepers and Minutemen to as well).
Are you sure about time-of-flight issue too? Speed reduces need for extended flight times over the same range.
Like the fellas said: there are more pre-emptive ways of doing pre-emptive nuclear strikes. And advocating putting nukes on this is only needlessly complicating the discussion, so I'm confused as to why you'd make the statement unless I'm just totally not getting the joke.
It's just interesting…
We are trying to get ride of the nuclear weapons since the cold war
WTF is the ARMY doing this?
And this whole concept IS scary….
No time to react?
What happens when the crazies get this stuff?
One would hope that the crazies will be a long way from getting this stuff; and that we will always stay generations ahead in order only to have gained vast experience on dealing with this technology, but also learned how to defeat it as well.
The Soviet Union also tinkered with this, but couldn't get anywhere more than nice theory on paper.
I doubt anybody is building this in the back yard.
Separate development teams may lead to better results.
Recall the military had a missile ready to go to put a peaceful payload into space, but the AF insisted on using theirs. We could've beaten the Russians into space, but that's the past.
We'll get the crazies first!
You are perfectly right. Bomb Iran, Syria, Korea, France, Germany, China,Russia,
Hugo Chavez, Cuba. All of them.
You have the same intellectual and mental potential as Pearle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld,
Cheney, Condi and Bush.
The crazies already have it, in fact they invented it.
I am very sorry. Of course I did not copy you. And I was baffled to see your comments after I sent mine. But this shows we both are thinking in the right direction. To cut it short. Better pay back your debth to China. Rather than trying to kill them. This will not work. Indeed I could not find much insightful comments here.
Most were reduced to stupid technical remarks. But the underlying facts are not told.
The Army is busy on projects to destroy China. And these projects are funded with money from China.
Are you all sane over there?
But the crazies have it already. It is their invention.
Very cool! Just tell the bad guys that the Army is only testing a new kind of MRLS with special rocket to "enhance" trajectory and distances.
what makes "bad guys" bad?
When they attack the west or other
And isn't 'telling' "bad guys" stuff one of those aiding the enemy things?
Not if it's misleading; kinda like saying your land ships are "water tanks"…..
Very nice to hear! Now only if the X-51 could be as successful, that'd be great.
If they do this right, then the actual weapon system won't need a warhead at all. The kinetic energy of the weapon could do it all for us. Given the size of the system and the speed with which it travels equals a large amount of energy, and to transfer that to another object would be devastating.
It probably makes more sense to arm it with a uranium penetrator with explosives for "bunker busting" capabilities.
It also needs to maintain integrity. If it shatters and fails to effectively transmit KE to a single point, then you lose many of the benefits of accelerating objects to high speed. For instance, you can shoot a steel sabot out of a tank gun at a target, and then repeat the procedure with a DU or tungsten one with different results that wouldn't be so apparent if one was thinking in terms of Megajoules and m/s.
Well in the thread regarding MOP, one commentator took issue with my Tungsten Spear being more effective than conventional explosives. The same claim was made that the Spear will "just shatter" and "not penetrate". Perhaps DT could take this issue up that goes beyond the Megajoules and m/s that make hypersonics sound great. What exactly would a 6000 lb depleted uranium/tungsten rod do when fired into a mountain at more than 20 machs (something that could be arranged),? Would it would fare no better than the 30,000 lb MOP. I guess a rail gun in theory could test large spear against the side of a mountain. Or you could rocket booster a sled with a spear. That would not however test the thermodynamic changes a descent through the atmosphere at high speeds would do to the material. Why the moratorium?
So are the AF and Army going to be fighting it out over who gets control of the PGS program now or something?
Also, this uses a rocket boost system vs. the X-51s scramjet system, yes? I imagine the X-51 could reach higher speeds, but whats the difference in cost between the two concepts?
This is ground launched (i think) and X-51 is launched from a B-52
Check out who owns our ICBM force.
Yeah PGS =/= ICBM's. I understand full well the organizaton of America's military forces, which is why I find it alarming that the army is developing a land based hypersonic vehicle.
As for X-51 being launched from a B-52, I was under the impression that it was just until they could develop a mechanism for ground launch.
Pershing, Davy Crocket were Army systems. Nike was an Army system. THEAD, Patriot are Army systems. ATACMs is an Army system.
Before stressing out maybe questions on its use and range might be good ones.
Its ridiculous turf protection by the Air Force that keeps the Army from having even more responsive/effective CAS. Heck, we just went through this when the Air Force tried to bogart UAVs.
Why is it we have to dance around the ballistic missile delivery and China doesn't with its alleged "carrier killer?"
Because we have enough nukes to wipe any country off the map. Plus the big country to their north would be very nervous if they saw an ICBM streaking across the skies.
They still have Dead Hand, and could easily annihilate us in second-strike if required.
Our cruise missiles used to have nuclear warheads (and some still might?), so saying "nonballistic=conventional" is a little simplistic and requires a degree of trust.
Alternatively, we could partially network our launch alert system to the SRF's: such that an order to launch would be "detected" by the other side, and they would "know" if the warheads being launched were nuclear. We already have a red line to the other side, and we already use the treaty verification mechanisms to ensure that no NBC-related treaties are violated.
Alternatively, putting a Russian observer in NORAD (or its replacement, since Cheyenne mountain is apparently going to standby status) with a secure line or dead-man's switch back to Yamantau and vice versa would the best treaty verification for nuclear strikes.
The "red phone" system isn't exactly 21st century…and even then, might not be as reliable as direct data. The Russians probably still have their own DSSP equivalent, and can monitor launches from known/disclosed nuclear missile fields.
Alternatively, we could just disclose our "conventional" BM fields, verify the warheads with observers, keep an observer there to telephone Moscow when they are launched, along with the standard red-phone notification system and maybe an alternative digital notification system. As long as we take great pains to distinguish to each other which missile fields are which and avoid aiming them in the vicinity of each other, there isn't a reason we can't use BMs for conventional packages.
Which is why this is likely to go into South Korea, Japan, philippines, Australia, Poland, Diego Garcia, etc. At that point, these are simply targeting Iran and North Korea, not China's increasing ICBMs, nuclear subs, new aircraft carriers, etc.
Considering the whine and cheese that came with missile defenses in Poland, what're the odds the Russians won't repeat this for an /offensive/ system? Remember in the '80s that the Europeans didn't want more Pershings and GLCMs, viewing them as provocational and creating a Mutually Assured Destruction guarantee for Western Europe.
The PRC might object to the use of PGS in the Pacific, but considering they're the only viable nuclear power in the area they don't have much standing to complain.
As for Iran, what is faster: ships in CENTCOM firing TLAMs or firing a PGS from out in Diego? Ramjets are nice, but if you're flying so much farther and more overtly, you lose the advantage of stealth that a LAM or ALCM can deliver.
there is also the fact that it exists primarily as a deterrent weapon;for them to ever actually use even a non-conventional one, would mean things were going bad, to say the least
for us, PGS is intended to be used operationally
Thought the carrier killer was to be used as a first strike or immediate followup to cripple USN counterstrike capability.
A Chinese anti-ship BM doesn't fly toward Russia. A US non-nuclear BM aimed at a target in Iran or NK might look like it is. Sort of silly since they would be used in small numbers compared to a real 1st strike, but that's the Russkies for you.
I honestly think they don't care, and if we pushed it hard enough they would adapt and be on their way. However, it does look bad when you have…zeal to deploy conventional BM's. Then again, the public CEP is ~150m, not enough to take out one house from another. Moot when you have a megaton or even a few kilotons payload, but when you don't…?
The U.S. American opening salvoes with missiles during Iraq I and II weren't exactly modest, and you can bet that any opening salvoe with missiles against Iran and North Korea will (have necessarily to) be several times bigger.
The problem is that the Russians have absolutely no prior guarantee that any attack against Iran or North Korea isn't just a clever military ruse, and that these U.S. American missiles, cruise missiles and hyper-velocity vehicles etc. will all fall on Iranian or North Korean soil, or keep flying on a bit more, northwards, until it's too late for Russia to scramble. Sooo, when Russian missile operators see thousands of unannounced, U.S. American, nuclear-CAPABLE ammunitions crawling POSSIBLY towards them on their monitors, I doubt that they will only sigh and resign to drawing straws or picking daisy petals ("Uncle Sam loves me, Uncle Sam loves me not"). Believe me: Clarifying this point in advance is in the U.S.' (in the WORLD'S !) best interest.
Even today, 28 years after the Soviets preventively downed Korean Air Lines Flight "007" (extremely subtle name choice for a plainclothes spy flight, really…).
The issue is, once again, trajectory. China's carrier killer would be discernible soon after launch because of its relatively short range. Granted, you could put a nuclear warhead on such a weapon, but you would know that it was not headed all the way across the Pacific. PGS would be launched either from the US or from a submarine at sea. If from the former, you want to make sure they don't think it is a nuclear missile with the trajectory of a typical ICBM. If from the latter, then the missile would still have a much longer range than a DF-21D (carrier killer), and you would want to once again assure your potential enemies that the missile is not on a flightpath associated with nuclear delivery.
Who do you have to kill in 2 hours – that you can't wait 5 hours to see dead?
The guy that is trying to kill you that's who.
A person or other movable target. If a target stops in at the Sana'a Denny's for humus, you might have two hours but not five.
If you need to kill them quick, you should've had a ship in the area ready to drop a TLAM on them.
"Hey look, we found a Hezbollah guy in Colombia!"
"Quickly, start firing conventional ramjet missiles into all corners of the world!"
Once we start randomly dropping missiles into people's territory, we've opened a door that won't be easy to close.
What if Pakistan wants to chase Haqqanis into Afghanistan? They'll just send in helicopter troops across the border. What if they don't like Karzai anymore? They'll send in special forces into Kabul and gun him down in his own home. Or send a UAV to do it when he goes on one of those loya jirga things.
Chinese aircraft carriers…
If North Korea has a nuke on the launch pad, you need to kill it fast, while they're fueling the missile.
There were times we knew where Obama/Saddam were, but they left half an hour before our missiles got there.
And how is firing a missile from a CG in the Persian Gulf (or offshore) faster than firing a hypersonic from somewhere in CONUS? The delays come from command authorization.
Because with our incredible ever shrinking Navy, you may not always have a ship in TLAM range
If PGS development goes into overrun, it will directly /cause/ the incredible ever-shrinking Navy.
Our SSN's are scheduled to retire soon, which if not replaced will completely gut the submarine force. The DDG build is extending, the Ticos might retire, FFGs are out. New CVNs will go online as old ones retire.
As long as we still have DDGs we probably won't have TLAM problems, especially if we know in advance where we intend to drop them.
Someone (read terrorist cell) having a 3-hour meeting in a known location.
Ya but what if its like 9-11 and we had no idea it was coming but know who did it. Then these things would be very helpful
there's always something that doesn't fit, but that doesn't negate all the things that do.
Very clear CONOPs you described. Lockmart, take it from there.
This is all well and good but where is the money coming from ? Why isn't the money that is being used to test and develop this weapon being used to train and train and equip soldiers? -___-
There is no funding problem for training ground troops. It's not like we're back to 1948 and caught totally demobilized.
"Who do you have to kill in 2 hours – that you can't wait 5 hours to see dead? "
Obviously this is meant for hard targets or large moving ones- not personell
Is a HVT in a car "personnell" or a "large moving [target]"?
depends which politician you ask
AWESOME! Crazies beware!
So what would this do the hull of a vessel, say a chinese carrier?
Perforate it. Most surface ships are basically tin cans that rely on compartmentalization skilled damage control rather than armor to keep them afloat. It may also cause underlying structural damage, possibly akin to detonating a torpedo underneath it…or if it impacts the water close enough, the shockwave would cause similar damage to an underwater detonation. It might explode, snap in half and sink instantly, but there's only one way to find out.
blow a major hole in the carrier – what else. … and provoke a major military incident….
If PGS is the "squiggly line", are they trying to suggest PGS will one day have ~2x the range of an ICBM? Ambitious.
Circumference of earth: 40,000 km (40 Megameters)
Range of Minuteman ICBM: >13,000 km
Altitude: 1,120 km.
This weapon will enhance and multiple our ability in allot of today's scenarios.
China- Once deployed to the subs, ships, and some ground spotting around Asia will put a pretty good dent in the survive-ability of the Chicom denial systems.
First Day- Moving at this speed would be a great door kicker and backing up those deep eyes on target when HVT are spotted
Rogues- Iran, N Korea, and others except for few are still using liquid fueled BM systems. When our eyes in the sky report missile fueling this tool in the box would allow preemptive strike prior to launch eliminating or cutting down the number BMD will have to deal with.
I think Russia and China probably will need a underwear check about now. Russia especially. Like it or not if deployed in numbers which it will because its benefits are just not there if not, it will make a conventional preemptive strike on the Russia's last nukes possible.
Added to our BMD and other conventional strike abilities this will make a roll with the US, even for the big boys nothing to be desired or risked.
Having these kind of overmatch abilities is why since after WW2 and the US rise there has not been any major state heavy wars, just brush fires and skirmishes.
I mean come on. At least get it proofread.
I agree with what you are saying, but I do not think it is necessarily good that the ability to strike Russia's nukes preemptively is a good thing. It is very destabilizing. It adds incentive for them to launch before we could make such an attack.
It can? The safest? With what warhead? I know it's the internet and all, but people around here could stand to qualify their statements a lil better.
Apparently, budget cuts aren’t part of R&D…lol.
Sure it could carry a nuke What do you think the cruse missle was intended to carry Yes thats right Nukes right into downtown Moscow or Kiev or whatever city
TLAM (in GLCM) was meant to complement the Pershing IRBMs. Treaty eliminated IRBMs from Western Europe.
Engineering a standard nuke to work in the a ramjet would not be a big deal for the United States. Everyone knows this, and eventually someone will suggest that /any/ long range weapon system used by the US could be nuclear capable, even TLAMs.
Imagine a SSGN with 154 TLAM-N. One could in worst-case-scenario roll it up near China and decimate the coastline. The majority of the urban/industrial regions are coastal, and are within range of TLAM strikes. Sure they could get in second-strike, but that's what you hope that your missile defense system takes down. And there wouldn't be much left…and that idea should scare the PRC or Iran more than expensive ramjets.
Alright boys, Ivan and Mao are going down.
That's a good one!
As well as the bearded Little Adolf in Tehran!!
When you need to find $1.2trillion in defence budget cuts, is having two seperate hypersonic missile programmes run by two seperate services such a good idea? Or perhaps the Navy and Marines should piss a few billion into another one.
I don't see how the flat trajectory would reasure countries with itchy nuclear trigger fingers. I would have thought that any nation that can detect the launch of an ICBM could track the ballistic arc and know pretty quickly who the intended target was. Surely a PGS missile with the launch signature of a nuke but quickly going into a flat hypersonic sprint could be going anywhere.
I would argue that hypersonic technology is fare more important than the F-35. I would be very happy if we took half of that program ($70 billion?) and plowed it into research and development for hypersonics, modular satellites, unmanned systems, and rail gun tech.
I would agree that this is very important technology, but I wonder how much -if any- knowledge sharing there is between the two programmes. There is no need to repeat expensive mistakes if solutions to problems have already been found.
Question with respect to the ICBM/Cruise missile conversation before- Is this thing guided at all? Can it make any mid-course corrections? I am thinking the answer is "no"?
At Mach 5 any slight course corrections are bound to take it over great distances. It also requires high accuracy in position calculations and large distance envelopes to do mid-course corrections. Corrections to hit a moving target from long-range are likely to require very minute course-corrections, for instance, such that one could treat range correction as negligible. However, if it comes to diverting from one target to another, it might be more challenging. Maybe you should've used Tactical Tomahawk.
Yes! There are many issues we can worry about re: this story but try to remember how many military developments resulted in civilian tech growth. To me, nukes are not the issue; the real issue is the ongoing gutting of our military while pushing social programs that cause more damage than they fix. As to the inter-service rivalries, I am split. It sounds like a waste of money but it may inspire additional breakthroughs that are benficial to America's abilty to maintain our military's ability to react to world wide issues.
I like your comment the most.. It was the space program that gave us what we are com. with now. Yes two rivial services are competing and wastieng big bucks. It's the competition that is creating the challange.
As to why it will be effective? "What we see depends mainly on what we look for". They will not be looking for this.
Sleep well. You need to go to work tommorrow and pay your taxes, so thoses that don't , can sleep all day. Just saying
The Soviets sponsored competition in their aircraft development and it usually paid off for them.
US Army: Hah, we’ve succeeded where the USAF has failed!
USAF: Yeah yeah hurray.
Congress: Thank you for your services boys and girls, but we have to cut the program as part of our deficit reduction.
Why do u want it to land at the military base. It will blow us up idiot.
I say the army did very good. Good job soldiers.
Army and Air Force would save the taxpayers a lot of money if they kept their dueling to the football field.
TWe should nickname this the "party crasher"…guarenteed to F*** up Any ones party, and like a good pary crasher ALWAYS sneaks in unsee ultil it is to late….SUPRISE
To the editor:
Those "high arc" profiles allegedly flown by I.C.B.M.s, and which you showed us in the drawing from Boeing’s Rick Hartle, denote a surprising mistake, ignorance and amateurishness.
I.C.B.M.s climb almost vertically (to escape gravity in the shortest route), that's true. Once they're high above the atmosphere they turn towards their targets, but then they travel ~ one quarter around the World and PARALLEL to it, like satellites do. (For "some" reason, I.C.B.M.s are routinely spent to launch satellites into very durable orbits, too, the only difference being the nature of the payload) Once the "bus" ( = the missile's nose cone / warhead) overflies enemy territory, he tilts downwards and releases one missile cone after the other, which then dive relatively vertically onto their targets (when they're not maneuverable).
So, an I.C.B.M.'s correct flight path looks more like an elongated rectangle than like that narrow, steep ellipse in the drawing. In good honesty, an I.C.B.M.'s flight path looks exactly like the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon's flight path, only much taller.
Greetings,
Von Brown
Von,
The clue is in the name – inter-continental-BALLISTIC-missile. The ballistic trajectory is not an 'elongated rectangle', it is as sketched above. The re-entry vehicles ("missile cones" to you) drop while the equipment section ("bus") is still on the upwards section of the trajectory (during the deployment phase), they then continue on the ballistic trajectory (unguided and unpowered, known as the ballistic phase) eventually coming back to Earth, re-entering the atmosphere (the re-entry phase), and finally detonating at the chosen height of burst. If it helps to visualise it, it's like throwing a ball overhand into the air ahead of you: your arm replicates the BM, powering the payload during the early phase of flight, but then the ball travels most of the way unpowered to its destination; a destination you aimed for by adjusting the 'powered' part of the flight to acheive.
If the bus was to go into orbit ("like satellites do") then why do you think ICBMs have maximum ranges? When a body is in orbit, it remains in orbit for a long, if not indefinite period, circling the globe at least once (that is what orbit is), so by definition a body capable of orbit is capable of infinite range. Also, if an RV is released from the bus, what makes you think it would somehow accelerate down 'relatively' vertically? It would just follow exactly the same path as the bus unless you rigged it with boosters or gave it one hell of a kick off the bus.
Frankly, your remarks are severely wide of the mark and you have some cheek calling the editor ignorant and amateurish. I suggest you forget all you think you may know about ballistic missiles and start again. If you have any questions on how a BM works, don't be afraid to ask.
Kind regards,
Anonymous
WITH THE CUTS THAT ARE COMING TO THE DEFENSE BUDGET THIS WOULD BE SOME ONES WET DREAM…..
Gamechanger. WOW.
You a f-ing comedian? Real funny. How about a bayonet shoved up ur azz?
The U.S. Army has been the pioneer of missiles including the atomic bombs that were dropped in Japan in world war II. When I was stationed in Darmstadt, W. Germany at that time, Army's 32nd Air Defense Command had the anti-missile-missile that could strike an incoming missile down. It did not really prove itself worthy until Dessert Storm happened. The Patriot Missile is where all of these systems have originated from, including what the navy and the airforce have.
The Navy's system originates from the Standard missile.
The Air Force traditionally did not handle air defense missile systems, leaving this to the Army (which had responsibility for the Nike Hercules and HAWK).
Patriot was originally designed for aircraft, not for missiles; which is why they had serious trouble during GW1. PAC-3 is a different beast compared to the Patriots of ODS.
Wernher von Braun, Hermann Oberth, Johannes Winkler, Robert Oppenheimer, Albert Einstein… true american pioneers yep, oh wait….. Operation Paperclip/Overcast , a clue ?
Winkler and Oberth are American as Apple Pie.
Additionally:
"The U.S. Army has been the pioneer of missiles including the atomic bombs"?
You forgot men like Congreve, Goddard, Tchaikovsky, for starters. Maybe Goddard and Tchaikovsky together would be more modern rocketry…
"The Patriot Missile is where all of these systems have originated from"
You do a disservice to the Nazis. The A4b is the original Mach+ glider.
First, for speed and range, I don't see how this beats the old Fractional Orbiting Bomb System (FOBS – google it) except perhaps you could get by with a smaller booster, which might make it much more portable – as compared to a concrete lined hole in the ground. I'm not sure it really would beat a ballistic missile submarine.
I am also skeptical of the claim that this would be harder to track than an ICBM. An infrared tracking satellite could detect the heat track pretty well since the air around the vehicle, and the vehicle skin are heated to several thousand degrees at mach 5+. Only if your enemy is restricted to ground-based radars would it, perhaps, be harder to detect.
It's all the other things that perhaps could be done with this system that might make it interesting. Perhaps release a smaller, slower drone over a new hot spot or suddenly interesting or critical location where you have no reconnaissance resources and you need longer time over the target than a spy satellite provides.
FOBS wasn't necessarily faster, it was about evading sensor systems designed to confront threats from direction A and hitting your targets from direction B.
Scramjet, when it positively, absolutely has to be dead anywhere in the world in two hours or less!
So an Army that is constantly complaining about manpower is cutting 50K troops out. An Army is flying an Hypersonic attack weapon? What is the Air Force doing, testing handheld weapons? What is going on in DARPA? Who's in charge and why arn't research projjects in line with the services issions and overall needs? Hey I am all for weapons research but lets get the right flks doing it and stop duplication.
When the Army stops cring about repeated deployments yet can reduce manpower by 50K heads, I question the Secretary of the Army's intelligence. We need a Secretary of Defense that knows the military and realizes the roles of the respective services. The Army has a bigger airpower ability than the Air Force… What the hell is going on?
WHILE WE ARE BUSY BUILDING PROTECTION VEHICLES:
wE SEEM TO FORGET THAT WE ARE IN A ENVIROMENTAL S**T THAT CAN DESTROY THE ENTIRE PLANET:
rATE OF CONTAMINATION OF ALL OF OUR RESOURCES ARE AT 80% ; OCEANS, AIR, AND SOIL.
sO THE QUICK KILL MAY BE THE ANSWER TO SUFFERING AND THE CARBON MONOXIDE POISONING THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT IN THE NEAR FUTURE:
GOD BLESS THE IDIOTS:
UMAD?
Another Ecowhackjob on the loose. Save the planet! What a maroon!
Oh oh…
Scrap all Advanced Hypersonic Weapon prototypes before wasting ONE MORE CENT on them, quick: I completely forgot that Russian S-400 anti-aircraft / anti-missile missiles fly faster than U.S. American A.H.W.s (and nevertheless Stalin is nearly finishing his first S-500s, which intercept anything at over Mach 20! ALL-TERRAIN-MOBILE S-500s, ON TOP OF THAT !!! And shall we compare the treaty limitations, tactical limitations, prices, procurement numbers and international proliferation etc. of these systems? Or will you really just build I.C.B.M.s now to launch them against Talibans?)
Put a clean sheet on your drawing boards. Start with colour pencils. Or just rent a video for inspiration. Where you want to go in Space, the Russians already ran once around the block: They suffer from chronic Sputnikitis.
P.S.: Einstein died today and Europe peed on his grave. Europe’s C.E.R.N. just repeated and confirmed its earlier, extraordinary discovery, this time by doing it with large batches of neutrinos: Mass ( = matter, objects, and of course we Europeans) CAN move faster than light! There is ABSOLUTELY NO speed limit for anything in Nature! In case you U.S. American global invaders / robbers haven’t noticed it and go on with your sorry everyday lives, but today is a stellar date in Man’s History. Like when we Euros discovered fire, stairs, wheels, ships, fly-things, jets and rocketry, etc. etc. .
BOYS , ARE WE BACK !!!
(How “fast” is your cute “Advanced” “Hyper”sonic Weapon, “Mach 5” ? Or almost as fast as light? Is it reusable? Is it a bi-plane? He he he!)
"We Euros discovered fire [and brought death and destruction to every corner of the world for God, Country and natural resources!]"
Wasn't it a pre-"Euro" hominid who "discovered" fire? Or are you trying very very hard to push the Euro-centric agenda? I guess you will claim to have discovered gunpowder, invented chess and the number zero (all three originating in Asia, from China and India respectively).
I don't see the pissing contest in neutrinos. They're fermions and pass through objects un-noticeably. I guess it's interesting you focus on them, as their name is a homage to Enrico Fermi. Then there's the counterpart, the boson, named for an Indian guy who probably did not worship the staircase-bringing-Europeans.
I'm sure Einstein won't be so sad that relativity will go out the window. He was another European, proven wrong by CERN, an institute run by Europeans.
As for the hypersonic missile, it's just like the other missiles pointed at your house not thirty years ago by the Strategic Rocket Forces. It is plenty fast for destroying things.
"When will you U.S. Americans stop asking questions (like when you question the validity of our scientific discoveries) and discover or invent something truly important yourselves? "
Uh, like the internet you are using to be an idiot with?
Trust me, the transistor has done more for society at the moment than this particular discover with neutrinos. Maybe when you're dead and your bones are irrelevant it might be worth something, but at the moment, not so much. As much as I like basic sciences, this is way too basic for my biology, chemistry and computer-science focused self.
Clearly it is time for the US to pull back our Army of occupation in Europe and let you guys get back to your time honored tradition of killing one another.
I always found it funny how people talked big about science that they didn't understand. "trans dimensional teleporters"? Do you know more Stargate than quantum mechanics, let alone classical mechanics?
Another bout of inferiority complex, I see…
When are you guys going to wake up and realize that the EU is in a freaking mess, both financially and ideologically? Oh, sure, you finally managed to launch TWO satellites to begin the Galileo constellation… But you forgot to notice that GPS has been around for… 40+ years.
By the way, the Russians won't be able to launch S-500 any time soon. Much of the hype is still sitting on paper, just like the hyped up PAK/FA T-50.
I seriously doubt the troll is really European.
Who knows? The English isn't bad, but the camel reference might suggest a troll. Flip a coin, I guess.
This is some great technology but I predict an interservice fight over who controls it, Army or USAF.
Ops, sorry I was looking for the ploughshares dept… But since Im here, Im sure the Russians,et al, will be blinded to the Idea of this being a nuc. "First strike Wepon" since we encripted it in that flat flight mumbo gumbo… I guess the MIC Bros had children, no not the Irish the Mil. Ind. Cmplx. bastards. Its warming to know that my grandsons will have op to be fodder in the new age……….
Congratulations to the ARMY. We need this great new technology to make the enemy think twice about the USA being a sissy. Stan the Man.
cool ! when we are using it on the North Korean fatso?
I think if the tecknolage that is ont there is used in the corect maner i my selth with ateam would and could bild and disine a craft that fare exseeds nassas capability I'm no1 specile n may not be able to spell corectly but look me up am out there just like the ansers to all your Questions you so called sintists argu about wot to put or use siplafiy things a hell of a lot n u will b suprised as I am working on a project that will propell our armed forces into a new age of tecnolage bleve me if u will but i intend to have my name none in the history books wot r u doin apart froom talkin about it all the time lol eat my metels c c c c c c c ya??????????
Send western union to Lagos….
Useful info. Lucky me I discovered your website accidentally, and I’m surprised why this accident did not came about in advance! I bookmarked it.
ICBMs are fast fast fast. The only problem is everyone and their dog can see it, and they say "holy crap that's an ICBM!"
This is only fast fast, and if someone can see it, they know it's NOT an ICBM.
Even if he's not sure, he's right.
A ballistic missile is a missile only guided during the relatively brief initial powered phase of flight, whose course is subsequently governed by the laws of classical mechanics.
Inertial guidance on an ICBM doesn't work unless it flies straight up out of the atmosphere in an arc. If you guided an ICBM with an inertial guidance system THROUGH the atmosphere then the amount of error introduced by various atmospheric forces would make it fly way off target.
Sure you could guide a JDAM to target from a jet that was calculating the bomb's trajectory using inertial guidance, because it's only a few miles from the target when the bomb is released.
you=frog. Long day.