Home » News » Army » Army Successfully Tests Hypersonic Weapon Design

Army Successfully Tests Hypersonic Weapon Design

by John Reed on November 17, 2011

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.


Share |

{ 106 comments… read them below or add one }

IKnowIT November 17, 2011 at 10:38 am

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?


Jeff November 17, 2011 at 11:07 am

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.


IKnowIT November 17, 2011 at 4:44 pm

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?


zardinuk November 17, 2011 at 8:00 pm

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.


Dfens November 21, 2011 at 9:05 am

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.


Dr Strangelove February 2, 2012 at 1:14 pm

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.


Benjamin November 17, 2011 at 10:45 am

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.


Jeff November 17, 2011 at 11:18 am

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.


Anonymous November 17, 2011 at 12:59 pm

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.


Nabber November 17, 2011 at 3:33 pm

Sure about your range claim? Really?


fromage November 17, 2011 at 10:47 pm

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.


IKnowIT November 18, 2011 at 8:56 am

It's just interesting…


Morty November 17, 2011 at 10:59 am

We are trying to get ride of the nuclear weapons since the cold war


jamesb November 17, 2011 at 11:03 am

WTF is the ARMY doing this?

And this whole concept IS scary….
No time to react?
What happens when the crazies get this stuff?


Tim November 17, 2011 at 11:16 am

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.


tiger November 17, 2011 at 12:16 pm

I doubt anybody is building this in the back yard.


AnimalFarm November 17, 2011 at 7:26 pm

We'll get the crazies first!


Wilfried schuler November 19, 2011 at 7:13 am

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.


Sam November 18, 2011 at 12:04 pm

The crazies already have it, in fact they invented it.


wilfried schuler November 19, 2011 at 7:07 am

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?


Wilfried Schuler November 19, 2011 at 6:48 am

But the crazies have it already. It is their invention.


Tim November 17, 2011 at 11:20 am

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.


fromage November 17, 2011 at 10:49 pm

what makes "bad guys" bad?


windbourne November 18, 2011 at 1:37 pm

When they attack the west or other


chaos0xomega November 17, 2011 at 12:08 pm

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?


Matt November 17, 2011 at 8:47 pm

This is ground launched (i think) and X-51 is launched from a B-52


fromage November 17, 2011 at 10:50 pm

Check out who owns our ICBM force.


chaos0xomega November 18, 2011 at 5:25 pm

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.


major.rod November 19, 2011 at 9:56 pm

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.


IronV November 17, 2011 at 12:14 pm

Why is it we have to dance around the ballistic missile delivery and China doesn't with its alleged "carrier killer?"


bob November 17, 2011 at 6:35 pm

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


Will November 17, 2011 at 7:02 pm

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.


playing with fire November 18, 2011 at 7:29 am

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…).


Musson1 November 17, 2011 at 12:57 pm

Who do you have to kill in 2 hours – that you can't wait 5 hours to see dead?


HalP November 17, 2011 at 1:07 pm

The guy that is trying to kill you that's who.


Opus November 17, 2011 at 1:13 pm

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.


They's-a-comin! November 17, 2011 at 4:12 pm

Chinese aircraft carriers…


Brian November 17, 2011 at 9:43 pm

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.


joe November 18, 2011 at 2:56 am

Someone (read terrorist cell) having a 3-hour meeting in a known location.


dan little wng November 17, 2011 at 4:28 pm

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? -___-


IKnowIT November 17, 2011 at 4:47 pm

"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


AnimalFarm November 17, 2011 at 7:27 pm

AWESOME! Crazies beware!


Nick November 17, 2011 at 8:26 pm

So what would this do the hull of a vessel, say a chinese carrier?


guest November 18, 2011 at 9:06 am

blow a major hole in the carrier – what else. … and provoke a major military incident….


C-Low November 17, 2011 at 9:23 pm

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.


fromage November 17, 2011 at 11:00 pm

I mean come on. At least get it proofread.


dddd November 18, 2011 at 10:54 am

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.


fromage November 17, 2011 at 10:54 pm

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.


txkboy November 17, 2011 at 10:56 pm

Apparently, budget cuts aren’t part of R&D…lol.


No Quarter November 18, 2011 at 12:39 am

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


USAFTW November 18, 2011 at 5:15 am

Alright boys, Ivan and Mao are going down.


Copper November 18, 2011 at 10:38 am

That's a good one!


Patrick McKinstry November 22, 2011 at 6:42 pm

As well as the bearded Little Adolf in Tehran!!


Brian Black November 18, 2011 at 5:44 am

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.


dddd November 18, 2011 at 10:56 am

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.


IKnowIT November 18, 2011 at 8:59 am

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"?


MindMedic November 18, 2011 at 9:29 am

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.


joethe breadman November 19, 2011 at 2:16 pm

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


von Hardenberg November 23, 2011 at 9:39 pm

The Soviets sponsored competition in their aircraft development and it usually paid off for them.


EJ257 November 18, 2011 at 9:40 am

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.


ayelvington November 18, 2011 at 11:04 am

Army and Air Force would save the taxpayers a lot of money if they kept their dueling to the football field.


KEEPER OF hORSES November 18, 2011 at 11:08 am

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


Von Brown November 18, 2011 at 11:11 am

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.


Von Brown


robertro2 November 18, 2011 at 11:26 am



Infidel4LIFE November 18, 2011 at 11:54 am

Gamechanger. WOW.


Infidel4LIFE November 18, 2011 at 11:57 am

You a f-ing comedian? Real funny. How about a bayonet shoved up ur azz?


Eric S. Obispo November 18, 2011 at 12:18 pm

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.


crazy November 18, 2011 at 1:19 pm

Wernher von Braun, Hermann Oberth, Johannes Winkler, Robert Oppenheimer, Albert Einstein… true american pioneers yep, oh wait….. Operation Paperclip/Overcast , a clue ?


Brian Black November 19, 2011 at 7:36 am

"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.


A. C. November 18, 2011 at 3:21 pm

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.


NotuMe November 18, 2011 at 3:25 pm

Scramjet, when it positively, absolutely has to be dead anywhere in the world in two hours or less!


Edward J Cox Jr November 18, 2011 at 8:40 pm

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?


A:SAKLI November 19, 2011 at 6:06 am



USAFTW November 19, 2011 at 8:38 am



von Hardenberg November 23, 2011 at 9:47 pm

Another Ecowhackjob on the loose. Save the planet! What a maroon!


chauvinistic frog November 19, 2011 at 11:58 am

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.


chauvinistic frog November 19, 2011 at 11:58 am

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. .


(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!)


Tim November 21, 2011 at 10:13 pm

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.


PMI November 22, 2011 at 1:46 am

I seriously doubt the troll is really European.


blight November 22, 2011 at 1:49 am

Who knows? The English isn't bad, but the camel reference might suggest a troll. Flip a coin, I guess.


Shootist November 23, 2011 at 12:30 pm

This is some great technology but I predict an interservice fight over who controls it, Army or USAF.


Isaiah November 23, 2011 at 12:30 pm

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……….


Stan V. January 30, 2012 at 8:09 pm

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.


akaa April 23, 2012 at 7:38 pm

cool ! when we are using it on the North Korean fatso?


james August 7, 2012 at 11:58 am

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??????????


blight_ August 7, 2012 at 12:20 pm

Send western union to Lagos….


kérdés August 23, 2012 at 1:22 pm

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.


WhiteHawk July 19, 2013 at 9:36 am

For all the bluster, what I'm hearing is "this thing can carry a nuclear warhead quickly to anywhere in the world, and the target won't know it's nuclear until it's too late"…


remote car starter November 10, 2013 at 3:17 am
เสื้อยืด June 23, 2014 at 3:10 am

Oh my goodness! Impressive article dude! Many thanks, However I am
going through troubles with your RSS. I don’t know why I can’t join it.
Is there anyone else having the same RSS problems?

Anyone that knows the solution will you kindly respond?


Voodoo1 November 17, 2011 at 5:31 pm

depends which politician you ask


Skyepapa November 17, 2011 at 7:53 pm

there's always something that doesn't fit, but that doesn't negate all the things that do.


fromage November 17, 2011 at 10:57 pm

Very clear CONOPs you described. Lockmart, take it from there.


Skyepapa November 17, 2011 at 7:57 pm

Are you sure about time-of-flight issue too? Speed reduces need for extended flight times over the same range.


zardinuk November 17, 2011 at 8:03 pm

It probably makes more sense to arm it with a uranium penetrator with explosives for "bunker busting" capabilities.


Brian November 17, 2011 at 9:35 pm

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.


fromage November 17, 2011 at 10:48 pm

Even if he's not sure, he's right.


zardinuk November 17, 2011 at 11:22 pm

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.


Jim S. November 18, 2011 at 3:12 am

Because with our incredible ever shrinking Navy, you may not always have a ship in TLAM range


crackedlenses November 18, 2011 at 9:50 am

Not if it's misleading; kinda like saying your land ships are "water tanks"…..


Maxtrue November 18, 2011 at 12:54 pm

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?


windbourne November 18, 2011 at 1:42 pm

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.


major.rod November 21, 2011 at 8:57 pm

"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?


PMI November 22, 2011 at 1:36 am

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.


blight November 22, 2011 at 1:48 am

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?


blight November 22, 2011 at 1:49 am

you=frog. Long day.


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: