Posted on 04/22/2012 8:50:03 AM PDT by lbryce
Last August Lockheed Martin, the Air Force, and DARPA tested the Hypersonic Technology Vehicle (HTV-2), which traveled 20 times the speed of sound and could hypothetically deliver a bomb anyplace on the planet inside one hour.
It was a spectacular failure that was much publicized by the press, but no details about what went wrong were made available — until now.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
I know, it's a crazy thought, but it could happen.
Speedy glider ... for a short time.
The purpose of testing is to weed out problems, and then fix them. This is a concept that is foreign to members of the "press", who salivate at every opportunity to criticize the military in general, and military R&D in particular.
Why does DARPA release this news? Why does DARPA show us the shape of this thing??
Maybe they want China to perfect the technology before we figure it out.
Read my tagline!
Why does DARPA release this news? Why does DARPA show us the shape of this thing??
Maybe they want China to perfect the technology before we figure it out.
Read my tagline!
Because no one is looking out for the best interests of the United States any longer.
It’s sad but true. It’s all moving toward the New World Order and all these programs are going to be used to further that agenda.
I’m sad to that’s even a possibility.
This is technically a poor approach to a problem that doesn’t need solving.
The cowards in the Senate and at State, just don’t want the obvious and workable solution.
And an ICBM launch has a heat signature that can be seen from orbit.
Visualize a hypersonic cruise missile that can be launched from a jet over the ocean, without such a huge heat signature, and which would hit without any advance warning within an hour of launch.
China wants US taxpayer-based research to perfect the technology before the Chinese actually procure it from us.
Or hit North Korea from South Korea in 7 seconds... Just because it can do long distance doesn’t mean it has to.
They learned how to control at vehicle at mach 20. That’s about it.
Maybe they are showing us just what they want China and others to see to lead them down the wrong path? Disinfo? For all we know, DARPA may be ten years more advanced than what they are showing here.
Analysis of Space Shuttle Columbia’s re-entry at 17,000 mph was about as useful as this DARPA’s release.
You are likely closer than most others.
Even though the Putinistas and ChiComs may think its a fake, they are also paranoid enough to try to develop a defense, thus burning up piles of rubels and rice$, just like Reagan’s Star Wars.
May I remind my fellow Freepers of previous elaborate disinformation campaigns where DoD successfully misled our enemies. For example, before the Stealth Fighter was unveiled, Aviation Week magazine routinely published drawings and purported photos of it. When the real bird debuted, it looked nothing like the disinformation.
DoD SHOULD practice such deceptions on our enemies. It is unfortunate that this misleads civilians, but civvies DO NOT HAVE A NEED TO KNOW.
In the current situation, I hope the guys in uniform deceive the commies in the Maladministration along with everyone else. I trust them far more than I do the pols, appointees, and GS.
As for the DARPA “failure” I would ask:
Was this the real bird?
Are we trying to get our enemies to spend enormous sums defending against a program that is vaporware? We did that with Reagan’s SDI. The Russkies were totally flummoxed at the vast arsenal of Star Wars weapons we were researching. Most consisted of briefing charts. Most were totally unfeasible.
Finally, I remember trying to get a USAF scientist to fly his experiment on board the Space Shuttle in 1983. He adamantly refused. He explained: “If I fly the experiment on a sounding rocket and it fails, no one will know. If I fly it on the Shuttle and it fails, I would probably have my funding cut. Getting the reliability from 85% to 95% DOUBLES THE PRICE. 85% is the optimal failure rate to get the most results from the smallest budget”.
So there’s some aerospace wisdom for you.
Comment #10 by C210N is the accurate statement.
+Cronies of Obama, like American businessman Jeffrey Immelt of General-Electric, are destroying the USA by sending American jobs over to China.
No real-USA jobs = No Taxes = No USA military.
People like >Obama & >Jeffrey Immelt are a greater danger to the USA than Chinese military weapons (based on designs stolen from the USA).
True, R&D is an evolving process.
The Boeing solution is stabilized and prototypes have flown as far back as the late 60’s. LM is testing an unproven design that carries less payload than the Boeing design.
Why go with a more costly, untested and unreliable system?
“Fiscally, I can’t really see the need for this, we already have such a system to deliver a bomb to anyplace on Earth within 30 minutes that has been available since the late 1950’s, the ICBM. We even have SLBM’s approaching what ICBM’s can do, basically, this is a money waster.”
True, and that is why we are developing these types of weapons—hypersonic strike platforms.
The problem with what you are suggesting, a conventional non-nuclear missile, is the issue of identification and over-flight.
Even though you may launch a conventionally armed ICBM, places like Russia or China, and soon to be others, have no way of knowing if the missile is conventional or nuclear, and given their instability and paranoia, that is a mistake you don’t want to let them make. To them and everyone else, a ballistic missile is a ballistic missile is a ballistic missile.
What to do?
With the hypersonic designs, the missile is new and with a totally different plume (no mistaking it for a nuclear ICBM launch plume).
Moreover, the flight profile is NOT ballistic, it is flown much like a rock skipping across the atmosphere. Whereas an ICBM peaks over 600 miles high, the hypersonic missile peaks a little over 100 miles. No mistaking it for nuke, especially when the heat generated by flying a depressed profile would annihilate a nuclear warhead.
Finally, the hypersonic missile would maneuver to avoid overflight of friendly (or not so friendly) nations, as well as maneuver to the best attack axis. This is something a nuclear ICBM cannot do.
So, as you can see, the new weapon is not going to be confused with a nuke and will allow greater and more timely responses for quick strategic strikes. . . like a strike on a fueling nuclear missile on the launch-pad someplace in Iran or North Korea.
And because a nuke sub would be carrying a mixed load of nukes and conventional missiles, the issue of “is it a nuke or not” would be very real and identification times between a launch and response (or not) would be mere seconds. . .therefore, not a platform or capability that would help clarify the type of missile launch as it would not have the discriminators as described above.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.