Or vise versa. It's always a difference of opinion. The key is supporting yourself with facts and/or reasoned analysis. I have no problem doing that. Anytime you feel up to it, try me.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 18, 2008 02:55 PM

I had hoped it was all about a difference in opinion and a variance in faith in emerging technology. But in the end I was just pig rasslin'. Dang.

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at February 18, 2008 02:25 PM

Believe what you want. I don't care one way or the other what some dude on an internet blog says. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good debate as much as the next person but I don't think about what anyone thinks about what I said. If you think because a person is in the Army, they don't know other things then you are greatly underestimating people and it's your loss. The facts and the data support what I said which is that the DoD will develop and deploy hypersonic weapons of various kinds over the next 2 to 24 years beginning with modifications to ballistic missiles and and eventually adding CTOL hypersonic aircraft(probably unmanned). You are a fool if you believe otherwise. Your choice.

Now I do not dispute that the Conventional Trident is not beinf directly funded. Congress recently toold the DoD they could have 100 million out of the 179 million requested for the Conventional Trident and told them to find an alternative that does the same thing. But the DoD has already developed the technologies necessary to make it work. The GPS guided MK4 RV has been tested already by the USS Maryland and USS Tennessee in 2006 and 2005 respectively. The additional funding would have been basically to bring a convetional variant to production and IOC. It's a pen stroke away from being a reality. There are no tech barriers. The DoD is still pushing it, Lockheed is still funding it. And the SLIRBM alternative is being funded. Imagine a missile similar to a Pershing II, 3 per launch tube, on a Ohio SSGN.

You show some evidence to support your disagreement and then you will have more than just your opinion to back you up.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 17, 2008 01:28 PM

DA,

And your arguments just don't stick. Ultimately you, MAC, and myself are not the persons making the determination of who is right or wrong. That is left up to those that are reading this blog. And given your incessant personal attacks it is clear who is right and who is wrong.

I have told you perviously on this blog that the used of ICBMs is possible but will not happen. Congress seems to agree with me on this one, so any point you make is pointless.

Hypersonic flight has not been proven and tested in anything full scale to date. The closest we have come is strapping a scramjet missile onto the front of a rocket. Therefore any conjecture you bring up must be well founded. Given the fact that you have indicated you are in country right now and wearing an Army uniform, I would guess you know nothing more about it that what I would read in Popular Mechanics. Therefore, I would give MAC the benefit of the doubt since he has indicated his intellect in this area through various posts in the past.

Now given that statement, what we lack in current hypersonic manned flight we do have to a lesser extent in hypersonic missile technology. This is the area we should be focusing on as it makes the most sense in terms of technology maturity and budget.

You can continue with your personal attacks but I believe the true wannabe is you.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at February 17, 2008 10:57 AM

Dearth? It's funny how you insist on substituting personal attack for a relevant retort. Then you put words into my mouth and reply to your own statements to make yourself seem more credible. It's ok MacWannaBee, like before, I'll correct you AGAIN so don't worry.

You Said:

"Weapons separation, materials, propulsion, et al at Hypersonic speeds is a WHOLE NEW BALL GAME. See http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11743&page=R1 and you will see that hypersonic aircraft are NOT THAT CLOSE AT HAND and [t]he technology is NOT THAT MATURE." ---MAC

...lol. "That mature" or "that close". Do I make you nervous? Why are you qualifying your responses with "that"? In your mind there are differences between mature and "that mature" and close and "that close". Thats good because I never said ANYTHING about a bomber being close. What I said is quoted below...

"This is not an unproven technology. Billion in R&D will have been spent to validate the concept before it goes operational. Moreover, we have been dropping hypersonic ordinance on targets since the ICBM. The difference is rather than a purely ballistic trajectory, the warhead will have the ability to enter controlled flight on the decent and engage targets with precision(10 meters CEP) quality. You may have read about conventional trident. Things of that nature will come first. And it is not very expensive since most of the required technologies are already operational. Only the terminal phase remains at this point to provide an interm capability." ---DarthAmerica

...Get over yourself, stop behaving like a forum wanna bee, stop assuming you have a monopoly on the knowledge necessary to discuss this and for god sake read what I write. My focus is on CAV or hypersonic weapons delivered via ballistic missiles and/or air launched cruise missiles. In other words, the ordinance rather than the delivery system. In fact, your last link supports that when it says the following...

"Propulsion is a critical barrier to achieving a high-speed missile capable of cruising at hypersonic speeds. Ramjet propulsion systems have been highly evolved, and flight tests have been carried out in several demonstration programs at such speeds." ---From Your own link

Your link is suggesting that conventional hypersonic aircraft are not likely to be ready to meet the 2018 IOC for a new USAF bomber. Unless we are talking about black programs, I have no problem with that assessment. 2025 is a more realistic date. The USA is likely to operate secret Hypersonic aircraft in the way we operated the F-117 during the 1980s. At this point the technology and such an aircraft are still too expensive and secret to mass produce and publicly acknowledge.

So you need to stop making strawman arguments. To avoid any further ambiguity, answer the following question directly. Do you disagree that its possible to deploy a hypersonic weapon that is delivered via ballistic missile or air launched rocket or ramjet powered cruise missile?

Also, you posted a whole lot of nothing about the B-2. Obviously, it went to production via computer modeling as I said first. I already posted that. Details of the B-2 were not important. What is important is that YOU TRIED TO MINIMIZE the significance of wind tunnel sub scale test and computer models that brought such a complicated machine straight to a production model within a decade. Through these methods we will save time and money and bring such things as hypersonic bombers to reality much faster than without was the point. Again stop making strawman arguments. I can post pictures of myself too but that would hardly make up for lack of a credible argument or even prove with any certainty anything. This is the internet and anybody can post anything or claim to be anything. Just stick to the facts and read more carefully before jumping on the bandwagon with a person like DC2 who doesn't know what he is talking about.

-DA

Here is a picture of me that proves absolutely nothing:

http://www.dropshots.com/DarthAmerica#date/2007-12-24/18:55:17

So I could do it too. I could also post pictures of the time I was on the USS Constellation before it retired, me sitting in an F/A-18C cockpit, me in my old Abrams, Me sitting on my M1117, Me in my Hummer, Me with the POTUS(in a crowd), my degrees, certificates, qualifications and whole bunch of other things. None of that is a substitute for a good argument.

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 17, 2008 03:44 AM

~Sigh~
OK Dearth, last things first.
------
RE: “Nothing like a bunch of forum wanna bees who have convinced themselves of something in spite of the facts. Look, you can believe what you want. It makes no difference to me or the fact that hypersonic weapons release is going to be an operational reality”
------
Nice ‘straw man’. The most anyone could reasonably deduce from my comments is that such a reality was a very long way off, that in the foreseeable future it is highly improbable, and of doubtful net military utility when and if it does happen. At the risk of being repetitive, let’s recap (with emphasis added to help the less fortunate).
From my first comment:
“There are SPECIFIC AND LIMITED strike scenarios when a hypersonic system is desirable over a slower system, but I SERIOUSLY DOUBT THE ADVANTAGES OUTWEIGH THE DISADVANTAGES in overwhelming majority of possible applications.”
From my second comment:
Weapons separation, materials, propulsion, et al at Hypersonic speeds is a WHOLE NEW BALL GAME. See http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11743&page=R1 and you will see that hypersonic aircraft are NOT THAT CLOSE AT HAND and [t]he technology is NOT THAT MATURE.
My third comment dealt solely with suborbital strike, so from my fourth comment:
-- a PA release on a successful little 10% scale wind tunnel test of separation at supersonic speeds as an authoritative source on the ability to do safe separation at hypersonic speed? COMPARATIVELY speaking: Them's ‘BABY STEPS’!
See anything in the above or elsewhere in my previous comments where was it ever stated hypersonic wouldn’t ever be an operational reality? Ummmmm… Nope.

Now my favorite part…
------
RE: You do know that wind tunnels and computer models are how these things start right? You do know it's why the B-2 went straight to production prototype right? Or are you trying to prove you don't know what you are talking about?
------
Now, do YOU know there is a very large difference in the risk of using modeling and simulation when doing so for a very well known flight regime, like sub- or supersonic and doing the same thing for a comparatively unknown flight regime like, oh I don’t know, maybe..‘ hypersonic’? Well known behaviors can be modeled extremely well, unknown behaviors need to be validated with real world experience. And BTW, this issue, as challenging as it is, is still TRIVIAL compared with dealing with the sum total of thermal and acoustic implications of hypersonic flight. I'd say the vast majority of our real world hypersonic knowledge comes from space shuttle and missile reentry data - a very limited experience to extrapolate from.
Now FYI, the B-2 went straight into production using production tooling because the tolerances had to be to the highest production standards from the very first. This was due to low observability requirements – it had to be ‘stealthy’ out of the box. And even then there were STILL changes that had to be made because as well understood as subsonic and transonic flight is, the design itself introduced interesting aerodynamic ‘firsts’. Are you aware that as just one of the risk reductions, that like the earlier Northrop flying wing designs, the B-2 had flaps designed into it that are unused and were put there ‘just in case’ the modeling was wrong?
When you first chimed in so enthusiastically I wondered if you were a bright-eyed, and very excitable engineering student, junior engineer, or possibly even an AF 2LT operator someplace, because you were hyper (no pun intended) on the potential of hypersonics. That indicated to me that while you may have an inkling about F=ma, you were not too hip to the fact that “you can’t push with a rope”. After further intercourse it became apparent you also do not have the experience that informs one that just because something is ‘possible’ it doesn’t necessarily make that something ‘desirable’. After the little ‘wannabe’ snark, I’m thinking now that more likely your troll voice is still cracking and observe you are in possession of some very questionable coping skills.

Now my 'cred' is just fine with the people who count: my peers and the guy who signs my paycheck: http://bp0.blogger.com/_9z0kZs2YpZg/R7evQnr1pTI/AAAAAAAAAPw/uhXJfKrv5go/s1600-h/EOP-B2.jpg
How’s yours?

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at February 16, 2008 10:59 PM

DC2,

Still a little fight left in your objections heh? Very well. If you read what I wrote. I CLEARLY SAID "known" not "tested" for decades. Pay attention please.

I am not personally building a hypersonic weapon. So I do not need to think about any plasma heating or anything else you're tossing up in your vain attempts to salvage your credibility on this issue. The facts are that the DoD is pursuing the technology with billions of dollars worth of R&D. So there is no shortage of people thinking about how to deal with the heat associated with hypersonic flight.

Perhaps you need to think a bit more about it yourself. When I mentioned the Pershing II and other ballistic missiles. You should consider how the RVs manage to seperate from their buses and fall on their targets. In the interm, the hypersonic aircraft(CAV) will be the weapon.

Depending on the payload, it might slow down or smash into its target at hypersonic velocities. Surely you must know this is a trivial task by now. When a human returns to Earth in a spacecraft. Does that spacecraft not slow down first? Of course. A Hypersonic weapon like CAV can "slow" and then despense a payload of SDB II , Low Cost Autonomous Attack Munitions, JDAMs or even a small UAV. It could also carry a penetrator an smash into a hardened target with much more destructive force than a conventional weapon. The first example is not unlike a retarded bomb. The second is not unlike an RV. Both of these techniques are proven. This is why I refered you to pershing.

In the case of an actual reusable hypersonic bomber. Either one of the two methods I described could be used or some alternative I am not yet familiar with. The point is that a technical analysis as well as the DoD confirms that it is technically feesible to release weapons from hypersonic aircraft.

You might retort using the fig leaf of prohibitive cost. But how do you put a value on time? Especially in a military context. As a leader, time is my most valuable asset. There is no mission I cannot accomplish if given enough time. This is why it is important to be able to get into your enemies OODA loop. Hypersonic weapons will do that in a lot of cases. There are too many examples to list in support of this.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 16, 2008 12:51 PM

DA,

It was tested in 1995, so you aren't talking about decades.

Seccondly. The discussion on Leeside Separation and subsequent release of stores occurs when the flat plane is inclined to 15 degrees. Therefore, you need to think about the heat/plasma generated on the opposite side of the plane. Again, you are talking about an aircraft created and maintained in the mold of the space shuttle. So how much money are you willing to spend to build/maintain the aicraft and dedicated weapons as well as train the crew?

Anything is possible DA with money. Given the porper amount of money, I could make monkeys fly out my butt too.

You must really do a lot for the military considering you are in country, riding in a Humvee listening to your iPod with your buddies, and still have all this time to know all this other stuff.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at February 16, 2008 10:26 AM

MAC,

You do know that wind tunnels and computer models are how these things start right? You do know it's why the B-2 went straight to production prototype right? Or are you trying to prove you don't know what you are talking about?

Nothing like a bunch of forum wanna bees who have convinced themselves of something in spite of the facts. Look, you can believe what you want. It makes no difference to me or the fact that hypersonic weapons release is going to be an operational reality.

Go read about the Leeside Separation of Hypersonic Weapons. We have known it is possible to safely do this for decades. Active Flow Control is just another technique.

-DA

Posted by: darthAmerica at February 16, 2008 02:39 AM

Wow. Take the day off and all heck breaks loose.
-------------------
RE: You insist on bringing up this bomb bay door nonsense. OK then fine. Read this:
ht*p://www.va.afrl.af.mil/success_stories/archived_success_stories/pdf/2003/03-VA-04.pdf
Happy now? Look DC2. I don't post unless I am 99% sure of what I'm talking about or have direct experience with the subject matter. If I say it, I've thouroughly studied the situation and I can prove, usually with an official link to a .mil site, what I'm saying.
-------------------
Gee, that statement MIGHT have had a lot more credence if you hadn't cited that particular link as a support. I mean, c'mon! -- a PA release on a successful little 10% scale wind tunnel test of separation at supersonic speeds as an authoritative source on the ability to do safe separation at hypersonic speed? Comparatively speaking: Them's 'baby steps'! I'll rely on my a/c design and aerodynamics texts instead of ".mil" sites thank you very much.
----------------------
RE: If MAC disagrees with what I'm saying, he is probably wrong.
----------------------
Heh. I hereby dub thee Darth Hubris! (Or 'Hybris' if you prefer the 'classicist' spelling.)

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at February 15, 2008 09:44 PM

DC2,

Really? Never trialed on a boat yet?

ht*p://www.deepsiren.com/rrk.swf

Go to the history section. You really need to trust me and read more...lol. BTW, I'll remember your advice the next time I piss into an ocean again. I thought I already told you, you don't know me. Please, lets stict strictly to the facts. I dropped enough hints so that you would come to this information on your own. That you failed to research it is your own affair.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 15, 2008 03:29 PM

DC2,

Again, and you should know this, there are other ways to communicate with a sub at depth and at speed. Not all of the methods are in the public domain for obvious reasons. Look into DEEP SIREN. It's a true revolution in communications for Subs. It will be operational in time to facilitate the kind of weapons we are talking about.

About the actual missiles. It isn't going to cost billions. Its 503 million to take existing technology and do this today. I already showed you the technology exist. Changing the MIRV to guided MARVs is about all that needs to be done. Also, the Conventional Trident is only one of three possible solutions. One is based on land based ICBMs and the other is the SLIRBM I mentioned earlier. Fundamentally, the delivery system is no more complicated than the Pershing which I also showed you. The RV would instead be a CAV which would be inserted into its glide path by the missile proceeding to target under precision guidance at hypersonic speeds as a glider initially and later under power. the insertion point could be over the ocean with the glide path going for hundreds or thousands of miles to the target.

Anybody sophisticated enough to even detect the launch would see a ballistic missile on a trajectory that ends in the middle of an ocean. There is very little risk of a misunderstanding. When you detect the missile on it's ballistic trajectory, you know where it will land. So your fears are indeed exaggerated. Not to worry though, the DoD is the only organization that would even be likely to detect the launches in most cases.

As to cost, we are comparing billions of dollars worth of men, aircraft and supporting infrastructure to do a similar strike without the guarantee of being able to strike in time to a system that would be well under 50 million in most cases and assurance that we could actually get the target in time.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 15, 2008 03:19 PM

DA,

With regards to Deep Siren. Here is a link from Scientific American indicating that it hasn't even gone through trials on a boat yet.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=navy-satellite-deep-siren

But it clearly indicates the current methods for communicating with subs. Which, by the way, is the exact method I have been trying to tell you.

You might want to listen to your own advice and try to learn something instead of telling people how wrong they are. Especially those that truly know what they are talking about.

I don't need somebody that has never pissed in salt water (Ward and all the other squids know what I'm talking about) telling me what my Navy does in such an arrogant manner as you try to.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at February 15, 2008 03:03 PM

I agree that subs have antennas that float, which requires they get to depths necessary to raise during certain times of the day.

That's also when they get coordinates for launches of TLAMs. Otherwise the TLAM's come from surface ships.

My criticisms are well founded. The conventional ballistic missile has not been properly funded by Congress due to the concerns I have said. And I don't know why you would ever think a hypersonic aircraft (missile or aircraft) would be considered cheap. Like I said earlier on this blog, our Air Force is crumbling and in desparate need of being recapitalized. The last thing we need to do is spend billions of dollars on this technology when we are currently bickering over funding 180 additional F-22s.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at February 15, 2008 01:28 PM

Sailor,

You need to look into the work done on the Jimmy Carter. You need to look at Deep Siren. You need to look at how the USN uses VLF operationally to overcome depth limitations. Here is a hint on one of the techniques, "it floats". I keep preaching operational concepts to you for a reason. The USN is not going to put dozens of cruise missiles and possibly SLIRBMs on its SSGNs and not have a way to quickly initiate hostilities when necessary.

Also, you are wrong about Russia's EW capabilities. They aren't what they were during the cold war. In some places Russia is completely blind to missile threats. They are also not going to launch just in case retaliatory strikes over ballistic tracks when they know where the missiles are going.

With regard to hypersonic weapons release. It's an issue the USAF is solving right now. The program I mentioned is already in test and it include hypersonic weapons release. The overwhelming majority of the facts suggest that the DoD has a solution to the relevant technical challenges.

Bottom line is your criticism is unfounded. We are within reach of this technology and it is not cost prohibitive in the least.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 15, 2008 01:11 PM

"If MAC disagrees with what I'm saying, he is probably wrong. If he can prove otherwise I would happily correct myself. I'm not here to have a "who's right" contest with anybody. I'm here to learn, even if that means reapetedly explaining things I already know, and to discuss operational concepts."

I haven't seen you correct yourself yet on this site. And it doesn't seem that you are here to learn, rather you are here to tell everyone how right you are.

I will agree with you that using ballistic missiles with convetional warheads makes sense until you think about the possible ramifications. One error or misunderstanding by China or especially Russia and you just vaporized the planet. And yes, they do have the ability to track incoming missiles, just not as quickly as we do (which makes the idea of launching a ballistic missile even more troubling given that they have even less time to react).

CSRR (as you mentioned) is an upgrade to the radio room on all subs and has no function whatsoever on how the sub communicates with the surface world. Link below:

http://www.afcea.org/signal/articles/templates/Signal_Article_Template.asp?articleid=1432&zoneid=222

Subs communicate with the surface world via VLF communications which can penetrate 20m below the surface. They are supposed to get within this range certain times each day to receive radio traffic.

Like I said, don't tell a sailor how to sail.

Hypersonic missile technology is not a bad idea at all, but this is the first time we have discussed this issue on this blog. I think it would make far better sense than a ballistic missile launch or a hypersonic bomber. All the documentation on the reference you provided dealt with supersonic weapons release and not hypersonic (even though hypresonic was mentioned in the heading).

Review MAC's comments. Hypersonic and supersonic have completely different characteristics. Hypersonic involves plasma flow and not just airflow.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at February 15, 2008 11:16 AM

DC2,

I know ELF has been OFFICIALLY terminated. Thats why I said circa 1980's communications technology. That you didn't know of it or reference it if you did know when you made the insane and incorrect comment that its hard to communicate with SSBNs in 2008 tells me a lot. I also referenced the CSRR for that reason. ELF wasn't simply just shut down for environmental reasons, it was replaced with more advanced and higher bandwidth techniques.

I can tell you are familiar with some things but where you have issues is when you have to tie things into the overall operational concept. Perhaps you are too focused in one military discipline, certainly none of the ones we have dicussed, to see the big picture.

You are also making another error when you assume we will never use ballistic missiles with conventional warheads. We already do that with the ATACMS in combat. The U.S. Navy is developing a SLIRBM(Sub Luanched Intermidiate Range Ballistic Missile) with a range of 1100 miles, ToT of 15 minutes and armed with convetional precision guided warheads. Testing begins this year with Aerojet getting the contract for the engines.

You insist on bringing up this bomb bay door nonsense. OK then fine. Read this:

ht*p://www.va.afrl.af.mil/success_stories/archived_success_stories/pdf/2003/03-VA-04.pdf

Happy now? Look DC2. I don't post unless I am 99% sure of what I'm talking about or have direct experience with the subject matter. If I say it, I've thouroughly studied the situation and I can prove, usually with an official link to a .mil site, what I'm saying. If MAC disagrees with what I'm saying, he is probably wrong. If he can prove otherwise I would happily correct myself. I'm not here to have a "who's right" contest with anybody. I'm here to learn, even if that means reapetedly explaining things I already know, and to discuss operational concepts.

These hypersonic weapons will be deployed from both missiles and aircraft and they will dramatically change the nature of warfare. Its why we are trying to stay ahead of the game.

I hope we can avoid anymore "misunderstandings" in the future.

Thanks
-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 15, 2008 09:41 AM

Hey there Mr. Know It All,

ELF was terminated in 1998 and wasn't really used that much anyways. VLF was used during the Cold War to transmit signals to SSBNs. This was done using TACAMO aircraft constantly flying over the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

Don't talk to a sailor about sailing and I won't talk to a supposed soldier about listening to their IPod while outside the wire.

You are correct on ballistic missile accuracy, I will give you that.

But we will never used ballistic missiles for conventional warheads, sorry.

I understand hypersonic aircraft are far different from conventional aircraft. That is why I referenced the space shuttle as it is the only hypersonic aircraft we currently have. And to drop a bomb, something needs to open up to drop it. Once that happens the aircraft will disentigrate.

Just an FYI, MAC is a very well respected and a very competent blogger on this site. If both of us agree on something I feel very confident that it is correct.

You make good points sometimes but don't be an arrogant ass-jack. That will only make you look like a fool my friend.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at February 15, 2008 08:19 AM

"DA,

Once again, we are talking about a blog regarding hypersonic aircraft. That was my reference to M7 bomb door opening."

Well if you stop thinking about hypersonic aircraft the way you think of a conventional aircraft then you wont make such mistakes.

"Just an FYI (since I don't know what I am talking about), it is very difficult to get any information to a submerged ballistic missile sub. In fact, they come to depth a certain times of the day to get information. Otherwise they are in depths that prevent them from being detected."

Again, demonstrated lack of familiarity with the subject matter. The US, Russia, UK and France have had solutions for this problem for decades. Coded ELF signals which can penetrate hundreds of meters below the surface are continuously broadcast to SSBN/SSGN to let them know to stay hidden. Changes in this coded message are instantly detected prompting the SSBN/SSGN to deploy higher bandwidth communications methods.

My goodness man you aren't even familiar with 1980's era TTPs and you are questioning modern command and control techniques? You really need to read more or ask questions from those of us who do know how these things work. Look into CSRR.

"Another FYI, both the Air Force and Navy have both studied this option.

MIRVs also are spec'd to hit an area in the hundreds of feet and not anything more precise."

Which is why I wasn't talking about MIRVs. Get familiar with the acronym MARV. Again you demonstrate a lack of understanding. Go read about what a 1970's vintage Pershing II missile was capable of:

ht*p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pershing_missile#Reentry_vehicle

Thats a CEP of 30 meters in the 1970s and that number is the unclassified CEP and it used a primitive guidance technique. We have guidance technologies today that can easily deliver < 1 meter accuracy.

Maybe you really should read about what CAV/FALCON/HyStrike/Blackswift are. You can also read about the Conventional Trident. We could have the capability I'm talking about for ~500 million dollars!

"I gotta be honest with you DA, when MAC agrees with me then the planets have aligned and there is no refuting us. Sorry.

DC2"

If you want to convince yourself of that fine. I've demonstrated familiarity with the subject matter and provided sources and analysis. Two or more people not understanding a subject matter being presented by another person is not an uncommon thing at all. It's called school. I hope you learned something. You are getting this education for free so I'm a bit jealous.

Class is dismissed
-DA

MORE READING:
ht*p://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/x-41.html

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 15, 2008 02:55 AM

DA,

Once again, we are talking about a blog regarding hypersonic aircraft. That was my reference to M7 bomb door opening.

Just an FYI (since I don't know what I am talking about), it is very difficult to get any information to a submerged ballistic missile sub. In fact, they come to depth a certain times of the day to get information. Otherwise they are in depths that prevent them from being detected.

Another FYI, both the Air Force and Navy have both studied this option.

MIRVs also are spec'd to hit an area in the hundreds of feet and not anything more precise.

I gotta be honest with you DA, when MAC agrees with me then the planets have aligned and there is no refuting us. Sorry.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at February 14, 2008 08:08 PM

Heh. DARPA et al are paid to look at ALL the possible alternative futures and the advocates for ideas slug it out in 'the system'. Their interest hardly anoints an idea as a good one.

The military utility of PGS using a missile stackup is extremely narrow. The major limitations are two-fold 1. VERY costly for an expendable weapon that also has a very high overhead. 2. Politically impractical because of the 'other uses' that give everyone else a twitchy trigger finger. Using an ICBM as a starting point for something else isn't new BTW. In the 'bad old days' I was chopped to Space Command to help develop requirements for system that would reconstitute the NCA in event of a decapitation attack. ANY alternative involving reuse of ICBM and Early Warning technology, bases or organizations were considered too provocative.

The Chechnya example is interesting, but hardly relevant because Russia was striking its next door neighbor. A lot of the interest in heavy missile PGS comes from the communities involved trying to keep their expertise and careers 'relevant'. Don't take that the wrong way, I do not mean that as a disparagement, because these guys for the most part really do think their's is the best system for the job.

I don't have the same faith in the survivability of a TEL or Sub post-launch that others may have, but that comes from (among other things) sitting several years next to a guy who used to sink them regularly as the resident Red Force commander at the Center for Naval Analysis .

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at February 14, 2008 07:37 PM

"DA,

If you are talking about using ballistic missiles for prompt strike (15 to 30 minute response times) then you are on some seriously good stuff. Are you trying to start nuclear war? What happens if one of those targets happens to be in one of the 'Stans near Russia? You think they are going to trust us that whatever we are launching is not nuclear tipped?"

A little advice. Stop offering opinions on subjects you don't understand. These are not my proposals. These are from the DoD and DARPA. Yes, they are planning on using ballistic missiles for prompt strike. It's funny how you so vigourously object to a subject you clearly no little about. One of the primary platforms under consideration in the interm is the Trident missile. An SLBM. Do you want to know why? Because an SLBM can be launch from the sea on a ballistic trajectory that doesn't have to fly over Russia. Russia also doesnt even have a way to detect most SLBM launches. The land based proposal involved observers from other nuclear powers to prevent any misinterpretation.

"And separating a MIRV while in space is completely different from opening up a bomb door in the atmosphere at Mach 7."

Yeah, so why are you bringing it up? Did I ever mention a bomb door opening at M7?

"But again, you are still talking about a minimum of two hours response to any credible intelligence. We can do that right now in any hotspot in the world. Horn of Africa (Marines, Navy, and SpecOps already there). Mille east (I think we got that pretty well covered). Afghanistan/Pakistan (same there)."

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. We don't have that kind of response time. I know this from experience. Also, there is no way to know it a target will present itself in an area where you have assets available. If we recieved credible reports that TEL in Iran was preparing to fire on a target in Israel, Russia or Europe with a nuclear warhead. Our only option to realistically respond in time would be to fire either an ICBM or SLBM. Other than that we would have to hope ballistic missile defences stopped it.

"You want to focus money on something useful? How about a stealthy UAV for loitering over areas where we don't want people to know (say Syria). And the guy the Isrealis just blew up didn't die from a bomb dropped from the sky.

So perhaps we could spend money on the CIA/NSA covert operations and stealthy UAVs and still have money left over.

We got rid of the SR-71 because they were too expensive to maintain. Yet we are going to spend this amount of money on a plane that I guarantee will be as expensive to maintain as the space shuttle. Rocket fuel isn't cheap either.

And THE highest priority the Air Force should have right now is replacing it's aging fleet of aircraft. We can argue F-22/F-35/F-16E/F-15 all we want, but they need to be recapitalized ASAP.

DC2"

The rest of what you said is more of an indication that yuo are discussing subject matter you don't understand. Persistent UAVs, SR-71's and TACAIR have nothing to do with what we are talking about.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 14, 2008 01:19 PM

DA,

If you are talking about using ballistic missiles for prompt strike (15 to 30 minute response times) then you are on some seriously good stuff. Are you trying to start nuclear war? What happens if one of those targets happens to be in one of the 'Stans near Russia? You think they are going to trust us that whatever we are launching is not nuclear tipped?

And separating a MIRV while in space is completely different from opening up a bomb door in the atmosphere at Mach 7.

But again, you are still talking about a minimum of two hours response to any credible intelligence. We can do that right now in any hotspot in the world. Horn of Africa (Marines, Navy, and SpecOps already there). Mille east (I think we got that pretty well covered). Afghanistan/Pakistan (same there).

You want to focus money on something useful? How about a stealthy UAV for loitering over areas where we don't want people to know (say Syria). And the guy the Isrealis just blew up didn't die from a bomb dropped from the sky.

So perhaps we could spend money on the CIA/NSA covert operations and stealthy UAVs and still have money left over.

We got rid of the SR-71 because they were too expensive to maintain. Yet we are going to spend this amount of money on a plane that I guarantee will be as expensive to maintain as the space shuttle. Rocket fuel isn't cheap either.

And THE highest priority the Air Force should have right now is replacing it's aging fleet of aircraft. We can argue F-22/F-35/F-16E/F-15 all we want, but they need to be recapitalized ASAP.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at February 14, 2008 10:05 AM

MAC,

Loitering is not the ONLY WAY. It is the way we do it now because PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE isn't publicly operational yet. If we really have to, we can be on any target we know of, and that is the key, within a 15 to 30 minute window, no matter what the defenses are. The problem today is the payload which of course is nuclear right now. Very soon, that will no have to be the case. There may even be a classified program with IOC but that is a guess. What isn't a guess though is that there are at least 4 separate programs I can think of that don't require loitering of any kind near the battlespace. All are responsive to time critical targets.

Loiter works but has huge overhead associated with it. A prompt strike weapon system would overcome this limitation.

One other quibble. You have no evidence to support the claim that Osama is dead. I respect that to be your opinion though. I can tell you though that within the DoD and intelligence community he is considered to be alive and a primary target. I don't think the war ends with his demise but it would certainly be a huge success to kill him.

To get an idea of what this capability will bring to our forces, study the Russian strike on the Chechen President Dudayev. He was killed within minutes of making a phone call. It was an opportunity strike similar to the one we recently carried out in Pakistan via Predator.

The problem is, a lot of people and targets we would like destroyed are detected outside of our ability to react. Suppose for example a high ranking AQ leader is spotted by an asset away from an area where we normally operate persistent strike platforms. With weapons like the these, those previously inaccessible targets are now fair game.Other obvious targets include TELs which are highly survivable vs air attack.

Some of the highest priorities the Air Force should have right now are

1. Prompt Global Strike

2. NCW

3. EW(possibly consolidated with the USN)

4. Space War

5. Arguably, the F-35A.

6. Precision attack on moving targets with PGMs

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 14, 2008 02:27 AM

DC2 - not surprised at all ;-)
DA: 'Too expensive' doesn't come from being newer, it comes from all the new technology that has to be created just to deliver a smaller payload flying in a more hostile flight regime than you could otherwise deliver more effectively by flying slower.
'Hyper' is comletely different than 'super' and
we've been flying supersonic for 50+ years and hypersonic cruise not at all. Subsonic, supersonic, and hypersonic flows are COMPLETELY different. Supersonic was hard at first because we had to learn to get to 'sonic' using subsonic compressible flow knowledge and past the transonic drag rise. When we got to sonic and supersonic we had to learn how to exploit the non-compressible airflow. the reason it is called Hypersonic and not 'super-duper' sonic is that once again the relevant physics change: plasma flow is now the phenonemon that must be tamed. (All the while building a plane that will somewhat work at all the speeds required to get you there.) Weapons separation, materials, propulsion, et al at Hypersonic speeds is a whole new ball game. See http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11743&page=R1 and you will see that hypersonic aircraft are not that close at hand and he technology is not that mature.
I know I've referenced this NAS report before and apologies to all if it gets tiresome, but there are very few public summaries and studies (as in 'this is about it')that can be referenced in an open forum.

Minor asides:
1. I think Osama is probably 'no more' and if he isn't -- he isn't particularly a problem now if we can't tell either way.
2. Loitering nearby is the ONLY way to get something on target within a small enough window to be called time-critical. If I can find the reference (my library is torn up at the moment), later I'll post an exect 'minutes' timeframe that is a good standard.

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at February 13, 2008 08:18 PM

DC2,

another thing for you to consider. Osama Bin Laden is alive today because TLAMS from the Indian Ocean took too long to reach his location. In otherwords, he was one place at the time of launch. In another when the missiles arrived. Also, it is suspected that he was warned by AQ sympathizers in the ISI after we requested permission to fly our missiles over Pakistan.

Time also stopped us from getting Saddam on more than one occassion just prior to OIF and several times during.

We are realy deficient in this area and it's a major priority in the business these days.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 13, 2008 04:58 PM

"DA,

We didn't have overflight rights in Pakistan. But we still blew the dude up didn't we. Same thing in Somalia."---DC2

Wrong. We have permission from the Pakistani Government to operate in certain parts of their airspace. If that UAV was there without permission, it would be shot down.

"Good intelligence will always be required for any time critical target."---DC2

Of course. Thats what I've said.

"Again, this money should be spent on the things we need right now. Not some unproven technology. Just think about it. How do you drop a bomb doing Mach 7? You are talking about a tremendous amount of heat and friction. It would be like the space shuttle blowing up all over again. And then to get good weapon separation?"---DC2

This is not an unproven technology. Billion in R&D will have been spent to validate the concept before it goes operational. Moreover, we have been dropping hypersonic ordinance on targets since the ICBM. The difference is rather than a purely ballistic trajectory, the warhead will have the ability to enter controlled flight on the decent and engage targets with precision(10 meters CEP) quality. You may have read about conventional trident. Things of that nature will come first. And it is not very expensive since most of the required technologies are already operational. Only the terminal phase remains at this point to provide an interm capability.

Also, at hypersonic velocities, warheads aren't absolutely necessary. The kenetic energy alone will cause catastrophic damage in the target area. However, warheads are a likely optional payload for the CAV.

"So that would mean slowing down. And no amount of radar stealth in the world would prevent this thing from lighting up an IR receiver as it slows down to drop bombs."

Only Russia and The United States have weapons capable of even attempting to intercept a weapon like this. And of those two nations, only the US has the SA and early warning capability to use them with any effectiveness. The warning most would get would be the target effects.

"I'm sure this thing wouldn't be cheap to produce or maintain. Especially the outer skin.

DC2"---DC2

CAV is just a warhead. It will most likely be expendable. Probably in the range of 5-50 million per sortie. That is dirt cheap compared to what we have to do now to achieve less than ideal similar results.

An actual bomber that takes off, flies hypersonic and returns using conventional runways would also be a huge cost savings because it is likely to use current weapons. Research has already validated supersonic release of JDAMs. Hypersonic research is almost at maturity now.

The arguement that this will be prohibitively expensive is a lot like saying the B-2 is more expensive than the B-1. Yes an no. If you look at the unit procurement cost then perhaps yes. But that is not the right way to measure the true cost. B-2s don't require the same kind of support B-1s do. Billions are saved in the process overtime as the operating cost is cheaper by orders of magnitude. Wargame Operation Eldorado Canyon using the F-111, A-6, A-7 and F/A-18 vs the alternatives available at the time which would have been F-117 and Cruise missiles. Desert Storm and subsequent wars already proved this.

This is a capability we need, RIGHT NOW. We will need it even more as threats become even more stealthy and mobile.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 13, 2008 04:44 PM

DA,

We didn't have overflight rights in Pakistan. But we still blew the dude up didn't we. Same thing in Somalia.

Good intelligence will always be required for any time critical target.

Again, this money should be spent on the things we need right now. Not some unproven technology. Just think about it. How do you drop a bomb doing Mach 7? You are talking about a tremendous amount of heat and friction. It would be like the space shuttle blowing up all over again. And then to get good weapon separation?

So that would mean slowing down. And no amount of radar stealth in the world would prevent this thing from lighting up an IR receiver as it slows down to drop bombs.

I'm sure this thing wouldn't be cheap to produce or maintain. Especially the outer skin.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at February 13, 2008 04:19 PM

Also, it doesn't necessarily have to be just a bomber in the traditional sense. I'm sure we will get hypersonic bombers eventually. But in the interm I'd look into things like the CAV.

If we had this in 2003, it's possible that OIF would have been a lot less violent.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 13, 2008 03:48 PM

DC2,

Our UAVs cannot provide global coverage within a 2 hour window, nor do they have the luxury of CONUS basing which eliminates overflight or basing rights. A 2 hour window would put so many more targets at risk compared to today. This would be an unrivaled increase in capability for decades.

Look at the current OODA loop to get an idea what I'm talking about. You can use the latest strike against AQ as an example. That operation could not have happened without basing rights and an aircraft already on station in the target area. Thats in addition to the quality intel necessary to initiate the action.

Hypersonics should continue to get a very large portion of our R&D. Programs like this FRIGHTEN our enemies.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 13, 2008 03:45 PM

Dennis,

It does not matter how capable they are if they are falling from the sky due to metal fatigue.

And we do have bombers currently that will reach any corner of the Earth without being detected in any way shape or form by the enemy.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at February 13, 2008 01:53 PM

"We know there are other countries that are working on this technology," Lewis said.

"Cultivating fear again are we?"

Unfortunately it seems fear is the only thing that gets Congress to put money into new research and projects. That and having companies in their states that will make money....
Even thought the Air force is crumbing from age, we are still a couple generations ahead of the competition (I know this is arguable due to missile technology) and having long range strike abilities is a key factor in any large scale combat. (Hitler did not have bombers with range enough to get to the Russian Factories. You know, the ones that made all those T-34's....)
As for hyper-cruise missiles, you can only fire them once, they cannot refuel in flight like a bomber for long range flexibility, and keeping them in foreign countries is always a problem (see example Turkey in the Iraq conflict).
Not that I am against Hyper-cruise missiles, I just see them in a smaller role, mainly on ships (mobile platforms).

Posted by: Dennis at February 13, 2008 12:06 PM

MAC,

You might fall over when I say this, but I agree with you. The Air Force has way too many priorities right now to go spending billions of dollars in R & D to possibly bring this thing to fruition.

How about a slow high capacity bomber, relatively cheap that will replace the B-52. How about replacing our aging tankers. And how about getting more F-22s in the air.

The Air Force is crumbling due to age and we want to spend more money on a more expensive bomber.

And don't we have UAVs for time sensitive targeting? I think those have worked out quite well in Pakistan recently.

Also, by the time you scramble one of these, send them across the globe, and drop ordinance you will probably miss the time sensitive window of opportunity. That is just a guess on my part unless we want these things on alert like the nuke bombers of the Cold War.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at February 13, 2008 09:17 AM

"We know there are other countries that are working on this technology," Lewis said.

Cultivating fear again are we?

Posted by: Macaca at February 13, 2008 04:40 AM

Why bother inventing a hypersonic bomber if you have hypersonic cruise missiles?

Planet Earth is not a terribly big place and we have allies who can host small cruise missile batteries not far from any place we care about, because mostly we care about places because we have allies there.

Designing a hypersonic bomber has to be a hundreds of billions of dollar R&D cost made all the more expensive because it is manned, on top of the cost of developing a hypersonic cruise missile.

Also, we already have superfast ballistic missiles for which none of our potential adversaries has any meaningful defenses.

Posted by: ohwilleke at February 13, 2008 01:36 AM

s-300 SAMs from Russia do how much faster than mach 4? While 10,000 miles in 2 hours is 5000mph and about mach 7? I think survivability could be achieved by going almost 2 times faster than your biggest threat. Add on the kinetic energy of a bomb released, some day it could be possible, at near that speed.

Posted by: txzen at February 12, 2008 10:49 PM

Expand this, develop this.
Use the B2 as the Main SC Bomber.
Museumize the B52.
Upgrade the B2 more.
Change B2 Prod regs for more B2s.
Fund this project.
More So CA jobs.
The civilian sideproject is a commercial HST
IE 707 became the KC135 for the USAF SAC in the Cold War 1.
Same for the HST.
Fund this.
Orlose to Chinese ICBMs hitting the US.

Posted by: stephen russell at February 12, 2008 10:24 PM

so this is what they were testing in texas a few weeks ago?

Posted by: slntax at February 12, 2008 09:18 PM

This seems like nothing new. I remember hearing stories about the Aurora back when I was a tyke on a trike. Granted , that was a supposedly a spy plane but I'd guess that whatever development went into that would also be used for a super sonic bomber as well.

Posted by: Willaim at February 12, 2008 08:49 PM

I believe the REAL idea driving the quest for hypersonic vehicles comes from nearly a century of ‘faster = more survivable’ history that has yet to be overcome by the "stealthier" = "more survivable" paradigm of today. The AF meat-servos just can't wrap their punkin' brains around the fact that usually now ‘faster = die sooner’. This emphasis on supposed military utility strikes me as a façade: a cover to advance the hypersonic strike system after failing (so far) to advance the ‘survivability’ angle . Yes, hypersonic weapons are worthwhile. Yes, faster reconnaissance aircraft are worthwhile. But in almost any time-critical targeting situation, you need to actually already ‘be there’. Without tipping my hand too much in case there is a reader who will be attending the annual MORS symposium this Summer (maybe the one after), there is already a Stirling example of time-critical targeting: it’s called ‘close-air support’.
And all the years of CAS experience show us the slower the weapon you employ, the closer you need to be to the ‘need’. Experience also tells us that the faster the platform, the less time on station (‘cruiser’ and ‘loiterer’ requirements together result in compromising tradeoffs) and therefore you will need more platforms (# of aircraft) to accomplish the same mission. There are specific and limited strike scenarios when a hypersonic system is desirable over a slower system, but I seriously doubt the advantages outweigh the disadvantages in overwhelming majority of possible applications.

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at February 12, 2008 08:19 PM

what I would give to see what the Airforce's bomber would look like in 3 decades....

it will likely be scramjet. But I'm pretty dissapointed that there is ZERO news on PDE's.....it seems that that prmoising tech went straight into the black.

Posted by: murc at February 12, 2008 08:02 PM

Hmmm...

...things to do in two hours.

a. Kill Terrorist Targets of Opportunity

b. Strike a TEL someplace I don't have basing rights.

c. Interdict an Amphibious Operation in the South Pacific

d. Decapitation Strike

e. Destroy a warship/sub in it's port.

...The possibilities are endless.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 12, 2008 05:09 PM