[quote=Wired]
The Pentagon has been working for nearly a decade on an audacious plan to strike anywhere on the planet in less than an hour. Wednesday could prove to be the do-or-die moment for that plan.
At approximately 7 a.m. PDT, a three-stage Minotaur IV Lite rocket is scheduled to lift off from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. It will puncture the atmosphere, and then release an experimental aircraft. That aircraft, known as the Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2, will then come hurtling back to Earth at nearly 20 times the speed of sound, splashing down near the Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific Ocean, approximately 4,100 miles away. Total flight time: about 30 minutes.
That is, if the flight goes as planned. The first HTV-2, launched by Pentagon bleeding-edge research arm Darpa in April of 2010, disappeared over the Pacific after just nine minutes of flight. The vehicle was never recovered.
It was a loss not just for this single effort, but for the entire concept of “Prompt Global Strike,” the Pentagon plan to eliminate its enemies anywhere around the world.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ7S11HDyBw[/media]
The Defense Department is pursuing three different families of technologies to accomplish the task. One is to rearm nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles with conventional warheads. But that runs the risk of accidentally triggering a response from another atomic power, who might mistake it for a nuke. Oops.
A second effort is to build shorter-range cruise missiles that can fly at five or six times the speed of sound. But that X-51 Waverider project is running into complications: A June flight test ended prematurely, for reasons that are still unclear.
Some variation of the HTV-2 is the third choice; to some in the defense community, it’s the most appealing. The HTV-2 spends most of its time flying through the atmosphere, before it dives down to hits its target. That means it’s unlikely to be mistaken for a nuclear missile, which spends most of its time above the atmosphere. World War III averted.
Yet despite the aircraft’s potentially revolutionary role — and despite the tens of millions of dollars poured into the Falcon program every year — Darpa was somewhat cavalier in its first test of HTV-2. The HTV-2 has an unusual, wedge shape; think of it like a 13,000 mph slice of deep-dish pizza. In theory, the shape should provide more lift. But no one had really flown anything quite like the HTV-2 before.
Nevertheless, the agency conducted just a few ground tests of the aircraft’s design, and those few tests were only run after pressure from the Air Force, its partner in the Falcon effort. Lockheed Martin was paid to build two copies of the aircraft before the first was even flown. If there turned out to be a flaw in the design, correcting it might’ve been near-impossible.
“The thing that had everyone panicking was that, if you had to change the shape of the vehicle, it might’ve meant the cancellation of the entire program,” a source familiar with the effort tells Danger Room.
Darpa got serious about ground testing after the April misfire, with month after month of trials. A scale model of the HTV-2 was covered with a temperature-sensitive paint that glowed brighter, the hotter it got. It was brought to the Air Force’s hypersonic wind tunnel, near Silver Spring, Maryland, for trials.
What engineers discovered was that the HTV-2 had a problem stabilizing itself in flight. When it tried to correct its yaw, it went into a roll. That triggered the HTV-2’s malfunction in April, 2010, leading to “a self-destruct sequence that sent the missile tumbling like a football into the ocean,” as Danger Room co-founder Sharon Weinberger puts it.
Fortunately for Darpa, those problems appear to be correctable on the vehicle they’ve got. “For its second test flight, engineers adjusted the vehicle’s center of gravity, decreased the angle of attack flown, and will use the onboard reaction control system to augment the vehicle flaps to maintain stability during flight operations,” the agency notes in a statement.
The stakes are huge for the upcoming flight. Darpa has no plans to build a third vehicle. And, unless this test goes well, it’s unlikely that the Air Force or any other branch of the military will pick up on the agency’s work.
“More than 20 land, air, sea and space test assets” will be collecting data during the flight, Darpa contends. All that information will inform “future hypersonic flight vehicle performance, ultimately leading toward the capability of reaching anywhere in the world in under an hour.”
How direct that path will be depends on how the HTV-2 flies on Wednesday.[/quote]
[url]http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/08/pentagons-mach-20-missile/[/url]
Fuck yes, I love DARPA.
Hahah that's fucking ridiculous
Let's see China's glorious "global war" now
Wait that was really dumb haha guys jk
[QUOTE=teh pirate;31640158]Hahah that's fucking ridiculous
Let's see China's glorious "global war" now[/QUOTE]
Well. If it did happen. There would be mass hysteria and people would start shooting any random person in the street who looks cross eyed.
My dad works for the FAA and might get a job working for the military on Kwajalein. If this sort of stuff happens a lot near there, I'll be visiting frequently :v:
[quote]
That is, if the flight goes as planned. The first HTV-2, launched by Pentagon bleeding-edge research arm Darpa in April of 2010, disappeared over the Pacific after just nine minutes of flight. The vehicle was never recovered.
[/quote]
I love this line.
why do we need a mach 20 missile
[QUOTE=LCBADs;31641008]why do we need a mach 20 missile[/QUOTE]
To outrun any counter measures and hit your target before they can retaliate?
With a slow missile its entirely possible that someone could attack you before it hits.
Also the best reason: [B]FOR SCIENCE[/B]
[QUOTE=Jsm;31641086]To outrun any counter measures and hit your target before they can retaliate?
With a slow missile its entirely possible that someone could attack you before it hits.
Also the best reason: [B]FOR SCIENCE[/B][/QUOTE]
Thats why you launch thousands of ICBM's at the same time... Im willing to bet that this missle costs billions of dollars a piece and wont be produced in numbers more then 1 or 2.
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;31641454]Thats why you launch thousands of ICBM's at the same time... Im willing to bet that this missle costs billions of dollars a piece and wont be produced in numbers more then 1 or 2.[/QUOTE]
But like all ICBM's its the fear factor that is their main job. I'd be pretty scared as the leader of a country if I knew that someone could hit anywhere in the world in under an hour with little to no warning.
[QUOTE=Jsm;31641496]But like all ICBM's its the fear factor that is their main job. I'd be pretty scared as the leader of a country if I knew that someone could hit anywhere in the world in under an hour with little to no warning.[/QUOTE]
Then that country would get ICBM's launched at it... everybody would know who did it and united states would become a nuclear wasteland.
Seems pretty useful if it can hit a nuke in a silo before it can be launched.
[QUOTE=Jsm;31641086]To outrun any counter measures and hit your target before they can retaliate?
With a slow missile its entirely possible that someone could attack you before it hits.
Also the best reason: [B]FOR SCIENCE[/B][/QUOTE]
When new pieces of military equipment are developed or procured it should be based on requirements to meet an [i]actual[/i] threat, not an imaginary one.
Kickass, we've discovered an even more ludicrously expensive way to blow up two Taliban guys in a $500 pickup truck.
They have NO anti-air capability whatsoever, they can't defend against a 40-year-old bomber any more than they can defend against this thing.
[QUOTE=Jsm;31641086]To outrun any counter measures and hit your target before they can retaliate?
With a slow missile its entirely possible that someone could attack you before it hits.
Also the best reason: [B]FOR SCIENCE[/B][/QUOTE]
Actually, the best reason is:
[h2]Because Its Fucking Awesome[/h2]
[QUOTE=Tac Error;31641969]When new pieces of military equipment are developed or procured it should be based on requirements to meet an [i]actual[/i] threat, not an imaginary one.[/QUOTE]
Its always good to be prepared tho,you never know when a imaginary threat can become a actual one
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;31642007]Kickass, we've discovered an even more ludicrously expensive way to blow up two Taliban guys in a $500 pickup truck.
They have NO anti-air capability whatsoever, they can't defend against a 40-year-old bomber any more than they can defend against this thing.[/QUOTE]
Not all of our military technology is for that. It might be hard to grasp, but there is a reason for military superiority. We'd all love for the world to be a safe place, but it isn't. You never know how quickly a "situation" can become a war. Personally, I'd like to believe that we're beyond world wars, but you simply can not take that chance.
[QUOTE=Dr.C;31641869]Seems pretty useful if it can hit a nuke in a silo before it can be launched.[/QUOTE]
This thing probably costs billions and years to create. I doubt it will be mass produced. You're also assuming the united states knows about every single missle silo of which there are thousands in Eastern europe and asia.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;31641969]When new pieces of military equipment are developed or procured it should be based on requirements to meet an [i]actual[/i] threat, not an imaginary one.[/QUOTE]
Pffft
Aren't you the one constantly scrutinizing the ability of the current US military's ability to fight conventional wars?
[QUOTE=Smoot;31640997]I love this line.[/QUOTE]
It entered Hyperspace
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;31641601]This has potential outside of the military, which is awesome. I don't see us using hypersonic missiles, they seem more like a political weapon rather than a feasible line weapon.[/QUOTE]This has more potential outside the military more than it does inside. Ultra-fast shipping, space delivery vehicle, whatever. And, just like ICBMs and other missile technologies, it will eventually find its way into NASA or whoever.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;31642007]Kickass, we've discovered an even more ludicrously expensive way to blow up two Taliban guys in a $500 pickup truck.
They have NO anti-air capability whatsoever, they can't defend against a 40-year-old bomber any more than they can defend against this thing.[/QUOTE]
Who the fuck says this is going to be used on silly terrorists?
Ultra-fast delivery is an interesting concept but you'd need a BIG parachute and some good cooling inside.
Excellent. Now start making strike pods with this tech.
Ultra fast shipping ... For what? You know how much launching this thing costs?
The only thing it would ship ultra fast is if Bill Gates needed a heart pronto from the other side of the planet.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;31642756]Pffft
Aren't you the one constantly scrutinizing the ability of the current US military's ability to fight conventional wars?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I'm cynical. Eight years ago, I would've been the one firmly in the belief that "no one would've stood a chance" against the U.S. military. Back then, I ate up anything written by Tom Clancy like if it was gospel. Nearly a decade of general maturity growth, study of military history, and personal conversations with retired military officers has changed my view.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;31641969]When new pieces of military equipment are developed or procured it should be based on requirements to meet an [i]actual[/i] threat, not an imaginary one.[/QUOTE]
Bah, don't be insane. It's not the United States is in some kind of economic crisis.
[QUOTE=LCBADs;31641008]why do we need a mach 20 missile[/QUOTE]
Back when they started working on ramjet missiles, Obama said that they once targeted one of Osama's hideouts with a cruise missile but by the time the missile hit, Osama had already moved away.
"We'll have to go right to... [i]Ludicrous speed![/i]"
If you understand war at all or even play RTS games you'd understand that this is "reducing the cooldown of our weapon powerups / delay between clicking and the missile hitting" basically. Think about it. How many times have you been like "FUCK" and spammed your power ups for the quick insta hit missiles. This is basically what we're doing.
It's first strike capability. Why ask why we do it? IT's another asset, but also greatly advances science and civilian capabilities. Why make the railgun that the Navy made? Because it was research, and some awesome research at that. It could punch your house inside out through the front door at 5 miles away accurately. Necessary? No. Awesome technology? Yes.
More/better missiles is a worrying prospect for the world.
Dear Pentagon,
You fucking bad ass.
@Jeff Some railguns when fired, their Kinetic energy is usually the same or higher than the energy of a explosive filled shell. Which means it can cost less to mass produce. They also have a much greater flight time, drop, and influence from wind drift. Also it's safer than carrying explosives on ships (not to say moving away from explosives on our ships is in our near future) [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun#As_weapons"]Wiki[/URL]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.