• DARPA’s Mach 20 Missile Ready for Ultimate Test
    55 replies, posted
[QUOTE=mildhotsauce;31646879]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][/QUOTE] It's worth noting that the HMS Hood in WWII was destroyed when a shell ignited the ammunition compartment. If the Hood had railguns firing solid shot back then then that wouldn't have been so catastrophic, unfortunately the technology didn't exist back then and the Hood and most of her crew were lost. Thankfully we do have the technology to prevent such a tragic loss in the event of another conflict such as the one that claimed the Hood, it just needs to be developed so we can put it into active use aboard ships.
[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] Lack of superiority is a big threat. The more technologically advanced you are compared to your potential enemies, the less there are chances they'll want to fight you.
[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] Yep, you've got it all figured out. "To save money, let's launch several thousand missiles that cost a cool million each instead of launching 20 or 30 missiles that'll do the job right!
[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] By the time something is an actual threat, is it not too late?
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;31642804] Who the fuck says this is going to be used on silly terrorists?[/QUOTE] ...Those are the only people we've been at war with for the past decade, and that doesn't look like it's going to change. Yeah, it's cool and everything, but I think we need a better reason than that to justify the cost.
[QUOTE=GunFox;31648946]By the time something is an actual threat, is it not too late?[/QUOTE] No, because your intelligence is supposed to be competent enough to determine possible and emerging threats.
[QUOTE=Contag;31649272]No, because your intelligence is supposed to be competent enough to determine possible and emerging threats.[/QUOTE] So it isn't possible that we would need to hit a target quickly? This system can deliver conventional munitions. Hell, it could possibly even be developed to deliver supplies. It was originally supposed to be a side project for developing a strike fighter with similar capabilities.
[QUOTE=trent_roolz;31648478]Yep, you've got it all figured out. "To save money, let's launch several thousand missiles that cost a cool million each instead of launching 20 or 30 missiles that'll do the job right![/QUOTE] Several thousand nuclear missles isnt that much considering Russian stock pile.
[QUOTE=Smoot;31640997]I love this line.[/QUOTE] [quote]In mid-November DARPA revealed, however, that the test flight had ended when the computer autopilot had "commanded flight termination". According to a DARPA spokesman, "When the onboard system detects [undesirable or unsafe flight] behavior, [B]it forces itself into a controlled roll and pitchover to descend directly into the ocean[/B]." Reviews found that the craft had begun to roll violently.[/quote] Good night sweet HTV prince. y u commit suicide.
[QUOTE=GunFox;31648946]By the time something is an actual threat, is it not too late?[/QUOTE] Sounds like you don't know the story of the Sergeant York SPAAG: [quote]I had the pleasure of being the overall controller for the Opposing Force during the operational test of the SGT York at Fort Hunter-Liggett in 1985. The live OPFOR guys from CDEC ran the vehicles and smoke; the CCG controlled the Apaches and fixed-wing; the guys in the instrumentation center ran the simulated artillery, mines, etc. I got to watch all the "battles" from the hilltops, make sure everything was coordinated into the overall plan, and brief the dignitaries on the OPFOR side of the battle at the end of each mission day. Then because the test went so well (!), I was selected to be the threat guy on the white team which reviewed the development and operational test data, the results of which (a foregone conclusion) went to Congress, and which then drove the next generation of tactical air defense (which never was completely fielded as intended). So I had an eyeful. My conclusions I've stated here before. The radar—from a USAF fighter—was a humdinger. It saw and displayed everything, including all the ground clutter. It was possible for the operator to sort out the real targets from the ground clutter, but by the time he'd done so, the SGT York itself was usually dead. The gun was perfectly accurate, putting every round into the same spot in the sky. It didn't have sufficient dispersion to get that "golden BB" effect. If one round went off-target, every round was going off-target. The chassis was proven and reliable. It simply wasn't fast enough to keep up with M1s and M2s, which would run off and leave it—to become a priority OPFOR target. [b]But the real thing that killed the SGT York was a false threat assessment (cooking the intel was not invented in *this* millenium!).[/b] The SGT York was designed to protect heavy task forces against HIND helicoopters which would have to run in close to deliver their ordnance. However, literally weeks before the operational test, DIA came up with a new assessment that the Soviets had improved the HIND's rotor hub to allow them to be able to launch ATGMs from a hover at long range. They also predicted large numbers of HAVOC attack helicopters would be produced, with even greater capabilities. So we ran the test missions against three different helicopter capabilities (all represented by US Apaches crewed by the crustiest instructors from the Aviation School—-dang, they knew their business). When they acted as HINDs running in close, they were usually wiped out by the SGT Yorks (as designed) and the Blue ground force whupped up on the OPFOR. When they acted as HINDs or HAVOCs sitting in the trellines, launching ATGMs from max range, they took out the SGT Yorks first (who couldn't pick them out of the fground clutter) and then proceeded to annihilate the Blue Force. Of course, we found out in succeeding years that the DIA assessment was bogus: that the Soviets retrofitted very few HINDs to be more stable, and that since we had already bankrupted the Soviet Union, relatively few HAVOCs were ever produced. But the intel supported the desired conclusion: a reason to kill the DIVAAD program. The real casualties were not the vehicles, but all the air defense officers at the AD school who had tied their reputations to the DIVAAD. A lot of careers effectively ended in May 1985. The air defense community was paranoid for years after, and this had an effect on the very slow fielding of the next generation, and the absolute avoidance of practical ideas such as the camera-nose-mount, joystick flown, $4,000 USD missile to take out hovering helicopters: fly it to the target and ride it in—designed by a Fort Bliss civilian engineer, proved about 100% effective in tests, and buried like a pile of dog poo because it was a lot cheaper than the Brad/Stinger, Avenger, and other systems much more lucrative to defense contractors. The whole thing was neither the intel community's nor the air defense community's finest hours. I'm not particularly proud of having helped to kill the system with bad intel. It was, however, an enlightening experience.[/quote] It was an imaginary threat that killed the SPAAG, but it can surely work both ways. And the cost brings up another question, if your potential enemy's (or enemies') strategy is to seduce you into spending your way into the collective poorhouse, where is the sense in playing right into that?
[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] It's called being proactive and more people should do it
[QUOTE=Tac Error;31651944]Sounds like you don't know the story of the Sergeant York SPAAG: It was an imaginary threat that killed the SPAAG, but it can surely work both ways.[/quote] lol no, it was the fact that the 247 was a giant piece of shit that killed it. The thing couldn't actually track a moving target for crap. Your counter to my suggestion that thinking ahead is the best strategy, is to point to a design that FAILED to think ahead? Really? They built a slow AA gun in the late 70's with sub-par detection systems and virtually no useful features. They already had the Chaparral at this point, and understood the capabilities of missiles, and the stinger missile had been on paper for nearly a decade at this point, the AH-64 already had the ability to launch missiles at a standoff range so it was reasonable to assume the soviets weren't far behind, so they had all of the tools necessary to fund a real program and produce a real terror. But they didn't think far enough ahead. They were designing a machine to counter the threats of right then, not the future. [quote]And the cost brings up another question, if your potential enemy's (or enemies') strategy is to seduce you into spending your way into the collective poorhouse, where is the sense in playing right into that?[/QUOTE] I'm not pretending like we aren't overspending to a ridiculous degree on our defense budget, but I'm also not so deluded as to believe that military research isn't useful. If nothing else, military research fuels civilian research quite effectively.
[QUOTE=Contag;31649272]No, because your intelligence is supposed to be competent enough to determine possible and emerging threats.[/QUOTE] So perhaps this is the countermeasure to a potential threat the intelligence has picked up?
When reading this, all I could think was that it's a badass weapon to intimidate Iran. Well, I guess it intimidates any country that's on non-friendly terms with the U.S., but Iran just came to mind.
[QUOTE=GunFox;31654004]lol no, it was the fact that the 247 was a giant piece of shit that killed it. The thing couldn't actually track a moving target for crap.[/quote] No, it was the [i]false threat assessment[/i] that killed it, otherwise the American military-industrial complex would have had its way and sold those piles of junk to the Army. [quote]Your counter to my suggestion that thinking ahead is the best strategy, is to point to a design that FAILED to think ahead? Really? They built a slow AA gun in the late 70's with sub-par detection systems and virtually no useful features. They already had the Chaparral at this point, and understood the capabilities of missiles, and the stinger missile had been on paper for nearly a decade at this point, the AH-64 already had the ability to launch missiles at a standoff range so it was reasonable to assume the soviets weren't far behind, so they had all of the tools necessary to fund a real program and produce a real terror.[/quote] The Stinger was adequate, Chaparral and M163 VADS, less so. The thing you don't seem to understand is that the Defense Intelligence Agency was the one who made up the false intelligence. I should add in that collectively, our intelligence capability in the West on the Soviets literally sucked *hard*. They were the ones who were predicting that the Soviets would have massive numbers of Mi-28s produced in the next few years, when in reality, all they had were prototypes. The point I'm making is that false intelligence *can* be used in many unscrupulous and self-serving ways. Action was taken on the SGT York to "kill" it through false intelligence, but tomorrow false intelligence may very well be used to, for example, buy even more wasteful aircraft, too. Remember, military procurements in the West often reflect what defense contractors of the military-industrial complex [i]would like to sell[/i] rather than what the soldier would want to have available for him in battle. [quote]But they didn't think far enough ahead. They were designing a machine to counter the threats of right then, not the future. [/QUOTE] They *did* think far enough ahead; that's why they killed the SGT York, but that had the side effect of ruining the reputations of air defense officers at the Air Defense School, making the air defense community paranoid about adopting new air defense systems, and the avoidance of cheap and actually useful weapons like the MGM-157 FOG-M missile. Historically, the West has had trouble "thinking ahead" or understanding our enemies. Back in 1990, Ralph Peters (when he was still a sane guy) preached a powerful message: the next threat would not be conventional, that it would be from Muslim extremists, and that we would not understand it. No one really took that message home. Instead we see the DoD keep on buying F-22s, aircraft carriers and other trinkets. The Soviet Union was the master at thinking ahead (read Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov's views of future war). But they thought [i]too hard[/i] and the gigantic military budget they had bankrupted their economy.
So Pentagon could wipe me out in less than an hour if they wanted to. Great.
If the aircraft is not stealthy (it goes at mach 20!), wouldn't it be able to be relatively easily countered by major power? It doesn't sound particularly maneuverable. Tac Error, you'd probably know this: Is the 9M96 short range SAM on an S-400 (probably, obviously I'm not asking for a full blown anaylsis) capable of some reliably intercepting the mach 20 vehicle? In other news: [I]The S-500 is a new generation surface-to-air missile system, designed for intercepting intercontinental ballistic missiles and for defense against Airborne Early Warning and Control, Airborne Warning and Control System, and jamming aircraft. It is not an upgraded version of the S-400. With a planned range of 600 km (373 mi), the[B] S-500 would be able to detect and simultaneously engage up to 10 ballistic supersonic targets flying at a speed of 7 km/s[/B] and will have a flight ceiling of 40 km.[/I] 7 km/s is just barely above mach 20. I doubt that's a coincidence.
[QUOTE=Contag;31655580]Tac Error, you'd probably know this: Is the 9M96 short range SAM on an S-400 (probably, obviously I'm not asking for a full blown anaylsis) capable of some reliably intercepting the mach 20 vehicle?[/quote] I would say no. A contemporary fighter? Sure. Of course there's the natural dialectic thing that happens in the development of military equipment. The history of warfare has shown that while the technological superiority of one weapon system over another is undoubtedly important it is also very transitory, and advantage swings like a pendulum from one side to the other. Exploiting such a temporary advantage can certainly lead to victory (as was done in Desert Storm in a supplementary role), but reliance on technological superiority over time is certainly a dangerous illusion.
No offense, but a weapon that is able to strike anywhere on Earth quick enough to prevent counter-measures is scary, be it in the hands of any country.
[QUOTE=Géza!;31655726]No offense, but a weapon that is able to strike anywhere on Earth quick enough to prevent counter-measures is scary, be it in the hands of any country.[/QUOTE] There's no such thing. At least against major powers, anyway. [editline]11th August 2011[/editline] Fortunately, I might add.
The experiment failed, sort of. They lost contact with it due to a anomaly and it later crashed into the ocean. So they gained little information on how it handles at that speed.
Say we get attacked by a simple regional power, lets say we were attacked by Spain, and Spain had nuclear weapons technology, by the time we get the technology researched, the missiles built, we're already basking in a nuclear fire along with the Spanish. Thats why "imaginary" threat is bull shit, you have to prepare for something imaginary.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;31655702]I would say no. A contemporary fighter? Sure. Of course there's the natural dialectic thing that happens in the development of military equipment. The history of warfare has shown that while the technological superiority of one weapon system over another is undoubtedly important it is also very transitory, and advantage swings like a pendulum from one side to the other. Exploiting such a temporary advantage can certainly lead to victory (as was done in Desert Storm in a supplementary role), but reliance on technological superiority over time is certainly a dangerous illusion.[/QUOTE]Your average fighter/interceptor aircraft doesn't even exceed mach 5, how the hell are they going to intercept something going mach 20? A fast missile would be your best bet, probably specifically designed for this threat.
good,now let's spam those missiles in russia and china.and we got BF3 and MW3 before it's release.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.