User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/6/2022 10:57:54 AM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I never said the radar was in space. The point implied by my "joke" was simple. If you cannot see these things using ground-based RADAR, don't use ground-based RADAR. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2022 11:04:37 AM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I laugh when the media hypes some new enemy technology and then laments that we have nothing like it. There is so much classified shit that has never been revealed that it would shock people. I always thought the "UFO's" around Area 51 were nothing more than classified experimental aircraft. HAVE BLUE had its first test flight in December 1977 . The wiki page on the F-117 says the stealth fighter wasn’t officially acknowledged until 1988. So just ASSume that the hi-tech stuff we know about now is at least 11 years old. Or said another way, in the year 2033, what we will know about publicly then was actually flying now in 2022. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2022 11:16:02 AM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The point implied by my "joke" was simple. If you cannot see these things using ground-based RADAR, don't use ground-based RADAR. My point is simple. I was explaining one of the reasons why intercepting them is a challenge. I am aware that there are also space-based sensors, but those have their own set of limitations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2022 11:26:46 AM EST
[#4]
For Desert Storm/Shield, the IR plumes from Scuds would get picked up by our satellites. That would get the attention of our folks at NORAD/Cheyenne Mountain.
NORAD would then call the Patriot missile battery (ies) to tell them they had a Scud inbound to Saudi Arabia (or Kuwait) or Israel. EDIT: whether there are other ways of detecting a hypersonic missile launch and/or tracking a gliding vehicle … I have no idea. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2022 11:29:36 AM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: china has test launched in the hundreds of hypersonic missles..in the HUNDREDS.. we have tested less than 12... /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/87D543F5-C33B-475C-95CD-45D86133DAC9-476.gif I read an article awhile back that says we dropped the project. It wasn't worth it due to cost and the other weapons we had took care of our needs Now it is a public panic. OMG the Russians and Chinese have one. We need them also. Military Industrial Complex at its finest. I'm sure a retired General is getting a sweet paycheck on it |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2022 11:38:57 AM EST
[#6]
It was “leaked” for a reason.
Russia don’t try and get cute. Now back to the really classified stuff that’s a lot scarier. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2022 11:39:49 AM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I read an article awhile back that says we dropped the project. It wasn't worth it due to cost and the other weapons we had took care of our needs Now it is a public panic. OMG the Russians and Chinese have one. We need them also. Military Industrial Complex at its finest. I'm sure a retired General is getting a sweet paycheck on it Sorry but that's incorrect. We were prevented from developing one by treaty for a long time. Russia violated the treaty, so we backed out. Then we spun up new weapons programs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2022 11:46:05 AM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: For Desert Storm/Shield, the IR plumes from Scuds would get picked up by our satellites. That would get the attention of our folks at NORAD/Cheyenne Mountain. NORAD would then call the Patriot missile battery (ies) to tell them they had a Scud inbound to Saudi Arabia (or Kuwait) or Israel. EDIT: whether there are other ways of detecting a hypersonic missile launch and/or tracking a gliding vehicle … I have no idea. The primary detection system for a Patriot battery is radar. You need an integrated system to cue targeting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2022 12:04:28 PM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Minuteman 3's are 3 stage rockets. All stages are solid fueled. The entire point in using solid fuel in an ICBM is to avoid long term storage problems with liquid fuels. Cryogenic fuel, like liquid hydrogen, would especially suck for an ICBM. ICBM's are much faster than hypersonic weapons. This misses the point. Hell, the Scuds launched by Saddam Hussein in the early 90's reached hypersonic speeds. Those weapons are ballistic weapons which basically fly a profile like an artillery shell. Hypersonic weapons being referred to are more like very fast versions of subsonic cruise missiles. There are different flight profiles. There are also different engine options. Some of them are just rocket engined missiles. The US tested air breathing scramjets in the early 2000's and then again, more successfully a few years later. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Thanks! I learned something today. The entire point in using solid fuel in an ICBM is to avoid long term storage problems with liquid fuels. Cryogenic fuel, like liquid hydrogen, would especially suck for an ICBM. ICBM's are much faster than hypersonic weapons. This misses the point. Hell, the Scuds launched by Saddam Hussein in the early 90's reached hypersonic speeds. Those weapons are ballistic weapons which basically fly a profile like an artillery shell. Hypersonic weapons being referred to are more like very fast versions of subsonic cruise missiles. There are different flight profiles. There are also different engine options. Some of them are just rocket engined missiles. The US tested air breathing scramjets in the early 2000's and then again, more successfully a few years later. The recent HAWC flight was an "extended time" at greater than Mach 5 at altitudes to about 65k feet for 300 nm. Knowing the mass and thrust of the booster on HAWC, we can calculate a good estimate of the time HAWC spent in hypersonic flight, or we can make a crude estimate of the maximum time from M=5, speed of sound = 574 nm/hour at 65k feet, and 300 nm. 300/[5(574)] = 6.3 minutes, except it didn't, part of that 300 NM was used to accelerate the vehicle, so the time at Mach 5 was considerably shorter. An ambitious search of the internet for papers and test community coordination might yield better information. What we do know is that this is a nontrivial technical problem to simply get a test vehicle to fly these speeds, without a payload due to the volume demanded for fuel. Another recent thread included a post claiming the Russians have an air breather in service. I didn't get an answer to my question about the date production starts. Russia claims 2022; I'm skeptical. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2022 12:11:16 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 4  Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: How many warhead carrying monkeys do you think we have? 4 Wrong, 87 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2022 12:16:49 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Barely 9 years ago the X-51 flew Mach 5 or a bit greater for 210 seconds to set a record. The total flight was a little over 6 minutes. The recent HAWC flight was an "extended time" greater than Mach 5 at altitudes to about 65k feet for 300 nm. Knowing the mass and thrust of the booster on HAWC, we can calculate a good estimate of the time HAWC spent in hypersonic flight, or we can make a crude estimate of the maximum time from M=5, speed of sound = 574 nm/hour at 65k feet, and 300 nm. 300/[5(574)] = 6.3 minutes, except it didn't, part of that 300 NM was used to accelerate the vehicle, so the time at Mach 5 was considerably shorter. An ambitious search of the internet for papers and test community coordination might yield better information. What we do know is that this is a nontrivial technical problem to simply get a test vehicle to fly these speeds, without a payload due to the volume demanded for fuel. Another recent thread included a post claiming the Russians have an air breather in service. I didn't get an answer to my question about the date production starts. Russia claims 2022; I'm skeptical. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Thanks! I learned something today. The entire point in using solid fuel in an ICBM is to avoid long term storage problems with liquid fuels. Cryogenic fuel, like liquid hydrogen, would especially suck for an ICBM. ICBM's are much faster than hypersonic weapons. This misses the point. Hell, the Scuds launched by Saddam Hussein in the early 90's reached hypersonic speeds. Those weapons are ballistic weapons which basically fly a profile like an artillery shell. Hypersonic weapons being referred to are more like very fast versions of subsonic cruise missiles. There are different flight profiles. There are also different engine options. Some of them are just rocket engined missiles. The US tested air breathing scramjets in the early 2000's and then again, more successfully a few years later. The recent HAWC flight was an "extended time" greater than Mach 5 at altitudes to about 65k feet for 300 nm. Knowing the mass and thrust of the booster on HAWC, we can calculate a good estimate of the time HAWC spent in hypersonic flight, or we can make a crude estimate of the maximum time from M=5, speed of sound = 574 nm/hour at 65k feet, and 300 nm. 300/[5(574)] = 6.3 minutes, except it didn't, part of that 300 NM was used to accelerate the vehicle, so the time at Mach 5 was considerably shorter. An ambitious search of the internet for papers and test community coordination might yield better information. What we do know is that this is a nontrivial technical problem to simply get a test vehicle to fly these speeds, without a payload due to the volume demanded for fuel. Another recent thread included a post claiming the Russians have an air breather in service. I didn't get an answer to my question about the date production starts. Russia claims 2022; I'm skeptical. Only way Russia and China has cool shit like that is if they stole it from us |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2022 12:21:45 PM EST
[#12]
It only works, if launched properly, as God intended... From a treadmill...
 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2022 1:25:25 PM EST
[#13]
The X-15
The notion that the United States in deficient in these types of aircraft / spacecraft is ridiculous. Future developments of the ARRW or its competitor signify a reliable craft fulfilling its purpose as a system, and an essential node in a greater system. Foreign nations launch blivits at ludicrous speed and call it progress. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2022 4:55:39 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The X-15 The notion that the United States in deficient in these types of aircraft / spacecraft is ridiculous. Future developments of the ARRW or its competitor signify a reliable craft fulfilling its purpose as a system, and an essential node in a greater system. Foreign nations launch blivits at ludicrous speed and call it progress. We aren't talking about airbreathers here. We aren't talking about aircraft. These are ground-fired long-range guided missiles that fly fast and maneuver in the upper atmosphere. Dropping a plane from another plane at cruising altitude that has "burns intensely for a short amount of time" rocket motor isn't really the same thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/7/2022 8:35:45 AM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The X-15 The notion that the United States in deficient in these types of aircraft / spacecraft is ridiculous. Future developments of the ARRW or its competitor signify a reliable craft fulfilling its purpose as a system, and an essential node in a greater system. Foreign nations launch blivits at ludicrous speed and call it progress. That's not relevant to a ground attack weapon. The information gathered as well as subsequent information from the NASP, the X-43, x-51 all show a progression up to the HWACS project. Air breathing hypersonic cruise attack is much harder to achieve than rocket hypersonic rocket cruise attack. Experimental craft are not actual weapon systems. So shortcuts are available to a nation that just wants weapons that can destroy high value targets and are much more difficult to shoot down or avoid compared to current systems. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/7/2022 8:36:18 AM EST
[#16]
Dbl post
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/7/2022 10:42:35 AM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's just like Thermobaric or any other fancy word the media and the leftist twats latch on to for dramatic effect. Vacuum bombs 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
