Hypersonic Cruise Missile

[dioditto]

X-51 US Hypersonic Cruise Missile

Hypersonic Cruise Missile: America's New Global Strike Weapon
The mission: Attack anywhere in the world in less than an hour. But is the Pentagon's bold program a critical new weapon for hitting elusive targets, or a good way to set off a nuclear war?

By Noah Shachtman
Diagrams by Kakofonia
Published in the January, 2007 issue of Popular Mechanics

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4203874.html

 

[gf0012-aust]

what are you wanting to discuss?

• viability
• relevance
• employment/deployment
• implications

etc etc etc.................

 

[dioditto]

Just a heads up.
Let the discussion begin

Well, I would think this would prompt some discussion of comprison to the Russian-Indian Brahmos Supersonic Cruise Missile (and its future variants).

Threat of proliferation of LO (low observable) cruise missiles; and the possibility of a new (?) category of missile like ICCM (inter-continental cruise missile), its implication in future geopolitical strategy.


Because cruise missiles are Inherently far stealthier compare to ballistic missile, for one, I think it is very obvious to everyone we are moving towards a new doctrine in military warfare - faster and stealthier. If cold-war tactics and doctrine is about show of brute force, 21st century doctrine is almost adapted from al-quada-like belief, to strike everywhere faster, deadlier, and undetected.


So, if we continue in this direction, ICCM is inevitable. It could render current nuclear strategies irrelevent since ICCM has a huge advantage of first strike capabilities, and at the same time, none of the drawbacks. (retaliation, counterforce) It also could be far cheaper (maybe upto 10 times cheaper) than conventional BM.

 

[dioditto]

There were couple of ICCM projects back in the earlier days of cold-war.
Projects such as "Burya", "Buran", "Snark", and "Navaho".

http://www.videocosmos.com/burya.shtm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burya


I think currently, we are just revisiting the old concept, because the technologies that was exotic and untested before, have now matured.

 

[Sam-9]

Launched from a B-52, the proposed X-51 hypersonic cruise missile could travel 600 miles in 10 minutes to strike elusive, fleeting targets.
65-ton Trident II ballistic missile into the sky. Within 2 minutes, the missile is traveling at more than 20,000 ft. per second. A must seeeeeee :jump2

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4203874.html

 

[Sam-9]

pic of the new missile i just for got to uplode one of them http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...w/4203874.html

 

[Wooki]

Deleted by user

 

[Sam-9]

where's the point

Ok, sam

where's the point to the post? You could ask "which delivery system do you think is more viable?" or something like that to give the post some structure.

For my 2c, I think the hypersonic cruise missile is the most likely to be introduced, for the same reasons the article highlighted. It won't set off nuclear attack alarm bells as readily as a cruise missile would.

You could also extrapolate on that and suggest that what you are seeing from afar is the USN desperately trying to stay valid in todays environment. The nuclear submarine crowd is still a strong force in Washington DC and hence the idea of a conventional ICBM.

Like the guiness stout commercial;

Navy guy (1) "We paid all this money for a big nuclear submarine and now its redundant"
Navy guy(2) "No its not we can make a conventional ICBM"
Navy guy(1) "Brilliant!"


cheers

w

you know your right where's the point to the post i posted.

 

[Rich]

The "submarine crowd" is in a strong position even without this conventional Trident plan. If any kind of boat program might find trouble in the future its the SSN one, not the SSBN, which will continue to hold much of our survivable strategic deterrence. And if they want $$ to continue to be poured into their boat programs then they should come up with a plan that doesn't include launching D-5s in, or around, Russia and China. Increasing the chances for accidental nuclear war doesn't sound like a "plan" to me.

I hope the whole thing is thought thru. I think we will need to hear from our Allies as well before we start shooting off D-5s.

 

[SATAN]

The "submarine crowd" is in a strong position even without this conventional Trident plan. If any kind of boat program might find trouble in the future its the SSN one, not the SSBN, which will continue to hold much of our survivable strategic deterrence. And if they want $$ to continue to be poured into their boat programs then they should come up with a plan that doesn't include launching D-5s in, or around, Russia and China. Increasing the chances for accidental nuclear war doesn't sound like a "plan" to me. I hope the whole thing is thought thru. I think we will need to hear from our Allies as well before we start shooting off D-5s.

True..but doesnt the scenario in which dozens of the most sophisticated engines of death carrying enough Fusion bombs to destroy the entire planet many times over patrolling our oceans sound a bit scary? Especially since the cold war has long been over and the neocon agenda is to destroy the Middle eastern states of Iran and Iraq etc using conventional force....and not fight the Russians or the Chinese for the time being. Thus the Accidental Nuclear War that you mentioned may just be the biggest threat to the planet in history.!! The same bunch of religious nut cases that are pushing for the Iran attack now could very well use the SSBNS to destroy anyone from Venezuela to North Korea.

 

[Rich]

True..but doesnt the scenario in which dozens of the most sophisticated engines of death carrying enough Fusion bombs to destroy the entire planet many times over patrolling our oceans sound a bit scary? Especially since the cold war has long been over and the neocon agenda is to destroy the Middle eastern states of Iran and Iraq etc using conventional force....and not fight the Russians or the Chinese for the time being. Thus the Accidental Nuclear War that you mentioned may just be the biggest threat to the planet in history.!! The same bunch of religious nut cases that are pushing for the Iran attack now could very well use the SSBNS to destroy anyone from Venezuela to North Korea.

To really appreciate this opinion, one that is not accompanied by even one supportive fact, you really have to read it sentence by sentence. I'm really sorry your guy didn't get elected President but maybe you should use a little common sense before posting such a thing.

 

[Sam-9]

Boeing Team Up on Hypersonics

well now Boeing is in the pic, Their HIFire represent just one slice of a growing portfolio of hypersonics research programs in the U.S. and allied countries. Boeing alone manages a parallel hypersonics effort tied to the X-51 testbed. Rival Lockheed Martin has taken the lead on the X-43 hypersonic drone and the “RATTLRS” hypersonic cruise missile.

All of these programs have the same goal: to go faster, cheaper.

 

[Sam-9]

fully integrated hypersonic cruise missile engine using conventional liquid hydrocarb

Launched from a B-52, the proposed X-51 hypersonic cruise missile could travel 600 miles in 10 minutes to strike elusive, fleeting targets.
65-ton Trident II ballistic missile into the sky. Within 2 minutes, the missile is traveling at more than 20,000 ft. per second. A must seeeeeee :jump2

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4203874.html

The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) successfully conducted the first-ever ground test

 

[eckherl]

well now Boeing is in the pic, Their HIFire represent just one slice of a growing portfolio of hypersonics research programs in the U.S. and allied countries. Boeing alone manages a parallel hypersonics effort tied to the X-51 testbed. Rival Lockheed Martin has taken the lead on the X-43 hypersonic drone and the “RATTLRS” hypersonic cruise missile.

All of these programs have the same goal: to go faster, cheaper.

Wow - what a spectacular piece of weaponary, leave it to Boeing and Lockheed Martin, maybe soon we will just see how effective they really are.:hehe

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

True..but doesnt the scenario in which dozens of the most sophisticated engines of death carrying enough Fusion bombs to destroy the entire planet many times over patrolling our oceans sound a bit scary? Especially since the cold war has long been over and the neocon agenda is to destroy the Middle eastern states of Iran and Iraq etc using conventional force....and not fight the Russians or the Chinese for the time being. Thus the Accidental Nuclear War that you mentioned may just be the biggest threat to the planet in history.!! The same bunch of religious nut cases that are pushing for the Iran attack now could very well use the SSBNS to destroy anyone from Venezuela to North Korea.

Are thermonucelear weapons even operational in the USN or the USAF? I thought they had been fased out a long tome ago. Do the ruskies still have them.

 

[SATAN]

Are thermonucelear weapons even operational in the USN or the USAF? I thought they had been fased out a long tome ago. Do the ruskies still have them.

Yeah they are. And, as long as our TAX dollars are being used to maintain them in our SSBNS which are never going to be used in a War...i have a problem with it. The threat perception has changed, our new Pre-emptive Nuclear strike doctrine suggests a shift to Bunker Busting Baby Nukes that can be used to take out underground targets in Iran and elsewhere.

 

[powerslavenegi]

My two paisa's

I fail to appreciate the pros of developing a Hypersonic missile,for if at all the main aim is to decieve the enemy air defenses by sheer speed then the conventional ICBM's too achieve Hypersonic speeds during their terminal phases ,they are most vulnerable to attack only during boost phases (but then you know what tech challenges one would phase while attempting one).


1.Moreoever a Hypersonic missile would too would have to operate in the upper layers of atmosphere (unlike the contour hugging LACM's which are equally effective yet economical)

2.Hypersonic resaerch Imho is meant for commercial or space applications .

 

[chrisrobsoar]

The US DoD have stated their requirement to attack Time Critical Target anywhere within 1hr.

The advantage of Hypersonic weapons is that they cannot easily be confused with ICBMs , that could be armed with nuclear warheads.

As has been pointed out at theatre/regional ranges high launched weapons could strike a target within a handful of minutes. Using data from UAVs it would be possible to launch a heavy strike against a capital target before it could relocate. (i.e. mobile missile launcher or most wanted targets).

This is a follow on from the recent advances in the availability of data, now the commanders can get the data rapidly they want to strike rapidly.

Another consideration is cost, ICBMs are large and expensive weapons, a range of hypersonic weapons are being developed with a wide range of payloads, to allow the weapon selected to match the target.

Converted Trident ICBMs with conventional warheads, may offer a short term solution to rapid strike, but at considerable risk (of being mistaken as a nuclear strike) and at considerable cost.

In the medium term the Hypersonic missiles may be able to provide more flexibility, at less risk and for less money.


Chris

 

[Sam-9]

Bunker Busting Baby Nukes

Yeah they are. And, as long as our TAX dollars are being used to maintain them in our SSBNS which are never going to be used in a War...i have a problem with it. The threat perception has changed, our new Pre-emptive Nuclear strike doctrine suggests a shift to Bunker Busting Baby Nukes that can be used to take out underground targets in Iran and elsewhere.

you know what the U.S.A Allready has them i allso now that it was tested in Iraq, And Afganiestain. The outcome of it was extreemly good, their calling it the littil big brothers of Nukes

 

[Tasman]

you know what the U.S.A Allready has them i allso now that it was tested in Iraq, And Afganiestain. The outcome of it was extreemly good, their calling it the littil big brothers of Nukes

What is your source for this information? Are you saying that bunker busting nukes have been tested in Iraq and Afghanistan or are you referring to hypersonic cruise missiles being tested in those places?

I find it hard to believe that any nuclear weapons would have been used in either country without an international outcry. The UN searched for and failed to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and any sort of nuclear device would have been a major find. If the suggestion is that the USA tested the use of these weapons in Iraq or the USA or USSR tested them in Afghanistan I would be incredulous! nfloorl:

Cheers