Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Pentagon Successfully Tests Hypersonic Flying Bomb  
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10864 posts, RR: 38
Posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 9134 times:

After the 30,000 lbs bunker buster here comes the hypersonic flying bomb. I never thought they would have bombs capable of flying at hypersonic speeds. I suppose they can also fly nuclear warheads.

They tested from Hawaii to Kwajalein atoll in the Marshall Islands - not a very big distance. How do they know the flying bomb will be just as successful flying half way around the world... let's say from the Hawaiian Islands to... Agentina (I chose a random country).

They did not say if the flying bomb reached hypersonic speed during testing.
What will they unveil next? Scalar weapons?

 Wow!

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon on Thursday held a successful test flight of a flying bomb that travels faster than the speed of sound and will give military planners the ability to strike targets anywhere in the world in less than a hour.

Launched by rocket from Hawaii at 1130 GMT, the "Advanced Hypersonic Weapon," or AHW, glided through the upper atmosphere over the Pacific "at hypersonic speed" before hitting its target on the Kwajalein atoll in the Marshall Islands, a Pentagon statement said.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...15397ba6f112f35bec6eb7fd662ef1.1b1

For one I hope these weapons will never be used.


There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1820 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 9113 times:

Your link doesn't work, but that test was in no way a "bomb" or any other weapon It wasn't even a powered vehicle. It was just a suborbital lob to check hypersonic characteristics.
And a little 2nd grade math would tell you that the "able to strike anywhere on earth withing an hour" claim that's being passed around is pretty stupid for a 6,000kmh vehicle.
ICBMs have been "hypersonic" for 50 years.



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2056 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks ago) and read 9101 times:

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 1):
ICBMs have been "hypersonic" for 50 years.

Would a maneuverable AHW with GPS capability be more accurate than a standard ballistic war head?

And since it is maneuverable, would it fare better against ballistic missile defenses?

Slower than an ICBM? Sure, but definitely faster than a B2 or a Tomahawk.

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15692 posts, RR: 26
Reply 3, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 9008 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Thread starter):
After the 30,000 lbs bunker buster here comes the hypersonic flying bomb. I never thought they would have bombs capable of flying at hypersonic speeds. I suppose they can also fly nuclear warheads.

Going that fast a warhead of any type isn't necessarily necessary. Kinetic energy would be enough to destroy pretty much anything.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 2):
Would a maneuverable AHW with GPS capability be more accurate than a standard ballistic war head?

And since it is maneuverable, would it fare better against ballistic missile defenses?

That's part of the challenge. Apparently hypersonic flight gets into some nonlinear effects and feedback control systems may not be fast enough to control it.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 4, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 8952 times:

Now if we can just get the Navy's rail gun back into testing........

New high tech weapons, maybe we can share them with our friends in Israel?


User currently offlinedw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1257 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 8948 times:

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 1):
Your link doesn't work,

Seems to work now.

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 1):
It was just a suborbital lob to check hypersonic characteristics.

Unless you have information to the contrary, the reports I'm reading suggest a maneuverable craft following a non-ballistic trajectory. Perhaps not as exciting as a powered craft, but still a notable departure from standard ICBMs.

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 1):
And a little 2nd grade math would tell you that the "able to strike anywhere on earth withing an hour" claim that's being passed around is pretty stupid for a 6,000kmh vehicle.

A little second grade reading would tell you they never said the vehicle travels at that speed--just faster than this speed.  

Other sources state the goal is a 6,000km range with a time to target of less than 30 minutes and accuracy of 10 meters. How reliable those are is anyone's guess...

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 2):
Slower than an ICBM? Sure, but definitely faster than a B2 or a Tomahawk.

It will be interesting it see, if this is fielded, how exactly it would be used.



CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offlineAreopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1369 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 8915 times:

At orbital speed, it would take about 45 minutes to get from one point to its antipode. But it won't be at full speed the whole way, and it can't be doing more than low-orbit speed, or it won't come down in time. So I don't see where the 30 minute figure comes from.

User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1042 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 8906 times:

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 6):
So I don't see where the 30 minute figure comes from.

It only traveled 2500 nm maybe??



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8753 times:

Quoting mffoda (Reply 7):
Quoting Areopagus (Reply 6):
So I don't see where the 30 minute figure comes from.

It only traveled 2500 nm maybe??

Which means the average speed was 5000 knots. A longer test flight would have had a higher average speed. The average distance between any two opposite points on Earth is 10,000 nm, which means to hit any point on Earth that is opposite from the point of launch needs to have an average speed of 10,000 knots to hit that point in 1 hour after launch. Orbital speeds are around 13,500 knots or 17,000 MPH, but the weapon would not be in orbit the entire time, maybe about 40%-50% of the flight time.


User currently offlinedfwrevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 957 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 8429 times:

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 6):
At orbital speed, it would take about 45 minutes to get from one point to its antipode. But it won't be at full speed the whole way, and it can't be doing more than low-orbit speed, or it won't come down in time. So I don't see where the 30 minute figure comes from.
Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 1):
And a little 2nd grade math would tell you that the "able to strike anywhere on earth withing an hour" claim that's being passed around is pretty stupid for a 6,000kmh vehicle.

What about some 10th grade geography?  

Sorry, just poking fun. If you think about all the locations where the U.S. has a permanent military presence, it's not hard to see where the one hour figure comes from. It isn't necessary for the weapon to travel from one antipode to the next. If you have launch sites at Guam, Diego Garcia, and the UK, you effectively get global coverage for the Africa-Eurasia land mass in under 1 hour flight time.

The figure below shows 3,700 nm range circles from the bases above. As 6,000 kmh is equivalent to 3,300 nm, you're most distant target would be no more than ~1 hour away.

Big version: Width: 723 Height: 368 File size: 90kb


[Edited 2011-11-20 12:17:07]

User currently offlinechrisco1204 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 28 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 7 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 7553 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Thread starter):
After the 30,000 lbs bunker buster here comes the hypersonic flying bomb. I never thought they would have bombs capable of flying at hypersonic speeds.

Mach 5 is a pretty difficult feat to achieve. Especially when you consider that the shockwave starts to adhere to the surface of the airframe at and above those speeds.


User currently offlinegeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6094 times:

[quote=MadameConcorde,reply=0]For one I hope these weapons will never be used.

Well for another one, I hope they are, and I'd even like to "suggest" a worth-while target to try it out on; ( it's somewhere in a place that starts with "I" and ends with "N" )............................


Charley



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlineantidote From Canada, joined Jun 2010, 71 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5944 times:

Quoting geezer (Reply 11):
Well for another one, I hope they are, and I'd even like to "suggest" a worth-while target to try it out on; ( it's somewhere in a place that starts with "I" and ends with "N" )............................


Charley

Got it in one - Iron Mountain, Michigan


User currently offlineTheCol From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2038 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5851 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
New high tech weapons, maybe we can share them with our friends in Israel?

In that case, might as well gift wrap and ship them to Red China as well.



No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
User currently offlinerheite From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 10 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5818 times:

You wonder what comes next after this....one word. RAILGUN.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/...takes-another-step-toward-reality/



-R.K. Heite Sr
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Pentagon Successfully Tests Hypersonic Flying Bomb
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Turkish UAV Anka Started Medium Altitude Tests posted Sat Oct 29 2011 00:20:56 by tozbek
Tornado Flying Over Sorbara(mo) Italy posted Tue Sep 27 2011 02:46:28 by ordpia
Possible US Military A340 Flying Over & Around EFD posted Mon Dec 20 2010 16:35:15 by indcwby
Lockheed In Danger Of Losing Pentagon Cert. posted Tue Oct 5 2010 13:10:50 by kanban
Iran Discover The Ekranoplan - Builds Flying Boats posted Tue Sep 28 2010 09:26:31 by tugger
US Navy Discharge/ Flying Future? posted Sat Jun 19 2010 02:47:21 by 777ord
Seriously Low Flying posted Sat Jun 5 2010 04:18:12 by HiJazzey
A400M Riat Flying Display posted Thu Jun 3 2010 03:08:22 by flipdewaf
Will We See 777 Flying Military Charters Soon? posted Tue May 4 2010 20:00:57 by 747400sp
Saw An MH-60 Flying In Orlando Today posted Mon Apr 12 2010 14:22:51 by HaveBlue

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format