Failure of Hypersonic Glider..Future plans of USAF?
- Thread starter MANT!
- Start date
I get the idea that such a craft might trump a satellite in orbit for off the clock surveillance.
But what would a bomber designed in this way have that would trump a ballistic missile? Smaller payloads/warheads? Or a better cost per mission?
But what would a bomber designed in this way have that would trump a ballistic missile? Smaller payloads/warheads? Or a better cost per mission?
Off the top of my head: it's not ballistic.
Then again it doesn't have to. NOTHING ever shot down an SR-71 and they only travel at Mach 3.1-3.5 (debatable). Just doing a minor course change of a few degrees at those speeds puts you well past any potential threat before it can reach you.
And?
Lindley,
Clearly you haven't bothered to read what I've said. There were aircraft designs that were at least proposed that could maneuver while at hypersonic speed.
You are clearly misinterpreting the definition of maneuvering speed -- if you're below maneuvering speed and you yank back as hard as you can on the control column, the plane will slow down and eventually stall (if you kept pulling); if you're above maneuvering speed, full up elevator will cause the airplane to come apart in mid-air. You can still maneuver above maneuvering speed, you just cannot apply full-up elevator without damaging or destroying the aircraft.
I should also note, and this is actually commonly misunderstood, even my some general aviation pilots -- maneuvering speed applies only for up-elevator movements. Aircraft are not stressed for as many negative g's as positive, and you'll run up against the point where full down elevator will cause the wings to fail before you reach the airplane's listed maneuvering speed. Technically an aircraft has at least three maneuvering speeds, one for nose up movements, one for nose-down movements, and one for yawing-movements.
With that said, this aircraft could fly at Mach 20, even if it couldn't maneuver above Mach 18, you would be extremely difficult to intercept. Even if you didn't pull a high g-load even small deviations from course would rapidly put you drastically off your initial course, small pitch angles would produce gigantic rates of climb and descent. It would make things very difficult for a missile to keep adjusting itself around to keep itself on you. Also if you had jamming, which I'm pretty sure an aircraft like this would have, it would make things even harder for a missile to be able to get you.
The Squire of Gothos,
Harder to intercept. Even small changes in heading and pitch produce wild course deviations and climb-rates which make it difficult
Believe it or not, we now have missiles that can intercept ICBM's. Even in the late 1950's some successful intercepts against ICBM's using missiles managed to be carried out, including some skin-to-skin hits, not a proximity detonation (the problem with this generally was reliability, particularly against loads of missiles). By the 1960's we had some ABM's (Nike Zeus-B, and Nike Spartan) that could fly a couple hundred miles up and take out even a MIRV-equipped ICBM before the payload bus could release it's warheads. I still don't think it was sufficiently reliable to deal with loads and loads of ICBM's fired at the US as there were proposals to fit vital installations with smaller SAM's to deal with any that got through
Just A Friend,
Exactly
Clearly you haven't bothered to read what I've said. There were aircraft designs that were at least proposed that could maneuver while at hypersonic speed.
You are clearly misinterpreting the definition of maneuvering speed -- if you're below maneuvering speed and you yank back as hard as you can on the control column, the plane will slow down and eventually stall (if you kept pulling); if you're above maneuvering speed, full up elevator will cause the airplane to come apart in mid-air. You can still maneuver above maneuvering speed, you just cannot apply full-up elevator without damaging or destroying the aircraft.
I should also note, and this is actually commonly misunderstood, even my some general aviation pilots -- maneuvering speed applies only for up-elevator movements. Aircraft are not stressed for as many negative g's as positive, and you'll run up against the point where full down elevator will cause the wings to fail before you reach the airplane's listed maneuvering speed. Technically an aircraft has at least three maneuvering speeds, one for nose up movements, one for nose-down movements, and one for yawing-movements.
With that said, this aircraft could fly at Mach 20, even if it couldn't maneuver above Mach 18, you would be extremely difficult to intercept. Even if you didn't pull a high g-load even small deviations from course would rapidly put you drastically off your initial course, small pitch angles would produce gigantic rates of climb and descent. It would make things very difficult for a missile to keep adjusting itself around to keep itself on you. Also if you had jamming, which I'm pretty sure an aircraft like this would have, it would make things even harder for a missile to be able to get you.
The Squire of Gothos,
Harder to intercept. Even small changes in heading and pitch produce wild course deviations and climb-rates which make it difficult
Believe it or not, we now have missiles that can intercept ICBM's. Even in the late 1950's some successful intercepts against ICBM's using missiles managed to be carried out, including some skin-to-skin hits, not a proximity detonation (the problem with this generally was reliability, particularly against loads of missiles). By the 1960's we had some ABM's (Nike Zeus-B, and Nike Spartan) that could fly a couple hundred miles up and take out even a MIRV-equipped ICBM before the payload bus could release it's warheads. I still don't think it was sufficiently reliable to deal with loads and loads of ICBM's fired at the US as there were proposals to fit vital installations with smaller SAM's to deal with any that got through
Just A Friend,
Exactly
I never said otherwise.
Yes, I know all that, quite well in fact.
That's all true. But I still maintain what I've been saying all along: By definition, the plane will not be able to maneuver effectively at its maximum speed. That's simple physical reality: If it could maneuver safely at a given speed, then it could go faster without maneuvering.
I never said it couldn't maneuver effectively at high mach. I never said it would be easy to hit. I only said it would not have much maneuverability at its maximum velocity. Work on your reading comprehension.
Back in the 80s there was a Soviet spaceplane model that was recovered at sea, speculation talked about a maneuverable nuclear warhead bus able to hit US carrier battle groups while underway..this was shown to be pure fantasy but the concept has stayed...
An independently maneuverable warhead would be many years beyond the available defences of an enemy to intercept..and a lot cheaper to build..
An independently maneuverable warhead would be many years beyond the available defences of an enemy to intercept..and a lot cheaper to build..
Something like a cruise misile lauched by a rocket?
Lindley,
I'm glad to hear that, many people don't know that.
Uh, you actually sort of contradicted yourself here...
Regardless I understand what you're saying, it couldn't maneuver as well at high speed due to structural limitations as it could at lower speeds -- it's still possible for it to maneuver at a level that would still be very hard to hit, even though it is not able to maneuver as much as it would at a lower airspeed/mach-number.
I'm glad to hear that, many people don't know that.
Uh, you actually sort of contradicted yourself here...
Regardless I understand what you're saying, it couldn't maneuver as well at high speed due to structural limitations as it could at lower speeds -- it's still possible for it to maneuver at a level that would still be very hard to hit, even though it is not able to maneuver as much as it would at a lower airspeed/mach-number.