Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

X-51 Hypersonic Cruise Missile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • X-51 Hypersonic Cruise Missile

    Interesting article on Popular Mechanics.

    "If Pentagon strategists get their way, there will be no place on the planet to hide from such an assault. The plan is part of a program — in slow development since the 1990s, and now quickly coalescing in military circles — called Prompt Global Strike. It will begin with modified Tridents. But eventually, Prompt Global Strike could encompass new generations of aircraft and armaments five times faster than anything in the current American arsenal. One candidate: the X-51 hypersonic cruise missile, which is designed to hit Mach 5 — roughly 3600 mph. The goal, according to the U.S. Strategic Command's deputy commander Lt. Gen. C. Robert Kehler, is "to strike virtually anywhere on the face of the Earth within 60 minutes.""

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...74.html?page=1

  • #2
    How can cruise missiles be used to target anywhere in this planet?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by joey View Post
      How can cruise missiles be used to target anywhere in this planet?
      From what I'm gathering in the article it would have to be launched from an aircraft the key isen't so much maximum range of the missile as aircraft can extend that dramaticlly but travel time to target.

      A B-1B carrying a hypersonic cruise missile payload could get the missiles to almost any ground based target on the planet pretty quickly.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by canoe View Post
        From what I'm gathering in the article it would have to be launched from an aircraft the key isen't so much maximum range of the missile as aircraft can extend that dramaticlly but travel time to target.
        Since the change in tech sharing agreements between australia and the US this year, a number of americans have been attached to one of the Hypersonic missile programmes.

        The US interest in that project is for air launched hypersonics.
        Linkeden:
        http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
        http://cofda.wordpress.com/

        Comment


        • #5
          From what I'm gathering in the article it would have to be launched from an aircraft the key isen't so much maximum range of the missile as aircraft can extend that dramaticlly but travel time to target.

          A B-1B carrying a hypersonic cruise missile payload could get the missiles to almost any ground based target on the planet pretty quickly.
          So can the ATG 129A i think Cruise missile from B2.
          Thing is, US already has capability to hit any target within 60 minutes with nukes.

          This is i think is the HyFly Cruise missile that US-Aussie are developing.
          Fat chubby short looking.

          I think i saw a pic of it too.
          It will be a Ramjet powered or Sc-Ramjet powered?
          I've heard it'll be Ramjet powered hypersonic but will follow a non-seaskimming profile.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by joey View Post
            So can the ATG 129A i think Cruise missile from B2.
            Thing is, US already has capability to hit any target within 60 minutes with nukes.
            I think the point is they feel they can't use nuclear weapons given the political issues associated with it. They want a conventional global strike weapon that can hit and destroy a target in under 60 minutes.

            This is i think is the HyFly Cruise missile that US-Aussie are developing.
            Fat chubby short looking.

            I think i saw a pic of it too.
            It will be a Ramjet powered or Sc-Ramjet powered?
            I've heard it'll be Ramjet powered hypersonic but will follow a non-seaskimming profile.
            I think HyFly was a different system. The X-51 Waverider is a shockwave riding scramjet powered missile. The main perk is its cheap compared to a $60 million dollar ICBM. I beleive the X-51's airframe is made out of nickle, it runs on JP-7 and is about the size of a standard cruise missile.

            Comment


            • #7
              How much TNT?

              Comment


              • #8
                NOTE: EDITED FOR CLUMSILY POSTING AN INCOMPLETE POST.

                Hi Guys,

                While I think the idea of PGS is probably worth investigating, I am not convinced that the X51 as articulated or for that matter a hypersonic cruise missile is the hottest idea.

                The caption that reads:

                Launched from a B-52, the proposed X-51 hypersonic cruise missile could travel 600 miles in 10 minutes to strike elusive, fleeting targets.

                does not particularly inspire.

                I am not so sure that our ability to collect, process and disseminate intelligence is up to the task of a weapon with a ten minute response time but some of you more knowledgable might better be able to address this than I can.

                Too, it assumes that the asset in question would be on station when required.

                Furthermore, when dealing with "elusive, fleeting targets", 10 minutes might not be worth the effort to develop.

                Anything within 3000 sq. ft. of this whirling, metallic storm is obliterated.

                This concept might not live up to the concepts of "precision" and "collateral damage".

                I think that there are enough convincing ideas to ameliorate the threat of nuclear war over a conventional warhead on an ICBM to warrant considering them given their off the shelf nature but cost is something else to consider I suppose.

                Conventional cruise missiles might be forward deployed and based accordingly to give some semblance of fairly quick global coverage via routine ship, submarine and aircraft patrols as well as land basing proximal to hotspots e.g. land and air launched cruise missles in South Korea and/or Japan to address South Korea.

                Why even continue with air breathing assets for the PGS role?

                With the U.S. looking like it wants to pursue dominance in space, why not develop an orbital bombardment capability?

                If kinetic energy is to be the mechanism of destruction, than lets jack the joules through the roof.

                Three possibilities, at least:

                Submarine or land launched pop up "sheds" to house and distribute weapons or possibly hypersonic, gliding UAVS which employs to a large degree off the shelf components in launch vehicle department;

                A constellation of satellites apporpriate to the task;

                Maybe a Jerry Bull-esque gun launch system with several different sites to provide global coverage and loft material cargos night and day to forward space activity when military activity is not required. This could be done on the cheap as the engineering has been essentially Beta ready since the 1960s.

                What about investigating that Russian idea for an air breathing ICBM? Gnom might have favorable ancillary uses as well as favorable energy and cost input in the analysis?

                Anyway, I am not sold on the hypersonic cruise missle though it might be worth further consideration. If nothing else, the economics of hypersonic flight appear to be suspect.

                Regards,

                William
                Last edited by Swift Sword; 21 Dec 06,, 00:41.
                Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Swift Sword View Post
                  I am not so sure that our ability to collect, process and disseminate intelligence is up to the task of a weapon with a ten minute response time but some of you more knowledgable might better be able to address this than I can.
                  In the USAF, "time-sensitive targetting" is a HUGE consideration. In some cases we can prosecute a target that fast. When the US missed hitting Hussein in that cafe by a matter of minutes, that pissed off a lot of leadership. Since then there's been a major push to streamline the process without taking unnecessary chances, and so far its been going pretty well.

                  Edit: VVV I dont doubt it. I havent heard a lot, but I've heard a couple from people who were at/near the low end of the chain, with bombs in the area, waiting for the word.
                  Last edited by Jimmy; 21 Dec 06,, 03:49.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I got some stories that would break your hearts.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by SRB View Post
                      How much TNT?
                      Unknown for X-51 right now, I think it has a requirement to have the same kill capability or better of a standard Tomahawk.

                      The converted conventional armed ICBM would be *significantly* more powerful then a Tomahawk, so much so its actually a factor working against it.
                      Last edited by canoe; 21 Dec 06,, 04:46.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X