backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 183 comment(s) - last by Lakku.. on Jan 5 at 5:39 PM


Image courtesy Popular Mechanics

Image courtesy Popular Mechanics
X-51 would be seven times faster than the Tomahawk

With the United States military looking for faster ways to destroy targets anywhere in the world, it should come as no surprise that a new hypersonic cruise missile is currently in development for precision strikes.

Conventionally armed Trident II missiles (which are the same size, have the same speed and are launched from the same locations) have been tested by the Navy since 1993. However, many are concerned that the launch of ballistic missiles equipped with multiple warheads could spark a crisis far more dangerous the one that it is supposed to subdue.

"The launch of such a missile could provoke an inappropriate response from one of the nuclear powers, could provoke a full-scale counterattack using strategic nuclear forces," said Russian president Vladimir Putin in a 2006 state of the nation address.

Donald Rumsfeld, former United States Secretary of Defense, seemed less concerned over the possibility that America's actions might be seen as nuclear-inclined. "Everyone in the world would know that [the missile] was conventional," said Rumsfeld. Many in congress along with weapons experts aren’t quite as sure as Rumsfeld.

With conventionally-tipped Trident II missiles catching flak from almost all sides, the Department of Defense is looking to the X-51 WaveRider as a solution. The 14-ft long missile can travel at hypersonic speeds (greater than 3,600MPH or Mach 5). At that speed, the X-51 is seven times faster than the humble Tomahawk cruise missile and can make the trip from the Arabian Sea to eastern Afghanistan in roughly 20 minutes. Tomahawk missiles took two hours to make the same trek in 1998 and missed Osama Bin Laden by 30 minutes.  Popular Mechanics reports:

What the X-51 does is to turn some of the most brutal effects of hypersonic flight to its advantage. Take shock waves, for example. Bursting through the air at a hypersonic rate produces a train of waves, one after the other, which can drag down an aircraft. But the X-51 is a "wave rider," with a sharp nose shaped to make the waves break at precisely the right angle. All of the pressure is directed beneath the missile, lifting it up. The shock waves also compress the air to help fuel the X-51's combustion process.

The X-51 would be launched from a B-52 Stratofortress and carried to supersonic speeds by a booster rocket. From there, the missile’s scramjet engine would take over. The X-51 has the advantage of being able to hit targets much quicker than the Tomahawk missiles employed today without being mistaken for a much larger nuclear weapon. "You don't worry about starting World War III," said Air Force chief scientist Mark J. Lewis.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Fuck Yeah!
By Ralph The Magician on 12/21/2006 8:32:13 PM , Rating: 5
AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!




RE: Fuck Yeah!
By djkrypplephite on 12/21/2006 9:11:43 PM , Rating: 2
I like this guy^^


RE: Fuck Yeah!
By Enoch2001 on 12/21/2006 9:13:02 PM , Rating: 2
LOL - we ARE Team America: World Police!


RE: Fuck Yeah!
By QuadCore6700 on 12/21/06, Rating: -1
RE: Fuck Yeah!
By msva124 on 12/22/2006 1:15:50 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Fuck Yeah!
By Ardan on 12/22/2006 2:52:56 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, you really need to relax. Take a laxative or something, phew.


everyone should die
By Serifan on 12/21/06, Rating: 0
RE: everyone should die
By dallasskins on 12/22/2006 12:01:50 AM , Rating: 2
This is weak minded drivel. Here is a link to the top ten bloodiest dictators. Notice most were Communist (read atheist) or Facist. None killed in the name of religion, but in the name of their political belief system. Even Hitler falls into this category. Yes he killed millions of Jews, but also millions of other non-Arayans were killed in the death camps. So much for religion being the source of all evil. Here is the link if you want the truth, or just google mass murderers yourself.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.TAB1.4.GIF


RE: everyone should die
By ThisSpaceForRent on 12/22/2006 12:43:55 AM , Rating: 2
1. Instead of religion, substitute belief systems (politics, religion, economics, etc.) and you have it dead on.
2. Money, always. People kill and screw each other for it all the time.
3. You've been looking while other's post haven't you?


RE: everyone should die
By DOSGuy on 12/22/2006 1:04:49 AM , Rating: 2
Religion was merely the best excuse for war prior to the 20th century. When kings wanted to conquer their neighbors, they often used religion to justify ordering their subjects to lay down their lives. Money and power were always the true motivations. Even conflicts within the Catholic Church were about power: whether the power lay in Rome or Constantinople, for instance.

As religion began to lose its influence, the excuses for war changed. The vast majority of all the casualties ever suffered in war occurred during WWI, WWII, and the Chinese Civil War, none of which were about religion. As far as genocide, the Stalinist purges were an attempt to subdue Ukraine; the Khmer Rouge was to eliminate threats to the government, and Rwandan Genocide was the result of the artificial socioeconomic divide of Hutus and Tutsis that was created by Europeans. In Kosovo it was "ethnic cleansing". The excuses change, but money and power continue to be at the root of human conflict.

Religion is still used to manipulate violence in Iraq today. Sunni and Shia have been separate for so many centuries that they now represent distinct cultural heritages, so it's unfair to say that religion is the only difference between them. Control of Iraq is the true motivation of those who incite the violence; religion is merely the best excuse to convince people to fight. Whether it's Sunni vs. Shia in Iraq, or Fatah vs. Hamas in Palestine, the root of the conflict is power.

It boils down to greed. Whether the desire for money or the desire for power, or both, greed is the real reason for war. The excuses will change with the times, but the root will never change unless humanity does.

Does humanity deserve to be wiped out? The world would certainly be better off without us, but there is cause for hope. Consider Gandhi, who could summon 700 million people to crush the occupying British force if he had wanted to, but chose peace instead. Martin Luther King led a civil rights revolution by refusing to be violent, and shaming those who would use violence to suppress them. Humanity is capable of peace. We just have to take it one day at a time. Just as an alcoholic can determine that he's not going to have a drink today, and then get up the next morning and decide that he's not going to have a drink today either, we can decide not to be killers, one day at a time.

"All right! We're savages. We have the blood of a million years of history on our hands. But we can change that. We can tell ourselves we're killers, but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes; one simple decision. We're not going to kill… today!" ~ James T. Kirk


RE: everyone should die
By SmokeRngs on 12/22/2006 5:51:47 PM , Rating: 2
I've been saying this for a long time now and this is the first time I've seen someone else actually say it.

Power is the reason. People use religion and many other things as tools to get their power. The tools are used to create the events that lead to the individual or group obtaining power.

There will always be people that want power. There will always be a few of those people that will use any means necessary to obtain it. Then are people or countries that spend large amounts of time and money to make sure there is a defense against those few.


RE: everyone should die
By tdream on 12/27/2006 10:22:32 AM , Rating: 2
This is a good post and I agree with what you've said. Many nations have gone to war under false pretence and as you clearly stated the root cause being human desires of greed and power.


RE: everyone should die
By msva124 on 12/22/2006 1:13:42 AM , Rating: 2
I don't like humans either. Can a comet hit the Earth please?


Fast, but....
By InTheNameOfMyself on 12/22/2006 7:06:47 AM , Rating: 2
OK, I get it that this thing is fast.

But, how much punch does it pack?
1ton? 2tons?

You got to bundle a strong warhead you know.




RE: Fast, but....
By tdream on 12/22/2006 7:21:37 AM , Rating: 2
foookin ridiculous, here america are blatantly improving their already considereable armament and they hold countries hostage for even ATTEMPTING to improve their own defences with nuclear capabilities. such irony is lost one americans though. peace by power such double standards for a war on terror, more like a suppression of any other country that dares match america in it's weaponry.

yes we should bash america, are we to sit idly by and let those ignorant masses continue on build up super powered weaponry until no one has a choice but to listen to america? its a free country after all and being so i retain to right to slag the living shiit out of america until it ceases to be a world power. the ignore forget more and more of the atrocities by each passing day and also forget that american defense is big business, and that's the problem with america. capitalist kunts who will stop and nothing for the bottom dollar. missle that missed it's target by 2 miles, friendly fire, user error and whatever bs their news reporters cococted to put a positive spin on a tragic event. this is not the only time this will happen if no one raises an eyelid to forcefully denigrate what they are doing. the US of A is a virus on the planet and the sooner they run the natural course of all powerful sovereignties the better, even roman empire had to end.


RE: Fast, but....
By Tedtalker1 on 12/22/2006 3:11:04 PM , Rating: 2
What an ignorant statement.The differece is obvious-the antichrist running Iran and the doofus in charge of North Korea want to blow up whoever they want just for kicks because they don't like you.Like a kid just coming back from the fireworks stand with a sack of rockets and Roman Candles.


RE: Fast, but....
By tdream on 12/27/2006 9:41:01 AM , Rating: 2
What exactly is ignorant about what I've written? Would you like to retort each of my points or are you going to blanket "ignore" anything that has a negative point of view towards america?

Well obviously there is an antichrist and doofus in charge of america, to use your own words. Trouble is you don't know what the leaders of Iran and North Korea are like. Sure they might spin you the truth and all the while hiding some ulterior motive, but that is exatly what Bush has done in Iraq. WMD, which we now irrefutably known to be non existant, and everyone else knew thi before the US began their invasion. You see where is the accountability, you can't point the finger at Iran and North Korea, when your own government can't justify it's own actions. No one is repsonsible for freedom or justice, the US use these ideals to masquerade for their real motives, ie. economic power, monetary gain and political influence. It's a self serving agenda with no concern for anyone else.


RE: Fast, but....
By CascadingDarkness on 12/22/2006 6:48:19 PM , Rating: 2
Not touching your US bashing.

WTF is with
quote:
missile that missed it's target by 2 miles, friendly fire, user error and whatever bs their news reporters concocted to put a positive spin on a tragic event
(fixed typos in your quote btw) should we just go back to carpet bombing entire cities to ashes with B-52s?

All the time I have to spare from my new, improved, precise warmongering


RE: Fast, but....
By tdream on 12/27/2006 9:31:44 AM , Rating: 2
How about not using bombs altogether where substancial loss of innocent life is at stake, like a populated city?


Ironic?
By Hoser McMoose on 12/22/2006 11:35:32 AM , Rating: 2
Does anyone else find it ironic that the main excuse for going for this missile is the fear of ballistic missiles being a nuke, even though there is nothing preventing them from putting nuclear warheads on this cruise missile? There is nothing special about a cruise missile vs. ballistic missile when it comes to the type of warhead they could carry, the US is quite willing and able to equip either one with conventional or nuclear warheads (they could probably toss a chemical or biological warhead on either one as well, but that is much less likely to occur). Certainly the Tomahawk was designed to carry tactical nukes, conventional munitions were more of an afterthought it seems (I doubt it ever would have been build, back in the 60's and 70's, if the only plan was to use conventional warheads).

Certainly there is more history with ballistic missiles carrying nukes, what with the whole cold-war era, but that was simply due to logistics (it's easier for U.S. to hit Russia, and vice versa, with a ballistic missile than a cruise missile due to the distances involved). If the cold war had been between two countries that shared a land boarder then cruise missiles might well have been the delivery method of choice for nukes.

I guess it's all about perceptions though.




RE: Ironic?
By CascadingDarkness on 12/22/2006 3:33:03 PM , Rating: 2
Likely wouldn't be too effective. First there is payload. I doubt this could hold a large warhead. Also took me a while but I found they have 600 mile range.
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?Art...

Not effective for a massive enough attack that could look like nuke war. Seems more like international figures getting mad about new weapons research in general. I doubt these could really be confused with nuclear attack (yes subs shoot from short range, but all out nuke war wouldn't just be subs).

I'm sure that wouldn't really matter to the city that was hit by a single small yield missile, but I hope US would never do anything like that.