Retired USAF General Makes Eyebrow Raising Claims About Advanced Space Tech(thedrive.com)
thedrive.com
Retired USAF General Makes Eyebrow Raising Claims About Advanced Space Tech
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31445/recently-retired-usaf-general-makes-eyebrow-raising-claims-about-advanced-space-technology
25 comments
This is exactly right. They could have developed an ICBM based person delivery rocket but it won’t be more exotic than that. The defense department does not generally have undiscovered physics in their back pocket, modulo some nuclear secrets.
The problem is that you can't just launch a ICBM without risking Russia or China lobbing a few (hundred) back, regardless of the destination.
It is less a tech problem than a political one.
A stealth ICBM on the other hand... now that is a scary. If any other nations got wind of that we would have another nuclear arms race.
It is less a tech problem than a political one.
A stealth ICBM on the other hand... now that is a scary. If any other nations got wind of that we would have another nuclear arms race.
ICBM launches are detected via satellite primarily based on the extraordinary infrared output of a powerful rocket motor. A "stealth" ICBM would not really get you much, would it?
> A "stealth" ICBM would not really get you much, would it?
Stealth may help avoid interception during the midcourse phase, though:
https://media.nti.org/pdfs/10_5.pdf:
> Midcourse Phase – “Largest Intercept Window”
> The midcourse phase allows the largest opportunity to intercept an incoming missile. At this point the missile is no longer under power, so it follows a more predictable path. Depending on the interceptor launch location, multiple interceptors could be launched, with a delay between them to see if the first ones were successful. Since the interceptor has a longer time to engage, fewer interceptor sites are needed to defend larger areas.
> Unfortunately, a longer period in space provides an attacking missile the opportunity to deploy countermeasures against a defensive system. However the defensive system also has more time to observe and discriminate countermeasures from the warhead.
But I think you're right that it a stealth ICBM wouldn't achieve as much as one would naively assume, and boost-phase detection would still invite retaliation.
Stealth may help avoid interception during the midcourse phase, though:
https://media.nti.org/pdfs/10_5.pdf:
> Midcourse Phase – “Largest Intercept Window”
> The midcourse phase allows the largest opportunity to intercept an incoming missile. At this point the missile is no longer under power, so it follows a more predictable path. Depending on the interceptor launch location, multiple interceptors could be launched, with a delay between them to see if the first ones were successful. Since the interceptor has a longer time to engage, fewer interceptor sites are needed to defend larger areas.
> Unfortunately, a longer period in space provides an attacking missile the opportunity to deploy countermeasures against a defensive system. However the defensive system also has more time to observe and discriminate countermeasures from the warhead.
But I think you're right that it a stealth ICBM wouldn't achieve as much as one would naively assume, and boost-phase detection would still invite retaliation.
When it comes to clever hypothetical changes to ICBMs, I remember one of the options floated late in the cold war was using a highly reflective coating that would hopefully ameliorate the effects of lasers (since we were taking interdiction with high-powered lasers more seriously then). I bring it up because I'm pretty sure it would be at cross purposes with a stealth coating.
I bet that given sufficient satellite coverage and image processing, ICBMs might remain visible throughout most of their flight, making radar stealth a moot point. I hope the world will not go too far down the road of building out measures and countermeasures to update our nuclear weapons systems, but I think you'd have to add that possibility to the long list of possible countermeasures when doing your planning.
I bet that given sufficient satellite coverage and image processing, ICBMs might remain visible throughout most of their flight, making radar stealth a moot point. I hope the world will not go too far down the road of building out measures and countermeasures to update our nuclear weapons systems, but I think you'd have to add that possibility to the long list of possible countermeasures when doing your planning.
I wonder whether a more effective alternative would be to station troops in space. The Outer Space Treaty prohibits the deployment of weapons of mass destruction in space, but not conventional weapons or combatants. An invasion from space could be made with virtually no warning. I'm not sure stealth would be possible due to the plasma created on entry, but decoys / countermeasures are possible.
With the potential for spacelaunch to become drastically less expensive due to reusable launch vehicles, a constellation of manned hypersonic glide vehicles may become economically practical.
With the potential for spacelaunch to become drastically less expensive due to reusable launch vehicles, a constellation of manned hypersonic glide vehicles may become economically practical.
> a mobile-platform-launched ICBM that you can climb into.
The Titan II GLV was a human-rated adaption of an ICBM. Conceivably you could even put people in a truck launch ICBM.
The Titan II GLV was a human-rated adaption of an ICBM. Conceivably you could even put people in a truck launch ICBM.
Launching the platform is one thing, having it land or deploy something that a person can exit from in rough terrain is quite a different thing.
What a horribly written breathless article. Does anyone know if a simple summary of the lecture available?
Wow.... this reads as an amateur trying to clone Buzzfeed, and marry it with the enquirer...while only hiring writers from fiverr.
No organization, jumps all over the place. Very hard to get through, and my god the hype...it's everywhere.
No organization, jumps all over the place. Very hard to get through, and my god the hype...it's everywhere.
"...United States military and its industry partners may have already developed next-generation technologies that have the potential to drastically change the aerospace field, and human civilization, forever..."
I believe it. I remember how the Bin Laden raid was executed with stealth helicopters- low noise and radar profiles. Came out of nowhere. And wasn't there a report on how the Navy hinted at all the UFO sightings were from tech they had to make ghost jets?
I believe it. I remember how the Bin Laden raid was executed with stealth helicopters- low noise and radar profiles. Came out of nowhere. And wasn't there a report on how the Navy hinted at all the UFO sightings were from tech they had to make ghost jets?
They didn’t came out of nowhere.
The US used “stealth” helicopters in Vietnam nicknamed the quiet one
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_helicopter
It allowed them to send covert missions into north Vietnam, ironically it was initially developed for commercial civilian purposes as a quiet helicopter can be used for helicopter taxis and inner city travel more easily.
The US having stealth versions of the Blackhawk has been rumored since the 90’s it was less about if they can make them but if there’s an actual budgetary justification for them.
For the bin laden raid they used what essentially was scrapped prototypes and one of them crashed on landing during the raid.
RAM, low signature composites and acoustic improvements are hardly technologies that can described as which will drastically change the aerospace field.
The US used “stealth” helicopters in Vietnam nicknamed the quiet one
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_helicopter
It allowed them to send covert missions into north Vietnam, ironically it was initially developed for commercial civilian purposes as a quiet helicopter can be used for helicopter taxis and inner city travel more easily.
The US having stealth versions of the Blackhawk has been rumored since the 90’s it was less about if they can make them but if there’s an actual budgetary justification for them.
For the bin laden raid they used what essentially was scrapped prototypes and one of them crashed on landing during the raid.
RAM, low signature composites and acoustic improvements are hardly technologies that can described as which will drastically change the aerospace field.
I don’t believe the helicopter crashed due to its stealth features. It was too close to a wall and had problems with lift.
It crashed because it was a prototype with stability issues, quite likely tied to some of its stealth characteristics including the muffling of the blade and it’s weight distribution due to the use of composites.
The scene in the movie where one of the SEALs breaks through the fuselage when walking on top of the downed helicopter to plant the demo charge was taken from the redacted after action report and interviews with the team members so it’s quite possible that a normal Blackhawk might have managed to perform a hard landing instead of a crash.
The scene in the movie where one of the SEALs breaks through the fuselage when walking on top of the downed helicopter to plant the demo charge was taken from the redacted after action report and interviews with the team members so it’s quite possible that a normal Blackhawk might have managed to perform a hard landing instead of a crash.
Conflating tinfoil, deep fakes and specialty stealth together isn't helpful.
The claim the general made is without evidence, and possibly without merit. He could be wishing for things that are vaporware aspirationally, like John McAfee does, and the press gobbles it up as clickbait/chumbox fodder.
The claim the general made is without evidence, and possibly without merit. He could be wishing for things that are vaporware aspirationally, like John McAfee does, and the press gobbles it up as clickbait/chumbox fodder.
And the article is so vague we can hardly call that "claims".
With SpaceX doing booster landings now in full view and ICBMs and their ilk being well known for 50 years, is the claim that the tech to transport a person from any terrestrial A to B in under an hour being non-developmental (i.e practically feasible) really eyebrow-raising? I personally would be surprised if several ICBM-having militaries have not quietly developed something along these lines in the 70s, 80s, or 90s.
There is even tech flying today to make it relatively practical/economical now that the boosters are being reused, as we always speculated was technically feasible.
What’s the big news here? Am I missing something?
I also assume that with the SR71 being as old as it is, the USAF has to have a couple of secret hypersonics by now that can get from any A to any B in the upper atmosphere in a few hours even non-ballistically.
There is even tech flying today to make it relatively practical/economical now that the boosters are being reused, as we always speculated was technically feasible.
What’s the big news here? Am I missing something?
I also assume that with the SR71 being as old as it is, the USAF has to have a couple of secret hypersonics by now that can get from any A to any B in the upper atmosphere in a few hours even non-ballistically.
Modern military ICBMs are solid fueled and thus can't really be used for human launches. They cause too much oscillation and vibration, and would effectively shake the crew to death. Some human rated spacecraft use solid fuel rockets as boosters only; the majority of thrust is delivered by liquid fuel engineers. So just having ICBMs doesn't really get you anywhere for delivering people.
(The speculative SpaceX suborbital rocket thing, IMHO, is not credible evidence against my point. :) )