[Slater]

http://www.airforcet...ce_sr72_070617/

The latest installment in the "Top Secret Spy Plane" saga. If it turns out to be a production vehicle, wonder if it'll look at all like the artist's conception?

[JWB]

Slater, on Sun 17 Jun 2007 2331, said:

http://www.airforcet...ce_sr72_070617/

The latest installment in the "Top Secret Spy Plane" saga. If it turns out to be a production vehicle, wonder if it'll look at all like the artist's conception?

I really doubt the plane will look much like the one in the picture. Air force is notorious for disinformation. The real question is how is to be powered?

[Luckyorwhat]

Reconnaissance platform or ASAT platform?

Maybe use lasers to heat air to plasma and shoot it out the back by magnets?

[Mote]

JWB, on Mon 18 Jun 2007 0243, said:

I really doubt the plane will look much like the one in the picture. Air force is notorious for disinformation. The real question is how is to be powered?

Scramjets are the only feasible way at Mach 6. Personally, I think this is a load of crock. Stealth and hypersonic don't mix and there's no evidence given that the reporter simply didn't make up the entire thing.

[Josh]

if it really moved at mach 6 and 100,000 it wouldn't need stealth. Not that stealth would be possible at that speed IMO.

[Mote]

jua, on Mon 18 Jun 2007 1237, said:

if it really moved at mach 6 and 100,000 it wouldn't need stealth.

Still would, just can't do it is all. Even in the heyday of "higher and faster=invincible", the SR-71 was designed to lower its radar cross section to aid it against defenses. Since its maneuverability should be crap at that altitude and speed, the main constraints on building a SAM to counter it are going to be whether the seeker can handle the closing speed (though IR/EO might negate that) and having advanced enough radar coverage to get a missile up in time. The mere act of hitting an airbreathing supersonic target at 100,000 feet isn't so much of a problem, it's been done with MIM-14 Nike Hercules and CIM-10 Bomarc and likely others.

[Scythe]

Mote, on Mon 18 Jun 2007 1306, said:

The mere act of hitting an airbreathing supersonic target at 100,000 feet isn't so much of a problem,...

False - it's a huge problem. Nike Hercules and Bomarc wouldn't come close unless they had a nuclear warhead.

[aevans]

Scythe, on Mon 18 Jun 2007 1712, said:

False - it's a huge problem. Nike Hercules and Bomarc wouldn't come close unless they had a nuclear warhead.

Compared to the operational issues of detecting and engaging such a target, the technical issue of getting a hit with a weapon that happens to be positioned in the right place isn't that big.

[Mote]

Scythe, on Mon 18 Jun 2007 1312, said:

False - it's a huge problem. Nike Hercules and Bomarc wouldn't come close unless they had a nuclear warhead.

Archie to SAM records them making intercepts at that altitude.

Page 87, regarding Hercules

Quote

The missile improved, and, in its first public launch on 1 July 1958, it intercepted a simulated target flying at a speed of 650
knots (kts) at 100,000 feet.

Page 89, regarding CIM-10B

Quote

Although 1.7 feet shorter than the A model, it weighed 532 pounds more and could reach slant ranges of 400 nautical miles and almost Mach 4.0. In its most memorable flight, it intercepted a Regulus II target drone at 100,000 feet, 446 miles from its launch point.

[Josh]

Mote, on Mon 18 Jun 2007 1706, said:

Still would, just can't do it is all. Even in the heyday of "higher and faster=invincible", the SR-71 was designed to lower its radar cross section to aid it against defenses. Since its maneuverability should be crap at that altitude and speed, the main constraints on building a SAM to counter it are going to be whether the seeker can handle the closing speed (though IR/EO might negate that) and having advanced enough radar coverage to get a missile up in time. The mere act of hitting an airbreathing supersonic target at 100,000 feet isn't so much of a problem, it's been done with MIM-14 Nike Hercules and CIM-10 Bomarc and likely others.

At Mach 6 it will be moving a mile per second or more. So the detection and engagement cycle will be a minute or two tops. Unless its directly flying over the SAM site, the persuit curve is going to make the SAM have very little chance of engaging. Obviously a tail engagement is right out. It took a very large amount of effort on the part of the PVO to set up a a2a engagement with the Mach 3 SR-71 from what I've been led to believe.

[JOE BRENNAN]

Right, Nike Hercules, especially Improved NH of the 1960's, was designed to intercept targets in excess of 100k ft. "History of the Nike Hercules Weapons System", originially secret internal history by ARADCOM, has a generic chart of various systems' (AAA guns, Nike Ajax, etc) capabilities and gives NH"s as 2000kt. targets at 110,000ft; elsewhere the nominal altitude is given as 150,000ft. In the section on tests it says there were successes v Q-5 (aka AQM-60 Kingfisher) drone 'of small radar cross section' at Mach 3, among others. Unfortunately two engagement capability diagrams are redacted from the declassified version of the document. Nike Hercules was never actually tested with its nuclear warhead, and the various test results given for the system in that document, where they claim success and quote miss distances (don't in the Q-5 test) they're pretty small (eg. 18 yards in an earlier test). Actual mileage could vary, production versions of missiles of that era malfunctioned pretty often for one thing, but it had that basic capability. Also was judged successful in intercepts of Corporal and Little John BM's.

Mach 6 is quite a bit faster, but then you have 40 more years of SAM development.

Joe

[Scythe]

Quote

Compared to the operational issues of detecting and engaging such a target, the technical issue of getting a hit with a weapon that happens to be positioned in the right place isn't that big.

Are you sure about that? I mean, I agree with the difficulty in detecting and engaging such targets, but getting a missile to hit them should also be pretty difficult I'd imagine. For all intents and purposes, it is virtually an interception of a supersonic crossing target.

Mote, on Mon 18 Jun 2007 1334, said:

Archie to SAM records them making intercepts at that altitude.

Were any of the tests conducted against supersonic maneuvering targets at 80K+ ft?

[Slater]

An interesting Nike Hercules concept (source: DTIC):

Abstract : An investigation was made of the information available on the Red Eye Missile and the possible use of a number of these missiles as a Cluster in the Nike Hercules warhead. It was found that up to 56 submissiles could be placed in the warhead, however, effective use of all the submissiles is based on using a modified IR seeker in the nose of the Nike Hercules missile. When the modified nose seeker with a range of view of + or -40 deg acquires the target, it orients all submissile seekers (+ or -2 deg view angle) toward the target before the submissiles are launched. By orienting all missiles each one may acquire the target rather than only those missiles which are on the target side of the prime missile. The alternate system would place the modified seeker in the nose of each submissile to permit scanning the seeker view angle in a + or -40 deg cone angle after release from the Nike Hercules warhead. The normal lead angle for the Nike on an intercept approach, including 90 deg attack, remains within the seeker limits.

[Mote]

Scythe, on Mon 18 Jun 2007 1440, said:

Were any of the tests conducted against supersonic maneuvering targets at 80K+ ft?

All of them were against supersonic targets, I don't know of any maneuvers being conducted or not being conducted. But Mach 6 and 100K feet doesn't exactly lend itself to maneuverability.

[Scythe]

Mote, on Mon 18 Jun 2007 1456, said:

All of them were against supersonic targets, I don't know of any maneuvers being conducted or not being conducted. But Mach 6 and 100K feet doesn't exactly lend itself to maneuverability.

K, thanks. And great PDF link - it's a good read.

[TomasCTT]

It looks like a prototype hyperspeed car to break the land speed record....

[shep854]

If the tech is maturing to hit warheads at near-orbital velocities, a Mach 6, 100K ft aircraft should be an easy hit.

[Josh]

shep854, on Tue 19 Jun 2007 1511, said:

If the tech is maturing to hit warheads at near-orbital velocities, a Mach 6, 100K ft aircraft should be an easy hit.

To be fair, few of the systems designed to do such engagements have been proven to work. SM-3 seems to be coming along; the nation BM defense system less so. I don't know how THAAD is doing. But also these systems rely on being inside a specific footprint (basically being the target zone of incoming RVs) and also on networks of BM radars and GEO satellites. Most countries lack such systems and such systems would be less suited to engaging aircraft. Practically, who has the capability to engage a Mach 6 target *besides* the US and what future systems from which countries potentially will have such a capability? I suspect only the S-300/400 probably could on a good day given the right geometry. Practically I suspect by the time someone had permission to fire the window would be closed even assuming a flight path that offered a good solution.

[Scythe]

shep854, on Tue 19 Jun 2007 1111, said:

If the tech is maturing to hit warheads at near-orbital velocities, a Mach 6, 100K ft aircraft should be an easy hit.

The fact that many systems aren't enjoying much success indicates differently, as jua said. Furthermore, unlike ballistic missiles, aircraft can maneuver itself away from the envelope of missile batteries - at the very least, change its aspect to make such intercepts extremely difficult.

With ballistic missiles, you can basically count on a head on intercept, which is a joke compared to intercepting crossing targets.

This post has been edited by Scythe: 19 June 2007 - 1108 AM

[shep854]

That's why I said the technology is "maturing". ;)

ABM does have a way to go, but it IS getting there.