Lockheed's 2015 Aeronautics Highlights Video...with Easter-egg?

a reply to: darksidius

you're right it should be a priority. 2023 is a long was away. don't want to leave the USA vulnerable.

a reply to: mbkennel

This type of weapon fills the gap between a conventional cruise missile and a full up conventional ballistic missile. It will have longer range than a traditional theater range ballistic missile because your adding a glide stage to the end of it.
It is harder to track it's targeting point because of that unpredictable glide stage.

It is cheaper and easier to build because it doesn't require the amount of fuel to get as high as a conventional ballistic missile to hit the same target thus not requiring as large of an infrastructure to support.

It's more flexible than a conventional ballistic missile because it can eventually be air launched or launched from smaller more mobile platforms because of it's smaller foot print.

The scenario the DoD is looking at is this: You need to hit target A from launch point B.
You will need a conventional ballistic missile of X size to cover that distance. A missile whose launch is easy to detect by a peer state, is easy to track, easy to counter with today's anti ballistic missiles SAM's and lets the enemy know exactly where the target is.
Now insert this weapon. Harder to detect the launch because it doesn't have to get as high to hit that target now, is on a more mobile platform like an aircraft since it doesn't have to be as large, harder to track since it can maneuver, and thus harder to counter and gives less warning time since the target can't be predicted.

a reply to: Sammamishman
Right and with an air launched system you limit the mistake of a nuclear balistic attack.

Thanks Sammishan, that's what I was looking for. Target uncertainty is a good point.

I'm not convinced on the cheaper or longer range part. I think it would have to be as large as a ballistic missile for the same range & payload at least---the launch phase is the same for both.

How I see it: as the glide vehicle is unpowered, and all initial kinetic energy is supplied by the rocket booster in both cases, I don't see how you could possibly get better range when you travel in a drag inducing atmosphere for a distance compared to a ballistic warhead which travels in a drag inducing atmosphere for the minimum time possible for this reason.

If you want range, in both cases you need to get out of the dense atmosphere, and launch detectability is the same. For both, the necessary trajectory is first up (get out of densest air quickly) and then sideways (to gain transverse velocity and hence range).

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: mbkennel

maneuverability (less predictable flight path).

Exactly. It's hard enough to hit a warhead on a ballistic trajectory.

I don't believe there is currently any known system even remotely capable of countering a stealthy hypersonic, maneuvering target.