Hypersonic Missiles

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Brotherman
If China didn’t steal the technology from the USA who did they steal it from????

In the late 1930s Austrian engineer Eugen Sänger and German physicist Irene Bredt designed the first hypersonic aircraft, called the Silbervogel. If the technology was stolen from anywhere, by anyone, it was stolen from the Germans (and the USA was one of the first thieves).

I'm not sure defeating Germany in WW2, despite their advanced technology, and getting some of their engineers to work for us after the war, is "stealing," certainly nothing on the level of China literally stealing our tech through espionage.

What would you call one country harvesting the intellectual property of other nations, without value adding anything to their work, and then "classifying" it so no-one anywhere else has any legal access to it anymore?

And the idea that other nations cannot make their own scientific and engineering progress , especially in the light of history, is a bit silly.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Brotherman
If China didn’t steal the technology from the USA who did they steal it from????

In the late 1930s Austrian engineer Eugen Sänger and German physicist Irene Bredt designed the first hypersonic aircraft, called the Silbervogel. If the technology was stolen from anywhere, by anyone, it was stolen from the Germans (and the USA was one of the first thieves).

I'm not sure defeating Germany in WW2, despite their advanced technology, and getting some of their engineers to work for us after the war, is "stealing," certainly nothing on the level of China literally stealing our tech through espionage.

What would you call one country harvesting the intellectual property of other nations, without value adding anything to their work, and then "classifying" it so no-one anywhere else has any legal access to it anymore?

Without value adding anything to their work?

We are using his hypersonic designs from the 1930s, as-is, without any changes or updates? Literally what we're using is precisely what he designed?

I doubt that.

And again, as I pointed out, in many cases the Germans moved here to work on our projects. We didn't just take their tech. You can argue we coerced them because some of them would have faced war crimes trials if they hadn't.

If you think that's exactly the same as covertly stealing someone else's tech without their knowledge, ala my China analogy, that's your opinion. You have a long history of anti-American bigotry in your posts here though. It's my opinion that what's likely happening here is that America-hate lense is causing your view on this to be a little skewed.

And the idea that other nations cannot make their own scientific and engineering progress , especially in the light of history, is a bit silly.

I hold no such views.

originally posted by: chr0naut
And the idea that other nations cannot make their own scientific and engineering progress , especially in the light of history, is a bit silly.

Nobody that views weapons tech with an even remotely close to unbiased view has ever said that, about any country. But viewing tech with those same eyes shows you that there is a vastly different level of material science experience between other countries and the West. Note that I didn't say US, because more than one jet engine used by the US uses parts of engines that were designed by European companies partnering with US companies, if it doesn't use the entire engine built by them. The F130 that was selected for the B-52, and is used by the C-37 and E-11A fleets is built by Rolls-Royce. The B-52 engines will be assembled in the US, but the parts will be built in Europe before being shipped to the factory. The F108 (CFM56) used by the KC-135, C-40B/C, and P-8A, and will be used by the E-7A after it enters US service are built by Safran of France and GE, and assembled in the US.

Western engines routinely spend tens of thousands of hours on wing and are removed for overhaul. The record is a CFM56 that spent 50,000 hours on wing before finally being removed for a scheduled overhaul. Russian based engines, which China has used, and has built their industry on simply don't have that kind of endurance, because Russian companies didn't built the kind of material science industry that the West did. And that's going to play into the hypersonic race as well, when it comes to air breathing reusable hypersonic programs. A one use system, such as an antiship missile, isn't as big of a problem when it comes to materials, so it's easier for them to develop those kinds of systems. And that's exactly what they've been developing. The West is working on one use systems, but those can be leveraged into other reusable systems. If you notice, a number of the Western systems are using common bodies and engines. If they can get a working TBCC engine up and running for a cruise missile system, it will be much easier to scale that up into an aircraft sized engine. Then it's just a matter of developing an aircraft skin that can withstand the stress of hypersonic flight, which has already been developed.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Outside of material sciences Russian and Chinese manufacturing kind of sucks compared to the west. I don’t very often see machine tooling coming out of China.

originally posted by: TTU77
That was like the first test they ever did right, lol. Russia isn't just testing, but using hypersonic missiles on the battlefield. A huge difference from test to operational. Russia and China have been testing them for atleast 2-3 years, so that is atleast how far behind we are.

It is a game changer because there is literally no defense whatsoever of any kind against HM. They can move 10x the speed of sound and swerve to dodge anti missile defense and in a literal second be a mile or two away. Imagine if they are outfited with nukes?

We don't have to imagine. The US deployed such a system in the late 1970s. It was called the Pershing II.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Zaphod58

originally posted by: chr0naut
And the idea that other nations cannot make their own scientific and engineering progress , especially in the light of history, is a bit silly.

Nobody that views weapons tech with an even remotely close to unbiased view has ever said that, about any country. But viewing tech with those same eyes shows you that there is a vastly different level of material science experience between other countries and the West. Note that I didn't say US, because more than one jet engine used by the US uses parts of engines that were designed by European companies partnering with US companies, if it doesn't use the entire engine built by them. The F130 that was selected for the B-52, and is used by the C-37 and E-11A fleets is built by Rolls-Royce. The B-52 engines will be assembled in the US, but the parts will be built in Europe before being shipped to the factory. The F108 (CFM56) used by the KC-135, C-40B/C, and P-8A, and will be used by the E-7A after it enters US service are built by Safran of France and GE, and assembled in the US.

Western engines routinely spend tens of thousands of hours on wing and are removed for overhaul. The record is a CFM56 that spent 50,000 hours on wing before finally being removed for a scheduled overhaul. Russian based engines, which China has used, and has built their industry on simply don't have that kind of endurance, because Russian companies didn't built the kind of material science industry that the West did. And that's going to play into the hypersonic race as well, when it comes to air breathing reusable hypersonic programs. A one use system, such as an antiship missile, isn't as big of a problem when it comes to materials, so it's easier for them to develop those kinds of systems. And that's exactly what they've been developing. The West is working on one use systems, but those can be leveraged into other reusable systems. If you notice, a number of the Western systems are using common bodies and engines. If they can get a working TBCC engine up and running for a cruise missile system, it will be much easier to scale that up into an aircraft sized engine. Then it's just a matter of developing an aircraft skin that can withstand the stress of hypersonic flight, which has already been developed.

While I agree with much of what you posted, I do think that the 'hypersonic hysteria' is just a move to get budget allocation.

Hypersonics are way slower than the electromagnetic spectrum and so they aren't going to move faster than we can see and track, and with beam weapons, faster computation of trajectory and rapid response systems, we aren't incapable of stopping them.

The US is not behind in the hypersonics stakes, it has done the science and found that the touted advantages were not as advertised, and so it has chosen not to flog a dead horse in the hope it will get up and run.

I was not saying that the US tech is inferior, or that it is lagging behind in development. All the systems, of all competing countries, are pretty much on a par with each other and despite the touted tactical advantages, the Russians are still deeply engaged with the older weaponry of Ukraine.

a reply to: chr0naut

Lasers and other EM weapons are still having a lot more problems with range than hypersonics are having with successful testing. The US is just as active with hypersonic programs as anyone else is. The Common Hypersonic Glide Body is the core of the Army Long Range Hypersonic Weapon, which is expected to go active within the next two years, with the Navy’s Conventional Prompt Strike system going active not long after, using the same core system.

The Air Force has the Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon, as well as the Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapons Concept. The FY23 budget has something like $4.3B for hypersonic systems development and fielding.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: TTU77

The Chinese test didn't release the vehicle until it was back near China. As stated, it was out of the atmosphere for most of the flight. A hypersonic test that went around the world in atmosphere would be a game changer. An ICBM out of atmosphere going around the world is less impressive.

www.localguidesconnect.com...

Remember that from a few years back?

Linky

Straight line clouds that stretch from pole to pole are perfectly natural formations. We see them all the time.

It couldn't possibly have been a hypersonic missile test in-atmosphere.

Imagine all the hot fuel shooting out as exhaust in that icy cold atmosphere. It certainly wouldn't cause any condensation.

In fact it's entirely possible this was just a weather balloon. Or swamp gas.

a reply to: peskyhumans

A missile test wouldn't travel that long in atmosphere. Missile tests generally only travel either a few hundred miles, to test the engine and systems, and skins, or go out of the atmosphere and come down within territory of the launching customer. Flying them in atmosphere that long gives away far too much information to potential enemies. There also currently aren't any hypersonic missiles with that kind of range, even in testing that would be flying that long in atmosphere.

Remember when Rail guns were the "next best thing"....Untill they discovered the power needed and cost involved plus you needed a dead steady weapons platform to hit anything..Missiles were found to be far more accurate and effective..US has had a lot of Hypersonic data for aerodynamics for decades..Material science needed time to catch up...