Pentagon intelligence official says Chinese hypersonic weapon poses major challenge

nwtrucker
reply to post by crazyewok

 

Really?? Be our guest!

Please. If ATS raise the cash I'l go

reply to post by crazyewok


Two times. right. How many more flights did the shuttles do-the same shuttles repeatedly- than one time Russian birds?

God Bless America......(your favorite three words).

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Soaring defence budgets in China and Russia mean global military spending is growing for the first time in five years, according to new forecasts.
Spending across Asia and the Middle East is surging even as the military powers of Europe and the US are forced to scale back dramatically in the face of austerity cuts - contributing to a steady change in the balance of military power.

nwtrucker


Two times. right. How many more flights did the shuttles do-the same shuttles repeatedly- than one time Russian birds?

So? what the point of the craft being reuseable is its costs twice as much to run and still just as dangrous?

www.futron.com...

Would have been cheaper if the USA had carried on the Gemini or Apollo craft for crewed missions and used dedicated payload rockets for cargo. NASA would have been decades ahead then what they are now. The shuttle was a monetry black hole that sucked up NASA resources and it accidents soured the publics opinions towards NASA.

crazyewok

peter vlar


That's because out space flight accidents were public knowledge. The amount of Russian space disasters kept under wraps would blow your mind. Though the Soyuz craft itselfwasnt the problem it was the
rocket assembly that usually malfunctioned.

That was the Vostok programs were the secrecy issue is in debate. The soyuz all the accidents were public. Both soyuz accidents were based on silly issues that were more down to carelessness than fundemntal issues with the craft. Both happened at the beguining and both issue were fixed and can never happen again. Unlike the shuttle that had catostrophic events at the start and end of its career.

Not to nitpick but, how exactly are 2 in flight Soyuz fatalities less of an issue than the 2 STS mission fatalities? Additionally there have been several unmanned Soyuz crashes the most recent being a supply run to the ISS that never made it and crashed in Siberia in August 2011. I'm just not seeing the superiority of the Soviet era craft that you are.

crazyewok

pheonix358
The one thing the US can do right now is to project force at long range via its carrier task groups.

Those days are over and this is the problem for the US.

Send in a carrier task force and by Hyper Sonic Missiles or by Subs, you can kiss them goodbye.

Force Projection becomes more and more difficult.

The biggest navy = the biggest target group. China knows this which is why she concentrates on Defense.

P

Its only a problem if the usa wants to go around invading everyone as the agressor.

If the usa adopted a more defensive role it wouldnt be so much of a issue.

What like france did in world war two they relied heavily on defensive weapons. But you know theres an old saying a good defense is a good offense. You make sure the other side knows your capabilities and sometimes thats the best defense there is. As far as invading everyone i wish they would just so people like you would shut up. The problem is the US never invades anyone they go there have a skirmish then leave. Next time the US goes into a country they need to take the gloves off and treat it like it was an invasion instead of humanitarian effort. They worry about what people will think but as you proved it doesnt matter really does it?

reply to post by peter vlar


Id say the diffrence was the issue, the shuttle issues were fudemental design issues that meant complete redesigns with the heat shield issue being one that couldnt be soved.

Both soyuz issues were very simple and more down to soviet era lazyness, both design issue with the craft were fixed early in the program.

Fact is the soyuz isue cant hapoen again, if the shuttle either flew again (if nasa were that stupid) the heat shield faliure could repeat itself.

dragonridr

crazyewok

pheonix358
The one thing the US can do right now is to project force at long range via its carrier task groups.

Those days are over and this is the problem for the US.

Send in a carrier task force and by Hyper Sonic Missiles or by Subs, you can kiss them goodbye.

Force Projection becomes more and more difficult.

The biggest navy = the biggest target group. China knows this which is why she concentrates on Defense.

P

Its only a problem if the usa wants to go around invading everyone as the agressor.

If the usa adopted a more defensive role it wouldnt be so much of a issue.

What like france did in world war two they relied heavily on defensive weapons. But you know theres an old saying a good defense is a good offense. You make sure the other side knows your capabilities and sometimes thats the best defense there is. As far as invading everyone i wish they would just so people like you would shut up. The problem is the US never invades anyone they go there have a skirmish then leave. Next time the US goes into a country they need to take the gloves off and treat it like it was an invasion instead of humanitarian effort. They worry about what people will think but as you proved it doesnt matter really does it?

edit on 2/3/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

Id say iraq was pretty much a unprovocked invasion....

And why will i shut up? You going to come to the uk and drone strike me

peter vlar

crazyewok

peter vlar


That's because out space flight accidents were public knowledge. The amount of Russian space disasters kept under wraps would blow your mind. Though the Soyuz craft itselfwasnt the problem it was the
rocket assembly that usually malfunctioned.

That was the Vostok programs were the secrecy issue is in debate. The soyuz all the accidents were public. Both soyuz accidents were based on silly issues that were more down to carelessness than fundemntal issues with the craft. Both happened at the beguining and both issue were fixed and can never happen again. Unlike the shuttle that had catostrophic events at the start and end of its career.

Not to nitpick but, how exactly are 2 in flight Soyuz fatalities less of an issue than the 2 STS mission fatalities? Additionally there have been several unmanned Soyuz crashes the most recent being a supply run to the ISS that never made it and crashed in Siberia in August 2011. I'm just not seeing the superiority of the Soviet era craft that you are.

Cant really compare soyuz and the shuttles ones a complicated aircraft and well the russians was a tin can with a big rocket. The reason Soyuz had less malfunctions is simple it couldn't fly reentry was head for earth hope the chutes open.

dragonridr
Cant really compare soyuz and the shuttles ones a complicated aircraft and well the russians was a tin can with a big rocket. The reason Soyuz had less malfunctions is simple it couldn't fly reentry was head for earth hope the chutes open.

edit on 2/3/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

Who even cares if the shoot opens? We are aimed at water any ways!...Right?!...RIGHT?!?!?!?!

Lol, jokes aside, I wouldn't hesitate to get into either if it meant going to the great beyond.

crazyewok

nwtrucker


Two times. right. How many more flights did the shuttles do-the same shuttles repeatedly- than one time Russian birds?

So? what the point of the craft being reuseable is its costs twice as much to run and still just as dangrous?

www.futron.com...

Would have been cheaper if the USA had carried on the Gemini or Apollo craft for crewed missions and used dedicated payload rockets for cargo. NASA would have been decades ahead then what they are now. The shuttle was a monetry black hole that sucked up NASA resources and it accidents soured the publics opinions towards NASA.

Its main reason was its capabilities to carry stuff into orbit they had to put up all those spy satellites ya know. That was like half there missions makes you wonder what they built up there besides the space station.

Btw im not trying to belittle usa space achivements.

Gemini and apollo were great craft.

Just the shuttle was a dud for NASA

At the very most it should have been a USAF craft not a civilian one.

reply to post by crazyewok


Where did you get twice as much to run?? The whole point of reusable vehicles was it cost less per trip.

Personally, I wouldn't hitch a ride in either of them....

I think most of y'all are overreacting to this whole issue. Sure, the Chinese have tested a very early prototype for a Hypersonic missile, but so has the U.S., and our research is further along. There's the DARPA ArcLight program to design a hypersonic missile based of the SM-3 launch stack, and there is the High Speed Weapon System (HSSW) to weaponize the X-51. There are also the laser countermeasure systems being designed for the navy and Air Force which are expected to be be fielded over the next few years, with the most powerful versions coming on stream around 2025-2030, around the same time that hypersonic missiles are likely to appear on the battlefield. So it is likely that China's hypersonic capability will not be any bigger of a threat than any other capability their military possesses.

Also, crazywok, the Space Shuttle did not hold back NASA, 40 years of budget cuts did that, and the fact that there were only two disasters out of hundreds of shuttle missions is a pretty good safety record for something as complex as the space shuttle IMO.

I vote that we start a fund here on ATS that will eventually one day put my friend crazyewok into space on a Bolshevik craft! Who knows, our America hating mate here one day could become very famous, and may even very well end up being the next Vladimir Komarov when it's all said and done, Who I view as a hero of The Russian people by the way.

If one has no patience in matters such as this, just forward to the 1:00 minute mark.



Here is more info about Valdimir's last words spoken, and that he gave his own life so that his fellow cosmonaut friend Yuri Gagarin, would not have to take the dangerous, and unpredicatble outcome flight into space himself.

Vladimir Komarov's Last Words

In my eyes, Valdimir was a great Man of the people. I think about him sometimes when pondering it all, what it must have been like to be him, during his last moments. ~$heopleNation

crazyewok
Btw im not trying to belittle usa space achivements.

Gemini and apollo were great craft.

Just the shuttle was a dud for NASA

At the very most it should have been a USAF craft not a civilian one.

edit on 3-2-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

Ill agree never got to do what it was truly designed for. Its real purpose was to shuttle people back and forth from several space stations NASA wanted to build. So instead it just became a rocket sad really.

Antonio1
I think most of y'all are overreacting to this whole issue. Sure, the Chinese have tested a very early prototype for a Hypersonic missile, but so has the U.S., and our research is further along. There's the DARPA ArcLight program to design a hypersonic missile based of the SM-3 launch stack, and there is the High Speed Weapon System (HSSW) to weaponize the X-51. There are also the laser countermeasure systems being designed for the navy and Air Force which are expected to be be fielded over the next few years, with the most powerful versions coming on stream around 2025-2030, around the same time that hypersonic missiles are likely to appear on the battlefield. So it is likely that China's hypersonic capability will not be any bigger of a threat than any other capability their military possesses.

Also, crazywok, the Space Shuttle did not hold back NASA, 40 years of budget cuts did that, and the fact that there were only two disasters out of hundreds of shuttle missions is a pretty good safety record for something as complex as the space shuttle IMO.

China's hypersonic missile is not the threat they make it out to be. First unlike the US,Russia and India who built a hypersonic missile that can fly meters above the ocean.The Chinese achieve this through orbital reentry. They basically put a glider on an ICBM and said look a hypersonic missile. The reason for this is they cant make a guidance system allowing the missile to travel at that speed over water etc. Now the reason i say this isnt the threat they make it out to be is simple we have satellites which detect launches into orbit. Meaning by the time this thing starts reentry the entire Chinese fleet could be gone using hypersonic cruise missiles. And on reentry hitting a fixed target is one thing a moving carrier or ship quite another all i know is they better put a nuke in it Or youll see alot of them splashing down into water.

dragonridr
Ill agree never got to do what it was truly designed for. Its real purpose was to shuttle people back and forth from several space stations NASA wanted to build. So instead it just became a rocket sad really.

Please explain, with some reason, how it was "just a rocket"? Have you studied up on what that "just a rocket" accomplished for our Space program after all these decades? If you have, then present it?

Some folks are so easily influenced into supporting such slander against the United States of America. There are so many reasons why people despise us, but the result is that most likely those that we elected to represent us all, have contributed to those reasons. At the end of the day, those people do not represent us my friends. Most of them, were purchased decades ago by the internationalists.

Also, Not that we don't question NASA, cause we do, as we all do all the time here on ATS. However, One has to consider all the spin, distortion, division and lies that are spread in order to keep any kind of truth, or any kind of ambitious effort from being recognized when it's all said and done.

Somewhere, we Americans were hijacked by liars and scoundrels. Somewhere my friends, we all lost our backbone to fight against them. ~$heopleNation

SheopleNation

dragonridr
Ill agree never got to do what it was truly designed for. Its real purpose was to shuttle people back and forth from several space stations NASA wanted to build. So instead it just became a rocket sad really.

Please explain, with some reason, how it was "just a rocket"? Have you studied up on what that "just a rocket" accomplished for our Space program after all these decades? If you have, then present it?

Some folks are so easily influenced into supporting such slander against the United States of America. There are so many reasons why people despise us, but the result is that most likely those that we elected to represent us all, have contributed to those reasons. At the end of the day, those people do not represent us my friends. Most of them, were purchased decades ago by the internationalists.

Also, Not that we don't question NASA, cause we do, as we all do all the time here on ATS. However, One has to consider all the spin, distortion, division and lies that are spread in order to keep any kind of truth, or any kind of ambitious effort from being recognized when it's all said and done.

Somewhere, we Americans were hijacked by liars and scoundrels. Somewhere my friends, we all lost our backbone to fight against them. ~$heopleNation

edit on 3-2-2014 by SheopleNation because: TypO

Rant much? Anyway the shuttles was original designed to support a space based population. NASA planned to set up a couple of space stations including one for assembly of a rocket to go to mars. But after Apollo there budget was cut to less then 1 percent gdp while during Apollo it was 4 percent. The shuttle was supposed to be the first piece to a much larger space program. Or as Nixon said when he announced it.

This system will center on a space vehicle that can shuttle repeatedly from Earth to orbit and back. It will revolutionize transportation into near space, by routinizing it. It will take the astronomical costs out of astronautics. In short, it will go a long way toward delivering the rich benefits of practical space utilization and the valuable spinoffs from space efforts into the daily lives of Americans and all people.

It was supposed to make it routine like catching a bus or subway it was envisioned to have turn around times of a week and was even originally designed with the idea of launching from a plane into orbit. So in the end it became the rocket just like Apollo in fact no need to design the shuttle for what it turned out to be used for. Should have built a space station and shuttled people like the Russians did. In the end the shuttle actually hindered the space program. Had they not gone there we would probably been to mars by now. Since it was originally planed for the 1980s but i think the shuttle became an albatross to NASA.

nwtrucker
reply to post by crazyewok

 

Where did you get twice as much to run?? The whole point of reusable vehicles was it cost less per trip.

Personally, I wouldn't hitch a ride in either of them....

Lol i already posted a link that shows the costs!

The shuttle was nealy double the cost to send 1kg to leo than almost anything else!

It was so maintince heavy the upkeep costs completly shot past any advantages of its reuseability,