Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Army Vintage Racer Concept Suggests Hypersonic Entry For Loitering UAS

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 78 posts

Re: U.S. Army Vintage Racer Concept Suggests Hypersonic Entry For Loitering UAS

#31

Post by kragen »

praveen9920 wrote: post #19

Current cruise missiles are optimised for long range but not for final target accuracy, they actually use onboard offline terrain data to cruise to their target. Accuracy of 99% is considered bad as it might mean collateral damage. Also final target is predefined and aborting or changing target is non-trivial. With these so called "suicide drones", human operators can actions based on current situation, like, pinpoin…

> It occurred to me that if I could invent a machine – a gun – which could by its rapidity of fire, enable one man to do as much battle duty as a hundred, that it would, to a large extent supersede the necessity of large armies, and consequently, exposure to battle and disease [would] be greatly diminished.

— Dr. Richard Jordan Gatling

Re: U.S. Army Vintage Racer Concept Suggests Hypersonic Entry For Loitering UAS

#32

Post by AlanSE »

praveen9920 wrote: post #19

Current cruise missiles are optimised for long range but not for final target accuracy, they actually use onboard offline terrain data to cruise to their target. Accuracy of 99% is considered bad as it might mean collateral damage. Also final target is predefined and aborting or changing target is non-trivial. With these so called "suicide drones", human operators can actions based on current situation, like, pinpoin…

So what you're saying is that two-way communication right up until the final strike is kind of a recent thing? I wouldn't argue with the value of that, but most people don't really have the proper context to evaluate.

Re: U.S. Army Vintage Racer Concept Suggests Hypersonic Entry For Loitering UAS

#33

Post by badRNG »

est31 wrote: post #30
kragen wrote: post #18

As I understand it, my grandfather helped to develop a suicide drone that got to its target area at hypersonic speed in the late 1950s. For the Pentagon. It was called the Minuteman ICBM, and it entered service in 1962. Is it possible to get a less misleading title on this article than "Pentagon Has Tested A Suicide Drone That Gets To Its Target Area At Hypersonic Speed"?

The B in ICBM stands for ballistic. That means they are mainly bound by gravity for most of their travel. Hypersonic drones on the other hand are far more steerable. Curious droid has a great video on the difference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0t06EkZJcM

Maybe a better comparison would be an AMRAAM? They are essentially mini-drones at this point anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM

Re: U.S. Army Vintage Racer Concept Suggests Hypersonic Entry For Loitering UAS

#34

Post by johnghanks »

kragen wrote: post #27
garmaine wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be misleading to call an ICBM a drone.

It would be even more misleading to say an ICBM wasn't a drone, but that the "Vintage Racer" munition was a drone. As the article points out, some "drones" have better survivability than ICBMs do, but those aren't the ones the article is about.

You are being so pedantic it's not even funny. An ICBM isn't a drone in _any_ sense of the word.

Re: U.S. Army Vintage Racer Concept Suggests Hypersonic Entry For Loitering UAS

#35

Post by kragen »

AlanSE wrote: post #29
kragen wrote: post #18

As I understand it, my grandfather helped to develop a suicide drone that got to its target area at hypersonic speed in the late 1950s. For the Pentagon. It was called the Minuteman ICBM, and it entered service in 1962. Is it possible to get a less misleading title on this article than "Pentagon Has Tested A Suicide Drone That Gets To Its Target Area At Hypersonic Speed"?

The word "loitering" distinguishes it pretty far from that. It's also important that, unlike ICBMs, this is positioned to be something which would be used in more than theory.

ICBMs were definitely intended to be used more than in theory in the 1950s; they likely will be if we aren't careful. Modern drones make them obsolete, of course, but some combatants are likely to have only ICBMs.

Loitering missiles date back to the 1980s, 30 or 40 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loitering_munition

Re: U.S. Army Vintage Racer Concept Suggests Hypersonic Entry For Loitering UAS

#36

Post by irjustin »

kragen wrote: post #18

As I understand it, my grandfather helped to develop a suicide drone that got to its target area at hypersonic speed in the late 1950s. For the Pentagon. It was called the Minuteman ICBM, and it entered service in 1962. Is it possible to get a less misleading title on this article than "Pentagon Has Tested A Suicide Drone That Gets To Its Target Area At Hypersonic Speed"?

Not sure why you're fighting so hard on this w/ other replies.

How is the title misleading? The attack vehicle falls within the definition of a drone and the article is reporting on its hypersonic ability.

Sure you could claim an ICBM is a drone (I don't agree, but that doesn't seem to matter), but why try exclude this from that label?

Weird hill to die on just to include your grandfather's story.

Re: U.S. Army Vintage Racer Concept Suggests Hypersonic Entry For Loitering UAS

#37

Post by kragen »

johnghanks wrote: post #34
kragen wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be even more misleading to say an ICBM wasn't a drone, but that the "Vintage Racer" munition was a drone. As the article points out, some "drones" have better survivability than ICBMs do, but those aren't the ones the article is about.

You are being so pedantic it's not even funny. An ICBM isn't a drone in _any_ sense of the word.

I'm not being pedantic. You're talking nonsense.

Re: U.S. Army Vintage Racer Concept Suggests Hypersonic Entry For Loitering UAS

#38

Post by [deleted] »

irjustin wrote: post #36
kragen wrote: post #18

As I understand it, my grandfather helped to develop a suicide drone that got to its target area at hypersonic speed in the late 1950s. For the Pentagon. It was called the Minuteman ICBM, and it entered service in 1962. Is it possible to get a less misleading title on this article than "Pentagon Has Tested A Suicide Drone That Gets To Its Target Area At Hypersonic Speed"?

Not sure why you're fighting so hard on this w/ other replies. How is the title misleading? The attack vehicle falls within the definition of a drone and the article is reporting on its hypersonic ability. Sure you could claim an ICBM is a drone (I don't agree, but that doesn't seem to matter), but why try exclude this from that label? Weird hill to die on just to include your grandfather's story.

[deleted]

Re: U.S. Army Vintage Racer Concept Suggests Hypersonic Entry For Loitering UAS

#39

Post by dang »

kragen wrote: post #18

As I understand it, my grandfather helped to develop a suicide drone that got to its target area at hypersonic speed in the late 1950s. For the Pentagon. It was called the Minuteman ICBM, and it entered service in 1962. Is it possible to get a less misleading title on this article than "Pentagon Has Tested A Suicide Drone That Gets To Its Target Area At Hypersonic Speed"?

We can use the title from https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/missile-defense-weapo..., which is the article this one is lifting from. I'd change the URL also, but it seems to be hard paywalled.

Re: U.S. Army Vintage Racer Concept Suggests Hypersonic Entry For Loitering UAS

#40

Post by ra7 »

praveen9920 wrote: post #19

Current cruise missiles are optimised for long range but not for final target accuracy, they actually use onboard offline terrain data to cruise to their target. Accuracy of 99% is considered bad as it might mean collateral damage. Also final target is predefined and aborting or changing target is non-trivial. With these so called "suicide drones", human operators can actions based on current situation, like, pinpoin…

Missiles like Brahmos or P800 Oniks (on which the former is based) have 1-1.5 meter CEP accuracy. They can also hit a moving target using mid course navigation. They are accurate alright, though a bit overkill for scenarios where drone attacks could be used. Agreed with rest of the points.
Post reply on HN