111–120 of 212 posts
Is it just me or has the Pentagon and the complex largely replaced the word "soldier" with "warfighter"? Feel like I've seen it a lot lately and I'm not sure what the change implies
Is it just me or has the Pentagon and the complex largely replaced the word "soldier" with "warfighter"? Feel like I've seen it a lot lately and I'm not sure what the change implies
It's meant to be a blanket term to satisfy categorization from rifle carrying traditional soldiers to drone pilots in an Idaho parking lot.
> The HAWC vehicle operates best in oxygen-rich atmosphere, where speed and maneuverability make it difficult to detect in a timely way. I'm reasonably sure that the infrared trace of a hypersonic vehicle doesn't make it difficult to detect. Likewise existing approaches to radar stealth are hard to reconcile with hypersonic speeds, which doesn't help avoid radar detection either.
Isn't the point of these weapons that even if you can detect them they are too fast to intercept?
No. They still travel far slower than ballistic missiles. Their advantages are in being able to fly low and (theoretically) manoeuvre to avoid interceptors.
They’re an evolution of cruise missiles, not strategic ballistic missiles.
Is it just me or has the Pentagon and the complex largely replaced the word "soldier" with "warfighter"? Feel like I've seen it a lot lately and I'm not sure what the change implies
> replaced the word "soldier" with "warfighter" Technically, only the Army has soldiers. The non-exclusionary term used to be “men and women in uniform,” but that got tired, so I guess we get “warfighters” now.
DARPA has such a list of impressive, world wide useful technologies that wouldn't have been able to be created without funding from the government at the time given the time and money and at time, unlikeliness to be successful [0]. It really sucks that there's a 'D' for 'Defense' at the front of the acronym. Their website says they're "creating breakthrough technologies and capabilities for national security". Horrib…
Not to be a Debbie Downer, but functional Scramjet technology does very little for humanity outside of defense. As is the case with most of what DARPA funds, no? If that wasn't the case, then the market itself would be chasing the technology. Like, what would this be useful for? I guess I'm just fundamentally questioning what you mean when you say 'human progress'. I assume you mean it more in terms of improvement as…
> The HAWC vehicle operates best in oxygen-rich atmosphere, where speed and maneuverability make it difficult to detect in a timely way. I'm reasonably sure that the infrared trace of a hypersonic vehicle doesn't make it difficult to detect. Likewise existing approaches to radar stealth are hard to reconcile with hypersonic speeds, which doesn't help avoid radar detection either.
Isn't the point of these weapons that even if you can detect them they are too fast to intercept?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't the point of these weapons that even if you can detect them they are too fast to intercept?
> even if you can detect them they are too fast to intercept? No. They still travel far slower than ballistic missiles. Their advantages are in being able to fly low and (theoretically) manoeuvre to avoid interceptors. They’re an evolution of cruise missiles, not strategic ballistic missiles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to be a Debbie Downer, but functional Scramjet technology does very little for humanity outside of defense. As is the case with most of what DARPA funds, no? If that wasn't the case, then the market itself would be chasing the technology. Like, what would this be useful for? I guess I'm just fundamentally questioning what you mean when you say 'human progress'. I assume you mean it more in terms of improvement as…
Shrinking the world would be a good use of it if we could get it to work for commercial air travel (and if we solve the sonic boom problem, but that's another issue a different part of government is working on)
Take rockets for instance. Technology had to catch up to make them commercially viable to develop before they were commercially viable to operate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Announcing breakthrough, surprising even, HAWC tech seems to clue in opponents about what sorts of countermeasures they'd want to start developing. It's pretty hard to hide hypersonic devices these days, and the concept is not exactly a secret: Russia and China are testing devices, and multiple other countries are working on developing their own.
Russia is not really testing devices per se anymore, they are preparing for mass production of hypersonic air breathing missiles. We don't know too much as for China.
...or so they say. Of course they've been preparing for mass production of T-14 and Su-57 for quite some time now. Any day now they'll get them, I'm sure...