Pentagon tests hypersonic weapon.

PMKeates said:
Yes but an SSBN and a hypersonic cruise missile both have a very similar intention i.e. to deliver ordnance from somewhere on the surface to somewhere else on the surface. The Shuttle and the SR-71 do not, in fact the Shuttle isn't really fast at all; it uses enormous rocket boosters to get up, has hardly any resistances when mooching around, and then mavity to get back down.
Click to expand...

the shuttle is incredibly fast makes the black bird look like a hyundai getz in comparison.
 
Hitman_Leon said:
Also not very good in a lot of situations of long term care, friend of mine needs two new knees from being injured when ejecting, the best the US authorties can offer is pain management.

In the UK its not ideal when charities need to help, too many cases where soldiers are left without what they need until someone raises hell in the media, if we can spend so much on weapons we should also give soldiers every care they need.
Click to expand...

I have never had any cause for complaint. I was treated prior to H4H and while the NHS has it's problems, it is not as bad as the media tries to make out.

There are plenty of State funded benefits for ex-Servicemen in the UK who are wounded or medically discharged, of course there is alway room for improvement, but to suggest they are routinely ignored or their care is somehow deficent is a little wide of the mark. Most of the issues are with poor communication and help with claiming what is available.

Like I said, Charities such as H4H and the British Legion work in partnership with the State and are partially funded by the state in the form of grants and tax benefits etc....

On a side note, I don't think people realise just how many injured sevicemen there are, all people talk about are the one who sadly do not come home, many more are wounded sometimes permanently. And I think this gets overlooked. Charities pick up the specialist slack that the NHS simply isn't designed to deal with, and so I think it is disingenuous to suggest that having such facilities funded by donations and grants is not ideal. In many ways it allows the money to be targeted specifically and the right expertise and treatment given without the bureaucracy of the NHS getting in the way.


Also lets not forget that better, more advanced and reliable weaponry and equipment can also contribute to Soldiers overall safety and survival.
 
Last edited:
Von Smallhausen said:
The Americans seem to be twitchy about the new anti carrier missile the Chinese are developing.
Click to expand...

The DF-21D's nothing new really. It's simply a tactical ballistic missile fitted with a radar seeker, and ballistic missile's are something the Americans have been working for a long time to counter, with weapons such as SM-3, Patriot (Ok, the first gen Patriot didn't do so well in 1991 against Iraqi Scuds, but the new generation PAC-3 is a whole different animal) and the new THAAD system.
 
PMKeates said:
Yes but an SSBN and a hypersonic cruise missile both have a very similar intention i.e. to deliver ordnance from somewhere on the surface to somewhere else on the surface. The Shuttle and the SR-71 do not, in fact the Shuttle isn't really fast at all; it uses enormous rocket boosters to get up, has hardly any resistances when mooching around, and then mavity to get back down.
Click to expand...

That a very basic view of ssbn and the hypersonic cruise missile. SSBN is there to provide a nuclear deterent, it seems the hypersonic missile will be used to for rapid reaction using conventional warheads.
 
The Funktopus said:
The DF-21D's nothing new really. It's simply a tactical ballistic missile fitted with a radar seeker, and ballistic missile's are something the Americans have been working for a long time to counter, with weapons such as SM-3, Patriot (Ok, the first gen Patriot didn't do so well in 1991 against Iraqi Scuds, but the new generation PAC-3 is a whole different animal) and the new THAAD system.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Thanks.
 
Russia next missile defence is going to be effective against hyper ballistic missiles.
How is it going to be able to achieve that. Or is it just going to be brute force and long as it detonates in a large proximity, the shrapnel will just shred it?
 
Glaucus said:
Russia next missile defence is going to be effective against hyper ballistic missiles.
How is it going to be able to achieve that. Or is it just going to be brute force and long as it detonates in a large proximity, the shrapnel will just shred it?
Click to expand...

that's one thing i don't get al lthe missile defence things seems to be pretty much a bang on hit you'd think exploding a big cloud of tungsten cubes in front of it, that make say a 7 ft sphere of shrapnel by the time the target reaches the cloud would shred the hell out of it given the speeds the missile is going.
 
arknor said:
rail guns have been around for ages they just dont have the materials to make them so they wont tear them selfs apart after a few shots
Click to expand...

i don't think that's it, I'm sure it's something to do with the capacitors or just tuning it up.

iirc their current one has just fired it's 1,000th shot.
 
He problem is power source and portability. Currently they are useless because of those two things. They are pretty simple and reliable.
 
they're being designed for ships by the Us navy acid, power source and portability aren't really issues.


the reduction in ammo size alone saves huge amounts of space, including being able to use a simplified loading system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom