Posted on 03/17/2021 9:02:15 AM PDT by Roman_War_Criminal
Will they name it the “Kraken”?
“Science fiction”
No, FR humor
Yes,this puppy is so fast that Obama wouldn’t have had time to worn of his imminent strike list so the enemy could chain hostages to the target, like he did in his bombing of ISIS targets.
No. I’ll bite.
Advanced weapons like a hypersonic missile could destroy a nation, regardless of how many "rational men...willing to make the ultimate sacrifice" we have -- witness the A-bomb on suicidally fanatic Japan in 1945.
That's the reason we must stay ahead of the technological curve.
How do you know? Are you a fan of Leik Maraibo? How about Paul La Violette?
The trick is to make it long, thin, and have control of the boundary layer.
100 years ago, Oscar Schrenk and Ludwig Prandtl showed that supersonic control of the boundary layer would yield 8x increase in lift coefficient.
To put it in terms of velocity:
The drag due to uncontrolled turbulent layer viscosity boundary layer in supersonic (let alone hypersonic) craft went up with the CUBE of velocity.
You wanna increase 2X velocity? You need 2^3 more power to overcome drag. You want 3x, you need (3x)^3 which is 27X more power to overcome drag. You want 4X velocity, —> (4X)^3 is 64X more power to overcome the drag.
Folks started talkin’ about a “sound barrier”.
The trick was to control the boundary layer so that not so much drag builds up, in such a way that (2x)^3 was more like 2.5X more power, and 3X ^3 was more like 3.8 X more power, and (4x)^3 was more like 5.5X more power. Eminently doable in 1945 Boundary Layer Control technology.
It was germans who focused on suction for boundary layer control in the 1920’s and 1930’s. They almost came to fruition by the end of the war but.... the Allies won the war.
2 years later you see Suction Boundary Layer Control experimental aircraft all over US air bases across the nation. Some of them even crash.
Naw... there's much better ways.
First, you need ion propulsion to generate a sub-space warp field and using sequenced teleported deflector shields to prevent drag on plasma projectiles, accuracy is guaranteed by locking in teleportation coordinates and then beaming up Scotty to keep him out of the way.
One is a hollow cylinder, the other is a silly Hollander...
The BC is a comparison of a bullet to a model bullet, the model is a 1.0.
G1 us a model based on a 1 caliber diameter, 1 caliber bearing surface and a two caliber tangent ogive (pronounced O Gee).
G7 is a boatailed bullet more like modern designs.
Better yet is drag coefficient, a purely mathematical model based in modern ballistic formulae.
Anyway, a missile is not ballistic in the bullet sense, as it is powered throughout its trajectory until some point perhaps....
Having spent decades in aerospace, and being a precision loader/shooter, I don’t disagree with what you say. The issue was the article implies the missing part of the test is a hypersonic ‘glider’. Not much point in having the glider if it takes the powered rocket to get you halfway round the globe to the target.
Perhaps the terminal aspect us the easy part. Getting a HS vehicle to destroy itself may be the critical aspect....
Sure.
“It’s too phallic. We should make ring-shaped missiles.
It’s a man spreading missile.
The designers must go to immediate sensitivity training and re design the shape of the missile.
Give it a less male look, more inclusive .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.