Hypersonic weapons are the top US military research priority

Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Dr. Michael Griffin’s top priority is hypersonic weapons.

The urgency for hypersonic weapons is because of a growing capability gap the American military seeks to close and the very real risk that China and Russia may field hypersonic technology in advance of the United States.

Hypersonic weapons travel faster than 3,600 miles per hour (6 miles per second, 5 or more times faster than the speed of sound) and currently, no military possesses a credible defense.

For years, the Department of Defense treated hypersonics like a mildly interesting science project—spending just enough to keep the concept alive, but too little to realize any operational capability. Today DARPA and the Air Force are leading the way with key industry partners on contracts to develop operational capabilities. Lockheed Martin has been awarded over a billion dollars in contracts to develop two hypersonic weapons and DARPA is soliciting ideas for a “Glide Breaker” hypersonic missile defense system. Aerojet Rocketdyne, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing also are engaged in this realm.

73 thoughts on “Hypersonic weapons are the top US military research priority”

  1. Yes, he says that. In terms of gadgets. He is not a guy who likes to rank order “top five”, but knows people like lists. BTW, he is not just responsible for gadgets (called technology-focused). He also covers mission-focused and in that arena, a fully networked command is “no.1”. Overriding all of this is, I think, is his top priority of getting to “market” faster, or as he says “innovation cycle time to sustain technological superiority”. I’ve been fortunate to hear him in person several times, and he doesn’t hammer home the tech, he constantly talks about busting organizational silos and sloth. I’m biased, but he is probably the best manager the DoD has ever had, apart from his boss. I never said he does psy-ops. Just that the Pentagon does. Remember the Star Wars program? A “R&D” program disguised as psy-ops.

  2. Yes he says that. In terms of gadgets. He is not a guy who likes to rank order top five””” but knows people like lists. BTW he is not just responsible for gadgets (called technology-focused). He also covers mission-focused and in that arena”” a fully networked command is “”””no.1″”””. Overriding all of this is”” I think”” is his top priority of getting to “”””market”””” faster”””” or as he says “”””innovation cycle time to sustain technological superiority””””. I’ve been fortunate to hear him in person several times”” and he doesn’t hammer home the tech he constantly talks about busting organizational silos and sloth. I’m biased but he is probably the best manager the DoD has ever had”” apart from his boss. I never said he does psy-ops. Just that the Pentagon does. Remember the Star Wars program? A “”””R&D”””” program disguised as psy-ops.”””

  3. Yes, he says that. In terms of gadgets. He is not a guy who likes to rank order “top five”, but knows people like lists. BTW, he is not just responsible for gadgets (called technology-focused). He also covers mission-focused and in that arena, a fully networked command is “no.1”. Overriding all of this is, I think, is his top priority of getting to “market” faster, or as he says “innovation cycle time to sustain technological superiority”. I’ve been fortunate to hear him in person several times, and he doesn’t hammer home the tech, he constantly talks about busting organizational silos and sloth. I’m biased, but he is probably the best manager the DoD has ever had, apart from his boss. I never said he does psy-ops. Just that the Pentagon does. Remember the Star Wars program? A “R&D” program disguised as psy-ops.

  4. Yes he says that. In terms of gadgets. He is not a guy who likes to rank order top five””” but knows people like lists. BTW he is not just responsible for gadgets (called technology-focused). He also covers mission-focused and in that arena”” a fully networked command is “”””no.1″”””. Overriding all of this is”” I think”” is his top priority of getting to “”””market”””” faster”””” or as he says “”””innovation cycle time to sustain technological superiority””””. I’ve been fortunate to hear him in person several times”” and he doesn’t hammer home the tech he constantly talks about busting organizational silos and sloth. I’m biased but he is probably the best manager the DoD has ever had”” apart from his boss. I never said he does psy-ops. Just that the Pentagon does. Remember the Star Wars program? A “”””R&D”””” program disguised as psy-ops.”””

  5. Yes, he says that. In terms of gadgets. He is not a guy who likes to rank order “top five”, but knows people like lists. BTW, he is not just responsible for gadgets (called technology-focused). He also covers mission-focused and in that arena, a fully networked command is “no.1”. Overriding all of this is, I think, is his top priority of getting to “market” faster, or as he says “innovation cycle time to sustain technological superiority”. I’ve been fortunate to hear him in person several times, and he doesn’t hammer home the tech, he constantly talks about busting organizational silos and sloth. I’m biased, but he is probably the best manager the DoD has ever had, apart from his boss.

    I never said he does psy-ops. Just that the Pentagon does. Remember the Star Wars program? A “R&D” program disguised as psy-ops.

  6. Hypersonic flight is defined as the point at which the leading edge shock and the boundary layer thermal and pressure profiles become coupled.

  7. Hypersonic flight is defined as the point at which the leading edge shock and the boundary layer thermal and pressure profiles become coupled.

  8. This entire thing is FUNNY to people actually in this industry because you have no idea how many small subcontractors get business from Boeing and Northrup Grumman. I read this and I can just tell that none of you know how this works, because you just vomit all this anti-corporate rhetoric with little tidbits that demonstrate you don’t have working knowledge of how this industry operates. It’s not even worth my time to deconstruct all the small ways your edgy, Dystopian world view is childishly oversimplified. Stay edgy, edgelord.

  9. This entire thing is FUNNY to people actually in this industry because you have no idea how many small subcontractors get business from Boeing and Northrup Grumman. I read this and I can just tell that none of you know how this works because you just vomit all this anti-corporate rhetoric with little tidbits that demonstrate you don’t have working knowledge of how this industry operates. It’s not even worth my time to deconstruct all the small ways your edgy Dystopian world view is childishly oversimplified. Stay edgy edgelord.

  10. Nobody has ever thought that “shooting down a satellite” meant GEO. We will always assume it means LEO. China has also publicly tested a satellite shootdown. I don’t know why you think this is so hard. ICBMs’ apogee is 750mi, that’s so much higher than LEO. Altitude is not hard. Precision is.

  11. Nobody has ever thought that shooting down a satellite”” meant GEO. We will always assume it means LEO. China has also publicly tested a satellite shootdown. I don’t know why you think this is so hard. ICBMs’ apogee is 750mi”””” that’s so much higher than LEO. Altitude is not hard. Precision is.”””

  12. had hypersonics” as in a one-off vehicle that burns itself out and collects telemetry, and “has hypersonics” as in an air breathing hypersonic fighter aircraft are two very different things.

  13. had hypersonics”” as in a one-off vehicle that burns itself out and collects telemetry”””” and “”””has hypersonics”””” as in an air breathing hypersonic fighter aircraft are two very different things.”””

  14. First, the headline says that because he literally said it: The impending promise of hypersonic weapons is so great that Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Dr. Michael Griffin recently explained: “I’m sorry for everybody out there who champions some other high priority, some technical thing; it’s not that I disagree with those. But there has to be a first [priority], and hypersonics is my first.”” Second: the Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering won’t really deal with “weaponizing media and finance”.

  15. First the headline says that because he literally said it:The impending promise of hypersonic weapons is so great that Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Dr. Michael Griffin recently explained: “I’m sorry for everybody out there who champions some other high priority some technical thing; it’s not that I disagree with those. But there has to be a first [priority] and hypersonics is my first.”Second: the Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering won’t really deal with “”weaponizing media and finance””””.”””””””

  16. This entire thing is FUNNY to people actually in this industry because you have no idea how many small subcontractors get business from Boeing and Northrup Grumman. I read this and I can just tell that none of you know how this works, because you just vomit all this anti-corporate rhetoric with little tidbits that demonstrate you don’t have working knowledge of how this industry operates. It’s not even worth my time to deconstruct all the small ways your edgy, Dystopian world view is childishly oversimplified. Stay edgy, edgelord.

  17. Nobody has ever thought that “shooting down a satellite” meant GEO. We will always assume it means LEO. China has also publicly tested a satellite shootdown. I don’t know why you think this is so hard. ICBMs’ apogee is 750mi, that’s so much higher than LEO. Altitude is not hard. Precision is.

  18. “had hypersonics” as in a one-off vehicle that burns itself out and collects telemetry, and “has hypersonics” as in an air breathing hypersonic fighter aircraft are two very different things.

  19. First, the headline says that because he literally said it:

    The impending promise of hypersonic weapons is so great that Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Dr. Michael Griffin recently explained: “I’m sorry for everybody out there who champions some other high priority, some technical thing; it’s not that I disagree with those. But there has to be a first [priority], and hypersonics is my first.””

    Second: the Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering won’t really deal with “weaponizing media and finance”.

  20. Pentagon is making the same of ill decisions they made in WWII, Korea and Vietnam, they think the enemy is stupid, alcoholic, lazy or coward, this mistakes were overridden with many lives and excess of equipment and economic pain for all the citizens. The way decisions are taken and the cost of future developments is creating a big risk for the nation, cheaper, better,smarter is the way, if Pentagon is not able to modify their model we all will be in trouble.

  21. Pentagon is making the same of ill decisions they made in WWII Korea and Vietnam they think the enemy is stupid alcoholic lazy or coward this mistakes were overridden with many lives and excess of equipment and economic pain for all the citizens.The way decisions are taken and the cost of future developments is creating a big risk for the nation cheaper bettersmarter is the way if Pentagon is not able to modify their model we all will be in trouble.

  22. The arms race has been going on since there were arms. From stone clubs to trebuchets to hypersonics. The Pentagon (and other weapons-oriented US users) has finally put all the R&D under one roof. Griffin’s budget ($75bn or thereabouts) alone would qualify as the 3rd largest country military spend in the world (after US and China, though KSA comes in close 4th). I wouldn’t say hypersonics is his top priority, but one of them. His main priority is addressing the time-to-market and cost problem, not gadgets. Plenty of gadgets, but costly (which is inherent in a low-production volume business) to wait so long, ie net present value. Given all the tech-orientation of defense systems, many forget that the weapon with the highest return doesn’t fire any bullets. It’s psychological and financial warfare, weaponizing media and finance. This is another area that, finally, the Pentagon is being melded into.

  23. The arms race has been going on since there were arms. From stone clubs to trebuchets to hypersonics. The Pentagon (and other weapons-oriented US users) has finally put all the R&D under one roof. Griffin’s budget ($75bn or thereabouts) alone would qualify as the 3rd largest country military spend in the world (after US and China though KSA comes in close 4th). I wouldn’t say hypersonics is his top priority but one of them. His main priority is addressing the time-to-market and cost problem not gadgets. Plenty of gadgets but costly (which is inherent in a low-production volume business) to wait so long ie net present value.Given all the tech-orientation of defense systems many forget that the weapon with the highest return doesn’t fire any bullets. It’s psychological and financial warfare weaponizing media and finance. This is another area that finally the Pentagon is being melded into.

  24. Pentagon is making the same of ill decisions they made in WWII, Korea and Vietnam, they think the enemy is stupid, alcoholic, lazy or coward, this mistakes were overridden with many lives and excess of equipment and economic pain for all the citizens.

    The way decisions are taken and the cost of future developments is creating a big risk for the nation, cheaper, better,smarter is the way, if Pentagon is not able to modify their model we all will be in trouble.

  25. The arms race has been going on since there were arms. From stone clubs to trebuchets to hypersonics. The Pentagon (and other weapons-oriented US users) has finally put all the R&D under one roof. Griffin’s budget ($75bn or thereabouts) alone would qualify as the 3rd largest country military spend in the world (after US and China, though KSA comes in close 4th).

    I wouldn’t say hypersonics is his top priority, but one of them. His main priority is addressing the time-to-market and cost problem, not gadgets. Plenty of gadgets, but costly (which is inherent in a low-production volume business) to wait so long, ie net present value.

    Given all the tech-orientation of defense systems, many forget that the weapon with the highest return doesn’t fire any bullets. It’s psychological and financial warfare, weaponizing media and finance. This is another area that, finally, the Pentagon is being melded into.

  26. But Europe doesn’t many weapons, does it? If Russia would decide to roll into Europe there is not much any of the countries could do except to decide on a trade embargo. The one notable exception would be the UK, which does have a few systems (but not even 10% of what the US have).

  27. But Europe doesn’t many weapons does it? If Russia would decide to roll into Europe there is not much any of the countries could do except to decide on a trade embargo. The one notable exception would be the UK which does have a few systems (but not even 10{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of what the US have).

  28. I think what Thomas Mazanec is protesting is the following quote: “…3,600 miles per hour (6 miles per second, 5 or more times faster than the speed of sound)…” 3600 miles per hour is not 6 miles per second.

  29. I think what Thomas Mazanec is protesting is the following quote:…3600 miles per hour (6 miles per second” 5 or more times faster than the speed of sound)…””3600 miles per hour is not 6 miles per second.”””

  30. The continuation of fear messaging about phony enemies to take more billions from our treasury by the Defense Establishment…especially Boeing, Lockheed & NASA. War is incredibly profitable.

  31. The continuation of fear messaging about phony enemies to take more billions from our treasury by the Defense Establishment…especially Boeing Lockheed & NASA. War is incredibly profitable.

  32. Ya, I have always found that the myth of Russia and China being able to shoot down US satellites funny. Currently, the max range of any weapon capable of doing such (AA systems like the S-400) are about 400km, operationally probably closer to 300) GEO satellites can be thousands of kms up and are almost untouchable., even a LEO sat is about 200-500km up, meaning they can only hit a sat that is within a 200km radius if its in lower LEO above the launcher and such a target is travelling 18,000km per hour at a min providing a 2 minute firing window. Any use of nukes in space to take out sats would be highly indiscriminate and like destroy a lot of their own.

  33. Ya I have always found that the myth of Russia and China being able to shoot down US satellites funny. Currently the max range of any weapon capable of doing such (AA systems like the S-400) are about 400km operationally probably closer to 300) GEO satellites can be thousands of kms up and are almost untouchable. even a LEO sat is about 200-500km up meaning they can only hit a sat that is within a 200km radius if its in lower LEO above the launcher and such a target is travelling 18000km per hour at a min providing a 2 minute firing window. Any use of nukes in space to take out sats would be highly indiscriminate and like destroy a lot of their own.

  34. I actually took the time to draft a longish reply, then before posting, I just erased it. The reason is that my main objections to what you wrote, are not very accurate, nor for that matter is what you wrote all that wrong. … “The US (has a) propensity to initiate wars of aggression against nations with much weaker militaries, or even none at all. ” My numeric thought: comparing the № 1 world military AND № 1 economy against any other nation-state is one of “big vs smaller”. The real objection though is the US doesn’t really have a propensity to wage wars until either ‘the situation’ needs rapid significant response, or where a growing threat is running unabated. … “ The US even “wars” with organizations (it has) created, (eg) Al Qaeda, and ISIL. Known as “controlled opposition”, until some nation (like Russia) destroys them in a tiny fraction of the time the US fought them previously. ” Umm… last I heard, the Russians have been notably unable to “destroy them in a tiny fraction of the time”. Indeed, their Vietnam was Afghanistan. They continue to grapple and wrangle with the Chechans. … “The last powerful nation the US fought was Adolf Hitler’s Germany. Russia and China are (played) as boogie men that frighten the public, but are not (militarily) attacked because they (can seriously) fight back. ” I think that part is right — perhaps with both Korea and Vietnam being in the lineup of powerful nations, both proxies for China’s Communist Southeast Asian geopolitical aims. … “Research on hypersonic missiles transfer wealth (from military) to corporations’ cronies and grafting congress. This transfer (requires) little working hardware, and (independent) entrepreneurs cannot win the business, since research is not a commodity like a satellite launches.” Perhaps. I think the research is a necessary foil against the widely reported and much ballyhooed similar research appearing in the media (and you can be sure: ascertained years-to-decades prior, by e

  35. I actually took the time to draft a longish reply then before posting I just erased it. The reason is that my main objections to what you wrote are not very accurate nor for that matter is what you wrote all that wrong. … “The US (has a) propensity to initiate wars of aggression against nations with much weaker militaries or even none at all. ”My numeric thought: comparing the № 1 world military AND № 1 economy against any other nation-state is one of big vs smaller””. The real objection though is the US doesn’t really have a propensity to wage wars until either ‘the situation’ needs rapid significant response”””” or where a growing threat is running unabated. … “ The US even “”””wars”””” with organizations (it has) created”” (eg) Al Qaeda”” and ISIL. Known as “”””controlled opposition”””””” until some nation (like Russia) destroys them in a tiny fraction of the time the US fought them previously. ”Umm… last I heard the Russians have been notably unable to “destroy them in a tiny fraction of the time”. Indeed their Vietnam was Afghanistan. They continue to grapple and wrangle with the Chechans. … “The last powerful nation the US fought was Adolf Hitler’s Germany. Russia and China are (played) as boogie men that frighten the public but are not (militarily) attacked because they (can seriously) fight back. ”I think that part is right — perhaps with both Korea and Vietnam being in the lineup of powerful nations both proxies for China’s Communist Southeast Asian geopolitical aims.… “Research on hypersonic missiles transfer wealth (from military) to corporations’ cronies and grafting congress. This transfer (requires) little working hardware and (independent) entrepreneurs cannot win the business since research is not a commodity like a satellite launches.”Perhaps. I think the research is a necessary foil against the widely reported and much ballyhooed similar research appearing in the media (and you can be sure: ascertained years”

  36. The meta game is satellites now, so yeah this is pretty much true. Shooting down satellites is haaaaaaaarrrrrrddddddddddd.

  37. The meta game is satellites now so yeah this is pretty much true.Shooting down satellites is haaaaaaaarrrrrrddddddddddd.

  38. But Europe doesn’t many weapons, does it? If Russia would decide to roll into Europe there is not much any of the countries could do except to decide on a trade embargo. The one notable exception would be the UK, which does have a few systems (but not even 10% of what the US have).

  39. I think what Thomas Mazanec is protesting is the following quote:

    “…3,600 miles per hour (6 miles per second, 5 or more times faster than the speed of sound)…”

    3600 miles per hour is not 6 miles per second.

  40. Likely, the arms race between the US, and the USSR had a lot to do with the dissolution of the USSR. There is no reason the same could not happen to another association of wildly dissimilar states I can think of.

  41. Likely the arms race between the US and the USSR had a lot to do with the dissolution of the USSR. There is no reason the same could not happen to another association of wildly dissimilar states I can think of.

  42. Oh… that’s what the InterWebz is all about, right? Posts that are mostly noise for the sake of making a clamor. With the exception of actual boots-on-the-ground conflicts (of which there have been plenty, I might add), most of the military or sovereign competition between the Big Players is one of playing by Cold War rules. Publicly and openly developing weapons and defensive weapons that are better than the Other Big Apes. Having those in turn supposedly superseded by The Other Players simultaneously ongoing development. Manufacture of systems, testing of them, publishing Big Numbers showing the incremental superiority of the New Systems over the recently retired Old Ones. Its an international War of Economic Attrition. Can we (or you) outspend our (your) ideological enemy? Can you sap your enemy’s domestic budget, and become a weight on civil enterprise? It is an interesting conundrum. The Cold War Without Shooting Many Missiles. And even winning … whatever that means … is kind of sterile. But it certainly is a WHOLE lot more safe than a hot shooting war. With hyperpowers such as the US, China, Russia and Europe… Armed to the teeth with some dâhmned destructive military material. Just saying, GoatGuy

  43. Oh… that’s what the InterWebz is all about right? Posts that are mostly noise for the sake of making a clamor.With the exception of actual boots-on-the-ground conflicts (of which there have been plenty I might add) most of the military or sovereign competition between the Big Players is one of playing by Cold War rules. Publicly and openly developing weapons and defensive weapons that are better than the Other Big Apes. Having those in turn supposedly superseded by The Other Players simultaneously ongoing development. Manufacture of systems testing of them publishing Big Numbers showing the incremental superiority of the New Systems over the recently retired Old Ones. Its an international War of Economic Attrition. Can we (or you) outspend our (your) ideological enemy?Can you sap your enemy’s domestic budget and become a weight on civil enterprise?It is an interesting conundrum.The Cold War Without Shooting Many Missiles. And even winning … whatever that means … is kind of sterile. But it certainly is a WHOLE lot more safe than a hot shooting war.With hyperpowers such as the US China Russia and Europe…Armed to the teeth with some dâhmned destructive military material. Just sayingGoatGuy”

  44. Mach 1 is loosely defined as 341 meters per second. This is the speed of sound, at sea level, at 70% relative humidity. Nearly ALL of the airspace planes fly in is NOT that definition. However, for talking, 341 m/s is good enough. Hypersonic flight is defined — very loosely — as at or above Mach 5. Five times three hundred forty one meters per second. … Mach 5 = 5 × 341 → 1,700 m/s. … 1,700 ÷ 0.3048 m/ft → 5,577 ft/s … 5,577 ÷ 5,280 ft/mi → 1.06 mi/s … 5,577 ÷ 6,000 ft/knt → 0.93 nautial miles per second They’re all impressive numbers. Most of the high Mach development seems to be substantially closer to 2 km/s than 1.7 km/s. … 2000 m/s ÷ 341 → Mach 5.9 Just saying, GoatGuy

  45. Mach 1 is loosely defined as 341 meters per second. This is the speed of sound at sea level at 70{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} relative humidity. Nearly ALL of the airspace planes fly in is NOT that definition. However for talking 341 m/s is good enough. Hypersonic flight is defined — very loosely — as at or above Mach 5. Five times three hundred forty one meters per second. … Mach 5 = 5 × 341 → 1700 m/s.… 1700 ÷ 0.3048 m/ft → 5577 ft/s… 5577 ÷ 5280 ft/mi → 1.06 mi/s… 5577 ÷ 6000 ft/knt → 0.93 nautial miles per secondThey’re all impressive numbers. Most of the high Mach development seems to be substantially closer to 2 km/s than 1.7 km/s. … 2000 m/s ÷ 341 → Mach 5.9Just sayingGoatGuy”

  46. The US propensity is to initiate a war of aggression, see the Nuremberg Principles for a definition, against nations with much weaker militaries, or even none at all. On occasion, the US even goes to “war” with organizations created by it’s own agencies, for instance Al Qaeda, and ISIS/ISIL. These entities are properly known as “controlled opposition”, and serve wonderfully, until some nation like Russia destroys them in a tiny fraction of the time the US fought them previously. The last nation the US fought that had a powerful military was Germany, with Adolf Hitler at the helm. Russia, and China are used as boogie men that are used to frighten the children(public), but must not actually be attacked, simply because they actually have the wherewithal to fight back. Research on hypersonic missiles are simply a highly effective way to transfer wealth to corporations, and the cronies that own shares in them, including those in congress. This transfer is highly efficient, because very little working hardware has to be delivered, and entrepreneurs like Elon Musk cannot compete for the business, since research is not an easily defined commodity, like a satellite launch.

  47. The US propensity is to initiate a war of aggression see the Nuremberg Principles for a definition against nations with much weaker militaries or even none at all. On occasion the US even goes to war”” with organizations created by it’s own agencies”” for instance Al Qaeda”” and ISIS/ISIL. These entities are properly known as “”””controlled opposition”””””” and serve wonderfully until some nation like Russia destroys them in a tiny fraction of the time the US fought them previously.The last nation the US fought that had a powerful military was Germany with Adolf Hitler at the helm. Russia and China are used as boogie men that are used to frighten the children(public) but must not actually be attacked simply because they actually have the wherewithal to fight back.Research on hypersonic missiles are simply a highly effective way to transfer wealth to corporations and the cronies that own shares in them including those in congress. This transfer is highly efficient because very little working hardware has to be delivered and entrepreneurs like Elon Musk cannot compete for the business since research is not an easily defined commodity”” like a satellite launch.”””

  48. The continuation of fear messaging about phony enemies to take more billions from our treasury by the Defense Establishment…especially Boeing, Lockheed & NASA. War is incredibly profitable.

  49. Ya, I have always found that the myth of Russia and China being able to shoot down US satellites funny. Currently, the max range of any weapon capable of doing such (AA systems like the S-400) are about 400km, operationally probably closer to 300) GEO satellites can be thousands of kms up and are almost untouchable., even a LEO sat is about 200-500km up, meaning they can only hit a sat that is within a 200km radius if its in lower LEO above the launcher and such a target is travelling 18,000km per hour at a min providing a 2 minute firing window. Any use of nukes in space to take out sats would be highly indiscriminate and like destroy a lot of their own.

  50. I actually took the time to draft a longish reply, then before posting, I just erased it. The reason is that my main objections to what you wrote, are not very accurate, nor for that matter is what you wrote all that wrong.

    … “The US (has a) propensity to initiate wars of aggression against nations with much weaker militaries, or even none at all. ”

    My numeric thought: comparing the № 1 world military AND № 1 economy against any other nation-state is one of “big vs smaller”. The real objection though is the US doesn’t really have a propensity to wage wars until either ‘the situation’ needs rapid significant response, or where a growing threat is running unabated.

    … “ The US even “wars” with organizations (it has) created, (eg) Al Qaeda, and ISIL. Known as “controlled opposition”, until some nation (like Russia) destroys them in a tiny fraction of the time the US fought them previously. ”

    Umm… last I heard, the Russians have been notably unable to “destroy them in a tiny fraction of the time”. Indeed, their Vietnam was Afghanistan. They continue to grapple and wrangle with the Chechans.

    … “The last powerful nation the US fought was Adolf Hitler’s Germany. Russia and China are (played) as boogie men that frighten the public, but are not (militarily) attacked because they (can seriously) fight back. ”

    I think that part is right — perhaps with both Korea and Vietnam being in the lineup of powerful nations, both proxies for China’s Communist Southeast Asian geopolitical aims.

    … “Research on hypersonic missiles transfer wealth (from military) to corporations’ cronies and grafting congress. This transfer (requires) little working hardware, and (independent) entrepreneurs cannot win the business, since research is not a commodity like a satellite launches.”

    Perhaps. I think the research is a necessary foil against the widely reported and much ballyhooed similar research appearing in the media (and you can be sure: ascertained years-to-decades prior, by each nations espionage programs), continually. It MAY well be an efficient transfer-of-wealth, but at least on the surface, it is a CHEAP way to keep the military adverturists at bay internationally.

    Moreover, the US at least has a rather impressively long history of designing, researching, building and rolling out hundreds-to-tens-of-thousands of really compelling new weapons systems on a fairly regular basis. You can fault the US for many things, but funding an outstanding research-and-development arm isn’t one where the shît sticks.

    Just saying,
    GoatGuy

  51. Likely, the arms race between the US, and the USSR had a lot to do with the dissolution of the USSR. There is no reason the same could not happen to another association of wildly dissimilar states I can think of.

  52. Oh… that’s what the InterWebz is all about, right? Posts that are mostly noise for the sake of making a clamor.

    With the exception of actual boots-on-the-ground conflicts (of which there have been plenty, I might add), most of the military or sovereign competition between the Big Players is one of playing by Cold War rules. Publicly and openly developing weapons and defensive weapons that are better than the Other Big Apes. Having those in turn supposedly superseded by The Other Players simultaneously ongoing development.

    Manufacture of systems, testing of them, publishing Big Numbers showing the incremental superiority of the New Systems over the recently retired Old Ones.

    Its an international War of Economic Attrition.
    Can we (or you) outspend our (your) ideological enemy?
    Can you sap your enemy’s domestic budget, and become a weight on civil enterprise?

    It is an interesting conundrum.
    The Cold War Without Shooting Many Missiles.

    And even winning … whatever that means … is kind of sterile.
    But it certainly is a WHOLE lot more safe than a hot shooting war.
    With hyperpowers such as the US, China, Russia and Europe…
    Armed to the teeth with some dâhmned destructive military material.

    Just saying,
    GoatGuy

  53. Mach 1 is loosely defined as 341 meters per second. This is the speed of sound, at sea level, at 70% relative humidity. Nearly ALL of the airspace planes fly in is NOT that definition. However, for talking, 341 m/s is good enough.

    Hypersonic flight is defined — very loosely — as at or above Mach 5. Five times three hundred forty one meters per second.

    … Mach 5 = 5 × 341 → 1,700 m/s.

    … 1,700 ÷ 0.3048 m/ft → 5,577 ft/s
    … 5,577 ÷ 5,280 ft/mi → 1.06 mi/s
    … 5,577 ÷ 6,000 ft/knt → 0.93 nautial miles per second

    They’re all impressive numbers. Most of the high Mach development seems to be substantially closer to 2 km/s than 1.7 km/s.

    … 2000 m/s ÷ 341 → Mach 5.9

    Just saying,
    GoatGuy

  54. The US propensity is to initiate a war of aggression, see the Nuremberg Principles for a definition, against nations with much weaker militaries, or even none at all. On occasion, the US even goes to “war” with organizations created by it’s own agencies, for instance Al Qaeda, and ISIS/ISIL. These entities are properly known as “controlled opposition”, and serve wonderfully, until some nation like Russia destroys them in a tiny fraction of the time the US fought them previously.
    The last nation the US fought that had a powerful military was Germany, with Adolf Hitler at the helm. Russia, and China are used as boogie men that are used to frighten the children(public), but must not actually be attacked, simply because they actually have the wherewithal to fight back.
    Research on hypersonic missiles are simply a highly effective way to transfer wealth to corporations, and the cronies that own shares in them, including those in congress. This transfer is highly efficient, because very little working hardware has to be delivered, and entrepreneurs like Elon Musk cannot compete for the business, since research is not an easily defined commodity, like a satellite launch.

  55. Hypersonic flight is defined as the point at which the leading edge shock and the boundary layer thermal and pressure profiles become coupled.

  56. Hypersonic flight is defined as the point at which the leading edge shock and the boundary layer thermal and pressure profiles become coupled.

  57. This entire thing is FUNNY to people actually in this industry because you have no idea how many small subcontractors get business from Boeing and Northrup Grumman. I read this and I can just tell that none of you know how this works, because you just vomit all this anti-corporate rhetoric with little tidbits that demonstrate you don’t have working knowledge of how this industry operates. It’s not even worth my time to deconstruct all the small ways your edgy, Dystopian world view is childishly oversimplified. Stay edgy, edgelord.

  58. This entire thing is FUNNY to people actually in this industry because you have no idea how many small subcontractors get business from Boeing and Northrup Grumman. I read this and I can just tell that none of you know how this works because you just vomit all this anti-corporate rhetoric with little tidbits that demonstrate you don’t have working knowledge of how this industry operates. It’s not even worth my time to deconstruct all the small ways your edgy Dystopian world view is childishly oversimplified. Stay edgy edgelord.

  59. Nobody has ever thought that “shooting down a satellite” meant GEO. We will always assume it means LEO. China has also publicly tested a satellite shootdown. I don’t know why you think this is so hard. ICBMs’ apogee is 750mi, that’s so much higher than LEO. Altitude is not hard. Precision is.

  60. Nobody has ever thought that shooting down a satellite”” meant GEO. We will always assume it means LEO. China has also publicly tested a satellite shootdown. I don’t know why you think this is so hard. ICBMs’ apogee is 750mi”””” that’s so much higher than LEO. Altitude is not hard. Precision is.”””

  61. had hypersonics” as in a one-off vehicle that burns itself out and collects telemetry, and “has hypersonics” as in an air breathing hypersonic fighter aircraft are two very different things.

  62. had hypersonics”” as in a one-off vehicle that burns itself out and collects telemetry”””” and “”””has hypersonics”””” as in an air breathing hypersonic fighter aircraft are two very different things.”””

  63. First, the headline says that because he literally said it: The impending promise of hypersonic weapons is so great that Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Dr. Michael Griffin recently explained: “I’m sorry for everybody out there who champions some other high priority, some technical thing; it’s not that I disagree with those. But there has to be a first [priority], and hypersonics is my first.”” Second: the Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering won’t really deal with “weaponizing media and finance”.

  64. First the headline says that because he literally said it:The impending promise of hypersonic weapons is so great that Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Dr. Michael Griffin recently explained: “I’m sorry for everybody out there who champions some other high priority some technical thing; it’s not that I disagree with those. But there has to be a first [priority] and hypersonics is my first.”Second: the Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering won’t really deal with “”weaponizing media and finance””””.”””””””

Comments are closed.