Russia Wants a Hypersonic Bomber 319
derekmead writes "Hot on the heels of the U.S. Air Force's most recent failed test of an unmanned hypersonic vehicle, Russia now says it wants to jump into the hypersonic game with a long-range bomber. Will Russia's newest Bear fly at 4,500 miles an hour? The Russian military sure hopes so. 'I think we need to go down the route of hypersonic technology and we are moving in that direction and are not falling behind the Americans,' Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said on Russian television. 'The question is will we copy the Americans' 40-year experience and create a [Northrop] B-2 analog or will we go down a new, ultramodern technology route, looking to the horizon, and create a machine able to penetrate air defenses and carry out a strike on any aggressor.' The Russians want their plane operational by 2020, which doesn't seem particularly realistic — we are talking about five times the speed of sound here, and Russia is just starting engine development. The U.S., meanwhile, has been investing in its Waverider program since 2004, and the last test of the X-51A scramjet-powered missile failed after just 15 seconds."
Back to the Future... (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps it's time to get the SR-71 out of mothballs.
Despite being ancient and retired, it still seems to be the best thing going.
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Glad someone else is stepping up to the plate. Development on such equipment could easily lead to civilian hypersonic aircraft, getting rid of 15 hour flights to Australia and such. Also sparks research on better ways of space travel, as the scramjet is closer to being space capable than a traditional jet engine.
"doesn't seem particularly realistic"? (Score:4, Insightful)
"doesn't seem particularly realistic"?
Huh? Sun Tzu: Never underestimate your opponent
Oooh! Cold War II!! (Score:3, Insightful)
With the Military Industrial Complex as The Winner. Gotta insure that nothing stops the river of cash flowing into "defense" (on either side.)
Didn't we go through this fast-bomber thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
XB-70 Valkyrie on our side, and the Soviets had something along those lines as well.
Then surface-to-air missiles showed up, and it became clear no bomber could hope to outrun them, so we went with low-observable and/or terrain-following tech. Remember, it's easier to make a missile capable of X speed (just a motor, a warhead, and fuel for one quick interception) than a bomber flying X speed (many warheads, release mechanism, crew, and fuel to carry all that stuff a thousand miles), so you need a massive technological edge to win.
So... does Russia really think they can make hypersonic bombers, but some enemy that's worth using them on can't make even faster hypersonic SAMs?
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
I ain't sure about being able to operate in space, but it has may be a very good way to get there.
Re:"doesn't seem particularly realistic"? (Score:2, Insightful)
Not to mention that Russia has always been on the forefront of aerospace technology. Their lists of firsts is unrivaled. It's very possible that they might succeed where the Americans have failed.
Cheapter and easier (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that the ISS is ~360 km from the Earth, and it has a 92 minute orbital period, it seems that bombs could be lifted into space, then launched from there. With sufficient supplies and advanced notice you could get enough stuff in position over the long term and deploy in minutes 4500mph = 2km/s and therefore could be at the surface in 180 seconds (3 minutes) once launched. Then there's the issue of changing orbit, which lets assume takes 1 orbit. So you can stike anywhere in the wold in 95 minutes. Can you fuel, prep and deploy a plane in that time? I think not.
Re:Cheapter and easier (Score:4, Insightful)
I think if anybody started positioning atomic weapons in orbit, people would get uptight. Maybe uptight enough to launch a pre-emptive strike.
Patton was right. (Score:0, Insightful)
We should've fucked them up following WW2. Russia might actually be worth a shit by now.
Want a bomber? Here's one... (Score:4, Insightful)
The Russians want their plane operational by 2020, which doesn't seem particularly realistic — we are talking about five times the speed of sound here, and Russia is just starting engine development. The U.S., meanwhile, has been investing in its Waverider program since 2004, and the last test of the X-51A scramjet-powered missile failed after just 15 seconds.
Maybe they'll be funding computer hacking/espionage methods instead of scramjet or hypersonic airplane development- that way, they'll have a hypersonic bomber (plans, at least) soon after we do, at a fraction of the development costs.
Or maybe they'll just think they have the plans [wikipedia.org].
Re:Back to the Future... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's almost like the conditions at mach 3 and mach 6 are pretty different or something.
Re:Oh Russia (Score:5, Insightful)