Selva tells reporters "We have lost our edge in Hypersonics"

Interesting tidbit came from PoliticoPro this morning quoting General Selva (USAF), Vice Chairman of JCS as saying:

“We have lost our technical advantage in hypersonics. We haven’t lost the hypersonics fight,” Selva told reporters. “The Russians and Chinese have moved out pretty smartly” on hypersonics, with China “willing to spend tens to hundreds of billions” of dollars on its program, he said. By comparison, the United States is working less on the leading edge of hypersonic technology and more on “how you can make the vehicle survivable and maneuverable.”

He continued by saying that DARPA is working on "extremely advanced hypersonics research" and stressed the existence of a Navy hypersonics program. Notably, he declined to confirm whether USAF has its own program.

After he noted the Pentagon is exploring whether it is worth investing in manned hypersonic aircraft:

“When you can make weapons hypersonic, it’s probably not necessary” to make manned aircraft hypersonic, he offered.

Common knowledge dictates that expendable hypersonic munitions technology is relatively advanced, but the bottleneck continues to be creating reusable vehicles. While there is always the classified annex, I am beginning to believe that we may not be as far along the path to an operational, reusable vehicle available in tactically significant numbers as some have speculated.

a reply to: The one?

Woof, another program to sink money into for "defense".

Funny how there are plenty of countries who don't spend more of their gdp than most combined and don't get attacked.

a reply to: The one?

umm.....

he must be referring to current programs because we sure as heck have hypersonic items. or maybe he i just referring to in atmosphere stuff.

Maybe it's time to resurrect the green lady thread again???

a reply to: Kurokage
I'm sure the Green Lady is not hypersonic and its not related to recent TBCC efforts. Turboramjets on steroids eating green only gets you so fast.

a reply to: mightmight


Maybe she was high supersonic but there must have been lessons learnt?!?

a reply to: The one?

We've lost our edge in many areas. Honestly the only one that really hurts is EW. We rested on our heels for 25 years, after getting rid of the Raven, and didn't do much to upgrade the Prowler. Even the Growler systems are really just updated systems we already had. Now others are racing ahead. We had a slight edge, due to processing power and speed, but even that's going away fast.

I'm more concerned about that than I am hypersonics. There is something like one operational hypersonic missile in service, with another and a boost glide weapon in development.

a reply to: Kurokage
Sure, they have way better heat resistant materials these days, which should allow them to push the existing engine designs close to the maximum possible speed. The main limitation of the SR-71 back in the day was the inlet temperature, not the engines. The aircraft could have gone faster than even Shuls Mach 3.5 but the airframe wouldnt survive this.
As i see it, the main reason to go with the Green Lady program was the availability of new materials allowing somewhat higher speeds. But even if you add zip fuel you cant circumvent physics. Turboramjets can give you Mach 4, maybe somewhat faster but thats it. You need true Ramjet/Scramjet designs to go significantly faster. This i whats happening know with TBCC. They are trying to build something that allows them to go from launch to Mach 6+ (beyond that they probably run into the old heating issues again) on one engine. This requires a different approach, no realtion to what they did with the SR-71, XB-70, TGL and whatever else they've flown in the Nineties.

a reply to: Zaphod58

We've got a guy up here on HASC, Don Bacon, that was a former EWO and flew Compass Calls before retiring as CO of the 55th Electronic Combat Group, who has been making a lot of noise in that regard. Other guys respect his expertise in warfighting, but he's only a freshman. If you haven't looked into him, google him. He was making noise late last year about the absolutely critical capability gap.

I'm looking forward to listening to him raise hell over this issue.

a reply to: The one?

“The Russians and Chinese have moved out pretty smartly” on hypersonics, with China “willing to spend tens to hundreds of billions” of dollars on its program, he said.

Because Carrier warfare is obsolete, and they know it. Instead of Super Dreadnaught flattops bobbing like corks on the ocean, turning into the wind to launch airstrikes with droves of obsolete aircraft, they are focusing on anti shipping missile tech; hypersonic, sea skimming, smart, missile tech.

By comparison, the United States is working less on the leading edge of hypersonic technology and more on “how you can make the vehicle survivable and maneuverable.

Several States wide turning radius aside, there is no reason to get to a target area after the battle is already over.

Consider the current threat environment in say, Afghanistan. If we are even paying attention lately, current warfare is truck bomb tech. It goes off and its over. How do you defend against that with super dreadnaught flattops, ICBMs and Hi flying, Hypersonic aircraft?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: The one?

We've lost our edge in many areas. Honestly the only one that really hurts is EW. We rested on our heels for 25 years, after getting rid of the Raven, and didn't do much to upgrade the Prowler. Even the Growler systems are really just updated systems we already had. Now others are racing ahead. We had a slight edge, due to processing power and speed, but even that's going away fast.

I'm more concerned about that than I am hypersonics. There is something like one operational hypersonic missile in service, with another and a boost glide weapon in development.

Showers of star flares for you.

a reply to: The one?

I've been seeing a few people finally starting to raise red flags about our lack of EW. That name sounds familiar. They've tried a few things over the years, but they've all been stand off capabilities, which won't help much. There are things in development, but they're talking mid 2020s before we'll even see the prototypes.

Yeah they count on the USA For their muscle. And our big free money grab most of them gladly take.a reply to: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: The one?

“The Russians and Chinese have moved out pretty smartly” on hypersonics, with China “willing to spend tens to hundreds of billions” of dollars on its program, he said.

Because Carrier warfare is obsolete, and they know it. Instead of Super Dreadnaught flattops bobbing like corks on the ocean, turning into the wind to launch airstrikes with droves of obsolete aircraft, they are focusing on anti shipping missile tech; hypersonic, sea skimming, smart, missile tech.

By comparison, the United States is working less on the leading edge of hypersonic technology and more on “how you can make the vehicle survivable and maneuverable.

Several States wide turning radius aside, there is no reason to get to a target area after the battle is already over.

Consider the current threat environment in say, Afghanistan. If we are even paying attention lately, current warfare is truck bomb tech. It goes off and its over. How do you defend against that with super dreadnaught flattops, ICBMs and Hi flying, Hypersonic aircraft?

The minute we get rid of all of our old out dated weapons systems one of the other countries who don't like us, who still DO have these systems will take advantage of our weakness. They're as much as a deterrent as anything else.

originally posted by: PokeyJoe

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: The one?

“The Russians and Chinese have moved out pretty smartly” on hypersonics, with China “willing to spend tens to hundreds of billions” of dollars on its program, he said.

Because Carrier warfare is obsolete, and they know it. Instead of Super Dreadnaught flattops bobbing like corks on the ocean, turning into the wind to launch airstrikes with droves of obsolete aircraft, they are focusing on anti shipping missile tech; hypersonic, sea skimming, smart, missile tech.

By comparison, the United States is working less on the leading edge of hypersonic technology and more on “how you can make the vehicle survivable and maneuverable.

Several States wide turning radius aside, there is no reason to get to a target area after the battle is already over.

Consider the current threat environment in say, Afghanistan. If we are even paying attention lately, current warfare is truck bomb tech. It goes off and its over. How do you defend against that with super dreadnaught flattops, ICBMs and Hi flying, Hypersonic aircraft?

The minute we get rid of all of our old out dated weapons systems one of the other countries who don't like us, who still DO have these systems will take advantage of our weakness. They're as much as a deterrent as anything else.

The only nations projecting force by carrier are the US and certain NATO member states, like UK and France.

The Russian and Chinese ventures so far hardly compare.

One setup I,m interested in was showing lots of promise.
HiFire
Pretty sure they were getting somewhere.

a reply to: The one?

And China has most favored nation status so Multi Nationals can import container ships with relative ease and send them back to China empty.

We will buy China the Rope to hang us with.

a reply to: seasonal

Not that it matters. We inspect a miniscule fraction of what comes through our ports any way.

a reply to: Zaphod58

other then missiles there has to be diminishing returns on hypersonic aircraft.

stealth and EW seems like the real game changers. if we really go to all out war were all cooked

anything above mach 5 seems almost unusable because of upkeep

a reply to: Zaphod58

That really wasn't my point, but it is valid and I did not think about the dangers there.

My point was that they are spending big big big bucks on the military (they must think they are the US) and the US is shifting large amounts of money to China for the manufacture of those goods, hence the trade def. Funding some of the military spending.