It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2018 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

that was one of marcinkos main gripes when he was running red cell. how unsecured our ports are from stuff being brought in country via containers. he was griping about that in the late 80s. and somehow I believe him when he says they still haven't lifted a finger to make that more secure in any realistic way.


edit on 30-1-2018 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 30 2018 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: mightmight
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.




what makes you so sure about the greenlady speed? also, you may want to think harder about why the green. I'm not going to give you the answer but I can tell you you're wrong.

finally I agree with you on the tbcc. it's got nothing to do with the greenlady.

edit on 30-1-2018 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2018 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Security costs money.

Corporations only task is to create value for the share holders.


Security and profits are at odds with each other. Want to guess what one wins (with out regs)?



posted on Jan, 30 2018 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

in this case I'd say security trumps profits



posted on Jan, 30 2018 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Are you referring to the Chinese made product Trump and his family profit off while playing the public on USA made goods?

Edit: Or are you thinking Corporations are going to do the right thing? They will not unless forced by regs. The reason is inspections cost $$$. And that money is supposed to go the the shareholders.


/....
edit on 30-1-2018 by seasonal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2018 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr


Because Carrier warfare is obsolete, and they know it.


Again? Really?

That's why the Chinese are building out a carrier fleet of 10 (1 converted, 1 built and another building currently) plus their jeep carriers (Type 075)?

That's why the Russians actually attempted to use the Kuznetsov as a power projection force in Syria? Y'know, the counter example that you said was basically no big fscking deal?

And the France did with theirs, too, btw.

And the Brits are building 2 carriers.

And the Japanese want to convert the Izumo and future flat deck amphibs into jeep carriers. And the Chinese are REALLY upset the Japanese are considering it and have expressed warnings over it.

And the Koreans want to follow the Japanese to make their amphibs into Jeep carriers.

And the Indians want to have at least three carriers.

Dude, just because you say things doesn't make it true.



posted on Jan, 30 2018 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

To support Zaph here...

news.usni.org...



posted on Jan, 30 2018 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha


That's why the Chinese are building out a carrier fleet of 10 (1 converted, 1 built and another building currently) plus their jeep carriers (Type 075)?

They have two, one is refurbished carrier from Ukraine, the other in trials.

Been around the moon with you on this before. Stop exaggerating.



posted on Jan, 30 2018 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: penroc3

You'd be surprised. With new materials, the early modeling results are quite promising.



posted on Jan, 30 2018 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

And the third is in the yards. The Chinese have said so. We await pix.

www.scmp.com...

www.businessinsider.com...

I am looking for the link about ten carriers. I'm 90% sure I posted it to ATS, but I'm not thrilled with the search.

Back in 2014, they said they would build 4:

www.military.com...

I've just gotta find the stupid link.

Oh, and *TURKEY* has expressed interest in a carrier. Yes, for love of why, Turkey.

As for hypersonics? Did you see Lockheed got a contract to drop a 60kw to 150 kw (they love to be unspecific) laser weapon on a Burke. Not a Zumwalt, but a Burke. If they can make it work on a Burke, you can bet it will work most elsewhere. Speed of light just a bit faster than hypersonic. Just a bit.


edit on 30-1-2018 by anzha because: added text



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: anzha

The bit about the Burke is pretty interesting. Looks like they are putting the HELIOS (High Energy Laser with Integrated Optical-dazzler and Surveillance) system on a flight IIA Burke. I wasn't sure they had the extra power on the IIA's. I had always assumed we would have to wait for the Flight III's because they are going to have additional power for the SPY-6V AMDR suite.

I'll make some calls.



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: The one?

There's some interesting stuff going on that we aren't hearing about yet. Some still needs work, others are working out better than hoped.



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR


what makes you so sure about the greenlady speed? also, you may want to think harder about why the green. I'm not going to give you the answer but I can tell you you're wrong.

finally I agree with you on the tbcc. it's got nothing to do with the greenlady.

I just dont subscribe to the wild theorys of more exotic explanations for the green. As i see i it, the green comes from the use of boron based HEF / Zip Fuels in a more or less conventional turboramjet engines. HEF has a specific energy of 70 MJ/Kg or more, JP-7 has 44 MJ/kg. They probably mix the stuff, resulting in a 20 to 30% greater heat value or something.
As thrust decreases as speed increases even a modern turbojet running (partially) on Zip Fuels wont be able to go significantly faster than existing designs. Mach 4 if you like, approaching hypersonics, no.

So maybe i'm wrong, maybe i'm not. I like to err on the side of caution and start believing in anti gravity drives or whatever else one can come up with when i have sufficient reason to do so. So far i dont.



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

they almost blew up a small town trying to make mass amounts of TEB's.


im pretty sure that it is not TEB



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 10:24 AM
link   
You guys really need to pay more attention to the budgets every year. There have been some HUGE clues to what's in development in the last two or three years.



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
Out of curiosity, do you read the full Approps bill or the Committee report?



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: The one?

I start with the committee report, and skim through the full budget, looking at certain areas of it pretty closely. The committee gives a heads up for any surprises, like suddenly adding 50 F-35s or something. But there are three main areas to watch in the full budget

edit on 1/31/2018 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

There's nothing better than a report fresh off the press... love those things.



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: The one?

If you can find the right area of the full budget, and compare the last, oh let's go with 5 years, you can build a very very interesting picture.



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

yub

i.imgur.com...

There are dozens of very interesting Budget line items, especially from before they reclassified everything in 2010. But who has the time...



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join