Re: Shouldn't we be more advanced?


Message posted by Peter Merlin on July 09, 2009 at 17:02:47 PST:

The decision makers apparently determined that a combination of satellites, manned reconnaissance platforms (U-2, RC-135), and UAVs (Predator, Global Hawk, etc.) provide sufficient coverage. A high-speed platform like the SR-71 has many advantages in certain mission profiles but is expensive and complex to operate.

Development of a hypersonic replacement presents numerous technical challenges. It would also be very expensive. Advocates for such a program would have to convince the leadership that it would be worth the cost. Lately, there has been a trend toward high-altitude, long endurance (HALE) capability rather than high-speed. A HALE UAV might be considerably simpler and less expensive to operate than a hypersonic platform (manned or unmanned).

Don't get me wrong, I'm a lay preacher in the Church of Hypersonics myself. I would love to see an operational "fast mover." But, if you read the AIAA papers I cited, you will get a better sense of some of the challenges faced by advocates of hypersonic technology.


In Reply to: Re: Shouldn't we be more advanced? posted by Robert on July 09, 2009 at 10:50:30 PST:

Replies:



[ Discussion Forum Index ] [ FAQ ]