US plans 6,000mph bomber to hit rogue regimes from edge of space

[Otis Willie]

US plans 6,000mph bomber to hit rogue regimes from edge of space

(EXCERPT) Peter Almond

THE Pentagon is drawing up plans for a “hypersonic” bomber able to
travel more than 10,000 miles around the globe in about two hours.

The Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle (HCV) is designed to fly at a top speed
of almost 6,000mph directly from America to neutralise regimes
threatening to use weapons of mass destruction. It would avoid the
need to rely on forward airbases in unreliable third countries.

Current stealth bombers, such as the B-2, which played a leading role
in the Iraq war, only fly at about 650mph, just below the speed of
sound.

Last week representatives of companies including Boeing and Britain’s
BAE Systems met Pentagon officials in Washington to discuss the plan,
codenamed Project Falcon (Force Application and Launch from the
Continental US). It has been given impetus by the difficulties of
persuading countries such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey to act as bases
for US aircraft in the war on Iraq.

At present, heavy bomber crews have to fly their B-52 or B-2 aircraft
i...

U.S. and friendly nation laws prohibit fully reproducing
copyrighted material. In abidance with our laws this report
cannot be provided in its entirety. However, you can read it
in full today, 03 Aug 2003, at the following URL. (COMBINE
the following lines into your web browser.) The
subject/content of this report is not necessarily the
viewpoint of the distributing Library. This report is provided
for your information and discussion.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,1-764949,00.html

---------------------------
Otis Willie
Associate Librarian
The American War Library
http://www.americanwarlibrary.com

[B2431]

>The Arabs will solve the Jewish problem better
>than we ever will.

What Jewish problem?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[BUFDRVR]

>This vehicle is clearly sub-orbital since it moves at only 1/3rd of orbital
>velocity.

Which brings up the issue of overflight rights. Up to what altitude is
recognized as a country's soverign air space? Seems pointless to make an
aircraft that can be based in the US so as not to rely on unreliable "allies"
for basing rights if these same "allies" will still need to be consulted for
overflight.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(B2431) wrote:

> >The Arabs will solve the Jewish problem better
> >than we ever will.
>
> What Jewish problem?

Just remember: when someone uses the phrase "the Jewish problem" and
they aren't talking about a question on a math test involving bagels,
they usually mean "getting rid of those darned Jews."

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[S. Sampson]

"B2431" > wrote
> >
> >The Arabs will solve the Jewish problem better
> >than we ever will.
>
> What Jewish problem?

The one where they are building the "Berlin wall" with U.S. tax dollars.

[S. Sampson]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote
> >
> >This vehicle is clearly sub-orbital since it moves at only 1/3rd of orbital
> >velocity.
>
> Which brings up the issue of overflight rights. Up to what altitude is
> recognized as a country's soverign air space?

The altitude their interceptors and SA missiles can operate at with a
high PK.

> Seems pointless to make an aircraft that can be based in the US so as
> not to rely on unreliable "allies" for basing rights if these same "allies" will
> still need to be consulted for overflight.

If the Chicoms build one and fly it over the U.S. we would have a "cow."
So I suspect the whole world is a ****** with this plan.

[Thomas J. Paladino Jr.]

> >This vehicle is clearly sub-orbital since it moves at only 1/3rd of
orbital
> >velocity.
>
> Which brings up the issue of overflight rights. Up to what altitude is
> recognized as a country's soverign air space? Seems pointless to make an
> aircraft that can be based in the US so as not to rely on unreliable
"allies"
> for basing rights if these same "allies" will still need to be consulted
for
> overflight.
>

I would probably say that anything sub-orbital or orbital will be out of
soverign airspace. Nobody asks for overflight rights for the space shuttle
or sattelites. And, militarially speaking, we pretty much own space anyway.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030728-space01.htm

Did we ask for overflight rights for the SR71?

[Mary Shafer]

On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 03:15:25 GMT, "Thomas J. Paladino Jr."
> wrote:

> Did we ask for overflight rights for the SR71?

We didn't need to. It stayed in international air space.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[sirius]

> If the Chicoms build one and fly it over the U.S. we would have a
"cow."
> So I suspect the whole world is a ****** with this plan.


OK, you now hold the rec.aviation.military for most consecutive posts
using the word "******" and, gee, aren't we all just so impressed with
you for doing so.

I suppose you also like to let rip with a wet fart in the middle of the
moment of silence in church to get people to notice you.

Alright, you've been noticed. The problem is, what we've noticed is a
juvenile brat with nothing worthwhile to say. Oh wait, I hear your mommy
calling. She wants to use the computer, so off you go to watch
Tele-Tubbies or something suitable for your mental age.

Maybe when you're a big boy, mommy will drive you to some inner city
street corner or vacant lot and you can read all those posts out loud,
being sure to look them all in the eye each time you say "******".

I hadn't been to this newsgroup for many months until this weekend. Now
I remember why.

Jeff

[The Enlightenment]

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message >...
> >This vehicle is clearly sub-orbital since it moves at only 1/3rd of orbital
> >velocity.
>
> Which brings up the issue of overflight rights. Up to what altitude is
> recognized as a country's soverign air space? Seems pointless to make an
> aircraft that can be based in the US so as not to rely on unreliable "allies"
> for basing rights if these same "allies" will still need to be consulted for
> overflight.
>
>

While it is sub-orbital it also would also have the ability to change
direction during its endo-atmospheric 'skips'. This might require a
supplemental fuel burn.

So in some ways it may be politcally less contentious than a ballistic
or fully orbital system since it will be truely manoevrable.

It's value as a reconaisance platform must be significant as well.

[Lawrence Dillard]

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
...

Large SNIP


> Did we ask for overflight rights for the SR71?

I don't know for sure, but I doubt it. I do recall, however, reading
newspaper articles asserting that certain nations, including North Korea and
the USSR, had complained to the US about SR-71s violating their respective
airspaces; that NK had fired (an exercise in futility) SAMS at SR-71s; and
that the USSR was so miffed by such alleged intrusions that it had dusted
off one of its early IRBMs (which would have the range and could develop the
speed to run down even an SR-71) and fitted it with SAM-type tracking gear
in order to demonstrate their determination to see such alleged overflights
come to an end. Does anyone on the ng have any info as to whether the above
claims were true? Thanks.

[Dav1936531]

>From: (The Enlightenment)
>
>
>It's value as a reconaisance platform must be significant as well.

My guess, and it's only a guess, is that the plan is to ramp up technologies
that have already proven themselves in the recon role into a bomb carrying
platform.

I base my guess on the fact that the SR-71 has been retired, but that mission
profile still exists. There has to be something that has replaced it that isn't
public knowledge yet.
Dave

[Denyav]

>I base my guess on the fact that the SR-71 has been retired, but that mission
>profile still exists. There has to be something that has replaced it that
>isn't
>public knowledge yet.

During Balkan campaign some of US military-technological capabilities were not
even known to top military leadership and they were not allowed to use them
during the conflict as they were not supposed to know them.(need to know rule))
This policy was the reason of some resentments in military circles after balkan
conflict.

[S. Sampson]

"Denyav" > wrote
>
> During Balkan campaign some of US military-technological capabilities were not
> even known to top military leadership and they were not allowed to use them

Right... I believe you!

[BUFDRVR]

>I would probably say that anything sub-orbital or orbital will be out of
>soverign airspace. Nobody asks for overflight rights for the space shuttle
>or sattelites.

Orbital, yes, according to some 1950's treaty, sattelites in *orbit* are
considered in international territory. However *sub-orbital* may not be
covered, the space shuttle does not use sub-orbital dynamics (I don't think,
why would it?), thus it utilizes international territory. So the question
remains, if we're not going to put this thing into the international territory
of "space", we'll still require foreign nation overflight permission, which us
back where we are now.

>And, militarially speaking, we pretty much own space anyway.

According to international law, no one owns space no matter how much stuff they
put up there. If sheer numbers were the governing factor numerous
telecommunications companies would be vying for ownership of space, not the US
government.




BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"