![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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/newspap...764949,00.html --------------------------- Otis Willie Associate Librarian The American War Library http://www.americanwarlibrary.com |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The Arabs will solve the Jewish problem better
than we ever will. What Jewish problem? Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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" |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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/ne...28-space01.htm Did we ask for overflight rights for the SR71? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
want to trade 601 plans for 701 plans | [email protected] | Home Built | 0 | January 27th 05 07:50 PM |
Unused plans question | Doc Font | Home Built | 0 | December 8th 04 09:16 PM |