US has a new hypersonic thing. https://reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/hypersonic-weapon-startup-castelion-has-first-full-weapon-test-2024-03-11
Castelion hypersonic test
US has a new hypersonic thing. https://reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/hypersonic-weapon-startup-castelion-has-first-full-weapon-test-2024-03-11
video from their twatter
>a rocket
Cringe.
Their website implies they're working on a glide vehicle as well.
The US leads the world in scramjet technology. What are you trying to say?
>HyFly Mach 6 Scramjet Missile Test
Link: https://thefutureofthings.com/5667-hyfly-mach-6-scramjet-missile-test/
>HIFIRE/HyCAUSE Scramjet Mach-8+ success with Australia/USA collaboration 2017
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKipc5LpCU
>Advancing Hypersonics –Aerojet Rocketdyne’s Scramjet Engine Makes Hypersonics History
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YJyBf8x83Q
>X-43A
>X-51
https://desuarchive.org/k/search/text/%3EHyFly%20Mach%206%20Scramjet%20Missile%20Test/
Whatever you are, be that thing somewhere that isn't my thread.
Now, try that in English.
>come into thread
>post irrelevant spam
>get uppity about being called out
Post without schizobabble or get out.
>post irrelevant spam
How is it irrelevant when it directly addresses the complaint the shill was making: That the US can't produce hypersonic scramjets? You're just pissed I BTFO your shill thread so early, and now you have to brainstorm another one with your TG channel.
Black person I have no interest in your fantasies. This startup was apparently in 'stealth' til Q4 of last year and I didn't know of its existence until literally today. I made the stratolaunch thread the other day too.
What kind of brittle dick psychology is required to see a thread on a successful US hypersonic test and reply with hostile spam about scramjets? You mindbroken untermensch goddamn
>US can't produce hypersonic scramjets
Said nobody, literally.
It's a drone rocket.
Booooooooooooooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnnng.
Call me when they release the anti-gravity Dorito.
>sounding rocket
LMAO are americans really this far behind?
Sure. Be sure to tell all your thirdie buddies that the US isn't actually a threat, too. Please, I beg you, tell China that the time to do something stupid is now.
you are supposed to invent the fake shill complaint BEFORE you "rebut" it, dipshit.
Bros I thought you said hypersonics were bullshit nonsense for for third-worlders only fit for propaganda. Your response?
The US researches tech just to dab on thirdies anyway.
The absolute biggest use case for hypersonics is anti-carrier use as keeping any recon asset within range of a carrier for hours will ensure it gets shot down, while a hypersonic can cover the distance in 30 minutes and thus narrow down the search area for its own seeker.
There's no naval force the US needs to keep away from its own shores.
They are, right now. They will be more viable once thirdie anti missile technology catches up in 30-50 years.
I'm bored so here's a semi-serious response. They still are, the boost-glide types at least IMO. They have no sustain and will drop to supersonic when terminal. They also have to be high alt and will likely require some energy bleeding prior to the terminal phase so as to survive the thermal loads so the reduction in reaction time is not as much as people say it is. This is all while skipping the fundamental issue of terminal guidance. The DoD will still pursue them though because having them and proving their capabilities (or lack thereof) matters.
You seem to have failed to distinguish between thirdies hyping up HGVs as carrier-killer wunderwaffen that will allow them to face down the first world with impunity and hypersonic weapons in general. More to the point, hypersonics ARE the future but HGVs have more value as a test bed than as practical weapons; the difference between a HGV and something like HAWC/HACM is like the difference between a V-2 and a Tomahawk.
Not really, there's benefits and downsides to both. A HACM has to carry an engine and fuel with it which is added weight a HGV doesn't have to deal with.
Those are both advantages though, the fuel particularly as it can be used as coolant to enable it to take higher thermal loads. A scramjet pays for its weight too in sustained thrust.
>Not really,
Yes really. The only reason to focus on HGVs is if you're too poor and/or incompetent to develop scramjets and otherwise they're more useful for the data they provide than as weapons of war.
>there's benefits and downsides to both
Of course.
>A HACM has to carry an engine and fuel with it which is added weight a HGV doesn't have to deal with.
That's a bit disingenuous considering that most HGVs use a MRBM as a booster while HACM is designed to fit on a fricking F-15. Being able to deploy hypersonic cruise missiles via a fighter-bomber instead of ground-based launch platforms is a big deal.
>takes 14 seconds to count down 10 seconds
I think their PR intern fricked with it. They also posted the video as HEVC to twitter, which made it look weird.
They fricked up that section but adjusting timescales of the video is common in declassified videos of weapons tests as a form of redaction, even if the tests are trivial. The adjustment is not a linear scaling either so you can't go by that.
I kinda with the other anon's here. Today's big announcement was they launched their sounding rocket. Ok, they need a cheap hypersonic rocket to test their glide vehicles with. Those have existed since the late 40's. Why did they have to invent their own? Couldn't they just buy some from Aerojet?
No argument from me, le OP. I have no clue who these guys are. They're venture-backed. Hoping somebody knows a thing or two about them. Their plan looks to be fast fast fast, lots of rapid blasting through small milestones to give the DOD confidence. So publicizing more stuff could play to that strategy.