How effective will these bendy boy missiles be if they enter service?

How effective will these bendy boy missiles be if they enter service?
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/usaf-testing-mutant-missiles-that-twist-in-mid-air-to-hit-their-targets

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    HE BEND

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    dynamic body flexing is a more aerodynamically efficient control surface than external surfaces (e.g. fins). So theoretically it could have more range/better terminal maneuverability/energy retention than a comparably sized missile. Check out the X-53 aeroelastic wing demonstrator for a similar concept.

    probably the only people who know specific performance gains are the AFRL folks working on the concepts.

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The US has finally figured out peak aerodynamics.

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    dunno
    looks like they're building it around hellfire, which might mean their initial intended use will be on smaller short range missiles. So it's probably gonna be to make a more maneuverable CIWS missile - you don't need it for ground targets, and we've got sidewinders for air to air interception.
    They're still on the track phase, so there's no data on whether it'll improve effectiveness, but they think it's worth a try.

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    They already know it won’t work, this is just a big grift.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      it's not made by seething thirdies like india, china or russia so it has a chance of working.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous
  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >it bends to score a direct hit on the enemy's prostate every time

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I find it kinda interesting how development went full circle.
    Remember the very first airplanes before WW1? Lots of them didn't incorporate rudders and flaps as we know them but, for example, used wing flexing to achieve the same goal.
    Now, 110, 120 years later stuff like this is back. Just amazing.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I imagine that concept took a backseat until material sciences caught up with it?

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I don't really buy the
    >we point the seeker/warhead
    I think it's probably a maneuverability thing that reduces control surface area.

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    > be Chinese pilot
    > missile lock detected
    > start evasive maneuvers
    > see missile incoming
    > it flies by harmlessly
    > "heh nothing personnel"
    > the missile fricking turns its head to look at me
    > mfw

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      NAHH this is frickin GOOFY

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        snek

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    crooked penis phimosis this is normal usa standard

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Probably not half as effective as the pain you have brought fourth upon my psyche by calling it "bendy boy".

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    did no one save my webm from the last thread? :c

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      So is it bending to change its course or to direct the shaped charge payload? The latter seems way easier to do.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        The answer is yes.

        I don't understand the point. Is omnidirectional cloud that much worse?

        Directional cone is gives you a much larger acceptable intercept error vs an omnidirectional explosion.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I think both potentially

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Couldn't they achieve a directed blast with multiple detonators around a warhead? Like phased array radar can steer the beam without physically moving.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        You mean something like this? I don't know how well this would work for directing a blast in an arbitrary direction, but you're also missing out on the maneuverability benefit as well.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Exactly.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        yes probably but at what cost. given all the tradeoffs in engineering, they appear to have decided that flexible missile gives enough advantages to be worth exploring.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          because

          They already know it won’t work, this is just a big grift.

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    the design originally inspired by Chris-chan's duck

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I don't understand the point. Is omnidirectional cloud that much worse?

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Maneuverability seems like a very dubious benefit, a cylinder makes for a terrible control surface. A tiny turn on a flap is equal to a massive bend of the warhead section.

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >*wiggles menacingly at u*

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Neato

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *