Experimental U.S. hypersonic weapon destroyed seconds after launch

[Chef Ramsay]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A hypersonic weapon being developed by the U.S. military was destroyed four seconds after its launch from a test range in Alaska early on Monday after controllers detected a problem with the system, the Pentagon said.

The weapon is part of a program to create a missile that will destroy targets anywhere on Earth within an hour of getting data and permission to launch.

The mission was aborted to ensure public safety, and no one was injured in the incident, which occurred shortly after 4 a.m. EDT at the Kodiak Launch Complex in Alaska, said Maureen Schumann, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Defense Department.

"We had to terminate," Schumann said. "The weapon exploded during takeoff and fell back down in the range complex," she added.

The incident caused an undetermined amount of damage to the launch facility, Schumann said.

It was a setback for the U.S. program, which some analysts see as countering the growing development of ballistic missiles by Iran and North Korea but others say is part of an arms race with China, which tested a hypersonic system in January.

More...http://news.yahoo.com/experimental-u-hypersonic-weapon-explodes-during-flight-test-151527239.html

[Spendulus]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A hypersonic weapon being developed by the U.S. military was destroyed four seconds after its launch from a test range in Alaska early on Monday after controllers detected a problem with the system, the Pentagon said.

The weapon is part of a program to create a missile that will destroy targets anywhere on Earth within an hour of getting data and permission to launch.

The mission was aborted to ensure public safety, and no one was injured in the incident, which occurred shortly after 4 a.m. EDT at the Kodiak Launch Complex in Alaska, said Maureen Schumann, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Defense Department.

"We had to terminate," Schumann said. "The weapon exploded during takeoff and fell back down in the range complex," she added.

The incident caused an undetermined amount of damage to the launch facility, Schumann said.

It was a setback for the U.S. program, which some analysts see as countering the growing development of ballistic missiles by Iran and North Korea but others say is part of an arms race with China, which tested a hypersonic system in January.

More...http://news.yahoo.com/experimental-u-hypersonic-weapon-explodes-during-flight-test-151527239.html

This is not a big deal, hypersonic test articles have been disintegrating for decades and will continue to.  One carried aloft by an SR71 wound up destroying the SR71....

Very difficult area.

The idea of course would be to be able to hit an enemy with a non nuclear device (and without a ballistic missile trajectory) within an hour or so of  hitting the button.   Say hit ISIS even when no military assets are deployed in the immediate area.  Or (given a non coward for POTUS) turn a situation like Bengazi into a win.

[Kluge]

Surprising. What am I feeling? I think it's pride that they didn't let it follow through, then claim it was just "shit happens." .... Maybe my standards are too low.

[TaunSew]

The US still does not have a supersonic missile as far as I know, while the Indians / Russians plan to release the hypersonic BrahMos 2 in 2017.

Not sure if it changes a whole lot.  My assumption always had been if WW3 broke out that the US navy would be anchored in Alaska or somewhere remote so it wouldn't be sunk.  The years it takes to construct a naval vessel it's not worth the risk to expose them to actual fighting.

[koshgel]

Hitting a target anywhere in the world in under an hour....Is that scary as fuck to anyone else?

[GangkisKhan]

Hitting a target anywhere in the world in under an hour....Is that scary as fuck to anyone else?

Using violence to solve conflict usually backed fire.

The article did mention it will require permission. Hopefully, the congress has the balls to do what is right.

[Mike Christ]

The article did mention it will require permission.

Commander-in-chiefs don't need permission; they'll pretend congress or a constitution can control them as long as it benefits them but when they really want to do something, they just go ahead and do it anyway.  Heck, Lincoln was one of history's biggest offenders, nearing dictatorship levels of control, and he's revered as a hero by most.  Recently, Thailand's military overthrew its gov (coup d'etat), for the 2nd time, because the military couldn't agree with the politicians actions.  They don't care, if they need to take control, they will; they have the physical force to do so at any time.  Only issue is that it's inefficient to operate this way; a happy citizen is a productive citizen which will yield great tax crops, but dictatorships make for very unhappy citizens and the game of confidence comes crashing down in a short time period (look at any dictatorship's economy to see how it happens: Hitler's Germany, USSR, NK, you name it.)  You need the facade that government is remotely healthy for people in order for the warlords to turn a profit, and so a part of the facade is to pretend like your powers are limited.

Don't be fooled; it doesn't matter what congress says if the head the military disagrees.  What is congress going to do, get its own military?

[koshgel]

The article did mention it will require permission.

Commander-in-chiefs don't need permission; they'll pretend congress or a constitution can control them as long as it benefits them but when they really want to do something, they just go ahead and do it anyway.  Heck, Lincoln was one of history's biggest offenders, nearing dictatorship levels of control, and he's revered as a hero by most.  Recently, Thailand's military overthrew its gov (coup d'etat), for the 2nd time, because the military couldn't agree with the politicians actions.  They don't care, if they need to take control, they will; they have the physical force to do so at any time.  Only issue is that it's inefficient to operate this way; a happy citizen is a productive citizen which will yield great tax crops, but dictatorships make for very unhappy citizens and the game of confidence comes crashing down in a short time period (look at any dictatorship's economy to see how it happens: Hitler's Germany, USSR, NK, you name it.)  You need the facade that government is remotely healthy for people in order for the warlords to turn a profit, and so a part of the facade is to pretend like your powers are limited.

Don't be fooled; it doesn't matter what congress says if the head the military disagrees.  What is congress going to do, get its own military?

Agreed that the President can overrule Congress with an executive order.

Wealthy countries like Qatar, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia which basically act as dictatorships would probably disagree on the inefficient to operate part though.