US Army Missile Delivery Service

33

Potential supplier of supplies for the US military. Spaceship from SpaceX. Source: techcrunch.com

Missile Affairs Infantrymen


If ballistic missiles are capable of carrying nuclear warheads, then why can't they send Marines into enemy lines? This fair problem was attended to in the United States back in the early 60s of the last century. In 1963, the newly appointed chief of the Marine Corps, General Wallace Green, Jr., proposed to President John F. Kennedy to build a booster rocket for the army's elite special forces. In the fantasies of the military, the armed forces received an unprecedented opportunity to transfer an entire battalion of marines anywhere in the world. From the moment of landing in the rocket to landing, according to calculations, it took no more than 60 minutes. The missile transport was very good - hypersonic speed on most of the trajectory, flight at heights unattainable for air defense of that time, and the possibility of landing in strategically important areas of the USSR and China.


60 years ago, it was planned to launch missiles with marines even from aircraft carriers. Source: thedrive.com

Engineer Philip Bono of Douglas Aircraft was responsible for the practical implementation. According to his idea, 1200 fighters were loaded into a 20-storey rocket somewhere at the Vandenberg base or at Cape Canaverel and set off to conquer the world at a speed of up to 27 thousand kilometers per hour. The flight altitude of the missiles was almost 200 kilometers. Now the launch of more than a thousand living people on such a journey seems crazy, and in the 60s, some hopes could well have been pinned on such a thing. The time was like this - the war ended quite recently, a nuclear weapon, and many simply did not know what to do with it all. Look at American road train LeTourneau TC-497 and you will understand that rocket transport for the Marine Corps is quite in trend at the time.



The most interesting thing is that, despite the extreme danger of the flight itself, Philip Bono decided to choose hydrogen as a fuel. Oxygen was the oxidizing agent, and this scheme promised great energy benefits. But 1200 fighters did not promise anything good, and, frankly, it took remarkable courage to agree to such an adventure. The development engineers also provided an individual jetpack for each infantryman. There are few tens of tons of hydrogen on board, and kilograms of rocket fuel add flammable surroundings. The Pentagon also understood this when they rejected the Douglas Aircraft project, complaining about the lack of technology development. However, there was another reason for the withdrawal of the revolutionary project from the race. An object flying at a few dozen swings could well have been mistaken for a combat ballistic missile. No one will explain in advance to Moscow and Beijing that the Americans launched a transport ship with 1200 marines to help the troops in Vietnam, and not for a nuclear strike. Although even if they had warned, no one would have believed. In general, the project was closed and they promised not to return to it again.

100 tons per hour


The renaissance of the idea of ​​Douglas Aircraft was the development of SpaceX and Virgin Orbit, which actually mastered commercial space transportation. In 2018, Air Force General Carlton Everhart was very impressed by the words of the SpaceX management about the possibility of flying around the entire globe in just half an hour. If the technology is so sophisticated and relatively budgetary, why not take advantage of it in the interests of the military? Moreover, this technique allows you to save up to 24 hours on the operational deployment of US troops anywhere in the world. Three years ago, General Everhart predicted that ground-to-ground transport missiles would appear in the army within 10 years. And, I must say, was not far from the truth. The Pentagon is asking for budget money for 2022 for Rocket Cargo, the material embodiment of the US Army's missile delivery service. By the way, money is required very small - only 50 million to renew contracts with SpaceX and Exploration Architecture Corporation. But Elon Musk already has a fully working reusable Starship rocket, and it won't take a lot of money to convert it into a military one. The carrying capacity of the device just meets the 100-ton criteria of the military. The willingness of the US Army to leave the rocket landing optional also plays a role in reducing costs. According to the new plan, if it is not possible to land a rocket, the contents of the transport compartments will simply be dropped with parachutes. The project also includes a descent cargo capsule, ejected at the desired point of the trajectory. So far, there is no talk of transferring paratroopers in this way. However, we can say with confidence that after the first successful experiments with military cargo, the turn of people will come. Moreover, jetpacks have already been tested and are actively used.


This is how the US sees the use of Rocket Cargo. Source: thedrive.com

The Rocket Cargo project should not be seen as another Pentagon hoax that taxpayers will waste their money on. The program is one of the four priority areas for the development of the US Air Force until 2030. In addition to the rocket delivery service, the list includes a program for integrating artificial intelligence into Drones Skyborg, Golden Horde airborne munitions project and Navigation Technology Satellite - 3 (NTS-3). The latter is a creative rethinking of GPS, only on a new, more advanced level.

This year, a little less than 10 million was spent on the project of a cargo delivery rocket, and it is obvious that a breakthrough happened somewhere. Now the Rocket Cargo program has been raised to the rank of priority and since September 2021 (in the USA the financial year starts on the day of knowledge) they ask for five times more. The project is considering the possibility of a preliminary delivery of cargoes to a near-earth orbit. Here they will be in standby mode until the arrival of the Starship truck, which will receive its 100 tons of cargo and set off to the target. This will significantly reduce the starting fuel supply on the rocket - there is no need to lift a multi-ton load from the planet's surface. True, in any case, you will initially have to spend money on lifting cargo to the orbital warehouse.

Mask at gunpoint


It's funny how Americans advertise the possibilities of the future system. The illustrations show the Starship reusable rockets ... delivering humanitarian supplies and medical supplies! The mission, of course, is good, but absolutely false - where and at what point in the world can we urgently need 100 tons of food and medicine? Can't wait 18-20 hours until a pair of C-17s arrive?


The American military, it turns out, also has "girl designers." The convoy of trucks looks suspiciously like Russian KamAZ trucks. Or is it a hint? Source: afresearchlab.com

By the way, about the S-17, or rather, about all transport aircraft. On average, the transfer of several tens of tons of cargo to the other end of the world costs about 500 thousand dollars, and the launch of Starship - 2 million. This is in the future and according to the most modest estimates of Elon Musk. All other rockets that can land on your ass are tens of times more expensive. Is 17-19 hours of gained time worth the transfer of multimillion-dollar losses for taxpayers? The question is rhetorical, but it is not one. The problem is again with the anti-missile systems of Russia and China. First, there is no guarantee that a Starship's flight on a ballistic trajectory will not be perceived as the beginning of a nuclear war. If a "transport" Starship chartered by the Pentagon is flying over Russia in space, what to do with it? According to the official legend, he transfers cargo through the North Pole somewhere to Israel or Pakistan. Secondly, there is no guarantee that the Americans will not equip Musk's missiles with nuclear warheads and secretly strike Moscow and Beijing with them. Still, 100 tons of payload is a solid potential for placing a nuclear warhead. The very idea of ​​militarizing Starship makes these launch vehicles potential targets for a preemptive strike by the Russian Aerospace Forces.
33 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    15 June 2021 04: 35
    US Army Missile Delivery Service
    We drank the loot - I don’t want to! laughing
    1. +1
      15 June 2021 05: 05
      The postal missile service was, why not organize a cargo one !!!
      Every whim for your money...
      By the way, we can also take part in such painting with KAMAZ vehicles! laughing
      1. +1
        15 June 2021 05: 24
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        arrange freight !!!

        But not landing or passenger ...
        1. +5
          15 June 2021 05: 44
          This year, a little less than 10 million was spent on the project of a cargo delivery rocket, and it is obvious that a breakthrough happened somewhere. Now the Rocket Cargo program has been raised to the rank of priority and since September 2021 (in the USA the financial year starts on the day of knowledge) they ask for five times more.

          The phrase is catchy, but in general "five times more" is $ 47 million. For that kind of money, even one satellite cannot be put into geostationary orbit. And to compare this amount with the $ 2.89 billion that HLS (Starship's lunar version) received from NASA is even somehow scary.
          1. +1
            15 June 2021 09: 01
            words of the leadership of SpaceX about the possibility to fly around the entire globe in just half an hour.

            How's that?
            Gagarin in the first spacecraft orbited the Earth in an hour and a half.

            And these gathered at what speed to fly around the Earth? request
            1. +3
              15 June 2021 13: 26
              It's just that the author knows almost nothing about the project. So get confused.
              For example, the same 30 is the average time of a sub-orbital flight point to point, that is, less than 50% of the circumference of the globe.
        2. +4
          15 June 2021 10: 36
          Quote: Uncle Lee
          Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
          arrange freight !!!

          But not landing or passenger ...

          I don’t understand what I’m talking about. In general, rocketry is used precisely for delivering this or that into space (people, equipment, rovers, etc.), and to the ground (warheads) So it's just a matter of expanding the possibilities of such deliveries, but the result will depend from expediency and no more ...
          1. +1
            15 June 2021 21: 08
            Musk wants to start by creating a "bridge" across space between the United States and Australia.
            Two offshore platforms-cosmodrome.
            And two fully reusable space shuttles.
            Shuttle - cargo-passenger space rocket,
            sitting down, like Falcon-9, on its exhaust.
            If this succeeds, then the generals' fantasies are also feasible.
    2. +1
      15 June 2021 05: 48
      In military terms, everything is still utopian - the loss of one missile with anything: a landing party or a cargo, is much more painful and expensive than the loss of one VTA aircraft!
      1. -1
        15 June 2021 13: 27
        Considering the prices stated by Musk and Lockheed and Boeing. Starship is much cheaper than US military aviation aircraft. Able to carry a similar volume of cargo.
        1. +1
          15 June 2021 13: 28
          The flying pipe itself, perhaps, but the whole infrastructure?
          1. 0
            15 June 2021 13: 32
            So, who will break her? Iraq, Syria, Iran, or against whom else can you fight without a nuclear war? Only the second stage of Starship is under threat. And then for third countries, try to shoot down a hypersonic superhigh target. They know the S-500 mountains are not observed.
  2. +3
    15 June 2021 05: 56
    Is 17-19 hours of gained time worth the transfer of multimillion-dollar losses for taxpayers? Rhetorical question
    Not rhetorical. Depends on the circumstances. These 17-19 hours can be critical in a certain situation.
    1. KCA
      0
      15 June 2021 07: 21
      So you can throw on the TU-160, they put the cow in the TU-22M3, you can put boxes in the 160 compartment, well, or with paratroopers :-) Only the paratroopers may not want to jump, they will get out of hand
    2. 0
      15 June 2021 09: 57
      All is well, only these are no longer marines, but astronauts. G-forces and all that.
      How much will the preparation cost?
    3. -3
      15 June 2021 13: 30
      Especially that the basic idea is to drop 100 tons of missiles, barrage ammunition and UAVs over any target city. That will start hell there. Starship itself can fly away further for reuse or become a giant bomb. A huge iron barrel filled with fuel and oxygen vapors. Bakhnet is not enough for anyone to see it, Dad and Mom of all bombs are resting.
  3. +2
    15 June 2021 06: 59
    Too futuristic. Well, you threw a battalion behind enemy lines, and then what? The rocket will remain at the landing site. No fuel, no launcher, no infrastructure. It is an expensive pleasure to deliver goods or people. In the distant future, it may still be, but definitely not the starship.
    1. +5
      15 June 2021 08: 01
      As a transfer of troops is a useless idea. In the rear, several hundred soldiers are useless without heavy weapons.
      As a transport for the transfer of people and goods over long distances, from the cosmodrome to the cosmodrome, it is a completely sound idea. Price question.
      In the 50s, they still fantasized this.

      1. 0
        15 June 2021 10: 14
        The fact of the matter is that the price here cannot be cheap, in principle, and the noise (vanity) and the value of such a transfer are often very controversial. That is, if it is profitable somewhere, then this is a very rare case, and all the funds invested in the program will not soon pay off. In any case, now this project looks more like a lure for rivalry. I would pay more attention to shuttles, which can hang in orbit for years with a return to the airfield. This is a much more plausible scheme of work.
  4. +3
    15 June 2021 07: 11
    And for some reason everyone forgets about kinetic energy. Failure of the ballistic vehicle braking system can create a situation where the very 100 tons of medicines will be needed in an hour, and possibly more and faster if 100 tons of cargo and a couple of hundred tons of the rocket body itself, engines and fuel residues crash at full speed into the ground. And this is not a hypothetical possibility, since not a single type of launch vehicle has ever flown thousands of successful flights in a row. In reality, 1% of accidents is considered an excellent indicator of reliability.
  5. -3
    15 June 2021 10: 54
    They no longer know how to steal money. Overload, the difficulty of disembarkation, plus the enormous cost, is the first thing that comes to mind. Delivery within an hour and a month of preparation (refueling, training of personnel, equipment in special anti-overload suits, and then taking them off, fixing the equipment, after all, it will be at least 5G) for shipment.
  6. -5
    15 June 2021 13: 01
    Is 17-19 hours of gained time worth the transfer of multimillion-dollar losses for taxpayers? The question is rhetorical, but it is not one.

    Of course not, because these missiles are not suitable for a strategic nuclear war, even from the point of view of the time of their preparation at the start. And for the usual transfer of troops, it is much cheaper and safer to use aircraft or the surface fleet.
    So this project is an ordinary advertising dummy, and nothing more. But advertising stuffing is notable ...
  7. Lew
    0
    15 June 2021 13: 05
    Well, .... when they dreamed of flying into space, everything can be that they will throw rockets at negritos.
  8. 0
    15 June 2021 13: 22
    While Rogozin and Co. are sawing money and laughing at Musk, he is doing his job! The one who does nothing is not mistaken! The Roscosmos liquidation manager and its level information - below the plinth - perfectly fulfills the task assigned to him! A sad sight !!!
  9. -1
    15 June 2021 15: 33
    And everything rests against the descent vehicle. In its mass, more precisely.

    First, it is necessary to decelerate from the first space on a segment longer than the layer of the atmosphere. And this is fuel.

    Secondly, it is necessary to enter the landing area in a controlled manner in order to land the device where it is necessary, and not where it has to. And this is again fuel and / or the presence of aerodynamic rudders.

    Ultimately, it's easier to throw in a whole ospray with the crew at once. Or two. How much is there and 100 tons will fit?
  10. +3
    16 June 2021 12: 18
    The article is superficial.
    Elon Musk already has a fully working reusable Starship rocket
    missing the word "project" or "prototype", which makes a big difference. Musk has a plan to create such a rocket and it is highly likely that he will create one. But today there is no Starship suborbital flying rocket.

    In a single-stage version (the second stage of the Starship system), according to Musk in 2019, the rocket can fly "unexpectedly far" (twitter). Here is the graph
    the dependence of the range from acceleration to a specific speed (delta-V)

    However, from the weight of the payload, you will have to subtract the weight of the fuel for braking (soft landing) and landing equipment - in contrast to ballistic missiles.

    Thus, the Starship in a single-stage version will be able to throw about 20 tons across the Atlantic with a soft landing. For 30-45 minutes of flight. Not bad, interesting, but not 100 tons. The main advantage is precisely the speed of delivery, since a cargo comparable to 100 tons can also be delivered by transport aviation. Yes, it will require air refueling and an airfield for landing. And more time.

    With a two-stage rocket, it is also not so simple. Starship's future capability to deliver 100 tons into orbit (LEO) has been widely touted. But there is a nuance - then the Starship will not be able to plant the same 100 tons. Payloads have to be cut again ...
    1. +1
      17 June 2021 00: 45
      Quote: Proctologist
      However, the weight of the fuel for braking (soft landing) and landing equipment will have to be subtracted from the weight of the payload.

      Starship spends minimal fuel to support a rocket landing. Aerodynamic braking is used when entering the atmosphere (for this, the body is made of steel) and maneuver in the atmosphere to select the landing site. with flaperons. The falling speed is reduced to 0 without the help of engines, only by the operation of flaperons and at an altitude of 500 meters. Further to the Earth by engines.
      No additional landing equipment required fellow
      But there is a nuance - then the Starship will not be able to plant the same 100 tons.

      Come on, I guess it can. The chosen landing scheme does not limit anything to PN. This is a non-planning Shuttle.
      Initially, St. Elon announced long-haul flights of London-Sydney passengers. Which is more reasonable than military use, which is highly questionable. Although, sudden vertical coverage, for example, enemy bases is possible, of course. If the base does not have air defense.
      The commercial use is much more interesting. I wouldn't be surprised if the whole Starship venture ends up with this in the end. This application is quite competitive compared to supersonic flights.
  11. +1
    16 June 2021 21: 47
    in a Soviet film (possibly "Running") an adventurer, brilliantly performed by Vladimir Basov, demonstrates in the General Staff of the Russian Imperial Army (if I am not mistaken) a miracle weapon - a three-wheeled pepelats, drags it across the table in front of the stunned generals)))))
    so in the Nasav chicken coop in 2004, they promised, just like the naive US Air Force General Carlton Everhart, that in 2020 the state lohonaut will wash galoshes in the moon dust ...
    after numerous promises that "just about ....!", the program "Constellation" has died happily for an obvious reason - no, and did not have NASA has the ability to send people to the moon and bring them back.
    Phil Coots in June 2014:
    http://www.ffke1975.narod.ru/s/s8/s84/moon_base.htm
  12. +1
    16 June 2021 22: 04
    Quote: Proctologist
    However, from the weight of the payload, you will have to subtract the weight of the fuel for braking (soft landing) and landing equipment - in contrast to ballistic missiles.


    plus, somehow they "forget" about the law of conservation of momentum)))
  13. 0
    17 June 2021 16: 40
    Quote: Mityai65
    Starship spends minimal fuel to support a rocket landing. Aerodynamic braking is used when entering the atmosphere (for this, the body is made of steel) and maneuver in the atmosphere to select the landing site. with flaperons. The falling speed is reduced to 0 without the help of engines, only by the operation of flaperons and at an altitude of 500 meters.


    The current (flying) versions of the Straship orbital rocket prototype fueled and consumed a small amount of fuel needed to accelerate to subsonic speeds and climb 10 km and then land with - quite rightly - an experimental aerodynamic braking maneuver.

    The laws of physics have not been canceled, and the higher the kinetic energy, that is, both the speed and the mass of an object, the more energy will be required to slow it down. During aerodynamic braking, energy is lost to heat and thermal protection is required. The thicker and heavier, the more energy is supposed to be dumped into heat.

    I know that the maximum weight of the payload to Mars from the Earth with aerial braking is limited precisely by the capabilities of this aerial braking and in the current configuration of the NASA descent vehicles it cannot be significantly increased. Hence the weight limit for the rover is 1 ton. Or the textbook case of the bailout of Gagarin (a secret for the Americans) precisely because of the lack of energy to brake the Vostok's heavy capsule.

    The ability of an aircraft to maneuver in a plasma cloud at hypersonic speeds is currently a poorly studied topic, in contrast to ballistics. Therefore, talking about some cunning maneuver in order to optimize the trajectory for a smooth release of speed / energy can only be hypothetical. I cannot judge to what extent Starship can brake without consuming mass in one way or another.

    To summarize, I believe that in the single-stage version Starship will be able to throw individual tens of tons at a distance according to the higher schedule (the further, the less weight), and in the two-stage version it will require the completion of the landing pattern for the increased weight (but also the speed is less than the first space speed), that is 100 tons, too, will not be able to be thrown yet. An interesting side conclusion is that Starship with a payload can be launched in a two-stage version, while after unloading and refueling at the landing point, it will be able to return to the spaceport empty without the first stage.
  14. 0
    19 June 2021 16: 49
    There is 1 mAA Little problem.
    On air defense radars, it will look like a ballistic missile with nuclear warheads.
    This means that the answer to the "transfer of elite soldiers" will be a full-scale nuclear bombing of the aggressor country.
  15. 0
    20 June 2021 15: 37
    ambulance kamaz take dreamers where they need to
  16. +1
    2 August 2021 16: 29
    There are, of course, a lot of cons. But then, Musk has overtaken the rocket industry in Russia, starting from scratch literally <25 years ago, this is a fact. And at the same time, Musk is a private trader !!! And Rogozin, having a journalist education and not a very successful period in his service list as head of Rosoboronprom, in response, can only offer real cinema in space with a light hand to Kostya Ernst ...