- Jun 3, 2011
- Reaction score
Imagine where we'd be if they hadn't up and quit after X-51, HyFly, RATTLRS, HTV-2, etc, but instead kept trying to work the bugs out. I guess, "hey, let's quit because we've got problems, I'm sure it will go smoother if we just wait", isn't a viable strategy.I still think that is the least of their worries. Given what's new here is the BGV, the Warhead, and the Booster. Of these, the warhead was successfully tested recently. I assume the booster has done multiple static test firings so I don't see it being a major source of problems resulting in massive delays. But the BGV appears to be the most behind and DARPA seems to be totally silent on the state of that (or the HAWC for that matter even though we know it is 0/2 in flight testing so far). The program is a dead end if the glider doesn't work which is/was the biggest risk in terms of the AF went into a weapons program without actually flying the glider hardware first to validate viability and performance (they are doing the same with the scramjet cruise missile BTW).
Glad they left a weapons data-link and other technologies out of the A variant (Navy is working to add a WDL to the TBG glider) otherwise that would have added additional risk and delays. But the critical portion, as far as I'm concerned, is going to be TBG proving that the glide body performs as required. Without that, all you have is just an expensive short-medium range ballistic missile.