Author Topic: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics  (Read 17660 times)

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8015
  • UK
  • Liked: 1280
  • Likes Given: 168
General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« on: 05/29/2015 09:27 AM »
I did have a thread on here that was about using a hypersonic launcher but that was too specific & as there seems to be quite a fair bit of development going on in this area I thought it might be an idea to start a more general thread about it. This thread is for developments that are not related to Skylon. As a general point in relation to this forum I've added the thread as hypersonic research can include straddling the line between general aviation & space flight the hypersonic vehicles for example are often launched in the same way.

Anyway I start the thread with this article.

Quote
Waltham missile maker Raytheon Co. has just taken on a tall order from the Department of Defense: Create a cruise missile that could travel more than five times the speed of sound.

Raytheon is getting $20 million from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, the Pentagon branch best known for having sponsored the invention of the Internet. This time, the agency wants a technology that weapons designers have dreamed of since the 1930s — a hypersonic missile that travels so fast there’s virtually no defense against it.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/05/26/going-hypersonic-raytheon/Qnrg2YJUdMo2SXiVphoBaO/story.html#

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8015
  • UK
  • Liked: 1280
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #1 on: 06/02/2015 06:19 PM »
AF Chief Scientist: Air Force Working on New Hypersonic Air Vehicle.

Presuming they are meaning a drone or aircraft here, not a missile.


Read more: http://defensetech.org/2015/06/01/af-chief-scientist-air-force-working-on-new-hypersonic-air-vehicle/#ixzz3bvjakFd4
Defense.org

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 987
  • Liked: 305
  • Likes Given: 89
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #2 on: 06/02/2015 06:26 PM »
the cruise missile application continues to look like the most obvious to me:

"The new air vehicle effort will progress alongside an Air Force hypersonic weapons program. While today’s cruise missiles travel at speeds up to 600 miles per hour, hypersonic weapons will be able to reach speeds of Mach 5 to Mach 10, Air Force officials said. The new air vehicle could be used to transport sensors, equipment or weaponry in the future, depending upon how the technology develops"

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8015
  • UK
  • Liked: 1280
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #3 on: 06/02/2015 08:02 PM »
What they could be talking about here is the HSSW.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/high-speed-strike-weapon-hssw.html

I still wonder if REL's technology could play a part in something even more ambitious than the HSSW.

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4243
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 1416
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #4 on: 06/05/2015 01:13 AM »
What they could be talking about here is the HSSW.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/high-speed-strike-weapon-hssw.html

I still wonder if REL's technology could play a part in something even more ambitious than the HSSW.

With the former chief engineer of Rolls Royce taking the Managing Directors job at REL ISTM something's afoot. A sideways move before an acquisition? Or someone western govts can be assured can mature a possible defense windfall?
DM

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #5 on: 06/05/2015 03:38 AM »
Unfortunately wars and weapons seem to drive technology development. The plus side is technology from a hyper sonic cruise missile should enable development of civil hyper sonic aircraft.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8015
  • UK
  • Liked: 1280
  • Likes Given: 168
General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #6 on: 06/19/2015 10:17 PM »
New article on the SR-72 with a very little more detail on its design in the text. Got a feeling the related magazine article might be more extensive.

http://www.popsci.com/inside-americas-next-spyplane
« Last Edit: 06/19/2015 11:02 PM by Star One »

Offline jee_c2

  • Member
  • Posts: 64
  • Budapest, Hungary
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #7 on: 06/20/2015 12:58 PM »
Here is an article about communicating with hypersonic vehicles in flight:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Communicating_with_hypersonic_vehicles_in_flight_999.html

(about a method: how to overcome the craft surrounding, EM waves reflecting plasma layer)

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8015
  • UK
  • Liked: 1280
  • Likes Given: 168
General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #8 on: 06/23/2015 08:53 PM »
Pulse detonation engine and continuous detonation wave engines.

Various bits & pieces of info.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/06/pulse-detonation-engine-and-continuous.html

Notice the PDE space plane.:D
« Last Edit: 06/23/2015 09:00 PM by Star One »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8015
  • UK
  • Liked: 1280
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #9 on: 08/19/2015 06:41 AM »
German space researchers reboot effort to launch hypersonic space plane

Quote
The Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR), Germany's aerospace research center, has renewed decade-old plans for a suborbital passenger space plane that could fly from Europe to Australia in under 90 minutes. The rocket-powered SpaceLiner, originally conceptualized as a 50-passenger hypersonic airliner, has now been given new urgency and direction with a roadmap for flights within the next 20 years, SpaceLiner project lead Martin Sippel told Aviation Week at last month's American Institute of Aerodynamics and Astronautics' Space Planes and Hypersonics Conference in Glasgow. Sippel spoke at the conference, presenting on SpaceLiner's technical progress and the program's mission definition—which now includes potentially delivering satellites and other payloads to space.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/08/german-space-researchers-reboot-effort-to-launch-hypersonic-space-plane/

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5881
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 745
  • Likes Given: 4532
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #10 on: 08/19/2015 09:23 AM »
Unfortunately wars and weapons seem to drive technology development. The plus side is technology from a hyper sonic cruise missile should enable development of civil hyper sonic aircraft.
True.

Unlikely to be much use in building LVs.
Pulse detonation engine and continuous detonation wave engines.

Various bits & pieces of info.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/06/pulse-detonation-engine-and-continuous.html

Notice the PDE space plane.:D
The plane is interesting.

Especially considering how far a SCRamjet crew carrying vehicle remains

German space researchers reboot effort to launch hypersonic space plane

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/08/german-space-researchers-reboot-effort-to-launch-hypersonic-space-plane/
And for only $33Bn.

IIRC that's just over 1/2 cost of the Shuttle programme in 2010+ dollars (the figure I saw was $60Bn).

Here is an article about communicating with hypersonic vehicles in flight:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Communicating_with_hypersonic_vehicles_in_flight_999.html

(about a method: how to overcome the craft surrounding, EM waves reflecting plasma layer)
Neat idea. It's one of those "Why didn't anyone think of it before" notions.   :(

Reduce losses by impedance matching the plasma.

IIRC the Spring ABM did this to control the missile in flight but needed radar signals in the MW range to punch through the sheath.

The joker in this pack is of course how the plasma sheath thickness compares to the usual range of radio frequencies people use for comms.

It would be quite ironic if needed HF (relying in ionospheric reflection from the plasma there) to get through the plasma sheath around your M5 vehicle.

It would also mean all those GHz satcomms systems would be useless as well.
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10272
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2036
  • Likes Given: 624
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #11 on: 08/19/2015 02:12 PM »
A hypersonic flight from New York to Los Angeles would take about 30 minutes but if that includes high acceleration at NY and high deceleration at LA then what kind of g's are we talking about? Could civilian passengers withstand that? And what would be the actual cruise time at altitude?
« Last Edit: 08/19/2015 02:14 PM by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8153
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 104
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #12 on: 08/19/2015 10:02 PM »
A hypersonic flight from New York to Los Angeles would take about 30 minutes but if that includes high acceleration at NY and high deceleration at LA then what kind of g's are we talking about? Could civilian passengers withstand that? And what would be the actual cruise time at altitude?

Limit acceleration to 0.5 g, hypersonic is Mach 5+ so round off to 2000 m/s then it will take about 6.8 minutes to reach that speed. Total journey will be less than 3/4 hour. Unless the aircraft has to fly subsonic until it reaches the countryside.

Offline Rocket Surgeon

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 121
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #13 on: 08/24/2015 11:48 PM »
In the eternal words of one of my uni mates at UQ: "Scramjets Suck"

In all seriousness, Scramjets are an incredibly difficult technology to make work across varying speeds as the entire engine needs to be designed around the bow shockwaves created by any leading edges. The problem is, these shockwaves change angle as you speed up and you lose efficiency and/or risk destroying your vehicle if the shocks don't contact the right points. Hence, you're entire vehicle (or at least the engines) need to morph as they speed up, and at hypersonic speeds, that's a tall order. At the University of Queensland, they were at one point investigating vehicles that would sweat COPPER in order to protect themselves form the hyper sonic heat. But, at a constant hypersonic speed for a short time, they are great (espeacially if they are...'disposable').

This has one very unfortunate implication for anyone working on scramjet research. It will really only have military applications, either as hyper sonic cruise missiles or hypersonic spy planes. As a space launch system where you have to constantly speed up and get out of the atmosphere ASAP, well as I said above, "Scramjets suck". 

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8015
  • UK
  • Liked: 1280
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #14 on: 08/29/2015 09:44 AM »
Breakneck Speed: New Russian Jet Engine to Propel Aircraft to 9,000 Kmh

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150823/1026084410/russia-creates-breakthrough-jet-engine.html#ixzz3kCCLCbSi

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8015
  • UK
  • Liked: 1280
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #15 on: 09/22/2015 07:33 AM »
China may have conducted test flight of world's fastest aircraft

Quote
China may have recently conducted a successful test of the fastest hypersonic aircraft in the world, reports Hong Kong newspaper Ta Kung Pao.

According to a report released Friday on the official website of state-owned aerospace and defense giant Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC), one of its test flight centers has completed an initial test flight on an unspecified high-altitude, super-fast aircraft with a "unique flying style."

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20150921000033&cid=1101

Offline Eric Hedman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 764
  • Liked: 186
  • Likes Given: 157
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #16 on: 03/16/2016 03:10 PM »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8015
  • UK
  • Liked: 1280
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #17 on: 03/16/2016 07:32 PM »
For a non-paywall version. Space flight actually gets a specific mention in this.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-pushing-1-billion-mach-6-airbreather-423198/

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8015
  • UK
  • Liked: 1280
  • Likes Given: 168
General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #18 on: 06/28/2016 06:23 AM »
DARPA revives turbine-ramjet concept for hypersonics

A turbine-based combined cycle (TBCC) propulsion system to enable routine hypersonic flight by a vehicle that can take-off and land from a runway is back on the agenda at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) after a five-year hiatus.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/darpa-revives-turbine-ramjet-concept-for-hypersonics-426735/
« Last Edit: 06/28/2016 06:24 AM by Star One »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5881
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 745
  • Likes Given: 4532
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #19 on: 06/29/2016 07:46 AM »
DARPA revives turbine-ramjet concept for hypersonics

A turbine-based combined cycle (TBCC) propulsion system to enable routine hypersonic flight by a vehicle that can take-off and land from a runway is back on the agenda at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) after a five-year hiatus.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/darpa-revives-turbine-ramjet-concept-for-hypersonics-426735/
It always amuses me when I see the term "integrated" in one of these announcements.

The most "integrated" way to do this is of course to ditch the ramjet part entirely, which is basically what SABRE does.

The problem then becomes how to keep the airframe from melting. An interesting  idea in this regard would be make it out of RCC with a refractory oxidation resistant metal. Atomic Layer Deposition produces multiple thin, highly conformant layers which could be very well matched to the underlying RCC, substantially reducing cracking and raising use temperature over current silica glass coatings.
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Offline su27k

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 642
  • Liked: 390
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #20 on: 07/14/2016 04:28 PM »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8015
  • UK
  • Liked: 1280
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #21 on: 11/10/2016 06:37 AM »
Hypersonic Flight Is Coming: Will the US Lead the Way?

Quote
"We're poised on the brink of a new era in air transportation," McBride said. "We do need to go faster. There is a market for supersonic flight over land in an efficient manner that can fly without being an annoyance to everyone on the ground."

NASA also is exploring ways to improve the efficiency and reduce the environmental impacts of subsonic aircraft. Engineers are experimenting with blended wings and other innovations.

Smith admitted that the difficulty that Congress and the president have experienced in passing budgets has caused problems in sustaining research.

"None of that is conducive to good work getting done in an efficient way," Smith said. "And we can do better. We need to get to the point where continuity actually lasts beyond just one administration, much less beyond tomorrow. And we're with you on that."

Bedke said there is no time to waste in moving these programs forward.

"It is inevitable that hypersonic technologies are going to happen," he said. "It is not inevitable that we are going to be the country to do it first. But we can be the country to do it first, but we're going to have to put our minds to it, and we're going to have to stop the history of fits and starts, of throwing money at a big program, achieving a wild success, and then having no follow-up. Or throwing a lot of money at too big a program, taking too giant a bite, failing miserably and then deciding hypersonics isn't going anywhere. Neither of those must be allowed to happen in the coming years."

http://www.space.com/34631-hypersonic-flight-technology-united-states.html

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5881
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 745
  • Likes Given: 4532
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #22 on: 11/10/2016 08:09 AM »
Hypersonic Flight Is Coming: Will the US Lead the Way?
http://www.space.com/34631-hypersonic-flight-technology-united-states.html
I feel the same way about "historical inevitability" as I do about claims that normal economics does not apply to company X.

It was claimed the triumph of Communism was also "historically inevitable." This turned out to be nonsense.

If your a military with a large budget you can already have hypersonic flight. You just stick your missile on a very big rocket, which is how Sprint ABM did it. If you want more range you make it a liquid fueled rocket.

Routine hypersonic flight, which you can buy a ticket for, needs a lot more than this. It needs a human carrying aircraft capable of long duration operation.  Options that work fine for single use, limited time systems like ablatives are not really viable for repeated, long duration operations.

Not only the options weapons use are unlikely to be viable for civilian use but it seems that due to problems with CFD the only reliable way to do a SCramjet is full scale development. Wind tunnels don't cut it either. So you need a full size, full speed development programme for a SCramjet vehicle in a way you simply don't need for any  other engine system.

IOW if you want to develop a full size SCramjet powered airliner you have to have a full size SCramjet powered airliner to do the development work on to ensure the results are accurate.

Concorde proved there is a market for flights faster than M1.  The joker in the pack is a development programme that commercial companies can afford that will sell enough vehicles for them to make a profit.

I think the days when governments like the French, British and American would do this as a cost plus project for "national pride" are long over. The US experience of both the SST and the NASP should have taught them to stay well away from this.
Russia Is Building a Nuclear Space Bomber
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/14/russia-is-building-a-nuclear-space-bomber.html

Russia reveals hypersonic stealth bomber that can launch nuclear attacks from space: Radical plane could begin testing in 2020
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3689325/Russia-reveals-hypersonic-stealth-bomber-launch-nuclear-attacks-space-Radical-plane-begin-testing-2020.html
Lots of odd ideas in these articles.

Assuming a 2 hr to target up to half a planet away that's  a speed of roughly 10 000 Km/Hr, about Mach 8.16

This is not orbital and would not break the Outer Space Treaty, except (technically) when it was outside the atmosphere.

Note also they are talking about a tri propellant (or possibly quadpropellant) engine of Kero/Methane/Air (and LO2?)

TBH this story sounds like Russia playing a version of the old "Nuclear powered bomber" scare of the 1950s, which managed to divert millions of $ into a concept that was basically unworkable.

I've also very doubtful the X37b is not big enough for a nuke, given you can put one in a 155mm or 200mm artillery shell and naval shells are being fitted with control fins and GPS to improve their accuracy.
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Offline Paul Howard

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 451
  • Perth, Western Australia
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #23 on: 11/18/2016 08:09 PM »
When is the next hypersonic test planned?

Offline CameronD

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1224
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • Norton Consultants
  • Liked: 391
  • Likes Given: 289
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine - however, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are
going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8015
  • UK
  • Liked: 1280
  • Likes Given: 168
General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #25 on: 12/12/2016 12:02 PM »
Quote
Aerojet Rocketdyne Explores Detonation Engine Options

For over 70 years, jet engines have powered airplanes ever more safely and efficiently. But, despite higher core temperatures and pressures, and the introduction of efficient propulsion concepts like the geared fan, conventional gas turbines may be running out of runway. A fundamental change in the way a gas turbine combusts air and fuel in its core could open a path to a new era of jet engine development, however. Long pursued by propulsion researchers as a potential game-changing ...

http://m.aviationweek.com/technology/aerojet-rocketdyne-explores-detonation-engine-options
« Last Edit: 12/12/2016 12:03 PM by Star One »

Offline Hog

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 244
  • Likes Given: 554
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #26 on: 12/12/2016 05:01 PM »


I've also very doubtful the X37b is not big enough for a nuke, given you can put one in a 155mm or 200mm artillery shell and naval shells are being fitted with control fins and GPS to improve their accuracy.
The MADM(Medium Atomic Demolition Munition) weighed 181kg/400 pounds was a variable-yield from 1 kiloton up to 15 kilotons equivalent of TNT. Based off of the W45 warhead.

The SADM(Special Atomic Demolition Munition)  Based off of the W54 warhead which was used on the Davy Crocket weapons system which  had a warhead that weighed approx. 23kg(51 pounds) with its TNT equivalent between 10 tons and 1 kiloton.

I would have to agree that at least one of these devices could be loaded aboard an X-37B
Pics
1)MADM
2)SADM
3)XW-54 detonation yield at 6 kilotons TBT equivalent
4)Davy Crocket recoilless rifle system (2,100 built)
Paul

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5881
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 745
  • Likes Given: 4532
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #27 on: 12/12/2016 11:01 PM »
The MADM(Medium Atomic Demolition Munition) weighed 181kg/400 pounds was a variable-yield from 1 kiloton up to 15 kilotons equivalent of TNT. Based off of the W45 warhead.

The SADM(Special Atomic Demolition Munition)  Based off of the W54 warhead which was used on the Davy Crocket weapons system which  had a warhead that weighed approx. 23kg(51 pounds) with its TNT equivalent between 10 tons and 1 kiloton.

I would have to agree that at least one of these devices could be loaded aboard an X-37B
Pics
1)MADM
2)SADM
3)XW-54 detonation yield at 6 kilotons TBT equivalent
4)Davy Crocket recoilless rifle system (2,100 built)
My point exactly. The sort of thing I was thinking about was even smaller.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_artillery

Specifically the W48 at 155mm with a yield of 0.1KT (IE 100 tonnes of TNT).

I'm pretty sure this and the larger W33 (200mm dia, 40KT yield) would be within the carrying mass of the X37b.

That said IRL any such plan faces several problems.
1) AFAIK the last shell was dismantled in about 2004.
2) Shells are not re-entry vehicles. It would need to be wrapped in TPS and given a guidance package. leaving it inside the X37b is a very expensive way to wage (limited, IE 1 shot) nuclear warfare.
3)Developing a suitable TPS/guidance package, along with a dispenser from the X37b's payload bay is likely to be a time consuming and expensive task. Well within the capabilities of the US, but a royal PITA.

My point was the payload limits on the X37b are not a barrier to making it an orbital nuclear delivery vehicle.

It's everything else (treaty obligations, technical complexity, sheer expense) that does that.
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Offline RDoc

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 359
  • Liked: 40
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #28 on: 01/01/2017 11:07 PM »
I think there might also be some real questions about viability of any kind of high altitude bomber-like based attack. Sounds like a sitting duck for missile defenses.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5881
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 745
  • Likes Given: 4532
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #29 on: 01/03/2017 06:13 AM »
I think there might also be some real questions about viability of any kind of high altitude bomber-like based attack. Sounds like a sitting duck for missile defenses.
There's plenty of reason to question such an idea.

Like weaponizing a Skylon, if you have the skills to do it, you have the skills to cause trouble a lot more easily and cheaply.

It's a plot line from a straight-to-download thriller.   :(
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8015
  • UK
  • Liked: 1280
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #30 on: 01/03/2017 07:13 AM »
I think there might also be some real questions about viability of any kind of high altitude bomber-like based attack. Sounds like a sitting duck for missile defenses.
There's plenty of reason to question such an idea.

Like weaponizing a Skylon, if you have the skills to do it, you have the skills to cause trouble a lot more easily and cheaply.

It's a plot line from a straight-to-download thriller.   :(
Best you tell the new president then being as I've seen it quoted multiple times that part of the increased money for defence that he intends to introduce is for hypersonic related projects.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8015
  • UK
  • Liked: 1280
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #31 on: 02/09/2017 08:24 PM »
Leading development of hypersonic engines and spaceplanes

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/02/leading-development-of-hypersonic.html

Offline CameronD

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1224
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • Norton Consultants
  • Liked: 391
  • Likes Given: 289
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #32 on: 02/10/2017 12:46 AM »
Leading development of hypersonic engines and spaceplanes

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/02/leading-development-of-hypersonic.html

That's just click-bait masquerading as a re-hash of old news and advertising.  It isn't even current, making statements like:
"Hypermach has completed final detail design of the first stage turbine core of a hypersonic engine. Manufacturing of this first stage has begun and is expected to be finished in 2016" -- Hello?  It's 2017 already.
and
"Reaction Engines of the UK is a leader in developing a hypersonic vehicle and hypersonic components" --  If anyone on the planet is a "leader in developing a hypersonic vehicle and hypersonic components" it would have to be the Hyshot team, not them.

No, nothing to see here.. move along! :)
« Last Edit: 02/10/2017 12:48 AM by CameronD »
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine - however, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are
going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8015
  • UK
  • Liked: 1280
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #33 on: 02/10/2017 06:23 AM »
Leading development of hypersonic engines and spaceplanes

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/02/leading-development-of-hypersonic.html

That's just click-bait masquerading as a re-hash of old news and advertising.  It isn't even current, making statements like:
"Hypermach has completed final detail design of the first stage turbine core of a hypersonic engine. Manufacturing of this first stage has begun and is expected to be finished in 2016" -- Hello?  It's 2017 already.
and
"Reaction Engines of the UK is a leader in developing a hypersonic vehicle and hypersonic components" --  If anyone on the planet is a "leader in developing a hypersonic vehicle and hypersonic components" it would have to be the Hyshot team, not them.

No, nothing to see here.. move along! :)

Your commentary about REL is pretty disingenuous.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8015
  • UK
  • Liked: 1280
  • Likes Given: 168
General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #34 on: 02/17/2017 06:36 PM »
Classified Report On Hypersonics Says U.S. Lacking Urgency

Quote
Less than four years ago, it seemed that the U.S. Air Force was on the brink of developing the first generation of air-breathing high-speed strike weapons following the success of the experimental scramjet-powered Boeing X-51A. Now a classified report warns that the U.S. may be losing its lead in hypersonics to China and Russia. Although parallel research on hypersonic glide vehicles under DARPA’s HTV-2 program suffered failures in 2010 and 2011, the Air Force by 2013 appeared ...

Quote
Others involved in U.S. hypersonics support the report’s recommendations. Kevin Bowcutt, senior technical fellow and chief scientist for hypersonics at Boeing Research and Technology, says “many lessons on the path to X-51A success were hard-earned. Given the criticality of hypersonics as articulated in the report and with X-51A under our belt, there would be obvious value in leveraging this extensive experience and know-how to accelerate full-scale development of an operational hypersonic vehicle or weapon.”

Bowcutt also believes the U.S. needs to create “a comprehensive national plan with adequate funding that fields offensive and defensive hypersonic capabilities as quickly as technology maturation, system integration and capability demonstration allow.”

“It is a big problem for us. We have been kind of resting on our laurels,” says Leon McKinney, president of McKinney Associates and former executive director of the U.S. hypersonics industry team. “The U.S. has been fighting wars and terrorism, so that is one of the reasons why we have not seen a burst of capability developments. But it seems our adversaries are catching up.”

McKinney backs a three-phased approach to spurring development of a boost-glide capability, starting with a focus on an offensive hypersonic system that he believes could still be fielded within three years. Development of a defensive system, which McKinney says is “tough,” would aim at characterizing Chinese and Russian vehicle maneuvering capabilities to produce a “threat tube,” to enable effective interdiction. A third element would include development of a maneuvering target vehicle “which we could engage as a simulated threat.”

The report does not specify that current programs should be abandoned, “but we think there are some programmatic changes we need to see,” says Lewis. “We just say, step on the gas and move these programs forward. If you want to map out a strategy to get you from the things we have tested to an operational system, one would argue we are not on that track.”

http://aviationweek.com/defense/classified-report-hypersonics-says-us-lacking-urgency

Podcast: Hypersonics Wake-Up Call

http://aviationweek.com/defense/podcast-hypersonics-wake-call
« Last Edit: 02/17/2017 07:02 PM by Star One »

Offline CameronD

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1224
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • Norton Consultants
  • Liked: 391
  • Likes Given: 289
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #35 on: 02/19/2017 09:37 PM »
Classified Report On Hypersonics Says U.S. Lacking Urgency

Sounds to me more like a call for more money by someone frustrated at the current lack of progress..

After all, it wouldn't be the first time in the history of aerospace that "The Russians Are Coming!" evoked a response from those holding the purse-strings.  :P
« Last Edit: 02/19/2017 09:41 PM by CameronD »
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine - however, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are
going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8015
  • UK
  • Liked: 1280
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #36 on: 02/19/2017 10:08 PM »
Classified Report On Hypersonics Says U.S. Lacking Urgency

Sounds to me more like a call for more money by someone frustrated at the current lack of progress..

After all, it wouldn't be the first time in the history of aerospace that "The Russians Are Coming!" evoked a response from those holding the purse-strings.  :P

I expect it to work pretty well if it is in the current climate.

Offline Arch Admiral

  • Member
  • Posts: 85
  • 14th Naval District
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #37 on: 02/20/2017 02:22 AM »
Before anyone posts anything about hypersonic flight, they should read T. A. Heppenheimer's book
FACING THE HEAT BARRIER: A HISTORY OF HYPERSONICS (NASA-SP-2007-4232). It's probably available free from the NASA History Program website and is the best popular history of this field. Any sane person who reads this book won't be fooled by scare stories in the tabloid press about impossible Russian and Chinese hypersonic aircraft.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8015
  • UK
  • Liked: 1280
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #38 on: 02/20/2017 05:53 AM »
Before anyone posts anything about hypersonic flight, they should read T. A. Heppenheimer's book
FACING THE HEAT BARRIER: A HISTORY OF HYPERSONICS (NASA-SP-2007-4232). It's probably available free from the NASA History Program website and is the best popular history of this field. Any sane person who reads this book won't be fooled by scare stories in the tabloid press about impossible Russian and Chinese hypersonic aircraft.

Who said anything about aircraft here.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2054
  • Liked: 207
  • Likes Given: 573
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #39 on: 02/20/2017 06:34 AM »
Well my post has been censored but it doesn't matter. I say it again (perhaps more politely) David Axe knows little about spaceflight and it is more clickbait than anything else.
As for the Daily Mail it is hardly better.



Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8015
  • UK
  • Liked: 1280
  • Likes Given: 168
General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #40 on: 02/20/2017 12:38 PM »
Well my post has been censored but it doesn't matter. I say it again (perhaps more politely) David Axe knows little about spaceflight and it is more clickbait than anything else.
As for the Daily Mail it is hardly better.

I think we are talking at cross purposes here as I was referring to the classified report that Aviation Week were reporting on.
« Last Edit: 02/20/2017 12:39 PM by Star One »

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2054
  • Liked: 207
  • Likes Given: 573
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #41 on: 02/20/2017 04:05 PM »
Russia Is Building a Nuclear Space Bomber
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/14/russia-is-building-a-nuclear-space-bomber.html

Russia reveals hypersonic stealth bomber that can launch nuclear attacks from space: Radical plane could begin testing in 2020
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3689325/Russia-reveals-hypersonic-stealth-bomber-launch-nuclear-attacks-space-Radical-plane-begin-testing-2020.html

I reacted to this post, more exactly to the links, which are pretty bad (a nuclear space bomber ? really ? powered by fairy dust ?)

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5881
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 745
  • Likes Given: 4532
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #42 on: 02/20/2017 11:29 PM »
I reacted to this post, more exactly to the links, which are pretty bad (a nuclear space bomber ? really ? powered by fairy dust ?)
Yet Another SCramjet powered plan.   :(

It just does not add up.

The Russians have an ICBM that can hit anywhere on the planet in less than 30 mins already. They've sunk a lot of cash into that and it seems to work alright.

As has been noted an X37b could carry a nuclear warhead in it's payload bay but why would it?

"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8097
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2876
  • Likes Given: 686
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #43 on: 02/21/2017 10:16 PM »
As has been noted an X37b could carry a nuclear warhead in it's payload bay but why would it?

Weapons to fight the Goa'uld.
Jeff Bezos has billions to spend on rockets and can go at whatever pace he likes! Wow! What pace is he going at? Well... have you heard of Zeno's paradox?

Offline R7

  • Propulsophile
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2738
    • Don't worry.. we can still be fans of OSC and SNC
  • Liked: 944
  • Likes Given: 663
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #44 on: 02/22/2017 08:56 AM »
Weapons to fight the Goa'uld.

Ah so if Americans fail to get all of them in orbit then Russian bomber will finish the job by nuking all the landed motherships.
Now it all makes sense.
AD·ASTRA·ASTRORVM·GRATIA

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22307
  • Liked: 580
  • Likes Given: 239
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #45 on: 02/24/2017 02:29 PM »
Classified Report On Hypersonics Says U.S. Lacking Urgency

Sounds to me more like a call for more money by someone frustrated at the current lack of progress..

After all, it wouldn't be the first time in the history of aerospace that "The Russians Are Coming!" evoked a response from those holding the purse-strings.  :P


Yeah like that time people complained about Sputnik just for money......

Or maybe there is a real threat that unbiased experts now recognize as a threat, after all it is very arrogant to doubt the advanced engineering and determination of both Russia and China to develop hypersonic weapons.
"Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realized, it becomes commonplace." - Robert Goddard

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5881
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 745
  • Likes Given: 4532
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #46 on: 02/24/2017 10:23 PM »
Or maybe there is a real threat that unbiased experts now recognize as a threat, after all it is very arrogant to doubt the advanced engineering and determination of both Russia and China to develop hypersonic weapons.
Historically the US has flown ramjet missiles to M5. It just took a stuck fuel valve and IIRC worked quite well (till it ran out of fuel)  :)

The problem with hypersonic flight is not that it can't be done, it's when people insist on doing it in the atmosphere and using a SCramjet to do it. If you're OK with using a rocket it's (relatively speaking) not that difficult. If you want longer range in the same package then ramjets can already do that with reasonable T/W.

Engineering a long range hypersonic missile using a conventional ramjet is within the current SoA. The toughest part is likely to be the structure and the TPS.
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8015
  • UK
  • Liked: 1280
  • Likes Given: 168
General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #47 on: 06/07/2017 10:49 AM »
Skunk Works Hints At SR-72 Demonstrator Progress

DENVER, Colorado—Four years after revealing plans to develop a Mach 6 strike and reconnaissance aircraft, Lockheed Martin says hypersonic technologies are now sufficiently mature to enable progress towards a flight ...

http://m.aviationweek.com/defense/skunk-works-hints-sr-72-demonstrator-progress

Quote
However, Weiss hints that work on a combined cycle propulsion system and other key advances needed for a viable hypersonic vehicle are reaching readiness levels sufficient for incorporation into some form of demonstrator. Following critical ground demonstrator tests from 2013 through 2017, Lockheed Martin is believed to be on track to begin development of an optionally piloted flight research vehicle (FRV) starting as early as next year. The FRV is expected to be around the same size as an F-22 and powered by a full-scale, combined cycle engine.

Quote
“The combined cycle work is still occurring and obviously a big breakthrough in the air-breathing side of hypersonics is the propulsion system,” Weiss adds. “So this is not just on combined cycle but on other elements of propulsion system.”
The technology of the “air breather has been matured and work is continuing on those capabilities to demonstrate that they are ready to go and be fielded,” he adds.

I'd thought even a demonstrator testing at hypersonic velocities in the big empty of Area 51 is going to be noticeable?
« Last Edit: 06/07/2017 11:00 AM by Star One »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8015
  • UK
  • Liked: 1280
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #48 on: 06/28/2017 01:31 PM »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8015
  • UK
  • Liked: 1280
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #49 on: 07/12/2017 04:45 PM »
US, Australia conclude secretive hypersonic flight series

Quote
The tests were conducted under the auspices of the Hypersonic International Flight Research Experimentation (HiFIRE) programme, says Australia's Department of Defence in a statement.

In the statement, defence minister Marise Payne congratulated Canberra's Defence Science and Technology Group (DST) and the US Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) "on another successful hypersonic flight at Woomera test range."

She said that the tests have achieved "significant milestones, including design assembly, and pre-flight testing of the hypersonic vehicles and design of complex avionics and control systems."

She said Canberra and Washington DC are drafting plans for future hypersonic work.

The statement also thanked Boeing, BAE Systems, and the University of Queensland as partners on the programme.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-australia-conclude-secretive-hypersonic-flight-439239/

Offline CameronD

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1224
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • Norton Consultants
  • Liked: 391
  • Likes Given: 289
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #50 on: 07/13/2017 12:11 AM »
I'd thought even a demonstrator testing at hypersonic velocities in the big empty of Area 51 is going to be noticeable?

Maybe, but taken in concert with your post above, if the tests were held at Woomera, there's no-one anywhere close enough to see, hear or care..  :-X
« Last Edit: 07/13/2017 12:11 AM by CameronD »
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine - however, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are
going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead.

Offline CameronD

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1224
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • Norton Consultants
  • Liked: 391
  • Likes Given: 289
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #51 on: 07/17/2017 05:50 AM »
In today's news:

Hypervelocity HIFiRE missile tests at Woomera counter ‘future threats’

http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/hyperveolocity-hirise-missile-tests-at-woomera-counter-future-threats/news-story/a2fdd3b662999264ebe701a1707cdd0e

and from the source:
https://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2017/07/hypersonic-flight-test-goes-rocket
 


I do find it amusing that the UQ article starts by saying "Commercialised flight faster than five times the speed of sound has been brought one step closer.." but then links to the above video of the launch with DoD end credits... Heh. ::)
« Last Edit: 07/17/2017 05:51 AM by CameronD »
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine - however, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are
going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5881
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 745
  • Likes Given: 4532
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #52 on: 07/17/2017 09:52 AM »
One of the troubles with hypersonic systems is people don't compare like with like.

Experimental SCramjets seem to have about a T/W ratio of about 2 or 3:1.

The J58 engine and nacelle package on the SR71 was around 2.5:1 (and you really need that nacelle to make the whole concept work).

But
1) That package could fly the aircraft from a standing standing start on the runway.
2) The aircraft leaked a lot until it had warmed up enough for the plates to seal (as did Concorde BTW). It was not an issue because JP7 did not burn without substantial effort.
3) JP7 required a separate logistics supply chain to deliver it, including dedicated tanker aircraft.
3) ConOps for the SR71 was to takeoff mostly empty and require air to air refueling for most fuel loading.  This lowered the fire hazard but also would have lowered the landing gear strength requirements significantly.

All of which was acceptable in the Cold War for the unique capabilities it gave the US at the time.

JP 7 has been out of production for decades and was several times more expensive than conventional fuel.

SCramjets can't accelerate a plane from a standing start, and given the 80+ years people have worked on ramjets they probably never will.

That ConOps  won't work with aircraft carriers. It's never been made to work with any civilian aircraft and if you require the aircraft to run on a fuel that's not liquid at room temperature (LH2 or Methane)  that's a complete non starter.

I strongly doubt the "SR72" is anywhere close to being built, despite what LM will no doubt say.
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8015
  • UK
  • Liked: 1280
  • Likes Given: 168
General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #53 on: 07/18/2017 04:41 PM »
One of the troubles with hypersonic systems is people don't compare like with like.

Experimental SCramjets seem to have about a T/W ratio of about 2 or 3:1.

The J58 engine and nacelle package on the SR71 was around 2.5:1 (and you really need that nacelle to make the whole concept work).

But
1) That package could fly the aircraft from a standing standing start on the runway.
2) The aircraft leaked a lot until it had warmed up enough for the plates to seal (as did Concorde BTW). It was not an issue because JP7 did not burn without substantial effort.
3) JP7 required a separate logistics supply chain to deliver it, including dedicated tanker aircraft.
3) ConOps for the SR71 was to takeoff mostly empty and require air to air refueling for most fuel loading.  This lowered the fire hazard but also would have lowered the landing gear strength requirements significantly.

All of which was acceptable in the Cold War for the unique capabilities it gave the US at the time.

JP 7 has been out of production for decades and was several times more expensive than conventional fuel.

SCramjets can't accelerate a plane from a standing start, and given the 80+ years people have worked on ramjets they probably never will.

That ConOps  won't work with aircraft carriers. It's never been made to work with any civilian aircraft and if you require the aircraft to run on a fuel that's not liquid at room temperature (LH2 or Methane)  that's a complete non starter.

I strongly doubt the "SR72" is anywhere close to being built, despite what LM will no doubt say.
As it's a highly classified program for the most part starting what is or isn't possible within it is a fools errand.

All this post does is seemingly point out your pre-existing prejudices on the topic.
« Last Edit: 07/18/2017 10:22 PM by Star One »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5881
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 745
  • Likes Given: 4532
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #54 on: 07/19/2017 11:08 AM »

As it's a highly classified program for the most part starting what is or isn't possible within it is a fools errand.
It's a non existent programme.

LM's PR offensive has been to get it to get their Powerpoint funded. 

The days when the CIA could build (literally) a squadron of very large M3+ planes in a few years in near complete secrecy are over.

I think the fact that every SCramjet that has ever been flight tested has flown on a rocket (despite at least 6 decades of research and several $Bn spent on the concept) first says a great deal about the viability of the idea.
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8015
  • UK
  • Liked: 1280
  • Likes Given: 168
General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #55 on: 08/01/2017 12:50 PM »
U.S. Air Force Plans Road Map To Operational Hypersonics



Quote
....Tucker’s optimism is based on a dramatic upswing in the Air Force hypersonic research budget. Compared to 2012, when the Air Force spent just under $79 million on hypersonic science and technology programs, the service requested more than $292 million for the same areas in the 2018 presidential budget. Of this, $90 million was requested for prototyping.

While a number of classified hypersonic missile efforts are thought to be underway in the U.S., the only acknowledged committed government research developments are a series of technology demonstrator programs led by DARPA. These include two high-speed strike weapons: the Tactical Boost Glide (TBG) program and the Hypersonic Air-Breathing Weapon (HAWC). The TBG is a follow-on to the unsuccessful HTV-2 hypersonic cruise vehicle demonstrator and is a rocket-launched hypersonic weapon capable of flying more than 1,000 mi. in 10 min. The TBG, in development by Lockheed Martin, is attempting to repackage the high lift-to-drag aerodynamic and aerothermal design concepts of the global-range HTV-2 into a smaller, tactical-range weapon

Raytheon Missile Systems and Lockheed Martin are meanwhile competing for the HAWC, a follow-on to the Air Force Research Laboratory’s (AFRL) successful Boeing X-51A WaveRider hypersonic scramjet engine demonstrator.

Leveraging elements of these DARPA/AFRL efforts, the Air Force has meanwhile begun efforts to develop an air-launched Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon. Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon Missile Systems and Orbital ATK have all been listed as potential developers of the precision strike missile, which the service says will be fired at “high-value, time-critical fixed and relocatable surface targets.” A contract for development of the weapon—which will be conventionally armed, powered by solid rocket and guided by an integrated GPS/INS (inertial guidance system)—will be awarded in early 2018.

Beyond missiles and XS-1, DARPA’s other major hypersonic program is the Advanced Full-Range Engine (AFRE), a ground demonstrator of a turbine-based combined-cycle engine that will enable an aircraft to operate at Mach 5+ from standard runways. Launched 18 months ago, AFRE is a “full-scale engine, and will validate [that] we can have an effective engine,” says DARPA Tactical Technology Office Director Brad Tousley. “We need the same sort of thing as the J58 was in the SR-71, and AFRE is the same sort of thing. If that is successful, we think it would open up the trade space for us to work together with the Air Force, the U.S. Navy and others on a really ‘no-kidding’ reusable hypersonic aircraft......
« Last Edit: 08/01/2017 12:51 PM by Star One »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5881
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 745
  • Likes Given: 4532
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #56 on: 08/12/2017 08:58 AM »
Looking over the Broad Agency Announcement for the Advanced Full Range Engine

DARPA-BAA-16-45

https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=abd1d7a237bbb47d78de5d722a9d7fca

We find
Quote
A TBCC system combines a turbine engine for low-speed operations with a dual
mode ramjet (DMRJ) for high-speed operations via a common inlet and nozzle serving
both the low-speed and high-speed flowpaths."
and
Quote
DARPA is only interested in proposals addressing full system solutions for AFRE.

DARPA is not interested in lower Mach solutions such as a turbo-ramjet or
solutions that use accelerants.
So basically it's a SCRamjet or nothing,despite the fact Ramjets have been demonstrated to operate to Mach 5 already.  :(
Quote
TBCC Maturation activities (Water Injection with an F405-RR-402 Turbine Engine and
the Low Mach DMRJ Free-Jet) as they become available
Looking that up we find

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Turbomeca_Adour
Quote
F405-RR-402 - Upgrade of F405-RR-401, incorporating Mk 951 technology, certified 2008. Did not enter into service due to funding issues.
Which means it is a non after-burning low BP turbofan of 6500 lbf thrust, redesigned for longer service life and a new FADEC.

This looks like a USN engine upgrade programme that did not get funded, so the engine is a one off, although no doubt more could be made.

That sketches in a single engine drone (AFAIK all the aircraft that use it are twin engined).
The US consultancy that looked at a SABRE based TSTO for the USAF reckoned you need aengine thrust = 50% of GTOW to go supersonic so that gives a GTOW of about 13 000 lb

I don't really see why they don't just hand the money to Aerojet. It's basically written so they are the only people who can win this.  :(
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8015
  • UK
  • Liked: 1280
  • Likes Given: 168
General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #57 on: 08/12/2017 09:25 AM »
Let's see DARPA Vs some random person on the internet, let me think who is the more likely to know what is actually required for this particular item.

I think we'd already established you don't like scramjets so there's nothing new here.
« Last Edit: 08/12/2017 09:27 AM by Star One »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5881
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 745
  • Likes Given: 4532
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #58 on: 08/12/2017 10:14 AM »
Let's see DARPA Vs some random person on the internet, let me think who is the more likely to know what is actually required for this particular item.
It's research.

No one actually knows what's required till they actually start doing it.

That said most people would think that after 6 decades and about $4Bn the USG might have a better idea.
Note that expenditure.

It's not that SCRamjets have had no funding. It's that they have had a huge amount of cash put in over decades and they still haven't delivered anything close to an engine, let alone a vehicle to carry it.

Quote from: Star One
I think we'd already established you don't like scramjets so there's nothing new here.
I'm sorry your mind is so closed that that is all you could read into my post.  I posted it here because, y'know its about "general hypersonic" stuff.

And because this actually looks like the power plant for the fabled SR72.

I will be very impressed to see a full scale ground test of an engine across 5 Mach numbers, since SABRE was developed to avoid precisely that requirement, given how difficult it is (I'd love to find out what Arnold spent on the APTU upgrade).

I will be even more impressed if they manage to put it into a vehicle that weighs less than 13 000lb for $65m.

To put this in perspective what I have trouble with is the absolute insistence that a ramjet cannot do the job, despite the fact that the J58 and its nacelle could get 70% of the way to M5 before the first SCramjet contract was signed at the APL.  :(

It's not the goal I object to.  :(

It's the absolute, fanatical, dogmatic insistence that only an  SCramjet can do this, when the actual operating range of conventional ramjets has still not been established.

[EDIT it's especially odd when you see (from the BAA) that they don't require start up of the DMRJ below M2.5. Given that ramjets of the 1950's could cruise at M2 this is not especially low. Indeed 3 Mach numbers puts it at M5.5 without any SC requirement. M2 startup would put it comfortably within the state of practice for high performance military aircraft, without the following features.

Now note
http://www.tailsthroughtime.com/2012/07/the-mach-3-phantom.html
https://tacairnet.com/2015/06/18/redeveloping-the-f-4-phantom-ii-into-a-mach-3-fighterspy-plane/

Running a far more conventional turbofan up to M3 was viewed as quite viable, with pre compressor cooling, 40 years ago. The SCramjet would have to give phenomenal improvements in fuel consumption, along with operating without exotic fuel grades like JP7, to justify it's inclusion in a design. ]

That's why people have called them "scamjets" in the past.  :(
« Last Edit: 08/12/2017 02:39 PM by john smith 19 »
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Offline Hog

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 244
  • Likes Given: 554
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #59 on: 08/14/2017 05:45 PM »
I realize that the SR-71 and YF-12 were short of the true definition of hypersonic(IIRC Hypersonic relates to Mach 5 and above).
If the Mach 3+ SR-71/YF-12 were still operational, would NASA have enough demand for testing at over Mach 3 to keep at least a pair of them airworthy?
Paul

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8015
  • UK
  • Liked: 1280
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #60 on: 08/18/2017 11:30 AM »
Captive-Carry Tests Coming For Hypersonic Flying Testbed

With demand for high-speed test capability on the increase, small launch-vehicle developer Generation Orbit Launch Services is preparing for a critical series of hot-fire and captive-carry flight tests of its hypersonic flying testbed at Edwards AFB, California. The Atlanta-based company is developing the GOLauncher 1 (GO1) vehicle for suborbital research and hypersonic flight-testing, and aims to fill a gap in high-speed atmospheric test capability which has existed since the retirement of ...

http://m.aviationweek.com/aircraft-design/captive-carry-tests-coming-hypersonic-flying-testbed

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5881
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 745
  • Likes Given: 4532
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #61 on: 08/22/2017 06:26 AM »
Captive-Carry Tests Coming For Hypersonic Flying Testbed

With demand for high-speed test capability on the increase, small launch-vehicle developer Generation Orbit Launch Services is preparing for a critical series of hot-fire and captive-carry flight tests of its hypersonic flying testbed at Edwards AFB, California. The Atlanta-based company is developing the GOLauncher 1 (GO1) vehicle for suborbital research and hypersonic flight-testing, and aims to fill a gap in high-speed atmospheric test capability which has existed since the retirement of ...

http://m.aviationweek.com/aircraft-design/captive-carry-tests-coming-hypersonic-flying-testbed
Looks quite similar to the Orbital Access TSTO LV concept, but without the internal payload bay or the reusability.

Time will tell who is better at raising funding and which is the better business model.
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8015
  • UK
  • Liked: 1280
  • Likes Given: 168
General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #62 on: 09/05/2017 07:58 AM »
Wonder if this line in the budget could be referencing the development of a boost-glide weapon. Interesting that they are also developing their own independent space situational awareness program as well.

Quote
the development of a high-speed glide bomb for use in contingencies on such islands (10 billion yen); the development of a system to monitor space activity (4.4 billion yen).

http://thediplomat.com/2017/08/whats-in-japans-record-2018-defense-budget-request/
« Last Edit: 09/05/2017 07:59 AM by Star One »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5881
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 745
  • Likes Given: 4532
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #63 on: 09/06/2017 04:13 PM »
Wonder if this line in the budget could be referencing the development of a boost-glide weapon. Interesting that they are also developing their own independent space situational awareness program as well.

Quote
the development of a high-speed glide bomb for use in contingencies on such islands (10 billion yen); the development of a system to monitor space activity (4.4 billion yen).

http://thediplomat.com/2017/08/whats-in-japans-record-2018-defense-budget-request/
If there isn't a boost phase it will basically be like the "paveway" kit fitted to conventional bombs.

The "space activity monitoring" part may well integrate with the plans to deploy a version of the Aegis system ashore, along with Patriot batteries. 

The timing is odd as presumably all this was in the works for some time before the North Koreans sent an ICBM over their islands, which would make any country very nervous.
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8015
  • UK
  • Liked: 1280
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #64 on: 09/06/2017 04:17 PM »
Wonder if this line in the budget could be referencing the development of a boost-glide weapon. Interesting that they are also developing their own independent space situational awareness program as well.

Quote
the development of a high-speed glide bomb for use in contingencies on such islands (10 billion yen); the development of a system to monitor space activity (4.4 billion yen).

http://thediplomat.com/2017/08/whats-in-japans-record-2018-defense-budget-request/
If there isn't a boost phase it will basically be like the "paveway" kit fitted to conventional bombs.

The "space activity monitoring" part may well integrate with the plans to deploy a version of the Aegis system ashore, along with Patriot batteries. 

The timing is odd as presumably all this was in the works for some time before the North Koreans sent an ICBM over their islands, which would make any country very nervous.

Wouldn't hypersonic weapons be quite attractive to the Japanese military considering the country's commitment regarding not being a nuclear military power, but still allowing them to have a one hit weapon to take out well protected targets.

Offline CameronD

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1224
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • Norton Consultants
  • Liked: 391
  • Likes Given: 289
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #65 on: 09/07/2017 07:09 AM »
Wouldn't hypersonic weapons be quite attractive to the Japanese military considering the country's commitment regarding not being a nuclear military power, but still allowing them to have a one hit weapon to take out well protected targets.

Sure.. but, based on recent news events, they kinda need it now (not in several years time).
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine - however, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are
going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5881
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 745
  • Likes Given: 4532
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #66 on: 09/07/2017 09:21 AM »
Sure.. but, based on recent news events, they kinda need it now (not in several years time).
Putting Aegis on shore (or Patriot) gives you missiles roughly in the M2.8-3.5 range as quickly as a deal can be agreed and production arranged.

The Japanese seem to have at least one SAM capable of M2.8.

"boost glide" is quite a loose term. Technically speaking artillery and mortars are also "boost glide" weapons, and anti tank guns can reach M5 muzzle velocities, which you would need for a hypersonic boost glide weapon.

Depending on the design approach Japan might be able to field a weapon surprisingly quickly given suitable motivation. I think the North Korean ICBM test would be suitable motivation.
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5881
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 745
  • Likes Given: 4532
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #67 on: 09/10/2017 12:43 AM »
Somewhat more on topic I found a report on  this, which I present without comment, from the Georgia Inst of Technology.


http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.526.7376&rep=rep1&type=pdf

"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8015
  • UK
  • Liked: 1280
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #68 on: 09/12/2017 04:53 PM »
Advanced fuel system to enable hypersonic flight by transferring heat

Quote
Under a very successful Phase I project with the US Air Force, Reaction Systems has identified a fuel and catalyst combination that can undergo a chemical reaction that produces much higher endotherms than currently available with kerosene-based fuels.

Reaction Systems has just been notified of a Phase II award to continue development of the fuel/catalyst system and design a custom heat exchanger/reactor for use in a hypersonic engine.

Reaction Systems has a novel solution to the heat transfer issue that may open the door to practical hypersonic aircraft propulsion.

According to Jeff Engel, COO of Reaction system, in hypersonic flight the combustor temperature gets so high that materials can’t survive in that environment; you have to continually cool the combustor sections. They are developing a fuel system to absorb that heat load from the combustor specifically, so that the final speed of the vehicle is faster.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/09/advanced-fuel-system-to-enable-hypersonic-flight-by-transferring-heat.html
« Last Edit: 09/12/2017 04:54 PM by Star One »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8015
  • UK
  • Liked: 1280
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #69 on: 09/28/2017 11:31 AM »
Amid SR-72 Rumors, Skunk Works Ramps Up Hypersonics

Quote
“Although I can’t go into specifics, let us just say the Skunk Works team in Palmdale, California, is doubling down on our commitment to speed,” says Orlando Carvalho, executive vice president of aeronautics at Lockheed Martin, speaking at the SAE International Aerotech Congress and Exhibition here.

“Simply put, I believe the United States is on the verge of a hypersonics revolution,” he says.

Quote
Referencing ongoing development of the Darpa/U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory Tactical Boost Glide weapon and Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept research program, the latter in competition with Raytheon, Carvalho says, “Over the last decade progress has been moving quickly, and hypersonic technology is clearly becoming apparent to everyone as a game changer. We continue to advance and test technology which will benefit hypersonic flight and are working on multiple programs, including two Darpa efforts. Speed matters, especially when it comes to national security.”


Quote
Skunk Works is believed to be planning the start of FRV development next year, with first flight targeted for 2020. The FRV will be around the same size as an F-22 and powered by a full-scale, combined-cycle engine. However, in the run-up to the demonstrator development, Lockheed is thought to be testing several discrete technologies in a series of ground and flight tests.

According to information provided to Aviation Week, one such technology demonstrator, believed to be an unmanned subscale aircraft, was observed flying into the U.S. Air Force’s Plant 42 at Palmdale, where Skunk Works is headquartered. The vehicle, which was noted landing in the early hours at an unspecified date in late July, was seen with two T-38 escorts. Lockheed Martin declined to comment directly on the sighting.

The company previously has said the follow-on step would be development of a full-scale, twin-engined SR-72. With roughly the same proportions as the SR-71, the larger vehicle would enter flight test in the late 2020s.

“Hypersonics is like stealth. It is a disruptive technology and will enable various platforms to operate at two to three times the speed of the Blackbird,” Carvalho says. “Operational survivability and lethality is the ultimate deterrent. Security classification guidance will only allow us to say the speed is greater than Mach 5.”

http://m.aviationweek.com/defense/amid-sr-72-rumors-skunk-works-ramps-hypersonics

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8015
  • UK
  • Liked: 1280
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #70 on: 09/30/2017 10:30 PM »
Further to the above.

Quote
Stephen Trimble @FG_STrim
In 2016, DARPA released a concept of a vehicle that would use the SR-72's propulsion system. Keep your eyes out for this, Antelope Valley.

https://mobile.twitter.com/FG_STrim/status/913813922049818625

Offline Hog

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 244
  • Likes Given: 554
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #71 on: 10/01/2017 03:55 PM »
 Lets remember that the SR-71 was an intelligence gathering craft, as was the MD-21 drone launcher, and the original A-12.  The only variant that was to be weaponized was the YF-12, and it was to be a high speed interceptor, presumably for defense of North America.
Lets be clear that the SR-72s purpose will indeed be purely a weapons platform, defense perhaps, offensive, 100%.
Maybe its just me, but using nomenclature which is identified with an intelligence gathering craft only, for a weaponized platform, could be viewed as disingenuous.  She wont be taking pictures, she will be delivering a "kill shot" of some sort.
It's a shame that many technologies are driven by militarization, but it is a reality as that's where the money is.
Crazy interesting technologies though, wow!  Palmdale is busy.
Paul

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8015
  • UK
  • Liked: 1280
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #72 on: 10/01/2017 04:20 PM »
Lets remember that the SR-71 was an intelligence gathering craft, as was the MD-21 drone launcher, and the original A-12.  The only variant that was to be weaponized was the YF-12, and it was to be a high speed interceptor, presumably for defense of North America.
Lets be clear that the SR-72s purpose will indeed be purely a weapons platform, defense perhaps, offensive, 100%.
Maybe its just me, but using nomenclature which is identified with an intelligence gathering craft only, for a weaponized platform, could be viewed as disingenuous.  She wont be taking pictures, she will be delivering a "kill shot" of some sort.
It's a shame that many technologies are driven by militarization, but it is a reality as that's where the money is.
Crazy interesting technologies though, wow!  Palmdale is busy.

There has been some rumours that the SR-72 designation will not be its final designation. After all technically it’s classed under global strike.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2054
  • Liked: 207
  • Likes Given: 573
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #73 on: 10/01/2017 06:13 PM »
The funny thing with the SR-71 is that the -71 is kind of last line in the bomber designation system before they got back to B-1.
What happened was this
XB-70 Valkyrie > RS-70 > SR-71.
RS-70 was a last ditch atempt by North American to rescue the B-70 as a post-strike reconnaissance aircraft. It would have smashed whatever was left standing of USSR after ICBMs rained.

The RS-70 proposal was rejected but Lockheed tried to place down an A-12 variant to the Air Force and this become the SR-71.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8015
  • UK
  • Liked: 1280
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #74 on: 10/01/2017 06:49 PM »
The funny thing with the SR-71 is that the -71 is kind of last line in the bomber designation system before they got back to B-1.
What happened was this
XB-70 Valkyrie > RS-70 > SR-71.
RS-70 was a last ditch atempt by North American to rescue the B-70 as a post-strike reconnaissance aircraft. It would have smashed whatever was left standing of USSR after ICBMs rained.

The RS-70 proposal was rejected but Lockheed tried to place down an A-12 variant to the Air Force and this become the SR-71.

As with the U-2 & SR-71 I bet NASA wouldn’t mind a couple of civilian versions of the SR-72 for atmospheric research.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8015
  • UK
  • Liked: 1280
  • Likes Given: 168
General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #75 on: 10/10/2017 12:39 PM »
DARPA Awards Aerojet Rocketdyne Contract to Develop Hypersonic Advanced Full Range Engine

http://www.rocket.com/article/darpa-awards-aerojet-rocketdyne-contract-develop-hypersonic-advanced-full-range-engine

Here’s another article on the award.

Aerojet Rocketdyne To Demo Combined-Cycle Hypersonic Engine

Quote
As the U.S. steps up research and development for hypersonic weapons, DARPA has awarded Aerojet Rocketdyne a contract to demonstrate a turbine-based combined cycle (TBCC) engine that could power a reusable high-speed aircraft from takeoff to beyond Mach ...

Quote
Under the program, large-scale components of the propulsion system will first be demonstrated independently, followed by a full-scale freejet ground test of the TBCC mode transition. Accomplishing these objectives will enable future air-breathing hypersonic systems for long-range strike, high-speed intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and two-stage-to-orbit space access, DARPA says.

Conceptual design of a hypersonic vehicle was completed in fiscal 2017 to enable definition of the ground demonstration engine performance requirements. Plans for fiscal 2018 include beginning testing of a large-scale common inlet and full-scale DMRJ combustor, completing fabrication of the full-scale common nozzle and beginning integration of the off-the-shelf turbine engine.

http://m.aviationweek.com/defense/aerojet-rocketdyne-demo-combined-cycle-hypersonic-engine
« Last Edit: 10/10/2017 08:41 PM by Star One »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8015
  • UK
  • Liked: 1280
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #76 on: 10/14/2017 09:51 AM »
USAF searching for hypersonic vehicle materials

Quote
The US Air Force Research Laboratory is searching for leading edge materials for reusable and expendable hypersonic vehicles to support its high speed strike weapon programme.

Quote
Air Force Materiel Command will consider thermal performance as it selects the material, according to the $2.3 million contract award to Integration Innovation posted 27 September on the Federal Business Opportunities website. Based in Huntsville, Alabama, Integration Innovation Integration has previously worked with the Defense Department and NASA on thermal protection systems supporting hypersonic vehicles.

“The objective of the RX hypersonics programme is to provide a range of materials and processing options for future hypersonic vehicles,” an AFRL spokesman said in a 10 October statement to FlightGlobal.

Leading edges refer to the surfaces that first come in contact at hypersonic speed with the super-heated airflow, such as as the front of the nose, wings and empennage surfaces.

The USAF has proposed $31.2 million in fiscal year 2018 to focus research on high temperature aerospace materials and hypersonics. Budget documents also mention plans to improve fabrication of materials required for expendable hypersonic applications. The FY2018 budget proposal details plans for both re-usable and expendable hypersonic vehicles, including limited life intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance vehicles.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-searching-for-hypersonic-vehicle-materials-442171/

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5881
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 745
  • Likes Given: 4532
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #77 on: 10/17/2017 01:22 AM »
I found this little item.

It's the actual review of the NASP programme in late 1992, after it has been running for 5 years

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19940004890.pdf

The recommendation of this was to spend $100-200m/yr over the next 4 years to build a small scale drone to maybe pin down the unknowns far enough to build a full size flight vehicle.

Particularly interesting is Appendix D (pg 44), which lists where the Joint Project Office was at in 1992 IE what progress they'd made in 5 years.
Page 57 discusses the engine, which seems to be a LACE system up to M3. They describe the aerodynamic performance as "well characterized," but that gives no indication if they got frost control working.

It also talks of "unstart" loads (which IIRC crashed at least one SR71) being 5x to 10x the normal engine loads, with leading edge thermal loads of 100 000 BTU per foot of LE, per second. About 105.5MW/ft of LE

I'll leave others to comment on how much (or little) progress has been made in the 25 years since NASP. 
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Tags: