...Australia bought Saab-fighters, because they couldn't buy the best F-22 version due to ITAR...
Quote from: Joris on 04/17/2011 10:15 pm...Australia bought Saab-fighters, because they couldn't buy the best F-22 version due to ITAR...Saab Fighters for Australia? Thought they got interim Boeing F18E/F Super Hornets before getting the Lockheed F35 Lighting II.
Australia has no Saab built fighters, nor any orders for them last time I checked, which was 10 minutes ago. They do have orders for F35 and FA18.
Quote from: Downix on 04/17/2011 10:45 pmAustralia has no Saab built fighters, nor any orders for them last time I checked, which was 10 minutes ago. They do have orders for F35 and FA18.My bad,Australia ordered EADS transport helicopters instead of Sikorsky ones.
Reaction Engines have made it clear that ITAR restrictions prevent any US involvement.
Quote from: mlorrey on 04/17/2011 10:04 pmI ITAR restrictions are on export of ballistic missile dual use technology. I am not aware of import restrictions, nor on restrictions of import of aircraft, which skylon is.Australia bought Saab-fighters, because they couldn't buy the best F-22 version due to ITAR.Now of course Skylon isn't a fighter, but current rockets also aren't ICBM's. And they are ITAR-restricted.
I ITAR restrictions are on export of ballistic missile dual use technology. I am not aware of import restrictions, nor on restrictions of import of aircraft, which skylon is.
Now, I've done a bit of international trade in this area, and I can say that ITAR is intended to prevent hostile countries from getting US strategic technologies: stealth, ICBM tech, nukes, etc. It does not prevent foreign technology from being imported into the US, nor does it prevent joint development agreements with companies in countries we are closely allied with, like Canada, Britain, Australia, etc.
Anybody claiming ITAR about Skylon (or SS2 for that matter) are people who either dont know what they are talking about, or are not interested/too lazy to do the paperwork. The fact that a British company can be closely involved in development of SS2, which is at least as much an example of a similar-IRBM as Skylon is, disproves any ITAR claims about restraints on US involvement in Skylon.
Private funding is lined up to see it through all stages of development, culminating with the start of commercial operations in 2020. That funding, however, is contingent on Skylon hitting some key milestones along the way, and a big one looms just a few months off.
If the precooler works, investors will chip in another $350 million, helping take the Skylon project to another level of development. That next phase would likely see vehicle design completion and a full engine demonstration by 2014, Longstaff said.
Indeed; finally demonstrating a liquid-air rocket after all these years would be a Big Deal, if it works.
Also why not integrate the engine into the fuselage? I don't like the implications of an inflight engine failure in terms of off-axis thrust, and a fuselage integrated solution would eliminate a lot of drag.
Quote from: RobLynn on 04/19/2011 07:05 pmAlso why not integrate the engine into the fuselage? I don't like the implications of an inflight engine failure in terms of off-axis thrust, and a fuselage integrated solution would eliminate a lot of drag.The original hotol had the engines integrated with the fuselage but had major issues with the COG changing as fuel was used. Mounting the engines in the middle and draining tanks fore and aft solves this.
I've been having a look at skylon over the last week or two, and it does look very promising, excepting the enormous development costs.However I cannot see why they are so focused on a sabre engine when it seems to me that a ramjet + SSME would be cheaper, lighter and probably higher ISP, with the one drawback that it would need to be accelerated on a launch sled.
A sled seems like a very cheap way to simplify the vehicle, reduce overall costs and improve mass ratios, and anything that can be done to reduce development costs must be a win. Is the sabre engine really such a big deal or is it more a case of IP leading the development effort instead of best economics?Also why not integrate the engine into the fuselage? I don't like the implications of an inflight engine failure in terms of off-axis thrust, and a fuselage integrated solution would eliminate a lot of drag.