Author Topic: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics  (Read 210619 times)

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10350
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13605
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #140 on: 04/12/2018 06:39 pm »
>
The Cold War ended in 1989. Let it go.

In case you haven't noticed, Cold War II started on March 4, 2012 with Putin's reboot.
Which is OT for this thread.

More relevant would be the fact that Russia (and its predecessor states) has had operational M5 (and M5+) capable long range missiles since the mid 90's at least.

Despite this the US military has still not been able to build a strong enough case to fund an operational vehicle. USN has fielded previous long rang ramjet missiles (some with long operating lives) since the late 50's.  Likewise some experimental US missiles with fixed inlets have hit M5+.
But as long as the US remains obsessed with SCramjets being the only way to do this I don't expect anything much to happen.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #141 on: 04/12/2018 06:48 pm »


>
The Cold War ended in 1989. Let it go.

In case you haven't noticed, Cold War II started on March 4, 2012 with Putin's reboot.
Which is OT for this thread.

More relevant would be the fact that Russia (and its predecessor states) has had operational M5 (and M5+) capable long range missiles since the mid 90's at least.

Despite this the US military has still not been able to build a strong enough case to fund an operational vehicle. USN has fielded previous long rang ramjet missiles (some with long operating lives) since the late 50's.  Likewise some experimental US missiles with fixed inlets have hit M5+.

It's tough to make a business case for M5-ish missiles when other, cheaper, missiles can go up to M12 with high accuracy. Not to mention Russia shredding the IRBM treaty with some of those birds.
DM

Offline Katana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #142 on: 04/12/2018 07:56 pm »
Prolonged M4 heating remains acceptable to titanium airframe (to withstand the total temperature in thermal equilibrium), prolonged M5 heating isn't.

Engines are less problematic, J58 in bypass ramjet mode is already a "turbofan", while modern turbofans are built with superalloys much better than J58.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10350
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13605
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #143 on: 04/12/2018 11:34 pm »
Prolonged M4 heating remains acceptable to titanium airframe (to withstand the total temperature in thermal equilibrium), prolonged M5 heating isn't.
That's bad news for anyone who wants to build a M5 aircraft isn't it?
Quote from: Katana
Engines are less problematic, J58 in bypass ramjet mode is already a "turbofan", while modern turbofans are built with superalloys much better than J58.
No. the J58 (including all the hardware inside the nacelle) is a turboramjet
I'd agree the SoA in turbine alloys has moved on a lot  in 6 decades. The trouble is no one builds big pure turbojets anymore.  The best you can get are low BPR turbofans, which started coming in with the F111 and B1 bombers. those bigger fans are designed to cope with a much cooler airflow. But once you start to speed up they get hit by very hot flow, at which point engine efficiency goes through the floor.

At about M2.2 you're starting to look at some kind of fluid injection ahead of the engine, or some kind of precooler. "Peace Jack" reckoned you could go to M3 without a ramjet in "Extended dashes" with water spray in the inlet. The DARPA MIPCC programme had HMX propose liquid air injection could be good to M5.

The challenge remains avoiding after burner level fuel consumption.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10350
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13605
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #144 on: 04/12/2018 11:35 pm »
It's tough to make a business case for M5-ish missiles when other, cheaper, missiles can go up to M12 with high accuracy. Not to mention Russia shredding the IRBM treaty with some of those birds.
Then perhaps the US should bite the bullet and just accept if they want a fast missile they should stick it on top of a really big rocket, instead of betting on the SCramjet?
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Katana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #145 on: 04/13/2018 05:48 am »
J58 without nacelle is a "leaky turbojet" which mimics turbofan by discharging air from comperssor.

Quite controversial, turbofans behave better than turbojets at M3.

D-30F6 of Mig31 is modified from high bypass civil version D-30, bypass ratio is reduced but yet higher than typical military low bypass turbofans.

At M2~M3, the core runs at idle speed, and the afterburner feds air mainly from large bypass duct. This solved overheating problem in R-15 turbojet of MIG25.

Imagine a civilian high bypass turbofan between shock cone inlet (which reduces air to subsonic) and gigantic afterburner, the whole system as an enormous turboramjet.

At M3 the core fuel supply shuts down, with low compression ratio and low heating in free rotation, drag of fan blades are neglegible compared to high compression of inlet.

Though at M1~2 the gigantic afterburner would be extremely fuel consuming.
« Last Edit: 04/13/2018 07:17 am by Katana »

Offline Katana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #146 on: 04/13/2018 06:28 am »
It's tough to make a business case for M5-ish missiles when other, cheaper, missiles can go up to M12 with high accuracy. Not to mention Russia shredding the IRBM treaty with some of those birds.
Then perhaps the US should bite the bullet and just accept if they want a fast missile they should stick it on top of a really big rocket, instead of betting on the SCramjet?
Gliding RVs have been successfully tested by USAF in 1960s.

But rocket boosted non nuclear fast missiles are too expensive to be operational up to now. Unless Russian shoots down all Tomahawks and SDBs in Syria tomorrow.

Russia and China develop "operational fast missiles" since they would never fight with them.

For scramjet, NOT developing them is a bet for US, since competitors MAY success on it and threat US, by some unknown factor.

The term "hypersonic vehicles" virtually means "technological backup", either scramjet or gliding RV, either weapon or SST.

Shuttles are hypersonic (even with wings), but nobody call them this way. It's interesting to see how BFR/BFS would fit in these names and applications.
« Last Edit: 04/13/2018 07:05 am by Katana »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10350
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13605
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #147 on: 04/13/2018 06:57 am »
J58 without nacelle is a "leaky turbojet" which mimics turbofan by discharging air from comperssor.
Strictly speaking no jet engine operates "naked." They are all inside a nacelle or a fuselage.
Quote from: Katana
Quite controversial, turbofans behave better than turbojets at M3.

D-30F6 of Mig31 is modified from high bypass civil version D-30, bypass ratio is reduced but yet higher than typical military low bypass turbofans.

At M2~M3, the core runs at idle speed, and the afterburner feds air mainly from large bypass duct. This solved overheating problem in R-15 turbojet of MIG25.
AIUI this was suggested in the US for their SST programme in the late 60's/early 70's under the name "fan burning." The issue remains, the higher the airflow speed you're looking to decellerate from the hotter that flow will be. Once you get to M5 that's still not enough and you're probably looking at some kind of liquid injection, or you go with the US response of a SCramjet. 
Quote from: Katana
Imagine a civilian high bypass turbofan between shock cone inlet (which reduces air to subsonic) and gigantic afterburner, the whole system as an enormous turboramjet.

At M3 the core fuel supply shuts down, with low compression ratio and low heating in free rotation, drag of fan blades are neglegible compared to high compression of inlet.

Though at M1~2 the gigantic afterburner would be extremely fuel consuming.
Why imagine? Look up the engine for the Boeing 2707 design.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10350
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13605
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #148 on: 04/13/2018 07:07 am »
Gliding RVs have been successfully tested by USAF in 1960s.

But rocket boosted non nuclear fast missiles are too expensive to be operational up to now. Unless Russian shoots down all Tomahawks and SDBs in Syria tomorrow.

Russia and China develop "operational fast missiles" since they would never fight with them.
Depends what range and speed you're looking at.
Quote from: Katana
The term "hypersonic vehicles" virtually means "technological backup", either SCramjet or gliding RV, either weapon or SST.

Shuttles are hypersonic (even with wings), but nobody call them this way. It's interesting to see how BFR/BFS would fit in these names and applications.
No. In aeronautics the modern meaning of "hypersonic" is pretty specific. Flight at (or above) Mach 5.

The X-15 and Shuttle were both hypersonic. Artillery shells can be M3 "vehicles" (and the Germans developed a M3 liquid fueled ramjet type in WWII, which I think the Russians may have acquired).
And of course ICBM's are "hypersonic" as well, although they are generally more referred to as "ballistic" unless they have guidance fins, when they are a "maneuvering"

The nomenclature is not me being pedantic. It does actually mean something specific.

The problem is not the US couldn't field a M5 air breathing missile. It's their absolute insistence that only an SCramjet can deliver the fuel economy (which I'm doubtful about). Also AFAIK test SCramjets to date have very bad T/W ratios (around 2:1). The J58 in its nacelle could do about 2.25:1 while operating from 0 speed. That "0 speed" ability makes quite a difference in a practical aircraft.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Katana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #149 on: 04/13/2018 07:38 am »
J58 without nacelle is a "leaky turbojet" which mimics turbofan by discharging air from comperssor.
Strictly speaking no jet engine operates "naked." They are all inside a nacelle or a fuselage.
Quote from: Katana
Quite controversial, turbofans behave better than turbojets at M3.

D-30F6 of Mig31 is modified from high bypass civil version D-30, bypass ratio is reduced but yet higher than typical military low bypass turbofans.

At M2~M3, the core runs at idle speed, and the afterburner feds air mainly from large bypass duct. This solved overheating problem in R-15 turbojet of MIG25.
AIUI this was suggested in the US for their SST programme in the late 60's/early 70's under the name "fan burning." The issue remains, the higher the airflow speed you're looking to decellerate from the hotter that flow will be. Once you get to M5 that's still not enough and you're probably looking at some kind of liquid injection, or you go with the US response of a SCramjet. 
Turbofans comparable to naked J58 could also be fitted with J58 styled nacelle.
Air flow total temperature after deceleration is yet acceptable for titanium parts at M4, this differs form M5+.
SST does not need to cross M5 and become hypersonic.

Shuttles and maneuverable ICBM RVs are technically strictly hypersonic. But people does not talk this way. Hypersonic vehicles (even rocket boosted gliders now) are boasted by their advocates as new technology, as if Shuttle and ICBM never existed.

X-51 based missile concepts have been abandoned. Fuel economy of X-51 is not very good, presumably NOTHING have satisfactory fuel economy at M5 for the size of a missile.

For aircraft, M4 turboramjet is practical enough when M6 is appreciable (e.g. SST). If M4 can't escape SAM interception, M6 is also dangerous.
« Last Edit: 04/13/2018 07:44 am by Katana »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10350
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13605
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #150 on: 04/13/2018 07:12 pm »
Turbofans comparable to naked J58 could also be fitted with J58 styled nacelle.
Air flow total temperature after deceleration is yet acceptable for titanium parts at M4, this differs form M5+.
SST does not need to cross M5 and become hypersonic.
True. But WRT to the thread title it's vehicles at or over M5.
Quote from: Katana
Shuttles and maneuverable ICBM RVs are technically strictly hypersonic. But people does not talk this way. Hypersonic vehicles (even rocket boosted gliders now) are boasted by their advocates as new technology, as if Shuttle and ICBM never existed.
Shuttle used aerodynamic lift down to the ground, as did Buran, as does X37b. As for Boost/glide concepts in the US they date back to the 1950's Bell Aerospace "BOMI" ideas.  Anyone thinking of these as "new" has a very short memory. I'd always recommend TA Heppenheimers "Surviving the Heat Barrier" for a good history of US hypersonics work.
Quote from: Katana
X-51 based missile concepts have been abandoned. Fuel economy of X-51 is not very good, presumably NOTHING have satisfactory fuel economy at M5 for the size of a missile.
And yet the US persist with yet another SCramjet project every few years.  :(
Quote from: Katana
For aircraft, M4 turboramjet is practical enough when M6 is appreciable (e.g. SST). If M4 can't escape SAM interception, M6 is also dangerous.
I'd agree SST <> hypersonic, but again the thread title is general hypersonic flight topics.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Katana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #151 on: 04/13/2018 09:27 pm »
To be hypersonic for this thread
To be civil for this forum
To be technically viable
To be economically appreciable

Which ongoing project could satisfy all these constraints?

BFS only?

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10350
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13605
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #152 on: 04/14/2018 07:40 am »
To be hypersonic for this thread
To be civil for this forum
To be technically viable
To be economically appreciable

Which ongoing project could satisfy all these constraints?

BFS only?
Actually the criterion is basically "Stuff that's not SABRESkylon that goes faster than M5."
Outside pretty much everything else.
But note the discussion on military uses of this technology are a site rule, not linked to this thread.
That said I didn't note any pruning when the question of WMD delivery by Skylon came up.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Ludus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1744
  • Liked: 1255
  • Likes Given: 1017
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #153 on: 04/15/2018 08:27 am »
It’s a lot easier to travel at very high speeds if you go above the atmosphere and people have been doing it this way for more than half a century. I get that there’s a sort of engineering challenge that drives R&D into hypersonic flight in the atmosphere, but is there any serious purpose for it beyond what would follow from cheap orbital launch like BFR? It seems a bit like the teams trying to set new land speed records. It’s a cool challenge, it might produce some interesting spinoffs, there might be some niche military applications, but it’s not real important.

There have been a series of Russian announcements about new weapons that seem kind of retro and silly. At best they’re produced out of a grossly exaggerated concern about the effectiveness of Star Wars anti missile systems. Claiming your missiles can hit targets “anywhere in the world” seems oblivious to the fact their missiles could do that in 1960. Saying they’re hypersonic is the same thing. They were hypersonic 50 years ago.

Am I misunderstanding something?

Offline gosnold

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 572
  • Liked: 243
  • Likes Given: 2116
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #154 on: 04/15/2018 09:25 am »
Ballistic trajectories are predictable. The point of hypersonics is not only the speed, it is the maneuvrability. It makes them very hard to target.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10350
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13605
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #155 on: 04/15/2018 09:34 am »
It’s a lot easier to travel at very high speeds if you go above the atmosphere and people have been doing it this way for more than half a century. I get that there’s a sort of engineering challenge that drives R&D into hypersonic flight in the atmosphere, but is there any serious purpose for it beyond what would follow from cheap orbital launch like BFR? It seems a bit like the teams trying to set new land speed records. It’s a cool challenge, it might produce some interesting spinoffs, there might be some niche military applications, but it’s not real important.

There have been a series of Russian announcements about new weapons that seem kind of retro and silly. At best they’re produced out of a grossly exaggerated concern about the effectiveness of Star Wars anti missile systems. Claiming your missiles can hit targets “anywhere in the world” seems oblivious to the fact their missiles could do that in 1960. Saying they’re hypersonic is the same thing. They were hypersonic 50 years ago.

Am I misunderstanding something?
Yes and no.

Ballistic missiles liken the Pershin II could do this back in the 80's but the actual issue is Isp.

A solid rocket ICBM is about 250-260secs. A liquid fuel one (like the kind the Russians still operate) around 330 (with T/W ratio of 100+:1) secs and a LOX/LH2 around 380secs at launch, 450secs in vacuum (with a T/W ratio of maybe 60:1 at launch).

But a bad air breather hits 2000secs (like a SCramjet, with a T/W ratio of maybe 2:1) and a good one can hit 3000secs (with a T/W ratio of 14:1).

That gives you a vehicle that can be a lot more structure than fuel (IE a bigger warhead), or just a lot smaller to begin with.  The siren dream of SCramjets is the (supposed) belief they can deliver thrust almost to orbit velocity.

The real down side of ballistic missiles is they look exactly like an ICBM attack on radar. The closer to the launch site  you get the higher that trajectory has to go up to come down again (at least AFAIK for solid fueled types).

OTOH if you could get into an aircraft an a normal airport and it could fly you to your destination at 5x faster than a "normal" aircraft without the drama of going to an offshore launch platform, multiple g's of acceleration and a stage separation/engine ignition even that must work every time which would you prefer?

BTW during its 27 years of passenger service various air forces ran chase exercises with Concorde. IIRC only one type caught it, because none could sustain M2 long enough, while Concorde operated at M2 without after burner (or carrying the weight of swing wings, a common design strategy at the time).
« Last Edit: 04/15/2018 09:35 am by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13996
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #156 on: 04/19/2018 04:55 pm »
USAF awards Lockheed Martin $928 million contract for hypersonic cruise missile

Quote
The indefinite-delivery and indefinite quantity award worth up to $928 million suggests the USAF is ready to move past several decades of development and demonstrations of weapons that can cruise for long distances at speeds exceeding Mach 5.

The award came out of a competitive acquisition process in which three offers where received, according to an award notice. The USAF did not name the other bidders, though when the competition was announced in July 2017 the service named Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon Missile Systems as the only acceptable bidders due to timeframe constraints.

The USAF is accelerating its efforts to develop hypersonic weapons and aircraft in light of advances and investments made in hypersonic technology by China and Russia.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-awards-lockheed-martin-928-million-contract-fo-447826/

More detail here.

Quote
Both are part of a program to develop advanced prototypes that can later be fielded on U.S. jets.

“The Air Force is using prototyping to explore the art of the possible and to advance these technologies to a capability as quickly as possible,” Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek said.

Lockheed Martin executives have emphasized hypersonic aircraft and weaponry as an area of intense interest.

“We are committed to the development of state-of-the-art hypersonic technologies, and we are excited to get to work on the Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon program,” Jon Snyder, Lockheed Martin’s vice president for Air Force Strategic Programs, said in an emailed statement.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/04/18/air-force-awards-massive-hypersonic-weapon-contract-to-lockheed-martin/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f0c783820101
« Last Edit: 04/19/2018 05:38 pm by Star One »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13996
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #157 on: 04/23/2018 06:48 am »
Argonne National Lab High-energy X-ray Facility’s Hypersonic Test Role

Quote
Despite major strides in air-breathing hypersonic scramjet technology, developers of high-speed propulsion systems for future weapons, reconnaissance vehicles and space access still lack crucial knowledge about the fundamental flow physics and combustion chemistry at the engine’s heart. Although a better understanding of key aerothermodynamics inside scramjets has been gained through computational fluid dynamics modeling and other diagnostic methods, as well as trial and error in ...

http://m.aviationweek.com/aviation-week-space-technology/argonne-national-lab-high-energy-x-ray-facility-s-hypersonic-test-rol

Air Force puts nearly $1B behind new long-range, hypersonic weapon; taps Lockheed to lead


Quote
The Air Force has established a nearly $1 billion program to prototype a long-range, air-launched, hypersonic strike weapon and Lockheed Martin has elbowed away two other competitors to win the project, the service has revealed.

Lockheed, which beat a Raytheon-Boeing team and another competitor for the Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon prototyping effort, now assumes a dominant role in leading two parallel Air Force projects that aim to develop a long-range, conventional prompt strike capability.

Spokesman for two other contractors the Air Force invited to compete in the HCSW program -- Northrop Grumman and Orbital ATK -- both declined to confirm whether their companies had submitted a bid or comment in any way on the contract award. Northrop is slated to acquire Orbital ATK this year. Debroah VanNierop, a Boeing spokeswoman, confirmed to Inside Defense the company was a subcontractor on a proposal led by Raytheon.

On April 18, the Air Force announced Huntsville, AL-based Lockheed Martin Space to be the “successful offeror” of a contract potentially worth $928 million to design, develop, and perform engineering, systems integration, test, logistics, planning and aircraft integration support of all elements of a hypersonic, conventional, air-launched, stand-off weapon.

The objective of the HCSW program, informally called “Hacksaw,” is to develop long-range hypersonic missile prototypes that can be integrated on the service's current bomber and fighter aircraft fleets and be supported in all operations, mission-planning and sustainment efforts, according to the Air Force.

“This effort is one of two hypersonic weapon prototyping efforts being pursued by the Air Force to accelerate hypersonics research and development,” said Ann Stefanek, an Air Force spokeswoman. “The Air Force is using prototyping to explore the art-of-the-possible and to advance these technologies to a capability as quickly as possible.”

The second Air Force prototyping project is the Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW), with support from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, to also develop a long-range, prompt strike capability.

Stefanek declined to offer further detail about the programs, specifically whether the core technology of the projects was based around an air-breathing, hypersonic system or a hypersonic boost-glide system.

The full scope of the Hacksaw program -- which is slated to potentially fund work through engineering and manufacturing development -- was not previously known. The project was hatched in FY-18 as part of a “Lifecycle Prototyping” effort that sought $153 million to fund numerous technologies; it is not clear how much of that is allocated to Hacksaw. The Air Force's FY-19 budget request establishes a dedicated Hacksaw budget line, seeking $89.3 million. Future funding for the hypersonic conventional strike program was not previously disclosed.

By comparison, the ARRW -- which also was broken out from the Lifecycle Prototyping project for the first time in the FY-19 budget -- is seeking $169 million, a potentially bigger program.

The Air Force, according to the FY-19 budget request, plans to "leverage the synergistic efforts" of DARPA's existing contract with Lockheed Martin for a Tactical Boost Glide demonstration to further the ARRW program. It appears the Air Force's new ARRW project will overlap with the TBG program -- a joint DARPA-Air Force initiative to develop and demonstrate technologies to enable future air-launched, tactical-range hypersonic boost glide systems.

The scale of the Hacksaw project is comparable to the Pentagon's marquee effort over the last decade to develop technologies for a long-range hypersonic strike weapon as part of the Conventional Prompt Strike program, run by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The Defense Department has spent $1.2 billion over the last 10 years to develop a boost-glide weapon and earlier this year disclosed plans to put the Navy in charge of the project beginning in FY-20, with the goal of outfitting submarines with a hypersonic strike weapon.

Last summer, the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center -- after asking industry to register interest in supporting Hacksaw requirements -- determined five companies were able to meet the service's needs: Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Orbital ATK and Raytheon.

In the end, the Air Force received a total of three offers from industry, according to the announcement.

The Hacksaw program is being financed with funds from its advanced component development and prototyping accounts and is part of a larger Technology Transition Program to “demonstrate, prototype, and experiment with technologies and concepts to enable or accelerate their transition to acquisition programs and/or operational use,” according to the Air Force budget.

“The Technology Transition Program addresses the gap between initial technology or concept development and demonstration, and successful acquisition and operational capability implementation,” according to the Air Force's FY-19 budget request.

The Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon project integrates Air Force-enabled “system technologies into a prototype that will demonstrate the viability of this concept to be fielded as a long-range prompt strike capability,” according to the service's FY-19 budget request. “HCSW will design, develop, manufacture, and test, a number of prototype vehicles to inform decisions concerning HCSW acquisition and production,” the budget states.
« Last Edit: 04/23/2018 06:55 am by Star One »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13996
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #158 on: 04/25/2018 08:09 pm »
Quote
The Pentagon wants its new AI center up and running in six months, but is taking a different track on directed energy and hypersonics, Deputy Defense Secretary Shanahan says.

Quote
While it’s clear the Pentagon leadership thinks they have a winner in the nascent JAIC, they’re doing things differently when it comes to hypersonics and directed energy weapons. In establishing new directed energy programs, “it may not be that there’s a center,” Shanahan said. “What we may do is parse things out until someone’s doing power supply, somebody’s doing beam control. It’s different aspects of the technology that we’ll probably parse out, either to a service or one of the research labs.”

Griffin has repeatedly said that developing new hypersonic capabilities is his top priority, and Shanahan confirmed Tuesday that Griffin has already delivered an interim report on his plans for ten key technology areas for the Pentagon, with a final report due on his desk in July.

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/04/pentagon-run-ai-center-coming-hypersonics-work-in-progress/

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13996
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: General Hypersonic Flight Related Topics
« Reply #159 on: 04/28/2018 09:39 am »
Now I wonder what project or projects this is going to concern.

Quote
We can expect an important announcement in a few weeks that “a significant acceleration is doable” of the Air Force’s hypersonic efforts. Roper said he’d completed a review of all the service’s work on hypersonic, one of the Pentagon’s top priorities

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/04/big-hypersonic-news-coming-faster-progress-likely-roper/

 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0