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.
Russia Is Building a Nuclear Space Bomberhttp://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/14/russia-is-building-a-nuclear-space-bomber.htmlRussia reveals hypersonic stealth bomber that can launch nuclear attacks from space: Radical plane could begin testing in 2020http://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 ?)
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.
Quote from: Star One on 02/17/2017 06:36 pmClassified Report On Hypersonics Says U.S. Lacking UrgencySounds 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.
Classified Report On Hypersonics Says U.S. Lacking Urgency
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.
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.
“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.
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.
I'd thought even a demonstrator testing at hypersonic velocities in the big empty of Area 51 is going to be noticeable?
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.
....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 weaponRaytheon 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......
A TBCC system combines a turbine engine for low-speed operations with a dualmode ramjet (DMRJ) for high-speed operations via a common inlet and nozzle servingboth the low-speed and high-speed flowpaths."
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 orsolutions that use accelerants.
TBCC Maturation activities (Water Injection with an F405-RR-402 Turbine Engine andthe Low Mach DMRJ Free-Jet) as they become available
F405-RR-402 - Upgrade of F405-RR-401, incorporating Mk 951 technology, certified 2008. Did not enter into service due to funding issues.
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.