- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,908
- Reaction score
- 11,011
seruriermarshal said:Or they take it into LRASM .
sferrin said:So what happened to it? It seems to have completely fallen off the radar and it doesn't seem likely it'd have gone "black" or we wouldn't have heard of it in the first place. ???
quellish said:"The committee notes that although it is widely agreed that the best opportunity for near-term transition of hypersonics technology will be in cruise missile or conventional strike systems, especially to support time critical and prompt global strike missions, suffi- cient resources for research, development, or testing of the systems has never been focused, coordinated, or sustained within the De- partment of Defense. Examples of these programs include the DARPA Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle (HTV–2), the Air Force’s X–51 program and the now terminated HyFly and Revolu- tionary Approach to Time Critical Long-Range Strike Project (RATTLRS) programs. The committee feels that these programs have all suffered from a lack of investment in addressing funda- mental technical issues and insufficient resources for required flight test and demonstration activities." - Senate Armed Services Committee, FY2009 RDTE request comments (SASC_110-335_RDTE)
sferrin said:Well that's just all kinds of inspiring. Boiled down it sounds like either "it was too hard so we gave up" or "we were too stupid to see the potential".
quellish said:sferrin said:Well that's just all kinds of inspiring. Boiled down it sounds like either "it was too hard so we gave up" or "we were too stupid to see the potential".
More like the programs were not well coordinated or resourced, and as such were wasting money. How much of an investment had been made in range support for this kind of testing?
Not much. Those kinds of problems were not well thought through. Imagine you had 5 super duper new fighters in development, but no place like Edwards to test them. Instead each fighter program was paying for different testing resources.
But with RATTLRS, there is no indication that anyone felt it was too hard. It completed its flight test program. There was never a concrete plan to turn RATTLRS into an operational system.
sferrin said:So why no pictures,video or articles discussing the test flights? You'd think, given all the hype and publicity around RATTLRS they'd have said something. The question I have is why nobody seems to be interested in making a concerted to developing high-speed technologies in the US. The image that comes to mind is a bunch of monkeys trying to have relations with a football.
sferrin said:The question I have is why nobody seems to be interested in making a concerted to developing high-speed technologies in the US...
quellish said:The fate of RATTLRS, however, seems clear.
DSE said:I believe there have been some issues with testing of the HiSTEAD turbine.
quellish said:DSE said:I believe there have been some issues with testing of the HiSTEAD turbine.
Portions of HiSTEAD are now part of the Mode Transition Demonstration program funded under PE 0603286. It is not clear that the HiSTEAD engine completed testing, but appears likely.
flateric said:HiSTED, not HiSTEAD, and it's LibertyWorks YJ102R
Sferrin, look back at your own posting
quellish said:DSE said:I believe there have been some issues with testing of the HiSTEAD turbine.
Portions of HiSTEAD are now part of the Mode Transition Demonstration program funded under PE 0603286. It is not clear that the HiSTEAD engine completed testing, but appears likely.
DSE said:Despite my misspelling, and incorrect program alignment, I believe there have been real issues with both high Mach turbine tests. Also, fwiw MoTr is dead. Note the "new Darpa MoTr PM" Tom Bussing is no longer at Darpa.
quellish said:DSE said:Despite my misspelling, and incorrect program alignment, I believe there have been real issues with both high Mach turbine tests. Also, fwiw MoTr is dead. Note the "new Darpa MoTr PM" Tom Bussing is no longer at Darpa.
DARPA requested money for it through 2011 (under 0603286E), in a month or so we should know where it went and how much they want for coming years.
mr_london_247 said:Seems like things 'High-Speed' and air-breathing (but not Hypersonic) are still very close-hold, even dating from the Eighties?...
DSE said:quellish said:DSE said:Despite my misspelling, and incorrect program alignment, I believe there have been real issues with both high Mach turbine tests. Also, fwiw MoTr is dead. Note the "new Darpa MoTr PM" Tom Bussing is no longer at Darpa.
DARPA requested money for it through 2011 (under 0603286E), in a month or so we should know where it went and how much they want for coming years.
FY11 is many months in as you note. The program is dead.
DSE said:Vulcan is the TBCC, turbine + PDE, program which started out as an aerospace application, but was transitioned to looking at shipboard applications for Phase 2. MoTR was the TBCC, turbine + scramjet, program which morphed out of the Blackswift portion of FALCON. One of the major causes for confusion, imo, what that the industry day briefing for Vulcan contained info pointing towards a possible future combination with a scramjet as well, though the program was really focused on a nearer term solution of mating a current large scale turbine (ala F-100) with a PDE system in ground tests. There was a facility study which looked at how current ground test facilities might handle the requirements and scale of such a test.
Ground Testing Technical Committee GTTC Newsletter
Vol 7 No 4 January 2006
Winter 2005/2006
RATTLRS Air Vehicle Baseline (AVBL) Forebody Inlet Screening Test.
A high Mach number inlet design for the RATTLRS / AVBL concept was tested at the GRC 1’x 1’ supersonic wind tunnel. The model was tested at Mach numbers 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0. The inlet flow was captured and measured for yaw angles ranging from -2 to +2 degrees, and for pitch angles ranging from -2 to +8 degrees. A new remotely variable
strut was developed for this test and contributes to the tunnel capabilities. This test data will be compared to analytical (CFD)
predictions.
Also of note, the inlet model hardware was created using an
innovative design and fabrication technique. Using a two step
process, the model’s form was generated in a rapid prototype
laser sintering machine. Then, in a high temperature oven, a
bronze infiltration technique was used to create the final metallic
SLS form. The fabrication was awarded the GRC craftsmanship
award and was featured at this year’s Oshkosh show. The data
will serve as the validation reference for evaluating CFD
analyses of integrated inlet / forebodies with 3D flow spillage.
Also, this data will help to advance an inlet / vehicle concept
which is a candidate for flight demonstration or small turbinebased
hypersonic vehicles. (contributed by Mike Henry, QSSGroup, Inc.)
flateric said:WTF is that AVBL I never heard about and why it have nothing common with RATTLRS as we knew it (before it was no more)
George Allegrezza said:I remember seeing the AVBL term in a few NASA papers back in the Global Reach days. Might be a generic shape rather than something specific to RATTLRS.