DARPA/Boeing X-51A WaveRider

sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
As far as high speed strike weaponry is concerned - while we should still keep a robust hypersonic/scramjet program - we should have an intermediate solution like a SRAM II type conventional missile until we transition into air breathing systems.
Click to expand...

Or even better, the 30 year old ASALM.
Click to expand...

Yes ASALM forgot about that one way better. Of course I would weaponize the Super Roadrunner B)
 
DSE said:
sferrin said:
DSE said:
FYI, X-51 testers perform perfectly during imperfect mission:
Click to expand...

Now if we can figure out how to get the X-51 itself to do so before the program is cancelled.
Click to expand...

I'd imagine folks are working through the data/issues. And given my experience this isn't exactly a low key nor fun time for those involved.
Click to expand...

Oh I'm sure they're burning the midnight oil trying to spread the blame. Let's just hope they get the mess figured out and have a 100% successful flight next time. (If there is a next time.)
 
X-51 Scramjet Test Exceeded Thrust Expectations: AFRL

By DAVE MAJUMDAR
Published: 15 Sep 2011 17:03 The second X-51 supersonic combustion scramjet test vehicle actually produced more thrust than expected before the test flight ended in failure, a U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) official told a U.S. House Aerospace Luncheon on Sept. 15. Scramjets would enable flight at hypersonic speed of more than Mach 5.

The neat thing that happened on the second flight is that … we made too much thrust, we made too much power," said X-51 program director Charles Brink.
The thrust difference between the first test vehicle and the second vehicle was large and had not been seen before in ground tests. Scientists working on the program were mystified and have yet to fully understand what happened, Brink said
"That's really making us scratch our bearings and say 'how did that happen?' " he said.
Brink said there were big differences between how the ground test articles worked and how the vehicle performed in-flight. Brink said his disappointment has been tempered by the knowledge that the engine produces more power than previously thought.
"If we can harness that thrust, that's the trick," he said.
The program hopes to fly a third test vehicle in the spring. Additionally, the AFRL is hoping to embark up on a new "robust scramjet" project, which would create a normal fighter-sized engine.
Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group, Fairfax, Va., said that the less-than-stellar test results were not a huge surprise because scramjet technology has been researched for decades without tangible results.
"It's not really clear that this is a technology that can be matured," he said.
Numerous scramjet projects have come and gone over the last 25 years, and most likely more will come and go over the next 25, Aboulafia said. Nor is he particularly optimistic about the AFRL prospects to develop a larger scramjet engine that would actually work.
"This might be one of those cold fusion moments," Aboulafia said.
But if scramjet technology could be perfected, he said, it would be very useful.
 
seruriermarshal said:
X-51 Scramjet Test Exceeded Thrust Expectations: AFRL

By DAVE MAJUMDAR
Published: 15 Sep 2011 17:03 The second X-51 supersonic combustion scramjet test vehicle actually produced more thrust than expected before the test flight ended in failure, a U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) official told a U.S. House Aerospace Luncheon on Sept. 15. Scramjets would enable flight at hypersonic speed of more than Mach 5.

The neat thing that happened on the second flight is that … we made too much thrust, we made too much power," said X-51 program director Charles Brink.
The thrust difference between the first test vehicle and the second vehicle was large and had not been seen before in ground tests. Scientists working on the program were mystified and have yet to fully understand what happened, Brink said
"That's really making us scratch our bearings and say 'how did that happen?' " he said.
Brink said there were big differences between how the ground test articles worked and how the vehicle performed in-flight. Brink said his disappointment has been tempered by the knowledge that the engine produces more power than previously thought.
"If we can harness that thrust, that's the trick," he said.
The program hopes to fly a third test vehicle in the spring. Additionally, the AFRL is hoping to embark up on a new "robust scramjet" project, which would create a normal fighter-sized engine.
Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group, Fairfax, Va., said that the less-than-stellar test results were not a huge surprise because scramjet technology has been researched for decades without tangible results.
"It's not really clear that this is a technology that can be matured," he said.
Numerous scramjet projects have come and gone over the last 25 years, and most likely more will come and go over the next 25, Aboulafia said. Nor is he particularly optimistic about the AFRL prospects to develop a larger scramjet engine that would actually work.
"This might be one of those cold fusion moments," Aboulafia said.
But if scramjet technology could be perfected, he said, it would be very useful.
Click to expand...

So much fail. Producing more thrust than expected but, ""It's not really clear that this is a technology that can be matured," he said." That's some weak BS right there. It will get figured out but not by someone with an attitude like that.
 
DSE said:
"We could have flooded it because we turned a knob incorrectly or put too much fuel into it," he explained."
Click to expand...

Makes you wonder how such incompetent behaviors can even happen on multi-million dollar programs like this.
 
They test X-51A again ?

Tested 20 November 2011 ?

USAF X51-A and U.S. Army AHW both tested November 2011

http://www.examiner.com/military-technology-in-washington-dc/the-usaf-x51-a-and-the-u-s-army-ahw-both-test-november-2011
 
in Donna Quesinberry un-parallel dimension, yes. and it's called X51-A there
 
Given that there was no announcement of the results it must have been a 3rd failure. I wonder if it too dropped off the pylon into the drink like a dumb bomb.
 
Given that no one else seems to have heard of an X-51 test on November 20th, I'm pretty skeptical of Ms Quesinberry's report. Now, I did see that someone on YouTube uploaded a Fox News report about the X-51A on November 20th. But that report initially aired back in late 2009. My guess is that Quesinberry saw that new posting and spammed out her column without actually understanding the report. (Typical for the Examiner, honestly. It's not a real news service.)
 
I can forgive anything to a single mother to five children
 
Hope they have better luck than the HyFly, RATTLRS, and HTV-2 teams have had.
 
DSE said:
sferrin said:
Hope they have better luck than the HyFly, RATTLRS, and HTV-2 teams have had.
Click to expand...

One makes one's own luck in some cases and I believe it's pretty fair to say they all ready have.
Click to expand...

I meant *good* luck.
 
DSE said:
sferrin said:
DSE said:
sferrin said:
Hope they have better luck than the HyFly, RATTLRS, and HTV-2 teams have had.
Click to expand...

One makes one's own luck in some cases and I believe it's pretty fair to say they all ready have.
Click to expand...

I meant *good* luck.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm referring to. The fault tree analysis/investigation appear to have been much wider in scope compared to HyFly at least.
Click to expand...

I've really got my fingers crossed. HyFly seemed to be a "interim" propulsion system.
 
http://www.pw.utc.com/media_center/assets/pwr_hypersonics_sm.pdf low-res
http://www.pw.utc.com/media_center/assets/pwr_hypersonics.pdf hi-res
 
Rockedyne is.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/15/business/la-fi-rocketdyne-sale-20120316
 
I hope the government is smart enough to limit it to US buyers.
 
sferrin said:
I hope the government is smart enough to limit it to US buyers.
Click to expand...

You put smart and government in the same sentence :eek:
 
The Hypersonic Race: Russia has fallen behind the United States in hypersonic technology and must rekindle its research and development efforts to overcome the widening gap, stressed Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin. "Sadly, today we see Russia lags noticeably in this sphere," said Rogozin on a recent visit to a missile development facility near Moscow, reported Flight Global May 15. "Hypersonic missiles have significant advantages in terms of reaction times; invulnerability to existing and future air defense systems; long range and high altitude; and kinetic energy," he underscored. Rogozin specifically highlighted the Air Force's X-51A supersonic combustion ramjet demonstrator and US-Australia HIFiRE ramjet collaboration as impetus for Russia to "lay the basis for creation of a national competitor in hypersonic weapons," reported Russia's state-run RIA Novosti May 11. Rogozin claimed US research could "transition from a demonstrator prototype to creation of a multirole hypersonic missile" as early as 2015 at the current pace.
 
Wait a second. I thought they've been telling us about unpossible to intercept TOPOLs with manuevering, powered RVs or some such. Now they're saying they're behind? They need to get their story straight.
 
August 14th ;D

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/asd_08_06_2012_p02-01-483238.xml
 
DSE said:
bobbymike said:
August 14th ;D

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/asd_08_06_2012_p02-01-483238.xml
Click to expand...

I might not be holding my breath. It's dropped from a B-2 mothership, yeah right. And how many flights have there been, three or two, they can't seem to make up their mind. Typical AvLeak, love that attention to detail.
Click to expand...

Sorry DSE, we forgot to brief you on the B-2 mods! :)

Actually, someday, something like this will be carried by a stealth platform.
 
I cross my finger to a success for this flight, do your best X-51 crew to travel this time beyond mach 5 .
 
DSE said:
I might not be holding my breath. It's dropped from a B-2 mothership, yeah right.
Click to expand...

Ha ha! Pathetic. Of course a typing mistake is always possible, but the fact the B-52 became the "B-2" without any proofreader detecting it doesn't do much good to AW&ST's already passably tarnished image on this forum... ::)
 
sferrin said:
Any news yet?
Click to expand...

This article says the B-52 flew today, but there was no comment about if the X-51 flew.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48660676/ns/technology_and_science-space/

"The B-52 took to the skies Tuesday, but no other information about the test flight was available, John Haire, a spokesman for Edwards Air Force Base in California, said in an email. Public affairs officials at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio, which is in charge of the X-51 development project, provided no updates."
 
It was launched! Results to be announced on Wednesday:

http://www.ottawasun.com/2012/08/14/us-military-tests-hypersonic-waverider-aircraft

"The U.S. military conducted an unmanned test flight on Tuesday of its hypersonic Waverider aircraft, designed to move at six times the speed of sound using technology that bridges the gap between planes and rocketships, a military official said. A B-52 bomber launched the remotely monitored, nearly wingless experimental aircraft, officially known as the X-51A, between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. (1700 and 1800 GMT), John Haire, a spokesman for the 412th test wing at Edwards Air Force Base in California, said in a statement. Results of the brief test flight will be released on Wednesday, he said."
 
The Air Force's X-51A Waverider Test Was A Total Failure

Without a clue to where they got the information, and going on their reputation alone, we're compelled to post that Wired tweeted the closely watched X-51A test yesterday was a failure.

At 9:35 EDT Wired's defense vertical Danger Room tweeted:

Bad news for the USAF's mach 5 missile. X-51A failed its flight test; a fin problem caused a loss of control b4 the engine could kick in.

http://www.businessinsider.com/wired-the-air-forces-x-51a-waverider-test-was-a-total-failure-2012-8
 
Now they'll cancel it because "scramjets don't work" instead of testing the 4th one. :'(
 
groooansmileyf.gif
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom