Grey Havoc said:Lockheed hails progress on hypersonic military aircraft (ft.com, registration may be required)
Flyaway said:More to the above seems the SR-72 was discussed again.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-pushing-1-billion-mach-6-airbreather-423198/
sferrin said:Flyaway said:More to the above seems the SR-72 was discussed again.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-pushing-1-billion-mach-6-airbreather-423198/
"the company is building on “several breakthroughs” made during the short-lived HTV-3X Blackswift hypersonic testbed, which was de-funded by Congress in fiscal year 2009, to develop “a controllable, low-drag aerodynamic configuration capable of stable operation from takeoff to subsonic, transonic, supersonic and hypersonic to Mach 6”.
Imagine if they'd continued the program. Not shovel-ready enough I guess.
Flyaway said:http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/just-because-lockheed-says-they-can-build-a-mach-6-jet-1765367071
sferrin said:"the company is building on “several breakthroughs” made during the short-lived HTV-3X Blackswift hypersonic testbed, which was de-funded by Congress in fiscal year 2009, to develop “a controllable, low-drag aerodynamic configuration capable of stable operation from takeoff to subsonic, transonic, supersonic and hypersonic to Mach 6”.
DrRansom said:sferrin said:"the company is building on “several breakthroughs” made during the short-lived HTV-3X Blackswift hypersonic testbed, which was de-funded by Congress in fiscal year 2009, to develop “a controllable, low-drag aerodynamic configuration capable of stable operation from takeoff to subsonic, transonic, supersonic and hypersonic to Mach 6”.
There is a basic problem with the Lockheed plan, too much of the reusable hypersonic aircraft design space remains completely untested:
- No flight test of sustained hypersonic engine, 5 minutes apparently achieved thermal equilibrium. Is that the case for a larger engine?
- No flight test of large scale hypersonic engine, no tests anywhere of large scale hypersonic engine. And don't say CFD is enough, because in this case it isn't.
- No integrated tests of combined cycle hypersonic engine + jet engine, at small or large scales
- No flight tests of combined cycle engines
- Other serious issues, which I won't go into here.
The propulsion plan for a large scale hypersonic vehicle is all basic research at this point. There is barely enough understanding of the X-51 engine, making something larger is completely novel work.
What appears in that statement is the aerodynamic solution, Lockheed managed to find an efficient aerodynamic shape for a hypersonic vehicle. Congratulations, the large scale aerodynamics are well understood, if imperfectly modeled. Too bad virtually everything else is barely out of basic research
DrRansom said:sferrin said:"the company is building on “several breakthroughs” made during the short-lived HTV-3X Blackswift hypersonic testbed, which was de-funded by Congress in fiscal year 2009, to develop “a controllable, low-drag aerodynamic configuration capable of stable operation from takeoff to subsonic, transonic, supersonic and hypersonic to Mach 6”.
There is a basic problem with the Lockheed plan, too much of the reusable hypersonic aircraft design space remains completely untested:
sferrin said:DrRansom said:sferrin said:"the company is building on “several breakthroughs” made during the short-lived HTV-3X Blackswift hypersonic testbed, which was de-funded by Congress in fiscal year 2009, to develop “a controllable, low-drag aerodynamic configuration capable of stable operation from takeoff to subsonic, transonic, supersonic and hypersonic to Mach 6”.
There is a basic problem with the Lockheed plan, too much of the reusable hypersonic aircraft design space remains completely untested:
That you're aware of.
sferrin said:DrRansom said:sferrin said:"the company is building on “several breakthroughs” made during the short-lived HTV-3X Blackswift hypersonic testbed, which was de-funded by Congress in fiscal year 2009, to develop “a controllable, low-drag aerodynamic configuration capable of stable operation from takeoff to subsonic, transonic, supersonic and hypersonic to Mach 6”.
There is a basic problem with the Lockheed plan, too much of the reusable hypersonic aircraft design space remains completely untested:
That you're aware of.
DrRansom said:sferrin said:DrRansom said:sferrin said:"the company is building on “several breakthroughs” made during the short-lived HTV-3X Blackswift hypersonic testbed, which was de-funded by Congress in fiscal year 2009, to develop “a controllable, low-drag aerodynamic configuration capable of stable operation from takeoff to subsonic, transonic, supersonic and hypersonic to Mach 6”.
There is a basic problem with the Lockheed plan, too much of the reusable hypersonic aircraft design space remains completely untested:
That you're aware of.
At least two of my points are flight test arguments, not flight tests of large scale scramjets nor of combined cycle scramjets. As for the rest, I know of an AEDC program to test a large-scale scramjet, which has been referenced already in this forum, but I doubt they have reached flight-test ready designs in the timeframe since tests started.
It isn't the case that the USAF can hide hypersonic flight tests, they require too much range-safety measures.
You sent me that PDF of ATK solid rockets there are a few dozen you'd think would make a great IRBM prompt strike weapon.sferrin said:Indian sea-launched conventional ballistic missile:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygcyV-EC6dc
{Sea-launched Shaurya)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaurya_%28missile%29
We should just outright buy some of these things from India (since we're apparently incapable or unwilling to develop something like this despite all the talk of wanting the capability). You could fit 4 of them in each silo in an Ohio SSGN or four of them in each Virginia VPT.
bobbymike said:You sent me that PDF of ATK solid rockets there are a few dozen you'd think would make a great IRBM prompt strike weapon.sferrin said:Indian sea-launched conventional ballistic missile:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygcyV-EC6dc
{Sea-launched Shaurya)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaurya_%28missile%29
We should just outright buy some of these things from India (since we're apparently incapable or unwilling to develop something like this despite all the talk of wanting the capability). You could fit 4 of them in each silo in an Ohio SSGN or four of them in each Virginia VPT.
sferrin said:We should just outright buy some of these things from India (since we're apparently incapable or unwilling to develop something like this despite all the talk of wanting the capability). You could fit 4 of them in each silo in an Ohio SSGN or four of them in each Virginia VPT.
bobbymike said:Articles from the commentariat coming fast and furious now.
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/china-and-russias-hypersonic-rise-to-nuclear-superiority/
A little while ago both the LA Times and New York Times had articles about the decaying Triad and nuclear enterprise to which I commented, "When they start to notice things may be worse than I imagine."
This thought holds true for hypersonics as well.
Call me paranoid or someone who can't get past "Cold War" thinking but the current state of affairs is very worrisome to me. I see complete Russian nuclear modernization (every system MIRV capable well beyond anything needed for New START) along with China's almost completely opaque nuclear enterprise and their testing of very large 10+ MIRV capable systems (I really doubt the 250-400 warheads estimate) and I think the US might find itself in a large strategic position of weakness in the 2020-2025 timeframe.sferrin said:bobbymike said:Articles from the commentariat coming fast and furious now.
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/china-and-russias-hypersonic-rise-to-nuclear-superiority/
A little while ago both the LA Times and New York Times had articles about the decaying Triad and nuclear enterprise to which I commented, "When they start to notice things may be worse than I imagine."
This thought holds true for hypersonics as well.
Wait 'til they discover you can't just turn the machine on again because the machine is gone and there's nobody left who knows how to make a new one - in the US anyway. China and Russia are doing just fine.
bobbymike said:Call me paranoid or someone who can't get past "Cold War" thinking but the current state of affairs is very worrisome to me. I see complete Russian nuclear modernization (every system MIRV capable well beyond anything needed for New START) along with China's almost completely opaque nuclear enterprise and their testing of very large 10+ MIRV capable systems (I really doubt the 250-400 warheads estimate) and I think the US might find itself in a large strategic position of weakness in the 2020-2025 timeframe.sferrin said:bobbymike said:Articles from the commentariat coming fast and furious now.
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/china-and-russias-hypersonic-rise-to-nuclear-superiority/
A little while ago both the LA Times and New York Times had articles about the decaying Triad and nuclear enterprise to which I commented, "When they start to notice things may be worse than I imagine."
This thought holds true for hypersonics as well.
Wait 'til they discover you can't just turn the machine on again because the machine is gone and there's nobody left who knows how to make a new one - in the US anyway. China and Russia are doing just fine.
When you combine Crimea (and other Russian areas of aggression) and the SCS activities of China...........
DrRansom said:Along these lines, US military observers cling to the delusion that countries are still 5 - 10 years away from deploying a glider MARV. If China has 7 flight tests, that has to put China very close to something which is deployable in IOC capability. US has, IIRC, 2 - 3 flight tests with the Army weapon?
I would not be surprised if China / Russia have gliders by 2018. A small force, 5 - 20 weapons, would be enough to target missile defense batteries / radars. Then the regular ICBM force could conduct primary nuclear strikes.
marauder2048 said:DrRansom said:Along these lines, US military observers cling to the delusion that countries are still 5 - 10 years away from deploying a glider MARV. If China has 7 flight tests, that has to put China very close to something which is deployable in IOC capability. US has, IIRC, 2 - 3 flight tests with the Army weapon?
I would not be surprised if China / Russia have gliders by 2018. A small force, 5 - 20 weapons, would be enough to target missile defense batteries / radars. Then the regular ICBM force could conduct primary nuclear strikes.
Highly accurate conventionally armed boost-glide penetrators pose a very real threat to US MM III silos.
marauder2048 said:Highly accurate conventionally armed boost-glide penetrators pose a very real threat to US MM III silos.
marauder2048 said:Highly accurate conventionally armed boost-glide penetrators pose a very real threat to US MM III silos.
quellish said:marauder2048 said:Highly accurate conventionally armed boost-glide penetrators pose a very real threat to US MM III silos.
This graph indicates it is pk vs cep for a boost glide penetrator or MOP against an *SS-18* silo. I don't see the relevance to MM III unless I am missing something?
marauder2048 said:quellish said:marauder2048 said:Highly accurate conventionally armed boost-glide penetrators pose a very real threat to US MM III silos.
This graph indicates it is pk vs cep for a boost glide penetrator or MOP against an *SS-18* silo. I don't see the relevance to MM III unless I am missing something?
marauder2048 said:If you're suggesting that MM III silos are hardened against kinetic energy penetrators we'd all like to hear about it; it was a growing concern in the 80's so something may have been done there.