US begins hypersonic weapons program

The Watcher

New Member
All I can say is DEEP shit... :p :alian2

US begins hypersonic weapons program

NewScientist

The US military has begun development of an ultra-high speed weapons system that would enable targets virtually anywhere on Earth to be hit within two hours of launch from the continental US.

Ten companies have been given grants by the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Pentagon for six-month "system definition" studies. If the Pentagon likes the results, a three-year design and development phase will begin.

The ultimate aim, slated for around 2025, is a reusable Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle (HCV) that can take off from a conventional runway in the US and strike targets up to 16,700 kilometres (10,350 miles) away.

"There is a strategic military need to be able to strike potentially dangerous military targets that are far away and may only be accessible for a short period of time," explains Daniel Goure, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, a think tank in Washington DC.

Current cruise missiles travel relatively slowly, meaning a target may move before it arrives. One solution is to use military bases in foreign countries, but this brings political and logistical difficulties. A hypersonic weapons systems solves both problems.

However, experts describe the technical challenges posed by the program as "tough" and "challenging". Tearing through the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds requires materials that can withstand the phenomenal temperatures produced by air resistance. Travelling above the atmosphere, in space, avoids this, but would require the creation of a new type of rocket-plane hybrid vehicle.

Twin track

The Pentagon has split the project into two tasks. The nearer-term task, aiming for 2010, is the development of a weapons delivery system and rocket to launch it. The Common Aero Vehicle would be an unpowered but manoeuvrable hypersonic craft capable of carrying about 500 kilograms of munitions over a range of 5500 km.

The CAV would be launched into space by the new rocket, before being guided down by GPS to its target. DARPA hopes the rocket could also be used for satellite launches and such a launcher will be unveiled on 4 December by California-based company Spacex, one of the grant recipients.

The CAV would be used in the longer-term HCV project. Several bomb-laden CAVs would be fitted inside the HCV to provide its firepower. But the HCV will be a much bigger technical challenge.

It will need to fly like an aeroplane, so that it can take off and land on a runway. But air-breathing aeroplane engines will not work above the atmosphere. Therefore a hybrid fuel system would be required, enabling a stored oxidiser to be supplied to the engines when the HCV is in space.

Star Wars

Similar hi-tech projects backed by the US military have not worked out well, for example the 1980's Star Wars program. But Goure is optimistic about the latest program, which is called Falcon: "I don't think there is any reason why we won't be able to do this very well."

But Livingston Holder, of Andrews Space in Seattle, a Falcon grant recipient, says it could be "tough". He says: "We can propel smaller objects at high velocity for short periods of time, but we can't yet cruise across the ocean."

There could also be problems with securing intelligence enabling a target 16,000 km away to be accurately identified. "It's going to be a challenge to be accurate at high speed, but it's not insurmountable," Goure told New Scientist.
 

AnonymousDoe

New Member
The Watcher if its something that advanced, then they have to keep it secret like "HAVE BLUE" project. I wounder how did you know??????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Winter

New Member
Perhaps NewScientist? :roll

AnonymousDoe, a lot of major weapon and research programs are publicised to their existence for several reasons...It is their details, findings and results that kept secret usually during development.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The US is already in a position where it can strike any target it wants within 30 minutes. (I think the original author in New Scientist forgot about the US ICBM's that are sitting in SSGN's and their Ohio class boomers.)

Hypersonics that are taking 2 hrs can't compete with ballistic re-entry speeds.

Different platform, with a different tasking. But if the focus of the article was to emphasise speed of engagement, then they got it slightly wrong. :)
 

suleman

New Member
Speed:
Maximum operational speeds are reported to be in the range of Mach 5-8.

Length:
About 110 feet (33.5 meters)

Wingspan:
About 60 feet (18.2 meters)

Ceiling:
May have an operational altitude of 150,000 feet (28.4 miles) or higher.

Design:
The Aurora aircraft has an airframe like a flattened American football, about 110 ft long and 60 ft wide, smoothly contoured, and covered in ceramic tiles similar to those used on the Space Shuttle which seem to be coated with "a crystalline patina indicative of sustained exposure to high temperature. . . a burnt carbon odor exudes from the surface."

Engine:
Several witnesses have heard a distinctive low frequency rumble followed by a very loud roar, which could be the exotic engine used by a Mach 6 (4,400 miles per hour) aircraft. Experts say a methane-burning combined cycle ramjet engine (uniting rocket and ramjet designs) could have been developed to power Aurora. Observers in California have also reported seeing a large aircraft with a delta-wing shape and foreplanes. Some think this could be an airborne launch platform for satellite-delivery rockets or even the Aurora, before its more advanced engines were developed.

Power comes from conventional jet engines in the lower fuselage, fed by inlet ducts which open in the tiled surface. Once at supersonic speed, the engines are shut down, and Pulse Detonation Wave Engines take over, ejecting liquid methane or liquid hydrogen onto the fuselage, where the fuel mist is ignited, possibly by surface heating.

A vast amount of rumours, conjecture, eye-witness sightings and other evidence point to an aircraft, funded as a Black Project, built by the Lockheed Skunk Works, operating out of the Groom Lake / Area 51 location. Always at night, never photographed, officially denied... This is the Aurora Project. No matter what speculation takes place, it seems the secrets that lie beyond the mountains of the Nevada desert will remain until the US military decides otherwise.

Power Plant:
At subsonic speeds power comes from conventional jet engines in the lower fuselage, fed by inlet ducts which open in the tiled surface. Once at supersonic speed, there are three possibilities for the propulsion that carries the plane up to its mach 5+ speed:


PWDE Pulse Detonation Wave Engines - Essentially, liquid methane or liquid hydrogen is ejected onto the fuselage, where the fuel mist is ignited, possibly by surface heating. The PDE Pulse Detonation Engine (PDE) operates by creating a liquid hydrogen detonation inside a specially designed chamber when the aircraft is traveling beyond the speed of sound. When traveling at such speeds, a thrust wall (the aircraft is traveling so fast that a molecules in the air are rapidly pushed aside near the nose of the aircraft which in essence becomes a wall)is created in the front of the aircraft. When the detonation takes place, the the aircraft's thrust wall is pushed forward. This all is repeated to propel the aircraft. From the ground, the jet stream looks like "rings on a rope". Another reader thinks this method is very suspicious. He goes on "a serious problem with the SR-71 and other high-speed aircraft is excessive skin heating. The last thing you want is to add combustion at or near the surface." Please click HERE for our page about PDWE's.


Ramjet - A reader points out that there is "a second possible power plant design, the Combined Cycle Ramjet Engine. Essentially, it is a rocket until it goes supersonic. At that point the rocket nozzles are withdrawn and the engines run as ramjets up to Mach 4-6. With a few minor modifications to the shape of the combustion housing, you could soup the power plant up to a scramjet, which could see speeds up to and beyond Mach 8. The fuel for this power plant could be liquid methane or methylcyclohexane, plus liquid oxygen as an oxidizer in the primary 'rocket' stage. Further data on this power plant is available through Popular Science Magazine, March 1993 issue. "However another reader feels that a ramjet is not a possible propulsion source because "the National Aerospace Plane (NASP) was cancelled in large part due to the inability to solve the materials problems with the proposed supersonic ramjets. I don't think there has been enough progress, even in the black world to solve these problems. Further, RAMJET doesn't leave doughnuts on a rope."


Regular Pulsejet - Pulsejets uses the forward speed of the engine and the inlet shape to compress the incoming air, then shutters at the inlet close while fuel is ignited in the combustion chamber and the pressure of the expanding gases force the jet forward. The shutters open and the process repeats itself at a high frequency. This results in the buzzing drone for which the pulsejet missile is named: the buzzbomb. A reader points out that "pulsejets can be cooled to solve the materials problems of supersonic ramjets. They could also generate doughnuts on a rope although this is speculation as I am unaware of any previous actual tests at high altitude." Please click HERE for our page about pulsejets.


Turbo Rocket Jet - An AAP reader named Daniel Murray gave us this possible description and image of another propultion method.



This is a conceptional drawing of AURORA's engines. Although many of us Area 51 enthusiast believe that the AURORA'S engines are Ramjets or Pulse Detonation Wave Engines but I have reasons to believe otherwise. There is a new hype in the engine business. Cost effective, multi purpose engines. An engine that can fly in the atmosphere as well in space wile being completely reusable (or like a conventional jet which doesn't need its engines replaced every flight). The TRJ or Turbo Rocket Jet engine uses an internal rocket motor (Hydrogen and Oxygen fueled). The elongated combustion chamber allows a set of turbine blades which turn the power shaft. The power shaft runs the length of the engine from tip to tail. The fan and compressor blades are powered by the rockets turbines. The compressors compress the incoming air into a shaft were the fuel injectors and ignition nodes are located. The fuel is mixed with the air (like a conventional jet engine) and then is ignited by a high amp and voltage electrical arc that fires from one side of the shaft to the opposite. The evenly ignited mixture allows for better fuel economy. The ignited and expanded gases rush out of the shaft to an afterburner, and then are released out of the end of the engine. The great thing about this engine is that it can be partially shut down (the fan and compression blades) and used only on the rocket engines power. Also the Jet engine part of the engine can turn over the power shaft by itself. So for only low powered flights or descends the engine's rocket motor does not need to be initiated. The jet engine section will use regular jet fuel, or even hydrogen. Hydrogen will most likely be used, because then the'll be no separate fuel tanks. The drawing I have included is conceptional only and may have few parts that differ slightly from the actual engine.




Armament:
Although it has been rumored that the Aurora is equipped with the capability of carrying air-to-ground armaments, it is unlikely that the aircraft is designed for, or able to, support armaments. It is likely the plane is equipped for reconnaissance only.

There has been some debate about this though, as there was a Phoenix Air to Air missile that was designed to be carried in the F-12 (Basically a later interceptor version of the SR-71). This missile can only be carried by the F-12, the F-111 and the F-14 Tomcat. This missile might also be usable on the Aurora.

Mission:
Reconnaissance missions.

Contractor:
It is rumored that the Aurora was designed and built by Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Co., the same company who built the SR-71.

The SR-71 has served as one of the only aircraft capable of performing a mobile reconnaissance mission. Although satellites are useful in this role, the SR-71 had the advantage of going wherever and whenever an "eye-in-the-sky" is needed. In spite of this funding for the SR-71 program was canceled in 1989 and SR-71 flights ceased.

Given the importance of the role of the SR-71, and the fact that it is the only plane capable of performing that role, it has been suggested that government must have some secret aircraft that was capable of replacing the SR-71. According to Richard H. Graham, Col., USAF in his book SR-71 Revealed, "in 1990, Senator Byrd and other influential members of congress were told a successor to the SR-71 was being developed and that was why it was being retired. The "Aurora" could be this plane.

This argument is weakened by the fact that in 1995, Congress approved $100 million to bring the SR-71's back into service. One argument is that the Aurora was abandoned, either due to expense or technical difficulties, and that the SR-71 had to be brought back to resume its mobile surveillance role.

Legacy:
The Aurora might be a follow-up project, or research project from the XB-70 Valkyrie.
 

suleman

New Member
GAINESVILLE --- Whether or not it provides information about aging and space travel, John Glenn's triumphant return to space seems to indicate continued U.S. superiority in space.

But the United States could fall behind if it doesn't get serious in a worldwide race to create air-breathing hypersonic vehicles that can deliver satellites to orbit more frequently and cheaply than the space shuttle or current rockets, says a University of Florida professor.

Corin Segal, a professor of aerospace engineering, mechanics and engineering sciences, says Japan, France and Germany all have well-funded programs for development of next-generation hypersonic vehicles, which travel more than five times the speed of sound. The United States is renewing its research in this field, but it needs to avoid repeating a history of funding programs for a few years and then dropping them, he said.

"In previous cycles, there was no competition, but now there is," Segal said. "The bottom line is, there is a danger now that we'll lose the technology edge in this field, and with it our dominance in space."

The shuttle and other vehicles that reach hypersonic speeds today require heavy tanks to store oxygen used in the combustion process, said Mike Owens, an aerospace engineering, mechanics and engineering science master's student. Air-breathing hypersonic vehicles will not require oxygen for at least part of their flight into orbit, making them far cheaper to operate and easier to re-use over short time periods, he said. Ideally, the vehicles would take off and land from ground-based runways like airplanes.

Segal, who specializes in fluid mechanics, combustion and aircraft design, said the challenges of hypersonic flight are huge because scientists and engineers understand very little about how to build hypersonic vehicles.

"We don't yet have a demonstrated propulsion system, we don't have a good understanding of hypersonic aerodynamics, we don't have the materials and we don't know how to do the dynamics and controls," he said. "Ground facilities that simulate the extreme conditions of hypersonic flight are nonexistent, and the cost of building such facilities is prohibitive. Thus, the technology is likely to be developed largely based on flight testing."

Commercial jets travel just below the speed of sound, while military fighters reach speeds of Mach 1.5 or greater. The U.S. Air Force's SR-71 Blackbird spy plane, likely the fastest plane in the world, reaches in excess of Mach 3, though its precise top speed is classified, Segal said.

Vehicles moving at Mach 5 travel about 1 mile per second, or 3,600 mph. To allow them to reach and maintain such speeds while burning atmospheric oxygen, engineers have to figure out how to redesign engine combustion chambers to burn a fuel-air mixture efficiently at supersonic speeds in excess of Mach 1.5, Segal said.

They also must learn how to ensure the engines never "flame out" because losing engine power at such high speeds would be catastrophic.

"If the engine goes off, you lose thrust and you're left with immense drag," Segal said. "It's like hitting a wall. The airplane would smash to pieces."

For his research, Segal uses a model of a section of a generic hypersonic engine. A compressor supplies air to the small model at speeds of about Mach 2. It then is mixed with fuel and burned, with the flame visible through a small glass window. Segal measures pressure, temperature and other variables during the process, which produces a deafening roar that reaches 120 decibels and temperatures of at least 4,000 degrees Fahrenheit.

The Air Force and NASA each have current projects to build hypersonic vehicles, Segal said. The Air Force is shooting for a hydrocarbon fuel-powered vehicle that will travel speeds ranging from Mach 4 to Mach 8, while NASA will test in the near future a series of small, hydrogen-powered experimental vehicles aimed at flying up to Mach 10, or more than 7,000 mph, Segal said.

He said his research, sponsored by Boeing North American, involves hydrocarbon-burning propulsion systems. His results could play a role in the development of the propulsion system for the Air Force project, called Hi TECH.

"The idea of hypersonic flight is not new, but our research is very current," Owens said.



GAINESVILLE, Fla.---Corin Segal, a professor of aerospace engineering, mechanics and engineering science at the University of Florida, prepares a model of a hypersonic engine section for a test.

http://www.napa.ufl.edu/98news/ENGINE.htm
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Its a good article at self promotion, the reality is that the french are regarded as the current leaders in hypersonic engines. Australia has managed to successfully test a scramjet platform ahead of the US.

The US has the edge in a few other areas :) But as far as pylon slung weaponry goes, they currently aren't at the head of the pack in a consistent fashion.
 

suleman

New Member
[gf0012]
Will u please share with us some knowledge about other countries research in this sector in detail.As we mostly get news about Europe and American and Asian defence technology and research but rarely know or discuss about Australia.Its nice to see them advancing in this field and like to know about it as well.
Thanks.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
suleman said:
[gf0012]
Will u please share with us some knowledge about other countries research in this sector in detail.As we mostly get news about Europe and American and Asian defence technology and research but rarely know or discuss about Australia.Its nice to see them advancing in this field and like to know about it as well.
Thanks.
The australian scramjet was test flown by the Queensland Insitiute of Technology, its a privately established research project. I can't recall whether the US has offered to sponsor some money now that they have established that it works.

It made the news in Australia because we never have the same amount of money that US researchers get. So we felt pretty happy that with 1000th the budget we made a world first.

The French are considered to be the current leaders of hypersonics. They are very tight to get any detail from. EADs has also been testing hypersonics and has launched an ALI at mach 6.5 The target speed is eventually mach 12.

Research in australia is typically small funded,a lthough the US does send a team every year to look at different inventions with the purpose of investing development funds if approp.

There are a number of hypersonic projects in train at the moment, most are very lean on detail as it is still in the embryonic, birthing stage.

Hence stealth aircraft are probably at the tipping point, IMHO opinion the future will be hypersonic missiles, stealth cruise missiles and networked UAV's UGV's.

I clearly see that large airforces are becoming unnecessary in the current evolving environment. Manned aircraft will have a role, but not with the same degree of importance to the overall delivery process.
 

suleman

New Member
Thanks gf for the info.
Some points that i have are as follows:
1)This project requires intense amount of research and latest and very advance technology and machinery too even for research and many other things and all this need huge amount of money to complete a research and do it fast.If as u telling about the shortage of funding in Australia then how can u compete with US when u relying on their funding and also they have complete info of what Australia doin and can immidiately use it too.
2)Only achieve this speed is not enough as the basic point is how well this fighter can engage other fighters at this speed or destroy targets accurately.This speed is good to run but the real thing is good it can engage other fighters if encounter?
They may suceed in making the engine and syastem capable of this speed but real thing is accuracy and ability to engage targets with accuracy and its not easy at all.Its more difficult then making this fighter.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
suleman said:
Thanks gf for the info.
Some points that i have are as follows:
1)This project requires intense amount of research and latest and very advance technology and machinery too even for research and many other things and all this need huge amount of money to complete a research and do it fast.If as u telling about the shortage of funding in Australia then how can u compete with US when u relying on their funding and also they have complete info of what Australia doin and can immidiately use it too.
2)Only achieve this speed is not enough as the basic point is how well this fighter can engage other fighters at this speed or destroy targets accurately.This speed is good to run but the real thing is good it can engage other fighters if encounter?

They may suceed in making the engine and syastem capable of this speed but real thing is accuracy and ability to engage targets with accuracy and its not easy at all.Its more difficult then making this fighter.
Australians are kind of used to doing things on a tight budget, so we don't necessarily see that a project is limited just because the money is not available. I think its part of our make up.. New Zealanders are the same, we'll go out and build something especially if we are told that we can't do it.. :) Money is only part of the solution, brains and lateral thinking for military projects is a bit more important.

As for the hypersonic ALI, lets jump forward 2-3 years. The ALI is launched on a set of contacts fed to it by the aircrafts on board fire control system/acquisition systems etc.... as it gets closer to the target it starts to make estimates on where the target is so that if the enemy aircraft tries to fake or ghost its position it ignores it, the final stages of intercept may be picked up WSO on an AWACs 300k's away.

Its not as simple as that, but the process is vaguely similar. Adjustments in flight are miniscule, e.g. a subtle nanosecond shift in steering vanes could send it 300metres off at the contact point..

Hypersonic missiles place manned aircraft at risk as they cannot out turn the missile, cannot outrun it etc... A missile doesn't suffer from negative G's, it can turn at about 10 time the G rate of a pilot. Hence why there is a shift to more UCAV's. I do believe that manned aircraft in combat situations will be at risk within the next 5-10 years if UCAV's can have some of their limitations resolved.
 

suleman

New Member
Dear thats nice to see the solution for accuracy,but one thing must be remembered that accuracy is a thing yet to be achieved fully in new generation fighters.Inspite of all the technology they are not able to fire a hit targets accurately at normal speed,and supersonic is too difficult.They have to reduce speed to hit ground targets,so it wont be that simple thing to achieve.As u rightly pointed out that at such a speed control is very difficult and one cm mistake can lead to big miss or mistake.
Please dont mind when i ask too many questions about Australia as i wana know about them.
I admit that brains are basic thing in development of any project rather most imp thing but money is the matter that we cant deny.I am not saying that Australia cant make it but saying that how can they match the pace of USA and Europe in this field as speed matters alot too.
Thanks.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Well, the first atomic bomb design team had an australian .... australians have sold laser depth sounding equipment to the US, we have designed and sold missile decoy systems that are used on US and UK navy ships,
the US currently is looking at 3-4 weapons related systems designed in aust. Aust was using UAV's approx 30 years ago, which we sold to the UK, US and the Swedes, We've designed a combat system that has been integrated into the latest seawolf class SSKN's.., we've developed hairline fracture identification and repair systems for howitzers and large calibre gun mounts.... The black box in all commercial aitcraft is an australian invention. The first heavy anti-tank wire guided missile system was an australian invention. we modified the weapons rails on the Hornets to get a better rack configuration, we fixed some of the design flaws in the F111's by designing compound parts...

what I am trying to show is that we just go out an do things, who knows why we can. The issue is we do.

Not something that is easy to explain. :D

as for your missile kill question, it depends on whether you want a kinetic, contact explosive or a proximity kill. The closing speed of missile and the fast mover is not so much an issue if you have the right systems in place.
 

suleman

New Member
Main problem is where is such system? :D
If they cant make it accurate for current fighters then God bless them :)

Thanks for telling Australian contribution in defence and US forces.This increased my knowledge. :)
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
suleman said:
Main problem is where is such system? :D
If they cant make it accurate for current fighters then God bless them :)

Thanks for telling Australian contribution in defence and US forces.This increased my knowledge. :)
the US apparently is interested in the scramjet project as it obviously has missile potential, whether it goes anywhere is another issue. The design team weren't trying to make a military product, they just were interested in making a scramjet on a minimal budget (less than $140,000 in USD terms)
Current generation seekers are very very effective, micro electronics makes the issue of rapid changes in hi speed flight a reality.

Actually the fastest missile tracking camera in the world was an australian design as well, the scientists adapted a fire control system to a naval gun turret/carriage and fitted telephoto lenses to it.
 

suleman

New Member
indeed the research is very positive and if we leave other things like accuracy then still its a tough job.As they need very special material and cooling system for body and wings of this aircraft and more difficult is to make a safe engine and introduce such powerful combustion and material which can withstand such heat and pressure.Also fuel tanks is anither issue as the amount of distance they planning for it to cover is too much and will require huge amount of fuel.This futher adds to the problems.

I have a question and finding answers if anyone can help.Is it possible for aircrafts to use solid fuel?
 

Awang se

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
suleman said:
indeed the research is very positive and if we leave other things like accuracy then still its a tough job.As they need very special material and cooling system for body and wings of this aircraft and more difficult is to make a safe engine and introduce such powerful combustion and material which can withstand such heat and pressure.Also fuel tanks is anither issue as the amount of distance they planning for it to cover is too much and will require huge amount of fuel.This futher adds to the problems.

I have a question and finding answers if anyone can help.Is it possible for aircrafts to use solid fuel?
I think the problem will be to control the thrust amount. Unlike liquid or gaseous type of fuel which we can control the flow using a pump or valve, the thrust provided by the solid rocket engine is quite constant. If u want to varied the speed, u need to do it during the manufacturing process.
 

suleman

New Member
thats correct but it will be very useful if solid fuel is used in fighters.It seems a good option to me but certainly need to worked out.
 

Awang se

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
Actually the issues goes far beyond the control. there is also safety issue. The crack a size of a hair in the solid fuel could be very fatal. The solid fuel vehicles is pretty much pack, use and discard type like a missiles. There is no fuel replacement. once there is a problem in the solid fuel integrity, the whole system have to be dispose. Replacing fuel will be far to risky by current tech standard.
 
Top