It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did China fly a Hypersonic Recon Aircraft?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Note. I am going to state this with extreme skepticism. Hypersonics is HARD. We do it only with ICBM like warheads and very special materials. Material science for hypersonics is really, really hard and the Chinese lag behind us in mat sci.

HOWEVER!

There's a report the Chinese test flew a hypersonic (Mach 5) recon aircraft. This may be the high speed drone related to the picture (or rumored to be related to the picture) I linked to earlier this week.

I doubt this, but its also vaguely possible with the right materials and if they used a jet engine to take off and land, but a rocket for high speed flight. That's pretty doable with 1960s tech and the Chinese do have that.




posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

Most hypersonic craft use a booster to get them to shoot mach 3, when the engine can kick in and get them to hypersonic speeds. Everyone working on a dual use ramjet has run into fairly serious issues getting them to work.

If it only reached mach 5 or 6 it still has a ways to go to reach fastest aircraft flown. The X-43 reached over Mach 9.5 during a flight.
edit on 9/21/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I think you need a scramjet rather than a ramjet at about mach 3.5. That's kinda hard, too, to do.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

Either works. The difference being that a ramjet needs to put a bend in the intake to slow the air going into it. Scramjets are a little easier but neither is particularly reliable.
edit on 9/21/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 07:30 AM
link   
The X-43 reached beyond Mach 9.5 .... Daaaaaaaaamnn! That's quick would loved to of seen what that looked like whizzing through the air

Zap .. The regarding the two threads of the Texas span loader and the green lady thread, would any of these aircraft developed have similar characteristics to the X-35 (more the green lady than the span loader)

Just curious if any of the research while developing the X-43 had been put into newer aircraft.. Or am I just speaking a load of waffle



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: anzha

Either works. The difference being that a ramjet needs to put a bend in the intake to slow the air going into it.


Not...always.



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: anzha

Why would it be merely a "recon" plane? Why not stick a bomb or two inside of it instead of sensors if such a craft is real?

To suggest it is a "recon" device means intended to fly over hostile territory. Rather a dangerous way to display your new devices, yes? (As we discovered in Iran.)



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Aliensun

Because releasing weapons at mach 3 was hard enough to overcome. Releasing them at higher speed is more difficult.



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

No not always, but for terms of a simple discussion they're almost always interchangeable.



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Aliensun

I think opening a bomb bay door and dropping something from inside the craft to the outside hypersonic air-stream could be problematic and as difficult as getting the hypersonic aircraft to work in the first place.



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Do you think the Chinese break the 8 minutes wall ?



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Bedlam

No not always, but for terms of a simple discussion they're almost always interchangeable.


It depends on whether you're willing to ignore the design of the intake and the exhaust. I'd suppose. But I'm straying into the forbidden zone of connecting dots.
edit on 22-9-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sammamishman
a reply to: Aliensun

I think opening a bomb bay door and dropping something from inside the craft to the outside hypersonic air-stream could be problematic and as difficult as getting the hypersonic aircraft to work in the first place.


You bet. It's not straightforward at all. If the thing breaks, ejecting into hypersonic air doesn't happen well either.



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam


But I'm straying into the forbidden zone of connecting dots.

You, Bedlam, are the only ATS member whose mysteriousness I believe in.

All right, back on topic.



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 10:25 AM
link   
At higher speeds the airflow tends to hold a bomb next to the aircraft that dropped it. That's why a Cartridge Actuated Device (CAD) called a "kicker" is used to push the bomb away from the aircraft. A CAD is basically a blank that uses the gas that it generates on detonation to push a piston into the bomb, pushing it away from the aircraft. I don't think that a CAD would have the force to separate a bomb from an aircraft at high Mach numbers.

I used to have a picture of an A-7 with holes in its wing where the CAD failed and a practice bomb hung around and beat up the underside of the wing before falling clear.



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

Isn't that why most designs for high-supersonic and hypersonic bombers all relied on almost naval ejection systems?

Remember how the A-5 spit it's ordinance out the back like a WWII destroyer dropping a depth charge?

Or how all of those hypersonic strike concepts involved ejecting their payloads out through individual holes in the top surface of the craft, like a submarine releasing countermeasures or a P-3 dropping sonobuoys?



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: JIMC5499

Then there was the F-18 that bombed an A-4 during a release test.



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

The A-5 was interesting. When the bomb came out the back it got sucked into following the plane because of the low pressure area directly behind the aircraft. Think race cars drafting behind each other. Not a good idea to have the nuke that you just dropped following along behind you. We still had a R/A-5 in our Air Wing when I got there. Beautiful aircraft.



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Reaching mach 9.5 is pretty impressive...but can it be controlled? Can we make it do what we want at those speeds?



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

First F/A-18 I ever saw went of the waist cat in the Forrestal straight into the water. Pilot ejected and landed safely on the flight deck. Kind of pissed me off. I was glad that he was OK, but, if he had gone into the water it would have been my rescue.




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join