Hypersonic Flight Is Coming: Will the US Lead the Way?

Looks like the engine tech and the US has conducted two unpiloted hypersonic research programs with the X-51 and X-43.

Nasa has awarded a contract to Lockheed to design an experimental plane to test technologies that can significantly reduce the sonic booms caused by aircraft.

Seems like it will take alot of that sweet sweet tax payer $ to get this off the ground.

We will see if this is a fruitful endeavor, because there is no hyper sonic "planes or crafts" already.

Right?

MOJAVE, California — The world is at the start of a renaissance in supersonic and hypersonic flight that will transform aviation, but the effort will need steady commitment and funding if the United States wants to lead the way, congressional leaders and industry officials said at a forum late last month.

"What's exciting about aerospace today is that we are in a point here where suddenly, things are happening all across the board in areas that just haven't been happening for quite a while," said former U.S. Air Force Maj. Gen. Curtis M. Bedke.

"There was a period where engine technology had just sort of stagnated — a point where all materials technology was going along at about the same pace," Bedke added. "There just wasn't much happening. But suddenly, in all sorts of areas that apply to aerospace, things are happening.

Bedke was one of five panelists to speak Oct. 27 at the Forum on American Aeronautics here at the Mojave Air and Space Port. Sponsored by the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, the forum was hosted by committee chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, and member Steve Knight, R-Calif. Bedke, Smith and Knight were joined by David McBride, director of NASA's Armstrong Flight Research Center in California, and Craig Johnson, director of business strategy and development for Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works. Former Mojave Air and Space Port CEO Stu Witt moderated.

Knight has taken the lead on the House Science Committee in getting NASA's aeronautical program to focus on a new set of experimental aircraft. He said his passion for these programs isn't just about improving American aviation — it's personal.

"In 1967 was the last time we went hypersonic in an airplane," Knight said, referring to an X-15 flight piloted by his late father, William J. "Pete" Knight. That flight reached Mach 6.7 — 6.7 times the speed of sound — a record for piloted aircraft that still stands nearly 50 years later. (Hypersonic flight is generally defined as anything that reaches Mach 5 or greater. "Supersonic" refers to any flight that exceeds Mach 1.)

Since that time, the U.S. has conducted two unpiloted hypersonic research programs, X-51 and X-43. However, there was no continuity in the work, Knight said.

"We collected an awful lot of data," he said. "But what I would like to see is that we can move that data into something, whether we are going to move into an aircraft that we're going to put people into or we're going to use it for some other program. We've got to have that continuity and move forward."

Knight noted that it still takes the same 4.5 hours or so to fly from New York to Los Angeles today as it did 30 years ago. Supersonic aircraft flights over land have been banned for decades because of the sonic booms they produce. No supersonic passenger planes have been in operation since the retirement of the Concorde in 2003.

NASA wants to change that. In February, the space agency awarded a contract to Lockheed Martin for the design of an experimental plane to test technologies that can significantly reduce the sonic booms caused by aircraft. If the program is successful, the ban on overland supersonic flights could be lifted.

www.space.com...

We will see if this is a fruitful endeavor, because there is no hyper sonic "planes or crafts" already. Right?

Not in the enemies arsenal. There aren't that many aircraft carriers out there either.

One has to ask, who needs a supersonic aircraft to deliver a supersonic missle? Much more cost effective to just build lots of missiles.

The US is far removed from its theaters of operation, only they think in terms of building mega ships to transport hyper jets to drop missiles on targets.

Seasonal:

The USA Has been leading and operational in hypersonic aircraft for several decades now.

Intrptr:

I can think of lots of reasons wed want supersonic aircraft and missiles. But were talking hypersonic here.

I personally can think of lots of good reasons to want hypersonic aircraft and missiles.

a reply to: intrptr

If I remember correctly, these would fly close to the edge of space as accepted by science. I believe they're to do more like recon or provide a way to easily take out lower altitude satellites.

a reply to: misterhistory

Hypersonic reconn. Good for getting eyes on the scene anywhere in the world, stealthily, in 45-90 minutes.

But then what. What if you had discovered something that needed to be blown up and was time critical. Id like a prompt global strike ability to be available to fly into those matters.

What about wanting to obliterate a navy task force before they respond and defend and with no warning. Id want that ability too..

What if theres more to the hypersonic rabbit hole than speed?

a reply to: BASSPLYR

I personally can think of lots of good reasons to want hypersonic aircraft and missiles.

Except the actual (aircraft) application wasn't deemed that necessary. As a fighter the SR71 was fast but also had a huge turn radius, one reason it was deemed ineffective as an interceptor. As a bomber or missile platform, there were already other more accurate platforms already closer in theatre. As a surveillance bird it was unsurpassed but obsoleted by newer satellite technology.

Now they are going to dust it off again? Lessons unlearned.

Imo, another wunderwaffe 'in the works'.

a reply to: intrptr

Excellent point, I wonder how well a hypersonic plane will do when small drones that are mass produced "commit" drone suicide in the lower orbit? I would imagine it isn't that far of a reach to have these suicide drones in micro satellites laying in wait. Even if the drones are $30,000 it is an exchange that our "enemies" would be willing to pay.

But I am wondering. You have a good point, who are we preparing to have conflict with?

a reply to: seasonal

I am personally looking forward to supersonic air travel. The benefits for commerce, if it can be a more affordable and ubiquitous platform than the Concorde, would be a boon to travelers and shippers.

Right now I can fly from Newark to Hong Kong one way for $300, the downside is that trip is around 16 hours non stop. If the travel time was halved or reduced even lower with only minimal cost increases due to better fuel consumption technology that suddenly becomes a very workable trip for not only passengers but cargo as well.

a reply to: intrptr

Satellites are not always a 100% surefire method to get eyes on a given area in a timely manner. They have limitations just as aircraft have limitations. Having the ability to overcome those limitations using other platforms increases the effectiveness of the intelligence gathering entity.

Sometimes, speed is the deciding factor.

I understand that many people have reservations about spending so much money on military programs, but civilians enjoy so much of what has been learned in those endeavors over time. My Jeep now as an integrated navigation system that was essentially classified 25 years ago, for example. It seems contrary to common sense, but programs intended to kill people better ultimately lead to better lives for mankind. I personally hate the idea, but it's absolutely demonstrable.

Hypersonic tech will (has) led to breakthroughs in materials, propulsion, innumerable computing breakthroughs, and on and on. And it creates a lot of jobs in the private sector. Men will always try to kill other men. Until we figure out a way to break that habit, I prefer to be on the winning side. That means investing in tech and programs that may, on the surface, seem superfluous.

a reply to: seasonal

The US doctrine is about force projection, why the fleets of carriers loaded with attack aircraft and bombs.

Also why the long range bombers like the B2, B1, and aging B52. We still think in terms of long distance strikes.

Like carriers, a decades old approach to waging war. The recent sinking in the gulf of the Saudi ship by some guys on shore should be a warning how much the rules have changed. But nobody is listening, we still bulling our way around in the China shop.

a reply to: intrptr

Ah i see you have very little insight into this issue.

Satellites havent and wont be able to do what spyplanes can. C3 functions provided by satellites are completly compromised these days. As are their reconn abilities. Theres very good reasons we have spy planes. Even hypersonic ones.

Youre not going to hit a hypersonic aircraft with kamakazi mini drones unless the aircraft is sitting on the ground.

Lessons unlearned. How bout great things learned and always have been developed out of the hypersonic studies. You just dont know about them.

a reply to: sqd5driver

Satellites are not always a 100% surefire method to get eyes on a given area in a timely manner.

Networks of satellites are. One is almost always overhead. Drone technology fills the gaps.

Sometimes, speed is the deciding factor.

Thats why the development of hypersonic anti shipping and cruise missiles. Lots of those coming from every direction, all at once, will be the deciding factor, not some stratospheric whiz bang that shows up late to film the aftermath.

a reply to: intrptr

Oh man. Long distancecstrikes is the whole point. You dont put your assets in theatre or even close to it if you dont have to. Just get in get out park your planes deep in the continental us where nobody can hit them.

Ever wonder why countries like china havent attacked places like the usa. Its because they have no way of deploying assets to that distance.

They dont have the range nor the speed nor the stealth. And stealth dont help much if you have no range.

a reply to: intrptr

Satellites have some new problems to deal with that i wont go into. They have severe problems these days you could say and arent that effective...hehehe

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Oh man. Long distancecstrikes is the whole point. You dont put your assets in theatre or even close to it if you dont have to. Just get in get out park your planes deep in the continental us where nobody can hit them.

I know, a whole day to target from Kansas.

Meanwhile the homeland is being pounded by waves of SLCMs (sub launched cruise missiles) from just off shore.

Subs can sink carrier task forces too. So can rocket mines, torpedoes, etc.

Again, an airstrike from deep within the North American Continent is as old as Dr. Strange love.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: sqd5driver

Satellites are not always a 100% surefire method to get eyes on a given area in a timely manner.

Networks of satellites are. One is almost always overhead. Drone technology fills the gaps.

ALMOST. That's never going to be good enough in this business. Intelligence gathering is based on speed and precision. The other guy rarely ever works on our timeline and sophisticated nations know where our satellites are just as accurately as we do. Hiding sensitive items/actions from satellites is as old as the hills.

Also, satellites, being a man-made, are not infallible and 100% reliable 100% of the time. Stuff breaks. Weather can impede our view. Having a means to get eyes on quickly with rapid turnaround is a nice safety net for when that satellite running on a schedule as predictable as a municipal bus service doesn't pan out.

I agree that satellites are a key to our ISR capability, but if we are serious about maintaining our advantage, fast planes are a must.

originally posted by: sqd5driver

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: sqd5driver

Satellites are not always a 100% surefire method to get eyes on a given area in a timely manner.

Networks of satellites are. One is almost always overhead. Drone technology fills the gaps.

ALMOST. That's never going to be good enough in this business. Intelligence gathering is based on speed and precision. The other guy rarely ever works on our timeline and sophisticated nations know where our satellites are just as accurately as we do. Hiding sensitive items/actions from satellites is as old as the hills.

Also, satellites, being a man-made, are not infallible and 100% reliable 100% of the time. Stuff breaks. Weather can impede our view. Having a means to get eyes on quickly with rapid turnaround is a nice safety net for when that satellite running on a schedule as predictable as a municipal bus service doesn't pan out.

I agree that satellites are a key to our ISR capability, but if we are serious about maintaining our advantage, fast planes are a must.

I mentioned drones? And (forward observers) on the ground. They have this instant commo thing called a radio... with satellite links, too.

a reply to: intrptr

A whole day. Id hope the usa had a ability to strike globaly promptly. Oh well. Nothing to see her.

Also, chinese and russian subs surfacing close to our shores only happens because we allow it. The usa undersea naval fleet looks nothing like you nor the public believe. Its sorta done that way on purpose. But no fear. Cruise missiles are not our worry.

And, long range strikes are newer than you think.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: sqd5driver

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: sqd5driver

Satellites are not always a 100% surefire method to get eyes on a given area in a timely manner.

Networks of satellites are. One is almost always overhead. Drone technology fills the gaps.

ALMOST. That's never going to be good enough in this business. Intelligence gathering is based on speed and precision. The other guy rarely ever works on our timeline and sophisticated nations know where our satellites are just as accurately as we do. Hiding sensitive items/actions from satellites is as old as the hills.

Also, satellites, being a man-made, are not infallible and 100% reliable 100% of the time. Stuff breaks. Weather can impede our view. Having a means to get eyes on quickly with rapid turnaround is a nice safety net for when that satellite running on a schedule as predictable as a municipal bus service doesn't pan out.

I agree that satellites are a key to our ISR capability, but if we are serious about maintaining our advantage, fast planes are a must.

I mentioned drones? And (forward observers) on the ground. They have this instant commo thing called a radio... with satellite links, too.

Shakes head. Not sure youre trolling or just that understudied in the topic.

Also satellites....theyre suddenly not so reliable these days😈