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.
Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
I personally envision something more like an exotic fuel system, something like those fuel-cells i've been hearing about? or something like nanotechnology type hyper-compressed fuel? that would certainly increase range.
quick random question, on long flights, what do pilots eat/drink? astronaut food?
Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
I personally envision something more like an exotic fuel system,
HyTech
Hypersonic Technology
The objective of the HyTech program is to demonstrate the operability, performance, and structural durability of a liquid hydrocarbon (jet fuel) supersonic combustion ramjet (Scramjet). The near term application of this technology is a long range hypersonic cruise missile that is logistically supportable in a combat environment and can defeat time-sensitive targets and hard and deeply buried targets. In the far term, the scramjet technology enables a Mach 8-10 strike/reconnaissance aircraft and affordable, on-demand access to space with aircraft like operations.
The U.S. Department of Defense has decided to make the next generation heavy bomber an unmanned aircraft. The Department of Defense also wants the new aircraft in service by the end of the next decade, some twenty years ahead of schedule. At the same time, the current combat UAV program (J-UCAS, run by the air force and navy) is to be changed as well. The current X45 project will be split up, with the air force and navy allowed to develop a shorter range combat aircraft to suit their particular needs. These will be bombers, with some air-to-air capabilities.
The X45 was meant mainly for those really dangerous bombing missions, early on, when enemy air defenses have to be destroyed. But the Pentagon finally got hip to the fact that the J-UCAS developers were coming up with an aircraft that could replace all current fighter-bombers. This was partly because of the success of the X45 in reaching its development goals, and the real-world success of the Predator (in finding, and attacking, targets) and Global Hawk (in finding stuff after flying half way around the world by itself.)
The one topic no one wants to touch at the moment is air-to-air. This appears to be the last job left for pilots of combat aircraft. The geeks believe they have this one licked, and are giving the pilot generals the, “bring it on” look. The generals are not keen to test their manned aircraft against a UAV, but this will change the minute another country, like China or Russia, demonstrates that they are seriously moving in that direction.
Originally posted by ghost
Humans spent years trying to invent the airplane, for what? So we could sit on the ground and watch a robot fly? Why are they so eager to get rid of manned aircraft?
Originally posted by NWguy83
Well unmanned aircraft can cost less than manned aircraft. And a stealth supercruise manned or unmanned bomber might cost too much. That leaves unmanned hypersonic bombers.
Hypersonics is still a very new feild of flight. Currently, only X-Planes have ever flowen that fast. Speed in excess of Mach 4 create a host of new problems: Thermal, Control, propulson (SCRAM jets are still Experimental according to NASA), Fuel, Airfame stress, ect. Surely, the cost of ANY hypersonic weapon system (manned, or unmanned) would be in the Tens, or even Hundreds of Billions for R&D alone!
If we can't afford a stealth supercruise aircraft, How do you expect to begin to pay for a hypersonic platform of any kind? Sorry, but the logic doesn't work!
Originally posted by NWguy83
Not really, they have flown the X-43 (cheap for an X plane) twice. And have been doing wind tunnel and engine tests for a couple of years now. So R&D is fairly established.
And the bomber wouldn't enter service till later next decade. Just look at how much money they are spending on the F-35. Like I already said unmanned can cost less than manned if you don't pack it full of expensive sensors etc. X-45C was to cost 1/4-1/2 of a manned aircraft with the same capabilities. Plus the main reason for hypersonic bombers is "prompt global strike".
Originally posted by kilcoo316
- How to release a bomb safely without destroying itself and the aircraft (this will not be easy.
kilcoo316
(RTA), which is supposed to enable flight up to mach 5 or so, but thats the lower end of hypersonics, and first flight is pencilled for 2010 or so.
kilcoo316
- Next decade, like between 2010 and 2020? A hypersonic bomber? Sorry, not a chance, take a look.
NASA's mid term goals go up to around 20 years, long term 25+ (just to give you an idea of timeframes).
Originally posted by kilcoo316
Sorry, I really have to disagree here.
2 flights and engine ground tests are not a mature R&D program, or nothing like it. No consideration has been given to any of the following (as far as I'm aware) in the current R&D program:
- Sensors working at such high mach numbers where ionisation of the airflow may become an issue.
- How to release a bomb safely without destroying itself and the aircraft (this will not be easy.
- How to incorporate propulsion that can get the vehicle up to Mach 3 or so for the (SC)RAMJET to take over (again, this will not be at all easy). [Unless you plan to have a mother launch aircraft for every mission?]. NASA are working on a 'revolutionary turbine accelerator' (RTA), which is supposed to enable flight up to mach 5 or so, but thats the lower end of hypersonics, and first flight is pencilled for 2010 or so.
- Next decade, like between 2010 and 2020? A hypersonic bomber? Sorry, not a chance, take a look here. NASA's mid term goals go up to around 20 years, long term 25+ (just to give you an idea of timeframes).
Originally posted by Murcielago
The F-22 has release a bomb going supersonic...and its doors open downwards...With hypersonic bomber, why not make the doors side open.
What i've read is mach 4. and that pdf you linked was 2002...anything more current?
Thats just a guess.
I wouldn't doubt it if a hypersonic bomber emerges in 2010-2015 timeframe.
Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
i think it might be a Blended Wing Body Concorde, supercruise, stealthy and fairly long range. It will have a stealthy V tail with the exaust from the 4 engines coming out , running along the fusulage between the Vtails. (so you can't see engine exhast from below)
The airinlets will be on the top above the wings.
Oh, it will be powered by F35 engines
The cockpit, will be totally enclosed, no windows, just a retractible Camera, thats very redundant so the pilots can see were they're going at low speeds.
It supercruises at Mach 2.2 and can go to mach 3 and VERY high if need be
This with RAM and careful design, would make a perfect bomber IMHO
Originally posted by kilcoo316
Something I just thought of that I should have realised earlier.
Uhm, when an aircraft turns on its afterburners, the diamond shocks within the jet plume are visible on radar, and rise the radar signature of the aircraft significantly. I haven't looked, but I would imagine the shock strengths (pressure ratios) to be of similar magnitude to those in hypersonic flows.
It could be that hypersonic flight and low radar signature are mutually exclusive - i.e. its just not possible to have both at the same time.