Impossible mission (Falcon)

Mach 19 cargo plane!!!!!! waste money project !!
www.globalsecurity.org..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

www.globalsecurity.org...
In a letter dated 27 September 2005, the US Air Force (HQ USAF/XPPE) officially granted the US Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) Propulsion Directorate’s scramjet flight test vehicle the designation X-51A. Since the introduction of the legendary X-1 in 1946, scientists have used the X-plane designations to identify experimental aircraft and rockets used to explore new aerospace technologies. The Propulsion Directorate was working with Pratt & Whitney (P&W)/Rocketdyne’s Space Propulsion Division and Boeing’s Transformational Space Systems Division to design the X-51A scramjet powered flight vehicle to explore the airbreathing system-level potential of scramjets.

The military-oriented endothermically fueled, scramjet engine flight demonstrator (EFSEFD) was initiated in early 2003. At that time the first test flight was planned for late 2006. If successful, 5-11 flights could be performed, with as many as four more following over a roughly 18-month period, and the rest, 18 months after that. These test flights differ significantly from those of NASA's X-43C. In the latter, a three-flowpath scramjet module featuring variable-geometry inlets will be flown, with the flowpaths mounted in a side-by-side configuration. In contrast, the test vehicles used to explore scramjet military uses will each be powered by a single scramjet sporting a fixed-geometry inlet.

In January 2004 a team consisting of Pratt & Whitney (P&W) and Boeing Phantom Works was selected by the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) to flight test the Endothermically Fueled Scramjet Engine Flight Demonstrator (EFSEFD), also known as the Scramjet Engine Demonstrator - WaveRider (SED-WR). The first year contract, which is valued at $7.7M (total program value is estimated at approximately $140M), was awarded to the team to explore the airbreathing system-level potential of scramjets through multiple flight tests that will begin in the 2007-2008 time frame.

[edit on 29-8-2006 by SECRET PLANE]

[edit on 29-8-2006 by masqua]

Please read this link on how to quote external sources. Providing a link to the external sources is also reguired.

Check your
U2U's

[edit on 29-8-2006 by masqua]

Mod Note (This Appears On Every New Thread/Post Reply Page): MEMBERS: Do not simply post news articles in the forums without comment. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of current events, please post the first paragraph, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item.

[edit on 30/8/2006 by Mirthful Me]

Couple of thoughts and points:

1. Your image link doesn't work.

2. Cutting and pasting information the way you have, and without citing the source either (especially when it isn't the full article), violates a number of T&Cs of ATS.

3. Simply stating that something is a waste of money doesn't help anyone discuss the topic. Why do you think it is a waste of money?

This sounds like an interesting topic, I'd like to see more if you could fix the above. Thanks!

Originally posted by SECRET PLANE

Mach 19 cargo plane!!!!!! waste money project !!

Already covered here:
New X-Plane Coming: Introducing the X-51A

Also I would be most curious to know what makes you think the X-51A is a "Cargo Plane".

The Boeing X-51 is under the umbrella of the Air Force Research Lab's HySET (Hypersonic Scramjet Engine Technology) program. It is a hypersonic test vehicle utilizing a Pratt & Whitney dual-mode scramjet.

Technology from this effort will be used to fulfill the USAF's Global Strike doctrine of being able to precision strike anywhere on earth in 1 or 2 hours.

Therefore you are looking at a precursor to a hypersonic bomber program, not a cargo plane.





[edit on 8-29-2006 by intelgurl]

Also I didn't see any word saying Mach 19??

The flight speed of X-51 is mentioned in the middle section of the article to be Mach 6 to 7. Mach 19 is for a space shuttle entering the atmosphere. Flight tests will be taking place in 2009.

“It’s not a missile, but a propulsion demonstrator intended to validate the operation and performance of a scramjet engine in an operating environment as close as possible to reality,”

This will be testing out technologies and practicability of "global strike" capability.

X-51A hypersonic scramjet nears ground test

Originally posted by NotheRaGe
The flight speed of X-51 is mentioned in the middle section of the article to be Mach 6 to 7. Mach 19 is for a space shuttle entering the atmosphere. Flight tests will be taking place in 2009.

if this thing can fly like that ill drop my mouth. no way it can fly that fast.sorry no offense.its just that how can they do this if we still havent come up to the technology level.even the raptor cant over take mach 3! how can a cargo ship take over make 7 at this rate.

~~~~~~~~~~~~
mod edit - fixed quote

[edit on 31-8-2006 by masqua]

Originally posted by phsyco
if this thing can fly like that ill drop my mouth. no way it can fly that fast.sorry no offense.its just that how can they do this if we still havent come up to the technology level.even the raptor cant over take mach 3! how can a cargo ship take over make 7 at this rate.

A Raptor cannot go Mach 3 because of 1) the airframe's aerodynamic design and 2) the engine intakes were not designed for a high supersonic regime, thus keeping the engines from providing adequate power at that speed.

Why? Because it was planned to operate (stealthily) in sub-Mach to Mach 2 battle enviroments.

As for the technology level not being there, are you familiar with the X-43 scramjet powered test vehicle which has already attained Mach 9+ ... almost Mach 10 in controlled flight.

And again, it's not a "cargo ship", it's a hypersonic test vehicle for the Global Strike initiative.

[edit on 8-31-2006 by intelgurl]

well then.the airframe of the cargo ship.can it take mach 7.never heard of the scram jet.how big is this thing.size sometimes can matter if its small this thing might not be abled to go up to mach 7.sorry.but all i heard was the saturn space craft going to about 11000to 30000 miles per hour.the international sattelites even travel at 17500 miles per hour.

Originally posted by phsyco
well then.the airframe of the cargo ship.can it take mach 7.never heard of the scram jet.how big is this thing.size sometimes can matter if its small this thing might not be abled to go up to mach 7.sorry.but all i heard was the saturn space craft going to about 11000to 30000 miles per hour.the international sattelites even travel at 17500 miles per hour.

Where in the hell did you read that the FALCON was a cargo vehicle? Or are you deliberately trying to refer to it as something you know it is not in an attempt to elicit a "colorful" response?

In regard to the size of the "scramjet" and it's ability to go a certain speed - the X-43A hypersonic test vehicle has already flown at Mach 10. The Scramjet is an air-breathing engine and therefore does not have the ability to operate in "orbit" on it's own, however it does have the ability to make the vehicle it is powering skip across the outer layers of atmosphere like skipping a flat rock across water.

Theoretically a scramjet can power a vehicle to a range of Mach 12 to Mach 32, however most engineers who have applied knowledge in this area put that figure closer to Mach 17-20 which is around the speed it takes to get into orbit.


[edit on 9-6-2006 by intelgurl]

What is the projected timeframe for this project, more specifically any proposed service entry date?


I'm enquiring because I am wondering whether a vehicle of any speed will be of much use in an era of DEWs.


I'm also going to be intrigued by the solution for weapon detachment, no doubt they'll get there in the end, but - it'll be interesting

Originally posted by kilcoo316
What is the projected timeframe for this project, more specifically any proposed service entry date?


I'm enquiring because I am wondering whether a vehicle of any speed will be of much use in an era of DEWs.


I'm also going to be intrigued by the solution for weapon detachment, no doubt they'll get there in the end, but - it'll be interesting

Timeframe is somewhere beyond 2015, depending a lot on whether near term future whitehouse administrations keep the LRS/Global Strike funding or financially starve it to death - which would probably force it into the "black" and slow the pace of R&D.

Fielding DEW's that can attack midcourse ICBM's are still quite some time away; likewise, attacking a hypersonic craft skipping across the outer fringes of the atmosphere would be similarly challenging - not impossible - but certainly challenging.

Good thought...
Here's a couple of questions for you:

What form would stealth take on a vehicle travelling at Mach 10+?
By virtue of it's sheer speed alone it would be surrounded by a field of plasma and look something akin to a meteor going across the sky.
How would such a vehicle be tracked?
How would a light amplification DEW interact with a plasma field of that sort?

In regard to weapon deployment from a craft going that speed the R&D is already being worked on:
"RATTLRS successfully tested"





[edit on 9-6-2006 by intelgurl]

the "speed" is a very important thing in war.guess what people say(armies soldiers)they send backup.by the time they get there the soldiers would be shot to hell by then.and when will this thing ever fly.by the way intelgurl.guess i was wrong about the mach 7.Sorry.

Originally posted by intelgurl
What form would stealth take on a vehicle travelling at Mach 10+?

By virtue of it's sheer speed alone it would be surrounded by a field of plasma and look something akin to a meteor going across the sky.

How would such a vehicle be tracked?

How would a light amplification DEW interact with a plasma field of that sort?

In regard to weapon deployment from a craft going that speed the R&D is already being worked on:
"RATTLRS successfully tested"

I don't think stealth would be an option - the aerodynamic 'trail' (for want of a better word) would be unmaskable I'd reckon.


Well, we view things in the visible spectrum, so light sensitive sensors tuned to the wavelengths of orange or whatever [for the fireball trail] should be able to do the job. Surely such a vehicle would be an IRST's wet dream?



As for the laser interaction - no idea. But, plasma is mainly ionised gas, that is, atoms/molecules with a charge. I'm not sure if they can influence energy waves in the same same way energy waves influence the gas molecules. The energy waves are putting energy into the gas system, raising internal energy to the point where an electron 'loses it' and jumps. However, energy waves are non-ionising, they don't possess a charge in themselves, so I expect the only thing that will influence the waves would be the density of the medium they are passing through.

But all that is way out of my field and could be complete crap!



Nice linky on the seperation, the bomb bay doors above the aircaft, eject the missile into the flow at a positive AoA and let the airflow take over. Pretty obvious solution when I think of it now - it simply cannot pitch down and hit the aircraft