intelgurl, long time no see! I'm a stranger to these parts now.

Scramjets also reach terminal velocity at about Mach 10 anyway. The exhaust velocity of the fuel is equal to the velocity of the airstream. Better to have a ballistic skip-glide design like the old Dyna-Soar if that's your aim.

It's also worth pointing out that they have a massive exhaust signature to tackle to avoid the thing showing up on even civilian radar screens. Perhaps they've already done this long ago.

This Black Swift looks a lot like the X-33, but that must be a coincidence. The two would have absolutely nothing in common, unless I'm severely mistaken.

Originally posted by iskander

Mach 6 SR-72 back in 1985? That would have been just right, but these days mach 14 hypersonic SAM will take it down no problem, stealth or not.

Mach 14 SAMs? Such as? While there are certainly some SAMs that can be classed as hypersonic, I don't know of any that can achieve Mach 14. And when you say IGLA, are you talking about the MANPAD? Because it certainly isn't hypersonic.

Edit - Oh, I assume you are talking about the GLL Igla test scheduled for 2009?

[edit on 22-11-2007 by Willard856]

Thanks for that. Glad to see we don't have to worry about a Mach 14 SA-18 any time soon! Those things scare me enough as it is...

As for the SA-5 test, I guess my next question is around the manoeuvrability of the missile at those speeds. Sure, the seeder is going to vaporise whatever it manages to get close to, but over the TOF of the missile, assuming an Rmax shot (or I guess even a 2/3 Rmax), will the missile hack a manoeuvering target (both in terms of missile structural limitations, as well as tracking limitations)? I guess following on from this, why haven't we seen any operational SAMs at the Mach 14 speed regime if such testing has been going on for so long?

Hmm, just realised this is probably a little off topic. If the OP is not happy with this, let me know by U2U and I'll start another thread. Cheers,

Willard

Now, on one hand, I see the idea behind using scramjet technology for missiles and the like, but on the other hand, I can't quite wrap my head around why one would want to have a Mach 14-capable SAM in the first place. I dunno, maybe it's because for that sort of "we need that projectile over there right now" thing, I'd personally recommend warming up a railgun and sending the ol' kinetic hello that way. It just seems excessive to have that sort of system: A, it requires too much running room due to speeding the missile up to supersonic speeds in the first place, B, most aircraft nowadays, excluding this marvelous SR-72, travel at only about Mach 2-3, and C, there are existing SAMs and other anti-aircraft systems that work just fine in its place. I suppose the best application for a Mach 14 SAM is as an anti-ICBM deterrent or even an anti-satellite weapon, seeing that you can afford to have that massive run-up speed, your target IS far away, and last I checked, satellites and ICBMs are incapable of 9G evasive action.

And on the actual subject of the SR-72, I suppose this only shows that no matter the technology, and especially on the fast-moving battlefields of today, speed is key and will always be needed.

So...bought a Predator drone, eh?
...kept the receipt, did you?

[edit on 12/4/2007 by Reverie Planetarian]

In my humble and newbie opinion, and if the management of information from black projects is as good as I've heard, the spec and time frame stated here are surely deliberately understating what's already been achieved by Aurora.

Notwithstanding that, this is a great piece of info.

You can contest the existence of the "Aurora spy plane" all you want to. Something under the general concept that became affiliated with the name "Aurora" was likely a proof-of-concept.

I mean... if you're looking for evidence... just look at the daggum airstrip. You could land an aircraft on that thing that had a stall speed of a few hundred knots, I'd reckon (depending upon mass and yadda yadda techno-babble).

There are a number of functional tasks such an aircraft could be used to perform. You can launch satellites into orbit with much smaller rocket boosters that would avoid tripping the geosynch IR satellites the U.S. and Russia had placed over each other to detect the launch of any rocket capable of achieving orbit. Thus - we could launch spy satellites, munitions satellites - whatever we wanted, and they would not know to be watching for it.

That solves a number of problems that exist with spy satellites and spy planes. First - spy satellites can be tracked and worked-around. Second - spy planes are expensive to maintain (though far more unpredictable than satellites) and operate. Also, taking pictures from within the atmosphere and at such speeds becomes problematic. Radar readings are also hazy, and the thermal shock-cone you're generating shows up like a 747 on radar.

With this solution - you get the best of both worlds. You have severely reduced maintenance/operational costs due to the short flights used to launch the satellite. It is exo-atmospheric so photo distortion and radar signature due to the atmosphere are not nearly as big of a concern. And you have the 'element of surprise' - with a bit of a lasting effect. A decaying orbit could give a few passes or more out of a single flight operation.

That same method could also deliver a small warhead...

And the way those projects work is somewhat counter-intuitive. Military and civilian employees mingle and tinker with ideas to accomplish a goal. They get to browse the catalog of military equipment, pick what they want, and modify the living crap out of it.

This SR-72 is the culmination of several lines of technology rumored to have been developed over the past few decades. First, you have the Mach 6 flight. In today's world where the chances of having to respond to a mobile launch of chemical, biological, or radiological missiles - speed is key. This thing, being able to kick out there like a bat out of hell, fits that bill. It could easily carry a payload that could intercept an ICBM or destroy the launcher before the missile launched. The U.S. military suffers from having a wide area of engagement and a rather small military. This helps shrink the battlefield, once again. (And I'd love to see what this thing paired with a couple JSOW sub-munition dispensers could do...).

Then, we have the UCAV concept. This is only logical. The life-support systems and pilot dimensions only increase the bulk and drag of the aircraft in this scenario. If nothing else - this is a hypersonic Hail Mary that isn't planning on coming back to the carrier/hangar, anyway - so I wouldn't want to be in it. Hitting Zone Five all the way into Moscow to deliver a farewell token just doesn't sound like it'd be the way I want to go. Be a hell of a ride... but... no.

This also gives us a nice preemptive strike capability against another country to obtain air superiority. These UCAVs can be right in the face of anything - bombers, fighters, strike aircraft... they can get right up in their face and take them down before anyone knows what happened. Better, still - they can outrun just about everything that can be shot at them - and probably fast enough that many tracking systems would not appreciate trying to follow one of these guys.

If a JDAM could withstand the stresses accompanied with being launched at such a velocity, it would greatly improve their range (although with arguably no real benefit).

This is pretty cool. It's nice to see something real for once. I want one, now. Fly it right over the top of the homes of people I don't like..... "I shall bring the wrath of God upon you!"

"Yeah right..."

*orange fireball streaks by followed by a supersonic boom and overpressure wave*"You have been warned!"

Originally posted by Aim64C
I mean... if you're looking for evidence... just look at the daggum airstrip. You could land an aircraft on that thing that had a stall speed of a few hundred knots, I'd reckon (depending upon mass and yadda yadda techno-babble).

Que to start techno babble. Or basic babble.

XB-70 landing speed= 184 mph
And I've heard that it could land on a little as 8000ft of runway.

I didn't read the whole conversation, but I would like to reply to that:

Originally posted by iskander

Scramjets also reach terminal velocity at about Mach 10 anyway.

Nope;

A Scramjet is a hypersonic Ramjet type engine whose major selling point is its lack of major moving parts and its potential for very high top speeds in the theoretical range of Mach 24 (24 times the speed of sound)

On many sites you can find information, that scramjet can go up to Mach 24, but in the X-33 program it was discovered, that the reachable speed is Mach 17.

Sorry, but you can't change the facts

Thanks intelgurl for posting that link here, for some reason I didn't make the connection with this thread.

Also glad to see more information on this beast.

I look forward to seeing it fly - in one of the Wired articles one of the project leads stated that one of the design goals was to do a barrel roll at Mach 6.

I'd pay good money to see that

[edit on 1/28/08 by xmotex]

So, what are you claiming about the max velocity of scramjet? Are you saying that the top speed is Mach 17?

Well, I suppose I'll go along with that as long as you have that "not 100%" disclamer in there.

I keep seeing posts about the weapons payload.I cant think of any reason for it to have one- if it can carry anything it would be small- why risk one of these babies (and its pilot)when you can just send a missile? My guess would be that it isn't designed to be a weapons platform at all, just like its predecessor. If the developers and Air Force are suggesting that it has a strike capability it would most likely be a ruse to force the development of countermeasures by the enemy. Who's the enemy again?.....