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.

 

SR-72 Confirmed: Mach 6 Project Blackswift

page: 7
124
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by RigelFive
 



Wasn't Russian scramjet technology kerosene based? X-43 was just a couple of hydrogen bottles at 9000 psi with a heat exchanger.


No. Scramjets are multi-fuel in concept. Just look into it. No moving parts.

Here’s some good starter info;

www.onera.fr...

You’ll see that hypersonic flight is such old news, that it was tripping on its own beard by the end of 20th century.

The real breakthrough is in miniaturizing the design and using it in separating hypersonic warheads that maneuver in their terminal phase.

In light of all this, I can’t see why in the world only Mach 6 SR-72 is being worked on at all.




posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
 


Iskandar is actually looking in the right place with the wrong "eyes" so to speak.

Q. Why would the US be so interested in other countries technologies - actually collaborating with them for scramjets?

A. The MACH 25 technology doesn't work. The amount of liquid hydrogen fuel you really need to go that fast takes up too much volume (can't fit the aircraft on the runway). Right? Why waste your time on this when you can get the other guys to figure it out.

Looks like the US gov't is only interested in slower Mach 6 technology... not a secret.

Does anyone have any real figures on how much money is possibly being spent on the DMRJ (Mach 6) SR-72 technology??? It cannot be 17+ billion - no way (missile defense is ~ 7 to 9 billion)! Lockheed job description says they're looking to farm out $30 million to vendors?



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 12:46 AM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 08:35 PM
link   

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)


Note that Australians pushed HyCAUSE to Mach 10 no problem as well.

Look into HyShot, what DARPA/NASA and a crap load of European players have to with Kholod and SA5 tests.

Russian Igla already hits mach 14, and their new hypersonic MIRVs are said to hit Mach 15 upon re-entry, while performing “evasive maneuvers”.

If the price tag and maintenance costs are acceptable, unmanned mach 6 Sr-72 would sound good for on demand intel, we sure need it, but if it’s going to be yet another black project bottomless money pit, then it’s two decades late.

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.

Heat signature alone will be picked up by orbiting satellites.

media.www.avionnewspaper.com... k-2920411.shtml


p.s.

intelgirl, I checked my U2Us, thanks!



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 09:55 PM
link   

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]



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Willard856
 



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.


Baranov/TsIAM project, year 1970, utilizing existing SA-5 missile as a booster, right here;

www.testpilot.ru..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

It’s an experimental hypersonic scramjet SAM called GLL Kholod mounted on the launching platform.


It does not have a warhead, and the production version wouldn’t have the need for one any way.

The payload would be a rotator seeder which will simply disperse what ever shape/form shrapnel needed, and since the entire package is already going +/- Mach 14, such a cluster cloud will annihilate what ever it touches.

A close up of the hypersonic module;

www.testpilot.ru..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>



And when you say IGLA, are you talking about the MANPAD? Because it certainly isn't hypersonic.


No, not the SAM, this Igla;

www.testpilot.ru... " target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>


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


Yep, a further development of the one in the picture above, and that Igla is what US NASP and further such projects were based on.

p.s.

Happy ThanksGiviing everybody!


We had home made sushi/sashimi/tempura, and LOTS of it
!!!



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   
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



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 11:07 AM
link   
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]



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 07:21 AM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by tayga
 



the spec and time frame stated here are surely deliberately understating what's already been achieved by Aurora.


I’m sorry, Aurora? It’s still an urban legend, and until I see ANYTHING confirming it’s existence, I’ll treat it as is.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 06:41 AM
link   
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!"



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Dang, I remembered a Russian saying;

“Mechtat ne vredno!”

That means imagination is NOT a hazard to your health.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 02:07 AM
link   
As fellow ATSer XMOTEX has already posted (Blackswift Swoops in for $750 Million), the spinoff program from the USAF's hypersonic FALCON project is due to debut in February 2008.

XMOTEX's source was the Wired magazine article "Blackswift Swoops in for $750 million" published on January 24, 2008.
Feel free to read XMOTEX's thread as well as the Wired article linked to above.

What was not covered in the Wired article (at least from what I quickly read) is that Lockheed has now named the Blackswift's combined cycle turbojet/ramjet designer and builder, Pratt & Whitney.

According to the Inside the Air Force newsstand, the Pentagon and Lockheed reiterate that this is not to be a scramjet powered aircraft, but rather a hybrid combined cycle engine not unlike the SR-71.
They have stated that the turbine engine would accelerate the vehicle to “around Mach 3 before the ramjet takes over and boosts the vehicle up to Mach 6”.

Also noted in the Inside the Air Force article is that it is not certain that the Blackswift will be a UCAV only, but rather it could be a piloted vehicle that is capable of being a UCAV. Additionally the article says that the Blackswift could aid in developing a delivery vehicle of conventional warheads as part of the DoD’s Prompt Global Strike concept.

The Prompt Global Strike concept calls for developing a capability to strike a target anywhere on earth within 1 hour of a launch order.

Pictured Below:
(Courtesy of Lockheed)


Blackswift under normal turbojet power.


Blackswift "lights the candle"... transitions to Ramjet.


Blackswift coming in for a landing after a Mach 6 flight.


Blackswift in hangar...




[edit on 1-28-2008 by intelgurl]



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   
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



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 11:47 PM
link   
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]



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 09:56 PM
link   
So, what are you claiming about the max velocity of scramjet? Are you saying that the top speed is Mach 17?



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Spirit Warrior
 


That would be correct. The max speed of a scramjet was determined to be mach 17 during X-30 research due to combustion rate issues. Its not a 100% figure since the maximize efficiency of the combustion process is determined by the different supersonic flow.

[edit on 30-1-2008 by Canada_EH]



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Well, I suppose I'll go along with that as long as you have that "not 100%" disclamer in there.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 10:45 PM
link   
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?.....




top topics



 
124
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join