USAF sets record MACH 6 flight

[Modelworks]

Awesome. 4,000MPH in an autonomous vehicle. The 200 second test at Mach 6 allowed the plane to travel 222 miles.
Something like NY to CA would take about 40 minutes.


http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=10756873

An experimental aircraft has set a record for hypersonic flight, flying more than 3 minutes at Mach 6 — six times the speed of sound.

The X-51A Waverider was released from a B-52 Stratofortress off the southern California coast Wednesday morning, the Air Force reported on its website. Its scramjet engine accelerated the vehicle to Mach 6, and it flew autonomously for 200 seconds before losing acceleration. At that point the test was terminated.

The Air Force said the previous record for a hypersonic scramjet burn was 12 seconds.

"We are ecstatic to have accomplished many of the X-51A test points during its first hypersonic mission," said Charlie Brink, an X-51A program manager with the Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.

"We equate this leap in engine technology as equivalent to the post-World War II jump from propeller-driven aircraft to jet engines," Brink said.

The Waverider was built for the Air Force by Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne and Boeing Co.

Joe Vogel, Boeing's director of hypersonics, said, "This is a new world record and sets the foundation for several hypersonic applications, including access to space, reconnaissance, strike, global reach and commercial transportation."

Four X-51A cruisers have been built for the Air Force, and the remaining three will be tested this fall.

"No test is perfect," Brink said, "and I'm sure we will find anomalies that we will need to address before the next flight."

 

[Genx87]

Arent these tests now for finding a cheaper more efficient way to get into space? Since the concorde was for all purposes a failure. I cant see where a Mach 6 airliner would be beneficial. But if we can use this kind of technology to get into space. That is a completely different story.

 

[Gibsons]

Arent these tests now for finding a cheaper more efficient way to get into space? Since the concorde was for all purposes a failure. I cant see where a Mach 6 airliner would be beneficial. But if we can use this kind of technology to get into space. That is a completely different story.

I suspect the USAF is thinking of a way to more rapidly distribute bombs around the globe. Either missiles or a hypersonic bomber, whether manned or unmanned. At that speed, you don't really need a bomb, a Mach 6 steel rod will do a lot of damage.

 

[jlee]

Uhhh wow, that's pretty fast.

 

[AeroEngy]

Arent these tests now for finding a cheaper more efficient way to get into space? Since the concorde was for all purposes a failure. I cant see where a Mach 6 airliner would be beneficial. But if we can use this kind of technology to get into space. That is a completely different story.

I am not entire certain what the end game is for these tests except to advance propulsion science and potentially make a new missile. I do know that trying to make this thing into an airliner is a pipe dream. The cost, added complexity, and weight of trying to make a man rated scramjet would be absurd (read up on the X-30). Not to mention that a scamjet does not operate below about MACH 4-5. So you need something else like a solid rocket motor to get it started. I guess you could use a ramjet hybrid like the SR-71 to get it started but them you have to carry that much more weight and make it that much more complex ...

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

I suspect the USAF is thinking of a way to more rapidly distribute bombs around the globe. Either missiles or a hypersonic bomber, whether manned or unmanned. At that speed, you don't really need a bomb, a Mach 6 steel rod will do a lot of damage.

And, a Mach 6 steel rod will do a lot less collateral damage then any explosive munition will.

 

[Phoenix86]

I suspect the USAF is thinking of a way to more rapidly distribute bombs around the globe. Either missiles or a hypersonic bomber, whether manned or unmanned. At that speed, you don't really need a bomb, a Mach 6 steel rod will do a lot of damage.

I'm pretty sure the benefit has to do with deployment time, time to detection, and avoiding missile defense, etc.

 

[Blackjack200]

I suspect the USAF is thinking of a way to more rapidly distribute bombs around the globe. Either missiles or a hypersonic bomber, whether manned or unmanned. At that speed, you don't really need a bomb, a Mach 6 steel rod will do a lot of damage.

Doing some reading on scramjets, I don't think that would make sense. You need to accelerate a scramjet to at least Mach 4.5 before it will work. If you want a hypersonic weapon, usually you just use a rocket.

 

[PricklyPete]

Motherfuck'n awesome! Love when they push technology like that.

 

[Genx87]

Wouldnt the railgun be what we are looking for when it comes to hypersonic weapons?

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Doing some reading on scramjets, I don't think that would make sense. You need to accelerate a scramjet to at least Mach 4.5 before it will work. If you want a hypersonic weapon, usually you just use a rocket.

So, use a rocket to get to Mach 4.5 then kick in the scramjet to get the weapon system's total time to target cut in half from the fastest weapon. The Tomahawk goes at < Mach 1, which means that we can have the weapon hit 5x sooner.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Wouldnt the railgun be what we are looking for when it comes to hypersonic weapons?

Scramjet's are closer to deployment than any railgun is. Railguns have issues with their barrels last I checked.

 

[bignateyk]

So it only traveled 42 miles before it was unable to maintain speed?

 

[FallenHero]

Scramjet's are closer to deployment than any railgun is. Railguns have issues with their barrels last I checked.

The rails disintegrate after 2-3 rounds, or at least warp to the point that they are unusable.

 

[K1052]

I suspect the USAF is thinking of a way to more rapidly distribute bombs around the globe. Either missiles or a hypersonic bomber, whether manned or unmanned. At that speed, you don't really need a bomb, a Mach 6 steel rod will do a lot of damage.

Or advanced reconnaissance packages without the risk of manned overflight and the limitations of satellite surveillance.

 

[Gibsons]

The rails disintegrate after 2-3 rounds, or at least warp to the point that they are unusable.

and a railgun isn't an intercontinental weapon (well, maybe, but probably not), while a Mach 6 airplane or missile certainly could be.

 

[Gibsons]

Or advanced reconnaissance packages without the risk of manned overflight and the limitations of satellite surveillance.

Yes, that too. I suspect there isn't a SAM around that could intercept something like this. Someone might build one, but it'll take some serious effort and cash.

 

[Phoenix86]

So it only traveled 42 miles before it was unable to maintain speed?

The 200 second test at Mach 6 allowed the plane to travel 222 miles.

222 miles is enough for many weapons platforms, that's a little less than half of the current Tomahawks and it's still in testing.

 

[Blackjack200]

So, use a rocket to get to Mach 4.5 then kick in the scramjet to get the weapon system's total time to target cut in half from the fastest weapon. The Tomahawk goes at < Mach 1, which means that we can have the weapon hit 5x sooner.

But why not just use a rocket the whole way at that point? I think what you're describing is essentially a V-1, only with a scramjet instead of a pulsejet.

 

[K1052]

But why not just use a rocket the whole way at that point? I think what you're describing is essentially a V-1, only with a scramjet instead of a pulsejet.

Tossing around ballistic missiles with intercontinental ranges makes people a teeny bit nervous.

 

[Modelworks]

Or advanced reconnaissance packages without the risk of manned overflight and the limitations of satellite surveillance.

exactly. People are assuming it to be used to deliver bombs but a better use is surveillance. View 200 miles of a countries terrain in just a few minutes vs sending up a drone that would take over 3 hours. At mach 6 you have the ability to see all 200 miles as close as possible and have the data almost be real time. The ability for anything to shoot it down really doesn't exist currently. By the time you see it , its gone.

 

[AeroEngy]

exactly. People are assuming it to be used to deliver bombs but a better use is surveillance. View 200 miles of a countries terrain in just a few minutes vs sending up a drone that would take over 3 hours. At mach 6 you have the ability to see all 200 miles as close as possible and have the data almost be real time. The ability for anything to shoot it down really doesn't exist currently. By the time you see it , its gone.

I am not sure what you could see with this that you couldn't see with a fleet of LEO surveillance satellites (around 100 miles up) that would be always up there. Sure you might have to wait for one to swing around to correct position but I bet there are sufficient numbers where they don't have to wait that long to get a picture of just about anywhere.

 

[bignateyk]

222 miles is enough for many weapons platforms, that's a little less than half of the current Tomahawks and it's still in testing.

Yep

... reading AND math fail in one post. I'm on a roll today :hmm:

 

[Modelworks]

I am not sure what you could see with this that you couldn't see with a fleet of LEO surveillance satellites (around 100 miles up) that would be always up there. Sure you might have to wait for one to swing around to correct position but I bet there are sufficient numbers where they don't have to wait that long to get a picture of just about anywhere.

Satellite has a lot of disadvantages, cloud cover, time to position, detail level.
They could also send the plane into space to make observations then return to ground, sort of a drone in space . If better optics are designed it is an easy upgrade vs launching a whole new satellite.

 

[K1052]

I am not sure what you could see with this that you couldn't see with a fleet of LEO surveillance satellites (around 100 miles up) that would be always up there. Sure you might have to wait for one to swing around to correct position but I bet there are sufficient numbers where they don't have to wait that long to get a picture of just about anywhere.

Since it is fuel intensive and expensive to retask a satellite it isn't done a lot and their orbits are pretty well known.