| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Science & Technology | ||
| Bill Gertz: Pentagon will move ahead with strike hyper drone | ||
| 2014-03-21 | ||
An experimental scramjet-powered, ultrahigh speed strike vehicle is emerging as the Pentagon's main choice for a new long-range, rapid attack weapon, a senior Pentagon official says.
Hypersonic vehicles can deliver nuclear or conventional payloads in precision strikes against increasingly hard-to-penetrate air defenses of countries like China, Russia and Iran, he said. "We, the U.S., do not want to be the second country to understand how to have controlled scramjet hypersonics," Mr. Shaffer told the Precision Strike Association's annual review on Tuesday. The comments come 2 1/2 months after China's surprise Jan. 9 test of a new hypersonic glide vehicle, dubbed the Wu-14. That ultrahigh speed maneuvering vehicle test represents a major challenge for current U.S. missile defenses, which are designed to counter non-maneuvering ballistic missile threats. Lee Fuell, a technical intelligence specialist with the Air Force National Air and Space Intelligence Center, told a congressional China commission hearing Jan. 31 that China's hypersonic glide vehicle is a ballistic missile-launched system that glides and maneuvers to its target at speeds up to Mach 10 (about 7,611 mph). "At this point, we think that's associated with their nuclear deterrent forces," said Mr. Fuell, who noted the Chinese could use the system with conventional warheads for long-range precision strikes. Mr. Shaffer declined to comment on how the Chinese hypersonic test has changed U.S. plans for hypersonic weapons. But the senior weapons research official said the Pentagon's most promising hypersonic vehicle is the X-51, a cruise missile-sized weapon powered by an advanced engine called a scramjet. The X-51, developed by Boeing, flies at up to 3,882 mph, or Mach 5.1, and is launched from under the wing of a B-52 bomber. The experimental aircraft is a good candidate to win this year's Collier Trophy, the annual award recognizing the most significant recent achievement in air or space flight, Mr. Shaffer said. Mr. Shaffer said hypersonic weapons, when fully developed, will be less expensive than current jets and cruise missiles powered by complex turbine engines with many parts. A scramjet, or supersonic combusting ramjet, hypersonic vehicle has few moving parts.
"It's the second time we have shown a scramjet can ignite and give positive acceleration," Mr. Shaffer said. "That is a huge deal. That means we are now starting to understand hypersonics." Another hypersonic weapon on the Pentagon's drawing board is the HTV-2, or Hypersonic Technology Vehicle, that is boosted by a missile -- like the Chinese WU-14 -- and then maneuvers and glides to its target at very high speeds. Mr. Shaffer said that system in tests flew a long distance at very high speeds and made a controlled re-entry. Despite not meeting test goals, the tests generated substantial data. Another system is the Army's Advanced Hypersonic Weapon, a missile-launched glide vehicle that had a successful test. It will fly at speeds faster than Mach 5. A fourth system is the hypersonic international flight research experimentation program or Hifire, a Mach 8 weapon being developed with Australia. | ||
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #2 Well it is going to be tricksy even though they have proof of concept now. The part of the fuselage that "rides" the shock wave and provides the air feed to the ram jet is going to get very hot and I suspect that they are using the fuel supply as a heat sink and when it dives for target it will get even hotter as it hits thicker air. So you have to figure out how much fuel are you going to need for the range you want and that will dictate the size of the missile, and then there is how heat resistance do you need to make the guidance system. Then how fast is the guidance system going to be able to react? The engine itself only has to last long enough for the trip. I am not a rocket scientist and I do not play one on TV. |
| Posted by: Pearl Borgia1889 2014-03-21 05:14 |
| #1 The 'less expensive' part I don't believe for one second. Gotta wonder how many programs were sold with that line. Which is not to imply we shouldn't be doing this. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2014-03-21 01:36 |