Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: EagleUSA

“That takes fuel, lots of it. So does flying at supersonic speed which takes MUCH more fuel. Something wrong with this picture....if this thing does fly at Mach 2.5 it can only be for a very short time, probably at the terminal point of its flight.....”

I worked on a team doing a concept design for something similar, also a Mach 5 missile. It used a scramjet engine, which is a highly efficient jet engine that uses very little fuel once it is up to its cruising speed. I think the planned range was for at least 1,000 miles. You have to launch it from a supersonic airplane just to get the engine started, though, which is a difficult proposition to begin with.

The technology exists to do most of this (for example, scramjets have been around since the late 50’s) but there are many, many hurdles to overcome. Heat is a huge factor with this type of craft, and making an airframe which can survive such high temps hasn’t been solved AFAIK. There’s also lots of issues with finding sensors that can update fast enough when flying at such extreme speeds to keep the missile in stable flight and guided to target.

I’ve mentioned only a couple of issues which have to be faced with something like this, and there are many others. It is a truly daunting task to design and build a missile like that, and I seriously doubt they will be successful. They will probably decide their money is better spent elsewhere.


28 posted on 09/29/2008 8:44:54 PM PDT by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: webstersII

I worked with a guy that did a finite analysis program for a scramjet engine. It’s capable of MACH 15 I think. It doesn’t even work until MACH 7. Of course it has to go very high for those speeds.

http://www.nasa.gov/missions/research/f_scramjets.html


35 posted on 09/29/2008 8:49:31 PM PDT by cruise_missile (''Edward - Jones:High commissions for lousy investment advice! Making cents out of $.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

To: webstersII
Thanks for your insight.
48 posted on 09/29/2008 9:13:49 PM PDT by kitchen (Any day without a fair tax thread is a good day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

To: webstersII

I’ve mentioned only a couple of issues which have to be faced with something like this, and there are many others. It is a truly daunting task to design and build a missile like that, and I seriously doubt they will be successful. They will probably decide their money is better spent elsewhere.
:::::::::::::
Yes, it is not a simple situation with many unanswered technical questions — that was the reason for my skepticism. Let us hope they choke on it, and maybe Russia will just spend their money on more vodka factories....


84 posted on 09/30/2008 4:02:14 PM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson