Manned Hypersonic Aircraft: A Speculative Analysis

[Avicula]

A great thread, with some great information, thanks for posting.

You remind of a member who used to post on ATS? She also speculated about a replacement of the SR71 in the aircraft forum.

The SR71 was a great success story and did an amazing job, so I can't imagine it wouldn't have been replaced, maybe several times over the years.

Intelgirl (I believe her name was Natalie). Her thread on the big new hanger at Groom and what it was for (had to be more than 15+ years ago now) was what got me hooked on the ATS aviation page(under a different moniker). I still remember chuckling when TWZ reported the breaking news of that very same hangar nearly a decade after her original thread. TR and the gang just KNEW they were on top of things with that story…

I really miss her input. The DI aviation page is starting to get some superb stuff happening (this thread being one example) and I am all for it. Zaphod can’t be expected to carry all of the water here too… I would love to see Boomer and some of the crowd from ATS find their way here to contribute.

[Kurokage]

Intelgirl (I believe her name was Natalie). Her thread on the big new hanger at Groom and what it was for (had to be more than 15+ years ago now) was what got me hooked on the ATS aviation page(under a different moniker). I still remember chuckling when TWZ reported the breaking news of that very same hangar nearly a decade after her original thread. TR and the gang just KNEW they were on top of things with that story…

I really miss her input. The DI aviation page is starting to get some superb stuff happening (this thread being one example) and I am all for it. Zaphod can’t be expected to carry all of the water here too… I would love to see Boomer and some of the crowd from ATS find their way here to contribute.

Some great threads back in the day with members who really were in the 'know'
I really did enjoy reading the discussions, my knowledge of the subject was limited to just being an enthusiast, but just like here, you felt excepted and amongst friends who were happy to discuss a subject without judgement.
This subject being one that always seems to pop up and attract speculation.  

I do think the aviation forum is now looking like the other site. I'm finding it just as informative, and along with 'Zaph' it's newest members seem to be very well informed. I joined ATS around the same time as Zaphod and remember several conversations in chat we had but most was about British Sci-fi! When it comes to aviation they're a well of knowledge.

[Cosmo]

I know for sure that there are research dollars going to new propulsion systems.  The adaptive engines can cover multiple modes of operation, but not all. For instance, one adaptive engine will do well as a high powered fighter, then also have the ability to loiter on station.  I believe other adaptive engines will have typical gas turbine technology, then transition to hypersonics.  Seems like the biggest hindrance is reliable power and skin friction cooling.  I think we're close to solving both with production aircraft, but I get the sense that we're keeping some of these things very, very quiet in order to prevent the recent piracy by China is many tech/defense systems. 

There is a clear need for high speed intel/strike/space interdiction.  I don't believe we're falling behind.

Cosmo

[Blackfingers]

I think they have the engine package working but it needs to fit into a smaller airframe.Remember the four forces of flight.They all need to be in balance.

[Avicula]

I think they have the engine package working but it needs to fit into a smaller airframe.Remember the four forces of flight.They all need to be in balance.

 Let’s see… The four forces of flight…in 2025? 

1) A rendering of something vaguely airplane shaped partially obscured in a vapor cloud.

2) A totally not practiced 1000 times already quote where you explain how this new airplane “is a revolutionary, paradigm shifting, next generation, optionally manned, multi-node super-duper extra stealth +++ (but environmentally conscious) jet and is the latest system in a family of systems that will allow the warfighter to dominate the battle space FROM space and still costs less than a gently used F-15E. We swear. 

3) Sorcery (see also: Black(ish) Budget 

4) A really neat program patch that ends up for sale on eBay several years before the airplane’s final design has been settled. 

I think that’s all of em…

[Raptured]

The topics back on the other site that still hold my interest are

F117 companion craft
Boscombe Downs incident - what really crashed

[Wild Bill]

I'm pretty sure that a number (more than one, at least) of manned hypersonic aircraft have been developed in the black, over the years. For example, in 2010 SecDef Gates indicated in a public statement that the US already had a Prompt Global Strike capability--but without giving any details. Prompt Global Strike means a hypersonic but suborbital vehicle that could be launched from a number of locations around the world and be over a "special" target in less than maybe 30 minutes.  They couldn't launch from nuclear submarines or from ballistic missile silos because that would usually take more than 30 minutes and probably be interpreted as a massive first strike. 

Around that time, amateur airplane watchers in the UK started reporting sightings of unusual fast-mover aircraft in the vicinity of the UK.  They described large, delta-planform vehicles that seemed to be flying along over the sea on jet power that would instantaneously switch to what would presumably be rocket power and then zoom up at a steep angle until they were out of sight.  To my knowledge, nobody has ever built a jet/rocket hybrid craft capable of getting to orbit, but getting to Mach 10+ would not be a problem. That would allow you to takeoff from Alaska, for example, under jet power, fly out over the ocean, kick in the rockets, and be over Pyongyang, for example, in less than 30 minutes. You could glide to a landing in Guam, maybe.  These fast movers that were seen around the UK were doing high-altitude S-turns while descending, like the Space Shuttle used to do before landing.  That's what you would do if you wanted to recover a reusable vehicle, maybe in Lossiemouth, Scotland, for example.

If the vehicle was expendable, it would be much smaller and you wouldn't bother to try to recover it, so these vehicles were designed to be manned, at least optionally.  Why? 

My theory is because they were intended to be capable of carrying nuclear weapons, at least optionally. US policy requires that all use of nuclear weapons have a human in the loop up until the time of weapon release so that they can be recalled at the last moment, if necessary. 

The same is true of the B-2, I believe. About 15 years ago or so, a good friend of mine (since deceased) who worked in a government lab and was in a position to know, told me that the B-2 was capable of operation like a remotely piloted UAV, if necessary. It could take off, fly out and perform its mission, return to base and land without any crew on board.  Why does it normally have a crew on board? Because it was designed to be nuclear capable. They don't fly it without a crew, even on conventional bombing missions because they want to keep the crews trained and ready, and because they probably don't want to reveal its ability to fly remotely controlled. 

Most functions of modern aircraft flight can be performed by computers, but the one function that still requires humans in the loop is delivery of nuclear weapons.

I worked at the RAF bases in Scotland decades ago , one of my drinking buddies back then was a pilot , one of my favourite planes as a kid was the English electric lightning  rumour has it they made 3 very special engines for test variants ( ceramic or something )  and the maximum ceiling hight was way above what was told to the public , Concord pilots I spoke with online many years ago were amazed at the performance of that old plane , which left them standing and could as rumour had it were hermetically sealed with a small rocket engine to þake them out ? .

who knows !

[Mantiss2021]

Might be interesting to do an updated version of Convair's Project HAZEL from the 1950's.

Actually, I could see something like a HAZEL craft being launched from an extreme high-altitude loitering airship serving as a rapid response vehicle for a long-term ISR platform.

[Wild Bill]

)Might be interesting to do an updated version of Convair's Project HAZEL from the 1950's.

Actually, I could see something like a HAZEL craft being launched from an extreme high-altitude loitering airship serving as a rapid response vehicle for a long-term ISR platform.

It is amazing when you look back at some of the designs and speeds of aircraft from the 1950s  Avro Canada had the arrow doing mach 2  and the space threshold vehicle 
http://neverwasanarrow.blogspot.com/sear...%20Vehicle

And here we are 70 years later with all new materials and tech and we seem to be stationery in so many respects

[Avicula]

It is amazing when you look back at some of the designs and speeds of aircraft from the 1950s  Avro Canada had the arrow doing mach 2  and the space threshold vehicle 
http://neverwasanarrow.blogspot.com/sear...%20Vehicle

And here we are 70 years later with all new materials and tech and we seem to be stationery in so many respects

I think it has a lot to do with putting the money in the programs that would yield the greatest benefit. We had speed licked fairly early on and have had to wait for materials and manufacturing to experience their own technological breakthroughs to get us to that next level. As I understand it, a major factor in Lockheed’s latest fast mover (I guess they’re going with “SR-72”) was their ability to literally print some of the more complex internal geometries that allow them to finally put some older theoretical propulsion concepts to the test. And apparently it has paid off. 

Same goes for the stuff available to do the manufacturing and the materials that actually go into the bits and bobs. Just like when they were designing the A-12…They KNEW Titanium alloys were the key. They just hadn’t invented the processes that made those pieces possible. I’d imagine that there have been some incredible leaps forward in recent years with graphene and ceramics that allow the really smart people build the stuff that can tolerate the unbelievable surface temperatures a hypersonic airplane has to endure for loooooong periods of time. 

They COULD have stayed in that lane and certainly would have made some incredible progress had they done so, but once people saw what Ufimtsev’s ideas could do in the real world, the decision was made to pursue stealth as the primary focus. And since stealth and fast don’t typically go together, as one more or less negates the other, speed took a back seat. 

While it is purely speculation on my part, I suspect that considerable progress has been made in the union of speed with low observability in aircraft. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn one day that someone found their way into the basement and dusted off some old work that had to be shelved and found a way to make it work. For instance…All of the chest beating about hypersonic missiles. One only need look at something like Nike Sprint to realize that the primary reason we don’t currently HAVE a system like that is because we found better ways to accomplish the same end goals. We did 0 to Mach 10 in five seconds over half a century ago. Dreamed it up, designed it, built it, tested it, fielded it, then decided “nah. We don’t NEED that…” 

Same for Projects Isinglass and Rhineberry. Both of those are nearly 60 years ago now. 

We have done speed before, and we did it well. Now it looks like perhaps speed will again be a priority in some instances and if that’s the case, it will be done and it will be done well. My only gripe is that most of us will never get to see the end result.