Scramjet-powered X-51A Waverider missile breaks Mach 6 record
 

Scramjet-powered X-51A Waverider missile breaks Mach 6 record - CSMonitor.com

On Wednesday morning, a US Air Force X-51A Waverider missile sustained speeds of Mach 6 for more than 200 seconds, the US Air Force has announced. The X-51A Waverider, which was launched over the southern California coast, is powered by next-gen scramjet technology.

The X-51A Waverider, shown here in an Air Force illustration, reportedly hit speeds of Mach 6 during a test flight this week. The X-51A Waverider is powered by a Pratt Whitney Rocketdyne SJY61 scramjet engine.

The US Air Force has confirmed that its X-51A Waverider cruise missile – a next-generation vehicle powered by scramjet technology – hit speeds of Mach 6 during a test run over the Pacific Ocean on Wednesday morning. According to the Air Force, the X-51A Waverider was carried by a B-52 aircraft to an altitude of 50,000 feet, and launched somewhere off the southern California coast.

The X-51A Waverider reportedly sustained a Mach 6 speed for approximately 200 seconds, before "a vehicle anomaly occurred and the flight was terminated." Still, the 200 seconds at Mach 6 was enough to beat the previous scramjet record of 12 seconds. In an interview with the Associated Press, Charlie Brink, an X-51A program manager at the Air Force Research Laboratory, called the flight historic.

"We are ecstatic to have accomplished many of the X-51A test points during its first hypersonic mission," Brink said. "We equate this leap in engine technology as equivalent to the post-World War II jump from propeller-driven aircraft to jet engines." A USAF source interviewed by Wired magazine agreed, noting "some hitches at the end of flight," but calling the Waverider test "a magnificent first flight."

Pratt and Whitney, which designed the scramjet engine on the Waverider described the launch from the B-52 thusly:

A solid rocket booster fired and propelled the cruiser to greater than Mach 4.5, creating the supersonic environment necessary to operate the engine. The booster was then jettisoned and the Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne SJY61 scramjet engine ignited, initially on gaseous ethylene fuel. Next the engine transitioned to JP-7 jet fuel, the same fuel once carried by the SR-71 Blackbird before its retirement.

The X-51A program is the product of a partnership between the USAF, Pratt and Whitney, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), NASA, and the Boeing Company. According to Pratt and Whitney, the scramjet technology on the X-51A could be used in a range of scenarios, including defense and space flight.

How do you build the "engine" in a scramjet-powered vehicle? All you need is a hole and a fuel pump!

= kaboom!

Very cool all the same!

years ago when working at white sands miss-kill range and hollomon a.f.b. they had signs along the tarmac going from rail group hanger to rail group(rail group-monkees in cockpit test beds) stating "THINK MACH 6".



this was in the early 90's.



got this from my buddy at grumman and my buddy at rolls royce as well as hearing on radio the other morning.



wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy KOOL!

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VZUwKX3_uE4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_ US&feature=player_detailpage&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VZUwKX3_uE4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_ US&feature=player_detailpage&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

How does that compare to the speed of a rocket?
Did it run out of fuel?

Scramjet powered gun projectiles just took one step closer to reality.

Missiles range in performance from subsonic up to a high of about mach 6 (Russian PMU400), or mach 8 (USN SM-3).

What's the name of those Russian AA missiles that discharge metal shot just before exploding?

A lot of missiles have a proximity fuzed fragmentation warhead, from a lot of countries.

I'm not sure off-hand if any of them have a directed shot type warhead. Generally speaking you want a 360 degree sphere of fragments.

I was thinking of this movie... Behind Enemy Lines (2001)

At the start of the movie Owen Wilson's plane is brought down by a Russian made surface to air missile fired by Serbian soldiers.

It was a great movie and I thought the scene of the jet being shot down was very well done.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1275012540.jpg

It was a very neat scene, but definitely not a realistic one.

I have a feeling Mach 6 was obtained many moons ago, thinking Mach 10 to 12 is now the norm - there are things going on now that we really have no clue about but rest assured, theyare all in our best interest!

Would you even need a guidance system or warhead on a mach 12 weapon?

Jeez Jim, who made that video, Darth vader?

Guidance system, yes. Warhead, no.

There was a push by some folks to save the last 2 Iowa class battleships from deactivation because they saw that Scramjet gun projectile technology was on the near horizon, and because the 16"/50 guns on the Iowa are light years more adaptable to this technology than the 5" pop guns the USN uses now.

16" Scramjet powered rounds would be so vastly superior to missiles it is not even funny.

Guidance system, yes. Warhead, no

I guess it would depend on the range and target, but at that speed, unless you're an awful long ways away from the target, the target doesn't have much time to move. I can imagine what a rod of depleted uranium would do to a tank at mach 12.

You are correct sir! 'Nuff said.

They're at 50,000 ft. - in a chase plane, wearing an oxygen mask.


You?

Imagine what a GPS guided 2000lb 16" battleship shell at mach 12 could do.

Imagine trying to stop that battleship from ravaging you from thousands of miles at sea.

I think a battleship, or cruise missles could already do that. The benefit of extreme velocity to my thinking is simplifying the weapon. Imagine the battleship trying to defend itself against a weapon like that.

Energy = 1/2 mass x velocity squared. A very small projectile going mach 12, the damage would be astronomical.

No, they cannot already do that. The best long range attack munition in the USN arsenal is the subsonic TACTOM cruise missile. Cruise speed is about 500 knots and payload is a 1000lb HE Unitary charge or bomblets. Max range is purported to be about 1500 miles under ideal conditions. Actual useful range is probably more like 1000 miles, but that's just a guess. At any rate, time of flight from launch to target impact can be measured in hours.

Clearly that is in no way comparable to a mach 12 2000lb 16" gun shell that will reach a target 1000 miles away in just a few minutes.

Which is the beauty of the 16" Iowa guns. The shell is massive.

That would equate to an absolutely tremendous amount of KE on impact, as well as allowing for the fastest track to an operational shell, since miniaturization requirements would be far less demanding in a big 16" shell as opposed to a 5" or 6" naval gun.

A 16" scramshell would be a "transformationally" potent weapon.

Unfortunately, there are no more ships with 16" guns now that the last two Iowas have been stricken.

I know of one with 14" guns, not too far from here...

It's stricken, whatever it is.