Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Potential Hypersonic AA Missiles?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Potential Hypersonic AA Missiles?

    Noticed this in the news on global security lately. Might explain why the U.S appears to be lagging with the FMRAAM development, maybe its worth skipping by it to the next generation missiles?

    "In the first flight test, conducted on 26 January 2005, an un-powered HyFly vehicle demonstrated safe separation from an F-15E as well as vehicle guidance and control functions. "

    "The Boeing Company (NYSE: BA), in partnership with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Office of Naval Research (ONR), successfully demonstrated boost phase performance of a hypersonic strike demonstrator vehicle called HyFly on 26 August 2005. A Boeing F-15E launched the HyFly vehicle during the test over the US Navy's sea range at the Naval Air Weapons Center - Weapons Division at Pt. Mugu, Calif. The solid rocket booster successfully ignited and accelerated the HyFly to a speed of greater than Mach 3 - three times the speed of sound. This test was the second of five HyFly flight tests that are scheduled from 2005 to 2007. "

    "During the next three test flights, the HyFly vehicles will be powered by a booster and a dual combustion ramjet, or DCR, engine at speeds up to Mach 6 -six times the speed of sound. "

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ions/hyfly.htm

  • #2
    I think hypersonic AA missiles are really a waste of time. Its not like any aircraft will be exceeding Mach 4 anytime soon, and when you go to hypersonic, don't expect any manuverability other than going straight and taking forever to make a slight turn.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by The_Burning_Kid
      I think hypersonic AA missiles are really a waste of time. Its not like any aircraft will be exceeding Mach 4 anytime soon, and when you go to hypersonic, don't expect any manuverability other than going straight and taking forever to make a slight turn.

      My exposure to hypersonics has indicated that the primary objective is to create quick response long range theater missiles,, not so much air to air. The idea is if the missile can travel at hypersonic speeds AND NOT HAVE TO CARRY IT'S OXYGEN ON BOARD, then it can travel much further than rocket propelled missiles and allows quick response to threats in the land of far far away.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by jgetti
        My exposure to hypersonics has indicated that the primary objective is to create quick response long range theater missiles,, not so much air to air. The idea is if the missile can travel at hypersonic speeds AND NOT HAVE TO CARRY IT'S OXYGEN ON BOARD, then it can travel much further than rocket propelled missiles and allows quick response to threats in the land of far far away.
        Yes but they are overally complex and expensive. I would go with a long-range variant of the AIM-120 (D). I mean it will get the job done......eventually.

        Comment


        • #5
          And probably a helluva lot cheaper. If it's not broken, don't fix it. That's my maxim about all weapons.
          "The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by leibstandarte10
            And probably a helluva lot cheaper. If it's not broken, don't fix it. That's my maxim about all weapons.
            There aint any better philosphy......well, except...... don't ever eat rassberries when you have diarea. Don't try that at home

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by The_Burning_Kid
              Yes but they are overally complex and expensive. I would go with a long-range variant of the AIM-120 (D). I mean it will get the job done......eventually.

              My point was that I do not believe they are being developed for air to air combat, but for theater/intercontinental uses,, i.e. hundreds/thousands of miles away for quick threat response. Development of any cutting edge technology is always expensive,, but once it's developed, it may prove to be extremely cost effective. For instance,, the scramjet engines don't have internal moving parts, but rather a duct that's shaped just right with just the necessary cooling and strength characteristics in just the right places.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by jgetti
                My point was that I do not believe they are being developed for air to air combat, but for theater/intercontinental uses,, i.e. hundreds/thousands of miles away for quick threat response. Development of any cutting edge technology is always expensive,, but once it's developed, it may prove to be extremely cost effective. For instance,, the scramjet engines don't have internal moving parts, but rather a duct that's shaped just right with just the necessary cooling and strength characteristics in just the right places.
                I would support its use in large missiles like you stated but it would be a waste on something like an AAM.

                Comment

                Working...
                X