DARPA/LM Skunk Works Blackswift (HTV-3X)

Damn, Hesham, this is JUST A PLAIN VERY OLD SPECULATION from a person who knows nothing about hypersonic aerodynamics
Actually, this is first 'SR-72' speculative pic that have appeared.
 
SR-72 pic is UAV stealthy cruise missile design intake is not hypersonic perhaps supersonic at best.

BlackSwift is a DARPA tech demo, a stepping stone towards hypersonic M12 TBCC or RBC HCV. NO Stealth intended or strike capablity. A demo capable of only a few minutes of hypersonic velocity. DEMO of PDE and modified existing supersonic turbine with inward inlets. Chill on the SR-72 speculation please.

The actual HCV will penetrate at M12, glaring like a white hot blob on infra-red. Stealth not required at these high hyper speeds. One thing to shoot down a target with known repeatable stable orbit. Try hitting a HCV flying an evasive high mach12 pattern.
 
Can we just clarify - Blackswift does NOT include PDE (pulsed detonation engine). PDE is part of Darpa's Vulcan program to demonstrate an engine for a full-scale hypersonic vehicle. Vulcan is related to, but separate from, Darpa's Falcon and Blackswift programs.

Blackswift will be powered by a combination of high-Mach turbojets (Rolls-Royce or Williams) and dual-mode ramjet/scramjets (Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne). The turbojet and scramjet will share the same axisymmetric/inward-turning/three-dimensional/round inlet. A door will divert the flow from the turbojet to the scramjet and vice versa.

Vulcan, meanwhile, is a program to demonstrate an engine - based on an existing, in-production, Mach 2-class fighter engine - that could accelerate a full-scale hypersonic vehicle from zero airspeed to Mach 4-plus and scramjet ingition. In Vulcan, the PDE - either mounted in parallel with or wrapped around the turbojet - would take the place of the ramjet and avoid need for the very expensive development of a full-size high-Mach turbojet.
 
CammNut said:
Can we just clarify - Blackswift does NOT include PDE (pulsed detonation engine). PDE is part of Darpa's Vulcan program to demonstrate an engine for a full-scale hypersonic vehicle. Vulcan is related to, but separate from, Darpa's Falcon and Blackswift programs.

Blackswift will be powered by a combination of high-Mach turbojets (Rolls-Royce or Williams) and dual-mode ramjet/scramjets (Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne). The turbojet and scramjet will share the same axisymmetric/inward-turning/three-dimensional/round inlet. A door will divert the flow from the turbojet to the scramjet and vice versa.

Vulcan, meanwhile, is a program to demonstrate an engine - based on an existing, in-production, Mach 2-class fighter engine - that could accelerate a full-scale hypersonic vehicle from zero airspeed to Mach 4-plus and scramjet ingition. In Vulcan, the PDE - either mounted in parallel with or wrapped around the turbojet - would take the place of the ramjet and avoid need for the very expensive development of a full-size high-Mach turbojet.


Which, when you think about it, is pretty odd. It's like saying developing a PDE is easier than a turbojet. A high mach PDE no less.

As far as I know, there has only been one flight of a PDE, but a few turbojets have flown. While I think the Vulcan program is trying to solve a real problem, with what is potentially a real solution, it has me scratching my head. PDEs have a lot of tough problems to solve, and the current crop of white world PDE programs sort of gloss over some of these. The air force funds the flight of not *one* PDE in a light aircraft, but a cluster. And flies it once before putting it in museum. Huh?




Just to clarify CammNut, my "huh?" is not with your post, it's with the program :)
 
The theory is PDEs are simple. They know how a turbojet works and they know it will cost billions to develop a full-scale Mach 4-plus turbojet. They think - and they hope Vulcan will prove - that combining an off-shelf Mach 2-ish F100, F110, F119 or F414 with a PDE will get them to Mach 4-plus more cheaply. But they don't know, and that's why its a DARPA program. On paper it looks easier to combine a turbojet with a PDE externally, the way Vulcan would, that it will be to replace the core of a turbine engine with a PDE, which is what GE and P&W are working towards. It is also easier than trying to make a PDE work from zero airspeed all the way up, without the turbojet. Make sense?
 
How would a turbojet with a PDE in lieu of it's combustion chambers able to get it to higher mach numbers?

Or do you mean a turbojet WITH PDE's also used?
 
airrocket said:
SR-72 pic is UAV stealthy cruise missile design intake is not hypersonic perhaps supersonic at best.

Found some traces. CAD model was made by Retro Rocket guys. Retro Rocket is a model-making company specializing in aerospace display models for NASA and the aerospace industry. So far what I can see, their CAD projects are 70/30 mix of real projects and things, 'inspired by'.

They have two Yahoo! groups dedicated to what they do - and do very nicely!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Aerospace_Modelers_Resource/?yguid=139601303
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Retro_Rocket/?yguid=139601303

CAD drawing taken from there and (c) Retro Rocket
 

Attachments

  • d7db.jpg
    d7db.jpg
    5.1 KB · Views: 417
CammNut said:
The theory is PDEs are simple. They know how a turbojet works and they know it will cost billions to develop a full-scale Mach 4-plus turbojet. They think - and they hope Vulcan will prove - that combining an off-shelf Mach 2-ish F100, F110, F119 or F414 with a PDE will get them to Mach 4-plus more cheaply. But they don't know, and that's why its a DARPA program. On paper it looks easier to combine a turbojet with a PDE externally, the way Vulcan would, that it will be to replace the core of a turbine engine with a PDE, which is what GE and P&W are working towards. It is also easier than trying to make a PDE work from zero airspeed all the way up, without the turbojet. Make sense?

Well, no. Conceptually PDEs are simple, but the issues that have kept them from being practical are big ones.
- It's difficult to initiate a detonation in real-world fuels like JP.
- Thermal, structural, etc. loads are thought to be very high. Honestly though, I do not myself think these are insurmountable.
- High energy required for ignition/detonation. Your initiator shouldn't weigh more than the engine!
- Minimizing the detonation to deflagration transition length has been a challenge
- Nozzle integration. Having several PDE tubes discharging into a shared nozzle brings another set of challenges
- Inlets, backflow, etc. - depending on which PDE school of thought you subscribe to, valved or valveless, this is a major issue. The leading valveless designs use the incoming flow of air itself to prevent backflow, which does lead to all kinds of constraints on inlet geometry. Valved designs have less limitations in this area, but tend to have problems with cycle rate, mechanical stress, etc.

Unless something has solved much of the above in the past few years, I do not think PDEs are simple at all. This is why I this program has me scratching my head. Without major breakthroughs in several areas, VULCAN will produce a lot of paper, but not much thrust.
 
KJ_Lesnick said:
How would a turbojet with a PDE in lieu of it's combustion chambers able to get it to higher mach numbers?

Or do you mean a turbojet WITH PDE's also used?

Two different things entirely. One approach to using PDEs is to replace the gas-generator turbomachinery in a turbojet/fan -subsonic or supersonic. No more speed, just simpler. Another is to replace the afterburner in a supersonic turbojet/fan. Perhaps faster, certainly simpler. Vulcan is a third option - that of combining a turojet/fan and a PDE externally, without touching the turbine engine. As fast or faster than a high-Mach turbojet, but cheaper to develop. That's the theroy, anyway.
 
Just adding the reference here (since secretprojects is a reference page nowadays too, right?) that Blackswift was canceled in 2008 early fall.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3Ab47b5367-e89d-4b6d-bd47-5e05016f7e32

To add some discussion, I think the plane was sensible in the sense that it was going to take off and land on a runway and be easy to operate. And it would involve no hydrogen!
That way you could possibly do a huge number of test flights (compared to say if it was an expendable or even a parachute recoverable thing launched with a solid rocket). But then, you have to accept much more complexity and lower performance as well. I don't know what the performance envelope expansion timetables (pardon me, there's probably a real term for that) looked like.

Crawling is good. You train for walking. Since the X-15 the US government has thought they can run and has stumbled repeatedly. Maybe it'd be better to still do a bit of that crawling training. :)
 
Blackswift I believe was to utilize the traditional over/under shared inlet concept. After take-off the branched turbine inlet is closed and the PDE located in the main inlet takes over. PDE application was demo'd by kit plane "long-EZ" earlier as a forerunner tech. To bad US congress has no real interest in hypersonic air breathing tech beyond paper study at this time. They give it some lip service but not willing to put real bucks where there mouth is. AFRL may still have some limited interest. DARPA seems to be disillusioned and no-longer interested in wasting time without funding and political support to back it up.
 
There was no PDE in Blackswift - there was a high-Mach turbojet, either Rolls-Royce or Williams, and a dual-mode ramjet/scramjet. There was a shared inlet, with a door to shut off the turbojet when the scramjet was working. The scramjet had a round cross-section, allowing an "inward-turning" inlet that could be shared by both engines.
 
in memoriam...
 

Attachments

  • HTV-3X new.jpg
    HTV-3X new.jpg
    70.9 KB · Views: 476
By the time it was cancelled it had mutated into something a lot less cooler looking than the design above anyway. Meh.
 
let's remember it in its most sexy shapes)))
 
123456
 

Attachments

  • Blackswift.jpg
    Blackswift.jpg
    191 KB · Views: 550
What a beauty !!

Put 4 inlets on it and two verticals and she looks a lot
like Republic's M25 design from 1960.
 
Scott, this is FALCON HCV mockup, not quite an Blackswift;)
 
How does the HTV-3X behave at low-speed? Is it's low speed handling better than older waverider designs?
 
well, latest - not so sexy - iteration of Blackswift in more deatails, thanks to National Geographic Channel
 

Attachments

  • snapshot20090513090743.jpg
    snapshot20090513090743.jpg
    20.3 KB · Views: 179
  • snapshot20090513090657.jpg
    snapshot20090513090657.jpg
    23.9 KB · Views: 191
  • snapshot20090513091404.jpg
    snapshot20090513091404.jpg
    19.2 KB · Views: 223
  • snapshot20090513091308.jpg
    snapshot20090513091308.jpg
    21.8 KB · Views: 331
  • snapshot20090513091141.jpg
    snapshot20090513091141.jpg
    15.5 KB · Views: 355
  • snapshot20090513090820.jpg
    snapshot20090513090820.jpg
    20.8 KB · Views: 354
  • snapshot20090513090813.jpg
    snapshot20090513090813.jpg
    22.1 KB · Views: 392
  • snapshot20090513090253.jpg
    snapshot20090513090253.jpg
    17.3 KB · Views: 424
Hopefully this goes forward so they can declassify that "triangle" (aurora?) seen in the north sea....
This one: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=2868.0
 
Thanks Flateric for the posts!

Which National Geographic was that? Got the title? I'll have to setup my DVR.
 
sublight, we are talking here of a). real project b). already cancelled project
no any connection to 'Aurora' I can see
please make your posts relevant to a topic subject
nothing offensive
 
'America's Secret Weapons', documentary on DARPA from 2008
 
flateric said:
well, latest - not so sexy - iteration of Blackswift in more deatails, thanks to National Geographic Channel

Are there more images of this iteration?
 
The interesting part is that it started off as something looking almost completely unique and ended up as something that could have easily been lifted from the pages of either the British Hypersonics or Space Projects Secret Projects books.
 
shockonlip said:
Thanks Flateric for the posts!
Which National Geographic was that? Got the title? I'll have to setup my DVR.

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/inside/3933/Overview

next airdate is Monday July 27 3A

...and don't forget about me then, (hope you have HDTV recorder, do you?) ;)
 
flateric said:
shockonlip said:
Thanks Flateric for the posts!
Which National Geographic was that? Got the title? I'll have to setup my DVR.

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/inside/3933/Overview

next airdate is Monday July 27 3A

...and don't forget about me then, (hope you have HDTV recorder, do you?) ;)

Indeed !
 
well, I'm not sure about magic of NGTV programming
in short, whatch for the next 'Inside' series being on air
 
sferrin said:
By the time it was cancelled it had mutated into something a lot less cooler looking than the design above anyway. Meh.


I don`t know but to me the earlier cancelled design always looked like something more science-fiction than realistic, to me at least (i mean the full-size version of Blackswift, which seemed to me to have too many breaks into it`s front fuselage shape plan view, i would have liked to see the shocks for this one and how much drag it generated). I think that the new design looks more realistic. In any case, it is maybe that the earlier waverider design gave only marginal benefits for an aircraft that was to fly at Mach 6 versus the new simpler and more classical blended wing-body design, or more simply, it probably would have cost too much money to develop the Blackswift with inward-turning inlets (which are still pretty new, thus a higher technological risk) versus a more classical and better understood aerodynamics of the engine for the version shown above in the illustration)(and flying at a lower speed: less technological risks, and also (from the political point of view) it seems they needed something operational soon, something that might have taken too much time and money with the faster Blackswift version.
 
Yeah big step back after DARPA Steve Walker moved on. Not sure who is managing the program for DARPA now. I think the budget got shrunk so the technology shrunk with it. Anyway I gave up on the subscale inward inlet test part after Walker left I just assumed that was it. Perhaps I should have stayed with it. I have to pass this on to Paul C. and see what he thinks.
 
This is sitting outside of LM Skunk Works in Palmdale...
 

Attachments

  • Blackswift-2.jpg
    Blackswift-2.jpg
    24.5 KB · Views: 487
Steve, this is 'large' B-52 sized FALCON HCV (Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle) scale model, not Blackswift's
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom