DARPA/Boeing X-51A WaveRider

[shockonlip]

Looks like somebody jumped the gun when they said it reached Mach 6. From Boeing's site:

"It was released while flying at approximately 50,000 feet over the Point Mugu Naval Air Warfare Center Sea Range. Four seconds later, a solid rocket booster from a U.S. Army tactical missile accelerated the X-51A to about Mach 4.5 before it and a connecting interstage were jettisoned. The X-51A's engine ignited on a mix of ethylene and JP-7 jet fuel. After a short period, the X-51A ran exclusively on JP-7 jet fuel. The flight reached an altitude of about 70,000 feet and an approximate speed of Mach 5."

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1227


I must say, I'm disappointed. An ASALM test vehicle reached a higher speed (Mach 5.4) 30 years ago and it didn't have the massive booster X-51 did. Ah well, better luck next time.

ASALM was an IRR (Integrated Rocket Ramjet). So it did have a solid rocket booster
to accelerate to cruise to then start the ramjet sustainer.

Understand your disappointment about X-51 #1.

But take heart!

This stuff will work.
This is just a bump in the road.
There is a lot of new stuff in X-51 and this flight regime is not real easy to test for.
The nature of technology development is to fail and then try and fix and then fail
again, and re-iterate until success.

I haven't lost one iota of enthusiasm for scramjet or its future!

Larry

 

[sferrin]

ASALM was an IRR (Integrated Rocket Ramjet). So it did have a solid rocket booster
to accelerate to cruise to then start the ramjet sustainer.

Yes it did, I never said otherwise. I was implying that it didn't need a big ass booster to get it to operating speed (yes, I know, the X-51's engine needs to be running faster to start), it got up to operating speed with a booster small enough to fit in it's combustion chamber.

Understand your disappointment about X-51 #1.

But take heart!

This stuff will work.
This is just a bump in the road.
There is a lot of new stuff in X-51 and this flight regime is not real easy to test for.
The nature of technology development is to fail and then try and fix and then fail
again, and re-iterate until success.

I haven't lost one iota of enthusiasm for scramjet or its future!

Larry

Preaching to the choir brother. My concern is the average ""cover-my-ass"-is-my-middle-name" management type will cancel it. Look at HyFly, they pretty much said "f--k it" after TWO failures that had nothing to do with what they were testing. Why even bother when you're going to give up that easy? HyFly promises X-51 performance in a package that doesn't require a friggin' B-52 to launch and they just want to quit??? What kind of gutless wonders do they have in charge there? China, India, or Russia would latch on to that and MAKE it work, or at the least fly it until the thing they were actually testing failed.

 

[seruriermarshal]

So what about X-43 ? it only work 12 sec .

 

[seruriermarshal]

So what about X-43 ? it only work 12 sec .

Which was all it was designed for, within a whole lot of constraints most folks are not aware of. What's your point?

My point that scramjet work 12 sec to 140 sec is great . Don't forgot frist X-43 fail .

 

[bobbymike]

The Air Force is excited

From the Air Force Association

Brave New World: Air Force officials say Wednesday's flight of the experimental X-51A scramjet-powered air vehicle off the coast of southern California represents a groundbreaking—perhaps even paradigm-shifting—development in aerospace. "We equate this leap in engine technology as equivalent to the post-World War II jump from propeller-driven aircraft to jet engines," said Charlie Brink, Air Force X-51 program manager. "This test," noted Brig. Gen. William Thornton, 412th Test Wing boss at Edwards AFB, Calif., where the flight test originated, "opens the door for hypersonic weapons capable of prompt global strike, hypersonic air transport, and may someday lead to more economical access to space." The successful flight culminated six years of work by a team of Air Force, DARPA, Boeing and Pratt& Whitney engineers. Three more X-51 flights are scheduled in the fall.

 

[sferrin]

Preaching to the choir brother. My concern is the average ""cover-my-ass"-is-my-middle-name" management type will cancel it. Look at HyFly, they pretty much said "f--k it" after TWO failures that had nothing to do with what they were testing. Why even bother when you're going to give up that easy? HyFly promises X-51 performance in a package that doesn't require a friggin' B-52 to launch and they just want to quit??? What kind of gutless wonders do they have in charge there? China, India, or Russia would latch on to that and MAKE it work, or at the least fly it until the thing they were actually testing failed.

I believe it's more of an issue of funding and also the DARPA program mentality.

No kidding it's a question of funding. What else would it be? The problem is CYA is the name of the game so the moment there's a hiccup people start running for the exit rather than looking further down the road and realizing new technology is NEVER going to just fall off the tree all nicely wrapped up, all problems solved before beginning. Problems are INEVITABLE yet it's amazing (or depressing, depending on how you look at it) how often people are surprised that they occur.

 

[Stargazer]

Problems are INEVITABLE yet it's amazing (or depressing, depending on how you look at it) how often people are surprised that they occur.

Indeed, this whole world has forever evolved according to a basic three-word principle: trial and error. This is how kids learn to walk, how we all learn new stuff... and how new technology gets reliable in the end. If 100% reliability and efficiency was to be, and COULD be, obtained from the start of any new venture, then the words "research", "prototype" or "development" would not be needed in our vocabulary...

 

[bobbymike]

Problems are INEVITABLE yet it's amazing (or depressing, depending on how you look at it) how often people are surprised that they occur.

Indeed, this whole world has forever evolved according to a basic three-word principle: trial and error. This is how kids learn to walk, how we all learn new stuff... and how new technology gets reliable in the end. If 100% reliability and efficiency was to be, and COULD be, obtained from the start of any new venture, then the words "research", "prototype" or "development" would not be needed in our vocabulary...

From "The Right Stuff", No bucks no Buck Rogers. In most cases it really is that simple of a formula

 

[sferrin]

Problems are INEVITABLE yet it's amazing (or depressing, depending on how you look at it) how often people are surprised that they occur.

Indeed, this whole world has forever evolved according to a basic three-word principle: trial and error. This is how kids learn to walk, how we all learn new stuff... and how new technology gets reliable in the end. If 100% reliability and efficiency was to be, and COULD be, obtained from the start of any new venture, then the words "research", "prototype" or "development" would not be needed in our vocabulary...

From "The Right Stuff", No bucks no Buck Rogers. In most cases it really is that simple of a formula

Of course, BUT how to decide if something gets the bucks or not?

 

[Stargazer]

We have shifted from a world that taught us "No pain, no gain" to a world that goes by the "zero risk" principle. So long as our leaders' idiocy will favor the latter approach (only to get votes by promising cuts in public expenditure) we will not see a great deal of groundbreaking programs coming to fruition.

 

[bobbymike]

sferrin - while everything done by people, including politicians, will be open to judgment and subjectivity I would THINK it would be easy to identify game changing aerospace and military technology and fund them. But of course history is replete with examples (as seen on this forum) of promising technology NOT getting the Bucks.

 

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Here's another AW report with a few details of what they've learned about the flight so far: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/awst/2010/05/31/AW_05_31_2010_p27-230271.xml&headline=X-51A%20Team%20Eyes%20Results%20Of%20Scramjet%20Flight&channel=awst

Let's hope the flight is deemed enough of a success to secure funding for next year.

 

[sferrin]

sferrin - while everything done by people, including politicians, will be open to judgment and subjectivity I would THINK it would be easy to identify game changing aerospace and military technology and fund them. But of course history is replete with examples (as seen on this forum) of promising technology NOT getting the Bucks.

It was a rhetorical question. The question doesn't often seem to be "do we need it" or "is this going to advance our technology base" but rather "is it easy" and "is there any pain". If there's any of the latter, forget it. HyFly is a perfect example. Far more utility than the X-51 yet two failures unrelated to it's propulsion system were enough to warrant cancellation in DARPA's eyes. Boeing had to scrounge up parts on it's own dime and beg just to be able to do a third test (which even if successful is unlikely to change matters).

 

[sferrin]

It was a rhetorical question. The question doesn't often seem to be "do we need it" or "is this going to advance our technology base" but rather "is it easy" and "is there any pain". If there's any of the latter, forget it. HyFly is a perfect example. Far more utility than the X-51 yet two failures unrelated to it's propulsion system were enough to warrant cancellation in DARPA's eyes. Boeing had to scrounge up parts on it's own dime and beg just to be able to do a third test (which even if successful is unlikely to change matters).

HyFly has not been canceled to my knowledge. There supposedly are enough parts for a third flight and they were going to do it last I heard.

That's only because Boeing was able to scrounge up enough parts and beg to the right people. DARPA was going to cancel it. (And probably still will whatever the outcome of the 3rd test is.)

 

[sferrin]

Yes, they scrounged some ground test hardware which also led to the cancellation of a final ground test. However, I don't believe there was due diligence in the ground test developmental program. It was only when it reached the level of full up freejet engine tests that issues with the GG inlets were uncovered requiring rework of the design.

What is this based on? The design was tunnel tested and flight tested at subscale years before the first flight attempt.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/hyfly.html

"The DCR concept was developed by the Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) of the Johns Hopkins University, and in May 2002, the APL successfully tested the HyFly engine in a windtunnel at a simulated speed and altitude of Mach 6.5 and 27400 m (90000 ft). "

"To evaluate the airframe at high speeds before actual flight tests, unpowered subscale HyFly vehicles were launched by ATK atop two-stage Terrier-Orion sounding rockets to speeds of Mach 6 at 18300 m (60000 ft). The latter activities were made under HyFly's FASTT (Freeflight Atmospheric Scramjet Test Technique) sub-program. FASTT culminated in December 2005 with the launch of a subscale live DCR, which flew for 15 seconds under scramjet power at 5815 km/h (5300 fps) and 19200 m (63000 ft)."

Given the complexity of the inlet ducts this was not a trivial thing and had several ramifications in regards to the similarity between ground and flight hardware. The flight team/program also never appeared to do a true fault tree analysis after the first flight failure which might have uncovered the unrelated failure mechanism of the second flight despite some recommendations to do so. Darpa does have a different operational model and tends to leave more up to the contractor(s) and won't necessarily bail them out if they drop the ball in the program as it was structured. That seems to be the case here, for right or wrong.

Why is it that working a new technology would be concidered "bailing out a contractor"? Is this how we advance technology these days? "The contractor gets it right the first time or we deem the technology not worth pursuing"?

 

[sferrin]

The issue arose when they finally tested the system at Mach 4. I've seen the video of the GG inlets unstarting and blowing the flame out the front, restarting, then unstarting and repeating this sequence for the duration of the test. The "fix" for the flight configuration could not be completely made to the ground test HW without significant HW replacement and as such what was then tested on ground was not a duplicate of the flight HW.

See, THAT'S the kind of information that sheds light on the apparent lack of interest. Wish AvWeek would put that kind of detail in their articles. Instead it's "it failed" with no mention why or any possible fixes or what's actually going on.

The Darpa program model is a paradigm shift from the DOD model. They have a program set up with a given level of time/funding and leave it up to the contractor to make it work. If it doesn't it usually isn't continued. I didn't say I agree with it. It is what it is, for better or worse. Darpa PMs also don't tend to stay around very long either. That too is part of their operational model. Who was the HyFly PM when it started and who is the PM now?

From a technology standpoint HyFly is the other branch of a "scramjet" engine. Hot, uncooled Ti structure, utilizing an extremely fuel rich GG to to "heat and crack" the fuel as opposed to the PWR fuel-cooled HEX concept used in X-51. It would be nice to see both tested to real fruition/failure.

I agree. I'm surprised the US military doesn't insist on it. Seems like too valuable of a technology to just s--tcan over a few failures. Besides, it's not like they'd give up hypersonics forever so they may as well learn from these and build upon them WHATEVER results they get.



[/quote]

 

[bobbymike]

It Wasn't the Scramjet:

Air Force and industry officials are still analyzing data from the May 26 flight test of the X-51A hypersonic air vehicle in order to find out what cut short the vehicle's flight. Initial indications are that the X-51's supersonic combustion ramjet was not at fault. "From what we could see in the data, I think it's safe to say that the engine was not the cause of the failure," Charlie Brink, USAF's X-51 program manager, told reporters Tuesday during a teleconference. He added, "It was humming along." In fact, the X-51's scramjet ran longer than any other engine of this type in history. But after about 200 seconds of scramjet burn, the vehicle began to slow down due to some still unexplained anomaly and had to be terminated so that it wouldn't start to tumble and venture off of the test range.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's apparently good news, now on to the next test flight and higher Mach numbers.

 

[bobbymike]

It Wasn't the Scramjet:

Air Force and industry officials are still analyzing data from the May 26 flight test of the X-51A hypersonic air vehicle in order to find out what cut short the vehicle's flight. Initial indications are that the X-51's supersonic combustion ramjet was not at fault. "From what we could see in the data, I think it's safe to say that the engine was not the cause of the failure," Charlie Brink, USAF's X-51 program manager, told reporters Tuesday during a teleconference. He added, "It was humming along." In fact, the X-51's scramjet ran longer than any other engine of this type in history. But after about 200 seconds of scramjet burn, the vehicle began to slow down due to some still unexplained anomaly and had to be terminated so that it wouldn't start to tumble and venture off of the test range.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's apparently good news, now on to the next test flight and higher Mach numbers.

So, they got the "easy" stuff wrong? That's good news?

Article says "unexplained anomaly" don't know where your "easy" comment comes from but nevertheless the scramjet is THE THING needed to work the rest is all ancillary.

 

[sferrin]

So, they got the "easy" stuff wrong? That's good news?

Actually, yes. That would likely mean an "easy" fix rather than a lot of head scratching, longer delays, and certain cancellation.

 

[bobbymike]

DSE - who made the first assumption? Unknown anomaly, your translation "east stuff"!

Well yes of course "it all has to work" but let's keep things in perspective. Experience with everything, other than the scramjet, can be measured in hundreds of thousands of man hours, for example, solid rocket motors, guidance, stage separation, launch vehicle tracking, data collection and dissemination. Scramjet run time experience in the minutes. So what really is more important, where will we gain new data to carry the program forward.

If the headline read "everything worked but the scramjet", would this be better or worse for the program?

 

[sferrin]

So, they got the "easy" stuff wrong? That's good news?

Actually, yes. That would likely mean an "easy" fix rather than a lot of head scratching, longer delays, and certain cancellation.

You are making a whopping assumption that there is enough pertinent instrumentation to understand the root cause of the issue outside of the heavily instrumented scramjet engine. I don't see gloom and doom, however.

Did you read what I wrote?

 

[sferrin]

So, they got the "easy" stuff wrong? That's good news?

Actually, yes. That would likely mean an "easy" fix rather than a lot of head scratching, longer delays, and certain cancellation.

You are making a whopping assumption that there is enough pertinent instrumentation to understand the root cause of the issue outside of the heavily instrumented scramjet engine. I don't see gloom and doom, however.

Did you read what I wrote?

Yes, and stand by my statement. Just because they got the "easy, non-scramjet" stuff wrong that doesn't mean the root cause will be apparent in the data to identify and then rectify.

Nor did I say it would be.

 

[bobbymike]

No need to pick more nits than a pair of spider monkeys but I believe the premise of everyone's argument have evolved since sferrin posted that comment.

 

[sferrin]

Nor did I say it would be.

You did say, "That would likely mean an "easy" fix rather than a lot of head scratching" so I'm confused by how this isn't implied.

Relatively speaking it might be easy but not in absolute terms. In other words it may be a pain tracing down what happened in the system but most likely it's still easier than "whoops, we screwed up in the design of the scramjet. Back to the drawing board."

 

[bobbymike]

DSE - I defer to your obvious technical knowledge, however, the original point is valid. From my post from the Air Force Association I was just extrapolating that given the less than perfect test result it was better to have the scramjet work than it not working. From you posts the test program could still be facing major challenges no one is disputing that.

 

[bobbymike]

Hope this is the right thread for this, two stories on the future of hypersonic weapons from the Air Force Association. Plus link to hypersonic report.

Hypersonic Breakthrough Coming Soon: A new-generation hypersonic attack weapon could be operational in 10 years or less if the Air Force chooses to pursue such a capability, according to Richard Hallion, former chief Air Force historian. Such a weapon would likely be an air- or sea-launched missile capable of flying faster than mach 5. It may be similar in size to the experimental X-51A, Hallion told attendees of a seminar on hypersonics that AFA's Mitchell Institute for Airpower Studies sponsored Wednesday in Arlington, Va. The seminar coincided with the release of Hypersonic Power Projection, the new Mitchell Paper authored by Hallion. He said hypersonic munitions could "breathe new life" into aging and old US systems, giving them a substantial new, high-speed standoff capability outside the range of increasingly lethal enemy air defenses.
—John A. Tirpak

Hypersonic Power for Theater Missions: Mark Lewis, former Air Force chief scientist who appeared at the hypersonics seminar with Hallion June 30 (see Hypersonic Breakthrough Coming Soon above), agreed with Hallion’s timeline for the fielding of a hypersonic missile. Lewis said hypersonic missiles—or aircraft, for that matter—would be well-suited to theater operations of less than 700 miles, but "don’t make much sense" for globe-spanning missions. The effective range limitation is a by-product of the fact that hypersonic weapons would likely consume vast quantities of fuel at such high speed.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Pages/default.aspx

The Race to Go Fast: Like it or not, the US is in a "hypersonic race" with other countries to develop a Mach 5-plus attack system, former Air Force chief historian Richard Hallion said Wednesday during a presentation sponsored by AFA's Mitchell Institute for Airpower Studies in Arlington, Va. Countries with both the technological savvy and interest in building a hypersonic vehicle include Russia, China, Iran, Germany, Australia, India, and Japan, Hallion said. A hypersonic weapon would be an excellent equalizer to blunt many US strengths in other forms of warfare, he said. Appearing with Hallion, former Air Force chief scientist Mark Lewis said the recent test of the X-51A scramjet-powered research vehicle make clear that hypersonic technology isn’t out of the reach of countries with decent academic and industrial capabilities. He noted that most of the recent papers he's seen on hypersonics come from China, where researchers have "an intimate knowledge of [Western] literature" on the subject. Lewis also said he’s been approached by Iranians who want to come study hypersonics in the US. (See the new Mitchell Paper, Hypersonic Power Projection)

 

[shadow81]

Maybe you already saw it, but at NASA official web (At My NASA exactly) you can see a video of the launch. Please teach me. I read sometime that Concorde enlarged its fuselage like a consequence of air friction and, of course , the heat. This aircraft was no hypersonic so, what happen at this speed? Could the frame, or fuselage disintegrated if the speed keeps constant? i know are silly question (i came from naval engineering and not finish the university- more than 20 years my dear pals-), but is very interesting.
From now, thank a lot for your attention.
Marcelo

 

[flateric]

operational HSCM consept

 

[bobbymike]

What went wrong? From Insidedefense.com.

Gases Entering Unwanted Areas May Have Hindered Test Flight of X-51A
Preliminary data indicates that the inaugural X-51A Waverider flight in May might have only been partially successful because some hot gases entered the vehicle in areas not designed to take the heat, according to a Boeing official.

 

[sferrin]

Well that would surely ruin the day. I wonder if a seam/joint in the flow path failed and if so if it were due to QC or an unanticipated hot spot.

 

[sferrin]

From this weeks AvWeek:

"A malfunction of seals between the ­scramjet engine and its nozzle is believed to be responsible for the Boeing X-51A WaveRider experimental hypersonic vehicle failing to reach the planned Mach number on its May 25 first flight. Leakage of hot gases from the Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne scramjet is thought to have generated unexpected side forces on the vehicle and resulted in a slower acceleration and shorter duration than planned. Engines in the three unflown vehicles are to be removed, inspected and the seals beefed up before flight testing resumes, says Charles Brink, the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory’s X-51 program manager. "

 

[FutureSpaceTourist]

That doesn't sound too serious, ie not a fundamental issue and hopefully one that's fairly easily fixed.

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

dunno if these were posted already...

 

[bobbymike]

Hyfly failure. From Ares Defense Technology Blog (Aviation Week)

Going Nowhere Fast
Posted by Robert Wall at 8/3/2010 2:09 AM CDT

The latest failure of a U.S. hypersonic flight experiment should give U.S. developers in government and industry pause and make them debate whether they are putting enough engineering rigor into those trials.

The latest incident is the July 29 failure of a Boeing HyFly missile demonstrator for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (read our subscription-only AWIN story here). It is the third HyFly failure; the test itself was only planned because two prior attempts failed, and Darpa okayed Boeing to build a third vehicle largely out of parts already in existence.

This failure was linked to the booster motor on HyFly not igniting. Darpa stresses the dual-combustion ramjet technology, which HyFly was really trying to validate, was not at fault.

The failure comes just a few months after the test of an X-51A hypersonic vehicle had to be cut short owing to range safety concerns. The Air Force Research Lab believes some seals may have failed (read Guy Norris’s Aviation Week & Space Technology story on the subject here).

That component parts rather than the underlying technology are at fault in test failures is not something unique to the realm of hypersonic flight testing. Regular missile developments and the U.S. ballistic missile defense program have seen similar missteps. But the concern in the hypersonic realm is that budgets are limited, and as a result there are few tests (some may say too few), so losing precious test opportunities to such miscues is particularly frustrating.

That raises the question of whether anything can be done. Would there be value in a “red team” going through a missile design prior to flight testing to specifically look for the ten-cent component that could fail and doom an entire experiment, or would such an exercise do little more than drive up cost and slow development in the entire field? It is a question the Pentagon’s engineering community should discuss with some urgency, especially as AFRL looks to resume X-51 flight trials late this year or early next.

 

[bobbymike]

LM Hypersonic ATACMS Motor Boosts Experimental Scramjet in 1st Flight

Published on ASDNews: Aug 11, 2010
(Dallas, TX., and Sacramento, CA., August 10, 2010) -- Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] announced today that its Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) rocket motor successfully boosted the experimental X-51A WaveRider beyond Mach 4.5, the speed at which a scramjet will start and begin to provide thrust. The successful boost helped the X-51 hypersonic scramjet engine to accelerate to a historic Mach 5, a first for the vehicle.

The X-51 WaveRider is an unmanned aerial vehicle designed for extended hypersonic flight durations. The successful boost with the ATACMS rocket motor will allow for future advancements in hypersonic flight.

In this test, the modified ATACMS motor was air-launched from a B-52 aircraft at 50,000 feet, and data collected validates its performance well beyond the original design specifications. This was the first time an ATACMS rocket motor has been used as a booster for an air-launched vehicle. More tests using the ATACMS motor are planned.

The modified motor included a Boeing designed lightweight, high performance exit cone which was produced by Aerojet, a GenCorp [NYSE:GY] company, for Lockheed Martin. The program is managed by a Boeing and Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne team for the U.S. Air Force and DARPA.

"The ATACMS rocket motor has proved its power in combat, and now we're happy to see it performing a mission that advances hypervelocity flight technology," said Scott Arnold, vice president of Precision Fires at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control.

"We are proud to have played a part in this new milestone in hypersonic flight and to have been given the opportunity to demonstrate our ability to modify existing motor designs for future applications," said John Myers, vice president of Tactical Programs for Aerojet.

 

[sferrin]

That seems to be a belated announcement. I haven't seen anywhere else that announced a 2nd X-51 flight.

 

[shockonlip]

Thanks DSE!

 

[sferrin]

Now if it could just go 4000 mph. :

 

[seruriermarshal]

Air Force Gears Up for Hypersonic Missile Test

Mar 15, 2011 – 12:25 PM READING THIS NOW

The Air Force later this month is set to test what could be a ground-breaking flight of a hypersonic missile.

The X-51 WaveRider took its maiden flight last year, demonstrating the longest-ever flight of a supersonic combustion ramjet engine, also known as a scramjet. But the next test flight is expected to fly faster and farther: at speeds of up to Mach 6 and lasting four minutes.

"Our next flight is scheduled for March 22," Charlie Brink, Air Force Research Laboratory's X-51A program manager, told AOL News today.


Chad Bellay, U.S. Air Force
An X-51A WaveRider hypersonic flight test vehicle is uploaded to an Air Force Flight Test Center B-52 for fit testing at Edwards Air Force Base on July 17, 2009.The X-51 will be launched from a B-52 bomber flying over the Pacific Ocean Point Mugu Naval Air Warfare Center Sea Range, and then will be rocket-boosted to speeds up to several times the speed of sound before transitioning to scramjet power. The last test flight, though successful in some respects, was cut short due to a faulty seal that allowed hot gases to build up inside of the vehicle, rather than going out of the back nozzle as designed.

Although the Air Force has long said that the X-51 could eventually be used for a number of purposes, a senior Air Force official recently confirmed that it is moving forward with plans to turn it into a weapon.

"In Fiscal Year 2012, we will begin weaponizing the X-51 research vehicle," Stephen Walker, the Air Force's deputy assistant secretary for science, told a congressional panel earlier this month. "Development activities will focus on miniaturization of subsystems to allow for a payload and the ability to cold-start the weapon after release from an aircraft."

Pentagon officials have talked about using hypersonic weapons as part of the military's plans to develop a Prompt Global Strike weapon, which could hit anywhere in the world within two hours. Such a missile could be used to hit a fleeing terrorist, or a suspected nuclear site.

Brink declined to go into details on plans to weaponize the X-51, saying the current vehicle is merely for testing. "The X-51 is not a weapon," Brink said.

However, Brink said there are plans to work on technologies that would allow the service to transition the X-51 "to a more weapons-friendly design."

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/15/x-51-waverider-air-force-gears-up-for-hypersonic-missile-test/

 

[seruriermarshal]

Air Force’s second hypersonic Waverider flight set for March 22

By John Nolan, Staff Writer
11:18 AM Tuesday, March 15, 2011
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE — The Air Force plans a second hypersonic flight test next week of its X-51A Waverider aircraft, hoping that some improvements will avoid a problem that cut short last year’s first flight.

The date of the flight over the Pacific Ocean is March 22, if plans don’t change before then, said Charlie Brink, X-51A program manager with the Air Force Research Laboratory’s propulsion directorate at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. He and other project officials spoke with reporters Tuesday on a conference telephone call.

Once again, a B-52 from Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., is to carry the Waverider aloft under a wing and release the aircraft at about 50,000 feet over the Pacific Ocean. A solid rocket booster will then accelerate the Waverider before its air-breathing scramjet (short for supersonic combustion ramjet) engine kicks in for what the Air Force hopes will be a four-minute flight reaching the speed of Mach 6, six times the speed of sound.

The 14-foot-long aircraft is called the Waverider because it rides its own shockwave.

The initial May 2010 flight had to be terminated after slightly more than two minutes, when the Waverider had reached Mach 5, on the way to a hoped-for Mach 6. The military controller intentionally sent the Waverider crashing into the Pacific after controllers lost contact with the high-speed vehicle, Brink said.

A failed seal at a nozzle caused hot gases to build up inside the Waverider, rather than go out the back of the nozzle, Brink said. Engineers have made improvements they hope will avoid a repeat, he said.

It is the second of four test flights for the $246.5 million Waverider program, begun in December 2003. It is being done to demonstrate technology the Air Force hopes can eventually be used for more efficient transport of payloads into orbit.

The flights are all to end with crashing the Waveriders into the Pacific. The Air Force determined that, at the speed they fly, the Waveriders would sink before ships could get to where the aircraft hit the water, Brink said.

“Of the existing X-51s, there is no plan to modify them to be recoverable,” he said.

Boeing Co. built the aircraft. Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne built the scramjet engine.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/business/air-forces-second-hypersonic-waverider-flight-set-for-march-22-1108274.html