Forest Green
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Mach 4.Why so? V-2 had ballistic alt at around 90km and speed way in excess of M5 for that alt.
Ballistic missiles with a range of only 300km don't reach Mach 5.
Mach 4.Why so? V-2 had ballistic alt at around 90km and speed way in excess of M5 for that alt.
Huh. Info I've got says it reached speed of around 1.5km/s at momend of engine halt, which with far ballistic trajectory happened at 25km alt. At at that alt this is above M5.Mach 4.Why so? V-2 had ballistic alt at around 90km and speed way in excess of M5 for that alt.
Ballistic missiles with a range of only 300km don't reach Mach 5.
Think of ballistic missiles with similar range. Does ATACMS reach Mach 5? Nope. The Scud used during The Gulf War only made 1.5km/s and that had a 400 mile (640km) range.Huh. Info I've got says it reached speed of around 1.5km/s at momend of engine halt, which with far ballistic trajectory happened at 25km alt. At at that alt this is above M5.
The examples that you quote weren't failures. You're acting like in a test program that there can be no failures, or tests that don't reach objectives for a program to continue to be viable. There has never been an experimental flight test regime that didn't have problems/issues. And sometimes, programs fall to political intrigues.
RATTLRS was cancelled. AFAIK, it never got to prototype stage, just mock-up. A lot of design work took place before cancellation, though. That is always applied to another subsequent venture. Corporate memory is important.
HyFly actually went to flight test of the launch vehicle and full scale engine. But prior to the two full scale powered tests that didn't fully meet flight objectives (the problems not sourced to the engine),
there was a successful subscale test of the entire thing under FASST
X-51 successfully flew, and flew at Mach 5.1 for over 200 seconds on its fourth flight test. That is a white world record for scramjet duration.
Had the X-24C continued in its white world development, it was scheduled to fly at Mach 6 for 30 seconds, if my memory serves.
So sferrin's claim that the USA's hypersonic program has had a trend of continual failures (and thereby, by inference, is just a FUBARed enterprise overall) is not supported by publicly available facts.
Or They changed project name then into black projects .
So first glider re-entry vehicle, not first hypersonic weapon. Cuz technically first hypersonic weapon would be V-2 rocket.
Think of ballistic missiles with similar range. Does ATACMS reach Mach 5? Nope. The Scud used during The Gulf War only made 1.5km/s and that had a 400 mile (640km) range.Huh. Info I've got says it reached speed of around 1.5km/s at momend of engine halt, which with far ballistic trajectory happened at 25km alt. At at that alt this is above M5.
al-Husayn (missile) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Both.So what? V-2 got less speed? Or achieved it at lower alt?
Heavily modified given dimensions and propellant.The Scud is a modified V-2.
The Scud is a modified V-2.
Well, Korolev and Gaidukov work says otherwise... Have any info about that?Both.
It's wrong. Mach 5 gives a range well over 300km. There's no Mach 5 ballistic missile with a range less than 500km.Well, Korolev and Gaidukov work says otherwise... Have any info about that?
That one is not exactly scientific... And I would prefer m/s at given alt and not just vague M number. Too often seen it being used and interpreted wrongly.It's wrong. Mach 5 gives a range well over 300km. There's no Mach 5 ballistic missile with a range less than 500km.Well, Korolev and Gaidukov work says otherwise... Have any info about that?
This mentions Mach 4 too.
Operation Backfire: Witness To The Rocket Age
As the prospects for Germany during the Second World War began to look increasingly grim, the Nazi war machine largely pinned their hopes on a number of high-tech “superweapons” they ha…hackaday.com
Well I've shown you that missiles achieving only Mach 3+ make the same range as the V-2 and I've shown you that missiles making 1.5km/s or Mach 5 make 600+km or even 700km for the Scud-D. I've also shown two links saying Mach 4 for the V-2, so my job is done here.That one is not exactly scientific... And I would prefer m/s at given alt and not just vague M number. Too often seen it being used and interpreted wrongly.
Even Mach 4 at ground level isn't Mach 5 at any altitude,Job... I see. But still no sources showing real speed at alt of V-2, only unspecified "M4".
Yes, because no ballistic missile with a 300km range hits Mach 5.Yeah-yeah.
Meanwhile two random sources that specify speed put speed into quite narrow window of 1500m/s to 1600m/s for moment of engine halt. Considering it happens at around 25km alt, thus in tropopause, this gives is Mach number of 5 to 5.4. And NO LESS THAT 4.4 even with typical mistake of taking SoS on sea level.The V-2 Rocket: the World's First Long-Range Guided Ballistic Missile
The V-2 rocket was designed by the Germans during World War II and was the world's first guided ballistic missile.www.thoughtco.com
So I am really, REALLY failing to see where that "M4" might have come from.
This system generated about 55,000 lbs (24,947 kg) of thrust at the start, which increased to 160,000 lbs (72,574 kg) when the maximum speed was reached. The motor typically burned for 60 seconds, pushing the rocket to around 4,400 ft/second (1,341 m/sec).
A scramjet engine made by Northrop Grumman set a record for the highest thrust produced by an air-breathing hypersonic engine in US Air Force history.
After decades of false starts, America’s leading scramjet engine developers say scramjet-powered hypersonic flight is now within reach. That’s partly thanks to the coming of new 3D printing technology.
This transfer is evident in the Navy’s budget request for FY2020, with the Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) Program funded through the broader Precision Strike Weapons Development Program. The funding projections for the CPS program element far exceed those expected in the DOD budget request in FY2019. The Navy has requested $593.1 million for this program in FY2020 and expects to request $1,061 million in FY2021, $1,303 million in FY2022, $1,387 million in FY2023, and $899 million in FY2024, for a total of $5.2 billion over the five-year period. This funding profile demonstrates that DOD has raised the profile and priority placed on this program.
The budget documents indicate that the increase from FY2019 to FY2020 is “largely associated with the design, development, and experimentation of hypersonic subsystems including boosters, conventional warheads, thermal protection systems, guidance systems, payload modules, launch systems, fire control systems, support equipment, underwater launch facility updates, and hypersonic glide bodies.” The documents also note that the Navy plans to conduct a second flight experiment in FY2020 and “to begin missile procurement to support prototyping activities and hypersonic glide bodies.”
An amazing find. Brilliant Pebles proposed coverage from the 90s (GAO) is on that twiiter site.
I would argue that in the early 60’s the US could have chosen to completely overwhelm the USSR in the arms race (10,000 Minuteman missiles for example) and force meaningful disarmament but McNamara got scared by the Cuban missile crisis believing US seeking strategic superiority caused USSR to take risks that almost resulted in nuclear war.What never ceases to amaze me is how far ahead the US were and how they then let themselves get behind.
Do you have a link to that please?An amazing find. Brilliant Pebles proposed coverage from the 90s (GAO) is on that twiiter site.
So did they actually know the missile gap was in their favour back then? Because most articles seem to suggest they always stated the missile gap was the other way around, when of course it wasn't.I would argue that in the early 60’s the US could have chosen to completely overwhelm the USSR in the arms race (10,000 Minuteman missiles for example) and force meaningful disarmament but McNamara got scared by the Cuban missile crisis believing US seeking strategic superiority caused USSR to take risks that almost resulted in nuclear war.
The US strategy became one of parity or actually letting the Soviets catch up.
In my humble opinion prolonged the Cold War by decades.
There is evidence Kennedy et al, through briefings all POTUS candidates receive, were at the very least exaggerating the so-called missile gap.So did they actually know the missile gap was in their favour back then? Because most articles seem to suggest they always stated the missile gap was the other way around, when of course it wasn't.I would argue that in the early 60’s the US could have chosen to completely overwhelm the USSR in the arms race (10,000 Minuteman missiles for example) and force meaningful disarmament but McNamara got scared by the Cuban missile crisis believing US seeking strategic superiority caused USSR to take risks that almost resulted in nuclear war.
The US strategy became one of parity or actually letting the Soviets catch up.
In my humble opinion prolonged the Cold War by decades.
What never ceases to amaze me is how far ahead the US were and how they then let themselves get behind.