New Navy Ramjet Missile

dumpster4

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Nov 9, 2017
Messages
24
Reaction score
26
Fast-Tracked Ramjet Provides Deep-Strike Capability:

"The U.S. Navy took the first step to reintroducing to the fleet an old-but-much-needed technology when it successfully tested a solid-fuel
ramjet engine at Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division (NAWCWD) in China Lake, California."


"The team sought out manufacturers popular with model rocket hobbyists. It found a rocket booster that could propel the vehicle to
Mach 2-at which point the ramjet would take over-for $900, a pittance compared to the tens of thousands it would have cost to develop
one in-house, Walker said.

To his knowledge, this acquisition strategy was unprecedented. Fortunately, many of the parts Walker’s team needed could be purchased
with a credit card."


"Now the team is working on making its solid-fuel ramjet “more tactically relevant,” integrating the rocket booster with the propellant
inside the combustion chamber, rather than having a separate booster that has to detach from the rocket mid-flight, Walker said.

Another goal is to install a high-performance inlet that will allow the ramjet to more fully realize its speed potential. The ramjet tested
last year did not accelerate much once the booster got it up to Mach 2, but the next rocket “will accelerate like crazy,” Walker
promised.

Walker believes his team could have a ramjet-equipped missile to the fleet within three-to-four years, “which is a very fast schedule,”
he said. “People doubt it, but I’m very confident we can do it if we can change the acquisition culture. We’ve tested the technology
and know that it works.”"

See:

http://navalaviationnews.navylive.dodlive.mil/2017/03/14/ramjet-new-threats-call-for-old-tech/


Is there any more information available on this weapon, such as its name/designation?
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,674
Reaction score
1,028
It was an S&T effort. Video can be seen at the link below -

https://youtu.be/_dN1SeHA15E?t=178
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,993
Reaction score
2,592
Any hint where in the video? It shows maybe a dozen different missiles, most of which are clearly not ramjet's.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,674
Reaction score
1,028
I tried posting the video linked to the time of the missile launch (2:57). I'm pretty sure this is being discussed in some other thread as well.
 

Attachments

  • DODLIVERAMJET.jpg
    DODLIVERAMJET.jpg
    11 KB · Views: 505
  • YtubeScreenshot.png
    YtubeScreenshot.png
    181.7 KB · Views: 514

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,756
Reaction score
3,734
Fairly certain that's an older USN / university project.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a25747/navy-ramjet-model-rocket-credit-card/

Roughly Bumblebee level of technology.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,674
Reaction score
1,028
A lot of those were Liquid fueled ramjet sustainer motors. But, USN has in the past worked with SFRJs as well. This naturally was a low-cost internal S&T and rapid prototyping effort and not aimed at any specific application. Here's hoping that the Navy brings in AFRL developed hypersonic technology while also advancing its own hypersonic efforts.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/036130.pdf
 

Attachments

  • USN-Ramjet.png
    USN-Ramjet.png
    1.8 MB · Views: 524

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,756
Reaction score
3,734
Ducted rockets and solid fuel ramjets are basically the same thing. As I recall, there's been a discussion about this before here. I think it came down to if the air were an additional source of oxidizer (ducted rocket) or the only source (ramjet).
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,351
Reaction score
2,947
sferrin said:
Ducted rockets and solid fuel ramjets are basically the same thing. As I recall, there's been a discussion about this before here. I think it came down to if the air were an additional source of oxidizer (ducted rocket) or the only source (ramjet).
Should have had a couple of thousand ASALM or ASALM II, III or IVs or something already deployed.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,756
Reaction score
3,734
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
Ducted rockets and solid fuel ramjets are basically the same thing. As I recall, there's been a discussion about this before here. I think it came down to if the air were an additional source of oxidizer (ducted rocket) or the only source (ramjet).
Should have had a couple of thousand ASALM or ASALM II, III or IVs or something already deployed.

LRASM-B. (Longer than ASALM so more fuel onboard.)
 

Attachments

  • asalm-sam.jpg
    asalm-sam.jpg
    342.4 KB · Views: 488

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,351
Reaction score
2,947
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
Ducted rockets and solid fuel ramjets are basically the same thing. As I recall, there's been a discussion about this before here. I think it came down to if the air were an additional source of oxidizer (ducted rocket) or the only source (ramjet).
Should have had a couple of thousand ASALM or ASALM II, III or IVs or something already deployed.

LRASM-B. (Longer than ASALM so more fuel onboard.)
Is that your work? Very nice. Have to get you a job at the Rapid Capabilities Office
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,674
Reaction score
1,028
sferrin said:
Ducted rockets and solid fuel ramjets are basically the same thing. As I recall, there's been a discussion about this before here. I think it came down to if the air were an additional source of oxidizer (ducted rocket) or the only source (ramjet).

Right the only difference between this and say a VFDR motor on the Coyote is that the latter is throttleable.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,756
Reaction score
3,734
bobbymike said:
Is that your work? Very nice.

Nah. The top one is fairly old, and from a book. The middle one was a rendering released by the LRASM-B team (I'm assuming). I just took the two and overlayed them. Looks like the intent was to stretch it for more range, as much as it could be stretched with a Mk72 booster in a Mk 41 VLS cell.
 

Attachments

  • Capture.PNG
    Capture.PNG
    129.2 KB · Views: 196
  • 1.0 LRSAM.png
    1.0 LRSAM.png
    156.4 KB · Views: 161
  • LRASM-B1.jpg
    LRASM-B1.jpg
    147.9 KB · Views: 429

dumpster4

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Nov 9, 2017
Messages
24
Reaction score
26
According to the article in the OP:

"Walker believes his team could have a ramjet-equipped missile to the fleet within three-to-four years, “which is a very fast schedule,” he
said. “People doubt it, but I’m very confident we can do it if we can change the acquisition culture. We’ve tested the technology and know
that it works.”"

I wonder what sort of missile this would be? SAM? AAM? ASM?

Note that the Navy nearly chose a ramjet for the AARGM-ER, and that it's considering other new precision strike weapons:

"Two motor options were studied: dual-pulse for a 20-50% range improvement, or solid integrated rocket-ramjet for doubled range. Budget
documents indicate that the Navy has chosen the rocket.

A new “precision strike weapons development program” funding line, budgeted at $510 million in the FYDP, primarily supports the new Next
Generation Strike Capability effort, which combines two previous programs: Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW) Increment II, a follow-on
to Lockheed Martin’s Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (Lrasm) that would be capable of air and sea launch, and Next Generation Land Attack
Weapon, a replacement for the Raytheon Tomahawk."

See:

http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35cs-cut-back-us-navy-invests-standoff-weapons


Perhaps the new ramjet technology will find its way into one of those weapons.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,674
Reaction score
1,028
"Walker believes his team could have a ramjet-equipped missile to the fleet within three-to-four years, “which is a very fast schedule,”

They would be lucky to have a fully vetted and stable RFP in that much time.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,756
Reaction score
3,734
dumpster4 said:
Perhaps the new ramjet technology will find its way into one of those weapons.

It's not new. In fact it is likely very basic compared to something like LRASM-B, or even Talos.
 

dumpster4

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Nov 9, 2017
Messages
24
Reaction score
26
sferrin said:
dumpster4 said:
Perhaps the new ramjet technology will find its way into one of those weapons.

It's not new. In fact it is likely very basic compared to something like LRASM-B, or even Talos.

Weren't those ramjets liquid-fueled? Solid fuel for a ramjet should make for easier storage and fewer moving
parts, just as it does for rockets.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,674
Reaction score
1,028
I don't think the Navy has done an actual flight test of a full up SFRJ (it has been component testing prior to this), the VFDR aside (which I think came out of primarily AFRL funded research).
 

elmayerle

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,445
Reaction score
327
Too bad they didn't proceed with Vought's efforts that started back in the 1970's, if not before.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,756
Reaction score
3,734
elmayerle said:
Too bad they didn't proceed with Vought's efforts that started back in the 1970's, if not before.

I was under the impression that that (or a derivative) is what eventually ended up on Coyote.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
523
Printed Air Inlet for Solid Fuel Ramjet
 

Attachments

  • printed-inlet-sfrj.png
    printed-inlet-sfrj.png
    577 KB · Views: 408

Maury Markowitz

From the Great White North!
Joined
Feb 27, 2014
Messages
142
Reaction score
71
sferrin said:
Ducted rockets and solid fuel ramjets are basically the same thing. As I recall, there's been a discussion about this before here. I think it came down to if the air were an additional source of oxidizer (ducted rocket) or the only source (ramjet).
The ducted rocket uses the air as additional working mass, not oxidizer. The air normally joins the mix downstream from a conventional rocket.

As long as the original exhaust has leftover energy that can heat the air it's possible, and you can design it to be that way by using a too-small nozzle. You can leave the exhaust fuel-rich for additional burning, but I vaguely recall there is a reason they don't do that.

Of course, the duct needed to channel the air often offsets all the advantage, which is why this resign remains largely unused The only example I know is the Gnom, but you see it being proposed from time to time in different roles. I would have thought that the natural role would be an AA missile, which seems to imply the performance is not actually an advantage.

I built one as a kid using a Centari rocket kit and some leftover parts from another rocket. It was an anti-feature in performance terms, but the duct meant no external fins so it at least looked cool while barely passing the top of the TV antenna.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,756
Reaction score
3,734
Maury Markowitz said:
It was an anti-feature in performance terms, but the duct meant no external fins so it at least looked cool while barely passing the top of the TV antenna.

LOL sounds like my first rocket launch as a kid. A 1/2A3-2T and 5 pounds of paint on the rocket don't make for a good combination. I doubt my first launch could have dunked a basket ball. ;D
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
523
SFRJ work. Hedman mentioned that the current NAWCMD SFRJ fuel is oxidizer (AP) free; some of his previous
work indicated that they might need 5 - 10% AP to account for different flight conditions.
VFDRs are in the 20 - 25% AP range. So that's a big source of the density specific impulse advantage.

I'd also point out that the BTU advantage for the additized SFRJ fuel vs. JP-10 is a bit misleading
since you can (and the Navy is) additizing JP-10 with Boron though there are settling and viscosity
complications for the mixer/injectors.
 

Attachments

  • AD1102496-01.png
    AD1102496-01.png
    218.8 KB · Views: 87
  • AD1102496-02.png
    AD1102496-02.png
    293.6 KB · Views: 71
  • AD1102496-03.png
    AD1102496-03.png
    450.4 KB · Views: 62
  • AD1102496-04.png
    AD1102496-04.png
    398.2 KB · Views: 61
  • AD1102496-05.png
    AD1102496-05.png
    609.7 KB · Views: 63
  • AD1102496-06.png
    AD1102496-06.png
    401.5 KB · Views: 57
  • AD1102496-07.png
    AD1102496-07.png
    410.8 KB · Views: 53
  • AD1102496-08.png
    AD1102496-08.png
    565.9 KB · Views: 54
  • AD1102496-09.png
    AD1102496-09.png
    547.1 KB · Views: 54
  • AD1102496-10.png
    AD1102496-10.png
    722.1 KB · Views: 52
  • AD1102496-11.png
    AD1102496-11.png
    741 KB · Views: 51
  • AD1102496-12.png
    AD1102496-12.png
    199.5 KB · Views: 47
  • AD1102496-13.png
    AD1102496-13.png
    227.6 KB · Views: 46
  • AD1102496-14.png
    AD1102496-14.png
    100.6 KB · Views: 68
  • AD1102496.pdf
    1.2 MB · Views: 28

dumpster4

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Nov 9, 2017
Messages
24
Reaction score
26
A few of these for the Zumwalts would be nice, assuming its ammo-handling system could accommodate them:

"Northrop Grumman has carried out successful ground tests of a Solid Fuel RamJet (SFRJ) tactical engine that the company is developing for the US Army. Part of the Army's XM1155 Extended-Range Artillery Projectile (ERAP) program, the engine is designed to boost the effective range of a 155 mm artillery shell to over 62 miles (100 km)."

See:

 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,993
Reaction score
2,592
A few of these for the Zumwalts would be nice, assuming its ammo-handling system could accommodate them:

But that's the problem. The current AGS cannot accept any rounds that fit Army guns without major modifications. Why they went that way is beyond me , but there it is...

OK, I suspect it was so that they could not be forced to just buy a navalized Excalibur and lose the range advantage that LRLAP was supposed to bring. But there was a lot of borderline deception about the potential for AGS to fire Army rounds during the acquisition process.
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
218
Reaction score
332
A few of these for the Zumwalts would be nice, assuming its ammo-handling system could accommodate them:

But that's the problem. The current AGS cannot accept any rounds that fit Army guns without major modifications. Why they went that way is beyond me , but there it is...

OK, I suspect it was so that they could not be forced to just buy a navalized Excalibur and lose the range advantage that LRLAP was supposed to bring. But there was a lot of borderline deception about the potential for AGS to fire Army rounds during the acquisition process.
Appereantly its less the Gun that fucked up and more that the LOADING SYSTEM is so ass back words that you can't put a smaller round in it without it going stupid.
 

Nik

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
557
Reaction score
204
"...is so ass backwards..."

Ouch: Sounds like the new USN carriers' electric catapult, whose hefty power-feed system was found to lack 'joined up thinking'...
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
523
A few of these for the Zumwalts would be nice, assuming its ammo-handling system could accommodate them:

But that's the problem. The current AGS cannot accept any rounds that fit Army guns without major modifications. Why they went that way is beyond me , but there it is...

OK, I suspect it was so that they could not be forced to just buy a navalized Excalibur and lose the range advantage that LRLAP was supposed to bring. But there was a lot of borderline deception about the potential for AGS to fire Army rounds during the acquisition process.
But what makes the SFRJ appealing (assuming they are using the fuel formulation described above) is that it's oxidizer (AP) free.
That's makes meeting the Navy's IM reqs much easier; the other Army rounds would have to overcome the same gun interface
hurdles but might still stumble on the IM side.
 

Similar threads

Top