• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

New Navy Ramjet Missile

dumpster4

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Nov 9, 2017
Messages
8
Reaction score
3
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
1,954
Reaction score
35
It was an S&T effort. Video can be seen at the link below -

https://youtu.be/_dN1SeHA15E?t=178
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,255
Reaction score
146
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
1,954
Reaction score
35
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

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,954
Reaction score
35
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an7DBwupJ5A
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,198
Reaction score
393
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
1,954
Reaction score
35
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

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,198
Reaction score
393
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

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,031
Reaction score
205
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

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,198
Reaction score
393
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

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,031
Reaction score
205
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
1,954
Reaction score
35
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

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,198
Reaction score
393
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

dumpster4

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Nov 9, 2017
Messages
8
Reaction score
3
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
1,954
Reaction score
35
"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

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,198
Reaction score
393
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
8
Reaction score
3
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
1,954
Reaction score
35
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

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,260
Reaction score
14
Too bad they didn't proceed with Vought's efforts that started back in the 1970's, if not before.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,198
Reaction score
393
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.
 

Maury Markowitz

From the Great White North!
Joined
Feb 27, 2014
Messages
73
Reaction score
1
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

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,198
Reaction score
393
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
 
Top