Sukhoi Su-57 / T-50 / PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II [2012-current]

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,605
Reaction score
7,638
@LMFS Specific gravity can't be "defined in the article" it is a standard engineering parameter. You can't just redefine it to mean something different, and the explanation of specific gravity in the article is presumably by the journalist. Either the wrong word was used or the meaning ascribed by the journalist was incorrect.
удельный вес means specific weight, the machine translation used the word gravity instead of weight, and the article provided the explanation about what they are referring too, even if you don't want to check the translation for accuracy. You are also ignoring the rest of the evidence I provided. The density of an engine is not a meaningful parameter and cannot be 0.1, unless you are willing to accept it weights 180 kg by your proposed definition...

Russian wikipedia says otherwise:


Уде́льный вес — физическая величина, которая определяется как отношение веса вещества P к занимаемому им объёму V...

Specific gravity is a physical quantity, which is defined as the ratio of the weight of a substance P to the volume V occupied by it.

Weight per volume being decreased could correlate to higher thrust to weight but not directly.

Also you seem to being deliberately obtuse in regard to your mass flow argument. The article specifically says specific thrust is increased. This means more thrust per unit of mass flow. If thrust of Izdeliye 30 is say 17500kg compared to 15000kg for Ideliye 117, thats 16.67 % increase in thrust. By the terms of this article, if the mass flow if Izeliyie 30 is higher, then that reduces the increase in specific thrust. Its possible that mass flow is slightly higher (say, 5%), but if mass flow of Izdeliyie was 20% higher, for 17% more thrust, then specific thrust would be LOWER than Izd. 117. This is basic maths not advanced engineering.
I am not being obtuse, believe me. To get an increase in thrust both mass flow and specific thrust can and are normally increased, check for instance the different versions of the AL-31F in this regard. Say the thrust increase is 20% (to have rounder numbers), a 15% can come from specific thrust and a 5% from mass flow, for instance, or viceversa The increase of mass flow does not mean a reduction specific thrust, since it does not imply a higher or lower BPR.

As to the corresponding thread, yes please move the posts where you see them fit.

You have been arguing that Izdeliye 30 has a significantly higher mass flow rate and advanced opinions on the intakes being greatly oversized etc for supercruise optimisation for several pages.

When confronted by the engine designer saying that supercruise optimization depends on higher specific thrust not increased mass flow, doesn't that theory go out the window?

SFC being the same could mean a lower bypass ratio (for higher speciic thrust) combined with higher efficiency due to TET increase cancels each other out rather than being a hidden clue to VCE.
 

icyplanetnhc (Steve)

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
218
Reaction score
216
Website
aiaa.seas.ucla.edu
Technically, specific gravity should be a unitless parameter. I've only ever used it as a measure of propellant density; for instance, the specific gravity of JP-8 or Jet A is usually around 0.8 or so.

I am not being obtuse, believe me. To get an increase in thrust both mass flow and specific thrust can and are normally increased, check for instance the different versions of the AL-31F in this regard. Say the thrust increase is 20% (to have rounder numbers), a 15% can come from specific thrust and a 5% from mass flow, for instance, or viceversa The increase of mass flow does not mean a reduction specific thrust, since it does not imply a higher or lower BPR.

Frankly, none of this is really supporting your original argument that increased inlet size corresponds to superior supercruise performance. This is especially if the izdeliye 30 is meant to largely match the dimensions of the current AL-41F1, in which case I wouldn't expect the mass flow to significantly increase, not to the extent that the differences in inlet capture area would suggest.
 
Last edited:

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,605
Reaction score
7,638
Technically, specific gravity should be a unitless parameter. I've only ever used it as a measure of propellant density; for instance, the specific gravity of JP-8 or Jet A is usually around 0.8 or so.

I am not being obtuse, believe me. To get an increase in thrust both mass flow and specific thrust can and are normally increased, check for instance the different versions of the AL-31F in this regard. Say the thrust increase is 20% (to have rounder numbers), a 15% can come from specific thrust and a 5% from mass flow, for instance, or viceversa The increase of mass flow does not mean a reduction specific thrust, since it does not imply a higher or lower BPR.

Frankly, none of this is really supporting your original argument that increased inlet size corresponds to superior supercruise performance. This is especially if the izdeliye 30 is meant to largely match the dimensions of the current AL-41F1, in which case I wouldn't expect the mass flow to significantly increase, not to the extent that the differences in inlet capture area would suggest.
Russian wikipedia says it can be dimensionless (volumetric density relative to the volumetric density of water) but doesn't rule out it being volumetric density.
 

LMFS

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 19, 2019
Messages
329
Reaction score
517
Specific gravity is a physical quantity, which is defined as the ratio of the weight of a substance P to the volume V occupied by it.

Weight per volume being decreased could correlate to higher thrust to weight but not directly.
Ok then, izd. 30 has a density lower than 0.1 and weights less than 500 kg, right?

You have been arguing that Izdeliye 30 has a significantly higher mass flow rate and advanced opinions on the intakes being greatly oversized etc for supercruise optimisation for several pages.

When confronted by the engine designer saying that supercruise optimization depends on higher specific thrust not increased mass flow, doesn't that theory go out the window?
Confronted? I am the one saying that izd. 30 is an engine designed for supercruise with the highest specific thrust in the world. That says nothing about the inlet's size and how it is designed for the different flight conditions. In the pages before we have seen the dependence of mass flow demand with speed and we know the characteristics of the atmosphere with altitude, that is a restriction placed on the engine by the inlet at given conditions. If the inlet does not provide the needed mass flow, the engine cannot work properly. It is obvious that if you want to have the highest thrust possible, you will work in both directions at the same time, specific thrust and mass flow at the engine itself, and then make sure that the intake is up to the task at the flight regime of interest.

BTW here is the chief designer saying the engine has the highest specific thrust, the conversation starts around 18:20:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDXNDA5xuS4


Please consider that captions are not correct, they translate as thrust to weight ratio but they are talking about specific thrust (удельная тяга)

SFC being the same could mean a lower bypass ratio (for higher speciic thrust) combined with higher efficiency due to TET increase cancels each other out rather than being a hidden clue to VCE.
Certainly, but consider the difference in mil thrust between a F119 and an AL-41F-1, that is ca. 11.5 tf vs ca. 9 tf, or almost a 30% difference, with F119's TIT to my knowledge still being unmatched by any engine other than F135 and corresponding to 5G standard. So Saturn went so much above the F119 and the 5G level, that surpassed them in specific thrust and still kept a much lower SFC of a very modern, relatively high BPR engine? That would be an extraordinary and unlikely technological leap IMHO, but I am not saying it is absolutely impossible. And again, when the designer talks in the terms that I quoted above the logical thing is to assume that VCE is indeed a possibility to consider, specially given it helps explaining some of the features claimed for the engine.

Technically, specific gravity should be a unitless parameter. I've only ever used it as a measure of propellant density; for instance, the specific gravity of JP-8 or Jet A is usually around 0.8 or so.
Exactly, I have never seen such parameter being used for engines, and I find it completely uninteresting, unlike specific weight as the inverse of thrust to weight ratio, which is indeed a cardinal performance indicator. Plus the resulting values are completely implausible.

Frankly, none of this is really supporting your original argument that increased inlet size corresponds to superior supercruise performance. This is especially if the izdeliye 30 is meant to largely match the dimensions of the current AL-41F1, in which case I wouldn't expect the mass flow to significantly increase, not to the extent that the differences in inlet capture area would suggest.
The max thrust suggest a certain increase of mass flow (again, if it is a VCE there might be additional complications to assess how this corresponds to higher mass flow) and then, my point is that the intake indicates to a design point clearly shifted to higher speeds and altitudes consistent with the highest end of supercruising performance.
To be totally sincere, I think Sukhoi just made damn sure with the intake design that it was not going to be the limiting factor, since they did not have certainties about the performance (or even existence) of the second stage engine by the time of the design. Therefore it being fully variable and very big, maybe as a way of compensating for potentially lower specific thrust at the engine level. With a specifically designed engine, they have pretty much piled all factors of propulsion performance one on top of another, and the results should be outstanding.

I take that you don't see it conclusive, that is fine with me.

As to engines of the same diameter having different mass flow, this is a constant in the technical evolution both within a generation or model and with the generational change. Do you expect the adaptive engines not to have higher mass flow than F135? Or AL-41F-1/1S not to have higher air consumption than AL-31F?

IMHO I have made my point and presented the evidence, coming directly from the mouth of the designer, now is up to everyone to decide what makes sense for them.
 
Last edited:

Trident

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,274
Reaction score
767
SFC being the same could mean a lower bypass ratio (for higher speciic thrust) combined with higher efficiency due to TET increase cancels each other out rather than being a hidden clue to VCE.

Not really, increasing TET improves thermal efficiency only, so long-haul airliner engines require both high TET and high BPR. Elevated TET alone means *even higher* specific thrust and at low speed, generating net thrust by high (c9-c0), where c9 is jet velocity and c0 aircraft forward flight speed, is inefficient. Propulsive efficiency is proportional to 1/(1+c9/c0), so for good values jet velocity needs to be matched well to aircraft speed - this is why turboprops work for commuter liners, despite generally downright primitive gas generators. The SFC figure Marchukov uses as a data point in his comparison to the AL-31F refers to subsonic cruise, so a condition where higher specific thrust offsets the gain in thermal efficiency by worsening propulsive efficiency.

The objective of a supercruise capable engine is to substantially increase specific thrust (jet velocity) to enable enough net thrust at supersonic speed to counter drag in dry setting, where otherwise (c9-c0) is marginal. This is at odds with good specific fuel consumption at lower speeds, where the widening disparity between c9 and c0 adversely affects propulsive efficiency. Which is the attraction of VCEs: they can adapt their cycle to maintain favourable specific thrust across a wider range of speeds. An unnecessary complication if higher TET would suffice to improve fuel consumption across the board!

From this you can deduce that maintaining the same subsonic cruise SFC as the AL-31F in an engine with significantly higher specific thrust is no mean feat, and may well require variable cycle tech. I agree that the Marchukov interview is ambiguous on this point regarding Izd.30 in particular, but it follows that the possibility cannot be excluded on this basis, either. If there are *other sources* that definitively establish that it is a fixed-cycle design I'll of course defer to that, but inferring solely from this source does yield potential indications of a VCE.
 

icyplanetnhc (Steve)

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
218
Reaction score
216
Website
aiaa.seas.ucla.edu
I would also venture to say that the increase in TIT is not solely for exhaust velocity purposes, as you can extract more work for the compressor and electrical power generation. Component matching will also be different so it’s difficult to say exactly what an increase in TIT will entail.

Despite being a fixed cycle, I do recall reading in some conditions (even in the supersonic part of the envelope), the YF119 was less thirsty than the variable-cycle YF120.

Also, the argument that specific thrust is being compensated for with mass flow in supercruise conditions is a non-sequitur. For dynamic thrust in supercruise conditions, mass flow is not correlated to specific thrust (an intensive property) and especially at supersonic speeds, additional mass flow won’t compensate for specific thrust or exhaust velocity.
 
Last edited:

Trident

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,274
Reaction score
767
Yeah, it's entirely plausible for a fixed-cycle engine to be more efficient at its primary design point (in the case of the F119 likely the Mach 1.5 supercruise condition, so the supersonic part makes sense too).
 

tacitblue1973

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
21
Reaction score
2
Pratt were happy with the fan design at design cruise conditions but accepted that the SFC at part throttle wasn't all that great. Was in AvWeek I read ages ago.
 

stealthflanker

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
963
Reaction score
851
Hmm and talking about Electrical power generator. The book "Airborne Early Warning System Concept" by Maurice W Long (Editor).

Discussed that an engine can have about 25% Extra rating for electrical power generation. Now i wonder how to make out of it from thrust information as that's usually what is available. Does that mean if an engine have a thrust of 10000 Kgf applying that 25% will mean that only 7500 Kgf will be available for thrust generation while the 2500 Kgf is absorbed by the turbine, shaft and the generator for electrical power generation ?

Or does it mean the engine actually capable of making 12500 Kgf. but 10000 is for thrust will the 2500 Kgf is for electrics ?
 

TR1

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Aug 12, 2020
Messages
139
Reaction score
510
Thanks for the pics. In the top image, you can see the thick RAM sections missing, just like on some previous T-50 airframes.
I wonder, why is it applied in stages, and how is it applied properly along the angled edges of the rest of the RAM?
 

tequilashooter

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
Messages
591
Reaction score
710
https://iz.ru/1232091/2021-10-07/rossiiskie-voennye-poluchat-novuiu-giperzvukovuiu-raketu

In Russia, another system of hypersonic weapons is being created. It is implemented within the framework of development work (ROC) "Larva-MD". Now the product is at the stage of working out the layout, it has not yet come out for flight tests. The new missile is designed to equip the Su-57 stealth fighters. Presumably, it will fly at speeds five or more times faster than sound and will become almost invulnerable to modern air and missile defense systems.

According to the documents that are at the disposal of Izvestia, the second stage of the ROC "Larva-MD" started in 2019. The main developer on this topic is JSC "Corporation" Tactical Missile Armament ". As an engine in the rocket is used the so-called product 70. It is developed by the Turaev Machine-Building Design Bureau "Soyuz", specializing in power plants for ultra-high-speed missiles.

Sources of "Izvestia" in the defense Ministry confirmed that for the armament of the Su-57 hypersonic munition is being developed. Now it is at the stage of ground working out and flights with weight and size models. The missile will be placed in the internal compartments of the Russian stealth fighter.

"It can be assumed that the "Larva-MD" is a replacement for anti-ship ammunition for operational-tactical aviation. It should be a hypersonic missile, probably with a range of several hundred kilometers, "said military expert Dmitry Kornev.

He also added that the new development will replace the family of anti-ship supersonic missiles X-31, which were created in the 1980s.

"Russia is surrounded by seas and our country cannot do without modern air-to-surface weapons," Dmitry Kornev concluded.

The fact that Russia is developing a high-speed anti-ship missile of a new generation, said this year at the International Naval Salon in St. Petersburg and the General Director of KTRV Boris Obnosov. According to him, the jam-proof "smart" ammunition will replenish the line of aviation weapons of the company.


This source was just screaming at me to share cool ideas or weapons with others.

try not to drool over your computers https://iz.ru/1231901/anton-lavrov-...ossiiskie-voennye-poluchat-kompaktnuiu-raketu

new weapon larva.JPG

"We can assume that the "Larva-MD" is a replacement for anti-ship ammunition for operational-tactical aviation, - said military expert Dmitry Kornev. - It should be a hypersonic missile, probably with a range of several hundred kilometers.

The two letters in the name of the MD missile most likely indicate a short-range munition. Close-to-air missiles from the same manufacturer had a similar letter designation. But it can be considered "small" only in comparison with other hypersonic samples flying 1,000 kilometers or more, the expert noted.

So, in 2013, the then commander-in-chief of the Air Force, Colonel-General Alexander Zelin, revealed some details of the creation of lightweight hypersonic missiles. According to him, such ammunition weighs about 1600 kg and reaches a speed of Mach 6.

In 2012, development work was launched to create another hypersonic missile with a PVRD - the novelty was called "Gremlin". This munition is intended for arming operational-tactical aviation, including Su-34 bombers. Small size and weight should allow you to hang several missiles on each aircraft.

Earlier, Alexander Zelin reported that in addition to small hypersonic guided missiles in development is a much heavier model for long-range aviation, which can reach speeds of up to Mach 12. The novelty, the work on which started in 2016, was called "Sharpness". As a power plant in this rocket uses a more powerful ramjet engine, known under the designation "product 71".

In addition to aircraft carriers, hypersonic ammunition in Russia is being developed for the fleet and the Strategic Missile Forces.


So list of aerial hypersonic weapons are mysterious black missile on mig-31(more likely ASAT), kinzhal, GZUR, Gremlin and Larva-MD, information is not clear enough for me if the klevok-d2 can be used aerial wise.
 
Last edited:

Ronny

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
568
Reaction score
374
https://iz.ru/1232091/2021-10-07/rossiiskie-voennye-poluchat-novuiu-giperzvukovuiu-raketu

In Russia, another system of hypersonic weapons is being created. It is implemented within the framework of development work (ROC) "Larva-MD". Now the product is at the stage of working out the layout, it has not yet come out for flight tests. The new missile is designed to equip the Su-57 stealth fighters. Presumably, it will fly at speeds five or more times faster than sound and will become almost invulnerable to modern air and missile defense systems.

According to the documents that are at the disposal of Izvestia, the second stage of the ROC "Larva-MD" started in 2019. The main developer on this topic is JSC "Corporation" Tactical Missile Armament ". As an engine in the rocket is used the so-called product 70. It is developed by the Turaev Machine-Building Design Bureau "Soyuz", specializing in power plants for ultra-high-speed missiles.

Sources of "Izvestia" in the defense Ministry confirmed that for the armament of the Su-57 hypersonic munition is being developed. Now it is at the stage of ground working out and flights with weight and size models. The missile will be placed in the internal compartments of the Russian stealth fighter.

"It can be assumed that the "Larva-MD" is a replacement for anti-ship ammunition for operational-tactical aviation. It should be a hypersonic missile, probably with a range of several hundred kilometers, "said military expert Dmitry Kornev.

He also added that the new development will replace the family of anti-ship supersonic missiles X-31, which were created in the 1980s.

"Russia is surrounded by seas and our country cannot do without modern air-to-surface weapons," Dmitry Kornev concluded.

The fact that Russia is developing a high-speed anti-ship missile of a new generation, said this year at the International Naval Salon in St. Petersburg and the General Director of KTRV Boris Obnosov. According to him, the jam-proof "smart" ammunition will replenish the line of aviation weapons of the company.


This source was just screaming at me to share cool ideas or weapons with others.

try not to drool over your computers https://iz.ru/1231901/anton-lavrov-...ossiiskie-voennye-poluchat-kompaktnuiu-raketu

View attachment 665711

"We can assume that the "Larva-MD" is a replacement for anti-ship ammunition for operational-tactical aviation, - said military expert Dmitry Kornev. - It should be a hypersonic missile, probably with a range of several hundred kilometers.

The two letters in the name of the MD missile most likely indicate a short-range munition. Close-to-air missiles from the same manufacturer had a similar letter designation. But it can be considered "small" only in comparison with other hypersonic samples flying 1,000 kilometers or more, the expert noted.

So, in 2013, the then commander-in-chief of the Air Force, Colonel-General Alexander Zelin, revealed some details of the creation of lightweight hypersonic missiles. According to him, such ammunition weighs about 1600 kg and reaches a speed of Mach 6.

In 2012, development work was launched to create another hypersonic missile with a PVRD - the novelty was called "Gremlin". This munition is intended for arming operational-tactical aviation, including Su-34 bombers. Small size and weight should allow you to hang several missiles on each aircraft.

Earlier, Alexander Zelin reported that in addition to small hypersonic guided missiles in development is a much heavier model for long-range aviation, which can reach speeds of up to Mach 12. The novelty, the work on which started in 2016, was called "Sharpness". As a power plant in this rocket uses a more powerful ramjet engine, known under the designation "product 71".

In addition to aircraft carriers, hypersonic ammunition in Russia is being developed for the fleet and the Strategic Missile Forces.


So list of aerial hypersonic weapons are mysterious black missile on mig-31(more likely ASAT), kinzhal, GZUR, Gremlin and Larva-MD, information is not clear enough for me if the klevok-d2 can be used aerial wise.
Basically this is something similar to HACM and Screaming arrow?
 

tequilashooter

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
Messages
591
Reaction score
710
Basically this is something similar to HACM and Screaming arrow?
HACM i cant tell if they do not show size differences like is it related to GZUR launched by a tu-160 or is HACM actually smaller than Larva-MD or at the same size? Screaming arrow gives us a size estimate but i dont know speeds if popular mechanics source say 4 times faster than kinzhal which puts it as mach 40-48(hopefully someone remembers the joke cracked back than) to speeds of mach 10 or 20. I have no idea at all to make any comparisons so nothing further for me to say, both countries will not let me walk in with a measuring tape for their missiles and post pics about it publically.
 
Last edited:

Ronny

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
568
Reaction score
374
Basically this is something similar to HACM and Screaming arrow?
HACM i cant tell if they do not show size differences like is it related to GZUR launched by a tu-160 or is HACM actually smaller than Larva-MD or at the same size? Screaming arrow gives us a size estimate
Both HACM and Screaming arrow are supposed to be carried by tactical fighter such as F-18E/F, F-35 they must be much smaller than GZUR, GZUR probably similar size with Kh-22.
HACM probably quite a bit bigger than Screaming arrow since it don't have the requirement to fit in the carrier elevator and there is no requirement to be able to fit 4 of it on an F-18E/F.
I said Larva-MD is similar to HACM and Screaming arrow as in they are all scramjet design similar to Zircon and X-51, rather than a boost glider design like ARRW or air launched ballistic missile like Kinzhal.
but i dont know speeds if popular mechanics source say 4 times faster than kinzhal which puts it as mach 40-48
Then that would be nonsense, a scramjet missile won't be faster than a Mach 10 ballistic missile. And I can't imagine anything that can be launched from fighter and can reach that speed. The fastest missile ever launched from a fighter aircraft probably the ASM-135 that reached 25,000 km/h but it can do that only because it an anti satellite missile
Realistic speed for air launched tactical size scramjet missile probably in the Mach 6-7
 
Last edited:

tequilashooter

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
Messages
591
Reaction score
710
Both HACM and Screaming arrow are supposed to be carried by tactical fighter such as F-18E/F, F-35
Can they fit in the F-35(sorry if it feels like im asking a stupid question)? GZUR If I remember correctly GZUR is a scramjet missile that was estimated at 6 meters in length and 1,500kg in weight which makes it sound like it can be carried by a F-18 or F-35 but those are just guesses other than it was fired by the Tu-160.

Old source http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-562.html

Performance performance of the missile : Length - 6 m ( source ) Weight - about 1500 kg ( source ) Range - 1500 km (altitude profile, source ) Maximum speed: - 12-13M (data 2013 - future "global" version of the missile) - 6M (data 2017, source ) Status :

Russia
- 2011 - the beginning of research work on the creation of a rocket. - 2013 August 28 - Russian media reported that "a hypersonic missile created by the TRV Corporation, but so far it flies only a few seconds" - so freely paraphrased the statement of the head of KTRV B. Obnosov at the MAKS-2013 air show that Russia has already created missiles that could fly at a speed of 4.5M for a few seconds.

- May 23, 2014 - the head of KTRV B. Obnosov at the exhibition "Cadex-2014" in Astana said that Russia has completed the development of a program for the creation of hypersonic technologies, the document was adopted by the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Industry and Trade of

Russia. 12 working groups have been formed for work on the subject, key areas for development have been identified. By 2020, the first sample of a hypersonic missile is expected to appear. Due to the incorrect interpretation of the words of Boris Obnosov by journalists in terms of news, information appeared about, allegedly, the name of the new hypersonic missile - "Kh-74M2". In fact, this part of the speech of the head of the KTRV related to the report on the tests of the air-to-air missile for the PAK FA aircraft. Later in 2018, some of the domestic media rearranged the figures launched into the masses allegedly the index of the aeroballistic missile "Dagger" - "X-47M2".

- 2020 May 11 - Media reports on tests with the Tu-22M3 of a new hypersonic aircraft missile that does not belong to the Line of Kh-32 missiles.

Tests of the new missile should be completed along with the tests of the updated Tu-22M3M
(source).

LM advertised the HAWC being externally carried by F-35 so I just assumed that HACM will be the same way, but I never knew Screaming arrow was another scramjet design, thanks.

EDIT: https://tass.com/defense/1154995

Russian developers of hypersonic weapons are implementing a new project. The work is being carried out within the framework of the Larchinka-MD R&D project. Today, the product is at the stage of prototyping, flight tests have not yet begun. According to reports, work on the rocket started in 2019. The lead developer is KTRV, the development of a ramjet rocket engine is being carried out by the Soyuz TMKB (Turaevskoe Machine-Building Design Bureau). It is known that the rocket will be equipped with an engine designated "item 70". The characteristics of the rocket have not yet been disclosed, it is assumed that its speed will be "above Mach 5".

As they say "News", citing military sources, the new hypersonic missile will enter the arsenal of Su-57 fighters as an anti-ship missile designed to replace the Kh-31. As follows from the publication, this is not official information; completely different options for using the new rocket are possible. At the same time, the military department confirms the development of a hypersonic ammunition for the Su-57. According to the military, the work is at the stage of ground testing and flights with mass-dimensional models.

Note that earlier it was reported about the development of another hypersonic missile for the Russian military aviation, the work is being carried out within the framework of the Gremlin ROC. The characteristics of the Gremlin are not disclosed, it is known that the missile is smaller in size than the previously developed hypersonic Dagger. The small size of the new missile will make it possible to use it not only from MiG-31 bombers and interceptors, but also from Su-57, Su-35 and Su-30SM fighters. It is assumed that the range of the missile will be up to 1,5 thousand km, and the hypersonic speed will be equal to 6 Mach.


Just realized HAWC was tested on another thread and that its 2000lbs since the drive said half weight of X-51, we know that its length is above that of the AARGM-ER and the range on it is 300 nautical miles according to what random sources are all saying like flew above 60,000ft above mach 5 and 300 nautical miles. I am assuming that gremlin is smaller than GZUR and the no shit sherlock statment of Larva being smaller than Gremlin.
 
Last edited:

DWG

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
1,509
Reaction score
1,704
but i dont know speeds if popular mechanics source say 4 times faster than kinzhal which puts it as mach 40-48
Then that would be nonsense, a scramjet missile won't be faster than a Mach 10 ballistic missile. And I can't imagine anything that can be launched from fighter and can reach that speed. The fastest missile ever launched from a fighter aircraft probably the ASM-135 that reached 25,000 km/h but it can do that only because it an anti satellite missile
Realistic speed for air launched tactical size scramjet missile probably in the Mach 6-7
The things to bear in mind for ASM-135 were that it was launched at altitude - top of a zoom-climb, so had a thinner atmosphere and therefore less friction and heating effects to deal with, and was a non-airbreather.

The fundamental question for a faster scramjet is whether you can get the inflow through the engine without it causing problems - which is why scramjets are different to ramjets, but if you're forcing more and more air through the engine as you're going faster, then do the internal aerodynamics of the engine hold up? Wiki suggests, with references to one paper, that the top end for scramjets is going to be in the Mach 12-24 range,
 
Top