| Author |
Message |
|
Fox1
|
Posted: Jul 29, 2005 - 09:38 AM
|
|
|
Enthusiast

Joined: Jul 05, 2005 - 05:16 AM
Posts: 62
Status: Offline
|
|
Janes wrote:
US Air Force eyes flight of ramjet missile
After decades of research, US Air Force engineers say they are now on the cusp of testing in flight a novel solid-fuelled propulsion system designed for next generation air-to-air missiles.
However, standing in the way of them flight testing this Variable Flow Ducted Rocket (VFDR) system - a type of ramjet - is a lack of funding, since the missile work has to compete with more pressing service priorities. Nonetheless, engineers said they are hopeful that the funding will materialise in the next few years.
Developmental efforts by the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) to date have matured the preliminary flight design of a
VFDR-powered missile concept.
While Europe's MBDA is developing the ramjet-powered Meteor beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile, the VFDR concept is the only US air-to-air system of this ilk.
The VFDR-powered missile would offer a "significant increase" in range over current beyond visual-range missiles and displays higher average velocities than contemporary short- and medium range missiles, said Mike Valentino, programme director for VFDR Flight Vehicle Concepts in the air vehicles branch of the AFRL's Munitions Directorate at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida.
Such a missile design could potentially enter the air force's inventory in the middle to late part of the next decade to complement and eventually replace the AIM-9X Sidewinder short-range missile or the AIM- 120 Advanced MediumRange Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM).
The AFRL's 7 in-diameter VFDR model is in the same size class as the AMRAAM, and its inlets have been sized for compact carriage in the internal weapons bays of the F/A-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, in addition to other AMRAAM carriage concepts, said Fred Davis, technical director of the directorate's assessment and demonstrations division. The AFRL is "very encouraged" by the design, Davis told .JDW.
The air force has expressed interest in its next air-to-air missile potentially serving in a dual role, so engineers have also examined three concepts that could apply to the VFDR design: a short-and medium-range air-to-air system; a medium-range air-to-air missile with the ability to attack ground targets; and a missile that could perform all three functions.
Raytheon led the industry team that included engine-manufacturer Aerojet in work on the design. The air force's VFDR work began in 1986, said Bob Mercier, deputy for technology in the AFRL's aerospace propulsion division at Wright-Patterson AFB.
Progress has been intermittent due to funding instability. In 1997, the AFRL conducted a ground test of a flight-weight engine. Valentino said a flight test programme would probably last about three years and include several flights to validate performance.
The VFDR concept uses a solidfuel rocket motor booster that rapidly accelerates the missile to supersonic speed.
After the booster propellant burns off, a gas generator then creates a fuel-rich gas that acts as the fuel for the ramjet for the remainder of the missiles flight.
Source: www.janes.com
OK, so Raytheon is developing this one, while Boeing has experience working with the British on the Meteor. With both contracters working on a similar missile for possible future USAF/USN/USMC use, the competition should make for a good finished product.
I really hope this missile performs well and it adopted. Having a missile with nearly the range of the Phoenix with far better max range maneuvering would be excellent. Not only would that give the F-22 even more ability, but would also help our older aircraft like the F-15. The SU-30 might be able to out turn the Eagle, but that won't matter if the Eagle can launch it's missiles 30 or 40 miles farther than it's enemy. This missile should make us (along with the Brits) top dogs in the world when it comes to range and lethality with BVR missiles.
What are the chances we see these in use on our aircraft 4-5 years down the road? |
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
107.67 KB |
| Viewed: |
7288 Time(s) |

|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
Posted: May 21, 2013 - 1:08 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
 |
|
snypa777
|
Posted: Jul 29, 2005 - 03:46 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: Jul 26, 2005 - 03:00 AM
Posts: 1527
Status: Offline
|
Good piece Fox one. MBDA say the Meteor will be available in 2012, that remains to be seen.The UK government has made a solid commitment to Meteor, even if some other europeans pull out. MBDA and Boeing are making changes to the missile to make it fit the F-35. It`s a pity our two countries can`t produce ONE missile together. Taking the best features of the Meteor and VFDR. It would probably get into service more quickly too.
I know America does not like to rely on foreign weapons and also wants to safeguard US jobs. Developing the VFDR stateside would build a capability and a knowledge base that would be an advantage.
A collaboration most likely will not happen unfortunately. Who knows! |
_________________ "I may not agree with what you say....but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Dammerung
|
Posted: Jul 29, 2005 - 08:11 PM
|
|
|
Active Member

Joined: Jun 27, 2004 - 12:17 AM
Posts: 192
Status: Offline
|
Aren't the Russians also working on a Ramjet R-77? (R-77M I think...)
I really wonder how the R-77 performs vs the AIM-120... |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Polaris
|
Posted: Jul 29, 2005 - 11:56 PM
|
|
|
Active Member

Joined: Apr 19, 2005 - 02:03 AM
Posts: 137
Status: Offline
|
| I'm looking forward to this missile. It looks very promising, especially for legacy aircraft like the F-15C, F-16C, and F/A-18C/D. It might also give the F/A-18E/F some longer "bats" to smack down enemy fighters. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Otto
|
Posted: Jul 30, 2005 - 05:05 PM
|
|
|
Active Member

Joined: May 07, 2005 - 12:01 AM
Posts: 115
Status: Offline
|
I've just read an article on the new generation missile propulsion system, dubbed pulse detonation engine (PDE). It is also developed by the AFRL. Working principle is detonating air and fuel mixture within an open-ended tube to generate thrust thru pulses, which take a few milliseconds. This tech is supposed to replace the solid fuel propulsion and turbine power in future, they say.
Is this PDE tech same as the ramjet tech or something different? |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
sferrin
|
Posted: Jul 30, 2005 - 07:39 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: Jul 22, 2005 - 04:23 AM
Posts: 1613
Status: Offline
|
|
Otto wrote:
Is this PDE tech same as the ramjet tech or something different?
Completely different. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Otto
|
Posted: Jul 30, 2005 - 10:18 PM
|
|
|
Active Member

Joined: May 07, 2005 - 12:01 AM
Posts: 115
Status: Offline
|
| So sferrin, have you got any detail on this ramjet principle other than briefly mentioned above or shortly, what is the difference? |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
sferrin
|
Posted: Jul 30, 2005 - 11:51 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: Jul 22, 2005 - 04:23 AM
Posts: 1613
Status: Offline
|
|
Otto wrote:
So sferrin, have you got any detail on this ramjet principle other than briefly mentioned above or shortly, what is the difference?
A PDE isn't a ramjet. Google "Pulse Detonation Engine" there's actually quite a bit out there on it. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Guysmiley
|
Posted: Jul 31, 2005 - 05:46 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: May 26, 2005 - 08:39 PM
Posts: 1496
|
| Think V-1 buzz bomb... not really "new generation". Granted the hardware and materials have changes, but its still the same principle. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
snypa777
|
Posted: Jul 31, 2005 - 07:07 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: Jul 26, 2005 - 03:00 AM
Posts: 1527
Status: Offline
|
Got to agree, V1 did use pulse detonation, hence the name, "buzz".
WW2 tech! |
_________________ "I may not agree with what you say....but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
|
|
|
|
 |
|
sferrin
|
Posted: Jul 31, 2005 - 08:12 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: Jul 22, 2005 - 04:23 AM
Posts: 1613
Status: Offline
|
| The V-1 did NOT use a PDE. It used a pulse jet which is a completely different animal. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
snypa777
|
Posted: Jul 31, 2005 - 11:36 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: Jul 26, 2005 - 03:00 AM
Posts: 1527
Status: Offline
|
Ok hands up, my mistake! Got mixed up!
I think the idea is that pulse jet and pulse detonation are very similar, in principle? A PDE burns the fuel air mix supersonically, a PJE burns fuel subsonically. Shutters inside the PJE do the same job as the shockwave in a PDE.
Also, a PDE is much more thermally efficient, more fuel is converted into power than in a PJE.
PDE theory is not new, just difficult to make it work. Noise is a big issue. |
_________________ "I may not agree with what you say....but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
|
|
|
|
 |
|
snypa777
|
Posted: Aug 01, 2005 - 06:31 AM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: Jul 26, 2005 - 03:00 AM
Posts: 1527
Status: Offline
|
Had to post this pic. Pulse jet testing, is this guy crazy or cool!!!!!!
 |
| Description: |
| Now, boys, this is what I CALL a barbeque!!! |
|
| Filesize: |
26.14 KB |
| Viewed: |
6938 Time(s) |

|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
lamoey
|
Posted: Aug 01, 2005 - 06:59 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Apr 25, 2004 - 06:44 PM
Posts: 699
Location: 77006
Status: Offline
|
|
Quote:
What are the chances we see these in use on our aircraft 4-5 years down the road?
If this missile is a good as is claimed, and it can be made to fit older aircrafts, then I doubt it will get much funding until both Raptor and the JSF is well into production. The new missile may ruin funding for the new fighters as they may not be needed as much if older hardware can fly and fire this new creature. |
_________________ Former Flight Control Technican - We keep'em flying
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Guysmiley
|
Posted: Aug 01, 2005 - 05:40 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: May 26, 2005 - 08:39 PM
Posts: 1496
|
PDEs and pulse jets are the same type of engine. In a PDE the flow is supersonic (and a shockwave functions as the 'shutters'), but the concept isn't rocket science... well, ok so it is  |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|