HiFire Mach 5+ Hypersonic Flight Tests

New and old developments in aviation technology.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2522
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post12 Jul 2017, 16:04

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ht-439239/

US, Australia conclude secretive hypersonic flight series

BY: Greg Waldron
12 July, 2017

The United States and Australia have concluded a series of hypersonic test flights at the Woomera test range in South Australia. The tests were conducted under the auspices of the Hypersonic International Flight Research Experimentation (HiFIRE) program, says Australia's Department of Defense in a statement. In the statement, defense minister Marise Payne congratulated Canberra's Defense Science and Technology Group (DST) and the US Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) "on another successful hypersonic flight at Woomera test range." She said that the tests have achieved "significant milestones, including design assembly, and pre-flight testing of the hypersonic vehicles and design of complex avionics and control systems." She said Canberra and Washington DC are drafting plans for future hypersonic work.

The statement also thanked Boeing, BAE Systems, and the University of Queensland as partners on the program. FlightGlobal requested details from the parties involved in the last tests, such as the speeds achieved and distances travelled, but this information was not forthcoming. Previous HiFIRE launches have achieved speeds of Mach 7.5. The tests involve the ballistic launch of a vehicle that includes hypersonic inlet, a scramjet combustor (through which air flows at supersonic speeds) and a nozzle. It also carries instruments to transmit test data to researchers on the ground. Boeing declined to comment on the launch, but BAE Systems Australia issued a statement. "We were pleased to support the DST with the successful flight trial; the most complex of all HIFiRE flights conducted to date, to further the fundamental scientific understanding of hypersonic flight… This flight trial is a significant step forward in proving this technology and enhancing our collective understanding of how it could be employed across a range of applications."

Hypersonic speeds are defined as above M5.5. One clear application for the technology is Washington's Prompt Global Strike (PGS) initiative, which aims to develop a hypersonic, precision-guided conventional weapon that can deploy anywhere in the world within one hour.
:)
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4295
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post12 Jul 2017, 16:32

This thing is about as much a PGS weapon as the X-17 was an ICBM. (They even have similar flight profiles.)
"There I was. . ."
Offline

arian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1209
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post15 Jul 2017, 04:36

sferrin wrote:This thing is about as much a PGS weapon as the X-17 was an ICBM. (They even have similar flight profiles.)


But when China or Russia test some "hypersonic" thingamajig, it is automatically an in-service mass-produced hyper-nuclear-tipped shoulder-launched game-changer that will keep US carriers 37,000 miles away from their shores.

Yep.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4295
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post15 Jul 2017, 16:13

arian wrote:
sferrin wrote:This thing is about as much a PGS weapon as the X-17 was an ICBM. (They even have similar flight profiles.)


But when China or Russia test some "hypersonic" thingamajig, it is automatically an in-service mass-produced hyper-nuclear-tipped shoulder-launched game-changer that will keep US carriers 37,000 miles away from their shores.

Yep.


You should educate yourself on the relevant vehicles. China and Russia launch theirs on ICBMs and they glide for hundreds of miles (think HTV-2). HiFire goes straight up, tips over, and fires rockets to accelerate it straight down, experiencing flight conditions for no more than a few seconds. Like the X-17 did. What Australia is doing isn't remotely similar to what Russia and China are doing.



hifire-profile.png
"There I was. . ."
Offline

arian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1209
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post15 Jul 2017, 23:50

sferrin wrote:You should educate yourself on the relevant vehicles. China and Russia launch theirs on ICBMs and they glide for hundreds of miles (think HTV-2).


Not this s**t again. :bang:

sferrin wrote:What Australia is doing isn't remotely similar to what Russia and China are doing.


No of course not. What Russia and China are doing is what we did 60 years ago. This is scramjet technology. Which BTW has nothing to do with ICBMs or glide vehicles. But why bother.
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2522
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post16 Jul 2017, 00:16

The Aussies did not start from scratch; BAE, Boeing, Raytheon, etc. are bringing a broad wealth of development to the table to progress; "After two unsuccessful test flights, the X-51 (Boeing) completed a flight of over six minutes and reached speeds of over Mach 5 for 210 seconds on 1May13 for the longest duration powered....".

So.....refining the design of the throat, refining the fuel and the fuel delivery system, refining the body metallurgy, refining, refining, refining,.....will soon provide for subsurface, surface and aerial launch of the "rapid response" weapon; presumably a 2Klb. GPS payload (conventional), or else why go there?


....unless of course someone can get three wishes form a Genie!
:)
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4295
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post16 Jul 2017, 17:53

arian wrote:
sferrin wrote:You should educate yourself on the relevant vehicles. China and Russia launch theirs on ICBMs and they glide for hundreds of miles (think HTV-2).


Not this s**t again. :bang:

sferrin wrote:What Australia is doing isn't remotely similar to what Russia and China are doing.


No of course not. What Russia and China are doing is what we did 60 years ago. This is scramjet technology. Which BTW has nothing to do with ICBMs or glide vehicles. But why bother.


It's amusing how rapidly you completely lose track of the conversation. Assuming you ever understood it to begin with.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 503
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post16 Jul 2017, 18:49

sferrin wrote:
arian wrote:
sferrin wrote:You should educate yourself on the relevant vehicles. China and Russia launch theirs on ICBMs and they glide for hundreds of miles (think HTV-2).


Not this s**t again. :bang:

sferrin wrote:What Australia is doing isn't remotely similar to what Russia and China are doing.


No of course not. What Russia and China are doing is what we did 60 years ago. This is scramjet technology. Which BTW has nothing to do with ICBMs or glide vehicles. But why bother.


It's amusing how rapidly you completely lose track of the conversation. Assuming you ever understood it to begin with.

From the previous discussion between arian and you about this subject I got the feeling you did not fully understand what you were talking about.

Arian back then explained his standpoint in detail while you, when confronted with new information, choose not to engage the information itself but to just add something new (often unrelated or near-related) to take attention away from it.

I am not saying who was right or wrong in that discussion but that the way you engaged in it makes it hard to see you as a reliable source for information.
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4295
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post17 Jul 2017, 03:12

botsing wrote:From the previous discussion between arian and you about this subject I got the feeling you did not fully understand what you were talking about.


I offered example after example demonstrating what I was talking about, and why Arian was out to lunch. Arian's typical response is to turn the screeching up to a fever pitch.

Consider his latest response:

"But when China or Russia test some "hypersonic" thingamajig, it is automatically an in-service mass-produced hyper-nuclear-tipped shoulder-launched game-changer that will keep US carriers 37,000 miles away from their shores.

Yep."

I was 100% accurate in my statement. HiFire is no way, no how applicable to PGS. Arian drags in the work Russia and China are doing on long range boost gliders, complete with his typical derogatory exaggeration, and then when called on it, tries to pretend he was talking about something else. He's either a complete moron or a liar. Neither of which shines favorably on him. If that's your idea of a reliable source, well, I can't help you. :shrug:

As for why I "disengaged" last time, it's clear he doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking about in this matter, and is determined to wallow in his ignorance, while screeching like a harpy at any who would point that out. Why would I continue to waste my time on him?
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2522
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post17 Jul 2017, 04:59

neptune wrote:The Aussies did not start from scratch; BAE, Boeing, Raytheon, etc. are bringing a broad wealth of development to the table to progress; "After two unsuccessful test flights, the X-51 (Boeing) completed a flight of over six minutes and reached speeds of over Mach 5 for 210 seconds on 1May13 for the longest duration powered....".

So.....refining the design of the throat, refining the fuel and the fuel delivery system, refining the body metallurgy, refining, refining, refining,.....will soon provide for subsurface, surface and aerial launch of the "rapid response" weapon; presumably a 2Klb. GPS payload (conventional), or else why go there?


....unless of course someone can get three wishes form a Genie!
:)


....oversite....:(

...."In May 2013, the U.S. Air Force plans have X-51 technology applied to the High Speed Strike Weapon (HSSW), a missile similar in size to the X-51. The HSSW could fly in 2020 and enter service in the mid-2020s. It is envisioned to have a range of 500-600 nmi, fly at Mach 5-6, and fit on an F-35 or in the internal bay of a B-2 bomber.".....

....7min. flight for a 460mi. range; a bit beyond the Aim-120ish....
:)
Offline

citanon

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 183
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 21:42

Unread post17 Jul 2017, 09:21

sferrin wrote:
arian wrote:
sferrin wrote:This thing is about as much a PGS weapon as the X-17 was an ICBM. (They even have similar flight profiles.)


But when China or Russia test some "hypersonic" thingamajig, it is automatically an in-service mass-produced hyper-nuclear-tipped shoulder-launched game-changer that will keep US carriers 37,000 miles away from their shores.

Yep.


You should educate yourself on the relevant vehicles. China and Russia launch theirs on ICBMs and they glide for hundreds of miles (think HTV-2). HiFire goes straight up, tips over, and fires rockets to accelerate it straight down, experiencing flight conditions for no more than a few seconds. Like the X-17 did. What Australia is doing isn't remotely similar to what Russia and China are doing.



hifire-profile.png


I'd be careful extrapolating either way from that chart.

Note that this was flight 1 from 2009. That was an ”is this thing on?" type experiment. They could have started simple and progressed to much more complex flight, with that itself being in support of yet other programs.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4295
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post17 Jul 2017, 14:29

citanon wrote:Note that this was flight 1 from 2009. That was an ”is this thing on?" type experiment. They could have started simple and progressed to much more complex flight, with that itself being in support of yet other programs.


And they do plan to, but all of them follow pretty much the same profile. Even the one they plan with TWO test vehicles mounted on the end follows the same basic profile, albeit with the vehicles performing maneuvers under power after separation. But again, we're talking a few second. Certainly it isn't going to get to altitude and then cruise for 500 miles or anything. The problem with much of the media is they can't tell the difference between this and X-51 or X-43. "Hypersonic scramjet" is all they see. :doh: :bang:
"There I was. . ."
Offline

citanon

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 183
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 21:42

Unread post17 Jul 2017, 18:07

Here's some more info on HiFire:

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics ... ifire.html

It's a collavoration between NASA , AFRL and the Australians. The primary aim is to conduct fundamental science on scramjet flight using hydrocarbon fuel instead of the more combustible hydrogen fuel.:

""This is the first time we have flight tested a hydrocarbon-fueled scramjet accelerating from Mach 6 to Mach 8," said NASA Hypersonics Project Scientist Ken Rock, based at NASA'S Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va. "At Mach 6 the inlet compression and combustion process was designed to reduce the flow to below Mach 1 -- subsonic combustion. But at Mach 8 flight the flow remained greater than Mach 1 or supersonic throughout the engine. So this test will give us unique scientific data about scramjets transitioning from subsonic to supersonic combustion -- something we can't simulate in wind tunnels.""

update

Looks like NASA got out of the program. It's now mostly a collaboration between Australians, AFRL, and the defense industry.

The program has included both gliders and powered vehicles. The latest flight, HiFire 7 achieved powered Mach 8 flight and maneuvering during atmospheric re-entry. A one minute long horizontal hypersonic flight is expected in 2019 and will be HiFire 8.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/07/u ... -week.html
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4295
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post17 Jul 2017, 18:25

citanon wrote:The program has included both gliders and powered vehicles. The latest flight, HiFire 7 achieved powered Mach 8 flight and maneuvering during atmospheric re-entry. A one minute long horizontal hypersonic flight is expected in 2019 and will be HiFire 8.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/07/u ... -week.html


"A depressed trajectory will be used for this flight and the HyShot team plans to fly the scramjet-powered vehicle horizontally for up to a minute at Mach 8. This compares with the brief experimental window of about 5 seconds for HyShot I-IV and VI. It is planned for 2019."

This will be impressive if they can pull it off. X-51 only did Mach 5.1 albeit for about 3 -1/2 minutes. (Don't recall if there was actually supersonic combustion on that flight, or if there was, what percentage of the flight it occurred.)
"There I was. . ."
Offline

arian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1209
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post18 Jul 2017, 00:59

sferrin wrote:
botsing wrote:From the previous discussion between arian and you about this subject I got the feeling you did not fully understand what you were talking about.


I offered example after example demonstrating what I was talking about, and why Arian was out to lunch. Arian's typical response is to turn the screeching up to a fever pitch.

Consider his latest response:

"But when China or Russia test some "hypersonic" thingamajig, it is automatically an in-service mass-produced hyper-nuclear-tipped shoulder-launched game-changer that will keep US carriers 37,000 miles away from their shores.

Yep."

I was 100% accurate in my statement. HiFire is no way, no how applicable to PGS. Arian drags in the work Russia and China are doing on long range boost gliders, complete with his typical derogatory exaggeration, and then when called on it, tries to pretend he was talking about something else. He's either a complete moron or a liar. Neither of which shines favorably on him. If that's your idea of a reliable source, well, I can't help you. :shrug:

As for why I "disengaged" last time, it's clear he doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking about in this matter, and is determined to wallow in his ignorance, while screeching like a harpy at any who would point that out. Why would I continue to waste my time on him?


Sigh. You offer very little of value other than posting pictures and videos of old dead projects, and projects that have nothing to do with each other, and often you don't understand the basics of what each of these projects is. Just like your previous post on THAAD, claiming that somehow because KE intercept technology was tested sometime in the late 80s earl-90s on a point-defense system and later evolved into THAAD, the US is doing it wrong because it...tested it once and evolved into THAAD.

I mean, there isn't even any logic in the argument. They tested it, decided that the longer-ranged approach was better (for whatever reason), and proceeded with that. How does that support your argument? (whatever those may have been, other than a series of photos and videos?)

This cannot be better exemplified than this time when you're talking about "boost glide" and 'ICBM"...in a conversation about scramjet technologies. These have nothing to do with each other.

I explained in detail about what these Chinese or Russian "boost glide" projects are, and why they are nothing like HTV-2. I explained in detail the differences between the THREE different kinds of boost-glide vehicles, along with details of the Chinese and Russian projects, and the various US projects (and other countries). I explained why the US went another route despite having experimented with all this stuff decades ago.

You completely ignored it, and proceeded to repeating the same old argument of "OMFG BOOST GLIDE!!!"

If you don't even acknowledged the difference between a Mach 20 multi-thousand mile glide vehicle and a manuvrable re-entry vehicle, what else is there to talk about?

At this point I have nothing to respond to but ridicule. If you refuse to even acknowledge the differences between HTV-2 and maneuverable re-entry vehicles, what else is there? If you think scramjets and boost-glide vehicles, or maneuverable re-entry vehicles are the same thing, what else is there?

PS: For reference, here are the posts in question: viewtopic.php?p=368063#p368063

viewtopic.php?p=368085#p368085

And if you want more, I would suggest reading this book: https://www.alibris.com/Lightning-Bolts ... k/12211465
Next

Return to Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests