The dark side, in you I sense.
I hear that a lot...
Posted on 09/29/2008 8:05:04 PM PDT by Flavius
and rear view mirrors!!!
Not to mention the possibility of a electromagnetic railgun-type weapon. They’re already well past Mach 5. They’re also not all that far off in terms of deployability, especially in something that a ship could carry and supply with power.
That’s a priceless screen capture. Thanks.
Anything can be intercepted, the faster they fly, the less they can maneuver. It's relatively simply to fly an intercept course and light off a fragmenting warhead, the target provides the kinetic energy for the kill.
It will stress reaction time, but that thing isn't gonna get there on it's own, a big fat platform is going to have to release it from about 20 miles away. The obvious answer is to kill the platform before it gets anywhere near you.
And like the earlier post, it needs to already be up to that speed before it is effecient
How did it get to that speed?
FUEL and TIME
Yup. NASA has a 50 cal. that fires at 16,000 mph (23,467 fps) but, alas, it is 'fixed' placement.
The Japanese perfected this technology during WWII.
Absentee heading alert.
Like the US X-51 project. BTW, does it already fly?
Lt. Gen. C. Robert Kehler, the U.S. Strategic Command’s deputy commander, said that the goal of this project is “to strike virtually anywhere on the face of the Earth within 60 minutes.” Though there are many protests regarding the possibilities of a nuclear war because of this, The Pentagon still plans to test run the X-51 missiles by 2008.
“How did it get to that speed?
FUEL and TIME”
That’s true.
But you didn’t read my post. It’s launched from an aircraft cruising at high speed (i.e., supersonic). The aircraft spends its fuel and time to get up to speed, then kicks off the missile scramjet engine.
Fuel usage is not a concern with this missile concept. It’s all the other stuff that comes into play that makes it extremely difficult to develop.
I did read your post, but I dont believe the missile pictured is a scram jet type, look at the intake: you honestly think an orifice that small is going to receive enough air to force feed a scram jet that small?
And from what aircraft are they going to launch a missile from an initial speed of mach 1.5 or greater to start the scram process?
That missile seen there is a small missile, does not contain enough fuel on board for more than a 60 second burn, regardless of it’s operating method, and if it reached mach 5 using a scram jet method of propulsion, it would be out of fuel within 60 to 90 seconds of burn time. The actual missile would have to have a 10 to 12” diameter to contain the fuel, avionics and warhead to even be a threat and not just a technology demonstrator.
that means the aircraft that launched it was within range of any and every counter measure and anti-aircraft system known before it reached it’s maximum velocity
speed is nice, but it has to actualy get to the target safely and within 15 miles to launch, paint the target, and release and stay on course and correct itself at that speed.
Not at only Mach 5.
I thought of a lot of things when I read this article. Frankie Goes to Hollywood was not one of them. Now that darn song will be in my head all day.
“I did read your post, but I dont believe the missile pictured is a scram jet type, look at the intake: you honestly think an orifice that small is going to receive enough air to force feed a scram jet that small?”
Yes. The scramjet design doesn’t require a dramatically larger inlet, as it doesn’t have a compressor up front. The air is compressed enough by the speed of the missile and the configuration of the nose cone. The nose cone of that missile is not a standard jet engine, it is an adjustable pressure/flow design similar to what the SR-71 used, which is a type of hybrid scramjet.
The only technology that exists today (AFAIK) to achieve these kind of missile speeds for extended time is with either rockets or ramjets.
The other reason I say it is a ramjet is that it’s based on the existing P-800 Oniks cruise missile design, which can fly at Mach 2.8 and utilizes a scramjet engine. Check out this pic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-800_Oniks.
As for the boost phase to get it to Mach 5, I’m not sure what they would be using to do that. Some of the experimental designs have used rocket assist to get them up to speed.
Looks a lot like the air intake on an SR-71. The cone may well move in and out to provide air volume control.
The actual missile would have to have a 10 to 12” diameter to contain the fuel, avionics and warhead to even be a threat and not just a technology demonstrator.
A couple hundred pounds moving at Mach 5 doesn't need any explosives. It is the warhead.
Answer 1: My work is done here.
Answer 2: Relax, don't do it...
The dark side, I sense in you.
The dark side, in you I sense.
I hear that a lot...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.