USAF Hypersonic Missile Test: successful
Thread Starter
USAF Hypersonic Missile Test: successful
https://www.airforce-technology.com/...rsonic-weapon/
After a few false starts, the USAF's hypersonic missile test has had a success, from the venerable Buff. As I meandered about the net, a few articles came up with the point that DARPA needs to have a successful hypersonic missile (which they call ARRW) so that they can figure out a way to counter them, since it is known that peer competitors have them already.
ARRW means air-launched rapid response weapon.
After a few false starts, the USAF's hypersonic missile test has had a success, from the venerable Buff. As I meandered about the net, a few articles came up with the point that DARPA needs to have a successful hypersonic missile (which they call ARRW) so that they can figure out a way to counter them, since it is known that peer competitors have them already.
ARRW means air-launched rapid response weapon.
Originally Posted by tidbits and major points from the article
- After separating from the aircraft, boosters of the ARRW ignited and burned for the expected duration required for achieving a hypersonic speed, which is five times greater than the speed of sound.
- The milestone achievement comes after a series of tests conducted over the past few years, with the first test conducted in June 2019.
- According to the USAF, ARRW will allow the US forces to defeat time-sensitive, fixed and high-value targets from far distances in a contested condition.
- The long-range hypersonic AGM-183A ARRW will also improve the precision-strike capabilities of the USAF, by launching rapid response strikes against protected land targets.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mostly in my own imagination
Posts: 476
Received 300 Likes
on
137 Posts
I wonder how you steer something going that fast. Not just the reaction time, but the forces involved too
Maybe you don't
Maybe you don't
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,808
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
VERY small wings/fins? Made from Unobtanium, of course.
Regarding the capabilities of the Kinshal not much seems to be really clear. Neither speed nor accuracy are really known. There might have been some more knowledge gathered if they have really been used in Ukraine (which Russia claims but where there were some doubts).
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Well the Shuttle managed a series of 4 S-turns at 40 degree AOA and 70 degree bank angle on every re-entry between M25 to M10 every trip - so they seem to know how to handle the problem…
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,808
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
Not being confrontational, because I’m sure you know more that me, but … what was the air density during those high-speed manoeuvres?
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mostly in my own imagination
Posts: 476
Received 300 Likes
on
137 Posts
I read somewhere that a standard rate turn through 180 degrees at Mach 3 in the SR71 took the craft all the way from the border with Canada to the border with Mexico 
Guest
I read somewhere that a standard rate turn through 180 degrees at Mach 3 in the SR71 took the craft all the way from the border with Canada to the border with Mexico
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The following 2 users liked this post by beardy:
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you are confusing the bank angle recommendation (25deg etc) that is used for IMC flight. As TAS increases the AoB required for a rate 1 turn also increases. If you cap the 'rate 1' turn at no more than 25deg AoB (due to the physics of gin/tonic/ice/lemon or lime interactivity) when more AoB is required to maintain it, it is no longer a rate 1 turn.
At normal human speeds, the required AoB for a rate 1 turn is simply approximated by knocking the last digit off the TAS and adding either 6 or 7 depending on which you prefer - 90 Kts gives 9 + 7 or 16 deg Aob (so fly to 15) 120 kts gives 12 + 7 = 19 Kts (so fly at 20).
Not sure how well that works when you are doing Mach 3 at 35000' and your TAS is in the region of 1800 Kts
Circa 30 nm/min makes for a big turn but not Canada to Mexico....
Not sure how well that works when you are doing Mach 3 at 35000' and your TAS is in the region of 1800 Kts
Circa 30 nm/min makes for a big turn but not Canada to Mexico....
Thread Starter
There was an article circling around some years ago that captured a talk given by an old Blackbird pilot who described how long it took him to turn around after a photo run over Lybia. I'll see if I can find the link, but I also think that somewhere on this very forum that story is available. First search didn't find it, though.
There was an article circling around some years ago that captured a talk given by an old Blackbird pilot who described how long it took him to turn around after a photo run over Lybia. I'll see if I can find the link, but I also think that somewhere on this very forum that story is available. First search didn't find it, though.
From the limited teaching we had on the SR-71 on the hard sums coarse I know that a suitably light SR71 that was somehow / actually in the best bit of the CofG envelope, with sufficient LN2 density, operating at a lower altitude that also happened to be unusually cold, with intakes in fully automatic (and trusting that they would remain so(!)) at a reduced mach number (say M3.0 or below), in a flight regime that allowed up to 25º AoB whilst remaining within the limited AoA range etc, then you could probably achieve a turning radius of under 100nm. Easy.
I recall that real-world ops tended to have few, if any, of the favourable conditions above and with an AoB limits reducing towards zero makes turning at operational altitudes / mach a serious challenge. I do recall (with reasonable certainty) that any manual control of the intakes (as an example) at typical operational altitudes had a 0º AoB limit. Tricky.
I doubt any of us without direct experience of this incredible aircraft will ever appreciate the performance complexities that came with operational flying. What was routine for them would normally require an experienced TP, telemetry, support TPt and a massive technical support team behind them working the live data at carefully controlled test points. It was in a whole different league.
I think LOMCEVAK had a very good insight into the aircraft at one point and I am sure he would have loved to have added it to his logbook. I don't think we have any ex-Blackbird pilots on this forum and those that may have flown a similar type probably don't exist anywhere!
Thread Starter
Just This Once; Here's a related story about outrunning a SAM over Libya in 1986.
One once made a comment regarding the viability of the YF-12/SR-71 as an interceptor to the effect 'You'd better get the bomber on the first pass, because it takes two states to turn around'. Sort of depends on which states you're referring to, but 220 miles sounds consistent...