Valkyrie Redux
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Valkyrie Redux
https://archive.ph/2024.05.11-131638...g-term-options
DARPA Eyes Hypersonic Striker As Air Force Studies Long-Term Options
As the U.S. Air Force analyzes options for fulfilling future high-speed strike missions, DARPA has started soliciting industry to prove out essential technology components for a reusable hypersonic bomber prototype that could enter the design phase within five years.
Much about the envisioned Next--Generation Responsive Strike (NextRS) “Y-plane” remains shrouded in secrecy, but a few details have been released. The prototype aircraft design could feature at least one turbine-based combined-cycle (TBCC) propulsion system, rely on conventional jet fuel and be made of high-temperature metal alloys rather than composites.
In a revealing clue, the turbine engine at the heart of the TBCC would be sized at 30,000-38,000 lb. in thrust, placing it in the same range as the Pratt & Whitney F119 that powers the Lockheed Martin F-22 or the General Electric F110-GE-132 for the Lockheed F-16 Block 60.
Even in a single-engine configuration, such a thrust level calls for an order-of-magnitude jump in output compared with the scramjet-powered hypersonic cruise missiles scheduled to enter service on Air Force and Navy aircraft by the end of the decade.
The propulsion and structural details for DARPA’s nascent NextRS concept came from two requests for information released since early March, titled “Reusable High Mach Gas Turbine Technologies” and “Weight Efficient Thermally Driven Reusable Airframe Technologies.”
A DARPA spokesperson declined to provide additional information, including a request about whether the Y-plane proposal implies the existence of a preceding “X-plane.”….
DARPA Eyes Hypersonic Striker As Air Force Studies Long-Term Options
As the U.S. Air Force analyzes options for fulfilling future high-speed strike missions, DARPA has started soliciting industry to prove out essential technology components for a reusable hypersonic bomber prototype that could enter the design phase within five years.
Much about the envisioned Next--Generation Responsive Strike (NextRS) “Y-plane” remains shrouded in secrecy, but a few details have been released. The prototype aircraft design could feature at least one turbine-based combined-cycle (TBCC) propulsion system, rely on conventional jet fuel and be made of high-temperature metal alloys rather than composites.
In a revealing clue, the turbine engine at the heart of the TBCC would be sized at 30,000-38,000 lb. in thrust, placing it in the same range as the Pratt & Whitney F119 that powers the Lockheed Martin F-22 or the General Electric F110-GE-132 for the Lockheed F-16 Block 60.
Even in a single-engine configuration, such a thrust level calls for an order-of-magnitude jump in output compared with the scramjet-powered hypersonic cruise missiles scheduled to enter service on Air Force and Navy aircraft by the end of the decade.
The propulsion and structural details for DARPA’s nascent NextRS concept came from two requests for information released since early March, titled “Reusable High Mach Gas Turbine Technologies” and “Weight Efficient Thermally Driven Reusable Airframe Technologies.”
A DARPA spokesperson declined to provide additional information, including a request about whether the Y-plane proposal implies the existence of a preceding “X-plane.”….
The following users liked this post:
X-30 2.0?
" a reusable hypersonic bomber"
What sort of conflict are we going to be in that allows reuse of a hypersonic bomber?
What sort of conflict are we going to be in that allows reuse of a hypersonic bomber?
The following users liked this post:
It would (or could) be manned? It looks almost like it has cockpit windows.
https://archive.ph/2024.05.11-131638...g-term-options
DARPA Eyes Hypersonic Striker As Air Force Studies Long-Term Options
As the U.S. Air Force analyzes options for fulfilling future high-speed strike missions, DARPA has started soliciting industry to prove out essential technology components for a reusable hypersonic bomber prototype that could enter the design phase within five years.
Much about the envisioned Next--Generation Responsive Strike (NextRS) “Y-plane” remains shrouded in secrecy, but a few details have been released. The prototype aircraft design could feature at least one turbine-based combined-cycle (TBCC) propulsion system, rely on conventional jet fuel and be made of high-temperature metal alloys rather than composites.
In a revealing clue, the turbine engine at the heart of the TBCC would be sized at 30,000-38,000 lb. in thrust, placing it in the same range as the Pratt & Whitney F119 that powers the Lockheed Martin F-22 or the General Electric F110-GE-132 for the Lockheed F-16 Block 60.
Even in a single-engine configuration, such a thrust level calls for an order-of-magnitude jump in output compared with the scramjet-powered hypersonic cruise missiles scheduled to enter service on Air Force and Navy aircraft by the end of the decade.
The propulsion and structural details for DARPA’s nascent NextRS concept came from two requests for information released since early March, titled “Reusable High Mach Gas Turbine Technologies” and “Weight Efficient Thermally Driven Reusable Airframe Technologies.”
A DARPA spokesperson declined to provide additional information, including a request about whether the Y-plane proposal implies the existence of a preceding “X-plane.”….
DARPA Eyes Hypersonic Striker As Air Force Studies Long-Term Options
As the U.S. Air Force analyzes options for fulfilling future high-speed strike missions, DARPA has started soliciting industry to prove out essential technology components for a reusable hypersonic bomber prototype that could enter the design phase within five years.
Much about the envisioned Next--Generation Responsive Strike (NextRS) “Y-plane” remains shrouded in secrecy, but a few details have been released. The prototype aircraft design could feature at least one turbine-based combined-cycle (TBCC) propulsion system, rely on conventional jet fuel and be made of high-temperature metal alloys rather than composites.
In a revealing clue, the turbine engine at the heart of the TBCC would be sized at 30,000-38,000 lb. in thrust, placing it in the same range as the Pratt & Whitney F119 that powers the Lockheed Martin F-22 or the General Electric F110-GE-132 for the Lockheed F-16 Block 60.
Even in a single-engine configuration, such a thrust level calls for an order-of-magnitude jump in output compared with the scramjet-powered hypersonic cruise missiles scheduled to enter service on Air Force and Navy aircraft by the end of the decade.
The propulsion and structural details for DARPA’s nascent NextRS concept came from two requests for information released since early March, titled “Reusable High Mach Gas Turbine Technologies” and “Weight Efficient Thermally Driven Reusable Airframe Technologies.”
A DARPA spokesperson declined to provide additional information, including a request about whether the Y-plane proposal implies the existence of a preceding “X-plane.”….
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/ai...tealth-bomber/
Now funnily enough in a back to the future scene, please cast your minds back to the 80s when designs for the ATB which Northrop won with the B-2, (from my copy of Warplanes of the Future by late Bill Gunston)
cheers
Salute!
Well, are we back to quoting an entire post from a member versus a specific point of interest? GASP.
I like Asturias' question about a conflict that could be won/lost with fast planes capable of multiple missions. Seems to me a more economical tactic would be speedy missiles of cruise or ballistic variety - recoverable or one time use.
Somehow, folks nowadays are getting hung up on this "need for speed"/hypersonic stuff. Yeah, we could develop a handful of systems at a huge cost, and then what?
The Blackbirds of yore served their purpose very well. Just a handful. Then the satellite systems evolved and we didn't need hundreds of them to gather the intell, nor a hundred SR's. Bye bye Blackbird.
Gums opines...
Well, are we back to quoting an entire post from a member versus a specific point of interest? GASP.
I like Asturias' question about a conflict that could be won/lost with fast planes capable of multiple missions. Seems to me a more economical tactic would be speedy missiles of cruise or ballistic variety - recoverable or one time use.
Somehow, folks nowadays are getting hung up on this "need for speed"/hypersonic stuff. Yeah, we could develop a handful of systems at a huge cost, and then what?
The Blackbirds of yore served their purpose very well. Just a handful. Then the satellite systems evolved and we didn't need hundreds of them to gather the intell, nor a hundred SR's. Bye bye Blackbird.
Gums opines...
The following users liked this post:
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
What you are looking at is global bombardment launch platforms which can launch hypersonic stand-off missiles against targets within their OODA Loop cycle before they can be used or moved after detection.
The B-52 is great as a trials platform, but its way to slow to get a hypersonic missile into trans-pacific launch range in a wartime environment. You want to launch from ground alert and get to the launch point in minutes, not hours.
Launching via an IRBM/ICBM is possible, but could be confused with a first-strike/decapitation strike.
The enemy knowing you have a hypersonic bomber, launching conventional hypersonic missiles, lessens that risk of confusion.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58924
The B-52 is great as a trials platform, but its way to slow to get a hypersonic missile into trans-pacific launch range in a wartime environment. You want to launch from ground alert and get to the launch point in minutes, not hours.
Launching via an IRBM/ICBM is possible, but could be confused with a first-strike/decapitation strike.
The enemy knowing you have a hypersonic bomber, launching conventional hypersonic missiles, lessens that risk of confusion.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58924
Last edited by ORAC; 13th May 2024 at 05:58. Reason: Sp
The following users liked this post:
Innocent looking transport aircraft seem to be the new bombers. They can just drop a pallet from the tail ramp and launch anything these days.
"Launching via an IRBM/ICBM is possible, but could be confused with a first-strike/decapitation strike."
Surely the same applies to a hypersonic bomber? You get round it by only launching one aircraft I guess - but then you could do the same with an IRBM.
And targets? We're presumably talking about terrorist targets here? Firing at any major countries armed forces is a quick way to risk a very hot and very short war.
It seems a vast amount of cash will be spent for relatively little actual operational gain. But hey, we couldn't afford the Valkyrie - I doubt we can afford a hypersonic bomber
Surely the same applies to a hypersonic bomber? You get round it by only launching one aircraft I guess - but then you could do the same with an IRBM.
And targets? We're presumably talking about terrorist targets here? Firing at any major countries armed forces is a quick way to risk a very hot and very short war.
It seems a vast amount of cash will be spent for relatively little actual operational gain. But hey, we couldn't afford the Valkyrie - I doubt we can afford a hypersonic bomber
"Launching via an IRBM/ICBM is possible, but could be confused with a first-strike/decapitation strike."
Surely the same applies to a hypersonic bomber? You get round it by only launching one aircraft I guess - but then you could do the same with an IRBM.
And targets? We're presumably talking about terrorist targets here? Firing at any major countries armed forces is a quick way to risk a very hot and very short war.
It seems a vast amount of cash will be spent for relatively little actual operational gain. But hey, we couldn't afford the Valkyrie - I doubt we can afford a hypersonic bomber
Surely the same applies to a hypersonic bomber? You get round it by only launching one aircraft I guess - but then you could do the same with an IRBM.
And targets? We're presumably talking about terrorist targets here? Firing at any major countries armed forces is a quick way to risk a very hot and very short war.
It seems a vast amount of cash will be spent for relatively little actual operational gain. But hey, we couldn't afford the Valkyrie - I doubt we can afford a hypersonic bomber
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
The B-70 wasn’t cancelled because of cost, but because of the advent of the SAM-2 which made a high-level manned gravity bomber obsolete.
SAC got around the problem by switching the B-52 to a low-level penetration profile, but the B-70 was totally unsuitable for low level., being designed for M3+ “wave riding”.
M10+ and ECM puts a platform outside the envelope of most SAM and stand-off missiles such as HALO, HACM and ARRW mean they won’t get in range of them.
The unmanned penetrating ISR role seems risky, but presumably is a fall-back option if the increasing number of LEO ISR constellations become vulnerable to attack.
SAC got around the problem by switching the B-52 to a low-level penetration profile, but the B-70 was totally unsuitable for low level., being designed for M3+ “wave riding”.
M10+ and ECM puts a platform outside the envelope of most SAM and stand-off missiles such as HALO, HACM and ARRW mean they won’t get in range of them.
The unmanned penetrating ISR role seems risky, but presumably is a fall-back option if the increasing number of LEO ISR constellations become vulnerable to attack.
Last edited by ORAC; 14th May 2024 at 07:50. Reason: Sp
The following users liked this post:
"M10+ and ECM puts a platform outside the envelope of mos5 SAM and stand missiles such as HALO, HACM and ARRW mean they won’t get in range of them."
I'll bet its cheaper to build a new SAM that the beast illustrated above
I'll bet its cheaper to build a new SAM that the beast illustrated above
"Whose the we in we?"
We who contribute to this learn-ed site of course. Everyone with a brain the size of half a planet.....................
We who contribute to this learn-ed site of course. Everyone with a brain the size of half a planet.....................
I would be delighted if this was Reaction Engines' chance with their SABRE engine but probably not! At least AFRL has done work with them so whatever happens it won't be for lack of knowing.
Are you planning on passing the collection basket around here on pprune? If so, I need two new tires. The US was capable of fielding the B70 bomber. As ORAC pointed out, evolution of battlefield not limitation of the purse doomed it.
https://aviationweek.com/shownews/fa...onstrator-plan
As for who is "we", ^^ this was started in 2022 so IMO it's not as if the UK has 0 irons in the fire. I just haven't heard anything about it since then so it's either a flop or the successes are very very secret :-).
As for who is "we", ^^ this was started in 2022 so IMO it's not as if the UK has 0 irons in the fire. I just haven't heard anything about it since then so it's either a flop or the successes are very very secret :-).
The following users liked this post:
If you have skin in the game, as in you're cutting a check to the IRS, fine. If however you think buying an IPhone means you are supporting the US’s ability to fund the B70 V2.0, I have news for you. Also have some ocean front property in Arizona if you’re interested.
If you have skin in the game, as in you're cutting a check to the IRS, fine. If however you think buying an IPhone means you are supporting the US’s ability to fund the B70 V2.0, I have news for you. Also have some ocean front property in Arizona if you’re interested.