Reaction Engines, Rolls-Royce, the Royal Air Force’s Rapid Capabilities Office (RCO), the UK Government’s Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) and the UK’s National Security Strategic Investment Fund (NSSIF) have announced new details of their joint programme to deliver significant hypersonic technologies.
The Hypersonic Air Vehicle Experimental (HVX) Programme aims to “establish the UK as a leader in reusable hypersonic air systems”.
The military value of “hypersonics” has increased considerably over the last decade with developments evolving in the United States, Russia, and China. Hypersonic speeds sit between supersonic and high-supersonic and require specially-designed vehicles. Examples include the American Boeing X-51 “Waverider” test aircraft and the Chinese DF-ZF glide vehicle.
Britain is to build an experimental 'Hypersonic Air Vehicle'. Rolls-Royce say that the 'Hypersonic Air Vehicle Experimental' (HVX) programme aims to "establish the UK as a leader in reusable hypersonic air systems". A single-engine hypersonic concept vehicle was unveiled today. pic.twitter.com/9XsnsaCRS6
— George Allison (@geoallison) July 18, 2022
According to Rolls-Royce:
“Supported by funding from NSSIF, a project team has been established to rapidly develop critical high-Mach/hypersonic technologies, including novel air-breathing propulsion architectures, innovative thermal management systems and advanced vehicle concepts. In addition, a full-scale experimental engine test campaign has now commenced.
HVX’s immediate objective is to rapidly mature technologies which can deliver a step-change reduction in the cost of developing a reusable high-Mach/hypersonic air vehicle. Reaction Engines’ novel precooler and SABRE combined-cycle engine technologies are key foundations for the Programme. In combination with Rolls-Royce’s world-beating gas turbine technology, this brings a formidable capability to take on the challenging problems inherent with hypersonic flight.”
Most notably, the programme is undertaking design work on experimental hypersonic vehicle concepts.
At the Farnborough International Air Show, a single engine hypersonic concept vehicle – “Concept V” was unveiled. This example vehicle is one of a number of concept designs in active development by the Programme.
“It is expected that the HVX Programme will be expanded to include other leading aerospace companies to ensure that additional expertise is deployed to support the delivery of this breakthrough technology. The Programme also aims to ensure that the technologies developed can be utilised by other high Mach/hypersonic applications, having synergy with space access and rapid point-to-point transportation.”
Air Vice-Marshal Linc Taylor, Chief of Staff Air Capability, Royal Air Force, said:
“This activity presents a unique opportunity to experiment with pioneering UK technology to inform the art of the possible and challenge traditional views on the cost and time associated with development and fielding of high-Mach platforms. This partnership benefits from a series of aligned initiatives, integrating world class skills and technologies on a series of near-term experimentations to inform our future capability planning.”
Mark Thomas, Chief Executive of Reaction Engines, said:
“Reaction Engines is excited to be leading this ambitious, future-focused, programme with the Rapid Capabilities Office and Strategic Partners, bringing together the best of the best in technology, talent and innovation, to provide the UK with a unique capability in reusable hypersonic systems”
John Wardell, Director Future Programmes, of Rolls-Royce, said:
“This collaboration will enable Rolls-Royce to work effectively alongside Reaction Engines and our strategic partners to develop innovative and cutting-edge technologies that will provide our customers with the equipment needed to meet their military requirements. The HVX Programme will bring together an unique opportunity to raise the UK’s profile in our ability to develop both the skills and technology in the fast evolving area.”
Steve Simm, Air Systems Programme Manager of Dstl, said:
“Dstl is pleased to be involved in this exciting project, through three main aspects: use of MOD research funding to understand potential air system concepts and their feasibility; exploring potential operational utility of these concepts; maximising exploitation of the wider S&T Portfolio, such as the Hypersonics Weapons Research Programme.”
Son of TSR2. Book me a ticket !
Don’t mention TSR2, I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it !
I’m thinking resurrection ….no stopping the UK now…😊l
until the yanks stick their oar in again …and they will.
The past has proven it isn’t the US that scuppers our novel tech it is the French. If we get to a matured version, in they’ll come with a joint project offer and lots of promises then delay, delay, delay further investment while they learn all about our unique IP. See Taranis!
I have also been known to mention the”T” John-that was the one that the Lightning could barely keep up with was it not?
Hi Geoff, it certainly was. The one and only time XR219 went supersonic on its transfer flight to Warton, the late great Roland Beamount lit one afterburner and left ( the equally great) Jimmy Dell in his wake following on behind in the chaise Lighting T4!
Certainly on subsonic trials low over the Pennines , the Lighting would virtually be shaking apart at the seams trying to keep up with TSR2 as it sank into the valleys down to 50 feet at high subsonic speeds.
..and Beamount said she was rock steady or words to that effect. Wilson destroyed the British aircraft industry, not with malice I am sure but destroyed nevertheless. I believe Farnborough is on or just finishing? From dominating the show in the 50’s and early 60’s there cannot be a single British Aircraft on display! We invented Jet engines, swing wings and VTOL combat aircraft along with a host of other technical firsts-what went wrong??
Money. Basically, 1945 end of war and simpler propeller aircraft and first generation jets are just starting. The costs of making planes from 1945 to 1960 got much more expensive and costs were only going to get higher.
Then America cuts off the access to nuclear tech. So there was that to pay for at any cost.
It should of been done much better. The view of we can buy better cheaper tech from allies didn’t help either.
Also lots of other things contributed to the situation.
To be sure Geoff, Wilson is often portrayed as the bogyman, but he inherited a perfect storm of economic problems.
Cancellation of TSR2 and the P1154 were the two headline cuts, both would have been highly technically complex and extremely expensive to complete development of, bring into service and operate.
It’s a tremendous shame that both weren’t (at the very least) been allowed to carry on as technology demonstrators.
The reality is we couldn’t afford them and with a focus on the early 1970’s, the Jaguar, Harrier and Buccaneer were at least affordable in the numbers needed.
The F4K was a ‘clear’ mistake and license manufacture of the F4D by BAC, with some UK avionics, should have been pursued instead in my opinion.
TSR2 fed a great deal of knowhow into Concorde with regards to materials and propulsion.
The AFVGA fed directly into Tornado, UK work on wing pivot technology and materials proved vital for that project.
So the UK still substantially contributed, despite the considerable destruction of the industry.
Tempest could really be the phoenix rising from the ashes….
Morning John. Thanks for your post-agree with what you say. The RAF/RN modified Phantoms were called the thirstiest, slowest, most expensive F4’s of the lot! The swing wing of course featured on the F111 and some Soviet aircraft but seems to have disappeared on modern fighter jets. My biggest regret-even more than T***😆 was the Supersonic Harrier. Plagued as it was with issues at the time it would have been a world beater especially on the flat tops of the many Navies that could not operate conventional carriers.
Here’s to Tempest and let us hope…!
psI still get a twinge when i see pics/videos of Trident, BAC 111, HS 146 etc. Another mistake was selling our share in Airbus-leaves us vulnerable as partners with no shareholding and thus diminished say.
Whilst we are off down memory lane Geoff, I remember going on a business trip to Germany in 1985 one of the last Tridents and a BAC 111 on the way back …. Happy days.
Re the P1154, considering the first prototype was at an advanced stage of construction and the BS100 engine was potentially flight ready, it’s a crying shame HS didn’t use company funds to push it through to the technology demonstrator stage. A great missed opportunity.
It could have led to a Supersonic Harrier in the late 70’s.
Memory lane indeed John. I used to fly to Belfast on a Viscount in the 1950’s and came to Africa in 1961 on a Douglas DC-7C!
And there was the swing wing large bomber from the 50s that ‘contributed’ to the F-111. Just not a legal contribution.
Rolls Royce just flew there all electronic plane and then there’s zephyr breaking world records whenever it fly’s, obviously reaction engines with its design. We are still on the top table when it comes to r&d it’s just there’s a short sighted plan to sell it off at the first available bidder. We need more government support in industry to keep these designs British
The air equivalent of saying AJ**..couldnt bring myself to say it
Oh no you didn’t!
🤣🤣
I did as well, Then ticket got canceled due to stupidity. But the Tech moved on.
Why oh*why did you have to mention TRS2 if this works it will be s**per its now hexed, opposition parties don’t like UK world beaters.
If at first you don’t succeed 😉
Will this Research feed into Tempest? The power plant alone will be needed for future hypersonic airplanes. Also we do not know what Tempest will look like – we only have a concept model. This research may well inform the shape and performance of fast planes…
I’m assuming when they say air vehicle they mean a missile rather than an aircraft, but hard to tell from the statement
Or UAV as they refer to”reusable”
Ah could be, would make sense to create a test/target drone to help test defensive capabilities against them.
Indeed ‘reusable’ so not as presently envisaged a focus on missiles which don’t have to worry much about the very factors that the pr cooler technology is best at solving ie high speed without damaging or wearing out the engine. That said long range high speed missiles would likely benefit from it potentially but not the immediate emphasis it will be a by product.
As for Tempest it is inevitable it will be desirable by everyone for it to be fed into the program it and loyal wingmen are the only projects presently available to exploit it really, and as such RR and Reaction Engines will be working closely with Bae on what elements affecting them directly and the overall design concept, firstly can be met within the desired timescale thus affecting those design choices in both engine and airframe and/or what would need to be considered now for future implication. Tempest isn’t going to aim for hypersonic speeds however let’s get that straight, but this tech will determine what level of high supersonic speed and super cruise it will aim for no doubt so it’s not pushing the barriers into a massive leap in aerodynamics and materials that the high end of this tech will likely lead to eventually that these hypersonic concepts are exploring and visualising.
Progress in the tests just starting in the US on true flight worthy versions of the pre-cooler technology will inevitably feed into those decisions on Tempest however and presumably they will be getting early feed back within months on reliability of the pre cooler tech and proof of concept at realistic speeds up to 4000mph.
If we accept that Tempest won’t be hypersonic then there are considerable scant ages in better engine cooling:
Power density
Fuel efficiency -> range + speed
Lower thermal footprint
So yes, it might not be a hypersonic but there is no reason why the tech isn’t useful for Tempest?
If Reaction Engines’ tech is going to be exploited then it pretty much commits you to using cryogenic hydrogen as fuel- because that’s what provides the heat sink.
Let’s see.
It may start that way and develop in other easier to implement directions?
The current model of Tempest would not be capable aerodynamically of attaining or surviving hypersonic speeds. Its current planform shape is good for Mach 2 plus, it would struggle to reach speeds faster than Mach 2.5. In basic terms, it is too short and dumpy.
I hate to say it, but there is a good example in the new Top Gun Movie, that showed the Lockheed Martin Darkstar “prototype” aircraft, which would be a good starter to look a, for a hypersonic aircraft, i.e. long body and short wings placed towards the rear of the aircraft. Though having a more rounded and flatter nose, rather than a pointed one, would be more beneficial. As that can help to mitigate the localised heating, through active cooling, better than a point.
Before anyone suggests it, the original YF23 shape would have been good up to Mach 2.5 and probably nudging 2.7. Typhoon, would struggle to get past 2.3. Though you could do more with the YF23’s shape to get it closer to Mach 3 compared to Typhoon.
Didnt the yanks try something like what you are describing with the Starfighter F104 and look how that worked out? So good they kept it from service in Vietnam.
Not really. The Starfighter was a 1950s design, that the area rule was not really known about or understood. It was Lockheed’s effort to beat the other US manufacturers to a Mach 2 fighter. Their design team found the biggest engine and married it to a really snug airframe, with the lowest amount of supersonic drag, i.e. tiny stubby wings. However, it was a massive compromise, as the wings had a very high stalling speed close to 200mph, the undercarriage was really narrow, which caused numerous accidents when landing. It was effectively a manned missile. By coincidence, the stubby wings managed to make the aircraft conform to the area rule by happenstance.
The USAF hated the aircraft. It was too dangerous to fly for inexperienced pilots. The aircraft wasn’t nicknamed the widowmaker for nothing. Best not mention Lockheed’s massive bribes to the German and Italian defence ministers. Which helped kill off Shorts dual engined rocket-turbojet SR-177.
With Reaction Engines on board you should probably look at their Skylon single stage to orbit space plane for the sort of thing they are likely working on.
A hypersonic drone aircraft has been spoken about as being a intermediary step to skylon for years.
Rolls Royce have done a lot of work in being able to scale up or down engine designs which could feed in this program. So the engines use on this vehicle might be easily scaled up to Skylon size. If that the case and they prove that they have solve some of the their heating issues with the drone, then potentially will they will need after this vehicle flies is a partner with deep pockets to finance the construction of Skylon.
Their doing the concept work for a range of aircraft sizes, not just a fighter size. A fighter size aircraft may serve as a demonstrator for larger civil or military aircraft.
manned hypersonic aircraft are not really going to be a thing unless you want to go pretty much in a strait line, even unmanned platforms are going to be very much limited in there ability to manoeuvre, physics is the killer, a manoeuvring hypersonic platform will be exerting upwards of 50 gravities which is around 41 more than a human body can take before your no longer aware and around 35 more than even the best airframes can manage..
To have a better understanding on the limitations placed on an aircraft travelling faster than Mach 3, it would be best to look at the performance of the SR-71 Blackbird.
On missions it generally cruised at around 75,000ft at a published speed of Mach 3.2. When it was threatened it would climb above 80,000ft and accelerate. Some accounts said it went up to Mach 3.5. When going this fast its turning radius was huge, we are talking tens of miles. Plus as you alluded to the induced g loading at those speeds meant turns could not be aggressive, but were smooth and gradual. Besides which, the SR-71’s airframe, was not built for high manoeuvrability and would not have been capable of sustaining high g loaded turns.
An aircraft that is designed to fly faster than the SR-71 and into the realms of hypersonic flight. Will be even worse in regards to its turning radius. But that will also be dependent of the size of the aircraft and how rugged it has been built. It would be more than doable to create an aircraft that would be as manoeuvrable as a standard fighter at lower speeds, yet could cruise at a high Mach number, that could then accelerate to do a hypersonic dash for a short period, either flying towards a target, or trying to escape an anti-aircraft missile. But the caveat would be, that the aircraft would be pretty much straight lines only at these speeds, with very shallow and gradual turns.
No it’s likely to be for tempest successor. Rolls Royce had already outlined the engine concepts for Tempest.
I could be wrong but I suspect that aspects of the pre cooler technology at some stage will be incorporated into these new RR engines however first the pre cooler needs to complete its tests and reliability achieved but I guarantee that RR has/is examining the options as reducing the temperature entering the engine offers great advantages in terms of compressing that air, the materials involved and general reliability leading to higher speed ( or maintaining it) potential with less overall engine complexity. The balance of course will be the extra potential weight esp if you don’t take advantage of it to reduce the weight elsewhere in the engine with the lower temperature requirements. So initially the engine project won’t take advantage I suspect but I’m certain that RR has/is designing it so that as it’s developed it is very much capable of doing so. Unlike Sabre it’s not an all or nothing choice they can be complimentary in traditional jet engines especially if you take account of the technology implications while designing your engine over adding it to a modified existing engine.
While the engines may be upgradable the Tempest airframe won’t be. If hypersonic speeds is not designed in now it won’t be available on a future version of tempest.
I don’t think @ SIS was implying Tempest would be hypersonic but more thrust and power is always useful as it only increases the operation envelope.
There isn’t a requirement for Tempest to be hypersonic.
Those engine concepts have Reaction engines technology built into them.
Hypersonic UCAV I think, but engine work will also feed into hypersonic missiles I suspect.
This project will require some international partnerships to ensure its survival? It’s so sad that such programmes need outside input but without it, the budget knife is so easily plunged. I don’t trust single-state projects after the TSR2 debacle and thank God Tempest is now a multi-national programme.
Well said. The military would love to have hypersonic toys but with the National Debt at £2.7 TRILLION, billlions of pounds worth of MoD cock-ups to pay for, inflation at 11% and rising and interest rates rapidy rising the incoming Labour government will have to scrap it.
The tradional way the MoD scraps projects is to wait until half a billion of taxpayers money has been spent, then call it a “SDSR”
“incoming Labour government” 😂🤣😂
I’ll have what’ve drink you’re having thanks!!
Do you honestly think the Conservatives are going to stay in power for long?
They didn’t win the popular vote in 2019, and now after all the lies, ingorance, and general lack of respect and empathy, you think they will remain in power?!
Yet again the Conservatives have left a mess for others to clean up.
Parliament is elected using first past the post using geographically defined constituencies. Your ‘popular vote’ claims are irrelevant.
The latter days of the Boris administration have tarnished the successes of Brexit, the vaccine investment and rollout programme, and first to support Ukraine militarily.
But while there’s many faults and flaws in the governing party, they are the only party with credible polices and credible people. For their many faults the opposition are a joke.
Does David Lamy still claim that London Fire Brigade are covering up hundreds dying at Grenfell? Has Diane Abbot yet mastered putting the correct shoes on her feet? The list goes on…
Anyone who doesn’t know what a woman is doesn’t deserve your vote echSirKierStarmerrrr ch ch
Yes, I am well aware of that the UK uses FPTP. I don’t know why you though the need to ‘educate’ me on that. That’s incredibly condescending of you.
So why did I mention it? Because it shows that a lot of the country, a majority even, do not support the Conservative Party and therefore do not support Johnson. And that was the point no? How popular they are as that affects how people vote.
I think you do not understand quite how revolted and angry people are with Johnson and the Conservatives. Perhaps before 2016 or even 2019 I might have at least considered them. Now I can never see myself voting for them ever again in my life.
You seem to think that the Conservatives have some sort of right to govern and no one else. That’s disgusting.
Anyway, back to defence. The Conservatives have been in power for 12 years now, and it is they who have overseen terrible cuts to the armed forces. Dangerous even. Not Labour. Not the Liberal Democrats for the last 7 years, not the SNP or the Greens (as off the rocker the latter two are).
If your didn’t say stupid things I couldn’t be condescending to you in the first place 🤷🏻♂️
You may be aware the U.K. uses FPTP but you obviously don’t understand the consequences and instead fall back on your meaningless “popular vote” theory. I’m pretty sure Trump tried the “popular vote” theory to claim he beat Biden too.
Only losers quote “popular votes”.
The Tories got an 80 seat majority at the last general election, and if boundary commission recommendations go ahead (it currently takes more votes to elect a Tory MP than a Socialist MP due to unequal constituency sizes) then they could even increase that number.
Yes I’m sure among your champagne swilling, middle-class Remoaner friends there’s abject horror at the Tories appealing to the great unwashed working-class.
But the majority of the population are pleased Brexit is done and dusted and that being outside the EU we were able to get vaccines faster than those still imprisoned within it.
You score zero on telepathy too. I’ve no love for the Tories, their incompetence and corruption is only exceeded by that of the Labour Party. When adding in the inherent failure of socialist ideology then Labour become even more unelectable.
The Lib Dems have occasionally flirted with being electable, but with their renouncing of democracy to try and stop Brexit has now ruled them out.
The Tories made cuts because when they took power in 2010 after Labour’s financial crash, Labour had “run out of money” – as their departing note stated.
In fact, Labour’s plans, had they retained power after crashing the economy would have seen even greater austerity and even greater cuts to Defence. Thankfully Defence spending is in the up again, whereas under Labour it would have continued to decline. In fact, had Labour had won at the last election, Comrade Corbyn would have had our SSBNs on patrol without any warheads on the missiles 🤦🏻♂️ And you can bet the Dreadnought programme would’ve been immediately killed off.
4 ( to be 5 ) Frigates cut under Conservatives. 12 under Labour. Planned increase after.
4 Fast Jet Squadrons cut under Conservatives ( plus the GR4 force and raising new Typhoon units to cover with less aircraft…so say in effect 7 squadrons.
Labour cut 11.
SSN down from mid teens to 8 under Labour. Now will be 7.
Conventional kit across the board cut, cancelled or paused under Labour, leaving the Army in its current mess.
All the Harrier force and the Sea Harrier force bar No 1 Sqn RAF and 20R Sqn cut by Labour, while closing their base.
Aircraft Carrier build slowed down. Had a lovely chat with another dyed in the wood Labour chap other day who refused to accept that and had a minor melt down at me for correcting him.
Army cuts too numerous to mention but if you want me to list them I can.
Yes, they cut too!
Johnson Beharry was so peeved with G Brown he refused to shake his hand.
I posted this to you on another article Tams but no response so having another go.
Yes, the Tories have made defence cuts, bloody useless. The planned Herc one shortly pisses me off.
But to say “not Labour” is quite frankly cobblers because the mass in the RN/RAF was actually reduced in Labours time 97-2010.
The Tories just made it worse.
No she’s still learning to count to 2
Boris sacked for not wanting to admit he made mistakes.
Still waiting for Starmer to apologise for the mistakes made at CPS over not prosecuting Jimmy Saville when he was in charge…
Maybes they have decided to follow the way Labour do things and leave the country in such a state when you leave power you are guaranteed the opposition will only get 1 term in.
Thanks David, Yes, it’s a sad state of affairs when the only way to save key national defence programmes is to broaden the partnerships internationally. I would not trust the treasury to deliver a carton of milk!
The vexed question of defence over health will become an issue before long and with Russia and China stirring the pot we simply can’t cut defence with abandon. Some say that Russia is a spent force….Hitler hoped they would be having launch Arbarossa! I’m not in the camp that says, Russia is in deep doo doo militarily. Unlike the UK, it will spend every last Ruble on defending the Mother Land regardless of the social depravations.
Yes very small economy but rather large surplus thx to being essentially a mineral/gas/petroleum exporter as opposed to massive debts in the UK and US amongst others. Forcing his people to accept Soviet like conditions if he can get away with convincing them its a National security necessity that demands loyalty ( and a big price for those who don’t give it) actually gives him an advantage by reducing demand for the goods we all take for granted or get the basics from China in exchange for those products. Some might say putting all your eggs in one basket is short sighted mind.
As you say it appears to be nicely networked, hence greater stability for the future. This development is going to be pivotal in the advanced world of manned and unmanned flight.
On the issue of Russian objectives for the future, we simply don’t know. We can make educated guesses and in many cases get it right. A stronger compact between China and Russia would spell danger for the West, but I feel it will only strengthen if China flexes its muscles over Tywain and draws international sanctions. Such an international response could (on paper) result in a closer bond between the two powers. Such a scenario could prove costly for the west, which still relies heavily on China, and denial of goods works both ways in their destructive fiscal outcomes. The plain truth, the West may have to pay disproportional defence expenditure at the same time depriving some social commitments?
We do know how they are financing this war and that is through the sale of fossil fuels. An that one thing we have the technology and know how to end in the next 10 years. An Russia will need at least that long to recover from Ukraine.
High inflation is great for debt. In the same way it eats savings it consumes debts – no highly indebted country is going to drive down inflation. Its fundamentally a stealth tax to pay for profligate spending with reasonable deniability.
Please check your facts 2.34 trillion and 9.4% inflation, the latter will shortly begin to fall.
They can always sell/give a prototype to Russia. What would Russia call their version of the fighter they putitin ; the PIG 15. Like with the early jet engine, Labour gave. You know, to ensure a level playing field type for our brothers, kind of thinking.
If you scrap it you are almost doing the same gift to our adversaries.
Sadly true and as we already know the US is heavily involved in the project at both Govt sponsorship and industrial level. So yes they will inevitably be the major market for it so one hopes the deal(s) agreed at all levels will truly be beneficial to the UK. I suspect the AUKUS agreement recently announced is taking this tech along with the full blown Sabre tech itself into consideration. Indeed I’m sure with Japan and RR building a joint engine for their project (whether it is combined with Tempest or not) they too will be looking to exploit this technology. As such one can see why there is a strong impetus due to engine related aerodynamic considerations that Bae/RR are already working with them on for their new engine/airframe combo, should essentially become a single project or at least very close to that ideal.
Or we take a leaf out china’s book and go on a hacking spree.
btw it doesn’t matter if its single state or multistate, Germans played havoc with the Typhoon program.
UK’s problem is defence is at the whim of the next government, instead it should be more like the BoE given parameters to work in, given budget and be held to account if it goes outside the parameters. MoD should be encouraged to build products not bespoke kit, we’ve waist so many opportunities to create world beating export kit because of MoD whims, then ended up cancelling and buying of the shelf from elsewhere.
There needs to be joined up funding/thinking with BERR and DIUS on RnD that can be dual use not drain the defence budget.
There is a greater chance a shared programme will survive even if greatly strained as in the Typhoon/German example. Embarrassing members with threats of withdrawal is a painful process and less likely under joint mandates. As long as the fiscal ball is in Whitehall’s court projects proceed under Damoclesian conditions.
It would be good to see a Rapid reaction engine on a flying object, even if to only to see how it performs in flight. I do have a question though how would a pilot withstand hypersonic speeds with a 7-9g manouver.
I don’t think the aircraft in question is intended to be manned.
Hi Ron,
I think to a certain extent it has already been done. Space Shuttle would have been doing hypersonic speeds and pulling big g’s on re-entry.
Besides its the g number that matters. 7g at 0.9M is the same as 7g at 4M assuming the heat shields are working OK…
Cheers CR
Ron,
it would be exactly the same a 7-9g manoeuvre is a 7-9g at all speeds.
Speed and rate of turn give the multiple g effect, if the turn rate is maintained and you increase the speed you increase the g. Humans will pass out in seconds above 10g without compression suits, even with a suit you won’t be conscious for long. Ultimately though to pull a high AOA on the wings at supersonic speeds is asking for structural damage more than anything else.
In the long run if we want manned hypersonic aircraft the pilot protection will also have to increase too, look at the number of people to survive a supersonic ejection it’s a low percentage who have even for the low number off attempts.
Enjoy the sun
As per usual CRs explanation is easier to understand
Thanks Longtime, but yours was more comprehensive and reminded me of stuff I hadn’t thought of..!
The high angle of attack point is particularly pertinent to a space plane and the re-entry conditions. Putting the engines close or on the wind tips as the RE design does is a great way to reduce the bending loads on the wings but does nothing for the thermal stresses. Heat shielding and cooling for the structure and fuel feed system will be a tough nut to crack without pushing the weight. I’m sure the RE guys and modern materials will have something up their sleeves. Actually while I think about Roll Royce were actively cool turbine blades in the late 80’s…
Been a long time since I had anything to do with aircraft – sadly.
Cheers CR
Glad I could stir the grey matter.
Listening to an airline pilot discuss RE designs so far, he speculated that at higher altitudes the big limiting factors will be thermal, although he suggested they could be mutual opposites if the fuel tanks were towards the rear of the wing, the fuel would then cool in flight, then use the fuel piping to cool the leading edge. Apparently similar was used on concord to manage fuel temps. BUT he was in full excited pilot mode at the prospect of faster planes.
I don’t get to play with the planes as much as I’d like anymore.
Cheers
They did the same on the SR-71 Blackbird. Fuel was piped along the aircraft’s chines, before being fed back into the engines. This allowed the skin temperature to stay around 300C when cruising at Mach 3.2. The skin was made of titanium alloy mind.
Hypersonic test vehicles have also used active cooling. Where the fuel is used as the cooling medium. Reaction Engines did propose on their spaceplane using active cooling. Though their graphic did not show if this was part of the pre-cooler’s cryogenic cooling or using a separate cooling circuit. They also included separated skin barriers and carbon-carbon skin materials in leading edges. To cope with the heat on re-entry and the hypersonic ascent.
Today’s material technology means that it is easier to construct an aircraft that can fly with sustained skin temperatures between 500 and 1000C. Over 1000C it gets really expensive, but it is doable up to 2000C now.
Interesting read cheers Davey. Going off for some in-depth reading into it now.
Wouldn’t a 8g turn of 90 degrees at mach 1 take much less time and cover much less distance than a 8g turn of 90 degrees at mach 3? So are these two 5g turns really the same?
I agree it would be different, but wouldn’t it be the opposite effect? Treble the velocity and you have to multiply distance travelled by nine to keep the same acceleration. For circular motion a= v^2/r, whereas time goes with r/v. So I think it would take longer at higher speed.
Imagine taking a 90 degree turn in a car going at 10 miles an hour. Takes a few seconds. Simples. Now imagine doing it at 90 miles an hour. Not so simples. You need a massive turning circle to avoid your car leaving the road.
I’m describing it regards to g and g only of course distance travelled changes with speed but as I said above speed and rate of turn give you the effect of G.
Yes the circumference of the turn would be different.
Looking at G only an 8g turn is an 8g turn
I had a feeling that a hypersonic plane/drone would be the end result of RE’s work, rather than a space plane.
Still have my fingers crossed for a SSTO vehicle though.
Hi Rob,
I don’t think it will be the end result of RE’s efforts. They have clearly taken a very sensible step by step approach to the development of their engine and space plane concepts. They have also been flexible in identifying where the money is to maintain momentum, although they have stayed surprisingly loyal to the UK.
The other thing they have going for them is Rolls Royce. That is one well run company to remain an independent engine builder and not only hold their own but expand their market share in the 1990’s and early 00’s and then hold on to it…
It should be remembered that the hypersonics very much lend themselves to very high altitude flight, edge of space stuff. So building a drone fitted with a fully functioning RE engine to the edge of space will be a BIG step towards a SSTO space plane.
Provided this doesn’t get cut then I think we’ll see the UK moving back into space flight in a big way, possibly with international partners.
Cheers CR
Inevitable I think, it’s going to be tough to make a single stage to orbit, especially from a horizontal take off feasible let alone financially viable with the costs that SpaceX and others will ostensibly at least, be offering. Technologically it is also daunting and at best take potentially decades to achieve. It has potential efficiency advantages as well as practical and safety ones but the incredible efficiency promised by the Sabre engine ( far better than pure jets, scram jets and rockets) has to also overcome the extra weight and aerodynamic drag. If such a vehicle ends up adding weight and/ or the engines are not quite as efficient or light as proposed the proposed single stage to orbit becomes less viable and at best the payload which earns the money is reduced.
However it seems that the pre cooler is the secret to this engine’s potential to overcome this and thus if present and future tests prove it’s potential and reliability the major hurdle will be surmounted. However Sabre will need to propel a Skylon type vehicle to Mach 5+ pushing the limits of the pre cooler whereas present tests take it to the equivalent to Mach 4 which is overkill for most jet engine projects. So these are clearly the intermediate stage to a Sabre engine and will equally help to perfect that engine over time. The good news is that once the pre cooler proves it self at Mach 3 or 4 equivalence this year into next, it will be possible to use it with a sample Sabre core and test it just as the pre cooler is being tested, on the ground just like a jet engine which means progress might well be pretty quick once that stage is reached by proving the pre cooler itself at high speed in representative conditions. But even Sabre will likely be used for very high altitude applications before it becomes used as a single stage to orbit engine.
That’s because the vehicle to do so might actually be the bigger challenge in the end because of weight aerodynamic and technical/reliability challenges, it’s why a high atmospheric precursor makes sense to test viability of the package in a safer environment. This proposed hypersonic testbed might even be such a precursor study. As things stand Skylon proposes having no specific heat shield hoping that stainless steel and a less dramatic re entry trajectory than say Starship precludes the need for it. You can imagine the implications if such faith proved not to be the case in terms of weight and safety margin but would be a massive advantage if it was proved successful. Which again is why initially another interim proposal by Reaction Engines in terms of a Space Plane is to fly at high edge of space altitude then launch an intermediate stage to take the payload to orbit, a sort of super Virgin process, a far less testing regime potentially. Again you can see how these concepts and the present hypersonic testbed announced here may tie in longer term. In the end however I see this as Britain trying to buy itself a place at the table with the US if anything of this nature were to literally take off beyond the initial stages. At least it shows a true vision to achieve that.
Starship was initially hoping to use fuel bleed to cool itself during re-entry rather than heat shielding.
I see Skylon (or whatever) more as a crew delivery vehicle taking small numbers to low earth orbit economically and Starship more of a “heavy hauler” carrying larger numbers or freight. Also onward ofc.
A high altitude, high speed reconnaissance plane/drone would be useful though in the shorter term. Satellites are great, but their orbits are highly predictable.
Its interesting that aerodynamics is still so problematic.
I remember reading in the late 90s during my A-levels an article in New Scientist entitled: forget aerodynamics anything can fly.
The premise was that you create charged plasma ahead of you with concentrated beams of microwaves (I believe) then direct it using magnets.
If we can keep plasma at 100m degreesK under reasonable control using high temp superconducting magnets (and we can), why can’t we do the same on an aircraft at a few thousand?
At high mach speeds I expect you’ll create a plasma anyway, so why not steer and accelerate it electro-magnetically and keep the heat away from the body in the first place?
The problem is power. How do you not only fit and cover an aircraft in electromagnets, but how to you power them? Weight will be a major issue. In a Tokamak for instance, you require humongous amounts of current to drive the magnets, used to control the plasma. How would you do that on an aircraft?
At hypersonic speeds the plasma generation around a flying body is dependent on a number of variables, such as speed, air pressure, humidity, air temperature, the shape of the body, the materials it is constructed with and the body’s temperature. These factors will determine how and when the electron is stripped away to form the ionized state. For a body flying at hypersonic speeds at lower altitudes, plasma generation will happen sooner than at higher altitudes. Hypersonic air behaves differently to supersonic air. The shockwaves are significantly stronger. Which means you can get away with less wing area to generate lift, as a lifting body and small stubby wings can generate sufficient lift.
However, the air friction at Mach 5 on leading edges in particular will hit 1000C. Which will be the first areas to generate plasma. If memory serves the plasma forms on the outside of the shockwave. But if you generate a strong enough opposing charge/force, you can push the plasma away or manipulate it. You will have very high energy air from the shockwave interacting with the body/wings to generate lift. Now the question would be can you generate a strong/dense enough plasma to prevent air reaching the body’s leading edges? Off hand, I don’t know if that is possible. There have been a number of papers proposing it. But there has been nothing that I know of, that has proven it.
Reaction engine as huge advantages, one of them being able to transition from jet to rocket engine, jet engines will be much quieter than Space X starship landing. Horizontal runways will give it many more landing options.
Nice to see something moving forward with reaction engines.
This very exciting.
Reaction Engines have clearly been doing a great job of maintaining momentum and building relationships that really matter.
RE aside, the UK and MoD are playing catch up on drones and hypersonics and this annoucement pulls both of those threads into a single coherent project.
However, I think missiles and military drones are potentially secondary outcomes in the long run. Why?
Well firstly we should remember that if you want to fly at high mach number do it at altitude where the air is thinner. Secondly, flying something as new as the RE engine at the kind of altitudes we are looking makes using modern drone tech a very sensible route. No pilot, means no life support or escape system, means huge reduction in aircraft complexity and cost…
So I would expect to see a drone flying straight and level at the edge of space rather than some high speed manouvering mega weapon. The lessons learnt from such a demonstration could be spun out into 6.5 gen fighters, loyal wingman drones and missiles. Funds raised from such spin off’s could help to fund a UK SSTO space plane, which has always been RE’s goal and I don’t think those guy’s after all of the years chasing that dream will have lost sight of it.
Something else springs to and as well. Meteor and Tempest both started as UK projects that we took to a level where they became attractive to partners. I think this might well follow the same path with this project and Japan has its own space program…
Nice start to the morning.
Stay cool, folks.
CR
Quite – leading from behind.
Wow nothing for ages and then two new craft come along at once. BAE also introduced some drone concepts one bigger one and armed one diddy one. UAS Concepts | BAE Systems | International so perhaps mosquito will live on.
Run up to Farnborough Air Show isn’t? So veryone is jokeying for attention. Lots of positive stuff coming out over the next few days or so.
It’l be nice to have some optimism in the air for a change. 🙂
Cheers CR
But will it come with a Parachute in case the engine fails?
Meh at the speeds and altitude it should reach its best glide should be quite impressive. If not the sea it is😂
I wonder if this will be built for, but not with hypsersonic technology?
Sounds great. But back in the here and now we don’t even have enough of the basic day to day essentials.
My son is in what’s left of our army, he’s just been told to hand in his body amour so that it can be sent out to the Ukraine..
I can’t help but think that we’re big on talk and fancy ideas but we really don’t give a stuff about the basics…
So this is to work on the technology to that would be needed for hypersonic vehicles?
Develop concepts,
Maybe it’s just how it reads, the statements from each company is maybe just stating what they are doing.
Really pleased reaction engines is getting involved.
This is where I came in seventy years ago. A country that was confident and imaginative. Then look what happened!
Must be your generations fault then😂😂😂👍👍👍
Political failure to modernise. As now we have the brains but what do you, your generation, think of what is coming down the road?
I think for the younger generations a lot of issues aren’t thought about. People are to busy with there own bubble life. With constant internet most do not have time to think about world problems. This is not true for all people but the majority. Ukraine has focused some minds that not everyone is nice in the world.
I turned 40 today so I’m not that young anyway🙄
All generations make mistakes, take wrong turns and so forth. It isn’t something open societies can or should avoid; our ability to transform without revolutions and self destruction is the greatest strength of the Anglo-sphere (though I fear for the U.S. that tied itself to an essentially Continental system that isn’t flexible).
Many Happy returns; you’ll never catch me.
Great to know we are still involved in high end aircraft development, we like to bash the country but the reality is there is only a handful of nations able to design, test and build this and the tempest. I just hope that something will come of it unlike the recent attempts with taranis and vixen etc.
With it being hypersonic one has to think would be a larger design to cope with the stresses and engine cooling that would be required, so hopefully would be a long range recce/bomber that we are so lacking.
The question is what will be cancelled, if the RAF do get Tempest they will be lucky. A lot of commentators have mentioned TRS2, which turned out to be a unsung national scandal. Make no wonder we left the EU, you cannot serve two masters! If the Labour light weights get the reins of power Tempest is as Dodo. Their leadership will cancel it to appease their communist wing.
If we have a change of Government does this mean we can sell the plans to Russia? Lol
Isn’t this more bull & bluster? The Tempest project is slow going and this announcement, like many, is to keep the “we’re still here” flag flying.
Hope it’s not, but you can never shake off those doubts.
Long overdue. Hate to say it, but I’ll believe it when I see it. Some do gooding politician will be waiting with his/her bag of spanners to throw into the works.