It has been announced that £2 billion will be invested between now and 2026 in programmes to develop “the generation-after-next of military capabilities” including hypersonic weapons and space defence.
According to this news release, key elements of the invesment includes:
- Plans to develop a new weapon demonstrator capable of operating up to hypersonic speeds to better equip our Armed Forces against future threats.
- Expanded research into AI technologies, better understanding how they can benefit service personnel on the front line.
- Investment to build defence capabilities in space, improving intelligence, communication, and surveillance.
“The £2 billion outlined is part of the £6.6 billion investment into research and development following the £24 billion increase in the defence budget announced in the 2021 Defence Command Paper. Designed to meet the MOD’s capability needs, the Science & Technology portfolio will ensure the UK Armed Forces have access to the newest and most cutting-edge technology.”
Dstl Chief Executive Dr Paul Hollinshead was quoted as saying:
“Dstl’s world-class scientists are committed to delivering the best scientific advice and technological solutions, giving the armed forces operational advantage, the edge in decision making, and saving lives.”
The new portfolio, say Dstl, will see defence enhancing its hypersonic research programme alongside significant science and technology investment in AI, cyber, electromagnet activities, novel sensors, advanced materials, space and support to the nuclear deterrent. You can read more about the general plan here.
Recently, I reported that Britain will work with the US and Australia on the development of hypersonic weapons.
Britain, US and Australia to work together on hypersonic missiles
The First Sea Lord said recently that the Royal Navy is aiming to become “a global leader in hypersonic weapons”.
The following is an excerpt from a speech given by First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Ben Key in Rosyth, February 10th 2020.
“At the steel cutting for HMS Venturer back in September, on this site, the Defence Secretary said it was not so much a milestone in the life of a single ship, as a glimpse of the future of our Fleet. It’s a future where we are setting ourselves a challenge to become a global leader in hypersonic weapons. A future where we’ll become more adaptive in how we use our platforms, high end war fighting, command and control, floating embassies for the United Nations. Highly lethal, highly reassuring and highly adaptable.
It’s where we will blend crewed and uncrewed systems, operating both F35 and drones from the same flight deck. A future where the Royal Marine Commandos will operate from our Multi role support ships, and ashore in small groups delivering training and support to teams afloat in the Littoral Response Groups and also delivering in a different way special support to maritime operations. And it’s a future where we will regain and retain operational advantage in the underwater domain. So I have a call to arms for you in industry. I want you to feel as invested in this as we are, not because of your share price. Not because of the wonderful manufacturing facilities that allows you to create, but because you recognise you are integral to the success of a Global, Modern, and Ready Royal Navy.”
For more on Royal Navy plans to acquire new missiles, I recommend you check out the following article from defence analyst ‘NavyLookout, a great source of in-depth information.
Counter-hypersonic capability key feature of Type 83 Destroyer
Additionally, it was recently revealed that a key capability of the Type 83 Destroyer, the ship replacing the Type 45 Destroyer, will be the development of a counter-hypersonic capability.
On the 14th of December 2021 the Defence Committee published a report titled ‘We’re going to need a bigger Navy’. The Government’s response has been published below.
The Defence Committee concluded in their report:
“The Defence Over the next decade the UK and the Navy will face an increasingly
complex international security environment. Russia and China will remain the
primary adversaries at sea, with the relative importance of the UK’s response to each
likely to shift and potentially interact through the decade. Developments in technology, particularly in hypersonic weapons, are changing the conduct of naval warfare and grey zone operations are becoming increasingly important for the UK’s security in the maritime domain, as they are in others.”
The Government responded:
“The Committee’s report aligns with the Government’s assessment of the
complex security environment. In the maritime environment, this is being driven
by the confluence of assertive state actors, who are increasingly operating in the ‘grey
zone’, and the proliferation of lethal technology. The Integrated Review (IR) recognised this challenge and has invested in the Royal Navy (RN) accordingly. This included ‘subthreshold’ capabilities, such as enhancing the Royal Marines as a Special Operations capable Commando Force. The Defence Command Paper committed to a concept and assessment phase for the Future Air Defence system to replace the Type 45 Destroyer, a key element of which will be the development of a counter-hypersonic capability.”
So that’s where the moneys going!
Certainly very promising. It’s whether present and future governments have the willpower and determination to follow through and get the right level of capability in place in a realistic timescale before the next threat comes along. A fully funded CADMID lifecycle.
ASAP
Lots listed that could turn out interesting. Electro magnets, sensors. Hopefully they make the most of the money.
There hopefully will be some way of detecting hypersonic missiles far away to give time to react. They fly high, very hot and fast. Nothing else acts like that in the sky.
Maybe nano materials of the future can make super strong materials akin to Spider-Man’s web.
Good to see funding going into research and development. It’s also going to be interesting how the future of AAW will move forward as there will be so many differences threats from ballistic missiles, hypersonic glide vehicles, FOBs, stealth platforms, low level stealthy cruise missiles to small drones and swarming AI drones and missiles.
Does anyone know what happened to reaction engines, I thought they were at the forefront of this tech 10 years ago with HMG provided funding, it seems to be another disappearing act, just like Taranis, which should be in production in the uk with RR engines by now as our loyal wing asset for the F35’s
I understand not everything makes it, but both of these probably should have given how far down the line they got..
We really are taking too long with this stuff, even the mine countermeasure’s stuff is probably over 10 years old..
They did a successful test of the cooling tech in a simulated Mach 5 wind tunnel at 1800°C last year and are currently modifying their test stand in the US for more extreme tests.
They pretty much moved to the USA, they seem more interested in spin off related to rapid cooling than aerospace applications and the launch cost of Starship makes reaction engine skylon largely irrelevant now. Seems if the tech is used it will be more about making existing engine designs more efficient. Much the same as the inventors have been doing since the 1980’s, lots of promise little progress.
Not really. If DARPA is interested in the technology I wouldn’t be surprised to see it crop up in a future high speed recce platform.
Considering DARPA has a ****** for the mere mention of hypersonic right now I would expect to see reaction engines tech being massively funded and ripped off by the Chinese. Neither of which appears to be the case. Don’t get me wrong I’m sure it’s useful however I think it was massively over hyped ten years ago. Off course it could be part of some black program but I doubt it.
For a future high speed recce aircraft RE appears to me to be the ideal technology. One engine that can operate from zero to hypersonic speeds.
The science behind the pre-cooler and the combined cycle engine are true and repeatable. The pre-cooler on its own can be used with any current turbojet, turbofan or Ramjet/SCRAM jets. It will deliver significant gains in either fuel efficiency or thrust.
The problem is the Company needs someone with a bit of foresight (plus loads of money) and who is up for a challenge to take the engine to the next stage. BAe won’t do this as they are too risk adverse these days. They’d only consider doing something like this with major funding from Government behind them. I say the same for Rolls Royce, they probably don’t haver the capital to invest in such a project that doesn’t meet their core business needs.
Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic could be a candidate. But for them to get on board they would need a working prototype that demonstrates the advantages over using current individual engines. Burt Rutan’s Scaled Composites company, is probably the company I’d turn to for designing and building a prototype demonstrator aircraft.
It would be easy for a combination of an aerospace plane using Reaction Engines SABRE to compete with Space X for delivering people, equipment and satellites to space. It is still cheaper to fly conventionally to the edge of the atmosphere, using a combination of turbofan, ramjet and rocket, than a straight near vertical path to space. Having a reusable vehicle is a large proportion of the cost, but fuel is still a major factor, especially if you have to use something exotic.
The other two people who have the money and desire to compete with Elon Musk is Jeff Bezos with Blue Origin and Paul Allen with Stratolaunch. Both have said they are in a space race with Space X and are looking at ways to compete.
Why the negativity?
They are doing important work that is necessary for long range fuel efficient hypersonics.
It’s U.K. Defence Journal, negativity is SOP here 🤷🏻♂️
If hydrogen’s role as an aviation fuel progresses, then more may be seen of Reaction Engines tech in future.
Reaction Engines has had funding from U.K. government, U.K. Space Agency, ESA, USAF, Rolls Royce, Boeing, and BAE Systems (which also owns 20%). Development continues on test stands in Colorado on the Sabre engine, but before Sabre/Skylon flies I suspect we’ll see the use of their unique air cooling technology in engines for Typhoon and Tempest to increase performance.
Typhoon I doubt but Tempest is a very real possibility.
EJ2000 isn’t exactly massive and the idea of squashing that much extra tech into the limited space doesn’t feel cheap to me.
Absolutely, one of the many ‘working technology’ areas going into project Tempest…
I meant to add, I wouldn’t be surprised if an EJ200 is bench tested to prove the technology…
I think it is highly probable that we will see a Typhoon, being used as a test bed for the Tempest engine. If the engine is a derivative of the EJ200 with additional variable cycle air feeds ala F135 et al. Then this would be an easy fit to the existing airframe engine space. If the engine gets bigger in diameter, then the airframe will need modifying with probably new frames, which will incur additional costs. Also would the existing air intake’s cross sectional area be sufficient for the new larger engine’s needs?
Taking the other airframe issues into account, the Typhoon’s engine air intakes are nearly 20ft long. You could fit a pre-cooler in this space ahead of the 1st stage fan. The small capillary sized tubes could also be used as a radar screen. Though that will depend on the transmitter frequency and the tubes coating. The issue would then be what cooling medium is going to be used? SABRE uses a combination of liquid hydrogen fuel and helium. Which uses a refrigeration circuit to control cooling circuit. Will there be space on the Typhoon for this kind of dual cooling circuit?
Initially I would say no, instead it could be easier to use the aircraft’s fuel as the cooling medium. As soon as you start gaining airspeed, the air pressure within the intake will rise and therefore so will the intake air temperature. The aircraft’s fuel within the wings and fuselage tanks, will take on very little additional temperature above ambient. Therefore, there will be a significant temperature delta between the intake air temperature and the fuel’s temperature. This should be sufficient to enable intake air cooling through the pre-cooler, but not to the same degree as using a refrigerant as the medium.
Just using the fuel alone as the cooling medium, will help the aircraft achieve a better fuel economy, with the greater savings coming with greater speed, due to the greater temperature delta. Though this will obviously be balanced out by overcoming drag and the fuel burn to achieve the speeds. How much could the pre-cooler help? I think if we look at what a gas turbine power station using pre-coolers can achieve, I think would give a rough estimate.
The engine’s compressor consumes about half to two-thirds of the power produced by the gas turbine (hot section/power turbine). Any reduction in its power consumption corresponds to a higher net power output. As less energy is being used by the power turbine to turn the compressor. Because it takes less power to compress cooler air, the compressor therefore draws less power, increasing the turbine’s net output. This also reduces the compressor’s discharge (output air) temperature, allowing more fuel to be used in the combustor, whilst maintaining the same firing temperature, as more oxygen by volume has been introduced. The increased mass flow, improvement in compressor efficiency and ability to fire harder without raising the combustion temperature will cumulatively produce more overall power. Or conversely use less fuel to maintain the original engine power.
Though, unlike a power station that uses evaporative and refrigerant cooling, space is limited on the aircraft. So the gains won’t be as high. I still would expect a net gain of at least 10 to 15% just by using fuel as the cooling medium. With a refrigerant it could be anything up to 35%. If there was space for a recuperator as well, the net fuel efficiency gain could get as high as 45%. Though these do bugger all for power output though!
Looking at the Typhoon. If it was going to be used purely as a test bed for an advanced variable cycle engine combined with a refrigerated pre-cooler. Then there is space available along the aircraft’s spine. If the aircraft was modified much like the T2 version with the bigger spine hump, there would be additional space for the necessary liquid helium storage tank and pumps etc. It will have a slightly negative impact on the aircraft’s drag. But this can be compensated for by the higher performance engine. The exhaust for the liquid to air cooler could be placed in the engine’s primary by-pass air stream. Much like what is done with some of the systems cooling done on the F35.
That was why EJ2000’s flying test bed was a Concorde – loads of space to add bits and weight carrying capacity.
Using a Typhoon as a flying test bed doesn’t feel likely to me. I can’t see it getting round the duty holder system here.
As for making new bulkheads and spars: it is almost a new aircraft.
That is why most larger militaries do keep older aircraft flying as they are great testbeds.
Strapping an engine to a large commercial or ex-bomber aircraft is great initially to check various parameters. Sadly we no longer have Concorde! Which did replicate a large proportion of the required test flight regime for the engine. What can be used in its stead?
I am thinking along the same lines as why the EAP was initially flown with the Tornado’s RB199s and then the later Eurofighter prototypes DA1 and 2 also using the RB199s. These were followed by DA3 which flew in 1995 with the first pair of EJ200s. If both prototypes were certified to use the RB199. Then having Typhoon recertified for a new engine should not be a problem, so long as all the certification protocols are followed.
If the new engine is a larger diameter and it was required for a Typhoon to be fitted with one. I believe there is scope with the existing frames for fitting a larger diameter engine. However, if the engine is past this tolerance, then yes new frames to hold the engine would be needed and I suspect larger air intakes as well.
Cutting out a larger radius in an existing frame won’t do, as the stresses with a more powerful engine is likely to cause early metal fatigue problems. So the frames will need to be beefed up as well having a larger radius hole. Finite element analysis will show how good or bad a modified frame will be. Static full power testing will also help. Where a better frame can be produced through an evolving test process. I wouldn’t say it would be a new aircraft. But it will need to be quite heavily modified.
To be honest, I would be surprised if we re-engine Typhoon. Range and speed are perfectly acceptable, so unless they’re looking to use it as a Tempest de-risking exercise or the Saudis want it I doubt they’ll go for that. There’s just not enough service life, in my opion (would love to be wrong though).
I’m just happy they got an advanced AESA that (I presume/hope) will be mostly or all ITAR-free, so we can get some real benefits from F-35 that would be desirable to many and an excellent input into Tempest.
Both Meteor and ASRAAM have negatively affected the immediate need for increased performance for the Typhoon. Unless we are faced by a substantial threat, i.e. squadrons of Su57s, the aircraft’s performance is more than adequate against its peers, for the foreseeable future. Though if Iran do purchase the Su57 or more likely the 75. Saudi may look at requiring a Typhoon performance upgrade to readdress the balance.
I can understand that- not even the USAF get into re-engining their aircraft very often, I presume it is a very signifcant task. I understand that it’s taken decades for them to get to the point of deciding to do that for the B-52. If Meteor and ASRAAM help us do the job with what we have, then no worries. I’d agree that it would be our middle eastern customers who would drive any push for that.
I am broadly pro the idea of using Typhoon as something of an operational testbed for Tempest systems, but I’m not sure that would extend to powerplant; from the little that RR are saying about the engine, it would necessitate a huge amount of work to retrofit it into Typhoon.
When Airbus researched and designed the aerodynamic enhancements for Typhoon. It turned the Typhoon into a true knife fighter, easily on par with the Su35. It also helped its supersonic aerodynamics, which increased its super cruise speed by reducing drag.
None of the four partner Nations took up the enhancement package, even though it would significantly enhance the aircraft’s performance, why? The enhancements were relatively simple to manufacture and add to the aircraft. The flight control software was amended on the test aircraft and proved robust and reliable. It wouldn’t have cost that much compared to other enhancements like the AESA radar. The only logical reason is that the current and future avionics and weapons fit made it superfluous.
The pilot’s helmet mounted sight, AESA radar, Pirate 2, Praetorian 2 combined with Meteor, Asraam and Iris-T. These systems combined give Typhoon a significant advantage in beyond visual range combat as well as within. Both Asraam and Iris-T can engage targets behind the aircraft. The only time you’d need the gun is during a knife fight. But unless Typhoon had fired off all its missiles, the pilot should have chosen to bug out by then, rather than risk dogfighting.
With the F35 program, they factored in engine growth and a new engine as part of the aircraft’s life cycle. The Typhoon also has some engine growth factored in through updates to the DECUs software and internal upgrades to the EJ200. There is potential for a slightly wider diameter engine to be fitted as the engine is fitted to stand-offs that are then fitted to the frames. The stand-offs could be made shorter to accommodate the larger engine. However there is a finite limit to how wide it goes before new frames are required.
Reading through some of the Rolls Royce blurb and between the lines, it seems the proposed Tempest engine will be a lot wider than the EJ200. They have said the engine will have a higher by-pass ratio and will be variable cycle. To generate a higher bypass gas turbine, you will need a larger diameter 1st stage. Which means that the engine pulls more air over the core of the engine, similar to the current F135. This is why the F135 has a very high specific power output in dry (out of reheat).
For variable cycle engines. You divert a portion of the by-pass air back into the core of the engine. This can be done through the intermediate stage before the air reaches the combustors or after through the turbine section. The former introduces cooler air (additional oxygen) so you can use more fuel to increase power. The latter helps cool the turbine blades so they can run hotter, again increasing power. To do both you need a much larger 1st stage compressor. As you will still need by-pass air for supplementary cooling of the engine’s exhaust for lowering its IR signature, plus it’s used for cooling avionics systems.
Rolls Royce have also come up with integrating the generator within the engine’s center shaft. This means the engine’s externals are a lot cleaner, which is better for the mass by-pass flow. But also means the engine can now be wider for a given space.
Fitting such an engine to a commercial aircraft will test a good portion of the engine’s performance. However it won’t test how the engine performs near the extremes of the performance envelope. Such as during negative g turns etc. To do these kinds of tests you need a proper research aircraft that can push the limits of the engine. I would still suggest Typhoon even though it will probably need to be heavily modified, as it can be controlled by BAe. I don’t know the internal frame structure of Gripen E/F, which was made larger than the previous version to accommodate the bigger engine. But that to, could be a candidate.
They are alive and kicking, see below link:
News | Reaction Engines
Their website has a new animation, showing the skeleton build up of a SABRE engine, which is then fitted to a new design of aero-space vehicle.
Go to their web site and you will see what they are up to. Doing cooling work for F1 amongst many spin off solutions from their tech. As for Sabre a new text centre is being opened this year in UK so that much of the testing can be carried out here. The pre cooler is proven and a full pre cooler and core engine are expected to run this year or early next. Meanwhile they are researching into using clean fuels for jet engines of the future in association with other groups. They are very active but this hybrid engine tech is not likely to be perfected for a good while yet it’s extremely complex. As for Skylon it is/was only a concept vehicle for the adoption of the sabre engine they have I noticed produced another concept design for a high flying aircraft but the idea is to inspire others to take advantage of a proven engine so won’t progress beyond those concepts until the engine is closer to proving itself.
However unlike the view expressed below the single stage to orbit concept using hybrid engines (sabre isn’t the only design here though probably the most advanced concept currently especially in terms of operating outside of the atmosphere) there are proposals to re-develop or further develop the SR 71 engines for similar purposes, but other developments too. The latest concept for using sabre would initially using it to operate just within the atmosphere and use a booster to take payloads into Earth orbit. Estimates suggest that this would not be as cheap as Starship but would still be competitive overall in the market place and have certain advantages in certain requirements. Equally one has to take Musk with a pinch of salt he has rarely actually achieved what he has promised especially to a given time scale and anyway if he is to achieve his future plans he will need a thousand starships so that and capacity for everyone else will leave plenty of space for competition. Vulcan equally won’t be as cheap but it will have a great future if Bezos can ever supply the damn engines.
Ahh Jeff. BE4 engine has a lot running on it. Is it going to work?
As much as people like to dump on it (and Bezos, though he kind if deserves it), BE4 isn’t a joke. And it’s at last looking likely to enter service soon.
So we can expect another technology demonstrator and then years of nothing and the generation after next so 2050s at this rate. I welcome the spending obviously but it seems to either go nowhere or just very limited numbers years down the line
So they told you the plan 😀
Have a bit of faith. These things need research to see if they are viable. If every research project had progressed into full development and service we would of had all kinds of useless stuff. Chicken powered nuclear land mines anyone?
These are incredibly complex systems. The low-hanging fruit as all been picked. So to expect advancements in a short amount of time, especially to military standards, is just silly.
Guess this means MBDA new anti ship cruise missile won’t be hypersonic then.
Not so.
This is for the long range hypersonics.
Current limit would be size/weight/fuel load. Unless you have something of the size of Sea Slug….
Thanks for clarifying, I also was concerned that this might have been a statement on the FC/ASW. I’m glad that is (presumably) still on track, or at least not de-scoped.
On track for Mach 3 I recon.
The limitation is the launch system MK41 would limit the range. US has designed MAC tubes for hypersonics.
I had previously speculated that this was why the T45 never had Mk41 fitted in the VLS space.
To leave this space clear for hypersonic munitions.
Given that only T45 has the radar suite or space for this type of system then it is a reasonable deduction.
Moving Ceptor as a part of a MAC upgrade would be would be lost in the noise of cost.
The ships had two 6 tonne diesel generators removed and replaced by three 10 tonne generators fitted, plus ducting, fuel etc.
I suspect that added weight involved is the reason smaller and lighter CAMM have gone in that space.
Adding 14 tonne per 8 cell Mk41 strike length might no longer be an option.
On a 7,000t ship?
You just add ballast for the metacentric weight adjustment.
This isn’t being added to the top of the mast or something!
In any case, the full length VLS goes down through the hull, whereas Ceptor sits up top: so would make the metacentric situation worse!
Noble thought, but why not save a lot of money by buying hypersonic weapons from the US? They are a long way ahead of us in that area
and will continue to be so if we don’t start to look ourselves…but yes I agree where do we want to concentrate our dev. monies on..
Trouble is if we want to be ahead of the curve we need to be thinking about the generation after the generation after the next gemeration…or maybe the gemeration after that …
Are they?
As usual in certain areas we have better/different tech.
If we do nothing we don’t have any sovereign capability.
The US has been experimenting with hypersonics for well over 50 years and many experts will tell you that they are still the world leader in the technology despite all the bluster from China and Russia. The last time I checked they had 5 unclassified hypersonic weapon programs at various stages of development with the US army scheduled to start taking deliveries of the LRHW as early as 2023. It’s quite shocking how quiet they have managed to keep the notion that they could have an operational hypersonic weapon as early as next year.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/39851/army-delivers-first-canisters-to-its-new-hypersonic-missile-battery-but-wont-say-where-its-based
Many ‘experts’ may tell you many many, things. Different things.
The first issue is – define hypersonic?
The next issue – can it precisely hit anything especially a moving target?
The follow on issue is – how does it communicate to and from plasma world?
The final issue is – can it manoeuvre at hypersonic speeds?
Once you have solved those three issues all at once you *might* have a useful hypersonic weapon.
The Russians and the Chinese just have terminal dive hypersonics that have existed since the 1960’s. Warmed up Cold War tech. Thing is they cannot manoeuvre or communicate in the terminal phase so are useless against moving targets that are being unpredictable/evasive.
“The first issue is – define hypersonic?”
Hypersonics as what most people think of these days are hypersonic maneuvering weapons.
“The next issue – can it precisely hit anything especially a moving target?”
Yes
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/35369/army-shows-first-ever-footage-of-new-hypersonic-missile-in-flight-and-impacting
“The follow on issue is – how does it communicate to and from plasma world?”
US officials have stated on numerous occasions that communicating through this is not an issue.
https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/plasma-blackout-is-not-a-worry-for-usas-hypersonic-missiles-pentagon/138539.article
“The final issue is – can it manoeuvre at hypersonic speeds?”
Yes, reentry vehicles have been manoeuvering at hypersonic speeds for decades. Look up “marvs” from the pershing 11 missiles from the 1980s. The difference today is they are able to do it much lower in the atmopsphere for longer timefames and more violently..
I replied with a much longer post with links but the mods deleted it for some reason
“The first issue is – define hypersonic?”
It is generally agreed that hypersonic is speeds about mach 5. Hypersonic weapons as is imagined today are manuevering hypersonic weapons.
“The next issue – can it precisely hit anything especially a moving target?”
Yes. see US test of the LRHW. There hasn’t been a claim at least none that I could find of them hitting a moving target but that is in development for a hypersonic anti ship missile.
“The follow on issue is – how does it communicate to and from plasma world?”
This has not proven to be an issue. Google “Mike White” who is the assistant director for hypersonics at the pentagon.
“Once you have solved those three issues all at once you *might* have a useful hypersonic weapon.”
Looks like they already have and are working through even more complex issue than those that you stated.
Maybe.
In Gen1 some of the problems will be solved and some mitigated.
It won’t solve every problem for every situation. But it *might* be useful. Let’s see if US orders and or even deploys them first.
Agreed. These are not magic weapons as some would have you believe but they are real and brings a significant new capability to the attacker if they have the supporting kill chain in place. To defend against them, well that could be a much more difficult problem to solve.
There are two classes of hypersonic low and high. Low are speeds ranging from Mach 5 to 9 (sometimes 10 depending on the country), high is for anything above these speeds.
Any body travelling faster than Mach 5 will generate plasma, initially on the leading edges followed by a sleeve over the whole body. The faster you go the more is produced. As the air gets denser so will the plasma generated. It can be managed and mitigated. You can even manipulate the plasma with electro-magnets. But it will still present to some degree, it is a naturally occurring consequence of elevated temperatures and the interaction with air molecules.
Hypersonic speeds do weird and wonderful things with lift and drag. Where the generated shockwaves can generate either huge amounts of lift or conversely huge amounts of drag, significantly higher than those generated at supersonic speeds.
Similarly the faster you go the air temperature ramps up significantly, due to skin fiction with the surrounding air. The leading edge temperatures at Mach 5 start off at 1000C, at Mach 10 you can nearly double it. Again air density plays a major part. The lower you fly the earlier the temperatures start to ramp up. This is the predominant reason hypersonic vehicles generally fly above 80,000ft, where the air density is lower, which therefore delays the onset of elevated skin temperatures.
You can deploy what is known as an aerospike. This is a device that is used on the Trident 2 missile. It is a spike that extends from the missile’s nose by about 2ft or more. Its job is to protect the missile’s nose and body that contain the warheads and fuel. As the missile accelerates from sea level, it quickly passes supersonic to Mach 5. It does this in the densest atmosphere. So the spike will generate a shock wave, that the missile’s body flies through. The edges of the shock wave pass either side of the missile’s body. Thereby protecting it from the elevated temperatures. As it gets higher, such as above 80.000ft, the aerospike is not really needed anymore. The missile will be accelerating past Mach 9 to reach terminal velocity, where the warheads will be released in low earth orbit.
I am not disagreeing with Mike White. Except he has rather over-simplified the problems that come with hypersonics.
I think a lot of it is due to Russia and China’s blustering. Sticking at best experimental systems on prominent platforms.
Not that the US aren’t pretty good at keeping things hushed up, but I think this is mainly letting others draw most of the attention. It also helps that it may give Russia and China a false sense of superiority, which if they acted on, they’d quickly learn the truth about.
Plus it’s a total gimmick, better off buying a handful from the cousins so we can tick the box and stand up to mad vlads power point presentation. We currently have 64 hypersonic missiles based north of Glasgow that’s all the deterrent we really need.
What if Uncle Sam doesn’t want to sell them? Raptor again.
Should the the U.K. just ditch brimstone, ASRAAM, meteor, storm shadow spear 3, pave way4, type 26/31/32, astute and every other system and buy what ever the USA will sell us. The U.K. can often do more with less when it comes development.
You should see what Americans think of there defence industry etc on chats. They always complain it’s not enough, waste of cash etc etc. The exact same things people say on here.
Firstly we already have a joint development with Uncle Sam on AUKUS covering hypersonic weapons so I don’t think it will be an issue. Secondly all those missiles you mention are useful not a gimmick. We should definitely continue to develop world leading useful missiles. Hypersonics will be more like ICBM. So we can have some to tick the box but no point spending billions on something we will never use when we can buy a few of the USA.
Another missle race. I think we would have to hope the technology is defeated by physics for sometime. Depressing to this technology could in be in the hands of some undesirable countries. Obviously China wants to hit carriers.
Unfortunately, it is a race that we cannot afford to opt-out of.
Maybe it will also accelerate the development of laser defence systems?
The launch platform seems to be the problem.
The UK is relatively small.
Any ground based rocket system would get the usual planning resistance, though road mobile launchers might he viable. The US is working in moving them around in shipping containers in trucks.
We are always going to have limited numbers of ships and large manned or unmanned modern day V bombers seem unlikely on cost basis.
Feasibly Dreadnought submarine missile modules could be adapted and mounted on an RFA, a type of arsenal ship that stays in safe waters , and a Trident sized booster and glide vehicles developed.
Really depends on the range needed, how big it is, what’s it mission goals etc. A U.K. weapon could be very different to other countries developments. Most important will be how to defend against it.
Nammo, has a ram jet powered shell I saw today. Looked interesting. Don’t know how far along it is.
Wouldn’t ramjet make it an artillery missile rather than a shell?
Nammo have teamed up with Boeing. Earlier this May they did a test fire of the ramjet which worked as expected. Later this year they are looking to do their first test firing from a 155mm artillery piece. The predicted range for the 155mm shell is over 150km.
Open question: Will all ship based hypersonics have to be launched from a VLS and can’t be launched from a cannister? I’m thinking more the former. It will be interesting to see what’s being developed for the Astute +next attack subs, even the FC/ASW. And if there’s going to be delays with any of this there’s always the present subsonics and supersonics! 😏🚀
A bit more on the systems currently being used to launch hypersonics if that is the case, It was fired from a Type 055 Renhai-class cruiser, one of eight already built.
China Test-Fires New YJ-21 Hypersonic Missile
“If this missile turns out to be the hypersonic YJ-21, the Type 055 cruisers would arguably become the most heavily armed warships worldwide.”
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/04/china-test-fires-new-yj-21-hypersonic-missile/
That’s a lot of money for a department which has got far more calls on it today at a time it has very few resources. Wouldn’t it be more useful to redirect resources to filling in today’s capability gaps and just simply let the US carry the R+D cost and we just buy off the shelf later? Fekking about with this now is not going to result in a customised UK solution anyway.
Some would say, cynically, it keeps the MIC, and their share holders, well funded, always a priority for HMG and their fat cat friends.
2 billion could keep the Hercs, buy more P8, convert all 228 Ch2, buy more Boxer, or heaven forbid some artillery for the RA!!!
That’s £2bn over 5 years, so £400m a year, for R&D of multiple technologies, including hypersonics but also including space research and AI. The money is spent in the UK so about 50% of it comes back to the Treasury in tax. High tech transferrable skills are developed. (As an example, someone above linked to Reaction Engines who are working on hypersonics, and some of the spin-off techs generated.)
There’s nothing simple about committing to buying US missiles. You have to buy what they think is right for them at whatever price they think they can get away with, and if they screw up (which they sometimes do), there’s no plan B. They never do tit-for-tat purchasing, so money that goes to the US stays in the US. As does money for servicing and upgrades for the next 25 years.
Of course we need to spend money on filling in the capability gaps, but this isn’t the piggy bank you raid to do it.
Good answer but my concern is at a time of crisis and when resources are very tight should we prioritise a programme which probably won’t deliver any meaningful contribution to UK defence and if it does it will be in the long term. If you’re arguing that spending money in the UK is good I agree. However we could still spend that same money in the UK and spend it in a way that gives us more security now which is when we need it. For example we could order more typhoon, more NLAW, increase the number of Challenger 3’s, reduce cuts to the British Army. All these options would make us safer today rather than engaging in a long term project which may not deliver anything.
Currently our chances of having to fight Russia have increased significantly. We should prepare ourselves today and target our resources more appropriately to meet that increased threat.
I agree with what you say. Spend in the UK which helps us in a ‘fight’ situation. I also think we should be moving our manufacturing onto something more resembling a war footing. Civil defence that sort of thing.
GOV is said to be the first to buy a quantum computer for the MOD.
I hope , MOD know how to use them effectively…
Apparently its called Hal!
Skynet was taken and Ultron lost in the final vote.
“Open the torpedo tube doors, HAL.” “I’m sorry, Dave. I’m afraid I can’t do that.”
Classic
😂
There’s probably a Civil Servant somewhere which won’t let them switch it on because the rules say it needs to be running McAfee.
😆😆
A global leader in hypersonic? What did he drink ? 😂 Countries like Russia have been using hypersonic weapons for years and we are starting to just research them ! Somebody at the MOD should tell him to be humble seriously it’s starting to look stupid
Media says it’s a joint project with Australia and the Americans. If we are developing it do they not mean 3026 ?