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.

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.”

Avatar photo
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

107 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Paul.P
Paul.P
1 year ago

Son of TSR2. Book me a ticket !

John Clark
John Clark
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Don’t mention TSR2, I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it !

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 year ago
Reply to  John Clark

I’m thinking resurrection ….no stopping the UK now…😊l

grizzler
grizzler
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul.P

until the yanks stick their oar in again …and they will.

Derek
Derek
1 year ago
Reply to  grizzler

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!

geoff
geoff
1 year ago
Reply to  John Clark

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?

John Clark
John Clark
1 year ago
Reply to  geoff

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.

Last edited 1 year ago by John Clark
geoff
geoff
1 year ago
Reply to  John Clark

..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??

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 year ago
Reply to  geoff

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.

John Clark
John Clark
1 year ago
Reply to  geoff

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… Read more »

geoff
geoff
1 year ago
Reply to  John Clark

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… Read more »

John Clark
John Clark
1 year ago
Reply to  geoff

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.

geoff
geoff
1 year ago
Reply to  John Clark

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!

RoboJ1M
RoboJ1M
1 year ago
Reply to  John Clark

And there was the swing wing large bomber from the 50s that ‘contributed’ to the F-111. Just not a legal contribution.

FOSTERSMAN
FOSTERSMAN
1 year ago
Reply to  geoff

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

taffybadger
taffybadger
1 year ago
Reply to  John Clark

The air equivalent of saying AJ**..couldnt bring myself to say it

Barry Larking
Barry Larking
1 year ago
Reply to  John Clark

Oh no you didn’t!

John Clark
John Clark
1 year ago
Reply to  Barry Larking

🤣🤣

Chris.
Chris.
1 year ago
Reply to  John Clark

I did as well, Then ticket got canceled due to stupidity. But the Tech moved on.

Andrew Munro
Andrew Munro
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul.P

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.

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Munro

If at first you don’t succeed 😉

Rob N
Rob N
1 year ago

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…

Steve
Steve
1 year ago
Reply to  Rob N

I’m assuming when they say air vehicle they mean a missile rather than an aircraft, but hard to tell from the statement

DMJ
DMJ
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve

Or UAV as they refer to”reusable”

Steve
Steve
1 year ago
Reply to  DMJ

Ah could be, would make sense to create a test/target drone to help test defensive capabilities against them.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 year ago
Reply to  DMJ

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… Read more »

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 year ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

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?

Ian
Ian
1 year ago

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.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian

Let’s see.

It may start that way and develop in other easier to implement directions?

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 year ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

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… Read more »

Jonno
Jonno
1 year ago
Reply to  DaveyB

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.

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonno

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… Read more »

John
John
1 year ago
Reply to  DMJ

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.

DAVID KNOWLES
DAVID KNOWLES
1 year ago
Reply to  John

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.

Watcherzero
Watcherzero
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve

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.

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve

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..

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonathan

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… Read more »

Martin
Martin
1 year ago
Reply to  Rob N

No it’s likely to be for tempest successor. Rolls Royce had already outlined the engine concepts for Tempest.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin

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… Read more »

Last edited 1 year ago by Spyinthesky
Martin
Martin
1 year ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

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.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin

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.

Robert Blay.
Robert Blay.
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin

There isn’t a requirement for Tempest to be hypersonic.

DAVID KNOWLES
DAVID KNOWLES
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin

Those engine concepts have Reaction engines technology built into them.

JamesF
JamesF
1 year ago
Reply to  Rob N

Hypersonic UCAV I think, but engine work will also feed into hypersonic missiles I suspect.

maurice10
maurice10
1 year ago

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.

David Lloyd
David Lloyd
1 year ago
Reply to  maurice10

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”

Sean
Sean
1 year ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

“incoming Labour government” 😂🤣😂

I’ll have what’ve drink you’re having thanks!!

Tams
Tams
1 year ago
Reply to  Sean

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.

Sean
Sean
1 year ago
Reply to  Tams

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… Read more »

Nathan
Nathan
1 year ago
Reply to  Sean

Anyone who doesn’t know what a woman is doesn’t deserve your vote echSirKierStarmerrrr ch ch

Tams
Tams
1 year ago
Reply to  Sean

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… Read more »

Sean
Sean
1 year ago
Reply to  Tams

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)… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago
Reply to  Tams

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… Read more »

Stc
Stc
1 year ago
Reply to  Sean

No she’s still learning to count to 2

Jonno
Jonno
1 year ago
Reply to  Sean

Boris sacked for not wanting to admit he made mistakes.

Sean
Sean
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonno

Still waiting for Starmer to apologise for the mistakes made at CPS over not prosecuting Jimmy Saville when he was in charge…

Last edited 1 year ago by Sean
James
James
1 year ago
Reply to  Tams

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.

maurice10
maurice10
1 year ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

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… Read more »

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 year ago
Reply to  maurice10

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… Read more »

maurice10
maurice10
1 year ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

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.

maurice10
maurice10
1 year ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

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… Read more »

DAVID KNOWLES
DAVID KNOWLES
1 year ago
Reply to  maurice10

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.

Nathan
Nathan
1 year ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

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.

Stc
Stc
1 year ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

Please check your facts 2.34 trillion and 9.4% inflation, the latter will shortly begin to fall.

Jonno
Jonno
1 year ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

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.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 year ago
Reply to  maurice10

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… Read more »

Expat
Expat
1 year ago
Reply to  maurice10

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… Read more »

maurice10
maurice10
1 year ago
Reply to  Expat

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.

Ron
Ron
1 year ago

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.

RobW
RobW
1 year ago
Reply to  Ron

I don’t think the aircraft in question is intended to be manned.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
1 year ago
Reply to  Ron

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

Longtime
Longtime
1 year ago
Reply to  Ron

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… Read more »

Longtime
Longtime
1 year ago
Reply to  Longtime

As per usual CRs explanation is easier to understand

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
1 year ago
Reply to  Longtime

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… Read more »

Longtime
Longtime
1 year ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

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… Read more »

Last edited 1 year ago by Longtime
DaveyB
DaveyB
1 year ago
Reply to  Longtime

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… Read more »

Longtime
Longtime
1 year ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Interesting read cheers Davey. Going off for some in-depth reading into it now.

Tim
Tim
1 year ago
Reply to  Longtime

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?

Jon
Jon
1 year ago
Reply to  Tim

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.

Longtime
Longtime
1 year ago
Reply to  Tim

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

Bob
Bob
1 year ago

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.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
1 year ago
Reply to  Bob

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… Read more »

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 year ago
Reply to  Bob

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… Read more »

Bob
Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

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.

Nathan
Nathan
1 year ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

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… Read more »

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 year ago
Reply to  Nathan

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… Read more »

DAVID KNOWLES
DAVID KNOWLES
1 year ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

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.

Martin
Martin
1 year ago

Nice to see something moving forward with reaction engines.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
1 year ago

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… Read more »

Nathan
Nathan
1 year ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

Quite – leading from behind.

DRS
DRS
1 year ago

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.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
1 year ago
Reply to  DRS

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

farouk
farouk
1 year ago

But will it come with a Parachute in case the engine fails?

Longtime
Longtime
1 year ago
Reply to  farouk

Meh at the speeds and altitude it should reach its best glide should be quite impressive. If not the sea it is😂

Last edited 1 year ago by Longtime
Shane Ramshaw
Shane Ramshaw
1 year ago

I wonder if this will be built for, but not with hypsersonic technology?

grumpy old steve
grumpy old steve
1 year ago

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…

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 year ago

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.

Barry Larking
Barry Larking
1 year ago

This is where I came in seventy years ago. A country that was confident and imaginative. Then look what happened!

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 year ago
Reply to  Barry Larking

Must be your generations fault then😂😂😂👍👍👍

Barry Larking
Barry Larking
1 year ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

Political failure to modernise. As now we have the brains but what do you, your generation, think of what is coming down the road?

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 year ago
Reply to  Barry Larking

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🙄

Barry Larking
Barry Larking
1 year ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

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.

FOSTERSMAN
FOSTERSMAN
1 year ago

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.

Stc
Stc
1 year ago

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.

Jonno
Jonno
1 year ago

If we have a change of Government does this mean we can sell the plans to Russia? Lol

Ianbuk
Ianbuk
1 year ago

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.

Don Simpson
Don Simpson
1 year ago

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.