|
 

Hyper-X, shown
above right in an artistic concept, is NASA's
next push toward air-breathing hypersonic flight. The small-scale
Hyper-X will advance engine, aerodynamics, and materials
science for travel above Mach 5 and ride to high altitude and
hypersonic speeds on the nose of an Orbital Sciences Pegasus-
type booster, as shown in the model here.

During the next few months, the Air Force will deliver
to Congress a bomber roadmap, describing in detail
how USAF plans to perform and equip for the long-range
strike mission in the next century. The new plan likely
will describe a successor to the B-2 stealth bomber,
and it probably will represent a shift away from the
tradition of building big aircraft.
The new program is expected to tilt toward heavy reliance
upon smaller, hypersonic vehicles, both manned and
unmanned, with air-breathing engines. If the US succeeds
in perfecting the critical building-block technologies,
these new kinds of aerospace systems could be in place
around 2010.
The term "hypersonic flight" means traveling
faster than five times the speed of sound. Working
hard to make these Mach 5-plus vehicles a reality are
the Air Force, NASA, and Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency. The three agencies are pursuing complementary
projects to investigate separate elements of the air-breathing
hypersonic flight problem.
NASA is focusing on characteristics of hypersonic
flight, which will be tested and measured on a small
demonstrator vehicle set to fly in 2000. DARPA is seeking
an "affordable" hypersonic missile able to
zoom more than 400 miles in under seven minutes. For
its part, the Air Force is investigating the critical
engine technologies that will be needed to make both
types of vehicles work while, at the same time, studying
slow-speed characteristics of a hypersonic airplane.
The missile project could reach prototype form in
four years and be operational in 10 years. The larger
manned vehicle is not likely to appear until around
2015 at the earliest.
The Payoff
Hypersonic flight offers obvious military utility
for reconnaissance and strike. Such vehicles would
allow US forces to operate farther than they do now
from enemy lines, reducing their exposure to enemy
fire, without paying a penalty in reaction time or
effectiveness. The inherent kinetic energy of a hypersonic
missile would magnify its penetrating power, particularly
against deeply buried facilities, which are among the
toughest targets to destroy. Reconnaissance aircraft
would be able, within three hours, to provide imagery
of any place in the world. Such speed would make aircraft
reconnaissance competitive with satellites not already
over the area of interest, because the spacecraft would
have to change orbits.
The term "air breathing" is important in
the context of these vehicles. The craft envisioned
would use the oxygen in the upper atmosphere to carry
out the combustion of their fuel. Rockets routinely
fly at hypersonic speeds but must carry their oxygen
with them, making them large, bulky, and expensive.
The goal of the ongoing hypersonics programs is to
sharply reduce the cost of extremely high-speed flight
and make it routine and reliable.
Gen. Michael E. Ryan, the Air Force Chief of Staff,
said that the bomber roadmap deliberations have focused
mainly on near-term weapons and improvements for the
existing fleet of aircraft. Congress, however, insisted
that the roadmap specifically address what USAF has
in mind for the long-range strike mission in the B-2's
twilight years, and that's where the potential of hypersonics
comes into play.
When "time is of the essence" and the platform--either
for an attack or with a sensor--"positively has
to be there overnight, I think we need to look at faster
ways to do it," than are now extant, Ryan said.
The product could be a "high-Mach" craft
or a spaceplane. In any event, he said, "I think
we have to have something that does that mission, sometime
in the future."
The Air Force likely will state a requirement for
a vehicle or system that can deliver "rapid response
at intercontinental ranges," Ryan added. Once
such a requirement is formally stated, the Air Force
would carry out "trade studies" as the first
step toward building such a system. These analyses
would consider the available--or imminent--technologies
that could enter service in the "desired time
frame," though what that time frame may be is
as yet undefined.
"We have to get started on it now," warned
Ryan, "because our acquisition system takes a
long time to produce brand-new things." He noted
that only now is the B-2 beginning to offer a full
combat capability, "and we started that back in
1981."
How badly will the Air Force need replacements for
its existing long-range systems? USAF has said it believes
the B-52H fleet is "technically capable" of
lasting beyond the 2020s, but if the Air Force could
field a system that was faster to target, more effective
when it got there, and cheaper to operate--which a
senior USAF official said has risen to "paramount
importance among the considerations"-the service
would give a serious look at retiring the BUFFs much
earlier.
The B-1B fleet starts running out of its planned life
expectancy in the late 2010s, with the exact year depending
on how heavily they are used in the 2000s.
The B-2's service life has not been calculated, but
the bomber conceivably could last into the 2040s, if
the example of the B-52 is any indicator. Unlike the
B-52, which is chiefly built of well-understood metal
alloys, the B-2 is largely made of nonmetallic composite
materials, the longevity of which has not yet been
established.

What comes
around goes around. The very same B-52 that launched
the X-15 will carry aloft the Pegasus/Hyper-X combination
for three test flights, in 2000 and 2001. Pegasus
is a proven launch capability, having put many
small satellites into orbit. |
New World Vistas
The idea of air-breathing hypersonic vehicles as the
next step for USAF was prominently voiced in the Air
Force Scientific Advisory Board's "New World Vistas" technology
forecast of three years ago. In it, SAB Chairman Gene
H. McCall focused on the "striking increases in
effectiveness" the Air Force would reap if it
succeeded in developing hypersonic systems.
New World Vistas planners saw unpiloted, Mach 15 hypersonic
missiles and airplanes attacking enemies a world away,
possibly with lasers, maneuvering at 20g's, and agile
enough to elude most missiles.
The issue bubbled to the surface in a big way again
last fall when Hans Mark, the Pentagon's director of
defense research and engineering (and a former Secretary
of the Air Force) told reporters in Washington that "there
are things on the horizon" in aerospace technology
that could lead to "an air-breathing, high-altitude
aircraft." He predicted that the successor to
B-2 would "probably ... be hypersonic." He
cautioned, though, that this exotic new aircraft "probably
... will be far in the future."
Hypersonic vehicles typically have "a really
marginal payload," Mark explained, adding, "That's
[their] big problem."
It is difficult to acquire a large payload in a hypersonic
vehicle because of the fineness ratio required of most
designs: Because they are typically long and skinny,
hypersonic craft don't have an obvious place to put
supplies of fuel and weapons, and increasing the payload
and/or range usually means making a larger vehicle.
An informed decision about the military utility of
hypersonic vehicles is a decade away, Mark speculated.
The National Aerospace Plane project, inaugurated
in the mid-1980s, was to have developed a hypersonic,
air-breathing vehicle by the late 1990s, but the decline
and fall of the Soviet Union, coupled with greater-than-expected
technical challenges, inherent difficulties in an interagency
project, and an on-and-off funding commitment from
Congress led to the project's demise in 1994. According
to NASA's former NASP program manager Vincent L. Rausch,
NASP died "when the threat went away." Rausch,
a retired USAF colonel, now serves as program manager
for NASA's Hyper-X, a follow-on project that will fly
three small-scale hypersonic research vehicles.
Waning Interest
"Military interest waned" in NASP when the
Soviet Union collapsed, and as the program progressed,
it became "clear that it was quite a big technical
challenge," Rausch said. The X-30 vehicle, as
NASP was known, would have required a "national
effort" and "several billion dollars" to
build. That kind of money became very scarce in the
early 1990s.
After "13 separate reviews" by a host of
government panels, it was decided that NASP was a "very
laudable thing to do," Rausch asserted, but the
question arose whether the program envisioned "was
the right way to do it."
In 1995, NASA contemplated the technology and research
data left over from NASP, looking for a way to move
ahead. What it came up with was Hyper-X: a project
to fly small-scale versions of a hypersonic craft to
gather data and develop the basic knowledge needed
to make a full-scale version fly.
The key task in making hypersonic craft a reality,
Rausch said, is "flight validation of a scramjet
engine." Hyper-X, he said, is the "cheapest
way to do it" and the logical first step before
something as ambitious as NASP should be tried again.
In an ordinary jet engine, fan blades compress the
incoming air, and, after combustion of fuel, the engine
expels the air at greater pressure, producing thrust.
In a ramjet, the air is compressed by the aircraft's
own forward speed, and combustion occurs inside the
engine in a subsonic flow of air.
In a scramjet--short for supersonic--combustion ramjet-the
airflow inside the engine is supersonic. A scramjet
is necessary if a hypersonic vehicle is to be "air-breathing";
a ramjet or turbofan would not be able to take air
in fast enough to travel at high-Mach speeds.
The X-15 series of test airplanes in the 1960s carried
both fuel and oxygen, and achieved speeds of up to
Mach 6.7, but offered little practical value as weapon
systems, since they carried barely two minutes of fuel
and had to be carried aloft by a B-52 mother ship.
Having burned their fuel, the X-15s had to return to
a dead-stick, unpowered landing. The data they generated,
however, paved the way for the space shuttle's own
high-Mach re-entry and dead-stick landings.
The demonstration of a scramjet is the "top priority" of
Hyper-X, Rausch said. The craft will use liquid hydrogen
as its fuel.
Three single-use craft, each 12 feet long, are being
built under Hyper-X. Each, bearing the designation
X-43, will be mounted on the front of an Orbital Sciences
Pegasus-type booster rocket, which in turn will be
carried to launch altitude by a NASA B-52. In three
successive tests, the booster will be released from
the bomber and accelerate a Hyper-X vehicle to its
test speed and altitudes of about 100,000 feet, at
which point the test airplane will separate and fly
on its own power for about seven seconds, followed
by about six minutes of hypersonic glide. Though brief,
these flights will generate "an eternity of data," Rausch
said.

To test
fast, you have to go fast. This Mach 3plus
SR-71 is carrying a linear aerospike engine on
its spine for high-speed evaluations. In larger
form, the aerospike will power the X-33 and possibly
offer a much cheaper way to orbit. |
"The Spatula"
The first two vehicles, to be flown in January and
October 2000, will fly at Mach 7, while the third,
slated to fly in September 2001, will fly at Mach 10.
Each will resemble the last planned configuration of
the NASP, called "the spatula" by Rausch,
but each will have variations, particularly in the
shape of the inlet, for the speed at which it will
fly.
The three vehicles constitute Phase 1 of the program.
If successful, Phase 2 would draw on the data obtained
from Phase 1 to build a larger version, completely
reusable. It would take off and land on a runway but
operate on a preprogrammed course. How it will get
from ground level to high altitude hasn't been decided
yet, Rausch noted, and considerations include rockets,
a pop-out turbine engine for lower altitudes, and "something
called pulse detonator engines." The choice will
depend on "what integrates best" with the
rest of the vehicle.
After the scramjet, Rausch said, "thermal management"-resolving
the problems of heat generated by friction at very
high speeds--is the next-biggest challenge, followed
by reliable fuel injection at high altitude.
"The rocket community was not very much in love
with NASP," Rausch noted. Many in the NASA launch
vehicle departments saw the project as a competitor
and a drain on resources when rockets could be pushed
to operate more efficiently. Now, though, "there
is a growing awareness that in order to make the improvements
that [the government] wants to see" in the responsiveness
and cost of both getting to orbit and going long distances, "they
have to be open to something different. They're looking
for anything that will work."
The Air Force Research Laboratory is working on power
plants and flight control systems that will make air-breathing
hypersonic craft a reality. Under the HyTech program,
scramjets that would use "ordinary hydrocarbon
fuels" are being explored, according to Robert
A. Mercier, chief of the hypersonic technology program
at the AFRL's Propulsion Directorate.
The scramjets being designed "would work in the
Mach 4 to 8 range," and part of the effort will
be to develop engines that are not merely testworthy
but which would have the durability for operational
applications, Mercier said.
The AFRL also conducted flight tests of a vehicle
called LoFLYTE, for Low Observable Flight Test Experiment.
The vehicle is an example of what is called a "waverider"--a
craft designed to ride its own bow shock wave, much
as a surfboard rides on top of an ocean wave. The 8.3-foot
vehicle has only flown at very slow speeds and altitudes,
to test the basic airfield suitability of its broad,
arrowhead-like shape.

Another concept in
the push to go hypersonic is LoFLYTE, an Air Force
effort to evaluate the benefits of waverider technology;
such craft "surf" on their own shock
wave. So far, it has flown in the pattern to test
basic handling.
This and That
LoFLYTE is also a test platform for a flight control
system with a neural network. Mercier explained that
a neural network uses an adaptive logic that allows
the program to "learn" how to control an
unstable craft by "trying a little of this and
that to see what works" to keep the vehicle stable.
The neural network used in LoFLYTE will be transplanted
into Hyper-X, and cooperation between the programs
is strong, Rausch observed.
A 23-foot-long follow-on to the delta-shaped LoFLYTE
would explore its performance at high subsonic speeds.
Two different designs are being looked at, Mercier
noted, but the task of his project is to provide basic
technological data "to our product centers," who
then decide whether to pursue the technology.
"As lab people, we have to look far downstream," he
said. "Our brethren in the AFRL are looking very
closely" at hypersonic applications in "unmanned
aerial vehicles, uninhabited combat vehicles, and manned
systems ... both for strike and reconnaissance."
He added, though, that "at this point, we are
just looking at vehicle trade studies, looking to see
where the gaps [in capability] are, and doing the groundwork" for
future systems.
The HyTech project will produce a power plant by 2003
for demonstration with a "missile-size application," Mercier
said, and the missile to take advantage of it will
likely be a DARPA project called the Affordable Rapid
Response Missile Demonstrator.
Boeing is developing two different concepts for the
ARRMD, which is envisioned as a Mach 6-cruising vehicle
that would come in at under $200,000 a copy. Boeing
is producing both vehicles because it acquired McDonnell
Douglas, which was offering one of the two finalist
concepts.
One of the vehicles is a waverider and the other is
a spatula-type vehicle like Hyper-X and NASP, according
to Boeing's program manager, John Fox. The operational
concept, he said, is to produce a missile that could
be launched from a platform as small as a fighter and
as large as a bomber, as well as from a canister aboard
Navy ships and submarines. The missile would be used
against time-critical targets such as newly discovered
mobile missile launchers or surface-to-air missile
sites. It would also be useful to attack deeply buried
bunkers.
The missile would have to fit inside the bomb bays
of USAF's bomber fleet as well as in the Vertical Launching
System canisters used by the Navy, meaning no more
than 13 feet long. In order to be carried on the Navy's
F/A-18E/F, the missile must not exceed 2,320 pounds
in weight. A disposable solid booster would propel
each missile to a speed at which its hypersonic engines
could kick in.
The ARRMD has only a 250-pound warhead, a size driven
both by the advances being made in the yield of explosives,
as well as the functional payload limit on a hypersonic
vehicle. The waverider version will be powered by USAF's
HyTech scramjet engine, while the spatula type will
be powered by a dual-combustion combination ramjet/scramjet
built by the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics
Lab. Both versions would use an Inertial Navigation
System/Global Positioning System guidance package,
developed for Boeing's Joint Direct Attack Munition,
to achieve a precision hit within 30 feet of the target.
There is "no preferred concept" at this
point, Fox said. "Both designs are viable ...
candidates."
One of the two concepts will be picked to go ahead
by the end of next year, after which an engineering
and manufacturing development effort will begin to
produce flight test vehicles. If they work, and if
they can be built at the required cost, the program
could put missiles into the hands of operators by 2010,
Fox said.
"Hot Skins"
"The engines are the long pole in the tent," Fox
said. "They are extremely related to the airframe.
This is not like airplanes used to be designed, where
you built an airplane around an existing engine. The
airframe and engine are integral."
Keeping the vehicle from melting is the second biggest
problem, given "the hot engine and hot skin" that
will be encountered at high Mach numbers, he added.
The ARRMD is to fly at Mach 6.5 and fly at 90,000100,000
feet. DARPA is giving Boeing leeway to "trade
off anything we need to against the cost," which
must come in under the $200,000 target, which Fox believes
is possible.
The same kinds of hydrocarbon fuels found in serving
aircraft today will be used in the ARRMD, Fox said.
The Navy insisted that hydrogen not be used because
it would be too hazardous to store and protect on an
aircraft carrier. The use of JP-7 for the waverider
and JP-10 for the dual-combustion ramjet will also
simplify handling of the systems under wartime conditions.
As many as 3,000 ARRMDs are envisioned for the Navy
and Air Force. The services are involved in the effort
but will not become official "sponsors" of
the program until after it has cleared the demonstration
phase, Fox said.
France and Russia are known to be pursuing hypersonic
weapons, but Rausch and Mercier guessed that their
systems are not as well along as the US effort. A Japanese
program is aimed at creating a spaceplane capable of
Single-Stage-To-Orbit flight.
Rausch said the US could build a manned, Mach 5 craft "today,
if we decided to" for SSTO operations, but "it
would require the kind of national effort and investment" that
was made on the space shuttle program. Building a vehicle
that will exploit the knowledge gained from Hyper-X
and the other hypersonic research projects "is
not going to be cheap" but will pay back the investment
handsomely, he said.
The level of effort being expended on hypersonics
is "probably about right," Rausch asserted,
given that the scramjet technology will make everything
else possible and must, of necessity, "come first."
When the Air Force decided to retire the SR-71--with
no obvious successor in sight--speculation raged that
some sort of secret hypersonic reconnaissance airplane
must have been nearing deployment. Rausch said, "I
wish we had it" but noted that "in the '80s,
when we were working on NASP, we pretty much knew everybody
who was working on this technology." None of them,
he said, knew of any program that had magically leaped
ahead of the state of the art.
Copyright Air Force Association. All rights reserved.
|