International Aerospace Discussion

rahulm · Post by **rahulm** » 27 Jul 2011 08:17

This is cutting edge and a bit out there, however, A TED talk on a craft that actually flies like a bird. Quite stunning

If this can be scaled up to include a camera payload, imagine a flock of bird UAV's loitering in the air, even coming down to "rest" on branches during a lull and then taking of again.

khukri · Post by **khukri** » 27 Jul 2011 11:38

rahulm wrote:This is cutting edge and a bit out there, however, A TED talk on a craft that actually flies like a bird. Quite stunning

If this can be scaled up to include a camera payload, imagine a flock of bird UAV's loitering in the air, even coming down to "rest" on branches during a lull and then taking of again.

Can't access the link on IPad but I believe the company that manufactures it is Aerovironment.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Jul 2011 14:42

ISS to be de-orbited and sunk in Pacific after 2020 - Roscosmos

The International Space Station (ISS) will be de-orbited and sunk in the Pacific Ocean after 2020 like its Russian predecessor Mir, Russian Space Agency (Roscosmos) Deputy Head Vitaly Davydov said on Wednesday.

"We will be forced to sink the ISS. We cannot leave it in orbit as it is a very complicated and a heavy object. There must be no space waste from it," Davydov said in an interview posted on the Roscosmos website.

"We have agreed with our partners that the ISS would function roughly until 2020," he said adding the station's life was initially estimated at 15 years.

The ISS has been functioning for 13 years now after receiving numerous international space expeditions.

Asked whether a new space station will be built, Davydov said "there are several possibilities."

The Mir space station was in operation from 1983 to 1998 before being sunk in the Pacific Ocean in a "spacecraft cemetery" not far from Christmas Island in 2000.

The agreement to construct the ISS was signed January 29, 1998 in Washington by representatives from Canada, members of the European Space Agency (ESA), Japan, Russia and the United States.

yantra · Post by **yantra** » 03 Aug 2011 22:26

Lockheed U-2 Flight

http://youtu.be/kJoMDq4AyLc

Simply Awesome! Not sure if someone has posted this already...

Gurus - is India pursuing anything along these lines? That would be fantastic!

saip · Post by **saip** » 03 Aug 2011 22:46

^
Because of long wingspan, it seems to need support wheels during take off which are discarded but how come it does not need them when it lands?

Added later

I found that it has titanium skids at wing tips to facilitate landing and then the Pogos (the wheels that drop off) are reattached before it taxis.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Aug 2011 01:39

rahulm wrote:This is cutting edge and a bit out there, however, A TED talk on a craft that actually flies like a bird. Quite stunning

If this can be scaled up to include a camera payload, imagine a flock of bird UAV's loitering in the air, even coming down to "rest" on branches during a lull and then taking of again.

Have the Chinese hacked into their server yet?

Until then it is not real!

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 04 Aug 2011 03:38

yantra wrote:Lockheed U-2 Flight

http://youtu.be/kJoMDq4AyLc

Simply Awesome! Not sure if someone has posted this already...

Gurus - is India pursuing anything along these lines? That would be fantastic!

Already done that with Foxbats.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 04 Aug 2011 05:30

US suspends F-35 ground, air tests after device failure

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 04 Aug 2011 08:11

shukla wrote:US suspends F-35 ground, air tests after device failure

more details on this grounding

link to FlightGlobal article

The incident marks the third grounding order for the F-35 fleet since last October, and the second in five months involving the AF-4 test aircraft.

In this case, the Honeywell-built integrated power package (IPP) failed during a standard engine test following a maintenance check at 08:30 on 2 August, the JPO said.

The IPP is primarily used as both a starter for the engine and a back-up electrical system, supporting the two main generators. In March, the IPP proved its worth by activating after both generators shut-down with the AF-4 still in flight. The power generated by the IPP allowed the flight control system to keep operating until the pilot landed.

That incident also triggered a fleet-wide grounding in March until Lockheed fixed a flaw with a new generator system design introduced on AF-4. Some aircraft remained grounded for several weeks until the problem was fixed.

Last October, the fleet was also grounded after Lockheed discovered a software glitch that could have allowed the fuel pump to shut down above 10,000ft.

The electrical system has been the cause of three of four major incidents so far during the development phase. The first incident was recorded in May 2007, when the test aircraft numbered AA-1 experienced an electrical short that disabled flight controls on the horizontal stabliser.

Looking at the most experienced fighter manufacturer having teething issues with the F-35, I can only hope that calm minds and sane opinions prevail when the Tejas Mk1 faces teething issues as well after induction.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Aug 2011 09:48

the global hawk (official ceiling 65000ft) and its classified cousins with higher ceiling is likely doing whatever the U2/TR3 was - with far better endurance and same or better payloads.

prabhug · Post by **prabhug** » 04 Aug 2011 11:07

rahulm wrote:This is cutting edge and a bit out there, however, A TED talk on a craft that actually flies like a bird. Quite stunning

If this can be scaled up to include a camera payload, imagine a flock of bird UAV's loitering in the air, even coming down to "rest" on branches during a lull and then taking of again.

I am skeptical about the payload capability.Definitely a Biologically similar ones are efficient

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 04 Aug 2011 11:10

Below is an article that I read on forum.keypublishing with regards to the aerodynamics considerations that were made during the design of J-20. Its an interesting article. It is certainly not something which should make us dhoti shiver, but at the same time succinctly highlights the typical issues and problems faced by designers while working to meet requirements.

Whether all the claims for aerodynamic efficiency are true and would be met or not are open to questions and this is also attested by the author when he/she says "Predictably, the test flight process for China's Fifth gen. fighter will be a long and arduous process and its difficulty level will far exceed those of the J-10, F-22, and T-50."

China's fifth generation fighter project began during the same era when Fourth generation fighters supplanted Third and Second generation fighters as the Chinese Air Force's main battle gears. PLAAF’s positive experience with Fourth generation fighters’ superior maneuverability led to a reevaluation of PLAAF air doctrine based on maneuverability and super maneuverability. As a result of this, Fifth generation characteristics such as unconventional maneuverability, supersonic maneuverability, and supercruise became uncompromisable requirements for China's Fifth Generation Fighter. However, the two types of engines immediately available for China's Fifth generation fighter project are the Russian AL-31 and the indigenous engine still under development, the WS-10 engine. Both types of engines are conventional Fourth generation engines and could only reliably achieve thrust to weight ratios of around 7.5.

The issue of engine designs lagging behind aircraft designs is an old problem in China's aviation industry. Many aircrafts fail to leave the drawing board due to China's inability to develop suitable engines. Take the famous J-10 fighter, for example. If China did not purchase the Russian Al-31 engine in time it would have taken a lot longer for the plane to enter service.

Due to historical precedence of failed engine designs, the Chinese Air Force and Aircraft Manufacturers are afraid to build their Fifth generation fighter project on engines that are still on the drawing board. With China's technological capabilities and funds the Chinese could only produce engines with a thrust to weight ratio of around 9.5 (or a thrust to weight ratio of 10, if you round up.). Chinese engines are still far behind their American counterparts (which have thrust to weight ratios of around 11). As a result of this a major problem facing the Chinese designers is how to produce a fighter plane with the same maneuverability and supersonic performance as American Fifth generation fighters (or, at the very least, have no major disparities in performances).

Design requirements for transonic maneuverability always contradicted requirements for supersonic performance. The former demand wings with larger aspect ratio, smaller swept angle and greater thickness relative to its cord; the latter require wings with a smaller aspect ratio, larger swept angle and smaller relative wing thickness.

Since Fifth generation airplanes emphasize supercruise (the ability of an aircraft to travel at Mach 1.5 for 30 minutes at maximum engine output), supersonic aerodynamic shaping is even more important than those of previous planes. In the area of supersonic aerodynamic shaping, primary constraints include the aspect ratio of the wings, back sweep angle, relative wing thickness and cross sectional shape. Optimizing these parameters for supercruise has significant conflicts with the airplane’s requirement for max lift coefficient at low speeds.

The US leveraged its immense advantage in engine technologies and used a conventional aerodynamic configuration with a 40 degree back swept angle, a small aspect ratio of 2.35, and leading wing slats. This allowed it to successfully solve the problem of optimizing aerodynamic layouts for supersonic, transonic and subsonic speeds. However, because China's engine technology is 30 years behind that of the US, it is impossible for China to use conventional aerodynamic designs to solve the problem of optimizing subsonic maneuverability while maintaining good supercruise capabilities and lower supersonic drag.

Subsonic lift to drag ratio determines an aircraft's maximum range and turn performance. As a result, the Chinese fifth gen. fighter's demand for subsonic lift to drag ratio will not be lower than those of Fourth gen. fighters. Unlike most conventional Fourth gen. fighters, Fifth gen. fighters need to supercruise (the ability of an aircraft to maintain a cruising speed of M1.5 without engaging the afterburners). This means that research on supercruise drag characteristics is pivotal to the aerodynamic design of China's Fifth gen. fighter. In order to satisfy the Air Force demand for supercruise (at least achieve a supercruise speed of 1.XM), the Chinese Fifth gen. fighter must make some sacrifices in subsonic lift to drag ratio. The wings of China's fifth gen. fighter are swept backward at 50 degree angles and have a smaller aspect ratio than those of the F-22A (small aspect ratio wings swept at large angles usually have good supersonic drag characteristics but have poor low speed lift and transonic drag characteristics). This is the design threshold of a fifth generation fighter with supercruise capabilities given the restrictions imposed by China's engine technology. Yet the sacrifices made to improve supersonic drag performances did not convince the Chinese military to lower the Chinese Fifth Gen. Fighters subsonic lift to drag ratio requirements. This seemingly irreconcilable contradiction indicates that it is impossible for China to follow American design logic on her indigenous fighter. This forces China's Fifth Gen. fighter designers to give up America's proven conventional aerodynamic design (since Russia's engine technology was superior to that of China’s the Russians went back to using a conventional aerodynamic layout after many experiments. While it is true that the Russians added numerous innovative features on the T-50 the main aerodynamic layout show significant American influence) and pursue new solutions to this problem.

Due to china's weakness in the area of jet engine development, a new aerodynamic configuration (canard configuration) was chosen to resolve the conflicting requirements of her Fourth generation fighter for transonic maneuverability and supersonic performance. Designs involving both the canards and the leading edge slats already utilized the aerodynamic efficiencies of the airfoils to the maximum. As a result the aerodynamic design of J-10 cannot satisfy PLAAF's requirements for her Fifth generation fighter.

The CAC research institute decided to further relax the longitudinal static stability factor to increase the maximum lift coefficient. Data from the CAC shows that relaxing the longitudinal stability factor from 3% (Fourth generation fighter jets) to 10% results in significant improvements in lift to drag characteristics. Both transonic and supersonic lift to drag characteristics and the maximum lift coefficient value under low speed were improved. The improvements came at the expense of difficult pitch-up problems during high angle of attack maneuvers and a more complex flight control design. After weighing the pros and cons, it was decided that relaxing longitudinal static stability alone would not be enough to satisfy the requirements of a Fifth generation aircraft where transonic lift to drag ratio is concerned.

Because of this, the CAC institute decided to focus on improving the canard configuration with innovative new features.

International aviation technology indicates that conventional aircrafts employing liftbody configuration achieved excellent results in lift enhancement. However, no canard-configuration fighters employed the liftbody design. This is not because no one recognized the advantage of the liftbody configuration but the result of canard placement on canard-configuration aircrafts. Canard-configuration fighter designs generally place the canards above the wings to allow the downwash generated by the canards to interact with the wings. This allows the aircraft to use the interaction of the vortices to produce beneficial couplings that will enhance the lift coefficient. It is difficult for liftbody configurations to satisfy this condition (liftbody design requires the canards to be level with the wings).

Pursuit for supersonic cruise drag characteristics forced the CAC to tinker with the canard liftbody configuration to open a new path in its pursuit for a Fifth gen. design.

CAC discovered during experiments that although adopting the lift body canard configuration reduces the lift contributions from the canards, its overall lift performance is better than that of a non lift body canard aircraft as long as the canards, LERX, and wings were placed at proper distances and angles with respect to one another. The designers were thrilled by this discovery

Further studies indicate that canard configuration aircrafts employing liftbody and LERX derive lift not only from the longitudinal coupling between the canards and forward portion of the LERX with the wings’ shed vortices but also the benign interferences between left and right shed vortices. The latter adds significant lift to the aircraft and greatly contributes to the improvement of lift characteristics.

Even more encouragingly, aircrafts employing the liftbody LERX canard configuration could select smaller aspect ratios. This will, without a doubt, reduce pressure on engine performance. The CAC discovered after numerous experiments that candard configuration planes employing liftbody LERX could, under high AOA conditions, concentrate the lift on the plane's body and inner portions of the wings. After properly reducing the wings’ aspect ratio the highest lift coefficient actually increased instead of decreasing as predicted. This is an amazing phenomenon.

Under conventional aerodynamic configuration, supersonic drag, maximum lift under low speed, and transonic lift to drag ratio suffer from contradictory design requirements. Aircraft wing designs have the most significant effect on supersonic drag. Wings with mall aspect ratio and large sweep angles offer lower drag at supersonic speeds but are detrimental to the other two requirements. The Mig-21 is a good example of this since its wings, with a sweep angle of 57 degrees and an aspect ratio of 2.22, offers very good supersonic performance but worse performances at lower speed.

Under a lift body LERX canard configuration, however, these two traditional contradictions of aerodynamic design became, to a certain degree, reconcilable! The new discover of using liftbody LERX canard configuration allows the aircraft to select smaller aspect ratios than its conventional counterpart (very beneficial for raising the design threshold for low speed characteristics) while maintaining better low speed characteristics than conventional configuration aircrafts. This major discovery allow nations that are comparatively backwards in engine technology to use their available technology to build low cost Fifth gen. aircrafts while maintaining the said aircrafts’ supersonic and low speed high AOA capabilities.

The discovery CAC made in flight aerodynamics resulted not only in a firm technical base on which China's Fifth generation fighter project can build upon but also greatly contributed to the world wide aeronautic industry. This marks the first time that the Chinese aerospace industry moved from being a imitator of aerospace technology to an innovator and pioneer.

After solving issues related to transonic and supersonic drag to lift performance, the CAC must then solve the problem of maintaining aircraft control under low speed and high angle of attack. The solution involves the plane’s non-conventional maneuverability capabilities.

F-22's controllability at high AOA and post stall maneuverability are primarily accomplished by thrust-vectored engines. The CAC, however, has even higher standards in this area and proposed that the Chinese Fifth Gen. fighter should maintain control at high AOA even when the thrust-vectoring nozzles fail. This will allow the plane to recover safely within post-stall AOA parameters (the reliability of Chinese thrust-vectored engine was a major consideration). As a result they included unconventional aerodynamic control devices for high AOA flight in their research project.

Traditionally people believe that the post stall AOA for a canard-configuration aircraft is 35 degrees. The Israelis were the first to propose this and their proposal was taken seriously by many other countries. The French restricted Rafale's highest AOA at 28 degrees while the Chinese set the J-10’s AOA at 26 degrees. As a result the aviation community generally believes that canard configuration fighters are inferior to conventional configuration fighters in terms of high AOA capabilities since the canards’ post stall AOA restrictions severely limited the high AOA capabilities of canard configuration fighters.

Yet Chinese test pilots noticed something completely different during post stall flight. They discovered that J-10's high AOA control was far superior to that of the Su-27 (the J-10 achieved higher angles than the Su-27 during the cobra maneuver). This information was first leaked by test pilot Lei Qiang but widely questioned by military fans.

CAC's research confirms Lei Qiang's claims. Their research reports indicate that there are two types of negative pitch moment control surfaces depending on the positioning of the elevator with respect to the aircraft's center of mass. The first are the "load enhancing" control surfaces. They are control surfaces placed behind the aircraft's center of mass. Examples of this include horizontal stabilizers and trailing flaps which generate negative pitch moment by increasing lift. The second are the "load reducing" control surfaces. They are control surfaces placed in front of an aircraft's center of mass. "Load reducing" control surfaces include the canards, which generate negative pitch moment by decreasing lift. Under high AOA conditions the lift coefficient generated by the wings approach saturation and as a result the negative pitch moment of "load enhancing" control surfaces approach saturation as well. This problem, which is unsolvable by conventional configuration aircrafts at high AOA, could be effectively solved by "load reducing" control surfaces (canards). The unconventional (canard) configuration of China's Fifth gen fighter gives the Chinese fighter a "natural born" advantage at high AOA control.

Taking into consideration the needs of overall lift performance and better negative pitch control of the Fifth generation aircraft design, the areas of the canards are increased by xx%, and their largest deviation angles were increased to xx degrees. This design allows J-20 to have better high angle of attack aerodynamic performance than J-10. It is also superior to the T-50 and F-22 in terms of its high angle of attack unconventional aerodynamics control.

Having solved the issue of maneuverability, China’s Fifth Gen. Fighter must integrate RCS reduction measures into its aerodynamic design. I will only cover some prominent examples here.

Due to requirement for sideway stealth, the planes’ vertical stabilizers need to be canted either inwards or outwards to deflect horizontal radar waves in the other directions. This means that a twin-tail configuration is needed. However, a twin-tail design can reduce the maximum lift coefficient by as much as a factor of 0.4. This is very bad news for the designers whose focus is to increase the J-20’s lift capacity.

Since the negative impact vertical stabilizers have on stealth is offset by its benefit of lift improvement it is difficult to root out this problem. Ordinarily an aircraft designer could lower the negative impacts of the vertical stabilizers by adjusting the area, placement, tilt, and position of the said stabilizers. Yet modifications of the tilt and placement angles are effected by optimal RCS reduction and must comply with stealth considerations. As a result, it is more practical to alter the size and position of the vertical stabilizers. CAC's studies show that plans which decrease the size of the vertical stabilizers or eliminate them all together deserve further attention. Since there are many unresolved technical issues with the stabilizerless design, the CAC ended up picking the method which reduces the sizes of the vertical stabilizers.

Due to the aircraft's need to maintain directional stability it isn't possible for the design team to shrink the areas of the vertical stabilizers till they are within the required specs. The only way to go around this is to employ all moving vertical stabilizers, which allows the vertical stabilizers to half their areas. Vertical stabilizers that are too small, however, will negatively affect an aircraft's directional stability especially when the plane is flying at high Mach speeds or maneuvering at high AOA. In order to maintain the aircraft's directional stability there is usually a limit to the relative sizes of all moving vertical stabilizers. It is not possible to shrink them to infinitesimally small sizes.

CAC's research indicates that improved versions of twin vertical stabilizers decreases the negative impact to the max lift coefficient to the 0.1 level and, at the same time, reduces the structural weight of the vertical stabilizers (decreasing the structural weight of the vertical stabilizers by over 40%).

CAC's obsessive pursuit for its Fifth gen. plane's max lift coefficient and stringent attention to design details helped China's fifth gen. aircraft gain the best transonic maneuverability.

During the design process the CAC not only emphasized the aircraft's sub and transonic capabilities but also focused on improving its supersonic drag characteristics. Aside from choosing the wing shape with attributes such as large backward sweep angle, small aspect ratio, and relatively thin thickness that are beneficial to the aircraft's supersonic drag characteristics, the CAC also incorporated supersonic drag reducing measures on other parts of the plane. Examples of this include the elongation of the plane's body (at the expense of thrust to weight ratios due to the extra structural weight), the incorporation of all moving vertical stabilizers, and the implementation of DSI intakes (measures that lower pressure on the engines by enhancing the thrust to weight ratio via structural weight reduction). Unconfirmed information indicates that China's Fifth gen. fighter used what is known as an "adjustable DSI intake" which will, without a doubt, further enhance the aircraft's supersonic capabilities. Incorporations of such devices testify to CAC's innovative design.

As we happily examine this completely unique Fifth gen. fighter today, just how many of us actually know the dedication and sacrifices the CAC designers made, under backward technological conditions, to reach the peak of aerodynamic design? Their toils were not in vain and as a result of their hard work China's Fifth gen. fighter is now a worthy fighter capable of holding its own in the realm of fighter aircrafts.

January 11th, 2011, the day China's Fifth gen. fighter took off for the first time, is a date worthy of remembrance since it marks the Chinese aviation industry's ascension to one of the top three aviation industries of the world. However, as we celebrate we should also realize that China's Fifth gen. fighter is a plane incorporating too many technological innovations. Until now no other country incorporated so many new technologies on a single aircraft. Liftbody LERX canard configuration, adjustable DSI intake, all moving vertical stabilizers, unconventional aerodynamic control mechanism for high AOA flight, RCS reduction measure and other new technologies and innovations need to prove their worth during future test flights. Predictably, the test flight process for China's Fifth gen. fighter will be a long and arduous process and its difficulty level will far exceed those of the J-10, F-22, and T-50. As we eagerly anticipate the success of China's Fifth gen. fighter's test flight process we send the test flight pilot our best wishes and hope that this magnificent plane will enter service as soon as possible.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Aug 2011 11:27

just goes to show how strategic having control of engine tech is. if they had a engine as good as the russian 5th gen, perhaps so many changes would not be needed and a more easy T-50-owletdragon could have come up in 5 years less.

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 04 Aug 2011 11:40

Singha wrote:just goes to show how strategic having control of engine tech is. if they had a engine as good as the russian 5th gen, perhaps so many changes would not be needed and a more easy T-50-owletdragon could have come up in 5 years less.

Yes definitely shows, how important engine technology is. No matter what you making, aircraft, vehicle, train, ships, satellite, missile, UAV, etc. if you do not know how to make the heart that beats, well you have a dead dodo. This is where we are lacking. We need to develop engines for our cars, trucks, vehicles, tanks, trains, helicopters, plane etc. We need a national effort with a fixed deadline for this and massive investment.

Also shows, how important it is to be realistic. It clearly shows that the panda aircraft designing establishment were not banking on an yet to designed new engine which would be available by the time the aircraft prototype is ready. They were far more pragmatic and decoupled the two. What this has done is that they try to make the best possible airframe they can around a less powerful engine. As and when more powerful engine comes, start integrating that on later versions. Thus even if you have a less powerful engine you design around that less power.

Something we too can learn. It would be better to already design the AMCA around some already available engine, like the present Kaveri, with its lesser thurst, or some other engine. When the higher power Kaveri comes around, put it in a later version. This is what we did for Tejas and we should learn from this.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 05 Aug 2011 07:58

Morocco gets customised Block 52 configuration of the F-16C/D

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Aug 2011 10:05

MiG-29 production enters transformation

Hiten · Post by **Hiten** » 11 Aug 2011 21:17

DARPA has lost Telemetry link with the Falcon during its glide phase

https://twitter.com/#!/DARPA_News/statu ... 0664312832

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Aug 2011 21:19

New York to LA in less than 12 minutes

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 12 Aug 2011 05:36

Entire U.S. Stealth Fighter Fleet Grounded

Test of hypersonic aircraft fails over Pacific Ocean

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Aug 2011 06:31

Will crash of hypersonic Falcon HTV-2 set back Pentagon's ambitious plans?

Thursday's test flight of the Falcon HTV-2 ended with signals lost and a crash landing into the Pacific – but not before it sent engineers half an hour of flight data. The Pentagon hopes the design will allow a non-nuclear response to threats anywhere in the world, within one hour.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Aug 2011 11:45

US loses contact with hypersonic test glider
The fastest aircraft ever launched lost contact with its base and disappeared over the Pacific Ocean yesterday.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/8696 ... pears.html

The unmanned Falcon Hypersonic Test Vehicle (HTV-2) is designed to travel at 20 times the speed of sound.

In theory it could fly from New York to Los Angeles in 12 minutes, and be used by the US military to strike anywhere in the world within an hour.

The US Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) said: “More than nine minutes of data was collected before an anomaly caused loss of signal.

“Initial indications are that the aircraft impacted the Pacific Ocean along the planned flight path.”

The test flight from Vandenberg Air Force Base, 130 miles north west of Los Angeles, was the second for the experimental aircraft. Contact was also lost during the first mission in April 2010.

Shaped like the tip of a spear, the HTV-2 is designed to be launched to the edge of space, separate from its booster rocket and re-enter the atmosphere at 13,000mph, before intentionally crashing into the ocean.

But after the plane separated from the Minotaur 4 rocket in the upper reaches of the atmosphere for its “glide” phase yesterday, contact was lost, DARPA said.

Air Force Major Chris Schulz, the HTV-2 program manager, said: “We know how to boost the aircraft to near space. We know how to insert the aircraft into atmospheric hypersonic flight.

“We do not yet know how to achieve the desired control during the aerodynamic phase of flight. It’s vexing. I’m confident there is a solution.

We have to find it.”

Loren Thompson, an analyst at Lexington Institute with links to the defence industry, said: “The military has a long way to go before hypersonic vehicles are ready for deployment.”

New British missile three times as fast as current weapons
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... apons.html

Travelling at three times the speed of sound and skimming the sea at wave top enemy sailors will have just three seconds to react before they are hit by the latest British-designed missile.

By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent, in Paris
21 Jun 2011

The Perseus missile will be the most sophisticated weapon in its class travelling at Mach 3 or 2,000 miles an hour, three times the speed of existing weapons.

In midflight it can deploy a further two baby missiles that can help it straddle a ship with devastating firepower or seek out extra targets or confuse surface-to-air missile batteries.

One engineer on the project unveiled at the Paris Air Show, said: "This is the stealth bomber of missiles and can penetrate enemy defences like nothing else."

The £800,000 Perseus, designed to replace the existing Exocet and Storm Shadow weapons, will be invisible to radars until the very last few seconds before the two ton weapon impacts.

Lionel Mazenq, spokesman for defence company MBDA who are developing the missile to be ready by 2030, said it was designed to attack the most advanced warships and land targets.
He said: "The Perseus will be the most advanced missile system known to man.

"It is so intelligent it can hit two or three spots at the same time at an incredible level of accuracy.

"It is propelled by a Ramjet motor and can overcome the most advanced enemy missile defences.

"The missile has a radar seeker and laser radar - capable of mapping the ground at such resolution it can recognise one building from another - and will automatically divert if it is heading towards a residential zone where lives could be lost.

"It is also terrain-hugging. It can skim along the sea at just a couple of metres above the waves.”

Perseus, named after the Greek mythological figure, can be launched from warships or fast jets and will be pitched to several armed forces including Britain’s military.

It is being developed by the part-British owned MBDA defence company which supplies two-thirds of missiles dropped by the RAF in Libya and Afghanistan including the dual mode Brimstone anti-tank device

PS:Comparisons with future hypersonic B'<os?

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 12 Aug 2011 18:24

It's not even close to the Brahmos-I that is already deployed. But look at the language used in the article. Like there is no such missile in the world. And Philip already started to make comparison with Brahmos Hypersonic.

And the beauty is this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... apons.html
Lionel Mazenq, spokesman for defence company MBDA who are developing the missile to be ready by 2030, said it was designed to attack the most advanced warships and land targets.

He said: "The Perseus will be the most advanced missile system known to man.

It's a mythical missile.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 12 Aug 2011 20:16

uddu wrote:It's not even close to the Brahmos-I that is already deployed. But look at the language used in the article. Like there is no such missile in the world. And Philip already started to make comparison with Brahmos Hypersonic.
And the beauty is this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... apons.html
Lionel Mazenq, spokesman for defence company MBDA who are developing the missile to be ready by 2030, said it was designed to attack the most advanced warships and land targets.

He said: "The Perseus will be the most advanced missile system known to man.
It's a mythical missile.

Mach 3 missile by 2030.It is no big deal.Infact it is pathetic.If the news for perseus is true then surely UK should get the award for underachievment.

What next?Will they now be developing pentium chips in 2015.A dual sim phone only by 2018.

Seems like sun has finally set on the British Empire.

The only thing novel about this project is that they are planning a MIRV type system for this cruise missile.I dunno how effective it will be or for that matter if it is even needed.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Aug 2011 07:56

you will hear from them soon - as they will coming around with the katora begging for funds and a JV soon

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 13 Aug 2011 08:31

darshhan wrote: The only thing novel about this project is that they are planning a MIRV type system for this cruise missile.I dunno how effective it will be or for that matter if it is even needed.

a re-entry vehicle for a cruise missile

From where will the pay load re-enter the earths atmosphere? Its already in earths atmosphere. cruise mijjiles fly at low altitude . UK is suffering from cognitive dissonance

that's what happens when too many baki biraathers live in Bradford-istan . Djin-eering is formally welcomed to UKistan......

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 13 Aug 2011 10:53

^^Gakakkad ji , Actually when I typed MIRV type I meant multiple warheads and not reentry.Reentry is definitely not involved in this case.So let us give Brits a break on this point.

But the point still remains.Mach 3 Missile in 2030 and that too developed by a so called advanced western nation.It is too low ball.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 13 Aug 2011 22:04

But will appear in a Bondmovie for the next attack on Iran... SDREs will ask why Brahmos is so slow

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 13 Aug 2011 22:09

cmon we know our philip saar

he will rail at US , Tony Blair

but then his anglophile nature will take over and he will scour for 'brit' news

and then a bit of Rodina before back to Fortnum and Mason

But jokes aside the only interesting thing is the baby missilets - thats something I have dreamed off but assumed there were certain limitations

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 13 Aug 2011 22:10

Paul wrote:But will appear in a Bond movie for the next attack on Iran... SDREs will ask why Brahmos is so slow

In fact the whole article is factually incorrect. Mach 3 is not hypersonic . Hypersonic > Mach 5. And you cannot achieve hyper sonic speed with a ramjet . We need a scram jet . The whole missile is for bond film only .

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 15 Aug 2011 23:28

Surya wrote:But jokes aside the only interesting thing is the baby missilets - thats something I have dreamed off but assumed there were certain limitations

One of Brahmos's strong points is the phenomenal Kinetic Energy it bring to bear on the target, if there is going to be some "Missilelet" launched from the main missile which is going to penetrate into two points on the target, much of this energy is lost.. it would be better to launch 2 missiles than to launch one of these. my 2 cents...
This Mach 3, Ramjet missile exists only on paper and utube video. IF it eventually becomes a reality it would be very different, by then Desh would have a Hypersonic Brahmos in production!!!

Hiten · Post by **Hiten** » 16 Aug 2011 15:10

MAKS 2011 starts from today. Meanwhile,

2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r65ShxV8rPM

2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuIizaNaUFs

2005
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--Hc1FsGf5Y

John · Post by **John** » 16 Aug 2011 18:16

darshhan wrote: But the point still remains.Mach 3 Missile in 2030 and that too developed by a so called advanced western nation.It is too low ball.

You do realize the Perseus missile is supposed to be 1/4th weight of Brahmos and yet have same range/payload as Brahmos? And not mention a whole lot cheaper.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 16 Aug 2011 18:20

gakakkad wrote:
Paul wrote:But will appear in a Bond movie for the next attack on Iran... SDREs will ask why Brahmos is so slow
In fact the whole article is factually incorrect. Mach 3 is not hypersonic . Hypersonic > Mach 5. And you cannot achieve hyper sonic speed with a ramjet . We need a scram jet . The whole missile is for bond film only .

In one of the Bond Movies, I think it tomorrow never dies, I think a Tomohawk cruise missile covered 2000 miles in 2 minutes. So lets leave those and rel world as seperate.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 16 Aug 2011 21:16

He he.

Only thing is it wasn't a Tomahawk. It was an AGM-86 ALCM.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 17 Aug 2011 05:52

John wrote:
darshhan wrote: But the point still remains.Mach 3 Missile in 2030 and that too developed by a so called advanced western nation.It is too low ball.
You do realize the Perseus missile is supposed to be 1/4th weight of Brahmos and yet have same range/payload as Brahmos? And not mention a whole lot cheaper.

And approximately 1/4th the kinetic energy? Which super-duper explosive warhead is intended to compensate for that in the Perseus?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Aug 2011 06:59

About the Perseus:

The technology should produce a weapon in 15-20 years. Funding could accelerate the timeframe, Wadey believes.

At 1/4 the cost, smaller, etc, etc, etc .........for ALL the comparisons to the Brahmos ............ the Persues is still in the marketing phase. It MAY not even go beyond that. Funding ..................

John · Post by **John** » 17 Aug 2011 08:19

PratikDas wrote:
And approximately 1/4th the kinetic energy? Which super-duper explosive warhead is intended to compensate for that in the Perseus?

Where did you get that figure? At impact Brahmos' weight will be lot lower than 3 tons (booster alone weights 500 kg+ and there is fuel).

Either way the big advantage of Perseus is that it has same dimensions has exocet and can be carried by all platforms that currently deploy the latter. One of the reasons why we haven't lined many export customers for Brahmos is because it would require significant $$$ to modify surface combatants to fire Brahmos (heck even IN hasn't replaced Styx missiles as originally intended.) I would much rather take 1/4th KE missile which can be fired from a wide variety of platforms: 21 inch torpedo tubes, MRCA/LCA etc

Nrao whether or not its paper product we should take note and also develop a smaller variant of Brahmos missile.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 17 Aug 2011 08:37

John wrote:
PratikDas wrote:
And approximately 1/4th the kinetic energy? Which super-duper explosive warhead is intended to compensate for that in the Perseus?
Where did you get that figure? At impact Brahmos' weight will be lot lower than 3 tons (booster alone weights 500 kg+ and there is fuel.

So you reckon while the Brahmos would've spent its fuel and become lighter the Perseus would've magically retained what little weight it has?

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 17 Aug 2011 10:22

darshhan wrote:The only thing novel about this project is that they are planning a MIRV type system for this cruise missile.I dunno how effective it will be or for that matter if it is even needed.

i don't know if a cruise missile with multiple warheads make sense.

but a ballistic anti-ship missile like the one china supposedly produced would make a whole lot of sense with multiple warheads.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Aug 2011 10:34

perseus shows the kongsberg NSM is not the end of the line and the uber-soln its cracked up to be.