Russia tests SCRAMJET - Working on thir spaceplane...

Rxke · 2004-07-12 03:32:16

http://hypersonic2002.aaaf.asso.fr/pape … r.pdf].pdf paper: "Fire tests of experimental scramjet in free stream - V.L. Semenov, et al., CIAM Moscow, Russia" with the results.

Whoa, look at the photo's of that engine, looks like something out of the X-Prize contenders' sheds. Russians surely have a way to go and do things on a shoestring-budget...

http://www.testpilot.ru/russia/tsiam/igla/igla.htm]More info (in Russian):"Needle" (GLL-VK) - Hypersonic Flying Laboratory

http://www.testpilot.ru/russia/lii/gll/31/gll31.htm]And another link in Russian:) AEE-31 (VLL-EXPERT)

Thanks to Fjodor Novozhilov on HobbySpace.

JimM · 2004-07-12 04:29:26

Rxke, my knowledge of the Russian language is somewhere between almost nil and nonexistant, but from looking at the only English-language document you referred to, their scramjet does look somewhat home-made; perhaps even to primitive for the X-prize contenders....

Sometimes I wonder if the Russians may not turn out to have the inestimable advantage in this space game of having almost no money. It means they have to think hard and innovatively, instead of just throwing money at a problem.

We all know the story of the millions NASA spent on developing a pen that's ink would flow and thus write in zero gee. The Russian solution? A good old fashioned pencil.

Imagine that repeated thousands of times, and how the costs would tumble.

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-07-12 04:30:49

Whoa, look at the photo's of that engine, looks like something out of the X-Prize contenders' sheds.

In otherwords Russia has levels of control and efficiency in thier budget that NASA and Congress can only dream of! Not all organisations use diamond tipped drill bits to mill wind-tunnel models out of solid lumps of advanced titanium alloy.

ANTIcarrot.

John Creighton · 2004-07-12 08:54:53

Are they just doing wind tunnel tests of the engine? What are the biggest obstacles to scram jet development. What strengths does Russia have that will help them solve these problems. A lot has been said about budgets, but it is surprising how still in some endeavors how much difference one genius can make. Sure Russia may have a small budget but the first country to develop scram jet may have air/space superiority. Funds can come from the Russian military as well in this endeavor. The B2 bomber may soon become obsolete.

RobertDyck · 2004-07-12 12:26:43

A lot has been said about budgets, but it is surprising how still in some endeavors how much difference one genius can make.

True. I heard that Russia was investigating ultra-high pressures and the phase change of hydrogen into metallic solid. They built a giant hydraulic press in an attempt to create the pressure necessary. Then one American researcher developed the diamond anvil press; it uses a small titanium frame to squish two diamonds together, compressing the sample between them. A frame uses a screw and leverage to apply force to the diamonds. It's a simple and small device that was far more effective than the giant monstrosity of previous attempts.

As a current example: The U.S. Navy is studying construction of a http://www.nfesc.navy.mil/ocean/esc50/o … htm]Mobile Offshore Base (MOB). This is a gigantic military asset designed for naval assault. The crucial question has to be "why". Why build such a thing? Combat against a country such as Russia would be such a large endeavour that a base like this would be far too small. Combat against Iraq was so swift that it was enough to use current carriers and assault craft carrying Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC). Military operations quickly became land-based. Small and rapid deployment are important, not a giant slow base.

So how can this philosophy be applied to jet engine development? How can a SCRAM jet engine be developed quickly using affordable lab equipment?

PurduesUSAFguy · 2004-07-12 12:55:06

A lot has been said about budgets, but it is surprising how still in some endeavors how much difference one genius can make.
True. I heard that Russia was investigating ultra-high pressures and the phase change of hydrogen into metalic solid. They built a giant hydrolic press in an attempt to create the pressure necessary. Then one American researcher developed the diamond anvil press; it uses a small titanium frame to squish two diamonds together, compressing the sample between them. A frame uses a screw and leverage to apply force to the diamonds. It's a simple and small device that was far more effective than the giant monstrosity of previous attempts.
As a current example: The U.S. Navy is studying construction of a http://www.nfesc.navy.mil/ocean/esc50/o … htm]Mobile Offshore Base (MOB). This is a gigantic military asset designed for naval assault. The cruicial question has to be "why". Why build such a thing? Combat against a country such as Russia would be such a large endeavor that a base like this would be far too small. Combat against Iraq was so swift that it was enough to use current carriers and assault craft carrying Landing Craft Air Cussion (LCAC). Military operations quickly became land-based. Small and rapid deployment are important, not a giant slow base.
So how can this philosophy be applied to jet engine development? How can a SCRAM jet engine be developed quickly using affordable lab equipment?

In refrence to the Mobile Offshore Base it's not intended so much as an uber aircraft carrier as a mobile Diego Garcia. (sp?) In the middle east and else where we have to deal with allies that may or may not supoort our opperations and thus might not give us baseing privileges. The MOB will give us the ability to opperate conventional aircraft in theater without having to deal with host nations.

I think you are right though that air breathing hypersonics will make a beter solution then the MOB. A hypersonic B-3 based in the CONTUS would be a much more effective weapon platform and less vulnerable.

As far as the Russians SCRAM program goes, while the Ruskies make up for their shoe string budgets with creativity and a willingness to take risks that regretable no longer exists in our space program, I just don't seem them as having the epertise or technological maturity to make it work. ABHS is far too important a stratigic technology for the US not to acheive first.

Grypd · 2004-07-12 15:47:59

Never underestimate the Russian capacity to develop new ideas and to think "out of the box"

We must remember who was the first nation to get into space and to have the first man in space. The Rusians used to come up with some really novel approaches to technology and ideas.
here is some examples.

The Caspian Sea Monster
This was a gigantic military landing ship/plane that used area effect to rise over the waves and allowed something the size of a 737 to speed across the sea. It truly was a monster and its tank carrying capacity would have posed a real threat to any sea facing area. It was a truly unique and interesting idea.

Speed of sound torpedoes
The russians were testing these interesting devices which allowed rocket propelled torpedoes to go faster than the speed of sound under the water. They formed a bubble of gas around themselves to stop water drag. These devices are now being tested and developed by the USA and Britain.

Another point to note is that Russia when it came to tanks instead of building them as the west would do to fit everyone who would crew them. They instead made sure that the crews where short people who could fit the tanks. This is thinking creatively. I also think it should be noted that the Demonstration modules dont say when they where built and just how far along the program really is.

lots of things to think about.

Rxke · 2004-07-15 23:33:54

I also think it should be noted that the Demonstration modules dont say when they where built and just how far along the program really is.

Wich modules do you mean, Grypd?

Grypd · 2004-07-16 04:11:39

If you see the article you will note the Engine model. It does not say how old it is or when it was built.

I really should have said model, Rxke sorry for any confusion accidentally given.

BWhite · 2004-07-16 08:41:29

Supersonic torpedos armed with a tactical nuclear warhead would render a Mobile Offshore Base more of a target than an asset, no?

My reading suggests the Russians are working with the French on such things.

JimM · 2004-07-16 08:47:07

Supersonic torpedos armed with a tactical nuclear warhead would render a Mobile Offshore Base more of a target than an asset, no?

Doesn't something have to be an asset in order to be a worthwhile target?

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-16 08:51:01

Yes it would, but the Russian navy will more or less cease to exsist by the end of the decade at this rate, and you would have to slip past a submarine screen of Seawolf, Los Angeles, and Virgina class nuclear attack submarines... and the P-3 Orion antisubmarine airplane (with sonar boueys and torpedos) then elude the jam-packed-with-ASW gear Seahawk helecopters, and finally escape detection by the SOSUS passive sonar arrays spread on the bottom of the ocean... oh and lets not forget the USN's new low-frequency/long-range active sonar that the enviroweenies are screaming about... and soon, the USN's fleet of antisubmarine UAVs & UUVs (with torpedos!)

Russia has had a nuclear-tipped Shkval torpedo for years already, and unlike in the air, a tactical nuclear warhead underwater is of somewhat less effectiveness.

RobertDyck · 2004-07-16 10:05:47

you would have to slip past a submarine screen of Seawolf, Los Angeles, and Virgina class nuclear attack submarines... and the P-3 Orion antisubmarine airplane (with sonar boueys and torpedos) then elude the jam-packed-with-ASW gear Seahawk helecopters, and finally escape detection by the SOSUS passive sonar arrays spread on the bottom of the ocean... oh and lets not forget the USN's new low-frequency/long-range active sonar that the enviroweenies are screaming about... and soon, the USN's fleet of antisubmarine UAVs & UUVs (with torpedos!)

All of that is necessary to stop one torpedo. Hmm. And how many torpedos can you purchase for the price of all that defense? What about a hi-jacked passenger airliner that's crashed into the deck of the MOB? Even if you use anti-aircraft missiles to take out the airliner (with all of its passengers) wouldn't the pieces fall onto the deck anyway?

Say, I have a better idea. It's really radical. Don't go to war.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-16 10:20:39

Oh you could buy plenty of torpedos... just not ones with nuclear warheads. And it would be a complete suiside mission, since if you fired one of these super-noisy weapons, it would draw a big bright line straight to your position on sonar, and there would be no escape against nuclear fast-attack submarines or ASW aircraft.

And how will you launch them? A USN antisubmarine screen, particularly the Seawolf (the F-22 of attack subs), the low-freq. active sonar, and the UUVs all have a decent chance of catching a hostile submarine... all combined make it essentially a sure thing. Oh yes, and if you are operating a slow moving Diesel/Electric sub, like all submarines are except those owned by the US, Russia, China, Britain, and France (and soon not to be Russia) then you have to worry about spy satelites and UAVs picking up on your thermal signature when you recharge your batteries... Eventually, the US SBR system might even be able to detect anything made of metal that moves on the ocean or in the air reguardless, the Russians were going to try with their RORSATs before the Soviet Union collapsed to possibly track US missile subs.

All that asside though... war will come, if you like it or not... and infact it HAS come, do I need to find a nice picture of Ground Zero? Just like it has before in Pearl Harbor and so on. If a people is not prepared to wage war, then they are preparing for their own destruction... This new kind of war, with weapons so terrible that seem to exceed your imagination, is not one we can afford to wage defensively. JFK understood this when he declared that being attacked is no longer the only justification, as by then it would be too late...

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-16 11:10:00

And as far as airliners being used as cruise missiles against a MOB... yeah right. A volley of SAM missiles or missiles from patroling jet fighters would take care of that issue nicely, as the debries would have a great deal of drag and quickly fall straight down instead of gently arcing to hit the carrier.

BWhite · 2004-07-16 11:34:57

I envision an air launched Shkval torpedo, dropped by a Backfire or similiar fast aircraft standing off from the naval target.

http://www.deepangel.com/html/the_squal … quall.html

With their longer ranger, the Shkval II and newer variants could potentially be launched at a distance of over 60 miles, and home in on their target, with no countermeasures available. As such, a single nuclear equipped Shkval could take out a carrier battle group whilst sitting tens of miles away.

Alternative? Park a mini-sub armed with Shkval(s) in the mud in the straits of Hormuz (or near Yokohama harbor) and go 100% passive - - when the red team passive sensors hear a carrier battle group pass within 60 miles, launch the Shkval to explode a nuclear warhead 200 - 300 meters beneath the CV.

The air bubble thus created would have a chance of cracking the keel of the carrier.

= = =

PS - - Part of my worry is =IF= Russia and France ally. That is why the Bush policy of bashing Chirac can have a significant geo-political downside.

The Russian Navy is the primary user of the Shkval. A downgraded Shkval, the Shkval-E went to an international arms fairs in 1995, and both China, Iran and France have been known to have acquired limited numbers of Shkvals. The Russian press has claimed that the technology of the Shkval cannot be reverse-engineered and thus the Russian Navy is marketing the export variant aggressively.

clark · 2004-07-16 11:46:35

Russia wants into NATO and ESA...

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-16 11:54:39

A fast attack aircraft? It would have to be pretty big to handle such a weapon, and it sure wouldn't be able to get anywhere near a carrier group without getting detected and shot down... surface to air missiles or amraams from patroling fighters travel in the Mach-4 region, and could be deployed at distances longer than any hypothetical Shkvall torpedo could be launched.

The Shkvall also has no homing capability, since it can't use sonar through its own bubble, so if it would have to get real close to a target to do damage with the standard tactical nuclear warhead, then you have accuracy issues to consider since it moves so fast without any external location cues.

As the politics go, Bush is bashing Chirac because Chirac is a frigging idiot who is going to get us all killed with his "America no!" inconcievably unreasonable attitude.

And as far as "parking a minisub..." etc etc, they aren't completly silent, there is no such thing as "100% passive." They would show up differently on active sonar than the sea floor would. In shallow water like straits, they would be visible from the air or satelites. They are slow and would take time to preposition, and could be spotted from the air or from satelites too. Since they are made of metal they would also show up on magnetic detectors and so on, not to mention would be vulnerable to SOSUS too if detectors were placed.

Tracking down submarines is hard, expensive, and reasource intensive... but it is effective.

BWhite · 2004-07-16 11:55:34

Russia wants into NATO and ESA...

And the right-wing of the GOP wants us out, right. . .

clark · 2004-07-16 12:03:55

Disable the sats with a medimum range nuclear tipped missle pointed just over the horizon. <poof> no more super-duper cutting edge space infrastructure to act as a force mulitplier.

Mass all the fleets you want, one nuclear tipped whatever thrown out among a couple dozen ensures that they all disappear under the water.

Destroy the Chinese ports in retaliation.

Watch LA disappear. Watch Bejing burn.

It's a no win, which is why they won't play.

Tawian distracts the populace from the lack of jobs and freedom in China. Just like a war on terroism distracts people here at home. They play the part, we play ours.

Russia could attack- but why? Lose customers for it's oil? lose international investors?

There is a reason large industrial states don't engage in open warfare anymore. Why we fight it out with proxies or with failed states. We all have to much to lose.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-16 12:13:05

"Disable the sats" Ah huh... they are a little higher than LEO, most in MEO or GEO, which is beyond the reach of ballistic missiles. Not that it would take out all of them anyway, and the rest could be repositioned. It would take volleys of specialized antisatelite weapons to knock out the US SBR or IR satelites... and we are, BTW, working on space-borne lasers & interceptors for just such an occasion.

And a nuclear tipped weapon used to take out a carrier group or otherwise? Lets look at the options

-Delivery by torpedo, the warhead would be largely ineffective underwater except at very close ranges, and delivering the warhead through a US ASW screen would be useless

-Air delivery by cruise missile, USN radar and AWACs planes can operate over the horizon, and the missile shot down with the autotmated AEGIS system and its array of weapons

-By theatre ballistic missile, which can be shot down by the new Standard-III missile, shot down by lasers carried on the "DDX" destroyers, or by space-based weapons

Its not that easy...

Nuclear weapons have largely eliminated the threat of large-scale international war, true, but countries like Russia and China are willing to sell advanced weapons to essentially whoever will pay... Proxies? Failed states? Distracted by the WoT? Please... you sound like that liar Michael Moore.

clark · 2004-07-16 12:21:24

"Disable the sats" Ah huh... they are a little higher than LEO, most in MEO or GEO, which is beyond the reach of ballistic missiles. Not that it would take out all of them anyway, and the rest could be repositioned. It would take volleys of specialized antisatelite weapons to knock out the US SBR or IR satelites... and we are, BTW, working on space-borne lasers & interceptors for just such an occasion.

Yeah, the brilliant Neo-cons are setting the stage for an exscuse for CHina et al to justify their current programs. 80% of the sats up there are ours, we derive the most value from them, and we have the most to lose. Also, if you hadn't noticed, the military space assests aren't enough, which is why they use commercial space assests (which is part of their strategy btw) and these things have less capability to withstand the EMP pulse. MEO and GEO don't mean much because it only takes a few of these things launched over the poles to wipe out a good deal of our commercial space assests, and a good chunk of the military assests. GPS, gone, and with it, all of our precision weapons we love so much. The technological superiorty we herald is a two edge sword.

Delivery by torpedo, the warhead would be largely ineffective underwater except at very close ranges, and delivering the warhead through a US ASW screen would be useless

It can be done, and you only need to be nearby to generate a sufficient sized wave to knowck over the boats, or do an emp pulse to knock out the birds- followed by the actual attack.

-Air delivery by cruise missile, USN radar and AWACs planes can operate over the horizon, and the missile shot down with the autotmated AEGIS system and its array of weapons

We don't have the capability to shoot them all down, and it only takes one. It's called missile saturation.

-By theatre ballistic missile, which can be shot down by the new Standard-III missile, shot down by lasers carried on the "DDX" destroyers, or by space-based weapons

none of which exsists. DDX- next decade dude. space based lasers? next decade, assuming they can put it together and get the politcal will. Standard III missile? still fails with a MIRV.

Nuclear weapons have largely eliminated the threat of large-scale international war, true, but countries like Russia and China are willing to sell advanced weapons to essentially whoever will pay...

So will the US. We're no different. We're all playing the same game.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-16 12:32:54

Actually no, the US does -not- sell advanced weapons to any ol' country that ponies up the money, and even then not without strings attached and not the most advanced weapons... "all the same" my foot. China would be happy to sell you Russian made R-300 missiles, or France sell you an Exocet ASM... but you don't see the Tomahawk on the open market.

"MEO and GEO don't mean much because it only takes a few of these things launched over the poles to wipe out a good deal of our commercial space assests, and a good chunk of the military assests. GPS, gone"

Ummm, space is kind of a big place dude. I think you grossly overstate the damage supposedly done by a high-altitude nuke... and then you have the Earth itself shielding much of it. We don't need all the GPS satelites to operate for the system to work you know.

Actually the Standard-III is just about ready to enter service, and I am confidant that the bugs will be worked out. Launching a ballistic missile with multiple MIRVs, well, thats alot of nuclear warheads or at the least a fairly advanced weapon to get ahold of, and AEGIS destroyers won't be parked by their lonesome...

Similar deal but worse with the cruise missile saturation... you'd need alot of missles for it to work, and you'd need a way to launch them. A few big bombers or a large formation of heavy fighters will look kind of conspicuous on radar, and the little Russian diesel-electric boats so popular simply can't volley missiles. About the only thing that might work for cruise missiles is an Oscar SSGN, and Russia isn't about to sell those off.

Edit: Oh yes! And lets not forget that the Standard-III was intended to counter ballistic missiles in the BOOST phase, where MIRVs and decoys are useless... If the THAAD missile ever gets the kinks worked out of it, it would make a dandy interceptor too.

JimM · 2004-07-16 13:27:00

Uh, I was under the impression this forum was about Mars, not military planning for World War III.

Do you think we could get back on-message, guys?

MarsDog · 2004-07-17 00:25:44

Possible to use a very large scramjet as the first stage to Mars ?
Is there a theoretical weight limit ?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-07-12 03:32:16

Re: Russia tests SCRAMJET - Working on thir spaceplane...

#2 2004-07-12 04:29:26

Re: Russia tests SCRAMJET - Working on thir spaceplane...

#3 2004-07-12 04:30:49

Re: Russia tests SCRAMJET - Working on thir spaceplane...

#4 2004-07-12 08:54:53

Re: Russia tests SCRAMJET - Working on thir spaceplane...

#5 2004-07-12 12:26:43

Re: Russia tests SCRAMJET - Working on thir spaceplane...

#6 2004-07-12 12:55:06

Re: Russia tests SCRAMJET - Working on thir spaceplane...

#7 2004-07-12 15:47:59

Re: Russia tests SCRAMJET - Working on thir spaceplane...

#8 2004-07-15 23:33:54

Re: Russia tests SCRAMJET - Working on thir spaceplane...

#9 2004-07-16 04:11:39

Re: Russia tests SCRAMJET - Working on thir spaceplane...

#10 2004-07-16 08:41:29

Re: Russia tests SCRAMJET - Working on thir spaceplane...

#11 2004-07-16 08:47:07

Re: Russia tests SCRAMJET - Working on thir spaceplane...

#12 2004-07-16 08:51:01

Re: Russia tests SCRAMJET - Working on thir spaceplane...

#13 2004-07-16 10:05:47

Re: Russia tests SCRAMJET - Working on thir spaceplane...

#14 2004-07-16 10:20:39

Re: Russia tests SCRAMJET - Working on thir spaceplane...

#15 2004-07-16 11:10:00

Re: Russia tests SCRAMJET - Working on thir spaceplane...

#16 2004-07-16 11:34:57

Re: Russia tests SCRAMJET - Working on thir spaceplane...

#17 2004-07-16 11:46:35

Re: Russia tests SCRAMJET - Working on thir spaceplane...

#18 2004-07-16 11:54:39

Re: Russia tests SCRAMJET - Working on thir spaceplane...

#19 2004-07-16 11:55:34

Re: Russia tests SCRAMJET - Working on thir spaceplane...

#20 2004-07-16 12:03:55

Re: Russia tests SCRAMJET - Working on thir spaceplane...

#21 2004-07-16 12:13:05

Re: Russia tests SCRAMJET - Working on thir spaceplane...

#22 2004-07-16 12:21:24

Re: Russia tests SCRAMJET - Working on thir spaceplane...

#23 2004-07-16 12:32:54

Re: Russia tests SCRAMJET - Working on thir spaceplane...

#24 2004-07-16 13:27:00

Re: Russia tests SCRAMJET - Working on thir spaceplane...

#25 2004-07-17 00:25:44

Re: Russia tests SCRAMJET - Working on thir spaceplane...

Board footer