Slashdot Mirror
Russia Wants a Hypersonic Bomber
derekmead writes "Hot on the heels of the U.S. Air Force's most recent failed test of an unmanned hypersonic vehicle, Russia now says it wants to jump into the hypersonic game with a long-range bomber. Will Russia's newest Bear fly at 4,500 miles an hour? The Russian military sure hopes so. 'I think we need to go down the route of hypersonic technology and we are moving in that direction and are not falling behind the Americans,' Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said on Russian television. 'The question is will we copy the Americans' 40-year experience and create a [Northrop] B-2 analog or will we go down a new, ultramodern technology route, looking to the horizon, and create a machine able to penetrate air defenses and carry out a strike on any aggressor.' The Russians want their plane operational by 2020, which doesn't seem particularly realistic — we are talking about five times the speed of sound here, and Russia is just starting engine development. The U.S., meanwhile, has been investing in its Waverider program since 2004, and the last test of the X-51A scramjet-powered missile failed after just 15 seconds."
another hypersonic bomber
Perhaps it's time to get the SR-71 out of mothballs.
Despite being ancient and retired, it still seems to be the best thing going.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I want a pony and a million dollars. Doesn't mean it will happen.
Glad someone else is stepping up to the plate. Development on such equipment could easily lead to civilian hypersonic aircraft, getting rid of 15 hour flights to Australia and such. Also sparks research on better ways of space travel, as the scramjet is closer to being space capable than a traditional jet engine.
sudo make me a sandwich
"doesn't seem particularly realistic"?
Huh? Sun Tzu: Never underestimate your opponent
With the Military Industrial Complex as The Winner. Gotta insure that nothing stops the river of cash flowing into "defense" (on either side.)
The Russians should learn from the failures of history.
Failed Northrop Hustler
Failed XB-70 Valkyrie.
All for the same reason, missile defense systems increase performance much more rapidly than aircraft speed.
By the time your hypersonic bomber becomes operational, those missiles will catch up to you.
XB-70 Valkyrie on our side, and the Soviets had something along those lines as well.
Then surface-to-air missiles showed up, and it became clear no bomber could hope to outrun them, so we went with low-observable and/or terrain-following tech. Remember, it's easier to make a missile capable of X speed (just a motor, a warhead, and fuel for one quick interception) than a bomber flying X speed (many warheads, release mechanism, crew, and fuel to carry all that stuff a thousand miles), so you need a massive technological edge to win.
So... does Russia really think they can make hypersonic bombers, but some enemy that's worth using them on can't make even faster hypersonic SAMs?
There was a significant lesson learnt with the Concorde, while it's possible to truck people around at supersonic speeds there just isn't any demand for it and it's an expensive system to maintain any way you cut it. Simply put: it's not viable.
Why bother with a difficult to maintain bomber anyway when several cheap to produce missiles can do the same job?
You know, because a dictatorial kleptocracy with no political ideology to speak of and which is ranked #53 in per capita GDP needs to defend itself against brave young women in punk bands with these.
Glad someone else is stepping up to the plate
And it certainly isn't the people who are forced to pay for it.
>> Wouldn't you rather play a nice game of chess?
No. Let's play thermonuclear war.
>> Fine.
There's been enough time and technological progress for the XB-70 to be successful. Fly-by-wire would fix the stability issue, modern materials would create a lighter airframe, and modern engines would make it more reliable. And since they're Russians, I expect the plane to be able to take off from a dirt road or ice sheet (Firefox).
Given that the ISS is ~360 km from the Earth, and it has a 92 minute orbital period, it seems that bombs could be lifted into space, then launched from there. With sufficient supplies and advanced notice you could get enough stuff in position over the long term and deploy in minutes 4500mph = 2km/s and therefore could be at the surface in 180 seconds (3 minutes) once launched. Then there's the issue of changing orbit, which lets assume takes 1 orbit. So you can stike anywhere in the wold in 95 minutes. Can you fuel, prep and deploy a plane in that time? I think not.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
"The question is will we copy the Americans' 40-year experience and create a [Northrop] B-2 analog or will we go down a new, ultramodern technology route, looking to the horizon, and create a machine able to penetrate air defenses and carry out a strike on any aggressor."
Hmm, let's see, will you copy the most advanced stealth bomber in the history of the world? My guess is no, you will not. Anything else you want to know? You can copy the new Transformers move, you can probably even copy a bootleg of Battleship (2012), but you will not be copying a highly classified, extremely well guarded piece of US defense technology any time soon. Sorry.
In Soviet Russia...jets fly YOU!
The U.S. very nearly had its own supersonic bomber in the late 1960's. It was named the Valkyrie but funding was cut and it was decided that a supersonic bomber wasn't needed if we had ICBMs. However, the Soviets were aware of Valkyrie development and came up with the much overhyped MIG25 Interceptor. The U.S. in turn came up with the F15 Eagle.
Wouldn't it make more sense to develop hypersonic nuclear armed cruise missiles instead? Why do they want to pack meat in a tin can with wings these days?
Life is not for the lazy.
...that they're still a world power. That means building a lot of expensive, useless weapons, because that's what world powers do. Ah, for the good old days, when you could just round up the slaves and put up a pyramid!
The Russians are quite good at iterative design and have been for decades. They'll built a jet, make improvements, build another, make more improvements, and so on. The end result is they tend to have programs that operate at a fraction of the cost of the US analog. But what they have at 2020 won't be anywhere close to what the US has. It may never be anywhere close to the US as they have always had trouble with collecting the intellectual capital to compete with high paying US Defense contractors. In the past there wasn't enough incentive. Time will as they have had more privatization in the last decade.
Russia Wants a Hypersonic Bomber
What a coincidence! I happen to be selling one on Craigslist right now.
I believe it. Russian Engineering always seems to have its house in order. They have experience with Super Cavitation and perhaps there is some applicable cross over tech. Lets not forget that a rocket plane is feasible. If it was me, I'd remove the hypersonic engine as a dependency from the get go and allow design to progress in that area once other issues are proven by flight testing and there is a solid platform to test and evolve the engine upon. Even if the platform never gets an upgraded engine, an actual plane generates better press than arm waving and exploding engine tests.
Brilliant!
It's Star Wars 2.0 and were going to bankrupt the commies into self destruction once more! They took the bait and will sink billions upon billions trying to do something that /should/ work.
Let's get Clint Eastwood to steal that bad boy.
U.S., meanwhile, has been investing in its Waverider program since 2004, and the last test of the X-51A scramjet-powered missile failed after just 15 seconds
So with the Russians just starting on hypersonic engine design, looks to me like they are only 15 seconds behind the US :)
Take Nobody's Word For It.
Didn't the Russians try something like this a long time ago?
http://englishrussia.com/2009/01/25/russian-flying-fortresses/
We should've fucked them up following WW2. Russia might actually be worth a shit by now.
maybe it will be powered by a fusion reactor!
The Russians want their plane operational by 2020, which doesn't seem particularly realistic — we are talking about five times the speed of sound here, and Russia is just starting engine development. The U.S., meanwhile, has been investing in its Waverider program since 2004, and the last test of the X-51A scramjet-powered missile failed after just 15 seconds.
Maybe they'll be funding computer hacking/espionage methods instead of scramjet or hypersonic airplane development- that way, they'll have a hypersonic bomber (plans, at least) soon after we do, at a fraction of the development costs.
Or maybe they'll just think they have the plans.
Of course, that timeline depends on them discovering alien technology in 2019 and not destroying it until 2020.
Why is this post moded down to 0? This is exactly what is wrong with the military industrial complex; has slashdot already been taken over by Pentagon Propaganda Contractors?
Yeah the race is on!
one word Brahmos brahmos 2 can do mach 7 http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/hypersonic/
Please, don't do it with rounded wings, not sure how much it will cost to build it, but the lawsuit could be in the order of billons of dollars.
Or let's make that 3 million...
I am sure the Russins mothballed all the German rocket scientists after the Apollo progam beat them to the moon.
All they have to do is pull them out of cryogenic suspension and put them to work on hypersonic technology.
vi +
Why do you think they had Kasparov arrested?
http://politics.slashdot.org/story/12/08/18/0020243/kasparov-arrested-by-russian-police
Early 1970s technology, 0 to Mach 10 in 5 seconds, intercept at 30,000 meters in 15 seconds. There is just no way a modern hypersonic jet could outrun even that 40 year-old tech.
Considering that the Tu-95 is a turboprop and thus not even capable of ordinary supersonic flight, that'd be a pretty neat trick!
..flight will never, ever be economical....
I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that (taken out of context) quote of yours has plenty of prior art.
Never, ever is a very long time.
Because it was posted as A/C, so no karma was attached...
This is just a red herring to hide their real plan: export the communist godless religion of political correctness to the west and watch them implode.
you have to think in Russian to fly it
We have already been over this.
I think this could spur hypersonic development and scramjet technologies. Scramjets could be a viable way to launch payloads into space without total reliance on rockets and thus reduce launch costs. So some cold-waresque competition could help in this area.
That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
The Bears have had supersonic cruise missiles for some time. They may already have a considerable pool of talent and expertise to draw on.
ICBMs
But Putin is bound and determined to get the band back together for Cold War 2.0. Dick.
Manned hypersonic flight is a long ways off.
An 'unstart' on a hypersonic vehicle would decelerate ridiculously fast, potentially crushing the occupants (10's of G's). This is one reason why the US scramjet experiments have faced difficulties. The break even pressure ratio in the combustor is very difficult to achieve. If you aren't at a break even pressure ratio, you can't produce enough thrust to overcome drag; this means the vehicle begins slowing down (fast), making it even harder to achieve a break even combustor pressure ratio, etc. This failure happens in a matter of milliseconds: a sudden loss of thrust while travelling at speeds that generate fantastic amounts of drag, meaning fantastic deceleration follows.
For the Mercury capsules, for example, if the main engines were to suddenly stop at maximum pressure velocity, the entire structure would decelerate at nearly 15G's. If the capsule alone were to be released at that point, the loads would increase to cause the occupant to be unambiguously crushed from deceleration due to getting rid of the momentum of the rest of the rocket. The Mercury rockets included an escape tower that not only got the capsule away from a malfunctioning rocket, but provided thrust to allow the capsule to decelerate at survivable levels.
Unstarts with supersonic test planes and production planes have resulted in some injuries from the sudden loss of thrust at high speed.
In Soviet Russia, jet scrams you!
I mean, really.
Bombing is done much better with cruise missiles or ballistic missiles.
For spying there are satellites or drones (if you need to get close quickly).
I'm pretty sure that we *won't* see a hypersonic bomber for quite a while, if ever.
And I want a pony. A pink one with a party cannon.
But as a wise, learned man once said, "You can't always get what you want."
So they just better vent their frustration, or they're gonna blow a 50 amp fuse.
Not because I'm afraid of Russia, but Russia trying to keep up justifies more gross military overspending on the part of the US.
with its hyperexpensive unworkable pork projects.
Kinetic space based weapons aimed at all the cities would solve this dilemma. No radiation. 100% retaliation. Play nice or else.
I, of course, will hold the controls.
and I want a PONY!
no, wait, a UNICORN!
a well-hung unicorn.
Couldn't they get Clint Eastwood to go steal it and fly it back to America?
As a rescently minted BA in History I really hate to point out that while dropping and hitting targets at these speeds is impressive. It really doesn't help with the age old problem of "holding the ground taken". Why does it feel like so many of the latest in remote controll drones, million per charge hand held missle lauchers and similar would be of more use to the "EVIL" terrost rathern then a large army attempting to control a upset and radical forgien localation? Historicaly blowing stuff up wasn't even all that big a thing because you, the soilder/general/other military leader, got paid by the amount of booty taken. War historicaly made money for the invantion force if they won (slaves to sale, new land to grown crops on, metal/art/cloth etc) ; today it's unprofitable there seems to be a problem with the cost model here with the tools of death.
Life is like untied shoe laces; it always tripping you up and getting in your way.
Create something new, and let us steal from you, for a change!
A single syllable code name would denote a prop driven aircraft.
Just as America predicted before Sputnik that the USSR would be incapable of going into space before it (and was wrong), it seems that the OP is making the same mistake.
There is just one small problem they haven't worked out yet - slowing down before landing...
War is good for business, and science.......
Maybe this time we won't blow our "peace dividend" on one financial bubble after another that only enriches those engaging in arbitrage, producing nothing.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
His magic underwear will protect us all, didn't you hear?
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
Sarah Palin will keep an eye on them
Drill baby drill - on Mars
The Russians have been victims of much aggression through their history, so I can almost understand their mad desire to always 'strike back', but while I'm in fantasy land here, I want something that can neutralize all weapons, make them backfire on the operator. This would resolve a whole bunch of issues all at once... and fill youtube with all sorts of blooper vids.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
It's as realistic as three aircraft carriers Russian officials talked about several years back. Not with the Russian state of economy. So, it's just a PR campaign which shows Putin as a strong man, real tzar. Tailored for internal audience. He does things like this from time to time. Putin on submarine, Putin best firefighter, best horse rider, best F1 driver, best jet pilot, diver, and so on, and so on...
Don't worry, nothing hypersonic in the observable future.
As to the aggressive Russian schedule, they have a proven method that allows them to duplicate the latest American advances quickly -- they steal the plans.
Russia can "want" anything, but over the past 20 years they've pissed away all of their scientific and technological prowess. Their space launches fail _several times a year_ these days. Their latest passenger jet (Sukhoi Superjet) has been a failure. Their army is mostly equipped with gear made 20-25 years ago. You can only pay pittance to your scientists and engineers for so long.
The crooks and thieves who run that country don't actually need any science or technology. They just need to be in the close proximity to government spending and/or oil and gas cash flow to saw off their share while nobody is looking.
I bet they want an economy too.
I knew retiring the F-14 was a bad idea.
US and Russia has been developing hypersonic aircraft since the 60, namely reentry vehicles. Hypersonic aerodynamics is an established science and ramjets date back to the 30s (actually Soviet Union had a ramjet airplane in the late 30's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramjet). The most difficult parts of hypersonic aircraft project seems to be getting the missile that carries the prototype not to malfunction. Hence the more missiles one can send and the more prototypes one can destroy the more likely they are to succeed. Here lies the problem, after only four unsuccessful attempts US public seems to be giving up. It does not appear that Russian public cares or knows how many Russian prototypes ever got destroyed. Perhaps Russian efforts will help US to finally step up its own efforts in hypersonic aircraft development.
The problems for building a 4,500 mph bomber are a bit much for an 8 year development cycle. First you need engines that work. Second, they to be able to have multiple engines working together in a balanced manner, the way current jets do. You need an airframe that can take the stress. You need pilots that are trained for a whole new way to fly. You need new computer controls. Your bombs and/or rockets will need to be redesigned. Hitting the air at 4,500 mph will be similar to hitting the ground and you don't want them to detonate as soon as they leave the aircraft. Else, you will need to drop them from 50,000 feet or more. Lotsa luck with that.
On the Russians side is the fact that their engineers are extremely good at accomplishing maximum results with minimum assets.
Don't expect any real threats until 2050. Just sayin.
.
From space you do not need a nuclear bomb. A big rock will do more damage.
ok, sticks not so much...
Russia might want one, but I need one.
I prefer Classic Slashdot.