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."
Except for being the wrong plane for the job.
It is a surveillance plane, not a bomber and not a fighter.
It takes pictures and goes fast and there is no room for carrying ordnance. It can't even take off with it's fuel tanks full.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Hypersonic is Mach 5+.
There are other uses to a hypersonic aircraft than simply dodging missiles. The ability to arrive on target in minutes instead of hours, for example. Plus, even if the bomber isn't technically faster than the missile, missiles have limited fuel capacity and require a certain reaction time before they can be fired, so if you can build a bomber fast enough, by the time the missile is fired it can't reach you before it runs out of fuel. This is even more true if you are traveling at extremely high altitudes. If you have a bomber traveling at Mach 5 (1 mile per second, roughly) and a missile traveling at Mach 6 launched at the bomber when it is 20 miles away (easily possible for a high altitude bomber to hit a target that far away), it will take 100 seconds to hit, in which time the missile must travel 120 miles, which is outside the range of, say, a Patriot missile (which travels at Mach 5). And the higher the speed, the more fuel it takes for the same distance. A bomber can afford that. It's a lot harder for a disposable missile to do the same.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
I recently read that the Concorde, while taxiing into takeoff position, used as much fuel as a modern airliner uses getting all the way to its destination
That says more about the reliability of your reading material than the fuel efficiency of the Concorde. It's incorrect by three orders of magnitude.
A 777 uses ~120000kg of fuel for a transatlantic flight. A Concorde uses ~80000kg for the same flight, and ~200kg to taxi into takeoff position.
The problem is that engine design improvements for airliners over the past fifty years have been aimed at subsonic flight regimes producing the modern high-ratio bypass turbofans where the core jet turbine only produces 15-20% of the direct thrust and the fan produces most of the "push". Sadly fans don't work in supersonic regimes although if some aerodynamic Einstein ever comes up with a solution then the world will beat a path to her door.
That restricts supersonic flight to rockets, scramjets etc. and to pure jet engines with variable intake nacelle structures that can slow the incoming air to subsonic speeds so it can be compressed, burned and turned into thrust. The Olympus 593s that powered the Concordes are fifty-year-old designs. Modern engines with similar capabilities are a bit smaller, lighter and more fuel-efficient but they are not even twice as efficient as the originals.