India's hypersonic plane dream passes first test

Quoted by tphuang:
____________________
actually, it's more likely that the jet will expand so much tha tyou have to build it with holes to compensate for the expansion. So, therefore, it would leak gas all over the runway.
____________________
All that is known. We are developing the technology. The above statement is similar to statements made a few years before the first powered flight in 1903.

Quoted by tphuang:
____________________
I'm glad that you have so much confidence that India can develop a mach 6 cruise missile when other more technologically advanced countries are still not there yet.
____________________
India is also a fast developing technologically advanced country, and it will be there soon.

As to why China is behind in this technology, it may be that it did not invest resources in that direction.

Quoted by tphuang:
___________________
why do you think the Americans are still in Tomahawk? Speed is not the only important part of a missile.
___________________
The hyfly supersonic cruise missile is still in the development stage and is probably years from deployment. Thus, the tomahawk shall remain the mainstay cruise missile of the US till that time.

Speed shall be the most important part of the cruise missile in years to come, as ABM technology is in its infancy. It is unlikely for an incoming cruise missile at over Mach 6--no SAM can react to intercept it.

If reaction is achieved, it is unlikely that the success rate shall be high.
As an example, the ABM version of the Patriot-3 failed to intercept ballistic missiles in an experimental trials (it was successful much later).

It must be mentioned that the tomahawk (or Babar) is NOT invincible, and India has SAMs to intercept it such as the Barak and Trishul (user trials completed).

Even with all this advnacement, india is never going to get to a hypersonic cruise missle before russia, especially since russia has had a program like this for a great many years. in the end, india and russia may cooperate in another brahmos style project to feild a hypersonic cruise missle.

MIGleader said:

in the end, india and russia may cooperate in another brahmos style project to feild a hypersonic cruise missle.

Click to expand...

Yes ofcourse , but the knoledge is required to build and upgrade them in future .

Indianfighter said:

Quoted by tphuang:
All that is known. We are developing the technology. The above statement is similar to statements made a few years before the first powered flight in 1903.

Click to expand...

this is what happened to America's only hypersonic plane. It would loose most of its gas on the runway and then have to do midair refueling.

India is also a fast developing technologically advanced country, and it will be there soon.

As to why China is behind in this technology, it may be that it did not invest resources in that direction.

Click to expand...

lol, just look at China's missile development, space technology. India has to be behind the 5 UN council nations on this.

The hyfly supersonic cruise missile is still in the development stage and is probably years from deployment. Thus, the tomahawk shall remain the mainstay cruise missile of the US till that time.

Speed shall be the most important part of the cruise missile in years to come, as ABM technology is in its infancy. It is unlikely for an incoming cruise missile at over Mach 6--no SAM can react to intercept it.

If reaction is achieved, it is unlikely that the success rate shall be high.
As an example, the ABM version of the Patriot-3 failed to intercept ballistic missiles in an experimental trials (it was successful much later).

It must be mentioned that the tomahawk (or Babar) is NOT invincible, and India has SAMs to intercept it such as the Barak and Trishul (user trials completed).

Click to expand...

PAC-3 failed to intercept ballistic missiles because of a various of reasons. Speed is not the major problem. Do you need me to give you a description of how multiple slower SAMs can destroy faster cruise missiles?

Intercepting cruise missiles is much easier. Most of the current SAMs can intercept cruise missiles. Only S-300V and PAC series and a few other one (darn, I don't know what the French use against ballistic missiles) can intercept ballistic missiles.

Quoted by tphuang:
_________________
lol, just look at China's missile development, space technology. India has to be behind the 5 UN council nations on this.
_________________
India is quite ahead of China in remote-sensing satellites. India shall also launch an unmanned mission to the moon in 2007-08, whereas there is no indication of such from China.

In missile development, India has pioneered many technologies, but it is inappropriate to discuss them on this thread.

Quoted by tphuang:
__________________
PAC-3 failed to intercept ballistic missiles because of a various of reasons. Speed is not the major problem.
__________________
Note:
a] Ballistic missiles are of 2 types :

1] Strategic missiles. They have multi-stage, atmosphere exit and re-entry features. Example: No-dong, M-11, Agni, Shaheen.

2] Conventional: Simpler engine, but has a ballistic trajectory. Example: Scud.

b] ABM technology against the first type of missiles is in its infancy. ABM technology for Scuds is somewhat developed.

Conventional SAMs cannot intercept incoming strategic or conventional ballistic missiles at over Mach 6-7. They can intercept subsonic UAVs or sub-sonic terrain-hugging missiles like Tomahawk, Exocet or Babar only. The Barak (and Trishul later) in India's inventory have this capability.

Only the Arrow SAM of Israel has some capability of intercepting Scuds (it successfully destroyed a Scud in a test), but not strategic missiles.

Please note that the Arrow is controlled by a human operator who predicts the flight path of the incoming missiles, and then fires the Arrow in that direction.
This has to be done due to the extremely high incoming speed of Scuds (2 miles/second).

Now, it is unlikely that Hypersonic cruise missiles shall be terrain hugging(even RAMJET cruise missiles like the Brahmos have to cruise at very high altitudes before descending).

A typical hypersonic missile such as USA's Hyfly shall be similar to a ballistic missile, with a ballistic trajectory. It shall be much faster than a Scud.

Thus, conventional SAMs which have poor success rates against Scuds, shall not be able to intercept hypersonic cruise missiles.

Quoted by tphuang:
__________________
Only S-300V and PAC series and a few other one (darn, I don't know what the French use against ballistic missiles) can intercept ballistic missiles.
__________________
The PAC-series had an 85% failure rate against Scuds in the first Gulf War.

It is unlikely that the S-300 shall have superior performance.

Sources:

India is quite ahead of China in remote-sensing satellites. India shall also launch an unmanned mission to the moon in 2007-08, whereas there is no indication of such from China.

In missile development, India has pioneered many technologies, but it is inappropriate to discuss them on this thread.

Click to expand...

China is planning to put a man on moon by 2020. In fact, it's working with the Russians on this. I really have can't imagine that India has achieved enough in this field to be compared to China.


and on India's progress

a] Ballistic missiles are of 2 types :

1] Strategic missiles. They have multi-stage, atmosphere exit and re-entry features. Example: No-dong, M-11, Agni, Shaheen.

2] Conventional: Simpler engine, but has a ballistic trajectory. Example: Scud.

b] ABM technology against the first type of missiles is in its infancy. ABM technology for Scuds is somewhat developed.

Conventional SAMs cannot intercept incoming strategic or conventional ballistic missiles at over Mach 6-7. They can intercept subsonic UAVs or sub-sonic terrain-hugging missiles like Tomahawk, Exocet or Babar only. The Barak (and Trishul later) in India's inventory have this capability.

Only the Arrow SAM of Israel has some capability of intercepting Scuds (it successfully destroyed a Scud in a test), but not strategic missiles.

Please note that the Arrow is controlled by a human operator who predicts the flight path of the incoming missiles, and then fires the Arrow in that direction.
This has to be done due to the extremely high incoming speed of Scuds (2 miles/second).

Now, it is unlikely that Hypersonic cruise missiles shall be terrain hugging(even RAMJET cruise missiles like the Brahmos have to cruise at very high altitudes before descending).

A typical hypersonic missile such as USA's Hyfly shall be similar to a ballistic missile, with a ballistic trajectory. It shall be much faster than a Scud.

Thus, conventional SAMs which have poor success rates against Scuds, shall not be able to intercept hypersonic cruise missiles.

The PAC-series had an 85% failure rate against Scuds in the first Gulf War.

It is unlikely that the S-300 shall have superior performance.

Sources:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

I would caution against the usage of wikipedia. Those are not valid sources.

As for PAC-2's performance, yes, it is pretty bad. I honestly do not think any ABM system has good success shooting down BM. My theory has always been that PAC never managed to completely destroy any scud in operation desert storm.

Notice, I talked about interception of fast cruise missiles not ballistic missiles. Against ballistic missiles, I doubt PAC-3 or S-300V will make anyone feel safe.

Quoted by tphuang:
_________________
I would caution against the usage of wikipedia. Those are not valid sources.
_________________
Wikipedia's "See Also" and "Reference" sections are valid. One must cross-check with them.

Note: The following article presents scientific information about scramjet technology, and progress made by India in the technology.

Towards air-breathing rockets

THE INDIAN Space Research Organisation (ISRO) added another feather to its cap when it successfully tested the use of oxygen moving at a speed of Mach 6 — six times the speed of sound — in laboratory conditions to produce a stable supersonic combustion lasting for a few seconds.

Put in a nutshell, the organisation has tested the scramjet (supersonic combustion ramjet) technology that uses air moving at supersonic speed (Mach 6) for ignition. The speed of sound is 750 km per second and is called Mach 1. Anything beyond Mach 1 is considered supersonic. Ramjets, on the other hand, use air at subsonic speed (below Mach 1) for ignition.

Joining the elite club

With this, India has joined the elite club comprising a handful of nations that are working on mastering the technology. The U.S., Japan, China, Russia, Australia, and some countries in Europe, according to an ISRO press release, are working on scramjet technology. But none, except the U.S., has tested it in an experimental flight.

Using oxygen present in the atmosphere to burn the fuel is nothing new — all fighter planes with turbojet engines use this technology. The fuel carried by these engines is ignited by air compressed using fans. The expanding gases after compression are directed towards the rear to propel the planes forward.

Conventionally, rockets carry oxygen and fuel and do not depend on oxygen present in the atmosphere to burn the fuel. That is because rockets, unlike fighter planes fitted with turbojets, move at a very high speed, and using oxygen at such high speeds is a challenging task; fighter planes with turbojet engines attain speeds in the range of Mach 2-2.5.

Stable combustion

"Our achievement is not just reaching Mach 6 but being able to produce stable combustion at such a high velocity for a few seconds," said B.N. Suresh, Director of the Thiruvananthapuram based Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC). "It's like lighting a matchstick in a hurricane condition."

To be more precise, the achievement is not just lighting a matchstick in a hurricane condition but also sustaining the flame for the entire duration of operation.

ISRO's achievement was in a laboratory environment. The air velocity was simulated to reach Mach 6 at entry conditions and combustion produced by supplying hydrogen fuel. It next plans to test the technology in a sounding rocket by mid 2007.

Greater thrust achieved

Using air breathing scramjet technology has many advantages. "Rockets using liquid fuel will have a specific impulse of 300 seconds (thrust generated by burning 1 kg of propellant in 1 second) and cryogenic fuel will have 440-450 seconds compared with 2500-3000 seconds with scramjet," Dr. Suresh explained.

"So compared with cryogenic, scramjet propulsion has significant advantage in enhancing the payload capability with cost advantage."

Greater the thrust, the lesser the propellant that needs to be carried. Scramjet powered rocket utilising oxygen available in the atmosphere can thus reduce the amount of oxygen to be carried on board considerably.

Oxygen accounts for nearly 60 per cent of the propellant's weight in a rocket. Rockets would thus become lighter and smaller or can carry more payload.

Dr. Suresh does not wish to commit himself at this stage regarding the quantum of weight reduction that can be achieved. "There will be weight reduction. But how much would depend on the configuration and systems that would be used," he said.

Cost advantage

There is a definite cost advantage when using the air breathing scramjet technology. "The cost reduction will be substantial," is all Dr. Suresh likes to say at this stage.

For all its advantages, air-breathing rockets have to still use conventional fuels to reach an acceleration of Mach 6 before scramjet technology can take over.

Oxygen availability

Another issue is the availability of oxygen. Oxygen is limited to the atmosphere and is dense in the 10-20 km region. "It is best to use [scramjet] optimally at this height," Dr. Suresh underlined.

One would be crossing the denser region of the atmosphere beyond 40-45 km. As a rule, thinning of oxygen is seen as we go higher up the atmosphere.

Oxygen availability in the atmosphere will per force require some changes in the trajectory of the launch vehicle.

Change in trajectory

While a nearly vertical trajectory followed by rockets is possible when oxygen is carried on board, the use of scramjet will necessitate a more horizontal trajectory.

"The trajectories have to be redesigned to allow the launch vehicles [rockets] to be in the atmosphere for longer periods," Dr. Suresh explained.

Longer trajectories in the atmosphere have their own share of problems. "About 2200-2800 Kelvin temperature will be produced [when the rocket is in the atmosphere at higher velocities for longer periods].

"So thermal problems would arise and we need to find solutions for these [problems]," he noted. "We are mastering the technology [to overcome these problems]."

Using scramjet technology becomes all the more important as ISRO has set its eyes on re-launch vehicles (rockets that can be reused). "We are ultimately looking at re-launch vehicles [where we can use this technology]," he noted.

So when does ISRO plan to use scramjet technology in launch vehicles? Dr. Suresh is unwilling to specify a target date. "Let us go step by step," he said, "It is not wise to specify any date now." Sources at ISRO, however, say that it would take 7-10 years before it could ever be used in launch vehicles.

R. Prasad
in Chennai

Source:

Well ISRO's interest in scramjets is more for civilian use rather than military.

Indianfighter said:

Towards air-breathing rockets

The speed of sound is 750 km per second and is called Mach 1.

Click to expand...

Already I can say I don't trust the article. It seems that you parade the scramjet like it will be made tomorrow, and like India is ahead of everyone. The US is still developing it.

I'm sure if China or Europe puts money in SCRAMjets, than they could easily catch up. And like tphuang says, the usefulness is somewhat limited.