SR-72 Confirmed: Mach 6 Project Blackswift

China's home-grown turbine-based combined cycle (TBCC) engine system has completed its design and development stage and entered the aircraft-engine integration test phase, a major step toward the development of the country's next generation hypersonic drone.

An article published by the WeChat account of Chengdu Aircraft Research and Design Institute, a design facility of the Chengdu Aircraft Industrial Co, on Thursday said the TBCC engine flight test project is led by the institute's chief architect Wang Haifeng, who also led key national defense projects, such as the development of the J-20 and J-10 fighter jets.

The TBCC engine combines a turbine and a scramjet engine, which offers an ideal single-engine solution to achieving the shift from low speed to hypersonic speed, said Liu Xingzhou, a prominent ramjet expert and Chinese Academy of Engineering academician at the China Aerospace Science and Industry Cooperation, in 2011.

The TBCC engine will allow the aircraft to fly at speeds of up to Mach 6, which means five to six times faster than the speed of sound, said Wei Xudong, a Beijing-based military analyst.

www.globaltimes.cn...


Anyone who comes out and says we are 30 years ahead is full of monkey flung horse pucky.

a reply to: anzha

scramjet engine
speeds of up to Mach 6

sigh

Hope it has nice windows so we can wave to them as we pass on the right.

a reply to: mightmight

TBCC. The scramjet is probably used for sustained hypersonic flight.

Jane's is taking it seriously:

www.janes.com...

a reply to: anzha
Sure but its not a scramjet, its *just* a ramjet. Scramjets kick in with speeds past Mach 6. And thats a whole other ballgame.

Look at the bright side. If they get the thing to work eventually the Air Force might be bothered enough to show whatever Iteration of the SR72 they have going these days.
And of course stay mum about all those other assets that already pushed Mach 5 thirty years ago using other tech.

Seriously, whats the point with all this TBCC at Mach 6 crap? They did that with *turboramjets* ages ago. If you want to push much further into hypersonics, fine. But building an operational TBCC platform with a ramjet capped at Mach 6?
Just use the tech that has worked well for decades.

a reply to: mightmight

Mach 5. Not Mach 6.

a reply to: mightmight

Probably because TBCC offers much higher efficiencies. You can tailor your turbine to the regime where it is needed, and thermal management gets a lot easier because you don't have to move that hot air through the mechanical bits of your turbine which is completely removed from the airflow once the ramjet takes over unlike in the J57. And since the air doesn't need to go through the compressor section, it can be more efficient at higher speeds.

Its time to show the toys , no news about the SR-72 since a lot, Russia show the Avangard HGV, and now China soon will show a TBCC demonstrator its time to Locheed to show the world who is the boss.

originally posted by: Bhadhidar
a reply to: Wgeorge666

Interesting.

We used to have an LAV hanger at McClellan around that timeframe.

Wonder if our former “colleagues” were “checking up” on us?

They did matainence on the f117 there when was still classified. And many other programs were supported there as well. But this thing was a trip. Only noticed its outlines when it started to light up i guess u can call it but more like enveloped in a dull light to see silhouette. After about 30 seconds to 1 min. It engines kicks in and a white light brighter than 10 times brighter than venus and boom gone into outerspace in like 5 -10 seconds. Dont think aliens. But def black project well beyond public tech

originally posted by: Bhadhidar
a reply to: Wgeorge666

Interesting.

We used to have an LAV hanger at McClellan around that timeframe.

Wonder if our former “colleagues” were “checking up” on us?

They did matainence on the f117 there when was still classified. And many other programs were supported there as well. But this thing was a trip. Only noticed its outlines when it started to light up i guess u can call it but more like enveloped in a dull light to see silhouette. After about 30 seconds to 1 min. It engines kicks in and a white light brighter than 10 times brighter than venus and boom gone into outerspace in like 5 -10 seconds. Dont think aliens. But def black project well beyond public tech

originally posted by: Bhadhidar
a reply to: Wgeorge666

Interesting.

We used to have an LAV hanger at McClellan around that timeframe.

Wonder if our former “colleagues” were “checking up” on us?

They did matainence on the f117 there when was still classified. And many other programs were supported there as well. But this thing was a trip. Only noticed its outlines when it started to light up i guess u can call it but more like enveloped in a dull light to see silhouette. After about 30 seconds to 1 min. It engines kicks in and a white light brighter than 10 times brighter than venus and boom gone into outerspace in like 5 -10 seconds. Dont think aliens. But def black project well beyond public tech

originally posted by: anzha
a reply to: mightmight

Mach 5. Not Mach 6.

We actually dont know that for sure, dont forget about the green.
And i doubt it would make a relevant difference for an operational platform.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: mightmight

Probably because TBCC offers much higher efficiencies. You can tailor your turbine to the regime where it is needed, and thermal management gets a lot easier because you don't have to move that hot air through the mechanical bits of your turbine which is completely removed from the airflow once the ramjet takes over unlike in the J57. And since the air doesn't need to go through the compressor section, it can be more efficient at higher speeds.

We actually to not know how efficient the newer iteration of *turboramjets* are and how much of a difference it really is.

But regardless, i don’t think pushing for the gold plated solution adds up. Say development and construction cost of a SR-72 like operational recon capability at about Mach 6 costs you 10 billion US-$.
How inefficient does your legacy platform with Mach 5+ from thirty years ago have to be, for it to be actually worth it?
You could do a hell of a lot air refuelings for that kind of money.

Since we are talking about a silver bullet, break glass in case of war platform, with at most a couple of aircraft and a couple of flights per year if that, engine efficiency should really not be a major factor.

Dont get me wrong, i'm all for research into TBCC to eventually build an airbreathing platform to go well past Mach 6.
Just dont push for a operational capability with a cut down ramjet TBCC at Mach 6. Thats not worth it unless you're building a fleet of them. Which wont happen.

a reply to: mightmight

If it's being considered for operational use, one has to assume it is mature.

But it isn't just saving gas money or engine life cycle costs. Operationally, it translates to higher sustained speeds and sprint, better acceleration across most of the envelope, longer range (and less tanking demand as you mention), easier thermal management which saves even more weight (lower cost, smaller size, higher efficiencies), etc

If I ask you to design a tanker that offloads x-lbs at y-range and you use a tudbojet, and I use a turbofan/-prop, my plane will be a lot smaller. Or I can design one the same general size and shape that goes a lot farther and offloads more.

In this context, the biggest operational factor is probably:
It doesn't do me any good to be able to safely overfly Russian IADS for ISR/Strike at high value targets if I have to tank over Russia.

originally posted by: mightmight
a reply to: mightmight
We actually dont know that for sure, dont forget about the green.

Actually, we do. Read the scientific lit. To keep a ramjet working you have to slow the stream down below supersonic. Somewhere around mach 4, this becomes ridiculously difficult. Not impossible, but damned hard. By Mach 5, it is impossible. That's the reason the golden spike for hypersonic is set at mach 5.

And green is not hypersonic. Just fast.

originally posted by: RadioRobert it's being considered for operational use, one has to assume it is mature.

But it isn't just saving gas money or engine life cycle costs. Operationally, it translates to higher sustained speeds and sprint, better acceleration across most of the envelope, longer range (and less tanking demand as you mention), easier thermal management which saves even more weight (lower cost, smaller size, higher efficiencies), etc

Yes. And perfect is the enemy of good enough.
I’m all for pushing the envelope with experimental designs. I’m very much against funding operational vehicles of the gold plated variety and investing billions for marginal/irrelevant performance gains in an operational setting. Especially with very small procurement programs.
There is no case for investing billions upon billions just to build a few silver bullets when there is already something available with a very similar performance.

In this context, the biggest operational factor is probably:
It doesn't do me any good to be able to safely overfly Russian IADS for ISR/Strike at high value targets if I have to tank over Russia.

Ok so you design an aircraft with a couple hundred miles greater range for ten billion US-$ and you’re just back at being screwed once Russia deploys more IADS? Doesnt work in my book.

The platform we are talking about wont overfly Russia period. Whether it pushes Mach 5 or Mach 6, far too dangerous to run into Russian IADS.
Also you can get more range by sizing up the craft. The legacy platform was probably pretty big.

originally posted by: anzha
Actually, we do. Read the scientific lit. To keep a ramjet working you have to slow the stream down below supersonic. Somewhere around mach 4, this becomes ridiculously difficult. Not impossible, but damned hard. By Mach 5, it is impossible. That's the reason the golden spike for hypersonic is set at mach 5.
And green is not hypersonic. Just fast.

Well according to the Boeing CTO they can build a civilian Mach 5 turboramjet without much trouble
www.flightglobal.com...
So literature or not, Mach 5 isnt impossible for one. Its trivial enough to do it for civilian use.

I can see them capping out at Mach 5.5 or whatever if they add the green.
And as said, the difference between that and Mach 6 is irrelevant on an operational vehicle.

a reply to: mightmight

Well according to the Boeing CTO they can build a civilian Mach 5 turboramjet without much trouble

When they actually do it, I will believe it. Read the lit. CEOs frequently spout fud: I'd bet that comment had more to do with trying to steer investment away from the Coloradoan supersonic jet folks than actually thinking something could be built.

a reply to: anzha
Of course they wont build it, that’s not the point. Unless you want to believe that Boeings CTO was talking out of his ass when offering specific details on what they can do with turboramjet tech, the simple truth is, Mach 5 is very possible.

And if they think they can do that with tech available for the civilian aerospace sector, I bet they pushed turboramjets significantly higher with technological solutions which will remain classified.

How much higher i dont know, i wont pretend to have the technical backround to have a firm opinion on that. But again, irrelevant for an operational platform.

originally posted by: anzha

Actually, we do. Read the scientific lit. To keep a ramjet working you have to slow the stream down below supersonic. Somewhere around mach 4, this becomes ridiculously difficult. Not impossible, but damned hard. By Mach 5, it is impossible. That's the reason the golden spike for hypersonic is set at mach 5.

The difficulty is not so much slowing the airflow -- that's pretty easy. Becomes an issue when the resulting temperature increases start getting problematic. If the air coming in is slowed and heated, then the combustor isn't adding very much heat to the flow -- which means much less thrust. Higher drag-less thrust. You hit a wall where the physics are concerned. It's also a lot less efficient as you near the wall because you're creating drag and getting less thrust for the same fuel burn.

Turboramjet or a psuedo one like the J58 is even more limited because a turbine and all the bits are a lot more sensitive to the hot airflow and stresses than what is essentially a hollow tube with no moving parts, and the same thermodynamics apply in trying to add heat in the combustor to an already hot flow.

So if you can still get compression, maintain a supersonic flow (not slowing/heating inlet air as much), and manage to keep the cans lit and steady (scramjet) that's really the only way forward on airbreathing hypersonics.

originally posted by: mm

Ok so you design an aircraft with a couple hundred miles greater range for ten billion US-$ and you’re just back at being screwed once Russia deploys more IADS? Doesnt work in my book. 

The platform we are talking about wont overfly Russia period. Whether it pushes Mach 5 or Mach 6, far too dangerous to run into Russian IADS. 
Also you can get more range by sizing up the craft.

Size is weight is cost. If I can provide the same ability in a Learjet that you can in a 737-max platform, I'll beat your pants off in build, buy, and operations costs.

Everything depends on the maturity level of the tbcc geometry. Presumably what they leaned in Blackswift or before is ready for prime time. Coming up on 20 years of Lockheed combined cycle work, that they think is ready (probably have demonstrated).
Higher speeds and higher altitudes mean smaller threat bubbles and even smaller response times and a very complex firing-solution easily foiled by maneuver. Also, ionization at those higher speeds makes acquisition, targeting, and fuzing a chore.
Presumably, you'd want it for the day you really need it for either strike or immediate pre-strike ISR (find the mobile launchers). Noone is going to care about the politics on that day, and I'd give even odds on the survivability of a sufficiently high-fast platform over a (R)B-21/QUARTZ-style solution. And there's the time-in-transit element.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Size is weight is cost. If I can provide the same ability in a Learjet that you can in a 737-max platform, I'll beat your pants off in build, buy, and operations costs.

Yes I agree. But its also irrelevant since in this scenario the Learjet platform would cost the US billions upon billions to develop and procure, while the 737 platform has already been payed for and been flying for years.
I’m all for research. I’m very much against procuring gold plated silver bullets when there is already a good enough silver bullet in the arsenal.
So again, a TBCC based platform at Mach 6 doesn’t provide any relevant operational advantage over a turboramjet based platform at Mach 5+ in my book. And even if you’re convinced it does provide a meaningful advantage, the advantage is by no means great enough to justify this kind of investment for a slightly improved silver bullet, break glass in time of war type platform.
Funds are tight as is, it’s the wrong call to dump what, an easy 10 billion US-$ into an operational SR-72 when the Lady is a perfectly capable platform.

Everything depends on the maturity level of the tbcc geometry. Presumably what they leaned in Blackswift or before is ready for prime time. Coming up on 20 years of Lockheed combined cycle work, that they think is ready (probably have demonstrated).

It shouldn’t be about what Lockheed thinks is ready, it should be about what’s necessary to complete the mission. If they think they got TBCC working, great.
Too bad a Mach 6 iteration is not needed on an recon vehicle at this time. Back to the drawing boards and on to develop the Mach 12 version. That’s a performance increase to think about.

Higher speeds and higher altitudes mean smaller threat bubbles and even smaller response times and a very complex firing-solution easily foiled by maneuver. Also, ionization at those higher speeds makes acquisition, targeting, and fuzing a chore.
Presumably, you'd want it for the day you really need it for either strike or immediate pre-strike ISR (find the mobile launchers). Noone is going to care about the politics on that day, and I'd give even odds on the survivability of a sufficiently high-fast platform over a (R)B-21/QUARTZ-style solution. And there's the time-in-transit element.

I’m not sure I’d agree with the even odds but whatever.
In the end, the silver bullet won’t win the war. Whether that thing goes in pushing Mach 5 or 6 wont matter. Even if it comes back or not. What will matter in the end? How many B-21 sorties the US Air Force can generate in the theater. How fast they can degrade the A2/AD zone to hurt them before the politicians push for the inevitable cease fire.
The silver bullet platform that can blow up one or two targets in China in one sortie with impunity wont matter one bit with a target list in the tens of thousands.

But you were talking about Russia and some sort of nuclear confrontation. TBH I don’t think it’s a good idea to crash the party with Mach anything fastmover when nukes are about to fly. You might as well push the button if you do that.
I’d take my chances with sneaking in an RQ-180 or whatever you want to call it.
I also think the Russians are at least moderately competent and can set up a layered IADS to shield their mobile strategic assets from a penetrating fastmover.

For that kind of mission Mach 6 is not good enough. You’d need an Isinglass type of platform to do that with some sort of impunity. But again, pushing buttons once you do that and so forth.

a reply to: mightmight

I'm a big believer that perfect is the enemy of good, but I don't think we know enough about current platforms or the requirements driving a new program to make an informed opinion. I'm inclined to think they need something they aren't getting currently if they are going to drop serious change.