On the same subject

• 

  August 2, 2019 | International, Aerospace

  European Hypersonic Cruise Passenger Study Set For New Tests

  By Guy Norris A team of European hypersonic researchers are preparing for wind tunnel tests of a Mach 8 concept that is designed to prove technologies for the development of future ultra-long-range, high-speed commercial vehicles and air-breathing space launch systems. Funded under Europe's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, Stratofly (Stratospheric Flying Opportunities for High-speed Propulsion Concepts) is targeted at fostering hypersonic capabilities for a 300-seat passenger vehicle cruising above 30 km (19 mi.) to TRL (technology readiness level) 6 by 2035. The project builds on the Lapcat waverider concept developed under earlier programs by the European Space Agency/European Space Research and Technology Center. Using the 310-ft.-long Lapcat II MR2.4 version as a reference vehicle, the 30-month Stratofly effort is focused on classic hypersonic technology challenges such as propulsion integration, hot structures and thermal management. In addition, with environmental concerns at the forefront in Europe, the project also includes sustainability considerations such as fuel-burn efficiency, noise and emissions reductions, as well as operational issues such as life-cycle costs, safety and certification. Coordinated by The Polytechnic University of Turin, Italy, the project team believes that sustainable hypersonic travel is feasible through the use of liquid hydrogen fuel and new trajectories that would enable flights from Europe to Australia in 3 hr. Specific targets include 75-100% CO2 reductions per passenger kilometer and 90% reductions in nitrous oxide (NOx) compared to current long-range transport aircraft. A version of the vehicle could also be adapted into the first stage of a two-stage-to-orbit space launch system, says the group. Other members of the 10-strong consortium include the von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics in Belgium, which is focused on propulsion and noise; the Netherlands Aerospace Center, NLR, which is also part of the noise study; and CIRA, the Italian aerospace research center, which is conducting high-speed flow analysis. Propulsion systems and climate impact input is provided by Germany's DLR research organization, while ONERA, the French aerospace research center, is focused on emissions as well as plasma-assisted combustion in the vehicle's combined-cycle propulsion system. Sweden's FOI defense research agency is also part of the plasma combustion study. The French National Center for Scientific Research is also evaluating the vehicle's potential climate impact, particularly in areas such as the effects of water droplets from the exhaust in the upper atmosphere. Studies of the overall business plan, human factors and hypersonic traffic management are being conducted by the Hamburg University of Technology, while the Spain-based Civil Engineering Foundation of Galicia is focused on structural analysis and optimization. Like the original Lapcat design, the Stratofly MR3 waverider configuration is dominated by a large elliptical inlet and an integrated nozzle aft located between two canted tail fins. For takeoff and acceleration up to Mach 4.5, the vehicle is powered by six air turbo ramjets (ATR, also known as air turbo rockets) in two bays of three, each fed by secondary inlets in the primary intake. Above this speed, sliding ramps cover the ATR inlets as the vehicle accelerates and transitions to a dual-mode ramjet/scramjet (DMR) for the next phase of the flight. The DMR is housed in the dorsal section, nested between the ATR ramjets, and is designed to operate in ramjet mode to above Mach 5 and scramjet mode up to Mach 8. The scramjet will incorporate a plasma-assisted combustion system to maintain the stability of the flame front and prevent the potential for flameouts. Tests of the plasma system in a combustor will take place later this year at ONERA, where supersonic combustion testing also took place for Lapcat. The tests will be conducted in November-December at ONERA's ATD5 facility and will focus on inlet conditions at Mach 3.7. Also planned for later this year is a test of the full vehicle in the high-enthalpy wind tunnel at DLR's Gottingen research facility. Testing at DLR will run through September 2020 and is expected to target similar free-stream conditions as those tested on Lapcat II—around Mach 7.8. The work will assess aerothermodynamic characteristics and be used to validate the results of earlier computational fluid dynamics analysis of the MR3 design, which incorporates external and internal differences against the reference vehicle. “We elevated the canard [a retractable feature for lower-speed flight] and redesigned the vertical tails,” says Davide Ferretto, a research assistant on the Stratofly team from The Polytechnic University of Turin. “We also redesigned the leading-edge radius of the inlet for increased efficiency as it feeds both propulsion systems.” As part of the redesign, the enclosed passenger compartment, which was divided into two sections running along each side of the vehicle, has been combined into a single cabin in the lower lobe of the fuselage. https://aviationweek.com/propulsion/european-hypersonic-cruise-passenger-study-set-new-tests

• 

  June 10, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Army Study Asks: How Much Modernization Can We Afford?

  The Army's drive to modernize by 2035 is too big for traditional five-year spending plans, acquisition chief Bruce Jette said. So he's reviving long-term economic forecasting used in the Cold War. By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.on June 09, 2020 at 12:37 PM WASHINGTON: The Army's acquisition chief says the service is sticking with its 34 top-priority programs – in the face of budget pressure from the pandemic. But most of those programs will only move from prototypes to mass production in the second half of the 2020s; then they stay in service for decades with repeated upgrades. So, assistant secretary Bruce Jette says, the Army needs to exploit new technologies like 3D printing and modular upgrades to reduce long-term costs – but also revive long-term economic forecasting techniques largely neglected since the Cold War. “At this point, we're remaining on schedule with the ‘31 plus 3,'” Jette said during an Association of the US Army webcast yesterday. (The Army divides the 34 programs this way because 31 of them, from intermediate-range missiles to smart rifles, are managed by Army Futures Command, but three of the most technologically challenging – hypersonic missiles and two types of missile defense lasers – belong to the independent Rapid Capabilities & Critical Technologies Office). But the service needs to do more planning: “A second thing in the background that we are doing is taking a look at a holistic model, an economic model of the Army.” “We are taking some steps to provide additional data in case there's a prioritization that does come down the road, due to changes in the budget profiles,” Jette said. “That business requires us to have this long-term full understanding of economics, which is what we're focused on trying to develop over the next year.” That study will help inform Army leaders if they have to make a hard choice on which of the 34 priority programs to put first – and, while Jette didn't say so aloud, which may be cut back or canceled entirely. Beyond 2026 The Pentagon normally builds its annual budget two years ahead of time. Congress is now considering the 2021 request, largely drafted in 2019. Those budgets include a less-detailed annex, called the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) that outlines the five years ahead. Now, some of the Army's new weapons will enter service in that timeframe, in limited numbers, including new hypersonic and intermediate-range missiles in 2023. But many, including some of the most expensive, will take longer. So new armored vehicles won't enter service until 2028, new high-speed aircraft not until 2030. Actually building enough to equip a sizable combat force takes even longer. The Army aims to build a decisive counter to Russian aggression by 2028, but expect a force adequate to counter China only by 2035. “I have to have a much longer view of the battlespace, the economic battle space,” Jette said. “The objective [is] to lay a foundation upon which we can take a serious look at what the long-term implications of owning a piece of equipment,” he said. So “I'm working with the G-8 [the Army's deputy chief of staff for resourcing]. In fact, we just had a meeting on this last week to pull out some models that were actually used more in the Cold War, that we sort of let wane [during] Iraq and Afghanistan.... Next week I go up to West Point to have ORSA [Operations Research/Systems Analysis] cell up there that specifically is focused on economics.” New Tricks Now, the Army doesn't plan to simply repeat its Cold War past. The Reagan-era “Big Five” – the M1 Abrams and M2 Bradley armored vehicles, Apache and Black Hawk helicopters, and Patriot missile defense system – have been repeatedly upgraded since their inception. But these platforms are running out of room for more horsepower, armor protection, and firepower, and they were never designed to allow the constant upgrades required to keep pace with modern advances in electronics. The M1 Abrams, for instance, is literally hard-wired. “There are literally, in a tank, over a couple of tons of cabling, all tremendously expensive and all very, very structured,” said Jette, a former tanker himself. “So if you want to change something ... you have to re-cable large portions of it.” The Army must account not only for the up-front cost to research, develop, and build the new weapons, Jette emphasized, but also the much larger long-term bill to operate, maintain and upgrade them. “If we don't think about how it's going to be enhance-able, upgradable, and modified for different uses over a period of time,” he said, “we're missing things, because we do keep them for 30, 40 years. “For industry, if you have a good idea and a new component, how do we get them in a vehicle without having to replace half of the components?” he asked. That requires a new approach called modular open systems architecture that allows you to plug-and-play any new component as long as it meets certain technical standards. “By getting this much more open architecture in place on these vehicles,” he said, “we think that we're going to be able to keep them growing to the future over that 30 to 40 year period.” The Army is also eager to use digital designs, 3D printing, and other advanced manufacturing techniques so it can print out spare parts as needed, rather than stockpile vast quantities of everything it might need for every system. (Jette just visited the Army's 3-D printing hub at Rock Island Arsenal, he said enthusiastically). But this vision raises complex issues of not only managing the technical data but wrangling out the legal rights to use it. Many companies depend on the long-term revenue from selling spares and upgrades, and they're not It's a knotty intellectual property issue that Jette is keenly aware of, being a patent-holder and former small businessman himself. “I do understand ... what type of risk it is. I'll frankly admit that many of the people in the military who fundamentally only been in the military don't understand,” Jette said. “If the risk is totally on you, and it makes no economic sense, I recommend you not answering the RFP.” If too few companies respond to an official Request For Proposals, Jette said, that provides valuable feedback to the Army that maybe it's doing something wrong – feedback he can use in his own quest to educate the service. “Sometimes,” he said, “challenges to RFPs are a good way for you to help me to make sure that people understand that this is too much risk we're asking of industry.” https://breakingdefense.com/2020/06/army-study-asks-how-much-modernization-can-we-afford

• 

  November 19, 2024 | International, Aerospace

  Second Trump presidency could mean harder line with defense industry

  Trump touted his administration's renegotiation of the Air Force One contract with Boeing as an example of how he could cut defense costs.