X-51 Hypersonic cruise missile

As for VLS installation, I would not be so sure – the ATACMS booster would fit, and it would appear that the main body is of no greater diameter. This would mean that it should fit in a standard Mk41 VLS (since the ATACMS itself was looked at as a potential naval missile).

I think they’re to the point we’re they’re seriously looking at what’s going to be the next generation Tomahawk so to speak. That’s why HyFly, RATTLRS, and X-51 are all pretty close in size, notional payload, range, etc. They want something that can be launched from a MK41 VLS and probably the F-15 (F-15 has launched HyFly booster test vehicles and I’ve seen renderings of the F-35 fitted with RATTLRS and renderings of both launching from VLS cells). Why the X-51 is going to be launched from a B-52 I suspect has more to do with the aircraft/vehicle interface than vehicle size.

RSM, you seem to be being needlessly rude, Sferrin made very valid points, but you seem to take offence at his questioning your points. The fact is that the X-51 is a representative design for a future missile system, and could almost certainly be put into service if the need arose. This is in much the same way as the RATTLRS could be – it is a test article until it is procured.

As for VLS installation, I would not be so sure – the ATACMS booster would fit, and it would appear that the main body is of no greater diameter. This would mean that it should fit in a standard Mk41 VLS (since the ATACMS itself was looked at as a potential naval missile).

I agree with Sferrin’s comments regarding the comparison of the X-51 with the X-43. The former is planned to have several minutes powered flight at hypersonic speeds, compared to the latter having a matter of seconds powered flight. This makes any comparison very dubious – the X-51 range would naturally be significantly longer, since it is not gliding, i.e. not losing speed and altitude to gain distance.

This is the ultima ratio of those who got none.

In other words “uh. . .” :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=RSM55;1123852]I don’t know what earthly language qualifies as your primary one, but you seem to have serious problems with both English grammar and logic. I wrote “if you think…”. Not “if I think”. Re-read the post and ponder. Your point only proves that you did the one sensible thing and opened and dictionary, herafter confirming that we both define “several” in the same way. Great.

Well since you’re the English professor maybe you could explain how me saying:

“It’s suppose to fly for several minutes. “

and you saying,

“Well, no, if you don’t think that between 5 and 10 is “several”.”

means we agree.

As for the rest of your gibbrish I suppose you’ll also say the X-35 and X-32 weren’t fighter designs and the X-9 wasn’t a missile either? (I guess it was a helicopter? :rolleyes: )

“relatively easy” Unlike the X-43 which in no way was suitable for a weapon or even remotely convertable the whole point of the X-51 is to test a vehicle and propulsion system representative of a real missile.

Thank you. So it’s not a missile.

Now if the arguement is would they convert the existing design or start with a clean sheet then I’d say under the skin yeah, but the OML would have MINIMAL change.

I agree, but the change would not be “minimal”. And I slowly get the impression you don’t know a thing about the X-51. It is not suited for VLS integration, for starters. As for the off-the-shelf booster, do you really think an operational missile would use such a device???

Besides it’s easy to pluck an example out of the air to suit ones arguement.

This is the ultima ratio of those who got none.

On a scale with the hydrogen powered, Pegasus-for-a-booster, scramjet-operates for a few seconds, X-43 at one end and a deployable missile on the other the X-51 is far closer to the latter than the former.

I absolutely agree. Closer is the key word here.

According to the dictionary between five and ten qualifies as “several”. I take it English isn’t your primary language?

I don’t know what earthly language qualifies as your primary one, but you seem to have serious problems with both English grammar and logic. I wrote “if you think…”. Not “if I think”. Re-read the post and ponder. Your point only proves that you did the one sensible thing and opened and dictionary, herafter confirming that we both define “several” in the same way. Great.

And BTW, do you really know the autonomous flight time of the X-51? Seems you don’t.

The X-43 was only under scramjet power for roughly ten seconds.

Very roughly.

It might not be an operational weapon system but it most certainly IS a missile.

Ok, then you should write, regarding all your posts:
“I sferrin hereby solemnly declare that the X-51, whose purpose in my own words is to “test a vehicle and propulsion system representative of a real missile” and which has no guidance system and no warhead and is not intended to strike any target, which is flying autonomously for a time actually unknown to myself but certainly for “several minutes”, is certainly a missile. Signed and confirmed by me, sferrin”.

Do or dare, as they say.

You’re battling on a very sticky wicket here. Except in the case you think that fitting the testbed with a warhead, a guidance system, a new engine (capable of enduring longer flights), new electronics, launcher-missile interface etc. is “relatively easy”.

“relatively easy” Unlike the X-43 which in no way was suitable for a weapon or even remotely convertable the whole point of the X-51 is to test a vehicle and propulsion system representative of a real missile. That’s why it sized for a VLS, that’s why it use hydrocarbon fuel, that’s why it uses an off the shelf booster. Now if the arguement is would they convert the existing design or start with a clean sheet then I’d say under the skin yeah, but the OML would have MINIMAL change.

Hell, if you don’t get what I’m hinting at, look at the differences between the nuke-armed and conventional versions of the Tomahawk (we’re speaking here of the same missile, basically, not even a “transition” between an engine testbed and an operational missile) in terms of range, equipment, conversation duration, system integration etc etc. And then say if you think it’s “relatively easy”.

The Tomahawk wasn’t designed to carry a conventional warhead from the outset. Besides it’s easy to pluck an example out of the air to suit ones arguement. ERINT to PAC-3. Very few problems (certainly no show stoppers). ALCM to CALCM. Hell, an 8″ artillery barrel to laser guided bomb in 42 days.

I’m not saying it’s impossible to achieve, only that the X-51 is not a missile.

On a scale with the hydrogen powered, Pegasus-for-a-booster, scramjet-operates for a few seconds, X-43 at one end and a deployable missile on the other the X-51 is far closer to the latter than the former.

Well, no, if you don’t think that between 5 and 10 is “several”.

According to the dictionary between five and ten qualifies as “several”. I take it English isn’t your primary language?

“1. being more than two but fewer than many in number or kind “

And the X-43 was more than “a few seconds” BTW.

The X-43 was only under scramjet power for roughly ten seconds.

And I still don’t see anything here that contradicts my argument. Again, it’s primarily an engine testbed vehicle. Which is great and I personally wish all the engineers and testers well, because I still think it would be a great breakthrough, generally. But it’s not a missile.

It might not be an operational weapon system but it most certainly IS a missile.

Well not quite. It’s size and configuration is intended to be relatively easy to transition to an operational vehicle if so desired.

You’re battling on a very sticky wicket here. Except in the case you think that fitting the testbed with a warhead, a guidance system, a new engine (capable of enduring longer flights), new electronics, launcher-missile interface etc. is “relatively easy”. Hell, if you don’t get what I’m hinting at, look at the differences between the nuke-armed and conventional versions of the Tomahawk (we’re speaking here of the same missile, basically, not even a “transition” between an engine testbed and an operational missile) in terms of range, equipment, conversation duration, system integration etc etc. And then say if you think it’s “relatively easy”.
I’m not saying it’s impossible to achieve, only that the X-51 is not a missile.

Again you seem to be lacking on the details. It’s suppose to fly for several minutes. Unlike a few seconds for the X-43.

Well, no, if you don’t think that between 5 and 10 is “several”. And the X-43 was more than “a few seconds” BTW. And I still don’t see anything here that contradicts my argument.
Again, it’s primarily an engine testbed vehicle. Which is great and I personally wish all the engineers and testers well, because I still think it would be a great breakthrough, generally. But it’s not a missile.

It’s a test vehicle, not a missile, much like the previous hypersonic tests the US did in the 70s/80s, or the SU (Kholod). Hence, the title of the topic is exactly as relevant as, shall we say, “ITER thermonuclear powerplant”, “Lindbergh’s trans-atlantic bomber” or “Pythagoras’ secret beam weapons for littoral warfare”.

Well not quite. It’s size and configuration is intended to be relatively easy to transition to an operational vehicle if so desired.

Autonomous range will be fairly small, if one doesn’t consider the boosting phase as an autonomous flight. Have a look at the X-34A tests for comparison – it will be more or less in the same range, because, hey, it’s a demonstrator!

Again you seem to be lacking on the details. It’s suppose to fly for several minutes. Unlike a few seconds for the X-43.

It’s a test vehicle, not a missile, much like the previous hypersonic tests the US did in the 70s/80s, or the SU (Kholod). Hence, the title of the topic is exactly as relevant as, shall we say, “ITER thermonuclear powerplant”, “Lindbergh’s trans-atlantic bomber” or “Pythagoras’ secret beam weapons for littoral warfare”.

Hopefully they’ll release some range figures into the public domain sometime soon!

Autonomous range will be fairly small, if one doesn’t consider the boosting phase as an autonomous flight. Have a look at the X-34A tests for comparison – it will be more or less in the same range, because, hey, it’s a demonstrator! No need for transcontinental flights (yet). It’s basically a test for the GDE-2 engine.

Thanks, unfortunately I’d found this one, but sadly, little detail other than speed! 🙁

It may of course be too early or too classified, hence not publicised, or it may of course not be intended to be used operationally, merely as a technology demonstrator.

Hopefully they’ll release some range figures into the public domain sometime soon!

X-51

you can find more on the site;

http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/x-51.htm

OK ?

with friendly greetings

‘KERVYN’