Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
1) You assume a constant burn.
I clearly stated:
Seeing as how from this we can assume it is a scramjet it is fairly obvious that intakes are obviously covered or retracted and uncover or deploy when the solid rocket booster has burned out.
How could it possibly have a constant "burn" if it has a solid rocket booster and then a scramjet motor?
3) Nobody said Mach 10 was the peak speed. In fact, it sounded like a reference to "effective speed". So it could
easily be a two stage rocket design (but with one body instead of two sections). A rapid Mach 15 initial burn followed
by a gradual momentum maintenance burn to prevent air drag from reducing range too much. So this thing likely takes
less than 10 minutes to traverse 2000 km.
When described as being a Mach 10 missile that is generally peak top speed...
There is no chance of a mach 15 initial "burn"... most modern rockets run at between mach 4.5 (for the Kh-32) and about mach 7 for the 400km range Iskander ground launched missile.
Obviously if launched from 25km altitude and at mach 2.5 then performance would be increased, but most likely the solid rocket booster for this missile will be minimised because it clearly has an operating scramjet motor and a scramjet motor has higher speed potential than solid or liquid fuelled rockets.
4) Those tiny intakes would be producing vacuum cavities in a scramjet. Seriously, it is laughable to claim
that those intakes are sufficient for a scram jet. Not a single ramjet or scramjet diagram shows a tiny inflow
aperture. In fact it looks like a ram scoop, i.e. the intake area is large compared to the compression zone.
What tiny intakes?
For all we know the nose tip might be jettisoned and the air intake is the open nose area...
As technology improves scramjets will only get more efficient and scramjet powered missiles will only get faster... the only top speed limit for a scramjet propelled aircraft is its ability to endure heat... the engine and the aircraft structure.
