The McGraw-Hill Companies
Aviation Week
MEMBER CENTER
LOG IN | REGISTER | SUBSCRIBE
Blogs Forums Photos Videos My Aviationweek

Blog Search

Search all Aviation Week.com blog content

Bookmark and Share
Blog Image
A Defense Technology Blog
Darpa Cancels Blackswift After Congress Axes Funding

DARPA has cancelled the Blackswift reusable hypersonic testbed program. Not surprising, really, after Congress cut its Fiscal 2009 budget from $120 million to just $10 million - slicing $60 million from DARPA's budget request and eliminating all $50 million the U.S. Air Force sought for its share of the program. (You can read the story here.)

I'm not sure what I think about this. Disappointed, certainly, but not surprised. Congress was skeptical of Blackswift's technical feasibility and operational utility. I always had the uncomfortable feeling the research agency was trying to run before it could walk - tackling the "DARPA-hard" challenge of reusable hypersonics before it had some of the enabling technologies firmly in place.

Blackswift was the outgrowth of the agency's Falcon program, which continues. Falcon started out trying to develop three things: a small launch vehicle (SLV), a common aero vehicle (CAV) and a hypersonic cruise vehicle (HCV). The SLV was a small expendable booster; the CAV was a conventional-warhead re-entry vehicle; and the HCV was a powered, reusable, unmanned hypersonic strike platform.

Video: Lockheed Martin

The idea was the SLV would be used to launch unpowered hypersonic test vehicles (HTVs), which would demonstrate aerodynamic and structural technologies for both the CAV and the HCV. An expendable SLV carrying the CAV would provide a near-term prompt global strike capability. The reusable HCV deploying multiple CAVs would provide a far-term capability.

Congress intervened and instructed DARPA to stop work on the CAV, but it continued supporting Air Launch and SpaceX as they developed small launchers. And it continued funding Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works as it developed the HTV. But work on the initial HTV-1 was halted after it proved unproducible, and attention switched to the more-advanced HTV-2, two of which are scheduled to fly in 2009.

While all this was going on, NASA abandoned aeronautics in favor of exploring space and cancelled its hypersonics work, which included plans to fly combined-cycle propulsion demonstrators. Falcon was intended to involve only unpowered demonstrators, but DARPA stepped into the gap and under the Falcon program Lockheed began work on the HTV-3X - a reusable, powered hypersonic testbed.

Video: DARPA

The Skunk Works completed conceptual design of the HTV-3X, and also conducted subscale ground tests of its turbine-based combined-cycle propulsion system under the Facet program. This combined a small high-Mach turbojet with a dual-mode ramjet/scramjet, the two sharing an axisymmetrical inlet and nozzle. The propulsion system was designed to power the demonstrator from takeoff to a Mach 6 cruise and back to the runway.

Because of the funding and time required to build a flying demonstrator, HTV-3X became a separate program, renamed Blackswift. DARPA conducted a competition, but it's believed the only bidder was a "national" team formed by Lockheed and Boeing. Source selection was still under way when Blackswift was cancelled in early October, and DARPA is not revealing who the bidders were.

What does this mean for hypersonics? It's a setback, for sure. Without Blackswift, the hopes for a breakthrough in high-speed flight fall firmly on the shoulders of the AFRL/DARPA X-51A WaveRider program. The Boeing X-51A is scheduled to fly about a year from now, to demonstrate the ability to accelerate from Mach 4.5 to Mach 7 under the power of a hydrocarbon-fuelled, fuel-cooled scramjet.

blog post photo
Picture: Boeing

But the X-51 is not reusable. If it succeeds it is most likely to spin off a hypersonic missile, not the reusable vehicle envisioned by Blackswift. In fact the gap in technology between the reusable, combined-cycle Blackswift and the X-51, which can trace its heritage back almost 20 years to the X-30 National Aero-Space Plane, was one reason for Congress' skepticism.

But perhaps X-51 - and the unpowered HTV-2s - are steps we must take before anyone will take a vehicle like Blackswift seriously. Because, as DARPA program manager Steve Walker says, we will one day have to build a vehicle just like Blackswift if we are ever to make air-breathing hypersonics a reality.

Tags: ar99DarpaBlackswiftFalconhypersonic
Email this post
User Image
HyperTech wrote:
It seems that we have forgotten more than we have learned. Canceling this program because some think it cannot be successful because we have not demonstrated the necessary industrial capabilities and materials is like those that think an over-under TBCC propulsion concept is new when forgetting the XF-103 and the fact that the entire propulsion system was tested at Mach 3 in the 16 foot PWT at AEDC in the 1950's
10/12/2008 11:09 PM CDT
User Image
DensityDuck wrote:
HyperTech: Indeed. It's like everyone suggesting that the Sikorsky X2(*) is an amazing new technological wonder, when Lockheed's AH-56 was doing hingeless rotors and pusher props back in the 1960s.

It's probably true, in general, that people don't realize just how advanced our aerospace research WAS in the 1950s and 1960s. SAGE, for example, is something we wouldn't even try TODAY.

(other posters: "Ah, Jesus, here he goes again")
10/13/2008 12:56 AM CDT
User Image
Bill Sweetman wrote:
One big problem is that this is supposed to be NASA's job. Hypersonics are closely related to better access to space, but the National Astronauts @ Space Agency gave up on that decades ago, and even now prefers to spend billions on recycling 35-year-old Shuttle technology. DARPA, on the other hand, can only go so far without strong endorsement from a military or IC user.
10/13/2008 7:25 AM CDT
User Image
Bobbymike wrote:
Bill, Any chance this has moved into the "black"? How much is already in the black and was cancellation due partly to a duplicative effort elsewhere.
10/13/2008 11:15 AM CDT
User Image
DensityDuck wrote:
Bill: Well, they're recycling 35-year-old Shuttle technology because it's worked for 35 years.

Bobbymike: There wouldn't be any reason for it to "go black", because this is supposed to be a part of deterrence. And, as the man said, what's the use of a Doomsday Weapon if nobody knows you've got it?
10/13/2008 12:12 PM CDT
User Image
jetcal1 wrote:
I would highly suggest that folks do a FBO search for "Vulcan"
10/13/2008 12:59 PM CDT
User Image
redstone wrote:
10/13/2008 1:47 PM CDT
User Image
Bill Sweetman wrote:
Dduck - I know that on Planet NASA, two catastrophic losses out of five vehicles, and the world's highest launch costs, counts as "working". But only on Planet NASA.
I don't know about this going "black". BlackSwift was only partially about sheer speed. With the high-Mach turbine engines, non-cryogenic, JP-like fuel, inward-turning inlets and round engines, and its new high-speed aero (it no longer looks or flies like a doorstop), it was about flying fast and acting like a normal airplane as well.
Sadly, nobody managed to convince the Marines that they could land it on an LHA... then it would have been a shoo-in.
10/13/2008 2:41 PM CDT
User Image
Redstone - thanks for picking up my mistake on the Blackswift story. The beast was supposed to fly in 2012, not 2102 as I said originally. Now corrected.
10/13/2008 3:34 PM CDT
User Image
DensityDuck wrote:
"Dduck - I know that on Planet NASA, two catastrophic losses out of five vehicles, and the world's highest launch costs, counts as "working". "

Ahem. Two catastrophic losses in more than a hundred flights of FREAKIN' ROCKETS. Hell, each STS vehicle has had more flights than any other man-rated, man-carrying that the USA has operated...
10/14/2008 3:18 PM CDT
Defense Industry News
Recent Photos
Industry Insight: Defense & Technology Insight by
Raytheon
Selected Videos