Got a tip for Noah?
SEND IT!
(Guaranteed Confidential)
Subscribe

Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Bomb Squad
Cammo Green
Chem-Bio
Cloak and Dagger
Comms
Cops and Robbers
Data Diving
Dissent Tech
Drones
Eat My Dust
Eye on China
FCS Watch
FOS Files
Gadgets and Gear
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
Info War
Iraq Diary
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Net-Centric
Nukes
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Space
Strategery
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
War Update
You can run...

See all Archives
Related Links
News and Intel
Military.com News
Aviation Week
Natl Defense Mag
Strategy Page
Global Security Newswire
Soldiers for the Truth
Security News
Defense Review
Fed Comp Week

Security Sources
GlobalSecurity.Org
Fed Am Sci
CSIS
Ctr for Defense Info
Defense & Natl Interest
Instit for Sci & Intl Secy
Secrecy News
POGO
Cryptome
The Memory Hole
Natl Security Archive

Geeks and Mad Scientists
Slashdot
Wired News
Security Focus
The Register
Gizmodo
Geek Press
Robots.Net
Cosmic Log
Space Daily
New Scientist
TechCentralStation
Engadget
Space.Com
Technology Review
Gyre
Near Near Future
Fed Dev Blog

Bloggers and Buddies
Phil Carter
Global Guerillas
Jeffrey Lewis
Milblogging
OPFOR
Laura Rozen
Larisa Alexandrovna
Juan Cole
Ryan Singel
Josh Marshall
Cursor
Boing Boing
InstaPundit
Winds of Change
Tapped
TalkLeft
Brad DeLong
Mountain Runner
Gene Healy
Clive Thompson
Greg Djerejian
Jeff Quinton
Workbench
Electrolite
Jim Henley
War in Context
Kathryn Cramer
Wash Park Prophet
Blogs of War
Tom Shachtman

Official Dispatches
DARPA
AF Research Lab
Marine War Lab
Soldier Systems Ctr
Naval Research
Army Research Lab
UK Def Sci Lab
NASA News
DoJ Cybercrime

Military Network
Military Benefits
Veteran Employment
GI Bill Express
Personnel Locator
Free ASVAB
The Few
Fred's Place
Army Insider
Navy Insider
Air Force Insider
Marine Corps Insider
Coast Guard Insider



Edited by Noah Shachtman | Contact

Rattlrs Strikes Fast

Cruise missiles are about to get a lot more lethal, thanks to a Navy program called Revolutionary Approach to Time-Critical Long-Range Strike, or Rattlrs. Lockheed Martin and Rolls-Royce North America have a $120-million contract to build a hypersonic missile demonstrator "with trace-ability to an eventual tactical weapon," says Craig Johnston, the Lockheed Martin program manager. First flight is slated for November 2007.

RATTLRS art.JPGOlder cruise missiles such as the Navy's sea-launched Tomahawk and the Air Force's Air-Launched Cruise Missile putter along at subsonic speeds, too slow to hit fleeting targets such as terrorist convoys. Rattlrs, by contrast, is a "near hypersonic" vehicle capable of speeds up to Mach 4. The demonstrator is aiming for a five- to 15-minute flight time. "To put that in perspective, that's on the order of a 500-mile range," Johnston says. The production version might have even longer legs.

But getting to that level of capability won't be easy.

"The challenge is to fit all of the required techs -- engine, flow-path, airframe, avionics -- into a package that is the size of a cruise missile," Johnston says.

Mach 4 speed normally requires a two-stage vehicle with a scramjet second stage. But Rattlrs is aiming for a single-stage turbine engine in order to keep the vehicle small. That means some creative engineering and materials science.

"Temperature is what drives efficiency in turbine engines," says Bob Grude, the Rolls-Royce manager. "We have some special techniques using materials called 'LAM alloys' [as well as] existing high-temperature materials, with a cooling system that allows us to operate the burner at much higher temps than normal."

Affordability is one of Rattlrs' goals, according to Johnston. "The objective on Rattlrs is an integrated system that pulls all same elements of current cruise missiles at greater than three times the speed with no premium -- to put it all into the same cost. Much of tech that is being developed, specifically in the engine area, is a careful balance between a maximum degree of expendability and [adaptability] for reusable vehicles that want to have a long lifetime."

In other words, Rattlrs won't just produce a better cruise missile; it'll feed tech into other hypersonics programs too. "We're in a sense enabling the turbine side of an eventual hypersonic solution [to several problems]," Johnston says.

Rattlrs is just one in a billion-dollar portfolio of hypersonics programs that, in the next 20 years, might revolutionize air combat, commercial air travel and space ops. The most dramatic outgrowth of these programs is the Marine Corps' squad space transport. Much more on that and other hypersonics programs later ...

-- David Axe

Latest Comments

If it is going mach 4+ on the way up, when it comes back down it will be going almost as fast. now all you need is a hardened nose cone and a thermobaric warhead to make one impressive bunker buster.

Posted by: Jeff_F_F at February 4, 2007 9:22 PM


Looks a bit like the front of a Talos.

The Bendix SAM-N-8/RIM-50 Typhon LR from the early 60's hits the Mach 4 with 200 mile range.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-50.html

Posted by: John at September 9, 2006 08:29 PM

===============================================

yes John... i am constantly amazed at how the US military creates designs, puts them into production, scraps them and starts over again, and comes up with something that might be as capable.

i have a few friends who have done DOD work in their lives and they tell me that the greatest single issue is the unwillingness of the military guys to make a design better. IF they had just improved the speed and range of the Talos system, they would already have the majority of what this 'RATTLRS' thing seeks to accomplish.

Posted by: howard at December 8, 2006 2:51 PM


Robot, there are all too often targets of opportunity in warfare with a vulnerable window of MINUTES. A conventional aircraft or cruise missile simply can't cover enough territory fast enough to strike them, unless it just happens to be overhead already. A target doesn't need rocket cars, the distance he can travel in a Land Cruiser during the flight of a Tomahawk can put him out of reach. This is why Armed Predators came into being, becuase the people flying the drones were previously unable to hit the targets they were staring at before the target got out of sight. So Rattlr gives similar capacity to hit targets without needing a Predator or UCAV already in the area.

Posted by: Moose at September 11, 2006 10:55 AM


Great piece David. I'm always quite skeptical about the claim that hypersonics will ever show up in passenger transport - look at what a flop supersonics were - but that's a passing point. I wrote about that and other adoption issues related to hypersonics (and scramjets in particular) about a year ago here: http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=3152

On another point, I agree with Robot that the financial numbers sound a bit, well, optimistic. When did a "revolutionary" follow-on ever fail to massively out-cost its predecessor? Just because contractors always say ahead of time that a program will be cheaper than we can believe doesn't mean that we need to give credence to that statement every single time.

Posted by: Haninah at September 10, 2006 10:07 AM


While hypersonic engines is definitely an area that could afford more research dollars, the justification for RATTLRS seems dubious. 550 mph isn't fast enough to catch a terrorist convoy? Since when do terrorists own rocket cars or jets?

Seems like the Navy is bent on chasing the phantom threats used to justify Rumsfeld's "Prompt Global Strike" scenario. Wouldn't it be cheaper and more effective for them to pour some money directly into applied research on hypersonics while putting the rest into a UCAV demonstrator? UCAV's are most effective at subsonic speeds, which allow them to loiter over or near target areas.

I am really worried that the Rumsfeld/Andy Marshall view of the military's future (lots of fast, long-range, rapid-reaction weapons platforms) will hurt its effectiveness. Over emphasizing long-range technology underplays how critical the human element of warfighting really is. I'm afraid people are thinking we can return to the "American Way of War" in the 1990s with just the right technology.

I'm also pretty dubious of the cost estimates I've seen on some of these pieces of kit. As much as the DOD would like to see the last few years of budget increases as permanent, I think they will be in for a big surprise around 2008-2010.

Posted by: Robot Economist at September 10, 2006 8:58 AM


» View All 6 Comments

» Post a Comment