18 ms·

GE Aerospace Successfully Develops and Tests New Hypersonic Dual-Mode Ramjet

144 points by NoRagrets 2y ago

paganel 2y ago
To what (I guess future) planes would this engine be assigned to? Is there a new US project after the F35?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- zakary 2y ago
  Missiles and Drones. There’s essentially no viable use case for a hypersonic manned jet
  - banku_brougham 2y ago
    In the world we have built, the answer to "what purpose will this new technology serve?" is usually dispiriting.
    - TrainedMonkey 2y ago
      A huge portion of modern technology was originally developed for military applications.
    - hoorayimhelping 2y ago
      This isn't the world we've built, it's the world we live in. We didn't create this world, and we aren't yet powerful enough to change the nature of reality, so to blame humanity for the necessity of defense is silly. You'll be a lot less dispirted if you accept that the world we live in isn't a human creation and that we still haven't made it out of the struggle to survive.
      - prewett 2y ago
        There's nothing in the nature of reality that forces us to fight each other, unless you mean human nature. But we have a choice in whether we choose to be self-serving, which inevitably leads to conflict, or we choose to love our enemy. Loving your enemy requires dying to yourself, usually metaphorically, but it is an option. Humanity is entirely complicit. In fact, each person is a microcosm of that dynamic. Each time we sacrifice a little bit of someone else's well-being for our own, we are engaging in a small bit of that warfare. Cut someone off in traffic because you're in a hurry; cheat a little to get ahead; don't clean up your public mess because laziness/rushed. It's all essentially that same dynamic.
        dotnet00 2y ago
        >There's nothing in the nature of reality that forces us to fight each other The reality that we are each capable of disagreeing with each other and having conflicting priorities, combined with the limited resources we have access to, is the nature of reality that forces us to fight each other.
        credit_guy 2y ago
        > But we have a choice in whether we choose to be self-serving, which inevitably leads to conflict, or we choose to love our enemy. Sounds very poetic, but how exactly does this apply to the case of Ukraine being invaded by Russia? Do you propose that the Ukrainians should love the invaders? If that should happen, then the Poles and the Romanians should also love the Russians when their time to be invaded comes?
        asdff 2y ago
        If people were not pulling the oars, the galley of war would never leave the harbor. People have to remember there are more of them on the oars than there are those who hold the whips, although this is no easy feat when the incentives to paint this simple truth as some desperate impossibility are so high.
        2y ago
- lpcvoid 2y ago
  This will hopefully be used to counter russian and Chinese threats in the future.
  - preisschild 2y ago
    There is a certain military that is happy to test those weapons against real russian targets :)
    - jabl 2y ago
      I think they wouldn't want to use the absolutely newest and greatest tech there for fear the Russkies will figure out something from the wreckage. There's plenty of not quite the latest cutting edge stuff sitting in storage that could be donated, though.
      - spywaregorilla 2y ago
        And so the war of 1990s tech vs. 1970s tech in the 2020s continues
        jabl 2y ago
        I'd argue Ukraine would be better served by the ~1000 ATACMS (in service 1991-) sitting in storage with their expiration dates rapidly approaching, than by a small number of some prototype hypersonic missiles.
        spywaregorilla 2y ago
        Sure. And even better served by a suitable number of F16s (in service 1980).
- Xss3 2y ago
  I think it's likely it'll be used in the sr72. Apparently they had to completely rethink and refocus the project part way though due to new technology becoming available. That tech is probably this rotating detonation dualmode ramjet.
  - jabl 2y ago
    From what I read (on that source of all truth, twitter), SR-72 was effectively canceled due to unforeseen technical challenges. But might be that with a functional dual mode ramjet, assuming that was the major holdup, perhaps the project could be on track again?
  - andrewflnr 2y ago
    Where are you getting "rotating detonation" from? As far as I know that's an unrelated project/problem.
- icegreentea2 2y ago
  Hypersonic dual-mode ramjets are not suitable for 'general' applications. What makes them 'dual-mode ramjets' is that a single engine can work at both supersonic and hypersonic speeds. It's still a ramjet and so needs another means to get the engine/vehicle up to supersonic speeds. As sibsling notes, maybe it could go into SR-72 or similar penetrating ISR platform is a reasonable guess. It might go into some sort of missile carrier (the carrier gets the expensive reusable dual-mode ramjet, so it can launch missiles with cheaper disposable scramjets directly at hypersonic speed?).
bobthepanda 2y ago
How much fuel does it use, I wonder? Supersonic has been DoA for a while because post-deregulation airlines are only interested in ever more fuel efficient aircraft. (It’s also why major states like Japan, China and Russia have for the most part failed to build a competitive airliner against the duopoly.)
- lynx23 2y ago
  Supersonic is only dead in civil aviation. The military doesn't care about regulations :-)
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  >It’s also why major states like Japan, China and Russia have for the most part failed to build a competitive airliner against the duopoly. I don't think that has anything to do with it at all. Building a competitive large airliner requires a huge industrial base. And since it's so safety-critical, it takes a lot of time and expertise to build the reputation needed to unseat the incumbents. China has an aircraft manufacturer, but time will tell if it goes anywhere, since they don't exactly have a reputation for high quality. Russia has built many large aircraft in their Soviet days, but their industrial base has eroded so they probably just don't have the capacity to build competitively-priced aircraft in volume now, plus they're not well-liked by most countries that would want airliners anyway. Japan might be able to do it, but just isn't geared up for building lots of large aircraft so it would be a huge investment to build such an industry almost from scratch. Fuel efficiency isn't a factor because building an airliner doesn't involve building engines for that airliner, and engines determine an aircraft's fuel economy for the most part. Boeing and Airbus don't make jet engines: those are all made by Rolls-Royce, Pratt & Whitney, and GE.
  - sofixa 2y ago
    > Russia has built many large aircraft in their Soviet days, but their industrial base has eroded so they probably just don't have the capacity to build competitively-priced aircraft in volume now, plus they're not well-liked by most countries that would want airliners anyway Russia did design and build a few designs recently - SSJ-100, MS-21, Tu-204/214. Almost all of them used Western parts (such as engines/avionics) to speed the process up because Russian manufacturers are a few decades behind in some critical parts (like engine efficiency). That being said, they're currently trying to ramp up production on a domestic only Tu-204/214 version, but it's slow, probably quite expensive, and super inefficient. > Japan might be able to do it, but just isn't geared up for building lots of large aircraft so it would be a huge investment to build such an industry almost from scratch. Mitsubishi had a regional jet design in progress, the SpaceJet, which got cancelled after a few billion in R&D and years in delays. Ukraine also had decent manufacturing facilities and capabilities with Antonov and Motor Sich, including decent recent designs and subcontracting work for other companies.. but with the war a lot of things were destroyed (like Antonov and Motor Sich factories and facilities), and their focus is mostly on drones and missiles now. > Fuel efficiency isn't a factor because building an airliner doesn't involve building engines for that airliner, and engines determine an aircraft's fuel economy for the most part. Boeing and Airbus don't make jet engines: those are all made by Rolls-Royce, Pratt & Whitney, and GE. Fuel efficiency is a major factor. Outside of countries big enough to prop up a domestic airliner industry with enough spare cash to compensate for inefficiency (which is a list of 1 country, China), nobody will buy a jet which is less efficient than an alternative. Airline margins are razor thin. And not everyone can buy an engine from Rolls-Royce, GE/CFM(their joint venture with Safran that designs manufactures short-haul engines and the future open fan design) and Pratt and Whitney. The Russian UAC cannot. The Chinese COMAC got sold a decade+ old variant for their latest jet out of fear of industrial espionage (the Chinese engine manufacturers have failed at producing reliable and efficient jet engines for any application, usually relying on Russian designs). TL;DR is that modern airliners are extremely complicated, expensive, and have very long lead times. A new design won't be making any money within the first 10-15 years of its life, which means that only countries with very developed and advanced industrial bases, lots of money, and the desire for strategic airliner autonomy will invest in them.
banku_brougham 2y ago
Sorry for the naive question: Back in my day they called it "Supersonic", why do we call it "Hypersonic" now? Are there trademark issues?
- throwaway4good 2y ago
  Supersonic = +1 mach, hypersonic = +5 mach.
  - dghughes 2y ago
    But toothbrushes are ultrasonic. I can never find mine.
    - banku_brougham 2y ago
      the plasma ball is opaque to radar, making it hard to detect.
- Beretta_Vexee 2y ago
  https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/mach.html https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/mach.html We speak of hypersonic flight when we approach or exceed Mach 5. At this speed, the heat is such that the ionized air forms a plasma around the vehicle. To put it simply, you're flying in the middle of a white hot blowtorch. This dramatically alters flight characteristics. Some prototypes approach or exceed mach 20. At this speed you're closer to a meteorite burning up in the atmosphere than to any form of aircraft.
  - icegreentea2 2y ago
    This distinction is important, but in the contexts of this engine, hypersonic is important because it roughly aligns with a performance boundary for conventional ramjets. In a conventional ramjet, you basically have some static/static-ish structures in your inlet that uh.... "rams" into the air. This entire structure slows down the supersonic airflow to subsonic speed, and causes the pressure/temperature of the air to rise to allow for combustion. The problem is that ramjets become less and less efficient and feasible as Mach number increases, and around Mach 6 (so technically past the hypersonic boundary), you basically can't push them any harder, and so you need a supersonic ramjet (scramjet). In a scramjet, you only slow down the airflow to low supersonic speeds (instead of all the way to subsonic), and you feed that compressed supersonic flow into your combustion chamber. I believe expectation for scramjets in general is that you'd only really get to Mach 10-12 or so, since above that speed rockets start providing more favorable performance.
TrainedMonkey 2y ago
> A dual-mode ramjet was developed and tested in less than 11 months Incredibly impressive if true. But below quote makes it sounds like they purchased a company with mostly ready design and made a prototype. Still pretty awesome. > The successful development and testing of the dual-mode ramjet in such a short period of time was made possible through the collaboration of GE Aerospace’s team of engineers, Innoveering – a company acquired by GE Aerospace in 2022 that specializes in hypersonic propulsion – and GE Aerospace’s Research Center. Now I want real engineering / everyday astronaut like breakdown of how it works.
- vasco 2y ago
  > Incredibly impressive if true. But below quote makes it sounds like they purchased a company with mostly ready design and made a prototype. Still pretty awesome. We're probably reading a lot from a few sentences but I had a similar impression. Probably more similar to writing a software project for the second time after you throw away your first version - but now with more resources. Like you said still pretty cool.
  - colechristensen 2y ago
    >more similar to writing a software project for the second time after you throw away your first version - but now with more resources All aircraft design is basically this. You don't/can't ever really start from scratch, there's an enormous volume of historical aircraft designs and all new planes look very similar to old planes. There are very rarely opportunities to solve problems in new ways.
    - bobthepanda 2y ago
      even if you have a novel design your customers are rarely interested. Airlines are extremely conservative because pilots are expensive and hard to train, which is how we got the whole 737MAX fiasco instead of a clean-sheet, optimized design. Though i wonder why they didn't go for commonality with the 787 similar to how the a330 and a350 are common type ratings.
wooplanes 2y ago
I’ve been saying this for years, but I’m extremely skeptical the DARPA hypersonic programs just ceased. The waverider program was a huge success, then suddenly funding stops and nothing is heard about it anymore. That was over 10 years ago, and now we have a commercially-developed dual cycle engine in under a year. It’s my personal opinion that the technology was developed further internally for weapons and surveillance platforms like the SR-71 was back in the day. The technology just has too much potential.
- pmayrgundter 2y ago
  The SR-72 is thought to be a real hypersonic from Lockheed flying since 2017. Extended reportage here: https://youtu.be/QlMX6TYdU7I https://youtu.be/QlMX6TYdU7I
class3shock 2y ago
Another similar thing from the end of last year: https://www.geaerospace.com/news/press-releases/other-news-information/ge-aerospace-demonstrates-hypersonic-dual-mode-ramjet https://www.geaerospace.com/news/press-releases/other-news-i... They really seem to love to talk about how fast they move except wait: https://www.geaerospace.com/news/articles/100-year-anniversary-technology/century-innovation-where-will-next-100-take-us https://www.geaerospace.com/news/articles/100-year-anniversa... Per the above in 2019 they had been developing RDE technology for 5 years. Now developing the tech is different then building a prototype but it's good to take these timetable numbers with a large dose of salt. It is interesting to see RDE's getting alot of headlines recently. Really cool tech that works off of a principle known for a long time but only just recently hitting an inflection point in terms of development. Cool video from Scott Manly talking about RDE's: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG_Eh0J_4_s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG_Eh0J_4_s
zaps 2y ago
Exclusive photo of the project’s lead engineer: https://gifyu.com/image/Stgkj https://gifyu.com/image/Stgkj
cynusx 2y ago
It's probably part of the initiative to create hypersonic bombers and cruise missiles as a counter to China. It's a waste of money though as the Ukraine war showed that the Russian Kinzhal missile have limited utility and can be intercepted. Naval drones and long-range drones are not only cheaper but also more effective.
DrNosferatu 2y ago
Dual-Mode between what and what?

144 points by NoRagrets 2y ago

paganel 2y ago

To what (I guess future) planes would this engine be assigned to? Is there a new US project after the F35?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
zakary 2y ago
Missiles and Drones. There’s essentially no viable use case for a hypersonic manned jet
- banku_brougham 2y ago
  In the world we have built, the answer to "what purpose will this new technology serve?" is usually dispiriting.
  - TrainedMonkey 2y ago
    A huge portion of modern technology was originally developed for military applications.
  - hoorayimhelping 2y ago
    This isn't the world we've built, it's the world we live in. We didn't create this world, and we aren't yet powerful enough to change the nature of reality, so to blame humanity for the necessity of defense is silly. You'll be a lot less dispirted if you accept that the world we live in isn't a human creation and that we still haven't made it out of the struggle to survive.
    - prewett 2y ago
      There's nothing in the nature of reality that forces us to fight each other, unless you mean human nature. But we have a choice in whether we choose to be self-serving, which inevitably leads to conflict, or we choose to love our enemy. Loving your enemy requires dying to yourself, usually metaphorically, but it is an option. Humanity is entirely complicit. In fact, each person is a microcosm of that dynamic. Each time we sacrifice a little bit of someone else's well-being for our own, we are engaging in a small bit of that warfare. Cut someone off in traffic because you're in a hurry; cheat a little to get ahead; don't clean up your public mess because laziness/rushed. It's all essentially that same dynamic.
      - dotnet00 2y ago
        >There's nothing in the nature of reality that forces us to fight each other The reality that we are each capable of disagreeing with each other and having conflicting priorities, combined with the limited resources we have access to, is the nature of reality that forces us to fight each other.
      - credit_guy 2y ago
        > But we have a choice in whether we choose to be self-serving, which inevitably leads to conflict, or we choose to love our enemy. Sounds very poetic, but how exactly does this apply to the case of Ukraine being invaded by Russia? Do you propose that the Ukrainians should love the invaders? If that should happen, then the Poles and the Romanians should also love the Russians when their time to be invaded comes?
        asdff 2y ago
        If people were not pulling the oars, the galley of war would never leave the harbor. People have to remember there are more of them on the oars than there are those who hold the whips, although this is no easy feat when the incentives to paint this simple truth as some desperate impossibility are so high.
        2y ago
lpcvoid 2y ago
This will hopefully be used to counter russian and Chinese threats in the future.
- preisschild 2y ago
  There is a certain military that is happy to test those weapons against real russian targets :)
  - jabl 2y ago
    I think they wouldn't want to use the absolutely newest and greatest tech there for fear the Russkies will figure out something from the wreckage. There's plenty of not quite the latest cutting edge stuff sitting in storage that could be donated, though.
    - spywaregorilla 2y ago
      And so the war of 1990s tech vs. 1970s tech in the 2020s continues
      - jabl 2y ago
        I'd argue Ukraine would be better served by the ~1000 ATACMS (in service 1991-) sitting in storage with their expiration dates rapidly approaching, than by a small number of some prototype hypersonic missiles.
        spywaregorilla 2y ago
        Sure. And even better served by a suitable number of F16s (in service 1980).
Xss3 2y ago
I think it's likely it'll be used in the sr72. Apparently they had to completely rethink and refocus the project part way though due to new technology becoming available. That tech is probably this rotating detonation dualmode ramjet.
- jabl 2y ago
  From what I read (on that source of all truth, twitter), SR-72 was effectively canceled due to unforeseen technical challenges. But might be that with a functional dual mode ramjet, assuming that was the major holdup, perhaps the project could be on track again?
- andrewflnr 2y ago
  Where are you getting "rotating detonation" from? As far as I know that's an unrelated project/problem.
icegreentea2 2y ago
Hypersonic dual-mode ramjets are not suitable for 'general' applications. What makes them 'dual-mode ramjets' is that a single engine can work at both supersonic and hypersonic speeds. It's still a ramjet and so needs another means to get the engine/vehicle up to supersonic speeds. As sibsling notes, maybe it could go into SR-72 or similar penetrating ISR platform is a reasonable guess. It might go into some sort of missile carrier (the carrier gets the expensive reusable dual-mode ramjet, so it can launch missiles with cheaper disposable scramjets directly at hypersonic speed?).

bobthepanda 2y ago

How much fuel does it use, I wonder? Supersonic has been DoA for a while because post-deregulation airlines are only interested in ever more fuel efficient aircraft. (It’s also why major states like Japan, China and Russia have for the most part failed to build a competitive airliner against the duopoly.)

lynx23 2y ago
Supersonic is only dead in civil aviation. The military doesn't care about regulations :-)
shiroiushi 2y ago
>It’s also why major states like Japan, China and Russia have for the most part failed to build a competitive airliner against the duopoly. I don't think that has anything to do with it at all. Building a competitive large airliner requires a huge industrial base. And since it's so safety-critical, it takes a lot of time and expertise to build the reputation needed to unseat the incumbents. China has an aircraft manufacturer, but time will tell if it goes anywhere, since they don't exactly have a reputation for high quality. Russia has built many large aircraft in their Soviet days, but their industrial base has eroded so they probably just don't have the capacity to build competitively-priced aircraft in volume now, plus they're not well-liked by most countries that would want airliners anyway. Japan might be able to do it, but just isn't geared up for building lots of large aircraft so it would be a huge investment to build such an industry almost from scratch. Fuel efficiency isn't a factor because building an airliner doesn't involve building engines for that airliner, and engines determine an aircraft's fuel economy for the most part. Boeing and Airbus don't make jet engines: those are all made by Rolls-Royce, Pratt & Whitney, and GE.
- sofixa 2y ago
  > Russia has built many large aircraft in their Soviet days, but their industrial base has eroded so they probably just don't have the capacity to build competitively-priced aircraft in volume now, plus they're not well-liked by most countries that would want airliners anyway Russia did design and build a few designs recently - SSJ-100, MS-21, Tu-204/214. Almost all of them used Western parts (such as engines/avionics) to speed the process up because Russian manufacturers are a few decades behind in some critical parts (like engine efficiency). That being said, they're currently trying to ramp up production on a domestic only Tu-204/214 version, but it's slow, probably quite expensive, and super inefficient. > Japan might be able to do it, but just isn't geared up for building lots of large aircraft so it would be a huge investment to build such an industry almost from scratch. Mitsubishi had a regional jet design in progress, the SpaceJet, which got cancelled after a few billion in R&D and years in delays. Ukraine also had decent manufacturing facilities and capabilities with Antonov and Motor Sich, including decent recent designs and subcontracting work for other companies.. but with the war a lot of things were destroyed (like Antonov and Motor Sich factories and facilities), and their focus is mostly on drones and missiles now. > Fuel efficiency isn't a factor because building an airliner doesn't involve building engines for that airliner, and engines determine an aircraft's fuel economy for the most part. Boeing and Airbus don't make jet engines: those are all made by Rolls-Royce, Pratt & Whitney, and GE. Fuel efficiency is a major factor. Outside of countries big enough to prop up a domestic airliner industry with enough spare cash to compensate for inefficiency (which is a list of 1 country, China), nobody will buy a jet which is less efficient than an alternative. Airline margins are razor thin. And not everyone can buy an engine from Rolls-Royce, GE/CFM(their joint venture with Safran that designs manufactures short-haul engines and the future open fan design) and Pratt and Whitney. The Russian UAC cannot. The Chinese COMAC got sold a decade+ old variant for their latest jet out of fear of industrial espionage (the Chinese engine manufacturers have failed at producing reliable and efficient jet engines for any application, usually relying on Russian designs). TL;DR is that modern airliners are extremely complicated, expensive, and have very long lead times. A new design won't be making any money within the first 10-15 years of its life, which means that only countries with very developed and advanced industrial bases, lots of money, and the desire for strategic airliner autonomy will invest in them.

banku_brougham 2y ago

Sorry for the naive question: Back in my day they called it "Supersonic", why do we call it "Hypersonic" now? Are there trademark issues?

throwaway4good 2y ago
Supersonic = +1 mach, hypersonic = +5 mach.
- dghughes 2y ago
  But toothbrushes are ultrasonic. I can never find mine.
  - banku_brougham 2y ago
    the plasma ball is opaque to radar, making it hard to detect.
Beretta_Vexee 2y ago
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/mach.html https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/mach.html We speak of hypersonic flight when we approach or exceed Mach 5. At this speed, the heat is such that the ionized air forms a plasma around the vehicle. To put it simply, you're flying in the middle of a white hot blowtorch. This dramatically alters flight characteristics. Some prototypes approach or exceed mach 20. At this speed you're closer to a meteorite burning up in the atmosphere than to any form of aircraft.
- icegreentea2 2y ago
  This distinction is important, but in the contexts of this engine, hypersonic is important because it roughly aligns with a performance boundary for conventional ramjets. In a conventional ramjet, you basically have some static/static-ish structures in your inlet that uh.... "rams" into the air. This entire structure slows down the supersonic airflow to subsonic speed, and causes the pressure/temperature of the air to rise to allow for combustion. The problem is that ramjets become less and less efficient and feasible as Mach number increases, and around Mach 6 (so technically past the hypersonic boundary), you basically can't push them any harder, and so you need a supersonic ramjet (scramjet). In a scramjet, you only slow down the airflow to low supersonic speeds (instead of all the way to subsonic), and you feed that compressed supersonic flow into your combustion chamber. I believe expectation for scramjets in general is that you'd only really get to Mach 10-12 or so, since above that speed rockets start providing more favorable performance.

TrainedMonkey 2y ago

> A dual-mode ramjet was developed and tested in less than 11 months Incredibly impressive if true. But below quote makes it sounds like they purchased a company with mostly ready design and made a prototype. Still pretty awesome. > The successful development and testing of the dual-mode ramjet in such a short period of time was made possible through the collaboration of GE Aerospace’s team of engineers, Innoveering – a company acquired by GE Aerospace in 2022 that specializes in hypersonic propulsion – and GE Aerospace’s Research Center. Now I want real engineering / everyday astronaut like breakdown of how it works.

vasco 2y ago
> Incredibly impressive if true. But below quote makes it sounds like they purchased a company with mostly ready design and made a prototype. Still pretty awesome. We're probably reading a lot from a few sentences but I had a similar impression. Probably more similar to writing a software project for the second time after you throw away your first version - but now with more resources. Like you said still pretty cool.
- colechristensen 2y ago
  >more similar to writing a software project for the second time after you throw away your first version - but now with more resources All aircraft design is basically this. You don't/can't ever really start from scratch, there's an enormous volume of historical aircraft designs and all new planes look very similar to old planes. There are very rarely opportunities to solve problems in new ways.
  - bobthepanda 2y ago
    even if you have a novel design your customers are rarely interested. Airlines are extremely conservative because pilots are expensive and hard to train, which is how we got the whole 737MAX fiasco instead of a clean-sheet, optimized design. Though i wonder why they didn't go for commonality with the 787 similar to how the a330 and a350 are common type ratings.

wooplanes 2y ago

I’ve been saying this for years, but I’m extremely skeptical the DARPA hypersonic programs just ceased. The waverider program was a huge success, then suddenly funding stops and nothing is heard about it anymore. That was over 10 years ago, and now we have a commercially-developed dual cycle engine in under a year. It’s my personal opinion that the technology was developed further internally for weapons and surveillance platforms like the SR-71 was back in the day. The technology just has too much potential.

pmayrgundter 2y ago
The SR-72 is thought to be a real hypersonic from Lockheed flying since 2017. Extended reportage here: https://youtu.be/QlMX6TYdU7I https://youtu.be/QlMX6TYdU7I

class3shock 2y ago

Another similar thing from the end of last year: https://www.geaerospace.com/news/press-releases/other-news-information/ge-aerospace-demonstrates-hypersonic-dual-mode-ramjet https://www.geaerospace.com/news/press-releases/other-news-i... They really seem to love to talk about how fast they move except wait: https://www.geaerospace.com/news/articles/100-year-anniversary-technology/century-innovation-where-will-next-100-take-us https://www.geaerospace.com/news/articles/100-year-anniversa... Per the above in 2019 they had been developing RDE technology for 5 years. Now developing the tech is different then building a prototype but it's good to take these timetable numbers with a large dose of salt. It is interesting to see RDE's getting alot of headlines recently. Really cool tech that works off of a principle known for a long time but only just recently hitting an inflection point in terms of development. Cool video from Scott Manly talking about RDE's: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG_Eh0J_4_s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG_Eh0J_4_s

zaps 2y ago

Exclusive photo of the project’s lead engineer: https://gifyu.com/image/Stgkj https://gifyu.com/image/Stgkj

cynusx 2y ago

It's probably part of the initiative to create hypersonic bombers and cruise missiles as a counter to China. It's a waste of money though as the Ukraine war showed that the Russian Kinzhal missile have limited utility and can be intercepted. Naval drones and long-range drones are not only cheaper but also more effective.

DrNosferatu 2y ago

Dual-Mode between what and what?