Startup Hermeus is developing hypersonic propulsion system for their Quarterhorse and Darkhorse vehicles. This could be achieving mach 5 speeds in 2026 to 2027.
Quarterhorse Development Timeline:
Mk 1: The first flyable version of Quarterhorse, Mk 1, is set for flight tests later in 2024. These tests will focus on high-speed takeoffs and landings
Mk 2: Scheduled for 2025, Mk 2 will be powered by a Pratt and Whitney F100 engine, enabling supersonic flight. This version will serve as a precursor to the full hypersonic capabilities planned for future iterations
Mk 3: Expected to be developed by 2026, Mk 3 will incorporate Hermeus’ Chimera II propulsion system, which includes a modified F100 engine. This version aims to achieve speeds faster than Mach 3.3, supporting Defense Department testing.
Hermeus is developing a turbine-based combined-cycle (TBCC) engine called Chimera.
This is two engines in one:
A turbojet for lower speeds
A ramjet for higher speeds
Chimera II: This is an upgraded version of the Chimera engine
It is bigger and uses an F100 engine instead of a J85.
Hermeus makes their own afterburners. They cut off any afterburners in the standard engine and then run the turbines faster for more performance. The F100 engine used in Chimera II will operate in max afterburner mode for a couple of minutes at the beginning of the flight.
Hermeus has created their own precooler that helps bridge the gap between turbojet and ramjet modes, increasing the performance of the turbine.
Ramjet: The ramjet takes over from the turbojet at higher speeds. It includes an inlet, ram burner, and bypass system developed by Hermeus. They were using the afterburner as a ramjet as well.
Bypass System: Allows incoming air to be routed around the turbojet when the ramjet takes over
Engine Transition
The F100 turbojet will accelerate the aircraft to about Mach 3.
The engine will be fully bypassed, allowing the ramjet to take over.
The turbojet will spool down and cool during the ramjet operation.
The drone will go into a steep dive to increase speed to Mach 4 and beyond.
Quarterhorse Variants
Mk 1: Uses a General Electric J85 engine for subsonic flight
Mk 2: Will use a Pratt & Whitney F100 engine, enabling supersonic flight
Mk 3: Will incorporate the full Chimera II system, aiming to achieve speeds faster than Mach 3.3
Darkhorse -military drones
Will use the Chimera II propulsion system
Designed to reach hypersonic speeds (Mach 5+)
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
How so? I fail to see the big picture on these weapons. Continental turning radius and such
Nice. But what’s really the big-picture goal here?
Is this a militarizable technology that is difficult to emulate (unmatchable electronics, materials, or network/ autonmous control), provides total theatre dominance (air, land, sea); facilitates existing integration with all forces, allies, bases, and existing tech; etc.?
The purpose of all new military tech must be to enable western-style freedom (as desired by host nation) in an internationally-sanctioned value system to support Fortess-Europe and Fortress Pacific (and Fortress Israel – but I care less about that). That is providing the ability to resist all direct military ‘influence’ by powers bent on socio-economic culture ‘creep’ past their borders by force. In effect, this means containment of Russia, China, and Iran — so technological superiority, especially autonomous and removed, that can still be managed by the local military. The key must be to have such an overwhelming technological advantage that the enemy can’t easily improvise by numbers, reverse engineering captured munitions/ tech, or creating low-cost ad-hoc equivalents/ counter-measures. Many believe that ‘darkening the sky’ with autonomous drone numbers is the key to overwhelming defence, obviously an easy (and endless) arms-race, but the true ‘revolutionary technological step’ must be speed, maneuver, stealth, self-reliance, and inability to be captured/re-purposed. These drones may be a necessary path to the heavy military build-up required towards a war-less future. Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Can’t wait till they’re operational. These should put a brown spot on Putin’s undies.
Load these planes with the latest military laser systems, and warcraft changes forever.
Yup. But we need to provide enough power to our laser weapons to make them “viable”. By the way, our F-22 can through it’s “radar”, put out enough RF energy, to fry the electronics of an enemy aircraft. No missiles or cannon fire required. (Yes, we can do that, if we need to) What can I say, I LOVE IT! Oh, so cool…
B-1 R missile truck with a generator in its belly—for frea power
I find it interesting, that going back to the 1960’s the first hypersonic plane, was the X-15. Honestly, the only reason we got to the moon in less then ten years was we stuck guys on top of ballistic missiles, they were NOT pilots, they were passengers. Trust me, those guys KNEW that. Oh, yeah. That said, the fastest way to get to the moon was to use technology that “worked”, and was “predictable”. (Keep in mind, some of our ballistic missiles in the 1960’s blew up on the pad. How rude!) But most of the time, they did not. Over time, we got it right. The outstanding pilots, who rode our rockets, went along for the ride. Even though their skills, would have them do so much more.
In a way, I think you are right. The reason we got to Luna in the 1960s so efficiently was because the goal was to make a rocket that required very little piloting, with the wetware (human brain) skills to problem solving once achieving orbit happened.
When you think about it from a physics-and-science point of view, its pretty much simple. With or without pilots making decisions, the ballistic orbital entry path is remarkably straight forward. LONG before ever being attempted, at first by hand (!!!), and almost immediately by computers when they came into being, the optimal orbital insertion trajectories were calculated out for hundreds of potential missions.
All of them dutifully printed out to 7 significant figures or better (only 4 really needed), and checked, and rechecked over an over again around the world by EVERY new computer installation department. I mean, what a wonderful use of your groups brand new Univac computer. Check NASA. In France. With publicly available code and results. And for extra points, with NO prior code, and only raw physics to guide the coding effort. In French! And likewise, in German by the Germans. And in Russian, by the Russians.
So (kind of obviously), once the insanely powerful kerosene-oxygen rocket engines were being developed, and simultaneously precisely characterized for their thrust, those same worldwide hungry programmers plugged in the masses, fuel flows, passive masses, astronaut capsules, vacuum improvements, leaks-and-losses … and from there the attitude adjustments needed whilst in flight were computed again to 7 digits of accuracy. Not that more than 3 required. Lots of tiny corrections make up for a world of tiny imprecision sins.
The biggest show stopper issues were attempts of figure out rapid-response emergency contingency plans. You know, like a big ol’ F-1 engine failure during launch (of the 4). What to do. What effect on the mission? Close to launch, emergency jettison was really the only option. The Big Bird simply weighed too much for the remaining 3 engines to get her to orbit, or even Europe for that, or Africa. But late in the track? Yep … 3 engines would still take ‘it’ to orbit. At least the 2nd stage would have a chance to fire off. And maybe let the sub-billion dollar launch happen ‘anyway’.
That 2nd (and 3rd) stage reliability, was really a vital problem to solve, too. Not the actual reliability, as important as that was, but the recovery from partial failure. If you’re zinging to a high-high orbit, and your engines suddenly quit … there aren’t many options. But a LOT of planning gamed “Hail Mary” saves that would have worked, if needed.
So sure … while the astronauts getting into orbit had precious little to do heading up, their training and responsiveness was vital later in the mission, and would have been critical in the event of a crazy-times failure. Like Apollo 13’s oxygen-tank-explosion. THAT was a bare-knuckles return flight if there ever was one. The astronauts had to “jury rig” air purification systems with cardboard and duct tape, jettisoning anything which had mass (including food) just to ensure that the return capsule didn’t hit the atmosphere at an imperfect angle, causing it to burn up. Which would be bad.
As I said up front … your recap is basically right.