Definitely wouldn't mind your input on this one, Herald (and any others...)

 

In addition to the ~50% increase in thrust over similar-size/class solid propellants (suggests 150 pounds vs 100 for similar-sized solids),

I take it this article is also implying longer burn times (333-800 seconds at variable thrust rates),

which sounds ideal for any number of apps, providing there are sufficient stability achievements in storing the propellant for a lengthy period (a drawback could be any sensitivity (as in, non-insensitivity) of the propellant mix, adding to fire/explosion hazards depending where stored in magazines, etc...).

 

Scaling such a system has far-reaching performance enhancement for anything from a Hellfire or Sidewinder to an ATACMS (could it also allow a longer adjustable-throttle acceleration curve for a number of tactical missiles, thus reducing the strain tolerances to which components must be manufactured to?).

But again, all providing the storing of propellants doesn't prove too dangerous to use under battle conditions.

 

Thoughts anyone?

iridium is extremely expensive and rare,not sure about rhenium, but im not too sure you want to be wasting that sort of money on a missile

Considering the insane amount of money that's pretty much been all but thrown away on any number of other big-ticket items that eventually got totally cancelled anyway (and will continue to do so with every generation),
designing expensive (and/or rare) materials into new weapons is nothing if it means such vast improvements over the previous generation.

Case in point: NetFires. For its size, the PAM Precision Attack Missile is pretty comparible (physical dimensions, weight) to Hellfire, yet gets over 4 times the range  (~40km vs ~9km ) due to advancements in propellant tech and other manufacturing techniques (more capable electronics take up less space internally).

 

Rest assured, if someone comes along and offers the USAF and USN a means to generate a 30-50% range increase for any number of their missiles, tailorable thrust envelopes over a given range in a reduced time-to-target flight depending on mission requirements, and it "only" incurs another ~30-50% increase in price (only speculating for the sake of the argument),

surely it'll be a definite sell to the services.

 

...but like I mentioned: if the new bipropellant system ends up being more sensitive and volatile in its surroundings than does the current solid propellant genre of missiles, that could well-enough ground the whole idea.

 

My final guess is, it'll come down to how much safety is each service willing to compromise in an effort to field such entended range capabilities?

...Or, it could, like many X-Plane demonstrators and missile development programs, just be a testbed that points the way to more cost-friendly/production-friendly alternatives that well-enough offer improved abilities over the current inventory.

 

Moon rocket a la Russian N-1 might technically now be possible. Hydrazine still is some very nasty stuff to try to handle.as a rocket fuel in those large quantities or as a combat rocket fuel, period. I am loath to say anything more until I understand the catalyst reaction..

Herald

Doesn't seem like a break through, more like an evolutionary improvement. N2O4 + UDMH rocket engines were traditionally at about 290~300 IpSec to begin with. Looks like they managed to squeeze out another 10% in performance improvements.

 

Not even remotely knowing the physical size regime of these 100-150 pound-thrust rocket motors,

but knowing well enough hydrazine is used in sat thrusters,

would such a motor even be used for atmospheric missiles,

or would they stay in the realm of satellite maneuvering thrusters and space probe propulsion?

The link in the article has a typo, use this one -- http://www.inspacepropulsion.com/

 

This appears to be intended for use only in outer space, probably as a maneuver engine.

 

The hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide fuel is a hypergolic propellant, they react on contact without the need for an ignition source or catalyst.  This is an extremely useful property for a maneuver engine which will be used in a large number of short bursts.  However, if both fuel tanks develop leaks (like from enemy fire) the rocket becomes a detonating bomb as soon as the two liquids make contact.

 

Both components are highly corrosive and toxic if inhaled or on the skin.  This is scary stuff, not something you would want to handle on board ship, or under fire, or hang under a wing.