Of course we wouldn't have it dogfight in hypersonic speed, cause it could outrun its bullets,
So what if we used jet assisted take off engines to get the damn thing off the ground and then use the rocket propulsion engine for hypersonic speed.
What problems do we face and how could we fix them? Looking for advice from /airforcebois/ and /aerospaceengineers/
>>30157883
>Of course we wouldn't have it dogfight in hypersonic speed, cause it could outrun its bullets,
>cause it could outrun its bullets
>>30157921
That happened once
http://www.aerofiles.com/tiger-tail.html
>>30157959
Dude that's awesome.
So why can't we arm an X-15?
Shit would be cash
>>30158016
how would it be cash
>>30158069
It would be cool and would be the ultimate air superiority fighter. In case you haven't noticed the Slavs and the Chinese are catching up, case in point, the PAK FA.
>inb4 this becomes an argument about the PAK FA's capabilities
The point is I think fitting a craft like the X-15 with some guns, JATO engines, and some missiles would probably make it the best fighter out there, we could probably even make it stealth.
>>30158106
jesus christ, no it wouldnt
it cannot start by itself, needs a carrier, flies at mach 6-7 and has bad maneuverability
>some guns
>some missiles
what the fuck do you want to do with guns at hypersonic speeds and where would you want to fit guns and missiles onto it?
are you retarded?
>>30157883
>flight time: 5 minutes
>>30158178
>cannot start by itself
It's called JATO
>>30158276
so it has to start on a runway, on low altitude with 5 minute flight time?
fuck off 13yo
>>30157883
The only correct answer.
>Attach missiles to a mach 6 rocket plane
>Initial velocity helps missile achieve greater final velocity; missile hits mach 10
>Air around the missile begins to ionize, causing radio blackout
>Missile loses lock and misses
>>30158895
>b-but he can just use the 30mm guns we put on him in a dogfight
Sorry to burst your bubble, the X-15 only had three minutes of fuel, eight with external tanks.
The plane is eighty percent fuel tank, no room for any thing else.
You would need to have motherships in the air just circling artound waiting to launch the X-15. It can't take off by itself.
We've already gone through the hyper-sonic fighter infatuation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XF-108_Rapier - XB-70's little brother
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_XF-103
full-retard ramjet driven periscope fighter
The Luftwaffe already tried rocket interceptors.
It did nothing to affect the outcome of the war.
They also liked to explode when taxiing.
Nobody else wanted to do that after the war
>>30159957
Aww, what a cute tiny little propeller
>>30158178
You're right.
We should give it death lasers instead.
>>30159957
But North Vietnam tried it 40 years later and it worked.
>>30157883
It has no payload capacity. It has no space or weight for avionics. There's literally no place to put guns, ammunition, or radars. Even if you somehow managed to do it anyway, you'd break everything about the plane that made it go fast. Probably you'd literally break the plane.
But don't be sad, anon. We do actually have rocket interceptors. We just do it the non-retarded way.
>>30158178
rear-mounted guns: get in front of the enemy fighter, shoot backwards, outrun the missiles fired at you
>>30158016
X-15s would come back with damage after flying at hypersonic speeds; flying them routinely would break the bank and you'd need new missiles to deal with the heat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHuBsBOF4R8
>>30158276
You'd need a rocket the size of the plane to make it JATO; you have to go from zero altitude, zero airspeed to Mach 5 and ~40,000ft, and not too fast as to black out the pilot.
>>30159673
MY SON!
>>30162270
It powers the electronics.
>>30157883
1. There's probably not enough internal space anywhere, unless you add a bulge and god knows what that'd do to flight characteristics.
2. Unless your target is a constantly circling hypersonic drone over a USAF base, you wouldn't have the range to do anything anyway. A hypersonic unmanned missile would still be preferable as an intercept tool.
>>30159957
>Nobody else wanted to do that after the war
Brits prototyped the Saunders Roe SR. 53 and starterd work on the SR. 177.
177 was killed when Brits had the 1957 defence white paper [deciding to go for unmanned missiles] and Lockheed bribed Germany into taking the F-104.
>>30162387
>>30164523
Prototyping and research are one thing. Actually commissioning the aircraft is a totally different thing.
>>30165711
It hinted at a fleeting desire to do it, even if they changed their mind later.
Germany could quite possibly have commissioned it if not for Lockheed bribes. [Though we could argue the semantics of "Nobody else" since West Germany might not qualify as 'else']
Mostly I just wanted to bring up two kinda-cool rocket fighters.
>>30162495
>>30157883
The X-15 -is- a missile. It gets launched from a B-52 at altitude.
>>30158106
>stealth
Mate weare going soo fast we wont need stealth
>>30157883
Because it would be an interceptor and they don't fit into the US military doctrine anymore.
