Why not a Mach 3+ fighter

[untitled]

Since the invention of the jet engine fighter aircraft speeds started to increase rapidly. Mach 2 / 2+ fighters were introduced in the late 1950s. 50 years later we are still seeing fighters that barely reach Mach 2.5

The Americans with their YF-12 and the Russians with their MiG-25 did try to design Mach 3+ fighters. The MiG-25 was later modified by slowing it down and turning it in to a proper fighter the MiG-31.

My question is why Mach 3+ fighter have not become the norm ? Is it because of
Human endurance
High fuel consumption
Too much heat at higher speeds
The price of maintenance
Lack of maneuverability
The complexity of design

If the US, UK and Russians can operate high speed vehicles like the space shuttle and space rockets (even supersonic transports) then why not Mach 3+ fighters ?

OR

Are we going to see those fighters in the shape of unmanned drones ?

 

[gambit]

Since the invention of the jet engine fighter aircraft speeds started to increase rapidly. Mach 2 / 2+ fighters were introduced in the late 1950s. 50 years later we are still seeing fighters that barely reach Mach 2.5

The Americans with their YF-12 and the Russians with their MiG-25 did try to design Mach 3+ fighters. The MiG-25 was later modified by slowing it down and turning it in to a proper fighter the MiG-31.

My question is why Mach 3+ fighter have not become the norm ? Is it because of
Human endurance
High fuel consumption
Too much heat at higher speeds
The price of maintenance
Lack of maneuverability at
The complexity of design

If the US, UK and Russians can operate high speed vehicles like the space shuttle and space rockets (even supersonic transports) then why not supersonic fighters ?

OR

Are we going to see those fighters in the shape of unmanned drones ?

Pretty much 'Yes' to all of the listed items to varying degrees. Key word search recommendation for you 'sr-71 turn radius'. You will see that at Mach 3 the aircraft is very well near immovable other than straight line.

 

[Zabaniyah]

MiG-31 is still in service.

It's not a jet, it's a missile

Nowadays, it's all focus on being 'stealthy'

 

[500]

MiG-31 is still in service.

It's not a jet, it's a missile

Nowadays, it's all focus on being 'stealthy'

MiG-31 is very specific aircraft, designed to hunt bombers over huge spaces of own territory. If it approachs enemy territory it will be immideately shot down by SAM.

 

[Avisheik]

It is mostly due to the lack of maneuverability and things that go that fast do not usually last long, it wear and tear very fast. Furthermore nowadays SAMs are very fast, so matter how fast the fighter jet is it will get hit, unless it maneuvers away

 

[GURU DUTT]

Since the invention of the jet engine fighter aircraft speeds started to increase rapidly. Mach 2 / 2+ fighters were introduced in the late 1950s. 50 years later we are still seeing fighters that barely reach Mach 2.5

The Americans with their YF-12 and the Russians with their MiG-25 did try to design Mach 3+ fighters. The MiG-25 was later modified by slowing it down and turning it in to a proper fighter the MiG-31.

My question is why Mach 3+ fighter have not become the norm ? Is it because of
Human endurance
High fuel consumption
Too much heat at higher speeds
The price of maintenance
Lack of maneuverability
The complexity of design

If the US, UK and Russians can operate high speed vehicles like the space shuttle and space rockets (even supersonic transports) then why not supersonic fighters ?

OR

Are we going to see those fighters in the shape of unmanned drones ?[/QUOTE]

Well Mach3+ speed is crazy but nithing that modern sams cant counter, anyway no pilot can surive if he tries even to manouver ya you last bold line seems achievable???????????

 

[gambit]

I remember a long time ago when I was active duty I had a conversation with an aerodynamicist from General Dynamics and he said that the best airframe for high 'g' maneuvers, as in lethal for humans, is the classical 'UFO' style saucer or very flat ovoid shapes when view from the side. It has to do with longitudinal stresses on 'conventional' airframe shapes. Without humans, the F-104 and SR-71 would still have very limited maneuverability at Mach because of their 'long' airframes, greater than with humans, of course, but the gain would not be worth the lack of human intelligence for a mission. A sphere is the best of them all. May be that is why the Borg uses it. It has to do with how stresses are distributed during maneuvers.

 

[Heinz89]

We already have those unmanned drones in the shape of ICBMs, IRBMs, SRBMs, SLBMs, ASATs etc.......

 

[GURU DUTT]

We already have those unmanned drones in the shape of ICBMs, IRBMs, SRBMs, SLBMs, ASATs etc.......

Wrong !!!!! drone's are basically reusable glorified missiles(flying robots)

 

[500]

Wrong !!!!! drone's are basically reusable glorified missiles(flying robots)

Not necessary.

India to buy Harop self destructing killer drone - YouTube

 

[Sinnerman108]

I remember a long time ago when I was active duty I had a conversation with an aerodynamicist from General Dynamics and he said that the best airframe for high 'g' maneuvers, as in lethal for humans, is the classical 'UFO' style saucer or very flat ovoid shapes when view from the side. It has to do with longitudinal stresses on 'conventional' airframe shapes. Without humans, the F-104 and SR-71 would still have very limited maneuverability at Mach because of their 'long' airframes, greater than with humans, of course, but the gain would not be worth the lack of human intelligence for a mission. A sphere is the best of them all. May be that is why the Borg uses it. It has to do with how stresses are distributed during maneuvers.

Addition to this, is the whole question of viability,
EVEN if UFOs were technically possible
EVEN if the materials existed to take such stress
EVEN if onboard computers were powerful enough

The paradigm shift in maintenance and warfare would be too expensive to implement.

 

[Zabaniyah]

UFO's would have been cool though. I think the Americans tested a few.

 

[untitled]

MiG-31 is still in service.

It's not a jet, it's a missile

Nowadays, it's all focus on being 'stealthy'

Yes it is but I think you meant the Mig-25 here

 

[untitled]

But even if a Mach 3 fighter has a turning radius of 100+ miles it can still fly circles around the enemy targets and engage them. Modern fighters don't have to be at the six of bandits to fire at them

 

[Birbal]

Since the invention of the jet engine fighter aircraft speeds started to increase rapidly. Mach 2 / 2+ fighters were introduced in the late 1950s. 50 years later we are still seeing fighters that barely reach Mach 2.5

The Americans with their YF-12 and the Russians with their MiG-25 did try to design Mach 3+ fighters. The MiG-25 was later modified by slowing it down and turning it in to a proper fighter the MiG-31.

My question is why Mach 3+ fighter have not become the norm ? Is it because of
Human endurance
High fuel consumption
Too much heat at higher speeds
The price of maintenance
Lack of maneuverability
The complexity of design

If the US, UK and Russians can operate high speed vehicles like the space shuttle and space rockets (even supersonic transports) then why not supersonic fighters ?

OR

Are we going to see those fighters in the shape of unmanned drones ?

Human endurance is not a problem. High fuel consumption is not much of a problem at high altitudes. Lack of maneuverability is made up for by the other advantages such an aircraft has. But the complexity and maintenance costs are massive due to the materials and other technology required at such high speeds and temperatures.