Why not a Mach 3+ fighter

[Birbal]

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.

All those gs during a maneuver are generated by lift (with current thrust to weight ratios, you can only get about one g from the engine itself, and some of that goes towards canceling drag). A sphere would not be able to generate lift for high g maneuvers. To generate lift, you need some sort of flat shape (could be a saucer), which will generate lift in the direction perpendicular to the flat shape. That means it would not be a longitudinal stress, and so the shape would not be optimized for taking such stress.

 

[untitled]

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

But if your aircraft can be stealthy and reach from point A to B quicker, even the better

 

[untitled]

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

You mean the Aurora

 

[OrionHunter]

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 ?

As regards your first question, the point is the role of such an aircraft exceeding mach 3. What is the need for such speed? It is useless for CAS (Close Air Support) as the targets would not be identifiable on ground at such speeds. The reason why the F-35 is under fire as one of its roles is CAS! The same goes for air defense /counter air ops and WVR combat.

The only advantage for such speeds is for a proprietary bomber. This would be advantageous during a Lo-Lo-Lo approach to targets, accomplishing their mission and returning to base at max speed giving little reaction time to the adversary. However, a pure bomber is not a cost effective option compared to a multi role combat aircraft due to cost, maneuverability, vulnerability etc.

With accurate surface to surface missiles now available with longer ranges and very small CEPs, the use of bombers is no more a viable option.

So why build MRCAs with speeds in excess of mach 2+ thereby sacrificing range, weapons loads and their multifarious roles as well as the huge expenses involved in building such aircraft? It is just not cost effective.

As regards your second point, yes! The future of air warfare is Unmanned Combat Drones which would be a reality by the later half of this century, when 'pilots' would be sitting in sophisticated ops rooms in virtual cockpits with 360 degree screens and helmet mounted displays, guiding their stealth combat drones in their battle areas in real time with full situational awareness.

In fact, the US Air Force is already planning such future scenarios with the help of DARPA, Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works and Boeing's Phantom Works which are part of top secret black projects.

And looking farther into the future, stealth would be passe, replaced with 'cloaking' technology where aircraft or UCAVs would disappear completely from radar as well as from the visual spectrum! This would probably be a reality by the beginning of the next century or even by the end of this one!


Cheers!

 

[untitled]

As regards your first question, the point is the role of such an aircraft exceeding mach 3. What is the need for such speed? It is useless for CAS (Close Air Support) as the targets would not be identifiable on ground at such speeds.

If satellites can do it why not an aircraft. Did the SR-71 not take pictures at those speeds ?

So why build MRCAs with speeds in excess of mach 2+ thereby sacrificing range, weapons loads and their multifarious roles as well as the huge expenses involved in building such aircraft?

When it comes to military technology if something can be done and it is better than anything anyone else has ... then do it.

With thinking like that do you think we would have jet engines, supersonic fighters, ICBMS, nuclear weapons or space flight ?

 

[Zabaniyah]

You mean the Aurora

This thing is actually rumored to really exist.

 

[salvage]

i would invest on innovative stealthy bunkers rather than wasting money on air-defence and mach 3 planes.

 

[untitled]

i would invest on innovative stealthy bunkers rather than wasting money on air-defence and mach 3 planes.

And what would you invest in for your offensive needs?

 

[Zabaniyah]

i would invest on innovative stealthy bunkers rather than wasting money on air-defence and mach 3 planes.

Ever heard of bunker buster bombs? The best offense is the best defense.

 

[untitled]

Ever heard of bunker buster bombs? The best offense is the best defense.

He has a point. His bunkers cant be seen

 

[arcane]

He has a point. His bunkers cant be seen

stealthy bunkers won't do any good against countries who have good ground intelligence like the CIA.....

 

[Zabaniyah]

He has a point. His bunkers cant be seen

They can still be seen with satellites. Or even aircraft with advanced recon features. Especially if you are fighting against the USA.

 

[Chogy]

Extreme speeds = lack of maneuverability. And extreme speeds do not defend against anything in the front quadrant. A SAM or AA missile doesn't care if you are doing mach 3. In fact, it likes this as it means the shot can be taken at vast distances, and the mach 3 target will blunder right into its path, and would be unable to do much about it.

Mach 3 requires extreme altitudes as well. If there is a big fight at 10,000 feet and you are zooming overhead at 75,000' and mach 3, your ability to do anything in that fight is limited.

Airframe heating is extreme, as well.

In the end, there is little to be gained by going that fast.

 

[untitled]

Mach 3 requires extreme altitudes as well. If there is a big fight at 10,000 feet and you are zooming overhead at 75,000' and mach 3, your ability to do anything in that fight is limited.

Well it can slow down and come downstairs to join the fight ?

In the end, there is little to be gained by going that fast.

How about for getting the hell out of there (at Mach 3) after completing the mission ?

 

[lepziboy]

do you have any info on the aurora?