No you don’t you know your paper plane will not work and are just trolling to see how long you can drag it along.

Right but even on paper as it is..it has armour for both pilot and engine + concealed weapons against .50 cal machine guns !

Could STINGERS be used in a small interceptor ?

I checked that Igla and STINGER might fit nicely here.

SpaceShipOne is a poor analogy. It achieved supersonic speeds only at extreme altitudes when it was powered by its rocket or when falling along ballistic trajectory. It started gliding only after it slowed down to subsonic speeds.

Your PW535 turbofan will only work to 50-60 kft before it is starved of air and flames out. The altitude record for subsonic flight is only about 70 kft (held by U-2, I think). Even White Knight, also built specifically for high altitude flight could only go to 60 kft. And both of these have special engines and very high aspect ratio wings. Your plane would be limited to about 40 kft while using the turbofan.

It does not matter if you are flying inverted or not. The rocket exhaust trail is quite long and extremely bright in IR spectrum: you will be detected immediately. Su-35 will close in and launch R-77. Once the missile reaches you, you are both in the same situation: out of fuel. R-77 is more maneuverable than you and will blow you into pieces. The End. Attempting the other approach will be even worse. Unlike you, Su-35 can maintain Mach 2.1 at 60 kft. If you both launch missiles, who will have better chance? Powered fighter or unpowered glider?

Your best bet is to fly level at M0.9 at 40 kft using passive sensors. Hopefully, you will detect Su-35’s radar emissions and launch your missiles. Su-35 will likely detect the launch, focus its AESA into that spot, track you and launch its own missiles. In the end, you can hope to trade one of your aircraft for one Su-35, which is a fair trade. However, if Su-35 is flying without the radar, it will close in to about 30 km and rip you apart.

Hehehehe !

I counted the RCS approximately and even the PAK-FAs 400 km detecting radar sees this kinds object only at 18 km..OLS-35 max at 90 km ( when rockets exposed to it..now they aren’t so maybe 50 km ). See the chart I drew..the foe is at 400 km..this higher maneuver needs that the airplane is already airborne loitering.

This plane moves at 748 mph and 654 KIAS…any idea what it means as KTAS at FL 700 ?

U-2 was a good kite but it had 20% heavier wingloading and long wings made it slow too..this has even power to weight ratio on turbofan, but ignites the rockets at 70 000 ft to get going.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2

No, it cannot. The problem with high bypass turbofans is that they have single-stage fan. At supersonic speeds, the fan can barely overcome its own drag.

You severely over-estimate the performance of rockets. Lets say that you want to accelerate from M0.9 (300m/s) to M3.0 (1000m/s) and lets ignore the required climb and increased aerodynamic resistance. So you need 700m/s delta-v. Typical solid rocket with have 260s specific impulse. So the rocket fuel needs to make up 24% of your take-off weight. Add the rocket’s casing and we are up 27%. And that’s just for the acceleration. You would need a lot of rocket fuel to sustain that speed for even a couple of minutes.

Designing for Mach 3 also dramatically increases the cost and complexity. The structure now needs to be made out of titanium or steel or very high-tech (expensive!) composites. And once you reach the speed at 70,000 feet or so, you will light up like a Christmas tree on any IR sensor within 200km.

I am also not sure where you heard that low wing loading is good for supersonic speeds. For comparison, Concorde had 500kg/m2 and SR-71 had 450kg/m2.

Space Ship One had max wing loading 240 kg/m2 and went mach 3 +

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceShipOne

It was also very very simple..like this is.

I use the turbofan to climb efficiently to 70 000 ft.

It becomes a mach 3.0 glider after the 130 000 ft has been reached. Has no heat signature since the air is so thin.

Erratically I printed mach 2.2 for the speed..but just to be at the right place at the right time for AAMs in enough..speed can be lower too.

yes, ok, but that’s just a typo… methinks there are some more serious errors in this thread then just a misspelling of a lens name… 😉

Methinks Finnish Air Force may also in the future operate jets ( of this size ) despite the 10 fold oil prices and less money for the military to operate. We definitely cannot afford current size 5th gen fighters.

New inventions are already emerging to make this happen; http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/MTO/Programs/Micro-Technology_for_Positioning,_Navigation_and_Timing_%28Micro-PNT%29.aspx

Can anyone stop this clown !????

He’s making that forum a playground for kids in the Kindergarden …

HEEEEELP !

Deino

You are almost begging to get also this thread closed aren’t you ?