Minikite from paralay

Fighter for the small but proud Finland.
This aircraft sum of two completely different fighter! How to settle two bears in one den?
First – turboprop aircraft type “Super Tucano”, with a maximum speed of 500 – 600 km / h and a long duration flight.
The second – a rocket, with a maximum speed of 2,500 km / h (further accelerate impossible, “thermal barrier”)

Fighter takes off from Rovaniemi. Climbs 7000 – 8000 meters and a cruising speed of 500 – 600 km / h. The maximum flight time of about three hours. On board radar (weighing about 50 – 70 kg) two AIM-9 missiles, 30 mm cannon.
Ground services discovered enemy bomber (Mach 0.9, the height of 10,000 meters)
Minikite pilot accelerated to a speed of 600 – 700 km / h, turn the wing to the maximum sweep. Includes accelerator and begins pursuit of the enemy.
Propellers turn into the wind vane and disconnected from the engine. Speed increases rapidly up to 2500 km / h. Radar captures the target at a distance of 50 km (the goal one minute flight), the pilot let both missiles and turns away.
The speed was slowly reduced to 700 km / h, the clutch is switched from the engine propeller, wing sweep to 0 degrees. Planting.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]235381[/ATTACH]

Well something like that I mean Finland is a tiny country compared to US and Russia ( Brazil, India, China )..if you can fly economically Mach 0.75 speed and dash to Mach 2+ in an istant you could do your duties as a fighter pilot defending your country…from any present or future foe. Finland is also no oil producer…so the cost to keep “huge” high tech AF is tramendous.

We also lack the industry that could build high tech AF from scratch…we have none of these for instance; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_Press_Program

Japan has’em too; https://www.khi.co.jp/english/news/detail/20110301_1.html

Here is a russian press…VSMPO-AVISMA !

The commander of the Russian Air Force P.S.Deynekin, who ordered the new trainer aircraft, before flying on multi-engine bombers. He ordered spurned all single-engine aircraft (MiG-23, MiG-27 and Su-17). He said that the new Russian military aircraft should be multiengine. Therefore, coach S-54 and S-56 fighter did not receive support. “Bomber mafia” triumphed 🙂

[ATTACH=CONFIG]235380[/ATTACH]

Okay Paralay..he looks a bit like one AF colonel in Finland who used to live above our apartment in the AF academy back in 1976. I bet the twin engine reliability is high on his list.

That is, your idea is very easy fighter – is correct. Now it needs to be carefully formulated and solved :applause:

The mid wing of the design has to be a sort of flying wing ( obviously ). Regarding to that I found an interesting sheet where an university chose the “ancient” Horten profile over newer fancier foils; http://www.aiaadbf.org/2013_files/reports/2013DBF_Rensselaer_Polytechnic_Institute.pdf

I think my solution to have the AAMs and cannons inside and all other payload outside may be a good solution to balance some things; http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?133895-Does-external-payload-create-lift

Especially the long range external tanks that create lift particularly when empty….and can even dampen the forced landing damages in some cases ( they can be jettisoned when under an attack or in dogfight thus making the craft lighter).

Paralay how come this S-54 never advanced ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsAbDQD0SME