There are extremely few scenarios where a pilot would use after burner in high setting continuously.

A: Interception of bogey that must be reached at all costs.
B: Coming off of a tanker and again must reach point b in absolute minimum time.

Unless the wing tanks were designed for continuous super sonic speed, they will GREATLY influence how long the aircraft can maintain full burner before they must be shut off or destroy the engines.

Obviously from a wheels up stand-point maximum time would be attained if the aircraft reached the altitude where it is designed to operate most efficiently, levels off and continues at that altitude for as long as possible, OR it could drop off of a tanker at that altitude and simply accelerate from there which would give it a large deal more time than coming off of the ground.

Another point is the design of the afterburner. Not all perform to the same parameters.
From the boys who flew both F-4s and the F-106, the Phantom burners were like being kicked in the butt by your dad, whereas the Six was like being kicked in the butt by a mule.

PS: RpR….BK27 weighs only 220 lbs; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauser_BK-27

You have to figure in the the weight of the cartridges, feed and mounting system.
The weight I gave for the f 106 system was every thing.
It is bolted into the aircraft in place of the Genie launch shackle.

Minus feed system a M61 Gatling weighs 248 lbs.
It is link-less.

At 1,700 rpm the volume of projectiles from the Mauser will be underwhelming.

Well..I am still a bit irritated by this remark.

The Gekko flies faster than a Me-163 Komet with just the turbofan…and 3 times faster ( assumably ) than the Komet on rockets.

What makes it a coffin..it has Martin Baker Mk15 fitted in and all ?

Care to specify/elaborate ?

Three times faster?

Hmmm, with a turning radius defined by tens of miles.
Read sometime about how the S-71 handled at high mach.

High mach means high altitude, which mean little atmosphere for controls.
Your aircraft will not be doing high mach at low altitude and if it goes high it will be looking for a filling station or airstrip.

The Me163 once its fuel was spent was a threat to no one. Your aircraft cannot carry enough fuel to be a threat except maybe on a one-way such as the 163s did.
The smaller an aircraft the more susceptible it is to damage from cannon fire or a missile warhead.
The small Mirage fighters in the Falklands suffered the same fate your aircraft would.
Destroyed aircraft, dead pilot.

The F-106 had extremely long legs at a high speed cruise, over three hours, yet at continuous Mach 2, twenty minutes and you had better find a tanker now.

Let’s see yours has an eight minute throttled rocket?
Does such a rocket exist?
How much space does it take?
How much does it weigh?
Where will you put internal fuel for the jet?
Where will you put weapons?
External weapons greatly limit airspeed, internal weapons need sub-systems to lower and retrieve launch rails. System must be capable of expanding and contracting due to temp. changes with out binding or causing loose slap.
Such systems are heavy.
A cannon with enough rounds not to be just an after though will weigh around a 2,000 lbs. with cartridges.
Where will you put it.

Your reclining seat.
Go sit in a chair that reclines as far as yours is supposed to and try to look over you shoulder.
You cannot.
The reclining pilots seat seems like a good idea until real world physics and how the human torso functions are considered.

If you want to check into ejection capsules read up on the B-58 Hustler and F-111.
They had capsules and an a airframe large enough to carry them.

High speed ejection is easy to talk about but in the real world is a fifty-fifty proposition at best.
An aircraft with high-speed system has to be large to handle the superstructure involved and as they found out with the F-106 system, they require more sub-systems which increases the possibility of a sub-system failure, and a dead pilot.

A twenty millimeter cannon would chop your aircraft into small pieces in short order.
F-86 pilots in Korea said that the Russian 37 mm cannon could destroy a Saber with one round and a Saber was larger and made out of metal more able to withstand cannon fire than your aircraft.
Metals withstand projectiles not by being stiff like cast iron but by bending like mild steel.
Modern alloys create, in a way, the solidity of iron with bending of soft alloys.
Any metals that would break into pieces like a carbon fiber composite does, is worse than worthless.
Metal is still heavy in the amount required to protect a pilot from the rear.

If you do a net search you will find several instances of where an F-106 in an air to air collision lost the entire nose from the base of the windshield forward, yet the pilot safely landed the aircraft.

What would happen if your aircraft suffered such an incident, beyond the probable funeral for the pilot?

The U.S. Air Force had an official edict–SPEED IS LIFE.
Another would be– Size capable of withstand heavy damage and continue to fly is life.

Yours is a flying coffin.

Thunderbirds are GO

Thunderbird Six.

I have the dvds

The point is how bad this would be if no police dept. did train to prevent this.

Police have become little gestapos in too many cities where political power, surpasses responsibility.

In Minneapolis, Mn a married couple was car-jacked and the husband successfully disarmed and held the criminal on the ground with the criminal’s weapon.
When the policeman arrived, he promptly got out of his car and shot the husband dead with his shotgun.

They need far, far more training, which they get in some cities, and in my opinion should be treated in the same severe manner a civilian would be if he had shot the husband out of ignorance.

Having had a peep at the ballistics side of Hollow-Point vrs Practice ammo, the practice ammo does not follow the same trajectory path as a Hollow-Point, there is a slightly marked difference.
In general it’s advised to practice with the same ammo you intend to use, “On the street” for want of better words.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

They can train, which nowadays involves running through obstacle type course which include bad guys and innocents, to become proficient at not shooting the wrong person, or not being too slow or too quick, to react.

That can involve a great number of rounds and hollow points of any type are far more expensive than training solids.

After they have become proficient with various settings or courses, which is actually more important nowadays than being able to hit a target, they can then buy what ever expanding point rounds they intend to use to sight their firearm in for that particular round.

Extreme Shock is just one brand name for the newer expanding point ammunition on the market nowadays.
It is no better or worse morally than any other, whilst as the point of a bullet is to incapacitate another as quickly as possible the more harm it imposes on a criminal the better.

Out of those listed I would say X-31.

The Su-47, Su-37 and F-15 ACTIVE were all supermaneuverable (like serial F-22 and Su-35S today) but also rather massive. A nimbler plane has the potential to be more, well, nimble.

The X-36 was more of an attempt to attain modern fighter-worthy agility without the use of traditional tail surfaces/vertical stabs rather than having a go at no compromise super-mega-uber agility akin to the X-31.

The MiG-29OVT is a better fit into that list, IMHO. But I’d say that the X-31 would win an agility competition at te end of the day, anyway. It was a supersonic Su-29, so to speak. Designed from the ground up for the job, whereas the others approached it from a different direction.

They also hold less of anything that is needed to stay aloft or deliver on a mission and blow apart with a greater chance of killing the pilot as he is closer to the exploding engine.

The F-6 (F4D) was extremely maneuverable but it small size was its worst feature, which is why the F5D which would have replaced it was made much larger and it is considered a much better aircraft.

Off topic, the cliche of Chinese human wave attacks is also largely a myth, but this is the wrong forum to discuss that subject.

Yeah right.

ANY, I repeat, ANY war of attrition is based on shear numbers and nothing else.

If an army has a 12 to 1 advantage, even if the opposing army maintains a 10 to 1 kill ratio, on anything, up to and including human bodies, the army with the lower number loses.

The mass attacks merely speeds up the final victory.

The term “human wave” has also merely become a tool pf politically correct to rewrite history by saying it did not nor did it ever happen.
It ranks up there with the term “holocaust” that too many want to modify also.