Originally posted by Browno
Since the F-103 airframe is missile like, It would have been a decent interceptor for hunting nuclear missiles since it was to be so fast.
- Browno do you have any idea just how fast ICBM warhead reentry speeds are?
Check this out, it talks of reentry speeds of 7km a second (over 15000mph).
Forget your F103 and a (completely unsubstantiated) guesstimate/claim about mach 4 or any ideas about "chasing down" one of these warheads (which
come in a 'MIRV pack' with decoys etc etc).
.....oh, and in order to make life even harder for the dreams of an ABM system the Russians are working on even faster ones (which will obviously end
up being a 'norm' everyone adopts as everyone looks to defeat ABM systems in part by this simple spec alteration.).
If i was an Air Force Official, No matter how old it is I would have this plane built(With 21st technology) and have it tested.
- You really ought to consider that the instant you start talking about redesigns and newer tech that your points about 'off-the-shelf', 'simple'
and to a 'set time frame' just went out the window, hmmmmm?
Sorry matey but if you were a procurement official in the USAF I think this kind of idea would see you very swiftly moved or 'retired'!
The existing design would only be the prototype but the production variant would use RAM Coating and a few modded parts like angled surfaces
and new stuff like that.
- What 'existing design'?
There are the remnants of an ancient existing proposal
knocking about (using components no longer made and materials some of which would be to
a set of spec.s no longer appropriate).
This mere proposal never made it through to systems and flight testing and all the other million and one practical steps it takes to move an idea off
of the paper and onto the concrete.
It really isn't anything like as simple as you seem to believe.
Why do you think today's projects cost so much if merely dusting off and slightly modifying existing proposals were all there was to it?
Its airframe looks so simple and easy to build(Like a Mig 21, F-105, Commercial airliners).
- Well, OK, but don't they all, superficially, to some extent?
"Looks" are hardly the basis on which these things can be gauged.
Things like the materials to cope with 'heat soak' (thanks to the mach 4 speeds) etc make the basic 'shape' far from your biggest consideration in
making such a thing work.
Titanium is the usual starting point with high speed vehicles and it is not an easy material to fabricate and work with.
I mentioned these planes because they all have similar type of fuselages(Tubular shaped) and should be easy to Repair, Maintain?
- The outline is rarely crucial in these things, the materials used to construct and systems packing the insides are the big deal.
Being the 21st Century, Would the F-103 be good as an Emergency Production Interceptor?
- If aviation history shows us anything it is that revisiting old ideas (especially ones so old......this proposal goes back nearly 50yrs!
something that almost never happens.
For several very good reasons.
[edit on 16-3-2006 by sminkeypinkey]