Why no jet fighters going over 2000 mph?

[hoosier88]

Why no jet fighters going over 2000 mph. I'd think with the advancement in engine technology that we could have such planes.

We have planes that go that fast, but no weapon system that does. That means any armed plane would have to slow down to engage a target, which no fighter pilot I ever met thinks is a good idea.

(My bold)

Sure we do. There's a modified Boeing 747 (?) that is the test bed for an experimental LASER system - which fires @ the speed of light. There's no problem with the plane outpacing c. But as of now, you need a platform the size of the 747 to carry the weapon, power system, mainframes & controls. If we can shrink the power system & guidance/pointing subsystems, then our hyper-fighter will have a real Mensch of a weapon.

Look to the skies!

 

[Sunni Man]

Both the SR 71 and the MIG 25 have exceeded MACH 3 and 2,000 mph. Of course no external weapons since this would create drag and slow the airframe down.

Sr 71 is not a fighter, only for recon ........

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I can't think of a single reason why we'd need an aircraft that goes that fast, with the exception of recon.

But....just because we've never heard of one doesn't mean they don't exist.

You never heard of the SR-71?

The top speed of the SR-71 was actually limited by the fact that friction, even at maximum altitude, heated the titanium skin so much that the engineers were worried about the canopy failing.

Yeah, but it's not a fighter.

It was concieved as a bomber/interceptor, they just made it too fucking fast.

 

[SteadyMercury]

We have planes that go that fast, but no weapon system that does. That means any armed plane would have to slow down to engage a target, which no fighter pilot I ever met thinks is a good idea.

You have it backwards, since the SR-71 retired we have no planes that go 2000 mph and one of the primary US air-to-air missiles AMRAAM flies at mach 4 about 3000 mph.

Both the SR 71 and the MIG 25 have exceeded MACH 3 and 2,000 mph. Of course no external weapons since this would create drag and slow the airframe down.

 

[Toronado3800]

I bet there are trade offs which are unacceptable. Remember we build fighters by the hundreds now not the thousands as in WWII when you had a plane for everything.

 

[SteadyMercury]

... and speaking of speed, the X51A (yeah the one that recently crashed into the ocean in a test) has gone over mach 5 and is designed to be able to pass mach 6 in level flight. That is seriously hauling ass.

Think what you could do with that, like as an antiship cruise missile nothing would have the reaction time necessary to detect + intercept it and at that velocity I'm not even sure a warhead would be necessary to put a serious hurting on anything that floats.

 

[williepete]

Why no jet fighters going over 2000 mph?

"People that talk don't know. People that know don't talk".

What is the tactical importance of 2000 mph?
Super cruise has been attained by the F-22 which will shrink the acquisition and engagement windows quite well for the foreseeable future.

Sincerely,

Former F-4 and A-10 Driver.

Cheers.

 

[SteadyMercury]

And that is a good point... the ability of the F-22 to maintain a speed above mach 1 without burning up all its fuel w/afterburners and sustainable climb rate have far more utility than high altitude dash speed records.