As the title says. The challenge is to have a country develop and put into production a hypersonic interceptor, preferably during the Cold War.
AHC: Hypersonic interceptor
- Thread starter Alternate History Geek
- Start date
Delta Force
Banned
A hypersonic combat aircraft is fairly useless. That means a minimum speed of 3,840 miles per hour, or almost a mile a second. The aircraft would be flying faster than every commonly used missile of the Cold War and modern era (AIM-4 Falcon, AIM-9 Sidewinder, AIM-7 Sparrow, AIM-120 AMRAAM). It would go faster than the AIM-47 Falcon and the same speed as the AIM-54 Phoenix unless the AIM-47 was equipped with its original Lockheed Mach 6 motor and the AIM-54 was one of the advanced variants proposed in the 1980s (which also would have had Mach 6 motors). The missiles would also need to be designed to survive extreme flight conditions almost on par with reentry, as they would be at Mach 5 and accelerating on launch.
Really you are talking about a manned missile at hypersonic speeds. It would be far more practical to simply build Mach 2, 3, and 3.5 interceptors instead of hypersonic aircraft. A hypersonic bomber is going to be even more difficult to construct than a hypersonic interceptor (accuracy would probably be terrible even for a nuclear warhead) and a hypersonic spy plane would blaze right past your air defenses in a few minutes. A hypersonic bomber is also purely a World War III type weapon. The cost of a bomber, it's insane minimum range, and the cost of rebuilding an engine would preclude its use in even a limited nuclear war. Also, when you consider it, it's not that big of a leap to simply have a sub-orbital spaceplane once you reach hypersonic speeds. You're probably using rockets anyways.
EDIT: Fixed typo.
Really you are talking about a manned missile at hypersonic speeds. It would be far more practical to simply build Mach 2, 3, and 3.5 interceptors instead of hypersonic aircraft. A hypersonic bomber is going to be even more difficult to construct than a hypersonic interceptor (accuracy would probably be terrible even for a nuclear warhead) and a hypersonic spy plane would blaze right past your air defenses in a few minutes. A hypersonic bomber is also purely a World War III type weapon. The cost of a bomber, it's insane minimum range, and the cost of rebuilding an engine would preclude its use in even a limited nuclear war. Also, when you consider it, it's not that big of a leap to simply have a sub-orbital spaceplane once you reach hypersonic speeds. You're probably using rockets anyways.
EDIT: Fixed typo.
Last edited:
Delta Force
Banned
It would be impossible for a pilot to hit anything at hypersonic speeds because the engagement window would be so small. The other issue is that the rounds would be subjected to extreme temperatures and stresses due to the high speed of the aircraft firing them, and the aircraft might even fly into its own bullets depending on how quickly they slow down (assuming they don't vaporize).
The Americans tried to build a hypersonic interceptor with the Republic XF-103:
Unfortunately, the technical challenges proved too daunting in its time to build such a plane.
Unfortunately, the technical challenges proved too daunting in its time to build such a plane.
Curiousone
Banned
It sounds like something that would be specifically built to seize on those characteristics. I'm thinking of the 'Alfa' class submarines the Soviets employed which had a dive depth in excess of the maximum depth of the Western anti-submarine torpedo's of the time. There was a period when speeds were constantly increasing (Mig-25, XB-70..), & it looked like that was going to be the name of the game. Have higher economic performance among the superpowers for bigger defence budgets in that era, see if one side wants to try to technologically outspend/outflank the other (probably the Americans).
Can't they make a better cannon or hypersonic missiles if they where able to make the hypersonic plane?
Or just use the plane body as the basis for a better ICMB
What about this one?
Im pretty sure an Avro Arrow flying at the edge of space is likely near hypersonic speeds.
Hmm, didn't know Gerry Anderson worked for Avro Canada
EDIT: Would a Hypersonic Missile use a warhead, or would its speed be its main armament?
Last edited:
If you have a Hypersonic Interceptor, why use autocannon? Why not just use rail guns? Though if you have rail guns, you do not need the hypersonic as much.
Err... because no one has YET produced a production railgun, let alone one that fit in a plane? Yes they are finally getting close, but we're still not there yet, and the demo versions are either land based, probably with a couple of trailers full of support, or ships, where a few tonnes of generator and electronics is 'easy' to fit in.
The USAF had almost this interceptor
As F-12B, the USA had Mach 3.35 (2,275 mph, 3,661 km/h) interceptor with 3× Hughes AIM-47A air-to-air missiles and a M-61 gun
USAF its Air Defense Command (ADC). had order 93xF-12B
Sadly, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara had not release the funding for three consecutive years due to Vietnam War costs.
the build YF-12A ended up at NASA and USAF as Hypersonic research aircraft.
As F-12B, the USA had Mach 3.35 (2,275 mph, 3,661 km/h) interceptor with 3× Hughes AIM-47A air-to-air missiles and a M-61 gun
USAF its Air Defense Command (ADC). had order 93xF-12B
Sadly, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara had not release the funding for three consecutive years due to Vietnam War costs.
the build YF-12A ended up at NASA and USAF as Hypersonic research aircraft.