[Southack]

"When someone develops and builds a suborbital fighter that is militarily viable, please let me know and I'll start paying closer attention. So far, all Rutan has done is build something akin to the X-planes of the '50s and '60s."

Is it your opinion that existing weapons can't be added to existing civilian aircraft, that existing civilian aircraft can't be used in kamikaze attacks, or that already-developed military programs such as Neil Armstrong's X-20A DynaSoar aren't viable?

[Charles Martel]

Is it your opinion that existing weapons can't be added to existing civilian aircraft, that existing civilian aircraft can't be used in kamikaze attacks, or that already-developed military programs such as Neil Armstrong's X-20A DynaSoar aren't viable?

In part. Unless the available thrust is increased dramatically, there is no way that current weapons systems are going to make it to orbit, a~la SpaceShip One... at least not in meaningful quantity. Rutan's rocket engine design is scalable, though, so that could change - but the military is not going to invest in such a system without extensive testing. So, we're back where we began - needing a "stopgap" air-superiority fighter.

I compared Rutan's work with the X-planes, and the DynaSoar was to be an evolution of those experimetal aircraft. As a surveillance platform - or maybe a bomber skipping along the atmosphere like a flat rock across a pond (carrying one small nuclear warhead), yes, DynaSoar might've been viable. I doubt that it was ever envisioned as a platform which could take on swarms of enemy aircraft.

[XBob]

I keep asking you, where are the ICBM's to launch DynaSoars?