Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Southack
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.

223 posted on 07/09/2004 2:18:27 PM PDT by Charles Martel ("Who put the Tribbles in the Quadrotriticale?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies ]


To: Charles Martel; Southack

223 - "a platform which could take on swarms of enemy aircraft."

Southack can't seem to grasp this simple idea.

Southack, a rifle is not a good weapon when trying to counter a swarm of bees, or even one bee for that matter.


232 posted on 07/09/2004 6:26:17 PM PDT by XBob (Free-traitors steal our jobs for their profit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson