Comments by "" (@craigkdillon) on "Sandboxx" channel.

  1. I think advancements in ECM and ECCM are just as important to the success of stealth as the shape and coatings of the aircraft. I also expect slave drone decoys to be used by our bombers to distract and confuse air defenses. I think stealth is both more advanced and more complex than it was at first.
    13
  2. In high sea states, is it the crew or the ship that has the problem?? For a drone, it just needs to be well sealed. It can even capsize, as long as it is self-righting.
    11
  3.  @wayausofbounds9255  You mean "epitome". But, I agree. Amazing for a country smaller than the Chicago area in population.
    9
  4. Duh. Of course. The speed needed to need Titanium so the skin wouldn't melt it had to be a lot faster than Mach 3. The Soviet Union had a fighter that went Mach 3, and it used steel alloy for its skin, and it had NO PROBLEM going Mach 3. Therefore, the SR-71, had to be going Mach 4 or 5. I figured that out decades ago.
    5
  5.  @mattthemouse1  I think of the Vulcan bomber.
    4
  6. I bet they don't have crop dusters in Africa. So, that won't work.
    4
  7. This doesn't really surprise me. One thing we can predict is that unmanned drones (the loyal wingmen) will get more capable and CHEAPER with every year. The manned NGAD will get more expensive. PLUS -- engine tech is advancing fast - as shown by the Hermeus Chimera. So much is changing so fast that it may make sense to not commit right now.
    4
  8. Since you are in a position to know what is coming. Can you elaborate and tell me??? Don't worry, you can trust me. I won't tell a soul.
    3
  9.  @bricefleckenstein9666  Don't forget the B-58 Hustler, which actually served. It was delta wing in the 50's.
    3
  10. This is quite amazing. B U T -- Is Elon Musk and Trump going to mess with it?? Will Trump cancel it? or redefine it? Musk and his helper can do a lot of damage.
    3
  11. The dorsal intake is such an obvious solution to minimizing detection by ground based radar, that I wonder why it wasn't used in any of operational stealth craft??
    3
  12. The B-2 big bump is really a fuselage buried in a flying wing. The YB-49 was truly a flying wing. Their is no central bulge to act like a fuselage. So, the B-2's wings can be much thinner than the YB-49.
    3
  13. Frequency skipping radar? The spirit of Hedy Lamarr lives. She invented it. The ultimate in beauty and brains.
    3
  14. If he wanted a million+ subscribers, all he needs to do is put cute kittens in aircraft, on the ships, and in submarines.
    3
  15. Can stealth technology work with any of these engines?? Or, is stealth lost with the speed??
    2
  16. I find it interesting that chaff is still used. It was invented way back in WW2. It is VERY low tech. It was just strips of tin foil that spoiled radar signals. I presume it is the same today. So chaff has been good for 80+ years of use. Not bad for a low tech solution.
    2
  17. Agreed. BUT --- I would not use an F-35 for the A-10 job of close air support. I know it is supposed to replace the A-10. If anyone can explain why and how it could do that job well, please explain.
    2
  18. OK. I see the Air Force now has the EA-37B. How does the EA-18G compare to the EA-37B in capability?? How would they be used differently in tactics and strategy?? Also, is the Growler only used on our carriers, or are they ever used from land bases??
    2
  19.  @DumbledoreMcCracken  Oh yeah. You betcha. Winning both the F-22 and F-35 contracts proves that to me.
    2
  20. FYI -- it is C-Power, not Sea-Power.
    2
  21. Will Navy assets be able to network with Air Force assets, like the B-21 raider, its F-35A's, and with Army assets like Apaches, M1 tanks, etc.??? I would hope so. But, I have no idea.
    1
  22. Russia will be left behind. They won't have the resources to keep up with any of this. China has the money to keep up. I think they lack the R&D to keep up. Though, they might be able to steal it.
    1
  23. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dykzl9Kaf4&ab_channel=Hermeus
    1
  24.  @Cyrribrae  Yes. Lot of videos. I do find Hermeus to be very interesting.
    1
  25. Disagree. The US must NOT build the NGAD fighter UNTIL we know what we need. 1. The Ukraine War has shown that drones are critical, while at the same time pushing drone technology, design and usage. The doctrine for their use is also being developed. The future of drones is still in development. Their use with NGADs is not known now. 2. Combined cycle engines is developing fast. The Chimera engine from Hermeus shows that a future NGAD may need to be hypersonic driven by a Chimera type engine. These two reasons mean we should NOT design an NGAD yet. Not until we know the implications of these two techs.
    1
  26. The Raider seems to be light blue in color, going by the pics of it on the ground. I thought it was going to be black like the B-2.
    1
  27. I thought that solid fuel rockets could not be throttled. That alone is a major advancement, IMO.
    1
  28. I think stealth will always be important, if not critical. Stealth planes will become more detectible and targetable. BUT -- ECM will become more important, and more capable. ECM will keep the planes stealthy. However, they will still need stealth shape and coatings so the ECM systems won't have to work so hard at keeping the plane invisible. As long as the F-35 can accept new electronics, it can be kept relevant.
    1
  29. Not expanding the B-21 order makes most sense to me. Developments in materials, combined cycle hypersonic engines, radars, AI, and other systems is happening at a breakneck speed. I expect the B-21 to be obsolete to what can be designed in 2040, if not sooner.
    1
  30. I wish you had a video that goes into the Fighter and Attack roles. How are they different? How to F planes differ from A planes?? Seems to me there is a lot of overlap. Didn't P-47's P-51's, Corsairs, P-38's, and Hellcats all do both roles? For me only the A-10 Warthog is a dedicated Ground Attack plane. I would like to see a more detailed analysis and explanation. I feel I know just enough to get it all wrong.
    1
  31. Alex -- can our current missiles be fired from a hypersonic jet when we develop one?? With Hermeus, that seems likely. I wonder if we could use our current missiles, or do we need to develop all new weapons for hypersonic fighters???
    1
  32. Personally, I like talks about military logistics. I find it sexy. Hypersonics?? Stupid, mostly useless missiles. People who focus on them, don't know much.
    1
  33. Letters of marque is pronounced "mark", like in dark, 6 Not marquee, and not pronounced "marky"
    1
  34.  @bricefleckenstein9666  So you did.
    1
  35. @ Speaking seriously. That makes sense. Like much of Canada, no roads means airplane is the best, if not only way, to get around.
    1
  36. Are Electronic Counter Measures, and Electronic Counter Counter Measures (ECM, ECCM) part of EW?? I would like to see a discussion of ECM and ECCM and how it is being used in our aircraft and missiles. Thank you.
    1
  37.  @tyvernoverlord5363  Thanks. Makes sense.
    1
  38. The B-2 bomber was revolutionary. The B-21, as I see it, is merely a refinement of the B-2. They look similar. Their layouts are the same. If the B-21 replacement is already being planned --- will it be a further refinement of this type of bomber, OR will it be something very different??
    1
  39. US Air Force can NEVER defeat Godzilla. Not with Japanese script writers. We are doomed.
    1
  40. What about the Hermeus engine?
    1
  41. Building new F-22's would be monumentally stupid. It has been 30 years since it was designed. There have been huge advances in --- Materials, Engines, Avionics, Radars, Computers, Networking, Weapons, .... Basically every single technology has made huge advances. So, the US should build more F-22's. The US should build the replacement for F-22's.
    1
  42. Can the FA-18 be as good operating off of highways as the Swedish Gripen?? Seems to me that rapid fueling and rearming will increase the sortie rate. More sorties is like having more aircraft.
    1
  43. Nice paint job. Needs racing stripes.
    1
  44. You, and others, refer to the CSIS war game study of a Chinese attack on Taiwan, and point out the dire consequences for our military. I do not accept that interpretation. The CSIS study seems incompetent to me for two major reasons ---- 1). Taiwan is depected as punching bag that does not hit back. Taiwan is NOT a pinata , that China can hit freely. Taiwan has thousands of anti-ship missiles -- HF-2, HF-2e, and HF-3. Taiwan makes the most advanced chips, and there is NO REASON to believe that Taiwan has not used them to create world class sensors, avionics, and ECCM systems to make their missiles robust and hard to kill. If I am correct, the Taiwan will likely sink China's invasion fleet BEFORE the US has time to respond. 2) Now this point is the one that makes me see the CSIS study as incompetent --- CSIS claims that the US would lose FOUR (4) nuclear subs. Huh?? How is that??? As far as I know, China cannot locate ANY of our subs, let alone target and kill them. So unless our Navy plans on having our subs surface in Shanghai harbor, that stated outcome is ridiculous. Alex, it does give me pause that YOU credit the CSIS study as being valid. You MUST know something I don't. What do you know?? Does Taiwan not have anti-ship missiles? Can China find, track, target, and kill our nuclear subs?? You must think these are facts to accept the CSIS study. What is the truth??
    1
  45. They can see it. They can track it. BUT -- they CANNOT STOP it. They will see their doom coming. THAT is the power of the F-35.
    1
  46. These are great. BUT - they are easily seen by radar, therefore easily targeted and destroyed. Enemies, now, are not prepared for them, so they will be great for a few years. In time, though, all naval craft will have anti-drone systems. IMO, they will need to make these semi-submersible. Travelling just under the surface, with only a thin antenna above the surface. Instead of complicated submarine mechanics, I think a simple bladder can act as the submerging device. It only needs to go down 4 to 8 feet, I think. It could travel long distances fast above the water, and then go below the surface when needed.
    1
  47. Great. The B-52 keeps trucking along.
    1
  48. Seems to me that aeronautical performance of fighters is not as important now. The radars, ECM, networking, and missiles used means that dogfighting will not happen very often, if ever. Spoofing and ECM will protect planes, along with stealth. Vectoring will go away, as it will be unnecessary.
    1
  49. People have been talking about the SR-72 for a long long time now. I want to hear about the super secret SR-73.
    1
  50. Evolutionary -- NOT revolutionary. I believe the mix of 5th gen and 4th gen aircraft was the concept from the beginning. That is how it was used in Desert Storm, and I don't see a real change. America's advantage is not just in stealth. It is the fact that the US has a broad range of assets that work together presenting an enemy with a staggeringly complex assault, that is very hard to predict or counter.
    1
  51. FYI - the B-52 was the last fighting plane developed by Boeing, Military bombers or fighters, but not tankers or cargo planes,
    1
  52.  @Youtubeuser1aa  haven't a clue. Were there?
    1
  53.  @Echowhiskeyone  My point was about the skin of the plane. Seems to me, for the SR-71 to have the heat issues described, it would have to a LOT faster than Mach 3.
    1
  54.  @Youtubeuser1aa  what was made of stainless steel? The SR-71 or the Russian plane? you are right, I don't know about aircraft design.. It just seems to me that if one plane can go Mach 3, w/o titanium, then the SR-71 must be going a LOT faster.
    1
  55.  @BTD3Fan  Wow. That much?? I just threw out Mach 5 because I thought it must be able to go a lot faster. If what you say is right, then my wild ass guess was close. Thanks.
    1
  56.  @clapanse  Thanks. I did wonder about what was used on the X-15. Also, I thought titanium was used on the SR-71 because of thermal issues. You seem to be saying that it was only done for weight. If so, why did Lockheed select titanium and have to engineer the construction tools and techniques?? (BTW - I am not an aerospace engineer. If you are wondering about my LACK of credentials) {However, I do have my YT Masters Degree in flummery.)
    1
  57.  @Youtubeuser1aa  Thanks.
    1
  58.  @clapanse  Aerospace Engineer?? HA ! ! I am a bonafide YT expert on ALL topics. Seriously, though, seems to me the biggest argument against the SR-71 going much faster is the fact that it was not using a scram jet engine. The Chimera engine from Hermeus sis supposed to go Mach 5, and uses scram jet technology to get that speed. So, I presume the SR-71 was limited. B U T -- I then still have the question -- why the titanium hull?
    1
  59.  @Youtubeuser1aa  Actually, the "top" speed of fighter aircraft is NOT a sustainable speed. They can only do it for a short while. I expect that to be the case with the Soviet jet. While the SR-71 could sustain Mach 3+ all the way.
    1
  60. Wow. All these new engines will thrust US far ahead. I presume one of these will be used on the NGAD aircraft. Imagine the next fighter going 5 mach to 9 mach. The F-22 and F-35 will look like toys. This is the next huge step in aircraft design. First biplanes, then monoplanes with advanced piston engines, then jets, and now the coming dual mode scramjets.
    1
  61.  @LunaticTheCat  Yep. Right now the idea is one piloted NGAD and two loyal wingmen. Well, what if it turns out to be one NGAD and 6 loyal wingmen?? OR --- NO NGAD, and 20 drones??? OR NO NGAD, and a swarm of self-directed drones??
    1
  62. I think it is amazing how much more advanced American air technology than other nations. The F-22 & F-23 were designed 30 years ago. The BEST China and Russia could do is to build planes that approach the F-22 in some categories --- maybe. Meanwhile, our Air Force considers the F-22 to be obsolete, and is creating several new gen 6 aircraft for the Air Force and Navy. These new designs will be another leap forward, while our adversaries haven't been able to respond to the F-22 or F-35. On top of that, we have the Hermeus hypersonic engine development. Who knows how that will change things. Hypersonic drones? Hypersonic fighters? Hypersonic cargo planes? (OK, that last one is silly.) Pretty incredible.
    1
  63. China is just catching up - after 30 years. That's nice. BUT --- in 10 years, USA will have the NGAD hypersonic fighters. They will adaptive engine technology having BOTH turbo-jet and ram-jet capability. NGAD fighters will go 3000+ mph.
    1
  64. First come the drones. Next, comes the anti-drones. Anti-drone tech is developing tast. And we haven't applied AI yet.
    1
  65. What a crock. The whole point of a missile is to hit its target. Stealth does it more reliably, IMO, since it is harder to knock down, Both reduce the time to respond by a defender. Stealth by not being detected until very close, and hypersonic by being very fast. IMO, counters to hypersonic will be easier, since they are easily detected.
    1
  66. Ah, Jedi stealth. That is not the drone you are looking for. You don't see anything. There is nothing there. Move along.
    1
  67. Why can't the B-1 and B-52 carry the MOP??? You say only the B-2 can carry it. I thought the others could carry more than 30,000 lbs as well.
    1
  68.  @BadDadio  I figured that. But, the concept is still the same right?? Little strips of stuff that reflects the radio waves, making a mess of the radar returns. The genius of it was that it was low tech and cheap.
    1
  69. We haven't designed a new stealth fighter in last 25 years. We are overdue, IMO.
    1
  70. Someone suggested you should have more subscribers. May I suggest kittens.
    1
  71. Thanks for the report. I was with you... up until you said we are waiting on Congress... Now, there's the rub.
    1
  72. How do either of our missiles compare to India's highly praised Brahmos missile?? Are they faster? More reliable? How do mission success rates compare? Cost comparison? Types of missions supported? etc.
    1
  73. In ten years, the US military will outclass China and Russia as much as a WW2 army outclassed a Napoleon army. NGAD, laser weapons, wingman drones, and combat networking will reduce China's and Russia's armies to insignificance. They will have no counter to the stealth, precision, and situational awareness our military will have. Their planes, tanks, and other assets will be destroyed, and they won't be able to stop it.
    1
  74. You didn't specify whether it was a Coke or Pepsi can. Details please..
    1
  75. Makes sense. Aeronautical agility is becoming a thing of the past as encounters and kills will be done BVR. If that is the case, then the qualities of stealth, payload, and range become the important metrics. The B-21 excels in those.
    1
  76. Or, it is one of the many 'gaps' used to justify arms production. The 'missile gap' The 'bomber gap' Soviet Union was supposed to be ahead of us in so many areas, until we spent money to get rid of the fictional gaps. Could this be another 'gap' used to spend money on new weapons?
    1
  77.  @fbi805  you cannot read. The 'gaps' were used to get more funding. The SU was never ahead of us in missiles, nukes, or bombers. Now we have the hype about Russia ahead in hypersonic missiles. This is also false. Before you attack someone, make sure they are not on your side.
    1
  78. OMG, not another video quoting the incompetent CSIS "war gaming" analysis. The assertions made in it are ridiculous. For example, it states that the US will lose 4 nuclear subs. Oh yeah? HOW?? China has no ability to find, let alone target and destroy them. It states the China will sink two aircraft carriers? Oh yeah? How? Our carriers will NOT be put so close to China to make them easy targets. Besides -- why should US or Japan get involved at all??? I have yet to see or read anything that gives a reasonable way for China to avoid having its fleet sunk and neutralized by the anti-ship missiles of Taiwan -- HF-2, HF-2e, and HF-3, along with Harpoon missiles. Look at the difficulty the Allies had invading the Normandy beaches. The Allies had air dominance, and thousands of ships, with trained & experienced crews. China has none of that. Plus, modern anti-ship missiles make such an assault doomed. AND - Taiwan missiles are ALL equipped with modern ECCM capability. China won't be able to shoot down many. The CSIS report is incompetent, and should be discarded. American airpower will NOT likely play a significant role in defending Taiwan.
    1
  79.  @shannonhenson609  I think those speculations are very wrong, just as the speculations about Ukraine not fighting. Also, it is missiles and radars that will defeat China --- NOT airpower.
    1
  80.  @shannonhenson609  Taiwan increased mandatory military service from 3 months to one year. I think they take it seriously. Also, look at the development they did creating HF-2, HF-2e, and HF-3 missiles. They can hit the 3 Gorges dam.
    1
  81.  @shannonhenson609  Have they been there recently? have they looked at how popular their president is? and how unpopular Kuomintang is? Military has been expanded. They have been developing their own advanced missiles for 30 years. Young people are taking courses in shooting and self defense. They have seen what happened to Hong Kong. They don't want that. Their military is bigger, better equipped, and better trained than Ukraine's was when Putin attacked. What NONE of the analysts talk about are Taiwan's missiles, and how will China get its ships close to Taiwan to land the troops? Answer: China cannot. Taiwan has well over 1000 anti-missile ships, KF-2, and KF-3. Their KF-2e missile has a range of 1,200 km. (it is not a variant of the KF-2). Remember, Taiwan has access to the most advanced chips to make advanced avionics, radars, and ECCM systems.
    1
  82. Will ranges of missiles be automatically increased when they are fired from hypersonic fighters??? Seems to me that the engines being developed by Hermeus and others will soon give us engines that can power fighters to Mach 5+ speeds. If current missiles can be launched from Mach 5+ jets, they should be able to go farther. Right???
    1
  83. America's ability to design and build advanced weapon systems is astounding. Look at WW2, Britain, Germany, and Japan ended the war with pretty much the aircraft they started with. The US instead created the P-47, P-51, Corsair, Hellcat, and was coming out with the p-80 at the end. Germany had some good R&D, but their stuff never got into mass production, so I discount those planes. The US seems to be a generation ahead of everyone else at this point.
    1
  84. I do not see how this can be true... UNLESS.... radars have advanced to where stealth isn't as stealthy anymore. Has that happened?
    1
  85. My impression is that the military has ceased to exist in the big cities like Chicago, New York, and LA. The big population centers are ignored. How can the US military meet recruitment goals doing that?
    1
  86. If they hurry, they could do real combat testing by selling some to Ukraine.
    1
  87. BTW -- can the new B-21 carry the MOP? Carry 2 MOPs???
    1
  88. At the end, you mention "doctrine". Does anyone have a good idea of China's military and air combat doctrine?? I presume they started with the Soviet military doctrine, which we now see being shredded in Ukraine. I also understand that China is trying to learn western air combat tactics and procedures. Where do they stand now? I doubt anyone knows.
    1
  89. Also, assuming this can be done ---- If you shoot an AMRAAM missile from a hypersonic fighter going 4,000mph --- wouldn't that give it much greater range?? If so, how much more range do you think??
    1
  90. One thing Ukraine is showing is the diminishment of the significance of air power. Missiles are MUCH more important. 1. SAM's prevent air dominance, or even air activity. 2. Anti-ship missiles will sink China's fleet. If Russia cannot stop the sinking of their flagship, what makes anyone think that China can stop the sinking of its troop ships, destroyers, frigates, etc.?? 3. Taiwan makes the MOST sophisticated chips, which have been incorporated into their HF-2, HF-2e, and HF-3 missiles. They undoubtedly have ECCM, making them very hard to stop. Personally, I think Taiwan can defeat a Chinese invasion all by themselves, with little help from US or Japan. US should send at least 500 Harpoon missiles, and as many LRASM's as possible.
    1
  91. Air superiority means -- fly fast, turn tight, and shoot first. At least that is what it used to mean, IMO. For instance -- I don't think anyone would argue that the F-35 would lose to the F-15 if the F-35 was limited to using its aeronautical abilities alone. HOWEVER - -the F-35 beats the F-15 because of - 1. stealth, and 2) BVR radars & rockets. The F-35 downs F-15 BVR. The F-15 never even sees it. NOW -- if that is true, then the F-35 could actually be a stealth bomber, instead. Why not?? Any stealth weapons truck could do the job, as I see it. If I am wrong, please point out to me what I don't understand.
    1
  92. With the recent huge developments in hypersonic propulsion, is it wise to commit to a 6th gen design now?? Hermeus and Kratos have made amazing advances. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dd4EbOz3sX8&ab_channel=LAMAGRA Maybe the 6th gen should be hypersonic???
    1
  93. Q: if a fighter goes hypersonic --- can it launch missiles from a bomb bay?? Can it carry wing mounted missiles and still go mach 5?? You seem to be saying that current subsonic missiles could still be used on a hypersonic plane, like a possible military version of Hermeus Quarterhorse. Thanks in advance for responding.....
    1
  94. I believe the US Air Force developed Wild Weasel tactics during the Vietnam War. As one who never served, I find the concept one step short of crazy. Do other Air Forces do Wild Weasel tactics? The Russians? The Chinese? Do our allies in UK, Germany, Israel, and others do Wild Weasel, too?? If anyone knows, please respond.
    1
  95. Paraphrasing Sen. Dirksen, "A trillion here, a trillion there, pretty soon, you are talking about real money."
    1
  96. Could the SR-72 be the cover for the even more secret SR-73?? Hmmm???
    1
  97. I thought you were going to swear me to secrecy. Don't want you to get in trouble with Lockheed.
    1
  98. Old? Yes. Dated? No. The A-10 is every bit needed now as it ever was. Stealth? Yes -- on OTHER aircraft. One thing that I hope we have learned is that the idea of a "do-it-all" aircraft is wrong. We need a mix of aircraft doing different things to have an effective combat team. Just like you cannot have a football team with only running backs, or free safeties, no matter how good they are.
    1
  99. Sounds wonderful. Are they only used by the Navy?? That seems silly. So, what Air Force planes can do what the Growler does?? If none, why not??
    1
  100. The C-130 is arguably the BEST plane ever built. Not only is it still flying after 60+ years of flying ==== it is still being MADE after 60+ years of manufacturing. The vaunted DC-3 and B-52 cannot claim that.
    1
  101. Cool. Very cool.
    1
  102. All I could say is "Wow".
    1
  103. Going by that, Boeing is NOT qualified to build a fighter,
    1
  104. Do you enough info to compare and contrast the ECM, spoofing, and jamming defense capabilities of US planes vs Chinese and Russian planes??? IF so, I would love to see such a video.
    1
  105. I am not surprised the NGAD was shelved. On YT, I see developments in AI and Engines, like the Hermeus Chimera that can take planes to Mach 5+ Also, drone tech and drone doctrine are developing at a HUGE pace. So, I think the Air Force needs to step back and re-visit the basic definition of what a 6th gen craft and suite of tools will look like. What type of engine? Speed? Range? (Blended body/wings can allow more fuel for greater range. I think.) What type of drones? Size? capability? Range? Payload? And then avionics are developing fast. ECM, ECCM, decoys, spoofers, jammers, and stuff I am not aware of are expanding capabilities. What should be put on the NGAD? How to use them? How can they be foiled? I bet the Air Force has more questions than it has answers at the moment.
    1
  106. To be clear --- the real threat to the US Air Force is --- RODAN ! ! !
    1
  107. I don't understand you description of the SM-6 performance. How can it achieve Mach 5+ speed? Its doesn't seem large enough to carry the fuel needed for that, plus it doesn't have a scramjet engine. Can it really go hypersonic??
    1
  108.  @TonyChan-eh3nz  I see. going low tech.
    1
  109. As I understand it, Stealth is about not allowing the enemy to get a kill chain on your aircraft. Radar detection, tracking, and targeting is only a part of that, it seems to me. Same with infra-red detection and targeting. Isn't Electronic Counter Measures (ECM) and jamming part of it, too? Would decoys be considered part of Stealth??
    1
  110. Alex, I have questions regarding hypersonic aircraft and their using AIM missiles. Can a Mach 5+ aircraft still use current AIM missiles - AIM-9, AIM-120, and AIM-260?? (This is what I think). OR Does the Mach 5+ speed require all new AIM missiles to be developed?? OR One person I talked with felt that missiles cannot be launched from a plane going Mach 5+ at all. Is that true?? Seems to me that the speed that Hermeus is developing their tech, that Mach 5+ aircraft will be a reality very soon. So this will be a serious design issue.
    1
  111. The Combined Cycle engines like the hypersonic Hermeus will likely be used. The NGAD is not currently designed for that. I can see shelving the NGAD until those engines become better known.
    1