Scorching wall:the high and low collocation of Mach 3 fighter?

bloody sky

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 3, 2021
Messages
46
Reaction score
51
As we known that, there are so many Mach 3 fighter plane, such as XF-108、YF-12 and an exciting modification of F-4( a25b816fef13f1c140a141153cd4919c.jpeg
and than……why USAF didn‘t create the fleet of Mach 3 fighter by the way of high and low collocation?
(for example,YF-12 and the modification of F-4 in this picture )
 
Last edited by a moderator:

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,743
Reaction score
3,715
M3 is $$$$$ Also a niche capability. How often to Mach 2 aircraft even use Mach 2?
 

bloody sky

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 3, 2021
Messages
46
Reaction score
51
M3 is $$$$$ Also a niche capability. How often to Mach 2 aircraft even use Mach 2?
Yes,and I just wonder that……could USAF use their Mach 3 fighters by the tactics like "wall of eagles"?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

CV12Hornet

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jan 8, 2021
Messages
107
Reaction score
176
Yes,and I just wonder that……could USAF use their Mach 3 fighters by the tactics like "wall of eagles"?
I'm not familiar with that tactic...

Anyway, cost and lack of need was generally the killer. The XF-108 was enormously expensive, and the YF-12 no better; plus there was serious reconsideration of the need for both aircraft, with the threat shifting to ballistic missiles and a general de-emphasis of Continental air defense.

The F-4X, meanwhile, was killed on a combination of diplomatic grounds - among other things it would've made for a very nasty tactical nuclear strike aircraft for the Israelis - and a desire by the USAF to not compete with the F-15 Eagle.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

bloody sky

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 3, 2021
Messages
46
Reaction score
51
Yes,and I just wonder that……could USAF use their Mach 3 fighters by the tactics like "wall of eagles"?
I'm not familiar with that tactic...

Anyway, cost and lack of need was generally the killer. The XF-108 was enormously expensive, and the YF-12 no better; plus there was serious reconsideration of the need for both aircraft, with the threat shifting to ballistic missiles and a general de-emphasis of Continental air defense.

The F-4X, meanwhile, was killed on a combination of diplomatic grounds - among other things it would've made for a very nasty tactical nuclear strike aircraft for the Israelis - and a desire by the USAF to not compete with the F-15 Eagle.
F-4X could have been the nuclear strike aircraft for the Israelis???
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,347
Reaction score
6,341
Figuratively, yes - they could have clung a tactical nuke on the centerline and flown at mach 2.4 or mach 3 and 78 000 ft inside an Arab state air space, dropping the nuke either on a big infantry division or on a capital - Damas, Cairo...
Nukes don't need very high precision / navigation systems - even less in the middle east clear weather.

Bitburg RF-4C one and only armement was a pair of self-defense Sidewinders and... a nuke on the centerline - I mean they were wired for that, in case of absolute extreme emergency.
 

bloody sky

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 3, 2021
Messages
46
Reaction score
51
What would keep someone else from trying this?
Absolutely nothing, which is one of the reasons the State Department was adamantly against the F-4X. They did not want to start a spiral like that.

Also, @bloody sky, what were you talking about wrt the "Wall of Eagles" thing?
At that time,I was thinking:Could the USAF use their Mach 3 fighters as well as they use their F-15 in the the first Gulf war?(I just remember that somebody call the tactics of USAF in the the first Gulf war as "Wall of Eagles" )
 

CV12Hornet

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jan 8, 2021
Messages
107
Reaction score
176
At that time,I was thinking:Could the USAF use their Mach 3 fighters as well as they use their F-15 in the the first Gulf war?(I just remember that somebody call the tactics of USAF in the the first Gulf war as "Wall of Eagles" )
Probably not. The F-106, the closest analogue in the force structure, was long gone by 1991, and the USAF was not only pulling F-15s off the air defense duty for more economical F-16s, but was also skipping upgrades for the F-15A fleet as uneconomical.

And if F-15s are uneconomical you can bet that the YF-12 or XF-108 would be way, way worse. It's highly likely that any Mach 3 interceptors are out of service entirely by 1991.
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
1,209
Reaction score
634
If they were that useful Mach 3 combat aircraft would now be plentiful.
Rather than non-existent.

As interceptors Mach 3 performance very expensively obtained and only really needed if their likely prey had comparable performance (they didn’t). Ballistic missiles (ICBMs etc) and the switch to low altitude high subsonic penetration by the bomber/ strike aircraft that continued (in face of SAM developments etc) rendered the likes of the F-108 as unnecessary and as a waste of resources.

Only real outliers are the MIG-25 and MIG-31 and the latter is focused on shooting sub-sonic cruise missiles.

And as strike aircraft Mach 3 performance also extremely expensive to obtain and didn’t necessarily provide the level of sustainable survivability (SAM technology could more quickly and efficiently evolve to keep up with or overtake Mach 3 aircraft performance).
 

jeffb

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
477
Reaction score
554
You'd have to think that the energy required to push to and maintain M3 would drop the range significantly.

I'd argue that history shows that the cost benefits equation, for fighter interceptors anyway, works out best at around M2. Recon and strike birds might benefit from a higher top speed, but probably only in special cases.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,743
Reaction score
3,715
You'd have to think that the energy required to push to and maintain M3 would drop the range significantly.

I'd argue that history shows that the cost benefits equation, for fighter interceptors anyway, works out best at around M2. Recon and strike birds might benefit from a higher top speed, but probably only in special cases.
And dedicated interceptors. Higher speed is more area protected.
 

muttly

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jun 15, 2020
Messages
178
Reaction score
89
It would seen that such high speed planes were more useful for spying.
The SR-71 comes to mind.
 

Similar threads

Top