Mis sile s/Space Interview 3.
Page
October 1961
?
Contrd Beyond Mach 3 there are a nurnber of feasible designs for military aircraft. The X-15, for exarnple, has already attained Mach 7. The fundamental problern is will they give enough tactical.
and strategical advaatage to meet the high cost of development. These are largely political and policy decisions. As an aeronautical engineer I can onLy say t}at such aircraft can be built aow.
4.
Av
I know that yourve given a Lot of thought to the rnatter. Therefore, what do you see ds the next two or three generations of aircraft?
n
classified.
tio
ia
Iffell, first we must rnention those aircraft now in development... the STOL version TFX fighter and the VTOL strike reconnaissance aircraft for NATO. Then, of course, at the ext'rerne end of the line we have the hytrrersonic pLane uihich, as I rnentioned., is highly
ed
M
I.or the region of Mach 4.5 or some 2, 800 mph, a Long-ya11gg strategic bornber powered by nuclear ramjet engines and with a range of 8,500 rniles is cornpleteLy feasible and could probably be available for the period L970-1975.
ia
Beyond that we rnust skip to the area of Mach 10 to 12. 'When we enter supersonic and hypersonic regirnes smaLl. increases in speed and performance are neither practicalr' nor econornical -thus, we move to Mach 10. We have done sorrle prelirninary design work on a 41 960 rnph bomber tJrat would be tailored for off-shore bombing missioas and long-range recoanaissancec
C
LL
5,
If
such
aircraft are feasible why arenrt
buil.t?
The decision whether to go into production on a particular generation is determined. by a great rnany factors other than technicaL feasibilitf" " . political, econornical, rnilitary, and so one In the versions mentioned, probably the cost didntt justify the end result. But the important point here is that we do not let this stop us frorn creating" Aircraft design is evolutionary and if we dontt keep up research and devel.opment, we naay face an embarrassing and even tragic situation at sorne future tirne"