Why not just use a C-5 airframe?
F-35 completes flight testing
Fucking Lockheed. This plane is way too over-engineered and will be outdated in less than a decade.
bloomberg.com
Gotta love based Britain and our (((special relationship))), they've been like a pair of brick shoes in a swimming pool since WW1.
You'd think that something like that would pretty much confirm this as a scam, but I'm sure the US is willing to keep feeding into the F35 until it deploys and performs excellently (against goatfuckers without the shittiest MANPADs available)
They actually got almost a billion dollars FREE BUX to develop a hypersonic missile.
flightglobal.com
Boeing already developed the Waverider, and applied for the same contract, but for (((some reason))) lockmart got the truckload of cash.
Why not use conventional Pershing 2 missiles instead? 1000 mile range, Mach 8 vs mach 5 cruise missile?
That's kind of like what Russia is doing, they have two types of hypersonic missiles. Their main anti ship missile for the next 20 years will be Zircon, a mach 8 air breathing scramjet with variable ranges.
Their main multipurpose hypersonic missile is Kinzhal. Now this is the interesting one, similar to what you mentioned. It is basically a booster stage from a Iskander missile, and it gets bolted onto the MiG-31. The cool part is the Avangard warhead has an air breathing scramjet, and maneuvering ability. MiG-31 takes it to altitude and boosts it to above mach speeds. Iskander/Kinzhal booster raises speed to mach 10. Now if you want to do it cheap, there's a maneuvering warhead with a payload, basically a glide bomb that goes from mach 10 to strike the target at a gradually reduced speed.
But also there is an ability to mount the Avangard scramjet booster warhead sustains that speed for most of its flight envelope. In certain configurations Avangard can hit Mach 20, but that's not in service
At this point you dont even need an explosive warhead