Not really sure how Trump is going to “be the best at the military” if he’s not going to spend a lot of money on weapons

True. We wouldn’t want to, y’know, colonize the moon then have them rebel and bombard us.

Yeah, that’s likely not an arms race we would win. Break even, at best. You allow space weapons and it negates our geographic advantage (of being far from all the bad guys).

On another note, since phasing out incandescent lights, tungsten is probably fairly cheap right now.

Yeah, the basic concept isn’t too terribly different from an F-22 deploying an AMRAAM at supersonic speeds.

::Steps into the flight path of a hypersonic plane::

From an idealistic standpoint, I... actually really really love this argument.

Paging Jerry

Impressive. I love it!

See, I’d say that’s a lot closer to being an actual combined engine, since they don’t have to work 100% separately.

But if you buy more, they’ll be cheaper!!

You could use the Foxbat to kill a Blackbird, in theory, but you could only do it once. Those engines don’t last.

No, pretty sure they mean Sanders.

Should’ve gone with Reagan’s “rods from God”

“like they did last time”? You mean when they beat out the Boeing X-32 that wasn’t even finished by the deadline?

No

Now there’s an excellent concept. I like it!

Kind of a minor note, but I would disagree with LockMart’s description of that design as a “combined cycle”. Their “combined engine” is just two engines that share an intake and outlet.

Well, at least in high performance aircraft, the better the aerodynamics, the more unstable (intentionally) the aircraft.

Also let me add a year later that it was a B-29, not a B-52, that dropped the X-1

I feel like you’re not helping the guy