They certainly could and should. But it is not a trivial problem. Maybe the best answer would be energy based weapons(high powered lasers) but the inherent problem is that the MIC doesn't like investing in new technological concepts. Instead it always prefer to redesign and iterate on existing concepts.
If you look at the history of fighters, all generations are direct evolutions of the previous one with no real difference between each of them except bigger/better performance numbers.
Even modern stealth is achieved through material science and not realy inherent on the aerodynamic design, except for a few key features which makes every stealth fighter look the same.
So my point is if the requirement is to invent something completely new then you can be sure the MIC will lobby against it. Otherwise it is always too expensive or too difficult. In the rare cases where the US actualy exercises some oversight on the military budget spending, high tech prototypes with no real chance of working in the short term are not likely to survive compared to building more F-15s/18s/35s, some better Abrams version or yet another nuclear carrier etc.
The problem is probably the fact that with current technology it's much easier to make a missile go faster than to develop a computer capable of tracking those missiles, a radar capable of keeping a lock on them despite evasion and stealth, and an interceptor capable of downing them reliably.
Missiles and engines are just improving on existing tech, which is always faster and more reliable than innovating completely new tech. By the time the US develops something capable of intercepting Mach 6 missiles, Russia and China might have Mach 8 missiles in service.
They certainly could and should. But it is not a trivial problem. Maybe the best answer would be energy based weapons(high powered lasers) but the inherent problem is that the MIC doesn't like investing in new technological concepts. Instead it always prefer to redesign and iterate on existing concepts.
If you look at the history of fighters, all generations are direct evolutions of the previous one with no real difference between each of them except bigger/better performance numbers.
Even modern stealth is achieved through material science and not realy inherent on the aerodynamic design, except for a few key features which makes every stealth fighter look the same.
So my point is if the requirement is to invent something completely new then you can be sure the MIC will lobby against it. Otherwise it is always too expensive or too difficult. In the rare cases where the US actualy exercises some oversight on the military budget spending, high tech prototypes with no real chance of working in the short term are not likely to survive compared to building more F-15s/18s/35s, some better Abrams version or yet another nuclear carrier etc.
The problem is probably the fact that with current technology it's much easier to make a missile go faster than to develop a computer capable of tracking those missiles, a radar capable of keeping a lock on them despite evasion and stealth, and an interceptor capable of downing them reliably.
Missiles and engines are just improving on existing tech, which is always faster and more reliable than innovating completely new tech. By the time the US develops something capable of intercepting Mach 6 missiles, Russia and China might have Mach 8 missiles in service.
deleted by creator
Aiming my laser through ten miles of seawater to stop the hyper-sonic torpedo from sinking my aircraft carrier, but for some reason its not working.