SRIA-21 Blackbird II, Nuclear Ballistic Missile Interceptor

SRIA-21 BlackBird II

Type: High Speed High Altitude Interceptor and Attacker
Length: 32.74m
Wingspan: 16.94m
Height: 7.64m
Propulsion: 2x P&W J58-1, 34,000lbf
Total Net Thrust: 68,000lbf
Empty Weight: 35,000kg
Maximum Take-Off Weight: 87,500kg
Minimum Fuel Weight (0.25): 21,875kg
Maximum Fuel Weight (0.35): 30,625
Limit Per/Number of Pylon(s): 6 standard, 4 Ordinance (can load 1 missile per 2 pylons).
Normal Payload: 8,000lbs, and 3,500lbs in sensors.
Maximum Payload: 14,000lbs, and 3,500lbs in sensors.
Normal Combat Weight: 77,125
Thrust-to-Weight Ratio:0.88/1
Combat Range: 5,700km
Ferry Range: 15,390
Operational Ceiling/Altitude: 80,500ft
Maximum Altitude: 90,000ft
Cruising Speed: Mach 1.6
Supercruising Speed: Mach 1.9
Maximum Speed: Mach 3.2
Crew (List): SRIA-21, 1 pilot-1, 1-RWO
Price: $134 million NSD

Armament:
Long Range Multi-Stage Multiple Warhead High Impact High Explosive Air to Ground Missile.

Long Range High Speed Air To Air Missile.

Magnetic locking clamps for retrieving and carrying in flight ICBMs.
Note: Write up will come later.
Sorry for no pic, but it should not be to hard to guess what it looks like.

Well since it's sorta obvious where you're basing this off:

The Blackbird's cruising speed was Mach 3.2 and since you're using the same engines, this will be your cruisng speed as well. Take off and landing aside, the Blackbird spent almost no time below Mach 3.

Based on weight and thrust figures, the thrust to weight ratio is out so you'll need to calculate that again. Or tell us how you did it so we know where you went wrong.

The combat range and ferry range are also too high respectively. It's hard to get an estimate of combat range but it isn't going to be 5700km which is likely the ferry range for this aircraft. You should think about what kind of missions you're going to be flying and then having another estimate.

If you mean latching onto an ICBM in flight and trying to fly away with it, no

First off: Thanks for the feed back.
Secondly: The clamp is used in unison with our nuclear missile protection grid. A vast number of Microwave Lasers that are positioned around the globe in order to fry the electronics of an ICBM and render its guidance and air burst ineffective. The now unguided missile will then be retrieved by the SRIA-21 squadron who are specially trained to fly the aircraft and retrieve the missile. The pilots are picked from the best in the nation.
All this is because my nation has a nuclear weapons ban. Therefore we have no way of retaliating against a nuclear missile strike.

You do realize that it is patently impossible to retrieve an ICBM like that, right?

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_memoranda/2008/RM3475.pdf

This 1963 RAND study suggests typically between 7.5 and 9.5 km/s terminal velocity for ICBMs, depending on atmospheric entry angle and certain individual boost phase parameters. To put this into perspective, this is close to Mach 25 at the low end. There is simply no way that you'll "catch" the missile in the manner which you are suggesting.

Then would it be possible to give it a nudge, and push it into outer space so that when we blow it up it wont have fallout effects.

No. You'd have to have some method of destroying the missile before the Re-entry Vehicles (RVs) are released. This is the basis of Reagan's Star Wars program, and all other SDI attempts. Even if you do blow it up in space, you'll have to watch for EMP (especially if you make the nuclear material go to criticality).

As I said microwave lasers. They fry the electronics. Which means the reentry vehicles wont deploy. Nothing will deploy. It becomes a cylinder filled with nuclear material falling towards the earth.

I'm finding no evidence of RL Masers powerful enough to fry the electronics on an ICBM, especially not ones capable of being mounted on a satellite in Modern Tech.

Oh probably should have mentioned I'm a PMT nation.

While PMT is the most ill-defined of the NS tech levels, I generally consider it to go from 2013-2053.

Considering that we are just now starting to test laser weapons that attempt to stop SAMs, it will still be awhile before we get Masers powerful enough to torch through the thicker skin of an ICBM, and there are ways to make the Maser take longer to burn through (there'd be no disruption of the electronics until you've burned through the missile skin).

Hmm...I'll keep that in mind. I personally consider PMT to be anything but FT. So no hand held lasers or railgun's or FTL drive ect.
My personal problem with NS however is most be disregard how tech is researched and seem to think that all tech is developed equally as a whole. For instance if my nation is spending time and money to develop railguns, they will have railguns before a nation that doesn't. Therefor if my nation spends time and money on researching effective Masers, they will have them in your time frame.

Blame that on agreement by the many, frankly.

This doesn't work. Sad to say.

Nuclear warheads, missile guidance, and others have been designed to have their electronics hardened against this kind of stuff since the 1960s. You can thank neutron flux for that.

Just blow it up with a kinetic impactor. Unless properly detonated, nuclear weapons don't produce an explosion, or produce a very small one. It will not release a significant amount of highly radioactive materials. All strong radioactives are created in the explosion, U-235 and Pu-239 are quite stable.

What exactly is a kinetic impactor, and can I fit it on this plane.

Also to Summer. You are probably thinking of using an EMP to fry the system. A Maser is a steady beam, not a single pulse. Therefor from what I understand it causes more damage.