Why no speed?

Why are new aircraft slow and focused on stealth? Why don't they have super fast planes with Ai Co piloting to do crazy maneuvers?? We already made extremely fast airplanes years ago why not make them again?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    the sr-72 is built on speed

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >piloting to do crazy maneuvers
    To my knowledge it's somewhat unneeded as most engagements seem to happen before any of the planes are even remotely close to one another

    Better to just not be seen that outspeed the enemy

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      If plane can go to space and fly super fast why need stealth? And it can also do it hits super fast and be deployed super fast anywhere needed. One time I wanted to join the army but they told me they don't do dog fighting anymore and the last jet vs jet incident happened years ago I lost my motivation.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        If we crack SSTO with a fighter sized aircraft that has a fighter-like fuel fraction it means someone has invented a torch drive, which has way fricking bigger implications than how fast fighter jets go

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        it's easier to make stealth than planes that do that. And stealth is more useful.
        This is like the "why not use passenger jets for bombers" thread

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >it's easier to make stealth than planes that do that.
          This is false. The key observation is that the humans are the weak link, so the planes can't be human piloted. These planes exist - they are called "missiles".
          >And stealth is more useful.
          This is also false. Stealth only became more useful than maneuverability once missiles (see the point above) became too good.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Small things are more agile than big things, if you want a plane with the agility of a missile you'll need to build it at the size of a missile.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              no really?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            no the planes have their own weak point as well, and its at 15 g's
            missiles can EASILY outperform that because they are a fricking TUBE you dumbfrick.
            they don't have weapons pods or wings.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >This is false. It only became true recently

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous
      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        going super fast would generate allot of heat, ez to spot with IRST
        >crazy manoeuvres
        those tend to damage the fuselage, or cause the aircraft to disintegrate entirely

        because missiles are faster, not even satellites are safe from missles

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Kek I lost interest after I learned the Marines/Army don't use flamethrower anymore.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Isn’t that a good thing? One shot you blow up. Also if you wanna play with flamethrowers you know you can buy one right? Don’t think you need a license either

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >If plane can go to space and fly super fast why need stealth?
        Because you're never going to outrun or outmaneuver a guided missile.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Sounds like a cope to make up for the f35s failures lol

        ITT:
        >we don't NEED stealth

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Mostly true, but maneuverability helps massively in countering missiles. The F-16 is considered a god of SEAD because it can pop in and out of cover from SAM radars to fire HARMs and can evade missiles like a motherfricker if it gets locked.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Hey man I just wanted to let you know that you are extremely unintelligent and I worry for your life if you are older than 14 yeara old, have a good one

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because speed and Stealth are somewhat at odds with eachother

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because mach 1.2(ish) is about the maximum pilots can actually fight at, or be able to maneuver effectively. Going much faster than that can compromise flying defensively, offensively, can compromise the stealth coating on some aircraft, and in order to reach those speeds you're most likely making compromises on engine weight, low altitude performance, responsiveness, etc.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Sounds like a cope to make up for the f35s failures lol

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        These were a thing in aircraft design before the F-35 was a glimmer in anyone's eye, and why the F-16 is specifically optimized around fighting at mach 1.2.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >why the F-16 is specifically optimized around fighting at mach 1.2.
          No, it's not. It's best turn rate is far below mach 1.0.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        there are few to no fighter jets capable of much higher than like mach 1.7 carrying a full load of missiles, and any that can manage it can do so for a few minutes at most

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The laws of physics are not a cope, anon.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Just create a super solider, give them steroids, performance englhancing drugs and all, install stuff to thier brains and all and make them able to do crazy stuff and also give them Ai piloting to be even faster.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Why don't they have super fast planes with Ai Co piloting to do crazy maneuvers?
    the air force has those already. they're called missiles

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Underrated and best post ITT
      Rest is bait

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Best post ITT is virtually a copypaste of one of my previous posts from years ago
        Great minds think alike apparently.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because no matter how agile or fast you are you'll never outrun a missile

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I could.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Why are new aircraft slow and focused on stealth?
      speed has diminishing returns past mach 1.5
      most A2A combat took place at transonic speeds between mach 0.8 and mach 1.2, with a significant amount taking place at subsonic speeds
      only a few minutes of combat took place at supersonic speeds above mach 1.2, only a few seconds took place around mach 1.5, and not a single second of combat was recorded above mach 1.6

      so there is a greater emphasis on maneuverability, stealth, and sensor range over speed, the F-35 tops out at mach 1.6 which is the cutoff for high speeds recorded in combat

      speed can matter when outrunning a tailchasing missile, but agility matters a lot
      missiles tend to expend all their fuel before getting close to their target leaving them with no ability to make sharp turns

      so you can evade a missile by forcing it to expend as much of its velocity as possible by forcing it continuously move away from a straight line

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The Mig-25 was made to do exactly that and demonstrated the capability to do so in the Gulf War. Huge chunk of steel and a maintenance nightmare, but it could and did outrun missiles

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It didn't really accomplish anything other than bait those F-15s to waste missiles that had no chance of catching up. A real headache to deal with but it didn't do the Iraqis any good in avoiding a total ass-beating.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah sure but it did the one thing it was supposed to do. Fairly impressive for a Soviet fighter jet really

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        you can outrun a missile, because they spend mopst of their flight gliding and losing speed. However, if you're spending your time flying in the opposite direction of the enemy, you're just stuck on the defensive. better to not HAVE to outrun the missile

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Why are new aircraft slow and focused on stealth? Why don't they have super fast planes with Ai Co piloting to do crazy maneuvers?? We already made extremely fast airplanes years ago why not make them again?
    everything in the future is abount launching drones, that then launch other drones, or the drones launches munitions, while the supporting manned fighters hangs back

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Doesn't matter. Detect first, shoot first, fight is over. You won't outmaneuver a missile, and if you get lucky with the first, you won't with the second.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Every modern plane effectively since like the F5 already has an AI copilot. You don't actually pilot modern planes, you tell them where you want to go and how fast and such and the flight computer makes the necessary adjustments.
    Also air combat happens at beyond visual range so speed is a waste, and a detriment to stealth.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >super fast planes with Ai Co piloting to do crazy maneuvers??
    they call them 'missiles'

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    “Higher, Faster, Farther”

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Cause SAM's are gonna be faster
    An SM-3 flies at mach 13, THAAD is mach 8

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Let's make a plane that goes Mach 14 then and also it will easily dodge the rocket cause it does not maneuver.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        You exist in a shock cone of your own atmospheric heating, successfully jamming every IRST sensor within the horizon, destroying buildings on the ground as you pass from overpressure. Then you turn sharply and immediately disintegrate from the 300g stress.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Glorious

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why haven't we funded this yet

            >c'mon and SLAM, welcome to the JAM

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Why haven't we funded this yet

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        But those missiles are designed to take down highly maneuverable ICBM's

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        we should really just make one that can teleport instead amirite

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        anon if you driver a car at 300 miles an hour, how tight do you think the turning radius is?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It is always going to be cheaper to make a faster more manoeuvrable missile than a plane.
        To answer the question of this thread, remember the survivability onion. Not being detected, targeted, or shot at beats just not being hit

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    What’s the point of making the plane faster if you can always make a missile faster.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      some people just can't accept that macross plus isn't real

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Feels like making the plane have additional flares and the jamming capabilities of a growler in its stock model seem better than trying to outrun or outmaneuver a missile. The plane should still be able to do well above Mach 1 in level flight at sea level.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >powerful EW and deployable countermeasures
      You just described the F-35

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    We developed mach 5 missiles. Trying to outrun a missile that can move at mach 5 means going hypersonic and designers took one look at that and decided it just wasn't worth it.

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    missiles r faster than planes

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If you can't outrun a missile guaranteed every time your best bet is just to not have one launched at you in the first place.
    See tankers with their "survivability onion"

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >See tankers with their "survivability onion
      the takeaway with the survivability onion isnt that the further layers are more important, but that you want as many layers as possible between you and the target
      and to explain to lay people that there is more than one layer of protection starting at the very edge and ending at the very center

      so the outer layers are important, cover and concealment
      the middle layers are also important
      and the inner layers, fire suppression and ammo protection

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Well yeah, wouldn't be much of an onion if it only had one hard layer and the rest was squishy.

        It'd be some kind of lame survivability egg
        >this post was made by onion gang egg lovers frick off

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Onion and eggs can coexist. I love them both

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    remember when they couldn't find the f35 just chilling in a residential. stealth is OP

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    moronic thought here but there's kind of parallel evolution with rifle projectile technology right now. Back in the day if you wanted a better, flatter, more accurate round you'd just stuff more powder in the case and make it go faster to stretch out the point blank range. Today, however, velocity isn't the focus at all - ballistic coefficient is all the rage. Don't worry about making it go faster, make the bullet longer& heavier so it carries energy much farther down range and cuts through wind easier.
    Sort of the same with fighters. Speed isn't important when "dogfights" will just be missile battles 30 miles apart. Better to avoid the missile sensors than try to outrun them

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      “Longer and HEAVIER” wtf? Doesn’t heavier mean I need more energy to push it farther?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Not necessarily. It means your projectile may drop more, however drop is a function of gravity, and is therefore a known constant for any given projectile of a known caliber and weight traveling at a known velocity. Basically: you know what your drop is gonna be, so you can easily adjust for it.
        Wind is more difficult to predict and adjust for, so the longer and heavier (heavier for a given caliber, not just broadly heavier) is beneficial because its greater sectional density allows it to cut through wind more efficiently. Efficiency means more retained energy farther down range.
        An easy example is .308Win and 6.5Creed. If both have a 150gr projectile, the 6.5's projectile will be significantly longer, and have a greater sectional density. It'll be a more efficient projectile, and beyond about 500yd, it'll retain enough energy to be going faster than the .308 from then on

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Longer and different centroid makes a bit more sense.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Okay

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I read a paper from some defence think-tank or military institute a while back which addressed this perfectly.

    There are a number of reasons but one of the most important is how much detection and engagement ranges have grown over time. Speed has increased but sensor capabilities have increased faster. In WW2 where detection was mostly reliant on the Mark I eyeball (even early Cold War with their less sophisticated radar), a faster/more agile plane would have a good chance of making it into attack range without being seen whereas modern sensor envelopes are so wide that even an extremely fast plane is unlikely to be able to cross from max detection range to effective attack range before their opponent detects them in turn.
    Furthermore, as engagement distances increase, the importance of maneuvering decreases; in WW2/early Cold War engagements speed+agility might be the difference between attacking an opponent from in front/behind/above/below/wherever you want but when you're firing off BVR missiles from miles away then whatever manuevers you pull, you're still in roughly the same position relative to your opponent.
    Finally, speed and stealth are, to some extent, directly opposed to one another. Among other things, if you're going fast enough aerodynamic heating will have you glowing to anyone with good IRST. In the past going fast was a good way of getting the first shots off and killing your target before he even saw you, now optimising for stealth is the best strategy for that and going (too) fast does the opposite.

    I really wish I could find that paper again. The analysis of changing ratios of kills via guns vs wvr missiles vs bvr missiles over time was interesting, as was their analysis of the implications for the NGAD and Loyal Wingman programs.
    Has anyone else read the same article and got a link?

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Big speed need big engine
    big engine makes big radar signature and big thermal signature
    Big radar and and thermal signature make easy target
    Easy target can be hit from very far away both from other plane and ground

    Small speed needs small engine and everything is reversed.

    Both fast and slow plane have similar missiles.

    If they meet the big target gets hit first and the small target can't even be spotted in time.

    + Stealth makes even smaller target and big speed is bad for stealth paint allegedly.

    Only advantage of big speed is that it can catch up to escaping slow plane or escape from a slow plane chasing it.
    Which sounds like an huge advantage!
    Buuuut... Nowdays planes can fire at targets directly behind them. So big and fast plane can successfully close the distance to the smaller one but still gets hit first because the smaller plane gets a lock first.

    And running away only works if you can see the location of what you are running away from before it shoots you, but if some other radar can warn of the incoming slow planes in time you can at least run away successfully.

    But you won't win wars by being the best at running away.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because missiles can outrun planes.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >We already made extremely fast airplanes years ago why not make them again?
    Because modern radar is a hard counter to anything that's not moving at a small fraction of lightspeed. No point, specially with anti-air lasers/laser-guied point defense around the corner already. Stealth is just better

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Crazy maneuvers
    Do you mean drones? "Why don't we have dogfighting drones?", essentially?
    Air mobility is limited by human biology, at present. The only way to make a plane more mobile than they already are is by removing the pilot, barring better technologies to allow pilots to withstand more g-force.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    people tend to forget this, but in todays age, a fighter jet is more akin to an assassin the way it operates

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I am so sick of AI gays. A few years ago they'd be saying about Blockchain or VR is the future

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    speed and crazy manoeuvres do not match
    meatbag in the wienerpit and crazy manoeuvres do not match
    going fast burns trough fuel and engine itself very fast - its easier to use single use missiles for "fast"
    its all about the money, logistical burden and physics - if you keep meat out of equation it wold be possible - if money is not a problem

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Combination of missile will still be faster + G force is still a thing i guess.

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why are new aircraft slow and focused on stealth?
    If you can't hide, speed does not matter.

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    so just cruise missiles?

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why don't they have super fast planes with Ai Co piloting to do crazy maneuvers?

    It's called a missile and it maneuvers better than a full sized jet.

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    low grav aircraft already exist, TR3-b's require up to 3 piolets plus AI already since the 80s . Speed and Stealth have evolved. The worlds other nations have simply failed to keep up.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      If they've had anti grav stuff since the 80s why develop the F-22, F-35 etc?

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    don't worry they'll come back to it shortly
    stealth will be obsolete thanks to the germans(actually the americans)

    https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/germany-demonstrates-passive-radar-system-using-starlink-satellite-radiation/?cf-view

    >The opportunistic use of existing transmitters from the Starlink network opens the door for covert operation that is robust against jamming and better at detecting stealth targets, according to the report.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Are these the same Deutsche windowlickers that thought detecting an F-35 leaving an airshow was a praiseworthy accomplishment?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Combined sensor networks are a great solution to stealth. Unfortunately for the turd world it relies on well integrated sensor networks and data sharing. Something they literally cannot afford. Although a poor nation shared sensor network would help with that (but likely be undoable between everyone fighting)

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Mig-31 is the king. Pure brute fronce, max speed and max altitute advantage in every bvr fight. Plus very long range missile similar the phoenix.

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why are new aircraft slow and focused on stealth?
    countermeasure against missiles as BVR combat is the modern paradigm instead of dogfighting.
    >Why don't they have super fast planes with Ai Co piloting to do crazy maneuvers?
    as several anons have already pointed out, you've basically just described a missile.
    >We already made extremely fast airplanes years ago why not make them again?
    cause the superfast airplanes of yore were either interceptors, designed as interceptors in development, or reconnaissance aircraft.

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Who needs speed when it's got ONE HUNDRED LASER BLASTERS!

  38. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because missiles advanced to the point that being superfast was not an advantage anymore. Also, most dogfights take place in the mach 0.4--0.8 range. You lose maneuverability once you go beyond a certain speed, which is different for every plane.

  39. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Evasive maneuvers don't work against a Meteor slamming into you from BVR

  40. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    if these fat stealth fighters have given up dogfighting or attempting to outrun a missile, what other options do they have besides stealth to counter enemy missiles?

    gun-based CIWS are just too heavy too put on fighters.
    laser-based CIWS don't exist and probably won't for decades to come at the very minimum.
    and i don't think using your own missiles to intercept an enemy missile is actually a thing.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >laser-based CIWS don't exist
      as far as we know

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      EW and countermeasures.
      When Pelosi was visiting Taiwan burger AESA radars were emitting so strongly that chinese radar stations shat themselves and couldn't operate. Imagine what that would do to a missile's radar

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        iz falling leaf blyat cyuka

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >and i don't think using your own missiles to intercept an enemy missile is actually a thing.

      whatever happened to CUDA/MSDM system?
      that was meant to give fighters a CIWS based missile system.
      It's been nearly a decade already.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      https://twitter.com/dstlmod/status/1748270015348965487
      Soon.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      "given up dogfighting"
      They are manueverable enough for lobbing Fox-2s at close range for sure. Nobody WANTS to dogfight, its moronic if you're that close. The last jet designed to get into close range dogfights as a primary option was the F-8 crusader which retired in '87.
      "out running a missile"
      *All* missiles are *all* faster than *all* aircraft

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >The last jet designed to get into close range dogfights as a primary option was the F-8 crusader
        F-8 was designed for using guns, there were several planes that were meant to be daytime fighters with only short range missiles. F-16As are a notable example since they were not designed to carry sparrows, but they quickly got updated to the F-16C which could.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They are working on hypersonic aircraft, they just wiped the internet of all information pertaining to the projects when Russia and China started bragging about hypersonic weapons.

      >Why no speed?
      >Why are new aircraft slow and focused on stealth?
      In short : You can't Run, bu you can Hide.

      With modern anti-air systems, it's pretty hard for a plane to outrun a missile.
      If you can make fast planes, then automatically you can make even faster rockets.
      So it's easier andmore efficient to hide from radar rather than make an aircraft than outrun a missile.

      Also, what we have learned from making faster and faster planes, is that speed is only useful up to a certain point.

      Super-cruising is awesome, but most aircraft can't super-cruise.
      You usually need to use afterburners to break the sound barrier, and even more so if you're going above mach 2.
      And there's 2 huge problem with afterburners :
      - Can't use them for very long before engine failure / explodes.
      - It uses way too much fuel, super inneficient.
      So if you use them, you're reducing the planes effective range by a lot. Not great.

      That's just the top of the icebeg though.
      Anons ITT who know more will also tell you how it's pretty much useless when engaging an ennemy.
      There's optimal speeds for manoeuvering your aircraft around to fight he ennemy, and it's nowhere near mach 1.

      Speed used to be a great asset, 50 years ago, but not really anymore.
      It's a simple result of looking a what works and what doen' work.
      In aircrafts that were capable of Mach 2+, they noticed the top speed would almost never be used by the pilots in real life.
      The SR-71s the exception to the rule, because the optimal fuel consumption was at around mach 3.2.

      "given up dogfighting"
      They are manueverable enough for lobbing Fox-2s at close range for sure. Nobody WANTS to dogfight, its moronic if you're that close. The last jet designed to get into close range dogfights as a primary option was the F-8 crusader which retired in '87.
      "out running a missile"
      *All* missiles are *all* faster than *all* aircraft

      People have been theorizing that 6th gen will fight with capabilities distributed thoughout the loyal wingman drone swarm: NGAD acting as a quarterback commanding a frontline of unmanned spotters, shooters, and decoys.
      Targeting data synthesized from radar tracks sent from a net of sensor platform drones spread hundreds of miles apart, weapons fired from attritable missile truck drones, and the enemy confused by hordes of decoys broadcasting the EM signatures of cruise missiles, F-35s, AWACS, etc. (the decoys are already in service btw)

  41. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why no speed?
    >Why are new aircraft slow and focused on stealth?
    In short : You can't Run, bu you can Hide.

    With modern anti-air systems, it's pretty hard for a plane to outrun a missile.
    If you can make fast planes, then automatically you can make even faster rockets.
    So it's easier andmore efficient to hide from radar rather than make an aircraft than outrun a missile.

    Also, what we have learned from making faster and faster planes, is that speed is only useful up to a certain point.

    Super-cruising is awesome, but most aircraft can't super-cruise.
    You usually need to use afterburners to break the sound barrier, and even more so if you're going above mach 2.
    And there's 2 huge problem with afterburners :
    - Can't use them for very long before engine failure / explodes.
    - It uses way too much fuel, super inneficient.
    So if you use them, you're reducing the planes effective range by a lot. Not great.

    That's just the top of the icebeg though.
    Anons ITT who know more will also tell you how it's pretty much useless when engaging an ennemy.
    There's optimal speeds for manoeuvering your aircraft around to fight he ennemy, and it's nowhere near mach 1.

    Speed used to be a great asset, 50 years ago, but not really anymore.
    It's a simple result of looking a what works and what doen' work.
    In aircrafts that were capable of Mach 2+, they noticed the top speed would almost never be used by the pilots in real life.
    The SR-71s the exception to the rule, because the optimal fuel consumption was at around mach 3.2.

  42. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  43. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    they cant turn.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *