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?
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?
the sr-72 is built on speed
>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
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.
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
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
>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.
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.
no really?
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.
>This is false. It only became true recently
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
Kek I lost interest after I learned the Marines/Army don't use flamethrower anymore.
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
>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.
ITT:
>we don't NEED stealth
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.
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
Because speed and Stealth are somewhat at odds with eachother
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.
Sounds like a cope to make up for the f35s failures lol
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.
>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.
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
The laws of physics are not a cope, anon.
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.
>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
Underrated and best post ITT
Rest is bait
>Best post ITT is virtually a copypaste of one of my previous posts from years ago
Great minds think alike apparently.
Because no matter how agile or fast you are you'll never outrun a missile
I could.
>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
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
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.
Yeah sure but it did the one thing it was supposed to do. Fairly impressive for a Soviet fighter jet really
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
>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
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.
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.
>super fast planes with Ai Co piloting to do crazy maneuvers??
they call them 'missiles'
“Higher, Faster, Farther”
Cause SAM's are gonna be faster
An SM-3 flies at mach 13, THAAD is mach 8
Let's make a plane that goes Mach 14 then and also it will easily dodge the rocket cause it does not maneuver.
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.
Glorious
>c'mon and SLAM, welcome to the JAM
Why haven't we funded this yet
But those missiles are designed to take down highly maneuverable ICBM's
we should really just make one that can teleport instead amirite
anon if you driver a car at 300 miles an hour, how tight do you think the turning radius is?
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
What’s the point of making the plane faster if you can always make a missile faster.
some people just can't accept that macross plus isn't real
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.
>powerful EW and deployable countermeasures
You just described the F-35
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.
missiles r faster than planes
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"
>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
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
Onion and eggs can coexist. I love them both
remember when they couldn't find the f35 just chilling in a residential. stealth is OP
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
“Longer and HEAVIER” wtf? Doesn’t heavier mean I need more energy to push it farther?
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
Longer and different centroid makes a bit more sense.
Okay
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?
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.
Because missiles can outrun planes.
>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
>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.
people tend to forget this, but in todays age, a fighter jet is more akin to an assassin the way it operates
I am so sick of AI gays. A few years ago they'd be saying about Blockchain or VR is the future
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
Combination of missile will still be faster + G force is still a thing i guess.
>Why are new aircraft slow and focused on stealth?
If you can't hide, speed does not matter.
so just cruise missiles?
>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.
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.
If they've had anti grav stuff since the 80s why develop the F-22, F-35 etc?
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.
Are these the same Deutsche windowlickers that thought detecting an F-35 leaving an airshow was a praiseworthy accomplishment?
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)
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.
>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.
Who needs speed when it's got ONE HUNDRED LASER BLASTERS!
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.
Evasive maneuvers don't work against a Meteor slamming into you from BVR
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.
>laser-based CIWS don't exist
as far as we know
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
iz falling leaf blyat cyuka
>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.
https://twitter.com/dstlmod/status/1748270015348965487
Soon.
"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
>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.
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.
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)
>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.
they cant turn.