Why did fighter jets start focusing on agility over speed again in the 80s?
Why did fighter jets start focusing on agility over speed again in the 80s?
Gavin Howard
Brayden Martin
because cant outrun a missile or AA
but if your agile maybe you can outmaneuver something?
lol idk desu
Charles Fisher
Because the Soviets tricked the US with the Mig-31 so they had to develop the F-15 but then the Soviets were forced to develop the Su-27
Jack Foster
Because speed has limits; you can't really sustain much over mach 2.5 without burning an absolute shit-ton of fuel and running into terrible friction heating. If you want to really go faster than that, you build SR-71s. So instead of trying to go a bunch faster than Mach 2, build things that can perform better at the same speeds as everything else.
Yes the Foxbat can break Mach 3, but it runs out of gas extremely fast and is destroying itself doing it.
It's the racecar problem - you run into physics limits for top speeds, hence they're all typically the same except for the bleeding-edge, and they won't be THAT much better for all the cost. So you build for acceleration, braking, handling, suspension, that sort of thing, instead of trying to squeak out another couple mph at the peak end.
Blake Smith
>you cant outrun a missile
You can though
Levi Wood
all fighters are slow unless they're in a clean config, but it sure doesn't hurt that the bug is among the best when it comes to pointing the nose around for a shot.
Jason Ramirez
Why is the flying coffin F/A-18D so unreliable?
Also, RIP Swiss air force.
Dominic Clark
Because combat experience showed that speed was far less important then people thought it was in the 60s and 70s.
Zachary Myers
Ayden Jones
Thats a C in OPs picture.
Joseph Hernandez
Yes, but but the Swiss lost 3 out of 8 D models and only 1 C model.
Daniel Carter
why not both?
Dylan Brown
That thing was already losing energy when the pilot was thinking about taking a slight curve.
It's funny how a movie with gay overtones can make a bomber interceptor into a dogfighter.
Luis Johnson
/thread
Jackson Carter
the F-14 can pull 7.5g turns at mach 2 and has a better sustained turn rate than the F-15 @ mach .7.
Ethan Sanders
Yeah I remember the the news. One passenger was a medical officer, right? Maybe it happens more often because of distraction? The other guy was not trained as a pilot, a bit nervous, this reflects on the pilot. Also, with all the mountains there is less room for error than over a desert. All crashes were controlled flight into terrain if I remember correctly.
Brayden Stewart
Mainly because missiles bleed energy way faster than jets while maneuvering. You will not a get a better answer than this
Wyatt Edwards
and turn into a stone.
It's a interceptor not a fighter.
Jeremiah Evans
You think THAT's not suited for work? kek
Alexander Stewart
l-lewd
Xavier Stewart
*Blushing
Ryder Barnes
>I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.
Adam Edwards
Because the it was found that the supersonic jets of the 60's and 70's scarecely ever needed to go full speed anyway.
Brody White
Still got a bit more lewds
Cameron Sanders
Modern fighters like the F-22 and Eurofighter are actually faster than your Mach 3 wetdreams.
it helpts that these aircraft can maintain supersonic speeds for actually more than 10 seconds.
Josiah Martinez
Easton Myers
Stealth, tile-wrapped butthole
Logan Ward
From my time in Gov I would wager it is because doctrine has been lagging 10-20 years behind experience, airframe developement 20-40 years behind that and deployment 10-20 years beyond that. Due to lack in urgency we are still dealing with the failings of "lol air to air missiles makes dogfighting obsolete" from the conflicts in the 60s.
There haven't been major peer to peer or near peer to peer conflicts since then so that is the only major conflict driving development
Kevin Cooper
I'm done
William Nelson
Your input was retarded and detrimental to helping OP understand.
Anthony King
Bythe 70s European theatre conventional wargames were ending at "we have no runways and they have no runways touche". A fast jet needs a big runway. Also the concentration of aircraft meant they can't really use the speed, and missiles improved to the point that running away became less viable.
Ethan Young
f22's top speed is 1,500mph and the radar-absorbing material gets torn off during prolonged supersonic flight
you're retarded
yeah good luck outrunning a missile coming towards you at mach 4
you either outmaneuver it, pop countermeasures (and hope that they work against that type of missile), or die. you can't outrun missiles anymore, which is a realization the top brass came to in the 80's
Ian Anderson
>It's a interceptor not a fighter.
It's both you retard. Stop pretending you have any clue what you are talking about, it's embarrassing.
Matthew Cook
The F-22 is designed to fly supercruise. And that's the difference between an aircraft like the F-22 which can maintain supersonic without using its afterburners or aircraft which can only dash for a short time with turning on afterburners.
Matthew Foster
no plane is going to sustain supersonic speeds without internal weapon bays or a clean config; it's a 5th gen's ball game when it comes to speed.
Ryan Lee
The F-14 was designed for fleet defense. And the only things which was capable of reaching an US carrier group back in the days were masses of Soviet bombers. The variable swept wings gave it great size and top speed but it makes the F-14 stable as a brick which means every change of direction means that the aircraft was bleeding energy like crazy.
Jace Roberts
The two examples I mentioned are capable of maintaining high level of supercruise with combat loads.
And both aircraft are in real operations faster than your teen fighters.
Xavier Gomez
did you miss the part where I mentioned internal weapon bays?
Robert Cooper
And you are wrong that you need either internal weapon bays or clean config.
The eurocanards can all maintain supercruise with a combat load, the Eurofighter being the best out of the bunch
Xavier Davis
whatever, canards are gay
Juan Edwards
Daniel Cruz
He’s right though, until the F-14B with the GE engines, the F-15 was better than than the Tomcat in all aspects of performance.
Chase Turner
>>yeah good luck outrunning a missile coming towards you at mach 4
It's only mach 4 as long as its burning. If the enemy launches at you from 20+ km away, you can force that missile to take the longest path to you by cranking, and then dragging it down into denser air. There are no shortage of tactics to evade or waste the energy of an incoming missile.
Joshua Butler
Rafale can't supercrise with a payload BTW.
Shitty smegma engines cuck it
Nolan Russell
The M88 enables the Rafale to supercruise while carrying four missiles and one drop tank
Logan Rivera
>Why did fighter jets start focusing on agility over speed again in the 80s?
Because ICBMs.
Main purpose of aviation is to kill enemy on the ground. Bombers used to reach high speeds. And with them fighters needed to be as fast as possible. To protect your own speedy bombers and to intercept enemies bombers. But then AA missiles showed that high speed penetration will not work. So, high speed bombers turned out to be useless and with them - high speed fighters too. Not for Soviets, but MiG-25 and 31 is an awful story of a corruption and straight up madness.
>If you want to really go faster than that, you build SR-71s
And they wanted to make a fighter version of it. It could be a god damn F-22 of it's age.
Carson Gonzalez
>cant outrun a missile
*ahem*
Daniel Morris
Is that the Blackbird at the National Air Space museum? I gave that butthole a little finger tickle last year.
Carson Smith
Was the top speed declassified yet?
Noah Garcia
how well would railgun fragmentation spam work agianst these ?
Anthony Hernandez
Literally completely wrong, the variable sweep improved L/D at subsonic speeds compared to one aspect ratio fits all solutions.
The tomcat has the lowest corner speed (and therefore a low turn radius) compared to almost all 4th gen jets because of it's high lift at below transonic speeds.
When it came out it was the best at ACM in the world (albeit quickly dethroned by the F-15) the biggest problem being the compressor stall issues and lack of FBW which combined to make the tomcat unforgiving and generally poor at high AOA/low speed.
Colton Ramirez
As far as I know, nope. Although I think a pilot once remarked that he hit at lest mach 3.5 at some points.
Putting on my second tin foil hat now, honestly the Blackbird makes me consider conspiracy's of time travelers or alien aided design, it's like the great pyramids of our day.
Although I think people often over look the Mig-25 and 31. They were not as fast as the 71, but their pilots din't wear space suits either, and they were mass production planes as far as military jets go. The Mig-25 still holds the absolute altitude record in a zoom climb... Granted no one ever tried (that we know of) to zoom climb a SR_71
Thomas Moore
I think it has less to do with the prospect of outrunning missiles like a couple user's seem to pose and more with the shortcomings of the F-4 phantom in one on one close in fights. I think it was more that the F-4 lol can't fight that well and the plan to rely on missiles with no contingency because CLEARLY you'll always have enough of them and they'll ALWAYS work was fucking retarded, so they intended to rectify that by making a generation of planes that not only had more sophisticated and advanced weapons systems, but also had the ability to get in a turnfight and come out on top if they had to. Better than calling a SAR team everytime a plane runs out of missiles or gets into a fight too close for them to work.
Justin Bailey
>their pilots din't wear space suits either,
That was a safety feature, of course the Soviet plane didn't have it
Cameron Martinez
That is an attractive mechanic.
Nolan Hernandez
Bonjure monsieur
Nathan Hill
ur gay
Mason Thompson
Do you even know what "energy" means?
Luke Diaz
explain
Lucas Clark
The F-14 can't sustain past 7g.
It's really a flying brick.
William Mitchell
“History has proven Boyd correct in picking the fixed-wing design. The variable-sweep wing was one of the major aviation engineering blunders of the century. Hollywood and the movie Top Gun notwithstanding, the F-14 Tomcat is a lumbering, poor performing, aerial truck. It weighs about fifty-four thousand pounds. Add on external fuel tanks and missiles and the weight is about seventy thousand pounds. It is what fighter pilots call a “grape”: squeeze it in a couple of hard turns and all the energy oozes out. That energy cannot be quickly regained, and the aircraft becomes an easy target.”
Isaiah Davis
>f22's top speed is 1,500mph and the radar-absorbing material gets torn off during prolonged supersonic flight
wrong
Andrew Long
Sounds like a hellcat.
Imagine being dumb enough to get suckered into a turn and burn in an F14 when your climb rate is off the charts.
I’m no F14 fanboy, but the fact of the matter is the only time an F15 went up against an F14, the F14 won.
Elijah Lee
Yes and I really, really hate you right now. So please be careful on your way home I have a knack for giving people bad luck
Tis indeed
RAMjet AMRAAMs when?
Interceptor ffs. They toyed with the idea of putting two phoenix missiles on it along with RADAR. Luckily the Air-Force was smart enough to not buy into this expensive titanium mess.
For the last time. Missiles do not CHASE targets, they intercept. They only need to be where the target is going to be at the same time. Sort of how a goalkeeper can still defend his post while the ball itself is moving many times faster than him. Being faster than a missile doesn't guarantee you're invulnerable if you're detected ahead of your course. A missile's weak point is energy retention and capacity. Rocket fuel has an incredible burn rate but also has to contain the oxygen. They're very thin lifting bodies. If they need to turn they need to show a big frontal area through a high angle of attack.
Not with the bomber engines it had borrowed. The F-14B absolutely can. You're illiterate on the matter. BTFO
It's the only aircraft with a working RAMjet engine excluding some ridiculous french designs that never worked out for them. Of course it's the fastest thing out there. Today we'd be able to make it far better but there was no need. The Air Force is interested because satellite positions are known to everyone and if people hide their stuff at the correct time there'll be nothing for you to see. The upcoming unmanned SR-72 will simply re-introduce unpredictabillity of surveillance into the mix of their toys.
You could pull harder on the F-14 but it would dance around all the way through. On a one-on-one scenario maybe the F-14 can best the 15 but in the real world any airforce would choose the latter. Better suited kinematics for team-play!
Gabriel Sanders
F-14 fanboys are the worst
Robert Lewis
The F-35 haters are the absolute worst I'd argue, but as far as fanboys are concerned the SU-27 "muh maneuverabillity" cucks are right up there
Brody Nguyen
People need to stop viewing this as
>All 4th gen aircraft were designed with the same design philosophy
And do it as a case by case basis, especially for the earlier ones.
>F-15
Arguably was designed as an interceptor with a crazy Mach 2.6 top speed and the intention to counter the MiG-25.
Great sustained turn rate and acceleration largely because of the high thrust, and it's fairly maneuverable at high AOA (well very for it's time) mostly by accident.
>F-16
Competition a result of compromise with the fighter mafia who believed in the need for a simpler fighter design with an emphasis on maneuverability after drawing dubious conclusions from the Vietnam war.
Very good acceleration and sustained turn thanks to a crazy TWR and some novel aerodynamic design including LERX, Blended wing body and static stability which all improve L/D.
Poor range and extremely anemic on avionics as a result, all of the changes since the early A variants have rectified this at the expense of maneuverability, early A variants still have some of the most impressive sustained capability of any aircraft.
>F-18
Reject from F-16 competition, was found suitable because of good low speed performance which made it suitable for carrier use, as well as a low risk, effectively finished design, both the F-18 and F-16 had heavy focus on short runway performance.
Not that great in sustained turn especially compared to the F-16, however great high AOA performance, better than anything else until TVC, largely thanks to improved design techniques, LERX, twin tail and twisted wings.
Did not suffer nearly as much in ACM compared to F-16 from avionics upgrades, as it was larger and designed from the start with BVR capabilities.
Cont...
Jonathan Fisher
May I introduce you to our Lord and Savior ASF-14?
Caleb Hughes
No. I want the Rhino to have my future babies
Benjamin Davis
Turbojet sustainer motor missiles rather than boost and glide
Isaac Collins
>only time
This tomcat fanboy delusion. The pilot flying the tomcat in that single engagement was the single most experienced fighter pilot in the Navy at that time, who cut his teeth flying F-8s over Vietnam. Additionally, the US is always doing inter branch exercises for DACT. Saying that this was the only engagement between an F-14 and an F-15 ever, is potentially the dumbest thing on this board right now.
Michael Sanchez
> F-15 arguably designed as an interceptor
Post immediately discarded.
Kevin Watson
>Su-27
Response to the F-15 in many ways, however a much larger focus on range, also still fast as fuck compared to everything except MiG-25/31.
Novel aircraft design features including static stability, LERX and BWB/tunnel allow it equivalent sustained turn to F-15 despite worse TWR.
>Mig-29
Largely a response to the F-16, uses the same aerodynamic features of the Su-27 and combines them with extreme TWR at the expense of poor range and simple avionics, as a result very good Sustained turn at the level of F-16A if not better, also good high AOA performance, less authority and less forgiving than the hornet though.
Also good short field performance.
Most upgrades have focused on range and radar much like the F-16.
>Mirage2000
A statically unstable Mirage III with slats and vortex generators aerodynamically speaking, in part to improve on the tailless delta's very long takeoff rolls and in part to improve sustained turn performance whilst maintaining the low wave drag, low weight delta wing planform.
M2K was in many ways a competitor to the F-16 abroad as well.
Much higher thrust compared to Mirage III which was historically poor in sustained turn owing to low TWR, TWR of M2K is still not amazing compared to most 4th gens.
The area which the M2K does best in, in ACM is high AOA, inherited from Mirage III delta wing and improved with slats and FBW, however it's still worse than the hornet here owing to the single vertical tail and lack of horizontal tail.
Jonathan Mitchell
IDK what to tell you bud, but it's basically an F-4 with a high wing, more thrust, better avionics and high subsonic optimised intakes.
The third fastest fighter aircraft in the world.
It doesn't even have slats.
There was a reason the Pierre Spreys in the pentagon were all so autistic about it.
Chase Hall
Except it was specifically designed as a dog-fighter, in response to the belief that the MiG-25 was a high maneuverability superfighter rather than a gotta-go-fast interceptor
That’s like...basic knowledge
Andrew Reed
This is true
Colton Hill
To add to this, if the Air Force wanted a super-duper high speed interceptor, they would have dusted off the XF-108.
Lincoln Gray
>Basic knowledge
Like Vietnam gun myth is basic knowledge
If the F-15 was focused on dogfighting it would have had slats and it would have had a lower sweep wing.
The reality is that it was focused on supersonic performance with some compromises for maneuverability, since supersonic performance was the truly scary thing about the MiG-25 for the USAF.
Jace James
muh cobra
Luis Rogers
Haha, no. You’re literally retarded. It doesn’t have slats because it doesn’t need them
Ian Jones
First I didnt look at the pic and thought you ment the fractures recently found in the jets and the leaky tanks but yes i think the problems indeed started with her. 20min.ch
Switzerland has started a decline with the first muh female division commander (who in person is utter shit/trash), a new female defense minister and now this.... GERMANY IS A SHIT EXAMPLE TO TRY AND COPY IN THIS DAY AND AGE.
Cooper Garcia
A2AM technology is also lagging behind what it actually could be. High resoulution and sensitive sensors with more than enough processing power means the missile can think and plan autonomously and data-radio means groups of missiles can plan and act with the entire battlespace network. Missiles don't need to follow simple pursuit or intercept courses and if acting as a swarm you can have missiles that choose a variety of options that make the aircraft's evasive options approach nil. Missiles can already observe flares and chaff and choose the aircraft from among the countermeasures.
Nathaniel Hill
No F14 fanboy. But fair is fair and right is right. They (the f14 and F15) were expressly forbidden from going against each other. In fact this one sole incident was such a big deal, Japan almost bought F14s instead of F15s because of it. Even politicians got involved. The F14 and F15 only went against each other that one singe time.
Caleb Parker
Muh ECM pods are as good as stealth
Cooper Stewart
The star fighter looks so weird when it flies
Robert Price
Take it back
Jonathan Gutierrez
The first article on Google when you type in F-14 dogfighting F-15 proves this assertion false.
Jonathan Jenkins
Yes. Flying is indeed an unusual state for it. Even when it was in service.
Kayden Phillips
>t. Hans Abu Hajaar
Bentley Wright
>>Mig-29
Also included on the MiG-29's design should be its incredibly short range, which again makes more sense when looking at its design requirements. They were meant to be operating out of airfields just behind the front lines of a Soviet push and continually moving forwards to new bases as the advance continued. These airfields could be little more than stretches of highway or a bulldozed field. They were designed to get up over the FLOT, complete their mission quickly, and return just as quickly.
Brandon Howard
>kills you from 50km away
War is boring
Angel Evans
Maybe, if you're a WWII flying monkey.
HUDs, MFDs and tactics are cool.
Imagine flying the highest tech fighter out there while playing a literal RTS with your enemy
Nicholas Rogers
Also, the only image of the actual cockpit I could find these past few minutes. If anyone has something better lemme know
Brayden Cruz
As well as it would work against any aircraft that isn't more of a rocket than an airplane. Something like the Blitzer can accelerate it's projectile up to Mach 7 and I wouldn't be shocked if improvements in material science can push that a little higher.
Aiden Nelson
i like me some plane holes
Michael Fisher
What do each of those buttons and knobs do?
Carson Torres
>started a decline
We spend 0.7% of our GDP on our military. This is much lower than Germany. The decline started long ago.
Nicholas Parker
Fuck you Villiger! Fuck you Army 95! Fuck you revelation of P26! Fuck you privatization of federal companies! Fuck you forced health insurance! Fuck you Bilaterale! Fuck you disguised inflation as "hurr so successful and earn so much"!
Grayson Russell
>tinfoil hat
it's open secret now that the x-planes are what was the reason behind most ufo sightings
Aiden King
>the F-14 can pull 7.5g turns at mach 2
No