Comment by mmaunder | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mmaunder | Hacker News Reader

The F-15 Eagle entered service in 1976 (first flew in 72) and will be in service up until 2025. That's 49 years. Considering the cost and assuming it works out, 30 years for procurement for the F-35 seems reasonable.

The SR71's top speed was just over mach 3. The F-15 can reach mach 2.5. The Mig-25's top speed is mach 2.8 but was clocked by the USA over Israel at Mach 3.2 (Yeah, the SR71 ain't all that). Mig 31's top speed is mach 2.83.

The F-22's top speed is Mach 2.25.

The F-35 is a measly mach 1.6. I think this shift in priorities is revealing and goes beyond a mere obsession with supermaneuverability. The USA is now able to project force around the World, so the need for a fighter that can get somewhere at very high speed is not what it used to be. Now we need a fighter than can be invisible, be great at surveillance and jamming and if it gets into trouble must be able to completely out maneuver the enemy. So slow, smart, invisible and highly maneuverable is what we got.

I watched the F-22 do a Herbst maneuver today at the Seafair in Seattle which is impossible without thrust vectoring. It's an amazing and weird sight. While the new breed of fighters have taken a lot of flak, I wouldn't want to get into a dogfight with one of them while flying a fighter that has traditional control surfaces that need stable airflow when they're able to fly below stall speed at crazy angles of attack and use thrust vectoring to change direction with zero airflow over their control surfaces.

No modern aircraft are 'invisible' in any area of the spectrum.

In terms of radar cross-sections, low-RCS champions like the F-22 only have reduced returns in certain aspects and that only reduces the range at which they can be detected, it doesn't render them invisible^.

In terms of imaging infra-red all modern aircraft glow like candles. Even the B-2, which has various nifty features such as contrail-suppression, is a big hot pancake against the sky and makes a lovely 'hole' against the cosmic radiation background, or TV signals...

^ source: a relation who in a former career often tracked F-117s. The radar detection range was indeed reduced by an order of magnitude but once detected they could be tracked. And when using mobile radars the 'red force' on exercises were often able to align their radars with the aspects of strongest signal return.

Mostly agreed. But TV signals?

Slow and maneuverable doesn't win air combat. The Japanese found that out the hard way.

Ask any combat pilot and they will tell you Speed Is Life. The faster aircraft dictates the terms of the engagement.

Also the F-35's stealth capabilities have been compromised.

Edit: down voters please check your understanding of air combat. You can't fight what you can't catch

And running away is not what these aircraft are designed to do. With higher airspeed you lose maneuverability. Speed is life refers to any aircraft and the ability to trade speed for altitude. This should get you started on why the trend is to build slower lighter more manueverable airfraft...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93maneuverabili...

I can't remember to the documentary that has made with RAF Sea Harrier pilots, but in combat they preferred over Panavia Tornado even if the Tornado have supersonic speed, higher altitude and thrust.

Those Herbst maneuvers are really cool. The F-22 demo team does them as a standard thing, and I really enjoyed the F-22 demo I saw in 2008 at Andrews AFB.

The problem with the Herbst maneuver, as the energy maneuverability wonks will rightly say, is that when you're done with it, it leaves you in a low energy state. So you (as an F-22 pilot) must then give up some maneuvering for a short time while you regain some energy. So if you need that maneuver to get a kill, you need to actually get the kill, or else you've put yourself in a troublesome spot.

Where the capability to perform such maneuvers comes in handy is that being able to do such things means that your controllability at high angles of attack is superb. You can outturn your enemy in a wider portion of the flight envelope, in an area where fighter aircraft were traditionally not the greatest.

"So slow, smart, invisible and highly maneuverable is what we got."

Highly maneuverable... Except it's already been made so obsolete. Even the cheapest combat drones could out maneuver the F-35. There's nothing that this fighter excels at.

>While the new breed of fighters have taken a lot of flak, I wouldn't want to get into a dogfight with one of them while flying a fighter that has traditional control surfaces

While the F-22 is an impressive fighter the F-35 didn't seem to do very well against a F-16 in mock dog fights (as linked elsewhere here I think https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-... )

Please look at some of my other comments in this thread for my explanation on how Axe misinterpreted that.

Ok. I did and you seem to have a point.

Thank you for considering what I wrote.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com