4 ms·

Speed and stealth I assume. From what I understand the top speed is classified, and stealth is still a super secret technology where they count the milligrams o

Speed and stealth I assume. From what I understand the top speed is classified, and stealth is still a super secret technology where they count the milligrams of exterior coating when decommissioning a stealth fighter.

nl 4y ago
Speed isn't very important at all, and I don't think it is classified. For example, the F22 has a slower top speed than the F15 (although higher non-afterburner speed).
- nradov 4y ago
  Speed would be very important in a potential Pacific Theater conflict. The F-22 is significantly more fuel efficient than the F-15 so while the top speed might be slightly slower it can actually maintain a higher average speed in real operations.
- trashtester 4y ago
  Speed is important for some mission types, like when you're intercepting a Tu-160 or Mig-31, or when you want to avoid being intercepted yourself (such as after being detected during a penetration mission). Speed also provides an energy advantage against SAM's and very long range ATA missiles. The F-35 can probably go faster than the stated top speed of M1.6, though, if surivival depends on it. I would guess its real top speed is around M2, similar to an F-16.
  - nl 4y ago
    > peed is important for some mission types, like when you're intercepting a Tu-160 or Mig-31 No it's not. Modern US doctrine favors early detection and long range engagement by missiles.
    - trashtester 4y ago
      Ok, maybe you have information I don't have, but those planes have long range missiles of their own. What would a US carrier group do to stop a large group of Tu-160, Tu-22, Mig31 and similar aircraft armed with anti-ship missiles with ranges that in many cases exceed 1000km, and some of which are supersonic or even hypersonic? If the carrier is several 1000 kilometer from land, maybe F35's flying CAP + any additional scrambled fighters may provide enough protection. But the closer the carrier gets to land, the more vulnerable they may be. What kind of missile would you use against these bombers, and at what distance? Now keep in mind that the enemy can stay in the air for a while far within their friendly airspace, and then suddenly start a dash towards you at a speed of Mach2. In cases like this, I would believe that having a few F-22 around (possibly from land based air bases in the area) would be a good addition to the fighters on the carrier, simply because the F-22 could much more easily dance with the enemy bombers as they were repositioning.
      - gggggg5 4y ago
        > anti-ship missiles with ranges that in many cases exceed 1000km, What now? A Kinzhal will probably fly that far, but it won't hit a moving ship at that distance.
        trashtester 4y ago
        It's claimed to have an operational range of 3000km. Kh-55 has a similar range, but lower speed (sea-skimming, though). Then there is the Kh-32 with operational range stated as 600-1000km. And then there are plenty of missiles of ranges from 300-1000km. Also, China is actively developing similar systems. I suppose it's classified at what ranges these systems would be able hit targets such as carriers. But if they're able to at all, it would be at rangers much beyond what you can defend against with aim120/aim160 missiles. RIM 161/SM3 would provide some protection, but they are probably not very accurate at the extreme ranges, especially if targetting supersonic attackers. Which means that interceptors may be the best option. Against large groups of enemies, the speed of the interceptor is still relevant, and there are certainly some in the Navy that worries about the loss of the F14, in particular in the Pacific. For now, I suppose it makes sense to have some F22's and F15's in the general area where such conflicts could take place.
ffhhj 4y ago
Why is classified speed so important? Couldn't it be aproximated with a sort of Doomsday Argument approach? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument
- adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
  not well. That requires an unbiased sample which they work really hard not to show.
  - rozab 4y ago
    Case in point - that one MiG-25 clocked at Mach 3.2 by Western radar over Egypt
- kneebonian 4y ago
  Well because in combat seconds and centimeters can make a difference. You might know it is capable of Mach 4 and can plan for that, but if it's capable of Mach 4.2 and you haven't found it economical to respond to that, it is the difference between life and death. "All warfare is based on deception" - Sun Tzu

nl 4y ago

Speed isn't very important at all, and I don't think it is classified. For example, the F22 has a slower top speed than the F15 (although higher non-afterburner speed).

nradov 4y ago
Speed would be very important in a potential Pacific Theater conflict. The F-22 is significantly more fuel efficient than the F-15 so while the top speed might be slightly slower it can actually maintain a higher average speed in real operations.
trashtester 4y ago
Speed is important for some mission types, like when you're intercepting a Tu-160 or Mig-31, or when you want to avoid being intercepted yourself (such as after being detected during a penetration mission). Speed also provides an energy advantage against SAM's and very long range ATA missiles. The F-35 can probably go faster than the stated top speed of M1.6, though, if surivival depends on it. I would guess its real top speed is around M2, similar to an F-16.
- nl 4y ago
  > peed is important for some mission types, like when you're intercepting a Tu-160 or Mig-31 No it's not. Modern US doctrine favors early detection and long range engagement by missiles.
  - trashtester 4y ago
    Ok, maybe you have information I don't have, but those planes have long range missiles of their own. What would a US carrier group do to stop a large group of Tu-160, Tu-22, Mig31 and similar aircraft armed with anti-ship missiles with ranges that in many cases exceed 1000km, and some of which are supersonic or even hypersonic? If the carrier is several 1000 kilometer from land, maybe F35's flying CAP + any additional scrambled fighters may provide enough protection. But the closer the carrier gets to land, the more vulnerable they may be. What kind of missile would you use against these bombers, and at what distance? Now keep in mind that the enemy can stay in the air for a while far within their friendly airspace, and then suddenly start a dash towards you at a speed of Mach2. In cases like this, I would believe that having a few F-22 around (possibly from land based air bases in the area) would be a good addition to the fighters on the carrier, simply because the F-22 could much more easily dance with the enemy bombers as they were repositioning.
    - gggggg5 4y ago
      > anti-ship missiles with ranges that in many cases exceed 1000km, What now? A Kinzhal will probably fly that far, but it won't hit a moving ship at that distance.
      - trashtester 4y ago
        It's claimed to have an operational range of 3000km. Kh-55 has a similar range, but lower speed (sea-skimming, though). Then there is the Kh-32 with operational range stated as 600-1000km. And then there are plenty of missiles of ranges from 300-1000km. Also, China is actively developing similar systems. I suppose it's classified at what ranges these systems would be able hit targets such as carriers. But if they're able to at all, it would be at rangers much beyond what you can defend against with aim120/aim160 missiles. RIM 161/SM3 would provide some protection, but they are probably not very accurate at the extreme ranges, especially if targetting supersonic attackers. Which means that interceptors may be the best option. Against large groups of enemies, the speed of the interceptor is still relevant, and there are certainly some in the Navy that worries about the loss of the F14, in particular in the Pacific. For now, I suppose it makes sense to have some F22's and F15's in the general area where such conflicts could take place.

ffhhj 4y ago

Why is classified speed so important? Couldn't it be aproximated with a sort of Doomsday Argument approach? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument

adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
not well. That requires an unbiased sample which they work really hard not to show.
- rozab 4y ago
  Case in point - that one MiG-25 clocked at Mach 3.2 by Western radar over Egypt
kneebonian 4y ago
Well because in combat seconds and centimeters can make a difference. You might know it is capable of Mach 4 and can plan for that, but if it's capable of Mach 4.2 and you haven't found it economical to respond to that, it is the difference between life and death. "All warfare is based on deception" - Sun Tzu