Why no jet fighters going over 2000 mph?

[ScienceRocks]

Why no jet fighters going over 2000 mph. I'd think with the advancement in engine technology that we could have such planes.

 

[Moonglow]

until you put human in one.

 

[Mr. H.]

They'd overtake their own spent ordinance.

 

[waltky]

Engine crack at center of F-35 grounding...

Fighters could be back in the air in a fortnight: Pentagon
Tue, Feb 26, 2013 - The Pentagon’s director of the F-35 program said yesterday the next-generation US fighter jet could be back in the air within two weeks after an engine crack forced the grounding of test flights.

Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan, in Australia for talks on the jet, also dismissed any talk of foreign customers backing out of the costly project to build the F-35, known as the Joint Strike Fighter, because of its delays. If the crack’s cause was as straightforward as a foreign object striking the turbine, or a basic manufacturing defect, “I could foresee the airplane back in the air in the next week or two,” Bogdan told reporters in Melbourne. “If it’s more than that then we have to look at what the risk is to the fleet,” he said, adding than a verdict on the cracking’s cause was expected “by the end of this week.” “My opinion is that the airplane will be back flying within a reasonable period of time if this is not a serious problem,” he said.

The Pentagon plans to make 2,443 F-35s for the US military and several hundred others for eight international partners including Australia who have invested in the project, as well as at least two customers, Japan and Israel. Turkey has followed an Italian decision to delay its purchase of the F-35, which has labored under soaring costs and delays. However, Bogdan said: “I have no indication whatsoever that any partner is thinking about pulling out of the program at all. I have communicated with all our partners and all the [armed] services about what occurred with the grounding.” “They all understand that, while unfortunate, that it is not an unusual thing to find [that] an engine blade on a newer engine has a crack in it,” he said.

Bogdan said the small crack had been noticed during a routine 50-hour ground inspection and the entire engine had been shipped back to manufacturer Pratt & Whitney for examination. “One thing we are grateful for is that we found the problem on the ground during a routine inspection and not in the air where it could have been catastrophic, where it could have damaged the airplane,” he said.

All 51 test jets in the US F-35 fleet were grounded and further flights were suspended as a “precautionary measure” on Friday after the discovery of the crack on a turbine blade in one F-35 engine at Edwards Air Force Base in California. “I do not anticipate whatsoever that this problem will delay any of the major milestones of the program at all, I just don’t see that happening even in the worst-case scenario,” Bogdan said, describing the project as “on course and on schedule.” He warned that further teething problems were likely, with only 35 to 40 percent of the test flight program completed. “But we have enough money and enough time in development to take care of those things,” he said.

Fighters could be back in the air in a fortnight: Pentagon - Taipei Times

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why no jet fighters going over 2000 mph. I'd think with the advancement in engine technology that we could have such planes.

We have planes that go that fast, but no weapon system that does. That means any armed plane would have to slow down to engage a target, which no fighter pilot I ever met thinks is a good idea.

 

[Mr. H.]

Why no jet fighters going over 2000 mph. I'd think with the advancement in engine technology that we could have such planes.

We have planes that go that fast, but no weapon system that does. That means any armed plane would have to slow down to engage a target, which no fighter pilot I ever met thinks is a good idea.

What about the A-10?

 

[Oddball]

They'd overtake their own spent ordinance.

Heh...Great answer.

The opposite was the problem for the tail gun on the B-58.

What happens to the rearward-fired bullets, when your aircraft is flying at or nearly at the muzzle velocity in the opposite direction?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why no jet fighters going over 2000 mph. I'd think with the advancement in engine technology that we could have such planes.

We have planes that go that fast, but no weapon system that does. That means any armed plane would have to slow down to engage a target, which no fighter pilot I ever met thinks is a good idea.

What about the A-10?

Warthog pilots are insane.

 

[Oddball]

We have planes that go that fast, but no weapon system that does. That means any armed plane would have to slow down to engage a target, which no fighter pilot I ever met thinks is a good idea.

What about the A-10?

Warthog pilots are insane.

A-10 drivers are the shit.

 

[zzzz]

Why no jet fighters going over 2000 mph. I'd think with the advancement in engine technology that we could have such planes.

Both the SR 71 and the MIG 25 have exceeded MACH 3 and 2,000 mph. Of course no external weapons since this would create drag and slow the airframe down.

 

[hortysir]

I'm still waiting on my flying car and condo on the moon that my middle school science teacher promised me

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm still waiting on my flying car and condo on the moon that my middle school science teacher promised me

Right there with you.

 

[hoosier88]

We have planes that go that fast, but no weapon system that does. That means any armed plane would have to slow down to engage a target, which no fighter pilot I ever met thinks is a good idea.

What about the A-10?

Warthog pilots are insane.

(My bold)

The A-10 is a Close Air Support bird - it's not a fighter, although the type is credited with downing 2 helos over Kuwait. Max speed is rated @ 367 kts (423 mph; 681 km/h).

 

[Oldguy]

I can't think of a single reason why we'd need an aircraft that goes that fast, with the exception of recon.

But....just because we've never heard of one doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

[Politico]

There's this little thing called physics.....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I can't think of a single reason why we'd need an aircraft that goes that fast, with the exception of recon.

But....just because we've never heard of one doesn't mean they don't exist.

You never heard of the SR-71?

The top speed of the SR-71 was actually limited by the fact that friction, even at maximum altitude, heated the titanium skin so much that the engineers were worried about the canopy failing.

 

[there4eyeM]

Exactly, folks! It isn't engines, it's air! At incredible speeds like this in the atmosphere, friction is not your friend.

 

[Oldguy]

I can't think of a single reason why we'd need an aircraft that goes that fast, with the exception of recon.

But....just because we've never heard of one doesn't mean they don't exist.

You never heard of the SR-71?

The top speed of the SR-71 was actually limited by the fact that friction, even at maximum altitude, heated the titanium skin so much that the engineers were worried about the canopy failing.

Yeah, but it's not a fighter.

 

[there4eyeM]

I can't think of a single reason why we'd need an aircraft that goes that fast, with the exception of recon.

But....just because we've never heard of one doesn't mean they don't exist.

You never heard of the SR-71?

The top speed of the SR-71 was actually limited by the fact that friction, even at maximum altitude, heated the titanium skin so much that the engineers were worried about the canopy failing.

Yeah, but it's not a fighter.

The same aerodynamic principles apply; i.e., any plane traveling at the speed mentioned encounters the same physical problems. As for armament, though, it isn't clear what the consequences might be or what weapons might be adaptable (lazers?).

 

[Oldguy]

You never heard of the SR-71?

The top speed of the SR-71 was actually limited by the fact that friction, even at maximum altitude, heated the titanium skin so much that the engineers were worried about the canopy failing.

Yeah, but it's not a fighter.

The same aerodynamic principles apply; i.e., any plane traveling at the speed mentioned encounters the same physical problems. As for armament, though, it isn't clear what the consequences might be or what weapons might be adaptable (lazers?).

Never forget that whatever they let you see is already obsolete. If it's public knowledge, there's something which flies faster and higher which isn't. Cases in point: F-117 and the B-2.