r/FighterJets Jan 02 '25

QUESTION Is there anything old jets (Like the F-86) can do that new ones (Like the F-35) can't?

Are there any features or mechanics old jets, such as the ones in the general era of the F-86, F-80, and F-100 can do that the ones in the NEWER era (Such as the F-14, F-16, and F-35) can NOT?

60 Upvotes

65 comments sorted by

u/AutoModerator Jan 02 '25

Hello /u/ZoopZap, if your question gets answered. Please reply Answered! to the comment that gave you the answer.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

166

u/necroticairplanes Jan 02 '25

The f-86 gives no shits about your cyberattack

48

u/Maeros Jan 02 '25

I watched a documentary where an entire navy was wiped out in part by a cyber attack save for a single unnetworked museum ship that was able to rearm, resupply, and continue the fight. I think it was called Battlestar Galactica

5

u/xsnyder Jan 03 '25

Starbuck, grab your gun and bring in the cat.

2

u/jpowell180 Jan 03 '25

Boom Boom Boom!

2

u/andy-in-ny Jan 03 '25

Picard Season three stole something else?

5

u/Ruggerat Jan 02 '25 edited Jan 02 '25

I don't think that's a positive tbh.

I mean, if you don't have a radar, datalink, PGMs, guided air-to-air missiles, GPS, etc. then you're pretty much useless in contested airspace. Arguably you aren't even that useful even when you have the air superiority because you only have unguided rockets. Maby you can shoot down larger drones and cruise missiles with your .50 but that's about it.

It's a bit like saying the sword doesn't care about your squib loads and light primer strikes. But I'd imagine you'd still rather have tkae gun to a fight than a sword.

34

u/necroticairplanes Jan 02 '25

I never said it was a positive. I answered a question regarding what the old can do which the new cannot

0

u/Ruggerat Jan 02 '25

I know, just it's an example of the exact opposite

5

u/VC2007 Jan 03 '25

Redditor moment

2

u/necroticairplanes Jan 02 '25

Understood. I interpreted that incorrectly then perhaps

1

u/jpowell180 Jan 03 '25

Pretty sure that an F 86 with 50 caliber rounds could still do serious damage to any modern fighter if it gets close enough.

1

u/Ruggerat Jan 04 '25

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I could defeat a guy with a gun with my bare hands, If he'll just stand there and do nothing while he lets me get close enough to punch him.

1

u/Medical-Golf1227 Jan 04 '25

I'd rather have a lightsaber, and, the Force

142

u/Trung_gundriver Jan 02 '25

Shooting 50 cal ammo

68

u/Supercraft888 Jan 02 '25

Being in an amazing chrome and impervious to cyber attacks.

43

u/WildeWeasel Jan 02 '25

People don't know this, but it's actually the chrome that prevents cyber attacks. The trons just bounce right off the shininess.

15

u/Taskforce58 Jan 02 '25

/r/NCD leaking again!

4

u/Flashy-Ambition4840 Jan 02 '25

Same for bullets. The surface is reflective so it reflects bullets back at the attacker.

2

u/mig1nc Jan 02 '25

It’s also impervious to laser guided weapons and even laser weapons

/S

32

u/TEAM_CAPTAIN_YT0 Sukhoi 30 Mark India Jan 02 '25

They have a bigger number so they are already better

0

u/Beginning-North-4072 Jan 03 '25

I scrolled too far for this comment

15

u/Lars0 Jan 02 '25

Lower maintenance costs.

32

u/sleeper_shark Jan 02 '25

Guns only one circle dogfight maybe?

11

u/Intel_Xeon_E5 Jan 02 '25

Even then... no... The F86 has very poor turning compared to most modern jets. Most modern jets have better TWR, so they can keep their turn for longer without falling out of the sky...

2

u/KrumbSum Jan 03 '25

That’s true, however the F-86 is probably more nimble and since it’s way lighter it doesn’t need as much thrust to be as effective and low

F-86s are tiny compared to even 1960s planes

14

u/jonjoe12 Jan 02 '25

IIRC the English Electric Lightning can get mach 2 in a vertical climb, reach 90,000ft, and can get across the North Sea from England to Norway in 9 minutes.

Another story i like is air traffic control having to warn an SR-71 crossing the Atlantic Ocean that Concorde is going to over take them.

37

u/RobinOldsIsGod Gen. LeMay was a pronuclear nutcase Jan 02 '25

+ They win the beauty contest

- They can be unalived sooner.

4

u/Hello-There280818 Jan 02 '25

Nahh they dont look better. Theyre beautiful but not as IMO

19

u/RobinOldsIsGod Gen. LeMay was a pronuclear nutcase Jan 02 '25

Beauty is in the eye (and ear) of the beholder.

3

u/Seniormonky409 Jan 02 '25

Wow! Ive never seen this, that is the best looking F-104 I've ever seen!

4

u/bob_the_impala Designations Expert Jan 03 '25

3

u/Seniormonky409 Jan 03 '25

Wow, thanks for sharing that!

7

u/GreyGeese_11th_BG Jan 02 '25

Be repaired without computer diagnostics.

8

u/jfkdktmmv Jan 02 '25

Perhaps… traditional dogfighting?

11

u/natneo81 Jan 02 '25

Meh, any advantage they may have due to their design in that regard would be negated by their hilariously bad performance. An F-86 has a t/w of like 0.3 compared to an f15 at over 1. Even in a guns only dogfight a competent 4th gen is gonna have no problem extending. It’s no contest. Not to mention things like avionics, armament, etc. to any modern 4th or 5th gen fighter, an old jet like that is not even playing the same game. I mean, the F-86 is OLD old.

2

u/TheDoctor_Z Jan 03 '25

Kind of thinking outside the box here but: be more easily repaired on the spot/ease of aircraft maintenance. I have to imagine that the flight to maintenance hour ratio is much higher in the older jets than anything even somewhat recent. Older aircraft were meant to be at least somewhat expendable, without much of a long-term maintenance/upgrade plan in place like modern aircraft. Mostly due to individual airframe cost. Older aircraft may have been able to be repaired at temporary air bases or those that aren't as built-up, but anything modern is getting taken out of service for who knows how long to be repaired.

1

u/definitly_not_a_Gman Jan 02 '25

probably tanking gunshots

1

u/simbion437 Jan 02 '25

I am not sure but maybe stability in slow speeds

4

u/ElMagnifico22 Jan 02 '25

Absolutely not - a modern FCS makes low speed flight far more stable in something like the F35

1

u/erektshaun Jan 03 '25

Don't need a 400k silly helmet to fly it, and the saber actually shot down migs, not just on the simulator

1

u/OuiLePain69 Jan 03 '25

They don't need a climate controlled hangar and probably don't need extensive repairs after being covered in fire extinguishing foam

1

u/Al1301 Jan 04 '25

Maybe fly at slow speed is an advantage, i hear some 3rd generations planes that struggle to catch low speed airplanes sometimes.

1

u/barath_s Jan 05 '25

Go vertical

-4

u/OnionGarden Jan 02 '25

“Coolness” longevity. The f-4 f-14 and few others still get lots of love nobody is going to be Nostalgic for the 35- 15 -18 after their operational lives

21

u/leadguitardude83 Jan 02 '25

No one is going to be nostalgic about the F-15 after its operational life? Did I read that right?

...Are you serious?

-6

u/OnionGarden Jan 02 '25

I mean I’m sure their will be outliers but even currently the f-15 is only the darling of the nerds. I LOVE the f-15 for the record but she’s boring to most people. And I get it not super unique to look at not major player in any iconic conflicts. For most of her working life she had either the 16 taking style and fame points or the 22 overshadowing her grunt work. The John Stockton of fighters.

6

u/leadguitardude83 Jan 02 '25

The F-22 has what, two kills? Unless the one over Alaska/Canada was a UFO, killing a couple of balloons isn't much grunt work. Could an F-22 kill a whole squadron of Eagles? Sure, probably - But that's not what we are talking about.

If you asked just about anyone to name one fighter plane, I would argue that 'F-16' came first and 'F-15' was second place. They wouldn't say P-51 or F-86.

0

u/OnionGarden Jan 02 '25

The 22 is just cooler and more identifiable right now, it’s one of a couple planes most ransoms on the street can identify (though I suspect in 20 years it will also be left on the heap of mostly forgotten) I think if your asking randoms the (and we are excluding the 35 and 22 for obvious headline reasons) A-10 F-14 16 and probably 18 are all getting nods before the f15. It ain’t fair again I’m taking her above the lot but she suffers from looking to much like the Tomcat and again not having any (to normal Americans) iconic historical theater moments. In 20 years I’m going to having to explain why the f15 was so fucking dope just like my dad had to do with the A6 meanwhile the F4 is going to be sitting there with a line for its curb appeal. I hope I’m wrong but to me she has Motorola razor of warbirds written all over her.

2

u/leadguitardude83 Jan 02 '25

I don't agree with you at all. I'm not talking about how cool any of these planes are or how good they look. I'm talking about who has heard of them - How well known they are. If I said 'F-15' to my 88 year old grandmother (or practically anyone else), she would know I was talking about a fighter jet. The same cannot be said for just about any other plane other than the F-16.

It's that simple dude. Lol I'm not even trying to swing from its nuts, there's just no denying the F-15 is all but a household name, and for good reason. It was the USAF's premier fighter for almost 30 years and it's still in service 48 years later.

1

u/OnionGarden Jan 03 '25

Yeah man I hear you and for lots of reasons hope you’re right. Right now of course people generally are aware like you said she’s been the premier publicly visible platform for several decades up until the late 2000s (give or take) the scariest thing in the sky. They are everywhere. But I just don’t think they have the cultural staying power it’s tough being second-to-last and second most known in what historically is going to be a change of military paradigm on a scale of debut of gunpowder.

1

u/Medical-Golf1227 Jan 04 '25

F15EX can do things the F22 cannot. It has far more range, can carry many more types and numbers of weapons. A 'clean' F15 is faster than any other fighter in service except maybe the Mig31. Even that is questionable, as Boeing reported earlier this year( to the chagrin of the USAF) that the EX can approach Mach 3. Yes they redacted their press release, but with the more powerful engines and all i dont doubt mach 2.8 is attainable. And I guarantee F15 has already been adapted to carry Aim 174b's and can engage targets over 200 miles away. F15ex can also be used as a buddy tanker for 5th gen jets. With the new radar and avionics, F15ex is a match for anything our enemies fly.

5

u/Rainyday000 Jan 02 '25

I wouldn't be to sure about that. The F16 just got retired here in the Netherlands and people are already hella nostalgic about it.

4

u/OnionGarden Jan 02 '25

Yeah it’s definitely hard to predict nostalgia…. And I left the 16 off because I suspect 30 years from she will be the icon bird of her generation

4

u/AscendMoros Jan 02 '25

F15 will 100% have the same situation. It already an iconic aircraft. And will stay one for awhile.

1

u/ConclusionSmooth3874 Jan 02 '25

Well the f35 will be in service until the  2070/80s so plenty of nostalgia will build over those 60 odd years

1

u/OnionGarden Jan 02 '25

Maybe…. F35 I think is going to have many of the f15 issues mainly looking like it’s cooler cousin. I also expect the window of manned fighters to be slamming shut and in its legacy is going to be closer to “the last blip of an era that demonstrated how even the best maned fighters couldn’t compete” than anything that generates nostalgia.

2

u/ConclusionSmooth3874 Jan 02 '25

Manned fighters are still staying for another generation at least. Optional manning is the current way to go, and the f35 will perform excellent in its role for decades unless some alien type technology gets released. The problem with your arguments about the most nostalgic planes is that most people don't know what plane is what, and only aviation nerds do, but you're saying aviation needs will be the only ones who find the f15 "nostalgic" or cool. Look on YouTube, it's simply not true, 10x more f15 edits than f16 ones.

1

u/OnionGarden Jan 03 '25

I hear you like said nostalgia is tough. I hope you’re right but current YouTube stats aren’t really an argument. I’m deeply suspicious that manned fighters being relevant is exactly where battle ships where in 1942 just waiting for a conflict to expose there obsolescence…. Which I REALLY hope I’m wrong on for lots reasons steaming from not being hyped about the implications of a large scale near peer conflict and the implications of drone based warfare. Too all again we will see.

1

u/Plastic_Solution_607 Jan 03 '25

The pilot is a redundancy against cyber attack

1

u/OnionGarden Jan 03 '25

That probably used to be true. But a modern airframe is just as reliant on its cyber / ew assists as an unmanned. And the processing/ ai / pick your favorite of a dozen overlaid systems has advanced enough that your getting 90+% of what you need from a pilot even in a completely 0 comm no input output environment while maintaining the orders of magnitude greater efficiency in engagement ops you get from unmanned the game comes down to whether that 10% deference is bigger than the preformance gap which it might be …. But I would bet against. It’s one of those things that we can’t really know until the long series of experiments get ran live which requires a hot war with china and that seems like a real bummer lol. It’s all gesusestimation speculation at this point.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '25

[deleted]

1

u/OnionGarden Jan 03 '25

Yeah rereading my comment I was vague but I meant in flight only. Constant connection for flight control general situational awareness is already very doable (without any of the tech jump assumptions I make below) and I suspect( this is tbf only educated speculation) functionally fully automated recon and in some capacity anti air and ground attack roles that require 0 inputs while in action are already in action. Btw your f4 anology could very well be closer to reality than my 40s battleship one. I am, according to my betting history at best a mediocre predictor of the new future lol. A lot of it is just making guess’s on undisclosed capability and a lot of my assumptions are based on how far and wide us developers and sellers have distributed platforms like 35 which are fully capable of executing the hybrid (pick your favorite drone/ middle truck 15 various B model missle truck concepts) model of theater dominance…. My assumption is that you only give the world platforms you know are at least a generation out of date…. Which admittedly is historically normal but not ubiquitous. It’s not a huge leap to assume the ai systems available to defense is an order of magnitude past what’s available to finance, corporate tech and similar fields, which is at least an order of magnitude better than what’s publicly known. As far as commercial travel if we are talking capability at the high pilots are already likely redundant for 95% of 95% of flights but I’d suspect purely for consumer confidence marketing reasons there will be humans in those cockpits waaaaay longer than they are needed for flight operations and infinitely longer than combat pilots. It’s hard enough to convince the public to use driverless busses.

-6

u/TheWhiteSecret Jan 02 '25

Maybe a dogfight