Remember what? you are just babbling the same fanboy trash, the point here is in which conditions?, the point is if the s-300 has the capability to attack even in heavy ECM environment, so the problem is not only ECM but to reduce the RCS of the plane as well, and use both for the missions.

That was kind of the whole point behind having these aircraft, as legacy aircraft were too vulnerable to survive against these threats. I’m not saying they’re going to be flying directly overhead of these systems, but the reduced detection range opens up a lot of holes in coverage, as there aren’t enough S-300/400s to have overlapping coverage everywhere, against VLO targets.

If you have ECM support is pretty worty

If you don’t have ECM support is worthless, even against X band radars

I’m not so sure you can categorically make this claim. What sort of ECM support have Raptors used when flying in exercises, achieving complete surprise over all of their opponents? Remember, the F-22 and F-35 were designed to be able to operate in environments where S-300/400 level threats were present. No fighter radar is remotely comparable to the detection capabilities of these systems.

No, there is nothing unique there. As a new design, it is logically better than its predecessors but adding 10-20% of performance on top of the last design does not make it anywhere near being “unique”.

Make it space-capable, ok. Make it intercontinental range, ok. Make it with cloaking device, ok. Make it fly M10.0, ok, that all would be something revolutionary. But grasping at straws with claims like ‘my F-22 might be slower but Metz said that it flies M1.7 without afterburner’, I mean, M1.4 or M1.7, who cares? Should this M0.3 difference be the ‘uniqueness’ you are talking about? Don’t be ridiculous..

I personally see the gap between F-22 and F-15 roughly as large as once between F-15 and F-4. No big deal…

That M.3 difference or whatever it happens to be is only part of the story. Not only does it have the speed advantage, but its ability to maintain that speed is rivaled only by the Mig 31. That’s a pretty significant tactical advantage.

Having an RCS many magnitudes lower than any competitor aircraft is a HUGE advantage.

Having a higher combat altitude is a big advantage over competitors.

Having significantly greater situational awareness over competitors is a big advantage.

Throw in advantages in agility, etc… and I think it becomes apparent to those without a predisposed notion to dislike the plane, that it’s more than just a little bit better than previous designs. 10-20% improvement?:rolleyes:
As soon as peer aircraft start reaching anything remotely approaching parity in exchange ratios vs. the F-22, or achieving the lopsided success against other aircraft that the F-22 has had in exercises, then your argument may start to have some merit.

Sorry to burst your bubble but there is nothing revolutionary or unique with F-22. It is a simple logical evolutionary step from F-15 and F-14.. A tad better here and there, that’s all.

There’s nothing unique about the F-22? I wonder if you’d care to mention all of the peer aircraft for comparison.

It ain’t a big deal even now. The whole supercruise thing is only highlighted due to lack of better arguments for spending $300+mil on a stupid fighter.

$143 million/fighter, but who’s counting.:eek:

I am making an assumption that the chance that plane’s top speed in any regime equals the most economical speed is roughly as slim as an assumption that my Porsche takes less fuel at its max speed (278 km/h) than at cruise speed which is roughly 145 km/h.

I’ve already stated that the Raptor’s most economical speed is likely in the M.85-.95 range.

pfcem has come with a figure that Raptor’s top SC speed is Mach 1.78. Even this figure has not been proven yet, but funny enough, two pages later I already see you claiming that Raptor actually has its optimum cruise speed at M1.78. 🙂 I am really looking forward at the claims three pages later on. You guys seem to never get enough of the overhyping.

I’ve never said anything about top SC speed, nor has the USAF/LM. They simply say that the F-22 can SC at this speed, without qualifying it.

I personally assume that the maximum quoted SC figure will be exactly the one achieved at full military power. There is no logic in assuming that Raptor can fly faster at 70% throttle setting than at 100%. And there is no logic in assuming that Raptor can actually SC at Mach 1.9 at 100% throttle but LM would only claim M1.7 because this would be the most economical speed.

Who said anything about it flying faster at 70% throttle than at 100%?
All we’re saying is that M1.5 was the minimum standard that the F-22 had to meet. The fact that it exceeds that is merely a bonus.

If F-22 achieved M1.8 without burners only for one second and even spent a whole tank of fuel in order to achieve that, the very next day we would have fanboys here claiming that this is the typical cruise speed Raptors operate at. And they would link you to sources writing M1.8 and claiming them as a proof without hesitation. You can bet on that.

And that’s where you’re confusing SC with max non-afterburning speed. The F-22 can fly faster than its supercruise speed without afterburners, but then it is using fuel at a greatly increased rate.

NO.

Sorry dude THIS is your guys interpretation and obviously one conveniently stuiting the fantasms of those who wants F-15 to supercruise because “it would mean M 1.5”.

L-M doesn’t write the book, USAF service either NOT, the Flight Test Center does and it is its primary function to do so, L-M and USAF can publish any commercials they want, they still compute endurence by the book.

CRUISE have nothing to do with Machs it have to do with ENDURENCE.

If your thrust allows you to reach a high enough number of Nautical Airmiles per Pounds in supersonic, then you have supercruise capabilties, supercruise is a tactical flight regime not a fashionable forum topic.

Since Mach involes a higher level of DRAG it will ALWAYS mean a trade off but it wont change the definition of the word CRUISE (since it will be achieve at a different regime than subsonic or transonic).

As i was saying you keep looking at the wrong end of reality.

We’re talking in circles arguing whether or not it’s Happy or Glad. You’ll notice how I include endurance in my statements, as the important part of the definition(i.e. if you exceed Mach X, your endurance is degraded due to the increase in fuel usage).