So what ? Can’t you read the question ? Let me refresh your memory :
“Can you name another A/C that can do more?“
If I’m not mistaken, A/C is not a synonym for fighter, does it ?
So stop whinning. An aircraft with a comparable size and weight (hence same class) as the F-22 was able to go further and faster (500+ nm @ M1.8+ demonstrated on september, 19th 1960).

Can you tell me what the exact range and max supercruise speed of the F-22 Raptor are? It’d be helpful if you could, if you’re trying to compare it with another aircraft’s performance. If the AW&ST article is correct, then the F-22 can supercruise at Mach 1.5 for 41 minutes, which would fall into the USAF’s reasoning that it(the Raptor) isn’t just a little bit better than legacy fighters. Another thing to consider is that if the 41 minute figure is correct, the speed may actually be higher as the Raptor has demonstrated M1.82 supercruising. All this is speculation of course, but….food for thought.

Because it’s not in the same class. :rolleyes:

Maybe, but the question didn’t ask for a fighter, did it ?
It’s always amusing to see how questions are twisted toward the expected answer, especially when you don’t get it…

If you’re not comparing fighters, then how useful is it to compare at all though? That would be like saying well a B-52H has a far superior range to a Mig-29A. While true, it doesn’t really tell you anything.

The problem with the F-18e/f in a strike role imho:
1) V.heavy + huge engines = gas guzzling
2) Draggy airframe + huge engines = lower range
3) I am not sure about its ability to do the fast and low thing ala jags/mig-27s.
4) No long range fire and forget A2S missile ala Scalp/AASM.

otherwise a decent bird imho.

USS.

Well the JSOW-ER and JASSM/JASSM-ER have very good ranges, and are stealthy as well.

You do distract from the unpleasant reality, do you. Every US-fighters has to fullfill specifications in general. Empty equipped is one of that and has nothing to do with secrecy. The LM are proud to anounce, when such specifications are fullfilled or some extra percent achieved. The more the F-35 program has ballooned out of budget for some time already. The weight critical F-35B was “saved” two ways. The internal weapons-capability is reduced an the the thrust of the F135 risen. All that was done, before the LM did learn that some extra weight has to be added again. One prominent example is to correct the insuffienct supply in electricity and to strengthen some critical parts of the propulsion-system f.e. LM does test preproduction examples, when the claims for tthe real thing are still guess-work with a lot of hope into the future.

My point is that there are sources that have more accurate(up to date) info, than the website might. I’m just leery of stating unequivocally that if an open source site doesn’t have a performance figure/spec, that it necessarily means the aircraft can’t do something.

The whole planform of the F-16 generates lift, assuming pure wing area is very simplistic. However, if its the same dimensions, as with all F-16’s, and the weights go up, you can therefore simply compare the wing loadings.

I have found this video, and it still seems very agile to me, compare it to a block 50 demo at le Bourget/Farnborough; (again its an airshow demo, but it does give an impression);

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=LwtXI4xfN7k

That certainly looked pretty agile to me. Very crisp rolls, tight turns, and very good at maintaining high state of energy.

Wishfull behavior to stay polite.
All three F-35 variants are still overweight and it will be intresting to learn, how much they will be with real production examples will come of the line. 😉

So you think 100% accurate and up to date specs for sensitive weapons are regularly posted on open source sites, or maybe ballpark figures might just be the norm?

Then why does the F-35 manufacturer’s website still keeps using you-called outdated data in 2009 without any revision like the above information you offered ???

Because no precise numbers are going to be put on an open source site anyway, so if a spec is +/-, from their perspective it’s not that important.

Here are some “semi-official” figures ( http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2005/January%202005/0105raptor.pdf ): 405 Nmiles, including 100 Nmiles 1.5 dash, or 600 Nmile only subsonic. Aside those, ~20 min are spent over combat zone in supercruise.

By John A. Tirpak
Air Force Magazine
November 2005

The F/A-22’s ability to cruise supersonically is an essential feature. If you didn’t buy it for stealth, you’d buy it for speed, Lewis said. He noted that F/A-22s at Langley can get to Washington, D.C., in just seven minutes and be able to loiter in the area for 41 minutes before going home. This marks a vast improvement over F-15s, which would take longer to arrive and would have to refuel almost immediately.

PS: The distance between Washington, D.C. and Langley Airbase is around 130 miles / 209 km.

According to AW&ST, June 12, 2006:

For the anti-cruise missile mission, F-22A can cruise 41 minutes with the speed of around 1.5 Mach, while the traditional fighters like F-15 and F-16 can just cruise 7 minutes with that speed.

Ok- even if we assume AW&ST completely got this wrong, let’s work with that first figure.

Langley to DC- 130miles in 7 minutes, which means A/B and Mach 2+
41 minutes loiter ~M.85- M.95 or between 376-420 miles
DC to Langley- 130miles -no speed given, but it’s generally given that the F-22 can do at least 2 legs at 100+nm in supercruise.

On the low end of the scale that works out to ~636 miles.
On the high end of the scale that works out to ~680 miles.
You also have to figure in enough fuel for probably 20-30 minute reserve.

Given that on the first leg A/B and Mach 2+ speeds were used, is going to lower the maximum range. It’s certainly not inconceivable that if the F-22 didn’t use A/B, 800 miles shouldn’t be unreasonable(and according to your article ~810-1200 miles). If however the AW&ST article is accurate, then the range will be much further(Mach 1.5 for 41 minutes + subsonic portion of flight).

In any event, 463km is a ridiculously low number.