How do we know the MAX operational thrust is Greater than 35K, if the official figure is around 35k:confused:

And how do you know that the Max operational thrust is greater than 35k, if it is classified:confused:

What is the point here:confused:

Is this LM saying:
”We can tune the F-119 engine thrust up if we want, but in peace time operation the best thing to do is keeping the F-119 engine Max thrust at 35k.
That way we increase the Engines TBO(time between overhauls)”:confused:

Thanks

Here’s just a few different sources alluding to >35k lb thrust, and I could keep Googling.

Combat Aircraft, 2007, May

Raptor Flag, report by Maj Lawrence Spinetta, USAF

1. Thrust of F119-PW100 today: 39,000 Ib class.

2. Supercruise speed of Raptor: 1.72 Mach.

3. Kill record of 27th FS F-22A in Northern Edge Exercise, 2006: 241-to-2

4. Exchange ratio of 94th FS F-22A in Red Flag Exercise, 2007: 36 : 1 (The Red force used “Unlimited Fighter Works”, some Raptors were killed after they had run out of their missiles).

5. During the exercise, a F-22A was once encountered with three F-16 in WVR. After the former had killed two of the laters, the Raptor and the 3rd F-16 killed each other in a mutual kill.

http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/VTJavelinSST.pdf

P&W F-119 – a two spool afterburning turbofan was
selected as the propulsion system for the ATF over
described above. Jane’s cites that the F-119
producing a maximum takeoff thrust of 37,790 lbs, t
with the use of afterburner.

they have kind of dug a hole for themselves if they have actually set their sc bar at mach 1.5.

The rest of the world would say the F35 supercruises at m1.1 and lm would have to deny it!:D

So its possible that it does supercruise just not by LM marketing standards…

They wouldn’t have to deny it, they’d just say that it wasn’t supercruising.

Only in the USA. In the other 90% of the world, it’s 1000 kg, or (in old measures) 2240 lb.

This is a British forum, with international membership. A ton is therefore either 1000 kg, or 1014.5 kg. It is not 907 kg.

A quart is more than a litre (1.76 pints to 1 litre), etc., etc.

Be that as it may, the figure is still off, as the F-119 produces more than 35k lbs of thrust.

Which ton are you using? 1T=2,000lb

You can’t say that. 😎 RCS is just one part of the equation. Another part is output power of the emitting radar and sensitivity of its receiver.

I can say that. To overcome a large RCS difference, the output power/sensitivity of the T-50 would have to be enormous compared to the APG-77. I’ve yet to hear any Russian source(or any other source for that matter) make that claim.

That is why they were optimized to have minimum RCS from specific attack angles. In combat you don’t always have the luxury to choose the angle from which you get scrambled. Plus this time, the attacker might be stealthy, as well..

You mean just like every other LO platform, from the frontal aspect. If the T-50 is sitting on the ground when the F-22’s enroute, it’s already at a great disadvantage. Just how much reaction time do you think they’d have to scramble?

BTW, I am not aware of any weapon F-22 would go up against S-300/400 with – dropping SDBs on SAM sounds too much of a risk to me.. :confused: Is SEAD role still in the planning for the F-22A?

That’s precisely what the F-22 would use, till the JDRADM is available. It could still remain outside the WEZ of those systems with SDBs.

I’ll just assume your reading comprehension there wasn’t at 100%.

To put that in another way: “The capability to engage 4 targets isn’t anything amazing / impressive.” –> This means that Bars is, if anything, a solid, but not amazing radar. And furthers my point that the N001-VP likely matches that through processing power increase.

This is exactly what I said I said – if you can follow that brain-twister.

The key nuance here is the distinction between assumed capability, and demonstrated capability. One can have faith that the upgraded older model radars are the equal to Bars, but there’s no evidence that this is in fact the case.

@wrightwing

First i find really funny and bias to say the F-22 will detect the T-50 first, why?

Because even the Russians say that the F-22’s RCS is lower, so….the F-22 will have a first look advantage as a result.

Several nations have stealthy UCAVs now, even MiG designed one, nothing is undetectable, the F-22 and T-50 have been upper hyped as invisible to radar, but they are not. you live in the fantasy that F-22 will detect the T-50 but the Russian T-50 won`t wow that is just pure fantasy.

How many Russian built UAVs is the RuAF currently operating?(oh that’s right, they’re using Israeli ones):rolleyes:

I’ve never said the T-50 can’t detect the F-22, but the F-22 will likely have already fired a missile by the time the T-50 detects it.

The russians were no fools when they designed the T-50, they made something with smaller tails and forward fuselage for some reason, your bias statement that the IRBIS E will detect the F-35 at 20km but what the F-35 will detect the T-50 at 300km? yeah live in that dream.

Where have I said that the F-35 will detect a T-50 at 300km, and the T-50 doesn’t use the Irbis. It’d be helpful if you’d refrain from strawman arguments.

The russians know that the most important aspect of a radar is its power, radiation is also absorved by the atmosphere, there is nothing in the world that absorbs electromagnetic energy and does not reemmit it because energy can not disappear, it simply transforms it self,

you’re partially correct, and the materials and coatings to transform the energy, thus for practical purposes- absorb it. Only a fraction of the energy is reflected, and due to shaping, most of that is reflected away from the source.

a powerful radar that detects a 3m target at 400km will detect smaller RCS signature targets at lesser range but still will detect them at closer ranges, because if the radiation is strong enough less radiation will be absorved by the atmosphere and more will be bounced back to the radar.

F-22s and F-35s were designed to go up against S-300/400 level threats. No fighter radar is going to compare to the power/capability of those systems. Recheck that chart I posted about, if you’re unsure about how detection ranges drop off with RCS reduction.

By faceting an aircraft you are just increasing the distance the radiation travels back to the radar and reducing the amount of radiation that will return to the radar.

Faceting an aircraft changes the direction of the returns, so that they’re reflected away from the source for the most part.