wrightwingactually, the fact that they do cruise at 80% throttle means they go supersonic for a cerrtain period of time at that power setting.. but can you find any publication saying that they reached M1.8 (declared top speed for supercruise) at 80% throttle?
That goes back to the cruise part of the word. Being able to supercruise, means that you’re able to do so for a meaningful period of time, not just that you can exceed the speed of sound without afterburners. I will see what I can find though with regards to the throttle settings.
wrightwingQuoted posting deleted by moderator
I see the mancrush hasn’t subsided any.:eek:
Anyway, F22 DOES supercruise at military power.
Whether it’s full or not, is another matter and that depends on desired speed.
If the max SC speed is declared M1.82, that means full mil.power.
It’s funny you post on SC, while lacking the understanding of mil.power.
What does SFC has to do with anything here?So Wrightwing, what does any of this have to do with the topic at hand?
You do understand the difference between military power, and say 80% power right? Military power is the 100% setting in non-afterburning throttle positions. According to Paul Metz, the F-22 supercruises at ~80% throttle.
The SFC was due to the comparison being made with the F-15, in terms of thrust and drag vs. the F-22. As far as the topic at hand, I was responding to TooCool_12f. What does your comment have to do with this thread, and the topic at hand?
wrightwingok, let’s see:
A: definition of supercruise?
cruising at speeds above speed of sound without using AB.
max supercruise speed? seems logical that it’s what you get if you push your engines to the maximum military power (just a notch under lighting AB)
so can you explain to us what power the F-22 uses in your opinion to reach max supercruise speed?
Part of the word is cruise, and while supercruise doesn’t necessarily meet the definition of cruise in the truest sense, you can think of it as the VBR speed while flying supersonically(without A/B), whereas full military power would be VMax(without A/B).
B: what does that have with the discussion? we’re talking about drag the airframes generate: same thrust with the same drag provide same speed: same thrust and less drag brings more speed and vice versa.
with the same thrust, the F-15 goes faster than the F-22 that obviously means that the f-15 produces less drag than the f-22… if you can point anything that is illogical in that reasoning, please do so
It was already mentioned, but the F-15 has variable geometry inlets for one, so it’s hard to do an apples to apples comparison. Secondly, as I previously mentioned, the supercruise speed isn’t full military power, so the F-15 would need to use a throttle setting that would provide similar amounts of thrust that the F-22 is putting out, for it to be a fair comparison.
wrightwingPlease clarify point A. I’ve never heard that claim.
In otherwords, it supercruises at a throttle setting that is less than full military power.
wrightwingOne can detect change in temperature , water patterns in areas where sub are known to exist , using Sats to detect sub is a continue area of research and a very classified subject where almost little or no information is available.
if one can detect an area where sub are known to exist with very high probability , then its gives a real early warning detection from space.
This sounds very much like a self licking ice cream cone. If you know where the sub is, then it should stand to reason that there’s a high probability of detecting it.
wrightwingJust a couple things to consider-
A-The F-22 doesn’t supercruise at military power.
B-What’s the fuel consumption of both aircraft at M1.8?
wrightwingactually, we agree on one thing, the ferry range should be greater than 2*combat radius.. however, I’ve never seen a commercial underestimating products capabilities, only overclaiming… so, according to the logic behind any commercial statement, one should more have a tendency to believe that the 1200nm is me max expected ferry range and 600nm combat radius a commercial talk (exaggerated), rather than thinking that combat range is accurate and they purposely underestimated the ferry range… again, it’s just a matter of logic used in any commercial. either you take it as it is, or if you’re sceptical, you should consider reduced numbers, not increased.
as for briefings where they say it’s more, Id love to see them (and no, pfcem’s posts don’t count… 😀 ). for now, all I have is a presentation on the LM’s official website which seems to be the most official thing right now.
The links have been provided before, showing greater ranges than the LM site show, in this very thread. The combat radius of the F-35A is ~673nm, which even if we don’t allow for any station time on the objective, or reserves, already busts that 1200nm figure by ~150nm. If we include station time and reserves, that’s probably another 200+nm.
wrightwingyou should tell that to LM people who presented their document.
I don’t have to take anything into account, I don’t calculate anything, open the link and read by yourself: it’s the range stated by LM today, not me. I can’t say it more clearly:
LM SAYS: MAX RANGE = 1200nm
now if that isn’t clear enough, maybe you don’t understand english? if that’s the problem I can’t help you
LM also had brochures stating M1.5 for the F-22(and it’s now known to be ~M1.8), and they’ve put out briefings showing greater combat radii than the claims in the brochure. What you’re failing to do is to update your hypothesis, once new data becomes available. In otherwords you’re failing to use deduction and inference, in order to extrapolate the information. Simple logic tells us that if the max range is 1200nm, then the combat radius can’t possibly be 600nm or greater. So you either accept that that’s the case, or that the 1200nm figure is very conservative.
wrightwingIt does not say that it is capable of supersonic launch from internal stations. And again, there is no official mention of supersonic launch from all stations.
The F-22 has demonstrated supersonic launch from internal stations. Do you think LM reinvented the wheel with the F-35?
wrightwingso your “ballpark figure” is about 300 to 500nm more than what LM claims… it would be the first time that commercial talks show up to /3 smaller figures than reality
for LM statement:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35/index.html
you click on the link “product brochure” on the right and you get some nice pdfs where it states what I just said… ~1200nm ferry range for the “A” version, little more for the “C” one
What you’re not taking into consideration is that the maximum straight line range is not combat radius X 2. You’re not taking into account station time, or % reserves on the back end of the flight. Secondly the F-35’s combat radius is higher than what’s in those brochures too, so why is it so hard to accept the fact that the range given therein, is very conservative too?
wrightwingThat would be outrageusly stupid, and this is not what the SWAT program is about. The program is meant to replace some parts with lighter ones, not some less capable substitutes.
I see a lot af people here would like to see the F-35 to be less capable than it is (or will be).
And he’s also not taking into consideration that the new launcher may be lighter due to its composition, not just its design or tolerances.
wrightwingConsider the difference between the internal AtA stations and the internal AtG stations and try to find any official statement that supersonic launch is possible from all of them.
From the brochure of the launcher-
The BRU-61/A provides combat aircraft with the capacity to carry four Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) precision guided munitions on a single weapons station, significantly increasing the aircraft’s weapons carriage
capability per sortie. The BRU-61/A is capable of carrying and safely ejecting the SDB weapon at up to and including supersonic speeds from fighter, bomber or unmanned aircraft.
So now we know that the weapon and the launcher are more than capable of supersonic launch. We also know that the weapons bay of the F-35 can be utilized at supersonic speeds(up to M1.6 for AAMs at the very minimum).
It doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to solve this mystery.
wrightwingSo your saying the F-35 can carry 2 2K LB bombs in the bay, + 2 AMRAAMs,
But it cant carry 8 small diameter bombs ( 4 on each side) + 2 AMRAAMs In the bays? The SDB is a 250lb weapon. 250lb x4 is only 1k pounds each side.
The A2G station on the C and A model is rated for 2k Lbs The F-22 bay is smaller than this and it carries 8, your not making sense Blue.
will you Please tell us how many SDBs that you feel can be carried in the bays?
Exactly. He’s having trouble grasping the concept that you can’t cite yourself as a source(unless you actually work on the project, and have first hand knowledge).
wrightwingWrightwing :
Math . A simple pocket calculator will give you the numbers .
I wonder since you have your calculator out, you’d provide the numbers for the fuel consumption between the 2 aircraft at the speeds you mentioned.
The F-35 can ‘t supercruise (Prat&Whitney data) while the Rafale supercruise with a central fuel tank and 4 Micas . When clean ~as I said~ , the Rafale has no problem at all to reach Mach 1.2 in dry thrust .
Cheers .
Well considering that the F-16, and F-18(especially considering the wing sweep) can all exceed M1 in dry thrust, do you really believe that this is an insurmountable feat for the F-35 flying clean? The F-35 has as much dry thrust as the F-16 in max A/B depending on the variant, and can reach high subsonic at less than 50% throttle. This is where whose definition of supercruise becomes important(remember the US uses M1.5 as the threshold, not M1).
wrightwingJessmo24 :
Wrong . Check how big the system is , then take into account the ejection system within the bay .
Cheers .
Wrong- The F-35s bays are larger than the F-22s, and the F-22 can even carry 8 SDBs internally, and 2 AIM-120s.
Sign In
