I was under the impression that congress cut $10 – $15 billion from the “congressional cap”, resulting in the 183 figure. This raised the price of each jet.

I just took note of this sentence from an Typhoon pilot, that indicate relations as where F-22 stands:

Is there any game done or at least simulation on how well Typhoon score vs F-15/16/18 ?

With an ability to sustain G for much longer periods than the legacy jets. The worlds best SRAAM and the best MSA on a fighter in its class. With a reduced observable design/jamming and vastly superior sustained kinematics where it counts. … the phoon toys with the 15/16/18.

Yet despite what a certain crowd like to tout, I wouldn’t be caught dead in the thing when used as a SEAD/DEAD platform against long range/mobile/jam resistant S-300/400 class SAMs.

It shows that the EW suite is just as, if not more important than shaped for purpose stealth

This clearly shows no such thing. But it does show how you wish to interpret the information given. Additionally a dedicated EW aircraft shouldn’t be compared to an aircraft with an active EW suite.

Speed converts into Altitude alot quicker for an aircraft that starts an engagement at Mach 1.7+ vs one at Mach 0.9. If this engagement starts at 100 km away, where an F-22(without stealth “VLO”) is at Mach 1.7-1.8 40000ft and the other (F-16C) is at Mach 0.9 at 36000ft heading for the Raptor. The F-22 punches in afterburner and climbs while maintaining Mach. The F-16 takes 2 minutes to reach Mach 1.75 (ignoring thats only possible with 2 IR missiles) from Mach 0.9 with no altitdue gain. Yet since we assume they both have standard AMRAAMs (with an arbitary range of 50 KM head on yet the F-22s missile is extended in range by 20-25 km by virtue of greater KE+PE) the rate of closure then means the F-22 launches the missile after 30-35 seconds 75 – 70 km away – meaning the F-16 has only accelerated to +- Mach 1.12 – 1.2. After this the F-22 cranks and disengages, maintaining a high supersonic speed – while the F-16 has yet to even achieve a firing solution that would have occured at a seperation distance of 50-55km.

Satorian, I will try to find time to post something more sufficient tomorrow. But the intial boost phase of the relavtively short burn time on a missile like AMRAAM will be affected by alot more drag if launched from an aircraft down at 40kft as opposed to one approaching 60kft. The aerodynamic drag could be up to 3+ times larger from the fact that the air density is +- 3 times greater at 40kft. This would limit the 40kft the missiles eventual top speed and altitude by a significant margin in comparison to that of the 60kft missile; since aerodynamic drag in these launch conditions for the duration of the burn time does not come close to the force needed for the missile to reach terminal velocity – therefore launch conditions can signifcantly alter range (hence why we see multi-staged rockets for heavy payload space flights). And as you point out the extra impluse adds a qualitative range advantage.

Regarding the F-22 and its AMRAAM, could you please explain how to derive the 50% range increase for the F-22 in the exemplary data samples you posted? I’ve been wondering about how launch height and speed figure quantitatively into missile range, so I had hoped to gain some insight there. Which equations, even if only for approximate numbers, to apply would be very helpful as well.

Satorian, as you’re an intelligent chap, you will realise that the 50% figure is merely a rule of thumb. Just because it is the F-22 does not mean it automatically gets a 50% range increase. But the way it has been expressed in the press is that the speed differential from supercruising fighter in the F-22 class – allows a much higher eventual launch energy state – compared to legacy type aircraft.

F-15 is a Mach 1.7 fighter with 6 Amraams in full A/B – not a Mach 2.3-2.5 fighter.

F-15 cruises at Mach 0.8-9.
F-22 cruises at Mach 1.7-1.8 with 8 AAMs.

If we hypothetically assume the F-22 employed similar frontal RCS and deceptive measures to a 4.5 gen fighter, like Eurofighter. The likelihood of the F-15 even reaching Mach 1.7 before the F-22 fires its missiles is extremely low. In the history of F-15 operations, it has hardly ever surpassed the speed of Mach 1.4 in BVR combat operations.

Detection/ID distance is generally far to limited, along with relatively small internal fuel capacity, and relative lack of top end supersonic acceleration for any of the US teen fighters/Su 27-30/Mig 29 to be considered as true supersonic fighters. Now that hasn’t changed since enemy BVRAAMs have greater range, giving you less acceleration time before launch; and reduced RCS + Jamming has meant detection distance isn’t in reality much greater now than it was prior to our latest advancements in radar tech.

What this means is:

The F-22 has almost a Mach number head start over an F-15 in intial velocity in most situations.

And an altitude advantage that may be up to 25kft greater than the F-15.

In reality this means that while the F-15 accelerates and climbs, so does the F-22. The F-15 peaks at Mach 1.7 (with a similar loadout), while the F-22 can top Mach 2-2.25. The F-22 operates higher and also gets to a higher launch altitude in the BVR situation. So negating VLO, the F-22 has a substantial kinematic advantage over the F-15.

In reality, I doubt the F-15 would crack Mach 1.4 by the time the engagement is in full swing against an aircraft in the F-22/EF kinematics class. Forum members like to compare numbers we don’t really have access too, so we use absolutes, which mean nothing.

The USAF claim the F-22s kinematics allow it to achieve a 50% range extention over legacy types in the F-15 class, when both fighters use the current AMRAAM. So what the final Mach and Alt numbers are is rather irrelavent, all we need to take from the statement is that in a realistic scenario: supercruise (Mach 1.5+) allows for an aircraft to accelerate to much higher speeds and altitudes through the duration of the engagement and within standard detection ranges (ignoring VLO), thereby imparting significant range/maneuver/speed advantages to the weapon. Against tougher kinematic targets like the Tiffy – those advantages will be degraded to below 50%.

Would it make sense to cruise at M1 or 1.1 though? That’s the draggiest area of the flight regime.

Thats not true. Oh and Sintra could you please elaborate on your RCS chitchat.