1MANGive me one firm source on Internal fuel , none seem to agree with each other .
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=199
You have to compare the Supersonic Cruise radius of F-15 / F-16 to the F-22 , what the F-104 did or didnt do is irrelevant as the F-22 is replacing the F-15 and not the F-104. Also the F-22 can also not match the Mig-25’s supersonic cruise radius but does it mean it is inferior to what it is designed to be ?
It’s NOT irrelevant if a 50+ year old engine could do what the modern (F-22) can, all it shows one of it’s “so-called” key specialties can’t be better, than something that would cost nearly as much.
What about what you are saying ? So can the F-15 Do Mach 1.5 for over 2 hours ?
No it can’t and I was wrong about that, my apologies:D
I have to laugh at that statement , the 100nm is merely a reference point , the F-22 can do more then 100nm radius at supercruise it is just a purmutation figure that they came up with for SUBSONIC:SUPERSONIC ratio , the F-22 doesnt magically slow down after 200nm of straight flying at constant speed , the 300:100 figure means that a raptor can go for 150 nm at subsonic , do a 100 nm dash , get its buisness done with and do 150nm back to base , obviously with loiter time . It doesnt mean that the raptor can only do 100nm At supercruise , the raptor can do supercruise for way more but overall radius will become lower , the 300:100 is just a reference figure .
Other don’t think so: http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/data.html
1MAN1.Are you saying the F-22 is not 63,000LB?
2.Are you saying it’s fuel fraction is NOT 29%?
3. 50-year-old F–104A-19
can NOT match the F-22’s supersonic cruise radius
This IS what prooves what he’s saying is correct
4. Are you saying the F-22 100n.mile radius is not true it has something like 700/800km s.cruise radius??
5.What are you saying because the evidence shows the F-22 can’t supercruise more than the 15, PROOVE HIM WRONG?
1MANROFL you have no idea what you are talking about.
Eigther way it goes: Everest E. Riccioni
Col. USAF, Ret has already stated it’s not worth it:
Due to its very large 26 percent gain in weight, the Raptor has a very ordinary thrust-to-weight ratio
and wing loading, comparable to the F–15C. Hence, its maneuverability, acceleration, and rate of
climb are comparable to the performance of the F–15C — for reasons of basic physics.19 Its
supersonic cruise potential allowing sufficient fuel reserves for supersonic combat and other
requirements, is very low because this radius is heavily dominated by its deficient fuel fraction: http://www.pogo.org/m/dp/dp-fa22-Riccioni-03082005.pdf
1MANI don’t know what some of you are talking about the MiG-29/35 twin seat or not looks better than ANY thing out of Europe especial ANY varient of that Raphel.
1MANYes its the max range with tanks and CFTs, but at subsonic speeds not at mach 1.5.:rolleyes:
O.K. you right about the drop tanks, but not the subsonic, if it has a top speed of 1875 mph then at mach-1.5 1125mph it will be able to travel that for just over 2 hours and 36 minutes (between 2 hours & 37-40 minutes to be exact) 1125mph at 2 hours and 36 minutes is 2925 miles, any which way you look at it the 15C has better range/ n.miles
than the 22.
1MANWhere did you get the information that it goes for 3000nm at mach 1.5 ? Are you even serious in suggesting that ?
Read the link the 15’s range is 3450 miles, it’s nautical miles is 3000 READ IT!!!!!!!
Where is that comming from ?
Since when is range calculated at max speed or even mach 1.5 ? The Range of 3000nm is not @ mach 1.5 , so i dont know how the heck you are comming up with the facts that the F-15 can do 2 hours plus @ mach 1.5 .
READ THE LINK AND DO THE MATHAMATICS
1MANHave seen an animated video that is supposed to describe the TOPOL-M reentry vehicle. Basically it shows the system attacking an ABM system in that it reenters the atmosphere outside the range of the ABM system and air breaths with a ramjet within the atmosphere to attack the ABM system.
Would expect speeds of around mach 6-8, but also think they must be working on a faster scramjet powered “warhead”.
From what I’ve read the S-300PMU-2 has a 6000mph speed, that Mach 7.5+ so I’m expecting the S-400 to be the same or faster.
1MANPlease enlighten me as to WHAT IS THE F-15C’S MAXIMUM RANGE @ MACH 1.5 . In other words how far (in nm) a F-15C can go if it is traveling at the speed of mach 1.5 . We know that the raptor can go for 200nm but that is not the maximum supercruise range of the raptor it can go for 200nm @ mach 1.5 and still do 600-750 nm at subsonic range , From AWST source of 2006 we can deduce that the f-22 Can do 600nm (40 minutes at mach 1.5) @ mach 1.5 but would need tanking soon thereafter (typical cruise missile defence mission is fly around a Defensive box at speed able to dash and you are usually in freindly terrirory so can round off to the nearest tanker so you can push the jet with the hope to scan max airspace in min time)
1. Mach speed varies depending on wheather conditions, this is why you find different figures for Mach 1, the numbers are 742mph,750mph,761 (or761.2 to be exact)
2. Anyways lets go with the oficial USAF figures, at 45,k feet the F-15C’s top speed is mach-2.5 (1875mph) http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-15.htm so that makes mach-1 750mph.
3. With weapons the F-15C’s speed will be slower than 1875, but scince I can’t find those firgues for arguments sake I’ll just stick to 1875 for now.
4. At Mach-1.5 it goes 1125mph it’s range is: 3450 miles and it’s nautical miles is 3000
5. so at Mach 1.5 (1125mph) the 15C can travel for just over 2 hours and 36 minutes (between 2 hours and 37-39 minutes to be exact.)
6. Now unless your going to say these firuges are wrong- http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/data.html The F-22’s range and Nautical miles are no where near that of the F-15C’s
1MANThe CFE treaty limits European countries to specific numbers of tanks, APCs, attack helos, and artillery. In every category there was a balance between the Warsaw Pact and NATO. As countries changed from the WP to NATO they took their allocation of weapons with them. Currently the Russians are allowed about 6,000 tanks in European Russia. Compare that to the 36,000 NATO and the Ukraine are allowed… not to mention the countries that weren’t in NATO or the WP and can have as many items as they want.
Where did you get your numbers from, please provide us with a link, Nato has NEVER had 36,000 Tanks!!!:confused::confused:
1MANLike I said, the study suggests the higher speed has little effect on THAAD’s likelihood of hitting it (the subsequent SM-3 ASAT shot tends to support that). When I first stumbled upon this paper I thought it was probably a lot of wishful thinking. (Some of their base assumptions seem questionable.) That was before the SM-3 ASAT shot. After that I had to reconsider because one would have thought a satellite WELL out of SM-3’s capability. Here’s the paper if you want to read it.
Thats why the New SS-27 are “manouvering” so they can aviod being hit, what that SM-3 missile did was shoot a target moving only in one direction, a missile moving in multipal directions at hypersonic speeds will more than be able to avoid the SM-3.[QUOTE]
1MANIts also better for the USAF to get a 10,000 F-4’s upgraded with latest engines , AESA radars and more composite useage . Or even better get 15,000 F-5 NG’s with AESA radar , new engines and PGM capability .
How did you come up with 180 raptors buy you 2000 F-15’s ???? At rougly 60-70 million a pop you’d get 360-400 F-15E’s at best and this would be without Any latest fancy Stealth coating or whatever extra developmental dollars need to go into the development .
The U.S. sees it’s only going to get 150-180 because of the coasts thats were.
Where the heck did he ever compare the F-15 to Su-27 ? I thought we were talking about F-16 , F-15 and F-22 ?[/quote]
I was commenting on what Schorsch said not you, so don’t worry about it.
But since we are talking about showing proof , please show how an F-16 can do Mach 1.5 for 200nm in a straight line with internal fuel and still have meaningful fuel left over to come back to base or atleast hook up to a tanker . Heck show me how far the F-15C can go At mach 1.5 only on internal fuel and with 8 missiles hanging on its wings.
I didn’t talk about the 16 so thats not my problem about your 16 question.
I ask for this because you said that BASICALLY THE F-15,F-16 CAN DO THE SAME ASWELL..
I NEVER said the 16, you LOST!!!:D:D:D
1MANNo one said that it could !!! A given range would have to be calculated for subsonic flight – Supersonic flight or combined Subsonic flight + supersonic Dash . The Radius of the F-22 is 400nm that is not 800nm range , because 100 of that is at mach 1.72 , if MAX RANGE of the F-22 would need to be calculated then it would be much more because F-22 can acheive that at subsonic.
So can the F-15 my friend you better do some reading, HA!!![quote]Simply put – if you wish to see what the F-22 MAXIMUM RANGE WOULD BE then the F-22 pilot would gladly fly it subsonic at altitude and acheive range of much greater then the 800nm (simple calculation) .[quote]
It’s max range is 1600nmi(18840mi the 15 is greater.
That is why This is of no use (MAX RANGE ) what is more important is how the F-22 meets its MISSION PROFILES OR EXPECTED MISSION PROFILES . Keep an aircraft flying at high altitude and at the lowest required thrust to keep it going and it will acheive a very good max range figure but it would be of no use therefore for the sake of development of a FIGHTER JET they simulate missions and come up with mission profiles . The F-22’s profile for A2A mission was required to be 300-100 radius (600-200 if 2x factor or 750-250 if 2.5x for range) and neither the F-16 nor the F-15 can do that.
not against the 15: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15_Eagle
The F-16 can only go for 100 nm @ mach 1.5 after which it would have no fuel left to do anything so if the f-16 needs to make a 100nm dash at mach 1.5 it cannot even with heavy jugs and CFT’s , the raptor can make a 200 nm Dash at mach 1.5 and still have an igress and outgress range of between 600-750 nm at subsonic speeds , once out of threat area no need to go fast unless base is close by and turn around rates are important. You can always trade SUBSONIC range for SUPERSONIC range if the mission requires it to and you can do so with legacy jets also but not with this flexibility , their extremely poor SUPERSONIC (or rather supercruising ) range means that the tradeoff is not aplicable for most mission profiles but with the raptor a 200nm-250nm dash @ mach 1.5 is very useful and it still allows the raptor to have 600-750 of range to ingress and egress , Fuel tankers would only add to that and if you have tankers at ingress or egress it would help just like any other fighters but the raptor would need less tankage if we are to use MORE OF SUPERCRUISING RANGE FOR A MISSION and we know that it can make a difference .
Raptor’s range is a complex thing to calculate , simple MAX RANGE would be of no practical use to the tactician as the raptor is designed to supercruise so they must measure it for all practical and operational purposes as a mix of supersonic and subsonic flight which wasnt the case with legacy fighters in the USAF , their MAX ranges were almost always at subsonic speeds not at a mix of speeds . For the media they can publish the raptors range in nm (MAX ACHEIVABLE RANGE at most favourable thrust setting) but it would of no use to the warfighter , therefore even during the ATF phase they laid out requirements based on a mixed flying profile.
Absolutely incorrect , if the Cold war would not have ended the USAF would have had many more B-2’s and many more F-22’s , it would be stupid to think that the F-22 was designed to exist without B-2’s , what else would it be existing without ? PILOTS ? BRAIN CELLS ? Read the GSTF by Jumper , he was the first houncho to have pushed the raptor and he always used the Raptor-B-2 teamwork to overcome IADS etc , never was his strategy or that of the USAF based solely on the F-22 .
The B-2 needs at least 50 plane escort, what are you talkin about, the F-22 was designed not to need these, YOU better read more my friend your starting to go into “wishful-thinking mode”
You seem to be confusing Range and radius and using the two at your own conveince .
Raptors stealth is ALL ASPECT according to most sources , it is claimed that the F-35’s stealth is greater frontally but never have i heard that the raptor is only Frontal LO but is like F-15 or F-16 from the side or back , please provide sources.
Rators stealth coating is NOT all aspect only on it’s edges, who’s beem telling you this.[quote]I meant RAM coating:
Radar absorbant materials, or RAM is applied sparingly on the F-22 airframe as opposed to the entire airframe on the F-117. This is because designers have incorporated curves on crucial surfaces and edges, which lessens the need for RAM. For example, new ceramic-matrix RAM is utilized on the engine exhaust nozzles to reduce radar and IR signatures, and a greater amount of wide-band structural RAM is used on the wing edges. The interesting shape of the radome on the F-22 reflects radar signals at all frequencies except the precise wavelengths emitted from the F-22. This can be attributed to the radome’s low bandpass type: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-stealth.htm[quote]
1MANWhat exactly does this confusing cloud of ASCII elements exactly tell us? Not muc i fear.
F-22 can not do mach 1.7 over it’s entire combat range of 800 Km’s on external fuel.
I think nobody ever argued it could. Why external fuel?others fighters that costs 4 times less
Deducting the non-recurring development costs, the F-22 cost about 50 to 100% more than a Eurofighter (depends how you want to look at it).
By the way: 4 times less, how can I calculate that? One time less would be 100% less. Pretty good price, 4 times less would be minus 400%, that means, you actually earn when you buy it. 😮
what I’m saying is it’s beter for the USAF to get 2000 F-15’s with AESA radars a,d stealth coating than 150/180 F-22
Su-27 and F-15 can fly at high supersonic speeds for at least as much time as the F-22
Again, nobody argued otherwise, as high supersonic speeds normally start at M1.9ish, the limits here are temperature. But who cares about time at Mach 2?does not even beat the F-15 in high speed dashes or in range.
In normal configs the F-15 hardly exceeds Mach 1.9.
With internal fuel and weapons the 15 can’t beat the Su-27 with no weapons yes, show me with sources if you disagree.
Seriously, are you drunk?
1MANA fixed site for GBI is just fine for locations in the US.
They’re not.
What do you mean:confused:
1MANDefine short ? What is short time ? How is it measured? Against requirment for Air defence or what you want it to do “around the world @ mach 1.72?”
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.
Then you should read the source material which seems to make it quite clear that the F-22 can not do mach 1.7 over it’s entire combat range of 800 Km’s on external fuel. Sure it can be refueled but so can others fighters that costs 4 times less with similar general performance margins. I could not find the data that shows as much but as i recall both the Su-27 and F-15 can fly at high supersonic speeds for at least as much time as the F-22. If you can bring sources that show otherwise ( the magical super cruising engines that does not burn fuel) i would be more than happy to accept them as i am not happier than you are that the American people are paying trough the teeth for something that does not even beat the F-15 in high speed dashes or in range.
http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/data.html
Thats on internal fuel and with 8 A2A missiles . For the raptor cruising to the battelfield in econ settings (unless it has to get their in a rush which would mean 2 external juges , full speed , drop the jugs and refuel) it would travel subsonic-transonic , top off do about 250-300 nm in Supercruise drop its weapons and do around that much back and top off and back to base how so ever far it is. 40 minutes @ mach 1.5 are not the same interms of area covered as 40 minutes at mach 0.8 , the raptor can cover quite a bit of ground and given that the first job of the f-22’s would be to deal with the SAM’s and other Air defences it would be able to along with the B-2 . F-35 and UCAV’s destroy them enough for tankers to get ever closer almost every day or every mission so its effective Radius of action will go on increasing as threat decreases . The raptor can always use External fuel tanks , jettison them along with the pylons upon ingressing the danger zone and then conduct its mission. CAP on the raptor would be a mix of Subsonic and supersonic flight , kill boxes would be patrolled either by Less no. of raptors traveling fast and rotating @ a higher frequency or more no. of raptors traveling subsonic and having greater time over the battlefeild either way it would be a tactical descision based on the realities of force availability .
It’s purpose was to deal with those threats whitout help from B-2’s UCAV’s, the reason it mission it has an ever-changing mission requirment is that it can’t realy do what it was supposed to, it’s combat radus is 1600nm, and from other sourses it’s 2000nm, while the F-15’s is 3000 nm, the only real advantage it ha over the 15 is it’s stealth which is only in the forward area, I just don’t see paying $137Miliion for something that is only 1.3/5 times better than the 15.
Ever heard of checks and balances ? Wonder why the interest in the F-22A grew once it entered OTED phase ? the congress / senate , technical commitees etc get both classified and un classified breifs on the ability of each weapon system , it is very tough to consistantly lie over many years and get away with it .
The classified breifings are done, because it’s a failure and they don’t want anyone to know about it.
Sign In
