there was that famous speculation in which supossely the 23 with other engines would have reached more spped than the 22, that never happened, on test the 23 reached 1.4 and the 22 a bit above 1.5, the speculation of the airframe/engine configuration was the tipical loser cry

the 23 was dragier with that romboid wing inducing tons of leading edge vortex, a sweep of 40º,etc, the 22 had more than 50º sweept with a nice delta -later the sweep was reducet to 48- , that not only limits the speed (that also have to do woth the engine design), but also the range

russians radars use dual frecuency modes, one with LF and other HF, i dont know how gona be the next russian radar, but they aren worry to put AESA in that, AESA is nice but isnt a silver bullet, and yes the reduction of the RCS in the planes works better against airborne radars that use high frecuency

and yes your soooo loved 22 isnt a stealth design, the air force chosed supercruiser (f22) over stealth (f23), it have some features, but the desing core isnt “stealth”, and isnt a “revelation” if you know some basic laws of mother nature :rolleyes:

ELP im talking about the “stealthness” of the stuff, not about if it have HARM,JDAM or anything that ends with M, also remember that one thing is where are the radars and other wher are the missiles, specially to russian systems

no mattter what u do, always your “stealth” planes shown in the targeting/searching screen that already give you a very precise measuring, not talking about the “old metric” stuff, but about A-D band, so point the tracking radar there and end of the problem, of course with an AESA system which all the stuff is based in HF is lot more complicated

ohh, nooooo, again this crappy disscusssion, a sr-71 flying at M3 goimg inside the huge soviet union, the mig25 have enought space to maneouvre and intercept an sr-71 that goes too deep, you cant maneouvere at M3 so easy as below M1, you lose tons of energy even in minor changes (speed and heigh) so is too predectible the trayectorie and error tolerance, so to intercept a sr-71 with enough AA-6 is easy ,if you have enought AA-6, of course, hell the missile tech isnt a pushed bottom and plane destroyed, the missiles fails , also these missiles goes up to M6 since the speed is arround M4 plus the Vo of the plataform

BTW Belenko was a guy selling books, all these popular miths sells well, specially in cold war times

ohh man, tomorrow i must start the testing in charge of 3 turbines of 75MW, dont have time to these “my toy is nicer” disscussions…… :rolleyes:

ohh yeah…. another f22 fanboys thread :rolleyes:

the famous M1.7 supercruiser was done in a special maneouvre (some kind of loop-dive), i dont know if with a dive, an a nice day you can beat M2…is possible, but very unprobable

about the “refits” done over the years, were mostly to fix some problems of the plane instead to improve it, very like -or exactly- the f-4 project

the f22 WAS designed to sacrifice speed, to turn that speed into lift at supersonic, the speed limit isnt sooo related to the materials, or engine inlet or whatever, the basic concept of the raptor is that

in fact a factor that is more important to me is the climb rate, still there isnt any climb record of the plane, with such huge engines, and all the new stuff, maybe engine overheating??? who knows

wasnt the 15 i meant the 16, little typo, anyway the increase of the thrust dont mean directly increase of speed, other example is the mig21 among other planes with different T/W in diffrent versions

btw the 31s engine as the M2000 one are more considered as by-pass turbojets than turbofans

hmmm, well if the parametres of the f100 kept the same from the start to the end of the project, then i might be wrong, realy never liked such historical disscusions, anyway again the combat radius of a intereceptor isnt increase by high by pass engines, interceptors must go constantly at supersonic, the only advantage of such bypass are in operational costs