Ok…I agree you never claimed to be an expert, but you should better think twice before posting a stupidity like “F22 has no AoA limit”…
I’m glad to see you made an effort to educate your self, but still you haven’t offered any explanation.

Now, I’ll just say that F22’s buffet fades away at 40°+ AoA, because the wing stalls and ride gets “smoother” indeed, but in post-stall regime…and you can forget pulling “g”s then, because you go ballistic (ok, in Raptor’s case sami-balilistic due TVC)

However, if you want to engage into meaningful discussion (although there’s not much to discuss), you’d better probably educate your self in terms of: wing (NACA) profile/cumbering, chord and its effect on AoA limit and “washout” of the wing’s leading edge.

Cheers, Cola

It is you who needs educated.

It is a known fact that the F-22 has no AoA limit (which it demostrates regularly in even significantly ‘toned down’ public displays). An F-22 pilot can put the F-22 into any AoA & have complete control over the aircraft. And in the very piece you reference in a lame attempt to disprove that fact states in the very next sentence to the one which you want people to believe indicates an AoA limit (which it doesn’t it only states that there is a slight buffet 20 deg to 40 deg) that “At no AOA is buffeting a problem“.

If JSF now was such an obvious choice for Norway, why did they invite Rafale, Eurofighter and Gripen for a competition?

Because they were obligated to.

Also interesting to see that the JSF had to come out cheaper than Gripen to be a viable option. So much for the great capability.

No it didn’t have to.

But unfortunatley there are far to many ignorant peeple such as yourself who price is more important than capability &/or cost-effectiveness.

Well pfcem, you should know that, being an “expert”, right? 😉

I never claimed to be an expert but I do know more than enough about aerodynamics & flight to know that a “slight buffet” while something to be aware of is not something that will limit your flight. It just means the ride will be a little rough (how little depending on how slight the buffet).

Note the very next sentence…

Buffeting, a common flight characteristic at higher AOA, begins around twenty degrees AOA in the Raptor and increases slightly up to twenty-six degrees. Buffet is a good cue, with an intensity that compares with the minimal buffet experienced on an F-16 at higher AOA (and much less commanding than the buffet on the F-15). The slight buffet remains constant from twenty-six degrees to about forty degrees AOA, where it decreases. At no AOA is buffeting a problem.

So, why don’t you explain us why this buffeting occurs and what actually happens at 40°+ AoA when buffet fades away…

Buffeting occurs because of what happens to the air as it ‘flows’ over/along the airframe.

At 40°+ AoA the ride gets smoother. 🙂

Actually it is. There were four base configurations for Hornet 2000 considered from “least risky” to “most risky”. Most risky was a canard delta version of the Hornet. 2nd most risky (config III) was what became the Super Hornet.

http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/Hornet_2000.pdf

No it isn’t.

The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet & the Hornet 2000 were two different programs.

The F/A-18 is not the YF-17.

The F-15E is not the F-15N.

The Eurofighter Typhoon is not the AST-396, AST-403, AST-409, ECF, F/EFA, et cetera…

The F-35 is not Advanced Short Take-Off/Vertical Landing (ASTOVL), STOVL Strike Fighter (SSF), Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter (CALF), Multi-Role Fighter (MRF) or Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST).

***

F/A-18E wasn’t the only option out there. They could have bought production rights for Rafale. Can you imagine the disgust from the brass if Rafale was forced upon them…

Congress said it was the only option.

Although I agree there were other options if Congress would have been open to them…

I can accept that……..;)

…as long as you realize/recognize that when the US DOD, USAF &/or LM talk about supercruise they mean >Mach 1.5 & not >Mach 1.0 of the ‘me too’ crowd trying to ‘cash in’ on supercruise.

Can you explain why going an extra ~150-200 m.p.h faster (ie ~1.5 over~ 1.3) is a significant advantage?

First of all it is >Mach 1.5, not =Mach 1.5 and the KPP THRESHOLD for the ATF was >Mach 1.6 & the F-22 is actually capable of Mach 1.78.

Even Mach 1.5 is ~15.4% faster than Mach 1.3…that means traveling either ~15.4% farther in the same amount of time or traveling the same distance in ~15.4% less time. And if you can cruise @ >Mach 1.5 you can always slow to Mach 1.3.

I understand >1.3 gives way to better drag characteristics, but is the jump that stark?

There was a post by someone else (I think it was here but may have been @ f16.net) showing the general drag/fuel usage (IIRC) from like Mach 0.8 to Mach 2.0. It is of course a matter opinion as to the relative weight given to speed vs fuel usage but (again IIRC) the poster’s opinion was that

Coming back to the real world;

Does anyone know how often USAF F-22 pilots use it in exercises/training? Or is it a capability thats only there when needed?

It is “standard operating procedure”.

***

The reason is quite obvious – they set the criteria in order to make the F-22 unique, a category of its own. If F-22’s top SC speed was M1.4, then LM would have come up with the definition of SC being able to maintain M1.3 on military power. It only requires several pfcems to repeat that blindly enough times to become *truth*.

Thats right, they set the criteria. Not to ‘make’ the F-22 unique but to express how it is unique. And it was not LM but the US DOD/USAF. LM simply delivered the unique criteria the US DOD/USAF set for them to.

And as much as ‘stuck in the 20th century/4th generation fighter era’ like you want to ignor it, >Mach 1.5 is a significant advantage. Even over Mach 1.2-1.3.

***

Given the amount of marketing F-35 enjoys, I’d dare to say that if there was slightest indication of F-35 being able to achieve/maintain supersonic speed at military thrust, we’d hear that trupmpeted out all over the news.

Quite the opposite. When the F-35 does demonstrate that it can cruise at >Mach without afterburner you may still not hear about it.

I would also say that if this was the case, then LM would immediately drop their requirement of M1.5 as definition of supercruise. The reasons are logical – creating a separate category for F-22 is pointless since there will be no exports, anyway. At the same time, kicking out the F-35 from the supercruise category just for that would be plain stupid – F-35 is and will be battling other designs in various competitios around the globe and it needs every argument that would help it win. Supercruise yes/no is definitely a selling argument (although I personally still see this feature as completely useless)

Again, the US DOD/USAF defined supercruise as >Mach 1.5, not LM. And there is no reason to drop/change it to include the F-35. The F-35 was never in the supercruise category, nor is/was it ever intended to be. Given that the F-35’s ‘supersonic cruise’ capability is most likley similar to (rather than significantly superior to) various competitors around the globe making a point of its cruise speed does not separate it others…

From Joe Baugher’s page:

“By the late 1980s, both the F-14 Tomcat and the A-6E Intruder were showing their ages and were cleary nearing the end of their useful lives. It was planned that a navalized version of the F-22 Raptor would replace the F-14 and that the A-12 would replace the A-6E. However, both programs were quite risky in that they required a considerable advance in technology and promised to be extremely costly and would probably take a very long time before they could be placed in service.

Consequently, the Defense Department ordered the Navy and the Air Force to consider derivatives of the F/A-18 Hornet as stopgap measures until the F-22 and A-12 could be made available. The project became known as the Hornet 2000, which was officially introduced in 1987.

The Hornet 2000 project was given a rather low priority and was at one time even in danger of cancellation. However, the demise of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War spelled the end of both the A-12 project and the navalized F-22, and the Hornet 2000 project became more important. On January 7, 1991, the troubled General Dynamics/McDonnell Douglas A-12 Avenger II attack aircraft was cancelled. The navalized F-22 project was also dropped.

McDonnell Douglas immediately proposed the Hornet 2000 as an alternative. Although it was essentially a new aircraft, it was assigned the designation F/A-18E (single seat) or F/A-18F (two-seat), implying that the proposal was merely a modified version of an already tried and true design. The Navy liked the idea and issued a formal declaration of an intent to proceed on May 12, 1992. Initial Operational Capability was to be in 2000, and the first carrier deployment was to be in 2003. The Navy signed the final F/A-18E/F contract on December 7, 1992. It called for five single-seat F/A-18Es, two 2-seat F/A-18Fs, plus three ground test airframes.”

So while it’s original intent was to get the USN by while the NATF and A-12 were developed, after their cancellation it was the only thing left in the hopper. Basically “better than nothin'”.

Sorry, the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is not the Hornet 2000. Just as the F/A-18 Hornet is not the YF-17. In both cases the former is based on the latter but in fact a different aircraft resulting from a separate later program. Although the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is closer to the Hornet 2000 than the F/A-18 Hornet is to the YF-17…

The Hornet 2000 was a late 80’s (pre A-12 & NAFT cancellation) DOD demanded consideration program (the Hornet 2000 was also marketed for export – most notably to France) that was given low priority by the USN.

The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is an early 90’s (post A-12 & NAFT cancellation) program based on the Hornet 2000 in lue of no other alternatives.

***

Thanks, the evidence is out there, and not too hard to find for anyone who wants to look…..GE reigns supreme.

That is no evidence of anything. Except perhaps if you are forced to have a ‘big mouth’ higher airflow inlet you might as well utilize it (& during the time the majority of F-16s were built many did). Of course the F100-PW-229 has negated (even reversed to some degree given its lower weight for similar thrust vs the F110-GE-129) the advantage of doing so. There is the F100-PW-232 vs the F110-GE-132 as well.

I stand by my claim: GE is the pre-eminent aircraft engine provdier. PW has floundered for the last 20 years or more, while GE continues to develop, re-develop, and flourish with regard to both military and commercial products. Yet, for some unknown reason, it appears that PW is the “fair haired boy” of the USAF. (F-22, F-35, etc.)

And I stand by the fact that P&W competes quite well in both the commercial market & military market and that the latest P&W fighter engines are not bettered by those of GE.

P&W was chosen for the F-22 & F-35 because the engine(s) it proposed was/is the lower cost/risk & more mature – and has exceeded expectations.