Forum: F-22A Raptor

Newbie Joined: Mar 13, 2008 Posts: 2 Status: Offline

How accurate is the listing that the f-22's combat radius is 410 nm? It's not significantly heavier than the f-15 which has a listed combat radius of 1061 nm's and they're around the same size, the f-22 should have lower drag considering the internal weapons carriage, and I suspect a higher fuel fraction.

Are the new engines really that thirsty given their higher thrust. If any of this is classified feel free to say that the information is classified and ignore the post.

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

Elite Joined: Dec 14, 2005 Posts: 634 Status: Offline

According to the Official USAF F-22 Raptor Fact Sheet... (What they want you to know...) Wink

Ref: http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=199

Quote:

Range: More than 1,850 miles ferry range with 2 external wing fuel tanks (1,600 nautical miles)

To figure out the range without external tanks, do the math based on this other official fact

Quote:

Fuel Capacity: Internal: 18,000 pounds (8,200 kilograms); with 2 external wing fuel tanks: 26,000 pounds (11,900 kilograms)

Happy computing. Laughing

Last edited by Raptor_claw on Mar 13, 2008 - 04:51 AM; edited 1 time in total

That_Engine_Guy wrote:

To figure out the range without external tanks, do the math based on this other official fact

Quote:

Fuel Capacity: Internal: 18,000 pounds (8,200 kilograms); with 2 external wing fuel tanks: 26,000 pounds (11,900 kilograms)

Happy computing. Laughing

I'm not sure if you were being serious or not, but...

You would also have to have factor in the not-insignificant drag from the tanks in order to get a halfway reasonable result from those computations. Safe to say that info isn't in the public domain.

Also, you have to be careful comparing stated range numbers for different a/c. The specific mission set to define 'combat radius' is not necessarily the same for different aircraft - it's very easy to get into an apples-to-oranges situation.

Newbie Joined: Mar 13, 2008 Posts: 2 Status: Offline

http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/data.html which I'm guessing is the official site for the f-22 has the combat radius listed at 410 nm, which is worryingly low compared to the older generation of fighters such as the Su-27 and the F-15

Here are the "official" figures: 405 Nmiles with 100 Nmiles supercruise; 595 subsonic only (http://www.afa.org/magazine/jan2005/0105raptor.asp) And it's not low, it's are longer than F 15/16 (unrefuelled). BTW, that's the combat radius (fly to the target, a few minutes to shot the target and fly back)

cru wrote:

And it's not low, it's are longer than F 15/16 (unrefuelled). BTW, that's the combat radius (fly to the target, a few minutes to shot the target and fly back)

And the figure of 1000nm for the F-15 isn't a radius?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15_Eagle

Veteran Joined: Mar 10, 2006 Posts: 338 Status: Offline

concincider the source, wiki isnt the end all be all of things like range. What they arent telling you is that that figure is likely including three 600 gallon tanks hanging off the bottm. go to internal only, like the F-22 figure ir, and it would drop to 500nm with ALL of it being subsonic

Regardless of what constitutes F-22's specific combat radius, whether it's 410 or 440 or 462 miles, etc, unless there's a total misinformation policy about the real internal fuel capacity, the Raptor absolutely is ASAP needing specially designed LO drop tanks (perhaps with entire pylon dropping too). Maximal Endurance while maintaining LO is the missing link for this beast. Otherwise it largely defeats the purpose.

Elite Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1011 Status: Offline

As I stated in another thread, stealth tanks are not a priority right now. Currently, the tanks carried by the Raptor can be punched with the pylon. Further, its internal fuel capacity (actual) is public knowledge, so I don't know why anyone would question that.

Veteran Joined: Jul 01, 2007 Posts: 325

There has to be a trade off. Paint peeling speed or range/endurance (and we have tankers). Very Happy

Supercruise does NOT mean "efficient cruise". You still gotta burn more gas to get more thrust, AB or no.

Of course the true combat radius of the F-22 is unlimited*

* with tanker support

Very Happy

checksixx wrote:

As I stated in another thread, stealth tanks are not a priority right now. Currently, the tanks carried by the Raptor can be punched with the pylon. Further, its internal fuel capacity (actual) is public knowledge, so I don't know why anyone would question that.

Thanks for your replies, sixx, on this and other threads re: your info/views on LO tanks.

That_Engine_Guy wrote:

According to the Official USAF F-22 Raptor Fact Sheet... (What they want you to know...) Wink

Ref: http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=199

Quote:

Range: More than 1,850 miles ferry range with 2 external wing fuel tanks (1,600 nautical miles)

To figure out the range without external tanks, do the math based on this other official fact

Quote:

Fuel Capacity: Internal: 18,000 pounds (8,200 kilograms); with 2 external wing fuel tanks: 26,000 pounds (11,900 kilograms)

Happy computing. Laughing

That would give about 1100 nm of RANGE on internal fuel (without considering drag effects from the tanks). If range is defined as the absolute distance covered, and radius as the maximum distance coverable before having to return to the point of origin, then 410 nm (with a few minutes over target) would seem reasonable if a bit on the low end of true capability.

I recall an F-22 pilot saying that "the only thing he wished the F-22 had was longer range." He is either comparing it to another AC, loves it so much he wants to stay up in it or it lacks in that area. In the ATF compitition the range was one of the req's. Has that been one of the trade-offs for more powerful engines? The US strike philosophy of "kick the door down" in enemy territory and create strategic havoc, would be hampered by a less than strategic AC. Stealth creates a lot of opportunities that other AC do not enjoy. The F-22 would not be so stealthy if it had to tanker up or use drop tanks, unless the stealth req. is only for behind enemy lines.

I remember an article in Popular Science or Popular Mechanics from back in the early days of the ATF trials. It said that one of the main requirements, since it would be a "stealthy" aircraft, was to be able to carry an internal fuel load equivalent to the F-15Cs internal AND external fuel capacity. I assume they did not quite achieve those results.

Forum: F-22A Raptor

F-22 Raptor range