Forum: F-22A Raptor

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:

IIRC the Bats top speed of 2.8 hold several world records including Ordanance to Altitude and Ordanance to Speed. Apparently 37km was done with 4,400 external payload. I cant find the record but I am sure I saw that M2.8 was done is a similar config.

'Bat' was a helluva an aircraft indeed. USAF + world customers wouldn't have the F-15 today if it weren't for it. Just curious... if your memory serves you correctly (IYMSYC) lol new acronym, was that 4,400 lbs external payload or 4,400 kg?? Sheesh, that would be a monster speed/alt record if in Kg payload..

Quite arguably today, the monster is the 200+ strong mig-31M/BM... and a monster at that, with which not to be countered lightly.

F-16.net Sponsor

The payload was 2,000 kg, hense 4,400 lbs. I agree that the Hound is a monster, more agile, better radar (first ESA radar, and a HUGE one at that) better missiles, more fuel, better T/W, internal cannon. Kinematicly it is the ONLY fighter that can harass a Raptor, but electronicly it is still far behind, as it should be for being a much older design. Oh and before anyone freaks out on me I already know that my statement of "more agile" doesn't mean it actually WAS agile, it just means its G limit was increased... to 5. Even old Tom Turkey could out turn that at high speed.

There's a thread on it somewhere around here, but the MiG-25 was a joke. But it is proof that we (US) and their (Soviets) propoganda up like ice cream. We thought the -25 was some horrendous monster that could shoot anything we had flying down. Really it was just a poorly slapped together interceptor for the SR71. Steel (that's right, steel) parts, exposed rivets, 2.2g limit with full tanks and missiles, anything you can think of done poorly, was. Now the MiG-31 was a much more refined version. And one should never take an enemy, ever. That leads to stupid mistakes and dead people.

What was that 10% rule with respect to revealing stuff? It can't be more than 10% true? So they could still be lieing through their teeth and you think they're pretty accurate.

LordOfBunnies wrote:

Really it was just a poorly slapped together interceptor for the SR71.

I believe the Mig-25 FoxBat was an answer to the mach 3 B-70 Valkyrie that never saw operation but was canceled. One of the the two XB-70 built suffered a midair crash with its chase F-104. The surviving XB-70 is in Dayton at the musem.

Quote:

Neither could the MiG, apparently. That mythical Mach 3.2 top end is just that, mythical. Mach 2.8 was the actual "turbine-safe" top end for the 'Bat. And even that's stretching it. AFAIK pilots were discouraged to exceed Mach 2.5 during intercepts (assuming they could go that fast with those BIG missiles hanging under the wings).

I guess what I was trying to say was that the F-22's engines would probably blow out before the MiG-25's would. I think that Mach 3.2 was achievable, but with great damage risk. Gotta do some engine work after that, if not just plain replacing them. Mach 2.83 was what the engines were redlined at, so Mach 3, of course, would have been discouraged.

LordOfBunnies wrote:

There's a thread on it somewhere around here, but the MiG-25 was a joke. But it is proof that we (US) and their (Soviets) propoganda up like ice cream. We thought the -25 was some horrendous monster that could shoot anything we had flying down. Really it was just a poorly slapped together interceptor for the SR71. Steel (that's right, steel) parts, exposed rivets, 2.2g limit with full tanks and missiles, anything you can think of done poorly, was. Now the MiG-31 was a much more refined version. And one should never take an enemy, ever. That leads to stupid mistakes and dead people.

A poorly trained Iraqi pilot flying "a joke" MiG-25 shot down highly trained USN LCDR Michael Speicher flying an F-18 on the first night of Desert Storm. Poorly trained North Vietnamese pilots flying "poorly slapped together" MiG-17s, -19s, and -21s shot down USAF and USN F-4s by the dozen.

Actual combat is not a video game. S**t happens. There is fratricide, mid-air collisions, fuzes don't function, targets are mis-identified, bad assumptions, mechanical failures, running out of fuel, loss of situational awareness, bad decisions, the surprise of the unexpected, and the general fog of war. Ask the F-15 pilots who went to India to fight old MiG-21s with a new ECM pod about confronting the unexpected.

In a perfect world, an F-15 should always beat a MiG-25. This isn't a perfect world.

And relating to the original purpose of this thread, this is from the AW&ST February 9th issue, page 25, in an article about the F-22:

"The operational arguments focus on combat effectiveness against top foreign fighter aircraft such as the Russian Su-27 and MiG-29. Lockheed Martin and USAF analysts put the loss-exchange ratio at 30-1 for the F-22, 3-1 for the F-35 and 1-1 or less for the F-15, F/A-18 and F-16."

What I find interesting is the 30:1 v 3:1 kill ratios of the F-22 and F-35. This study would imply that the F-22 is ten times better than the F-35 in the air-to-air arena. The F-22 doesn't cost ten times more than the F-35. In fact, the latest numbers show that late model F-22s are cheaper than early model F-35s. Thus, to me it would appear that the F-22 is far more cost effective than the F-35 when measured by the "$$$:kill ratio".

Another way to look at this: In an hypothetical war against an adversary armed with 300 SU-27 and MiG-29 class fighters, and assuming a 30:1 exchange ratio, the USAF would expect to lose 10 F-22s while shooting all 300 enemy aircraft down. On the other hand, it would cost the USAF 100 F-35s to destroy the same number of enemy aircraft with a 3:1 kill ratio.

(Before the F-35 crowd gets too bent out of shape, realize that the study was done by LockMart and the USAF, both the manufacturer and operator of the F-35.)

Kryptid wrote:

Quote:

Also I think the first time a Foxbat tries to outrun a F-22 (if there are any left flying at that time) you will have a surprised Foxbat pilot and a pissed off crewchief!

Mach 3.2? I don't know...

I realize that the F-22 has a lot more thrust than the MiG-25, but I'm not sure the engines could take the temperatures generated at those speeds. The MiG-25 was designed with an emphasis on flying very high and very fast. The F-22 had an emphasis on supercruise and may be able to go up to Mach 1.7 - 2.0 without burners. Those differences in requirements probably produced very different engine designs with different efficiencies at different speeds. I do remember someone saying that the F-22 could go faster than the F-15 on this board (he didn't say in what configuration, though. As far as I know, he may have meant a loaded F-22 vs. a loaded F-15, where the F-15 would have a drag disadvantage and the F-22 would not).

So, the Foxbat goes mach 3 for what, a couple minutes... The F-22 goes what, well over mach 2 for the same time, then supercruises at just under mach 2 how long? I'll stick with my statement, a pissed off crewchief and a toast Foxbat. The F-22 couldn't shoot down the Foxbat at both their max speeds, but as soon as the turbins are toast or the Foxbat runs out of gas, game over...

Meteor wrote:

What I find interesting is the 30:1 v 3:1 kill ratios of the F-22 and F-35. This study would imply that the F-22 is ten times better than the F-35 in the air-to-air arena.

I think it’s illustrative that signature alone is not a panacea and I think some folks get a little too swooned away by VLO in of itself. The F-22 brings raw kinetics, better signature and larger A-A weapons load to that table so by a raw parametric comparison it seems quite obvious. What I found the most interesting is that AFA presentation that energo was kind enough to post.

The presentation is very illuminating in that it details the advantages of supercruise. I’ve seen LM/USAF presentations showing how a supercruising raptor has twice the survivability at M 1.5 then at M 0.9 when facing SAM threats but the advantages of supercruising against air threats was eye opening. Roughly 4.5 times more survivable at M 1.7 than at M 0.9 for the same signature. What’s more interesting is that there is very little increase in A-A survivability going from M 0.9 to M 1.3 but the last 0.4 increase in mach number affects a dramatic increase. Add in the other factors and it’s easy to see why the F-22 is more effective. I have to admit I’m surprised that it’s that much of a difference though (30:1 to 3:1) and JSF officials have kinda been all over the place on exchange ratios 3:1, 4:1 to 6:1.

BDF

Scottsmn:

Quote:

Kinematicly it is the ONLY fighter that can harass a Raptor, but electronicly it is still far behind, as it should be for being a much older design.

Hmmm, can we be sure about that? Didn't the 31-BM variant commence advance development in '06? Presumably with electronic upgrades? Notwithstanding the 1.4m basic Zaslon-M radar, it probably hasn't been evaluated yet as to new BM variant's capability, including capability of ECM, datalink and IRST, etc. Thus, it's possible that electronically a newer BM variant has potentially more capable and/or powerful avionics it at least some catagories? Regardless; the low-profile and secretive Foxhound-BM type alone and especially with new unprecedented weapon systems (and even excluding Su-xx/Mig-35 variants), IMHO should not be counter-balanced lightly by 'rest of world' in current and future deterrence capabilities (where relevant).

Meteor:

Quote:

And relating to the original purpose of this thread, this is from the AW&ST February 9th issue, page 25, in an article about the F-22:

AW&ST is def one of the more 'stimulating' sites for such articles - thanks for posting the interesting Raptor blog articles. BTW, I wonder if Gen. Schwartz has delivered his private F-22 procurement requirements yet to Mr. Gates as noted in the latest F-22 blog? And if so, if this latest assessment will be made public, as suggested in article??

No, the -31 should never be underestimated. In Desert Storm a MiG-25 evaded being shot down by several USAF and USN jets (reports indicated that up to 14 missiles were fired at this Bat) through sheer power and speed. and as we have already discussed the hound is better in every way.

tank_top wrote:

So, the Foxbat goes mach 3 for what, a couple minutes... The F-22 goes what, well over mach 2 for the same time, then supercruises at just under mach 2 how long? I'll stick with my statement, a pissed off crewchief and a toast Foxbat. The F-22 couldn't shoot down the Foxbat at both their max speeds, but as soon as the turbins are toast or the Foxbat runs out of gas, game over...

This is probably the only time an F-22 would be the tortoise in a tortoise/hare situation.

Sounds so odd to discuss the Raptor as being slower, but in all reality the Hound would not know the raptor is there until after AMRAAM launch from within the NEZ, no pissed of crew chiefs (except the Hounds, whos plane is missing) and a toast Hound.

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:

Sounds so odd to discuss the Raptor as being slower, but in all reality the Hound would not know the raptor is there until after AMRAAM launch from within the NEZ, no pissed of crew chiefs (except the Hounds, whos plane is missing) and a toast Hound.

With regards to Raptor vs Hound NEZ scenario being discussed, I'd pontificate that one would still want at least the capability to engage an adversary in NEZ as 'stand-offable' as possible (e.g., exploiting best equivalent range of a/c's Radar's range)?

I.E., at the very least, Dwight's 'boosted AMRAAM' concept would be a worthy 'performance-upgrade' consideration..

P.S., talking about Raptor 'performance'; here's a vid recently posted on Youtube with impressive Red-flag take-off characteristics (if you skip over the cool Harrier jump jet take-offs and watch the lead F-22 at around 2:50 point). (I'd like to hope the F-35 could even come close to that, fully loaded).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-57gTQe ... re=related

it didnt seem all that impressive to me, did I miss something?

Forum: F-22A Raptor

F-22 performance statistics released