Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Okay, just to clear up some things. First of all, asking whether the F-15 is faster than the F-22 is like asking whether the F-15 is faster than the Concorde. Higher top speed? F-15, obviously. Higher sustained speed? Easily the Concorde. The Concorde LIVED at Mach 2 cruising speed, and each one accumulated thousands of hours at that velocity. An F-15 with 6,000 hours on it may have hit Mach 2 or higher for at most a few minutes, likely in single digits, of its entire airframe life. In just ONE mission, an F-22 probably hits close to Mach 2 for longer than an F-15 will in its entire airframe life. It's just not even close, and silly to discuss it.

Secondly, the F-22 is not Mach limited principally due to its canopy. First of all, no VG inlets, one of the principal limiting factors. Even more so, however, is that its RAM coatings are not designed to survive much past Mach 2. Sure, it may be able to fly beyond Mach 2, but not for long, unless you want to hand back a peeled-off F-22 to one very pissed-off crew chief.

Any further discussion on this topic is silly and unnecessary.

F-16.net Sponsor

Keep in mind that the max airspeed restriction placed on the Raptor is mostly as a result of the RAM all over it. It starts to peel above a certain airspeed. I would propose that structurally the Raptor is capable of muuuuch higher performance than the normal Mach 1-2 envelope we see so much. Just a supposition on my part. Imagine what a stripped down version could do. Think back to the STREAK EAGLE. The F-15 that broke all the time to climb records. How would the STREAK RAPTOR look if one was let off the chain? Smile

Enthusiast Joined: Apr 23, 2009 - 08:44 AM Posts: 97

deltabravo wrote:

Keep in mind that the max airspeed restriction placed on the Raptor is mostly as a result of the RAM all over it. It starts to peel above a certain airspeed.

am curious as to the source for this. you don't normally apply RAM "all over". (on top of which, you can't do so anyway)

Its applied to discrete elements to influence returns, applying it like a veneer "all over" would actually defeat the purpose and intent of it

Pardon my poor choice of words. By all over, I meant more than one application in more than one specific location.

Enthusiast Joined: Apr 23, 2009 - 08:44 AM Posts: 97

deltabravo wrote:

Pardon my poor choice of words. By all over, I meant more than one application in more than one specific location.

No probs. You had me wondering for a moment.... I was starting to shudder at the thought of some of the SP posters and their "views" on sig management. Smile

*NOTE*

I have spit this topic because much of it has wandered off the original topic. Since it has pretty much changed into a discussion of the F-15 and it's motors, I have created an "(F-15) Need for speed" thread and is in the "Modern Military Aircraft" forum. Probably I could have placed it in the "Modern Aircraft of the Cold War" forum, but since it has snippets of other aircraft mentioned, I think the former will be suitable.

The F-22 relevant posts have obviously remained so please continue with relevant discussions in the corresponding topics and forums.

SCENARIO:
I am a Marine, fighting some D-bags.
There is an F-22 with JDAMs 200 Miles away.
There is an A-10 fully loaded 150 Miles away.
An enemy tank batallion arrives and starts firing on us.

While the A-10 is more suited for the role, I'm glad the F-22 will be there in 8 minutes. In the 20 minutes it would have taken the A-10 to travel the shorter distance Marines would have died.

Air-to Air works similarly, do you want to intercept a target aircraft before or after they are in range to fire on their target?

eleanordriver wrote:

SCENARIO:
I am a Marine, fighting some D-bags.
There is an F-22 with JDAMs 200 Miles away.
There is an A-10 fully loaded 150 Miles away.
An enemy tank batallion arrives and starts firing on us.

SCENARIO:
You invent a scenario such that the only conclusion is the one that you prefer.

Sorry, Eleanordriver, i'm not usually the type to ridicule others on boards like this but, I hope you can appreciate, a few changes to the numbers in your scenario and the conclusion is completely different. E.g. if the A10 were only 90 miles away and the F22 were 300 miles distant then which would you prefer; eyes-on targetting and the moral boost of seeing an A10 'in theatre' or the contrail of a distant F22 and the hope that the co-ords you provided for JDAM targetting were accurate (oh, and that the tank in question hasn't moved since)?

Yeah, laser JDAMs are apparently available but you would need to do the designating.....doesn't sound like an enticing proposition when under tank fire.

The F-22 cannot use LGBs, only JDAMS (and then only 2).

It has SDB, but cannot engage moving targets until the SDB2 comes out.

SpudmanWP wrote:

The F-22 cannot use LGBs, only JDAMS (and then only 2).

There is, apparently, a JDAM version with supplemental laser guidance. This is not the same as the classic Paveway weapon, mind, it's a specific sub-version of the JDAM.

So the question is whether such a version of the JDAM is/could be integrated with the F-22? Does LJDAM inform the pilot that it has received a laser signal, or does the aircraft need to 'see' the scatter from the designator before the weapon is dropped. For that matter, assuming the GPS/Inertial is the primary guidance with laser serving as a back-up, does a laser signal need to be received by either aircraft or weapon before release?

Still, my main point was that creating a scenario with two choices and then providing the criteria by which to decide between the two choices is an excercise in futility (or stating the obvious?).....

Pecker wrote:

eleanordriver wrote:

SCENARIO:
I am a Marine, fighting some D-bags.
There is an F-22 with JDAMs 200 Miles away.
There is an A-10 fully loaded 150 Miles away.
An enemy tank batallion arrives and starts firing on us.

SCENARIO:
You invent a scenario such that the only conclusion is the one that you prefer.

Sorry, Eleanordriver, i'm not usually the type to ridicule others on boards like this but, I hope you can appreciate, a few changes to the numbers in your scenario and the conclusion is completely different. E.g. if the A10 were only 90 miles away and the F22 were 300 miles distant then which would you prefer; eyes-on targetting and the moral boost of seeing an A10 'in theatre' or the contrail of a distant F22 and the hope that the co-ords you provided for JDAM targetting were accurate (oh, and that the tank in question hasn't moved since)?

Yeah, laser JDAMs are apparently available but you would need to do the designating.....doesn't sound like an enticing proposition when under tank fire.

UGH...
There's always the air-to-air scenario. You can't argue that.
This is the same argument that everyone comes up with against the F-22. It is a fighter, so it's unnecessary because we don't have much use for it in Afghanistan. Not that we'll ever go to war again elsewhere...lol

Same scenario, a Strike Eagle is 200 miles out and the A-10 is 100 miles out, the Strike Eagle still gets there sooner, with high precision weapons. Tank or building/trench/cave/whatever is destroyed. The speed is even more important if there is any sort of anti-aircraft weaponry on site.

Speed is useful in air-to-air or air-to-ground, regardless of which type of aircraft.

I know that this is the internet, but don't argue solely to support your original opinion.

eleanordriver wrote:

There's always the air-to-air scenario. You can't argue that.

We weren't discussing the air-to-air scenario. And i wasn't arguing it.

eleanordriver wrote:

This is the same argument that everyone comes up with against the F-22. It is a fighter, so it's unnecessary because we don't have much use for it in Afghanistan.

Hold your horses there, eleanordriver, at no point have i suggested that the F22 is unnecessary.

My point was that cherry-picking a scenario that highlights the F22 as a good ground-pounder purely because it's faster is more akin to political spin that a valid comparison. It does nothing to take account of war-load, suitability of war-load to the threat, avionics (the F22 cannot laser designate), durability and stamina/loiter capability.

eleanordriver wrote:

Same scenario, a Strike Eagle is 200 miles out and the A-10 is 100 miles out, the Strike Eagle still gets there sooner, with high precision weapons.

Well, at least the S/Eagle has a air-ground focus, but the cherry picked scenario remains.

I have absolutely no doubt that the Strike Eagle is a brilliant piece of kit and betters the A10 in it's particular role. Equally, there are areas where the A-10 excels over both F15E and F22.

Like i said, you can tune ONE scenario to support whatever conclusion you prefer, but that doesn't eliminate the competition in every other scenario.

eleanordriver wrote:

The speed is even more important if there is any sort of anti-aircraft weaponry on site.

Manoeuverability and survivability play a key role here too, and i doubt that the F-15 is a capable in either area low down and in a restricted environment.

eleanordriver wrote:

I know that this is the internet, but don't argue solely to support your original opinion.

I hadn't quoted an opinion.....i had only pointed out that cherry-picking a scenario that supports only one conclusion does no-one any favours and masks a more balanced comparison of two airframes in a particular role.

eleanordriver wrote:

SCENARIO:
I am a Marine, fighting some D-bags.
There is an F-22 with JDAMs 200 Miles away.
There is an A-10 fully loaded 150 Miles away.
An enemy tank batallion arrives and starts firing on us.

Bring the F-22, of course! But, redirect the A-10 to bomb whoever is doing your battlefield intel if they missed a tank batallion!
But that's just me.
fisk

eleanordriver wrote:

SCENARIO:
I am a Marine, fighting some D-bags.
There is an F-22 with JDAMs 200 Miles away.
There is an A-10 fully loaded 150 Miles away.
An enemy tank batallion arrives and starts firing on us.

Then you direct the B-1 with a bay full of WCMD/SFW from the CAS stack to your position BUSTER. It handles the rest.

"Manoeuverability and survivability play a key role here too, and i doubt that the F-15 is a capable in either area low down and in a restricted environment."

Sorry for the typo.....i meant to say "i doubt that the F-15 is as capable [as the A10]" in that environment.