News and information about the F/A-22

The difference of F/A-22 and the fighter of 3rd generation...

The newest AW&ST this year:

LM has finished the initial operational test for F/A-22. During the test, the exchange ratio between F/A-22 and F-16 was more than 80:1, and the engineer of LM declared: "Even the F-16 stimulated to use the AESA radar and HMS, the result of fighting with Raptor was still almost nothing different" .

:: Original post editted by moderator for sensitive content ::

F/A-22

A. Dimensions:

• Length: 18.90m
• Height: 5.08m
• Wing span: 13.56m
• Wing area: 78.03m2
• Empty weight: 15,175 to 16,000 kg (Newest estimation)
• MTOW: 35,000kg+
• Internal Fuel: 10,400 to 11,400 kg (Estimation)
• Weapon load: 2,270 kg (Internal)
• Weapon load: 9,000 to 12,000 kg (Internal + External)
• Materials: 42% Ti, 23% CFC, 15% Al, 20% others.

B. Basic Flight Capability:

• Maximum speed, high-level: 2.0M+
• Maximum speed, sea-level: 800kts
• Climb rate, sea-level: 350+ meters per second (Estimation)
• Upper limit of operational height: 65,000 to 70,000 fts
• G-limit: -3.0 to 9.0 G (Normal operational limit), > 11.0 to 12.0 G (Structural limit).
• Instaneous turn rate: > 30 degrees per second
• Wing load: 285 to 290 kg / m2 (50% internal fuel with 6 AIM-120 and 2 AIM-9)
• Acceleration: less than 30 secs from 200 kts to Mach 1 (3% better than original requirement).
• Normal range of AoA: -60 ~ +60 degrees, no limit for the maneuver of YAW/ROW/PITCH in this range of AoA.
• Combat radius (http://www.afa.org/magazine/Jan2005/0105raptor.asp):
  • With a supercruise of 1.5-mach class for 100 NM during the mission: 405 NM / 750 km.
  • With a supercruise of 1.5-mach class for 50 NM during the mission: 455 NM / 840 km.
  • Sub-sonic cruise during the whole mission: 595 NM / 1,100 km
• Road length for take-off: 800 fts (Standard air-combat configuration):

C. Engine (Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 turbofan*2):

• Maximal military thrust: 25,500Ib*2
• A/B thrust: 35,000 Ib*2 (Official declaration)
• A/B thrust: 38,000 to 39,000 Ib*2 (Experts' estimations)
• T/W ratio: 10.0 to 12.0:1
• Compressive ratio: 35:1
• Bypass ratio: 0.16 to 0.25:1 (Estimation)
• Maximal core temperature: 1,770 C

D. Radar (AN/APG-77 AESA radar):

• GaAs T/R units: 1,500 to 2,200 units
• Maximal output: > 15 KWs
• Maximal detective range:
  • 460 km for passive mode and 230 km for active mode, 5% better than original requirement.
  • AW&ST 2000/03/17, 120 mile (192 km) at "Stealthy mode".
  • AW&ST 2000/03/17, 140 to 145 mile (260 to 270 km) at "Non-stealthy mode".
  • AW&ST 2000/03/17, radar image of 30 cm-class resolution for the target 100 miles (160 km) away.
  • AW&ST 2000/03/17, TWS 100 targets at the same time.

:: Original post editted by moderator for sensitive content ::

Good Job, your stats match mine, I wrote a paper in grad school right about the time they started flight test. I've received much info from Wright Patterson during that time.

Did you know we're scraping the program in favor of the F-35? Personnally, I can't believe it, a friend at LM told me so. I think it is the ultimate fighter, lets face it the F-16 has been around since 1972!! Perhaps VSTOL is the way to go, its been refined since the AV-8B, (the F-35, that is), I have no idea where they're going to hang ordinance on it, or fuel for that matter.

Are you sure it was such a good idea to mention all of the stats you received on it, kinda sensitive, don't you think?

Toan, what is an exchange ratio? I'm wondering because, 80:1 sure is a strong ratio against the F-16. Could that by any chance be the kill ratio of an F-22 against the F-16? I sure hope not.

In the past 1 to 2 years, the USAF's F/A-22s did many air-combat exercise with F-15 and F-16. The standard scenarios for these exercises are one F/A-22s against 3 to 4 F-15/F-16, or two F/A-22s against 6 to 8 F-15/F-16. It is said that in most condition, the F/A-22(s) would "kill" the F-15/F-16s totally in five minutes after the exercises had begun.

According to the information provided by the one member in this website, before the crash of one F/A-22 at the end of last year, the F/A-22s had "killed" 380 F-15/F-16 during the exercises, and just "lost" one Raptor which was "killed" by F-16. According to the declaration of LM this time, I think this means that:

1. F/A-22s had "killed" about 300 F-15 without any lost during the dozens of exercises with the standard scenarios of one F/A-22s against 3 to 4 F-15, or two F/A-22s against 6 to 8 F-15s.

2. F/A-22s had "killed" about 80 F-16 with only one lost during the several exercises with the standard scenarios of one F/A-22s against 3 to 4 F-16, or two F/A-22s against 6 to 8 F-16s. In addition, according to the declaration of LM, the F-16s equipped with AESA radar and HMS (which means F-16 E/F I think) made almost nothing different for the results of the exercises.

allenperos wrote:Good Job, your stats match mine, I wrote a paper in grad school right about the time they started flight test. I've received much info from Wright Patterson during that time.

Did you know we're scraping the program in favor of the F-35? Personnally, I can't believe it, a friend at LM told me so. I think it is the ultimate fighter, lets face it the F-16 has been around since 1972!! Perhaps VSTOL is the way to go, its been refined since the AV-8B, (the F-35, that is), I have no idea where they're going to hang ordinance on it, or fuel for that matter.

Are you sure it was such a good idea to mention all of the stats you received on it, kinda sensitive, don't you think?

Thanks for your compliments, Mr. Allenperos.

Yes, I have heard of the news that Pentagon had decided to shrink the productive number of F/A-22s once again (277 --> 160~181) at end of last year in order to save more money for the military mission of Iraq. The USAF hoped to sacrifice F-35 instead of F/A-22 at that time, but the Pentagon and the Congress have refused this idea.

The USAF declared that it will still try its best to bring the productive number of F/A-22s back, but the chance is...

Thanks Toan, I've studied the F-22 since 1994, I've built four TESTOR's 1/32 scale kits both w/gear up and down and with AIM9J and Sparrows? Correct me if I'm wrong, I just don't understand cutting back on them, they are so incredible, so was its competitor, the YF-23, which could maneuver just as well but couldn't deliver the goods as well as the F-22. I was working for McDonnell Douglas at the time, I'm trying to find a model of it, YF-23, 1/32 scale, any suggestions as to where I can find one? Give me a shout if you can, thanks..allenperos

The USA is running a huge budget deficit at the moment. There is no money to do things.

I would be very cautious about results of tests given past experience with other programmes.

The tests and reports can be manipulated to show whatever result you want
Unless you have an organisation that is independent and with authority you will never know if the tests are true.

Having said that, I believe the Fa-22 is a superb plane. Can it be defeated, I am sure it can.

Obviously Viper, you're right. We are short of budget, its a shame in the case of the FA-22, you must know something we don't. There will be an air show near my residence in May, I will keep my eyes open and ask some questions, take some pictures and submit them to F-16.net, stay tuned. Stats can be manipulated and in aerospace they are certainly possible.

Well, the Raptor program is not dead yet. The AF, and Dubya are both doing their d@mndest to keep the program alive, (which I think it will). Tyndall and Langley are both receiving new jets all the time, so if this program really were on life support, they would have already put the brakes on new aircraft arrivals. Why produce, and send more out to the units if you're going to turn around and kill it? That just doesn't compute.

Also, I must say that releasing all of those specs on the Raptor is not a good thing. Too much of that can leak out to the wrong people, so watch what you post around here guys.

Beers and MiGs were made to be pounded!

All of the datas I mentioned above are not from the classified datas of your country, but from the public declarations, news, magazines, books, websites of USA, Taiwan, and even the Mainland China.

As for leaking secrets, well, first of all, I don't think these public datas and estimations should be so important. Second of all, if they are really secrets, your country has let them leaking since many years ago from your news, books, magazines, and websites. Everyone can buy them or even just google them if they want. Third of all, in the military websites of Mainland china and Taiwan, these kinds of datas/analyses can be seen everywhere. The "wrong" people should have known them since a long time ago.

Well, if you guys really think that my post is so great that deserves the name of "Secret", just deleting this topics as you wish.

Just because it's "out there" doesn't necessarily mean we need to spread it further. You're right though. There needs to be some house cleaning on this site to clear up the potential INFOSEC and COMSEC issues that arise from time to time. Just think about who will read your posts, and if it really is necessary to share the information you're sharing. Remember the old phrase: "Loose Lips Sink Ships!"

Beers and MiGs were made to be pounded!

It is almost impossible for USA to cancel the project of Raptor now. Your government has paid the money for buying 76 F/A-22s at least today. The main problem is how serious will the project of Raptor be slashed once again???

The original requirement of the number of ATF in 1980s is 750 fighters. However, it has been slashed to 276~277 fighters in 2003, which has been much lower than the minimal acceptable number (381 fighters) the USAF thinks.

Including the R&D costs, the 276~277 F/A-22s would cost USA 71.8 billion USD to finish the project. At the end of 2004, the Pentagon decided to reduce the number to 180 fighters in order to save 10.4 billion USD. If this plan really come true, the average price for F/A-22 per unit will be:

A. (71.8 billion USD - 10.4 billion USD) / 180 = 341 million USD per fighter (Productive cost + R&D cost).

B. (36.8 billion USD - 10.4 billion USD) / 180 = 146.67 million USD per fighter (Productive cost only).

Well, I have just thought another possibility that why Mr. TC is so unhappy to my post. Did my post (collection from many different sources with my personal analysis) offense the laws of piracy or so on in USA??? If the answer is "Yes", I must apologize to the everybody here, and of course it is reasonable to remove my illegal posts.

TC wrote:Just because it's "out there" doesn't necessarily mean we need to spread it further. You're right though. There needs to be some house cleaning on this site to clear up the potential INFOSEC and COMSEC issues that arise from time to time. Just think about who will read your posts, and if it really is necessary to share the information you're sharing. Remember the old phrase: "Loose Lips Sink Ships!"

Beers and MiGs were made to be pounded!

I am afraid that I really don't understand that what are you afraid of. "Loose Lips Sink Ships" , yes, in my country, there is also the similar kind of old phrase. But the collection of public news and datas from AW&ST, IDR, Janes, Military Websites and so on with my personal and shallow calculation, analysis, estimation, or even just guess, will sink the Raptor?? This is really the first time that someone thinks my post as such great and powerful.

As for "Just think about who will read your posts, and if it really is necessary to share the information you're sharing." , I am sorry but I don't really understand what you mean once again. All I know is that this is the column for discussing the Raptor, and I posted my personal understanding, analysis, and discussion towards the Raptor. That's all.

Well, as I mentioned before, if you guys really believe a common person's posts just for personal interesting is so dangerous that has threatened the safety of USA, delete them as you wish.

I think the Chinese, North Koreans, Iranians, the Republic of Palau etc, etc have teams going through all the professional aerospace publications available, looking for information.
That is what they have always done, same as the USSR during the cold war.

This is just a hard subject and not the scope of this international website because we will just never agree on what is acceptable to the USA's members specially.

have a look at a discussion here:
http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... 65&start=0