Forum: F-22A Raptor

I may be a little late with this.

F15’s & 16’s have problems with the F-22 for the obvious reason. Nice work if you can get it.

The F-4 had problems with the F-15 for just the opposite reason. You had no problem finding them. They were usually all over you. You knew you couldn’t turn with him and you knew you couldn’t often outrun him or his weapons. Doesn’t leave many options.

Pre-slammer, the problem then for the F-4 was that if you survived his radar missiles and the F-15 survived your radar missiles, you would probably end up in a visual fight due to something called f-pole. His radar missile had the longer one of course. At this point, there was little chance short of heavily outnumbering them for you to get out.

The last “get out” point probably occurs much earlier now, and you don’t even know you’re there. Do a Cobra, throw out the drag chute, wind the clock. Good luck.

regards, OL

F-16.net Sponsor

Was the F-4 vs. F-15 duel as lopsided as the F-15 vs. F-22? Is stealth (as of now) the driving force in ACM? If it is then it makes these other characteristics rather secondary.

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 - 09:19 AM Posts: 1092

F16guy wrote:

(The one thing they have in common is that at operational altitudes they can both outmanoever an F-15.)

Asia... were you saying at operational altitudes the Vulcan could outmaneuver an F-15? That's a bold statement. I admit I haven't seen anything on the Vulcan about maneuverability but just the sheer mass of the bomber skidding through turns (as shown in your 1955 video) shows that statement is probably incorrect. And if you stand by this statement, what are you basing it on? Just curious...

I have no idea how many Gs the Vulcan could sustain at its typical operational altitude and airspeed, but the thing had a wing area of 3,554 sq. ft. and an MTOW of 190,000 lbs. Compare this with an F-15C's wing area of 608 sq. ft. and MTOW of 68,000 lbs. Compare the wing loadings for MTOW of both aircraft (the most conservative estimates possible):

Vulcan
W/S = 190,000 lb / 3,554 ft^2 = 53.5 lb/ft^2

F-15C
W/S = 68,000 lb / 608 ft^2 = 111.8 lb/ft^2

Of course wing loading doesn't take into account the actual aerodynamics of the aircraft in question, so it can't really tell you how well it will perform in comparison to another. Sustained turn performance comparisons require specific knowledge of both aircraft's aerodynamic and propulsion performance characteristics. Nevertheless, it's not inconceivable that the Vulcan might out-turn an F-15C at high altitude given the fact that its wing loading at MTOW is less than half that of the F-15C's. It's hard to imagine bombers performing better than fighters (in a very technical sense), but it's possible under certain conditions. Again though... I have no idea what the Vulcan's sustained turn performance is at high altitude.

strykerxo wrote:

Is stealth (as of now) the driving force in ACM? If it is then it makes these other characteristics rather secondary.

I hope so. Stealth and a very long range active rather than semi-active weapon.

F-4 (or any a/c) vs. F-15 became less lopsided with the AIM-9L.

regards, OL

Stealth has proved itself to be a driving force. With all its iterations and advances, it should be for the foreseeable future. The F-22 combined with new EW, HMD and missile combos should be the ticket for many years to come. Designing AC with all the capability built in, so that we don't get caught with our pants down. When the F-4 was introduced w/o a gun and less m/v, we were stymied by nimble AC (Mig-17/19) that forced a turning fight. Then when our foes developed AC that were faster & less m/v we had the edge on them Mig-21/23/25. Then they compensated with the Mig-29 & Su-27. The F-22 is the lead and the rest of the world follows.

Raptor_One wrote:

F16guy wrote:

(The one thing they have in common is that at operational altitudes they can both outmanoever an F-15.)

Asia... were you saying at operational altitudes the Vulcan could outmaneuver an F-15? That's a bold statement. I admit I haven't seen anything on the Vulcan about maneuverability but just the sheer mass of the bomber skidding through turns (as shown in your 1955 video) shows that statement is probably incorrect. And if you stand by this statement, what are you basing it on? Just curious...

I have no idea how many Gs the Vulcan could sustain at its typical operational altitude and airspeed, but the thing had a wing area of 3,554 sq. ft. and an MTOW of 190,000 lbs. Compare this with an F-15C's wing area of 608 sq. ft. and MTOW of 68,000 lbs. Compare the wing loadings for MTOW of both aircraft (the most conservative estimates possible):

Vulcan
W/S = 190,000 lb / 3,554 ft^2 = 53.5 lb/ft^2

F-15C
W/S = 68,000 lb / 608 ft^2 = 111.8 lb/ft^2

Of course wing loading doesn't take into account the actual aerodynamics of the aircraft in question, so it can't really tell you how well it will perform in comparison to another. Sustained turn performance comparisons require specific knowledge of both aircraft's aerodynamic and propulsion performance characteristics. Nevertheless, it's not inconceivable that the Vulcan might out-turn an F-15C at high altitude given the fact that its wing loading at MTOW is less than half that of the F-15C's. It's hard to imagine bombers performing better than fighters (in a very technical sense), but it's possible under certain conditions. Again though... I have no idea what the Vulcan's sustained turn performance is at high altitude.

Operational conditions at entry were similar to the delivery profile for a Blue Steel. Steady state conditions of 60 to 65K 0.98M.

With that big wing at high subsonic Mach you can manoever effectively (assertively), you have additional advantages when the ROE require positive visual identification.

Take a look at some pictures of the Vulcan cockpit, how many other big bombers have fighter sticks installed?

Well, just because a Bomber (B-1) (and I think B-2) has a stick doesn't make it a fighter.

But after your presentations, I decided to do a little research on the Vulcan. Impressive bomber.

Obviously utilizing MTOW to make a point about wing loading for both aircraft is a good starting point for comparison (on the ground) but it obviously leaves out many other important factors (already highlighted by Raptor_One, nice to see you back by the way, probably just haven't been in the forums you've responded to lately).
Probably not going out on a limb by saying a lot of big aircraft have better wing loading ratios than fighters and could by that math, out perform fighters. I have turned with heavies down low and they can turn very tight based on their speed (low) and my speed (high), but I won't say they outmaneuvered me, just caused me to use a different fight philosophy more vertical and spherical vs their only available flat/ horizontal maneuvering.

I'll state I have no experience with a bomber of the Vulcan's caliber especially at High altitude. So I will concede it is possible it could out turn me or other fighters (once) but then all the other factors of airframe G limit, G avail, Thrust to Weight, and airspeed, are in the fighter's favor. Not many fights are determined by one turn. Asia, I know (or think I know) you were probably driving at the one turn. Let me know if I'm wrong.

Interesting discussion. Caused me to go look at the Vulcan, notice it was a very impressive jet and wonder why more bombers weren't built like it.

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 - 09:19 AM Posts: 1092

I don't know what asiatrails was referring to, but I was talking about sustained turn performance. At high altitude, sustained turn performance is probably more important than instantaneous. So if the Vulcan could sustain a 3.5 G turn at 50,000 ft. and the F-15C only a 3 G turn, the Vulcan would be able to outmaneuver the F-15C at that altitude (in a technical sense). Most BFM tactics don't really apply to engagements that remain at high altitude. I mean... you're pretty limited up there. You either start really really fast and dart in and out of the fight (sometimes trading energy for even more altitude and then vice versa) making few sharp turns, or you start at the speed that gives you your best sustained turn rate and just perform a level turn after the merge. If you have a better sustained turn rate than your opponent, it's doubtful your opponent will be able to use a single max performance turn to gain the advantage. Let's just say that an F-15 would want to be well supersonic before entering any type of turning fight with an Avro Vulcan or similar.

I would imagine that the F-22, with TVC, would be able to cope easily with a supermaneuverable Avro Vulcan at altitude. On the other hand, why would a fighter ever choose to merge??? Guess this is all so unrealistically hypothetical we may as well envision a Vulcan - Eagle furball as we may discuss the existence of unicorns...

Well, actually I would not necessarily want to be super at least not for long since my turn radius is huge over the mach. Cool

But anyway I can't say that I'd really care if a bomber was able to out turn me at altitude (again I don't think I'll find one that can) but if one did, then I'd just get my speed back and try again...what is the bomber going to do to me??

Just stay away from the Tu-95's tail gun and the B-52's (range of about 3000 ish feet pro'ly). Not like any one of them got A-A missiles to shoot me with. Wink

Lets go shoot some unicorns. Twisted Evil

Okay back to the AirShow maneuvers...

Raptor_One wrote:

F16guy wrote:

(The one thing they have in common is that at operational altitudes they can both outmanoever an F-15.)

Asia... were you saying at operational altitudes the Vulcan could outmaneuver an F-15? That's a bold statement. I admit I haven't seen anything on the Vulcan about maneuverability but just the sheer mass of the bomber skidding through turns (as shown in your 1955 video) shows that statement is probably incorrect. And if you stand by this statement, what are you basing it on? Just curious...

I have no idea how many Gs the Vulcan could sustain at its typical operational altitude and airspeed, but the thing had a wing area of 3,554 sq. ft. and an MTOW of 190,000 lbs. Compare this with an F-15C's wing area of 608 sq. ft. and MTOW of 68,000 lbs. Compare the wing loadings for MTOW of both aircraft (the most conservative estimates possible):

Vulcan
W/S = 190,000 lb / 3,554 ft^2 = 53.5 lb/ft^2

F-15C
W/S = 68,000 lb / 608 ft^2 = 111.8 lb/ft^2

Of course wing loading doesn't take into account the actual aerodynamics of the aircraft in question, so it can't really tell you how well it will perform in comparison to another. Sustained turn performance comparisons require specific knowledge of both aircraft's aerodynamic and propulsion performance characteristics. Nevertheless, it's not inconceivable that the Vulcan might out-turn an F-15C at high altitude given the fact that its wing loading at MTOW is less than half that of the F-15C's. It's hard to imagine bombers performing better than fighters (in a very technical sense), but it's possible under certain conditions. Again though... I have no idea what the Vulcan's sustained turn performance is at high altitude.

Have not seen you on the forums in quite awhile. Good to have your technical insight here....

Newbie Joined: Oct 10, 2008 - 05:02 PM Posts: 15

When and where is the next show?

Oct 18 – 19 Dobbins ARB, GA

Nov 1 – 2 Lackland AFB, TX

Nov 8 – 9 Nellis AFB, NV

hope you make it to one Crazy Pilot

Forum: F-22A Raptor

F-22 Airshow maneuvers