F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2006, 01:04
by sferrin
Probably a can of worms but...

A quote from another board:

Some snippets from that article

Raptor Rocks
Airspacemag Aug-Sept 2006

Shower was joined at Oshkosh that day by Col. Thomas Bergeson, who entertained us with high-speed, excruciatingly loud passes in another Raptor while Shower flew off to collect his airplane for its next stunt. One of them he calls "the helicopter." The airplane is falling straight down, but rotating in a spin. This is one of Shower’s favorites—the guy must have a stomach made of titanium.

The jet can sustain over 30 degrees per second of yaw, he marvels. "Thirty degrees per second in an F-15? The beeper’s going off and I’m in an uncontrollable spin. But in an F-22, it’s totally controllable, and you’re just going ‘dit da dit da duh,’ " he hums. "And I’ll push the pedal the other way, and it will just stop and go 30 degrees in the opposite direction." Shower laughs in gleeful disbelief that an airplane will allow him to have this much fun.....

He’s seen demos and videos of performances by the Russian MiG 29 and Sukhoi Su 35, and admits that their maneuverability is probably on a par with the F-22. "I can do everything they can do and vice versa," he says. "We can all do some pretty neat stuff. But I love this part of it: That’s all they have. They don’t have the stealth , they don’t have the supercruise, they don’t have the integrated sensors, the avionics. We have an aircraft that does everything a fighter pilot has ever wanted to do. It has it all—you can tell by the price tag," he says, (about $137 million per copy, or $338 million if you count in all the Air Force's research costs).

For their performance, which started at 2:40 p.m., Shower and Bergeson took off from Langley, 800 miles away, at about 1:25. "We were going slow," Shower says. "We were only doing about .9 Mach. Over the continental United States, there’s only a couple of places we’re allowed to go supersonic so we don’t scare everybody. But we did the math and figured we could be there if we supercruised in about 25 or 30 minutes.


25 minutes = 1920 mph
30 minutes = 1600 mph

Informed comments preferred please. (I can come up with all the uninformed ones myself thanks :D )

RE: Probably a can of worms but. . . .(Raptor speed)

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2006, 01:20
by LinkF16SimDude
But we did the math and figured we could be there if we supercruised in about 25 or 30 minutes."

25 minutes = 1920 mph
30 minutes = 1600 mph


And that's prolly in the mid to high 40's. Above the commerical stuff. Take it to something 'round 50K to 60K (where the Mach is lower) and it may even be a touch faster! :twisted:

Re: Probably a can of worms but. . . .(Raptor speed)

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2006, 01:26
by idesof
Definitely a can of worms. Now, I am pretty certain the Raptor can do Mach 2 supercruise despite all the naysayers (based on a variety of sources including Dozer's now deleted remarks, which I will not repost out of respect). Now, as for the figures above, quite simply, no f*cking way. Just, impossible. Speed of sound at 30,000 ft. is 678.2 mph. That means 1,600 mph is Mach 2.36. No way. Even LESS way is 1,920 mph, which is MACH 2.83!!! Are you sure it's 800 miles away, and not 800 kilometers. Hey, if NASA and Lockheed can f*ck up metric and English measurements and lose a billion-dollar spacecraft, I'm sure a reporter and/or a couple of pilots can as well!

Re: Probably a can of worms but. . . .(Raptor speed)

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2006, 01:30
by idesof
What IS interesting, and revealing (and I think these two pilots may be court-martialed, by the way), is that they talk about supercruising for 25 to 30 minutes. I've read some ridiculous figures that maintain the Raptor can only supercruise for five minutes (!!!). If it can supercruise for at least 25 to 30 minutes, do the math. It's range, as I've maintained, is very impressive then, even at Mach 1.72, its generally-accepted supercruise speed.

Re: Probably a can of worms but. . . .(Raptor speed)

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2006, 01:33
by sferrin
idesof wrote:Definitely a can of worms. Now, I am pretty certain the Raptor can do Mach 2 supercruise despite all the naysayers (based on a variety of sources including Dozer's now deleted remarks, which I will not repost out of respect). Now, as for the figures above, quite simply, no f*cking way. Just, impossible. Speed of sound at 30,000 ft. is 678.2 mph. That means 1,600 mph is Mach 2.36. No way. Even LESS way is 1,920 mph, which is MACH 2.83!!! Are you sure it's 800 miles away, and not 800 kilometers. Hey, if NASA and Lockheed can f*ck up metric and English measurements and lose a billion-dollar spacecraft, I'm sure a reporter and/or a couple of pilots can as well!


Well firstly since it's a DIRECT quote of the Raptor pilot who made the flight I'd assume he'd know how far he had to fly. Secondly I double checked the as-the-crow-flies distance with Google Earth and got 799 miles. (If you were wondering about Google Earth's accuracy I was able to zoom in on a parked B-2 and measure it's wingspan at 172 feet so it ain't too shabby :)

Re: Probably a can of worms but. . . .(Raptor speed)

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2006, 01:37
by idesof
sferrin wrote:Well firstly since it's a DIRECT quote of the Raptor pilot who made the flight I'd assume he'd know how far he had to fly. Secondly I double checked the as-the-crow-flies distance with Google Earth and got 799 miles. (If you were wondering about Google Earth's accuracy I was able to zoom in on a parked B-2 and measure it's wingspan at 172 feet so it ain't too shabby :)


All I can tell you, then, is that this is going to be all over the net, people are going to be freaking out, there will be chaos and mayhem in the streets, and these pilots will be court-martialed. I am only slightly exaggerating. If there isn't some sort of mistake, and these pilots didn't just loose their math marbles, this is seriously, seriously f*cked up. Unbelievable. As in, I just can't believe it. There must be some reasonable explanation...

RE: Re: Probably a can of worms but. . . .(Raptor speed)

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2006, 01:52
by LordOfBunnies
Guys, if you can find me the nose angle on the F-22, I can tell you max design Mach number. It's called the Theta-Beta-Mach relation. It's in every basic aerodynamics book. There's this really cool looking graph you get to use and everything. I have a strange feeling that information is classified so I really don't want to know.

Re: RE: Re: Probably a can of worms but. . . .(Raptor speed)

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2006, 02:51
by sferrin
LordOfBunnies wrote:Guys, if you can find me the nose angle on the F-22, I can tell you max design Mach number. It's called the Theta-Beta-Mach relation. It's in every basic aerodynamics book. There's this really cool looking graph you get to use and everything. I have a strange feeling that information is classified so I really don't want to know.



You sure there aren't exceptions? Look at the Shuttle. It's got a pretty dull nose and it goes pretty fast. Then consider things like Talos (Mach 3) and ASALM (Mach 5.5). Forget the F-22 for the moment, do those match up to the "Theta-Beta-Mach" relation? I think we'd both agree that sharp doesn't necessarily mean fast (X-3) but does dull or not as sharp always mean slow?

RE: Re: RE: Re: Probably a can of worms but. . . .(Raptor sp

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2006, 03:08
by LordOfBunnies
You WANT an oblique shock on the F-22 or any other jet. This is because you'll get less wave drag, pressure loss, aero heating with oblique shocks. That would mean the flow would be subsonic around at least part of the jet which would cause all sorts of weird things. When dealing with things that are meant to go supersonic, sharp means better because you'll get less drag. Oblique shocks are just normal shocks at an angle, but you get better aerodynamic properties with them.

Its all about analysis, if you need a round nose for say IR tracking, well you'll need a more powerful rocket motor to get it up to that speed. But you can also use the rocket motor as part of your explosive if you're trixy about it and have any of it left. You can't go as fast with a normal shock in front of you. I can go into a full aerodynamics lecture on this subject, but I'd have to wait until the weekend (homework and all that fun stuff).

As for the shuttle, well it's design condition is for blunt body reentry. That's why it has the ginormous rocket engines to get it into space. It reenters at about Mach 30 or so. With the normal shock relations you get a temperature rise of about 17000 K. This would normally melt EVERYTHING, but the air ionizes and only rises about 7000 K or something like that. It uses this to slow down, if it were a sharp shape, you'd get even larger temperature rises on the leading edge.

My main point is, you just need more power to go with a normal shock, it's not impossible just harder. The F-22 WILL generate oblique shocks just like every other fighter (except maybe the early ones like Me-262 and F-86).

Arrrrr, the laws of science be a harsh mistress.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Probably a can of worms but. . . .(Rapto

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2006, 03:18
by sferrin
LordOfBunnies wrote:You WANT an oblique shock on the F-22 or any other jet. This is because you'll get less wave drag, pressure loss, aero heating with oblique shocks. That would mean the flow would be subsonic around at least part of the jet which would cause all sorts of weird things. When dealing with things that are meant to go supersonic, sharp means better because you'll get less drag. Oblique shocks are just normal shocks at an angle, but you get better aerodynamic properties with them.

Its all about analysis, if you need a round nose for say IR tracking, well you'll need a more powerful rocket motor to get it up to that speed. But you can also use the rocket motor as part of your explosive if you're trixy about it and have any of it left. You can't go as fast with a normal shock in front of you. I can go into a full aerodynamics lecture on this subject, but I'd have to wait until the weekend (homework and all that fun stuff).

As for the shuttle, well it's design condition is for blunt body reentry. That's why it has the ginormous rocket engines to get it into space. It reenters at about Mach 30 or so. With the normal shock relations you get a temperature rise of about 17000 K. This would normally melt EVERYTHING, but the air ionizes and only rises about 7000 K or something like that. It uses this to slow down, if it were a sharp shape, you'd get even larger temperature rises on the leading edge.

My main point is, you just need more power to go with a normal shock, it's not impossible just harder. The F-22 WILL generate oblique shocks just like every other fighter (except maybe the early ones like Me-262 and F-86).

Arrrrr, the laws of science be a harsh mistress.


I understand that but take a look at the noses of Talos and ASALM they're both relatively squat.

Re: Probably a can of worms but. . . .(Raptor speed)

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2006, 03:20
by PhillyGuy
idesof wrote:What IS interesting, and revealing (and I think these two pilots may be court-martialed, by the way), is that they talk about supercruising for 25 to 30 minutes. I've read some ridiculous figures that maintain the Raptor can only supercruise for five minutes (!!!). If it can supercruise for at least 25 to 30 minutes, do the math. It's range, as I've maintained, is very impressive then, even at Mach 1.72, its generally-accepted supercruise speed.


There really would be no point to trump the Raptor's supercruise capability and to put such an emphasis on it, design and performance wise, if it could only do it for five minutes, so I think those figures are bull. And I don't think the fact that the F-22 can supercruise for an extend period of time is that unknown either. Just last night the History Channel had a special about stealth aircraft and mentioned that the F-22 can supercruise for nearly a half an hour.

Also, as I understood it Dozer said there were a few places in the CONUS where they could go supersonic, perhaps they included that in their time calculation? It would make sense, time wise. BTW (in my personal opinion) I think the F-22 can probably supercruise around Mach 1.8

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Probably a can of worms but. . . .(R

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2006, 03:40
by LordOfBunnies
AHA I've figured out the mysteries of the Talos and ASALM. They are both ramjet powered, the Talos is designed to generate a normal shock at the entrance to the ramjet section. A ramjet requires that to work properly. It then generates obliques everywhere else that's needed. You see sloped surfaces around what seems to be the engine entrance to generate obliques around the normal.

The ASALM (which is a bit** and a half to find pictures of) also seems to be rather sharp where it counts. It's also ramjet powered, so it has to generate a normal shock in front of its entrance. It seems pointy enough to generate the right oblique shocks (top and bottom). Design condition is where the oblique shock hits the engine lip. It might generate strong oblique shocks (most oblique shocks are called weak shocks) on the sides, but again, I'd need more precise measurements of the angles in question.

It's the big missile looking thing under the wing.

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2006, 03:53
by sferrin
Yeah ASALM is one of those things that make me go "WTF were they thinking when they cancelled it". Anyway think I'd rather end this "what is a shockwave" line and get back to the original topic (not that I don't find it interesting but I'd rather have the original topic addressed rather than the subtopic as I'd rather not have the thread waunder.)

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Probably a can of worms but. . . .(R

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2006, 04:10
by Raptor_One
Why do you guys insist on trying to predict an aircraft's performance capabilities based on statements like these? They tell you nothing. Aircraft don't start off at point A at their cruising altitude and cruising airspeed, nor do they end at point B at those conditions. The distance covered in climb and descent (especially in airspace dominated by lots of civilian traffic) is not insignificant.... not at all. You're also not taking into account the distance covered actually accelerating up to maximum supercruise velocity (whatever that may be). They accelerate in AB, but even so it's not going to be an insignificant distance covered. You cannot infer anything from these kinds of statements. There are too many variables that are unknown. I don't understand the need to convince oneself that an aircraft can go really really fast. At least not in this fashion. It's not an engineering analysis so holds no real merit. It's just silliness.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Probably a can of worms but. . .

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2006, 04:16
by sferrin
Raptor_One wrote:Why do you guys insist on trying to predict an aircraft's performance capabilities based on statements like these? They tell you nothing. Aircraft don't start off at point A at their cruising altitude and cruising airspeed, nor do they end at point B at those conditions. The distance covered in climb and descent (especially in airspace dominated by lots of civilian traffic) is not insignificant.... not at all. You're also not taking into account the distance covered actually accelerating up to maximum supercruise velocity (whatever that may be). They accelerate in AB, but even so it's not going to be an insignificant distance covered. You cannot infer anything from these kinds of statements. There are too many variables that are unknown. I don't understand the need to convince oneself that an aircraft can go really really fast. At least not in this fashion. It's not an engineering analysis so holds no real merit. It's just silliness.



So are you saying you know more about what the F-22 can or can't do than the PILOT? You spend a lot of effort and bluster in an attempt to force people to agree with you it seems without ever addressing the issue. Why did the pilot say what he did?

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Probably a can of worms but.

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2006, 04:46
by Raptor_One
Of course that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that you cannot make the ridiculously simple calculation of...

(800mi/30min)*(60min/1hr)=1600mph (or 1920mph for 25 min)

.... and assume that this is the speed an F-22 would be flying for the entire length of the flight. You cover distance when you're climbinb, accelerating up to speed, decelerating down from speed, and descending. This distance is not insignificant. You are assuming that no distance is covered while flying at speeds slower than the maximum cruising speed. Go ahead and continue this silliness if you insist. Also, it's obvious that these numbers the pilots were throwing out were very rough approximations since there's a huge difference between 25 and 30 minutes flying time. It could have been 30 to 35 minutes too. Maybe even... gasp... 40 minutes. I somehow doubt that the pilots really went through the trouble of doing full calculations to determine exactly how long it would have taken them to fly direct from point A to point B. That's a pretty tedious thing to do using performance charts from a -1 flight manual.

You really shouldn't take these kinds of statements so seriously. If a pilot tells you it would take them between 25 and 30 minutes to get somewhere, they're not being that serious themselves. That is a huge variance. In combat that kind of variance is unacceptable! LOL! 5 minutes is the difference between life and death. Ughh... you guys don't get it.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Probably a can of worms

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2006, 05:25
by sferrin
Raptor_One wrote:Of course that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that you cannot make the ridiculously simple calculation of...

(800mi/30min)*(60min/1hr)=1600mph (or 1920mph for 25 min)

.... and assume that this is the speed an F-22 would be flying for the entire length of the flight. You cover distance when you're climbinb, accelerating up to speed, decelerating down from speed, and descending. This distance is not insignificant. You are assuming that no distance is covered while flying at speeds slower than the maximum cruising speed. Go ahead and continue this silliness if you insist. Also, it's obvious that these numbers the pilots were throwing out were very rough approximations since there's a huge difference between 25 and 30 minutes flying time. It could have been 30 to 35 minutes too. Maybe even... gasp... 40 minutes. I somehow doubt that the pilots really went through the trouble of doing full calculations to determine exactly how long it would have taken them to fly direct from point A to point B. That's a pretty tedious thing to do using performance charts from a -1 flight manual.

You really shouldn't take these kinds of statements so seriously. If a pilot tells you it would take them between 25 and 30 minutes to get somewhere, they're not being that serious themselves. That is a huge variance. In combat that kind of variance is unacceptable! LOL! 5 minutes is the difference between life and death. Ughh... you guys don't get it.


So first you say they don't take the trouble to do the calculations and then you say 5 min is the difference between life and death. So which is it?

And no I don't think they engaged warp drive at Langley at went zero to 1600 mph in a split second. I thought that would be so obvious that it didn't need to be pointed out but apparently it isn't :roll: On the other hand if I'd put "average" at the beginning of those two numbers would it have kept you from these tirades? Doubtful. Also by your line of "reasoning" it could have just as easily been ...gasp...15 minutes :roll:

25- 30 minutes sounds like at least a little bit of thought went into it and you can take your paragraph of flight profile and jettison it because they simply said it would take 25-30 minutes to cover the 800 miles and all I was referring to is the AVERAGE speed which is obvious.

So how about getting off your soapbox because you don't have any more of a clue about the Raptor's actual capabilities than I do and attempt to stay on topic?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Probably a can of worms

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2006, 06:12
by idesof
sferrin wrote:
Raptor_One wrote:Of course that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that you cannot make the ridiculously simple calculation of...

(800mi/30min)*(60min/1hr)=1600mph (or 1920mph for 25 min)

.... and assume that this is the speed an F-22 would be flying for the entire length of the flight. You cover distance when you're climbinb, accelerating up to speed, decelerating down from speed, and descending. This distance is not insignificant. You are assuming that no distance is covered while flying at speeds slower than the maximum cruising speed. Go ahead and continue this silliness if you insist. Also, it's obvious that these numbers the pilots were throwing out were very rough approximations since there's a huge difference between 25 and 30 minutes flying time. It could have been 30 to 35 minutes too. Maybe even... gasp... 40 minutes. I somehow doubt that the pilots really went through the trouble of doing full calculations to determine exactly how long it would have taken them to fly direct from point A to point B. That's a pretty tedious thing to do using performance charts from a -1 flight manual.

You really shouldn't take these kinds of statements so seriously. If a pilot tells you it would take them between 25 and 30 minutes to get somewhere, they're not being that serious themselves. That is a huge variance. In combat that kind of variance is unacceptable! LOL! 5 minutes is the difference between life and death. Ughh... you guys don't get it.


So first you say they don't take the trouble to do the calculations and then you say 5 min is the difference between life and death. So which is it?

And no I don't think they engaged warp drive at Langley at went zero to 1600 mph in a split second. I thought that would be so obvious that it didn't need to be pointed out but apparently it isn't :roll: On the other hand if I'd put "average" at the beginning of those two numbers would it have kept you from these tirades? Doubtful. Also by your line of "reasoning" it could have just as easily been ...gasp...15 minutes :roll:

25- 30 minutes sounds like at least a little bit of thought went into it and you can take your paragraph of flight profile and jettison it because they simply said it would take 25-30 minutes to cover the 800 miles and all I was referring to is the AVERAGE speed which is obvious.

So how about getting off your soapbox because you don't have any more of a clue about the Raptor's actual capabilities than I do and attempt to stay on topic?


I have to go with Sferrin on this one. The pilot is quoted as stating, "But we did the math and figured we could be there if we supercruised in about 25 or 30 minutes." That implies more than a licking the finger and holding it up to the air to gauge windspeed approach. In trying to remain as cordial as possible (I say we ought to avoid terms like "silly" and "you don't get it"), you, Raptor_One, have always asked for specific quotes to get an idea of the Raptor's supercruise abilities. Now, that you get a specific quote, you discard it because it doesn't jive with your expectations. What you want is not an indication of any actual capability but proof of what you believe/expect. Anything else is baloney in your book. In short, you are just not playing fair. You insist on playing checkers when in fact everyone else may be playing chess. In this case, your preconceptions simply may not apply. I have my own preconceptions, mind you, and I think there is something here that doesn't make sense, but Sferrin has got a point: this is what a pilot said, and he said he did the math, and therefore it is not so easy to dismiss.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Probably a can of wo

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2006, 06:14
by Raptor_One
Okay... if you don't get that it's silly to try to estimate how fast an F-22 Raptor can fly without afterburners from crude estimates like the ones quoted, I suppose no amount of logic will make a difference here. And yes... you were referring to the average speed based on crude estimates. My point is that if the average speed for a 30 minute trip is 1600 mph (which amounts to well over Mach 2.0 at altitude), what would the maximum speed actually be? Mach 3.0? Hahaha... c'mon now. Don't take these estimates seriously. I'm sure the pilots were not doing a serious calculation when quoting the 25 to 30 minutes. If they were, they wouldn't have given you a "25 to 30 minutes" range. They'd have given you a figure, perhaps rounded up or down to the nearest minute.

You can calculate exactly how long such a flight would take starting from zero velocity on one runway to zero velocity on the other. It's a tedious set of calculations and I highly doubt these Raptor pilots were sitting around with their -1 manuals, paper, pencils, and calculators doing them for the reporter's benefit. If you have a -1 manual for any aircraft, I suggest you try to do a similar calculation. I bet you it takes about 30 minutes (not counting any time you needed to actually figure out how to use the charts properly). Honestly, all these pilots were trying to say is that they have very fast jets. Very very fast. And that's true. They weren't giving you textbook numbers for you to go and do a math problem and figure out exactly how fast the F-22 can supercruise at. If they were, then the F-22 supercruises faster than a MiG-31 in max AB. If that's what you want to believe, be my guest. But it's silly.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Probably a can of worms

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2006, 06:21
by Raptor_One
idesof wrote:I have to go with Sferrin on this one. The pilot is quoted as stating, "But we did the math and figured we could be there if we supercruised in about 25 or 30 minutes." That implies more than a licking the finger and holding it up to the air to gauge windspeed approach. In trying to remain as cordial as possible (I say we ought to avoid terms like "silly" and "you don't get it"), you, Raptor_One, have always asked for specific quotes to get an idea of the Raptor's supercruise abilities. Now, that you get a specific quote, you discard it because it doesn't jive with your expectations. What you want is not an indication of any actual capability but proof of what you believe/expect. Anything else is baloney in your book. In short, you are just not playing fair. You insist on playing checkers when in fact everyone else may be playing chess. In this case, your preconceptions simply may not apply. I have my own preconceptions, mind you, and I think there is something here that doesn't make sense, but Sferrin has got a point: this is what a pilot said, and he said he did the math, and therefore it is not so easy to dismiss.


I wonder what kind of math they were doing that made them come up with 25 or 30 minutes? Which one was it? This must have been some pretty fuzzy math. Even if you took the 30 minute figure, it would mean that the F-22 had an average speed of well over Mach 2. Not only that, but if the average speed is well over Mach 2, that means the max speed is even FASTER than well over Mach 2. Fine... now you have your evidence. Go tell everyone that the F-22 supercruises close to Mach 3. That's about how fast it would have go at some point if it averaged well over Mach 2. So we've now jumped from Mach 2 supercruise to nearly Mach 3. Cool. What's next? Mach 3.5? If you guys would do a little more math yourselves, you'd realize how silly this is.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Probably a can of worms

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2006, 06:28
by idesof
Raptor_One wrote:
idesof wrote:I have to go with Sferrin on this one. The pilot is quoted as stating, "But we did the math and figured we could be there if we supercruised in about 25 or 30 minutes." That implies more than a licking the finger and holding it up to the air to gauge windspeed approach. In trying to remain as cordial as possible (I say we ought to avoid terms like "silly" and "you don't get it"), you, Raptor_One, have always asked for specific quotes to get an idea of the Raptor's supercruise abilities. Now, that you get a specific quote, you discard it because it doesn't jive with your expectations. What you want is not an indication of any actual capability but proof of what you believe/expect. Anything else is baloney in your book. In short, you are just not playing fair. You insist on playing checkers when in fact everyone else may be playing chess. In this case, your preconceptions simply may not apply. I have my own preconceptions, mind you, and I think there is something here that doesn't make sense, but Sferrin has got a point: this is what a pilot said, and he said he did the math, and therefore it is not so easy to dismiss.


I wonder what kind of math they were doing that made them come up with 25 or 30 minutes? Which one was it? This must have been some pretty fuzzy math. Even if you took the 30 minute figure, it would mean that the F-22 had an average speed of well over Mach 2. Not only that, but if the average speed is well over Mach 2, that means the max speed is even FASTER than well over Mach 2. Fine... now you have your evidence. Go tell everyone that the F-22 supercruises close to Mach 3. That's about how fast it would have go at some point if it averaged well over Mach 2. So we've now jumped from Mach 2 supercruise to nearly Mach 3. Cool. What's next? Mach 3.5? If you guys would do a little more math yourselves, you'd realize how silly this is.


I don't think these pilots would have gone through the trouble of accounting for take off and landing, acceleration, etc. If indeed they did "do the math," they were calculating the amount of time it would have taken to cover the 800 miles distance at max supercruise. In which case, as stated earlier, would have been Mach 2.34 or thereabouts based on a 30 min. supercruise profile. While doubtful, it is not beyond the realm of possibility. Of course I do not believe Mach 3 supercruise or anywhere near that. If you had read my post more carefully, I made clear I have my own doubts. However, I pointed out that since this is a direct quote, it cannot be discounted as mere silliness.

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2006, 06:48
by Delta
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123009594

It can for sure go Mach 1.7 without burners, or so says General Jumper.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Probably a can of worms

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2006, 07:15
by Raptor_One
idesof wrote:I don't think these pilots would have gone through the trouble of accounting for take off and landing, acceleration, etc. If indeed they did "do the math," they were calculating the amount of time it would have taken to cover the 800 miles distance at max supercruise. In which case, as stated earlier, would have been Mach 2.34 or thereabouts based on a 30 min. supercruise profile. While doubtful, it is not beyond the realm of possibility. Of course I do not believe Mach 3 supercruise or anywhere near that. If you had read my post more carefully, I made clear I have my own doubts. However, I pointed out that since this is a direct quote, it cannot be discounted as mere silliness.


Wait... but was it 25 or 30 minutes. Let's just take 25 minutes because we know how exacting those pilots must have calculating things. And of course they were trying to set things up so people like you could calculate the exact maximum supercruise speed. Wait a second though... they weren't exact. It's either Mach 2.fast or Mach 2.faster. So you're telling me they really didn't do a realistic calculation. They just took the maximum supercruise speed of the F-22 and found out how long it would take to cover 800 miles at that speed? So these pilots must be really stupid, because they just gave away classified information. Or did they think people couldn't do simple math? I really need to stop paying attention to this silliness. You guys are going to drive me nuts. I'm outa here.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Probably a can of worms

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2006, 07:49
by idesof
Raptor_One wrote:
idesof wrote:I don't think these pilots would have gone through the trouble of accounting for take off and landing, acceleration, etc. If indeed they did "do the math," they were calculating the amount of time it would have taken to cover the 800 miles distance at max supercruise. In which case, as stated earlier, would have been Mach 2.34 or thereabouts based on a 30 min. supercruise profile. While doubtful, it is not beyond the realm of possibility. Of course I do not believe Mach 3 supercruise or anywhere near that. If you had read my post more carefully, I made clear I have my own doubts. However, I pointed out that since this is a direct quote, it cannot be discounted as mere silliness.


Wait... but was it 25 or 30 minutes. Let's just take 25 minutes because we know how exacting those pilots must have calculating things. And of course they were trying to set things up so people like you could calculate the exact maximum supercruise speed. Wait a second though... they weren't exact. It's either Mach 2.fast or Mach 2.faster. So you're telling me they really didn't do a realistic calculation. They just took the maximum supercruise speed of the F-22 and found out how long it would take to cover 800 miles at that speed? So these pilots must be really stupid, because they just gave away classified information. Or did they think people couldn't do simple math? I really need to stop paying attention to this silliness. You guys are going to drive me nuts. I'm outa here.


What's with the attitude? You really ought to try to calm down. If we really are so far afield commenting on this, and it is so stupid for us to even be talking about it, then, it's simple: don't worry about it, it's useless chatter, and you'll be just perfectly peachy and honkey dorey. No harm done. We'll just be couple of Fonsies and be cooool about it, okay?

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2006, 08:19
by FoamtanaS
No matter how fast it is said to be, no one knows how fast it will have gone by the time it’s retired. I would not doubt it is at or above 2000mph. When all is said and done, it will be the top aircraft of its time for many of it’s capabilities not just it’s speed. To this day no one will give a strait answer on how fast the blackbird was/is. A good friend of mine who eventually new he calculated issues related to the sled and its intakes would not tell me how fast and I know he new as they tracked it with a new fangled radar in the early 90’s. The most I got out of him was a smile when I said 7,000 mph.

First time poster and R/C pilot
Lee Ulinger

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Probably a can of worms but.

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2006, 11:55
by toan
Mach 1 = 295 m/sec = 1,062 km/hr = 660 mile/hr at the height of Stratosphere (from 36,000fts to 165,000 fts).

Therefore, the declaration of "Supercruising with the speed of 1,600~1,920 mile at the height of 40,000~60,000 fts" is actually equal to declare that Raptor could cruise with the speed of Mach 2.42~2.91 without using its A/Bs............

So, the great pilot's great calculation proves that Raptor should actually be a fighter of 3.5~5.0+ Mach class........What a great discovery and achievement, I see.................. :) .

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Probably a can of worms but.

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2006, 14:35
by Neno
Hello everybody i'm registered today (but i was following by some time this nice forum). I'm an italian boy, and i'm a ATF program's fans since i was child.
I'm sorry for my (eventually) mistakes but my english is a bit poor.. :oops:
Iìd like to tell my opinion about this declarations: Ok Toan, Sincerely Mach 3.5 - 5.0 is too much even for the wonderful F-22 :) , but i think maibe mach 2.42 - 2.91 even with AB would be still a good new, considering that someone sad the raptor max speed whith AB was about Mach 1.7 - 1.8. Please consider that no many other aircraft would do better than mach 2.5.
I was reading for years that the problem with Raptor's top speed wasn't at all in engine's power or in aerodinamics, but simply in deterioration (by high bisonic temperatures) of stealth coating and termoplastic materials of which airframe is made of. So even considering "ONLY" mach 2.4 - 2.9 the cases are 3:
1) USAF did for years a grat work of "disinformation".
2) In some way they are now able to refresh or avoid overheating of F-22 airframe (this would be nice also for IR-stealth characteristics..).
3) Materials of which the f22 are made of are evolved or simply changed (this would justify weight increase).

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Probably a can of worms

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2006, 15:44
by idesof
Neno wrote:Hello everybody i'm registered today (but i was following by some time this nice forum). I'm an italian boy, and i'm a ATF program's fans since i was child.
I'm sorry for my (eventually) mistakes but my english is a bit poor.. :oops:
Iìd like to tell my opinion about this declarations: Ok Toan, Sincerely Mach 3.5 - 5.0 is too much even for the wonderful F-22 :) , but i think maibe mach 2.42 - 2.91 even with AB would be still a good new, considering that someone sad the raptor max speed whith AB was about Mach 1.7 - 1.8. Please consider that no many other aircraft would do better than mach 2.5.
I was reading for years that the problem with Raptor's top speed wasn't at all in engine's power or in aerodinamics, but simply in deterioration (by high bisonic temperatures) of stealth coating and termoplastic materials of which airframe is made of. So even considering "ONLY" mach 2.4 - 2.9 the cases are 3:
1) USAF did for years a grat work of "disinformation".
2) In some way they are now able to refresh or avoid overheating of F-22 airframe (this would be nice also for IR-stealth characteristics..).
3) Materials of which the f22 are made of are evolved or simply changed (this would justify weight increase).


Hello Neno and welcome to the forum! I believe Toan was trying to be sarcastic in his comments.

A huge portion of the Raptor's structure is made out of titanium, I believe a higher percentage than any previous aircraft. Food for thought.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Probably a can of wo

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2006, 16:21
by habu2
What most everyone here seems to fail to grasp is the simple fact that no matter what some general says or some pilot brags or some reporter misquotes, it's none of your f***ing business what the top speed, cruising speed, or supercruise endurance is. The performance parameters of the F-22 are classified, and no one who has access to or knowledge of those parameters is going to (accurately) quote them in public. If they do it will be a short trip to Leavenworth, and they know that.

When some one breaks into your house do you say "I have a gun and 9 bullets" ??? No, you just shoot the m***** f***** and be done with it. You never show your full hand to your enemy.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Probably a can of worms but.

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2006, 16:25
by toan
Personally, I think if you change "800 miles" to "800 km", then we will get a more reasonable result:

1. For their performance, which started at 2:40 p.m., Shower and Bergeson took off from Langley, 800 "miles --> km" away, at about 1:25.

A: 800 km / 1.25 hr = 640 km/hr = With the average speed of 0.6 Mach for this 800 km long trip that fits the National laws (Of course, the average speed is not equal to the maximal speed during this trip).


2. But we did the math and figured we could be there if we supercruised in about 25 or 30 minutes.

A: 800 km / 25~30 mins = 1600~1920 km/hr = With the average supercruise speed of 1.51~1.81 Mach for this 800 km long trip.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Probably a can o

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2006, 16:30
by idesof
habu2 wrote:What most everyone here seems to fail to grasp is the simple fact that no matter what some general says or some pilot brags or some reporter misquotes, it's none of your f***ing business what the top speed, cruising speed, or supercruise endurance is. The performance parameters of the F-22 are classified, and no one who has access to or knowledge of those parameters is going to (accurately) quote them in public. If they do it will be a short trip to Leavenworth, and they know that.

When some one breaks into your house do you say "I have a gun and 9 bullets" ??? No, you just shoot the m***** f***** and be done with it. You never show your full hand to your enemy.


Ah, well, problem is, the USAF repeatedly talks about the Raptor's performance. Offers figures. Promotes its plane. So long as they go public with any piece of equipment, and proceed to talk it up, it is fair game to discuss it at will. So, there you have a pilot, talking about going 800 miles in 25 to 30 minutes. If you have a problem, take it up with him. The cat is out of the bag, and nothing you can say will now make it go back inside.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Probably a can of worms

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2006, 16:36
by idesof
toan wrote:Personally, I think if you change "800 miles" to "800 km", then we will get a more reasonable result:

1. For their performance, which started at 2:40 p.m., Shower and Bergeson took off from Langley, 800 "miles --> km" away, at about 1:25.

A: 800 km / 1.25 hr = 640 km/hr = With the average speed of 0.6 Mach for this 800 km long trip that fits the National laws (Of course, the average speed is not equal to the maximal speed during this trip).


2. But we did the math and figured we could be there if we supercruised in about 25 or 30 minutes.

A: 800 km / 25~30 mins = 1600~1920 km/hr = With the average supercruise speed of 1.51~1.81 Mach for this 800 km long trip.


Toan, I said EXACTLY the same thing. However, Sferrin said he calculated the distance as being 800 miles. I have a feeling that someone is messing up their metric and English units. Again, if NASA and Lockheed and dozens of rocket scientists (literally rocket scientists) can screw up with their measurements, so can two pilots who get carried away bragging about their plane.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Probably a can o

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2006, 16:51
by sferrin
habu2 wrote:What most everyone here seems to fail to grasp is the simple fact that no matter what some general says or some pilot brags or some reporter misquotes, it's none of your f***ing business what the top speed, cruising speed, or supercruise endurance is. The performance parameters of the F-22 are classified, and no one who has access to or knowledge of those parameters is going to (accurately) quote them in public. If they do it will be a short trip to Leavenworth, and they know that.

When some one breaks into your house do you say "I have a gun and 9 bullets" ??? No, you just shoot the m***** f***** and be done with it. You never show your full hand to your enemy.


ROFL!! This is info out of a nationally published (probably internationally) magazine. Not much of a secret now is it? Personally I can't imagine a pilot spilling the beans one-on-one let alone when talking to a MAGAZINE for God's sake. As to whether or not it's our business of course it isn't. That doesn't mean we can't speculate until the cows come home. Or do you think the other side doesn't have people who know aerodynamics far better than us armchair generals who are doing the same thing? Is some big secret going to get out because us amatuers are sitting around the water cooler bullsh!tting? Doubt it.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Probably a can of worms but.

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2006, 16:51
by toan
http://www.0x4d.net/files/AF1/R11%20Segment%2012.pdf

Page 16:

The percentage of Titanium for the materials of Raptor's airframe is around 40%, which is roughly equal to Su-27, whose airframe has 41% Titanium.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Probably a can of worms

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2006, 16:53
by sferrin
idesof wrote:
toan wrote:Personally, I think if you change "800 miles" to "800 km", then we will get a more reasonable result:

1. For their performance, which started at 2:40 p.m., Shower and Bergeson took off from Langley, 800 "miles --> km" away, at about 1:25.

A: 800 km / 1.25 hr = 640 km/hr = With the average speed of 0.6 Mach for this 800 km long trip that fits the National laws (Of course, the average speed is not equal to the maximal speed during this trip).


2. But we did the math and figured we could be there if we supercruised in about 25 or 30 minutes.

A: 800 km / 25~30 mins = 1600~1920 km/hr = With the average supercruise speed of 1.51~1.81 Mach for this 800 km long trip.


Toan, I said EXACTLY the same thing. However, Sferrin said he calculated the distance as being 800 miles. I have a feeling that someone is messing up their metric and English units. Again, if NASA and Lockheed and dozens of rocket scientists (literally rocket scientists) can screw up with their measurements, so can two pilots who get carried away bragging about their plane.


Except that it 800 MILES from Langley to Oshkosh.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Probably a can of worms

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2006, 17:11
by idesof
sferrin wrote:
idesof wrote:
toan wrote:Personally, I think if you change "800 miles" to "800 km", then we will get a more reasonable result:

1. For their performance, which started at 2:40 p.m., Shower and Bergeson took off from Langley, 800 "miles --> km" away, at about 1:25.

A: 800 km / 1.25 hr = 640 km/hr = With the average speed of 0.6 Mach for this 800 km long trip that fits the National laws (Of course, the average speed is not equal to the maximal speed during this trip).


2. But we did the math and figured we could be there if we supercruised in about 25 or 30 minutes.

A: 800 km / 25~30 mins = 1600~1920 km/hr = With the average supercruise speed of 1.51~1.81 Mach for this 800 km long trip.


Toan, I said EXACTLY the same thing. However, Sferrin said he calculated the distance as being 800 miles. I have a feeling that someone is messing up their metric and English units. Again, if NASA and Lockheed and dozens of rocket scientists (literally rocket scientists) can screw up with their measurements, so can two pilots who get carried away bragging about their plane.


Except that it 800 MILES from Langley to Oshkosh.


Right. I don't disagree with that, as I noted. However, do you think perhaps the pilot in question mixed up his English and metric units?

However, I just crunched the numbers. From Langley to Oshkosh, it took them one hour and 15 minutes, for an average speed of 640 mph. As stated, for an 800-mile trip, that is indeed equivalent to about Mach 0.9. They should have known that to say "25 to 30 minutes" it would mean they would have to go 2.5 to 3 times as fast. It really is puzzling.

By the way, they cite sonic boom as a concern while flying over CONUS. Question: can one get any kind of an accurate fix on an airplane on the basis of its sonic boom? Now, while the hypothetical listening station would already be far behind the airplane by the time the sonic boom hits it, could it relay the info to a station further up ahead? Tell an IR sensor, for instance, exactly where to look? I don't want anyone in the U.S. military to answer this question, nor to threaten me, please. I am asking CIVILIANS with some knowledge of aerodynamics and without any sort of security clearance. Thank you.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Probably a can of wo

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2006, 17:31
by Guysmiley
Question: can one get any kind of an accurate fix on an airplane on the basis of its sonic boom?


Yes, in fact there is a similar system that uses multiple microphones distributed in an urban area to determine the location of gun shots. For an air defense system you'd need a hell of a lot of microphones though... and all that effort could be defeated by just not flying supersonically until the SAM sites have been neutralized.

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2006, 17:39
by Raptor_claw
I have three possible explanations I will toss out.

Option 1 (which I consider to be far and away to most probably):
Shower was simply speaking in hyperbole. Grossly exagerating the time saving to make a point and/or trying to be a slightly amusing.

Option 2 (my least 'favorite' option):
In doing the math, they mistakenly used the speed of sound at sea level and held it to altitude. At sea-level, the speed of sound is about 760 (mph), so to cover 800 miles in 30 minutes the required average speed of 1600 MPH comes out to about Mach 2.1. Still a high number, but more reasonable than some of the '3-ish' numbers that have been thrown around.

Option 3 (my second 'favorite' option):
He either mispoke or was misquoted. What he intended to say (or actually said) was that they would have 'saved' 25-30 minutes. So, assume the baseline 1 hour 15 minutes, and subtract 30 minutes. At 45 minutes, the 800 mile trip requires an average speed of about 1070 mph, which just happens to be Mach 1.62 at 40k - a number much more reasonable and inline with published data.

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2006, 17:43
by idesof
Raptor_claw wrote:I have three possible explanations I will toss out.

Option 1 (which I consider to be far and away to most probably):
Shower was simply speaking in hyperbole. Grossly exagerating the time saving to make a point and/or trying to be a slightly amusing.

Option 2 (my least 'favorite' option):
In doing the math, they mistakenly used the speed of sound at sea level and held it to altitude. At sea-level, the speed of sound is about 760 (mph), so to cover 800 miles in 30 minutes the required average speed of 1600 MPH comes out to about Mach 2.1. Still a high number, but more reasonable than some of the '3-ish' numbers that have been thrown around.

Option 3 (my second 'favorite' option):
He either mispoke or was misquoted. What he intended to say (or actually said) was that they would have 'saved' 25-30 minutes. So, assume the baseline 1 hour 15 minutes, and subtract 30 minutes. At 45 minutes, the 800 mile trip requires an average speed of about 1070 mph, which just happens to be Mach 1.62 at 40k - a number much more reasonable and inline with published data.


Ah, third option is my favorite. Good work!

Unread postPosted: 30 Sep 2006, 01:20
by sferrin
Raptor_claw wrote:I have three possible explanations I will toss out.

Option 1 (which I consider to be far and away to most probably):
Shower was simply speaking in hyperbole. Grossly exagerating the time saving to make a point and/or trying to be a slightly amusing.

Option 2 (my least 'favorite' option):
In doing the math, they mistakenly used the speed of sound at sea level and held it to altitude. At sea-level, the speed of sound is about 760 (mph), so to cover 800 miles in 30 minutes the required average speed of 1600 MPH comes out to about Mach 2.1. Still a high number, but more reasonable than some of the '3-ish' numbers that have been thrown around.

Option 3 (my second 'favorite' option):
He either mispoke or was misquoted. What he intended to say (or actually said) was that they would have 'saved' 25-30 minutes. So, assume the baseline 1 hour 15 minutes, and subtract 30 minutes. At 45 minutes, the 800 mile trip requires an average speed of about 1070 mph, which just happens to be Mach 1.62 at 40k - a number much more reasonable and inline with published data.



3 makes the most sense.

Unread postPosted: 30 Sep 2006, 07:02
by bf-fly
You guys are missing the boat on the Raptors speed. Take note how altitude is often mentioned indirectly by official sources (I'll dig up a quote)

The F-22 will consistantly operate in the 50-60,000 foot range. perhaps you guys can figure out Mach at 60,000ft and apply that to your question. Then the answer will fit.

Unread postPosted: 30 Sep 2006, 07:05
by bf-fly
read this, while the pilot is not quoted as saying 60,000ft, note what he does say about altitude.

http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp ... v=168XQUgV

Unread postPosted: 30 Sep 2006, 08:04
by Raptor_claw
bf-fly wrote:The F-22 will consistantly operate in the 50-60,000 foot range. perhaps you guys can figure out Mach at 60,000ft and apply that to your question. Then the answer will fit.


Above about 37,000 feet the speed of sound doesn't change (in terms of true airspeed). Calibrated (and equivalent) airspeeds do change as altitude changes for a constant Mach, but true airspeed doesn't. So, for this case, the answer no different - whether you are at 37,000 or 60,000 feet.

Unread postPosted: 30 Sep 2006, 08:24
by Person
So with all this rampant speculation about what he said, what he might have meant to say, what alt they were at, if he meant max supercruise over an 800 mile circuit, if he meant 800km or 800 miles, if he meant he would have saved 25-30 minutes ad nauseum.

It pretty much puts us right back where we were on page 1 when Raptor_One stated that trying to extrapolate the -22 supercruise speed based on one interview is silliness.

Unread postPosted: 30 Sep 2006, 10:22
by toan
From the height of around 36,000 fts to the height of around 165,000 fts is the range of Stratosphere. Because of the ozone layer, the temperature in the whole Stratosphere is generally the same, so the sonic speed in the whole Stratosphere is also generally the same (Mach 1 = 295 m/sec = 1,062 km/hr = 660 mile/hr at the height of Stratosphere).

Therefore, the declaration of supercrising with the speed of 1,600 mph to 1,920 mph at the height of 40,000 to 70,000 fts is equal to declare that Raptor could cruise with the speed of Mach 2.42 to 2.91 without using A/Bs in Stratosphere, and theoretically, its maximal speed should have to reach from Mach 3.5 to even Mach 5.0+ with the help of A/Bs.

If this were really the truth, then many hypersonic striking projects that USAF and USN are investing now should be pointless and meaningless........

Unread postPosted: 30 Sep 2006, 14:12
by bf-fly
Therefore, the declaration of supercrising with the speed of 1,600 mph to 1,920 mph at the height of 40,000 to 70,000 fts


Who said that? I think were talking about 1300 mph. That is assuming of course, a standard atmosphere. I'm not the one postulating mach two, but you cannot assume it's not possible either.

Unread postPosted: 30 Sep 2006, 14:32
by bf-fly
I think I read eslewhere he actualy said 36 minutes (798nm)

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2006, 02:05
by Scorpion1alpha
:shock:

Amazing at the speculations.

Re: RE: Probably a can of worms but. . . .(Raptor speed)

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2006, 03:35
by asiatrails
LinkF16SimDude wrote:
But we did the math and figured we could be there if we supercruised in about 25 or 30 minutes."

25 minutes = 1920 mph
30 minutes = 1600 mph


And that's prolly in the mid to high 40's. Above the commerical stuff. Take it to something 'round 50K to 60K (where the Mach is lower) and it may even be a touch faster! :twisted:



Not that impossible, I was a FTE on the Concorde program back in the mid 70's and we supercrused at M2.2 60K for service profiles. One flight I was on we went out to M2.5 and there was still more to go. The flight restriction was the L/E temperature this was set for commercial service at 212 degrees C.

RE: Re: RE: Probably a can of worms but. . . .(Raptor speed)

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2006, 03:47
by Raptor_One
Yes, but the Concord had 4 huge engines, variable geometry inlets, and an aerodynamic design with only one purpose... to go fast. The F-22's design is a very nice set of compromises. It's by no means optimized for Mach 2+ supercruise though. The Concord obviously was.

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2006, 04:21
by sferrin
double post

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2006, 04:22
by sferrin
Person wrote:So with all this rampant speculation about what he said, what he might have meant to say, what alt they were at, if he meant max supercruise over an 800 mile circuit, if he meant 800km or 800 miles, if he meant he would have saved 25-30 minutes ad nauseum.

It pretty much puts us right back where we were on page 1 when Raptor_One stated that trying to extrapolate the -22 supercruise speed based on one interview is silliness.


If you go back to what was actually said the pilot didn't state miles or kilometers at all. He said (AFTER he'd already flown the flight so he knew both how far he'd flown and how long it took him) that had they supercruised they could have done it in 25-30 minutes. Period. All the rest of the bullsh!t theories getting tossed around are people attempting to explain why it's impossible and that the pilot is either clueless or lying- when they don't have the slightest friggin' idea if it is or not. No doubt Raptor One will come back foaming at the mouth with his panties in a twist but those are the facts.

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2006, 04:41
by Raptor_One
The only reason I posted again in this thread was in response to someone whose comments are based on actual first-hand engineering knowledge. Asiatrails obviously knows his stuff. I don't mind debating with him whether the F-22 can do Mach 2.4-2.9 supercruise based on his first-hand knowledge of the Concord's performance capabilities. I didn't actually know the Concord could do Mach 2.5+ at 60,000 ft, but I'm not surprised. Do I think the F-22 can do the same thing? No. I have no problem debating that with someone who's obviously capable of intelligent scientific debate.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Probably a can of worms but. . . .(Raptor sp

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2006, 04:41
by asiatrails
Raptor_One wrote:Yes, but the Concord had 4 huge engines, variable geometry inlets, and an aerodynamic design with only one purpose... to go fast. The F-22's design is a very nice set of compromises. It's by no means optimized for Mach 2+ supercruise though. The Concord obviously was.


Sorry. its purpose, which it did very well for 25 years, was to routinely carry about 100 people in the lap of luxury from one side of the ocean to the other and back again.

The four Olumpus 593-610 engines were straight turbojets with about 40,000 lbs of thrust, above M1.5 the intake was the key. the rest of the propulsion system worked hard to get it there. AB was used only on takeoff and to get from M0.98 to M1.2.

Although a pure commercial aircraft we had sufficent manoverability and power to simulate the filght profile of Backfire B (TU22M2) bombers.

This allowed us on runs down the North Sea from northern Norway to act as intercept targets for the RAF.

Now back to the Raptor, it is probably capable of the same performance and I would expect some more.

Edit to remove data.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Probably a can of worms but. . . .(Raptor sp

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2006, 05:08
by Raptor_One
asiatrails wrote:Sorry. its purpose, which it did very well for 25 years, was to routinely carry about 100 people in the lap of luxury from one side of the ocean to the other and back again.


That's like saying the SR-71's purpose was to conduct high altitude surveilance and signal intelligence. Not fair. :)

The four Olumpus 593-610 engines were straight turbojets with about 40,000 lbs of thrust, above M1.5 the intake was the key. the rest of the propulsion system worked hard to get it there. AB was used only on takeoff and to get from M0.98 to M1.2.


Like you say, the intake was key. How would the Concord have performed with a fixed intake that required taking flow around a bend to hide the engine fan blades?

Although a pure commercial aircraft we had sufficent manoverability and power to simulate the filght profile of Backfire B (TU22M2) bombers.


That's interesting. How many G could the Concord pull at supersonic speeds?

This allowed us on runs down the North Sea from northern Norway to act as intercept targets for the RAF.


How did the Concord fair?

Now back to the Raptor, it is probably capable of the same performance and I would expect some more.

Edit to remove data.


Why would you expect more? That's an honest question. I wouldn't expect it to do more for two main reasons: 1) fixed inlets and 2) an aerodynamic design that had to meet stringent stealth and combat-related requirements. For example, the Concord was famous for its complex variable geometry nose section. How fast would the Concord go without a streamlined nose section? For example, what if it had a bubble canopy like the F-22. That's my whole point about the Concord being designed for Mach 2+ supercruise. There are so many compromises on the F-22, yet it still has amazing performance. I wouldn't expect it to do better than the Concord that didn't really make any compromises. I mean... there's really no single design point for the F-22. The F-22 is all about off-design performance. The Concord, if I'm not mistaken (which I might be), is about on-design performance.

Finally... some good debate.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Probably a can of worms but. . . .(Raptor sp

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2006, 05:29
by sferrin
Raptor_One wrote:Why would you expect more? That's an honest question. I wouldn't expect it to do more for two main reasons: 1) fixed inlets and


The whole "fixed inlet" arguement has been shredded so many times it almost doesn't bare repeating. Just for your enlightenment though:

Oh this is rich! You'd think you'd have learned the first time since it was you the guy was replying to:

"Wow, some of you guys need to learn about modern technology inlets.

Modern inlet systems do not have to change geometry to provide optimum pressure recovery for the engine. Traditional supersonic inlets have moving ramps, cones or other devices to capture the normal shock in the inlet throat. The F-22 inlet system does the same thing without traditional moving parts. No moving parts makes RAM treatments inside the inlets more durable and reduces RCS.

Like old technology inlets, each F-22 inlet is spaced away from the forward fuselage to form a boundary layer diverter. This prevents low energy turbulent air from entering.

The upper inboard corner of the inlet lip creates an oblique shock. Air is slowed by passing through that shock and is compressed in an external compression ramp before entering the inlet throat.

In the inlet throat, a sophisticated porous plate bleed system traps a normal shock where airflow becomes subsonic. The bleed system dumps overboard through the parallelogram-shaped door on top of the fuselage about 3 feet behind the upper inlet lip.

Airflow pressure increases as it passes through a gradually diverging duct with a 6:1 length-to-engine face diameter ratio that assures uniform airflow quality at the engine face.

Any excess airflow is dumped overboard through a hexagonal grid on top of the fuselage near the wing root."


Add to that the engines are about 30 years newer. There has been an improvement or two in engine technology and performance in those years you know.



Raptor_One wrote: 2) an aerodynamic design that had to meet stringent stealth and combat-related requirements.


Until recently this was the excuse given for the Raptor not being able to do a Cobra :roll: There is no physical law that states "if you're a stealth aircraft it's physically impossible for you to exceed Mach 1.72 without afterburners".



Raptor_One wrote:For example, the Concord was famous for its complex variable geometry nose section. How fast would the Concord go without a streamlined nose section? For example, what if it had a bubble canopy like the F-22. That's my whole point about the Concord being designed for Mach 2+ supercruise. There are so many compromises on the F-22, yet it still has amazing performance. I wouldn't expect it to do better than the Concord that didn't really make any compromises. I mean... there's really no single design point for the F-22. The F-22 is all about off-design performance. The Concord, if I'm not mistaken (which I might be), is about on-design performance.


The XFU-8-3 (Crusader III) was good for well over Mach 2 speed with a fixed intake and didn't have the Concord's low-drag aerodynamics. In fact the test pilots estimated it would have likely reached Mach 2.9 and possibly Mach 3.



Raptor_One wrote:Finally... some good debate.


It would be nice if you could deliver what you demand of others but all you seem to be good at is bluster and attempts at ridicule.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Probably a can of worms but. . . .(Rapto

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2006, 06:28
by Raptor_One
I'm not arguing with you on this one. It's obvious that your intent is not intelligent debate. You and some others have some strange desire to prove the F-22 is faster and faster and faster. If it's not speed, it's probably something else. The only problem with this is your use of silly "evidence". If you want to have a debate about variable geometry vs. fixed geometry inlets, that's fine. Just make sure you actually understand the basic science behind oblique shockwaves, normal shock waves, and so on. Look up stagnation pressure loss. Find out how it is reduced through the use of multiple oblique shocks. It's rather hard to get really good supersonic performance without the use of variable geometry intakes. Why do you think Concord used them? Why do you think the F-15 uses them? Why do you think any aircraft that has them uses them? Do you think it was just some fad? It's not as important as stealth these days, and there are more powerful engines now too.

By the way... what kind of shock system developed in the XFU-8-3 intake at Mach 2+? I somehow doubt it was a normal shock. And as for boundary layer diverters, this is nothing new either. I don't know why you think the F-22 is special because it has them. So does the F-16 and F-18 (fixed inlet fighters). What of it? It's also a bit amusing when you talk about how the normal shock is trapped in the F-22's intake. You act as though this is a special feature of the F-22. Any aircraft with a conventional jet engine needs to pass the airflow through a normal shock at supersonic speeds before it hits the engine face. Jet engines don't like supersonic airflow. You pass air through a set of oblique shocks at high Mach to slow the air down efficiently before passing it through a final normal shock to get the flow subsonic. That's just how things work. The faster you pass the air through a normal shock, the higher the stagnation pressure losses. That's why oblique shock systems are used via variable geometry intakes.

Another thing I find funny is how you coo over the dumping of excess airflow. Again, this is nothing new. The F-15 does this along with a bunch of other aircraft. Bleed air doors... wow... amazaing! Been around for a long time, dude! I don't think you actually understand what stagnation pressure losses are, which is why you probably think variable geometry inlets are useless. An inlet's job is to slow the airflow down to subsonic speeds. You can do this in a variety of ways. Some are more efficient than others. The measure of this efficiency is the stagnation pressure ratio of the inlet for any given Mach number. Air comes in at supersonic speeds and gets decelerated to subsonic speeds through one or more shockwaves. This is just what happens. All this other stuff you're talking about does not negate the stagnation pressure losses that occur when passing through one or more shockwaves. If the F-22 has a single oblique shock followed by a normal shock, that's not very good for Mach 2+. It's better than a single normal shock, but not optimal. The F-15 uses 3 normal shocks at Mach 2+ before the normal shock. That is optimal for those speeds. This is just fact, okay? Textbook stuff. All this other stuff you're on about is fluff.

Did I say I wasn't going to argue with you? Damn, I lied.

Re: RE: Probably a can of worms but. . . .(Raptor speed)

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2006, 08:00
by Person
asiatrails wrote:
Not that impossible, I was a FTE on the Concorde program back in the mid 70's and we supercrused at M2.2 60K for service profiles. One flight I was on we went out to M2.5 and there was still more to go. The flight restriction was the L/E temperature this was set for commercial service at 212 degrees C.


Concordes didn't/don't supercruise. They use their ABs for supersonic flight.

Re: RE: Probably a can of worms but. . . .(Raptor speed)

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2006, 08:05
by Raptor_One
Person wrote:
asiatrails wrote:
Not that impossible, I was a FTE on the Concorde program back in the mid 70's and we supercrused at M2.2 60K for service profiles. One flight I was on we went out to M2.5 and there was still more to go. The flight restriction was the L/E temperature this was set for commercial service at 212 degrees C.


Concordes didn't/don't supercruise. They use their ABs for supersonic flight.


That is not true. Like Asiatrails said, the Concord used afterburners for take-off and to break through the transonic regime. Do a little research and you'll find out all about the Concord's supercruise capabilities.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Probably a can of worms but. . . .(Raptor sp

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2006, 08:15
by Raptor_claw
sferrin wrote:
Raptor_One wrote: 2) an aerodynamic design that had to meet stringent stealth and combat-related requirements.


Until recently this was the excuse given for the Raptor not being able to do a Cobra :roll: There is no physical law that states "if you're a stealth aircraft it's physically impossible for you to exceed Mach 1.72 without afterburners".




(First - a little off topic - maybe should be in another thread) Interesting comment about the (former) perception (of the Raptor not being able to do a Cobra.) I was unaware that this perception was out there (granted I'm new to these boards (but hardly new to the subject...)). High AOA capability (of which the Cobra is but a small part) was demonstrated with F-16 MATV way back in the 80's. The F-16 was hardly designed with post-stall flight in mind (it does have a fairly restrictive limiter, after all). I would have expected that anyone who happened to notice the vectored nozzles way back on the YF-22 would have been surprised if a Cobra-type maneuver was not possible. Of course, an astute observer will say, "Ahh, but MATV had multi-axis vectoring, allowing it to use thrust to control both pitch and yaw, whereas F-22's vectoring is limited to pitch." True. True. But consider this - if there was no high AOA capability in mind, why have vectoring at all, it really doesn't buy you all that much for an AOA limited aircraft. So, 'someone' must have known that the stealthy shape was not incompatible with high AOA lateral/directional control.

Anyway, back 'on topic'
While all these debates about supersonic inlets and engine performance and shape-designed-for-stealth are interesting and more or less accurate, they proceed from the assumption that the top speed of the F-22 is limited solely by engine thrust vs aerodynamic drag. This assumption may not necessarily be valid. As others have pointed out, there might be (speaking theoretically, of course) other factors that could potentially be the speed limiters. It would only take one such factor to leave some amount of otherwise attainable speed capability unrealized. Could any and all other such potential factors be someday removed, remedied, or otherwise disregarded for a simple, flat out speed demonstration (ala Streak Eagle)??? Theoretically - sure. Would it cost a bunch of money and not really prove anything. Yup.

While this is all interesting debate, it is more interesting to me to see that people are so fervently debating the issue itself. What is getting lost seems to be the realization that top speed is not nearly the issue it used to be. For an air-superiority fighter, whose primary role is to go into a defended airspace, remove airborne threats and a few key high value targets, (paving the way for the F-35's, etc) does it really matter if it tops out at 2.0 as opposed to 2.2, or maybe 2.3 instead of 2.6??? If you are SECAF, how much money do you spend to get those extra knots, when you could put those dollars somewhere else (additional weapons clearance, avionics upgrades, etc)? Look at it this way - would you rather have Airplane X, which has a top speed of Mach 2.0 and the radar signature (and avionics suite) of an F-22, or Airplane Y, with tops out at Mach 2.5 but has an F-15's signature and radar?
I guess my point is simply that using top speed as a measuring stick for comparing fighter aircraft is a not nearly as valid as it used to be. Still, I understand the fun of the debate and the hypothesizing.

(For the record, I think Dozer was either speaking in hyperbole, was misquoted, or missed a decimal point somewhere....)

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Probably a can of worms but. . . .(Rapto

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2006, 12:21
by VprWzl
I normally just watch these discussions, but I have to jump in here. It sounds like many (or most) of you are looking at this quote from a technical or engineering point of view, not from the world view of a fighter pilot. Let me throw out another thought.

There is a general rule in a fighter squadron about stories - it's called the 10% rule. It means that a minimum of 10% of what you say has to be true. Here is another general rule for fighter pilots: "Never do math in public" Now while they may have "done the math" - it doesn't mean it's right.

What's my point? While fighter pilots don't lie, don't expect them to tell the whole truth. Story telling is part of the culture - the security part fits in with it. I have done static displays at airshows, media events, DV visits, etc. As a rule, when asked about information that I know I can't tell you about (max range of AMRAAM is a favorite) - I will be either a little "exagerative" and/or a little vague/evasive. In a fighter pilot's mind, 25-30 minutes could mean 25-30 minutes once I was level or 25-30 minutes when I finally put my final destination in the computer (not including climb & descent - which we don't really put in our math). It could also mean 40-50 minutes with a couple minutes conveniently forgotten about. The possibilities are endless - to most fighter pilots that type of discussion is not mathmatical science - it's time for embellishment.

I hope that makes sense to you guys - don't try to do the engineering off what a fighter pilot tells you in an article, a bar, or a casual conversation. He may know the technical info, but we don't talk that way on a daily basis.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Probably a can of worms but. . . .(Rapto

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2006, 17:03
by Raptor_One
No way! You mean to tell me that those F-22 pilots didn't have their calculators and -1 manuals out for an exact calculation? NO WAY... I DO NOT BELIEVE IT! :D

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Probably a can of worms but. . . .(R

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2006, 19:20
by sferrin
Raptor_One wrote:I'm not arguing with you on this one. It's obvious that your intent is not intelligent debate. You and some others have some strange desire to prove the F-22 is faster and faster and faster. If it's not speed, it's probably something else. The only problem with this is your use of silly "evidence". If you want to have a debate about variable geometry vs. fixed geometry inlets, that's fine. Just make sure you actually understand the basic science behind oblique shockwaves, normal shock waves, and so on. Look up stagnation pressure loss. Find out how it is reduced through the use of multiple oblique shocks. It's rather hard to get really good supersonic performance without the use of variable geometry intakes. Why do you think Concord used them? Why do you think the F-15 uses them? Why do you think any aircraft that has them uses them? Do you think it was just some fad? It's not as important as stealth these days, and there are more powerful engines now too.

By the way... what kind of shock system developed in the XFU-8-3 intake at Mach 2+? I somehow doubt it was a normal shock. And as for boundary layer diverters, this is nothing new either. I don't know why you think the F-22 is special because it has them. So does the F-16 and F-18 (fixed inlet fighters). What of it? It's also a bit amusing when you talk about how the normal shock is trapped in the F-22's intake. You act as though this is a special feature of the F-22. Any aircraft with a conventional jet engine needs to pass the airflow through a normal shock at supersonic speeds before it hits the engine face. Jet engines don't like supersonic airflow. You pass air through a set of oblique shocks at high Mach to slow the air down efficiently before passing it through a final normal shock to get the flow subsonic. That's just how things work. The faster you pass the air through a normal shock, the higher the stagnation pressure losses. That's why oblique shock systems are used via variable geometry intakes.

Another thing I find funny is how you coo over the dumping of excess airflow. Again, this is nothing new. The F-15 does this along with a bunch of other aircraft. Bleed air doors... wow... amazaing! Been around for a long time, dude! I don't think you actually understand what stagnation pressure losses are, which is why you probably think variable geometry inlets are useless. An inlet's job is to slow the airflow down to subsonic speeds. You can do this in a variety of ways. Some are more efficient than others. The measure of this efficiency is the stagnation pressure ratio of the inlet for any given Mach number. Air comes in at supersonic speeds and gets decelerated to subsonic speeds through one or more shockwaves. This is just what happens. All this other stuff you're talking about does not negate the stagnation pressure losses that occur when passing through one or more shockwaves. If the F-22 has a single oblique shock followed by a normal shock, that's not very good for Mach 2+. It's better than a single normal shock, but not optimal. The F-15 uses 3 normal shocks at Mach 2+ before the normal shock. That is optimal for those speeds. This is just fact, okay? Textbook stuff. All this other stuff you're on about is fluff.

Did I say I wasn't going to argue with you? Damn, I lied.


Wasn't my arguement it was djcross's but then I wouldn't expect you to clue in to something as basic as who said what. BTW I'd take his opinion over your's any day (and likely so would everybody else here). As for the XF8U-3 who cares? It was capable of well over Mach 2 with a fixed intake and that's really the only point I was trying to make- that a fixed intake doesn't automatically limit you to Mach 2 or less.

Why does it even matter?

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2006, 19:34
by FireFox137
With all of the variables of pressure, temperature, fuel load, weapons load... wind speed and wind direction... How are you measuring speed? Relative to the ground? Or to the wind direction? Is top speed equal to dash speed that is only to be allowed in time of war? ...and for how long? The F-22 ain't no SR-71 that can fly above Mach 2 for extended periods of time. The F-22 is an aircraft with a convential design and using "conevential" materials. Sure it may hit 2.5 Mach with more ease than an F-15 but how much does dash speed play into a2a combat? Sure I know speed is sexy, but it's not that importatant if the aircraft can be tracked and targeted with missiles that ARE much faster than any fighter today. Look, with the right weather conditions, the F-22 may very well be able to cruise at Mach 2 relative to some groud reference system... But, whats the difference? Really?

Re: Why does it even matter?

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2006, 20:05
by idesof
FireFox137 wrote:With all of the variables of pressure, temperature, fuel load, weapons load... wind speed and wind direction... How are you measuring speed? Relative to the ground? Or to the wind direction? Is top speed equal to dash speed that is only to be allowed in time of war? ...and for how long? The F-22 ain't no SR-71 that can fly above Mach 2 for extended periods of time. The F-22 is an aircraft with a convential design and using "conevential" materials. Sure it may hit 2.5 Mach with more ease than an F-15 but how much does dash speed play into a2a combat? Sure I know speed is sexy, but it's not that importatant if the aircraft can be tracked and targeted with missiles that ARE much faster than any fighter today. Look, with the right weather conditions, the F-22 may very well be able to cruise at Mach 2 relative to some groud reference system... But, whats the difference? Really?


The difference can be huge. Have you ever heard of the F-14 lobbing several Phoenix missiles at Mig-25s and not a single one hitting? Why? Because the Mig-25 simply outran the missiles. At long range, an aircraft's top speed as a means of evading a missile is actually quite effective. Moreover, with stealth, by the time it is detected by a double-digit SAM, it is already past the threat with supercruise, and it wold be exceedingly difficult for that SAM to down a Raptor in a tail chase, especially since it would be out of radar range by that time. Also, you have the kinetic energy imparted on your own missiles. Top speed, I agree, is immaterial if you can only achieve it for a matter of seconds or a few minutes at the most. However, if you are able to sustain it for, say, 30 minutes or more, that does give you a huge advantage in combat. It allows you to dictate the terms of engagement and/or disengagement at will. Even if the Raptor's top supercruise speed is "only" Mach 1.7 or Mach 1.8, that is an enormous advantage, far more than supermaneuverability, which everyone and their grandmother can achieve nowadays.

Finally, how in the world is the F-22 a "conventional" design? Since when is it using "conventional" materials? Also, anyone on this board who thinks they know how the Raptor's intake system works is in for a big surprise when the cat is finally out of the bag.

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2006, 20:22
by idesof
Speaking of reporters' uninformed quotes, here's one for you:

"Those feats range from dropping weapons at supersonic speeds from 50,000 feet, to testing new bombs that can hit 400 percent more targets than they were previously capable of reaching, to flying and fighting in joint exercises with capabilities never before seen by aircraft of any kind."

No doubt referring to the SDB, which has yet to be tested on the Raptor. Of course, it increases the number of ground targets a Raptor can strike by 400% (technically, the increase is 300%, the number is 400% the prior amount). Anyhow, that is very different than "new bombs that can hit 400 percent more targets than they were previously capable of reaching." :roll:

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2006, 21:43
by LordOfBunnies
Actually idesof, the inlet design of the 22 is basic, but the devil's in the details, always has been. It's called an external compression inlet because the initial shock runs away from the fuselage. The F-35 has an internal compression inlet because the initial shock runs towards the body. What all supersonic inlets do is use mutliple shocks to slow the air so the losses across the normal shock are minimal. Variable geometry means you are at design condition more often, but if you use a static inlet then you can make it a robust design. The 22 obviously has a very robust inlet or it wouldn't be able to do all the cool things it does. You can look at these things and get the basic engineering principle from them, but it takes close analysis to know the details where it really matters. For a couple years now I've wanted to crawl inside an inlet and look at the design and measure things, but yeah classified so no... never. It's wish that will never come true.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Probably a can of worms but. . . .(Rapto

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2006, 21:43
by asiatrails
Fixed intakes for supersonic M2+ flight are not unusual.

On subsonic aircraft the A7 had an excellent one, except for its reputation as a people eater.

The E.E. Lightning designed to the British Air Ministry's 1947 specification F23/49, two years after WW2 ended had a fixed elliptical intake with a fixed bullet. Now I will admit it was a dog on gas with a 900 mile range at least until the F6 and the F53 came along with the large ventral and overwing tanks.

The official ceiling was a secret and usually stated 60,000+ ft (18,000 m), Brian Carroll, one of the top examiners reported taking a F-53 Lightning up to 87,300 feet (26,600 m), for flights planned to go above 70K you had to wear full pressure suits. In 1984, a U-2 was intercepted at a height which they had previously considered safe from interception, over 88,000 ft (26,800 m).

In time-to-height and acceleration trials against F-104 Starfighters at Aalborg the Lightnings won, with the exception of the low level supersonic acceleration, which was a dead-heat.

Intake design, like gas turbine combustion and Microsoft Windows, is a black art full of mystery and frustration. What works on models and in theory often does not work in the real world.

The outboard engines on service Concords would surge if started with over a 5 knot crosswind which would fine the pitch of the LP Compressor blades, to fix this they started them during taxi.

In about 20 years some of the answers to the comments in this thread about the Lightning 2 will be answered, until then all is speculation.

Re: Why does it even matter?

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2006, 22:09
by TC
idesof wrote:The difference can be huge. Have you ever heard of the F-14 lobbing several Phoenix missiles at Mig-25s and not a single one hitting? Why? Because the Mig-25 simply outran the missiles.


Outrunning the missile would be impossible for the MiG-25. It doesn't fly that fast. The Phoenix was a Mach 4 missile.

The Foxbat can only sustain Mach 2.8 to 3 for about a minute, otherwise you start tearing the engine up. Viktor Belenko reported this after his defection, and fmr. Iraqi Foxbat pilots have later confirmed this.

Seems more like poor tactics in the engagement, bad missiles, or a combination thereof. In Vietnam, the Sparrow was notorious for going stupid after launch. Perhaps Snake, our resident Vietnam MiG killer, will see this one and hop in.

idesof wrote:anyone on this board who thinks they know how the Raptor's intake system works is in for a big surprise when the cat is finally out of the bag.


Don't go there. That "cat" should stay bagged, unless it is declassified many years down the road, or some stupid @$$ leaks that info. :nono: Hate to be blunt, but that was classified when I was around the program. Yes, it still is, and no, I didn't have access to that information, because I was not an engine troop. That the thing that many don't realize. Even with a TS clearance, they still don't tell you things that you don't need to know.

Curiosity killed the cat. Satisfaction?...got him fed to a Rottweiler.

Re: Why does it even matter?

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2006, 23:18
by idesof
TC wrote:
idesof wrote:The difference can be huge. Have you ever heard of the F-14 lobbing several Phoenix missiles at Mig-25s and not a single one hitting? Why? Because the Mig-25 simply outran the missiles.


Outrunning the missile would be impossible for the MiG-25. It doesn't fly that fast. The Phoenix was a Mach 4 missile.

The Foxbat can only sustain Mach 2.8 to 3 for about a minute, otherwise you start tearing the engine up. Viktor Belenko reported this after his defection, and fmr. Iraqi Foxbat pilots have later confirmed this.

Seems more like poor tactics in the engagement, bad missiles, or a combination thereof. In Vietnam, the Sparrow was notorious for going stupid after launch. Perhaps Snake, our resident Vietnam MiG killer, will see this one and hop in.

idesof wrote:anyone on this board who thinks they know how the Raptor's intake system works is in for a big surprise when the cat is finally out of the bag.


Don't go there. That "cat" should stay bagged, unless it is declassified many years down the road, or some stupid @$$ leaks that info. :nono: Hate to be blunt, but that was classified when I was around the program. Yes, it still is, and no, I didn't have access to that information, because I was not an engine troop. That the thing that many don't realize. Even with a TS clearance, they still don't tell you things that you don't need to know.

Curiosity killed the cat. Satisfaction?...got him fed to a Rottweiler.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you are talking about a long range shot, and the target establishes lateral distance (not taking off in the opposite direction), and not necessarily going Mach 3 but, say, Mach 2.5, even the Phoenix, by the time it gets close enough to the target to acquire it via its own active radar, it should have already burned out its motor long before and will hence be coasting, at which point it should not be difficult to outmaneuver. The Phoenix was never optimized for fighter-sized targets but for Soviet bombers and large cruise missiles which did not vary their heading, and which were heading straight toward a carrier. The Phoenix range, while stated as being 125 miles or so, was really more like 80 miles in actual flight distance, not the range at which it could be fired from the target, which relates to the former figure for a head-on engagement. In that sense, there was a reason the Navy retired the F-14 and the Phoenix: as a pair, they were never really designed as an air-superiority system, but as a long-range intercept system against bombers and cruise missiles. Once that latter threat was no longer an issue, the F-14, especially without Amraam capabitlity, did become obsolete.

RE: Re: Why does it even matter?

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2006, 00:03
by JZimms100
After over 3 years of simply reading the posts on this forum, I was finally compelled enough to register to make a comment.

I sit here reading this thread in absolute amazement. There have been some pretty laughable discussions on this forum among a lot of very zealous military aviation enthusiasts, but this one absolutely takes the cake.

A big "SHACK" to VprWzl on the 10% rule. And to most of the rest of you... no offense, but why does this issue matter so much to you? Take what the pilot said with a grain of salt. The top speed of the F-22 does not affect your daily life in any way, shape or form....other than to give you something to discuss on this forum.

I didn't say this to offend anyone. I just think it is ridiculous to pick apart something that was (quite clearly) not meant to be taken so seriously.

See ya!

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Probably a can of worms but. . . .(R

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2006, 00:14
by Raptor_One
sferrin wrote:Wasn't my arguement it was djcross's but then I wouldn't expect you to clue in to something as basic as who said what. BTW I'd take his opinion over your's any day (and likely so would everybody else here). As for the XF8U-3 who cares? It was capable of well over Mach 2 with a fixed intake and that's really the only point I was trying to make- that a fixed intake doesn't automatically limit you to Mach 2 or less.


Nice comeback, dude! Sorry, but you obviously are lacking knowledge of the basics, making intelligent debate on these issues impossible. If you don't understand how an intake even works, why are you debating the merits of fixed vs. variable geometry intake design? If I were you, I'd stick to calculating the F-22's max supercruise speeds based on casual comments pilots make to the press.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Probably a can of worms but. . . .(R

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2006, 00:52
by sferrin
Raptor_One wrote:
sferrin wrote:Wasn't my arguement it was djcross's but then I wouldn't expect you to clue in to something as basic as who said what. BTW I'd take his opinion over your's any day (and likely so would everybody else here). As for the XF8U-3 who cares? It was capable of well over Mach 2 with a fixed intake and that's really the only point I was trying to make- that a fixed intake doesn't automatically limit you to Mach 2 or less.


Nice comeback, dude! Sorry, but you obviously are lacking knowledge of the basics, making intelligent debate on these issues impossible. If you don't understand how an intake even works, why are you debating the merits of fixed vs. variable geometry intake design? If I were you, I'd stick to calculating the F-22's max supercruise speeds based on casual comments pilots make to the press.


While you on the other hand dodge the issue completely other than to attempt to toss off insults. Grow up.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Probably a can of worms but. . . .(R

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2006, 01:00
by Raptor_One
sferrin wrote:While you on the other hand dodge the issue completely other than to attempt to toss off insults. Grow up.


Dodge what issue? It's funny how actual pilots have come in here and told you you're being silly, yet you want to tell me I'm dodging some issue. This is rich.

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2006, 01:13
by vinnie
It can go fast, but how about fuel flow rate? Can't kick A$$ without Tanker gas. Anybody see where now the AF is serious about a new tanker and a new bomber and a transport smaller than a C-130? Wonder what projects will have their funding cut? I just wonder.

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2006, 04:10
by bf-fly
Why don't you guys give your pissing contest a break.

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2006, 04:20
by bf-fly
If you want another assessment of speed, look at the 7 minute from Langely to D.C. reference by a US Air Force General.

7 minutes to DC from Langely is a 1071 MPH average flight from a ground launch, (which can't be done without afterburner to attain supercruise, and perhaps even longer).

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2006, 04:39
by toan
One of military fan in my country provide another possibility: The effect of certain type of wind, such as Jet Stream, will increase the speed of airplane for several hundred km per hour if the direction that pilot drives the airplane is proper.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Probably a can of worms but. . . .(R

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2006, 05:31
by Raptor_One
VprWzl wrote:I normally just watch these discussions, but I have to jump in here. It sounds like many (or most) of you are looking at this quote from a technical or engineering point of view, not from the world view of a fighter pilot. Let me throw out another thought.

There is a general rule in a fighter squadron about stories - it's called the 10% rule. It means that a minimum of 10% of what you say has to be true. Here is another general rule for fighter pilots: "Never do math in public" Now while they may have "done the math" - it doesn't mean it's right.

What's my point? While fighter pilots don't lie, don't expect them to tell the whole truth. Story telling is part of the culture - the security part fits in with it. I have done static displays at airshows, media events, DV visits, etc. As a rule, when asked about information that I know I can't tell you about (max range of AMRAAM is a favorite) - I will be either a little "exagerative" and/or a little vague/evasive. In a fighter pilot's mind, 25-30 minutes could mean 25-30 minutes once I was level or 25-30 minutes when I finally put my final destination in the computer (not including climb & descent - which we don't really put in our math). It could also mean 40-50 minutes with a couple minutes conveniently forgotten about. The possibilities are endless - to most fighter pilots that type of discussion is not mathmatical science - it's time for embellishment.

I hope that makes sense to you guys - don't try to do the engineering off what a fighter pilot tells you in an article, a bar, or a casual conversation. He may know the technical info, but we don't talk that way on a daily basis.


Did everyone read this post? From the horse's mouth: Don't bother trying to approximate (in an engineering/mathematical fashion) the actual performance of a fighter or weapon system based on what a pilot said "in an article, a bar, or casual conversation."

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2006, 08:10
by bf-fly
Toan: One of military fan in my country provide another possibility: The effect of certain type of wind, such as Jet Stream, will increase the speed of airplane for several hundred km per hour if the direction that pilot drives the airplane is proper.


For the purposes of this type of discussion, we are referring to a 0 wind speed. Mach doesn't take into account wind with a 200 knot tail wind I can fly a 800MPH over the ground but I will not break the Sound barrier. I'm flying at 600 mph or at altitude about .92 mach.

One variable not mentioned here is temperature, not as it relates to Mach, but how it relates to performance. What an F-22 can do in the summer at Edwards AFB or Langley, is a whole lot different than what it can do in the winter in Alaska. When a statement as nebulous as "it can do" or "it has done" you have to ask what the density altitude, ie how high and how hot or how low and how cold. (or if it was a standard day)

Re: Why does it even matter?

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2006, 13:20
by FireFox137
idesof wrote:
FireFox137 wrote:With all of the variables of pressure, temperature, fuel load, weapons load... wind speed and wind direction... How are you measuring speed? Relative to the ground? Or to the wind direction? Is top speed equal to dash speed that is only to be allowed in time of war? ...and for how long? The F-22 ain't no SR-71 that can fly above Mach 2 for extended periods of time. The F-22 is an aircraft with a convential design and using "conevential" materials. Sure it may hit 2.5 Mach with more ease than an F-15 but how much does dash speed play into a2a combat? Sure I know speed is sexy, but it's not that importatant if the aircraft can be tracked and targeted with missiles that ARE much faster than any fighter today. Look, with the right weather conditions, the F-22 may very well be able to cruise at Mach 2 relative to some groud reference system... But, whats the difference? Really?


The difference can be huge. Have you ever heard of the F-14 lobbing several Phoenix missiles at Mig-25s and not a single one hitting? Why? Because the Mig-25 simply outran the missiles. At long range, an aircraft's top speed as a means of evading a missile is actually quite effective. Moreover, with stealth, by the time it is detected by a double-digit SAM, it is already past the threat with supercruise, and it wold be exceedingly difficult for that SAM to down a Raptor in a tail chase, especially since it would be out of radar range by that time. Also, you have the kinetic energy imparted on your own missiles. Top speed, I agree, is immaterial if you can only achieve it for a matter of seconds or a few minutes at the most. However, if you are able to sustain it for, say, 30 minutes or more, that does give you a huge advantage in combat. It allows you to dictate the terms of engagement and/or disengagement at will. Even if the Raptor's top supercruise speed is "only" Mach 1.7 or Mach 1.8, that is an enormous advantage, far more than supermaneuverability, which everyone and their grandmother can achieve nowadays.

Finally, how in the world is the F-22 a "conventional" design? Since when is it using "conventional" materials? Also, anyone on this board who thinks they know how the Raptor's intake system works is in for a big surprise when the cat is finally out of the bag.


Well, the F-22 is a convential design, period. Sure, it was designed with the latest in computational fluid modeling programs. But, it's as convential a design as is F-15, F-16, or heck, even an old A-7. Sure it may play tricks with shock waves, compressabilities... whatever. But, look at the designs of the original ATF concpets... They were anything but "conventional". The YF-23, now that was original. As for convential materials, composites are now conventional. This isn't the 70's or even the 80's anymore when composites were the next best thing since the turbine engine. The F-22 isn't built out of exotic alloys on the skins that can absorb and dissipate lots and lots of heat. I "love" the F-22, but I've got to be honest in my beliefs that the F-22 could have been something better than what we eventually got as the final product. Sure, costs and politics come into play. The F-22 was designed by Lockheed to play it safe enough so as not to scare the customer away with too many new goodies. The F-22 is basically a redesigned F-15 that takes into accounts advancements in engines, electronics, fluid mechanics, and at the time it's materials selections. When Lockeed went after the ATF they hit the nail on the head as far as the customer was concerned: how to give them a super duper advanced version of the plane they already loved... AKA, the F-15. It was a smart move by Lockheed to say the least considering that the YF-23 was not selected because there were too many unknowns due to it's radical design.

As for some Migs outrunning phoenix missiles..... Well, I wouldn't compare a 35 year old missile with today's aircraft. Then also tactics, failure rates of those old phoenix's... Today's missiles... the F-22 cannot outrun any missile properly used against it. The F-22 may be a fast bird, but it ain't *that* fast. It may have an awesome escape envelope compared to F-15's and the like, but it still has an envelope none the less that if properly targeted (barring fancy dancy electron smashers and other stuff onboard) it's dead meat even it can supercruise at Mach 2 instead of Mach 1.8 (hypothetically speaking on those numbers).

The F-22 is a great bird, and it's a shame that I'll never fly it. But it's still a conventional design and it could have been so much more. Speed is good stuff if you have enough of it to make a difference as in an SR-71, but for a fighter plane... they simply aren't that fast to make them impervious to AAMs (when targeted).

I'm just saying that whether or not the F-22 cruises at Mach 2 or 1.8M.... its not that huge of a difference to matter except in very special circumstances.

RE: Re: Why does it even matter?

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2006, 14:17
by Raptor_One
FireFox,

When you say the F-22 could have been so much more, what exactly do you mean? You act as though the YF-23 could have been a better aircraft had the USAF taken the risk of selecting it over the more "conventional" YF-22. Just because an aircraft looks unconventional and different from anything you've seen doesn't mean it has the potential for superior performance over a conventional looking design. You can't really draw any negative or positive conclusions about the F-22 simply because it has the same basic physical features as the F-15. In any design competition, there are a number of design/performance requirements that must be met by both aircraft. An aircraft that meets all the requirements set forth by the customer will usually end up winning the competition. In the rare case that both aircraft meet all the design requirements, the aircraft that excels in the most critical requirement(s) will generally be the winner. If neither aircraft meets all design requirements, the prototype aircraft that shows the most potential for eventually living up to the operational requirements will be selected.

The ATF minimum requirements (all of them) are no doubt still classified, but I think it's safe to say that Lockheed's YF-22 came closer than Northrop's YF-23 in all the really important categories. Perhaps the YF-23 was better in certain things, but you can bet the YF-22 was superior in most of the critical areas. Sometimes radical designs don't produce radical performance. Sometimes they just look radical. The ATF program requirements were obviously pretty broad and wide-ranging. The YF-23 design was probably less versatile than the YF-22's. Perhaps it was stealthier or faster (perhaps not), but if the YF-22 met all the stealth and speed requirements and excelled over the YF-23 in the majority of other areas.... you get the picture.

Think of the YF-22 as a woman with decent (but still realtively average) looks, but with a really great personality, intellect, ***** drive, etc. Now think of the YF-23 as a really gorgeous looking woman (by virtually anyone's standards), but lacking personality, intelligence, passion, etc. Sorry if this sounds sexist... I'm not trying to be. But in conclusion, if there were no such thing as divorce, would you rather marry the first woman or the second woman? The first one of course.

Re: RE: Re: Why does it even matter?

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2006, 14:59
by MKopack
Great points both JZimms and VprWsl (Weasel, that was one of the best posts I've seen here in a long time...) The top speed of an aircraft, not only won't affect 'our' lives, but in general, but also won't likely affect a Raptor pilots life all that often.

Let's face it, top speed is realistically usually only a 'book value' - how often does a Viper reach its top end in day to day service, how about an Eagle? Flying is a balancing act, speed for fuel, tactics, weapons employment. 'As fast as you can go' may be cool on a sim, but tactically is very rarely the right choice.

Speed is life, but it's expensive (in terms of fuel) and it won't help you if you have to walk home. By the way, the MiG-25's that were engaged over Iraq by the Tomcats with their AIM-54's were at extreme range, which allowed the Foxbats to turn to evade relatively easily.

Mike

JZimms100 wrote:After over 3 years of simply reading the posts on this forum, I was finally compelled enough to register to make a comment.

I sit here reading this thread in absolute amazement. There have been some pretty laughable discussions on this forum among a lot of very zealous military aviation enthusiasts, but this one absolutely takes the cake.

A big "SHACK" to VprWzl on the 10% rule. And to most of the rest of you... no offense, but why does this issue matter so much to you? Take what the pilot said with a grain of salt. The top speed of the F-22 does not affect your daily life in any way, shape or form....other than to give you something to discuss on this forum.

I didn't say this to offend anyone. I just think it is ridiculous to pick apart something that was (quite clearly) not meant to be taken so seriously.

See ya!

RE: Re: Why does it even matter?

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2006, 15:01
by skrip00
The F-22A apparantly exceeded many of its initial requirements in the ATF program.

The YF-23 was a great design, and considered a favorite. But, for many reasons, it just lost to the YF-22.

Re: RE: Re: Why does it even matter?

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2006, 15:32
by Raptor_One
skrip00 wrote:The F-22A apparantly exceeded many of its initial requirements in the ATF program.

The YF-23 was a great design, and considered a favorite. But, for many reasons, it just lost to the YF-22.


Whether or not the F-22A exceeds many of the original requirements of the ATF program is somewhat besides the point. It was the YF-22 that had to meet or exceed as many of the ATF program requirements as possible and beat out the YF-23. As for the YF-23 being a great design... says who? Who considered it the favorite? I knew a Navy aerospace engineer at Pax River who was heavily involved in the JSF competition and asked him straight up whether he thought Boing or Lockheed Martin had a better design. I was with him at work on the air station when I asked him this (and a bunch of other things he refused to answer). This was in 1998. He said very bluntly that he couldn't discuss any details of an ongoing competition, or something to that effect.

Are you suggesting that someone inside the USAF was leaking information on whether Lockheed or Northrop was ahead in the competition while it was still ongoing? That's very dirty business you're talking about if so. :D I think that the YF-22 won out over the YF-23 for obvious reasons. I do not think it was political. The USAF had nothing to gain by choosing an inferior aircraft that would serve as its front-line fighter well into the 21st century. They chose the better aircraft just like they did at the conclusion of the LWF competition between the YF-16 and YF-17. We all know now that the YF-16 was a much better platform for the USAF than the YF-17. And the YF-16's performance was clearly better throughout most of the flight envelope. The same can be said for the X-35 vs. the X-32. Anyone who saw that documentary on PBS about the JSF competition knows that the X-35 won fair and square.

And one last thing... since when was Lockheed's Skunkworks seen as an underdog? Perhaps at the beginning of the Have Blue project when they weren't even asked to submit a design, but never after that. Skunk Works was always the team to beat after that, hands down.

Re: RE: Re: Why does it even matter?

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2006, 16:26
by FireFox137
Raptor_One wrote:
skrip00 wrote:The F-22A apparantly exceeded many of its initial requirements in the ATF program.

The YF-23 was a great design, and considered a favorite. But, for many reasons, it just lost to the YF-22.


Whether or not the F-22A exceeds many of the original requirements of the ATF program is somewhat besides the point. It was the YF-22 that had to meet or exceed as many of the ATF program requirements as possible and beat out the YF-23. As for the YF-23 being a great design... says who? Who considered it the favorite? I knew a Navy aerospace engineer at Pax River who was heavily involved in the JSF competition and asked him straight up whether he thought Boing or Lockheed Martin had a better design. I was with him at work on the air station when I asked him this (and a bunch of other things he refused to answer). This was in 1998. He said very bluntly that he couldn't discuss any details of an ongoing competition, or something to that effect.

Are you suggesting that someone inside the USAF was leaking information on whether Lockheed or Northrop was ahead in the competition while it was still ongoing? That's very dirty business you're talking about if so. :D I think that the YF-22 won out over the YF-23 for obvious reasons. I do not think it was political. The USAF had nothing to gain by choosing an inferior aircraft that would serve as its front-line fighter well into the 21st century. They chose the better aircraft just like they did at the conclusion of the LWF competition between the YF-16 and YF-17. We all know now that the YF-16 was a much better platform for the USAF than the YF-17. And the YF-16's performance was clearly better throughout most of the flight envelope. The same can be said for the X-35 vs. the X-32. Anyone who saw that documentary on PBS about the JSF competition knows that the X-35 won fair and square.

And one last thing... since when was Lockheed's Skunkworks seen as an underdog? Perhaps at the beginning of the Have Blue project when they weren't even asked to submit a design, but never after that. Skunk Works was always the team to beat after that, hands down.


Well, truth be told IMHO I was not a fan of either the YF-22 or the YF-23 designs. Although given the choice between the 2 I think the AF chose the safe choice. That's not a negative thing either! But the -23 would have had more opportunities for doubling in brass as a mid-long range stike bomber to replace the F-111. I think the -23 only had the sore point of not being as manuverable as the -22 in the close-in A2A stuff (which the AF ain't going to use the -22 for anyways). If I were the guys on the other side of the ocean, I would have been fearful of the-23 going into production. I don't know about the super duper secret electronics stuff they cram into today's birds, but the -23 sure was stealthier in radar and IR (and faster too) with a more likely higher ceiling as well. The -22 is a hell of a bird, and I'm glad that it actually made it into production. I just think the ATF could have been and should have been a different bird altogther.

Back to speed: who cares about .2 mach here or there? It ain't that important.

(Lockheed won because 1) Politics (successful F-117 ala Gulf War 1), 2) financial stabiltiy of LM versus Nthrp, and 3) the F-22 is a super duper faster and strealthier version of the successful F-15)

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2006, 16:51
by bf-fly
Firefox That's not a negative thing either! But the -23 would have had more opportunities for doubling in brass as a mid-long range stike bomber to replace the F-111. I think the -23 only had the sore point of not being as manuverable as the -22 in the close-in A2A stuff (which the AF ain't going to use the -22 for anyways). If I were the guys on the other side of the ocean, I would have been fearful of the-23 going into production

I think the US Airforce would be under full assault from all quarters if they followed the example of the F-111 when building a fighter. The ATF was planned to replace an air superiority fighter, not an overweight fighter that HAD to be turned into a bomber. What attack capabilities the F-22 has is incidental.

Yes, the F-22 was likely the safer design, but also the better design. A fighter has to be a fighter, capable fighting at all ranges. Had they chosen the F-23, I think we would be discussing how the SU can eat it's shorts in a WVR fight. I know we wouldn't be talking about it doing the Cobra, and back flips, it's design precluded TVC. While it's design optimized stealth, it's just possible it did so at the expense of being a true fighter. It lost for a reason. Yes, it would have made a nice fighter-bomber, but that's not what we were asking for.

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2006, 16:52
by bf-fly
Sorry Bass ackwards, the quote is my post, the non quote is what I responded to

Re: RE: Re: Why does it even matter?

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2006, 17:07
by Raptor_claw
Raptor_One wrote:FireFox,

When you say the F-22 could have been so much more, what exactly do you mean?


My question exactly. This implies that you think the F-22 is not meeting all its mission requirements. I would love to hear what you think those shortcomings are.

And yes, anything that can be built can be built to be 'so much more', if you have infinite time and dollars. That's just not reality...

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2006, 17:42
by checksixx
bf-fly wrote:If you want another assessment of speed, look at the 7 minute from Langely to D.C. reference by a US Air Force General.

7 minutes to DC from Langely is a 1071 MPH average flight from a ground launch, (which can't be done without afterburner to attain supercruise, and perhaps even longer).


Your figures are WAY off.

-Check

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2006, 19:30
by bf-fly
I double checked my figures, I come up with about 960 MPH assuming it's already doing 960 as it passes over Langely. I don't recall off the top of my head how I figured it before since it was in a different context, but the isn't "way off" taking into account a static launch (as stated, a ground launch). If you assume the F-22 is sitting at the end of the rwy with engines at idle, then it happens to get the call, my numbers are not that far off.

To say something is "way off" and make no attempt whatsoever to disprove with your own calculations it is cheesy in my book.

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2006, 19:32
by bf-fly
And by the way, that's midfield KLFI to midfield KDCA, about 2 1/2 miles shorter than the actual distance.

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2006, 20:16
by bf-fly
Actually I made a mistake not converting KTS to MPH above.

111 NM from LFI to DCA (center field) 111 X 1.15 = 127.65 statute miles

127.65 miles in 7 minutes = 18.2 miles per minute X 60 minutes = 1094 MPH (not way off)

Not sure how I came up with 1071 to begin with, but I may have used another source for distance to begin with.

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2006, 20:34
by Raptor_claw
bf-fly wrote:7 minutes to DC from Langely is a 1071 MPH average flight from a ground launch,


1071 MPH is only about Mach 1.5 at 20,000'. This is certainly within the range of published numbers for supercruise and well below the kinds of numbers calculated based on Shower's (alleged) comments for the flight from Langley to Oshkosh.

I am confused by this though...
bf-fly wrote:(which can't be done without afterburner to attain supercruise, and perhaps even longer).


By definition supercruise means without afterburner. Maybe you mean that from a zero start it takes too long to get to 1071 MPH without killing the 7 minute deal, and that you have to use A/B to get to speed quicker?
If this quote is from a general I seriously doubt he would have taken time to consider time required for acceleration - he probably just took total distance divided by cruising speed.

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2006, 21:01
by MKopack
Either way, I think we're looking way, way to deep into someone's comments here. Please take a look back at VprWsl's comments from a page or two back - he knows of which he speaks.

Mike

Raptor_claw wrote:
bf-fly wrote:7 minutes to DC from Langely is a 1071 MPH average flight from a ground launch,


1071 MPH is only about Mach 1.5 at 20,000'. This is certainly within the range of published numbers for supercruise and well below the kinds of numbers calculated based on Shower's (alleged) comments for the flight from Langley to Oshkosh.

I am confused by this though...
bf-fly wrote:(which can't be done without afterburner to attain supercruise, and perhaps even longer).


By definition supercruise means without afterburner. Maybe you mean that from a zero start it takes too long to get to 1071 MPH without killing the 7 minute deal, and that you have to use A/B to get to speed quicker?
If this quote is from a general I seriously doubt he would have taken time to consider time required for acceleration - he probably just took total distance divided by cruising speed.

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2006, 21:23
by checksixx
bf-fly wrote:Actually I made a mistake not converting KTS to MPH above.

111 NM from LFI to DCA (center field) 111 X 1.15 = 127.65 statute miles

127.65 miles in 7 minutes = 18.2 miles per minute X 60 minutes = 1094 MPH (not way off)

Not sure how I came up with 1071 to begin with, but I may have used another source for distance to begin with.


Hmmm..using your distance I came up with around 701mph. Your simply calculating how far one could travel with a velocity of 18.2MPm in one hour. Not calculating the speed that would be required to travel 127-128miles in 7 minutes.

-Check

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2006, 21:32
by checksixx
Also, our alert jets go up to the DC area all the time from Langley. The flight time is usually around 8 minutes and no, they are not breaking any windows.

-Check

Re: RE: Re: Why does it even matter?

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2006, 22:43
by FireFox137
Raptor_claw wrote:
Raptor_One wrote:FireFox,

When you say the F-22 could have been so much more, what exactly do you mean?


My question exactly. This implies that you think the F-22 is not meeting all its mission requirements. I would love to hear what you think those shortcomings are.

And yes, anything that can be built can be built to be 'so much more', if you have infinite time and dollars. That's just not reality...


1) All aspect stealth (front, rear, sides, top, and bottom) including IR

2) The ability to be modified (easily with gear and wings) for USN duty so the Superbug wouldn't be our frontiline anyplace in the world fighter (yeah yeah, I know who cares about the Navy when it's a AF product). Which of course would have reduced costs through larger orders

3) The ability with slight modifications to skins and coatings to replace the F-117 with a supercruising more heavily armed pure stealth strike bomber (again increasing quantity and reducing costs)

4) The technical ability *existed* at the time to design an aircraft that with a modification here-and-there that what the USA could have ended up with was a platform that could be a fighter/interceptor, strike bomber (not the tiny load of the Raptor either), USN fighter/bomber, recon platform, and EW platform... Something that could have followed the terrain as well as the B1/F-111 or bombed from 70K

The technical ability to existed at the time to produce/design an airframe that could have served as "one size fits all" type of aircraft for mutliple missions/services w/o degrading A2A ability (yeah yeah, I know all about the follies of the F-111)

What we got is a great plane. But not what could have been even better yet. What we bought is one product for one mission for one branch of *the* USA (keeping in mind it's small bombing capability and murky EW abilities). Now there's no room in the budget for even what the military thinks is even the minimum for just its fighter role. Budgets aside, the sure go ahead and draw up a fighter, and then draw up a carrier hawk, and then draw up a strike bomber... But that's not reality and wasn't the reality that was looking everyone in the eyes as the ink was still wet on the CAD models of LM and Nrtrp. Our combined air forces are growing older and an older and we can't field a respectable # of new planes. The JSf is a joke for an American fighter and our existing airframes are getting more restrictions on them as time moves on and we can't afford (or simply will not) to buy enough -22s to matter except in a small regional conflict or as a few silver bullets here and there.

Re: RE: Re: Why does it even matter?

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2006, 23:24
by sferrin
Raptor_One wrote:
skrip00 wrote:The F-22A apparantly exceeded many of its initial requirements in the ATF program.

The YF-23 was a great design, and considered a favorite. But, for many reasons, it just lost to the YF-22.


Whether or not the F-22A exceeds many of the original requirements of the ATF program is somewhat besides the point. It was the YF-22 that had to meet or exceed as many of the ATF program requirements as possible and beat out the YF-23. As for the YF-23 being a great design... says who?


Pretty much everybody. The general consensus is it was a combination of the Lockheed design being a bit more manueverable, more conventional/less risky, and the fact that the USAF believed Lockheed could deliver on it's promises better than Northrop that gave the win to Lockheed. Actual aircraft performance had little to do with it. Both aircraft exceeded the requirement so the USAF went with the package they were the most comfortable with.

RE: Re: RE: Re: Why does it even matter?

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2006, 23:34
by Raptor_One
The only thing you mention that *could* be a positive for the YF-23 over the YF-22 is the stealth aspect. I don't think it's fact that the YF-23 was more stealthy than the YF-22. It just looked like it was more stealthy. As for IR stealth, it's a big price to pay for maneuverability. I don't think the F-22 is a sitting duck for IR missiles. All the other things you mention have nothing to do with the ATF program requirements. You can't say that the YF-23 was a better aircraft because it might have done a better job in other roles besides those for which it was designed. Advanced Tactical Fighter did not stand for anything else. It was not a bomber/attack competition and it was not a Navy program.

How do you know any of what you say is true? Where did you read this stuff? Also, why do you think the JSF is a joke? There have been enough JSF bashers on here, and they usually don't come with anything to back up their highly critical statements. It sounds like you're saying that the ATF program requirements were flawed to begin with. It shouldn't have been the ATF program but the ATFB program. I am in no position to debate that sort of high-level military thinking. Maybe it should have been the ATFB program... I don't know. All I know is that it WAS the ATF program and you don't criticize an aircraft for being selected over another because it WAS the best advanced tactical *fighter*. Fighter, fighter, fighter.

Re: RE: Re: Why does it even matter?

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2006, 23:40
by Raptor_One
sferrin wrote:
Raptor_One wrote:
skrip00 wrote:The F-22A apparantly exceeded many of its initial requirements in the ATF program.

The YF-23 was a great design, and considered a favorite. But, for many reasons, it just lost to the YF-22.


Whether or not the F-22A exceeds many of the original requirements of the ATF program is somewhat besides the point. It was the YF-22 that had to meet or exceed as many of the ATF program requirements as possible and beat out the YF-23. As for the YF-23 being a great design... says who?


Pretty much everybody. The general consensus is it was a combination of the Lockheed design being a bit more manueverable, more conventional/less risky, and the fact that the USAF believed Lockheed could deliver on it's promises better than Northrop that gave the win to Lockheed. Actual aircraft performance had little to do with it. Both aircraft exceeded the requirement so the USAF went with the package they were the most comfortable with.


Do you EVER back up your statements with any sources? EVER? Who is everybody? What documents are you reading? What shows are you watching? What people are you talking to? You don't win debates by acting like you know what you're talking about and sounding like everyone agrees of you. You have to be willing to back up your statements with hard facts and tangible evidence when called to task.

Re: RE: Re: Why does it even matter?

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 00:34
by Raptor_claw
FireFox137 wrote:1) All aspect stealth (front, rear, sides, top, and bottom) including IR

2) The ability to be modified (easily with gear and wings) for USN duty so the Superbug wouldn't be our frontiline anyplace in the world fighter (yeah yeah, I know who cares about the Navy when it's a AF product). Which of course would have reduced costs through larger orders

3) The ability with slight modifications to skins and coatings to replace the F-117 with a supercruising more heavily armed pure stealth strike bomber (again increasing quantity and reducing costs)

4) The technical ability *existed* at the time to design an aircraft that with a modification here-and-there that what the USA could have ended up with was a platform that could be a fighter/interceptor, strike bomber (not the tiny load of the Raptor either), USN fighter/bomber, recon platform, and EW platform... Something that could have followed the terrain as well as the B1/F-111 or bombed from 70K

The technical ability to existed at the time to produce/design an airframe that could have served as "one size fits all" type of aircraft for mutliple missions/services w/o degrading A2A ability (yeah yeah, I know all about the follies of the F-111)


So you know about the follies of the F-111, but apparently you refuse to learn from them. The fact is, the laws of physics have not changed from the days the F-111 was designed. What you have described would have been an incredible over-design, would be incredibly expensive, and would have taken much longer than even the drawn out program time. All in the hope of someone in the future coming up with more money to actually build the modified aircraft.
The Navy didn't cancel the A-12 until December 1990, right at the tail end of the YF competition. There was no Naval requirement during the YF-22 design - nor was one anticipated. Lockheed did actually develop and propose a viable naval variant of the F-22 - USN didn't want it.
As far as your other concerns...
Do we really need a supersonic heavy bomber? Are there that many large targets that we need to bomb right now, as opposed to a few hours from now? It's not like a subsonic bomber takes days to cross the Atlantic. Besides, it's generally known a bomber variant of the F-22 will be among the entries for USAF's new bomber program - if/when that ever actually moves ahead. EW? Has had issues, but they are being resolved. Will be the most effective EW platform in history. Terrain following? Just wait.

FireFox137 wrote: The JSf is a joke for an American fighter and our existing airframes are getting more restrictions on them as time moves on and we can't afford (or simply will not) to buy enough -22s to matter except in a small regional conflict or as a few silver bullets here and there.


First of all, the JSF's primary role is not as a fighter. Its mission is to come in and clean up and control the airspace, after the F-22's and/or cruise missiles have hit the highest value/most dangerous targets. Having said, that, it is still a very respectable ATA system. Is it 50 times the "fighter" the 'F'-117 is? Ummmm, yeah. Is it the fighter that F-16 is? Depends on what part of the fight you are talking about. Would you rather be in an F-16 or F-35 around enemy territory? Ummm, F-35. In terms of the combination of payload and stealth, it will go down as one of the most successful 'weapons platforms' in history, when all is said and done.

Re: RE: Re: Why does it even matter?

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 00:52
by sferrin
Raptor_One wrote:
sferrin wrote:
Raptor_One wrote:
skrip00 wrote:The F-22A apparantly exceeded many of its initial requirements in the ATF program.

The YF-23 was a great design, and considered a favorite. But, for many reasons, it just lost to the YF-22.


Whether or not the F-22A exceeds many of the original requirements of the ATF program is somewhat besides the point. It was the YF-22 that had to meet or exceed as many of the ATF program requirements as possible and beat out the YF-23. As for the YF-23 being a great design... says who?


Pretty much everybody. The general consensus is it was a combination of the Lockheed design being a bit more manueverable, more conventional/less risky, and the fact that the USAF believed Lockheed could deliver on it's promises better than Northrop that gave the win to Lockheed. Actual aircraft performance had little to do with it. Both aircraft exceeded the requirement so the USAF went with the package they were the most comfortable with.


Do you EVER back up your statements with any sources? EVER? Who is everybody? What documents are you reading? What shows are you watching? What people are you talking to? You don't win debates by acting like you know what you're talking about and sounding like everyone agrees of you. You have to be willing to back up your statements with hard facts and tangible evidence when called to task.


The funny part is this really demonstrates how little you actually know as the topic has been discussed ad infinitum over the years with that being the general consensus. Since I figured just about everybody here had heard the same numerous times I didn't think it necessary. But just for you here's one off the top of my head:

From Jay Miller's (do you even know who he is?) book "Lockheed Martin F/A-22 Raptor"

pg 39

"Additionally, some sources note the YF-23A outperformed the YF-22A in all arenas with the exception of manueverability (the YF-23A did exceed the requirement for combat manueverability). Additionally, the YF-23A was found to have a larger weapons capacity, a lighter wing loading, superior low-observables specifications, and a planform that was more readily adaptable to the proposed deep-strike/interdiction mission."

RE: Re: RE: Re: Why does it even matter?

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 01:15
by Raptor_One
And what were his sources? He says some sources... what were they? Are those his conclusions, the USAF's, an independent, unbiased 3rd party analysis? What? Just because you get a book published doesn't mean everything in it is fact. If someone talks of sources yet doesn't actually tell you what the sources they're talking about, a red flag should go up.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Why does it even matter?

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 01:23
by sferrin
Raptor_One wrote:And what were his sources? He says some sources... what were they? Are those his conclusions, the USAF's, an independent, unbiased 3rd party analysis? What? Just because you get a book published doesn't mean everything in it is fact. If someone talks of sources yet doesn't actually tell you what the sources they're talking about, a red flag should go up.


ROFL 'bout what I expected from you. Jay Miller is one of the most respected aviation writers out there and he deserves his reputation.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Why does it even matter?

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 01:31
by Raptor_One
sferrin wrote:
Raptor_One wrote:And what were his sources? He says some sources... what were they? Are those his conclusions, the USAF's, an independent, unbiased 3rd party analysis? What? Just because you get a book published doesn't mean everything in it is fact. If someone talks of sources yet doesn't actually tell you what the sources they're talking about, a red flag should go up.


ROFL 'bout what I expected from you. Jay Miller is one of the most respected aviation writers out there and he deserves his reputation.


Listen... I don't care who Jay Miller is. Did he actually name his sources? If not, why? If he did, why don't you go and find them from his book. I suppose you believe everything you read.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Why does it even matter?

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 04:31
by sferrin
Raptor_One wrote:
sferrin wrote:
Raptor_One wrote:And what were his sources? He says some sources... what were they? Are those his conclusions, the USAF's, an independent, unbiased 3rd party analysis? What? Just because you get a book published doesn't mean everything in it is fact. If someone talks of sources yet doesn't actually tell you what the sources they're talking about, a red flag should go up.


ROFL 'bout what I expected from you. Jay Miller is one of the most respected aviation writers out there and he deserves his reputation.


Listen... I don't care who Jay Miller is. Did he actually name his sources? If not, why? If he did, why don't you go and find them from his book. I suppose you believe everything you read.


Just because you don't seem to be able to sift the wheat from the chaff doesn't mean the rest of us can't.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Why does it even matter?

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 06:10
by Raptor_One
So you're trying to say you have a better sense for whether someone's writing/speaking the truth than I do? It's funny though... you started this thread believing that you had something really solid to go on. At least one pilot came in here and said otherwise. You still think that the F-22 can do between 1600 and 1920 MPH in MIL power though, don't you? And based on what? You still believe it despite warnings from other fighter pilots... hehehe. Keep on separating that wheat from chaff. You're obviously the expert at that.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Why does it even matter?

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 15:21
by habu2
Jay Miller is one of the most connected aviation writers alive. Jay was selected by Lockheed to write the official history of the SkunkWorks. He even had access to Kelly Johnson's personal diaries. Jay knows is stuff. Only once in over twenty years have I been able to tell him something about aviation/aircraft that he did not already know.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Why does it even matter?

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 15:54
by idesof
habu2 wrote:Jay Miller is one of the most connected aviation writers alive. Jay was selected by Lockheed to write the official history of the SkunkWorks. He even had access to Kelly Johnson's personal diaries. Jay knows is stuff. Only once in over twenty years have I been able to tell him something about aviation/aircraft that he did not already know.


Raptor_One: One thing is being a skeptic--which I applaud, it will serve you well in life--and another altogether is being a mere contrarian. How long does it take the light from the sun to reach the Earth? Eight minutes, you say? And how do you know that? Because some scientist told you? Were you there when said scientist conducted his experiment? Better yet, have you ever stood on the surface of the sun and chased one photon until it reached the Earth and verifiably observed the eight-minute figure? To a certain extent, all human knowledge is based on faith and an appeal to authority.

That being said, if you know even a teensy-weensy bit about military aviation you know who Jay Miller is (in the same way that if you know anything about naval combat you know who Norman Polmar is). You are more than welcome to question the reliability of his sources, but you might as well question whether light really does take eight minutes to reach the Earth from the sun.

Also, it may serve you well to tone down your superiority complex (which may stem from a deep-rooted inferiority complex, as is usually the case). Make your arguments, sure, but it would be nice to see you cease and desist from your constant ad hominem attacks. Enough already. I think we're all getting sick of this back-and-forth.

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 16:10
by bf-fly
Raptor claw quote ,and MKOPAK and Check six's comments

By definition supercruise means without afterburner. Maybe you mean that from a zero start it takes too long to get to 1071 MPH without killing the 7 minute deal, and that you have to use A/B to get to speed quicker?
If this quote is from a general I seriously doubt he would have taken time to consider time required for acceleration - he probably just took total distance divided by cruising speed.



A) The math stands, it is correct

B) I was quite clear. I said from a static ground launch with burner to attain super cruise, please read what I wrote, don't assume...,

C) I understand what supercruise means, thanks for the tip.

D) Counting a static start, acceleration, and a climb to the mid twenties where the CAP is run over D.C. a speed closer to 1.6 must be attained, (interpolating Raptors claws mach numbers, not my a/s numbers)

E) The General referenced used prepared and considered remarks, stating 7 minutes from Langely to CAP over D.C. with 41 minutes of fuel remaining, not "35 or 40", but precisely 41 minutes. VPRWZL post was spot on, but these were prepared remarks, not off the cuff. I'll find the reference for you

F) 8 minutes to DC in an F-15 (I assume)? I know my geography. I've never flown into Langely, but I've beed to KPHF many times. (and others). Ever notice that coast near Langley and DC? No windows over the Ocean to break. A 600+mph average, which counting acceleration time, would be the max allowed by your chosen top speed of no more than Mach one, would take 12 minutes 45 seconds. I'll do the math for you, 60 mph is 1 mile per minute, 600 is 10 miles per minute. 127.65 miles would take 12.765 minutes. (700 mph average which would be impossible under your chosen limit would still take 11 minutes) To attain an 8 minute flight would require about 900 mph, further, to go over water would be farther still, so even faster is required. That same General said the F-15 would arrive on fumes. (Burner required)

My point is, not that this is the perfect example, but it is more precise than an off the cuff "25 or 30 minutes".

Consider:

1)The F-22 is climbing
2) If Mach 1.6 is the average (using Raptor claws' math), that is down low, not it's optimal supercruising altitude.
3) If Mach 1.6 can be attained at 25K, then one of you guys can convert than to 37+K to gain one possible solution to your question.
4) I reasoned that if it arrived with only 41 minutes fuel on station plus reserves, then some burner had to be used, but if it did the entire time it would arrive on fumes as well just like the F-15.
5)If we use a scientific method, rather than conjecture, we can arrive an airspeed that is accurate. If we take the average speed of all available information, and convert that to a consistant altutude, we can arrive at a reasonably accurate number. (tempature would likely be unknown adding a variable)
6)Metz, the test pilot provided some insight, Dozer, this General, and some others that maybe you guys can provide, can be blended to provide a good picture.

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 16:18
by bf-fly
I don't think this qualifies as off the cuff;

http://www.afa.org/magazine/Nov2005/1105paths.asp

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 16:28
by idesof
bf-fly wrote:6)Metz, the test pilot provided some insight, Dozer, this General, and some others that maybe you guys can provide, can be blended to provide a good picture.


Yes, about Mach 1.6 to Mach 1.8, as extensively documented. Until we KNOW otherwise, can we just drop this???

By the way, nice work, bf-fly.

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 16:40
by bf-fly
Well the thread is F-22's speed. I thought this forum was an attempt to quantify it's speed, top speed and supercruise. I'm simply providing a scientific method as a starting point rather than speculation.

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 16:47
by idesof
bf-fly wrote:Well the thread is F-22's speed. I thought this forum was an attempt to quantify it's speed, top speed and supercruise. I'm simply providing a scientific method as a starting point rather than speculation.


With so much insolence and sarcasm on the net, I guess you thought I was being facetious! Not at all. I mean it: nice work. I thought your post was clear and well thought-out. It also serves to reconfirm what we already knew, which judging by the attitude of some of the people posting on here, we either did not really know it and/or have no business knowing and/or no business wanting to know.

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 16:50
by bf-fly
Thanks

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 16:53
by Raptor_One
bf-fly wrote:Well the thread is F-22's speed. I thought this forum was an attempt to quantify it's speed, top speed and supercruise. I'm simply providing a scientific method as a starting point rather than speculation.


Your calculations are not based on a scientific method. There is actually a definition for the term "scientific method".

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Why does it even matter?

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 16:57
by Raptor_One
idesof wrote:Also, it may serve you well to tone down your superiority complex (which may stem from a deep-rooted inferiority complex, as is usually the case). Make your arguments, sure, but it would be nice to see you cease and desist from your constant ad hominem attacks. Enough already. I think we're all getting sick of this back-and-forth.


Now who's engaging in personal attacks? I would define a superiority complex as someone who states something as fact that is not necessarily so. Then when asked to back that up, said person refuses.

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 16:58
by bf-fly
Is that the best you can do? While that is not precisely what I meant, I wasn't that far off

Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on observable, empirical, measurable evidence, and subject to laws of reasoning.

Although specialized procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, there are identifiable features that distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of developing knowledge. Scientific researchers propose specific hypotheses as explanations of natural phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these predictions for accuracy. These steps are repeated in order to make increasingly dependable predictions of future results. Theories that encompass whole domains of inquiry serve to bind more specific hypotheses together into logically coherent wholes. This in turn aids in the formation of new hypotheses, as well as in placing groups of specific hypotheses into a broader context of understanding.

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 16:59
by bf-fly
Wow, you're a piece of work.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Why does it even matter?

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 17:04
by Raptor_One
habu2 wrote:Jay Miller is one of the most connected aviation writers alive. Jay was selected by Lockheed to write the official history of the SkunkWorks. He even had access to Kelly Johnson's personal diaries. Jay knows is stuff. Only once in over twenty years have I been able to tell him something about aviation/aircraft that he did not already know.


I have that book by Miller on the history of the Skunk Works. You're talking about Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works, right? It's sitting two feet from me. So what? I don't automatically believe statements by people simply because they're "well connected" and have published books. I believe what I read if the author's sources are documented and reputable, among other things. You can't believe everything you read... even from reputable authors and reporters. You should take claims that aren't backed up by credible sources with a grain of salt, no matter who makes them. To not do so amounts to worship. You people don't worship Jay Miller, do you? I know I don't. Do I have at least one of his books? Yes. So what?

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 17:07
by Raptor_One
bf-fly wrote:Is that the best you can do? While that is not precisely what I meant, I wasn't that far off

Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on observable, empirical, measurable evidence, and subject to laws of reasoning.

Although specialized procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, there are identifiable features that distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of developing knowledge. Scientific researchers propose specific hypotheses as explanations of natural phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these predictions for accuracy. These steps are repeated in order to make increasingly dependable predictions of future results. Theories that encompass whole domains of inquiry serve to bind more specific hypotheses together into logically coherent wholes. This in turn aids in the formation of new hypotheses, as well as in placing groups of specific hypotheses into a broader context of understanding.


I guess that's close enough. So you know what the scientific method is. Why do you think your calculations are scientific? Because you're using some math?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Why does it even matter?

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 17:12
by idesof
Raptor_One wrote:
habu2 wrote:Jay Miller is one of the most connected aviation writers alive. Jay was selected by Lockheed to write the official history of the SkunkWorks. He even had access to Kelly Johnson's personal diaries. Jay knows is stuff. Only once in over twenty years have I been able to tell him something about aviation/aircraft that he did not already know.


I have that book by Miller on the history of the Skunk Works. You're talking about Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works, right? It's sitting two feet from me. So what? I don't automatically believe statements by people simply because they're "well connected" and have published books. I believe what I read if the author's sources are documented and reputable, among other things. You can't believe everything you read... even from reputable authors and reporters. You should take claims that aren't backed up by credible sources with a grain of salt, no matter who makes them. To not do so amounts to worship. You people don't worship Jay Miller, do you? I know I don't. Do I have at least one of his books? Yes. So what?


Have you ever heard of "Deep Throat"? A U.S. president was brought down by an anonymous source. The reporters followed up and, although they backed up their story with their own research, never did reveal said source until he revealed himself.

Regarding the YF-22 vs. YF-23, there is a whole body of circumstantial evidence, backed up by statements from sources who obviously have an interest in not revealing themselves, that has lead many to conclude that the YF-23 was the superior aircraft in most respects. Same is true regarding the F119 and F120, the latter also being judged superior.

Anyway, I think I'm done with this thread. I call for boycot of this by-now VERY dead horse. Who's with me?

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Why does it even matter?

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 17:15
by bf-fly
Hey Raptor one, why don't you refute my post rather than playing games with definitions? So far I'm completely unimpressed and frankly I find your approach quite childish.

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 17:22
by bf-fly
By the way Raptor One, this was my actual statement, "if we use a scientific method" I simply was opening the door for a scientific method to be applied by all, not just me. (lots of we's in there)

"5)If we use a scientific method, rather than conjecture, we can arrive an airspeed that is accurate. If we take the average speed of all available information, and convert that to a consistent altitude, we can arrive at a reasonably accurate number. (temperature would likely be unknown adding a variable)
6)Metz, the test pilot provided some insight, Dozer, this General, and some others that maybe you guys can provide, can be blended to provide a good picture"

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Why does it even matter?

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 17:27
by Raptor_One
idesof wrote:Have you ever heard of "Deep Throat"? A U.S. president was brought down by an anonymous source. The reporters followed up and, although they backed up their story with their own research, never did reveal said source until he revealed himself.

Regarding the YF-22 vs. YF-23, there is a whole body of circumstantial evidence, backed up by statements from sources who obviously have an interest in not revealing themselves, that has lead many to conclude that the YF-23 was the superior aircraft in most respects. Same is true regarding the F119 and F120, the latter also being judged superior.

Anyway, I think I'm done with this thread. I call for boycot of this by-now VERY dead horse. Who's with me?


You're proving my point for me. Nixon didn't go down based on unnamed sources. He was proven to have done wrong. The rest of the stuff you say about the YF-23 vs. YF-22 is just what you say it is... rumor and inuendo... or as you like to call it, "a whole body of circumstantial evidence." You haven't even listed the circumstantial evidence. By the way, Jay Miller's book is not circumstantial evidence. How bout some first hand, named sources? Do you have any? No? You are too easily swayed by rumor and inuendo.

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 17:29
by Raptor_One
bf-fly wrote:By the way Raptor One, this was my actual statement, "if we use a scientific method" I simply was opening the door for a scientific method to be applied by all, not just me. (lots of we's in there)

"5)If we use a scientific method, rather than conjecture, we can arrive an airspeed that is accurate. If we take the average speed of all available information, and convert that to a consistent altitude, we can arrive at a reasonably accurate number. (temperature would likely be unknown adding a variable)
6)Metz, the test pilot provided some insight, Dozer, this General, and some others that maybe you guys can provide, can be blended to provide a good picture"


You guys were already warned by an actual pilot not to make engineering calculations based on pilot statements like the ones you're mentioning. Yet you still persist at doing just that? Why?

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 17:33
by bf-fly
I am an actual pilot as well, my friend. I wouldn't put it under the heading of a warning, just advice. I did address that in my post (you did actually read my post didn't you?).

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 17:37
by Raptor_One
bf-fly wrote:I am an actual pilot as well, my friend. I wouldn't put it under the heading of a warning, just advice. I did address that in my post (you did actually read my post didn't you?).


So you're a fighter pilot? What do you fly? An F-16 pilot came in here and warned people about making engineering calculations based on fighter pilot stories and the like.

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 17:42
by bf-fly
I didn't say I was a fighter pilot. Once again, it wasn't a warning, it was advice, secondly it wasn't a fighter pilot story, third, it was prepared remarks.

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 17:44
by Raptor_One
bf-fly wrote:I didn't say I was a fighter pilot. Once again, it wasn't a warning, it was advice, secondly it wasn't a fighter pilot story, third, it was prepared remarks.


Warning, advice... whatever. What is your point? Why don't you take his advice?

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 17:52
by sferrin
Raptor_One wrote:
bf-fly wrote:I didn't say I was a fighter pilot. Once again, it wasn't a warning, it was advice, secondly it wasn't a fighter pilot story, third, it was prepared remarks.


Warning, advice... whatever. What is your point? Why don't you take his advice?


He's right, you're a real piece of work. Why don't you go back to the very first post in this thread and read what it says.

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 17:54
by idesof
sferrin wrote:
Raptor_One wrote:
bf-fly wrote:I didn't say I was a fighter pilot. Once again, it wasn't a warning, it was advice, secondly it wasn't a fighter pilot story, third, it was prepared remarks.


Warning, advice... whatever. What is your point? Why don't you take his advice?


He's right, you're a real piece of work. Why don't you go back to the very first post in this thread and read what it says.


Yep, the can has spilled and the worms are all over the place...

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 17:54
by bf-fly
Since you are so fond of definitions, I would think you would know the difference between advice and a warning. Once again, I don't think you read my post, you just jumped on "scientific method" as a quick way to score some points (at least in your mind)

Here's the article. Not a fighter pilot jumping out of a plane boasting, or at a bar drinking, a US Airforce general using prepared remarks. Further, I did not suggest that this is the Holy Grail of F-22 info, just a good starting point to blend with other credible sources, such as Paul Metz the test pilot, and some of Dozer's written comments (not verbal)

http://www.afa.org/magazine/Nov2005/1105paths.asp

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 17:57
by bf-fly
Here is the relevant text from my post

"My point is, not that this is the perfect example, but it is more precise than an off the cuff "25 or 30 minutes"."

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 17:58
by idesof
bf-fly wrote:Since you are so fond of definitions, I would think you would know the difference between advice and a warning. Once again, I don't think you read my post, you just jumped on "scientific method" as a quick way to score some points (at least in your mind)

Here's the article. Not a fighter pilot jumping out of a plane boasting, or at a bar drinking, a US Airforce general using prepared remarks. Further, I did not suggest that this is the Holy Grail of F-22 info, just a good starting point to blend with other credible sources, such as Paul Metz the test pilot, and some of Dozer's written comments (not verbal)

http://www.afa.org/magazine/Nov2005/1105paths.asp


I think it is pretty damned well a verifiable fact that Metz said he had flown at Mach 1.72. Dozer's descriptions were very specific as well. I think to lend those statements credence does not amount to credulity.

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 18:03
by sferrin
idesof wrote:
sferrin wrote:
Raptor_One wrote:
bf-fly wrote:I didn't say I was a fighter pilot. Once again, it wasn't a warning, it was advice, secondly it wasn't a fighter pilot story, third, it was prepared remarks.


Warning, advice... whatever. What is your point? Why don't you take his advice?


He's right, you're a real piece of work. Why don't you go back to the very first post in this thread and read what it says.


Yep, the can has spilled and the worms are all over the place...


The part that kills me is I just stuck the numbers up there that apply to the pilots remark and asked for informed commentary and he goes ballistic to the point of almost being irrational. Up to a point I took him seriously but now. . .well going by his complete meltdown I'd say he's definitly got issues. Ah well.

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 18:04
by bf-fly
Here's the other statement for Raptor one;

E) The General referenced used prepared and considered remarks, stating 7 minutes from Langely to CAP over D.C. with 41 minutes of fuel remaining, not "35 or 40", but precisely 41 minutes. VPRWZL post was spot on, but these were prepared remarks, not off the cuff. I'll find the reference for you.


IDESOF
That's precisely my point. If you really want to narrow it down, blend those answers. If at all possible, find the altitudes to provide a common baseline. Adjust my calculations (7/41, 1.6) for a common altitude if possible. Find other sources. The more you have the more accurate the answer is. I know Metz said 1.72, but Dozer referenced 2.0 at 60K. The same can be applied to the top speed. this methodology accounts for VPRWZL's comments if enough values are entered into the formula

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 18:06
by Raptor_One
sferrin wrote:The part that kills me is I just stuck the numbers up there that apply to the pilots remark and asked for informed commentary and he goes ballistic to the point of almost being irrational. Up to a point I took him seriously but now. . .well going by his complete meltdown I'd say he's definitly got issues. Ah well.


Okay... I've got issues. Whatever you say. And you're personally attacking me now.

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 18:08
by Raptor_One
Some of you guys will never get it, despite being told numerous times by numerous different people. Lost cause here.

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 18:12
by bf-fly
I wasn't sure a few days ago who was the greater antagonists since I wasn't inclined to read all of the posts. I do have to say that based upon your comments with I wrote, you pretty much went off half cocked.

You don't know me from a hill of beans, but you first assume that I wasn't a pilot, even though my posts indirectly spelled it out. Secondly you took cheap shots without actually reading what I wrote. Dude, I'm all for a fresh start, but I would appreciate it if you took it down a peg. Thank you.

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 18:14
by bf-fly
"Some of you guys will never get it, despite being told numerous times by numerous different people. Lost cause here."

Say what? Get what?

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 18:32
by Raptor_One
You won't get that these foolish calculations you're making are just that... foolish. And silly. It's a lost cause because no matter how many times you're told, no matter who tells you, you still persist at making these ludicrous calculations.

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 18:41
by bf-fly
Dude, I am comfortable with my knowledge base and experience. I know they are rational calculations based on information from a very credible source. Further, the proof of the viability of my calculations is that they fall directly in the center of the mainstream of thought on the F-22's speed.

Because you choose to ignore the results is not the final litmus test, nor did I ever infer that in and of itself, it is the final answer. I simply broke down a signifiacnt clue in the puzzle and offered to others to attach other pieces to to create a more complete picture.

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 18:59
by Raptor_One
bf-fly wrote:Dude, I am comfortable with my knowledge base and experience. I know they are rational calculations based on information from a very credible source. Further, the proof of the viability of my calculations is that they fall directly in the center of the mainstream of thought on the F-22's speed.

Because you choose to ignore the results is not the final litmus test, nor did I ever infer that in and of itself, it is the final answer. I simply broke down a signifiacnt clue in the puzzle and offered to others to attach other pieces to to create a more complete picture.


Brilliant!

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 19:07
by bf-fly
Now rather than acually read what I wrote and comprehend it, you make smart a*# comments.

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 19:32
by Raptor_One
You're too smart for me. I concede to your superior intellect.

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 20:05
by bf-fly
Your immaturity is showing. You couldn't have possibly missed more opportunities, you never effectively countered a single argument. You cold have chosen to attack my calculations, you could have chosen to debate me point by point, but instead you chose skimmed what I wrote, took cheap shots, and made smart a*# comments. You may be smug as you sit behind your computer screen, but you took a sound beating. I wonder if you're not adept enough to know it.

Skim that awhile...,

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 20:36
by Raptor_One
You know... I think you're right by-fly. I'm immature and took a sound beating. I'm adept enough to know it too. So I'm bowing out before I get beaten any further. You win! I give up!

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Why does it even matter?

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 20:38
by habu2
Raptor_One wrote:You should take claims that aren't backed up by credible sources with a grain of salt, no matter who makes them. To not do so amounts to worship. You people don't worship Jay Miller, do you? I know I don't. Do I have at least one of his books? Yes. So what?


R-1, I have known Jay Miller for twenty-two years. He is a close personal friend. No one mentioned worshiping anyone (except you), but I will tell you this: I would trust any aviation fact Jay stated over anyone posting in this degenerating thread.

Through Jay I've met Harry Hillaker, Ben Rich, Phil Oestricher, Neal Anderson, Tom Morganfeld, Jon Beesley, and countless others. Jay's sources for the Skunk Works book were Kelly Johnson, his wife and his co-workers. If you can think of more credible sources I'd like to hear who they might be.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Why does it even matter?

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 20:49
by Raptor_One
I never said he wasn't credible. Find me one place where I said that. I simply said that I wouldn't trust any statement by any author that didn't reference a primary source. The quote that someone in this degenerating thread attributed to Jay Miller's writings didn't actually reference any sources. It just talked of unnamed sources. I don't know if he actually named those sources, but I can't really take his "sources" too seriously if he didn't. Do you see what I'm saying here? Unnamed sources vs. named sources. This is somewhat of a journalistic issue, isn't it?

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Why does it even matter?

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 21:17
by Meathook
I was wondering, how many of you in this specific forum are actually involved in the F22 program (in some shape or form) .....if any?

Or..is this all just "spinning" the documents or articles you happen to have read?

Re: RE: Re: Why does it even matter?

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 22:24
by Raptor_claw
I have a bit of a backlog of previous posts I want to make comments on, but I will just start here:
sferrin wrote:From Jay Miller's (do you even know who he is?) book "Lockheed Martin F/A-22 Raptor"
pg 39
"Additionally, some sources note the YF-23A outperformed the YF-22A in all arenas with the exception of manueverability (the YF-23A did exceed the requirement for combat manueverability). Additionally, the YF-23A was found to have a larger weapons capacity, a lighter wing loading, superior low-observables specifications, and a planform that was more readily adaptable to the proposed deep-strike/interdiction mission."


In general, I tend to aggree with those (R-1) who question 'some sources'. In any huge, enormous, multi-faceted decision like the 22/23 selection there are going to be those (within the process) who are disappointed when their 'favorite' is ultimately not selected. Sure, I can't prove that 'some sources' had an axe to grind, but there are always those who do.

Even with that in mind, I had to laugh at "with the exception of manueverability". Hmmm. We're building an air superiority fighter, right? Yea, manueverability - not so important. Did we really want to risk going down the 'F'-111 / 'F'-117 path again? And yes, apparently the YF-23A did meet a combat requirement. (Well, yea, my old beatup Chevy meets the requirement of getting me to work every day - doesn't mean I wouldn't rather have a new 'Vette).

Others:

"all arenas" Gotta be honest - I find this really hard to believe - points me back to the 'axe-to-grind' angle.

"larger weapons capacity" Total capacity is just one factor. What about separation envelope, range with weapons, avionics interoperability???

"superior low-observables specifications" Based on what? Predictions? Pole-data? Flight data? Can't speak for the 23, but the 22 did no actual observable testing in flight (there was a pole model). This kind of data can be hard to predict accurately without real test. And what about durability and maintainability of low-ob materials?

"planform that was more readily adaptable..." Not to beat the F-111 horse to death, but my understanding was that the contract was for an air superiority fighter - only.

My bottom-line point is, even if the quote in question is true as written, it really doesn't go into enough specifics or detail to be of any real use.

There are hundreds of factors that go into a selection like this and to try to look at two or three points and say "the wrong plane was chosen" based on those is just wrongheaded. Just one 'for instance': There is a HUGE difference between between building two prototypes for a demonstration program and building actual, production aircraft. Maybe, just maybe, the 23 was a 'superior' design, but USAF just wasn't convinced that it could actually be built, or that the risk in trying to build it was just too high.

Re: RE: Re: Why does it even matter?

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2006, 00:59
by sferrin
Raptor_claw wrote:Even with that in mind, I had to laugh at "with the exception of manueverability". Hmmm. We're building an air superiority fighter, right? Yea, manueverability - not so important. Did we really want to risk going down the 'F'-111 / 'F'-117 path again?



Yeah, it's especially hilarious when you have no idea what you're talking about. :roll: Maybe you should read some of Paul Metz's accounts of flying the YF-23 so you don't leave yourself so wide open huh? Paul Metz was the Chief Test Pilot on the YF-23 and on the F-22A.



Raptor_claw wrote:"all arenas" Gotta be honest - I find this really hard to believe - points me back to the 'axe-to-grind' angle.



Do you know anything at all about who said what over the years? There are people who've been following the program since the mid 80's when it first got started and it's not simply "Northrop has an axe to grind".


Raptor_claw wrote:"superior low-observables specifications" Based on what? Predictions? Pole-data? Flight data? Can't speak for the 23, but the 22 did no actual observable testing in flight (there was a pole model). This kind of data can be hard to predict accurately without real test.


They both did similar testing. They both met predicted values. Northrop predicted their's at one value Lockheed at another. Northrop's happened to be lower. Can't spell it out any simpler than that. (And before you respond with some assinine comment like "were you in the control booth when they did the testing" no, I wasn't. Were you? Didn't think so.)



Raptor_claw wrote: Maybe, just maybe, the 23 was a 'superior' design, but USAF just wasn't convinced that it could actually be built, or that the risk in trying to build it was just too high.


Ya think? :roll:


The thing I don't get about both you and Raptor_one (there must be something about that name) is that you reject out of hand published information and try to latch on to some other theory that is completely unsupported instead. Where is the sense in that?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Why does it even matter?

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2006, 01:05
by sferrin
Meathook wrote:I was wondering, how many of you in this specific forum are actually involved in the F22 program (in some shape or form) .....if any?

Or..is this all just "spinning" the documents or articles you happen to have read?


No offense but would I be able to read AvWeek or Jane's better if I happened to be an engineer on the F-22A? Secondly (and most likely) anybody actually involved in the F-22A program likely wouldn't touch a thread like this with a twenty foot pole. If they did they'd likely have to be so general and/or vague as to not be able to realistically contribute anyway. Most likely if they come here at all it's for amusement.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Why does it even mat

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2006, 01:39
by Meathook
Yea but it sure seems to draw fire from some...I agree, it is entertainment...I guess

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Why does it even

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2006, 02:08
by sferrin
Meathook wrote:Yea but it sure seems to draw fire from some...I agree, it is entertainment...I guess


I think the most interesting/entertaining stuff is listening to you guys (those who have actually DONE) trade war stories. The stuff all of us armchair generals argue about can never be definitively answered for the most part because of security issues so we do the best we can with available info out there and it almost inevitably decends into what this thread has become. Every now and then a gold nugget will drop our way but you sure have to sift through a lot of bullsh!t to find them.

Re: RE: Re: Why does it even matter?

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2006, 03:06
by Raptor_claw
sferrin wrote:
Raptor_claw wrote:Even with that in mind, I had to laugh at "with the exception of manueverability". Hmmm. We're building an air superiority fighter, right? Yea, manueverability - not so important. Did we really want to risk going down the 'F'-111 / 'F'-117 path again?


Yeah, it's especially hilarious when you have no idea what you're talking about. :roll: Maybe you should read some of Paul Metz's accounts of flying the YF-23 so you don't leave yourself so wide open huh? Paul Metz was the Chief Test Pilot on the YF-23 and on the F-22A.


Don't even know where to begin. You see, I do have just 'a little' idea what I'm talking about. And I don't have to read Paul's accounts and you don't have to tell me who he is. I worked with Paul for several years (after he 'transferred' from the dark side.) And yes, he was very much a fan of the YF-23, that was never a secret. I will just say that his public enthusiasm and praise for the F-22 was not just a show for support of the program or company - it was very much genuine. (And yes, there were things he didn't like, but that's true for all pilots and all airplanes.) It's unfortunate that he left active F-22 flight status prior to getting into the really 'fun' stuff, but he certainly got to see enough to get a good taste.
And anyway, I never meant to imply that the YF-23's maneuverability was similar to an F-111 or F-117, simply that the experience from those programs may have led the USAF decision-makers down the path of making sure the program started with every bit of maneuverability it could get. The quoters did admit, after all, that the YF-22 did hold an advantage in that arena, right?

sferrin wrote:Do you know anything at all about who said what over the years? There are people who've been following the program since the mid 80's when it first got started and it's not simply "Northrop has an axe to grind".

Who said anything about who said what over the years? And where did I say anything about Northrop? I was simply refering to the 'sources' quoted in the book. The only people with enough information to make the quoted claims would (should?) be USAF personnel involved in the selection. I simply inferred that strong YF-23 supporters within that group could be disappointed enough with the final decision to not hesitate to make disparaging, but vague comments regarding the selection.

Raptor_claw wrote:"superior low-observables specifications" ...
sferrin wrote:They both did similar testing. They both met predicted values. Northrop predicted their's at one value Lockheed at another. Northrop's happened to be lower. Can't spell it out any simpler than that. (And before you respond with some assinine comment like "were you in the control booth when they did the testing" no, I wasn't. Were you? Didn't think so.)


My point, which apparently you missed, was not to question either company's methods or data, simply to point out the fact that that kind of data is by its very nature difficult to gather accurately without extensive dedicated flight testing (which I happen to know was not done for the YF-22). In other words, maybe the YF-23 was a 88 out of 100 (on some hypothetical 'stealth' scale) and the YF-22 was 85. Yes, the YF-23 has a 'better' number, but if the accuracy of that data is only +/- 5 percent, does it really mean anything?

Raptor_claw wrote: Maybe, just maybe, the 23 was a 'superior' design, but USAF just wasn't convinced that it could actually be built, or that the risk in trying to build it was just too high.


sferrin wrote:Ya think? :roll:


No, actual I don't 'think' that at all. I just randomly hit a bunch of buttons on my keyboard and that statement magically appeared. :roll: :roll:

sferrin wrote:The thing I don't get about both you and Raptor_one (there must be something about that name) is that you reject out of hand published information and try to latch on to some other theory that is completely unsupported instead. Where is the sense in that?


The name thing is just a coincidence, really. Exactly what published information is it that I am rejecting out of hand? I thought I was suggesting that the 'opinion' of some unnamed sources in a book might not be totally reliable and/or unbiased.

Re: RE: Re: Why does it even matter?

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2006, 03:28
by sferrin
[quote="Raptor_claw"][/quote]

After reading your post above I think we're actually in agreement for the most part. Re the 88/85 someone here I think it was said that the military will always take "meets requirements and is cheaper" over "better" every time. As for Paul and the F-22A I saw an interview with him and they were asking him about it and he was like a kid with a big sh!t-eating grin on his face and it was obvious he likes the aircraft as you pointed out. Nobody has got him to compare it to the YF-23 yet though (not on public record anyway).

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2006, 03:29
by bf-fly
Raptor Claw

In any huge, enormous, multi-faceted decision like the 22/23 selection there are going to be those (within the process) who are disappointed when their 'favorite' is ultimately not selected. Sure, I can't prove that 'some sources' had an axe to grind, but there are always those who do.


Very true. Always has, always will be.

Others:

When making an assessment such as this you cannot discount the US Airforce's deep seated desire for maneuverability which manifested itself in the F-4/F-15 design issues. It is part and parcel of every design since the Viet Nam war. Don't forget that while not required by the USAF, the F-23's design precluded TVC.

Secondly,(the F-35 not withstanding), you have to consider the desire to maintain an industrial base as part of the decision making process. Northrop got the last stealth aircraft, and at 2 billion a copy, we sent over 42 billion their way, and perhaps the AirForce lost a little confidence in them due to all of the cost overruns. The legacy of the Skunk works and their proven track record of delivering what they promised with cutting edge designs is a tough act to compete with.

Lockheed hadn't built a true fighter for the USAF since the F-104, and that was in limited numbers. To give the order to them for a fighter had to indicate a high level of confidence in the design and their ability to deliver as promised. I simply don't see the USAF deliberately choosing an inferior design, but I can see them choosing a design that had a greater chance of delvering on it's promises, and more practical in squadron service.

By the way, the same industrial base issues applied to the F-119/120 competition. GE has been kicking P&W's but lately in fighter engines. This is a way to boost P&W into a better funded more capable competitor. (There are many who say the F-120 was superior as well)

(as far as the F-32/35 goes, I think Boeing simply screwed the pooch)

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2006, 03:43
by Raptor_claw
bf-fly wrote:Lockheed hadn't built a true fighter for the USAF since the F-104, and that was in limited numbers. To give the order to them for a fighter had to indicate a high level of confidence in the design and their ability to deliver as promised. I simply don't see the USAF deliberately choosing an inferior design, but I can see them choosing a design that had a greater chance of delvering on it's promises, and more practical in squadron service.


You bring up many good points, but you can't forget the positive influence of Lockheed's North Texas partner on the YF-22 team. The influence of the GD F-16 'guys' on the 22 design should not be underestimated or discounted. Also, the proven track record of the F-16 production program certainly brought a lot of weight to the Lockheed proposal.

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2006, 04:15
by bf-fly
I would think it's possible the General Dynamics types would have played a role in it's maneuverability and Lockheed lead on stealth.

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2006, 04:19
by bf-fly
Lockheed would be foolhardy not to tap their experience. I have no doubt the F-16 (and others before it) bred a cadre' of very experienced and top notched engineers at the GD. (didn't North American become GD? So the FB-111, XB 70 are there's as well?)

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2006, 04:31
by Raptor_claw
bf-fly wrote:Lockheed would be foolhardy not to tap their experience. I have no doubt the F-16 (and others before it) bred a cadre' of very experienced and top notched engineers at the GD. (didn't North American become GD? So the FB-111, XB 70 are there's as well?)


The Fort Worth plant was Convair prior to GD, and the FB-111 was built there, but not the XB-70. And yes, GD did have primary responsibility for the YF-22 flight controls, drawing (obviously) on the F-16 fly-by-wire design experience. GD also provided considerable stability and control support for the initial design trades, but the main configuration design work was handled by Lockheed.

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2006, 04:51
by idesof
Raptor_claw wrote:
bf-fly wrote:Lockheed would be foolhardy not to tap their experience. I have no doubt the F-16 (and others before it) bred a cadre' of very experienced and top notched engineers at the GD. (didn't North American become GD? So the FB-111, XB 70 are there's as well?)


The Fort Worth plant was Convair prior to GD, and the FB-111 was built there, but not the XB-70. And yes, GD did have primary responsibility for the YF-22 flight controls, drawing (obviously) on the F-16 fly-by-wire design experience. GD also provided considerable stability and control support for the initial design trades, but the main configuration design work was handled by Lockheed.


Holy sh!t! Are we actually seeing some cordial conversation taking place? Aaaaa, refreshing... And guess what? I've actually learned a thing or two in the course of the last few posts. Thank you!

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2006, 05:13
by bf-fly
By the way, on the YF-23 subject matter, didn't have a propensity to generate visible wingtip vortices's quite easily? It was considered a significant negative since it could betray it's position easily in visual range.

(to be clear, an aircraft can be seen 40 miles away in the right conditions)

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2006, 15:26
by EBJet
bf-fly wrote:By the way, on the YF-23 subject matter, didn't have a propensity to generate visible wingtip vortices's quite easily?


Yes,but there was a fix for that which would have been implemented in the FSD aircraft.

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2006, 16:09
by habu2
Early in the ATF design phase the Lockheed and General Dynamics proposals were two different aircraft. Trade studies took the best of both designs to come up with what we now know as the YF-22. Reference the following article on the Code One website, from which the following photos are linked:

Lockheed design:

Image

General Dynamics design:

Image

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2006, 16:39
by habu2
The above link is part one of a two-part article - here is the link to part two

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2006, 17:03
by checksixx
bf-fly wrote:
A) The math stands, it is correct

Oh okay..not..I think I'll stand by my figures as that is what our pilots are telling me.

B) I was quite clear. I said from a static ground launch with burner to attain super cruise, please read what I wrote, don't assume...,

You seem to assume your figures are correct so don't lecture others about it.

F) 8 minutes to DC in an F-15 (I assume)? Uhh Ohh..there you go assuming. Nope, no alert F-15's at Langley. ND ANG F-16's.
I know my geography. I've never flown into Langely, but I've beedbeed there huh?? to KPHF many times. (and others). Ever notice that coast near Langley and DC? No windows over the Ocean to break.Probably because the coastline around Langley and DC isn't the Ocean??? You may want to review your geography A 600+mph average, which counting acceleration time, would be the max allowed by your chosen top speed of no more than Mach one, would take 12 minutes 45 seconds. I'll do the math for you, 60 mph is 1 mile per minute, 600 is 10 miles per minute. 127.65 miles would take 12.765 minutes. (700 mph average which would be impossible under your chosen limit would still take 11 minutes) To attain an 8 minute flight would require about 900 mph, further, to go over water would be farther still, so even faster is required. That same General said the F-15 would arrive on fumes. (Burner required)

I'll still stand by the guys who are flying the route before I'll give you any notice. Thats the way it works. Check


Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2006, 17:47
by bf-fly
Check Sixx

Are you proud of yourself for making fun of a typo? How should I respond to a clearly childish comment? Is sticking my tongue out appropriate?

Once again, my math is correct.

111 nm from Langely to DCA which converts to 127 statue miles. To cover that in 8 minutes means you are traveling 15.95 miles per minute. If I am traveling 15.95 miles per mimute, how far can I travel in 60 minutes? 957 miles in 60 minutes, otherwise known as an hour, and as I said before, "about 900mph".

I don't care if it's an F-16 or 15, it's irrelavent since the crux of the discussion was the F-22's speed. The General quoted said F-15 in the airticle, F-15's are based there. He was referring to a 9/11 type scenerio in a hypothetical sense.

Dude, why do you chose to take such a childish approach? Yes I know that the Chesapeeke, duh! But how far away is the Atlantic coast, 40 miles? 30?less? It was your comment that they didn't "break any windows" I can only assume that doesn't mean supersonic. Since 957 is supersonic, then the only way they can "not break any windows" is to go over the ocean. I said quite clearly that would be a farther distance, so an even higher speed is required. (hense the Generals reference that they arrive out of gas)

I think a F-16 pilot (WPRWZL) advised us not to take everything a fighter pilot says for the absolute truth. I'm sure 8 minutes is in fact possible, but it was YOU that interjected the subsonic element to the equasion. The math does lie, 957 MPH on a direct flight.

I left a few typo's for you to have fun with.

For the rest of you- why do you guys take such an adversarial tone with these posts? Why is it always "I know more than you" Can't we just exchange information?

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2006, 17:54
by blk40crewdawg
sferrin wrote:Probably a can of worms but...


I think that's the only definitive point made on this thread!! :bang:

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2006, 17:56
by bf-fly
Check six

I think I'll stand by my figures as that is what our pilots are telling me.


In otherwords, you have no mathmatical information whatsoever to support your contention. Do I undertand you correctly that you adsolutely ignore the mathmatical equaision that clearly proves that what you are saying is impossible?

Let me give it to you another way. 760 MPH is 12,67 miles per minute. In 8 minutes at 760 MPH you can travel 101 statute miles, 26.65 miles short of your goal.

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2006, 18:24
by checksixx
bf-fly wrote:Check Sixx

For the rest of you- why do you guys take such an adversarial tone with these posts? Why is it always "I know more than you" Can't we just exchange information?


Actually its checksixx, one word. You should read and heed your above statement. Your the only one really arguing with anyone here. No, I'm not proud of pointing out a very clear mis-spelling. Usually when people keep mis-spelling simple words, it tends to show some level of incompetence. I really don't care where your figures come from. I already stated that I would take the figures our pilots give us over yours. When was the last time you flew a F-16 from Langley to DC airspace again??? As far as the Ocean thing, your just plain wrong, get over it. A scramble to DC airspace goes direct. The only time the jets go out over the Atlantic to a holding area is when they are given the order to scramble, but have not gotten a specific destination. Period. I say period because thats a fact not a guess. If you don't like people replying to your posts, maybe you shouldn't post...Check

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2006, 19:09
by bf-fly
Usually when people keep miss-spelling simple words, it tends to show some level of incompetence.


Boy that's weak.

Ask your f-16 pilots next time you see them if they can go to DC in 8 minutes without going supersonic.

When was the last time you flew a F-16 from Langley to DC airspace again???


Can't say I have precisely done that, but I can say that if YOU worked 8 hours a day 5 days per week (40 hours) it would take you about 12 weeks to have the same amount of time as I have flying just over that area. (that would be at the pointy end)

Can't say I have, but I've flown into DCA well over 100 times, and Dulles at least that much, KPHF at least a dozen, Norfolk 100+ times. I'm very familiar with that area and route. As far as direct goes, no, but there is an arrival into NYC airspace that flies almost direct from those points.

And once again, the numbers don't lie. I notice you've never called me on the supersonic part so clearly I was correct in assuming that's what you meant. The simple fact is this, can't be done in 8 minutes without going supersonic.

And by the way, I was having a perfectly cordial discussion with you until I read your cheap shots, the typo being one of them, secondly the Chesapeake thing, if you've seen it from the air as much as I have you'd realize that is an insult to your intelligence.

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2006, 19:11
by bf-fly
Probably because the coastline around Langley and DC isn't the Ocean??? You may want to review your geography


I think it is you that must review your geography.

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2006, 19:16
by bf-fly
I suggest you look at Google Earth and see how far KLFI is to the Atlantic.

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2006, 23:08
by checksixx
I'm well aware of the geography around Langley. Our alert birds would head North direct to DC and would not even fly over the Atlantic as I stated before. The coastline around Langley happens to be the Back River which feeds into the Chesapeake Bay. Cheap shots huh?? Yeah, your "thats weak" above certainly wasn't a cheap shot was it?
"I notice you've never called me on the supersonic part so clearly I was correct in assuming that's what you meant."
Wrong, I still disagree with you, I just don't feel like arguing with you. Further, your flying experience commercially has no relevance to me at all when discussing military flight. Especially in this case. Am I straight and to the point? Yes. Do you have to like it or take what I post as fact. Nope. But stop arguing. Someone else posts something and your all over them too. Trolls do that, don't be like them. I'm done arguing the point.

-Check

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2006, 02:39
by bf-fly
1) I know they would head direct, I only referenced supersonic flight there based on YOUR parameters
2) F-16's can enter Potomac's (or Washington's centers airspace above it) in 8 minutes at subsonic a/s since it extends about 30 miles to the south, which my earlier math at 760 mph proves. Perhaps that it's where you are mistaken, or taking into account VPRWZL's comments, or perhaps the pilot wasn't specific enough.

Actually I did make a mistake, that is I did not understand my opponent. If you think my 17 years as a pilot, 14 individual licenses and ratings equates to "your flying experience commercially has no relevance to me at all", then clearly I misjudged you at the outset. If you can't do simple math and accept the undeniably correct answer, then what I have been doing all along is clear...,

:bang:

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2006, 02:48
by asiatrails
bf-fly I think your fangs are sunk in the floorboard's and you need to ring the admirals bell.

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2006, 03:31
by bf-fly
It depends how you mean that, but yes I shot myself in the foot for even trying to get through to him.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Probably a can of worms but. . . .(Rapto

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2006, 04:15
by asiatrails
Raptor One asked "That's interesting. How many G could the Concord pull at supersonic speeds?" The service airframe limits were a combination of airframe heating and speed, similar to the concept used on the Space Shuttle. If my notes are correct the subsonic / transonic limits were +3.5 / -2 g, in supersonic cruise the Alpha limits were +16.5 / -5 Alpha.

To simulate the TU22M2 if I recall the flight profile started coming down from Northern Norway at about 50K / M2.1 followed by a descent into a low level run at 25K M1+. That was enough to set the alarms off and scramble the air defence aircraft.

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2006, 17:25
by checksixx
bf-fly wrote:It depends how you mean that, but yes I shot myself in the foot for even trying to get through to him.


Let it go and move on Troll.

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2006, 18:34
by bf-fly
Troll? How nice. You can't do simple math, can't resist cheap shots, and clearly have a myopic view since you refuse to accept that somebody else could be very knowledgeable even though they don't fly a F-16. Next time you find yourself at an airport, take a look at the guy with 4 bars on his shoulder and think for a moment just how much he knows about aviation. You're looking through a borescope at the big picture.

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2006, 19:48
by bf-fly
701 MPH (as you stated) in 8 minutes you can travel 93.5 miles
750 MPH 8 100 miles
850 MPH 8 113 miles
950 MPH 8 126.67 miles

It is 127.65 miles from the center of Langley AFB to Washington National airport, which is roughly equidistant from the border of D.C. to the Center of D.C. from that direction of flight.

:bang:

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2006, 20:28
by checksixx
Again...Let it go and move on. Please.

-Check

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2006, 03:40
by JCSVT
I think that bf-fly actually knows what he's talking about after reading his posts. Nice explanations. :thumb:

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2006, 05:27
by bf-fly
Thank you

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Why does it even matter?

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2006, 17:16
by FireFox137
Raptor_One wrote:The only thing you mention that *could* be a positive for the YF-23 over the YF-22 is the stealth aspect. I don't think it's fact that the YF-23 was more stealthy than the YF-22. It just looked like it was more stealthy. As for IR stealth, it's a big price to pay for maneuverability. I don't think the F-22 is a sitting duck for IR missiles. All the other things you mention have nothing to do with the ATF program requirements. You can't say that the YF-23 was a better aircraft because it might have done a better job in other roles besides those for which it was designed. Advanced Tactical Fighter did not stand for anything else. It was not a bomber/attack competition and it was not a Navy program.

How do you know any of what you say is true? Where did you read this stuff? Also, why do you think the JSF is a joke? There have been enough JSF bashers on here, and they usually don't come with anything to back up their highly critical statements. It sounds like you're saying that the ATF program requirements were flawed to begin with. It shouldn't have been the ATF program but the ATFB program. I am in no position to debate that sort of high-level military thinking. Maybe it should have been the ATFB program... I don't know. All I know is that it WAS the ATF program and you don't criticize an aircraft for being selected over another because it WAS the best advanced tactical *fighter*. Fighter, fighter, fighter.


Well (politely) that is exactly what I am saying. Not being a *true* -23 fan, it was the better choice as far as the Pentago making a stategic decision in the defense arsenal of the USA. Look, with the F-4 Phantom, we have a truly fantastic aircraft (despite what the poor tactics in the 60's did to us there). What the USA got in the F-22 is a highly specialized aircraft for the A2A role with (most likely) only better AOA and *maybe* roll rates. The *very* same people who say that the F-35's lack of a 'dogfighting' skills still makes it superior and and able to take SU-37's are because of it's "stealth" rather than it's "turning" ability are also the same people who say that the F-22 was superior to the -23 because of "turning" ability. I see a huge double standard there.

What we the USA needed in the ATF was a stealthy and supercrusing F-4 Phantom: a plane that filled every role from SEAD, to fleet defense, to dropping napalm 100 feet above the trees, to CAP missions. It *was* very very much within the scientific and engineering capability of the industrial base to design that aircraft and still meet the pure A2A role.

Now the USoA is ending up with a handful of silver bullets and a large fleet of dogs that may have a small frontal RCS but not much else (airframe-wise) going for it. Our brass scr*wed the pooch with our combined branch airforces.

JSF: minuture (Ford Ranger sized) payload. Pinpoint precision with an icepick sized load. No true A2A "turning" ability compared to the other planes out there and coming out. No IR suppression either, for either the STOVL or the (more importantly) CTOL version. What the AF got is a dog compared to what they could have gotten with what was do-able when the design competition was underway. Can ANYONE at all please tell me why the Boeing design was selected???? Like the combined branches of our air foreces needed ONLY a hyped-up Harrier? Huh? Does anyone remember the Himat? F-16F? FSW wings even? We're getting a plane thats smaller than an F-16 and weighs in on par with and F-15. That don't sound too good to me for a "strike fighter". I don't care that it's nozel can swivel 360, but that plane is.... well... A lot of people know to what I am speaking of.

A-12 Avenger: the USoA would not have wasted billions on it if our military industrial base could have drawn up the plane that was within their ability.

The superbug would would never had hatched and our fleet would have a hell of an offensive (air and ground) ability of what they're going to end up with.

F-117 "pure stealth" capability: that envelope would have been pushed leaps and bounds with what we were capable of.

I also do not need to read what other people read and then redigest it into the world (mind you I am not typing agrily!!). I have my own education and can draw conclusions myself with being swayed by Bill Sweetman, or Pier Sprey, or whoever is popular today.

I have concluded that our top brass and maybe politicians have bargained away (or were just stupid enough) to do away with the *true* potential of filling our ramps and carriers with the planes that they could have been stocked with. Back in GW1, we whooped the tar out of a not too badly equiped nation with our combined air forces. What's the result of proving how effective air power is? Let's cut air power in half and build subpar-not-what-we-could-have-designed aircraft to take the places of the existing stock. Oh, wait we've the worlds best fighter already built being tested, so let's just build the bird a tiny quantity.

Sure most nations are not building any aircraft (yet) in quantities that we need to worry about (yet).

My last point is a point from the past (which we should NEVER forget): the Germans looked upon the Spitfire as a "toy" and insignificant to their marvelous aircraft (which were pretty good planes actually), and those "toys" whipped the buts out of the Germans. I think that a lot of people here (patriotic types like myself) who unfortunately are looking at the other planes being built and drawn up in CAD models as "toys" which are insignificant to our birds (ala Eurofighter and others).

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Why does it even matter?

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2006, 17:35
by idesof
FireFox137 wrote:Well (politely) that is exactly what I am saying. Not being a *true* -23 fan, it was the better choice as far as the Pentago making a stategic decision in the defense arsenal of the USA. Look, with the F-4 Phantom, we have a truly fantastic aircraft (despite what the poor tactics in the 60's did to us there). What the USA got in the F-22 is a highly specialized aircraft for the A2A role with (most likely) only better AOA and *maybe* roll rates. The *very* same people who say that the F-35's lack of a 'dogfighting' skills still makes it superior and and able to take SU-37's are because of it's "stealth" rather than it's "turning" ability are also the same people who say that the F-22 was superior to the -23 because of "turning" ability. I see a huge double standard there.

What we the USA needed in the ATF was a stealthy and supercrusing F-4 Phantom: a plane that filled every role from SEAD, to fleet defense, to dropping napalm 100 feet above the trees, to CAP missions. It *was* very very much within the scientific and engineering capability of the industrial base to design that aircraft and still meet the pure A2A role.

Now the USoA is ending up with a handful of silver bullets and a large fleet of dogs that may have a small frontal RCS but not much else (airframe-wise) going for it. Our brass scr*wed the pooch with our combined branch airforces.

JSF: minuture (Ford Ranger sized) payload. Pinpoint precision with an icepick sized load. No true A2A "turning" ability compared to the other planes out there and coming out. No IR suppression either, for either the STOVL or the (more importantly) CTOL version. What the AF got is a dog compared to what they could have gotten with what was do-able when the design competition was underway. Can ANYONE at all please tell me why the Boeing design was selected???? Like the combined branches of our air foreces needed ONLY a hyped-up Harrier? Huh? Does anyone remember the Himat? F-16F? FSW wings even? We're getting a plane thats smaller than an F-16 and weighs in on par with and F-15. That don't sound too good to me for a "strike fighter". I don't care that it's nozel can swivel 360, but that plane is.... well... A lot of people know to what I am speaking of.

A-12 Avenger: the USoA would not have wasted billions on it if our military industrial base could have drawn up the plane that was within their ability.

The superbug would would never had hatched and our fleet would have a hell of an offensive (air and ground) ability of what they're going to end up with.

F-117 "pure stealth" capability: that envelope would have been pushed leaps and bounds with what we were capable of.

I also do not need to read what other people read and then redigest it into the world (mind you I am not typing agrily!!). I have my own education and can draw conclusions myself with being swayed by Bill Sweetman, or Pier Sprey, or whoever is popular today.

I have concluded that our top brass and maybe politicians have bargained away (or were just stupid enough) to do away with the *true* potential of filling our ramps and carriers with the planes that they could have been stocked with. Back in GW1, we whooped the tar out of a not too badly equiped nation with our combined air forces. What's the result of proving how effective air power is? Let's cut air power in half and build subpar-not-what-we-could-have-designed aircraft to take the places of the existing stock. Oh, wait we've the worlds best fighter already built being tested, so let's just build the bird a tiny quantity.

Sure most nations are not building any aircraft (yet) in quantities that we need to worry about (yet).

My last point is a point from the past (which we should NEVER forget): the Germans looked upon the Spitfire as a "toy" and insignificant to their marvelous aircraft (which were pretty good planes actually), and those "toys" whipped the buts out of the Germans. I think that a lot of people here (patriotic types like myself) who unfortunately are looking at the other planes being built and drawn up in CAD models as "toys" which are insignificant to our birds (ala Eurofighter and others).


I (politely) think that 90% of what you present as "facts" above costitute opinions. How informed your opinions are I will not argue, except to say that your standards of measuring performance and capability you apply in much the same way that Pierre Sprey would and does. At one point in an earlier thread, for instance, you talke about an aircraft capable of terrain following. Now you mention something about dropping napalm. You refer to the F-35's supposedly small payload.

It seems you are applying 1980s standards to 21st century technology. First of all, no U.S. aircraft today does anything remotely like terrain following except perhaps for the A-10. Take a look at F-16s with the Lantirn targeting pod. Do you see the navigation pod? No. You know why? Because current tactics have made terrain following obsolete.

Napalm. I'm not sure the U.S. has dropped napalm in anger since, what, Vietnam? FAE munitions, of course, are another matter.

The F-35, which is not smaller than an F-16 and has a payload of 23,000 lbs. (comparable to an F-15E), can carry eight SDBs internally. Eight different targets, one sortie. During GW1, you had entire waves of F-16s supported by F-4Gs, EF-111s, tankers etc., dozens of aircraft that could not accomplish what a single F-35 can do far more safely and effectively.

Honestly, I think it is probably worthless to argue these points as I doubt I will change your mind and you will not change mine. No one is going to read our posts and cry out "Eureka! Gee, I never thought of that." No longer being such a newbie on this board I am beginning to understand the attitude of some old timers around here: discuss facts and such, but don't waste time arguing opinions. I hope I can take my own advice...

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Why does it even matter?

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2006, 18:30
by Raptor_claw
First, ditto idesof remarks....

FireFox137 wrote:The *very* same people who say that the F-35's lack of a 'dogfighting' skills still makes it superior and and able to take SU-37's are because of it's "stealth" rather than it's "turning" ability are also the same people who say that the F-22 was superior to the -23 because of "turning" ability. I see a huge double standard there.


You cannot make the F-35/SU-37 comparison in the same vein as the YF-22/YF-23 comparison. What you are missing (or ignoring) is that the JSF is never going to go looking for an SU-37 to tangle with - that's the F-22's job. Two different standards for airplanes with two different (primary) roles - that's not what I call a 'double standard'

FireFox137 wrote:What the USA got in the F-22 is a highly specialized aircraft for the A2A role with (most likely) only better AOA and *maybe* roll rates.


Again, either you are unaware, or just choose to ignore the facts. I could cite many examples, but here is just one, cited directly:

news reports wrote:[Aerospace Daily & Defense Report, 10/03/2006]
STEALTHY AWACS: The F-22's operational debut is winning fans and the stealthy fighter is shaking off its reputation as a Cold War anachronism. In the recent Northern Watch exercises in Alaska, less-advanced fighters received situational awareness and targeting information from F-22 intelligence-gathering systems and long-range radar. Once the F-22s had expended their missiles, "they remained in the middle of the battle acting as [a stealthy] AWACS," says a Washington-based observer. The F-22's ability to gather and dispense intelligence from the center of the battle - and a similar capability projected for the F-35 - was a major factor in Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne's decision this year to cancel the large E-10 multisensor command and control aircraft, which - despite its advanced, long-range MP-RTIP radar that can detect stealthy cruise missiles - would have to stay well out of the battle area.


Doesn't sound "highly specialized" to me...

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2006, 19:46
by bf-fly
Firefox137
Now the USoA is ending up with a handful of silver bullets and a large fleet of dogs that may have a small frontal RCS but not much else (airframe-wise) going for it. Our brass scr*wed the pooch with our combined branch airforces.


This is from another source, but look at what the "sliver bullets" can do-

"Learn from experience with the F-117 Nighthawk. In 1986 we declined to use the F-117 to bomb Qaddafi. Thus the Libyan nut-case was forewarned of attack, and pilots dropping bombs had to take evasive action, at cost to mission success. In the Gulf War, the USAF bombed Saddam's nuclear research facility twice. First, they launched a daylight raid of 72 planes, of which 14 were F-16s carrying bombs, with the rest jammers, escorts, etc. The raid encountered heavy fire, and due to evasive maneuvering and smoke spread over the target by the Iraqis no hits were scored. Then, at 3 AM 8 F-117s re-did the mission, using only 2 tankers. Three of the four reactors were destroyed, and the fourth heavily damaged. No warning, no camouflage and no evasive action needed. Besides superior results, a true cost comparison would be 72 planes needed to 10--and the 72 plane mission would have to have been repeated at least once"

My point is numbers don't tell the whole tale. Further It will be a decades before we see the end of USAF F-16's and F-15's. They will remain, they can drop the napalm (hypotheticaly speaking). The A-10 are planned to be around a long time.

As far as the F-4/jack of all trades example goes, until they haven absolute confidence by the USAF in missiles beating maneuverability, then the will not build what you suggest. They have been burned sufficiently that maneuverability will always be one of the top couple priorities for an air superiority fighter. They will rebuild the F-4 concept when it is proven obsolete beyond a shadow of a doubt. Further the F-22 (in my opinion and others) will be made into a wild weisel varient in time. It can also attack the exact same targets as the F-117 at twice the speed. (if you wish I can provide a credible source that says it's stealthier than the F-117)

The F-35 in a little different in my book and belongs on another thread, but a couple of quick notes, a) the nozzle turns 90 degrees I assume you meant you don't know how Boeing made it to the fly off portion? (runner up)

(An yes, no anger, never really was, just making a point about all of the anger flying around this site, this can be a friendly exchange)

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2006, 22:39
by checksixx
Agreed, and the first A-10C just came off the line...it'll be around for a long time.

-Check

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2006, 07:04
by idesof
By the way, hadn't realized it until a few minutes ago, but Lt. Col. Shower, one of the two pilots to whom the controversial quote that started it all is attributed, is none other than Dozer himself.

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2006, 23:10
by TC
bf-fly wrote:"Learn from experience with the F-117 Nighthawk. In 1986 we declined to use the F-117 to bomb Qaddafi. Thus the Libyan nut-case was forewarned of attack, and pilots dropping bombs had to take evasive action, at cost to mission success.


Some facts, some urban legends as well. I worked for one of the men who helped plan El Dorado Canyon. Here's what really happened.

France and Spain denied the U.S. planes overflights. We didn't have a host wing at Aviano, so the closest strike fighter outfit with PAVE Tack was the 48th TFW at Lakenheath, using F-111Fs. The AF also used EFs from Upper Heyford for jamming.

The 117s didn't have the range, or speed of the 'Varks, and would've required far more refuelings than the 111s. Plus, deploying them from Tonopah to England would have raised unnecessary eyebrows.

Qaddafi was already in fear of retribution following the bombing in Berlin, so he was already living and working in a bunker. Intel identified the bunker, and had the lead 'Vark not had a problem with his PAVE tack, the bomb would have taken out Qa-Daffy Duck. Instead, it took out the baby's room.

Overall, the mission was a resounding success. The terrorist barracks were destroyed, as was the former Wheelus AFB. Only one crew was lost, and Qaddafi is no longer the menace he was 20 years ago.

48th TFW: Libyan Urban Renewal

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2006, 07:18
by bf-fly
Actually I was just repeating the article, the Iraqi attack was much more pertinent to the point I was making. I think the author's point was Qaddafi alerted that we were coming, and had we used stealth he might not have survived. I remember the incident quite well and the basing/overflights issue.

I think his inference (and mine) is if the F-22 is available, then it would have the speed, range, and stealth to carry out that type of attack with a similar number (10) of aircraft used in the reactor attack, with little or no warning to the defender. My point was primarily about force multipliers with no slight intended to the F-111.

Qaddafi was already in fear of retribution following the bombing in Berlin, so he was already living and working in a bunker. Intel identified the bunker, and had the lead 'Vark not had a problem with his PAVE tack, the bomb would have taken out Qa-Daffy Duck. Instead, it took out the baby's room.

Overall, the mission was a resounding success. The terrorist barracks were destroyed, as was the former Wheelus AFB. Only one crew was lost, and Qaddafi is no longer the menace he was 20 years ago.


All true

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2006, 15:56
by habu2
I had a patch from the El Dorado mission, it read:

Lakenheath
Is
Bombing
Your
Ass

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2006, 01:07
by TC
habu2 wrote:I had a patch from the El Dorado mission, it read:

Lakenheath
Is
Bombing
Your
Ass


8) Yep yep. Boss man had that in his office. I've got the Libyan Urban Renewal patch, and to this day, I'm still trying to find the "Statue De Libya Raiders" patch. People don't readily part with those though. D@mn!

***********

Good points bi, but also, at that time, the 117 existed, but didn't exist. :wink: Again, deploying the 117 from the same base with the little green men from Mars to England (the only available launching point) would've brought a lot of unnecessary attention to the attack. The SRs making the post mission recon run were already at Mildenhall, so that kept a lid on the 9th SRW's ops tempo.

The U.S. was anxious for retalliation for Qaddafi's actions, so Reagan had to have a good explanation. Showing bombing footage of the attack, and then all interested parties in England knowing that no 111s got off of the ground would've been extremely suspicious. The only logical solution, therefore was the 'Vark.

Over 20 years later, technology has improved, and we have more foward operating areas. You are correct. A similar attack today would be more clandestine, with fewer aircraft, little or no response time, less time over target, more accurate weapons, and could be accomplished with an aircraft that posesses defensive weapons.

F-111: When Diplomacy Fails...

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2006, 16:08
by EBJet
I have a "Gulf of Sidra Yacht Club" patch..

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2006, 11:40
by Meathook
I remember the missions of the "Vark" in Libya, when I got back to the "Heath" in 91 starting my second tour there, one of the first film clips I saw in the 492nd FS was that attack run and "Ka Daffy Duck" running bare a$$ naked from his blown out tent way out in front of his kid. Cool film clip of the attack.....

Hell',va a raid that was and it shut that clown up for quite some time, I was in the states when it occurred but the pride I felt was overwhelming, turned out I too would work the F-111 until we converted to the F-15E in 1992

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2006, 14:49
by idesof
Meathook wrote:I remember the missions of the "Vark" in Libya, when I got back to the "Heath" in 91 starting my second tour there, one of the first film clips I saw in the 492nd FS was that attack run and "Ka Daffy Duck" running bare a$$ naked from his blown out tent way out in front of his kid. Cool film clip of the attack.....

Hell',va a raid that was and it shut that clown up for quite some time, I was in the states when it occurred but the pride I felt was overwhelming, turned out I too would work the F-111 until we converted to the F-15E in 1992


This is WAY off-topic now but, does anyone else here think it was a mistake to retire the F-111? Had they undergone an intensive upgrade program, bringing the avionics up to F-15E standard and replacing the crappy engines with F100s or F110s, thereby increasing reliability and reducing maintenance costs, there is little doubt in my mind the Vark could have been a far better striker than the mudhen.

It seems like the USAF made some rather, shall we say, ill-advised decisions in the 1990s to retire several platforms it never has successfully replaced, including the F-111, the F-4G and the EF-111. An of course, let's not get into the Navy retiring their F-14Ds in favor of the F/A-18E/F :bang:

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2006, 14:59
by Meathook
Wear and tear, then money, major upgrades...kind of an endless list, the major cost out weighted the decision to keep them in the inventory...sorry to say

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2006, 19:40
by EBJet
Not to mention,the Mudhen can do A/A when necessary,whereas the 'Vark could not...

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2006, 22:11
by FireFox137
idesof wrote:
Meathook wrote:I remember the missions of the "Vark" in Libya, when I got back to the "Heath" in 91 starting my second tour there, one of the first film clips I saw in the 492nd FS was that attack run and "Ka Daffy Duck" running bare a$$ naked from his blown out tent way out in front of his kid. Cool film clip of the attack.....

Hell',va a raid that was and it shut that clown up for quite some time, I was in the states when it occurred but the pride I felt was overwhelming, turned out I too would work the F-111 until we converted to the F-15E in 1992


This is WAY off-topic now but, does anyone else here think it was a mistake to retire the F-111? Had they undergone an intensive upgrade program, bringing the avionics up to F-15E standard and replacing the crappy engines with F100s or F110s, thereby increasing reliability and reducing maintenance costs, there is little doubt in my mind the Vark could have been a far better striker than the mudhen.

It seems like the USAF made some rather, shall we say, ill-advised decisions in the 1990s to retire several platforms it never has successfully replaced, including the F-111, the F-4G and the EF-111. An of course, let's not get into the Navy retiring their F-14Ds in favor of the F/A-18E/F :bang:


Yep, our "higher ups" made plenty of mistakes with our airpower -- all around, from a single missioned F-22 (cough cough... I forgot is was known as the F/A-22 for a few minutes at one time), to a small bomb hauler JSF, to choosing the 'bug over the 'cat. Our great leaders saw fit to demolish the greatest air force ever known and dole out some silver bullets here and there.

Those who say the F-111 mission does not exist anymore are in the same league as those said in the 50's that only missiles were needed for the a2a mission. Those who stated in this forum that the role of the F-4 is dead and will not come back fail to realize the very simple point that what the F-4 was, was the do anything platform: launching off of decks, kocking down Migs, skimming the trees into valleys the AF wouldn't dare even let a Raptor driver even dream of. Yes, it lacked some qualities that a fighter should have, but that capability was within reach of the military ind. base at the time of the design of the ATF.

We waste billions here and there on projects from flapping winged dumbots to jet propelled copters that can break the sound barrier. Who knows what else gets wasted that isn't *seen*. We waste billions rather that build up more than a token force that can only deal with small regional conflicts here and there. History is lost on too many *smart* people.

Off topic, take a look at the boneyard on google maps.... there's hundreds of F-111's toasting away in the sun. Sure they could have been kept up to today's standards and since all our AF does these days is drop bombs they would have been a silver arrow in our fleet. Most likely the spearhead of operations in Afganistan and Iraq.

Point said: our nation screwed up. Does anyone even remember NGAF? Those initial designs that I reviewed would have made mince meat out of the JSF.

I just don't get it. Why settle for less performance for better performance that would have $$$ the same? Then our brass starts talking about building some kind of interdiction bomber a while ago. Christ, just dust off the tooling from B-1, re-engine her, and there you go. Build up another 60 or something. Awesome aircraft, that B-1 is. And since everyone sings the praises of the meager Raptor force to fend off the fighters and perform AWACS and electron-smashing, that would be all you need.

I just have to remember what a old pilot said to me once, "The higher you go in rank, the more you will find yourself surrounded with imcompetence."

Still true today by all indiciations.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Why does it even matter?

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2006, 22:24
by FireFox137
idesof wrote:
FireFox137 wrote:Well (politely) that is exactly what I am saying. Not being a *true* -23 fan, it was the better choice as far as the Pentago making a stategic decision in the defense arsenal of the USA. Look, with the F-4 Phantom, we have a truly fantastic aircraft (despite what the poor tactics in the 60's did to us there). What the USA got in the F-22 is a highly specialized aircraft for the A2A role with (most likely) only better AOA and *maybe* roll rates. The *very* same people who say that the F-35's lack of a 'dogfighting' skills still makes it superior and and able to take SU-37's are because of it's "stealth" rather than it's "turning" ability are also the same people who say that the F-22 was superior to the -23 because of "turning" ability. I see a huge double standard there.

What we the USA needed in the ATF was a stealthy and supercrusing F-4 Phantom: a plane that filled every role from SEAD, to fleet defense, to dropping napalm 100 feet above the trees, to CAP missions. It *was* very very much within the scientific and engineering capability of the industrial base to design that aircraft and still meet the pure A2A role.

Now the USoA is ending up with a handful of silver bullets and a large fleet of dogs that may have a small frontal RCS but not much else (airframe-wise) going for it. Our brass scr*wed the pooch with our combined branch airforces.

JSF: minuture (Ford Ranger sized) payload. Pinpoint precision with an icepick sized load. No true A2A "turning" ability compared to the other planes out there and coming out. No IR suppression either, for either the STOVL or the (more importantly) CTOL version. What the AF got is a dog compared to what they could have gotten with what was do-able when the design competition was underway. Can ANYONE at all please tell me why the Boeing design was selected???? Like the combined branches of our air foreces needed ONLY a hyped-up Harrier? Huh? Does anyone remember the Himat? F-16F? FSW wings even? We're getting a plane thats smaller than an F-16 and weighs in on par with and F-15. That don't sound too good to me for a "strike fighter". I don't care that it's nozel can swivel 360, but that plane is.... well... A lot of people know to what I am speaking of.

A-12 Avenger: the USoA would not have wasted billions on it if our military industrial base could have drawn up the plane that was within their ability.

The superbug would would never had hatched and our fleet would have a hell of an offensive (air and ground) ability of what they're going to end up with.

F-117 "pure stealth" capability: that envelope would have been pushed leaps and bounds with what we were capable of.

I also do not need to read what other people read and then redigest it into the world (mind you I am not typing agrily!!). I have my own education and can draw conclusions myself with being swayed by Bill Sweetman, or Pier Sprey, or whoever is popular today.

I have concluded that our top brass and maybe politicians have bargained away (or were just stupid enough) to do away with the *true* potential of filling our ramps and carriers with the planes that they could have been stocked with. Back in GW1, we whooped the tar out of a not too badly equiped nation with our combined air forces. What's the result of proving how effective air power is? Let's cut air power in half and build subpar-not-what-we-could-have-designed aircraft to take the places of the existing stock. Oh, wait we've the worlds best fighter already built being tested, so let's just build the bird a tiny quantity.

Sure most nations are not building any aircraft (yet) in quantities that we need to worry about (yet).

My last point is a point from the past (which we should NEVER forget): the Germans looked upon the Spitfire as a "toy" and insignificant to their marvelous aircraft (which were pretty good planes actually), and those "toys" whipped the buts out of the Germans. I think that a lot of people here (patriotic types like myself) who unfortunately are looking at the other planes being built and drawn up in CAD models as "toys" which are insignificant to our birds (ala Eurofighter and others).



It seems you are applying 1980s standards to 21st century technology. First of all, no U.S. aircraft today does anything remotely like terrain following except perhaps for the A-10. Take a look at F-16s with the Lantirn targeting pod. Do you see the navigation pod? No. You know why? Because current tactics have made terrain following obsolete.

Napalm. I'm not sure the U.S. has dropped napalm in anger since, what, Vietnam? FAE munitions, of course, are another matter.

The F-35, which is not smaller than an F-16 and has a payload of 23,000 lbs. (comparable to an F-15E), can carry eight SDBs internally. Eight different targets, one sortie. During GW1, you had entire waves of F-16s supported by F-4Gs, EF-111s, tankers etc., dozens of aircraft that could not accomplish what a single F-35 can do far more safely and effectively.

Honestly, I think it is probably worthless to argue these points as I doubt I will change your mind and you will not change mine. No one is going to read our posts and cry out "Eureka! Gee, I never thought of that." No longer being such a newbie on this board I am beginning to understand the attitude of some old timers around here: discuss facts and such, but don't waste time arguing opinions. I hope I can take my own advice...


One: you sound exactly like those in the 50/60s who said 'dogfighting' is a thing of the past when you refer to terrain following. My point is that you could have maintained that very useful technique (for the lack of a better word) in the design of the ATF. Kind of sad that you say the A-10 is the only plane with that ability. I'd hate to think of what would happen in an all our brawl if all we can do is drop some 250lb bombs from 20K feet and scoot.

I'd also love to see what a JSF would look like when it's loaded with 23K lbs of bombs... I'm sure it would be quite the sitting duck with all that *stealthy* load of bombs on her. I'm also sure it would still be fast as hell too.

Just because our latest conflicts have been very one sided doesn't mean you throw out all that was good and keep just what we're using today.

The ATF could have been all that it is today and more (JSF too). It's the "more" that was thrown away that disturbs me. I'm sorry if some old fuddy duddy is talking about past "glories" that are no more. But let's just hope we don't ever get into that all fight anytime soon.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Why does it even matter?

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2006, 23:01
by idesof
FireFox137 wrote:One: you sound exactly like those in the 50/60s who said 'dogfighting' is a thing of the past when you refer to terrain following. My point is that you could have maintained that very useful technique (for the lack of a better word) in the design of the ATF. Kind of sad that you say the A-10 is the only plane with that ability. I'd hate to think of what would happen in an all our brawl if all we can do is drop some 250lb bombs from 20K feet and scoot.


By the same token, you sound like the British army who would line up in the middle of an open field to be slaughtered by American revolutionaries hiding out in the bushes. Air warfare has fundamentally changed. Dogfighting has indeed gone the way of the bow and arrow: it is now obsolete. To that extent, a great deal of the Raptor's capabilities are redundant. No matter if a plane can turn up its own a$$, no fighter will today out-turn a HOBS missile. This was not true in the 1950s and 60s. However, you can bet your a$$ it is true today.

The A-10 is NOT the only plane that can "do" terrain-following. The F-16 and F-15 are still capable of it, even the B-2 and no doubt the F-22 and F-35 could as well if it became necessary. It is very unlikely they ever will, however, as unlikely as the USAF will ever again engage in a true dogfight.

As for dropping "nothing" but 250 lb. bombs from 20k (more like 30k and 60k in the Raptor), what do you suggest, carpet bombing? That "went out of fashion" quite some time ago.

I'd also love to see what a JSF would look like when it's loaded with 23K lbs of bombs... I'm sure it would be quite the sitting duck with all that *stealthy* load of bombs on her. I'm also sure it would still be fast as hell too.


Yes, and I'd love to see a mudhen with a 24.5k load. It would need 10k feet of runway and would have to land immediately after take off. Point is, it is useless to talk about maximum loads when it comes to fighters, as useless as talking about vmax.

Just because our latest conflicts have been very one sided doesn't mean you throw out all that was good and keep just what we're using today.


Yep, we should have never retired the F-4 in favor of the F-16. It, after all, could go Mach 2.34 and the F-16 only goes Mach 2. :roll:

And no one is suggesting we keep what we have today. Quite the contrary. Replace it as quickly as possible with a new generation that will make any future conflict terribly unfair for the other side left one generation behind.

The ATF could have been all that it is today and more (JSF too). It's the "more" that was thrown away that disturbs me. I'm sorry if some old fuddy duddy is talking about past "glories" that are no more. But let's just hope we don't ever get into that all fight anytime soon.


Where are those 2,000 B-47s when you need them!?

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2006, 23:39
by idesof
FireFox137 wrote:Yep, our "higher ups" made plenty of mistakes with our airpower -- all around, from a single missioned F-22 (cough cough... I forgot is was known as the F/A-22 for a few minutes at one time), to a small bomb hauler JSF, to choosing the 'bug over the 'cat. Our great leaders saw fit to demolish the greatest air force ever known and dole out some silver bullets here and there.


Are you suggesting the USAF as it is today is less capable on the whole than it was in 1990? You've got to be kidding! A single B-2 can hit dozens of independent targets in one pass. A single F-15 can hit at least 16 targets. Even in GW1, the most a single F-111 could hit was 4 HAS and it would have to do so in four passes. There was not a single F-16 in theater that could take out even a single HAS. All dumb bomb bombers that when delivering iron from 30K could maybe put a bomb inside a football field if lucky. Today, one F-15 can take out 16 HAS in one pass. An F-16 will soon be able to take out 8. That is not evolutionary. That is revolutionary.

The JSF is not a "small bomb hauler" by any means. Its load is far larger than that of the aircraft it's replacing (F-16, F-18, AV-8B). But that's not the point. It is more survivable, can take out more targets in a single sortie, can fly farther, can aquire targets better, the list goes on. I just don't think you know what the combination of AESA, SDBs and stealth really means.

The F-22 can deliver 8 SDBs while carrying two Amraams and two Sidewinders. Eight different targets. No plane in GW1 could do that. A pretty damned good striker in my book.

In addition to the greatest interceptor/air-superiority platform of all time, the F-22 is also a signals-intelligence gathering aircraft, a jammer, a mini-AWACS, a DEAD platform, an interdictor, a CAS aircraft, a genuine multi-role platform whose roles are still being defined because it opens up possibilities that had never been thought possible for a fighter. Hardly "missionized."

Dude, sorry, but you really are starting to sound like a guy who is nostalgic for the UNIVAC and the TRS-80. You need to let go.

Could not agree with you more about the superbug, though. One of the biggest POS naval fighters ever built. What a waste.

Those who say the F-111 mission does not exist anymore are in the same league as those said in the 50's that only missiles were needed for the a2a mission.


You are going too far. While I agree that the F-111 was retired before its time, it is not because the F-15E is totally incapable of filling its shoes. Four F-111 squadrons, however, could have had a role, including fast-as-hell precision strike (imagine how fast that baby could go if you were to put a pair of F119s in it), and an aircraft that could loiter over the battlefield for hours, filling a hole between the viper and mudhen and the B-1/2/52.

Those who stated in this forum that the role of the F-4 is dead and will not come back fail to realize the very simple point that what the F-4 was, was the do anything platform: launching off of decks, kocking down Migs, skimming the trees into valleys the AF wouldn't dare even let a Raptor driver even dream of. Yes, it lacked some qualities that a fighter should have, but that capability was within reach of the military ind. base at the time of the design of the ATF.


The F-35 will do all of that far more effectively, will be far more survivable, and one version will even be STOVL. What was the F-4's AA kill ratio during Vietnam? How many got blasted out of the sky by AAA and SAMs? Talk about idealizing a decidedly mediocre aircraft.

We waste billions here and there on projects from flapping winged dumbots to jet propelled copters that can break the sound barrier. Who knows what else gets wasted that isn't *seen*. We waste billions rather that build up more than a token force that can only deal with small regional conflicts here and there. History is lost on too many *smart* people.


It is as important to invest in failed R&D projects as it is to invest in those that succeed. In fact, we tend to learn more from our failures than from our successes.

Off topic, take a look at the boneyard on google maps.... there's hundreds of F-111's toasting away in the sun. Sure they could have been kept up to today's standards and since all our AF does these days is drop bombs they would have been a silver arrow in our fleet. Most likely the spearhead of operations in Afganistan and Iraq.


As I stated earlier, four F-111 squadrons would have been just peachy.

Point said: our nation screwed up. Does anyone even remember NGAF? Those initial designs that I reviewed would have made mince meat out of the JSF.


So does that mean you don't like the F-35?

Me thinks you really don't have a clue what that baby will do. I have a feeling you will be VERY pleasantly surprised.

I just don't get it. Why settle for less performance for better performance that would have $$$ the same? Then our brass starts talking about building some kind of interdiction bomber a while ago. Christ, just dust off the tooling from B-1, re-engine her, and there you go. Build up another 60 or something. Awesome aircraft, that B-1 is. And since everyone sings the praises of the meager Raptor force to fend off the fighters and perform AWACS and electron-smashing, that would be all you need.


I will say that the USAF, ruled by former fighter jocks, is too fighter happy. We have reached a point where we should really take a look our fighter/bomber mix. Less fighters, more bombers. No doubt about it. In fact, we should have bought a lot more B-2s, and I think it is crazy to be putting B-1s in storage. If there is one thing we need it is as many platforms that can stay up for hours and bomb anything that moves from 50k feet. Once a relatively small force of fighters takes care of the AA and SAM threat in the first one or two days of any future conflict, the USAF can move through the skies with virtual impunity. At that point, a large bomber is a far more efficient and effective platform than any fighter.

I just have to remember what a old pilot said to me once, "The higher you go in rank, the more you will find yourself surrounded with imcompetence."

Still true today by all indiciations.


That's very "anti-establishment" of you but I do think that's a gross generalization. While the Peter Principle will always apply, it is also true that the cream does tend to rise to the top.

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2006, 00:51
by RobertCook
FireFox137 wrote:The *very* same people who say that the F-35's lack of a 'dogfighting' skills still makes it superior and and able to take SU-37's are because of it's "stealth" rather than it's "turning" ability are also the same people who say that the F-22 was superior to the -23 because of "turning" ability. I see a huge double standard there.


These are independent considerations. The F-35 has a tremendous overall advantage over Flankers in the BVR arena because of stealth and sensors, which is true for both the F-22 and F-23. These days, success in WVR combat will primarily be determined by training and HOBS, so the F-35 can still hold its own here, but because of its maneuverability (from subsonic WVR to supersonic BVR), the F-22 is the platform that provides the most complete air-to-air superiority over its potential adversaries (i.e. superior in every way), making it a better choice than the F-23 for this role. Neither conclusion contradicts the other.

FireFox137 wrote:What we the USA needed in the ATF was a stealthy and supercrusing F-4 Phantom: a plane that filled every role from SEAD, to fleet defense, to dropping napalm 100 feet above the trees, to CAP missions. It *was* very very much within the scientific and engineering capability of the industrial base to design that aircraft and still meet the pure A2A role.


There's no reason that the F-22 could not eventually be adapted--or in some cases merely adopted--successfully for these roles and others, aside from fleet defense. The USAF needs to get a decent number of them built and fully operational first, and as legacy aircraft need to be replaced due to wear and tear, there's a good chance that more F-22s will be ordered to keep the line going and the USAF adequately equipped.

FireFox137 wrote:JSF: minuture (Ford Ranger sized) payload. Pinpoint precision with an icepick sized load.


In terms of payload and range, it equals or exceeds the F-16 it is replacing on typical missions in a low-observable configuration, and far exceeds the F-16's practical load-carrying capacity when using external stations.

FireFox137 wrote:No true A2A "turning" ability compared to the other planes out there and coming out.


The requirement is that it matches or exceeds the capability of the F-16 with similar mission loadouts. It will be able to hold its own, especially with its superior situational awareness. This is just a contingency, of course, since the F-22 will take care of air superiority in the general case (at least for the USAF).

FireFox137 wrote:No IR suppression either, for either the STOVL or the (more importantly) CTOL version. What the AF got is a dog compared to what they could have gotten with what was do-able when the design competition was underway.


If that's the case, then perhaps unit cost was a consideration. If the F-35 were the only new aircraft being procured, then fewer compromises would have been made, but even then, the F-35 will be a significant advancement in survivability and effectiveness over current tactical strike fighters.

FireFox137 wrote:Can ANYONE at all please tell me why the Boeing design was selected???? Like the combined branches of our air foreces needed ONLY a hyped-up Harrier? Huh?


Do you mean to compete with the X-35 in the first place? First of all, both designs were intended to be customized to a sufficient degree for each service that was going to use it, and even so, the STOVL variant was intended to be superior in mission effectiveness to both the Harrier (itself a highly successful platform) and the F-16. The Boeing design took a more conservative, well-known approach to STOVL, which was the main reason it was valuable as a baseline for comparison or as a backup plan. However, the design tradeoffs made by the Lockheed team involved fewer or effectively no compromises to their CTOL and CV variants for their STOVL variant, so the right choice was made between the JSF contenders, in my opinion. What's to complain about?

FireFox137 wrote:Does anyone remember the Himat?


Yes, what of it? It was an interesting experiment that tested a bunch of concepts, some of which were used (e.g. fully digital flight controls, composites) and some of which were not deemed useful or worthwhile for practical designs (e.g. canards, winglets). Would having canards or winglets somehow make the JSF less of a dog in your eyes?

FireFox137 wrote:F-16F?


Are you thinking of the Block 60 "Desert Falcon" we just shipped off to the UAE, or something like the F-16XL?

FireFox137 wrote:FSW wings even?


What would be the point? To make the JSF more "futuristic" looking?

FireFox137 wrote:We're getting a plane thats smaller than an F-16 and weighs in on par with and F-15.


Volumetrically, it's much larger than the F-16, has a tremendous internal fuel fraction in addition to its internal weapon bays, and can haul a much heavier load of munitions when conditions allow or the situation calls for it.

FireFox137 wrote:That don't sound too good to me for a "strike fighter".


All points considered, it seems like a marvel of engineering to me.

FireFox137 wrote:I don't care that it's nozel can swivel 360,


Huh? Actually, it can't, not that this matters. I think that you need to do a bit more research into the F-35....

idesof wrote:The F-22 can deliver 8 SDBs while carrying two Amraams and two Sidewinders. Eight different targets. No plane in GW1 could do that. A pretty damned good striker in my book.


Yep, and with an asymmetrical load, the F-22 could carry four SDBs along with four AMRAAMs and two Sidewinders, giving it an effective multirole combat load while still in a fully stealthy, supercruise-capable configuration. Of course, it also has four hardpoints on the wings, each capable of carrying 5000 lb, if heavy loads are ever required. I'm not absolutely sure whether the F-35 could take off with its similar maximum theoretical load, but the larger F-22 can.

idesof wrote:In addition to the greatest interceptor/air-superiority platform of all time, the F-22 is also a signals-intelligence gathering aircraft, a jammer, a mini-AWACS, a DEAD platform, an interdictor, a CAS aircraft, a genuine multi-role platform whose roles are still being defined because it opens up possibilities that had never been thought possible for a fighter. Hardly "missionized."


While it can't completely take the place of every aircraft in all of the above roles (without modifications), it can perform some of these roles or some aspects of these roles more effectively than current dedicated aircraft. One case-in-point, perhaps surprisingly, is the AWACS, as the F-22's sensors, within their limits of coverage, seem to do a much better job of target discrimination and identification. F-22 pilots have reportedly had a great deal of success in increasing the survivability and combat effectiveness of legacy fighters in comprehensive exercises such as Northern Edge. As valuable as the AWACS is as a stand-off situational awareness platform, the F-22 can perform a similar role in the middle of the combat zone, vectoring F-15s into favorable positions to safely employ their weapons against their adversaries while remaining undetected. F-22 pilots currently seem to have more information (and of greater reliability) available than AWACS operators, with far less risk of being detected and shot down (or otherwise disrupted). Hardcore EW would best be left up to the EA-6B or EF-18G, but the F-22 could by design do a fantastic job of DEAD using GBU-39 or GBU-32.

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2006, 08:00
by SpudmanWP
RobertCook wrote:
FireFox137 wrote:No IR suppression either, for either the STOVL or the (more importantly) CTOL version. What the AF got is a dog compared to what they could have gotten with what was do-able when the design competition was underway.


If that's the case, then perhaps unit cost was a consideration. If the F-35 were the only new aircraft being procured, then fewer compromises would have been made, but even then, the F-35 will be a significant advancement in survivability and effectiveness over current tactical strike fighters.


Actually, the F-35s will introduce a GREAT addition to it's IR suppression arsenal with the LOAN engine nozzle.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article20.html

And if you think it won't have it, take a look at the rear end of this recent engine run-up:
http://www.f-16.net/gallery_item107548.html

The LOAN nozzle specifically "provides a significant reduction in radar cross section and infrared signature emissions from the engine"

[I added emphasis above]

Several other things will drive down the IR signature.
1. Flying 'clean' in a combat armed mode will reduce the need for thrust, therefore reducing the IR signature.
2 The aircraft itself has very little to disturb it aerodynamically, thereby reducing the need for thrust, etc, etc.
3. HOBS + HMDS +DAS will lessen the need for violent, high thrust maneuvering in WVR combat situations thereby reducing IR signature, etc, etc.

Finally, the latest pics from http://www.jsf.mil/f35/f35_variants.htm show LOAN derivative nozzles for ALL 3 variants, STOVL and CTOL included. :)

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2006, 18:04
by RobertCook
SpudmanWP wrote:
RobertCook wrote:
FireFox137 wrote:No IR suppression either, for either the STOVL or the (more importantly) CTOL version. What the AF got is a dog compared to what they could have gotten with what was do-able when the design competition was underway.


If that's the case, then perhaps unit cost was a consideration. If the F-35 were the only new aircraft being procured, then fewer compromises would have been made, but even then, the F-35 will be a significant advancement in survivability and effectiveness over current tactical strike fighters.


Actually, the F-35s will introduce a GREAT addition to it's IR suppression arsenal with the LOAN engine nozzle.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article20.html


Truthfully, I decided to give this point to FireFox137 conditionally in order to bring up the general issue of the potential cost of incorporating every concept imaginable--not just in terms of money, either, but potentially in flight performance, as well.

Back on point, like the F-22's exhaust nozzles, LOAN has IR suppression features, but I believe that the implicit comparison was with systems like the F-117 and YF-23. For all most of us here know, LOAN's IR suppression may be superior to that of the F-117, just like the F-22 may be stealthier than the YF-23, but the implementations of these respective low-observable characteristics are not as visible on the F-35 and F-22, hence the customary belief in the opposite.

SpudmanWP wrote:Several other things will drive down the IR signature.
1. Flying 'clean' in a combat armed mode will reduce the need for thrust, therefore reducing the IR signature.


There is also the IR signature of the aircraft's skin to consider, and while I'm sure that certain measures were taken on both the F-22 and F-35, I don't know how effective they are relative to radar stealth, and something has to be compromised to keep the cost of the F-35 down. Obviously, this is a tricky subject when it comes to speculating on adversary aircraft using their IRSTs against these stealth fighters.

SpudmanWP wrote:2 The aircraft itself has very little to disturb it aerodynamically, thereby reducing the need for thrust, etc, etc.


Well, I'm sure that this helps, but only so much. The F-35 normally flies clean and is probably relatively efficient, but it's still heavy and chunky.

SpudmanWP wrote:3. HOBS + HMDS +DAS will lessen the need for violent, high thrust maneuvering in WVR combat situations thereby reducing IR signature, etc, etc.


It wouldn't matter much in these cases--more significant is its all-aspect IR signature during cruise, whatever that may be.

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2006, 18:22
by SpudmanWP
RobertCook wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:3. HOBS + HMDS +DAS will lessen the need for violent, high thrust maneuvering in WVR combat situations thereby reducing IR signature, etc, etc.


It wouldn't matter much in these cases--more significant is its all-aspect IR signature during cruise, whatever that may be.


My thought was that with the reduced IR sig in WVR would provide a few seconds of advantage because the enemy has to maneuver more to lock on and get the shot.

Of course, this all goes away when they get DEW ;)

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2006, 05:02
by bf-fly
Shouldn't we be differentiating between the mission profile of the F-35? An F-16 loaded with bombs and gas tanks for an attack mission is a whole different animal than one configured for air defense or defense suppression. An F-35 lightly loaded with Aim 9x's and amraams could be a very nasty surprise for anyone who faces it. I would suspect were talking about several thousands pounds lighter, squeaky clean and looking for a fight, rather than heavy and flying low hoping nobody sees it.

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2006, 05:07
by bf-fly
The Aim-9X weighs around 190 lbs, the Aim-120c around 350 lbs.

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2006, 17:42
by RobertCook
bf-fly wrote:Shouldn't we be differentiating between the mission profile of the F-35? An F-16 loaded with bombs and gas tanks for an attack mission is a whole different animal than one configured for air defense or defense suppression. An F-35 lightly loaded with Aim 9x's and amraams could be a very nasty surprise for anyone who faces it. I would suspect were talking about several thousands pounds lighter, squeaky clean and looking for a fight, rather than heavy and flying low hoping nobody sees it.


Well, unless you're going to only partially fill the internal fuel tanks (which is not how the USAF ever operates, as far as I know), the F-35 is still going to be somewhat weighed down for an air superiority fighter when taking off, I would think. You can't simply jettison the tanks in this case. Obviously it's going to burn some off along the way, but on the average, it will enter combat a bit heavy, relatively speaking (not necessarily a bad thing considering the extra weight comprises fuel).

Normally, this should not be much of an issue because it will simply dispatch enemy fighters BVR, much like the F-22 would, although this capability would be degraded if it's carrying external Sidewinders. As a WVR fighter, should the situation devolve to this, it remains to be seen whether the F-35 will have some of the same limitations as the Flanker and its derivatives, which also have an "oversized" internal fuel capacity relative to their other characteristics, such as thrust, wing loading, structural g limit, etc.

By the way, what sort of AAM load do you have in mind?

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2006, 07:43
by bf-fly
but on the average, it will enter combat a bit heavy


Perhaps, but where? Over it's home field or 250nm away? Doesn't a clean configuration mitigate weight? I'd trade heavy clean for light and dirty. Further the F-35's A2A role is secondary to it's design so a comparison with a SU-27 variant must be qualified.

By the way, what sort of AAM load do you have in mind?


As far as A2A missile loads, it's 2+2 last I checked. I see lots of speculation of the clipped aim-120 and aim-9X for the F-22, but have you considered or others that it may more likely impact the F-35? If 4 Aim-120's + 2 Aim-9's can be carried internal, then it arrives over enemy territory lighter, clean and moderately well armed. Lastly a large load could be carried externally after the "first day". I'll bet dollar to donuts (dusted that one off) that we'll see that 4/2 internal configuration in time, or 4 aim-9's plus 2 aim-120's as a back up (2/4), or even 3+3 asymetrical. Perhaps you know more of it's status. Unlike others on this site, I know what I know, and know what I don't know. I don't pay close attention to the F-35.

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2006, 07:49
by bf-fly
As a side note, I'm supervised that more attention is not put on stealthy bomb bays. In theory they open and close in a flash, but the F-117 has been known to stick (Balkans possibly and a fact over Iraq). That time not only gives a radar flash, but if they do get stuck, it's stealth is now somewhere between the size of a bowling ball and a wrecking ball.

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2006, 08:01
by bf-fly
dolp, bad spell check, insert surprised not supervised

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2006, 08:17
by Raptor_One
bf-fly wrote:As a side note, I'm supervised that more attention is not put on stealthy bomb bays. In theory they open and close in a flash, but the F-117 has been known to stick (Balkans possibly and a fact over Iraq). That time not only gives a radar flash, but if they do get stuck, it's stealth is now somewhere between the size of a bowling ball and a wrecking ball.


How are you going to make a stealthy bomb bay that actually carries a bomb in it? Assuming you could make a bomb bay completely stealthy (which would be very difficult given the space constraints), you're then left with the problem of making each and every weapon you carry in that bomb bay stealthy as well. You'd have to assume that only one weapon would be carried per bay and that once released, the bay (including the doors) and the bomb or missile rack/ejector would somehow form a stealthy shape. What would you do with the rack/ejector assembly? How would you make something like that stealthy? The level of complexity involved in making all of these bay components stealthy after a single bomb/missile is released isn't justified. The drawbacks and potential reliability issues greatly outweigh the risk of a bay door malfunctioning. It's just not a feasible safety measure.

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2006, 13:49
by SpudmanWP
On technical problem with internal AIM-9x is that it goes "hot" on the rail. That is, it ignites it's motor while still on the rail.

Therefore it's rail has to extend to put it into the slipstream. This makes the rail larger and more complex.

Does the AIM-9x have a drop-then-burn mode like the AIM-120? How about the ASRAAM?

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2006, 15:32
by mil_hobbyist
One would need an ejection mechanism like the AVEL to separate the missile from the aircraft to permit launches under all attitudes and loading conditions. Those devices add considerable weight.

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2006, 17:38
by bf-fly
How are you going to make a stealthy bomb bay that actually carries a bomb in it?


Don't know off the top of my head but lets assume on bomb one release the door sticks, the pilot tries a reset to no avail. Weapon #2 is then ejected deliberately, leaving an empty bay. What's left? A completely cluttered bay with exposed wires, racks and framing members? Can't that be improved upon? I'm not suggesting perfect stealth, just better than the total clutter that exists. I realize that the ground crew needs access during normal ops, but simply a single curved composite plate with composite Zeus or similar quick fasteners could help. For a visual representation, consider the floor of your cars trunk-what covers/hides the spare tire? Consider a conformal RAM plate over the exposed portions. Just a thought. (I'll find the F-117 GW1 reference).

Missiles? Wouldn't the Aim-9 be on the door? Doesn't that ease the issue somewhat? I don't think any of this sounds like a daunting challenge. How many 35 A B & C's will be in service? 1-2 thousand? That sounds like the effort may be worthwhile, even to modify the launch modes of the missiles if necessary.

Sometimes I think we are glossing over the Navy in this discussion. Until now the most stealthy thing the Navy has (above the Surface) is an A Burke destroyer. The AF has the F-117, B-2 and F-22, the Navy has nothing. Since the Avenger, they've been locked out of the stealth game. While the AF has the luxury of the F-22 patrolling above, the Navy has no such luck. I suspect the Navy will push the plane to it's limits out of necessity. Think about this scenario: 12 planes go "feet dry" for an attack. 6 F-35's drop bombs and 6 F-18E's are sent for protection. Didn't they just tell the enemy they are coming? Same scenario, 6+6, this time all F-35's, 6 optimized for A2A. I think the Navy is going to want that option, an F-35 with respectable internal A2A load out.

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2006, 18:09
by bf-fly
I assume we've all read Skunk Works by Ben Rich. If the pole that the prototypes for Have Blue was mounted on for radar tests were faceted to reduce it's radar sig, then ejector racks can be faceted also.

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2006, 19:49
by Raptor_One
I don't think you're addressing the issue of shaping/geometry and space constraints. If you try to make the inside of a bay completely smooth AND stealthy, you're going to have to make the entire bay larger. Hence, you're going to have to make the entire aircraft larger, heavier. Weight was a big issue with the JSF, no? And if you're suggesting that a stealthy pole for a stealthy pole model somehow makes the concept of stealthy ejector racks/pylons a no brainer, think again. What about the attachment points themselves? You do realize that stealth can be seriously degraded by little things like that, right? If you have some sort of economical, sensible design strategy for a stealthy bomb bay, by all means share it. But right now I don't know what you're suggesting exactly. Please be specific.

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2006, 21:23
by EBJet
Raptor One: Good points..

Not to mention how much it would add to the cost to clean up the weapons bay...Better to spend money on a reliable door mechanism..Sliding doors would be nice though :-) It would eliminate that pesky right angle between the door and the bottom of the aircraft..Tidying up the bay wouldn't help all that much with conventional doors given the exposure time,UNLESS a door hung open,in which case you're screwed anyway with that big 'ol door hanging out in the breeze.

Bf-Fly:

Any radar return from the pole on an all aspect pole test is factored out of an RCS calculation..If there's something on the aircraft like an ejector,it's obviously going to factor in..Again,the cost to "stealth up" an ejector/rack system would be over the top in this day and age.

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2006, 23:31
by RobertCook
bf-fly wrote:
but on the average, it will enter combat a bit heavy


Perhaps, but where? Over it's home field or 250nm away?


That's a fair question, but the same applies to all fighters, and if we're comparing numbers in a general sense (rather than for a specific mission), then they have to be compared under equivalent conditions.

bf-fly wrote:Doesn't a clean configuration mitigate weight? I'd trade heavy clean for light and dirty.


It does to some degree, although most fighters aren't all that dirty when loaded for air superiority (after they drop any external tanks), and opening the bay doors will more or less make up the difference.

bf-fly wrote:Further the F-35's A2A role is secondary to it's design so a comparison with a SU-27 variant must be qualified.


Regarding the design as a whole, yes, but even so, all Flankers suffer from the same issue of being heavy, but with only an ordinary fuel fraction, due to their much higher empty weights. They get around this on paper by introducing a "normal" internal fuel load of about 11618 lb (giving it a paper thrust-to-weight ratio of 1.0), which is not much more than what the much lighter Typhoon carries. For comparison, the F-22 is similar in weight and maximum fuel load to the Flanker, but is always evaluated at full combat weight, and still comes out ahead.

bf-fly wrote:
By the way, what sort of AAM load do you have in mind?


As far as A2A missile loads, it's 2+2 last I checked.


Do you mean 2 AMRAAMs + 2 AIM-9X or 2 AMRAAMs in the left bay + 2 AMRAAMs in the right bay? (the latter is an official configuration, I believe) As far as I know, the F-35 will be cleared for the AMRAAM and ASRAAM (for the RAF) in the bays, but not for the AIM-9X as of yet (they go on the outer wing stations).

bf-fly wrote:I see lots of speculation of the clipped aim-120 and aim-9X for the F-22,


The F-22 already carries the clipped-fin AIM-120C (all C models have clipped fins), and although it is probably last on the list for the AIM-9X, the F-22 will be cleared for it eventually (still only one in each side bay). I'm not so sure about the F-35, which is intended to carry 2 AIM-9X on the outer wing stations.

bf-fly wrote:but have you considered or others that it may more likely impact the F-35? If 4 Aim-120's + 2 Aim-9's can be carried internal, then it arrives over enemy territory lighter, clean and moderately well armed.


Unfortunately, this loadout doesn't seem likely anytime soon based on the relevant thread in the F-35 forum. The bays are really tight, and are also shaped quite like the weapons that they're intended to carry, so it would be necessary for AAMs to fold their fins in order for more to be able to fit, and that may or may not ever happen.

SpudmanWP wrote:On technical problem with internal AIM-9x is that it goes "hot" on the rail. That is, it ignites it's motor while still on the rail.

Therefore it's rail has to extend to put it into the slipstream. This makes the rail larger and more complex.

Does the AIM-9x have a drop-then-burn mode like the AIM-120? How about the ASRAAM?


I believe that the ASRAAM has such a mode, and that it would be possible to implement such a mode for the AIM-9X (which has demonstrated a lock-on-after-launch [LOAL] capability), but that would most likely take a good amount of work and testing.

bf-fly wrote:Missiles? Wouldn't the Aim-9 be on the door? Doesn't that ease the issue somewhat? I don't think any of this sounds like a daunting challenge.


Yes, that would ease the challenge, but there may still be an issue with the missile's field of view, which I imagine would become irrelevant if LOAL is ever fully implemented. Then there may be issues with the launch envelope, since the bay might not have been designed to operate while the aircraft is maneuvering hard. Perhaps everything will simply work out fine, but we can't blithely make that assumption.

bf-fly wrote:How many 35 A B & C's will be in service? 1-2 thousand? That sounds like the effort may be worthwhile, even to modify the launch modes of the missiles if necessary.


The USAF may not view this as a priority for now, but operators in other countries may (such as the RAF with ASRAAM), so my guess would be that something will be done in the future. Right now, as far as most people are concerned, it would be nice if the F-35 could make its first flight by the end of this year.

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2006, 04:05
by bf-fly
If you try to make the inside of a bay completely smooth AND stealthy, you're going to have to make the entire bay larger. Hence, you're going to have to make the entire aircraft larger, heavier..., And if you're suggesting that a stealthy pole for a stealthy pole model somehow makes the concept of stealthy ejector racks/pylons a no brainer, think again. What about the attachment points themselves? Please be specific.


On one hand you take what I wrote and create complexity, on the other, you take what I wrote and oversimplify.

1) A simple set of light weight, (easily removed for ground service) panels that conforms to the present size of the bay. 1/4 to 1/2 inch thick of composite RAM material, 4 or more pieces (two halves, two ends) enclose the bay to make it smooth. 2) Shaped/faceted ejector racks protrude though the now smooth wall. I'm not suggesting stealth that matches the airframe, just something much better than what exists. If the pole can be made "stealthy" then some basic techniques can be applied to reduce the radar flash during weapon launch or in the case of a stuck door. My point about the racks was rather than basic round metal, it's octagonal. The interface plates/etc. could be shaped as well, etc. This could also fit the "first day" scenario whereby the panels are not used in peacetime since there would be a durability issue. In the real world/high threat environment, it could be worth it.

You do realize that stealth can be seriously degraded by little things like that, right?


I wouldn't have suggested it if I didn't realize it. I think a cluttered, extremely un-stealthy bay could degrade stealth. Consider the 35 has 4 A2G weapons, four targets.

1) door opens, weapon ejected, a flash on enemy radar is plotted
2) door opens again, 2nd weapon is ejected, second flash plotted
3) No.3 the cycle repeats, flash is plotted
4) SU-27 sits and waits at the projected #4 release area/route.

Before you say it, I know the weapons have their own signature. I know this isn't a panacea, but if it can save a few miles or many miles off the detection range then it might be worth it in a somewhat compromised stealth platform. Lastly if the door sticks, it give the pilot a better chance of escape.

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2006, 05:01
by bf-fly
That's a fair question, but the same applies to all fighters, and if we're comparing numbers in a general sense (rather than for a specific mission), then they have to be compared under equivalent conditions.


I think you're hedging a little. Since when is extra fuel a bad thing? Secondly, at least in US hands, the battle will be over or near the enemy's territory with few exceptions.

It (weight) does to some degree, although most fighters aren't all that dirty when loaded for air superiority (after they drop any external tanks), and opening the bay doors will more or less make up the difference.


True, but clean is clean. Also the door will be open for a moment at the point of launch, not during maneuvering.

Do you mean 2 AMRAAMs + 2 AIM-9X or 2 AMRAAMs in the left bay + 2 AMRAAMs in the right bay? (the latter is an official configuration, I believe) As far as I know, the F-35 will be cleared for the AMRAAM and ASRAAM (for the RAF) in the bays, but not for the AIM-9X as of yet (they go on the outer wing stations).


I don't know what it is, but I meant 4 total. I'm just speaking to the motivation, possibility and advantages of making it work. I think the navy/wants needs this plane in a bad way, far more than the AF. Whether it's by initial deployment or later on, I suspect that desire will find a way and the money to create a delay mode in the 9X launch (which has smaller vanes by the way). Even if it requires a retrofit to bulge the outer doors, I think the Navy will find a way, in time, to make the 35 a better A2A a/c with internal loads.

The F-22 already carries the clipped-fin AIM-120C (all C models have clipped fins), and although it is probably last on the list for the AIM-9X, the F-22 will be cleared for it eventually (still only one in each side bay). I'm not so sure about the F-35, which is intended to carry 2 AIM-9X on the outer wing stations.


I don't know the dimensions, but those smaller fins of the 9X create a possibility for 5 total or 6 total internal.

Unfortunately, this load out doesn't seem likely anytime soon based on the relevant thread in the F-35 forum. The bays are really tight, and are also shaped quite like the weapons that they're intended to carry, so it would be necessary for AAMs to fold their fins in order for more to be able to fit, and that may or may not ever happen.


OK, so maybe we see 3 120's and a 9 in a A2A layout. If we do consider your standard 2 120's left and 2 9x's right. Even with two more 120's on the wing, it's still very clean. How does an F-16 with only 2 missiles compare with 6 for maneuverability?

I believe that the ASRAAM has such a mode, and that it would be possible to implement such a mode for the AIM-9X (which has demonstrated a lock-on-after-launch [LOAL] capability), but that would most likely take a good amount of work and testing.


And a motivated Navy may find that a necessity. It's not a daunting technological challenge

Then there may be issues with the launch envelope, since the bay might not have been designed to operate while the aircraft is maneuvering hard. Perhaps everything will simply work out fine, but we can't blithely make that assumption.


We have met far greater challenges, this doesn't seem that big. The question is motivation. The AF might not have it, but...,

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2006, 05:15
by sferrin
Raptor_One wrote:
How are you going to make a stealthy bomb bay that actually carries a bomb in it?


Shoot it out the back like the Vigilante :P (Yeah, I know it sucked.) Over the years there have been several studies for dorsal ejection of munitions too.

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2006, 05:23
by bf-fly
Here is a size comparison of the AIM-9 family.

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2006, 05:23
by bf-fly
well that won't work.

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2006, 16:10
by bf-fly
Well, actually it did, or the mod fixed it.

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2006, 16:18
by bf-fly
Add your clipped wing AIM-120's and the desire, it may be possible. There are a lot of possibilities. Consider 1 aim120 on one door, 1 9X on the other, and 1 120 above. If necessary, you make the doors open a little wider, or bulge a little. Folding fins (as mentioned). If some one has the ability, t would be nice to also see a picture of a clipped surface Aim-120 next to a regular one like the Aim9's above. Notice how the fins are completely different spots, the 120 is the rear and middle. It would fit next to the 9 more easily.

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2006, 16:36
by Raptor_One
Bf-fly,

I don't feel like arguing with you about stealthy bomb bays. If you think it's such a good idea, then Lockheed Martin engineers must be really foolish. I mean... why in hell didn't they make the F-22's or F-35's bomb bays stealthy? Those idiots! It wouldn't have been that hard! Stupid LM engineers. Yes... I am being extremely sarcastic.

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2006, 17:12
by bf-fly
I wasn't arguing with you, just asking rhetorical questions. You suggested a total rebuild of the bay, that's not what I suggested (or inferred), either a refit, or designed from the planning stages. As I said to begin with, simply, I am surprised that more attention is not paid to the bomb bay. Yes, I know LM are not idiots, that's a given. But, in your long and varied experience, have you not come across things, and said, "that's stupid, why did they do that?" or "how could they not have seen that?" LM is not infallible, nor is the AF. Sometimes "that's the way we've always done things" permeates through a design out of habit. Military a/c have exposed internals originally so they could be fixed in flight, the ground and out of simplicity, economy, and no need to make it "pretty". Further, I had a broader intent, such as the B-2 bay (or F-117). Consider just how stealthy that is, then consider just how UN stealthy it is a soon as it opens it's doors. Yes it's a flash on radar, but suppose the enemy knows it's around(ground launch spotter for example), just not where exactly, his a/c up looking for it, then a quick flash on radar, what would you do if you're the defender? What if that flash could be made smaller/shorter detection range? Is that not of value? Already several weapons have been reduced in signature, more are in planning. When does the bomb bay get attention? Using the F-117 as an example, Ben Rich said essentially, it's not that hard to reduce a signature by one factor (10x's), the F-117 was a factor of 3, ie, 1000 times more stealthy than a non stealth similar sized a/c. Can the bomb bay be reduced one factor? two?

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2006, 17:54
by Raptor_One
I'm no longer going to argue the specifics of why a stealthy bomb bay is, in all likelihood, not feasible for stealthy aircraft. But I find it funny how you paraphrase Ben Rich (who headed up the Skunk Works during the Have Blue and F-117 projects) regarding signature reduction, yet you ignore the fact that no signature reduction was implemented on the F-117's bomb bays. Obviously the downsides of reducing a bomb bay's internal signature outweighed the benefits, otherwise the F-117 would have been stealthy with the bomb bay doors open as well as closed. And when I say stealthy, I mean just what you're talking about... a signature reduction of an order of magniture or more. If you read Ben Rich's Skunk Works, you might remember the F-117 pilot's account of how a SAM was launched at his aircraft over Bagdhad while the bomb bay doors were open during weapons release. What happened when the bay doors closed? The SAM system's radar lost its lock and the SAM missile stopped guiding. So it's not like the risks of increasing an aircraft's signture during weapons release isn't understood. It's simply accepted. Would you rather have a really really expensive bomb bay interior that significantly increased the cost, weight/size, and complexity of the aircraft's "plumbing", or would you rather just accept the risks involved and attempt to mitigate them as much as possible by limiting exposure time? You obviously vote for the former, but all other aircraft designers have voted for the latter time and time again. Why is that? Because that's just how things are done? So you're telling me that nobody's ever contemplated making the interior of a bomb bay stealthy? Please...

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2006, 20:03
by Roscoe
Simple fact is that LO treatments are heavy...Adding it to the bay would result in decreased aircraft performance. That was considered a negative trade and that's why it wasn't done.

You must remember avery capability ones adds to the airplane will typically reduce capability somewhere else. Nothing can be added for free. Thats why the guys in the requirements shop work so hard. Lots of analysis regarding dozens of conflicting capabilities to decide how to weight one capability against the others.

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2006, 04:33
by bf-fly
So you're telling me that nobody's ever contemplated making the interior of a bomb bay stealthy? Please...


I don't care, I was just asking why not. It's not that it's impossible, it just hasn't been done yet. As defenses improve, stealth improves and vis versa. In time, the bomb bay will get attention. The better stealth gets, the smaller and smaller that little "ball bearing" becomes, the more the bomb bays become neon signs. I have been around aviation long enough to see more than just what is, I see what will be as well. It's progressive before it's revolutionary. Technology is like flowing water, it will find the void, it will fill the need and in the short run it's very predictable. There will be a need for a stealthier bay just as 6 internal A2A missiles will in the JSF. Perhaps it will be electronic rather than structural, but it will occur.

(I did mention the 117, and I referred to that account over Baghdad in an earlier post)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And for the record on the 6 missile thing, the AIM-9X has about a 11" shorter vane span than the 9L/M, far from insignificant, and the Clipped 120 is 3" narrower. There's 14 more inches in the bay.

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2006, 07:24
by mabie
came across the following post in another forum.. take it for what its worth..

I'm going to take an educated guess and say that the hovering was a high alpha low speed manuever. Thrust vectoring sure helps, and I would be willing to make a bet that the lift being generated on the wing during that portion of flight is due to a stable conical vortex flow. Most thin and highly swept wings only have attached flow at very low alpha and create lift with stable detached conical vortex flow at higher angles of attack. The F-18 actually uses a combination of seperated conical vortex flow near the wing root, caused by the strakes, and conventional attached flow outboard. This allows the loss of lift of the outboard sections to be compensated by the lift produced by the strakes at high angles of attack. Additionally, the vortices created by the strakes help maintain attached flow on the entire wing by energizing the boundary layer.

F-22s are amazing aircraft, I have the luck at working on Edwards AFB on an off-on basis and get to see them go through flight test. I was talking with a F-22 pilot a while back and he mentioned that they have to pull back the throttle to keep the airplane's speed around Mach 2.3 during cruise. I believe during manuevering and during weapons firing the F-22 becomes highly visible on radar.


________

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2006, 16:36
by Raptor_One
That Mach 2.3 figure doesn't sound quite right for MIL power. For AB power, yes. MIL power... doubtful. It would be simply astonishing if the F-22 could maintain Mach 2.3 at less than MIL power. That would basically mean its afterburner is only there for combat acceleration/climbs and sustained maneuverability (i.e. maximum sustained turn rate). Again though, we're talking about second or third hand information here. If we went up to this same pilot and asked him if the F-22 could maintain speeds of Mach 2.3 at LESS than MIL power, I doubt he'd say yes. Then again, I am not sure if you'd get a pilot on the record quoting anything specific about the aircraft's performance limitations.

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2006, 02:57
by idesof
Raptor_One wrote:That Mach 2.3 figure doesn't sound quite right for MIL power. For AB power, yes. MIL power... doubtful. It would be simply astonishing if the F-22 could maintain Mach 2.3 at less than MIL power. That would basically mean its afterburner is only there for combat acceleration/climbs and sustained maneuverability (i.e. maximum sustained turn rate). Again though, we're talking about second or third hand information here. If we went up to this same pilot and asked him if the F-22 could maintain speeds of Mach 2.3 at LESS than MIL power, I doubt he'd say yes. Then again, I am not sure if you'd get a pilot on the record quoting anything specific about the aircraft's performance limitations.


Here you go again, R1, refusing to believe what you're unwilling to believe. There is now so much circumstantial if not outright corroborative evidence that the Raptor indeed cruises not just at Mach 2 but greater than Mach 2. Dozer aka Lt. Col. Shower talked about having to throttle back so as not to exceed Mach 2 IN A CLIMB. Then there was the by now infamous thread started by sferrin that quotes a couple of Raptor pilots suggesting that the Raptor cruises, after doing the math, at...drum roll please...yep, you guessed it, around Mach 2.3. While it is entirely possible that this may not be the case, you have to at least concede that it is indeed a possibility. Otherwise, you are being plainly and blindly obstinate.

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2006, 03:00
by idesof
Raptor_One wrote:That Mach 2.3 figure doesn't sound quite right for MIL power. For AB power, yes. MIL power... doubtful. It would be simply astonishing if the F-22 could maintain Mach 2.3 at less than MIL power. That would basically mean its afterburner is only there for combat acceleration/climbs and sustained maneuverability (i.e. maximum sustained turn rate). Again though, we're talking about second or third hand information here. If we went up to this same pilot and asked him if the F-22 could maintain speeds of Mach 2.3 at LESS than MIL power, I doubt he'd say yes. Then again, I am not sure if you'd get a pilot on the record quoting anything specific about the aircraft's performance limitations.


Oops, talk about losing the thread... That infamous thread is obviously this one! That's what happens when trolls are allowed to drive things way off topic into la-la land...

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2006, 03:36
by dwightlooi
I think everybody seems to also miss the point that time from take off to target, involves initial climb to altitude and this is always WAY slower than whatever the aircraft is capable of in level flight at optimum altitudes.

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2006, 04:52
by sferrin
Raptor_One wrote:That would basically mean its afterburner is only there for combat acceleration/climbs and sustained maneuverability (i.e. maximum sustained turn rate).


Back in the late 80's when work on the ATF began in ernest but before Lockheed and Northrop had been chosen I remember reading an article about the engines they'd have. It said the afterburners would almost be superfluous and only there for short bursts of speed in close combat or for running down an opponent. Another interesting thing from back then was Allison had either designed or had run an engine in the 30,000lb thrust range that was about the size of the F404 as I recall. It had looked (briefly) like there might be three bids for the ATF engine and then all of a sudden nothing is heard about Allison anymore. Then they show up much later with the engine for RATTLRS (Mach 3 - 4 with no afterburner). What is the point of all this? Don't know really other than maybe the F119 is more than just an improved F100.

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2006, 07:53
by Raptor_One
Who ever said the F119 is just an improved F100? That's like saying GE F110 is just an improved J79. Regardless, I don't put much stock in what someone's brother's girlfriend's uncle was told by an F-22 pilot. If the F-22 can sustain its maximum Mach limit at altitude at less than MIL power, I'll be damned. But I don't put much stock in second-, third-, and fourth-hand information that supposedly reveals sensitive design limit info about the F-22. Also, I don't put much stock in statements that are vague. The use of the word "cruise" is way too vague. I'll believe on the record statements from credible sources that are exact quotes and not taken out of context. For example, if some credible aviation magazine quoted an F-22 pilot or program official stating, "The F-22 is able to exceed its design Mach number of 2.xx at high altitudes in MIL power," I wouldn't be all that skeptical. Anything less concrete than this should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2006, 15:01
by bf-fly
If the test Metz pilot says 2.42 max, that doesn't necessarily mean that's the max operational speed. Test pilots test limits. If a line pilot has to "keep pulling it back to 2.3" it might simply mean it can go faster, but 2.3 was set as a normal operational top speed (not a supercruise). I think we all remember a parallel with the Mig 25's 2.8 limit on a 3.2 max. Also I suspect a squeaky clean F-15 has to be pushed very hard and fly for quite a while (some down hill) before it reaches it's theoretical M2.5, so to have to "keep pulling it back"(F-22) makes more sense if it easily attains that speed and the pilot recently came from the F-15 (I think all do, correct?). I suspect that 2.3 can be exceeded without much risk for brief periods of time, in fact likely so could 2.42. Engineering tolerances are always built in. So it can go this fast _____, so lets draw a line here _____ for a margins of safety/error. While it's the few of the few that fly it, it still has to be built for the average pilot. Besides, you can't tell a pilot what the real limit is- if it was you, and you were flying it, what would you do first chance you get? A margin of error has to be kept for, well, errors...,

This isn't the first mention of having to pull the power back. In fact it makes perfect sense. Yes, the burner is for combat instantaneous maneuvering and acceleration, and the whole point of supercruise is to go fast clean/dry. If it goes M1.8 on 22-25K thrust dry per side, then add another nearly J-79's worth of power and see how fast it will go. Thrust isn't the limit on this plane, aerodynamics (flutter perhaps that stresses the FBW) or G loads, or most likely as discussed here and elsewhere, heating and it's effects on it's metals and composites.

With 80 of them built and flying, I suspect it won't be too long before the truth comes out. It's not a secret that can be kept forever, in fact I'm surprised it's held this long. I suspect that tells us that 2.3 is Mmo.

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2006, 15:24
by FireFox137
bf-fly wrote:If the test Metz pilot says 2.42 max, that doesn't necessarily mean that's the max operational speed. Test pilots test limits. If a line pilot has to "keep pulling it back to 2.3" it might simply mean it can go faster, but 2.3 was set as a normal operational top speed (not a supercruise). I think we all remember a parallel with the Mig 25's 2.8 limit on a 3.2 max. Also I suspect a squeaky clean F-15 has to be pushed very hard and fly for quite a while (some down hill) before it reaches it's theoretical M2.5, so to have to "keep pulling it back"(F-22) makes more sense if it easily attains that speed and the pilot recently came from the F-15 (I think all do, correct?). I suspect that 2.3 can be exceeded without much risk for brief periods of time, in fact likely so could 2.42. Engineering tolerances are always built in. So it can go this fast _____, so lets draw a line here _____ for a margins of safety/error. While it's the few of the few that fly it, it still has to be built for the average pilot. Besides, you can't tell a pilot what the real limit is- if it was you, and you were flying it, what would you do first chance you get? A margin of error has to be kept for, well, errors...,

This isn't the first mention of having to pull the power back. In fact it makes perfect sense. Yes, the burner is for combat instantaneous maneuvering and acceleration, and the whole point of supercruise is to go fast clean/dry. If it goes M1.8 on 22-25K thrust dry per side, then add another nearly J-79's worth of power and see how fast it will go. Thrust isn't the limit on this plane, aerodynamics (flutter perhaps that stresses the FBW) or G loads, or most likely as discussed here and elsewhere, heating and it's effects on it's metals and composites.

With 80 of them built and flying, I suspect it won't be too long before the truth comes out. It's not a secret that can be kept forever, in fact I'm surprised it's held this long. I suspect that tells us that 2.3 is Mmo.


Just curious: from experience I know that published combat ceilings are not always, shall we say, accurate. Would anyone be willing to comment without lifting the skirt too high to show all the goodies what the F-22 is cabable of in altitudes with her load of AAMs?

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2006, 15:34
by idesof
bf-fly wrote:If the test Metz pilot says 2.42 max, that doesn't necessarily mean that's the max operational speed. Test pilots test limits. If a line pilot has to "keep pulling it back to 2.3" it might simply mean it can go faster, but 2.3 was set as a normal operational top speed (not a supercruise). I think we all remember a parallel with the Mig 25's 2.8 limit on a 3.2 max. Also I suspect a squeaky clean F-15 has to be pushed very hard and fly for quite a while (some down hill) before it reaches it's theoretical M2.5, so to have to "keep pulling it back"(F-22) makes more sense if it easily attains that speed and the pilot recently came from the F-15 (I think all do, correct?). I suspect that 2.3 can be exceeded without much risk for brief periods of time, in fact likely so could 2.42. Engineering tolerances are always built in. So it can go this fast _____, so lets draw a line here _____ for a margins of safety/error. While it's the few of the few that fly it, it still has to be built for the average pilot. Besides, you can't tell a pilot what the real limit is- if it was you, and you were flying it, what would you do first chance you get? A margin of error has to be kept for, well, errors...,

This isn't the first mention of having to pull the power back. In fact it makes perfect sense. Yes, the burner is for combat instantaneous maneuvering and acceleration, and the whole point of supercruise is to go fast clean/dry. If it goes M1.8 on 22-25K thrust dry per side, then add another nearly J-79's worth of power and see how fast it will go. Thrust isn't the limit on this plane, aerodynamics (flutter perhaps that stresses the FBW) or G loads, or most likely as discussed here and elsewhere, heating and it's effects on it's metals and composites.

With 80 of them built and flying, I suspect it won't be too long before the truth comes out. It's not a secret that can be kept forever, in fact I'm surprised it's held this long. I suspect that tells us that 2.3 is Mmo.


I think you hit a certain nail in the head here. Forget about the Raptor's vMax or max cruise speed or whatever, all of which we cannot possibly know with any degree of accuracy and will not know probably for quite some time, if ever, perhaps not in our lifetimes. However, considering the ongoing discussion taking place across several threads on this board, what we do know for a fact goes a long way toward answering allegations of the Raptor's supposed subpar performance.

Point is, as you wrote: you have to fly a clean F-15 on full burner for quite some time to hit its "theoretical" limit of Mach 2.5. By the time you hit Mach 2.5, you have to throttle back right away and better find a tanker fast because you're nearly out of fuel. This kind of dash has no operational significance whatsoever, and will never be used in combat, especially because the Eagle's only weapon in this scenario is the gun. Moreoever, I seriously doubt that there is now ANY F-15 in service that can hit Mach 2.5 under any conditions. Its engines are not putting out the thrust they once did, and their airframes are also limited. Even flight above Mach 2 is essentially out of the question for the Eagle in an operational environment.

While we may not know the Raptor's true vMax or cruising speed, we do know enough to recognize that this is an airplane that you actually have to throttle back in order not to exceed its design limits. Can you say the same thing about any fighter flying out there right now? While you need to huff and puff to get the Mig-29, Su-27, F-15, F-16 and even Rafael and Eurofighter to get them to reach their theoretical vMax speeds, the Raptor reaches it's own airframe-dictated limits without breaking a sweat. It is evident that dash speeds--useful combat dash speeds--of greater than Mach 2 are easily achievable for the Raptor but beyond the capability of any other fighter flying out there right now. In the case of the Raptor, it would certainly be useful in an operational scenario to dash at Mach 2.3 or above, precisely because it carries its weapons internally and is always a clean aircraft in combat configuration. If you are trying to impart energy to your missiles, it is certainly useful to fire an Amraam at Mach 2.3 instead of, say, Mach 1.8. If you are trying to take out a time-critical target such as a mobile SAM, Mach 2.3 sure is useful. If you are trying to get the hell out of dodge, Mach 2.3, again, is nice to have. These are speeds that are within a line pilot's arsenal whereas they are simply unavailable to a fighter pilot flying any other airplane. I think this is hugely significant.

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2006, 15:36
by idesof
FireFox137 wrote:Just curious: from experience I know that published combat ceilings are not always, shall we say, accurate. Would anyone be willing to comment without lifting the skirt too high to show all the goodies what the F-22 is cabable of in altitudes with her load of AAMs?


Greater than 60,000 ft. is regularly quoted. I think to fly above that you need a pressure suit, and I do not know of Raptor pilots flying around with pressure suits.

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2006, 15:56
by sferrin
idesof wrote:
FireFox137 wrote:Just curious: from experience I know that published combat ceilings are not always, shall we say, accurate. Would anyone be willing to comment without lifting the skirt too high to show all the goodies what the F-22 is cabable of in altitudes with her load of AAMs?


Greater than 60,000 ft. is regularly quoted. I think to fly above that you need a pressure suit, and I do not know of Raptor pilots flying around with pressure suits.


At one point it was planned they'd have them but then the suit got cancelled due to cost.

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2006, 16:02
by sferrin
bf-fly wrote:If the test Metz pilot says 2.42 max, that doesn't necessarily mean that's the max operational speed.


In fact he didn't say Mach 2.42 was the maximum speed. His exact words were "it's top speed is classified but it'll do 1600 mph." Meaning "I'm not going to tell you the real number but I'll tell you this other number that is still impressive without giving anything away."

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2006, 16:27
by FireFox137
sferrin wrote:
bf-fly wrote:If the test Metz pilot says 2.42 max, that doesn't necessarily mean that's the max operational speed.


In fact he didn't say Mach 2.42 was the maximum speed. His exact words were "it's top speed is classified but it'll do 1600 mph." Meaning "I'm not going to tell you the real number but I'll tell you this other number that is still impressive without giving anything away."


I am not too proud to admit when I am wrong, but should it ever come out that the -22 can jet around 70K and 2.3+ Mach (for sustained times w/o AB), I for one would sleep better knowing that we didn't totally throw away such a needed (and feasible) capability. Pressure suits or not (excellent point btw!!) the -22 would be an awesome beast.

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2006, 18:17
by Raptor_claw
bf-fly wrote:Besides, you can't tell a pilot what the real limit is- if it was you, and you were flying it, what would you do first chance you get? A margin of error has to be kept for, well, errors...,


What the pilots should be aware of (handbook limits, etc) is exactly what speed the aircraft has been cleared to, and what the possible impacts are of violating that.
What a smart F-22 pilot will also realize is that Big Brother is watching. The onboard data recorder operates constantly. It does not keep all the data for all the time of a flight, but it does monitor several key a/c parameters (g's, speed, etc) and 'saves' data for the time surrounding any 'triggers' or 'events'. So, the likelihood of a pilot getting away with busting a handbook limit (intentionally or not) and just 'forgetting' to mention it is small. (This has already tripped up at least one pilot that was apparently unaware of how the system works.)

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2006, 18:21
by bf-fly
I think we all must guard against turning this into the Millennium Falcon. Now we're talking about 2.42+ (which 1600 roughly equates to), a 2.3 supercruise and 70,000 ft. What it can do, and what it will do are two different things. I think what's of greater import and comparison is the fact that it will at least supercruise at the same speed a F-18 A-F's max speed. That is hugely significant. The wheel hasn't been re-invented here, we're not bending light. The dots do connect.

If you take this account (M2.3) at face value, you have to ask why that number? Why not "I have to keep pulling it back to maintain Mach 2" or 2.5 or 2.66. Why 2.3? It has no other particular significance in aviation lore. Why?Because it means something to that pilot, it's not arbitrary. It's means something on the aircraft on the a/c, nowhere else. Max throttle position is determinded by detents and computer. Two functioning engines and a detent and wind noise will tell you you are supercruising. Airspeed on the other hand is widely variable, and easily excessive. Aircraft can exceed design speed limits easily, it's quite common. In light airplanes no, in jets, yes. It's typical to fly at less than max throttle yet maintain max cruise speed (Vmo or Mmo) ie., redline. (I'm not even considering what a dive does to airspeed.) Throttle position is hardwired, so to speak, airspeed needs other limitations, design, testing, training, (rote memory) and implemtation. (Sadly we have to look no farther for examples than 9/11. 75/767 can exceed their normal speed limits if you firewall the throttles. Further, it shows the engineering airframe and engine tolerances as well, their Vmo was about 300knots, yet one hit over 400 and one over 500 in mostly level flight).

He (if true) didn't pull 2.3 out of the thin air (pardon the pun). To think it can supercruise 2.3 would be great, I hope so, but that's also asking a lot. I would not be surprised one bit if at optimal temp and alt is can Supercruise at 2.0, but you would never say "I had to pull it back to maintain optimal super cruise speed, you'd just take it and go with a big smile on you face" But you would pull it back to mainitain of 2.3 only for a good reason. I seriously doubt it has the same top speed with or without burner.

If true, he didn't pull 2.3 out of his butt. 2.3 is the normal operational Mmo.

Firefox, as I'm sure you know, the streak Eagle broke 100,000 feet. That has absolutely nothing to do with how high it flies. Without going into a long explaination, I would suspect the F-22 routinely flys at 45-60,000 feet.

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2006, 18:27
by bf-fly
Raptor Claw

Thank you for bringing that up. I am well aware. I don't include everything I know in everything I write. Is been common place in airlines for years, especially the smarter the plane is. I don't think my current plane does, but my last did (FBW). Certainly the F-22 can report this.

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2006, 18:36
by bf-fly
I was only speaking in general terms at that moment why airspeed limitations at set, marked and memorized by pilots rather than actual engineering limits.

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2006, 21:00
by FireFox137
bf-fly wrote:I think we all must guard against turning this into the Millennium Falcon. Now we're talking about 2.42+ (which 1600 roughly equates to), a 2.3 supercruise and 70,000 ft. What it can do, and what it will do are two different things. I think what's of greater import and comparison is the fact that it will at least supercruise at the same speed a F-18 A-F's max speed. That is hugely significant. The wheel hasn't been re-invented here, we're not bending light. The dots do connect.

If you take this account (M2.3) at face value, you have to ask why that number? Why not "I have to keep pulling it back to maintain Mach 2" or 2.5 or 2.66. Why 2.3? It has no other particular significance in aviation lore. Why?Because it means something to that pilot, it's not arbitrary. It's means something on the aircraft on the a/c, nowhere else. Max throttle position is determinded by detents and computer. Two functioning engines and a detent and wind noise will tell you you are supercruising. Airspeed on the other hand is widely variable, and easily excessive. Aircraft can exceed design speed limits easily, it's quite common. In light airplanes no, in jets, yes. It's typical to fly at less than max throttle yet maintain max cruise speed (Vmo or Mmo) ie., redline. (I'm not even considering what a dive does to airspeed.) Throttle position is hardwired, so to speak, airspeed needs other limitations, design, testing, training, (rote memory) and implemtation. (Sadly we have to look no farther for examples than 9/11. 75/767 can exceed their normal speed limits if you firewall the throttles. Further, it shows the engineering airframe and engine tolerances as well, their Vmo was about 300knots, yet one hit over 400 and one over 500 in mostly level flight).

He (if true) didn't pull 2.3 out of the thin air (pardon the pun). To think it can supercruise 2.3 would be great, I hope so, but that's also asking a lot. I would not be surprised one bit if at optimal temp and alt is can Supercruise at 2.0, but you would never say "I had to pull it back to maintain optimal super cruise speed, you'd just take it and go with a big smile on you face" But you would pull it back to mainitain of 2.3 only for a good reason. I seriously doubt it has the same top speed with or without burner.

If true, he didn't pull 2.3 out of his butt. 2.3 is the normal operational Mmo.

Firefox, as I'm sure you know, the streak Eagle broke 100,000 feet. That has absolutely nothing to do with how high it flies. Without going into a long explaination, I would suspect the F-22 routinely flys at 45-60,000 feet.


Yep, I know all too well what the Streak Eagle did way back when. I also know that she can't jet around 100K and wave at a fellow Blackbird pilot (if they were still around). I also know what the old old F-104 could do as well............. But, I'm questioning normal sustained flight ~70K. Also the air thins out (as we all know) so I would have to wonder about cruise speed at such and such altitudes. There's the matter of controllability of an AC at those higher up angels too. Given the Raptors huge verticle do-dads and tv capability, larger wings than an Eagle, I'm getting tempted to do some number crunching on my own. Again, those speeds (not taking into account flying with the jet stream) and altitudes..... That's an awesome advantage when tossing 120's outta your weapons bays. I don't know the mach limit on those weapons bays, but there could be an achilles heal there.
Now then, I seem to vaguley remember a plane called..... What was it again..... the A-12 Interceptor? Hm? Given a plane with something like 25K lbs thrust (dependant upon altitude) in dry running conditions, and given the Raptors control surfaces layout...... Hm? There may be a slim outside chance that we do got a super Foxbat on our hands. Again, either way, we simply need more of the -22 and LESS (ZERO) of the JSF.

This scenario could also play a role in the selection of the 22 over the 23. I am not and was never a fan of both aircraft, but in looking at this issue another way, the 22 appears to be more controllable at high altitudes and high mach numbers.

I don't have a lot of time for this stuff and investigating, but being who I am, and being the inquisitive SOB that I am, I would just LOVE to know more about the 22's unpublished capabilities although I would need to know more about the engines and that ain't going to happen until history books are written years from now. I think it would be safe to say though, that the 22 isn't a 3.0 March AC..... Looking at the shock wave stuff.... She's not capable of that I do know.

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2006, 23:14
by FireFox137
FireFox137 wrote:
bf-fly wrote:I think we all must guard against turning this into the Millennium Falcon. Now we're talking about 2.42+ (which 1600 roughly equates to), a 2.3 supercruise and 70,000 ft. What it can do, and what it will do are two different things. I think what's of greater import and comparison is the fact that it will at least supercruise at the same speed a F-18 A-F's max speed. That is hugely significant. The wheel hasn't been re-invented here, we're not bending light. The dots do connect.

If you take this account (M2.3) at face value, you have to ask why that number? Why not "I have to keep pulling it back to maintain Mach 2" or 2.5 or 2.66. Why 2.3? It has no other particular significance in aviation lore. Why?Because it means something to that pilot, it's not arbitrary. It's means something on the aircraft on the a/c, nowhere else. Max throttle position is determinded by detents and computer. Two functioning engines and a detent and wind noise will tell you you are supercruising. Airspeed on the other hand is widely variable, and easily excessive. Aircraft can exceed design speed limits easily, it's quite common. In light airplanes no, in jets, yes. It's typical to fly at less than max throttle yet maintain max cruise speed (Vmo or Mmo) ie., redline. (I'm not even considering what a dive does to airspeed.) Throttle position is hardwired, so to speak, airspeed needs other limitations, design, testing, training, (rote memory) and implemtation. (Sadly we have to look no farther for examples than 9/11. 75/767 can exceed their normal speed limits if you firewall the throttles. Further, it shows the engineering airframe and engine tolerances as well, their Vmo was about 300knots, yet one hit over 400 and one over 500 in mostly level flight).

He (if true) didn't pull 2.3 out of the thin air (pardon the pun). To think it can supercruise 2.3 would be great, I hope so, but that's also asking a lot. I would not be surprised one bit if at optimal temp and alt is can Supercruise at 2.0, but you would never say "I had to pull it back to maintain optimal super cruise speed, you'd just take it and go with a big smile on you face" But you would pull it back to mainitain of 2.3 only for a good reason. I seriously doubt it has the same top speed with or without burner.

If true, he didn't pull 2.3 out of his butt. 2.3 is the normal operational Mmo.

Firefox, as I'm sure you know, the streak Eagle broke 100,000 feet. That has absolutely nothing to do with how high it flies. Without going into a long explaination, I would suspect the F-22 routinely flys at 45-60,000 feet.


Yep, I know all too well what the Streak Eagle did way back when. I also know that she can't jet around 100K and wave at a fellow Blackbird pilot (if they were still around). I also know what the old old F-104 could do as well............. But, I'm questioning normal sustained flight ~70K. Also the air thins out (as we all know) so I would have to wonder about cruise speed at such and such altitudes. There's the matter of controllability of an AC at those higher up angels too. Given the Raptors huge verticle do-dads and tv capability, larger wings than an Eagle, I'm getting tempted to do some number crunching on my own. Again, those speeds (not taking into account flying with the jet stream) and altitudes..... That's an awesome advantage when tossing 120's outta your weapons bays. I don't know the mach limit on those weapons bays, but there could be an achilles heal there.
Now then, I seem to vaguley remember a plane called..... What was it again..... the A-12 Interceptor? Hm? Given a plane with something like 25K lbs thrust (dependant upon altitude) in dry running conditions, and given the Raptors control surfaces layout...... Hm? There may be a slim outside chance that we do got a super Foxbat on our hands. Again, either way, we simply need more of the -22 and LESS (ZERO) of the JSF.

This scenario could also play a role in the selection of the 22 over the 23. I am not and was never a fan of both aircraft, but in looking at this issue another way, the 22 appears to be more controllable at high altitudes and high mach numbers.

I don't have a lot of time for this stuff and investigating, but being who I am, and being the inquisitive SOB that I am, I would just LOVE to know more about the 22's unpublished capabilities although I would need to know more about the engines and that ain't going to happen until history books are written years from now. I think it would be safe to say though, that the 22 isn't a 3.0 March AC..... Looking at the shock wave stuff.... She's not capable of that I do know.


Hmmm.... I thought about the pro's and con's of asking/posing this: I'm sure that all of us of have heard a lot about "pulse detontation" propulsion units on hypothetical Blackbird replacements. What if (or is it possible?) that the F-22 has a capability similar to this for the high angels missions? Meaning that, hypothetically speaking, what if the F-22 did fly up to ~70K for a high speed run: instead of simply crusing along in dry military thrust, what of those PW's can be periodically (computer controlled) to light the burners for set period of time, boost the F-22's speed, drop out of AB, cruise in dry thrust, and the light up the cans again...... And on and on... You get the point. I haven't taken anytime to look into (nor do I have the technical information required) to see if these were a feasible way to boost up the F-22's "cruise" speed to even higher mach numbers (and longer legs). Of course this couldn't be called supercruise in the "classical" sense.

But what do you experts think?

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2006, 23:16
by FireFox137
P.S. Did I mention that we should kill the JSF?

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2006, 00:57
by sferrin
Raptor_claw wrote:
bf-fly wrote:Besides, you can't tell a pilot what the real limit is- if it was you, and you were flying it, what would you do first chance you get? A margin of error has to be kept for, well, errors...,


What the pilots should be aware of (handbook limits, etc) is exactly what speed the aircraft has been cleared to, and what the possible impacts are of violating that.
What a smart F-22 pilot will also realize is that Big Brother is watching. The onboard data recorder operates constantly. It does not keep all the data for all the time of a flight, but it does monitor several key a/c parameters (g's, speed, etc) and 'saves' data for the time surrounding any 'triggers' or 'events'. So, the likelihood of a pilot getting away with busting a handbook limit (intentionally or not) and just 'forgetting' to mention it is small. (This has already tripped up at least one pilot that was apparently unaware of how the system works.)



There was a great article in Code One that mentioned one of those incidents.

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2006, 01:09
by sferrin
bf-fly wrote:I think we all must guard against turning this into the Millennium Falcon. Now we're talking about 2.42+ (which 1600 roughly equates to
Just to be clear he was NOT talking about supercruise. He was just talking about it's speed in general. He said "It's fast. I mean it's really fast. The top speed is classified but it'll do sixteen hundred miles per hour." (I really need to track that down and capture the audio file.)


bf-fly wrote:I would suspect the F-22 routinely flys at 45-60,000 feet.


The thing is it's designed to operate up high enough often enough that they'd originially planned for the pilots to wear pressure suits.

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2006, 01:16
by sferrin
FireFox137 wrote: But, I'm questioning normal sustained flight ~70K. Also the air thins out (as we all know) so I would have to wonder about cruise speed at such and such altitudes.


Let's not forget that a lousy FULCRUM took the Blackbird's sustained altitude record and set the new one at ~95,000 feet. (No bullsh!t)



FireFox137 wrote: There's the matter of controllability of an AC at those higher up angels too. Given the Raptors huge verticle do-dads and tv capability, larger wings than an Eagle, I'm getting tempted to do some number crunching on my own. Again, those speeds (not taking into account flying with the jet stream) and altitudes..... That's an awesome advantage when tossing 120's outta your weapons bays. I don't know the mach limit on those weapons bays, but there could be an achilles heal there.
Now then, I seem to vaguley remember a plane called..... What was it again..... the A-12 Interceptor?


YF-12A. It was launching AIM-47 Falcons from internal bays at Mach 3.2 and 80,000 feet forty years ago. It had six out of seven hits including one shot from 80,000 feet against a target at 1,500 feet.

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2006, 01:20
by sferrin
FireFox137 wrote:But what do you experts think?


Not an "expert" by any stretch but PDEs work completely different than a traditional turbine/ramjet/scramjet/pulsejet engine. Besides, you don't need that stuff to go fast. Check out RATTLRS.

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2006, 01:46
by RobertCook
bf-fly wrote:I think a cluttered, extremely un-stealthy bay could degrade stealth. Consider the 35 has 4 A2G weapons, four targets.

1) door opens, weapon ejected, a flash on enemy radar is plotted
2) door opens again, 2nd weapon is ejected, second flash plotted
3) No.3 the cycle repeats, flash is plotted
4) SU-27 sits and waits at the projected #4 release area/route.


If the F-22s haven't gotten around to killing the Su-27, then the F-35 pilot would have been aware of its presence long before it moved into firing position (or detected the F-35 with open bays), and killed it himself with an AMRAAM prior to dropping his bombs.

bf-fly wrote:
That's a fair question, but the same applies to all fighters, and if we're comparing numbers in a general sense (rather than for a specific mission), then they have to be compared under equivalent conditions.


I think you're hedging a little. Since when is extra fuel a bad thing?


I wasn't calling it a bad thing, as fuel is about the most useful payload that a fighter can carry, but it does add substantial weight, which negatively impacts the F-35's flight performance as a fighter or interceptor. It's simply a matter of considering both the positive and negative aspects of the design tradeoffs.

bf-fly wrote:Secondly, at least in US hands, the battle will be over or near the enemy's territory with few exceptions.


That seems to be the common case, and should be considered when evaluating any design with regard to its intended purpose, but this applies to all fighters. We just have to make it clear whether we have a certain kind of representative operational scenario in mind or are simply comparing fighters in the most general sense. Because fuel is an interesting issue concerning the F-35, for the sake of comparison, we might want to create scenarios where other fighters (no matter who produces or uses them) carry external fuel tanks and drop them when engaging in combat.

bf-fly wrote:
It (weight) does to some degree, although most fighters aren't all that dirty when loaded for air superiority (after they drop any external tanks), and opening the bay doors will more or less make up the difference.


True, but clean is clean.


Well, in any reasonably optimized design, obviously there is no "free lunch." When it comes to carrying fuel and weapons internally, clean also means larger and heavier. You lose the drag of external carriage, but have to carry around the extra structural weight and induced drag from generating more lift to carry this weight in addition to that of the stores before they're consumed or expended.

F-22 pilots and proponents have often touted the always-clean configuration as a way of demonstrating that the F-22 can perform as well in combat as it does in testing, and while this is certainly a valid point, it really means that the necessary tradeoffs of the design are always in evidence, and that the F-22 is awesome because it outperforms legacy fighters despite the handicaps brought about by stealth (only partially mitigated by the clean airframe). The same concept would apply to the F-35, although it remains to be seen how well it actually performs as a fighter and what structural limits it may have depending on its fuel load.

bf-fly wrote:Also the door will be open for a moment at the point of launch, not during maneuvering.


Alright, I'll buy that, because the F-35 would have to use LOAL in any case (for the reasons that I gave in a previous reply). By the way, the F-22 currently opens a single side bay, and swings the Sidewinder's seeker out to allow it to lock on. I guess this could be changed if LOAL is implemented, but frankly, I like the current concept better because you know that the missile has acquired the correct target at the moment it is launched instead of having to continue to slew the seeker with your HMD while waiting for the bay door to open and the missile to clear the aircraft (quick but not as quick).

bf-fly wrote:
Do you mean 2 AMRAAMs + 2 AIM-9X or 2 AMRAAMs in the left bay + 2 AMRAAMs in the right bay? (the latter is an official configuration, I believe) As far as I know, the F-35 will be cleared for the AMRAAM and ASRAAM (for the RAF) in the bays, but not for the AIM-9X as of yet (they go on the outer wing stations).


I don't know what it is, but I meant 4 total. I'm just speaking to the motivation, possibility and advantages of making it work. I think the navy/wants needs this plane in a bad way, far more than the AF. Whether it's by initial deployment or later on, I suspect that desire will find a way and the money to create a delay mode in the 9X launch (which has smaller vanes by the way). Even if it requires a retrofit to bulge the outer doors, I think the Navy will find a way, in time, to make the 35 a better A2A a/c with internal loads.


There is no doubt that something could be done, given enough motivation, but I'm just saying that it would take a lot because of the difficulty and cost of any practical solution on this platform. As for the AIM-9X, LOAL should be quite feasible in comparison, and its shorter finspan should allow it to fit inside the bays as well as (or actually slightly better than) the AIM-120C.

bf-fly wrote:
The F-22 already carries the clipped-fin AIM-120C (all C models have clipped fins), and although it is probably last on the list for the AIM-9X, the F-22 will be cleared for it eventually (still only one in each side bay). I'm not so sure about the F-35, which is intended to carry 2 AIM-9X on the outer wing stations.


I don't know the dimensions, but those smaller fins of the 9X create a possibility for 5 total or 6 total internal.


The finspan of the AIM-9X is 17.5", which is slightly smaller than the AIM-120C's 17.6". It would take up about as much space as an AIM-120C in the F-35's bays, and less space than an AIM-9M in the F-22's side bays (although it's unlikely that any more could be carried by the F-22). If 6 AIM-9Xs can somehow be made to fit in the F-35's bays, then most likely the same number of AMRAAMs could fit, and the typical stealthy air superiority loadout of the F-35 would end up being a reasonable 4 AMRAAMs and 2 AIM-9Xs. We shall see.

bf-fly wrote:
Unfortunately, this load out doesn't seem likely anytime soon based on the relevant thread in the F-35 forum. The bays are really tight, and are also shaped quite like the weapons that they're intended to carry, so it would be necessary for AAMs to fold their fins in order for more to be able to fit, and that may or may not ever happen.


OK, so maybe we see 3 120's and a 9 in a A2A layout.


That's half the F-22's load for air superiority, and quite minimal, but it would be better than sacrificing stealth, in my opinion.

bf-fly wrote:If we do consider your standard 2 120's left and 2 9x's right.


I was thinking one of each type in each bay, but in any case, that would be a mighty small load of AMRAAMs for a fighter that should be doing most of its work BVR.

bf-fly wrote:Even with two more 120's on the wing, it's still very clean.


In this case, I'd just as soon put the AMRAAMs inside while hanging the Sidewinders on the wings, as currently intended. The effect on aerodynamics would be almost negligible, but the impact on RCS would be more severe, especially from the sides with the corner reflections from the fins and pylons.

bf-fly wrote:How does an F-16 with only 2 missiles compare with 6 for maneuverability?


An additional 1400 lb of weight plus more drag would definitely have some impact on the F-16, but there are fighters that can carry 4 AMRAAMs quite efficiently (e.g. F-15C, Typhoon).

bf-fly wrote:
Then there may be issues with the launch envelope, since the bay might not have been designed to operate while the aircraft is maneuvering hard. Perhaps everything will simply work out fine, but we can't blithely make that assumption.


We have met far greater challenges, this doesn't seem that big. The question is motivation. The AF might not have it, but...,


That's right, but many of the interested parties have already been involved in the design process for some time (even since the beginning), which raises the question of why they haven't been motivated enough thus far.

bf-fly wrote:Add your clipped wing AIM-120's and the desire, it may be possible. There are a lot of possibilities. Consider 1 aim120 on one door, 1 9X on the other, and 1 120 above.


There's a thread in the F-35 forum covering this subject. Clipped AMRAAMs and AIM-9Xs are always assumed.

Raptor_One wrote:That Mach 2.3 figure doesn't sound quite right for MIL power. For AB power, yes. MIL power... doubtful. It would be simply astonishing if the F-22 could maintain Mach 2.3 at less than MIL power.


Frankly, I would be rather astonished as well, because although the F119 and the F-22's inlets were designed for relatively high speed, I would think that without using afterburner, it's going to lose a lot of power starting at some point closer to the specified supercruise speed of Mach 1.5. However, I really have no data on which to base this assumption, aside from the fact that currently the highest speed attained on dry thrust--as reported directly by a pilot or official in a publication--is about Mach 1.73. For what it's worth, Lt. Col. Steve Rainey (the first USAF F-22 pilot) said the following:

"...the F-22 powered by Pratt & Whitney F-119 engines, demonstrates excellent performance and flying qualities at altitudes where other aircraft tend to become unresponsive and sluggish. In fact, as altitude and speed increase, it becomes very obvious to the pilot that the F-22 "wants" to go much faster. The aircraft accelerates faster, the faster it goes. This may in fact be a problem for the operational Raptor pilot. There is an "AIRSPEED ICAW" to alert the pilot that he is about to over-speed the aircraft - a real possibility in the F-22."

He did not mention any specific speeds or whether this is true in dry thrust, but in another report (related to safety), which I can't seem to find online anymore, he said that on the deck the F-22 could easily and without warning (of a physical nature) get fast enough at military power to damage itself due to pressure.

Raptor_One wrote:That would basically mean its afterburner is only there for combat acceleration/climbs and sustained maneuverability (i.e. maximum sustained turn rate).


Those are probably the only reasons it's there in any case, whether or not Mach 2.3 on dry thrust is possible. In pragmatic terms, the confirmed Mach 1.73 is about as fast as any USAF fighter is expected to go in level flight, even in a dash.

Raptor_One wrote:Who ever said the F119 is just an improved F100? That's like saying GE F110 is just an improved J79.


The F110 is just an improved F101, actually. ;) But seriously, if the latest F110s have been putting out 36000+ lb, it shouldn't take much to get the more advanced F119 up past its declassified rating of 35000. And whatever it puts out under sea-level, static conditions, it seems to be a monster when going fast and high, just as designed.

Raptor_One wrote:Regardless, I don't put much stock in what someone's brother's girlfriend's uncle was told by an F-22 pilot. If the F-22 can sustain its maximum Mach limit at altitude at less than MIL power, I'll be damned.


For the record, I won't believe it until it comes more or less directly from a pilot or other official source, fully qualified and preferably with an explanation as to how and why the F-22 has so greatly exceeded this already demanding goal.

bf-fly wrote:If the test Metz pilot says 2.42 max, that doesn't necessarily mean that's the max operational speed. Test pilots test limits. If a line pilot has to "keep pulling it back to 2.3" it might simply mean it can go faster, but 2.3 was set as a normal operational top speed (not a supercruise).


I think that it's fairly well established that in full afterburner, the F-22 has enough power to damage itself by flying too fast within its current known operational ceiling. In short, the F-22's speed is not limited by power, and you can never just leave the F-22 at maximum power (or even at full military power at lower altitudes) without running the risk of damaging the airframe. This is a known operational issue. On other fighters, the limit may more commonly be engine power (due to the engine itself or the inlets) or engine damage.

bf-fly wrote:I think we all remember a parallel with the Mig 25's 2.8 limit on a 3.2 max.


Most operators limit the MiG-25's speed to Mach 2.5 in order to more reasonably preserve the engines. And it might not be able to go much faster than that anyway, depending on its weapon loadout.

bf-fly wrote:Also I suspect a squeaky clean F-15 has to be pushed very hard and fly for quite a while (some down hill) before it reaches it's theoretical M2.5, so to have to "keep pulling it back"(F-22) makes more sense if it easily attains that speed and the pilot recently came from the F-15 (I think all do, correct?).


Although you're making a bit of an assumption, it wouldn't be surprising if you were right, given the fact that the F-22's best climb profile involves quickly accelerating to supersonic speed during a climb without using a Rutowski profile. While this isn't exactly the same as level flight and doesn't tell us what the F-22's rate of climb is, for that matter, all I can say is Holy Crap! :shock:

idesof wrote:I think you hit a certain nail in the head here. Forget about the Raptor's vMax or max cruise speed or whatever, all of which we cannot possibly know with any degree of accuracy and will not know probably for quite some time, if ever, perhaps not in our lifetimes. However, considering the ongoing discussion taking place across several threads on this board, what we do know for a fact goes a long way toward answering allegations of the Raptor's supposed subpar performance.


Those allegations are based on massive extrapolations from just a few numbers. Take the Raptor's presumed 1.05 thrust-to-weight ratio, for example--that's "measured" with the engine in a stand at sea level and the Raptor on the ground. Everything changes when the plane is in the air, from the performance of its engines and intakes throughout the envelope to the effects of its advanced aerodynamics that are optimized for supersonic speeds yet provide so much control at extremely high angles of attack and slow speeds. Whether it was supposed to have been even better is irrelevant now--it is what it is, and that's a lot more than a couple of numbers.

idesof wrote:While we may not know the Raptor's true vMax or cruising speed, we do know enough to recognize that this is an airplane that you actually have to throttle back in order not to exceed its design limits. Can you say the same thing about any fighter flying out there right now? While you need to huff and puff to get the Mig-29, Su-27, F-15, F-16 and even Rafael and Eurofighter to get them to reach their theoretical vMax speeds,


I wouldn't assume too much about the Eurofighter, actually (not sure about the Rafale).

idesof wrote:the Raptor reaches it's own airframe-dictated limits without breaking a sweat. It is evident that dash speeds--useful combat dash speeds--of greater than Mach 2 are easily achievable for the Raptor but beyond the capability of any other fighter flying out there right now. In the case of the Raptor, it would certainly be useful in an operational scenario to dash at Mach 2.3 or above, precisely because it carries its weapons internally and is always a clean aircraft in combat configuration. If you are trying to impart energy to your missiles, it is certainly useful to fire an Amraam at Mach 2.3 instead of, say, Mach 1.8. If you are trying to take out a time-critical target such as a mobile SAM, Mach 2.3 sure is useful. If you are trying to get the hell out of dodge, Mach 2.3, again, is nice to have. These are speeds that are within a line pilot's arsenal whereas they are simply unavailable to a fighter pilot flying any other airplane. I think this is hugely significant.


That's a good point--if the Raptor is everything that its pilots say it is, then it's a more practical implementation of the capabilities that people typically associate with tactical combat aircraft. It can't fly faster than the listed top speeds of other fighters, but it can easily get there and make use of such speed, unlike other fighters (save for some dedicated interceptors). Most fighters can reach Mach 1.7 if they tried, but can they carry and drop bombs at that speed? The Raptor can, and has already demonstrated this capability.

FireFox137 wrote:Again, those speeds (not taking into account flying with the jet stream) and altitudes..... That's an awesome advantage when tossing 120's outta your weapons bays. I don't know the mach limit on those weapons bays, but there could be an achilles heal there.


I don't recall seeing any actual numbers regarding the F-22's AMRAAM launch envelope, but the GBU-32 can be dropped at 1142 mph (Mach 1.73), and the F-22's Sidewinder envelope is described as being the largest of any fighter, so one would hope that similar relative capability would have been specified for the AMRAAM, which is after all the F-22's primary weapon. I wish that I had a stronger argument, but all I have heard or read is "supersonic."

FireFox137 wrote:Now then, I seem to vaguley remember a plane called..... What was it again..... the A-12 Interceptor? Hm? Given a plane with something like 25K lbs thrust (dependant upon altitude) in dry running conditions, and given the Raptors control surfaces layout...... Hm? There may be a slim outside chance that we do got a super Foxbat on our hands.


The Raptor may or may not be able to quite keep up with the Foxbat's or Foxhound's maximum speed, but I'd wager that it could beat them to its own maximum speed and operating altitude, which is a useful capability for an interceptor.

FireFox137 wrote:This scenario could also play a role in the selection of the 22 over the 23. I am not and was never a fan of both aircraft, but in looking at this issue another way, the 22 appears to be more controllable at high altitudes and high mach numbers.


It is widely believed that although the YF-23 was a bit slicker than the YF-22 (really just a little--like 0.02 Mach with the YF119--and the F-22 is probably slicker still), the F-22 was going to be more maneuverable than the F-23, while the latter would have been stealthier than the former to some degree. According to these assumptions, the USAF chose the aircraft that offered a more balanced set of capabilities (in comparison to its potential adversaries). With all of the questions surrounding the F-22's maneuverability, imagine if they went with the F-23, putting all of their eggs into the stealth basket.

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2006, 03:01
by sferrin
RobertCook wrote:The F110 is just an improved F101, actually. ;) But seriously, if the latest F110s have been putting out 36000+ lb, it shouldn't take much to get the more advanced F119 up past its declassified rating of 35000. And whatever it puts out under sea-level, static conditions, it seems to be a monster when going fast and high, just as designed.


Something else to consider is that the F110s are only pushing about 275lbs/sec IIRC where the F119 is 335lbs/sec. Where both F110s and F100s have been run at 36,000+ (The F100 hit something like 37,100 lbs of thrust) I'm EXTREMELY skeptical of 35,000lbs for the F119.

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2006, 03:50
by FireFox137
sferrin wrote:
FireFox137 wrote:But what do you experts think?


Not an "expert" by any stretch but PDEs work completely different than a traditional turbine/ramjet/scramjet/pulsejet engine. Besides, you don't need that stuff to go fast. Check out RATTLRS.


Oh, I do know the basics of how pde's are supposed to operate.... I am simply wondering if a little trickery to some of the Raptor's engine management system would yield and even faster "crusie" speed with an even longer range and even higher altitude since you're lighting off the cans periodically. I know all about rattlrs and but with speed and altititude come added benefits.... escape envelopes, especially from AAMs and SAMs fired at distance: added E into your aams. It also comes in handy when you want to pounce upon a band of roaming MIGs.... Get in within weapons release distance, launch, and get outta there (some limitations with the standard 120's) before the other guy can get a shot off since he's up to his eyeballs in 120s. Then there's added SR type mission profiles (in miniture of course).

I don't know about you, but you cannot have enough velocity - ever - in a warplane.

The questions that I obviously cannot answer are about fuel consumption rates, accellerations and decellerations, etc etc. I would think that if a "few" lines of code could be added to the Raptor's computers that would provide some kick a$$ real world perfromance then they should be all over it: after all, how much does s/w truly cost? Somewhere someone knows this stuff, and maybe if they haven't already considered this then maybe they now can.

I guess you could call this a poor mans pde that I am curious about. Of course I don't know the Raptor's structural limitations, so even if there were enough bang for the lines of code to go cruising around at 2.5 Mach till she runs out of gas, then well, you gotta gum down to an acceptable level which none the less may yield a higher "cruise" speed than currently reachable by the F-22.

Look, with 182 airframes, I want EVERYTHING possible out of them that we can get.

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2006, 03:53
by FireFox137
RobertCook wrote:
bf-fly wrote:With all of the questions surrounding the F-22's maneuverability, imagine if they went with the F-23, putting all of their eggs into the stealth basket.


That's been one of my key arguments all along: stealth aint everything!!

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2006, 04:39
by bf-fly
Forgive me Robert Cook if I don't take the requisite time to respond to your post, but...,

That's right, but many of the interested parties have already been involved in the design process for some time (even since the beginning), which raises the question of why they haven't been motivated enough thus far.


I think that's a no brainer, don't steal the F-22's thunder. Don't give congress another weapon to shoot down the F-22 "the F-35 can handle the A2A, we don't need the F-22 upgrade the F-15 and wait for the F-35" etc, etc, etc. As we get closer to the deployment of the F-35 and after, then it will suddenly be more important. And as for the F-22 clearing out all those SU-27's in your above post, that assumes there's enough F-22's to go around. 180 gets a little skimpy. If we have a high grade A2A F-35, then 180 could be all. Once the F-22 is firmly established, the A2A F-35 will begin to appear on "radar"

Thanks for the hard work on the posts, no offense but it's taxing just to read it, let alone respond :)

Perhaps I'll respond another day when I feel more motivated.

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2006, 06:16
by dwightlooi
It is widely believed that although the YF-23 was a bit slicker than the YF-22 (really just a little--like 0.02 Mach with the YF119--and the F-22 is probably slicker still), the F-22 was going to be more maneuverable than the F-23, while the latter would have been stealthier than the former to some degree. According to these assumptions, the USAF chose the aircraft that offered a more balanced set of capabilities (in comparison to its potential adversaries). With all of the questions surrounding the F-22's maneuverability, imagine if they went with the F-23, putting all of their eggs into the stealth basket.


Actually, most commmentaries that came out of the people (on both sides) who actually was involved in the ATF flyoff indicated that the YF-22 was selected in large part because of Lockheed's superior track record of industrial performance. The Airforce, it appeared, really wanted to avoid a potential A-12 or B-2 type situation, so they went with the company who delivered the F-117 on time and under budget instead of a team whose members had recently served by the abotive A-12 and the budget blowing B-2.

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2006, 06:20
by bf-fly
As for the AIM-9X, LOAL should be quite feasible in comparison, and its shorter finspan should allow it to fit inside the bays as well as (or actually slightly better than) the AIM-120C.


It's fins are mostly opposite of the AIM-120, particularly in a staggered position. The 9X fore and aft, 120 tail and mid. Origami my friend. Maybe Japan will make it work :)

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2006, 06:22
by bf-fly
dwightlooi-

something I mentioned in an earlier post

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2006, 21:32
by RobertCook
sferrin wrote:
FireFox137 wrote:But, I'm questioning normal sustained flight ~70K. Also the air thins out (as we all know) so I would have to wonder about cruise speed at such and such altitudes.


Let's not forget that a lousy FULCRUM took the Blackbird's sustained altitude record and set the new one at ~95,000 feet. (No bullsh!t)


That's quite a spike in the graph of the Fulcrum's envelope. :) It's probably a great example of the airframe's lifting-body design combined with engines and inlets that were somehow able to generate just enough thrust to keep it going fast enough to sustain flight. I wonder if the Raptor could do something similar while carrying a full missile load. While we're on the subject, Dozer seemed confident that a combat-loaded Raptor could take most if not all of the time-to-altitude and acceleration records, although that's highly unlikely to be attempted.

bf-fly wrote:
That's right, but many of the interested parties have already been involved in the design process for some time (even since the beginning), which raises the question of why they haven't been motivated enough thus far.


I think that's a no brainer, don't steal the F-22's thunder. Don't give congress another weapon to shoot down the F-22 "the F-35 can handle the A2A, we don't need the F-22 upgrade the F-15 and wait for the F-35" etc, etc, etc.


That makes sense from a political point of view, but the bays could have been designed from the beginning with more inherent flexibility instead of being wrapped quite so tightly around a single AAM and a single air-to-ground weapon. Obviously, there would have been some tradeoffs, but since the F-35B is getting its own bay design anyway, a very slightly larger bay on the F-35A and F-35C would not have had too much of an impact. Speaking of the F-35C, I guess at this point we're merely assuming that its bays are identical to those of the F-35A, due to the commonality factor. Also, if other potential operators of the F-35A were concerned about its AAM loadout, did the USAF successfully get them to "stuff a sock in it" for the benefit of the F-22? I'm just wondering if they have ever said anything and what the response was.

bf-fly wrote:As we get closer to the deployment of the F-35 and after, then it will suddenly be more important.


Even so, it's always better to plan ahead, like the USAF did with the F-22 when its main bays and AVELs and the AIM-120C itself were all modified so that six BVR missiles could be carried. The F-35A's bays seem to have no such consideration whatsoever, at least at this time, and it's a bit late to redesign them as AA-1 has been built and is being prepared for its first flight. Maybe as long as there is a possibility of AAMs with folding fins in the future, nobody cares enough.

bf-fly wrote:And as for the F-22 clearing out all those SU-27's in your above post, that assumes there's enough F-22's to go around. 180 gets a little skimpy.


There will probably be more of them built eventually, and the F-15C will be around for a while to supplement them in the air superiority role. Any fighter that gets through will be handled by the F-35s, which will each carry two AMRAAMs for self defense. If by supposing that the F-35s were carrying four air-to-ground weapons earlier you meant that no AAMs would be carried, that's not going to happen, as far as I'm aware.

bf-fly wrote:If we have a high grade A2A F-35, then 180 could be all. Once the F-22 is firmly established, the A2A F-35 will begin to appear on "radar"


They certainly will if they carry Sidewinders on the outer wing stations. ;)

dwightlooi wrote:
It is widely believed that although the YF-23 was a bit slicker than the YF-22 (really just a little--like 0.02 Mach with the YF119--and the F-22 is probably slicker still), the F-22 was going to be more maneuverable than the F-23, while the latter would have been stealthier than the former to some degree. According to these assumptions, the USAF chose the aircraft that offered a more balanced set of capabilities (in comparison to its potential adversaries). With all of the questions surrounding the F-22's maneuverability, imagine if they went with the F-23, putting all of their eggs into the stealth basket.


Actually, most commmentaries that came out of the people (on both sides) who actually was involved in the ATF flyoff indicated that the YF-22 was selected in large part because of Lockheed's superior track record of industrial performance.


Yes, that's probably the main reason why the USAF actually chose the F-22 proposal, which they have been saying all along, but note that I was just commenting on what they ended up choosing, not why. :) That said, I agree with the choice for the reasons that I gave, among other reasons.

dwightlooi wrote:The Airforce, it appeared, really wanted to avoid a potential A-12 or B-2 type situation, so they went with the company who delivered the F-117 on time and under budget instead of a team whose members had recently served by the abotive A-12 and the budget blowing B-2.


Given how troubled the F-22 program has been, obviously the challenge was on a whole other level than Lockheed Martin and the USAF had anticipated. Whether Northrop's proposal was wrongfully rejected because it was more realistic or it was equally unrealistic and therefore would have ended up being truly unaffordable will never definitively be answered.

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2006, 22:44
by sferrin
RobertCook wrote:
sferrin wrote:
FireFox137 wrote:But, I'm questioning normal sustained flight ~70K. Also the air thins out (as we all know) so I would have to wonder about cruise speed at such and such altitudes.


Let's not forget that a lousy FULCRUM took the Blackbird's sustained altitude record and set the new one at ~95,000 feet. (No bullsh!t)


That's quite a spike in the graph of the Fulcrum's envelope. :) It's probably a great example of the airframe's lifting-body design combined with engines and inlets that were somehow able to generate just enough thrust to keep it going fast enough to sustain flight. I wonder if the Raptor could do something similar while carrying a full missile load. While we're on the subject, Dozer seemed confident that a combat-loaded Raptor could take most if not all of the time-to-altitude and acceleration records, although that's highly unlikely to be attempted.


What's interesting to me is that when they briefly brought the Blackbird back out of retirement some in the USAF wanted to take it back like it was no big deal "okay, send it up again and take it back". But it never happened.

I've asked around now and then over the years on various forums about the details and nobody seems to know. About the Fulcrum flight that is. I'd also read that the Mig-25 that made it to 123,000 feet was "modified". It apparently had modifications similar to what RASCAL was going to have (and that had been toyed around with by the US back in the day).

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2006, 04:36
by bf-fly
Robert Cook wrote

They certainly will if they carry Sidewinders on the outer wing stations. :)


I see a missile mounted on each door (a 120 & a 9), each door opens wider than the current design, and AIM-120 #2 drops from above. #2 will be the second one fired in any case so the clearance improves after either a 120 or 9 is launched from it's door position.

I really don't see it as much of a challenge. I've read elsewhere posters suggesting 4 or more (which will not happen). But 3 each? No biggy. Considering the deployment date isn't for 5-6-7 more years, there's not rush to upgrade, no need for the sock in the mouth. I suspect more than 180 F-22's as well, but the F-15's can't stay around forever. The gap will exist, the need will be filled. I simply don't see the technological challenge you steadfastly hang on to.

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2006, 04:47
by FireFox137
sferrin wrote:
RobertCook wrote:
sferrin wrote:
FireFox137 wrote:But, I'm questioning normal sustained flight ~70K. Also the air thins out (as we all know) so I would have to wonder about cruise speed at such and such altitudes.


Let's not forget that a lousy FULCRUM took the Blackbird's sustained altitude record and set the new one at ~95,000 feet. (No bullsh!t)


That's quite a spike in the graph of the Fulcrum's envelope. :) It's probably a great example of the airframe's lifting-body design combined with engines and inlets that were somehow able to generate just enough thrust to keep it going fast enough to sustain flight. I wonder if the Raptor could do something similar while carrying a full missile load. While we're on the subject, Dozer seemed confident that a combat-loaded Raptor could take most if not all of the time-to-altitude and acceleration records, although that's highly unlikely to be attempted.


What's interesting to me is that when they briefly brought the Blackbird back out of retirement some in the USAF wanted to take it back like it was no big deal "okay, send it up again and take it back". But it never happened.

I've asked around now and then over the years on various forums about the details and nobody seems to know. About the Fulcrum flight that is. I'd also read that the Mig-25 that made it to 123,000 feet was "modified". It apparently had modifications similar to what RASCAL was going to have (and that had been toyed around with by the US back in the day).


Let's remember that the final chapter in the life of the SR-71 has not yet been written. Well, truthfully, it has been written but it remains to be published. I think that most knowledgable people know the published speeds and altitudes of the SR are still bs. (Hell, same for the buffs which are even older).

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2006, 06:17
by sferrin
FireFox137 wrote:
sferrin wrote:
RobertCook wrote:
sferrin wrote:
FireFox137 wrote:But, I'm questioning normal sustained flight ~70K. Also the air thins out (as we all know) so I would have to wonder about cruise speed at such and such altitudes.


Let's not forget that a lousy FULCRUM took the Blackbird's sustained altitude record and set the new one at ~95,000 feet. (No bullsh!t)


That's quite a spike in the graph of the Fulcrum's envelope. :) It's probably a great example of the airframe's lifting-body design combined with engines and inlets that were somehow able to generate just enough thrust to keep it going fast enough to sustain flight. I wonder if the Raptor could do something similar while carrying a full missile load. While we're on the subject, Dozer seemed confident that a combat-loaded Raptor could take most if not all of the time-to-altitude and acceleration records, although that's highly unlikely to be attempted.


What's interesting to me is that when they briefly brought the Blackbird back out of retirement some in the USAF wanted to take it back like it was no big deal "okay, send it up again and take it back". But it never happened.

I've asked around now and then over the years on various forums about the details and nobody seems to know. About the Fulcrum flight that is. I'd also read that the Mig-25 that made it to 123,000 feet was "modified". It apparently had modifications similar to what RASCAL was going to have (and that had been toyed around with by the US back in the day).


Let's remember that the final chapter in the life of the SR-71 has not yet been written. Well, truthfully, it has been written but it remains to be published. I think that most knowledgable people know the published speeds and altitudes of the SR are still bs. (Hell, same for the buffs which are even older).


I'm talking about "official" records. It's already fairly well known that the A-12 reached Mach 3.6 and 95,000 or 97,000 feet in early testing (might not have been on the same flight though).

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2006, 06:50
by bf-fly
Apparently the SR-71 pilot was eating a ham and cheese sandwich and blew through his assigned altitude when he set the record by accident.

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2006, 15:09
by habu2
bf-fly wrote:Apparently the SR-71 pilot was eating a ham and cheese sandwich and blew through his assigned altitude when he set the record by accident.

uh-huh. I can just imagine said pilot trying to stuff his sandwich through the feed-hole in the helmet of his S1030 pressure suit.... what a load of BS :roll:

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2006, 20:39
by RobertCook
sferrin wrote:What's interesting to me is that when they briefly brought the Blackbird back out of retirement some in the USAF wanted to take it back like it was no big deal "okay, send it up again and take it back". But it never happened.


At this point (and possibly back then as well), what use would setting a new record be? Ultimately, it's a pissing contest for which both sides can continually contrive to upstage the other using any means necessary. While I realize that this can help drive innovation, the technologies involved are relatively mature now and should be optimized more for utility, while records should be set using newer technologies.

I'm no SR-71 expert, but could it also be possible that the Blackbird cannot break this record? I seriously doubt it, but you never know until you try. That Fulcrum was obviously flying well out of its normal envelope in a profile that had to have been very different from the one that the Blackbird would have flown in order to recapture the record. The USAF might have taken the Barry Sanders route to immortality: we're sure that it could have broken the record but will never know just how high and fast it could have gone. :)

sferrin wrote:I've asked around now and then over the years on various forums about the details and nobody seems to know. About the Fulcrum flight that is.


The details can probably be found in some book somewhere, I have no idea. However, I think that we can be reasonably sure that the flight was done within a narrow "window" that allowed the Fulcrum to fly just fast enough to stay aloft at that altitude. If it had blazed along at Mach 2.2 while maneuvering hard way up there, I think that we would have heard a lot more about the Fulcrum than the Flanker over the years. :)

sferrin wrote:I'd also read that the Mig-25 that made it to 123,000 feet was "modified". It apparently had modifications similar to what RASCAL was going to have (and that had been toyed around with by the US back in the day).


Yeah, we used modified birds like the Streak Eagle to set records back in the day, too. If the Raptor really could break some of these records while loaded for combat, and there's no reason to believe that it couldn't, then that would be an impressive display, although it only invites others to try to upstage the Raptor's record in any manner that they can. Perhaps it's better to just let people keep wondering about what the Raptor really could do, as long as it can, given the opportunity, demonstrate excellence in what it was designed to do: kill enemy aircraft and pound heavily defended targets with virtual impunity.

bf-fly wrote:I see a missile mounted on each door (a 120 & a 9), each door opens wider than the current design, and AIM-120 #2 drops from above. #2 will be the second one fired in any case so the clearance improves after either a 120 or 9 is launched from it's door position.


This seems plausible as long as everything fits when the doors are closed. Otherwise, the doors could be enlarged in order to enlarge the bay. I never said that any of this was not doable, just somewhat questionable regarding intent, considering the decisions that have been made to this point.

bf-fly wrote:I really don't see it as much of a challenge. I've read elsewhere posters suggesting 4 or more (which will not happen). But 3 each? No biggy. Considering the deployment date isn't for 5-6-7 more years, there's not rush to upgrade, no need for the sock in the mouth.


Why would they have to upgrade when they had the chance to do it right in the first place? All they had to do was provide enough room (not much more) and the right geometry (except with the F-35B, which had weight issues) to make carrying six AAMs total a snap. If they don't want to threaten the F-22, then they shouldn't even mention this capability until much later.

bf-fly wrote:I suspect more than 180 F-22's as well, but the F-15's can't stay around forever.


When the F-15s really begin to fall apart, we'll likely get as many F-22s as we need, which may turn out to be a relatively small number, though certainly much greater than 180.

bf-fly wrote:The gap will exist, the need will be filled. I simply don't see the technological challenge you steadfastly hang on to.


I think we're just not looking at this issue the same way. My point is that it's not likely to be as trivial as installing double AAM launchers in place of the air-to-ground ordnance, or even putting one of the AAMs on the door--it may not work at all without changes to the aircraft and/or weapons (or it may--we don't know). The latter is certainly doable, but not trivial, and therefore may not be done. Lots of cool and often obvious ideas are not done because of unknown and sometimes not-so-obvious reasons. At least that's how my experience as an engineer has always been (and sometimes you're lucky and it just works).

habu2 wrote:
bf-fly wrote:Apparently the SR-71 pilot was eating a ham and cheese sandwich and blew through his assigned altitude when he set the record by accident.

uh-huh. I can just imagine said pilot trying to stuff his sandwich through the feed-hole in the helmet of his S1030 pressure suit.... what a load of BS :roll:


Great, next you're going to tell me that NASCAR drivers didn't really eat rotisserie chicken during a race (like in that commercial). ;)

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2006, 22:03
by sferrin
RobertCook wrote:Yeah, we used modified birds like the Streak Eagle to set records back in the day, too.


I'm not talking about simply stripping the aircraft down. I'm talking about engine modifications. This is the one aircraft that could leave the F-22 in the dust. Haven't heard much since the article got published though so the program probably got cancelled. BTW this is what I meant when I said that Mig-25 that went to 123,000 feet was modified.

"Darpa's initiative, Rascal (Responsive Access Small Cargo Affordable Launch), revives a propulsion concept the U.S. Air Force and NASA experimented with in the 1950s. The make-it-or-break-it idea is mass injection precompressor cooling (MIPCC), that at the time wasn't even considered for space-launch applications. Although MIPCC is critical, Rascal is also relying on breakthroughs in areas such as lightweight tank materials and rocket motors to launch small satellites.

The 89-ft.-long Rascal aircraft is slated to feature an 81-ft. wingspan with a 2,700-sq.-ft. wing area. Gross takeoff weight is estimated at 80,000 lb.

The operational concept for Rascal calls for the aircraft to take off and fly to a launch position over the ocean. It would then accelerate to Mach 3.1 in a shallow climb until it reached about 63,000 ft. At that point, the MPV would perform a steep climb, which engineers are calling the "zoom maneuver," and deploy the ERV outside the atmosphere while flying about Mach 1.2 and 200,000 ft. before descending to cruise altitude and return to base. The exact profile is still being refined.

The MPV is slated to be powered by four F100-class turbofans, although a final selection hasn't been made. Darpa insisted the proposed engines be readily available, rather than having bidders select high-performance models--such as Pratt & Whitney's F119s that power the F/A-22--which are in short supply.

However, the four turbofans alone can't provide adequate thrust to perform the zoom maneuver. Darpa officials realized early that adding a second propulsion mechanism, such as rocket boosting, would drive cost to unacceptable levels. Instead, the agency eyed a way to boost engine performance without redesigning them.

That's where the MIPCC technology comes in, Darpa officials hope. MIPCC is intended to offset performance losses incurred as an aircraft accelerates and the density of air flowing into the inlet decreases. The engine subsystem adds water and liquid oxygen into the airflow in the inlet, reducing the temperature hundreds of degrees. The result is twofold, Carter said. First, it places less strain on the engines and increases their durability because of lowered temperatures. Second and, from a performance perspective, the more important, mass flow is increased due to increased density.

"I can get slightly better than sea-level thrust [at] Mach 3 at 100,000 ft.," Carter noted. "By using this evaporative cooling, the engine is fooled into thinking it is operating at the design point."

When NASA and USAF evaluated the technology in the 1950s, their ambition was to design a high-speed interceptor-fighter that could dash to defeat an attack from Soviet bombers. Several hundred hours of testing were completed on J57 and J75 engines. Researchers saw encouraging results, but interest in a fighter-interceptor fizzled and, with it, MIPCC's application. The Soviet Union also pursued the concept and implemented it on some MiG-25s.

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2006, 03:53
by bf-fly
Habu 2 wrote:
bf-fly wrote:
Apparently the SR-71 pilot was eating a ham and cheese sandwich and blew through his assigned altitude when he set the record by accident.

uh-huh. I can just imagine said pilot trying to stuff his sandwich through the feed-hole in the helmet of his S1030 pressure suit.... what a load of BS


It's true!

In fact he looked down at his brown bag lunch his wife packed and said "Dammit! I told her no F'ing Fritos! And what the F*#K does she expect me to do with this GD banana?!!

And a new altitude record was born.

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2006, 08:59
by Triggersmith
Could someone please review the anecdotal evidence that the F22 can cruise in Mil power at Mach 2.3; climb at Mach 2.3; that the pilot has to keep pulling the air speed back to Mach 2.3; and that Mach 2.42 (1,600mph) is a tactically useful airspeed albeit with afterburner. If these reports are credible, they totally revise everything we thought we knew about the Raptor. For example, a cruise speed of M2.3 is a whole Mach number ahead of the Typhoon. Many so called Raptor experts have hotly denied that it can cruise at Mach 2.0. Many threads have been started on this subject. Even on this forum, I think. Is this what Dozer and Metz say? If so, we will have to treat it seriously.

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2006, 20:43
by mil_hobbyist
What is the point of speculating about the jet's capabilities? What practical benefit do we derive from all of this?

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2006, 21:35
by SpudmanWP
For the fun of seeing who gets it right?

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2006, 21:49
by sferrin
Triggersmith wrote:Could someone please review the anecdotal evidence that the F22 can cruise in Mil power at Mach 2.3; climb at Mach 2.3; that the pilot has to keep pulling the air speed back to Mach 2.3; and that Mach 2.42 (1,600mph) is a tactically useful airspeed albeit with afterburner. If these reports are credible, they totally revise everything we thought we knew about the Raptor. For example, a cruise speed of M2.3 is a whole Mach number ahead of the Typhoon. Many so called Raptor experts have hotly denied that it can cruise at Mach 2.0. Many threads have been started on this subject. Even on this forum, I think. Is this what Dozer and Metz say? If so, we will have to treat it seriously.


What do you think THIS thread is?

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2006, 22:00
by Raptor_claw
Triggersmith wrote:Could someone please review the anecdotal evidence that the F22 can cruise in Mil power at Mach 2.3; climb at Mach 2.3; that the pilot has to keep pulling the air speed back to Mach 2.3; and that Mach 2.42 (1,600mph) is a tactically useful airspeed albeit with afterburner. If these reports are credible, they totally revise everything we thought we knew about the Raptor. For example, a cruise speed of M2.3 is a whole Mach number ahead of the Typhoon. Many so called Raptor experts have hotly denied that it can cruise at Mach 2.0. Many threads have been started on this subject. Even on this forum, I think. Is this what Dozer and Metz say? If so, we will have to treat it seriously.


It seems to me that a lot of the "confusion" has stemmed from the incorrect interchanging (or simple misuse) of the phrases "cruising" and "supercruising". I have never seen anecdotal evidence (published or pilot/company-quoted) regarding supercruise that significantly differs from the 'offical' (see LM website) number of "Mach 1.5+". In an environment when certain politicians seem to try to kill the program every year, you wouldn't publish a number like "1.5+", if the number was really "2.2+". There would simply be no reason to "undersell" it that much.

To add to the confusion, it seems like some people have jumped on the comments about having to "throttle back" to keep from exceeding Mach 2.x (2.0? 2.3? 2.42?, whatever) as proof that you can supercruise there. As I'm sure everyone is aware, the afterburner is not a simple on-off device - there are multiple stages. There is a bit of a 'jump' from MIL to min-AB, but the system is designed to provide a continous, (smooth) increase in thrust as you progress from min- through max- AB. There is no indication in the comments I have seen that "throttling-back" could not mean moving from a higher to lower AB setting.

As far as the max speed, at max-AB. There seems to be a general understanding that the speed limit is set by something other than thrust and drag.

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2006, 22:09
by SpudmanWP
Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John P. Jumper flew it and stated "Today I flew the Raptor at speeds exceeding (Mach 1.7) without afterburners". Here is the article.

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2006, 22:11
by RobertCook
sferrin wrote:
RobertCook wrote:Yeah, we used modified birds like the Streak Eagle to set records back in the day, too.


I'm not talking about simply stripping the aircraft down. I'm talking about engine modifications.


I had every conceivable modification in mind when I said that, including rocket propulsion. :) My implied point was that the records don't mean much unless operational aircraft possess and can make practical use of any given capability.

sferrin wrote:This is the one aircraft that could leave the F-22 in the dust.


The F-20 modified to take an F119 would smoke the F-22, but that's hardly a well-balanced fighter design.

sferrin wrote:Haven't heard much since the article got published though so the program probably got cancelled.


This happens a lot when technological boundaries are pushed, no matter how promising a program might have seemed at one point. The F-22 itself nearly proved too difficult to design and build. From what I've heard and read, a lot of innovations in materials (e.g. thermoplastic composites with the necessary properties) and other technologies on which LockMart and Boeing hoped to capitalize never panned out. Out of necessity, the F-22 ended up with a very heavy airframe made primarily out of metal, which mostly comprised expensive, hard-to-work titanium. So much for the amazing strength-to-weight ratio of carbon-fiber composites (not that they aren't useful, just not anywhere near a panacea for weight reduction).

sferrin wrote:BTW this is what I meant when I said that Mig-25 that went to 123,000 feet was modified.


LOX+water injection certainly sounds interesting and feasible, but there must be a reason that aircraft aren't using such a system on a regular basis. It probably has to do with the low volumetric density of LOX, and the sheer amount of it that an aircraft would have to carry in order to operate well out of its normal parameters. Essentially, you're turning jet engines into rocket engines that can benefit from breathing some thin air. It's a nice concept for a space launch vehicle to be sure, but not for a tactical fighter, since it still brings along some of the disadvantages of rocket engines, such as the storage of propellant. Perhaps carrying a limited amount for limited use is an idea worth considering, but it's still a tradeoff accompanied by an increased logistical footprint, and LOX is hardly the easiest stuff to work with.

As for the MiG-25, I've always assumed that it took the absolute altitude record in a zoom climb, which wouldn't be that surprising considering that the Streak Eagle managed to crack 100,000 feet. If the MiG-25's engines had been modified for that record attempt, whatever those modifications were, it probably would not have taken much.

Triggersmith wrote:Could someone please review the anecdotal evidence that the F22 can cruise in Mil power at Mach 2.3; climb at Mach 2.3; that the pilot has to keep pulling the air speed back to Mach 2.3;


That's what we've done in this thread; some believe it while others are skeptical. If you're asking for someone to compile all of the bits of anecdotal evidence (with links and direct quotes), that wouldn't be a bad idea. Is anyone up for it or has anyone already done this on their own? Unfortunately, I haven't saved nearly everything I've come across over the years.

Triggersmith wrote:and that Mach 2.42 (1,600mph) is a tactically useful airspeed albeit with afterburner.


The F-22 may be able to make better use of high supersonic speeds than previous fighters simply because it can get there much more quickly and maneuver much better at high speed. According to Dozer (prominent USAF F-22 pilot Lt. Col. Michael Shower), a combat-loaded F-22 can climb to 60000 feet and achieve a speed of Mach 2 while still accelerating rapidly in half the distance (over the ground) it would take the F-15 to achieve Mach 1.85 in a slight dive from 44000 feet. Like other pilots have said, the F-22 "wants" to go fast. Whether Mach 2.42 is a tactically useful airspeed is an open question, but even MiG-25s rarely go much faster for any appreciable distance, and being able to reach such a speed so quickly may allow for more successful Foxbat hunting. In general, this makes the F-22 a great interceptor, in addition to a highly agile dogfighter, a stealthy BVR assassin, and a high-altitude supersonic striker (potentially all in one "swing-role" package with an asymmetrical internal load of four AMRAAMs, two Sidewinders, and four GBU-39s).

Triggersmith wrote:If these reports are credible, they totally revise everything we thought we knew about the Raptor. For example, a cruise speed of M2.3 is a whole Mach number ahead of the Typhoon.


I'm not sure what to believe, aside from official statements that I read directly from authoritative sources that are backed up by other sources, and in addition, they have to just plain make sense. For the time being, that Mach 2.3 supercruise anecdote for the Raptor does not meet my personal criteria, nor does most of what I've read and heard about the Typhoon's supercruise capability. The latter is said by some to be able to supercruise at up to Mach 1.3 with its basic AAM load (four AMRAAMs and two Sidewinders/ASRAAMs), and by others to be able to supercruise at Mach 1.5 with the same load and Mach 1.3 with external tanks. Right now, there is a lot of disparate data being thrown about, often accompanied by comparative data on the Rafale, Gripen, and other new fighters that quite frankly look made up in order to satisfy some sort of notional hierarchy. :roll: Now, I wouldn't be surprised if the Typhoon did have great supersonic capabilities, as that was one of its design goals, but I don't know what to believe at this time.

Until proof or more convincing information comes our way, as far as I'm concerned, the Raptor can cruise and drop JDAMs at Mach 1.73 at 50000 feet without afterburners, and the Typhoon can cruise supersonically at some currently undetermined speed without afterburners.

Triggersmith wrote:Many so called Raptor experts have hotly denied that it can cruise at Mach 2.0. Many threads have been started on this subject. Even on this forum, I think.


I don't know whether it could cruise at Mach 2.0. It wouldn't shock me terribly, but I need more proof or a very specific statement from a trustworthy source who is in a position to know. To my knowledge, the highest cruise speed ever directly mentioned by an F-22 pilot is Mach 1.9, but for some reason, I intuitively find the article as a whole somewhat questionable, and require additional sources to back the claim. I guess I'm just a skeptic at heart (not a denier--there is a difference). You can judge for yourself:

http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=8529

For one thing, the mismatch between the speeds given by Mach number and miles per hour in the article is hardly comforting. Perhaps the Raptor can cruise at Mach 1.9 only at 60000 feet (good luck ejecting!), but it's just not yet clear what its entire level-flight envelope is in full military power.

Triggersmith wrote:Is this what Dozer and Metz say? If so, we will have to treat it seriously.


As far as I know, they have not said anything about the Raptor cruising at Mach 2.0 (not that I've necessarily read absolutely everything that they've written). On a more general note, while I trust people like Dozer and Metz, it is always possible to misunderstand what they meant, especially if some pertinent information is edited from a quote of theirs, whether intentionally or by accident. For instance, in my own paraphrase of Dozer above, I left out the fact that the F-15 in question was carrying wing tanks. So was it a fair comparison? Well, Dozer seemed to think it was a fair comparison, since he also said that a "fully combat configured" F-15 would have fared worse. Even though the F-22's fuel fraction is no better than that of the F-15 and F-16, according to the test pilots, it still ran the chase planes out of fuel, which was the main limiting factor on flight testing. Hanging external tanks on them helped, but they still had to hit the tanker more frequently. I guess the implication is that without external tanks, high supersonic speeds are pointless on the F-15 anyway.

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2006, 22:57
by sferrin
RobertCook wrote:
The F-20 modified to take an F119 would smoke the F-22, but that's hardly a well-balanced fighter design.



Who the hell is talking about fighters? I merely pointed out the Mig-25 used to set the 123,000 foot record was modifed. The quotes from the article on Rascal were used to illustrate HOW the Mig was modified. No offense but did you actually READ what I'd put down or just skim it?

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2006, 18:15
by RobertCook
sferrin wrote:
RobertCook wrote:The F-20 modified to take an F119 would smoke the F-22, but that's hardly a well-balanced fighter design.


Who the hell is talking about fighters?


I guess we're just focused on making different kinds of points, here. The fictitious F-20 example above was simply meant to reinforce what I had said previously about using any means necessary to break records, particularly modifications that would not be practical for combat aircraft. In other words, I'm putting down the meaning and value of setting these records, and I think the USAF agrees with me--generally, it's not worth the effort.

sferrin wrote:I merely pointed out the Mig-25 used to set the 123,000 foot record was modifed. The quotes from the article on Rascal were used to illustrate HOW the Mig was modified. No offense but did you actually READ what I'd put down or just skim it?


Yes, I read it, and even paid special attention to the sections that you had bolded. By the way, I appreciate your effort in describing this technology, which was something I hadn't even heard about before. In response, I wrote a paragraph describing why such a system, which I boiled down to being basically LOX+water injection, might not be practical on fighters (e.g. MiG-25, F-22), except for record attempts, of course. I then wrote another paragraph that basically said that given the comparatively modest absolute altitude record the MiG-25 had set (next to RASCAL's specifications), such a modification might not have even been needed, therefore maybe it wasn't done after all. Were you speculating on this or do you have evidence to that effect? Which implications should we derive from this, either way? I mean, even the F-4 managed to (unofficially) crack 100,000 feet using the less aggressive methanol+water injection method, and maybe the MiG-25 needed something similar, too, but it's just for record attempts, not combat operations. I'm sorry if I'm being a bit "dense" here, if that's the case, but what salient point am I missing? :?

RobertCook wrote:
FireFox137 wrote:Again, those speeds (not taking into account flying with the jet stream) and altitudes..... That's an awesome advantage when tossing 120's outta your weapons bays. I don't know the mach limit on those weapons bays, but there could be an achilles heal there.


I don't recall seeing any actual numbers regarding the F-22's AMRAAM launch envelope, but the GBU-32 can be dropped at 1142 mph (Mach 1.73), and the F-22's Sidewinder envelope is described as being the largest of any fighter, so one would hope that similar relative capability would have been specified for the AMRAAM, which is after all the F-22's primary weapon. I wish that I had a stronger argument, but all I have heard or read is "supersonic."


By the way, I just found an old article that says that the F-22 has successfully launched an AMRAAM at Mach 1.5 at 35000 feet:

http://www.edwards.af.mil/archive/2002/ ... aptor.html

At least this is a little more specific. I still don't know what the absolute limit is on opening the bays and launching weapons of various types, though.

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2006, 18:51
by sferrin
RobertCook wrote: and I think the USAF agrees with me--generally, it's not worth the effort.



I agree, and in the case of the F-22 I'd say it would be a liability if they did. Why? Because of exactly what you pointed out. The Russians could put together some one-off Flanker and concevably take the records back in which case political support (such as it is) for the Raptor would fall through the floor. There is no upside to breaking the current records as everybody already assumes that it would.



RobertCook wrote: Yes, I read it, and even paid special attention to the sections that you had bolded. By the way, I appreciate your effort in describing this technology, which was something I hadn't even heard about before. In response, I wrote a paragraph describing why such a system, which I boiled down to being basically LOX+water injection, might not be practical on fighters (e.g. MiG-25, F-22), except for record attempts, of course.



That's what got me thinking "huh?" as I was never suggesting it would be something you'd want to put on an operational aircraft. Kinda like the idea of rocket/turbojet figthers back in the day; too much hassle for something that would rarely get used. My only point in bringing it up at all was to explain what they'd done to the Mig.


RobertCook wrote: I then wrote another paragraph that basically said that given the comparatively modest absolute altitude record the MiG-25 had set (next to RASCAL's specifications), such a modification might not have even been needed, therefore maybe it wasn't done after all. Were you speculating on this or do you have evidence to that effect?


I'd read it somewhere but it was years ago. (Not the AvWeek article).




RobertCook wrote: Which implications should we derive from this, either way? I mean, even the F-4 managed to (unofficially) crack 100,000 feet using the less aggressive methanol+water injection method



I thought they only used that for the Skyburner runs?

RobertCook wrote: I'm sorry if I'm being a bit "dense" here, if that's the case, but what salient point am I missing? :?



I just couldn't figure out where you got the idea I was suggesting it would be a good idea for an operational fighter aircraft. (And maybe you didn't think I was saying that but were just adding that in for the enevitable follow-up questions :wink: )

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2006, 21:37
by RobertCook
sferrin wrote:I agree, and in the case of the F-22 I'd say it would be a liability if they did. Why? Because of exactly what you pointed out. The Russians could put together some one-off Flanker and concevably take the records back in which case political support (such as it is) for the Raptor would fall through the floor. There is no upside to breaking the current records as everybody already assumes that it would.


This is quite analogous to when Sukhoi and Mikoyan were challenging US manufacturers to mock dogfights at commercial airshows to "prove" who had the best planes. That's easy to do for companies who had little to lose, and obviously the US companies were not stupid enough to take the bait (these scenarios are mostly about the pilot and luck anyway). Of course, then they could be accused of being afraid because of their inferiority, which must have happened, I'm sure. :roll:

sferrin wrote:
RobertCook wrote:Yes, I read it, and even paid special attention to the sections that you had bolded. By the way, I appreciate your effort in describing this technology, which was something I hadn't even heard about before. In response, I wrote a paragraph describing why such a system, which I boiled down to being basically LOX+water injection, might not be practical on fighters (e.g. MiG-25, F-22), except for record attempts, of course.


That's what got me thinking "huh?" as I was never suggesting it would be something you'd want to put on an operational aircraft. Kinda like the idea of rocket/turbojet figthers back in the day; too much hassle for something that would rarely get used. My only point in bringing it up at all was to explain what they'd done to the Mig.


Oh...yeah, you know, I have this habit of "getting ahead of" the discussion and myself, bringing up points that could be made but haven't yet been made, not to mention all the tangents--so much blather, so little time to organize and write down my thoughts carefully. Sorry about that. :)

sferrin wrote:
RobertCook wrote:Which implications should we derive from this, either way? I mean, even the F-4 managed to (unofficially) crack 100,000 feet using the less aggressive methanol+water injection method


I thought they only used that for the Skyburner runs?


Hmmm...I think you're right, but this only means that a less modified F-4 managed to zoom somewhere in the ballpark of the absolute altitude record. I just figured that if this were possible, then it would not be surprising that a MiG-25 that could approach Mach 3 at 70000-80000 feet in level flight could zoom considerably higher, depending on how much control authority it had. Obviously, there's quite a bit of momentum in that heavy airframe to help it get up there, even if the engines give out long before reaching the apex.

sferrin wrote:
RobertCook wrote:I'm sorry if I'm being a bit "dense" here, if that's the case, but what salient point am I missing? :?


I just couldn't figure out where you got the idea I was suggesting it would be a good idea for an operational fighter aircraft. (And maybe you didn't think I was saying that but were just adding that in for the enevitable follow-up questions :wink: )


Let's just put it this way: I'd be a terrible--but very comical--trial attorney. ;)

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2006, 16:26
by habu2
Good lord I'm glad I'm not paying for the bandwidth being wasted on this thread.... :2c:

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2006, 16:29
by sferrin
habu2 wrote:Good lord I'm glad I'm not paying for the bandwidth being wasted on this thread.... :2c:



But apparently you don't mind wasting the time to read it?

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2007, 16:31
by Neno
Another source reports a top speed of 1600 Mph or Mach 2,42...

http://www.venturacountystar.com/vcs/county_news/article/0,1375,VCS_226_5458721,00.html

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2007, 18:44
by JanHas
And the YF-23 was MUCH faster then the YF-22!! YF-23 mach 3???

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2007, 13:02
by Afterburned
yf-23 was faster than yf-22, no proof that it is faster than the production f-22A

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 19:02
by tank_top
FireFox137 wrote:
sferrin wrote:
RobertCook wrote:
sferrin wrote:
FireFox137 wrote:But, I'm questioning normal sustained flight ~70K. Also the air thins out (as we all know) so I would have to wonder about cruise speed at such and such altitudes.


Let's not forget that a lousy FULCRUM took the Blackbird's sustained altitude record and set the new one at ~95,000 feet. (No bullsh!t)


That's quite a spike in the graph of the Fulcrum's envelope. :) It's probably a great example of the airframe's lifting-body design combined with engines and inlets that were somehow able to generate just enough thrust to keep it going fast enough to sustain flight. I wonder if the Raptor could do something similar while carrying a full missile load. While we're on the subject, Dozer seemed confident that a combat-loaded Raptor could take most if not all of the time-to-altitude and acceleration records, although that's highly unlikely to be attempted.


What's interesting to me is that when they briefly brought the Blackbird back out of retirement some in the USAF wanted to take it back like it was no big deal "okay, send it up again and take it back". But it never happened.

I've asked around now and then over the years on various forums about the details and nobody seems to know. About the Fulcrum flight that is. I'd also read that the Mig-25 that made it to 123,000 feet was "modified". It apparently had modifications similar to what RASCAL was going to have (and that had been toyed around with by the US back in the day).


Let's remember that the final chapter in the life of the SR-71 has not yet been written. Well, truthfully, it has been written but it remains to be published. I think that most knowledgable people know the published speeds and altitudes of the SR are still bs. (Hell, same for the buffs which are even older).


I know this is really old and therefore nobody will probly read it, but who cares.
Just a thoght about SR-71 max altitude. The Foxbat and Fulcrum have an advantage (don't laugh). I think the SR-71 "could" achieve the best max altitude. Think about it, mach 3 at 90000 feet, grab the stick and pull back. Even after the engine flames out, you're still going up pretty damn fast. I think the problem is restarting the engines. Unless the SR-71 can glide, your f#%$!!! Can the SR-71 restart the engines in flight? I don't think so, as is probobly why they haven't tryed to win a max alt. record.

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 04:36
by sferrin
tank_top wrote:
FireFox137 wrote:
sferrin wrote:
RobertCook wrote:
sferrin wrote:
FireFox137 wrote:But, I'm questioning normal sustained flight ~70K. Also the air thins out (as we all know) so I would have to wonder about cruise speed at such and such altitudes.


Let's not forget that a lousy FULCRUM took the Blackbird's sustained altitude record and set the new one at ~95,000 feet. (No bullsh!t)


That's quite a spike in the graph of the Fulcrum's envelope. :) It's probably a great example of the airframe's lifting-body design combined with engines and inlets that were somehow able to generate just enough thrust to keep it going fast enough to sustain flight. I wonder if the Raptor could do something similar while carrying a full missile load. While we're on the subject, Dozer seemed confident that a combat-loaded Raptor could take most if not all of the time-to-altitude and acceleration records, although that's highly unlikely to be attempted.


What's interesting to me is that when they briefly brought the Blackbird back out of retirement some in the USAF wanted to take it back like it was no big deal "okay, send it up again and take it back". But it never happened.

I've asked around now and then over the years on various forums about the details and nobody seems to know. About the Fulcrum flight that is. I'd also read that the Mig-25 that made it to 123,000 feet was "modified". It apparently had modifications similar to what RASCAL was going to have (and that had been toyed around with by the US back in the day).


Let's remember that the final chapter in the life of the SR-71 has not yet been written. Well, truthfully, it has been written but it remains to be published. I think that most knowledgable people know the published speeds and altitudes of the SR are still bs. (Hell, same for the buffs which are even older).


I know this is really old and therefore nobody will probly read it, but who cares.
Just a thoght about SR-71 max altitude. The Foxbat and Fulcrum have an advantage (don't laugh). I think the SR-71 "could" achieve the best max altitude. Think about it, mach 3 at 90000 feet, grab the stick and pull back. Even after the engine flames out, you're still going up pretty damn fast. I think the problem is restarting the engines. Unless the SR-71 can glide, your f#%$!!! Can the SR-71 restart the engines in flight? I don't think so, as is probobly why they haven't tryed to win a max alt. record.


The record is for SUSTAINED flight not a zoom climb.

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 05:38
by tank_top
Jet plane (multiple sources)

The highest altitude obtained by a manned air-breathing jet propelled aircraft following an uncontrolled ballistic trajectory is 37,650 m (123,524 ft) set by Alexandr Fedotov, in a Mikoyan Gurevitch E-266M (MiG-25M), on 31 August 1977.

The highest altitude obtained by a manned air-breathing jet propelled aircraft in controlled horizontal flight is 25,929 m (85,069 ft) set by Robert C. Helt and Larry A. Elliott, in a Lockheed SR-71, on 27th/28 July 1976.


I can't find anywhere where the Mig was in sustained flight, not that I don't believe just about everyone here who have better information than me. But could you give me a source? My point was the SR-71 could achieve better, however the plane would crash and everyone would die! No engine restart coupled with likely flat spin due to lack of power and control surface = death! Yea, I think it could go higher, LOTS higher. 80000ft + mach 3.3 THEN virticle, followed with death, lets not bother to win this one. :shrug:
But like I said earlier, this is 2 years old, just caught my attention...

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2008, 20:02
by Angels225
Everybody here seems to be talking about top speed for the raptor which is classified.. so i was wondering whether its slowest possible flight speed was classified too. i.e the slowest a raptor can go without falling out of the sky,what would be the shortest possible landing role for a 22.

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2008, 08:40
by F16guy
Barkeep...I'll take another.

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2008, 19:16
by Guysmiley
Angels225 wrote:Everybody here seems to be talking about top speed for the raptor which is classified.. so i was wondering whether its slowest possible flight speed was classified too. i.e the slowest a raptor can go without falling out of the sky,what would be the shortest possible landing role for a 22.


From the flight demos I've seen, I'd say close to 0 KIAS :) It looks like given the right circumstances a pilot can hang the F-22 on its afterburners.

Slowest speed with an acceptable landing sink rate? Yeah those charts haven't been published. :D

Unread postPosted: 24 Nov 2008, 14:09
by Angels225
Guysmiley wrote:
Angels225 wrote:Everybody here seems to be talking about top speed for the raptor which is classified.. so i was wondering whether its slowest possible flight speed was classified too. i.e the slowest a raptor can go without falling out of the sky,what would be the shortest possible landing role for a 22.


From the flight demos I've seen, I'd say close to 0 KIAS :) It looks like given the right circumstances a pilot can hang the F-22 on its afterburners.

Slowest speed with an acceptable landing sink rate? Yeah those charts haven't been published. :D


Well.. hang on its afterburners it may.. but say u have an emergency & need to put that bird down it would help if it had something close to the landing run of the gripen.

Unread postPosted: 24 Nov 2008, 19:12
by sprstdlyscottsmn
The Grippen was purpose built to have STOL capabilities. The raptor will have to rely on proper brake technique as I do not believe it has a tail hook. Or the pilot could hang it on the burners right above the runway and pitch down. That might hurt though.

Unread postPosted: 24 Nov 2008, 20:25
by outlaw162
I believe the F-22 has a tailhook.

Go to the globalsecurity.org website. Look at the pictures.

It is faired over in flight, but there is a picture of an engine run with what sure looks like a tailhook down.

I could be wrong, but.........tailhook value has been proven over & over, I can't imagine not having one on something that expensive.

regards, OL

(Navy F-35 definitely has one, probably the others as well)

There is a reference to arresting system under F-22 flight critical systems also.

Unread postPosted: 24 Nov 2008, 20:59
by JetTest
Defintely has a tailhook.

Unread postPosted: 24 Nov 2008, 21:56
by Neno
Yes it has. There are some photos on the net.

Unread postPosted: 25 Nov 2008, 06:45
by sprstdlyscottsmn
okay my mistake, so I guess that answers Angels question though. Its VERY well hidden in normal flight then, unlike the F-35s where there is a noticable bump.

F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2008, 05:35
by f22enthusiast
All this is great, but, can it go 1-plus Mn straight-up?

RE: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2008, 03:16
by Tinito_16
Haha well, somebody who flew it once said he stood the plane on it's tail after taking off and just let it fly... he noticed the plane was shaking and thought it was about to stall, but when he looked at his instruments, they told him the plane was doing .99 Mach. He blew past his assigned altitude by a few thousand feet, and when he met up with the engineers on the ground to tell them, they calculated that he would've broken nearly every time to climb record - this with a combat configured Raptor, not some one-off speedster version.

RE: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2008, 06:18
by sprstdlyscottsmn
that thing is a pure rocket ship

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2008, 07:04
by checksixx
Guysmiley wrote:From the flight demos I've seen, I'd say close to 0 KIAS :) It looks like given the right circumstances a pilot can hang the F-22 on its afterburners.

Slowest speed with an acceptable landing sink rate? Yeah those charts haven't been published. :D


No, you can't hang it on the afterburners...it will sink. Slowest this thing will go would be like a Superhornet high alpha pass.

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2008, 15:04
by sferrin
checksixx wrote:
Guysmiley wrote:From the flight demos I've seen, I'd say close to 0 KIAS :) It looks like given the right circumstances a pilot can hang the F-22 on its afterburners.

Slowest speed with an acceptable landing sink rate? Yeah those charts haven't been published. :D


No, you can't hang it on the afterburners...it will sink. Slowest this thing will go would be like a Superhornet high alpha pass.


If it's got better than 1-to-1 thrust to weight it can hang. At that point it's not using it's wing at all for lift and wouldn't be able to anyway since it would be standing on it's tail.

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2008, 15:31
by checksixx
Nope, cannot hang simply on a better than 1-to-1 T/W ratio. It will sink.

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2008, 15:40
by mil_hobbyist
checksixx wrote:Nope, cannot hang simply on a better than 1-to-1 T/W ratio. It will sink.


Does this have to do with airflow at ultra low speeds? I.e. is there some minimum speed at which it can accelerate vertically?

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2008, 16:34
by sferrin
checksixx wrote:Nope, cannot hang simply on a better than 1-to-1 T/W ratio. It will sink.


Last time I checked F=ma in this universe. What is it in your's? :roll:

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2008, 16:37
by sferrin
mil_hobbyist wrote:
checksixx wrote:Nope, cannot hang simply on a better than 1-to-1 T/W ratio. It will sink.


Does this have to do with airflow at ultra low speeds? I.e. is there some minimum speed at which it can accelerate vertically?


No, it has to do with Checksixx being wrong.

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2008, 16:43
by mil_hobbyist
sferrin wrote:
mil_hobbyist wrote:
checksixx wrote:Nope, cannot hang simply on a better than 1-to-1 T/W ratio. It will sink.


Does this have to do with airflow at ultra low speeds? I.e. is there some minimum speed at which it can accelerate vertically?


No, it has to do with Checksixx being wrong.


Maybe he's referring to the high-altitude case.

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2008, 17:11
by psychmike
sferrin wrote:
mil_hobbyist wrote:
checksixx wrote:Nope, cannot hang simply on a better than 1-to-1 T/W ratio. It will sink.


Does this have to do with airflow at ultra low speeds? I.e. is there some minimum speed at which it can accelerate vertically?


No, it has to do with Checksixx being wrong.


My GUESS is that Checksixx is alluding to how T/W ratios are calculated and that this may not be generalizable to certain flight conditions.

Checksixx: Instead of just stating something authoritatively, how about providing a little elaboration so that we can understand your thinking, learn from each other, and clarify the terms of the discussion???

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2008, 17:30
by r2d2
Theoritically a T/W ratio of 1 is enough for hanging in air.

However in practice any jet a/c (including the f-22) will have a center-of-lift (*) below its center-of-gravity.

The center-of-gravity of the a/c MUST BE AND MUST STAY on the net-thrust axis (i.e. net-lifting-force axis).

In case that the center-of-lift of the a/c moves out of the gravitational PULL (force) vector (axis) then the a/c will ROLL-OVER.

A propellor (*) driven a/c will hang in the air easily if it has a slightly more than 1 to 1 ratio (similar to an helicopter!).


(*) Center-of-lift is in the mid-point of the upward forces applied by the engines
(**) Prop(s)s in the nose.


edit in blue color.

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2008, 17:34
by sferrin
mil_hobbyist wrote:
sferrin wrote:
mil_hobbyist wrote:
checksixx wrote:Nope, cannot hang simply on a better than 1-to-1 T/W ratio. It will sink.


Does this have to do with airflow at ultra low speeds? I.e. is there some minimum speed at which it can accelerate vertically?


No, it has to do with Checksixx being wrong.


Maybe he's referring to the high-altitude case.


Even at high altitude F=ma.

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2008, 17:38
by sferrin
r2d2 wrote:Theoritically a T/W ratio of 1 is enough for hanging in air.

However in practice any jet a/c (including the f-22) will have a center-of-lift (*) below its center-of-gravity.

The center-of-lift of the a/c MUST BE AND MUST STAY on the net-thrust axis (i.e. net-lifting-force axis).

In case that the center-of-lift of the a/c moves out of the gravitational PULL (force) vector (axis) then the a/c will ROLL-OVER.

A propellor (*) driven a/c will hang in the air easily if it has a slightly more than 1 to 1 ratio (similar to an helicopter!).


(*) Center-of-lift is in the mid-point of the upward forces applied by the engines
(**) Prop(s)s in the nose.



If you aren't relying on aerodynamic lift and have computers controling the thrust vectoring you can balance on engine thrust. You do not need to have more than one to one as that will result in a climb.

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2008, 17:48
by r2d2
I don't think so. You will need slighly more than 1/1.

Any other force on the a/c (for example a side wind) will move your center-of-lift out of the axis. Once you go out of the axis, you will need more than 1/1 to be able to have the lifting-force component (on the vertical axis) and the nose-up direction correction force component (on the horizontal plane).
Because vectoring your 1 to 1 ratio TOTAL thrust will result you LESS than 1/1 on the vertical axis.

Otherwise your a/c will go low during each thrust vectoring.

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2008, 18:25
by mil_hobbyist
sferrin wrote:
mil_hobbyist wrote:
sferrin wrote:
mil_hobbyist wrote:
checksixx wrote:Nope, cannot hang simply on a better than 1-to-1 T/W ratio. It will sink.


Does this have to do with airflow at ultra low speeds? I.e. is there some minimum speed at which it can accelerate vertically?


No, it has to do with Checksixx being wrong.


Maybe he's referring to the high-altitude case.


Even at high altitude F=ma.


Yes, but at high altitude T/W will be less than 1 because the air is too thin.

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2008, 19:26
by sferrin
mil_hobbyist wrote:
sferrin wrote:
mil_hobbyist wrote:
sferrin wrote:
mil_hobbyist wrote:
checksixx wrote:Nope, cannot hang simply on a better than 1-to-1 T/W ratio. It will sink.


Does this have to do with airflow at ultra low speeds? I.e. is there some minimum speed at which it can accelerate vertically?


No, it has to do with Checksixx being wrong.


Maybe he's referring to the high-altitude case.


Even at high altitude F=ma.


Yes, but at high altitude T/W will be less than 1 because the air is too thin.


So? How is that relevant? The claim wasn't that it couldn't hang on it's afterburners at less than 1-to-1 (which is obvious to anybody) but that it coudn't hang on it's afterburners period.

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2008, 19:34
by sferrin
r2d2 wrote:I don't think so. You will need slighly more than 1/1.

Any other force on the a/c (for example a side wind) will move your center-of-lift out of the axis. Once you go out of the axis, you will need more than 1/1 to be able to have the lifting-force component (on the vertical axis) and the nose-up direction correction force component (on the horizontal plane).
Because vectoring your 1 to 1 ratio TOTAL thrust will result you LESS than 1/1 on the vertical axis.

Otherwise your a/c will go low during each thrust vectoring.


As long as your vertical component equals your weight you will be fine.

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2008, 22:07
by singularity
From my understanding, if I have a 1 pound rock in my hand and hold it steady in the air----> thats equivalent to 1 pound of thrust. Since the Raptor does have a greater then 1 to 1 T/W then all it needs to do is use more then 1 to 1 to climb to the appropriate altitude, then reduce its thrust to exactly 1 to 1 and hover. it should be able to do that as long as there is fuel.

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2008, 00:34
by r2d2
It is easier to climb by making use of the kinetic energy earned during level flight. It will gain speed in level-flight that means kinetic energy and exchange it to potential energy and that means altitude.

But be careful, in order to be able to hang in the air; the VERTICAL thrust component must be equal to weight. The a/c will also need a continuously varying HORIZONTAL component for balance (i.e. to keep your nose-up). The resultant force (thrust) must be the vectoral sum of the two components and thus it needs to be MORE than 1/1.

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2008, 01:08
by Tinito_16
I think what happens is when the engine is installed in the a/c the airflow isn't the same as when it is static-tested. So the thrust will be slightly less. I bet a pilot that wanted to could probably hang the airplane with the burners, but not indefinetly: the fans need air to produce the thrust, and if the airflow is reduced, the engines will not produce the same levels of thrust. If the plane's hanging and not accelerating upwards, there is even less airflow to the engines, which means that sooner or later the thrust will drop to the point where the a/c cannot hang anymore. I wish TEG was here... he could shed light on some of this.

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2008, 01:13
by Tinito_16
Point is, if you set up a Raptor like the Space Shuttle, pointing upwards, and started the engines, he might get off the ground, but he probably won't be flying or climbing far.

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2008, 07:55
by checksixx
sferrin wrote:
mil_hobbyist wrote:
checksixx wrote:Nope, cannot hang simply on a better than 1-to-1 T/W ratio. It will sink.


Does this have to do with airflow at ultra low speeds? I.e. is there some minimum speed at which it can accelerate vertically?


No, it has to do with Checksixx being wrong.


Lol...now I'm instantly wrong. Doesn't surprise me coming from you.

Anywho, for those who care, I posted a quote from Dozer quite a long time ago in which he was asked about the subject being discussed. He stated that at lower airspeed the engines don't put out the full rating of thrust (I think we all know this already). Further he stated that while the jet would start decending, it was so controlable that he could literally hold the jets nose in the vertical all the way to the ground.

For those who care to know, I'm currently working in Kuwait and don't have a lot of time to respond...which is why i short answered this before. Don't like my answer? Track down Michael 'Dozer' Shower or the former F-22 Demo Pilot Paul 'Max' Moga, who is still at Langley I believe and email them. I personally could care less if anyone here takes my word for it or not.

Cheers - Check

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2008, 19:28
by sferrin
checksixx wrote:
sferrin wrote:
mil_hobbyist wrote:
checksixx wrote:Nope, cannot hang simply on a better than 1-to-1 T/W ratio. It will sink.


Does this have to do with airflow at ultra low speeds? I.e. is there some minimum speed at which it can accelerate vertically?


No, it has to do with Checksixx being wrong.


Lol...now I'm instantly wrong. Doesn't surprise me coming from you.

Anywho, for those who care, I posted a quote from Dozer quite a long time ago in which he was asked about the subject being discussed. He stated that at lower airspeed the engines don't put out the full rating of thrust (I think we all know this already). Further he stated that while the jet would start decending, it was so controlable that he could literally hold the jets nose in the vertical all the way to the ground.

For those who care to know, I'm currently working in Kuwait and don't have a lot of time to respond...which is why i short answered this before. Don't like my answer? Track down Michael 'Dozer' Shower or the former F-22 Demo Pilot Paul 'Max' Moga, who is still at Langley I believe and email them. I personally could care less if anyone here takes my word for it or not.

Cheers - Check



You were sayin'?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IC_uuynsJsc


BTW I like that bold text. Is that suppose to give you more authority or something? :roll:

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2008, 20:14
by checksixx
Lol...that video really backs up what I posted. The jet is held in the verticle until the decent would have started and then nosed over. Thanks for posting it. Glad you like the bold text, I use it so I can find my posts easier when people continually quote over and over again. Don't know why you would think it gave me more authority, its just a darker font.

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2008, 01:54
by Tinito_16
It is interesting to note that the burners don't seem to have turned on until after he nosed over.... Hard to tell, the Raptor's burners are actually very hard to see in the videos I've seen so far. Another stealth tactic, I guess =)

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2008, 03:59
by jetblast16
Concerning the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IC_uuynsJsc
I was a personal eye witness to that event and in fact, I was right on the beach
parallel to the Raptor as it pulled into the vertical. There was no question that
the jet was in blower (may be full afterburner) as he rose vertically very
quickly due to the near deafening sound the jet was making. It was LOUD,
that video does not do any justice to that fact. As is typical there, there was
a prevailing South/South Westerly wind such that the jet was actually being
blown North; that is, once the Raptor had gone into basically a pure vertical
attitude, the wings were producing no more lift, while the airframe and structures
made a large wind sail! I watched it drift in a Northerly direction from the wind,
while the twin F119 motors were trying their best to sound like a space shuttle
launch! checksixx is correct in his observations IMO regarding the Raptor's ability
to just drift down vertically, while in full control; it certainly appeared as if the
jet was able to do this (at least for awhile). I am sure that a Raptor with may be
10K or less worth of fuel could maintain a hover in a pure vertical attitude for
sometime with both F119s in maximum afterburner.

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2008, 06:30
by psychmike
At the airshow in Toronto in 2007, I saw the F-22 enter the demonstration area at very low speed. It proceeded to pull into the vertical and climbed for some time before hanging there for awhile. It certainly looked like it was rising primarily on engine thrust with little or no contribution to the climb from velocity or wing lift.

I know that the demonstration flight had no weapons (it flew by with all doors open) and probably limited fuel on board but under those flight conditions, I'd certainly bet money on the F-22 being able to hold itself up on thrust alone, even without optimal airflow into the engines.

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2008, 15:03
by em745
I'll throw in my 2¢, for what it's worth (probably 2¢ ;) ).

Does anyone know the max. "in aircraft," zero-airspeed thrust the F-119's can produce? And does anyone know the TRUE loaded weight (internal fuel & stores) of the F-22? Sure, there are plenty of online guesstimates and ballpark figures (esp. for the latter), but AFAIK, official figures have yet to be released. As it is, there's too much variability in these numbers to formulate a straight answer.

That said, the question of whether the F-22's "static" T/W would allow it to hover ("hover" as in vertical attitude, zero airspeed and zero climb rate) for any period of time is, IMHO, moot, seeing as it's unlikely the pilot (or FLCS for that matter) would be able keep the plane in that position for too long (especially in a crosswind). In such a state, there is virtually no airflow over the control surfaces, and 2-D TVC doesn't afford the "gimbal"-type level of stabilization that a 3-D TVC setup would.

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2008, 15:37
by JetTest
The Raptor has great manuverability, arguably, the best, but other than at an air show, to make the crowd "ooh and ahh", why would a fighter pilot want to make himself such a target?

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2008, 15:57
by Tinito_16
I guess the whole point of this discussion is so that we can stick it to the Russians and tell them to try to hover with their MiGs and Flankers. LOL

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2008, 16:23
by strykerxo
JetTest wrote:The Raptor has great manuverability, arguably, the best, but other than at an air show, to make the crowd "ooh and ahh", why would a fighter pilot want to make himself such a target?


Not that a pilot would want to put himself in a position of vulnerability, but knowing what your AC can do from extreme high and low end of the flight envelope, is reassuring. What is known as "last ditch", the knowledge that you can utilize the the unbelievable power of the engines to punch through a maneuver or with the FCS
be able to control your AC in whatever situation you find yourself in.

The F-22 provides the pilot with so many game changing characteristics such as stealth, super-cruise, TV, high altitude and EW suite. He has total command of his airspace as long as he has total command of his AC.

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2008, 19:35
by JetTest
My question was rhetorical, but hovering serves no practical purpose in the operation of a fighter jet. The video certainly does not demonstrate it hovering, merely a brief vertcal stall, then nosing over to horizontal flight. Burners are lit through teh entire climb.

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2009, 16:05
by sprstdlyscottsmn
yes, but as I have said before on this issue there is no way of knowing of MAX burner is being used. AB is not an on off switch, there is a gradual side to it. All that tells us is that the raptor cannot hover in Mil thrust, thats it.

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2009, 17:33
by Tinito_16
Well, how much is mil thrust anyway? If the engines can put out 35,000 lbf of thrust, Mil power should be about 21,-25,000 lbf. You've got a combined mil thrust from both engines = about 40,000 - 50,000 lbf, and an empty Raptor weighs about 50,000lbs. SO you can't hang it in mil. BUT I think it's entirely possible in Max Burner.

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2009, 20:35
by JetTest
You obviously have so much connection and insight to the program, I guess you would know....

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2009, 23:50
by Tinito_16
LOL no I don't I'm just throwing figures out there. But 70,000lbf thrust from the engines IS > than 50,000-60,000 lb the bird weighs.

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2009, 00:41
by sferrin
jetblast16 wrote:Concerning the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IC_uuynsJsc
I was a personal eye witness to that event and in fact, I was right on the beach
parallel to the Raptor as it pulled into the vertical. There was no question that
the jet was in blower (may be full afterburner) as he rose vertically very
quickly due to the near deafening sound the jet was making. It was LOUD,
that video does not do any justice to that fact. As is typical there, there was
a prevailing South/South Westerly wind such that the jet was actually being
blown North; that is, once the Raptor had gone into basically a pure vertical
attitude, the wings were producing no more lift, while the airframe and structures
made a large wind sail! I watched it drift in a Northerly direction from the wind,
while the twin F119 motors were trying their best to sound like a space shuttle
launch! checksixx is correct in his observations IMO regarding the Raptor's ability
to just drift down vertically, while in full control; it certainly appeared as if the
jet was able to do this (at least for awhile). I am sure that a Raptor with may be
10K or less worth of fuel could maintain a hover in a pure vertical attitude for
sometime with both F119s in maximum afterburner.



the thing that's interesting about it to me is that it was all engine. It popped the nose up and climbed S-L-O-W

Here's a close up of that same climb at the same airshow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge9PCGyGXeA

(starts around 0:28)

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2009, 01:42
by JetTest
Yes, to transition from horizontal flight at such an obviously low speed to a vertical climb like that shows extreme power and control, much more than the SU films I've seen. Just imagine what it's real capabilities are.

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2009, 09:35
by Neno
checksixx wrote:
sferrin wrote:
mil_hobbyist wrote:
checksixx wrote:Nope, cannot hang simply on a better than 1-to-1 T/W ratio. It will sink.


Does this have to do with airflow at ultra low speeds? I.e. is there some minimum speed at which it can accelerate vertically?


No, it has to do with Checksixx being wrong.


Lol...now I'm instantly wrong. Doesn't surprise me coming from you.

Anywho, for those who care, I posted a quote from Dozer quite a long time ago in which he was asked about the subject being discussed. He stated that at lower airspeed the engines don't put out the full rating of thrust (I think we all know this already). Further he stated that while the jet would start decending, it was so controlable that he could literally hold the jets nose in the vertical all the way to the ground.

For those who care to know, I'm currently working in Kuwait and don't have a lot of time to respond...which is why i short answered this before. Don't like my answer? Track down Michael 'Dozer' Shower or the former F-22 Demo Pilot Paul 'Max' Moga, who is still at Langley I believe and email them. I personally could care less if anyone here takes my word for it or not.

Cheers - Check


Ok, i understand that limited airflow don't allow to get maximun thrust ftom engines in that condition.
Does is this true for any engine or just for the ones optimized for high speed performance?
Even Su37 or a EF2K wouldn't be able to hang on their A/B ?

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2009, 17:21
by sferrin
Neno wrote:
checksixx wrote:
sferrin wrote:
mil_hobbyist wrote:
checksixx wrote:Nope, cannot hang simply on a better than 1-to-1 T/W ratio. It will sink.


Does this have to do with airflow at ultra low speeds? I.e. is there some minimum speed at which it can accelerate vertically?


No, it has to do with Checksixx being wrong.


Lol...now I'm instantly wrong. Doesn't surprise me coming from you.

Anywho, for those who care, I posted a quote from Dozer quite a long time ago in which he was asked about the subject being discussed. He stated that at lower airspeed the engines don't put out the full rating of thrust (I think we all know this already). Further he stated that while the jet would start decending, it was so controlable that he could literally hold the jets nose in the vertical all the way to the ground.

For those who care to know, I'm currently working in Kuwait and don't have a lot of time to respond...which is why i short answered this before. Don't like my answer? Track down Michael 'Dozer' Shower or the former F-22 Demo Pilot Paul 'Max' Moga, who is still at Langley I believe and email them. I personally could care less if anyone here takes my word for it or not.

Cheers - Check


Ok, i understand that limited airflow don't allow to get maximun thrust ftom engines in that condition.
Does is this true for any engine or just for the ones optimized for high speed performance?
Even Su37 or a EF2K wouldn't be able to hang on their A/B ?



Thing is you don't need maximum thrust. All you need is 1-to-1. F=ma remember. If your engines produces well over 1-to-1 at maximum as the F-22's do then you don't need to be able to get their maximum power.

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2009, 17:59
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Su's have a very hard time with T/W because they are so large and so heavy. The more advanced ones weigh around 20 tons empty. The Raptor on the other hand weighs ~17 tons and have stronger engines. Of course I am not counting fuel weight as these airshow maneuvers do not utilize the 10 tons and 9 tons of fuel that they carry, respectively. Also, dont forget that when hovering you lose the dynamic aspect of thrust so your output is limited to ~80% +- 5% of the rated thrust. the ability of the raptor to sit on its tail relatively motionless, even for just a few seconds before pitching over shows a MASSIVE amount of power and controll available.

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2009, 20:17
by Tinito_16
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Su's have a very hard time with T/W because they are so large and so heavy. The more advanced ones weigh around 20 tons empty. The Raptor on the other hand weighs ~17 tons and have stronger engines. Of course I am not counting fuel weight as these airshow maneuvers do not utilize the 10 tons and 9 tons of fuel that they carry, respectively. Also, dont forget that when hovering you lose the dynamic aspect of thrust so your output is limited to ~80% +- 5% of the rated thrust. the ability of the raptor to sit on its tail relatively motionless, even for just a few seconds before pitching over shows a MASSIVE amount of power and controll available.


Exactly.

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2009, 01:01
by ANYTIMEBABY!
Amazing how the same power output that is in the blackbird was strapped into the raptor... a fighter.... if the blackbird could fly at confirmed speeds of mk3.2 how can the raptor not achieve 3.5 even if not just a dash...

i would also assume that the raptor flies the airshow routine with more than a 1/4 tank afterall its such a demanding flight profile that its mostly flown in A/B... i could be wrong... is there such a thing as a fuel coservative A/B or do we go for max preformance with in safety design limits? im aware of zone 1 -5 but i would think alot of this flight profile requires full power petal to the metal i mean composite srry... :D

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2009, 05:09
by sprstdlyscottsmn
yes but the engine in the SR-71 only made ~20% of the thrust at Mach 3.2, the specially designed inlet produced over HALF the thrust!

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2009, 05:59
by LordOfBunnies
ANYTIMEBABY! wrote:Amazing how the same power output that is in the blackbird was strapped into the raptor... a fighter.... if the blackbird could fly at confirmed speeds of mk3.2 how can the raptor not achieve 3.5 even if not just a dash...

i would also assume that the raptor flies the airshow routine with more than a 1/4 tank afterall its such a demanding flight profile that its mostly flown in A/B... i could be wrong... is there such a thing as a fuel coservative A/B or do we go for max preformance with in safety design limits? im aware of zone 1 -5 but i would think alot of this flight profile requires full power petal to the metal i mean composite srry... :D


Answer: Drag, drag, drag, drag, drag, and drag, oh and .5*rho*V^2*Cd*A... aka drag.

The SR71 supposedly flew at 80k ft (yeah right, keep going up) and the whole thing was meant to be a lifting body. Also look at the shape, an attempt to keep the minimum frontal area. Cd was also meant to be kept to a minimum so the thing didn't need to have very cambered wings. The speed helped it generate the lift. Needless to say you don't need much angle on a flat plate to keep the 170k lb plane aloft at Mach 3.

If the Raptor were designed to do Mach 3.2 like the SR71, then it wouldn't be able to do much more and it was designed to be a fighter. Admittedly the engineering is much more advanced now so the turning radius wouldn't be the size of a state, well maybe Rhode Island. In designing aircraft, its all about meeting your design goals. The SR71 was meant to be uncatchably fast and take pictures, the missiles and whatnot for it seemed to be an amused afterthought of "Hell... why not?"

The Raptor was designed to be an air supremacy fighter so dash would be nice, but is not an exactly a requirement. Admittedly, it can probably do 2.5+ or better if you don't care about the RAM or the crew chief killing you when you get back.


As for afterburners, they are usually either staged or you can vary the fuel flow so its not a bang-bang control scheme.

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2009, 21:40
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Yeah, that too.

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2009, 22:12
by Tinito_16
The difference lies in how fast it can go faster. The F-22 probably has the best acceleration of a plane in it's weight class - and apparently it is comparable to an F-16 :shock: I read many times how the chase F-16 had to go into AB to keep up with the Raptor, whether this is due to the Vipers carrying bags is debatable, but anyhow, the plane sure can go.

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2009, 05:03
by cobzz
Tinito_16 wrote:The difference lies in how fast it can go faster. The F-22 probably has the best acceleration of a plane in it's weight class - and apparently it is comparable to an F-16 :shock: I read many times how the chase F-16 had to go into AB to keep up with the Raptor, whether this is due to the Vipers carrying bags is debatable, but anyhow, the plane sure can go.


Accelerating through Mach in military power in the Raptor feels similar to accelerating in full afterburner in an F-15. The Raptor accelerates in full afterburner in one continuous-speed feed. A slight buffet occurs between about Mach 0.97 and 1.08. After that point and to max speed, the aircraft accelerates smoothly and continuously.

...

The best seat in the house for supercruise is from a chase F-16 or F-15. Remember, we fly both these chase jets with just a centerline fuel tank to give them a fighting chance to play with the Raptor. Still, the F-22 usually leaves these aerodynamically “slick” chase airplanes in the dust. The F100-110, -129, and -229-powered F-16s don’t fall very far behind the Raptor in the initial acceleration through Mach. But the race is really no contest at the higher Mach numbers and once on cruise conditions. Nothing can sustain supersonic conditions with the persistence of a Raptor. Load those chase F-16s and F-15s with combat-representative stores and they would not stay with the Raptor during acceleration or sustained cruise.


http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives ... f22_1.html

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2009, 04:00
by sprstdlyscottsmn
yeah the F-35 and F-22 are powerhouses in operational terms.

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2009, 18:35
by ANYTIMEBABY!
my question is in the thrust to weight category the f-22 slaughters the blackbird, i understand the inlet theory on sr and egt to sustain speed what i dont understand is on paper i would think a raptor should easily turn 3.5 at altitude if not more only for a very limited duration do to egt and outer surface temps. your thoughts please/....

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2009, 19:11
by LordOfBunnies
Not necessarily man. Drag and how things interact at speed affect things a lot. When people quote a Cd for an aircraft they're usually quoting the Cd at a given Reynolds Number or a range where it plateaus. Get the Raptor going fast enough and I'm pretty sure you'll get some gnarly shock-shock interaction. God forbid the thing hit some type 3 or typer for S-S because that'll burn a hole right through it. If you start having shocks intersect things that they're not supposed to you could start damaging the airframe and the drag would skyrocket. The most likely occurance of this would be the nose shock hitting the wingtips.

The answer is NEVER simple in aerodynamics... ever. Nothing so simple as the thrust-weight being better.. truth be told (thrust-drag)/weight is a MUCH more telling stat and that one varies a lot.

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2009, 21:31
by johnwill
Big difference is the inlets. The SR-71 inlet has very complex variable geometry to allow the engine to keep producing thrust at M3.5, while the F-22 inlet is a simple fixed geometry device which is not designed to work at M3+.

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2009, 03:46
by sferrin
LordOfBunnies wrote:Not necessarily man. Drag and how things interact at speed affect things a lot. When people quote a Cd for an aircraft they're usually quoting the Cd at a given Reynolds Number or a range where it plateaus. Get the Raptor going fast enough and I'm pretty sure you'll get some gnarly shock-shock interaction. God forbid the thing hit some type 3 or typer for S-S because that'll burn a hole right through it. If you start having shocks intersect things that they're not supposed to you could start damaging the airframe and the drag would skyrocket. The most likely occurance of this would be the nose shock hitting the wingtips.


See the X-15's ventral when they had the scramjet model attached for a good idea of what happens. Granted that was at Mach 6+ but you get the idea. :shock:

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2009, 11:05
by skyhigh
Why not take the Raptor on a 90 degree nosedive from 65000 feet to see how fast it can go? (I guess Mach 2.42 in afterburner, Mach 1.82 supercruise, level flight)

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2009, 21:52
by BDF
They won't do that because that is not a operationally representative limitation. They know probably within one or two one-hundreths of a mach number how fast the jet will go in practical terms (material/structural limitaions) and probably could figure out how fast it'd go theoretically just by simulation.

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2009, 00:30
by Prinz_Eugn
skyhigh wrote:Why not take the Raptor on a 90 degree nosedive from 65000 feet to see how fast it can go? (I guess Mach 2.42 in afterburner, Mach 1.82 supercruise, level flight)


Well, basically because it's going to melt. Either the canopy or the composites around the airframe are probably going to fail, and that's either going to destroy the airplane or make it ridiculously hard to repair (Do they have a Class AA yet?).

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2009, 05:37
by popcorn
Prinz_Eugn wrote:
skyhigh wrote:Why not take the Raptor on a 90 degree nosedive from 65000 feet to see how fast it can go? (I guess Mach 2.42 in afterburner, Mach 1.82 supercruise, level flight)


Well, basically because it's going to melt. Either the canopy or the composites around the airframe are probably going to fail, and that's either going to destroy the airplane or make it ridiculously hard to repair (Do they have a Class AA yet?).


There are pictures floating around the web of Raptors with paint and presumably RAM sandblasted off the nose when the pilot exceeded the recommended speed limit.

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2009, 09:15
by skyhigh
What about the P&W F119-PW-100 turbofans? Can they withstand the extreme airflow until the fan blades, compressors and combustion chamber blow up like a popping balloon? I doubt it.

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2009, 20:57
by checksixx
We already know the canopy is the limiting factor here.

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2009, 21:40
by That_Engine_Guy
skyhigh wrote:What about the P&W F119-PW-100 turbofans? Can they withstand the extreme airflow until the fan blades, compressors and combustion chamber blow up like a popping balloon? I doubt it.


The engine's control system 'most likely' monitors that. In the F100 series control system, things like inlet pressure, compressor discharge, and burner pressure are monitored and controlled. If at high-speed/low-altitude where the air is dense, the N2 RPM will be limited as a function of compressor discharge pressure so that the diffuser case does not rupture.

So yes, as the pressure in the F119 built up to a critical level (burst point) the engine would effectively reduce compression and/or RPM to keep from damaging it's self. The F119 is more 'operator error resistant' than the new F100's, so there is little a pilot could do, either by intent, or neglect, to hurt it.

Both engines are full-authority-computer-controlled under normal conditions, but in SECondary mode the F100 looses many of it's safety limiting features/controls as authority is passed back to the pilot. One is much more likely to 'hurt' an F100 when running in SEC.

I'm sure the performance limits on the F119 are greater than the F100 or the F110, but eventually everything will reach a fail point.

Keep 'em flyin' :thumb:
TEG

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2009, 21:51
by checksixx
Yeah, the F119's in the Raptor both have dual FADEC systems and would not allow damage to occure. Hell if the engine doesn't like something during the demo's, you can see the FADEC system 'refuse' to put the engine into afterburner momentarily. Seen it plenty during demo's where one will light and the other either won't light or lights late.

F119 Turbofan

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2009, 03:11
by skyhigh
That_Engine_Guy wrote:
skyhigh wrote:What about the P&W F119-PW-100 turbofans? Can they withstand the extreme airflow until the fan blades, compressors and combustion chamber blow up like a popping balloon? I doubt it.


The engine's control system 'most likely' monitors that. In the F100 series control system, things like inlet pressure, compressor discharge, and burner pressure are monitored and controlled. If at high-speed/low-altitude where the air is dense, the N2 RPM will be limited as a function of compressor discharge pressure so that the diffuser case does not rupture.

So yes, as the pressure in the F119 built up to a critical level (burst point) the engine would effectively reduce compression and/or RPM to keep from damaging it's self. The F119 is more 'operator error resistant' than the new F100's, so there is little a pilot could do, either by intent, or neglect, to hurt it.

Both engines are full-authority-computer-controlled under normal conditions, but in SECondary mode the F100 looses many of it's safety limiting features/controls as authority is passed back to the pilot. One is much more likely to 'hurt' an F100 when running in SEC.

I'm sure the performance limits on the F119 are greater than the F100 or the F110, but eventually everything will reach a fail point.

Keep 'em flyin' :thumb:
TEG


So a FADEC equipped F119-PW-100 turbofan can minimize the abusive amount of airflow to protect the components from melting or even blowing out, e.g. the F119 cannot handle airflow speeds above Mach 1.82 without self-destruction, right?

Re: F119 Turbofan

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2009, 04:22
by That_Engine_Guy
skyhigh wrote:So a FADEC equipped F119-PW-100 turbofan can minimize the abusive amount of airflow to protect the components from melting or even blowing out, e.g. the F119 cannot handle airflow speeds above Mach 1.82 without self-destruction, right?


Well yes to the first part, and no on the second.

Yes, the 'FADEC' on the F119 will keep the engine running at 'optimal' power for a requested throttle setting based on current conditions. It optimizes engine operation constantly and will not allow the pilot to 'request' something that will hurt the engine.

Example - If said pilot requests MAX power down low and the aircraft reaches a critical point where inlet pressures make the compressor discharge pressure too high, the FADEC on the engines will essentially 'throttle back' on their own to prevent damage. This is what 'full-authority' means; if the pilot asks for something the engine will say NO if appropriate for motor-self preservation.

The flight envelope for the F119 is still classified, so nobody can truthfully say what the engine's top speed is. After all the true top speed is dependent more on the airframe. (The F100 in an F-15 has ALWAYS had a higher top speed than an F100 in a Viper due to the Eagle's variable inlet system and a more rigid canopy design.) At high-Mach the inlets are very important in keeping airflow steady and subsonic, if they don't the disruption in airflow will choke the compressor of air at which point engine power drops and the aircraft begins to slow. I'm sure the Raptor's inlets work to whatever speed she is cleared for.

So NO; the F119 is capable of handling any speed or flight condition a Raptor pilot asks of it, so long as that request is within the programmed flight envelope for the airframe/engines. The F-22/F119s are integrated to function as a single unit, so one won't hurt the other.

I'll add my :2c: here and say the F119 should be much more capable of producing speed than the Raptor's airframe could ever handle. In the F-15 and F-16 the engines are cleared to the airframe's maximum speed, and in both installations the engine could go fast enough to damage/destroy the aircraft before the engine(s) would fail. So whenever you see someone official release the true top speed for the Raptor, remember the engines could go faster...

(Ever see the movie "Blackbird" produced by Lochkeed in the early 1990s? It shows the pilot RETARD the throttles when they reach MACH 3.2 :shock: I may add he pulls them back pretty far too! The J58s would run faster than the Blackbird could :wink: )


Keep 'em flyin' :thumb:
TEG

RE: Re: F119 Turbofan

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2009, 13:34
by sprstdlyscottsmn
And thats why at Mach 3.2 the response to a missile launch was to throttle up.

Re: F119 Turbofan

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2009, 17:54
by wrightwing
skyhigh wrote:
So a FADEC equipped F119-PW-100 turbofan can minimize the abusive amount of airflow to protect the components from melting or even blowing out, e.g. the F119 cannot handle airflow speeds above Mach 1.82 without self-destruction, right?


Where did you get this notion? The F-119 is designed for sustained high speeds, and the F-22 is quite capable of safely exceeding M1.82.

RE: Re: F119 Turbofan

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2009, 21:38
by Kryptid
Ah, so on the MiG-25, the engines would fail before the airframe would, but the opposite is likely true of the F-22? Those F119s are hot stuff...

Re: RE: Re: F119 Turbofan

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2009, 12:47
by skyhigh
Kryptid wrote:Ah, so on the MiG-25, the engines would fail before the airframe would, but the opposite is likely true of the F-22? Those F119s are hot stuff...


That's right. The Tumansky R-15B-300 turbojets drank fuel like a thirsty trekker in the Sahara, and once, an Egyptian MiG-25 pilot blew out the turbojets at Mach 3.2 (ca. 3400 km/h) like popping a pair of balloons.

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2017, 16:01
by xhack2
Hello guys!

Long time lurker of this site since my days playing Falcon 4.0, just registered today.


I do have a question, hopefully you find this related, but what is the max speed that the Raptor's bay doors can remain open, or opened for an AIM9 or Amraam Launch?

just curious

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2017, 17:10
by wrightwing
xhack2 wrote:Hello guys!

Long time lurker of this site since my days playing Falcon 4.0, just registered today.


I do have a question, hopefully you find this related, but what is the max speed that the Raptor's bay doors can remain open, or opened for an AIM9 or Amraam Launch?

just curious

Let's put it this way. There isn't a scenario where an F-22 would have to slow down, to engage a target.

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2017, 19:24
by mixelflick
Going to be a long time before anyone outside of a select few know her top speed, but it's fun to guess. Personally, I feel it's true top speed is around Mach 2.8, super-cruise mach 1.8 (now, perhaps mach 2 if and when the engines are up-rated).

I am still kicking myself for not bookmarking it, but I swear there's a quote from a pilot stating something to the effect that, "we haven't seen closing speeds like this since the Foxbat/Foxhound". I'm guessing that's probably not far from the truth, given both the Foxbat/Foxhound carry external stores - and the Raptor doesn't...

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2017, 11:07
by niafron
Mach 2.8... And how could it deal with the airflow into the engines?

I'm not a specialist, so i ask other people who got a better understanding of the subject, they consider a top speed above Mach 2.0 is very unlikely due to the type of air intake on the F 22.

If you got some informations about that, would be curious to know more.

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2017, 14:05
by disconnectedradical
mixelflick wrote:Going to be a long time before anyone outside of a select few know her top speed, but it's fun to guess. Personally, I feel it's true top speed is around Mach 2.8, super-cruise mach 1.8 (now, perhaps mach 2 if and when the engines are up-rated).

I am still kicking myself for not bookmarking it, but I swear there's a quote from a pilot stating something to the effect that, "we haven't seen closing speeds like this since the Foxbat/Foxhound". I'm guessing that's probably not far from the truth, given both the Foxbat/Foxhound carry external stores - and the Raptor doesn't...


Bullcrap.

I don't get why people have to launch these hyperboles. The F-22 would look very different if it can make Mach 2.8, from inlets, to propulsion system, to the materials, to the canopy. The F-22 inlet looks to be external compression and seems to be 2 shock (1 oblique and the normal), but efficiency will really suffer at speeds well above Mach 2.2 compared to 4 shock systems like on the F-15.

The F-22 isn't going to dash at Mach 2.8, nor does it need to in order to be the most effective fighter. For the record, an new and spit clean F-15C with the -220 engines will do Mach 2.45 max on standard day conditions. With launchers attached (and no weapons) it drops down to around Mach 2.35, a number I don't think the F-22 will differ from much, assuming the materials can take it.

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2017, 17:23
by mixelflick
Perhaps, but you're guessing much like I am.

Only a very few know her top speed, and you can't rule out Mach 2.8 anymore than I can rule out 2.42 (or whatever). Just because every other aircraft up to the F-22 with fixed inlets can't achieve much above mach 2 doesn't mean that holds true for the Raptor. As anyone can see, the aircraft is a kinematic monster, and the Air Force long ago released plenty of performance figures exceeding its design objective(s).

It's been said that the Raptor was designed to beat (and handily) any near peer adversary for the next 30 years. So if the PAK FA has variable inlets and gets the right engines, it might be capable of dash speeds in excess of Mach 2.5. We already know the Mig-31 is capable of Mach 2.8. I don't think the air force is going to re-design the thing to be able to chase down a Mach 2.5+ jet. I believe the capability is already there...

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2017, 17:43
by sferrin
niafron wrote: they consider a top speed above Mach 2.0 is very unlikely due to the type of air intake on the F 22.


Most people can't get past, "hurrrr, fixed-inlet, so it can't go Mach 2". This is demonstrably absurd since there are numerous air-breathing vehicles that go FAR beyond Mach 2 with "fixed inlets". Here's one:

XF8U-3-Crusader-III-Featured-Image.jpg

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2017, 19:46
by SpudmanWP
And another... (with or without DSI)

Image

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2017, 23:03
by disconnectedradical
mixelflick wrote:Perhaps, but you're guessing much like I am.

Only a very few know her top speed, and you can't rule out Mach 2.8 anymore than I can rule out 2.42 (or whatever). Just because every other aircraft up to the F-22 with fixed inlets can't achieve much above mach 2 doesn't mean that holds true for the Raptor. As anyone can see, the aircraft is a kinematic monster, and the Air Force long ago released plenty of performance figures exceeding its design objective(s).

It's been said that the Raptor was designed to beat (and handily) any near peer adversary for the next 30 years. So if the PAK FA has variable inlets and gets the right engines, it might be capable of dash speeds in excess of Mach 2.5. We already know the Mig-31 is capable of Mach 2.8. I don't think the air force is going to re-design the thing to be able to chase down a Mach 2.5+ jet. I believe the capability is already there...


I may not know the definitive dash speed of the F-22 but as someone with aeronautical engineering education I can make informed hypothesis, and I can almost certainly rule out Mach 2.8. I've went over reasons for inlets, and materials, and the polycarbonate canopy, and very questionable benefit. Even from a drag point of view, assuming that your drag coefficient remains roughly the same at high supersonic (fairly reasonable assumption), your drag increases with velocity squared, so at Mach 2.8 you would have roughly double the drag you have at Mach 2, and nearly two and half times the drag at than Mach 1.8 which is about what the F-22 can reach without afterburners. When you factor in things like gradual loss of inlet efficiency as Mach number increases, and the fact that afterburning thrust is nowhere near double the dry thrust, you'll see why that high Mach number is so unlikely.

If you read about the history of the ATF, then you'll see after discussing trade studies with the Lockheed, Northrop, and other companies before the final RFP, the Air Force relaxed the original Mach 2.5 dash speed to Mach 2. Because you have to create so much additional complications and expense to go at a speed that a fighter will barely touch, plus potential compromises in stealth, that dash speed above Mach 2 makes no sense. Guess what, Sukhoi reached the same conclusion. No, the PAK FA isn't making Mach 2.5 either, not in its current form. The original requirement was Mach 2.35, which got reduced to Mach 2.15, and perhaps even lower to Mach 2. The reasons given were almost the exact same as the USAF, it adds unnecessary weight and potential compromises that it simply isn't worth it.

Even the best fighter aircraft isn't immune to physics, and relying on wishful thinking doesn't help. Also, no one, not even fighter pilots, is immune to hyperbole either. Sure the F-22 is fast. MiG-31 fast? No, and it doesn't even need to.

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2017, 23:46
by jetblast16
Perhaps a look into the past reveals something different (An oldie but goodie):

viewtopic.php?t=5474

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2017, 19:16
by mixelflick
I may not know the definitive dash speed of the F-22 but as someone with aeronautical engineering education I can make informed hypothesis, and I can almost certainly rule out Mach 2.8. I've went over reasons for inlets, and materials, and the polycarbonate canopy, and very questionable benefit. Even from a drag point of view, assuming that your drag coefficient remains roughly the same at high supersonic (fairly reasonable assumption), your drag increases with velocity squared, so at Mach 2.8 you would have roughly double the drag you have at Mach 2, and nearly two and half times the drag at than Mach 1.8 which is about what the F-22 can reach without afterburners. When you factor in things like gradual loss of inlet efficiency as Mach number increases, and the fact that afterburning thrust is nowhere near double the dry thrust, you'll see why that high Mach number is so unlikely.

If you read about the history of the ATF, then you'll see after discussing trade studies with the Lockheed, Northrop, and other companies before the final RFP, the Air Force relaxed the original Mach 2.5 dash speed to Mach 2. Because you have to create so much additional complications and expense to go at a speed that a fighter will barely touch, plus potential compromises in stealth, that dash speed above Mach 2 makes no sense. Guess what, Sukhoi reached the same conclusion. No, the PAK FA isn't making Mach 2.5 either, not in its current form. The original requirement was Mach 2.35, which got reduced to Mach 2.15, and perhaps even lower to Mach 2. The reasons given were almost the exact same as the USAF, it adds unnecessary weight and potential compromises that it simply isn't worth it.

Even the best fighter aircraft isn't immune to physics, and relying on wishful thinking doesn't help. Also, no one, not even fighter pilots, is immune to hyperbole either. Sure the F-22 is fast. MiG-31 fast? No, and it doesn't even need to.[/quote]

The paragraph I highlighted made sense. Thanks..

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2017, 20:12
by sferrin
mixelflick wrote: Also, no one, not even fighter pilots, is immune to hyperbole either. Sure the F-22 is fast. MiG-31 fast? No, and it doesn't even need to.


What's more likely, that Paul Metz, Chief Test Pilot of both the YF-23 and F-22A, resorted to hyperbole on the record, or that the F-22 is actually almost as fast as an F-15?

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2017, 21:14
by disconnectedradical
sferrin wrote:
mixelflick wrote: Also, no one, not even fighter pilots, is immune to hyperbole either. Sure the F-22 is fast. MiG-31 fast? No, and it doesn't even need to.


What's more likely, that Paul Metz, Chief Test Pilot of both the YF-23 and F-22A, resorted to hyperbole on the record, or that the F-22 is actually almost as fast as an F-15?


F-22 reaching roughly F-15 speeds (around Mach 2.4) is plausible. Speeds like Mach 2.8 that has been suggested here, almost certainly not.

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2017, 14:33
by mixelflick
sferrin wrote:
mixelflick wrote: Also, no one, not even fighter pilots, is immune to hyperbole either. Sure the F-22 is fast. MiG-31 fast? No, and it doesn't even need to.


What's more likely, that Paul Metz, Chief Test Pilot of both the YF-23 and F-22A, resorted to hyperbole on the record, or that the F-22 is actually almost as fast as an F-15?


Yeah, this is a fair point too. I do recall hearing it's "by far, the fastest aircraft we've got" - something to that effect. Sidebar: Is the F-15 really capable of Mach 2.5? Obviously, it'd need to be clean but I was just wondering.

It seems as if Mach 1.4/Mach 1.6 are the highest attributed combat airspeeds obtained to the F-15/F-14 respectively.

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2017, 14:55
by tacf-x
mixelflick wrote:
sferrin wrote:
mixelflick wrote: Also, no one, not even fighter pilots, is immune to hyperbole either. Sure the F-22 is fast. MiG-31 fast? No, and it doesn't even need to.


What's more likely, that Paul Metz, Chief Test Pilot of both the YF-23 and F-22A, resorted to hyperbole on the record, or that the F-22 is actually almost as fast as an F-15?


Yeah, this is a fair point too. I do recall hearing it's "by far, the fastest aircraft we've got" - something to that effect. Sidebar: Is the F-15 really capable of Mach 2.5? Obviously, it'd need to be clean but I was just wondering.

It seems as if Mach 1.4/Mach 1.6 are the highest attributed combat airspeeds obtained to the F-15/F-14 respectively.


The F-15 can only really get to just below Mach 2.5 at about 50,000 ft IIRC. Any lower and it drops to Mach 2.3 or so.

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2017, 15:04
by sferrin
tacf-x wrote:The F-15 can only really get to just below Mach 2.5 at about 50,000 ft IIRC. Any lower and it drops to Mach 2.3 or so.


Mach 2.5 is always the maximum given. Mach 2.7 was the original requirement but it was dropped to Mach 2.5 in order to get the "bubble canopy". (The original concept had a Tomcat-like windscreen.) Can it ACTUALLY do Mach 2.5? Don't know. Where have you heard it couldn't?

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2017, 16:17
by SpudmanWP
mixelflick wrote:It seems as if Mach 1.4/Mach 1.6 are the highest attributed combat airspeeds obtained to the F-15/F-14 respectively.


I can't place the source, but I recall a USAF General saying that the F-15 has gone > mach1.2 in combat ~"maybe a handful of times". This is one of the reason why they did not spec the F-35 above mach 1.6.

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2017, 22:14
by viper12
Check page 346 (A9-4C) and beyond : http://www.avialogs.com/viewer/avialogs ... hp?id=3704

When clean and with an engine trim of 97.7%, the F100-PW-100 powered F-15A/C has a top speed a bit below Mach 2.25 on a standard day. A lightly loaded one (4 AIM-7, 4 AIM-9 and the centerline pylon), is a bit above Mach 1.8 in the same conditions.

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2017, 22:41
by disconnectedradical
sferrin wrote:
tacf-x wrote:The F-15 can only really get to just below Mach 2.5 at about 50,000 ft IIRC. Any lower and it drops to Mach 2.3 or so.


Mach 2.5 is always the maximum given. Mach 2.7 was the original requirement but it was dropped to Mach 2.5 in order to get the "bubble canopy". (The original concept had a Tomcat-like windscreen.) Can it ACTUALLY do Mach 2.5? Don't know. Where have you heard it couldn't?


On a standard day atmosphere conditions, no it can't. A clean F-15C with no adapters or launchers and with F100-PW-220 tops out at Mach 2.45. It can go over Mach 2.5 if the air temperature is 10 degrees colder than standard day. If you add launchers and adapters it drops down to Mach 2.35 on standard day, and adding weapons will just make it go lower.

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2017, 16:25
by mixelflick
SpudmanWP wrote:
mixelflick wrote:It seems as if Mach 1.4/Mach 1.6 are the highest attributed combat airspeeds obtained to the F-15/F-14 respectively.


I can't place the source, but I recall a USAF General saying that the F-15 has gone > mach1.2 in combat ~"maybe a handful of times". This is one of the reason why they did not spec the F-35 above mach 1.6.


Understand, why pay for the capability (greater than 1.6) if you're not going to use it?

As for the maximum quoted mach # for the F-15, I think it was Dozer in Bosnia vs. the Mig-29 where I read he hit Mach 1.4. As for the Tomcat, there's an Iranian pilot on youtube claiming he hit Mach 1.6 chasing a Foxbat. I suppose the USAF finally come to grips with "speed isn't life" only recently (after years of reviewing the Desert Storm/Iraq 2 and Bosnia air wars).

Will we see a fighter capable of Mach 3 ever again? Yep. Although it will almost certainly be Russia's Mig-31 replacement, assuming that makes it off the drawing boards...

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2017, 19:30
by sferrin
disconnectedradical wrote:
sferrin wrote:
tacf-x wrote:The F-15 can only really get to just below Mach 2.5 at about 50,000 ft IIRC. Any lower and it drops to Mach 2.3 or so.


Mach 2.5 is always the maximum given. Mach 2.7 was the original requirement but it was dropped to Mach 2.5 in order to get the "bubble canopy". (The original concept had a Tomcat-like windscreen.) Can it ACTUALLY do Mach 2.5? Don't know. Where have you heard it couldn't?


On a standard day atmosphere conditions, no it can't. A clean F-15C with no adapters or launchers and with F100-PW-220 tops out at Mach 2.45. It can go over Mach 2.5 if the air temperature is 10 degrees colder than standard day. If you add launchers and adapters it drops down to Mach 2.35 on standard day, and adding weapons will just make it go lower.


The original -100 engine had a bit more power than a -220. The -229 certainly does. The F-15C/D also gained weight over the A/B (see page 1-2 of your document). The graphs on pages 5-7 and 5-8 both show 1 minute transients of Mach 2.5 are allowed.

Capture.PNG


And from, "F-15 Eagle Origins and Development" page 30:

Capture2.PNG

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2017, 20:01
by jetblast16
sferrin has it. The original F-15A was pretty fast, like around 800 knots CAS fast at 36,000 feet, completely clean. That's 1,600+ mph.

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2017, 02:13
by sprstdlyscottsmn
sferrin wrote:The original -100 engine had a bit more power than a -220.

Sea Level Static Uninstalled Thrust, sure. The -220 had more Dynamic thrust at most operational conditions.

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2017, 18:16
by jetblast16
Also, the removal of the exhaust nozzle petals resulted in an aerodynamic drag increase, over the original F-15A.

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2017, 23:58
by phantasm
sferrin wrote:
tacf-x wrote:The F-15 can only really get to just below Mach 2.5 at about 50,000 ft IIRC. Any lower and it drops to Mach 2.3 or so.


Mach 2.5 is always the maximum given. Mach 2.7 was the original requirement but it was dropped to Mach 2.5 in order to get the "bubble canopy". (The original concept had a Tomcat-like windscreen.) Can it ACTUALLY do Mach 2.5? Don't know. Where have you heard it couldn't?

Wouldn't the original requirement come from the F-15 being designed in part because of the Mig -25 Foxbat?

So , there was a worry the Eagle couldn't catch a Foxbat in a chase and might need to play that game

and funny enough ,look what eventually actually happened after it was developed- Foxbats outrunning Eagles....(granted not too often)

(I assume the Foxhound would have a harder time replicating the feat, and for what it's worth, suspect the Foxbat would manage to catch a running Foxhound, and that a F-22 would be the plane of choice to catch a going-for-broke Foxbat/FoxHound/Blackbird trying to get away over say a clean F-15 with a minimal number of AMRAAMS if you had a presumed (or real, for that matter) Mach 3 target running around seemingly untouchable to weapons that all run out of initial fuel and can't play catch-up while gliding.

I've seen many hold fast that a Eagle however, is what you'd want to try to get a target running around like that. IF we ever see that proposed Mig-41 or they cough out a Mach 3 Blackjack - we'll see. Mach 2.5 or 2.8, the Raptor's internal bay should be a benefit against a Eagle also trying to catch up to the same Mach 3 foe.

That's an interesting prediction that we will see another Mach 3 fighter for sure. I actually am of the same mind, but....suspect it will be a long time- perhaps until some country with Foxbats (or maybe Foxhounds) starts using them in a way that we see more of them outrunning other planes as the one that nabbed a Hornet did.
Probably more likely to see a Mach 3 fighter than Bomber I suspect.

That note on the origins of the Eagle notes increased Titanium would have been needed- I guess that indicates significant heating occurs even before the Mach 3 zone.

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2017, 01:37
by alloycowboy
High speed supersonic fghter airplanes were originally intended to intercept high speed supersonic bombers at short range on short notice but when all the supersonic bombers got cancelled in lieu of ICBM's the need for mach 3 bombers dissolved.

Also the amount of fuel required to do a mach two plus supersonic dash isn't really worth the effort since drag is the square of the velocity and thrust must equal or exceed the drag the fighter goes bingo fuel to fast to make it operationally useful. For instance the combat radius of the mig 25 was only 300 KM which when compared to some thing like the Patriot missile system is relatively comparable given the required mission.

With that being said it is easy to see why the USAF dropped the mach 2 requirement for the F-22 and F-35 as it just wasn't useful. Instead of a high ultimtate speed specification of mach 2 it was operationally realized that a high average speed in realm of mach 1.6 to mach 1.8 was more then adequate given the operational historical data of how fourth genration fighers were actually used in combat configuration.

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2017, 05:01
by tacf-x
alloycowboy wrote:High speed supersonic fghter airplanes were originally intended to intercept high speed supersonic bombers at short range on short notice but when all the supersonic bombers got cancelled in lieu of ICBM's the need for mach 3 bombers dissolved.

Also the amount of fuel required to do a mach two plus supersonic dash isn't really worth the effort since drag is the square of the velocity and thrust must equal or exceed the drag the fighter goes bingo fuel to fast to make it operationally useful. For instance the combat radius of the mig 25 was only 300 KM which when compared to some thing like the Patriot missile system is relatively comparable given the required mission.

With that being said it is easy to see why the USAF dropped the mach 2 requirement for the F-22 and F-35 as it just wasn't useful. Instead of a high ultimtate speed specification of mach 2 it was operationally realized that a high average speed in realm of mach 1.6 to mach 1.8 was more then adequate given the operational historical data of how fourth genration fighers were actually used in combat configuration.


Not only that but the Mig-25's engines were over-optimized strictly for high speed flight. The engines consisted of a low OPR single-spool turbine which meant fuel consumption at low speeds and altitudes was going to be crap as well. The reason why low compressor pressure ratios are desired for high-speed flight is because all you really need for compression at ~Mach 3 is the ram compression from the intake ramps, shockwaves and diffuser. The turbomachinery would only increase the likelihood of overtemping the turbine inlet at those speeds.

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2017, 15:38
by mixelflick
OK... does anyone know the top speed (clean) of an F-15 with those bigger, more powerful GE motors?

They all seem to be Strike Eagle derivatives, but assuming you take the FAST packs/CFT's and everything else off....? Any guesses vs. the Pratt and Whitney birds?

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2017, 15:41
by sferrin
mixelflick wrote:OK... does anyone know the top speed (clean) of an F-15 with those bigger, more powerful GE motors?


The P&W -229s are as powerful as the F110s. (I'd think they'd do even better at high altitude/speed.)

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2017, 16:28
by f-16adf
The F-15's top speed with GE F110-129 or PW F100-229 will probably be the same as the PW -220 powered jets. They are restricted because of the canopy starting to melt.

It says it in Col. Dildy's book: F-15 Eagle Engaged: The world's most successful jet fighter

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2017, 20:49
by disconnectedradical
mixelflick wrote:OK... does anyone know the top speed (clean) of an F-15 with those bigger, more powerful GE motors?

They all seem to be Strike Eagle derivatives, but assuming you take the FAST packs/CFT's and everything else off....? Any guesses vs. the Pratt and Whitney birds?


Believe it or not, according to the F-15E flight manual, the top speed with the -229 motors is actually lower at Mach 2.3 than with the -220 motors, which tops out at Mach 2.4 (the lighter single seat F-15C with the same motors go Mach 2.45). To be honest I'm not sure why this is the case. But the acceleration charts shows the -229 motors are much better though.

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2017, 21:47
by sprstdlyscottsmn
The -229 has better performance sub-Mach2.2 and much better altitude performance. That was my take away from the F-15E charts. Oh, but just look at the acceleration or envelope diagrams for 12 mk82s. That is where the -229 really shines, high weight and high drag configs.

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2017, 23:44
by phantasm
tacf-x wrote:
alloycowboy wrote:High speed supersonic fghter airplanes were originally intended to intercept high speed supersonic bombers at short range on short notice but when all the supersonic bombers got cancelled in lieu of ICBM's the need for mach 3 bombers dissolved.

Also the amount of fuel required to do a mach two plus supersonic dash isn't really worth the effort since drag is the square of the velocity and thrust must equal or exceed the drag the fighter goes bingo fuel to fast to make it operationally useful. For instance the combat radius of the mig 25 was only 300 KM which when compared to some thing like the Patriot missile system is relatively comparable given the required mission.

With that being said it is easy to see why the USAF dropped the mach 2 requirement for the F-22 and F-35 as it just wasn't useful. Instead of a high ultimtate speed specification of mach 2 it was operationally realized that a high average speed in realm of mach 1.6 to mach 1.8 was more then adequate given the operational historical data of how fourth genration fighers were actually used in combat configuration.


Not only that but the Mig-25's engines were over-optimized strictly for high speed flight. The engines consisted of a low OPR single-spool turbine which meant fuel consumption at low speeds and altitudes was going to be crap as well. The reason why low compressor pressure ratios are desired for high-speed flight is because all you really need for compression at ~Mach 3 is the ram compression from the intake ramps, shockwaves and diffuser. The turbomachinery would only increase the likelihood of overtemping the turbine inlet at those speeds.

Likewise for the Blackbird....

So if the Raptor was optimized for high speed flight- it's efficiency would go up when doing that sort of work, and it would have a option that only Foxbats/Foxhounds have- outrunning enemy air to air missiles/fighters....

It'd be hell on the RAM....and that would be the next challenge- but it seems like that is a valuable option to have-

I can't imagine the havoc a even somewhat low-observable fighter could do while also operating for long periods of time at high speed...Not only hard to lock on-to ,but also moving a bit quickly to follow. keep an eye on. Of course, IRST's would be more valuable for such targets when tracking- but as far as getting to it- that would be difficult.


I also forsee a lot of cases that we can't perform- such as something operating at those speeds being able to cruise at 80,000 ft with ease at least- and if also low-observable, very hard for enemy fighters or bombers to evade. And the standoff weapon range would be vastly increased.

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2017, 23:51
by sferrin
phantasm wrote:Likewise for the Blackbird....


Not so. The Mig-25 had a low pressure ratio engine because they didn't want it to melt at speed, when the inlet system was feeding it compressed air. All air entering the Tumanskys went through the turbine section. The J58 in the Blackbird got around this by piping the air AROUND the turbine section and dumping it into the afterburner. The J93 of the XB-70 was more like the Tumansky.

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2017, 03:13
by tacf-x
Sferrin is correct. The SR-71 basically just used its 6 bypass tubes with a favorable pressure delta between compressor and afterburner to force a lot of the air around most of the turbomachinery. There really is no point or desire for a Raptor to ever be able to reach the speed of the Blackbird. The aircraft just structurally can't handle it since aerothermodynamic effects increase with the square of the mach number.

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2017, 15:21
by mixelflick
sferrin wrote:
mixelflick wrote:OK... does anyone know the top speed (clean) of an F-15 with those bigger, more powerful GE motors?


The P&W -229s are as powerful as the F110s. (I'd think they'd do even better at high altitude/speed.)


Right, but those are Strike Eagles correct? And not F-15C's...

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2017, 20:08
by sprstdlyscottsmn
To get an idea of that look at the HAF F-16 -1 and you can see how -229 and -129 differ in the same airframe. You can then look at the F-15E-1 to see how the eagle planform does with -229 and make a guess that the -129 should have similar differences as it does in the F-16.

Areas that may cause this to fall apart completely are the fact that the F-16 has a fixed inlet and the Eagle doesn't. If the -129 is "4" better than the -229 in the F-16, but the -229 in the F-15 is "3" better than the -229 in the F-16 while the -129 is only "1" better than it would be in the F-16 then the -129 in the F-15 would only be "2" better than the -229 in the F-15. Or vice versa. If that made sense.

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2017, 20:40
by sferrin
mixelflick wrote:
sferrin wrote:
mixelflick wrote:OK... does anyone know the top speed (clean) of an F-15 with those bigger, more powerful GE motors?


The P&W -229s are as powerful as the F110s. (I'd think they'd do even better at high altitude/speed.)


Right, but those are Strike Eagles correct? And not F-15C's...


There are no F-15Cs with bigger motors. They're all variants of the F-15E.

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2017, 21:32
by sprstdlyscottsmn
sferrin wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
Right, but those are Strike Eagles correct? And not F-15C's...


There are no F-15Cs with bigger motors. They're all variants of the F-15E.


Yes, and a 44,000lb "Clean AC" F-15E is not dissimilar to an F-15C save the larger canopy.

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2017, 23:23
by phantasm
tacf-x wrote:Sferrin is correct. The SR-71 basically just used its 6 bypass tubes with a favorable pressure delta between compressor and afterburner to force a lot of the air around most of the turbomachinery. There really is no point or desire for a Raptor to ever be able to reach the speed of the Blackbird. The aircraft just structurally can't handle it since aerothermodynamic effects increase with the square of the mach number.



Funny, I just mentioned this, and it happened to make a note in the news

https://www.rt.com/news/400687-russian- ... tor-space/

I know it's rt, and between the laser stuff and the rest of stuff coming out on it now proclaiming it a space fighter... It's a little boastful.

But, it does bring up the fact they are working on a Mach 4 plane, and that will be an issue... Unless the still-in SR-72 gets an anti air missile capability, or we resurrect the Phoenix from the dead, we'll be using Raptors (or Eagles) slinging AMRAAMS, and the velocity boost from the fighter won't last long, leaving it at eventual terminal speed of Mach 4 against a 4- 4.3 plane.

Since we will be facing planes like this...
Doing something along the lines of 'buffing' the Raptor will be a cheaper option than a lot of other ideas to handle Mach 4+planes

On a unrelated note, I saw something that indicated the Mig 25 had more in common with the A5 than the Eagle does with the Mig, despite having a similar planform..

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2017, 23:54
by sferrin
phantasm wrote:On a unrelated note, I saw something that indicated the Mig 25 had more in common with the A5 than the Eagle does with the Mig, despite having a similar planform..


Wut?

gGs7Ml5.jpg

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2017, 00:39
by phantasm
sferrin wrote:
phantasm wrote:On a unrelated note, I saw something that indicated the Mig 25 had more in common with the A5 than the Eagle does with the Mig, despite having a similar planform..


Wut?

gGs7Ml5.jpg


The comment I saw was in terms of design inspiration - and reflecting on how many Eastern and Western planes to take a few cues from planes before them - and was reflecting on how the designing of the Eagle may not have been as directly influenced by the Mig -25 as is thought.

Now, conversely, I feel there's little chance the T-50/SU-57 isn't more-than-other-planes inspired from the Raptor

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2017, 00:44
by f-16adf
I read the same thing about the Viggie/Mig-25. Can't remember the name of the book, though-

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2017, 00:45
by vanshilar
phantasm wrote:Funny, I just mentioned this, and it happened to make a note in the news

https://www.rt.com/news/400687-russian- ... tor-space/


From the article:

“It will have certain elements of artificial intelligence built into the jet, because, obviously, flying at those speeds, the human brain is not capable of thinking that fast,” Poli told RT. “There are a lot of new technologies going to be put into this aircraft, for sure.”

Hahahahaha. I don't know what's supposed to be there other than just fly-by-wire. But it'll have cool new artificial intelligence, because the human brain can't think fast enough at those speeds! The Apollo spacecraft must've had amazing artificial intelligence.

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2017, 01:10
by phantasm
vanshilar wrote:
phantasm wrote:Funny, I just mentioned this, and it happened to make a note in the news

https://www.rt.com/news/400687-russian- ... tor-space/


From the article:

“It will have certain elements of artificial intelligence built into the jet, because, obviously, flying at those speeds, the human brain is not capable of thinking that fast,” Poli told RT. “There are a lot of new technologies going to be put into this aircraft, for sure.”

Hahahahaha. I don't know what's supposed to be there other than just fly-by-wire. But it'll have cool new artificial intelligence, because the human brain can't think fast enough at those speeds! The Apollo spacecraft must've had amazing artificial intelligence.

Or the Shuttle.

You should see some of the others that are adamant that it's a "space fighter"
...I'm sure whenever a fighter or interceptor actually can zoom climb, let alone do sustained flight at anywhere near 300,000 ft, that we'll have called all the planes leading up to it space fighters as well.

you'd think that if planes needed AI to help because of the velocity, that rocket cars would have them as well.

Re: F-22 Raptor speed

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2017, 05:14
by sferrin
phantasm wrote:
sferrin wrote:
phantasm wrote:On a unrelated note, I saw something that indicated the Mig 25 had more in common with the A5 than the Eagle does with the Mig, despite having a similar planform..


Wut?

gGs7Ml5.jpg


The comment I saw was in terms of design inspiration -


It was a joke. Sure, the story is that MiG was "inspired" by the A-5 Vigilante, but I think this design had far more influence. It was approximately the same time as the Vigilante and also North American.