F-22 Raptor speed

[bf-fly]

Why don't you guys give your pissing contest a break.

[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).

[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.

[Raptor_One]

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."

[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)

[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?

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.

[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.

[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

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!

[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.

[Raptor_One]

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. 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.

[FireFox137]

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. 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)

[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.

[bf-fly]

Sorry Bass ackwards, the quote is my post, the non quote is what I responded to

[Raptor_claw]

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...

[checksixx]

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