F-22 Raptor speed

Anything goes, as long as it is about the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

bf-fly

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 191
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2006, 04:58

Unread post02 Oct 2006, 19:30

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.
Offline

bf-fly

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 191
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2006, 04:58

Unread post02 Oct 2006, 19:32

And by the way, that's midfield KLFI to midfield KDCA, about 2 1/2 miles shorter than the actual distance.
Offline

bf-fly

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 191
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2006, 04:58

Unread post02 Oct 2006, 20:16

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.
Offline

Raptor_claw

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 322
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2006, 07:11

Unread post02 Oct 2006, 20:34

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.
Offline

MKopack

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 860
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2004, 22:51
  • Location: North Carolina, USA

Unread post02 Oct 2006, 21:01

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.
F-16A/B/C/D P&W/GE Crew Chief and Phased Maint.
56TTW/63TFTS 1987-1989
401TFW/614TFS 1989-1991
Offline

checksixx

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1525
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2005, 04:28
  • Location: Langley AFB, VA

Unread post02 Oct 2006, 21:23

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
Offline

checksixx

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1525
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2005, 04:28
  • Location: Langley AFB, VA

Unread post02 Oct 2006, 21:32

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
Offline

FireFox137

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 130
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2006, 19:25

Unread post02 Oct 2006, 22:43

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.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5565
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post02 Oct 2006, 23:24

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.
Offline

Raptor_One

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1092
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2004, 08:19

Unread post02 Oct 2006, 23:34

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.
Offline

Raptor_One

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1092
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2004, 08:19

Unread post02 Oct 2006, 23:40

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.
Offline

Raptor_claw

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 322
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2006, 07:11

Unread post03 Oct 2006, 00:34

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.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5565
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post03 Oct 2006, 00:52

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."
Offline

Raptor_One

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1092
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2004, 08:19

Unread post03 Oct 2006, 01:15

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.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5565
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post03 Oct 2006, 01:23

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.
PreviousNext

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests