Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Scorpion82 wrote:

Thumper3181 wrote:

http://www.af.mil/information/factsheet ... asp?id=199

Other reputable, reliable sources quote the numbers in excess of M 1.5.

You obviously missed my point, the point is that the numbers on the official websites aren't necessarily the ultimate once. You often have KPPs and that's it.

Quote:

The engines in the Typhoon in Singapore where the 1.5 report came from where "ringers" they where not typical production units.

Any reliable source for it?

Quote:

Please don't try to continue to derail the thread.

Me derailing the thread? I made a single post to reply to a statement of yours which is incorrect according my info. So how I'm derailing this thread and you not?

No I did not miss your point you where the one that claimed the Air Force stated that F-22 SC is M 1.5. Clearly that is not the case as I showed you in the attached AF fact sheet.

Now show me the KPP that the RAF, Luftwaffe, Aeronautica Militare, or Spanish Air Force published as a design parameter for EF. You brought it up, you provide the proof.

You are indeed the one that is derailing this thread since your information has been proven via published sources to be wrong.

F-16.net Sponsor

The USAF sheet states "speed: Mach 2 with super cruise capability", it doesn't state it supercruises at mach 2, but that mach 2 class is its top speed and that it has a supercruise capability.

@Thumper,
EF demonstrated M1.23 (~M1.5 is from EF's official site) in Singapore and RAF pilots reported flying regularly M1.3 in QRA load (2 tanks + 8 missiles), during 2008/09, on a half (maybe even less) of F22's thrust.
Do you need more clues to figure out what I've been saying?

To conclude, because I'm not really here to pick a fight.
I said, F22 isn't the fastest fighter in the world and it isn't the best turning neither and it doesn't have the longest range and I can go like this all day and all that is true.
However, it has excellent combination of all of these, which puts it in the top class of fighters, today.

What's with you ppl here and the obsession of being the best in the world?
(talking about inferiority complex...)

cola wrote:

@Thumper,
EF demonstrated M1.23 (~M1.5 is from EF's official site) in Singapore and RAF pilots reported flying regularly M1.3 in QRA load (2 tanks + 8 missiles), during 2008/09, on a half (maybe even less) of F22's thrust.
Do you need more clues to figure out what I've been saying?

To conclude, because I'm not really here to pick a fight.
I said, F22 isn't the fastest fighter in the world and it isn't the best turning neither and it doesn't have the longest range and I can go like this all day and all that is true.
However, it has excellent combination of all of these, which puts it in the top class of fighters, today.

What's with you ppl here and the obsession of being the best in the world?
(talking about inferiority complex...)

It has nothing to do with best in the world and everything to do with trolling using inaccurate information from the most hyped weapons system ever. It continues to amaze me that some fan boys will take what is for all intents and purposes a lightweight interceptor designed in the late 80s for threats that never materialized in the 90s and turn it into some super world beating airplane when in fact it is a smaller F-15C with slightly improved performance. Sure it's going to have an integrated MMI, helmet mounted sight, IRST and an integrated EW system. So will the F-15SE and it will do it for less money and in many ways be more capable. So yeah I am getting sick of ignorant trolls trying to compare Typhoon with F-35 or F-22. The fact is one day it MAY have the systems and avionics to match today's super hornet with the F-15Cs performance. But so will F-15SE. So no I am just tired of your trolling using inaccurate data. Go to the other forum. There is a whole slew of people in denial over there.

Oh, btw, plenty of pilot have said F-22 SC at M2.0 but we don't take them seriously either. Just read some of the posts in this thread. Lastly, F-22 is twice the size as Tiffy so your point on thrust is moot.

Feeding troll time is over.

Eurofighter, F-35 and F-22 have very different design goals in mind albeit all of them with strong AA capabilities, depending on what your requirements are you will choose one or another. If you choose AA or AG, or combined, or have territory constriction, or vast ranges, lack of man power, you will find different aircraft that best suits your mission and resource availabilities.

If you lack the money you cant have F-22 or else you run out of money to buy another plane for AG combat. Similarly if you have limited funds to buy several squadrons, infra structures and man power, or money to buy long range weapons you might want a single engine survivable fighter that can do everything AKA F-35 on a single airframe but compromises on specializations, i.e. not the fastest, nor the most agile, but a blend of capabilities.

Your probably arguing over different mind sets of what you like to see best on a fighter plane, and thus never in condition to achieve a consensus (yeah I know internet would be boring without heated debates!! Laughing

)

Fanboy is a trend word these days and everyone who doesn't comply with some people's standards and way of thinking is quickly accused for being a fanboy, trolling or whatever. Pointing out inaccuracies is at best trolling in the eyes of real fanboys, those who are narrowly focussed on something and who doesn't accept any opposing views. Whether they are true or not doesn't matter, because for them there is only one truth and that is theirs, everything else is dismissed as wrong, false, lies...

It's not pointing out the inaccuracies, it's the way it's done. There's a big difference between people who have favorites and are a bit biased and people ith an agenda. I've made that point 2 or 3 times in this thread previously so I won't bother to do it again.

cola wrote:

@Thumper,
EF demonstrated M1.23 (~M1.5 is from EF's official site) in Singapore and RAF pilots reported flying regularly M1.3 in QRA load (2 tanks + 8 missiles), during 2008/09, on a half (maybe even less) of F22's thrust.
Do you need more clues to figure out what I've been saying?

To conclude, because I'm not really here to pick a fight.
I said, F22 isn't the fastest fighter in the world and it isn't the best turning neither and it doesn't have the longest range and I can go like this all day and all that is true.
However, it has excellent combination of all of these, which puts it in the top class of fighters, today.

What's with you ppl here and the obsession of being the best in the world?
(talking about inferiority complex...)

Holy crap guys, if you think this is trolling...

Cola is obviously not saying "ZOMG Typhoon can kick F-22 **** all day!!11" If you want to see some real crazy people, go over to keypublishing where the mods are "tired of all this F-35 drivel."

I doubt the Tiffy can go that fast with tanks and 8 missiles, but that's not ban-worthy insane. It's not crazy to think an almost clean Eurofighter can do things somewhat better than an F-22... F-22's are enormous fighters with a decent fuel fraction that carry everything internally, and probably have some other slight aerodynamic trade-offs to stay LO. Saying that is not tantamount to saying the Typhoon is the ultimate fighter, it's a reasonable analysis, and you guys are shoving words into people's mouths when you make that tenuous connection (mentioning Typhoon == EuroFanboi extraordinaire).

cola wrote:

@Thumper,
EF demonstrated M1.23 (~M1.5 is from EF's official site) in Singapore and RAF pilots reported flying regularly M1.3 in QRA load (2 tanks + 8 missiles), during 2008/09, on a half (maybe even less) of F22's thrust.
Do you need more clues to figure out what I've been saying?

Well i've just looked on Eurofighters official website and can find nothing, nothing at all to back up your claims...

I take it this is the site you were referring to as it seems as if it is the official site: http://www.eurofighter.com/

Nothing on the RAF site about supercruise either: http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/typhooneurofighter.cfm

Last edited by em745 on Aug 10, 2010 - 10:42 PM; edited 1 time in total

At the risk of further derailing this topic (sorry Thumper), I'll bring up the same argument (i.e. truth) I often bring up on YouTube (which many of you know, is not wanting for fanboy trolls): Were the EF an American design and the F-22 European, you can bet your bottom dollar ALL of the "keypub" crowd would switch fighter camps. That's a given.

The claim of the EF SC-ing at Mach 1.5 is laughable at best, for reasons already mentionned. And to claim that the F-22 is somehow aerodynamically challenged?? Well, I had to come up with a new "LOL" acronym for that one: FOMCAROTFLMFAOFTM (Falling Off My Chair And Rolling On The Floor Laughing My "Freaking" A$$ Off For Ten Minutes). Even a "clean" Tiffy is freakin' dirty compared to an F-22 (which could, for all intents and purposes, be loaded for bear in this pic):

And never mind any "loaded" comparison:

Does anyone honestly think that this loaded EF will be able to SC at Mach 1.5 (????), if at all?? May as well believe that Tranche 3 will include a Romulan cloaking device. Rolling Eyes

So then, how is THIS post any different from other jingoistic fanboy rantings? I'm Canadian (eh?), so I honestly couldn't give a rat's bum where these planes are made. No bias... No agenda... No flag waving. Were the F-22 European and the EF American, my views on both would remain absolutely the same, which is to say OBJECTIVE!

So peace out, Europeans. Be proud of your EF for what it is, NOT FOR WHAT IT CLEARLY ISN'T.

Now then, back on track...

Prinz_Eugn wrote:

It's not crazy to think an almost clean Eurofighter can do things somewhat better than an F-22.

Not that it matters (a "clean" EF being tactically useless), but care to give us a [hypothetical] example?

Prinz_Eugn wrote:

F-22's are enormous fighters

So?... The EF is roughly twice the size of a MiG-21. What are we to infer from THAT?

And for Pete's sake, the F-22 isn't any more "enormous" than the F-14/15/18SH/23/117.

em745 wrote:

At the risk of further derailing this topic (sorry Thumper), I'll bring up the same argument (i.e. truth) I often bring up on YouTube (which many of you know, is not wanting for fanboy trolls): Were the EF an American design and the F-22 European, you can bet your bottom dollar ALL of the "keypub" crowd would switch fighter camps. That's a given.

The claim of the EF SC-ing at Mach 1.5 is laughable at best, for reasons already mentionned. And to claim that the F-22 is somehow aerodynamically challenged?? Well, I had to come up with a new "LOL" acronym for that one: FOMCAROTFLMFAOFTM (Falling Off My Chair And Rolling On The Floor Laughing My "Freaking" A$$ Off For Ten Minutes). Even a "clean" Tiffy is freakin' dirty compared to an F-22 (which could, for all intents and purposes, be loaded for bear in this pic):

And never mind any "loaded" comparison:

Does anyone honestly think that this loaded EF will be able to SC at Mach 1.5 (????), if at all?? May as well believe that Tranche 3 will include a Romulan cloaking device. Rolling Eyes

So then, how is THIS post any different from other jingoistic fanboy rantings? I'm Canadian (eh?), so I honestly couldn't give a rat's bum where these planes are made. No bias... No agenda... No flag waving. Were the F-22 European and the EF American, my views on both would remain absolutely the same, which is to say OBJECTIVE!

So peace out, my fellow Europeans. Be proud of your EF for what it is, NOT FOR WHAT IT CLEARLY ISN'T.

Now then, back on track...

Prinz_Eugn wrote:

It's not crazy to think an almost clean Eurofighter can do things somewhat better than an F-22.

Not that it matters (a "clean" EF being tactically useless), but care to give us a [hypothetical] example?

Prinz_Eugn wrote:

F-22's are enormous fighters

So?... The EF is roughly twice the size of a MiG-21. What are we to infer from THAT?

And for Pete's sake, the F-22 isn't any more "enormous" than the F-14/15/18SH/23/117.

Ok you finally hit the 'nail on the head'...Thanks to your questions/statements i have moved ahead in my quest for basic information....And hopefully so have you. Unfortunately (for me lol)..this site Isn't really for A vs B or who's girl can go the longest or carry the most...It's more about the basic/advanced /fact/procedures/lifestyle of those many who strive to keep any airframe viable..And where we can all ask questions, please do not follow the 'he said she said' path...overall we are only guests here and really offer no input aside from our basic presence and good will to all who suffer us..

How much of the F-22's supercruise capability requirement was for A2A vs A2G. I see some places where it's said the SC requirement is to protect vs SAM shots. However, I also saw a study where there's not much protection against SAM shots until the plane is at Mach 3.

em745 wrote:

Does anyone honestly think that this loaded EF will be able to SC at Mach 1.5 (????),

Probably not. As far as I know the Brit's put it at Mach 1.1 in an a2a combat config and the German's at Mach 1.2 (or Austrian's, I can remember exactly).

Incidently the F-35 is expected to do Mach 1.05 with an internal loadout of your choice, albeit under 'certain weight conditions'. The tactical relevance is neglible.

B. Bolsøy
Oslo

Don't you have to be past 1.2 to get of the high drag region? Wha't's the point of a "supercruise" between 1.0 and 1.2 then?

shingen wrote:

How much of the F-22's supercruise capability requirement was for A2A vs A2G. I see some places where it's said the SC requirement is to protect vs SAM shots. However, I also saw a study where there's not much protection against SAM shots until the plane is at Mach 3.

M 1.8 @ 60K feet may not be enough to defeat a missile, but it is enough to let the F-22 drop a SDB on the radar site from farther away that the radar can detect its VLO signature. I have heard reports of the SDB being usable from 50 miles or more on the Raptor. Honestly it only takes an L/D of 5 to do that. Even Concord had an L/D of 7 at Mach 2.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

F-22 - True Supercruise speed?