Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

wrightwing wrote:

There were several accounts from the French- 1/5 and 2/4. The fact that the US didn't comment on that isn't a confirmation of its accuracy, especially considering the USAF claims.

The EC 1/7 CO stated 1/5 in an interview and what did the USAF claim which contradicts that?

F-16.net Sponsor

Scorpion82 wrote:

wrightwing wrote:

I'd love to know how you can state this unequivocally, but even if it is the case, the sensors are still not as capable as the F-22's. This still means less situational awareness comparitively speaking.

What headaches does it cause for you? I don't say that everything is equal, but there are a lot of similarities, much more than the average observer is willed to acknowledge. How much more capable is the AN/ALR-94 vs. DASS ESM? There is no IR component either in the F-22's sensor suite, the radar will likely offer a superior performance. At the end it's not so much about Typhoon must match the Raptor in every single area, but that the aircraft is not the teen fighter many people try to paint it as.

I'm not trying to paint it as a teen fighter(however Block 60 F-16s and AESA equipped Super Hornets are at least on par avionically speaking). As for comparing the respective ESM systems, you're not going to find an open source document discussing either in any depth. I think if one looks at not only the R&D that went into the ALR-94, as well as the antenna coverage, it's not too much of a stretch to say that it's in a different league(i.e. a mini Rivet Joint). The APG-77 will do considerably more than "likely" offer superior performance. There's a lot of "me too" with regard to other aircraft(however the fine print is rarely highlighted- i.e. the terms sensor fusion, supercruise, etc... are tossed about monolithically). The point is that not all sensor fusion is created equal, nor is all supercruise(i.e. cruising at 700-800 knots is a considerably different capability than cruising at 1200 knots in dry thrust). The competitor aircraft are generally pretty quiet about the combat radius while flying those speeds as well.

wrightwing wrote:

I'm not trying to paint it as a teen fighter(however Block 60 F-16s and AESA equipped Super Hornets are at least on par avionically speaking).

It's an ill perception that the radar makes the entire avionics suite equally advanced and capable. The radar is just one of many components which make up the avionics suite. And for that matter these aircraft (F/A-18E/F blk II etc.) are avionics wise comparable to the F-22 as well!

Quote:

As for comparing the respective ESM systems, you're not going to find an open source document discussing either in any depth.

Correct and that's true for many systems, it's subsequently not possible to claim that this or that is definitely better as many claim. Wrt the F-22 I have the impression that people believe that everything on this aircraft must be better for the sake that it is the F-22, not because available data/information say so.

Quote:

I think if one looks at not only the R&D that went into the ALR-94, as well as the antenna coverage, it's not too much of a stretch to say that it's in a different league(i.e. a mini Rivet Joint).

May or may not who knows. I'm not going to claim the opposite, but we don't know the necessary details to unequivocally state this or that as fact.

Quote:

The competitor aircraft are generally pretty quiet about the combat radius while flying those speeds as well.

Well at least wrt the Typhoon we have the 250 nm claim with 8 AAMs and internal fuel + 30 minutes of loitering time and subsonic rtb. Which is stated in an presentation to the Norwegians. I agree that not everything is necessarily equal (level of sensor fusion etc.), but without any specific details to compare you can't conclude that the F-22 fares better either.

Scorpion82 wrote:

It's an ill perception that the radar makes the entire avionics suite equally advanced and capable. The radar is just one of many components which make up the avionics suite. And for that matter these aircraft (F/A-18E/F blk II etc.) are avionics wise comparable to the F-22 as well!

Correct and that's true for many systems, it's subsequently not possible to claim that this or that is definitely better as many claim. Wrt the F-22 I have the impression that people believe that everything on this aircraft must be better for the sake that it is the F-22, not because available data/information say so.

I think the proof is in the pudding. None of the Eurocanard builders claim otherwise. There isn't just a generational jump in raw performance and RCS reduction for the F-22. The amount of R&D invested in the avionics suite dwarfs competitors, and you get what you pay for. While this isn't unequivocal evidence, it certainly is a more tenable position, than assuming parity due to no evidence countering that notion.

Quote:

May or may not who knows. I'm not going to claim the opposite, but we don't know the necessary details to unequivocally state this or that as fact.

No other fighter has an ESM antenna array like the ALR-94.

Quote:

Well at least wrt the Typhoon we have the 250 nm claim with 8 AAMs and internal fuel + 30 minutes of loitering time and subsonic rtb. Which is stated in an presentation to the Norwegians.

250nm supercruise claim at M1.3-1.5 vs. F-22 supercruise claims(AW&ST) 41 minutes supercruise(M1.7+). That gives the F-22 a considerably larger area of operation at supersonic speeds.

wrightwing wrote:

I think the proof is in the pudding. None of the Eurocanard builders claim otherwise. There isn't just a generational jump in raw performance and RCS reduction for the F-22. The amount of R&D invested in the avionics suite dwarfs competitors, and you get what you pay for. While this isn't unequivocal evidence, it certainly is a more tenable position, than assuming parity due to no evidence countering that notion.

It's not like other manufacturers haven't invested huge amounts into development of these aircraft and the aircraft aren't going to be expensive for nothing either.

Quote:

No other fighter has an ESM antenna array like the ALR-94.

There are a lot of antennas it seems, but of what technology are they, what's the frequency coverage range, sensitiveness, bearing accuracy, ranging accuracy etc. These are all details we know jack about in most cases and that's the problem. The main advantage the F-22 will retain regardless of other sensors is that due its VLO design the pilot is going to enjoy information superiority over his enemy, even if its sensors wouldn't be better.

Quote:

250nm supercruise claim at M1.3-1.5 vs. F-22 supercruise claims(AW&ST) 41 minutes supercruise(M1.7+). That gives the F-22 a considerably larger area of operation at supersonic speeds.

It certainly does and I don't think that anyone is seriously comparing the supercruise performance of these two aircraft. The F-22 had such a supercruise performance as a requirement. For the Typhoon it's just a bonus thanks to its good aerodynamics and efficient engines.

wrightwing wrote:

F-22 supercruise claims(AW&ST) 41 minutes supercruise(M1.7+). That gives the F-22 a considerably larger area of operation at supersonic speeds.

So roughly how many miles might that work out to? (can someone do the math)

shep1978 wrote:

wrightwing wrote:

F-22 supercruise claims(AW&ST) 41 minutes supercruise(M1.7+). That gives the F-22 a considerably larger area of operation at supersonic speeds.

So roughly how many miles might that work out to? (can someone do the math)

The actual quote is 41 minutes at "about mach 1.5". That translates to ~600nm. If it really is 41 minutes at M 1.7 then that's 684nm. We've debated this a bit before and I'm very skeptical that this quote includes a significant subsonic cruise segment. IMO this is basically using all the mission fuel. For example coming off the tanker, going ~600nm then having to recover or hit another tanker. I'd be delighted if I'm wrong though.

BDF wrote:

shep1978 wrote:

wrightwing wrote:

F-22 supercruise claims(AW&ST) 41 minutes supercruise(M1.7+). That gives the F-22 a considerably larger area of operation at supersonic speeds.

So roughly how many miles might that work out to? (can someone do the math)

The actual quote is 41 minutes at "about mach 1.5". That translates to ~600nm. If it really is 41 minutes at M 1.7 then that's 684nm. We've debated this a bit before and I'm very skeptical that this quote includes a significant subsonic cruise segment. IMO this is basically using all the mission fuel. For example coming off the tanker, going ~600nm then having to recover or hit another tanker. I'd be delighted if I'm wrong though.

The reason I feel you're being overly conservative, are anecdotes from other sources(i.e. the one about the pilots flying to an airshow in Oshkosh from Langley(~800 miles), and talking about how if there weren't CONUS restrictions on supersonic flight, they could make it in 25-30 minutes supercruising. As for the AW&ST quote, I don't recall a speed being mentioned, other than using the term supercruising. If were going to try and stick with the definition of what cruise means, then I think it's important to make a distinction between max dry speed, and supercruise.

On the other side official sources state a max range of 1600 nm with two drop tanks. It certainly depends what you want to compare or talk about here. Combat radius or one way range.

wrightwing wrote:

The reason I feel you're being overly conservative, are anecdotes from other sources(i.e. the one about the pilots flying to an airshow in Oshkosh from Langley(~800 miles), and talking about how if there weren't CONUS restrictions on supersonic flight, they could make it in 25-30 minutes supercruising. As for the AW&ST quote, I don't recall a speed being mentioned, other than using the term supercruising. If were going to try and stick with the definition of what cruise means, then I think it's important to make a distinction between max dry speed, and supercruise.

Luckily we have your feelings around, Wrightwing...
However, traveling 800 miles for half an hour, means the plane cruises at M2.42+!
LOL, what are you talking about?! According to LM and USAF, the plane is limited to M2.

According to manufacturer, EF is capable of producing full dry power for half an hour, at SL.
As a general rule, the turbofan at full throttle above the tropopause produces only about 1/3 of SL thrust, therefore reducing SFC by 1/3, meaning a EF can maintain a full dry for 1.5 hours at altitude.
Although there are no hard data on EJ200's thrust lapse/altitude, EF's figures are still likely higher than F22's "41 mins".

Obviously F22 is somewhat faster, but from all available public data, EF can do it longer, so it's rather moot, which one will get where and when, first.

I'm pretty sure the F-22 could outrange a Typhoon when supercruising if it was stuck at M1.2 - M1.3 like the Typhoon is. Infact i'm pretty sure it would outrange it either way.

cola wrote:

wrightwing wrote:

The reason I feel you're being overly conservative, are anecdotes from other sources(i.e. the one about the pilots flying to an airshow in Oshkosh from Langley(~800 miles), and talking about how if there weren't CONUS restrictions on supersonic flight, they could make it in 25-30 minutes supercruising. As for the AW&ST quote, I don't recall a speed being mentioned, other than using the term supercruising. If were going to try and stick with the definition of what cruise means, then I think it's important to make a distinction between max dry speed, and supercruise.

Luckily we have your feelings around, Wrightwing...
However, traveling 800 miles for half an hour, means the plane cruises at M2.42+!
LOL, what are you talking about?! According to LM and USAF, the plane is limited to M2.

According to manufacturer, EF is capable of producing full dry power for half an hour, at SL.
As a general rule, the turbofan at full throttle above the tropopause produces only about 1/3 of SL thrust, therefore reducing SFC by 1/3, meaning a EF can maintain a full dry for 1.5 hours at altitude.
Although there are no hard data on EJ200's thrust lapse/altitude, EF's figures are still likely higher than F22's "41 mins".

Obviously F22 is somewhat faster, but from all available public data, EF can do it longer, so it's rather moot, which one will get where and when, first.

Those weren't my feelings. I was pointing out comments from Raptor pilots FWIW. As for a Typhoon supercruising for 1.5hrs, I think you might want to put the pipe down(that'd be a supercruise range of 1386 miles) Shocked

And if we go by the manufacturer's claims of 250nm supercruise, that works out to roughly 18 minutes.

The sheet in fact stays 25 minutes, but that probably includes takeoff, climb to altitude and accelerating. You have to add 30 minutes loitering and 250 nm rtb at subsonic speed, factor in reserve fuel. And that's with internal fuel only as said. Some sources indicate that the Typhoon still does M 1.2+ with 2 drop tanks and AAMs.

At the end the F-22 is still considerably faster hands down. What's the true range would be interesting to know. Austrian spotters reported that Typhoon landed back after some 2 h in the air with internal fuel! Max. range on internal fuel is stated with 2600 km (1400 nm). At least USAF states max range of the F-22 with two drop tanks is 1600 nm! Considering that the F-22's internal fuel load isn't that great taking its weight into account and the amount of fuel to be burned by these powerful engines the F-22 doesn't appear to be as long legged as some seem to believe.

wrightwing wrote:

Those weren't my feelings. I was pointing out comments from Raptor pilots FWIW. As for a Typhoon supercruising for 1.5hrs, I think you might want to put the pipe down(that'd be a supercruise range of 1386 miles) Shocked

The point is you should check basics/facts before posting such stupidities and I frankly think you just made this up, because I can't believe that even the dumbest propaganda agent could have come with such a statement, let alone actual pilot.

As for the EF, the time of 1.5h is theoretical one (let's say between two tankers) and I've calculated a generic thrust lapse, which may be (and probably is) smaller for supercruising engine like EJ200.

And again, figures aren't your friends (hence empty demagogy, I guess).
EF, doing an average M1.25 above tropopause for 1.5 hours will cover ~1075nm, which is about 150 miles short of what you "figured".

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

F-22 versus Eurofighter Typhoon