F22 top speed @ sea level

F-14B, uses F110-GE-400, not F414.

It's interesting that the F-14B would be so fast at low level since you wouldn't think its mission parameters would really focus much low level flight.

It's interesting that the F-14B would be so fast at low level since you wouldn't think its mission parameters would really focus much low level flight.

True, but it shouldn't be too hard for the F-14 considering an F-14 with fully swept wings would offer a planform with low wave drag due not only to the high leading edge sweep but also the minimized thickness to camber ratio that arises from the wings sweeping back. When you couple that with a very high wing loading and the F-14 should be able to pierce through the high-density air at high speed ALMOST like an F-111. There's the tunnel to take into consideration which reduces the wing loading a bit and increases drag somewhat compared to say, an F-111 or TSR-2 or Tornado but for the most part the F-14 should be able to handle the high Q flight without bouncing around too violently.

Even the engines didn't make much of a difference. Here is a report that supports Scottsman's claim. http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/04/f-14a-versus-the-f-14b/

Apparently both F-14A and F-14B easily handled the drag divergence at Mach 0.9 while the F/A-18 was pretty much screwed in the drag race once it reached that speed.

If I remember correctly, carrying an external load at low altitude, the F-14 was faster than anything. Clean, though, something may have been a bit faster.

the difference is the the design point of the F-111 (and thus the intake design point as well) was high Q low alt. The engines did stellar in the -111 compared to the -14A. And much of the issue with the TF30 in the Grumman was the rapid throttle movement associated with fighter maneuvering.

Actually, early in the F-111's career the TF30 didn't do well there, either. it took a number of enhancements and extensive redesign of the intakes to cure the problems in the 'Vaark". Part of the problem stemmed from the fact that the basic design originated with the F6D and that application did not have any requirement for afterburner, and basically all the engine was required to do was motor around the sky at medium altitudes and be economical. Quite a change for the F-111 role, and even more so for the Tomcat. The TF30 was very sensitive to airflow. Early A-7s had problems as well, especially coming off the cat. . Ironically, the problems there were solved when USAF bought the A-7D. Pratt couldn't meet the production schedule to supply TF30s and Allison offered the TF41, which besides solving a number of issues offered more thrust. Navy then turned around and ordered a version of the Air Force model as the A-7E, also with the TF41.

MiG-29 was no slouch at low altitude.

I've been looking at F-22 article from AFM 8/2008 by Mark Ayton, and it claims that the Raptor will do Mach 1.4 at sea level.

I don't know, but that figure just seems utterly ridiculous.

So, based on numerous sources, I think we can say the limit of F-22 at sea level is 800 knots or Mach 1.2. Apparently it has enough thrust and good aerodynamics that drag isn't the problem, but structure. I think 800 knots is about the limit of all fighters on the deck, including F-111, Tornado, F-16. Even the MiG-31, which is designed specifically for high speed even at low altitude, is limited to 1,500 km/h, just barely over 800 knots. Looking back at Mark Ayton AFM numbers, it also lists 800 knots but the Mach 1.4 number seems to be a mistake on the author's part of dividing 800 knots by speed of sound at high altitude, in reality it should be Mach 1.2.