Fighter Pilot Podcast ep 61... F-22 RAPTOR!

Enjoy!

VERY interesting listen...

Pilot interviewed said when flying clean, the Raptor has the same endurace as an F-15C with 2 bags (he's also a former F-15C pilot). Also said Raptors have tangled with SU-35's over Syria, and found the F-22 bested it handily. Those weren't his exact words, but that was the gist of it...

Some details how F-22 accelerate to super cruising speed with AB. I think around 54 mark.
mach 0.9 to 1.3 with AB, climb to 45-60k ft, accelerate to 1.5, switch to military power. They dont want to stay in 0.9-1.2 region too long.

It just confirms what many members on this forum said before. And show context for quote about mach 1.2 F-35 super cruise is not particularly useful.

VERY interesting listen...

Pilot interviewed said when flying clean, the Raptor has the same endurace as an F-15C with 2 bags (he's also a former F-15C pilot).

This quote should include IFR part.

I'll never have an hour to myself to listen to this. I need a transcript. LOL.

Some details how F-22 accelerate to super cruising speed with AB. I think around 54 mark.
mach 0.9 to 1.3 with AB, climb to 45-60k ft, accelerate to 1.5, switch to military power. They dont want to stay in 0.9-1.2 region too long.

It just confirms what many members on this forum said before. And show context for quote about mach 1.2 F-35 super cruise is not particularly useful.

It starts at the 53:20 mark when they start to talk about supercruise and its tactical use for the F-22. The mach 1.2 for the F-35 is more of dash than an actual cruise speed for an extended duration. I believe he is talking about the most optimal and quickest way to get at speed and altitude desired. In testing they have proven the F-22 can go supersonic at full-mil... if you can get at altitude and speed faster, why not?

... the Raptor has the same endurace as an F-15C with 2 bags.

It may have similar endurance, but the cruise speed will be much higher for same fuel flow rate, or same altitude, thus a substantial difference in achievable range.

I'll never have an hour to myself to listen to this. I need a transcript. LOL.

same feel man, I heard they talked about ALR-94, but I don't know what part.

... the Raptor has the same endurace as an F-15C with 2 bags.

It may have similar endurance, but the cruise speed will be much higher for same fuel flow rate, or same altitude, thus a substantial difference in achievable range.

Meaning much greater range for the Raptor, correct?

If so that's an important point, and i'm glad you pointed it out. We often hear about how the Raptor's range is really sub par. I don't think that's fair at all. LM got what, almost 80% of an F-15E's typical fuel load but all internal?

F-15E with 2 CFT: 23,350lbs
F-22A all internal: 18,000lbs

That's pretty damn impressive IMO, especially given as you pointed out cruise speed being much higher with similar fuel flow rate. Sure, the F-35 is even more impressive but anyone accusing the Raptor of having short legs just isn't in touch with reality...

F-22 range isn't bad and fine for European operations. When people say it has short legs it's more about Pacific operations, and compared to F-23. But for Pacific operations even F-23 range wouldn't be enough, so we need some big aerodynamic and propulsion innovations to make a fighter suitable for fighting in Pacific.

F-22 range isn't bad and fine for European operations. When people say it has short legs it's more about Pacific operations, and compared to F-23. But for Pacific operations even F-23 range wouldn't be enough, so we need some big aerodynamic and propulsion innovations to make a fighter suitable for fighting in Pacific.

Looking at the unrefueled strike radius and ferry range across the Pacific the F-35A/C already has impressive reach and coverage for that geography. With higher thrust and better fuel efficiency for higher cruising speed and/or a CFT upgrade, F-35A/C should become an unbeatable force for decades to come in the Western Pacific's geography. The F-22A is likely to mirror F-35A reach.

The real problem is projecting a continuous VLO air presence over China. That is going to be much harder to establish or sustain for long. The propulsion development is moving in the right direction, so if you have better VLO with that and are prepared to settle for a slightly lower power-to-weight ratio than a USAF F-35A (in 2030), you could make a heavy fighter that's able to persist for a couple of hours over China's interior. Add escorted tactical VLO drone tanking over the littoral margins, to get fighters back to a full-sized tanker or a base, and contesting and holding the airspace over China's interior becomes doable.

Or perhaps a large PCA tanker refuels each PCA OCA fighter on the way out to RTB?

But when passive detection and targeting sensors combine with cheap high-energy solid-state laser networks, a VLO PCA or B-21 may not be able to survive over China for long. Recently there's this new emphasis on millisecond-level response to directed energy attacks on aircraft, but it's hard to see how this can overcome it being hit by multiple networked directed-energy types simultaneously. If anti-access 2.0 can thermally burn, damage and hole the skin or incinerate a sensor aperture the aircraft hit is going to be even easier to track and target from there (at which point SAMs may work). If China proliferates a cheap DAS-like IRST all over the country which can seamlessly scan the sky in overlapping hemispheric bubbles up to 70,000 ft, a robust passive-laser targeting system becomes possible without using satellites. Plus potentially provides early-warning and defenses against VLO cruise-missiles. They're bound to pursue that sort of mainland anti-access network, if they can 'master' (or steal) the technology. It's just a matter of when they get to that level and can field it.

It's not really feasible to have a seamless DAS network covering China, that can also look up to 70k feet. 1) economically and logistically not possible. 2) too many environmental factors would prevent such a system from working like that. Even IRSTs that are airborne and looking for targets at similar altitudes have significant issues with seeing through moisture/clouds/varying ambient temperatures. A ground based system would have even greater environmental interference. 3) imagine the sensor fusion needed, for tens of thousands of sensors (much less providing targeting level granularity. )

He did seem to mention that it does have helmet cueing and not HMDS. I thought that was killed by sequestration.

He did seem to mention that it does have helmet cueing and not HMDS. I thought that was killed by sequestration.

More accurately is that he said it doesn't have JHMCS because of the shape of the canopy and the size of the system. Originally the Scorpion sight and cueing system was "killed" by the sequestration of the Obama Administration. It seems however the quest for some form of sight and cueing system for the Raptor has been partially resurrected and put on the back burner.

He did seem to mention that it does have helmet cueing and not HMDS. I thought that was killed by sequestration.

More accurately is that he said it doesn't have JHMCS because of the shape of the canopy and the size of the system. Originally the Scorpion sight and cueing system was "killed" by the sequestration of the Obama Administration. It seems however the quest for some form of sight and cueing system for the Raptor has been partially resurrected and put on the back burner.

That's part of the MLU. F-22s are supposed to get some sort of HMS, as part of their upgrades.