F-22 Comparison

[robert arndt]

Data: F-22 Eurofighter Su-35
Raptor Typhoon Superflanker
Crew: 1 1 1
Engine: 2 P&W 2 Eurojet 2 Saturn
F-119 EJ200 AL-35F
35,000 20,250 28,218
lb each lb each lb each
Max Speed: Mach 1.70 Mach 2.0 Mach 2.35
Gun: 20mm GE 27mm Mauser 30mm GSh-30
M61A1 BK 27 linkless ----
Internal: 3 bays: N/A N/A
4 Sidewinder ---- ----
4 AIM-120A/ ---- ----
6 AIM-120C/ ---- ----
GBU-32 JDAM ---- ----
External: 4 hardpoints 13 hardpoints 12 hardpoints
5000 lb ord. ARM,ASRAAM,IRIS-T * 6 different AAMs
or fuel METEOR,STORM SHADOW, * 6 different ASMs
Features: Stealth (RAM KEPD350,ALARM,GBU-10/12 * various IR/LG/TVG
+ serrated 80% CF construction bombs
edges) * future anti-radar pod * anti-radiation
Supercruise: Yes Yes No
Radar: APG-77 CAPTOR Doppler Zhuk-PH+ rear NO12
Systems: HUD+ 4 LCDs Wide angle HUD HUD+ 3 LCDs
sidestick VTAS (Voice, Throttle, IRST
triplex FBW Stick) Helmet-mounted sight
Helmet-mounted sight quadraplex FBW
IRST ECM pods
DASS
ESM Pods
quadraplex FBW
*future FBL
Initial Order: 295 Units 148 Units None placed

[Paul F Austin]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> Data: F-22 Eurofighter Su-35
> Raptor Typhoon Superflanker
> Crew: 1 1 1
> Engine: 2 P&W 2 Eurojet 2 Saturn
> F-119 EJ200 AL-35F
> 35,000 20,250 28,218
> lb each lb each lb each
> Max Speed: Mach 1.70 Mach 2.0 Mach 2.35
> Gun: 20mm GE 27mm Mauser 30mm GSh-30
> M61A1 BK 27 linkless ----
> Internal: 3 bays: N/A N/A
> 4 Sidewinder ---- ----
> 4 AIM-120A/ ---- ----
> 6 AIM-120C/ ---- ----
> GBU-32 JDAM ---- ----
> External: 4 hardpoints 13 hardpoints 12 hardpoints
> 5000 lb ord. ARM,ASRAAM,IRIS-T * 6 different AAMs
> or fuel METEOR,STORM SHADOW, * 6 different ASMs
> Features: Stealth (RAM KEPD350,ALARM,GBU-10/12 * various
IR/LG/TVG
> + serrated 80% CF construction bombs
> edges) * future anti-radar pod * anti-radiation
> Supercruise: Yes Yes No
> Radar: APG-77 CAPTOR Doppler Zhuk-PH+ rear NO12
> Systems: HUD+ 4 LCDs Wide angle HUD HUD+ 3 LCDs
> sidestick VTAS (Voice, Throttle, IRST
> triplex FBW Stick) Helmet-mounted
sight
> Helmet-mounted sight quadraplex FBW
> IRST ECM pods
> DASS
> ESM Pods
> quadraplex FBW
> *future FBL
> Initial Order: 295 Units 148 Units None placed

That's a nice summary. You missed the Intraflight Datalinks (IDL) for the
F-22. That plays a big role in the F-22 CONOPS. Does Typhoon have that
facility? I know Grypen does.

Comparison of tankage would be helpful both internal and with external
tanks.

[Scott Ferrin]

>> Supercruise: Yes Yes No
>> Radar: APG-77 CAPTOR Doppler Zhuk-PH+ rear NO12
>> Systems: HUD+ 4 LCDs Wide angle HUD HUD+ 3 LCDs
>> sidestick VTAS (Voice, Throttle, IRST
>> triplex FBW Stick) Helmet-mounted
>sight
>> Helmet-mounted sight quadraplex FBW
>> IRST ECM pods
>> DASS
>> ESM Pods
>> quadraplex FBW
>> *future FBL
>> Initial Order: 295 Units 148 Units None placed
>
>That's a nice summary. You missed the Intraflight Datalinks (IDL) for the
>F-22.


He also seems to have left out the ESM system which is quite elaborate
in the F-22. It can take an AMRAAM shot with it without even using
it's main radar. Also he was incorrect on the F-22's speed. The mach
1.7 he lists in in dry thrust and it wasn't even max military power.
Paul Metz stated on a Discovery special that the maximum speed of the
F-22 is classified but that it will go Mach 2.5. To quote him ". .
..it's fast, I mean it's REALLY fast. It's top speed is classifed but
it will do Mach 2.5" This suggests that the top speed in afterburner
is over Mach 2.5. Paul Metz is the chief test pilot of the F-22
program.


> That plays a big role in the F-22 CONOPS. Does Typhoon have that
>facility? I know Grypen does.
>
>Comparison of tankage would be helpful both internal and with external
>tanks.


I have no idea on the Typhoon. The Flanker's is somewhere between 19k
and 20k internal. I don't know what it can carry external. I don't
recall ever seeing one with external tanks. The F-22 at first was
said to have 23,000 internal but then later I saw that it was
something like 18,700lbs. Add the roughly 20,000lbs of four 600
gallon tanks and you get 38,700lb of fuel. Roughly double the
Flanker's fuel load. For comparison an F-15E (or I I guess too) has
something like 13,500 internal, 10k in the conformal tanks and 15k
more in three 600 gallon tanks for a total of about 38,500lbs.


Six different kinds of AAMs on the Flanker? What is that, the AA-10,
AA-11, AA-12 and what AA-8? What are the other 2? R-37 was
cancelled, That air to air Krypton looking thing is a paper design
AFAIK and the AAA-AE or whatever that two stage long range missile was
has never entered service either.

[Ian Craig]

"Paul F Austin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Data: F-22 Eurofighter Su-35
> > Raptor Typhoon Superflanker
> > Crew: 1 1 1
> > Engine: 2 P&W 2 Eurojet 2 Saturn
> > F-119 EJ200 AL-35F
> > 35,000 20,250 28,218
> > lb each lb each lb each
> > Max Speed: Mach 1.70 Mach 2.0 Mach 2.35
> > Gun: 20mm GE 27mm Mauser 30mm GSh-30
> > M61A1 BK 27 linkless ----
> > Internal: 3 bays: N/A N/A
> > 4 Sidewinder ---- ----
> > 4 AIM-120A/ ---- ----
> > 6 AIM-120C/ ---- ----
> > GBU-32 JDAM ---- ----
> > External: 4 hardpoints 13 hardpoints 12 hardpoints
> > 5000 lb ord. ARM,ASRAAM,IRIS-T * 6 different
AAMs
> > or fuel METEOR,STORM SHADOW, * 6 different
ASMs
> > Features: Stealth (RAM KEPD350,ALARM,GBU-10/12 * various
> IR/LG/TVG
> > + serrated 80% CF construction bombs
> > edges) * future anti-radar pod * anti-radiation
> > Supercruise: Yes Yes No
> > Radar: APG-77 CAPTOR Doppler Zhuk-PH+ rear
NO12
> > Systems: HUD+ 4 LCDs Wide angle HUD HUD+ 3 LCDs
> > sidestick VTAS (Voice, Throttle, IRST
> > triplex FBW Stick) Helmet-mounted
> sight
> > Helmet-mounted sight quadraplex FBW
> > IRST ECM pods
> > DASS
> > ESM Pods
> > quadraplex FBW
> > *future FBL
> > Initial Order: 295 Units 148 Units None placed
>
> That's a nice summary. You missed the Intraflight Datalinks (IDL) for the
> F-22. That plays a big role in the F-22 CONOPS. Does Typhoon have that
> facility? I know Grypen does.
>
Typhoon does have a datalink capability.

There are also a lot more than 148 ordered (if the original orders go
through its over 600)

> Comparison of tankage would be helpful both internal and with external
> tanks.
>
>

[Paul F Austin]

"Ian Craig" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul F Austin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Data: F-22 Eurofighter Su-35
> > > Raptor Typhoon Superflanker
> > > Crew: 1 1 1
> > > Engine: 2 P&W 2 Eurojet 2 Saturn
> > > F-119 EJ200 AL-35F
> > > 35,000 20,250 28,218
> > > lb each lb each lb each
> > > Max Speed: Mach 1.70 Mach 2.0 Mach 2.35
> > > Gun: 20mm GE 27mm Mauser 30mm GSh-30
> > > M61A1 BK 27 linkless ----
> > > Internal: 3 bays: N/A N/A
> > > 4 Sidewinder ---- ----
> > > 4 AIM-120A/ ---- ----
> > > 6 AIM-120C/ ---- ----
> > > GBU-32 JDAM ---- ----
> > > External: 4 hardpoints 13 hardpoints 12 hardpoints
> > > 5000 lb ord. ARM,ASRAAM,IRIS-T * 6 different
> AAMs
> > > or fuel METEOR,STORM SHADOW, * 6 different
> ASMs
> > > Features: Stealth (RAM KEPD350,ALARM,GBU-10/12 * various
> > IR/LG/TVG
> > > + serrated 80% CF construction bombs
> > > edges) * future anti-radar pod *
anti-radiation
> > > Supercruise: Yes Yes No
> > > Radar: APG-77 CAPTOR Doppler Zhuk-PH+ rear
> NO12
> > > Systems: HUD+ 4 LCDs Wide angle HUD HUD+ 3 LCDs
> > > sidestick VTAS (Voice, Throttle, IRST
> > > triplex FBW Stick) Helmet-mounted
> > sight
> > > Helmet-mounted sight quadraplex FBW
> > > IRST ECM pods
> > > DASS
> > > ESM Pods
> > > quadraplex FBW
> > > *future FBL
> > > Initial Order: 295 Units 148 Units None placed
> >
> > That's a nice summary. You missed the Intraflight Datalinks (IDL) for
the
> > F-22. That plays a big role in the F-22 CONOPS. Does Typhoon have that
> > facility? I know Grypen does.
> >
> Typhoon does have a datalink capability.

There's datalinks and datalinks. Saying Typhoon has one is like saying it
has wheels. IDL manages beam direction and radiated power and uses a covert
waveform to minimize probability of detection outside the local group. At
the same time, there's sensor fusion within the local group with sensor data
passed from AC to AC so that everyone sees what anyone sees.

If you want (more than you would believe) data links, go here:
http://www.afceaeriecanal.org/AFRL.Minges.ppt for an overview of the web of
USAF links.

[robert arndt]

Scott Ferrin > wrote in message >...
> >> Supercruise: Yes Yes No
> >> Radar: APG-77 CAPTOR Doppler Zhuk-PH+ rear NO12
> >> Systems: HUD+ 4 LCDs Wide angle HUD HUD+ 3 LCDs
> >> sidestick VTAS (Voice, Throttle, IRST
> >> triplex FBW Stick) Helmet-mounted
> sight
> >> Helmet-mounted sight quadraplex FBW
> >> IRST ECM pods
> >> DASS
> >> ESM Pods
> >> quadraplex FBW
> >> *future FBL
> >> Initial Order: 295 Units 148 Units None placed
> >
> >That's a nice summary. You missed the Intraflight Datalinks (IDL) for the
> >F-22.

Sorry, the miss is not intentional as this post is all about a basic
comparison using what information is verified at the time. The Typhoon
also has the MIDS datalink.
>
>
> He also seems to have left out the ESM system which is quite elaborate
> in the F-22. It can take an AMRAAM shot with it without even using
> it's main radar. Also he was incorrect on the F-22's speed. The mach
> 1.7 he lists in in dry thrust and it wasn't even max military power.
> Paul Metz stated on a Discovery special that the maximum speed of the
> F-22 is classified but that it will go Mach 2.5. To quote him ". .
> .it's fast, I mean it's REALLY fast. It's top speed is classifed but
> it will do Mach 2.5" This suggests that the top speed in afterburner
> is over Mach 2.5. Paul Metz is the chief test pilot of the F-22
> program.

My Mach 1.7 figure is what is admitted right now, not the final speed
of the aircraft. Typhoon also is said to do Mach 2.2 but that remains
to be seen. As for the F-22 doing Mach 2.5 fully loaded- no chance.
Maybe a test aircraft but not a combat version. BTW, the F-22s ceiling
of 60,000 ft and range of 3,500 miles might be slightly off... but not
by much. I did not mention them however because they are not verified
nor admitted by Lockheed.
>
>
> > That plays a big role in the F-22 CONOPS. Does Typhoon have that
> >facility? I know Grypen does.
> >
> >Comparison of tankage would be helpful both internal and with external
> >tanks.
>
> This information, in reliable terms, is hard to come by... so I left it out.

> I have no idea on the Typhoon. The Flanker's is somewhere between 19k
> and 20k internal. I don't know what it can carry external. I don't
> recall ever seeing one with external tanks. The F-22 at first was
> said to have 23,000 internal but then later I saw that it was
> something like 18,700lbs. Add the roughly 20,000lbs of four 600
> gallon tanks and you get 38,700lb of fuel. Roughly double the
> Flanker's fuel load. For comparison an F-15E (or I I guess too) has
> something like 13,500 internal, 10k in the conformal tanks and 15k
> more in three 600 gallon tanks for a total of about 38,500lbs.
>
>
> Six different kinds of AAMs on the Flanker? What is that, the AA-10,
> AA-11, AA-12 and what AA-8? What are the other 2? R-37 was
> cancelled, That air to air Krypton looking thing is a paper design
> AFAIK and the AAA-AE or whatever that two stage long range missile was
> has never entered service either.

Flanker AAMs: R-27, R-40, R-60, R-73A, R-77, and KS-172.
Flanker ASMs: Kh-25ML, Kh-25MP, Kh-29, KH-31, KH-59, KH-65S.
Flanker LGBs: GBU-500, GBU-1500, plus TV guided versions.
Flanker AR: KH-15P


Rob

[Scott Ferrin]

>My Mach 1.7 figure is what is admitted right now, not the final speed
>of the aircraft. Typhoon also is said to do Mach 2.2 but that remains
>to be seen. As for the F-22 doing Mach 2.5 fully loaded- no chance.


Flanker Mach 2.35 fully loaded? No chance. Where in your list did it
say those maximum speeds were fully loaded? Nowhere? That's what I
thought.

[Scott Ferrin]

>> Six different kinds of AAMs on the Flanker? What is that, the AA-10,
>> AA-11, AA-12 and what AA-8? What are the other 2? R-37 was
>> cancelled, That air to air Krypton looking thing is a paper design
>> AFAIK and the AAA-AE or whatever that two stage long range missile was
>> has never entered service either.
>
>Flanker AAMs: R-27, R-40, R-60, R-73A, R-77, and KS-172.

KS-172 is a paper missile. No Flanker of any sort carries the R-40
(Do you know which one that is?) Come to think of it I've never seen
a picture of a Flanker carrying an R-40 nor read that it's armament
for the Flanker.







>Flanker ASMs: Kh-25ML, Kh-25MP, Kh-29, KH-31, KH-59, KH-65S.
>Flanker LGBs: GBU-500, GBU-1500, plus TV guided versions.
>Flanker AR: KH-15P
>
>
>Rob

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:27:59 GMT, Scott Ferrin >
wrote:

>
>>> Six different kinds of AAMs on the Flanker? What is that, the AA-10,
>>> AA-11, AA-12 and what AA-8? What are the other 2? R-37 was
>>> cancelled, That air to air Krypton looking thing is a paper design
>>> AFAIK and the AAA-AE or whatever that two stage long range missile was
>>> has never entered service either.
>>
>>Flanker AAMs: R-27, R-40, R-60, R-73A, R-77, and KS-172.
>
>KS-172 is a paper missile. No Flanker of any sort carries the R-40
>(Do you know which one that is?) Come to think of it I've never seen
>a picture of a Flanker carrying an R-40 nor read that it's armament
>for the Flanker.

"Come to think of it I've never seen a picture of a Flanker carrying
an R-40 nor read that it's armament for the Flanker." I meant to say
R-60. In simpler terms: KS-172 is a paper missile, the Flanker has
NEVER carried the AA-6 Acrid, and I've never seen the AA-8 Aphid
listed as armament for the Flanker anywhere nor ever seen a picture of
the Flanker actually carrying it.

[robert arndt]

Scott Ferrin > wrote in message >...
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:27:59 GMT, Scott Ferrin >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >>> Six different kinds of AAMs on the Flanker? What is that, the AA-10,
> >>> AA-11, AA-12 and what AA-8? What are the other 2? R-37 was
> >>> cancelled, That air to air Krypton looking thing is a paper design
> >>> AFAIK and the AAA-AE or whatever that two stage long range missile was
> >>> has never entered service either.
> >>
> >>Flanker AAMs: R-27, R-40, R-60, R-73A, R-77, and KS-172.
> >
> >KS-172 is a paper missile. No Flanker of any sort carries the R-40
> >(Do you know which one that is?) Come to think of it I've never seen
> >a picture of a Flanker carrying an R-40 nor read that it's armament
> >for the Flanker.
>
> "Come to think of it I've never seen a picture of a Flanker carrying
> an R-40 nor read that it's armament for the Flanker." I meant to say
> R-60. In simpler terms: KS-172 is a paper missile, the Flanker has
> NEVER carried the AA-6 Acrid, and I've never seen the AA-8 Aphid
> listed as armament for the Flanker anywhere nor ever seen a picture of
> the Flanker actually carrying it.

All the current armaments listed were for the Su-35 Superflanker:

http://iron-eagles.tripod.com/eb_ac_files/su35.htm

Rob

[robert arndt]

Scott Ferrin > wrote in message >...
> >> Six different kinds of AAMs on the Flanker? What is that, the AA-10,
> >> AA-11, AA-12 and what AA-8? What are the other 2? R-37 was
> >> cancelled, That air to air Krypton looking thing is a paper design
> >> AFAIK and the AAA-AE or whatever that two stage long range missile was
> >> has never entered service either.
> >
> >Flanker AAMs: R-27, R-40, R-60, R-73A, R-77, and KS-172.
>
> KS-172 is a paper missile.

The KS-172:

http://www.military.cz/russia/air/weapons/rockets/aam/ks-172/ks-172.htm

Rob

[Scott Ferrin]

On 30 Nov 2003 00:25:24 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:

>Scott Ferrin > wrote in message >...
>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:27:59 GMT, Scott Ferrin >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >>> Six different kinds of AAMs on the Flanker? What is that, the AA-10,
>> >>> AA-11, AA-12 and what AA-8? What are the other 2? R-37 was
>> >>> cancelled, That air to air Krypton looking thing is a paper design
>> >>> AFAIK and the AAA-AE or whatever that two stage long range missile was
>> >>> has never entered service either.
>> >>
>> >>Flanker AAMs: R-27, R-40, R-60, R-73A, R-77, and KS-172.
>> >
>> >KS-172 is a paper missile. No Flanker of any sort carries the R-40
>> >(Do you know which one that is?) Come to think of it I've never seen
>> >a picture of a Flanker carrying an R-40 nor read that it's armament
>> >for the Flanker.
>>
>> "Come to think of it I've never seen a picture of a Flanker carrying
>> an R-40 nor read that it's armament for the Flanker." I meant to say
>> R-60. In simpler terms: KS-172 is a paper missile, the Flanker has
>> NEVER carried the AA-6 Acrid, and I've never seen the AA-8 Aphid
>> listed as armament for the Flanker anywhere nor ever seen a picture of
>> the Flanker actually carrying it.
>
>All the current armaments listed were for the Su-35 Superflanker:
>
>http://iron-eagles.tripod.com/eb_ac_files/su35.htm
>
>Rob


"including R-27 (AA-10 'Alamo-A/B/C/D'), R-40 (AA-6 'Acrid'), R-60
(AA-8 'Aphid'), R-73E (AA-11 'Archer') and RVV-AE (R-77; AA-12
'Adder') air-to-air missiles"



Huh. They say they get their info from Jane's but I've never heard it
mentioned that it's ever used the AA-6 before. I'd be interested if
anybody has a photo of it.

[Scott Ferrin]

On 30 Nov 2003 00:43:48 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:

>Scott Ferrin > wrote in message >...
>> >> Six different kinds of AAMs on the Flanker? What is that, the AA-10,
>> >> AA-11, AA-12 and what AA-8? What are the other 2? R-37 was
>> >> cancelled, That air to air Krypton looking thing is a paper design
>> >> AFAIK and the AAA-AE or whatever that two stage long range missile was
>> >> has never entered service either.
>> >
>> >Flanker AAMs: R-27, R-40, R-60, R-73A, R-77, and KS-172.
>>
>> KS-172 is a paper missile.
>
>The KS-172:
>
>http://www.military.cz/russia/air/weapons/rockets/aam/ks-172/ks-172.htm
>
>Rob


Yeah, I know which one it is but it never went into production.
Neither did the R-37

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/ks172.htm


This one mentions that China "reportedly acquired them from Russia"
but that article was from 2001.

cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol08/83/83lee.pdf

I've looked for more info on the KS 172 and R-37 and the latest I've
found is several years old. I've found nothing to suggestg either of
the programs went anywhere but some that said "no funding". There are
several sources that say the Flanker would be compatable but that in
itself really doesn't say anything about the missile bieng in service.


I've found several web pages that mention the AA-6 being associated
with the Flanker but they appear to have all copied their information
from the same source. I'm still of the opinion that the Flanker
doesn't carry the AA-6 but I'm open to being persuaded. I've just
never seen a picture of a Flanker carrying one nor recall reading of
it carrying one, nor can imagine the need for it to do so.

[Alan Minyard]

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 06:42:54 -0500, "Paul F Austin" > wrote:

>
>"Ian Craig" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Paul F Austin" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
>> > om...
>> > > Data: F-22 Eurofighter Su-35
>> > > Raptor Typhoon Superflanker
>> > > Crew: 1 1 1
>> > > Engine: 2 P&W 2 Eurojet 2 Saturn
>> > > F-119 EJ200 AL-35F
>> > > 35,000 20,250 28,218
>> > > lb each lb each lb each
>> > > Max Speed: Mach 1.70 Mach 2.0 Mach 2.35
>> > > Gun: 20mm GE 27mm Mauser 30mm GSh-30
>> > > M61A1 BK 27 linkless ----
>> > > Internal: 3 bays: N/A N/A
>> > > 4 Sidewinder ---- ----
>> > > 4 AIM-120A/ ---- ----
>> > > 6 AIM-120C/ ---- ----
>> > > GBU-32 JDAM ---- ----
>> > > External: 4 hardpoints 13 hardpoints 12 hardpoints
>> > > 5000 lb ord. ARM,ASRAAM,IRIS-T * 6 different
>> AAMs
>> > > or fuel METEOR,STORM SHADOW, * 6 different
>> ASMs
>> > > Features: Stealth (RAM KEPD350,ALARM,GBU-10/12 * various
>> > IR/LG/TVG
>> > > + serrated 80% CF construction bombs
>> > > edges) * future anti-radar pod *
>anti-radiation
>> > > Supercruise: Yes Yes No
>> > > Radar: APG-77 CAPTOR Doppler Zhuk-PH+ rear
>> NO12
>> > > Systems: HUD+ 4 LCDs Wide angle HUD HUD+ 3 LCDs
>> > > sidestick VTAS (Voice, Throttle, IRST
>> > > triplex FBW Stick) Helmet-mounted
>> > sight
>> > > Helmet-mounted sight quadraplex FBW
>> > > IRST ECM pods
>> > > DASS
>> > > ESM Pods
>> > > quadraplex FBW
>> > > *future FBL
>> > > Initial Order: 295 Units 148 Units None placed
>> >
>> > That's a nice summary. You missed the Intraflight Datalinks (IDL) for
>the
>> > F-22. That plays a big role in the F-22 CONOPS. Does Typhoon have that
>> > facility? I know Grypen does.
>> >
>> Typhoon does have a datalink capability.
>
>There's datalinks and datalinks. Saying Typhoon has one is like saying it
>has wheels. IDL manages beam direction and radiated power and uses a covert
>waveform to minimize probability of detection outside the local group. At
>the same time, there's sensor fusion within the local group with sensor data
>passed from AC to AC so that everyone sees what anyone sees.
>
>If you want (more than you would believe) data links, go here:
>http://www.afceaeriecanal.org/AFRL.Minges.ppt for an overview of the web of
>USAF links.
>

Not to mention that the F-22 is generations ahead of the other aircraft when it
comes to LO technology and implementation. The Typhoon and the SU-35
are giant reflectors by comparison.

Al Minyard

[Yama]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> He also seems to have left out the ESM system which is quite elaborate
> in the F-22. It can take an AMRAAM shot with it without even using
> it's main radar. Also he was incorrect on the F-22's speed. The mach
> 1.7 he lists in in dry thrust and it wasn't even max military power.
> Paul Metz stated on a Discovery special that the maximum speed of the
> F-22 is classified but that it will go Mach 2.5. To quote him ". .
> .it's fast, I mean it's REALLY fast. It's top speed is classifed but
> it will do Mach 2.5" This suggests that the top speed in afterburner
> is over Mach 2.5. Paul Metz is the chief test pilot of the F-22
> program.

I am sceptical. Doesn't F-22 have fixed intakes? Speeds over mach 2.0 are
pretty much impossible to attain with fixed intakes. Besides, such speeds
require some special materials in radome, canopy etc. which tend to be more
expensive, may not be compatible with stealth requirements etc.

What I've seen for F-22 speeds as in combat configuration are mach 1.4-1.5
with supercruise, and 1.8 to 2.0 with afterburner. YF-23 was said to be
faster, especially with F120 engines.

[Kyle Boatright]

"Yama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > He also seems to have left out the ESM system which is quite elaborate
> > in the F-22. It can take an AMRAAM shot with it without even using
> > it's main radar. Also he was incorrect on the F-22's speed. The mach
> > 1.7 he lists in in dry thrust and it wasn't even max military power.
> > Paul Metz stated on a Discovery special that the maximum speed of the
> > F-22 is classified but that it will go Mach 2.5. To quote him ". .
> > .it's fast, I mean it's REALLY fast. It's top speed is classifed but
> > it will do Mach 2.5" This suggests that the top speed in afterburner
> > is over Mach 2.5. Paul Metz is the chief test pilot of the F-22
> > program.
>
> I am sceptical. Doesn't F-22 have fixed intakes? Speeds over mach 2.0 are
> pretty much impossible to attain with fixed intakes. Besides, such speeds
> require some special materials in radome, canopy etc. which tend to be
more
> expensive, may not be compatible with stealth requirements etc.
>
> What I've seen for F-22 speeds as in combat configuration are mach 1.4-1.5
> with supercruise, and 1.8 to 2.0 with afterburner. YF-23 was said to be
> faster, especially with F120 engines.


The F-104 was a 50's design with fixed intakes, and was able to achieve well
over M 2.0, so Mach 2+ is doable with fixed intakes. With 40+ more years of
intake design development, even more *should* be possible.

KB

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:44:46 +0200, "Yama" >
wrote:

>
>"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>> He also seems to have left out the ESM system which is quite elaborate
>> in the F-22. It can take an AMRAAM shot with it without even using
>> it's main radar. Also he was incorrect on the F-22's speed. The mach
>> 1.7 he lists in in dry thrust and it wasn't even max military power.
>> Paul Metz stated on a Discovery special that the maximum speed of the
>> F-22 is classified but that it will go Mach 2.5. To quote him ". .
>> .it's fast, I mean it's REALLY fast. It's top speed is classifed but
>> it will do Mach 2.5" This suggests that the top speed in afterburner
>> is over Mach 2.5. Paul Metz is the chief test pilot of the F-22
>> program.
>
>I am sceptical.

Maybe you missed that last line. Paul Metz is the chief test pilot, I
think he'd know.


>oesn't F-22 have fixed intakes? Speeds over mach 2.0 are
>pretty much impossible to attain with fixed intakes.

Despite what much of the media would have you believe fixed inlets
mean zippo. The XF8-U Crusader III's inlet was fixed and it was good
up to Mach three. The highest it got was 2.3 because of the plasic
windshield and they planned to replace it with a glass one shortly
there after but the program ended up getting cancelled. The test
pilots were confident it would have reached 2.9 as it was still
rapidly accelerating at 2.3. It all depends on what speed the inlets
are optimized for. IIRC the Bomarc had fixed inlets too and the B
model was good for well over Mach 3. Come to think of it I'm pretty
sure ASALM had a fixed inlet too and it went well over Mach 5.


>esides, such speeds
>require some special materials in radome

The YF-12 of the sixties had a radome that was good for at least Mach
3.2


> canopy etc.

The F-15 was originally going to be designed to reach Mach 2.7 but
when they decided to go with the acrilyc canopy they had to back it
off to 2.5. I find it difficult to believe that haven't figure out
how to make one a tad better at high speeds in the past 30 years.


>hich tend to be more
>expensive, may not be compatible with stealth requirements etc.

The canopy has a metallic coating for just this reason which is why it
has the gold look to it.



>
>What I've seen for F-22 speeds as in combat configuration are mach 1.4-1.5
>with supercruise,

It's hit 1.7 that they've released.


>and 1.8 to 2.0 with afterburner. YF-23 was said to be
>faster, especially with F120 engines.

The top speed for the YF-23 is still classified ironically. GE has
estimated that it's non afterburner speed would have likely been over
1.8

[Tex Houston]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> Despite what much of the media would have you believe fixed inlets
> mean zippo. The XF8-U Crusader III's inlet was fixed and it was good
> up to Mach three. The highest it got was 2.3 because of the plasic
> windshield and they planned to replace it with a glass one shortly
> there after but the program ended up getting cancelled. The test
> pilots were confident it would have reached 2.9 as it was still
> rapidly accelerating at 2.3. It all depends on what speed the inlets
> are optimized for. IIRC the Bomarc had fixed inlets too and the B
> model was good for well over Mach 3. Come to think of it I'm pretty
> sure ASALM had a fixed inlet too and it went well over Mach 5.


March AFB used to have an LGM-30B mounted outside 15th Air Force
Headquarters Operations Center and the plaque displayed under speed...Mach
16+.

Tex

[Paul F Austin]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Yama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > He also seems to have left out the ESM system which is quite elaborate
> > > in the F-22. It can take an AMRAAM shot with it without even using
> > > it's main radar. Also he was incorrect on the F-22's speed. The mach
> > > 1.7 he lists in in dry thrust and it wasn't even max military power.
> > > Paul Metz stated on a Discovery special that the maximum speed of the
> > > F-22 is classified but that it will go Mach 2.5. To quote him ". .
> > > .it's fast, I mean it's REALLY fast. It's top speed is classifed but
> > > it will do Mach 2.5" This suggests that the top speed in afterburner
> > > is over Mach 2.5. Paul Metz is the chief test pilot of the F-22
> > > program.
> >
> > I am sceptical. Doesn't F-22 have fixed intakes? Speeds over mach 2.0
are
> > pretty much impossible to attain with fixed intakes. Besides, such
speeds
> > require some special materials in radome, canopy etc. which tend to be
> more
> > expensive, may not be compatible with stealth requirements etc.
> >
> > What I've seen for F-22 speeds as in combat configuration are mach
1.4-1.5
> > with supercruise, and 1.8 to 2.0 with afterburner. YF-23 was said to be
> > faster, especially with F120 engines.
>
>
> The F-104 was a 50's design with fixed intakes, and was able to achieve
well
> over M 2.0, so Mach 2+ is doable with fixed intakes. With 40+ more years
of
> intake design development, even more *should* be possible.

The intakes on an F104 had a (fixed) centerbody to generate shock within the
inlet. A plain inlet seems to be limited to right at M2.0 (F16-land).
There's a boundary-layer splitter on the F-22 inlet but that appears to be
that. The point is largely moot because those other airplanes can only hit
high Mach numbers clean and in AB (ie, for a few minutes).

There've been a lot of religious arguments here about what "true
supercruise" is and what airplanes can do it and it plainly has to mean
"with ordnance aboard" or it means nothing at all. The F-22 is certainly the
fastest airplane in the world with anything more than a tank full of cannon
ammunition and possibly a pair of wing-tip missiles.

[Paul F Austin]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:44:46 +0200, "Yama" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> He also seems to have left out the ESM system which is quite elaborate
> >> in the F-22. It can take an AMRAAM shot with it without even using
> >> it's main radar. Also he was incorrect on the F-22's speed. The mach
> >> 1.7 he lists in in dry thrust and it wasn't even max military power.
> >> Paul Metz stated on a Discovery special that the maximum speed of the
> >> F-22 is classified but that it will go Mach 2.5. To quote him ". .
> >> .it's fast, I mean it's REALLY fast. It's top speed is classifed but
> >> it will do Mach 2.5" This suggests that the top speed in afterburner
> >> is over Mach 2.5. Paul Metz is the chief test pilot of the F-22
> >> program.
> >
> >I am sceptical.
>
> Maybe you missed that last line. Paul Metz is the chief test pilot, I
> think he'd know.
>
>
> >oesn't F-22 have fixed intakes? Speeds over mach 2.0 are
> >pretty much impossible to attain with fixed intakes.
>
> Despite what much of the media would have you believe fixed inlets
> mean zippo. The XF8-U Crusader III's inlet was fixed and it was good
> up to Mach three. The highest it got was 2.3 because of the plasic
> windshield and they planned to replace it with a glass one shortly
> there after but the program ended up getting cancelled. The test
> pilots were confident it would have reached 2.9 as it was still
> rapidly accelerating at 2.3. It all depends on what speed the inlets
> are optimized for. IIRC the Bomarc had fixed inlets too and the B
> model was good for well over Mach 3. Come to think of it I'm pretty
> sure ASALM had a fixed inlet too and it went well over Mach 5.

The F-104, XF8U-3 and for that matter the Mirage III all had centerbodies in
their inlets to generate a second shock located near the inlet lip. In the
case of the F8U-3, the centerbody was the radome. While I'm with you that
Metz is in the best position to know, I will be fascinated to learn how a
M2.5 inlet with decent pressure recovery works without some sort of second
shock generator in the inlet. The inner wall of the inlet (with the boundary
layer splitter) may form a fixed shock generator since the inlet lip of the
F22 is "swept" back WRT the splitter.

[Scott Ferrin]

>The F-104, XF8U-3 and for that matter the Mirage III all had centerbodies in
>their inlets to generate a second shock located near the inlet lip. In the
>case of the F8U-3, the centerbody was the radome.

A non movable centerbody ie. a fixed inlet.




>While I'm with you that
>Metz is in the best position to know, I will be fascinated to learn how a
>M2.5 inlet with decent pressure recovery works without some sort of second
>shock generator in the inlet. The inner wall of the inlet (with the boundary
>layer splitter) may form a fixed shock generator since the inlet lip of the
>F22 is "swept" back WRT the splitter.



Beats me but both the Crusader 3 and the F-22 have vents to dump
excess air overboard at low speed. One thing I find interesting about
the F-22 is if you notice in almost every picture taken from chase
aircraft it's got it's flaps partially down.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:06:01 -0500, "Paul F Austin"
> wrote:

>The F-22 is certainly the
>fastest airplane in the world with anything more than a tank full of cannon
>ammunition and possibly a pair of wing-tip missiles.

Surprising to encounter such a statement from someone who usually is
fact based. Do we forget the missile bays?

If the point is "air dominance fighter" and the speeds are set with "a
tank full of cannon ammunition" and a half dozen IR and radar guided
missiles, oriented by a data-sharing system of three-dimensional
sensor integration, what more do you seek?

I'm beginning to feel like I'm in the Republican Party in which, if
the candidate is not ideologically pure, we must self-destruct to show
the total commitment to the cause.

Gimme a break. The F-22 is an aircraft in development. It is flying
and it is proving. It competes with other systems. It is more or less
expensive, depending upon the accounting criteria used to measure unit
cost. We've done well with F-15 over thirty years and we've done well
with Viper (although the numbers aren't quite as compelling.) If we
compare with what the "woulda, shoulda, coulda" numbers for the Soviet
wunderkind are we generally come out on top.

If we improve US indigent health care at the sacrifice of next-gen
tactical aircraft, will we be better off? I'm betting on the
techno-iron as the better spending choice.

[phil hunt]

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:06:01 -0500, Paul F Austin > wrote:
>
>There've been a lot of religious arguments here about what "true
>supercruise" is and what airplanes can do it and it plainly has to mean
>"with ordnance aboard" or it means nothing at all. The F-22 is certainly the
>fastest airplane in the world with anything more than a tank full of cannon
>ammunition and possibly a pair of wing-tip missiles.

SR-71? MiG-25/31?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(phil hunt) wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:06:01 -0500, Paul F Austin >
> wrote:
> >
> >There've been a lot of religious arguments here about what "true
> >supercruise" is and what airplanes can do it and it plainly has to mean
> >"with ordnance aboard" or it means nothing at all. The F-22 is certainly the
> >fastest airplane in the world with anything more than a tank full of cannon
> >ammunition and possibly a pair of wing-tip missiles.
>
> SR-71?

Not a lot of guns in SR-71s, and the YF-12s aren't even in existence any
more, right?

> MiG-25/31?

Once you load a couple of missiles on the wings, the MiG slows down a
*lot*. That Mach 2.8 speed mark it set was completely clean, no
weapons. And if you stick a full combat load on it, you're getting down
into the Mach 2 range...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Nele_VII]

All wrong about MiG-25/31. Due to ingenious design and engines that produce
50% more power dynamic thrust then static, MiG-25 aircraft have the
max -loaded- speed of M=2.83 at height, and because of humongous power of
MiG-31 engines, MiG-31 can do the same. Mig-25RB can also carry four BOMBS
up to M 2.83! MiG-31 also has the datalink that doesn't still exist in
Westrn aircraft, so they have sensor fusion (lead aircraft receives data
from other three aircraft in 100 km spread) and aircraft can "take over"
guidance of the missile among each other.

At this point, I would like to de-mistify the claim that MiG-25, if flying
beyond M3 must have engines replaced. The exact words of Rostyslav Belyakov,
chief eneneer are "Going beyond M3 does not produce any damage, but reduces
lifetime of the airframe". So, leave the MiG-25 engines alone.

--

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA
Chad Irby wrote in message ...
>In article >,
> (phil hunt) wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:06:01 -0500, Paul F Austin
>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >There've been a lot of religious arguments here about what "true
>> >supercruise" is and what airplanes can do it and it plainly has to mean
>> >"with ordnance aboard" or it means nothing at all. The F-22 is certainly
the
>> >fastest airplane in the world with anything more than a tank full of
cannon
>> >ammunition and possibly a pair of wing-tip missiles.
>>
>> SR-71?
>
>Not a lot of guns in SR-71s, and the YF-12s aren't even in existence any
>more, right?
>
>> MiG-25/31?
>
>Once you load a couple of missiles on the wings, the MiG slows down a
>*lot*. That Mach 2.8 speed mark it set was completely clean, no
>weapons. And if you stick a full combat load on it, you're getting down
>into the Mach 2 range...
>
>--
>cirby at cfl.rr.com
>
>Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
>Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:50:56 +0100, "Nele_VII"
> wrote:

>All wrong about MiG-25/31. Due to ingenious design and engines that produce
>50% more power dynamic thrust then static, MiG-25 aircraft have the
>max -loaded- speed of M=2.83 at height,

That's a fantasy. Throw four AA-6s on there (full load) and it won't
even come close to that.


> and because of humongous power of
>MiG-31 engines, MiG-31 can do the same. Mig-25RB can also carry four BOMBS
>up to M 2.83!

IIRC it's more like 2.6 and it's four bombs in two lines of two which
means a lot less drag than four AA-6s




>At this point, I would like to de-mistify the claim that MiG-25, if flying
>beyond M3 must have engines replaced. The exact words of Rostyslav Belyakov,
>chief eneneer are "Going beyond M3 does not produce any damage, but reduces
>lifetime of the airframe". So, leave the MiG-25 engines alone.

Maybe you could explain why no Mig-25s ever got close to a Blackbird?

[Paul F Austin]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:06:01 -0500, "Paul F Austin"
> > wrote:
>
> >The F-22 is certainly the
> >fastest airplane in the world with anything more than a tank full of
cannon
> >ammunition and possibly a pair of wing-tip missiles.
>
> Surprising to encounter such a statement from someone who usually is
> fact based. Do we forget the missile bays?
>
> If the point is "air dominance fighter" and the speeds are set with "a
> tank full of cannon ammunition" and a half dozen IR and radar guided
> missiles, oriented by a data-sharing system of three-dimensional
> sensor integration, what more do you seek?

Ed, sorry if I expressed myself badly. That's entirely my point. The F-22
makes its maximum Mach number (for what that's worth tactically) will a
suite of six AAMs. The comparable numbers for Typhoon, Su-37 or just about
any aircraft built since the F-106 are for a clean airplane. I'm willing to
speculate that they can make M2.5+ with an AAM on each wingtip and a tank of
cannon shells but certainly not with all the hardpoints filled.

In any case, history has shown that the utility of the maximum Mach number
is *severely limited* if the persistence is measured in handsfull of
minutes. That's the whole reason for sizing the airflow and dry thrust of
the F-22 to power Mach 1.7ish flight for 30 minutes or so and the reason we
talk about "supercruise".

Inter-aircraft data sharing is going to revolutionize AA combat (for
everyone except the Swedes, who've used it for about forty years). With an
LO airframe and integration with the Rivet Joint a few hundred miles back,
not to speak of overhead assets, fighters will have the conspicuity of
submarines combined with -somewhat better- mobility.

[Yama]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:44:46 +0200, "Yama" >
> wrote:
> >I am sceptical.
>
> Maybe you missed that last line. Paul Metz is the chief test pilot, I
> think he'd know.

I'd also think that he is not allowed to distribute still unreleased flight
performance data.

> >oesn't F-22 have fixed intakes? Speeds over mach 2.0 are
> >pretty much impossible to attain with fixed intakes.
>
> Despite what much of the media would have you believe fixed inlets
> mean zippo.

No, they mean very much. It is certainly POSSIBLE to make a mach2+ plane
with fixed intake, but this will do very bad things to inlet performance in
other speeds (which are considerably more important). All your cited
examples are such cases.

> >esides, such speeds
> >require some special materials in radome
>
> The YF-12 of the sixties had a radome that was good for at least Mach
> 3.2
>
>
> > canopy etc.
>
> The F-15 was originally going to be designed to reach Mach 2.7 but
> when they decided to go with the acrilyc canopy they had to back it
> off to 2.5. I find it difficult to believe that haven't figure out
> how to make one a tad better at high speeds in the past 30 years.

See above. It comes down to what is possible and what is sensible. If
solving problems of Mach2+ flight regarding *serviceable combat aircraft*
was so trivial as you make it sound, each and every modern fighter plane
would go Mach3 or more. Engine thrust has not been a limiting factor in
fighter top speed in like 40 years. In addition to that, F-22 also has
considerable stealth requirements. Radar-absorbing paints for example may
not be very tolerant to high speeds.

> >What I've seen for F-22 speeds as in combat configuration are mach
1.4-1.5
> >with supercruise,
>
> It's hit 1.7 that they've released.

In what load configuration?

[Scott Ferrin]

>Ed, sorry if I expressed myself badly. That's entirely my point. The F-22
>makes its maximum Mach number (for what that's worth tactically) will a
>suite of six AAMs.

Eight. Six AIM-120s and 2 AIM-9s (minor nit pick :-) )

[Scott Ferrin]

>> Maybe you missed that last line. Paul Metz is the chief test pilot, I
>> think he'd know.
>
>I'd also think that he is not allowed to distribute still unreleased flight
>performance data.

Which is why he said the maximum speed is classified. Did you even
read what he said?



>
>> >oesn't F-22 have fixed intakes? Speeds over mach 2.0 are
>> >pretty much impossible to attain with fixed intakes.
>>
>> Despite what much of the media would have you believe fixed inlets
>> mean zippo.
>
>No, they mean very much. It is certainly POSSIBLE to make a mach2+ plane
>with fixed intake, but this will do very bad things to inlet performance in
>other speeds (which are considerably more important). All your cited
>examples are such cases.

Actually the Crusader III was excellent at low speeds as is the F-22.
Optimizing an inlet for subsonic speeds but making it able to reach
supersonic speeds presents one set of problems. Optimizing for
supersonic speeds but making it efficient at low speeds presents a
different set of problems. They are not identical.


>See above. It comes down to what is possible and what is sensible. If
>solving problems of Mach2+ flight regarding *serviceable combat aircraft*
>was so trivial as you make it sound, each and every modern fighter plane
>would go Mach3 or more.

Where did I say that or even hint at it?


>Engine thrust has not been a limiting factor in
>fighter top speed in like 40 years.

Dry thrust certainly has been.


> In addition to that, F-22 also has
>considerable stealth requirements. Radar-absorbing paints for example may
>not be very tolerant to high speeds.

You mean like the stuff that was on the Blackbird?



>
>> >What I've seen for F-22 speeds as in combat configuration are mach
>1.4-1.5
>> >with supercruise,
>>
>> It's hit 1.7 that they've released.
>
>In what load configuration?

No external stores. They didn't say what they had inside. Could be
they had a full load of fuel and test shapes for missiles or they
could have had minimal fuel and nothing in the missile bays.

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

Yama wrote:
>
> "Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > He also seems to have left out the ESM system which is quite elaborate
> > in the F-22. It can take an AMRAAM shot with it without even using
> > it's main radar. Also he was incorrect on the F-22's speed. The mach
> > 1.7 he lists in in dry thrust and it wasn't even max military power.
> > Paul Metz stated on a Discovery special that the maximum speed of the
> > F-22 is classified but that it will go Mach 2.5. To quote him ". .
> > .it's fast, I mean it's REALLY fast. It's top speed is classifed but
> > it will do Mach 2.5" This suggests that the top speed in afterburner
> > is over Mach 2.5. Paul Metz is the chief test pilot of the F-22
> > program.
>
> I am sceptical. Doesn't F-22 have fixed intakes? Speeds over mach 2.0 are
> pretty much impossible to attain with fixed intakes. Besides, such speeds
> require some special materials in radome, canopy etc. which tend to be more
> expensive, may not be compatible with stealth requirements etc.

The radomes of many mach 2+ aircraft are exactly the
same sort of construction (materials, etc.) as that
on aircraft from the 1950s. The fiberglass form is
essentially transparent to RF - but nothing which a
special coating (to replace the normal rubber) can't
make stealthy and concealing.

Besides - the F-22 is reputed to be using a large
number of small active arrays (part of the skin)
- in place of a conventional mechanical or
electronically-steered antenna. It's liable to be
a mess of cabling (or waveguide and ferrites) beneath
the skin - but an amazing advance.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:01:04 -0700, "Tex Houston"
> wrote:

>
>"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>> Despite what much of the media would have you believe fixed inlets
>> mean zippo. The XF8-U Crusader III's inlet was fixed and it was good
>> up to Mach three. The highest it got was 2.3 because of the plasic
>> windshield and they planned to replace it with a glass one shortly
>> there after but the program ended up getting cancelled. The test
>> pilots were confident it would have reached 2.9 as it was still
>> rapidly accelerating at 2.3. It all depends on what speed the inlets
>> are optimized for. IIRC the Bomarc had fixed inlets too and the B
>> model was good for well over Mach 3. Come to think of it I'm pretty
>> sure ASALM had a fixed inlet too and it went well over Mach 5.
>
>
>March AFB used to have an LGM-30B mounted outside 15th Air Force
>Headquarters Operations Center and the plaque displayed under speed...Mach
>16+.

Well yeah, most ICBMs do :-)

[Mary Shafer]

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:32:03 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

> In article >,
> (phil hunt) wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:06:01 -0500, Paul F Austin >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >There've been a lot of religious arguments here about what "true
> > >supercruise" is and what airplanes can do it and it plainly has to mean
> > >"with ordnance aboard" or it means nothing at all. The F-22 is certainly the
> > >fastest airplane in the world with anything more than a tank full of cannon
> > >ammunition and possibly a pair of wing-tip missiles.
> >
> > SR-71?
>
> Not a lot of guns in SR-71s, and the YF-12s aren't even in existence any
> more, right?

I don't believe an airplane needs ordnance aboard to supercruise, but
the SR-71s have, like the YF-12s, been retired to museums.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[[email protected]]

Mary Shafer > wrote:

>
>I don't believe an airplane needs ordnance aboard to supercruise, but
>the SR-71s have, like the YF-12s, been retired to museums.
>
>Mary

Well, one would think not, if one can think at all that is...
--

-Gord.

[Paul F Austin]

"Gord Beaman" < wrote
> Mary Shafer > wrote:
>
> >
> >I don't believe an airplane needs ordnance aboard to supercruise, but
> >the SR-71s have, like the YF-12s, been retired to museums.
> >
> >Mary
>
> Well, one would think not, if one can think at all that is...

The presence of ordnance is of some importance when comparing fighters, as
we are in this thread.

[[email protected]]

"Paul F Austin" > wrote:

>
>"Gord Beaman" < wrote
>> Mary Shafer > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >I don't believe an airplane needs ordnance aboard to supercruise, but
>> >the SR-71s have, like the YF-12s, been retired to museums.
>> >
>> >Mary
>>
>> Well, one would think not, if one can think at all that is...
>
>The presence of ordnance is of some importance when comparing fighters, as
>we are in this thread.
>

In the thread, yes, in that post, no. It might have been a poor
choice of words on her part but she's a big girl who makes no
bones about telling anyone else where the bear shat in the
buckwheat so quit making excuses for her.
--

-Gord.

[James Cho]

(robert arndt) wrote in message >...
> Data: F-22 Eurofighter Su-35
> Raptor Typhoon Superflanker
> Crew: 1 1 1
> Engine: 2 P&W 2 Eurojet 2 Saturn
> F-119 EJ200 AL-35F
> 35,000 20,250 28,218
> lb each lb each lb each
> Max Speed: Mach 1.70 Mach 2.0 Mach 2.35
> Gun: 20mm GE 27mm Mauser 30mm GSh-30
> M61A1 BK 27 linkless ----
> Internal: 3 bays: N/A N/A
> 4 Sidewinder ---- ----
> 4 AIM-120A/ ---- ----
> 6 AIM-120C/ ---- ----
> GBU-32 JDAM ---- ----
> External: 4 hardpoints 13 hardpoints 12 hardpoints
> 5000 lb ord. ARM,ASRAAM,IRIS-T * 6 different AAMs
> or fuel METEOR,STORM SHADOW, * 6 different ASMs
> Features: Stealth (RAM KEPD350,ALARM,GBU-10/12 * various IR/LG/TVG
> + serrated 80% CF construction bombs
> edges) * future anti-radar pod * anti-radiation
> Supercruise: Yes Yes No
> Radar: APG-77 CAPTOR Doppler Zhuk-PH+ rear NO12
> Systems: HUD+ 4 LCDs Wide angle HUD HUD+ 3 LCDs
> sidestick VTAS (Voice, Throttle, IRST
> triplex FBW Stick) Helmet-mounted sight
> Helmet-mounted sight quadraplex FBW
> IRST ECM pods
> DASS
> ESM Pods
> quadraplex FBW
> *future FBL
> Initial Order: 295 Units 148 Units None placed

In addition to what others have pointed out....

Most sources I've seen estimate the exact thrust of the F119 to be
close to 39,000lb.

M61A2 (lighter-weight composite barrels), not A1.

The F-22 will be able to carry the 250lb Small Diameter Bomb. Also,
reportedly a cruise missile is under development specifically for the
F-22 that can be carried internally in place of a few AMRAAMs.

The Typhoon and the Raptor both use the same wide angle HUD, and both
aircraft feature HMDs. And doesn't the F-22 use components of the
Typhoon's DASS?

To add to the speed debate... http://www.f22-raptor.com/data.html
lists a top speed of 1.8M, and Bill Sweetman states in his F-22 book
that the heating of the aircraft's skin is what limits its top speed.
FWIW.

[EB Jet]

Yeah,someone ought to ask Paul Metz how fast the F-120 powered YF-23 would go
:-) M1.8 dry ain't too shabby..

[Yama]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> >> Maybe you missed that last line. Paul Metz is the chief test pilot, I
> >> think he'd know.
> >
> >I'd also think that he is not allowed to distribute still unreleased
flight
> >performance data.
>
> Which is why he said the maximum speed is classified. Did you even
> read what he said?

So why hasn't Air Force or manufacturer released this information? And if
Metz is allowed to release number 2.5, this would mean that real speed is
considerably (at least M0.2) greater, which stretches the boundaries of
belief even more.

> >> Despite what much of the media would have you believe fixed inlets
> >> mean zippo.
> >
> >No, they mean very much. It is certainly POSSIBLE to make a mach2+ plane
> >with fixed intake, but this will do very bad things to inlet performance
in
> >other speeds (which are considerably more important). All your cited
> >examples are such cases.
>
> Actually the Crusader III was excellent at low speeds as is the F-22.

Excellent, as compared to what? Certainly inferior to even basic F8U, and
massively inferior to any modern fighter.

> >See above. It comes down to what is possible and what is sensible. If
> >solving problems of Mach2+ flight regarding *serviceable combat aircraft*
> >was so trivial as you make it sound, each and every modern fighter plane
> >would go Mach3 or more.
>
> Where did I say that or even hint at it?

For example here:
> Despite what much of the media would have you believe fixed inlets
> mean zippo.

Why haven't other manufacturers put these fixed "do-it-all" intakes to their
fighters? Why they even bother putting variable intakes, even to planes
which can't reach Mach 2.5?

> >Engine thrust has not been a limiting factor in
> >fighter top speed in like 40 years.
>
> Dry thrust certainly has been.

Fighters don't reach their max speeds on dry thrust.

Besides, though F-22 thrust-to-weight ratio is truly excellent, it's not
unique.

> > In addition to that, F-22 also has
> >considerable stealth requirements. Radar-absorbing paints for example may
> >not be very tolerant to high speeds.
>
> You mean like the stuff that was on the Blackbird?

SR-71 was a maintenance nightmare, and large part of it was it's skin.

> >> It's hit 1.7 that they've released.
> >
> >In what load configuration?
>
> No external stores. They didn't say what they had inside. Could be
> they had a full load of fuel and test shapes for missiles or they
> could have had minimal fuel and nothing in the missile bays.

Could be. IIRC, YF-22 with F119 engines went something like Mach 1.4 on
supercruise (at least what was initially released). Remember, that
combination was slowest of all 4 candidates.

[Scott Ferrin]

>> Which is why he said the maximum speed is classified. Did you even
>> read what he said?
>
>So why hasn't Air Force or manufacturer released this information?

Do you know what "classified" means?


>And if
>Metz is allowed to release number 2.5, this would mean that real speed is
>considerably (at least M0.2) greater, which stretches the boundaries of
>belief even more.

Like I said- he's the test pilot and presumably gone 2.5 and knows.
Why don't you ask *him* why he appears to be full of it in your
opinion?


>
>> >> Despite what much of the media would have you believe fixed inlets
>> >> mean zippo.
>> >
>> >No, they mean very much. It is certainly POSSIBLE to make a mach2+ plane
>> >with fixed intake, but this will do very bad things to inlet performance
>in
>> >other speeds (which are considerably more important). All your cited
>> >examples are such cases.
>>
>> Actually the Crusader III was excellent at low speeds as is the F-22.
>
>Excellent, as compared to what?

Excellent as compared to the fighters of the day. According to the
test pilots it was far superior to the F-4 in air combat and if we'd
have had it in Vietnam it would have "eaten them alive".


>Certainly inferior to even basic F8U,

And that is based on what? Your opinion?


>and
>massively inferior to any modern fighter.

I certainly hope so.




>
>> >See above. It comes down to what is possible and what is sensible. If
>> >solving problems of Mach2+ flight regarding *serviceable combat aircraft*
>> >was so trivial as you make it sound, each and every modern fighter plane
>> >would go Mach3 or more.
>>
>> Where did I say that or even hint at it?
>
>For example here:
>> Despite what much of the media would have you believe fixed inlets
>> mean zippo.

And what has that got to do with going Mach 3 or more? Do you think
the inlet is the only thing that prevents an aircraft from reaching or
sustaining Mach 3?



>
>Why haven't other manufacturers put these fixed "do-it-all" intakes to their
>fighters? Why they even bother putting variable intakes, even to planes
>which can't reach Mach 2.5?

2+ seems to be the magic number. They have to look at where the
aircraft is going to spend most of it's time and then design it as
such. For example pretty much every current fighter spends 95% of
it's time below Mach one so to optimize the intake for Mach 2+ would
be a bad idea. Aircraft that spend most of their time below Mach 1 or
2 but need but have the need to exceed Mach 2 more than a little bit
need intakes that can do it but are still optimized for the lower
speeds Thus the variable intake. An aircraft that is going to spend
a significant amount of time about Mach 1 would have it's intake
optimized for the higher speeds but still needs to account for the
lower speeds. This is just based on observation but the two aircraft
that I know of that fit the bill both have blow out doors to dump
excess air. Not only that why would the F-22 have these blow out
doors on the back AND those little spoilers right above the intake if
it was just fixed like an F-16 or F-18?


>
>> >Engine thrust has not been a limiting factor in
>> >fighter top speed in like 40 years.
>>
>> Dry thrust certainly has been.
>
>Fighters don't reach their max speeds on dry thrust.

My point exactly.


>
>Besides, though F-22 thrust-to-weight ratio is truly excellent, it's not
>unique.
>
>> > In addition to that, F-22 also has
>> >considerable stealth requirements. Radar-absorbing paints for example may
>> >not be very tolerant to high speeds.
>>
>> You mean like the stuff that was on the Blackbird?
>
>SR-71 was a maintenance nightmare, and large part of it was it's skin.

Do you have any cites that mention the paint being a problem? I've
never seen it written that it was.



>Could be. IIRC, YF-22 with F119 engines went something like Mach 1.4 on
>supercruise (at least what was initially released). Remember, that
>combination was slowest of all 4 candidates.

I know. In my opinion they should have went with the F-23 with the
F120s. But then maybe they felt the F-22 was more versitile. Why
knows?