F-22 Comparison

"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.

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.

"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.

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 :-) )

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).

In article ,
ess (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.

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 ,
ess (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.

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?

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

In article ,
ess (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

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.