F-22 Comparison

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/we...172/ks-172.htm

Rob

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.

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/we...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.

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 he
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

"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.

"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

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

"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

"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.

"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.