F-22 Comparison

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.

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 :-)

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.

"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.

"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.

(robert arndt) wrote in message . com...
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.

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

"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 he
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.

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 he
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?