Pacific Air Forces in Hawaii this week said approximately 25 F-22s Raptors from the Hawaii Air National Guard and from Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska, will deploy this month to Guam and Tinian islands for Operation Pacific Iron 2021.
"We have never had this many Raptors deployed together in the Pacific Air Forces area of operations," Gen. Ken Wilsbach, Pacific Air Forces commander, told CNN.
I believe the F-22 can maintain M 1.7+ in full military.
Reported up to M1.8, probably in the high 30s. Col. "Stretch" Scott said in his interview on the Fighter Pilot Podcast that they bunt in full AB until the reach M1.3 then they climb at that airspeed until they get to their desired altitude, then accelerate to M1.5 then pull it out of AB. He mentioned that the altitudes are somewhere between low 40s up to FL600. This implies that the supercruise charts that have been circulated for some time aren't accurate or perhaps under very specific conditions. Col. Scott's interview isn't the only time I've heard anecdotes from Raptor pilots about supercruise performance that seems to exceed altitude shown in the chart.I believe the F-22 can maintain M 1.7+ in full military. I suspect it could cruise above supersonic at much lower outputs with an initial reheat (I've read anecdotally that even for the F-22, breaking the sound barrier with afterburner is still more fuel efficiently than trying to slowing push through with dry thrust). That might not be the most fuel efficient means of ferrying the aircraft, however.
I believe you’re talking about the interview with test pilot Steve Rainey after he achieved 1,000 hours. The original article link from Edwards AFB is broken but fortunately a copy was archived here.I believe the F-22 can maintain M 1.7+ in full military.
That's what I heard. Also that one pilot reported it could supercruise at SEA LEVEL. (Made the comment that he had to keep an eye on speed because it could easily exceed the speed of sound at sea level without afterburner. Obviously not Mach 1.7.)
Not to rehash the aft debate but I've read enough to recall someplace like in code one magazine or some such place that lockheed said the production Raptor was just as fast as the yf23 in supercruise. And they never declassified those figures.Reported up to M1.8, probably in the high 30s. Col. "Stretch" Scott said in his interview on the Fighter Pilot Podcast that they bunt in full AB until the reach M1.3 then they climb at that airspeed until they get to their desired altitude, then accelerate to M1.5 then pull it out of AB. He mentioned that the altitudes are somewhere between low 40s up to FL600. This implies that the supercruise charts that have been circulated for some time aren't accurate or perhaps under very specific conditions. Col. Scott's interview isn't the only time I've heard anecdotes from Raptor pilots about supercruise performance that seems to exceed altitude shown in the chart.I believe the F-22 can maintain M 1.7+ in full military. I suspect it could cruise above supersonic at much lower outputs with an initial reheat (I've read anecdotally that even for the F-22, breaking the sound barrier with afterburner is still more fuel efficiently than trying to slowing push through with dry thrust). That might not be the most fuel efficient means of ferrying the aircraft, however.
I totally agree. When I saw the yf22, I was like its way too small to carry enough fuel for supercruisi g and a 750 radius. Still today its surprising how much fuel is in that airframe however... When you just look at the fuselage nose to exhaust its what... Around 54ft long?The production F-23 airframe would have gone through a similar process of refinement over the prototype YF-23 just as the F-22 did, and the EMD DWGs show an airframe with smoother” transitions. For instance, with the deletion of thrust reverser as, the “bread loaf” nacelles were trimmed down in their contour and the volume went to the space in between to maintain the same area ruling. It’s difficult to say how the production F-23 and F-22 would have compared in terms of speed; in any case, range is the greater the limitation of the F-22 in our current theaters of interest. Here I do think the F-23 would hold an advantage as it does appear to have greater fuel capacity.
It’s actually quite surprising that the F-22 managed to have that much internal fuel on a fuselage that’s shorter than the F-15’s, while incorporating internal weapons bays (said bays are admittedly quite shallow, suitable mainly for AAMs). The packaging that was accomplished is pretty remarkable.I totally agree. When I saw the yf22, I was like its way too small to carry enough fuel for supercruisi g and a 750 radius. Still today its surprising how much fuel is in that airframe however... When you just look at the fuselage nose to exhaust its what... Around 54ft long?The production F-23 airframe would have gone through a similar process of refinement over the prototype YF-23 just as the F-22 did, and the EMD DWGs show an airframe with smoother” transitions. For instance, with the deletion of thrust reverser as, the “bread loaf” nacelles were trimmed down in their contour and the volume went to the space in between to maintain the same area ruling. It’s difficult to say how the production F-23 and F-22 would have compared in terms of speed; in any case, range is the greater the limitation of the F-22 in our current theaters of interest. Here I do think the F-23 would hold an advantage as it does appear to have greater fuel capacity.
I recall reading they designed the deuce's slender drop tanks to not interfere too much with its speed. Couldn't they have done that on the 22?
The yf-23 had just a tad bit more internal fuel than a f-15. The emd has more fuel but how much, we don't know. The f-22 went through a range reduction during the emd phase, and it has nothing to do with the design but with funding, so the f-23 would probably have gone through the same range reduction to keep costs down.I totally agree. When I saw the yf22, I was like its way too small to carry enough fuel for supercruisi g and a 750 radius. Still today its surprising how much fuel is in that airframe however... When you just look at the fuselage nose to exhaust its what... Around 54ft long?The production F-23 airframe would have gone through a similar process of refinement over the prototype YF-23 just as the F-22 did, and the EMD DWGs show an airframe with smoother” transitions. For instance, with the deletion of thrust reverser as, the “bread loaf” nacelles were trimmed down in their contour and the volume went to the space in between to maintain the same area ruling. It’s difficult to say how the production F-23 and F-22 would have compared in terms of speed; in any case, range is the greater the limitation of the F-22 in our current theaters of interest. Here I do think the F-23 would hold an advantage as it does appear to have greater fuel capacity.
I recall reading they designed the deuce's slender drop tanks to not interfere too much with its speed. Couldn't they have done that on the 22?
Here's a little bit of mental gymnastics that yielded an estimate of F-22's ferry range.
...
If we use the same factor on F-22 we get 1454 nm (or 2690 km) of
ferry range for a clean Raptor without drop tanks.
...
I am sure there are issues with this calculus but it might shed a bit more light on the F-22 potential ferry range.
A tad more fuel than a F-15C with a center line tank; i.e. ~18,000lbs. After I learned that from Metz's book, I now wonder if the prototypes really had the ~25,000lbs internal we've always been told. Since we now know the YF-23 did not my guess is the YF-22 didn't either.The yf-23 had just a tad bit more internal fuel than a f-15. The emd has more fuel but how much, we don't know. The f-22 went through a range reduction during the emd phase, and it has nothing to do with the design but with funding, so the f-23 would probably have gone through the same range reduction to keep costs down.I totally agree. When I saw the yf22, I was like its way too small to carry enough fuel for supercruisi g and a 750 radius. Still today its surprising how much fuel is in that airframe however... When you just look at the fuselage nose to exhaust its what... Around 54ft long?The production F-23 airframe would have gone through a similar process of refinement over the prototype YF-23 just as the F-22 did, and the EMD DWGs show an airframe with smoother” transitions. For instance, with the deletion of thrust reverser as, the “bread loaf” nacelles were trimmed down in their contour and the volume went to the space in between to maintain the same area ruling. It’s difficult to say how the production F-23 and F-22 would have compared in terms of speed; in any case, range is the greater the limitation of the F-22 in our current theaters of interest. Here I do think the F-23 would hold an advantage as it does appear to have greater fuel capacity.
I recall reading they designed the deuce's slender drop tanks to not interfere too much with its speed. Couldn't they have done that on the 22?
There was a AETP PPT slide that showed the F-22 would benefit from an increase in range by 18%. Even an 3 streamed F-35 wouldn't have the range needed for the NGAD mission. I love the Raptor but I think moving quickly to introduce NGAD as a whole new system is the right move. Hopefully it pans out....While I expect the cost will be somewhere around Dont bother and buy a new plane, I do wonder how much the F22 would get from the new Variable Engines they are testing at them moment.
Even a partly 25 percent range increase will be handy. But I expect that any engine for that raptor will have to be basically a custem design to fight perfectly into the existing bays.
my bad, it is with a center line tank. I highly doubt about the 25,000lbs too. As for the performance requirements, Rick abell clearly stated that it had nothing to do with the F-22 design but only because funding from the congress was cut several times and that they had to curb performance in order not to drift too far away from the calendar. Thus I don't see how northrop would have fared different. As for empty weight, I don't know, but for sure the lengthened, bigger (due to partially filled nacelles' trough) fully equipped F-23A would have been significantly heavier.A tad more fuel than a F-15C with a center line tank; i.e. ~18,000lbs. After I learned that from Metz's book, I now wonder if the prototypes really had the ~25,000lbs internal we've always been told. Since we now know the YF-23 did not my guess is the YF-22 didn't either.The yf-23 had just a tad bit more internal fuel than a f-15. The emd has more fuel but how much, we don't know. The f-22 went through a range reduction during the emd phase, and it has nothing to do with the design but with funding, so the f-23 would probably have gone through the same range reduction to keep costs down.I totally agree. When I saw the yf22, I was like its way too small to carry enough fuel for supercruisi g and a 750 radius. Still today its surprising how much fuel is in that airframe however... When you just look at the fuselage nose to exhaust its what... Around 54ft long?The production F-23 airframe would have gone through a similar process of refinement over the prototype YF-23 just as the F-22 did, and the EMD DWGs show an airframe with smoother” transitions. For instance, with the deletion of thrust reverser as, the “bread loaf” nacelles were trimmed down in their contour and the volume went to the space in between to maintain the same area ruling. It’s difficult to say how the production F-23 and F-22 would have compared in terms of speed; in any case, range is the greater the limitation of the F-22 in our current theaters of interest. Here I do think the F-23 would hold an advantage as it does appear to have greater fuel capacity.
I recall reading they designed the deuce's slender drop tanks to not interfere too much with its speed. Couldn't they have done that on the 22?
Finally I don't think we directly extrapolate what happened to the F-22 with what could've happened to the F-23. Northrop may have been more conservative with the their weight budgets for instance. Perhaps with it being a bigger design they had more breathing room or may have been easier to meet performance targets. It could obviously go the other way too. We just don't really know either way IMO.
It would be very interesting to find some actual data on empty weights. I can't find anything for the prototypes that is definitive for example. I've seen the YF-23 empty as 29,000lbs which I don't believe. I have seen the YF-22 empty as 34,000lbs and the YF-23 empty as 37,000lbs. Those numbers seem quite reasonable to me but I've never seen any sourcing for that data. I think it's fair to say that the F-23A would probably be heavier than the F-22 is.
Every line is shit
No need to guess. Raptor has 1600nm ferry range with two 600-gal EFT.
F-22 Specifications
The F-22 Raptor defines air dominance. The 5th Generation F-22’s unique combination of stealth, speed, agility, and situational awareness, combined with lethal long-range air-to-air and air-to-ground weaponry, makes it the best air dominance fighter in the world.web.archive.org
Sure, Alexander. This is a Conspiracy!Every line is shit
No need to guess. Raptor has 1600nm ferry range with two 600-gal EFT.
F-22 Specifications
The F-22 Raptor defines air dominance. The 5th Generation F-22’s unique combination of stealth, speed, agility, and situational awareness, combined with lethal long-range air-to-air and air-to-ground weaponry, makes it the best air dominance fighter in the world.web.archive.org
See I'm not so sure it's going to be significantly heavier though. Remember the design goal was a combat weight of 55klbs. Abel states that the designs met that goal (55klbs & 30M dollars (FY81 dollars I believe.) I don't how much leniency they had and how that would've effected their submissions. I have no doubt it is heavier, but it may not have been as much as perceived. I'm trying to get a good 3d model to compare volumes of the two designs. May be a interesting comparison...my bad, it is with a center line tank. I highly doubt about the 25,000lbs too. As for the performance requirements, Rick abell clearly stated that it had nothing to do with the F-22 design but only because funding from the congress was cut several times and that they had to curb performance in order not to drift too far away from the calendar. Thus I don't see how northrop would have fared different. As for empty weight, I don't know, but for sure the lengthened, bigger (due to partially filled nacelles' trough) fully equipped F-23A would have been significantly heavier.
Taiclet said the U-2 spyplane’s “sunset” is in the “not-too-distant future,” although the Air Force has gone back and forth about whether it plans to retire or retain the U-2 beyond the middle of the 2020s. Taiclet also said that while the F-22 “sunset” is in sight, it will still get updates and modifications, though not to the degree previously thought. The Air Force recently said it plans to start phasing out the F-22 in about 2030.
Look how hard it's been to kill the A-10Reposting from the NGAD thread, I find this tidbit interesting.
Lockheed Martin Takes $225 Million Loss on Secret Aeronautics Program | Air & Space Forces Magazine
Lockheed Martin took a $225 million loss on a classified developmental aeronautics program, company officers disclosed in a July 26 call.www.airforcemag.com
Taiclet said the U-2 spyplane’s “sunset” is in the “not-too-distant future,” although the Air Force has gone back and forth about whether it plans to retire or retain the U-2 beyond the middle of the 2020s. Taiclet also said that while the F-22 “sunset” is in sight, it will still get updates and modifications, though not to the degree previously thought. The Air Force recently said it plans to start phasing out the F-22 in about 2030.
I would think that the extent of F-22 upgrades will depend on how well NGAD is progressing. Personally, I would like to see the fleet receive the full gamut of upgrades as a hedge against delays in NGAD.
Look how hard it's been to kill the A-10Reposting from the NGAD thread, I find this tidbit interesting.
Lockheed Martin Takes $225 Million Loss on Secret Aeronautics Program | Air & Space Forces Magazine
Lockheed Martin took a $225 million loss on a classified developmental aeronautics program, company officers disclosed in a July 26 call.www.airforcemag.com
Taiclet said the U-2 spyplane’s “sunset” is in the “not-too-distant future,” although the Air Force has gone back and forth about whether it plans to retire or retain the U-2 beyond the middle of the 2020s. Taiclet also said that while the F-22 “sunset” is in sight, it will still get updates and modifications, though not to the degree previously thought. The Air Force recently said it plans to start phasing out the F-22 in about 2030.
I would think that the extent of F-22 upgrades will depend on how well NGAD is progressing. Personally, I would like to see the fleet receive the full gamut of upgrades as a hedge against delays in NGAD.
Look how hard it's been to kill the A-10Reposting from the NGAD thread, I find this tidbit interesting.
Lockheed Martin Takes $225 Million Loss on Secret Aeronautics Program | Air & Space Forces Magazine
Lockheed Martin took a $225 million loss on a classified developmental aeronautics program, company officers disclosed in a July 26 call.www.airforcemag.com
Taiclet said the U-2 spyplane’s “sunset” is in the “not-too-distant future,” although the Air Force has gone back and forth about whether it plans to retire or retain the U-2 beyond the middle of the 2020s. Taiclet also said that while the F-22 “sunset” is in sight, it will still get updates and modifications, though not to the degree previously thought. The Air Force recently said it plans to start phasing out the F-22 in about 2030.
I would think that the extent of F-22 upgrades will depend on how well NGAD is progressing. Personally, I would like to see the fleet receive the full gamut of upgrades as a hedge against delays in NGAD.
The non-recurring costs to restart a cold production line would be the biggest hurdle, while the F-15EX can capitalize on an existing F-15QA production line. The USAF decided that they needed new airframes quickly. Not saying it was necessarily the right choice, but these factors probably drove the decision.What could they get if they transferred all the money they are putting on F-15EX and various upgraded F-16 into more F-22 or a number of the new South Korean type?
Sour grapes aren't going to change the facts. Sorry.Every line is shit
No need to guess. Raptor has 1600nm ferry range with two 600-gal EFT.
F-22 Specifications
The F-22 Raptor defines air dominance. The 5th Generation F-22’s unique combination of stealth, speed, agility, and situational awareness, combined with lethal long-range air-to-air and air-to-ground weaponry, makes it the best air dominance fighter in the world.web.archive.org
The aircraft is already airframe limited. Don't know what more powerful engines would get them.I am actually surprised at how the USAF never actually tried to upgrade the F-22 by installing some of the F-35 avionics that could help them save a lot of money in the process plus perhaps replacement more powerful engines as well.
The numbers in the former F-22 website and those in LM extended range study do not add up, since the plane has 850nm (with 100nm in supercruise which means it has even more in full subsonic) of combat radius with two tanks in the extended range study, but 1600nm of ferry range in the official site?Sour grapes aren't going to change the facts. Sorry.Every line is shit
No need to guess. Raptor has 1600nm ferry range with two 600-gal EFT.
F-22 Specifications
The F-22 Raptor defines air dominance. The 5th Generation F-22’s unique combination of stealth, speed, agility, and situational awareness, combined with lethal long-range air-to-air and air-to-ground weaponry, makes it the best air dominance fighter in the world.web.archive.org
The aircraft is already airframe limited. Don't know what more powerful engines would get them.I am actually surprised at how the USAF never actually tried to upgrade the F-22 by installing some of the F-35 avionics that could help them save a lot of money in the process plus perhaps replacement more powerful engines as well.
I think they just didn't look far enough ahead. They were totally focused on NATO/Russia conflict. Also they kind of designed themselves into a corner without open architecture but I don't know that they had a lot of options in that regard.The aircraft is already airframe limited. Don't know what more powerful engines would get them.I am actually surprised at how the USAF never actually tried to upgrade the F-22 by installing some of the F-35 avionics that could help them save a lot of money in the process plus perhaps replacement more powerful engines as well.
So it looks like the NGAD is the only way forward for the USAF, let's hope that they do not make the same mistakes with that as they did with the F-22.
Sour grapes aren't going to change the facts. Sorry.
Not sure what point you're trying to make. That sheet shows the F-22 having 20,167lbs (9148kg) internal fuel.Sour grapes aren't going to change the facts. Sorry.F-22 Specifications
The F-22 Raptor defines air dominance. The 5th Generation F-22’s unique combination of stealth, speed, agility, and situational awareness, combined with lethal long-range air-to-air and air-to-ground weaponry, makes it the best air dominance fighter in the world.web.archive.org
Maximum take-off weight 83,500 lb / 38,000 kg ....
This is a mass with four external tanks, which were abandoned after the replacement of the wing spars.
Maximum take-off weight of the F-22: 19660 kg (empty) + 100 (pilot) + 9367 (fuel) + 3700 (external tanks) + 1744 (weapons) = 34571 kg
with 4 AMRAAMS on the external suspension and 2 external tanks
Internal fuel 18,000 lb / 8,200 kg....
9367 kg !
The wing spar replacement occurred after live-fire testing, and actually strengthened the structure. I believe the reason for abandoning four wing tanks has to do with load conditions at certain angles of attack.This is a mass with four external tanks, which were abandoned after the replacement of the wing spars.