Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor

LMFS

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 19, 2019
Messages
329
Reaction score
517
Good then here is a thought exercise.
The way you put it the plane could not be even operated by now, but the fleet has been going repairs, low level structural modernizations, SW and coatings upgrades already, that I remember, so I don't think the situation is as catastrophic as you describe it. The Raptor was commissioned little ago, designed at a time where computers were already used and if the case is that all documentation was lost the way you describe it, then I would be rather seeing it as a problem of high treason more than a development issue. BTW something along those lines was needed to restore the production of the Tu-160, which was actually done with documentation on paper so long ago that most people were physically not among us any more. It was a big effort, but the platform was worth it. In a second post you rightly describe the F-22 as one of the most advanced planes to the point that US may still not clear it for export. I can tell you the money of the sale of the planes which are considered "non viable" for US by the end of this decade would be more than enough to make the modernization program profitable again, since such high end platforms are an absolute premium for any state and countries like Japan, KSA and several others would pay a fortune for them. Foreign countries would get a sanitized version with modern detuned avionics and updated F119 engines, while USAF would get the full package with adaptive engines and any other top of the line systems that would be ongoing testing for the NGAD. And with such a plane in the fleet, the following benefits would be achieved for the NGAD program:
> No vendor can hijack the program, because the USAF can simply ditch them and use their up to date, 100% fleet compatible F-22, at an acceptable cost in terms of capability
> The program is hedged against unexpected change in the level and nature of threats and unexpected technical difficulties, and can be extended in the future without seriously compromising the defence of the country or demanding massive money injections like happened with F-35.
> The systems, technologies and doctrines intended for the NGAD can be tested in the intermediate step of the modernized F-22

This is how you go about risk mitigation on a complex, strategically critical, high risk program, if you are doing things the way they should be done and without questionable interests interfering.

Just wanted to touch upon the issue because I cannot technically agree on the narratives been spread to justify ditching the F-22. But ok, point made, so that's it from my side.
 

Jimmo952

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 21, 2020
Messages
59
Reaction score
69
This retire the F22 thing is about the Airforce being willing to make hard choices to get what they want, which is NGAD.

Only time will tell if NGAD is worth it.
 

rooster

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Messages
310
Reaction score
196
Stumbled into this website and just passing it on... Can't get website link to work on my tablet- sorry

fullafterburner.weebly.com/aerospace/lockheed-f22-raptor-the-definition-of-stealth
 

rooster

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Messages
310
Reaction score
196
I have a what may be a rather silly naive question... Where is the gun camera located on the raptor? Is in on the nose beneath the canopy in what looks like it could be an optical sensor or is that part of the UV sensor sensor system? I don't see anything else anywhere else that looks like a camera.
 

rooster

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Messages
310
Reaction score
196
Anyone know how much time or range the F-22s spend in supercruise?
At what altitude? No one will answer that question but based on readings here and at f-16.net I think I recall only 150 miles for some mission profiles to maximize overall range. Its not exactly Firefox is it. It can probably run the tanks dry at m1.6 without hurting anything.
 

Dragon029

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
857
Reaction score
322
There's no publicly available word on any limits the jet can spend in supercruise, but we do have this chart:

1624067568823.png

In that chart it's saying that an F-22 (without external fuel tanks) flying at subsonic speeds has a combat radius of 590 nautical miles, while "With 100 nm Supercruise" the combat radius drops to about 460 nautical miles, for a combat radius decrease of 130 nautical miles / a total range decrease of 260 nautical miles.

In my opinion this sounds like they're saying 100 nautical miles of supercruise in total, which would mean that an F-22 burns about 2.6x as much fuel supercruising / at full mil power than when subsonic cruising. That would therefore limit the F-22's maximum amount of supercruise flight (during a 1-way trip) to something in the ballpark of 300, maybe 350 nautical miles.

If I'm wrong about that initial assumption and the F-22 flies 100nmi in supercruise each way from the target (for 200nmi total) then it burns about 1.3x as much fuel, though frankly that seems unlikely as (ignoring the non-static and non-linear relationship of Mach and drag coefficient) drag increases with the square of airspeed, so supercruising at Mach 1.5-1.8 (the higher end being roughly 2x what it'd normally subsonic cruise at) should require something like 4x the thrust. The relationship between thrust and fuel consumption is also non-linear and but too complex for me to really take an estimate at, but it's fair to say that 2.6x the fuel burn is more realistic than 1.3x.
 

Bruno Anthony

I miss the Cold War
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
305
Reaction score
117
There's no publicly available word on any limits the jet can spend in supercruise, but we do have this chart:

View attachment 659223

In that chart it's saying that an F-22 (without external fuel tanks) flying at subsonic speeds has a combat radius of 590 nautical miles, while "With 100 nm Supercruise" the combat radius drops to about 460 nautical miles, for a combat radius decrease of 130 nautical miles / a total range decrease of 260 nautical miles.

In my opinion this sounds like they're saying 100 nautical miles of supercruise in total, which would mean that an F-22 burns about 2.6x as much fuel supercruising / at full mil power than when subsonic cruising. That would therefore limit the F-22's maximum amount of supercruise flight (during a 1-way trip) to something in the ballpark of 300, maybe 350 nautical miles.

If I'm wrong about that initial assumption and the F-22 flies 100nmi in supercruise each way from the target (for 200nmi total) then it burns about 1.3x as much fuel, though frankly that seems unlikely as (ignoring the non-static and non-linear relationship of Mach and drag coefficient) drag increases with the square of airspeed, so supercruising at Mach 1.5-1.8 (the higher end being roughly 2x what it'd normally subsonic cruise at) should require something like 4x the thrust. The relationship between thrust and fuel consumption is also non-linear and but too complex for me to really take an estimate at, but it's fair to say that 2.6x the fuel burn is more realistic than 1.3x.
Great stuff. But wouldn’t fuel consumption at 2.6x the Mach 0.9 rate make a full supercruise radius about 240nmi? 240x2.6~600

Also any idea what the fuel consumption is at full AB? To compare it to supercruise to see if supercruise is a more economical setting?

Sounds like the story where Lockheed told the AF, “we can give you stealth, supercruise and range!“ Pick any 2.

Does show how clean the F-22 airframe is compared to the F-15. Impressive.
 

_Del_

I really should change my personal text... Or not.
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
695
Reaction score
523
Does show how clean the F-22 airframe is compared to the F-15. Impressive.
It's less about the aerodynamic qualities between the two, and more about the 30% routing factor attributed to the Beagles. Which in the real world still makes quite a difference and is impressive.
It's not the aerodynamic efficiency of the Raptor creating that difference in mission radius, though.
If you add that third back to the Beagle, the straight line range is going to favour the Beagle with tanks over the Raptor (the Beagle is also carrying two 2,000 lb LGB + four AMRAAM, and not the Raptor's two 1,000 lb LGB's, two AMRAAM, and two Sidewinders loadout in the graph). It'd be 750 straight line for Beagle in that configuration to 600 for the Raptor, or 300 miles farther traveled with bombs twice the size.

The advantage is in the mission planning being able to draw smaller threat bubbles around targets, and a much straighter run at altitude (HHHH profile) compared to a circuitous route by the HLLH Beagle making the mid portion of the flight down low.

It's misleading in some sense, but absolutely not in another sense. It's a very precise scenario depicted which requires a Beagle to avoid an integrated air defense -- which is a very real scenario in which a Raptor holds a significant advantage. The flip side is that the Beagle against a lower threat threshold is going to haul more iron to targets quite a bit farther away than a clean F-22 could.
 

Dragon029

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
857
Reaction score
322
Great stuff. But wouldn’t fuel consumption at 2.6x the Mach 0.9 rate make a full supercruise radius about 240nmi? 240x2.6~600

Also any idea what the fuel consumption is at full AB? To compare it to supercruise to see if supercruise is a more economical setting?

Sounds like the story where Lockheed told the AF, “we can give you stealth, supercruise and range!“ Pick any 2.

Does show how clean the F-22 airframe is compared to the F-15. Impressive.
I believe you're correct with 240nmi; I was using a bit of a convoluted calculation.

As for max afterburner; the TSFC for the F119 at a supersonic cruising altitude and Mach is classified, but at least down at sea level and zero airspeed, most turbofan engines have a TSFC of roughly 2lb/lbf*hr. The F119's actual max afterburner thrust isn't public, and it too will vary based on airspeed and altitude, but if we take the sea level rating of "35,000+" lbf as just 35K (70K for 2 engines) then that equates to 2333lb/min fuel burn for the jet in total.

Because we're not talking about fuel burn per unit of time vs fuel burn per unit of distance, things get tricky because the time to accelerate to certain speeds affects things. To demonstrate that supercruise is still more economic however, I'll give afterburner the benefit of the doubt and say the jet has an average flight regime of Mach 1.8, at 50,000ft (for a TAS of 1032kts). I'm going to assume that the reserve fuel for the mission profile mentioned above is 2000lb and that the 6% routing factor still applies.

So with 16,000lb of usable fuel, we can use our afterburner for 6.9 minutes, which at 1032nmi/hr or 17.2nmi/min, divided by 1.06 for routing factor, gives it a total 100% max afterburner combat range of 112nmi or radius of just 56nmi.

Now again, these numbers aren't particularly accurate as the TSFC and thrust produced by the engine changes based on airspeed and altitude, but you can nevertheless see how extreme fuel burn rates get at max afterburner, and I think it's fair to say that even with the limited accuracy, supercruise is definitely a more economical settings. It just goes to show how powerful these jet engines can be, and it goes to show the ballpark advantage that supercruise gets you, at least on the F-22 (roughly double the time / distance spent at a significant Mach speed).

It's worth noting some other assumptions however - the 2.6x fuel consumption assumes that zero afterburner is used in that F-22 mission profile, getting it up to supercruise speeds. We also don't know what the average supercruise speed is; the max supercruise speed of roughly Mach 1.8 is awesome, but 100nmi doesn't leave you a lot of time to reach it, so the average supercruise speed might have only been something like Mach 1.4. The mission profile might also possibly not demand 100% mil power, but just whatever assumed throttle is required to achieve a top supercruise airspeed of Mach 1.5 (one of the early F-22 supercruise top speed claims before the USAF kept elaborating on just how fast it could go).

In any case, supercruise is definitely useful and more economical than afterburner, but it's certainly not something that's easy to sustain without serious range penalties.
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
184
Reaction score
282
It's worth noting some other assumptions however - the 2.6x fuel consumption assumes that zero afterburner is used in that F-22 mission profile, getting it up to supercruise speeds. We also don't know what the average supercruise speed is; the max supercruise speed of roughly Mach 1.8 is awesome, but 100nmi doesn't leave you a lot of time to reach it, so the average supercruise speed might have only been something like Mach 1.4. The mission profile might also possibly not demand 100% mil power, but just whatever assumed throttle is required to achieve a top supercruise airspeed of Mach 1.5 (one of the early F-22 supercruise top speed claims before the USAF kept elaborating on just how fast it could go).
Then you have the reserve fuel for actually fighting and back up.

Either in getting posistion to launch a weapon to turning and burning dogfights or jinking and jiving around SAMS. Which supercruiser will be useful for short sprints in those situations. A few seconds at most, basically replacing the need for the afterburn for the most part.

Which is very handly maintance wise.
 

Bruno Anthony

I miss the Cold War
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
305
Reaction score
117
Compared to Riccioni’s idea of a supercruise fighter with a .40 Fuel Fraction and time of at least 20 mins in supercruise, how close does the Raptor come to his definition?
Say flying at 1000mph for 20 mins total is about 340 miles with 170 miles each way. Raptor seems a bit short. The Raptor is also more capable than anything he planned.
 

BDF

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
175
Reaction score
100
It's 100nm segment of the radius, i.e. its 330nm + 100nm sub + super combat radius on the now defunct official F-22 webpage that LM had up until a few years ago. I suspect that it's somewhat understated. There was an interview with a USAF GO who stated that in the anti-cruise missile mission, the F-22 could maintain M1.5 for 41 minutes vice 7 minutes for the Eagle (AW&ST June 12, 2006). This is somewhat backed up by a demonstration by HO Raptors around that time that went M1.5 from HO to the UTTR to drop JDAMs then recover at Hill AFB. HO to UTTR is 600nm.

I believe the ballpark figure for rough average Specific Range at M1.5 is around 0.045 to 0.0475 nm/lb of fuel. I believe that the SR is around 0.1 nm/lb at M 0.9. Using the rough 2/3rds rule of thumb, that would suggest cruise fuel of roughly 12Klbs. 150nm transit to and from the tanker tracks might enable the Raptor to go 150nm + ~200nm super in this case. The Raptor didn't meet the original ATF or even revised ATF supercruise spec but has way more supersonic persistence than anything else out there sans the Su-57 or J-20.
 

GARGEAN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
709
Reaction score
448
The Raptor didn't meet the original ATF or even revised ATF supercruise spec but has way more supersonic persistence than anything else out there sans the Su-57 or J-20.
J-20 is kinda questionable here. It is neither aerodynamically refined to be noticeable nor big enough/has fuel fraction big enough/having engines advanced enough to be really noticeable over other heavy fighters. Internal weapons help with that but only to a degree.
 

Bruno Anthony

I miss the Cold War
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
305
Reaction score
117
It's 100nm segment of the radius, i.e. its 330nm + 100nm sub + super combat radius on the now defunct official F-22 webpage that LM had up until a few years ago. I suspect that it's somewhat understated. There was an interview with a USAF GO who stated that in the anti-cruise missile mission, the F-22 could maintain M1.5 for 41 minutes vice 7 minutes for the Eagle (AW&ST June 12, 2006). This is somewhat backed up by a demonstration by HO Raptors around that time that went M1.5 from HO to the UTTR to drop JDAMs then recover at Hill AFB. HO to UTTR is 600nm.

I believe the ballpark figure for rough average Specific Range at M1.5 is around 0.045 to 0.0475 nm/lb of fuel. I believe that the SR is around 0.1 nm/lb at M 0.9. Using the rough 2/3rds rule of thumb, that would suggest cruise fuel of roughly 12Klbs. 150nm transit to and from the tanker tracks might enable the Raptor to go 150nm + ~200nm super in this case. The Raptor didn't meet the original ATF or even revised ATF supercruise spec but has way more supersonic persistence than anything else out there sans the Su-57 or J-20.
Based on the numbers you gave sounds like ~600 nmi RANGE at M1.5. M1.5 for ~40 mins is about 600 nmi as is ~.05 nmi/lb of fuel in supercruise. 12,000(.05)=600. 300 nmi supercruise RADIUS. Not too shabby.

Now it didn’t meet the specs which were iirc 400 nmi supercruise radius because they:
didn‘t want to keep adding fuel weight?
 

rooster

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Messages
310
Reaction score
196
There's no publicly available word on any limits the jet can spend in supercruise, but we do have this chart:

View attachment 659223

In that chart it's saying that an F-22 (without external fuel tanks) flying at subsonic speeds has a combat radius of 590 nautical miles, while "With 100 nm Supercruise" the combat radius drops to about 460 nautical miles, for a combat radius decrease of 130 nautical miles / a total range decrease of 260 nautical miles.

In my opinion this sounds like they're saying 100 nautical miles of supercruise in total, which would mean that an F-22 burns about 2.6x as much fuel supercruising / at full mil power than when subsonic cruising. That would therefore limit the F-22's maximum amount of supercruise flight (during a 1-way trip) to something in the ballpark of 300, maybe 350 nautical miles.

If I'm wrong about that initial assumption and the F-22 flies 100nmi in supercruise each way from the target (for 200nmi total) then it burns about 1.3x as much fuel, though frankly that seems unlikely as (ignoring the non-static and non-linear relationship of Mach and drag coefficient) drag increases with the square of airspeed, so supercruising at Mach 1.5-1.8 (the higher end being roughly 2x what it'd normally subsonic cruise at) should require something like 4x the thrust. The relationship between thrust and fuel consumption is also non-linear and but too complex for me to really take an estimate at, but it's fair to say that 2.6x the fuel burn is more realistic than 1
What happened to the 750nm atf requirement?
To me that chart tells me a beagle with 3 bags is hauling an assload of fuel for not much benefit.
 

Dragon029

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
857
Reaction score
322
It's 100nm segment of the radius, i.e. its 330nm + 100nm sub + super combat radius on the now defunct official F-22 webpage that LM had up until a few years ago.
I don't follow your grammar there; what is the 330nmi (super or subsonic), why is 100nmi subsonic (when the chart above is saying 100nmi of supercruise) and what is the "super combat radius" you're adding to those numbers?

There was an interview with a USAF GO who stated that in the anti-cruise missile mission, the F-22 could maintain M1.5 for 41 minutes vice 7 minutes for the Eagle (AW&ST June 12, 2006)
If that's true (I don't have a subscription to access the archive) then a lot of the numbers surrounding the F-22's range must be wrong (a subsonic specific range of 0.1lb/nmi for example would yield a subsonic combat radius roughly 30% longer than the published figure); traveling ~66-75% faster while burning only ~100% extra fuel, especially when you're breaking the sound barrier and having to actually accelerate up to those speeds doesn't seem feasible.

What happened to the 750nm atf requirement?
The F-22 achieves that with a pair of bags.
 

Bruno Anthony

I miss the Cold War
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
305
Reaction score
117
It's 100nm segment of the radius, i.e. its 330nm + 100nm sub + super combat radius on the now defunct official F-22 webpage that LM had up until a few years ago.
I don't follow your grammar there; what is the 330nmi (super or subsonic), why is 100nmi subsonic (when the chart above is saying 100nmi of supercruise) and what is the "super combat radius" you're adding to those numbers?

There was an interview with a USAF GO who stated that in the anti-cruise missile mission, the F-22 could maintain M1.5 for 41 minutes vice 7 minutes for the Eagle (AW&ST June 12, 2006)
If that's true (I don't have a subscription to access the archive) then a lot of the numbers surrounding the F-22's range must be wrong (a subsonic specific range of 0.1lb/nmi for example would yield a subsonic combat radius roughly 30% longer than the published figure); traveling ~66-75% faster while burning only ~100% extra fuel, especially when you're breaking the sound barrier and having to actually accelerate up to those speeds doesn't seem feasible.

What happened to the 750nm atf requirement?
The F-22 achieves that with a pair of bags.
 

Attachments

  • 12ED86E6-B93F-430E-96E0-8FECF0D36BC6.png
    12ED86E6-B93F-430E-96E0-8FECF0D36BC6.png
    4.7 MB · Views: 47

BDF

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
175
Reaction score
100
It's 100nm segment of the radius, i.e. its 330nm + 100nm sub + super combat radius on the now defunct official F-22 webpage that LM had up until a few years ago.
I don't follow your grammar there; what is the 330nmi (super or subsonic), why is 100nmi subsonic (when the chart above is saying 100nmi of supercruise) and what is the "super combat radius" you're adding to those numbers?

There was an interview with a USAF GO who stated that in the anti-cruise missile mission, the F-22 could maintain M1.5 for 41 minutes vice 7 minutes for the Eagle (AW&ST June 12, 2006)
If that's true (I don't have a subscription to access the archive) then a lot of the numbers surrounding the F-22's range must be wrong (a subsonic specific range of 0.1lb/nmi for example would yield a subsonic combat radius roughly 30% longer than the published figure); traveling ~66-75% faster while burning only ~100% extra fuel, especially when you're breaking the sound barrier and having to actually accelerate up to those speeds doesn't seem feasible.

What happened to the 750nm atf requirement?
The F-22 achieves that with a pair of bags.

The website listed "Mission 1" combat radius with the objective and achieved in testing. I can't recall the exact objective but I want to say it was ~275nm subsonic segment plus a 100nm supersonic segment. The achieved was 310nm subsonic (I made a typo in my previous post) and 100nm supersonic segments. For a total combat radius of 410nm.

I'm not sure I'd agree that SR is around 0.07 nm/lb (30% less.) That F-22 slide shows roughly 590nm subsonic combat radius. A good rule of thumb for cruise fuel for making a rough combat radius calculation is 67% of max fuel (depending on the mission set but its a rough guide). In this case that's roughly 12,000lbs. 1180/12000 = 0.0983 nm/lb. A 0.07 nm/lb would require 16,850lb which would either require more fuel than the Raptor is said to have or eating into other sections of the fuel score. I don't think it's correct simply because standard VFR recovery reserves is 14% which gives you remaining fuel of 15,500lbs for everything else (STTO, Climb, Cruise, Combat & Descent.) I'm happy to be corrected (my recollection of that AvWeek article was in error) but I'm fairly certain that I'm in the ballpark. In anycase I come up with a 2.1:1 ratio of supersonic to subsonic cruise SR.
 
Last edited:

Bruno Anthony

I miss the Cold War
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
305
Reaction score
117
It's 100nm segment of the radius, i.e. its 330nm + 100nm sub + super combat radius on the now defunct official F-22 webpage that LM had up until a few years ago.
I don't follow your grammar there; what is the 330nmi (super or subsonic), why is 100nmi subsonic (when the chart above is saying 100nmi of supercruise) and what is the "super combat radius" you're adding to those numbers?

There was an interview with a USAF GO who stated that in the anti-cruise missile mission, the F-22 could maintain M1.5 for 41 minutes vice 7 minutes for the Eagle (AW&ST June 12, 2006)
If that's true (I don't have a subscription to access the archive) then a lot of the numbers surrounding the F-22's range must be wrong (a subsonic specific range of 0.1lb/nmi for example would yield a subsonic combat radius roughly 30% longer than the published figure); traveling ~66-75% faster while burning only ~100% extra fuel, especially when you're breaking the sound barrier and having to actually accelerate up to those speeds doesn't seem feasible.

What happened to the 750nm atf requirement?
The F-22 achieves that with a pair of bags.

The website listed "Mission 1" combat radius with the objective and achieved in testing. I can't recall the exact objective but I want to say it was ~275nm subsonic segment plus a 100nm supersonic segment. The achieved was 310nm subsonic (I made a typo in my previous post) and 100nm supersonic segments. For a total combat radius of 410nm.

I'm not sure I'd agree that SR is around 0.07 nm/lb (30% less.) That F-22 slide shows roughly 590nm subsonic combat radius. A good rule of thumb for cruise fuel for making a rough combat radius calculation is 67% of max fuel (depending on the mission set but its a rough guide). In this case that's roughly 12,000lbs. 1180/12000 = 0.0983 nm/lb. A 0.07 nm/lb would require 16,850lb which would either require more fuel than the Raptor is said to have or eating into other sections of the fuel score. I don't think it's correct simply because standard VFR recovery reserves is 14% which gives you remaining fuel of 15,500lbs for everything else (STTO, Climb, Cruise, Combat & Descent.) I'm happy to be corrected (my recollection of that AvWeek article was in error) but I'm fairly certain that I'm in the ballpark. In anycase I come up with a 2.1:1 ratio of supersonic to subsonic cruise SR.
 

Attachments

  • D5E25525-6D1E-414D-946A-CC100887B0AE.png
    D5E25525-6D1E-414D-946A-CC100887B0AE.png
    4.7 MB · Views: 32

BDF

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
175
Reaction score
100
@Bruno Anthony

Not sure why you're reposting this as a response to what I said to Dragon. As I stated at the end of the last paragraph:

I'm happy to be corrected (my recollection of that AvWeek article was in error) but I'm fairly certain that I'm in the ballpark. In any case I come up with a 2.1:1 ratio of supersonic to subsonic cruise SR.
 

Bruno Anthony

I miss the Cold War
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
305
Reaction score
117
@Bruno Anthony

Not sure why you're reposting this as a response to what I said to Dragon. As I stated at the end of the last paragraph:

I'm happy to be corrected (my recollection of that AvWeek article was in error) but I'm fairly certain that I'm in the ballpark. In any case I come up with a 2.1:1 ratio of supersonic to subsonic cruise SR.
Not sure if you read the article I originally posted. Not everyone has access to AvWeek archive so I screenshot relevant articles.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
900
Reaction score
1,554
there was some news earlier this week about Hawaiian F-22s being scrambled to intercept Russian aircraft.

Since Hawaii is really quite far from Russia, I am wondering what the flight path of these aircraft would be like.
would they depart from Kamchatka or something and fly for like 6-8 hours south then turn around after the interception?
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
900
Reaction score
1,554

tequilashooter

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
Messages
592
Reaction score
711
It's 100nm segment of the radius, i.e. its 330nm + 100nm sub + super combat radius on the now defunct official F-22 webpage that LM had up until a few years ago.
I don't follow your grammar there; what is the 330nmi (super or subsonic), why is 100nmi subsonic (when the chart above is saying 100nmi of supercruise) and what is the "super combat radius" you're adding to those numbers?

There was an interview with a USAF GO who stated that in the anti-cruise missile mission, the F-22 could maintain M1.5 for 41 minutes vice 7 minutes for the Eagle (AW&ST June 12, 2006)
If that's true (I don't have a subscription to access the archive) then a lot of the numbers surrounding the F-22's range must be wrong (a subsonic specific range of 0.1lb/nmi for example would yield a subsonic combat radius roughly 30% longer than the published figure); traveling ~66-75% faster while burning only ~100% extra fuel, especially when you're breaking the sound barrier and having to actually accelerate up to those speeds doesn't seem feasible.

What happened to the 750nm atf requirement?
The F-22 achieves that with a pair of bags.

The website listed "Mission 1" combat radius with the objective and achieved in testing. I can't recall the exact objective but I want to say it was ~275nm subsonic segment plus a 100nm supersonic segment. The achieved was 310nm subsonic (I made a typo in my previous post) and 100nm supersonic segments. For a total combat radius of 410nm.

I'm not sure I'd agree that SR is around 0.07 nm/lb (30% less.) That F-22 slide shows roughly 590nm subsonic combat radius. A good rule of thumb for cruise fuel for making a rough combat radius calculation is 67% of max fuel (depending on the mission set but its a rough guide). In this case that's roughly 12,000lbs. 1180/12000 = 0.0983 nm/lb. A 0.07 nm/lb would require 16,850lb which would either require more fuel than the Raptor is said to have or eating into other sections of the fuel score. I don't think it's correct simply because standard VFR recovery reserves is 14% which gives you remaining fuel of 15,500lbs for everything else (STTO, Climb, Cruise, Combat & Descent.) I'm happy to be corrected (my recollection of that AvWeek article was in error) but I'm fairly certain that I'm in the ballpark. In anycase I come up with a 2.1:1 ratio of supersonic to subsonic cruise SR.
I have been dying to know the F-22 internal ferry range for quite a long time so is the 590 nautical miles official for combat range? Can we assume the ferry range is 1180 nautical miles. Because ferry is always twice the combat range correcr?
 

BDF

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
175
Reaction score
100
I have been dying to know the F-22 internal ferry range for quite a long time so is the 590 nautical miles official for combat range? Can we assume the ferry range is 1180 nautical miles. Because ferry is always twice the combat range correcr?
Sort of. Ferry range is generally longer than combat range since there less stringent requirements and generally can be planned at most favorable altitudes. Obviously there's range and radius are not the same as well as you've noted.The 590nm is the strike configuration combat radius. A OCA or DCA mission will have less even radius, even if all subsonic. My guess is that a ferry range in the clean configuration (i.e. no drop tanks) is around 1,200 to1,250nm depending on the weather at the destination and no winds. Adding externals extends the range quite a bit but isn't a linear relationship. There's a drag penalty for the extra fuel but in this case it's sounds like it may be close as the ETs add 44.4% more fuel and this listed ferry range is 1,680nm with ETs. That's roughly 37% more range than my estimate here. Keep in mind this is all just rough back of the napkin calculations but should be ballpark.
 

icyplanetnhc (Steve)

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
218
Reaction score
216
Website
aiaa.seas.ucla.edu
No, ferry range is not simply double the combat radius. Depending on the flight profile, your range can vary logarithmically with weight, or with the difference of roots. Furthermore, combat radius typically has a routing factor and combat maneuver time factored in.
 

DWG

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
1,509
Reaction score
1,705
Because ferry is always twice the combat range correcr?

Combat range typically includes a cruise segment, high speed ingress and egress segments (possibly at low level), an allowance for full power combat, and then a cruise back to base with a safety margin on top.
Ferry is all cruise, doesn't need the high fuel consumption ingress and egress segments, nor the very high fuel consumption combat segment, and needs the same safety margin, not double, so should typically be rather more than double combat range.
 
Last edited:

BDF

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
175
Reaction score
100
Because ferry is always twice the combat range correcr?

Combat range typically includes a cruise segment, high speed ingress and egress segments (possibly at low level), an allowance for full power combat, and then a cruise back to base with a safety margin on top.
Ferry is all cruise, doesn't need the high fuel consumption ingress and egress segments, nor the very high fuel consumption combat segment, and needs the same safety margin, not double, so should typically be rather more than double combat range.
That wasn't my question FYI
 

DWG

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
1,509
Reaction score
1,705
Because ferry is always twice the combat range correcr?

Combat range typically includes a cruise segment, high speed ingress and egress segments (possibly at low level), an allowance for full power combat, and then a cruise back to base with a safety margin on top.
Ferry is all cruise, doesn't need the high fuel consumption ingress and egress segments, nor the very high fuel consumption combat segment, and needs the same safety margin, not double, so should typically be rather more than double combat range.
That wasn't my question FYI
Whoops! Fixed in my post. Can we note that I hate the way the new editor handles editing nested comments.
 

totoro

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
466
Reaction score
227
Here's a little bit of mental gymnastics that yielded an estimate of F-22's ferry range.
I used that chart comparing F-22 and F-15E combat range as a basis.
As well as a separate calculation for F-15 based on the Standard aircraft characteristics document for F-15C with CFTs, carrying 4 sparrows and 2 mk84 bombs (closest equivalent I had)

SAC document said 891 nm range with 1 tank.
that's for said load, and two climbs. 1 from 10000 ft to 40 kft
another from 10 kft to 60 kft.
Otherwise it was optimal cruise and all payload jettisoned at half distance.

Rough estimate would yield 1090 nm for same plane carrying 3 drop tanks, and the bombs somehow carried under CFTs.

Ferry range of F15C with CFTs and 3 drop tanks is 2582 nm.

Using the chart by LM i got this:
without routing factor F22 combat radius is 620 nm
F15E radius is 650 nm.

But that F15E was said to fly high-low-low-high.
As i can tell from SAC document for F16, such profile assumes 100 nm of low level flight to the target. (and i assume 100 nm more at egress if it's low-low)
So if there would be no low level flight, that F-15E might fly 1050 nm
of combat radius.
Which is quite similar to that 1090nm estimate for F-15C with CFTs and a similar load.

But two 2k LGBs are heavier and draggier than two 1k jdams. Plus that f15 has a flir. And carries missiles externally.

So I assume actual equivalent payload would yield at least 1100 nm combat radius.

If we use the official ferry range of 2580 nm and compare it with 1100nm we get a factor of 2.345.

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.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,931
Reaction score
2,469
Because ferry is always twice the combat range correcr?

Combat range typically includes a cruise segment, high speed ingress and egress segments (possibly at low level), an allowance for full power combat, and then a cruise back to base with a safety margin on top.
Ferry is all cruise, doesn't need the high fuel consumption ingress and egress segments, nor the very high fuel consumption combat segment, and needs the same safety margin, not double, so should typically be rather more than double combat range.
That wasn't my question FYI
Whoops! Fixed in my post. Can we note that I hate the way the new editor handles editing nested comments.

Agreed. I like the implementation of this forum software on another site I use that only keeps one layer of quoted content in replies by default. It also allows you to quote multiple posts and reply in one message but doesn't nest those together.
 

Similar threads

Top