Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

[Jimmo952]

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.

 

[jsport]

Fleet Decentralization Focus For AF Budget Beyond 2023 - Breaking Defense

How the Air Force embodies its 'agile combat employment' concept depends in part on the future fleet composition -- with the F-22's fate a central question.

breakingdefense.com

 

[rooster]

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]

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.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Hawaii-Based F-22s Scrambled On FAA's Request But Nobody Will Say Why (Updated)

The alert mission was described as an "irregular patrol" with no indication of what prompted it.

www.thedrive.com

 

[Bruno Anthony]

Anyone know how much time or range the F-22s spend in supercruise?

 

[rooster]

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]

There's no publicly available word on any limits the jet can spend in supercruise, but we do have this chart:



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]

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_]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)

Aviation Week — June 12 2006

Explore the full June 12 2006 issue of Aviation Week. Browse featured articles, preview selected issue contents, and more.

archive.aviationweek.com

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]

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)

Aviation Week — June 12 2006

Explore the full June 12 2006 issue of Aviation Week. Browse featured articles, preview selected issue contents, and more.

archive.aviationweek.com

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.

 

[BDF]

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)

Aviation Week — June 12 2006

Explore the full June 12 2006 issue of Aviation Week. Browse featured articles, preview selected issue contents, and more.

archive.aviationweek.com

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.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

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)

Aviation Week — June 12 2006

Explore the full June 12 2006 issue of Aviation Week. Browse featured articles, preview selected issue contents, and more.

archive.aviationweek.com

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.

 

[BDF]

@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]

@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.

 

[BDF]

Apologies, I misunderstood your intentions. Thanks for sharing.

 

[helmutkohl]

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?

 

[GARGEAN]

Or maybe they just weren't up for the russians?

 

[helmutkohl]

Or maybe they just weren't up for the russians?

Missile-armed F-22 fighters launched again today as distant Russian bombers vectored toward Hawaii | Honolulu Star-Advertiser

Armed Hawaii Air National Guard F-22 fighters scrambled again today as Russian “Bear” bombers headed for the second time toward Hawaii as part of an ongoing Russian naval and air exercise several hundred miles west of the Aloha State, a U.S. official said.

www.staradvertiser.com

 

[tequilashooter]

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)

Aviation Week — June 12 2006

Explore the full June 12 2006 issue of Aviation Week. Browse featured articles, preview selected issue contents, and more.

archive.aviationweek.com

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]

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)]

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]

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.

 

[paralay]

Flight range:
without external tanks-2500 km
with two external tanks-3330 km

Operating range without external tanks:
air-to-air 875 km
air-to-ground 1190 km

 

[BDF]

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

 

[TomcatViP]

From Tyndall to Eglin to Langley:

Air Force Approves Langley as F-22 Training Host | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The US Air Force has approved a plan to station its F-22 training unit at Joint Base Langley-Eustis. But the official move isn't finished just yet.

www.airforcemag.com

 

[DWG]

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]

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.

 

[stealthflanker]

Why not try Breguet range equation ?

 

[TomS]

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.

 

[totoro]

Why not try Breguet range equation ?

Because there's a bunch of values that are unknown to me about F-22 to simply plug all of them into the Breguet's equation?

 

[TomcatViP]

Guys, don't forget that the F-22 probably cruise much higher (probably 3/4 higher than any F-15 can do efficiently). I would suggest adding a ratio in any comparison you make.