Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

[AGS-1787]

Years ago (my memory is fussy so someone might be able to correct me) when one f-22 crashed during a mission they were doing M1.3 or 1.5 at like 13.000m (my numbers might be wrong) they were just cruising. Apparently, the pilot that crashed either suffered hypoxia or g-locked and the airplane went on a dive.
I know DCS is a sim, but sometimes flying a Su-27 supersonic at high altitude made it easy to kill lower flying airplanes, especially if the mission scenario was mountanous. Everybody on the blue side would be looking for a low flying flanker so they were not looking up. So I would just use datalink to see where some of the blue guys were, climb at military power, and then at around 10.000m engage the afterburners to climb to 14.000m. From there I would use datalink to locate a target and only engage the radar close enough that my missiles had plenty of energy to reach. I imagine doing this same thing in an f-22 would be even more effective. I imagine that's how the raptors operate, fly high and fast, locate targets, shoot some AIM-120s undetected, then the AIM-120 they go pitbull, the enemy airplanes would have just seconds to react. Let's say the f-22 gets detected by heat signature, then most likely he (The f-22) would be turning perpendicular to the enemy airplane supersonic at high altitude, making it really hard to be able to launch anything at him.

 

[Josh_TN]

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.

 

[aonestudio]

Report: Maintainer Error Caused Nellis F-22 Damage | Air & Space Forces Magazine

An F-22 at Nellis Air Force Base had an auxiliary power unit overheat and cause significant damage after maintainers make mistakes and oversights.

www.airforcemag.com

 

[TomcatViP]

25 F-22 plus 10 F-15 to be deployed around Guam:

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.

US Air Force to send dozens of F-22 fighter jets to the Pacific amid tensions with China | CNN

The United States Air Force is sending more than two dozen F-22 stealth fighters to an exercise in the western Pacific this month, an unusually large deployment of the powerful jets that analysts say sends a strong message to a possible adversary in China.

www.cnn.com

 

[sferrin]

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.)

 

[BDF]

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.

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.

 

[icyplanetnhc (Steve)]

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.)

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.

F-16.net - The ultimate F-16, F-35 and F-22 reference

Four-year-old Steve Rainey sat on the hood of his father's car at a local airshow watching the small airplanes and helicopters at the airport. When the Thunderbirds in their F-100s sped by, Rainey fell off the car, looked up at the sky and thought,

www.f-16.net

"You're burning an incredible amount of fuel when you're using the afterburner. It shortens the mission duration...with the Raptor you can go supersonic even at sea level without the afterburners. At design altitudes we are talking 1.6+Mach. This means imparting more energy to the weapons we employ allowing longer engagement ranges."

 

[rooster]

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.

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.

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.

 

[icyplanetnhc (Steve)]

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.

 

[rooster]

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 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?

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?

 

[icyplanetnhc (Steve)]

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 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?

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?

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.

That being said, range is still a limitation of the airframe that USAF is seeking to address with the NGAD.

 

[Ogami musashi]

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 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?

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.

 

[Scar]

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.

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

Like it or not, but in terms of internal fuel and range F-22 is pretty shortlegged bird. Especially in comparison to Sukhoi's new heavy fighters, as Su-35S and Su-57. Probably this is why LM erased this and some other figures from the new version of the Raptor's page on their official website.

 

[Firefinder]

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.

 

[BDF]

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 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?

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.

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.

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.

 

[BDF]

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.

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....

 

[Ogami musashi]

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 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[paralay]

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

Every line is shit

 

[Scar]

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

Every line is shit

Sure, Alexander. This is a Conspiracy!

 

[BDF]

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.

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...

 

[icyplanetnhc (Steve)]

Reposting 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.

 

[In_A_Dream]

Reposting 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-10

 

[FighterJock]

Reposting 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-10

Don't get me started on the USAF's repeated attempts to kill off the A-10, if they try to do the same tactic with the F-22 regardless of the how the NGAD is getting on design wise it would be rather foolish to retire the F-22 right now.

 

[Foo Fighter]

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?

 

[Archibald]

Reposting 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-10

Only after they created it to bother (very polite term here) the Army in the first place, in the days of the Cheyenne. Don't start me on this either ! The list of CAS platforms is seemingly never ending.

 

[icyplanetnhc (Steve)]

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?

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.

 

[sferrin]

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

Every line is shit

Sour grapes aren't going to change the facts. Sorry.

 

[FighterJock]

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.

 

[sferrin]

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 aircraft is already airframe limited. Don't know what more powerful engines would get them.

 

[Ogami musashi]

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

Every line is shit

Sour grapes aren't going to change the facts. Sorry.

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?
Besides, I can't find the information back, but early in the post first flight phase, a raptor flew 1700+nm in a max ferry range test flight, before any tank was certified to be carried on it. I was always left with the impression that 1600nm was the combat range.
That being said, the raptor has a low fuel fraction.

 

[Josh_TN]

RE: f35 avionics, I think the hardware and software is completely incompatible down to the individual antennas. It would likely be a total tear down of the airframe.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Just let's say the F-35 avionics were rather badly overhyped.

 

[FighterJock]

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 aircraft is already airframe limited. Don't know what more powerful engines would get them.

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.

 

[TomcatViP]

The fact that it flies and nobody knows it for sure would seem like a gage of excellence.

(botched design do crash or divert)

 

[sferrin]

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 aircraft is already airframe limited. Don't know what more powerful engines would get them.

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.

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.

 

[paralay]

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 !

 

[Foo Fighter]

"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".

....and the Korean bird with F-35 upgrade electronics and skin coatings?

 

[sferrin]

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 !

Not sure what point you're trying to make. That sheet shows the F-22 having 20,167lbs (9148kg) internal fuel.

 

[icyplanetnhc (Steve)]

This is a mass with four external tanks, which were abandoned after the replacement of the wing spars.

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.

 

[paralay]

Not sure what point you're trying to make. That sheet shows the F-22 having 20,167lbs (9148kg) internal fuel.

I'm trying to convey to you that this site is lying