Random thought: I wonder if the modifications would translate to an F-35 or if the internal wing structure is too different. Not sure if the F-35 was designed for jetisonable tanks, where as this was part of the original F-22 program.
Fuel, so far as has been mentioned to date. I don't think the F-22 wants for weapon load; I doubt the USAF is interested in pods for such.Looks like the USAF is actively pursuing sensor pods and low observable external fuel tanks. That said, I’m a bit disappointed if they’re not pursuing an internal sensor fairing.
Fuel tanks or weapon pods?
Fuel, so far as has been mentioned to date. I don't think the F-22 wants for weapon load; I doubt the USAF is interested in pods for such.Looks like the USAF is actively pursuing sensor pods and low observable external fuel tanks. That said, I’m a bit disappointed if they’re not pursuing an internal sensor fairing.
Fuel tanks or weapon pods?
I thought there was a study back in the early days, maybe associated with FB-22? Having trouble finding them again so I'm not sure if they were official, company, or fantasy.
The ones on the artist impression are definately just stealty supersonic fuel tanks. It will be hard to keep the supersonic design if you also add weapons.Looks like the USAF is actively pursuing sensor pods and low observable external fuel tanks. That said, I’m a bit disappointed if they’re not pursuing an internal sensor fairing.
Fuel tanks or weapon pods?
Published supercruise number with the F119 went from Mach 1.43 to Mach 1.72. Published fuel load went from 22,000lb to 18,600lb. If you look at the bottom of the rear fuselage the F-22A is very different than the YF-22.As the design evolved into the 638 EMD proposal configuration, the rear fuselage appears to be further slimmed down, while the vertical stabilizers were decreased in size. The further decrease in cross-section likely improved wave drag characteristics, although I suspect that it may also have reduced the aircraft's fuel load.
I wouldn't say that the increase in the F-22's performance is solely due to the reshaped aft geometry and improved drag characteristics (there were other changes as well); the YF119 was considerably less powerful than the production F119, as the former did not have the enlarged fan to increase thrust due to the ATF's increasing weight (unlike the YF120, which did have an enlarged fan compared to the XF120). The difference in static thrust ratings is nearly 20%. Of course, in terms of dynamic thrust, it's difficult to characterize how much the enlarged fan would affect the right side of the envelope. As an overall system, even though the F-22 can achieve about Mach 1.8 without afterburners, the supersonic design point by all accounts is Mach 1.5, where it would be the most efficient in terms of supersonic performance.Published supercruise number with the F119 went from Mach 1.43 to Mach 1.72. Published fuel load went from 22,000lb to 18,600lb. If you look at the bottom of the rear fuselage the F-22A is very different than the YF-22.
Didn't say anything other than the F-22A lost fuel, got skinnier, and goes faster.I wouldn't say that the increase in the F-22's performance is solely due to the reshaped aft geometry and improved drag characteristics (there were other changes as well); the YF119 was considerably less powerful than the production F119, as the former did not have the enlarged fan to increase thrust due to the ATF's increasing weight (unlike the YF120, which did have an enlarged fan compared to the XF120). The difference in static thrust ratings is nearly 20%. Of course, in terms of dynamic thrust, it's difficult to characterize how much the enlarged fan would affect the right side of the envelope. As an overall system, even though the F-22 can achieve about Mach 1.8 without afterburners, the supersonic design point by all accounts is Mach 1.5, where it would be the most efficient in terms of supersonic performance.Published supercruise number with the F119 went from Mach 1.43 to Mach 1.72. Published fuel load went from 22,000lb to 18,600lb. If you look at the bottom of the rear fuselage the F-22A is very different than the YF-22.
Didn't say anything other than the F-22A lost fuel, got skinnier, and goes faster.I wouldn't say that the increase in the F-22's performance is solely due to the reshaped aft geometry and improved drag characteristics (there were other changes as well); the YF119 was considerably less powerful than the production F119, as the former did not have the enlarged fan to increase thrust due to the ATF's increasing weight (unlike the YF120, which did have an enlarged fan compared to the XF120). The difference in static thrust ratings is nearly 20%. Of course, in terms of dynamic thrust, it's difficult to characterize how much the enlarged fan would affect the right side of the envelope. As an overall system, even though the F-22 can achieve about Mach 1.8 without afterburners, the supersonic design point by all accounts is Mach 1.5, where it would be the most efficient in terms of supersonic performance.Published supercruise number with the F119 went from Mach 1.43 to Mach 1.72. Published fuel load went from 22,000lb to 18,600lb. If you look at the bottom of the rear fuselage the F-22A is very different than the YF-22.
Which issue if I may ask, I could use that.Well last mention in airforce mag was... Mach 2.8.
Add me to that list.Which issue if I may ask, I could use that.Well last mention in airforce mag was... Mach 2.8.
I wonder how fast the F-22 actually is sferrin? I have heard many rumours that it has the capability to fly at Mach 2 with full afterburner, I have remained sceptical about this for many years.
Well, the specs listed in the article are meant for the 6th Gen, alluding it will have superior performance over the Rptor, at least that's the way i interpreted it. The F-22 tops at 66k feet, 4k feet shy of the conceived ceiling of NGAD. Same with the Mach 2.8. Honestly, i would be surprised if it can reach those speeds, but the problem is that even if the airframe can sustain the heat, the (current) RAM coatings cannot, hence the software limit to mach 2.0. I remember someone talking about a pic of it with RAM smeared over the canopy when they puhed it too far, Surely the solar like pannel tiles being tested for NGAD will have new properties that will enable if to fly at it's maximum potential.
oh keypublishing, it is insane how quickly that forum die after the redesign. I think they lost 99%member after the update
I’ve heard mach 2.4, more then that the FCS stops you to protect the plane. Pretty consistent with the Eagle’s 2.5Mach 2.8 was Air Force Mag's speculation for the NGAD's potential top speed. The F-22 operationally is Mach 2 class, with the RAM coatings likely being a limiting factor. Even without that limitation, the top dash speed is probably not much different from an F-15 (with a time limit), but frankly, the top dash speed just isn't a particularly important characteristic and has very little operational value.
Add me to that list.Which issue if I may ask, I could use that.Well last mention in airforce mag was... Mach 2.8.
Rationally, no.Any chance that was just a typo?
Interesting. There was a comment by Paul Metz, on one of the many cable shows back in the 90s, wherein he said regarding the F-22A, "it's fast. I mean it's really fast. The top speed is classified but it will do 1600 miles per hour."Add me to that list.Which issue if I may ask, I could use that.Well last mention in airforce mag was... Mach 2.8.
It was here, in an article about NGAD:
Piecing Together the NGAD Puzzle | Air & Space Forces Magazine
The Next-Generation Air Dominance family of systems remains highly classified. But some details are beginning to emerge.www.airforcemag.com
At the start of the 'Flight Performance' paragraph;
"The primary aircraft of NGAD is likely to fly at least as high and fast as the F-22, meaning an upper ceiling of about 65,000 to 70,000 feet and a top speed of about Mach 2.8."
Interesting. There was a comment by Paul Metz, on one of the many cable shows back in the 90s, wherein he said regarding the F-22A, "it's fast. I mean it's really fast. The top speed is classified but it will do 1600 miles per hour."Add me to that list.Which issue if I may ask, I could use that.Well last mention in airforce mag was... Mach 2.8.
It was here, in an article about NGAD:
Piecing Together the NGAD Puzzle | Air & Space Forces Magazine
The Next-Generation Air Dominance family of systems remains highly classified. But some details are beginning to emerge.www.airforcemag.com
At the start of the 'Flight Performance' paragraph;
"The primary aircraft of NGAD is likely to fly at least as high and fast as the F-22, meaning an upper ceiling of about 65,000 to 70,000 feet and a top speed of about Mach 2.8."
There was another quote by a pilot saying, "when you're cruising at Mach 1.9 and 60,000 feet. . ." and another about the F-22 being able to supercruise at sea-level.
I wouldn't read too much into this statement. Again, this is AFM's speculation that the NGAD may be able to achieve a level of performance equal to or greater than the F-22's, so it doesn’t really tell much about the latter’s actual performance. The F-22's top dash speed likely isn't much different from an F-15, and operationally it would be of little value, especially if speeds above Mach 2 places excessive wear on the RAM skin, which is already a very maintenance-intensive aspect of the aircraft.It was here, in an article about NGAD:
At the start of the 'Flight Performance' paragraph;Piecing Together the NGAD Puzzle | Air & Space Forces Magazine
The Next-Generation Air Dominance family of systems remains highly classified. But some details are beginning to emerge.www.airforcemag.com
"The primary aircraft of NGAD is likely to fly at least as high and fast as the F-22, meaning an upper ceiling of about 65,000 to 70,000 feet and a top speed of about Mach 2.8."
Imagine a Speed Raptor program...no RAM, no software limits, stripped out weapon bay racks. Could be nuts.
And pointless.Imagine a Speed Raptor program...no RAM, no software limits, stripped out weapon bay racks. Could be nuts.
Yep. Ain't it cool?And pointless.Imagine a Speed Raptor program...no RAM, no software limits, stripped out weapon bay racks. Could be nuts.
I wouldn't read too much into this statement. Again, this is AFM's speculation that the NGAD may be able to achieve a level of performance equal to or greater than the F-22's, so it doesn’t really tell much about the latter’s actual performance. The F-22's top dash speed likely isn't much different from an F-15, and operationally it would be of little value, especially if speeds above Mach 2 places excessive wear on the RAM skin, which is already a very maintenance-intensive aspect of the aircraft.It was here, in an article about NGAD:
At the start of the 'Flight Performance' paragraph;Piecing Together the NGAD Puzzle | Air & Space Forces Magazine
The Next-Generation Air Dominance family of systems remains highly classified. But some details are beginning to emerge.www.airforcemag.com
"The primary aircraft of NGAD is likely to fly at least as high and fast as the F-22, meaning an upper ceiling of about 65,000 to 70,000 feet and a top speed of about Mach 2.8."
Or unless one wants/needs to intercept 'very fast things' other then supersonic bombers, or when time is extremely critical.
I don’t see the operational need to operate above Mach 2 unless you need to intercept supersonic bombers. That said, could fourth gen fighters even hit Mach 2 with standard weapon load out?