Europe and 5th generation aircraft

[obrescia]

For DA

Ok. Let’s play fast-jet defense analyst. I’ll ask a question and you (aka 'DA'... will know the) answer.

Condition(s): flight of 4 Raptors in enemy airspace at angles 65,000 @ 1.1 Mach gets target/heading/aspect information from AWACS on 6 bogeys at angles 15,000 @ 0.4 Mach that are 141nm down range from Raptor flight.

Question: After Raptor flight leader acknowledges. What’s the first thing Raptor flight does?

Obrescia,

This board has had numerous Flanker debates. Nothing that has been brought up about the Flanker in this thread is particularly revealing. In fact, a lot of people would be surprised to learn what features of the "Advanced Flankers" don't exist in actual operational production Flankers. Like being able to fire the R-77 for instance. Most of them can't do that.

Look, the Russians are military aviation masters. They have a looooong history of building fighters to counter the worlds proven best fighters. So no one should question the brilliance behind the engineering that went into the Flanker. However, fundamentally, it's not any different than many other operational warplanes pilots could face. Its of conventional design, not stealthy. About as fast as other 4th Gen planes. Carries about the same amount of armament. It's radar is approximately on par with western designs of the time. It's EW capabilities are varied from poor to good depending on who the operator is. Aerodynamically its OPERATIONALLY configured flight performance is on par with western 4th Gens. It's very reasonably priced. Other than that, the primary difference is that it could be encountered much further out than past Russian planes because it carries a lot of gas. Its a solid 4th Gen Heavy Fighter Jet. THATS IT.

Stop trying to make it into something it's not. But I'll agree with one thing you said. The Advanced Flanker variants you keep bringing up are so Advanced that they are still prototypes and demonstrators! So indeed they are planes our pilots wont face.

Now if you want to put the Flanker into context. Then we should be talking about European airforces who will not be flying the F-35 or using Meteor. To them, the Flanker in some cases warrant concern because the attrition in a conflict could get excessive. But if for example some tin pot dictator or failed state decides to starve more of it's people and buys a dozen or so Flankers it isn't a big deal. Think about it from an economic stand point as well. For example, is it really a threat to France because some North African nation buys Flankers? No.

France can build Rafales at will, maintain them, replace losses and support it Rafales with a well rounded military. Meanwhile, country x is losing Flankers to the French Military and can't afford to buy more, can't import them through the blockade or French politicians and French allies have bought off the Russians who suddenly can't fulfill a new order because of a parts shortage. That's how this works in real life. The Only Flanker operator western pilots need to worry about are the Chinese and then really only in the case of Taiwan in the unlikely event of an invasion or bombardment attempt.

Anybody else would be overwhelmed by the totality of the system arrayed against them. Especially if they are relying on a single platform for salvation. The only "nightmare" here is the time we waste having to explain this over and over ect...

-DA

 

[DarthAmerica]

Try asking "Multivac".

Entropy
-DA

 

[Grand Danois]

They weren't networked nearly well enough, usually lacked latest generation of SAMs (Iraq had no S-300's) and were usually an order of magnitude behind in digitalization and computerization. They also usually weren't well coordinated with AD fighter planes and ground forces. The Iraqi AD in this regard was not anything spectacular (though it was quite extensive).

At the time of ODS, S-300 was almost exclusively deployed around Moscow, hence the comparison to WARPAC in Eastern Europe. The benchmark at that time was not a post year 2000 IADS. The Iraqi IADS was reasonably sophisticated for that time.

I beg to differ. If the AD is properly networked and datalinked with air defense fighters, then even without general air superiority it can still effectively keep the enemy air from your ground troops (which is it's purpose). What it can't do is win air superiority, or for that matter contest it if it's not support by effective ground defences, AD fighters in the sky, and proper C2 structures.

Well, it may be a matter of opinion. My perspective is, that having the initiative in the air - which the attacker will have in your example - will cause the defending IADS and the army units it protects to lose their ability to act cohesively over time (and that point in time comes rather quickly, but is dependent on the size of the battle, of course). The degradation of competence is felt the moment the defender tries to seize initiative.

To simplify: if the attacker can sustain the effort, without the defender striking decisively back before it is too late, then the IADS and what it protects goes down.

 

[JWCook]

Supercruise the way it is used today is F-22 specific. Yes, other fighters have in test configurations exceeded M1.0 dry to include the old Electric Lighting from decades ago. F-15's, Typhoons and F-16's have done it as well. It's reference with the Typhoon comes from earlier in the decade when the Typhoon was in serious competition with F-Teens in Singapore, S Korea ect.

Typhoons, or any other operational combat jet other than the F-22, do not supercruise operationally outside of test environments. They don't have the endurance(check SFC), they don't have the thrust, aerodynamically they are too unclean and their engines are not designed to operate for prolonged periods under these conditions.

You will have various people with different opinions as EADs intended during their marketing campaign especially when buyers were being wooed by the F-22's debut. But if you are familiar enough with the aircraft specs, the physics or have an opportunity to talk with people who fly fighters or build jets for a living they will confirm this to you.


-DA

Just so you know re engine design and performance:-

The EJ200 engine is not limited in supercruise by anything i.e temperature, as long as it has fuel to run in the Typhoon it can supercruise.

You may argue the fuel fractions between the two - but until LM tells us how far a F-22 can travel while supercruising or its persistance at M1.7 then its a very subjective matter, is supercruise useful? at what point does it become useful? M1.1? or M1.3? and is that advantage linear as the supercruise speed increases or does the advantage drop off over speed X?

You'll also find the definition of supercruise changed around 2000.

GAO report 1998 to congressional committee:-

"Supercruise means the aircraft can sustain supersonic or mach speed without useing afterburner."

and here's a couple of old newsgroup posts from Mary Shafer who was at the time SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center.

Al is not quite as prone to the transonic-supersonic hair-splitting
that I regularly indulge in or he would point out that it takes more
than just Mach 1.0 to be supersonic and, therefore, supercruising. It
may be that 1.08 is supersonic, not transonic, but I'd have to see
data to be convinced. However, the Concorde, which uses reheat
(French readers please forgive me, but I can't spell "reheat" in
French or make diacritical marks or I'd write something like
"rechauffee" with an accent over the second "e") at takeoff and again
to get through the transonic regime, cruises dry at Mach 2.0+ (the
structural limit is 2.06, I think). This is unquestionably supersonic
and, therefore, supercruising.
The first definition of "supercruise" was, not surprisingly, the more
generous of the two, the ability to cruise without afterburner even if
it was required to get through the transonic region. The purist
definition of no afterburner at all, ever, is more recent and is not,
as Al mentions, universally accepted.
I personally consider it to be supercruise when afterburner is used to get through the transonic region _if_ afterburner-less cruise is genuinely supersonic, not transonic, but that's because I was around when supercruise was first defined. I think I even have a copy of the viewgraphs from the first briefing on supercruise that I ever heard; it definitely allowed afterburner to get through the transonic regime.

or

One more time--it's aerodynamics and definitions. It's subsonic
flight if all the flow is subsonic, transonic flight if some of the
flow is subsonic and some is supersonic, and supersonic flight if all
the flow is supersonic.
While the Mach number at which some flow can be supersonic has been
documented is as low as 0.5 Mach, the usual number for the beginning
of transonic flow is 0.8. Similarly, some aircraft aren't completely
supersonic until Mach 2 or even higher, but the usual number for the
end of transonic flight is 1.4.

To supercruise, which is to cruise supersonically without afterburner,
it's necessary that the plane be flying supersonically and that means
that it must be at a Mach number where all the flow is supersonic,
meaning at or above Mach 1.4.

Of course, if it's proven that all the flow is supersonic at 1.3 for
the Eurofighter, then it is indeed supercruising at 1.3. However, I
don't believe any such proof exists. In its absence, then, the 1.4
that's accepted as the boundary means that it's not supercruising at
1.3.

Mind you, going Mach 1.3 without afterburner is no small achievement
and it's not my intention to belittle the accomplishment. It's just
that it's not supercruising. I like the term "spiffingcruise", so
let's define that as meaning high transonic cruise without
afterburner. Do you think it'll catch on?

It's sort of like saying that a plane going Mach 4.5 is hypersonic,
when everyone knows that hypersonic flight starts at Mach 5. That's
because the air doesn't change into different species until you go
that fast. Again, just a definition.

Now the definition of supercruise has morphed into ~ F-22 non reheat speed - (Mach 0.1) , with various other caveats which exclude anyone else claiming supercruise status.

Hmm and Isn't LM marketing the F16 IN to India with supercruise??

Cheers

 

[Grand Danois]

Not surprisingly, I like this part:

I personally consider it to be supercruise when afterburner is used to get through the transonic region _if_ afterburner-less cruise is genuinely supersonic, not transonic,...

 

[DarthAmerica]

Now the definition of supercruise has morphed into ~ F-22 non reheat speed - (Mach 0.1) , with various other caveats which exclude anyone else claiming supercruise status.

Hmm and Isn't LM marketing the F16 IN to India with supercruise??

Cheers

Mr. Cook,

Just so you know when I refer to Supercruise, I am using LM definition in reference to the Raptor which is singularly unique. Our definitions differ. BTW are there any independent open source references to the Eurofighter supercruising OPERATIONALLY?

Also since we are debating it again, if we accept that the Typhoon supercruises, which I don't yet. Then we also have to include several of it's contemporaries which also "supercruise" by the loose definition.

-DA

 

[obrescia]

well i'm very sorry, but times up

Ok…well I’ve (we’ve) uh waited with baited breath…for DA’s answer to this very simple basic question (for an analyst)…and while he leafs through his pc-sim game instructions (uh ALT-F6 for padlock view dude!) for his answer involving the Super Frelon Helicopter...we can actually (here's a hint, the answer rhymes with the word ‘FOOL’....shhhh):

Yes!...Correct!...That's right!!!!...Yes!: The Raptor flight checks their FUEL status before they can make any decision on what their next move can be…..and what does Flanker possess a large quantity of internally??...and by his own admission?? .....FUEL!

Isn't that neat! Now see...that wasn’t so tough, (for some). Should we keep going?

If you can’t stay on station, you can’t contribute to the battle space.

Don’t worry - its all good dude! When you get back from Albuquerque, please let us know on AMRAAMs progress…thanks!

Well anyway, moving on…

 

[DarthAmerica]

Ok…well I’ve (we’ve) uh waited with baited breath…for DA’s answer to this very simple basic question (for an analyst)…and while he leafs through his pc-sim game instructions (uh ALT-F6 for padlock view dude!) for his answer involving the Super Frelon Helicopter...we can actually (here's a hint, the answer rhymes with the word ‘FOOL’....shhhh):

Yes!...Correct!...That's right!!!!...Yes!: The Raptor flight checks their FUEL status before they can make any decision on what their next move can be…..and what does Flanker possess a large quantity of internally??...and by his own admission?? .....FUEL!

Isn't that neat! Now see...that wasn’t so tough, (for some). Should we keep going?

If you can’t stay on station, you can’t contribute to the battle space.

Don’t worry - its all good dude! When you get back from Albuquerque, please let us know on AMRAAMs progress…thanks!

Well anyway, moving on…

Ummm...

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=143030&postcount=34

What did you think was being discussed? My advice to you would be to calm down, listen and stop making a fuel of yourself. Also, you might want to think about what it means for Flankers with lots of fuel in the #1 and #4 tanks flying around at 15000ft and M0.4 in friendly territory unaware they are being set up for an engagement by stealth fighters with a speed, altitude and situational awareness advantage.


-DA

 

[Dr Freud]

a quick google search lists following aircrafts supercruise:
Aircraft with supercruise include:

* BAC TSR-2
* Concorde (required afterburners to initially surpass Mach 1)
* English Electric Lightning (The first aircraft capable of supercruise)
* Eurofighter Typhoon
* F-22 Raptor
* JAS 39 Gripen[5]
* Tupolev Tu-144
* XB-70 Valkyrie
* YF-23 Black Widow II

Of these, only F22, EF Typhoon, JAS 39 Gripen is in service.
#EF M1.2 with realistic figure of M1.2 is attainable in combat configuration with external stores.
#Gripen A/B/C "only on a cold day" "with an external load including fuel tank, four AMRAAM and two Sidewinder missles without the need to engage the afterburner"
I've been told F22 combat radius is 390 nm.

@DarthAmerica: can you tell me what supercruise range/or time is needed before you think its operationally practical ?

@Feanor: i really recommend reading http://www.sci.fi/~fta/storm-02.htm
concerning IRAQ air defence.

 

[DarthAmerica]

a quick google search lists following aircrafts supercruise:
Aircraft with supercruise include:

* BAC TSR-2
* Concorde (required afterburners to initially surpass Mach 1)
* English Electric Lightning (The first aircraft capable of supercruise)
* Eurofighter Typhoon
* F-22 Raptor
* JAS 39 Gripen[5]
* Tupolev Tu-144
* XB-70 Valkyrie
* YF-23 Black Widow II

Of these, only F22, EF Typhoon, JAS 39 Gripen is in service.
#EF M1.2 with realistic figure of M1.2 is attainable in combat configuration with external stores.
#Gripen A/B/C "only on a cold day" "with an external load including fuel tank, four AMRAAM and two Sidewinder missles without the need to engage the afterburner"

@Feanor i really recommend reading http://www.sci.fi/~fta/storm-02.htm
concerning IRAQ air defence.

Well the list is actually longer than that using the operationally useless definition...

Supercruising aircraft

Using the strict definition the supercruisers include
Concorde and F-22.
If one includes anything faster than Mach 1 the list becomes
longer with English Electric Lightning (M 1.2), Lockheed F-104A
with J79-19 engine (M 1.05 at altitude), probably Draken,
F/A-18C/D Hornet with F404-402 engines, F-15E Eagle with CFTs
and LANTIRN either -220 or -229 engines (with the -229 engines
it's reported to have accelerated to M 1.15 from subsonic and
from supersonic speeds with afterburner slowed down to M 1.3
when the afterburner was turned off), Gripen, Eurofighter Typhoon,
Rafale and likely others.
This is of course depending on altitude, weights and external
loads and exact numbers are usually classified.

http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/faq/ramfaq3.txt


Of course we can google up many more examples of different modern jets doing this. My point was that only the Raptor uses this capability operationally


-DA

 

[gf0012-aust]

They weren't networked nearly well enough,

thats not so. in actual fact the iraqi battlenet was in some areas more sophisticated than some of the NATO nations.

eg they were running underground fibre comms out to the border and layered into the defences.

those comms were compromised by coalition spec forces teams.

if those com-nets had not been disabled, they would have caused a significant degree of hurt.

they were "out systemed" as well as subjected to force compression across numerous vectors. I'd argue that even some highly regarded powers would have gotten a fright if they had not had US sensory and detection options to pre-empt and kill their early warning and FCS grids

 

[Feanor]

At the time of ODS, S-300 was almost exclusively deployed around Moscow, hence the comparison to WARPAC in Eastern Europe. The benchmark at that time was not a post year 2000 IADS. The Iraqi IADS was reasonably sophisticated for that time.

It was poorly prepared, their EW capabilities were negligent compared to coalition forces (hence why all their radars were jammed so easily), they didn't have the AD fighters to co-op with the AAA and SAMs. Finally the allies had numerical superiority.

Well, it may be a matter of opinion. My perspective is, that having the initiative in the air - which the attacker will have in your example - will cause the defending IADS and the army units it protects to lose their ability to act cohesively over time (and that point in time comes rather quickly, but is dependent on the size of the battle, of course). The degradation of competence is felt the moment the defender tries to seize initiative.

It depends on the purpose of your IADS. If all you're doing is keeping the enemy of your ground forces then a reasonable force of AD fighters, AAA, SAMs, and SPAAGs, highly networked, well trained, and generally highly mobile, can perform very well even against an opponent who has the initiative.

To simplify: if the attacker can sustain the effort, without the defender striking decisively back before it is too late, then the IADS and what it protects goes down.

If the AD can keep the enemy air long off your ground long enough to win the war on the ground, it did it's job. If it can't then either your ground or your AD didn't do their job. And again I'm not saying that you can do entirely without an air force. I'm saying that an AD network with some fighters (like MiG-29 for point air defense) can effectively keep the enemy off your ground force.

@Feanor i really recommend reading http://www.sci.fi/~fta/storm-02.htm
concerning IRAQ air defence.

I read it the first time you posted it, and it support my assertion that the Iraqi IADS was of inferior quality, and most importantly poorly run and poorly commanded.

thats not so. in actual fact the iraqi battlenet was in some areas more sophisticated than some of the NATO nations.

eg they were running underground fibre comms out to the border and layered into the defences.

those comms were compromised by coalition spec forces teams.

if those com-nets had not been disabled, they would have caused a significant degree of hurt.

they were "out systemed" as well as subjected to force compression across numerous vectors. I'd argue that even some highly regarded powers would have gotten a fright if they had not had US sensory and detection options to pre-empt and kill their early warning and FCS grids

So their ground forces failed to protect their AD. Special ops disabled the AD, and thus left it impotent and incapable. Insufficient protection for their comms and HQ facilities is also a failure of Iraqi IADS at least in my opinion, though I will definetly try to find some reading about that, as I was not aware of just how sophisticated it was. So that means that had the Iraqi ground forces and command structures competence been on par with the technology, their AD network could have done it's job.

 

[DarthAmerica]

It was poorly prepared, their EW capabilities were negligent compared to coalition forces (hence why all their radars were jammed so easily), they didn't have the AD fighters to co-op with the AAA and SAMs. Finally the allies had numerical superiority.

Wrong. What we are telling you is the Iraqi IAD was very well prepared, powerful and expertly led. They also had a significant Air Force. None of that matters when you are stuck on defense and the offense has time to study and plan ways to defeat you with the initiative. Pearl Harbor and 9/11 shows that those lessons apply no matter how powerful. Iraq was in a no win situation before the shooting started. Also, the US military usually has numerical superiority and has against every foe since WWII except the Soviets. This is why we keep stressing for people not to get too platform centric in the discussions. System, System, System...

-DA

 

[JWCook]

Double post.. sorry.

 

[JWCook]

Mr. Cook,

Just so you know when I refer to Supercruise, I am using LM definition in reference to the Raptor which is singularly unique.

That was the point I was trying to make that LM's definition has changed over the last 10 years,

Its is singularly unique because it doesn't bear any relation to an actual constant speed - its rather a notional figure that starts at -0.1 Mach below where the Raptor cruises... its a bit confusing to the rest of the world who use a different definition with exactly the same name.....

Our definitions differ. BTW are there any independent open source references to the Eurofighter supercruising OPERATIONALLY?

They do differ! my definition and most others refer to an actual speed not LM's sliding scale.

Now are you using LM's definition of "open" or "OPERATIONALLY" or is it the normal ones??? - the open references are:-
in German
http://www.eurofighter.at/austria/td_lu.asp
in English
http://translate.google.com.au/tran.../austria/td_lu.asp&sl=de&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

The high performance surplus of EJ200 EJ engines allows for the air campaign in remote and high altitude supersonic important area, high acceleration.Even without afterburner use is a cruise flight with possible about Mach 1.5 (Super Cruise).

I have also had this figure confirmed by pilots, but as I have said before the useful operational speed with weapons load is Mach 1.3 with the original engines.

Where are the open sources for the Raptors range@speed operationally? things like what load is it carrying @M1.7 or how long can it sustain it, what is a typical supercruise profile.

I have only one open sourced reference for the F-22 (sadly not independent either) it states:-
a Mach 1.5 dash of 100nm reduces the combat radius of the F-22 to 405nm. or a 50nm dash reduces it to 455 nm.
Its only 595nm if its subsonic only!, no loads are given. do you have anything like these figures from elsewhere?

Also since we are debating it again, if we accept that the Typhoon supercruises, which I don't yet. Then we also have to include several of it's contemporaries which also "supercruise" by the loose definition.

Yes we do have to include quite a few aircraft in the supercruiser list if we go by the commonly used definition of supercruise I don't mind that at all, but if thats a problem why not raise the LM figure to a more sensible Mach 2 and just have Concorde if having too many in a list is complicated.

Cheers

 

[swerve]

thats not so. in actual fact the iraqi battlenet was in some areas more sophisticated than some of the NATO nations.

eg they were running underground fibre comms out to the border and layered into the defences.

those comms were compromised by coalition spec forces teams.

if those com-nets had not been disabled, they would have caused a significant degree of hurt.

they were "out systemed" as well as subjected to force compression across numerous vectors. I'd argue that even some highly regarded powers would have gotten a fright if they had not had US sensory and detection options to pre-empt and kill their early warning and FCS grids

I thought the Kari system was very hierarchical (more so than the original French design, but Saddam wanted to maximise central control), & therefore easily compromised if you knew the layout - and the designers & builders were, after all, fighting on our side in that war. LGBs dropped by F-117s, & TLAMs fired from offshore, on each SOC & IOC, turned an integrated system into independently operating units.

 

[Dr Freud]

My point was that only the Raptor uses this capability operationally

Ok i take that as in with weapons loadout. Clarified agree and done.

Here is a comparison

F22 390 nm supercruise combat radius @M1.7 (so i've been told)
EF 188 nm supercruise combat radius @M1.2 (228 nm w/droptank*)
Gripen NG 313 nm supercruise combat radius @M1.1 w/droptank

F22 41.6 min @M1.7
EF 28.5 min @M1.2 (34.5 min w/droptank*)
Gripen NG 51.6 min @M1.1 w/droptank

Speed:
F22 advantage over EF ~29%
F22 advantage over Gripen NG ~35%

Range:
F22 advantage over Gripen NG ~20%
F22 advantage over EF (w/droptank)~41.5%

Time:
Gripen NG advantage over F22 ~19%
Gripen NG advantage over EF (w/droptank) ~33%

*I dont know if EF can supercruise w/droptank, but it should, because the smaller Gripen NG is confirmed to supercruise at mach 1.1 with 1 external tank + a2a loadout.

 

[Dr Freud]

The Iraqies dont seem to have been all that proffessional :

Key systems employed were various subtypes of the EC/RC-135 Rivet Joint, the high flying TR-1 (U-2), the US Navy's EP-3 and EKA-3B aircraft and the RAF's Nimrod R.1. These aircraft were strategically positioned to cover particular sectors of IADS coverage when Allied aircraft, in the period preceding hostilities, feigned penetrations of Iraqi airspace. This is the oldest trick in the electronic warfare book and the Iraqis fell for it repeatedly, lighting up their radars to engage the would be inbounds, in doing so they provided the monitoring Elint platforms with their positions and the identities of their radars, in turn betraying the composition of their batteries. It is also very likely that the Iraqis indulged in the luxury of live testing and calibration of their radars, further assisting the Allied effort.

With Elint equipment of appropriate capability it is possible to determine not only the type of emitter, but also often which model or subtype and its standard of calibration, all from the monitored and recorded emissions.

The Iraqis violated a fundamental principle of electronic combat by lighting up radars outside of actual engagements, and then not moving or reshuffling their assets to invalidate Allied reconnaissance. Were they to have done the proper thing, they would have moved batteries to dummy SAM sites, lit up in the presence of Allied Elint aircraft, and then shifted the batteries to implement a scheme of tactical or strategic deception. If this is implemented properly, and appropriate emission control discipline enforced, it becomes very difficult for the attacking party to map out what the real structure of the target IADS is. This in turn makes the planning of a pre-emptive strike very difficult, as with the increasing complexity of the deception the risk of not taking out all key assets in the initial hit increases vastly.
http://www.sci.fi/~fta/storm-02.htm

On the other hand the author (ehh, and history) of this strongly favor the attacker (with appropriate calibrated EW + ARMs)

 

[DarthAmerica]

I have also had this figure confirmed by pilots, but as I have said before the useful operational speed with weapons load is Mach 1.3 with the original engines.

Where are the open sources for the Raptors range@speed operationally? things like what load is it carrying @M1.7 or how long can it sustain it, what is a typical supercruise profile.

I'm going to have an opportunity soon to speak with RAF personnel. I'll see what they have to say. I can also talk to US Military pilots. I'll see if any of them have anything to say as well. Thus far no quotes can be found referencing a Eurofighter supercruising at any speed operationally. The Raptor has several pilots directly quoting supercruising ABOVE M1.7 and even at M2.0 under operational conditions. By that I mean in situations similar to what they could face in combat and gaining a tangible advantage because of it. I'll post them in red...

“Today I flew the Raptor at speeds exceeding (Mach 1.7) without afterburners,” General Jumper said.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123009594

and then...

Budde also said the Raptor's engines are "incredibly powerful and reliable," enabling the aircraft to maintain supersonic cruising speeds without the need for afterburners. Pilots refer to flying without afterburners as operating on standard military power or "milpower."

Raptor pilots are cleared to fly the aircraft up to Mach 2.0 and altitudes up to 50,000 feet, he said.

"To be able to operate at those altitudes at milpower is not something I am used to in an Eagle," he said.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-7443.html

USAF Fact files and LM official sites confirm this performance without actually defining the limits for obvious reasons.

http://www.fa22raptor.com/technology/data.html
http://www.fa22raptor.com/technology/supercruise.html
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=199


Additionally Paul Metz also states some unique chracteristics of the F119 engines and performance.

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2000/articles/oct_00/f-22/f22_1.html

Kopp:
Sustained supercruise is a vital aspect of the ATF package, could you comment on the implications of this, and how the F-119 differs in performance from current generation conventional turbofans, some of which nominally achieve similar static thrust ratings?
Metz:
Supercruise is vital to the entire concept of a stealthy fighter. Stealth alone does not make you 'invisible' , only very small. Speed confounds the enemy's problem by reducing the time allowed to detect, lock on, launch and have the missile or gun rounds reach your aircraft. Taken to its extreme, a fighter that could travel at the speed of light could probably survive on its speed alone. By the time you saw your speed-of-light fighter, it would be long gone. The F-22 has yet to conquer warp speeds but the high sustained supercruise speeds are a distinct advantage in evading the enemies weapons.
The F119 is the 'push' for supercruise, and it differs from conventional turbojets and turbo fans in several ways. Firstly, it is a low bypass turbofan. Turbojets are most efficient at supersonic speeds and turbofans are most efficient subsonically. The low bypass design of the F119 is optimized for sustained supersonic speeds. In addition, the use of digital engine controls, advanced turbine materials and cooling concepts allow the turbines to be controlled precisely near their maximum temperatures. High turbine temperatures allow high thrust at supersonic speeds where conventional engines must reduce airflow and, consequently thrust, to preserve the turbine blades.


http://www.ausairpower.net/API-Metz-Interview.html




This is why people make a distinction between what other fighters like the Typhoon/F-teens/Migs/Su do and what the F-22 does. It's performance gives it distinct tactical advantages the others would not have.





-DA

 

[DarthAmerica]

Ok i take that as in with weapons loadout. Clarified agree and done.

Here is a comparison

F22 390 nm supercruise combat radius @M1.7 (so i've been told)
EF 188 nm supercruise combat radius @M1.2 (228 nm w/droptank*)
Gripen NG 313 nm supercruise combat radius @M1.1 w/droptank

F22 41.6 min
EF 28.5 min (34.5 min w/droptank*)
Gripen NG 51.6 min w/droptank

Range:
F22 advantage over Gripen NG ~20%
F22 advantage over EF (w/droptank)~41.5%

Time:
Gripen NG advantage over F22 ~19%
Gripen NG advantage over EF (w/droptank) ~33%

*I dont know if EF can supercruise w/droptank, but it should, because the smaller Gripen NG is confirmed to supercruise at mach 1.1 with 1 external tank + a2a loadout.

Where are you getting this Data? Not that I agree with it or disagree. I just want sources. Something like this...

F-15E Eagle with CFTs
and LANTIRN either -220 or -229 engines (with the -229 engines
it's reported to have accelerated to M 1.15 from subsonic and
from supersonic speeds with afterburner slowed down to M 1.3
when the afterburner was turned off)

http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/faq/ramfaq3.txt

I'm not questioning that other aircraft can "supercruise" using the term loosely. I want to read that it was done operationally and I'd like to see a quote from a pilot. Thus far, all references to supercruise for any non-F-22 fighter would be considered hearsay legally. While at the same time the F-22 pilots would be committing perjury and thus are backing up what they are saying with their own credibility.

The internet is a lot like the "telephone game". The Typhoon and Rafale both became things they aren't as a result of all the fanboys who fell for the marketing hype during the early part of the decade when Singapore and South Korea were looking at them against the "Old" F-15. We have all read that Rafales are stealthy and have active cancellation EW suites and that Typhoons supercruise.

-DA