It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
:
The F–22 has not yet demonstrated effective supersonic cruise
The USAF has never appreciated that speed without persistence is meaningless.
Proof—Six USAF aircraft capable of Mach 2.2 never exceeded 1.4 Mach in combat over North Vietnam in 10 years of war, in hundreds of thousands of sorties. The F–15 has never demonstrated its performance guarantee of Mach 2.5 flight in a combat configuration on a realistic combat mission profile.
The USAF has the wrong definition of supercruise —(supersonic flight in turbojet thrust, i.e. without using an afterburner.
Cruise means covering distance efficiently. Fighters with wings properly sized for subsonic maneuver achieve efficient supersonic flight at altitudes of 60,000 feet requiring partial afterburning thrust. This may be unknown to the testers since the test program limits testing to below 50,000. The proper cruise condition may remain unknown. All supercruisers cruise at very high altitudes using some afterburning (i.e. ramjet) thrust—MiG–31, SR-71, as did the many designs that I have studied, generated, or supervised.
(Detailed aerodynamic-thermodynamic analysis is available upon request.)
The GAO report that the F–22 has demonstrated supercruise is specious and misleading.
The reports have merely stated that the F–22 has demonstrated 1.6 Mach flight speeds in pure turbojet (dry) thrust. No report of distance traveled or persistence at those speeds was made. Supersonic speeds in dry thrust bode well, but this capability is not sufficient to achieve supercruise. Proper data are global radius of action and global persistence plots as functions of speed and altitude, for rational missions. These data must be then compared to those of the F–15 and the ancient F–104-19 to establish progress. For example—the 40 year old F-104A-19 has twice the supersonic radius of the 20 year old F-15C at 1.7 Mach, and out-accelerates it at Mach 2.2.Compare! In comparison lies the proof of progress.
The Fuel Fraction of the F–22 is insufficient for pragmatic supersonic cruise missions.
Fuel Fraction, the weight of the fuel divided by the weight of the aircraft at take-off, impacts cruise-range, be it super- or subsonic. At today’s state of the art, fuel fractions of 29 percent and below yield subcruisers; 33 percent provides a quasi–supercruiser; and 35 percent and above provides useful missions. The F–22’s fuel fraction is 29 percent, equal to those of the subcruising F–4s, F–15s and the Russian MiG-29 Flanker. The Russian medium range supersonic interceptor, the MiG-31 Foxhound, has a fuel fraction of over 45 percent. Supersonic cruise fighters require higher fuel fractions since they must have excessive wing for supersonic cruise. Breguet’s range equation establishes the dependence of aircraft radius on speed, lift–to-drag ratio, specific fuel consumption and the part of the total fuel fraction available for cruise.
Originally posted by kilcoo316
So have either of you two got anything constructive to say?
For JP_8: the rules of flight have not changed since 2000.
For MadGreebo: the source of the argument matters little, the content of the argument matters alot.
Anyway, in my personal opinion the author is forgetting that the F-22 will cover ground alot faster for equivalent fuel consumption rate than current fighters (assuming similar engine fuel consumption rates). Thus, despite its smaller fuel fraction, it wll be able to cover the same amount of ground, but in a shorter space of time.
Since the F-22 and F-15 have similar fuel fractions (according to that article posted), I would expect the F-22 to have a range about 1.5 times that of the F-15, simply due to the fact its 1.5x faster for (what I would imagine is...) similar fuel consumption.
I don't like the Beijing auther either, but what can I do?
Is the new X-35 basically the same thing as the FA-22, only that is has vector thrust that point down, and a fan so it can vertically take off?
Originally posted by justin_barton3
that article was very quick to talk about how cr#p us planes are. but if we compare us planes to chinese planes then we see that the chinese havent produced any planes worth talking about ever. Even the new "super" fighter the J-10 is a copy of an f-16.
Originally posted by justin_barton3
if your still confused then just google each aircraft, i find that thats usually the best way when im confused or want more infomation.
Originally posted by justin_barton3
Is the new X-35 basically the same thing as the FA-22, only that is has vector thrust that point down, and a fan so it can vertically take off?
THe f-35 and the f-22 are completly different planes. try these links
www.airforce-technology.com...
www.airforce-technology.com...
if your still confused then just google each aircraft, i find that thats usually the best way when im confused or want more infomation.
Justin
Originally posted by chinawhite
Americans. Dont you love them
Originally posted by skippytjc
Um...whats the purpose of this post? Thats baiting China, your reply has no other purpose. And baiting or taunting is a clear violation of the TOS. Too add its also a one line response.
If I made a reply to a post stating: "Jews. Dont you love them " People would be offended right? Then why is the same infraction allowed against Americans?