F-22 Loadout

[MR_BURNS2]

I looked at the F-22 loadout´s while playing Op. Lightning Strike and found these peculiar.

AMRAAM External and Standard Internal seem to make sense,
but all the Internal Long-Range loadouts have 4 370 USG drop tanks. These can´t possibly be internal, can they?

This is probably only a typo but what bothers me is that they all seem to have the same RCS.

I made a test where i had all 3 loadout versions fly towards a F-22 with Radar on which detected all 3 at about 12 NM.

F-22s with external tanks should have a way higher RCS and be detected earlier.

Is the RCS of stores not modeled in CMANO?

[navwarcol]

That is a pretty good question, as it is one of the primary reasons for having internal stores.

[MR_BURNS2]

Speaking of F-22s, does anybody have reliable performance data?

Cruise speed of 480 KN at altitude seems pretty low for a supercruise-capable BVR Super-Fighter, but i don´t have any better info.

[TonyAAA]

^ Not sure but its maximum in-game speed of ~1000 knots might not be modeled using afterburner levels of fuel consumption.

Also, since launch altitude has a direct bearing on max effective missile range, there's the issue of the F-22 having an in-game ceiling of just 40,000'

Edit: still trying to find a reliable source source for F-22 performance data.

Did find this which mentions:

"The Raptor is different because of the amount of time spent at high altitude. Gen. Lyon notes that the has over 3,000 hours in the F-16, but less than 10.0 above 40,000 feet. In contrast, F-22 pilots spend most of their time at 40,000 – 60,000 feet. The USAF is still learning about very high altitude flying’s effects on pilots, even after 50+ years of experience with U-2 spyplanes."

[Dimitris]

See here: fb.asp?m=3430007

[MR_BURNS2]

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

See here: fb.asp?m=3430007

Very Good! [:)]

[ComDev]

Thanks for your feedback guys [8D]

The 'Internal Long-Range' description refers to weapons carriage (internal only) and drop tanks (long range) [8D]

External stores do not currently affect RCS. Are several reasons for this, main one being that complexity goes way up. We've already looked at this actually. So feel free to start doing more research into this, and we'll add it to the sim when the model & data is available.

The F-22 is only able to do relatively short 'sprints' at Mach 1.6 supercruise in real life. So the "800nm combat radius at Mach 1.6" capability is a myth. A typical combat sortie is flown mostly at subsonic speeds.

When that's said, the F-22 will fly at 1000kt using Military power so fuel consumption is quite good. No AB-style 'dry in 15 minutes' burn rates.

[MR_BURNS2]

So feel free to start doing more research into this, and we'll add it to the sim when the model & data is available.

"Research" on this could be interpreted as Espionage and could lead to dire consequences[:D] This stuff is obviously to classified.
But external stores do affect RCS, by how much we don´t know, so we would have to make something up.

The F-22 is only able to do relatively short 'sprints' at Mach 1.6 supercruise in real life. So the "800nm combat radius at Mach 1.6" capability is a myth. A typical combat sortie is flown mostly at subsonic speeds.

When that's said, the F-22 will fly at 1000kt using Military power so fuel consumption is quite good. No AB-style 'dry in 15 minutes' burn rates.

Ok so how fast would she go in afterburner? And why is there no option to go afterburner?

[ComDev]

Seems afterburner on the F-22 is used for climb, acceleration and dogfighting. It also seems the fixed intake limits speed to Mach 1.8, so using afterburner wont give you much [8D]

[Wiz33]

Something is definitely wrong with the cruise speed of 480KN as that's the cruise speed of every other modern fighter aircraft in the game (F-15/22/35, SU-27/35, T-50). The F-22 and probably the T-50 should be able to cruise at the same throttle setting at a much higher speed. not Mach 1.8 but more likely very close to Mach1 or slightly above.

[Dimitris]

The "supercruise" speed (assuming that's you refer to) is actually the full-power throttle setting (not flank).

What's the "Full" throttle speed of the F-22 in the game at altitude?

[ComDev]

ORIGINAL: Wiz33

Something is definitely wrong with the cruise speed of 480KN as that's the cruise speed of every other modern fighter aircraft in the game (F-15/22/35, SU-27/35, T-50). The F-22 and probably the T-50 should be able to cruise at the same throttle setting at a much higher speed. not Mach 1.8 but more likely very close to Mach1 or slightly above.

above

Okay? We'd love to change this but would need hard facts to back it up.

A cruise speed of around 480-500kt is more economical as the engines are working efficiently and drag is relatively low. Transonic drag is very (very!) high, but drag drops sharply beyond Mach 1. However beyond Mach 1 drag is still higher than Mach 0.8 so fuel consumption goes up and range suffers. This is true for all planes, F-22 included.

So everything points towards 480kt as a realistic cruise speed.

You can hit Full throttle (name changed to 'Military Throttle' in the upcoming Speed/Altitude selection window to avoid confusion) and go to 1000kt supercruise (ca Mach 1.65) with relatively economical fuel consumption.

[Wiz33]

Hard Fact? What Hard Fact? Every piece of info in this game is a guess or someone is going to jail.

[thewood1]

Then why are even debating this?

[Wiz33]

So we use whatever open source info available:

This is for the F-35 but we can infer that the F-22 would only do better:

This is from Air Force magazine.

The F-35, while not technically a "supercruising" aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.
"Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots," O’Bryan said.
The high speed also allows the F-35 to impart more energy to a weapon such as a bomb or missile, meaning the aircraft will be able to "throw" such munitions farther than they could go on their own energy alone.
There is a major extension of the fighter’s range if speed is kept around Mach .9, O’Bryan went on, but he asserted that F-35 transonic performance is exceptional and goes "through the [Mach 1] number fairly easily." The transonic area is "where you really operate."

In combat configuration, the F-35’s range exceeds that of fourth generation fighters by 25 percent. These are Air Force figures, O’Bryan noted. "We’re comparing [the F-35] to [the] ‘best of’ fourth gen" fighters. The F-35 "compares favorably in any area of the envelope," he asserted.

Other source say that It can hit Mach .9 at 80% throttle.

One thing that most people is confused about is that only modern planes can cruise above Mach 1 without afterburner but that is not true. While the F-22 is the first that can supercruise at above Mach 1.5 without burner. Planes as old as the British Lightning II can go above Mach 1 on dry thrust also. In fact. The french Rafale can go over Mach 1 with external stores on dry thrust.

Yes operating at 100% throttle will have a impact on operational range as it has been stated that a 100 mile dash at supercruise will result in a 150nm range reduction on the F-22. But if the F-35 can do Mach .9 at 80% throttle and was meant to fly at that speed most of the time. The F-22 should be able to do the same or better.

Basically. The game as it currently stands makes all modern aircraft cruise at the same speed which is just not true for the 5th generation aircraft with no external stores.

[smudge56]

Or someone on the forum could volunteer to become a spy. [;)]

[starbird7]

There was a plane that few people remember called Concorde that could supercruise at mach 2 and 50,000ft.

[thewood1]

Did it have the hybrid turbo/ram jet engine. My understanding is that to supercruise at high mach and high altitude required a ram jet or a rocket.

[starbird7]

No, the Olympus was a straight turbojet with afterburner. Concorde had an intricate variable inlet and spill door mechanism to keep shocks away from and pressures reasonable at the compressor.

[MR_BURNS2]

Supercruise

Check this out, you guys have no idea how baffled i was when i found the Saab Draken in that list, she was so controversial in our country...

As for F-22 performance, i made a thread in the F-22 part of F-16.net, lots of USAF and other AF personnel looks in there, maybe they´ll share something unclassified.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-24711.html