F-22 Raptor Vs. F-15 Eagle
ANDR...@hotmail.com
F-22 Raptor Vs. F-15 Eagle
I know this subject as probably been discussed to exhaustion, but I'm new
here. Sorry
It's like this (I think?) The F-15 replaced the F-4 and now the F-22 will
replace the F-15. But while I don't think there's any doubt that the Eagle
would "smash" the Phantom I think there's plenty of people who probably think
the F-15 could kick the F22's Ass.
Personally I while I find the F-22 a very impressive machine I must say that
I'm slightly disappointed that the 90's technology (Raptor) is actually
slower and can't fly as high as the 70's (Eagle)
I mean the Eagle can fly at Mach 2.5 and there's reports that it can go all
the way to 100.000 feet for short periods (is this true?)
But the Raptor apparently can't even exceed Mach 2 or 65.000 feet.
Is the Raptor supposed to be a Dog Fighter? It can't out manoeuvre an F-16C,
Mig-29 can it? How many G's can the F-22 pull?
Is the Raptor supposed to be an Interceptor. I doubt it even the F-106
Starfighter can go faster than this slug.
I would appreciate some enlightening
Respectfully
Andre Figueiredo
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Andrew Yeung
>I mean the Eagle can fly at Mach 2.5 and there's reports that it can go all
>the way to 100.000 feet for short periods (is this true?)
Like some other poster posted, max speed is not combat speed.
cho...@my-dejanews.com
ANDR...@HOTMAIL.COM wrote:
>
>
> F-22 Raptor Vs. F-15 Eagle
>
> I know this subject as probably been discussed to exhaustion, but I'm new
> here. Sorry
No prob...
> It's like this (I think?) The F-15 replaced the F-4 and now the F-22 will
> replace the F-15. But while I don't think there's any doubt that the Eagle
> would "smash" the Phantom I think there's plenty of people who probably think
> the F-15 could kick the F22's Ass.
Uhhh.. no. I do not know anyone who believes that. F22 is FAR superior to F15.
> Personally I while I find the F-22 a very impressive machine I must say that
> I'm slightly disappointed that the 90's technology (Raptor) is actually
> slower and can't fly as high as the 70's (Eagle)
Don't read too much into speed. F15 cannot fly that fast with weapons anyway.
More important is that F22 can supercuise at over Mach 1.5. F15 cannot
supercruise at all. Speed restriction on F22 are based on engine intakes that
limit speed. Intakes are limited due to stealth needs. Just for comparision:
Standard F15C has two engines each putting out 23,500 pounds of thrust.
Each F22 engine produces 35,000 pounds of thrust. Quite an improvement...
> I mean the Eagle can fly at Mach 2.5 and there's reports that it can go all
> the way to 100.000 feet for short periods (is this true?)
See above. Speed is one MINOR factor.
> Is the Raptor supposed to be a Dog Fighter? It can't out manoeuvre an F-16C,
> Mig-29 can it? How many G's can the F-22 pull?
Absolutely. Raptor 1 is the most manueverable fighter in production in the
world today. With thrust vectoring, nothing can match it.
F22 will be the best air superiority fighter in the world.
Hemang Yadav
>
>> Is the Raptor supposed to be a Dog Fighter? It can't out manoeuvre an F-16C,
>> Mig-29 can it? How many G's can the F-22 pull?
>
>Absolutely. Raptor 1 is the most manueverable fighter in production in the
>world today. With thrust vectoring, nothing can match it.
With the possible exception of the S-37, but I know - thats been beaten
into exhaustion too. I don't want to get a Venik/Yev vs. the world
battle again.
Alex Stoll
that
> I'm slightly disappointed that the 90's technology (Raptor) is actually
> slower and can't fly as high as the 70's (Eagle)
I can just see a MiG-21, which can go over Mach 2, outrunning an F-22. Then
the MiG runs out of fuel, and the F-22, cruising at Mach 1.58, does not have
much competition.
Origionally the F-22 could go faster but when the real one was being built
(after YF-22) they changes to cheaper, lighter, more durable composites.
However, they can't stand as high temperatures as the origional ones (or
titanium) so the speed it limited to Mach 1.8. Otherwise the F-22 would
melt.
--
Alex Stoll
st...@ttu.edu
http://www.robotgroup.org/lubbock/futureframe.htm
JD
>I mean the Eagle can fly at Mach 2.5 and there's reports that it can go all
>the way to 100.000 feet for short periods (is this true?)
Yes, the Eagle has been able to reach 100,000 feet in a zoom climb, BUT that
was a specially modified Eagle known as the "Streak Eagle." The radar was
removed, leaving an empty nose cone. Almost all paint was removed, save a
few markings and the "Streak Eagle" logo on the sides. Only minimal
instruments were present. All underwing pylons were removed. Not exactly
your everyday condition of an F-15. Normal operating ceiling is about
60,000 feet.
JD
Dweezil Dwarftosser
wrote:
Approximately 15 years earlier than the "streak Eagle" record-breaker,
the F-4 had flown to 98,000+ feet.
If the radar had been removed from the F-15 for the attempt, it wasn't
from the nose - which, unlike earlier fighters, contains only the
antenna - not the complete radar package.
It is highly unlikely that any cockpit instruments were removed -
though removing the gun/ammo would result in a considerable weight
savings.
There was a time when all FCF configurations required "slick wings":
no pylons or tanks. However, it was found that pylons reduce the
chance of a flat spin - so that "slick wing" restriction is gone.
The one factor most important to high altitude operations in any high-
performance fighter (dating from the F-104) is the pressure suit
connections for the crew. Without one, 50-60k is about the highest a
man can go inside a normally-pressured cockpit. ( The F-4 had it
removed as unnecessary in the 1972-74 time frame.)
The streak Eagle attempt was an experiment to reclaim the "time-to-
climb" record from the Russians who held it briefly during that
period.
- John T.
JD
Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote in message
<37060fa8...@news.rdu.bellsouth.net>...
>Approximately 15 years earlier than the "streak Eagle" record-breaker,
>the F-4 had flown to 98,000+ feet.
>If the radar had been removed from the F-15 for the attempt, it wasn't
>from the nose - which, unlike earlier fighters, contains only the
>antenna - not the complete radar package.
>It is highly unlikely that any cockpit instruments were removed -
>though removing the gun/ammo would result in a considerable weight
>savings.
I guess I could have made myself clearer. Anything associated with radar
and weapons was removed. Anything, including instruments. They were trying
to make this plane as light as possible.
>
>The streak Eagle attempt was an experiment to reclaim the "time-to-
>climb" record from the Russians who held it briefly during that
>period.
>
>- John T.
Correct.
Andras Otto Schneider
(Dweezil Dwarftosser) wrote:
> Approximately 15 years earlier than the "streak Eagle" record-breaker,
> the F-4 had flown to 98,000+ feet.
> If the radar had been removed from the F-15 for the attempt, it wasn't
> from the nose - which, unlike earlier fighters, contains only the
> antenna - not the complete radar package.
> It is highly unlikely that any cockpit instruments were removed -
> though removing the gun/ammo would result in a considerable weight
> savings.
F-4s were carrying 4 sparrows on all the record flights, as the weight
penalty was offset by reduced drag. ie war loaded.
Skyburner flight profiles were 3 tanks, drop 2 wing near mach 1, drop
center about 1.5, top out at 2.6
>
> - John T.
AOS
Mike Kelly
On Fri, 2 Apr 1999, Alex Stoll wrote:
[snip]
>
> Origionally the F-22 could go faster but when the real one was being built
> (after YF-22) they changes to cheaper, lighter, more durable composites.
> However, they can't stand as high temperatures as the origional ones (or
> titanium) so the speed it limited to Mach 1.8. Otherwise the F-22 would
> melt.
>
Alex,
What are the sources for this? I haven't heard a thing about the
F-22's composite parts limiting its airspeed. As far as I know the main
limiting factor are the fixed engine inlets.
Michael Kelly
Vladimir Malukh
Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:
[skip]
> Approximately 15 years earlier than the "streak Eagle" record-breaker,
> the F-4 had flown to 98,000+ feet.
> If the radar had been removed from the F-15 for the attempt, it wasn't
> from the nose - which, unlike earlier fighters, contains only the
> antenna - not the complete radar package.
> It is highly unlikely that any cockpit instruments were removed -
> though removing the gun/ammo would result in a considerable weight
> savings.
Don't know about F-15, but know exactly about P-42 (stripped
Su-27 for record breaking). All militray electronic was
removed (radar, anit-missile detection etc), plastic nose cone
was replaced with metall one, most of cockpit instruments
were removed too. No lylons, no even underfuzelage tails,
no backward cone with brake-parachute, no airbrake. Thing flew
quite well without them (It actually managed to reach supersonic
in vertical climb). So can be very posible that on F-15 was
all the same.
> There was a time when all FCF configurations required "slick wings":
> no pylons or tanks. However, it was found that pylons reduce the
> chance of a flat spin - so that "slick wing" restriction is gone.
Well, remember that record breaking a/c is piloted by
extremelly qualified pilot, who for sure can
manage to do not fall into flat span, while regular
fighter is designed for average military pilot.
> The streak Eagle attempt was an experiment to reclaim the "time-to-
> climb" record from the Russians who held it briefly during that
> period.
An still holding it for now :) (http://www.fai.org) Actually it was
opposite, first these records were held by F-15 and later by P-42.
--
Vladimir Malukh
-----------------------------------------
wim...@my-dejanews.com
Check out the 7 currently available F-22 Raptor PC simulators.
Find out the differences in graphics and specs on the updated
F-22 Sims section of your F-22 Raptor Stealth Fighter reference
website.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Krztalizer
Now that IS a news flash.
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR Aircrew
It's always better to lose AN engine than THE engine.
cravo
>(after YF-22) they changes to cheaper, lighter, more durable composites.
>However, they can't stand as high temperatures as the origional ones (or
>titanium) so the speed it limited to Mach 1.8. Otherwise the F-22 would
>melt.
>
Mach 1.8 with 8 missiles is very good. i don´t think the F-15 can do much
(if any) better. And the acceleration is much more important.
David Lentz
The way I see it the Raptor (F-22) will be the World's first
supersonic fighter. Every previous fighter was a subsonic
fighter, with some having an ability to so a short supersonic
burst. The is vast difference between maximum speed and maximum
substainable practical speed.
David
Lyn...@iname.com
>>Origionally the F-22 could go faster but when the real one was being built
>>(after YF-22) they changes to cheaper, lighter, more durable composites.
>>However, they can't stand as high temperatures as the origional ones (or
>>titanium) so the speed it limited to Mach 1.8. Otherwise the F-22 would
>>melt.
I remember reading in Janes Defense that the max speed is Mach 2.4 for
the F-22, what source gives 1.8 ?
Alex Stoll
Mike Kelly <mke...@oilfield.tamu.edu> wrote:
> What are the sources for this? I haven't heard a thing about the
> F-22's composite parts limiting its airspeed. As far as I know the main
> limiting factor are the fixed engine inlets.
In the book "F-22 Raptor" by Motorbooks International (they make a lot of
cool books like "X-Planes @ Edwards" and one about the Aurora by Bill
Sweetman), it says that the composites were changed when the F-22 was being
modified from the YF-22 to more durable, lighter, compostites, but ones that
couldn't stand as high temperatures.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Hunter146
>> F-22's composite parts limiting its airspeed. As far as I know the main
>> limiting factor are the fixed engine inlets.
>
>In the book "F-22 Raptor" by Motorbooks International (they make a lot of
>cool books like "X-Planes @ Edwards" and one about the Aurora by Bill
>Sweetman), it says that the composites were changed when the F-22 was being
>modified from the YF-22 to more durable, lighter, compostites, but ones that
>couldn't stand as high temperatures.
>
>Alex Stoll
>st...@ttu.edu
>http://www.robotgroup.org/lubbock/futureframe.htm
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
>
If this is true, then why have expensive materials when the plane, F-22, wont
be able to fly at high speed anyway? The fixed inlets limits the speed. And
it isn't until you move faster than mach 2.5 or so that you start having to
factor in ultra high heat caused by friction. So why have the expensive stuff
that will only hamper not help?
Steven,
hunter146
F.R.
The purpose of the Raptor is Stealth attacks and to penetrate enemy territory and achieve first look, first kill. It's also used as a projection of air dominance.
The Raptor has a high aerodynamic body, as well as thrust vectoring, a high thrust to weight ratio (70,000 to 60,000), special vectoring nozzles, all of which attribute to giving it supermaneuverability: the ability to fly extreme maneuvers at a high angle of attack without losing control.
The F-22 can also achieve supercruise without the use of afterburners.
I'm not going to go into detail about it's stealth characteristics, just know it's about the size of a bee on radar.
Unlike what many think, it's not meant for extreme speed, its meant for stealth and maneuverability.
--A teenage girl.
Dean Markley
Dean Markley
Airyx
> F-22 Raptor Vs. F-15 Eagle
> replace the F-15. But while I don't think there's any doubt that the Eagle
> would "smash" the Phantom I think there's plenty of people who
> probably think the F-15 could kick the F22's Ass.
> Personally I while I find the F-22 a very impressive machine I must
> say that I'm slightly disappointed that the 90's technology (Raptor)
> is actually slower and can't fly as high as the 70's (Eagle)
> go all the way to 100.000 feet for short periods (is this true?)
Also, like any jet that depends on deflecting surfaces to turn, an F-15 is stuck to going in almost a straight line when above Mach 1, so it can't fight while going that fast. The F-15's top speed is really only useful for escape or an intercept. As a result, ALL fighters (except the F-22) go into the fight at speeds of about 450 to 550 knots.
The F-22, however, can maintain M1.5 (about 1000kts) and about 60,000 feet without using after burners at all. It addition, the vectored thrust engines allow it to actually make turns without bleeding-off its speed. So, the F-22 is the only fighter in the world that goes into a fight at supersonic speed, and stays that fast the whole time...as such, it is essentially the fastest fighter in the world.
That speed, combined with its stealth, and its ability to maneuver while moving fast is what allows it get into an advantageous firing position without its enemies knowing that it is there. Again, it demonstrates this all the time.
> Is the Raptor supposed to be a Dog Fighter? It can't out manoeuvre
> an F-16C,
> Mig-29 can it? How many G's can the F-22 pull?
Agility is still needed though. Mostly to evade an inbound missile. Since the 1970's all jets are pretty much limited to 9gs, and the Raptor is no exception. The reason for this is that the human body can't sustain any more then that.
> Is the Raptor supposed to be an Interceptor. I doubt it even the F-106
> Starfighter can go faster than this slug.
Jim Wilkins
news:0f0b3367-8a61-41fa...@googlegroups.com...
wrote:
> F-22 Raptor Vs. F-15 Eagle
> It's like this (I think?) The F-15 replaced the F-4 and now the F-22
> will
> replace the F-15. But while I don't think there's any doubt that the
> Eagle
> would "smash" the Phantom I think there's plenty of people who
> probably think the F-15 could kick the F22's Ass.
First, F-22s and F-15s go up against each other on a regular basis
over Alaska. The results are very lopsided, with a small number of
F-22s getting "kills" on F-15s, usually without the F-15s knowing they
are even there.
> Personally I while I find the F-22 a very impressive machine I must
> say that I'm slightly disappointed that the 90's technology (Raptor)
> is actually slower and can't fly as high as the 70's (Eagle)
> I mean the Eagle can fly at Mach 2.5 and there's reports that it can
> go all the way to 100.000 feet for short periods (is this true?)
> But the Raptor apparently can't even exceed Mach 2 or 65.000 feet.
In order for an Eagle to get to its top speed, or to an altitude above
60,000 feet, it needs to run on full after-burners. Running on full AB
will empty a jet's (any jet's) fuel tanks in about three minutes. That
is not an exaggeration. So, most F-15s never actually go as fast as
they are capable, and spend almost their entire lives below Mach 1.
This claims 23 minutes:
https://www.quora.com/Military-Aircraft-Whats-the-range-of-a-fully-fueled-F-15-travelling-at-maximum-speed
--jsw
Airyx
> In order for an Eagle to get to its top speed, or to an altitude above
> 60,000 feet, it needs to run on full after-burners. Running on full AB
> will empty a jet's (any jet's) fuel tanks in about three minutes. That
> is not an exaggeration. So, most F-15s never actually go as fast as
> they are capable, and spend almost their entire lives below Mach 1.
> ....................................
> This claims 23 minutes:
> https://www.quora.com/Military-Aircraft-Whats-the-range-of-a-fully-fueled-F-15-travelling-at-maximum-speed
He has the A/B fuel flow at 60,000lbs per hour...which is correct for each engine. With both engines at A/B the flow is 120,000lbs per hour.
He also said it carries 23,000lbs of fuel, which is correct with conformal fuel tanks, but F-15Cs (we are talking air-to-air here) don't carry CFTs very often. Without CFTs the Eagle's fuel capacity is only about 14,000lbs.
So, my 3 minutes of A/B use stands.
Jim Wilkins
http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=12442&sid=c14661ff2dc5ed5e3f5859bf27dbe52f