WT Forums

What is the aprox internal fuel capacity of the F-22? I know the PW-F119 are extremely efficient.............Just curious whi its loiter time on cap station and combat radius is.........If it is anything close to the F-14, or even better...........I am gonna be pretty damn upset the Navy isn't getting it, even more upset than I am now about the matter.

If you are not having fun, you are not doing it right!

I don't know about the fuel capacity in total pounds, but the F-22 is claimed to have a much larger combat radius than any tactical fighter in the world. F-14D included.

Makes sense to me...

Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

two and from a target or waypoint is one thing, combining combat radius and loitering ability is another. I wondering how good the CAP endurance + combat radius of the F-22 is.

If you are not having fun, you are not doing it right!

I dunno, but the F-22 can carry four 600 gallon drop tanks.

Kinda hard to imagine any fighter out ranging it.

Long distance- The next best thing to being there.

[quote]
. I remember in my teens the TFX program and how some thought that Boeing should have got the contract over General Dynamics that the Boeing’s plane was what would have been the real all-purpose plane for both the Air Force and the Navy. I would be interested in any ones opinion here on that? ---------

Boeing was much farther ahead with their TFX and Tommy Blackburn, a famed test pilot of the era testified to Congress to that.

Many have alluded to politics and the F-111 had pork in every district. It was the biggest weapon system for bucks at the time. When JFK selected it, shock waves were sent through the MIC.

F-22 is hurting for certain in testing. Quite a bit of the computer code hasn't been written and it's down in the MTBF. It's around 8.5 hours before it needs a reboot. JSF and it's 3 variants ( IMO, only the Naval variant should be built), needs the F-22 computer code to be written.

I spent 12 years flying in the Navy and was the Flag Pilot for Airlant and CINCLANT. I drove single seat to 4 motor jobs. I mentioned a few times to the Staffs, why the hell don't we mass produce Tomcats and Intruders? This would had cut airframe costs in half or so. Lockheed mass produced the S-3s almost. So it had been done. In 1980 or so, an A-6, and a Tomcat a month was the norm almost.

Another interesting factor is costs. When you hear a service cite fly away costs be very leery. F-22 is the current great example with over 30 billion tax bucks in R&D so far. The force hates to use that figure when they mention F-22 costs.

Osprey has been grounded again over piss poor hydraulic lines. Another continuing disaster at taxpayer costs.

SecNav John Lehman, somehow managed to also receive his aviator wings too. The only dual designated aviator in the Navy. I flew with some Nam combat fighter jocks, that had upgraded from being combat NFOs. They were more than pissed that Lehman was dual designated.

If you want to point fingers at the current problems in Naval Air. Point right at Lehman. He pushed the hosed up A-12, were we spent 5 billion tax bucks and ended up with only a plastic model. Lehman could had hedged his bets in the 80s with a Bombcat. Smartest move the USAF did was the Strike Eagle. With the new motors in it, it can compete with the F-22 for ACM.

Hornets have never flown to original contract specs. Harriers have hosed up Marine Air along with the Osprey. Harriers have always had the worst crash rate in DOD. Big hint they have massive problems.

Some nice pieces have been written in this thread. Only reason I joined up.

JSF could be the last manned fighter built. 200-300 billion tax bucks has been estimated for the entire program. ROFL

Jack

there was another threat in AvWeek today that the F-22 is close to being cancelled, jeezze I wish they'd get that program straightened out.<img src=icon_smile_sad.gif border=0 align=middle>

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

Amen to that booms.....

Its not so much that we desperately NEEEED that aircraft... its just that so much has gone into it and it is a true AIR DOMINANCE fighter which could be EXTREMELY useful in future conflicts.

I'd say get the JSF rolling just as fast....

who knows what will happen w/that.

"TACAIR, we deliver, you eat dust"

First of all Jack, welcome............Glad to hear your point of view. I agree with you about Lehman to a degree, however he was in the A-6 community, and had a bias towards that airframe, his idea was to leave the F-14's to maratime air superiority and let the A-6's do the medium strike. At the time, the decesion made sense since the Navy had both the finest air dominance and medium strike aircraft in the world flying from the decks of a CV.........The "all Grumman airwing" was expensive, very expensive.........But it was the most lethal demonstration of Naval Airpower in history.

The A-12 was a debacle, plain and simple...........However it was also a USAF program, people seem to forget that it was designed as a replacement for the F-15E.

Not utilizing the F-14 "Bombact" earlier was a huge mistake, part of the reason the F-14 is being retired so soon is its poor showing in Deseert Storm. TF-30 F-14A's had to tap the afterburner to hit the tanker, not very effecient...........Also they were not able to operate with USAF and coalition assets due to the lack of updated NCTR gear, which the F-18 had, and finaly it was not an multi- mission fighter, the F-14 had one helo kill in Desert storm, the F-18 shot down Mig-21's with a ful bomb load, finished its mission and trapped abord the CV, that right there gave Cheney all the ammunition he needed to cut the F-14, not to mention its high cost not only per aircraft, but per flight hour and poor turn around rate............

I honestly feel that if the F-14D had been avaliable in Desert Storm, and had the F-14A been cleared for the "Bombcat" role, it would have impressed enough people to stay alive, just like it is doing now in Afghanistan, and what I did in Kosovo, but by then it was to late.........The tooling was destroyed, the decesion was made.

I hope that if we do Gulf War III the F-14 will add one final chapter in its impressive career.

If your not having fun, your not doing it right!

Hi Jack thanks for your information and welcome to the group I am new here also. One of the reasons I was told or picked up at the time was that JFK need Texas so he made sure the TFX went to General Dynamics.
Now as I look back over the last 50 years it’s a wonder we have any equipment for our forces to fight with! I have seen billions spent only to see fewer and fewer things placed in inventory. The only reason we have what is left of the B-52s is because at one time we did make a few things in some numbers. By memory only I think we build around 750 of them if only the B-1 had replaced the B-52 at or near one on one. Plus adding to that if only the B-1 was as good a plane as the B-52 but that is what you get for spending billions then taking short cuts to save a few hundred millions. The B-2 falls in this category also the R&D as I remember was somewhere around 160 billion and only 21 planes! Over the last 10 years we have spend billions and this made the conservatives happy but we purchased so little with it that the military downsized and of course this made the liberals happy. But over all it distressed me!
I guess what I am getting at there are people around the world today rattling our chains and we do not have the quantity to deal with them and they know it. Our troops are great but I just feel we could have done more for them so their job would be easier.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>IMO, only the Naval variant should be built<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Yes that would serve exactly one service while completely ignoring the needs of the marines and the Brits and handing the USAF an aircraft with a bunch of beefed up crap and extra weight that the air force just does not need. We need a plane that maintains the maneuverability, thrust to weight, and all that crap uncompromised by all the requirements of the carrier stuff. The naval JSF is what the navy was looking for in terms of performance. It is NOT what the air force or the marines were looking for. That quote is just like me saying that I think the only JSF that should be built is the air force version (I do not think that). It is just unrealistic...

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Smartest move the USAF did was the Strike Eagle. With the new motors in it, it can compete with the F-22 for ACM.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

As for that one....NOPE!!! The 229s in the strike eagle are great but ACM cannot touch the F22. I suppose by mentioning the engines you are refering to the ability of the strike eagle to be a very maneuverable dogfighter. That is just not the case. Sure it maneuvers alright for something that size but the pilots all know they are in trouble in a turning fight. The F22 does not have that issue.

Edited by - luke on Mar 11 2003 07:30 AM

Luke, i WOULD be in favor of the USAF axeing JSF entirely to buy as many F-22s as possible, but it won't happen.

"We shall leave no man behind"

[quote]
Now as I look back over the last 50 years it’s a wonder we have any equipment for our forces to fight with! I have seen billions spent only to see fewer and fewer things placed in inventory. ---------------

Since 1940 well over 21 trillion tax bucks have been poured into DOD. A good rule of thumb to use in figuring costs over life time, is 10X over the original costs. B-1s are pushing over 600 million per airframe now. 33% of the B-1 fleet is grounded for hangar queens.

IMO, F-22 will turn into another F-117. Too pricey to use in many conflicts and will need lots of TLC.

The last real air to air war was the Korean War. There is no threat on the horizon to the current inventory of fighters and their BVR capability.

All this high tech crap the US loves to use, needs lots of TLC, and big bucks to maintain. GPS can easily be defeated with some low tech jammers. Laser designators can't penetrate smoke or blowing sand. HARM missiles can be fooled by a microwave oven powered by a portable generator.

We could have had a huge fleet of Flying Wings in the 40s if DOD hadn't dicked around. Northrup's original Flying Wing was already known to be stealthy and radar sites couldn't pick it up. Instead a deal was cut and the B-36 was bought.

Marine Air is on the ropes too. Nam vintage choppers being used because they bet the farm on the Osprey. I see big problems with the STOL version of the JSF. Anyone have a clue on how long it would take to change the motor on the STOL version? Harriers now take almost 4 days to change a motor.

NMD alone has sucked up over 120 billion tax bucks since 58.

Our troops are still using Nam era 16s and 60s. Troops in Afghan were bitching about the lack of knock down power with the 16s.

The US will spend more on Defense this fiscal year than the rest of the world combined. ROFL!

Jack

umm...GPS is only the "fine tuning " for JDAM, it has an IMU for main guidance and are just now getting contracts for some anti-jamming kit, yeah the HARM was nearly useless but is getting upgrades. And the B-35 49 were Horrible planes to fly back then( one of the pilots Edwards? called it "a passable aircraft at best, in good flight conditions"), and had NO nuke capability and wernt strong enough to carry one if they tried. 8 small bays distributed along the wing, purposely so the wing could be made lighter.

BTW "sandbox II" is looking MORE likely, the large dark and jagged apparently left the nest today, for regions WELL known and thier little white igloos to heal in.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

I like the M-16A2 and newer just fine(I would imagine anyone who was evered issued an A2 agrees).

The rifle is great, but the cartridge could be bigger.



"We shall leave no man behind"

Get to see em' fly over Boomer?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>We could have had a huge fleet of Flying Wings in the 40s if DOD hadn't dicked around. Northrup's original Flying Wing was already known to be stealthy and radar sites couldn't pick it up. Instead a deal was cut and the B-36 was bought <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I do not agree with that statement.........The flying wing design is inheritly unstable without the fly by wire, or digital flight controls of today, the technology was not there in the 1940's to make that design practicle, either in avionics, powerplants, or flight controls. I was never an advocate of the B-36; to vulnerable, but the flying wing was not a viable option in that era.


The JSF and F-22 should utilize R&D advances to be much more durable than the F-117 or B-2.........The JSF will also be a CV platform, enuff said about its robustness.

In my humble opinion an F-15 advanced variant, and an F-14 advanced variant would still be a quantum leap over any known threat on the horizon, you couple that with the advances made in AAM technology (AIM-120/AIM-9X) and the logistics at the disposal of a USAF/USN/or USMC aviator (A2A refueling [which North Korea lacks] E-2/AWACS, SEAD, and EW warefare...........Our Air Power as is today without the JSF or F-22 is unmatched, only problem is those airframes are aging and showing fatigue. If our decesion makers could have forseen the decline of the Soviet menace and its military industrial complex, the F-22 and JSF would be a drawing board idea.

Only fault is see in the direction of AAM missile technology is the lack of a next generation AIM-54, but I guess when the Buffalo become extinct, the Buffalo guns get put on the shelf.


If your not having fun, your not doing it right!

Edited by - chadrewsky on Mar 11 2003 1:22 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[quote]We could have had a huge fleet of Flying Wings in the 40s if DOD hadn't dicked around. Northrup's original Flying Wing was already known to be stealthy and radar sites couldn't pick it up. Instead a deal was cut and the B-36 was bought <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I do not agree with that statement.........The flying wing design is inheritly unstable without the fly by wire, or digital flight controls of today, the technology was not there in the 1940's to make that design practicle, either in avionics, powerplants, or flight controls. I was never an advocate of the B-36; to vulnerable, but the flying wing was not a viable option in that era.
------------

Wing flew fine and they stuck in recips, turboprops, and finally pure turbine. Wings had an hour or two on the Wing with one of the test pilots. He liked it. He also thought he was sabotaged once. Flying back from the East coast 4 motors lost oil pressure. He landed it on a short strip. He was the OIC of the X-1 Project too.

Jack Northrup's designs were excellent. It was built for turboprops but they never ran right on the Wing.

Sure it needed some more testing but it ran pretty well and climbed like a bat out of hell.

The shape of the wing gave it the small RCS also.

Jack

this is from Joe Baugher, one of the few people I actually trust for aviation info sice he seems to be a research junkie LOL

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b49_1.html

The reasons for the abrupt cancellation of the B-49 project remain uncertain even today, and many of the details are still classified. The chronic stability problems, plus the series of accidents that seem to dog the project at every step along the way certainly must have played a role. In addition, the YB-49 carried its bomb load in a series of bomb bay cells, each of which was too small to accommodate the Mk III and Mk 4 atomic bombs of the day, which were 5 feet in diameter, 10 feet long, and weighed 10,000 pounds. In contrast, the weapons bay in the B-36 was cavernous and could carry almost anything.


Many deficiencies turned up in the second series of tests. The J35 turbojets of the YB-49 were extremely thirsty for fuel, and the jet-powered YB-49 had only half the range of the YB-35 that preceded it. The test pilots complained that the aircraft was extremely unstable and difficult to fly. They also maintained that the YB-49 was completely unsuitable as a bombing platform-- it could not hold a steady course or a constant airspeed and altitude, and that here was a persistent rocking motion in yaw, which tended to upset the bomb sights. In comparison with the B-29, the YB-49 had a much poorer circular average error and range error during bombing trials. In retrospect, many of the stability problems with the flying wing may have been insoluble with the technology available in the late 1940s, requiring the fly-by-wire technology that was developed much later for their solution.

On March 15, 1950, the cancellation of the entire YB-49 program became official. On that very same day, the first YB-49 (42-102367) got itself involved in a ground taxiing accident at Edwards AFB. There were no fatalities, but crewmen were injured and the aircraft was totally destroyed by fire. Excessive shimmy of the nosewheel followed by total gear collapse were blamed for the mishap.


---the "sabotage" rumor-----


On the way back to California, 42-102367 stopped off at Wright Field in Dayton so that the Air Force could take a look at the new plane. On February 23, the YB-49 took off to return to Muroc, but during the flight three of the J35 engines on the left and one on the right side caught fire, forcing an emergency landing at Winslow, Arizona. There were hints of sabotage, since it was later determined that the cause of the engine fires was that the turbine oil reserves had not been filled in any of the J35 engines during refuelling at Wright Field. The FBI was called in to investigate, but a blanket of security was thrown over the entire affair and the incident was all but forgotten.


"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.