Combat Range-American weakness?

[startacek1]

I wanted to start this out with a general question: The newesr planes: FA 22 and 35 seem stronger in almsot all stats, but how do their combat ranges stand out compared to other modern planes?

Thank you for your time,

[Human Bass]

The F-22 has plenty of range for a fighter, since internal weapons give a it a very low drag and great engines that allow it mach 1.5 without supercruise. The F-35 not so much, but its quite a lame fat plane that relies on stealth to no be a total sitting duck IMO

[Totoro]

Actually f-35 is the one with longer legs. They have very similar fuel loads but with f-35's wings and engines being optimized for lower speeds and greater fuel efficiency, that plane should have a solid lead on raptor when range is concerned.

[Feanor]

Has either one released official figures for range?

[ROCK45]

The F-35 carries more fuel then a F-15C and only has a single engine so it won't be a short range platform.

[rjmaz1]

Combat range of the F-35 and F-22 are greater than the aircraft they are replacing. For the roles that they were designed to perform their range is more than good enough.

However hindsite is a wonderful thing. The F-22 was designed to counter the latest soviet threat that never really evolved. For the fighter role its speed/range advantage is better than any other fighter. At moderate supersonic speeds its range is possibly double or even tripple that of any other fighter. However the fighter only role then added precision strike capabilities, for strike mission you want as much range as possible. So in hindsight the F-22 could ideally have been fattened up, this would have sacrificed agility and speed for a big range increase for the potential long range strike mission. As a result the F-22 is being purchased in small numbers.

The F-35 is all about effeciency at the majority of mission profiles. Its loiter and range for providing close air support at medium altitude will be extremely impressive. It is indeed a compromise and a good one at that. The F-35's attributes that some people think are flaws are what help make the F-35 such an excellent platform where it really counts. As the F-35 didn't aim for being the fastest fighter on the market it decided to settle for third place. Some (stupid) people then call the F-35 slow when by settling for third place its gained increased internal fuel volume for increased range. It then went with a single engine that is now operating at its most effecient power setting when the aircraft is in the most aerodynamic effecient speed. Slow and steady wins the race.

[F-15 Eagle]

Some (stupid) people then call the F-35 slow when by settling for third place its gained increased internal fuel volume for increased range. It then went with a single engine that is now operating at its most effecient power setting when the aircraft is in the most aerodynamic effecient speed. Slow and steady wins the race.

Yeah and even when in full after burner going supersonic the F-35 is faster than any other 3rd, 4th or 4.5th generation fighter in terms of supersonic speed. No fighter has ever gone past 1200mph in combat and thats what the F-35 is designed to go for a short time making it just as fast as any other fighter but with better range and payload.

[Totoro]

F-35 will have longer legs than f-16 (not to mention a-10 or harrier) but f-22 will carry more or less the same amount of fuel as f-15. Internal fuel of f-22 is 20600 lbs, f15 is some 22200 lbs with CFTs. (without them it should be some 13000 lbs). With all available drop tanks, meaning 4 600 gallon ones on f-22, raptor will have max load of some 36700 lbs, while F-15 with 3 600 gallon tanks will have 36200 lbs. Naturally, fuel load doesn't necessarily translate into range, as there's engine fuel consumption, drag and weight to be taken into account, among other things. Anyway, to cut the story short, i'd put my money on raptor's max range not really being significantly longer than eagle's, if at all. Which is fine as eagle already has monster range, longer than su-27.

[F-15 Eagle]

F-35 will have longer legs than f-16 (not to mention a-10 or harrier) but f-22 will carry more or less the same amount of fuel as f-15. Internal fuel of f-22 is 20600 lbs, f15 is some 22200 lbs with CFTs. (without them it should be some 13000 lbs). With all available drop tanks, meaning 4 600 gallon ones on f-22, raptor will have max load of some 36700 lbs, while F-15 with 3 600 gallon tanks will have 36200 lbs. Naturally, fuel load doesn't necessarily translate into range, as there's engine fuel consumption, drag and weight to be taken into account, among other things. Anyway, to cut the story short, i'd put my money on raptor's max range not really being significantly longer than eagle's, if at all. Which is fine as eagle already has monster range, longer than su-27.

Yeah but with all of those fuel tanks then you can't carry any weapons...none at all. The F-35 has more internal fuel than the F-15.

[Marc 1]

Yeah and even when in full after burner going supersonic the F-35 is faster than any other 3rd, 4th or 4.5th generation fighter in terms of supersonic speed. No fighter has ever gone past 1200mph in combat and thats what the F-35 is designed to go for a short time making it just as fast as any other fighter but with better range and payload.

Faster? Are you sure about that? The figures I've seen show only sub Mach 2 - About the same as the F/A 18's. I think you'll find that there are a fair few 3rd, 4th and 4.5 gen aircraft faster. The only real advantage is that with its internal carriage of smaller loads the F35 won't be Mach constrained by payload. BUT it's not about top speed - far too wasteful of fuel - its true advantages lie in its stealth and electronic systems.

[Marc 1]

The F-22 has plenty of range for a fighter, since internal weapons give a it a very low drag and great engines that allow it mach 1.5 without supercruise. The F-35 not so much, but its quite a lame fat plane that relies on stealth to no be a total sitting duck IMO

I think you'll find that 'supercruise' is the ability to sustain speeds of over Mach 1 without using afterburner. Yes the F22 can supercruise, but aparently not for long (airframe issues). The F35 may not be the Ferrari that the F22 was designed to be, but its a long way from being a lame sitting duck.

[F-15 Eagle]

Faster? Are you sure about that? The figures I've seen show only sub Mach 2 - About the same as the F/A 18's. I think you'll find that there are a fair few 3rd, 4th and 4.5 gen aircraft faster. The only real advantage is that with its internal carriage of smaller loads the F35 won't be Mach constrained by payload. BUT it's not about top speed - far too wasteful of fuel - its true advantages lie in its stealth and electronic systems.

The general public fails to realize that combat aircraft rarely even hit supersonic speeds let alone go near their mach 2+ speeds. They have this over-inflated impression of the operating speeds of these aircraft when they have to keep the engines at idle most of the time to get half decent ranged. The F-15 has never gone past Mach 1.6 in combat, its too much drag with all of its weapons and a total waist of fuel.

[Marc 1]

The general public fails to realize that combat aircraft rarely even hit supersonic speeds let alone go near their mach 2+ speeds. They have this over-inflated impression of the operating speeds of these aircraft when they have to keep the engines at idle most of the time to get half decent ranged. The F-15 has never gone past Mach 1.6 in combat, its too much drag with all of its weapons and a total waist of fuel.


OK... So why were you claiming:

Yeah and even when in full after burner going supersonic the F-35 is faster than any other 3rd, 4th or 4.5th generation fighter in terms of supersonic speed.

That seems totally contradictory to what you have just posted...

[rjmaz1]

The F-15's airspeed indicator only goes up to Mach 1.6 ;)

Marco i think what F-15 Eagle is trying to say is that the top speeds of the 3rd, 4th generation fighters are done without missiles or external fuel tanks, in combat configuration they are no faster than the F-35.

As the F-35 has a large internal fuel advantage over the 3rd and 4th generation fighters then for an apple to apple comparison the older aircraft should carry external tanks as they are required to reach the range of the F-35. The same applies for weapons.

The F-16 or Saab Gripen would require near maximum external fuel load to reach the range of the F-35 on internal fuel. In addition to a couple missiles it would be highly unlikely that the either aircraft could hit Mach 1.6 let alone their top speeds of Mach 2.. At dry thrust levels i wouldn't be surprised if the F-35 could fly 50% faster.

The Eurofighter, Rafale and F-15 would need some small amount of external fuel to reach the range of the F-35. In doing so their cruising speeds would also come down to the same ballpark as the F-35.

However it doesn't matter if the aircraft can cruise at Mach 1.1, 1.3 or Mach 1.5. On a combat sortie these aircraft will still transit at Mach 0.8 as the effeciency at this speed gives a huge range increase. By travelling only slightly quicker the range of the aircraft is slashed. Its simply not worth it.

All these comparisons are done with the F-35 with internal fuel only. Punch in the numbers with the F-35 carrying maximum external fuel and its range will be huge. Even with the max external fuel it may still be able to transit the same speed as other fighters as Mach 0.8 isn't that hard to reach.