Radar range would matter a lot when 5th gen come
If modeled passive radar detection and geolocation will be very important too. It’s basically the hard counter to the Su-57
Its already in game, as we saw the ESM mode
Also if you are reffering to the side arrays on felon, they are supposed to be also separately turned off, idk how gaijin will model that
Flanker FV2… and the third line would be another Flanker?
euro
And… I suppose you can’t post it without the red scribbles?
It’s a full 360 deal
That’s a very interesting doc, thanks for sharing.
1 Like
just be aware this is a very old British government doc and the figures should be taken with a grain of salt, since it predates production F-22 and maybe EFT
funny how FRAF (EFT) happens to have the best numbers
1 Like
they’re… quite a bit optimistic since the aircraft ballooned in empty weight since then so it’s not really accurate
1 Like
do you have the date this is from?
Wdym
For F-22 and F-35 their RWR geolocation is full 360 spherical. It’s seperate from the radar afaik though I could totally see them using the radar to recieve stuff from the front
2 Likes
Yup, I’m thinking more in terms of historical terms. Still, maybe those were the actual program goals back then?
Like (this is just me trying to shoehorn numbers for fun, heh), a forum member from the SPUK quoted an old F22 page, citing a 53 seconds acceleration time from M0.8 to M1.5 @ 30000 ft.
He also gives this GAO report:
Spoiler
F22 aircraft progress in achieving engineering and manufacturing development ... - Google Livros
Then, pages of interest are 8 and 10. Page 8 explicitly lists the 10 major parameters for the F22 performance evaluation, while page 10 has a chart of how they compared to date and predicted values for EMD completion, in comparison to the requirements.
Acceleration “>58” secs on the British document, 108% of performance achieved to date (1998). Let’s take a hard 58 instead of greater than.
x * 1.08 = 58 secs
x = 58 / 1.08 = 53.7 secs
53.7 fits the information from the old F22 page, and the % falls in line with the achieved to date and the EMD prediction.
Supercruise requirement was M1.5, then 114% of that is M1.71. That also falls within the numbers we find for supercruise in pilot reports (although ~M1.8 iirc was the highest I could find).
Maneuverability would stay the same, while radar range would go from 160 to 187km.
Anyhow, I’ll try do dig a bit on that old website.
Edit: ok, I managed to get a view of the old LM website (note last updated 2005). Some number matching for acceleration and supercruise as well.
4 Likes
Damn this thing fast as hell. 1480 kph IAS.
For reference the su-57 is 730 KCAS/1350 kph IAS.
It also has a higher max g load than the su-57, which is only 8gs.
2 Likes
Considering we can’t even reach F-15E’s theoretical mach 2.7 let alone its confirmed 2.5, I doubt we’ll see F-22 go 2.5+.
I know, old post, but I’m still upset about the high altitude drag nerf F-15E got.
1 Like
I was thinking the numbers matched nicely between the docs, and just for fun I threw your spec sheet, gao report and the charts from the LM page, asked AI to crunch it to see if it would reach the same conclusion, and well, it kinda says they do match.
I also asked it if it could extrapolate on the turning figures a bit from that 3.7g turn at altitude and the 22/37 degrees figures.
Anyhow, it spit me these:
Sustained turn (22°/s)
Likely occurs at: ~15,000–25,000 ft, ~Mach 0.5–0.6, ~6–7 g sustained
Not consistent with the 3.7G @ 30k @M0.9, for these conditions it gave me a 7-8 degree/sec.
I asked for methodology confidence vs extrapolation on those and it wrote the 3.7G @ 7-8 degrees as more reliable, mid for the 6-7G turn @ 22 deg/s at mid altitude, and low confidence that the 22 deg/s couldn’t happen at lower alts.
Anyhow, I think I’ll leave the turning data for someone that actually knows the equations, AI extrapolation can be fun but in the end we’re looking for something a little more rock solid.