More on range...
Yes and no... the big issue is that the different aircraft have different mission profiles, so while the fuel fraction is important (Su-27 carries a lot of fuel for instance) it is not the end-all be-all...Originally Posted by carl
As an example, your average modern airliner is very fuel efficient. This is because it flies at optimized (higher than legacy) altitudes and has very efficient high-bypass engines. Power changes are minimized and routings are as direct as possible... yielding better range.
If I'm flying a mission in combat, however, I have to maneuver in relation to the threats, so I can't necessarily fly a fuel optimized profile (although I will try in between times when I'm fighting!).
Combat radius is probably the best number to compare, as long as you look at the assumptions involved and check that they make sense. It usually takes into account the expected profile for a mission (hi-lo-hi etc).
In general, higher altitude gives you better fuel efficiency and a longer range on your weapons. There's a dated (but still relevant) interview with Lockeed test pilot Paul Metz here that discusses this. F-15Cs can get up to similar altitudes, but can't turn as well as the F-22 up there. F-16s and F-18s have a hard time getting into the upper 40s when combat configured. According to one expert, the altitude advantage means that the F-22 is twice as effective - see here.Another question I have regards the F-22 altitude capability. I have read that it can fight from way high up there. Can the other planes under discussion fight from that high up and is that altitude capability of very great of very small use?
Magazine space and reloading is definitely an issue for the Aegis ships. As I said, numbers matter at some point.One other thing I only learned about last year that may have some bearing. I don't think the vertical launch missile magazines of the carrier escorts can be replenished at sea. Once they're out, they have to drive back to the big base to get refilled. That would probably have significant bearing on planning I would imagine.
We could and would carry on, but it would not be pretty. We have been lucky that our last few opponents have been either really dumb or really over-matched. With the exception of 9-11, we have not been hit hard in any one engagement. Hopefully we can continue this streak!The only other thing I would say is if planning on fighting somebody you figure is almost at good as you, you had better plan on some surprises. If we were to, God forbid, get into a full on tussle with China, I think it would be prudent to expect to lose a number of carriers. Could we carry on if that happened?
V/R,
Cliff
Bookmarks