Smallest Capable Multi-Role Fighter

[Mote]

It is funny how those that believe the Typhoon can do that but think it impossible for the F-35 to supercruise.

 

Isn't it largely a matter of whether or not the engine is designed for supercruise?

[Guest pfcem]

Isn't it largely a matter of whether or not the engine is designed for supercruise?

No, it is largely a matter availaible thrust (which would be determined by engine design) vs drag but the engine does not specifically HAVE to be designed for supercruising in order for the aircraft to be capable of doing so. There are plenty of aircraft capable of supercruising that were not specifically designed to do so.

 

Engine design also comes into play concerning efficiency (as in how practical it is for the aircraft to supercruise for a significant period of time).

 

The EJ200 (like the M53 [Mirage 2000] & F119 [F-22]) is a low-bypass (0.4:1) ratio turbofan optimized for the top right hand corner of the flight envelope (high speed & high altitude) so the Typhoon supercruising at low Mach numbers (<Mach 1.25) for extended periods is not unrealistic.

 

The F135 has a bypass ratio of 0.56-0.57 (slightly less than the 0.6:1 of the F100-PW-220 [F-15C & F-16C]) which would indicate it being optimised for transonic (Mach 0.8 to 1.2) speeds. But all that would imply is that the F-35 is not intended to spend an extended period of time supercruising - not that it is incapable of doing so.

 

There are other factors as well, like engine inlet design/geometry.

[gewing]

This thread is another one that makes me REALLY wish I had "X-Planes."

 

I wonder if something like a modern Scooter, with either two smallish thrust vectoring engines (I don't follow such things any more, but probably smaller than an F404) or perhaps one F404 with a three dimensional vectoring nozzle...

 

I would design it from the start to be able to carry conformal fuel tanks.

 

IF at all possible....

 

It would have an internal gun, possibly the Mauser BK 27, and 4 underwing hard points, Two wingtip rails for dogfight missiles, and two semi-submerged points on the fuselage. THese points would be sized to carry 2000lb Jdam, or two each Amraam or 500lb jdam. Even better would be some kind of internal weapons bay, but I think it would take twice as large a plane.

 

The inner underwing points would be wet, and able to carry at least 1000 lbs of ordnance.

the outer underwing points would be designed for roughly 500-600 lbs each.

While these payloads are not huge, if it was designed to perform while actually CARRYING most of that payload, instead of being designed for clean operations, then loaded down...

 

as an alternative...

I wonder if a BWB plane with two 3-D thrust vectoring engines and relatively large control surface (including on dihedral winglets?) could have significant manueverability?

 

It would not be expected to be quite as agile as say a Gripen, but I can imagine it with semi-recessed carry for 4 ASRAAM or AIM9X, and two internal bays for a total of say 6 AMRAAMs. With a helmet mounted sight, semi-stealth coatings, IRST, and the ability to mount "expanded" bay doors that would provide a larger payload with reduced drag and radar cross section compared to external carry...

 

Damn, I wonder if I can work that program into my budget this month.

[DB]

Scythe, if I'm correct, most of the ire in that post wasn't directed at you, but another poster.

Nah.

 

It's aimed squarely at the person with the bent blade for a name.

 

The other one is "ignored", but after taking a look, he's following his usual MO of "Me Too" when someone says something like Scythe's statement.

 

It took me approximately one minute to find the reference I posted. It's provenance is as good as you're going to get, coming as it does from the official website of the consortium building the fighter. There has been no claim that Eurofighter doesn't supercruise from any of the competing aircraft manufacturers and yet I still get to see lazy comments like the one posted.

 

If scythe's standard of evidence is so high, could he post suitable details for any aircraft that he believes supercruisesd that meet my own arbitrary standards of proof, please.

 

How about live video of independent radar tracking of an aircraft, but superimposed on a cockpit camera view showing that the throttle position never extends into the reheat quadrant?

 

Of course, then I'd be within my rights to claim that the video was faked, or that the throttle control had been fixed to allow reheat when it showed max. dry power, because I'd be an idiot too.

 

David

[TDHM]

Nah.

 

It's aimed squarely at the person with the bent blade for a name.

 

The other one is "ignored", but after taking a look, he's following his usual MO of "Me Too" when someone says something like Scythe's statement.

 

It took me approximately one minute to find the reference I posted. It's provenance is as good as you're going to get, coming as it does from the official website of the consortium building the fighter. There has been no claim that Eurofighter doesn't supercruise from any of the competing aircraft manufacturers and yet I still get to see lazy comments like the one posted.

 

If scythe's standard of evidence is so high, could he post suitable details for any aircraft that he believes supercruisesd that meet my own arbitrary standards of proof, please.

 

How about live video of independent radar tracking of an aircraft, but superimposed on a cockpit camera view showing that the throttle position never extends into the reheat quadrant?

 

Of course, then I'd be within my rights to claim that the video was faked, or that the throttle control had been fixed to allow reheat when it showed max. dry power, because I'd be an idiot too.

 

David

 

I stand corrected.

[Scythe]

It took me approximately one minute to find the reference I posted. It's provenance is as good as you're going to get, coming as it does from the official website of the consortium building the fighter. There has been no claim that Eurofighter doesn't supercruise from any of the competing aircraft manufacturers and yet I still get to see lazy comments like the one posted.

 

Which means you probably would know exactly where to look, as opposed to me trying to google it. I thought it wouldn't be totally outside the bounds of reason for me to ask for a figure/proof that the Eurofighter can supercruise from someone who seems to be knowledgeable on the airplane. Yes, it is lazy on my part for not searching it out myself (and no, I would not have used the manufacturer's site for this kind of info), and I apologize for obviously irritating the heck out of you.

 

 

If scythe's standard of evidence is so high, could he post suitable details for any aircraft that he believes supercruisesd that meet my own arbitrary standards of proof, please.

 

How about live video of independent radar tracking of an aircraft, but superimposed on a cockpit camera view showing that the throttle position never extends into the reheat quadrant?

 

Of course, then I'd be within my rights to claim that the video was faked, or that the throttle control had been fixed to allow reheat when it showed max. dry power, because I'd be an idiot too.

 

Right, so just because of me asking you about this stuff (my first time) I invite the comparison of being an idiot. Hmm, just a thought, but do you get off your high horse much?

 

And FYI, I never said the Eurofighter can't supercruise - I said that it can't (or at least I thought it can't) supercruise without using AB to push it into supersonic speed first. This belief was based on the World Air Power Journal Vol. 35, which showcased the Eurofighter. This is the quote:

 

"One of the capabilities most loudly trumpeted by the F-22's marketers is its ability to "supercruise." This is defined as being able to sustain supersonic flight with the engines at military power - without recourse to afterburner - which is said to significantly reduce the aircraft's vulnerabilities to hostile air defenses...(cut)...The supposed benefits of supercruising are controversial, and are not universally acknowledged. Interestingly, Eurofighter prototypes have already demonstrated an ability to supercruise, albeit at lower speeds than the F-22. When flying at Mach 1.4, Eurofighter prototypes have decelerated to Mach 1.1 when afterburner was cancelled, and then have sustained that speed on dry power alone."

 

But I expect you to quibble, because it's obviously the product of some Merrikan degenerates, so it can't be worth anything. I mean, they're not even a proper democracy, are they?

Edited July 14, 2007 by Scythe

[Burncycle360]

--

Edited July 14, 2007 by Burncycle360

[swerve]

...

And FYI, I never said the Eurofighter can't supercruise - I said that it can't (or at least I thought it can't) supercruise without using AB to push it into supersonic speed first. This belief was based on the World Air Power Journal Vol. 35, which showcased the Eurofighter. This is the quote:

 

"...Interestingly, Eurofighter prototypes have already demonstrated an ability to supercruise, albeit at lower speeds than the F-22. When flying at Mach 1.4, Eurofighter prototypes have decelerated to Mach 1.1 when afterburner was cancelled, and then have sustained that speed on dry power alone."

 

But I expect you to quibble, because it's obviously the product of some Merrikan degenerates, so it can't be worth anything. I mean, they're not even a proper democracy, are they?

 

 

I refer you to my post no. 72, where I quoted the Luftwaffe (& gave the source). Stick that text into Babelfish & you get -

"The Eurofighter can accelerate without afterburners to the supersonic range and fly over longer time with supersound. This possibility, which is called Supercruise, at present only few combat aircraft have".

 

I gave you what the Luftwaffe currently says about the performance of Eurofighter on its official website. You could have put it into an online translator, but instead you chose to rely on what a 9 year old magazine article (volume 35 of World Air Power Journal was the Winter 1998 issue) said about the performance of prototypes, using lower power engines than those fitted to production aircraft. Why? Because the Luftwaffe are a bunch of Yurrupean degenerates, so their official statements can't be relied on?

[Scythe]

I refer you to my post no. 72, where I quoted the Luftwaffe (& gave the source). Stick that text into Babelfish & you get -

"The Eurofighter can accelerate without afterburners to the supersonic range and fly over longer time with supersound. This possibility, which is called Supercruise, at present only few combat aircraft have".

 

I gave you what the Luftwaffe currently says about the performance of Eurofighter on its official website. You could have put it into an online translator, but instead you chose to rely on what a 9 year old magazine article (volume 35 of World Air Power Journal was the Winter 1998 issue) said about the performance of prototypes, using lower power engines than those fitted to production aircraft. Why? Because the Luftwaffe are a bunch of Yurrupean degenerates, so their official statements can't be relied on?

 

Look, I'm not saying you guys are wrong - in fact, I know I am. I was just saying that yeah, I made a mistake, but that doesn't mean I'd like to be called an idiot. I posted the World Air Power excerpt to show that my mistake wasn't completely baseless, and now that I have re-freshed my mem, I realize the prototypes weren't all fitted with the EJ200s - the first two were RB.199 powered, as I'm sure you're well aware.

 

Thus, I did not "choose" to rely on 9 year old data. Similarly, I did not "reject" what the Luftwaffe have officially said - just because I was responding to DB and not you does not mean I "rejected" what you posted. In fact, I can't believe you could've have misunderstood why I posted the excerpt so badly - I explicitly said "my belief was based on..."

 

But sure, whatever. I'm out.

Edited July 14, 2007 by Scythe

[swerve]

Look, I'm not saying you guys are wrong - in fact, I know I am. I was just saying that yeah, I made a mistake, but that doesn't mean I'd like to be called an idiot. I posted the World Air Power excerpt to show that my mistake wasn't completely baseless, and now that I have re-freshed my mem, I realize the prototypes weren't all fitted with the EJ200s - the first two were RB.199 powered, as I'm sure you're well aware.

 

Thus, I did not "choose" to rely on 9 year old data. Similarly, I did not "reject" what the Luftwaffe have officially said - just because I was responding to DB and not you does not mean I "rejected" what you posted. In fact, I can't believe you could've have misunderstood why I posted the excerpt so badly - I explicitly said "my belief was based on..."

 

But sure, whatever. I'm out.

 

The problem we have is that what you posted is one of the standard deliberate flame-baiting lines. So anyone who posts it can't complain if they get abuse. You've admitted your mistake - good! Welcome to the forum. I don't think you need warning that discussion can be robust.

[Getz]

The problem we have is that what you posted is one of the standard deliberate flame-baiting lines. So anyone who posts it can't complain if they get abuse. You've admitted your mistake - good! Welcome to the forum. I don't think you need warning that discussion can be robust.

 

I think some of the problem might be that the USAF made such a big deal about supercruise with the F22 as if they'd invented the idea, despite the fact that several European fighters have possessed the capability for decades - for example the Draken and I believe the Mirage, but most specifically the EE Lightning which, unlike the previous two aircraft mentioned, could not only break the sound barrier and cruise with a full combat load, but would do so routinely in service.

[Guest pfcem]

I think some of the problem might be that the USAF made such a big deal about supercruise with the F22 as if they'd invented the idea, despite the fact that several European fighters have possessed the capability for decades - for example the Draken and I believe the Mirage, but most specifically the EE Lightning which, unlike the previous two aircraft mentioned, could not only break the sound barrier and cruise with a full combat load, but would do so routinely in service.

No, the problem is that the USAF redefined/reinvented supercruise with the F-22. Several US aircraft (both "fighters" & "bombers") have been able to "supercruise" (sustain >Mach 1.0 without afterburners) for decades. Now EVERYONE who has been able to sustain >Mach 1.0 without afterburners is touting it all of a sudden as if their "supercruise" capability is/was orerationally significant &/or somehow in the leage of the F-22's supercruise (sustain >>Mach 1.5 without afterburners) capability. "Supercruising" at Mach 1.05-1.2 CLEAN or with a light air-to-air combat load vs subsonic cruising at Mach 0.9-0.95 IS NOT a big deal but supercruising at Mach 1.72+ & at 50,000+ft (vs ~35,000ft) very much is. Another significant difference is that while several aircraft can & have been able to "supercruise", they do/did so infrequently & for only short periods of time but the F-22 was designed to operate an not only MUCH higher supersonic speeds but also to do so for significant periods of time.

 

It can be boiled down to this...while several aircraft can dash at >Mach 1.0 without afterburners, the F-22 can cruise at >>Mach 1.5 not only without afterburners but without having to remain at full military thrust.

 

The only other aircraft which can lay claim to being a true "supercruiser" is the Eurofighter Typhoon but its Mach 1.2 @ 36,000ft (according to the airframe & engine manufacturers) is a far cry fron the F-22's Mach 1.72+ @ 50,000+ft and whether the Eurofighter Typhoon will routinly "supercruise" for sustained periods like the F-22 does/will has yet to be seen.

[Sailor Lars]

Even if the topic is about "smallest capable multi-role fighter" .. Perhaps eurofighters performance is just what it intended for the plane's mission? Reference - Gramd Duc. For now - Europe doesn't (( i don't see why - please do explain me why, if you see fit )), a multi-national fighter exceeding the EF. Eurofighter already, if ii'm not wrong - might be just a tool to unify the european weapon design/manufacture - if nothing else it will ever be. Just my two cents on the topic.

 

And as many people have already stated on the topic - for small countries, like Finland example - the doctrine is just to make the occupation too costly for the benefits it would bring. And in this light.. Despite the Gripen airshow falls (( stockholm the most dramatic if i recall right )), is what what like countries like us need.

 

Preferrably with two motors.

[Guest pfcem]

Even if the topic is about "smallest capable multi-role fighter" .. Perhaps eurofighters performance is just what it intended for the plane's mission? Reference - Gramd Duc. For now - Europe doesn't (( i don't see why - please do explain me why, if you see fit )), a multi-national fighter exceeding the EF. Eurofighter already, if ii'm not wrong - might be just a tool to unify the european weapon design/manufacture - if nothing else it will ever be. Just my two cents on the topic.

 

And as many people have already stated on the topic - for small countries, like Finland example - the doctrine is just to make the occupation too costly for the benefits it would bring. And in this light.. Despite the Gripen airshow falls (( stockholm the most dramatic if i recall right )), is what what like countries like us need.

 

Preferrably with two motors.

Sounds like Taiwan's AIDC Ching-Kuo is just what you are looking for.

 

http://aviation-links.blogspot.com/2006/11...-ching-kuo.html

http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/ching-kuo/ching-kuo.htm

http://www.savage-comedy.com/_AIDC_Ching-kuo

[WillisPD]

the F-22's supercruise at Mach 1.72+ & at 50,000+ft (with edits etc)

 

 

This is also part of the F-22s "unclassified" capabilites. There are all sorts of things about this fighter that we just dont know yet. Another aspect are the rumors of its information gathering or surveilance capabilities (possibly more capable than the SR-71 if you believe some rumors). Also... remember that the SR-71s top speed is still classified (as well as its recon/surveilance capabilities)

[gewing]

This is also part of the F-22s "unclassified" capabilites. There are all sorts of things about this fighter that we just dont know yet. Another aspect are the rumors of its information gathering or surveilance capabilities (possibly more capable than the SR-71 if you believe some rumors). Also... remember that the SR-71s top speed is still classified (as well as its recon/surveilance capabilities)

 

 

 

It will probably be several years before we get any better information declassified on the performance of the F-22.

 

IF it can supercruise at mach 1.6-1.7 and maintain it, that does make me wonder what it can do with afterburners!

 

It has been claimed, iirc, that the F-22 isn't designed for any higher top speeds than the F-15, if as high, but for higher average speeds.

 

So that seems to me to indicate that the F-22 probably has the capability, (WILD ASS GUESS) of somewhere between mach 2.5 and mach 3 as a maximum dash speed. Even if it can go faster in terms of aerodynamics and power, I doubt it is a usable feature. Actually, I doubt composite low Radar Cross section airframe structures would do well with the aerodynamic heating even at mach 2.5-3, now that I really think about it.

 

More interesting to me, actually, is what it can do in terms of combination altitude/speed for short periods. The F-15 could launch the 1980s ASAT weapon. How much more capable could it, or something like it, be when launched from an F-22?

[Getz]

No, the problem is that the USAF redefined/reinvented supercruise with the F-22. Several US aircraft (both "fighters" & "bombers") have been able to "supercruise" (sustain >Mach 1.0 without afterburners) for decades. Now EVERYONE who has been able to sustain >Mach 1.0 without afterburners is touting it all of a sudden as if their "supercruise" capability is/was orerationally significant &/or somehow in the leage of the F-22's supercruise (sustain >>Mach 1.5 without afterburners) capability. "Supercruising" at Mach 1.05-1.2 CLEAN or with a light air-to-air combat load vs subsonic cruising at Mach 0.9-0.95 IS NOT a big deal but supercruising at Mach 1.72+ & at 50,000+ft (vs ~35,000ft) very much is. Another significant difference is that while several aircraft can & have been able to "supercruise", they do/did so infrequently & for only short periods of time but the F-22 was designed to operate an not only MUCH higher supersonic speeds but also to do so for significant periods of time.

 

It can be boiled down to this...while several aircraft can dash at >Mach 1.0 without afterburners, the F-22 can cruise at >>Mach 1.5 not only without afterburners but without having to remain at full military thrust.

 

The only other aircraft which can lay claim to being a true "supercruiser" is the Eurofighter Typhoon but its Mach 1.2 @ 36,000ft (according to the airframe & engine manufacturers) is a far cry fron the F-22's Mach 1.72+ @ 50,000+ft and whether the Eurofighter Typhoon will routinly "supercruise" for sustained periods like the F-22 does/will has yet to be seen.

 

I think you're missing the point. I'm not claiming that the F22 isn't a very fine aircraft capable of doing many new and exciting things... I'm trying to explain why supercruise seems to be a very touchy issue. Many European aircraft enthusiasts feel that it's a case of the USAF claiming that the F22 is uniquely capable of something that is actually not all that remarkable. A bit like as if the US Army said "look at our M1A2! It's got composite armour! No one else has that!"

[Guest pfcem]

I think you're missing the point. I'm not claiming that the F22 isn't a very fine aircraft capable of doing many new and exciting things... I'm trying to explain why supercruise seems to be a very touchy issue. Many European aircraft enthusiasts feel that it's a case of the USAF claiming that the F22 is uniquely capable of something that is actually not all that remarkable. A bit like as if the US Army said "look at our M1A2! It's got composite armour! No one else has that!"

No you are missing the point. The US is claiming that the F-22 is uniquely capable of something no previous fight has been capable of. When the US talks about supercruise & the F-22 is does not mean relatively short bursts of Mach 1.05-1.25 @ 35,000 ft but sustained cruising of Mach 1.5++ @ 50,000+ft. Prior to the F-22 nobody made a big deal of "supercruising" because even though a number of aircraft could do it, it was of limited realistic value. With the F-22 it is a different story. Now that the F-22 has redefined supercruising & will operationally take advantage of it, all of a sudden "supercruising" is a big deal even if the other aircraft's "supercruise" capability is nowere near that of the F-22. Just because you can fly at Mach 1.0+ without afterburners DOES NOT mean you have any great advantage over an aircraft that can only do Mach 0.9-0.95.

[Yama]

It will probably be several years before we get any better information declassified on the performance of the F-22.

 

IF it can supercruise at mach 1.6-1.7 and maintain it, that does make me wonder what it can do with afterburners!

 

It has been claimed, iirc, that the F-22 isn't designed for any higher top speeds than the F-15, if as high, but for higher average speeds.

 

So that seems to me to indicate that the F-22 probably has the capability, (WILD ASS GUESS) of somewhere between mach 2.5 and mach 3 as a maximum dash speed. Even if it can go faster in terms of aerodynamics and power, I doubt it is a usable feature. Actually, I doubt composite low Radar Cross section airframe structures would do well with the aerodynamic heating even at mach 2.5-3, now that I really think about it.

 

Top speed over Mach 2.5 is extremely unlikely; going to those speeds requires specialized canopy and surface materials, and it's likely that RCS rather than heating durability has been driving factor in design of F-22 materials; another limiting feature is fixed inlet design. It has been claimed that top speed is "over Mach 2.42" but I'm pretty sceptical of even that.

[FirstOfFoot]

The US is claiming that the F-22 is uniquely capable of something no previous fight has been capable of. When the US talks about supercruise & the F-22 is does not mean relatively short bursts of Mach 1.05-1.25 @ 35,000 ft but sustained cruising of Mach 1.5++ @ 50,000+ft. Prior to the F-22 nobody made a big deal of "supercruising" because even though a number of aircraft could do it, it was of limited realistic value.

 

The answer is obvious - we should hang missiles on a Concorde

 

Actually, does that mean that the Tu-160 BLACKJACK is capable of sustained supercruise?

[Getz]

No you are missing the point.

 

I don't think it's possible for me to miss the point that I was myself making... I'm just trying to explain why the Supercruise issue is a bit touchy in Europe. Why the confrontational attitude?

[Guest pfcem]

I don't think it's possible for me to miss the point that I was myself making... I'm just trying to explain why the Supercruise issue is a bit touchy in Europe. Why the confrontational attitude?

One more time.

 

The the USAF redefined/reinvented supercruise with the F-22. When the US talks about supercruise & the F-22 is does not mean relatively short bursts of Mach 1.05-1.25 @ 35,000 ft but sustained cruising of Mach 1.5++ @ 50,000+ft. No other fighter even comes close to matching the F-22's supercruise performance. Prior to the F-22, "supercruising" was not a big deal because no other fighter's "supercruise" perfomance is a dramatic advantage over Mach 0.9-0.95 subsonic cruising (although one could say that the Typhoon's Mach 1.2 is significant it is still not in the same leage as the F-22).

[gewing]

Top speed over Mach 2.5 is extremely unlikely; going to those speeds requires specialized canopy and surface materials, and it's likely that RCS rather than heating durability has been driving factor in design of F-22 materials; another limiting feature is fixed inlet design. It has been claimed that top speed is "over Mach 2.42" but I'm pretty sceptical of even that.

 

 

 

 

I thought I said that structures would probably not handle those speeds...

 

I would not be surprised if it CAN go over mach 2.42, as long as no one minds it melting...

[Getz]

One more time.

 

The the USAF redefined/reinvented supercruise with the F-22. When the US talks about supercruise & the F-22 is does not mean relatively short bursts of Mach 1.05-1.25 @ 35,000 ft but sustained cruising of Mach 1.5++ @ 50,000+ft. No other fighter even comes close to matching the F-22's supercruise performance. Prior to the F-22, "supercruising" was not a big deal because no other fighter's "supercruise" perfomance is a dramatic advantage over Mach 0.9-0.95 subsonic cruising (although one could say that the Typhoon's Mach 1.2 is significant it is still not in the same leage as the F-22).

 

Ah, I see.

 

There's what I'm saying and there's what you're hearing in your head, and they don't seem t have much in common. Seeing as you don't seem to be able to understand what I am saying to you I think I won't bother taking this any further.

 

However, I would point out that the English Electric Lightning was capable of sustained Supercruise at mach 1.1ish with a full combat load way back in 1959. Naturally, it couldn't fly round the world doing that, but then again a Lightning could barely fly the length of Britain without topping up the tanks anyway. On the other hand, it could scramble to 30,000 feet faster than an F15 and on at least one occasion intercepted a U2 at 88,000 feet...

 

God I love that plane! Not in the slightest bit multi-role, however...

Edited July 20, 2007 by Getz

[Guest pfcem]

Ah, I see.

 

There's what I'm saying and there's what you're hearing in your head, and they don't seem t have much in common. Seeing as you don't seem to be able to understand what I am saying to you I think I won't bother taking this any further.

No I hear what you are saying just fine. The problem is that you (& the Europeans you are talking about) fail to see (or do see & are simply trying to pull one over on those who don't) is that being able to "supercruise" at Mach 1.05-1.2 IS NOT a big deal. You yourself have pointed out that a number of aircaft have been able to do it but it was NEVER a significant advantage over aircraft which could cruise at Mach 0.9-0.95. But when the F-22 came along & redefined/reinvented supercruise as Mach 1.5++ @ 50,000+ ft it did become a big deal. All of a sudden, even though it was barely mentioned before, everyone who could sustain Mach 1+ without afterburners started touting it as something significant as if what the F-22 can do in nothing special because they could do it too (when in fact what they could do was/is nowhere near what the F-22 can do).

 

 

 

However, I would point out that the English Electric Lightning was capable of sustained Supercruise at mach 1.1ish with a full combat load way back in 1959. Naturally, it couldn't fly round the world doing that, but then again a Lightning could barely fly the length of Britain without topping up the tanks anyway. On the other hand, it could scramble to 30,000 feet faster than an F15 and on at least one occasion intercepted a U2 at 88,000 feet...

 

God I love that plane! Not in the slightest bit multi-role, however...

Mach 1.1...wow that a whole Mach 0.15-0.2 faster than the Mach 0.9-0.95 many many aircraft can/could do.

 

At 35,000 ft that's a wopping 100-133 mph (730 mph vs 597-630 mph).

 

To put that in perspective, a F-22 cruising at Mach 1.72 @ 50,000 ft is going 1135 mph (505-538 mph faster than a Mach 0.9-0.95 cruiser & 405 mph faster than the BAE Lightning & 339 mph faster than the Eurofighter Typhoon). Another way to look at is that the F-22 is flying at 1.8-1.9 times the speed of a subsonic cruiser & 1.56 times the speed of the BAE Lightning & 1.43 times faster than the Eurofighter Typhoon. AND doing so at 15,000 ft higher altitude.