You Can Fly An F-22 From Washington D.C. To Libya

[Divine Wind]

Gates: Some Benghazi critics have "cartoonish" view of military capability - CBS News

Suggestions that we could have flown a fighter jet over the attackers to "scare them with the noise or something," Gates said, ignored the "number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from [former Libyan leader] Qaddafi's arsenals."

"I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances," he said.


Dumbasses

Secretary Gates is correct that just risking fighters and their crews as a scare tactic is silly. However, most here seem to be thinking along the lines of bombing the shit out of the opposition. That too is silly since we had friendlies moving around on the ground and there were a lot of innocents living nearby too. Special Ops teams would have been more effective, but only if they knew the size and composition of the opposing forces.

Again, the main problem at Benghazi was that our political leadership gave our military and intelligence forces too much to do in a very hostile area with very little support and zero contingency planning. Our political leadership gambled with those men's lives and lost.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Just checked on a flight from New York to Cairo. Egypt Air, Non stop, 10 hours 40 minutes LOL
New York to Tripoli, miles 4,650 miles. Google maps.

F-22 Raptor
Supercruise is sustained supersonic flight of a supersonic aircraft with a useful cargo, passenger, or weapons load performed efficiently, which typically precludes the use of highly inefficient afterburners. Mach 1.7=1304.36 mph.

4650 miles/1304.36 mph=3.5650 Flight hours.
3 hours refueling time from tankers out of southern England, ya they are there.
Range: More than 1,850 miles ferry range with two external wing fuel tanks (1,600 nautical miles)

Time to station, 6.56 hours. Did I say 12? Well fuck, that old calculator was shitting me.

See how easy it is to hoodwink a stupid liberal?

Never, ever trust your life or your money with a liberal.

WHY DO YOU THINK WE BUILT THE DAMN THING???

Why do you think we call them LIBTARDOS?

You cannot refuel at 1300 miles an hour.

What fucking part of "3 hours refueling time from tankers" did you not understand?
Did I say they refuel at mach 1.7?
Stupid fuckers posting without reading the entire fact sheet.

In that post I did the research, crunched the fucking numbers, and every fucking fact in there proves my fucking point beyond any question. I've been fascinated with the F-22 from the very first time they announced it. Why again, do you think we built the damn thing? Every single moron on this thread who challenged the facts have been kicked in the head at least 50 times. And to the other moron, you can land them in Italy after they ran cover for incoming support and not have to return to the States.

And in addition, every stupid ass who challenged the facts missed the entire fucking point. They claimed they couldn't do anything and I proved they could even as far away as Washington D.C. They had assets in England that could have hooked up with tankers out of Italy. Hillary and Obama are fucking liars. And if you're with them you're no better than them.

Your entire numbers are hosed up! How would they refuel south of England when they would run out of fuel LONG before they ever got that far? It is over 3000 nm from DC to London. That's a little further than 1600 nm. I don't see that included in your figures. If they are carrying drop tanks, their cruising speed is less than you listed. Also, that would severely limit any weapons being carried internally because of max take-off weight.

I agree that it could be done, but this oversimplification ( bullshit) is being written to argue a point without taking into consideration all of the ramifications. A mission like that would take days to plan, not minutes.

There are a few KC-10s that do the route all the time. They drag fighters over the pond on a daily basis. And that is across both ponds. They have two crews, beds, kitchens and have to stay aloft for hours on end to get the birds accross the ponds.

The F-22 needs to meet up with a KC-10 once to get across the pond. The F-16/18/15 will fly in formation with the tanker. But they all get there.

That is IF the fighters are crossing at the same speed as the tanker. Relative motion is a math problem everyone struggles with in school. Many of you posting on this forum seem to have that issue as well.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

They wouldn't have to send anyone from the states. There are NATO air bases in Italy. There are also normally two carrier air wings on station in the Mediterranean sea that could be tasked.

Nope. That hasn't been the norm for decades!

Sorry, I've been out for 36 years. That's the way it was when I was in. I assume there is at least one carrier task force in the Med at all times.

Not any more. We don't have the carriers to support it.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Just checked on a flight from New York to Cairo. Egypt Air, Non stop, 10 hours 40 minutes LOL
New York to Tripoli, miles 4,650 miles. Google maps.

F-22 Raptor
Supercruise is sustained supersonic flight of a supersonic aircraft with a useful cargo, passenger, or weapons load performed efficiently, which typically precludes the use of highly inefficient afterburners. Mach 1.7=1304.36 mph.

4650 miles/1304.36 mph=3.5650 Flight hours.
3 hours refueling time from tankers out of southern England, ya they are there.
Range: More than 1,850 miles ferry range with two external wing fuel tanks (1,600 nautical miles)

Time to station, 6.56 hours. Did I say 12? Well fuck, that old calculator was shitting me.

See how easy it is to hoodwink a stupid liberal?

Never, ever trust your life or your money with a liberal.

WHY DO YOU THINK WE BUILT THE DAMN THING???

Why do you think we call them LIBTARDOS?

You cannot refuel at 1300 miles an hour.

What fucking part of "3 hours refueling time from tankers" did you not understand?
Did I say they refuel at mach 1.7?
Stupid fuckers posting without reading the entire fact sheet.

In that post I did the research, crunched the fucking numbers, and every fucking fact in there proves my fucking point beyond any question. I've been fascinated with the F-22 from the very first time they announced it. Why again, do you think we built the damn thing? Every single moron on this thread who challenged the facts have been kicked in the head at least 50 times. And to the other moron, you can land them in Italy after they ran cover for incoming support and not have to return to the States.

And in addition, every stupid ass who challenged the facts missed the entire fucking point. They claimed they couldn't do anything and I proved they could even as far away as Washington D.C. They had assets in England that could have hooked up with tankers out of Italy. Hillary and Obama are fucking liars. And if you're with them you're no better than them.

Your entire numbers are hosed up! How would they refuel south of England when they would run out of fuel LONG before they ever got that far? It is over 3000 nm from DC to London. That's a little further than 1600 nm. I don't see that included in your figures. If they are carrying drop tanks, their cruising speed is less than you listed. Also, that would severely limit any weapons being carried internally because of max take-off weight.

I agree that it could be done, but this oversimplification ( bullshit) is being written to argue a point without taking into consideration all of the ramifications. A mission like that would take days to plan, not minutes.

There are a few KC-10s that do the route all the time. They drag fighters over the pond on a daily basis. And that is across both ponds. They have two crews, beds, kitchens and have to stay aloft for hours on end to get the birds accross the ponds.

The F-22 needs to meet up with a KC-10 once to get across the pond. The F-16/18/15 will fly in formation with the tanker. But they all get there.

That is IF the fighters are crossing at the same speed as the tanker. Relative motion is a math problem everyone struggles with in school. Many of you posting on this forum seem to have that issue as well.

All the way, the fighters will be in formation with the tankers (Usually a KC-10) since all cruise at about the same speed. The ONLY time the fighters can go faster than the tanker is in after burner and that just ain't happening during a ferry flight.

You seem to be under the impression that Fighters all go near their maximum speed all the time. Actually, they are capable of such speeds for about 15 minutes and then have to meet up with a tanker so they can stay in the air or they have to head directly (do not pass go) to an air field.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You cannot refuel at 1300 miles an hour.

What fucking part of "3 hours refueling time from tankers" did you not understand?
Did I say they refuel at mach 1.7?
Stupid fuckers posting without reading the entire fact sheet.

In that post I did the research, crunched the fucking numbers, and every fucking fact in there proves my fucking point beyond any question. I've been fascinated with the F-22 from the very first time they announced it. Why again, do you think we built the damn thing? Every single moron on this thread who challenged the facts have been kicked in the head at least 50 times. And to the other moron, you can land them in Italy after they ran cover for incoming support and not have to return to the States.

And in addition, every stupid ass who challenged the facts missed the entire fucking point. They claimed they couldn't do anything and I proved they could even as far away as Washington D.C. They had assets in England that could have hooked up with tankers out of Italy. Hillary and Obama are fucking liars. And if you're with them you're no better than them.

Your entire numbers are hosed up! How would they refuel south of England when they would run out of fuel LONG before they ever got that far? It is over 3000 nm from DC to London. That's a little further than 1600 nm. I don't see that included in your figures. If they are carrying drop tanks, their cruising speed is less than you listed. Also, that would severely limit any weapons being carried internally because of max take-off weight.

I agree that it could be done, but this oversimplification ( bullshit) is being written to argue a point without taking into consideration all of the ramifications. A mission like that would take days to plan, not minutes.

There are a few KC-10s that do the route all the time. They drag fighters over the pond on a daily basis. And that is across both ponds. They have two crews, beds, kitchens and have to stay aloft for hours on end to get the birds accross the ponds.

The F-22 needs to meet up with a KC-10 once to get across the pond. The F-16/18/15 will fly in formation with the tanker. But they all get there.

That is IF the fighters are crossing at the same speed as the tanker. Relative motion is a math problem everyone struggles with in school. Many of you posting on this forum seem to have that issue as well.

All the way, the fighters will be in formation with the tankers (Usually a KC-10) since all cruise at about the same speed. The ONLY time the fighters can go faster than the tanker is in after burner and that just ain't happening during a ferry flight.

You seem to be under the impression that Fighters all go near their maximum speed all the time. Actually, they are capable of such speeds for about 15 minutes and then have to meet up with a tanker so they can stay in the air or they have to head directly (do not pass go) to an air field.

You obviously did not read the thread. I suggest you do.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

What fucking part of "3 hours refueling time from tankers" did you not understand?
Did I say they refuel at mach 1.7?
Stupid fuckers posting without reading the entire fact sheet.

In that post I did the research, crunched the fucking numbers, and every fucking fact in there proves my fucking point beyond any question. I've been fascinated with the F-22 from the very first time they announced it. Why again, do you think we built the damn thing? Every single moron on this thread who challenged the facts have been kicked in the head at least 50 times. And to the other moron, you can land them in Italy after they ran cover for incoming support and not have to return to the States.

And in addition, every stupid ass who challenged the facts missed the entire fucking point. They claimed they couldn't do anything and I proved they could even as far away as Washington D.C. They had assets in England that could have hooked up with tankers out of Italy. Hillary and Obama are fucking liars. And if you're with them you're no better than them.

Your entire numbers are hosed up! How would they refuel south of England when they would run out of fuel LONG before they ever got that far? It is over 3000 nm from DC to London. That's a little further than 1600 nm. I don't see that included in your figures. If they are carrying drop tanks, their cruising speed is less than you listed. Also, that would severely limit any weapons being carried internally because of max take-off weight.

I agree that it could be done, but this oversimplification ( bullshit) is being written to argue a point without taking into consideration all of the ramifications. A mission like that would take days to plan, not minutes.

There are a few KC-10s that do the route all the time. They drag fighters over the pond on a daily basis. And that is across both ponds. They have two crews, beds, kitchens and have to stay aloft for hours on end to get the birds accross the ponds.

The F-22 needs to meet up with a KC-10 once to get across the pond. The F-16/18/15 will fly in formation with the tanker. But they all get there.

That is IF the fighters are crossing at the same speed as the tanker. Relative motion is a math problem everyone struggles with in school. Many of you posting on this forum seem to have that issue as well.

All the way, the fighters will be in formation with the tankers (Usually a KC-10) since all cruise at about the same speed. The ONLY time the fighters can go faster than the tanker is in after burner and that just ain't happening during a ferry flight.

You seem to be under the impression that Fighters all go near their maximum speed all the time. Actually, they are capable of such speeds for about 15 minutes and then have to meet up with a tanker so they can stay in the air or they have to head directly (do not pass go) to an air field.

You obviously did not read the thread. I suggest you do.

Oh, I read it correctly. What I am NOT going to do is to read in something that shouldn't be there.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In 8 hours. Hillarious went home to bed and Obamakov loaded up on Air Farce One and went to Vegas to party. Our patriots were left there to die.

That's all you need to know about the Queens.

So why didn't GW Bush fly an F-22 to Iraq to save 4500 Americans?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

In 8 hours. Hillarious went home to bed and Obamakov loaded up on Air Farce One and went to Vegas to party. Our patriots were left there to die.

That's all you need to know about the Queens.

So why didn't GW Bush fly an F-22 to Iraq to save 4500 Americans?

Step slowly away from the keyboard. Slowly.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Your entire numbers are hosed up! How would they refuel south of England when they would run out of fuel LONG before they ever got that far? It is over 3000 nm from DC to London. That's a little further than 1600 nm. I don't see that included in your figures. If they are carrying drop tanks, their cruising speed is less than you listed. Also, that would severely limit any weapons being carried internally because of max take-off weight.

I agree that it could be done, but this oversimplification ( bullshit) is being written to argue a point without taking into consideration all of the ramifications. A mission like that would take days to plan, not minutes.

There are a few KC-10s that do the route all the time. They drag fighters over the pond on a daily basis. And that is across both ponds. They have two crews, beds, kitchens and have to stay aloft for hours on end to get the birds accross the ponds.

The F-22 needs to meet up with a KC-10 once to get across the pond. The F-16/18/15 will fly in formation with the tanker. But they all get there.

That is IF the fighters are crossing at the same speed as the tanker. Relative motion is a math problem everyone struggles with in school. Many of you posting on this forum seem to have that issue as well.

All the way, the fighters will be in formation with the tankers (Usually a KC-10) since all cruise at about the same speed. The ONLY time the fighters can go faster than the tanker is in after burner and that just ain't happening during a ferry flight.

You seem to be under the impression that Fighters all go near their maximum speed all the time. Actually, they are capable of such speeds for about 15 minutes and then have to meet up with a tanker so they can stay in the air or they have to head directly (do not pass go) to an air field.

You obviously did not read the thread. I suggest you do.

Oh, I read it correctly. What I am NOT going to do is to read in something that shouldn't be there.

No. You didn't. Have a nice day!

 

[Divine Wind]

Not any more. We don't have the carriers to support it.

Are you saying the Navy and Marines don't have a strong presence in the Med, the Gulf, North Atlantic and WestPac or are you saying the definition of aircraft carriers is changing and we have less old "CV"-style aircraft carriers?

From 2014:
http://thediplomat.com/2014/04/does-the-us-navy-have-10-or-19-aircraft-carriers/
Last week the U.S. Navy accepted USS America, first of theAmerica-class amphibious assault ships, into service. Unlike most recent amphibious assault ships, USS America and her sister USSTripoli lack well-decks, instead focusing on aviation facilities. When fully operational, America and Tripoli will operate as many as 20 F-35Bs, potentially playing a critical role in what the Navy projects as the future of air superiority.

Inevitably, the delivery of USS America rekindles the ongoing conversation over what, precisely, constitutes an aircraft carrier. In the United States, we endure the polite fiction that the USN’s 45,000 ton aircraft carriers are not aircraft carriers, but rather some other kind of creature. USS America is roughly the same size as the French Charles De Gaulle and the INS Vikramaditya, although a bit smaller than the RFS Admiral Kuzetsov or her Chinese sister, the Liaoning. America is considerably larger than recent aircraft-carrying ships constructed for the Korean, Japanese, and Australian navies.

 

[Divine Wind]

All the way, the fighters will be in formation with the tankers (Usually a KC-10) since all cruise at about the same speed. The ONLY time the fighters can go faster than the tanker is in after burner and that just ain't happening during a ferry flight.

You seem to be under the impression that Fighters all go near their maximum speed all the time. Actually, they are capable of such speeds for about 15 minutes and then have to meet up with a tanker so they can stay in the air or they have to head directly (do not pass go) to an air field.

Disagreed and agreed.

The important factor to look at on any aircraft isn't it's Maximum Speed, but it's Cruise Speed. To make it more complicated, there's also Long Range Speed and Endurance Speed, but let's stick with "Cruise Speed" for a moment. For jet aircraft, that's also a bit deceptive since turbojet powered aircraft cruise faster the higher they go. Sure, there's a limit on that altitude, but in general, it's between 30,000' and 50,000'. Agreed max speed is unsustainable due to fuel consumption.

That said, a fighter, which has a higher thrust-to-weight ratio than a tanker, is going to cruise faster. If you put the same motor in a cement truck and sports car, are you really going to believe both will go the same speed at the same RPM?


F-22 Raptor > U.S. Air Force > Fact Sheet Display

KC-10 Extender > U.S. Air Force > Fact Sheet Display

 

[Wyatt earp]

In 8 hours. Hillarious went home to bed and Obamakov loaded up on Air Farce One and went to Vegas to party. Our patriots were left there to die.

That's all you need to know about the Queens.

So why didn't GW Bush fly an F-22 to Iraq to save 4500 Americans?

Clever, you think of that dumb ass remark all by yourself?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

All the way, the fighters will be in formation with the tankers (Usually a KC-10) since all cruise at about the same speed. The ONLY time the fighters can go faster than the tanker is in after burner and that just ain't happening during a ferry flight.

You seem to be under the impression that Fighters all go near their maximum speed all the time. Actually, they are capable of such speeds for about 15 minutes and then have to meet up with a tanker so they can stay in the air or they have to head directly (do not pass go) to an air field.

Disagreed and agreed.

The important factor to look at on any aircraft isn't it's Maximum Speed, but it's Cruise Speed. To make it more complicated, there's also Long Range Speed and Endurance Speed, but let's stick with "Cruise Speed" for a moment. For jet aircraft, that's also a bit deceptive since turbojet powered aircraft cruise faster the higher they go. Sure, there's a limit on that altitude, but in general, it's between 30,000' and 50,000'. Agreed max speed is unsustainable due to fuel consumption.

That said, a fighter, which has a higher thrust-to-weight ratio than a tanker, is going to cruise faster. If you put the same motor in a cement truck and sports car, are you really going to believe both will go the same speed at the same RPM?


F-22 Raptor > U.S. Air Force > Fact Sheet Display

KC-10 Extender > U.S. Air Force > Fact Sheet Display

Your fact checker is a bit off. The KC-10 can maintain 500 kts. Your picture also shows the F-16s flying in formation which is normal. Just because the F-22 can supercruise at mach 1.3 doesn't mean it will be doing it all the time. That is it's Max supercruise. To keep it from gulping fuel, it will be closer to 500kts for max range with the Tanker.

Funny you should mention the cement mixer and sports car. At 500 kts, the tanker is much more economical than the fighter. His engines are trimmed for subsonic and transonic flight while the fighter is trimmed for supersonic speeds. Both have completely different engines built for a specific speed. Even so, if you try and fly supersonic, your range is shortened by a large margin including the F-22.

 

[westwall]

All the way, the fighters will be in formation with the tankers (Usually a KC-10) since all cruise at about the same speed. The ONLY time the fighters can go faster than the tanker is in after burner and that just ain't happening during a ferry flight.

You seem to be under the impression that Fighters all go near their maximum speed all the time. Actually, they are capable of such speeds for about 15 minutes and then have to meet up with a tanker so they can stay in the air or they have to head directly (do not pass go) to an air field.

Disagreed and agreed.

The important factor to look at on any aircraft isn't it's Maximum Speed, but it's Cruise Speed. To make it more complicated, there's also Long Range Speed and Endurance Speed, but let's stick with "Cruise Speed" for a moment. For jet aircraft, that's also a bit deceptive since turbojet powered aircraft cruise faster the higher they go. Sure, there's a limit on that altitude, but in general, it's between 30,000' and 50,000'. Agreed max speed is unsustainable due to fuel consumption.

That said, a fighter, which has a higher thrust-to-weight ratio than a tanker, is going to cruise faster. If you put the same motor in a cement truck and sports car, are you really going to believe both will go the same speed at the same RPM?


F-22 Raptor > U.S. Air Force > Fact Sheet Display

KC-10 Extender > U.S. Air Force > Fact Sheet Display

Your fact checker is a bit off. The KC-10 can maintain 500 kts. Your picture also shows the F-16s flying in formation which is normal. Just because the F-22 can supercruise at mach 1.3 doesn't mean it will be doing it all the time. That is it's Max supercruise. To keep it from gulping fuel, it will be closer to 500kts for max range with the Tanker.

Funny you should mention the cement mixer and sports car. At 500 kts, the tanker is much more economical than the fighter. His engines are trimmed for subsonic and transonic flight while the fighter is trimmed for supersonic speeds. Both have completely different engines built for a specific speed. Even so, if you try and fly supersonic, your range is shortened by a large margin including the F-22.

There was a report published in Avleak a few years ago that reported a useful supercruise range of 400nm.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

All the way, the fighters will be in formation with the tankers (Usually a KC-10) since all cruise at about the same speed. The ONLY time the fighters can go faster than the tanker is in after burner and that just ain't happening during a ferry flight.

You seem to be under the impression that Fighters all go near their maximum speed all the time. Actually, they are capable of such speeds for about 15 minutes and then have to meet up with a tanker so they can stay in the air or they have to head directly (do not pass go) to an air field.

Disagreed and agreed.

The important factor to look at on any aircraft isn't it's Maximum Speed, but it's Cruise Speed. To make it more complicated, there's also Long Range Speed and Endurance Speed, but let's stick with "Cruise Speed" for a moment. For jet aircraft, that's also a bit deceptive since turbojet powered aircraft cruise faster the higher they go. Sure, there's a limit on that altitude, but in general, it's between 30,000' and 50,000'. Agreed max speed is unsustainable due to fuel consumption.

That said, a fighter, which has a higher thrust-to-weight ratio than a tanker, is going to cruise faster. If you put the same motor in a cement truck and sports car, are you really going to believe both will go the same speed at the same RPM?


F-22 Raptor > U.S. Air Force > Fact Sheet Display

KC-10 Extender > U.S. Air Force > Fact Sheet Display

Your fact checker is a bit off. The KC-10 can maintain 500 kts. Your picture also shows the F-16s flying in formation which is normal. Just because the F-22 can supercruise at mach 1.3 doesn't mean it will be doing it all the time. That is it's Max supercruise. To keep it from gulping fuel, it will be closer to 500kts for max range with the Tanker.

Funny you should mention the cement mixer and sports car. At 500 kts, the tanker is much more economical than the fighter. His engines are trimmed for subsonic and transonic flight while the fighter is trimmed for supersonic speeds. Both have completely different engines built for a specific speed. Even so, if you try and fly supersonic, your range is shortened by a large margin including the F-22.

There was a report published in Avleak a few years ago that reported a useful supercruise range of 400nm.

IOWs, it has to fly subsonic to cross the pond and at 500kts, the speed of the tanker is about equal. The last fighter that could fly across the Atlantic was the P-38 with drop tanks. Its still over 3000 miles.

 

[westwall]

All the way, the fighters will be in formation with the tankers (Usually a KC-10) since all cruise at about the same speed. The ONLY time the fighters can go faster than the tanker is in after burner and that just ain't happening during a ferry flight.

You seem to be under the impression that Fighters all go near their maximum speed all the time. Actually, they are capable of such speeds for about 15 minutes and then have to meet up with a tanker so they can stay in the air or they have to head directly (do not pass go) to an air field.

Disagreed and agreed.

The important factor to look at on any aircraft isn't it's Maximum Speed, but it's Cruise Speed. To make it more complicated, there's also Long Range Speed and Endurance Speed, but let's stick with "Cruise Speed" for a moment. For jet aircraft, that's also a bit deceptive since turbojet powered aircraft cruise faster the higher they go. Sure, there's a limit on that altitude, but in general, it's between 30,000' and 50,000'. Agreed max speed is unsustainable due to fuel consumption.

That said, a fighter, which has a higher thrust-to-weight ratio than a tanker, is going to cruise faster. If you put the same motor in a cement truck and sports car, are you really going to believe both will go the same speed at the same RPM?


F-22 Raptor > U.S. Air Force > Fact Sheet Display

KC-10 Extender > U.S. Air Force > Fact Sheet Display

Your fact checker is a bit off. The KC-10 can maintain 500 kts. Your picture also shows the F-16s flying in formation which is normal. Just because the F-22 can supercruise at mach 1.3 doesn't mean it will be doing it all the time. That is it's Max supercruise. To keep it from gulping fuel, it will be closer to 500kts for max range with the Tanker.

Funny you should mention the cement mixer and sports car. At 500 kts, the tanker is much more economical than the fighter. His engines are trimmed for subsonic and transonic flight while the fighter is trimmed for supersonic speeds. Both have completely different engines built for a specific speed. Even so, if you try and fly supersonic, your range is shortened by a large margin including the F-22.

There was a report published in Avleak a few years ago that reported a useful supercruise range of 400nm.

IOWs, it has to fly subsonic to cross the pond and at 500kts, the speed of the tanker is about equal. The last fighter that could fly across the Atlantic was the P-38 with drop tanks. Its still over 3000 miles.

The P-51 could do it too. In fact the P-51 held the transatlantic speed record, both ways, for at least a year.

 

[Divine Wind]

Your fact checker is a bit off.....

It's the Air Force's website. Bitch to them.

 

[deltex1]

Hillary flew an f15 nonstop from Tyndall to Saudi Arabia in the mid 90s. Part of Bubba's plan to destroy bin Laden....that never worked.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Hillary flew an f15 nonstop from Tyndall to Saudi Arabia in the mid 90s. Part of Bubba's plan to destroy bin Laden....that never worked.

It failed when she undertook sniper fire and had to turn back

 

[Daryl Hunt]

All the way, the fighters will be in formation with the tankers (Usually a KC-10) since all cruise at about the same speed. The ONLY time the fighters can go faster than the tanker is in after burner and that just ain't happening during a ferry flight.

You seem to be under the impression that Fighters all go near their maximum speed all the time. Actually, they are capable of such speeds for about 15 minutes and then have to meet up with a tanker so they can stay in the air or they have to head directly (do not pass go) to an air field.

Disagreed and agreed.

The important factor to look at on any aircraft isn't it's Maximum Speed, but it's Cruise Speed. To make it more complicated, there's also Long Range Speed and Endurance Speed, but let's stick with "Cruise Speed" for a moment. For jet aircraft, that's also a bit deceptive since turbojet powered aircraft cruise faster the higher they go. Sure, there's a limit on that altitude, but in general, it's between 30,000' and 50,000'. Agreed max speed is unsustainable due to fuel consumption.

That said, a fighter, which has a higher thrust-to-weight ratio than a tanker, is going to cruise faster. If you put the same motor in a cement truck and sports car, are you really going to believe both will go the same speed at the same RPM?


F-22 Raptor > U.S. Air Force > Fact Sheet Display

KC-10 Extender > U.S. Air Force > Fact Sheet Display

Your fact checker is a bit off. The KC-10 can maintain 500 kts. Your picture also shows the F-16s flying in formation which is normal. Just because the F-22 can supercruise at mach 1.3 doesn't mean it will be doing it all the time. That is it's Max supercruise. To keep it from gulping fuel, it will be closer to 500kts for max range with the Tanker.

Funny you should mention the cement mixer and sports car. At 500 kts, the tanker is much more economical than the fighter. His engines are trimmed for subsonic and transonic flight while the fighter is trimmed for supersonic speeds. Both have completely different engines built for a specific speed. Even so, if you try and fly supersonic, your range is shortened by a large margin including the F-22.

There was a report published in Avleak a few years ago that reported a useful supercruise range of 400nm.

IOWs, it has to fly subsonic to cross the pond and at 500kts, the speed of the tanker is about equal. The last fighter that could fly across the Atlantic was the P-38 with drop tanks. Its still over 3000 miles.

The P-51 could do it too. In fact the P-51 held the transatlantic speed record, both ways, for at least a year.

Only one held that record and it wasn't a military bird. It was a very highly modified P-51C Racer with the entire wings modified to hold fuel.

North American P-51C, "Excalibur III"