On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 19:58:50 +1100, John Cook
wrote:

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 07:40:39 -0700, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 19:41:56 +1100, John Cook
wrote:

Bolkcom said the Raptor's 540-nautical mile unrefueled combat radius
dictated it operated from forward bases


Don't know what you expect from a fighter, but 540 nm "unrefueled
combat radius" is impressive to this career fighter driver. It means
you go 540 miles, have some combat play time (which is
characteristically fuel-consumption-intensive) and then return 540
miles.

Funny thing is it doesn't mention combat time or supercruise as part
of the profile or what loadout it has. I'm not saying its 'bad' until
I see some more details.

By definition, the descriptor "unrefueled combat radius" means out,
fight, back. You'd have to get the full charting exercise to know the
parameters. I'd assume, since this is an A/A system that it's
Hi-Hi-Hi. The complete detailing would give all the conditions of
flight, but since the design spec for the aircraft all the way back to
RFP has been "super-cruise" you'd have to assume that's what's used.

The point is that range of that magnitude is very adequate. And, it
competes quite nicely with systems that have been used for the last
fifty years and are still in use today. Add that in-flight refueling
is part of basic doctrine and the whole issue becomes a "red herring."


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8