Service ceiling of modern combat aircrfat !

Profile picture for user topspeed

Member for

10 years 8 months

Posts: 2,595

The clean aerodynamics often result with excellent altitude capabilities. Wiki says F-22 goes up to 19,8 km; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor Also the japanese F-2 ( by Mitsubishi ) climbs to 18 000 meters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_F-2 SU-35 also excels with 18 000 meters service ceiling; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-35 U-2 was intercepted By RAF Lightning 3 at 20 100 meters; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2 Lightning went to 88 000 ft; In 1984, during a major NATO exercise, Royal Air Force Flight Lieutenant Mike Hale intercepted a U-2 at a height of 66,000 feet (20,100 m), where the aircraft had previously been considered safe from interception. Hale climbed to 88,000 feet (26,800 m) in his Lightning F3.[76] Lightning 3 had zoom ceiling of 70 000 ft; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Lightning Does any of them reach 22 km in level flight ?
Original post
Profile picture for user topspeed

Member for

10 years 8 months

Posts: 2,595

Almost forgot...the F-15 Eagle goes up to 20 000 meters; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle The Mig-25 even 24 400 meters; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-25 Mig-31 also 20 600 meters; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-31 Eurofighter Typhoon claims 19 800 m as absolute ceiling; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon --- I am trying to figure out why some have less ceiling..Panavia Tornado goes to 15 000 meters and sports also 1052 kg/m2 wing loading ! Is the high wing loading reason for poorer ceiling ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panavia_Tornado_ADV Su-35 goes 3 km higher with 556 kg/m2 ( max ) wing loading.
Profile picture for user topspeed

Member for

10 years 8 months

Posts: 2,595

Is canard less efficient since low wing loading ( max 536 kg/m2 ) Dassault Rafale only gets 15 235 meters; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale ...or is it the NAVY gear that sorta brakes the perfect aerodynamics since also Hornet gets to 15 240 meters; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F/A-18_Hornet --- Edit; J-10 is canard and reaches 18 000 meters too; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-10 Slower JF-17 just 17 000 meters; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JF-17_Thunder So power has something to do with it too ?
Profile picture for user EELightning

Member for

10 years 9 months

Posts: 2,631

The Tornado was designed to be a Low level A/G strike aircraft, high altitude wasn't a priority. I wouldn't quote Wikipedia on details such as Max Altitude, nor much else for that matter. Official sources are probably best quoting but even those are to be taken with a pinch of salt, actual figures are highly unlikely to be released.
Profile picture for user topspeed

Member for

10 years 8 months

Posts: 2,595

The Tornado was designed to be a Low level A/G strike aircraft, high altitude wasn't a priority. I wouldn't quote Wikipedia on details such as Max Altitude, nor much else for that matter. Official sources are probably best quoting but even those are to be taken with a pinch of salt, actual figures are highly unlikely to be released.
Ok ..I see. Possibly some data in wiki is from the official records ? I get the feeling any jet can zoom to pretty high altitude with low ammo and fuel...am I right ? JAS-39 Gripen goes to even altitude with Rafale with 15 240 meters; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen ...in par with F-16; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon Golden Eagle doesn't quite get there; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAI_T-50_Golden_Eagle F-CK-1 does reach 16 800 meters; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDC_F-CK-1_Ching-kuo --- I am just trying to picture the general idea what affects the high altitude capabilities.