I apologize in advance for the length of this post, I've spent the last hour or so collecting the information for it.
Tokhme Khar,
Before I address the main point of contention here, I have just another quick correction for ya (tedious I know, but hey, you're giving me some job security!):
The bear totally supercruises.
That would be a negative. By definition, the concept of "supercruise" means an jet-propeller aircraft can fly at supersonic speeds without using afterburners. Since the Tu-95 is incapable of supersonic flight, that would make your statement blatantly false.
As to your "point".
First, I have a question for you: you do realize that just because a fighter disengages with an aircraft it's intercepting, doesn't by default mean it's 'out of gas', right?
Second, you do realize that aircraft conducting intercepts almost NEVER overtake the aircraft they're responding to (possibly giving you the impression they can't keep up), right?
>>Just because a fighter is "hanging back" behind a target like the Tu-95 doesn't mean it can't keep up w/o afterburners, that's just SOP for intercepts. They will occasionally overtake their target but that's generally something you only see when intercept very slow targets (say a C-130, P-3, or IL-38).
As to this 10 minute intercept you keep mentioning, I've actually looked around for a bit now and I can't find hardly any videos of a F-22/Tu-95 intercept that show much actual interception footage at all.
Since you seem quite convinced by this video you mention, I would encourage you to find and post the link so everyone can see it for themselves.
Steering back to the issue of fighter endurance:
Let's be 100% clear: under no circumstances can ANY fighter aircraft in the world flying for "hours" UNLESS they are carrying a large number of external tanks and/or utilize one or more A2A refuels. Compared to bombers like the Tu-95 and B-52, any and all fighter aircraft today will look "short-legged" by comparison. There's nothing wrong with this, just a simple fact of design.
Using the thread you posted however, you can actually get a good hint at the F-22's real ability to supercruise. One of the posters references an article in Aviation Weekly & Space Technology that stated the F-22 is capable of supercruising at a speed of Mach 1.5 for 41 minutes, compared to a fraction of that time by an older F-15 flying at that same speed.
The figure that follow are based on known specific fuel consumption rates for the F-22's F119 engines and F-15's F100 engines, which are as follows: All F-15 data is for F-15Cs, not the Strike Eagle variants (which in US service aren't true fighters anyway).
Dry thrust only (approx figures)
F119- ~0.70lbs per lb of thrust per hour
F100- ~0.75lbs per lb of thrust per hour
F119 Dry Thrust- ~26,000lbs x 2
F100 Dry Thrust- ~13,500lbs x 2
F-22 Max Fuel Loads- ~18,000lbs internal + 8,000lbs external
F-15 Max Fuel Loads- ~13,500lbs internal + 15,000lbs external
F-22 Dry Thrust Speed- Mach 1.5 @ 30,000 feet or ~1600km/hr
F-15 Dry Thrust Speed- Mach 0.9 @ 30,000 feet or ~1000km/hr
1) Based on the information above, that indicates the 41 minute supercruise endurance mentioned above in your thread is internal + external. See next point for my breakdown.
2) Using the information above, the F-22 would have a max range of ~1000km/620 miles on a max fuel load at Mach 1.5 supercruise, with a corresponding combat radius of <500km. The time to cover this distance will be ~40-45 minutes one-way or ~20 minutes out & ~20 minutes back.
3) Using the information above, at dry thrust, a F-15 would burn approx 22,000lbs of fuel (aka full internal + 2 typical externals) to cover the same distance as the F-22 but would take a full 60 minutes to do so.
So while the F-22's engines are technically more fuel efficient, because they have such a greater dry thrust rating than the F-15's, their actual fuel consumption is greater.
Likewise, while this would seem to give the F-15 the upper hand, it takes 50% longer to cover the same distance.
So what the F-22 loses in terms of total fuel burn is made up for somewhat in the speed in which it cover said distance.
In conclusion:
The F-22 flying at typical cruising altitudes, at supercruise speeds the entire flight, and with max fuel load should have a combat radius of 400-500km.
For a mix-speed mission (aka some time flying at supercruise and some subsonic), the only combat radius figure I've found is the often-quoted 850km (185km of which at supercruise). What it would be if it was only subsonic speeds is unknown, though I think it's a same assumption if would be greater than this 850km figure, how much greater is the mystery.
Compare this to the combat radius of its predecessor the F-15 with max fuel (internal+external), which is variously quoted in the range of 1800-2000km and the F-22 does look a bit short legged.
So, how long it can fly/shadow a Tu-95 will depend primarily on what speed it traveled to intercept it (since it won't need to supercruise once it meets up with it) and the fuel load in question. Keep in mind that when fighters are scrambled for interception but have good lead time to their target (aka they're going to be covering some distance just to reach it), they will often utilize A2A refueling, which would throw all the math I did above out the window....
