The F-22 Can Dogfight

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: The F-22 Can Dogfight
SYSOP 8/14/2012 5:38:37 AM

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2

vahitkanig 8/14/2012 11:16:33 AM

I am not a pilot , specialist either .

With my basic knowledge of physics ;single engine plane like F-16 must have better maneuvurability againts twin engibe plane such as MiG 29.

Also to pilot the plane pilots own's initiatives imported for dog fight, rather than computer guided flight.

Quote Reply

Hegemony Cricket Not Invicible as advertised 8/14/2012 12:43:17 PM

This recent article posted in Wired – a little different interpretation of this article (with Typhoon pilot extracted testimonials - coming out of the 2012 Red Flag):

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/07/f-22-germans/

" target="_blank">link

Quote Reply

Reactive 8/14/2012 8:54:59 PM

Wired has a shockingly bad level of reporting when it comes to military technology - the article itself is full of half-truths and cites discredited sources and uses weasel arguments to make false assertions about BVR combat and medium-long range missile performance; clearly he also doesn't understand the kinematic advantages of the F-22 platform in that regard.

Generally speaking any wired article about any military technology appeals to the notion that the author knows better than everyone else how technology functions despite him having no relevant credentials in the area.

The comments section of that article contains plenty of good rebuttals against the 'journalist' who would probably be better employed writing articles about celebrities or something equally facile.

But the basic point is that it's not surprising that F-22 is potentially vulnerable close-in considering HOBS capable IR missiles, which is precisely why it has been designed in every aspect to avoid that situation by holding an enormous sensory and kinematic advantage. As someone pointed out, generally speaking with the BVR exercises the opposing team doesn't last long enough to get WVR, hence the highly selective use of information in that article to provide a spurious set of conclusions.

Quote Reply

JTR~~ @Reactive 8/15/2012 6:57:13 AM

The comments section of that article contains plenty of good rebuttals against the 'journalist' who would probably be better employed writing articles about celebrities or something equally facile.

Ah, but Reactive, when you refer to selective use of information i am assuming that you
are referring to the "Wired" interpretation of events. what i would
also like to put to you is that this pages report of events if equally
selective, verging in my own opinion upon the boundaries of outright bias
towards to F-22 as the only mentions of the Typhoon come, not from relevant comparative
points about it performance in the exercise, but of its supposed failings in
the face of the Raptor.

Wired was not the only outlet to document the engagement, Flightglobal i believe amongst
others, made an excellent post on the exercises that was both clean and
balanced offering both sides to the tale, and from their perspective the F-22s
performance was certainly not as clear cut at this article seems to make out
and indeed very much helps counter the arguments of those who have blindly
argued in the past that even within the WVR envelope that the Raptor would best
all comers including the Typhoon.

Furthermore,this version of events here fails to note that the Typhoons in question were
from Luftwaffe units of Fighter Wing 74 (JG74). it is well known and even
commented upon in the article by the OC of JG74 that the Typhoons operated by
the RAF are by far and away more developed and indeed more advanced in a number
of aspects, than those operated by any of the consortiums partner nations or
export customers thus far. Therefore in effect meaning that the F-22 had in
fact been opposed by lesser Typhoons if you will. Whilst the proficiency of the
Luftwaffe pilots is also not in question here, one may also point out the
greater premium upon which the RAF have placed in training their pilots for
dogfighting and WVR engagements as opposed to their partners, this may also
play some part in the overall result, which i will now finish upon the fact,
that seemingly it did not turn out too rosy for the F-22 after all even against
these "lesser" Typhoons.

But once gain the result is disputed by both sides, JG74 said they faired favourably,
the USAF claimed that they were the clear victors. frankly, and not as a result
of bias, i would prefer to trust the Germans on this one at the end of the day
that have not all too much to gain through manipulating results, well that is
as opposed to what the USAF would stand to lose in terms of the prestige of the
Raptor.

Quote Reply

Reactive 8/15/2012 9:55:08 AM

Yes, as always the first barrier is what is placed in the public domain in the first place (highly subjective) the second barrier is the journalistic slant and editorial.

You are probably right in that it will come as a surprise that a VLO plane could be vulnerable at short range, why this is the case I've no idea, the AIM-9X and ASRAAM use the same seeker head, both are capable of HOBS and LOAL engagements. There is no hiding in the IR wavelengths at all, and won't be any time soon.

It just seems like lunacy to me that anyone is postulating that these platforms are honestly going to be sent out to have knife-fights where they are just as vulnerable as any other target given that literally 90+ percent of the production and service costs and difficulties of the F-22 relate to its ability to evade radar detection at range.

And that is my issue with the Wired article in particular, it purports to tell us a "surprise" but really there isn't any surprise, both platforms perform as expected. What I would be more concerned with is how the EF performs in the BVR spectrum..

Quote Reply

JTR~~ Part 1 8/15/2012 11:36:38 AM

I definitely agree with this perception of surprise as being, well, wholly unsurprising. maybe it’s just that I become so used to being bombarded by posts seen all over the net by the dedicated Raptor/VLO fanclub that i may have
started to inadvertently believe such propositions myself, or at least doubt my own logical counter argument. But as you pointed out, surprise seems to be rife elsewhere. i would indeed also agree with your statement that both performed as expected.

The Raptor, whilst by no means a slouch was seemingly in many respects equalled by the Typhoon across the whole regime, whilst each individual aircraft maintained some advantages in certain areas, the Raptor with its TVC and the Typhoon with its excellent acceleration and turn rates. the Raptor would ideally like to avoid a dogfight where possible as BVR is where its true advantage lies,it has at least proven it can survive against what is acknowledged by many to be the finest dogfighter in the air.

What vexes, annoys me even is, that such engagements as we both know are not really true tests of these aircraft. You are essentially forcing the Raptor to fight with one foot in a bucket within a WVR engagement with the Typhoon; the manufactured exercises in order to bring the Typhoon in to contention answer
nothing we didn’t already know. That being that in such a parameter/envelope the Typhoon will carry an edge (at least that is my opinion of things). Few if any engagements ever start out in WVR. we all want to know the answer
to how would they fair in a mock up of a real air combat scenario, a closing engagement starting in the BVR and if the Typhoon is able to hold its own in this envelope by means of just surviving, then close in to the WVR to see how
things pan out.

Maybe the USAF still wants to keeps its cards close to its chest, not wishing to divulge the secrets of its dream machine to even NATO allies. Maybe, from the other side of the coin, they are uncertain themselves. it would be
very embarrassing if the multibillion dollar Raptor didn’t perform quite as expected, or even if it were to flunk entirely (unlikely, but who can say for certain) against a plane that had long been denounced by Lockheed Martin. Are they aware of some deficiencies about the Raptor and or the true advantages of stealth? Have they found weaknesses that could be exploited? Maybe they think that the Raptor can’t live up to marketing expectations. alternatively maybe the Raptor is fine,but perhaps the Typhoon is just a tad better than first thought as many in the Typhoon fanclub would love to see happen. Or maybe it its none of those things, maybe the USAF is supremely confident in their platform, thus see no need totest what the feel it is absolute strong point, and instead wish to refine the platform in its one truearea of weakness against the most worthy opponent in service currently.

For me, it is not about how the Raptor will perform, i am confident in its abilities without having to have Lockheed Martin or the Raptor club tell me just how “amazing” it is. I’m however, keen to find out the margins
of performance between the 5 and 4.5 gen aircraft. The Typhoon is the latter generations best shot against Gen 5 platforms; therefore i am entirely curious to see just how good it really is. it has bags of promise, and all margins for measuring 5th gen performance thus far have been made against legacy fighters like the F15 and F 16, margins which the Typhoon itself has exceeded.

I am a little dubious as to the supposed all defeating superiority of VLO, and advocate that there are a number of ways with which to best it using platforms such as the Typhoon and equivalents, yet without a proper BVR engagement between a 5th gen stealth platform and a Typhoon (that we know of) we can only continue to blindly guess and speculate using what information we have or claim to have, with the pot ever more being stirred by the manufacturers and sales teams.

Quote Reply

JTR~~ Part 2 8/15/2012 11:38:32 AM

However, Reactive, if i may i would like your personal opinion on the last point I raised within my original post, that being in regards to the performance margins within the Typhoon consortium, chiefly being that the RAF platforms, are far ahead of their colleagues. With this being the case, how do you think the turnout would have been should they have been RAF Typhoons at the Red Flag exercise against the Raptors? Perhaps a more defined margin in favour of the Typhoon? Just how much better are the Typhoons of the RAF to their European counterparts, and what kind of advantage would this offer the RAF when challenging 5th gen platforms.

Secondly, to further expand on this point. do you feel that the new wave of updates coming online for the Typhoons, including the AESA CAPTOR E (CAESER) radar (with gimbal if I’m not much mistaken), Meteor BVRAAM and enhanced software updates including enhancements to the DASS countermeasures system among others, that the Typhoon could start to challenge 5th Gen platforms more effectively? Would it even be deemed a significant threat to the likes of the Raptor even within BVR to a degree?

Thanks in advance

Regards

Quote Reply

Raptor1 8/15/2012 11:51:39 AM

I think the details surrounding what really happened during the supposed "dogfight" are really of no consequence- We all know the Raptor was handcuffed due to flight restrictions, that's a given. There are only 2 facts that really matter and they are: 1. Even when handcuffed, the Raptor was able to at least attain credible deterrence in WVR against probably the best-equipped dogfighter out there piloted by good pilots. 2. MOST IMPORTANTLY, as conceded by the EF pilots themselves, the Raptor is overwhelming at BVR ranges.

So the fact become: Unless you can survive the BVR engagement against an overwhelming Raptor, your WVR engagement capabilities amount to squat - You're dead or dying. And as demonstrated, even under worse-case scenarios, you have your cut out for you to take the Rapytor on in WVR, even without it having the IRST and HMDS!

What most people fail to reckognize is that ALL engagements start at BVR ranges - and if your fighter is "overwhelmed" there, your strategy amounts to trying to survive while you focus in on a Raptor that's been lining you up for literally minutes - A pilots's BIG biggest question he needs answered at the moment he reaches WVR ranges with the Raptor is gunna be "Is he alone?" THAT's why the Raptor is so capable and why so much was invested in its stealth. Take the cuffs off the Raptor and every 4th gen out there is just a play toy. The enemy is playing the WVR game just by deciding to take off, so they will lose almost every single time. Who cares about a single shoot down if your air force is demolished?

Quote Reply

HeavyD 8/15/2012 12:01:09 PM

I know these are fighting words, but follow me here: Within 24 - 48 hours of the commencement of hostilities will ANY adversary of ours have operational airbases and runways? The answer is a resounding 'No', courtesy of cruise missiles and stealth bombers. The US will enjoy complete, 100% air dominance before ground troops even reach the Area of Operations.

Sure we still need fighters to enforce 'no fly zones', and the Navy needs fighters for CAP over their fleets but the USAF doesn't have a single domestic airbase that is within range of a potential adversary, and none of our potential adversaries have the ability to project fighters into our airspace.

This is why the F-22 is NOT a fighter per se. And this is why the F35 is a complete abomination and an enormous waste of money. For the cost of 12 F35s we could have 6 F22s and 6 4th Gen fighter/bombers or A-10s.

Quote Reply

JTR~~ @HeavyD 8/15/2012 12:51:33 PM

i would agree that your theory is sound in effect. however, it only works along those lines if there is little opposition to what is going on. maybe the US is challenging an opponent that just so happens to have itself a rather efficient intelligence system that is aware of US military intentions, in which case it may wish to launch some form of pre-emptive first strike itself againt US military targets or take passive measures by dispersing its aircraft and other machines of war to alternate locations to at the very least buy time and inflict what casualties and damage they can.

this is why im partially fond of the JAS 39 Gripen due to its ability to work without the need for runways and airfields and to be turned around in very quick times by mere minimal conscript crews thereby eliminating the need for such large targets. it is also why in some ways i can take a crumb of comfort from the decision by the MoD to once more revert to purchasing the F-35B JCA. im assuming, as was always the plan with the Harrier Force, similar theories of unconventional platform operation will be applied, and the VTOL capability of the F-35B may be used to operate away from main airbases thus avoiding the effects of a devestating first strike by any one nation, including the US (for arguments sake). think about your scenario now, if your first strike has successfully devestated all the enemies primary airbasing facilities and is now beginning to assist with preliminary strikes against enemy ground targets in preperation for the insertion of troops, only to find that suddenly a few dozen F-35s or other VSTOL type aircraft have evaded the effects of the first strike by using dispersed basing techniques and now launch would may well turn out to be an equally devestating counter attack. yes it may only work for a time until US intelligence can locate these new alternate basing facilities and strike them aswell, but then again, such resources may be shifted around on a constant basis thereby denying the total all eclipsing victory that your theory would suggest.

as you also state yourself however, the US doesnt have a single domestic airbase within range of an enemy, and unless i am very much mistaken, the US has not yet taken to forward basing its Raptors outside of the US, which means you will have a 5th gen platform that will need a LARGE, VERY VISIBLE and HIGHLY VULNERABLE tanker to ensure that it gets to where it needs to. so if this scenario was against Britain, or some other European Nation, your best bet would be the missiles and missiles alone in conjunction with those 4th gen bomb trucks that have been forward based once the airspace have been sufficiently cleansed of enemy fighters, not really even worth bringing your 5th gen kit to the party in my opinion. so perhaps in a way this goes to prove your nation even more.

Quote Reply

1 2