Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

F-22 Raptor Loses $79 Billion Advantage in Dogfights: Report

By Lee Ferran

The United States has spent nearly $80 billion to develop the most advanced stealth fighter jet in history, the F-22 Raptor, but the Air Force recently found out firsthand that while the planes own the skies at modern long-range air combat, it is “evenly matched” with cheaper, foreign jets when it comes to old-school dogfighting.

The Air Force said the planes flew 80 missions during the event “with a very high mission success rate.” However, a new report from Combat Aircraft Monthly revealed that in a handful of missions designed to test the F-22 in a very specific situation – close-range, one-on-one combat – the jet appeared to lose its pricey advantages over a friendly rival, the Eurofighter Typhoon, flown in this case by German airmen.

“We expected to perform less with the Eurofighter but we didn’t,” German air officer Marc Grune said, according to Combat Aircraft Monthly. “We were evenly matched. They didn’t expect us to turn so aggressively.”

Two other German officers, Col. Andreas Pfeiffer and Maj. Marco Gumbrecht, noted in the same report that the F-22?s capabilities are “overwhelming” when it comes to modern, long-range combat as the stealth fighter is designed to engage multiple enemies well-beyond the pilot’s natural field of vision — mostly while the F-22 is still out of the other plane’s range. Grumbrecht said that even if his planes did everything right, they weren’t able to get within 20 miles of the next-generation jets before being targeted.

“But as soon as you get to the merge…” Pfeiffer said, referring to the point at which fighters engage in close-up dogfighting, “in that area, at least, the Typhoon doesn’t necessarily have to fear the F-22 in all aspects… In the dogfight the Eurofighter is at least as capable as the F-22, with advantages in some aspects.”

In response to the report, a spokesperson for the Air Force, Lt. Col. Tadd Sholtis, told ABC News that one-on-one combat is only one way to evaluate an aircraft’s capabilities and said it’s not “necessarily the most relevant to every scenario.”

“The F-22 is conceived and employed as part of an integrated force that provides offensive capabilities that make close engagements far less likely while retaining the ability to handle close engagements in tandem with other fighters,” he said.

F-16.net Sponsor

calel wrote:

The United States has spent nearly $80 billion to develop the most advanced stealth fighter jet in history

THIS SORT OF CRAP ANGERS ME!!!!
I find this one-sided and a very short sighted view. That so many people fought to have the F-22 since the ATF was a study which became the program started back in 1981. The original price for the F-22A was one-third of the $80B. The original operating date was at the last of President Clinton's first term 1994! Some people who observed the Israeli AF's felt the air battles over the Bekaa Valley was more proof that the F-15s and F-16's would remain among the top fighters for decadeS. These people who felt the upgraded (avionics, etc.) F-15s and F-16s could be O.K. and be able to match the new Euro-fighters were dead wrong. Other people who felt the F-15's performance would not be matched by the two Soviet were surprised how the MiG-29 and Su-29 were close to the F-15s and 16s performance, by the time they finally became operational. Back in the mid to late 1980s.
All these people did their damnest to cancel the program by cutting the money for the ATF program, or for the program to exist with minimum financial support, taking 24 years to become operational. After causing the ATF/F-22 to be dragged out at least a decade, they then complained about the price.... DAMN, who's fault was?
Could you imagine if the ATF program had been fully supported and became operational in the early to mid-1990s, the cost would be around $40B. Wow, that is a lot less than the Euro-fighters, EA-18G, etc! The operational time for the F-22s would have been years before the Euro fighters became opporational.

calel wrote:

In response to the report, a spokesperson for the Air Force, Lt. Col. Tadd Sholtis, told ABC News that one-on-one combat is only one way to evaluate an aircraft’s capabilities and said it’s not “necessarily the most relevant to every scenario.

Yes is one of many ways to judge a fighter, this not the only way to judge two competing fighters. In WW-2 the F-4F held its own against the A6M Zero or, the P-38 against luftwaffe fighters. One versus one can be deceptive in judging fighters in combat.

Disturbing? this article is a joke! Bla bla bla.... I don't believe a word.
I guess when the Raptor pilots read it they laugh so hard. "Oh well, let them think so" they say.
I don't understand it, how can a "respectable" organization like ABC publish crap like that?
What do they really know about the most classified aircraft in the world? the answer is NOTHING, and yet it doesn't bother them to state opinion.
Pathetic!

Once the F-22 gets HMS/AIM-9X....

This is the second time calel posted this article with almost the exact same heading.
"Raptor's DISTURBING ABC News Report"
http://f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-20188.html

Also we have already discussed this article to death here:
"F-22A versus EF2000"
http://f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t- ... r-asc.html

Bottom line, F-22 wins in real combat.

Sufa Viper

Problem is ABC has put this out to the general public, who aren't as versed as the fighter community. All the public hears is "$1200 coffee maker and $600 hammer" and say here we go again. Also Mr Romney has said that he would like to restart Raptor production, so this is the media on the attack. The Raptor has no public defender!!!!!!

Quote:

THIS SORT OF CRAP ANGERS ME!!!!
I find this one-sided and a very short sighted view. That so many people fought to have the F-22 since the ATF was a study which became the program started back in 1981. The original price for the F-22A was one-third of the $80B. The original operating date was at the last of President Clinton's first term 1994! Some people who observed the Israeli AF's felt the air battles over the Bekaa Valley was more proof that the F-15s and F-16's would remain among the top fighters for decadeS. These people who felt the upgraded (avionics, etc.) F-15s and F-16s could be O.K. and be able to match the new Euro-fighters were dead wrong. Other people who felt the F-15's performance would not be matched by the two Soviet were surprised how the MiG-29 and Su-29 were close to the F-15s and 16s performance, by the time they finally became operational. Back in the mid to late 1980s.
All these people did their damnest to cancel the program by cutting the money for the ATF program, or for the program to exist with minimum financial support, taking 24 years to become operational. After causing the ATF/F-22 to be dragged out at least a decade, they then complained about the price.... DAMN, who's fault was?
Could you imagine if the ATF program had been fully supported and became operational in the early to mid-1990s, the cost would be around $40B. Wow, that is a lot less than the Euro-fighters, EA-18G, etc! The operational time for the F-22s would have been years before the Euro fighters became opporational.

Not saying that the entire article is well written without any slant, but the reporter should be bound to report public facts as they are and not facts as they could-have-been. The price of the F-22 could have been lower if a lot of things had been different but they weren't different. It all happened the way it happened and now the end unit price ended where it ended -- pretty high. The reporter is not a fault for that at least.

Quote:

Grumbrecht said that even if his planes did everything right, they weren’t able to get within 20 miles of the next-generation jets before being targeted.

Thus the point. The merge never even happens.

I'm old enough to remember "reports" like this about nearly every weapons system for decades, including the F-15, AH-64, M-1 Abrams, etc., etc.

So...when both Raptors run out of missles, then who ever is left can have a gun duel with two raptors....well not really! Laughing

20 miles....for the tacticians with invisible a/c..why would the raptor not maneuver and be shooting missles and guns from a "6"?? Question

Not much "op" for a merge but a distinct advantage. Wink

I read the actual interview with the German sqd. commander. From my memory he he stated that they ran the Raptors out of gas and that the Raptors had to go back for gas after 20-25 minutes. He also said that they turned on par and that the Typhoons picked up speed/accelerated faster. But he also admitted that the Eurofighters fought in clean configuration.

I certainly don't know if this is a fair assessment, but i thought to my self where the line is drawn on commenting on such sensitive points on a highly classified aircraft from a allied nation. Is it considered good form among allied nations? He certainly bragged a lot. Having seen the F-16 defeat the Eurofighter i don't know how much emphasis that should be placed on this. However, the F-22 may not be so invincible as claimed in a close in fight.

Is anyone really surprised the Eurofighter can give the F-22 a run for its money in a dogfight? It's small, nimble, almost half the weight, and specifically designed to be a dogfighter. The F-22, on the other hand, was designed to send an AIM-120 up your nose from a long way off before you even knew it was there. This is not at all to say the F-22 is not a dogfigter, but merely that it was not it's specific design focus.

The only thing "disturbing" I see here is that the Eurofighter costs almost 80% of what the F-22 does, at a staggering 90 million euros, and delivers on less than half of the useful combat capability. (Read no AESA radar, external weapons storage, and the inability to operate in a high threat environment.)

durahawk wrote:

Is anyone really surprised the Eurofighter can give the F-22 a run for its money in a dogfight?

I'm not surprised that the Euro-fighter flown in a clean configuration by some of the most well trained Western pilots who's very purpose at the time was to upstage the Raptor actually managed to perform half decently in staged and very specific circumstances.

There.

aceshigh wrote:

I read the actual interview with the German sqd. commander. From my memory he he stated that they ran the Raptors out of gas and that the Raptors had to go back for gas after 20-25 minutes. He also said that they turned on par and that the Typhoons picked up speed/accelerated faster. But he also admitted that the Eurofighters fought in clean configuration.

I certainly don't know if this is a fair assessment, but i thought to my self where the line is drawn on commenting on such sensitive points on a highly classified aircraft from a allied nation. Is it considered good form among allied nations? He certainly bragged a lot. Having seen the F-16 defeat the Eurofighter i don't know how much emphasis that should be placed on this. However, the F-22 may not be so invincible as claimed in a close in fight.

Re turn performance, in the reported engagements, the German pilots stated the Typhoon had a better initial turning performance than the Raptor. Reading between the lines, the Raptor therefore has a better sustained turn capability.

Andy

(Why drudge up this nonsense again?)

durahawk wrote:

Is anyone really surprised the Eurofighter can give the F-22 a run for its money in a dogfight?

"The Typhoons were stripped of their external fuel tanks and slicked off as much as possible before the encounter with the Raptors." -Lt. Col. Marc Grüne, Luftwaffe Ops Group Commander

VIEWS FROM THE USAF:

"It sounds as though we have very different recollections as to the outcomes of the BFM engagements that were fought," one Raptor pilot says.

USAF sources say that the Typhoon has good energy and a pretty good first turn, but that they were able to outmaneuver the Germans due to the Raptor's thrust vectoring. Additionally, the Typhoon was not able to match the high angle of attack capability of the F-22. "We ended up with numerous gunshots," another USAF pilot says.

As one Raptor driver says in retrospective: "I did review the HUD footage, a lot of gun shots from the F-22's to the Eurofighters and not a whole lot coming back."

Ref 1
Ref 2

Is anyone really surprised that yet another "news" source left out these key tidbits?

durahawk wrote:

It's small, nimble, almost half the weight,

Getting REALLY tired of the "size" argument.

By that token the EF should avoid dogfights with the Gripen, as it's both significantly smaller and lighter.

durahawk wrote:

and specifically designed to be a dogfighter.

Um, so was the F-22 (TVC, huge lift area, huge control surfaces...).

Ask any of the F-16 drivers on this forum who've gone up against it in BFM.

durahawk wrote:

This is not at all to say the F-22 is not a dogfigter, but merely that it was not it's specific design focus.

See above.

durahawk wrote:

The only thing "disturbing" I see here is that the Eurofighter costs almost 80% of what the F-22 does, at a staggering 90 million euros, and delivers on less than half of the useful combat capability. (Read no AESA radar, external weapons storage, and the inability to operate in a high threat environment.)

THAT I can agree with. As far as bang-for-buck goes, the EF is a colossal joke.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Raptor's ABC News disturbing article