Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

TVC has its limitations, at higher altitudes the thrust generated by the engines is just a fraction of what it is close to the ground. That has direct implications on the effectiveness of TVC. Expanding the envelope into the post stall regime is an option only if you can get an instant shot. If not you end up as prey hanging around in the skies. I'm talking about the 1 vs 1 BFMs the F-22 has conducted with types like the Rafale or Typhoon f.e. in neither case it dominated as it may against types like the F-15 or F-16. The was excused with all kind of claims which are not proven at all and in some cases turned out to be plain wrong.

Like most Raptor "haterz" you're only looking at 1v1 turning fights.

TVC does have its limitations, but are you forgetting that non TVC engines have even more? The Raptor was designed to operate at altitudes exceeding FL 400 where as almost all 4th gen/4+ were designed to operate between FL 200-300. And no the thrust is not just a fraction, the jet can do almost the same maneuvers at higher altitudes as it can near sea level.

You obviously have very little knowledge into the F-22's capabilities even with your "sufficient experience and insight."

Like most Raptor "haterz" you're only looking at 1v1 turning fights.

Realistic combat engagements will rarely ever get to that point and when they do there are a ton of factors to consider other than just maneuverability. Keep in mind that if an engagement did turn into a during fight at the merge the jet that can fly slowest and still point the nose will most likely win. Jets like the Typhoon and Rafale don't even come close to the high alpha capabilities of the F-22.

I know virtually nothing about those engagements except what a few pilots have told me which were, simply put, not decisive (unrealistic.) But unless you've seen actual HUD tape videos of these engagements I wouldn't make any more conclusions which you are.

Claims like this demonstrate that you don't even understand the very basics of aerodynamics! Every engine will loose thrust the higher the aircraft goes as air density is shrinking the airflow becomes insufficient. The result an engine will loose thrust the higher the aircraft flies and that's true for every aircraft and jet engine, the Raptor is no exception. It may perform better than many other designs, but the principles of physics still apply, even to the mighty Raptor. The Raptor might well be capable to perform many maneuvers high up as well, but it won't do this with the same efficiency. Thrust isn't the sole reason for this, the lower air density adversly affects lift as well. To maintain level flight at a higher altitude the aircraft must either fly faster or at a higher AoA. Control surface deflections will be larger as well and that means more drag as a higher AoA means more drag and thus higher energy bleed rates.

Says the one who doesn't even understand the very basics of aviation. Thus far you haven't demonstrated any meaningful knowledge about the F-22's capabilities yourself.

That you call me a Raptor hater is symptomatic for ignorant fanboys like you. What makes me a Raptor hater? That I don't believe in Santa Claus as you do? If you had actually bothered to read and understand what I have written you would have realised that I haven't even criticised the Raptor. I simply point out that even the mighty Raptor has its limitations and can't defy the laws of physics. Not more, not less! If I criticise something here it's the sheer ignorance of some people.

It's assumed that most engagements will be BVR and that it rarely comes to the merge for that reason, thus far that's still more of a theory than proven reality. The kill record of radar guided BVR AAMs isn't exactly stellar and while the pk has increased for missiles it was still just 58% during Allied Force and that against a totally out numbered opponent with outdated equipment. No AAM has a pk of 100%, even less so radar guided BVR missiles which scored a fair share of their kills WVR only as well. In exercises this can't be even simulated adequately as no actual missiles are fired and as all kind of rules are applied that prevent aircraft from taking advantages of all their capabilities.

If it would come to the merge in a real combat situation the pilots will first and foremost try to use up their SRAAMs before switching to guns, unless there is a really good opportunity to get a gun shot on the enemy. As said TVC can help, but it miust be carefully applied unless you want to end up as a target hanging around in the sky. Such maneuvers are in fact particular dangerous in a multi bogey scenario.

I don't know every single detail about these engagements either, just what has been told by different pilots, some of that stuff through the public media, some through other sources. But even without such encounters I would conclude the same based on my understanding of aerodynamics, aviation technology in general and aircombat. As said multiple times already I regard the F-22 as the most capable AA fighter out there, but I don't believe in santa claus and I know that the F-22 has its limitations like any other aircraft has its limitations. No solution is perfect, only fools believe that an aircraft is perfect and superior to everything else at everything.

Of course I know all of this dude, the engines need air and higher air pressure means more thrust... come on.

What you fail to understand is the Raptor was designed to operate at those altitudes!

Of course you're not going to get maximum performance at FL500 but I can say with 100% certainty that at those regimes every single other nonTVC jet would be helplessly floundering and gasping for air while the Raptor would just sit and watch under complete control.

Whatever, I'm sure I don't know anything about aviation. Thanks for making me aware of that. If you even had a fraction of the first hand experience I have had with the jet, you'd stop arguing right now and listen.

Yes you were. You're coming to conclusions about its capabilities when you have absolutely no idea about the details of the engagements or the circumstances.

Yes every jet has its limitations. What you aren't getting is the Raptor IS that capable and if you even had the slightest first hand experience with the jet you'd know that. Without getting into too much detail basically every type of jet that has fought the F-22 has come away literally dumbfounded at how they could get creamed so badly. This applies to both BVR and WVR.

No its not theory it has been proven.

Flight hours are extremely expensive and limited which is why most ACM/BFM sorties are used to train for situations they will most likely encounter.

But despite this, they still do practice WVR engagements against all types of aircraft and almost always come out on top. The few WVR gun kills that other planes ever get on them are after dying several times over. Why is this so hard to absorb?

Allied Force was over a decade ago.. missiles, radars and sensors have been improved since then and simulated AIM-120 launches at Red Flag typically have above an 75% kill rate which is very good. The RF staff take these pk values into account when tracking kills but this is also based on actual launch and test data against real aircraft.

If simulated missile launches weren't realistically accurate enough there wouldn't be Red Flag.

And the Raptor doesn't even need to get into the post stall regime to win a dogfight. It can easily outmaneuver any 4th gen fighter without ever going below 160-180 kts, which is the speed that most dogfights end up at.

And only fools come to conclusions based on insufficient evidence and experience. Everything you read on the internet and in magazines is subject to interpretation. You can't begin to understand how ridiculously good the jet is based only on your "understanding of aerodynamics, aviation technology in general and aircombat." Most of the reasons why it is so good are secret but the majority of info that is available is enough to understand why. It seems to me like you just want to dislike the plane for the mere fun of it.

Theres a reason most of this stuff is classified. For all we know the 422nd TES and Weapons School guys could be out fighting Flankers and Fulcrums from Tonopah (purely speculation of course.) This data needs to be locked away in a vault so bad people don't study this stuff and use it against us over the South China Sea.

If you know all this dude then why are you claiming the opposite in the first place?

Why do I fail? Because you are unable to read? That's hardly my fault!
Here for you again what you just quoted and replied to, without reading it:
"It may perform better than many other designs, but the principles of physics still apply, even to the mighty Raptor."

TVC has nothing to do with thrust at such altitudes at all, it will improve control authority at this FL, not increase thrust.

I have no first hand experience on this jet at all, but enough expierence and knowledge not to believe any bullsh!t that's thrown around by all kind of people. I judge about the contributions of people not about who they pretend to be.

Maybe you enlighten us genius!?

What you aren't getting is that even if you have first hand experience with the Raptor, you don't have first hand experience with several other types operated around the world. You probably no jack about anything non American, but claim to "know with certainity". If "everyone" came away dumbfounded, how does it come that the German jocks weren't THAT impressed by its performance close in? Why no overwhelming victory against the French close in? Could it be that not only their pilots are good, but their aircraft are also a fair bit more capable than what you chaps are willed to acknowledge? BVR no doubt the Raptor rules the skies, WVR it's also quite excellent but for sure not as dominant as in BVR encounters, at least not against more competent opponents than Eagles or Vipers or Hornets though all of these types aren't exactly bad. During Red Flag Alaska this year the Raptor crowd suffered to looses from the agressor force. They certainly achieved many more kills so no doubt they achieved a kill ratio in their favour, but so did others.

When has it been proven against a credible opponent with adequate equipment?

They may do this against the aggressors flying dated Eagles and Vipers, but obviously failed to do this against Typhoons and Rafales as far as "getting creamed and utterly overwhelmed" is concerned. And who knows how they would fare close in against a Su-35 close in. Missiles not withstanding where the Raptor is currently at a disadvantage lacking a HOBS missile and HOBS targeting capability.

You mean target drones a la QF-4? How representative for an advanced 4th generation threat with sophisticated ESM and MW equipment, DRFM based AESA jammers and TRDs.

There are limitations with any training exercise as simple as that. You simply can't simulate the performance of jammers and threat warning sensors against missiles which aren't there in the first place. In real combat the pk of such missiles wasn't overwhelming and while increasing with time the kills were achieved against utterly inferior opponents.

"Easily against any" that's the kind of superlative claims I like. I know confidence dies last.

And it seems to me that you reply for the sake of having replied. That I regard the Raptor as the most capable AA fighter out there is something that I have repeatedly pointed out, appears to went by by you unnoticed. It simply demonstrates that you don't read at all, you smell a conspiracy and react emotionally instead of reading and responding rationally. It's no news to me that the world ends with the North American continent for many of you chaps, but the reality is that there is a rest of the world and that rest of the world isn't utterly retarded and trailing behind at everything as you may assume. What do you know about a Su-35, a Typhoon, a Gripen or a Rafale or fill in any other combat aircraft that isn't made in USA? I suppose not much, but you "can tell with 100% certainity..." Don't make me laugh.

I'm well aware that a lot of stuff is classified, but that's true for all militaries. You may know what the Raptor is capable off or not, but you certainly don't know what others are capable of any better than what I know about the Raptor.

Since when was I claiming the opposite? I said the motors get good thrust at those altitudes, better than almost every engine but the F135. I never said the F119s make the air magically thicker or something stupid like you were implying. Stop making stuff up.

And here again you're making stuff up. I NEVER said the jet defies physics or the basic principles of flight (thrust, drag, lift, gravity).

What I am saying, and this has been proven, is the jet can perform better than almost every other design because of a combination of an advanced aerodynamic high lift airframe, high performing TVC engines, advanced FLCS, and large control surface areas.

Please Learn to read, that is not what I said. The engines give excellent control authority at those altitudes because of TVC. But they also provide more thrust than most other engines because of their design. Its lighter composite construction coupled with an advanced high pressure compression system allow it to get the most out of the little air that is available up there.

And whom exactly am I pretending to be? I already stated in other threads that I'm not a pilot with no TS clearance. But I do have more first hand experience with the jet than most civilians largely due to the generosity of the folks who fly/maintain them. I doubt most civilians have ever seen the cockpit or been directly inside the open weapons bays and uncovered engine nozzles. And they were also very generous in answering questions I had about the airplane, many of which are being debated right now.

As for specific aircraft, I'd like you to point me to where Typhoon pilots have specifically said they were not impressed with the Raptor close in. I haven't seen it and think thats BS anyway.

Because it took more than a minute for the Raptors to reverse the engagement and gun them?

Please. I'd imagine if for some reason they weren't impressed it would be because they started out at 2-3 miles offensive with severe ROEs on the F-22s. And its likely that the Raptors were also severely outnumbered (2 v 4, 2 v 8.)

I heard rumors that they did fight them in the UAE but I don't know enough to comment there.

You need to stop looking at one area and focus on the big picture. The Raptor is dominant at WVR and it has been proven over the Nellis range so stop saying it hasn't (thats where my first hand experience comes in.) Pilots have told me numerous times that they have consistently beaten Eagles, Vipers, Hornets, and Tornadoes in completely lopsided scenarios with extreme imbalanced numbers, with as much as 4 v 12 and come out on top with no loses.

Typhoons and Rafales are only marginally superior to those airframes so you can't tell me that the outcome would be vastly different.

So American aircraft are not credible opponents with adequate equipment?

This is your problem right here. You think that Eagles/Vipers/Hornets/etc are not capable and the Typhoon/Rafale/Flanker are superior to anything and everything flying with a US roundel.

Your credibility just ended right here. The gap is shortening but we still have the best tactics, training, and equipment in the world.

I'll respond by asking you the same question. The Rafale and Typhoon have never seen air to air combat either (Lybia doesn't count), so where is the evidence to suggest that their missiles and sensors will fair any better than American equipment?

At the current level of simulation and equipment yes you can. No it will never be completely accurate but it is enough to write and develop tactics with. You obviously have no idea how the CAF develops doctrine otherwise you'd know that we have created rules that do work based off of test data and training with the best equipment.

Again, you have no first hand experience with the maneuvering capabilities of fighter aircraft so you're not going to know.

But as a hint, look up corner speed then watch videos of the Raptor's minimum radius turn during the demo, then compare it to your precious Typhoon and Rafale. Also note that those aircraft are usually clean without any external ordinance.

I can read, I noticed that you said the Raptor is the most capable AA fighter. However you keep contradicting yourself by trying to find as many weaknesses about it as possible in favor of other 4th generation jets.

This is not about emotion my friend, this is about logic and reason backed up by experience and actual data from real engagements.

Rafales and Typhoons are solid, capable aircraft. But they are a generation behind the Raptor and in a real engagement scenario they won't be fighting against them but flying with them. If for some reason they did need to fight them they would be tracked for hundreds of miles before being jammed, locked, and eventually killed before ever knowing the Raptors were there. Thats what it was designed to do, can do, and will do.

As for the Flanker I know very little, and nobody does. Any more than speculation about the SU-35, other 5 gens or any other aircraft that hasn't fought the F-22 or is even operation is pointless.

You should get paid to jump to conclusions. You're really good at it.

I'm a believer because I know how capable the jet is based on what little unclass stuff I've been told, and that is only scratching the surface.

I'm going to stop here. I don't want this topic to get shut down and clearly you are just arguing because you want to feel "special" that you're going against everyone else who knows how capable the Raptor is. Feel free to keep posting, its very entertaining but don't expect a response from me.

That account, however, is strongly disputed by USAF sources flying the F-22. "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 outmanoeuvre 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.

The Typhoons were stripped of their external fuel tanks and slicked off as much as possible before the encounter with the Raptors, says Grune, who adds that in that configuration, the Typhoon is an "animal".

A few weeks after I returned from Alaska, I touched base with the 3rd Wing again. "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," one Raptor pilot told me

As the majority of the readers of The Aviationist already know, there are very different opinions as to the outcomes of the dogfights between the U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptors and the German Air Force Eurofighter Typhoons during the recent Red Flag – Alaska.

Was the F-22 “overwhelming” or was it “salad” for the Eurofighter’s pilots lunch (that recounted several Raptor kills)?

Anyway, as the following photos taken by Dietmar Fenners at Neuburg on Jul. 18 seems to show, the German Air Force is particularly proud of the simulated shot down of several F-22s achieved during the mock engaments.

To such an extent two planes boast some F-22 Raptor kills.

Hence, at least in a (possibly unrealistic) WVR (Within Visual Range) air-to-air engagement with the Typhoon, the Raptor is not invincible.

However, as already explained several times, simulated kills scored during dissimilar BFM engagements don’t prove a fighter plane is better than another one, and are almost meaningless unless the actual Rules Of Engagement (ROE) and the training scenario are known.

Chances are, one aircraft would have detected the other first. It would have taken actions to put the adversary in a defensive position (e.g. firing a BVR missile, closing on the enemy's six, bringing more energy to the dogfight, setting up an altitude advantage). It's all about setup: whichever aircraft is in a better position at the start of the dogfight has a significant edge.