Strategy-Viper vs F-22. What yould you do...

silversmok3 · by **silversmok3** » 31 Oct 2010, 19:29

I just watched some footage of the F-22, and had this thought-

If it just wasnt your day and you were a viper pilot facing an F-22 in 1 vs 1 BFM, what general strategy would stand the best chance to prevail?

Would you 'get in the phone booth' and get close and deadly , or would you conserve energy and use high-speed hit and run tactics and avoid a turning dogfight?

Id go with option two, but Im not experienced in ACM.

famine · by **famine** » 31 Oct 2010, 19:33

I'd punch out, hoping the SAR package could take their chances. And.. I'd be stealth too, on a chute..

Scorpion82 · by **Scorpion82** » 01 Nov 2010, 01:40

The latter is probably more realistic. The F-22 is just to manoeuvrable and with its post stall manoeuvres the F-16 has litte chance of success. At higher speeds the differences aren't that great and the Viper driver might be able to succeed in certain circumstances.

StolichnayaStrafer · by **StolichnayaStrafer** » 01 Nov 2010, 11:50

IF you are lucky enough to get in close, grab onto his belt buckle and don't let go! :shock:

avon1944 · by **avon1944** » 15 Feb 2011, 06:59

There is a nice little piece writen by an F-16C aggressor pilot and his encounter with an F-22A! The topic is, "F-22 maneuverability" By VprWz1" (The third posting.)
http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... bc383fa95f

thestealthfighterguy · by **thestealthfighterguy** » 30 Sep 2011, 21:21

Simple! You DIE! I'm so glad there ours!

geogen · by **geogen** » 06 Oct 2011, 03:47

While I hold the highest respects for ViprW and appreciate his service, my strategy for a '2017' 1v1 red force vs blue force strat would include the following:

1v1 the F-16 is likely a goner no matter what... but a 2v1 (price point wise vs upgraded Increment 3.2 cost), or perhaps a 4v2 scenario the upgraded F-16 Super Viper can imho employ superior tactics and capabilities.

So for this 2017 red force vs blue, allow me to propose this 'strategy':

3x 'Block 65' F-16 with mini fixed canards (ala M2000) and 3-D vectoring (or possibly even 2-D J-Turn and loop-enhancing paddle vectoring similar to the MATV) vs 1x F-22 Increment 3.2 F-22 finally showing up to the fight with AIM-120D and AIM-9x.

The F-16 Blk65s configured with AESA, next-gen digital EW/passive geolocating suite (at least nominal enough location finding to cue a long-range IRST search) and twin enhanced AAS-42 derived 270mm IRST apertures built into the CFT (allowing 220+ degree very-long-range passive frontal Search in case anyone decides to boost into super-cruise 150nm out). The electronics for the 'shared' twin aperture IRST set would be housed in a an enlarged AFTI-type spine, as would the ATDIRCM electronics, cough.

In lieu of the HTS station, design a MALD-J ejector hard point on the intake. Add an ALE-55+ towed sys. Stations 3 and 7 would equip Terma pylons integrated with either PAWS-2+ (w/ panoramic pilot vision), or possibly even the AAR-56 MLD with panoramic vision upgrade for pilot. These stations would mount AIM-162 w/IIR seeker (under an accelerated joint-development program). Add 2 AIM-120D for defensive maneuvering + block II -9x. Clean wing EFT stations and the centerline tank has been punched.

That might just enable a different scenario and allow for modern tactics to be devised accordingly and thus effectively change the game from 2005-era Viper vs F-22 outcomes? Anyway, it might at least be worth the computer simulation to test out :salute:

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 06 Oct 2011, 07:16

Look at all the first-hand reports about going up against the F-22. The vast majority got smoked because they never "heard" them coming (thanks to LPI) and never saw (thanks to VLO) them coming.

All the TVC and canards that help with maneuverability are not going to do you any good.

As far as the electronics go.. don't you think you are packing a bit too much into the spine?

A MALD would never fit, it's too large & heavy. It's 9.5 feet long and 250lbs (not including ejector). The HTS is much smaller and lighter.

Why the AIM-162? You will not likely see or fire upon the F-22 outside even the 9X's range let alone the 120D's.

Last, but not least, your F-16 is leaking EM all over the place (like the omni-cast datalink) and will likely have a 120D inbound very quickly.

geogen · by **geogen** » 07 Oct 2011, 11:58

I guess the assumption based on this completely hypothetical 'how would you' conjecture, was simply based on a differently configured advanced F-16 model than a standard issue block 50, or one which you might have been contemplating... :wink:

I think you're underestimating the capability of a next-gen LW IRST to potentially detect long-range aircraft going into after-burner e.g., or even at very high altitude and already with hot skins. Likewise, the US better darn well come up with some evolved solution to at least pick up a generalized location pointer from LPI emissions, via passive receivers. As the US will certainly not have some sort of monopoly on such tech.

On another point, regarding next-gen legacy options would be the possibility to update AESA radars, e.g. SABR, to enable high-speed data transfer. But even so, it's been posted on before in public that current links are not necessarily leaking all over the place at endless ranges. Depending on the techniques and tactics one might guess.. but regardless, the potential for other 'evolved' reduced, superior-rate transfer emissions will exist.

On MALD, I thought they were around 6' length? Anyway, it was a thought, maybe it couldn't fit as proposed in such case substitute one under the wing I guess for one -9x?

And lastly, as suggested above with need to aggressively stay on top of advanced passive sensor capabilities, the US better darn well be thinking how an MLU'd F-15E, F-35 or F-22 for that matter will supposed to be searching for and detecting proliferated - e.g., 'rogue' - VLO UCAVs or VLO cruise missiles within say, as soon as 6-10 yrs. If it's simply just going to be done within '9x' ranges, then we're in big trouble and will be seriously behind the innovation curve. imho :2c: