F-16 vs. F-22

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2005, 04:39
by Wender
This kid in one of my aviation classes this morning brought in a video of an F-22 handing an F-16 it's a$$ on a mock dog fight. It was so cool to see how much of an advantage the vectored thrusters are. Anyone here know what video I'm talking about? How about a link?
It was on Fox News somewhere, the reporter went up on a two-seat Viper and everything. Lucky reporter.

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2005, 09:30
by CheckSix
I've seen this vid, it is ridiculous. Both planes fly side by side. F-22 pulls up and postitions behind the F-16.
Conclusion: Raptor is impossible to ctach.

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2005, 16:15
by Wender
That is true. The Raptor is a sick aircraft, but does the fact that the Viper is a two seater make it less maneuverable?

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2005, 21:23
by agilefalcon16
Yeah, I believe the Viper being a two seater does play a factor in its agility.

But still, it ain't fair to compare the older Viper with the newer Raptor. The only way it would be fair to compare the two, would be to update the Viper with a Thrust-vectoring nozzle, and to give it a bigger engine that can generate more thrust, so that the Viper would at least be up to par with the Raptor.

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2005, 20:52
by FutureFlyer06
Wender, I know what you're talking about. I saw that video quite a while back on www.f-22raptor.com. I tried looking for the exact link right now but I couldn't find it. There's a page on Fox about this (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124002,00.html) but I did not see a video link there either. Yeah it was pretty interesting though. I'm sure that the F-22 definately has huge advantages over the F-16, especially with thrust vectoring. However, in the flight that that reporter was on, I highly doubt that the F-16 was performing at it's top potential due to the fact that the pilot had a passenger who probably could not handle so many g's. The Raptor, however, could turn and burn as it so chose. Regardless of whether or not they had a passenger, however, the F-22 would most likely still win.

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2005, 22:40
by Roscoe
two-seater makes no significant difference in agility....just takes 1500 lbs of gas away

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2005, 20:11
by Entropy
Plus, since the Raptor has stealth ability, it wouldn't be too hard to eliminate an oblivious target if the F-22 pilot can sneek up on him. Especially if the Raptor had distance on it's side. But also, out of sheer manuverability, the F-16 pilot, sadly, wouldn't stand a whole lot of a chance.
:cry:
And I love the Viper so much. lol

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2005, 01:19
by Lisafer
modification man think outside the square. do what i do, even up the odds. granted mybe the only way of doing that is major stuctural reshaping of the Raptor but who cares about that, as long as the Viper wins right?

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2005, 01:25
by Entropy
Don't get me wrong, I love both aircraft, but I like the Falcon more. So I guess you're right, but if I had the choice, I don't want either to be shot down. But since we have to choose, I want the 16 to win, but sadly, I do think the 22 would win.

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2005, 01:35
by Lisafer
sad but true...NO IM NOT ADMITTING IT lol im just wondering hahaha. anyway...... :P

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2005, 03:51
by danhutmacher
The winner of any fight will depend on the scenario and the ability and smarts of the pilots involved.
The Raptors big advantage is to stay high and fast and shoot everything BVR. But if the Falcon pilot is smart he will stay low and use the F-22s radar against him.
Both planes have there advantages and disadvantages.
But in the end I would much rather have a block 52 F-16 with and HTS pad then the F-22 any day of the year. 8)

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2005, 04:18
by TenguNoHi
Dahut? What do you meen use the F-22's radar against him? The F-22's radar is immune to RWSs and has a highly capable ground scanning mode... I dont think thatd be a viable tactic for the Viper driver.

John Browning once said the gun was the equalizer of all men. Boy, was he right. The gun took a lot of skill out of individual combat. What used to take 3-5 years to train a warrior in fencing arts or use of a long bow, no only took 10 months. Stealth is going to produce a similar effect, imo, on the fighter world. The tragedy is, that right now, as we stand and speak, fighter pilots are a dieing breed. And the ones that are flying now are probably going to be the last ones required to have high ammounts of skill. By the time I get there im expecting my job to intail little skill at all. It saddens me but I think thats just how it is. And in only a few years after that, UAV's will whipe us all out. Then the skill meter is 0, because the pilot isnt even involved anymore.

Skill is only involved the more even the playing field is. As the technology exploits the weakness of the current technology the skill gets sapped. Skill is also limited, thats why we develope technology. Only when 2 entities technologies are on par with each other does skill become a factor again. It all goes back to the difference between strategy and tactics.

Maybe you dont like it but I think people need to start facing the music and realising that the waves of robotic drones swarming the skies are gonna burn off a lot of the romanticism shrouding the fighter pilot persona.

The reason I say all this is because the F-22 contains some monsterous technological leaps. Many of those it stole right from the Viper. Look at the canopy! Lets be honest, air frame to air frame the Raptor schools the Viper. When the Viper says "2+2=4" the Raptor says "BS! 2+2=5" and then there aint nothing the viper can do about it. Ugh, I have a feeling im starting a fireball with this rant, but anyways, ill sum up soon. The F-16 is an amazing air frame. But if we could develope pilot skills supperior enough to deduce the need for an F-22, then we wouldnt waste the money on the better air frame. Skill is very limited in capability. The Swiss figured that out over 500 years ago when they realised that a 20 ft. lance took all the fun out of fighting with 3 foot swords. "Hmmmm, if they cant get within 20 feet of me, I dont have to worry about them getting within 3 Ft of me!" In fact, the Japanese, Greeks, Macedonians and Helens all realised the same thing too. Kinda like how the British realised that the long bow took all the fun out of battlefield combat. The British Longbowmen were prolly the greatest early example of BVR combat to day. Theyd sit behind hills and volley off mass arrows that could travel hundreds and hundreds of yards and decimate armies before the got to WVR.

Anyways, im done. I could say a lot more but I have a habbit of putting people to sleep with non sense :p

-Aaron

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2005, 12:44
by EriktheF16462
I feel stealth in the A/A will bring the fighter pilot skills back. No longer can they engage BVR because they can't find each other. That brings us back to the good old #1 sensor the eyeballs. Which means in an equal world, which will come along in the next 15 years or so, there will be a lot of WVR fighting. It will negate the radar for sensor if the radar can't find the targets. Someone will find a way to defeat the F22 radar, they always do. UAVs will have there place but if the sensor suites are defeated once again it goes back to the mushy wet, bio sensor in the seat to get the job done.

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2005, 17:38
by TenguNoHi
I agree with ya Erik, but we have to wait for technology to equalize first. That will never happen untill everyone has stealth, not just one or two countries...

BTW, im in fear of stingy remarks from my last post. So I just want to clarify im not trying to downplay the skills of pilots, im just trying to say that there is a reason defense technology evolves so rapidly.

-Aaron

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2005, 20:14
by Entropy
There are a couple big reasons that UAVs are going to take over the skies. 1: UAVs are much more inexpensive than manned fighters.
2: It eliminates the loss of pilots.

But we can still keep piloting skill a factor. We simply make them controlled by remote. That way, not only is it still inexpensive, and we still don't have to lose pilots, but we still keep pilots invoved and in the loop.

Now I'm not saying I want to see fighters become obsolete, because I love fighters. I'm just saying that we don't have to leave UAVs in the control of supercomputers.

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2005, 22:24
by TenguNoHi
Entropy, your information is quite incorrect. First off, UAVs will be far cheaper than fighters. UAVs are basically large missles. And what do you think cost more? A missile or a plane? UAVs require less material to manufacture because of their small size, they will not require avionics or life support systems or certain extents of safety systems that prevent the airframe from pulling more G's than a pilot is normally capable of.

Secondly, the UAVs proposed right now will be piloted by humans. I think the proposal is that mobile trailors or command centers, or air units similar to an AWACs, will house the pilots who will control the UAV on something not so far from a PC. The only thing is, being a fighter pilot loses its romance when you get up to get a back of potato chips and a coke. (And knowing AF people, someone WILL try and sneak potato chips and a can of coke onto the plane).

The advantage to UAVs is they eliminate the need for a manned aircraft in which the human becomes the limiting factor of the air craft. UAVs will be able to pull 20-30Gs as oppose to manned A/C which are automatically cut off at 9Gs. UAVs will also be smaller, more expendible, and have reduced RCS. Someone said a few years back that the AF would completely replace its fleet with UAVs in 20 years or so. While I think that estimate is a lil too generous to the UAVs, I dont expect to see pilots around in another 50 years.

-Aaron

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2005, 22:54
by Pumpkin
sorry guys, do you mean UAV or UCAV? I believe there is a different between the two and the latter is more than a large missle.

cheers,

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2005, 01:00
by ACSheva
It eliminates the loss of pilots


You have a point there. You would also not have to pay the fighter pilot the crazy $$$. Im sure the remote control pilots would make a bit less than the actual gun-ho jocks. Pilots in the cokpit will be becoming a limiting factor to a jet in the future. Speaking of UAVs CAVs, Boeing is the leading company in that field.

ACSheva

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2005, 07:19
by danhutmacher
The idea that the F-22s radar can't be detected by a rws is a myth. Any time you transmit it can be detected and used against you.

Another myth is that the F22s stealth will make it invisble to radar. Stealth DOES NOT make you invisble just harder to detect.

As for uavs replaceing manned fighters that reminds me when back in the 50s they said that sams would replace manned fighters. Everyone knows that that didn't happen.

the history of air combat is full of peacetime ideas that were shot full of holes in the first weeks of the war.

I just wish people would stop being blinded by the F-22 because it's the "newest" fighter. Like any other fighter it has strengths and weakness. A smart pilot will use his strentgh and minimize his weakness.

i agree with Erik that radars will be negated but not by stealth but by ECM.
I think that is enough for now. Check Six.

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2005, 08:16
by TenguNoHi
There are a couple big reasons that UAVs are going to take over the skies. 1: UAVs are much more inexpensive than manned fighters.
2: It eliminates the loss of pilots.

But we can still keep piloting skill a factor. We simply make them controlled by remote. That way, not only is it still inexpensive, and we still don't have to lose pilots, but we still keep pilots invoved and in the loop.

Now I'm not saying I want to see fighters become obsolete, because I love fighters. I'm just saying that we don't have to leave UAVs in the control of supercomputers.


I'm not sure how I misread some of this earlier but you can ignore a large ammount of my above post :p I read can't or something... .bleh, it doesnt matter, anyways sorry for jumpin on it :p

danhutmacher, I'm not directly connected with the F-22 project, naturally, but I know a few people that are, and I am sure that the F-22 avoids RWS detection. The manner is highly classified and it is very hush hush naturally. I'm hoping TC chimes in cause I think he'd know weather or not this is confirmable. Natrually it makes sense everytime you transmit you should be able to be detected but then again, the world WAS flat for 1500 years too. Woops, messed that one up didn't we?

-Aaron

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2005, 01:44
by Entropy
I'm not sure how I misread some of this earlier but you can ignore a large ammount of my above post


Okay. You confused me for a second there. Whew, I thought I was a jacka$$ for a minute because I had wrong information. :oops:

Thanks for the correction TenguNoHi.

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2005, 03:06
by flanker_hater
I heard that the F-22 had a cloaking device making it visible throughout the entire EM spectrum (IR, UV, Radar, Visible light, etc) and that is also had a DEW to zap almost anything out of the sky. Has anyone else heard this?

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2005, 22:53
by parrothead
Right behind the photon torpedos :lmao: !

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2005, 23:27
by Entropy
Right behind the photon torpedos


While we're at it, let's just add Marvin the Martian class ray guns on the undercarriage.

ha ha

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2005, 21:44
by nikos
Lets start a new topic then! Vipers against ... Cylon Raiders! uups! thats another show! :crazypilot:

Anyway I think that F-22 would beat the F-16 even in a WVR combat - with no sesors at all for both aircraft -. Vectored thust + superior thrust to weight + more EPI + lower wing load. Thats the REAL F-22 advandages. Su - 37 has the same.

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2005, 23:48
by Entropy
Yeah, the 22 would win. Just out of manuverability. It's really an unfair advantage. Plus, they have run tests against with 22s against 16s and 15s, and the latter rarely won.

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2005, 00:23
by VPRGUY
No, no, no, NO!!! The marvin the martian ray guns don't go on the undercarriage, they go on the hardpoints under the wings!!!! Why else do you think they PUT hardpoints on???? Fuel tanks? Bombs??? Hardly. Come on guys, get your facts straight. ;-)

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2005, 00:30
by Entropy
Or we could just stick with missiles and guns, y'know.:lol:
Sorry.

I just didn't think they would fit in the bays.

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2005, 17:00
by LebaneseAce
The Raptor isn't impossible... Christ

I watched Al-Manar (before it was banned) and they had an interview with a Russian general. The Russians said that they had developed a missile that can take down any aircraft that is in service today. That means it can take down the F-117. And if it can down a Nighthawk, it can down a F-22.

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2005, 17:30
by agilefalcon16
I agree with LebaneseAce, the Raptor isn't impossible to beat. If a Viper were to some how get into WVR fight with one, and was armed with JHMCS and AIM-9X AAMs, all the Viper would need to do is to get lock and the Raptor is dead. After all, even though the Raptor is a highly maneuverable aircraft, there is very, VERY little chance it can outmaneuver a missile that has over a 99% chance of hitting a target.

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2005, 17:38
by LebaneseAce
I agree with agilefalcon16. Remember, it ain´t easy shaking off a close-range missile. The AIM-9X is extremely accurate. Lock on and boom.

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2005, 17:53
by calhoun
I cant believe this topic has gone on for this long. There is about a years worth of proof saying the Raptor would destroy the 16. Its called Operation Test at Edwards last year. We routinely flew 2 22's against 8 16's or 4 15's. The outcome? Pure destruction of all adversaries. They didnt even see the 22.

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2005, 16:01
by Entropy
Exactly.

BTW Agilefalcon16, you hit the nail right on the head.

If a Viper were to some how get into WVR fight with one, and was armed with JHMCS and AIM-9X AAMs, all the Viper would need to do is to get lock and the Raptor is dead.


IF he could get there, and get into a position on the raptor. This is also assuming that the raptor hasn't already pushed a 9X at him.

LebaneseAce, this statement here:

watched Al-Manar (before it was banned) and they had an interview with a Russian general. The Russians said that they had developed a missile that can take down any aircraft that is in service today. That means it can take down the F-117. And if it can down a Nighthawk, it can down a F-22.


Of course they are gonna say that. They're not gonna say, "Well, our missile can shoot down almost anything." Besides, where's the proof. How do they know it can shoot down the F-117 or the F-22. They would have to get hold of one first

Good luck with that. :wink:

Look guys, I love the F-16 as much as the next guy, but it would be obliterated, not destroyed, obliterated, by the F-22.

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2005, 20:01
by agilefalcon16
True, very true. :cry: But let's just look at the bright side, at least the Viper would have a better shot at it than other U.S. aircraft, such as the Eagle, Tomcat, or Hornet. :wink:

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2005, 22:35
by LazyTed
I would like to see the F-22 go WVR with the Typhoon....

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2005, 23:33
by calhoun
LazyTed wrote:I would like to see the F-22 go WVR with the Typhoon....


Pure annihilation. Goodbye Typhoon.

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2005, 04:09
by Entropy
Pure annihilation. Goodbye Typhoon.


YES!! The Typhoon would stand a slim chance. If the 16 and 15 can't, then the Typhoon can't either. :)

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2005, 14:12
by LazyTed
But the typhoon is better than the F-16 and F-15. It's a sorry day I know , but the F-16 and F-15 are being replaced for one reason. There not as good as planes such as the typhoon, that's why the F-22 has come about.

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2005, 03:28
by Entropy
What makes it better? Speed, maybe a little more agility. I know the Typhoon doesn't have thrust vectoring, and it essentially is a triangle with canards in the front. If it weren't for the computer controlling some of the functions, I don't think it would have the agility it has. Plus they would probably fire long or medium range missiles at each other before it even came down to agility. Besides, the main question posed was if it would match against a 22. It would lose, in WVR or BVR. Either way, as Calhoun said, good-bye Typhoon.

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2005, 03:51
by dimik
I believe that the Typhoon will incorporate 3D TVC engines, EJ230 engine. I'm not sure if it will be involved in the first tranche though.

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2005, 12:17
by agilefalcon16
Actually the Su-47 and the Su-37 are more maneuverable then the Typhoon and would have a better chance at taking the Raptor out in a WVR fight. The Typhoon would not have that much more of a chance at shooting a Raptor down than a Viper.

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2005, 15:14
by toan
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123010102

The comment from the man who is the only person that have driven both F/A-22 and EF-2000 up to now ~ Gen. John P. Jumper, The Air Force chief of USA:

1. Gen. John P. Jumper said the Eurofighter is both agile and sophisticated, but is still difficult to compare to the F/A-22 Raptor. He is the only person to have flown both aircraft.

2. "They are different kinds of airplanes to start with," the general said. "It's like asking us to compare a NASCAR car with a Formula 1 car. They are both exciting in different ways, but they are designed for different levels of performance."

3. "The Eurofighter is certainly, as far as smoothness of controls and the ability to pull (and sustain high G forces), very impressive," he said. "That is what it was designed to do, especially the version I flew, with the avionics, the color moving map displays, etc. -- all absolutely top notch. The maneuverability of the airplane in close-in combat was also very impressive."

4. The F/A-22 performs in much the same way as the Eurofighter, General Jumper said. But it has additional capabilities that allow it to perform the Air Force's unique missions.

5. "The F/A-22 Raptor has stealth and supercruise," he said. "It has the ability to penetrate virtually undetected because of (those) capabilities. It is designed to be a penetrating airplane. It can maneuver with the best of them if it has to, but what you want to be able to do is get into contested airspace no matter where it is."

6. One advantage of having flown the Eurofighter, General Jumper said, is that it allows him to get first-hand knowledge of technology U.S. allies use and to see how America's handiwork stacks up. He said he believes the two aircraft are running neck-and-neck, but America must always be vigilant to ensure it stays on the cutting edge of aviation technology.

7. "You can see the technology that is out there compared with ours," he said. "You see the avionics and all of the great progress that has been made. You make sure you are not too complacent, because the technology that they have is very competitive with technology that we have."


According to comment of the Gen. John P. Jumper, I think a reasonable conslusion for the comparison between F/A-22 and EF-2000 should be:

EF-2000 has very impressive maneuverability, agility, and quality of handle that are comparable to F/A-22, the main gaps of the capability between the two fighters are:

1. Stealthy techonology: the fronatal RCS of F/A-22 is about 1/100~1/500 or less of the frontal RCS of EF-2000 in the air-combat configuration.


2. Supercruise capability in standard air-combat configuration:

a. F/A-22: 1.68~1.72 Mach at 40,000 fts.

b. EF-2000: 1.2~1.3 Mach at 36,000 fts (The Eurojet wishs to improve it to 1.5 Mach class in the future).


Therefore, if the two fighters play the BVR engagement, I admit that F/A-22 will have the much better chance to win the game. It may need three or even more Eurofighters to conquer one F/A-22, just like the situation of M-4 Sherman v.s Tiger / Leopard in WWII...............

However, if the condition is WVR dogfight, when both fighters will equip HMD and NG SRAAM on them and EF-2000 has the comparable maneuverability to and smaller size than F/A-22, I don't think that F/A-22 will have the significantly better chance to win the game.........

Of course, if F/A-22 can finish most of its foe during the BVR engagement, then it would be almost meaningless to discuss the victory chance of the dogfight of nearly non-existence.............

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2005, 00:39
by LazyTed
Great post... What is the F-22 max speed in after burn?

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2005, 05:39
by toan
LazyTed wrote:Great post... what is the F-22 max speed in after burn?


Classified. The official declaration is Mach 2.0 +, but some military experts believe that it could reach Mach 2.5 at least.

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2005, 13:29
by calhoun
The P&W engineers told us the pilot was the limiting factor in the top speed.

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2005, 14:15
by agilefalcon16
toan wrote:
3. "The Eurofighter is certainly, as far as smoothness of controls and the ability to pull (and sustain high G forces), very impressive," he said. "That is what it was designed to do, especially the version I flew, with the avionics, the color moving map displays, etc. -- all absolutely top notch. The maneuverability of the airplane in close-in combat was also very impressive."


How well does the Viper compare with the two? I mean surely the Viper can't be that far off from the Typhoon's agility right? The Viper can also pull and sustain high G forces.

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2005, 15:40
by toan
Some factors for WVR engagement:

1. Empty weight:
# F/A-22: 18,500~19,500 kg
# EF-2000 Tranch I: 11,000 kg
# F-16E: 9,980 kg (Block 50 with F100-PW-229)
# F-16C: 8,710 kg (Block 60 with F110-GE-132)

2. Combat weight for dogfight (50% internal fuel + SRAAM*2 + gun shells + pilot*1)
# F/A-22: 23,100~24,100 kg
# EF-2000 Tranch I: 13,850 kg
# F-16E: 12,000 kg
# F-16C: 10,720 kg

3. Wing-surface area:
# F/A-22: 78.03 m2
# EF-2000: 50.00 m2
# F-16E: 27.87 m2
# F-16C: 27.87 m2

4. Thrust (AB / Max. Mil.):
# F-119-PW-100: 35,000~39,000 Ib / 25,500 Ib * 2 for F/A-22
# EJ-200: 20,250~22,275 Ib / 13,500~15,525 Ib * 2 for EF-2000
# F-110-GE-132: 32,000~34,000 Ib / 19,000 Ib * 1 for F-16E Block 60
# F-100-PW-229: 29,100 Ib / 17,800 Ib * 1 for F-16C Block 50

5. T/W ratio (AB / Max. Mil.), (4) / (2):
# F/A-22: 1.32 ~ 1.53 / 0.96 ~ 1.00
# EF-2000: 1.33 ~ 1.46 / 0.88 ~ 1.02
# F-16E: 1.21~ 1.29 / 0.72
# F-16C: 1.23 / 0.75

6. Wing-load, (2) / (3):
# F/A-22: 296~309 kg/m2
# EF-2000: 277 kg/m2
# F-16E: 430 kg/m2
# F-16C: 385 kg/m2

6. Subsonic unstability:
# F/A-22: Unknown
# EF-2000: -35% MAC or even less (IDR, 1998 April, Page5)
# F-16C/E: -5% MAC

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2005, 16:41
by toan
The estimation of F/A-22's empty weight today is from:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... rt-15.html

The F/A-22's empty weight today is around 40,000 Ib (18,144 kg) class.


http://www.pogo.org/m/dp/dp-fa22-Riccioni-03082005.pdf

Page2:
............To help maintain the cost limit and to ensure its extremely high performance, a weight limit was set at 50,000 lbs. The desires and constraints violated basic laws of physics and aeronautical engineering, and could not be met. The immediate results were that the weight (typically) swelled to 63,000 lbs..............

Page3:
..................The 26 percent increase in gross weight led to a wing loading and thrust-to-weight ratio that are totally comparable to those of the F-15C. That means there was no increase in performance or maneuverability for reasons of physics. The weight increase caused a decrease in fuel fraction from a very proper 36 percent to 29 percent.............


# The original requirement of the F-22's empty weight is 13,600 ~ 14,830 kg

# Fuel fraction of 36% (Original requirement) means that its internal fuel should be: 13,600 ~ 14,830 kg / 0.64 * 0.36 = 7,650 ~ 8,340 kg

# Fuel fraction of 29% (Actual performance now) means that the empty weight of F/A-22 now should be: 7,650 ~ 8,340 kg / 0.29 * 0.71 = 18,730 ~ 20,420 kg


According to the hints of these data, the empty weight of F/A-22 Raptor today should be within the range of 18,000 to 20,500 kg class, and personally I think the most reasonable number of F/A-22's empty weight today should be lied in the range of 18,500 ~ 19,500 kg.

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2005, 16:46
by calhoun
59K lbs is empty. 60K is max for our jacks, so we have to defuel it each time if it goes on jacks.

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2005, 00:29
by MATMACWC
I get to fight an F-22 tomorrow at Tyndall AFB. We'll see how a Block 50 does against a F-22. We are doing offensive and High aspect BFM. Probably gonna get my ars kicked, I'll let ya all know.

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2005, 02:36
by rookiepilot
I'm a new member here, but I have been out to EDWs, and have had the "pleasure" of speaking with a few guys. My question is does the f/a-22a, really have 25K lbs of internal fuel. That's more than the eagle with ext. tanks and, full internal. If so all I can is "WOW", talk about persistence!

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2005, 13:45
by regevmm
I get to fight an F-22 tomorrow at Tyndall AFB. We'll see how a Block 50 does against a F-22. We are doing offensive and High aspect BFM. Probably gonna get my ars kicked, I'll let ya all know.


Come on man , details , details , details :-)

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2005, 17:56
by Angels225
wonder what happened MATMACWC??
Neways..from the delay in your response i think ur recovering from it..

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2005, 02:48
by MATMACWC
Ol mother of all storms Katrina did me in. Briefed with em, stepped to fly with em, and then they hurrivaced...i.e. whent and hid their 130 million dollar airplanes somewhere else. US, well, we cut our combat archer 1 week short to run from the hurricane. We had to get a brief on AOA and line of sight, i.e. "It is nothing like you have seen before" eveidentally they do things a normal US fighter pilot has ever seen. They gave us some details but I'll leave it out, it is amazing!! Too bad, I think we'll get another chance soon..............

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2005, 07:17
by Angels225
Damn mother nature... somtimes its just downright bitchy.

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2005, 14:21
by catisfit
calhoun wrote:Pure annihilation. Goodbye Typhoon.

entropy wrote:YES!! The Typhoon would stand a slim chance. If the 16 and 15 can't, then the Typhoon can't either.

entropy wrote:What makes it better? Speed, maybe a little more agility. I know the Typhoon doesn't have thrust vectoring, and it essentially is a triangle with canards in the front. If it weren't for the computer controlling some of the functions, I don't think it would have the agility it has.


Only speed and agility? :)

I'm not sure that it being 'a triangle with canards in the front' makes it an inferior plane. :roll:

As for the computer controlling some of the functions, have you ever heard of fly-by-wire? Oh yes, it's on the F-16 too...

If you really believe that the (1979 vintage) F-16 is that close to the Eurofighter, then I sure hope I meet you over the battlefield in the future, so I can hand you your a$$ and prove to you what thirty years of development can do. :)

Number one rule is never underestimate your enemy, however strong your rose-tinted glasses are :lol:

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2005, 14:56
by boff180
catisfit wrote:
calhoun wrote:Pure annihilation. Goodbye Typhoon.

entropy wrote:YES!! The Typhoon would stand a slim chance. If the 16 and 15 can't, then the Typhoon can't either.

entropy wrote:What makes it better? Speed, maybe a little more agility. I know the Typhoon doesn't have thrust vectoring, and it essentially is a triangle with canards in the front. If it weren't for the computer controlling some of the functions, I don't think it would have the agility it has.


Only speed and agility? :)

I'm not sure that it being 'a triangle with canards in the front' makes it an inferior plane. :roll:

As for the computer controlling some of the functions, have you ever heard of fly-by-wire? Oh yes, it's on the F-16 too...

If you really believe that the (1979 vintage) F-16 is that close to the Eurofighter, then I sure hope I meet you over the battlefield in the future, so I can hand you your a$$ and prove to you what thirty years of development can do. :)

Number one rule is never underestimate your enemy, however strong your rose-tinted glasses are :lol:


Hmmm so thats why Typhoon (a 2 seater) took on 3 F-16s at once in singapore (WVR, confirmed by test reports) and beat them all with no kills against it. (and before anyone says, "yeah but its been dropped from competition" thats because the aircraft wasn't mature enough for them yet)

Unread postPosted: 01 Sep 2005, 02:27
by Roscoe
How is the pilot the limiting factor?

Unread postPosted: 01 Sep 2005, 06:27
by cru
Hmmm so thats why Typhoon (a 2 seater) took on 3 F-16s at once in singapore (WVR, confirmed by test reports) and beat them all with no kills against it. (and before anyone says, "yeah but its been dropped from competition" thats because the aircraft wasn't mature enough for them yet)


Did the f 16 employed JHMCS/AIM 9X or DASH/PIV combos in these WVR engagements? Somehow I doubt :devil:

Unread postPosted: 01 Sep 2005, 09:29
by boff180
cru wrote:
Did the f 16 employed JHMCS/AIM 9X or DASH/PIV combos in these WVR engagements? Somehow I doubt :devil:


No, but the Typhoon was yet to have its PIRATE/HMS installed and was only cleared to use 70% of the flight envelope (FCS software version installed) at the time.... but it was using ASRAAM.

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2005, 05:48
by cru
No, but the Typhoon was yet to have its PIRATE/HMS installed and was only cleared to use 70% of the flight envelope (FCS software version installed) at the time.... but it was using ASRAAM.


Pirate is a BVR device, it is irelevant in WVR

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2006, 15:46
by sprstdlyscottsmn
In Falcon 4.0 Allied Force (the new one) I have gunfought F-22s with a roughly 50% chance of surviving. The game accurately models the F-22s thrust vector and all its benefits/drawbacks. I find that the computer often closes to gun range at turning speeds, so i closed and supersonic speeds. A series of loops would then occur. The F-22 would lose speed slower than I would, but I had more speed to lose. The end result, I could get a gunzo kill on a raptor using a BLK 50 Viper. I once tried BVR 1v1, I was toasted everytime, never even saw the bugger. Once tried BVR with 1 F-16 (me), 1 F-14, 1 F-15, and 1 F/A-18. The AI did not use TWS effectively and the raptor only killed the Tomcat and the Hornet before I was in heater range of him and splashed him, but I call that a "no test" as the "system" did not function properly.

Unread postPosted: 15 Apr 2012, 23:55
by pants3204
Why exactly is the F-22 more maneuverable than the F-16? From what I understand, TVC only plays a role in post-stall maneuverability and supersonic flight. How would that affect, for example, agility during a dogfight? Is it the greater wing area? Avionics?

Unread postPosted: 16 Apr 2012, 00:26
by sprstdlyscottsmn
basically the higher thrust/weight of the raptor allow it to maintain speed better during turns above corner velocity and the thrust vectoring allow it to slow down (forcing an overshoot) or point the nose of the raptor at the viper regardless of direction of flight, assuming it has a few thousand feet to recover.

The F-16C Vs. the F-22A

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2013, 10:21
by avon1944
The original question of the F-22A Vs F-16C is best answered by an F-16C pilot, call-sign “VprWz1”, Back on Apr 17, 2005, he posted a great response on this topic. He had tried to fight the F-22, (that’s it he tried)! About a third of the way down page, “VprWz1” makes his one of several postings; F-22 maneuverability.
HTTP: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... bc383fa95f

Enjoy -Avon

RE: The F-16C Vs. the F-22A

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2013, 01:28
by geogen
Legacy F-16, devoid of decisive evolution and innovation and armed with similar a2a munitions will lose. Of course.

Although, that's more of a leadership and policy-making-related factor. :wink: God speed.

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2013, 20:49
by maddog2840
The HUD tape I want to see is that of the F-16 waxing the F-22. "If we can see you, we can kill you." Unless the Raptor pilot has his shields up. :poke: :beer:

Yes RaptorBois, it happened.

Re: F-16 vs. F-22

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2013, 02:15
by mixelflick
I spoke to one F-16 driver years ago, about dogfighting the Raptor.

Me: "What was it like?"
Him: "Must have been pretty fun for him. Was like clubbing baby seals..."