Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 01 Dec 2016, 19:46
by KamenRiderBlade
The F-22 Raptor Is the World's Best Fighter (And It Has a Secret Weapon That Is Out in the Open)
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the ... apon-18549

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 01 Dec 2016, 22:13
by basher54321
I take it the secret weapon is still a secret :P

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 01 Dec 2016, 22:56
by XanderCrews
But all the critics told me the F-22 had no use in Iraqastan style warfare...

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2016, 00:55
by les_paul59
The pilot's quote about sneaking up on the red air and using the gun is the most interesting part of this article for me.
It seems as if the more we hear about Lockheed 5th gen. capability the more I realize that the days of 2 planes dogfighting in a traditional "merge" or long gone. At least when a 5th gen. jet is involved.

The f-22/f-35 are going to slaughter jets in long range of they are gonna sneak up behind and just gun them down. In order for there to be a merge you would need an incompetent 5th gen. pilot and the red jet would have to be able to find them, which is rather unlikely.

It turns out that the gun could actually see more use in 5th gen. considering their ability to maneuver behind enemy targets unseen, In a 4th gen. vs. 4th gen. merge I would have to think that they would both use hobs heaters and kill each other simultaneously.

It doesn't seem like the raptor needs a helmet mounted cueing system, although it would be nice.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2016, 01:37
by KamenRiderBlade
Imagine what 5th gen with lasers can do.

=D

Sneak up, burn something down through a IR laser at the edge of WVR.

Nobody is the wiser as to who did the damage.

=D

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2016, 03:00
by vanshilar
KamenRiderBlade wrote:Imagine what 5th gen with lasers can do.

=D

Sneak up, burn something down through a IR laser at the edge of WVR.

Nobody is the wiser as to who did the damage.

=D


Probably a bad idea but I'm hoping right down the engine. You're there already anyway. There's so much stuff burning there that it'd be hard to figure out just what went wrong (i.e. an IR laser attack). As opposed to something like a hole in the wing which they'll see as soon as they come across the wreckage.

So if enemy planes suddenly started reporting engine problems (and America's adversaries are not exactly known for well-built engines)...probably means some 5th gen planes with lasers are in the area.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2016, 03:57
by count_to_10
vanshilar wrote:
KamenRiderBlade wrote:Imagine what 5th gen with lasers can do.

=D

Sneak up, burn something down through a IR laser at the edge of WVR.

Nobody is the wiser as to who did the damage.

=D


Probably a bad idea but I'm hoping right down the engine. You're there already anyway. There's so much stuff burning there that it'd be hard to figure out just what went wrong (i.e. an IR laser attack). As opposed to something like a hole in the wing which they'll see as soon as they come across the wreckage.

So if enemy planes suddenly started reporting engine problems (and America's adversaries are not exactly known for well-built engines)...probably means some 5th gen planes with lasers are in the area.

I don't think that would work well -- too much margin for heat on those parts. You want to burn a fuel tank or control actuator.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2016, 05:05
by vanshilar
count_to_10 wrote:I don't think that would work well -- too much margin for heat on those parts. You want to burn a fuel tank or control actuator.


I guess that's true...these engines were presumably built to withstand afterburner temperatures, and they won't be using afterburners if they don't know there's a 5th gen behind them.

Hmm...maybe focus the EM power of the AESA and burn out something in the FADEC? Or something else similar in the aircraft?

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2016, 06:45
by wrightwing
What's the Flashpoint for the pilot?

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2016, 10:43
by vanshilar
wrightwing wrote:What's the Flashpoint for the pilot?


Hahaha -- I was thinking the pilot may be difficult to reach if the 5th gen is on his tail. Although he's presumably easier to set on fire than the rest of the plane. I'm not sure to what extent people would want to directly target the pilot though.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2016, 17:00
by mixelflick
les_paul59 wrote:It turns out that the gun could actually see more use in 5th gen. considering their ability to maneuver behind enemy targets unseen, In a 4th gen. vs. 4th gen. merge I would have to think that they would both use hobs heaters and kill each other simultaneously.



Indeed.

And too often left unsaid: the gun is the ONLY air to air weapon that's impossible to jam...

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2016, 17:39
by XanderCrews
mixelflick wrote:
les_paul59 wrote:It turns out that the gun could actually see more use in 5th gen. considering their ability to maneuver behind enemy targets unseen, In a 4th gen. vs. 4th gen. merge I would have to think that they would both use hobs heaters and kill each other simultaneously.



Indeed.

And too often left unsaid: the gun is the ONLY air to air weapon that's impossible to jam...


Guns jam just fine on their own. :mrgreen:

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2016, 19:01
by sferrin
mixelflick wrote:
les_paul59 wrote:It turns out that the gun could actually see more use in 5th gen. considering their ability to maneuver behind enemy targets unseen, In a 4th gen. vs. 4th gen. merge I would have to think that they would both use hobs heaters and kill each other simultaneously.



Indeed.

And too often left unsaid: the gun is the ONLY air to air weapon that's impossible to jam...


Until the sun goes down. . .

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2016, 14:47
by mixelflick
"Until the sun goes down.."

Ah, but doesn't the F-35 have a nifty IR sensor and other things to shoot in the dark?

"Guns jam on their own"

Fair point. But do we really want to leave an F-35 pilot defenseless after expending her 2-4 AMRAAMS? It's not like she can run like a Raptor. I did read of supercruise of mach 1.2 without afterburner for 150 miles, but it's plausible that it could get run down by a lightly loaded Flanker. Certainly a PAK-FA/J-20 could do it with the right engines..

I'm no Pierre Sprey, but if I were the pilot of an F-35 - I'd want that gun pod..

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2016, 15:23
by flighthawk128
mixelflick wrote:"Until the sun goes down.."

Ah, but doesn't the F-35 have a nifty IR sensor and other things to shoot in the dark?

"Guns jam on their own"

Fair point. But do we really want to leave an F-35 pilot defenseless after expending her 2-4 AMRAAMS? It's not like she can run like a Raptor. I did read of supercruise of mach 1.2 without afterburner for 150 miles, but it's plausible that it could get run down by a lightly loaded Flanker. Certainly a PAK-FA/J-20 could do it with the right engines..

I'm no Pierre Sprey, but if I were the pilot of an F-35 - I'd want that gun pod..


Yup, EODAS and IRST should help with visual ID. Radar works in the dark anyhow...

If I recall correctly, there was an article with a quote about how everytime the Marines load up the Harriers (I think it was the Harriers... might have been another plane), the gun pod is always strapped on regardless of the mission. It'll probably be the same way with the F-35B, but it really comes down to how the brass want to manage the fleet, and it'll show through the tactics they employ. If they don't mind the tradeoffs that come with the gun pod, they'll always strap it on and make it work. If they're confident in whatever other shenanigans they come up with that don't need the gun pod, they'll do that.

As for defenseless after expending AMRAAMs, shoot and scoot tactics should make the F-35 hard as hell to find. The AMRAAMs have good range, and good pilots won't allow themselves to get within Red Air's radar range. Find target, track and lock, fire, bank and get the hell out of there. Repeat until out of missiles, then it's off to the FARP (for Marines) or carrier (for Marines and Navy) to rearm. No need for a gun, and you'll get extended mission range from the weight savings. Like I said, it's down to the tactics they want to use, and because the F-35 has that modularity, the tactics can switch depending on the situation.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2016, 15:33
by hornetfinn
mixelflick wrote:"Until the sun goes down.."

Ah, but doesn't the F-35 have a nifty IR sensor and other things to shoot in the dark?

"Guns jam on their own"

Fair point. But do we really want to leave an F-35 pilot defenseless after expending her 2-4 AMRAAMS? It's not like she can run like a Raptor. I did read of supercruise of mach 1.2 without afterburner for 150 miles, but it's plausible that it could get run down by a lightly loaded Flanker. Certainly a PAK-FA/J-20 could do it with the right engines..

I'm no Pierre Sprey, but if I were the pilot of an F-35 - I'd want that gun pod..


Well, F-35s tend to work as a wolfpacks and can also direct weapons from other sources like Aegis cruisers and 4th gen aircraft available. Running down one would mean coming to jaws of these systems. Of course running down an F-35 means you have to know where it is and this will be very hard to do.

Not that having a gun available would not be bad at all. But I think it'd be pretty meaningless if you are alone and enemy knows where you are and he has missiles to use and you only have a gun.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2016, 04:11
by condor1970
All this is a great discussion, but here's an even better article from the same website. One that in my opinion is far more important.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... ptor-18587

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2016, 19:59
by les_paul59
@Condor

I think all of us would like more raptors but that dream died when mr. 47 % lost in 2012. That article is a borderline f-35 hit piece. As we have heard from many pilots the f-35 is a beast in the subsonic range, it won't do the 60k feet super-cruising, but I would recommend against getting slow with an f-35. The f-35 is kinematically no slouch and a hot-rod when compared to 4th gen. jets in a combat configuration.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2016, 17:50
by mixelflick
Flying without the gun goes back to the Phantom days (up to the F-4E). I wonder if it's going to be difficult for pilots to fly without it. I know I'd be hesitant.

You mentioned tradeoffs in carrying the gun pod. What negatives do you see? Drag?? Compromises stealth??

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2016, 23:15
by structuresguy
flighthawk128 wrote:If I recall correctly, there was an article with a quote about how everytime the Marines load up the Harriers (I think it was the Harriers... might have been another plane), the gun pod is always strapped on regardless of the mission. It'll probably be the same way with the F-35B, but it really comes down to how the brass want to manage the fleet, and it'll show through the tactics they employ. If they don't mind the tradeoffs that come with the gun pod, they'll always strap it on and make it work. If they're confident in whatever other shenanigans they come up with that don't need the gun pod, they'll do that.



The Harrier has to fly with the gun or LID's in place. Without one or the other there's a hug penalty in engine efficiency during VTOL operations. Its common for them to fly with LID's instead of the gun when in a training environment.

Image

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2016, 05:50
by Corsair1963
les_paul59 wrote:@Condor

I think all of us would like more raptors but that dream died when mr. 47 % lost in 2012. That article is a borderline f-35 hit piece. As we have heard from many pilots the f-35 is a beast in the subsonic range, it won't do the 60k feet super-cruising, but I would recommend against getting slow with an f-35. The f-35 is kinematically no slouch and a hot-rod when compared to 4th gen. jets in a combat configuration.



Early F-15 Eagle Drivers thought the F-16 was not going to be that hard of an opponent. Only to find out the hard way! I think the same will be said of F-22 Pilots coming up against the F-35 Lightning.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2017, 05:57
by charlielima223

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2017, 17:31
by wrightwing
mixelflick wrote:"Until the sun goes down.."

Ah, but doesn't the F-35 have a nifty IR sensor and other things to shoot in the dark?

"Guns jam on their own"

Fair point. But do we really want to leave an F-35 pilot defenseless after expending her 2-4 AMRAAMS? It's not like she can run like a Raptor. I did read of supercruise of mach 1.2 without afterburner for 150 miles, but it's plausible that it could get run down by a lightly loaded Flanker. Certainly a PAK-FA/J-20 could do it with the right engines..

I'm no Pierre Sprey, but if I were the pilot of an F-35 - I'd want that gun pod..

Not a very likely scenario. F-35s would plink at adversaries outside of their detection range, and then move to safety. The supercruise figure, is using dry thrust, and that'sa conservative range estimate. If need be, the F-35 could fly M1.6, too. The only planes that could chase down an F-35 kinematically speaking, are the F-22, and Mig-31, and even then, it wouldn't be an easy task, if the F-35 had a 30-50nm headstart.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2017, 22:57
by arian
mixelflick wrote:"Until the sun goes down.."

Ah, but doesn't the F-35 have a nifty IR sensor and other things to shoot in the dark?

"Guns jam on their own"

Fair point. But do we really want to leave an F-35 pilot defenseless after expending her 2-4 AMRAAMS? It's not like she can run like a Raptor. I did read of supercruise of mach 1.2 without afterburner for 150 miles, but it's plausible that it could get run down by a lightly loaded Flanker. Certainly a PAK-FA/J-20 could do it with the right engines..


If you have to resort to your gun in an air combat these days, it's already too late.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2017, 16:53
by mixelflick
I keep hearing things like "if you need the gun, you did something horribly wrong". "BVR combat has increasingly been the case since Vietnam, etc".

I don't doubt either. What I am wondering is if the BVR kills in air to air combat (in the Gulf and elsewhere) have lulled us into a false sense of security. Take for example the middle east wars. In almost all cases, F-15/16 kills were against 3rd generation platforms like Mig-21/23/25's or early model 4th gens like the Mig-29. And in no case that I'm aware of were these aircraft flying with the latest RWR (or any RWR at all) and/or advanced countermeasures that might spoof an AMRAAM.

Am I mistaken in that view, or have there been confrontations with late model Mig-29's with advanced counter-measures?

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2017, 17:02
by XanderCrews
mixelflick wrote:Flying without the gun goes back to the Phantom days (up to the F-4E). I wonder if it's going to be difficult for pilots to fly without it. I know I'd be hesitant.

You mentioned tradeoffs in carrying the gun pod. What negatives do you see? Drag?? Compromises stealth??


You realize the USN and USMC were using "gunless " short nosed phantoms along with the UK until they retired the type in the 1990s? Even the F-4Sierra still didn't have a internal gun

Until just a few years ago south Korea was still using short nosed phantoms sans inside guns

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2017, 17:04
by XanderCrews
mixelflick wrote:I keep hearing things like "if you need the gun, you did something horribly wrong". "BVR combat has increasingly been the case since Vietnam, etc".

I don't doubt either. What I am wondering is if the BVR kills in air to air combat (in the Gulf and elsewhere) have lulled us into a false sense of security. Take for example the middle east wars. In almost all cases, F-15/16 kills were against 3rd generation platforms like Mig-21/23/25's or early model 4th gens like the Mig-29. And in no case that I'm aware of were these aircraft flying with the latest RWR (or any RWR at all) and/or advanced countermeasures that might spoof an AMRAAM.

Am I mistaken in that view, or have there been confrontations with late model Mig-29's with advanced counter-measures?



WVR kills have been missiles as well...

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2017, 17:14
by XanderCrews
mixelflick wrote:"Until the sun goes down.."

Ah, but doesn't the F-35 have a nifty IR sensor and other things to shoot in the dark?

"Guns jam on their own"

Fair point. But do we really want to leave an F-35 pilot defenseless after expending her 2-4 AMRAAMS? It's not like she can run like a Raptor. I did read of supercruise of mach 1.2 without afterburner for 150 miles, but it's plausible that it could get run down by a lightly loaded Flanker. Certainly a PAK-FA/J-20 could do it with the right engines..

I'm no Pierre Sprey, but if I were the pilot of an F-35 - I'd want that gun pod..


sweet Jesus it's not black and white. With cooperative engagement it's never out of missiles. In a world of HOBS going for a gun kill can end you. And I've been hearing the lack of disengagement talk going back to the Super Hornet.

We are talking about a very small slice of the F-35 "not having guns" which is horse puckey. They have guns they just go on the outside.

The bottom line is that there is always going to be someone who says" but but the gun!!"

I don't believe that even without a gun the pilot is utterly defenseless it doesn't work that way. This is becoming something akin to a magic feather or lucky socks.

The lack of a gun in nam wasn't the only issue either. People forget that. It was a lack of training and knowledge of how to employ ALL weapons, including missiles. The USN and USMC were still flying sans guns for decades later. Yet the kill ratios improved dramatically how is that so? Simple they learned how to fight.

Dogfights are going to exist but they will.look different. Just like 21st century infantry and tactics look different from 19th century infantry and tactics. It's infantry but not like that

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2017, 17:39
by zero-one
Fair points on all sides.

So lets talk the gun, should the F-35 have it?

It seems that we have a pretty fair amount of people that think that if you get into WVR ranges in an F-35 then you have a lot of explaining to do once you land, its almost a crime.

But from what the F-22 has been through, this doesn't seem to be the case, the Raptor has gone to WVR ranges just because it can. Because the green light to engage isn't always there.

Today the F-22 regularly goes into air intercept missions closing into visual range with the confidence that it can rely on a gun IF needed.

The F-35 will be pitted in similar scenarios if it is needed. Now imagine being in an F-35 with no gun, you're now in perfect firing position on a bandit that has no idea that you're there. You we're suddenly ordered to shoot.

It's simple you let loose your million dollar AMRAAM D and watch the fire works. but if you had the gun, you could've spent less than $1000 on 25mm API rounds with the same effect.

An interview with veteran ace William P. Driscoll caught him saying, we will always need the knife, Spear is good, I'll use the spear, but give me a knife, I'll need it eventually.

It's better to have something and never need it than to need something but never have it

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2017, 19:48
by XanderCrews
zero-one wrote:Fair points on all sides.

So lets talk the gun, should the F-35 have it?

It seems that we have a pretty fair amount of people that think that if you get into WVR ranges in an F-35 then you have a lot of explaining to do once you land, its almost a crime.

But from what the F-22 has been through, this doesn't seem to be the case, the Raptor has gone to WVR ranges just because it can. Because the green light to engage isn't always there.

Today the F-22 regularly goes into air intercept missions closing into visual range with the confidence that it can rely on a gun IF needed.

The F-35 will be pitted in similar scenarios if it is needed. Now imagine being in an F-35 with no gun, you're now in perfect firing position on a bandit that has no idea that you're there. You we're suddenly ordered to shoot.

It's simple you let loose your million dollar AMRAAM D and watch the fire works. but if you had the gun, you could've spent less than $1000 on 25mm API rounds with the same effect.

An interview with veteran ace William P. Driscoll caught him saying, we will always need the knife, Spear is good, I'll use the spear, but give me a knife, I'll need it eventually.

It's better to have something and never need it than to need something but never have it


Then you use the missile. The cost is irrelevant. I see the gun like any other piece of ordnance. I think of a million scenarios where a situation could arise but the optimal piece of ordnance isn't on the aircraft. What if you need a cluster bomb? JDAM? Laser? B-61? What if?!
What if you need 2 guns? Or triple the rounds?! What if?


You adjust. And cost should not be the prime motivation. It's nice to save money but it's not a primary driver.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2017, 02:02
by arian
WVR doesn't mean gun engagement. An AMRAAM is still plenty capable in WVR. In fact, most of its kills thus far have been technically WVR (however you want to define that. It does't mean you can actually see the other guy, but are within some relatively short distance).

Gun engagement between 2 fighters means you're getting into a turning fight within a few hundred feet of each other. Which is something that hasn't happened since the 1970s Middle East wars.

Of course saying it hasn't happened isn't much of an argument, but rather serves to illustrate that missiles have gotten so much better since then, that every other engagement WVR for the last 40 years has been with AAM rather than guns. Except for engagements against things like helicopters, drones, turboprops and others.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2017, 16:14
by zero-one
XanderCrews wrote:
Then you use the missile. The cost is irrelevant. I see the gun like any other piece of ordnance. I think of a million scenarios where a situation could arise but the optimal piece of ordnance isn't on the aircraft. What if you need a cluster bomb? JDAM? Laser? B-61? What if?!
What if you need 2 guns? Or triple the rounds?! What if?


You adjust. And cost should not be the prime motivation. It's nice to save money but it's not a primary driver.



The cost is not the deciding factor, but in most of the scenario's the the F-22 has been involved in when intercepting an unsuspecting prey, the gun is the best most cost effective weapon for the job.

If pilots were simply forced to work with what they have, then who needs DAS? who needs the HMD, who needs HOBS missiles? the F-22 dominates WVR turning dogfights without all of these.

But you equip your planes to prepare them for every possible scenario.

The notion that we should scrap the gun simply because we haven't used it in so long is irrelevant. There hasn't been a mass scale air to air war in so long as well.

Desert Storm and Allied Force are poor indicators of future trends since non of those operations had the backing of the Russians or the Chinese with an industrial base to support their air campaign.

What happens when your enemy is flying with LO or VLO aircraft as well, all of a sudden having a gun doesn't seem so crazy anymore when detection ranges have been reduced from hundreds of miles to a few dozen.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2017, 16:40
by garrya
zero-one wrote:If pilots were simply forced to work with what they have, then who needs DAS? who needs the HMD, who needs HOBS missiles? the F-22 dominates WVR turning dogfights without all of these.

Assuming fight at visual range
F-22 without HOBS and HMD will not be able to beat an F-16 (or even F-5) with HOBS missiles and HMD

zero-one wrote:The notion that we should scrap the gun simply because we haven't used it in so long is irrelevant. There hasn't been a mass scale air to air war in so long as well

Technically speaking, your aircraft should carry all kind of weapons because there are specific situation that each of them would perform best in. There is no weapon that can be the most suitable in all situation
However, every design have a trade off, if you put a gun on aircraft then it likely that you have to remove something else to fit the weapon there, the space could either be used for fuel , electric equipment or decoys..etc. The bottom line is designer will put things that they deemed most valuable and remove things that less necessary.
For example: modern soldiers on battle field do not have full body plate armor like the medieval knight, so if they were in a knife fight or hand combat fight (assuming their gun does not work or run out of bullet), they would die pretty quick. But you dont see any one complaint about that.

zero-one wrote:What happens when your enemy is flying with LO or VLO aircraft as well, all of a sudden having a gun doesn't seem so crazy anymore when detection ranges have been reduced from hundreds of miles to a few dozen.

There always WVR missiles orIR sensor
In future you can use laser weapon or may be released a swarm of mini drones ..etc r anyways iam not saying gun are useless but they are far less useful than people giving them credit for

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2017, 17:19
by botsing
zero-one wrote:The cost is not the deciding factor, but in most of the scenario's the the F-22 has been involved in when intercepting an unsuspecting prey, the gun is the best most cost effective weapon for the job.

...

The notion that we should scrap the gun simply because we haven't used it in so long is irrelevant. There hasn't been a mass scale air to air war in so long as well.

In the end it is down to statistics.

Having the gun on the F-35A version gives these issues:

* Extra maintenance
* Extra complexity
* Extra logistics (spare parts, gun rounds, manufacturing capacity, people knowing how to perform maintenance and loading)
* Extra weight
* Extra drag
* Less internal space

You bring these issues with you on EVERY flight that you make, in war and peacetime. Since this is not directly visible for most people it gives the impression that the gun practically comes for free, which it aint.

However, it is harder to get statistics about mobility/mission/catastrophic kills that are caused by the issues stated here.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2017, 17:31
by SpudmanWP
botsing wrote:Having the gun on the F-35A version gives these issues: * Extra ....


All three services were given the same list to make their decisions. The USAF decided that having it for "their" mission set offset the issues while the USN/USMC decided that for "their" mission set, the range was more important.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2017, 17:36
by zero-one
garrya wrote:Assuming fight at visual range
F-22 without HOBS and HMD will not be able to beat an F-16 (or even F-5) with HOBS missiles and HMD


Ow but it has

https://fightersweep.com/2526/helmet-mo ... -the-f-22/
Without JHMCS or HMIT, the F-22 has already shown it can fare just fine. In an engagement eight years ago, two F-22s were to take off and engage eight F-15Cs from the 65 AGRS, all equipped with AIM-9X and JHMCS. One of the Raptors ground-aborted, so the second jet took off single-ship as fragged. The engagement started beyond visual range and finished within visual range, with the Raptor killing all eight of its opponents before any were able to even get a shot off.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2017, 17:42
by zero-one
botsing wrote:Having the gun on the F-35A version gives these issues:

* Extra maintenance
* Extra complexity
* Extra logistics (spare parts, gun rounds, manufacturing capacity, people knowing how to perform maintenance and loading)
* Extra weight
* Extra drag
* Less internal space

You bring these issues with you on EVERY flight that you make, in war and peacetime. Since this is not directly visible for most people it gives the impression that the gun practically comes for free, which it aint.

However, it is harder to get statistics about mobility/mission/catastrophic kills that are caused by the issues stated here.


Every piece of equipment you put on plane has that, but I don't see any complaints about the DAS system which has all of the above aforementioned issues and more, not to mention that it cost so much more than the gun.

By the way, for the F-22 the gun doesn't add extra drag and for the F-35 B and C it doesn't lessen internal space.

Ironically, an F-35 without a gun pod is actually better at dog fighting due to the increased weight and drag caused by the pod. Just wanted to be unbiased on that bit.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2017, 17:47
by vanshilar
zero-one wrote:But you equip your planes to prepare them for every possible scenario.


No. You equip them to prepare them for every possible scenario to the extent that it's practical to. And that's the part that's always stupid about "but what happens if it runs out of missiles?" hypothetical scenarios. A plane can *always* run out of missiles, it can *always* run out of bullets, no plane has an unlimited weapons capacity (even though Gilmore likes to single out the F-35 for its "limited weapons capacity" on internal-only).

You have to balance out the usefulness of a gun (or anything else) with how much it affects the rest of the plane during all the other times when it's not being used and is simply dead weight. So maybe there's that one-in-a-thousand situation where you'd have rather lodged a bullet in the other plane's tailpipe instead of firing an expensive missile at it. Does it make sense to carry a gun around all the time for that rare scenario when it means that you end up dropping perfectly usable weapons into the ocean in order to get the plane light enough to land on a carrier (i.e. "bringback weight"), or end up not being able to carry other weapons which are much more likely to be used due to that bringback weight? Does it make sense to carry a gun around all the time if it limits your weapons payload or onboard fuel to do short takeoffs, thus reducing the range of your airplane, or its effectiveness, or needing to have more tankers around to fuel it up once it gets airborne? And so forth.

So instead of just bringing up these hypothetical scenarios, if you want to argue that they're worth considering, you also should justify how often they come up, and to what extent they decrease the plane's performance by accounting for them.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2017, 18:11
by XanderCrews
zero-one wrote:
The cost is not the deciding factor, but in most of the scenario's the the F-22 has been involved in when intercepting an unsuspecting prey, the gun is the best most cost effective weapon for the job.



So?

If pilots were simply forced to work with what they have, then who needs DAS? who needs the HMD, who needs HOBS missiles? the F-22 dominates WVR turning dogfights without all of these.


False comparison is false. Saying not all F-35s need cannons at all times is not the same as stripping the aircraft of avionics.

But you equip your planes to prepare them for every possible scenario
.

Nope! And even then we are talking about a preference in this case as in guns or missile? Result is the same oh and AGAIN no is saying F-35 can't or shouldn't have guns. It has A F**KING gun built into it. The ones that don't can strap one on. What's the issue?


The notion that we should scrap the gun simply because we haven't used it in so long is irrelevant. There hasn't been a mass scale air to air war in so long as well.


Who is saying to scrap it? What we are saying is that the aircraft should be equipped with it to extent that it is needed.


Desert Storm and Allied Force are poor indicators of future trends since non of those operations had the backing of the Russians or the Chinese with an industrial base to support their air campaign.


Wrong. And by that notion Vietnam is an even worse indicator as its an aberration and a much older example. The gun kills have not happened since...


What happens when your enemy is flying with LO or VLO aircraft as well, all of a sudden having a gun doesn't seem so crazy anymore when detection ranges have been reduced from hundreds of miles to a few dozen.



But it has a gun...

And yes it is crazy. Bringing a gun to a missile fight is as brilliant as a knife to a gun fight. Just because you are out of missiles doesn't mean they are. But since you are determined to find trouble where there isn't any. I have no idea what the point of this whole thing is.

Don't know if I'm losing my patience or if the whole forum is having reading comprehension issues. Probably me.

Look I'm a grunt by trade. We have been at war for 15 years. We've lost thousands of troops. Crap happens war is not ideal. Not everyone comes back. Even Navy SEALs and. DELTA our best and most supported take casualties. But the amount of hand wringing and worry that goes into SOME In fact a minority of F-35s will even have guns optional... it's ridiculous.

You can't prepare for everything. Our most elite, best equipped people with years of prep don't all come back. It's war. We probably lose more aircraft to attrition every year than we lost over nam to a lack of guns. But everyone can't bury that ghost

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2017, 18:24
by zero-one
Okay Xander, I thought you were one of the guys arguing that the gun should be removed. It has a gun, lets keep it that way, the gun is cheap, it's not too heavy and it's reliable. So why do we need to take it out.

Also how was I wrong when saying that operations DS and AF were not good indicators of future high end conflicts? Are we really expecting a hypothetical war against China or Russia or both to be as easy as those 2?

Well? are they good indicators of a full spectrum war?

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2017, 18:29
by XanderCrews
zero-one wrote:Every piece of equipment you put on plane has that, but I don't see any complaints about the DAS system which has all of the above aforementioned issues and more, not to mention that it cost so much more than the gun.


It's because the DAS system will be used every minute an F-35 is flying and is far more likelyou to bring the pilot home unscathed while increasing lethality, while an F-35 may never fire it's gun in air to air combat it's entire lifespan. It's not the same thing. And it's not the same comparison. stop trying to compare highly specific weapon systems with avionics.


And yes desert storm and kosovo are both important to study and look at and luckily people do. If you think that was "easy" you need to read up. I would say they were full spectrum even if the scale was comparatively small.

Full spectrum air ops were involved in both. EW, attack, air to air, SEAD, deep strike, you name it.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2017, 18:45
by zero-one
But the F-35 will survive without DAS just like how the F-22 is, the F-22 IS DOMINANT without DAS, HMDs and EOTS.

So if the issue is with the cost, complexity, maintainability and weight of the gun. then the same can be said with DAS, HMD and EOTS.

The F-35 will still dominate without them, just like the F-22 did.

Also yes, DS and AF were easy comparatively speaking or rather "easier".

Because unlike Nam, Korea and WW2, those 2 conflicts didn't have:
-the backing of peer adversaries (USSR and China).
-industrial base to sustain an air campaign
-RnD facilities to keep up in pace with an opponent.
-massive financial backing to keep the whole thing running.

They were not Easy by any means but "easier" and we can't simply expect a war with China to be similar to ODS or OAF

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2017, 18:49
by SpudmanWP
XanderCrews wrote:an F-35 may never fire it's gun in air to air combat it's entire lifespan.


The gun will be used in CAS too, not just A2A.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2017, 19:08
by XanderCrews
zero-one wrote:But the F-35 will survive without DAS just like how the F-22 is, the F-22 IS DOMINANT without DAS, HMDs and EOTS.

So if the issue is with the cost, complexity, maintainability and weight of the gun. then the same can be said with DAS, HMD and EOTS.


No its not the same thing. You utterly miss the point.

They are not the same aircraft, and they have different tasks. I can't tell if you are playing Devils advocate or if you are really this thick.

More guns, less electronics because F-22?? Stop.

The F-35 will still dominate without them, just like the F-22 did.


No. F-22s have more power, thrust vectoring, operate at higher altitudes and are built to kill airplanes the F-35 is different. This should be obvious.

Moreover the purpose of these systems it to create an ISR picture that is shared throughout the force. The F-35 is also an Intel asset. It's a spy plane essentially. It's also anot EW and SEAD asset. The F-22 has to be great against airplanes. F-35 has to be great against EVERYTHING

Also yes, DS and AF were easy comparatively speaking or rather "easier".


Again. Read up. If it was "easy" it's because a lot of hard work made it look that way.


Because unlike Nam, Korea and WW2, those 2 conflicts didn't have:
-the backing of peer adversaries (USSR and China).
-industrial base to sustain an air campaign
-RnD facilities to keep up in pace with an opponent.
-massive financial backing to keep the whole thing running.


You are confusing the strategic with the tactical. Are we talking air combat and guns or national sustainablility for large scale war? Big difference.


They were not Easy by any means but "easier" and we can't simply expect a war with China to be similar to ODS or OAF


Did I say it would be easier? I wasnt even willing to concede that kosovo was easy and now you are putting words in my mouth that china would be easy?


The lessons certainly apply to bigger wars even if the scale differs.

Read a damn book about kosovo and GWI in the air. Rather than actually look at this stuff you would rather argue with me. In the meantime people in uniform are using the info and lessons learned to be more lethal in case of wider conflict. And BTW what wars do you think our opponents study as well?

To review you are saying on one hand we need to remember Vietnam 50 years ago, and on the other "we can't expect a war with China to be like oaf and ods"?? Ok but it will be like nam in the 1960s?

I'm sorry but you don't seem to understand your assertions. I'm posting from my mobile so I can't go into long patient paragraphs that explain it. But you are basically saying if you don't think it's important than it is not. And I'm telling you the world views it very differently.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2017, 19:38
by arian
zero-one wrote:The cost is not the deciding factor, but in most of the scenario's the the F-22 has been involved in when intercepting an unsuspecting prey, the gun is the best most cost effective weapon for the job.


Having to get within a few hundred feet of an opponent to use a gun can't possibly be the best weapon in such a scenario.

Having a gun is fine. But it's about the equivalent of carrying a side arm as a tanker. It's there, but you're never going to use it.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2017, 19:44
by zero-one
calm down, you're letting emotions get the best of you here.

First off, I'm not saying "more guns less avionics".
What I'm saying is, if you want to scrap the gun because of cost, weight, complexity and the fact that it's likely not to be needed anyway, then that argument applies to DAS, HMD and EOTS as well.

An F-35 without those will still have Stealth, AESA and RWR and EW, still have Hornet like maneuverability and Viper like Smash.

And it's not as if the F-22 dominated only because of superior kinematics, Thrust vectoring and super cruise capabilities, remember Chip said those are the "least most impressive aspects of the Raptor".

So in retrospect, an F-35 with Stealth and AESA and RWR should offer roughly the same amount of success in the air.

But what about the A2G part, well carry the SNIPER system in the stealth pod.

Now going back to ODS, yes a lot of hardwork did go into it, including a lot of political work to make sure that the Russians or Chinese would not support Saddam.

Just look at Syria now, its supposed to be easier than ODS but because of Russian backing, Assad still sits there.

Xandercrews wrote:To review you are saying on one hand we need to remember Vietnam 50 years ago, and on the other "we can't expect a war with China to be like oaf and ods"?? Ok but it will be like nam in the 1960s?


Exactly, because the problem with ODS is not the fact that it was done 26 years ago, the problem is that it was against an isolated Iraq with no backing from any of the major powers.

Vietnam on the other hand had backing, Syria has backing. Thats why when you say, the likelihood of WVR has gone down, this is partly attributed to the fact that none of the targets shot down in recent conflicts were anywhere near the top tier threat.

The most advanced aircraft shot down by Western aircraft recently is the Mig-29 and that is considered the budget point defense fighter by the VVS. And of those Fulcrums, none had the top end EW, RWR and MWR systems offered by the east, some didn't even have them at all.

Thats what made it so much easier. Can you imagine how much more difficult ODS would have been if Russia decided to support Saddam and supply Iraq with top of the line Flankers or Fulcrums.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2017, 21:34
by XanderCrews
zero-one wrote:calm down, you're letting emotions get the best of you here.


No I'm actually letting historical fact guide me, which is clearly going to lead to frustration when debating those who don't know the differences.

First off, I'm not saying "more guns less avionics".
What I'm saying is, if you want to scrap the gun because of cost, weight, complexity and the fact that it's likely not to be needed anyway, then that argument applies to DAS, HMD and EOTS as well.


1. No one is saying scrap the gun.
2. DAS, HMD, and EOTS are used constantly. Where as guns are used rarely. I can't make that any clearer. The HMD works the second the jet comes on to the second its shut down. explain how the gun fires from start to finish.

An F-35 without those will still have Stealth, AESA and RWR and EW, still have Hornet like maneuverability and Viper like Smash.


Those sensors are what evaluate and guide the RWR and EW. in the case of DAS it is a part of the warning system

And it's not as if the F-22 dominated only because of superior kinematics, Thrust vectoring and super cruise capabilities, remember Chip said those are the "least most impressive aspects of the Raptor".


It would be missing out on the sensor fusion that gives massive advantages, but at this point you are welcome to believe whatever you want. Its clear you have made up your mind, and facts are superfluous. Berke also said "and its really fast"

So in retrospect, an F-35 with Stealth and AESA and RWR should offer roughly the same amount of success in the air.


The USAF disagrees.

But what about the A2G part, well carry the SNIPER system in the stealth pod.


A sniper pod is not sensor fusion. A sniper pod is not equivalent to the myriad of sensors that paint a much clearer picture. Pods are 4th generation systems. F-35 is fifth generation. A pod is not the same thing. The same pod limitations will apply.

Now going back to ODS, yes a lot of hardwork did go into it, including a lot of political work to make sure that the Russians or Chinese would not support Saddam.

Just look at Syria now, its supposed to be easier than ODS but because of Russian backing, Assad still sits there.


yet the Russians didn't support Saddam and still he sat there until a second war 10 years later displaced him. Syria is a mess I don't know anyone who was saying it would be "easier" So Assad is still there thanks to Russian backing and Saddam was there even though Russia didn't back him. hmm. so this theory is a coin toss.



Exactly, because the problem with ODS is not the fact that it was done 26 years ago, the problem is that it was against an isolated Iraq with no backing from any of the major powers.

Vietnam on the other hand had backing, Syria has backing. Thats why when you say, the likelihood of WVR has gone down, this is partly attributed to the fact that none of the targets shot down in recent conflicts were anywhere near the top tier threat.

The most advanced aircraft shot down by Western aircraft recently is the Mig-29 and that is considered the budget point defense fighter by the VVS. And of those Fulcrums, none had the top end EW, RWR and MWR systems offered by the east, some didn't even have them at all.

Thats what made it so much easier. Can you imagine how much more difficult ODS would have been if Russia decided to support Saddam and supply Iraq with top of the line Flankers or Fulcrums.



You are confusing the tactical with the strategic again. Are we talking guns and sensors or politics and national war making capabilities? Even if Iraq had "top of the line Flankers" there would be people dismissing any victory against them as not worth noting, just as you are doing with Kosovo and the 1991 war. in 1991 Flankers and fulcrums were pretty top of the line anyway last I checked...

Are we talking strategic or tactical? you keep swtiching back and forth. Guns and tactics and sensors are all tactical. We can talk about that and the tactical lessons of IRaq and Kosovo (of which there are many) but you dismiss them for strategic reasons. Again we apply the tactical lessons, we scale them up as best we can. An alpha strike is an alpha strike whether its flown against the Serbs or the Chinese the tactical lessons are still valuable.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2017, 03:43
by garrya
zero-one wrote:Ow but it has

https://fightersweep.com/2526/helmet-mo ... -the-f-22/
Without JHMCS or HMIT, the F-22 has already shown it can fare just fine. In an engagement eight years ago, two F-22s were to take off and engage eight F-15Cs from the 65 AGRS, all equipped with AIM-9X and JHMCS. One of the Raptors ground-aborted, so the second jet took off single-ship as fragged. The engagement started beyond visual range and finished within visual range, with the Raptor killing all eight of its opponents before any were able to even get a shot off.

You forgot that the fight started from BVR not from WVR
which mean F-22 with its stealth capabilities can literally just sneak behind them and shot them down instead of trying to dogfight with them. Since they not gonna launch real missiles , a lock will count as a shot down., even if the fight end in visual range doesnot mean they actually dogfight each others. Otherwise, not even the F-22 will be able to turn fast enough to go out of FoV of another aircraft equipped with HOBS missiles and HMS

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2017, 03:49
by garrya
zero-one wrote:What I'm saying is, if you want to scrap the gun because of cost, weight, complexity and the fact that it's likely not to be needed anyway, then that argument applies to DAS, HMD and EOTS as well.
.

That hardly apply in this case since DAS and EOTS contribute significantly for SA of the F-35, like one of its most important aspect. Remove them while keeping the gun is like get rid of soldier ear and nose while giving him a pocket knife.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2017, 08:09
by charlielima223
garrya wrote:. Otherwise, not even the F-22 will be able to turn fast enough to go out of FoV of another aircraft equipped with HOBS missiles and HMS


An aircraft with a HMS and HOBs doesn't mean it will instantly win the engagements. Granted it will greatly improve their ability to engage but it still requires them to be within an acceptable weapons envelope to properly employ.

Now I don't know if this Eagle pilot had JHMCs and an Xray sidewinder but...

http://www.acc.af.mil/News/Features/Dis ... -flag.aspx

"I can't see the [expletive deleted] thing," said RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, exchange F-15 pilot in the 65th Aggressor Squadron. "It won't let me put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it visually through the canopy. [Flying against the F-22] annoys the hell out of me."

Lt. Col. Larry Bruce, 65th AS commander, admits flying against the Raptor is a very frustrating experience. Reluctantly, he admitted "it's humbling to fly against the F-22," - humbling, not only because of its stealth, but also its unmatched maneuverability and power.


I would think that if you can maneuver hard and fast enough you can still give a fighter aircraft with a HOBs missile and a pilot with an HMS/D would still give them a run for their money.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2017, 09:33
by garrya
charlielima223 wrote:An aircraft with a HMS and HOBs doesn't mean it will instantly win the engagements. Granted it will greatly improve their ability to engage but it still requires them to be within an acceptable weapons envelope to properly employ.
Now I don't know if this Eagle pilot had JHMCs and an Xray sidewinder but...
http://www.acc.af.mil/News/Features/Dis ... -flag.aspx

I would think that if you can maneuver hard and fast enough you can still give a fighter aircraft with a HOBs missile and a pilot with an HMS/D would still give them a run for their money.

Firsty, you just posted exactly what Zeroone posted
Secondly, F-22 is certainly maneuver but not that maneuver,
Image
viewtopic.php?f=55&t=25735&start=375
it can have higher turn rate of 1-2 degrees again legacy aircraft but that is not enough to overwhelm the advantage of having HBOS missiles and HMD. And it not like F-22 never lose to aircraft with inferior agility before. Quite a bit of them get shot down by T-38 in exercise you know
Image

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2017, 11:05
by zero-one
garrya wrote:You forgot that the fight started from BVR not from WVR
which mean F-22 with its stealth capabilities can literally just sneak behind them and shot them down instead of trying to dogfight with them. Since they not gonna launch real missiles , a lock will count as a shot down., even if the fight end in visual range doesnot mean they actually dogfight each others. Otherwise, not even the F-22 will be able to turn fast enough to go out of FoV of another aircraft equipped with HOBS missiles and HMS


garrya wrote:which mean F-22 with its stealth capabilities can literally just sneak behind them and shot them down instead of trying to dogfight with them. Since they not gonna launch real missiles , a lock will count as a shot down., even if the fight end in visual range doesnot mean they actually dogfight each others. Otherwise, not even the F-22 will be able to turn fast enough to go out of FoV of another aircraft equipped with HOBS missiles and HMS


Hold on there was no mention of the F-22 sneaking up unsuspectingly on the Eagles to avoid dog fighting.
quite the opposite as the Eagle pilot said:

I can't see the [expletive deleted] thing," said RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, exchange F-15 pilot in the 65th Aggressor Squadron. "It won't let me put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it visually through the canopy. [Flying against the F-22] annoys the hell out of me."

Lt. Col. Larry Bruce, 65th AS commander, admits flying against the Raptor is a very frustrating experience. Reluctantly, he admitted "it's humbling to fly against the F-22," - humbling, not only because of its stealth, but also its unmatched maneuverability and power.



To me, that means that the Raptor was in the Eagle's weapons engagement cone but the 9x and other sensors still couldn't
see it, so for that moment, the Raptor was on the defensive and was trying to turn the tables

and in that last bit he was also very impressed with the Raptor's maneuverability and power not just stealth, why?
because it snuck up on him and killed him without him knowing it?

I think he probably got into a turning fight and got beaten the old fashioned way.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2017, 12:03
by zero-one
XanderCrews wrote:Are we talking strategic or tactical? you keep swtiching back and forth. Guns and tactics and sensors are all tactical. We can talk about that and the tactical lessons of IRaq and Kosovo (of which there are many) but you dismiss them for strategic reasons. Again we apply the tactical lessons, we scale them up as best we can. An alpha strike is an alpha strike whether its flown against the Serbs or the Chinese the tactical lessons are still valuable.


We are actually discussing 2 related things

1. Some people (apparently not you, which was my mistake) are saying that we can scrap the gun to save weight, cut cost, complexity etc.

What I said is that the same argument applies to DAS, EOTS and HMD. The argument starts when you put it as if the F-35 will be useless without those. I tend to disagree, an F-35 with just a regular HUD will simply be a slower, less agile Raptor.

And since Chip said that speed and maneuverability were the "least most impressive" thing about the F-22, then an F-35 with less of the least most impressive thing about it should be just fine.

but what about A-G, I remember reading here that someone form LM said
"the F-22 is the best Strike plane not called F-35 and the F-35 is the best air superiority fighter not called F-22

if thats true then a DAS less, HMD less and EOTS less F-35 with a SNIPER system on a Stealth pod shouldn't be bad.

2. Other people have made the argument that since we haven't used the gun since the 80s and since trends show that dogfights are going down then maybe we can finally get rid of it.

Well my response was that, the quality of opponents fought recently may be responsible for the trends. the threats being faced in the air are easier (comparatively speaking) than the threats faced before.

top of the line means not watered down versions of the threat and no we have never faced a top tier, upgraded and fully supported threat for a long long time, not since Vietnam, maybe not even then.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2017, 12:39
by garrya
zero-one wrote:Hold on there was no mention of the F-22 sneaking up unsuspectingly on the Eagles to avoid dog fighting

There was 8 Eagle and 1 F-22 according to the article. Had the F-22 did not sneak up on them in dogfight it will lose

zero-one wrote:quite the opposite as the Eagle pilot said:
To me, that means that the Raptor was in the Eagle's weapons engagement cone but the 9x and other sensors still couldn't
see it, so for that moment, the Raptor was on the defensive and was trying to turn the tables

and in that last bit he was also very impressed with the Raptor's maneuverability and power not just stealth, why?
because it snuck up on him and killed him without him knowing it? I think he probably got into a turning fight and got beaten the old fashioned way.

The best i could deduce from what he said is that even at WVR, his radar cannot lock onto F-22.However, there is no reason to wgy AIM-9X sensor cannot lock on to F-22. It is not invisible in IR spectrum, especially at close range and full AB.The aircraft may be very maneuverable but it won't turn faster than pilot or sensor head. Given the fact that they won't actually launch the AIM-9X ,only a sensor lock is required. I dont see how F-22 without HOBS missiles and HMD can defeat F-15 with those accessories in WVR.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2017, 13:02
by zero-one
garrya wrote:The best i could deduce from what he said is that even at WVR, his radar cannot lock onto F-22.However, there is no reason to wgy AIM-9X sensor cannot lock on to F-22. It is not invisible in IR spectrum, especially at close range and full AB.The aircraft may be very maneuverable but it won't turn faster than pilot or sensor head. Given the fact that they won't actually launch the AIM-9X ,only a sensor lock is required. I dont see how F-22 without HOBS missiles and HMD can defeat F-15 with those accessories in WVR.


The F-22 does have IR reduction as well, it is stealthy in 3 ways, Radar, IR and Electronic emissions. So giving the 9X's sensor a hard time to lock on, or making it's own flares more effective is a possibility.

And how can you not see an F-22 defeating an F-15 with HMD and HOBS? it already did, it beat 8 of them (granted that not all were WVR). The combination of Stealth (in 3 aspects) and far superior speed and maneuverability, not just by 1 or 2 degrees because according to some Raptor pilots its 28 degrees at 20K feet which is almost double of what an Eagle can do.

weather thats true or not can be debated here
viewtopic.php?f=33&t=25385&start=15
but if it is, it gives the F-22 a fighting chance against a HMD/HOBS carrying opponent

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2017, 14:34
by garrya
zero-one wrote:
The F-22 does have IR reduction as well

Yes iam well aware of that but no amount of IR reduction measure can hide the full AB flame at close range

zero-one wrote:And how can you not see an F-22 defeating an F-15 with HMD and HOBS?

I have no problem believe that F-22 can defeat F-15 from BVR with its stealth. But at close range, a F-22 without HBOS, HMS will lose to an F-15 with those things 9 times out of 10
zero-one wrote:it already did, it beat 8 of them (granted that not all were WVR). The combination of Stealth (in 3 aspects) and far superior speed and maneuverability, not just by 1 or 2 degrees because according to some Raptor pilots its 28 degrees at 20K feet which is almost double of what an Eagle can do.
weather thats true or not can be debated here
viewtopic.php?f=33&t=25385&start=15
but if it is, it gives the F-22 a fighting chance against a HMD/HOBS carrying opponentn

TBH, i really doubt the legit of that claim, it likely to be the same pedal turn as on F-35 rather than a sustained horizontal turn. The KPP metrics of F-22 shows that it got the same sustained turn rate as F-15 at 30k feet. If F-22 really turn twice as good as F-15 on 20K feet then at least some of that should be transformed to advantage on 30K feet but there wasn't any. In facts 28 degrees sustained turn rate is even higher than what F-16 can do at sea level. That just extremely unlikely
Image

Regardless, even 28 degrees sustained turn is still not higher than the rate pilots can turn their head ( which can probably reach 180 degrees/ seconds easily )

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2017, 16:48
by zero-one
garrya wrote:Yes iam well aware of that but no amount of IR reduction measure can hide the full AB flame at close range


No one said he was in full AB, the Raptor's dry thrust is so great that it would have great turns in dry or minimal AB.

garrya wrote:I have no problem believe that F-22 can defeat F-15 from BVR with its stealth. But at close range, a F-22 without HBOS, HMS will lose to an F-15 with those things 9 times out of 10


Where did we get that statistic from? According to this claim, the Raptor shot down all 8 of its opponents, now I remember some claims saying that 2 were shot with Aim 9Ms, and 1 shot with a gun. Now given that the Raptor can only carry 6 slammers,
That makes the break down like this:
5 kills with the AMRAAM (1 missed)
2 kills with the 9M
1 kill with the gun

now even if that claim wasn't true, that puts the maximum number of BVR kills to 6.

Lastly, Raptor pilots routinely train for WVR engagements against F-15s and F-16s and the reports from both Raptor pilots and 4th gen pilots (with HOBS and HMCS) have been nothing short of glowing

https://theaviationist.com/2012/12/10/viper-dogfight/
Here an f-16 pilot was asked how well his plane stacks up against others in a dogfight not BVR. and against the F-22 heres what he said

“It’s not a matter of trying to kill him, but to see how long you can survive!” as “Rico” says in “Viper Force: 56th Fighter Wing–To Fly and Fight the F-16” book by Lt. Col. Robert “Cricket” Renner USAF (Ret.).


See the problem is that HOBS missiles aren't look and shoot weapons that will automatically lock on to anything you look at, the sensor of the 9X needs to recognize what you're looking at first before it can get a lock.

Now with the F-22's IR stealth thats just harder to do, couple that with speed and maneuverability second to none and the missile simply has less time to recognize the target.

Thats probably why F-15 pilots with 9Xs couldn't get a lock on the "bleeping thing"



garrya wrote:TBH, i really doubt the legit of that claim, it likely to be the same pedal turn as on F-35 rather than a sustained horizontal turn. The KPP metrics of F-22 shows that it got the same sustained turn rate as F-15 at 30k feet. If F-22 really turn twice as good as F-15 on 20K feet then at least some of that should be transformed to advantage on 30K feet but there wasn't any. In facts 28 degrees sustained turn rate is even higher than what F-16 can do at sea level. That just extremely unlikely


Well unless we have a counter claim, then I'd have to believe what the pilot says. I'm in no position to dispute that, sure it seems impossible, but maybe that explains the export ban, that explains the top speed numbers which are still classified to this day.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2017, 17:52
by mixelflick
With respect to the gun not being used since the 1980's...

That may be true. But by at least 1 account (youtube Dogfights of Desert Storm) an F-15 came within 1 Sparrow miss of having to use it. In fact, his quarry being a Mig-25.... it would have been either opponents only weapon had they both run out of air to air missiles (the Mig-25 not having a gun). Had that MISSile well, MISSED - The Mig-25 would have stood a good chance of running the F-15 down and killing it (with remaining missiles or if it had one - a gun).

"the F-22 is the best Strike plane not called F-35 and the F-35 is the best air superiority fighter not called F-22..."

God I hope so. It does seem more and more to be the case, as more pilot reports about the F-35 are leaked. One thing's for sure: If and when the F-35 starts downing Flankers, Sweetman is going to have to pen a long, painful "I'm sorry" column to Lockheed Martin/F-35 proponents.

Pierre Spray I feel is irredeemable. He'll go to his grave believing the F-35 is a clunker, stealth is "a scam" and without a bubble canopy/1:1 thrust to weight ratio/low wing loading a fighter.... just isn't a fighter. He'll find lifelong employment however as a sounding board for APA and their ridiculous theories..

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2017, 18:47
by XanderCrews
mixelflick wrote:With respect to the gun not being used since the 1980's...

That may be true. But by at least 1 account (youtube Dogfights of Desert Storm) an F-15 came within 1 Sparrow miss of having to use it. In fact, his quarry being a Mig-25.... it would have been either opponents only weapon had they both run out of air to air missiles (the Mig-25 not having a gun). Had that MISSile well, MISSED - The Mig-25 would have stood a good chance of running the F-15 down and killing it (with remaining missiles or if it had one - a gun).



A mig 25 won't win a dogfight with an F-15, and a mig pilot out of missiles will turn and burn out of there. Foxbat pilots knew to run if things didn't favor them.

So.once again we are left with hypotheticals


Pierre Spray I feel is irredeemable. He'll go to his grave believing the F-35 is a clunker, stealth is "a scam" and without a bubble canopy/1:1 thrust to weight ratio/low wing loading a fighter.... just isn't a fighter. He'll find lifelong employment however as a sounding board for APA and their ridiculous theories..


He's been irredeemable for decades.

The 1991 war was basically the death of the "reformer" movement. Because it proved in real life their theories were horseshit. High tech weapons worked. And not just a little.

And on the other side, Iraq actually tried the reformer way and they were annihilated

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2017, 19:47
by rheonomic
mixelflick wrote:One thing's for sure: If and when the F-35 starts downing Flankers, Sweetman is going to have to pen a long, painful "I'm sorry" column to Lockheed Martin/F-35 proponents.


This is the internet age, since when do facts matter when you're right? And apologize for being wrong? What is this, Soviet Russia?

mixelflick wrote:Pierre Spray I feel is irredeemable. He'll go to his grave believing the F-35 is a clunker, stealth is "a scam" and without a bubble canopy/1:1 thrust to weight ratio/low wing loading a fighter.... just isn't a fighter. He'll find lifelong employment however as a sounding board for APA and their ridiculous theories..


To be fair, Pierre is great at specifying requirements for war-winning airplanes. Only problem is that "war" means WWII.

XanderCrews wrote:He's been irredeemable for decades.

The 1991 war was basically the death of the "reformer" movement. Because it proved in real life their theories were horseshit. High tech weapons worked. And not just a little.

And on the other side, Iraq actually tried the reformer way and they were annihilated


Didn't they morph the failures on the tech side into saying that the real reason that the Gulf War was a success was the use of Our Lord and Savior Boyd's brilliant strategery?

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2017, 19:48
by garrya
zero-one wrote:No one said he was in full AB, the Raptor's dry thrust is so great that it would have great turns in dry or minimal AB

F-22 if in dry thrust will have much lesser T/W compared to F-15 or F-16, and it would still quite bright in IR spectrum at close range
Image

zero-one wrote:Where did we get that statistic from? According to this claim, the Raptor shot down all 8 of its opponents, now I remember some claims saying that 2 were shot with Aim 9Ms, and 1 shot with a gun. Now given that the Raptor can only carry 6 slammers,
That makes the break down like this:
5 kills with the AMRAAM (1 missed)
2 kills with the 9M
1 kill with the gun

That doesn't really make sense to be fair. They do not actually launch the missiles so how could there be a missed ?

zero-one wrote:now even if that claim wasn't true, that puts the maximum number of BVR kills to 6

F-22 taking advantage of its stealth characteristics can get behind those F-15 to launch its AIM-9X

zero-one wrote:Lastly, Raptor pilots routinely train for WVR engagements against F-15s and F-16s and the reports from both Raptor pilots and 4th gen pilots (with HOBS and HMCS) have been nothing short of glowing
https://theaviationist.com/2012/12/10/viper-dogfight/
Here an f-16 pilot was asked how well his plane stacks up against others in a dogfight not BVR. and against the F-22 heres what he said

There is no indication in that article that those F-16 used HMD and HOBS missiles. In fact, there are many indications that they simulated gun combat: aggressor F-16 use ACM pod ( the thing at wing tip) instead of actual AIM-9X, mentioned of trying to get F-18 in HUD
Image

zero-one wrote: the problem is that HOBS missiles aren't look and shoot weapons that will automatically lock on to anything you look at, the sensor of the 9X needs to recognize what you're looking at first before it can get a lock

The sensor doesnot need recognize time if you look at target before you shot, if you looks at target then it will just register the center shape as target.

zero-one wrote:Well unless we have a counter claim, then I'd have to believe what the pilot says. I'm in no position to dispute that, sure it seems impossible, but maybe that explains the export ban, that explains the top speed numbers which are still classified to this day.

The counterclaim is in its KPP value.3.7G at Mach 0.9 , 30k feet is similar to F-15.Between pilots words and program documents i gonna have to go with the document here.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2017, 19:55
by rheonomic
garrya wrote:That doesn't really make sense to be fair. They do not actually launch the missiles so how could there be a missed ?


I would be shocked if they didn't model Pk and missile reliability in simulated ACM.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2017, 19:55
by armedupdate
F-22 doesn't really need to dogfight a F-15 as in a turning battle . In WVR it can just go front aspect at high speeds, launch AIM-9, and run.

As for F-22 v F-35. I really think the F-22 is the better Air Superiority Fighter. LM says it all.
https://www.f35.com/about
The F-35 and the F-22 are the world's two premier fighters, but there are some differences between the aircraft. The F-35 is optimized to be a multirole fighter, with the ability to perform air-to-air, air-to-ground and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) missions. While the F-22 is superior to the F-35 in air-to-air missions, the F-35’s air-to-air capability is superior to all other fighters. The F-35 is better than any other fighter aircraft, including the F-22, for air-to-ground strike missions.

Air Forces Air Combat Commander, Gen. Hawk Carlisle
ou will use the F-35 for air superiority, but you will need the raptors to do some things in a high-end fight to penetrate denied airspace,” he said. “The airplane is designed for multi-role capability, electronic warfare and sensors. The F-35 will win against any fourth-generation airplane -- in a close-in fight, it will do exceedingly well. There will be a combination of F-22s and F-35s in the future.”

The F-35 may get better first look due to it's better ISR and Electronic Warfare, however an escorted F-22 with some F-35s is a bigger force multiplier than just F-35s. The F-22 is faster, more agile, flies higher, more missiles etc. Remember both these airplanes use classified systems, and how they process RCS may be different that traditional radar. The F-22 may even be able to detect stealth aircraft at long distances with bistatic operation. Also there is the fact that radar missile seekers will have trouble locking on both aircraft scoring low pKs, and in the end the Sidewinder(which now is a BVR missile) will come in play.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2017, 07:41
by zero-one
garrya wrote:F-22 if in dry thrust will have much lesser T/W compared to F-15 or F-16, and it would still quite bright in IR spectrum at

against an F-15 in full AB sure but who said anything about being in full AB on both planes.

Also the picture you have is from an airshow at sea level with the Raptor at AB most of the time, it will be unusually hot by then, it is also far too close to the camera (less than 1 mile away). to me it doesn't represent actual combat conditions. Even in a phone booth fight, that is far too close.

garrya wrote:That doesn't really make sense to be fair. They do not actually launch the missiles so how could there be a missed ?

In exercises, a shot's Pk (kill probability) is measured against the way a the shot was made, a 9x shot against a target's tailpipe in an on boarsite aspect at close range has a good chance of hitting. A HOBS shot against a maneuvering target spewing flares, not as much.

garrya wrote:F-22 taking advantage of its stealth characteristics can get behind those F-15 to launch its AIM-9X


yes it can, and I'm not disputing that. But nobody said the F-22 snuck up on the F-15s unsuspected and killed them using just stealth and surprise. What the pilot said was that he "Saw" the F-22 but his sensors (including the 9X) couldn't get a lock. He was also impressed by the Raptor's power and maneuverability. To me that means a turning fight took place, and even with HOBS, HMCS and a wingman, they still couldn't beat the Raptor.

garrya wrote:There is no indication in that article that those F-16 used HMD and HOBS missiles. In fact, there are many indications that they simulated gun combat: aggressor F-16 use ACM pod ( the thing at wing tip) instead of actual AIM-9X, mentioned of trying to get F-18 in HUD

we can't base their whole exercise just on that image, the F-15 pilot explicitly said they had 9X and HMCS but was still beaten.

garrya wrote:The sensor doesnot need recognize time if you look at target before you shot, if you looks at target then it will just register the center shape as target.

How did you know that? all missiles take time to register the target,thats why pilots wear an earpiece and listening for the Aim-9's growl, if the growl gets strong, it means that the missile can see the hotspot, if it doesn't growl, that means it can't see anything. Not sure if the "growl" has changed to pinging sounds though.

The F-15 pilot with 9X and HMCS summed it up perfectly, he said he could see the plane but his weapons simply won't lock, the Raptor is not hot enough or there simply isn't enough time for the 9X to recognize the F-22 in that dogfight. He was looking at it but he couldn't shoot.

garrya wrote:The counterclaim is in its KPP value.3.7G at Mach 0.9 , 30k feet is similar to F-15.Between pilots words and program documents i gonna have to go with the document here.


Thats an unclassified document against a pilot's statement, I don't think fuel and weapons weights were taken into accounts as well.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2017, 08:51
by eloise
Just my 2 cents
zero-one wrote:against an F-15 in full AB sure but who said anything about being in full AB on both planes

Why don't F-15 or F-16 use full AB in dogfight? unless pilot try to limit the capabilities of their machine

zero-one wrote:Also the picture you have is from an airshow at sea level with the Raptor at AB most of the time, it will be unusually hot by then, it is also far too close to the camera (less than 1 mile away). to me it doesn't represent actual combat conditions. Even in a phone booth fight, that is far too close

It is not too close if we are talking about dogfight using cannon, and the sensor on your missiles is alot more sensitive than some cheap commercial camera.Btw, they got to fly for a while before they got to WVR so it is normal that airframe got heat up

zero-one wrote:In exercises, a shot's Pk (kill probability) is measured against the way a the shot was made, a 9x shot against a target's tailpipe in an on boarsite aspect at close range has a good chance of hitting. A HOBS shot against a maneuvering target spewing flares, not as much.

Maneuver target will reduce PK. But it still better than actually have to maneuver into position.
IIR missiles are practically immune to flares unless your aircraft is stationary behind the flares cover

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2017, 09:14
by eloise
zero-one wrote:we can't base their whole exercise just on that image, the F-15 pilot explicitly said they had 9X and HMCS but was still beaten.

Aggressor F-16 do not carry AIM-9X

zero-one wrote:The F-15 pilot with 9X and HMCS summed it up perfectly, he said he could see the plane but his weapons simply won't lock, the Raptor is not hot enough or there simply isn't enough time for the 9X to recognize the F-22 in that dogfight. He was looking at it but he couldn't shoot

Typhoon pilots said their IRST can see F-22 from around 50 km. No doubt that missiles seeker have lesser capabilities but to say that they cant lock on the F-22 airframe just 2-3 km aways is pretty huge exaggeration.Moreover since the seeker have about 180 degrees view, unless F-22 can instantaneously move behind F-15 tail in less than 1 circle turn, i honestly dont see how it could be possible that the aircraft moved out of AIM-9X FoV. If we assumed that F-15 got a wingman as well then it is even more impossible. They can literally fly around the other in a circle and there would be no way for the lone F-22 to get behind one tail but not in front of the other's cross

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2017, 09:17
by garrya
zero-one wrote:To me that means a turning fight took place, and even with HOBS, HMCS and a wingman, they still couldn't beat the Raptor.

To me it sound like propaganda, how can it even happen if F-22 doesn't sneak on them ?
zero-one wrote:yes it can, and I'm not disputing that. But nobody said the F-22 snuck up on the F-15s unsuspected and killed them using just stealth and surprise. What the pilot said was that he "Saw" the F-22 but his sensors

It is likely that he was referring to his radar. Visual range can be as high as 4-5 km. Very questionable claim still
zero-one wrote:Thats an unclassified document against a pilot's statement, I don't think fuel and weapons weights were taken into accounts as well.

IMHO, value in official documents trump all, moreover F-15 can sustain 3.7G in the same condition with 60% fuel and 8AAM. Let say we considered F-22 KPP to be taken at 100% fuel ( which is not common ), it still doesn't translate to 28 degrees/sec sustained at 20K( which is more than 2 times better than anything else, making it an UFO with some magical airfoil). Furthermore, plenty of F-22 got defeated by T-38 in close combat exercise, T-38 is an aircraft without Hobs missiles or HMD, doesn't have high T/w.If F-22 is really that agile, T-38 won't be able to defeat it any time at all.But it did.So information simply doesn't add up.Pilot skill play an important role but in this case it like an airliner can defeat an F-16

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2017, 17:34
by zero-one
eloise wrote:Just my 2 cents
Why don't F-15 or F-16 use full AB in dogfight? unless pilot try to limit the capabilities of their machine

Well heres the context on that statement, Garrya said that the Aim-9x would have no problems seeing an F-22 in Full AB therefore an F-15 with 9X and HMCS will beat an F-22 in a turning fight 9 times out of 10.

I said, according to pilot statements, a lone F-22 beat down 8 F-15s all with HMCS and 9Xs and the F-15 pilot said that he could see the Raptor with his eyes but his sensors simply won't lock. He also said he was very impressed with the Raptor's power and maneuverability not just stealth.

To me, that wasn't the common conception that the F-22 would always use Stealth, sneaking up unsuspected and shoot the bandit. in this exercise the Raptor went head to head in classic dogfight then came out on top.

eloise wrote:It is not too close if we are talking about dogfight using cannon, and the sensor on your missiles is alot more sensitive than some cheap commercial camera.Btw, they got to fly for a while before they got to WVR so it is normal that airframe got heat up


In an airshow, planes typically fly 10-15 minute demos then they're out of gas, a real mission can last for hours, AB won't be used unless it was necessary. the F-22 won't be using AB as much as it does on a Demo unless it was necessary.

So while I agree that military grade IR sensors are far better, I would have to disagree that the F-22 will be as hot as it is on an actual combat as it is in an airshow.

eloise wrote:Maneuver target will reduce PK. But it still better than actually have to maneuver into position.
IIR missiles are practically immune to flares unless your aircraft is stationary behind the flares cover

There are a new generation of some pretty advanced flares which the Israeli's claim "have a combat-proven record against advanced, heat-seeking missiles" More here http://www.imi-israel.com/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=68452

Now I know this won't render focal plane arrey sensors useless but if it can degrade their Pk to an extent, imagine what they can do when installed on 5th gen platforms with considerable IR reduction methods. If you can lower the Pk of the 9x by just 10-20% that would be big.

garrya wrote:To me it sound like propaganda, how can it even happen if F-22 doesn't sneak on them ?

Well, I choose to believe the pilots who actually fly these missions.


garrya wrote:It is likely that he was referring to his radar. Visual range can be as high as 4-5 km. Very questionable claim still

Where did he mention that? Why is it so hard to take the article for what it is, The article says a lone F-22 beat down 8 F-15s equipped with 9x and HMCS in BVR and WVR, why do we need to keep on making excuses for the F-15s? Maybe it was just BVR, maybe the F-22 snuck up on them unsuspectingly from behind, maybe he was referring to his radar, maybe there was a malfunction, maybe the F-22 was allowed to regenerate. Why?

garrya wrote: T-38 won't be able to defeat it any time at all.But it did.So information simply doesn't add up.Pilot skill play an important role but in this case it like an airliner can defeat an F-16


Remember veteran pilots on F-4s that had the agility pretty much like an airliner or certainly less than a T-38, specially on the Horizontal, beat the crap out of trainees on F-14s and F-15s.

Being super-maneuverable gives you a big edge, but thats about it, if the T-38 pilots are good enough then yes those F-22 can get beaten, theres also the ROEs, all of that could of contributed to the F-22's demise.

And we don't know the other half of the story, what if those T-38 squadrons were tasked to train Raptor pilots most of the time. Over time they managed to rack up a few dozen F-22 kills, but the Raptor racked up hundreds of T-38 kills.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2017, 19:37
by garrya
zero-one wrote:Where did he mention that? Why is it so hard to take the article for what it is, The article says a lone F-22 beat down 8 F-15s equipped with 9x and HMCS in BVR and WVR, why do we need to keep on making excuses for the F-15s? Maybe it was just BVR, maybe the F-22 snuck up on them unsuspectingly from behind, maybe he was referring to his radar, maybe there was a malfunction, maybe the F-22 was allowed to regenerate. Why?

It is much less excuse but more like critical thinking,I question everything.
If there was an article goes like " J-20 defeat 10 F-16 with HMD and AIm-9X in dogfight" would you not suspect it in a slightest? I know i would.
The problem with the article is that it sound extremely unrealistic and impossible the way you interpret it.Like one of those fictional story where a single hero beat up a group of guys at the same time
zero-one wrote: Remember veteran pilots on F-4s that had the agility pretty much like an airliner or certainly less than a T-38, specially on the Horizontal, beat the crap out of trainees on F-14s and F-15s.
Being super-maneuverable gives you a big edge, but thats about it, if the T-38 pilots are good enough then yes those F-22 can get beaten, theres also the ROEs, all of that could of contributed to the F-22's demise.

Let compare F-4E and F-16A , at 15k feet , 50% fuel , 2 AAM for F-16 and 4 AAM for F-4
In such condition F-4E can sustain 10 degrees/second, F-16 can sustain 14 degrees/seconds . That is a merely 4 degrees/seconds different ( or about 40% different) and F-16 already dominate. Now on to F-22 if it can actually sustain 28 degrees/ second. That would make it around 14 degrees/ second better than F-16 or basically 2 times faster ( and we have not even accounted for the fact that value for F-16 is at 15K feet and value for F-22 is at 20K which mean the different will be even bigger if they are at the same altitude).I don't know the exact value for T-38 sustain turn rate but it won't be bigger than F-16.
So T-38 pilots can somehow beat an aircraft turning at around 14-18 degrees/seconds faster than them and also have significantly better T/W as well as better post stall characteristics?. I don't buy that.It is even harder than beating an F-16 with a 747. You are free to ask pilots on here if such things possible but i don't think any would say that it is
If we were talking about technical aspect, if the F-22 can really sustain 28 degrees/second at 20K feet. Then i would expect it to do about 50-55 degrees/second at sea level due to denser air density. Never seen that happened.Furthermore, why would all that extremely high performer suddenly vaporize at 30K feet and it ended up with similar sustain G value as F-15 ?. Isn't F-22 supposed to be a high altitude fighter?

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2017, 23:59
by eloise
zero-one wrote:I said, according to pilot statements, a lone F-22 beat down 8 F-15s all with HMCS and 9Xs and the F-15 pilot said that he could see the Raptor with his eyes but his sensors simply won't lock. He also said he was very impressed with the Raptor's power and maneuverability not just stealth.

I don't think a lone F-22 can go dogfight against 10 F-15 with aim-9X and win

zero-one wrote:In an airshow, planes typically fly 10-15 minute demos then they're out of gas, a real mission can last for hours, AB won't be used unless it was necessary. the F-22 won't be using AB as much as it does on a Demo unless it was necessary
So while I agree that military grade IR sensors are far better, I would have to disagree that the F-22 will be as hot as it is on an actual combat as it is in an airshow.

Supercruise can make airframe pretty hot. And IR missiles can even lock on to helicopter or canoe. I don't think they got much trouble with the F-22 at close distance



zero-one wrote:There are a new generation of some pretty advanced flares which the Israeli's claim "have a combat-proven record against advanced, heat-seeking missiles" More here http://www.imi-israel.com/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=68452

Now I know this won't render focal plane arrey sensors useless but if it can degrade their Pk to an extent, imagine what they can do when installed on 5th gen platforms with considerable IR reduction methods. If you can lower the Pk of the 9x by just 10-20% that would be big

These are multi spectra flares designed to defeat 2 colors IR seekers such as the one on FIM-92. But they do not offer any advantages over conventional flares if missiles use IIR seeker

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2017, 17:25
by zero-one
garrya wrote:It is much less excuse but more like critical thinking,I question everything.
If there was an article goes like " J-20 defeat 10 F-16 with HMD and AIm-9X in dogfight" would you not suspect it in a slightest? I know i would.
The problem with the article is that it sound extremely unrealistic and impossible the way you interpret it.Like one of those fictional story where a single hero beat up a group of guys at the same time


Well if they said that the J-20 killed some of the F-16s BVR then finished off the rest in WVR, then yes I can buy it, specially if none of the F-16 pilots counter the claim.

In this case, not only was claim not countered, but it was the F-15 pilot himself making the claim. There was 8 of them and just 1 Raptor, he saw it, but his sensors wouldn't lock and he had 9X.

If we could just accept the fact that these missiles, as advanced as they are, are still not instant look and shoot weapons, then the claim doesn't seem so ridiculous. Missiles take time to lock and the 9x is no exception, now against a Raptor with IR reduction, it will just take more time to lock. Coupled with the Kinematics that it has, he simply didn't have enough time.

garrya wrote:So T-38 pilots can somehow beat an aircraft turning at around 14-18 degrees/seconds faster than them and also have significantly better T/W as well as better post stall characteristics?.......


But what if the Raptor kill markings were not just taken on 1 mission, what if these instructors training vanilla Raptor pilots that make a ton of mistakes were killing F-22s at a rate of 2 kills for every 5 losses. Then after 5 hops, yeah I could paint my T-38 with 10 Raptor kill marks.

Weather the F-22 can or can't make 28 degrees at 20k isn't really relevant, but I am in no position to question the claims of 2 different pilots whos claims seem to support each other.

eloise wrote:I don't think a lone F-22 can go dogfight against 10 F-15 with aim-9X and win


If it was just me making that claim, then sure, don't believe me,
If it was an F-22 pilot making that claim, then it can be considered
But if it was the pilot of the victim telling us how he had his rear end handed to him, despite having an 8:1 advantage, despite being in WVR with 9X and HMCS, despite seeing the Raptor.
Then that begs us to ask why? Propaganda for another plane?

eloise wrote:Supercruise can make airframe pretty hot. And IR missiles can even lock on to helicopter or canoe. I don't think they got much trouble with the F-22 at close distance


But this Aim-9x did, a former Mig-29 pilot claimed that he was unbeatable in an exercise, but some F-16 pilots said they were able to beat Mig-29s. does that invalidate the former's statement? Not really. circumstances surrounding the claims have a role to play in what the outcome is. All I know is, 8 F-15 pilots with 9x were beaten by a lone F-22 and he saw the F-22.


eloise wrote:These are multi spectra flares designed to defeat 2 colors IR seekers such as the one on FIM-92. But they do not offer any advantages over conventional flares if missiles use IIR seeker


Well it would help if we could back that claim up.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2017, 20:25
by garrya
zero-one wrote:Well if they said that the J-20 killed some of the F-16s BVR then finished off the rest in WVR, then yes I can buy it, specially if none of the F-16 pilots counter the claim.

In this case, not only was claim not countered, but it was the F-15 pilot himself making the claim. There was 8 of them and just 1 Raptor, he saw it, but his sensors wouldn't lock and he had 9X

You forgot that both F-15 and F-22 here are piloted by US pilots. So it would be very similar to let say J-11 pilots claim that a group of 8 J-11 ( basically su-27 ) can't beat J-20 at WVR even though they have HMD and R-73 ( i used F-16 and AIM-9X in my example simply because it has much bigger FoV than R-73 ).It is not really a stretch to say that the pilot may have exggerate a bit


zero-one wrote:If we could just accept the fact that these missiles, as advanced as they are, are still not instant look and shoot weapons, then the claim doesn't seem so ridiculous. Missiles take time to lock and the 9x is no exception, now against a Raptor with IR reduction, it will just take more time to lock. Coupled with the Kinematics that it has, he simply didn't have enough time.

Even if those missiles are not instant look and shoot weapon, the claim is still extremely ridiculous. The F-22 beat not just one F-15 but 2 of them, at the same time, in visual range. Both equipped with AIM-9X and HMS.No sneaking up tactic was used. They would have all the time in the world to look and shoot at the F-22.Especially, if F-22 didn't use its AB like you said
Regarding the claim that AIM-9X cant or have trouble locking F-22, i think it been mentioned above but even the seeker on MANPADS can lock on to helicopter (which for all intent and purpose much cooler than a jet fighter), short range IIR missiles are used to shoot down piston UAV too. It is rather ridiculous to say that they would got trouble lock on F-22 at visual range. The purpose of IR reduction on both F-22 and F-35 is to reduce detection range of IRST, not to make them immune to short range IIR missiles.



zero-one wrote:But what if the Raptor kill markings were not just taken on 1 mission, what if these instructors training vanilla Raptor pilots that make a ton of mistakes were killing F-22s at a rate of 2 kills for every 5 losses. Then after 5 hops, yeah I could paint my T-38 with 10 Raptor kill marks.

The question is how do you even get a single kill with that massive different ?
a 747 can turn at around 3 degrees/second at sea level AFAIK, a F-16 can sustain around 18 degrees/ seconds. About the same different as we estimated earlier. F-16 has superior T/W. If you put cannon 747 ( only forward firing not turret), how many time do you think you have to put them together for the 747 to rack up 10 kills?
The same F-22 that earlier able to turn so fast that it can get out of AIM-9X FoV, now suddenly cant do the same to an aircraft that turn 14-16 degrees slower than itself ? that rather dubious

zero-one wrote:Weather the F-22 can or can't make 28 degrees at 20k isn't really relevant

It quite relevant actually, if that claim is wrong then it does show that pilots do make mistake when they talk about their aircraft

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2017, 13:40
by zero-one
garrya wrote:You forgot that both F-15 and F-22 here are piloted by US pilots. So it would be very similar to let say J-11 pilots claim that a group of 8 J-11 ( basically su-27 ) can't beat J-20 at WVR even though they have HMD and R-73 ( i used F-16 and AIM-9X in my example simply because it has much bigger FoV than R-73 ).It is not really a stretch to say that the pilot may have exggerate a bit

Nope, read the article again:
The pilot was RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, exchange F-15 pilot in the 65th Aggressor Squadron at the time,

So he had no reason what so ever to publicize the F-22, cause the RAAF can never have it.

garrya wrote:Even if those missiles are not instant look and shoot weapon, the claim is still extremely ridiculous. The F-22 beat not just one F-15 but 2 of them, at the same time, in visual range. Both equipped with AIM-9X and HMS.No sneaking up tactic was used. They would have all the time in the world to look and shoot at the F-22.Especially, if F-22 didn't use its AB like you said
Regarding the claim that AIM-9X cant or have trouble locking F-22, i think it been mentioned above but even the seeker on MANPADS can lock on to helicopter (which for all intent and purpose much cooler than a jet fighter), short range IIR missiles are used to shoot down piston UAV too. It is rather ridiculous to say that they would got trouble lock on F-22 at visual range. The purpose of IR reduction on both F-22 and F-35 is to reduce detection range of IRST, not to make them immune to short range IIR missiles.

Well, nobody said, no sneaking up was involved, nobody also said that no AB was used. However judging by the statement, here is what we know.
-It was 8 F-15s all with Aim-9xs and HMCS against a lone F-22 with none of that
-It started out BVR but ended up WVR
-The F-15 pilot saw the plane but couldn't lock

“It won’t let me put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it visually through the canopy. [Flying against the F-22] annoys the hell out of me.”.

So judging by just that, my guess would be that in WVR, the Raptor's combination of Stealth, Speed and Super-Maneuverability gave the F-15s such a difficult time making a weapons grade lock.

Also, the Aim-9L and M were all branded as game changers because they're seekers were so sensitive that they can lock on the heat of an aircraft's skin. However in Combat they had misses on Mig-25 tail pipes in full AB.

These weapons are never perfect, they can and will not always work as advertised.

garrya wrote:The question is how do you even get a single kill with that massive different ?
a 747 can turn at around 3 degrees/second at sea level AFAIK, a F-16 can sustain around 18 degrees/ seconds. About the same different as we estimated earlier. F-16 has superior T/W. If you put cannon 747 ( only forward firing not turret), how many time do you think you have to put them together for the 747 to rack up 10 kills?
The same F-22 that earlier able to turn so fast that it can get out of AIM-9X FoV, now suddenly cant do the same to an aircraft that turn 14-16 degrees slower than itself ? that rather dubious

who said it can't, maybe it did, maybe out of 500 simulated dogfights over 3 years the F-22 got away 475 times, but the 25 times that it didn't were painted on the T-38. Remember an F-105 achieved an air to air kill by doping a bomb on a fighter. How unlikely is that? Thats more unlikely than any Hollywood film but it happened.

garrya wrote:It quite relevant actually, if that claim is wrong then it does show that pilots do make mistake when they talk about their aircraft


Well unless we have a counter claim from a credible source (like an F-22 pilot) then I will still rather have the pilot's statement.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2017, 14:10
by sferrin
garrya wrote:You forgot that both F-15 and F-22 here are piloted by US pilots.


The F-15 pilot was an Aussie pilot on exchange.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2017, 14:38
by garrya
zero-one wrote:Nope, read the article again:
The pilot was RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, exchange F-15 pilot in the 65th Aggressor Squadron at the time,

So he had no reason what so ever to publicize the F-22, cause the RAAF can never have it

Not really, pilots are still human. Human can make mistake or exaggerate things a bit when they excited. It only natural.

zero-one wrote:Well, nobody said, no sneaking up was involved, nobody also said that no AB was used

You just said earlier that no sneak up was used and F-22 not using AB so its signature was reduced :shock:
zero-one wrote: However judging by the statement, here is what we know.
-It was 8 F-15s all with Aim-9xs and HMCS against a lone F-22 with none of that
-It started out BVR but ended up WVR
-The F-15 pilot saw the plane but couldn't lock
“It won’t let me put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it visually through the canopy. [Flying against the F-22] annoys the hell out of me.”.
So judging by just that, my guess would be that in WVR, the Raptor's combination of Stealth, Speed and Super-Maneuverability gave the F-15s such a difficult time making a weapons grade lock.

Actually, i have just done a bit of research about the case.I believe that the story original from here:
http://www.acc.af.mil/News/Features/Dis ... -flag.aspx
The article was written in 2007 ( 8 years earlier than your source). There were no mentioned of 1 F-22 vs 8 F-15C or all F-15C are equipped with HMS and AIM-9X in the original. So i believe that extra bit is created by the writer of fightersweep but not actually happened.What more likely is that they have a normal BVR and ACM exercise and F-22 beat F-15. But not with Aim-9X or 1 vs 8 situation.


zero-one wrote:Also, the Aim-9L and M were all branded as game changers because they're seekers were so sensitive that they can lock on the heat of an aircraft's skin. However in Combat they had misses on Mig-25 tail pipes in full AB.

These weapons are never perfect, they can and will not always work as advertised.

Aim-9L doesn't have IIR seeker so they can be fooled by flares . Moreover, in tail chase situation, if the distance is far enough, it is of no surprise that the mig can out run the missile, since their motor doesn't really burn that long.Those situation does make alot more sense IMHO


zero-one wrote:who said it can't, maybe it did, maybe out of 500 simulated dogfights over 3 years the F-22 got away 475 times, but the 25 times that it didn't were painted on the T-38.

I dont know about that, technically speaking we make the same excuse about F-22 vs F-15 case. May be the sensor was broken.May be F-22 sneak up on them ..etc. Regardless, if F-22 have 14-16 degrees better sustain turn rate than T-38 then i don't see much benefit of using T-38 to train F-22 pilot ( it like using a 747 to train F-16 pilots )

zero-one wrote: Remember an F-105 achieved an air to air kill by doping a bomb on a fighter. How unlikely is that? Thats more unlikely than any Hollywood film but it happened

I dont remember this happened. I believe that you mistaken it with the case where F-15E dropped a laser guided bomb on a hovering helicopter, thus achieve an air to air kill. Very unconventional way of achieving an AA kill. But technically speaking, it doesn't sound very hard to achieve

zero-one wrote:Well unless we have a counter claim from a credible source (like an F-22 pilot) then I will still rather have the pilot's statement.

I believe, the KPP values made a pretty good counter claim in this case.Regarding credibility and accuracy, i would say that it is often rated higher than pilots comment, since that what government will based their decision on when purchasing an aircraft
sferrin wrote:
garrya wrote:You forgot that both F-15 and F-22 here are piloted by US pilots.


The F-15 pilot was an Aussie pilot on exchange.

Fair enough

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2017, 17:04
by zero-one
garrya wrote:Not really, pilots are still human. Human can make mistake or exaggerate things a bit when they excited. It only natural.


So in that case, why should we believe any pilot claims? After all they're all human and can get excited.

garrya wrote:You just said earlier that no sneak up was used and F-22 not using AB so its signature was reduced :shock:


No I didn't, what you said was that an F-22 can only beat an F-15 with 9X by using Stealth and BVR tactics, I said no, heres a link that says a lone F-22 beat 8 of them, some in WVR.

You said that this was only possible if the Raptor snuck up on them and avoided a dogfight, and killed them before they knew he was there.

I said no, according to the F-15 pilot, he was able to visually see the Raptor but still couldn't lock.

So to me, yes there could have been a some sneaking up, but ultimately the Raptor was seen judging by the pilot's statements, (seeing it, being impressed by it's power and maneuverability) a dogfight happened.

garrya wrote:Actually, i have just done a bit of research about the case.I believe that the story original from here:
http://www.acc.af.mil/News/Features/Dis ... -flag.aspx
The article was written in 2007 ( 8 years earlier than your source). There were no mentioned of 1 F-22 vs 8 F-15C or all F-15C are equipped with HMS and AIM-9X in the original. So i believe that extra bit is created by the writer of fightersweep but not actually happened.What more likely is that they have a normal BVR and ACM exercise and F-22 beat F-15. But not with Aim-9X or 1 vs 8 situation.


2 possibilities here:

1. F-22s routinely go 1 vs 5 or 8 or 10. So this could have been 2 similar exercises.
2. Having incomplete data doesn't invalidate the other statement. Your link also didn't say they had no 9X and HMCS so it doesn't invalidate the Fightersweep claim. Fightersweep simply had more details.

garrya wrote:I dont know about that, technically speaking we make the same excuse about F-22 vs F-15 case. May be the sensor was broken.May be F-22 sneak up on them ..etc. Regardless, if F-22 have 14-16 degrees better sustain turn rate than T-38 then i don't see much benefit of using T-38 to train F-22 pilot ( it like using a 747 to train F-16 pilots )


They used F-4s to train F-15s.....F-4 my friend, the flying brick, the plane that could only fly cause it was repulsed by the Earth. The plane that Mig-17s and Mig-21 pilots trolled for years before TopGun because it was almost meat on the table. That plane was training the pilots of the F-15...the best dog fighting machine created by man (combat records into account) and beating the crap out of them. the T-38 might not even be enjoying the same success as the F-4, but if it can get a dozen kills in a year, then it can paint that on if it wants.




garrya wrote:I dont remember this happened. I believe that you mistaken it with the case where F-15E dropped a laser guided bomb on a hovering helicopter, thus achieve an air to air kill. Very unconventional way of achieving an AA kill. But technically speaking, it doesn't sound very hard to achieve


I know its Wiki, but you can look deeper into this if you want
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_ ... underchief
One F-105F is unofficially credited with downing three MiGs—one by air-to-air missile, the second by cannon fire and the third by jettisoning the centerline rack full of bombs directly into the path of a surprised MiG.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2017, 17:13
by mixelflick
One F-105F is unofficially credited with downing three MiGs—one by air-to-air missile, the second by cannon fire and the third by jettisoning the centerline rack full of bombs directly into the path of a surprised MiG.

This is up there with the paveway an F-15E used on an iraqi helicopter. Yet, if this is true it's even more impressive - killing an enemy jet with a "dumb" bomb or bombs?!

What's next, cluster bombs to take out flights of 3 or 4? :drool:

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2017, 18:17
by garrya
zero-one wrote:So in that case, why should we believe any pilot claims? After all they're all human and can get excited.

Generally, the government procurement assessment of fighter aircraft often based on test data ( flight manual )and KPP values. Pilots comments are more or less for the common folk.
And I dont know about you but for me , I always considered pilots comments as something extra rather than the main source of information.

zero-one wrote:No I didn't, what you said was that an F-22 can only beat an F-15 with 9X by using Stealth and BVR tactics, I said no, heres a link that says a lone F-22 beat 8 of them, some in WVR.
You said that this was only possible if the Raptor snuck up on them and avoided a dogfight, and killed them before they knew he was there.
I said no, according to the F-15 pilot, he was able to visually see the Raptor but still couldn't lock.
So to me, yes there could have been a some sneaking up, but ultimately the Raptor was seen judging by the pilot's statements, (seeing it, being impressed by it's power and maneuverability) a dogfight happened.

Then i said if a dogfight happened then there is no ways AIM-9X cant lock on the F-22
Then you said it could be because F-22 didn't use AB
Then i said F-22 without AB will have lesser T/W than F-16 , F-15 and AIM-9x can lock on much colder target such as helicopter or piston UAV


zero-one wrote:2 possibilities here:

1. F-22s routinely go 1 vs 5 or 8 or 10. So this could have been 2 similar exercises.
2. Having incomplete data doesn't invalidate the other statement. Your link also didn't say they had no 9X and HMCS so it doesn't invalidate the Fightersweep claim. Fightersweep simply had more details.

For the first possibility: it is the same pilot who commented on both article, which the exact words. So i don't think it is 2 different exercise
For your second possibility: The article on Fighter sweep is written 8 years later, without any others credible publication having the same information. Moreover, air combat command is the official USAF website so i seriously doubt that fightersweep has more information than them.


zero-one wrote:They used F-4s to train F-15s.....F-4 my friend, the flying brick, the plane that could only fly cause it was repulsed by the Earth. The plane that Mig-17s and Mig-21 pilots trolled for years before TopGun because it was almost meat on the table. That plane was training the pilots of the F-15...the best dog fighting machine created by man (combat records into account) and beating the crap out of them. the T-38 might not even be enjoying the same success as the F-4, but if it can get a dozen kills in a year, then it can paint that on if it wants.

I believed that i already explained the different in the previous page.
The different in sustain turn rate between F-4E and fighters like F-15, F-16 is about 4 degrees/ seconds ( assuming altitude about 15k feet)
The different between F-22 ( if it really sustained 28 degrees/second at 20k feet) vs F-15 , F-16 is much bigger.
For example: F-16 with drag index =0 can only sustain about 12 degrees/second at 20K feet. That is about 16 degrees/second different from the alleged sustain turn rate of F-22. Now the T-38 will do even worse than that
Image

That aside, the alleged value doesn't fit aerodynamic law either


zero-one wrote:I know its Wiki, but you can look deeper into this if you want
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_ ... underchief
One F-105F is unofficially credited with downing three MiGs—one by air-to-air missile, the second by cannon fire and the third by jettisoning the centerline rack full of bombs directly into the path of a surprised MiG.

That one is unofficial man

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2017, 18:35
by zero-one
garrya wrote:Generally, the procurement assessment of fighter aircraft often based on test data ( flight manual )and KPP values. Pilots comments are more or less for the common folk. I dont know about you but for me , I always considered pilots comments as something extra rather than the main source of information.


Granted, but the Kpp claims were also unclassified data...much like the unofficial F-105 air-air kill with a bomb.

garrya wrote:Then i said if a dogfight happened then there is no ways AIM-9X cant lock on the F-22
Then you said it could be because F-22 didn't use AB
Then i said F-22 without AB will have lesser T/W than F-16 , F-15 and AIM-9x can lock on much colder target such as helicopter or piston UAV


O, well what I said was not on "Full AB". See you gave out a picture of an F-22 on an airshow where its on AB most of the time. Thats why air shows don't last for more than 10 minutes, (F-22's full demo is about 10 minutes) because of all the AB use. So I don't think that the F-22 will be as hot as it is in an airshow as it is in combat.


garrya wrote:For your second possibility: The article on Fighter sweep is written 8 years later, without any others credible publication having the same information. Moreover, air combat command is the official USAF website so i seriously doubt that fightersweep has more information than them.

But air combat command news site never said the F-15s didn't have them. If I'm not mistaken, the exercise took place at around 2007. F-15s started Aim-9X integration in 2003. So its only natural for them to have it in 2007. Plus, FighterSweep is written by pilots with inside info. So if it was omitted on the official site but isn't classified, then they can post it.

garrya wrote:I believed that i already explained the different in the previous page.
The different in sustain turn rate between F-4E and fighters like F-15, F-16 is about 4 degrees/ seconds ( assuming altitude about 15k feet)
The different between F-22 ( if it really sustained 28 degrees/second at 20k feet) vs F-15 , F-16 is much bigger.
For example: F-16 with drag index =0 can only sustain about 12 degrees/second at 20K feet. That is about 16 degrees/second different from the alleged sustain turn rate of F-22. Now the T-38 will do even worse than that


See heres why it doesn't matter to me, fuel and weapons loads were never mentioned, the F-22 could of been carrying 2k worth of fuel next to a tanker and just for fun the pilot punched full AB and did a turn, who knows.

But that doesn't remove the fact that the F-22s speed and maneuverability coupled with Stealth is a winning combination against F-15s with 9Xs. In fact, even the link you provided emphasized this.

garrya wrote:That one is unofficial man


Well thats why I said, you can dig deeper into it if you want.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2017, 20:07
by basher54321
mixelflick wrote:One F-105F is unofficially credited with downing three MiGs—one by air-to-air missile, the second by cannon fire and the third by jettisoning the centerline rack full of bombs directly into the path of a surprised MiG.



Wiki references a 1998 book but I don't remember any mention of it in the more recent research (past 10 years) - certainly not listed as a kill.


I am not familiar with the exact Rafale or T-38 HUD symbology but it seems to indicate (based on other HUDs) there are no issues actually locking onto an F-22 in whatever state it was in during those 1v1s. I don't think the T-38 has a radar (gun ranging?)and the HUD is in some kind of LCOS guns mode but there is a lock tone that would either be heat missiles or a guns firing cue. In these type of exercises the pilot is obviously a bigger factor and often one aircraft starts defensive.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2017, 20:29
by garrya
zero-one wrote:Granted, but the Kpp claims were also unclassified data...much like the unofficial F-105 air-air kill with a bomb

Unclassified data and Unofficial data do not have the same meaning
Unclassified are data that are not hidden from the public but for all intent and purpose, they are official. The F-16 flight manual is unclassified, but it is the official flight test data. On the other hand, unofficial data are non-confirmed data


zero-one wrote: well what I said was not on "Full AB". See you gave out a picture of an F-22 on an airshow where its on AB most of the time. Thats why air shows don't last for more than 10 minutes, (F-22's full demo is about 10 minutes) because of all the AB use. So I don't think that the F-22 will be as hot as it is in an airshow as it is in combat

It very pointless to argue about this since even without AB, the F-22 is still much much hotter than a helicopter or a piston UAV which can be easily locked on by IR missiles ( even the shoulder launch version)


zero-one wrote:But air combat command news site never said the F-15s didn't have them
If I'm not mistaken, the exercise took place at around 2007. F-15s started Aim-9X integration in 2003. So its only natural for them to have it in 2007. Plus, FighterSweep is written by pilots with inside info. So if it was omitted on the official site but isn't classified, then they can post it

Here is the author detail
Scott Wolff is an accomplished writer and renowned aviation photojournalist. He has held the position of Managing Editor for a print flying lifestyle magazine, and is the Host and Editor for FighterSweep.

AFAIK, that doesn't sound like he is a F-22 pilot or anything similar, much less someone who got access to inside information

zero-one wrote:See heres why it doesn't matter to me, fuel and weapons loads were never mentioned, the F-22 could of been carrying 2k worth of fuel next to a tanker and just for fun the pilot punched full AB and did a turn, who knows

Low fuel does improve G load, but i seriously doubt that it would really improve turn rate by more than 2 times
Regardless, if the only situation that F-22 can achieve 28 degrees sustain turn rate is when it has 2K worth of fuel next to a tanker, then that achievement is rather irrelevance in real combat situation, and now we came back to the KPP value where its sustain G is around the same as an F-15 ( with 8 AAM and 50% fuel).As we know, F-15 wont be able to turn so fast that it get out of Aim-9X fov before the seeker can lock on target

zero-one wrote:But that doesn't remove the fact that the F-22s speed and maneuverability coupled with Stealth is a winning combination against F-15s with 9Xs. In fact, even the link you provided emphasized this.

Do i believe that F-22 can easily beat F-15 from BVR by stealth: yes i do
Do i believe that F-22 likely beat F-15 in a close combat dogfight when both using cannon : yes i do
Do i believe a single F-22 without HMS and AIM-9X and beat a pair of F-15 equipped with those things ? No
zero-one wrote:Well thats why I said, you can dig deeper into it if you want.

I tried to google that but nothing of substance came up

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2017, 20:49
by wrightwing
You're making some pretty big assumptions about the F-22's IR signature, in stating categorically x,y, and z have lower signatures.

As for defeating JHMCS/HOBS missiles, the F-22 has done this on a number of occasions, vs multiple F-16s, F-15s, etc...

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2017, 01:46
by eloise
zero-one wrote:
Well it would help if we could back that claim up.

Two colors IR seeker can distinguish between normal flares and aircraft because the temperature is very different. Multi spectra flares are flares burning at temperature similar to jet engine exhaust => can defeattwo color seeker.

IIR seeker can distinguish between flares and aircraft shape because it can see the shape of the aircraft

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2017, 02:07
by popcorn

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2017, 05:13
by armedupdate
If faced with a pair of F-15s, even in a merge, the F-22 would simply fire it's AIM-9X at speed and altitude before the F-15s could. Splash 2.

But yes if the F-22 decided to start turning against them, the HMD lack is a huge disadvantage. The F-22 would have to open it's bays, look down at his systems and attempt to get the Sidewinder to LOBL. While the F-15...just point and shoot.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2017, 13:11
by hornetfinn
I think that if AIM-9X couldn't lock on to F-22 in WVR ranges, then there is something seriously wrong with the missile seeker. Imaging seekers see everything as differences in thermal energy and any aircraft will stand out pretty clearly from background (be it sky, ground or water). Of course the amount of energy (temperature and material emissivity) affect the range where the target can be picked out from the background. F-22 might well be more difficult for IIR seeker to detect than F-15, but I really doubt it matters that much in WVR ranges. IIR seekers have much better sensitivity and performance than earlier scanning non-imaging seekers like in AIM-9M or Stinger or pretty much all IR missiles developed before 1990. Even those missiles could pretty easily lock on to pretty cool targets like helos, light aircraft or UAVs several kilometers away. IIR seekers can readily have 2-3 times the range against similar targets and are much more difficult to confuse with flares.

I do think F-22 is probably pretty damn difficult opponent even for several F-15C with HMS and AIM-9X. F-22 would constantly know where the F-15s are and what they are doing while F-15 pilots would to rely on their eyes to pick up and track the F-22. I do think that if F-15 pilot managed to track F-22 using HMD, AIM-9X would likely have not much problems locking onto it and going for the kill. That might be the difficult part as the SA advantage of F-22 pilot enjoys is very big and he can probably dictate how the fight commences which might make the HMS+AIM-9X less of a threat for him.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2017, 14:04
by popcorn
IMO the LO treatments designed into the F-22 are there to enhance it's primary role as a long-range shooter. The IR treatments could have bigger positive impact at long range to reduce the jet's IR signature than within WVR range where I agree with hornetfinn's assessment.
A furball vs multiple bandits equipped with HMD/HOBS capability means the Raptor has surrendered it's greatest strength ie. the ability to kill from a distance with virtual impunity. Definitely not smart and something to be avoided as everyone from 4-star Generals to newbie pilots like to point out.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2017, 14:28
by zero-one
garrya wrote:Unclassified are data that are not hidden from the public but for all intent and purpose, they are official. The F-16 flight manual is unclassified, but it is the official flight test data. On the other hand, unofficial data are non-confirmed data


But did the Kpp sheets give us all the other factors affecting the turn rate performance when that test was taken? Was it the actual limit of the F-22's performance, or was it just there to show us that the F-22 can match the F-15 in that altitude.

garrya wrote:It very pointless to argue about this since even without AB, the F-22 is still much much hotter than a helicopter or a piston UAV which can be easily locked on by IR missiles ( even the shoulder launch version)


How did you know that it will be much hotter than a helicopter or UAV? What helicopter or UAV are you comparing it to, were they also treated with IR reduction methods?


garrya wrote:
[b]Scott Wolff is an accomplished writer and renowned aviation photojournalist.....


You're basing your doubt on weather the F-15s had 9X on the fact that it wasn't mentioned on the first publication of the news. However it was also not disputed. Most of the time when news comes out, not all the info is given to the writers or the journalist. this is common, but lets look at the facts.

The Aim-9X was introduced in 2003, it was also integrated to the F-15 first. The exercise took place in 2007, I would be surprised if they would pit the F-22 against a handicapped opponent because Raptors are routinely pitted against opponents with the odds stacked against them.

So unless you can find a claim that specifically notes that the F-15s were NOT EQUIPPED with 9x and HMCS, then I see no reason to doubt the article in Fightersweep


garrya wrote:Low fuel does improve G load, but i seriously doubt that it would really improve turn rate by more than 2 times
Regardless, if the only situation that F-22 can achieve 28 degrees sustain turn rate is when it has 2K worth of fuel next to a tanker, then that achievement is rather irrelevance in real combat situation, and now we came back to the KPP value where its sustain G is around the same as an F-15 ( with 8 AAM and 50% fuel).As we know, F-15 wont be able to turn so fast that it get out of Aim-9X fov before the seeker can lock on target

so if the math here is correct (viewtopic.php?t=25385)
a 28 degree sustained turn is either a 9 g turn at about 350 knots and 7 g turn at about 275 knots, the low fuel weight can allow the Raptor to reach 7Gs at 2k.

Anyway I don't think of the 9X or any missile as something that will lock on in a second, in fact the early Aim-9s took some 4 seconds to lock on the tail pipe. Sure tech has improved but I doubt they have reached a point where it took just a second to lock.

In fact in 9X test footage, you'll notice the pilots taking a long hard look at the target before fox 2? why? well to me, its a clue as to how long it takes for the missile to recognize the target.

garrya wrote:Do i believe a single F-22 without HMS and AIM-9X and beat a pair of F-15 equipped with those things ? No


But it did, till now, there is still no counter to the article by Fightersweep, theres really no reason for us to doubt it

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2017, 22:33
by armedupdate
Most of the WVR happened probably beyond 8 km similar to Gulf War type engagements. The F-22 just shot them frontally or sneaked up to the rear. With it's powerful radar it could just input range/closure data in it's HUD and get an easy kill, while other fighters that cannot lock on will struggle/miss.

The enemy could attempt to use LOBL for the Sidewinder, but it's evelope will be much smaller thanks to the F-22's superior sensor processing, cruise speed and acceleration. Plus using passive info without range/velocity measurement is difficult for targetting at those distances.

I don't think the AIM-9 has any problem locking on the F-22, there has been AIM-9 Kills on the Raptor.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2017, 05:57
by garrya
zero-one wrote:But did the Kpp sheets give us all the other factors affecting the turn rate performance when that test was taken? Was it the actual limit of the F-22's performance, or was it just there to show us that the F-22 can match the F-15 in that altitude.

It does give us pretty much all we need to know: information about altitude, speed. Weapon load wasn't specified but quite obvious that it would be internal AA load.It wasn't just there to show that F-22 can match F-15 performance. It stated quite clear that sustain G value is the demonstrated value

zero-one wrote:How did you know that it will be much hotter than a helicopter or UAV? What helicopter or UAV are you comparing it to, were they also treated with IR reduction methods?

I know it have higher IR signature than a helicopter or an UAV because of common sense. In BVR situation, you can argue that the skin of a subsonic F-22 cruising at medium/high altitude would be quite cold ( and can be colder than the engine of a heli). However, in dogfight situation, the exhaust fumes would be massively hot, significantly more than any piston UAV.
I compare it to this kind of UAV
Image



zero-one wrote:You're basing your doubt on weather the F-15s had 9X on the fact that it wasn't mentioned on the first publication of the news. However it was also not disputed. Most of the time when news comes out, not all the info is given to the writers or the journalist. this is common, but lets look at the facts.

The Aim-9X was introduced in 2003, it was also integrated to the F-15 first. The exercise took place in 2007, I would be surprised if they would pit the F-22 against a handicapped opponent because Raptors are routinely pitted against opponents with the odds stacked against them.

So unless you can find a claim that specifically notes that the F-15s were NOT EQUIPPED with 9x and HMCS, then I see no reason to doubt the article in Fightersweep

There are a lot of nonsense in newspaper and magazine that never get officially disputed. They barely bother to correct the bad press ( i mean how often do you read on the new that F-35 is a useless trillions USD fighters ?, how often do you read that low frequency radar make stealth useless ? ), i think it not much of a surprise that they dont bother to correct good press.
It is not the matter of pitted against handicapped opponent but rather it could be a normal ACM exercise where they only use cannon ( happen more often than you think). Moreover, Fightersweep doesn't just claim that F-15 had aim-9X and HMS , they also claimed that a single F-22 , gone against 8 F-15 , and 2 of them at dogfight range. Extraordinary claim require extraordinary evidence


zero-one wrote:so if the math here is correct (viewtopic.php?t=25385)
a 28 degree sustained turn is either a 9 g turn at about 350 knots and 7 g turn at about 275 knots, the low fuel weight can allow the Raptor to reach 7Gs at 2k

He mean that , to get 28 degrees/second , you either made a 9G turn at 350knots or 7G turn at 275 knots. But that only a convention beteen speed , G and turn rate and have nothing to do with whether F-22 can sustain 28 degrees/second at 20K feet or not. Generally speaking, lower speed mean lower G with equal or even superior turn rate,however, lower speed mean less lift, and lift is a valuable thing at 20K feet

zero-one wrote:Anyway I don't think of the 9X or any missile as something that will lock on in a second, in fact the early Aim-9s took some 4 seconds to lock on the tail pipe. Sure tech has improved but I doubt they have reached a point where it took just a second to lock.

I dont know much about early AIM-9 but iam quite certain that Aim-9x can do significantly better.Given that even your modern phone's camera can recognize human face in second.
zero-one wrote:In fact in 9X test footage, you'll notice the pilots taking a long hard look at the target before fox 2? why? well to me, its a clue as to how long it takes for the missile to recognize the target.

Missiles doesn't need to recognize target themselves , the pilots literally point them at target and give order ( that shape is your target ).We are not talking about LOAL and ATA here
zero-one wrote:But it did

Or it didn't and the part we read was an exaggeration by writer

zero-one wrote:till now, there is still no counter to the article by Fightersweep, theres really no reason for us to doubt it

Using that logic then we should also take all RT proparganda pieces as truth since they don't bother to correct themselves ?

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2017, 16:45
by zero-one
garrya wrote:It does give us pretty much all we need to know: information about altitude, speed. Weapon load wasn't specified but quite obvious that it would be internal AA load.It wasn't just there to show that F-22 can match F-15 performance. It stated quite clear that sustain G value is the demonstrated value


But fuel and weapons load have so much to do with how the turn rate will turn out. and to me it's not "obvious" that it would be an internal load. Thats an assumption with no backing.

garrya wrote:I know it have higher IR signature than a helicopter or an UAV because of common sense.

Well common sense tells you that a brick wall is a better barrier against a 50 cal round than an Aquarium full of water, but apparently its not, the Aquarium is better if we are to believe ballistics test. If anything, the F-22 is the plane that defies common sense.

garrya wrote:There are a lot of nonsense in newspaper and magazine that never get officially disputed. They barely bother to correct the bad press ( i mean how often do you read on the new that F-35 is a useless trillions USD fighters ?, Moreover, Fightersweep doesn't just claim that F-15 had aim-9X and HMS , they also claimed that a single F-22 , gone against 8 F-15 , and 2 of them at dogfight range. Extraordinary claim require extraordinary evidence


Well according to a lot of people here, the F-22 has been pitted against F-15s/16s/18s with 9X in WVR and won. So this claim isn't really an extraordinary claim at all.

The claims about LF radars making Stealth useless has been countered so many times, as was the F-35 can't turn argument, RTs propaganda pieces were dismantled countless times as well. In fact I have a lot of links for counters against negative publicity. But this one has no counter. FighterSweep isn't like RT, they don't publish over the top claims just to get publicity, I think they deserve more credit than RT when it comes to articles about fighters

garrya wrote: Generally speaking, lower speed mean lower G with equal or even superior turn rate,however, lower speed mean less lift, and lift is a valuable thing at 20K feet

Not necessarily. G is a byproduct of turnrate and speed, So even if I'm slow, if I turn at a certain rate, I will still generate the desired G rate.

garrya wrote:I dont know much about early AIM-9 but iam quite certain that Aim-9x can do significantly better.Given that even your modern phone's camera can recognize human face in second.
zero-one wrote:In fact in 9X test footage, you'll notice the pilots taking a long hard look at the target before fox 2? why? well to me, its a clue as to how long it takes for the missile to recognize the target.

Missiles doesn't need to recognize target themselves , the pilots literally point them at target and give order ( that shape is your target ).We are not talking about LOAL and ATA here


First off, needing to recognize a target first is not new, the Aim-9 has growl that the pilots can hear through a headset, now when they are behind a target, they listen to the growl's intensity. Even if the target is in full AB, if that growl isn't loud, that means that the missile can't recognize the target.

Now, new missiles have improved more sensitive seekers that can see better, but the requirement to recognize the target first remains. You don't just look and shoot, you need to make sure that the missile is seeing what you're looking at.

Take a look at that escort shot again in the Aim-9X test footage, the F/A-18 pilot took a long hard look at that target which was flying beside him before firing. He didn't just turn his head and shoot, he needed to take some time to stare at the target which was white hot F-4 by the way before he had "good tone" and then shoot.

We can't simply take 2 different technologies and make conclusions based on their relation, the Aim-9x that was probably used in this exercise that took place in 2007 was likely using technology from the early 2000s. Its like saying, because my new Hybrid car can do 20km a gallon, the Abrams can probably do the 40 or 50. I know thats exaggerated, but its similar.


garrya wrote:Or it didn't and the part we read was an exaggeration by writer

We have nothing to support that accusation.

garrya wrote:Using that logic then we should also take all RT proparganda pieces as truth since they don't bother to correct themselves

RT has been debunked by Fightersweep so many times, we have no problems when we agree with them, but why do we have problems with this one

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2017, 00:15
by garrya
zero-one wrote:But fuel and weapons load have so much to do with how the turn rate will turn out. and to me it's not "obvious" that it would be an internal load. Thats an assumption with no backing

F-22 is a stealth aircraft, it would be expected for its KPP are of its normal operating condition ( or at least close to that). Sure you can argue that F-22 KPP is in a situation where it carries 4 external fuel tanks. But most people would disagree with that, because it doesn't seem very plausible froma fair logical standpoint


zero-one wrote:Well common sense tells you that a brick wall is a better barrier against a 50 cal round than an Aquarium full of water, but apparently its not, the Aquarium is better if we are to believe ballistics test.

It depend on the thickness of the brick wall and the kind of aquarium you are talking about. If they are of equal thickness, iam pretty sure a brick stop bullet better than an aquarium. Most, brick wall aren't that thick though, however, most aquarium are made from glass so they are useless after the first shot.The same can't be said about a brick wall.
Brick seem to do pretty well against piston and automatic rifle level caliber
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jy5DjzGpXvU
www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyKx6b2NOoU

zero-one wrote:If anything, the F-22 is the plane that defies common sense

I am not so sure about. Is F-22 a good aircraft, obviously.But that doesn't mean it just gonna defy laws of physics. Moreover, i already see the IR photo of F-22 and there is no indication that it would be cooler than a helicopter or a small UAV


zero-one wrote:Well according to a lot of people here, the F-22 has been pitted against F-15s/16s/18s with 9X in WVR and won. So this claim isn't really an extraordinary claim at all

That depending on the specific situation it defeats those aircraft , could just be a sneak up.Moreover, most people don't have access to exercise detail

zero-one wrote:The claims about LF radars making Stealth useless has been countered so many times, as was the F-35 can't turn argument

I mean like official counter claim from the same press '

zero-one wrote:RTs propaganda pieces were dismantled countless times as well. In fact I have a lot of links for counters against negative publicity. But this one has no counter

Maybe because it a good publicity

zero-one wrote: FighterSweep isn't like RT, they don't publish over the top claims just to get publicity, I think they deserve more credit than RT when it comes to articles about fighters

Obviously, RT and the like are very infamous for their proparganda , but what iam trying to say is that all information on magazine should be taken with a grant of salt

zero-one wrote:Not necessarily. G is a byproduct of turnrate and speed, So even if I'm slow, if I turn at a certain rate, I will still generate the desired G rate.

I dont think you understand what iam trying to say.
To achieve a certain amount of G , you need a certain amount of lift , and this lift came from speed
At the same time, turn rate is a function of speed and G
With a fixed G value, the slower you fly , the faster your turn rate and the lower your turn radius would be. However, slower speed also mean less lift, which is very necessary at high altitude.



zero-one wrote:First off, needing to recognize a target first is not new, the Aim-9 has growl that the pilots can hear through a headset, now when they are behind a target, they listen to the growl's intensity. Even if the target is in full AB, if that growl isn't loud, that means that the missile can't recognize the target.

Now, new missiles have improved more sensitive seekers that can see better, but the requirement to recognize the target first remains. You don't just look and shoot, you need to make sure that the missile is seeing what you're looking at.

For early IR missiles, pilot have to listen to the tone. But for modern IIR missiles, the one linked with HMS , the missile's sensor will be pointed at the exact same direction as the HMS


zero-one wrote:We have nothing to support that accusation

The fact that it wasn't in the original article or others popular press is a big red flag for me
The fact that it doesn't seem to fit with KPP value is another big red flag
Moreover, it just sound illogical for me overall.But ofcourse , you are free to have your own point of view on the matter

zero-one wrote:RT has been debunked by Fightersweep so many times, we have no problems when we agree with them, but why do we have problems with this one

Because it doesn't sound plausible

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2017, 11:16
by zero-one
garrya wrote:F-22 is a stealth aircraft, it would be expected for its KPP are of its normal operating condition ( or at least close to that). Sure you can argue that F-22 KPP is in a situation where it carries 4 external fuel tanks. But most people would disagree with that, because it doesn't seem very plausible froma fair logical standpoint


But for an unclassified data sheet, its possible that non-optimal configurations were used. this is exactly the same defense we had when the F-35's sustained G was reportedly reduced in 2012 from 5.3Gs to 4.6Gs. we said that without weights, speed and altitude taken into consideration we can't draw a conclusion. But the F-35 crowd said that this was "most likely taken within optimal conditions". We rebutted by saying, "thats quite an assumption"


garrya wrote:I am not so sure about. Is F-22 a good aircraft, obviously.But that doesn't mean it just gonna defy laws of physics. Moreover, i already see the IR photo of F-22 and there is no indication that it would be cooler than a helicopter or a small UAV

The F-35 has an active IR suppression system where the fuel is circulated around the plane to cool the skin. The F-22 may have a similar system as well. What if it was not activated on that shot. The F-22 is considered IR stealth. Now it would be hard to believe that they spent billions on it just to make it a little cooler than a regular F-4.


garrya wrote:That depending on the specific situation it defeats those aircraft , could just be a sneak up.Moreover, most people don't have access to exercise detail


as you know, WVR exercises are set up to cover all aspects of WVR, Neutral merge, perch setup, defensive BFM, offensive BFM. and as far as we know the F-22 dominates. So I'm not convinced that all those WVR wins were by "sneaking up back stabbing tactics".

garrya wrote:I mean like official counter claim from the same press '
it doesn't have to be official, most of our counter claims against the anti-F35 crowd were from unofficial but more credible claims like from the pilots themselves, published through sites like fightersweep.





garrya wrote:I dont think you understand what iam trying to say.
To achieve a certain amount of G , you need a certain amount of lift , and this lift came from speed
At the same time, turn rate is a function of speed and G
With a fixed G value, the slower you fly , the faster your turn rate and the lower your turn radius would be. However, slower speed also mean less lift, which is very necessary at high altitude.

Exactly, but which fighter would you bet to be capable of producing the most lift. the F-22 has 840 sq feet of wing, the largest of any fighter, plus chines plus a lifting body design plus tail lift. So if anything, the Raptor can produce an insane amount of lift even at slow speeds as demonstrated by it's short take off run in a demo.



garrya wrote:For early IR missiles, pilot have to listen to the tone. But for modern IIR missiles, the one linked with HMS , the missile's sensor will be pointed at the exact same direction as the HMS


Even if the seeker is pointed at the target, it will take time before the seeker actually sees the target. Even modern missiles still have tones, you need to have good tone before firing, Thats why you have LOAL. thats when you fire even without tone and then data link the targeting data after. Not all LOAL shots are HOBS, your can take a LOBS-LOAL shot.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2017, 17:45
by mixelflick
F-22 has larger wing area than PAK FA?

I'll have to go look that up, but if so it'd surprise me. Still, that 1000ft until airborne takeoff roll always amazed me!

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2017, 18:37
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Sustained 28 deg/s Nz turn at 20,000ft? Let me go into why this is a great big "No".

First is the lift required to get there in the first place. For a Raptor whose motors are .2sec away from fuel starvation and has no weapons this turn rate would require a CLmax between 2.07 and 4.65 for 9G and 4G respectively. 2.07 is not an unreasonable CLmax value for the Raptor, but turning at Empty Weight is. For the standard AA loadout and 60% internal fuel the CL max values go up to 2.74 and 6.17 for those respective Gs. These values are absurd. The idea that the Raptor can hit 28deg/s in an Nz turn at all about defies physics.

Second, to SUSTAIN said turns you would need un-holy amounts of thrust. On vapors the raptor would need to be putting out in excess of 106,174 lb of thrust, as that is the minimum possible INDUCED DRAG ALONE. I also can guarantee you will not see an "e" of 1 with a Cl over 2, .5 would more reasonable than 1, so even my absurdly optimistic numbers are absurd. To do that turn at the Loaded Weight? 186,565 lbs of minimum possible Induced Drag. Yes the Raptors engines are powerful but if they were that powerful the .8M to 1.5M acceleration would be 10 seconds not 57 seconds.

So, either that Col was blowing smoke or he was not talking about an Nz turn and was instead referencing a rudder turn where the rate is sustained but the flight path is essentially ballistic.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2017, 00:56
by garrya
zero-one wrote:But for an unclassified data sheet, its possible that non-optimal configurations were used. this is exactly the same defense we had when the F-35's sustained G was reportedly reduced in 2012 from 5.3Gs to 4.6Gs. we said that without weights, speed and altitude taken into consideration we can't draw a conclusion. But the F-35 crowd said that this was "most likely taken within optimal conditions". We rebutted by saying, "thats quite an assumption"

When the value first came out , it didn't have speed or altitude which is why it is certainly useless to deduce anything. However when the exact speed and altitude of F-35 when it achieve the sustain turn is released , people get pretty decent estimate of its sustain G performance
Same for F-22 case

zero-one wrote:The F-35 has an active IR suppression system where the fuel is circulated around the plane to cool the skin. The F-22 may have a similar system as well. What if it was not activated on that shot. The F-22 is considered IR stealth. Now it would be hard to believe that they spent billions on it just to make it a little cooler than a regular F-4

May be F-22 airframe is much cooler than an F-4, may be even a helicopter. But the exhaust flame though.
zero-one wrote:as you know, WVR exercises are set up to cover all aspects of WVR, Neutral merge, perch setup, defensive BFM, offensive BFM. and as far as we know the F-22 dominates. So I'm not convinced that all those WVR wins were by "sneaking up back stabbing tactics".

Plane are not supposed to use HOBS missiles in those setups AFAIK

zero-one wrote: it doesn't have to be official, most of our counter claims against the anti-F35 crowd were from unofficial but more credible claims like from the pilots themselves, published through sites like fightersweep

A claim doesn't need to be official if it has a physic based. For example : you dont need to be an F-35 pilots to know that aircraft turn rate reduce proportionally with air density, you dont need to be a S-400 commander to know that radar beam width is reversely proportional to wavelength..etc. and you dont need to be an official to put out those claim because they can be explained by simple physics that can be double check by anyone.
On the other hand, to claim that F-22 fought a certain number of enemies, equipped with certain kind of weapons, that is a kind of claim that would need some sort of authority.



zero-one wrote:
Exactly, but which fighter would you bet to be capable of producing the most lift. the F-22 has 840 sq feet of wing, the largest of any fighter, plus chines plus a lifting body design plus tail lift. So if anything, the Raptor can produce an insane amount of lift even at slow speeds as demonstrated by it's short take off run in a demo.

Spurt does a better job of explaining this, so see above



zero-one wrote:Even if the seeker is pointed at the target, it will take time before the seeker actually sees the target. Even modern missiles still have tones, you need to have good tone before firing, Thats why you have LOAL. thats when you fire even without tone and then data link the targeting data after. Not all LOAL shots are HOBS, your can take a LOBS-LOAL shot.

LOBL is when the missiles locked on the target before launch
LOAL is when the missiles is launched before its seeker can even see the target ( either due to distance or aspect )

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2017, 22:34
by zero-one
garrya wrote:When the value first came out , it didn't have speed or altitude which is why it is certainly useless to deduce anything. However when the exact speed and altitude of F-35 when it achieve the sustain turn is released , people get pretty decent estimate of its sustain G performance
Same for F-22 case

What were the conditions for the F-35's sustained turn KPP reduction? Were they ever release, please feel free to post the link here.

garrya wrote:May be F-22 airframe is much cooler than an F-4, may be even a helicopter. But the exhaust flame though.


Then there you go, the IR seekers have much harder time seeing the F-22 than the F-4. In the Aim-9X test footage, the pilots needed to stare down at the target QF-4s before launching. Imagine how much longer they would need to stare against a much colder F-22.




garrya wrote:Plane are not supposed to use HOBS missiles in those setups AFAIK


Care to back that up please. It doesn't make sense to me for comanders to intentionally tell pilots to handicap their planes for certain scenarios all the time. Yes I know that this is done, like when pilots are told to go guns only. But if you're saying that all WVR neutral merges/perch setups, deffensive and offensive BFM setups are purposely conducted without HOBS and HMD, then it doesn't make sense.




garrya wrote:
Spurt does a better job of explaining this, so see above


Okay, since its Spurts who said it, I give. Heres the flip side though, Im not saying I don't believe Spurts, because I do. But now its his word against an F-22 pilot's. And from watching Israeli pilot interviews, the first western pilots to fly the Mig-21. They also said that they fought with Arab pilots that made many incredible acrobatic feats that were supposedly "impossible" for a Mig-21. Sometimes planes just don't know the rules.


garrya wrote:LOBL is when the missiles locked on the target before launch
LOAL is when the missiles is launched before its seeker can even see the target ( either due to distance or aspect )


And HOBS means High off boarsite, LOBS means Low off boresite. I think you misunderstood my statement, thats why you felt the need to define it, thank you
But I didn't say LOBL-LOAL, I said LOBS-LOAL(Low off boresite - Lock on after launch)

So what I was saying is. Not all LOAL (Lock on after launch) shots are HOBS (high off boresite). Technically you can have a LOAL (lock on after launch) LOBL (low off boresite) shot.

Basically when you have the plane in front of you but the seeker can't see it yet (because All seekers take time to register their target depending on the heat if its an IR seeker or the RCS if its a Radar guided seeker) but you shoot anyway, and simply data link the data after.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2017, 09:27
by eloise
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Sustained 28 deg/s Nz turn at 20,000ft? Let me go into why this is a great big "No".

First is the lift required to get there in the first place. For a Raptor whose motors are .2sec away from fuel starvation and has no weapons this turn rate would require a CLmax between 2.07 and 4.65 for 9G and 4G respectively. 2.07 is not an unreasonable CLmax value for the Raptor, but turning at Empty Weight is. For the standard AA loadout and 60% internal fuel the CL max values go up to 2.74 and 6.17 for those respective Gs. These values are absurd. The idea that the Raptor can hit 28deg/s in an Nz turn at all about defies physics.

Second, to SUSTAIN said turns you would need un-holy amounts of thrust. On vapors the raptor would need to be putting out in excess of 106,174 lb of thrust, as that is the minimum possible INDUCED DRAG ALONE. I also can guarantee you will not see an "e" of 1 with a Cl over 2, .5 would more reasonable than 1, so even my absurdly optimistic numbers are absurd. To do that turn at the Loaded Weight? 186,565 lbs of minimum possible Induced Drag. Yes the Raptors engines are powerful but if they were that powerful the .8M to 1.5M acceleration would be 10 seconds not 57 seconds..

Spurt, how do you estimate drag or Cd from Cl value?,and what are induced drag?

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2017, 13:45
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Induced Drag is the drag created as a result of the lifting force. The aerodynamic force we generally think of as lift does not act perpendicular to the flight path or the wing surface. It pulls up and back. The up part is what we call lift, the back part is induced drag. It is estimated as Cl^2/(pi * e * AR) where AR is the aspect ratio and e is the Oswald's Efficiency Factor. The e can vary depending on airflow and angle of attack and it is often averaged as 0.8. I used the unrealistic value of 1 just to prove how absurd the amount of drag being generated was. As an example, some wind tunnel test results I have for an F/A-18 indicate that e can drop down around 0.5 at CL max for a fighter. Hope that helps, I need to get back to my coffee.

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2017, 01:32
by eloise
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote: The up part is what we call lift, the back part is induced drag. It is estimated as Cl^2/(pi * e * AR) where AR is the aspect ratio and e is the Oswald's Efficiency Factor. The e can vary depending on airflow and angle of attack and it is often averaged as 0.8.

Do i then use Cl^2/(pi * e * AR) and multiply it with the lift required ( aircraft weight*G value) to calculate induced drag?

Re: Nice Article on the F-22

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2017, 03:47
by sprstdlyscottsmn
eloise wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote: The up part is what we call lift, the back part is induced drag. It is estimated as Cl^2/(pi * e * AR) where AR is the aspect ratio and e is the Oswald's Efficiency Factor. The e can vary depending on airflow and angle of attack and it is often averaged as 0.8.

Do i then use Cl^2/(pi * e * AR) and multiply it with the lift required ( aircraft weight*G value) to calculate induced drag?

No, you multiply the Cl^2/(pi * e * AR) by (0.5 * air density * V^2 * Wing Area) , or qS. To get the CL value you take the lift and decide by qS.