Nice Article on the F-22

Anything goes, as long as it is about the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

garrya

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 494
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post16 Jan 2017, 19:48

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.
Offline
User avatar

rheonomic

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 425
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 03:44
  • Location: US

Unread post16 Jan 2017, 19:55

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.
u = (CB)⁻¹(cvdt_des - CAx)
Offline

armedupdate

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 451
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2015, 21:11

Unread post16 Jan 2017, 19:55

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.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1182
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post17 Jan 2017, 07:41

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.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1390
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post17 Jan 2017, 08:51

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
Last edited by eloise on 17 Jan 2017, 09:47, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1390
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post17 Jan 2017, 09:14

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
Offline

garrya

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 494
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post17 Jan 2017, 09:17

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
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1182
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post17 Jan 2017, 17:34

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.
Offline

garrya

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 494
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post17 Jan 2017, 19:37

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?
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1390
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post17 Jan 2017, 23:59

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
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1182
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post18 Jan 2017, 17:25

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.
Offline

garrya

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 494
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post18 Jan 2017, 20:25

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
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1182
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post19 Jan 2017, 13:40

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.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4343
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post19 Jan 2017, 14:10

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.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

garrya

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 494
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post19 Jan 2017, 14:38

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
PreviousNext

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 8 guests