Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

The Euro canards are so called "4.5" generation jets, don't let their appearance deceive you, they may look like F-16, but under the hood they pack a giant leap of technologies.

So they did well against the Raptor in WVR, big deal, they are supposed to be about on par with F-22 in that regime. However, the real intersting story is how do the stealth and supersonic fare in BVR, now everybody keep their big mouths shut, annoyingly.

F-16.net Sponsor

icemaverick wrote:

The F-22s flew with radar reflecting tanks against the French in Dubai to hide their true level of stealth. I doubt the USAF would want to reveal the Raptor's true level of stealth to the Germans either. Exercises are good and all, but there are a lot of things that neither side will reveal to the other. America would almost certainly want to keep the details of the Raptor's stealth characteristics a secret. Also, you'll note that those articles state that the Typhoon was slicked off as much as possible but no such thing is mentioned about the Raptor.

The Raptors weren't flying with drop tanks during the engagements, they were fitted with the Luneberg Lens and that's all about it. Pictures tell more than a thousand words could...

The Americans didn't tell to much anyway, they just commented that they have different memories and claim a couple of gunshots.

The F-22 is less than a mile away in those pics... the Mk1 Eyeball could pick them out.

btw, those lower 3 pics look like the F-22 is RTB anyhow.

Sure returning to base with afterburners engaged ad vortices over the wing... Anyway the point was that the Raptor had no tanks during the engagements with the Rafale and I somewhat doubt they had some when flying against the Typhoon, that's the sole purpose for showing these images from the BFM against the Rafale.

We have no idea as to the context of those images.

Here's a quote from this article: http://www.arabianaerospace.aero/articl ... on=defence

Quote:

For these training missions, the F-22As flew only within visual range 1 vs 1 BFM (Basic Fighter Manoeuvring) sorties, and did so carrying under-wing fuel tanks, and with radar reflectors fitted, preventing opponents from seeing how ‘stealthy’ the F-22 is in operational configuration, or from experiencing the F-22’s AN/APG-77 radar and highly advanced AN/ALR-94 passive receiver system.

The images are from the BFMs. Maybe they carried drop tanks during the missions flown at Al dhafra, but as these images prove they didn't during the BFM with the Rafale. I take photographic evidence over claims any day.

Scorpion82 wrote:

The images are from the BFMs.

And you know this how? At least one of those pics is from A&C and that publication reported that the Rafale got waxed.

Quote:

Maybe they carried drop tanks during the missions flown at Al dhafra, but as these images prove they didn't during the BFM with the Rafale. I take photographic evidence over claims any day.

All these pictures show is that the Raptor can be photographed. We have absolutely no idea about the context in which they were taken.

Besides, not even the French were claiming victories over the Raptor. The French were claiming that the Rafale was only "decisively" defeated in 1 out of 6 engagements. This seems to imply that it was not as decisively beaten in at least one other engagement. For their part, the USAF claims that the Raptor "dominated."

So it would seem the question is, was the Rafale dominated or just narrowly edged out? It depends on who you believe I guess.

The images were all published by A&C and that article was related to the BFM between both types and at least one image shows how the Raptor is pulling hard. That all adds up and "getting waxed" is relative if you get beaten 1 out of six times.

According to that same article (translated):

"Although French aviators showed off a great deal about the "beatings" inflicted by their Rafales on British Typhoons during the last ATLC exercise in the United Arab Emirates, very little was said about the confrontation between Dassault's delta-wing aircraft and the American F-22As. In out-of-visual-range engagements, the American Raptors did not even condescend to turn on their radars, remaining invisible to the Rafale's RBE2 [radar system] and Spectra [self-defense system] while precisely locating the electromagnetic waves from the French fighter, thus securing their AMRAAM [missile] launches from a secure distance. On two occasions at least, the F-22As also "tangled" with the Rafales in close combat, securing a "gun kill" each time without much difficulty."

According to A&C, the Rafale was beaten at least twice (the number of engagements aren't specified) and it was easily detected and locked up BVR even without radar.

Later the AdA would deny there was any BVR combat and that they weren't even aware that the Raptors were trying to lock them. That could be true. But A&C does stand by its claim that the Raptor scored 2 victories "without much difficulty." That doesn't seem to imply a close contest.

Even the French aren't claiming that the Rafale had any victories. The only thing that is being debated here is how badly the Rafale was beaten. The USAF claims the Raptor "dominated." The AdA claims that it was only decisively beaten once.

Interestingly, the Rafale pilots did talk a whole lot about their engagements against the Typhoon which they claim to have to dominated 7-1.

icemaverick wrote:

Interestingly, the Rafale pilots did talk a whole lot about their engagements against the Typhoon which they claim to have to dominated 7-1.

Maybe the EF's weren 't "slicked off as much as possible." Wink

Afaik the USAF itself doesn't permit BVR DACT with the F-22 against aircraft from foreign airforces. The Raptors carey RCS enhancers anyway and typically don't use their radar in order to not compromise details about its true signatures and radar operating characteristics. IIRC the Raptor jocks simulated AMRAAM shots with the AN/ALR-94 on transition towards the training area, but it wasn't part of the agreed training itself. A&C also stated that Rafales have beem beaten just once and the same was stated by Lt. Col. Grandclaudon in the AFM interview back then. So who knows. At the end of the day it's irrelevant anyway wrt the BFM setups in Alaska during Distant Frontier.

Why is it so hard for some of you to believe that 2 super-maneuverable jets would be evenly matched in WVR? So what? There are so many contributing factors like piloting skills, set up (loaded or not), amount of fuel carried etc. that play a very big role in the outcome.
It does not mean that the F-22 is an incapable jet. As shown many, many times, the Raptor does exactly what it has been designed to do (And MORE) very, very well!

Besides, in real combat there will be no merge unless the F-22 pilot screws up big time and I really mean BIG TIME, which they are being trained NOT TO DO.

The real question to me is how will Tiffy even survive long enough to make it into that merge with a VLO fighter like the Raptor that:
1. Is way too far out to be detected by any airborne radar (X-Band?).
2: Could be actively engaging Tiffy with multiple AMRAAMS, deployed at 60.000ft at M1.5+.
3: Could be actively jamming Tiffy's radar.
4: Is doing everything in its power to avoid a merge.

IT--

Well, the media sure is quick at jumping on things like this.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/07/f-22-germans/

Please stop using Wired as a source, it makes you look gullible. It is not a credible source.

My top 10 issues with this article (in no real order):

10. The F-22 is a $400 million plane (Well skippy, if you do that kind of math, then the next one off the line only cost $110 million, so why in heck did they end the line claiming it was $200+ million per.)

9. Never mentioned the radar reflectors, kind of a big deal.

8. Miss interpreted, "As soon as you get to the merge … the Typhoon doesn’t necessarily have to fear the F-22." "doesn't necessarily" does not mean does not have to fear the F-22, significant difference.

7. Repeatedly uses conotation to infer the hypoxia issue was much worse than it was, and implies that USAF doesn't really have it fixed.

6. Completely ignors what the German pilot said concerning the Merge being a very small portion of air-to-air combat.

5. Cites a RAND study from 2008 that looked at missiles fired since the 1950's as a good predictor of the future.

4. Didn't think to realize that the missile launches up to mid-1980's account for the vast majority of the launches, weighting the study on the early unreliable missiles.

3. Gives Pierre Sprey credit for the F-16 and A-10.(Sprey co-wrote the requirments for the F-16 and A-10, but General Dynamics and Fairchild Rebuplic designed them. Additionally the F-16 Sprey wanted had no radar, two missiles and a gun, could not bomb, no radar, day only, fair weather only fighter.)

2. Thinking Pierre Sprey is still relavent in fighter design. (The same guy who didn't think the F-16 needed radar because it was a fad. The same guy who refuses to accept that the AIM-120D is not your grandfathers AIM-120, or AIM-7 for that matter. The same guy who thought the F-16 should not have a pound for the ground.)

1. Assumes based on one-side of a story that the F-22 is doomed.

Sufa Viper

sufaviper wrote:

Please stop using Wired as a source, it makes you look gullible. It is not a credible source.

My top 10 issues with this article (in no real order):

...

Mind if I add a few more?

First, it's Lt. Col. Marc Grüne, not "Maj. Marc Gruene."

Second (and I don't mean to sound like a broken record here), he [deliberately?] omitted one of Grüne's most relevant quotes: "The Typhoons were stripped of their external fuel tanks and slicked off as much as possible before the encounter with the Raptors."

Third, he says that "bigger" fighters are at a disadvantage in a merge. O rly? Well then, if that's the case, EF's had better avoid "merging" with smaller Gripens, F-16's, M2K's and MiG-21's.

Finally, this doof completely left out the USAF's side of the story.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

F-22A versus EF2000