Fighter Pilot Podcast ep 61... F-22 RAPTOR!

From 25min starts discussing FCS and then ACM with F-16 in which he went from using TVC to high speed rating like an F-15 to get more success. TVC engages below 275 knots and gives 40 degree/sec pitch rate. From 65mins discusses DACT with an F-18 and describes an even larger pitch rate of 90 degree/sec at 29kft to get on its six after a merge.

From 25min starts discussing FCS and then ACM with F-16 in which he went from using TVC to high speed rating like an F-15 to get more success. TVC engages below 275 knots and gives 40 degree/sec pitch rate. From 65mins discusses DACT with an F-18 and describes an even larger pitch rate of 90 degree/sec at 29kft to get on its six after a merge.

Thanks for pointing it out. This concours also with the TVC specs of the F-16 VISTA, which gives an advantage below 250 kt.

Interesting on his comments about the why the Raptor has no Helmet Cueing.
Reasons I got were

1. It doesn't fit.
Question: are there helmets under development that may be smaller and fit the Raptor's canopy specs.

2. Budget, no surprise there but his comments after are interesting
"Do we really need fancy heaters when the Raptor can gun you in the face because it turns so well"

I've long suspected that the F-22's impressive kinematics can somewhat offset the need for a helmet but to a certain degree only. My reason for this is that during the 90s, F-15 and F-16 pilots trained against HMCS equipped Mig-29s and though it made the Fulcrum more formidable, they were not totally helpless against it and managed to hold their own even without it.

But this is the first instance that a Raptor pilot actually confirmed that hold the floor and even dominate BFM engagements against Helmet equipped adversaries

Your comment about allied pilots being able to "hold their own" against Mig-29's w/Archer..... wasn't what I recalled at all. In fact, it was quite the opposite if I remember correctly One comment from an allied pilot was something along the lines of "it was a nasty surprise and absolute bloodbath", or something to that effect.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

In any case, I think the Raptor community/USAF has known for some time the Raptor can dominate without a helmet mounted sight. BUT, that doesn't mean it'll dominate tomorrow in the same way. When the Scorpion helmet was evaluated, the world was a different place. Today, at least 1 nation and soon another (China and Russia) are flying 5th gen aircraft, at least in some respects. And while I don't think the J-20 will be a problem IF it comes to making it to the merge, I do think the SU-57 will. So a helmet mounted sight could spell the difference there.

I would love for it to happen. Mostly because the Raptor is SO close to being "the total package". It always seemed incomplete though, vs. what it could/can be. The side radar arrays that went unused. Not carrying the 9x for the longest time. The lack of an infra-red sensor or other passive detection sensors other than radar. The elimination of around 5,000lbs of fuel from prototype to production bird. All of these things bother Raptor fans at least insofar as what could have been.

Hopefully, such things are rectified on PCA...

@mixelflick

You are correct about NATO pilots first reaction to Mig-29s when they first had the opportunity to fly against them in training (I think it was the German or Polish AF Mig-29s). The archer and the helmet mounted sight was indeed a nasty initial surprise. However as the training persisted and as NATO pilots became more familiar with the Mig-29, better tactics was employed. They realised the Mig-29 didnt have the radar, BVR capabilities, or pilot interphase of its western counterparts.

You are right about the Raptor being so close to being a total package, one could say the same of the F-35 in some regards as well. I dont think the Raptor would have benefited much from having side looking radar arrays. The AN/ALR-94 on the F-22 is nothing to sneeze at. If NATO and the F-35 pilots have something to thank for their updated threat libraries, they could thank F-22s flying in Syria passively soaking up all that radio and radar data. We all know the F-22 will eventually get an IR sensor of somekind somehow and an helmet mounted system of some sort. Despite not having those, the Raptor still dominates. I think that is why you never really hear about its successes in training/exercise events. It happens so often and so regularly that its just become the norm. You only ever hear or read about its defeats because they are so rare and far in between.

Your comment about allied pilots being able to "hold their own" against Mig-29's w/Archer.....

Not sure if you remember the old "Wings of Red October" documentary.

But here F/A-18s were trained to fight against Mig-29s with the helmet and although they were impressed, they were still able to hold their own. One pilot commented by saying, "He got the first one, I got the second one when asked who won the BFM training (watch the 24 minute mark). At the time of filming, the F/A-18 had no HMCS yet.

I would love for it to happen. Mostly because the Raptor is SO close to being "the total package". It always seemed incomplete though, vs. what it could/can be. The side radar arrays that went unused. Not carrying the 9x for the longest time. The lack of an infra-red sensor or other passive detection sensors other than radar. The elimination of around 5,000lbs of fuel from prototype to production bird. All of these things bother Raptor fans at least insofar as what could have been.

Hopefully, such things are rectified on PCA...

It's true that with funding the sensors can be updated to F-35 standards, like DAS function for the missile warning sensors and also IRST and laser and EW updates. In fact hopefully F-22 upgrade funding for that doesn't get cut because the sensor upgrades is what it needs THE MOST.

But there's nothing you can do to get that fuel from the prototype back, unless you go to a new airframe. YF-22 carried more fuel but fuselage is also blockier and the whole airplane was draggier too, especially at the rear fuselage. Only way to keep that fuel is if you sacrifice some aerodynamics, so a bigger draggier airplane to store that extra fuel.

This is why PCA needs to move to clean sheet design to take all the advantage of advance in aerodynamics and structures and engines since F-22 was designed in late 80s and early 90s. Also, stop with the F-15EX nonsense and put that money into something that actually makes bigger difference, like F-22 upgrade funding for sensors or PCA.

When listening to Col. Terry Scott, one thing that stuck out to me was how in his first BFM fight against F-16, he actually didn't do too well because with how good F-22 can pull high alpha, he went into post-stall while F-16 kept his energy up. And this is with an F-22 with tons of energy and acceleration. So it may be that the first few F-35 high alpha combat maneuver tests where pilots thought the energy wasn't good might also be because pilots not used to an aircraft with so much alpha, so they end up pulling too much and bleed energy too quickly.

When listening to Col. Terry Scott, one thing that stuck out to me was how in his first BFM fight against F-16, he actually didn't do too well because with how good F-22 can pull high alpha, he went into post-stall while F-16 kept his energy up. And this is with an F-22 with tons of energy and acceleration. So it may be that the first few F-35 high alpha combat maneuver tests where pilots thought the energy wasn't good might also be because pilots not used to an aircraft with so much alpha, so they end up pulling too much and bleed energy too quickly.

Doesn't surprise me. This type of thing has been mentioned before during a 2008 Red Flag debrief where a USAF Colonel was discussing the experiences with India's Su-30MKI. This video garnished contraversy and plenty of pissing contests. Skip to time index 6:40 where he starts talking about vector thrust.


Even though the F-22 has lots of power, doing high AoA maneuvers will put ANY aircraft in a massive energy deficit. The F-22 merely gains its energy back quicker than pretty much any current fighter aircraft. Note how in the Fighter Pod Cast ep the guest later mentions that instead of using high alpha stuff to fight the F-16, he went back to flying the Raptor like his old F-15 and got some wins out of it.
I asked an F-22 pilot I talked to at Nellis Air Show a couple years back about just how useful TVC. If I remember correctly he mentions at certain points of BFM the TVC on the F-22 can be very usefull. He said during a high yo yo towards the top of a loop he pulls back on the throttle and pulls hard on the stick to use the TVC. He said the F-22 can quickly point the nose to get into a good firing position much faster. He said the F-22 has no problem getting into an F-16s turn and staying there.

Fighter pilots say that you trade energy for position

It can't justify the weight/cost though, at least not in the case of the F-35. That was the decision that was made - no thrust vectoring. Having said that, the flight controls (and I guess control surfaces/lift) allow for thrust vector like maneuvers.

They obviously don't think they'll be in the merge with anyone, although they left enough performance WVR to make it dangerous to do so. All things considered, it's a pretty amazing engineering accomplishment. Fuel to spare, adequate speed, super sensors/ECM package and that instantaneous turn rate, WOW.

I feel sorry for the J-10 pilot jumping an F-35, and expecting an easy kill. Nothing about that is going to be easy, starting with finding the thing, lol. I just don't see any enemy fighter "surprising" an F-35 pilot with a functioning DAS. They can add all the thust vectoring they want, it's still a big sky out there - and finding the F-35 before it finds you is... unlikely.

@mixelflick
Thats nice, but what does that have to do with the F-22? If a J-10B or J-11 were to go up against the F-22 instead of an F-35, it would face a similar fate; dead before the merge let alone before it even knew it was in a fight.

Besides F-35 was built with different requirements than the F-22 and there is almost a decade gap between them.

@mixelflick
Thats nice, but what does that have to do with the F-22? If a J-10B or J-11 were to go up against the F-22 instead of an F-35, it would face a similar fate; dead before the merge let alone before it even knew it was in a fight.

Besides F-35 was built with different requirements than the F-22 and there is almost a decade gap between them.

Yes, sorry I got off topic.

The F-22 is unquestionably top dog in air to air, even given its miniscule production run. That thing shows up in your neighborhood, everyone takes notice. Everyone from current SU-35 pilots to J-20's, tangling with an F-22 means almost certain doom.

We know it. They know it. The world knows it. Everyone but Sec. Gates and Congress knows it. Nice that we have the F-35 now and I believe it'll be adequate, but 350 Raptors would have been awful nice to have. Had we had the foresight to do so, we wouldn't have to be buying F-15EX's right now. Boeing would still have plenty of foreign orders for the F-15 (witness the latest Israeli plan to buy both the F-35 and F-15EX), so no shuddering the production line issue.

Those F-22's would be just enough to give it a worldwide footprint, and China (or Russia) wouldn't think twice about pushing our buttons. But alas, that's not what happened. Hopefully the USAF will have learned a lesson from such, and build adequate numbers of PCA...