F-22 near perfect in combat exercises

[Incident_command]

F-22 near perfect in combat exercises




By Seamus O’Connor - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Jul 31, 2007 15:56:56 EDT

The F-22 Raptor is the world’s most advanced fighter, but is it invincible?
Internet rumors have swirled for months over whether any F-22s had been taken down in simulated combat exercises. Discussion forums are rife with Navy pilots touting a controversial photo appearing to show an F/A-18F Super Hornet gunning down a Raptor.
http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/8453/f18fgunf22020lz.jpg

Even a blind squirrel gets a nut now and then

[cerberus]

Whatever. If we are ever in serious "dogfights" again, something in the war plan has already gone seriously wrong. A more meaningful question is its effectiveness against ground-based threats.

[Incident_command]

Not at all. Following WW2 the majority of our so-called fighters have been interceptors and not fighters. That is they were designed to fight BVR,"beyond visual range". Yet we did then and do now wind up in dogfights due to ROE's. That is make sure it is a bad guy with your own two eyes. If you meant we should never allow it to get to that point I would agree
Korea, Nam, Kosovo, to name a few have all had dogfights when they were thought to be a thing of the past.Dogfights being air to air battles within sight of each other and not BVR.

One example is the F-4. Proof that you can make a brick fly if you give it big enough engines. While a great aircraft it was never designed to be a dog fighter. So much so it was not even given a cannon. To top it off the sparrow and sidewinders missles had a high failure rating. Later gun pods were installed on its belly.Tactics is what gave it an edge over MIG 19's and 21's.

The F22 is ground attack capable with SDB and JDAM. It is said to be so good at it that it will soon put the F117 out to pasture due to its superior stealth, weapons sytems, speed, ability to fight its way into and from the target,and ease of use for the pilot.

If its worth it or not due to cost is another subject that only time will tell.

[Rhino]

Discussion forums are rife with Navy pilots touting a controversial photo appearing to show an F/A-18F Super Hornet gunning down a Raptor.[/IMG]There's a few problems with this. Notice the HUD display. The "GUN" symbology has a X through it. That could either mean the gun is not armed, not selected or that this is not a feasible gun shot. Given the bank angle of this crossing shot, it's quite likely that a gun solution cannot be made. The circle around the Raptor does not mean the shot is available, which likely confuses all those discussion forum folks who are hyping this picture. It merely means the systems are locked onto the Raptor. Given the convergence angles of both aircraft, it appears nearly impossible that a gun kill could have been made here. That's the danger of having the uninitiated comment on stuff they know nothing about.

[BuckeyeMike]

Actually, when I was in, the circle around the target indicated a TTF or a "time-to-fire" and this circle decreased in size as the TTF approached....the X indicated that the chosen weapon had, in fact, been fired. As for the X being through the "gun" symbology itself, you are correct as the AWCS computer has decided that the parameters have not been met to make this attack scenario feasible at this time.

[Rhino]

I would imagine. Since he's apparently in a 1.7G turn, and since the Raptor is basically dead ahead, any rounds fired would not hit it. Of course, I could be reading all this wrong, but suffice it to say that internet discussion forums aren't exactly the place to expect to reliably find fighter experts.

By the way, IC, do you have a link to this source? I found a link to the article, but it doesn't include the picture.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/07/airforce_raptor_070730/

[Rhino]

In the article, Col. Tom Bergeson, the exercise’s air expeditionary commander, described the situation: When one aggressor went down, it was able to fly out and regenerate so quickly that an F-22 pilot thought the enemy was still “dead,” and got shot down himself for the mistake.

One thing is for sure: The plane that took down the Raptor was an F-15 or F-16, but not an F/A-18F. When asked whether a Superbug might have claimed a kill, one Air Force public affairs officer scoffed, “Not bloody likely.”Looks like a simple mistake, and it looks like the Navy is claiming something they didn't do.

By the way, a Superbug is an F-18.

[Rhino]

Interesting note. From what I can find, that picture depicts an F-18 HUD, not a HUD from and F-15 or F-16, so I wonder where this picture came from.

[Rhino]

This is from a Raptor pilot.

The Hornet "snap" shot - good story. Happened here at Langley. It was a stock, combat configured F-22 flying a BFM (dogfighting) sortie against an airshow configured, i.e. squeeky clean, not combat configured or loaded, Super Hornet (not at all representative of how it performs with 8 pylons, an EA pod and 4-6 or missiles hanging off the rails and probably a fuel tank or two or their out of gas real quick...). It started from a 9000 foot line abreast 300 knot setup (which AF pilots never fly) where they turned into each other at the "fights on" call. It's not a scenario we fly because we never find ourselves in those parameters, we try to set up realistic parameters we expect to see in combat - otherwise the lessons learned aren't applicable and while it might be fun it's not a good use of scarce training time (I don't know if that's a setup the Navy flies or it might just have been a quick attempt to get a last engagement in if they were low on gas - I don't have that info). The Hornet pilot gave up everything he had to point at the Raptor and take a snap shot - it was NOT a tracking shot (stabilized and enough bullets to cause a kill), it was about 2 or 3 frames (many more required to cause a kill… http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread202946/pg7

[Rhino]

Another related thread there.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread291902/pg1

[Incident_command]

Interesting note. From what I can find, that picture depicts an F-18 HUD, not a HUD from and F-15 or F-16, so I wonder where this picture came from.


Heres one link.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread202946/pg1

It is a F/A 18 HUD. And from what a navy pilot told me the pilot of the Raptor did not know the Rhino was still part of the fight. Which is why the Rhino even got within gun range.
While the navy is proud of this they know the raptor is a far better aircraft than anything they have. Still go back to the blind squirrle remark.

[Incident_command]

There's a few problems with this. Notice the HUD display. The "GUN" symbology has a X through it. That could either mean the gun is not armed, not selected or that this is not a feasible gun shot. Given the bank angle of this crossing shot, it's quite likely that a gun solution cannot be made. The circle around the Raptor does not mean the shot is available, which likely confuses all those discussion forum folks who are hyping this picture. It merely means the systems are locked onto the Raptor. Given the convergence angles of both aircraft, it appears nearly impossible that a gun kill could have been made here. That's the danger of having the uninitiated comment on stuff they know nothing about.

X = Gun selected not armed.

Also look at the airspeed. Pretty slow huh.

[Rhino]

That whole thread is interesting.

II have flown against the F-22 on several occasions in both the F-15 and F-16. The Raptor is indeed a tough nut to crack in a BVR scenario but I have managed to sneak in unobserved a time or two. That was due more to a lack of attention on the Raptor pilot’s part than any exceptional cunning on my part. Within visual range, the F-22 is extremely maneuverable and quite impressive. However, it is not without weaknesses that can’t be exploited.
First, while the F-22 carries the AIM-9X, the jet is not equipped with a helmet-mounted cueing system. This puts the Raptor, or any aircraft that is not so equipped, at a distinct disadvantage in the visual arena. The easiest way to take advantage of the high off-boresight capability of a missile such as the AIM-9X or the AA-11 Archer is to use a head-steered cueing system. Both missiles can be slewed faster and easier with a helmet-mounted cueing system than with any other aircraft sensor such as the radar or infrared search-and-track system. In the case of these two missiles for example, I have flown the Archer-equipped MiG-29 against an AIM-9X-equipped F-15 and was at a disadvantage because the AIM-9X enjoys a significant off-boresight advantage over the AA-11. In this case, the solution to the problem isn’t so much sustained turn capability but who can point the fastest. It’s a race to see who can pull the black out of the stick faster in order to bring the adversary into the limits of the helmet/missile combination. Old fashioned dogfighting concepts have to be redefined with the potential brought by high off-boresight, head-steered missile.
Secondly, vectored thrust is both a blessing and a curse. I’m not sure if there is a certain airspeed at which the F-22’s vectored thrust kicks in, but when we were testing the multi-axis thrust-vectored F-16 back in the mid 1990s above about 300 knots indicated airspeed the thrust vectoring was not even used. The aircraft was as maneuverable without thrust vectoring as with thrust vectoring. Is there a similar phenomenon with the Raptor? It’s a question I can’t remember asking one our F-22 pilots. If a fighter pilot decides to cash in and get down to the airspeeds where thrust vectoring is effective, he better kill me now. If he doesn’t and I’m patient, I can turn this situation to my advantage. Not only does thrust vectoring slow his airplane down even more, but the pilot has given up a significant amount of his axial trust in order to push the nose around. With the loss of this axial thrust component, the airframe isn’t being pushed anymore and the jet starts to lose altitude. This altitude can be exploited by the guy who isn’t ‘dead right now’. If the thrust-vectored aircraft tries to unload to a lower angle-of-attack in order to regain energy, it takes quite a while to break all that AoA to where the jet can accelerate to higher speeds. If I’m flying a jet with a helmet-mounted cueing system and high off-boresight missile against and jet that doesn’t, I’m at a distinct advantage. I don’t have to be as or more maneuverable than he is. I can and will drive the fight and make him react to me. I’ve got similar HUD footage of the Raptor because I brought a sword (high off-boresight missile / helmet-mounted cueing system) to the knife fight. The F-15, F-16 and F-18 are all equipped with these capabilities. The Raptor is not (yet). Did this play a role in this engagement?
Another thing about thrust vectoring; there is definite learning curve in developing the techniques to properly exploit this capability. If the Raptor pilot is sloppy and thinks thrust vectoring is always the answer, he’ll get himself behind the 8-ball. Inexperienced F-22 pilots have all seen this and have to learn ‘when to’ and ‘when not to’.
We don’t know exactly what happened during the engagement in question. It could be that the Hornet was already ‘dead’ and being ignored by the Raptor pilot as he moved on to the next victim. Or maybe there was another Raptor behind the Hornet. Does it matter?

[Rhino]

Somewhere in this thread is a comment or comments from Lt. Col. Michael Shower, an F-22 pilot who is apparently quite familiar with this incident. Apparently it was a fluke.

http://www.fencecheck.com/forums/index.php?topic=292.300

The F-22 is not invincible and no one in their right mind has ever claimed it was. But if I had a choice of being in a Raptor or Hornet during combat, I'd take the Raptor any day, and twice on Sunday.

[BuckeyeMike]

Amen Bro!!!

[BaronKelan]

Like anything else, a monkey with the best equipment available can't beat a good pilot in a lesser airplane. (I just wish the pilot who wrote about the weaknesses and how to defeat it would have kept his word processor to himself. It could kill our pilots.)

BTW, the F-117 has already moved off into retirement. I'll miss that flying iron.

[Rhino]

Just like I already miss the SR-71 and the F-14.

[Incident_command]

And the A-4.