Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Top USAF general explains EXACTLY how to kill an F-22
The DEW Line ^ | February 28, 2012 | Stephen Trimble

Posted on 03/02/2012 11:28:44 AM PST by EnjoyingLife

Hopefully, you will never find yourself in air-to-air combat with a Lockheed Martin F-22, particularly if you happen to be flying any other fighter besides an F-22. The Raptor still boasts a 30:1 kill ratio in mock dogfights (the only kind of dogfight, alas, the F-22 has ever known).

Notice, however, the ":1" part of the ratio expression. That's the proof: The F-22 can be shot down.

But how?

(Excerpt) Read more at flightglobal.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: f22a; raptor; stealth

USAF F-22A Raptor and USAF F-15 Eagle fire flares during a training sortie above the Gulf of Mexico, USA. Photographer: USAF Staff Sgt. James L. Harper Jr. Via http://ChamorroBible.org/gpw/gpw-20060914.htm (medium, large, huge)
1 posted on 03/02/2012 11:28:50 AM PST by EnjoyingLife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: EnjoyingLife
Until Obama is out of office we should just keep quite about this plane and other important issues and items. Otherwise he will give it to Islam.

I am sure he knows about the plane but he plays so much golf he might have forgotten to do this.

2 posted on 03/02/2012 11:32:24 AM PST by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric Cartman voice* 'I love you, guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EnjoyingLife

Yeah, just try and get in position to do that.


3 posted on 03/02/2012 11:32:54 AM PST by steve86 (I have Schizoid Personality Disorder and am exercising the privileges thereof.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EnjoyingLife

Well in the training dogfight where an EA-18G Growler got a kill on an F-22 it was due to good old target fixation. The F-22 pilot got so busy trying to lock up one fast maneuvering FA-18 that he forgot to check his six. The Growler flying ECM was able to get on his tail and take him out with a gun kill. All the stealth in the world doesn’t help when you are tracked by the MK-I human eyeball.


4 posted on 03/02/2012 11:35:05 AM PST by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EnjoyingLife

The Budget Cut is the most powerful weapon known to mankind. So far it is undefeated.


5 posted on 03/02/2012 11:38:55 AM PST by ImJustAnotherOkie (zerogottago)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve Van Doorn

Remember gentlemen, ‘loose lips sink ships’ I’m so tired of every US weapons system gets ruined by the New York Times. Shut your mouths!


6 posted on 03/02/2012 11:40:21 AM PST by STD (It Doesn't Take a Real Political Panjandrum to Cut Taxes & Cut Spending Stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EnjoyingLife

One F-22 might have a pretty good chance of shooting down another F-22?


7 posted on 03/02/2012 11:41:23 AM PST by smokingfrog ( sleep with one eye open (<o> ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EnjoyingLife
"The Raptor still boasts a 30:1 kill ratio in mock dogfights...Notice, however, the ":1" part of the ratio expression. That's the proof: The F-22 can be shot down. But how?

Simple. Attack them in a ratio of 31:1. Sometimes, quantity has a quality all its own.

8 posted on 03/02/2012 11:41:50 AM PST by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EnjoyingLife

In other words, chances are slim and none! LOL! Slim does happen occasionally.


9 posted on 03/02/2012 11:45:19 AM PST by 6ppc (It's torch and pitchfork time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

“Simple. Attack them in a ratio of 31:1. Sometimes, quantity has a quality all its own.”

That is assuming the quality of the aircrew is that of US standards. I doubt the Iranians or North Koreans would have such a “good” ratio of 30:1.


10 posted on 03/02/2012 11:57:20 AM PST by Londo Molari
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack
Simple. Attack them in a ratio of 31:1. Sometimes, quantity has a quality all its own.

Other than just swamping them, here are some other options...

* Sneak past base security and blow them up on the ground.

* Kill the tankers and watch them run out of gas before they get home

* Spam them with cheap drones. Thanks to defense cuts they will eventually run out of ammo, spare parts, or fuel. Then they get a lot easier to kill.

* Allow Middle East locals to maintain them, every bit of equipment will be stolen within 30 minutes.

* Have Chuck Norris throw a rock at it.


11 posted on 03/02/2012 11:57:44 AM PST by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: EnjoyingLife
Clearly, the F-22 is head and shoulders above the rest but it can only carry so many weapons.
12 posted on 03/02/2012 12:01:49 PM PST by ryan71 (Dear spell check - No, I will not capitalize the "m" in moslem!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EnjoyingLife

A General is saying this?

Is he going to give out the launch codes next?


13 posted on 03/02/2012 12:03:04 PM PST by Lx (Do you like it, do you like it. Scott? I call it Mr. and Mrs. Tennerman chili.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP

* Put a woman in the pilot seat


14 posted on 03/02/2012 12:03:04 PM PST by frithguild (Withdraw from the 1967 Treaty on Outer Space. It bans private property and profits.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Steve Van Doorn
Until Obama is out of office we should just keep quite about this plane and other important issues and items. Otherwise he will give it to Islam.

He has already given them all of NASA and our latest drone technology and God only knows what other secrets he has given his brethren.

And the media continues to pretend they do not know why Israel does not want anything to do with him. Everyone knows exactly why. He has shown us directly multiple times that he is a friend to the Muslims first and foremost.

A quote in a book purportedly written by him, has him saying, "If things turn ugly, I stand with the Muslims." This is the President of the United States saying this. How much more clear can he be?

Can you imagine the firestorm if a President or even a candidate ever said something along the lines of, "If things turn ugly, I will stand with the Pope."?

15 posted on 03/02/2012 12:04:42 PM PST by 240B (he is doing everything he said he wouldn't and not doing what he said he would)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Steve Van Doorn

He’s stopped production.


16 posted on 03/02/2012 12:05:00 PM PST by tayper (Granny told me, Saying it don't make it so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ryan71
In the future, I see a network of very small jet powered drones, each armed with 1 or 2 internal weapons, each with IR sensors and an AESA radar, each stealthy and able to loiter on station for many hours. They don't need to dogfight and they don't need mach 3 speed. They need to be properly positioned against the threat. They would essentially be weapons/sensor platforms, hard to detect, hard to fully eliminate and hard to avoid. And cheap.

Maybe the new Avenger but smaller?

17 posted on 03/02/2012 12:11:42 PM PST by ryan71 (Dear spell check - No, I will not capitalize the "m" in moslem!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Lx
A General is saying this? Is he going to give out the launch codes next?

Having read the article it might be more of a "Don't get cocky" to his own guys. In the two examples give, in addition to the one I gave about the EA-18G, the common denominator is that the F-22 pilot has to get complacent and make a mistake.

It is kind of like when the best team in the NFL takes on the worst team and the coach gives his guys the any given Sunday speech. It is just to remind your guys that just because they are the best, doesn't mean they can let their guard down. Because the other guy might be darn good too and if you screw up you probably won't live long enough to realize it.
18 posted on 03/02/2012 12:12:32 PM PST by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: EnjoyingLife
the only kind of dogfight, alas, the F-22 has ever known

What a stupid and wicked thing to say. The #1 argument for having weapons like this is their deterrent effect. Our fighter fighter pilots are well-trained and expert at what they have to do, but I doubt there are many who look forward with pleasure to the prospect of aerial combat.

19 posted on 03/02/2012 12:17:49 PM PST by Romulus (The Traditional Latin Mass is the real Youth Mass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ryan71
They don't need to dogfight and they don't need mach 3 speed. They need to be properly positioned against the threat.

The problem is that drones don't think creatively. And human controllers on long routine patrols tend to get sloppy. Any patrol line can be penetrated by a skilled enemy if the other guy can get a good look at it. Especially if the other guy has drones too. They make way better distractions than they do guards.

In land terms think of it as posting two hundred rent a cops around some key facility. Then let a six man SEAL team study their security setup for a day or two. Any bets on the survival chances of such a facility.

Drones at their current or immediate future level of technology will serve the same purpose as landmines and barbed wire do in land combat. It isn't that they do most of the damage, it is that they channelize the attack into the killers who are waiting in ambush. You don't need as may killers, but you will still need a few, real good ones.
20 posted on 03/02/2012 12:22:07 PM PST by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

To defeat the F-22, cruise missile strike all airfields repeatedly.


21 posted on 03/02/2012 12:29:48 PM PST by FreeAtlanta (Liberty and Justice for ALL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

**To defeat the F-22,**

Re-elect BO


22 posted on 03/02/2012 12:37:37 PM PST by wrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta
To defeat the F-22, cruise missile strike all airfields repeatedly.

Yep. The F-22's purpose is to create air supremacy by shooting down all the enemy fighters, so that our ground-attack planes can get through.

But there are only so many F-22s, and they each only carry a finite number of air-to-air missiles. So you send out SO MANY cheap drones that the F-22s use up their missiles trying to shoot them down, and with each missile launch they give away their position to an extent.

23 posted on 03/02/2012 12:37:37 PM PST by PapaBear3625 (In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: EnjoyingLife

Purchase 35 times as many F-15 type aircraft, train the pilots decently and flail away? I think that would do it.


24 posted on 03/02/2012 12:41:06 PM PST by Sequoyah101 (Half the people are below average.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EnjoyingLife

BS on the article and a lot of the comments in this thread.

Here is the facts on this scenario from someone who actually does this stuff:

Dan
Quoting Dozer— “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. The Hornet pilot gave up everything he had to point at the Raptor and take a snap shot - it was NOT a tracking shot. The AF pilot honored the training rules we’re all supposed to abide by, they’ve been written in blood because pilots have been killed in these scenarios so our training rules look to prevent those scenarios by causing guys to quit manuevering for the shot to prevent a mid-air collision. With greater than a 135 aspect angle and inside of 9000 feet we’re supposed to avoid pure or lead pursuit to avoid that head on collision, inside that range at our tactical speeds there’s not enough time to react to prevent a collision once you realize it’s going to happen. The Navy pilot completely blew off that rule, the AF pilot honored it, the Navy pilot pulled lead pursuit all the way into the high aspect (greater than the 135 degree gun shot rule) snap shot, the AF pilot lagged off to prevent the mid-air collision potential, the Navy pilot was still on the trigger inside the 1000 foot rule (we’re supposed to avoid getting inside of 1000 feet from each other to also help prevent mid-air collisions), attempting to get the snap shot, he’s inside the 1000 foot range with the trigger on, flies within about 200 feet of the Raptor (remember who’s backed off to honor the training rules), and dang near kills himself and the Raptor pilot and causing what would have been one of the worst fighter to fighter disasters in recorded history. I’ve had that happen twice to me when I was flying the Eagle as a weapons officer (close enough to hear very loud engine noise and I figured I was dead both times, but God wasn’t ready to take me yet), and both times I knocked off the fight, made the guy fly home, busted him on the ride and he had to explain to me and the boss why he was being stupid. That is the ONLY gun shot video I have ever heard of or seen from ANY Hornet engagement, ever. And it was a hugely B.S. and completely boneheaded act as you can see from the actual circumstances.””


25 posted on 03/02/2012 12:41:11 PM PST by oldbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EnjoyingLife

If I remember correctly - there was an Operation Red Flag execise in the 1970’s, simulating combat between T-38 trainers and F-16 fighters.

The T-38s were the Aggressor Squadron [simulating Russian MIGs] - and were allowed to modifiy their jets with Common Off The Shelf [COTS] equipment.

The Aggressor Squadron DEFEATED the F-16s [decisively]. Their secret - Automobile Radar Detectors tuned to the correct frequency AND the human eyeball ...


26 posted on 03/02/2012 12:41:55 PM PST by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EnjoyingLife

Did anyone notice the photo. The horizon (clouds) are angled. The 22 climbs at 70 degrees. Only true 90 degree vertical climb I’ve personally seen is F-15.


27 posted on 03/02/2012 12:48:23 PM PST by snoopy 'n linus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wrench

Raptor 189 left the nest yesterday!! Damn I’m going to miss them!!


28 posted on 03/02/2012 12:48:36 PM PST by southernerwithanattitude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: snoopy 'n linus

The F-22 climbs at 90 and a whole lot faster. I’ve seen it bunches of times!


29 posted on 03/02/2012 12:54:19 PM PST by southernerwithanattitude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

In the late 1970’s we took Phantoms from GAFB to Nellis and were able to accomplish kills v F-15’s. Of course they were developing tactics and learning to use the weapon system. With a little more experience these guys should be almost unbeatable, till a more advanced platform emerges.


30 posted on 03/02/2012 12:58:09 PM PST by pasodave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: southernerwithanattitude
I can believe that both the F-15 and the F-22 can climb at a 90 degree angle for brief periods of time. But why would you want to use that ability as a performance measure? Calculating the optimum angle to reach a given altitude in the least amount of time is complicated, but the solution is always less than 90 degrees, given the laws of physics and real-world “frictions” like drag and thrust to weight ratios.
31 posted on 03/02/2012 1:15:32 PM PST by riverdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: riverdawg

Well of course it isn’t the most efficient way to gain altitude but it is the most impressive way to do it. The F-22 doesn’t just go vertical “briefly” it climbs almost out of sight. Very very impressive!!


32 posted on 03/02/2012 1:30:29 PM PST by southernerwithanattitude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: oldbill
Here is the facts

That's an opinion not fact and the "kill" mentioned hasn't been the only one. In addition, Michael "Dozer" Shower is by no means an objective commentator.

33 posted on 03/02/2012 1:37:31 PM PST by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP
Have Chuck Norris throw a rock at it.

Think of the collateral damage, man! A mere glance in its direction would be overkill.

I heard that the boogeyman sleeps with a nightlight on in case Chuck Norris is in his closet.

34 posted on 03/02/2012 1:41:42 PM PST by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: riverdawg

Back in the day, how long it took an interceptor to climb to the altitude of incoming enemy aircraft was a critical performance metric. I would think even in todays world world, altitude has great value.

Nobody wants to fight uphill, and everyone wants to fight going downhill.

Altitude=Potential Energy.

I am no expert, but if you are taking off from point X to intercept incoming, if you climb at 70 degrees towards the incoming, you are cutting down the distance the incoming has to travel to reach you. If your calculation tells you that you are only going to be at 10K (with the incoming at 25K) by the time one of you is in weapons range, someone is going to be at a disadvantage.

Now, if you have a missile with 100 mile range, maybe the altitude difference doesn’t matter as much if you are still climbing when the incoming enters that 100 mile radius.


35 posted on 03/02/2012 2:05:56 PM PST by rlmorel ("A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham

It is true, every dogfight has a dog in the fight...


36 posted on 03/02/2012 2:15:45 PM PST by rlmorel ("A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel

Engaging a penetrating bomber as in the intercept you describe involves different tactics than engaging another fighter in close quarters. You are correct, altitude is an advantage in a dog fight scenario. Trading airspeed for altitude may be an appropriate tactic in some fights depending on the capabilities of the adversary.


37 posted on 03/02/2012 2:28:01 PM PST by pasodave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: pasodave

I admit I am stuck in WWII era tactics, but I do have a copy of “Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering” by Robert Shaw written in 1985, so I imagine they still teach energy management.

That said, I humbly defer to those who have more recent, actual involvement in these things...:)


38 posted on 03/02/2012 2:33:18 PM PST by rlmorel ("A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP

Not exactly.

The F-18 was already “killed” pre-merge and acknowledge it was dead. . .and instead of departing the area for re-set, he pressed for a camera shot of opportunity.

The F-22 that was fighting a fight with other jets still “alive” and ignored the dead one.


39 posted on 03/02/2012 3:06:38 PM PST by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: oldbill

And the pre-merge kill can’t be ignored.


40 posted on 03/02/2012 3:08:58 PM PST by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: wbill
I heard that the boogeyman sleeps with a nightlight on in case Chuck Norris is in his closet.

I heard that Chuck Norris sleeps with a nightlight on 'cause the dark is scared of him.

41 posted on 03/02/2012 4:41:36 PM PST by houeto (Mitt Romney - A Whiter Shade of FAIL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham

Sorry AA, but if you analyze the photos that went with that “kill” and know the details of what that HUD displays you can see that it was nothing but an opportune snap shot of a passing F-22 after the fight was over. Airspeed, AOA and other parameters are such that the Hornet is out of airspeed, energy, HCA. and AOA to be pulling any lead on his shot.

I can give you lots of pipper kills for passing bogies like this one. One can get lots of easy kills after the Knock It Off call. The Air Force guys aren’t going to risk a quarter-billion dollar airframe for an ego trip.


42 posted on 03/02/2012 5:22:34 PM PST by oldbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

Urban legend - never happened.


43 posted on 03/02/2012 5:25:44 PM PST by oldbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: snoopy 'n linus

Even the Phantom could do a vertical climb. Light on fuel, not combat equipped. Saw it done at Pax River.

This was before the first F-14 was delivered.


44 posted on 03/02/2012 7:42:37 PM PST by wrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson