Top USAF general explains EXACTLY how to kill an F-22

The DEW Line ^ | February 28, 2012 | Stephen Trimble

[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?

[EnjoyingLife]

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)

[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.

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

[steve86]

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

[GonzoGOP]

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.

[ImJustAnotherOkie]

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

[STD]

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!

[smokingfrog]

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

[Joe 6-pack]

"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.

[6ppc]

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

[Londo Molari]

“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.

[GonzoGOP]

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.

[ryan71]

Clearly, the F-22 is head and shoulders above the rest but it can only carry so many weapons.

[Lx]

A General is saying this?

Is he going to give out the launch codes next?

[frithguild]

* Put a woman in the pilot seat

[240B]

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."?

[tayper]

He’s stopped production.

[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?

[GonzoGOP]

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.

[Romulus]

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.

[GonzoGOP]

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.