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 ...
To defeat the F-22, cruise missile strike all airfields repeatedly.
**To defeat the F-22,**
Re-elect BO
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.
Purchase 35 times as many F-15 type aircraft, train the pilots decently and flail away? I think that would do it.
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.””
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 ...
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.
Raptor 189 left the nest yesterday!! Damn I’m going to miss them!!
The F-22 climbs at 90 and a whole lot faster. I’ve seen it bunches of times!
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.
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!!
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.
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.
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.
It is true, every dogfight has a dog in the fight...
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.
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...:)
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.
And the pre-merge kill can’t be ignored.
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.