Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Nice Video Of F-22 Kill  
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Posted (10 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 11753 times:

http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/2013/.../video-rafale-dogfighting-f22.html

By Rafale with canon. Needed to pull 9 Gs twice to do it, but it is on par with the F-22 within visual range maneuverability. F-22 can't shake it. Where the F-22 has thrust vectoring, Rafale has canards. Rare to see such footage. Enjoy!

Within the blog news on Rafale is also a new A2A decoy.

http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/2013/...developement-tragedac-and-lea.html

High sustained Gs are also good for defeating inbound missiles, the more the better.

83 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinejupiter2 From Australia, joined Jan 2001, 882 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (10 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 11738 times:

Looked absolutely exhausting but a lot of fun too !!
Of course if your life depended on it, it would lose a bit of the fun factor.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 790 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (10 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 11567 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Thread starter):
By Rafale with canon. Needed to pull 9 Gs twice to do it, but it is on par with the F-22 within visual range maneuverability.

No surprise as the F-22 isn't a wonder machine. It is optimized for supersonic flight and maneuver and therefore when it comes WVR of the eurocanards, who are designed for sub-sonic maneuver, it will always be close. I can't read french but given the canned nature of these exercises it is hard to tell how it started.

Quoting tommytoyz (Thread starter):
High sustained Gs are also good for defeating inbound missiles, the more the better.

Not sure what you mean by this. The 9G turns in the video are instantaneous turns, given the huge speed and probably altitude loss. It does show perfectly how a WVR fight occurs though. Both aircraft pull max G instantaneous turns trying to get that first IR shot off until they are low on speed. Then it comes down to which one can recover energy and still turn their nose, maybe as well which pilot recovers quicker given the high G load. Also shows how important high AoA is in allowing you that first IR shot.


User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (10 months 5 days ago) and read 11355 times:

Nice to see what the boys at Dassault are dreaming of lately. if it were MY Life, I'd rather be the pilot of the F-22.
On a YouTube video, you can have F-4s defeating F-22s as well.



336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13046 posts, RR: 78
Reply 4, posted (10 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 11312 times:

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 3):
Nice to see what the boys at Dassault are dreaming of lately. if it were MY Life, I'd rather be the pilot of the F-22.
On a YouTube video, you can have F-4s defeating F-22s as well.

So you are saying it is fake?

Did you read the text below, which said that it's not about which type is better, at least in this instance.
It is however an interesting look at close combat by two modern types, neither of which has yet to go and do it for real against enemy aircraft. The Rafale of course has seen plenty of air to ground in Afghanistan, Libya and Mali.
They led the air attacks on Libya in fact, prior to the US, RAF or others. In the strike on Gaddafi's forces bombarding Benghazi. This at least showed confidence in it's ability to penetrate hostile airspace, which had a fairly decent SAM/AAA capability, before the suppressive packages of Tomahawks, stand off weapons, SEAD went in.

I was struck by the physical exertions of the pilot at high G's.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (10 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 11156 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 2):
No surprise as the F-22 isn't a wonder machine. It is optimized for supersonic flight and maneuver and therefore when it comes WVR of the eurocanards, who are designed for sub-sonic maneuver, it will always be close. I can't read french but given the canned nature of these exercises it is hard to tell how it started.

My guess is BFM, both starting at visual range. Looks like at around 4 minutes 40 seconds, the Rafale stalled trying to catch the Raptor going over the top. Looks like the Raptor didn't extend properly and the Rafale fell right onto his 6 o'clock, so the Raptor pilot messed up. Had the Raptor pilot extend properly, the Rafale would have been "dead" as the Raptor pilot would have had enough energy to get a better angle on the Rafale.

I also like how the Rafale's radar keeps losing target track on the Raptor even though they're WVR.

Of course, if in a real combat scenario, the Rafale would have been dead prior to the merge... BFM is not exactly the best way to test aircraft superiority, it more of a matter of pilot skill.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (10 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 11125 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 5):
Of course, if in a real combat scenario, the Rafale would have been dead prior to the merge

Assuming the Rafale could not defeat inbound A2A missiles. In real world stats for A2A missiles hitting are far less than 50% of the time if I remember correctly. Yes missiles are getting better all the time, but so are measures to defeat them. The further away the missiles are shot from, the less likely they are to hit, as the stats also show, from what I remember.

Assuming the F-22 pilot messed up is.....interesting, since you do not know all the metrics of the F-22 in this situation. The brute force of having to go through those Gs is palpable. That's why you need automation as much as possible as under that kind of stress, your focus narrows. The Rafale for instance has automatic A2A countermeasures, flares, decoys, jamming, etc...No pilot could do that will pulling 9Gs.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 2):
Not sure what you mean by this. The 9G turns in the video are instantaneous turns, given the huge speed and probably altitude loss.

1. I never said the 9Gs in the video were sustained
2. However, the better your turning performance is, the better it is for a lot of situations
3. It is not clear if the speed and altitude losses are attributable to the turning or other parts of the maneuvers, such as high AoA or deliberate decent on the part of the F-22.
4. Every turn has an instantaneous G value at a certain point in time - sustained or not. I think you mean pulling high Gs for a very short duration. Just nit picking here, but some here are using the terms "instantaneous Gs" and "short duration Gs" interchangeably. However, they are two entirely different things.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (10 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 11074 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 6):
Assuming the F-22 pilot messed up is.....interesting, since you do not know all the metrics of the F-22 in this situation.

Pretty obvious the F-22 pilot made a mistake, as he had the energy to continue the fight in the vertical while the Rafale stalled, and all he had to do was to extend properly and he would be right on the Rafale's rear.

Remember: BFM is more about pilot skill, not aircraft performance. A good pilot makes the most of the advantages of his aircraft while minimizing the deficiencies of his aircraft.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 6):
Assuming the Rafale could not defeat inbound A2A missiles. In real world stats for A2A missiles hitting are far less than 50% of the time if I remember correctly. Yes missiles are getting better all the time, but so are measures to defeat them. The further away the missiles are shot from, the less likely they are to hit, as the stats also show, from what I remember.

It's a situational. If it's the edge of the missile's envelope, then the pk would be a lot lower than if it was in the NEZ. Also mis-employment of the weapons (such as firing a missile at a target outside it's engagement zone) will guarantee a miss.

Pk is also quite dependent on how precise targeting information can be fed to the missile. If targeting information is precise, then pk will be decent even in long range shots with low missile kinetic energy. With imprecise targeting information pk will be very poor even with missile rocket thrust.

A lot of pk is also dependent on warning the target gets before missile is about to hit. With no warning, even a slow unpowered missile will likely hit the target. With early warning, the pk will go down as the target will try to evade the missile and make the engagement as difficult to the missile as possible. With a combination of LPI radar systems, a VLO airframe, and good sensors, one can make life extremely difficult for any aircraft without such a combination, as one can provide accurate targeting information to a missile while reducing the chance of the enemy detecting you and evading the missiles, and at the same time, you can fire your long range missiles closer so that the missiles have more energy during the engagement. With weapons like AMRAAM, when the terminal guidance radar turns on alerting the target's RWR, you literally have a few seconds before that missile impacts the target, and that's not enough time for a pilot to react.

I'll show you this video from the HUD of a F-16 involved in the Package Q Strike during Gulf War I:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMu6mGgqepo

Imagine yourself in that cockpit, dodging missiles successfully. Ask yourself what your situational awareness would be (Listen to the radio calls looking for the guy that got hit...). Imagine the stress hearing over the radio that everyone is under attack, and some of your wingmen are being shot down while you are trying to dodge enemy missiles. Listen to the radio chatter past the 4 minute mark and hear how stressed everyone is.

Now try to imagine dodging missiles, while closing in with the shooter you weren't able to detect until after it had fired, and you can't retaliate against the shooter (assuming you can detect it even after it fired, and bearing in mind the shooter isn't likely alone out there). How would you think the engagement would work out?

What makes you think the enemy will want to get in WVR to dog fight, as the enemy can always choose to deal with you at BVR and be done with it. There is no rule that says one has to fight your enemy WVR.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (10 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 11023 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 7):
I'll show you this video from the HUD of a F-16 involved in the Package Q Strike during Gulf War I:

Ancient history. These days, A2A missiles are detected by IR sensors and counter measures are much more effective and automated.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 7):
the enemy can always choose to deal with you at BVR and be done with it.

Another incorrect assumption, similar to the 100% kill rate probability of A2A missiles.

Fighter fight each other, encounter each other and they always will - at least in the next few decades. When it happens, if you think that you will always

1. Have missiles left
2. All your fired missiles will hit their mark
3. Have enough fuel left to outrun or avoid enemies
4. Be in a superior firing position
5. Be faster or be able to outrun the enemy
6. Be in a much higher state of kinetic energy than the enemy when encountered

Are nothing more than relying on luck. In war anything and everything happens and no war fighter should rely on certain situations not occurring. Otherwise, when they inevitably do, the days of that individual are counted.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (10 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 11019 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 7):
Pretty obvious the F-22 pilot made a mistake, as he had the energy

How do you know what his AoA, G load and energy state was in that instant? There is no way for you to determine that.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (10 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 10983 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 8):
Ancient history. These days, A2A missiles are detected by IR sensors and counter measures are much more effective and automated.

Not ancient history. IR sensors have limited ranges against certain targets and a missile inbound is a fairly small target. You will probably at most detect a missile inbound at around 15-20 miles out, and with a missile traveling at Mach 2-3, a missile impact is literally a few seconds away.

Also, the F-16 Block 30, 40's & 50's in the video I showed have automated counter measures, and they were the state-of-the art against Iraqi air defences using everything from WWII AAA guns to fairly modern Soviet supplied SAM's. They also had the benefit of clear skies in daylight where they could visually see the SAM launches to react to them. And even then, 2 F-16's were shot down out of a package of over 50, with most of the remaining jets damaged in one way or another. If you listen to the background noise, you will also hear the F-16's RWR's going off alerting the pilot he's been locked onto. And they also had to face MiG-29's menacing them as they left.

So you had F-16 pilots in a situation where they had plenty of warning that they were being targeted and fired upon by a opponent without the ability to retaliate and they still took losses.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 8):
Another incorrect assumption, similar to the 100% kill rate probability of A2A missiles.
1. Have missiles left
2. All your fired missiles will hit their mark
3. Have enough fuel left to outrun or avoid enemies
4. Be in a superior firing position
5. Be faster or be able to outrun the enemy
6. Be in a much higher state of kinetic energy than the enemy when encountered

Are nothing more than relying on luck. In war anything and everything happens and no war fighter should rely on certain situations not occurring. Otherwise, when they inevitably do, the days of that individual are counted.

It's a correct assumption, as someone with a VLO airframe, a LPI radar and good sensors will have the ability to setup the terms of the engagement to their advantage. If they don't have the advantage, you simply don't engage. No one says you have to always engage the enemy. Sometimes it is a better idea to bug out before the shooting starts to fight another day.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 9):
How do you know what his AoA, G load and energy state was in that instant? There is no way for you to determine that.
BFM is about the pilot's skill not aircraft performance. A good pilot makes the most of the advantages of his aircraft while minimizing the deficiencies of his aircraft, which means he keeps a eye on all of the factors you mentioned and works to make sure that he gets the advantage. That's why you hear of situations where instructor pilots flying T-38's beat new F-22 pilots in BFM.

[Edited 2013-06-19 19:40:19]

User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (10 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 10800 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 4):
So you are saying it is fake?



Let's just say I have my doubts. I seen both in action at various Red Flag exercises during my career.

[Edited 2013-06-20 04:09:33]


336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2011 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (10 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 10559 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 6):
Assuming the Rafale could not defeat inbound A2A missiles. In real world stats for A2A missiles hitting are far less than 50% of the time if I remember correctly.

In trying to defeat the inbound A2A, the Rafale would have lost any energy advantage while the Raptor is already maneuvering for a second shot.

Given a choice I would choose first and second shot first. Then may be turn tail before I have to use real bullets.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinecjg225 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 617 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (10 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 10405 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 7):

I'll show you this video from the HUD of a F-16 involved in the Package Q Strike during Gulf War I:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMu6mGgqepo

Very interesting. Thanks for the post.



Restoring Penn State's transportation heritage...
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (10 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 10088 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 12):
In trying to defeat the inbound A2A, the Rafale would have lost any energy advantage while the Raptor is already maneuvering for a second shot.

All depends on the scenario. The reverse could also be true. In real war you do not get to control and choose when, where or how the enemy flies.

This video is quite long and is not some lucky situation where the F-22 happens across the opponent's nose. Rather it seems to be pulling max Gs and all it's got to get away, but it can't.

Anything less than an F-22 would probably be clubbed like a baby seal by Rafale or similar performing aircraft.


User currently offlineflightsimer From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 513 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (10 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 10024 times:

Interesting as the article I previously read said that out of 7 dogfights, they tied 6 times and the F-22 won on the other.


Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
User currently offlinepowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 556 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (10 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 9877 times:

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 11):
Let's just say I have my doubts. I seen both in action at various Red Flag exercises during my career.

To add, the military's top priority isn't to let the world know of its aircraft's true capabilities. Pretty funny reading some message boards, especially this one, where some people think they know WTF is going on. Hilarious really.


User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1199 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (9 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 9281 times:

Everybody missed the part of the video where they said the F-22 had external tanks, and the Rafale didn't? Not that I know anything about WVR combat, but that seems important...

Now, that was the only part of the text in English too, so maybe I missed some French text stating something else.



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (9 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 9223 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 17):
Everybody missed the part of the video where they said the F-22 had external tanks,

I saw that. But that information is almost useless as we don't know if there was any fuel in the F-22's tanks, or if there was - how much. Nor if the Rafale had external tanks and if the Rafale did, how much fuel Rafale was in them, etc...A lot of missing data.

I would personally assume that in the number of engagements that they had, that they tried to make the carried loads representative of reality, otherwise why bother? To me, the two seem about evenly matched in the WVR dogfight scenario.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (9 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 9215 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 18):
I would personally assume that in the number of engagements that they had, that they tried to make the carried loads representative of reality, otherwise why bother? To me, the two seem about evenly matched in the WVR dogfight scenario.

Not really; remember that in the past, during a series of mock engagements between Luftwaffe Typhoon's and F-22's, the Typhoons were reported to have been clean aerodynamically with no external weapons and fuel:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ress-during-red-flag-debut-373312/

Quote:
The Typhoons were stripped of their external fuel tanks and slicked off as much as possible before the encounter with the Raptors, says Grune, who adds that in that configuration, the Typhoon is an "animal".

The thing is, as repeated multiple times, basic fighter maneuvers (BFM) isn't about aircraft performance, its about pilot skill.


User currently offlineflagon From France, joined May 2007, 145 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (9 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 9181 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 17):
Everybody missed the part of the video where they said the F-22 had external tanks, and the Rafale didn't? Not that I know anything about WVR combat, but that seems important...

well I suggest you learn a little bit of french, as the text in french explains that we could read in the american press that the F22 had external tank, but the close up images from the Rafale OSF clearly showed that the Raptor was in clean configuration....



Stephane
User currently offlineflagon From France, joined May 2007, 145 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (9 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 9172 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 19):
The thing is, as repeated multiple times, basic fighter maneuvers (BFM) isn't about aircraft performance, its about pilot skill.

You can think what you want and let others think what they want.

I personally think your statement is over simplistic and that aircraft performance is equally as important as pilot skills...



Stephane
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (9 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 9171 times:

PB,

Is there any scenario for you, that you can envision, where a Lockheed designed product, loses the day to someone else? Your posts are so Lockheed supportive, it's fanatical. You go so far as to make up derogatory stories on competing products. Can you answer my question?

On another note, if you would bother to read your link, you would see it does not support your statement.

[Edited 2013-06-26 00:37:28]

User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (9 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 9162 times:

Quoting flagon (Reply 21):
I personally think your statement is over simplistic and that aircraft performance is equally as important as pilot skills...

I concur, otherwise we would still be flying the F-86 with huge success. PB.s statements also denigrate the F-22 pilots unjustly, IMHO.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (9 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 9159 times:

Quoting flagon (Reply 21):
You can think what you want and let others think what they want.

I personally think your statement is over simplistic and that aircraft performance is equally as important as pilot skills...

Not really, otherwise, F-22's flown by regular or new pilots would not be beaten by instructor pilots flying aggressor in T-38 Talon's... now, would you argue that the T-38 Talon is a equal or better than the F-22? Nope. It's the skill of the pilot that counts.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 25, posted (9 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 9303 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):

Not really, otherwise, F-22's flown by regular or new pilots would not be beaten by instructor pilots flying aggressor in T-38 Talon's

Yes really, because again, you have no idea what all the parameters were. You make personal assumptions you pass as fact. But you don't know all the relevant data for a fact. It could also have been an exercise to help the Talon Pilot learn. And there was only (count them) 1 reported example BTW. So I am curious as to your use of the plural, as if this were a regular occurrence. More assumptions.

BYW, can you please answer my question from my previous post? Would be much appreciated.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (9 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 9291 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 25):
It could also have been an exercise to help the Talon Pilot learn.

A T-38 Talon is the USAF's leading jet trainer. It's the aircraft where jet fighter pilots learn how to handle a high performance jet fighter before moving onto their assigned aircraft. It's not a fighter, it's a jet trainer. Mind you, it is still a very potent trainer and adversary aircraft in BFM as it is a very small visual target and is very nimble.

I will note that both the Eurofighter and the Rafale are both very hot potatoes to handle for any opponent in BFM and will take a good pilot in a reasonably comparable or superior platform to fight against it. F-22 is not invincible, but good piloting skill and tactics will minimize any potential deficiencies of the F-22 in combat, and leverage its strengths.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 25):
So I am curious as to your use of the plural, as if this were a regular occurrence. More assumptions.

Considering that Langley and Tyndall AFB got permanently assigned T-38 Talon's early last year for adversary support and proficiency training, encounters are more common between the Talon's and the Raptor's. On top of that, the T-38's also have access to the AN/ALQ-188 jamming pods for additional adversary training. They've had have plenty of opportunity to regularly go up against each other for training purposes.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 23):
I concur, otherwise we would still be flying the F-86 with huge success. PB.s statements also denigrate the F-22 pilots unjustly, IMHO.

Pilot skill is a major determiner of success in BFM. A pilot fresh out of flight academy strapped into a F-22 will be humiliated by a instructor pilot flying a T-38 in BFM (and that's why we ensure fighter pilots get tons of time in the air to practice so pilots don't have to learn these lessons the hard way in a real shooting war). Flight performance will get you there part of the way, but you need to have the skills and knowledge to put it all together to make the best use of your tools to win.

And note that I qualify the statement by stating 'in BFM'. If the engagement started out from BVR to the merge, the F-22 will be dominant from the beginning. A fighter pilot in another forum said this when he went up against the F-22:

Quote:

I'm a Viper driver and I've had the opportunity to fight one (well, a couple really.) Without going where I can't go, I have to say that the Raptor beat up on me, my formation, the Eagles, and the other red air without me ever seeing him until he rolled in on my 6 and gunned the tar out of me. Wasn't much I could do about it! I have fought many other jets in the world - Eagles, Hornets, Hogs (for what that's worth), MiGs, Mirages (2000 & F1), and several other types & nationalities I'm forgetting about I'm sure - I have lost some, but won most fights. The Raptor changed the way I thought about fighting - I have never felt so defenseless before, I'm just glad I am on their side.

The earlier posts about it not being about the Raptor's maneuverability are right on - between how high, fast, and how amazing his technology was we (the many red air) were dead about as fast as the controller could pass the words. I am used to a rhythm in air-air engagements and they just destroyed the tempo - their tune was over before we had really even started.

The bottom line: I was a skeptic and thought it should be done away and replaced with new Bl 60 Vipers - now . . . well, to repeat myself, I'm just glad I'm on their side. Now can I have one too? If not, then I'd be happy to jump on the second line in a new Bl60 or F-35.
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 25):
BYW, can you please answer my question from my previous post? Would be much appreciated.

Not going to go there because that's an attempt to make it personal (and thus a violation of the forum's TOS), and I am not going to respond on that.


User currently offlineflagon From France, joined May 2007, 145 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (9 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 9356 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 26):
Pilot skill is a major determiner of success in BFM.

I think we all agree with that.
I would add it is very important that the pilot knows by heart the potential and performance of its plane, and on that basis make decisions that are adequate with its oponent's skills and plane.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 26):
A fighter pilot in another forum said this when he went up against the F-22

I may be missing the point but It seems to me that the fighter pilot post you quote seems to highlight the importance of having a performant aircraft doesn't it?
I am not trying to be difficult with you but I must admit slightly confused as to your point.



Stephane
User currently offlineflagon From France, joined May 2007, 145 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (9 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 9350 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
now, would you argue that the T-38 Talon is a equal or better than the F-22?

That does not negate the fact that aircraft performances is very important... providing that the pilot knows how to use them, and in adequation with his oponent's tactics and plane.



Stephane
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (9 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 9364 times:

Quoting flagon (Reply 27):
I think we all agree with that.
I would add it is very important that the pilot knows by heart the potential and performance of its plane, and on that basis make decisions that are adequate with its oponent's skills and plane.

Good. I'm glad we can agree.  
Quoting flagon (Reply 27):
I may be missing the point but It seems to me that the fighter pilot post you quote seems to highlight the importance of having a performant aircraft doesn't it?
I am not trying to be difficult with you but I must admit slightly confused as to your point.

Notice how the pilot said that he didn't even see the F-22's until one was on his rear taking a gun shot at him as the rest of his wingmen and Red air counterparts were shot out of the sky by a foe they could not see. The F-22 had the performance and the F-22's pilots had the skill to dominate the engagement. That's a more realistic combat scenario than two fighters starting a fight within visual range of each other.


User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 300 posts, RR: 1
Reply 30, posted (9 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 9295 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 18):
I saw that. But that information is almost useless as we don't know if there was any fuel in the F-22's tanks, or if there was - how much. Nor if the Rafale had external tanks and if the Rafale did, how much fuel Rafale was in them, etc...A lot of missing data.

I would assume that the drop tanks on the F-22 are not there to carry fuel at all (why would they be with the internal fuel capacity of the F-22 being what it is?) but are there to give the F-22 exactly the radar signature that the USAF wants an F-22 engaged with a foreign country's most advancd radar to have. And I think we can safely assume that they contain exactly whatever material gives that signature. And I think we can safely assume that they impose exactly the BFM limitations the USAF wants a foreign power to think the F-22 has.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 18):
I would personally assume that in the number of engagements that they had, that they tried to make the carried loads representative of reality, otherwise why bother? To me, the two seem about evenly matched in the WVR dogfight scenario.

Why on earth would you want to level the playing field when engaged in dissimilar combat?

I'm not trying to downgrade the performance or achievement of the Rafale, it is clearly an exceptional dog fighter as you would expect of a modern canard. But if you want to talk reality you can't if you are going to talk about a Raptor engaged WVR with drop tanks because it will simply never happen. Go right back to WW2 when the first thing a P51 did when it spotted a german fighter was to drop its tanks, nothing has changed.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 19):
The thing is, as repeated multiple times, basic fighter maneuvers (BFM) isn't about aircraft performance, its about pilot skill.

I wouldn't entirely agree with that one PB. I would agree that a large proportion of an outcome is down to the pilot but his mount is still going to play a big part. The instructor in his talon will beat most rookies on his first engagement but at the end of that training programme the roles should be reversed because the gap between pilot skill levels will have closed but the gap between the fighters will still be the same.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 31, posted (9 months 4 weeks ago) and read 9224 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 26):
If the engagement started out from BVR to the merge, the F-22 will be dominant from the beginning.

You contradict yourself. On the one hand you say pilot performance is key and here you say aircraft performance is key, depending on certain parameters. Either the pilot is a dufuse or not.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 26):
A pilot fresh out of flight academy strapped into a F-22 will be humiliated by a instructor pilot flying a T-38

No USAF pilots straight out of flight training (or flight academy as you name it) are flying the F-22. Right now they go through specialized training for fighter pilots and gather experience on the F-16 before being allowed to fly the F-22. None are wet behind the ears straight of out stick and rudder school.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 26):
Not going to go there because that's an attempt to make it personal (and thus a violation of the forum's TOS), and I am not going to respond on that.


It is an innocent question and personal, yes, but only as in trying to know your personal opinion on this question. Stating personal opinions is not a violation of anything here. So can you please answer here why you are you so extremely biased in favor of the latest Lockheed products in your posts? Just wondering what your personal reasons are.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 32, posted (9 months 4 weeks ago) and read 9224 times:

Quoting spudh (Reply 30):
But if you want to talk reality you can't if you are going to talk about a Raptor engaged WVR with drop tanks

The video shows the F-22 clean with no drop tanks.


User currently offlineflagon From France, joined May 2007, 145 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 9180 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 32):
The video shows the F-22 clean with no drop tanks

Correct

At 1min 36sec, the video shows a snapshot of the Rafale OSF showing the Raptor during that very dogfight. It can be seen that the Raptor did not have any drop tank.

At 1min 56sec, one can see what a Raptor fitted with drop tanks looks like, for the comparison.



Stephane
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 9147 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 31):
You contradict yourself. On the one hand you say pilot performance is key and here you say aircraft performance is key, depending on certain parameters. Either the pilot is a dufuse or not.

Pay attention to what I said. I indicated that pilot skill becomes the predominant factor in BFM, which is close in, visual combat. Once you move out to the beyond visual range fight, aircraft performance plays a slightly bigger role.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 31):
No USAF pilots straight out of flight training (or flight academy as you name it) are flying the F-22. Right now they go through specialized training for fighter pilots and gather experience on the F-16 before being allowed to fly the F-22. None are wet behind the ears straight of out stick and rudder school.

It was a hyperbole. But instructor and aggressor pilots are highly trained seasoned vet's, often past their 3rd or later fighter assignment. By then, that displays that the pilot in question has excellent piloting and decision making skills. A weak/lazy/etc. guy will usually get one tour in the jet and then he's off to UAS's, trainers, etc. He might get back into the fighter cockpit later, but he might not. A strong guy will get a follow-on fighter assignment, make the most of his second assignment and, if he's elite among his peers, get assigned to a aggressor squadron.

In short, pilots that fly in aggressor and instruction squadrons are usually among the top fighter pilots in the military.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 35, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 9141 times:

Mr. Lockheed:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 34):
In short, pilots that fly in aggressor and instruction squadrons are usually among the top fighter pilots in the military.

The topic is F-22 pilots. On that, it is a fact that they are well trained and never new right out of flight training.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
F-22's flown by regular or new pilots would not be beaten by instructor pilots flying aggressor in T-38 Talon's

Again, happened only once, with (to you) unknown engagement rules and for unknown purposes. Secondly, there are no new pilots flying F-22s.

According to your logic, the French and German pilots are superior to the USAF F-22 pilots. But I doubt that. I think they're all about equally capable and the kills against the F-22 are not down to inferior F-22 pilots as you seem to think.

[Edited 2013-06-26 16:15:16]

User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 300 posts, RR: 1
Reply 36, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 9114 times:

Quoting flagon (Reply 33):

How can you draw that conclusion from the video?

My french is fairly rudimentary, but my english is a little better so you might understand why I'm basing my assumption on the text before the video clip where it says "The F-22 were dogfighting with external tanks reducing their maneuvering capabilities" rather than stock images which may or may not be from the video. The actual footage is too fleeting to draw any conclusions as to whether tanks were fitted or not so I'm inclined to believe the author of the video.


User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1199 posts, RR: 4
Reply 37, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 9043 times:

Quoting flagon (Reply 20):
well I suggest you learn a little bit of french, as the text in french explains that we could read in the american press that the F22 had external tank, but the close up images from the Rafale OSF clearly showed that the Raptor was in clean configuration....

Calm down. I said I didn't know much about it. No need to spout stuff about life tips of learning other languages. All I was saying was the only English in the video mentioned that, and I can't very well copy and paste text from the video into Google translate.

At any rate, do we know how the Rafale was configured? Just wondering, that's all.



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlineflagon From France, joined May 2007, 145 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 8966 times:

Quoting spudh (Reply 36):
Quoting spudh (Reply 36):
"The F-22 were dogfighting with external tanks reducing their maneuvering capabilities"

The video said the statement above was reported by the US press, the video then aims to demonstrate that this statement was inaccurate, and shows a snapshot of the F22 taken during that dogfight from the Rafale OSF to backup this statement.

It s all about perception but I am inclined to believe the author of the video because I just don't see the point of taking a F22 to some BFM exercise with drop tanks.
Plus I would guess that type of Rafale vs Raptor encounters must pretty rare, which kind of suggests the OSF snapshot shown at 1min36 comes from that very dog fight.

This is just my perception, and don't get me wrong, I don't think we can draw much of a conclusion from that video as to the relative performance of the planes. It's an interesting video, that's all.



Stephane
User currently offlineflagon From France, joined May 2007, 145 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8970 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 37):
No need to spout stuff about life tips of learning other languages

My apologise...

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 37):
At any rate, do we know how the Rafale was configured? Just wondering, that's all

It was probably in clean configuration, but I would guess this is impossible to verify for sure, and to be honest, I don't think knowing the answer would allow us to draw any robust conclusions. There are to many unkowns...



Stephane
User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1546 posts, RR: 9
Reply 40, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 8925 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 2):
It is optimized for supersonic flight and maneuver and therefore when it comes WVR of the eurocanards, who are designed for sub-sonic maneuver, it will always be close.

That's not correct. At least not for the Typhoon, Where the Typhoon excels all other fighters is the super sonic manoeuvrability.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlinecargotanker From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 148 posts, RR: 1
Reply 41, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 8898 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 35):
Secondly, there are no new pilots flying F-22s.

Since 2011 UPT graduates, new Lts, have been assigned to F-22s.

http://www.flyingsquadron.com/forums...nd-assignment-nights/page__st__560

Not the best of sources, but its good enough.

Why are all of you so wrapped up in dogfighting anyway? It accounts for .001% of the air combat spectrum (that's an estimate). All of these planes, Rafale, Typhoon, and F-22 will do their best to avoid WVR fights. Why give the bad guys that much of an advantage? A skilled Mig-19 (or T-38) pilot can make life rough for an F-22 pilot WVR. BVR, the Mig-19 is as dangerous as a Cessna.

When was the last air to air dogfight (WVR) that actually mattered? (meaning the success of air-to-air combat was crucial to the outcome of the conflict and a significant portion of that A2A fighting was achieved WVR) Faklands 1982?


User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1529 posts, RR: 2
Reply 42, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 8885 times:

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 41):
When was the last air to air dogfight (WVR) that actually mattered? (meaning the success of air-to-air combat was crucial to the outcome of the conflict and a significant portion of that A2A fighting was achieved WVR) Faklands 1982?

I'm gonna take a wild guess here and say that said numbers are skewed by the fact that most recent conflicts involve going up against a "country" with little to no air defence capability, let alone one that can match that of an agressor like NATO or the US.


User currently offlinecargotanker From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 148 posts, RR: 1
Reply 43, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 8816 times:

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 41):
Since 2011 UPT graduates, new Lts, have been assigned to F-22s.

http://www.flyingsquadron.com/forums...nd-assignment-nights/page__st__560

Not the best of sources, but its good enough.

Let me correct myself, this practice started in 2008. Better source:

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123082508

Looks like UPT grads would do some training in the F-16 before moving on to the F-22.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 44, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 8584 times:

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 41):
Since 2011 UPT graduates, new Lts, have been assigned to F-22s.

No USAF pilot goes directly from graduating from UPT and hops directly into the F-22 as their next plane.

They first get experience in the T-38 and the F-16 and get a specialized fighter training course.

By learning to push the envelope in the F-16, the Raptor Lead-in course is designed to help them be successful in the maneuvering dynamics of the F-22, Major Munter said.

These new F-22 pilots are not new to flying fighters and are heavily trained before they fly the F-22.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 8576 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 44):

These new F-22 pilots are not new to flying fighters and are heavily trained before they fly the F-22.

They are only getting 5 weeks of advanced flight training before they get into the F-22:
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123082508

Quote:
The Raptor Lead-in course is a five-week opportunity for the four new pilots to experience flying a high-G, high performance aircraft with an instructor in the back seat before taking the stick of the $169 million, single-seat F-22 by themselves, said Maj. Daniel Munter, a 56th Training Squadron instructor pilot.

A instructor or a aggressor pilot has years of experience in jet fighters before they even get assigned to either of those two roles. I know for the USN's Weapons School, instructor and aggressor pilots usually selected on or after their 3rd fighter assignment (if they stand out from their peers), with each assignment lasting anywhere from 3-5 years. That means that at the very minimum, a instructor or aggressor pilot has at the very least, 9 years of experience in high performance jet fighters alone, and maybe the pilot would have actual combat experience as well. I would imagine USAF assignment lengths are just as long, if not longer. That is a big difference in experience compared to a pilot fresh out of flight school with a 5 week familiarization course with high performance fighters before being strapped into a F-22.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 46, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 8090 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 45):
fresh out of flight school with a 5 week familiarization course

Firstly, only those scoring at the top of their class in flight training even have a chance on the F-22. Secondly, it's more than only the 5 week F-16 course that group absolves after UPT. Before they get into the F-16, they also have other training courses after UTP, including the in the T-38. You seem to belittle 5 weeks. It's not the calendar time that counts, it's the flying hours that count, as any pilot can tell you.

I think you have a simplistic view on the training and on the caliber of the F-22 pilots. You seem to be saying French and German pilots are better trained than USAF F-22 pilots. I do not concur.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 8087 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 46):
Firstly, only those scoring at the top of their class in flight training even have a chance on the F-22. Secondly, it's more than only the 5 week F-16 course that group absolves after UPT. Before they get into the F-16, they also have other training courses after UTP, including the in the T-38. You seem to belittle 5 weeks. It's not the calendar time that counts, it's the flying hours that count, as any pilot can tell you.

Funny, because the basic course for introductory F-22 pilots from flight training is 335 academic hours, 205 academics events, 27 examinations, 50 sorties and 55 simulator missions, for a grand total of approximately 55 hours before they are qualified to fly the F-22:
http://www.tyndall.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123337933

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 46):

I think you have a simplistic view on the training and on the caliber of the F-22 pilots. You seem to be saying French and German pilots are better trained than USAF F-22 pilots. I do not concur.

No, the problem is that you stated this:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 44):
No USAF pilot goes directly from graduating from UPT and hops directly into the F-22 as their next plane.

They first get experience in the T-38 and the F-16 and get a specialized fighter training course.

That is incorrect. Pilots fresh from UPT are getting placed into F-22 training straight from flight school, where they also get to fly the T-38 Talon and maybe the F-16. You stated that this wasn't the case. Granted, there maybe some experienced fighter pilots in the mix, but not all F-22 pilots are seasoned veterans.

This is not the case for aggressor and instructor pilots. As mentioned earlier, aggressor or instructor pilots usually are on or past their 3rd fighter assignment, and thus have accumulated hundreds, if not thousands of flight hours in jet fighters. They may have even flown the F-22 before in a previous assignment or have experienced actual combat.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 48, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8073 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 47):
That is incorrect. Pilots fresh from UPT are getting placed into F-22 training straight from flight school, where they also get to fly the T-38 Talon and maybe the F-16.

There is no maybe except in your mind, like X-47B non-folding wings, etc.....Even the article in your own link does not say what you claim. There is no B-course F-22 directly from "flight school".

B-course trains A-list pilots - that's your own link headline PB. It's only the B-course for already top pilots.

Again, as already posted here with verifiable links above: to fly the F-22, after top UPT pilots first go through the T-38, then the F-16 and other courses specific to fighters and the criteria and the B-course you cite. The B-course is not the entire criteria, as you claim. PB you can choose to think whatever anuses you. We will have to agree to disagree on this point and leave it there. Discussing this any further is pointless.

[Edited 2013-07-01 18:32:35]

User currently offlinecargotanker From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 148 posts, RR: 1
Reply 49, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 7908 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 48):
There is no maybe except in your mind, like X-47B non-folding wings, etc.....Even the article in your own link does not say what you claim. There is no B-course F-22 directly from "flight school".

I guess Pointblank and I made the mistake of assuming Tommytoyz was ever going to be wrong about anything.

The bottom line is that new UPT gradautes with no operational fighter experience are getting assigned to the F-22, which you
previously stated was incorrect. You were wrong.

The IFF course (which ALL future fighter pilots attend) does not count as operational fighter experience.

A few rides with an instructor in an F-16 to see what 9gs feels like does not count as operational fighter experience.

1 tour (normally about 3 years, for those of you who are unfamiliar with military flying and live in Los Angeles) in an operational fighter squadron is what most people would consider experienced. You are trying to 'win' the argument with technicalities because you can never admit that you are wrong.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 35):
The topic is F-22 pilots. On that, it is a fact that they are well trained and never new right out of flight training.

Wrong wrong wrong.

Try it with me, quote this and put it into your next post:

Thanks, cargotanker, I didn't know that new Lts were being allowed to fly the F-22. I thought only experienced fighter pilots were allowed into F-22 units. I guess I was wrong. I'm glad you military folks are on this forum to educate guys like me who just sell houses in Los Angeles. Thanks! -tommytoyz


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 50, posted (9 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 7760 times:

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 49):
The bottom line is that new UPT gradautes with no operational fighter experience are getting assigned to the F-22, which you previously stated was incorrect. You were wrong.

That is not what I have repeatedly stated. I suggest you slowly re read my posts and clearly understand exactly what I did say in my posts. I never said "operational" experience. So please reread very carefully. I mention this because you go off putting that term into my mouth repeatedly and trying to use that falsehood against me repeatedly.

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 49):

A few rides with an instructor in an F-16 to see what 9gs feels like does not count as operational fighter experience

I suggest you reread the articles linked. They mention a lot more than to just experience the Gs. It's to gain experience in High performance and high G fighters and all the aspects that go along with that. After UPT they gain experience in the T-38s and F-16s and the B-course. You want to deny this reality along with PB, no problem here.

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 49):
You are trying to 'win' the argument with technicalities because you can never admit that you are wrong.

I have often admitted I was wrong. But believe what you wish about me and the world. That also goes for your erroneous belief that I sell houses or that I said "operational" in this thread. I wonder what your motivation is for your display of such hatred and aggression? What did I ever do to you? Nothing.


User currently offlinecargotanker From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 148 posts, RR: 1
Reply 51, posted (9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 7687 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 50):
I suggest you reread the articles linked. They mention a lot more than to just experience the Gs

Yeah, like night flying, day and night landing, and air refueling. There's the recipe for making a great fighter pilot!

Here's my question to you: how is a B-course grad Lt F-22 pilot any more experienced than a B-course grad Lt USAF F-16 pilot or F-15 pilot? They are all equally inexperienced and are "brand new" to the trade of being a fighter pilot. They aren't mission qualified and aren't ready for combat yet. No flight lead wants one as a wingman and they would get their butts handed to them by an experienced aggressor pilot which is what PointBlank correctly stated in reply 26 and what you incorrectly disagreed with which is what got this whole thing going.

The very existence of a B-course (B stands for Basic, which means new guys who haven't had an operational tour in a fighter) should prevent you from making statements like:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 35):
Secondly, there are no new pilots flying F-22s.
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 35):
The topic is F-22 pilots. On that, it is a fact that they are well trained and never new right out of flight training.
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 31):
No USAF pilots straight out of flight training (or flight academy as you name it) are flying the F-22.

Your posts above suggest the opposite, and......forget it, why argue with you. You know very little and you aren't interested in learning, just in proving that you were never wrong. Its maddening to see your uninformed posts about the F-22, F-35, KC-135 and every other aspect of military aviation on a website I enjoy reading but I'm clearly wasting my time.

I said you sold houses because your profile occupation is "mortgage broker/real estate sales". How silly of me. My apologies for the hatred and aggression.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 52, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 7678 times:

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 51):
No flight lead wants one as a wingman and they would get their butts handed to them by an experienced aggressor pilot which is what PointBlank correctly stated in reply 26 and what you incorrectly disagreed with which is what got this whole thing going.

I never said nor disagreed with the fact that an aggressor pilot would be the better pilot and the more experienced pilot or anything even remotely along those lines. Please re read my posts. When PB veered off into that territory, I asked PB to stay on topic, which is why I reminded him that this thread was not about aggressor pilots. Where did I ever disagree with that? Nowhere. Please stop putting words into my mouth. I ask that respectfully.

I agree with you that all F-22 pilots are all fresh out of training. Since they're always training. But no new F-22 pilots are so inexperienced as to go direct from UPT into the F-22 without first gaining experience and training in other fighters, as PB seems to think. Go read his posts above.

Why is it you get angry because you think I am wrong, but not when PB flat out lies about the X-47B and makes up stories? I don't get it. If you are really concerned with accuracy, then I really do not understand your defense of PB.

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 51):
My apologies for the hatred and aggression.

Apology accepted. I think you are sincere and honest about what you say in your posts, which is the main thing, IMHO. Unlike PB, as has been proven.

Putting all that behind us, the video clearly shows how physically demanding flying high performance fighters is. That's why it's a younger man's game. I talked to a DL pilot that was an ex F-16 driver who said it was brutal and didn't know how some older pilots could go on for years doing that. He said after a while, with experience, you can sometimes do the same things with less harsh maneuvers, but that it was still physically brutal.


User currently offlineglideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1594 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 7668 times:

Rafale: "I request to terminate, I request to terminate." Pretty much does it for me. Less cheese. More complex carbs.


To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
User currently offlinefoxxray From France, joined May 2005, 369 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 7580 times:

Quoting glideslope (Reply 53):
Rafale: "I request to terminate, I request to terminate." Pretty much does it for me. Less cheese. More complex carbs

Imagine if he had eaten less cheese just before flying ? It was not just one F22 but dozens that he could have shut down maybe ? And i heard that he was drinking a coffee during this cool dogfight...  

I'm always amazed by the reaction of many americans when it comes to their military honor. Many feel so patriotic and so superior to others that we can feel their ego being really hurted when they realize that they are not superiors to others, but just as good ... (or maybe as bad?).
I think it's actually pretty funny that their first reaction is to minimize the performance of others by trying to find themselves falses excuses ...

As a civilian pilot, I rarely come on the military part of the forum, but each time, I find it so pathetic (and funny !?) to see how americans (fortunately not all) do not like that we can doubt their supremacy and the fact that 'they have the best fighters, the best helicopters, best pilots, best soldiers, best guns, best burgers, ... largest ego (in fact no doubt about that   )


User currently onlinewingman From St. Vincent and the Grenadines, joined May 1999, 2099 posts, RR: 5
Reply 55, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 7516 times:

That's funny, only because growing up in Europe and having met hundreds of French people in my lifetime, I tend to generalize about your country in the same way. I have rarely met a Frenchman that doesn't exude superiority across all aspects of French life, culture, history etc. Then again, I feel the same way about Italians, Brits, and Germans. Everyone seems to think they're the best at everything.

But I do agree with you on one count, any American that thinks F22 pilots won't occasionally get their asses handed to them by foreign fighter jockeys is doomed to occasional depression.


User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 52
Reply 56, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 7133 times:

Quoting foxxray (Reply 54):
As a civilian pilot, I rarely come on the military part of the forum, but each time, I find it so pathetic (and funny !?) to see how americans (fortunately not all) do not like that we can doubt their supremacy and the fact that 'they have the best fighters, the best helicopters, best pilots, best soldiers, best guns, best burgers, ... largest ego (in fact no doubt about that )

Having served in the Persian Gulf back in '91, I can tell you the feeling is quite mutual. Big grin

[Edited 2013-07-08 05:11:07]


336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlinechecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (9 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 6892 times:

We train with our allies and (with the Raptor) simulate high threat aircraft. Sometimes the point isn't always to wipe the slate clean, but allow learning to take place. That being said this Rafale pilot does what most pilots have to do to get the F-22 in its sights...throw out safety concerns. This disturbs me more than someone getting a Raptor in his/her sights during training.

User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 58, posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 6782 times:

Quoting checksixx (Reply 57):
this Rafale pilot does what most pilots have to do to get the F-22 in its sights...throw out safety concerns

What safety concerns did this Rafale pilot throw out here, that you can see in this video?


User currently offlinechecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (9 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 6676 times:

Just watch the video and the answer(s) is right in the HUD footage...

User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 60, posted (9 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 6656 times:

Quoting checksixx (Reply 59):
Just watch the video and the answer(s) is right in the HUD footage...

It would be a lot easier if you would just tell us, instead of sending me on a Goose chase.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (9 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6656 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 60):

It would be a lot easier if you would just tell us, instead of sending me on a Goose chase.

Rafale pilot broke 2 rules of engagements typical in this sort of exercise:
1. Stay above 10,000ft. The fight was over as soon as this rule was violated. You have a hard deck in an exercise like this for safety reasons (and this is a lesson that was learned the hard way with pilots dying before this rule was implemented), and it is applicable to both sides. Depending on the cause of departure an aircraft can lose between 2,000 and 1,000 feet per oscillation and a single oscillation can last between 3 and 5 seconds. You need that time and altitude to recover.

2. Keep airspeed above 150 knots. If either pilot dropped air speed below 120 knots the pilot in breach of this rule must break off the engagement and recover air speed. The Rafale pilot easily dropped past 130 knots at 3:16.

There are two ground altitude limits and this is standard for all modern air forces, one is set at 10,000 ft above the surface, below this altitude both pilots must disengage cease all aggressive maneuvers and restore altitude and speed. This rule is sometimes referred to as a 'soft deck'. The second ground altitude limit is at 5,000 ft and it is a red line. A breach of this limit will result in immediate grounding, followed by disciplinary action, remedial training, and a possible re-assignment away from fighter jets (for example, a desk job).

FYI, the Rafale pilot could have been grounded for violating ROE. Training hard deck rule violation will result in the pilot being grounded. The hard deck rule during BFM is in effect for the safety of the crew and aircraft, these jets aren't exactly cheap and no one wants to write that letter to the pilots partner or parents explaining how his or her son/daughter/boyfriend/husband/wife/ died during a training mission.

This, below is a high res video of the engagement:
http://vimeo.com/36239699

So let's run through the ROE violations with this higher quality video:
0:50, the fight was over for the Rafale. His speed dropped below 150 knots at that frame.
1:04, his speed dropped to 130 knots, and he should have by then disengaged.
1:32, his altitude dropped below 10,000ft AGL (soft ground altitude limit violation)
1:48, speed was at 93 knots. Way to slow. Should have broken off engagement and gone to recover air speed.
2:17, speed at 94 knots, and altitude at 8,930ft AGL. Too slow and too low if he's still fighting.
2:38, 6240 ft AGL. Way too low if he's still fighting.

And let's just ignore the HUD's messages of "Release Stick" and "Too Slow"... both messages came up because the Rafale was stalling. The F-22 appears to not violate the ground altitude limit rule, as we see it in the HUD at 13,000 ft and by the distance it cannot be more than 500ft away and is perpendicular, so it's not on its way down. You don't see the F-22 again until the Rafale has already broken the 10,000ft deck.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 62, posted (9 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 6568 times:

Mr. Lockheed:

1. You have no way of knowing what the altitude and speed of the F-22 was
2. You don't know how to safely fly a Rafale
3. You are assuming you know what the rules of engagement were at ATLC 2009 in the United Arab Emirates, which you apparently don't
4. You previously said the F-22 pilot made mistakes, now it's something else

Your pattern of posts is that you can never ever concede that a Lockheed product is inferior in anything.

Asked about the engagements against Rafale and why the F-22 got nailed, the Americans lied and said the F-22 had limited maneuverability because it carried drop tanks, but it didn't as is clearly seen. I have read many accounts about these engagements, where the F-22 got nailed repeatedly, and nobody has claimed that the Rafale violated the safety rules. You probably assume rules were violated by Rafale every time the F-22 got nailed or that the F-22 pilots were inferior, etc....Spare me your speculations.

Why can we not just agree about the obvious? The F-22 is not the most maneuverable fighter out there.

It is very fast and flies very high and is very stealthy. But tangle WVR and it has no advantage, or even inferior to some. With the new AESA radar jammers coming down the pike, I have read they can jam modern AESA fighter radars. If true, tactics would have to change yet again, IMHO.

F22 Kill


[Edited 2013-07-11 11:24:10]

User currently offlinepowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 556 posts, RR: 1
Reply 63, posted (9 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6533 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 62):
Why can we not just agree about the obvious? The F-22 is not the most maneuverable fighter out there.

Agreed, that honor goes to the Canard airshow tumblers from Europe and Russia.


User currently offlineflagon From France, joined May 2007, 145 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (9 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6490 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 61):
And let's just ignore the HUD's messages of "Release Stick" and "Too Slow"... both messages came up because the Rafale was stalling.

I would like to see what messages the raptor HUD was showing to its pilot, maybe the message "you are dead" appeared a dozen of times?

On a more serious note, I am not quite sure what you are trying to demonstrate here, as in that kind of engagement I would fully expect the pilots to push their plane up to the edge of their flight envelope?

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 61):
The F-22 appears to not violate the ground altitude limit rule, as we see it in the HUD at 13,000 ft and by the distance it cannot be more than 500ft away and is perpendicular, so it's not on its way down. You don't see the F-22 again until the Rafale has already broken the 10,000ft deck

Whilst not being an expert, from 2:30, it seems to me that both planes were still very much fighting whilst being well below 10,000ft...



Stephane
User currently offlineflagon From France, joined May 2007, 145 posts, RR: 0
Reply 65, posted (9 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6479 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 61):
This, below is a high res video of the engagement:
http://vimeo.com/36239699

May I just share my humble translation from the text in french underneath the video which you kindly provided the link:

"
For information, the data here below are my personnal analysis:
00:35 first merge, F22 is in front of the Rafale
00:51 Fox 2
01:48 low speed 80/90 kts , Angle of Attack 28°
02:04 Fox2 not announced, but F22 locked
02:20 low speed again: 87kts
02:33 F22 locked , Fox2
02:37 Gunkill
"

Not sure how reliable it is though.

That said we can clearly hear the Rafale pilot announcing "Fox 2" at 00:51. Worth noting that at this point Rafale speed is 149kt whilst altitude is 14,780ft, are you gonna say the kill is not valid since speed is below 150kt?

[Edited 2013-07-11 14:57:42]


Stephane
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (9 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 6408 times:

Quoting flagon (Reply 64):

I would like to see what messages the raptor HUD was showing to its pilot, maybe the message "you are dead" appeared a dozen of times?

On a more serious note, I am not quite sure what you are trying to demonstrate here, as in that kind of engagement I would fully expect the pilots to push their plane up to the edge of their flight envelope?

Engagement was automatically over at 0:50 as the Rafale pilot broke ROE. What the Rafale pilot did afterwords was no longer part of the exercise. The 10,000ft floor and the 150 knot minimum speed limit is the ROE that most BFM exercises take place under.

Violations of the ROE are taken very seriously by commanders, be it a simulation or actual contact with the enemy. Pilots have been grounded, stripped of their wings, court marshaled, and either jailed or discharged from the military before over a ROE violation (witness what happened to Harry Schmidt as an extreme example).

Even in a real war where complex air tasking orders were the norm, the hard deck rule was very real and enforceable by commanders. Air superiority fighters like the F-15 would be at the highest altitudes, providing that "God's Eye" view of the air theater. Strike fighters would be at the medium altitudes to have better precision strikes and some protection from air defense gunnery, but not necessarily from SAMs. Low altitudes would be assigned to Army aviation or special operations, if any.

Each altitude ranges (plural) is called a 'block' per Air Operations Center (AOC) Standard Operating Procedure (SOP):
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/usaf/docs/aoc12af/part03b.htm

Quote:
Air Operations Center (AOC) Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)
Twelfth Air Force (12AF) Air Force Forces (AFFOR)

2. The "Airborne Alert Worksheet" has an "Available Locations" window for defining the location of the alert orbit. Note that each location has a valid time and altitude block.

If the floor rules were not enforced by force commanders, it would be very difficult to keep track of who is capable of doing what and where did the someone go. The phrase is 'altitude deconfliction' and when enforced by the hard deck rule, it helps maintain order and reduces confusion, especially the kind that lead to fratricide. Both a speed and altitude limits are enforced vigorously for safety reasons, and these rules came into place upon the advent and proliferation of supersonic-capable fighters and is reinforced at schools like TOPGUN, et al. These lessons were shared with allies and partners and followed by nations that buy US fighters and adopted US tactics.

This is what happens when one breaks the rule:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8r...2000-close-call_sport#.Ud9dem2DkUA
This Mirage 2000 pilot was almost killed as he was only about 100 ft above the ground before he managed to pull out. He was extremely lucky to survive, and upon returning to base, the pilot probably would have been grounded.

Quoting flagon (Reply 65):

That said we can clearly hear the Rafale pilot announcing "Fox 2" at 00:51. Worth noting that at this point Rafale speed is 149kt whilst altitude is 14,780ft, are you gonna say the kill is not valid since speed is below 150kt?

Engagement was over at 0:50. ROE for this type of exercise says anytime someone drops below 150 knots and/or 10,000ft AGL, the exercise is over and both pilots need to recover, gain altitude or speed (or both) before restarting the engagement. Hence, the end result is 'no result'. What the Rafale did afterwords was a cheap shot against a F-22 pilot what wasn't fighting back and probably would have netted the Rafale pilot a warning over the radio to knock it off.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 67, posted (9 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 6382 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 66):
Engagement was automatically over at 0:50 as the Rafale pilot broke ROE.

You don't know what the Rules of Engagement were here in this exercise in the UAE. You assume to know so many things - you may want to step back from that line of thinking. Assumptions get you killed as a pilot. The Americans, in a public briefing, never complained about Rafale breaking ROE here, and the F-22 is pulling high Gs the entire time too.

Was it the inferior F-22 pilot or the Rafale breaking the ROE? You have mentioned both here in this thread now. I don't understand why you so willingly disparage other people and make stuff up. In this thread, it was first the F-22 pilot and now the Rafale pilot.

[Edited 2013-07-11 21:17:18]

User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (9 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 6382 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 67):
You don't know what the Rules of Engagement were here in this exercise in the UAE. You assume to know so many things - you may want to step back from that line of thinking. Assumptions get you killed as a pilot. The Americans, in a public briefing, never complained about Rafale breaking ROE here, and the F-22 is pulling high Gs the entire time too.

Standard ROE for BFM include 10,000ft floor, 150 knots minimum speed. That's what the US uses, and it is shared with many NATO and allied nations, including France. That's a safety ROE, not just some stupid rule. It's there to prevent pilots from getting killed unnecessarily, much like the ROE rule against head on passes (which practically everyone uses).


User currently offlinechecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 69, posted (9 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 6380 times:

Well my post still stands. Never said the pilot didn't get the best of the F-22...he most certainly did. He certainly didn't do it safely and that was my point. That's all. Fly my aircraft out of energy and past the stall limits, risk aircraft loss or death, during training, so I can say I killed a Raptor. Not worth it. Plenty of pilots have bested a Raptor during training and learned how to engage a 5th gen fighter safely without flying like this guy did.

Quoting powerslide (Reply 63):
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 62):
Why can we not just agree about the obvious? The F-22 is not the most maneuverable fighter out there.

Agreed, that honor goes to the Canard airshow tumblers from Europe and Russia.

Disagree with both of you...the Raptor maintains control input ability throughout its crazy maneuvers. The others, very clearly seen in videos I may add, simply recover. If the Raptor was a Russian invention, my opinion wouldn't change. Much like the SU-27's debut...even GD agreed that NOTHING could turn with a Flanker in slower speed flight.


User currently offlineflagon From France, joined May 2007, 145 posts, RR: 0
Reply 70, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 6180 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 66):
The 10,000ft floor and the 150 knot minimum speed limit is the ROE that most BFM exercises take place under.
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 68):
Standard ROE for BFM include 10,000ft floor, 150 knots minimum speed. That's what the US uses, and it is shared with many NATO and allied nations, including France.

That s all very interesting but that still does not tell us what the ROE were for this ATLC dog fight....

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 66):
anytime someone drops below 150 knots and/or 10,000ft AGL, the exercise is over and both pilots need to recover, gain altitude or speed (or both) before restarting the engagement.

You keep confusing me, the video clearly shows even well after 0:50 that none of the pilots applies the recovering procedure that you describe above. Therefore I still think the fight was still very much on, until the Rafale pilot requests termination at the end of the video...
Unless you are suggesting the pilots were still enjoying themselves breaking the ROEs for long minutes, knowing that this was going to cost their wings?

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 66):
Engagement was automatically over at 0:50 as the Rafale pilot broke ROE. What the Rafale pilot did afterwords was no longer part of the exercise.

What the pilots did afterwards was at least as dangerous as before 0:50, and was in no way the recovery procedure you describe above, therefore I simply don t understand how you can assume that 0:50 was the end of the exercise...



Stephane
User currently offlinechuchoteur From France, joined Sep 2006, 750 posts, RR: 0
Reply 71, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 6153 times:

...don't know what the ROE were, but basically the outcome was a bunch of draws, one win for the F22 and one win for the Rafale.

What that tells me is that both aircraft are extremely good and that it is up to the pilots to make the most of them.
The Rafale seems a pretty manoeuvering aircraft compared to the "it's multirole and therefore not good at close in air to air" comments that were being circulated prior to this series of engagements.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 72, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 6131 times:

Quoting flagon (Reply 70):

That s all very interesting but that still does not tell us what the ROE were for this ATLC dog fight....

This is a safety ROE, and the US (with the French probably agreeing) to have these rules in place so pilots aren't accidentally killed.

Quoting flagon (Reply 70):
Unless you are suggesting the pilots were still enjoying themselves breaking the ROEs for long minutes, knowing that this was going to cost their wings?

We don't know what the Rafale pilot was thinking, but it would have netted him a warning back on the ground, or over the radio for the first infraction. Nearly stalling the aircraft and departing controlled flight probably would have netted him a big chewing out from his CO. The Rafale pilot didn't break the hard deck rule per the HUD (which would result in a grounding), but continued the engagement when it was supposed to be over. That's more unsportsmanlike behaviour than anything else.

I don't know what the French want to accomplish by releasing this edited footage but this behavior may jeopardize future French participation in joint exercises with USAF and perhaps others.

Quoting chuchoteur (Reply 71):
...don't know what the ROE were, but basically the outcome was a bunch of draws, one win for the F22 and one win for the Rafale.

The French Commandant appears to disagree, and says 5 draws, 1 win for the F-22:

From AirForces Monthly in the April 2010 edition:

Quote:
AFM: You apparently said 'the Rafale rubbed F-22 - the most modern fighter of the USAF. During six encounters the F-22 hit its goal only once'. The 27th FS doesn't remember the engagements that way and say the F-22 scored several victories against Rafale. Did you offer DACT to the Raptors and did they decline?

LCL G: I did not say we 'rubbed them', I said that there was only one shot claimed (ie a simulated kill) for the six that were set-up. I read in a recent issue of Air et Cosmos that it was two. As far as I am concerned, one or two shots of six Basic Fighter Manoeuvres (BFM) encounters is a victory for the F-22 but not an overwhelming one. Not like the one we claimed against the Typhoons after combat in Solenzara, Corsica during September (9 set-up: 8 to 1 for the Rafale*). The other set-ups versus F-22s were terminated for combat deck, an un-decisive situation or lack of fuel. We never shot them down, but we hope to do so soon since we are quite good opposition for them, and it is in the pilot's spirit not to give up!

Like almost every nation, we offered Beyond Visual Range DACT, of course, but the F-22 was only authorized to do BFM 1v1 Within Visual Range (WVR) versus foreign countries (except the UK, with whom they did not fight even in the BFMs). I wish we could have done so, but we didn't - which bring me back to Air et Cosmos, where its information about BVR engagement with AMRAAM in stealth mode is wrong: besides the fact that we did not even fly BVR vs F-22s! F-22 was fitted with some specific device to increase their radar signature. It enabled us to have contact with them during work ups for example. But that's not the point here."


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 73, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 6136 times:

If ASEA radars, like those on the F-22 and F-35 become jammable or fooled in the future with new Digital Radio Frequency Memory (DRFM) and AESA jammers, close in combat will become much more important, as will IR weapons and sensors, IMHO. Long range radar based fighting will be severely curtailed in usefulness.

Because even if the it turns out that the fighter's radars can not be jammed or fooled, the radar seekers on the long range A2A missiles certainly will be, IMHO. Maneuverability and kinetic energy performance is important in fighters, otherwise the B-2 would be the greatest fighter ever. This is what makes the F-22 a good fighter, as the European ones and the T-50 as well as what makes the F-35 a baby seal to be protected and coddled when other fighters are around, IMHO.

Weapons evolve. To deny this, is to deny reality.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 74, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 6078 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 73):
Maneuverability and kinetic energy performance is important in fighters, otherwise the B-2 would be the greatest fighter ever.

BTW, most recent actual dogfights barely make it past the merge. When Vadm. Mark Fox's F/A-18 engaged, from "bandit hostile" to "bandit splashed" was measured in seconds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEm75grzVNg
From the way it was described, those F/A-18s didn't pull more than 5Gs, because they had bombs and tanks on the jets, and bombs and external fuel tanks impose a G restriction on aircraft as they continued with their bombing mission instead of dropping bombs and tanks.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 75, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5960 times:

When a fighter is vectored in to the bandit by AWACS, that is a big advantage. In an era of electronic countermeasures and jamming/spoofing in a non permissive environment, the tactics would be very different - assuming the enemy has those capabilities.

If the enemy doesn't, then just about any aircraft would do. This case clearly illustrates that, Here, the F-18s didn't even bother to get rid of their bomb loads while engaging and managed perfectly.

This case also illustrates to me that there are just not many potential enemies that are as sophisticated as we assume. I think in many areas, we are only competing against ourselves and our imaginations. Like in the 60s when we assumed the Soviets had way (many times over) more ballistic missiles than we now know they actually had.

Like Singapore being armed to the teeth with no enemies to fight against. F-16s, F-15s, KC-135, C-130s..for s city state! I am not saying they have zero potential enemies, just that they have far and away beyond anything that even all nations in the area have combined - what for?

The USA is similar on a global scale, IMHO. With 179 F-22s, that's enough for a while. By the time the F-22s get long in the tooth, in 20 years time, they'll be outdated with jammers and sensitive IR sensors helped via and high speed computers making their tactics mute.

I think the next leap in fighter technology is to make one IR invisible or reduced. That would not be easy to do. But it would enable a radar and IR stealthy plane to sneak up on anyone, unseen by any sensors, except for the naked eye.

Right now, the F-22 and F-35 are no better in their IR signature than others, so they can be spotted, tracked and shot at with IR missiles, just like any other plane. And as IR sensors and computing power get better over time, they'll only become more vulnerable in that area in the future.

The F-35 is probably worse than most, as it requires more thrust than most fighters to move it through the air and it uses a lot of it's surface and fuel for cooling the AESA radar, computers and other hot electronics and it's still manages to burn it's own tail feathers with heat - an issue needing to be resolved via more heat resistant materials in that area.

Until someone can really make a perfect cloaking device for a plane, aerial maneuverability will be very important to fight fighters and defeat inbound missiles, IMHO.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 76, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5853 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 75):
When a fighter is vectored in to the bandit by AWACS, that is a big advantage. In an era of electronic countermeasures and jamming/spoofing in a non permissive environment, the tactics would be very different - assuming the enemy has those capabilities.

Which just goes to show... what happens in the WVR fight is greatly affected by what happens in BVR. The WVR fight doesn't start in vacuum, but in BVR (mostly) and the plane that is capable of tracking the target outside its radar cone has the offensive maneuver option on the table unlike to one without. If I know where you and can track you before we get into a visual fight before you even have the chance to detect me, it doesn't matter if in a close in fight, you can out maneuver me. You are as good as dead. If you ask any fighter pilot what would they like to have more in a fighter aircraft, better situational awareness is in the top 3. The new generation of American fighters (F-22 and F-35) have situational awareness in spades.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3212 posts, RR: 26
Reply 77, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 5791 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

why is it that every thread a certain group touches ends up being a F-35 slugfest ad nauseum... ??? enough already. The topic is the F-22 video.

User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 790 posts, RR: 1
Reply 78, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5719 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 77):
why is it that every thread a certain group touches ends up being a F-35 slugfest ad nauseum... ???

Let us by clear about who is introducing the material!

The F-35 is mentioned first in post 26 as part of a quote and has nothing to do with the F-35, it is about the F-22.

The F-35 is mentioned again in post 51 and is a passing comment. It is not a specific F-35 reference.

The F-35 is then mentioned by Tommytoyz in post 73 in a direct and unrelated post to the thread.

The F-35 is again mentioned by Tommytoyz in post 75 in a direct and unrelated post to the thread.

The F-35 is finally mentioned in post 76 by Pointblank when referencing both US 5th generation aircraft.

In light of the above, the definition of a troll on the internet is the following, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion

Lets call a spade a spade shall we...there is only one person dragging this thread off topic!


User currently offlineflagon From France, joined May 2007, 145 posts, RR: 0
Reply 79, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5564 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 72):
We don't know what the Rafale pilot was thinking

There are many things that we do not know, like for example what the ROE were in this engagement, so lets stop jumping on assumptions. I can see how confident you are in your interpretation of this video and you clearly show that you are knowledgeable, but I don t feel convinced by your arguments as they seem to be mainly motivated but the desperate need to discredit anything that looks like a Raptor stuck in another plane HUD...

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 72):
Nearly stalling the aircraft and departing controlled flight.

I am not a specialist, but I am not sure how serious an issue it is to nearly stall a Rafale, as a Rafale is not F101 Voodoo.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 72):
The Rafale pilot didn't break the hard deck rule per the HUD (which would result in a grounding), but continued the engagement when it was supposed to be over.

so did the Raptor pilot....

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 72):

That's more unsportsmanlike behaviour than anything else.

according to the interpretation you make from the video, an interpretation that suits you.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 72):

I don't know what the French want to accomplish by releasing this edited footage but this behavior may jeopardize future French participation in joint exercises with USAF and perhaps others.

Well the very fact that "the French", to use your words, have let this video go in the public domain kind of suggests to me that there is nothing controversial in it...
Thats my perception/assumption. At least when I make assumptions, I dont forget to mention just that...

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 72):

this behavior may jeopardize future French participation in joint exercises with USAF and perhaps others.

... may jeopardize future american participation as well in joint exercises with the french air force (given the way the Raptor pilot behaved)?



Stephane
User currently offlineflagon From France, joined May 2007, 145 posts, RR: 0
Reply 80, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5576 times:

Quoting checksixx (Reply 57):
this Rafale pilot does what most pilots have to do to get the F-22 in its sights...throw out safety concerns.

Well if I rely on Pointblank, this Rafale pilot does what most pilots have to do get a F22, a Mirage 2000, a F104, a F86, a Cessna or another Rafale in sights... throw out safety concerns.
Because apparently BFM is not about aircraft performance....

Quoting checksixx (Reply 69):
Fly my aircraft out of energy and past the stall limits, risk aircraft loss or death, during training, so I can say I killed a Raptor. Not worth it. Plenty of pilots have bested a Raptor during training and learned how to engage a 5th gen fighter safely without flying like this guy did.

risk aircraft loss or death ...hmm, nowadays fighters have their flight envelope pretty well protected by the FCS don t they?

Quoting checksixx (Reply 69):
Plenty of pilots have bested a Raptor during training and learned how to engage a 5th gen fighter safely without flying like this guy did.

I am not sure how relevant your comment as I would have thought the way the fight evolves is dependant on a complex combination of circumstances, and sometimes, it just ends up in a nasty dogfight like this one?



Stephane
User currently offlinechecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 81, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 5469 times:

Quoting flagon (Reply 80):
Quoting checksixx (Reply 57):
this Rafale pilot does what most pilots have to do to get the F-22 in its sights...throw out safety concerns.

Well if I rely on Pointblank, this Rafale pilot does what most pilots have to do get a F22, a Mirage 2000, a F104, a F86, a Cessna or another Rafale in sights... throw out safety concerns.
Because apparently BFM is not about aircraft performance....

Quoting checksixx (Reply 69):
Fly my aircraft out of energy and past the stall limits, risk aircraft loss or death, during training, so I can say I killed a Raptor. Not worth it. Plenty of pilots have bested a Raptor during training and learned how to engage a 5th gen fighter safely without flying like this guy did.

risk aircraft loss or death ...hmm, nowadays fighters have their flight envelope pretty well protected by the FCS don t they?

Quoting checksixx (Reply 69):
Plenty of pilots have bested a Raptor during training and learned how to engage a 5th gen fighter safely without flying like this guy did.

I am not sure how relevant your comment as I would have thought the way the fight evolves is dependant on a complex combination of circumstances, and sometimes, it just ends up in a nasty dogfight like this one?

I'm sorry...did you have a question or are you only able to give your opinion when quoting someone else?


User currently offlinesonic67 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 292 posts, RR: 0
Reply 82, posted (8 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4601 times:

So you are saying it is fake?

Quoting GDB (Reply 4):

Now that you say that it kind of seems that way.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3212 posts, RR: 26
Reply 83, posted (8 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4463 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I love it when the loser or loser's fan boys say "you cheated" ... yet in real action a pilot probably won't stick to the Duke of Kumquat's rules of engagement... Next best line is "it's a fake"...

It is what it is...


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Nice Video Of F-22 Kill
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Chinese Stealth Copy Of F-22/F-35? posted Tue Mar 19 2013 14:52:02 by mayor
Video Of Syrian Copter Being Shot Down posted Tue Mar 5 2013 12:39:14 by TK787
Second Crash Of A V-22 In 3 Month posted Fri Jun 15 2012 05:04:50 by oldeuropean
Great Video Of The F 16 In Norwegian Air Power Ann posted Fri May 11 2012 19:44:01 by Mortyman
Amazing Video Of An Apache Crash In Afghanistan posted Thu Mar 22 2012 14:13:20 by HaveBlue
New Video Of Challenger Disaster posted Wed Feb 22 2012 11:41:20 by bigphilnyc
Cool Video Of Solo TURK, Turkish F-16 Team posted Fri Apr 15 2011 15:18:05 by TK787
Video Of Boeing C-17 Operations In Afghanistan posted Mon Jan 31 2011 23:00:05 by propilot83
IR Footage Of F-22 At Farnborough posted Sun Jul 25 2010 10:34:23 by LimaNiner
Previously Unseen Video Of Challenger Explosion posted Tue Feb 2 2010 14:54:59 by LimaNiner

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format