Good thing they are on our side this time.

The fast, stealthy F-22 Raptor is “unquestionably” the best air-to-air fighter in the arsenal of the world’s leading air force. That’s what outgoing Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz wrote in 2009.

Three years later, a contingent of German pilots flying their latest Typhoon fighter have figured out how to shoot down the Lockheed Martin-made F-22 in mock combat. The Germans’ tactics, revealed in the latest Combat Aircraft magazine, represent the latest reality check for the $400-million-a-copy F-22, following dozens of pilot blackouts, and possibly a crash, reportedly related to problems with the unique g-force-defying vests worn by Raptor pilots.

In mid-June, 150 German airmen and eight twin-engine, non-stealthy Typhoons arrived at Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska for an American-led Red Flag exercise involving more than 100 aircraft from Germany, the U.S. Air Force and Army, NATO, Japan, Australia and Poland. Eight times during the two-week war game, individual German Typhoons flew against single F-22s in basic fighter maneuvers meant to simulate a close-range dogfight.

The results were a surprise to the Germans and presumably the Americans, too. “We were evenly matched,” Maj. Marc Gruene told Combat Aircraft’s Jamie Hunter. The key, Gruene said, is to get as close as possible to the F-22 … and stay there. “They didn’t expect us to turn so aggressively.”

Read the rest of the story in the link below.

Typhon vs Raptor war games in Alaska

Journalists are totally out of their BS element when talking technical subjects.

One of the comments
Quote

This article is is poorly sourced and his characterization of the F-22 in actually real combat capabilities is seriously in doubt.

First, the article does not indicate at all if the Eurofighters during this mock dog fight had their combat radars turned on. I highly doubt it considering if they did and the Germans were foolish enough to do point it at the F-22, that the F-22 can scan and classify the frequencies the Germans use for the x-band search radar, then feed bad data into it making the F-22 appear where its not. This would signification degrade the Eurofighters ability to reach a "merge" point where it would get close enough to dog fight. This is a closely guarded state secret undoubtedly and was per-agreed im sure by the Germans, (so to start the F-22 was at a disadvantage).

Two, the F-22 unique active electronic attack systems on board were not in play, because of obvious reasons, if they used against the Germans you have Eurofighters dropping from the sky as there "fly by wire" systems all stopped worked and are fried out.

Three, the Eurofighter as a aircraft is designed to be F-16 like NATO fighter, the closes thing the Europeans have which can compare to the F-22 is the Tornado, and if you compare the Tornado to the F-22 in a dog fighter lets get real here.

Fourth, the F-22 as a BVR fighter is unmatched its radar search range is 250km, the average European and Russia radar is around 120km. The F-22 would see the Eurofighter minutes before and fire a BVR missile and retreat above the 65k attitude limit of the Eurofighter, which would make it useless, the Eurofighter was dumb enough to fly up that high and try to engage the F-22 at a high angle of attack (ie nose up) it can't even maneuver at that attitude and would lose all of its nimbleness) unless the F-22 pilot has a brain tumor for breakfast and engages the Eurofighter at below 30k etc.

The current generation AIM-120 has a hit to kill ratio of something like 90% for the career, that's like a professional baseball player hitting 90% of the balls throw at them from 250km away, consider you hit above .300 your a millionaire.

The Eurofighter is a very good European fighter, but suffers from a lot of other factors, it is and is a worthy replacement for the F-16C/D currently in use, but compared to the F-35 (its main competition) its not good enough ( which is why the Dutch/UK opted for the F-35 instead), but its not better then the Rafael which was clearly shown in combat.

The Eurofighter lacked the ability to act as a true multi-role fighter as proven in European action in Libya where the Rafael was shown to be a better fighter for many reasons.

More sourced material :

"Air Marshal Sir Stuart Peach last week explained that the
“complimentary way” in which the Typhoons worked alongside the Tornados,
using their targeting pods to create additional intelligence and
reconnaissance, “was very important”. "

Translation:
This means for the Euro fighter has to work together with the Tornado, as it can't shoot at anything on the ground, the UK had to use two separate airplanes to do the role that the Rafael or the F-22 would do it on airframe

"In separate briefings, U.K.
officials have been quoted as saying that the Typhoon flew 600 combat
missions but surprisingly details of its offensive role in terms of
enemy targets engaged have not been forthcoming. "

Translation:
because in actual combat it role was to conduct CAP and escort Rafael and Tornado to drop bombs on people, as Libya's Air Force was out to lunch making the Eurofighter usless.

"A Dassault
executive who did not wish to be identified said that the Eurofighter
Typhoon which is clearly not meant for a multi-mission role played at
best a supporting role in the Libyan operations."

Translation:
The Eurofighter is nice at dog fighting but not much else.

Maybe the US should buy some to train against to replace the F-5 we use, because other then that the Eurofighter is never going to get close enough to a F-22 in real life for it to matter.

This article sounds more like a Ra-Ra peice for EADS which can't sell these things to anyone outside of European ( any don't say the Saudis as they couldn't get the F-35 for obviously political reasons ie Isreal)

SR I tend to agree. The key word here is "dogfight" and the F22 is not going to engage in that if it can help it. Just no need with the AIM missiles. Now, having said that, I am not sure what countermeasures there are against such a missile, and whether the Euros have such.
As to your other points I don't see why the Germans should play into American hands by using capabilities that they KNOW the Americans have countermeasures to. Would we expect the Russians to do so?
Peter.

Well said Peter. If the F22 has an achiles heel it must be discovered so it can be addressed now and not in a real life & death situation for our pilots. Our enemies are not going to play by OUR rules. NEVER UNDERESTIMATE YOUR ENEMY.

Real dog fighting using eye balls only does not really happen if it can be avoided. The guy with air speed and altitude is going to slash and run when that happens. Remember only one plane has ever scored a gun shoot down while supersonic.

Any sort of counter measures is/are better than none. I once worked for a company that designed and manufactured countermeasures that were used by the US, UK and Germany. They were the AN/ALE 40 and 47. The UK's Harriers carried the ALE-40 version in the Falklands. These systems dispense both chaff and flare CM cartridges.
I think everyone remembers the sub-sonic Harrier with Sidewinder's worked over the Argentines pretty well. The Argentines had no CM for the AIM-9 and had no equivalent to deal with the CM equipped Harriers.

The only thing the Argentinian pilots had going for them was guts and determination in spades, which is more than can be said for the rest of the Argie forces based on land.


Who or what did the Supersonic gun shoot down ?

.

A US pilot in a F4-D shot down a Mig-19.
The F4 was at Mach 1.2 and the Mig was at Mach .77. His name was Phil Handley and there is a Dogfights episode on youtube that shows how he got the lead while turning.

There was a novel not too long ago, can't remember the name, but the plot was an American fighter pilot who was hired by an unnamed Arab country to revamp it's airforce (strictly defensive) basically against the Israelis. The hero's theory was that the next major air conflict would be such that electronic countermeasures would basically cancel out the offensive electronic capabilities of the enemy. The next war would thus be fought most effectively by heat seeking missiles. Interesting novel with a nice twist at the end.
Peter.

How did they overcome HARM's ?

If they are transmitting, they are susceptible.

.

Good point! Don't know!
Peter.

I am not a fighter pilot. I fly with current guard guys all the time. Mostly F-16 guys a few F-18 guys and occasionally F-15 guys. Here is what I get from talking to them.

In a multi aircraft engagement invariably there will those that survive the initial missile attacks and invariably there will be a merge and a visual missile /cannon duel. The egg heads have been trying to take short range air to air weapons off of fighters for decades and it always turns out to be a bad idea.

Obviously the missile systems and ECM systems and guidance and everything else has advanced. But fighter pilot and a fighter aircraft must always be able to engage and conduct a visual "knife" fight as they still occur and they have deadly consequences for those unequipped and unskilled in the art of dog fighting.

quote:

Originally posted by surestrike:

In a multi aircraft engagement invariably there will those that survive the initial missile attacks and invariably there will be a merge and a visual missile /cannon duel. The egg heads have been trying to take short range air to air weapons off of fighters for decades and it always turns out to be a bad idea.

Obviously the missile systems and ECM systems and guidance and everything else has advanced. But fighter pilot and a fighter aircraft must always be able to engage and conduct a visual "knife" fight as they still occur and they have deadly consequences for those unequipped and unskilled in the art of dog fighting.

I'm not trying to be a smartass here to anyone else who has posted because I am not a pilot but anyone can figure out that the above is true. It's nice to think that every engagement will end before jets get within 10 miles of each other but it just isn't going to happen. There will inevitably be dogfights and our pilots need to know how to handle themselves in such an environment. Making excuses for the F22 or their pilots doesn't excuse the fact that in a dogfight they were defeated. A Typhoon is no slouch and a dogfight is its bread and butter so we need to learn from this and make the jets and pilots better. Like Peter said, the enemy isn't going to play by the rules we want them to.

I remember an episode of Dogfights where an F15 pilot got into it with a mig 29 because he couldn't figure out wether it was an F15 coming back from the first wave or a mig 29. Going just off of sight it could have been either and even though he could have gotten a lock on him miles out he obviously didn't want to shoot down one of his own. This of course led to a close air engagement.

The F22 is designed to work with other aircraft attacking using them essentially as missile carriers. Not only can the radar see twice as far as any others the stealth aspects allow it to fly far out ahead. Keeping the F15 and F16's at a safe distance from the enemy. It paints the targets and the F16/F15 launch long range missiles to take them out. The F22 radar can also melt enemy electronics. This tactic has given them massive kill to loss ratios in simulations.

Couple of fun bits about the F22...

At the end of a runway the F15 is traveling about 350knots and pulls straight up into a climb (it set several climbing records in its day). However it is slowing as it goes up.

contrast that with the F22 that hits 450 knots at the end of the runway and has to throttle back not to break mach while climbing!

Most of which was done by the British Lightning in the 60's and 70's and still not surpassed by the F15 in the 90's !

Including intercepting a U2 at what was previously considered safe from interception !!!

quote:

Originally posted by 505G:
Most of which was done by the British Lightning in the 60's and 70's and still not surpassed by the F15 in the 90's !

Including intercepting a U2 at what was previously considered safe from interception !!!

Much of what was done then?

Here is a question.
Did a British Lightening ever intercept an SR-71?

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:
SR I tend to agree. The key word here is "dogfight" and the F22 is not going to engage in that if it can help it. Just no need with the AIM missiles. Now, having said that, I am not sure what countermeasures there are against such a missile, and whether the Euros have such.
As to your other points I don't see why the Germans should play into American hands by using capabilities that they KNOW the Americans have countermeasures to. Would we expect the Russians to do so?
Peter.

If you are playing war games why play by the rules? Why not use all advantages of all aircraft to their full capabilities and on top of that cheat too?
One upon a time the F-5 pilots flying Red Flag got tired of getting pasted by the F-14s, 15s and 16s. Some of the F-5 pilots resorted to Fuzz Busters to detect the F-XX search radars. That was considered cheating in the Red Flag exercises. Eventually FuzzBuster was contacted to build several hundred mil-spec Fuzz Busters with one of the bands disabled. FB declined since it was not within their production standards and was not profitable. They did volunteer to screen print "No Step" on them. The standard Fuzz Busters were sent to the Naval Air Station in Corpus Christi Texas for the modification before being issued to F-5 pilots.

SR

Don't know.


Did read a funny story once about the SR 71 flying over, I think California. As I remember it in brief, some pilot in a private plane asked ATC for some height check, then of course others get on the air doing the same.

Anyway, an SR71 was airborne and so then the SR71 gets on and requests clearance to some unbelievably high level - let's use 80,000 as an example). ATC comes back with "Cleared to FL 80).

SR71 comes back with "Descending to FL80".

Silence - End of all radio chatter !!!

Would have been good to see the smiles on everyone's faces.

.

Here’s two stories for ya Pyro!

SR-71 Blackbird pilot Brian Shul reported one exchange. His SR-71 was
screaming across Southern California, 13 miles high and its crew were
monitoring cockpit chatter as they entered Los Angeles airspace. Though
they didn’t really control the SR-71, LA monitored its movement across
their scope. The SR-71 crew heard a Cessna ask for a readout of
groundspeed.
"90 knots" Center replied.
Moments later, a Twin Beech required the same.
"120 knots," Center answered.
An F-18 smugly transmitted, "Ah, Center, Dusty 52 requests groundspeed readout."
Center (after a slight pause): "525 knots on the ground, Dusty".
The SR-71 realised how ripe a situation this was for one-upmanship: "Center, Aspen 20, you got a groundspeed readout for us?"
Center (after a longer than normal pause): "Aspen, I show 1,742 knots"
No further groundspeed inquiries were heard on that frequency.

Now here is Pyros favorite.

A SR-71 crew were listening in
on a similar "match this" contest. A Cessna asked to clear to 4000 ft,
a corporate jet requested clearance to 12,000, an airliner to 18,000,
etc. Finally the SR-71 called ATC.
SR-71: "Request clearance to 80,000 ft"
Tower: "Just how in hell do you plan to get up there?" and then with a smart ass tone "Ya right, request approved. Go for it"
SR-71: Roger that, descending to 80,000

Uh, hate to burst the Germans' bubble, but the target acquisiton system in the Raptor is so far ahead of the Euro fighter, the poor Germans would be blow away before they even knew a Raptor was in the area. Close in dogfights are not the goal of any pilot today. Might be fun to play at, but "fire and forget" is the real USAF doctrine.
Gun kills are a VERY last resort. You kill them before they know they are a target, it's not intended to be a "fair fight".

Thanks John Hunt, yours is the much better version

I should have looked it up on Google
as it must be around somewhere.

.

The no dogfight doctrine worked real well in Vietnam didn't it. They still have a gun on the Raptor and with its vectored thrust hugely powerful engines and advanced aerodynamics I find it hard to believe that anything can out manuever it and if it got behind the eightball it could power out of any situation and regain the inititve at will. Sure they like to stand off but that baby can turn and burn. Its all about thrust to weight were I don't think anything else comes close. Hell its the first "supercruise" fighter that flies supersonic with no afterburner....

Sounds like some rah rah crap to keep the euoros feeling good

Being confident is one thing, being over confident in the airplane is another.


Stealth until you open the bomb doors and fire a missile ?

.

quote:

Originally posted by gunslinger55:
The no dogfight doctrine worked real well in Vietnam didn't it. They still have a gun on the Raptor and with its vectored thrust hugely powerful engines and advanced aerodynamics I find it hard to believe that anything can out manuever it and if it got behind the eightball it could power out of any situation and regain the inititve at will. Sure they like to stand off but that baby can turn and burn. Its all about thrust to weight were I don't think anything else comes close. Hell its the first "supercruise" fighter that flies supersonic with no afterburner....

Sounds like some rah rah crap to keep the euoros feeling good

Might well be some propaganda to keep the troops happy. Or it could be some F-22 guys deliberately getting into a visual scrap and getting their asses handed to them by pilots who do a lot more visual fighting engagements.

Kind if like fighting Israelis. It's bad idea to get into a visual scrap with the IAF as they do a bunch of that stuff in training and for real.

Not mine 505. Found it on military humor.com or something like that.

They are probably not real. But they make for good reading



Btw: wiki said that British lightening was the first jet to
Super cruise.

You are correct training is everything. I know for a fact that a co worker of mine in the guard in an excercise was shot down as well as 4 other of his buddies by an F-22 and they never knew or saw where he was.....

quote:

Originally posted by surestrike:

quote:

Originally posted by gunslinger55:
The no dogfight doctrine worked real well in Vietnam didn't it. They still have a gun on the Raptor and with its vectored thrust hugely powerful engines and advanced aerodynamics I find it hard to believe that anything can out manuever it and if it got behind the eightball it could power out of any situation and regain the inititve at will. Sure they like to stand off but that baby can turn and burn. Its all about thrust to weight were I don't think anything else comes close. Hell its the first "supercruise" fighter that flies supersonic with no afterburner....

Sounds like some rah rah crap to keep the euoros feeling good

Might well be some propaganda to keep the troops happy. Or it could be some F-22 guys deliberately getting into a visual scrap and getting their asses handed to them by pilots who do a lot more visual fighting engagements.

Kind if like fighting Israelis. It's bad idea to get into a visual scrap with the IAF as they do a bunch of that stuff in training and for real.

A very interesting article in The Fort Worth Star Telegram on the F-22.
F-22 problems

I agree, interesting article from a lot of different sources that are not connected.

.

I am of the opinion that there is a disinformation effort going on with the F-22.

Deliberate downplaying of capabilities and performance.

Early on l think a bit too much USAF Raptor pilot enthusiasm, chest pounding was getting to close to spilling the beans or leaking secrets.
So now they (USAF) are trying to damage control.. the Germans beat us the Indians beat us etc.

I don't think so Alice!

Missiles are another kettle of fish. I think the Vietnam war stats really shook things up where radar missiles were concerned.

IR missiles seem to be experiencing no difficulties so...IRST seems to be standard kit on most new fighters these days.

Counter measures..hmm..maybe a lot of interesting capabilities sitting in the weeds that will need a aerial conflict perhaps to put them in the light.

Vietnam didn't shake up anything as far as Air to Air missiles were concerned. Navy Fighters and Attack aircraft have carried various models of Sidewinders ever since they were developed by the Naval Weapons Center in China Lake. Our fighters from the F4s to F14s also carried the Sparrow radar guided missiles and used them for longer range targets. IR missiles are close range weapons; when we did practice firings we waited until 1 1/4 miles to 2 miles with a steady lock on tone before firing. Don't know which radar missiles the USAF carried, besides Sparrows, in Vietnam, but every AF plane I ever joined up with had both IR and radar missiles aboard.

quote:

Originally posted by A7drvr:
Vietnam didn't shake up anything as far as Air to Air missiles were concerned. Navy Fighters and Attack aircraft have carried various models of Sidewinders ever since they were developed by the Naval Weapons Center in China Lake. Our fighters from the F4s to F14s also carried the Sparrow radar guided missiles and used them for longer range targets. IR missiles are close range weapons; when we did practice firings we waited until 1 1/4 miles to 2 miles with a steady lock on tone before firing. Don't know which radar missiles the USAF carried, besides Sparrows, in Vietnam, but every AF plane I ever joined up with had both IR and radar missiles aboard.

"25,000 AIM-7Es were produced, and saw extensive use during the Vietnam War, where its performance was generally considered disappointing. The mixed results were a combination of reliability problems (exacerbated by the tropical climate), limited pilot training in fighter-to-fighter combat, and restrictive rules of engagement that generally prohibited BVR (beyond visual range) engagements. The Pk (kill probability) of the AIM-7E was less than 10%; US fighter pilots shot down 59[Note 1] aircraft out of the 612 Sparrows fired.[4] Of the 612 AIM-7D/E/E-2 missiles fired, 97 (or 15.8%) hit their targets, resulting in 56 (or 9.2%) kills. Two kills were obtained beyond visual range.[5]

In 1969 an improved version, the E-2, was introduced with clipped wings and various changes to the fuzing. Considered a "dogfight Sparrow", the AIM-7E-2 was intended to be used at shorter ranges where the missile was still travelling at high speeds, and in the head-on aspect, making it much more useful in the visual limitations imposed on the engagements. Even so, its kill rate was only 13% in combat, leading to a practice of ripple-firing all four at once in hopes of increasing kill probability. Its worst tendency was that of detonating prematurely, approximately a thousand feet in front of the launching aircraft, but it also had many motor failures, erratic flights, and fuzing problems. An E-3 version included additional changes to the fuzing, and an E-4 featured a modified seeker for use with the F-14 Tomcat."


I guess this is what l am referring to...

The Pk (kill probability) of the AIM-7E was less than 10%; US fighter pilots shot down 59[Note 1] aircraft out of the 612 Sparrows fired.[4] Of the 612 AIM-7D/E/E-2 missiles fired, 97 (or 15.8%) hit their targets, resulting in 56 (or 9.2%) kills. Two kills were obtained beyond visual range.[5]

Sparrow and its immediate contemporary A to A Radar missiles were just better than throwing rocks in Vietnam aerial combat. More kills were made with Winders and guns!

Even in the Gulf war the latest edition Sparrows kill rate only made it to 44%.

Not news to any guerrilla forces the world over. Best way to fight an enemy with air power is to get as close to him as possible. Worked for the Japs and Viet Cong.

Grizz

I tend to agree with you about the F-22 disinformation.
For some reason people want to continue to believe that todays electronics and missiles are as crappy as the stuff used in Vietman.
During my employment at a aircraft and missile countermeasures company we received a request for quotation to convert one of the older AIM 9s to an anti-armor weapon. The change would have required modifying the old electronics to enable it to hit armor on top from a vertical dive. The old electronics were in a cavity totally potted with silicone RTV. We removed the RV and the old boards. The electronics were a joke, like something to control a 1960s washing machine. The mods would have cost more than new electronics.
We submitted a lower cost quote based on all new boards with fewer components. The govt responded that our quote was not responsive to the request for quote. I suspect some bureaucrat was embarrassed. Late 1980s electronics looks like a joke now but it was way better than 1950s to 1960s technology.

quote:

Originally posted by WestCoaster:
I am of the opinion that there is a disinformation effort going on with the F-22.

Deliberate downplaying of capabilities and performance.

Early on l think a bit too much USAF Raptor pilot enthusiasm, chest pounding was getting to close to spilling the beans or leaking secrets.
So now they (USAF) are trying to damage control.. the Germans beat us the Indians beat us etc.

I don't think so Alice!

Missiles are another kettle of fish. I think the Vietnam war stats really shook things up where radar missiles were concerned.

IR missiles seem to be experiencing no difficulties so...IRST seems to be standard kit on most new fighters these days.

Counter measures..hmm..maybe a lot of interesting capabilities sitting in the weeds that will need a aerial conflict perhaps to put them in the light.

It did not turn out so well for the Japs did it?

quote:

Originally posted by Grizzly Adams:
Not news to any guerrilla forces the world over. Best way to fight an enemy with air power is to get as close to him as possible. Worked for the Japs and Viet Cong.

Grizz