The Super Hornet guns down the F-22 Raptor

www.sundaytimes.co.za...

Sorry if the above link has been shown before. "In one such encounter, six
F-15 Eagle air-superiority fighters — which the Raptor is replacing and which has a perfect combat record of 101 victories with zero defeats — were sent up to “kill” a single Raptor. All six were shot down. "

I think the article makes clear that the raptor has a huge advantage but may be weak(normal) in a visual encounter. Will it be possible in the near term to include super cruise into a f-15?

I think the f-4 / aim-7 analogy is very pertinent to any judgements made about the raptor. The point was that pilot skill and aircraft maneuverability in close combat trumped the far superior technological edge that us phantoms had over their mig opponents. And engineers and generals at the time said that it would overmatch any jet in the world and that dogfighting was dead. That stalemate in the skies over vietnam caused a huge shift in the way the us trained its pilots and equipped its jets as us pilots had horrible kill ratios against "inferior jets". I take much of what I hear about the f-22 with a grain of salt because it is not proven in combat. And lockheed stands to gain alot from raptor propaganda. And before the us dumps so much more money into a fighter that was designed to be less expensive than the f-15 and now cost 3 times more - I want to know that it is worth the money. I fear that basing the effectiveness of a jet purely on small radar and heat profile - is a risky proposition. The way technology marches forward we will see some kid invent a device that makes its stealth characteristics obsolete in no time. So I want to know that my air supremacy fighter is not one dimensional and that it can - with a well trained pilot - shoot down anything in the sky. But I think the emphasis will always be on well trained pilot.


[edit on 17-4-2006 by grantrl78]

i4cu2,

>>
I think the article makes clear that the raptor has a huge advantage but may be weak(normal) in a visual encounter. Will it be possible in the near term to include super cruise into a f-15?
>>


According to _Strike Eagle_ by Kurt Smallwood, F-15 and 16 aircraft supercruised coming over the fence into Iraq. In 1991. I know that an F-15E with 229 engines can supercruise. One of the earliest Blk.50 jets _hauling three tanks_ 'supercruised at Mach 1.05 and 15,000ft.

The big problem is temps and shocks on the front of the engine (I don't know for sure but I have feeling the F119 is probably 2-3 times the cost of the F100, simply because it is all-titanium compressor sectioned). I know that the teen jet Dash-1s include several warnings about deliberately going supersonic in military power.

Add to this the gas-gas-gas!! margin to do anything useful with the capability (the F-15C has about 14,000lbs of fuel, internally. The F-22 has 20 or more) and you are in a tough position because, even if you could fully integrate a 232 series engine (29K becomes 32-36,000lbst per side with almost 23Kbst in IRT) with the existing ramp system. You would not be able to exploit the power without hauling external tanks whose weight and drag on the smaller wing would largely offset any ability to SC&_M_ (maneuver).

Now throw in a couple other problems:

1. Speed vs. Signature. If you come at a guy twice as fast you extend HIS weapons poles. So long as you commit to MCG closure with shooting jet. At the same time, if you are visible to him, he can 'duck and weave' a lot better, shortening your own effective WEZ bubble. And you can never stay commited too long to any given bearing vector or you will eat SAM and/or quiet vector (GCI + datalink) secondary threats coming into your flanks.

2. The F-15 is decrepit. With features like the nodding inilets and wing-LE camber creating a hostile aero-acoustic environment it is very easy to do damage to it's increasingly aged frame and having been overflown and under repaired for the kinds of high-energy cyclical fighting that /even training/ requires of an AAW platform, there are a lot of peacetime limiters on it which will likely only get worse.

And it becomes obvious: The only thing the F-15 can expect to do well is what it is doing today: supporting limited, linear, penetrations via a package system of support missions. Yet that /paradigmatic approach/ is itself both limiting and dangerous to what airpower NEEDS to do, which is saturate the air defense system so that roll back if not hard kill takes the initiative away from grouped-defensive systems, quickly.

Without a lot of jamming and ARM, the Eagles days are long past being twilighted.

It should also be stated that, while the F-15 has not been shot down by A2A weapons (with possibly one exception). It has most certainly been downed by S2A threats. And THAT is why you /never dogfight/ over enemy airspace.

Because you just cannot trust an enemy commander not to 'press the button twice' and take the frat hit as you play round-and-round games.

If you can't make the kill ahead of the 3/9 with missiles, you just should not even /commit/ to a visual merge. Not in something with 700 odd square feet of wing area. Not with an active IADS to worry about. Not at 133 million a-pop worth of irreplaceable system loss costs.


KPl.

The bottom line: It was a Marine piloting the Super Hornet

Enough said.



Sporty

Grantrl78,

>>
I think the f-4 / aim-7 analogy is very pertinent to any judgements made about the raptor.
>>

NO. Because BVR _did not fail_ only the tactics supporting a war-winning (destroy their air defense ON THE GROUND, _permanently_, whereever it is found to be setting up) employment of it did.

>>
The point was that pilot skill and aircraft maneuverability in close combat trumped the far superior technological edge that us phantoms had over their mig opponents.
>>

NO. Between 1965 and 66 we shot down something like 65 of their jets. Virtually wiping out the NVAF. We then came back in 67-68 and did it again. And then again in 72.

The first time they were hacks. The second they were our equals if not betters. The third, 'half of us' had taken some lessons-learned remedial steps as well and we hosed them right well and proper so that, again, by the time of the fall Linebacker progression, they had nothing left to fight the B-52's with (ironic given this was the MiG-17/19/21's principal design mission).

But the fact remains that _by far and away_ the greatest number of losses occured to SAMs and Flak.

Would you say that a SAM is an 'instant ace out of the box'? No. Yet it performs at a significantly higher level of competency than 90% of most pilots do, even with their initial '10 mission hump' out of the way.

FOR EITHER SIDE.

An AAM is little more than a short range SAM 'prelofted to altitude'.

The only question left to answer in making it truly a dominant killer is NOT signature resolve. But rather _persistence_.

i.e. Why have a 20ft, 1-4,000lb telephone pole on a transporter which is visible for MILES. Why have an interceptor which needs 10,000ft of runway visible for HUNDREDS of miles.

When the very speed that the former's massive motor represents equates to ONE pass at the target. And a litteral hit-or-miss-ile throwaway. While the latter is crippled not only by the need to be skillfully flown But by the COST of returning to do it again and again?

A 'plane' that could be fired off a catapult on the back of a truck and recover (if at all) via parachute. A missile that could /reattack/ with roughly the same downrange capabilities as a plane (200nm and an hour).

Would be a terrifying hybrid indeed.

And they already exist. As target and recce drones.

You wanna talk 'unfair judgment of the skill vs. technology debate' you talk 25 drones coming at you with full intent to _formate_ (up alongside the canopy) before pulling the pin on a self destruct charge.

Because you won't even see the first one (24" fuselage diameter). And if you DO, you won't beat much more than 4-5 others. Before you are bled down completely. Out of energy, ideas, altitude and luck.

All for roughly the cost of ONE Su-27 Flanker. All with little or no more 'skill over doggedness' than an SA-2 Guideline straight from the 1960s.

>>
And engineers and generals at the time said that it would overmatch any jet in the world and that dogfighting was dead. That stalemate in the skies over vietnam caused a huge shift in the way the us trained its pilots and equipped its jets as us pilots had horrible kill ratios against "inferior jets". I take much of what I hear about the f-22 with a grain of salt because it is not proven in combat.
>>

When they were doing the runup to AIMVAL, one series of studies (from _The Pentagon Paradox_) showed that an F-15 with AIM-82 coming out as something like 800-900:1 in favor of the Eagle vs. a MiG-21 type threat.

Comparisons with the F-4 showed 400:1 as I recall.

Of course these numbers are ridiculous because the circumstantial proof of superiority has many more variables relative to numbers involved and other, 'outside' (weather, S2A, fuel, encounter mode) specific modifiers to the fight.

Yet the fact remains, take a time machine back to Vietnam and 'ask any fighter pilot':

1. And he will only choose an agile, gun equipped, dogfighter if he can reach the target and drop bombs on it. AS PART OF DOING HIS JOB.
2. While he will choose a HOBS missile over a gun OR agility where that means the ability to kill enemy 'dogfighters', dominantly in the front quarter, /before/ beginning a circle fight.
3. Finally, he will choose an LDSD, BVR capable, RADAR MISSILE, platform, before either 1 or 2. So long as he can continue to employ it through the merge and into the dogfight.

He would be stupid to do anything else because, where 'complexity' happens in air combat as a function of late detection and/or inadequate ability to attrite threats before the dynamics of a 'dogfight' are _forced_ upon you; the more you can 'keep things simple' by seeing the threat leave it's airbase. Seeing it try to 'sneak under the radar'. So that you can SHOOT IT as a _known bandit_ before the enemy pilot loops up around behind you (again, typical for MiG-21 supersonic snapup into missile firing conditions).

The more likely it is that you will win a determinatively greater fraction of the fight.

What stealth, datalinks and SSC do is add to the likelihood that, even if you are not able to kill all of them. You can still refuse the accepted merge. Have a 'contempt' of it if you will, by which to go home a killer of X-many of their trained pilots and working airframes.

Rome was not built in a day. But given the
And lockheed stands to gain alot from raptor propaganda. And before the us dumps so much more money into a fighter that was designed to be less expensive than the f-15 and now cost 3 times more - I want to know that it is worth the money. I fear that basing the effectiveness of a jet purely on small radar and heat profile - is a risky proposition. The way technology marches forward we will see some kid invent a device that makes its stealth characteristics obsolete in no time. So I want to know that my air supremacy fighter is not one dimensional and that it can - with a well trained pilot - shoot down anything in the sky. But I think the emphasis will always be on well trained pilot.
>>

NO. The emphasis, as with everything is on the cheap and the quick. Because a good pilot can die when someone sends a GBU through his HAS as he lights the fires. A good pilot can be /butchered/ from ranges and distances beyond the level to which his awareness and G-endurance can compensate for with 'skill'. Because even the best pilot in the world, launching in 2's and 4's as remains typical for most states we encounter, is going to be steamrollered on a 'first as last' mission basis with NO prior experience or ALL of the experience in the world.

What matters in warfare of almost any technologic nature are the four rules of FIREPOWER:

1. Shoot, Shoot, Shoot.
The more you fire for any given munition:kill statistical LER value, the more you will destroy your enemy.
2. Mass Fires Not Forces.
Since the /platform/ (that is a fighter airframe) actually doesn't destroy anything unless by chance attrition, putting it at direct risk as the launcher of the kill mechanisms which DO make the kill is foolish.
3. Maneuver to Target, Not Engage.
Particularly in the age of stealth and netcentric tactics, flying down a groundtrack 'looking' for something is a great way to end up DEAD. At the same time, if the majority of your system cost is inherent to the process of guaranteeing targeting superiority, even if you cannot kill /all/ threats. you can at least get those which are important.
4. Never associate your fires with your targeting.
Again, this is a value statement based on trading the ability to shoot well for the ability to shoot at all. It may actually be an exception which defines the rule in AAW however because if you put sensor leveraging into the munition and not the launch platform and then /network the munitions/ you can theoretically make targeting come as a function of 'aggressive maneuver'.

If I could launch 100 drones which cost the same as two Su-27's and they swept down range at between Mach 1 and 1.4 (on turbine power) for 100nm, finding only 4 F-35s as a function of 'duck duck GOOSE!' interleaved seeker FOV reporting (weapons spaced as say 1-2 miles) in the process, I would have STILL made a statistical trade of 100 milloin vs. 400 million dollars.

At that level, not even the U.S. can afford to soak the loss. And they cannot find the basing mode to shut off the pipe for when I launch /another/ 100 drones, tomorrow.


KPl.

Originally posted by Kacen
For instance the Su-37 Sukhoi could seriously outmaneuver a Raptor.

That is no joke, there is a flight sim for the F22 that has both the 27 and 35. Key is not to let any one behind you, and if it happens you better have a good wing man. Or get ready to dump flares and chaff like crazy.

ADVISOR,

If you are referring to Total Air War, I would suggest that you reconsider as both the lift at drag models and high-AOA control effector behaviors are /highly/ suspect as being 'IITS' limited to provide some sense of game balance that in reality does not exist in comparing the real jets.

That said, F-22 is like any other large fighter: It's agility and energy maneuver performance depend a GREAT DEAL on the starting Mach, altitude and FUEL WEIGHT that you bring into the fight.

The Su-27 is in fact similar to the extent that it is routinely called the 'one plane, two fighters' air superiority platform of the Russian Air Force and in the Su-30/35 series; they have actually cut back on some of the fuel (vertical tails for instance) to help recover some of the aircraft's lost CG static margin safeties of performance.

There are other variables to consider for the Flanker as well. Namely that it's missile systems almost mandates a dual-shot engagmeent model for adequate PK per salvo. And where these weapons average anywhere from 570 to 650 or more pounds, that's not a good place to be. Add in the restrictive NO-1 mode switches and total tracking count plus the fact that it's carriage mode is /highly/ draggy and heavy and the Flanker becomes a 'Flying SAM Site' more for it's pedestrian total energy performance than any true emphasis on lethality.

The Flanker is really an overstated 'one fight dog' of a weapons system relative to even 1990's performance standards.

Not so the F-22 which is clean and very much the rapid rabbit in the acceleration as a result.

That said, both jets are perhaps best employed as missileers and in this, I would caution you that the later model AIM-120C6/7 has GREATLY improved high altitude pole performance, quite aways beyond what is shown in the game. Couple this to a digital tether which makes it possible for one jet to guide another's shots and the likelihood of the Raptors arriving at the merge with an enemy that was anything but totally defensive (nose off, speed down, numbers depleted) is VERY low.

CONCLUSION:
Myself, I would take the Raptors full-freedom controls over that of the Flankers any day. Because I would know that so long as I stay below the detente, I have nothing to worry about in terms of putting the jet where it can't fly itself out of. Including 45 units of alpha at 30dps of roll rate.

OTOH, if I /needed/ the ability (indicating I've made a horrible mistake, somewhere) to go 'mongo mode' with full AOA freedom to whatever the airspeed and nozzles will give me, that option is now also present, simply by overcoming the stick throw limiter.

Which means that the F-22 should be able to beat the Flanker under just about any condition of _equal_ mission weight you care to name.

That our pilots are trained not to go there unless they really need to is telling however for it is disciplined aggressiveness that I would count on in refusing most visual fights.

Because you can always go back out again. If you come home.


KPl.

What you talkin about willis?
ch1466 it seems the "strategery" of your argument is to throw as many acronyms and brackets at my statenent as humanly possible.
The points that I made were clear and simple. Your reply is impossible to decipher. Seems your method is to hope that you put me to sleep with techno babble. And it worked.

Needless to say my stats were only about vietnam "air to air" kill ratios.
From defense link:

Air warfare training started at Nellis in the early 1970s,
Rake said. "Air-to-air kill ratios declined during the Vietnam
War compared to the Korean war," he said. "The Air Force did an
analysis and determined that although we were producing
proficient pilots, they were not necessarily trained for combat." .
It was 1 to 1. And if you ask some russians, it was much
worse in favor of the vc.

And the analogy that you all but missed, was that technology alone doesn't shoot down bad guys. Read it again. Simulated kills and real life kills are two different things. I am making simple points here.







[edit on 18-4-2006 by grantrl78]

Originally posted by grantrl78
What you talkin about willis?

ch1466 it seems the "strategery" of your argument is to throw as many acronyms and brackets at my statenent as humanly possible.
The points that I made were clear and simple. Your reply is impossible to decipher. Seems your method is to hope that you put me to sleep with techno babble. And it worked.

Needless to say my stats were only about vietnam "air to air" kill ratios.
From defense link:

Air warfare training started at Nellis in the early 1970s,
Rake said. "Air-to-air kill ratios declined during the Vietnam
War compared to the Korean war," he said. "The Air Force did an
analysis and determined that although we were producing
proficient pilots, they were not necessarily trained for combat." .
It was 1 to 1. And if you ask some russians, it was much
worse in favor of the vc.

And the analogy that you all but missed, was that technology alone doesn't shoot down bad guys. Read it again.

Simulated kills and real life kills are two different things. I am making simple points here.

[edit on 18-4-2006 by grantrl78]

He is a bit verbose, he does that for every post so do not be insulted. Once you get used to his writing method, and are familiar with aspects of aviation (for me: from a PPL view), he becomes easier to understand. I have yet to figure out if he is: one heck of an Av-enthusiast, 'gineer, or a driver.

BTW I agree with CH on the RPV, a truly scary future of air war.

Ahh CH once again earning a WATS-up! LOL

Imperium - you are right.

ch1466

Thank you for your reply. I get the impression that the raptor is not great at vusual range dogfighting. Or I should say is average, if that is the case would the raptor be in need of a visual range fighter?

As you can tell by my questions this type of information is not my strong suit. I have just begun to read and obviously i have much more to do. The little bit I have read and seen on certain television shows I had the impression that the raptor was going to be great in dogfighting. I mean in visual range dogfighting. So if the raptor isn't anything special in that area is it still decent enough to take care of itself or will it need visual range fighter?

Thanks in advance to any who answers my question.

Are we all saying the raptor sucks at WVR because of one picture the raptor has a huge angle of attack 60 degrees to be exact it's made for WVR otherwise what's the point of the gun and the thrust vectoring. Sure a Raptor will have the advantage but that doesnt mean the Superhornet will lose all the time. Besides in such a close fight the raptor's IR stealth is significanly less and it's much easier to see the plane. We also dont know the details of the excercise and how many Superhornets were involved as well as the training levels of the pilots we can only speculate. Not to mention there were no reports of this excercise. The photo could well be a fake concocted by the russians,chinese,iranians etc.
we can only guess but one thing is certain the Superhornet would get slaughtered in BVR and in WVR the raptor will have the advantage and it cannot catch the F/A 22 if the raptor decides to run away(mach1.7 supercruise0. And most people think it's still Mach 1.5

You think with the Helmet and the AIM-9X would help the Raptor in the dogfight with any modern and potential adversary aircraft? Which gives the Raptor the potential to fight long and short range and win.

II have flown against the F-22 on several occasions in both the F-15 and F-16. The Raptor is indeed a tough nut to crack in a BVR scenario but I have managed to sneak in unobserved a time or two. That was due more to a lack of attention on the Raptor pilot’s part than any exceptional cunning on my part. Within visual range, the F-22 is extremely maneuverable and quite impressive. However, it is not without weaknesses that can’t be exploited.
First, while the F-22 carries the AIM-9X, the jet is not equipped with a helmet-mounted cueing system. This puts the Raptor, or any aircraft that is not so equipped, at a distinct disadvantage in the visual arena. The easiest way to take advantage of the high off-boresight capability of a missile such as the AIM-9X or the AA-11 Archer is to use a head-steered cueing system. Both missiles can be slewed faster and easier with a helmet-mounted cueing system than with any other aircraft sensor such as the radar or infrared search-and-track system. In the case of these two missiles for example, I have flown the Archer-equipped MiG-29 against an AIM-9X-equipped F-15 and was at a disadvantage because the AIM-9X enjoys a significant off-boresight advantage over the AA-11. In this case, the solution to the problem isn’t so much sustained turn capability but who can point the fastest. It’s a race to see who can pull the black out of the stick faster in order to bring the adversary into the limits of the helmet/missile combination. Old fashioned dogfighting concepts have to be redefined with the potential brought by high off-boresight, head-steered missile.
Secondly, vectored thrust is both a blessing and a curse. I’m not sure if there is a certain airspeed at which the F-22’s vectored thrust kicks in, but when we were testing the multi-axis thrust-vectored F-16 back in the mid 1990s above about 300 knots indicated airspeed the thrust vectoring was not even used. The aircraft was as maneuverable without thrust vectoring as with thrust vectoring. Is there a similar phenomenon with the Raptor? It’s a question I can’t remember asking one our F-22 pilots. If a fighter pilot decides to cash in and get down to the airspeeds where thrust vectoring is effective, he better kill me now. If he doesn’t and I’m patient, I can turn this situation to my advantage. Not only does thrust vectoring slow his airplane down even more, but the pilot has given up a significant amount of his axial trust in order to push the nose around. With the loss of this axial thrust component, the airframe isn’t being pushed anymore and the jet starts to lose altitude. This altitude can be exploited by the guy who isn’t ‘dead right now’. If the thrust-vectored aircraft tries to unload to a lower angle-of-attack in order to regain energy, it takes quite a while to break all that AoA to where the jet can accelerate to higher speeds. If I’m flying a jet with a helmet-mounted cueing system and high off-boresight missile against and jet that doesn’t, I’m at a distinct advantage. I don’t have to be as or more maneuverable than he is. I can and will drive the fight and make him react to me. I’ve got similar HUD footage of the Raptor because I brought a sword (high off-boresight missile / helmet-mounted cueing system) to the knife fight. The F-15, F-16 and F-18 are all equipped with these capabilities. The Raptor is not (yet). Did this play a role in this engagement?
Another thing about thrust vectoring; there is definite learning curve in developing the techniques to properly exploit this capability. If the Raptor pilot is sloppy and thinks thrust vectoring is always the answer, he’ll get himself behind the 8-ball. Inexperienced F-22 pilots have all seen this and have to learn ‘when to’ and ‘when not to’.
We don’t know exactly what happened during the engagement in question. It could be that the Hornet was already ‘dead’ and being ignored by the Raptor pilot as he moved on to the next victim. Or maybe there was another Raptor behind the Hornet. Does it matter?

This post gets all of my cool points for the next two months.
Some experience based logic sans pretentious acronym(age).

Originally posted by fulcrumflyer
However, it is not without weaknesses that can’t be exploited.
First, while the F-22 carries the AIM-9X, the jet is not equipped with a helmet-mounted cueing system. This puts the Raptor, or any aircraft that is not so equipped, at a distinct disadvantage in the visual arena. The easiest way to take advantage of the high off-boresight capability of a missile such as the AIM-9X or the AA-11 Archer is to use a head-steered cueing system. Both missiles can be slewed faster and easier with a helmet-mounted cueing system than with any other aircraft sensor such as the radar or infrared search-and-track system.

Good post, as always, fulcrumflyer.
Question: My understanding (based on an outside Langley source, also here) is that the F-22 is destined in the near-future to be equipped with a helmet-mounted cueing system. Is this correct or is it already happening?






seekerof

[edit on 18-4-2006 by Seekerof]

Sorry, Seekerof. I can't answer with certainty on any time table.

fulcrumflyer, very informative post

Are you a pilot? Fighter pilot I'm assuming...?

You've probably mentioned it before but I really don't hang around the aircraft threads that much.

Sporty

Originally posted by fulcrumflyer
In the case of these two missiles for example, I have flown the Archer-equipped MiG-29 against an AIM-9X-equipped F-15 and was at a disadvantage because the AIM-9X enjoys a significant off-boresight advantage over the AA-11.

True.. The Archer has a off- boresight swathe of 60 deg. while the AIM-9X is reported to have one of 90 deg.!!!!!

My question was whether these figures (60 and 90) are distributed as 30/30 and 45/45 resp. on either side of the boresight plane or actually 60/60 and 90/90 on either side of the boresight plane!


If 90/90 then you could use the HMS to look at your crotch and still get a lock if the jet was directly below you!!

SportyMB - recently-retired fighter pilot although I still work for the Air Force.
Daedalus3 - 60 off boresight (centerline of the aircraft) max for the AA-11, 90+ off boresight max for the AIM-9X.