Where Are The F-22 Red Flag Results?

We all saw, read, and even posted many of the stories included in publications before the start of 'Colonial Flag' otherwise know as the Read Flag which would feature the F-22A Raptor. There were also numerous publications regarding the one F-22 loss that occurred during the event. The same thing happened before for Northern Edge 2006 which also featured the F-22. The USAF and online sources published numerous articles regarding the event and it's results, yet both of these two sources have remained largely quiet about the F-22 Colonial Flag results even though that event concluded sometime ago, my question is why?

I have been able to gather some information regarding the Raptor's in Red Flag, but not much, however the figures astound me. They are more impressive, for various reasons than those of Northern Edge so why no hype? Well you decide...

12 F-22A Raptor's from the 94th FS partook in this Red Flag, the 94th FS was the second front line squadron to go operational with the F-22. As such, this was the first large exercise for many of their pilots who have just transitioned into the F-22, many had (at the time) less than 100 flight hours in the jet, all in all roughly 50% of the Raptor pilots involved had not been in a major exercise with the jet. Yet these twelve fighters some with new pilots managed to rack up one of the most (if not THE most) lopsided victory in the history of the Blue Force... 244-2, no that's not a typo. And we already know the story of how one of those kills was achieved (see F-22 Loss At Red Flag)...

Besides the facts that I listed above this is more impressive than Northern Edge when you consider the quality of the opponents and the high (and diverse) generated threat environment. The Aggressor/Instructor pilots at Red Flag are arguably some of best pilots in the world, period. Many have over a thousand flight hours and even combat tours they know their jets and operation airspace VERY well. Then we have the added element of ECM and simulated double digit SAM's, Red Flag is not easy folks. By contrast it is designed to be the hardest operating environment USAF pilot are expected to see (even against potential foes) and it is supposed to represent a pilots first ten combat missions.

Given the legacy aircraft involved and the new pilots of the Blue Force I am amazed that such an impressive victory was achieved. Make no mistake the Red Forces don't always lose and when they do it's not like this.

So let me come back to my original point why no hype? Was it because of the international element involved? Does the USAF feel that they should not push the "F-22 Deployed - Blue Force Blow Out" theme less they make our international partners feel as if their contributions were overlooked? Even though none of the foreign planes were designated to provide top cover (which the F-22 was).

Anyway, thought you all should know what went down, I hope more information becomes available, some is (and it is very informative) but it's offline and in a subscription magazine...

[edit on 16-4-2007 by WestPoint23]

Pretty impressive. In a live firing situation it may not go as well. Every simulated missile lock in Red Flag is a kill, right? Well we all know it's not like that in real life.

Just some thoughts

Indeed, these exercises are designed as much for their complexity and ability to integrate in a large battle environment as they are for their level or realism. You can never duplicate in a training and safe environment true combat but you can to a reasonable degree validate and assess how a given platform performs against others under the same conditions. Yes in Red Flag (and in all aerial other) exercises prolonged radar lock/tracking equals a confirmed aerial "kill", but this is true for all aircraft not just the F-22 or the Blue Force. Also, I am not sure how a bombing "kill" or one done via IR versus radar is measured. But anyway again the constant exercise conditions are what matter more rather than the method of recording a "kill" itself.

Furthermore I would just like to add that electronic and physical means of countermeasures are used in Red Flag to simulate (to a degree) the likely CM found in actual combat.

Missiles do miss but that is just as true for F-22 missiles as it is for Su-30 missiles, what matters is how the overall platform performs in a simulated or real campaign under the same type of conditions. This may sound repetitive but it is true. For the most part (if done right) you can take general (not specific) exercise result as a real indication of things to come...

[edit on 16-4-2007 by WestPoint23]

Good points.

I agree the F-22 will have similar kill ratios in a real situation, especially since the new fighter developments in the Eastern Bloc are more like agile dogfighters than BVR missileers. It would of been interesting to see what they could do to complete with the F-22, but I guess that's not on the cards yet.

Thanks for the information.

Try here havent explored site though.
www.dreamlandresort.com...

Nice photos

Thought I'd update this thread with some new information regarding the performance of the F-22 in Colonial Flag (Red Flag 2007-01).

Red Flag Raptors

The F-22 extended its winning streak at its first all-up Red Flag combat training exercises, where the Raptor-led "Blue" forces scored a lopsided victory over Red Air "Aggressor" forces using their best tricks.

Fourteen F-22s of the 94th Fighter Squadron at Langley AFB, Va., flew daily from Feb. 3-16 at the Nellis AFB, Nev., war game, which included more than 200 US and coalition aircraft. The F-22s didn't miss a single scheduled mission—unprecedented for a fighter so early in its operational status and a tribute to the skill of its maintainers, according to Col. Thomas Bergeson, 1st Operations Group commander.

Smith said the F-22s, augmented by F-15s, typically protected a strike package of about 50 aircraft against a numerically superior defending force. The 94th—most of whose pilots have less than 100 hours in the F-22—consistently defeated the F-15s and F-16s of Nellis' Aggressors, the 414th Combat Training Squadron. The 414th quickly upped the ante of their tactics, and by the third day, "we were seeing their 'A' game, if you will," Bergeson reported. Only one F-22 was "lost" in the war games.

Bergeson noted that "very few, if any" Red Air survived the F-22-led Blue force attack.

The F-22s went against ground threats simulating real-world air defenses, including communications jamming, networked surface-to-air missiles, and anti-aircraft artillery. The Aggressors attempted to lure the F-22s into "SAM-bushes," trying to get the Raptors to pursue them into areas densely defended by surface weapons.

Each day of the exercise involved two "wars"—a daytime fight and one at night, with eight Raptors flying during the day and six at night, Smith reported. Red Air was permitted to "regenerate"—sometimes four or five times—after being "killed" in the exercise, but Blue forces were not. That in itself represented a tougher situation than the real world, since an enemy would likely lose his best airplanes and pilots early and offer a diminishing defense as a real war proceeded.

Bergeson described the Nellis units as "probably the best Red Air on the planet" and said the F-22 pilots are now "better than we were [before] ... because of the fantastic training" the Aggressors provided.

AFA Magazine (PDF) Page 18

Also, in the May 2007 edition of Combat Aircraft magazine there was a piece written by Maj. Lawrence Spinetta (USAF) about the F-22 in Red Flag. One of the mentioned details was, and I quote ...

"During the exercise, a F-22A was once encountered with three F-16 in WVR. After the former had killed two of the laters, the Raptor and the 3rd F-16 killed each other in a mutual kill."

The F-22 pilot was a Captain flying with the 94th FS, he had less than 100 hours of flight time on the Raptor yet "beat" three Red Flag instructor pilots flying F-16's with simulated HOBS missiles in WVR. Think about that, three aggressor/instructor pilots with hundreds of fight hours on the Viper lost to a relatively "new" and outnumbered F-22 pilot in ACM's. Who said the F-22 was not designed to "dog fight"?

By the way a mutual kill is when both aircraft have simultaneous (simulated) lock on one another. Given that you have to sustain a lock for some time in order to score a "kill" it is possible to have overlapping situations like this which results in a mutual "kill". At least that's how the article explained it...

PS. It is unclear if the case above is describing the one F-22 loss suffered during Red Flag or something else. Given that I cannot find any other material claiming more than one Raptor loss I am inclined to believe it is the former.

[edit on 3-5-2007 by WestPoint23]

What really makes the F-22 good at dogfighting is its engines. Thrust vectoring turns sharply, while thrust itself keeps up energy. I'm not surprised that it beat 2 F-16s and mutually killed a 3rd F-16 in WVR. HOBS too. Wow.

Originally posted by SteveR
Good points.

I agree the F-22 will have similar kill ratios in a real situation, especially since the new fighter developments in the Eastern Bloc are more like agile dogfighters than BVR missileers. It would of been interesting to see what they could do to complete with the F-22, but I guess that's not on the cards yet.

Thanks for the information.

Though the dogfighting capabilities of Eastern Bloc fighters are the highlighted ones, there are many other aspects which are overlooked.

One simple comparision is the fact the sheer size of new Eastern bloc fighters.
The size may result in the increase in RCS(frontal and elsewhere), but it has other advantages which will begin to exhibit themselves once the Russians(and others overcome supercomputing limitations).

One advantage is the ability to house larger more powerful radars. Though the Russians et al are currently lagging in fields like AESA and LPI, the progress made in such fields(and the availability of resources with better 'soft-electronics' skills) make a closing of such a gap an inevitability.
And then pure size/power of radar wins, because the more space you have, the more modules/chips/processing power you can fit in.
Infact even at its current operational capability, the passive phased array NO11M makes the carrier(Su-3X) extremely competitive against AESA radarslike the APG-63(2)/79/80/81 on their respective carriers: F-15/F-18/F-16/JSF.

The balance will most probably tip in favour of the Su-3X series with the advent of newer passive ESA radars like the Irbis.
Improved IRST/FLIR systems in the OLS-27(now 30?) featuring PIRATE-esque capabilities would even put fighters like the JSF at a disadvantage too.
This is because the JSF would need to liberally to use afterburners if engaging Su-3Xs within the prime operating radii of the latter.For the Su3Xs, the high T/W ratio and sheer advantage of carrying loads of drag-free fuel translates into more energy for both BVR(enter and exit missile envelopes faster) and WVR(energy is crucial here) engagements within the prime operating radius(of the Su-3Xs).

Also another overlooked capability is the TKS genre encrypted flight datalink
system which provides the data of powerful radars like the N011M to lesser capable carriers. The Raptor uses a more enhanced version of the same system but this system is already operational on certain Su-3X a/c.

Finally the introduction of Russian/non-western AESA and LPI radars with larger housing radomes(Su-3Xs & PAK-FA?) will pose a serious threat for all sub-5th gen western fighters.

So recent (and near future) fighter developments in Russia etc are not only agility specific..


Having said all this, the supercruising ability and the awesome advantage of the APG-77 still gives the F-22 a clear advantage against current gen Su-3X models, and will do so until we see the entry of a true 5th gen competitor (PAK-FA?, J-XX?)



[edit on 4-5-2007 by Daedalus3]

Originally posted by Daedalus3
One advantage is the ability to house larger more powerful radars. Though the Russians et al are currently lagging in fields like AESA and LPI, the progress made in such fields(and the availability of resources with better 'soft-electronics' skills) make a closing of such a gap an inevitability.
And then pure size/power of radar wins, because the more space you have, the more modules/chips/processing power you can fit in.

I would hardly call that an advantage. If anything, it highlights Russia's technology lag when it comes to the miniaturization of solid-state amplifiers, receivers, and processors. More modules and chips also equals more consumption of electricity, more generation of internal heat (which must be dissapated), greater operational weight, greater consumption of fuel, etc. The US already has an airborn radar that is really big and has lots of chips, transmitter power and processors - its called the E-3 Sentry. Big is not what you want in a tactical aircraft. You want small, lightweight, and powerful with low heat production and power consumption.

Originally posted by Daedalus3Finally the introduction of Russian/non-western AESA and LPI radars with larger housing radomes(Su-3Xs & PAK-FA?) will pose a serious threat for all sub-5th gen western fighters.

While its true that the eventual introduction and mass production of next generation Russian radars may pose serious threats to our 25+ year old designs such as the F-15 and F-16, large radomes equal larger RCS.

This is exactly where the DoD wants it:

US = deploying state-of-the-art airframes and electronics today
Russia = marketing potential countermeasures and competitors 10 years later

Originally posted by Pyros
I would hardly call that an advantage. If anything, it highlights Russia's technology lag when it comes to the miniaturization of solid-state amplifiers, receivers, and processors.

Yes but you reach a 'moore barrier' with space constraints when you limit the size of radomes.
And with radome sizes the likes of the F-35, that is a critical limitation. The Russians do lag behind in such technology, granted; but they are gaining access to the same by offering their mechanical expertise as barter.

More modules and chips also equals more consumption of electricity, more generation of internal heat (which must be dissapated), greater operational weight, greater consumption of fuel, etc.

The heat generated by more processing components is a compromise, but only if it is not offset by the sight advantage(and LPI stealth) it offers.
Its a trade-off but what matters is whether you come out with a better sight than the other guy(with lesser heat and less powerful radar).
In this case (Su-3X PESA vs 4th gen AESA.. and I exclude the APG-77 here) it actually seems to do so.
The APG-77 is a class above the rest.

Greater consumption of fuel et al can be governed by absolute parameters like T/W ratio, cruise mileage etc etc..
Lots of factors play into that.
1)How much 'drag-free'(Non drptank/CFT) you have at your disposal
2)How lift-efficient is your design..
etc etc..

One cannot pass macroscopic judgements on such variables as they are very a/c specific, mission specific and of course tactic/payload config specific.
My point being that the larger radomes(airframes) don't translate into a weaker BVR posture straight-off.

Yes there is a obvious limit to this analogy; otherwise we'd all be flying 747s and A-380s with Phoenix-esque missiles.
Though the Russian a/c which we so easily mock at BVR are well below that limit.
Infact.. forget Russian a/c..
Look at a/c like the F-15..
I actually believe that the latest F-15 model will not be a wash out against the F-35 if they both have their resp AESAs(APG-63/81). At BVR and WVR; even with the stealth disadvantage.

It eventually boils down to this:

1) Who can see whom first so as the achieve optimal engagement posture(and surprise?)

2)Who has the longer missile envelope in BVR. If envelope have minor differences and great overlpas then who has the thrust to enter the other envelope(and thus validate his own), take shots and then exit the opponent envelope before he gets his shots off.

3)In WVR who has more energy to spend,better off-boresight capabilities, greater alphas, T/W(climb rates and accn) etc.
IMHO there's a major misconception that the 'lighter jet' is 'better' hands down in WVR.

The US already has an airborn radar that is really big and has lots of chips, transmitter power and processors - its called the E-3 Sentry. Big is not what you want in a tactical aircraft. You want small, lightweight, and powerful with low heat production and power consumption.

Thanks for the heads-up on the E-3

The E-3 is good for its job; no doubts there..

But what is better?
An E-3 commanding battlespace Ops over a 100km away with little or no firepower or a F-22 commanding the battlespace right in the midst of it all.

Of course both simply awesome together but I'm asking comparatively.
Sure the E-3 can even guide missiles onto terminal targets but when you have similar capabilities on a combat capable and active platform then you have more options.
You get a de-centralised battlespace governance/hierarchy and that means more battlespace awareness.

Small + lightweight doesn't always make a winning combination in WVR and definitely not in the BVR missilier role.
If you have a comparatively higher heat signature than your opponent but you can still see+engage him before(or around the same time) he can see you then all bets are off.
Finally if you have more energy and WVR characteristics like T/W, alpha etc. than your foe, it doesn't matter 'much' if you're even twice his size.
You have better cards.
Though I do admit a larger opponent makes a better gunsight target than a smaller one!

While its true that the eventual introduction and mass production of next generation Russian radars may pose serious threats to our 25+ year old designs such as the F-15 and F-16, large radomes equal larger RCS.

This is exactly where the DoD wants it:

US = deploying state-of-the-art airframes and electronics today
Russia = marketing potential countermeasures and competitors 10 years later

True.. if you can ALWAYS keep that 10 year buffer at a constant.
However I somehow don't believe that the gap will remain constant; It hasn't been constant ever if am not mistaken.

And as for the radars I mentioned; they're not next gen..far from it.
Infact the PESA radars I mentioned are quite current gen and have been operational on certain Su-3X variants for more than 5 years now.

Obviously this doesn't mean that 'all' Su-3Xs have that capability, and that the entire Russian(or chinese or any other) Su-3X force is in general 'superior' to the American F-15/16/18 AESA capable force unit-for-unit.
Infact more than half the Su-3Xs worldwide probably do NOT possess these massive PESA radars ett all, but this doesn't mean that the east is devoid of such capabilities

The Russian AESA and LPI radars would be truely next gen and they will come into service with fighters like the MiG-35 and PAK-FA.
IIRC the MiG-35 fields a working non-prototype AESA radar as of today.

I seriously doubt that the PESA units are even on par with the APG-79. The radar has the ability to generate it's own coordinates for JDAMs and the ability to simultaneously scan for ground and air targets. It may be the best multirole fighter radar out. Now Russia may catch up but at the current pace that radar tech is evolving in the US it would take awhile.

Also, the APG-81 in the F-35 will most likely be pretty close to the F-22 in capabilities except for range and number of targets it's able to track. It would also be considered a 5th gen radar.

[edit on 4-5-2007 by JFrazier]

Originally posted by JFrazier
I seriously doubt that the PESA units are even on par with the APG-79. The radar has the ability to generate it's own coordinates for JDAMs and the ability to simultaneously scan for ground and air targets. It may be the best multirole fighter radar out. Now Russia may catch up but at the current pace that radar tech is evolving in the US it would take awhile.

Also, the APG-81 in the F-35 will most likely be pretty close to the F-22 in capabilities except for range and number of targets it's able to track. It would also be considered a 5th gen radar.

[edit on 4-5-2007 by JFrazier]

Well its range that matters the most in the context I am talking about. Range and ability to engage simualtaneous targets.



Here's an Aussie chart comparing 'publicly available' information on radars:
(I've seen it here before somewhere)

Note that the N011M Bars is in service with certain Su-3X variants for over 5 years now. Its immediate successor, the Irbis PESA would have characteristics that would supercede even the APG-81 if not equal it at least.Irbis induction is slated for 2009-2010 and onwards.

Finally a big radome housing a big AESA + LPI radar(on the PAK-FA) would be comparable to the APG-77; at least one would presume that.
The Russians have already fielded their first working AESA on the MiG-35, and LPI is a function of the processing power + soft-electonics know-how.

Again, let me clarify.. The F-22 still rules the roost by far.

Also this fat PESA radar(N011M) is not available on most Su-3Xs..
The Russians have a modest number of operational a/c fielding it, and I don't think any Chinese Su-3Xs have it.They have the lesser N001P IIRC and the Zhuk for the Su-27.So the general force equation doesn't tip in favour of the Su-3X fleets in these AFs.
But the tech is there and it works.

I would not put too much weight into radome size alone, the AN/APG-81 uses second generation TR modules that are more powerful and compact and have better cooling properties. This technology is being introduced to the F-22 via the new AN/APG-77(V)1 and it has already been incorporated into the AN/APG-79. The F-35 has a 700mm class radome by the way.

Also, I doubt Russians first attempt to field and mass produce an AESA radar will result in one on par with the US given the lead that we have on them. Personally I cannot see any PESA being on par with the 77,79, or 81 class given the wide range of capabilities those three offer.

mind if i tag along ?

Greetings from Indonesia
in the net i'm used to be called as Xenostrike 06

i agree with Daedalus's point above about flanker radar capability

sheer volume and Radome size for flankers have great growth potential for AESA Radar development, larger antenna and good heat dissipation as she has lot of space for fuel, F-22's AESA radar cooling system use it for heat dissipation buffer.
Flanker's Massive Radome delivers great amount of its power aperture product as well as antenna Gain , cited public figure stick around 34-36Db my calculations for Flanker Radar 's gain with 0.98meters antenna diameters and operating frequency 10000Mhz (10GHz or X-band) with a beamwidth around 2 degrees (typical PESA and AESA beamwidth) earned me with 36.7 Db (maybe someone wants to correct it for me )
with her 1 metres (100cm) sized Radome diameter, with Gallium Arsenide TR modules even with lower power (but more in numbers) than those in APG-79 or 81 she can deliver same power thus range as both while with more powerful modules she can exceed APG-79 or 81
while for APG 79 or 81 to exceed Flanker AESA (maybe future Zhuk ASE) they need more peak power amount to be added to compensate with smaller Radar Aperture which would mean more heat to be dissipated, Gallium Arsenide and probably Gallium Nitride module commonly used for AESA radar today have problem with efficiency (typically 45-50%), this usually remedied by liquid cooling approach which later exchange their load of heat to radiator or fuel, it's not a problem for large airframe but would be serious one for smaller airframe and smaller Radome, that 700mm Radome for JSF won't be used only for Radar, there should be a space for screws, maintenance panels, etc so i think 680mm or less would be the real space for the AESA radar.
Flanker would have potential to use 950mm-980mm of her 1m Radome diameter to place AESA Radar

hmm Mr WestPoint
well i think AESA and PESA are the same, they're just differs in minor way in Radio Frequency Source
Russian PESA Radar used Travelling Wave Tube as her RF source while US AESA uses Gallium Arsenide and now Gallium Nitride Transistor modules as RF source , the differences only as deep as those , now it's depend on the Phase Shifting Elements and processing power on those Radar that would make them great, even a PESA Radar ,with good phase Shifters and Control Computer Processor would give her AESA like Capability and beam Steering agility, Russian's PESA Radar like N011M BARS uses same basic technology as Western AESA in her Receive modules, the same Gallium Arsenide "stick" modules in early US AESA Radar

hmm with today's extensive Global market in Electronics Russians would be able to close their Gaps in technology, their Zhuk AE AESA Radar will likely migrate to Flanker, larger size of flanker would amplify its power even it still use the same basic technology, US may still have the lead incrementally mainly in signal processing and maturity of system, but still, Russians have done their homework

a good paper related to Russian Radar, written by the same Australian guy

www.ausairpower.net...

another paper, give a pretty good and objective (according to me ) about Russian Fighter Technology

www.ausairpower.net...

i do not expect much from Mass production of Russian AESA
however i believe their mass production AESA would be competitive

reply to post by SteveR

You are wrong, the simulation also include kills with simulated missile flyby and trajectories, otherwise the rafale wouldn't have caught them inflight with our brand new fireback missile

I know that the US has stated clearly that the F-22 Raptor will not be available to any allies, but I also note that there are some very good allies that are drooling at the opportunity to acquire this plane. Whether or not they can afford it is yet another thing.

Is it possible that some test results will be withheld or subdued to quiet some of those who would beg like hell, based on performance results?

And would continued stellar results inhibit some to commit to the F-35, hoping the US will relax their grip on the F-22?

(If we can't have the best, we'll wait it out and just make do!)

You guys on the defense industry impress the hell out of me with your knowledge and insights. And for those of us interested, but not as knowledgeable, we thank you.

As impressive as these result are and they may well indicate real combat results they shouldn't be over stated as they are from an exercise intended to train pilots.

This endeavor was undertaken after a series of reports including Project Red Baron II indicated that a pilot’s chances of success dramatically improves after he completes his first 10 missions, said Captain Shayne “Tito” Sullivan, a F-16C pilot from the 64th Aggressor Squadron. The idea behind Red Flag is therefore to “prep guys for their first 10 sorties” against adversaries flying dissimilar aircraft and surface to air threats, Toth explained.

For the Aggressor Squadrons flying against the Blue Force, the mission is to “put up as many jets as possible against the Blue escorts”, Sullivan said. The Aggressor “Red Force” will typically field six to eight F-16s and three to four F-15s for total of “around 11 jets” during a Red Flag sortie, he explained. These “Red Force” aircraft can “regenerate” as many as four times giving the Blue Force the opportunity to “kill 44 airplanes”, Sullivan said. The Aggressors challenge the Blue Force using a “building block approach” slowly building up the “Threat Level from one, two, three and four- and that goes with the electronic attack threat we do too”, he added.

www.examiner.com...

Probably the last day of the exercise would be most interesting.