How 'bout a good ole A-10. Use the F-22 for cover. Let the A-10 do the dirty work, if they haven't all been moth-balled.
First combat use of the F22 Raptor
- Thread starter Drew99GT
- Start date
- Status
F-15E is a better choice.
Its got the payload, air speed and fuel (3 external tanks + conformal fuel tanks).
Its got the payload, air speed and fuel (3 external tanks + conformal fuel tanks).
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
I thought the F22 wasn't really a close combat type fighter anyways? Isn't the idea to super cruise around, get within missile range, launch, and wait for the contacts to drop off the screen?
I assume something like an F16(or whatever is more maneuverable these days) would out maneuver it if the pilot keeps the speeds high enough for the f22's low speed tricks not to be used.
No, the F-22 has superior energy addition, lower wing loading and better high alpha handling than the F-16. It's maneuverability is superior. That said, no airplane is better than the person flying it...and pilots can make mistakes...and good pilots can gain advantage if an airplane isn't flown to its complete potential...
I thought the F22 wasn't really a close combat type fighter anyways? Isn't the idea to super cruise around, get within missile range, launch, and wait for the contacts to drop off the screen?
I assume something like an F16(or whatever is more maneuverable these days) would out maneuver it if the pilot keeps the speeds high enough for the f22's low speed tricks not to be used.
No, the F-22 has superior energy addition, lower wing loading and better high alpha handling than the F-16. It's maneuverability is superior. That said, no airplane is better than the person flying it...and pilots can make mistakes...and good pilots can gain advantage if an airplane isn't flown to its complete potential...
Originally Posted By: Concours14
Originally Posted By: Trav
Astro how would you rate the SU35/37 and PAK-FA? Do you think the S300, S400 and S500 missile batteries are a real danger to the F22 like its claimed?
I wouldn't want to be in ANYTHING over Syria and have a SAM sent my way. We haven't "played" against Soviet anti-air in decades, I doubt they really want to get cozy with it here. We have no idea what's in the hands of ISIS after having had their way throughout Syria the past year and change. Who wants to bet they don't have SAMs of whatever variety? I'm suspecting we aren't using Bugs over there (in Syria proper) specifically because of the SAM threat. They aren't terribly stealthy, if at all (better than the old Toms and Intruders, probably), but the notion of POW's in the hands of ISIS and the inevitable result is more than the USN and National Command is willing to risk.
Syria has a complex and robust Integrated Air Defense System (IADS). I would not want to enter their airspace in a non-stealth airplane (such as the F-15E) without taking down key elements of that IADS first...
I won't really comment on strike planning in detail (sorry), because my perspective is derived from still-classified information...and I have to be careful...So, I am not going to comment on the threat to the F-22, or other airplanes presented by those missile systems.
The SU-35/37 is a very capable airplane. Formidable missile load out, good engine/airframe performance, good range and speed. We don't underestimate it...no one should.
The PAK-FA is still in development, and again, I have to limit my comments on its anticipated performance and capability. It's not flying with anyone, however, so it remains a future capability...
Originally Posted By: Trav
Astro how would you rate the SU35/37 and PAK-FA? Do you think the S300, S400 and S500 missile batteries are a real danger to the F22 like its claimed?
I wouldn't want to be in ANYTHING over Syria and have a SAM sent my way. We haven't "played" against Soviet anti-air in decades, I doubt they really want to get cozy with it here. We have no idea what's in the hands of ISIS after having had their way throughout Syria the past year and change. Who wants to bet they don't have SAMs of whatever variety? I'm suspecting we aren't using Bugs over there (in Syria proper) specifically because of the SAM threat. They aren't terribly stealthy, if at all (better than the old Toms and Intruders, probably), but the notion of POW's in the hands of ISIS and the inevitable result is more than the USN and National Command is willing to risk.
Syria has a complex and robust Integrated Air Defense System (IADS). I would not want to enter their airspace in a non-stealth airplane (such as the F-15E) without taking down key elements of that IADS first...
I won't really comment on strike planning in detail (sorry), because my perspective is derived from still-classified information...and I have to be careful...So, I am not going to comment on the threat to the F-22, or other airplanes presented by those missile systems.
The SU-35/37 is a very capable airplane. Formidable missile load out, good engine/airframe performance, good range and speed. We don't underestimate it...no one should.
The PAK-FA is still in development, and again, I have to limit my comments on its anticipated performance and capability. It's not flying with anyone, however, so it remains a future capability...
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
I thought the F22 wasn't really a close combat type fighter anyways? Isn't the idea to super cruise around, get within missile range, launch, and wait for the contacts to drop off the screen?
I assume something like an F16(or whatever is more maneuverable these days) would out maneuver it if the pilot keeps the speeds high enough for the f22's low speed tricks not to be used.
No, the F-22 has superior energy addition, lower wing loading and better high alpha handling than the F-16. It's maneuverability is superior. That said, no airplane is better than the person flying it...and pilots can make mistakes...and good pilots can gain advantage if an airplane isn't flown to its complete potential...
I guessed the light weight of an F-16 would still be enough of an advantage, but time and design marches on. I used to drag around a trio of Janes books(air forces, navies and armor) in my school bag, up until 1988. So the F-16 was always the winner in our grade 6 dogfighting debates.
It is amazing that what the F22 can do then, inspite of the limitations that the stealth capability adds.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
I thought the F22 wasn't really a close combat type fighter anyways? Isn't the idea to super cruise around, get within missile range, launch, and wait for the contacts to drop off the screen?
I assume something like an F16(or whatever is more maneuverable these days) would out maneuver it if the pilot keeps the speeds high enough for the f22's low speed tricks not to be used.
No, the F-22 has superior energy addition, lower wing loading and better high alpha handling than the F-16. It's maneuverability is superior. That said, no airplane is better than the person flying it...and pilots can make mistakes...and good pilots can gain advantage if an airplane isn't flown to its complete potential...
I guessed the light weight of an F-16 would still be enough of an advantage, but time and design marches on. I used to drag around a trio of Janes books(air forces, navies and armor) in my school bag, up until 1988. So the F-16 was always the winner in our grade 6 dogfighting debates.
It is amazing that what the F22 can do then, inspite of the limitations that the stealth capability adds.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Syria has a complex and robust Integrated Air Defense System (IADS). I would not want to enter their airspace in a non-stealth airplane (such as the F-15E) without taking down key elements of that IADS first...
I won't really comment on strike planning in detail (sorry), because my perspective is derived from still-classified information...and I have to be careful...So, I am not going to comment on the threat to the F-22, or other airplanes presented by those missile systems.
You've said enough. ISIL doesn't have an IADS. Assad does. Our intentions are hostile to Assad.
Syria has a complex and robust Integrated Air Defense System (IADS). I would not want to enter their airspace in a non-stealth airplane (such as the F-15E) without taking down key elements of that IADS first...
I won't really comment on strike planning in detail (sorry), because my perspective is derived from still-classified information...and I have to be careful...So, I am not going to comment on the threat to the F-22, or other airplanes presented by those missile systems.
You've said enough. ISIL doesn't have an IADS. Assad does. Our intentions are hostile to Assad.
What about the EF-18 Growler jamming their radar ???
Indylan - fighter performance is a complex thing...it would fill a book.
Weight matters, but thrust/weight matters more. More important still is energy maneuverability: how much excess energy is available at a given speed/altitude and G combination? What's the turn rate/radius for that airplane at that altitude and G? Wing loading figures into that.
The F-16 has great energy addition, but those 9G turns are at 400+ knots...the F/A-18 can't pull 9G, only 7.5G, but with its lighter wing loading and better high alpha handling, it's cornering at the same rate, in a smaller radius, and at lower G...it's able to turn inside the F-16, depending on what each pilot does with that, it can be a decisive advantage to the Hornet...or to the Viper (if he refuses to play the Hornet's high alpha game)...
But it's not as simple as power/weight might lead you to believe...
Weight matters, but thrust/weight matters more. More important still is energy maneuverability: how much excess energy is available at a given speed/altitude and G combination? What's the turn rate/radius for that airplane at that altitude and G? Wing loading figures into that.
The F-16 has great energy addition, but those 9G turns are at 400+ knots...the F/A-18 can't pull 9G, only 7.5G, but with its lighter wing loading and better high alpha handling, it's cornering at the same rate, in a smaller radius, and at lower G...it's able to turn inside the F-16, depending on what each pilot does with that, it can be a decisive advantage to the Hornet...or to the Viper (if he refuses to play the Hornet's high alpha game)...
But it's not as simple as power/weight might lead you to believe...
Successful strikes would include all the dimensions/aspects of the battlespace in their planning and execution...
Last edited:
Strike package should consist of:
EF-18 Growler, Super Hornet, F-15E, F-16CJ and KC-135 for refueling aircraft.
EF-18 Growler, Super Hornet, F-15E, F-16CJ and KC-135 for refueling aircraft.
In my best Yeager voice... Raptor will fly up your arse and tickle
the inside of your eye ball and you won't know it there until
you're pharting bullets...
the inside of your eye ball and you won't know it there until
you're pharting bullets...
our f-15/16 and a10"s did just fine in Afghanistan. and yes our pilots are BA
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: AdmdeVilleneuve
This article by David Axe today on the F-22 is interesting:
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2014/09/23/when_the_french_shot_down_an_f-22_107455.html
Hmmmm....well, once, when flying an F-14 off the USS Theodore Roosevelt, I had clearly and thoroughly defeated a French Mirage in a scheduled air combat maneuvering sortie. Yet, while I was behind him, with my gunsight on his cockpit...he was saying "Magic, Magic" on his radio...implying that he was taking a heat-seeking missile shot.
What he was shooting at was a mystery to me...there was nothing in front of him (from my vantage at his 6 o'clock, I could see what he was seeing)...just me, squarely behind him, in complete victory.
Funny...when he reported back to his base, the French squadron claimed that he had shot me with his "Magic" missile...which, unless that thing fires backwards (it doesn't), was clearly impossible. A blatant falsehood. No proof, other than his radio call (back to his controller) that he was firing a "Magic" missile...and I had my HUD footage of the gunsight on his canopy...but it was classified footage...so we didn't argue the ridiculous claim.
So, I wouldn't give a ton of credibility to the French Fighter Pilot...any French Fighter Pilot...particularly not this grainy HUD shot in which they claim to have shot an F-22...
In 1993 France employed a Helmet-mounted display part of the Mirage that could shoot anything down as long as their head was pointed in the direction.
When prototypes are taken into account that date could stretch as far back as the mid 70s when the South Africans employed one, so yes its possible.
Originally Posted By: AdmdeVilleneuve
This article by David Axe today on the F-22 is interesting:
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2014/09/23/when_the_french_shot_down_an_f-22_107455.html
Hmmmm....well, once, when flying an F-14 off the USS Theodore Roosevelt, I had clearly and thoroughly defeated a French Mirage in a scheduled air combat maneuvering sortie. Yet, while I was behind him, with my gunsight on his cockpit...he was saying "Magic, Magic" on his radio...implying that he was taking a heat-seeking missile shot.
What he was shooting at was a mystery to me...there was nothing in front of him (from my vantage at his 6 o'clock, I could see what he was seeing)...just me, squarely behind him, in complete victory.
Funny...when he reported back to his base, the French squadron claimed that he had shot me with his "Magic" missile...which, unless that thing fires backwards (it doesn't), was clearly impossible. A blatant falsehood. No proof, other than his radio call (back to his controller) that he was firing a "Magic" missile...and I had my HUD footage of the gunsight on his canopy...but it was classified footage...so we didn't argue the ridiculous claim.
So, I wouldn't give a ton of credibility to the French Fighter Pilot...any French Fighter Pilot...particularly not this grainy HUD shot in which they claim to have shot an F-22...
In 1993 France employed a Helmet-mounted display part of the Mirage that could shoot anything down as long as their head was pointed in the direction.
When prototypes are taken into account that date could stretch as far back as the mid 70s when the South Africans employed one, so yes its possible.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Koz1
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: AdmdeVilleneuve
This article by David Axe today on the F-22 is interesting:
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2014/09/23/when_the_french_shot_down_an_f-22_107455.html
Hmmmm....well, once, when flying an F-14 off the USS Theodore Roosevelt, I had clearly and thoroughly defeated a French Mirage in a scheduled air combat maneuvering sortie. Yet, while I was behind him, with my gunsight on his cockpit...he was saying "Magic, Magic" on his radio...implying that he was taking a heat-seeking missile shot.
What he was shooting at was a mystery to me...there was nothing in front of him (from my vantage at his 6 o'clock, I could see what he was seeing)...just me, squarely behind him, in complete victory.
Funny...when he reported back to his base, the French squadron claimed that he had shot me with his "Magic" missile...which, unless that thing fires backwards (it doesn't), was clearly impossible. A blatant falsehood. No proof, other than his radio call (back to his controller) that he was firing a "Magic" missile...and I had my HUD footage of the gunsight on his canopy...but it was classified footage...so we didn't argue the ridiculous claim.
So, I wouldn't give a ton of credibility to the French Fighter Pilot...any French Fighter Pilot...particularly not this grainy HUD shot in which they claim to have shot an F-22...
In 1993 France employed a Helmet-mounted display part of the Mirage that could shoot anything down as long as their head was pointed in the direction.
When prototypes are taken into account that date could stretch as far back as the mid 70s when the South Africans employed one, so yes its possible.
No, it's really not possible. Cueing and shooting are not the same thing.
At a range of 1,000 feet, there was no way to cue, and no missile capable of an over the shoulder shot at that close range. Some missiles now are capable of being shot aft of a 3-9 line, but they sure weren't then, and he sure didn't have them.
It was a completely bogus shot, like a guy on his back in a wrestling match, with his shoulders touching the mat, saying, "I win, I win" because only the audio was recorded...while he was completely and utterly defeated.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: AdmdeVilleneuve
This article by David Axe today on the F-22 is interesting:
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2014/09/23/when_the_french_shot_down_an_f-22_107455.html
Hmmmm....well, once, when flying an F-14 off the USS Theodore Roosevelt, I had clearly and thoroughly defeated a French Mirage in a scheduled air combat maneuvering sortie. Yet, while I was behind him, with my gunsight on his cockpit...he was saying "Magic, Magic" on his radio...implying that he was taking a heat-seeking missile shot.
What he was shooting at was a mystery to me...there was nothing in front of him (from my vantage at his 6 o'clock, I could see what he was seeing)...just me, squarely behind him, in complete victory.
Funny...when he reported back to his base, the French squadron claimed that he had shot me with his "Magic" missile...which, unless that thing fires backwards (it doesn't), was clearly impossible. A blatant falsehood. No proof, other than his radio call (back to his controller) that he was firing a "Magic" missile...and I had my HUD footage of the gunsight on his canopy...but it was classified footage...so we didn't argue the ridiculous claim.
So, I wouldn't give a ton of credibility to the French Fighter Pilot...any French Fighter Pilot...particularly not this grainy HUD shot in which they claim to have shot an F-22...
In 1993 France employed a Helmet-mounted display part of the Mirage that could shoot anything down as long as their head was pointed in the direction.
When prototypes are taken into account that date could stretch as far back as the mid 70s when the South Africans employed one, so yes its possible.
No, it's really not possible. Cueing and shooting are not the same thing.
At a range of 1,000 feet, there was no way to cue, and no missile capable of an over the shoulder shot at that close range. Some missiles now are capable of being shot aft of a 3-9 line, but they sure weren't then, and he sure didn't have them.
It was a completely bogus shot, like a guy on his back in a wrestling match, with his shoulders touching the mat, saying, "I win, I win" because only the audio was recorded...while he was completely and utterly defeated.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: Koz1
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: AdmdeVilleneuve
This article by David Axe today on the F-22 is interesting:
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2014/09/23/when_the_french_shot_down_an_f-22_107455.html
Hmmmm....well, once, when flying an F-14 off the USS Theodore Roosevelt, I had clearly and thoroughly defeated a French Mirage in a scheduled air combat maneuvering sortie. Yet, while I was behind him, with my gunsight on his cockpit...he was saying "Magic, Magic" on his radio...implying that he was taking a heat-seeking missile shot.
What he was shooting at was a mystery to me...there was nothing in front of him (from my vantage at his 6 o'clock, I could see what he was seeing)...just me, squarely behind him, in complete victory.
Funny...when he reported back to his base, the French squadron claimed that he had shot me with his "Magic" missile...which, unless that thing fires backwards (it doesn't), was clearly impossible. A blatant falsehood. No proof, other than his radio call (back to his controller) that he was firing a "Magic" missile...and I had my HUD footage of the gunsight on his canopy...but it was classified footage...so we didn't argue the ridiculous claim.
So, I wouldn't give a ton of credibility to the French Fighter Pilot...any French Fighter Pilot...particularly not this grainy HUD shot in which they claim to have shot an F-22...
In 1993 France employed a Helmet-mounted display part of the Mirage that could shoot anything down as long as their head was pointed in the direction.
When prototypes are taken into account that date could stretch as far back as the mid 70s when the South Africans employed one, so yes its possible.
No, it's really not possible. Cueing and shooting are not the same thing.
At a range of 1,000 feet, there was no way to cue, and no missile capable of an over the shoulder shot at that close range. Some missiles now are capable of being shot aft of a 3-9 line, but they sure weren't then, and he sure didn't have them.
It was a completely bogus shot, like a guy on his back in a wrestling match, with his shoulders touching the mat, saying, "I win, I win" because only the audio was recorded...while he was completely and utterly defeated.
Your sure not possible at all, full sphere launch ability aka secret missile.
After launch capability.
Anyway have a great day.
Cheers.
Originally Posted By: Koz1
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: AdmdeVilleneuve
This article by David Axe today on the F-22 is interesting:
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2014/09/23/when_the_french_shot_down_an_f-22_107455.html
Hmmmm....well, once, when flying an F-14 off the USS Theodore Roosevelt, I had clearly and thoroughly defeated a French Mirage in a scheduled air combat maneuvering sortie. Yet, while I was behind him, with my gunsight on his cockpit...he was saying "Magic, Magic" on his radio...implying that he was taking a heat-seeking missile shot.
What he was shooting at was a mystery to me...there was nothing in front of him (from my vantage at his 6 o'clock, I could see what he was seeing)...just me, squarely behind him, in complete victory.
Funny...when he reported back to his base, the French squadron claimed that he had shot me with his "Magic" missile...which, unless that thing fires backwards (it doesn't), was clearly impossible. A blatant falsehood. No proof, other than his radio call (back to his controller) that he was firing a "Magic" missile...and I had my HUD footage of the gunsight on his canopy...but it was classified footage...so we didn't argue the ridiculous claim.
So, I wouldn't give a ton of credibility to the French Fighter Pilot...any French Fighter Pilot...particularly not this grainy HUD shot in which they claim to have shot an F-22...
In 1993 France employed a Helmet-mounted display part of the Mirage that could shoot anything down as long as their head was pointed in the direction.
When prototypes are taken into account that date could stretch as far back as the mid 70s when the South Africans employed one, so yes its possible.
No, it's really not possible. Cueing and shooting are not the same thing.
At a range of 1,000 feet, there was no way to cue, and no missile capable of an over the shoulder shot at that close range. Some missiles now are capable of being shot aft of a 3-9 line, but they sure weren't then, and he sure didn't have them.
It was a completely bogus shot, like a guy on his back in a wrestling match, with his shoulders touching the mat, saying, "I win, I win" because only the audio was recorded...while he was completely and utterly defeated.
Your sure not possible at all, full sphere launch ability aka secret missile.
After launch capability.
Anyway have a great day.
Cheers.
Yeah. I'm certain.
Originally Posted By: CT8
I am just trying to figure out how to own a 747 converted to fire tanker use.
They're cheap right now. You can get a 747 for about a million. They used to sticker at over $200 million.
Pretty expensive to operate, however...
I am just trying to figure out how to own a 747 converted to fire tanker use.
They're cheap right now. You can get a 747 for about a million. They used to sticker at over $200 million.
Pretty expensive to operate, however...
I don't really have the $$$ or the ability to manage one but the Government contracts pay well. MY neighbor is a retired Commercial pilot and I talked to him about it and he said I was stupid and why a 747 . I love the 747 and I am at the age where I need to compensate. http://fireaviation.com/tag/747/ It is on the I really want one list. From the first time I saw the 747 and one of my friends dads was one of the first 747 captains the 747 was my girl. Love at first site. I think it was 1968.
One million dollars for a 747
Is that a non flight worthy airframe sitting in the desert stripped of engines and interior?
Is that a non flight worthy airframe sitting in the desert stripped of engines and interior?
- Status
