Yet another F-22 shot down...

[james84]

... in dissimulated air training!
http://theaviationist.com/2012/07/23/f- ... -markings/

[mikewmac]

... in dissimulated air training!
http://theaviationist.com/2012/07/23/f- ... -markings/

The key phrase in that article is "at least in a (possibly unrealistic) WVR (Within Visual Range) air-to-air engagement with the Typhoon, the Raptor is not invincible". The Raptor's strength is that in real world BVR (Beyond Visual Range) engagements it destroys its opponents before they even know that it is present and therefore WVR engagements should never occur.

Mike M

[reconmercs]

This probably really isn't even news worthy, WVR its just another fighter plane that can turn and accelerate a bit better than some, it still comes down to the guy/gal in the seat.

[Firebird]

The Raptor's strength is that in real world BVR (Beyond Visual Range) engagements it destroys its opponents before they even know that it is present and therefore WVR engagements should never occur.

Good Grief, do they need to learn the lessons of Vietnam all over again?

[mikewmac]

The Raptor's strength is that in real world BVR (Beyond Visual Range) engagements it destroys its opponents before they even know that it is present and therefore WVR engagements should never occur.

Good Grief, do they need to learn the lessons of Vietnam all over again?

Steve,

Fortunately, unlike prior to Vietnam, the "belt and suspenders" approach to the design of the Raptor was used, so if its outstanding stealth and BVR capability doesn't get the job done, then its up close and personal WVR capability should. What these articles don't state is how many WVR simulated Typhoons losses were experienced in order to claim a couple of simulated WVR Raptor losses. As you well know, and as Des pointed out, once the engagement transitions to WVR the comparative skill of the jocks in the cockpits becomes more critical and one fatal mistake is all it takes to lose.

Mike M

[MIKE JG]

Depends on what roles the Raptors/Eurofighters were playing. Were they blue air, were they red air? Were they limited to a certain AOA or G loading?

These things are meaningless unless you know the whole story. But I do think it's lame for pilots to be putting simulated kills on their aircraft these days. That's completely disrespectful to the guys who have actually been there done that and lived to tell us about it. The latter group EARNED their kill markings.

[Firebird]

Very good points made by both of you.
My point was purely and specifically aimed at the seemed suggestion that whatever results were achieved it was irrelevant as in reality the targets would be destroyed BVR. It sounds remarkably similar to the belief of TPTB with the F-4, completely forgetting about ROE.

[Victory103]

Just got my August addition of Combat Aircraft with a whole story on Red Flag Alaska and the EF2000's mixing with the Raptors.

Agree about the kill markings, at the very least just put them on for the exercise to drum up some friendly rivalry, but remove them at the completion of the event.

[sr01]

Depends on what roles the Raptors/Eurofighters were playing. Were they blue air, were they red air? Were they limited to a certain AOA or G loading?

These things are meaningless unless you know the whole story. But I do think it's lame for pilots to be putting simulated kills on their aircraft these days. That's completely disrespectful to the guys who have actually been there done that and lived to tell us about it. The latter group EARNED their kill markings.

Well said ,Mike !! Although IMHO it's OK to have them on during the exercise .Same as zap markings for A/C to wear home .

[mikewmac]

Guys,

Here is what actually happened. The Typhoons and Raptors were both part of the Blue Force during Red Flag Alaska, so no 1 vs 1 BFM sorties were flown between them during Red Flag Alaska. Eight 1 vs 1 BFM sorties were actually flown between the Typhoons and Raptors prior to Red Flag Alaska during a preliminary exercise named Distant Frontier. The Typhoons were flown with no tanks to maximize their ability to "turn and burn".

Oberstleutnant Marc "Turbo" Grune, commander of of 742 Squadron "Zapata" and the operational group commander for the German Alaskan Typhoon detachment, stated:

"To tell the truth, the Raptor is not built for air combat; you build the Raptor for other purposes. It's not going to the merge because you don't want to end up there. It was a mission to get to know each other, the first contact by German Eurofighters in the continental US. We are not planning on facing each other in combat, we want to work together, but it was a starter for us to work together. They were impressed, as we were impressed by them. We expected to perform less with the Eurofighter but we didn't...we were evenly matched. They didn't expect us to turn so aggressively."

Major Marco Gumbrecht, director of of weapons and tactics with JG-74, stated:

"If I get everything right BVR, I'm not going to get closer than 20 miles. The Raptor has BVR capabilities that we don't, but we did some neutral high-aspect set-ups and both sides were surprised how the results came back."

Oberst Andreas Pfeiffer, wing commander, stated:

"Its (Raptor's) unique capabilities are overwhelming from our first impressions in terms of modern air combat, but as soon as you get to the merge, which is only a very small spectrum of air combat, in that area, at least, the Typhoon doesn't necessarily have to fear the F-22 in all aspects...We gain energy better than the F-22 when we are slow, for example, and we recognise that. In the dogfight the Eurofighter is at least as capable as the F-22 with advantages in some aspects. We feel pretty comfortable in that situation right now out of the experience we have had here, and we're in a position to survive against almost all jets in close combat."

Apparently no actual results of the eight 1 vs 1 BFM sorties have been released. If you can believe these quotes, it sounds like the Typhoons and Raptors were relatively equal "up close and personal".

Mike M

Reference: Combat Aircraft Monthly, US Edition, Vol 13, No 8, August 2012.