F-22 Fighter Loses $79 Billion Advantage in Dogfights: Report
The United States has spent nearly $80 billion to develop the most advanced stealth fighter jet in history, the F-22 Raptor,
but the Air Force recently found out firsthand that while the planes own the skies at modern long-range air combat, it is “evenly matched” with cheaper, foreign jets when it comes to old-school dogfighting.
The F-22 made its debut at the international Red Flag Alaska training exercise this June where the planes “cleared the skies of simulated enemy forces and provided security for Australian, German, Japanese, Polish and [NATO] aircraft,” according to an after-action public report by the Air Force.
The F-22 took part in the exercise while under strict flying restrictions imposed by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in light of mysterious, potentially deadly oxygen problems with the planes — problems that the Pentagon believes it has since solved.
The Air Force said the planes flew 80 missions during the event “with a very high mission success rate.”
However, a new report from Combat Aircraft Monthly revealed that in a handful of missions designed to test the F-22 in a very specific situation –
close-range, one-on-one combat – the jet appeared to lose its pricey advantages over a friendly rival, the Eurofighter Typhoon, flown in this case by German airmen.
“We expected to perform less with the Eurofighter but we didn’t,” German air officer Marc Grune said, according to Combat Aircraft Monthly.
“We were evenly matched. They didn’t expect us to turn so aggressively.”
Two other German officers, Col. Andreas Pfeiffer and Maj. Marco Gumbrecht, noted in the same report that the F-22′s capabilities are “overwhelming” when it comes to modern, long-range combat as the stealth fighter is designed to engage multiple enemies well-beyond the pilot’s natural field of vision — mostly while the F-22 is still out of the other plane’s range.
Grumbrecht said that even if his planes did everything right, they weren’t able to get within 20 miles of the next-generation jets before being targeted.
“But as soon as you get to the merge…” Pfeiffer said, referring to the point at which fighters engage in close-up dogfighting,
“in that area, at least, the Typhoon doesn’t necessarily have to fear the F-22 in all aspects…
In the dogfight the Eurofighter is at least as capable as the F-22, with advantages in some aspects.”
I highly doubt the news value of this report. During excercises, the forces are split in red and blue forces. The red forces fly a certain scenario with all kinds of limitations to imitate a type and tactical situation. Therefore they are not allowed to use their aircraft to the full capabilities or deploy their own tactics. For instance, if the red forces imitate Flankers, the weapon capabilities are limited to the weapons of a Flanker, and not or an Eurofighter of F-22.
This is done on purpose, because there has to be a learning effect with the blue forces. Otherwise, the excercise has no worth. So unless you know which scenario was imitated, who were blue and who were red forces and what the restrictions for weapon deployment and tactics they had, there is nothing to conclude and seems to be more a publicity stunt.
Grumbrecht said that even if his planes did everything right, they weren’t able to get within 20 miles of the next-generation jets before being targeted.
“But as soon as you get to the merge…” Pfeiffer said, referring to the point at which fighters engage in close-up dogfighting,
In other words, you simply wouldn't make it to "the merge", you'd be dead by than...
It's a bit like saying that your Smart is as good as a Ferrari because in a parking garage they're equally fast... (ignoring the fact that after a 100km ride the ferrari is in the garage half an hour before the smart is..)
Found this quote from the same interview which was not reproduced on F-16.net:
One of Grüne's most relevant quotes was left out: "The Typhoons were stripped of their external fuel tanks and slicked off as much as possible before the encounter with the Raptors."
Not very likely combat conditions...
As I stated above, circumstances unknown and highly doubtful report.
Polecat wrote:In other words, you simply wouldn't make it to "the merge", you'd be dead by than...
And I agree with you:
Coati wrote:Not very likely combat conditions...
There has however been a similar situation not even that long ago that didn't pan out as positive all the times.
In Vietnam the first Phantoms were expected to kill their opponents as well early on so no opponent would come close and no guns were needed. Dog fights, so they expected, were a thing of the past. However, the North Vietnamese quickly learned tactics to only get airborne at the last moment so they could get into dog fight range very quickly. In the end, it did seem unlikely, but the Phantoms did get into close fighting very often.
So is the scenario that unlikely for the F-22? Maybe, maybe not. At least it is very good to know, for both sides, and work on the weak/strong points.
Polecat wrote:In other words, you simply wouldn't make it to "the merge", you'd be dead by than...
And I agree with you:
Coati wrote:Not very likely combat conditions...
There has however been a similar situation not even that long ago that didn't pan out as positive all the times.
In Vietnam the first Phantoms were expected to kill their opponents as well early on so no opponent would come close and no guns were needed. Dog fights, so they expected, were a thing of the past. However, the North Vietnamese quickly learned tactics to only get airborne at the last moment so they could get into dog fight range very quickly. In the end, it did seem unlikely, but the Phantoms did get into close fighting very often.
So is the scenario that unlikely for the F-22? Maybe, maybe not. At least it is very good to know, for both sides, and work on the weak/strong points.
Erwin
Hi Erwin. With unlikely combat conditions I refered to the apparent fact that the Eurofighters were completely clean and slacked as quoted. I did not mean that dogfights kind of fights will never occur.
Coati wrote:Hi Erwin. With unlikely combat conditions I refered to the apparent fact that the Eurofighters were completely clean and slacked as quoted. I did not mean that dogfights kind of fights will never occur.
And I still agree with you, it is unlikely. However, the simple fact that this proves to be a potential winning option might mean tactics will be developed where this will be used and therefore, the unlikely will become very likely.
As you said, these exercises are meant to teach. This might be THE Lesson learned in the exercise....
Here some more info and the opinion/reaction from the USAF pilots (taken from F-16.net):
Grune says that the Raptor's advantage lies in its stealth and ability to dominate air-to-air fights from beyond visual range. That is not disputed by USAF sources. "Its unique capabilities are overwhelming from our first impressions in terms of modern air combat," Pfeiffer says. "But once you get to the merge, which is only a very small spectrum of air combat, in that area the Typhoon doesn't have to fear the F-22 in all aspects."
The Typhoons were stripped of their external fuel tanks and slicked off as much as possible before the encounter with the Raptors, says Grune, who adds that in that configuration, the Typhoon is an "animal".
Pfeiffer notes that the Eurofighter has better acceleration and can out-climb the F-22. Additionally, he says that the Raptor sinks when it is using its thrust vectoring capabilities, although one USAF source says he is skeptical of the German claims.
Overall, Grune says the two aircraft are closely matched in the visual range arena, but Pfeiffer says the Typhoon is the superior dogfighter.
Lt Col Paul Moga, commander of the 525th Fighter Squadron. "Our recent BFM hops with the German air force Typhoons were outstanding... One thing is for certain - Raptors and Typhoons are a lethal combination."
"It sounds as though we have very different recollections as to the outcomes of the BFM engagements that were fought," one Raptor pilot says.
USAF sources say that the Typhoon has good energy and a pretty good first turn, but that they were able to outmanoeuvre the Germans due to the Raptor's thrust vectoring. Additionally, the Typhoon was not able to match the high angle of attack capability of the F-22. "We ended up with numerous gunshots," another USAF pilot says.
Did the Eurofighters really 'cheat' by flying in clean configuration? I would say no.
When F-16s merge with agile fighters like the Su-27 or MiG-29, they will ditch all external stores (A2G stores, the 370 tanks and 300 belly tank) as the F-16 cannot pull 9G unless in clean configuration. Only the wingtip and underwing AIM-9/AIM-120 stations remain.
It is not unrealistic that a Typhoon pilot would do the same and I have yet to see a F-22 engage in a high G dogfight with this external drop tanks attached?
Lets also not forget politics here. Even if the Typhoon would hand the F-22 its own rear, no one in the USAF will ever admit it in public!
you are right erik.
Engaging a dogfighting situation with CL and / or wing stores stacked with fueltanks is not the smart thing to do for more than 1 reason, unless the opponent is flying a deck chair.
Hoera d'revolutie, 't is eindelijk zover', maar de nwe leiders blijken net zo autoritair
Taken from F-16.net a good explanation that these kind of reports say nothing: a clear explaination of DACT (credit F-16.net):
There are some serious misconceptions out there about how air combat training is conducted so I’ve decided to write a post about how it really happens. Everybody seems to want to cite a particular exercise as proof of their point, when in reality; they have no contextual reference for these results they are referencing. Realize that I am writing from a USAF/USN/USMC/NATO perspective. If anyone else can provide some information about how it’s done elsewhere, please chime in.
Air-to-air combat is an extremely complex and dynamic undertaking. The combination of speed and the ability to maneuver in three dimensions creates an environment that is constantly changing and rarely allows any of the participants to see and understand the entire picture at once. In order to be successful in this environment, participants must be highly skilled, (reasonably) intelligent individuals who fight in these types of battles regularly.
Fighter pilots from countries all over the world are expected to use hardware purchased with national treasure to defend their homeland against attackers or attack others as directed by their leaders. In order to effectively accomplish those missions, pilots must regularly train for air combat. Air combat skills are perishable and even the best pilots are not as keen as they might be if they haven’t flown in a while especially when flying in large force exercises where one decision may be the difference between success and failure.
Definitions: Air Combat Training (ACT) is a term used to describe a battle between similar aircraft. If 2 F-16s are fighting against 2 other F-16s, this would be an ACT war, whereas 2 F-15s fighting 2 F-16s would be termed Dissimilar Air Combat Training (DACT).
When planning a DACT exercise, planners typically will build an Offensive Counterair (OCA) strike package and Defensive Counterair (DCA) package with appropriate aircraft - this was displayed in the Cope India exercise when a strike package consisting of SU-30s, Mirages, and Jaguars attacked a target defended by F-15s. Besides designating types of aircraft and missions, planners will also draw up objectives for the exercise. These objectives can be very specific or quite broad depending on the situation.
A broad objective may be stated as “building trust between countries” or “familiarize pilots with other air forces.” More specific objectives may be “effectively integrate air forces for lane defense.” In order to accomplish these objectives, rules of engagement (ROE) will also be set.
ROE consist of weapons load, identification criteria, maneuvering limitations, tactics restrictions, and just about anything else you can think of. ROE can be pretty liberal or very restrictive, depending on the objectives, experience level of the pilots, or number and type of aircraft involved. If the objective is to “build trust” between nations, you can bet your ass that the rules are going to be damn restrictive to try to ensure there will be no accidents/dangerous or stupid stunts that would embarrass one side or the other or result in needless loss of life. This is why briefings are conducted, and “pickup games” are not allowed. (This is also the reason why this article about the Typhoons getting bounced by F-15Es is absolute bollocks.) Regardless of the particular ROE established, somebody needs to be the bad guy.
In most exercises there will be a threat aircraft and weapons designated as the training aid for the other side. In U.S. exercises such as Red Flag, this will be something like a MiG-29 with aa-10s and aa-11s, and will be referred to as opfor or Red air. Red air will usually consist of F-15s or F-16s (or whatever they can get) and will do their best to simulate that threat by limiting their radar modes, lock ranges, tactics, (EDIT carrying radar reflectors for stealth aircraft) etc. Blue air will fly with their normal weapons loadout and will normally not have any restrictions other than operating their systems in a training/peacetime mode. There may be other restrictions imposed based on the objectives. Typically, the threat capabilities will start out low “ short range missiles and very benign tactics, then increase as the exercise continues, as long as the blue air players are learning something and they are ready to progress to the next level. If the blue air fighters are getting their butts handed to them, the threat level will remain low, but if they are doing well, the threat capability will increase so the training is useful.
Notice that the red air players are training aids. They are supposed to follow the rules and die like men when blue air is executing well. If, however, the blue air screws something up and they have an opportunity to kick some tail, they are expected to do so. Violating the ROE by using a capability that is restricted, shooting beyond a specified range, or not adhering to an established ID criteria is considered a training rule violation and is dealt with severely. Several pilots have been sent home from exercises and have even been reassigned because they didn’t like to follow the rules.
By now it should becoming clear why one side or the other in these exercises often has a larger kill:loss ratio than the other. Red air is supposed to die even if there are more capable aircraft on the red side. This is how many of the “surprising” results occur in large exercises the threat level is tailored to the training needs of the blue air so they can learn from their mistakes in the debrief.
When conducting the debrief, kills must be assessed in order to find out what really happened. In order to do this, pilots must review the recording of the mission so they can evaluate their targeting and weapons employment. Red and blue air will get together, exchange data, and together decide who shot who and when. This is often an inexact science, however, with ACMI monitoring and extensive recording equipment in the aircraft, it is getting better. With results in hand, the blue fighters can then determine what they did wrong, and how to do better next time. This training is very effective for the blue air, but it usually sucks for red. What about exercises with real threat aircraft like MiG-29s, MiG-25s, etc? This is obviously the best training there can be, however, there is a problem.
When participating in an international exercise, both sides are probably going to hold some information back. This is not a “you show me yours, I’ll show you mine” game. In many cases, the shot data/weapons performance is classified, and not releasable to those on the other side. This is exactly the case in Cope India 04.
How do you debrief an engagement when neither side wants to say what really happened? Nobody is going to walk into the debrief and say “I shot that guy at this time and this range with this missile” because they are basically giving away their capabilities. There are a couple of ways to deal with this, one of which is to not relay any of the shot information, but to merely say “that guy is dead at this time.” In that situation, no information (other than the f-pole) is released to the other side. However, astute people on the other side can extrapolate the data and figure out approximately when the shot was fired and can have a pretty good idea as to the performance of the missile. The other thing you can do is to establish a theoretical missile, with a nominal range to be used by both sides. This levels the playing field and rewards the side which executes better, rather than the side with the longer range missiles.
Detailed assessments that would normally take place to validate shots can't/won't happen in an exercise like this, therefore the overall results are not really accurate. However, as you say, they most certainly will debrief to get some results regardless of the potential inaccuracies. How valid the results are depends on how the exercise was planned.
As you can see, the results of these exercises (especially those released to the public) are quite likely not accurate. And, for one side or the other to claim victory in one of these exercises is either dishonest or just plain ignorance. Normally, the results are released as a series of politically correct statements such as those we’ve seen by the authorities after Cope India. Both sides are happy, they learned a lot, and can’t wait to do it again.
It should be noted that these types of exercises are planned many months in advance. A key part of the training syllabus is to agree on the types of scenarios to be performed during initial planning.
Most of the learning experience occurs on the ground, not in the air. The evolution from Air Tasking Order to Mission Planning/C3I/Asset Coordination to Aircraft Generation is where air battles are won or lost. The mechanics of flying airplanes and shooting off ordnance is icing on the cake.
I’m certainly not trying to stifle the spirited debate that goes on here. It’s fun reading the arguments for and against various aircraft, however, be careful when you’re quoting the results of some exercise when making your point!
I'm only saying that without details, all of this, "my airplane kicked your airplane's butt" is entertaining, but silly. One valuable part of the exercise is simply watching how the other side operates, what kind of tactics they use (they may have been "modified" along with the weapons), how they talk on the radio, etc. Obviously, the technology represented by the Su-30s is of great interest to the USAF also.
Last edited by Coati on 02 Aug 2012, 15:40, edited 1 time in total.
/reeve.gif)
