F-22 Fighter Loses $79 Billion Advantage in Dogfights:

[Stryder Kennset]

Even todays WVR missiles have nearly BVR ranges and the technology of BVR missiles is very mature now. Vietnam era missiles were comparable to a WW1 plane in terms of development to level of a jumbo jet right now. Computer power has risen exponentially since then and still does.

F-22 are superior but not invisible or invincible, this kind of thinking costs lives.

This ^^^^^^

Back in the Vietnam War, electronics, especially solid state digital electronics were still in their infancy or most likely, in the brain of some scientists who were daydreaming of them. Nobody knew who they would perform in real life, they were just reading off the stats based on very dry and static testing. That's why Vietnam kicked everyone ass and why F-4's got it's ass kicked early on. But anyone say, "OMG! Teh MIGs teh PAWNZZZZ the Phatomzzz teh ass!!" needs to get taken out back and shot! Only 5% of the Phantom losses were due to MIGS, the rest to SAM and especially AAA! Phantoms later on dominated the MIGs once we figured out the MIG's weaknesses.

Today, solid state electronics are VERY VERY reliable! They wouldn't put them in if they weren't. Yes, there will always be failures. But again, an F-22 carries 6X AMRAAM's in its central bay. So anyone willing to risk it all by taking the chance that all 6 of them will fail? i guess only Russian lovers who are still stuck back in the 60's with "The higher the tech, the more likely it will fail" will take that risks!

[Stryder Kennset]

While I agree somewhat it is very much 'simplified' to state it was simply tactics that did it, chronic fuel shortages, reduced training standards (In part because of the former) and other factors were part of it....
I agree though that the professionalism of US Pilots will make the best they can of the F-22s capabilities to offset any weaknesses and play its cards to the best possible.... That said I guess the enemy has a vote in such matters aswell

A better example would be when the RAF's Spitfire Vb first came up against the FW-190 Wurger. The pilots on both side have even skills, the Spit was more manuverble but otherwise, the Butcher Bird had every other advantage and so much so, that it simply OWNED the Spit! As one British pilot later quiped, "Mauverbility will get you no where". This kept up until the Spit IX made an apparance. The other ex would be when Rob Johnson took a brand new P-47D Bolt with the new paddle prop against a Spit. Again, the Spit pilot was a very good pilot. Maybe not as good as Rob, but certainly good enough. P-47 vs Spit of course, means P-47 can manuver like crap vs the nimble Supermarine. But Rob used every ounce of power from the huge Pratt & Whitney double wasp, dived, zoomed up in a snap cllimb, dived, zoom up in a snap climb, maybe threw in a roll or two to beat the Spit eventually. The spit just couldn't keep up in a diving and snap climb rolling race, which is EACTLY what Rob forced the Spit pilot to do, to play a game in which his mount was not designed to play with. And THAT folks is what ALL WVR fights came down to!

[TheCorruptedOne]

You also have to remember that those F-22s lose their cover, to an extent, for the short moments when the weapon bays are opened and missiles launched, which may enable opposing pilots to counter fire their Meteors or AMRAAMs. Depending on range, of course. Or at least, the pilots would know where to look.

[Ought Six]

You also have to remember that those F-22s lose their cover, to an extent, for the short moments when the weapon bays are opened and missiles launched, which may enable opposing pilots to counter fire their Meteors or AMRAAMs. Depending on range, of course. Or at least, the pilots would know where to look.

While opening the weapons bays for a few secons does increase the RCS briefly, it does not make the F-22 a huge, easy-to-lock-onto RADAR target. And even if missile lock is achieved, the moment those doors close, missile lock will be lost.

Also, the attacking fighter would have to be below the F-22 for its RADAR to 'see' the open doors. I would presume part of F-22 fighter tactics would be to try and avoid exposing your belly to the enemy when you have to launch a missile.

[TheCorruptedOne]

While opening the weapons bays for a few secons does increase the RCS briefly, it does not make the F-22 a huge, easy-to-lock-onto RADAR target. And even if missile lock is achieved, the moment those doors close, missile lock will be lost.

Also, the attacking fighter would have to be below the F-22 for its RADAR to 'see' the open doors. I would presume part of F-22 fighter tactics would be to try and avoid exposing your belly to the enemy when you have to launch a missile.

Indeed. I never stated it would make detecting the fighter a whole lot easier. An IRST (or advanced missile launch detection system) equipped aircraft would be able to plot (passively) the origin of the missiles, provided the range is sufficient.

[SpudmanWP]

How many seconds does it take for the mechanical radar of the EF to complete a sweep?

If any more than 5 seconds then the F-22 pilot has time to open doors, launch missile, and close the door before the radar sweeps his sector of the sky.

[Stryder Kennset]

How many seconds does it take for the mechanical radar of the EF to complete a sweep?

If any more than 5 seconds then the F-22 pilot has time to open doors, launch missile, and close the door before the radar sweeps his sector of the sky.

No idea. Ad can be imagined, this sort of stuff is highly classified to the wazoo and back and then some.

However, it isn't just the time to complete a sweep. Any radar has to have enough energy to generate a positive return also and that means it will also require time to shine a beam on target for a specific amount of time for that return to happen. How long does that take also comes into play. Last time i checked, it takes around 2.5 seconds for the F-22 to open its central bay, snap off an AMRAAM and close it. It is designed specifically to launch the slammer in the shortest amount of time possible to reduce it's time when it is vulnerable. For A LOT of radar system, rememeber there are also filters that filters out background noises, fake signals etc. For many 4th and even some 4th and half gen systems, that period of time is so short, even if it generates a postive return, many system simply wash it out because it looks more like a fake signal than real and that could also work for the F-22.

[fiorellabel]

Let's take the news for what it reaqlly is: Raptor can be spotted, tracked and taken down throught an Irst. Period
It obviously doens't means that it is now a failure
Better, let me be a little nasty, that it now an air combat failure like it always have been an operative and economical one.
It is still and by far the best one but as always only because of its perfect stealthiness.
However at the present even stealthiness is not anymore that absolute and unbeatable asset as it was when F-117 was deployed.
Several countermeasures have been developed and are actually operative.
Renowed metric radars, multistatic radars can spot a sthealth aircraft, L-radar on modern russian fighters can keep track of them and IRST can do the rest.
Still nothing like to been able to do it all with a single airborne radar but it would probably work.
Real nasty for F-22 would probably begin when others would have stealth or also low observability fighters + all of the above.

[picanha the second]

How many seconds does it take for the mechanical radar of the EF to complete a sweep?

If any more than 5 seconds then the F-22 pilot has time to open doors, launch missile, and close the door before the radar sweeps his sector of the sky.

I obviously don't know the exact time, but it will be a lot under 5sec. The CAPTOR-M can do very fast scans proven by the fact that it is capable of interleaving different radar modes, normally only possible with phased array radars. It also has been substantially enhanced with new hardware. Data Adaptive Scanning even allows it to search and track far away separated targets.

[eATS]

[GigantorX]

Can we have some context for this photo?

[Laworkerbee]

I want my money back God damn it!

[PMI]

Can we have some context for this photo?

It looks like a photo from the exercises in Dubai that has been zoomed & cropped. An exercise I might add in which the French crowed about the Rafale's domination of the Typhoon...but weren't nearly so enthusiastic about it's abilities against the Raptor.

The dark bump on the bottom of the fuselage is the Luneberg Lense/RCS enhancer.

[timetraveller]

This just sounds like the F-4 Phantom fiasco in the 1960's all over again...............that turned out well they are still in front line service the world over.

When the phantom first came into service they never had a gun .. gun only came avail in a later version ..

[Ought Six]

F-22 are superior but not invisible or invincible, this kind of thinking costs lives.

Do you seriously believe that F-22 pilots or USAF tacticians are engaging in "this kind of thinking"?