Greta from Fox chases an F-22 in a two seat F-16!

a reply to: boomer135

The navy has their version of gas stations. Even F-18s that can fuel other F-18s.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Buddy pods give you enough for a couple approaches, or to divert to your shore base, that's it.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Come on, Zaph, I'm playing here with 'what ifs'.

If they landed a C-130 on the Forestall-that guy had a serious pair-and launch B-25s off of WWII carriers, it's not much of a stretch of the envelope to make this connection.

Assuming the same 'can do' attitude is still out there somewhere......

a reply to: mindseye1609

You mean the Practical Interface for Loss Of Tactical Control, or PILOT C model?

a reply to: nwtrucker

It was WORST with the EF. That doesn't mean that it wasn't there with everything else. Just with almost everything else they're able to buy time to build it back up faster that they couldn't with the EF.

She says the F-16 is a dog?????

Whatever!!!! I'm hurt by such silly uneducated comments the F-16 has done a brilliant job in muliroles over the years in multiple airforces (with inferior models from the US version exported)although originally designed as a fighter I believe. I'm sure Zaph will put me right if I'm wrong ,he knows how much I love the Falcon.

I would love to share a few with a brave FalconPilot.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Zaphod58

That 38 was a real event. I was at the Abbotsford int'l Airshow that year visiting with a F-15 driver who was down from Elmendorf for the air show.

He said the 22 has just gunned the 38's wingman and was still experiencing his orgasm. The wingman was above and to the right of the 22, slightly behind. He dropped in on the 22's 6 and gunned him!!

Much trash talk and red faces that day!

Dont matter how good a aircraft you have if your situational awareness isnt there. That guy should had been re assigned to cargo duty after that. lol.

a reply to: nwtrucker

One other fairly minor problem. The F-22 uses a boom refueling system, the Navy uses a probe and drogue refueling system. They'd have to add a conformal pod to the F-22 that would reduce stealthiness to refuel from a buddy pod.

That must have been an awesome experience, although I suspect they didn't rough her up too bad. So for you guys who know more than I do, what would occur in a 1 v 1 close-range dogfight, with pilots who could get the most out of their aircraft, between a Raptor and a Typhoon. It has been my opinion that a pilot engaging a Raptor could, if they precisely knew the limitations caused by thrust vectoring, position themselves advantageously for the kill. Is my belief incorrect?
Another question I have for more knowledgeable individuals is this: how important do you believe the vectoring capability to be? Another question I have is this: how stealthy do you think an F-22 actually is?

a reply to: JiggyPotamus

In an equal engagement, at knife fighting range, it comes down to pilot experience and training in the jet.

Vectoring adds quite a bit to knife fighting. It allows you to point your nose just about anywhere you want to point it, and get shots that a non-vectoring aircraft can't.

Very stealthy. It's no longer the stealthiest thing flying, but it's got an RCS that's a tiny fraction of a legacy aircraft.

a reply to: yuppa

Yep, although all the 38 drivers are IPs, I'd bet. One doesn't screw up against them....

a reply to: Zaphod58

Worst? My friend, there's nothing that can bleed energy to match the Raptor, including the EF. Only another TV could. That would be the SU, unless you've heard something about Cope Taufan you haven't mentioned?.

So logic suggest the Raptor bled more energy than the EF AND a TV opponent might have the same issue as the Raptor? Especially when the SU can't match the Raptor thrust?.....

a reply to: nwtrucker

It depends on a number of factors. The Su family without TV is already scary maneuverable, and manages to maintain energy quite well. It doesn't have the T/W of a Raptor, but it's got a better transonic acceleration than both the Raptor and Hornet. That means it can recover faster from a low energy situation.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Aren't the early, non TV'd SUs also a lot lighter? The 30's are pretty heavy themselves.

I hadn't seen anything on a trans-sonic acceleration comparison. That kind of surprises me.

Still, both China's and Russia's 5th Gen are closer to the Raptor design than an SU. I guess the stealth design has a price.

a reply to: nwtrucker

The Hornet is fairly light, but accelerates slowly, despite a good T/W ratio. It has pretty unimpressive transonic acceleration, interestingly so does the F-35.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: boomer135

The navy has their version of gas stations. Even F-18s that can fuel other F-18s.

Like zaph said kinda hard to buddy refuel an f-22 when it doesn't have a probe

a reply to: boomer135

True. He also said it was a minor problem. Easily solved.

My point being this was possible. Not that it was a likely scenario.

a reply to: Zaphod58

So the bottom line is no one knows why, or at least, the fix isn't easy?

a reply to: nwtrucker

No, that was "fairly minor", as in, "oh crap, now THAT'S a problem".

Sarcasm doesn't translate well to type.

a reply to: JiggyPotamus

Good question. It depends on what weapons. Guns only dogfighting they are pretty even apparently along with the Su-35. But guns only is not very realistic. The gun for air to air is a weapon of last resort and would be used rarely if at all in real life. Close in dogfighting is very dangerous and uncertain. With the latest short range AAMs which are off boresight highly agile all aspect IR getting the nose on target is not as important as in the past. In real life they would have a strong chance of killing each other and luck would play a part as well as pilot skill and experience. And again the latest short range IR AAMs make combat this close extremely dangerous and uncertain. It's a bit hard to know exactly what would happen as every engagement is different and in training they don't actually shoot real live missiles at each other. It would be about 50/50 and the F-22s stealth is negated at close range. That's why the F-22 will try to engage BVR with AMRAAMs and not enter into a close in dogfight. That's why it's called a dogfight or knifefight because it's quick, deadly and uncertain and I think few pilots would want to do it for real.

This article is really interesting. Viewpoint: No Single Answer To Air Combat Questions

people realized just how quickly the combination of the agile R-73 missile and a helmet-mounted sight could decide a fight.

pointed to a complex long-range air battle as a result of better radar and active-radar-homing missiles, with fighters shooting and then “cranking” to avoid return fire.

Now, the F-35 team has declared maneuvering irrelevant because (in their opinion ) a close-range fight is mutual suicide.

aviationweek.com...