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

a reply to: Zaphod58

Haha, I got it......

a reply to: Zaphod58
Here's another possibility.

The Tomahawk Block IV is capable of BDAs and has data link capability.....

a reply to: Zaphod58

Apologies for the slow response to this point you raised..."The Raptor is ALWAYS going to be outnumbered" it was about energy loss and the resulting exposure in 1v2+.

Considering how few raptors there are, I'm thinking if the Raptor is that outnumbered that even BVR cannot reduce down to 1v1 or lower, then why risk it? Why not just repeat the BVR sorties until attrition evens it out?

I'd go as far as guess that it would actually be a rare occurrence rather than 'always'.

Need to get in somewhere fast then externals with the extra ordinance BVR then clean WVR.

Am I missing something here?...again...

a reply to: nwtrucker

In 1991, when the coalition attacked Iraq they flew missions with multiple routes in and out. Which a battle of attrition works for.

When the UNFOR went into Yugoslavia, almost all the strike and fighter missions launched and recovered in either Germany or Italy. Essentially one way in, one way out. This, and a damn smart commander led to an F-117 being downed.

Fast forward to a random battle in the future. For various reasons the allied forces, including the Raptors, are limited to a few fixed routes in and out.

A smart commander is going to plant a force of his best fighters and pilots in a radar shadow under these routes.

Now you've got outnumbered F-22s in a fight to stay alive, in close. Suddenly that energy bleed is the most important thing in their world.

a reply to: Zaphod58

OK. Assuming we're dumb enough to let a UN run our show...hmm, strike that, we're dumb enough to do it without help.

a reply to: nwtrucker

The F-117 that was shot down during Yugoslavia was on the same route at about the same time for the fourth night in a row.

During Vietnam they took off at the same time, using the same call sign and flying the same course night after night.

Pre-Vietnam: There's no need for a gun, dogfights are done, missiles are the future.
Vietnam: Politicians picking targets, highly restrictive rules for targeting, routine routes and call signs.

Yugoslavia: Same routes multiple nights.

Afghanistan: Higher approval needed for fire support with highly restrictive rules.

2014: Dogfighting is done, BVR is the future.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Hmmm. Call me crazy but I think there is a pattern there.

a reply to: Zaphod58

OK. The only out left I can see-other than the Advent Engines- is, for now, we have more 22s than any potential opposition has of their platforms. By the time their numbers are competitive, we will have the 35s in play and the strike packages come into the picture.

Can the 35, at least on a numerical basis, assist?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Zaphod58

By the way, the US hasn't "won" a war since WWII.

When people use a phrase like that it really dis-credits and dis-honors the people deployed to the actual combat zone vs the incompetent leaders at the top. War isn't something that has victors, just survivors.

a reply to: Zaphod58

It raises another question...well, two actually.

First, the energy loss/regenerated is based on clean EFs and clean Raptors. Obviously, the EFs, et al wouldn't be clean in a combat scenario. So...How much, if any, difference does dirty vs clean configurations make in MRTs, etc?

Second, what about low level speed? (leaving out the cost factor of the Raptor) This dove-tails with clean configurations somewhat, but with the thrust ratio from the 119s, I bet there isn't anything faster on the deck either.( Sorry, Brits) The bottom line question is can the 22 attain mach speeds on the deck without burners/ or maintain plus mach pulling back to 'supercruise'?

originally posted by: StratosFear

By the way, the US hasn't "won" a war since WWII.

When people use a phrase like that it really dis-credits and dis-honors the people deployed to the actual combat zone vs the incompetent leaders at the top. War isn't something that has victors, just survivors.

War is dishonorable

.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Any kind of drag is going to make a difference in acceleration and maneuvering. The more drag the slower the accleration. Raw power can overcome that somewhat, but then you get into higher fuel consumption and less time on station.

It takes more power and fuel to go supersonic on the deck, and a clean configuration is better at any altitude. Any fighter can reach supersonic speeds low, it's just a matter of fuel and drag.

a reply to: intrptr

Losing is more dishonorable.....

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: intrptr

Losing is more dishonorable.....

Even if you win, you lose.

I've always noted that those who babble about honor use that as a fallback to explain why they lost. Me I'd rather survive then worry about subjective things like Honor.

BTW I'm using that in the manner of "you have no honor!" type of retorts. Not talking about the type of honor one bestows on someone else to honor someone for what they have done. there is a distinction. You never dishonor those who bent over backward to help you including sacrificing their lives or health.


But the whole "you fought dishonorably!" thing I don't subscribe to. Fighting is fighting. If the guy has a knife and I have a gun I'm going to still shoot them if it's a war.