The Super Hornet guns down the F-22 Raptor

The Navy usually sets a self imposed limit of 7.5 G on it's jets. This does not mean however that they cannot tolerate more (they can, just as much as AF jets). The reason why they do this has to do with the fact that the Navy has much more stringent wear limits on airframe parts. Navy jets endure severe stress from carrier ops so in an effort to reduce cost, safety concerns as well as limit the time "off line" (in repair) they imposed the 7.5G limit. Why have your pilots wear the airframe more by pulling high G ACM's when the jet already goes through enough G's just on landing and take off.

Now, as I said before the aircraft can take more, up to the FBW imposed 9-9.5 G and the pilot can override the 7.5G limit with the push of a button, if he has too.

Furthermore, most aircraft can endure instantaneous G's well above 9.5 and probably even sustained G's into the teens. However the software limits them from doing this because even with a G suite 9-9.5 is the upper tier on how much sustained G pilots can endure. I'm not sure if a plot can override the FBW 9.5G limit (I'm pretty sure he can't) but just know that an F-16's wings won't fall off at 9.6 for example.

[edit on 5-4-2007 by WestPoint23]

I just say that this is a case of an awesome pilot getting behind the stick of an awesome plane, and was able to take down a less skilled pilot in an awesome plane.

TheRanchMan

TRM, I don't think it is but you're certainly entitled to your opinion. While no doubt the pilot flying the Super Hornet was skilled he did not observe TR like he should have, which the other pilot did. Not to say anything of the unrealistic parameters themselves...

So correct me if I'm wrong:

The super hornet PILOT is usually unable to push the aircraft past 7.5G due to software, but if a dogfight ensues he can ovveride that and push the aircraft further?

Also, when I was at AC my instructor told me that some of the most skilled and experienced pilots can take the centrifuge up to 12G, can anyone confirm this? I passed out in the thing at a little over half that...

Yes, usually navy aircraft are voluntarily restricted to 7.5G, however the pilot can override the restriction and pull more G if he has too.

Also, the human body can sustain incredible instantaneous G if properly restrained and with the aid of a G suite. However most humans cannot tolerate (even with a G suite) sustained G's above 9-9.5. Some might but it's to risky to make it a standard.



[edit on 5-4-2007 by WestPoint23]

Although simulators are nothing like reallife, they do teach you facts about real life. You guys should really play a Flight Simulator where you can Dogfight, try Lock On for example.

EG:
Be a German Mig-29 and verse a Russian Mig-29, guns only.

After playing that you should know that it is largely dependant on piloting skill to dogfight, not just on who has thrust vectoring.

reply to post by WestPoint23


There's some pretty accurate stuff in these fighter threads....and things that musta sneaked over from Aliens forums. I really enjoy the exchanges tho. Don't let up.

Unless someone has actually been in air-to-air it's really hard to convey the environment and the myriad of factors that go in to an engagement. Just starting with minor differences in scenario, set up and ROE can get busy enuff. When you get to the dynamics of a knife fight, we aren't anywhere near able to model the mental processes involved - too much goin on that happens too fast. But someday, as hard as it is for an old War Horse to say, expect UCAVs to take over the air battle in the future. They will be expensive too. For now, the challenges are in developing a mental model, a decision rule set, that can even approach a trained, rigorously selected human's abilities. Try to put a man in the loop with an array of wide-field telemetered sensors on a UCAV and we still need to solve the challenges of link reliability and security plus the big one - signal latency. If you've ever tried online first-person shooter games over satellite or thru a slow net conn, you already know about this.

Some other points that may contrib:

During ATF Dem/Val, my only hands/brains-on time, we resisted routine pressure to back off the agility/maneuver requirements. Same w/ the gun. The same mentalities that gave us the F-4s' weapons suite were alive, well and vocal. We never lost sight of the damage to US/Free World forces, security and warfighters if a MiG-21 class fighter could pop up out of the weeds and put BB's in our shiney new, world almost-beater jet. We retained that possib in all of our threat and tactics discussions, ATF Standard Threat Assessment Report development, effectiveness study guidance to the Contractors and systems trade-study sims.To dominate the air combat arena, you have to be able kill from as far away as feasible and carry the fight all the way down to knives. Now, with that said, it doesn't mean some guy, whether thru luck, skill, good-guy goof or evil treachery, might not get a piece of you some time. The only thing you can do is minimize that possibility to the greatest extent possible. Seems like our brothers and sisters that carried the torch thru FSD and to IOC did a pretty fair job of it.

So you know, ATF was run against a wide variety of potential opponents including Super Eagles and Falcons with ATF motors and as much signature reduction as they could take notionally advanced MiG-29s and SU-27's plus what we called ASF, Advanced Soviet Fighter. The ASF was especially nasty to deal with cuz we didn't know which attributes the (then) Soviets would emphasize and be able to build - so we had to give it pretty much all of them. In hind sight, we'd have probably been more accurate to give them good instantaneous and sustained maneuvering, excellent power and weapons, but not quite as much sensor and VLO performance.

With F-22 EID capability, there won't be as many scenarios requiring gun or 'Winder battles as before, but they'll still happen so the jet needs to be able to deal w/ folks in close. By the way, saying F-22 has "good" EID capability is like Custer at Little Bighorn saying, "Hey, these Natives are rather unfriendly around here."

Derivative US sky fighters - F-15 w/ ATF motors and avionics, reduced signature, Tomcat 21 could supercruise a little once burnered thru the mach & did okay against current gen threats and their projected derivatives. Didn't hang in w/ next-gen air threats or surface weapons very well at all w/o augmentation. Super Falcons didn't carry the fuel, sensors or weapon load to be very serious. Super Hornet w/ only uprated motors didn't have the LO or perf numbers to even put in the game. E/F prevailed on politics w/ fudged cost projections, but is still a darn good jet for today, ...

contin:

reply to post by WestPoint23


S'more stuff...


...(Hornet E/F)... essentially a little Strike Eagle for boats. That's not a bad thing - altho sadly far short of what the Navy could have had on flight decks if there'd been fewer agendas and s'more intellectual honesty around NavAir and Op-05 in the late '80s and early '90s.

Advanced fighters CAN fall to low-life primitive airplanes. Training and skill can make up for a lot of technology. MiG-17s were absolutely miserable to fight with F-4s in a VID required ROE. Me-262 died by Mustangs when they slowed down. No doubt F-86 drivers smarted after slowing down to 'rassle' with a Bearcat,

All RDF Red Flag Eagles were put on the ground, by tail number, the first week of the "war" by some clunky old Navy F-4s - gray ones with smokeless engines, slats, PD radars and very motivated, air-to-air trained crews. The second week, with Eagle Eyes and new respect in the robin-egg blue helmets, was just the opposite. No F-15s had a finger laid on them. Third week was more of a fight with tactics like Post Holes, Rope-a-Dopes, Beam & Drags 'n such. New jets still put more points on the board. For years, stripped down A-4s routinely would beat up on Teen series jets all of em. More correctly, carefully selected, fleet experienced, TopGun graduates (except for one that slipped into the Bandit program - no questions please, I'm sensitive) beat up on some of a mixed bag of squadron guys. OTOH, a most miserable experience was once trying to give a credible Bogey presentation to a couple of F-14 IPs w/ student Rear Observers in a canned set-up 2v1. Two Cats, one badly mauled Air Mouse, just as it should have been.

Please don't be afraid to be proud of Raptor performance even if you live out of the US. While all the contractors were all officially and legally US companies, technology fed from all over the world. Whomever you are, you probably have some National "finger prints" on or in the jet. It is a balanced design with an impressively wide envelope and some limitations, such as top speed, that were traded away for dollars and other more useful attributes.

The difference with a Raptor in the air arena is the SIZE of this generation jump. It's MUCH bigger than any in the past. Imagine something almost like a Mustang with a good radar back in WWI that could turn and burn slow with everybody - and better than most. It's almost that bad...er...good.

To stir the pot a little, you (plural, the "Spirited Forum Group") might have a little more discussion fodder if you split the scenarios into Visual, Known Bandit fights and Few v Unknown engagements as well as BVR and WVR. You work them differently and require a dif sets of attributes in the fighter as well as driver.

Keep the fur flyin'!

W^2

reply to post by Stealth Spy


the f-22 has been recorded to have beating 6 f-15s without being noticed the airforce has missions where the f-22 can no lock with missisle as must take on 4 or 5 jets with guns only

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
the airforce has missions where the f-22 can no lock with missisle as must take on 4 or 5 jets with guns only

Care to back that up? I've never heard of a required method of attack of guns only on 4-5 other aircraft for the 22. Any links, where did you hear this etc. Or can anyone else verify this.

reply to post by Canada_EH


I wouldn't even bother asking for links because it just didn't happen.

reply to post by Stealth Spy


I would blame it on pilot error and not the F-22.
Or hey a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while!

still better than the raf our last a2a kill was in spitfires

reply to post by Luke.S


Er, it didn't REALLY shoot it down. I think you'll find that the RAF has also had A2A kills on excercise since WW2.

Besides, you are wrong. Our last 'real' A2A kill by an RAF plane was when an RAF Phantom shot down an RAF Jaguar with a live missile in the 1980's.

The Jag pilot got out ok as the Phantom jock screamed at him to eject when he realised what he'd done

Bit fun this tread..

As I stated almost since before we saw the capabilities of the test plane SU-35, when it summervaulted in the french air show.

I suspect the US actually have NO plane capable for real close gun-on-gun fight against russians comming planes.

US need to lay a heavy amount on stand-off weapons, capable of firing from beyond visual range.

That means that they need to rely heavy on missile technology, like modefied AMRAM and Sidewinder missiles.

I have always said that Norway, should instead of getting the JSF, should get the latest russian planes, then convert them to western technology.

Imagine a SU-35no - stand off capabilities with a improved russian radar, combined with the deadly accuracy of modefied AMRAAM missiles.
and at close range, outmanuvering everything in the sky.

a sweet thought anyway

reply to post by deltaboy


That's exactly what I thought when I saw this picture -- why is the F-22 travelling perpindicular with the its entire upper surface visible to the F-18? If this were an actual dogfight, we would be looking at the F-22 from behind. Now if the F-22 was in a turn the F-18 would have to lead the target -- point the gun ahaed of the F-22's nose because of the time it takes for the bullet to reach the target, but even then you would be seeing the F-22 mostly from behind, which brings me to the most obvious reason as to why This Picture Does NOT Show A Kill. Because the F-22 is a moving target! If this were a real gun kill, the pipper would have to be in front of the F-22, and the farther away, the more in front.

I would love to hear the person who posted this picture try and refute this agruement. If he can, please email me at [email protected]

I do not believe this picture to show a kill. There are a few things wrong with it. Why is the F-22 travelling perpindicular with the its entire upper surface visible to the F-18? If this were an actual dogfight, we would be looking at the F-22 from behind. Now if the F-22 was in a turn the F-18 would have to lead the target -- point the gun ahaed of the F-22's nose because of the time it takes for the bullet to reach the target, but even then you would be seeing the F-22 mostly from behind, which brings me to the most obvious reason as to why this picture does not show a kill. The F-22 is a moving target! If this were a real gun kill, the pipper would have to be in front of the F-22, and the farther away, the more in front.