How to defeat the F-22 with a Typhoon

[VAOZoky]

Who told you I even bought it, let alone read it?

 

I didn't said that you bought it or read it, but i said that you have read the post in which inserts from the book are mentioned. That's why my original question about you forgetting discussion on simhq forum about stealth. Next time don't call someone liar just because you have problems with memory :music_whistling:

[GGTharos]

I see, you couldn't have just quoted the post directly, instead you wanted others to play dentist and pull teeth, right? :D

 

Do you recall what else this post said?

[GGTharos]

So, here it is, courtesy of Vympel:

 

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3594642/Re_SAM_Simulator.html#Post3594642

 

Saturday, 27.03.1999.

 

There are no close targets in the air. There are plenty at long ranges, and different azimuths. Major Stoimenov gets up so I can sit, hands me headphones for communication with brigade command, and moves behind FCO. Rest of the men are at their places. My men. When Dani leaves in just a moment, I will sit at the place of launch handler*. By habit, Dani and I exchange information about latest events in the unit. In short I tell him what I did that afternoon, and he tells me, still napping, what he did. Radiation imitator is still not connected and ready ti work. Suddenly on the screen of observation radar, on azimuth 195 i spot a target at the range of 23km. Next sweep on the radar screen clearly shows that the plane is approaching us. I say: "Dani, this one is coming at us!" Dani opened his eyes, looked at the screen and uninterestedly followed the situation. Reflection was closing. Plane was at 14-15km, when Dani ordered: "Azimuth 210, search!" As assistant launch handler, at that moment I ordered: "Antena!" Battery commander started guiding tracking officers to the target - left, left:stop!, right, up, up:stop! - antena. He turned on radiation of the SNR. At that moment begins the game of cat and mouse. Who will be faster and more skillful. FCO, while turning three wheels at the same time, tries to acquire the target. SNR is on for more then 10s, and unsuccessfully searching the target. I order: "Stop searching - equivalent!" After several moments, Dani again orders new azimuth 230, and I moment of radiation. Adrenalin can be felt in the air. This time FCO manages to see the target on his two screens, but cant align it with horizontal and vertical markers. Wheels are clicking - he has to push them away from himself, align the target in intersection of these two markers. At the moment the target is in intersection of the markers, manual tracking operators can start tracking it in f1 and f2 planes. Then conditions for FCO to track the target in range and manual tracking operators to guide the missiles to the target in the crosshairs. Target is running and maneuvering. Again, radiation time is too long and I again order: "Stop searching - equivalent!" After a few seconds we try again, third time at azimuth 240. Very quickly, after a few seconds FCO finds the target and reports that the target is maneuvering. FCO wheels are clicking, operators are loosing it. Time of radiation is again too long and just as I was about to order: "Stop searching - equivalent!", tracking operator Dragan Matic yells: "Come on! Come on! I have him!" Frantically turning his wheel, he tried to get the reflection of the target to the middle of the screen. He made it. Tracking officers managed to align the target with the crosshairs, and met the conditions for the launch of the missiles. Second tracking officer Dejan Tiosavljevic reports that the target is of a large radar cross section. At that time I say to Dani: "Be sure that it is not a decoy." I think of war experiences in Iraq when the allied forces mounted corner reflectors on UAV-s and increased their radar cross section. Iraqis thought it is a real plane and started to radiate with their SNR. At that moment fighters in the air caught the locations of SNRs, and then from hiding on the side eliminated Rocket unit with ARMs. FCO Muminovic reports - SNR tracking the target, target approaching, range 13 kilometers. At the same time operators report - on f1 tracking target, on f2 tracking target. Dani commands: "Destroy target, method t/t, launch!" FCO Senad Muminovic presses the button to launch the rockets. Loud explosion. Booster motor of the first rocket screams. Rocket guidance station** rocks. First rocket starts, and after 5s the second one. FCO reports: "First launched, first acquired (tracking operators start guiding the missile towards the target), Second launched, second not acquired (unable to guide the second missile). Range 13 kilometers." Operators in f1 and f2 are tracking. I get up and watch the last kilometers of the rocket flight on FCO screen. At the point of collision a light flash on the screens is visible. Target destroyed. Time of destruction at 20.42. We found the plane at 6km altitude. Plane maneuver to avoid the missile and is hit at about 8-10 kilometers altitude. FCO did not readout other parameters, all happened in a few seconds. Entire process lasted about 23 seconds.

After that panic in the air - nowhere not even one target. At the command headquarters of 250. missile brigade Major Janko Aleksic, from the technical department. At his request I dictate the composition of the team that shot down the plane. Dani commanded only guidance method, and now I cover him and as per regulations I report way of the launch***, expended rockets, activation method of warhead, basic parameters of the target. "Great work, legends!" slipped from Major Aleksic.

Edited August 1, 2012 by GGTharos

[VAOZoky]

I see, you couldn't have just quoted the post directly, instead you wanted others to play dentist and pull teeth, right? :D

 

Do you recall what else this post said?

 

That's pretty much it concerning effectiveness of stealth against lowtech PVO

[GGTharos]

Looks like my memory regarding what I actually did read was spot on.

[VAOZoky]

Looks like my memory regarding what I actually did read was spot on.

 

Only after I insisted that you have read it :lol: and 2 hours searching at samsim forum :megalol:

[GGTharos]

I searched for about 2 mins actually, you just have to put in the right parameters. Other than posting to you, I've been working. I don't have time for long searches.

[shu77]

I tell ya I feel kind of bad for mentioning it now. I thought the Article gave some interesting insights into how to minimise the force multiplier affect of an aircraft that has been described to date as far superior to its competitors. The conversation kind of devolved into something else though :(

[GGTharos]

It didn't provide any insight. Force multipliers are generally in the BVR arena, if we assume 'all is equal' WVR. The F-22 has some short-comings up close, mostly relating to missile capability and HMS. Missiles were NOT used in these fights at all AFAIK. Dogfights are crap-shoots, and the very nature of dogfighting is changing anyway. With that general idea in mind, it may help you filter future articles in general.

 

All they did was present you with a series of 1v1's where you have two aircraft that are capable, two pilots that are capable (two per engagement anyway), and the results were nowhere near surprising.

 

Perhaps something else you might take from this is that the twice-the-mass and larger Raptor came out even in BFM with the EF.

[Vekkinho]

Looks like you have very short memory:

 

 

This is interview with members of unit that shot down F117. It was posted multiple times on samsim forum together with document on serbian that represent war journal from that night.

Short story: At first they thought its some malfunction (they had some troubles previously) and run diagnostics. After that on azimuth 195 they sighted 3 targets. At d=20km they radiated 10s and failed to locked target due to high angular velocity. At d=13km azimuth 180 they tried again but failed. Third try at d=13km azimuth 180 (he was now running away) they managed to lock target and fire 2 missiles. First miss but second hit target. Target was hit at d=14km. All in all less then 21s of total radiation. 30min later complete missile battery relocated to new position. Don't forget that this was done with even then obsolete s125 neva pvo!

 

...and they live today arguing on who's to take the credit...

[mikoyan]

My opinion is the following:

The raptor is not the invincible; any airplane on a dogfight can be defeated; you call it flanker; eurofighter or raptor. Once you get to the visual range engagement anything can happen; It becomes a game of who can use what they got best than the other.

Having the best airplane does not awards you victory. What if you loose sight of the enemy? no matter how advance your raptor is; you are toasted if you loose visual; even with the great array of sensors on the raptor.

 

 

The eurofighter is a good airplane but it is not in the same level of performance of the raptor; but it is close enough to be a big treat to it. In other words any 4th generation fighter could be deathly agains the raptor; specially with missiles like python; r-73s and sidewinders. The raptor game is to go higher; faster; launch its missiles first; undetected or at least without getting locked. The raptor might be optimized to fight in those conditions; once the fight turns into a merge; the raptor advantages diminish. Sure it has better engine power; but it doesn’t have helmet mounted sights; so it needs to point its nose towards the enemy; and that takes time. Sure it has lots of wing area; but the eurofighter is has a big delta wing.

 

TVC? Cool the raptor has it; giving it better instantaneous and sustained turn rates; but it could play agains you if you get too slow; specially against a fighter that has good acceleration like the eurofighter.

 

Now lets look at the raptor situation.

Its development took lots of time. There are 4th generation jets that have more advanced and modern instrumentation than the raptor. Look for example the f-16 offered to india; or to not going too far the f-35. I don’t think that the raptor has that type of technology on it; specially because it is a 90s airplane.

 

Add to the problem that it is so expensive that it has not been upgraded like it should have. No helmet mounted sights; no AIM-9X. Even the upgraded radars on the f-15c’s have better detection range than the f-22 radars.

 

The raptors is the first stealth fighter; and because of that is the pioneer; being the pioneer also brings problems; lets not forget the history of the Comet. It was the first; but ended up facing unforeseen troubles; and that is what is happening to the raptor right now. It can’t fight as high as it was designed for because of oxygen problems; pilots have less hours on it, there are few raptors etc.

[mvsgas]

No. How dare you inject facts into this argument! :D

 

:megalol: I want to be like you when I grow up

[mvsgas]

I tell ya I feel kind of bad for mentioning it now. I thought the Article gave some interesting insights into how to minimise the force multiplier affect of an aircraft that has been described to date as far superior to its competitors. The conversation kind of devolved into something else though :(

 

No insight. Any time you post anything about item "A" and compare it to be item "B" is always devolve to the same thing. Search the forums, this argument ( same one) has gone on for years. The same topics always surface. In the end, people just measuring "sticks".

 

But, that seem to be the purpose of Forums in general.

[mvsgas]

Without doing a forums search, and if I remember correctly, we had threads in the past about

Harrier beating the F-15

F-16 over the 15

18 over the 15

16 over Typhoon

14 over 15

15/16/18 over 22

F-5 over 16

AA-12 over 120

9X over 73

Mig-29 versus anything

SU-27 ( in all it forms) over anything

and so on and so on

 

Most times, the one F-117 shot down comes up, because that is the definitive prove stealth is all smoke and mirrors and the reason no country wants it... Right, no other country is looking for stealth?

 

Thrust vectoring and maneuverability are new contender for most mention

[Cali]

Mvsgas, there is always going to be a debate about something.

[Vekkinho]

Well trained MiG-21 pilots used to beat MiG-29 pilots during mock up dogfight in 1988 in ex Yugoslav AF. the thing was that MiG-21 pilots explored it to it's limits while MiG-29 pilots were stil getting used to a new aircraft.

 

Tiffy vs Raptor in turn fights with Raptor limited to maneuvers up to 6 G is a no problem for a Tiffy...In fact even MiG-21 can have Raptor for lunch in such conditions.

 

Thing is Raptor is a steath aircraft when your eyes and sensors can't see it. When it comes close it's an aircraft just like any other. With pending 6G limit it's as deadly as an old F-8 Crusader...

Edited August 2, 2012 by Vekkinho

[GGTharos]

They're probably not as limited as you think; what I mean by this is that the limitations of altitude and maneuvering may be rescinded for particular purpose.

 

In any case, there have also been experienced f-15 v less esperienced raptor encounters ... 'un-stealthed' numerically inferior raptor force would get beaten by the F-15's but the F-15's would pay for it as well. Once the stealth came on, the F-15's just got blown out of the sky without much of a clue as to what happened to them.

 

As for the MiG-21 ... I don't think you meant to say that. :D More appropriately, it might be a big surprise for people that the big-ass, heavy F-22 would keep up with the little mig in a fight that the mig would traditionally win.

 

But anyway, all that aside - according to some people the F-22 crews were practicing some HOBS missile defense at the merge, which is where the energy loss was coming into play. That's what I heard, anyway.

[mvsgas]

They just need a HMCS/JHMCS/HMIT to full use the AIM-9X

click on image to enlarge

Edited August 8, 2012 by mvsgas

[GGTharos]

Awesome; aren't they supposed to start using the 9X operationally in '13?

 

I see that raptor is wearing its nutsack :D

[mvsgas]

:D you would notice that wouldn't you? I'm not judging, to each his own, I'm not Chick-fil-A :megalol:

[GGTharos]

I don't think they care about these much. :D

 

Interesting, I see the rocket exchaust goes right into the bay. Isn't that bad-ish?

[mvsgas]

No, they have a deflector plate for that. The other AIM-9 did the same. AIM-9 is rail lunch unlike the 120 where you have choice to launch, then ignite the engine or ignite the engine for launch . Only way to fire an AIM-9 ( all version) is to light the rocket.

[marcos]

An interesting thread. Rather than add more BS to the fire I decided to add some maths.

 

The maths is far from pin-point accuracy because most of the data is either generic or from questionable sources but it is ball-park and has some extremely interesting results.

 

The values for k and Cdo and the equation for Cd is taken from pages 182 and 183 of Jet Propulsion by Nicholas Cumpsty.

 

The aircraft masses are taken from wiki (yeah I know) based on the lb figure divided by 2.2 for kg.

 

The wing area is taken from the aircraft mass in kg divided by the wing loading figures for level flight given in wiki.

 

RRA is a concept I had to create based on the fact that I don't know the drag reference area for each aircraft needed in the Drag = 0.5*Cd*A*Density*V^2 equation. I created a value based on:

 

[aircraft mass/reference mass (10000kg)]^(2/3)

 

Assuming aircrafts are equally dense on average, mass will be proportional to volume, which is a cubed dimension, and area is a squared dimension, hence the 2/3 power.

 

From this drag will be proportional to the product of RRA and Cd.

 

The ability to sustain a turn relies on creating enough lift to cause the turn and maintain level flight, whilst also producing enough thrust to equal the drag and maintain speed.

 

Because we cannot calculate the actual drag and only have a figure proportional to drag, I created a reference thrust of 10,000lbf and a value RRT giving the aircraft thrust relative to that reference value. I then worked out a figure proportional to the Thrust/Drag ratio via:

 

k*[RRT/Drag]

 

where k is a proportionality constant.

 

The aim is to provide an idea of the Thrust-to-Drag ratio, looking at the drag caused by sustaining a 9g turn in level flight at sea-level at Mach 1.0.

 

The L/A figure calculated provided the wing-loading whilst performing this turn and provides an idea of the structural stress on the wings for each aircraft.

 

The important figures are double underlined. Interestingly note that the bank angle is exactly the same for each aircraft whilst performing this manoeuvre.

 

Of course the maths is not perfect because some of the thrust will be in the lift direction due to AOA during this turn, meaning less in tangential direction for each aircraft.

 

Enjoy!

 

[GGTharos]

OMG... someone actually did the math! You win the internets! :D

[marcos]

I wasn't smart enough to figure out why the bank angle was the same first time round though. It should've been obvious. It's independent of mass and only depends on how hard you're turning.

 

Lsin(angle)/Lcos(angle) = mg/(mv^2)/r

 

m cancels top and bottom and (v^2)/r is 9g, so tan(angle) = g/9g = 1/9 = 0.111111

 

It did strike me how, the harder you turn, the smaller the portion of the lift vector left to hold the aircraft in the air is.

 

The figures could all be slightly off, so nothing conclusive but it should be obvious that mass, thrust-to-mass, and wing-area-to-mass are massively important factors in manoeurability.

Edited August 14, 2012 by marcos