Did this actually happen or is it just propaganda nonsense?

[marcos]

 

[ogata321]

I heard that russian pilots have offered a friendly dogfight with F-22's and Su-35's but the americans rejected, so about that Pacific vision i can't confirm. But yes, super hornets and f-35's don't have TVC so it is normal for them to find it hard in a dogfight with Su-35's and 30's (depends on what model of the 30 it is, lots of them :D). I'd call the Su-27's even with the hornets.

[HiJack]

No one will know the scores before something hits.

[EtherealN]

And of course, you don't judge overall performance based on WVR in artificial competitions.

 

Did the 22's and 35's wear nutsacks? (Most likely they did, meaning that their main advantage simply wasn't there.)

 

What were the ROE's for the exercise? Depending on what is being tested, it might not have been a "realistic" engagement. (Compare to other training campaigns where numbers went one way or the other in gunzo-fights... ahem?)

 

And of course, they quoted Carlo Kopp, so they lost a tonne of credibility pretty soon there. :P

[aaron886]

Here's the bottom line... if "Dr." Carlo Kopp is involved, the article is going to be biased garbage based on poor, impractical comparisons.

[wilky510]

I heard that russian pilots have offered a friendly dogfight with F-22's and Su-35's but the americans rejected, so about that Pacific vision i can't confirm. But yes, super hornets and f-35's don't have TVC so it is normal for them to find it hard in a dogfight with Su-35's and 30's (depends on what model of the 30 it is, lots of them :D). I'd call the Su-27's even with the hornets.

TVC doesn't make an aircraft the WVR king. I'm also glad to know you have alot of insight on an classified aircraft (F-35) and somehow know it'll struggle in a dogfight.. Oh right, because the wing loading is high on the aircraft so armchair generals assume it can't turn.

 

I'm also positive it was a pilot who challenged to fight any aircraft in a dogfight, and it was with the Su-37 prototype.

 

 

Plus, if that youtube page is that one Russian girl, (i'm not even gonna bother to click) she is the biggest propagandist on youtube i've seen in a while.

[marcos]

It strikes me that the F-35 has proper hover and thrust reverse capability, so it could be a very difficult customer in a VR or BVR fight. Just supposition though. I know Argentinian Mirage IIIs and Daggers did not do well against Harriers.

Edited August 31, 2012 by marcos

[Agg]

I heard that russian pilots have offered a friendly dogfight with F-22's and Su-35's but the americans rejected, so about that Pacific vision i can't confirm. But yes, super hornets and f-35's don't have TVC so it is normal for them to find it hard in a dogfight with Su-35's and 30's (depends on what model of the 30 it is, lots of them). I'd call the Su-27's even with the hornets.

I dont know if this is true for the Flankers as well, but during Red Flag Alaska the German Typhoon pilots found the F-22s TVC capabilities to be pretty much useless in a dogfight. Using the TVC would cause the F-22 to spend all it's energy, and become slow and an easy prey for the Typhoons.

[Kuky]

Well F-22 loosing too much energy because of using TVC is not an issue with Russian birds with TVC, they are still very agile in dogfight like this and I am sure in close combat 1 for 1 latest Russian TVC fighters do have manouverability advantage.

[wilky510]

Well F-22 loosing too much energy because of using TVC is not an issue with Russian birds with TVC, they are still very agile in dogfight like this and I am sure in close combat 1 for 1 latest Russian TVC fighters do have manouverability advantage.

What makes a F-22 lose too much energy with TVC that a Su-27 class aircraft doesn't? I read somewhere that Indian MKI's were having the same problems as the F-22 did vs the Typhoons. They were bleeding too much energy in WVR vs F-15's in an exercise.

 

edit: found something about this 'pacific vision', apparently this was released after a rumor was started: http://www.rand.org/news/press/2008/09/25.html

Edited August 31, 2012 by wilky510

[Kuky]

I didn't say Russian aircraft don't lose their energy, I said it's not an issue for them when they do because they still have excelent control in pretty much eny state they find themselves in.

[Pilotasso]

I dont know if this is true for the Flankers as well, but during Red Flag Alaska the German Typhoon pilots found the F-22s TVC capabilities to be pretty much useless in a dogfight. Using the TVC would cause the F-22 to spend all it's energy, and become slow and an easy prey for the Typhoons.

 

TVC bleeds alot of energy, if there isnt a successfull shot right after using it, the plane is rendered vulnerable.

 

Also dont forget while TVC is famous for dogfighting, in the case of the F-22 its there for providing manuever authority for high speeds and high altitudes where other planes can only go in straight lines.

Edited August 31, 2012 by Pilotasso

[marcos]

What makes a F-22 lose too much energy with TVC that a Su-27 class aircraft doesn't? I read somewhere that Indian MKI's were having the same problems as the F-22 did vs the Typhoons. They were bleeding too much energy in WVR vs F-15's in an exercise.

 

edit: found something about this 'pacific vision', apparently this was released after a rumor was started: http://www.rand.org/news/press/2008/09/25.html

So all horseshit then.:lol:

[marcos]

TVC bleeds alot of energy, if there isnt a successfull shot right after using it, the plane is rendered vulnerable.

 

Also dont forget while TVC is famous for dogfighting, in the case of the F-22 its there for providing manuever authority for high speeds and high altitudes where other planes can only go in straight lines.

Surely it will still lose energy while turning though but I guess bleeding the energy quicker allows a tighter immediate turn radius.

[Kuky]

Look, conventional ways of controlling aircraft is only by using airflow over wing surfaces, the problem with this is that when you lose that airflow by either getting turbulent airflow over wings due too high AoA, or simply loosing speed (no speed no airflow) you lose control over aircraft... this is where TVC kicks in and gives that control to continue to move the nose where you want it (law of force action/reacton ;))

 

So TVC is not meant for high speed manouvering, it's for slow speed... and why F-22 is not as good as Su-30MKI is because it has control in vertical plane only and it can therefore only turn noce up/down when slow, while Su-30MKI (or MiG-35) can do it in any plane and that is good advantage. Also the better TTW ratio the more control you have with TVC.

Edited August 31, 2012 by Kuky

[Snoopy]

Also, the F-22's primary mission is to kill it's enemy LONG before you get into a close/dogfight engagement with the enemy every knowing it's their...

[Kuky]

Any fighter mission is to kill the enemy fighter, how they aim to do this is another story, F-22's streangths are stealth and it has to use standoff tactics because if it does come to CAC Su-30 will get the kill in most cases, and this will happen eventually as the moment you get large numbers of aircraft's on both sides it gets messy and things do end up in CAC. So the question is how many expensive F-22's can US afford to lose for how many enemy fighters it needs to kill to be worth the price... if enemy can provide large number of much cheaper aircraft some of those will get close and some F-22's will get lost and nothing you can do about it.

Edited August 31, 2012 by Kuky

[wilky510]

So all horseshit then.:lol:

Most likely. Australia as a country does not like the F-35 and the whole JSF program. But top brass in their military chose it over other aircraft.

 

So anything in the press about the F-35 is gonna be blown way out of proportion.

 

Any fighter mission is to kill the enemy fighter, how they aim to do this is another story, F-22's streangths are stealth and it has to use standoff tactics because if it does come to CAC Su-30 will get the kill in most cases, and this will happen eventually as the moment you get large numbers of aircraft's on both sides it gets messy and things do end up in CAC. So the question is how many expensive F-22's can US afford to lose for how many enemy fighters it needs to kill to be worth the price... if enemy can provide large number of much cheaper aircraft some of those will get close and some F-22's will get lost and nothing you can do about it.

I agree Su-30's and other Su-27 families are more maneuverable than most teen series aircraft. But you gotta remember, F-22's weakness isn't all in WVR, it's just ALOT easier to kill there. The YF-22 was chosen over the YF-23 even though the YF-23 was WAY more stealthier simply because it had better maneuverability. They learned their lessons in Vietnam and i feel they did the right choice, even though i think i'm more of an YF-23 fan and kinda hate that the YF-22 was picked over it :cry:.

 

 

Edit: I feel the biggest weakness of the F-22 is a lack of a IRST. In the near future when the PAK-Fa is fielded and has actual numbers; and stealth vs stealth aircraft is actually viable. I feel an IRST will become a huge role in BVR combat. It's kinda sad the F-22 had the Advanced IRST cut from it's budget. It's still on the board for later blocks, but i highly doub't they'll choose it.

Edited August 31, 2012 by wilky510

[Echo38]

A'ight, I'll agree that the USAF likes to spout propaganda which doesn't match the facts, and over-states its own stuff, but that video in the O.P. was absolute horse doody. Calling it "useless" based on so little? Enormous agenda going on there--not sure what it is, and CBA to find out, but it's more than enough to entirely discredit the source for jumping to huge conclusions from a non-representative sample.

[marcos]

Look, conventional ways of controlling aircraft is only by using airflow over wing surfaces, the problem with this is that when you lose that airflow by either getting turbulent airflow over wings due too high AoA, or simply loosing speed (no speed no airflow) you lose control over aircraft... this is where TVC kicks in and gives that control to continue to move the nose where you want it (law of force action/reacton ;))

 

So TVC is not meant for high speed manouvering, it's for slow speed... and why F-22 is not as good as Su-30MKI is because it has control in vertical plane only and it can therefore only turn noce up/down when slow, while Su-30MKI (or MiG-35) can do it in any plane and that is good advantage. Also the better TTW ratio the more control you have with TVC.

Wasn't aware the F-22 had an inferior TTW ratio relative to those aircraft. I thought only the Su-35/37 had a higher TTW based on currently available information.

[Echo38]

Err, someone un-condense those acronyms, please? I'm guessing TVC is thrust vectoring control, but what's TTW?

[Kuky]

Thrust To Weight

[marcos]

Edit: I feel the biggest weakness of the F-22 is a lack of a IRST. In the near future when the PAK-Fa is fielded and has actual numbers; and stealth vs stealth aircraft is actually viable. I feel an IRST will become a huge role in BVR combat. It's kinda sad the F-22 had the Advanced IRST cut from it's budget. It's still on the board for later blocks, but i highly doub't they'll choose it.

 

They learned their lessons in Vietnam and i feel they did the right choice, even though i think i'm more of an YF-23 fan and kinda hate that the YF-22 was picked over it :cry:.

Going to disagree with that. The F-22 was likely chosen over the YF-23 because it had a larger weapons bay capacity allowing it to multirole in interdiction as well as air superiority. If the cold war hadn't ended and various economic factors hadn't presented, and they'd stuck with the original brief of an out-and-out air superiority fighter and a second competition for a fighter bomber (see FB-22, FB-23, B1-R and X-44), then the YF-23 would be the plane currently in the air.

 

The wing loading of the YF-23 was 54lb/ft^2 vs 77lb/ft^2 for the F-22 and the YF's TTW was obscene (around 1.36). It was faster, had a lower RCS and had a larger combat radius. Very unlikely that an F-22 would have out-manoeuvred it even with TV and it would never have held the YF in a climb or high speed turn at any rate.

 

Also, the Red Baron Study of air-to-air combat in Vietnam actually showed that most aircraft were killed by other aircraft they hadn't seen, not by a lack of manoeuvrability, so choosing the less stealthy aircraft was counter to those studies.

Edited August 31, 2012 by marcos

[Pilotasso]

Look, conventional ways of controlling aircraft is only by using airflow over wing surfaces, the problem with this is that when you lose that airflow by either getting turbulent airflow over wings due too high AoA, or simply loosing speed (no speed no airflow) you lose control over aircraft... this is where TVC kicks in and gives that control to continue to move the nose where you want it (law of force action/reacton ;))

 

So TVC is not meant for high speed manouvering, it's for slow speed... and why F-22 is not as good as Su-30MKI is because it has control in vertical plane only and it can therefore only turn noce up/down when slow, while Su-30MKI (or MiG-35) can do it in any plane and that is good advantage. Also the better TTW ratio the more control you have with TVC.

 

Your very quick in your dissmissal but the concept of supermenuverability goes as follows:

 

"Supermaneuverability is important in combat aviation, a aircraft is supermaneuverable when it is able to exceed the design limits of pure aerodynamic maneuverability"

 

Period.

 

It doesnt always have to be down low and slow where the boudary layer is divergent. At high altitudes and high speeds aerodynamic control surfaces are largely useless. Guess what... ;)

Edited August 31, 2012 by Pilotasso

[marcos]

It doesnt have to be down low and slow where the boudary layer is divergent. At high altitudes and high speeds aerodynamic surfaces are useless. Guess what... ;)

They're less useful at high altitude but more useful at high speeds surely, unless they're frozen???