US F22 scares off Iranian F4

[Prophet]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/19/us-pilot-scares-iranians-top-gun-worthy-stunt-you-/

 

A bit comical. About what we all would have expected. But, for those who were in doubt, yet it really does kick that much ass. :joystick:

[Vekkinho]

LOL!

 

I believe Iranian F-4 was unarmed 'cause otherwise pull up on her wingtip while making jokes is a bit cheap way to lose a Raptor.

[RIPTIDE]

As I said somewhere else.... 'and then this one time at band camp'

[Alireza.kh]

when and where ?

 

certainly the raptor pilot was in internatinal airspace

[CypherGrunyev]

This... Isn't really news... A Fifth Generation fighter scares off a Third Gen replica from the 60's. So surprising.

[countto10]

Using a fighter to protect a drone is like employing a maid to watch your washing machine.

[RIPTIDE]

Using a fighter to protect a drone is like employing a maid to watch your washing machine.

Not really.

 

Think about it. Having 2x fighters protect 1 drone... is better than 2x fighters protecting an expensive, manned, surveillance aircraft. :thumbup:

 

Sometimes people forget that just because it's a drone doesn't make it completely unworthy of protection.

[countto10]

Not really.

 

Think about it. Having 2x fighters protect 1 drone... is better than 2x fighters protecting an expensive, manned, surveillance aircraft. :thumbup:

 

Sometimes people forget that just because it's a drone doesn't make it completely unworthy of protection.

Or you could fit the fighters with surveillance equipment if they're going to be up there anyway.:lol:

[EtherealN]

Or you could fit the fighters with surveillance equipment if they're going to be up there anyway.:lol:

 

Except dedicated surveillance platforms are typically way better at the surveillance job, because that's what they were made to do. ;)

 

For example, I would imagine that the MQ-1 can loiter way longer than an F-22 can, meaning you get a lot less issues with getting gaps in your surveillance due to running to tankers or having to do handoffs. (Flying a tanker track 16 miles from Iranian airspace is probably not something they want to do.)

 

The escort fighters can standby at a proper range (and, if necessary, in proximity to tanker assets), then respond when AWACS calls in threats.

 

Consider these options:

 

1x MQ-1

2x Fighters

Possibly a tanker and/or AWACS

 

Compared to:

 

2x fighters

Another 2x fighters on rotation (hell, possibly even 4x fighters on rotation, depending on turnaround times)

And then the tanker etcetera.

 

(And just to be sure there is no confusion: doing HVAA escort does not entail flying in "formation" with the HVAA. This is a mistake we see a lot of people do on open online servers, "escorting" friendly strikers through flying their F-15's or Flankers etcetera low and slow next to them...)

Edited September 26, 2013 by EtherealN

[bumfire]

Except dedicated surveillance platforms are typically way better at the surveillance job, because that's what they were made to do. ;)

 

For example, I would imagine that the MQ-1 can loiter way longer than an F-22 can, meaning you get a lot less issues with getting gaps in your surveillance due to running to tankers or having to do handoffs. (Flying a tanker track 16 miles from Iranian airspace is probably not something they want to do.)

 

The escort fighters can standby at a proper range (and, if necessary, in proximity to tanker assets), then respond when AWACS calls in threats.

 

Consider these options:

 

1x MQ-1

2x Fighters

Possibly a tanker and/or AWACS

 

Compared to:

 

2x fighters

Another 2x fighters on rotation (hell, possibly even 4x fighters on rotation, depending on turnaround times)

And then the tanker etcetera.

 

(And just to be sure there is no confusion: doing HVAA escort does not entail flying in "formation" with the HVAA. This is a mistake we see a lot of people do on open online servers, "escorting" friendly strikers through flying their F-15's or Flankers etcetera low and slow next to them...)

 

 

Sssshh, dont tell em, let them continue so its easier for me to shoot em down :music_whistling:

[countto10]

Except dedicated surveillance platforms are typically way better at the surveillance job, because that's what they were made to do. ;)

 

For example, I would imagine that the MQ-1 can loiter way longer than an F-22 can, meaning you get a lot less issues with getting gaps in your surveillance due to running to tankers or having to do handoffs. (Flying a tanker track 16 miles from Iranian airspace is probably not something they want to do.)

 

The escort fighters can standby at a proper range (and, if necessary, in proximity to tanker assets), then respond when AWACS calls in threats.

 

Consider these options:

 

1x MQ-1

2x Fighters

Possibly a tanker and/or AWACS

 

Compared to:

 

2x fighters

Another 2x fighters on rotation (hell, possibly even 4x fighters on rotation, depending on turnaround times)

And then the tanker etcetera.

 

(And just to be sure there is no confusion: doing HVAA escort does not entail flying in "formation" with the HVAA. This is a mistake we see a lot of people do on open online servers, "escorting" friendly strikers through flying their F-15's or Flankers etcetera low and slow next to them...)

Err no.... what you're saying makes nil sense. If the fighters are up there anyway to provide cover then it makes sense for them to do both jobs.

 

Yes the MQ-1 has better endurance but you're putting the fighters up there for cover anyway, so that nullifies the endurance argument.

 

The only way it works is if the F-22s wait on the ground until a threat materialises but that kind of limits surveillance range and you've also brought an AWACS into the equation to provide sufficient notice. Hell! If you have the AWACS up there you may as well fit it with the surveillance equipment and let if call fighters to protect itself.

 

So now the maid is watching the washing machine while the butler is on standby doing the cross-word, in case the maid spots something wrong, and a tea-boy is on-hold with washing powder.

[Prophet]

You didn't bother to read what he wrote. And what do you propose to do, when the fighters need to fight? How do you survey then?

 

Or maybe you are right, and all of our generals don't know what they are doing. You should apply to OCS, show them the error of their ways.

[Groove]

I don't believe that story.

[Rotorhead]

I don't believe that story.

 

To be honest, nor do I. Really, too much Top Gun stuff there for me to believe.

 

I guess someone made the story far more interesting than it actually was.

[Alireza.kh]

To be honest, nor do I. Really, too much Top Gun stuff there for me to believe.

 

I guess someone made the story far more interesting than it actually was.

 

exactly

 

controlling air space is not just radars. when a f-22s take off from dubai or other other places in south of persian gulf there are guys wathcing them even at night.

 

iran revolutionary gaurd corps has vostok radar and with that (i think) they saw RQ-170 watchfully and then pulled it down without being damaged.

 

RQ170 did too much spy operations in iranian territory but CIA was rookie :smilewink:

[TimeKilla]

I don't believe that story.

 

Yup sounds more like propaganda.

[EtherealN]

Yup sounds more like propaganda.

 

Don't spoil it man. I'm still high on imagining the expression on the face of the F4 crew. :D

[RIPTIDE]

Don't spoil it man. I'm still high on imagining the expression on the face of the F4 crew. :D

I'm busy imagining 'Randy' and 'Elijah' down in Air Force Public Relations penning this story.

 

" We need something good Randy... what will we say"

 

" We'll say we scared them real good, cos we need to get leverage on the public and Congress since TIME magazine referred to the F-35 as the 'Most expensive weapon ever built' "

 

:P

[Milli]

Must be embarrassing for the F-22 pilots when they hear crap like this. Cringe worthy stuff.

 

Regards,

Milli

[GGTharos]

No, RG got lucky. They have nothing to 'pull down' that drone with. It malfunctioned, came down, and they found it, then they made up some silly story about how they brought it down.

 

iran revolutionary gaurd corps has vostok radar and with that (i think) they saw RQ-170 watchfully and then pulled it down without being damaged.

 

RQ170 did too much spy operations in iranian territory but CIA was rookie :smilewink:

[TimeKilla]

Don't spoil it man. I'm still high on imagining the expression on the face of the F4 crew. :D

 

:megalol:

[Scrim]

Err no.... what you're saying makes nil sense. If the fighters are up there anyway to provide cover then it makes sense for them to do both jobs.

 

Yes the MQ-1 has better endurance but you're putting the fighters up there for cover anyway, so that nullifies the endurance argument.

 

The only way it works is if the F-22s wait on the ground until a threat materialises but that kind of limits surveillance range and you've also brought an AWACS into the equation to provide sufficient notice. Hell! If you have the AWACS up there you may as well fit it with the surveillance equipment and let if call fighters to protect itself.

 

So now the maid is watching the washing machine while the butler is on standby doing the cross-word, in case the maid spots something wrong, and a tea-boy is on-hold with washing powder.

 

It makes a lot of sense. I mean, for starters, it's very unlikely the F22 had been escorting the drone since it took off. The drone just might have "mistakenly" been looking at things in Iran, where it'd be awfully embarrassing if any manned aircraft got intercepted/shot down/crashed. Then there's the time it might've been up. Having the ability to remotely control a plane means that you can fly it in shifts, allowing it to be airborne much longer than a manned plane could. It's also cheaper to send up a drone for surveillance than it is to send an F22, fuel and maintenance wise. The same goes for the AWACS, plus a few more things. For starters an AWACS isn't really made for surveillance, it's made for coordinating things. It was most likely coordinating much more than just the drone as well, and yet again, the whole "manned thing crashing in Iran vs. drone crashing in Iran" applies here too.

 

Sending the AWACS into Iran would not only mean that you're sending in something manned that is easier to spot and has a lot less time on station, and isn't even built for the job, it also means that it's gonna be rather restricted when it comes to doing it's real job, coordinating things. The list goes on and on for why all of this makes sense, but I don't want to sit around for pretty much an hour at least writing it all up.

[countto10]

You didn't bother to read what he wrote. And what do you propose to do, when the fighters need to fight? How do you survey then?

When it's time to fight, surveillance is no longer important.

 

 

It makes a lot of sense. I mean, for starters, it's very unlikely the F22 had been escorting the drone since it took off. The drone just might have "mistakenly" been looking at things in Iran, where it'd be awfully embarrassing if any manned aircraft got intercepted/shot down/crashed. Then there's the time it might've been up. Having the ability to remotely control a plane means that you can fly it in shifts, allowing it to be airborne much longer than a manned plane could. It's also cheaper to send up a drone for surveillance than it is to send an F22, fuel and maintenance wise. The same goes for the AWACS, plus a few more things. For starters an AWACS isn't really made for surveillance, it's made for coordinating things. It was most likely coordinating much more than just the drone as well, and yet again, the whole "manned thing crashing in Iran vs. drone crashing in Iran" applies here too.

 

Sending the AWACS into Iran would not only mean that you're sending in something manned that is easier to spot and has a lot less time on station, and isn't even built for the job, it also means that it's gonna be rather restricted when it comes to doing it's real job, coordinating things. The list goes on and on for why all of this makes sense, but I don't want to sit around for pretty much an hour at least writing it all up.

You obviously didn't read what I wrote, or what the person I responded to wrote, so nevermind. If you read them, you'll realise what you've said doesn't apply because the AWACS was necessitated anyway if the F-22 stays on the ground in wait, and if the F-22 is up escorting, then it's up anyway. Whatever way you cut it, you have a load of manned plane support for what's supposed to be a UAV (Unmanned Air Vehicle). It all boils down to the fact that UAVs don't work against countries with any semblance of air power.

Edited September 27, 2013 by countto10

[Pilotasso]

If a fraction of drones are escorted by F-22's, then the Iranians should assume they all are each time they send more obsolete fighters up.

[countto10]

If a fraction of drones are escorted by F-22's, then the Iranians should assume they all are each time they send more obsolete fighters up.

Why would they give a monkey's? It didn't cost them anymore than a flight to find out and I'd wager that F-4 operating costs are less than F-22 operating costs. But of course none of this actually happened anyway.