Proof that a fighter is only as good as the pilot.

Just thought I show this story here. Proof that a fighter is only as good as the pilot flying it, within reason of course.:D

Below is a HUD pic from an F/A-18F of VFA-11 (VF-11) ex Tomcat squadron.

Yes thats right, thats an F-22 in the gun pipper.

Story link below.

http://www.alert5.com/2006/04/fa-18f-guns-down-f-22a.html

Just thought I show this story here. Proof that a fighter is only as good as the pilot flying it, within reason of course.:D

 

Below is a HUD pic from an F/A-18F of VFA-11 (VF-11) ex Tomcat squadron.

Yes thats right, thats an F-22 in the gun pipper.

 

 

 

Story link below.

 

http://www.alert5.com/2006/04/fa-18f-guns-down-f-22a.html

Considering that bad pilots don’t ever have the chance to see an F-22 cockpit from the inside, I don’t buy your statement.

Nice pic! You just made my day! (Ok I just love the classic fighter planes more)

Uh-oh here are the Tomcat apologists about to storm in:

"Why did they retired the F-14?" ;)

If this is proof of anything is that the Superhornet is not as bad as many say it is. Its capable of awsome manuevers thanks to its tremendows controll surface authority.

Keep in mind that this is very likely BFM practice, I'd bet If it were all out war, the F22 would've had the 18's lunch from much farther away and likely the 18 wouldn't have had a lot of warning.

Keep in mind that this is very likely BFM practice, I'd bet If it were all out war, the F22 would've had the 18's lunch from much farther away and likely the 18 wouldn't have had a lot of warning.

They thought like that in the seventies, and even now the state of the art-plastic coated duck nosed fighters with stealth and sharp TVC nozzles have a gun on board, go figure.

The F-14 was a great aircraft, the "sophisticated" F-18 won't change that, no matter what letter of the alphabet is added. Damn politicians.

Keep in mind that this is very likely BFM practice, I'd bet If it were all out war, the F22 would've had the 18's lunch from much farther away and likely the 18 wouldn't have had a lot of warning.

Its very likely that the Superhornet will have the ability to get better warning thanks to the AESA radars wich will detect fast aproaching projectiles. SOme fighters are prepared for this.

They thought like that in the seventies, and even now the state of the art-plastic coated duck nosed fighters with stealth and sharp TVC nozzles have a gun on board, go figure.

 

The F-14 was a great aircraft, the "sophisticated" F-18 won't change that, no matter what letter of the alphabet is added. Damn politicians.

Yes...but the enemy could also see us as well as we could see him back then. The gun will probably NEVER be removed from US aircraft again though.

It's also proof that G-force is not the be all and end all. Some people look down on the Hornet as it has a 7.5 limit compared to 9 of almost all modern frontline fighters. This Hornet is only pulling 1.8 but it's AoA is nearly 20 degrees, not high considering is can fly at 65 degrees AoA.

The Raptor pilot could have been having a bad day, who knows. There could have been more than one Hornet. Remember the last time a Raptor was ''shot down'' was in a 4 on 1 with F-16s. The Raptor pilot said he lost track of the last one.

It's also proof that G-force is not the be all and end all. Some people look down on the Hornet as it has a 7.5 limit compared to 9 of almost all modern frontline fighters. This Hornet is only pulling 1.8 but it's AoA is nearly 20 degrees, not high considering is can fly at 65 degrees AoA.

 

The Raptor pilot could have been having a bad day, who knows. There could have been more than one Hornet. Remember the last time a Raptor was ''shot down'' was in a 4 on 1 with F-16s. The Raptor pilot said he lost track of the last one.

You only have 1 frame of the whole picture. You didnt see the merge and in all likelyhood the G's were much higher at the beggining before both planes slowed down. Apparently the raptor pilot must have lost the sight of the oponent for a moment wich might explain why it got busted.

Absolutely true, Cobra...its more about energy than how hard you can press your rear-end into the seat. I notice he's near 180 knots...that's where he becomes severely dangerous. The Bug is the master of the low-speed fight.

Absolutely true, Cobra...its more about energy than how hard you can press your rear-end into the seat. I notice he's near 180 knots...that's where he becomes severely dangerous. The Bug is the master of the low-speed fight.

Dont forget that the raptor has the power of more than 2 Superhornets and a lighter wing loading. The raptor has a huge advantage in its favor in regard of energy management.

Only in a specific realm of combat. The Raptor driver is in that pipper because he f'd up. ;) No fighter is EVER superior throughout the entire envelope of speed and altitude.

Are you guys kidding me? For every second a Super Hornet puts a Raptor under its gun piper, I gaurantee that there are at least 300 seconds a Hornet has been under the Raptor's gun piper.

There would be so much dead Hornet footage that it wouldn't be worth watching. Wow, one Hornet got a shot off...big deal. The Raptor's not invincible. I'd like to know how many Hornets died before this Raptor would've.

In any case, it has been established that the photos above aren't valid shots. The Super Hornet broke the ROE where it must stay 1000ft away from the F-22. Don't want a mid-air with a $350 million airplane now, do we?

[

Only in a specific realm of combat. The Raptor driver is in that pipper because he f'd up. ;) No fighter is EVER superior throughout the entire envelope of speed and altitude.

Actually, I think the F-22 can claim to be superior to any contemporary fighter in every part of the flight envelope. I don't even think the Super Hornet stands a chance in a low speed fight with an F-22.

D-Scythe, I don't think anybody here has suggested that the Raptor is easily defeated. ;)

The 1,000ft rule depends on pilot experience IIRC. It can be as low as 500ft is some cases I think.

BTW: what kind of inflation rate is there in the US,:D last I saw the F-22 had a flyaway cost of $120 million. What happened?, someone drop the ''A'' and add a cool 200 mil to the price.:D

D-Scythe, I don't think anybody here has suggested that the Raptor is easily defeated. ;)

Well, I don't think there are any indications in that photo that the F-22 screwed up, is there? :p For all we know, that Raptor could've been outnumbered 4 to 1 and have just gunned down his third victim before this guy breaks the ROE and makes a quick gun kill.

The 1,000ft rule depends on pilot experience IIRC. It can be as low as 500ft is some cases I think.

You're willing to risk a mid-air with a Raptor? Better safe than sorry and keep the 1000ft ROE bubble.

BTW: what kind of inflation rate is there in the US,:D last I saw the F-22 had a flyaway cost of $120 million. What happened?, someone drop the ''A'' and add a cool 200 mil to the price.:D

Currently, it costs $350 million, with R&D costs and crap factored in. With only 180 airframes, each is technically worth that much. However, to build a new Raptor would not cost $350 million...flyaway cost I think is something like $180 million? About half of that.

Are you guys kidding me? For every second a Super

 

Actually, I think the F-22 can claim to be superior to any contemporary fighter in every part of the flight envelope. I don't even think the Super Hornet stands a chance in a low speed fight with an F-22.

Possibly, but I doubt it, and all we can do is speculate. The pic is a pretty good indication of what is possible due to human skill vs. human error. I hear you on the ROE, but ROE doesn't really exist in actual combat after the merge. The only constant there seems to be that someone isn't going home that day. ;)

Possibly, but I doubt it, and all we can do is speculate. The pic is a pretty good indication of what is possible due to human skill vs. human error. I hear you on the ROE, but ROE doesn't really exist in actual combat after the merge. The only constant there seems to be that someone isn't going home that day. ;)

Have you seen some of the high alpha, low speed maneuvers the F-22 can do? The Super Hornet is awesome at low speed fighting, no doubt, but the F-22 is like a Super Hornet with TVC and with 4 extra engines. Honestly, there really is no contest, IMO. The F-22, on paper, is by far superior to every other operational fighter currently in existence, in almost every, if not all, respects.

Yup...on paper...I agree. :D The F-15 is also superior to the F-16 in every way on paper, but when the Viper manages to drag the Eagle down low...well...the Eagle driver is in for a nasty surprise. Every combat situation relies on the experience and knowledge of the stick jockey...if it were a simple matter of crunching numbers, there wouldn't be a need for the stick jockey. ;)

That said though...the F-22A is going to be the king of the skies. But, everything created by the human mind can also be defeated by another. The F-22A definitely has many advantages though...and that's all any of us can hope for. :D

Yeah, with the F-22 most ''enemy'' airforces will think, where's the point. Sure hell it's nearly like that now with the F-15.

Roger that... 95+:0 kill ratio baby! :icon_supe

Yup...on paper...I agree. :D The F-15 is also superior to the F-16 in every way on paper, but when the Viper manages to drag the Eagle down low...well...the Eagle driver is in for a nasty surprise. Every combat situation relies on the experience and knowledge of the stick jockey...if it were a simple matter of crunching numbers, there wouldn't be a need for the stick jockey. ;)

Um, papers include envelope charts ;) And if you compare the turn rates of the F-15 and the F-16, you'd see that the F-16 is "superior" on paper because overall it turns better across its flight envelope.

The F-22 IMO is the first fighter that is absolutely superior to any existing operational fighter on paper. If you compare its turn rate graphs with any other fighters (if you can get it unclassified), it probably is vastly superior to the F-15s, the Eurofighter's, Rafale, Su-27, MiG-29, etc.

For so much money, each Raptor is designed not just to "beat" the opposition, but absolutely dominate it. This fighter can probably fly to the centre of the F/A-18E's turn circle and hover there, keeping its nose pointed on the Hornet all day long. Nothing (operational) comes close.

BTW, I think the F-15s kill record is 100 (104?) : 0 ;)

Yet, the Raptor driver in the pic still would have died. ;) He would have died because of over-confidence. Granted, you want to go into a fight knowing that you can kick the entire world's ass so you can be aggressive enough to win...but you also don't want to be so sure of yourself that you have a brain fart. ;)

.

 

For so much money, each Raptor is designed not just to "beat" the opposition, but absolutely dominate it. This fighter can probably fly to the centre of the F/A-18E's turn circle and hover there, keeping its nose pointed on the Hornet all day long. Nothing (operational) comes close.

 

BTW, I think the F-15s kill record is 100 (104?) : 0 ;)

I think the Su-30MKI would have a go at that. Not saying that it would be better but would give Raptor a run for it's money. In the close in slow speed BFM. Some of the things the MKI does, I don't think the Raptor can do. 2D v 3D vectoring?

I think that kill record is 105+.

What's the point if the F-22? Russia has like 40 effecticve fighters, China like 300, but, if China or the US would attack eachother both countries will go broke and have civil wars. Can you please tell me where you think your enemies might come from, now or within the next 30 years? All I can think of are rich Arab guys with a thing for mountain animals and semtex, and those don't buy airforces to do their share of "ridding the world of infidels".

Seriousely, what's the point in the F-22? To hold BFMs with Hornets?