F-22A gun down by crappy F/A-18F

[Cinaruco]

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

 

I guess there are more kills than "one" against Raptors by Legacy fighters, right "Raptor fanboi(s)"?

 

PS: I know this is an exercise, and the real circumstances of the "kill" are unknown (at least to me), this is posted more for entertainment than for fact.

[Guest JamesG123]

Bah... If you look at the orientation of the two planes, the F22 in a steep dive, with the F18 probably reversing to follow, the Raptor was within firing solution for at most a 10th of a second. "IF" the Hornet driver had pulled the trigger fast enough, the chances of an actual hit were pretty low.

 

All it is is that a F22 had blundered across the nose of an enemy fighter at close range and got caught by its gun camera. Nothing to see here, move along...

[Guest pfcem]

Bah... If you look at the orientation of the two planes, the F22 in a steep dive, with the F18 probably reversing to follow, the Raptor was within firing solution for at most a 10th of a second. "IF" the Hornet driver had pulled the trigger fast enough, the chances of an actual hit were pretty low.

 

All it is is that a F22 had blundered across the nose of an enemy fighter at close range and got caught by its gun camera. Nothing to see here, move along...

Exactly.

 

Remember the movie Top Gun? Just because you placed the "enemy" in your sight DOES NOT mean you "killed" it. You have to KEEP it in your sight for a period of time (I forget how long that time is) and by looking at both these incidents & understanding the HUD info presented makes it clear that the F-22 in BOTH these cases was not in the sight long enough for a "kill" to have been achieved - The F-22 is moving one direction & the F/A-18E/F is simply "crossing" the F-22's path for a small fraction of a second (in both cases the difference is nearly 90 degrees).

[Exel]

Why would it be such a big deal even if the Super Bug had achieved a gun kill over the F-22? Since when has the performance requirement for new aircraft been "invincible"?

[Dennis Lam]

For a unit cost of $127 million, it better damn well be invincible.

[JOE BRENNAN]

It recalls the problem with gun camera 'evidence' in real wars (later WWII and Korea). Some notable frequently published GC photo's show enemy a/c disintegrating or their pilot's bailing out, but most combat GC footage also only absolutely proved that the picture taking plane got it's camera pointing at the enemy plane long enough to take at least one frame. Much of the rest was interpretation, as in trying to discern the puffs of projectile hits and estimate their results, and trying to deconflict pictures from various friendly planes that might be of the same enemy plane. For example the little avatar thingy to the left is a dramatic picture, but what does it really prove by itself? Anyway the F-22 image is interesting, thanks.

 

Joe

[rmgill]

For a unit cost of $127 million, it better damn well be invincible.

 

If we only bought a handful of Super Bugs what would they cost?

[Cinaruco]

You have to KEEP it in your sight for a period of time (I forget how long that time is) and by looking at both these incidents & understanding the HUD info presented makes it clear that the F-22 in BOTH these cases was not in the sight long enough for a "kill" to have been achieved

 

Not if they are shooting 20 mike-mike...

[Guest pfcem]

Not if they are shooting 20 mike-mike...

Especially if they are shooting 20mm. One 20mm round is VERY unikely to bring a modern fighter down.

[Cinaruco]

Especially if they are shooting 20mm. One 20mm round is VERY unikely to bring a modern fighter down.

I don't think you are familiar with the M-61. It is very unlikely for a single 20mm out of this cannon to be a single one.

[Guest pfcem]

I don't think you are familiar with the M-61. It is very unlikely for a single 20mm out of this cannon to be a single one.

I am VERY familiar with the M-61. You DEFINATELY need a significant fraction of a second to fire enough rounds to have a likelyhood of a kill. It takes 3/10-1/3 of a second for it to spool up to full ROF. Most important is that at full rate the bullets leave the barrel(s) ~34' & 1/100th of a second apart. So look at the two HUD shots (they are very telling if you who how to read a HUD). The F-22 is 62' long with a wingspan of 44.5'. Take a wild guess how many bullets MAY have hit the F-22s.

[shep854]

I am VERY familiar with the M-61. You DEFINATELY need a significant fraction of a second to fire enough rounds to have a likelyhood of a kill. It takes 3/10-1/3 of a second for it to spool up to full ROF. Most important is that at full rate the bullets leave the barrel(s) ~34' & 1/100th of a second apart. So look at the two HUD shots (they are very telling if you who how to read a HUD). The F-22 is 62' long with a wingspan of 44.5'. Take a wild guess how many bullets MAY have hit the F-22s.

 

No matter how strong jets are structurally, modern fighters are so "dense" with systems that just about any hit can cause significant damage. For example, the old F-105 was legendary for its structural ruggedless, but there was at least one spot (besides the pilot) where a single bullet would bring it down. Just guessing, but the F22 is likely even more tightly packed.

[Guest JamesG123]

Just guessing, but the F22 is likely even more tightly packed.

 

Not necissarly since a goodly portion of its internal volume are weapons bays. Also you would hope that the designers have taken advantage of the combat lessons of previous generation AC and built in system redundancy and ruggedization.

[Guest pfcem]

No matter how strong jets are structurally, modern fighters are so "dense" with systems that just about any hit can cause significant damage. For example, the old F-105 was legendary for its structural ruggedless, but there was at least one spot (besides the pilot) where a single bullet would bring it down. Just guessing, but the F22 is likely even more tightly packed.

But "significant" damage is NOT the same as a "kill"... There are plenty of places where even the F-22 could be hit & NOT be brought down.

 

Yes you COULD get incredibly luckly & have the one & only bullet that actually hits hit the pilot & kill him or something but don't count on it. The US flight schools (TOP GUN & RED FLAG) require that the target be in your sights for a significant fraction of a second (WHILE YOU ARE "SHOOTING" IT) for a reason.

[seahawk]

We,,, afaik this photo has been discussed on aviation boards practically to death. Afaik the F-18 broke the rules of the training engagement (went under the stated minimal seperation) to achieve the guncamerashot, while the F-22 is not fighting at this moment, but just trying to avoid a midair.

[shep854]

But "significant" damage is NOT the same as a "kill"... There are plenty of places where even the F-22 could be hit & NOT be brought down.

 

Yes you COULD get incredibly luckly & have the one & only bullet that actually hits hit the pilot & kill him or something but don't count on it. The US flight schools (TOP GUN & RED FLAG) require that the target be in your sights for a significant fraction of a second (WHILE YOU ARE "SHOOTING" IT) for a reason.

 

At jet performance, "significant" damage can quickly become a kill, but if the damage only forces an abort, then it was successful.

 

In Bill Gunston's book on the F-18, there is a graphic illustrating that a 90-degree deflection shot with the M61 should provide for four hits on a MiG-21 type aircraft. Point being, that hits with explosive rounds is giong to mess something up.

 

Seahawk*s post, though, seems to settle the argument.

Edited July 6, 2007 by shep854

[Sikkiyn]

We,,, afaik this photo has been discussed on aviation boards practically to death. Afaik the F-18 broke the rules of the training engagement (went under the stated minimal seperation) to achieve the guncamerashot, while the F-22 is not fighting at this moment, but just trying to avoid a midair.

 

 

I was about to ask what the conditions for the engagement were.

It doesn't surprise me that some hooah pilot would bend the rules to get a once in a rare picture. Soldiers do it all the time, why not pilots, who have larger egos to polish?

[Sailor Lars]

I, for one - do not understand the heat a gun camera footage of a gun kill, if i understood right - why it brings up such an outrage?

 

After all - if what i've understood to be right - the data link/sharing capabilities are much more important these days in modern air war, JAS Gripen, for example - what has, if i remember right - won every simulated sortie between Finnish and Swedish airforces. Networking and the exploiting of it.

 

And no, i don't advocate taking the gun out of an airplane.

[Sailor Lars]

I was about to ask what the conditions for the engagement were.

It doesn't surprise me that some hooah pilot would bend the rules to get a once in a rare picture. Soldiers do it all the time, why not pilots, who have larger egos to polish?

 

My thoughts, exactly. And on the other hand - would you follow the rules of engagement in a war?

[Przezdzieblo]

Somewhere, some time ago I read about another different generations fighters duel - Sopwith Camel vs Hawker Hurricane. Gun camera, of course. Camel achieved much more (at last 2 times) "hits" (probably because of it`s great maneuverability). But British - no wonder why - decided to go with Hurricanes and Spitfires...

 

 

I do not know is it good enough analogy - maybe F-22 is supposed to be far, far better in every aspect - but in case of mentioned above "dogfight" show advantages of older machine.

[Guest JamesG123]

The close range furball is probably where the odds are best for older generation AC. Still not very good, it can still out manuver anything else in the sky, but its bag of tricks are more limited. So while the Raptor is busy killing something, another one could get it visually with guns or a rear aspect IR shot if the wingman isn't doing his job. Who knows, maybe that is what was going on in this case...

[Josh]

The close range furball is probably where the odds are best for older generation AC. Still not very good, it can still out manuver anything else in the sky, but its bag of tricks are more limited. So while the Raptor is busy killing something, another one could get it visually with guns or a rear aspect IR shot if the wingman isn't doing his job. Who knows, maybe that is what was going on in this case...

 

This situation seems to have already been explained. And while a furball would be the best conditions for engaging an F-22, its performance will make it a relatively rough target. That said the F-22 lacks modern close range equipment which would put it at a disadvantage in some ways to fourth gen fighters, including F-18E.

[Guest pfcem]

In Bill Gunston's book on the F-18, there is a graphic illustrating that a 90-degree deflection shot with the M61 should provide for four hits on a MiG-21 type aircraft. Point being, that hits with explosive rounds is giong to mess something up.

Look at the HUD, this is not the same situation as Mr. Gunston is describing. Take the Mig-21 illustarion you are loooking at & turn the Mig-21 or the line of bullets 75-90 degrees so that they make a "+" rather than a "-"...

 

Here is a hint, look at where the F/A-18E's velocity vectors are pointing...

[shep854]

Look at the HUD, this is not the same situation as Mr. Gunston is describing. Take the Mig-21 illustarion you are loooking at & turn the Mig-21 or the line of bullets 75-90 degrees so that they make a "+" rather than a "-"...

 

Here is a hint, look at where the F/A-18E's velocity vectors are pointing...

 

It sounds as if you are describing a 90 degree shot, also. That is how I see the photo.

 

I don't have the book (it was his Salamander book on the F-18, in the "armaments" chapter), but his illustration depicted a similar crossing scenario.

Edited July 6, 2007 by shep854

[Scythe]

One, the F/A-18 pilot broke the rules of engagement - sure, in a war, the gloves are off, but this is training, and if that $180 million fighter was lost because some egotistic Hornet pilot broke the rules to claim a "kill," then screw that.

 

Two, the Raptor pilots are obviously training for something (i.e. low speed guns fight) that they'd NEVER do in real combat. There are only very few circumstances I'd imagine that would prompt a Raptor pilot to go guns.

 

Three, is it really surprising that the F/A-18 scored a kill? In fact, I'm actually more surprised that there have not been MORE F-22 "killed" in these mock engagements. The WVR arena is a dangerous place for any fighter, and the fact that egotistical Hornet pilots released only one photo of a Raptor "kill" (where they had to break the ROE in the process) just goes to show how dominant it is, even at low speed going guns.

 

If anything, this looks good for the Raptor - I mean, a Hornet pilot obviously thinks he's sierra hotel because he scored what probably is a very rare kill in a type of engagement no sane F-22 pilot would ever engage in combat anyway.