This is not my personal opinion, but I would like to discuss the main arguments without any flames or comparisons with the so called euro-canards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The F-22: not what we were hoping for
by James Stevenson and Pierre Sprey


The F-22 fighter aircraft's focus on stealth brings big disadvantages in cost, weight and manoeuvrability, argue Pierre Sprey and James Stevenson

For decades, the US Air Force has pushed the F-22 as its fighter for the 21st century. Advocates tout its technical features: fuel-efficient, high-speed 'super-cruise'; advanced electronics; and reduced profile against enemy sensors, known as 'stealth'.

However, on measures that determine winning or losing in air combat, the F-22 fails to improve the US fighter force. In fact, it degrades our combat capability.

Careful examination of actual air-to-air battles tells us that there are five attributes that make a winning fighter. These attributes shaped the F-15 and the F-16.

They are: (1) pilot training and ability; (2) obtaining the first sighting and surprising the enemy; (3) outnumbering enemy fighters in the air; (4) outmanoeuvring enemy fighters to gain a firing position; and (5) consistently converting split-second firing opportunities into kills.

The F-22 is a mediocrity, at best, on (4) and (5). It is a liability on (1), (2) and (3).

The most important attribute - pilot quality - dwarfs the others. Air combat history from both small and large wars makes that obvious. After the Israel Air Force (IAF) swept Syrian MiGs from the sky in Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon with an 82-0 exchange ratio, the IAF Chief of Staff told US congressional staffers that the result would have been the same had the Syrian and Israeli pilots switched aircraft.

Great pilots get that way by constant dogfight training. Between 1975 and 1980, at the Navy Fighter Weapons School ('Topgun'), instructor pilots got 40 to 60 hours of air combat manoeuvring per month. Their students came from squadrons getting only 14 to 20 hours per month. Flying the cheap, simple F-5, the robustly trained instructors consistently whipped the students in their 'more capable' F-4 Phantoms, F-14 Tomcats and F-15 Eagles. Today, partly thanks to the pressure on the air force's training budget from the F-22's excessive purchase and operating costs, an F-22 pilot gets 12 to 14 hours of flight training per month. For winning future air battles, this is a huge step backward.

For half a century, the air force has been attempting to get the jump on enemy fighters through expensive, complex technology.

Billions of dollars were spent trying to perfect long-range radar missiles to achieve 'beyond-visual-range' (BVR) kills. Extraordinary kill rates, as high as 80 to 90 per cent, were promised when projects were being sold. Success rates in actual combat were below 10 per cent. Simple, more agile, shorter-range infra-red missiles and guns were far more successful and effective.

Worse, the 'identification friend or foe' (IFF) systems that must distinguish enemies from friends before launching BVR missiles failed in every war. As recently as Operation 'Iraqi Freedom' in 2003, misidentified allied aircraft were lost to US systems. The air force now tells us the only way to get the jump on enemy fighters supposedly launching BVR missiles is with stealth. But stealth solves neither the problem of less effective, high-cost BVR radar missiles nor the IFF conundrum. Moreover, stealth has failed to make our fighters invisible to radar and it brings crippling disadvantages.

In Operation 'Desert Storm' in 1991, according to the Government Accountability Office, so-called stealthy F-117s were significantly less effective bombers than the air force described publicly - there is anecdotal evidence that ancient Iraqi radars detected them. In the war against Serbia in 1999, non-stealthy F-16s had a lower loss rate per sortie than the F-117s. The F-22 will not be invisible to radar in real combat, where it cannot control detection angles and radar types.

The most obvious disadvantage stealth brings to the F-22 is extraordinary cost; it grossly reduces the numbers we will buy. New Department of Defense data shows the total unit cost of the F-22 has grown from about USD130 million to over USD350 million per aircraft. Result? The original buy of 750 is now down to 185.

Moreover, stealth plus the F-22's complexity result in unprecedented levels of maintenance downtime. That further reduces numbers in the air; 185 F-22s will support about 120 deployed fighters. They will be lucky to generate 60 combat sorties per day: a laughable number in any serious air war. In World War II, the Luftwaffe could field only 70 of its revolutionary jet: the Me-262. It caused alarm among Allied pilots but had negligible effect on the air battle.

Furthermore, the stealth requirement adds significant drag, weight and size. Size is the most crippling. Why? Because real-world combat is visual combat. Because the F-22 is much bigger than most fighters, it will be detected first, reversing the theoretical advantage it derives from stealth. Topgun had a saying: "The biggest target in the sky is always the first to die."

Once seen, the F-22 has trouble outman-oeuvring the enemy. Its weight hurts the key performance measures of turning and accelerating. Put simply, both the F-15A and F-16A out-turn and out-accelerate the F-22.

Finally, stealth harms the F-22's quick-firing ability. To retain stealth, the gun and missiles must be buried behind doors that take too long to open to exploit instantaneous opportunities.

The air force will argue strenuously that we are wrong and the F-22 has excelled in air-to-air exercises against all comers. However, our information is that these are 'canned' engagements in which the F-22 is pitted against opponents in joust-like scenarios set up to exploit the F-22's theoretical advantages and exclude its real-world vulnerabilities.

There is a way to find out who is right. A serious test of F-22 capabilities would pit it against pilots and aircraft the air force does not control using rules of engagement dictated by combat and the ratio of F-22s to enemies that the tiny F-22 inventory should expect in hostile skies.

We both would be delighted to observe any such realistic exercises and to report back to this magazine. Nothing would please us more than to find that we are wrong and US fighter pilots have been given the best fighter in the sky.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pierre Sprey was one of three designers who conceived and shaped the F-16; he also led the technical side of the US Air Force's A-10 design concept team. James Stevenson is former editor of the Navy Fighter Weapons School's Topgun Journal and author of The Pentagon Paradox and The $5 Billion Misunderstanding. This article is adapted from a briefing they produced for the Straus Military Reform Project of the Center for Defense Information.

Sounds about right my friend, dwight, any comments??

He was (one of) the inventor ofthe Agile Fighter conceipt at the terchnical level.

Maybe he is still looking at the old fashioneddog-fight issue which is NOT out of date as opposed to what some might think.

Simple F-22 conceipt is a little different and put more emphasis on the firt look/first kill aspect of it. Weither it's good enough is something else.

Yes, too much WVR and not much electronics and AAM together with STEALTH...not sure about this article, but who would know for sure everything about it...

These are a series of articles written by David Axe which addresses most of Spreys comments:

Quote: Raptor ... or Turkey? (Part One) There ain't a lot of love for the ol' F-22A Raptor outside of Air Force and Lockheed Martin circles these days. Critics, especially author James Stevenson and F-16 designer Pierra Sprey, both from the Center for Defense Information, have called the Raptor an overweight, gas-guzzling, unaffordable turkey. Their presentation on the F-22 has inspired a number of scathing articles. The bottom line, Sprey told me in June, is that the Air Force has forgotten how to design fighters ... and besides, fighters are irrelevant in today's conflicts. If the Air Force were truly interested in winning wars, Sprey said, "it would buy more A-10s" to support the grunts in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the folks at the 1st Fighter Wing, which will fly 36 F-22s alongside 24 F-15Cs from Langley Air Force Base in southern Virginia, told me (in so many words) that Sprey is full of it. "One thing we've done really well in the United States is not predict the next war," 1st FW commander Brigadier General Burton Field told me last week. "[So] the Air Force, a while back, started concentrating on ... capabilities across a spectrum." The F-22 represents the high-end of that spectrum. Yes, it is expensive. No, it is not suited to all fights. But if and when it comes time to take down integrated air defenses to achieve air dominance, especially in a conventional conflict, the F-22 is the best weapon around. "As long as you own the air," Raptor jockey Captain Phil Colomy said, "you have the freedom to do what you want on the ground." Surprisingly, despite the Raptor's strong air-to-air record in recent exercises (108 kills to no losses at Northern Edge), it's the aircraft's air-to-ground prowess that Field and Colomy are most excited about. They said that with strong front-aspect stealth, high ceiling, long range (when properly tanked), and the ability to cruise faster than Mach 1, the F-22 can get to distant battlefields, surprise air defenses and lob Joint Direct Attack Munitions farther than 20 miles to kill them. No other aircraft can do that, Colomy said. As for Sprey's criticism -- based on a cursory glance at technical data -- that the F-22 is a poor performer, former F-15 pilot Colomy pointed to the aircraft's huge control surfaces, powerful engines and advanced flight control system. "We will turn inside anybody." But even if it is a kick-ass performer, the Raptor remains disproportionately expensive. Cuts to the program mean the Air Force will field only 183 F-22s against a requirement for 381. That's just seven operational squadrons, three fewer than the Air Force needs to give each rotational Air Expeditionary Force a Raptor component. Plans are already afoot to improve F-15s to soldier on alongside F-22s, but that's a stop-gap. Bottom line: "We need more Raptor squadrons," Field said. In a fight against other airplanes, the Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor's stealth capabilities are useless, claims noted fighter designer Pierre Sprey, since the Raptor must radiate to detect the enemy, thus announcing its location to everyone in the vicinity with a Radar Warning Receiver. Under these circumstances, a Raptor is no better than any late-model fighter such as the Sukhoi Su-27 series, which is considerably cheaper. Not so, said the Raptor jockeys of the 27th Fighter Squadron at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia. "I'm going to be able to see him before he sees me," Captain Phil Colomy assured me. He was refering to radar detection, not visual. How so? I asked. If you radiate, everyone's going to know where you are. To use Sprey's analogy, it's like using a flashlight in a dark room. Sure, you can see the bad guy, but he can see you too. Colomy just smiled. 1st Fighter Wing commander Brigadier General Burton Field spoke up: "Enemy RWR can't detect radiating F-22s," he said. "We haven't had a problem with that." I asked if that had something to do with the Raptor's Raytheon APG-77 Advanced Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, which uses many tiny nimble radar beams instead of one big, slow beam. Field just smiled. This is classified, but widely known to be true. Basically, here's how it works. RWRs are like any sensor: they operate at a certain fidelity lending a certain degree of dependability. If you radiate only briefly or only a little, RWRs aren't going to be able to pin you down. A small, smart, well-directed beam -- such as that from any new AESA -- is too fleeting for a firm fix. It's like using a flashlight in a dark room, but snapping it on then off in a fraction of a second. One day RWRs will catch up to the new AESAs. But for right now, the radars have the advantage. What this means is that the F-22 can use its radar without entirely sacrificing stealth. That's on top of the other advantages of the AESA. At Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, 27th Fighter Squadron pilot Captain Phil Colomy opened his presentation on the Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor with a video of inert bomb impacts set to a rock soundtrack. Clip after clip showed 1,000-pound Boeing GBU-32 Joint Direct Attack Munitions slamming into derelict trucks and digging craters in sand. The footage was from the squadron's recent weapons camp at Hill Air Force Base in Utah, where Raptors climbed to higher than 50,000 feet, accelerated to faster than Mach 1 then dropped JDAMs 20 miles or more from targets. According to 1st Fighter Wing commander Brigadier General Burton Field, all 22 drops resulted in direct hits at greater accuracy than any other aircraft has ever achieved with JDAM. From 2002 to 2005, the F-22 was known as the F/A-22, emphasizing its ground-attack capability hauling two internal JDAMs or (in the future) eight 250-pound Small Diameter Bombs. "We were trying to tell a story, trying to say that the F-22 is not just a better [Boeing] F-15C," Field explained. Wing spokeswoman Captain Elizabeth Kreft pointed out that, during the period of the "F/A" designation, James Roche, a former sailor, was Air Force secretary. The dual designation has been standard in Navy tactical air since the early 1980s with the Boeing F/A-18A Hornet. But with the major fights over Raptor funding over and with Roche having stepped down, this year the Air Force switched the Raptor's designation back to the traditional F-22. But lest anyone take this to mean that the Raptor is once again just a fighter, Field pointed out that the Raptor's only truly unique capabilities lie in the ground attack realm. "Shooting down other aircraft is not what the F-22 is best at." (Though it is pretty good at this -- check back for Part Four.) Where the Raptor truly excels is in the high-energy, long-range delivery of smart bombs in a high-threat environment. The weapons camp was a basic demonstration of that capability. Colomy brought up a schematic of Iran's integrated air defense network featuring overlapping radar coverage and the latest Russian-made surface-to-air missiles. The systems' detection and engagement ranges were plotted with circles based on their performance against legacy Air Force aircraft such as the Lockheed Martin F-16C and F-15E. Next Colomy brought up a slide that showed the effect of the F-22's superior speed and stealth on the performance of the same air defenses. Their ranges were halved, leaving huge gaps in the network. "There's no shortage of bomb droppers in the Air Force," Colomy said. "But can they get close enough?" With its front-aspect stealth and its ability to supercruise faster than Mach 1 at high altitude over long ranges (contingent on adequate tanking), the Raptor can sneak up on enemy defenses then release a pair of JDAMs with far greater energy than other aircraft can manage. That means more destructive weapons effects and fewer sorties to roll back air defenses. "We use the F-22 to clear a path for other aircraft," Colomy said. Thus has evolved the Raptor's new niche. In light of the tiny production run of just 183 jets, Raptors will equip only seven squadrons -- effectively a "silver-bullet" force. Rather than replacing F-15s wholesale, the Raptor will complement modernized F-15s and work alongside legacy aircraft to enhance their capabilities. While Raptor-Eagle teams clear the skies, ground-attack Raptors will poke holes in integrated air defenses so F-16s, F-15Es, Lockheed Martin F-117s and strategic bombers can bring their firepower to bear. The vaunted Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor is less a nimble, sharp-eyed bird of prey than a sluggish, half-blind buzzard, according to noted fighter designer Pierre Sprey. He cites several figures to support to his claim: * The F-22 has higher wing loading than the Boeing F-15A, meaning more weight on the wing and less maneuverability * The Lockheed Martin F-16C Block 50 with a General Electric 110 engine out-accelerates the F-22 with its two Pratt & Whitney 119s -- at any altitude * The F-22 has a lower thrust-to-weight ratio than the F-15A * The F-22 pilot's rearward and downward visibility is inferior to the F-16 pilot's The result, Sprey contends, is that the F-22 will lose in dogfights against older, supposedly inferior aircraft. The fighter jocks of the first operational Raptor unit, the 1st Fighter Wing at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, scoffed at the notion during my Aug. 10 visit. "I don't know what people have been reading, but this thing is a monster," Brigadier General Burton Field said. "It's more maneuverable than anything out there." "We will turn inside anybody," Captain Phil Colomy seconded. Exercises have tended to corroborate these pilots' contentions. At Northern Edge in Alaska in June, the 27th Fighter Squadron's Raptors killed 108 F-15s and F-16s for no losses. In one four-hour engagement teaming F-22s and F-15s against other U.S. aircraft, the Raptor team killed 83 and lost just one Eagle. To explain this apparent disconnect between the Raptor's flight performance and its exercise results, Field and Colomy point to aspects of the F-22's design that Sprey ignores, such as: * An advanced flight control system that renders smarter aircraft reactions to control inputs: The F-22, like the F-16, is an aerodynamically unstable aircraft that relies on computer systems to stabilize it in flight and translate pilot inputs into aircraft movements. The sophistication of the computer is a factor in the maneuverability of the aircraft. * Large control surfaces: The F-22 features some of the largest elevators, flaps, fins and stabilizers on any fighter aircraft ever built. The single-piece stabilizers are as large as an F-16's entire wing. Control-surface design is another key factor in maneuverability. * Thrust vectoring: The P&W-119s terminate in vertical thrust-vectoring nozzles that can direct 35,000 pounds of thrust apiece 20 degrees up or down, improving turning ability. Confronted with the criticism that these nozzles incur a weight and drag penalty, Colomoy laughed and pointed to a nearby F-15's large, unmoving nozzles. "You've got to have nozzles," he said. "The only difference with these is that they move." In other words, they're no heavier or draggier than any other nozzle. The one criticism that the Raptor fliers can't counter is that the jet's canopy affords poorer visibility than the F-16's. It's true: the F-22's canopy is slightly obstructed by the intakes and the spine, but this flaw hasn't resulted in any lost dogfights in recent exercises. "If the United States is to maintain air dominance, it needs the [Lockheed Martin] F-22 [Raptor]," 1st Fighter Wing Captain Elizabeth Kreft said point-blank at the end of our Aug. 10 meeting. The threat, Raptor advocates contend, is a dual one: the latest Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker derivate fighters and "double-digit" surface-to-air missile systems such as the S-300. Users include: S-300: Armenia, Belarus, Bulgaria, China, Cyprus, Hungary, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Russia, Slovakia, Syria, Ukraine and Vietnam Su-27/30/33: Angola, Armenia, Belarus, China, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Mexico, Russia, Syria, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Venezuala (rumored) and Vietnam Critics including fighter designer Pierre Sprey say the earlier generation of U.S. fighters such as the Lockheed Martin F-16 Viper and Boeing F-15 Eagle are adequate to defeat Flankers. Raptor friends point to exercises such as the infamous (and perhaps rigged) Cope India as evidence that the Viper and Eagle can be bested. My own take: Sure, the F-15 and F-16 might be equal or even slightly superior (when pilot training, weapons and joint and industry support are considered). But for how long, in light of continued Flanker development? And since when is parity enough? Don't our pilots deserve better? As for those S-300s ... The U.S. military has perhaps become accustomed to operating in permissive air defense environment such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Granted, helicopter pilots might not agree that these places are all that permissive. But there certainly is no real threat to the fast-movers and high-fliers that haul the cargo, spot targets and come to the rescue of pinned-down Marines. In this context, the Air Force has spent a decade mostly running down its Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses force; the Raptor promises to revitalize the capability and ensure global access for legacy aircraft and the future Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning. Speaking of which, some critics ask, why can't we cut the expensive Raptor in favor of the cheaper Lightning? While a fine bomb-hauler and (one hopes) a good multi-service airframe, the F-35 is a mediocre performer. Said 1st Fighter Wing commander Brigadier General Burton Field, "The problem with the F-35 ... is speed. It doesn't have the capability to supercruise. Speed lets us get inside the decision cycle of the bad guy." For the most dangerous air battles and attack missions, F-35 squadrons will rely on F-22s for support. That's an unavoidable state of affairs when you design an airframe to replace slow- and low-flying Lockheed Martin A-10 Warthogs and Boeing AV-8B Harriers as well as light and flexible F-16s and Boeing F/A-18 Hornets. The F-35 is a compromise. Potentially a very successful compromise, but still ... We've already sunk $25 billion into Raptor development. That money is irrecoverable. Further jets cost only around $115 million (perhaps twice as much as a new F-16) and will get even cheaper. We should get a good return on our investment. A good return, in my estimation, means a full fleet of at least 381 Raptors in 10 or more full-strength squadrons. That should guarantee air dominance for another 30 years or more. --David Axe

thre are quite some statements in this article that aren't anywhere near reallity like this one:

Once seen, the F-22 has trouble outman-oeuvring the enemy. Its weight hurts the key performance measures of turning and accelerating. Put simply, both the F-15A and F-16A out-turn and out-accelerate the F-22.

It may be heavier than any other us fighter, but it completely out-accelerate's an F-15A or F-16A due to better aerodynamics, more dry and wet thrust (altough it has a bigger weight), let alone that it gets out maneuvred by them.

yes it is heavier when compleetly loaded, but you can't compare and F-22 with full fuel and weopen load, with an clean F-16A or F-15A

Sorry double post.

If the US was really smart about tighening American grip around the world it would build 10,000 new A-10 warthogs instead of wasting money developing F-22.

Imagine "arab street" terror at 10,000 warthogs zooming over the Middle East!



"I have stated time and again that I do not wish to seek Tibet's separation from China, but that I will seek its future within the framework of the Chinese constitution," the Dalai Lama said.

LOL take that lama loving anti-China TURKEYS!!!!

Well - apart from the aerodynamic questions and arguments.

The F22 is expensive in purchase and maintenance. Thus only a limited number of aircraft could be bought. Does this limited number of a technical superior airplane (to other aircraft) compensate the huge numbers of F15C and F15E in the US inventory ?
I believe it the superiority of the F22A is evident, but does this justify the price ?

Has the A-10 been offered to export? If yes I don't understand why any other country has jumped on the opportunity to get these flying tanks! Especially the few western nations that see combat regularly like UK, Canada, France, Turkey (especially Turkey in its fight against the PKK), Netherlands etc...

the only purpose that the A-10 is Combar air support, it is to slow, and to vunarable to do anything else. so it can only operate in region's like afghanistan and Iraq, with the soly task to give air support when their is an low air and sam threat. most country's don't need A-10's because they have other aircraft's for that role,like the uk has the Harrier Gr-7 to give close cas support to their troops, but isn't an dedicaded cas aircraft like the A-10, because the harrier can also preform strike missions.

The dutch have a Good combination of F-16Am's and Apache's to give cas, and it works out really great, with the A-10 you would have better low level and slow speed preformance but it would mean that you would have to buy an additional aircraft type, something that would give you addition cost, not handy for small country's

The article is full of fallacies...

(1) The F-22 is NOT all that expensive. It costs 350 million only because we are buying 183 of them. If we buy 350, it is a $200 million aircraft and if we buy 750 (like we originally intended to) then it is a $140 million aircraft. If we buy just 12 F-22s, then it is a $3,650 million fighter. The fact of the matter is that there is about $42 billion (42,000 million) worth of R&D and tool-up costs to be amortized. With 183 aircrafts, each is carrying about 230 million of that. If produced in the same quanities as the F-15, the F-22 is not much more expensive than the F-15.

(2) In terms of acceleration, kinetic performance, climb rate, etc. the F-22 outclasses the F-15 and F-16 in everyway. In fact, it outclasses everything in everyway. These are far more important even in dogfights than who can turn slightly tighter or who can pull higher AoAs. The fact is that even in a WVR fight, outpositioning the enemy doesn't mean out turning the enemy at 500m range. Most frequently planes are more 5, 10, 20 km apart and super agility in the aerobatics sense has very little value. In fact, one can say that even kinematic performance is now secondary to stealth and sensors. You cannot out position and out fight something you don't know is there. This is why the F-35 puts stealth and sensors first, and kinematics and agility second.

(3) The author assumes that IFF is ineffective and BVR missiles don't work. The fact is that they work. In fact, the AMRAAM is far more effective than the Sidewinder is. The only reason we even get into WVR engagements in recent wars is because of the rules of engagement which demand that the pilot visually ID the target before firing. This is the right thing to do when patrol a no-fly-zone over Iraq and not wanting to be doubly sure you are not shooting down a civilian helo. But it is not what you do in a true war trying to fight a real airforce that is actually putting up a fight.

(4) The author also makes relatively un-substantiated claims that Stealth is ineffective. That fact is that stealth has enabled the US warplanes to basically swamp over the Iraq of 1991 unchallenged and unhindered. Stealth has also proven very effective when tested against the radars of the Patriot batteries, the AEGIS ships, the AWACs and US fighters in the air. The claim that stealth as it is implemented on the F-22 or F-35 is only effective against X-band or some other narrow radar bandwidth is a myth. It is effective immensely degrading the range of ALL microwave radars (L, C, S, X, K, etc). The Serbian incident has been gone over time and time again. Basically it was a radar ambush executed by estimating when the F-117 will be overhead. It was possible only because whoever the moron is who plan the mission had F-117s strike the same pair of targets in the same order a few nights in a row. So, once bombs go off at site A the Serbs could easily timed when the F-117 will be overhead based on how long it took for it to get to the next target on previous nights. It is simple, linear math. They then turned on a camouflaged radar right when they think the Nighthawk is overhead. And sure enough it was. Catch ANY stealth within a couple of kilometers and you will see it on radar and you can shoot it down.

(5) If you still cling on to the idea that fighter combat will be WVR and will involve dog tailing your opponent while you fire your guns or sidewinder up his tailpipe, chances are 99 out of a 100 times, you'll be dead before you even know it. And even if you do manage to get within visual range IR AAMs can now be reliably launched head-on, to the side and even backwards to some degree. And good luck trying to outmaneuver that 60G, Mach 3~4+ AAM with whatever super agile fighter you are flying.

"I'll venture to say that what eludes our generation is not Freedom, but the decision to be Free. I urge you to rise above the trappings of resentment, and to not merely hope but be the hope." -- Dwight Looi

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" -- Barry Goldwater (1909~1998) - one of the finest US Senator and Conservative Leader in modern history.



Well being should be a reward for individual competence, diligence and responsibility.
Well being should never be an entitlement.

The opposite of Right is not Left. The opposite of Right is Wrong.

Der Wille zur Macht!

The sort of Fallacies you keep posting on a permanent basis?

This guy KNOWS what he writes YOU DONT and keep inventing most of it.

"(1) The F-22 is NOT all that expensive."

I stopped reading your post after that. You are just out there in the bleachers.

Thunder, if you want to believe that super agility is important that is YOUR opinion. In my opinion it is completely worthless except for woeing crowds at air shows and STEALTH is the overwhelmingly dominating factor in 21st century A2A combat.

"I'll venture to say that what eludes our generation is not Freedom, but the decision to be Free. I urge you to rise above the trappings of resentment, and to not merely hope but be the hope." -- Dwight Looi

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" -- Barry Goldwater (1909~1998) - one of the finest US Senator and Conservative Leader in modern history.



Well being should be a reward for individual competence, diligence and responsibility.
Well being should never be an entitlement.

The opposite of Right is not Left. The opposite of Right is Wrong.

Der Wille zur Macht!

Thunder, if you want to believe that super agility is important that is YOUR opinion. In my opinion it is completely worthless except for woeing crowds at air shows and STEALTH is the overwhelmingly dominating factor in 21st century A2A combat.

"I'll venture to say that what eludes our generation is not Freedom, but the decision to be Free. I urge you to rise above the trappings of resentment, and to not merely hope but be the hope." -- Dwight Looi

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" -- Barry Goldwater (1909~1998) - one of the finest US Senator and Conservative Leader in modern history.



Well being should be a reward for individual competence, diligence and responsibility.
Well being should never be an entitlement.

The opposite of Right is not Left. The opposite of Right is Wrong.

Der Wille zur Macht!

Glad to see someone already posted this. I was really surprised when I first read this article - it didn't add up.

Then I went and did some investigation into the outfit that the writers represent: the Center for Defense Information.

Headed by retired Rear Admiral Gene R. LaRocque (who has led the organization since its founding in 1972), the CDI promotes LaRocque's views that the "military has become far too pervasive and powerful.":
http://www.heritage.org/Research/GovernmentReform/IA10.cfm

Given this pre-decided bias, we shouldn't be too surprised that they would promote an Op-Ed piece (it was an editorial, not an article in Jane's), that trashes the Raptor.

I was particularly surprised by the article's contention that "the F-22 has trouble outmanoeuvring the enemy." What kind of a designer was Sprey? Apparently not a performance analyst.

Air-to-air agility is primarily a function of two parameters: thrust-to-weight ratio, which enhances acceleration; and wing loading, with lower wing loading leading to better turn rate. It is not a function of "weight" as this editorial contends. On both counts, the Raptor is head-and-shoulders ahead of its peers. Only the Typhoon can even come close.

So much for CDI's latest "experts".

Double Post - DELETED

I really dont get how they can possibly use super cruise as a selling point for the F-22, the F-15 can be made to supercruise, hell even the Flanker will supercruise when it gets the Al-31MF3 engine. Supercruise is something all 4th gen airframes can be made to do. The F-22 has no inherent kinematic advantage over 4th gen airframes, its just most countries havent really wanted to waste the money it takes to make a Flanker supercruise so the design bureaus have been slow with the upgrade. And the Americans wont give the capability to the F-15 because doing so will endanger the F-22.

As for the F-22 being invisible to RWR Im curious how the hell they know what the latest Russian RWR's can do. Weve seen RWR go from running on 1 or two algorithims and costing 10,000 dollars to RWR's that today run on 30 algorithims and cost a 250,000 dollars.

I really dont get how they can possibly use super cruise as a selling point for the F-22, the F-15 can be made to supercruise, hell even the Flanker will supercruise when it gets the Al-31MF3 engine. Supercruise is something all 4th gen airframes can be made to do. The F-22 has no inherent kinematic advantage over 4th gen airframes, its just most countries havent really wanted to waste the money it takes to make a Flanker supercruise so the design bureaus have been slow with the upgrade. And the Americans wont give the capability to the F-15 because doing so will endanger the F-22.

As for the F-22 being invisible to RWR Im curious how the hell they know what the latest Russian RWR's can do. Weve seen RWR go from running on 1 or two algorithims and costing 10,000 dollars to RWR's that today run on 30 algorithims and cost a 250,000 dollars.

Three things...

(1) Supercruising or not is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that the F-22 is able to cruise at about Mach 1.7 which is significantly faster than fourth generation fighters. Mach 1.1~1.2 is also technically supercruise, and this is what a F-16 with the current F100-PW-229 or F110-GE-132 engines will handily do. In fact a the latest F-15s with 29,500~32,000 lbs engines does slightly better than that clean. These fighters are not sold as supercruisers for two reasons -- it is tactically worthless and a non-issue to customers, and no one wants to steal the F-22's thunder in in front of the foolish doves in congress.

(2) The other thing is that in order to supercruise effectively with combat loads, a fighter needs to carry its stores internally and carry its fuel internally. You can easily lose mach 0.2~0.5 of cruise speed or maximum speed simply because of pylons, missiles, bombs and worse yet an external tank. Especially with marginal supercruisers like the Gripen and the Rafale, modest external stores will drop them below the threshold -- not that it reallly matters in the eyes of customers who really know what they are buying, but technically true nonetheless.

(3) No, nobody really knows what Russian RWRs can or cannot do. But the designers do know what American and some European RWRs can do. And the implemented LPI technology defeated them easily. The question is what makes you think Russian ones are revolutionarily better? Remember, with time and frequency shifted LPI techniques each individual pulse is weaker than the background noise and it is only when you integrate numerous individual returns over time that you actually get a conspicuous signal. Each individual pulse is impossible to find amidst the clutter and only the emitting radar knows the time segment and frequency of every pulse which is required to re-integrate the return signal.

"I'll venture to say that what eludes our generation is not Freedom, but the decision to be Free. I urge you to rise above the trappings of resentment, and to not merely hope but be the hope." -- Dwight Looi

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" -- Barry Goldwater (1909~1998) - one of the finest US Senator and Conservative Leader in modern history.



Well being should be a reward for individual competence, diligence and responsibility.
Well being should never be an entitlement.

The opposite of Right is not Left. The opposite of Right is Wrong.

Der Wille zur Macht!

82-0 is bull****!



Everything that Islam has achieved in victories
and culture was in the germinal stage in
the first twenty years of the message.
Before they conquered the lands,
the Arabs had conquered themselves and
penetrated into the innermost of their souls
Before they governed nations, they governed
themselves and controlled their passions
and were in possession of their wills.
(In memory of the Arab Prophet,
by Michel Aflaq 1 -April, 1943)
ht*p://public.vunet.org/Iraq/9-Ilham_Al_Madfaee_-_Khuttar.mp3
http://www.libyana.org/music/badya/badya-1/track3.rm
http://www.al-ahwaz.com/arabic/media/sound/ahwaz_national_anth.wma
h*tp://arabicouds.com/audio/farido1.mp3

Thunder, if you want to believe that super agility is important that is YOUR opinion. In my opinion it is completely worthless except for woeing crowds at air shows and STEALTH is the overwhelmingly dominating factor in 21st century A2A combat.

Quote: TEXT

agility is one of the most important skill of an aircraft.

for exhaust an enemy missile.
and for operate agaisnt missile.

it's as important as stealth, if you can't operate you will be destroyed when your foe engaged you.

a little RCS and good operate is the real good choice, so buy european ^^

@Dwight Looi

"Supercruising or not is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that the F-22 is able to cruise at about Mach 1.7 which is significantly faster than fourth generation fighters."

What is relevant is that the F-22 is now able to cruise slower than some second generation, 40 years old fighters. What is relevant is that high speed cruise is so irrelevant that this feature was no longer a requirement for decades. What is relevant is that high speed cruise actually increases the level of IR radiation, thus nullifying the benefits of EM stealth. What is relevant is that supercruise helps for marketing propaganda.

"it is only when you integrate numerous individual returns over time that you actually get a conspicuous signal."

That's the basic principle of any pulse doppler radar.

"Each individual pulse is impossible to find amidst the clutter and only the emitting radar knows the time segment and frequency of every pulse which is required to re-integrate the return signal."

Each individual pulse can be integrated over time too, and that's way easier to do because a RWR deals with high power pulses (straight from the emitter). RWR don't have to catch the whole signal either. They only need to know there's a signal.

If you carefully READ what the F-22 pilots are saying about it you'll ZIP it and start learning about the whole subject. First.

I don't BASE my comments on "beliefs" and "Opinions", this sort of arguments are just good enough for those who like yourself keep writing whatever while the rest of the worls specialists including Air Force/Navy specialists and pilots totally deny what they say.

And for your info, AGAIN, while i'm no more active as opposed to you two i have a formation of weapon specialist in the best European AF plus a private pilot one too.

Meaning i can actually understand what this all mean weither in most cases you DONT and it SHOW every single time you try to make of reality "My opinion".

AND BTW I also can spot B-S you write, it's SO easy it's scary and Opit is the reference here as the only active A-F member in know about Not yourself who are a total revisionist.

>>>>>

@GabRaz thanks for the alternative post but i still think Spreys knows better on some particular points:

"Basically, here's how it works. RWRs are like any sensor: they operate at a certain fidelity lending a certain degree of dependability. If you radiate only briefly or only a little, RWRs aren't going to be able to pin you down."

That's valid with old gen WRW and a pilot flying in a straight line on a 3rd gen RCS aircraft like F-16.

Modern Defense suite such as DASS or SPECTRA are designed around modern AESA radar emission parameters and since WWI in combat zone pilots change direction every ten seconds or so.

Basically it's not that RWR can't detect their emission it is more so that the previous generation onboard computing power cannot allow them to ID it as a radar emission.

To give you an idea of scale, Rafale MDPU (Modular Data Processing Unit) is 50 time more powerfull than that of Mirage 2000-5 which were themself an improvement over that of the baseline 2000 DA, 200 time faster than the first F-15Cs MDPUs... Rafale posses 15 (FIVE X TEN) of them.

So if F-22 can do well electronically vs F-15/16/18s i doubt very much it will enjoy this level of superiority over a Rafale F-2.

A system like SPECTRA have been designed by those who design AESA in Europe for decades, so they know damned well how to detect their emissions.

The modern defense systems are well suited for detecting APG-77 or even APG-81s and if the US doesn't realise that yet it's simply because they only pited F-22 against inferior EW equiped F-15/16/18s.

"One day RWRs will catch up to the new AESAs. But for right now, the radars have the advantage."

I think he should have said "When Rafale RWR will be pited vs the new US AESAs" because two NATO MACE-X ECM exercise whenre Rafale M02 was pitted vs anything NATO have to offer have proved its effisciency tenfold.

On the aiframe parameter front, F-22 have lost a lot of its superiority by puting on weight, it weights now at 18,144 kg empty and growing with F/A capabilties.

(Data from USAF, 40,000 Ib / 18,144 kg)

http://www2.acc.af.mil/library/factsheets/fa-22.html

For comparisions purposes.

Rafale C wingload-empty----207.80 kg/m2.

F-22 (USAF)----empty-------231.72 kg/m2.

TWRs

Rafale C TWR---------------1.57

F-22 TWR-------------------1.71

F-22 have a clear advantage in TWR expecially DRY, but its wingload is significantly higher.

Combat playload is calculated with 50% internal fuel in the case of 4th gen fighters, F-22 is not really designed to fly with external tanks in Air Supremacy missions.

I have little details on how the USAF computes Raptor combat weight but fact remains its wingload can be higher depending on source, that of Rafale C is the Official DGA figure.

Aerodynamically, F-22 suffers from obvious design compromises due to its stealth features, while its IR signature is also higher with NO IR reduction measures possible with TVC for the same reasons.

All US fighter pilots who have flown vs Rafale reported an unusually low IR signature.

F-22 internal bay means that although it helps with stealth, it results on a much larger frontal area and permanent drag.

With 8 AAMs there is little gains over low-drag/high-speed AAMs and their lylons like those carried on Rafale.

The delta-canard configuration of the european 4th generation fighter means that their aerodynamics are better suited for high rate of acceleration in supersonic.

It is where it actually matters in BVR ACMs.

This ofsets a slighly lower TWR in the case of Rafale.

In Gripen and Rafale case, lift-enhancing capabilties of the close coupled canard and for Rafale, LEXs which are only present in an ambrionic form on F-22 (LEX) or not at all.

In every A2A configuration, Rafale would have more lift on tap from a lower wingload and its lift enhancing devices than F-22 and lift is what provides a high instantaneous turn rate capability.

This is valid throughout the whole flight envelop and provides with better turning capabilities in supersonic too.

TVC allows for control but doesn't replace lift.

When it comes to sustained turn rate, one have to take the lift/weight ratio into account and add TWR where F-22 advantage is only marginal with 50% internal fuel & Max TOW.

Out-turning F-15/16/18 might well be easy for a F-22, it wont be able to do that to a Typhoon or Rafale and remenber that all report made by NATO fighters up to now involved mostly the heaviest M version.

Rafale M pilots ALSO find it easy to outfight these...

Out-accelerating them will greatly depend on their respective configuration and weight on 50% fuel and 8 AAMs i think it will not be possible at all altitudes and speeds.

Ouclimbing them, i still have to see that happening too, aerodynamics are not there only for the European fighters and there again lift is the key element although thrust plays also a larger role as is the case with sustained turn rates.

The original max climbing rate for F-22 was given at 350m/sec+ but his was for the lightest version of it.

Still a very high number it remains to be seen if with two tons extra it actually can replicate this.

Dassault gives Rafale for 1,000 ft/sec, about 333 m/sec.

In Brief, in close combat F-22 have little if NO advantages and even disadvantages at 50% internal fuel with 8 AAMs.

Here are the official datas: Note Dassault are giving the Operational figures (In A2A configuration) they still clearly indicate M 2.0 and 55.000 ft as max performances in the same website and their Annual reports PDFs.

www.dassault-aviation.com/defense/

Rafale

Performances and characteristics

Dimensions
Span 10,80 m (33.5ft)
Wing area 45,70 m2 (491 sq ft)
Length 15,27 m (50.1ft)
Height 5,34 m (17,5ft)

Weight
Empty 10-ton class
Max 24.500 kg (54,000lb)
Fuel (internal) 4.700 kg (10,300lb)
Fuel (external) 6.800 kg (15,000lb)
Max external capability 9.500 kg (20,950lb)

External store stations
Total 14
Heavy stores & fuel "wet" stations 5

Load factors +9g/-3.2g
Max speed M 1.8+/750 kts
Approach speed 120 kts
Landing distance 450 m (1,475 ft)
Max climb rate over 1,000 ft/sec
Operational ceiling 55,000 ft
Radius of action (penetration mission) more than 1.000 NM
Combat air patrol loiter time over 3 hours

>>>>>

Air Force Link.

F-22A RAPTOR

General Characteristics
Primary Function: Air dominance, multi-role fighter
Builder: Lockheed-Martin, Boeing
Power Plant: Two Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 turbofan engines with afterburners and two-dimensional thrust vectoring nozzles.
Thrust (each engine): 35,000-pound class.
Length: 62 feet, 1 inch (18.9 meters).
Height: 16 feet, 8 inches (5.1 meters).
Wingspan: 44 feet, 6 inches (13.6 meters).
Speed: Mach 2 class.
Ceiling: Above 50,000 feet (approximately 15 kilometers).
Empty Weight: 40,000-pound class (approximately 18,000 kilograms).
Armament: One M61A2 20-millimeter cannon with 480 rounds; side weapon bays can carry two AIM-9 infrared (heat seeking) air-to-air missiles and main weapon bays can carry (air-to-air loadout) six AIM-120 radar-guided air-to-air missiles or (air-to-ground loadout) two 1,000-pound GBU-32 JDAMs and two AIM-120 radar-guided air-to-air missiles.
Crew: One
Initial Operational Capability:
Inventory: Unavailable.

>>>>>Quotes.

* Large control surfaces: The F-22 features some of the largest elevators, flaps, fins and stabilizers on any fighter aircraft ever built. The single-piece stabilizers are as large as an F-16's entire wing. Control-surface design is another key factor in maneuverability.

True but so far what the author is talking about is only CONTROL surfaces not lift enhancing devices.

Turning performances and pitch control are TWO totally different issues, to sumerise if you put TVCs and a larger elevator on a F-104 you wont make it pull 9Gs, EVER.

You could point your nose 90 up, your trajectory wouldn't change, 25 up (and still have lift), you wont be turning hard either because you won't have the necessary amount of lift to do so.

* Thrust vectoring: The P&W-119s terminate in vertical thrust-vectoring nozzles that can direct 35,000 pounds of thrust apiece 20 degrees up or down, improving turning ability."

This one is a dummy. LOL.

If the guy who wrote this can prove that one axis-TVC increases turing performances he already won the Nobel price of physics ten times over.

NOT ONE F-22 pilot or X-31/X-32 pilots would say so.

They tell exactly the same story, they can POINT their nose where they wants it but none of them will tell you that the TVC will help the turning performances because they DONT.

The nozzles operate in pitch only, and always symmetrically.

At high angles of attack, they are used for pitch control, allowing the horizontal tail to be used for roll.

F-22 chief test pilot Paul Metz says thrust vectoring amplifies the tail's effectiveness.

"By design, the aircraft can fly to very high angles of attack on aerodynamic control only-but thrust-vectoring gets there quicker," he says.

Vectoring is actived at all times, but its use is restricted to lower speeds and higher angles of attack - and not always in combat: "We use thrust-vectoring to rotate the aircraft for take-off, and to offload the nosegear when carrying tanks," Metz says.

So, does TVC increases turning performances? Nope.

AGAIN on F-22 they just allow for a higher level of pitch and roll control (by allowing the evelators the be used in pitch at high AoA), and compensate for its aerodynamic problems.

More to it, what are the fixed nozzles of a Rafale at Max AoA doing?

They deflect at 4* MORE than the Max AoA obtainable to a squadron F-22 pilot (30* vs 26*), which mean that F-22 TVC will only deflect at 16* more not 20*.

At this sort of AoA a delta wing will always have more lift than that of F-22, being one known characteristic of the deltas.

The drawback being that they will also produce more drag but will still allow for a higher level of acceleration once the pilot reduces AoA. This provide for better transcient performances. (turing/accelerating).

F-22 can pass a Cobra manoeuver thanks to its TVC when flown by a test pilot:

Rafale test pilot can do so too thanks to its aerodynamics.

"You've got to have nozzles," he said. "The only difference with these is that they move." In other words, they're no heavier or draggier than any other nozzle."

The guy isn't going to tell you "Yeah but they are not cooled with a separate flux of air and hiden by a protective duct so their IR signature is quiet high compared to some other aircrafts, namely the French Rafale and its M-88s...

"The F-35 is a mediocre performer. Said 1st Fighter Wing commander Brigadier General Burton Field, "The problem with the F-35 ... is speed. It doesn't have the capability to supercruise. Speed lets us get inside the decision cycle of the bad guy."

Interesting coming form a F-22 pilot...

According to some sources, Rafale supercruises at M 1.4 with 6 MICAs, the simulated increase of thrust provided by M88-3 would give it a M 1.6 supercruise capabiltiy.

A comprehensive desadvantage in DRY TWR and the slight extra drag due to the external carriage of AAMs makes F-22 day.

>>>>>Quote: Dwig looi...

(2) "In terms of acceleration, kinetic performance, climb rate, etc. the F-22 outclasses the F-15 and F-16 in everyway. In fact, it outclasses everything in everyway. These are far more important even in dogfights than who can turn slightly tighter or who can pull higher AoAs".

First of all you're more than welcome to prove this so called superiority in climb rates, so far F-22 have only been pited vs US aircraft all of which have far lower combat capabilties than Typhoon, Gripen or Rafale.

Second dismissing the importance of area F-22 pilots highlight themself as being part of its advantagces isn't too smart a move, they understand the importance of AoA in ACM, you appartently don't.

AoA results on pilot imput for more turning performances, the more they need the more the aircraft will have to increase its AoA.

This is valid throughoput the whole of the flight envelop invlucing at high speeds where the difference will be made by those who can pull the highest level of Gs for the longest at the highest speed possible.

So it covers BOTH VWR, BVW ACMs and is reported by French pilots as i already posted but obviously, your NEED to INVENT their own experience and conculsions is still NOT satisfied.

Third if turning performances wasn't that important the F-22 pilots wouldn't be talking about it all the time, they DO.

You're simply WRONG and can only deny other aircrafts superiorities over that of the US to make your points.

"(5) If you still cling on to the idea that fighter combat will be WVR and will involve dog tailing your opponent while you fire your guns or sidewinder up his tailpipe, chances are 99 out of a 100 times, you'll be dead before you even know it."

You don't understand BVR or VWR ACMs at all.

Outmanoeuvring an opponent in BVR combat means reaching an advantagous launching position before him however way you chose to do it including turning faster if necessary.

Air is a tri-dimentional space and AAMs have a non-static engagement zone, a moving size-changing one.

Incidentaly, better transcient performances increases your capabilties to do so.

If you climb faster you gain in (AAM) range, can fire earlier and your engagement zone inflates as a result.

If you accelerate faster you can launch faster, you gain in (AAM) and your engagement zone inflates as a result.

If you turn faster you can expect to launch and leave your opponent engagement area and your opponent engagement zone deflates accordingly.

If your turing point is highe enough you still can leave your opponent engagement zone before its wepon can reach you.

ONE major problem for F-22, it have to fire its AIM-120 relatively close to guaranty a high probability of kill.

MICA IR is far superior to any US BVR AAM in fire and forget mode as its seeker works from launch and can even be slaved to OSF.

MICA IR means totally passive BVR engagement with the manoeuvrability of a close combat IR AAM.

At 80 km you wont detect its launch since it doesnt requier a radar lock and will never see it coming appart for a short range missile approach detector and will have been locked on long ago.

If you do detect MICA in BVR, you will have emited radar waves detectasble by SPECTRA and given your position away.

"And even if you do manage to get within visual range IR AAMs can now be reliably launched head-on, to the side and even backwards to some degree."

Not on F-22 NO. It still have to launch its IR AAM locked BEFORE launch due to their position inside the baies.

What you describe is the "best case" scenario where the target is detected and locked-on by the Raptor sub-sensors.

This means F-22 IR AAMs depends on the aircraft sensors to lock on their targets before launch.

Now, getting a lock on a Rafale with its SPECTRA singing without the radar is not going to happen tomorow and even with the radar there are serious doubts.

BACKWARD firing...

NOT "to some degree" either, you might NOT accept this FACT, launching backward IS a capabiltiy Rafale F-2 have RIGHT NOW.

F-22 doesn't have the BVR AAM to do that.

In case you don't get the picture YET, the MICA range will ALSO be superior to that of AIM-120 lanched "up his tailpipe" because its speed will be ADDED to that of the pursuer.

Since they are IR they wont loose their targets by lack of mid-course guidance if you manoeuver after launch.

And before you start denying this, it is actually a recent report from Rafale Squadron jockey developing the tactics with the 1/7 Vendee Squadron in service today...

"And good luck trying to outmaneuver that 60G, Mach 3~4+ AAM with whatever super agile fighter you are flying."

It's FAR easier than what you keep trying to imply since you still DONT understand what it really means.

The goal is NOT to out-turn them but to decoy them and THEN increase the angle between your trajectory and theirs.

And as a matter of fact it works more often than none and that's WHY even the IR AAMs doesnt have a 100% kill ratio.

In REAL life there isn't ANY 100% foolproof AAM and decidely NO AIM-120 is certainly NOT superior to AIM-9s, they have a much lower kill rate than the "winders".

>>>>>Back to you GabRaz...

I still regard F-22 as having an edge over European 4th generation fighters in A2A for the following reasons.

F-22 stealth features makes its detection more difficult than simply using the radars, but let's be realistic here.

It reality on a network of sensors when not using its radar.

Its IR signature is higher so it is more detectable by Optronic systems such as OSF which is BVW AAM capable.

OSF is already capable of detecting F-22 in BVR in all weather although there is a degradation of its performances in bad weather.

OSF NG is designed to improve in this sector as well as range, (Some MN/AdA top brasses insist on having an IR version of METEOR) and the next generation of European GaN based AESA are designed to allow for an earlier detection of L.O targets.

As opposed to what Dwig Looi implies, Ultra-Wide band radars as fitted to AWACS of the next generation WILL detect L.O aircrafts at long range.

And i dont believe that the US avionics only contemporary of the upgraded Rafale avionics are superior to it, we have an history of bettering them regularly expecially in EW.

If we could quantify the amount of onboard power available to both aircraft we might have a little surprise here too.

In a one vs one combat there would be little between them in BVR.

The Raptor pilot would have to avoid detection and detect a Rafale without actually giving its position away and this is simply not going to happen.

What F-22 advantage is, is a higher cruising speed which narrows the detection window of the Rafale pilot (Which was the goal of supercruise in the first place) and ALSO translates into a higher kinetiq value in dry power.

BUT as Opit rightly pointed out, increases its IR signature and OSF feeds on IR/near-IR/UVs signals.

OSF would detect F-22 at up to 80 km in bad weather too and this also would allow for a totally passive BVR interception.

SPECTRA would detect any of the F-22 emissions at up to 200 km in a 360 X 360 buble and be equaly able to use these datas as a firing (totally passive) solution...

M-88-2 wasn't designed with the high dry thrust of the P&W-119s and this helps F-22 higher supercruise speed.

I'd love to see the dry thrust of the futur M-88 ECO...

In any case it's nowhere near as simple as the simple minds of those who don't undertsnad the subject that well...

Mes escuses pour avoir mal interprete "ta reaction" mais essaie de quoter pour me donner une meilleure idee de qui en est l'auteur...

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-6118-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-0.html

Intersting....