No Place To Be





"…everything my airplane did, he reacted to instinctively. He was flying a damn good airplane! Well, we kept at it, with me outzooming him in the vertical, and him shooting at me every time I got out in front. I thought; “he’s going to get lucky one of these times!”  The next time we started up in the vertical, an idea came to me…I don’t know why…your mind just works overtime in a situation like that…anyway, as we’re going up, I went to idle and speed brakes…and he shot out in front of me! I think it really surprised him…being out in front for the first time. Anyway, we’re both going straight up and losing speed fast. I was down to 150 knots, and I knew I was going to have to go to full burner to hold it. I did and we both pitched over the top. As he comes over, I use rudder to get the airplane to turn to his belly side. He lost lift coming over the top and I think he departed the airplane a little bit. I thought; “this is no place to be with a MiG-17…at 150 knots…that slow…he can take it right away from you" (pg 66).

Above is a first-hand account by ‘Top-Gun’ graduates US Navy ace Lt. Randy Cunningham (and backseater (RIO) Lt. Willie Driscoll) who defeated North Vietnamese ace "Colonel Tomb" in the now legendary vertical rolling scissors Energy Engagement of 10-May 1972 over Vietnam.

Drendel, Lou. ... and Kill MIGs: Air to Air Combat from Vietnam to the Gulf War. N.p.: Squadron Signal Publ., 1997. Print.

[Below] In this 1985 depiction by legendary aviation artist Lou Drendel, Cunningham has just chopped his throttles and deployed speed brakes.


[Above] The final stage(s) of the engagement. Why "Tomb" stops maneuvering and heads for
the deck - is today - still a matter of conjecture. However, Cunningham’s aircraft would not survive the events of 10-May, as it is hit by an SA-2 (SAM) moments after the demise of the MiG. Cunningham wrestles his flaming F-4J out over the sea. The navy airmen both eject to avoid becoming POWs.

Some overwhelming conclusions of the engagement of 10-May 1972:


First: Cunningham simply had to hit speed brakes and chop his throttles (to end the Boyd EM engagement) as his F-4J was (now listen up F-22 community) out-zooming the MiG in the vertical – and keep from "running-out-of-luck” in front of the MiG.


Second: when (if) opponents fight to an energy-maneuver stalemate - the pilot who attempts withdrawal first - in a manner that does not (or cannot) avoid his opponents weapons envelope - is immediately shot down.


Third: indeed, all else being roughly equal, the aircraft with greater combat-persistence maintains the inherent advantage - even under 'Boyd E-M theory' application.


Fourth: the 'Boyd E-M combat maneuvering theory' works very well – until it doesn’t.

Whether the American or Western fighter pilot community will acknowledge this fact - is unknown.

During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the huge swirling jet battles of Arab MiGs, Israeli F-4 Phantoms, and Mirage, after starting at supersonic speeds, quickly became very low altitude turning fights at near stall speeds.

Once both adversaries understand the energy fight (Boyd E-M 'theory'), aggressive maneuvers bleed airspeed(s).

Here is proof. [Below] Watch the airspeed drop from ~ 500 knots down to ~ 200 knots (see the left hand HUD display) under actual combat conditions. The F-16 begins to approach stall speeds below 150 knots.

We have gone easy on the F-22 Raptors numerous operational-systems-maintenance issues, assuming they would be rectified at some point. The USAF seems to have completely backed away from confidence in F-22s LPI (Low probability of Intercept) primary targeting radar? This is interesting. Perhaps in a cruel twist of irony, LPI may instead refer to the Raptors inability to find/attack lower flying targets (see bullet # 5 below).
[Above] In typical American fanfare tradition, the F-22A is rolled out with a banner reading: "Coming soon to a  theater near you..."

What the USAF wants to do now is (of the listed, some we have previously written extensively about) - is to upgrade our new $62-$77 billion dollar F-22 fleet by:
  1. Developing a workable helmet-sighting system for its two (2) internal AIM-9 stations.
  2. Develop IRST-thermal targeting system (YF-22 had IR-sensors in each wing root, deleted on the production F-22A).
  3. Develop replacement for AIM-120 with an anti-radiation class weapon, using wide-band electromagnetic homing and a new LPI-scheme mid-course update.
  4. Develop robust battle-networking, currently F-22A pilots must talk on their radios.
  5. Have radar target-designation provided by other friendly assets (upgraded F-15s) – with Raptor flying in front of the Eagles as the shooter (presumably to assist in concealing F-22s position).
Surely F-15s-F-35s armed with a MBDA-Meteor/Hughes FMRAAM propulsion class weapon is a more workable solution – than sending F-22 aircrew with short/medium range (missile) rounds, head-on into Flankers.

With no F-22A used in Libya - while other sophisticated primary American strategic assets were employed - the evidence is growing of systemic issues with the F-22 Stealth fighter - as a concept. The F-22 has not been decisive in Syria either, as it has only been used to bomb Daesh insurgents and hasn't scared off the Russians. Not a very convincing use for the world's most expensive "air dominance" aircraft. We shall see if a no-fly-zone will be attempted after the 2016 American elections.

The absolute essential (essential) need for total unimpeded electromagnetic sensor mechanics (performance) in a high-endurance platform is all too evident: these systems are called AWACS, AEW and ISR aircraft. When one introduces stealth design requirements into this capability – own sensor performance must suffer? 

In our view  - the USAF has confounded what fighter pilots require with what stealth requires.

Nevertheless, the F-22 community insists that the Raptor will prevail against any known or future opponent, by exploiting the “element of surprise” (never mind claims of being immune to global air defense systems). However, these assertions are based on several assumptions:
A change to any one of these - can severely hamper or even neutralize a real or perceived technological advantage.

Once both adversaries understand the energy fight (the Boyd E-M 'theory'), aggressive maneuvers bleed airspeed(s). You must design aircraft to out-fly an opponent even at very (very) low airspeeds.

You have to do it. 

[Below] So...your problem is this. Note not only the axis of rotation - but the point of rotation, at playback points 1:02 and 1:16:

[Above] This aircraft exceeds the Boyd energy-fight capability of our current F-15, F-16, F/A-18 fleets, (it has taken 27 time-to-climb records away from the F-15 Eagle) and appears closely matched to the F-22. The aircraft combines these attributes with simply unprecedented low-speed agility, helmet-sighting, at 1/3 to 1/5th the cost of a Raptor. F-22A currently has no helmet-sighting system.

[Above] Sukhoi Su-35S at MAKS 2015 [Below] in 2011. The Sukhoi displays excellent energy maneuvering and agility (never mind an aircraft of this size) that is simply beyond belief - and has no Western equal. Some industry insiders believe the F-22A can not exceed Flanker in maneuvering flight-performance. Inherent advantages of a non-stealth design:


Helmet-sighting has added a new and unwelcome (and deadly) dimension to the traditional energy-fight, an issue the USAF was forced to acknowledge in 2004-05-06, then attempted to sidestep in 2008.

To get an idea of the nature of Helmet-Sighting (first fielded in quantity on MiG-29) and how it fundamentally changes traditional Boyd EM application calculus – please see video below:


The F-22 has yet to be pitted against authentic modern threat models, and the result is Raptor aircrews will pay a terrible price.

The Sukhoi is a large aircraft and can be seen at greater distances - this is understood as a tactical disadvantage. However, this does not ensure American aviators instantly know what they are seeing (IFF). They may discern after some moments they have encountered a twin-tailed fighter - and so deduce they have initially waded into a flight of Flankers, Su-34s, MiG-29s, MiG-35s, MiG-25s,  F-14s (Iran), MiG-31s or just as likely, friendly F-15s, (F-35s, F/A-18s) or F-22s.

Here is the appraisal from the Center for Defence Information.

Your thoughts?

#f22. #USAF #Raptor

- All media found here is for scholarship and research purposes and protected under U.S. Internet ‘Fair Use’ Law -  

Comments

  1. Just an FYI you can download the Pentagon Labyrinth which is here:

    www.cdi.org/pdfs/TPL_FullText_2.9.11.pdf

    I was hoping for a more indepth look at the F-22 program in terms of its Strategic role as an offensive i.e Aggressor into foreign airspace.

    Still nice work.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Anonymous,

    From our perspective, some context might be helpful. We began researching and formulating ‘Boresight’ augments in 2006-07. This was still during the Bush administration and there were real concern Bush might start a third war against Iran. Then we had Georgia, and Gaza. Since that time the F-22 has seen endless basic issues (now its a non-functioning pilot oxygen system) that has caused 1 and perhaps 2 fatal crashes (plane lawn-darts into the ground). With no appearance in anything but air shows (no combat operations), this aircraft is probably not much of a threat – and looks like it heading for a similar history as the Lockheed F-104.

    The F-22 like the F-104: Impressive performance figures, cult following, and almost useless as a combat aircraft.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You may want to try and pick up three books:

    1. Mary Kaldor's Baroque Arsenal - Dealing with how these various weapons systems were designed and the process behind them.

    2.Eugene Jarecki's The American Way of War - More to do with the MIC and its procurement practices as well as the overarching ideology of how this came about.

    3. Sharon Weinberger's Imaginary Weapons. Well, basically all of the above and some more.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ok thanks! We’ve been very pleased (to date) with first-hand accounts (pilot experiences) as what happens in actual air-combat, is almost beyond comprehension.

    As always, thank you for your input!

    ReplyDelete
  5. There's much more that's wrong with the F-22 than even *that*. It even fails to exceed the most basic performance attributes of the F-15C Eagle if failed to replace.

    Notably, the F-15C and F-22A have the SAME Thrust/Weight ratios, both with and without internal fuel, and with a full payload as well (they have the same theoretical payload). That means the mythical "much greater" climb rate of the F-22 isn't actually possible --- it's 50000ft/min, just like the F-15C.

    Also, let's not forget that the F-22A weighs almost twice as much at Empty Weight as an F-15C (43400lbs vs. 28600lbs), so while it performs impressive maneuvers, it's ultimate potential for TRANSITIONING between them is a disaster. That pretty much reduces the F-22's TVN to being a crutch, rather than a bonus (not that they were EVER a bonus; they only pivot to about +/- 20 degrees, and can't pivot independently from one another).

    Worse still, the F-22A has a higher Wing Loading than the F-15C, so the limit to it's potential for maneuverability is lower.

    And are we really supposed to believe that engines which produce 25000lbs of *dry* thrust are supposed to be economical enough to give the F-22A a 130% greater range with only 50% more fuel? Pushing-out enough thrust to make a 43400lb aircraft go as fast as a 28600lb one means more energy is required to create that thrust. More energy = more fuel consumed per-second; there's no such thing as a free lunch.
    Assuming an F-22A had the lower weight and lower fuel consumption as the F-15C, it's range would thus only be increased by about 50%, or to about 900 miles (compare to the USAF's claim of 1600 miles). That's a 280-miles-shorter range than an SU-27 Flanker, which only carries 2000lbs more fuel!

    Lastly, consider the USAF's claim that the F-22A can "Supercruise". This effect does NOT HAPPEN in airframes with a Fuel Fraction of less than 35%, and as it happens, the F-22's Fuel Fraction is only 29%... which is the same as the F-15C!
    Even the USAF's and LockMart's definition of Supercruise is a lie; we're expected to believe that this effect is simply flying at supersonic speeds without afterburners, when the ACTUAL effect of Supercruise is retaining a supersonic speed on minimal thrust; http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/reports/national-security/fact-vs-fiction/ns-fa22-20000810.html#Supersonic_Cruise_Supercruise


    All of what you see above are the basics of aircraft design. If you don't get them all right, *nothing else matters*, and the F-22 design team didn't. It's a testament to how amateur, unimaginative, and ignorant those behind the F-22 really are.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Balcktail

    Thank you for you comments!!!!

    Fascinating!!

    My understanding is the F-22As F119-PW-100 engines are a quasi hi-bypass (high efficiency) low-bypass (lower efficiency/more turbo-jet like) design than say the PW F100-series.

    While assuming the F-22A internal weapons bays allow less drag and so lower engine power settings per/knot airspeed – we have been perplexed seeing Raptors now operating with two large external drop tanks.

    So we agree something is wrong with the picture portrayed by Lockheed and the USAF.

    Fascinating.

    We had also assumed (perhaps falsely) that higher-thrust engines at the same specific fuel consumption are theoretically possible as a function of a natural progression of technology.

    An example might be the problematic Pratt & Whitney TF30 (20,900 lb thrust) fitted to the F-14A being replaced with the much better (23,100 lb thrust) F110-GE-400 on later Tomcats.

    We were unaware the improved F110-GE-400 might have higher specific fuel consumption at all dry-thrust throttle settings than the TF-30s at the same dry thrust (throttle) settings.

    Fascinating.

    We agree something is wrong with the picture portrayed by Lockheed and the USAF.

    The similarities of the F-22A to the Lockheed YF-12, (high-speeds, high-altitudes, internal weapons) seem hard to ignore?

    Great (great) input Blacktail!!!

    Thank you!!

    -The Boresight

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The reason you are seeing F-22's fitted with drop tanks is for ferry missions. Its easier to fit them and not have to use more in flight refuels. Makes sense yes?

      Delete
    2. Hi, Yes – however if you take a look at our “The war is over” link:

      http://theboresight.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-war-is-over.html

      there is a nice picture of F-22 in a classic air-intercept sortie of the venerable T-95. So we’re not sure what going on here – but something is strange. Either the F-22s fuel-fraction is too low or the specific fuel consumption (of Pratt &Whitney F119) is higher than published (higher than say an F100).
      - Boresight

      Delete
  7. Here is an article on the F-35 current fiscal problems:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/07/10/how-the-f-35-doubled-in-price/

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hi Anonymous.

    Thanks for the link. Yes the F-35 program is a complete mess. So much so we haven’t bothered to write about it. It is effectively simply an airframe replacement program for the F-16, F-18 and F-15. If F-35 can effectively employ IRST / Helmet sighting / DRFM / Meteor Class primary weapon – then the program might be worth saving - as long as F-35 costs can be controlled. If not – then it would be better to keep F-16, F-15 and F-18 production lines open or license build foreign aircraft like was done on the AV-8B.

    If I were running the DOD I would:
    Mothball the F-22 and F-35 programs and aircraft.
    Revive a Super F-14 Tomcat 21 or license build the Su-33 for the US-Navy.
    Keep the F-16, F-18 and F-15 in production to replace older airframes.

    Lockheed’s previous jet fighter was the F-104 Starfighter. It also had a cult following, impressive manufacturing test data and performance figures – only to prove utterly useless as a combat aircraft and completely incapable of dealing with the MiG-21.

    Something to think about.

    - Boresight

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi

    The troubles just don't seem to stop with this plane.
    Can you imagine this...

    http://defensetech.org/2012/05/09/f-22-ground-crew-suffered-hypoxia-like-symptoms/

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hello Boresight

    Fourth: the 'Boyd E-M combat maneuvering theory' works very well – until it doesn’t.

    I understand what this statement says, but there appears to be shockingly little literature on the subject. And where there is little literature after the E-M theory no longer is valid, what happens?

    Is there an article here or elsewhere that you trust to explain the rest of the engagement(as it cannot be the beginning of E-M theory since E-M theory covers the opening actions of an engagement on both sides).

    I have also seen the video of the Flanker and Raptor side-by-side performances. I have a question concerning that video

    Was the performance of one a response to the performance of the other
    (did the flanker perform to prove a point after the vid of the raptor performing was released or vice versa)

    OR

    were both performances independent of one another?

    I know that the answer to this question might not be important, but how can one say that the F-22 performance is akin to an F-15C if it in fact seems to perform just beneath the Flanker?

    -Cameron

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " the 'Boyd E-M combat maneuvering theory' works very well – until it doesn’t." is a statement by somebody who doesn´t even know what the EM-theory is all about:Its a mathematical formula that allows you to calculate your state of energy relative to your drag polars.Potential energy state=thrust minus drag divided by weight and multiplied by the velocity.Its basically very simple:It allows you according to the second law of thermodynamics and under understanding the entropy of the closed system that is the Air craft, how to define its maneuvreability under given circumstances as well as it allows you to compare 2 AC´s.Before the F-15 no AC was designed with losing and gaining energy fast in mind.It revolutionized AirtoAir-combat after the EM charts were calculated by Col.John Boyd, because it gave you the exact flight envelope for every situation and because Boyd was one of the very best fighter pilots the World ever knew, he could teach pilots how to use this new knowledge in a dog fight.The EM theory was nothing without the proper use of the OODA-loop btw and guess who invented that?Now tell me who has beaten Boyd in a dog fight?
      Exactly:Nobody.
      The vertical rolling scissors was only one of many maneuvres Boyd developed.Only few pilots have the skills Boyd had.
      Its :People,ideas,hardware...in this order.
      Could a single F-16 beat an F-22?Hmm.. depends on the two pilots
      :)Just keep in mind how expensive the F-22 is (150million at least vs 18,8mio for the F-16, so if you spend 150mio for 8 F-16´s that F-22 is down no question asked) and how little the pilot has the chance of flying it.The advantage is on the F-16´s driver side.How important is that?Very much so, or do you think a career blue suit would endanger his precious bird and put his career on the line to find out the limits of that AC?Don´t think so.But there are more F-16´s lost due to reckless hoarsing arround than there are F-22 in existance!So enough said, I think.

      Delete
    2. All Boyd EM theory does is convert energy state (airspeed) and space (airspace) into nose pointing (advantageous position over your opponent – and sometimes only for a few seconds). If you are forced to exhaust your energy (read: stand on your tail in a vertical stall at zero airspeed) because you opponent understands Boyd E-M also – then you have broken all the Boyd EM rules. Boyd theory never says “exhaust your energy state in a tail stand at full afterburner while your opponent shoots his cannon at you.”

      If you do that against a Flanker he’ll rudder over and shoot you – or far more likely kill you long before with helmet-sighted Archer while you’re in the middle of some silly Boyd Yo-Yo.

      Helmet-sighting starts to unravel Boyd-EM as a tactic. The F-16 has been outclassed by advanced Flanker series. Please post in a mature manner or you will be blocked for awhile.

      Delete
    3. tobiashommerich@aol.com20 November, 2013 01:06

      It shows clearly , that you don´t understand EM: The EM-charts show the POTENTIAL energy that you have in every possible flight situation and teaches you what the opponent has left as potential energy to counter your maneuvre.It gives you the tools to counter the counter as well, but its up to training and talent to win a dog fight.Its people, ideas, hardware...in this order.
      You can have helmet sight, but that does not give you more potential energy ,only better situational awareness maybe. If you don´t know exactly what energy state you and your opponent is, you will choose the wrong maneuvre and get hosed-helmet sight or not.
      Btw:If you want to know about AirToAir, you should start with Boyd´s "Aerial Attack Study", its available in an unclassified version on the internet.
      Go here:http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Boyd-Papers.html
      Parts of it are still top secret, because things he statet 1964 about avoiding missiles are still true to this day.
      On that web page you should read also about fast transients, to see what really makes a difference in dog fight but comparing numbers to no end.

      Delete
    4. Hi tobiashommerich,

      You’re missing the larger picture. EM-theory (like all theories) must make certain assumptions. It predicated that all the combatants employ a narrow nose centric weapons envelope (a narrow cone in front of the aircraft) and no one can shoot anyone else outside that narrow envelope . So is the “every possible flight situation” also needs this to assumption to a true. EM unravels with high off-boresight weapons than can even fire “over the shoulder” Energy state/potential/whatever can no longer be applied to gain “advantage” or counter all situations. Again: “After unification German pilots flying East German MiG-29s against NATO jets in exercises believed the MiG was nearly unbeatable in a dogfight when armed with the Russian R-73 “Archer” short range missiles in conjunction with the MIGs helmet-sighting system. These results led to helmet-mounted sighting becoming standard equipment on most modern combat aircraft around the world.” Why is that? Getting bogged down in the mechanics of Boyd isn’t going to change any of this.

      Delete
    5. tobiashommerich@aol.com21 November, 2013 01:19

      About EM:
      The EnergyManeuverability-Theory is by itself only a mathematical formula
      to calculate what an AC can do.
      It tells you in precise numbers about the maneuverability of an AC-NOTHING ELSE.

      The F-15&F-16 were the first planes to respect that formula during its design.
      Before EMt there was no way of saying:
      "at 30 000ft, I can turn with 3G to the right with full afterburner" BEFORE the AC existed.
      It had to be tried by a "golden arm"/Test pilot first.

      But because one could calculate now backwards how an AC should look like to have good EM-numbers,
      you could design the hardware that allowed you to fly up your own a##hole-
      which led to the F-16 in 1971.

      What you are making out of it, is that EM is some sort of manual for dogfighting.
      It is not.
      It is purely about aeronautical engineering and design.
      The values that the EM-formula give you, are just telling you what a given OR imaginary AC
      is capable of in every flight situation.
      Its the reality that rules a flight.

      What maneuver you choose as a pilot should best be based on the EM-theory-data though.
      As a good pilot you must allways know how to and how much energy to loose or to gain
      to get into a favourable position or how to counter an enemy AC or missile.

      Which maneuver you choose is based on training, experience and stick´n rudder talent.
      BUT those maneuvres will for ever be ruled by EM,
      because its telling you about the inflight-physics/the flight envelope you are acting in
      -independend of the AC in use.


      About Boyd:
      An AC is not designed by one person alone.
      Boyd did the RFP for the F-16 and created the description what this AC should be capable of.
      Politics play a big role and the Pentagon tried to "goldplate" the AC like every plane before it.

      The way the fighter Mafia smuggled the F-16 over all obstacles was unique and
      led to this magnificent AC that was the YF-16.
      The YF-16 represents an AC that is very close to a perfect plane according to the EM-data
      and what was doable from an engineering point of view at the time of the seventies.
      -way better what later became the F-16 and all its variants in things about maneuvreablility.

      The AirForce and its Bomber-Generals converted the nimble YF-16 into that heavier
      (still comparable lightweight) Multirole-Fighter that it is today,
      because they had a different doctrine and an congressional-industrial mandates to fulfill.

      About Boyd and dog fight:

      He was an unbeatable Fighter pilot, because he knew about EM AND he already had an idea
      about how one makes decisions during a dog fight AND he was a superior stick´n rudder man
      who used an AC at its very limits.

      The next thing he developed was the OODA(Observe-Orient-Decision-Act)-loop,
      which ultimately leads us to maneuvre warfare.
      I´m not going into this because its too complex and I´m not here to replace an education.

      You are saying that off-boresight helmets and archer missiles make an unbeatable AC.

      Listen what Pierre Sprey tells you about that (as well as what stealth worthy):
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcxxKr1AOdI

      Do you think any of those simulations have something to do with the real world?
      Please read what happened at the Millennium Challenge 2002:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

      What I´m trying to say is:

      1)Those simulations at "Red Flag" ect. are allways manipulated by politics.

      2)EM-charts of military AC´s are top secret-what do you think why?

      3)The OODA-loop decides an AirToAir-engagement, not a piece of hardware.

      4)The numbers do not tell the whole story.

      5)We will never know the characteristics of an AC or any military equipment, based
      on public information released by military sources.

      I hope you understand better now.






      Delete
    6. Yes, the Boyd ‘OODA-loop’ is simply a methodology. It is very similar to software flowcharting. We had similar ‘problem solving’ flowcharts hanging in all the conference rooms at the Intel Corporation. Going from the ‘Decide’ or the ‘Act’ to the ‘Observe’ loop one could observe…a loud bang and my jet is on fire. We'll take a look at your links :) This is all good stuff! thanks!

      Delete
    7. The OODA-loop will run regardless if the pilot has all the proper information (no information and/or incorrect assumptions). If you employ the OODA-loop and EM without recognizing the threat of high-off-boresight weapons – it doesn’t work. If you recognize R-73 class weapons - then you could add/remove actions. In my eye most EM maneuvers now turn one into a target unless you have your own AIM-9X to shoot.

      Delete
  11. Hi Cameron,

    Google "Colonel John Richard Boyd" and then "Vertical rolling scissors" The history channel also did a series called ‘Dogfights’ that can give you a sense of what happened that day. Check the reference section on our blog “..and kill migs”. The engagement started head-on and turned into a vertical rolling scissors. Cunningham said the only part of his Top-Gun training that almost got them killed was when he flew directly at the MiG-17 who’s “nose lit up like a Christmas tree” ...in training Top-Gun instructor A-4s: “didn’t do that.”

    The F-22A climb performance might be similar to the F-15C. Otherwise the F-22A is much more maneuverable.

    The side by side maneuvering video was Flanker first and F-22 playing catch-up. Newer video show the F-22A totally outclassed by later Flanker variants– never mind the F-22A has no helmet sighting – while the Flanker does have.

    - Boresight

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And when someone quotes Wikipedia as to the performance of either aircraft?

      -How can Wikipedia be disproved?

      Delete
    2. Don't understand the comment. People who write Wikipedia can draw on information from anywhere. Typically Wikipedia is cited – but that doesn’t mean the citation link contains accurate information. So one needs to be careful with Wikipedia. See our Reference page for sources we prefer.

      - Boresight

      Delete
    3. May I ask where your reference page might be found?

      -Cameron

      Delete
    4. http://theboresight.blogspot.com/2013/01/reference.html

      Delete
  12. In fairness to Lockheed - they produce some of the most successful transport aircraft in history – namely the Lockheed C-130 Hercules. The aircraft is still in production after some 50 years, with a seemingly endless series of variants and uses, and operated by some 50-60 countries. A wonderful aircraft! The folks at Lockheed should take a huge bow on this one.

    - The Boresight

    ReplyDelete
  13. History and it's unerringly stark eye gives us data a'plenty with which to tinker. The tendency to depend on technology ("Costs be DAMNED!"), whizkids, and heroics must be baked into the American Pie or we wouldn't have been temporarily pinned to the mat so often by tough, uneducated, undernourished little men with woefully unsophisticated, light-weight, and plentiful weaponry. And let us not forget the final words of BlueBelly Union General John Sedgwick, who at the battle of Spotsylvania Court House chided his men for ducking away from Confederate fire. "I'm ashamed of you. They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance." The smack of a Rebel ball against his hide was an eloquent punctuation, lucky or aimed.

    Lessons are abundant, but students are not. The dangers stirring against the American interests are plentiful and varied, and cannot be countered by one weapons system, one tactical plan, one strategy, or one budget. Data and facts must be used to develop, and quickly, methods and weaponry that will get the damned job done; the current method of romantic wishing will get us all killed.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hi Dan,

    Very well put!

    ...and true.

    - The Boresight

    ReplyDelete
  15. tobiashommerich@aol.com19 November, 2013 06:14

    The biggest enemy is inside the US itself:The industrial-congressional-military-complex that has his roots inside the Pentagon, its former Generals are sitting at top defense contractor positions and the congressmen who are only interested in getting reelected by the working people who are best employeed by DoD-contractors the more the better. What the US needs is another "Fighter Mafia" and a reform movement like nothing before!!!

    ReplyDelete
  16. I miss the fighter "Fighter Mafia" too! :^) Great bunch a guys!

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Stay the course Captain; your courage will be rewarded in the end. I
    worked on the F-22 as an AFOTEC test team member under Operational Test
    Manager Col Bob Huneycutt. I was later the Test Manager for the JASSM
    and TSSAM Cruise Missiles. Therefore, I have some insight into how
    latent problems, such as this oxygen system issue, are handled within
    the Air Force acquisition hierarchy. Unfortunately, in my opinion, there
    are times when safety takes a back seat to political and/or monetary
    issues. Granted these are extremely expensive programs and extremely
    expensive machines. But how does their cost or someone's political
    ambition compare to the life of one pilot or even several crewmembers?
    Sadly, the answer to this question is too controversial and so is
    sometimes swept under the proverbial carpet. It grieves me greatly when
    an officer has the courage to expose a problem, likely already known and
    addressed, and is subsequently punished for that courage. Generals and
    Colonels do not like to look like the self-serving idiots they, at
    times, become. They work themselves into a corner and they perceive that
    the only way out is to "shoot the messenger." So hang in there Capt
    Wilson. You have some heavy-duty allies pulling on your side of the
    rope. And may God bless you and what you are doing. YOU ARE SAVING
    LIVES.
    Mark A Mayerstein, Lt Col (Ret), USAF"

    I do not know if this quote came from that person (name on bottom of quote), but it does indeed lend a human face to those in the military that are fighting the MIC.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hi, I go through several different blogs just to keep in touch of world events. I saw a satellite photos of full scale mock up of American jets on a Chinese airbase. What do you make of it? http://asian-defence-news.blogspot.com.au/2016/02/full-size-replica-f-22-raptor-at.html?m=1

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting. Scale models – that almost surely do not fly. No idea what they would use it for. The other picture looks like a J-17 Thunder, F-16, E-2C, SR-71, and maybe an Israeli mirage Kifir C2. The ruling Chinese Communist Party is so controlling - it could be for internal propaganda purposes.
      - Boresight

      Delete
  19. how do the four forces of flight affect flight?
    manlifts

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Jr.

      The four forces of flight are: thrust, drag, lift, and gravity
      Thrust – force propelling the airfoil forward.
      Drag – force resisting thrust that the airfoil encounters from air
      Lift – force that keep the airfoil aloft.
      Gravity – a constant force that pulls everything down to the ground.
      - Boresight

      Delete
  20. I am undeniably thankful to you for providing us with this invaluable related information. My spouse and I are easily grateful, quite frankly the documents we needed.
    aircraft maintenance platforms

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi JR,

      You may have us confused with someone else? Uh...I can’t think of any reason we would have, provide, or link to aircraft maintenance sites. Our material is historical air combat analysis using cogent inductive/deductive reasoning. Any relevant aircraft maintenance issues (read: in an real operational combat situation) would already be captured in our public-sphere primary source material. So aircraft maintenance information (to us) has no relevance here, and therefore is outside our scope. You have us confused with someone else. Thanks for reading the blog! :)
      - Boresight

      Delete

Post a Comment