Rand Report

F-15C vs F-22A

Empty Weight (lbs): 28,000 vs 43,430
Wing Area (sq-ft): 608 vs 840
Number of Engines: 2 vs 2
Max. Military Thrust (lbf) per engine: 17,450 vs. ???
Max. Afterburning Thrust (lbf) per engine: 27,800 vs. 35,000

I would not be surprised if the F-22A has vastly superior agility than the F-15C. F-22A is inferior to the F-15C in that the F-22A has slightly worse thrust-to-weight ratios and a lower top speed. However, the F-22A has more mass and momentum, vectored thrust, a more aerodynamic shape, advanced fly-by-wire controls, the latest avionics and radar, and supercruise. The F-22A carries weapons internally, which makes an armed F-22A more aerodynamic and with a more centered mass than previous generation jetfighters. The F-22A has stealth against radar and infrared sensors.

At air shows F-22A has performed the Cobra (popularized by the Su-27) and other very agile and super engine control maneuvers at a very low speed and a very low altitude. The F-22A should the same excellent agility and crisp engine performance at low speeds and low altitudes.

What about the F-22A's agility at medium speeds, high speeds, medium altitudes, and high altitudes? I don't know, but I am guessing the F-22A is noticeably more agile with faster acceleration than most types and upgrades of the Su-27. I think only these jetfighters can match the F-22A's agility AND acceleration the Su-30MKI, Su-35, Su-37, and Eurofighter Typhoon, but none of them have stealth, flies clean with fuel and weapons, concentrates its fuel and weapons inside the fuselage, and supercruise. I think the F-22A is the best out there for dogfighting and BVR combat.

When I say agility, I mean roll rate, pitch speed, maximum pitch or angle of attack, yaw rate, initial turning speed, turning diameter, and sustained turning speed. Acceleration can be horizontal, vertical (climb), or downward (dive).

Also don't forget that if the Flankers are able to get into within visual range of a Raptor the F-22 will have the AIM-9X witch is way more agile than any aircraft and any other heat seekers in it's class. But unless they are completely outnumbered in every engagment I think the F-22's would definatly have a higher kill ratio than any Flanker.

MrClean said:

Also don't forget that if the Flankers are able to get into within visual range of a Raptor the F-22 will have the AIM-9X witch is way more agile than any aircraft and any other heat seekers in it's class. But unless they are completely outnumbered in every engagment I think the F-22's would definatly have a higher kill ratio than any Flanker.

Click to expand...

If they even get into range that is...

Remember, Rand did say this was their most optimistic scenario. What makes anyone think that the PLAAF would sacrifice their Flankers to soak up AIM's when they have loads of old Mig 15/17 UA(C)V conversions just perfect for the job?

Rand's conclusion is that no matter what, the F22's fall out the sky, how and why is really irrelevant.

I wasn't saying the F-22A is invincible. It is not. The F-22A's stealth will return air battles into something similar to, but not exactly like WWI and WWII. With stealth, pilots cannot easily rely on radar so they will need to use their eyes and infrared sensors to sense each other.

There is also the possibility that stealth can be at least adequately countered with advanced radars. You can say the F-22A has an information advantage because its radar can emit and collect a secretive signal. The radar is said to give a quick burst of radar signal of a certain frequency and period, wavelength, and amplitude. The radar randomizes various types of radar signals. All of this makes it hard for enemies to sense and understand the F-22A's radar signals.

This technique assumes the F-22A's enemy only has devices that listen to a specific type of radar signals and the devices lack the processing power to quickly understand what is going on. Nations with good armies/air forces/navies/whatever have many types of radars for many different types of radar signals. These nations have good electronics, too. It is sort of like designing a sensitive ear that hears a wide range of sounds, instead of an ear that only hears a limited range of loud sounds.

The F-22A can turn off its radar for most of its mission, but so can enemy jetfighters. Then both sides are flying radar blind, and can only use their eyes and infrared sensors, but the F-22A lacks a dedicated infrared sensor and the Su-27 family and MiG-29 family have dedicated infrared sensors and these sensors are only getting better, so are radars, and computers. The F-22A stores its heat-seeking SRAAM inside the fuselage's side storages that are slanted, so the SRAAM will have an inferior visual area than a heat-seeking SRAAM stored on a jetfighter's wings.

The F-22A can supercruise to gain huge positional advantages, but I strongly doubt the F-22A can supercruise and dogfight at the same time. The F-22A is suppose to be able to fly very high. Both speed and height will allow the F-22A to "throw" its missiles at a longer than typical range. Other jetfighters have their own high-altitude, long range missiles. High-altitude, long-range missiles require high-altitude, long-range sensors, something that is not guaranteed to be available for the F-22A or any jetfighter in a stealthy battle.

The F-22A does not have infinite fuel, stealth air bases, or mobile air bases. With a destroyed air base and no alternative air bases, the F-22A is in a very difficult situation.

The F-22A is the best jetfighter out there for WVR and BVR combat, but I doubt it's invulnerable. The F-22A is an agile jetfighter with very high-altitude flight, supercruise, internal storage, stealth, the latest radar, and the latest avionics.

Non-American missiles are being designed with advanced close-range capabilities and with high-altitude, high speed performance over long distances. Advanced radars and advanced infrared sensors are being designed. The same goes with advanced avionics. The most difficult parts to design are very powerful engines, internal storages, and stealth features, because they require enormous amounts of research and development.

The goal for non-American nations is to design any type of strategy, tactic, a team of weapons, or a single weapon that can beat the F-22A at its own game (seems to be the current Russian solution with its PAK-FA or PAK T-50), or any type of creative strategy, completely original tactic, a team of weapons, or one unmatched weapon that greatly changes today's battlefield.

Don't underestimate the Su-27 family, too. Military reports reveal Indian fighter pilots in Su-30MKI jets can greatly defeat American fighter pilots in F-15C jets when it comes to dogfighting without radars and supporting aircraft like AWACs. Other military reports strongly indicate the Su-27 family can easily defeat any F-16 and Hornet (not the Super Hornet) in a dogfight with no AWACs, because this was done with the MiG-29 family, which is inferior to the Su-27 family. Indian fighter pilots in Su-30MKI jets are said to have held their own in dogfights against the Eurofigher Typhoon when all sides lacked supporting aircraft like AWACs. Based on what I have read, Indian fighter pilots are nowhere near the best trained fighter pilots out there, but they do fly awesome Su-30MKI jets. The Su-30MKI does not have the best radars for long-range combat, but they do have very competitive missiles. The Su-27 family seems to be easy to upgrade, too.

I am just an amateur. I would like to read the opinions of forum members who have good knowledge on this stuff.

I find the whole situation of that report really strange, or I'm really missing something.
The USAF sends only six (but expensive) fighters, that rely on aerial refuling, into an air battle over Taiwan without any escort for the tankers and / or AEW assets and keeps the tankers on station even though the Raptors see 72 Flankers inboud, wich they know they cannot even mathematically shoot down?
To me, as I understand it, the circumstances of that "defeat" sound incredibly stupid somehow.

Regarding the situation itself, one or two Raptors could stay back and track and illuminate the targets with their powerfull and accurate radars. They could be fixed by the Flankers with ESM but would remain out of missile range, while the four other Raptors can close in much further and fire their missiles in "silent mode".
That's nothing overwhelming itself, but another little piece in the puzzle.
But I do think a good IRST would still be a benefit to the Raptor. (And maby an IR AMRAAM?)

Regarding dogfight, I would just try to attack the target WVR at high speed, well beyond M1, take a shot and then overshoot it far and climb, trying to negate the Flankers maneuverability, still keeping in mind that the Raptor is, IMO, no less maneuverable than a non TVC J-11B.

deleted

Scratch said:

I find the whole situation of that report really strange, or I'm really missing something.
The USAF sends only six (but expensive) fighters, that rely on aerial refuling, into an air battle over Taiwan without any escort for the tankers and / or AEW assets and keeps the tankers on station even though the Raptors see 72 Flankers inboud, wich they know they cannot even mathematically shoot down?
To me, as I understand it, the circumstances of that "defeat" sound incredibly stupid somehow.

Click to expand...

Yes. It does not take into account many things and portrays a strategy that would not be used. If the US military had to take on China for real, you can bet that 6 F-22's would not be used as a main component force against a Chinese air and naval component that hasn't been sufficiently dealt with first. Without getting into specifics, I believe that US moves would coordinate 10-15 B-2 strikes at night against radar (SAM and GCI) facilities immediately followed/timed by air launched and sub launched cruise missile strikes on air bases, HQ/command centers, and fuel facilities. Take out radar, aircraft, fuel, and command targets first. That would negate any decent Chinese air response. You take out a number of SAM sites on the coast, long ranged search radars, and a good amount of fuel supplies, then you can put a significant presence of F-22's and other units in the region. I believe this (and many other beginning actions) would all be done prior to fighter aircraft being brought into direct conflict. I think only Taiwanese fighters and US naval air would be the only element in the beginning phase. US naval air on a limited footing. No we would bomb large scale before we went for pure air dominance over the strait. We wouldn't fight Chinese air forces before we could negate their ability to generate sufficient sorties first. This is a good study, but you're right. This is not how the US would fight. I know Rand doesn't know how the US military would plan and structure a military campaign here. This should only be used on a scale of what-if's.

SampanViking said:

Rand's conclusion is that no matter what, the F22's fall out the sky, how and why is really irrelevant.

Click to expand...

How and why is extremely relevant. They seem to have engaged in a game of toy soldiers - that's not how war works. As many of us have clearly said, you simply wouldn't have 70+ Su-27s facing 6 F-22s in an isolated engagement.

Mr T said:

How and why is extremely relevant. They seem to have engaged in a game of toy soldiers - that's not how war works. As many of us have clearly said, you simply wouldn't have 70+ Su-27s facing 6 F-22s in an isolated engagement.

Click to expand...

True that. if such a move were made chances are it would not only be US fighters in that sky but a large mixed force of both US, ROC and others f16's and Mir2000's the ods are more likly too be 72 PLA vs 72+ or - allied force. of course some people are still going to grab on to such a thing and only read the title and claim they were right all along. we don't really know how such a fight will go unless it happens in which I hope it never does.