F22 has yet more problems, Luftwaffe

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/07/f-22-germans/

And what happens when the ROE requires visual confirmation before firing?

Typhoon is also due to get thrust-vectoring...

The F22's advantage isn't close range dogfighting. It's equally as good as the EF at that, then, and far better at everything else.

Remind me again, they did put guns on the F-22 right?

IIRC, the F-22 uses a Vulcan.

Basically it confirms the rumored RAF Typhoon vs USAF Raptor playdates from several years ago although without any mention of the Typhoon EW suite.

Meanwhile they spend billions to develop the meteor....

best jobs program ever

God save the hangar queens

So pretty much just load up chaff, flare, and electronic measures and get within visual range and the F-22 becomes and 250~ million something paper weight?

What probably needs stating here is that close range dogfighting was not massively emphasized in the original RFP. It's not designed to get danger close, it's designed to go in and destroy stuff at range in a missiles free environment in hostile airspace, more or less. Once it's achieved that, the cheap fighters go in, and that's when you start worrying with blue/blue and real RoE.



RAND should be reprimanded for using 1950s data. (though consideration should be given to what real world RoE the US tends to have)

Yes if you can get very close to an aircraft that has been specifically designed to be able to see and shoot first at long/medium range, then you will be even. But given all other conditions equal, how many planes will be lost before that point? Or if the F22 does not want to engage at close range and it sees - but does not destroy - your planes, it can outrun the EF.

Another advantage of stealth is that it is useful penetrating air defence networks, where close range dogfighting is much less relevant.

I don't see the F-22 being deployed against any air force against which the US does not have total situational superiority anyway, its operational capabilities are almost a non-issue.

Who is the US realistically going to fight who has a sufficiently large air force to challenge any reasonable US deployment, air defence capability to direct fighters to engage them and prevent the entire force being destroyed on the ground beforehand, capable enough fighters to close range to the F-22s without being destroyed themselves at long range, capable enough crews able to dogfight at close range, and capable enough logistical support to keep their own fighters armed and well-maintained during a running war?

Yes if you can get very close to an aircraft that has been specifically designed to be able to see and shoot first at long/medium range, then you will be even. But given all other conditions equal, how many planes will be lost before that point? Or if the F22 does not want to engage at close range and it sees - but does not destroy - your planes, it can outrun the EF.

Another advantage of stealth is that it is useful penetrating air defence networks, where close range dogfighting is much less relevant.

I was using sarcasm, though it was a rather poor attempt.

It does seem pretty pish-posh that they'd call the F-22 out on something that its not made to do.

I mean the only reason they gave it the 20mm Vulcan was because of the lessons they learned with the F-4. But then and now are two different times.

The common idea in air-to-air combat is to close with the enemy, not stand-off. The closer you can be when you fire the better.

Now, duh, you have an enemy you know you cant even see at range...so you know if you stand any chance you have to close.

this wasnt innovative, it was common sense.

It proves the Typhoon can turn the fight with an F-22 into its kind of fight, not the F-22s kind.

How many other nations can field aircraft capable of doing that?

It isnt like the Typhoon is some 40 year old 4th gen fighter.

All that being said, this brings the point that in a contest the F-22 isnt good at the most fundamental air-to-air tactic, and the Europeans developed a fighter that is, as a matter f fact its so good at it, it beat the F-22 by not allowing it to take advantage of what it is supposed to be good at.

More proof that BVR combat is the exception not the rule, and when the very best at it was tested-- it failed.

The problem may be that they simply stretched the F-22s capabilities and roles too far.
Stealth, high speed, significant BVR capability - sounds much more like how I figure a dedicated interceptor would fight to me. Dogfighting is, IMO, the preserve of the air superiority fighter.

F-22 seems to have been intended to fill both roles which I believe call for very different tactics - tactics which in the close, the F-22 is not capable of excelling in.