Red Flag report, F-22/TYPHOON in close

[shrike]

You're forgetting the F-4s in question were being used as bombers...
Heck, in some situations, even a third worold air force flying obsolete planes will have some success...and I'd expect them to.
In the right situation a Corsair could down a Phantom.

In some situatings, a WW1 bi-plane could out-do a F-15. A tighter turn radius, slower which means more maneuverable, and As long as you have heat reducing exhausts and Sparrow missles on every wing LOL

I've often wondered how a MiG 15 or 17, updated with the latest and greatest electronics would hold up.
Replace the three cannon pack with an M-61 or GSh-6-23, add two (or better yet, four) R-77 or AIM-120's and you'd have a cheap little threat that would have to be taken seriously. The warload and electronics would seriously out-value the airframe, but it would still be cheap.

[Wildchild]

You're forgetting the F-4s in question were being used as bombers...
Heck, in some situations, even a third worold air force flying obsolete planes will have some success...and I'd expect them to.
In the right situation a Corsair could down a Phantom.

In some situatings, a WW1 bi-plane could out-do a F-15. A tighter turn radius, slower which means more maneuverable, and As long as you have heat reducing exhausts and Sparrow missles on every wing LOL

I've often wondered how a MiG 15 or 17, updated with the latest and greatest electronics would hold up.
Replace the three cannon pack with an M-61 or GSh-6-23, add two (or better yet, four) R-77 or AIM-120's and you'd have a cheap little threat that would have to be taken seriously. The warload and electronics would seriously out-value the airframe, but it would still be cheap.

Yes that means a cheap airframe that can be easily made, and easily repaired. i can see third world countries taking electronics out of old Migs and doing that

[TROJANII]

Wasn't one of the problems during the Vietnam War that the missiles the US had weren't very good yet, so we HAD to dogfight? And with the missiles we have now, wouldn't that negate the nimble advantage the smaller MIGs would have?

[shrike]

Wasn't one of the problems during the Vietnam War that the missiles the US had weren't very good yet, so we HAD to dogfight? And with the missiles we have now, wouldn't that negate the nimble advantage the smaller MIGs would have?

That's kind of my point. With the missiles we have now, is there any need for the umpty-million dollar platform, when you'd be better served by a much cheaper and more readily produced one? Rough guess is that you could build 25 MiG-15/F86 class transonic fighters (with more modern avionics/radar/et c)for the cost of an F-22AND have a higher mission availability due to simpler systems and structures

[TROJANII]

F-22 would still have a huge advantage due to it's radar cross section? I would think the F-22 would be able to engage from a greater distance since it would be able to lock on earlier.

[shrike]

F-22 would still have a huge advantage due to it's radar cross section? I would think the F-22 would be able to engage from a greater distance since it would be able to lock on earlier.

The RCS advantage goes away, at least temporarily, when the bay opens to fire (that was how an F-117 got painted and shot down), not to mention the missile track back to point of origin. In any case would it be enough to offset the numerical inferiority inherent in this scenario?
I'm not sure if anyone has ever attempted to bring asymmetric warfare to the skies, but I can see where there could be a major advantage - costwise for certain - to the force that eschews the uber high tech in favor of more wings in the sky.

[Kyleb]

F-22 would still have a huge advantage due to it's radar cross section? I would think the F-22 would be able to engage from a greater distance since it would be able to lock on earlier.

The RCS advantage goes away, at least temporarily, when the bay opens to fire (that was how an F-117 got painted and shot down), not to mention the missile track back to point of origin. In any case would it be enough to offset the numerical inferiority inherent in this scenario?
I'm not sure if anyone has ever attempted to bring asymmetric warfare to the skies, but I can see where there could be a major advantage - costwise for certain - to the force that eschews the uber high tech in favor of more wings in the sky.

Stealth is asymmetric warfare. You're in your upgraded Mig 17 and your two wingmen suddenly explode. Other than that, you have no idea that there is an opponent in the sky. That's pretty unsettling.

Tomorrow's mission doesn't look like such a good idea now, huh?

[shrike]

Stealth is asymmetric warfare. You're in your upgraded Mig 17 and your two wingmen suddenly explode. Other than that, you have no idea that there is an opponent in the sky. That's pretty unsettling.

Tomorrow's mission doesn't look like such a good idea now, huh?

Or you're flying along in your F-22 carrying the mixed mission loadout because the powers that be have decided you can do it all. You have four air-air missles and bombs. Your AWACS vectors you on to 12 bandits. They show up bright and clear, but on the best of days you can't be sure of getting more than four of them before the rest can engage your tanker, or close to gun range on the aforementioned AWACS. They take more losses, but they have more assets to lose.

The tactic works. A Tiger tank was worth twelve Shermans. As long as the US could produce 13 to one, they won.

[Kyleb]

The tactic works. A Tiger tank was worth twelve Shermans. As long as the US could produce 13 to one, they won.

I understand your point, but there is some apples vs oranges in the comparison. The Tiger was slow relative to Shermans or T-34's. It couldn't effectively disengage a fight by turning tail and running. Also, Tigers weren't stealthy - everyone knew where they were, the problem was destroying them. F-22's are fast and stealthy - hard to engage.

A numerical advantage is far less important if you can't bring weapons to bear.

[shrike]

I understand your point, but there is some apples vs oranges in the comparison. The Tiger was slow relative to Shermans or T-34's. It couldn't effectively disengage a fight by turning tail and running. Also, Tigers weren't stealthy - everyone knew where they were, the problem was destroying them. F-22's are fast and stealthy - hard to engage.

A numerical advantage is far less important if you can't bring weapons to bear.

Points granted. Disengaging at will is a powerful option, although in force projection, the likely scenario for combat use of the F-22, turning tail and running has to be considered a loss.

Neither the US nor the Russians have faced a credible air to air threat in a generation, while aircraft acquisition prices have increased exponentially and procurement has dropped. Luckily for both of them, any likely opposition has been influenced to follow the same protocol of purchasing a small number of wowiegeewhiz fighters. Iran is the only country to have (maybe) tried the cheap and plentiful route with their local F-5 developments.

[donno21]

The "All Conquering F-4 Phantom??? " YGBSM!!!