Defense Industry Daily has an interesting series of snippets about the F-22 posted today, and the center of the controversy appears to pit old skool thinking against new.
The “Fighter Mafia” boys at the Center for Defense Information say the Raptor is a pig. According to the DID article “F-16 program analyst Pierre Sprey and author James Stevenson argued that the F-22’s fuel:weight ratio, wing loading, and acceleration are inferior to existing fighters. They contend that numbers, acceleration, fast changes in energy state, and a 360 degree cockpit view count for more in [dogfights].”
But Raptor driver Lt. Col. Wade Tolliver basically says concerns regarding maneuverability are moot when one considers the capabilities of a Fifth Generation fighter like the F-22: “It’s amazing the information you have at your fingertips.” He claims that in no-holds-barred mock battles with F-15s, F-16s and the Navy’s F/A-18 Hornets, he and other Raptor pilots generally “destroy” their adversaries before those foes even realize they’re around.
So who’s right? Are the days of “gettin’ in the phone booth” over? Or will aerodynamic performance and pilot skill still matter when all the high-techery goes kaput in the heat of battle?
– Ward
{ 29 comments… read them below or add one }
Honestly, I think the dogfighter is dead. It’s just a matter of time before several things happen.
1.Drones- Can take more G’s, and can be mass produced, require no training, and are expendable.
2.Accurate Weapons- When you have missiles that very rarely miss, as well as having stealth capability, there is no reason to dogfight. Simply shoot your missles, and if a few miss and you’ve got a left over enemy or two, simply turn tail and run, since the other dudes radar is less effective.
3.Advances in Weaponry- A military grade solid state laser isn’t far away, and realistically once that happens dog fighting will DEFINITELY be moot. Instant speed, Long range, effectively infinite ammo, and on a turret no less so position isn’t likely important.
I think the problem is that a lot of the fighter pilots want to be able relive the days when fighter pilots actually dueled it out, but I think that’s not going to really happen again. It’s just going to come down to who can fire off their missiles first, and who has the superior set of avionics.
The problem is, the “Dogfight is dead” camp has sprung up several times, and the fighter mafia was a direct reaction to the “Dogfight is dead” crowd which resulted in the F4 not having a gun, the supposid miraculous properties of the Phoenix missile, etc.
Additionally, the fighter mafia is right on one point: quantity has a virtue all its own. Which would you rather defend against, 5 F22s or 50 F16s?
When “Dogfight is dead” is right, it will be highly unlikely that there will be fighter jocks at all.
There is a point on both sides of the story. Sprey’s argument is that a lot of low cost fighters will be more effective then less high tech ones. I agree with the statement that 5 F-22s is easier to defend agaisnt then 50 F-16s. The AF needs a complment of both large and small fighters, like the F-22 and the F-35. I would rather have 50 F-35s, then 50 F-16s any day. also the fighter guys just want to relive the glory days of old, and I want to be a fighter guy and relive those days, but in reality its coming to an end, at least partially.
“A military grade solid state laser isn’t far away”
On that point, one could argue that combat aircraft could become extinct in favor of heavily armored ground units. This is the premise behind both the Bolo science fiction novels (see Wikipedia) and the popular Hammer’s Slammers series.
With directed energy weapons, any plane, drone, or missile could be swatted out of the air with contemptuous ease. The distant future battlefield could belong to massive tanks bearing energy weapons, missiles, and mortars, racing across the desert sands on nuclear power.
It remains to be seen how dead the dogfight really is. If other nations continue to develop their fighters, especially the Typhoon and Su-33, and if the technology that makes the F-22 the plane that it is continues to leak to other nations, there could well come a day where an F-22 and its 5th Gen opponent can’t see each other until they’re too close. At that point, it is about the dogfighting abilities of the pilots to get into a good lock position and the limits of the missiles.
Colonel John Boyd developed an entire theory about the ability of a fighter to maneuver, which was the guiding light in the design on the F-15, and to a greater extent, the F-16. If these 4th generation fighters can sneak up on a F-22, which someone will find a way to do, the F-22 had better be able to turn and burn, because even the monstrous F-15 can out turn a Raptor.
Dogfighting may be dead, for the moment. But if that technological edge is not honed, it will be lost.
The classic dogfight has been very rare in the last few decades, and in the future it will become even more rare.
In the fog of war it will always be possible for two opposing fighters to find themselves suddenly in visual contact. When that happens a dogfight will ensure. It will be very brief given missiles like the AIM-9x.
For the most part there just anybody to dogfight against. We don’t have a Soviet Horde any more. We’re not going to invade India or China.
SAMs and AAA will continue to be the main threats against our aircraft.
Air to air battles are and will continue to be sideshows to the real conflict.
Does anybody remember the Vietnam war. When that war started the “brains” also said that dogfighting was dead. Rockets would make guns obsolete. F-4s came only with rockets. Guess what was added to F-4′s before we left there. !!GUNS!! so we could dogfight with the commies. PLEASE DON’T MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE AGAIN
Past developments in aircraft and weapon design haven’t eliminated the dogfight; they’ve just changed it. ACM will be a factor as long as we fight with aircraft (manned or unmanned), missiles and/or guns.
Directed energy weapons may be another story; they may wipe classic manned dogfighters out of the skies the way the machinegun destroyed the cavalry before and during WWI.
Then again, maybe not. It’s hard to send a lot of energy through the atmosphere, especially through a lot of it. First generation DEW may be range restricted, like almost every other first gen weapon system before it.
Also note that the fact that a DEW beam moves at the speed of light doesn’t mean that the turret will. Some measure of ACM may be necessary to bring targets (especially multiple targets) into the system’s optimum engagement aspect, or maneuver the airframe out of an attacking system’s performance parameters. Turrets on tanks and ships didn’t write off maneuver warfare. They may not on planes, either.
Finally, let’s not forget there are emerging countermeasures to stealth, like celldar or ladar. The F-22′s alleged invulnerability may be short lived. If it is, we may rediscover that quantity has a quality all its own, and that Pierre Sprey’s pet peeves — cost, fuel:weight ratio, wing loading, and acceleration — make for a horde of flexible multimission platforms, manned or unmanned.
In conclusion, I think everyone posting has made a few good points, here and there. Let’s keep them sharp until we need them.
fighter jocks are up against Moores’ Law here….increases in processing means that remote controled drones and UCAVs’ will eventually make Top Gun guys obsolete.
As it is, Raptor is not made for dogfights, apparenly…..long range detection coupled with stealth; then fire missiles before target is aware of threat?
If I were potential adversary, I would quickly field large numbers of smaller, slower, stealthy, manned or unmanned, aerial drones and “mines”; at less cost, and easily deny (us) air superiority.
that makes “fighters” moot.
An excellent subject Ward, one that I’ve been pondering and writing about for well over a decade.
To recap some of the comments already made in this thread:
Air superiority has never been an end in itself, per se. In operational art terms, it has always been an enabling objective or a “decisive point” that allowed freedom of action other air, land and sea operations.
Moreover, as ADA and SEAD systems and techniques progressed, air-to-air combat became a smaller and smaller component of air superiority. When I was on the staff at STRIKE back in the bronze age, somebody had a chart that showed the vast majority of our air losses since WWII came from ADA, and Maybe somebody at NSAWC still has that data.
The F-4 radar missile fighter concept was a good one but a flawed one. The airframe, motors, radar and weapon weren’t really up to the job. The F-14 and its weapons system, arguably, was primarily designed for a fleet DCA role, meant to have a high fighter to bomber kill ratio in the outer air battle.
Fifth gen fighters like the F-22 fixed a lot of the problems inherent in the F-4. But was the platform a prime example of MI complex overkill? Is its success in combat really because of its stealth and performance characteristics, or is it a matter of its superior sensors, weapons and data link connectivity?
Next question: What was the point of pouring the kind of money into the Raptor if we’re going to plan to use it as a day VFR figher?
Well, I’ve taken up enough band width on the subject for now. Clearly, I have more questions on the subject than I have answers, but hopefully I’ve thrown worthwhile grist into the discussion mill.
Sometime back I wrote a piece for PROCEEDINGS called “Catch F-22.” Maybe we can get the Institute folks to cough up an electronic version of it and revisit whatever points I thought I was making back then.
Best,
Jeff
I believe the Raptor fans are wrong.
The Raptor depends on a single missile type (AIM-120 AMRAAM) to exploit its advantages and this one missile type has only one seeker type (active radar) for its use. A tiny radar seeker.
That sounds as if a clever opponent can easily counter the advantages with a single countermeasure breaktrough and what’s left then? A small quantity of fighters with (in 2020) mediocre small range combat capabilities.
Dogfight was called dead in the early 60′s, then the expensive F-4 had trouble with two generations older MiG-17′s. We should keep that in memory.
It’s no wonder that the F-22 “destroys” its UASAF opponents – the other USAF pilots have no industry and top brass to back them up in their struggle to counter the F-22. A real enemy would have more resources than just pilots thinking about tactics. He would have electronics companies, air defense units and most of all – people who actually WANT to defeat the F-22.
Exoosing the weaknesses of the F-22 and defeat the F-22 squadron in simulated combat would not advance but rather end the career of a USAF officer.
My feelings on this matter are complex, but one point was brought up recently on another board- will the ROE of future conflicts, or even a majority of future conflicts, allow for BVR? F-4s were generally handicapped in Viet Nam by a need to visually ID their targets before engaging. (Operation BOLO was a clear exception.)
Given the fuzzy nature of postulated future conflicts I fear we may be setting up for a repeat. No one wants to be the first F-22 driver with a commercial airliner kill.
We as Americans never seem to learn from our mistakes. As previously referenced, In the early 60s our Military thought and put unwaivering trust in Radar and the AIM 7, then Mig 17s showed up on the sixes of F4s, F105s.The Military leadership refused to listen to those like Then Col. Robin Olds who lobbied for a dog fighting Aircraft.Here we go again, technology is the save all. My know better, but will not be listened to. For our Leadership feels the absolute need to feed the money gobbling Development and procurement entities . This problen exists through all facets of military procurement, Aircraft to Small arms. Wake up, please.
I believe that we should be taking a more wide approach and view of the future battlefields America may face in the near, mid and far future.
The argument about whether the F-22 or some other weapon platform will be effective against an enemy the USA is likely to face is one that does not take into account Total War. It is in the development of a synergistic, dynamic and completely controllable (as far as human hands can make it) SYSTEM of war that will encompass every aspect of combat, combat support and combat service support that the victor of any war must possess. It is not in who has the largest army, best weapons or the most modern technology, but who has the best trained, best led soldiers, sailors and airmen and can PROJECT most, if not all of, their combat power into the theater of conflict in the shortest period of time. If the USA is already there, with intense firepower and the ability to sustain combat operations for an extended period of time, it will make the cost of removing us far too great for any other nation to make us retreat. If they do attempt to do so, we must be prepared to do whatever is necessary to irrevocably destroy their resolve to achieve that end.
Someone wrote that we are not going to invade China or India, both countries with sizable military assets not entirely incomparable to our own. I think that is a view that is more wishful thinking than the brutal reality that is very apparent to even the most jaded of cynics. China and India are not our “friends” no matter what anyone thinks. Whether they intend to be or not, they are deeply entrenched and implacable ideological enemies.
Moreover,this is also a case of the world’s two largest populations and the scant resources we have left on the planet for them to use. In order for their economies to maintain the level of growth they have thus far achieved, they must have more of everything the USA needs. Sooner or later, one of us is going to go for the last slice of a certain pie and there will arise some conflict, the scope of which will be determined only by the political will of the respective governments involved.
To say that “the dogfighter is dead” is to completely eliminate humans from the loop of concentric warfare. Although we will be increasingly using automated weapon platforms, humans, as a general rule, will not be taken completely out of the equation. It is against our very nature to not be hands on in in any type of battle. A completely robotic war, if it is even achievable, is not a laudable goal. It is not so much a question if it is technically achievable, I am certain it is, it is a question of “should” we achieve it? I think that to many people, despite the obvious benefits of such technology in warfare will agree that “antiseptic” (i.e., a lack of human participation) warfare is not where we want to be. War, that most inhuman of human accomplishments, should hurt anyone doing it a lot. It should not be reduced to a video game or robots slugging it out in the sea, sky or on land.
If it does become that, we will, as the human race, never feel the total cost, in human terms, of war, and we will repeat it until we are all dead or enslaved by the very machines we will create.
As I stated, war should hurt. It should be as brutal for the other guy as possible. When I stated that we should have a more wide view of warfare, I meant that we should not narrow ourselves to any single number of weapon systems, automated or not. We should be looking for as many “low-tech” solutions as “high-tech” ones. It is through a broad spectrum of multiple threats and “force multipliers” that we should apply to enforce our political will on others or to prevent them from enforcing theirs upon us.
Nuclear, Biological and Chemical warfare is and most likely will be a component of the next major conflict.
The cost-benefit ratio of NBC warfare is too great for Third World nations that lack the comparative advantage of technology that the USA and her allies can bring to bear in any global or even regional conflict. Compared to even one B-1 Stealth Bomber, or F-22 Raptor, the cost of a number of Chemical weapons is very cheap.
Many people will probably say that any nation that would use any such WMD against us would be foolish and I am certain our response would be severe. However, I submit that our nation, through its own arrogance and superiority has incurred the wrath of a great many other, smaller nations or groups of nations. If they believe in earnest that there is a chance, however small, that they can hurt us and our economy with one or two well thought out and executed WMD attacks, ride out our retaliation, short-lived as it may be due to an inability to sustain a lengthy campaign, well, then, it does not become a matter of if they will strike us or not, but when, where and how.
That said, I believe it is imperative to no only keep developing new and more sophisticated technological wonders for our military, but we must also continue to develop our means of projecting that power and all its extended capabilities into any theater at any time. We must also not forget how to conduct war with blood, guts and sweat.
Technology is great and perhaps indispensible now. It can, however, only carry us so far. At the end of the day, we must still put actual armed personnel on the ground to maintain our victory in any conflict. It is the soldier and his leadership, not just the technology, that is still ultimately responsible for enforcing our political will upon another sovereign nation.
Mike Jardine:
How exactly is India an “implacable ideological enemy”? Just because they require a lot of resources (e.g. oil) and they use a few Russian weapons systems doesn’t mean we can’t get along with them. They are the world’s largest democracy and we have a substantial interconnection between our economies. I just don’t see us having an issue with them.
China, possibly a different story. Emphasis on “possibly”. States like these can be negotiated and reasoned with. Its the ones like Iran and the Norks that we should fully focus on.
Thanks for the link! It IS a pretty good rundown on the public goings-on surronding the F-22, and I’ll use it for a quick easy reference when I want to beat up somebody on their understanding (or lack thereof) of the weapon system in question. All the armchair airpower experts, in and out of the AF these days, can’t seem to grasp that Air Dominance is not just ‘yank and bank’. CDI has long been an outpost for disenchanted visionaries – they dropped their ‘cheap and many’ mantra for a little while after all our ‘expensive and capable’ systems smacked down Saddam in Gulf War I, but they’ve been slowly building the droning since then. Riccione (an operator) and Sprey (a policy wonk more than anything else) understood the pre-stealth physics days, but like a lot of the 1st-4th Generation guys, they don’t get that tech has smashed pre-5th Gen survivability.
The AF does not help their cause any by failing to accentuate the Raptor’s SEAD/DEAD capability. The only way the F-22 could be better than it is would be if it were a little stealthier and faster with longer range even if it were a little less maneuverable (but then it would be an F-23, LOL!)
I’m revisiting Carl Builder’s “The Icarus Syndrome as part of researching a paper and a couple of long overdue-promised posts at my place, and the ‘controversial issues’ hanging over the F-22 (as a platform-centric argument) really highlight how operator mentality has tamped down the flames of Airpower and the need to get back and update Airpower Theory.
I believe the USAF had a dilemma like this in the past. With the F-4 Phantom…everyone at Boeing thought that missiles had made the dogfight obsolete. Until in Vietnam, the North Vietnamese Air Force found out that if they could defeat the missiles and get in close to the F-4, victory was assured since missiles could not be fired at close range. The same is true with the F-22. If you can get in close, you can defeat it….those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.
Tartan69,
If you think for one moment that as our resources begin to dwindle that other nations are going to just simply “negotiate” what little resources are left away because they can be “reasoned with” you are sadly mistaken.
Both India and China are now experiencing exponential growth in their economies and both are nuclear powers. When things start to get scarce, it is naive and simplistic to think that they will let their nations wither and die because we need some of what they do and they are going to share. Unfortunately for America, the two oceans that border our nation and protect us from an invasion have also separated us from those same resources we require. Both China and India are closer to Middle Eastern Oil(logistically speaking, if not geographically) and the ores underground in Nigeria, South Africa and elsewhere.
Yes, India is the world’s largest democracy. But, is it really a democracy? Despite many attempts to abolish the caste system, it is still very apparent that it exists and is at once, both sanctioned and abhorred by the government. Justice for the oppressed in India mainly depends upon which regional government administrator gets is asked for help. Moreover, India is an enemy of Pakistan, an ally of ours in the War On Terror. If those two nations fight (it is truly just a matter of time) as they have done in the past, will America stay out of it? Who will we side with? Surely, you don’t think that we will have to choose? We will. If we don’t, we will be seen as weak and insipid.
China especially worries me and many others greatly. As we speak, it is the world’s leading investor in Africa, involved in mining, drilling for oil and many other things. The Chinese are not investing anything solely for saving the African continent. They, like us, are not entirely altruistic. They need the raw materials to fed their economic machine and, if not put into check by proxy or by direct competition, they will eventually get it and consume it.
Where will America be then?
Maybe I’m just a bit pro-India since I work with quite a large number of expatriates from there, but I just don’t see them as an ideological enemy. The legacy caste system is still in place, but not something that will dictate foreign policy. There’s an informal caste system in the US, but democracy seems to work here just fine (tinfoil hat wearer opinions notwithstanding). I agree that India will be a “competitor” in the future as far as resources go, but so will the UK, Australia, France, Germany, etc. I don’t think we’ll be going to war with these countries anytime soon. India a country we should be embracing and working together with on the aforementioned resource conflicts…building a mutually beneficial policy.
As far as their ancient enemy Pakistan…let’s face it, the only ally we have in that country is Musharaff. 90% of their ruling class detests us.
As far as China goes, while I do see shades of imperialist Japan in their actions, I also see them as being much shrewder than Japan was, and realizing that they can grow without fully antagonizing the world’s hyperpower. They are not irrational actors like Iran and North Korea. But I’ll defer a bit on this to those in the know.
Aren’t we over this yet? The Sprey fans and the POGO people have been making this silly argument since the early 90s. Meanwhile, F-22s are flying today, and all you have to do is see one at an airshow to realize that there is absolutely no way an F-15 or F-16 is a match for an F-22 in a dogfight. Its power to weight ratio, its wing area, and its instantaneous turn rates due to huge control surfaces put it in a league all its own in terms of combat agility.
That being said, the correct way to employ the F-22 is to use its stealth, supercruising ability, and sensors to fly at high altitude and lob AMRAAMs before the target can see you. But that in no way means the F-22 isn’t the best dogfighting airframe there is.
“Phil” – excellent points in both posts – and I can tell you are not JUST a gifted amateur by the POGO reference.
Every time I hear one of their pitches I either want to bust out laughing or puke. To those who may not be aware of POGO, it was founded by Dina Rasor who made her mark with a book a long time ago that was about, among other things, how bad the M-1 tank was going to be (LOL). the popping sounds she made (and still makes elsewhere) reflects all the knowledge about aerospace, weaponry, technology, engineering, and acquisition that one would expect of someone who ‘trained as a journalist’. She’s ostensibly moved on to other similar things, but her legacy of squishy-logic concerning weapon system acquisition lives on.
Major Mo,
That was a cool video at your link. Is that your site or someone elses??
At the risk of seeming to be piling on, I actually blogged on F-22 Critics late last year:
http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2006/10/f-22-critics-not-what-they-used-to-be.html
(The last I’ll post on this subject unless prompted, Scout’s Honor!)
I personally believe the dogfight will always survive. I mean, come on, those modern fighters will eventually run out of missles sometime during the heat of battle. When that happens, and they are too slow to retreat, they have to be dogfight ready.
Correct me if I’m wrong about points, as I am only 14 years of age. Dogfighting will always be a neccessary skill in combat. Period.
well i think dogfightig is a horrible thing to all people and not just people who is doing it and thinks it’s okay i am just 13 years of age but dog fighting should be stopped thats all i have to say
would somebody please explain the concept of a military grade laser? i am wondering what a lot of little holes in a plane may do? oh…wait? these holes develop after being exposed to a lot of energy right? do you have any concept of the amount of energy it takes to project enough energy to seriously damage an airframe? ok, so aeroplanes are some of the most easily damageable vehicles around, only beaten by helicopters, but a little hole in the wing isnt going t damage it that much. that being said – the amount of energy required to get that effect would be enourmous, and the further away the target was, the more energy is required. and only a computer could do the nessecary targetting equations, so you would need an extremely accurate radar to determine the position, vector and acceleration fo the aircraft. also you would need a rather large powerplant to power this. a battery wouldnt work to well, the size it would need to be is simply stupendous. and also, the logistics of moving a small powerplant around, moving around the targetting systems, and also carrying the weapon…this will need a damned big convoy and such a weapon would be an extremely high value target. i.e. – everything in its vicinity would attack it, nessecitating a lot more protection for it by friendly forces. and then u get the artillery in the equation…pretty simply, such a weapon would be expensive, and probably very vulnerable. the only use it would be would be as an emplaced ground defence system. behind your own lines. a long way behind. so, that can almost be written out of the equation. lets not make this disscussion dislove into a science fiction movie of the hysterical bad vareity hey? back to the dogfights – im not so sure about the specs of the raptor. but i sincerely doubt the dogfight is gone for good. it will remain a fixture of aerial combat, simply because whilst missiles are cheap and effective at the moment, more and more missile defence systems will be invented. when these are in front of the missile targetting systems, the missile will become obselete unless engaging what you affectionately term as “1-4th gen aircraft. and no has yet managed to stop a bullet enroute to an aircraft.
Questions:
If dogfighting was important wouldn’t the F-16 have continued to be optimized for A-to-A combat? Why has it strayed from it’s original design goals set forth by Boyd?
How many split-S turns have been performed by US pilots in combat since vietnam?
Why is the F-15, a heavy poorly turning aircraft, undefeated in A-to-A combat?
Why is it that the F-14 Tomcat, only used the cannon ONCE during roughly 30 years of service? (note: it was a strafing run, not a dogfight).
the dogfight is never dead even when their are generation 5 aircraft on our side the other sides have them too SU-47 with jamming and stelth it all goes back to guns not missiles high speed yo-yo not boom and zoom whenever to think you've finished and made the best dam aircraft another one will still go and kick yourt butt. 2nd lieutenant Ebanks
I'LL BE CONCISE.
war–> feeling of fighting for something–>patriotism–>psychological state of mind in middle/low class.
conflict–>bad–>solutions/progress is researched–>gives hope for a brighter future–
(antibodies protect us when there is a virus in our body. Not virus, no need for antibodies and so the person foolishly thinks he wont get sick.)