I think when a F-22 pilot forced to WVR then has he made somewhat wrong.;)

If you read what the circumstances were in the fight, it’s an artificial set of parameters, which aren’t representative of how the F-22 fights though. I agree that if an F-22 pilot finds himself in a dogfight, he probably has either made a mistake, or is out of missiles.

I completely agree. That is why I take all claims with a pinch of salt.

But he was giving the context, and the conditions that allowed the incident to occur as it did.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20100420/158666082.html
8 R-77 and no short range AAMs? :confused:

Or maybe 6 R77s, and 2 SRAAMs?

What you wrote here is unimportant to me. I am not discussing whether a Hornet can outturn a Raptor. My only interest is to discuss, wherther a claim about weapon system being not able to place a pipper on the Raptor even at visual is true or false. Looks like it is false…

I have read that before. Looks like somebody has had taken great effort to dismiss whatever doubt about Raptor being vulnerable and blaming everything on boundary conditions. I am quite sure that with future Raptor kills (which are inevitable) people like Dozer will, again, come with loads of excuses, throwing blame at everything but the aircraft itself.

Not sure about you, but I personally appreciate balanced, objective, open-minded views. If someone strives too hard to persuade me on his stance, then it makes me suspicious. Dozer’s view is clear – no way you can shoot down the F-22 and if yes, then ROE are to blame, then weather, then solar activity or political situation in Ghana, just for God’s sake, not the Raptor. Too bad he has turned his otherwise very precious first hand experience into a cheap teleshopping-style garbage.

I don’t really see anything that resembles tap dancing, back peddling, or grasping at straws, with the explanation given. Without context, you can’t really understand what it is that you’re seeing/reading/hearing.

What about the guns then ?

As stated previously, the Rafale couldn’t get a guns shot either.

Not that illogical at all. The F-22 is considerably more agile and manoeuvrable than the F-15. The statement could simply have meant that he wasn’t able to point his nose on the Raptor and was therefore unable to “put his weapons on it”.

Exactly, the Rafale wasn’t able to get a shot either(at least with guns that is).

On a pure grammatical analysis, there is a big difference between “multi” and “omni” and I think this is the difference on which Dassault is marketing the Rafale.
Multirole being the description of an aircraft being able to perform several missions/tasks, independently of them being simultaneous or not.
Omnirole on the other hand suggest it can do all the missions.
What do you think ?

It sounds like folks arguing about whether the word should be happy or glad.

I’ve heard that F22s almost don’t use this capability as they prefer to stay airborne for longer period as they can remain undetected. They then engage AB to quickly accelerate to supersonic speeds for intercepts. But basically they don’t SC for very long periods.

I beleive that SC can be truely useful in an environment where the ennemy is clearly known but in complex environment I doubt that a fighter jet will shoot at a target at full range without positive ID.

Just to say that SC might sounds that the ultimate thing to have but that it could in fact rarely be used in a real conflict scenario.

Anyway the F22 doesn’t need that to dominate any potential threats in the near future.

For anti cruise missile, etc… there’d be no reason to have the same concern for being detected.