Where did I challenge the Growler victory? I just said that without knowing the circumstances, it’s hard to draw meaningful conclusions. I have no doubt that the USAF has/is testing the F-22 against everything it can think of to see any areas that need to be addressed, or to develop tactics to deal with any results that they find.

The meaningful conclusion is that the F-22 was killed with a radar-guided missile, and with the lack of any evidence to the contrary, it was done within the rules of the exercise. I’m encouraged that you accept that the Growler got the kill in this case, I mean it sounds like you do.

I read what you wrote. But it seems to me from your responses that you will not concede the Growler victory until you know all the circumstances surrounding the kill – which is currently impossible since we do not have access to all information surrounding the event, and will not until it is either leaked or becomes operationally insignificant.

A prudent operator / analyst would accept the victory, dissect the engagement, identify errors, and redress the tactics to minimize the vulnerability. I am certain that the USAF is doing exactly this with the information available to them, and an intellectually honest observer would do the same.

The aircraft is / was assigned to VFA-103 at the time of the kill. A photo of the Growler with kill mark is attached. Go Navy!

GS.org also calls the F-35 all aspect

Im having trouble one this mac http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35.htm

Um, a quote:

“All-Aspect Stealth: The F-22A offers full stealth, unlike the F-35 which has a very good radar profile from the front, a less stealthy profile from the sides, and a least stealthy profile from the rear quarter. Note that stealth is not invisibility. It merely shortens the range at which an aircraft can be detected by opponents on the ground or in the air, and makes radar lock for engagements harder to achieve and to keep. The F-22’s stealth level shortens those ranges considerably from all enemy positions, even those that use new VHF radars…”

From this source: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f22-raptor-procurement-events-updated-02908/

You might want to keep this link – lots of good info on F-22’s.

The rule he broke was in getting closer than 1000 feet, which was a safety violation. The F-22 pilot follow the rules and disengaged.

Fair enough – in this particular case. However, I stand by my premise – anyone can have a bad day, someone else might get lucky, and anything can happen in wartime. I wouldn’t fool myself thinking that an F-22 hasn’t (couldn’t) been killed by an adversary flying a dissimilar aircraft.

As regards the A-10 with a secoond seat, they did that for the Forward Air Control role but I don’t think the US military took it on. IIRC it was designated A-10C

Two seat A-10 is YA-10B / A-10B NAW (Night Adverse Weather.) Never became a production model. The FAC/A A-10 is OA-10A model, but should be F-16 B/D’s or F-15E’s imo. The Navy and the Marines use F/A-18F’s and F/A-18D’s for FAC/A’s, and in the KEZ, the Navy used F-14A’s as FAC/A’s.

The loser in air combat is the first person who makes a mistake that can be successfully exploited by his opponent(s). F-22 pilots are just as capable of making mistakes as any other well-trained pilot. In the instance where the F-18 pilot violated the ROE to get the killshot, I would be interested in which rule he broke. The fact remains that the Hornet pilot got a solution. And in wartime, all is fair.

The Bravo model is the furthest along in development, and the Marines want this plane – it was designed to their specifications. It is their only fixed wing option for austere basing. If it fails, then they are left with AH-1Z – too light for the spec, and a lot of money wasted on big deck gators. So the F-35B lives.

Other operators might have different alternatives.