Well , Sweetman can ‘t always be trusted but I enjoy the :

modernized fighters are acquiring a range of capabilities introduced in the last decade, including active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, high-definition targeting pods, the ability to release multiple guided weapons at separate targets in a single pass, and helmet-mounted displays. So-called “non-stealthy” aircraft are using a combination of radar cross-section (RCS) reduction measures and new-technology jamming based on digital radio frequency memory (RF) to defeat RF-guided weapons.

Why he didn ‘t simply named the Rafale ? :cool:Because it hasn ‘t an HMS yet ?

(The F-35 has an IRST function built into its electro-optical sensor, but advocates of a dedicated IRST say a scanning long-wave system outperforms a staring midwave sensor.)

True , it brings faster scan rates at longer range .

And although the F-22 is conceded to reign supreme in air-to-air, the Rafale has delivered air-to-ground weapons in anger and is operationally capable of hitting six independent ground targets in a single pass with the Sagem SBU-38 Hammer rocket-boosted bomb (the F-22, so far, can release two weapons on predetermined coordinates)

Also true . Then , note the predetermined coordinates , when the Rafale fires its Hammers on the fly , thanks to Spectra . The 2 fighters aren ‘t playing in the same league 😎

Currently, the F-22 can only release one bomb type, the GBU-32 1,000‑lb. Joint Direct Attack Munition, on pre-loaded or externally supplied coordinates. Increment 3.1 includes a synthetic aperture radar mode, integration of up to eight GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs (SDBs)—although only two can be guided at once—and new electronic attack modes in the APG-77 radar.

It shows again the F-22 ‘s lack of sensors , the need to use “external” sources . It also shows that it is an Interceptor first …

The Rafale program is working in this area too, and French documents specify the work involves dealing with RCS-treated aircraft. It is likely that head-on RCS treatments invalidate the jet engine modulation technique for non-cooperative target recognition (NCTR), which relies on the characteristic return signal of a target’s spinning compressor blades.

Combat identification is a vital element in beyond-visual-range engagements, particularly for a stealth aircraft. Historically, rules of engagement have required the target to be identified either visually or by multiple means (for example, by radar NCTR and electronic surveillance). But if those means are degraded, a stealth fighter may be forced into its adversary’s detection range before launching weapons, which negates the advantage of stealth.

Wow !! 😎
Bill Sweetman is hitting the nail there !
Honestly , it was like reading one of my post ! :diablo: lol ..

How many times did I say that , here or on other forums ?
Countless times : “ID first , then shoot” .
He obviously knows today ‘s RoE , how to respect them and how to fire first . Good job Bill 🙂 .

Cheers .

This thread is going pear shape .

People on both sides are posting wrong and false claims as well as expressing personal views exposed as fact .
It is a real mess …

The later in date is Cola but I could take many other post as well . Cola , you said :

If you examine the case when F22 performs 360° post-stall (J-turn, IIRC), you’ll see it does 360, but with its nose, while the actual plane does mere 270°

A fighter is a “solid” object , the tail is making the same degree than the nose in all conditions .
*********************
I am French and we are on a British (European ?) forum but some are bashing the F-22 for the sake of … bashing .
From where I stand , the F-22 is the most deadly foe one can expect to fight BVR if the fighter is in good hands .
Anybody , anybody will get a hard time against it .
But of course , it is not invincible . Nothing is .

As I said earlier , it lacks 5th Gen passive detection means and active ECMs .
Also , whatever fanboys say , it has been designed as an Interceptor from day one and still is . This IS what the fighter is good at , the rest being a “bonus” … just in case .
Can it do 28 deg/sec at 20k feet ? At slow speed with AB and TVC , probably , but who cares ?
Surely , it is (if true) something to be proud of and it is (if true) another good thing .
Is it a definitive advantage ? No .
Could it be useful in combat ? Sure .

Now , I always try to use pilots reports or the like to give us an inside view because very few of us (if any) are fighter pilots .
Recently , we have been lucky to get some decent infos on the F-22 ‘s capabilities in a well set-up “gun only” exercise . It fares well for a aircraft of its size and was able to “beat” (?) what is considered by many as the best dogfighter today , the Rafale .
To do so , French pilot reports tell us that the F-22 had to use extensive use of the AB and ran of out fuel a couple of times .
This is why Wrightwing is wrong when he says :

The F-22 has enough dry thrust for maneuvering purposes, to minimize the need for afterburner though, whereas I highly suspect the Rafale would be using afterburners to keep up.

But never mind .

Now , do we have any reference to an exercise where the F-22 was put up against 4++ gen fighters in joint exercise (being Blue or Red) and tasked to act as an Interceptor or as CAP ?
None .
I would like to see the F-22 at Tiger Meet :):diablo::cool:
No (pseudo) Luneberg lens , no BS , nothing .
I would like to see what it can really do within NATO because I am asking myself 2 questions :
-1) If it is so good , could it be used even more efficiently if the US Allies know its true capabilities ?
-2) If it is not as good as depicted , could NATO use it in a more clever way than previously though ?

In both cases , it is a win-win scenario .

What people on these boards have to understand , because it is very important , is the fact that we are on the same side (for the time being , human History is full of chaotic choices) and NATO is the Western World Army .
That being said , we shouldn ‘t try to make up things just to look good or to defend our “toy” with non senses .

So , to stop there and to make it short , I think that the F-22 is the best BVR fighter and in BVR , only very few can expect to win against it named , Rafale , SU-35 and to a lesser extent Typhoon and F18-E/F .
Just my one Euro 😎

Cheers .

That ‘s unfortunate …

Cheers .

DK :

Plenty of time to show what it’s worth

Tehran or Pyongyang ? 😎

Cheers .

I think that the thread is going a bit … off subject , don ‘t you think ?
Just asking …

Well , it says :

5th generation tactics/thinking

So , what is it all about ? I guess that we all have our own view , but all our view should normally go in the same direction : Survivability and safety of the crew and the aircraft .

The second point is to get a better and bigger “eye” than the foe .
The third point is to harm the foe without being harmed in return .
This is as old as the World …

What we should debate is not “X” versus “Y” aircraft , but how the “X” or “Y” aircraft can fit within its airforce .
Stuff like how to use a NATO air fleet , who would do what and why , how ?
Will the F-22s will be first , up front ? The Rafales ? The Typhoons ?
Who will follow ? etc …

Or things like , is “X” fighter well suited for its airforce ?
Everything important while keeping in mind the “5th generation thing” .

Cheers .

aurcov , it is clear that the F-22 ran out of fuel more than once because of a very high fuel consumption .
Lt Col Grandclaudon says it , Cpt Romain says it , the very article you posted says it (read in between the line , bottom left) .

Usually in joint exercises, everybody is forced to call “Bingo” when only that much fuel left , for safety reasons .
That amount of fuel required before to call “Bingo” does change depends on various conditions like , aircraft , mission at hand , proximity of an airport , load , etc … In the Rafale , I often heard that the “Bingo” call is done when around 800-1000 liters left internally .

Regarding the M2000-9 kill , it has been reported by the FAF through Air&Cosmos review , no less . A special patch has been made :

The review :

You also said :

As you can see for yourself the L (CPSM) band 969 to 1206 MHz.

Which is within the IEEE protocol , as I said and covered by Spectra , as I also said .
Now , regarding your serious source on the APG-77 , let ‘s read it together , shall we ?

The Low Probability of Intercept (LPI) capability of the radar…

Other radars also have LPI capability and are not even Pesa radar yet , example RDY and Captor .

defeats conventional RWR/ESM systems.

Note the word “conventional” . aurcov , do you think that Spectra or ALR-94 or DASS are … “conventional” ? Just a question …

The AN/APG-77 radar is capable of performing an active radar search on RWR/ESM equipped fighter aircraft without the target knowing he is being illuminated

True but it has been archived with pretty much any LPI radar against old gen RWRs . Now , I admit that the APG-77must be very good at it . I ‘m not stupid and I know the F-22 😉

the AN/APG-77 emits low energy pulses over a wide frequency band using a technique called spread spectrum transmission.

Yep , this is one of the advantage of Aesa over Pesa . While Blue Apple is right (it ‘s not a new thing) , an Aesa radar does it much better and faster than a mechanical or Pesa radar . No doubt .

The amount of energy reflected back to the target is about the same as a conventional radar, but because each LPI pulse has considerably less amount of energy and may not fit normal modulation patterns, the target will have a difficult time detecting the F-22.

This is where 5th generation RWR suites come into play , aurcov . From now on , the radar is slowly but surely loosing the fight but it is a normal thing until the next generation of radar (post AESA) .
Today , the digital receivers are sooo sensitive that we have to invent some new types of “electronic filters” to avoid “false alarms” coming at an alarming rate . This is where Maths and coding enter the game and French are top rate in this matter , no kidding 🙂

Systems like Spectra , DASS , ALR-94 , AN/ASQ-239 are perfectly capable to detect LPI signals coming from an Aesa radar .
The problem is then to isolate them fast enough (to understand them fast enough as “scans” in fact) to build a possible ECM response , if the system is capable of doing so , of course :diablo:.

It is why I said earlier that LPI capabilities were only a part of the equation . Multitasking is more important and the pilots will most probably agree with me .

Of course everybody is trying to field an AESA radar , they are the best . In this regard , the USA have a nice little edge but the Allies are following 🙂
The possible enemies are still way behind …

Cheers .

Spudman :

In LOAL mode, the 9X does not simply fly straight until it detects a target. It has GPS based INS that can constantly receive updates (via datalink) and will guide it to the target, even as the target is moving around in the battlespace. Once it’s nose is pointed in the right direction, then the seeker can achieve a lock on it’s own.

Yes it is true , like for any decent missile .
The problem is that it takes time where a LOBL missile don ‘t need anything and certainly not extra time to understand and compute the data sent by the aircraft .
It acts on its own from its rail to impact , which is what is desired in dogfight .
You should know that so I can ‘t see what your point was …

Cheers .

Excellent post Aspis 🙂

The Greek pilots are indeed a “pain in the a$$” to deal with and I got that from a M2000-5 pilot here in Dijon .
The Turks are not bad either 🙂

Just one thing : only 7 Rafales at PEAN 2009 but I don ‘t know how many Rafales were involved in Medor 2010 .

Cheers .