Hornet gunning Raptor picture

[Guest BZ]

This subject has been discussed alot on a couple of other sights, got this from fencecheck.com

Quoting Dozer-- "The Hornet "snap" shot - good story. Happened here at Langley. It was a stock, combat configured F-22 flying a BFM (dogfighting) sortie against an airshow configured, i.e. squeeky clean, not combat configured or loaded, Super Hornet (not at all representative of how it performs with 8 pylons, an EA pod and 4-6 or missiles hanging off the rails and probably a fuel tank or two or their out of gas real quick...). It started from a 9000 foot line abreast 300 knot setup (which AF pilots never fly) where they turned into each other at the "fights on" call. It's not a scenario we fly because we never find ourselves in those parameters, we try to set up realistic parameters we expect to see in combat - otherwise the lessons learned aren't applicable and while it might be fun it's not a good use of scarce training time (I don't know if that's a setup the Navy flies or it might just have been a quick attempt to get a last engagement in if they were low on gas - I don't have that info). The Hornet pilot gave up everything he had to point at the Raptor and take a snap shot - it was NOT a tracking shot (stabilized and enough bullets to cause a kill), it was about 2 or 3 frames (many more required to cause a kill - OK - for you skeptics there's always the golden BB but let me finish first...). The AF pilot honored the training rules we're all supposed to abide by, they've been written in blood because pilots have been killed in these scenarios so our training rules look to prevent those scenarios by causing guys to quit manuevering for the shot to prevent a mid-air collision. With greater than a 135 aspect angle and inside of 9000 feet we're supposed to avoid pure or lead pursuit to avoid that head on collision, inside that range at our tactical speeds there's not enough time to react to prevent a collision once you realize it's going to happen. The Navy pilot completely blew off that rule, the AF pilot honored it, the Navy pilot pulled lead pursuit all the way into the high aspect (greater than the 135 degree gun shot rule) snap shot, the AF pilot lagged off to prevent the mid-air collision potential, the Navy pilot was still on the trigger inside the 1000 foot rule (we're supposed to avoid getting inside of 1000 feet from each other to also help prevent mid-air collisions), attempting to get the snap shot, he's inside the 1000 foot range with the trigger on, flies within about 200 feet of the Raptor (remember who's backed off to honor the training rules), and dang near kills himself and the Raptor pilot and causing what would have been one of the worst fighter to fighter disasters in recorded history. I've had that happen twice to me when I was flying the Eagle as a weapons officer (close enough to hear very loud engine noise and I figured I was dead both times, but God wasn't ready to take me yet), and both times I knocked off the fight, made the guy fly home, busted him on the ride and he had to explain to me and the boss why he was being stupid. That is the ONLY gun shot video I have ever heard of or seen from ANY Hornet engagement, ever. And it was a hugely B.S. and completely boneheaded act as you can see from the actual circumstances. In the real world - the Hornet never saw the Raptor and he was dead w/o ever knowing what hit him - that's the cold hard truth, like it or not - sorry if you're a Hornet fan but that's how all of our engagements with Hornets, Tomcats, Eagles, Vipers, etc. have gone. You would be amused if I had time to tell you how the hundreds of engagements went I've had with aircraft of all types, the biggest problem we have now is getting anyone to fly with us because they get no training, they never see us and they just die. Unless we promise to do some within visual range manuevering with them where we start and can see each other at the start, no one (Navy or AF) wants to fly vs. the Raptor anymore - that alone ought to tell you what the truth is."

[drewpey]

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/07/..._raptor_070730/

F-22 near perfect in combat exercises

By Seamus O’Connor - Staff writer

Posted : Tuesday Jul 31, 2007 15:56:56 EDT

The F-22 Raptor is the world’s most advanced fighter, but is it invincible?

Internet rumors have swirled for months over whether any F-22s had been taken down in simulated combat exercises. Discussion forums are rife with Navy pilots touting a controversial photo appearing to show an F/A-18F Super Hornet gunning down a Raptor.

The F-22’s debut combat exercise was at Northern Edge in June 2006. According to Air Force data, the dozen F-22s in attendance racked up an unprecedented kill record of 144-0 the first week alone and suffered no losses overall.

The Raptor’s only other combat exercise so far was Red Flag 07-1, held Feb. 3-16 at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev. The Air Force released no data indicating an F-22 shootdown.

But according to the March 5 issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology, one Raptor got blasted.

In the article, Col. Tom Bergeson, the exercise’s air expeditionary commander, described the situation: When one aggressor went down, it was able to fly out and regenerate so quickly that an F-22 pilot thought the enemy was still “dead,” and got shot down himself for the mistake.

One thing is for sure: The plane that took down the Raptor was an F-15 or F-16, but not an F/A-18F. When asked whether a Superbug might have claimed a kill, one Air Force public affairs officer scoffed, “Not bloody likely.”

Though the Raptor may not have a perfect record, it still got high praise during the exercise.

“The thing denies your ability to put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it through the canopy,” said one Australian aggressor pilot at the time. “It’s the most frustrated I’ve ever been.”

[Guest Rainman A-10]

In range, in plane with lead...nose position over energy aside, I wouldn't make too big a deal about this without seeing a bit more of this film. Based simply on being in plane this appears to be a snap shot at best. It's definitely not a picture of a Hornet saddled up on a Raptor.

Consider this, it's such a big deal that anyone has a frame of film with an F/a-22 under the pipper with the trigger squeezed that they posted it on the internet.

And what's up with people calling the F-18 a Rhino? Is that standard now?

<yawn>

[Guest Jimmy]

And what's up with people calling the F-18 a Rhino? Is that standard now?

<yawn>

Apparently only the E/F variants.

On top of that...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but mr superbug driver doesn't seem to be in a very advantageous E state himself judging by the fancy green digits on the HUD. Probably not a situation you would want to put yourself in during combat, but what do I know; I'm an amateur.

[EvilEagle]

Again, there is plenty of footage of the Raptor getting gunned out there. I've seen footage of 422 Eagles and Vipers gunning it. It's all about circumstance, right place, right time... hell, I had a broken watch once -- it was right twice a day!

**Edit -- normally Eagles/Vipers/Hornets don't gun those things -- I've fought it and it's DAMN impressive, but one frame on one day does not a Raptor-slayer make.

[JeepGuyC17]

Lots of people (especially civilians) beleive that our technology is invincible, but as mentioned before, there's always the golden BB and anyone can get lucky once in a while. We all remember the F-117 in the Kosovo war

[Guest hornetav8r]

Hey guys, please don't think all Navy guys are AF bashing, not the case at all. For those of you who have flown against a Navy or Marine hornet squadron on a det, you can probably attest to the good times and professional training conducted on both sides. Having a pipper on a Raptor if you're a hornet guy is cool, the hornets had their asses handed to them for the most part so don't sweat it. Haven't any of you ever played footage of a visual kill over again? There's a little rivalry between the AF and the Navy but it is friendly, we're all on the same team.

Arresting gear weight setting for a Super is 44k, significantly higher than a C so that's why you say Rhino ball. The LSO's, and the Airboss for that matter can verify the gear setting so there's no mishap. It is pretty standard to have a Super recover, with a C only a minute behind so some distinction has to be made. During the day there's no ball call (except during CQ) and Rhinos are distinguished at the 180 by a strobe light that the C's don't have. Where the Rhino name came from, I've heard conflicting stories. The one I'm most likely to believe is just because of it's size, if you've ever seen a Super next to a C, it's huge. Almost (not quite) but close to the size difference between an Eagle and a Viper. Rhinos are big and pretty slow, lots of pylons and with external fuel tanks, bombs, missles, FLIR, etc. we are not getting anywhere quickly, it's a work horse though and fun to fly.

Fly Safe.

[Fozzy Bear]

This subject has been discussed alot on a couple of other sights, got this from fencecheck.com

Quoting Dozer-- "The Hornet "snap" ... It was a stock, combat configured F-22 flying a BFM (dogfighting) sortie against an airshow configured, i.e. squeeky clean, not combat configured or loaded...

Wouldn't it always be squeeky clean, no matter how loaded up?

I think pretty much everybody's in agreement about the 'any given day' aspect, but FWIW, my first instructor was an old F-4 and F-15 guy. Before moving into the Eagle, he earned his dinner beating 15 guys all day long. He'd been flying his fighter over a few thousand hours - the Eagle guys were new (to their jet at least). Are there really very many "experienced" F-22 pilots?

[ClearedHot]

Wouldn't it always be squeeky clean, no matter how loaded up?

I think pretty much everybody's in agreement about the 'any given day' aspect, but FWIW, my first instructor was an old F-4 and F-15 guy. Before moving into the Eagle, he earned his dinner beating 15 guys all day long. He'd been flying his fighter over a few thousand hours - the Eagle guys were new (to their jet at least). Are there really very many "experienced" F-22 pilots?

????

Initial cadre for the Raptor was exclusively Target Arms...

FWIW, my old man was initial cadre in the Eagle and he had over 4,000 hrs in the F-4 before he moved over. I think your old IP is FOS.

[Guest Blu4]

Are there really very many "experienced" F-22 pilots?

At least 3, maybe more with over 500 hours in the Raptor....each with 2000+ hours in their previous airframes, at least. Probably a good number between 350-500 hours, each with over 1500+ hours in their previous airframes. All those listed above have all their F-22 hours as IP time, excepting the first 10 or so for the initial qual.

"Experienced" in the F-22 is defined as 100 hours, if you are previously experienced in another fighter (500 hours).

So I guess it depends on your definition.

Dozer would have to be close to the most experienced F-22 guy, if not the most experienced.

[Guest rapier01]

Dozer would have to be close to the most experienced F-22 guy, if not the most experienced.

He said he is probably in the top couple of experienced Raptor drivers, but he said there are probably a couple people with more Raptor hours than him since he hasn't been flying as much for last year and a bit.

[Guest F16PilotMD]

There are a lot of these pictures around folks. Got one from a 9000' offensive perch set up...it only takes a tiny mistake by the Raptor to let this happen. This is clearly a snap with a bunch 'o' angles. That's not tough to do, even against the -22. Ask the Hog drivers if they have any pics gunnin' Eagles, Vipers, etc. Hint - they do!

Agree with Rainman...yawn.

Edited August 7, 2007 by F16PilotMD

[Guest Rainman A-10]

What we consider training rules they see as moreor less guidelines and decide to follow them depending on whether or not it is to their advantage to do so.

[Guest 35AoA]

What we consider training rules they see as more or less guidelines and decide to follow them depending on whether or not it is to their advantage to do so.

whatever … there are several HUD videos of F-15's & F-16's violating their blocks & causing a mid-air's - a quick search found this: https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3891823241542584312 – explain that TR violation (or put your spin on it). You know TR violations happen on occasion. At least in the case of the SH snapping the F-22, nobody was hurt, only the feelings of numerous Raptor "fanboys". Just like any other TR violation, you own up to it in the debrief and learn from it (and don't post your TR violation to the 'net). The SH pilot was being overly aggressive (and from the pic was nowhere near max performance, and with that BATR (bullets at target range) cue sitting almost in the center of the F-22, the SH would only be going defensive on the fireball 900' in front of him). If the Raptor pilot felt unsafe he could have knocked it off.

As for 300 knot/Abeam sets, it's a normal set in the hornet community …

It started from a 9000 foot line abreast 300 knot setup (which AF pilots never fly) where they turned into each other at the "fights on" call. It's not a scenario we fly because we never find ourselves in those parameters, we try to set up realistic parameters we expect to see in combat.

… great excuse, if the Raptor guy didn't like those PADS, he should have spoken up. "which AF pilots never fly" ... comical, tell that to the Chinese or DPRK when you get jumped off target. Train like you fight – know your opponent, the Hornet fights slow

[Guest momann]

Thanks for all your responses, guys. Yes. I'm a "fanboy" of the Eagle and raptor. I hope on one have a problem with that.

Much have been said that have expanded my awareness and increase my SA.

First, maybe naive, but I thought the raptor will have at least a decade before an aircraft was built that could even paint her.

With that said, I believe or at least almost believed that the raptor was invincible more on the subconscious level (and that was turning into a reality; good reality check), and that was my second point.

Third, whether or not the SH, Eagle or Falcon had a snap at the raptor, is a little inconsequential, because in a actual, the pilot has to complements his/her aircraft and the best combination (experience and capability) will win.

Finally we are all no the same team and turning this into a word fight doesn't serve any purpose. If some knuckle-head wants to violate TR, block or ROE to paint the raptor for bragging right, I think he/she should get his/her @ss chewed at debrief because it compromise safety and puts other pilot at risk.

I'll continue to believe in the raptor and other US military flying assets, however, I'll be more objective.

Edited August 8, 2007 by momann

[Guest rapier01]

the 'net). The SH pilot was being overly aggressive (and from the pic was nowhere near max performance, and with that BATR (bullets at target range) cue sitting almost in the center of the F-22, the SH would only be going defensive on the fireball 900' in front of him). If the Raptor pilot felt unsafe he could have knocked it off.

Actually the Raptor pilot did knock it off...

From Dozer, a more comprehensive quote:

This ONE infamous gun shot on a Raptor has been covered before. First off it ought to tell you something about this airplane that ONE fleeting snap shot is taken of this airplane and so many people have to make a big deal about it. Why is that? Might ask yourself that question. Might be that the airplane is so good, and so dominant, and some people are so tired of hearing of and having to deal with that, that they'll latch on to anything just to take one cheap shot at it. I'm of the opinion we'd all be happy the jets on our side and its so lethal there AREN'T (m)any other shots on it. But once again and I think for the last time, I'll provide as Paul Harvey says, "the rest of the story". It was a 1 vs. 1 BFM canned setup. A pilot broke the ROE, in war there isn't any, partly true - we have ROE, this is really a training rules discussion (proper terms are mixed up but not important here), but our ROE (or TR's) are written in blood because many pilots have died making mistakes that we then crafted rules of engagement from to keep us from killing each other for real in training. The ROE still allows us to push to the limits as far as possible and mimic realistic combat conditions as close as possible so we're as prepared for combat as we can be without making those written in blood mistakes. We're trained from day one to "knock it off" when we find ourselves exceeding those ROE so we don't die for real or lose a jet. A good friend of mine was within about a millisecond of dying in a mid-air collision just a month ago here in Alaska - it's a real threat. The Hornet driver should have just knocked it off, normally that's exactly what happens. But a key is we always thouroughly debrief ourselves so we aren't let off the hook when we screw up. It only makes us better in the long run. The Raptor pilot "backed" off on the pull because of the 1000 foot bubble ROE, otherwise he could have kept pulling too and you'd have had a 100 foot pass or a collision with both jets pointing right at each other. So the Hornet driver probably got his fangs out a bit too far and got the shot but the lesson or gun footage isn't worthwhile because the opposing pilot followed the rules in this pass. If the Raptor pilot would have not followed those rules this gun camera shot wouldn't exists because they'd both been sucking up seat cushion hoping they didn't trade paint during the pass. The problem with these "high aspect" passes is that it is extremely difficult to judge line of sight, closure and aspect angle until it's almost too late, usually you're seeing anwhere from 300 to 400 knots (slow end) up to 1200 knots of closure during these passes, it happens very fast and you literally have seconds (or less) to react and avoid hitting each other. THAT's where the ROE comes from and why it's so important, far too many pilots are no longer with us today, and countless more airplanes, mostly because pilots got their fangs out too far and they pushed too hard and lost. We have to assume that in war, in that one in a million chance your in the phone booth with an adversary, and it comes down to BFM and gun shots, that your instincts take over and you can make that snap judgement to go further than you did in training because it IS life or death and that's when ROE doesn't matter because you'll die for sure if you back off - but in peacetime we can't afford to make those mistakes. Even then, most of the time I've found I wouldn't want to press much further than the ROE anyhow, especially with a gun shot, you get too close, you'll probably be in your parachute too because you actually hit each other or you frag yourself by flying through the parts & pieces of the airplane you just shot (jet engines don't like pieces of metal very much).

Lessons learned are only valid if the parameters which surround them would be valid in war, in this case they weren't because both pilots were applying the rules differently which skewed teh results. Probably different in war because if the Raptor pilot thought he was about to die he'd be pointing right back at the Hornet shooting too. And here's my interservice jab, with our nose pointing capability, he'd probably be shooting first!

We've always had a 1,000' bubble with the Raptor, I helped decide on and write those rules we "invented" when we started flying the very first operational sorties during our initial training at Edwards preparing for the operational test in 2003. If you've never flown with or against it you probably haven't heard that caveat, if you have and didn't hear that caveat for the F-22 it was somehow overlooked. Every other USAF platform has the same 500' bubble the Navy has and we've all had for the 17 years I've been flying jets. The 1,000 foot bubble is specific to this jet only.

My last 2 cents on this gun footage. Too many pilots either aren't around anymore or are "barely" with us after mid air's & other accidents. It's simple since he's still pulling lead, 1.8g at 800 feet with the whisky symbol & gun cross out front and 210 knots Vc - do the math - he'll fly inside the 500' bubble, not just the 1,000' bubble he was briefed on. Even at slower airspeeds it's not a good idea and there's no room for error on the part of a analog human brain. I bet it wasn't "intentional", it usually isn't, just guys doing their best to win, it's how we're trained and the attitude you want, but here's my take;

The closest I've been to dying in a fighter (F-15C days) was as as a brand new weapons officer (captain) and a more senior pilot I was putting through instructor upgrade lost his mind on his high aspect BFM sortie, continued pulling lead even inside 500', (didn't look that different from this Hornet HUD shot), for about the last 1.5 to 2 seconds when I realized he wasn't going to back off and I knew there was nothing I could do I simply held my breath waiting for the impact, he passed inside a jet length from hitting me. I knocked it off, made him take us home and promptly busted him on the sortie and made him debrief the squadron by showing the tapes (he was pretty shaky after the pass too once he realized what he'd done). In his mind he HAD to get the shot, it was fangs out and the pressure was on to fly his best jet with the new WIC grad. (Happened to me again a few months later on a ACM sortie, apparently the target arm actually means you're a target). This Hornet gun footage was an example of what we try not to do, sometimes it happens, it's really just that simple. However, I do wish they wouldn't have posted that shot, it would have made life simpler.... This isn't a Navy vs. USAF thing, we try to do the right thing no matter who you are because in the end we're flying on the same side when we get to the war (even though the Navy & Marines still gets the better movies, I'm bitter...). In the big scheme of things this is a non-event, pilots make mistakes (usually with good intent) all the time, we learn and move on. We'll make mistakes, jets will get shot in training, hopefully we'll learn the lesson so we don't make those mistakes in war where it counts. Done.

[Guest Rainman A-10]

whatever …

Agreed. This whole conversation is pretty pointless.