How to shoot down an F-22

[Dmanton300]

I The real reason the Brit's racked up such an impressive kill ratio was that they were flying w/ all-aspect AIM-9L's which the US rushed over to the UK prior to the carrier task group setting sail. They also had the benefit of shipboard radar to get them into the optimum position to intercept the Argentinians.

Actually that is still very much open to debate. Whilst no one would argue that the supply of AIM-9L's wasn't welcome (and they were taken straight from NATO stocks for the ships- US stocks didn't arrive until after the task force set sail and were used to back-fill stocks taken from NATO warstocks for the task force), all SHAR sidewinder kills were simple rear-hemisphere shots well within the capability of extant AIM-9G/H with SEAM. We'll never know how the performance would have differed if the Fleet AIr Arm had only had access to the G/H models, but to suggest the supply of AIM-9L was the deciding factor is an oversimplification of events. The G/H was still a better missile than the gen-1 Magics the FAA had at their disposal, and the freedom to maneouvre the Harriers had over the Mirages which had, literally, minutes to get in and out was probably more telling as was the radar pickets being able to vector them to best effect. The Skyhawks had refueliing and thus potentially more time, but it was such a hostile environment for them that they also didn't hang around! Frankly it amazes me to this day that the Argentinian pilots managed to fit both themselves AND their cojones into the cockpit!

The tactical situation was almost exclusively in favour of the Fleet Air Arm. . . and still Argentinian aircraft got through time and time again.

[11bee]

The tactical situation was almost exclusively in favour of the Fleet Air Arm. . . and still Argentinian aircraft got through time and time again.

Truly some brave pilots, especially later in the war when they must have known what they would be flying into. If it wasn't for some defective bomb fuzes, the scorecard would have been much different.

[dagger00]

Well, actually it wasn´t a problem with the fuses itselves, the problem was to find the exact point for the calibration of the fuses, taking in consideration the variable heights of tha attacking flights, the A-4´s and Daggers flew really scratching the waves at ULL (Ultra low level), so when a pilot released his boms, a lot of times the fuse didn´t turn all the needed times to arm the bomb. That situation changed when the Daggers begun to use the SSQ electronic fuses, all the bombs baegun to explode.

Among other types the primary weapon carried in the A-4 were the old british 1.000 pounds bombs (those were bought for use with the AVRO Lincoln heavy bomber back in the 50's) and the ExPal 125 and 250 kgs. The naval A-4Q´s used the MK-82 Snakeye in their atacks, since their were already well trained in tha naval attack doctrine, they have better bombs for that.

The Air Force never (at least up to the war breaking) had a doctrine of naval attacks, that was a navy doctrine, the primary role of the air force was the army´s support by attacking ground targets, not ships!..a lot of improvisation was made and finally the sorties begun, but without the necessary training, the fuses sometimes were not ready to arm the bombs because of the lower altitude the attack was made.

[Horrido]

Thanks, guys, especially to Juan. It's raised my understanding considerably and cleared up some nagging inconsistencies.

Edited -- Juan, do you know if the Argentinians attempted any skip-bombing? Don't even know if that would be possible from a jet or in the water conditions around the Falklands/Malvinas. It was done by B-25 pilots against Japanese shipping during WW II, releasing the bombs very low to the ocean surface, and it skips off the waves into the hull.

Edited March 5, 2012 by Horrido

[Spongebob]

According to a close friend and former Harrier pilot...Viffing was good for breaking up someone's gun tracking, but you just gave away all your energy in the process. That said, the Harrier with the big motor and the nozzles slammed back will build it back up pretty quick. Also good for recovering a join-up with waaaay too much closure rate.

HTH

Spongebob

[Rapier01]

According to a close friend and former Harrier pilot...Viffing was good for breaking up someone's gun tracking, but you just gave away all your energy in the process. That said, the Harrier with the big motor and the nozzles slammed back will build it back up pretty quick. Also good for recovering a join-up with waaaay too much closure rate.

HTH

Spongebob

Apparently, up to 300 knots the Harrier will out accelerate anything short of a Raptor, but then the drag from that intake is just too much and it hits a brick wall.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Apparently, up to 300 knots the Harrier will out accelerate anything short of a Raptor, but then the drag from that intake is just too much and it hits a brick wall.

Its a giant engine with a carbon fiber frame wrapped around it, so you are correct, it will get moving! ...before suddenly stopping LOL

[dagger00]

Edited -- Juan, do you know if the Argentinians attempted any skip-bombing? Don't even know if that would be possible from a jet or in the water conditions around the Falklands/Malvinas. It was done by B-25 pilots against Japanese shipping during WW II, releasing the bombs very low to the ocean surface, and it skips off the waves into the hull.

Hi Horrido: Well no, that wasn´t attempted, what was studied and even some launches were done, was to put an MK-44 torpedo under the belly of our FMA IA-58a Pucará COIN and light attack aircraft, but the war ended soon after that trials. Also it was studied to use the Matra R-530EM missiles in the antishipin role, that was discarded too, as the M-IIIEA were the only interceptors we had (and still have after 40 years of service....) and the only planes in the FAA to have radar (a crap, but a radar after all), so that silly idea was discarded.

If you have any particular questions, please, feel free to pm me, I´ll reply as soon as I can.

HTH.

Best

Juan

[nzgunnie]

What Sea Harrier pilots did when they had a Mirage on their tale was engage the Harrier's vectored thrust. It was called VIFFing (vectored thrust in forward flight). It caused the Harrier to decelerate very quickly and cause the Mirage to shoot past allowing the Harrier driver to get on its tale. It could also be used to achieve a muich tighter turn. Of course the Harrier's vectoring nozzles were not designed for this purpose - it was a happy coincidence.

Except that never happened.

It looked good in weekly magazines about the conflict, but it was never actually done.

[PNW_Modeler]

I've shot down plenty of F-22's in my day.

There was a local business called "The Other Side" that ran simulators that my buddy and I fly. When we finished flying missions, we usually have some time on our hands so we fly ACM versus each other.

He typically flies a Raptor and I like to mix things up. I chose an A-10. The mission controller asked if I was insane.....Nope

First pass head on I call "Guns Guns Guns" and the idiot calls out "affirm".....he didn't complete the pass.

Second pass....he smarts up and doesn't accept my guns call. I go vertical straight into the sun. As he comes up to follow, I pull back on throttle and stick and I drop to the deck and get an easy belly shot as he circles to find me.

Out of 10 passes, the A-10 won 8 times. Yes, his Raptor was miles better than my Warthog....but it was all about knowing what my aircraft could do and flying to it's strengths and not giving the other pilot an "in"

Edited August 25, 2013 by PNW_Modeler

[Tony Stark]

I've shot down plenty of F-22's in my day.

There was a local business called "The Other Side" that ran simulators that my buddy and I fly. When we finished flying missions, we usually have some time on our hands so we fly ACM versus each other.

He typically flies a Raptor and I like to mix things up. I chose an A-10. The mission controller asked if I was insane.....Nope

First pass head on I call "Guns Guns Guns" and the idiot calls out "affirm".....he didn't complete the pass.

Second pass....he smarts up and doesn't accept my guns call. I go vertical straight into the sun. As he comes up to follow, I pull back on throttle and stick and I drop to the deck and get an easy belly shot as he circles to find me.

Out of 10 passes, the A-10 won 8 times. Yes, his Raptor was miles better than my Warthog....but it was all about knowing what my aircraft could do and flying to it's strengths and not giving the other pilot an "in"

Cool story bro. Guess we can put you up there with these guys....

BTW, I once took out the entire Soviet Air Force all by myself in an F-14!

Edited August 25, 2013 by Tony Stark

[PNW_Modeler]

Ha! That's rich....the guy pretending to be a fictional comic book character is mocking me.

[11bee]

I've shot down plenty of F-22's in my day.

There was a local business called "The Other Side" that ran simulators that my buddy and I fly. When we finished flying missions, we usually have some time on our hands so we fly ACM versus each other.

He typically flies a Raptor and I like to mix things up. I chose an A-10. The mission controller asked if I was insane.....Nope

First pass head on I call "Guns Guns Guns" and the idiot calls out "affirm".....he didn't complete the pass.

Second pass....he smarts up and doesn't accept my guns call. I go vertical straight into the sun. As he comes up to follow, I pull back on throttle and stick and I drop to the deck and get an easy belly shot as he circles to find me.

Out of 10 passes, the A-10 won 8 times. Yes, his Raptor was miles better than my Warthog....but it was all about knowing what my aircraft could do and flying to it's strengths and not giving the other pilot an "in"

I knew I should have stayed playing Falcon 4.0. I could post cool stories like the above. Darn.....

[GreyGhost]

I took down a TIE Defender with a B-Wing in X-Wing VS TIE Fighter ...

-Gregg

[vvac201]

I once shot down the Death Star in Microsoft outlook, bill gates and wreck it Ralph presented me with the medal of hero.

[dryguy]

I remember reading an interview of a harrier pilot who shot down a mirage in the Falklands to the effect that whilst the Argentine pilots were good stick&rudder men, their tactics were dreadful. Engaging vectored thrust in the manner of the harrier with a mirage behind is inadvisable at best, although Duke Cunnignham's victory in Vietnam comes to mind, in a situation where he was being outflown and in trouble. However, I would guess that a harrier with only a pair of 'winders would have a thrust-weight advantage over the mirage. Its wings will also retain energy better. However with the massive speed advantage of the mirage, he is an idiot to try turn-and-burn with the harrier.

Edited August 25, 2013 by dryguy

[Crazy Snap Captain]

I heard that VIFFing was theortical and had never actually been used in combat. Training may be different. To control the nozzles, throttle and stick the pilot would need 3 hands. what Juan says makes a lot more conventional sense, rather than a British harrier super maneuver winning the war.

Spot on. I've got a really great article that interviews RAF Flight Lieutenant Paul Barton. He goes through a step by step account of how he and his wing man took out two Mirage III's. No VIFF maneuvers used. As Dryguy states, the Argies just had bad tactics.

I'm no fighter pilot, but he was going on about "welded wing" formation and that this presented an easier target for the Harriers and their AIM-9L's.

Edited August 25, 2013 by Crazy Snap Captain

[Johnopfor]

Wish "Dogfights" on History Channel would have done one on this (presuming I didn't miss one).

They did, it was supposed to be one of the last episodes of season 2 when those idiots at History Channel pulled the plug on the series. They apparently expanded the episode to two hours and aired it in South America

[Kevan Vogler]

With all this Harrier talk, it should be kept in mind that the Harriers in use in the Falklands were still old school "Tin Wing" variants like the FRS.1 and Gr.3.

Faster, less forgiving and all around different beasts to the "Harrier II" based lineage that we see today.

Not only was Viffing a myth of the time, so was a Harrier of largely composite construction and handy control features to reduce the pilot's workload and make flying the Harrier a safer business.

Edited August 25, 2013 by Kevan Vogler

[Waco]

I've shot down plenty of F-22's in my day.

There was a local business called "The Other Side" that ran simulators that my buddy and I fly. When we finished flying missions, we usually have some time on our hands so we fly ACM versus each other.

He typically flies a Raptor and I like to mix things up. I chose an A-10. The mission controller asked if I was insane.....Nope

First pass head on I call "Guns Guns Guns" and the idiot calls out "affirm".....he didn't complete the pass.

Second pass....he smarts up and doesn't accept my guns call. I go vertical straight into the sun. As he comes up to follow, I pull back on throttle and stick and I drop to the deck and get an easy belly shot as he circles to find me.

Out of 10 passes, the A-10 won 8 times. Yes, his Raptor was miles better than my Warthog....but it was all about knowing what my aircraft could do and flying to it's strengths and not giving the other pilot an "in"

So, you're the one...

[GreyGhost]

I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back home, they're not much bigger than two meters

-Luke Skywalker

-Gregg

[GreyGhost]

So, you're the one...

"So, you're the one ?"

[Tony Stark]

[Crazy Snap Captain]