The first time I walked on to the flightline and saw the F-22, it was like seeing the Angel of Death. A friend of mine who spent his career flying the F-16 told me, "I'll go to the merge with anybody at any time, except the F-22. You can't fight it. You just die."
Idk...at the merge things become WVR, and ACM: this environment negates much if not all the advantage of stealth, both radar and IR, while simultaneously placing advantage to high G change in vector, acceleration, and sustained turn, all of which the F-22 comes up short in relative to multiple 4th gen platforms.
@Set_Square_Jack Well, my buddy was given the opportunity to try it several times and he said the only fighter aircraft he never wanted to face in combat was the F-22. I was stationed at Nellis and they would bring in unit after to unit in to train with the F-22 and the oft repeated phrase was that everything in the sky that was not an F-22 was just a target.
@@LibertysetsquareJack In the modern merge, 1 circle is king. The viper pilot could maybe just barely outrate an F22 on the deck but the raptor can whip its nose around and shoot an AIM9X 4 seconds into the merge.
An F23 would actually dogfight a lot like an F-15. It had a bit higher T/W and lower wing loading but lower turning L/D it could stall so needed to keep airspeed.
he's right, the only way to survive is to run before the fight ... and the Raptor decides when the fight's on, long before any merge ... so yeh Brian, your friend would just die. He's probably experienced with whupping the 3rd gen (F-4, A-6, A-7, and F-14) and is confident 4th gen (F-15, F-16, and F/A-18) adversaries ... his 4th gen vs a 5th gen isn't a fair fight ... like his 4th gen is also just not fair vs a F-4.
I'll argue the Raptor is nott just a tactical tool but a stragic and geo political one as well... As where you places a raptor squadron you just denied that enemy that air space... Much like what a super carrier does.
The Northrop Grumman YF-23 would never have been selected by the USAF because of cost overrun issues with the B2 program and other problems with the Pentagon. The fly off where the YF-22 demonstrated unexpected air combat maneuvers sealed the deal for the USAF.
Ending F-22 production prematurely in 2012 was an expensive way for the USA to "limit their losses", but it was better than continuing to produce an expensive and difficult to maintain aircraft which wasn't needed. The truth is that it should never have been produced in the first place....
@@GonzoTehGreat Tell that to our competitors who tired like hell to make their 5th gen fighter but pretty much gave up with limited examples that they can't afford to fly often or train their pilots in because of the dominance of our limited F-22 production. Don't worry, Chinas copied all of our work. Gotta get out front again because you can't trust on the good intentions of a communist country. Unless you like your primary form of nutrition to be alcohol and whatever you can chase down in the street to eat.
@@williamcrane8236 The F-22 was developed in the 1990s and produced in the 2000s. At the time there were no "competitors" and there still aren't, even today. The F-22 wasn't needed, isn't needed and probably will never be needed, as it will be replaced before it sees any real combat, but it did help Lockheed-Martin make a lot of money. Development of stealth technologies is (and was) critical, but this could've (and should've) been achieved via a USAF research program, including prototypes. There was no need to mass produce a stealthy a2a fighter.
No, not really. First off, some of them exist - enough. Secondly, it's time for NGAD to take it's place anyway, and also the F-35 does well in the "still awesome, but much numbers and exportable" category.
@@Desrtfox71 I have 9 likes already so far. So I suggest I am far from alone in my opinion. Happy to watch and see how many agree with you - if you are right, I have misread the room. But seriously, as much as I love the F35, to infer it can do the F22's role just as well is something I definitely can't take seriously, sorry.
The F-22 is an awesome dogfighter. I'm curious just how far the YF-23 will be taken by the Japanese in their future 6th generation dogfighter. Should the US have taken the YF-23 more seriously?
i find it bittersweet that they are retiring the Raptor and it has not gotten to see combat yet...I still play F-22 TAW; a perfect simulation of this awesome, sleek and sexy aircraft. Edit: 6:20 the only fighter that ive seen do an actual backflip
It has been deployed in combat, most notably in Syria, but I think I know what you mean. It may never be in a dogfight or even shoot down an airplane from another nation. But there was one incident where F-22s snuck up behind two fighters from a middle eastern nation and calmly told them on the radio that it was time for them to go home. They did.
Canceling the F-22 program was the biggest mistake the US Air Force has ever made. I'm glad the Raptor was able to get its first two kills recently, while not sexy targets, it'd be a shame if the Raptor went it's entire career without a kill.
Juan, I've always admired your video editing and graphics skills. What I may not have mentioned enough is the quality of your writing i.e. your script. I've read AW&ST, Air Force Mag, numereous books and other literature about military aircraft for four decades. Your adroit use of the common vernacular of the aerospace community, coupled with responsilbe and insightful analytic commentary, set you apart and above your peers. Point being, you don't have an army of scribes feeding you scripts like may TH-camrs. Yours are yours , products of your love of the subject and your talent. Bravo Zulu! Again :)
@@appa609 Leopard2 makes the same 1500hp and with a 1200L fuel capacity has a 220KM cross country range. Abrams has 1500 and a 1900L fuel capacity and ~175Km range. So per 100KM traveled (50 miles) an brams drinks about 2x the fuel (so less time being an offensive force, more time stationary waiting for a fuel truck.. if the fuel truck hasn't been destroyed on the way).
I believe 40:1 is in simulated wargames, where they typically start off already in visual range to try and nullify most of the F-22s advantages. The first ever wargames pitting F-15s against the F-22 a single F-22 dominated a squadron of five F-15s: YmQ9sFAgzAc
The Raptor isn't going anywhere, with upgrades continuing till 2031, it wont be till at least the 2040s when NGAD has entered service in numbers, Its still the most lethal Fighter.
A friend of mine was an accountant at Northrop during the YF-23 development. The government told Northrop that they would NOT win the contract even if their machine proved to be superior.
I believe you. I had a conversation with the crew cheif of YF-23 PAV-2, the one with the General Electric engine. The Lockheed and Northrop teams were both having issues with the GE engines. The crew chief knew the selection had already been made when the Air Force instructed General Electric to focus their maintenance and repair efforts on the Lockheed entry. As a result Northrop got in far fewer flight hours with the GE engine, but they DID execute SIX sorties in one day with PAV-2 once their GE engines were finally fixed. In other news, a retired Northrop engineer told me that they beat the Lockheed plane by ten decibels on the radar test range. This corresponds to a roughly 1.8 times greater detection range for the Lockheed plane compared with the Northrop plane. The Northrop proposal was superior to the Lockheed one in many of the SAME areas that the forthcoming NGAD platform is required to be superior to the F-22: Radar and infared stealth, speed, range, and payload (the production version of the F-23 would have at least matched the F-22's air-to-air loadout by adding two Sidewinder bays, and its larger main bay would have permitted bulkier and heavier weapons than what the F-22 can carry internally).
If it were up to me I would have selected both aircraft with the F-22 getting initial production and the F-23 going through further testing then deployed as a high speed interceptor with a high altitude tactical recon variant and a two seat strike variant.
@@AnthonyEvelyn Paul Metz, who flew YF-23 PAV-1 (the one with the Pratt & Whitney engines) and went on to become a test pilot for Lockheed during the development of the YF-22 into the operational F-22, wrote an excellent book about the YF-23. And indeed there WAS a proposed medium-range bomber variant of the YF-23! You can also find TH-cam videos featuring Paul Metz and Jim Sandberg, who flew PAV-2.
Magnificent airplane - 25 years later and still king of the sky without an equal (The Su-57 and J-20 Dragon? Gimme a break!) That said - imagine if the F-23 had won instead. Betcha they'd be just as capable. Too bad Northrup didn't try or was allowed to sell their design to other friendly nations.
A joy to behold, for those of us blessed with Western freedom, yet a dreadful fear factor for the 'great unfriendly'. This is the apex predator of the skies. The Raptor.
I understand, budgetary restraints, but always disappointed that they only produce less than 200 of these aircraft. Hopefully the sixth generation fighter is further along so the relatively low numbers of F 22s make no difference in air superiority.
As much as I would love for that to happen, it’s not the capability that’s the problem, it’s the age of airframe, it’s getting old for a high performance jet. It’s the same reason the F-15C is retiring and being replaced with the F-15EX. But it’s ok, by the time the F-22 officially retires, NGAD will already be in service.
In my opinion, the 22 is the sleekest, most aggressive looking and beautiful fighter, ever. Even more so than the 23 would have been. The SU-57 is 2nd behind the 22 aesthetically.
Let's hope these lighter than normal coatings we are seeing isn't in preparation for nuclear conflict. That's what it makes me think it's about unfortunately
You know you get what you pay for. Yeah the F22 is expensive. But it still today 20 years later is still the best. That’s why it’s expensive. Same with the F15
Paul Metz was the test pilot that flew the YF-23 first, and then after the YF-22 was chosen and LM made the first F-22 prototype, he went on to fly those. He spoke in a video about both planes and actually said both F-22 and YF-23 were very similar in speed and stealth. So the idea of the YF-23 being faster and stealthier wasn't entirely true
There are two big problems with the F-22. One is that it was designed to fight a war in Europe. Therefor it has relatively short range. This is a significant problem in for any future conflict in Asia-Pacific. The second issue is the numbers available. As mentioned, fewer than 190 were produced. As for the YF-23 debate, the YF-23 had a significant design flaw in its weapons bay which would have driven the cost per aircraft higher than the $200m per aircraft paid for the F-22 and delayed it entering service. That would have resulted in even fewer copies being produced and significantly reduced its abilities as a deterrent. I'm convinced the F-22 was the right choice.
F-15 Eagle is King of the skies and that's a fact! 104 kills 0 losses in air-to-air combat! 8 speed to altitude records that it holds to this day and never has been beaten and that's why it's called the greatest air superiority fighter in the world, not the F-22 balloon 🎈 killer! They sent the F-22 up to kill the balloons so it would have a kill record, before that it had none! Embarrassing! By the way, they're retiring the F-22! They're building brand new F-15EXs, so what does that tell you and they're not building brand new F-22s, thank goodness!
The Raptor and the F-35 will have difficulty operating within 1000 miles of China's coastline because their air tankers will be picked-off by J-20s with PL-15 missiles. Raptor bases, even in Guam, will be decimated by IRBMs with conventional warheads. The USAF must prioritize acquisition of NGAD and Wedgetail early warning jets ASAP.
Is it really? I am an Aussie ex serviceman. You people never cease to amaze me , thinking you are the dominant force in the world. The F-22 is old and has not really proven anything apart from hearsay and conjecture. I doubt the Chinese or Russian so called equivalents are anything special but surely the F-35 is a far better OVERALL capability than the F-22. If not why is the NGAD being touted as using more F-35 tech than F-22. The F-22 is Exceedingly expensive, restricted by congress and to some degree less capable than F-35, hence the statements form other you-tube services that F-35 equipment (with further development/enhancements) will be used in NGAD. Why the rant? One of your closest allies (Australia) could not (we didn't want to because of outrageous cost, followed by the congress disapproval for anyone else to buy it) buy the F-22, which at the time was a pure interceptor and therefore did not fit with our limited manpower and capability requirements, people keep telling us how much better the F-22 is than anything else in the world, with no proof and with no objective analysis due to the fact that nobody else can buy or use it. I don't know your history or qualifications but some of the information you provide is nothing more than bragging about how great the biggest manipulators and capitalist of history are able to make these incredible (yet to be proven) designs and the tell everybody else how good it/they are. Some people need to get a real job and stop regurgitating stuff they read. I am a subscriber and will continue to be but try to inject some reality in your obviously scripted videos.
Why do you pronounce "su" in the names of jets designed by "Suhoi" buerau as [es-you]? Originally, it actually stands for "Suhoi" and is pronounced in the same way as you read these letters in the name of the buerau [soo-hoi]. After all, you don't read "MiG" as [em-eye-gee], do you? For instance, Su-27 is [soo] 27, not [es-you] 27
Simply, the cold war was over, and they wanted to get out of the tender for a new plane and the final battle between the two planes as cheaply as possible. That's how F 22 won. It was a political decision. Any political decision ultimately ends in a disastrous F 35. Because of that stupid political decision, I have the absolute right to say that the F 22 is the gravedigger of US aviation.
While it might be true that the F-22 is the strongest air superiority fighter, ultimately it may as well be an obsolete aircraft too ever since it's short run production and cancellation. Despite what naysayers have to insist on dogfighting being outdated, no fighter has solved the fundamental problem behind the identification of friend or foe. If the F-15 with it's advanced radar at the time had to revert back to getting visual confirmation to engage targets during Desert Storm then what chance does the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter have with it's advanced sensor fusion overcoming the similar rules of engagement in a heated war with allies or civilian aircrafts potentially involved ? Now that there exists an adversary that is reaching towards having similar capabilities to the F-22, America now has a real capability gap that can be exploited by their enemies by the fact that their only other stealth fighter isn't very good at within very visual range combat and has limited high-off boresight capability due to not being able to carry the AIM-9X internally ...
Dog fighting is dead and has been for a long time now. The solution to your "problem" is to use a different platform for identification than the weapons platform. Problem solved. How many dogfights have occurred in Ukraine?
Herah, I couldn't agree more. It seems like BVR combat is practically an advertised doctrine, but it also seems like air combat devolves into visual identification. I'd assume China would have a strategy that concentrates heavily on targeting IFF and intelligence assets like the E-3, P-8, and EC-135, forcing closer contact fighting. Not having our fleet of 750 Raptors seems a huge detriment; I have (possibly over optimistic) a lot of confidence in the F-35s dog fighting capability, but as another commenter pointed out, a significant number of aircraft may be destroyed on the ground in a coordinated missile attack on air bases in Japan, Guam, and elsewhere - including aircraft carriers - and of course, along w the aforementioned intelligence assets, China will be aggressively targeting tanker aircraft. I recently read an article about scenario simulations run regarding a Chinese invasion of Taiwan (I'll post later); happily, China was eventually defeated but at the cost of one, even two, carriers along w destruction of many assets at surrounding air bases. I believe the simulations were run several times; nineteen separate simulations seems to come to mind.
@@Desrtfox71 Are you suggesting to use an unmanned aerial vehicle to perform IFF ? The issue behind that concept is that the UAV in question would have to be nearly as big as the manned aircraft itself to have just as much range as they do which is becoming increasingly necessary with one of America's potential adversary. It would be prohibitively expensive to have a medium sized dedicated reconnaissance aircraft paired with every manned aircraft just for the pilot to send them into suicide to gain a positive ID. Does America even have the manufacturing base to support a 1:1 recon/fighter ratio formation ? Ukraine is mostly a ground war but there were STILL dogfights going on which serves as a case in favour that dogfighting is far from dead. The recent Ukraine conflict isn't going to be nearly as high-intensity compared to possible future wars involving America and with the opposing side having low observable technology as well dogfighting stands to flare up more than ever in past recent history ...
@@herahbgad9061 I'm suggesting that the idea of two fighter jets going at it at close range, i.e. dogfighting is a dead concept and has been for a long time. In fact, those early designers who thought that missiles would end dogfighting were essentially right, way back in the Vietnam era, but it took some years for the tech to really get there. Also, yes, a UAV could be one way of identifying your targets from long range (from the firing platform). There are many, many other ways and they are being employed today. There's a reason for the last 40 years that the US Air Force has pursued a network centric approach to combat. The NGAD will also not be a dogfighter. In the vein of the F-35, it will be much more than that because of the combination of stealth, speed, and probably most importantly - network and sensor fusion. But getting it in close enough to first identify the opponent visually would be considered a disastrous mistake. Nearly all aircraft kills in Ukraine have been performed either from very long range (BVR) or from surface to air intercepts (generally also using BVR identification). Flying your expensive, technically and politically sensitive super fighter within visual range of an opponent is long dead. The doctrine has taken a while to catch up, to be sure, but it's there now. Dogfighting is a relic of the past, or at best, a last ditch effort to save your vehicle. Regarding Ukraine, it is mostly a ground war for a reason. That reason is the 50 year maturation of missile tech, and no there are not dogfights occurring in any regularity nor are they affecting the overall tactical situation there. Even if NATO were directly involved such that NATO air operations were ongoing, there would still not be any dogfights of significance. It would be nearly all BVR and then ground attack. The maintenance and securing of air dominance, the role the F-22 was designed for, is not and will not in the future be maintained by supermaneuverable fighters getting in close and dogfighting. That's a nostalgic relic of a bygone era.
@@Desrtfox71BVR missiles won't work in elevated terrains that include mountainous areas especially in the valleys of the so called breakaway pacific island and in the Korean peninsula. In a European theatre along the open eastern plains, an exclusive BVR approach to air combat may work against a foe that has little to no low observability capabilities. In a pacific theatre, where air combat over mountains is going to be more common especially with an enemy that is equipped with low observability technology a BVR only approach starts becoming a liability since you now have an aircraft operating in an environment combat with sub-optimal airframes with lower maneuverability and less agile armaments like AAMRAMs or PL-15s. In mountainous areas, where cover will be plentiful air combat will happen in tighter/shorter spaces so the mechanical performance of the aircraft and high-off boresight capable armaments such as the AIM-9X and PL-10s will make all the difference in terms of air superiority over this specific terrain ... An airframe can't be both optimal at open plains/seas and mountains/valleys. If the American military industrial complex is designing NGAD with a cold war mentality for the European theatre then they clearly aren't paying attention to the pacific theatre and have a lack of understanding where specifically air combat will occur. One of America's enemy understands the weaknesses of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter very well that it's design isn't optimal for air combat maneuvering and it can't carry infrared homing missiles in it's internal weapons bay. In the event that they don't get a good lock with their PL-15s out at sea before F-35s arrives at this pacific island, they have very good fallback options like thrust vectoring capable engines and PL-10s in mountains ... Air Dominance over open plains/seas =/= Air Dominance in mountains/valleys so what's more important to you ? Dogfighting won't ever truly be dead whenever America decides to stop producing AIM-9X missiles (or any infrared homing missiles for that matter), find economical ways to perform long range IFF (Kadena Air Base will go down quickly thus America and it's allies will go back to being blind), and they decide to let their adversaries operate with impunity in the mountains/valleys ...
This is just clickbait propaganda. The F-22 isn't "king of the skies" (whatever that means), because there are too few to make a difference and it has no confirmed A2A kills. Indeed, the title itself is silly, but if any aircraft deserves it then it would be the F-15.
@@haltejas1366 Technical specs are for keyboard warriors. Proven combat capability matters to the military. The F-15 and F-16 have impressive combat records. The F-22 doesn't.
Thank you to Wondrium for sponsoring today's video! Signup for your FREE trial to Wondrium here: ow.ly/NWEf50MESk0
The first time I walked on to the flightline and saw the F-22, it was like seeing the Angel of Death. A friend of mine who spent his career flying the F-16 told me, "I'll go to the merge with anybody at any time, except the F-22. You can't fight it. You just die."
Idk...at the merge things become WVR, and ACM: this environment negates much if not all the advantage of stealth, both radar and IR, while simultaneously placing advantage to high G change in vector, acceleration, and sustained turn, all of which the F-22 comes up short in relative to multiple 4th gen platforms.
@Set_Square_Jack Well, my buddy was given the opportunity to try it several times and he said the only fighter aircraft he never wanted to face in combat was the F-22. I was stationed at Nellis and they would bring in unit after to unit in to train with the F-22 and the oft repeated phrase was that everything in the sky that was not an F-22 was just a target.
@@LibertysetsquareJack In the modern merge, 1 circle is king. The viper pilot could maybe just barely outrate an F22 on the deck but the raptor can whip its nose around and shoot an AIM9X 4 seconds into the merge.
An F23 would actually dogfight a lot like an F-15. It had a bit higher T/W and lower wing loading but lower turning L/D it could stall so needed to keep airspeed.
he's right, the only way to survive is to run before the fight ... and the Raptor decides when the fight's on, long before any merge ... so yeh Brian, your friend would just die.
He's probably experienced with whupping the 3rd gen (F-4, A-6, A-7, and F-14) and is confident 4th gen (F-15, F-16, and F/A-18) adversaries ... his 4th gen vs a 5th gen isn't a fair fight ... like his 4th gen is also just not fair vs a F-4.
I'll argue the Raptor is nott just a tactical tool but a stragic and geo political one as well... As where you places a raptor squadron you just denied that enemy that air space... Much like what a super carrier does.
The Northrop Grumman YF-23 would never have been selected by the USAF because of cost overrun issues with the B2 program and other problems with the Pentagon. The fly off where the YF-22 demonstrated unexpected air combat maneuvers sealed the deal for the USAF.
Considering the world situation today, they would have to now be regretting the decision to destroy the molds....
Ending F-22 production prematurely in 2012 was an expensive way for the USA to "limit their losses", but it was better than continuing to produce an expensive and difficult to maintain aircraft which wasn't needed.
The truth is that it should never have been produced in the first place....
@@GonzoTehGreat Tell that to our competitors who tired like hell to make their 5th gen fighter but pretty much gave up with limited examples that they can't afford to fly often or train their pilots in because of the dominance of our limited F-22 production. Don't worry, Chinas copied all of our work. Gotta get out front again because you can't trust on the good intentions of a communist country. Unless you like your primary form of nutrition to be alcohol and whatever you can chase down in the street to eat.
@@williamcrane8236 The F-22 was developed in the 1990s and produced in the 2000s. At the time there were no "competitors" and there still aren't, even today.
The F-22 wasn't needed, isn't needed and probably will never be needed, as it will be replaced before it sees any real combat, but it did help Lockheed-Martin make a lot of money.
Development of stealth technologies is (and was) critical, but this could've (and should've) been achieved via a USAF research program, including prototypes. There was no need to mass produce a stealthy a2a fighter.
No, not really. First off, some of them exist - enough. Secondly, it's time for NGAD to take it's place anyway, and also the F-35 does well in the "still awesome, but much numbers and exportable" category.
@@Desrtfox71 I have 9 likes already so far. So I suggest I am far from alone in my opinion. Happy to watch and see how many agree with you - if you are right, I have misread the room.
But seriously, as much as I love the F35, to infer it can do the F22's role just as well is something I definitely can't take seriously, sorry.
The Raptor IS INDEED superlative; ultimately completed by it's pilot!
The F-22 is an awesome dogfighter. I'm curious just how far the YF-23 will be taken by the Japanese in their future 6th generation dogfighter. Should the US have taken the YF-23 more seriously?
Japan has abandoned an indigenous 6th gen. fighter. In its place, Japan has joined the 6th gen. Tempest program with the U.K. and Italy.
@@ogdocvato Japan has not abandoned its indigenous 6th gen program and all three will nations will have different variant depending on their needs.
i find it bittersweet that they are retiring the Raptor and it has not gotten to see combat yet...I still play F-22 TAW; a perfect simulation of this awesome, sleek and sexy aircraft.
Edit: 6:20 the only fighter that ive seen do an actual backflip
It has been deployed in combat, most notably in Syria, but I think I know what you mean. It may never be in a dogfight or even shoot down an airplane from another nation.
But there was one incident where F-22s snuck up behind two fighters from a middle eastern nation and calmly told them on the radio that it was time for them to go home. They did.
Canceling the F-22 program was the biggest mistake the US Air Force has ever made.
I'm glad the Raptor was able to get its first two kills recently, while not sexy targets, it'd be a shame if the Raptor went it's entire career without a kill.
Juan, I've always admired your video editing and graphics skills. What I may not have mentioned enough is the quality of your writing i.e. your script. I've read AW&ST, Air Force Mag, numereous books and other literature about military aircraft for four decades. Your adroit use of the common vernacular of the aerospace community, coupled with responsilbe and insightful analytic commentary, set you apart and above your peers. Point being, you don't have an army of scribes feeding you scripts like may TH-camrs. Yours are yours , products of your love of the subject and your talent. Bravo Zulu! Again :)
Top notch work once again, Tog. Thanks for all your hard work.
Abrams AND Raptors are in a category of their own; as far as land & air are concerned!
Genuine question: what makes the abrams "in a category of its own"?
The challenger 1 chobham armor?
The german gun?
F22 yes. Abrams, perhaps debatable. Challenger 2 and K51 Panther are worth due consideration in respect of apex MBT.
@@tomstech4390 DU
@@tomstech4390 Jet engine
@@appa609 Leopard2 makes the same 1500hp and with a 1200L fuel capacity has a 220KM cross country range.
Abrams has 1500 and a 1900L fuel capacity and ~175Km range.
So per 100KM traveled (50 miles) an brams drinks about 2x the fuel (so less time being an offensive force, more time stationary waiting for a fuel truck.. if the fuel truck hasn't been destroyed on the way).
40:1 kill ratio
*laughs in undefeated F-15*
I believe 40:1 is in simulated wargames, where they typically start off already in visual range to try and nullify most of the F-22s advantages. The first ever wargames pitting F-15s against the F-22 a single F-22 dominated a squadron of five F-15s: YmQ9sFAgzAc
You're comparing real world with simulated combat.
Even the "Undefeated in the real world" F15 has lost in simulated combat.
BEST SYNOPSIS OF YF-22 vs YF-23 EVER! Starting @6:03. Superb Job!!
No one really knows.
The Raptor isn't going anywhere, with upgrades continuing till 2031, it wont be till at least the 2040s when NGAD has entered service in numbers, Its still the most lethal Fighter.
A friend of mine was an accountant at Northrop during the YF-23 development. The government told Northrop that they would NOT win the contract even if their machine proved to be superior.
I believe you. I had a conversation with the crew cheif of YF-23 PAV-2, the one with the General Electric engine. The Lockheed and Northrop teams were both having issues with the GE engines. The crew chief knew the selection had already been made when the Air Force instructed General Electric to focus their maintenance and repair efforts on the Lockheed entry. As a result Northrop got in far fewer flight hours with the GE engine, but they DID execute SIX sorties in one day with PAV-2 once their GE engines were finally fixed.
In other news, a retired Northrop engineer told me that they beat the Lockheed plane by ten decibels on the radar test range. This corresponds to a roughly 1.8 times greater detection range for the Lockheed plane compared with the Northrop plane.
The Northrop proposal was superior to the Lockheed one in many of the SAME areas that the forthcoming NGAD platform is required to be superior to the F-22: Radar and infared stealth, speed, range, and payload (the production version of the F-23 would have at least matched the F-22's air-to-air loadout by adding two Sidewinder bays, and its larger main bay would have permitted bulkier and heavier weapons than what the F-22 can carry internally).
I believe the YF-23 was the superior aircraft too.
If it were up to me I would have selected both aircraft with the F-22 getting initial production and the F-23 going through further testing then deployed as a high speed interceptor with a high altitude tactical recon variant and a two seat strike variant.
@@AnthonyEvelyn Paul Metz, who flew YF-23 PAV-1 (the one with the Pratt & Whitney engines) and went on to become a test pilot for Lockheed during the development of the YF-22 into the operational F-22, wrote an excellent book about the YF-23. And indeed there WAS a proposed medium-range bomber variant of the YF-23! You can also find TH-cam videos featuring Paul Metz and Jim Sandberg, who flew PAV-2.
Tell your friend and the rest of the Northrop team to stop being salty about the loss of the slightly inferior YF-23.
Again....my generation's SR-71. The Raptor demo team alone is enough to keep Charlie on his toes.
Who's Charlie?
@@appa609 the "enemy"
Maverick can take it..seriously it is badass..
After 18 yrs. of Service I try to keep up with changing conditions in our military programs.
3 air to air kills in the past couple weeks!
An amazing aircraft!! I think there will be future variants.....maybe an 'E' version 😋
The F-22 is a great plane, but the F-15 is still my top favorite fighter of all times.
Magnificent airplane - 25 years later and still king of the sky without an equal (The Su-57 and J-20 Dragon? Gimme a break!) That said - imagine if the F-23 had won instead. Betcha they'd be just as capable. Too bad Northrup didn't try or was allowed to sell their design to other friendly nations.
The ultimate balloon popper
King of balloon killers
A joy to behold, for those of us blessed with Western freedom, yet a dreadful fear factor for the 'great unfriendly'. This is the apex predator of the skies. The Raptor.
I understand, budgetary restraints, but always disappointed that they only produce less than 200 of these aircraft. Hopefully the sixth generation fighter is further along so the relatively low numbers of F 22s make no difference in air superiority.
No one else was allowed to have it either.
8:43 I think the chrome look is laser defense
It was too good for the time period.
I think the F22 will still fly another 20 years.
As much as I would love for that to happen, it’s not the capability that’s the problem, it’s the age of airframe, it’s getting old for a high performance jet. It’s the same reason the F-15C is retiring and being replaced with the F-15EX. But it’s ok, by the time the F-22 officially retires, NGAD will already be in service.
Can you talk about the upgrades in progress? I heard new sensors, HMD integration, and networking?
King size F22
Thank you for sharing!!! ❤🤍💙
The F22 was mobilized today! It's mission: intercept a Chinese spy balloon over the U.S.
When you've just arrived, and they show you the door out.
In my opinion, the 22 is the sleekest, most aggressive looking and beautiful fighter, ever. Even more so than the 23 would have been.
The SU-57 is 2nd behind the 22 aesthetically.
J20?
Amazing, but I'm not sure if it's still the best in its category now. Aircraft engineering evolves faster everywhere.
Evil killing machine
F-35 is the true kind of the skies.
It's a great plane that requires 15 hours of maintenance per hour of flight, which is why it's already slated to be retired within the decade...
Let's hope these lighter than normal coatings we are seeing isn't in preparation for nuclear conflict. That's what it makes me think it's about unfortunately
The F-22 is "an example of open system architecture"? Quite the contrary. That's the F-35.
When the NGAD and F/A-XX 6th generation fighters come out, the jaws of the people of the world will drop.
🇺🇸Our Might Always🇺🇸
GOD, I love this plane!! It LITERALLY has the radar cross-section of a GNAT. Those shitty little bugs that fly into your ers in the summertime.
I'm sure that it's nice and lovely and shiny, but in a hundred years time every family will have one or two if they're show offs.
You know you get what you pay for. Yeah the F22 is expensive. But it still today 20 years later is still the best. That’s why it’s expensive. Same with the F15
In all fairness 2 out 3 times it will take any Chinese balloon. It's just those blue ones with the happy face
Paul Metz was the test pilot that flew the YF-23 first, and then after the YF-22 was chosen and LM made the first F-22 prototype, he went on to fly those. He spoke in a video about both planes and actually said both F-22 and YF-23 were very similar in speed and stealth. So the idea of the YF-23 being faster and stealthier wasn't entirely true
He flew both, but he never said which aircraft was better.
@@NationChosenByGod He didn't say that, but he busted the myth that the YF-23 was faster and stealthier
There are two big problems with the F-22. One is that it was designed to fight a war in Europe. Therefor it has relatively short range. This is a significant problem in for any future conflict in Asia-Pacific. The second issue is the numbers available. As mentioned, fewer than 190 were produced.
As for the YF-23 debate, the YF-23 had a significant design flaw in its weapons bay which would have driven the cost per aircraft higher than the $200m per aircraft paid for the F-22 and delayed it entering service. That would have resulted in even fewer copies being produced and significantly reduced its abilities as a deterrent. I'm convinced the F-22 was the right choice.
YF23 should had won.
Well, how come this fighter jet is considered a "king", but it never had not one kill yet?
(Of course NOT counting the Chinese balloon!!)
Baloons killer 😂😂😂😂
F-15 Eagle is King of the skies and that's a fact! 104 kills 0 losses in air-to-air combat! 8 speed to altitude records that it holds to this day and never has been beaten and that's why it's called the greatest air superiority fighter in the world, not the F-22 balloon 🎈 killer! They sent the F-22 up to kill the balloons so it would have a kill record, before that it had none! Embarrassing! By the way, they're retiring the F-22! They're building brand new F-15EXs, so what does that tell you and they're not building brand new F-22s, thank goodness!
Don't worry, the F-35's got this.
The Raptor and the F-35 will have difficulty operating within 1000 miles of China's coastline because their air tankers will be picked-off by J-20s with PL-15 missiles. Raptor bases, even in Guam, will be decimated by IRBMs with conventional warheads. The USAF must prioritize acquisition of NGAD and Wedgetail early warning jets ASAP.
The J20s don’t have a chance against the f-22 an PL-15 missiles are essilly intercepted, chinas army is not what you think.
Is it really? I am an Aussie ex serviceman. You people never cease to amaze me , thinking you are the dominant force in the world. The F-22 is old and has not really proven anything apart from hearsay and conjecture. I doubt the Chinese or Russian so called equivalents are anything special but surely the F-35 is a far better OVERALL capability than the F-22. If not why is the NGAD being touted as using more F-35 tech than F-22. The F-22 is Exceedingly expensive, restricted by congress and to some degree less capable than F-35, hence the statements form other you-tube services that F-35 equipment (with further development/enhancements) will be used in NGAD.
Why the rant? One of your closest allies (Australia) could not (we didn't want to because of outrageous cost, followed by the congress disapproval for anyone else to buy it) buy the F-22, which at the time was a pure interceptor and therefore did not fit with our limited manpower and capability requirements, people keep telling us how much better the F-22 is than anything else in the world, with no proof and with no objective analysis due to the fact that nobody else can buy or use it. I don't know your history or qualifications but some of the information you provide is nothing more than bragging about how great the biggest manipulators and capitalist of history are able to make these incredible (yet to be proven) designs and the tell everybody else how good it/they are. Some people need to get a real job and stop regurgitating stuff they read. I am a subscriber and will continue to be but try to inject some reality in your obviously scripted videos.
Too many ads dude
Why do you pronounce "su" in the names of jets designed by "Suhoi" buerau as [es-you]? Originally, it actually stands for "Suhoi" and is pronounced in the same way as you read these letters in the name of the buerau [soo-hoi]. After all, you don't read "MiG" as [em-eye-gee], do you?
For instance, Su-27 is [soo] 27, not [es-you] 27
Simply, the cold war was over, and they wanted to get out of the tender for a new plane and the final battle between the two planes as cheaply as possible. That's how F 22 won. It was a political decision. Any political decision ultimately ends in a disastrous F 35. Because of that stupid political decision, I have the absolute right to say that the F 22 is the gravedigger of US aviation.
Give me a break. It cannot land on a carrier. A useless plane in the Western Pacific thus to be retired.
While it might be true that the F-22 is the strongest air superiority fighter, ultimately it may as well be an obsolete aircraft too ever since it's short run production and cancellation. Despite what naysayers have to insist on dogfighting being outdated, no fighter has solved the fundamental problem behind the identification of friend or foe. If the F-15 with it's advanced radar at the time had to revert back to getting visual confirmation to engage targets during Desert Storm then what chance does the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter have with it's advanced sensor fusion overcoming the similar rules of engagement in a heated war with allies or civilian aircrafts potentially involved ? Now that there exists an adversary that is reaching towards having similar capabilities to the F-22, America now has a real capability gap that can be exploited by their enemies by the fact that their only other stealth fighter isn't very good at within very visual range combat and has limited high-off boresight capability due to not being able to carry the AIM-9X internally ...
Dog fighting is dead and has been for a long time now. The solution to your "problem" is to use a different platform for identification than the weapons platform. Problem solved. How many dogfights have occurred in Ukraine?
Herah, I couldn't agree more. It seems like BVR combat is practically an advertised doctrine, but it also seems like air combat devolves into visual identification. I'd assume China would have a strategy that concentrates heavily on targeting IFF and intelligence assets like the E-3, P-8, and EC-135, forcing closer contact fighting. Not having our fleet of 750 Raptors seems a huge detriment; I have (possibly over optimistic) a lot of confidence in the F-35s dog fighting capability, but as another commenter pointed out, a significant number of aircraft may be destroyed on the ground in a coordinated missile attack on air bases in Japan, Guam, and elsewhere - including aircraft carriers - and of course, along w the aforementioned intelligence assets, China will be aggressively targeting tanker aircraft. I recently read an article about scenario simulations run regarding a Chinese invasion of Taiwan (I'll post later); happily, China was eventually defeated but at the cost of one, even two, carriers along w destruction of many assets at surrounding air bases. I believe the simulations were run several times; nineteen separate simulations seems to come to mind.
@@Desrtfox71 Are you suggesting to use an unmanned aerial vehicle to perform IFF ? The issue behind that concept is that the UAV in question would have to be nearly as big as the manned aircraft itself to have just as much range as they do which is becoming increasingly necessary with one of America's potential adversary. It would be prohibitively expensive to have a medium sized dedicated reconnaissance aircraft paired with every manned aircraft just for the pilot to send them into suicide to gain a positive ID. Does America even have the manufacturing base to support a 1:1 recon/fighter ratio formation ?
Ukraine is mostly a ground war but there were STILL dogfights going on which serves as a case in favour that dogfighting is far from dead. The recent Ukraine conflict isn't going to be nearly as high-intensity compared to possible future wars involving America and with the opposing side having low observable technology as well dogfighting stands to flare up more than ever in past recent history ...
@@herahbgad9061 I'm suggesting that the idea of two fighter jets going at it at close range, i.e. dogfighting is a dead concept and has been for a long time. In fact, those early designers who thought that missiles would end dogfighting were essentially right, way back in the Vietnam era, but it took some years for the tech to really get there. Also, yes, a UAV could be one way of identifying your targets from long range (from the firing platform). There are many, many other ways and they are being employed today. There's a reason for the last 40 years that the US Air Force has pursued a network centric approach to combat. The NGAD will also not be a dogfighter. In the vein of the F-35, it will be much more than that because of the combination of stealth, speed, and probably most importantly - network and sensor fusion. But getting it in close enough to first identify the opponent visually would be considered a disastrous mistake. Nearly all aircraft kills in Ukraine have been performed either from very long range (BVR) or from surface to air intercepts (generally also using BVR identification). Flying your expensive, technically and politically sensitive super fighter within visual range of an opponent is long dead. The doctrine has taken a while to catch up, to be sure, but it's there now. Dogfighting is a relic of the past, or at best, a last ditch effort to save your vehicle.
Regarding Ukraine, it is mostly a ground war for a reason. That reason is the 50 year maturation of missile tech, and no there are not dogfights occurring in any regularity nor are they affecting the overall tactical situation there. Even if NATO were directly involved such that NATO air operations were ongoing, there would still not be any dogfights of significance. It would be nearly all BVR and then ground attack.
The maintenance and securing of air dominance, the role the F-22 was designed for, is not and will not in the future be maintained by supermaneuverable fighters getting in close and dogfighting. That's a nostalgic relic of a bygone era.
@@Desrtfox71BVR missiles won't work in elevated terrains that include mountainous areas especially in the valleys of the so called breakaway pacific island and in the Korean peninsula. In a European theatre along the open eastern plains, an exclusive BVR approach to air combat may work against a foe that has little to no low observability capabilities. In a pacific theatre, where air combat over mountains is going to be more common especially with an enemy that is equipped with low observability technology a BVR only approach starts becoming a liability since you now have an aircraft operating in an environment combat with sub-optimal airframes with lower maneuverability and less agile armaments like AAMRAMs or PL-15s. In mountainous areas, where cover will be plentiful air combat will happen in tighter/shorter spaces so the mechanical performance of the aircraft and high-off boresight capable armaments such as the AIM-9X and PL-10s will make all the difference in terms of air superiority over this specific terrain ...
An airframe can't be both optimal at open plains/seas and mountains/valleys. If the American military industrial complex is designing NGAD with a cold war mentality for the European theatre then they clearly aren't paying attention to the pacific theatre and have a lack of understanding where specifically air combat will occur. One of America's enemy understands the weaknesses of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter very well that it's design isn't optimal for air combat maneuvering and it can't carry infrared homing missiles in it's internal weapons bay. In the event that they don't get a good lock with their PL-15s out at sea before F-35s arrives at this pacific island, they have very good fallback options like thrust vectoring capable engines and PL-10s in mountains ...
Air Dominance over open plains/seas =/= Air Dominance in mountains/valleys so what's more important to you ?
Dogfighting won't ever truly be dead whenever America decides to stop producing AIM-9X missiles (or any infrared homing missiles for that matter), find economical ways to perform long range IFF (Kadena Air Base will go down quickly thus America and it's allies will go back to being blind), and they decide to let their adversaries operate with impunity in the mountains/valleys ...
Too many commercials and a paid endorsement!
The video and the topic are just meh!
This is just clickbait propaganda.
The F-22 isn't "king of the skies" (whatever that means), because there are too few to make a difference and it has no confirmed A2A kills.
Indeed, the title itself is silly, but if any aircraft deserves it then it would be the F-15.
Raptor is still the king even in technical specs
@@haltejas1366 Technical specs are for keyboard warriors. Proven combat capability matters to the military. The F-15 and F-16 have impressive combat records. The F-22 doesn't.
@@GonzoTehGreat True, but no F-15 or F-16 pilots would go up against an F-22 BVR or WVR.
@@NationChosenByGod An irrelevant, armchair match up...
Regardless, pilots follow their orders to do what their mission requires, not what they want.
"no A2A kills" aged like milk lol
Didn't the Germans send 8 typhoons over to Alaska for wargames and beat them in dogfights (just asking a question).