The Rafale vs F22 video that the web is abuzz on! From ATLC 2010.

[Taygibay]

Gentlemen, please, let's get our facts straight here, calmly

In order, the ATLC is an important exercise that is aimed at - training pilots to become leaders of patrols/flights.
Most people did not know WHEN the event took place as even the press ( and the video's opening text ) reported incorrectly that it happened after the Dubai Air show but it was in fact concurrent. The Air show's demonstrations actually made an electronic bubble between the range that goes east towards Al-Ain ( Check a map. ) and the lovely northern neighbour that is Iran.
The exercise that involved the F-22/Raffy was not reported on much as these are beyond the scope of the training.
When we heard Lt-Col Grandclaudon on the Typhoon vs Rafale results, that was part of ATLC. But the BFM is not and thus you can be sure that dogfights were informal ( although obviously still monitored ). Which also corrects the "cheating" comment up there. Going below deck is registered as a draw, sometimes a loss in strict BFM training but never cheating.
Those were part of the results given. Hence the discrepancy between the 1-4 and 1-5 often seen!

As for the video itself, again, please put it in context. Yes, "normally", the Raptor would play its cards from high and afar and a BFM merge would be quite rare or unlikely. Then, once pilots are allowed to do so the RoE are essential to gauge the results but only in an OFFICIAL dogfight training which again was not the case here? There was a set of conditions and so on but those were not made public and will "normally" never be. Do understand though that such side exercises happen very regularly. When the Raptor was inducted, it flew out of Langley AFB for instance and "practiced along Red Flags" at times.
It came to the Nevada range's limits to try out its detection while not entering it proper. Again, these "visits" were never an official part of the Red Flag and thus not factored in nor reported on?

So that we cannot fully understand what is happening save by analyzing the data in the HUD. And that "teaches" us little.
It "only" shows that for all its power and great handling, IF it was to be involved in dogfight, the F-22 would NOT enjoy the kind of supremacy that it does in Hi-Far conditions for which it was designed and under which it will be used and that fanboys of it extrapolate to always and forever, LOL.
In reverse fashion, the video does not prove that the Rafale will win all the fights it is to be in but simply that it performs way better than some would have thought on account of excellent aerodynamics and conception. In that sense, yes, that video contradicts other fanboys that have long held that it could barely fly and such blah blah. Which should be evident anyhow save for the said fanboys. And in that sense only, yes, the vid can be construed as a public relation tool to some but calls of propaganda are as ridiculous as they would be if applied to the markings of "downed" aircrafts on fighters that mili jocks have gratified us on occasion both for and against almost all planes ( otherwise, just paint a shadow image of a Ferrari on your Nano or Fiat 500 and call it a sports/racing wunder? ).
Overall, DeathbyChocolate is right for instance when within the conditions of such training but Donatello is also right when he states that IRL/ actual war conditions the idea of "allowed" disappears totally to any trick that brings a win AKA surviving?
( Unless we have the answer of the F-22 pilot btw, he may actually not have been restoring if you see what I mean? )

All of my post then is well summed up by Halloweene's : The video shows clearly qualities of both airplanes ^

Now, ideally, there will one day be an exercise in which Raptors fly in at 20km alt from 1000km dist towards incoming"enemies" using their strong points, PAK-FA or Typhoons high too or Su-30 a tad lower or Rafale in close to the ground and use all available weapons within each A/C corresponding tactics to achieve a result of only one type flying?
If that exercise is ever held though, it will not bear a fancy name such as TLP, ColorFlag or Tiger Meet.
It will be called war?

Good day all, Tay.

 

[Donatello]

A 'hard deck' is there for safety reasons. It is applicable to both sides. If it is violated, it is akin to cheating.


It is not. When you are busy multi-tasking with your life on the line, even a virtual life as in an exercise, it is easy to get distracted and get lost within that 10k ft altitude. There are no shortages of stories from WW II where a pilot literally flew into the ground in a fight.

What i meant was, these rules are fine for mock exercises, but in a war, if you are shot down by the enemy, are you gonna run to your mommy and daddy and complain that oh he shot me down while below 10,000ft? No right?

 

[gambit]

What i meant was, these rules are fine for mock exercises, but in a war, if you are shot down by the enemy, are you gonna run to your mommy and daddy and complain that oh he shot me down while below 10,000ft? No right?

That is kinda insulting to the intelligence of pilots, even the civies. When there are only two rules: no live weapons and a hard deck, everyone pretty much know we are pushing the limits of peace time exercises and that in a real war, there would be no rules.

 

[Donatello]

That is kinda insulting to the intelligence of pilots, even the civies. When there are only two rules: no live weapons and a hard deck, everyone pretty much know we are pushing the limits of peace time exercises and that in a real war, there would be no rules.

What did i say Gambit?

 

[dbc]

What i meant was, these rules are fine for mock exercises, but in a war, if you are shot down by the enemy, are you gonna run to your mommy and daddy and complain that oh he shot me down while below 10,000ft? No right?

ROE or Rules of Engagement is in effect during simulated combat and whenever US forces are in contact with the enemy. One such example was F-16 CJ pilot Lt Col Dan Hampton who was grounded for hard deck violation in Iraq when he strafed enemy troops while performing emergency CAS in support of US Marines in contact with Iraqi troops. Just so you know during Operation Iraqi Freedom hard deck for all US fighters in and around Baghdad was 10,000 ft.

A training hard deck rule violation will result in the pilot being grounded, the circumstances of an actual combat hard deck violation will be considered before any action is initiated against the pilot. The hard deck rule during BFM is in effect for the safety of the crew and aircraft, these jets aren't exactly cheap and no one wants to write that letter to the pilots partner or parents explaining how his or her dumb son/daughter/boy friend/ husband/wife died during a training mission. There are two ground altitude limits and this is standard for all modern air forces, one is set at 10,000 ft below this altitude both pilots must disengage cease all aggressive maneuvers and restore altitude and speed. This rule is sometimes referred to as a 'soft deck'. The second AGL of 5,000 ft is a red line. A breach of this AGL will result in disciplinary action, remedial training and a severe @ss chewing by your CO.

 

[Taygibay]

Death.By.Chocolate;

You are 100% right man ... albeit only in the US, of course!
Because while applicable to international exercises and it was so
in ATLC as the soft deck equaled draws by disqualification,

I can assure you that it is not the case in all other AFs, check :


http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xxo6b_kc-135-crazy-low-level-pass_sport

What do you think were the RoE in this case exactly?
Just sayin', good day all, Tay.

P.S. @Abingdonboy, please indicate the proper thread for me to
answer you about Raffy & India so has not to mess up this one, thnx!

 

[Abingdonboy]

Death.By.Chocolate;

You are 100% right man ... albeit only in the US, of course!
Because while applicable to international exercises and it was so
in ATLC as the soft deck equaled draws by disqualification,

I can assure you that it is not the case in all other AFs, check :


KC-135 Crazy Low Level Pass - Video Dailymotion

What do you think were the RoE in this case exactly?
Just sayin', good day all, Tay.

P.S. @Abingdonboy, please indicate the proper thread for me to
answer you about Raffy & India so has not to mess up this one, thnx!

Here mate:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian-defence/4347-mrca-news-discussions-568.html#post4439845

 

[Jango]

@gambit, @Death.By.Chocolate ...this is what happens when you mess around...the pilots seem French, anybody can translate?

BTW, is 10,000 feet AGL the standardized Hard Deck altitude around the world?

Or do different training sorties demand different altitudes? For example maneuvering against a SAM system.

Let me put it another way, is hard deck (suppose 10,000 feet AGL) only for Air-to-air engagements or does this extend to other missions as well?

 

[dbc]

@gambit, @Death.By.Chocolate ...this is what happens when you mess around...the pilots seem French, anybody can translate?

BTW, is 10,000 feet AGL the standardized Hard Deck altitude around the world?

Or do different training sorties demand different altitudes? For example maneuvering against a SAM system.

Let me put it another way, is hard deck (suppose 10,000 feet AGL) only for Air-to-air engagements or does this extend to other missions as well?

The hard deck rule is rigorously enforced and is a result of hard lessons learnt from accidents and combat losses. Its enforcement coincided with the advent of Mach capable fighters and is reinforced at schools like Topgun. These lessons were shared with allies and partners and followed by nations that buy US fighters and adopted US tactics. Your video is a very good example of a near fatal accident, when the Mirage plummeted from 8,000 feet and almost became a pancake, the pilot was lucky he was just 10 ft (according to HUD) above ground before he managed to pull out of the dive.

The hard deck is 5,000 ft add 4,000 ft for mountainous terrain or under cast conditions. Soft deck is 10,000 ft or 5,000 ft above hard deck. So in cloudy conditions hard deck will be raised to 9,000 ft and soft deck to 14,000 ft.

The rule (hard deck) being discussed is applicable to ACM (Air Combat Maneuvering) this can be extended to strike missions due to SAM and AA threat particularly the heat seeking variety this rule can also be enforced during briefing as a means of de-confliction of air space. An example is when manned combat missions are restricted below a certain altitude because of planned cruise missile strikes.

Thanks for the video, I bet that pilot left a nasty brown spot on his seat for his crew chief.

 

[SQ8]

This was the French Flight commandant during the ATLC in his interview to AFM.

AFM: You apparently said 'the Rafale rubbed F-22 - the most modern fighter of the USAF. During six encounters the F-22 hit its goal only once'. The 27th FS doesn't remember the engagements that way and say the F-22 scored several victories against Rafale. Did you offer DACT to the Raptors and did they decline?

LCL G: I did not say we 'rubbed them', I said that there was only one shot claimed (ie a simulated kill) for the six that were set-up. I read in a recent issue of Air et Cosmos that it was two. As far as I am concerned, one or two shots of six Basic Fighter Manoeuvres (BFM) encounters is a victory for the F-22 but not an overwhelming one. Not like the one we claimed against the Typhoons after combat in Solenzara, Corsica during September (9 set-up: 8 to 1 for the Rafale*). The other set-ups versus F-22s were terminated for combat deck, an un-decisive situation or lack of fuel. We never shot them down, but we hope to do so soon since we are quite good opposition for them, and it is in the pilot's spirit not to give up!

Like almost every nation, we offered Beyond Visual Range DACT, of course, but the F-22 was only authorized to do BFM 1v1 Within Visual Range (WVR) versus foreign countries (except the UK, with whom they did not fight even in the BFMs). I wish we could have done so, but we didn't - which bring me back to Air et Cosmos, where its information about BVR engagement with AMRAAM in stealth mode is wrong: besides the fact that we did not even fly BVR vs F-22s! F-22 was fitted with some specific device to increase their radar signature. It enabled us to have contact with them during work ups for example. But that's not the point here."

There's something even more interesting to see.. Even with the Luneberg reflectors you an see how the Rafale continues to lose the lock on the Raptor... So they only way he is getting an IRM on it or a Gun kill is manually...
Love how the pilot says.. "Fuks.. Fox two"...
And there is no Guns kill, because the Rafale smacked into the ground.. Sure.. in real combat.. if the pilot had been a good boy.. he could pretend to get a kill while on his way to heaven.

 

[Oldman1]

Surprise the Rafale was able to defeat the Eurofighter 8:1.

 

[SQ8]

Surprise the Rafale was able to defeat the Eurofighter 8:1.

Pretty sure the Eurofighter guys may someday release a statement stating otherwise.
Only the people who hold these exercises.. the controllers know the real score.. the rest is a bit of pilot bragging and arrogance in play.

 

[Donatello]

Surprise the Rafale was able to defeat the Eurofighter 8:1.

You must be joking.

8:1, does it even make any sense to you?

 

[Oldman1]

You must be joking.

8:1, does it even make any sense to you?

AFM: You apparently said 'the Rafale rubbed F-22 - the most modern fighter of the USAF. During six encounters the F-22 hit its goal only once'. The 27th FS doesn't remember the engagements that way and say the F-22 scored several victories against Rafale. Did you offer DACT to the Raptors and did they decline?

LCL G: I did not say we 'rubbed them', I said that there was only one shot claimed (ie a simulated kill) for the six that were set-up. I read in a recent issue of Air et Cosmos that it was two. As far as I am concerned, one or two shots of six Basic Fighter Manoeuvres (BFM) encounters is a victory for the F-22 but not an overwhelming one. Not like the one we claimed against the Typhoons after combat in Solenzara, Corsica during September (9 set-up: 8 to 1 for the Rafale*). The other set-ups versus F-22s were terminated for combat deck, an un-decisive situation or lack of fuel. We never shot them down, but we hope to do so soon since we are quite good opposition for them, and it is in the pilot's spirit not to give up!

Like almost every nation, we offered Beyond Visual Range DACT, of course, but the F-22 was only authorized to do BFM 1v1 Within Visual Range (WVR) versus foreign countries (except the UK, with whom they did not fight even in the BFMs). I wish we could have done so, but we didn't - which bring me back to Air et Cosmos, where its information about BVR engagement with AMRAAM in stealth mode is wrong: besides the fact that we did not even fly BVR vs F-22s! F-22 was fitted with some specific device to increase their radar signature. It enabled us to have contact with them during work ups for example. But that's not the point here."

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/air-wa...eo-web-abuzz-atlc-2010-a-4.html#ixzz2X6ouJqUg

Yeah it doesn't. Its impossible.

 

[dbc]

This was the French Flight commandant during the ATLC in his interview to AFM.




There's something even more interesting to see.. Even with the Luneberg reflectors you an see how the Rafale continues to lose the lock on the Raptor... So they only way he is getting an IRM on it or a Gun kill is manually...
Love how the pilot says.. "Fuks.. Fox two"...
And there is no Guns kill, because the Rafale smacked into the ground.. Sure.. in real combat.. if the pilot had been a good boy.. he could pretend to get a kill while on his way to heaven.

Thank you for posting that interview. It confirms what I have been saying all along. This engagement between the F-22 and Rafale is a 'no result'.

Here is a high resolution version of the original video.
Vimeo Couch Mode