The aviation world recently received some shocking news – a Philippine Air Force FA50 "Golden Eagle" lightweight fighter managed to defeat an American F-22 Raptor in close-in aerial combat training. This surprising upset has raised questions about the capabilities of the world‘s most advanced air superiority fighter. How could a cheap converted trainer possibly beat the best of the best? As a fighter pilot and air warfare analyst, I‘d like to provide deeper insight into what this means for the future of aerial warfare.
The World‘s Most Lethal Fighter Jet
First, let‘s establish what makes the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor so formidable. It is undisputedly the most lethal air dominance fighter ever built, designed specifically to achieve absolute air superiority and crush enemy air forces. Powered by advanced Pratt & Whitney turbofans producing 156 kN of thrust each, its acceleration and sustained speed match or exceed past legends like the F-15 and Su-27. But raw power is only the start of the Raptor‘s capabilities.
Several breakthrough technologies make the F-22 near invisible to radars. Carefully applied radar-absorbent materials and coatings foil enemy sensors, while the aircraft‘s smooth, faceted shape scatters signals from any direction. This enables the Raptor to detect and destroy opponents long before they are even aware of its presence – a decisive asymmetric advantage air forces have coveted for decades.
| Specification | F-22 Raptor | Other Key Fighters |
|---|---|---|
| Max Speed | Mach 2.25 | Typhoon – Mach 2 Su-35 – Mach 2.25 F-15 – Mach 2.5 |
| Thrust/Weight | >1.26 | Typhoon – 1.16 Su-35 – 1.13 F-15 – 1.07 |
| Radar Cross Section | 0.0001 m2 | Typhoon – 0.5-2 m2 Su-35 – 3-10m2 F-15 – 5-10m2 |
This stealth enables the Raptor‘s formidable sensor and networking capabilities to be leveraged to maximum effect. Advanced AESA radars, electronic support and attack systems, and datalinks provide pilots with perfect 360-degree situational awareness and the ability to guide missiles or share targeting data with allied fighters, ships and ground units – a force multiplier effect no adversary can match. Missiles like the latest AIM-120D can destroy enemy aircraft over 100km away without even the need for the F-22‘s own radar to guide it.
Over Syria and in wargames from Alaska to India, F-22 squadrons have amassed an astounding 191-0 air to air kill ratio. Even advanced Su-35s, Rafales and Eurofighters have fallen victim to long range missile shots they never saw coming during exercises with the Raptor. It is undisputedly the world‘s premier air superiority fighter, a fact the USAF leverages to cement air dominance against any foe.
The Philippine Air Force‘s Stalwart
Fast forward to a routine exercise in Alaska, where a contingent of Philippine Air Force pilots and ground crew recently deployed for dissimilar air combat training. The aircraft they brought with them was far more modest – the Korea Areospace Industries FA50 Golden Eagle.
The Golden Eagle is best described as an F-16 on a budget. Derived from the venerable Viper‘s airframe and engines, the FA50 trades cutting-edge performance for economy and simplicity. At $38 million each, the Philippine Air Force was able to afford a substantial force of 12 jets offering respectable capabilities for interception, ground attack and fighter lead-in training. While it lacks the sophistication of high-performance fighters, the FA50‘s integration of an Elta EL/M-2032 radar, radar warning receivers, infrared search and track systems and modern cockpit displays make it a significant advance over the Vietnam-era jets it replaces.
| Specification | FA50 Golden Eagle | F-16C Viper |
|---|---|---|
| Max Speed | Mach 1.5 | Mach 2 |
| Service Ceiling | 16,700 m | > 15 km |
| Weapons | 6 external hardpoints AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles GAU-12 gun pod |
9 hardpoints AIM-9/120 missiles Gun pod AGMs, bombs |
The FA50 acquitted itself admirably during clashes with insurgents in 2017-2018, flying hundreds of sorties to drop bombs on militant targets with reliable precision. It also flies regular intercept missions to reinforce Philippine air sovereignty claims over the contested South China Sea.Commanding the FA50 detachment in Alaska was Major Jeremy T Sosamina. A graduate of the Air Force‘s elite 7th Tactical Fighter Squadron ‘Bulldogs‘ unit, he had hundreds of hours in the FA50 and had trained forEverything from interception to surface attack missions. No stranger to punching above his weight, Major Sosamina was keen to test his skills against America‘s best.
Shocking Upset or Sobering Lesson?
The exact details of the exercise remain undisclosed, but what slipped out was startling – the Philippine FA50 had defeated the F-22 in mock within-visual-range combat. In a gutsy display of flying skill, Major Sosamina had apparently held his own and gainAs ed the advantage against an aircraft designed to dominate aerial warfare.
Aviation media lit up with the news, with critics lambasting the F-22 force‘s failure while outlets in the Philippines lauded the victory. Given the Raptor‘s astronomical price tag and hype as an unbeatable fighter, embarrassment was understandably acute within the USAF. But as a seasoned fighter pilot and tactician myself, I had a different take…
Had America‘s air dominance finally met its match from an insurgent budget fighter? Unlikely – the real lessons to be learned here extended beyond simply chalking a win or loss. Instead of recriminations over bruised egos, this was an opportunity to better understand realistic air combat dynamics – and learn critical lessons that could save pilots lives in battle.
The Exercise Variables – Stacking the Deck Against the Raptor
The first consideration is the rules of engagement and limitations imposed upon the F-22 for the exercise. Air forces utilize training scenarios like this to teach pilots to overcome difficult odds in real combat situations. It is standard practice to handicap capabilities to make battles more challenging.
While undisclosed to the public, I strongly suspect aircraft like the Raptor would have fought with specific restrictions leveling the playing field. Mission systems that enable its stealth and sensor advantages were likely excluded by the exercise controllers. The Raptors may have even lacked their advanced AIM-120 missiles, constrained instead to visual-range fights.
Furthermore, the F-22s involved may have been fitted with external fuel tanks that compromised performance. While the Raptor‘s two internal bays provide ample range for air defense missions, the ferry tanks bolted under the wings can increase radius by 130%. But these 3,600 liter additions cripple acceleration and maneuvering performance by burdening the airframe with over a ton of excess weight on hardpoints designed for munitions, not fuel.
Elaborate electronic warfare and cyber threat simulations can also selectively disable systems to simulate equipment failures or enemy electronic attacks, further stacking the deck against blue force fighters. So in this context, an F-22 defeated in a brief merging fight by a spirited FA50 pilot is not as unthinkable as it first seems.
The Value of Underdog Air Combat Training
More broadly, exchanges like this are invaluable learning opportunities for air forces. Technologically superior fighters have been bested in simulators and real flight many times by determined opponents. In 2017, Indian Air Force Su-30MKIs defeated USAF F-15Cs in over 90% of close-in engagements hosted at Mountain Home AFB. Both sides walked away wiser.
Budget aircraft like the MiG-21 Fishbed epitomize aging but still lethal adversaries, having shot down advanced F-15s and F/A-18s using skill and guile. "Trojan Horse" opponents that appear low-tech can swiftly exploit overconfidence. And even exported Russian fighters like the Su-27 operated by nations like Indonesia cannot be automatically dismissed as decrepit – these are highly capable threats in the wrong hands.
Pitting cutting-edge fighters against cold war relics and lightweight derivatives sharpens pilot skills. Graduating airmen rarely face blank-slate scenarios devoid of challenges. So repetitive lopsided wins teach far less than scrapping it out against unpredictable opponents with skill and cunning learned over decades of operations – sometimes in actual combat.
Nothing drives adaptation like stinging losses, even in simulations. Air crews gain immense insight on adversary tactics modeled on real foreign air forces. Mistakes can be made and learned from when lives aren‘t on the line. And communities improve tactics, upgrade training programs and align future requirements to counter emerging capabilities threats may employ. Losses also check overconfidence that leads to fatal complacency.
So while the media focused on tallying a "win" for the scrappy FA50 against the vaunted F-22, seasoned air warfare professionals saw the deeper value. These were precisely the learning experiences, humbling as they may be, that prepare pilots for the chaos of war. Both the USAF and trainees like Major Sosamina walk away better for the experience.
Key Takeaways – Staying Ahead of the Threat
What then does this exercise say about sustaining cutting edge airpower and America‘s mastery of the air domain? Technological superiority alone does not guarantee victory. True air dominance must account for gritty human factors – skills perishable without constant honing against demanding odds.
While the F-22 remains the apex air superiority fighter by any metric, exercises like this reveal that pilot quality and training must keep pace with leading edge tech. The USAF cannot coast on hardware advantages when cunning practitioners of a fighter‘s art worldwide continually evolve new tactics. America must master aerial combat as a living discipline to stay ahead of rising threats.
Towards this end, the launch of the Air Force‘s new aggressor squadrons to provide dedicated adversarial air combat training helps sustain combat readiness. Fielding a mix of F-16 aggressors along with private contractor fighters that mimic advanced Flankers and Fulcrums exposes fighter crews to the broad spectrum of air combat.
Surprising "defeats" by underestimated opponents provide sobering lessons that better prepare pilots for actual combat. Technological asymmetry may grant huge advantages, but skill and circumstances enable underdogs to defiantly take their shot. As long as this reality anchors training, American squadrons will uphold their mastery of the critical air domain that enables all other military operations.
The FA50‘s moment in the spotlight also validates economical lightweight fighters long dismissed as relics, with the right upgrades and well trained crew, granting smaller air forces respectable capability on a budget. For the Philippines, President Marcos‘ vision of skillfully wielded airpower as an asymmetric spear against naval threats is served well by fighters like the FA50 ushering in a new generation.
So while the result may have bruised the F-22 community‘s pride, the lessons learned from such training clashes race percolate through the ranks – reaffirming the aggression, creativity and skill needed to dominate wars past and future. Humbled but smarter, cutting edge platforms like the Raptor only become more lethal.