Vault

EADS are using Rapier pictures and touting it as there own IRST? if that's the case, shame on EADS!.

The reported range is "relatively close range".

Check post #6 ;)

The picture was taken at close range and reports indicate the picture was abstracted from a Norwegian EADS Typhoon presentation. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ncade-an-abm-amraam-03305/

The link was sent to me in an email, I cannot confirm anything about this picture, only what I've been told in an email, so take it with a large pinch of salt. I forgot to put a "?" after the thread title.

It certainly looks close to me.

I've just come across this picture of the B-2 captured by the Eurofighter's PIRATE IRST, does anyone know what range and altitude this picture was taken?.

Topol I respect what you're saying mate but the fact is no one knows the RCS of a Raptor, the only thing the USAF have said is that it's the same size as a marble! how big a marble a king kong or a pee wee? it's like saying how long is a peice of string!. Four Raptor pilots in F-15's cleary failed to track or lock the Raptor in BVR or WVR. Either those pilot's are lying or someone's guessed the Raptor's RCS wrong. Take your pick. :)

Topol the Raptor's RCS is classified.

Topol I'd be surprised if an AESA can track or lock an F-22 in BVR or WVR from a head on aspect, you are joking right? All the pictures I've seen of the F-22 being locked up are when the F-22 is engaged in close combat and outside of Raptor's VLO parameters, IE from a side on aspect, four Raptor pilot's that flew F-15 C's with AN/APG63 V1 went head to head with a single Raptor and all of those pilot's stated that at "no point did the Raptor appear on their radar", not in BVR or WVR. So Topol please tell me why you'd be surprised if you couldn't see the Raptor on a modern AESA? those Raptor pilots didn't. Red Tiger you took my example to the extreme, when I stated that the PAK-FA doesn't need a highly advanced radar like the AN/APG-77 I didn't mean the N019 radar, what good are the Raptor's advanced avionics if they prove ineffective? tell me how could the Raptor utilise its advanced avionics against an adversary he can't see? If VLO tech works as well as Lockheed and numerous F-22 pilots state then it must mean in a scenario of 5th gen vs 5th gen it would be a case of who spots who first not with radar because it's ineffective but with the MK1 eyeball, look if I'm not getting the jest of something here please correct me as this is how I've been led to understand the RCS performance of the F-22, In a close turning fight when the F-22 is high in aspect to most modern day radars they can achieve a lock on the F-22, you know it doesn't take an advanced AN/APG77 to lock a Raptor up in a close turning fight, we've all seen the photo's right, show me a picture of a locked up Raptor from a head on +/- 45 degree off bore aspect!. If X band is ineffective against stealth as Lockheed and many pilots have stated in a 5th gen vs 5th gen scenario IRST must be a firm tactical advantage to have! but why does the Raptor not have IRST? to me it feels like the Raptor was designed to be used against masses of 4th gen fighters and skipped allot of thought about what happens if the Raptor comes up against another 5th gen adversary? it feels like this was missed out of Lockheed's master plan, either that or stealth isn't no where as effective against X band radar. If a Raptors AN/APG77 can lock 5th gen in BVR then a 4th gen with the same technology can also lock a 5th gen that would make 5th gen technology a farce, something's amiss here and I'm trying to understand it. VLO tech either works or it doesn't it's as simple as that, if VLO works then the Raptor could face an adversary that'll be able to force a WVR fight firmly taking the Raptor outside of its primary optimal design as a BVR fighter. If this is the case and the adversaries fighter is cheaper to build and easier to produce, the Raptor will be a very expensive failure IMO.

First shot? against a VLO fighter with a RCS the same as a Raptor? Show me a fighter or FCS that has tracked the Raptor in BVR. If X band AESA's are ineffective against targets with an RCS the same as the F-22's then what use is the Raptors AN/APG77 against another 5th gen LO fighter?.. Four Raptor pilots in Eagles went head to head against a Raptor and all four Eagles failed to lock or observe the F-22 in BVR and WVR, What other A2A targetting sensor does the F22 have?.. The MiG-35's AESA would be ample for a FCS in the PAK-FA against 4th gen fighters. IF the PAK-FA RCS is close to the Raptor how can the Raptor track it?.

Whatever, now tell me about these anti-stealth tactics and development weapons, when ever anyone else mentions anti-stealth tactics or weapons you scoff at them, according to you X band, VHF, UHF and optics are of no use against VLO 5th gen fighter's. Pleases elaborate on these tactics and weapons GG, this I've got to hear!. :) OK, I respect your opinion, I like the JSF but to me it's the ultimate "jack of all trades and master of none". Drop the elitism GG, if the PAK-FA has roughly the same RCS as the Raptor then the Raptor's AN/APG77 AESA will be ineffective, stealth works both ways remember! what does that leave the Raptor with? the Raptor doesn't even have an IRST module! if stealth is as effective as Lockheed state then the PAK-FA can force a WVR fight -period-. 1 billion dollar fighter's playing quick draw Mc Graw is extremely risky... If Stealth isn't as effective as lockheed state then oh dear... either way it's one of the two, The point is the PAK-FA doesn't need highly advanced avionics like the F-22, it just needs roughly the same speed, RCS at a much lower cost and easier production to force a WVR fight, the US have set the hallmark an adversary only needs to copy it to level the playing field copying the airframe not only gives you a formidable RCS it'll also give the PAK-FA the aerodynamic capability to super cruise. Very, very cheap R&D costs. Either way when the PAK-FA comes into service I'm 100% certain the USAF are going to be selective in which door they go kicking in ;)

Yes there playing a clever game, a game that's clever and very efficient, I'm 99% sure the PAK-FA will be very similar in shape to the Raptor albeit I could easily be wrong, time will tell, if it is of similar shape I expect RCS performance of the PAK-FA to be very similar to that of a Raptor. Will this force the Raptor out of BVR and into the WVR arena?, sheesh I really hope not cause that's one time consuming and expensive bird to build. Now you're talking about anti-stealth tactics!, I've watched you state many many times that X band, VHF, UHF and optics are ineffective against stealth technology so what anti stealth weapons are you talking about? GG the F-35 is a great aircraft with great sensors but to me it's the kingpin of the "jack of all trades master of none" aircraft, I'd be very surprised if the PAK-FA was designed to counter the JSF. I think the PAK-FA will be a very economical and tactical solution in numbers for any Airforce that wants to defend itself against the F-22, c'mon do you really think Russia will let the US fly around with aircraft that give the US impunity in air?. Gain air superiority and you stand a good chance of winning the war, Russia isn't going to let that happen, if the PAK-FA can force the F-22 into a WVR fight that will spell trouble for the F-22... period. The battelfield has proved this many many times. Numbers diminish technology.

I think the F-22's main tactical advantage of LO is far from future proof. If Russia or any other adversary is able to build a 5th gen LO fighter that has roughly the same RCS as the F-22 but at a fraction of the cost that would spell trouble for the F-22, considering 80% of the Raptor's LO technology is in the shaping, all an adversary 5th gen designer has to do is copy the F-22's shape without incurring the R&D costs. If X band radar is ineffective against the F-22 then that will also apply for the F-22 against a similar 5th gen LO design with roughly the same RCS, a cheaper 5th gen LO aircraft could force the F-22 into a WVR fight which is risky business for a 1billion dollar fighter especially if the adversary has a cheaper 5th gen LO fighter with superior numbers, even if the F-22 is superior in technology, the battleground has proved far more often than not that numbers always diminish technology, the ME262 was a perfect example of this nothing the Allies had could touch the 262 in a 1 vs 1 scenario but the 262 still got its ass kicked.

Drondrik if you have an interest in magnets I work at a lab and I've helped build and install some of the world's most advanced Tesla quadrupole and sextupole magnets, if I can get permission I'll post some pictures of them for you.

Correct.. Eurofighter does the exact same thing.

RT I had exactly the same problems as you. But for me it was my mainboard that was the culprit and I'm now on my 2nd RMA. The fonts during post/boot was jumbled up and I had red lines all over the screen, the only way I could boot the system was in safe mode.

100% agree.

Both delta and lattice control surfaces have their pro's and con's, if the Russian's utilise delta's on their new R-77 it'll finally put the lattice v's Delta control surface debate to bed. From an aerodynamic POV I personally think deltas are more efficient for a BVR missile, oh well time will tell.

Hajduk those lattice fins have a really high RCS according to Eugene Fleeman, I really don't think that's compatible with a 5th Gen VLO aircraft like the PAK-FA, which I suspect this new R-77 is a stop gap for the PAK-FA untill the next Gen R-77 is released but like you said we'll see when the pictures are released, but don't be surprised if you see Delta's on the new R-77.

I think they removed the lattice fins because of their huge RCS and drag factors. Lattice fins can fold up for storage so I don't think it's a storage issue.

Now that's a good idea. :)

X means insert variant here. Well I'm stumped it looks like both the SA-7/14. I give up. :doh:

Topol is it a naval variant of the SA-X missile?