Stealth Capability debate

[GGTharos]

And? Radar is still the main sensor. IRST can't match it. And 'identification' isn't what you think it is.

 

As for F-15s, try 700. That was the approximate production of A/C models. Raptors generate enough sorties - you just can't have them en masse on multiple fronts.

 

Because active radar gives away your position, and then even with stealth features, you can be easily detected...

 

Also 192 F-22s is *not* many in comparison to the 1600 built F-15s it replaces (about 400 are still in use, afaik). Furthermore, its sortie rate per day seems to be less also, which means that the impact of its low numbers is even worse.

 

Where? Where are they becoming the primary sensor? Not on jets. Not on long-range or even short-range surveillance. No 'ear shaped' stuff as primaries for immediate surveillance either.

 

Both of you are making stuff up.

 

It looks like IR or optical is going to become the new primary sensor. OR a big ear shaped sensor to listen for stuff. Or laser-scan the whole damn sky (which is active optical search I guess)

[GGTharos]

What about the cost required to maintain the RAM coating and increased costs/time in maintainance due to stealth?

 

What about that cost? One F-22 does the same job as 2-3 F-15 squadrons, so you'll be coming ahead.

 

Simple example:

Lets say, 80% of F-22 are operational at any time (153). Now, if the sortie rate of the F-22 would be 20% below that of the F-15, then those 153 operational F-22s could only fly the same number of missions as 122 F-15s, effectively reducing their effective use.

 

I'm not saying that the same numbers are required as in cold war times, but 192 may be even less than it seems.

 

That's not correct. Those 153 F-22's can cover more airspace that the 122 F-15's, they require fewer support assets, and they can be more deadly, and easily so. The sortie rate generation thing is a direct comparison only in the cases where all missions have the exact same parameters and must be flown the same way - but even then, F-22's can out-loiter F-15's and remain on station longer.

[thawall]

Where are they becoming the primary sensor?

...

Both of you are making stuff up.

 

 

I'm not saying that it is becoming the primary sensor in every mission, but in air combat it is likely to play a major role in the near future. Why else would it be added to almost all modern interceptors and air superiority fighters? Its *not made up stuff* thats a fact.

 

And it can be used to locate and identify stealth planes, which is the current topic and that's why I mentioned it.

[GGTharos]

In air combat the radar is the primary sensor. That's basically 'period, end of story'.

 

The IRST can be used for long range identification because it's basically a telescope and you can recognize the aircraft type before it gets so close that you can do it with your eyeballs. As an IRST though, it still lags massively behind radar. It's not going to be stealth-fighter buster ... if it was, no one would be mounting big, heavy radars any longer.

 

This stuff is not new.

 

You're just making up stuff as you go along, coming up with movie-plot uses for this equipment, things that it's just not designed to do.

[thawall]

What about that cost? One F-22 does the same job as 2-3 F-15 squadrons, so you'll be coming ahead.

 

 

 

That's not correct. Those 153 F-22's can cover more airspace that the 122 F-15's, they require fewer support assets, and they can be more deadly, and easily so. The sortie rate generation thing is a direct comparison only in the cases where all missions have the exact same parameters and must be flown the same way - but even then, F-22's can out-loiter F-15's and remain on station longer.

 

 

That may be and I'm not questioning the capability or that the F-22 is far superior to the F-15, but you seem to forget that the rest of the battle field evolved too. So the F-22 may need all of its advancements in the end to do basically the same job as the F-15 in its timeframe.

 

And thats exactly where numbers again come into play. An F-22 might face a T-50 and modern Flankers. If one F-22 equals 2-3 F-15 squads in your calculation, then a loss of one F-22 equals the same loss in force.

[GGTharos]

Ah, we're looking at the big picture now? :)

 

Then I'm not fussed about F-22 numbers at all: There'll be copious friends for it to fly with - Golden Eagles, F-35's, Eurotiffies, Rafale's etc. :)

[thawall]

Stealth Capability debate

 

In air combat the radar is the primary sensor. That's basically 'period, end of story'.

 

The IRST can be used for long range identification because it's basically a telescope and you can recognize the aircraft type before it gets so close that you can do it with your eyeballs. As an IRST though, it still lags massively behind radar. It's not going to be stealth-fighter buster ... if it was, no one would be mounting big, heavy radars any longer.

 

This stuff is not new.

 

You're just making up stuff as you go along, coming up with movie-plot uses for this equipment, things that it's just not designed to do.

 

 

That may be the case for the US fighters, but here is a rough translation for what PIRATE has been designed todo (sry didn't find an english source quickly):

 

"Der Sensor wurde explizit entwickelt, um sowjetische Tarnkappenflugzeuge auch unter schweren elektronischen Gegenmaßnahmen auf große Entfernungen orten zu können."

 

"The sensor has been developed expicitely to detect soviet stealth planes at great distances and against heavy electronic counter measures."

 

http://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EuroFIRST_PIRATE

(The original source is from Flight International)

 

This is the reality of things... I'm not making things up.

 

EDIT: Further quote:

 

"Im Jahr 2010 erfolgte die Evaluierung von PIRATE gegen Stealth-Kampfflugzeuge vom Typ F-22 Raptor, welche auf „signifikante Entfernung“ geortet werden konnten. Bis zum Jahr 2013 konnte die Ortungsreichweite von PIRATE durch Software-Updates weiter gesteigert werden."

 

"In 2010 PIRATE has been evaluated against the F-22 raptor, which could be tracked at 'significant distances'. Until 2013 the range has been increased via a software update. "

 

http://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EuroFIRST_PIRATE

Edited January 4, 2015 by thawall

[GGTharos]

It's great that wikipedia says so. Last I heard from exercises, Tiffy pilots weren't exactly brimming with excitement when it came to BVR vs. Raptors.

 

IRSTs are not stealth-fighter busters and they'll likely never be in danger of being such. Hint: The radar is still the primary sensor.

[thawall]

Stealth Capability debate

 

It's great that wikipedia says so. Last I heard from exercises, Tiffy pilots weren't exactly brimming with excitement when it came to BVR vs. Raptors.

 

IRSTs are not stealth-fighter busters and they'll likely never be in danger of being such. Hint: The radar is still the primary sensor.

 

 

Both statements are backed by direct sources, which you have obviously ignored. I make it simple for you:

http://aviationweek.com/awin/us-navy-follows-uk-lead-infrared-systems

 

I don't know what your experience is wih thhese systems, but i think there might be one or two systems available, which you might not know.

 

Also afaik for none of the Tiffy to F-22 evaluations/trainings have the ROE been released, so the published results are not really worth anything.

 

EDIT: But to fuel the competiton: I liked their description of 'Raptor-salad'

Edited January 4, 2015 by thawall

[Invader ZIM]

There's a lot more to even the type of radar used in planes like the F-22, F-35, Golden Eagles.

 

 

http://www.deagel.com/news/APG-81-Radar-Validated-during-Northern-Edge-2009_n000006262.aspx

 

Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC) has announced that it successfully demonstrated key electronic protection capabilities of the F-35 Lightning II's AN/APG-81 radar during the recent Northern Edge 2009 (NE09) joint military exercise.

The Northrop Grumman AN/APG-81 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar was flown on board the company's BAC 1-11 test aircraft and was integrated into what is considered the United States' largest and most complex airborne electronic warfare (EW) exercise to date. Northrop Grumman demonstrated the electronic protection (EP) capabilities of the AN/APG-81, by successfully countering advanced electronic attacks (EA), which are intended to degrade, neutralize, or destroy friendly combat capability.

 

"The radar was subjected to a scale of scenarios that far exceeded typical developmental or operational test program requirements," said Pete Bartos, a former U.S. Navy F/A-18 operational test director and currently Northrop Grumman program manager for fifth-generation fighter requirements, improvements and derivatives. "In the past, typical EP testing consisted of a few sorties versus a single or maybe two jammers at once. This test was unique in that it included flights versus multiple types of advanced jammers on several aircraft formations at once."

 

 

The effectiveness of a modern fighter radar is determined by a combination of its radiating power and Low Probability of Intercept (LPI) features that prevent the radar from tripping off alarm systems in a target. These typically include using a narrow beam that is hard to spot from off its boresight; only transmitting radar pulses when necessary; spreading the radar pulses over a wide band so there will only be a very small signal on any one band (Frequency Hopping); or varying transmission parameters such as pulse form, frequency, or PRF, jumping around in an unpredictable fashion, not staying in one place long enough to register.

 

The radiated power is largely dependent on the antenna aperture.

 

Increasing the radiated power will increase the range of the radar but unless it is accompanied by LPI it will also announce the presence of the radiating aircraft to sensors on an enemy fighter that still does not have you in its radar range.

 

In an AESA radar individual TR modules can be assigned the role of Radar Warning Receivers allowing a radiating aircraft to be picked up the target aircraft, instead of the other way around!

 

For example, the AN/APG-77 fitted on the F-22 Raptor has 2,000 TR modules. Operating purely as an RWR it can pick up enemy aircraft's radar from distances of up to 460 kilometers (250 nautical miles). The higher the energy radiated by the enemy aircraft radar, greater the APG-77's detection range. With all modules operating as radars, the APG-77 can acquire pick enemy targets up to 220 kilometers (125 nautical miles). Its use of LPI does not alert the enemy aircraft to its own presence.

 

Broadly speaking Russian radars tend to rely on radiated power for their effectiveness, leveraging the higher apertures of their radars facilitated by larger aircraft size and nose cross sectional area. American AESA radars blend radiating powere with LPI. Their higher software maturity levels facilitate use of the AESA for communication, gathering information electronic intelligence, locating electronic systems, classifying them, and warning the pilot of possible threats or high-priority targets.

 

When coupled with the electronic techniques generator in an aircraft, the radar can project jamming, false targets and other false information into enemy sensors. Ranges for electronic attack equal the AESA radar plus that of the enemy radar. That could allow electronic attack at ranges of 150 mi. or more. The ability to pick out small targets at a long distance also lets AESA-equipped aircraft find and attack cruise missiles, stealth aircraft and small UAVs.

 

 

From the book "Detecting and Classifying Low Probability of Intercept Radar"

 

As yet unconfirmed sources suggest that APG-77 has a typical operating

range of 193 km and is specified to achieve an 86 per cent probability of intercept against

a 1 m² target at its maximum detection range using a single radar paint (Jane's Radar and

Electronic Warfare Systems 2004c, ).

 

Essentialy, you would have to deal with a radar that is very difficult to detect, and can supposedly give you false signals or actively jam while it easily sees and classifies at ranges far in excess than even Western IR sensors.

 

 

 

And as far as IRST's go:

 

 

Even the Su-35 according to the brochure has trouble seeing the giant Su-30 coming straight at it until it's within 35 km. If that hot and large Su-30 happens to even be in the IRST's gimball frontal search arc. Your Amraam fodder head on at 35 km with something you can't see yet that's using LPI radar against you, or God forbid being painted by another LPI F-22 while the other units fire on you from multiple vectors.

Edited January 4, 2015 by Invader ZIM

[vicx]

I remember when stealth was a movie plot, so to know the future you have to think like a movie.

 

It's going to be hackers, drones and lasers.

[Invader ZIM]

lol, it sure does seem to be heading more toward lasers, drones, and hackers as of late.

[thawall]

Look, I'm not saying, that radar is useless or that IRST is the ultimate tool. Any fighter will require both, especially for multi role mission profiles.

 

But this discussion is about stealth capability and IRST is going to to play an important role in future combat against stealth planes. PIRATE and other modern sensors, show that it is already possible and this capability will be improved upon. The T-50 has likely also a better sensor than the Su-35. Also, similar to radar, the exact operational ranges are a well guarded secret, so 35km can be assumed to be a lower estimate.

 

Never the less, PIRATE shows, that at least in clear weather conditions, ranges similar to radar detection ranges are possible (~100km for super sonic fighters from frontal aspect).

 

Also in a modern avionics suite radar and IRST can be used together (called "sensor fusion" in the EF), to search and track targets. So the systems complement each other increasing the chance of detection (although also increasing the chance of being detected).

 

As we are discussing stealth here: radar by it self can never be "stealthy", because it is an active sensor, sending out and receiving signals. You can vary the frequency all you want and narrow the beam, but in the end, when you lock the target, it will know. And searching targets with a narrow beam won't be very effective.

 

Some months ago I read an interesting article, where it was stated, that it is no problem to track and intercept signals, even if the frequency changes several times per second. So it basically only a question of when this functionality will be integrated into modern radar warning receivers.

 

Utimately it will come down to tactics and who can play its advantages best. But in my opinion, stealth is a necessary improvement for some mission profiles, but not an "I win button" and can be defeated.

 

Best combo in my opinion would be lower number of more expensive multirole stealth jets (such as the F-22), which includes a modern IRST sensor to complement its radar and SEAD capabiltiy for A2/AD missions. Combine this with a higher number of less expensive non-stealth jets with serious A2A and dogfight capabilities (e.g. EF, Rafal), high sortie rates and A2G capabilities and you have a winning team.

[TAW_Blaze]

IRST is going to retain the problem of not seeing through weather. That is a major problem.

 

Also, similar to radar, the exact operational ranges are a well guarded secret, so 35km can be assumed to be a lower estimate.

 

Or it easily could be the most optimistic estimation, much like wikipedia AMRAAM ranges.

 

You can vary the frequency all you want and narrow the beam, but in the end, when you lock the target, it will know.

 

You don't have to lock the target, for a start.

[thawall]

IRST is going to retain the problem of not seeing through weather. That is a major problem.

 

Absolutely.

 

 

You don't have to lock the target' date=' for a start.[/quote']

 

But you have to paint it at least once, giving away your position.

[TAW_Blaze]

But you have to paint it at least once, giving away your position.

 

That's not how any of this works. Detecting a search radar who's trying to hide and whose search pattern is unknown is extremely difficult. You have to go past not only the noise but the unpredictable manner the enemy radar operates. IIRC LPI radars are also capable of adjusting output power to match the range they are searching, so they'll only show as much power as necessary to find targets at the distance of choice.

 

This is just so much incredibly more complex than "if you use your active device and paint me once, I will see you". There are more concerns than what I just described above and then we haven't even considered various uses of ECM.

[Invader ZIM]

If your talking Western European and US IRST and thermal imaging sensor designs, then I agree, they can add an extra layer of information and other options to detect and fire on opposing aircraft at useful ranges. They are also more advanced and sensitive systems that can see targets much further away than Eastern designs. But none of them are magic bullets able to defeat all countermeasures.

 

Nobody talks about false signals though, from terrain, buildings, hot spots and metal reflecting in the 3000 to 14000 nanometer IR windows, stuff glinting into the sensor as you fly along at high speed, and the Su-35's IRST is the most advanced Eastern design that is actually fielded so I used it as an example showing how limited it was against a non IR stealthy and very large Su-30 target.

 

Other models which go into Mig-29's for example, like the OEPS-29 IRST are even less capable.

 

http://aerospace.boopidoo.com/philez/Su-15TM%20PICTURES%20&%20DOCS/Overscan%27s%20guide%20to%20Russian%20Military%20Avionics.htm

 

Fitted to the MiG-29A, KOLS is a combined IRST/LR device. All aspect device. Acquires targets independently, or with data input from the radar. Can detect a non-afterburning fighter head-on at a range of 12-18km. The collimated laser can provide ranging data from 200-6500m accurate to 3m. Scanning limits are ±30° azimuth, -15°/+30° elevation.

 

Operates in several scanning modes. In large FOV mode scanning is ±30° azimuth, +30°/15° elevation. In small FOV mode scanning limits are ±30° azimuth and ±15° elevation. Close combat mode scans +16° to -14° by 4°. Lock-on mode scans 6° x 4°. Target tracking rate is up to 30°/sec.

 

KOLS is able to reject flares only if the combined signature of the flares is less than the target.

 

Targets are displayed on the same display as the radar.

 

So here's some interesting info, the IRST on a Mig-29 has problems tracking a target if it uses flares. And at that, the combined IR signature of the multiple flares has to be LESS than the aircraft that's spoofing, that doesn't happen too often if you understand IR signatures. That's not good in a close in battle with aircraft popping flares WVR, and it's more confusing that false info is going to your radar display from the flares, since the system can't reject their signature as a false positive.

 

The Su-27's IRST, the OLS-27:

 

A combined IRST/LR device for the Su-27, similar to the MiG-29's KOLS but more sophisticated, using a cooled, broader waveband, sensor. Tracking rate is over 25deg/sec. 50km range in pursuit engagement, 15km head-on. The laser rangefinder operates between 300-3000m for air targets, 300-5000m for ground targets.

 

So looking up the hot tailpipe of an opposing aircraft engine, it can see it at 50km. Most likely if it's skylined against a nice flat cold sky in the thermal sensor.

 

As far as IR stealth, the F-22 and F-35's do employ it. Imagine the IRST sensor, however at 30km, an F-22 may only take up a few pixels across the sensor, and at that range the difference in it's heat signature from the sky may not be enough for it to be noticed by the IRST. Even more difficult is a plane coming from below the horizon, now it's IR signature is more easily hidden from terrain features, the ocean, etc instead of the much colder and more uniform sky if that happens to be perfectly clear.

 

On top of that, for example if it's possible to hide an M1 Abrams with IR paint, it's very conceivable that F-22's and F-35's can do some of the same. Look how hard it is for the thermal imager to see the hot engine of the tank even.

 

Maximum detection ranges are just that, detection, not recognition, or identification range, which is shorter than the Detection range. Detection is a pixel, what is it?? Recognition range is: It's a plane, but what kind? Friendly, enemy? Identification range: It's an F-22, and he's in my face!!

 

We use the The Johnson Criteria which assumes that the critical dimension for a human being is 0.75 meters. To get DRI, you need 1.5 pixels, 6 pixels and 12 pixels across 0.75 meters in the object pane.

That means:

Detection

 

1.5 pixels / 0.75m = 2 pixels per meter

Recognition

6 pixels / 0.75m = 8 pixels per meter

Identification

12 pixels / 0.75m = 16 pixels per meter

 

For a rather advanced 640x480 thermal sensor we have the following example to see a human target:

Sure, I can detect a man at 2.5km, but I won't know it's a man until he's 1.1km away. And I can't tell if it's a farmer or an enemy soldier until he's 600m away using the sensor above. Same applies to aircraft IR sensors.

 

And this applies to aircraft as well.

 

http://www.defensereview.com/intermat-anti-thermalir-camo-tech-for-infantry-and-special-operations-forces/

 

For reference, the M1 painted with the intermet is number 2, and it's only 250 meters away from the camera.

 

 

Another image, same range, 250 meters.

 

 

 

 

Thermal Images of Aircraft Carriers

Notice that there are two sets of apparent jet heat trails, these are called "ghosts". They are errors and result from lense reflection or instrument calibration error which introduce artifacts.

 

Video of the F-14's IRST, not the nice smooth real time high resolution image many like to think when discussing IRST's. And to get any real range, the sensors have to dramatically reduce their field of view, and their ability to search any large portion of the sky.

 

So, starting to see the problem with using IR seekers? It actually gets worse trying to pick out your target than the photos illustrated if it is high humidity, or if it has rained or is raining. Much more difficult. Now do it at ranges to avoid getting hit from an Amraam at over 35 km with a plane that's masking it's signature to allow it to get within no escape zones with it's AIM-120.

Edited January 4, 2015 by Invader ZIM

[vicx]

I dunno the pictures from a SNIPER pod look pretty good and that is old technology.

[Invader ZIM]

Sniper is pretty good, same limitations apply trying to recognize an aircraft using a narrow fov sensor.

[thawall]

Stealth Capability debate

 

@Invader ZIM:

Thx for posting all the detailed data and facts!

 

I don't think, that you can compare 80s IRST like OLS-27 of the Su-27 with PIRATE, because the latter is much more sophisticated. The jump in technology is probably comparable to the improvements from 80s radar systems to AESA.

 

For example, the software suite for PIRATE will automatically detect false positives and disregard them. Furthermore IR paint will not work against PIRATE, because it is not only looking for heat signatures but also for "holes" in the background clutter. To keep invisible, a plane would have return the same signature as the background clutter itself. The system is built with countermeasures in mind and meant to defeat them.

 

EDIT: also, PIRATE will represent its information usually not in form of FLIR video, but similiar to a radar screen. Have a look at this:

B-Scope image of the PIRATE QWIP sensor. Because the range can be determined passively by image recognition, data can be displayed like on a radar scope.

 

@Blaze:

That's not how any of this works. Detecting a search radar who's trying to hide and whose search pattern is unknown is extremely difficult. You have to go past not only the noise but the unpredictable manner the enemy radar operates. IIRC LPI radars are also capable of adjusting output power to match the range they are searching, so they'll only show as much power as necessary to find targets at the distance of choice.

 

 

 

This is just so much incredibly more complex than "if you use your active device and paint me once, I will see you". There are more concerns than what I just described above and then we haven't even considered various uses of ECM.

 

I'm no expert and granted, I simplified it greatly. If you have any documents/articles on modern AESA radar systems you can share I'd appriciate it.

 

My common sense suggests that if I use radar to scan a target/area, I would need at least so much energy that the signal can travel the distance that I want to cover (e.g. 40 miles) including all the way back, after it reflected of a surface. If the target has radar absorbing coating (stealth features) I might need even more energy to get enough information in the reflected signal back.

So by this logic, and correct me if I'm wrong, I would assume, that a modern RWS suite could detect my signals at about 80 miles.

 

I might be able to trick older RWS by jumping frequencies or not painting all the time but that would only mean that RWS tech would have some catching up to do.

 

Sadly for us, developments in this sector are highly classified (at least I didn't find much up to date information on the topic), which means we can only speculate.

Edited January 4, 2015 by thawall

[Invader ZIM]

Well, your right that newer technology will extend the range, the Su-35's IRST is better than the legacy Su-27, but you can see it's not by too much and there's other factors that increase or decrease range performance, like good coding for the thermal sensor and quality of optics in front of the sensor.

 

Sniper is multi spectral, including a 3rd gen 3000 to 5000 nanometer thermal sensor with a rather large 512x640 focal planar array that gives the sensor a recognition range 2 to 3 times further than legacy pods like Lightning. Plus advanced image processing algorithms and extremely steady stabilization to help achieve that longer range.

 

It's really fascinating stuff to study, but like you said there are a lot of secrets, so the best you can hope for is to get some hints and put the info together to guess what might be possible when you search for info.

 

Trust me though, PIRATE isn't perfect, great to have in addition to a good radar to help out but there's no perfect solution.

 

https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/united-kingdom/defence/air-group/infra-red-search-track/pirate

 

 

Your article mentions the following for PIRATE:

 

Die Reichweite des Systems liegt zwischen 50 und 80 Kilometern, könnte aber bis zu 150 Kilometern betragen. Die Zielidentifizierung kann aus mehr als 40 Kilometern erfolgen. Allerdings beeinflusst die Wetterlage die Leistung der infrarotgestützten Zielsuche und Zielverfolgung erheblich.

 

 

Which in English translates to the following:

 

The range of the system is between 50 and 80 kilometers , but could be up to 150 kilometers. The target identification can be carried out more than 40 kilometers . However, the weather conditions will affect the performance of the infrared- based target search and tracking significantly .

 

So perhaps 40 to 50 km to ID the target as a plane then, on such a high end IRST system. It's great as an aide to the radar, but still too limited in range in real conditions against an air threat that's moving very fast.

Edited January 4, 2015 by Invader ZIM

[thawall]

Stealth Capability debate

 

I fully agree and never said anything else (I do not fully agree on the last two sentences though). Thx for the vid btw!

 

Concerning ranges, there are different reports. Here is an overview including the sources:

http://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EuroFIRST_PIRATE#Reichweite

 

50-90 km frontal aspect subsonic flight and 54-98km for mach 1.7 seem to be the most realistic guesstimates.

 

Coming back to the original topic of stealth capability: even 50-60km detection range against a stealth plane make IRST a serious tool (if the weather conditions allow it). With future improvements even more so.

 

Edit to clarify on your last 2 sentences: I don't think, PIRATE can be used to replace the radar and I agree it should be used complementary and when apropriate. But under 'identification' I understand that I can identify, probably the type of the plane and if it is hostile. And why would it be lacking against a fast manouvering target? I mean the tracking capability seems really good.

 

Edit 2: What is the official/assumed range that a F-22 can detect another stealth plane eg. a F-35 using their radar? I would guess, that it would be not much more than 50km also.

Edited January 4, 2015 by thawall

[Invader ZIM]

What I meant by fast maneuvering, is that if you have an aircraft closing at high speed, and say the IRST sees it a 50km ahead of you, your heading toward him, both at or over mach by this time, you don't have much room to work with that range closing fast.

 

And aircraft don't usually come in ones and twos, so in busy airspace PIRATE might have some trouble if it's focused on one or two contacts, but others are also out there.

 

Best official word on an F-22 detecting an object with 1m2 target size was in a Jane's 2004 publication, you won't find any details on the actual ranges though.

 

As yet unconfirmed sources suggest that APG-77 has a typical operating range of 193 km and is specified to achieve an 86 per cent probability of intercept against a 1 m² target at its maximum detection range using a single radar paint (Jane's Radar and Electronic Warfare Systems 2004c, ).

Edited January 5, 2015 by Invader ZIM

[thawall]

Thanks for the clarification.

 

PIRATE seems to be able to handle about 200 targets simultaniously, although constant tracking seems to reduce the number quite a bit. Also for fast maneuvering targets it might be required to use STT mode at some point.

 

But as you said, there are likely more fighters involved, also friendlies, which means target information from PIRATE could also be shared via data link, after targets have been sorted.

 

Never the less, I see your point and read the articles you posted concerning LPI radar. If it works both systems would still be a very good complement. Do have links to additional material?

 

Other than that, we still don't know, how radar performes against enemy stealth fighters, meaning the radars detection range might also be very short. If ECM and target spoofing is used, it might be rather useless.

[Kaktus29]

stealth obviously has advantages,but if the environment is heavy ECM where radar altogether becomes useless then what? Will F22 still have advantage or will the IRST planes gain it?

 

in real life it won't be just radars and stealth as a factor but all kind of jammers,from ground, to planes to parachuted ecm,s to drone jammers, of course you can follow the jammer "source" to destroy it but the thing is your radar will not see the su35 lurking 20 miles in front of you or tiffy..

 

many tactics to nulify stealth, of course all have to be trained, developed .. question is only how expensive and sustainable is to perform such actions versus sustainability of maintenance of f22 delicate skin during war-time conditions..