F-22 Raptor "sucks"

[GGTharos]

You mean the video where people don't realize that the Rafale pilot never called guns and no one called a kill, and the French commander later said that the F-22's won 4:2 in those engagements?

 

Sounds like the single pic of an F-18 with an F-22 in their sights which people somehow cheered for as if it proved the F-22 wasn't all it's cracked up to be ... while forgetting that 50 other F-18's had to get shot down for that one to take its shot. ;)

 

I like how the F22 beats the Rafele's ass in this video, oh wait...

[wilky510]

I like how the F22 beats the Rafele's ass in this video, oh wait...

I like how hard the Rafale pilot has to turn to impress us with his marvelous simulated WVR kill, in a simulated dogfight.

[wilky510]

;1875340']Lol says the guy called 'MaverickF22' with the picture in his avatar.......

 

Yes mate... you are an official Fanboy! ;)

 

I'm afraid you've been reading too much promotional material for the F-22... WVR the Typhoon will EAT your little Raptor for breakfast.

 

You are just taking wild stabs in the dark with regards to the Typhoon performance.. I don't think you have done your home work at all!

 

''but in fact, the EF's canards only provide stability (so they won't create lift almost at all)''

 

This is total nonsense, the canard 'naturally' produces lift to balance the lift coming off the wings, the faster the aircraft is going the higher this lift value becomes.

 

Here is a tip.... listen to GG and others....

 

Yes they have proof you are wrong.... no they won't show it to you ;)

I'd like to see where your overrated Typhoon 'eats' the Raptor when it isn't fully slicked out, and actually carrying fuel tanks, especially since almost every takeoff i see a Typhoon is wearing fuel tanks.

[104th_Maverick]

Great video... the breathing gets a little too much half way through but nice watch!

 

Yeah, 100% the Raptor is not to be messed with, but it's not all it's cracked up to be by some people, at the end of the day it is a 'product' produced by a company, there will always be 'hype' associated with such things... its the hype I hate!

[104th_Maverick]

I'd like to see where your overrated Typhoon 'eats' the Raptor when it isn't fully slicked out, and actually carrying fuel tanks, especially since almost every takeoff i see a Typhoon is wearing fuel tanks.

 

Rrrrrright.......

 

So your saying you want to see a Typhoon with Fuel Tanks vs a F-22 with no fuel tanks and no external payload to see who would win in a dog fight?........ you realise how stupid that sounds right??

 

edit:

 

Just want to say I'm not going to spend all day going back and forward arguing about this, apart from it being a total waste of my life I have other stuff to do today! If you think the F-22 is better than the Typhoon.... great! Have a nice day :)

Edited September 16, 2013 by [Maverick]

[EtherealN]

especially since almost every takeoff i see a Typhoon is wearing fuel tanks.

 

You are aware of the fact that those external tanks can be jetissoned? ;)

 

The "droptank" has been in use on combat aircraft since around 1943-ish. They don't enter the fight with the drop tanks still attached. They drop them first. :)

[wilky510]

;1875370']' date=' there will always be 'hype' associated with such things... its the hype I hate![/quote'] Hype goes both ways. I've seen quite alot of hype for the Typhoon, and way more for the invincible PAK-Fa that will 'fly' loops around the F-22 whenever it's in service.

 

Everyone does it, it just isn't the US. Sadly i know what you mean though. Alot more younger people here in the US have access to the internet and always say how much the American technology is invincible. You just need to take these peoples comments with a grain of salt.

[104th_Maverick]

^

 

Agreed!

 

Thanks for not letting this get too messy.

 

S!

[wilky510]

You are aware of the fact that those external tanks can be jetissoned? ;)

 

The "droptank" has been in use on combat aircraft since around 1943-ish. They don't enter the fight with the drop tanks still attached. They drop them first. :)

Yes, i'm quite aware. My comment was aimed to the towards the whole simulated part of these fights.

[countto10]

Maybe. Don't think stealth = 'radar only'. The whole idea behind stealth is to make your aircraft difficult to shoot at. That includes shortening ranges of RF and IR sensors, so missile seekers have shorter range against these aircraft as well - as a result you have to put them near the target with a lot more accuracy.

 

Radar lock is typically shorter ranged than radar detection, so cuing your radar from passive sensors would be moot. Shooting IR missiles from passive like that is also moot if you can't get a good enough accuracy on the target's position.

I've been told that IR stealth is a white elephant because IR detection is extremely range dependent, more so than radar, and it's impossible to usefully reduce the IR footprint of a jet engine. So whilst you can still achieve useful radar stealth despite the R to the 4 term by reducing RCS by a factor of a thousand, useful IR stealth isn't really workable for jet fighters.

 

Detection range with radar is typically based on a wide area sweep where the transmitted power is spread over a wide area. If however you knew where to look, the power could be more focused, almost like a LIDAR effect.

 

In the case of passive triangulation accuracy, that would surely depend on two things. Distance to target and the distance between the detection sources.

 

Maybe you're right in the fact that the technology doesn't presently exist but there certainly seems to be some scientific merit in it.

[Pilotasso]

You mean the video where people don't realize that the Rafale pilot never called guns and no one called a kill, and the French commander later said that the F-22's won 4:2 in those engagements?

 

Sounds like the single pic of an F-18 with an F-22 in their sights which people somehow cheered for as if it proved the F-22 wasn't all it's cracked up to be ... while forgetting that 50 other F-18's had to get shot down for that one to take its shot. ;)

 

yeah, but gotta admit that one was pretty epic :D

[Pilotasso]

I've been told that IR stealth is a white elephant because IR detection is extremely range dependent, more so than radar, and it's impossible to usefully reduce the IR footprint of a jet engine. So whilst you can still achieve useful radar stealth despite the R to the 4 term by reducing RCS by a factor of a thousand, useful IR stealth isn't really workable for jet fighters.

 

Detection range with radar is typically based on a wide area sweep where the transmitted power is spread over a wide area. If however you knew where to look, the power could be more focused, almost like a LIDAR effect.

 

In the case of passive triangulation accuracy, that would surely depend on two things. Distance to target and the distance between the detection sources.

 

Maybe you're right in the fact that the technology doesn't presently exist but there certainly seems to be some scientific merit in it.

 

Theres more to it than that. Placing the engines between the tails is a form of IR concealing. Also, F-22 allegedly has fuel irrigation on strategic places where heat builds up on fuselage that AIM-9's use to track targets head on.

[GGTharos]

I've been told that IR stealth is a white elephant because IR detection is extremely range dependent, more so than radar, and it's impossible to usefully reduce the IR footprint of a jet engine. So whilst you can still achieve useful radar stealth despite the R to the 4 term by reducing RCS by a factor of a thousand, useful IR stealth isn't really workable for jet fighters.

 

Not only is it workable, it's been done and is being done. IR detection depends on the same factors as radar detection. Reduce the emitted signal, and you reduce detection range.

 

Detection range with radar is typically based on a wide area sweep where the transmitted power is spread over a wide area. If however you knew where to look, the power could be more focused, almost like a LIDAR effect.

Fun theory, but no. Your radar is already sweeping at (presumably) max power. There are algorithms you can use to extract stealthy airframes from background noise, but you're now doing a lot of extra work on that one spot while his wingman is closing in to eat you. Further, this isn't helping your missile. Stealth defeats not just your radar, it defeats the missile sensor as well. A stealth aircraft using a jammer can also feed your radar false information and send the missile to fun but irrelevant places.

 

 

In the case of passive triangulation accuracy, that would surely depend on two things. Distance to target and the distance between the detection sources.

 

Maybe you're right in the fact that the technology doesn't presently exist but there certainly seems to be some scientific merit in it.

Passive triangulation is not only old stuff, but every RWR mounted on a plane so far does it.

It's not about whether you can triangulate or not, it's about getting good enough accuracy to take a shot.

 

A stealth aircraft increases the requirements for accuracy. If you can't get the missile within a certain detection zone against the target, that missile will never see your target.

 

LPI radars, jammers, and fighting tactics all contribute to degrade accuracy and SA gathered by all these sensors. That said, today's high-quality ISR systems are rumored to be capable of building a very accurate track, as least vs. legacy or contemporary fighters. Stealth fighters know they're stealth, so you may never detect the guy who's going to shoot you, even with passive methods (his buddy might be tracking you from 80nm away, you're a datalink blip on that F-22's screen, and that's what he'll engage, without ever having to turn his radar on).

 

If he happens to be using his radar and your only means of attack is passive capabilities, all he has to do is wait for his missile to go active, turn off his radar and change course. Your missile will never find him.

 

Stealth confers huge advantages upon its user - it is neither invincible nor invisible, but it is excessively slippery. There does not exist a magical anti-stealth bullet/radar (active or passive/IR despite the propaganda out there ;)

Edited September 16, 2013 by GGTharos

[countto10]

Not only is it workable, it's been done and is being done. IR detection depends on the same factors as radar detection. Reduce the emitted signal, and you reduce detection range.

Nah. Atmospheric absorption is huge relative to radar, hence why radar is still the primary sensor long range detection.

 

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/es310/IR_prop/IR_prop.htm

 

Fun theory, but no. Your radar is already sweeping at (presumably) max power. There are algorithms you can use to extract stealthy airframes from background noise, but you're now doing a lot of extra work on that one spot while his wingman is closing in to eat you. Further, this isn't helping your missile. Stealth defeats not just your radar, it defeats the missile sensor as well. A stealth aircraft using a jammer can also feed your radar false information and send the missile to fun but irrelevant places.

Not sure you're understanding the problem. You can bounce a laser off the moon. Put the same power into a flashlight and you won't even be able to see it from the edge of the atmosphere. The radar in normal mode is sweeping an altitude range of maybe 15-20km across 60 degrees. If it only has to sweep 0.1 degrees and 100m, then the power density per unit area on any target is several magnitudes higher and so is the reflection as per the moon-laser analogy. False information fed from an aircraft is still directional hence why HOJ functions exist. The jamming or false information is just more food for the passive sensors. AESA itself is very difficult to jam without inside information on the frequency algorithms. No doubt the missile's detection range is reduced probably about 7 fold over a 1m2 object but that still means it can see the target from about 2nm away based on radar heads now 10-15 years old. Probably far more now. For IR heads it's further still.

 

Passive triangulation is not only old stuff, but every RWR mounted on a plane so far does it.

It's not about whether you can triangulate or not, it's about getting good enough accuracy to take a shot.

 

A stealth aircraft increases the requirements for accuracy. If you can't get the missile within a certain detection zone against the target, that missile will never see your target.

 

LPI radars, jammers, and fighting tactics all contribute to degrade accuracy and SA gathered by all these sensors. That said, today's high-quality ISR systems are rumored to be capable of building a very accurate track, as least vs. legacy or contemporary fighters. Stealth fighters know they're stealth, so you may never detect the guy who's going to shoot you, even with passive methods (his buddy might be tracking you from 80nm away, you're a datalink blip on that F-22's screen, and that's what he'll engage, without ever having to turn his radar on).

 

If he happens to be using his radar and your only means of attack is passive capabilities, all he has to do is wait for his missile to go active, turn off his radar and change course. Your missile will never find him.

 

Stealth confers huge advantages upon its user - it is neither invincible nor invisible, but it is excessively slippery. There does not exist a magical anti-stealth bullet/radar (active or passive/IR despite the propaganda out there ;)

Technology improves and no doubt triangulation methods will become more precise as will detection of LPI. The problem with buddy tracking is that communication has to take place and there's a signal associated with that too.

 

There is a lot of propaganda out there but it comes from both sides of the story. The truth is that nobody really knows how the existing technologies will perform against each other or what the other has. Even friendly nations are unwilling to expose the true extent of their capabilities in training and nothing performs as well in combat as it does in testing and training. Of course it also boils down to missile performance. Seeing something doesn't mean that you can hit it. For stealth to work you have to be able to hit things from a range at which they can't see you on a ratio equal to or greater than the costs of the aircraft.

Edited September 16, 2013 by GGTharos

[GGTharos]

Looks like I made a mistake and edited your post :(

 

Hold on while I try to restore your post as it was. (Edit: Done. Hope I didn't miss anything)

 

Nah. Atmospheric absorption is huge relative to radar, hence why radar is still the primary sensor long range detection.

 

We're talking about stealth and how it applies, not why radar is the primary sensor.

 

Not sure you're understanding the problem.

 

Not sure you're understanding radars. The radar beam does not change. That you sweep it here and there does not change the fact that the radar beam tends to be very well defined and relatively un-changing (you can define the beam to be wider than normal in some applications, but that's irrelevant to this conversation).

 

False information fed from an aircraft is still directional hence why HOJ functions exist.

HoJ isn't what you think it is. Most of the time it just allows you to launch a missile with bad data, or it can home in on a range jammer. But SPJs don't work like that, they just try to break your lock instead or destroy your track, neither of which is accomplished with a range jammer like what you see in DCS. Further, a jammer can supply high quality false data that won't necessarily be noted by the processor as 'wrong'.

 

The jamming or false information is just more food for the passive sensors.

Maybe. Are you sure? More to the point, is it necessarily useful information in the allotted time frame?

 

No doubt the missile's detection range is reduced probably about 7 fold over a 1m2 object but that still means it can see the target from about 2nm away based on radar heads now 10-15 years old. Probably far more now. For IR heads it's further still.

IR missiles are limited to a couple of miles head-on against a non-afterburning target. More modern missiles, maybe a little more, but the datalink is what really helps. Against a stealth aircraft, not only do you get to push the range down again, but the datalink may be a no-factor if you don't have a good quality track.

 

Perhaps you don't realize how accurate you need to be to place a missile within 2nm of a target, or more to the point, perhaps you don't realize just how in-accurate all those devices can be, along with the fact that they require time to acquire and maneuver.

 

Pushing detection distance down = less effective weapons.

 

 

Technology improves and no doubt triangulation methods will become more precise as will detection of LPI. The problem with buddy tracking is that communication has to take place and there's a signal associated with that too.

 

It's not the only signal out there, and it isn't enough for a shot either.

 

There is a lot of propaganda out there but it comes from both sides of the story. The truth is that nobody really knows how the existing technologies will perform against each other or what the other has. Even friendly nations are unwilling to expose the true extent of their capabilities in training and nothing performs as well in combat as it does in testing and training. Of course it also boils down to missile performance. Seeing something doesn't mean that you can hit it.

Missile performance is the very last thing anything comes down to. You have to be able to launch the missile first, and if you can't see the target, neither can the missile, usually. In fact, it's once in the visual arena that things become a toss-up. At this point stealth loses its function, so you have better have used it to get in close and arrive at an advantageous position - and that is what stealth pilots train to do.

 

Regarding how stealth planes do vs. non-stealth planes ... so far, private exercises within the USAF itself have shown that if the Raptors aren't wearing their luneburg lenses, they'll crush updated F-15Cs in 4v8's. With the lenses, they lose but at a great cost to the F-15's. No one brings their best toys to play with another country, but when it comes to internal exercises things may be different ... (Incidentally, it has also been said that F-35's can now jam F-22's. I expect in this case, almost any plane with an AESA radar can do the same).

Edited September 16, 2013 by GGTharos

[countto10]

(Incidentally, it has also been said that F-35's can now jam F-22's. I expect in this case, almost any plane with an AESA radar can do the same).

Well that would throw a spanner in the skunk works if it becomes an RF denied environment but I guess there's always a burn through range and narrowing the search area could increase that range. Anyway enough armchair air combat for now.

Edited September 16, 2013 by countto10

[RIPTIDE]

Detection range with radar is typically based on a wide area sweep where the transmitted power is spread over a wide area. If however you knew where to look, the power could be more focused, almost like a LIDAR effect.

 

.

Mate, radars generally have a very powerful narrow beam that sweeps sectors. They already are tiny sector scanners zooming across large sweeps of sky. Not too unlike how a CRT Monitor works. :) The difference in scanning sectors relates to the time it takes. THe radar is tuned to so that it is as powerful as it can be without shortening it's MTBO to something stupid.

[countto10]

Mate, radars generally have a very powerful narrow beam that sweeps sectors. They already are tiny sector scanners zooming across large sweeps of sky. Not too unlike how a CRT Monitor works. :) The difference in scanning sectors relates to the time it takes. THe radar is tuned to so that it is as powerful as it can be without shortening it's MTBO to something stupid.

I'm wasn't talking about increasing the radar power which would reduce MTBO. I'm talking about narrowing the beam and turning a flashlight into a laser, or a laser into another laser with far less beam divergence. The power output remains the same, the received power increases.

 

For instance, in your CRT analogy, instead of scanning the screen, you're scanning a pixel in the same way that you scanned the screen.

[GGTharos]

You cannot do that without a ridiculously huge antenna, or without significantly shortening the frequency. This is just basic physics. Aperture size and divergence angle at a given frequency are directly related.

 

The beam width is usually defined as ~0.7 power output off the peak, but there's energy radiating outside of this. At closer ranges you can 'widen' the beam, but this is a mathematical re-definition of what a beam may mean to do you and has nothing to do with the physics of the device, and does not physically change anything. (Incidentally this is done at close ranges since there is a higher energy flux, and this allows to scan volume faster at short ranges).

Edited September 16, 2013 by GGTharos

[GGTharos]

Burn through is one thing, but there are jammers out there that you could never burn-through at a useful distance. It's more about ECCM now and whose computer/hardware can do things smarter, faster, more unexpected, or all of the above.

 

Well that would throw a spanner in the skunk works if it becomes an RF denied environment but I guess there's always a burn through range and narrowing the search area could increase that range. Anyway enough armchair air combat for now.

[Teknetinium]

It would be crazy if F-22 was not more capable than the rest of 4++fighters since it cost three time as mutch. 1vs1 F-22 would probably go out as a winner every time against 4++ fighter. Thats why Russians have been working on 5th generation fighter for years now.

Pilotasso Im sure not many countries will have the money to get F-22.

Basicly Im not totally convinced that you get what you pay for.

 

As the world is today it definitely more efficient to have 8xEF-2000 then 3xF-22, take into account that 10% of the time you will have technical problems.

Edited September 16, 2013 by Teknetinium

[GGTharos]

^^^^

 

No one, because production is shut down :P

 

I wonder if USAF will ask for more, or they will just stick with JSF and do multi-role fighters or drones from now on?

[Pilotasso]

I strongly believe if T-50-Whatever-Su-XX gets any proliferation they probably will NOT settle for just the F-35, a plane dozens other countries already have (or will have then).

Edited September 16, 2013 by Pilotasso

[Teknetinium]

Is there any info on F-22 operating in Iraq war? B-2 and F-117 were active as I know.

[Pilotasso]

yes, they didn't participate. :)

 

Overkill