Pilotasso Posted May 13, 2009 Posted May 13, 2009 (edited) Or: 1)ECM and ECCM capabilities of AESA radars are smaller than it sounds 2)"4-th generation" jammers can make a headache to 5-th generation fighters as well 3)US should consider possibilities of using advanced jamming techniques by potential enemies A little less fanboyish, isn't it?.. You would be correct if it wasnt for a simple fact: No one else has the APG-77 ELINT or software but the US. You need technology advances, and how do you know its a 4rth gen pod? AFAIK this one was developed AFTER the F-22 thus they are both at least in the same level. Fanboyism is believing the EOS can replace a radar. ;) EDIT: ah you removed that part before I could post mine. :P Edited May 13, 2009 by Pilotasso .
DarkWanderer Posted May 13, 2009 Posted May 13, 2009 (edited) No one else has the APG-77 ELINT or software but the US. Noone had AIM-9M, but R-73 was still the most agile WVR missile back in 90's. I don't think europeans (France in particular) lack much in electronics. Moreover...-> You need tehcology, and how do you know its a 4rth gen pod? AFAIK this one was developed AFTER the F-22 thus they are both at least in the same level. ->EA-18G Growler uses AN/ALQ-99, which seen first combat deployment in 1986. It is surely not the same tech level as AN/APG-77. You would be correct if you know a bit more of what we're talking about. EDIT: Fanboyism is believing the EOS can replace a radar. And incriming such statements to an interlocutor is ignorance ;) EOS can complement the radar, but i didn't tell it will replace Edited May 13, 2009 by DarkWanderer You want the best? Here i am...
ED Team Groove Posted May 13, 2009 Author ED Team Posted May 13, 2009 can you elaborate 1) US already has the ability to jamm the most agile radar in the world with LPI capability. i would like to know how you can jam a double digit radar setup with a LPI radar Our Forum Rules: http://forums.eagle.ru/rules.php#en
Pilotasso Posted May 13, 2009 Posted May 13, 2009 (edited) Noone had AIM-9M, but R-73 was still the most agile WVR missile back in 90's. I don't think europeans (France in particular) lack much in electronics. Moreover...-> ->EA-18G Growler uses AN/ALQ-99, which seen first combat deployment in 1986. It is surely not the same tech level as AN/APG-77. You would be correct if you know a bit more of what we're talking about. EDIT: And incriming such statements to an interlocutor is ignorance ;) EOS can complement the radar, but i didn't tell it will replace Firstly the R-73 has been developed in the soviet union. You cannot use it as an example projected into the actual day. Secondly the ALQ-99 is the signal jamming pod. It is paired with ALQ-128 recievers, furthermore the ALQ-99 mounted on the growler is not the one from back 1988. Its a different version. Not to metnion the APG-79 radar wich is itself a potentialy jamming device. ;) can you elaborate i would like to know how you can jam a double digit radar setup with a LPI radar LPI stands for low probability of intercept. Capable of being mistakened and ignored as background noise and filtered out of the detection systems. While it is unknown if there are equipment capable of intercepting LPI signals, AESA radars can listen and act as jammers as well, the same way or as fast as they generate their own signals. Edited May 13, 2009 by Pilotasso .
Case Posted May 13, 2009 Posted May 13, 2009 I wonder when the time comes where two aircraft sharing information via datalink will be able to simply triangulate an aircraft that is jamming their radars with the best jammer available. In the end, even the most sophisticated jammer is still nothing more than a big I AM HERE sign when triangulated. Perhaps that time has already passed :D There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
DarkWanderer Posted May 13, 2009 Posted May 13, 2009 (edited) Firstly the R-73 has been developed in the soviet union. Does the fact that R-73 was made in USSR denies everyone from creating electronic equipment comparable to US one? Secondly the ALQ-99 is the signal jamming pod. It is paired with ALQ-128 recievers, furthermore the ALQ-99 mounted on the growler is not the one from back 1988. Its a different version. See above. ALQ-128's, BTW, were used only on F-15's. Edited May 13, 2009 by DarkWanderer You want the best? Here i am...
Pilotasso Posted May 13, 2009 Posted May 13, 2009 (edited) Does the fact that R-73 was made in USSR denies everyone from creating electronic equipment comparable to US one? See above. ALQ-128's, BTW, were used only on F-15's. The R-73 was bad example for your comparison, thats all. I made a typo. Its ALQ-218 not 128 ;) The rests stands. Undoubtly US has always being more advanced in radars, and if anyone can jamm AESA's they will likely to be the first to achieve it since their tech of radars tends to go hand to hand with the countermeasures to defeat them. Edited May 13, 2009 by Pilotasso .
Case Posted May 13, 2009 Posted May 13, 2009 Firstly the R-73 has been developed in the soviet union. You cannot use it as an example projected into the actual day.Why can't it be used as an example? Why would there be any difference between technology developed in the Soviet Union or outside the Soviet Union? If your point is that the technology is more likely to developed and developed faster under a communist regime compared to a commercial regime, you may be very mistaken. The R-73 was bad example for your comparison, thats all.I would argue quite the opposite. There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
nscode Posted May 13, 2009 Posted May 13, 2009 An AESA can freq hop and split beams all day long, but its peak output power is still weaker than the return of a MiG-25's radar sweep :) (given a non-low-RCS target) Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.
X-man Posted May 13, 2009 Posted May 13, 2009 (edited) An AESA can freq hop and split beams all day long, but its peak output power is still weaker than the return of a MiG-25's radar sweep :) (given a non-low-RCS target) Surely, the return would depend on the range...And I doubt the MiG-25 radar is as sensitive as today's AESA radars, so less power is needed... Edited May 13, 2009 by X-man 64th Aggressor Squadron Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron TS: 135.181.115.54
GGTharos Posted May 13, 2009 Posted May 13, 2009 So ... what did I miss? :P It's already known that all US fighters have electronic attack capability when equipped with AESA radar. In any case, don't try comparing a dedicated jammer aircraft to something automated. ;) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Weta43 Posted May 14, 2009 Posted May 14, 2009 Undoubtly US has always being more advanced in radars Always ? Demonstrably untrue, and I'm surprised such a regular on threads like this would think so.... Cheers.
topol-m Posted May 14, 2009 Posted May 14, 2009 Undoubtly US has always being more advanced in radars. Always ? Demonstrably untrue, and I'm surprised such a regular on threads like this would think so.... Precisely. There were periods of time where US have been more advanced but to generalize that they have always been more advanced in radar technology is far from true. Check out the modern SAMs radars and the latest generation of russian AESA and PESA radars and we`ll talk again. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
ED Team Groove Posted May 14, 2009 Author ED Team Posted May 14, 2009 LPI stands for low probability of intercept. Capable of being mistakened and ignored as background noise and filtered out of the detection systems. While it is unknown if there are equipment capable of intercepting LPI signals, AESA radars can listen and act as jammers as well, the same way or as fast as they generate their own signals. Thanks for clearing up what LPI stands for ;) As soon as you try to jam something with a LPI Radar, it's not LPI anymore ;) :D Our Forum Rules: http://forums.eagle.ru/rules.php#en
ED Team Groove Posted May 15, 2009 Author ED Team Posted May 15, 2009 Please continue the discussion about russian radars here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=41512 Our Forum Rules: http://forums.eagle.ru/rules.php#en
ED Team Groove Posted July 7, 2009 Author ED Team Posted July 7, 2009 Some article(s) about F-22 readiness level: http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/alerts/national-security/ns-f22-20090220.html Our Forum Rules: http://forums.eagle.ru/rules.php#en
topol-m Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 (edited) Some article(s) about F-22 readiness level: http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/alerts/national-security/ns-f22-20090220.html Quote Danielle Brian, Executive Director of the Project On Government Oversight. "Congress and the Defense Department should recognize these dollars would be better spent on modernized F-15s or F-16s. More procurement of the F-22 isn't smart strategically or financially." Edit: Interesting. More and more enemies of the F-22 and not foreign ones... Edited July 7, 2009 by topol-m [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
tflash Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 Maintenance seems a real issue on F-22; even supporters like Murtha acknowledge this: “Maintenance of the F-22 has been a big problem,” Murtha acknowledges. “Cost has been as high as $50,000 per hour." http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/F22-062509.xml [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Pilotasso Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 I cant see much logic in that figure. Howcome an hour of man work can cost 50000$? And I work in aicraft maintenace and I have some figures myself. .
ED Team Groove Posted July 7, 2009 Author ED Team Posted July 7, 2009 I think they mean the RAM parts of the plane Pilotasso. Our Forum Rules: http://forums.eagle.ru/rules.php#en
tflash Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 Because he didn't say it was a man hour: I guess he means 50.000 $ per flight hour. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
LaRata Posted July 11, 2009 Posted July 11, 2009 " The United States' top fighter jet, the Lockheed Martin F-22, has recently required more than 30 hours of maintenance for every hour in the skies, pushing its hourly cost of flying to more than $44,000, a far higher figure than for the warplane it replaces, confidential Pentagon test results show. " " "It is a disgrace that you can fly a plane [an average of] only 1.7 hours before it gets a critical failure" that jeopardizes success of the aircraft's mission, said a Defense Department critic of the plane who is not authorized to speak on the record. Other skeptics inside the Pentagon note that the planes, designed 30 years ago to combat a Cold War adversary, have cost an average of $350 million apiece and say they are not a priority in the age of small wars and terrorist threats. " http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070903020.html?wprss=rss_politics/congress LaRata
LaRata Posted July 13, 2009 Posted July 13, 2009 Some Old News . . . " The fighters with the lowest retention rates were A-10s at 53 percent, F-16s at 51 percent and F-22s at 43 percent. Retention rates for other fighters were 81 percent for F-15Es and 68 percent for F-15s. " http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/10/airforce_pilot_retentionbonus_102108w/ LaRata
A.S Posted July 18, 2009 Posted July 18, 2009 Continuation .... .. http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=718641&postcount=7 <<<< you gonna base your opinion on a never before in such a way constructed millitary PR campaign ? :megalol: $$$$$$$ gaciing $$$$$$ :music_whistling: [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
hitman Posted July 18, 2009 Posted July 18, 2009 I cant see much logic in that figure. Howcome an hour of man work can cost 50000$? And I work in aicraft maintenace and I have some figures myself.IIRC the aircraft is made of carbon fiber composite materials, not 2024T3 aluminum...and that stuff is at an all time premium at the moment since everyone including Boeing is buying this stuff up in mass quantities. The 787 comes to mind.
Recommended Posts