F-22 debate open

[Teknetinium]

It would be enough whit something that could fight F-35, there is not many that can afford F-22 in numbers.

Edited September 10, 2009 by Teknetinium

[topol-m]

Good gravy you guys are so funny! It's amazing how zero time fighter pilots and systems experts know so much about this stuff. Very entertaining! Very!

 

First of all there are a lot of pilots, mechanics, etc. people with knowledge in military technology that are active on these forums and post comments. When the discussions deviate from reality they help in returning them to the right path. ;) Secondly - often subject of discussions are systems, weapons, stats that are not secret, there is a lot of info (sometimes comprehensive and from reliable sources and sometimes false and exaggerated) available about them and people with interest in these stuff can widely talk about and argue about them.

[Boneski]

Was there a problem with the comment Topol?

[GGTharos]

The problem is your lack of input :)

[Wilde]

GG, thanks for your reply. But I was not so much aiming for a comparison of some radar aperture to specific jammers. I was merely interested in the comparison of a high power radar as the IRBIS-E and older, weaker radars. As you said yourself a single airborne radar is facing lots of problems vs state of the art jammers. Yet we know there will never be a 1on1 really. So the whole situation gets very complex from all sides.

[GGTharos]

It's the radiated power (though aperture plays a role too - a smaller aperture will waste that power) ... in terms of raw watts of power, 'burn through' has probably lost its significance.

 

It's mostly ECM vs ECCM, so if you mean 'weaker' in terms of ECCM, we can only guess. :(

[Pyroflash]

indeed, so then again it all comes down to aspects of the technology on the plane's that are not publicly accessible. For the argument of who will win in a stand up dogfight, my bet is on the F-22 with its more powerful engines and +- 20 degree thrust vectoring compared to the less powerful engines and 15 degree vectoring that the Russian aircraft use. As always though, weight is always a factor, and until the PAK-FA actually comes to fruition, no one will ever know which one will win in a straight up fight.

 

Though personally I would just mob MiG-25PD's at them all day until they give up. No one has missiles that can go 320,000' in the air anyways.

Edited September 10, 2009 by Pyroflash

[RedTiger]

^^^ It is interesting how exactly did you come to the conclusion PAK-FA will use avionics similar to those in mig-29. :doh:

 

Did I state this? Care to quote me? Read what I bolded from his post, read my response and it should be clear as to why MiG-29 avionics were mentioned. ;)

[Vault]

^^^ Strange. I don`t think modern top-notch AESA radars should have problems detecting stealth fighter like F-22/F-35/PAK-FA

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.

You said "avionics", remember? Avionics does not only constitute the radar. What I'm saying is that I highly doubt a 5th gen air frame with 4th gen avionics is going to stand a chance at being equal to a fully 5th gen fighter. This is what you seemed to suggest...let them use stealth to get WVR and then dogfight. Don't waste money on all the expensive integrated systems the Raptor has. IMO, that would be a total failure and a waste of the PAK-FA. Russia should just make a stealth MiG-29 if all they want to do is win a dogfight. Even then, my money would still be on the Raptor vs. a lower-tech LO fighter.

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.

Edited September 11, 2009 by Vault
Added info

[topol-m]

Did I state this? Care to quote me? Read what I bolded from his post, read my response and it should be clear as to why MiG-29 avionics were mentioned. ;)

 

It seems i misunderstood your point. Now that i reread your post i`m correcting myself ;)

 

@Vault

My assumptions are based on IRBIS-E (PESA) and Zhuk-AE FGA35 (AESA) stats. As GGTharos said the AESA radars should be able to detect same targets much later compared to powerfull PESA radar like Su-35`s one. I think that the AESA of PAK-FA should be able to reach half the detection range IRBIS-E is capable of. But that`s if we assume its radar is better than Zhuk-AE FGA-35. Which means target with RCS 0.01 square meters at 45 km. Now 0.01^m is much bigger RCS than F-22`s frontal RCS so we can`t expect such results. But that`s the most unfavourable situation - direct head to head engagement for dozens of miles with no change of course. Pretty perfect situation. But even so at WVR the radar should be able to maintain a stable lock. I`ve seen some info about modernization of Ceasar or Captor radars being able to detect F-22 head on at some 20 km or something like that (don`t remember where i read it). If true and assuming PAK-FA`s radar shouldn`t be less powerful then sideways we can achieve BVR lock on.

Too many assumptions but that`s the result of lack of enough info, and in this case lack of info at all :)

Edited September 11, 2009 by topol-m

[Vault]

It seems i misunderstood your point. Now that i reread your post i`m correcting myself ;)

 

@Vault

My assumptions are based on IRBIS-E (PESA) and Zhuk-AE FGA35 (AESA) stats. As GGTharos said the AESA radars should be able to detect same targets much later compared to powerfull PESA radar like Su-35`s one. I think that the AESA of PAK-FA should be able to reach half the detection range IRBIS-E is capable of. But that`s if we assume its radar is better than Zhuk-AE FGA-35. Which means target with RCS 0.01 square meters at 45 km. Now 0.01^m is much bigger RCS than F-22`s frontal RCS so we can`t expect such results. But that`s the most unfavourable situation - direct head to head engagement for dozens of miles with no change of course. Pretty perfect situation. But even so at WVR the radar should be able to maintain a stable lock. I`ve seen some info about modernization of Ceasar or Captor radars being able to detect F-22 head on at some 20 km or something like that (don`t remember where i read it). If true and assuming PAK-FA`s radar shouldn`t be less powerful then sideways we can achieve BVR lock on.

Too many assumptions but that`s the result of lack of enough info, and in this case lack of info at all :)

 

Topol the Raptor's RCS is classified.

[Vault]

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. :)

[GGTharos]

The raptor's RCS is quoted as better than -40dbsm which puts it in the 0.001 range, classified or not. Even if you get the largest of marbles, it's doing pretty well. ;)

 

This makes the Raptor trackable with a very powerful, advanced radar at 40km. Typically you'll be picking it up inside 20-30km instead, at which point either an AMRAAM is homing in on your already, or he's out of your scan gimbals thanks to the ESM cues.

 

An AESA will do quite a bit better in terms of scan volume etc.

[Vekkinho]

Imagine RCS of a seagull...

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Take a look at this remarkable comment on the end of F-22 production. Obviously, Rachel Maddow is not a military aviation expert, however, her comment on the F-22 program is, in my view, very good.

 

Just for a record, I am not against the F-22. I am against building too many of them. Two or three squads would be more then enough to maintain the technology edge and production capability.

 

Anyway, take a look at this remarkable Rachel's comment:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHrXTJz3Ph4

Edited October 29, 2009 by =4c= Hajduk Veljko

[GGTharos]

It's funny that you said you are not against the F-22, yet you call this an amazing report.

 

Which is mostly wrong ;)

 

Last, building more? -> Cheaper per plane.

[Kuky]

GG, if the RCS of the Raptor is that small so you can detect it at 20-30km typical isn't that RCS when it's in clean configuration meaning it's weapon bays are not open? I think in order for it to shoot that AMRAAM it needs to open the weapon bay first which will increase its RCS and make it detectable at longer ranges, or not?

[GGTharos]

The bay doors open and close inside something like two seconds - in most cases you'd have to be lucky for the sweep to be right on top of the raptor at that moment, -and- there's no real guarantee that opening the bays increases the RCS enough to pick the raptor up.

 

Further, a Raptor picked up in this manner -might- be rejected as a spurious target by both the computer and the pilot.

 

Keep in mind that vs F-15A/C's with AESAs, the Raptor still completely owns while outnumbered - that is how potent stealth is, and why everyone's trying to use it.

 

GG, if the RCS of the Raptor is that small so you can detect it at 20-30km typical isn't that RCS when it's in clean configuration meaning it's weapon bays are not open? I think in order for it to shoot that AMRAAM it needs to open the weapon bay first which will increase its RCS and make it detectable at longer ranges, or not?

[EtherealN]

Hajduk, I would agree that building too many of them is a bad idea. Question though is how many are "too many". :P

 

The big deal with the 22 is that it is a massive air dominance proposition. But it will only be able to dominate an airspace if there's enough of them to actually be present. For this you'd need enough of them to have some in the air, a few on the ground on standby and/or maintenance, and probably a few at home. Then, if a possible enemy (like russia) starts building similar hardware you need to have enough of them to still guarantee dominance.

 

How many are required to do this now and 10 years in the future? I have no clue. Pentagon probably has a pretty good idea, but it's not like they're going to tell me. :P

 

Of course, requirements vary with policy. If the US were to go isolationist again it wouldn't need many of them at all, just enough for territorial defence. But even then they'd have the same issue as Russia - a LOT of territory to cover.

 

In my own personal, limited, understanding the key to spreading the development cost and maintaining the technological capability would be to sell them (probably watered-down) to trusted allies. F.ex I believe both Korea, Japan and Australia have at some point voiced interest in such a product.

 

But the US has poor experience in selling their top technology to other nations. See what happened when they sold the brand-new F-14 to a loyal ally like the Shah of Iran... ;)

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Hajduk, I would agree that building too many of them is a bad idea. Question though is how many are "too many". :P

"How many", depends on our objectives. If our objective is to conquer the world militarily, then 187 is not enough. However, "how many" also depend on affordability. We are more then $10 trillions in public debt,

. Officially, unemployment is around 10%, true unemployment is about 20% ... Just a reminder, Soviet Union collapsed due to spending and inefficient economy. Thus, we need to build only as many F-22's as we can afford.

 

We don't have to be isolationists when it comes to worlds problems. There is UN, and we could work together with the rest of the world on world problems. But we don't do that, for well known reasons. Many of our politicians are not able to understand modern, post cold war world.

 

Building weapons that we don't need can only reduce our ability to defend us from potential enemies.

[EtherealN]

"There is UN", well, yeah. But they'll only act in small issues. It serves to be remembered that the UN is not a democratically elected body and dictatorships have equal say. Buuut... that can easily derail into a political discussion, which we shall not have. Basically though, the point is that if there is a conflict between either the US and Russia or the US and the PRC you cannot rely on the UN, because both those nations have veto power. So the US would still need to secure a capability to deal with them on it's own, should they decide that they need to intervene in something.

 

But the whole point with building weapons we don't need now actually has a point. An example from swedish history: in 1936 a new defence decision passed parliament since we realized that whoa... Germany is now ruled by nationalsocialists... The decision in there was basically to build up an army to allow us to defend ourselves.

 

Well, it wasn't until 1945 that the provisions set in the 1936 decision was actually filled, and as most people know the show was already over by then, and it was only through a mix of acquiescing to german demands for logistics utilization, threats of blowing our mines and a lot of discount selling of ore and ball bearings that sweden managed to stay out. Militarily it would have been a walkover, literally. (Also, one of the german motivations for invading Norway was to secure Narvik so that swedish ore could not be sold to the Allies.)

 

A crisis can develop a lot faster than you can produce the means for handling the crisis, wherefore you have to ensure that you have the means beforehand.

 

Now, whether that actually translates into a need for X amount of F-22's I don't know, but it should be noted that as long as the F-22 production and the resources for it stays in the US it's not like the country is "losing" all that much on them. 1 billion spent that stays in the economy can even have benefits even if it is the economic equivalent of a welfare check.

 

Also, a case can be made for the ability of one F-22 to replace several F-15's in service, meaning that you might actually save money depending on their maintenance costs.

Edited October 29, 2009 by EtherealN

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

It is a fact that I said that I am not against F-22. It might be funny to you ...

It's funny that you said you are not against the F-22, ...

 

I used the term "remarkable". Where did you come up with the word "amazing"? There is a difference in meaning between these two words.

... yet you call this an amazing report.

 

I noted that Rachel is not a military aviation expert. She was mostly right, however.

Which is mostly wrong ;)

 

Building more, overall cost, higher. Individual cost lower; but still, overall cost is higher.

Last, building more? -> Cheaper per plane.

 

Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP!

[GGTharos]

It is a fact that I said that I am not against F-22. It might be funny to you ...

 

It is funny.

 

I used the term "remarkable". Where did you come up with the word "amazing"? There is a difference in meaning between these two words.

 

They are synonymous in this context.

 

I noted that Rachel is not a military aviation expert. She was mostly right, however.

 

... except she was mostly wrong. She was right about the F-22 being economically infeasible, and that was it.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

First meaning:

Remarkable - worthy of notice, worth noticing or commenting on

Amazing - causing amazement: so extraordinary or wonderful as to be barely believable or cause extreme surprise

 

They are not synonyms in this context because pretty much everybody on this thread has known for long time that the F-22 program was canceled. Thus, the news bit was not amazing at all. But it was remarkable, worth noticing or commenting on.

 

Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP!

 

They are synonymous in this context.

[sinelnic]

I would like to add a couple of points to the F-22 debate that have nothing to do with its combat capabilities:

 

1- From an economic standpoint, the cost of the F-22 program is irrelevant; it doesn´t even equate the cost of the paper of the money it costed because it was surely paid for with electronic transfers. The US is in the unique position of freely disposing of unlimited US dollars because dollars are made out of thin air... and effectively the whole US economy has been subsidized by the rest of the world up until now. So the F-22 was virtually free.

 

2- What IS relevant is how the program creates value for the country, if any. There are three main ways in which the program can accomplish this:

a- It gives the US a better bargaining position in global economics, as in this is my gun, let's negotiate. This is beyond me to estimate, but I believe as the world turns multipolar, keeping the biggest guns for yourself is invaluable. So you spent 1 Trillion US$ to have the upper hand in global energy business negotiations... it's money perfectly well invested IMHO.

b- Derivative projects that CAN be profitable, such as the JSF or other revenue-generating derivative projects. Assuming that that project is profitable, and that it leverages all or some research and logistics developments from the Raptor program, then you have to effectively add all generated revenues and substract to all combined costs. If "a" was positive, then at least directly recovering the costs for the combined programs is a dream deal. It's literally a bargain.

c- Generating innovations that can be leveraged by the rest of the economy. It is my humble opinion that the main reason why the west turned the tide in the cold war was not because of the relative effectiveness of the economies but because the value created by the innovations generated from the military spending could be capitalized by the west economy while the soviet economy had no way of leveraging that value.

So take for instance the internet, which is derived from military research. This innovation is leveraged in the business world because it gives a competitive advantage, such as faster information and business flow. The world doesn't take long to adopt it, but by that time, you have all the key technologies already developed in the US so you buy from them i.e. CISCO, IBM, Microsoft and the such.

Now I have no idea what innovations from the Raptor and friends can be leveraged in the business world, but I would think there should be many. Of course not as game-changing as the Internet, but valuable novertheless.

So after in "b" you recovered costs, the true profiteering from the project for the country comes in "c". A dreamy dream, almost pornographic deal.

 

So the true question is, what could the US have better invested those 1 trillion US$ in, considering all a, b and c? I have so far been unable to find such discussion in the media, maybe you can point me in the right direction.