F-22 debate open

[GGTharos]

That's only if you really want to stick to the price of say an F-22 as it is now.

 

Suppose I was running that certain country and said 'We're at war, we're invoking emergency powers and eminent domain. Build us F-22's at the rate of 20 a year per plant in 5-10 plants, at 50mil a piece'.

When the CEO says 'no', you have him publicly executed for treason (really, who gives a #)(*$(#$* about shareholder now?) and get the ball rolling with a new CEO.

 

It's an extreme example, but you get the idea.

 

I would'nt be so sure the US could follow economically; Say in a US vs. China(+allies) scenario. It would'nt likely be a war where US soil is threatened I thinks and so public support for such a war might not be that high (probably), raising enough funds to keep up a war over seas with an economically strong opponent would be hard these days or in the near future for the US I believe.

[-Bazong-]

That's only if you really want to stick to the price of say an F-22 as it is now.

 

Suppose I was running that certain country and said 'We're at war, we're invoking emergency powers and eminent domain. Build us F-22's at the rate of 20 a year per plant in 5-10 plants, at 50mil a piece'.

When the CEO says 'no', you have him publicly executed for treason (really, who gives a #)(*$(#$* about shareholder now?) and get the ball rolling with a new CEO.

 

It's an extreme example, but you get the idea.

 

But that'd be bad business, and for the US war is business, yes? Oh but seriously, can such measures be taken in the US you thinks if it's not WW3 or the US is under direct attack??

 

Edit: Don't want to get political here, sorry if I am touching politics. I love all people in the world!! :)

[GGTharos]

No, I mean for WW3 :D

[-Bazong-]

No, I mean for WW3 :D

 

Oh that would be another matter then :P .

It's said that US public opinion for WW2 never dropped below 70%, but for Vietnam it dropped to and stayed at 30%.. Don't know about the more recent wars...

[GGTharos]

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.

 

... and the PAK-FA won't be? :D

 

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?

 

I didn't say anything about weapons - I said tactics. This isn't a stealth vs non-stealth fighter issue, this is a stealth v stealth fighter issue. I'm sure you can see it makes a difference. One possibility is that they'll just never meet, too.

 

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.

 

Actually no, it isn't a jack of all trades. It's primarily a strike aircraft with the ability to self-escort, do some A2A in addition to self-exort, and CAS. It isn't an air superiority fighter though.

 

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 really don't see how Russia can procure more PAK-FA's (Assuming some sort of parity to the F-22) given its own economy. They claim to have put x amount of money into research for the PAK-FA so far, which equates to about 7-8 F-22's.

I'm still fairly certain that they will get what they're paying for, and unless the F-22's cost is so over-inflated by the manufacturer that they literally should be shot, then I don't see the PAK-FA as being an equal. Copying the shape alone is nice, but not enough. It's a starting point, and they've so far skipped all the experience with stealth that the US has had.

 

Numbers will diminish technology only if you have ridiculous numbers, or if you have some form of parity - in the latter I can see the PAK-FA holding its own. I can't see it being produced 'in numbers'. Russia isn't playing an efficient game of waiting for PAK-FA because it wants to, but because economically speaking, it has to - IMHO anyway.

[RedTiger]

Oh that would be another matter then :P .

It's said that US public opinion for WW2 never dropped below 70%, but for Vietnam it dropped to and stayed at 30%.. Don't know about the more recent wars...

 

GG's example is very, very extreme. In that type of scenario I think the CEO (and the public) would understand that he'd be choosing between. A. At the very least being out of a job B. Being out of a job since the country he's standing in no longer exists or is very severly weakened economically. Public opinion is kinda meaningless in such extreme scenarios.

Edited September 9, 2009 by RedTiger

[tflash]

I must admit it is difficult to see any sound logic in Sprey's proposals, for all the good reasons given in this thread. His ideas simply don't add up.

 

But suppose we try to think of a scenario where there would be sound arguments for cheap, leightweight & large quantity, as clearly opposed to F-22, which is expensive, heavyweight and low quantity. It should also be a clear alternative to F-35, which seems to hold a middle position between F-22 and Spreys fantasy.

 

(In my view F-35 is the *reasonable* answer to Spreys concerns).

 

First, I do not think heavier is better. Rather, I would say, it NEVER is better. For one simple reason: of two equivalent aircraft the most leightweight is clearly preferable. To put it simply: when they succeed in reducing F-35B weight by 1000lbs, it just becomes a better aircraft. Period.

 

And yes, there are compelling arguments that air superiority today is best matched by being in the air all the time, rather than the ability to GET into the air quickly and getting fast somewhere.

 

Predator, Reaper, Rivet Joint, MW-12, Global Hawk, E-3C, Joint Stars, Wedgetail... all these aircaft that are constantly IN THE AIR, not in the hangar, are providing the real air dominance of blue forces. Even if the enemy would be gathering super fighters, it won't be able to launch them since we will KNOW that they launch. In this "thick" blue air it is very difficult to deploy red air forces, something the very skilled Serbian forces very soon realised. No need for super fighters for that. They are only a fraction of what you need.

 

The truth about F-22 is that it will lock too many people working in hangars for too many hours for marginal effective presence. The insignificantly less performant F-35 will just be much more available, much more flying with the help of way less other people. If you want to wage war with 30 people working on some unstable paint job for 1 flying pilot, be my guest. F-35C is designed to have rugged RAM coating that doesn't require so many people to be working on silly, non-military tasks.

 

So I would agree with Sprey that many, many combat air vehicles will be very light, very cheap to build, very fuel-effective, loitering for many hours in the skies, but they just won't be lightweight fighters. Most of them won't even have a pilot.

 

You only need fighters when you made the mistake to allow your enemy to launch fighters in the first place. In my view of the world, that isn't supposed to happen. Because we will be monitoring the "enemy" every hour of every day, from a sky filled with "blue" vehicles. That's back to the start and essence of military aviation: air observation flights (welcome to Rise of Flight ;-)

Edited September 9, 2009 by tflash

[topol-m]

You only need fighters when you made the mistake to allow your enemy to launch fighters in the first place. In my view of the world, that isn't supposed to happen. Because we will be monitoring the "enemy" every hour of every day, from a sky filled with "blue" vehicles. That's back to the start and essence of military aviation: air observation flights (welcome to Rise of Flight ;-)

 

You monitoring the "enemy" doesn`t mean he is not monitoring you ;)

Edited September 9, 2009 by topol-m

[Itkovian]

Regardless of the argument the authors are making, their very description of the WW2 situation shows a very skewed (dare I say "biased") view of history, which makes their later historical accounts potentially just as dubious.

 

Though my own knowledge is mostly confined to WW2 aviation, if they get things so wrong for WW2 and spin its history in their favour so much, then it is not unwise to assume they do the same for later periods.

 

In short, their premise is wrong and downright suspicious, which invalidates their conclusions in my opinion.

 

That's not to say they are necessarily wrong (though I agree with previous posters on that), but they twist the facts to fit their vision, which invalidates any credibility they might have had.

 

Itkovian

[Rhen]

But suppose we try to think of a scenario where there would be sound arguments for cheap, leightweight & large quantity, as clearly opposed to F-22, which is expensive, heavyweight and low quantity. It should also be a clear alternative to F-35, which seems to hold a middle position between F-22 and Spreys fantasy.

 

Ok, let's look at that. But first, a question. What do you think the differing philosophies regarding air power were during the cold war? You're a European, right? Tell me how much your country invested in fighting the cold war? Not much, I'd say. No offense meant. The bulk of the expense was borne by the US while Germany, Netherlands, Italy, GB, et. al. supplied money and basing for the US to have a military presense to deter the Warsaw Pact.

 

Now who went for the large numbers of cheap fighters? Who went with the small numbers of highly capable and technologically advanced fighters? What was the reasoning behind this?

 

It's simple. NATO had the ability to keep and continue a professional force of technicians to service the highly technical aircraft. The all-volunteer force fielded by some countries allowed western military organizations the ability to select intelligent recruits that were motivated to be in the military and make it a life-long career. A small number of highly trained and well equipped air forces are relatively cheap, and require fewer people in the armed services than the Warsaw Pact.

 

The opposite side had a harder time motivating their military to keep and maintain their equipment in fighting order. While they had a large number of members in their armed services, they also had a high turn-over rate (as soon as they're trained, their time in service is met and they can leave the military). Imagine a conscript who's not motivated, taking care of an advanced fighter or bomber aircraft. Heck, engine repair couldn't be done at certain bases, and the number of spares had to be high. The industrial complex wasn't as advanced. Aircraft had to be simple and easy to maintain. They also had to be easy to fly for those pilots with minimal currency in their aircraft's mission. More people, less training, more reliance on command and control, and spares. Lots of money.

 

If you go the way of cheap and plentiful, you've got to have people to go with it. Should we (in the US) reinstate the draft, or make military service mandatory? The arguments for these proposals have been made and rejected. The armed forces are better off having people motivated to be in the military and to stay in as company grade officers - those who are the backbone of any air force.

 

(In my view F-35 is the *reasonable* answer to Spreys concerns).

 

First, I do not think heavier is better. Rather, I would say, it NEVER is better. For one simple reason: of two equivalent aircraft the most leightweight is clearly preferable. To put it simply: when they succeed in reducing F-35B weight by 1000lbs, it just becomes a better aircraft. Period.

 

And yes, there are compelling arguments that air superiority today is best matched by being in the air all the time, rather than the ability to GET into the air quickly and getting fast somewhere.

 

Predator, Reaper, Rivet Joint, MW-12, Global Hawk, E-3C, Joint Stars, Wedgetail... all these aircaft that are constantly IN THE AIR, not in the hangar, are providing the real air dominance of blue forces. Even if the enemy would be gathering super fighters, it won't be able to launch them since we will KNOW that they launch. In this "thick" blue air it is very difficult to deploy red air forces, something the very skilled Serbian forces very soon realised. No need for super fighters for that. They are only a fraction of what you need.

 

While I agree with you about weight of figher aircraft, I still think you've got to remember that Sprey is talking about aircraft with less weight than an F-16. How do you think it's going to stay in the air for protracted periods of time? Levitation? No matter how much we hate it, we still burn dead dinosaurs. They're heavy. They take up space, but not having them is worse than having them. No matter where you go, you've got to take gas with you because turbine engines burn fuel, not wishful thinking.

 

Your notion that there's a constant elint aircraft presence is just plain nonsense. You can't stay in the air indefinitely with JSTARS, RIVET JOINT, GLOBAL HAWK, etc. Sooner or later they've got to come down. Oh yeah, did I mention that they can't maintain a presense where there's an active IADS or air superiority hasn't been attained? The only high ground we can maintain against an enemy air force that hasn't been subdued is by satellite reconnaissance.

 

The truth about F-22 is that it will lock too many people working in hangars for too many hours for marginal effective presence. The insignificantly less performant F-35 will just be much more available, much more flying with the help of way less other people. If you want to wage war with 30 people working on some unstable paint job for 1 flying pilot, be my guest. F-35C is designed to have rugged RAM coating that doesn't require so many people to be working on silly, non-military tasks.

 

Amazing logic.... What do you think will happen with massive numbers of cheap aircraft? Do you think they'll maintain themselves? Even if those aircraft you're so enamored with require half the maintenance, if you have 4 times the number of these aircraft over Raptors, how many people do you think will be required to maintain those mass-produced cheap aircraft? And since when is maintaining a fighter a "silly, non-military task"?

 

So I would agree with Sprey that many, many combat air vehicles will be very light, very cheap to build, very fuel-effective, loitering for many hours in the skies, but they just won't be lightweight fighters. Most of them won't even have a pilot.

 

What? :doh: UAVs HAVE pilots! Very light does not equal "loitering many hours in the skies." They must be produced in quantity so they can take the place of the one running out of gas. They fly in shifts. They must be capable of inflight aerial refueling. How many tankers do you think this will take? How many pilots does it take to fly a tanker? Two, last time I checked. Tankers also require an enlisted boom operator, as well as maintainers and crew chiefs. Did you factor this into your equation?

 

You only need fighters when you made the mistake to allow your enemy to launch fighters in the first place. In my view of the world, that isn't supposed to happen. Because we will be monitoring the "enemy" every hour of every day, from a sky filled with "blue" vehicles. That's back to the start and essence of military aviation: air observation flights (welcome to Rise of Flight ;-)

 

Huh? :doh: Are you kidding? How are you going to prevent a country from utilizing it's air force? Are you talking about a preemptive military strike with cruise missiles and tactical ballistic missiles? I don't think so. What prevents Iran from getting frisky and using its air force against the Israelis or vice versa? It's the fact that they can defend itself. There's no way that either country will NOT launch aircraft for it's defense.

 

We monitor potential threats all the time. It still doesn't preclude the need for fighter aircraft to project power and take the high ground so the boots on the ground can secure strategic and tactical objectives in support of operational plans and contingencies.

[vrv]

Give me a Su-29 and I can shoot down the Craptor :P A friend of mine was an F-15C pilot and is transitioning to the F-22. He flew his first flight the other day with the 22 and said it was a dream. "Miles" ahead of the F-15C in some respects and he seems to be crazy about it. If you look at it's history and frankly the F-16, F-18 and Su-27 they have all had rough starts. Cancellations,ect.

 

The Raptor is going through the same thing and it's been played around with since God knows when. But you have to remember do the F-22's, 35's, 27's, 37's, PAK-FA's have the record of the Eagle? Or the proven operational ability of the F-16 / 18? To me it seems that were hitting the proverbial wall. While we do need to upgrade and find the next gen aircraft at the same time its going to take a long time to get everything set. It won't be easy considering the forebearers (Eagles,ect).

 

But from what I have seen and heard the F-22 will be a dominate force. It can out-fly most if not everything out there today beyond UFO's. But it costs a hefty load especially in our financial crisis. What about the JSF? The Navy / Moorines will need (especially the latter) new toys.

Edited September 10, 2009 by vrv

[Vault]

I didn't say anything about weapons - I said tactics. This isn't a stealth vs. non-stealth fighter issue, this is a stealth v stealth fighter issue. I'm sure you can see it makes a difference. One possibility is that they'll just never meet, too.

You see, HAVING a stealth fighter lets you get to the anti-stealth fighter tactics and weapons development FIRST.

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!. :)

Actually no, it isn't a jack of all trades. It's primarily a strike aircraft with the ability to self-escort, do some A2A in addition to self-exort, and CAS. It isn't an air superiority fighter though.

 

OK, I respect your opinion, I like the JSF but to me it's the ultimate "jack of all trades and master of none".

 

I really don't see how Russia can procure more PAK-FA's (Assuming some sort of parity to the F-22) given its own economy. They claim to have put x amount of money into research for the PAK-FA so far, which equates to about 7-8 F-22's.

I'm still fairly certain that they will get what they're paying for, and unless the F-22's cost is so over-inflated by the manufacturer that they literally should be shot, then I don't see the PAK-FA as being an equal. Copying the shape alone is nice, but not enough. It's a starting point, and they've so far skipped all the experience with stealth that the US has had.

Numbers will diminish technology only if you have ridiculous numbers, or if you have some form of parity - in the latter I can see the PAK-FA holding its own. I can't see it being produced 'in numbers'. Russia isn't playing an efficient game of waiting for PAK-FA because it wants to, but because economically speaking, it has to - IMHO anyway

 

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 ;)

[RedTiger]

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.

 

If it wants to get the first shot and maintain equal SA, it sure as heck does. This is an extreme example, but pretend the PAK-FA is an F-22 but with the radar and avionics of a MiG-29. Are you really sure that the F-22 isn't going to eat it alive? There's a lot more to the Raptor than just stealth.

[tflash]

What was the reasoning behind this?

 

It's simple. NATO had the ability to keep and continue a professional force of technicians to service the highly technical aircraft. The all-volunteer force fielded by some countries allowed western military organizations the ability to select intelligent recruits that were motivated to be in the military and make it a life-long career. A small number of highly trained and well equipped air forces are relatively cheap, and require fewer people in the armed services than the Warsaw Pact.

 

The opposite side had a harder time motivating their military to keep and maintain their equipment in fighting order. While they had a large number of members in their armed services, they also had a high turn-over rate (as soon as they're trained, their time in service is met and they can leave the military). Imagine a conscript who's not motivated, taking care of an advanced fighter or bomber aircraft. Heck, engine repair couldn't be done at certain bases, and the number of spares had to be high. The industrial complex wasn't as advanced. Aircraft had to be simple and easy to maintain. They also had to be easy to fly for those pilots with minimal currency in their aircraft's mission. More people, less training, more reliance on command and control, and spares. Lots of money.

 

 

I think that is a very valid argument

 

 

Your notion that there's a constant elint aircraft presence is just plain nonsense. You can't stay in the air indefinitely with JSTARS, RIVET JOINT, GLOBAL HAWK, etc. Sooner or later they've got to come down. Oh yeah, did I mention that they can't maintain a presense where there's an active IADS or air superiority hasn't been attained? The only high ground we can maintain against an enemy air force that hasn't been subdued is by satellite reconnaissance.

 

...

What? UAVs HAVE pilots! Very light does not equal "loitering many hours in the skies." They must be produced in quantity so they can take the place of the one running out of gas. They fly in shifts. They must be capable of inflight aerial refueling. How many tankers do you think this will take? How many pilots does it take to fly a tanker? Two, last time I checked. Tankers also require an enlisted boom operator, as well as maintainers and crew chiefs. Did you factor this into your equation?

 

 

That is true, but what I mean is that the surroundings of the classic fighter aircraft have changed dramatically. The way we wage war, there are always an enormous amount of assets in the air (that indeed rotate of course and require a lot of refuelling). The less they consume, the better.

 

When a CAS aircraft today arrives finally at the scene, a lot of other assets (like UAV's) already have their eyes on the possible targets and they already have separated friend from foe.

 

But the same holds for attacking defended enemy territory. Before going in, sattellite and other ISR means will have made a complete battlespace picture before an F-22 type aircraft ventures in. That changes the way these fighters operate dramatically.

 

Call these surrounding assets the "airborne party".

We need this airborne party to be:

• very, very fuel-efficient
  
• light, like eg a predator or a diamond BA-42 ISR aircraft
  
• completely networked
  
• easy to fly and operate, even in civilian controlled airspace (a problem for current UAV's)
  
• at best flyable from the ground so that even computer geeks with spine problems can be trained to fly them instead of the sportsman elite you need to fly a 9G aircraft (not being personal here, Rhen ;-)
  

So I see many reasons to continue the path of fewer F-22 + more F-35 + many, many, many more UAV's etc. leightweight airborne vehicles

 

I still do not really see Spreys fantasy plane being useful ...

 

Of course, when we would indeed have 1 mission 1 plane instead of jack of all trades, there might be something to say for a pure air defense fighter, somewhat lighter than a current F-16 (which has some overweight due to its Strike/Sead role adaption since the C model), just for the Air National Guard Mission. A kind of Northrop F-5 with composite airframe and lightweight Aesa radar, frontal optronics and Aim-9Y or something (I guess we all agree Spreys theory about passive sensors etc. is just crap).

 

But this would be in *addition* to F-22/F-35/Reaper. And it will only be feasible as a sixth-generation, when the whole idea of embedding antennas and sensors structurally in a composite airframe will be really mastered, something in which the F-35 is already way closer to than F-22.

[Vault]

If it wants to get the first shot and maintain equal SA, it sure as heck does. This is an extreme example, but pretend the PAK-FA is an F-22 but with the radar and avionics of a MiG-29. Are you really sure that the F-22 isn't going to eat it alive? There's a lot more to the Raptor than just stealth.

 

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?.

[topol-m]

^^^ Strange. I don`t think modern top-notch AESA radars should have problems detecting stealth fighter like F-22/F-35/PAK-FA (when it`s ready i know ;)). It will be possible at much close distance but still possible. We don`t know the stats of PAK-FA`s radar nor do we know its RCS but Su-35`s radar IRBIS-E (X-band multi-mode phased array radar) is supposedly capable of detecting targets with RCS 0.01 square meters at ranges up to 90 km. I guess PAK-FA`s radar will be better and even BVR detection of F-22/F-35 targets should not be excluded. And yes IRST is always good to have, will the PAK-FA have one? Soon we shall see. ;)

[GGTharos]

Actually IRBIS-E is very, very powerful - it can be because it is a PESA radar. AESA radars on the other hand are typically limited to transmitting about half the power. This is very significant for detection ranges - half the power will get you about 3/4 of the range.

 

But yes, in short, it changes the fight from 'non stealth fighter is hosed because the stealth fighter will be at an advantage even if detected' to 'stealth fighters will bvr at much shorter distances and likely miss a lot'.

 

Also keep in mind that even moderate barrage/noise jamming will significantly decrease detection against a low RCS target.

 

The trick is, who's going to find the other guy first? ;)

[topol-m]

This is very significant for detection ranges - half the power will get you about 3/4 of the range.

 

 

I think 1/2 of the IRBIS-E range will be possible to achieve. Judging from the FGA35`s stats...

 

 

The trick is, who's going to find the other guy first? ;)

 

For F-22 vs PAK-FA who knows :music_whistling:

For F-35 vs PAK-FA my bets are on the latter.

 

stealth fighters will bvr at much shorter distances and likely miss a lot'.

 

 

You mean they will have smaller missile hit probability? Then that`s another plus for the fighter that`s carrying more. F-35 doesn`t qualify for the competition :)

Edited September 10, 2009 by topol-m

[Wilde]

Also keep in mind that even moderate barrage/noise jamming will significantly decrease detection against a low RCS target.

 

But isn't this contradicting the VLO approach? I mean even a R-27ER can home on jam, although admittedly it would have a poor chance to hit. And activating any kind of jammer will light you up on every radar screen within 400km, wont it? Hence the F-22 doesn't even have a jammer and is only planned to be capable of using it's radar antenna to do limited jamming.

 

Another point would be the IRBIS-E. If it is indeed able to track a 0.01m^2 RCS doesn't that also mean it should have a much higher burn-through range than "weaker" radars? I mean that's basically the same topic, being able to isolate your own radar echo from the noise. What do you think, is this burn-through range increase proportional to the normal detection range?

[GGTharos]

I have to say here 'it depends' but yes, I wouldn't hedge my bets with F-35 either, at least not based on internal carriage.

 

You mean they will have smaller missile hit probability? Then that`s another plus for the fighter that`s carrying more. F-35 doesn`t qualify for the competition :)

[GGTharos]

But isn't this contradicting the VLO approach?

 

Not exactly. I used to think the VLO aproach is all about 'can't see me' ... and yes, that's how it is, at least for now - but the reality is that the more important part of the VLO aproach is 'You can't hit me worth a damn, and if you can see me I'm probably in an advantageous position already'.

 

You can have a Raptor jam the target aircraft while another goes around in a wide pincer ... for all the other guy's radar knows, he might be looking at an F-15. A good jammer will do that.

 

I mean even a R-27ER can home on jam, although admittedly it would have a poor chance to hit.

 

It's also very peculiar about what 'home on jam' is to that missile. It isn't particularly sophisticated, and 'Home on Jam' means pretty much nothing vs. a deception jammer. Against a noise jammer - that's great, but he's probably jamming you well outside missile range and his buddies are aleady launching on you 'cause you can't see'em.

 

And activating any kind of jammer will light you up on every radar screen within 400km, wont it? Hence the F-22 doesn't even have a jammer and is only planned to be capable of using it's radar antenna to do limited jamming.

 

Again, it depends - self-defense jammers kick in based on a threat to the aircraft. This isn't LO - the jammer isn't 'always on' and it doesn't always look like what you see in LO. IN some cases your radar might look like there's nothing at all out there. Or it could completely blank out (Targets everywhere) or you could see false targets in the wrong place or the wrong distance etc.

The F-22 is equipped with self protection jammers. The AESA is just part of the system.

 

Another point would be the IRBIS-E. If it is indeed able to track a 0.01m^2 RCS doesn't that also mean it should have a much higher burn-through range than "weaker" radars?

 

Sure. But burn through is something that's mostly applicable (IIRC) to angle-type jammers. Range jammers get burned through at ranges where you might get accused of violating the bubble. (It's an exaggeration, but you get the point ;) )

 

I mean that's basically the same topic, being able to isolate your own radar echo from the noise. What do you think, is this burn-through range increase proportional to the normal detection range?

 

Yes, but realize that we're talking about pretty smart jammers here. The problem is that when you start talking about the electronic battlefield, you can only talk about simple examples, where the pilots experience something far more complicated.

[tflash]

Indeed the very last thing you would want to do on a stealth aircraft is noise jamming. With the AN/ALR-94 / APG-77 combo the Raptor is able to do very smart, very targeted signals jamming procedures such as active cancellation.

 

The most difficult part will still be evading optical/IR missiles in a merge. When two stealth aircraft do BFM, the merge should only last seconds since they have no possibility to track each-other from far enough away.

 

The F-35's HMS and all-round optical vision is not only meant for A2G work but precisely for that: in the dazzling fast world of peer stealth engagements The F-35's systems are supposed to be optically tracking and steering IR missiles in such flip second scenario's where a pilot without enhanced virtual vision would already be psychologically defeated. No Tom cruise peering out the cockpit, but a sensor suite that immediately tracks a suddenly emerging thread, tracks it, cues the missile and deploys self-defenses.

 

In theory, stealth versus stealth dogfighting should be extremely frightening and beyond unaided human reaction capabilities.

[RedTiger]

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?.

 

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.

Edited September 10, 2009 by RedTiger

[topol-m]

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

[Boneski]

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!