UESA Thread

[Vault]

your guessing yourslef, sorry. Where I see cruise missiles you see stealth aircraft. the 2 are completely different.

 

You didn't read the link did you. Read the link it states aircraft as well.

[GGTharos]

Physics are not classified. With respect stop believing in self-concocted fairy-tales :)

Currently one modern (ESA no less) radar out in the market, quite powerful in its own right, rates at 300km detection against a 1.5m^2 target.

This is a fact.

The F-22 can reduce the range of detection to less than 1/8th of that, and that too is a fact.

 

Your unfounded belief in mythical UESA capabilities is just that: Unfounded. You're trying to come up with some sort of 'you don't know' defect - yeah, you're right. I don't know the EXACT range it can detect anything at, but I can put an upper bound on it, and 900km already aproaches magic. ;)

 

You really are having a hard time accepting you don't know do you lol;). The information you require is classified like it or not. GG with respect keep your "conservative guesses" to yourself. I ask for facts not guesses.

[Vault]

Physics are not classified. With respect stop believing in self-concocted fairy-tales :)

Currently one modern (ESA no less) radar out in the market, quite powerful in its own right, rates at 300km detection against a 1.5m^2 target.

This is a fact.

The F-22 can reduce the range of detection to less than 1/8th of that, and that too is a fact.

 

Your unfounded belief in mythical UESA capabilities is just that: Unfounded. You're trying to come up with some sort of 'you don't know' defect - yeah, you're right. I don't know the EXACT range it can detect anything at, but I can put an upper bound on it, and 900km already aproaches magic. ;)

 

Self-concoted fairy tales? Mythical? you should take that up with UESA's lead engineer Paul Farrell, I'm not qualified to comment on UESA's performance figures because those figures are classified. I've only reiterated what it said by the engineers, you seem to think you know better than them, so who tells fairy stories is open to interpretation. GG Tharos self confessed radar supremo or Paul Farrell lead engineer for Raytheon's UESA multi million dollar LRIP, now whose your money on? At least you admit you don't know.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Vault

[GGTharos]

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/ms2/pdf/APY9-1209.pdf

 

No mention of VLO anything.

 

But I understand that, as someone who doesn't do the least bit of homework, you have to resort to straw men.

[Vault]

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/ms2/pdf/APY9-1209.pdf

 

No mention of VLO anything.

 

But I understand that, as someone who doesn't do the least bit of homework, you have to resort to straw men.

 

RTFL :lol:

 

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/categories/military/972.html

[GGTharos]

So, I RTFL and find no mention of any magical stealth-defeating technlogy, but lo and behold:

 

“The concept of CEC is to allow better tracking — not only detection but tracking — of low-observable, highly maneuverable objects, such as cruise missiles,”

 

...

[Vault]

Low observable highly maneuverable objects. Objects can be anything.

 

Here's what objects means. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/object

 

Object can also be used when someone objects to being told they don't know what they're talking about. ;)

[tflash]

Even if these fantasies proved true: the F-22's concept of stealth is not about flying straight into a radar waiting until it finally can track you. It involves active tactics depending highly on using the AN/ALR-94 to adopt stealth approach profiles.

 

If an UHF radar like AN/APY-9 would by chance detect (or even more surprsing: track) F-22 chances are AN/ALR-94 lits up in no time and it suffices for the F-22 to do some simple beaming manoevres to disappear again from view.

 

The whole idea is that while the others have difficulty to get radar echo and signature from F-22, the F-22 itself has highly sensitive passive sensors allowing it to fly "around" possible detection.

 

Against a radar with 360° sweep at 4 to 6 RPM (!!!!) on a slow-moving turboprop plane this should not really be a big deal.

[GGTharos]

Yes, objects can be anything. And I did mention low-RCS aircraft before, such as Su-35, Typhoon, Rafale ... but there's still no mention whatsoever against any sort of capability against VLO fighters.

 

The system is intended to give the fleet the ability to see and engage incoming threats, and by their example - a swarm of missiles - over the horizon. The fleet's horizon. Perhaps you consider the ability to track mach-3 sea-skimmers reliably at 100nm a worthless goal.

 

Low observable highly maneuverable objects. Objects can be anything.

 

Here's what objects means. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/object

 

Object can also be used when someone objects to being told they don't know what they're talking about. ;)

Edited March 17, 2010 by GGTharos

[Pilotasso]

It might detect the PAK-FA... *runs away* :D

[GGTharos]

The example defines an RCS class.

 

Low observable highly maneuverable objects. Objects is a noun it defines an object of matter not just cruise missiles. ;)

[Vault]

The example defines an RCS class.

 

No it defines matter. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/object

[GGTharos]

The example, being cruise missiles, defines an RCS class.

[Vault]

The example, being cruise missiles, defines an RCS class.

 

GG your argument has came down to Grammar. Enough said. Goodbye.

[GGTharos]

My argument factually uses the information presented within the article, whereas yours attempts to make something of nothing; that's all there is to that.

 

Further, it appears that previous incarnations of the E2 radar have been UHF, yet they didn't sport any magical stealth-busting capability.

 

The addition of ESA and computing power allows them to reliably track the particular target set they are interested in at somewhat longer range, but the big deal is track reliability and cooperative engagement in order to engage such targets by both fighters and especially air defense cruisers earlier and with greater probability of success.

 

I can elaborate further if the above is not enough.

[tflash]

Indeed, it is not grammar. Cruise missile threats against a carrier battle group with sufficient range, payload and guidance are LO at best, not at all VLO.

 

Helping out the E-2D crew is also the fact that they are heading towards their target until impact (often using active radar in the end game like Harpoon). Not really stealthy manners.

 

Newest-generation cruise missiles like Storm Shadow, Taurus or JASSM either lack range or the right guidance system against blue water targets.

 

Classics like Tomahawk, Exocet, Harpoon or the whole Kh-31/41 etc. are NOT at all stealthy. They are just hard to detect while flying low, fast and having small frontal signature.

 

So it is not the same RCS class.

[Pilotasso]

Yup, the entire article is about missile defense. Whoever wrote it probably didnt even thought up of fighter craft deliberatly penetrating its perimeter going kamikaze to the carrier. :)