OT: F/A-22 news

[GGTharos]

Well, the laws of physics are certainly not somehow manipulated to the advantage of stealth technology either GG. It is my opinion that completely inhibiting B & H field electromagnetic radiation is impossible, there will still be leakage. There is no technology that prohibits total external reflection either. The RCS may be reduced to the size of a bird on radar, but that doesn't mean it will be filtered to noise levels either.

 

Actually ... yes, it will. That's its purpose.

 

The F-22 itself will be radiating high frequency E-Mag energy from its' own radar to search for aircraft. EWRs will be alive even if the F-22 is also attempting to Jam in an attempt to degrade them. An F-22 supercrusing at above Mach 1 will have highly visible Infrared radiation due to local heating of the skin. An Infrared Search and Track will likely have no problem simply seeing the F-22.

 

IRSTs are notoriously short ranged in the forward quarter. I think there are some gross misconceptions as to just how much the leading edges heat up in high altitude supersonic flight and just how much atmosphere inhibits IRSTs.

 

Also, the greatest effect of attempting to inhibit E-Mag is forward aspect. If the F-22 conducts maneuvering outside that aspect, there will likely be a full bloom on the enemy radar.

 

No, the F-22 is a 'full stealth' design. All aspects - sure, some less, some more, but it's no 'frontal stealth only' design or 'stealth front' and 'stealthed otherwise' liek the F-35.

 

What about attackers approaching from all multiple quadrants? The F-22 is simply not "invisible." If it can be seen non-BVR, it will be killed. If it can be detected, primarily by ground control first then vectoring planes to turn on your radar and "look here", it will be detected.

 

It's invisible in BVR insifar as weapon systems are involved. What more do you need than making the enemy's weapons incapable of tracking you? On the other hand, YOUR systems are tracking THEM just fine. EWRs can detect it all they want. The systems the stealth is designed against, WILL NOT WORK. THose systems are fighter and missile radars working within certain frequencies (and no, they won't be changing frequencies to ones outside of those spectra any time soon)

 

It is also a fact that the French received radar returns from F-117 Stealth Fighters during the Gulf War. French Radar tracked the F-117s in a fligtht and had to confrim to US Command these aircraft were theirs.

 

Stealth aircraft in transit will use radar beacons so that they -can- be tracked, until such a time that they wish to dissapear. In addition, if you're close enough to a radar (ie enough power is radiated at you) naturally, the return will be 'large enough'. IIRC those fighters flew quite close to one ;)

 

Even further than that, Serbians using a modified SAM, locked onto an F-117 overflying the region and engaged it, destroying the aircraft. Much has been written regarding this. Perhaps the Serbians had hacked into comms, knew the routes, and conducted hotshot procedures in the hopes to down one. I don't think this is the case. I feel certain the 117 was re-radiating the SAM's E-Mag and BOOM, gotcha.

 

Yeah, too bad you're wrong. The crew knew the F117 was coming because the route had not been changed for several sorties - there were also allegations of a leak but I won't touch that one too much.

 

The SA-3 uses a long-wavelength radar (much like an EWR), which was able to pick up the F117 when it came close, but the missile was command-guided and just as likely command-detonated ... and they didn't launch just one missile, they launched a volley and hoped to monte-carlo the F117. It wa sa 'damned good shot', but it's the exception and not the rule - they basically took the shotgun aproach to shooting one aircraft down.

[GGTharos]

Yeah, it has 2 IRST systems? I was wondering when the US would catch up with the Soviets in the use of that tech. Well playing field is a bit more even now, eh?

 

I heard the Soviets borrowed the concept from the Bell Cobra and mad a practical IRST system that is usable.... can anyone cofirm this?

 

The F-14's IRST was well ahead of anythign the Soviets had.

 

The F-14D's IRST is well ahead of anything the russians have.

[BladeLWS]

Yeah, it has 2 IRST systems? I was wondering when the US would catch up with the Soviets in the use of that tech. Well playing field is a bit more even now, eh?

 

I heard the Soviets borrowed the concept from the Bell Cobra and mad a practical IRST system that is usable.... can anyone cofirm this?

 

The Tomcat has had an IRST system for years. I'm not sure about other fighters though, the Raptor may be the first US fighter since the Tomcat to have one, let alone two of them.

[Manny]

The Tomcat has had an IRST system for years. I'm not sure about other fighters though, the Raptor may be the first US fighter since the Tomcat to have one, let alone two of them.

 

Didn't know that as I haven't studied the aircraft. Is that classified info?

[BladeLWS]

No it's not, check this pic.

 

http://www.danshistory.com/images/f14_tomcat_02l.jpg

 

That pod infront of the foward landing gear door is the IRST. I believe it was put on the Tomcat for shooting down cruise missiles approaching a carrier fleet.

[Manny]

quote=GGTharos

 

Actually ... yes, it will. That's its purpose.

 

I am not convinced

 

 

IRSTs are notoriously short ranged in the forward quarter. I think there are some gross misconceptions as to just how much the leading edges heat up in high altitude supersonic flight and just how much atmosphere inhibits IRSTs.

 

Sure they are by nature of the eminating source being small. Smaller, at times, than background radiation and effective to a certain distance. If the F-22 is gonna supercruise at over Mach 1, I think there will be quite a bit of IR radiation. Just my opinion.

 

 

No, the F-22 is a 'full stealth' design. All aspects - sure, some less, some more, but it's no 'frontal stealth only' design or 'stealth front' and 'stealthed otherwise' liek the F-35.

 

Still my opinion. The variety of radar types in service today will have to prove that.

 

 

It's invisible in BVR insifar as weapon systems are involved. What more do you need than making the enemy's weapons incapable of tracking you? On the other hand, YOUR systems are tracking THEM just fine. EWRs can detect it all they want. The systems the stealth is designed against, WILL NOT WORK. THose systems are fighter and missile radars working within certain frequencies (and no, they won't be changing frequencies to ones outside of those spectra any time soon)

 

Your opinion, I respect that.

 

 

Stealth aircraft in transit will use radar beacons so that they -can- be tracked, until such a time that they wish to dissapear. In addition, if you're close enough to a radar (ie enough power is radiated at you) naturally, the return will be 'large enough'. IIRC those fighters flew quite close to one ;)

 

If I am not mistaken, these aircraft were not detected while their beacons were on. Even if proximity to the radiator resulted in detection, the notion of invisibility is false. But again, my opinion I could be wrong.

 

Yeah, too bad you're wrong. The crew knew the F117 was coming because the route had not been changed for several sorties - there were also allegations of a leak but I won't touch that one too much.

 

This is almost an exact quote from a site where this was discussed and I find no evidence to the fact when I examined the testimony of the Serbians.

 

The SA-3 uses a long-wavelength radar (much like an EWR), which was able to pick up the F117 when it came close, but the missile was command-guided and just as likely command-detonated ... and they didn't launch just one missile, they launched a volley and hoped to monte-carlo the F117. It wa sa 'damned good shot', but it's the exception and not the rule - they basically took the shotgun aproach to shooting one aircraft down.

 

The SA-3s capability is quoted correctly but to think it was a lucky shot is agreeing to what the comon opinion is that stealth is invisible and it was pure luck. I do not believe this but that is my opinion.

[Manny]

The F-14's IRST was well ahead of anythign the Soviets had.

 

The F-14D's IRST is well ahead of anything the russians have.

 

If so, then why haven't manufacturers and the Military required it be employed on all aircraft?

[GGTharos]

If so, then why haven't manufacturers and the Military required it be employed on all aircraft?

Gee, oh, I don't know. Maybe it adds no value?

 

An aircraft guided by AWACS and with an EID capable radar loaded with radar guided AAMs might not have a use for an IRST, unlike aircraft whose radar sucked?

 

The F-14 used its IRST mainly for ID at long ranges. Thos too is no longer an issue with EID capable radars.

[Manny]

Gee, oh, I don't know. Maybe it adds no value?

 

An aircraft guided by AWACS and with a capable radar loaded with radar guided AAMs and

 

That is possibly a good reason... I do know the Navy is working on a Helmet Mounted Sight and they have demonstrated at the test range they can point-n-shoot an AIM-9...this looks promising.

 

You do sound awfully biased and higly opinionated against Russian technology???? "unlike aircraft whose radar sucked?"

 

That is a stretch to home plate...

[GGTharos]

quote=GGTharos

 

Actually ... yes, it will. That's its purpose.

 

I am not convinced

 

you don't have to be convinced or it to work, that's the beauty of it ;)

 

IRSTs are notoriously short ranged in the forward quarter. I think there are some gross misconceptions as to just how much the leading edges heat up in high altitude supersonic flight and just how much atmosphere inhibits IRSTs.

 

Sure they are by nature of the eminating source being small. Smaller, at times, than background radiation and effective to a certain distance. If the F-22 is gonna supercruise at over Mach 1, I think there will be quite a bit of IR radiation. Just my opinion.

 

Then offer math, not opinion - the F22 is also IR-stealthed. You may be right, but your opinion doesn't make your right.

 

No, the F-22 is a 'full stealth' design. All aspects - sure, some less, some more, but it's no 'frontal stealth only' design or 'stealth front' and 'stealthed otherwise' liek the F-35.

 

Still my opinion. The variety of radar types in service today will have to prove that.

 

These aircraft are tested against a variety of radar already, including enemy systems.

 

It's invisible in BVR insifar as weapon systems are involved. What more do you need than making the enemy's weapons incapable of tracking you? On the other hand, YOUR systems are tracking THEM just fine. EWRs can detect it all they want. The systems the stealth is designed against, WILL NOT WORK. THose systems are fighter and missile radars working within certain frequencies (and no, they won't be changing frequencies to ones outside of those spectra any time soon)

 

Your opinion, I respect that.

 

No. Not my opinion. Conclusions draws from USAF research papers.

 

Stealth aircraft in transit will use radar beacons so that they -can- be tracked, until such a time that they wish to dissapear. In addition, if you're close enough to a radar (ie enough power is radiated at you) naturally, the return will be 'large enough'. IIRC those fighters flew quite close to one ;)

 

If I am not mistaken, these aircraft were not detected while their beacons were on. Even if proximity to the radiator resulted in detection, the notion of invisibility is false. But again, my opinion I could be wrong.

 

Well, if you're half blind, and you only see your opponent when he's right on top of you and abotu to drop the hammer on you, I'd call that 'invisible' ... as in teh stealth worked, and you're pretty much helpless.

 

Yeah, too bad you're wrong. The crew knew the F117 was coming because the route had not been changed for several sorties - there were also allegations of a leak but I won't touch that one too much.

 

This is almost an exact quote from a site where this was discussed and I find no evidence to the fact when I examined the testimony of the Serbians.

 

Which part of this?

And did you examine the RAND report? Or the recent testimony of the officer who commanded that battery? ;)

 

The SA-3 uses a long-wavelength radar (much like an EWR), which was able to pick up the F117 when it came close, but the missile was command-guided and just as likely command-detonated ... and they didn't launch just one missile, they launched a volley and hoped to monte-carlo the F117. It wa sa 'damned good shot', but it's the exception and not the rule - they basically took the shotgun aproach to shooting one aircraft down.

 

The SA-3s capability is quoted correctly but to think it was a lucky shot is agreeing to what the comon opinion is that stealth is invisible and it was pure luck. I do not believe this but that is my opinion.

 

I didn't say it was pure luck. Far FROM it. It was EXACTLY the kind of ratehr RARE circumstances that would enable you to shoot down an F117.

And which capability is quoted wrong?

[GGTharos]

That is possibly a good reason... I do know the Navy is working on a Helmet Mounted Sight and they have demonstrated at the test range they can point-n-shoot an AIM-9...this looks promising.

 

They had one before the russians did, but it wasn't comfortable and the Sidewinder didn't offer high off-boresight capability. This system was used on F-4's, and later retired. By comparison the Russians employed their HTS, which was lighter (IIRC) and more comfortable to use, with the R-73 which was revolutionary - not in terms of technology, but in terms of being the first to employ high off-boresight capability.

 

You do sound awfully biased and higly opinionated against Russian technology???? "unlike aircraft whose radar sucked?"

 

That is a stretch to home plate...

 

No, it's actually true ... check the MiG and Su manuals. Lots of issues with their radar sets.

[Maximus]

F-22 is most sopiscated jet ever built, I have a friend who work for Lockheed Martin in Atlanta, GA. he develops the software for the F-22 cockpit, he must be pretty smart, that all he can say, most of features in F-22 is classifeld, only few are reveal that are on the internet.

 

1 F-22 can take out up to 6 F15! one of article have mentioned during the flight test.

 

I have read the article, F15 is unable to track F22 in radar unless it is pointed directly to the F22's nose. so I dont think F22 will fit into LockOn. beside most of informations is classifeld, also we can't get F22 to work close as realistic due to most of F-22 raptor's information which are classifeld. only 10 are in active, and 11 is expected to complete next year, I think.

 

that plane is pretty very advanced, and sames goes to F-35 JSF (not much detail information on F-35, of course, it is classifeld by US goverment.)

 

what more, they haven't served in any of combat to the date.

 

Cheer

[pudknocker]

Sure The f-22 Whould be cool and all,

1 but There is the russians with Plasma stealth if that evens it out

 

2 If you where Flying the f-22, And you locked your target you blew your stealth. What you do is have your wing man fall back, lock him and you get closer then launch ARRAM-120D

 

3 and there is lack of data

[GGTharos]

1. Keep dreaming

2. No, you didn't blow your stealth. He knows you're there, but he still can't see you.

3. Correct

[pudknocker]

1. Keep dreaming

 

2. No, you didn't blow your stealth. He knows you're there, but he still can't see you.

 

 

Well if he used an anti-radar missle ... or are those just A/G

[23rd_Drago]

You do sound awfully biased and higly opinionated against Russian technology???? "unlike aircraft whose radar sucked?"

 

Nothing new here… get used to it. By reading GGTharos posts, you’d think that U.S. created universe… and that anything U.S. touches turns to gold.

[S77th-GOYA]

AESA radar probably wouldn't give much of a signal to lock onto. They can't even be seen on RWRs.

[britgliderpilot]

Well if he used an anti-radar missle ... or are those just A/G

 

Firstly, yes they're A2G.

 

Secondly, ever heard of LPI radar?

 

Thirdly, and worst of all . . . . have you been reading aeronautics.ru?

[britgliderpilot]

AESA radar probably wouldn't give much of a signal to lock onto. They can't even be seen on RWRs.

 

AESA radar in itself isn't magical by virtue of being AESA - it's generally much more sophisticated, but it's not the electronic scanning alone that works the magic.

[GGTharos]

AESA radar probably wouldn't give much of a signal to lock onto. They can't even be seen on RWRs.

 

They can be, you just have to program the RWR properly ... according to USAF it isn't even all that hard to do.

 

But Anti-radar missiles have enough problems hitting stationary targets, I don't see them being easily used against aircraft.

 

The russians made a bunch of those, but few are in use if at all. More likely they'll be used against AWACS.

[GGTharos]

Nothing new here… get used to it. By reading GGTharos posts, you’d think that U.S. created universe… and that anything U.S. touches turns to gold.

 

 

... Or maybe I have half a clue? (I won't claim owning an entire one)

[britgliderpilot]

You do sound awfully biased and higly opinionated against Russian technology???? "unlike aircraft whose radar sucked?"

Nothing new here… get used to it. By reading GGTharos posts, you’d think that U.S. created universe… and that anything U.S. touches turns to gold.

 

If the Russian flight manuals say the radars don't work perfectly, I'll trust them over Venik at aeronautics.ru ;)

[23rd_Drago]

... Or maybe I have half a clue? (I won't claim owning an entire one)

 

GG the-all-knowing, don’t mind me… just keep on entertaining. :)

 

BTW, so there wouldn’t be any confusion. I’m not talking just about radars and this topic, I’m pretty aware of Russian radar performances vs. U.S. Just letting a member know what to expect in general, so he wouldn’t be so surprised.

[GGTharos]

GG the-all-knowing, don’t mind me… just keep on entertaining. :)

 

BTW, so there wouldn’t be any confusion. I’m not talking just about radars and this topic, I’m pretty aware of Russian radar performances vs. U.S. Just letting a member know what to expect in general, so he wouldn’t be so surprised.

 

In other words you're implying that I'm a liar when you know I'm not lying. ;)

[23rd_Drago]

^ Perhaps you should re-read this topic and other topics with your input and get back to me on what I’m implying.