OT: F/A-22 news

[GGTharos]

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

That you have a problem accepting reality? :confused:

 

Okay, so you don't like being misintepreted. Neither do I.

 

If you -HAVE- information pointing to the contrary, present it. If you do -not-, then don't accuse /me/ of being biased. /You/ are being biased in that case.

I'm opinionated, but I try to do my research.

 

Fair enough?

[D-Scythe]

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.

 

No, the U.S. didn't create the universe, but they did create the F/A-22 :D And I defy anyone who can name some aircraft in the next 15 years that will even come close to touching it :p

 

Fighting an F/A-22 would be like getting into a bar fight with a NFL football linebacker, blindfolded. Try to hear him you say? You'll likely only hear two things: him hitting your face and your body hitting the floor.

 

Not fair? Guess what? It's not supposed to be ;)

[tflash]

I was in the Far West yesterday - well, what we call the Far West: the region of Courtrai only about 90 miles from Brussels, with Europe's congested highways it's a nightmare to get there - so I missed this interesting discussion.

 

The key point to the F/A-22 for me is its integrated approach to the battlespace. It is no longer the classic "multirole" concept, it's a fighter design that integrates ground and air threats.

 

An excellent simulation like Lockon is ideal to understand this concept. Suppose you make an Air-to-air mission over heavily defended airspace: you put up a good SAM defense and some EWR over the Crim, and then launch a wing of F-15C's to do an OCA mission right into it. You'll see that even if you include some SEAD package, it is extremely hard because whilst manoevring against enemy fighters you get painted by a lot of ground defenses forcing you to change flightpath. With the new radar coverage in 1.11 you can build very nice scenario's for testing this.

 

My guess is the F/A-22 should have a more easy flight, since for it it would seem the ground defenses are more distant. It would be much easier to concentrate on the air-to-air mission. Add to that avionics that combine the strenghts of TEWS with a very sophisticated HSD.

 

In that sense, even if the F-15C has sound aerodynamics, a good bunch of engines and powerfull radar/missiles, it will evidently perform to a substantial lesser degree. I would say there must truly be a dramatic difference in performance.

 

You could never "upgrade" an F-15 to this level since you need the basic stealth design.

[GGTharos]

tflash hits nail on head ;)

 

(nail sues tflash for injury!)

[Guest IguanaKing]

Yup...the gaps in radar coverage become much larger when you have a small RCS.

[Manny]

No, the U.S. didn't create the universe, but they did create the F/A-22 :D And I defy anyone who can name some aircraft in the next 15 years that will even come close to touching it :p

 

Fighting an F/A-22 would be like getting into a bar fight with a NFL football linebacker, blindfolded. Try to hear him you say? You'll likely only hear two things: him hitting your face and your body hitting the floor.

 

Not fair? Guess what? It's not supposed to be ;)

 

I am sure the same general malaise was spoken of the U-2 program. If you fly high enough, the Soviets can't touch you, they don't have the technology or capability. I am also sure Mr. Powers, while sipping his afternoon tea and marvelling at the curvature of the earth, was awaken sharply to find some very large exploisons going off near and ahead of his aircraft.

 

It was only then Mr. Powers knew he was not dreaming that his feet hit terra firma and the sound of Soviets surrounding him was enough to put that premenition to rest.

 

The whole reason the SR-71 and later spy satellites were deveoped was to counter the harsh reality of overflying airspace.

[GGTharos]

The U2 however was not a stealth aircraft - there's a pretty big difference here. It also took 19 SAMs to bring it down, one of which took out a MiG-19 which was trying to intercept the U-2.

 

And in the end, it turns out that high-altitude flight and stealth still work just fine. The 71 is special though, in the whole cruise-at-mach-3 way ... that also cuts down SAM range at non-head-on aspects.

[Manny]

The U2 however was not a stealth aircraft - there's a pretty big difference here. It also took 19 SAMs to bring it down, one of which took out a MiG-19 which was trying to intercept the U-2.

 

And in the end, it turns out that high-altitude flight and stealth still work just fine. The 71 is special though, in the whole cruise-at-mach-3 way ... that also cuts down SAM range at non-head-on aspects.

 

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China or the XBox 360 in Japan? Point I made was simple: The notion of the invincible and/or the untouchable is a fallacy as applied consistently by many to military aviation. To that order, the notion of stealth somehow ruling the skies is as plausible to the Klingons stealthing their Birds of Prey to avoid detection. Last I recall in those episodes, didn't someone find a way to detect them anyway. Of course that is television at it's best but the prinicple applies in earnest here.

 

Nonetheless, the number of SAMs shot is irrelevant since the compression of the air is the only factor less shrapnel that kills at high altitude... need a lot of overpressure to bring down a dot in the sky. The fallacy was proven once Power's feet touched Soviet soil.

 

Oh, GG, for a good read about the MiG-25 and the SR-71, head over to here http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/mig25.html

 

I know of no attempts made other than SAMs to engage an SR-71.

 

Some interesting facts about the MiG-25:

 

Although Viktor Belenko's aircraft was eventually returned to the USSR, it was first dismantled and carefully analysed by the Foreign Technology Division; now called the National Air and Space Intelligence Center of the USAF, at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base near Dayton, Ohio. After 67 days the aircraft was returned to the Russians in pieces. The analysis of Belenko's aircraft, which was brand new, showed some surprising facts:

• The MiG-25 was built primarily of nickel-steel, and not titanium as supposed. Some titanium was used in heat-critical areas. The steel construction contributed to its massive 64,000 lb (29 t) unarmed weight.
  
• Welding was done by hand and construction was relatively crude. Like most Soviet aircraft, in areas that would not adversely affect aerodynamic drag, rivet heads were left exposed.
  
• The majority of the on-board avionics was based on vacuum tube technology, not solid state electronics. Though the Mig-25's electronics were ridiculed in the West, many experts found it ingenious and quite practical to use vacuum tubes as, compared with transistor technology, they were less suceptible to radiation (for example, EMP) in case of nuclear warfare. The MiG-25P's original Smerch-A (Tornado, NATO reporting name 'Foxfire') radar had enormous power of about 500 kilowatts, allowing it to burn through hostile ECM, but requiring vast amounts of pure alcohol for cooling. Pilots were forbidden to engage the radar on the ground, and legend held that it was powerful enough to kill rabbits near runways.
  
• The airspeed indicator was redlined at Mach 2.8, and pilots were required not to exceed Mach 2.5. The Americans had witnessed a MiG-25 flying at Mach 3.2 over Israel in 1973, a flight that had resulted in the total destruction of its engines. The Americans were unaware of the inevitability of the destruction, which helped to fuel the myths about the aircraft's capabilities.
  
• Combat radius was 186 miles (300 km), and maximum range on internal fuel (at subsonic speeds) was only 744 miles (1,200 km). In fact, Belenko had only just made it to Japan without running out of fuel - without sufficient fuel for a carefully planned landing, he narrowly missed a commercial airliner taking off, and overran the available runway on landing.
  
• Maximum acceleration (g-load) rating was just 2.2 g (22 m/s²) with full fuel tanks, with an absolute limit of 4.5 g (44.1 m/s²). This was significantly poorer performance than the previous generation F-4 Phantom. One MiG-25 withstood inadvertent 11.5 g (113 m/s²) pull during low-altitude dogfight training, but the airframe had to be written off due to deformation.
  
• When the appearance of the Foxbat became known to the West, it was alleged that the design of the MiG-25 was based on the North American A-5 Vigilante. Both aircraft have the same general layout (the A-5 was also initially designed with twin-tailfins), but the Foxbat has its origins in the MiG-21, rather than the Vigilante

The MiG-25`s acknowledged combat record by the West is one F/A-18 Hornet during the Second Gulf War, when a Iraqi MiG-25PD shot down a U.S. Navy F/A-18C on January 17, 1991, 29 nautical miles southeast of Baghdad. Nevertheless, some F-15s have been claimed by the Syrian Air Force (however, most sources say that, to date, no F-15s have been shot down in A2A combat).

[GGTharos]

Thanks, I will read this at a more opportune time (soon, anyway) :)

 

Yes I agree that stealth aircrat aren'tr eally invisible - they're stealth. The idea is to make them very difficult to detect and more difficult still to hit. We know they can be shot down, it's been done before after all. The point is, stealth makes this a very difficult task.

[BIOLOG]

Right, DeathAngelBR got banneed for his idea of "Freedom of Speach". At the moment its temporary, untill we decide what to do. However, I would like to remind people that discussions on these forums are supposed to be conducted in a civilised way. That, among other things, includes usage of appropriate language, and NOT swearing (especially in such enormous amounts).

 

So please do conduct yourself accordingly.

 

REGARDS,

 

BIOLOG

[D-Scythe]

I am sure the same general malaise was spoken of the U-2 program. If you fly high enough, the Soviets can't touch you, they don't have the technology or capability. I am also sure Mr. Powers, while sipping his afternoon tea and marvelling at the curvature of the earth, was awaken sharply to find some very large exploisons going off near and ahead of his aircraft.

 

It was only then Mr. Powers knew he was not dreaming that his feet hit terra firma and the sound of Soviets surrounding him was enough to put that premenition to rest.

 

The whole reason the SR-71 and later spy satellites were deveoped was to counter the harsh reality of overflying airspace.

 

Nobody is passing a notion of invincibility except you ;) The F/A-22 was simply made a whole less vulnerable to SAMs and AAMs than other fighters, thus allowing it to more easily complete its mission. Raptor pilots probably train with the mindset of "better safe than sorry," and will most likely exaggerate the threat of SAMs and aircraft in their training - in fact, I don't doubt that they'll sometimes train as NON-stealth aircraft in some exercises to keep the pilots sharp.

 

If you get a pretty invulnerable machine, and then put people in it that have an exaggerated sense of its weaknesses, then in the end you get a total package that would be relatively difficult to defeat in the end. For $200+ million a copy, taxpayers aren't gonna be happy if the pilots lose a Raptor due to carelessness in training or in combat ;)

[Manny]

Nobody is passing a notion of invincibility except you ;)

 

I think if I have provided anything within this thread it is certainly a counter opinion to this so I am clueless as to your comment. ;)

[Guest IguanaKing]

An F/A-22 is not invincible or invisible, it is simply LESS visible. Maybe what D-Scythe meant by his comment is that people who are skeptical of stealth always seem to use the same argument..."it can be detected". OF COURSE IT CAN :D, nobody said it can't...its just a "bit" more difficult than it is to detect a conventional aircraft. ;) It won't be totally invisible, nor will it be able to fly directly down the throat of a threat radar...BUT...it will be able to more-easily skirt these radar threats and go places other aircraft wouldn't dare to go, with a reasonably high probability of accomplishing the mission and coming back home.

[GGTharos]

Actually a USAF study expressed concern that the AMRAAM would have serious problems tracking a stealth aircraft - specifically they were worried about other countries developing stealth aircraft (Note .. stealth, not 'stealthed')

 

 

That seems to imply that the most potent method of taking out an aircraft - a fighter - is quite effectively marginalized.

[Guest IguanaKing]

I don't doubt that, GG. I wonder if there would be a way to delay the missile from switching out of command inertial. If it were fired in its normal way, if anything was still in its detection cone by the time it got there, I'm sure the intercept angle would be steep enough to where the missile could easily be defeated by maneuver. So, about the only option would be to guide the missile in command inertial until the last possible moment (much like a SARH missile)...but, by then the launch platform would most-likely have already died from a shot put in the air by the stealth aircraft. I think the only sure way to defeat the F/A-22 in the air would be to do something similar to the nice, DPRK method...the human wave attack.

 

That's what stealth was designed for...to make it so the enemy had to throw SO many assets at one aircraft, that they couldn't possibly sustain a war for any significant length of time.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Oh...BTW...there seems to be a small detail missing from the recent accounts of the shoot-down of F. Gary Powers. Something about an engine flameout that forced him to a lower altitude while attempting to restart his engines, which made him FAR more vulnerable to SAM fire than what was normal for a U-2...IIRC.

[Guest EVIL-SCOTSMAN]

A matter of LONG time.

 

Your EWR's might tell where they are (at erduced range) but your fighter's radar and weapons won't track. You can't change the laws of physics, and that's exactly what you're fighting.

 

there was a thing a few years back at farnborough, i think it was, where some new technology was being displayed for the visiting arms dealers, and there was a thing that could actually see and track the b2, it was shown on tv that same night and supposdly the us airforce got pissed off that we broadcast the video of it all over our news stations.

 

If i remember correctly, it looked like a IR tracker as it showed the b2 high up but could pick up its engine nacelles where heat was coming from and they were a lighter or darker colour to the rest of the aircraft, basically it was a badass heat detector.

This was visual from a good few miles away. probably not gonna do anything when the b2 is on an actual combat mission, as you would have to see it first then use the thing i mentioned to track it, but nonetheless it tracked it and would display what it was seeing on a monitor.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Sure...but how did that IR tracker know where to look? ;) I know a FLIR on a 206LR, 407, or AS355 could do the same thing easily, if it knew where to look and was close enough. ;)

[Guest EVIL-SCOTSMAN]

This was visual from a good few miles away. probably not gonna do anything when the b2 is on an actual combat mission, as you would have to see it first then use the thing i mentioned to track it

 

VISUAL, then started tracking after they hooked up the machine and set it up to focus in on the b2.

 

absolutely no use in a combat mission as it would of been flying higher and also at night, but saying that, if it could pick it up and track during the day, then the heat sig will be more intense at night.

 

but as far as i am aware, it was manually focused on the b2 then did its stuff after that. tracked til it lost sight of it, so it has obviously got a decent view if it can track it and keep it tracked til its out of sight.

IIRC it was between 5-10 miles away when it was first picked up visually, to close to do anything if you are its target, but it was tracked for roughly 20 miles if i am remembering this correctly, but imagine what that can be devloped into, as this was about 5 years ago.

 

the company who were at the show marketting there products couldnt believe there luck, and video'd the track and sent it to news stations, now tell me thats not a case of, whoa, look what our new toy picks up, and guess where we are at, one of the best selling arms markets in the world. KACHING KACHING, pound/dollar signs in there eyes i bet

[Guest IguanaKing]

DOH!!! :icon_toil

 

I guess I read right over that part. Heh...the FLIR and Wescam (especially the Wescam) were EXCELLENT for checking out the babes on the beach from a couple of miles away.

[christopher m]

Thin Air

 

 

 

Since the air is thin up there, the compressibility of air is tremendous and the F-22 is soon on it's way down. This is exactly what happened to the U-2 only it was a total of 14 SA-2s shot and since the SA-2 is a proximity fuse radar guided missile, it was up to the compression of air to crush the plane and bring it down.

 

Of course true combat is the only way to determine this.

 

 

Please explian to me how thin air increases high explosive warhead lethality? Can you give details ?

[GGTharos]

One more thing, Manny ... the U-2 is a -very- fragile aircraft. If you fly it faster than a certain speed, the wings come off; fly it slower - you stall. At the 'operational altitude' I've heard that those two speeds are some 5kts apart (probably not really that tight).

 

The F-22 is not only sturdier by far, it also happens to have ridiculous amounts of thrust by comparison ;)

[Yellonet]

Please explian to me how thin air increases high explosive warhead lethality? Can you give details ?

The blast effect will be diminished (but it has a quite small radius even at sea level) but shrapnel should have higher energy thus traveling faster and further due to less air friction.

And piercing a fuel tank or the cockpit where the atmosphere is very thin could have some interesting effects.

[Guest IguanaKing]

One more thing, Manny ... the U-2 is a -very- fragile aircraft. If you fly it faster than a certain speed, the wings come off; fly it slower - you stall. At the 'operational altitude' I've heard that those two speeds are some 5kts apart (probably not really that tight).

 

Yup..."dead man's corner". The U-2s fuel tank also goes from wing to wing in one, solid vessel with no baffles, so its pretty easy for weight shift from violent maneuvers to cause departure.

[Weta43]

Was someone implying above that passive guidance of a missile onto a radar source was only possible for A2G missiles? If deception jamming is essentially mimicking radar output, then can someone explain in what way is an AIM120 HOJ shot not an example of existing A2A anti-radiation (radar) missile technology?

Also - if a RWR can tell you what type & where a radar is then surely a seeker can be fitted to missiles to chose between radar types - similarly to the logic of the phantasmagoria pod & have the NAV logic for PN etc.

I’ve read somewhere that the F-22 automatically reduces its radar strength as it approaches a target to deny any range information from signal strength, but it will still be an emitter & if you have two planes flying some distance apart receiving the same (TWS) signal then triangulation for range becomes a simple procedure (have the two planes separated vertically and you have altitude too).

Admittedly if the F-22 flies around with its radar off, then targeting it will be very difficult, but with it’s radar on TWS – even jamming – it’s just another noisy broadcaster.