US F22 scares off Iranian F4

[GGTharos]

When it's time to fight, surveillance is no longer important.

 

You don't know what it is you're talking about. Surveillance is always conducted, including during fights. Situational awareness wins fights when all else is equal, and SA requires surveillance.

 

Whatever way you cut it, you have a load of manned plane support for what's supposed to be a UAV (Unmanned Air Vehicle). It all boils down to the fact that UAVs don't work against countries with any semblance of air power.

 

So you were pointing out something obvious? :)

I'll point out something obvious too then: Fighters fly regular CAP for practical, PR, and training reasons. If there's something to defend in their AOR, they defend it. That's just one possible fighter mission out of very many.

[Pilotasso]

Why would they give a monkey's? It didn't cost them anymore than a flight to find out and I'd wager that F-4 operating costs are less than F-22 operating costs. But of course none of this actually happened anyway.

 

Except if they continue to do so, one of these days the F-4 wont come home. then tell the pilot about operating costs...

[Scrim]

When it's time to fight, surveillance is no longer important.

 

 

 

You obviously didn't read what I wrote, or what the person I responded to wrote, so nevermind. If you read them, you'll realise what you've said doesn't apply because the AWACS was necessitated anyway if the F-22 stays on the ground in wait, and if the F-22 is up escorting, then it's up anyway. Whatever way you cut it, you have a load of manned plane support for what's supposed to be a UAV (Unmanned Air Vehicle). It all boils down to the fact that UAVs don't work against countries with any semblance of air power.

 

Yes, surveillance is always important. Before, during and after the fight.

 

I don't understand what's so hard to comprehend. Just the simple fact that the drones can go places where manned planes can't should be enough. You can send a drone in over Iran without taking any large risks. You can't send a manned plane in without taking risks. You can however send up/divert a manned plane to escort the drone once it's reached international airspace. What we're talking about here in terms of time is this: A drone that has been up for potentially almost two days non-stop, and an F22 that was scrambled/diverted from its original course for no more than maybe an hour to ensure that no accidents occured to the drone.

 

And since drones have been used against Iraq in both wars, and has been used a lot against Iran, reality would say that you're wrong; They do work against countries with air forces.

[ENO]

This scenario would have been even more epic with a Final Countdown style flyby at high speed followed by a ridiculously sharp break maneuver. Then I would have said: "Eh fox- that woke em up!" At that point I likely would have orgasmed all over my flight suit from my pure, unadulterated awesomeness.

 

Coincidentally the age difference between the A6M and F14 at the time the movie was shot would be about the same as the age difference between the F4 and F22.

[Rotorhead]

When it's time to fight, surveillance is no longer important.

 

I'm not someone you'd call a military expert, but really? How do you destroy something you don't see?

 

It all boils down to the fact that UAVs don't work against countries with any semblance of air power.

 

Yes, when you send drones in there alone, they're pretty much dead. That's why they of course need support from other manned assets, just like regular aircraft do.

 

But think about it for a second. Without drones, you need a manned plane to do the recon or blow up those super evil terrorists, AND another manned plane(s) to support it. It means more lives put to risk.

 

Nobody says that drones alone can win the war, but every one drone in enemy airspace means one pilot home in safety. That's what drones are for.

[Alireza.kh]

No, RG got lucky. They have nothing to 'pull down' that drone with. It malfunctioned, came down, and they found it, then they made up some silly story about how they brought it down.

 

 

maybe you are right, i'm not sure that is true story. but how a drone like "sentinel" that should have latest technology and with multiple procedure to go back home without signal, look like an expensive stealth drone and etc become "malfunctioned" .

 

RQ170 was not my purpose , my purpose is respect

 

" us f-22 scare off iranian f-4 " with no other valid information that shows was that a controlled intercept or not?

 

that means they were surprised and didn't know raptor is coming , how he knows that they didn't know?

 

no one could say what happend exactly, so why people believe this kind of news ?

[EtherealN]

maybe you are right, i'm not sure that is true story. but how a drone like "sentinel" that should have latest technology and with multiple procedure to go back home without signal, look like an expensive stealth drone and etc become "malfunctioned" .

 

It's a complex system. Complex systems fail a little now and then. Nothing strange there. Redundancies reduce the risk of catastrophic failures, but do not eliminate them.* If two systems each have a certain risk of failing, but are redundant for each other, we will never hear about the times one of them failed. But the law of large numbers says that eventually there will be a time when they all fail at the same time.

 

Goes for human-piloted aircraft too; I recently enjoyed reading about an incident in (I think) the mid 80's when a swedish JA-37 out on a flight proceeded to intercept and ward off a danish J-35. Problem was, the JA-37 pilot (in spite of having nav instruments, GC contact etcetera) was actually the intruder because he didn't notice he had flown into denmark. Ooops. Similarly, there have been cases where computer malfunctions, in spite of the equipment having redundancies, have erroneously ejected pilots or instructed them to eject. Things happen, even if they are unlikely. Being unlikely just means they don't happen very often. (Another classic is the case of the US airman whose aircraft caught fire during aerial refueling; first his ejection seat failed, then canopy jettison failed, then the chute failed, then the backup chute failed... lots of things in that chain that are very unlikely to fail, but they all did...)

 

no one could say what happend exactly, so why people believe this kind of news ?

 

Because people are naturally less critical of "news" that confirm their presuppositions and thus don't put them under the same scrutiny as they would news that contradict their presuppositions (or, for that matter, their ideological standpoints etcetera).

 

 

 

* Remember the good old adage: whenever you invent a foolproof system, someone else invents a better fool. :)

Edited September 28, 2013 by EtherealN

[countto10]

You don't know what it is you're talking about. Surveillance is always conducted, including during fights. Situational awareness wins fights when all else is equal, and SA requires surveillance.

Looking at little men on the ground from 30,000ft isn't important when intercepting enemy jets. Looking at the enemy jets, that's pretty important though. Although if you're looking at the enemy on radar, the surveillance equipment could still look at the ground anyway.

 

 

So you were pointing out something obvious? :)

I'll point out something obvious too then: Fighters fly regular CAP for practical, PR, and training reasons. If there's something to defend in their AOR, they defend it. That's just one possible fighter mission out of very many.

Well if someone can afford to fly more planes than necessary that's all well and good. It's not like there's a budget deficit or anything.

 

EDIT: What likely happened here is that an Iranian jet strayed 0.5km out of Iranian airspace, a fighter was dispatched but the Iranian jet turned round. What's described clearly didn't happen because GOOSE would have posted photos by now if it did and no Arab control towers have complained of low-level supersonic fly-pasts.

Edited September 28, 2013 by countto10

[EtherealN]

Well if someone can afford to fly more planes than necessary that's all well and good. It's not like there's a budget deficit or anything.

 

Offtopic, but if you want to play budget cards, remember that even the complete disbanding of the US armed forces - the whole shebang - would not be enough to plug it. ;)

 

But on the previous note: if you have both fighters AND surveillance assets up, you can look at guys from 30k feet AND intercept hostile air assets at the same time. ;)

 

And do recall that fighters will be up anyway, it's what fighters do: they fly CAPs and all sorts of things. HVAA escort is one of those things they can do at the same time; as mentioned, escort duty does not entail flying in formation with the escortee.

Edited September 28, 2013 by EtherealN
typo

[Kenan]

No, RG got lucky. They have nothing to 'pull down' that drone with. It malfunctioned, came down, and they found it, then they made up some silly story about how they brought it down.

 

You can't know with certainity, it's all speculation..unless you honestly believe US report on the whole incident..it could be the case or not..but what are the chances they would come forward and say "Yeah, everything was fine with the drone, they simply managed to make fool of ourselves by capturing it somehow."

 

I mean, it's quite possible they've taken it down with a slingshot.. Those lucky Iranians.

[countto10]

Offtopic, but if you want to play budget cards, remember that even the complete disbanding of the US armed forces - the whole shebang - would not be enough to plug it. ;)

 

But on the previous note: if you have both fighters AND surveillance assets up, you can look at guys from 30k feet AND intercept hostile air assets at the same time. ;)

 

And do recall that fighters will be up anyway, it's what fighters do: they fly CAPs and all sorts of things. HVAA escort is one of those things they can do at the same time; as mentioned, escort duty does not entail flying in formation with the escortee.

It still strikes me as a lack of synergy and whilst there's obviously no one-shot fix to the deficit, needlessly adding to it seems counter-productive. You could AMRAAM hostile air assets and maintain surveillance at the same time if you're in an F-22 (theoretically). And since they supposedly can't see you in the first place, the need would disappear altogether.

Edited September 28, 2013 by countto10

[GGTharos]

maybe you are right, i'm not sure that is true story. but how a drone like "sentinel" that should have latest technology and with multiple procedure to go back home without signal, look like an expensive stealth drone and etc become "malfunctioned" .

 

Hacking the signal to bring the drone down is holywood BS. Even exploiting a simple Java vulnerability takes hours if not days, and that's when you have the thing and you can test and refine and test again.

What makes you think the RQ-170's signal can be hacked just like that? :)

There are no magical drone hacking systems in existance.

 

The RQ-170 has a single engine. Engines don't fail a lot these days, but they can and do fail.

Drones can also sometimes have poor handling of edge conditions of the flight envelope, causing the software to lose control. Several globalhawks have been lost this way.

 

 

that means they were surprised and didn't know raptor is coming , how he knows that they didn't know?

 

How would they even know there is a Raptor around?

[GGTharos]

F-22 is not AWACS. F-22 has a single pilot onboard whose job is to shoot things down. AWACS has a much larger radar, more processing power, and a whole bunch of manpower for surveying and controlling the battlespace. F-22's don't do any of that.

 

It still strikes me as a lack of synergy and whilst there's obviously no one-shot fix to the deficit, needlessly adding to it seems counter-productive. You could AMRAAM hostile air assets and maintain surveillance at the same time if you're in an F-22 (theoretically). And since they supposedly can't see you in the first place, the need would disappear altogether.

[GGTharos]

Sure I can. I work with this encryption and hacking stuff. The only way that drone was hijacked is if someone called the Iranians that same day with the encryption codes, and handed them the control software.

 

You can't know with certainity, it's all speculation..unless you honestly believe US report on the whole incident..it could be the case or not..but what are the chances they would come forward and say "Yeah, everything was fine with the drone, they simply managed to make fool of ourselves by capturing it somehow."

 

I mean, it's quite possible they've taken it down with a slingshot.. Those lucky Iranians.

[Kenan]

^^Do you work with encryption and hacking stuff on US Military drones?

[countto10]

F-22 is not AWACS. F-22 has a single pilot onboard whose job is to shoot things down. AWACS has a much larger radar, more processing power, and a whole bunch of manpower for surveying and controlling the battlespace. F-22's don't do any of that.

I was led to believe that the F-22's radar was like a 'mini-AWACS', or at least 'very good'. And again, it's all about response time. The only way it's cheap is if the F-22 stays on the ground until needed. That still leaves the AWACS up there anyway and restricts how far away the UAV can be. Clumsy flying circus to support an UNmanned Air Vehicle. May have to change the name to OAP (Overmanned AirPlane).

 

Besides the above, everything about the story seems hugely fabricated. Iran is probably telling its people that the Qaher-313 was inverted over the F-22 taking pictures.

[Alireza.kh]

Hacking the signal to bring the drone down is holywood BS. Even exploiting a simple Java vulnerability takes hours if not days, and that's when you have the thing and you can test and refine and test again.

What makes you think the RQ-170's signal can be hacked just like that? :)

There are no magical drone hacking systems in existance.

 

The RQ-170 has a single engine. Engines don't fail a lot these days, but they can and do fail.

Drones can also sometimes have poor handling of edge conditions of the flight envelope, causing the software to lose control. Several globalhawks have been lost this way.

 

 

How would they even know there is a Raptor around?

 

 

i said i'm not sure it hacked or not.i dont believe like you

did you forget it was espying in an country territory?

 

but surprising is different story. when you say they didn't know raptor coming that means they are retarded people that dont know what's mean security.

 

this is some images from that drone. (there are no problems with copyrights to post them here)

 

(magni-8 everywhere:joystick:)

[Scrim]

You could AMRAAM hostile air assets and maintain surveillance at the same time if you're in an F-22 (theoretically). And since they supposedly can't see you in the first place, the need would disappear altogether.

 

Aside from everything else, you do realise why downing every Iranian jet sent up to intercept drones that fly over Iranian airspace would have the capability to cause something resembling a multitude of diplomatic disasters? ;)

[EtherealN]

I was led to believe that the F-22's radar was like a 'mini-AWACS', or at least 'very good'. And again, it's all about response time. The only way it's cheap is if the F-22 stays on the ground until needed. That still leaves the AWACS up there anyway and restricts how far away the UAV can be. Clumsy flying circus to support an UNmanned Air Vehicle. May have to change the name to OAP (Overmanned AirPlane).

 

Besides the above, everything about the story seems hugely fabricated. Iran is probably telling its people that the Qaher-313 was inverted over the F-22 taking pictures.

 

You are forgetting something:

 

The F-22 would be up there anyways

 

They don't get deployed to sit on a ramp.

They get deployed to fly.

While they are flying, they do whatever needs doing.

 

Sometimes a drone might need help, sometimes an airliner with transponder issues needs checking out, sometimes there's a ship that needs eyeballing, sometimes there's a political adversary that needs to get a reminder that "hey, we're here, don't do funny stuff".

 

With respect, you don't quite seem to understand how these things work. AWACS are always flying a little here and there. Fighters are always flying CAPs and stuff - even if only to keep pilot currency up. (That's worth a LOT of fuel!)

[EtherealN]

but surprising is different story. when you say they didn't know raptor coming that means they are retarded people that dont know what's mean security.

 

No, it means their GC said radars are clear, and their own radars were clear... because the threat was a one that neither sets of radars could detect in those circumstances.

 

You cannot react to what you cannot see. That's the whole point of stealth technologies.

[ENO]

And again, it's all about response time. The only way it's cheap is if the F-22 stays on the ground until needed. That still leaves the AWACS up there anyway and restricts how far away the UAV can be. Clumsy flying circus to support an UNmanned Air Vehicle. May have to change the name to OAP (Overmanned AirPlane).

 

 

With respect, you don't quite seem to understand how these things work.

 

[GGTharos]

^^Do you work with encryption and hacking stuff on US Military drones?

 

I work on stuff that's a lot easier to hack. ;-)

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

[Vekkinho]

No, it means their GC said radars are clear, and their own radars were clear... because the threat was a one that neither sets of radars could detect in those circumstances.

 

You cannot react to what you cannot see. That's the whole point of stealth technologies.

 

This also means that Raptor was guided by AWACS datalink not by constant use of it's onboard radar which would probably scare Phantoms away ot at least warn them of Raptor's presence in the area.

 

Yet again Raptor's APG-77 radar was engineered to counter planes like Flanker and Fulcrum which work in similar fashion and have similar RWR sensitivity as Iranian F-4s...Single radar paint from APG-77 should detect a 1m^2 target at 100 miles so a single "ping" every 2 or 3 minutes for the real time update is all it took to make an intercept.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

There are so many holes in this story. Does it really take a F-22 to scare the F-4? If that's the case, then we have a big problem with F-22!

 

Once the F-22 presence is confirmed, I would say all radars are looking at it to see radar signature. Next, how do they know that Iran did not see F-22? What if the F-4 was a bait? If our drone was in international air space, what is the problem with the Iranian F-4 being in the international airspace.? In other wards, why is our F-22 chasing Iran out of international airspace?

 

The whole story just does not make much sense and looks like a ....

[GGTharos]

The story itself probably didn't happen :)