Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: henchman on December 01, 2008, 07:05:26 PM
-
Sorry if this was already posted.....
Just had this e-mailed to me and thought i would share. Pretty impressive......
Not sure if I believe the last sentence in the paragraph.
"There is no aircraft in any country's inventory that could stand up to it in a dog fight."
What do you think against the FA-22 or any other....
http://www.rense.com/general75/superw.htm
Henchman
-
Yes, impressive maneuvering skills, but can it get anywhere near close enough to an F/A-22 to use them? :lol
-
Lot of good all that fancy footwork does when someone throws a missle up your pipe from 30 miles out. Maybe it is so they can turn tail and try to outrun the missle? Sure if a slammer is launched near its max range you might be able to get away. Would be interesting to see what the engineers working on the D model AMRAAM have to say about it.
By the way, it is very impressive with its stunt flying.
-
I've read that the Australian Air Force don't like their shiny new F-35s after they were totally out classed by the Russian made, Chinese flown flankers.
http://202.6.74.101/news/stories/2008/09/24/2373045.htm
I've also read that even the Eurofighter Typhoon could engage the F/A-22 raptor at medium range BVR. I can't find the link though.
-
I read somewhere else that the F/A-22 can fire it's missiles by piggybacking off of ground-based or even AWACS radar. Hell, if they make a B1R, they can just have a single F/A-22 go in, lock up all the enemies, and just have the B1 pickle off all it's missiles (which would be a s**tload, by the way) and be done with it. Don't forget, the F/A-22 still has stealth.
But then there's micro-wavelength radar....
-
JSF was not designed to take on the Flanker. An attack plan would have the Raptor doing a sweep and escort for the JSF. Never forget the gorilla that comes with a US airstrike. Sweep,SEAD,escort, strike packages. Now if we have air superiority then the gorilla may be smaller. The Typhoon is a very capable aircraft. On the threat display it would be engaged before it got into medium BVR range if it ever came to fighting them.
-
I would love to know how stealthy the F/A-22 really is, but I doubt I will find out any time soon.
-
The Typhoon is a very capable aircraft. On the threat display it would be engaged before it got into medium BVR range if it ever came to fighting them.
I didn't know that the F/A-22 had long range A2A missiles.
-
Of course it does. What do you think AAMRAMs do? They only 'say' medium range, but they can hit from damn near anywhere.
Not to mention they'll have about 30 of em to use if there's a B1R nearby.
-
Well the engines can be really quiet and they have a very distinct sound to them when they spool up. I can only attribute this to the shape of the exhaust. They fly over my house on the way into Peterson AFB. We happen to be in the pattern for runway 120. Had a Raptor over the house last tuesday got a real good view as it was only about 500 feet above. He spooled up as he went over and it made a weird sound hard to describe it. They are quite large. As far as stealth I wouldn't be able to guess what it looks like on any radar.
It does look like it will be hard to get returns from one source of radar. Maybe if your receiver were in a different location from the transmitter. Even the large tail surface doesn't look like it would return a signal directly to the source.
Do a search for the AIM-120D Kazaa. Not called a long range missle but it will have improved range. Hopefully we will again return to an AIM-54 type missle for the B1R and Raptors.
-
I didn't see anything that the F-22 can't do...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_Q6Vb9xJM0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_Q6Vb9xJM0)
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1125632/f_22_raptor_airshow_demo_kickin_butt/ (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1125632/f_22_raptor_airshow_demo_kickin_butt/)
My regards,
Widewing
-
I'd love to see more Phoenix-Type missiles. Long range intercept is a huge gap in the U.S. planeset.
Anybody recall the way these puppies went off? Damn, it was impressive. Freaking thing was a BnZ deadstick missile. It was fired, climbed to an incredibly high alt, DAMN near Mach 5, and then the motor burned out and it COASTED until it reached the target, which it DIVED on. Damn sweet in my book. :aok
After watching airshow footage of the F/A-22, it even looks like it could hold it's own going guns-a-go-go with a pony in a turnfight a 350 IAS. Maneuverability at low airspeed isn't something we've seen in a jet since the whoopee Meteor (and it STILL turned like crap).
-
Of course it does. What do you think AAMRAMs do? They only 'say' medium range, but they can hit from damn near anywhere.
AMRAAM (Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile), The AIM-54 Phoenix missile is considered a long range weapon which as far as I know isn't used by the F/A-22.
-
I get bad vibes from the level of weapons technology that we are achieving now and in the near future. If a warrior is separated from the blood & guts too much, he will forget what war really is.
-
the point still stands that the Eurofighter Typhoon could still lock the bloody thing up at MAX range.
Say's who?! What could possibly lock up an F/A-22 at BVR?
Or are you talking about that P.O.S. Flanker? Those things have bigger radar returns than Rosie O' Donnell.
-
Would like to see the Typhoon lock up distance on the Raptor. I should probably wish for something that they might actually release info wise. Wonder if we considered the long range AtoA missle our allies use for the Raptor. Would love to see how datalinking could negate a long range weapon.
-
If the Raptor's radar cross-section is as small as it was intended to be, the Typhoon won't be able to lock it up until it get's into infra-red range.
-
Times like this that I miss Boroda
-
Stealth is great if you have the ability to use it to it's fullest ablity.
In Vietnam you had F4's with better missile caperbility than the vietnamese but you couldnt use your missiles to their fullest extent until you had a visual id on the target ......
(9political vullshi"£ getting in the way )
Im not saying the f22 is crap it is not , niether is the typhoon or the Su series they are all top notch fighters , the deciding factor will be rules of engement, and how many fighters you have and the most important aspect pilot training, i dont care how good a certain aircraft is if you only have a few of them and masses of enemy hove into view your in all probabilty going to loose your superfighter .F117 was shot down it is not impossible for a F22 to go the same way nothing is indestructable ....
-
JSF was not designed to take on the Flanker. An attack plan would have the Raptor doing a sweep and escort for the JSF. Never forget the gorilla that comes with a US airstrike. Sweep,SEAD,escort, strike packages. Now if we have air superiority then the gorilla may be smaller. The Typhoon is a very capable aircraft. On the threat display it would be engaged before it got into medium BVR range if it ever came to fighting them.
This is without question wrong!
The JSF is designed to be a day #1 strike fighter and it will be entering enemy airspace, and destroying targets, alone. It will be, without question, more then a match for the SU-30 if running clean. Even still some of you underestimate the advantage of stealth in combat. Even after all this time You just dont get it do you? The Flankers only chance at surviving is to run and hope the missile doesn't catch them.
Not that it matters. An enemy's air defense network, and assets, is target #1 in a war anyways. America and her allies will be able to field an entirely stealth, precision munitions, strike package in the opening nights of combat. An enemies airfields, radars, aircract..ect are going to get pulverized on the opening nights anyways. How do you defend against an enemy you cant see?
And yes. The F-35, as well as some of our legacy aircraft, are designed to be in a network. They can use the assets of the entire network.
-
Stealth is great if you have the ability to use it to it's fullest ablity.
In Vietnam you had F4's with better missile caperbility than the vietnamese but you couldnt use your missiles to their fullest extent until you had a visual id on the target ......
(9political vullshi"£ getting in the way )
Im not saying the f22 is crap it is not , niether is the typhoon or the Su series they are all top notch fighters , the deciding factor will be rules of engement, and how many fighters you have and the most important aspect pilot training, i dont care how good a certain aircraft is if you only have a few of them and masses of enemy hove into view your in all probabilty going to loose your superfighter .F117 was shot down it is not impossible for a F22 to go the same way nothing is indestructable ....
That F-117 shoot-down was a one-time fluke. For ONE TIME the F-117 mission planners used the same route as before. So, on ONE TIME the Serbs were able to use field-modded radars, modified to operate on a wavelength small enough to detect an aircraft with the radar cross-section reducing methods used by the F-117, and by luck, they locked it up and shot it down.
The F-22 was designed (in the latter stages) with the shortcomings of the F-117 in mind (one of the key liabilities being the F-117's vulnerability to field-modified shortwave radar) and so these kind of fluke shots wouldn't happen again. And even when fighting the F-117, you have to know EXACTLY where to aim the radar, or else it does you no good. You'd be tracking every fly and bird in the sky otherwise. The F-22 is even better about avoiding detection than the F-117 was.
-
I've read that the Australian Air Force don't like their shiny new F-35s after they were totally out classed by the Russian made, Chinese flown flankers.
http://202.6.74.101/news/stories/2008/09/24/2373045.htm
That was a computer analysis done by a person that's always been an opponent of the F-35 program, and lacking any and all technical details of what the F-35 is actually capable of.
I've also read that even the Eurofighter Typhoon could engage the F/A-22 raptor at medium range BVR. I can't find the link though.
EU Typhoon is a great aircraft, but it's not built in remotely the same fashion. It has a frontal RCS the size of a chicken or basketball. The F-22 has an RCS the size of a small ball bearing. There's a reason there's upwards of a $100 million difference between the two. The F-22 will always get the first look, first shot, which dictates fights.
The only place other aircraft like the Su-37 prototype, EU Typhoon, latest Saabs, etc can hang with the F-22 is point blank, WVR dogfighting... but that's not how the F-22 was designed to fight. If it sticks to its mission profile and design, it will turn every thing else into confetti in a hurry.
-
Im no expert, but I fail to see how doing a back flip stall projects Russia ahead of NATO and its western allies.
-
That was a computer analysis done by a person that's always been an opponent of the F-35 program, and lacking any and all technical details of what the F-35 is actually capable of.
EU Typhoon is a great aircraft, but it's not built in remotely the same fashion. It has a frontal RCS the size of a chicken or basketball. The F-22 has an RCS the size of a small ball bearing. There's a reason there's upwards of a $100 million difference between the two. The F-22 will always get the first look, first shot, which dictates fights.
The only place other aircraft like the Su-37 prototype, EU Typhoon, latest Saabs, etc can hang with the F-22 is point blank, WVR dogfighting... but that's not how the F-22 was designed to fight. If it sticks to its mission profile and design, it will turn every thing else into confetti in a hurry.
I'm not claiming to be an expert - but lets look at the doctrine of how we've fought over the past 20 + years. GCI/AWACS directing focused attacks against enemies with poor SA and crippled GCI in aircraft that were not designed from the outset to work autonomously with their own sensor suites.
The 27/30 class of aircraft personally, while pretty to look at - is LIGHTYEARS ahead of what we've faced in every conflict since the Gulf War. It was designed from the outset to work outside of the GCI/AWACS and autonomously.
My doctrine - seeing as that thing can lob 10 missiles my war - Lock it up as FAR AWAY as possible, as soon as I get spiked, if I am at RMax, let loose an active radar missile (AIM-120), then angle off 45 to 50* keeping the radar at the outer edge of its gimble limits to lower my closing velocity - then hope and pray the missile gets to 15NM, select zone 5 - and RUN 180* in the other direction and pray my missile went mad-dog and got him. Kill the jammer b/c I assume every missile he's probably going to fire at me is running at me in home-on-jam mode.
But that is me. I'd rather not have to face a real frontline MIG-29 or SU-27/30 class with any real type of AWACS/GCI on the otherside.
-
"There is no aircraft in any country's inventory that could stand up to it in a dog fight."
What do you think against the FA-22 or any other....
Dogfighting went obsolete with the medium range A2A missile... well the missile in general.
-
Dogfighting went obsolete with the medium range A2A missile... well the missile in general.
Vietnam anyone?
Race
-
But that is me. I'd rather not have to face a real frontline MIG-29 or SU-27/30 class with any real type of AWACS/GCI on the otherside.
That's the catch. You don't have to dash up and launch anymore. The radar on the F-22 is LPI, meaning even with a STT lock, the target's threat warning receiver probably won't show it.
Since they got the datalinks running, you can send up a 4 ship formation, let 1 loiter 80nm away and paint targets. The other 3 can close from different directions and fire rmax amraam attacks all day long without ever being seen. EASA radar doesn't use gimbals, so you don't even have to shoot, notch, and sprint.
Pretty amazing stuff.
-
That's the catch. You don't have to dash up and launch anymore. The radar on the F-22 is LPI, meaning even with a STT lock, the target's threat warning receiver probably won't show it.
Not to debate the finer points, but i'm trying to stay on the conservative side based on the data that we have. I see the anology of the F22 radar as a flouresant lamp and conventional radars as spot lights. Anything radiating can be detected - which is why emissions control is becomming tremendously more important then in the past. Its just a question of how far scaled out you are from the source. One major hole in the logic is that we would have air supremacy - more or less uncontested. But China, Iran, Syria have all invested in double diget SAMs over the last 15-20 years since examining the Gulf War 1.
The IADS we had in that war was picked apart b/c it was, for lack of a better word Vietnam ERA. The SA-2/3 were early 60s, GCI and Fire Control were still centrally located. The S-300 series (SA-10) was the USSR's first Track Via Missile system fielded (same idea that the Patriot used), though they expanded upon it in a layered defence for hi-altitude ops, and lower tier defences. No one has been up against the double diget SAM threat, and i'm not saying that it won't happen, but just as with every weapon - there is a countermeasure. The USSR's countermeasure to our AWACS advantage were to make their new generation of SAMS so robust that NATO would have to position their AWACS hundreds of miles behind the line just to remain clear of their engagement envelope.
Don't get me wrong, data-links are great and we've been using them for 60 years. But consider operating against an adversary who didn't get the 2nd run soviet hand-me-downs and actually has relevant training and operational experience. Be under no illusions, that is a slug fest - with parity on equipment and training the past 20 years would have no precidence in that environment.
-
Some of us are old enough to have seen three or four generations of Russian aircraft cause the sky to start falling on our heads.
The biggest "scare" of them all was the Mig-25 scare. Remember that scare? It was this super fighter that was going to cause the end of days for America and her allies. And the thing turned out to be, at least the early versions, to be a piece of junk. By that time we had started training our bomber crews to fly NOE and it turned out the 25 had a useless radar for finding anything flying 500' or under. Sure it was fast but what good is "fast" when thats all you have? Then some Russkie decided he liked Capitolism more and flew one of the things to Japan where we got to take it apart. It turned out the Russians do pretty well with what resources they have, and we already knew that, but the MIG-25 was not a good enough reason to notch up our development even more. But it was the cold war and we did anyway, ending up with the F-15, 16, and F-14.
In the history of modern era Jets Yank legacy fighters have filled the sky with red when in combat against Russian aircraft. I'm sure the SU-30 is a fine legacy fighter/bomber. But IT IS a "legacy" fighter. Fancy air show dances mean about as much to air combat as did the Mig-25s speed records. In fact they mean very little.
And to judge a modern jet fighter you have to look at the system as a whole. The Jet itself, the avionics,the weapons, the supporting assets, the reliability of the engines, and the training of the Pilots. The reality is an SU-30 armed force, like Indonesia, would have a really bad time of it against an F-35 armed force like the RAAF. Most of all when you figure in the entire package the RAAF would throw at them.
And actually, to tell you the truth, I'm not sure the Russians themselves could do much better. Against an adversary like NATO I think the air war would be short, sharp, and painful for them.
-
I dont believe dogfighting is obsolete and I dont believe it will be obsolete for a long time to come. Missiles can be defeated and when your out of missiles and you dont have a gun your done. I would call that video showmanship that only sets up the pilot for a cranium sectional. In the time it takes to get back into forward flight he would be sliced diced canned and sold for chum. NATA and US forces train far beyond the best Russian personnel and NATA and US forces have much better equipment and technology.
NATA countries dont have to fear military forces of any kind. Todays threat is computer based and political (lets not go there).
-
UAV.... :noid
I mean come on,right now the limiting factor in flight envelope is the pilot!
With an armed UAV the "G" limit no longer exists, sustanded 12 to 20 g turns would be possible even higher.
Hmmm arent they training for this type of combat now..... AHII ... :noid
-
Dogfighting went obsolete with the medium range A2A missile... well the missile in general.
Yea, and that's what they though in Viet Nam. The first F4's didn't even have a gun on them. Our pilots weren't trained in ACM. They had a poor kill to death ratio at the start of the war, because dogfighting was "obsolete". You might notice that all of our modern fighter aircraft are cannon equipped, and our pilots are again trained in ACM. If the radar can't see the enemy due to it being a stealth, it will be like fighting in WWII all over again, but with faster and more maneuverable aircraft. Air to air missiles will likely be worthless, and you better understand ACM. It will still likely come down to who is the better pilot under such a scenario.
-
and when your out of missiles and you dont have a gun your done.
You forgot again......
Even after firing all it's onboard missiles, and F-22 will never be completely out of them. Remember, the F-22 can lock up a bandit with somebody else's radar, and the F-22 can lock up something on radar and fire somebody else's missiles. Like missiles on the upcoming B1R. Which there will be 30 of on any one of them.
-
Yea, and that's what they though in Viet Nam. The first F4's didn't even have a gun on them. Our pilots weren't trained in ACM. They had a poor kill to death ratio at the start of the war, because dogfighting was "obsolete". You might notice that all of our modern fighter aircraft are cannon equipped, and our pilots are again trained in ACM. If the radar can't see the enemy due to it being a stealth, it will be like fighting in WWII all over again, but with faster and more maneuverable aircraft. Air to air missiles will likely be worthless, and you better understand ACM. It will still likely come down to who is the better pilot under such a scenario.
Not to downplay the importance of having a gun 'just in case,' but you do realize that the missiles used in the Vietnam era were wildly inaccurate and unreliable? Add to that our inability to ID a Mig (before the advent of TISEO) before it flew out of our Sparrow's effective performance envelope, which normally was a head-on/ nose to nose aspect. If missiles had been effective back then as they are now, there wouldn't have been such a hurt for an on board gun (if any at all).
Our current technology far surpasses what we had available during the Vietnam Conflict. An on board gun isn't as important now-a-days as it was back then.
-
You forgot again......
Even after firing all it's onboard missiles, and F-22 will never be completely out of them. Remember, the F-22 can lock up a bandit with somebody else's radar, and the F-22 can lock up something on radar and fire somebody else's missiles. Like missiles on the upcoming B1R. Which there will be 30 of on any one of them.
I disagree with that for a few reasons, mainly your assuming the enemy fighter doesnt get inside visual range. Also you cant lockup a friendlies infared missiles over a data link like radar missiles. The prospect of locking up a manuevering enemy while dodging his threats is slim. What happens when the missile you fired loses track on the enemy and finds you? Another scenario would be lose of AWAC's coverage. If your F-22 is not beaming radar the enemy is effectively invisible if they power down thier radars. Your not always going to have extra friends with missiles or a back marker beaming radar signals to you. All the comments about ACM came after missiles went into service. They fixed that real fast....
Race
-
You forgot again......
Even after firing all it's onboard missiles, and F-22 will never be completely out of them. Remember, the F-22 can lock up a bandit with somebody else's radar, and the F-22 can lock up something on radar and fire somebody else's missiles. Like missiles on the upcoming B1R. Which there will be 30 of on any one of them.
I didnt forget. Go beyond that and consider overwhelming numbers and you will see where I was going or consider the B1Rs get taken out... Always carry a gun or repeat the history of Vietnam era aircraft.
-
Not to downplay the importance of having a gun 'just in case,' but you do realize that the missiles used in the Vietnam era were wildly inaccurate and unreliable? Add to that our inability to ID a Mig (before the advent of TISEO) before it flew out of our Sparrow's effective performance envelope, which normally was a head-on/ nose to nose aspect. If missiles had been effective back then as they are now, there wouldn't have been such a hurt for an on board gun (if any at all).
Our current technology far surpasses what we had available during the Vietnam Conflict. An on board gun isn't as important now-a-days as it was back then.
Yes, our technology surpasses what we had in Vietnam. It surpasses it so much that a modern missile can't lock on to a F-22. This leaves the gun option and ACM, nothing more.
-
Yes, our technology surpasses what we had in Vietnam. It surpasses it so much that a modern missile can't lock on to a F-22. This leaves the gun option and ACM, nothing more.
For them, at least. We don't have to worry about it, because they don't have F-22's!
Now, to solve most of the questions that have been posed....
BVR Target entering VR: How the hell'd he make it into VR in the first place!? Assuming he simply hugged the deck to avoid radar (desperately hard vs an F-22, seeing as with the F-22's radar resolution you'd be dodging some MAJOR tree-ack), he'd be picked up in an instant. The F-22 has all-aspect radar, and can detect targets all around it. And forget missing one, nobody else had stealth aircraft. And locking up a target in a dogfight hard?! Hardly. Don't forget, most modern U.S. fighters can lock up and launch a missile at a target up to 45 degrees off boresight, using the helmet-tracking weapons control system (name escapes me) first used in the Su-27, F-16 and F/A-18 IIRC. Modern U.S. heatseeking missiles are fairly simple to lock onto a bandit in a dogfight, especially the new AIM-9X sidewinder missile. With improved all-aspect capabilities, coupled with a vectored thrust nozzle, it's almost impossible to out-maneuver. 'Almost', meaning there is still room for a MiG to make a lucky move and confuse the missile. And we still have a 20mm gatling just in case.
That still leaves the question of how that damn fighter got passed the F-22's (and AWACS, no less!) radar in the first place. It seems that all the responses championing VR combat and guns-hot dogfighting are based on an assumption that, somehow, all of the BVR sensors on every single F-22 in the combat group have failed simultaneously, leaving none of the BVR weapons on the F-22's as viable weapons. Seeing as with how advanced the systems on the F-22 actually are (declassified and implied statistics don't even hint at what this bird is actually capable of), it's hard to believe that any adversary will survive an engagement past 30 seconds after radar acquisition on the F-22's due to their compliment of AMRAAMS plus their unbelievable radars. And even if you base your statements off of experiences in the Gulf War, keep in mind that we have gone through dozens of electronics upgrades since then, almost eliminating the malfunctions we saw there.
Until Sukhoi or Mikoyan come up with a stealth fighter of their own, we won't have any issues with hitting planes at BVR anymore.
-
It's impossible to speculate what's going to happen in the next large air war, simply because we haven't seen one since Vietnam, and 30+ years of technological improvements coupled with the fact that it has not been tested versus capable opponents in actual combat situations. Iraq hosted Mig 29s, old school AA guns and first-generation garage-sale SAMs and still managed a few kills.
-
Iraq hosted Mig 29s, old school AA guns and first-generation garage-sale SAMs and still managed a few kills.
Against un-stealthy, low flying aircraft. (IIRC, an Iraqi S75's shot down only a single F-14.) Which we no-longer use before air defenses are suppressed entirely in that area. Until then, we only operate stealthy and semi-stealthy aircraft in hot combat zones, which are virtually impervious (no effective counters to stealth have been made yet) to air defenses.
Remember, nothing the ruskies have can even tell that F-22's exist, as far as their guns know.
-
For them, at least. We don't have to worry about it, because they don't have F-22's!
Now, to solve most of the questions that have been posed....
BVR Target entering VR: How the hell'd he make it into VR in the first place!? Assuming he simply hugged the deck to avoid radar (desperately hard vs an F-22, seeing as with the F-22's radar resolution you'd be dodging some MAJOR tree-ack), he'd be picked up in an instant. The F-22 has all-aspect radar, and can detect targets all around it. And forget missing one, nobody else had stealth aircraft. And locking up a target in a dogfight hard?! Hardly. Don't forget, most modern U.S. fighters can lock up and launch a missile at a target up to 45 degrees off boresight, using the helmet-tracking weapons control system (name escapes me) first used in the Su-27, F-16 and F/A-18 IIRC. Modern U.S. heatseeking missiles are fairly simple to lock onto a bandit in a dogfight, especially the new AIM-9X sidewinder missile. With improved all-aspect capabilities, coupled with a vectored thrust nozzle, it's almost impossible to out-maneuver. 'Almost', meaning there is still room for a MiG to make a lucky move and confuse the missile. And we still have a 20mm gatling just in case.
That still leaves the question of how that damn fighter got passed the F-22's (and AWACS, no less!) radar in the first place. It seems that all the responses championing VR combat and guns-hot dogfighting are based on an assumption that, somehow, all of the BVR sensors on every single F-22 in the combat group have failed simultaneously, leaving none of the BVR weapons on the F-22's as viable weapons. Seeing as with how advanced the systems on the F-22 actually are (declassified and implied statistics don't even hint at what this bird is actually capable of), it's hard to believe that any adversary will survive an engagement past 30 seconds after radar acquisition on the F-22's due to their compliment of AMRAAMS plus their unbelievable radars. And even if you base your statements off of experiences in the Gulf War, keep in mind that we have gone through dozens of electronics upgrades since then, almost eliminating the malfunctions we saw there.
Until Sukhoi or Mikoyan come up with a stealth fighter of their own, we won't have any issues with hitting planes at BVR anymore.
You cant just beam radar out like its oldies on the radio and you think AWACs wont be some of the first targets? A radar not used wisely is like mounting a GPS tracking beacon on your back. While infared missiles are easy to lock up in a dogfight doesnt mean you can use your buddies missiles. Assuming you even have a buddy (damage, fuel issues, or worse....) launching an infared missile towards a friendlies area is fool hardy at best. If it loses track the next track might right up your tail pipe. So say you lose your AWAC's (not unrealistic against a formidable opponent) what happens next? You fire that radar up and show the world where you are? They dont even need to have there radar on to see you...threat warning? Even the B-2 can be seen on radar if it gets close enough to a radar site with out emiting a darn electron. Enemy fighters have a lot more than guns to work with against the F-22. Infared will easily lock them up....you cant hide all that heat. Get one in a rear aspect shot and Id bet your fancy stealth goes to heck too. Nothing stopping the radar from bouncing off those shiny radar reflectors called turbine blades. Stealth doesnt mean invisible, it means you have a low radar return for a given aspect. Turn your belly to a radar and you will be seen if you are inside the effective range of the emiter.
Race
-
You cant just beam radar out like its oldies on the radio and you think AWACs wont be some of the first targets? A radar not used wisely is like mounting a GPS tracking beacon on your back. While infared missiles are easy to lock up in a dogfight doesnt mean you can use your buddies missiles. Assuming you even have a buddy (damage, fuel issues, or worse....) launching an infared missile towards a friendlies area is fool hardy at best. If it loses track the next track might right up your tail pipe. So say you lose your AWAC's (not unrealistic against a formidable opponent) what happens next? You fire that radar up and show the world where you are? They dont even need to have there radar on to see you...threat warning? Even the B-2 can be seen on radar if it gets close enough to a radar site with out emiting a darn electron. Enemy fighters have a lot more than guns to work with against the F-22. Infared will easily lock them up....you cant hide all that heat. Get one in a rear aspect shot and Id bet your fancy stealth goes to heck too. Nothing stopping the radar from bouncing off those shiny radar reflectors called turbine blades. Stealth doesnt mean invisible, it means you have a low radar return for a given aspect. Turn your belly to a radar and you will be seen if you are inside the effective range of the emiter.
Race
And I'm quite sure training makes sure that a Raptor pilot never goes belly-up at a hostile plane.
Also, AWACS operates (If I can recall) at ranges outside normal engagement ranges, and if I remember, the US could cover most of Iraq with a single AWACS. Also, the F-22's radar is DESIGNED IN A WAY TO MAKE IT SO THAT EVEN IF YOU LOCK THEM UP AND SHOOT AN AMRAAM AT THEM THEY WON'T BE ANY THE WISER. (It was already said earlier in the thread, man.) The F-22 is meant as a ho machine, meaning point it in the general direction of enemy, aircraft lock 'em up on radar, fire missiles, and get out.
I'm tired of debating the effectiveness of the F-22 in ways it is not designed to engage enemy fighters, and situations which are impossible under it's electronics package. (I.E., use of the radar betraying it's position. The F-22's radar simply won't do it. It's designed specifically NOT TO.)
-
The raptor cant do the bkacflip that the Su does aoround the middle of the display. If it can no one showed it.
-
The raptor cant do the bkacflip that the Su does aoround the middle of the display. If it can no one showed it.
Yes it can. And it has been shown.
-
i watched the videos provided on page 1. the SU was many times more impressive. maybe i missed something :confused:
-
The bottom line in the debate....
For every weapon system there is a countermeasure. You just have to hope your enemy hasn't found it.
Also, BVR capability is only as good as your ROE. In a congested theater, you aren't going to start throwing out AMRAAMS just because the dot isn't throwin back the right squawk on the IFF. This means you're getting in tight.
The F22 is a great platform. It is not invincible, though. Gripens have outfought them in exercises, up close, and late model F18's have tracked them in close ACM. Ankle humping the F22 will only get you so far. As soon as the first pics of the plane got out, there are people out there coming up with ways to defeat it.
As well, one might consider that a small number of technically superior armaments does not assure victory. Case in point, Germany, WW2. Overwhelmingly superior in both training and quality of arms for most, if not all of the war. But, Germany could not witstand a war of attrition, and superior general staff of the Allies....which ultimately led to the downfall of the Reich.
-
The bottom line in the debate....
For every weapon system there is a countermeasure. You just have to hope your enemy hasn't found it.
Also, BVR capability is only as good as your ROE. In a congested theater, you aren't going to start throwing out AMRAAMS just because the dot isn't throwin back the right squawk on the IFF. This means you're getting in tight.
The F22 is a great platform. It is not invincible, though. Gripens have outfought them in exercises, up close, and late model F18's have tracked them in close ACM. Ankle humping the F22 will only get you so far. As soon as the first pics of the plane got out, there are people out there coming up with ways to defeat it.
As well, one might consider that a small number of technically superior armaments does not assure victory. Case in point, Germany, WW2. Overwhelmingly superior in both training and quality of arms for most, if not all of the war. But, Germany could not witstand a war of attrition, and superior general staff of the Allies....which ultimately led to the downfall of the Reich.
Yes, but we can. And the German's didn't have stealth (working on it) or A2A missiles (working on those, too).
-
And I'm quite sure training makes sure that a Raptor pilot never goes belly-up at a hostile plane.
Also, AWACS operates (If I can recall) at ranges outside normal engagement ranges, and if I remember, the US could cover most of Iraq with a single AWACS. Also, the F-22's radar is DESIGNED IN A WAY TO MAKE IT SO THAT EVEN IF YOU LOCK THEM UP AND SHOOT AN AMRAAM AT THEM THEY WON'T BE ANY THE WISER. (It was already said earlier in the thread, man.) The F-22 is meant as a ho machine, meaning point it in the general direction of enemy, aircraft lock 'em up on radar, fire missiles, and get out.
I'm tired of debating the effectiveness of the F-22 in ways it is not designed to engage enemy fighters, and situations which are impossible under it's electronics package. (I.E., use of the radar betraying it's position. The F-22's radar simply won't do it. It's designed specifically NOT TO.)
First your counting on the fact that you even know where that plane is....AWAC's have an area of coverage, if I am not mistaken which I might be, of 150 mile radius? Even a 300 mile radius is only slightly bigger than most of the western states in America. So with that in mind you cant cover a country with a single AWACs and still maintain effective stand off. In the opening hours of a war AWAC's wont even be available for most of the hostile territory. Any radar emission is like a spot light in the dark of night. If your in the cone of emmisions you can see them. This includes the F-22 or any plane for that matter....I will say it again clearly.....ANY radar emited can be picked up by threat warning systems. Stealth is only good if your driving without your headlights on so to speak. Turn the radar on and you are clearly visible.....radiation is radiation regardless of the plane.
Race
-
For them, at least. We don't have to worry about it, because they don't have F-22's!
Now, to solve most of the questions that have been posed....
BVR Target entering VR: How the hell'd he make it into VR in the first place!? Assuming he simply hugged the deck to avoid radar (desperately hard vs an F-22, seeing as with the F-22's radar resolution you'd be dodging some MAJOR tree-ack), he'd be picked up in an instant.
Umm...in a word, no. The F-22 uses passive radar. Part of being stealthy is not making noise. Active radar can be picked up at twice the range as the sender can see a target. Passive radar only listens, so if the enemy aircraft doesn't have active radar, and it's electronics are shielded, the F-22 won't see it until it's in visual range.
The F-22 has all-aspect radar, and can detect targets all around it. And forget missing one, nobody else had stealth aircraft. And locking up a target in a dogfight hard?! Hardly. Don't forget, most modern U.S. fighters can lock up and launch a missile at a target up to 45 degrees off boresight, using the helmet-tracking weapons control system (name escapes me) first used in the Su-27, F-16 and F/A-18 IIRC. Modern U.S. heatseeking missiles are fairly simple to lock onto a bandit in a dogfight, especially the new AIM-9X sidewinder missile. With improved all-aspect capabilities, coupled with a vectored thrust nozzle, it's almost impossible to out-maneuver. 'Almost', meaning there is still room for a MiG to make a lucky move and confuse the missile. And we still have a 20mm gatling just in case.
The Sidewinders are short (way inside visual) range missiles. To use longer range missile requires the use of radar, but to do that requires a noise source, so it can't come from the "stealth" aircraft, or it won't be stealth. The SU-30 shown in the video has vectored thrust also, so to pretend it's not a threat is naive.
That still leaves the question of how that damn fighter got passed the F-22's (and AWACS, no less!) radar in the first place. It seems that all the responses championing VR combat and guns-hot dogfighting are based on an assumption that, somehow, all of the BVR sensors on every single F-22 in the combat group have failed simultaneously, leaving none of the BVR weapons on the F-22's as viable weapons. Seeing as with how advanced the systems on the F-22 actually are (declassified and implied statistics don't even hint at what this bird is actually capable of), it's hard to believe that any adversary will survive an engagement past 30 seconds after radar acquisition on the F-22's due to their compliment of AMRAAMS plus their unbelievable radars. And even if you base your statements off of experiences in the Gulf War, keep in mind that we have gone through dozens of electronics upgrades since then, almost eliminating the malfunctions we saw there.
Until Sukhoi or Mikoyan come up with a stealth fighter of their own, we won't have any issues with hitting planes at BVR anymore.
Again, the F-22 doesn't use active radar. It doesn't look, it only listens, or else it won't be stealth. If the enemy plane isn't emitting enough noise for the F-22 to hear, it won't hear it. It's a catch-22. A plane like the F-15 has a great radar, so the pilot uses it to find the enemy planes. The F-22 is trying to be stealthy, so it only listens for other aircrafts radar. If the other aircraft stops emitting electronic noise, then the F-22 can't find it, and it becomes an electronic stalemate. Again, this assumes there are no other information sources available to either aircraft.
-
I get bad vibes from the level of weapons technology that we are achieving now and in the near future. If a warrior is separated from the blood & guts too much, he will forget what war really is.
Yup and the more superior one side gets, the more you will see "dirty" fighting by the other simply because they run out of options. And not fighting at all is not an option for some of our enemies. You just move warfare to another level when you run out of ways to pose a threat to the other side.
You may not want balance, but you dont want to go too far in terms of dominating conventional warfare either.
-
I would love to know how stealthy the F/A-22 really is, but I doubt I will find out any time soon.
psssst its behind you now :noid
-
F/A-22 discussions are epic fail. :lol
-
Yes, but we can. And the German's didn't have stealth (working on it) or A2A missiles (working on those, too).
Stealth, applied to fighter aircraft, has become massively over-rated. Until you can make a weapons system invisible visually, as well as electronically, there will always be ways to defeat it. Take for instance, hiding in ground clutter. If the enemy places fighters along attack routes, and hides in the dirt, waiting to pop up and engage close, all the stealth in the world won't help you. The human eyeball with a little light, generally defeats any electronic stealth 100% of the time. I know this because at a distance of 7-10 miles, I can see an F22, B2 or F117 easily. This is true especially in a high concentration arena where visually ID'ing a target will be required prior to engaging it. Obviously, this is also why most stealth aircraft fly at night.
Stealth, as of now, is useful mostly in interdiction and ground attack missions where you know the precise location of what you're attempting to destroy. To say otherwise implies lack of overall knowledge of the realities of air combat. ROE's exist to ensure that blue on blue kills don't occur for any reason or due to any malfunction of IFF systems onboard other craft. That unknown con racing out from hostile territory and not broadcasting IFF squawks or data link, could be a damaged friendly just limping home.
Of course, in a known arena, where you have exact information (I have 5 F22's and there are 10 Mig-29's ID'd at 22 miles... so, here go the AMRAAMS) stealth would play a large factor in the outcome. This sanitized, clean OP area just will not exist in any rapidly changing theater of operations. This will be true especially in theaters where air superiority is either up for grabs, or has been absolutely attained by friendly power. BVR tactics will not be utilized for fear of blue on blue casualties in such "dirty" theaters.
-
I seem to recall someone stating the F-22A has only 'passive' radar.... Apparantly, he/she/it didn't do his/her/its research very well. The F-22A uses the Northrop Grumman AN/APG-77 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar. The AN/APG-77 has both long-range target acquisition and low probability of interception of its own signals by enemy aircraft. Which means it's not passive. And no, that MiG-29M over there isn't likely going to have it's radar warning alarm tripped until the missile is already on it's way. Therefore; even if the MiG/Su/Typhoon/RV8 is running radar-cold, the F-22A will pick it up and kill it.
Moral of the story is the F-22A, no matter what, is gonna be hard as hell to take down.
-
I seem to recall someone stating the F-22A has only 'passive' radar.... Apparantly, he/she/it didn't do his/her/its research very well. The F-22A uses the Northrop Grumman AN/APG-77 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar. The AN/APG-77 has both long-range target acquisition and low probability of interception of its own signals by enemy aircraft. Which means it's not passive. And no, that MiG-29M over there isn't likely going to have it's radar warning alarm tripped until the missile is already on it's way. Therefore; even if the MiG/Su/Typhoon/RV8 is running radar-cold, the F-22A will pick it up and kill it.
Moral of the story is the F-22A, no matter what, is gonna be hard as hell to take down.
That was me. I didn't realise how un-stealthy the F-22 really was. If you make noise, you can be found, simple as that. It's the same reason military submarines don't use active sonar, even though they have them.
-
That was me. I didn't realise how un-stealthy the F-22 really was. If you make noise, you can be found, simple as that. It's the same reason military submarines don't use active sonar, even though they have them.
No, the F-22A is very stealthy. It's RCS is the size of a pea. And making the assumption that sonar is in any way comparable to radar is simply not true. You can't make a 'phased-array sonar'. You can do that with radar, which makes the F-22A (and all other aircraft equipped with AESA radar) able to avoid detection. The AN/APG-77 has, as I said before, LPI, low probability of intercept properties. Phased array radars are especially difficult to detect, because they do not have physically deflecting modules. Phased arrays use solid state transceivers, which have traverse speeds in the 10's of nanoseconds.
So yes, the F-22A is VERY stealthy.
-
If the Raptor RCS is the size of a pea then your gonna have to hit it with your radar while its next to you.
Bombers will show up on radar before fighters will. Not sure how accurate F4AF models the AN/APG-68 but you will not see fighters until they are within 80 miles. Bombers and large aircraft can be picked up out to 120 miles or so. Neither of them can be locked up at those distances.
-
That's exactly right. And even with that range, you'd be ditching radar ENTIRELY for the infra-red IRST ball on your nose.
That is, if you GET that close. As I have proven, the F-22 has ACTIVE radar with LPI properties. Any Sukhoi in range is toast.
-
From what i've read here there seems to be some very significant assumptions specific to the F-22. While it is mission capable as a "dog fighter" if/when its ever deployed in combat any dogfighting would be a failure in tasking. The F-22 is designed as a stand off weapons platform. Obviously details arent available at a public access level but the reality is that anything attempting to engage the F-22 wont know ones around till after its dead....period. The F-22 by doctrine will not ever engage at visual range or even within the bounds of an enemy's detection capabilities. It's designed for sub 20 min turn around time and capable of sustained sortie rates far beyond any plane in service anywhere. It is a whole different animal...I'd agree the Su-30 can probably out fly it at an air show...but pretty doesn't equal lethal.
-
That's exactly true. And, if the plane that ends up succeeding in getting into visual range doesn't have thrust vectoring..... You can guarantee they'll get their bellybutton handed to them on an aluminum alloy platter. F-22 isn't the most maneuverable bird out there. But in the vertical, that baby can pull some serious pitch maneuvers. Think the opposite of the 190. Not perfect on the roll, but the damn thing can nose up like a 109 on a damn Saturn-V.
-
wonder what will happen when the Chinese start making Radar and missiles for the soviets?
-
the Chinese already provide the UK with them, it's called bonfire night. :cool:
-
Please keep in mind, this plane has been modified and is non-military. We do the same exact thing. For airshows, the planes are removed of most combat components, reducing the weight as much as possible. Call it cheating? Nah, airshows are for private citizens and not military buyers.
For a better explanation of the problems with the SU-30 MKI (Indian version) check this....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlJndMO1O80
ANd then a head to head with the Raptor as spoken on in previous video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_za3KfMFKLk
-
Whats interesting is the explanation of the different vectoring dynamics and surprising sustained turn of the F-22. From what I gather the SU-30 is basically going blind to the merge relying on its own jamming as a mask...so basically its relying on getting to close in combat vs the f-15/16 where its sustained 22 deg/sec turn rate and vector thrust will give it an edge. Separate from its much greater pure dog fighting ability the F-22 will be able to engage the SU-30 BVR. What I really found interesting is the idea that the real threat is from older refurbished planes like the bison that have upgraded BVR capability...
-
As others have said, the F/A-22 wasn't designed to get it's hands dirty. It's designed to cruise stealthfuly within striking range of it's ordinance (well beyond visual or most enemy countermeasure/detection range), drop it's ordinance and run/hide.
I'd be interested to see how the SU-30 holds up against a F-35 though (ignoring the fact that, much like with the F/A-22, the SU-30 will be dead before he knows the F-35 is out there).
-
As a matter of Interest here, where in the heck do you boys get all this Information from? I've never heard of the SU 30 or whatever it's called till now, that Russain crate comes over as a cross between an La7 and a zeke by the looks of things.
-
I think (from my horrible memory) the SU-30 is an upgraded SU-27 that was developed in the mid '90s. It's a beutiful aircraft that, in my own opinion, was built to fight in air battles that haven't been common since the end of WWII (gun-range dogfighting, turning-n-burning, w/e you want to call it). Compared to the SU-27 I think it has an increased range of up to ~3,000 N-miles, which I think was the SU-27's main drawback (it's lack of range compared to other craft of the time). The SU-30 also has upgraded electronics and such, and it operates with two pilots, much like the F-14 tomcat, which in itself is an edge above other one-pilot aircraft imo.
-
Close, but you're just off on the range liability. The Su-27 was developed as the long range counterpart to the short-range MiG-29. The MiG was for short range defense, and the Su as a long range interceptor.
-
I recall reading somewhere about the SU-27 having lack-luster range capabilities, or at least it did when the newer SU-30 came rolling out for comparison. :rolleyes: I know the MiG-29 had horrible range, so i guess it wasn't hard to develope a longer range fighter (the SU-27) and then improve that design to be even more efficient (the SU-30).
-
As others have said, the F/A-22 wasn't designed to get it's hands dirty. It's designed to cruise stealthfuly within striking range of it's ordinance (well beyond visual or most enemy countermeasure/detection range), drop it's ordinance and run/hide.
I'd be interested to see how the SU-30 holds up against a F-35 though (ignoring the fact that, much like with the F/A-22, the SU-30 will be dead before he knows the F-35 is out there).
Thats what I thought but listening to the briefing its clear the F-22 is a significantly better dogfighter then anything else in the world by a wide margin and it retains a gun pod specifically for close in work....
-
No, the F-22A is very stealthy. It's RCS is the size of a pea. And making the assumption that sonar is in any way comparable to radar is simply not true. You can't make a 'phased-array sonar'. You can do that with radar, which makes the F-22A (and all other aircraft equipped with AESA radar) able to avoid detection. The AN/APG-77 has, as I said before, LPI, low probability of intercept properties. Phased array radars are especially difficult to detect, because they do not have physically deflecting modules. Phased arrays use solid state transceivers, which have traverse speeds in the 10's of nanoseconds.
So yes, the F-22A is VERY stealthy.
I'm not sure how much you know about radar. Based on you using sound bites from (name your source here) for your arguments, I'd say you don't really understand what's going on. Active radar is essentially the use of electromagnetic waves, emitting them out, attempting to bounce them off of a target, and then detecting the reflected waves back at the receiver. This necessitates the travel of the waves at twice the distance of the target, so if the target reflects the waves perfectly, you will be able to see the target at the maximum range that the radar can detect anything. This also means that if I'm looking for electromagnetic waves, assuming I have as sensitive a detection device as the radar that sent the waves, I can see the source at 2 times the distance as the radar can see our fictional perfect reflection. In real life, that distance is much greater, as no aircraft reflects electromagnetic waves perfectly.
Being stealthy requires that you 1) can't bees seen by enemy radar (awfully big subject) 2) can't be seen by a person (the reason stealth is only really good at night, and even that can be defeated) 3) don't emit electromagnetic radiation 4) don't emit heat (electromagnetic radiation in the infrared spectrum) and 5) don't make audible sound. All of the claims about how stealthy plane x is requires assumptions about the enemies abilities and that the enemy doesn't make some breakthrough that renders your "stealth" obsolete. Any of these items can be defeated.
-
Low probability means low probability. It's not a surefire thing. It is not 100% stealthy, nothing is. There are ways to decrease its odds of being picked up, but not completely.
-
Low probability means low probability. It's not a surefire thing. It is not 100% stealthy, nothing is. There are ways to decrease its odds of being picked up, but not completely.
Saying something is "low probability" means absolutely nothing without knowing what percentage chance we're speaking of, and also knowing what assumptions are being made about the detection equipment used by the enemy. Neither of those items are published (rightly so, as it would delve into national security issues), so we're left with sound bites from the PR arm of the manufacturer.
As far as trying to be 100% stealthy, to do so would require you to match all of the surrounding electromagnetic noise, so you can't be perfectly quiet, of more specifically, you can't block the surrounding radiation without generating a matching level. An example of this would be to fly a black plane during the daylight. I can see it, so it's not very stealth. If I fly a black plane at night, I can still "see" it if it crosses in front of a lit object such as a star, so it's still not as stealthy as we would like it to be, but it's better than during the day.
-
This debate is nonesense.
You are all forgetting the cost of a raptor vs a flanker.
One pop of a raptor and the US will stop the war due to 'high casualties'.
And do you seriously think that the ruskies don't have things up their sleeves for these pretty shiny gray planes you call invisible?
Like the detabe of the missile defense system in Europe. Russia already has manouvering low level ballistic missiles capable of dodging anything, and that was before US missiles proved they can actually hit something flying STRAIGHT!
You surely must travel outside of North America someday :aok
Americas main problem is China, not the ruskies IMO.