The ESM system of the F-22 is one of its most secretive of components. You will likely never hear of what it can pickup.
Then you don’t know much about the F-22’s ESM either, do you?
I did not realize were were speaking specifically of an F-22 launching the AMRAAM. But since you brought it up, many things can “leak” in a fighter (not all of which will be voluntary) that will give the ALR-94 something to lock on to.
Was it demonstrated in exercises? And if so, sources?
Radar is not needed to provide mid-course updates. Any sensor (active or passive) in the network can be used.
To provide mid-course updates, what sensor other than radar does the F-22 have, if an IRST-equipped enemy is not emitting anything?
Yes, this is what caused AMRAAM, it is no longer necessary to paint
It’s still necessary to paint until the AMRAAM goes active.
Or the AMRAAM’s pK will be low because it doesn’t get any mid-course update.
Due to the missile’s paltry agility when speed dropped off,
it becomes critical to get a high initial speed,
and F-22 can be expected to have twice the speed as F-35,
and so will F-22’s missiles have twice the initial speed,
increasing the reach by 50%.
On top of that, the combined speed & agility of F-22 makes it nigh immune to any BVR missile, even if said missiles against all odds still have top speed.
High speed increases missile range, but also brings the launch aircraft closer to the enemy. Below is from a NATO document.
” In head-on engagements, speed can also have a detrimental effect. Figure 44 illustrates this point. Two head on intercept situations are shown here; one is equal speeds for opposing aircraft (upper left) the other is with blue at a higher speed than red. In both cases the aircraft continue their head-on attack until missile Impact. In the former case, the impact is simultaneous. In the latter case the red missile impacted before the blue missile. The blue aircraft literally flew into the red missile. Most long range missile guidance systems require that the aircraft continue to close on its target after the missile has been launched.
The disadvantage of the engagement kinematics with a high speed aircraft can be mitigated to some extent by supersonic maneuverability. The analysis of the use of maneuverability at supersonic speed and the design implications are shown In Figure 45. The basic tactic is to maneuver away from the attacking aircraft as much as possible without losing the ability to track and retain speed for a reattack. “
Easily bank away, only a VLO with poor maneuverability & speed, aka UAV,
should try otherwise
But the F-22 and F-35 should keep the target within its radar’s field of view until the AMRAAM goes active.
In 1991 and 1999 the F-15C usually turned hard after launching its BVR missile. Would the F-22 and F-35 do the same – exposing its probably higher RCS side – or keep flying head-on against its opponent?
If the US is reluctant to sell them the Raptor today, what makes the Japs belive they will be offered to buy its replacer in the future?
Besides i doubt they will have much to offer the amerricans in any 6G joint venture.. But I hope they are serious about the F3.
The Japanese would have to prove that they can go it alone if necessary. For example the US refused to share nuclear technology with the UK before the UK detonated its first all-British bomb in 1952.
It could be the fighter equivalent of “Boeing 787 business model” for which the Japanese build about 35% of the value.
Just wondering, has Indonesia bought BVR missiles for their Su-27/30s? If so, what type and how many?
On one occasion a four ship RAF Typhoon fleet claimed between four and six kills each and within four minutes destroyed in excess of 20 aircraft.
Any more details on this?
I guess this feat would be possible only if all the contacts are clearly, instantly ID’ed at BVR ranges.
Would it be the case in a real shooting war?
It will be developed to operate along with the F-35 in the future and will be replaced with the F-4s and aged F-16s and it will have an advanced jet trainer version.
Does the “advanced jet trainer version” mean an operational conversion trainer like the F-16B or a dedicated trainer like the T-50/M-346?
@datafuser; since you seems to be very concerned by the production statistics of gripen, why dont you search the facts. It seems to me like you just want other users to do your interests, and when we do, you just complain and try to find faults. Its just not a polite and gentlemans way of doing things. U dont think that the operators that bought the gripen C/D’s know the full productionhistory? Its not like the BAE consortium bought second hand gripens A/B’s spitted on the canopy and polished them with the pullover ans then hanged a Wunderbaum in the ejectorhandle and marketed them as C/D versions.
I already spent hours to find and attach those slides from Saab as well as Ny Teknik articles in my posts, so you cannot say I “just want other users to do your interests”.
Also I don’t think accusing Dassault of bribing a Swiss officer without giving any evidence is “gentlemans way of doing things” either.
To remind you, in one of your earlier posts you wrote “I’m fully aware that officialy its said to originate from a swiss officer, u can rest asure it wasnt without help financially from dassault.”
According to this, the “F-60” is the product of students from Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
1. None. According to the FMV, all 204 Gripen A/B/C/D ordered by Sweden had been delivered by 2008.
Then do you agree that Sweden ordered 204 Gripens and received all of them by 2008?
It therefore cannot be true that only 204 aircraft have been built, of which 67 have been delivered to foreign customers, 134 are in the Swedish air force, & 3 are or were test aircraft.
If 204 built cannot be true, what is your number?
How many Gripens have been delivered to all customers so far?