wrightwingNo, it was not.
Care to compare the AWG-9(~195nm or greater against bomber size targets) and APG-63 detection range vs. the N001(130-140km vs. bomber size targets). In fact, the Tomcat in specific would be detecting fighter size targets at the range the Flanker was detecting bomber size targets. The Flanker didn’t have similar capabilities to 70s era F-14s till the 1990s and later, with the Su-30 variants.
Still, even if I take your claim for granted, why no other later fighter did not adopt any HMS system untill JHMCS appeared? Tres bizzare, no?
Probably due to missile limitations at the time, that could really take advantage of a HMS.
Wrong again, the first IRST was adopted even before (again by US aircraft). But guess what? None was adopted on a serious scale. Even today, no US fighters have IRST systems, only in pod form. Strange, don’t you think?
Can you cite any historical aerial battle where fighters equipped with IRSTs dominated fighters withouth IRSTs? Battles are won at the sytems level, not the platform level.
wrightwing[QUOTE=Cola1973;1528834]
And to what degree ALR94 does it better than say, SPECTRA or PRAETORIAN?
Do you seriously expect an empirical answer to that sort of question?
LOL wrightwing, ALR56 30 years ago, needed 2 seconds of steady stream to ID the illuminating radar…
Which was a singular beam, and singular freq.
Besides, randomization of patterns and frequencies is irrelevant, since radar isn’t IDed by its frequency jumping, but PRF and if it wants to track with certain level of accuracy it needs to provide a steady stream of pulses.
RWRs have threat libraries which allow them to recognize what emissions they’re detecting. The whole idea behind LPI is that A-it doesn’t send recognizable signals that can be matched up with known threats, and B-operates at discreet output levels so as to stay below false alarm thresholds.
Low power is indeed LPI’s main feature, but that works only in radio quiet situations, since LPI radar goes below “normal” tracking power threshold level and modern aerial battlefield is anything but a radio quiet environment.
So F22 can attempt a “hit” on an isolated transporting plane (or other low emission target) using LPI, but on a battlefield with both sided jamming, good luck.
Try >100nm against a 1m^2 target in LPI, so that rules out the low power/low range myth you’re regurgitating.
Hm…well, I see you don’t know how AESA (and radar in general) works, so I don’t see a point in continuing this pitiful excuse of a debate.
You can think that if you like.
wrightwingThe Flanker’s radar at least was far more powerful than anything the west had at the time. Needless to mention the unprecedented at that time HMS and IRST, not to be found in any (or just a handful) western airctaft? Both aircraft you mentioned were not made to be techno-savvy, just capable enough to win a war rather than maintain peace. If the mission computer’s processor of the Fulcrum was a few Mhz slower the the F-16, it would make no difference during a duel.
BTW, this is a nice Raptor comparison pic, posted at paralay, not mentioned so far AFAIK, otherwise, plz accept my apologies.
The original Flanker radar was not more capable than either the Tomcat or Eagle, and the cockpit ergonomics of the early Flankers and Fulcrums was a nightmare compared with the Teen series, M2000, Tornado ADV, etc…
wrightwingYou must be kidding! Really??
Not kidding at all. The Fulcrum and Flanker were newer aircraft than the Tomcat and Eagle, but with far less capable avionics.
That’s what every fused RWS system does.
Again, just because something does something the same way, doesn’t mean that it does it to the same degree.
How does LPI work?
rapid frequency hopping, in random patterns so as to not register with a foe’s ECM threat library, while operating in lower power(but when combined with numerous T/R modules, the sum power level is much higher than the parts), to blend in with background EM noise, using multiple narrow beams briefly with high resolution, etc….
Good luck tracking with LPI power in ECM environment.
good luck detecting/jamming LPI.
And you know that how?
If the Rafale had the RCS of the F-22 or F-35, don’t you think that
A- Dassault would use that in their marketing
B- Aircraft that have flown against the Rafale would have noted their difficulty in detecting the Rafale
wrightwingOk, so how can you then claim PAKFA, or Rafale don’t manage the signal reflection in the same way. Shaping certainly doesn’t collaborate that.
They do manage in the same way. It’s just that they don’t do it in the same degree, and that’s the important distinction.
There’s no room for skepticism here. It’s physics.
Take F22’s projections and measure its leading edge’s length (intake, wing, vertical, etc…) and than put that into wavelength/boominess relationship.
Fighter sized planes are just too small to dampen longer ranged frequencies and what the same technology can do on B2, can’t do on F22.
It’s not just shaping that contributes to low RCS though, even though it plays a large role.
Yes well and you take this as hard facts, over physics?
Ok, there are a few points about your hard facts I’d like to mention here.
First, I’ve read about French ground crews finding US mechanics digging through their Mirages 2000 on a certain RedFlag, without prior notification.
Given the recent French behavior I have reserves towards that, but still that doesn’t mean it can be discarded, per se.
What does this have to do with anything?
Second, no other than US approved hardware actually took a radar look at F22 and even the pilots that flew against F22, don’t know what do they “pack under the hood”.
I’m not just talking about foreign pilots. I’m talking about USAF/USN/USMC pilots, who most certainly do know what they have under the hood. Secondly, are you suggesting that the way an F-15 or F-18 Super Hornet’s sensors work against the F-22 can’t be used as representative performance of how X band radars are likely to fare? If so, in which ways are the physics different(since you like to bring up physics) between those radars, and those of European or Russian aircraft?
Of course these are all speculations on my part and that’s all I’m gonna say on the subject, since this is PAKFA thread and not F22’s, but I find it quite interesting that US keep F22’s data classified, now when there are no more blocks and archenemies and yet during the “Cold War”, fighter’s vital data were at the public display, just to bolster one’s confidence in its armed forces…
Even during the Cold War, there was no classified information out on public displays, to bolster confidence. You can bet that a lot of information on senstive topics regarding the F-22/35 will remain classified. There’s plenty of info on legacy platforms that will too.
wrightwingIt’s a decade newer than the Raptor buddy, get over it.
The US in this case has no edge whatsoever. Stealth – quite possibly – the rest, unless you have any non-rhetorical evidence, is just you in denial.
Just because it’s newer doesn’t automatically mean more advanced. The Russians are having to play catch up in LO design, AESA radars, engines, whereas the US equipment has had several generations of equipment from which to build upon. To have leapfrogged the leader in all of these technologies on the first try is a very optimistic view at best. Furthermore, you’re assuming that the F-22s in 2020 will be the same as those flying in 2010.
The ALR-94 is a nice piece of equipment, but here’s several things to think about:
It’s basically a RWR that can guide the APG-77 in LPI to guide an AMRAAM
… this means that the APG-77 is going to emit, and LPI or not, this is an emission, and you can bet your left nut that the PAK-FA is going to have a hell of an RWR system installed to counter other LPI radars.
It’s far more than a RWR. If any threat ground or air within hundreds of miles in any direction of the F-22 emits anything, it will be geolocated with enough precision to either target it, or provide the info to someone that can target it.
Secondly, an LPI beam may not even pick up a stealth aircraft due to lower power OR the PAK-FA may never emit to begin with, making the ALR-94 useless in that case.
That’s not how LPI works first of all. Secondly neither the F-22 nor the PAK FA necessarily have to emit, if the F-22 is receiving third party targeting information for a passive shot.
Just wait till the R-77 becomes modular, and can use anti-radiation homing!
Good luck homing on an LPI signal, and worst case scenario(if the missile’s approaching from the front quadrant) the AESA could be used in an EA capacity against the missile’s seeker.
This is going to depend on the “side bay” capacity.
I am pretty sure the middle bays can carry 4x R-77s each. (8 total)
Then either 2 short range AAMs in the side bays each, or 1 each. (10 or 12).
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=96337&page=31
* The PAK FA can carry either eight next-generation air-to-air R-77 missiles, or two large controllable anti-ship bombs weighing 1,500 kg each.
* The new jet can also carry two long-range missiles developed by the Novator Bureau which can hit targets within a 400 kilometer range.
I’d be surprised if more than 10 AAMs could be carried internally, and according to this it may only be 8.
wrightwingThat would be another use of the system, yes.
Here’s a good summary:
1. Passive angle tracking and geolocation of JTIDS/MIDS/Link-16 emitters at long ranges.
2. Passive angle tracking and geolocation of L-band AEW&C/AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges.
3. Passive angle tracking and geolocation of hostile (i.e. Western) IFF and SSR transponders at long ranges.
4. High power active jamming of JTIDS/MIDS/Link-16 emitters.
5. High power active jamming of satellite navigation receivers over large areas.
6. High power active jamming of L-band AEW&C/AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges.
7. High power active jamming of guided munition command datalinks over large areas.
Answer this question- you’ve made assertions about the ALR-94 not detecting the PAK FA if it’s not emitting, so how hard do you think it’d be for the F-22 to find it, if it was utilizing how power active jamming? Additionally, jamming narrow beam, frequency hopping datalinks is easier said than done, if it can be done at all, in tactically useful manners.
wrightwingMore clever people than both of us, said that is a pasive element for locating L-band datalinks (Link 16) standard on US and NATO fighters. But , hey maybe you know better…
Well he’s obviously well informed, because he knows how well equipment that isn’t currently in existence performs vs. equipment that’s currently in existence, but the classified performance information hasn’t been released.
wrightwingPogosyan said the “The Su-35 may not be a match for the Raptor, but the PAK-FA will be”
Inferior? I think not.
Comparable is more like it. That would mean 90 – 100% capabilities or so. Which is fantastic for the expected price tag, and 1/6 R&D spending.
The PAK-FA will likely exceed the Raptor on quite a number of parameters even from the get go: weapons carriage & selection, and total sensor fusion. (Multiple radars, IRST, more advanced “electronic pilot” etc)
That’s very optimistic to say the least, considering all of the systems of the final variant have yet to be proven, and the US has the lead in avionics, engines, and LO technology. I have no doubt that the PAK FA will have a wider variety of weapons, which will make it a versatile aircraft.
wrightwingWhat a surprise. . . :rolleyes:
Even Sukhoi isn’t claiming to surpass the Raptor. They’re claiming a plane with similar(but inferior) capabilities, but at a lower cost. We have no figures on comparitive RCS between the PAK FA and the F-35, so again, it’s pure speculation. We haven’t even seen what the final, production variant will look like, but as is, the rear quadrant doesn’t have near the attention given to signature reduction that the F-22/35 have. So feel free to speculate, or we can just wait and see what actually turns out to be the case.
wrightwingbtw, plz do note that B-2 is an all-round stealth bomber with much higher stealth capablity than the F-22, which as per the Yanks were to sneak into Russia and bomb the hell out of the Russians single handedly (what all were the list?? — ICBM silos, mobile launchers and what not, thankfully they did not include submarines underwater ;)).
But fairy tales aside….. the super-stealth B-2 was given “Z+ category” (these are VVIP security available in India) escorts to run its bombing campaign against Serbia which had only handful of unserviced a/c (brave pilots fought against heavy odds & lost) and a few but reliable SAM systems of Soviet/Russian origin. If that was the case with the top-of the line B-2 “stealth” bomber,its better not to talk abt any “single-handed” missions for F-22/F-35. The same goes with PAK-FA. But unlike the marketting bull-crap like the West, Russians don’t believe in “stealth”, rather they believe in making LO and that toooo w/o compromising the bread & butter flight-characteristics – the result of such a practical approach is what we are seeing today as PAk-FA! And definetely their objective will to make it as much LO as possible.
Could you explain for the rest of us what not believing in stealth, but believing in LO means? You do realize that Stealth and LO/VLO are interchangable terms. Stealth simply means signature reduction/management, and that can be against radar, IR, etc…
wrightwingSorry, I didn’t see ur post yestrday….
Yes indeed, its a bold statement and u’ll see it for real in the coming decade. But, I shud have put it more clearly…… as for the roles mentioned, I put that to differentiatiate the roles that the two a/c have a bias to.
First of all we do know abt the experience of Su-30MKI in the US including how the yanks tried to belittle the Indians and their magificiant machines. From some of the stuff that we have, we do know that F-22 don’t have the turn rate of the Su-30MKI ….. its probably no contention that MKI with its better manuverablity,
And where do we know this from? I’ve seen no source making such a claim.
brute of Bars, IRST etc wud be able to beat the F-22 in WVR close-combat as the main advantage of F-22 is its LO characteristics aided by BVR, including AWACS. So gettting a grip on F-22 in longer range of BVR will require brute of AWACS and when thats done, — it can either be
The Bars would light up the ALR-94 like a Christmas tree, and the APG-77 would not only have spotted the Flanker, but would likely use EA against the Flanker’s radar. Of course this is assuming that a Raptor pilot flew directly at the Flanker, rather than coming from a different aspect.
wrightwingIn fact, I got a decent answer from Distiller with enough scientific bases to justify its reliability :rolleyes:
Anyway, thanks Distiller 😉
Well the upward cant of the radar is 1 technique to reduced signatures, though I suspect there are other techniques involved as well, and that’s what I was alluding to.
wrightwingHi mabie
Thanks for answer, that makes more sense now how the radar of F-22 will not become a reflective area. So because of that, the nose of F-22 might not have any other interesting feature except its shape? The main RCS-reduced feature of the radar is from the design of the radar itself and may be some limited application of RAM on the nose since the nose must allow radar signals to go through it?
If it’s the case, is it easier for an aircraft to fly at higher attitude to get better signature return from the F-22 since the F-22 radar panel is slightly upward (60 degrees) ?
Well considering that the F-22’s service ceiling is higher than all other fighters in service except perhaps the Mig-31, then the answer to that question is no, it’s not easier.
wrightwing0.01 sqm from one angle or overall figure? In which band?
The way I see it, according to the anstwer on teh first question, either all designs are stealth or no stealth design exists yet. What do you think happens if you illuminate F-22A in an angle perpendicular to that huge vertical fin? Wanna bet on less than 10 sqm return? 😉
Which radar will maintain the same aspect in relation to the peak RCS angles though. That’s the point of stealth. Even your less favorable angles will only briefly be exposed, so while you may get a brief contact on your radar screen, it won’t necessarily remain, or provide a lock. Another thing to consider is that the verticle tails aren’t 90deg angles, reflecting straight back to the source.
Sign In
