wrightwingAhahahahahahahahaaaaaaa.
GOD DAMN!
Care to refute the story with pilots who have managed to have different results in engagements, or are you dismissing all remarks from folks that have actually flown against the Raptor?
wrightwingSorry, I don’t expect the type of answer. I am looking for an answer with more scientific base than a comparative claim that based on information that its reliability is derived from the faith to uncle Sam than scientific factors 😀
Again, can anyone here explain what kind of treatment is used on F-22 nose cone so that it can still keep the RCS of F-22 in check and F-22 can still use it radar. I am speculating that there should be something special about the nose because it can selectively absorb the radar signals:
-It let the radar signals that were emitted by the F-22’s radar go through.
-It can absorb the radar signals from the outside hostile aircraft’s radars (from other F-15/18…) and at the same time let the return signals that bounce off the hostile airplane to go through it.
Thanks everyone
:confused:
I suspect that the answers you’re looking for can’t be answered here.
wrightwingCompletely useless posting, as usual.
Wrightwing, there’s no way the average frontal RCS of any plane, doesn’t have at least one square millimeter!
-30 dB is almost certainly a peak attenuation value, which is similar to other “stealthed” aircraft, because it means returning nothing, but only at particular angles.
Average RCS is something completely different and I’d say it’s rather close to “stealthed” fighters.
Do you think F15E, doesn’t have -30dB, from a few particular angles?
I’m not saying that the F-35’s average RCS is -30dB. What I am saying though is that that level of attenuation isn’t over just a degree or two, and the rest of the angles are 1m^2 or some such nonsense. You can bet that the RCS spikes are narrow, given that the plane is all aspect VLO, not just single aspect VLO. That means that even the average RCS while not .001m^2, is going to be low.
It doesn’t matter.
It’s enough to climb to 55k ft, for a shot.
well if we go by your assertion that the F-22 is at its stealthiest when view from below, then the interceptor is still going to have a hard time getting a lock.
On resonance scattering regions, described in a link from my former post, which again you haven’t read, but would like to comment with authority…
Again, I don’t care bout stories, but physics. There’s another link from a few posts back from Selex, which you didn’t read either.
I’ve seen the quote and story before. I’m just skeptical as it didn’t provide the information on the F-22’s configuration.
Wrighwing, you’re getting boring…invest an effort and educate yourself, if you want to participate discussions.
I need to go all the way back to the beginning, every time you join. It’s not my duty to educate you.
You guess too much and it would be time to start put something behind that mouth of yours.
I’m sorry if pointing out speculations that aren’t backed up with hard facts bores you. The proof is in the pudding. The F-22 has gone up against numerous radar threats(both ground and aerial), and demonstrated the efficacy of its VLO design on numerous occasions.
wrightwingIf it achieves the LO characteristics/signature of the F-35 and matches or surpasses the flight performance of the F-22- the Russians must be thrilled!
That’s IF it achieves the LO characteristics/signature of the F-35 and/or matches and surpasses the flight performance of the F-22. My suspicion is that it won’t match the F-35, or surpass the F-22.
wrightwingDefine ‘stealth’.
I wouldn’t call a design stealth, until it was at least LO(i.e. .01m^2). Until that point, it’d be just a reduced signature design.
wrightwingSame could be said about your metal golf balls. If you have golf ball RCS in one band of wavelengths then it will be SUV-truck RCS in another band of wavelengths. There is NO such thing as ALL Wavelength Stealth anyways. You could only be average stealth across wide bands or VLO in narrow bands.
In fact very ridiculously low RCS of F35 should be a proof of LOCAL minimization applicable only to narrow range of radar wavelengths, a narrow FWHM and a regular high RCS in low band wavelengths.
Which brings us to the point that wouldn’t you be better invested if you spend more money on fielding Radars with alternative wavelengths that show F-35 as easily as any other 4th gen plane.
Actually there is such a thing as broadband stealth. That doesn’t necessarily mean that in all bands the RCS is the same though.
wrightwingStatements like this, IS what makes me believe it’s “spercruise” AND Afterburner speeds is much higher that what’seing said.
“However, while some aircraft are faster on paper, the internal carriage of its standard combat load allows the aircraft to reach comparatively higher performance with a heavy load over other modern aircraft due to its lack of drag from external stores. It is one of only a handful of aircraft that can sustain supersonic flight without the use of afterburner augmented thrust (and its associated high fuel usage). This ability is now termed supercruise. This allows the aircraft to hit time-critical, fleeting or mobile targets that a subsonic aircraft would not have the speed to reach and an afterburner dependent aircraft would not have the fuel to reach.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor#Upgrades
I could be wrong, but all I know is smoother surfaces= less drag, and could= faster speed, if the engines are stronger, which the 22’s are compaired to the 15.
Anyways, I’m not saying the Pak-Fa’s inlets should be changed, all I’m saying is the underside should be.
It’s not just the drag though. It’s the limits of the inlets, and the structural materials to withstand the heat/pressure of high speeds. If the F-22 had variable inlets, and an airframe completely comprised of steel/titanium, then the heat issues wouldn’t be as much of an issue. This means that there are soft limits that must be adhered to, even if theoretically, the F-22 could reach M3.
wrightwingDassault doesn’t suggest anything. Fanboys do.
Now, -30dB is awfully low even in laboratory conditions and apart from actually not reflecting anything back due shape, the aircraft should have extremely smooth surface, without texture of any kind to avoid radio wave scattering and parasite harmonics, which could find their way back.Now, taking this into a scope, I’m wondering what’s the actual advantage of F35 over Rafale?
Both are shaped the way they don’t reflect anything back from head-on and so the difference must be somewhere elsewhere…in the scattering?
Well, that story might go if it wasn’t for one thing. Rafale is RAM treated too, so neither scattering argument holds here.Now, the difference stated(?) between two aircraft is OTOH quite severe and is approx. 20dB (F35=-30dB, Rafale=-10dB). This is very much more that you can even imagine.
How, why and where???Before going onwards, read this.
In X-band, say 3cm (10GHz) wavelength, -30dB is a surface equivalent of approx. 0.0000000716 m^2.
Now, this is ridiculously low and is actually 0.0007 cm^2, meaning 0.26×0.26 mm of flat reflecting surface perpendicular on inbound wave!
I can’t tell how it’s physically possible?! Can you?
Certainly not with my Mk 1 eyeball, and neither can you.
Whenever necessary.
If the report from that Dutch frigate is true (and I suspect it is) and it was able to track F22 at ~150km with J-band radar indeed, then there’s no problem to vector fighters to intercept F22…well unless they’re F18s, or F35s. 😀
Which fighters are going to be vectored in at altitudes higher than F-22s regularly operate?(i.e. 60,000′ +)
What are you basing your belief about the Dutch Frigate detecting the F-22 at 150km being accurate on? I’m pretty skeptical of any story about an F-22 being used to strafe a naval vessel, much less a figure given for detection ranges, without info on the F-22(i.e. did it have RCS enhancers, EFTs, etc…).
My guess is that seeing as how the F-22 was designed to survive against threats such as S-300/400, that this is a bogus claim(or misleading at best).
wrightwingYour NOT understanding what, I’m saying:
If you look at the Low Mach/Mach 1/Mach 2/ Mach 2+ numbers of the F-15/22 things don’t make scence, the U.S. has to be giving “Dis-Information” about the F-22, that thing should out perform the F-15 on ALL levels PERIOD!!
As a matter of fact this site states that also:
The F-22 Raptor is a fifth generation fighter that is considered a fourth-generation stealth aircraft by the USAF.[83] Its dual afterburning Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 turbofans incorporate pitch axis thrust vectoring, with a range of ±20 degrees. The maximum thrust is classified, though most sources place it at about 35,000 lbf (156 kN) per engine.[84] Maximum speed, without external weapons, is estimated to be Mach 1.82 in supercruise mode;[85] as demonstrated by General John P. Jumper, former US Air Force Chief of Staff, when his Raptor exceeded Mach 1.7 without afterburners on 13 January 2005.[86] With afterburners, it is “greater than Mach 2.0” (1,317 mph, 2,120 km/h), according to Lockheed Martin; however, the Raptor can exceed its design speed limits, particularly at low altitudes, with max-speed alerts to help prevent the pilot from exceeding them. Former Lockheed F-22 chief test pilot Paul Metz stated that the Raptor has a fixed inlet. The absence of variable intake ramps generally limits speeds to approximately Mach 2.0. Such ramps would be used to prevent engine surge resulting in a compressor stall, but the intake itself may be designed to prevent this. Metz has also stated that the F-22 has a higher climb rate than the F-15 Eagle due to advances in engine technology, despite the F-15’s thrust-to-weight ratio of about 1.2:1, with the F-22 having a ratio closer to 1:1.[87] The US Air Force claims that the Raptor cannot be matched by any known or projected fighter types,[3] and Lockheed Martin claims that, “the F-22 is the only aircraft that blends supercruise speed, super-agility, stealth and sensor fusion into a single air dominance platform.”[88]
It’s you that is misunderstanding. The F-22 does outperform the F-15 in all meaningful metrics. It’s top speed is however limited due to several things though- inlet design, but more importantly, the structural limits. It has plenty of thrust to go fast(in fact, it has enough to where the pilot has to be mindful not to exceed certain limits). The F-15 has inlets that are designed for M2.5+, but still has structural limits too. One caveat though- the F-22’s top speed has never been released, though Paul Metz has said that it will reach at least 1600mph.
wrightwingthe B-2 needs to be escorted by no less than 50 fighters, to the target, going against Rus tech I can assure you, the U.S. famous “STEALTH” will not work.
Care to provide a source for this claim.:rolleyes:
wrightwingOn the other hand, often quoted Rafale’s refueling probe is significantly smaller than F35’s second vertical stabilizer, so that point is invalid.
RCS is less about size than shape.
Anyway, so much about -30dB and even if that’s true there’s no reason why Rafale wouldn’t have signal attenuation similar to that value, too.
Not even Dassault suggests that the Rafale’s RCS is as low as the F-35.:rolleyes:
Now, the choice of aerodynamic/stealth features the Sukhoi’s designers made is interesting and points toward the frontal RCS reduction mainly.
Majority of people talk about F22’s “marble” RCS here, but don’t realize that F22’s shaping is mainly done against low/SAM radars and it’s RCS reduction against aircraft (head-on) isn’t much better than other “stealthed” aircraft that took basic precautions in hiding engines and treating leading edges with RAM.
Assuming this is correct, how often do you expect a foe of an F-22 to be operating at a higher altitude(or even at the same altitude)? The more important question though is where you arrived at this conclusion?
wrightwingI think he refered to the plasma screen that is used to reduce the RCS of the radar panel on the airplane and at the same time the radar can still be used. This technique is mentioned in here:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=51518
That makes me feel pretty skeptical about RCS number of F-22 also because I am not sure what kind of treatment was used on F-22 nosecone to make sure that the signals from the APG-77 can go through the nose, doing its job and at the same time the radar does not become a huge reflective area that increase the RCS of F-22. :confused:
Rather than worry about RCS claims, just look at how the F-22’s RCS reduction has worked against F-15, F-16, and F-18 Super Hornets (coming in low/high, multiple angles, fast/slow, etc….), even to the point that pilots could visually see the Raptor without getting weapons locks. That result is better than any marketing claim.
wrightwingPoint taken.. Make it +/- 300nm, then, or would they dare any closer?
Just another example of how force multipliers and well-thought tactics bring in decisive advantages, even in the high tech era… That is why I truly dislike 1vs1 type comparison threads.
I’m not sure what the minimum distance they’d have tankers orbiting. I guess that would depend on the proximity of enemy airbases, and SAM sites, so I’d guess that at least sometimes it’d be less than 300nm(probably not less than 200nm though).
wrightwingIn a race-type comparison yes, definitely. In real combat that sort of depends on the scenario. In their typical roles, usually the F-35 would be the striking aircraft and Fulcrum the defender… In that case F-35 might bingo the fuel much sooner simply because it still has 400+nm way back to the base.
Agreed. It’s all dependant on the fuel state that they started at. My guess is that there’d be tanker support <400nm away though.
wrightwingFor instance, F-35 does not seem to be able to supercruise. I would not think for a second that LM wanted a supercruiser but they have screwed it up. Still, the overall outcome is a non-supercruising aircraft. For USAF might be of secondary importance since they have Raptors to depend on, but for European users this might be a great disappointment.
Remember how LM/USAF defines supercruise is different than in Europe, whether it’s marketing PR or not. The F-35 very well may cruise at > than M1 but < than M1.5. This remains to be seen.
Sign In
