wrightwingWell Mig-25/31s must have a real tough time detecting targets on their radars then, if the F-22 is significantly degraded at M1.8.:cool:
wrightwingWith a treatment like that – goodbye F-22, goodbye F-35, hello BAe and Dassault. Markets driven by demand, customer oriented selling startegy…. says nothing to you? 🙂
Supply vs. Demand. The Japanese apparently really want the Raptor.
Again, not a Japanese problem. It’s Americans who have utmost interest in modifying these systems, Japanese would probably be perfectly happy with the basic system like it is now.
Who wants the mods should also pay for them. 😎
Good night, gents.
I’m sure the Japanese would be perfectly happy to have a US version, and not pay more.:rolleyes:
wrightwingDo a second thought about that. The spotlight of your Jeep does travel with the speed of light. When you do search for someone in the night at the edge of a wood, what will you do? Rise the speed of your car or slow it down?!
Are you seriously trying to tell me that a radar’s search volume is lessened if a fighter flies faster(how much search volume do you think an SR-71 had vs. a U2, using SAR, etc.)? It’s not how fast the fighter flies. It’s how fast the radar scans, and an AESA array isn’t nearly as limited as a mechanical array, in terms of refresh rates. As has been mentioned before, US fighters flying against the Raptor have tried flying low, high and fast, beam manuevers, etc… and still lost. Until a LO/VLO opponent appears, the Raptor will have huge SA advantages. If an enemy fighter emits(radar, ECM, comms, etc…), the Raptor’s ESM will spot it before there’s a strong enough signal return for the enemy to know about the Raptor.
When informed by the own intel, that some F-22As or any other fighter will be around during the mission, it will stay low, whenever possible to avoid early detection or mask his presence by electronic wizards. The F-22A pilot does learn by that, that something is around close to ground, but the F-22A pilot has to overcome the IFF question at first before creating a shooting opportunity. That is the main difference between exercise and war-time. See the success of the Silkworm about that or when an AEGIS-ship downed an Airbus. The advertisement claims do show their credibility, when they stood the full war-time test. All military advantages are time-limited and not even true for all circumstances.
By the way, most of the supporting elements are not stealth and every system can be satureted in critical times.
This can be mitigated by having no friendlies in front of the Raptors doing sweeps. Additionally, the APG-77/ALR-94 should be able to discriminate the signatures of enemy aircraft with NCTR, to confirm IFF questions.
wrightwingDo your calculations about that. What capacity of computing-power is in need to scan the amount of space below the F-22A at supersonic speed. In reality it is about filter capacity against unknown moving dots with different speed and size, which do show up sometimes from the masking ground clutter. If that is not difficult enough, some did enhance that masking by jamming or do create wrong targets. When look-down/shot-down does work satisfactory above water or a flat desert, without jammers or other wizards, at least when the “briefed targets” will show-up at a given time in a given area. The main advantage being high and fast does reduce the own vulnerability, because it does limit the engagement time of the enemy. It can be used to the own advantage, when the IFF-work was done by an AWACS already or from an excellent intel-briefing like in an exercise. The USAF has decided to operate at in the 20s kf or above. So every dot closing in to that formations could be assumed as hostile. At low altitude even the most advanced AAMs do not have enough snap-up capability against such US formations.
I agree, the F-22A can go low and operate subsonic as it does the MiG-31.
Radar travels at the speed of light, so whether a plane is flying at M.8 or M1.8, the time for the return to come back is neglible. If a foe wants to stay low, and burn fuel at a high rate, and still not see the Raptor before the Raptor sees them, they’re more than welcome to. Flying low hasn’t been particularly effective tactic since the advent of pulse doppler radars, and with the scan rate/resolution of an AESA radar, it’s even less effective.
Remember one of the Raptor’s tasks is countering low flying stealthy cruise missiles, so spotting a non VLO/LO target isn’t going to be particularly challenging, especially when you have multiple Raptors(and other support systems) networked.
If the foe is using a jammer(or search radar), then the Raptor’s ALR-94 will cue the pilot of its whereabouts.
For an enemy plane to use anything other than off board datalinked sensory info, or IRST, they’ll betray their position long before they’ll see the Raptor.
wrightwingYou should stop there, seriously is not worth to keep on discussing it, LM/raptor supporters will start their weird logic..because is the Raptor, and aliens are involved, and it technology is actually magic..etc, etc, etc…
I think the 290m is the real cost of a raptor if not more
:rolleyes:
Obviously due to some detailed analysis no doubt.
wrightwingAs a Japanese I would not give damn about how LM manages their cost. If I were to pay let’s say 200mil for a standard F-22 (albeit unavailable for me), I would offer 160mil for a downgraded version, okay, but surely not add up to 280mil. And whether LM has some additional cost with the downgrade… who cares? Surely not me. I am a customer, not their manager.
And LM can tell them to go pack sand, if they don’t like the price. We don’t know what the differences between the export variant and US variant are. It may simply be that the most sensitive systems have to be modified to prevent espionage/reverse engineering, rather than reduced capability.
wrightwingModification? better said downgraded..spares are the main factor to increase it cost, i understand it, but check it again…spare parts are not included…
Definitions of modification on the Web:
* alteration: the act of making something different (as e.g. the size of a garment)
* slightly modified copy; not an exact copy; “a modification of last year’s model”
Modify doesn’t = improve upon. It means change, and the Japanese versions certainly meet that definition. Whether these changes mean removing/replacing systems, or making them tamper resistant to prevent espionage remains to be seen. In any event this drives the cost up significantly, especially for a relatively small buy.
wrightwingWhat a bloody nonsense – to pay more so that they got funds to make your model inferior 🙂
Think about it this way. The JASDF is looking at buying ~40 airframes, which doesn’t allow the economy of scale of a larger purchase. These ~40 airframes have to be modified from the current version, which will cost money. Then add in the spares, logistics, etc…
wrightwingAll your claims are well known to the planers, which were tasked with the “problem” F-22A. When a problem is known, it is no longer a real one. None will see a pilot “outfly” the former AAMs, like they did in the 60s till 80s. Modern avionics and a state of art EW-suit will deal with the problems related with the F-22A. All BVR AAMs do face the same problems and restrictions, when it is the AAM only, which has to be defeated to prevent a kill from that. The advantages are never one-sided always. Compared to a fighter, the installed sensors, propulsion-power and “electronic-brain” is limited. By the way, why a fighter is in a constant need of upgrade that or upgrades of older examples are still worthwhile and does give a new lease of life for otherwise obsolete fighters.
ECM can help, but it’s certainly no guarantee of safety. In any event, the Russian, Chinese, European, etc… missiles will have the same limitations, and have to deal with a stealthy target too.
The main advantage of the F-22A to stay high and fast is its main disadvantage too, because it does push the reaction-time and the capabilities of the sensors to their limits. None is surprised to learn, that the F-22A is operated in a similar way like the F-15C before. 😉
I’m failing to see how the ability to stay high and fast is a disadvantage. Given the situational awareness advantages the Raptor has, I’ve yet to hear any USAF complaints that the systems couldn’t keep up with the airspeed. The Raptor can fly slower too, and decide whether it wants to go WVR or not.
wrightwingWonder if that is the real 22’s cost, and if the 140-160 million figure is not a subsided cost
Nope- the export model would have to be modified, which would add to the cost, and then factor in the spares, etc…
wrightwingNo, I’m not ignoring anything.
What I am doing though, is interpreting F22’s figures so they could tell the exact same story, but in a manner “I” want them to.
So in other words, you’re ignoring the capabilities of the Raptor, and that of newer more lethal missiles? How does this give any insight into what resembles reality?
In a Legacy fighter, there’s a good chance the foe will be aware of you, which means they will try to either-
-disengage
-take evasive actions, while trying to get a firing solution of their own
-use their ECM
All of these things will degrade the performance of an incoming weapon.
In the Raptor, you’ll be able to engage before they’re aware of your presence, which means-
-your weapon will likely be within its envelope/NEZ when fired
-the target won’t have started defensive tactics
-the target will have seconds rather than minutes to react
-the target most likely won’t have its ECM on until the missile’s in its terminal phase
-the newer missiles have better ECCM/HOJ/datalink features
In summary, the Raptor has a high likelihood of firing shots from optimal locations against unaware targets, that have little time to react. This combined with better missiles should result in much higher pKs than a Legacy aircraft might be able to achieve.
wrightwingIt does not matter, when the opponent has the equipment, tactics and retated training to beat an AIM-120C-* in the endgame f.e..
Every combat-system is as strong or as weak as the opponent does allow it.
Maybe you missed it, there is no serious one who does ignore that the F-22A has a lot of advantages. So it is much more intresting to learn something about its weak points. That weak points did prevent to procure more than 200 of that or in short, the cost-effectiveness ratio does not justify a higher number the present and future demands in mind.
One claimed weak point was the topic of the threat, when non had a problem to prove that claim wrong. 😉
Well I’m sure it’s comforting to the opponent, to know that they’ve been trained how to beat an AIM-120C-*, allowing them to operate in a carefree manner.:rolleyes:
wrightwingThe F-22A did start with the AIM-120C-5, if in the meanwhile the C-7 has replaced all C-5s is questionable. 😉
None AAM has a Ph of 1, when the Pk is even lower.
C5 or C7, the F-22 will be able to launch them in the most advantageous manner in terms of launch envelopes, which increases the hit/kill probability over legacy aircraft. It also has the luxury of remaining outside of the detection ranges of its opponents for follow up shots, if need be.
wrightwingAgreed, but how can one go and talk around (and present himself as a USAF pilot), that he can engage 4 enemy aircraft and flyaway and he doesn’t even know what his missile can do and what aircraft will he go against and in which conditions?
One thing you’re ignoring is that an F-22 is far more likely to be able to get into optimum firing solutions for its missiles than a legacy aircraft. This means that the likelihood of a kill goes up, everything else being equal. Combine this with the fact that it’s using newer and more lethal missiles.
wrightwingYes, I did asume the other 38 missiles will miss, but I may have also assume the original 62 miss. But I didn’t speak of HIT probability (Ph), but KILL probability(Pk), because I don’t have a figure for a Ph. Sure, its possible and probably has happened, that the two missiles scored a hit on the same target. This is one of the reasons, why modern fighers feature datalink.
But there’s no basis for assuming that every extra missile that was fired was a miss. It’s not uncommon to ripple fire missiles at a target to achieve a higher pK, and if both missiles were fired within the proper launch envelope, there’s a reasonably high chance that either missile could’ve achieved the kill on its own. This being the case, it’s not unreasonable to conclude that the actual performance of the missiles was greater than simply the number of targets that were killed.
Anyway, I agree, that 7M is a good missile, which faired well in combat. The combat service is what makes it good, though. Not laboratory predictions.
So does the baptism of fire awaits all new models, regardless of amount of predicting and simulating and such.
Sure the F22 has theoretical advantage, but against what and whom and that remains to be seen.
The laboratory predictions are made not only in computer simulations, but in live firings under a variety of conditions. I agree that the baptism of fire awaits all new models, whether they’re American, European, Russian, Chinese, etc…
Sign In
