Most importantly, coupled with some basic RCS reduction, they could make the Flanker a substantial pain to target in BVR.

They’d have to do some major RCS reduction to the pods too.

However, what really frightens USN is AS-4 nuke “Kitchen”, a smaller plane sized 350kT missile, which can’t be stopped by CIWS, nor pretty much anything the USN can put against it.
This is the real “carrier killer” and you need many Tomcats, with even more Mach5 AIM54s to stop it…and each Tu-22M3 carries, several of them.

The SM-3 and SM-6 would be challenging for the missile to try and get by, especially when supported by ESSMs and later block RAMs. Then of course the bombers would still have to get through the CAPs of fighters.

And Pantsir is stationary target??

Presumably if the S-300/400 it’s defending is stationary, the the Pantsir will also be stationary. If they are on the move, they’re likely not firing(or reloading). The SDB II can engage moving targets.

At what point?? Against whom??

USAF against Albaina?! 😀
Ww, what are you talking about??

The point was that at some point, the number of incoming bombs is > than the available number of outgoing missiles. This works in pretty much whatever scenario you want to use, where tactical aircraft are performing SEAD/DEAD missions.

The way to overwhelm point defense is Higher-Speed Anti-radiation missile Demonstration (HSAD).
Gliders are too slow, missiles aren’t needed, AA-gun will do, and that’s cheaper then the bomb.

Gliders launched at M1.5+ at high altitudes aren’t going to be like shooting at UAVs, and when you have a large number approaching, and a limited magazine of missiles, you can quickly become oversaturated. As far as missiles are concerned, the AARGM (and subsequently the JDRADM, etc..) will provide for high speed weapons.

On paper all three systems would appear to have similar capabilities, with the ALR-94 being the most complex, capable, and (presumably) expensive system of the three. The problem with trying to compare these systems though is the lack of published data. Much of the information available only really outlines the performance of these systems in the broadest terms, and often gives no indication of what conditions that performance was achieved under.

The other 2 systems don’t have the same number of apertures, to cover the number of simultaneous frequencies(as well as azimuth/elevation accuracy), so this alone is a major + for the ALR-94.

Just speculating based on the limited information I’ve seen published over the years though it would seem that the Typhoon’s DASS has the capability to identify emitters at ranges ‘exceeding’ 150 nautical miles, while the detection range is shown in EADS presentations as significantly exceeding that of Captor. Given that the maximum published range of Captor is 200 NM for large targets, I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of DASS/ESM having a comparable detection range to the 200-250 NM range hinted at for the ALR-94.

The range quotes for the ALR-94 are given as >250nm(and some have even been considerably more than that).

But the shooter still has to close to a range which allows it to launch an AIM-120 against the target with a high probability of kill.

And with the C7/D model AIM-120s, that can still be a considerable distance, especially if the target isn’t aware of the incoming missile(due to no RWR info, and the missile launch being outside of the MLD range).

I would imagine that The APG-77 allows for some very clever counter jamming and deception techniques to be employed within it’s frequency range, but the capability of current generation fighter based AESA to cause physical damage to aircraft or missile avionics if possible at all will be limited to effecting unshielded electronics at an extremely short range.

The APG-77 will have a significant EA capability as part of the Increment 3.1 upgrade, which is occurring in FY11. I’m not sure what the effective range might be, but in articles on the Super Hornet’s APG-79(which is smaller and less powerful), the range was listed as “BVR” and “tactically significant.”

Yes agreed, I was just pointing out that the F-22 will also require stand-off jamming support in order to penetrate a modern IADS in a first day of war scenario, unless low-band threats are taken out by other platforms before hand of course.

Not just jamming but the destruction of those systems, in the systematic reduction of enemy SA and IADS capabilities. Without those few vital assets, the foe will be limited to much less capable systems.

The drag may be negligible as you say, perhaps not much greater than if the missile where mounted externally on a pylon. But a delay of several seconds between lock-on and launch would be a severe disadvantage giving an opponent valuable time to break lock.

The entire firing sequence, even for the AIM-9M is only a few seconds. Secondly, it’s entirely likely that the foe won’t even be aware of the F-22’s presence, as it likely won’t be approaching directly within the opposition’s MK1 eyeball field of view. Once the -9X Block IIs are integrated in FY16, with LOAL, this issue won’t exist.

What other options do they have?

It is a given they cannot afford both, otherwise the IRST would be on the aircraft.

So your alternative is… they decide to scrap the RWR instead and just use IRST.

Ok, I will try to type a bit slower so that my point can be understood- the USAF decided that IRST WAS NOT as IMPORTANT as the APG-77/ALR-94, when certain features were being cut do to the budget constraints. IRST was considered a nice to have feature, whereas the other 2 systems were NEED to have, considering their confidence in both the passive abilities of the ESM, and the LPI capabilities of the radar.

Nor was the F-14 ever designed to replace the A-6. Yet, it did, and did the job well.

Be that as it may, each aircraft can do things the other can’t, but….the importance of the F-22 allowing the F-15E to do its mission successfully is much greater, than the other way around.

Theoretical benefits. But that line of argument is gonna de-rail the thread so I will go no further.

Theoretical?

Yet, every air war of the last 30-40 years the USAF have been involved in has been analogous to Afghanistan.

When did the USAF last face off against an enemy with state of the art front line and support equipment?

For their respective times- Vietnam and Desert Storm.

I have fallen into the ‘quick and dirty read’ trap more times than I can count, so I understand the situation.

Kopp is a curious instance of someone who really has a bee in his bonnet (regarding the F-22) to the point that it gets boring for the rest of us. (That said, I’d be a lot happier to have seen the USAF buying 300 Raptors rather than the current 180 odd. They USAF may feel that it doesn’t need more, but you could equally well argue that old Mercurius doesn’t need a spare computer. Yet I sleep a lot more soundly at nights in the knowledge that I have one – an insurance policy intended to ensure that I can cope with most common forms of electronic disaster.)

I agree that a 381 Raptor buy would’ve been preferrable.