That’s correct, we don’t. But this somehow does not prevent you from claiming that the RCS is much lower than with conventional aircraft. And if asked how exactly they achieved that, you simply don’t like to answer..

Conversely, it doesn’t stop you from making claims, that you can’t back up.:rolleyes:

A – how can you do that if there are many emitters? Even F-22 only can be in one position at any given time. And it’s inevitable that the position won’t be ideal or most favorable towards all emitters.

Due to the reduced signature vs. a non-stealthy aircraft, the emitters aren’t going to have overlapping coverage like they would normally have. One of the features on the F-22, is a display with all threat emitters, and their respective threat radii. This allows the F-22 to plot courses to take advantage of those gaps. Now factor in the fact that there’ll be jamming/EA occurring degrading those emitters, and the F-22’s high speed when operating in close proximity, minimizing its exposure.

B – Exactly. And you need to do that because stealth has its limits.. If your F-22 was as invulnerable as you claim, then you would not bother with that, at all. Remember how vital was it for F-117 to strictly hold to the pre-planned route in order to avoid enemy SAMs? For F-22 or F-35 it’s no different.

The F-117 didn’t have the advantage of sensor fusion and elaborate ESM systems, so that the pilot could react in real time against unexpected threats. Additionally, the F-117 doesn’t have the speed, agility, and countermeasures that the F-22/35 have. Lastly, the F-117 was less stealthy than either of the other 2.

C – I suspect that, too. But being involved in a business at least slightly related to RF, I know by experience that the effect you can achieve by applying damping materials (in that case RAM) is quite limited. You can cut the amplitudes to half in certain frequency bands, right, every saved dB counts by at least reducing the max. detection range but it’s years away from any invulnerability

The only time those angles would be presented to a threat, is if the F-22 was already in the merge. Even then, those angles won’t be presented long enough to maintain a track.

Come on, don’t make me laugh. You US-fans seem to be obsessed with conspiracies – too much Hollywood, right?

You’re the one suggesting a conspiracy, not me.

You can do it in a much simpler and more intelligent way. Simple arrange few exercises with F-22As blue force primarily tasked with free hunt while placing some severe restrictions on the opposing legacy red force – fighter-bomber missions for some, need to escort the fighter-bomber package for others. Then you might furthermore enhance Raptor’s chances by ROE (altitude, speed, initial position and other restrictions) set up in favor of the F-22s and just let the Raptors excel.. Out of the sudden, you got a nice little 1xx:0 score. Noone needs to lie, noone needs to deceive, only the score is pure BS from practical point of view.

This flies in the face of some known info, as well as common sense. Pilots that have flown against the F-22, have used all the tactics they could think of(i.e. wide dispersion, multi angle, high altitude/high speed, extreme low altitude, etc…), and still met with the same result. The point of exercises it to provide realistic training for all involved, not to give F-22 pilots unrealistic expectations of how their aircraft performs.

Do you really think that this multi-billion dollar business is run by idiots who are unable to set up a simple ploy in order to aid their goals? The big players like LM and Boeing can easily afford to pay whole crowds of people in all branches of US Forces so that they can effectively influence everything, from orders through funds, R&D projects, right up to future strategy and planning.. It’s been done like that for ages, admit it or not.

LM/Boeing have nothing to do with Red Flag, Green Flag, etc…. Who’s suggesting conspiracies again exactly?:rolleyes:
The reason the USAF wanted more F-22s was because of how well they performed, not because they had unrealistic exercises, in order to get more.

It’s a quite pathetically sounding belief, when I think of it. I just hope your mission planners are wiser and better informed than that, for the good of your own pilots.

The mission planners have access to far more info than you or I, and numerous tests under realistic conditions to provide baseline data, and to get back on topic, the F-35 will also be rigorously tested for the same kind of data.

Sorry but you have to meet a decision now. Either you want to claim that a) F-22 exhibits much lower RCS levels than conventional aircraft from all angles (which includes the one from below, as well) or you want to claim that b) Raptor’s RCS was optimized from front and rear and the levels from below and maybe some other angles were not treated because they are less important, anyway.

We have no way of knowing what the RCS of the F-22 is from that angle, so there’s no way to really address that in the terms that you’re framing it in. I’ll concur that an F-22 is much more likely to be spotted, if it is it the verticle(or a 90 deg bank), and presenting its belly/back and wings to the emitter. I don’t really see that as posing serious restrictions though as A- the F-22 pilot is not likely going to perform maneuvers which would result in presenting that aspect. B- the ESM systems on the Raptor will alert the pilot to emitters that he/she needs to be concerned with, so he/she can stay outside the threat radius. C- I suspect even those angles have been treated in some manner for signature reduction.

I simply believe that they were much more successful in shooting down the F-22 than claimed. In the time when F-22 fought hard for more funds from the Congress, highlighting its successes and concealing its drawbacks would be quite logical. And even if we consider LM and USAF as being on the opposite side of the barricades (supplier vs client), in that case both sides followed the same goal – more units ordered and procured. So why not cooperate a bit?

So basically you’re saying that there was a big cover up by the USAF, USN, and USMC, and foreign exchange pilots, so the USAF could get more Raptors(and all those pilots have kept quiet about it).

If the claimed exercise scores of 1xx:1 were true, then the Raptor would in fact be practically invulnerable. In that case, the whole programme would have been treated differently. I mean, who wouldn’t want a nearly invulnerable fighter?

Against legacy fighters, the Raptor is practically invulnerable(not totally).

I feel I am talking to a brick now. :confused:

Exactly where have you seen my response saying “curves arent important on the B-2”?

I don’t remember having talked about the B-2A at all, you must be mistaking me for someone else. :confused:

How can they not be important on the F-35 and F-22, if they are important on the B-2? You can’t have it both ways. You might not have addressed the B-2, but you did address curves.

We don’t know that the reduced size of the T-50’s verticle stabilizers requires TVC to compensate in regular flight though, especially considering that the entire stabilizer moves, which should give good control authority.

What exactly are the F-22’s obvious short comings in sensor fusion?

There’s an awful lot of revisionist history going on here.

LOL, I do my best to stay out of this, but Ww makes sure nonsense arrive in abundant numbers.

Ww, the point of planar alignment is that a plane has a few peaks, but average lower RCS.
LO means that the object has an AVERAGE RCS, lower than some yardstick and is thus OVERALL more difficult to spot, using radar.

I haven’t said there weren’t peaks, just that those peaks were smaller than on conventional aircraft.