YourFatherAnd is there any flaw in my argument? Or am I to take it that you have nothing concrete left to say other than offer a lousy snigger? I have no problems with a snigger every now and then, but please snigger only at any lousy arguments I make, and then point out the mistakes in them.
YourFathertrue but the F-22 is also agile contrary to the F-117
Not only is it more agile, it flies faster, has hugely better situational awareness, and is capable of self-escort. Sure it still needs support in the form of low-freq jamming, and maybe tanker support, but compare that to the huge strike package needed if a conventional fighter was sent into a heavily defended zone. And then count the numbers that may not make it back. The raptor might even seem cheap then.
YourFatherLaser guided weapons have the greatest drawback of being weather dependant, which was thus one of the main drivers for the development of the JDAM. It is still in the inventory because it provides greater accuracy, and under circumstances, planes can fly under clouds to deliver the bombs. Your wonder system, however, has to work at a greater range than laser-guided bombs, and would have to be able to provide greater availability than laser-guided weapons. Of course, if you want to cover its deficiencies with other systems like IRST, bistatic radars, and 3D arrays, fine, but show me the money. Remember, all this arguments about anti-stealth measures have to take cost into account. Hell, if cost is not taken into account, then all that would be needed to make stealth useless is to put a S-400 battery every 20sq km throughout the country, and voila, stealth rendered useless!
YourFatherI don’t think that the Raptor is that hard to detect with other type of radar as the X-band Doppler device, against which it has been optimized.
The Raptor is probably detectable with the low-freq radars, as is the B-2 bombers. But low-freq radars are usually big and bulky, thus quite immobile, and thus susceptible to Tomahawk strikes. Low freq radars will also be jammed with Prowlers and Compass Call, with B-52 bombers shouldering the burden in future. Then again, nobody (other than the ignorant) claimed that the Raptor is stealthy at all ranges and all bands. Still, find me another fighter that can claim to be stealthy against fire-control radars.
Hardly.. As long as USAF does not have an alternative to a heavyweight fighter, the program would not be cancelled even if the original requirements were never met. The most deadly thing on the Raptor is its (so far unearned) rumour.
Unproven in combat it still is, but find me another fighter that can take down 5 Eagles on its own. Then again, one could always hide behind calling it USAF propoganda……
YourFatherThe sky is a little bigger than a 100 sq m room, I’m afraid. And you have not supplied any details on its scan rate. There’s no problem having a beam of fractions of micrometers scanning the sky, I assure you, but if it does so at a rate of 15 min a scan, then sorry, good luck to your latest anti-stealth wonder.
Second, what is the power requirement to have a laser system able to scan out to tactically significant ranges? Remember it is a system that is ground based, and faces all the problems of atmospheric attenuation. Make it big and thus immobile enough, then its just a matter of time before a healthy dose of Tomahawks comes its way.
Lastly, you’ll have to introduce me to your top-secret anti-cloud system, which I’m sure you must be hiding, otherwise you wouldn’t have delibrately disregarded the point about weather.
YourFatherAhh, ever heard of weather? Atmospheric attenuation? Besides, even on a good day, how reliable is the device, considering the changing wind conditions? Also, the beam width is so small its not going to provide any measure of efficient search.
As for Target ID, its what was stated by the USAF. As said, they intend to resolve target ID ambiguity through multiple source correlation.
YourFatherIR sig is mitigated by the lower air-friction as a result of thinner atmosphere at altitude, as well as design measures on plane like active cooling using the fuel system, application of IR suppressive paint and the flattening of the exhaust nozzles.
As for target ID, the radar has an Inverse SAR (also known as Ultra High Resolution mode) system for target ID which works at ranges slightly less than max range of the radar. Other sources of target ID include the ALR-94 system, as well as info linked from AWACS and Rivet Joint. Target ID is cross-checked from the different sources. So again, argument regarding the need for visual ID is a moot point.
For arguments about the plane not being stealthy from ALL angles, the design is such that returns are concentrated in a few directions where there lies a sudden spike in radar refectivity. However, these spikes point out to the sides of the plane, and is concentrated in only very tiny angles and directions. The argument is such that any radar which happens to be facing these ‘weak spots’ will only get a transient return due to the Raptor being a dynamic aka moving target, and even if missiles were able to be launched against the Raptor, the missile is intercepting a target travelling at high crossing speeds and thus has the least chance of actually hitting the target, even if it was lucky to always be in the direction of the radar spikes.
YourFatherWhat you are then saying is that USAF simulations would be more accurate? That presupposes that the USAF data on the Typhoon is by default more accurate than British/Eruopean data on the F-22 which I find rather doubtful. The Typhoon is not a super stealth design but given the degree of composite materials its airframe uses it is not exactly trivial to model or at least not quite as easy to model as an older metal heavy design would be. Keep in mind also that pitting both the Typhoon and the F-22 against the same aircraft is actually comparing them, though in a roudabout way using an imagined Su-35 as a benchmark. The accuracy of hte Su-35 approximation did not matter in that context, simply how well each aircraft did when competing with the benchmark.
Strange, very strange. Where have I alluded to that the USAF actually did a simulation on the Typhoon’s effectiveness?! :confused: :confused: :rolleyes: Look through my posts CAREFULLY. I never even implied that I thought or believed in any way they did something like that. Jeez, can you take the time to read my posts before typing a reply? All I said was I didn’t believe the the Brit simulation of the Raptor because it was based on guesstimates, and I’d rather believe USAF simulations simply because they have the bloody plane! I never said that the USAF did or even tried to do a sim of Typhoon effectiveness. Why do you like to argue off-point?
YourFatherMay I point the Gentlemen to the Russian thoughts about the usefulness of stealth in the air-to-air environment? (No fast source for reference here, sorry).
And may I remember the Gentlemen, that the current LO features in the radar band concentrate on just one or a very small band (X-band mostly), whereas most surveillance radars operate in the E/F-band, most fire control radars in the I/J-band and most fighter radars in the X-band? Let alone the problem of OTH and bistatic radars. This means you will NEVER be invisible on radar. An technologically up-to-date enemy will always know you’re coming. The idea that you can send out a stealth fighter on his own and clean the sky with impunity is absurd.
Yes, yes. I’m pretty sure most of us know all the above too. WHERE have we ever claimed that its a one plane airforce able to wipe out everything on its own? Of course its not invisible to radar, no plane in existence is. Please dont take us as idiots. However, you seem to think that we consider the Raptor without its support. Low freq radars are a problem for the stealthy aircraft, so guess what the Air Force is doing? Installing BIG jammers on the B-52s. Range not adequate for a particular theatre? Bring in the tankers. OTH radars? Same problem as low-freq radars – not enough accuracy for a firing solution. They just tell you VERY ROUGHLY where the target is. And a radar like that is probably being jammed, if it has not already eaten a Tomahawk. Never forget to take into account that the Raptor operates as part of a system. Hell, that’s what the USAF has been touting all along, how could you miss that?
YourFatherFollowing that, about the Raptor. First, I’m no insider, just an aviation fan, so that’s my only source. The data I get comes mainly from the aviation mags I read. And they in turn get most of it from manufacturers and air force officials and sometimes what you’d call inside sources. Now, the mags do give commentaries sometimes about the claims about whether they are plausible. I do try to read widely to as far as possible get differing viewpoints, and then I make my own judgement about the claims. To date I’ve not seen any ‘idea’ about the fallibility of the Raptor that is practically (whether fiscally or technologically or just tactically) feasible, or which takes into account the realities which the Raptor operates in. I dont know why, but naysayers seem to think that supporters like me think the Raptor is invulnerable, is a super plane that can perform a one-plane show and defeat anything. Jeez…. What we consider as well is the support the Raptor will get in theater as well, and that includes AWACS and jammers and the what have you…..
YourFatherGiven your arguments, I guess the USAF would be doing nothing else as approximating the information they had then on the Typhoon, then… I fail to see a reasonable argument, why the US simulation of Raptor vs Typhoon should have been more accurate than the british one…
There never was any Raptor vs Typhoon simulation, and I have never alluded to such simulations. However, they had done real tests against the Eagles, and probably simulated tests against the Flanker. What I had initiallly argued (and my point all along) was that the tests done by the Brits was probably based on their best guess of the Raptor’s capabilities at that time, and not based on any concrete data given by the US. Following that, I said that I preferred to judge the Raptor based on tests done by the USAF on the Raptor. Notice that NOWHERE did I ever say (or was I ever concerned) about a Raptor vs Typhoon test. Where did you get the idea that they ever did a Raptor vs Typhoon simulation? Strange.
YourFatherHold on. I never said that it came from alien sources. But the term ‘anti-grav’ sounds so ‘far off’ in terms of technology, couplethat with the fact that many conspiracy theorists like to talk about USAF using alien technology, so there is a giggle factor involved. Which is why I’m saying Nick Cook is pretty daring to write about this.
YourFather“But a fighter is like a wolve, partly it lives from being scary for its prey and walking the world proudly for all to see and fear and looking for a fight. See what I mean?”
Perhaps you should go to the strikeeagle forum to ask the opinion of the pilots there about this. I’d prepare myself for the ribbing though. Nothing proud about getting shot out of the sky because one was seen first by the enemy.
“If a fighter is endangered by SAMs, then I’d say fine, the ARM-shooters have just got a new job.”
ahh, the “bring it on” mentality…. You gotta love it. Bushie does. Just sounds so macho…. Of course, his ass ain”t on the line.
“A central element of the war from the air and the war in the air is the offensive use of your assets, anything else is a waste.”
Nobody ever said the Raptor was defensive. Hell, ask those people on Capitol Hill and they’ll tell you how offensive the mere thought of the Raptor’s price tag alone is, nevermind the plane itself. It is an offensive plane alright.
“And no fighter today has the range – including the F-22 – to roam deep under the skies of Indian Country looking for prey; that would be the only application for a real stealth fighter-destroyer.”
That’s exactly how USAF intends to use the plane. And to say the plane doesn’t have the range doesn’t seem plausible. What do you think is the required range? The USAF is pleased with its range performance, and it was planned for the scenario you had in mind. For additional info, AWS&T just reported that altitude tests were conducted on the F-119 engine to demonstrate a loiter capability for the Raptor at very high altitudes. Apparently the engines ran very well.
YourFather😀 While I still disagree with a few points up there, you’re right, we’re hijacking this thread. Also, I haven’t been astute enough to save the articles I mentioned. IIRC, they did have things on the med, long wavelength thingie, but that’s too technical to get in my (very 😮 )limited capacity bio-hard-drive. Anyway, if you have the article you mentioned, please post it here sometime. No harm reading more. Anyway, till we meet again on another thread, bye. 😉
YourFatherStrange. I would think the USAF more than capable of conducting such analysis on their own. They would have already analysed sonthing like this to death long before the Brits did their simulation. Going by your reasoning they might as well give data to the Germans and anyone else that goes along to Red Flag. Horrors! What happens if the Frenchies are participating in Red Flag too? I’m sorry, but I believe the brits just approximated the information they had then on the Raptor and went ahead with the simulation. I would rather believe a simulation which the USAF did on their own, or better, info from the IOT&E. The IOT&E had a very interesting scenario, BTW – Attacking an enemy AEW&C platform, guarded by 4 F-15s, IIRC.
Sign In
