Signals not transmitted by the Vera itself – hence my use of the word ‘background’ signals.
Yes, I know that.The Silent Sentry works this way. However, my point is that the VERA works like a normal RWR, and determines the position of the aircraft it is detecting through the triangulation of the emissions given off by that particular aircraft itself, and NOT through the detection of the disturbances of the background signals caused by the aircraft’s motion. Publications state it as an ELINT system using Time-difference-of-Arrival to locate the enemy.
ESM (not ELINT, we’re talking Surveillance and not INTelligence here) is one of it’s functions, but the way it tracks targets is not via the emissions of those very targets. Instead, it tracks targets by the distortion they produce in existing ‘background’ signals. So it can track targets under an EMCON regime, something a pure ESM-system can’t.
I dont think the Vera system operates this way. You are getting it mixed up with the Silent Sentry system perhaps? As i remembered, it worked on triangulation of signals, albeit on a very broad frequency range…
Only 2 squadrons in the wing? That I didn’t know…. but from the Aviation week article, their mode of operations was to pair up a non-AESA with an AESA, with the wingman taking the non-AESA. Then the AESA would perform look down scanning due to its better clutter differentiating capability, while the V1 scans above. After sanitising the bottom, the AESA would devote some time to scan the skies above along with the V1. That seems like a pretty good use of the AESAs, instead of concentrating ALL on one squadron, leaving the other purely a V1 squadron.
How do you “steal” an operational stealth fighter design?
If China had that kind of world-class intelligence capability, it would definitely use it. So would any other country, including US allies.
But there were never a Chinese spy placed high up in the American hierarchy. There were though, spies from Israel and other Western states at extremely important positions.
The example of spying from Israel in the most critical areas of the US government and military is legion.
If you have the intelligence capability, you use it.
I actually think that China doesn’t really, otherwise, it would be much further along. Its “stealing” consist mainly of learning Western and East Asian – Taiwan, Korea and Japan – commercial manufacturing techniques not military.
Hard to imagine Chinese spies in US DOD design laboratories stealing a stealth fighter when most Americans are instinctively suspicious of a Chinese person.
For example: the nuclear scientist spy from Los Alamos, Wen Ho Lee, is instinctively thought to be a Chinese spy. But he was a Taiwanese whose wife actually spied on China for the CIA! The instinctive reaction against any Chinese was that strong.
Most Chinese were pretty happy that he was caught. Of course, Taiwanese-Americans began complaining about racism and the case was conveniently dropped for “lack of evidence.”
They found evidence alright, but it was of him spying for Taiwan, not China, so they didn’t pursue further 😀
China seems to be pretty adept at getting its hands on western stuff 😎 heard the PAC-3 seeker was compromised or something…. cannot remember where i got that from though…
Isn’t stealth a simple concept? If USA could build a F117 in th 1970s, I think China today can build a stealth fighter with at least equivalent stealth of an F117? It’s just a matter of avoiding right angles so that radar waves are not reflected back directly. And the use of carbons, internal storage of weapons/bombs, and RAM painting.
if it was that simple, America wont have a 2 (and soon to be 3) plane lead over the rest of the world in fielding operational stealth planes. China could make a stealth plane by themselves given enough time, but by the time they made one themselves, it would have been obsolete by the time it enters service. Of course, if it trys to steal as it usually does, it’ll probably have one faster. :rolleyes:
YF,
I think the initial setup was indeed two squadrons with half the fleet AESA-equipped, and the other half vanilla F-15Cs. But when a third batch of AESAs was delivered (9+9+9), the machines were appearantly concentrated in 12FS.
A third batch? THe aviation week article i got the info from was very recent. Just last week in fact. They made no mention of another batch. 18 AESAs were the stated number. And from the way they operated as was described in the article, it makes far more sense to put the third batch as u said in another squadron, instead of concentrating all in 1 squadron. Care to provide Ur source? Thanks.
definitivily an better concept that thr f22 ( in agility), but the same performance in stealth with thr f22(for me average-pathetic stealth), cannards (without tailplanes) dont affect stealth
justify why u think the Raptor’s stealth is “average-pathetic stealth”.
according to the aviation week article, there’s only 18 aircraft with AESA, not 27. And they are divided into 9 AESA aircraft per squadron ie, the 19th and 12th squadron each has 9 AESA and another 9 V1 equipped aircraft.
Jeez, cant they be a little more creative than using a F-22 template ALL the time?
And what’s the reason? :confused:
And these are the same neighbours that snub us when ASEAN meets!
Sorry, but ‘being sensitive’ is utterly pointless! Apeasement is what eventually led to East Timor having to be helped out by the ADF, when their independence was threatened with indirectly Indonesian-backed anarchy back in 1999. Australia has learned, but from the 70’s. Australia has the US firmly in it’s corner, perhaps even stronger now than ever before since the end of WWII. With that, there is little chance Howard is going to make defence decisions based on how the region feels, nor does he have to. If the region doesn’t like it, stiff…!! 😡
:p You think you have it bad? How about being called “the pimple that refuses to burst”? We have to tolerate these insufferable village monkeys at close proximity all the time. The amount of **** we have to take FAR exceeds yours, my friend… 😮
I’m sorry, SD-10, but your statements ARE heavily race biased. Also, your statements about Indian being jealous and not being self-assured, the same can be said of China. In fact, reading articles from China sources (official or otherwise), I cant help feeling disgusted by all their self-glorifying and self praising. And all these just shows how insecure China is of her power.
And I am Chinese, so dont go about with this BS that I am anti-chinese. I just come from a multi-racial society, and I’m bought up to be ‘color-blind’, that’s all.
Jeez, what are you so sensitive about? As SOC said, these names were given for their own identification purposes. Period. There were not there to mock the planes themselves, though if the “name-assigners” felt something about the plane, they didn’t hesitate to give it a name they felt was suitable for it, like “BACKFIRE”. But at least they didn’t call it “BALL-LESS” or something, eh? Cause they very well could, and it would stick. As can be seen, NATO designations are so common that even the Russians are calling their Flankers “FLANKERS” at airshows and on their brochures.
Why didn’t they give NATO designators to planes manufactured by India, Japan which are non-NATO produced? As said by SOC, these planes are UNLIKELY to be faced in combat by NATO members, as such they are not given any ‘names’.
Hell, if China or Russia felt that the terms were derogatory, than let them give their own names back for NATO planes. But I think NATO couldn’t care less.
A Raptor has no business getting a laser warning sensor. Just doesn’t make sense for its stated mission. Even on A2G sorties, it won’t go low either. (It doesn’t carry LGBs, only JDAMs.) Laser Warning equipment is only an essential equipment for aircraft which are low and slow, hence you see them often on helis. On aircraft doing CAS often, yes, install them, if you have the extra cash, but the need ain’t that pressing. But a high altitude dweller like the RAptor? Nah.
What it and the JSF MAY receive would be a laser-based countermeasure akin to what’s installed for the C-17s now. But it would be for tactical aircraft, and would be flush with the skin of the aircraft to maintain the aircraft’s stealthiness. I think the project name is MEDUSA, IIRC.
As for the laser countermeasures (ATIRCM) going on the C-17s, it works by fooling the sensor head of the missile, not frying them, IINW.
Well, if you wanna be vindictive, the rest of the world could always come up with names for NATO planes…… how about DONKEY for the Raptor?
But it would really suck when they got shot down in an engagement with the Raptor……. can you imagine? “Mayday mayday, I’ve been shot down by a DONKEY!” oops.:p