PissAntEver wonder why the AF was so anxious to get the height restrictions lifted for normal operating conditions even above and beyond seemingly finding the root cause of the O2 issues? That high altitude operating environment seems to be bread and butter for the F-22 crews, I’d doubt you’d find many aircraft engaging it from above in BVR. Not saying that it cant or wont ever happen, I just mean than when they’re using the Raptor to the best of its abilities the advantage the aircraft has means that it shouldn’t occur.
PissAntBluewings, I wasnt aware that any F-22 had been to a Tiger Meet? Any ideas which ones? I cant see them on any of the participants lists.
While we can all agree that simulations in the BVR arena are at best spotty given the Pk assigned to AAMs the numbers that have been even hinted at from any exercise involving F-22 squadrons arent matching up to your claims. And as we know we tend to only hear results when it goes against the USAF. Even without AWACs the tactics that seem to have been employed are not based off a single fighter but a 4+ ship of Raptors with 2 radiating outside the engagement zone of the enemy providing cueing information to 2+ non radiating but within engagement range. Countering this if conditions for your IRST/TV sytems are not ideal would be interesting.
The AN/ALR-94 isnt just concerned with Radar emissions but has the capability to monitor a large range of EM signals. Noone who’ll talk about it has seen an exact list for the frequencies but co-ordinating a silent attack while not being detected by it could prove a little difficult. You’re right tho, the F-35s system in coordination with MADL will be a lot more effective.
Thanks for that Blk5 information, it’d dropped so far off the radar I thought they might have removed the requirement.
PissAntBluewings….thats an awful lot of ifs with regards the F-22.
You might want to read up on some of the cold-nose tactics employed in exercises thus far to see which aircraft end up with the advantage when not radiating. And that has been against/with the cream of the NATO allies.
Saying it has almost no Self Defence systems really implies you havnt looked at the systems the aircraft employs.
Getting back to the F-35, does anyone know if the syncronised active radar jamming feature of the AN/APG-81 that was originally mentioned has been continued? As far as I can recall distributed radar jamming across a flight of F-35s was the original idea.I havnt seen it mentioned in a long time in offical docs tho.
PissAntIs this the same bird that was in Afghanistan a while back? Do all of the WB-57s have the NASA markings removed from the tail now?
PissAntWill the full production APG-81 still be utilising GaA modules? I know theres talk of GaN module production starting soon for the APG-77v2
PissAntIs it just me or does it look like the port wing has been re-attached using tape?
Definitely, gaffer tape, still one of the worlds most useful things!
So much for the gentle hacked landing idea, there’s damage to both wings in the photos and I’m guessing a lot more to the under-body too.
PissAntI realise that this isn’t necessarily relevant for an F-22 vs F-22 engagement thread but VS 4th Gen opponents the USAF has conducted a large amount of tests using ‘Cold-Nose’ tactics. As DJ Cross says this will make a flight of Raptors extremely hard to detect. Their Datalinks would be almost impossible to detect anywhere outside their possible engagement zone, at which point at least one APG-77 would be painting and directing weapons towards you….not a good place for a Non-VLO force to find themselves….
PissAntAre the aggressor F-15s carrying AIM-9X as standard these days? Does anyone know whether the standard ACMI can be used with these?
Photos are borrowed from the above link….hope nobody minds….
PissAntThe other factor in this is that any of the WVR [Apart from AMRAAM] missiles shot at them were Mike model Sidewinders. Which by everyones current definitions would be known as a last generation weapon.
I would expect any of the newer Western (inc Russian) weaponry to have a much higher Pk simply due to their new targeting abilities….plus they’re more manouverable…plus the newer warheads are known to have a much more discrete (and therefore powerful) spread pattern when detonated.
The other point in this is by my count all of those would be counted as mission kills regardless of the condition of the aircraft…They were all unable to complete their defensive missions….
PissAntThat Designers quotes are highly misleading…
“F-22’s excessive purchase and operating costs, an F-22 pilot gets 12 to 14 hours of flight training per month” down from “Their students came from squadrons getting only 14 to 20 hours per month” in the 70s
And how many hours of intensive Mission (rather than system) oriented hours in the simulators did the pilots of the 70s have? 0? One of the Main reasons the flight time has dropped on every fighter type of modern Air forces is safety..if you can practice it in a Sim why risk a pilot or an aircraft? (ie if it isnt a task that demands constant high Gs and is based much more on procedures)
“Bllions of dollars were spent trying to perfect long-range radar
missiles to achieve ‘beyond-visual-range’ (BVR) kills. Extraordinary
kill rates, as high as 80 to 90 per cent, were promised when projects
were being sold. Success rates in actual combat were below 10 per cent.
Simple, more agile, shorter-range infra-red missiles and guns were far
more successful and effective.”
Really? These facts are at least 15 years out of date…..we dont live in the same world that existed 15 years ago…and technology designed to fight future adversaries definitely shouldnt.
“In the war against Serbia in 1999, non-stealthy F-16s had a lower loss rate per sortie than the F-117s”
This one really annoys me, a proper example of twisted statistics….it gives no thought to type of targets, operating methods, why they need an F-117 in the first place if an F-16 is sufficient etc. BTW just on a statistical basis the F/A-18 was a more survivable aircraft than the A-10 in the First Gulf Conflict against a SAM threat i.e. That more of the F/A-18s hit recovered safely. Anyone that knows anything about how these aircraft actually differ will be able to give perfect reasons as to why this is so….but statistics dont lie apparently….
“In World War II, the Luftwaffe could field only 70 of its revolutionary jet: the Me-262“
Might this have actually been due to something like the Mass bombing of Germany rather than just the production problems of the Aircraft itself. for the record over 1400 Me-262s are known to have been produced with a peak total of 190-200 being operational at any one time.
“Once seen, the F-22 has trouble outman-oeuvring the enemy. Its weight hurts the key performance measures of turning and accelerating. Put simply, both the F-15A and F-16A out-turn and out-accelerate the F-22.”
HA ha ha ha ha ha ha……Sure……
What a horibly biased article full of inaccuracies…read it for humor purposes only.
PissAntHaving friends who live in Vietnam and having visited myself the situation there has changed from the 60’s simply in terms of where the power is in the country. It is no longer a country that derives it power form the rural areas but has a much more centralised governmental and economic system which would be more vunerable. In the long run this would make no difference thou….
Either way the result would be the same…no doubt about it. And I dont think it would matter who the agressor would be either, the Chinese have had some similar nasty experiences at the hands of the modern Vietnamese army. It wouldnt simply be an Anti-US ideal that would drive the people, the Vietnamese are a proud people who would resist any foreign power…they always have….
PissAntThis whole argument is completely invalid in an actual operation enviroment – whens the last time a B-2 went into combat at anything like 1000ft and did a low level low speed pass? It has its own onboard systems that allow it to minimise it radar return simply through knowing the air density (and thus where the Reflective layers of the atmosphere lie) of the air space its passing though. The mission planning will exploit every last inch of information to reduce its returns, its not just the airframe that makes it stealthy, its just one component.
The problem with combatting stealth is not just the reduced RCS Target. Its the holes that that reduced target allows a stealthy combatent to exploit. Theres a well documented case of the US “hiding” an entire Battle Group well within striking distance of the Soviet Union in the Late 70s simply through the usage of tightly controlled Emcon procedures. This was without any “stealth” technology – just cunning and knowledge of how the enemy utilises its information gathering assets. Common sense in other words.
The sensors that everyone will harp on about as a guaranteed stealth detector are of only limited indicator use – anything operating in the A-Band is going to be seeing shadows from attenuation of all kinds of objects, and reflections from the likes of flocks of birds will look solid for example. The real advantage of stealth and the real reason it was developed was to bleed an opponent. If the Soviets were still the main opponent of the US the cost to have an effective radar system to guard against a large stealth force would be far greater than the cost of that stealth force….and less versitile….and mainly static…..large enough to make defending it throughly against sabotage impossible….etc etc.
The words “force multiplier” are bandied about an awful lot from contractors but stealth combined with reliable high band-width secure datalinks means that it is actually a huge advantage. And just for the record there’s rumour floating around that one of the DT&OE Raptors (Raptor07 I think) has a kill ratio of 87-0 against all comers, and the main reason attributed to this is that it was the shooter in a 2 a/c formation 1 operatiing hot-nose and one cold. Thats a scary number considering the aircraft the americans can test against if they wish….
Stealth is going to be around for a long time – and not just because the contracters say its cool!
PissAntDoes anyone know what frequencies these AESA Data Comms would operate at? I know various military datalinks operate in the 40-60Ghz range which means their signals can be kept secure simply due to the fact that they’ll attenuate in the atmosphere naturally after a short number of Kms, even at high altitute. Any info on what the AESA modules can operate at?
PissAntMost of that is taken from the Fighter Fling Videos……do a search for em, if you llike Tomcats u’ll love em…..
PissAntThis should answer it….
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0031b.shtml
Sign In
