We should start archiving these. 🙂

Yes, we totally should. 😀

Quite honestly, I wanted the YF-23 over the F-22A. I get accused of being a bit “rabid” about the F-22 but it’s most often on things when common sense has completely left the building because well, it’s annoying. “It’s boxy it must be slow”, “compromised for stealth so it can’t manuever”, “engines are hot therefore they didn’t bother making it radar stealthy from the rear”. Stupid crap like that that is completely unsupported by reality. It’s FAR from a perfect aircraft but it’s far enough down the diminishing-returns curve that it’s probably as good as it realistically can be and still be “affordable”. Could it be better? Sure. Would it be worth the increased cost? Obviously the customer doesn’t think so.

If I had to go out there today to participate in an air war, I’d prefer it to be in a F-22. I consider it to have the highest success and bring-back chance.
At the same time I’m wary of seeing it as an invulnerable silver bullet and be-all-end-all of air combat. It’s the things you don’t expect that kill you and one would expect many parties currently doing research to counter the F-22’s stealth. What I miss in many F-22 supporters (and I’m actually a big F-22 supporter, although I don’t talk much about it, which is partly due to the noise many other F-22 fans make) is an awareness of how the Raptor’s superiority could be threatened in a complex battlefield and theater, as well as how its greatest advantage could suddenly become useless.

The usual reply to “The F-22’s stealth advantage could be egalized by another detection technology, whether a special kind of sensor or signal processing” is something like “Oh, yeah, how are they going to do it?”
I don’t know how somebody could do it. But that I don’t know how to counter stealth doesn’t mean that nobody knows or will know. It’d be intellectually arrogant (and dangerous) to assume that nobody could figure out a way.

Or, to quote from a Tad Williams book: “Confident, cocky, lazy, dead.” I’m pretty sure that the USAF’s upper echelon is more concerned about the Raptor’s advantage being negated one day than most of the plane’s fans on different forums. Never let down your guard, always try to stay ahead of the curve. The F-22’s performance as displayed so far is no reason to get complacent.

Top Gear is one of my favorite shows and the clip where James May took a ride in a Typhoon was great (though I don’t know if that was actually from a Top Gear episode). But for laughs I like the one with Jeremy Clarkson in the back of an F-15E losing breakfast, yesterday’s dinner and lunch. 🙂

Nah, it was a different show I think. Something about engineering if I recall correctly. Also, Jezza losing it is kind of typical for his grandiose sense of qualification for anything before failing miserably at it. 🙂

I like it. I think it will surprise a lot of people in the end. Today is no different really than when the USAF wanted every F-15 they could get and were down-playing the F-16. I was floored though at Bill Sweetman’s comment that it’s got a 70,000lb gross weight. As in seventy thousand. 😮 The stuff published gives 60k max for the F-35C (bigger wing, heavier built, more internal fuel) but he says his sources in Ft. Worth say 70k for the A and the C.

I have no doubt that it’ll be a highly capable plane and worthy addition to any AF, but I’m still concerned about the schedule as well as pricing. I wonder whether that’ll work out, especially with the recent testing budget cuts, delays and shifting order schedules.

Obviously neither you or I have the hard data (unless you’re a designer or the customer in which case you probably shouldn’t be talking about it here) as to how accurate the ALR-94 is. There are so many scenarios and it’s not like the USAF it tied to one. Could be the shooter/updater is using data from a silent F-22 closer to the action. It could be the shooter and his wingman have their ALR-94’s slaved together in effect one large ALR-94 with a bigger baseline. It could be that one ALR-94 by itself is accurate enough. Who knows for sure? Certainly not you or I.

Oh, I absolutely don’t know for certain. Things could be completely different from what I (or we) imagine. As for the ALR-94, even with triangulation and networking, cueing an AMRAAM without mid-course guidance will probably suffer harsh Pk penalties due to its inflexibility to cope with any vector change of the target.
To some extent the F-22’s stealth could positively play into it though, because chances are probably much higher that a red flight keeps it straight, level and on pace between steerpoints when they don’t know about the blues around them. Still, I wouldn’t expect satisfying Pk from that and would rather use a radar with the best possible LPI properties.

That’s one thing that is absolutely amusing about the net and all of us armchair quarterbacks. The guys who actually know probably laugh their asses off at the lot of us. All we can do is give it educated guesses. It’s almost as bad as religion where people argue about who’s invisible man is the real one. But it’s entertaining so what the hell.

It probably is funny for people in the know. But at the same time I expect it to be frustrating, because they can’t openly educate other people. I know that if I knew hard facts about the issues being discussed here, I would be itching to share them. Military aviation is just a very fascinating topic.

It’s a fairly safe bet that problem has occured to them. It’s got multiple antenna and it shouldn’t be THAT hard to have software coordinating them I mean they KNOW how the ALR-94 is moving, just sort it out. Obviously it’s easier said than done but it certainly isn’t an unsolvable problem.

It’s just that with a lack of angular precision you don’t get a clean cross section point, but rather a cross section area, which helps in assessing the distance should the RWR’s ability be insufficient in that regard, but I’m not sure it makes the targeting a whole lot easier.

Not worth the time. Next time I notice I’ll point it out.

Please do. Keep me honest and on my toes. Should help me from falling into some fanboy ditch, should I slip.

Jeez, I’ve heard in lots of times and not even just from BAE. Here:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-9268-start-0.html

Date: 7/1/2000; Publication: Journal of Electronic Defense; Author: Sweetman, Bill

“The APG-77 and ALR-94 are unique, high-performance sensors. The APG-77 has an active, electronically scanned array (AESA) comprising some 1,200 transmitter and receiver modules. One vital difference between an AESA and any other radar that has a single transmitter (including a passive electronically steered array) is that the AESA is capable of operating as several separate radars simultaneously. An AESA can change its beamform very readily, and its receiver segments can operate in a passive or receive-only mode. Unlike a mechanical antenna, too, its revisit rates are not constrained by the antenna drive, and it can concurrently revisit different points within its field of regard at different rates. The F-22 has space, weight and cooling provision for auxiliary side arrays on either side of the nose. If installed, these would provide radar coverage over almost 270[degrees]. The ALR-94, meanwhile, is the most effective passive system ever installed on a fighter. Tom Burbage, former head of the F-22 program at Lockheed Martin, has described it as “the most technically complex piece of equipment on the aircraft.”

The F-22 has been described as an antenna farm. Indeed, it would resemble a signals-intelligence (SIGINT) platform were it not for the fact that the 30-plus antennas are all smoothly blended into the wings and fuselage. The ALR-94 provides 360[degrees] coverage in all bands, with both azimuth and elevation coverage in the forward sector.

A target which is using radar to search for the F-22 or other friendly aircraft can be detected, tracked and identified by the ALR-94 long before its radar can see anything, at ranges of 250 nm or more. As the range closes, but still above 100 nm, the APG-77 can be cued by the ALR-94 to search for other aircraft in the hostile flight. The system uses techniques such as cued tracking: since the track file, updated by the ALR-94, can tell the radar where to look, it can detect and track the target with a very narrow beam, measuring as little as 2[degrees] by 2[degrees] in azimuth and elevation. One engineer calls it “a laser beam, not a searchlight. We want to use our resources on the high-value targets. We don’t track targets that are too far away to be a threat.”

The system also automatically increases revisit rates according to the threat posed by the targets. Another technique is “closed-loop tracking,” in which the radar constantly adjusts the power and number of pulses to retain a lock on its target while using the smallest possible amount of energy.

High-priority emitters — such as fighter aircraft at close range — can be tracked in real time by the ALR-94. In this mode, called narrowband interleaved search and track (NBILST), the radar is used only to provide precise range and velocity data to set up a missile attack. If a hostile aircraft is injudicious in its use of radar, the ALR-94 may provide nearly all the information necessary to launch an AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missile (AAM) and guide it to impact, making it virtually an anti-radiation AAM. “

So I guess the only bone of contention is what does “nearly all” mean? 90%? 95%?

Another thing one could pick up on is “may provide”. Not “can provide”, “could provide”, “is going to provide”, “will provide”, but “may provide”. Doesn’t sound like a strong case.
Additionally, it sounds like the radar is still in use for the AMRAAM, but not for target tracking. The quote states “the ALR-94 may provide nearly all the information necessary to launch an AIM-120 AMRAAM and guide it to impact.” I assume this information is provided to the radar to update the missile, while the radar does not need to have a lock on the target itself.

With the APG-77’s exact beam shaping and steering, I wonder though whether it could actually spare the target contact area (as cued by the ALR-94) and only provide sharp beams to the missile, making sure that even the best RWR suite won’t pickup on the missile being on its way or the contact being targeted at all. Hard data about the true angular resolution of the ALR-94 would be a very nice thing to have. While it would not seem to be quite there yet for advanced missile cueing at long distances, it would not take a lot to make it viable. An angular resolution of 0.2° or 0.1° might already be sufficient for the -120C5’s range. Then using the radar to paint around the contact and only steer the AMRAAM would allow some lethal, stealthy killing with little chance of detection by the target.

There are probably some interesting things one can do with the toys on an F-22.

To get somewhat back on topic here: Guys, fighting over whether an Su-35BM can carry 12 A2A missiles? Seriously, show me the engagement since 1980 where more than 2 or more than 4 missiles have been employed. The Typhoon’s SEAD configuration actually looks like the one configuration I would fly nearly every mission in: 2 drop tanks, 2 ARMs, 4 MRMs, 2 SRMs, 2 LGBs, laser designator pod.

speculations can not be considerd facts, like myths are not science

Hello? I already stated on my own that I was just pointing out a possibility and not claiming universal truth. Yours isn’t anymore than speculation either and you can’t prove your point either. Please, get into contact with Sukhoi and ask for the BM’s empty weight.

Read it all too. Which part of “broke rules of engagement” did you miss though? If the F-22 is flying straight and level “following the rules” and the Hornet isn’t, what kind of accomplishment is that?

Which part of “look at the pictures and make up your own mind” did you miss? You honestly think that at a 90° angle the Raptor pilot knew the Hornet was at 1000 ft separation and knocked it off? You know, if we got someone from Jane’s to comment on the pictures, that’d be interesting to read.

That’s the pot calling the kettle black. You’re practically a Typhoon salesman.

LOL. I don’t care about the Typhoon. I just happen to like the way it looks. For all I care from a fanboy point of view, it could be the world’s greatest lemon. Whatever I claim about the Typhoon, I usually source or make clear where a claim is coming from. Please point out where I was trying to sell the Typhoon.
As for my signature, I’m actually much more into cars than I am into planes, which is why I happen to like James May of Top Gear fame and thought the quote was entertaining. (I also liked the five-part series he did on wine while traveling through Europe with Oz Clark.) If he had said the same thing about the F-22 or F-15 or F4 or a bumblebee, chances are those would be in my sig now.
I have no stake in the Typhoon. Actually the F-35 is my favorite plane at the moment. (As long as they keep the promised price tag.)

However since you seem to be unable to figure this one out on your own I’ll give you a hint. The ALR-94 only has to be accurate enough to get the AIM-120 in the basket. The active seeker does the rest.

And at 1 nm deviation you could have a whole flight of a four-ship in tactical formation. Who’s the seeker going to lock on to? Do you know which of the planes you want to take out? Would any RoE allow sending the missile maddog for all intents and purposes? What if the missiles of the whole F-22 flight decide to acquire lock on the same plane and leave 3 others around unharmed?
You also know that without the radar the MRM gets no mid-course update and the cueing is very likely to absolutely astray as soon as the planes even do the slightest bank?

As for “parroting marketing material” that’s all you’re doing. Or are you an aero engineer on the Typhoon who’s shooting his mouth off?

EXAMPLES, please. EXAMPLES. Man, I’m so burning for this. Please, link any examples of my posts where I was propagating EF marketing material without sourcing it or stating a claim’s origin.
Also, I’d still like a link where BAE claimed that the ALR-94 could cue a missile on a far-out target without ever using the radar. It’d be interesting to know with how much salt their press statements have to be taken.

P.S. Please make sure to not misattribute the next time. What I spout off, I am responsible for.

You are using expecualtion to justified the fact the internal fuel and max weapons load gives only a total of 34500kg, yeah yeah so the aircraft won`t fly at its max just you can say it won`t

You are right: I was just pointing out a possibility. I don’t know the true empty weight of the Su-35BM, but I consider it possible that they can’t take full fuel load and full ordnance load at the same time.

You know, I can carry a maximum of 100kg additional load on my legs and a maximum of 70 kg additional load on my arms, but that doesn’t mean I can do it at the same time.

Don’t you find it curious that they don’t just state the empty weight then. Why the smoke and mirrors?

As for the AA loadout debate, going by AA encounters since the 80s, one has to wonder whether any more AA ordnance than 2 missiles isn’t overkill. Perhaps be on the safe side and take 4 then, but any more than that is likely only going to introduce drag without ever being used during a sortie.

burn through what? You’re just following the signal.

Is ECM jamming a uniform signal you can home in on? What’s the use of standoff jamming platforms then? Aren’t they sitting ducks?

From what I understand, I thought that you need the proper radar return to know what part of the overall return qualifies as signal and what as noise. And once you know the noise, you can aim for its origin, which with the active, purposely strong jamming signal is easier than having the missile’s small radar do its usual work. Which is why you don’t have to wait for it to go active: The tiny AIM-120 radar doesn’t have to paint the target itself, but can take the noise print as “return” and steer towards it. (Which, again, requires you to know exactly what that noise is shaped like.)

where? Surely you’re not referring to the pic where some USN hot dog broke the rules of engagement and nearly caused a midair as a result simply so he could get a few frames of the Raptor are you? That’s quite a leap from “visible in HUD” to “clear radar lock”.

You mean, when at 1000ft out the Hornet already had put its pipper firmly on the Raptor? And as for midair collision: Please, they were perpendicular to each other and the Hornet wasn’t pulling lead. How could that have turned into a midair at 1000 ft or 900 ft out? We don’t know what the Hornet did after the 900 ft shot.

Oh, and I’m still waiting for your answer on how the F-22 is going to cue an AIM-120 on a target 50 nm away with its ALR-94 “without ever switching the radar on”, when a 1° deviation means a displacement of 1 nautical mile.

The Knaapo booklet says 34500 MTOW, max internal fuel 11500kg, max combat load 8000kg

Maximal fuel load in internal fuel tanks, kg 11,500
Maximal combat load, kg 8,000

http://www.knaapo.ru/eng/products/military/SU-35.wbp
so the EW is not more than 15000kg

Unless you can’t get both at the same time. EW might be higher, which means you’d possibly have to trade off between ordnance loadout and amount of fuel.

The AIM-120 has the ability to “Home on Jamming”.

You still need to burn through first, don’t you?

The claim is that TVC nozzles require less use of Conventional surfaces to get desired maniuvering corrections so that the RCS remains stable and not shoot up every time a control surface deflects , this is obviously frontal and i bet TVC nozzle even with excessive Ceramic use is definately less LO then a LOAN type of setup.

The way I understood it wasn’t the nozzle itself that caused the RCS spike, but the gases. Now the question is what reflects radar more and better: The jet exhaust gases and what they do to the immediately surrounding air or the control surfaces.

A general question arising from this though is: How much does the F-22’s RCS change when it maneuvers? How susceptible is to being detected as soon as the control surfaces move?

Aaah, now I get it. Sorry for being so slow, guys! 🙂

The “guns with IRST” bit triggered my memory. Still as funny the second time around. 😀