aurcovthere is another term that Russian invented called Supreme Flight Performance. for now it is related to Su-35 and MIG-31
:p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p Supreme what??
aurcovYou mean the first operational active radar AAM…the first active radar AAM to be tested was the AAM-N-3 Sparrow II.
Of course, I mentioned the “operational” firsts. Otherwise i would list, let’s say, the Agile — the first missile with TVC, but it didn’t went operational…
aurcov-the first helmet mounted sight-VTAS on F 4 Phantom – 1974
-the first IRST on a fighter-on F 101 Vodoo 1961
-the first fighter datalink – SAGE on F 86 Sabre 1956
-the first operational BVR missile – AIM 7 Sparrow – 1958
-the first active radar missile AIM 54 Phoenix – 1972
-the first all-aspect IR missile (maybe the most important inovation in dogfight) – AIM 9 L – 1978
-the first true fire-and-forget BVR missile – AIM 120 AMRAAM – 1991
-the first fighter with look down/shot down radar (AN/APQ-72) – F 4 Phantom – 1960
-the first fighter radar with multi -target capability- AN/AWG-9 (F 14 A) – 1974
aurcovHahahahaha.. yeah… I hear that all the time… it was the SA-2 and the mig-21, not to mention the SVD sniper rifle and other modern Soviet pieces of kit that defeated the US and made them leave vietnam… ahahahahahaha.
It wasn’t the weapons or Vietnamese soldiers that made US leave S V…it was the impopularity of the war in the US.
I think it is perfectly relevant. Why is the US wasting money developing weapons to fight WWIII when they really need weapons to fight the vietnam war.
US might face ennemies a little better equiped than the talibans or iraqi insurgents. Against such foes, Raptors will be usefull.
Are you going to cry? Actually sounds like a description of Sferrin if you read it carefully…
It’s not Sfferin that “concentrates almost exclusively on facts irrelevant to the point of the conversation, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others”…
aurcovyou are claiming something contradictory on one hand you claim the F-22 can use all the time its radar something that means it will be detected, in the other hand you are claiming it does not need data link let us see this source:
What i said is that an F 22 above the ennemy territory will mainly receive data by datalink, rather than emmiting. As for AESA radar:
Unlike conventional radars which emit high energy pulses in a narrow frequency band, the AN/APG-77 emits low energy pulses over a wide frequency band using a technique called spread spectrum transmission. When multiple echoes are returned, the radar’s signal processor combines the signals. The amount of energy reflected back to the target is about the same as a conventional radar, but because each LPI pulse has considerably less amount of energy and may not fit normal modulation patterns, the target will have a difficult time detecting the F-22.
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-avionics.htm)So instead of a stronger signal an AESA will emmit hundreds of signals, each one hundreds times weaker than what a RWR/ESM can detect. In theory, an ESM can detect a radar signal at twice the detection range of that radar — but only in the case of those radars that have a single TWT (mech. scan or passive arrays) since the signal is, as described above, strong enough.
aurcovYou forget to remain loitering in an area as you claim you need aerial assets, such as tankers, AWACS and other aircraft that can provide information JSTAR, yes buddy those systems are vulnerable to the S-400 and Kolchuga, also the kolchuga can be used by the S-400 as a homing system before it start using its own guidance systems
“Buddy”, during the recent exercise in Alaska (I posted an article from AvLeak) the Raptor travel 150 Nmiles in supercruise to the tanker, refueled, then supercruised back to the loitering area, wher it remained in subsonic speed waiting to engage ennemy fighters. Considering than in an attack mission, the Raptors won’t remain over the target, the tankers can wait for them even farther. So the tankers can remain outside the SAM reach. As for AWACS and similar: the AWACS can’t help a Raptor in destroing a SAM. A JSTAR can help, but its detecting range is somewhere ~ 300 km, so it will be in danger against an S 400. OTOH, a Rivet Joint can assist the Raptor from a safe distance. As for kolchuga, it won’t locate an AESA aircraft or a datalink transmission. As I said a plane like the F 15E, F 16 would be in most cases detect by a system like Kolchuga, but not a plane that just use datalinks to receicve infos, or uses AESA radar.
BTW which high tech weapon aided the Vietnamese against the French and then the Americans?
I can’t indeed name any sophisticated weapons used by Vietnam against the French, but against US, I can name at leats two: SA-2 and MiG 21.
All that money spent and you still can’t find Osama… still you are getting good value for your money… if the F-35s stealth and AESA doesn’t kill OBL the F-22s technology surely must. Hey… how about showing him what you spend a year on “defence”… bound to give him a heart attack.
What has to do Osama in a thread named “the f 22 as a strike aircraft”? Is the missison of an RWR to find terrorist, or intel should have found him by now? If you have criticized CIA, I would agree, despite the fact that, again, the subject discussed here is different.
In these conditions, I would quote from the definition of internet trolling: Trolls can be existing members of a community that rarely post and often contribute no useful information to the thread, but instead make argumentative posts in an attempt to discredit another person, more often than not based on what they thought was said rather than what was actually said by the other person, concentrating almost exclusively on facts irrelevant to the point of the conversation, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others…A troll is a person who approaches a board with the specific intention of stirring things up, either with no particular motive or provocation in mind, other than to be purely destructive or if the motive or provocation is against the ethos of the board
aurcovThe question is if the target is mobile, like the Kulchuga system or S-400 little burst of radar or data link are not enough, specially since the S-400 can kill AWACS, what a nation like Russia and China can do is force any F-22 attacker to rely more on their own radar and data link, why because mobility means the targest won`t be in the same location all the time, mobile targets means you need update the cordinates of the targets constantly, also remember contrary to Iraq, Russia and China have more places to hide their weapons than Iraq that is a flat desert
-What has AWACS to do with F 22 atacking SAM sites ???? JSTARs yes, Rivet Joint yes, but an AWACS has nothing to do with this.
-an AESA radar does not need to emit shot burst; instead it can emit continuosly, and still unafraid that it will be detected (not in 10 years anyway); the sort burst is how datalinks work, and yes a short burst is enough.
-I repeat again, you have a distorsioned perception on how a mobile SAM works. It will not work while traveling; it will remain imobile for hours searching for targets, than relocated–plenty of time to hit it.
The Kolchuga and S-400 play the same game the F-22 does, short time emissions and mobility that is stealth applied against the F-22
A SAM radar will not emit “short bursts”, if the operators really want to detect and track something usefull for the SAMs 😀 . And I said it again Kolchuga does not emit–it’s apassive system.
aurcovMan there is something you forget, mobility, yes buddy mobility is a factor you are not considering, The S-400 is a mobile system, can operate with Kolchuga passive radars that also are mobile and work as multistatic recievers, these systems togather with the R-37 launched by MiG-31s will attack AWACS and use their systems to nullify data link added that mobility will make the system difficult to target and detect because mobility and radar rotation makes these system difficult targets even for the F-22 since the radar stations switch off and on and change positions making them highly effective against any attacker
For your information, Kolchuga is a passive system that could work against classic airplanes like F 15E and F 16 that emit continuosly (TACAN for navigation, following terrain radars to penetrate at low level and mechanical scan for SAR). An F 22 can be near such a system, but if the Raptor does emmit only short burst (AESA radar or datalink), Kolchuga will not locate it.
Also, a radar could be highly mobile–and indeed the radars of the Russian double digit are–but it still had to stay some time in a fixed place. It could be turned-off, but once geolocated (in GPS coordonates) they are in trouble. As I said, all the GPS goodies will target the radar site.
BTW, what Russian system do you know that can “nullify” any datalink used by US/NATO ????????
aurcovNot only investigating:
the new breed of digital RWRs are already in course to be installed on F 16 (ALR 69 A(V); see: http://www.raytheon.com/products/alr69/) on F 18 C/D/E/F (ALR 67 (V)3; see: http://www.raytheon.com/products/alr67/).
As for F 15 C/E there are still debating if to install the ALR 69A (V) as in F 16, or to go for the ALR 56 C(V)1 built by BAE Systems North America for the F 15K (see: http://www.eis.na.baesystems.com/news_room/02_news/168-2002.htm).
Such RWRs can detect and identify radars “in dense signal environments” and provide angular data to SAR (SAR capability on APG 71, APG 63(V)1, APG 68, APG 73, APG 79, APG 77 (V)). Once the SAR geolocates the SAM radar, the data in GPS coordonates will be either fed to the own weapons or datalinked to other planes. The SAM site will be visited with very unpleasant consequences by uninvited guests, such as: JASSM, SLAM-ER, JSOW, JDAM, SDB, the new GPS guided HARM (HDM). These have accuracies of ~ 5m and ranges somewhere between 370 km and 15 km…
aurcovAnother first for the Wright bros. was that their plane was the first that could be (succesfuly) steered.
aurcovthat is the range of Iskander-E not the M.
even this light weight export MLRS goes upto 100km. with 16 pieces u can saturate the target.
http://www.kbptula.ru/eng/multi/hermes.htm
And the US Army ATACMS block 1A fired from MRLS can saturtate a target at 300 km, so what’s the point?
Back to the thread: from all the planes flying, there is no one that has more chances to penetrate a heavily defended airspace, to locate a target using its own sensors or external data, to hit a tarrget and go safely back, other than the Raptor. If anyone knows one, pls., name it:D
aurcovwhy bring tomhawks? russia have plenty of systems for premptive strikes on airbases much before any aircraft take off. It takes hrs for tomhawk to reach the target and it is few minutes for Iskanker-M with extreme maneuvers in end.
Iskander range< 300km; Tomahawk range>1100km…
aurcovIt’s unbelievable how much credit some people give to Russian systems.
Such a scenario would require a level of networking that no one outside US has. In fact even in US, only a GBG can claim that has it — thanks to the CEC (Cooperative Engagement Capability). And BTW, it costs over 3 billion per battle group…
aurcovS-400/Tor-M 1.5/Pentsyir in same jurisdiction will be almost impossible to penetrate.
…and the Titanic was almost impossible to sink…
aurcovHi Z. !
Interesting thread. Just one small correction: the guidance is not semi-active in any phase. It’s GPS-aided midcourse (data received from the ship by datalink) initially, and in the terminal phase is by an IR (long wave) seeker:http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms01_055769.pdf
Sign In
