Marcellogo…with trimmings.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]249680[/ATTACH]
MarcellogoA MiG go, another one come:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]249679[/ATTACH]
MarcellogoYes, but they have kept on doing it, in second image the covered area is larger.
Maybe they are a little late because they had to finish with it (joking)!
MarcellogoAnd how would the ARH missile (with its tiny radar) lock on to a VLO target?
Like it will do with a not VLO one, being command guided until is close enough to begin autonomous tracking.
Or did you think that 200+ km range missiles like Aim-54 or R-37 begin their search immediately at launch?
With a VLO you will get the lock on target later and it will begin its own scanning being closer, but you would still have an effective range of several tens of kilometers.
MarcellogoThat’s interesting! Seems they have repainted the deck during the cruise!:o
[ATTACH=CONFIG]249647[/ATTACH]
MarcellogoI think that:
-J-20 is almost as agile as the J-10 given that has same configuration.
-Combat between stealth plane wouldn’t be limited to pure dogfight. Certainly, radar detection range would be limited and “blurry” but it would suffice to use ARH missiles.
-someone that say that it’s not possible to obtain precise range figure from IRST knows nothing about laser ranging, about image data comparison and above all how active radar homing missile work and so cannot be a credible source.
MarcellogoYou have to explain me because you always made this jump in reasoning.
I said that a operative modality peculiar of the F-22 is not more possible due to advance in radar technologies and you take it as a complete rebuttal of stealth as a technology.
And I am FOR THE HUNDREDNTH TIME forced to repeat that I’m one of the stronger advocate of including RCS in every new program of not just production but even retrofit of operative planes.
So when GarryA say that new weapon and sensor allow planes to strike from afar is opening a open door there, because this in another operative modality respect to penetrate into enemy airspace.
About noozle, all new stealth planes, that will enter service years after the F-22 production is ceased feature round nozless, not the square one of the F-22A i.e. something less efficient.
Again is not about having RCS (and IR) reduction features, is about having how much in relation to cost, performance degradation, ease of maintenance and above all mission profile.
I have made an error with acronim, however, is not the off boresight cueing system I was talking about but the original oxygen generation system that was cause of two mortal accident and was later backed up by conventional tanks.
About the bomber same, I though there are still US fighters in both UK and Germany, just not F-22A.
So back to the N°1 question, why an air superiority plane designed to penetrate into enemy aereospace is not positioned near there but in Hawai and Alaska? It so important to estabilish air superiority over Chukotka (or Cuba, for Florida’s ones)? Or are they actually performing the opposite mission instead i.e. waiting for bomber to come?
In every case there is a discrepancy when you say that stealth fighter would adress the issue of enhanced AD radar capability by using stand-off weapon while bombers, that can carry way greater payloads would instead try to phisically penetrate enemy airspace.
About the one of Ozair, the general consideration apply.
We were talking about one plane, the F-22A and one well specific type of mission and he made instead another tirade about the whole general question of stealth efficacy while, 101th time, sigh!, i’m actually always been a supporter of its application to even retrofitted planes.
Ah, and we were talking about C (metric) band radar anyway.
MarcellogoThank you. So, why not to start from the F-22A and add all those things like side-looking radars, IRST and carve out a wild weasel version of it?
MarcellogoI dont quite understand what exactly do you want to say with ” EW radar ” ???? Do you mean ELINT system ? In that case most F-22 can always stay silent ( because you only 1 aircraft transmit and information can be shared ) , If by EW radar you mean low frequency early warning radar, those things have existed ways before F-22 even exist, their limitation still exactly the same ( poor accuracy , big size ).And stealth aircraft dont need to be completely invisible , it only need to be deny enemy ability to attack it.
I really struggle to get your point here, so you think all aspect stealth is what make F-22 costly ?
The problem is they dont have enough F-22, the fleet is too small. And the penetrating counter air has completely different role from F-22. They are to escort things like B-2 , B-3 a role that neither F-35 or F-22 can do. Not because they dont have enough ” stealth ” but because they dont have enough range.
Early warning radar, the various updated or new acquisition long range coverage C band radar everyone in the East(Russia, China ,Iran and their satellites) are producing and/or buying like crazy. We can stay there years to debate what is their exact efficacy against stealth but surely they have enough to justify those acquisition.
Certainly, or better said all those peculiar ecquipment that just F-22 has when compared to ALL others 5gen planes, in order to fulfill their intended role look as an example to the peculiar 2D exhaust,that not any other stealth plane has, they were introduced to lower the rear RCS andthe IR emission or the HOBS system that allow them to operate at a far greater quote than usual (and were cause of two mortal accidents). Now what it was the one that made the coast roar so much , serviceability falls so down and have made lose so many time in development to determinate the stop of production, we could take additional years to debate but it’s happened.
The last one is frankly something i heard for the first time, so now they cannot just put some fuel tanks on them or make them start from an allied base near to the objectives?
It is quite simple, once the bombers passes near to Uk or Iceland you made your F-22, ehm …F-15 take off and escort them to the last part of the run.
In every case the more I heard of that PCA program the more it seems like Superman’s trope “It’s a drone, it’s a plane, it’s a laser, it’s…
MarcellogoSeems me that are of two different categories, Puma and Couguar are Mi-8 dimension, carrying from two third to a whole platoon,Blackhawk is the huey substitute so just a squad.
Is like confronting Apache and A-129, both attack helos but of completely different dimensions.
MarcellogoBring
Another alternative, the USAF could simply upgrade two hundred Vipers and keep them on their sqn´s for (roughly) three more years into the late thirties and divert two hundred F-35A´s to replace the C/D Eagles. It would be vastly cheaper, the Viper airframes are a lot younger and are much cheaper to upgrade.
F-16 have a natural replacement in the F-35A as they cover, in different ways, the same role, what need to be replaced/ updated is instead the F-15C i.e. an air superiority fighter.
In case they decide to use a multirole fighter to cover the role at this point better to just buy more F-35A.
They can also convert F-15E back to air superiority fighter, getting rid of CFT and use instead the newly acquired F-35A at their place as the former would be in any case much more adapt to do a strike role.
MarcellogoAnd you would have seen this problem had you actually paid attention to the USAF’s assessment of the number of F-22’s needed for the mission. Even the smallest number with the highest risk was still 100+ more than what they currently have. In the absence of the F-22A, and in the absence of them actually floating requirements to increase F-35 procurement #’s to offset the outgoing #s, where else would the USAF pull that need from? You have three ways to do this –
1 – Build more F-22A’s – Most expensive option – This is AFA’s position / solution and it entails building an export cleared F-22B.
2 – Simply buy more F-35s to cover for outgoing F-15C’s and E’s – This will be expensive based simply on the acquisition cost alone, but also becasue you currently have a packed and sustained full rate of production that kicks in in the early 2020’s and lasts for more than a decade. Getting more aircraft in while at the same time doing so over a simialr time-frame would mean higher annual program spend. This isn’t really an option with the bow-wave due in less than a decade and with the budget outlook looking the way it currently does.
3 – Extend F-15 service life by performing a life extension and upgrades to stay relevant – The least expensive of the three options and exactly what the USAF is currently executing since they don’t have the budget flexibility to go for option 1 or option 2.
In case a space is made in the budget they will no doubt look at the first two options. In fact AFA in its advisory to the new GOTUS is proposing a budget increase to allow for option 1.
Secondly, the requirements change over time. They all do since there are decades in between when you last looked at your ‘problems’ and designed a sollution compared to when you do it decades later for a time period that looks out decades into the future. The PCA is pacific focused and reflects what a 2020 USAF sees as its requirements going into the 2030’s and beyond. Simialrly, the F-22A reflected what the USAF thought it needed in 1991 for missions in the 2000’s. Needs and the technology’s ability to create unique opportunities has a deep impact on where the requirements go since we are talking about offenisve systems designed to operate thousands of miles from CONUS.
As mentioned before, PCA is a complementary capability..It provides CA in areas where the Penetrating Strike and Penetrating ISR aircraft operate. Unless their thinking changes it isn’t a one for one replacement for either the F-22 or F-15 but more of a complementary capability that supports long range penetrating missions.
The time frame between fielding a generation of aircraft and entering the pre-development (academic study and official AOA) phase of the next generation system with the F-22 and PCA is actually fairly close to the F-15 – F-22 transition. Also note that the F-16C was in engineering development phase when the YF22 first flew.
Ehmh, you really think that I am aware of the problem just by now?:D
Maybe is my english that is lousy but I think everyone knew about it from almost the turning of the last decade, I was just making a point in debating.
The novelty of the PCA approach is precisely this one, instead of just thinking to just developing a new plane, as the mentioned article instead seemingly suggested , they contemplate instead an alternative approach through the implementation of additional, complementary and ,let my add, cooperative ecquipments to restore a perceived insufficent capability in a determinate sector.
Now, this is the first time in the last two decades that I appreciate a US program (although with a lot of caveat) and you contest me the same?
About substitution or life extention of F-15C I agrre to the fact that those are the only possible solutions.
Just that they are all, the more the less, far from optimal.
MarcellogoWhat make you think F-22 cannot stay for long time in enemy territory ? How do you even defined long here ?
Firstly, the frontal aspect RCS of all stealth fighter are always the lowest because regardless of kind that always the most desirable direction. Secondly, all stealth fighters (B-2 , F-22 , F-35 , J-20 …etc ) have RCS reduction from all aspect , not just frontal. Both F-119 and F-135 equiped with radar blocker to shield the turbine when aircraft is being illuminated from tail aspect (that being said by how small their RCS at tail/side aspect compare to conventional platform is up to debate )
It means being able to stay there without being identified and located by enemy radars systems so to even avoid enemy interceptor planes to even take off without being immediately targeted instead of just enter into enemy airspace (i.e. deep beneath of the battle front) as an escort to attack planes and leave immediately after.
Now situation is such that no matter how stealth a plane is, it would be at least spotted by enemy EW radars so the initial tactics wouldn’t be possible anymore and for second one there is not the necessity of having the all aspect stealth level of F-22.
Because it’s true that any of actual fighters , 4 of 5 gen try to increment RCS in every direction, it is not that someone leave a side pourposely intact, so to help enemy, it’s that in the frontal part you invest one and get ten, in the rear part just the contrary.
So, while the other 5 gen fighter somewhat accepted to have a part in which their stealth lvl is somewhat inferior, for phisycal limits, not for carelessness, F-22 is more similar to F-117 and B-2 on that regard trying to achieve the maximum possible level of RCS reduction in any direction, no matter the price to pay, both in terms of money that of performances.
Problem is that while the other two are subsonic bombers, F-22 is to retain over-the-edge flying performance anyway, so explosion of cost, serviceability problems, cut in not essential ecquipment that make in the end thing just worse and so on.
Now, we can argue until the end of world about how much the F-22 has matched the aspectatives but the same fact that they first planned to keep F-15C still in service for almost 12-15 years and after have launched something called PENETRATION COUNTER AIR made almost clear that:
-There is a problem, a big one I would dare to say if they are planning to extend the operative life of 30+ year old frames.
– Where the problem lied and what they want to get back (unless they put random names to their programs).
Marcellogothe strange thing is how F-35 came to Trump attention as he already knew about it as I don’t think Obama/Clinton or any other candidate talk about it so ahead of time.
It can be that Trumpp would limit6 the overall number of F-35A to be acquired and go for resuming F-22A production and finding a real replacement for A-10?
He would so both mark a change without wasting away all huge money spent on F-35 (and F-22) development programs.
Marcellogowhat do you mean by it failed ?
Failed to meet the aspectative into being able to stay for a long time inside enemy controlled territory, so to perform an offensive air superiority role, as even it possessing a 360° RCS reduction instead to just a frontal aspect one, its most distinguisly and costly feature when compared to other stealth fighters, wouldn’t allow that anymore (if ever had).
So they keep to regain this wanted capability again but they have to found how? further enhancing the stealth level on a new plane, installing DEW to counteract missiles, using an arsenal plane, implementing swarm drones?
For what I know novelty of PCA program when compared to the previous one is that they moved away from just acquiring a new plane into looking instead to a plurality of different ways, not alternative but concurring, to restabilish such a capability.
IMHO this is the correct mode of proceeding but i’m quite skeptical to the real possibility to restore/acquire it at first.
Sign In
