It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is the F-22's 'radar signature" being exposed by it's use in Syria?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 11:34 AM
link   
People don't realize that the F-22 has been flying out of Dhafra for years now. So people have been trying for years to collect Intel on it. But it doesn't really matter. Like that has been said already, low freq radar can be used to detect the stealth on the F-22 and F-35, including a UK radar that can see the F-35 at 60 miles (by then its too late anyway).

Interesting note though, the four star commander of ACC recently said that the F-35s RCS is actually lower than the F-22s RCS. Now I don't know if that's true or not but why would a general who is no fan of congress or politics say that if it wasn't true?

Also, zaph is right, they have been using external fuel tanks ever since the very first raid in Syria so they are disguising their full stealth anyway.




posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: boomer135
Interesting note though, the four star commander of ACC recently said that the F-35s RCS is actually lower than the F-22s RCS. Now I don't know if that's true or not but why would a general who is no fan of congress or politics say that if it wasn't true?


Because it sounds really good, and it might even be true from some aspects or within a narrow band of frequencies, but you know that the politicians funding your budget and the press will grossly misinterpret your misleading statement?



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Well heres the exact quote from the interview with General Hostage. You guys be the judge...




But stealth is not invisibility, especially for fighters that must have tails for maneuverability (rather than the B-2 stealth bomber’s tailless “flying wing” design). Both F-22s and F-35s will be spotted at range by low frequency radar. The F-35′s cross section is much smaller than the F-22′s, but that does not mean, Hostage concedes, that the F-35 is necessarily superior to the F-22 when we go to war. In fact, Hostage says that it takes eight F-35s to do what two F-22s can handle.

“The F-35 is geared to go out and take down the surface targets,” says Hostage, leaning forward. “The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], but it can beat the F-22 in stealth.” But stealth — the ability to elude or greatly complicate an enemy’s ability to find and destroy an aircraft using a combination of design, tactics and technology — is not a magic pill, Hostage reminds us.


Gen Hostage Interview

Also if anyone is interested, here's the second part of the interview dealing with the F-22 and what the general thinks he can do with it. Pretty cool stuff...
F-22



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: boomer135

Actually plant super-viruses into defense systems from a fighter??

Nasty...



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

It's been done (not that I know of from an F-22).



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: _Del_

I think the general was referring to the F-35.



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

Well, I don't think they've done it with that either
I didn't read the link.



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Yeah pretty wicked. Since they can beam 1s and 0s directly into an enemies radar they can send a virus like stuxnet via an airborne platform. I've been saying all along, although not just from that because it has been done like Del said, but there is so much more to the F-35 that the public just doesn't know.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Bigburgh

Hey can ya point me to the thread with the funny post? I'm up for a good laugh.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: boomer135

Here's a more interesting comment....


"A Raptor at 50-plus thousand feet at Mach 2 with its RCS has a different level of invulnerability than a Lightning at 35,000 at Mach .9 and its RCS," Hostage says. "The altitude, speed, and stealth combined in the two platforms, they give the airplanes two completely different levels of capability. The plan is to normalize the Lightning’s capability relative to the Raptor by marrying it up with six, or seven or eight other Lightnings. The advanced fusion of the F-35 versus the F-22 means those airplanes have an equal level or better level of invulnerability than the Raptors have, but it takes multiple airplanes to do it because of the synergistic fused attacks of their weapon systems."

aviationweek.com...



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: _Del_
The Israelis have penetrated Syrian systems on their way to and from the reactor site with using VLO aircraft at a time when Syrian presence was much stronger, so I'm not sure it's a given that we're exploiting all our advantages in a conflict against an opponent without a coordinated air defense.


True, but a Syrian operational capability is likely to be quite far behind Russian R&D/Intelligence gathering capability.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Almost as if the F-35 was designed to ensure maximum US government expenditure per unit of capability.



Airframe changes slowly. Avionics, comm & sensors change rapidly, and can be, and have been, refitted on improved versions of aircraft since forever.

Use F-35 program software & sensors on the F-22/B, and make a navalized one. Sure it's heavy---but 8 F-22's on a carrier beat 16 F-35's.
edit on 27-10-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

At least they learned their lesson. They've already said they're looking at separate airframes for the 6th Gen for the AF and Navy.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: mbkennel

At least they learned their lesson. They've already said they're looking at separate airframes for the 6th Gen for the AF and Navy.


No, that's an unnecessary split! The central F-35 problem is incorporating VSTOL into the same airframe as the other two. China is NOT making that mistake in their own version---which will probably be pretty damn good.

F-4 was quite excellent as AF & Navy. F-14 was quite a fine air-to-air machine (great record in Iran/Iraq war)

If you build it strong enough for Navy it's easy to take out a bit of weight for AF---and it will last a heck of a long time landing on smooth runways instead of bashing on a carrier deck.

So design for Navy first in mind---like with F-4.


edit on 27-10-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-10-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Designing for separate missions has worked well so far, there's no reason it won't work again. Yes, it's worked in the past, to design the same aircraft for both services, but now they've gone in slightly different directions mission wise. The Navy has gotten away from the straight fighter mission, where the Air Force still goes in that direction.



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 01:45 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

The F-111 didn't work out so well for the Navy. And they ended up with an arguably better airplane because of that misdirection.

Carriers have really become strike platforms and aircraft design of the future will have to reflect that.



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 02:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: aholic
a reply to: mbkennel

The F-111 didn't work out so well for the Navy. And they ended up with an arguably better airplane because of that misdirection.


Because they didn't actually design it well for navy. And then they made the F-4, which also turned out so good AF wanted some too.


Carriers have really become strike platforms and aircraft design of the future will have to reflect that.


The F-14 turned into a pretty nice strike platform in Gulf War 1. And the Iraqi pilots ran the # away from them even though they were willing to engage (and lose) to other aircraft.

If you made a Strike Raptor with the 22's range and payload and F-35's avionics, who would want F-35?

And the 22 has enough muscle to escape from modern AA missiles in the way the -35 doesn't, which was entirely the point of the general being quoted.

Still think that making the next one be centered around Navy, which is a high-performance interceptor/fighter/strike with good strength will yield a good AF solution (lighter, higher altitude) in an easy variation. History.

If the -14 didn't cost as much as it did for maintenance, would Navy have given it up? No. They had to upsize the -18 to SuperHornet size anyway for range & performance, and it's still less than -14 airframe. Obviously the newer one has more flexibility & electronics, as those can be added on with new technology and the years, but the basic physics and range is much harder to change.


edit on 28-10-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-10-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-10-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-10-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-10-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-10-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 03:15 AM
link   
a reply to: boomer135

This raises the question if WE can send 0s and 1s into their radars, etc., does the sensor fusion/connection between platforms and systems featured in our 'strike packages' leave us exposed to the same form of attack?

Instead of just radars, a similar threat against us would take out everything...just a thought.



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 07:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: aholic
a reply to: mbkennel

If you made a Strike Raptor with the 22's range and payload and F-35's avionics, who would want F-35?



Definitely agree with that. I could see some sort of an A-12 type thing coming down the pipe for the Navy in the next decades. Depends on if the air wing commanders think the -35 can fulfill the fleet defense role. But I'm not sure how helpful a tac style bomber is going to be for the Air Force. I think it's going to take some time for the aviators to get their hands wet with the -35 before the Navy moves on a 6th or replacement 5th. And in a direction pointed towards AA or AG.

However we never truly did get that -111 replacement.
edit on 28-10-2014 by aholic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

But then you're going to lose the F-22 range and capability, because you're going to have to add so much weight to navalise it..



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join