F-22s deploy to Europe

5 things make f22s and 35s less impressive. 1. both leave a hot, turbulent trail. detectable. 2. longer wave radar systems can detect them, shorter wave systems..k band x band, give better definition but are defeated by stealth. longer wave systems show something there, but not enough for targeting... 3. Passive RF detection..eg a stealth something passing through an RF field, even cell tower freqs, leaves a hole in the wave field. detectable by computer analysis. 4. Russians seem to have developed a smart emf weapon that can disable military electronics receivers at a distance. (example..attack on destroyer Cook in black sea) an f22/35 in range of these weapons will be blinded if discovered. 5. Finally, if the S400 system incorporates several of the above points, good bye f22.

a reply to: darkstar57

These are jets not the Millennium falcon.
The only jets that can't be shot down are the ones on the ground. They are not perfect but are a heck of a lot better than the competition.

originally posted by: MrCrow
That plane has been around for quite a while according to Wikipedia.

en.wikipedia.org...

I know next to nothing when it comes military, or come to that, any aircraft so I would have thought it would have been superseded by now...

In any case, it does look impressive!

Interesting article. Ceiling listed at 65,000 ft; not quite as good as the Mig 25 Foxbat 67,000 ft with missles or 80,000 ft in the RB version. Of course.....its a lot more sophisticated and advanced than the Foxbat.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: ufoorbhunter


The russians are likely more concerned with the price of oil than 4 jets in europe.

Yes you probably got something there. RT was reporting big spike in oil price today, going hand in hand with the renewed push south in Ukraine. Good point.

Still don't think Moscow will be too happy about these Raptors getting close to their borders. They'll probably fly a couple of Bear's close to Alaska or something. Not sure what else they can do, apart from rush missile tech to Iran/Syria front as a response in kind.

a reply to: TonyS

Foxbat was late 50's tech develpoment. Surely the Raptor is in another league. Next thing it'll be the Messerscmitt comparison

a reply to: darkstar57

They've had IR damping for years, cutting down the IR signature. The best IRST systems are going to detect the F-22 at a range where they've already fired.

Long wave radar only gives you an idea something is there and a fairly large area to look in.

The story about the Cook is BS. The aircraft that flew around her was clean, and their HPM, if it's been miniaturized would have to be carried externally. And they have to target a very specific area to hit an F-22. At the altitude they operate Terrys be at the edge of its range.

The S400 isn't the be all, end all it's made out to be.

a reply to: darkstar57

The Cook did not get disabled by the Russians, I think Zaphod has been proving that with solid facts in that respective thread.

As for the long wave radar, you already said yourself, it's not accurate enough yet. And with the cell towers, there's a thing called EW, to counter it.

I'm not saying Stealth is the best thing to ever happen, that it can't be defeated, but both radar tech and stealth tech, be it RAM, planform or electronic doodads aren't standing still. Saying that in the future it's going to be detected means it's useless right now is downright silly.

a reply to: TonyS

The MiG-25 is an interceptor, not a fighter.

originally posted by: justdust
a reply to: Reallyfolks
So very wrong. These planes are built with the best by the best.
I was fortunate enough to be able to actually work on one of the F22s when
it came down the line to Flight test, during a strike with all the hourly folks
out, those of us in engineering (who had actually worked on aircraft before)
got to work on that one doing squaks and other remaining open items. I was
the first female to work on them on flightline. So maybe my view is a little biased also.

I come from an air defense background in the military. Our motto was "if it flies, it dies". To us, all aircraft were junk waiting for us to help them make an unplanned "landing"

Are they really junk...no. but I'll continue to say all aircraft are. I know I'm biased and have no problem admitting this.

a reply to: Aarsvin
the gang at veterans today, who claim lots of military intelligence contacts, cited the sudden change of course by the Cook for port, and the sudden interest of crew in retirement. what evidence is there that actually happened? I have no sources other than cited.
now about a russian emf weapon that might disable all electronics. here is some speculation. all rf based tracking systems, eg Aegis, depend on sending out a powerful pulse, then listening for a return, at a short interval. it has to be that way. so if an opponent knows or can diagnose that interval and send a powerful rf pulse timed to arrive at the instant the receive gate must be opened to pick up a nanowatt signal, the receiver circuitry may be blown for good. but what do i know, i only had a radar on my boat. this weapon could be smart and small, and only has to work for a few moments.

a reply to: darkstar57

You can't miniaturize it enough to mount inside an aircraft. It has to be carried externally in a pod.

Veteran's Today is the same site that reported that their "intelligence sources" confirmed that China and the US were together fighting aliens off California.

The Aegis radar is as different from a radar on your boat as a Formula One car is from your every day car. The basics are the same but that's about it.

Isn't that a long flight?

I don't know if I'd want to sit in a fighter cockpit for 7-10 hours. I'd barley be able to walk after something like that. I've always wondered how those guys do it. At least on a big tanker and even a bomber you might be able to move around a bit.

Ungh, and we all complain that coach is bad on a 737. Imagine having to stay a 100% alert levels for an entire intercontinental trip strapped into a fighter cockpit? Yowzers!

a reply to: MystikMushroom

It's about 6 1/2-7 hours. They train for it in simulators before deploying.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

I guess sitting in a fighter cockpit for only 7-10 hours goes by in no time.... beats sitting in a B-2 for 70 hours straight, now that is quite a task.

a reply to: Clairaudience

It wasn't 70 and they cheated. They had lounge chairs to nap on and on many missions only flew ye inbound leg. They'd land at Diego Garcia and another crew would fly back to Whiteman.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ufoorbhunter

Four aircraft aren't going to change things that much. Twelve or fourteen maybe, four, no.

So it a show of sophistication rather then force?

I'm a bit of a fossil when it comes these things, but the sight of these craft with their electronic countermeasures or fancy doodads be enough for anyone to think twice? Are the f-22s meant to be the spec ops of the skies? if they are then their cover is blown.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

It's more to let our allies work with them. Countries like Poland can't deploy all the way to the US, or even to many other countries in Europe very often. But we may have to fight side by side some day. Since they can't come to us to learn about our equipment, our equipment goes to them.

They're too specialized to be considered Spec Ops.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ufoorbhunter

Four aircraft aren't going to change things that much. Twelve or fourteen maybe, four, no.

hey look Zaph is being all conservative today....I agree but 4 F-22's with AWACS, Prowlers and UAV's having advanced targeting and they can screw up a whole drawing board of potential operations.

a reply to: howmuch4another

Sure, but the buildup is going to be obvious. And slow to get the UAVs there.

a reply to: Zaphod58

yes it will but we have so many resources there already. Ramstein is drone central.