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.

 

Russia to launch new F/A-22 competetor

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   
First of all, a few minor points:

The Aegis weapon system is a battle management system, designed to detect, track, process, correllate, prioritize and engage large numbers of air targets. Its primary purpose is to defend fleet assets against high volume air raids, especially those consisting of ASCMs and their launch platforms. It is not a dedicated CLO weapon system, nor was it originally designed to be one. It was designed to defeat an air raid notionally comprised of TU-16s and TU-26s launching large volleys of AS-4s, AS-5s, and AS-6s, while at the same time dealing with Kirovs and Slavas and Oscars ripple-firing mass salvos of SS-N-19s. It was a specific response to a specific Soviet warfare doctrine, desinged to defeat a US carrier battle group.

2nd, LO technology will continue to do what is does today - provide battlespace dominance - until it is proven otherwise. Like the old saying goes...."money talks and BS walks"...and right now the "money" is stealth. Lots of countries claim to have CLO air defense capabilities...I say "show me the money". Prove your claims. Conduct some live-fire tests against actual VLO targtes in a hostile environment full of ECM and ARH hardware.

And although the PAC-3 has an admirable AAW capability, it is primarily an ATBM system. And the S-3000 or Arrow havn't shot down bubkis.

The proof is always in the pudding. Talk is cheap.




posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Russian, haven't seen you in here in a while. Well anyways, Stealth can't be overrated, the reason being this, it is because there is not just one grade of stealth.

Stealth is only overrated, if it is defeated, and can not be imporved upon. If some how, some way, engineers were to develop a new stealth and employ it in the battlefield successfully, it is not overrated. The reason why alot of you might think that the F/A-22 is overrated, is because in some respects it is.

However, we cannot overlook, or deny the level of technology that the Raptor is at, the Raptor is an unstable stealth platform, not only stealth on RADAR, but also to Heat seakers(hence the 2D nozzles) and possibly other forms of detection, which would be why it costs so much money.

And to me, the Raptor's numbers are being cut, is not because it's not good, but the reason probably goes much deeper than that. Why have such an expensive Fighter, when the older upgraded models will do the job of the new fighter perfectly and at a much cheaper cost? It's all economics and politics boys and girls, that's all, that's all war is about, that's all it'll ever be. Money, land, propaganda, etc all fall under that, and it's not because the Raptor is such a bad aircraft, merely that it's just not needed at this time, perhaps in a decade or so it will be needed, possibly even more than that, but for now they are in small quantities.

O and, for those that think numbers are more important, look at it this way, you're not going to evade a missile if you don't know it's going to be launched before it is actually launched. One of the concepts of BVR, is to hit the target, without them knowing you're there to do the shooting, which is why the Raptor is so good at at BVR. So if I send out 180 Raptors, to combat 400 Sukhois(Sending out 180 against 2000 just isn't reasonable), I'll possibly end up with a hefty number of Raptors left.

Now, I'm sure there are many other takes on this subject, but for me, that's my take. It's not that the F/A-22 can't perform what's it's put out to perform, it's that it just isn't needed, there's really no level playing field for it, and it's way to expensive to deploy without it having a level playing field.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 02:42 PM
link   
ShatteredSkies, we can only speculate why they build F-22 on such a low scale. Maybe its cost, maybe its its what you say, etc But then what will happen when alot of US aircrafts go out of service?

Also I dont know how much truth it is but people say that F-22 can take on 5 F-15s. If that true then cool. But you must remember that India on Su-30s beat US 90% of the time in air games. So you cant really make a compare of 180 F-22s vs 400 Su-30 and say that F-22 will survive.

Out,
Russian



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Russian
So you cant really make a compare of 180 F-22s vs 400 Su-30 and say that F-22 will survive.


In all this arguing about apples and oranges, Russian, educated speculation can assert such.
How?
When one F-22 Raptor can take out 5 F-15s in 3-5 minutes [the article for which has been linked a number of times within this forum in the past], I think it would be a decent speculative guess to think and conclude that 180 F-22's vs 400 Su-30's with a respectable number of F-22's surviving as being quite realistic. Do the math.


Furthermore, remember that simulations conducted by British Aerospace and the British Defense Research Agency [also having been linked a number of times in the past within this forum] indicated that the F-22 defeated the Su-35 with a ratio of 10:1. The difference between the Su-30 and 35 are nominal, with upgrades being the difference, per se'. As such, the Su-30 would fair how much better than the Su-35 in such a simulation?

The realism of such actually happening is unknown and a probable fallacy.
Nothing but speculation, educated or not, at this juncture in time.

Anyhow and obviously, this is a speculative mention/assertion on my part, Russian, and may well be undoubtedly viewed as further F-22 hype, but you should know me better than that, at least I would hope. Being a long time member as you are, you are also aware of my love of Sukhoi, as well.

Good to see you back around, Russian.







seekerof

[edit on 12-9-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Since you guys have brought up the subject of the S-300 - A pilot friend of mine at Nellis said they have an S-300 system in their "Petting Zoo" there.
It apparently is fully functional.
So much for it being some great elusive technology that the US will never get ahold of....



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Russian
ShatteredSkies, we can only speculate why they build F-22 on such a low scale. Maybe its cost, maybe its its what you say, etc But then what will happen when alot of US aircrafts go out of service?

Also I dont know how much truth it is but people say that F-22 can take on 5 F-15s. If that true then cool. But you must remember that India on Su-30s beat US 90% of the time in air games. So you cant really make a compare of 180 F-22s vs 400 Su-30 and say that F-22 will survive.

Out,
Russian


You're soo wrong Russian, You should see that movie called "Stealth"..
The Su-37s lose baad!!

..
No really.. nothing is known for sure until we have a live encounter.. and unfortuntely as things stand most porbably nothing will be known after that live encounter as well..


Hey that s-300 you're talking about.. Is it fully operational?
Might want to sell it to Taiwan or something.. There are just so many missiles point at this poor island, it makes me twinge inside!!



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Since you guys have brought up the subject of the S-300 - A pilot friend of mine at Nellis said they have an S-300 system in their "Petting Zoo" there.
It apparently is fully functional.


If that is true, then it might mean the USAF has been trying to find weaknesses in the system and improve their designs as to no be very vulnerable to it. Intelgurl can you get more info on this?



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 10:02 PM
link   
YOU know what. If russia says it gots all this new technology then why doesnt it build an exceptoinal fighter and put it into production. Instead of saying that their fighters could blast us out of the sky why dont they build something and well see how it goes in a mock air battle.

But besides that the only way russian technology is ever gonna fly is if a lazy scientist folds his plans into a paper airplane.



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies

O and, for those that think numbers are more important, look at it this way, you're not going to evade a missile if you don't know it's going to be launched before it is actually launched. One of the concepts of BVR, is to hit the target, without them knowing you're there to do the shooting, which is why the Raptor is so good at at BVR. So if I send out 180 Raptors, to combat 400 Sukhois(Sending out 180 against 2000 just isn't reasonable), I'll possibly end up with a hefty number of Raptors left.


yeah but doesnt the enemy have a chance to take evasive action after the missle is launched. surely the enemy will be able to track the missle. and once the missle is detected, so is the aircraft firing it. atleast the enemy is laerted to its presence.

surely then numbers matter, because if the enemy far outnumbers the raptor and is aware of their presence, they can engage it effectively



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 04:51 AM
link   
They'll know it's there, but once it shoots, and the doors close they won't be able to track it. IF the missile doesn't take them down, they just get closer and pop another one off.



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
They'll know it's there, but once it shoots, and the doors close they won't be able to track it. IF the missile doesn't take them down, they just get closer and pop another one off.


but isnt this where numbers matter. if the raptors are heavily outnumbered then how many can they take out before the enemy gets within VR. once they are within VR its all even.



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 05:06 AM
link   
With the newer AMRAAMs and a good datalink from AWACS it's actually a much better hit probability.



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 05:11 AM
link   
ahh AWACS. i always wondered wht wil happen if there is an AWACS on the enemy side. especially if they are using low-band radar like grunt stated earlier. what happens then



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by puneetsg
ahh AWACS. i always wondered wht wil happen if there is an AWACS on the enemy side. especially if they are using low-band radar like grunt stated earlier. what happens then

Send out long range missiles to shoot down their AWACS.


Anyways, you missed my point, I actually did the math, and if you read what I put in parantheses, it was 180 to 400 as opposed to 180 to 2000.

This is the reason why I put 180 to 400. In a real world combat situation, you would never see more than 400 advanced Sukhois coming out from one nation, and since 180 will probably be all that the US is capable of deploying into one battlefield, well it only makes sense to see 180 to 400. And if the numbers are small enough, the numbers don't matter, but if it's 180 to 2000, then numbers definetly matter.

The margin for error is way too high for the Raptors to contend with, 2000 Sukhois is one hell of a force and not producable by any single nation, possible an entire coalition, but that's it. And here is some math, 180 Raptors all in Air to air configurations, can carry 4 AIM-120's and 2 AIM-9x's. That's 6 missiles for each 180 aircraft. 180x6=1080 missiles, that's over a thousand missiles and Raptors FCS is capable of targeting more than just one target. So if you have 400 Sukhois VS 180 Raptors, that makes it 3-4 Sukhois per Raptor, the Raptor can fire multiple missiles to each target, if the first salvo of missiles does badly, the Raptor can get closer and engage the enemy with a higher hit probability. Also, the Raptor can engage in Dogfights with it's 27mm cannon.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by puneetsg

Originally posted by Zaphod58
They'll know it's there, but once it shoots, and the doors close they won't be able to track it. IF the missile doesn't take them down, they just get closer and pop another one off.


but isnt this where numbers matter. if the raptors are heavily outnumbered then how many can they take out before the enemy gets within VR. once they are within VR its all even.


I must dissagree. Just because you are within visual range does NOT mean that the odds are even.

Short range missles such as Russias "Archer" use passive infrared homing. The Raptor has thermal stealth in addition to it's radar stealth. Thus, even short range missles that would be used at VR *might* be compromised. Or they might not. IMO, it would most likely depend on how short of a range one could get to the Raptor. The Archer has a reliable range of 40km according to Globalsecurity. How much of that effective range is taken away by the thermal stealth of the Raptor? Probably at least half. Now, as a pilot, would you want to have to get within 20KM of an aircraft like the Raptor, which can shoot at you with no such dissadvantage? I think not.

Oh, and one more thing. The thermal stealth of a Raptor is also a multiplier of standard defense systems of a fighter aircraft. When the Raptor launches chaffs or flares, not only are there other things for the incoming missle to lock onto, but the Raptor is also a MUCH smaller signature, thus making it a lot more likely that the missle is defeated by the aircrafts defense systems.



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies

Send out long range missiles to shoot down their AWACS.



and you missed mine. what will happen if the AWACS is able to track the raptors (assuming ofcourse tht grunt knew wht he was talkin about, low-band radar and all, which i think he was)



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by puneetsg
and you missed mine. what will happen if the AWACS is able to track the raptors (assuming ofcourse tht grunt knew wht he was talkin about, low-band radar and all, which i think he was)


That should not happen because the Raptors will be able to see the AWACS before the AWACS could see the Raptor. Once the Raptor saw the AWACS, it would sit back at a safe distance/adjust tactics to take it out.

Of course in the fog of war, anything can happen.



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
out.

Of course in the fog of war, anything can happen.


and tht is exactly why i think it is quite premature to simply discount all other fighters in comparison to the raptor. although no doubt the raptor is a superb piece of technology, it remains as yet unproven. nobody else except the americans has ever seen it in action, and i think for any aircrafts capabilities to be truly ascertained it needs to be verified from atleast 2 sources, which is unfortunately not available at this point of time.



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by puneetsg
and tht is exactly why i think it is quite premature to simply discount all other fighters in comparison to the raptor. although no doubt the raptor is a superb piece of technology, it remains as yet unproven.


Unproven meaning that it has not been in actual combat?
Unproven meaning that it has not gone against modern ECM's such as the Eurofighter's DASS or the Rafale's SPECTRA?

From everything I have read on the Raptor, any aircraft going against it would virtually be likened to committing an act of near-suicide. Time will only tell, till then, bear in mind:
Simulations conducted by British Aerospace and the British Defense Research Agency had the F-22 Raptor destroying Su-35s with a ratio of 10:1.
Past actual flight air-to-air combat had the F-22 Raptor defeating five (5) F-15s in three minutes.
Recent air-to-air combat simulations against a US acquired/obtained Su-27, had the Raptor defeating it so handly and easily, that it would be better compared to a seal hunter clubbing baby seals.
The Raptor Arrives



Cabral has better recall of his fifth, sixth, and seventh flights, during which he flew his Raptor against another in a Basic Fighter Maneuvers exercise. (The second aircraft simulated a Russian Sukhoi Su-27.) "The briefer said, 'Look, BFM in the Raptor is boring.' And it was true. The plane is so powerful and responsive, it can turn so tight and sustain such high Gs and angles of attack, that I can fly to the center of his turn circle and keep my nose and weapon on him all day. Whatever he tries to do, I can just point my airplane. "When I was flying defensive BFM, he simply couldn't enter into my turn circle. Even if he flies his weapon to the best of its capabilities and I make errors, he cannot win. It's almost too easy."


You have an aircraft here, the F-22 Raptor, that flies at Mach 1.8 to approxly Mach 2.25+ with G-loadings of 6+ at Mach 1.6 to 1.8, loaded out [fully loaded], that optimiumly operates at 50,000+ feet, and with such capabilities, will probably put the F-22 past the sensor gimball limits of many currently used air-to-air missiles. All this and not even mentioning the 's' word [stealth capabilities], the 'p' word [passive radar], and the 'i' word [IRST system], nor even mentioning that the next upgrading to be done [speculated to be around 2011] to the F-22 Raptor will increase the operational altitude to 60,000+ [which really requires no upgrade to achieve already], while increasing the aircraft's supercruise, etc.

A very interesting read to go along with what I have asserted and presented above, can be found here:


The 64th flew almost 300 sorties against F/A-22 operational test pilots of the 31st Test and Evaluation Squadron based at Edwards AFB, California, during IOT&E last year. "We never got to a merge against a single F/A-22 during IOT&E," Huffman continues.

The 64th Aggressors are well known, as they provide adversary support for Red Flag and other large-scale exercises held at Nellis. Pilots of the 64th use F-16s camouflaged in blue and brown to replicate aircraft, weapons, and tactics employed by potential threats. "We have the experience and knowledge and that's why the Air Force asked our unit to fly against the F/A-22 in IOT&E," Huffman adds. "We flew in every IOT&E mission. We also flew against Raptor pilots in the air combat simulator in Marietta, Georgia."

Many of the IOT&E missions lasted more than three hours and included several engagements. Two F/A-22 pilots often flew against four F-16s from the 64th. Raptor pilots performed pre-strike sweeps, defensive counter-air missions, and surge operations. The sweeps involved clearing a given airspace for attacking aircraft (F-16s, F-15Es, and other bomb-carrying assets). The defensive counter-air missions involved defending a point or airfield against attacking aircraft. Surges involved producing a certain number of sorties in a prescribed period of time.

Today, operational testing of the Raptor continues with the 422nd Test and Evaluation Squadron at Nellis AFB.

Lt. Col. Robert Garland, a former F-15C pilot who flies Raptors with the 422nd, provides an F/A-22 perspective on air-to-air combat in the Air Force's most advanced fighter: "Six adversaries provide a good workout for two F-15C pilots," he says. "But for two Raptor pilots, defeating six adversaries is about as difficult as eating breakfast. We don't even break a sweat. The Raptor needs a lot of adversaries to create a challenge."

Any Airspace, Any Situation: 422nd Test And Evaluation Squadron Defines The Raptor





seekerof

[edit on 27-9-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 09:09 PM
link   
good post seeker of I also was reading that same article today on the 22 website. From what you walk away when u read something like that it seems like other airforces should just lay down and give up. though this isnt realistic the capabilty of the raptor just seems to be growing the longer other airforce wait to actually get off the drawing board with there concept/ideas. also i was watching a 22 video on a website and i saw some of its thrust vectoring. all i can say is holy crap. the thing goes from level flight to standing on it tail, prosseds to climb a couple 100 ft and then levels off with a huge nose down with what i can only imagine as a huge blood rush to the head for the pilot. im wondering if anyone else has ever seen this footage and what they think about it? To me it looks like it would be useful in combat but then again I never have flown a fighter before.







 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join