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.

 

F-22/F-35 vulnerability to IR detection?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Why would they be shortened and why ASSUME that the F-22 only flies at 50,000ft.

My point isn't that there are off the shelf missiles that can shoot down the F-22 with ease, but rather that the technology exists to make anti-F22 weapons systems reasonably quickly, such as combining latest generation IIR (Imaging Infra Red) seekers with medium/long range AAMs/SAMs.

Say the F-22 is launching an AMRAAM at an upgraded Su-30MK? Flanker from say 60km range. The upgraded Flanker could detect the incomming AMRAAM at say 30km (if not greater) and by doing a quick radar scan in that secto determine that it probably came from a stealthy launch platform. By firing a long ranged IIR seeking missile down the reverse path in a LOAL (Lock On After Launch) mode they at least get a IIR weapon into the general ball park of the F-22. If the F-22 is at about 50,000ft, where the air temperature is about -70degreesC(?) and the jet plume is up to +1000degreesC, finding it shouldn't be hard. A datalink between the missile and the Flanker and/or a ground control unit would further assist follow-up shots. Remember that the AMRAAM and its planned upgrades are far from the longest ranged AAMs - the various Russian K-172 and European Meteor WAAAYYYY out range it.
Well they would be shortended the Flanker and The raptor would face each other head on The raptor's plumes are in the back. Not to mntion its Ir signature is minimal compared to other fighters that's why it would be shortended. plus it can slow down its speed to further lower it.




posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by planeman
Why would they be shortened and why ASSUME that the F-22 only flies at 50,000ft.


An F-22 in BVR engagement will most likely fire from that altitude to gain an altitude advantage over an enemy and to give the AIM-120 an increase in rage of 30-50%. Now imagine the already long range AIM-120D with a 50% increase in rage.



Boeing has joined the Meteor program with the intention of marketing the missile in the US. The situation is complicated by the fact that the F-22 needs it less than other fighters. Earlier this year, F-22 chief test pilot Paul Metz confirmed that the F-22's speed and altitude capability acts as a booster stage for the common-or-garden AMRAAM. At M1.5 and at greater altitude than the target (the F-22 has a very fast climb rate and a service ceiling well above 50,000ft), AMRAAM's range is 50% greater than is the case in a subsonic, same-altitude launch.

Link



Originally posted by planeman
My point isn't that there are off the shelf missiles that can shoot down the F-22 with ease, but rather that the technology exists to make anti-F22 weapons systems reasonably quickly, such as combining latest generation IIR (Imaging Infra Red) seekers with medium/long range AAMs/SAMs.


If a Flanker detects the AMRAAM at 30 KM (18.5 miles) out he has about 20 seconds to fire his missile and eject. Now lets assume that the F-22 at this stage is about 60 KM away from the Flanker, this is still outside its detection envelope. Now say the Flanker pilot miraculously fires his AAM within a very close vicinity of the F-22 it would still mean that AAM would have to fly to its last programmed location without any upgrades from the downed Flanker. The AAM would now have to start searching for the F-22 which at this time could be several miles from its last firing position. When you consider that the ranges of even the latest IR seekers aren't that great and that the F-22 has a lower IR signature than most fighters the probability of a kill will be very low.


Originally posted by planeman
Remember that the AMRAAM and its planned upgrades are far from the longest ranged AAMs - the various Russian K-172 and European Meteor WAAAYYYY out range it.


Not entirely true, the AIM-120D is supposed to have a 50% increase in range over the already long ranged AIM-120C-7. To get an idea of what kind of numbers I’m talking about, check out this source and do the math. And as for the K-172 can I get some more information about this missile?

[edit on 29-4-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Here's another good read for Flanker flight tactics in engaging non VLO a/c..


The combination of Su-30 and R-27ER/ET (NATO designation AA-10), flown and fought in a competent fashion, also represents a significant threat. Even though the R-27ER is only a semiactive radar-guided missile, the extra maneuvering capability resulting from the large motor is a significant improvement over the basic R-27. Basic Russian air force doctrine has long suggested following a semi-active missile launch immediately with an IR missile launch, such as the R-27ET. Theory has it that the target aircraft's crew will be occupied spoofing the inbound radar missile, only to fall to the second missile.

The R-27ER, while only semiactive, also outperforms the baseline R-77 ( AA-12) in terms of kinematics. The R-77 motor has a simple, and short, burn profile, which has resulted in disappointing performance, piquing the Russian air force's interest in developing the K-77M rather than fielding the basic AA-12 in any numbers. The K-77M (K denotes a missile still in development, while R reflects an inventory weapon) is an upgraded R-77 with improvements that include a larger motor with a burn sequence profiled to increase range.

The oft-touted, but yet-to-be-fielded, R-27EA active variant of the AA-10 could further enhance the Su-30's capabilities, were an export customer to buy the derivative. In terms of one-on-one combat, the second-generation Flanker family presents a considerable threat to aircraft not designed from the outset as low observable, unless they are capable of extended-range BVR missile engagements. For instance, this threat drove the British selection of a rocket-ramjet missile to equip the Eurofighter.



Please keep the bias aside before reading this..
Its pretty good:
Source

As for the K-172, I doubt the AIM-120D even matches this proposed missile in range..
But the K-172 is customised for slow moving atargets at ranges of 300km+? and hence sounds like more of a anti AWACS missile rather than a standoff BVR fighter weapon.


EDIT:
Most of Stealth Spy's posts on this page deal with the Ks-172. Mostly described as a AWACS killer but some vague and surprising references to it being capable against smaller targets and even cruise missiles


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Pic links courtesy of ch1466 from the same thread page:

www.military.cz...
img58.exs.cx...
www.mipagina.cantv.net...

[edit on 29-4-2006 by Daedalus3]

[edit on 29-4-2006 by Daedalus3]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 04:27 PM
link   
To all...do some research on FLiR (Forward Looking InfraRed). It's a new technology. Back to the point I made in a post a little while ago, an F-22 Raptop has technology on board that can detect an enemy airplane from a very long distance, and shoot it down. Work Smarter, Not Harder is my motto


If they can see us...we saw them a LONG time ago!



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Westy, I think part of the advantage of the Meteor over the AMRAAM is its use of a ramjet engine rather than a rocket engine, this gives it greater kill range and much higher terminal velocity. I beleive the US is working on a ramjet powered BVRAAM as a future replacement for the AMRAAM for this reason.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by mlindahl
To all...do some research on FLiR (Forward Looking InfraRed). It's a new technology. Back to the point I made in a post a little while ago, an F-22 Raptor has technology on board that can detect an enemy airplane from a very long distance, and shoot it down. Work Smarter, Not Harder is my motto


If they can see us...we saw them a LONG time ago!



Eh?


FLIR is not a new technology, IRST (the variant useful here) has been around since the 70s/80s. The MiG-29 and Su-27 both have IRST.



Most aircraft can detect most enemy aircraft from a long distance and shoot it down. Thats the general idea when the designers come up with the thing. You can be quite sure the guys at Suhkoi aren't sitting at their desks thinking "hmm, so what kind of cannon fodder can we produce today?".



I'm quite confident, infact, I'm 100% sure that the advances in computing power and radar technology will mean the low-observable technology built into the F-22 will be obsolete long before the type is due to go out of service.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Not sure whether it is due to RAMJET propulsion, but the AIM-120D is supposed to have greater kinematics than the C7. And the follow-on to AMRAAM is the Joint Dual Role Air Dominance Missile, or JDRADM (doesn't exactly roll off the tongue like AMRAAM, does it?), which is supposed to have greater kinimatic capabilities than the D. Plan is for the JDARDM to do both air to air and air to surface. Meteor though looks like it will be a great missile. Course, it is superfluous due to all the killer drones that will be loitering out there...


Oh, and FLIRs aren't new. Been around for years now. Simple IR detectors were used in WWII, and the Russians have had IRSTS for a while now as a standard on some of their fighters. The actual detection and tracking capacity of IR detectors has certainly improved though.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
FLIR is not a new technology, IRST (the variant useful here) has been around since the 70s/80s. The MiG-29 and Su-27 both have IRST.


You're right, FLiR is quite old actually. I forget the new technology that China Lake is working on at the moment, but I just remember taking a tour of the facilities at my high school, and they mentioned something along those lines.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Westy, I think part of the advantage of the Meteor over the AMRAAM is its use of a ramjet engine rather than a rocket engine, this gives it greater kill range and much higher terminal velocity. I beleive the US is working on a ramjet powered BVRAAM as a future replacement for the AMRAAM for this reason.


Don’t know about the kill range as the most commonly listed range for the Meteor is in excess of 100 Km which is the same as the Aim-120D. However you're right because the Meteor uses a breathing engine it will have a higher terminal velocity than a rocket motor when fired from very long distances.


Originally posted by kilcoo316
I'm quite confident, infact, I'm 100% sure that the advances in computing power and radar technology will mean the low-observable technology built into the F-22 will be obsolete long before the type is due to go out of service.


We shall see, but remember the RCS of the Raptor will not remain the same throughout its service. Even the version of the Raptor in use today has a smaller RCS than the YF-22 did. An example of this would be the F-16, look at the RCS of the latest F-16’s and compare it to when the jet first came out.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 07:52 PM
link   
The raptor can detect an enemy at extremely long distance through its passive electromagnetic sensors and ESM well out of its radar range.
Westpoint the AIM 120C already hasa 100km range the upcoming D will have 50% increase giving it a 150 km reach. www.designation-systems.net... scroll to the bottom.
www.aviationnow.com... ew%3Dstory%26id%3Dnews%2F05244wna.xml

[edit on 1-5-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
The raptor can detect an enemy at extremely long distance through its passive electromagnetic sensors and ESM well out of radar range.
Whilst the F-22's sensors are impressive, arguably the best in the world, other current/near future aircraft have similar systems and, much like the F-22, make efforts reduce their own susceptibilty to these forms of detection. Fortunately for the F-22 it isn't likely to be facing the likes of the Typhoon, Gripen or Rafale, but it is only a question of time before this technology spreads.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

We shall see, but remember the RCS of the Raptor will not remain the same throughout its service. Even the version of the Raptor in use today has a smaller RCS than the YF-22 did. An example of this would be the F-16, look at the RCS of the latest F-16’s and compare it to when the jet first came out.


Uhh, no.


The RCS of the raptor will only benefit from material improvements, it doesn't use RAM much as part of its design philosopy, so won't benefit that much.

Its low RCS is based on its shape, and that will not change.


The F-22 and YF-22 are seperate aircraft, don't confuse the two.


The F-16 was not designed with radar signatures in mind, its much easier to throw on some RAM, and hey presto - reduced RCS. That same idea will not work with the F-22 as it already has been designed up.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by planeman
Whilst the F-22's sensors are impressive, arguably the best in the world, other current/near future aircraft have similar systems and, much like the F-22, make efforts reduce their own susceptibilty to these forms of detection. Fortunately for the F-22 it isn't likely to be facing the likes of the Typhoon, Gripen or Rafale, but it is only a question of time before this technology spreads.


Can you clarify on this please.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   
True but the F 16 didnt use Ram and probably has a smaller RCS than the original.

[edit on 2-5-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316


Uhh, no.


The RCS of the raptor will only benefit from material improvements, it doesn't use RAM much as part of its design philosopy, so won't benefit that much.

Its low RCS is based on its shape, and that will not change. The F-22 and YF-22 are seperate aircraft, don't confuse the two.


The F-16 was not designed with radar signatures in mind, its much easier to throw on some RAM, and hey presto - reduced RCS. That same idea will not work with the F-22 as it already has been designed up.
Different block numbers eg block 10,20,30 etc of the AC had the same basic shape but improved(F16). And as the system gets older you can replace them for less with upgraded one's. The same airframes wont be used forever. Not only that but we aren't getting that many Raptors just yet (just 180) although the production line will get extended. Newer Raptor models will come out. Not only that but new AC based on the same basic design but can be a different AC like the FB 22.



[edit on 2-5-2006 by urmomma158]

[edit on 2-5-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
Different block numbers eg block 10,20,30 etc of the AC had the same basic shape but improved(F16). And as the system gets older you can replace them for less with upgraded one's. The same airframes wont be used forever. Not only that but we aren't getting that many Raptors just yet (just 180) although the production line will get extended. Newer Raptor models will come out. Not only that but new AC based on the same basic design but can be a different AC like the FB 22.



The block numbers signify upgrades to materials, sensors etc.


Basically everything but the internal airframe and the critical surface shapes. Apart from the CFTs obviously, but these were limited to areas where there aerodynamic impact would be minimal.


Now, the F-22's shape is optimised already, therefore will not be changed. Its materials may be changed, but since the design doesn't rely on them it will make little difference.

Its the laws of diminished returns you get as you approach optimal performance - the only place I know of where this doesn't seem to apply is formula 1!




The FB-22 (if it happens) is going to be a completely different aircraft as far as I am aware, and from what I was told a while back by a guy from Lockheed, he referenced more to the black widow for the bomber - kinda hard to put into words, but it almost seemed they weren't interested - strange, but just the way it was said.


The only way I can see the F-22 reduce its RCS significantly will be with active cancellation or plasma stealth.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 07:22 PM
link   
They russians and Americans are working on it so maybe in the future as an add on............ But pretty soon they will be devloping tech that can change the shape of the AC in flight. Who says the same airframes will be sued. they will be thrown away eventually and buy new upgraded ones. Sorta like how we dont use F 15's built in 1970. So plasma stealth and plane morphing seems the only logical yet sure technology.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
As for the K-172, I doubt the AIM-120D even matches this proposed missile in range..

Key word in your mention there, Daedalus: "proposed."






seekerof



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by planeman
Fortunately for the F-22 it isn't likely to be facing the likes of the Typhoon, Gripen or Rafale, but it is only a question of time before this technology spreads.


planeman, lets try some reverse logic, k?
How about it is fortunate for the Typhoon, Gripen, and *cough* Rafale that they do not likely have to face the F/A-22 Raptor. What'cha think?






seekerof

[edit on 2-5-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by planeman
Fortunately for the F-22 it isn't likely to be facing the likes of the Typhoon, Gripen or Rafale, but it is only a question of time before this technology spreads.


planeman, lets try some reverse logic, k?
How about it is fortunate for the Typhoon, Gripen, and *cough* Rafale that they do not likely have to face the F/A-22 Raptor. What'cha think?






seekerof

[edit on 2-5-2006 by Seekerof]
I agree, the F-22 is the foremost fighter at the moment. I'm not biased against the F-22, I'm just not a Raptor nutrider.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join