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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

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



Well its all in the words now isn't it?


Proposed as in.. Its there, its not a drawing board/design phase thing. Its just not in production for various reasons incld. financial ones.
And ofcourse that is evident with its 'K' designation and not the in service/production 'R' designation.
But if the money is there, then so will the missile. And as of now it looks like the money is coming.




posted on May, 3 2006 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
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.



They already have changed the shape of an aircraft in flight - its called variable geometry wings



Your still refusing to acknowledge the basic law of diminished returns with optimisation.

Aircraft morphing is good for a/c control, and definitely not good for a/c RCS as you begin to introduce further curvature - it also limits the materials you can use, and the internal structure.


Plasma, well, the Russians say they have it sorted, so I guess its there somewhere.


edit: typo

[edit on 3-5-2006 by kilcoo316]



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   
[Mod Edit: removed unnecessary quote of Entire preceeding post]

No i mean an aircraft which can literlly change its shape in flight. Think of what could happen on the ground! i bet the Russians and the Area 51 folks have plasma stealth and acive cancellation so im not worried.



Please Review This Link.

[edit on 5/4/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 07:18 PM
link   
i'm not sure..... f-22 should be a pretty advance and capable plane otherwise USA wont mass produce them.......



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
No i mean an aircraft which can literlly change its shape in flight. Think of what could happen on the ground! i bet the Russians and the Area 51 folks have plasma stealth and acive cancellation so im not worried.


I know what your talking about - wing warping (bit like the wright brothers) for control instead of ailerons etc.


I'm not a great believer in the 'Area 51 has starships sitting there ready to go' theories to be honest.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Depends on what you see there thet proably dont have starships but they should have things like dar/antimatter,anti grav,plama stealth etc.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 09:22 AM
link   
On a tangental point, do you think there is a correlation between people who are what you might call "F-22 nutriders" who see the Raptor as some sort of god of airpower rather than a system with strengths and weaknesses, and people who believe that the USAF also has plasma stealthm, hypersonic bombers, anti-matter, anti-gravity and the like?

If the US has anti-gravity then why the hell is it spending $$$$$$$$ trying to get things to fly that apply conventional physics????? If the F-22 didn't need wings it'd be hell of a lot easier to design, lol..



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by planeman
On a tangental point, do you think there is a correlation between people who are what you might call "F-22 nutriders" who see the Raptor as some sort of god of airpower rather than a system with strengths and weaknesses, and people who believe that the USAF also has plasma stealthm, hypersonic bombers, anti-matter, anti-gravity and the like?

If the US has anti-gravity then why the hell is it spending $$$$$$$$ trying to get things to fly that apply conventional physics????? If the F-22 didn't need wings it'd be hell of a lot easier to design, lol..




-Definitely

and

- Ahh, but, but, but, but...



See NASA etc, they waste all their money trying to replicate projects that were done 30 years ago in area 51



Sometimes common sense just isn't applied



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
-Definitely


Not really, speculation is just that. But do you think there is a correlation between the people who think the Raptor is a hyped up obsolete machine and the ones who think the Russians have secret plasma stealth and technology? I wonder…



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Not really, speculation is just that. But do you think there is a correlation between the people who think the Raptor is a hyped up obsolete machine and the ones who think the Russians have secret plasma stealth and technology? I wonder…



Who thinks the F-22 is obsolete? (yet - give it about 10 years until DEWS are here - then it is obsolete along with every other fighter in the world)


I have more evidence of the russians investigating, supposedly to a point where it might be on military aircraft as opposed to anti-gravity, anti-matter, hypersonic aircraft etc etc etc at area 51.

Its also alot more believeable from a technical point of view. I also have no doubt that the US is investigating the radar effects of plasma, but I believe their research is not as mature as Russia's... yet.




Part of the problem is there doesn't seem to be a middle ground with alot of people on here, who would group people the following way:


A: The F-22 is the next step down from god, and you post as such.

B: Or you are a stupid commie wannabe unable to see the clear invincibility of the F-22.


While infact, no system is perfect, and I know there are compromises to the F-22 (just like every other aircraft in the world) and nothing is above criticism.

[edit on 4-5-2006 by kilcoo316]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Who thinks the F-22 is obsolete? (yet - give it about 10 years until DEWS are here - then it is obsolete along with every other fighter in the world).


DEWS? By US enemies? Ok sure, you can make assumptions, but the question still remains, how are you going to target something which you cannot detect? Ah, let me guess, you also assume that radar technology will be so advanced that tracking VLO aircraft should be easy. Sorry, but I’ll take my 150 mil Air Superiority fighter over assumptions any day.


Originally posted by kilcoo316
Its also alot more believeable from a technical point of view.


Oh really, well that’s great. I suppose since hypersonic technology has been proven and since it is also very real and believable there should be a whole slew of hypersonic strike aircraft in service around the world, eh? Paper drawings don’t fly and they certainly aren’t the real thing.


Originally posted by kilcoo316
While infact, no system is perfect, and I know there are compromises to the F-22 (just like every other aircraft in the world) and nothing is above criticism.


The F-22 is not perfect, sure, I agree, but it is the best fighter currently in the world for Air Superiority. That is all I have asserted about it, you do not agree with that statement?

[edit on 4-5-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 10:58 AM
link   
This thread is a lot like 100 others on forums across the internet; someone questions the F-22's capabilities in some way and the nutrider brigade show up with the usual counter-arguments which amount to "it's stealthy because it is, everything would be shot down before they even saw it etc etc. Every system on the F-22 must automatically be the best in the world, infallible, omnipotent etc.


Back on topic, if you try to research the F-22's IR stealth on the internet you tend to come across lots of talk about how it reduces IR signiture. Even global security is very vague in this respect. The most telling research (IMO) is here: www.f22fighter.com...

There is no getting away from the fact that the F-22 (and F-35) have to massive jet engines that get VERY hot.

IR detection and targeting has its own limitations but it does seem to offer a feasible way of countering F-22s, particularly if they are operating over your own territory. It is also important to remember that IR detection is passive, in itself there is no indication to the target aircraft that you have seen and/or locked onto it.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Ah, let me guess, you also assume that radar technology will be so advanced that tracking VLO aircraft should be easy.

Well one starting point is to develop a frequency agile radar operating on a wavelength twice that of the F-22's length, width etc. Then overlay that air picture with other radars' to ID the suspected stealths. This wouldn't (currently) be useful for targeting but it would give you the approximate location and tracking needed for more determined interception attempt using IIR sensors and seekers. Just a thought.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   
This is speculative, but here's an idea of an anti-stealth "air captor-mine".


A very sophisticated imaging infra-red/optical/IR sensor is mounted in a stealthy pod below a blimp. Control is provided by a ducted fan with thrust vectoring, housed within the pod. Also within the pod is its weapons load of IRAAMs, preferably ramjet powered long range ones with IIR seeking. The missile seekers need not be as capable as the sensor suite on the mine, because they could be launched in a lock-on after launch profile.

When the mine detects a target, it sends the coordinates to a ground network which does all the IFF, ID etc and sends the fire order back to the mine. The mine could carry multiple missiles of varying types.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
DEWS? By US enemies? Ok sure, you can make assumptions, but the question still remains, how are you going to target something which you cannot detect? Ah, let me guess, you also assume that radar technology will be so advanced that tracking VLO aircraft should be easy. Sorry, but I’ll take my 150 mil Air Superiority fighter over assumptions any day.



Oh really, well that’s great. I suppose since hypersonic technology has been proven and since it is also very real and believable there should be a whole slew of hypersonic strike aircraft in service around the world, eh? Paper drawings don’t fly and they certainly aren’t the real thing.




The F-22 is not perfect, sure, I agree, but it is the best fighter currently in the world for Air Superiority. That is all I have asserted about it, you do not agree with that statement?



- What arrogance - you think only the US is capable of making lasers? For the, I dunno, umpteenth time - the F-22's RCS values will remain relatively static now the design is fixed, while radar systems and computer processing are advancing at an extremely fast rate. You are the one making the assumptions that:

1. No existing radar cannot detect the F-22 at useful ranges (that would also include American radars)

2. No radar will be developed that can detect the F-22 at useful ranges.

3. An AESA slaved to a low freq radar might be able to focus on and search a smaller area with sufficient resolution to generate a firing solution at a useable range.



- Hypersonic technology has been proven, yes, with short ranged and small craft designed specifically for the purpose of going hypersonic. Now, where is evidence of scaling? Both for airframe and propulsion? Do you think NASA researched and tested the SCRAMjet just for the fun of it?

Who mentioned paper drawings?



- Yes, agree 100%. Doesn't make it invincible though.

[edit on 4-5-2006 by kilcoo316]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by planeman
On a tangental point, do you think there is a correlation between people who are what you might call "F-22 nutriders" who see the Raptor as some sort of god of airpower rather than a system with strengths and weaknesses, and people who believe that the USAF also has plasma stealthm, hypersonic bombers, anti-matter, anti-gravity and the like?

If the US has anti-gravity then why the hell is it spending $$$$$$$$ trying to get things to fly that apply conventional physics????? If the F-22 didn't need wings it'd be hell of a lot easier to design, lol..
It's expensive and you don't want to reveal all of your technology.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316

- What arrogance - you think only the US is capable of making lasers? For the, I dunno, umpteenth time - the F-22's RCS values will remain relatively static now the design is fixed, while radar systems and computer processing are advancing at an extremely fast rate. You are the one making the assumptions that:
Well even though they are advancing what does that prove its not just a weak return you know.


1. No existing radar cannot detect the F-22 at useful ranges (that would also include American radars)
Well duh


2. No radar will be developed that can detect the F-22 at useful ranges.
Its not as easy as you are putting it out to be.


3. An AESA slaved to a low freq radar might be able to focus on and search a smaller area with sufficient resolution to generate a firing solution at a useable range.
Well don't you think they have though of that. Over 4,000 hours of radar testing.




- Hypersonic technology has been proven, yes, with short ranged and small craft designed specifically for the purpose of going hypersonic. Now, where is evidence of scaling? Both for airframe and propulsion? Do you think NASA researched and tested the SCRAMjet just for the fun of it?
You are thinking of solid fuel rockets. Scramjets can do the same distances at high speed. You just need to scale it up. there have been reports of sonicbooms indicating hypersonic aircraft.


Who mentioned paper drawings?
what????



-Definitely

and

- Ahh, but, but, but, but...



See NASA etc, they waste all their money trying to replicate projects that were done 30 years ago in area 51.Sometimes common sense just isn't applied[edit on 4-5-2006 by kilcoo316]
how do you know NASA doesn't make advnaced things like at AREA 51. Not all agencies share info.NASA is not some mil tech agency.







[edit on 4-5-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158

Originally posted by planeman

If the US has anti-gravity then why the hell is it spending $$$$$$$$ trying to get things to fly that apply conventional physics????? If the F-22 didn't need wings it'd be hell of a lot easier to design, lol..
It's expensive and you don't want to reveal all of your technology.


I'm sorry bud, but is that really a rational or convincing reason for believing the US is keeping its anti-gravity technology secret whilst spending huge amounts of money developing numerous winged aircraft? So the USAF has technology that makes the F-22 obsolete yet it still spends so much money, resources, time developing it just as part of a huge diversion? Diversion from whom???? Why decieve your potential enemies of the general nature of your superiority when you are so superior?

Actually I don't know why I'm asking you to rationalise your irrational thoughts, I dare not read your reply.

[edit on 4-5-2006 by planeman]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   
This conversation looks familiar. That must be because I've had it myself many times already
All the world most expensive dollar gorging defence programmes are just decoys for invisible levitating indestructible weapons stashed en masse 'somewhere'.

If war came I wonder how the average GI or pilot would cope suddenly having his F-16/F-22 snatched away and replaced by a 'Star Trek' gizmo he'd never laid eyes on before?

The other side could win easily while the Americans were reading the instructon manuals


My obvious flippancy does illustrate a serious point however. Think about it.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Does the Raptor having FLIR/IRST come into play anywhere in this total conversation?

Btw, every aircraft, including the Raptor, is susceptible to IR.
Accordingly, getting within range and surviving to fire the IR missile is another possible matter, correct?






seekerof

[edit on 4-5-2006 by Seekerof]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join