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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2006 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
- What arrogance - you think only the US is capable of making lasers?


Before you accuse me of arrogance you should look at the post I responded to.
You said "...(yet - give it about 10 years until DEWS are here - then it is obsolete along with every other fighter in the world)."

Now, if potential US enemies are to field DEW systems capable of shooting down VLO aircraft by 2016 then they should be working on them now correct? However I can’t find that much info on those type of system. Not to mention that there are a number of critical things which are needed to go from concept or idea to manufacture and mass production. Money and R&D are just a few.


Originally posted by kilcoo316
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.


And for the umpteenth time you do not know what possible materials or means will be developed to lower the RCS of VLO aircraft such as the F-22 in the future. And your above post is kind of ironic, don't you think?

Also, I’m not making any assumptions, tell me of one A2A fighter capable of detecting and tracking the F-22 at ranges that would allow him to shoot down the Raptor before he is killed?


Originally posted by kilcoo316
- 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?


Oh? I was under that impression that you believed Russian claims about plasma because according to you they were believable and technologically feasible? Now you want proof of scaling for a proven technology, yet you believe in an unproven and alleged technology? What's the word I’m looking for...

[edit on 4-5-2006 by WestPoint23]




posted on May, 4 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   
In this respect would you say that the Raptor still has a decisive edge over the Typhoon/Flanker mob, or is there more of a parity here?

The radar stealth advantage is a given, sure, but if we are talking Raptor Vs Typhoon in a flir/irst fight any stealth advantage for the Raptor is considerably lessened, given the capabilities of the PIRATE and the fact that the Typhoon can also cruise supersonically in dry thrust where the heat signature is much reduced, yes?

I know this is oversimplified but its just a hypothetical question.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   
I think that the Typhoon's Pirate IRST could probably detect the F-22 at extended ranges. Detection ranges as great as 80km have been hinted at but even if it is less for the F-22, it is still likely to be at extended ranges, especially in favortable conditions. It seems reasonable to say that equivilent systems on the F-22 and F-35 have similar capabilities.

www.defencetalk.com...



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   
The link says 80 miles, which is even better of course.

I just think I should add that I am not trying to say that the Raptor is inferior in respect of an IRST engagement, only that the Typhoon is more equal to it than the totally one sided Radar engagement would prove to be.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by planeman
I think that the Typhoon's Pirate IRST could probably detect the F-22 at extended ranges. Detection ranges as great as 80km have been hinted at but even if it is less for the F-22, it is still likely to be at extended ranges, especially in favortable conditions. It seems reasonable to say that equivilent systems on the F-22 and F-35 have similar capabilities.

www.defencetalk.com...



Well you don't seem to know that many meausre have been made to take on IRST. Including the leading edges. It thas to scan the back where it's vulnerable. IR missiles have less range and even with LOAL the supercruise would put the raptor out of range quite quickly. It's not as susceptible to IR detection as you think. Anyways IR detection systems don't work in bad weather. Have you ever heard of AC that can manipulate the weather that will mess up thier performance not to mention there are IR countermeasures(ir jammers). This shape shifting technology can be made with smart materials.This would be a formidable technology it has a lot of potential even in stealth because you can increase its stealthiness in the radar realm since you can change shape so its not just for aerodynamics it can do quite a lot. science.nasa.gov... There are plenty of measures to tackle IR detecction.


To apply the complex system of paints and coatings necessary to meet the F-22's stringent radar cross section (RCS) requirements takes not only state-of-the-art equipment and hands-on technicians, but also a wide-ranging support system. A new type of paint, or topcoat, increases the F-22 Raptor's stealthiness by reducing its vulnerability to infrared threats. To meet F-22 requirements, Boeing developed the topcoat to protect the aircraft against a broad range of wavelengths. The new paint replaces conventional topcoats, performing all the required environmentally protective functions while also reducing the aircraft's vulnerability to detection. The topcoat does not add to the F-22's weight, and provides performance enhancement at a very modest cost. It is applied in a two-tone camouflage design, patterned after the F-15 "Mod-Eagle" paint scheme. Development of the new topcoat began during the early stages of the F-22 program. Since that time, a small team at Boeing in Seattle has worked to refine the paint and improve its application characteristics in a production-level environment. Technicians at Lockheed Martin painted the first few aircraft by hand, however, robotic application is planned for future Raptors, including Raptor 04, which is scheduled to fly this summer. The topcoat application for each Raptor is expected to take one to two days.
Theres plenty more on the link.
www.globalsecurity.org...

Im not saying its IR proof or that its excellent at it but its significanly less. In a BVR engagement AMRAAMS count more than short range heat seeking missiles. The AIM 120C has a 100km range and the D will have 50% more range. Not to mention theres talk of meteour sales to the USA.IR missiles haven't got the range to match BVR missiles. At max range the radar would pick up the opposing palne and at 150km the AIM120D would be launched and the Raptor would supercruise at mach1.7 in another direction rapidly pulling away from the enagement range of the opposing fighter. Only its rear poses a problem to IR. Forgive any spelling mistakes im in a rush.

[edit on 4-5-2006 by urmomma158]

[edit on 4-5-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
The link says 80 miles, which is even better of course.

I just think I should add that I am not trying to say that the Raptor is inferior in respect of an IRST engagement, only that the Typhoon is more equal to it than the totally one sided Radar engagement would prove to be.

Yes, I would agree with you, waynos.
The Typhoon is not to be underestimated, hence the US Air Force utilizing two UK pilots and two Typhoons for practice engagement testings, etc.

As for 80+ miles, did you guys happen to read the link I provided where it was mentioned that the Raptor's AESA has a typical operating (detect, track, and lock) of 120 miles, and that the Raptor's AESA has allegedly detected, tracked, and locked at 300 miles, and detecting and track at 320 miles under conditions of being data-linked and the aircrafts own power? Even if remotely half accurate, the question I asked holds a great deal of merit: Accordingly, getting within range and surviving to fire the IR missile (hence 80+ miles in this example) is another possible matter, correct?







seekerof

[edit on 4-5-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
Well even though they are advancing what does that prove its not just a weak return you know.
Well don't you think they have though of that. Over 4,000 hours of radar testing.


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.



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.




What? If its not just a weak return what more is it then?

The F-22 was essentially conceived and designed in the 1980s, 25 years ago. Times move on - do you think over 30-40 years no-one can design a counter? Get real.


"You just need to scale it up" - do you have any idea of how difficult that is?


I don't quite understand your sentence, but no, I'm know I'm not aware of everything that NASA does.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Before you accuse me of arrogance you should look at the post I responded to.
You said "...(yet - give it about 10 years until DEWS are here - then it is obsolete along with every other fighter in the world)."

Now, if potential US enemies are to field DEW systems capable of shooting down VLO aircraft by 2016 then they should be working on them now correct? However I can’t find that much info on those type of system. Not to mention that there are a number of critical things which are needed to go from concept or idea to manufacture and mass production. Money and R&D are just a few.



And for the umpteenth time you do not know what possible materials or means will be developed to lower the RCS of VLO aircraft such as the F-22 in the future. And your above post is kind of ironic, don't you think?


Also, I’m not making any assumptions, tell me of one A2A fighter capable of detecting and tracking the F-22 at ranges that would allow him to shoot down the Raptor before he is killed?


Oh? I was under that impression that you believed Russian claims about plasma because according to you they were believable and technologically feasible? Now you want proof of scaling for a proven technology, yet you believe in an unproven and alleged technology? What's the word I’m looking for...



- Really?

www.worldnetdaily.com...

www.newsmax.com...

www.fas.org...

www.fas.org...




"VLO aircraft such as the F-22". No, VLO aircraft replacing the F-22. By its very design, you cannot add bolt ons without creating discontinuities without rising the RCS. As I said before, the only thing the F-22 can get without redesign is material improvements - but since the design philosophy used RAM as sparingly as possible, it will only be of limited help.


Who said anything about using an aircraft to shoot down the F-22?
Certainly not me - I'm talking ground to air engagement.


Plasma effects on radar have been proven, and proven many moons ago. Its been said that something similar to a plasma tv screen infront of the radar dish, pulsing on and off with the radar is in a serviceable state - I don't see how thats beyond anyone to be honest.



Hypersonics are a different ball game, where the technical challenges are far above and beyond sticking a screen infront of a radar dome.






You are treating every problem as the same, same complexity, same time-frame to sort etc when they are very different.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 04:42 AM
link   
Seekerof, regarding the thrust of your post and leaving the figures for a moment, yes, that is a fair comment, that was why I was so keen to acknowledge the oversimplification in my first post about it.

Regards the figures, I'm not going to make a case for any figures being false or 'my dad is bigger than your dad' type statements but just another observation.

The figure of 80 miles for the IRST specifically states 'a fighter sized target', whereas, unless I missed it, no such qualification appears with the 300km detect and track range for the AESA of the Raptor, so, in theory at least, it could be talking about a C-5 Galaxy? Maybe the Typhoon could match this feat? Who knows?

All I'm saying is that I believe the radar ranges of the two types to be broadly similar and the Typhoon also can operate in the same way as the Raptor with it being datalinked to an AWACS radar rather than using its own so it wouldn't merely be flying blind in IR waiting for a ping.

Naturally the radar stealth of the Raptor comes into play here and gives it that advantage,that is clear so the end result would be the same in a BVR engagement.

closer in though it is much more in the balance.

Of course this is all academic as I don't see the USA and UK declaring war and neither do I see us selling Typhoons to China, Korea or Iran.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
What? If its not just a weak return what more is it then?
The F-22 was essentially conceived and designed in the 1980s, 25 years ago. Times move on - do you think over 30-40 years no-one can design a counter? Get real.
"You just need to scale it up" - do you have any idea of how difficult that is?
I don't quite understand your sentence, but no, I'm know I'm not aware of everything that NASA does.
Its very diffuclt to scale up a targeting radar its easy with large wavelengths not the short. Not to mention all things on the radar with big returns would be much bigger making your radar screen light light up like the great London fire.

To counter stealth with a monostatic radar, the air defense radar would have to greatly increase its gain at the receiver. The way to do this would be to greatly increase the power of the system. If the target aircraft had an RCS reduction of 1,000 the radar power would have to increase by a factor of 1,000 to detect it at the same range as a non-stealthy aircraft. However, increasing power is easier at long wavelengths-not at the short, rapid frequencies commonly used for fire control. Ultrawide band radar poses a similar problem. An ultrawide band pulse could emit waves at several different frequencies hoping to catch the stealth aircraft at a weak point in its RCS reduction. However, transmitting over a wide band diminishes the power in each band, cutting the efficiency of the radar.
www.afa.org...
It's as scintillating return which means this.

Low observability is achieved by a range of measures. The F-22 employs planform shaping and faceting with blended facet boundaries, the latter a necessary concession to high performance aerodynamics. This is apparent in the shape of the nose, the fuselage sides about the inlets and engines, and the upper forward fuselage. Lockheed/B/GD used serrated edges extensively, as with the F-117A, to control the returns from panel boundaries, this is very visible on the undercarriage and weapon bay doors. The planform results in a multiple lobe design, as the boundaries of the major surfaces are not parallel with respect to each other. Planform return lobe structure is defined by the radiation pattern lobes resulting from surface wave reflections which occur at the leading and trailing edges of the airframe's major surfaces. The objective of lobing is to concentrate this unavoidable radar return into specific directions so as to minimise frontal/aft/beam aspect return and maximise scintillation in the direction of the lobe. Scintillation is a measure of how rapidly the size of the return varies with angle, the greater this variation, the more difficult a target is to track. The lower the number of lobes and the narrower the lobes, the lower the probability of detecting any return.
Scintillation geatly reduces your accuracy and makes many problems in fire control and tracking. www.globalsecurity.org...
The YF 22 was designed in the late 80's and was ready in 1991. the first raptor which is significantly stealthier than the prototype first flew in 1997. The concept was there in the 80's not the design. well the raptor will one day be countered but not for a while.


The F-22 provides "first-look, first-shot, first-kill" transformational air dominance capability for the 21st Century - it can see the enemy first while avoiding detection itself.

* When we meet the enemy, we want to win 100-0, not 51-49
* The F-22 will be able to get to the fight faster and engage the enemy longer
* Parity or inferiority in air dominance is unacceptable; either one means more friendly casualties and a longer, more uncertain campaign. The American people do not want an even match; they want decisive, overwhelming superiority and minimum casualties with no protracted conflict
* Downsizing U.S. forces means that in future conflicts, at least initially, we are likely to fight outnumbered – making the revolutionary capabilities of the F-22 essential for national security

www.f22-raptor.com...


* Radar signature approximately the size of a bumblebee, thereby avoiding detection by the most sophisticated enemy air defense systems
* Signatures/emissions of sound, turbulence, and heat that can aid detection are reduced
* Requires no direct assistance from electronic support aircraft that may be more easily detected
* Includes planform alignment of the wing and tail edges, radar-absorbing sawtoothed surfaces, an engine face that is concealed by a serpentine inlet duct, "stealthy" coating cockpit design to minimize the usually substantial radar return of pilot’s helmet
* Through internal weapons placement, the F-22 eliminates multiple surface features that could be detected by enemy radar
www.f22-raptor.com...




[edit on 5-5-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
Its very diffuclt to scale up a targeting radar its easy with large wavelengths not the short. Not to mention all things on the radar with big returns would be much bigger making your radar screen light light up like the great London fire.

www.afa.org...
It's as scintillating return which means this.

Scintillation geatly reduces your accuracy and makes many problems in fire control and tracking. www.globalsecurity.org...

The YF 22 was designed in the late 80's and was ready in 1991. the first raptor which is significantly stealthier than the prototype first flew in 1997. The concept was there in the 80's not the design. well the raptor will one day be countered but not for a while.


Your reading but not understanding what you quoted there.

If the radar is able to pick up the F-22 at an angle not aligned with its wing leading edge etc then how is a massive increase in return going to hinder it. Scintillation makes it harder to track if you cannot track the lower returns.


Point taken on the radar increase - but when your on the ground you've power to burn. How many MW are pumping through the big AEGIS radars for instance?



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Your reading but not understanding what you quoted there.

If the radar is able to pick up the F-22 at an angle not aligned with its wing leading edge etc then how is a massive increase in return going to hinder it. Scintillation makes it harder to track if you cannot track the lower returns.
Considering tracking it at those angles will be very difficult. It's not extremely high on the top either.



Point taken on the radar increase - but when your on the ground you've power to burn. How many MW are pumping through the big AEGIS radars for instance?
Wrong yet again. this applies to power on the ground. The AEGIS pumps out 4 megawatts which is still not enough. Considering amking the F/A 22 RCs larger with more power will also make the other returns much larger making the radar sccreen light up like crazy. It's not as easy. If you can't track it it's diffuclt to lock onto.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
Considering tracking it at those angles will be very difficult. It's not extremely high on the top either.


Wrong yet again. this applies to power on the ground. The AEGIS pumps out 4 megawatts which is still not enough. Considering making the F/A 22 RCs larger with more power will also make the other returns much larger making the radar sccreen light up like crazy. It's not as easy. If you can't track it it's diffuclt to lock onto.


Why? Because the returns are low, yeah, well in future there will come a time when radars are able to track those returns.



Yeah - this applies to power on the ground. The AEGIS pumps out 4 MW, and is how many years old?

You think because the other returns will increase in intensity the F-22 will be lost in the clutter? The E-3 is how many years old?

With Moores law - CPU power is doubling every 18 months, and with multi-core processing algorithms coming on leaps and bounds....



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   
The future not anytime soon. Bythen the Raptor will be obsolete. There will be a new kid on the block. Not to mention you're still dealing with a scintillating target which will make it extremely difficult to lock on. In the future stealth AC may have no returns or be too small.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by planeman
It's a given that efforts have been made to REDUCE IR signiture comparable to similar aircraft on the F-22. These make it HARDER to get a lock.

But, is it still a combat practicality to get a lock? Even without afterburning, the jets are kicking out air at about 1000 degrees C. The surrounding air temperature is probably at -10~-50 degrees C at 30,000ft. So the higher the F-22 flies, the greater the heat contrast will be.
But the farther away the aircraft is, the more IR radiation is absorbed by atmospheric attenuation. And besides that, MANPADS, which are your biggest worry, will have less and less chance to lock on to you the higher you go.



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
There will be a new kid on the block. Not to mention you're still dealing with a scintillating target which will make it extremely difficult to lock on. In the future stealth AC may have no returns or be too small.


Never happen - when radar and processing power reach the point where they can track the wake left by an aircraft - any aircraft, its all over for stealth.



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Never happen - when radar and processing power reach the point where they can track the wake left by an aircraft - any aircraft, its all over for stealth.


Again you're assuming propulsion techniques will be the same forever (and they won't be).



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
Again you're assuming propulsion techniques will be the same forever (and they won't be).



No, I'm assuming the means of generating lift will be the same - which they will be until we've gravity wells etc.


i.e. not in either of our lifetimes.



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 05:02 PM
link   
There's no way of being sure though.



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Never happen - when radar and processing power reach the point where they can track the wake left by an aircraft - any aircraft, its all over for stealth.


Don't be too sure, maybe for current stealth technology. Like I told you in another post, when radar tech was getting very precise at tracking normal aircraft stealth technology was developed. If stealth becomes obsolete then naturally a new technology will emerge. However currently the F-22 still gets the job done.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join