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

Originally posted by ghost
Massive altitude?

50'000 ft is standard ceiling for most military aircraft! U-2's Fly at 75'000ft. and the SR-71 blackbird could reach 100'000ft. according to some reports. I'm not sure how you figured that 50'000 is so high in the overall sceme of things.

Tim

For a non-afterburning fighter, with stores, its very high.



The U2 is a glorified glider and the blackbird achieves those speeds by brute ignorance (courtesy of a RAMjet). Neither were/are combat aircraft (I'm sure some will mention the A-12 [A-12 right?], but it wasn't rejected for being too good was it?).

Originally posted by kilcoo316

For a non-afterburning fighter, with stores, its very high.

The U2 is a glorified glider and the blackbird achieves those speeds by brute ignorance (courtesy of a RAMjet). Neither were/are combat aircraft (I'm sure some will mention the A-12 [A-12 right?], but it wasn't rejected for being too good was it?).

Point Taken! However, to the best of my knowledge, the F-22 DOES have an afterburned. I know it can supercruise (fly supersonic with out using afterburner) but that doesn't mean it doesn't have an afterburner.

Second, you are right, they are both spy planes. The A-12 actully did fly for the CIA for a while. They flew under the code name Black Sheild. The A-12 were withdrawn when the larger SR-71 version of the Blackbird replaced it. The SR-71 had a better payload. The Blackbird was in service for over 25 years. How bad could it have been if it lasted so long?

Tim

Originally posted by ghost
Point Taken! However, to the best of my knowledge, the F-22 DOES have an afterburner. I know it can supercruise (fly supersonic with out using afterburner) but that doesn't mean it doesn't have an afterburner.

Second, you are right, they are both spy planes. The A-12 actully did fly for the CIA for a while. They flew under the code name Black Sheild. The A-12 were withdrawn when the larger SR-71 version of the Blackbird replaced it. The SR-71 had a better payload. The Blackbird was in service for over 25 years. How bad could it have been if it lasted so long?

Tim

Sorry, my post wasn't very well written and clear.


I meant a fighter not using afterburners.


I also meant the Blackbird isn't a 'combat' aircraft, as in, it won't shoot anything - and was clearing my position on the A-12, i.e. it doesn't count.

>>
...and was clearing my position on the A-12, i.e. it doesn't count.
>>

YF-12. Assuming you mean the interceptor version.

Supposedly, the RS-as-SR-71 design originally included 'option extras' in it's baseline structurals for similar flanking weapons bays as the fighter version. Reason being (as Johnson himself once said): 'SRAM goes 15nm from 200ft, 30nm from 20,000ft, 100nm from 60,000ft and 300nm from Mach 3 @ 80,000ft. We don't give the Russians enough to worry about in the high-right side of the envelope...' (Paraphrase).

Which is of course ludicrous in a SIOP plan where 'rollback' was a corridor 100nm wide oozing rads from 30 minute ICBM or 15 minute SLBM strikes which nuked the Fire Chain EWRs that would have seen the bombers coming high over the Poles.

That said, YF-12s could run 'orbits' between the Irish Sea and the Kattegut and kill targets over Poland 5 minutes later with a production GAR-9/ASG-18 technology. It WAS all that the F-14 never really could claim to be.

The problem being that the Russians (wisely) invested in improved accuracy IRBM technology and then Mobiles to handle the 'Air Superiority Question' and thus had nothing in the air worth a million dollar round to kill (in the 60's). From that point forward, the old saw will always ring true:

'Said the GSFG general to the FA general sitting in a Brussels cafe sipping coffees: "Say, who did win the Air War anyway?"'

T-62s on the runway centerline being the ultimate fighter aircraft in a war defined by 'Forward Defense' of a telephone booth in weather that ranged from poor to shi-bysmal.


KPl.

Originally posted by kilcoo316
I also meant the Blackbird isn't a 'combat' aircraft, as in, it won't shoot anything - and was clearing my position on the A-12, i.e. it doesn't count.

Fair enough! Oh B.T.W. are we strictly sticking to US combat aircraft? If not, how high can the Russian Mig 25 fly?

Tim

Originally posted by ghost

Fair enough! Oh B.T.W. are we strictly sticking to US combat aircraft? If not, how high can the Russian Mig 25 fly?

Tim

See the line above that:


I meant a fighter not using afterburners.

can someone tell me what the effective range is of IR tracking systems. Such as what the SU-30, or SAM 300 and 400'S? Is it probable that the f-22 can be tracked with IR at say 50 - 100 miles out?

reply to post by Thomas1016


Probably the information that you could find thomas or that is given to you will be dated as nothing tracking wise that would be operational would be correct or real specs.

reply to post by urmomma158


actually isn't it more likely that future planes will be made from Buckyball paper and coated in meta materials making them lighter, faster, stronger and 100% radar invisible?

I think we will see a big increase in pilot less aircraft as well. The movie stealth was a little prophetic in some ways of what future air warfare will be like.

Originally posted by kilcoo316

Originally posted by urmomma158
And you're assuming stealth aircraft will always fly at the same altitude. The next batch will fly at extremely high altitudes and very high speeds. You're assuming tech advances on one side.

The laws of physics are the laws of physics and cannot be avoided.

Does not Quantum physics go against the grain of normal physics?