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.

 

Can the Eurofighter carry more missiles than the JSF or F-22?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 07:22 AM
link   
I always see you as knowledgable man, but this time, I am disappointed




posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by emile
I always see you as knowledgable man, but this time, I am disappointed


Honestly, emile...this post is rather offtopic and not condusive to good relations.

If you feel the need to get personal like this, I suggest a U2U instead of a public admonition.




posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Sorry I do apologize to you and him. The F-35 could carry two mid-range missiles and two 454 pounds bomb in bomb bay? How can one said only carry two? I really hope I have not hurt any one, I am sorry.



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by JFrazier

Originally posted by Aim64C
Lockheed exagerations.

The F-22's weapons bay is very shallow and the deployment system is four separate trapeze mounts. 4 missiles. No six about it - ever, unless they employ a system that was originally developed by Northop-Grumman for the F-23 that would stack the missles. However - this was a primary concern for the choice of the F-22 over the F-23 as it was feared that a weapon jam could prevent the release of the missiles above it. So if it's used - I'll find it highly insulting. The weapons bay is also too shallow for this to happen - unless they were to start hacking into the rest of the airframe - which will probably mean cutting into fuel stores.

There are two bays on either side of the engine intakes. These are each capable of housing 1 Aim-9 series air to air infra-red guided missles. Their range is aproximately 5 Nauticle Miles.


The F-22 can carry six AMRAAMS in the main weapons bay. It carries the small fin AMRAAMs instead of the original ones which took up more space.

That picture does not really show how the missiles are held. The missiles are staggered in the bay so fins on adjacent missiles do not interfere with each other when they are launched. There are also six launchers in the main bay. That picture is misleading in that sense.

[edit on 8-7-2006 by JFrazier]


Clipping the wings of the AMRAAM will result in lower maneuverability of the missile and slightly reduced range (although probably negligable). That all works well and good if you don't end up in a close engagement - then you only have two 'dogfighting' missiles and if you're in tight with an F-16 or aircraft of similar performance (F-5E - that thing's crazy - it may look 'old school' - but it can be behind you before you know what hit you - and is a pain in the butt to hit with any missile as it can do some weird jinking and escape).

KPI (or ch114... something) - The radar signature of the Raptor is well within detection threshold of an aircraft radar - even from front-on. Catch the poor thing from above (AWACS) or below, and its radar reducing features are negligable. Its only hope would be to stay low and in the mountains, hopping that intermittent readings would be filtered out as ground-clutter. That ends as soon as they pop up for a kill on anything.

It's only got half the radar signature (overall - which means it's worse from various angles) of the F-15C - which means it's more than detectable. Even the F-23A would only have had a radar signature of around 35% of the F-15C - which is still vulnerable to AWACS.

And whoever came up with the idea of sticking pylons on the outside of the F-22 needs to be fired. That defeats the entire point. Even adding on the pylons (let's pray that they are removable) would bump the RCS values up to a ridiculous level. You're better off using a modified F-15 airframe with supercruise, advanced avionics, and thrust-vectoring.

The increased range due to supersonic speeds is also negligable from the Raptor's description - unless you're talking about engaging aircraft not accompanied by AWACS (not fighter aircraft - in essence). Almost any current aircraft is capable of accelerating to Mach 1.8 or higher - with the F-15 (and several russian fighters - assuming they can develop an AMRAAM-type missile) being capable of reaching Mach 2.5 (not loaded down for combat - so a little lower if it's got missiles hanging off of it). True - that's going into zone 5 and guzzling gas like crazy, but it'd be worth keeping your plane out of harm's way.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   

AIM64c: Clipping the wings of the AMRAAM will result in lower maneuverability of the missile and slightly reduced range (although probably negligible).


It will be very negligible as the F22 can close in before launch thus minimizing any reduction in range.


AIM64c: Catch the poor thing from above (AWACS) or below, and its radar reducing features are negligible.


Any AWACS in the area will be the MAIN target of the first salvo of AMRAAMs.

F35s/cruise missiles/etc coming in low will take out any ground radars. F22s can also carry their own SDBs that can be programmed to go after the ground radar installations.


AIM64c: It's only got half the radar signature (overall - which means it's worse from various angles) of the F-15C


Pass the pipe because that's some good crack your smoking.

Here is a quote from Strategypage I will edit and post here when I find the original source.

"The U.S. Air Force, in it’s effort to get money to build more F-22s, has revealed just how “stealthy” the F-22 is. It’s RCS (Radar Cross Section) is the equivalent, for a radar, to a metal marble. The less stealthy (and much cheaper) F-35, is equal to a metal golf ball. The F-35 stealthiness is a bit better than the B-2 bomber, which, in turn, was twice as good as that on the even older F-117."

That is exponentially better than the F15 and even 4-5 times better than the B2.


AIM64c: And whoever came up with the idea of sticking pylons on the outside of the F-22 needs to be fired.


Well.... the pylons are removable. When frontline enemy combatants are an issue the pylons will not be installed. I wonder if you would have screamed, years from now if they had no pylons, that they wasted money on a fighter that can only drop two large bombs. This gives them the FLEXIBILITY to tailor the load-out to the situation.


AIM64c: The increased range due to supersonic speeds is also negligible


You forget that the purpose of the super cruise to to intercept the enemy quicker without having to rely on afterburners and external fuel tanks. Therefore keeping the RCS and IR signatures VERY LOW and the probability of intercepting the enemy VERY HIGH.


AIM64c: There are two bays on either side of the engine intakes. These are each capable of housing 1 Aim-9 series air to air infra-red guided missles. Their range is aproximately 5 Nauticle Miles.

Um.. I think you need to check you numbers again.. 5 miles is WAY too low a number.

To set the record straight, here are a couple of pics.

Here is a pic of the 3 AMRAAMs in the left bay:


Here is the BASIC config:


Notice that in the EXTERNAL combat config it shows a double AMRAAM on the outer pylon and a tank on the inner. Just swap out the tank for another set of AMRAAMs and you have a total of 14 AMRAAMs and 2 AIM-9Xs.

Granted, they will not use this config against FRONTLINE enemies. They would probably fire the external AMRAAMs from max, eject the empty racks, then close in at full stealth mode. Either way, they will not be seen.

One final note on the external pylons: I am sure that they are working (if they do not already have they) on stealthy missile pylons. They have been working on an external bomb pod that is stealthy. I have seen the wind tunnel test model around, but I cannot find it now. I will hunt for it.

---On F35 load-out

Here is a pic from Aerospaceweb that shows that four air-to-air missiles can be loaded.


Not talked about due to F22's role.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
KPI (or ch114... something) - The radar signature of the Raptor is well within detection threshold of an aircraft radar - even from front-on. Catch the poor thing from above (AWACS) or below, and its radar reducing features are negligable. Its only hope would be to stay low and in the mountains, hopping that intermittent readings would be filtered out as ground-clutter. That ends as soon as they pop up for a kill on anything.

It's only got half the radar signature (overall - which means it's worse from various angles) of the F-15C - which means it's more than detectable. Even the F-23A would only have had a radar signature of around 35% of the F-15C - which is still vulnerable to AWACS.

And whoever came up with the idea of sticking pylons on the outside of the F-22 needs to be fired. That defeats the entire point. Even adding on the pylons (let's pray that they are removable) would bump the RCS values up to a ridiculous level. You're better off using a modified F-15 airframe with supercruise, advanced avionics, and thrust-vectoring.

The increased range due to supersonic speeds is also negligable from the Raptor's description - unless you're talking about engaging aircraft not accompanied by AWACS (not fighter aircraft - in essence). Almost any current aircraft is capable of accelerating to Mach 1.8 or higher - with the F-15 (and several russian fighters - assuming they can develop an AMRAAM-type missile) being capable of reaching Mach 2.5 (not loaded down for combat - so a little lower if it's got missiles hanging off of it). True - that's going into zone 5 and guzzling gas like crazy, but it'd be worth keeping your plane out of harm's way.


Well, F-15 RCS is 10-15 m2, F-22 has 0.00025 or so. Its hardly just 35%. And Awacs will almost certainly never detect F-22 from above, because it can fly and fight without problems over 15 km high. In fact F-22 will be the best choice to attack AWACS. Equip it with 6 new AMRAAMs, go to 18 km alt and accelerate to 1.8 Mach before firing them - it would greatly enhance the range - no need for Meteors and similar LR missiles.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 04:26 AM
link   
The problem with the RCS figures of the F-22 that are given is that they are deceptive, at best - I like to call them a flat-out lie.

RCS is MORE than just surface area. More dangerous than surface area (and the returns of a material based purely on surface area) is return-lobe overlaps. This is based on the geometry of the object over the pure surface area. If you have ever worked with antennas or wireless communications (on any 'real' level - not box swapping or plugging in cables) - you know that any recieving antenna generates a return-signal that is expressed on the load of the transmitting circuit.

In short - every reveiving antenna is its own transmitting antenna - much like the secondary winding on a transformer.

It is this return that plays hell with designing stealth aircraft. By making leading and trailing edges parallel, you consolidate the return pattern to keep a lower profile - keeping all returns bound to a certain number of areas rather than scattering them all over the place.

The truth of the raptor is that it is a very conventional geometric design and has more than plenty of return signatures that can and will be picked up by a search radar that is specifically designed to pick out planes that are trying to avoid it. ALL aircraft do - regardless. Even my beloved YF-23 suffered from the same thing - although its design was far more advanced and further reduced this effect - but not enough to get within striking distance of an AWACS. That - and you will, at some point, need to engage your radar - even if just to get a general bearing of the AWACS flight. Once you do that - it's over. Every possible air defense within striking distance will be on you and you'll be lit up with so many search and tracking radars that your plane might nearly melt down as if it were being microwaved.

12 AMRAAMs on a raptor? Possible. However, by adding the external pylons you eliminate supercruise - add the weapons and you further increase drag - and might as well turn on your active radar to let them know you're there. You lose your range advantage. There is no way you can carry external weapons and maintain 'stealth' - not with any existing weapon systems, and only if you were to custom-design each weapon system to compliment the features of its host aircraft. If you're going to attack anything that can defend itself (or is still defended by SAMs), then you are a fool to do so with a raptor configured with external weapons. You might as well use a Super Hornet - at least it can retaliate with anti-radar missiles.

The clipped wings of the AMRAAMs will affect their performance to a notable degree. The current design is not very maneuverable when it reaches its maximum range - relying on early maneuvering by a pilot to allow the missile to be unaffected by the initial sharp jinking. Last-minute jinks will avoid an AMRAAM (granted - by a fighter - an AWACS or other similarly sized aircraft will not have much of a chance other than to head in the opposite direction). I can't see it as a wise move.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
The problem with the RCS figures of the F-22 that are given is that they are deceptive, at best - I like to call them a flat-out lie.


Well Duh.... It might be better, at least from the front. The govt always UNDERSTATES it's technology. When the first waves go in after the AWACS, they will be going straight for them and not being painted from the sides.

How can you justify saying "flat out lie"?


Originally posted by Aim64C
...plenty of return signatures that can and will be picked up by a search radar that is specifically designed to pick out planes that are trying to avoid it.


They will be the first targets of the first flight (manned or CUAV) coming in. Detecting and tracking are two different things.


Originally posted by Aim64C
... and you will, at some point, need to engage your radar - even if just to get a general bearing of the AWACS flight.


No need to paint the target. The attacking birds only need to triangulate on the AWACS broadcasts to get a bearing, then launch an AMRAAM which does not go active till it's terminal phase.


Originally posted by Aim64C
...[turn on radar] Once you do that - it's over.


Even when they do go active, it's called LPI for a reason. No country has the mobile computing power to detect LPI at long range.


Originally posted by Aim64C
...However, by adding the external pylons you eliminate supercruise - add the weapons and you further increase drag


The abilities to retain supercruise or maintain low drag were not part of the thread, just HOW MANY can I carry.

There has been no real info on the stealth pods that have leaked onto the net, but I hope that they have designed them to carry some fuel to compensate for the increased drag. They most likely can also carry a HARM in them.

[edit on 20-7-2006 by SpudmanWP]



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
... and you will, at some point, need to engage your radar - even if just to get a general bearing of the AWACS flight.


The AN/APG-77 has LPI technology incorporate into it, current generation RWR and other sensor designed to detect radar emissions will not pick it up, not to mention that the AN/APG-77 can passively detect radar emissions from enemy aircraft at hundreds of miles away. And last but not least all F-22’s can send information to one another via data link, one Raptor can have its radar active while others use his information to shoot so they don't have to activate their radar.

[edit on 20-7-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 03:21 AM
link   


How can you justify saying "flat out lie"?


Spudman - please read my post. I specifically said that the radar returns of the Raptor are many times greater than the given results in reality. The figures given are based purely on surface area (from what angle?) and do not give an accurate representation of the true RCS of an aircraft.




They will be the first targets of the first flight (manned or CUAV) coming in. Detecting and tracking are two different things.


That first wave is a flight of Raptors. They will be detected and destroyed by any decently schooled commander and equipped with 1980s Russian technology (and somewhat skilled in its use). A correctly placed radar detection grid with AWACS support will provide plenty of illumination to detect a single or multiple Raptors. They will never get within range of an AWACS radar - which will be behind SAMs and a fighter network. The Raptor will have to do what the aircraft before it were designed to do - punch through the main line.

Will it be 'effective' against third world countries with starved armies and disrepaired equipment? Yes. Will they work against someone who understands 'stealth' - little more than other aircraft will. They will never close within striking range of an AWACS and any aircraft sent to destroy search/tracking radars will be downed by fighter patrols supported by the AWACS.

The reason I pointed out the reduction of effective range of the missiles with the addition of pods is because that is a serious issue to consider when discussing the supremacy of the fighter. If supercruise is a huge boost to the effectiveness of the fighter - then it would be of good concern as to whether or not the addition of these pylons is an improvement or a burden.

The raptor is a waste of money as-is. The mere proposal to add external weapons onto a 'stealth' aircraft is near treasonous. It's an attempt by Lockheed to justify the extreme blunder they made in the design of the Raptor.

And, yes, my fault for forgetting about RWR and the ability of it to locate a radar signal to give bearing rather than having to turn on an active radar. Although as soon as the raptor opens a bay to fire a missile - their position is revealed no matter how stealthy they think they are or were.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
The raptor is a waste of money as-is. The mere proposal to add external weapons onto a 'stealth' aircraft is near treasonous.


Yeah ok, waste of money, now, the external configuration will only come into play after Air Superiority has been established. If there is still a limited need for the F-22 is can loiter over an area with external fuel tanks and or missiles.


Originally posted by Aim64C
Although as soon as the raptor opens a bay to fire a missile - their position is revealed no matter how stealthy they think they are or were.


The missiles are designed to be launched from the aircraft in such a manner as to not keep the bay doors open for more than a second. This is not enough to get a lock on an F-22, if the opposing fighter notices the quick RCS spike he has about a minute and a half to pull the handle. The F-22 can super-cruise which means having a general idea of its direction doesn’t mean much because it’s a 15 miles a minute airframe.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
It's only got half the radar signature (overall - which means it's worse from various angles) of the F-15C - which means it's more than detectable. Even the F-23A would only have had a radar signature of around 35% of the F-15C - which is still vulnerable to AWACS.

And whoever came up with the idea of sticking pylons on the outside of the F-22 needs to be fired. That defeats the entire point. Even adding on the pylons (let's pray that they are removable) would bump the RCS values up to a ridiculous level. You're better off using a modified F-15 airframe with supercruise, advanced avionics, and thrust-vectoring.


- I assume you refer to the average RCS over the entire range of azimuthal angles? Is the spikes very limited in terms of their number, or are they quite frequent?

- The pylons are useful for ferrying missiles if for nothing else. Useful to bring a reload with you if your tripping from USA to ANOther for quick deployment. Also, they can definitely be removed [I assume the pipings/attachments etc can be covered].



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   
A radar can verify an aircraft return signature in less time than it takes you to realize you've been spotted. A radar will pick up the signature, read its speed, give a vector and bearing, and alert the operator before the Raptor's bays complete opening.

You can't get a LOCK on it - but it will give a direction for intensified scanning - which will unveil the Raptor.

Since you may be dealing with multiple AWACS radars - you may have aircraft hounding you all the way to your next target. Problem is worse if you're dealing with ground search radars as well.

As I explained - the radar returns of an aircraft are based on its geometry. I have not personally calculated the return spikes of the Raptor relative to its geometry - but I can assure you that it is far greater than that of the YF-23 and comes to about half that of the F-15. That would imply rather numerous spikes - which I would tend to support due to the lack of Lockheed to keep their leading/trailing edges of surfaces parallel to each other.

The pylons on the F-22 are ridiculous. They defeat the entire point of the aircraft and are trying to force it into being an aircraft it is not. Lockheed designed themselves into a corner and are grasping at straws for publicity and for plausibility. The fact of the matter is that the need for the F-22 is surpassed by the need for aircraft such as the F/A-18 E and the functionality of the F-22 surpassed in efficiency by the F-14D. The F-22 has a medium engagement range, and no carrier support. It was designed to take the roll of the F-15 as an air superiority fighter - which is to eliminate enemy air forces over friendly and hostile territory. However - the Navy does most of the combat sorties that involve the elimination of enemy aircraft - and those that are not do not require the existance of a fighter such as the F-22.

Lockheed took far too long to develop their fighter and put it up for market. The cold war is over and the threat of bombers and fighters flying over the Bearing Straight is pretty much gone. Had they gotten their fighter out within two years of their winning the contract - perhaps they would have gotten a share of the market.

But it's simply not needed in any shape or form. Nor is my beloved YF-23 - as much as I can rationalize the need for it. So - Lockheed is trying desperately to get branches of the service to buy their product - and they are killing what little it has to offer in their attempts.

Amusing to watch, at least.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
A radar can verify an aircraft return signature in less time than it takes you to realize you've been spotted. A radar will pick up the signature, read its speed, give a vector and bearing, and alert the operator before the Raptor's bays complete opening.


Let's assume that is correct. This is what will happen.

1. F-22 opens bay
2. Enemy AWACS gets a lock (Assuming that the F-22 pilot was very stupid and did not time the launch to happen between sweeps of the radar)
3. F-22 Launches AMRAAM(s)
4. Enemy AWACS calls for support.
5. F-22 closes bay
6. AWACS loses lock
7. F-22 changes vector and leaves the area using supercruise.
8. AWACS diverts fighters and/or missiles to last known location and heading of F-22
9. AMRAAM goes active and locks onto large return of AWACS plane
10. AWACS crew #s itself and dies
11. Enemy fighters and/or missiles arrive at the last known position and heading of the F-22 and do not find any aircraft.
12. Enemy fighters are now easy pickings


Originally posted by Aim64C
Since you may be dealing with multiple AWACS radars….. Problem is worse if you're dealing with ground search radars as well.


Nobody has enough AWACS support to cover the entire front with multiple, overlapping zones. Any fixed ground radars will be the first targets taken out with cruise missiles , UAVs, or helos coming in low. Any mobile radars will find a HARM or SDB coming down their throat as soon as they go active. Even before they go active, stealth UAVs and Special forces will be targeting them to be part of the first strike.


Originally posted by Aim64C
…but I can assure you that it is far greater than that of the YF-23 and comes to about half that of the F-15.


You do know that you can see the compressor fan of an F-15 engine from the front? This alone accounts for one hell of a radar return. What basis do you use to come up with the ridiculous factor of half? Even the Air Force (always conservative) has stated that it is better than the B-2’s RCS.


Originally posted by Aim64CThe pylons on the F-22 are ridiculous….. However - the Navy does most of the combat sorties that involve the elimination of enemy aircraft


Please let go of the pylon issue, they are not meant to be used in the air superiority role. They are to be used for self deployment and other rolls after air superiority is gained. I do agree that not having a naval variant was a mistake.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Loathesome lies about stealth technology rear their ugly head again....

The F-22 is detected long before it even fires the missile - and long before it ever opens its bay. I would guess that the average detection threshold for the raptor would be about 130 or so Nauticle Miles. I know my word means about as much as what you scrape off of your shoe when you walk inside, so that's not going to float an arguement.

However, the properties of electromagnetics dictate that the raptor has a far greater true RCS than indicated by the overhyped reports of it. Compressor fans are only visible from head-on. The realistic detection angles of these is rather small - and really is no different in return strength than the aircraft body, itself. It would be were the plane designed for stealth to begin with - but that's not the case. For other arguements - look at the geometry. Hardly any changes are made between the design of the F-15 and the F-22 - in general geometry. Same boxy body, same triangular shaped wing - even has that same little jog in the trailing edge. Two things have changed - the structure and some of it has been blended. Its RCS will not be much better. And trust me - the Raptor has a larger RCS than the plane that flies over my house every day (that would be the B-2).

You're also giving favorable conditions to the raptor - just like all of the publicized test propaganda. You're assuming tomahawks are available. You're assuming we can locate said radars. You're assuming a lot. The idea of the raptor is that it will not require near as much SEAD to accomplish its mission. To allow smaller forces to accomplish the same task and minimise causalties on all sides of the conflict. It does accomplish that to some degree. But not near the degree that should be expected out of the notorious Lockheed. The reality is that it requires more support than the previous generation of aircraft. The F-15C is capable of performing precision strike, general ground attack, and tank busting. The Rapor is capable of air to air engagements and manages to squeeze in a grand total of two JDAMs (if I remember right). Unless you want to eliminate any low RCS features - then you can jerryrig it to do some of your bidding.

It requires more support aircraft. It will also likely never see any combat. The Navy does almost all air operations in foreign nations as well as conducts support operations. The Airforce gets the heavy bombers that can't fit on a carrier (or we'd probably have the Navy do that, too).

There WAS a naval version of the Raptor. The Navy turned down the bid. They passed up the Raptor because they knew it was not what they needed and a bird that was dead at birth. The Raptor is too narrow in application. The Navy needs to get the most out of its aircraft for the space they take up. They don't need or want a plane that has no percievable value over existing planes and can be 'made' to do a little extra.

If pylons are not to be used in the air superiority role - then why bring them up when considering whether or not an airplane can carry more missiles? It obviously won't since it destroys relevant advantages. I have an issue with them because they are an attempt to force the poor plane into doing what it is not optimized for - or even recommended.

The fact is that the Raptor is overhyped. And I pray to God that the airforce is teaching the truth of that plane to its pilots - or else at least 30% of them will be shot down on their first engagement. Overconfidence is the WORST design flaw of the raptor.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
The F-22 is detected long before it even fires the missile - and long before it ever opens its bay. I would guess that the average detection threshold for the raptor would be about 130 or so Nauticle Miles.


Where are you basing these numbers off of? I really don't see how you know what technology and research LM and the USAF have put into this plane. 130nm? Please.


What makes you think that the US military hasn't tested the F-22 against our most advanced SAM sites and ground based radars? You would think that the people who have advanced stealth to this point would know how to defeat it. There is a reason why many other are advancing LO technology too.


The fact is that the Raptor is overhyped. And I pray to God that the airforce is teaching the truth of that plane to its pilots - or else at least 30% of them will be shot down on their first engagement. Overconfidence is the WORST design flaw of the raptor.


Yes, all of the pilots who have flown against the Raptor on f-16.net aren't telling the truth. Despite their skepticism of the F-22's abilities, they are constantly surprised. I guess its all propaganda. Yes, none of the stealth features of the F-22 work and neither do the countless hours of research spent on the plane. That's also why the F-22 is often seen wearing an reflector to enlarge its RCS for ACM.



[edit on 27-7-2006 by JFrazier]

[edit on 27-7-2006 by JFrazier]



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 08:55 PM
link   
[edit on 27-7-2006 by JFrazier]



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 10:43 PM
link   
The B-2 can be picked up on AWACS radar at near maximum range. You have to play around with the filters a bit - but you can. I was giving the raptor the benefit of the doubt and assuming its a novice crew on the AWACS and that its approach is favorable.

The problem is that you're trusting Lockheed - which must sell its product, and the air force - which has recently decided to use the Raptor as a bragging right. Tests will show that it's no more capable than any other aircraft we have. Reality will show that there is no need for the Raptor. If there is any remote need for an aircraft - it is the F/B-22, F/B-23, and the R/B-1 concept.

All engagements between the raptor and other aircraft have always been favorable to the raptor from the initiation. It's also never been tested against an air defense network.

I'm not saying that it doesn't have a reduced RCS or that it doesn't work. I'm simply saying that the Raptor, in particular, is an incredibly poor aplication of such technology. If we had to dump billions of dollars into developing an unnecesary aircraft - we should have awarded the contract to Northrop, who would have had the project done in a much more realistic time frame, and the airplane had better performance and radar charactaristics. It also had a greater fuel capacity to allow for operation from more remote bases that would be less likely to be watched as closely by radars - or out of their range completely.

However - using the reflectors is simply to make it easier for CIVILIAN air traffic radars to find them. They would usually be filtered out as noise for such a radar because it's supposed to see 747s. When you're dealing with radars that are designed to find aircraft that are trying to hide, then it's a completely different story.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 11:02 PM
link   
The F-15C is capable of precision strike, tank busting and other A2G engagements? I know some F-15C guys that would have liked you to have been in the Gulf on day three when command said "Sorry DCA team, no need for you anymore".


And as for the Raptor not being tested against a credible air defense system, there have been plenty of simulation and paper wars fought. And testing against certain ground equipment. Everyone I've talked to says the Raptor did what was (at the very least) advertised. I've talked to F-15C guys who went up against Raptors, and were called out before they had a single hit on the DDI. I think you are substantially underestimating the F-22s capabilities. KP has already detailed some of the main reasons why it is going to own anything it comes up against. Until we see what the NGRF and XXJ can bring to the party, and even then I know where my money would be going.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join