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.

 

There will be no dominance on F-22

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Daedalus,

>>
ch1466..
The bit about obout optical satellite assets...
>>

If it's a satellite like a modernday Teal Ruby, I fully expect the use of hyperspectral imaging to allow for tracking of the threats not only from lift-off (or tanker tracks as equally predictable locations) but from wakes.

OTOH this-

www.patrick.af.mil...

Is a range tracking camera. It can be either fixed or mobile and while enormous it is /nothing/ compared to the size of longrange EWR systems.

And with that kind of capability, they can track tiny missiles moving hypersonically as much as a 100-150,000ft up. Compared to that target, subsonic jets will be pathetically simple.

>>
Weren't they(USAF) trying out LO grade paints on the stealth a/c (F-117s I think) for day usage?
That would hamper EO tracking a bit.
>>

Optical LO, like any other signature reduction technique is not the art of 'no see'em' but rather /no see'em too good/.

Indeed, O-LO as isoluminance panels (the only working system we have at the moment) only works if the target is both simple enough (no edge breaks for inlets, tails and external stores etc.) and SMALL ENOUGH to blend as a DISTANT target against a DISTANT (thus uniform) background. i.e. A small UCAV with a monobody shape. Which is fine if you have a camera looking up through 15-20,000ft of gook (pollutants, water vapor, sand and dust; basically obscurrants of all kinds) since a single drop of water can 'hide' a distant-dot target by diffracting or absorbing the incident light.

But at coaltitude and above, the background starts to vary quite a bit (horizon terminator, surface terrain features, clouds etc. etc.) for both intensity and definition of features and so matching the intensity as a color-temp (via MMW mapped radiometrics) gets to be a lot harder.

And then there's the affordability issue of modern imagers. If you take a system like the ADADS-

www.armedforces.co.uk...

Which is essentially a manportable IRST-on-a-stick. And sling it beneath a balloon or aerostat with it's own 'stealth' (as RFLO) features, life gets doubly complicated because for the same cost as 20 AA-12 you can buy 20 mini AWACS and the threat air team has to come get ALL of them lest they be seen coming not just once but over and over and over again. Completely defeating the purpose of deceptive routing and target feint raid tactics.

While, as emitter sources, these sentry blimps need only last LONG ENOUGH to send one burst signal as raid warning (20 bandits, heading XX, altitude YY, speed ZZ, I'm in sector 14), from an altitude of 50-70K feet in a total-envelope size of say 40X10X20ft (up high in the black where they may be optically invisible themselves).

Because once the tallyho is given, even if you zap them like Hindenburgs, nothing can be done to save the package from subsequent engagement by _flight after flight_ of turbine driven 'SAM' which, prelofted and themselves RF-tiny, sweep forward on the premise of FINDING the threat in the spaces inbetween 'active coverage'.

A MALD can fly 250nm in 20 minutes. Or 10 minutes at Mach 1.2-1.4. This in a munition which is less than 8ft long and only weighs 100lbs. A flight vehicle whose basic technology goes back to target drones of the immediate postwar (1957 Firebee etc.) era.

Thus 'point defense' (where any surface based system is limited by both the local horizon and the power of it's radar system in finding a given RCS target to specifically proximal radius around it's geographic location point) becomes _volume defense_ whereby the threat raid must destroy everything it encounters, just to keep progressing to the target. And each time if fails to do so before another 'here they are!' signal is sent, MORE come along to attack.

Prosecute the fight on a 'by the numbers' basis of massed defense.

Such being where the other characteristic of the turbo-SAM comes into play given that it can make a second pass. And a third. And a fourth.

Buy yourself 1,000 S-300 missiles. Divide them up among 30 battery clusters of 3 radar and 12 TEL vehicles each. Assume that each battery thus has 48 missiles immediately available to engage with AND that they move once every 2hrs or so to keep from being fixed and blown in place.

If an inbound offensive raid force of 70-90 aircraft only flies by 10 such sites as a function of 'random surprise' and each site gets off 24 missiles before either being hardkill suppressed or watching the raid package 'vanish into the distance' of jamming as much as real range:signature effect, MAYBE you get 72X.5 (SSPK overall) or 36 kills. While this is pretty horrific by our standards of acceptable casualties, it is still essentially nothing compared to either the size of an in-theater massed force (which, even today, is going to be on the order of 700-800 airframes). Nor of your total 1,000 round shotcount. Indeed, three days of losing 10 sites per day means losing your entire capability to prosecute a defensive airwar. Three days of losing 36 planes per day means losing 108 planes or less than 14% of your total warfighter force. After which, you can pound the bejeezus out of the hapless threat, as much as you like.

OTOH, if you purchase 500 TurboSAM with the same 'first pass' PK of .5 and THREE PASSES TOTAL. And you launch 200 of them under FDOW conditions against _volume_ cued (on approach) targets. You will wipe the skies clean. Both because you mass more of your total inventory of shots to the active engagement (far from the other, unengaged, conventional SAM batteries). And because each round gets effectively 3 bites at the apple and EACH BITE has a .5 SSPK as the target speed is bled down by evasion. Which implies that, particularly against a stealth raider force where there are relatively few assets actually penetrating, the enemy is going to run out of self-defense missiles before he can kill all your interceptors. And probably be taken out from behind, even if he tries to run.

All because you are not _stupid_ enough to fix your engagement zone to your target acquisition arc. Nor are you MORONIC enough to base that surveillance/TA system on an active-emission system spec when you can buy 4-5 times as many passive EO and acoustic alternatives and _never let your enemy know_ that you're there seeing them until you burst-transmit their location.

Which is akin to a lone wolf's howl bringing the whole pack loping up your backtrail.

It works. It's simple. And it will render utterly obsolete both conventional air attack and the defenses against it for the first nation which has the balls to say "No. We will not play the game". A game of evolutionarily progressive warfare solely to make a game of wasting billions upon billions of dollar/yuan/euro equivalent funds to give employment to a corrupt military aristocracy. Something that we here in the U.S. at least, RAN AWAY FROM two hundred years ago, so that we could stop being victimized by an unfair class system.


KPl.




posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Kurt,


PCLS doesn't work without power. Power for a centralized transmission to each civillian= exterrnally reliant emitter. Power which, like the towers themselves, has to be fixed to geographic locations for purposes of both adequate distribution coverage and zoned city planning. Find the power, kill the power, and civillian PCLS dies like any other emitter driven system.


Yeah, other than the fact that the electricity grid generally isn’t on the approved target list because of undue suffering. But I know you aren’t big on the laws of armed conflict.


Anything left over is a legitimate military target and should be treated as such.


NOW you want to talk legitimate targets?


OTOH, undoubtedly some manned airpower uber alles idiot realized that the ballistic dispersion on even a lucky direct-flyover engagement is such that no high caliber round, even perfectly laid for static PK, will impact, there being just too damn many post-muzzle variables on a trans/supersonic delivery vehicle upwards of 40-50,000ft overhead.


Yeah. Because it needs to impact, doesn’t it? But what about the prox fuse/ baro fused rounds. Hmmm. Multiply that by X number of batteries, cued by your optical tracking system (which apparently is effective and available, though Iraqi observers on the boarder with binoculars and NVGs seemed to do all right too), a bit of area fire, and suddenly even unguided AAA becomes useful.


Moronicism as innocence is pathetic. Indulging stupidity for a profit is purely and criminally exploitative. Something that our coming defeat in Iraq will prove beyond a doubt as being the 'studied indifference' betrayal by our armed forces of their sacred duty to defend this nation and it's Constitution.


Were you wrapped in a flag when you wrote this? Coming from you, it's almost touching. Go hang out at a few military funerals and let their families know about their betrayal of the constitution. I’m sure it will be warmly received. But I guess anonymous posting on a web board is easier.


Your wussian PCLS is forever more 'can you hear me now?' BLASTED offline in _just enough_ of the country to allow conventional jammers and VLO assets to walk in and start dropping civillian infrastructure as the 'only targets big enough' for a stupid moron fighter pilot to reliably plink.


Quite frankly, this is one of the most idiotic statements you have come up with. If you truly believe it, then you have less of an idea about reality than I thought you did.



Blah blah blah. You're /such/ a brave hewoe. Why -yes- -you- -are-.


Ooops. Spoke too soon about your most idiotic statement.

If you don’t want to hear what I have to say, hit ignore. I couldn’t give a toss. If I thought you actually knew anything about warfighting, rather than being the over-read, opinionated, poor writer that you actually are, I would probably be stung by statements such as the above. But seeing as you know stuff all about warfighting other than a whole stack of tech details that you get from your Janes subscription, you belittling me is actually pretty funny.


_Please_ QUIT. The entire pack of you. So that we can employ robots that are cheaper and better and certainly less puckered up than your stalwart souls ever dreamed of being.


Robots! And you crap on about fighter pilots having Luke Skywalker fantasies! Next you’ll be advocating the building of a death star to really sort those pesky arabs out. Worked well on Alderaan, huh?

If you want meaningful discussion, then do so. But if you want to indulge in petty name calling, and verbose diatribe based on loose facts and ingrained prejudices, maybe it’s time you headed back to your computer game forums. The kids there will lap it up.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by emile
On Dec. 20, commander in chief of Russia AF stated that Russia has completed design of AL-41 turbofan engine for new generation fighter, the advanced engine will be over 20,000kg thrust at full afterbutner and over 16,000 kg without reheater. As long as the new engine is produced, new generation fighter of Russia AF will make maiden flight in 2008. Since ripe-engine AL-31NF already approached thrust at 16,000kg several years before, there will be no doubt that AL-41 will be successfully tested in next year.

The other bad news for F-22 is Irbis AESA made out from Russia has been announced that can reach target which RCS even lower than 0.1 ms far from 200 km. Because of range of missile carried by F-22 never beyond 80 km, so there wil be extrem dangrous for F-22 when F-22 meet with Su-35 which equiped Irbis Radar and LRA2Amissiles.

Don't sleep in Christmas, while you play in celebration, your enemies are peeping probably




An engine like that would be great! But I wouldn't count the F-22 out just yet.



  1. It's operational
  2. It's clean aerodynamically
  3. and its RCS is much lower than .1 sqm(~.0001 sqm by open sources)


www.f22-raptor.com...

Not to mention that the best features of the F-22 probably reside in what it can do in the electromagnetic domain. Think Suter and THOR.



DA

[edit on 25-1-2007 by DarthAmerica]



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   
quote: Originally posted by emile
"On Dec. 20, commander in chief of Russia AF stated that Russia has completed design of AL-41 turbofan engine for new generation fighter, the advanced engine will be over 20,000kg thrust at full afterbutner and over 16,000 kg without reheater. As long as the new engine is produced, new generation fighter of Russia AF will make maiden flight in 2008. Since ripe-engine AL-31NF already approached thrust at 16,000kg several years before, there will be no doubt that AL-41 will be successfully tested in next year.

The other bad news for F-22 is Irbis AESA made out from Russia has been announced that can reach target which RCS even lower than 0.1 ms far from 200 km. Because of range of missile carried by F-22 never beyond 80 km, so there wil be extrem dangrous for F-22 when F-22 meet with Su-35 which equiped Irbis Radar and LRA2Amissiles. "


Actually the range of the F-22's missiles are considerably further than 80km, and that's even when flying subsonic. The AIM-120C7 and D models have ranges more like 80-100+ miles when fired from the F-22 supercruising(obviously depending on which direction the target is flying in relation to the F-22).


[edit on 25-1-2007 by BlueRaja]



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 03:26 AM
link   
I don't understand your anxiety. Russians aren't going fight with you. You've surrounded Russia from anywhere and you're now trying to predict results of possible conflict. We never started war first. But we always had answer. The most you can charge us - we killed lots of our people. But in 20 years it will be centure since that time. We are normal people. We don't have bears in our cities' streets. We have hi-speed inet in each home. Welcome and you can ensure by yourself.
If you just interested in what will be if F22 fight to Su35... I remember - I was interested in such stuff when I was 5-6. We discussed what will be if tank come across car and so on... Jujing from what you broadcast on Discovery - most of you are still children. Your Bush... Who else can be elected by such kids?
Good luck. And don't tear slightly trying to save the World. Save it from yourself.



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 11:48 PM
link   
The estimated range where the su-35bm can actually track down stealthy targets with its sophisticated Irbis radar wich scans large distances with higher precision then its opponents is estimated to be 90km. Now the Irbis radar can detect .01 targets at 90km. Therefore the f-22 would have already shot down the su-35bm becuase the estimated rcs on the f-22 is .0001 or in other words marble size. 20 nautical miles is where the su-35bm can actually engage the f-22 raptor and shoot it down, but unfortunately the advanced su-35bm will have already been dropped by an f-22 sidewinder with a way bigger range then your estimated 80km lol.
Oh and the sensors package in your f-22 raptor rivals our su-35bm's sensor package and irst. In terms or avionics the su-35bm already is sophisticated enough to handle anything the western craft can handle, primarily the f-22 or joint strike fighter the f-35. Our 250 mile range missile placed on our su-35 has no parrallel in the west. Please dont give me that propaganda crap that the f-22 has better avionics, its avionics are great, especially with Awacs Sentry assistance and it also acts as a mini awacs, but then again our su-35bm can perform these setting's with great profficiencies. Our communications and electronics placed on our su-35 is among the best if not the best. 3d thrust vectoring and overall supremacy in alertness is quite impressive if not a boundary broken by our russian chief designers. Stealth tech would have been on the 1.44 or the su-47, but funding was cut, and instead they ended up having to be fifth generation stealth proto types lol.. quite sad, the russians are coming up though since their oil boom. even though thats come to a screeching halt.other then that, the f-22 is in no way in trouble .....yet.



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by RussiaUSA
 


Actually, the F-22 has groundbreaking communications and data-relay systems. The F-22 only datalink can not only tell the other aircraft what they see, but the fuel status, weapons status, and general status of the individual aircraft in the flight. There's a new datalink system coming out for legacy aircraft that will allow the F-22 and F-35 to use this same datalink and transfer information to legacy fighters.

[edit on 11/16/2008 by Zaphod58]



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Here's some interesting info in the Su-35BM's/ furure Russian AESA Radars: www.ausairpower.net...

www.ausairpower.net...

[edit on 16-11-2008 by 1000hanz]

[edit on 16-11-2008 by 1000hanz]



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 07:34 AM
link   
The RCS of the F-22 is 0. 0000000000000000000000000∝1
So there is no Radar can detect it even AESE.
But the radar the F-22 used can detect anything it wants, even you are stealthy.



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by 1000hanz
 


Much of the information there is valid, however, the conclusions are incorrect regarding the Super Hornet, F-35 and the RAAF are simply put, incorrect. It's ran by Carlo Kopp, anything he says should be ignored on principal - he wants F-111 to be upgraded, F-22s, and is rather famous in Australia military enthusiests.


From memory he holds a doctorate in electrical engineering, on which basis he claims to be Australia's foremost expert on aviation! Kopp has received a number of briefings by the RAAF, when they realised that some short-sighted idiots were actually taking him seriously.

He was briefed in on the RAAF's future procurement plans, why the procurement plans had been created, the issues regarding life of types and sustainability issues and the regional threat. He then went out into the media and either ignored what he had been told or misrepresented the information to back his own opinions, specifically, to call the Super Hornet / F-35 bad aircraft.

The RAAF will not get into a public slanging match with this guy and why should they, their job is to provide a capability to the government not to publicly argue with any whack job that doesnt agree with how how they do that. The last time that happened was at the sessions where he was comprehensively countered. Do I have faith in DSTO., Snr personnel who are active, current and have clearances, or do I give oxygen to a part time glider pilot, mobile ph engineer, backseater (15 mins in a sanitised SHornet) and an ex RAAFie who has some personal issues over his exit process.

geocities.com...

www.aph.gov.au...

Carlo and Peter have on occasion been on other forums (Defensetalk) talking themselves up under psuedonyms. Needless to say, they were comprehensively countered, and haven't returned since.
Jabbing Carlo is almost a sport now.


[edit on 18/11/2008 by C0bzz]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by RussiaUSA
 


The AN/APG 77 AN/ARL is much more advanced since their sensor have a 160 degree coverage in the plane,also the F-22 RCS is far lower that the SU-35 can be in his lifetime.Also we are talking about a multiporpuse sensor here,somethisn that the AESA is much more outdated IMHO.

Talking about dogfight let me tell you that SU-35 has no chance against a raptor simply by seeing each airplane aerodynamics,the F-22 chassis combiened with their powerful Pratt & Whitney engines can overtake any SU-35 class anyday anytime anyplace on earth,this has been proved in many simulated dogfight scanearios,not only against american or european arsenal,Russian arsenal was included too.

About speed,we all know that the SU-35BM fuselage can't tolerate high cruise speeds,it will be torn apart in miuntes,therefore their response action is more leghty when a air threat is near mainland.

The F-22 can go match 1.8 without afterburners,making the first combat fighter of making this in history,simply it can reach any threat very fast and ready for combat at high distances and altitude(Someting that the SU-35 can't do either).

In all aishows that the F-22 has been,it has demostrated that it can do any ,ovement the SU-35,and the USAF reserves their rights to to show any more advanced capabilites.

This is only 40% of the specifications on the plane,imagine the other 60% wich is top secret.


[edit on 1/23/09 by FredT]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join