It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Data linked kills

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 07:35 PM
This might sound daft.... I was wondering if the f22 would be vulnerable to a set of three aircraft working with each other i.e mig31. As I understand the f22 has a real low radar cross section which make it all the more harder to find. But never the less there must be some signiture that reflects of it? With that in mind would the principle of triangulation work. i.e they might work together via data link to give a rough postion of radar contact and just fire at the sum of all three? Regards Id123

posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 10:46 PM

While I'm not sure I understand the reference to datalinks as you intended, if what you are suggesting is the equivalent of an A2A multistatic radar system, I can only state that while I have my own doubts (it's a lot easier to get a stable signal for filtering when you aren't moving independent of the transmitter) the book _5 Billion Dollar Misunderstanding_ by JP Stevenson suggests that LO is indeed aspect-invalidated by exactly this technique.

Of course Stephenson is talking about the Cooperative Engagement Capability and the MSI effectors that the USN uses and it is unlikely that the networking or spectrum/aperture location spread on these would be available to most threat nations. CEC requires very large antennas to support lower C/S band radar illumination while MSI integrates ALR-67, AGM-88 HARM and AAQ-38 FLIR data as well as the Radar for instance. You can zap 3 of these 5 by simply not emitting and the fourth by range which puts you back at the basic RFLO detection threshold for the APG-65 or 73.

Your system is not quite the same because it depends on the ability of forward located receivers to integrate shifting signal parameters with their 'unknown' own spatial position offset around the Raptor target track so that they are effectively 'closer to a weak return' than the Foxhound serving as a searchlight.

This brings up the second part of the problem, for unless you are suggesting that the Zaslon B can detect Raptors at full range, the F-22 is just going to plink whatever _it detects_ as it comes into parameters and roll you up by inches.

Which means that not only do you need an incredibly adept receiver system, but one which is onboard a LO hunting platform which can avoid the attention of the Raptor as much if not more than they are blind to it's initial location.

Such is rather difficult to ensure when the Raptor's own APG-77 is so advanced and it has the look down onto your hotside geometries (tails, cockpit, exhausts, inlets.

Lastly, the Raptor can apparently set up a hunting perch at 50-60K feet. Plug in the burners and drop 20K feet and it's at 40,000ft and Mach 1.5 in a helluva hurry. Most contemporary fighters are struggling to play their best game at 25-30,000ft. Which means if your geometry is off /just a little/, you're probably not gonna be able to cut off the conversion angle to make the intercept.

Something which is important when you realize that flea-flicker weapons in the AA-11/12, MICA, Hydra and PL-12 classes are not going to do terribly well at height. You really need a big set of wings and a LOT of oomph if you expect to tackle the high-fast threat and that is something more akin to an AA-5 or 6.

If I wanted to bag the strike force, I would be looking to take out their support missions and their conventional signature airframes. Rather than cockpits with handcuffs, I would design my interceptor force to the standard of utter bravery through uninhabited mindlessness. And I would accept the fact that I would have to cost my inventory on the basis of soaking 4 MRM from every platform with 2 of my own interceptors left, at the visual merge. Once you realize that 150 Turbo-SAM coming up against 10 Raptors and 20 F-16s is 10 more than they have BVR shots to fend off, you start to understand the real way wars are won.

As Stalin said: "Victory is not defined by how many you can kill before losing. But how many you can lose and _still win_."

In this case, 150 X 1 million dollars per Turbo-SAM is still only 3 Su-30s.
And given the Su-30s would be facing all 140 AMRAAMs that the F-22/F-16 force could put up, I guarantee you the hoity toity "Behold, I am a fighter pilot, be awed by your mere existence in my world." attitudes would change as soon as the missiles started flying.


[edit on 10-2-2007 by ch1466]

posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 06:31 AM
Many thanks ch1466, Thats about what I was thinking. I had read a little on bistatic radars which made me ask the question. Yes I think your right about taking out as many aircraft as possible instead of hunting for the LO types, I was thinking more along the lines of cat and mouse(f22 It gotta get someplace and the migs are up there looking for the needle in the haystack. Many Regards Id123


log in