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.

 

First Simulated F-22 Lost During Red Flag

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466
Drivel. Ask a fox to tell you what a chicken is. Horns, cloven hooves, long hairless tail. Big Buck Teeth.


Sorry Kurt, but you also never ask an armchair general to tell a driver how his own bird performs...

Some comments, courtesy of Dozer...


I don't put much into what the "sprey's" of the world think or say except that they have influence because certain groups listen to them, when you're spouting bad data all the time it makes life hard for people trying to overcome that negative voice (especially when they don't have a clue or don't have all the gouge / experience to know better - for example the wing loading argument, or they don't have the classifed clearance to understand the real issues and why things are the way they are). We find ourselves having to answer to those critics & questions all the time instead of focusing on the positives of the Raptor, it waste alot of our time. I'm all for debate but when the evidence is overwhelming and they still won't listen it gets tiring.



The Raptor does very well in sustained high alpha, slow speed flight. It's really just as comfortable there as it is at 60K & Mach 2, no kidding. It's also very controllable, you can point the nose anywhere you want, even at max alpha. The Raptor will "beat" the Super Hornet in the alpha / yaw / power / etc. game because it has more of that capability designed into it - if flown correctly a Raptor should beat a Super Hornet from a neutral start every time (independent of helmet / weapons / etc.) - the alpha / yaw numbers are very high.



Go back as always to my original comment. There is nothing special about a Raptor being flown in an airshow, it's fully loaded with fuel and sometimes has practice ordnance, i.e. its in its wartime configuration. Even w/o missiles on board it doesn't matter because they only add a couple thousand pounds of weight and the rails are always mounted in the jet, and they never hang outside with the drag / fuel penalty associated. Add to that there is nothing done to balance the jet better, change its weight around, remove certain equipment to make it lighter / more manueverable for the show, etc. The Raptor is FAR more agile than an F-16, it was designed to be. I've heard people continue to quote this, often from supposed experts, however there's one little thing always missing, they've never flown a Raptor and/or flown it against all these other a/c that are supposedly as good or better than it is. You don't see any Eagle / Viper / Hornet bubbas anywhere saying how they crush the Raptor every time we fly together do you? I don't, and fighter pilots love to brag, BY ITSELF that ought to tell you the whole story...

Instantaneous & sustained turn rates are very good, and yes it's getting into slow speed and/or post stall where things get really interesting!



The power difference is phenomenal - I've spent about half my Eagle time in -100 motors and half in -220 motors, the later more powerful. There simply is no comparision between this jet and any other in it's combat configuration (read many previous post ref. this subject). I was dual qual'ed for sometime, it's amazing how slow and underpowered an Eagle felt, but I say that only in ref. to the Raptor, w/o having flown both back to back it's hard to know or understand the difference. It's not like the Eagle is a slouch by any stretch, but the Raptor was bred to go fast and it does.



Having executed it a couple of hundred times I can testify its very easy to outrun anyone in an F-22, if you don't want to be caught, you won't be. I've done drag races for fun with other airplanes, it's amazing to watch what happens once you get into the supersonic region.



To give you an idea of what it can pull - from a purely training perspective, just to see what it will do, we've tried that, I've sustained over 9 g's for a very long time, and depending on altitude and fuel weight and airspeed, I've been over 9 g's still accelerating (keep in mind that's combat configured - as you know I caveat that alot because others will jump in and tell me, for example, a big mouth Viper will do the same thing - but not if we compare the configurations appropriately, see how well it does with 8 missiles loaded (+ the pylons to carry them and a HARM or targeting pod and an EA pod and the pylons from the fuel tanks he had to punch off in combat to even stand a chance, etc.)... If we try and do BFM in their non-dogfight configuration its less useful training for us and them because neither pilot is seeing the true performance differential to gauge their skills to the actual performance of their jet. The Raptor is always performing at it's maximum because it's always flying in its combat configuration, i.e. how it would hit a merge, so unless we artificially limit the jet, such as using half AB or limiting the alpha we pull to simulate a threat for someone, usually another Raptor, there's no difference for us. But there is for an F-15 for example, that is flying in his training configuration with a centerline fuel tank, that's a huge performance penalty and in combat at a visual merge & turning fight he's very likely going to punch it off to enhance his performance to guarantee he wins.



However, on the thrust to weight its not classified numbers. Yes the Raptor is heavier than an Eagle by quite a bit actually. However, you can't draw a decent conclusion from that - why you ask? Well, the Eagle does not go to war clean (nor does any other fighter except the F-22). So, once it loads up full internal fuel, and 8 missiles plus the pylons to support them, plus 3 external fuel tanks, it's actually nearly the same weight as an F-22 fully fueled & loaded for combat. Obvious difference is not only the weight but the drag penalty incurred by all of that hanging chad. Add to THAT the fact the engines are in a thrust class all by themselves, and well, you can start to see what kind of performance we're talking here.


As for how the F-22 might be used...


No HARM for the F-22 but it's gaining a lot of capability in the next couple of upgrades. The addition of SDB and a number of other new features will really provide for a very deadly F-22 in the A/G & SEAD/DEAD arena and even enhance its A/A capability if you can believe that. In addition, we may be able to take advantage of a few weapons such as laser JDAM, which don't have anything to do with the Raptor program but which we may be able to use as off the shelf technology to add even more to the Raptors tool kit. It already has good ISR capability and that's growing too. It really is a very capable a/c in the arena of 'growth' potential (and a nice benefit is none of this comes at a cost to its performance).

I think we'll find the Raptor will do more than just kick the door down in a couple of years.




posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Moderators,
My apologies for the doubled up posts. My machine locked up in the middle of the post effort and I was so mad I never thought to see if it made it's way through as I slammed through a repeat. Please delete one as apparently I cannot after this period of time.

Ghost,
The term LOAL refers to Lock On After Launch. Which implies the missile is entirely responsible for it's own target acquisition process (pilot consents to the shot 'without tone', firing into an inertial target volume prediction covered by the seeker cone). Launch and Leave is a more nebulous term and merely requires that the weapon in question not have to be guided once fired. Thus any IR weapon is most likely 'launch and leave' while most radar ones, even when equipped with an autonomous guidance capable seeker, are not.

The distinct difference being that Phoenix and AMRAAM can both theoretically lock on from 10-15nm out, as can Sidewinder in perfect air. But in doing so, all three give the target much more threat awareness and thus a chance to initiate evasive maneuvers. Even as they sacrifice anywhere from 2/3rds to 7/8ths their useful flyout range. The AIM-9 because it is flying beyond the capability of it's boost-coast system to hold onto sufficient after burnout energy to make intercept. The radar weapons because they are not exploiting their higher peak Machs fully.

It is the latter ability to firing beyond target detection thresholds that is used to justify the costs and vulnerability of radar weapon datalinks as 1 or 2 way electronic 'tethers' which effectively read sideband information from the radar scan to drive missile steering until acquisition. This also allowing pilots to maintain positive shot control via a starvation/self destruct option.

Datalinks are further required because no fighter pilot worth a kink in his oxygen hose is gonna stay wings level on the same heading and altitude for more than 15-20 seconds, especially in an area where he doesn't have supporting airspace clearance from GCI or AWACS. And thus the missiles must be updated, at least once, to keep their eyes-open moment squarely centered up on the target (spatial occupation) volume.

In any case, while the weapons terminal performance is indeed self-homing, the midcourse flyout is not and so LOAL is itself conditional.

Most IR weapons (with MICA and Python 5 as known exceptions) with LOAL as a software modification don't have the datalink. And thus they are in a position where you cannot update their seeker cube volume overlay, once launched. This means they are 'mad dog' or 'pit bull' mode and will potentially lockup and kill whatever they eyes-open onto. Or indeed, miss completely because the target has gone Elvis.

Most pilots don't like the idea of weapons which acquire autonomously, nominally because it makes it possible for Ronnie The Robot to splash a friendly in the same shared airspace. Truthfully, because it puts another nail in the front door of their boys club right to sit in a cockpit at all. Yet because missiles can fire and maneuver from incredible off boresight and line of sight rate differentials compared to human-piloted airframes ability to point them directly at the target, there is an increasing perception that there is no choice. In all likelihood, this perception is further aided by discrete IMU and/or Seeker abilities to 'blinder' (lock out all other targets but those with a fixed trajectory prediction) or 'classify' as a function of intelligent silouhette (imaging seeker) recognition, all targets as hostile or safe. The Israeli's pioneered the use of extreme off-boresight weapons use with HMDs being used to designate target lanes and possibly (CCD) shapes and tactics used to deconflict wingmen. It should be noted however that in doing so, they also switched from the no-datalink/digital autopilot-only Python-4 to the Datalink/IMU/imaging-seeker equipped Python-5 rather quickly. They are also using MONSTER weapons which weigh upwards of 250lbs and have huge motors and big aerodynamic controls so that they can attack targets post motor burnout, BVR. As well as close up.

Steve R,
RE: F-14 baselines. I suppose it depends on what you want from the system.

If you want carrier capability from the start rather than an after-thought, then a heavy fighter needs either an ENORMOUS wing (which will kill it's supersonic capabilities and compromise it's fuel carriage). Or VG.

If you want CentFront air dominance performance, that VG wing is going to cost you a lot of G and turn rate penalization because while you can cheat aspect ratio and cambering to a certain point in how you cut the air, you cannot replace lost wing area as an absolute driver of wingloading and lift.

And of course as soon as you start cutting holes and/or creating materal breaks/overlaps for the VG wing surface you end up destroying your all aspect LO.

Basing the ATF design point on a missileer concept like an improved F-14 would thus have worked only if you stuck with the initial concept of a 'partial LO' airframe intended primarily to break up raid packages over Poland and the GDR without necessarily engaging them directly.

What an F-14 configuration brings you is basically five things:

1. The ability to be length:depth neutral in a tandem bay.
Indeed, it may not even be necessary to fully enclose the bay with doors, provided you tailor weapons to encapsulated, drop down, launch.
2. The ability to halve long range/supersonic workloads.
Namely by allowing for sensor fusion and offboard/SA integration to be at least partly a function of a 2nd crew member. This will become particularly important if the WSO/RIO type guy in back is himself acting as a fighter controller to multiple other assets, some of them robotic. Indeed, given the F-14s equipment with ASW-27 datalink technology from the very start, you can almost say that netcentric warfare is /encouraged/ by the second seat as a datahandler.
3. Big Nose Complex.
Where the power of an AESA is additive based on the count of it's DTRM modules, the more the merrier rule does apply. The F-14D should also be noted as having the first truly effective A2A optics setup. This can be somewhat deceptive/self defeating of course because drag also goes up while stealth is always going to be a chine-penalty on the nose even as modern AESAs don't require radome shapes that accomodate long mechanical gimbal pedestals. Even as they DO require a heckuva lot more cooling and conditioned power.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 01:35 AM
link   
4. Variable Supersonic Performance.
Theoretically, an F-14A could sprint up to Mach 2.34 fire it's Phoenix and then clear the shot lane for the OAB (cruisers and destroyers with Standard) in a constant 7G turn all the way back downhill to subsonic. Where the F-22 nominally accelerates quickly despite it's chose wing sweep; the F-14 did so because of it 'thick roots and all'.
5. Fuel To Party Persistently.
What most people don't realize is that the USAF accepted a _serious_ compromise to get Foxbat killing capability into the F-15A as a function of only 10,000lbs of internal fuel and in the C-upgrade, 14,000lbs. By comparison, it's predecessor, the F-4, had 13,000lbs internally and the F-14 had 16,200lbs internally plus 3,800 more in two dedicated, low drag, full-G, fuselage stations. This gives you a lot of options inherent to transiting quickly to a fight. And staying on station once you are there. Even the F-22, with only some 18,342lbs of internal fuel, doesn't match the Tomcats 20,000lbs.

CONCLUSION:
If I had to choose between a 95 million dollar NATF configured platform-

www.aerospaceweb.org...

inventory with some 540 airframes 'bought and paid for' using both USN and USAF funding lines.

And 276, 250 million dollar, F-22s 'as is'-

www.boeing.com...

I would be hard pressed. Not simply because of the above but also because we would have avoided the trainwreck of the F/A-18E, F-22, F-35, V-22 production overlap. But also because I truly do not believe in letting one service dominate the force projection capabilities to the extent of leaving the other a CM shooter also ran in an EM dense, high-threat, modern warfighting condition. Probably the deciding factor would be the AIM-152/155 and it's adaptability to various other missions as an FRSW (no seeker, big warhead, aeroballistic) and JDRADM (dual role ARM/AAM) because, as we have discovered since 1991, the definition of utility as much as safety has often been the ability to reach in and tag someone without cross a political as much as WEZ line and in this, the USN LRAAM had a significant lead over any USAF weapon then or since developed.

Yet the ultimate answer is that neither platform is now the solution. Because DEWS are _here_, and this, as well as the fact that we are fighting a 'war on terror' in which even the most capable fighter platform doesn't have the basic aerodynamic or cost adjusted performance parameters needed to be an efficient combat platform, requires a change in our approach. For with the ability of two way datalink technologies to functionally leverage not only radarless missileers but also the weapons themselves, the days of 'MFFC' may be over before they are started. While Shooter Illuminator may mean systems like Global Hawk, with massive RTIP arrays, directing the 'randomly positioned against randomly encountered' fires of UCAVs that are HUNDREDS of kilometers out in front.

This will be the true driver on the capability vs. justification of 'LOAL capable EO weapons' in the A2A role. Because where each drone has maybe 1-2 selfdefense missiles amongst a mix of recce and light strike other bombbay hardpointed munitions and where that UCAV lacks the sprint performance to dominantly position itself on /anything/. Where further, there is at least a reasonable chance that that UCAV will itself be an (ATL) directed energy weapons platform. The justification for the LOAL AAM will have to be based on the notion of several drones firing one shot each at a few opponents over a very long pole (time for a repeat shot as much as actual range). And that ultimately means the ability to miss a target and come round again for a second shot while coordinating attacks to avoid similar (threat) defensive capabilities.

The Red Baron said it best: "Fly around as you like but when you spot the enemy, attack, anything else is rubbish." If you have missiles serving as a fighter sweep, removing from men the control over their targeting, they had better damn well SERVE as fighters. Which can only be best defined by the ability to sorte, swarm, assess and reattack targeted threats. As continuously propelled systems.

That is where 'LOAL' is going.


KPl.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 07:04 AM
link   
WP23,

>>
for example the wing loading argument, or they don't have the classifed clearance to understand the real issues and why things are the way they are). We find ourselves having to answer to those critics & questions all the time instead of focusing on the positives of the Raptor, it waste alot of our time. I'm all for debate but when the evidence is overwhelming and they still won't listen it gets tiring.
>>

Nope. It's a case of caveat emptor and getting past the 'in shining armor' image as a submissive psychology to some very dominant, manipulative, _self interest biased_ alpha personalities. These are not nice people. The sooner you get past that, the sooner you can start to realize that what is /right/ vs. what is /knight/ are two entirely different things.

i.e. If Dozer was going to be honest, he would have to admit that Sprey, having worked /inside/ the Pentagon as an analyst and part of the defense development and oversight process (one of the four Fighter Mafioso who spec'd out the LWF-16 for example) probably holds already or could be revetted again to have the necessary clearances. Has he met the man? Has he 'investigated' him or the nature of his claims at more than a surface level?

OTOH, Dozer's greatest vulnerability here is also the pothole in his circular logic process. 'Only I and those like me can decide what's best for us _with your money_. And I can't tell you why because it's classified'.

Where's the open debate there again, said the chicken to the fox?

Remember, this is the happy family of unionists who have gone from wanting '750 or bust!' to ''383 as a minimum!' to '276 if we try hard!' to '180 but we'd better get those F-35s!' on a bribery basis of foot-in-cockpit self interests. If the Raptor is that good, where's the body count from those who fell on their swords refusing to be stuck with a twice-as-expensive-half-the-envelope mediocre F-35? Where's the protest that the Stealth in particular cannot just be handed away for profit?

It's not there because so long as they get to fly, they don't care what it costs the rest of us for them to do so.

>>
The Raptor does very well in sustained high alpha, slow speed flight. It's really just as comfortable there as it is at 60K & Mach 2, no kidding.
>>

Comfortable = stable. And nothing which is stable is safe in a fighting arena where dynamic transition is the key to SNAPPING off a missile shot in post stall conditions.

While still retaining the energy to not become a target yourself.

OTOH, Dozer's logic bomb here is that of creating a scenario in which the simplest question is: "How many dogfights happen at 60K and Mach 2?" And "How high must the SRM fly to touch you there?" And "If you are RF invisible to them and yet they can be seen by a dozen other platforms even as they pass below and behind you _up to 5 miles underneath_, why are you bothering to directly engage them by coming down to where they CAN optically-see you?"

The answer is surprisingly little-boyish: Because he wants to. He seeks his death, our lost tax dollars and the compromise of a critical national technical base capability. On Purpose. All at once.

>>
It's also very controllable, you can point the nose anywhere you want, even at max alpha. The Raptor will "beat" the Super Hornet in the alpha / yaw / power / etc. game because it has more of that capability designed into it - if flown correctly a Raptor should beat a Super Hornet from a neutral start every time (independent of helmet / weapons / etc.) - the alpha / yaw numbers are very high.
>>

And 90% of all visual fights are won by the outside=unseen shooters. Hawking may not be nice but it's how the starfighter won 90% of it's fights and the eagle won 50% of it's fights and presumably the Raptor should be even better because it has RFLO and ARH weapons.

Why get slow, low, if you're gonna die like a chump because you ARE NOT PLAYING AGAINST ONE OPPONENT?

ACM is like drawing against a checking account. One taxed-to-the-max doctor is not going to beat a pair of married CPAs. You _cannot_ go into a fight expecting to win, 1v1. Because your cannot guarantee, even netcentrically, that it will be that. Nor can you (safely) pitch down from where you are untouchable and both lose speed and retain SA sufficient to make the shot and pull off without flashing planform right in front of the bad guys eyes.

Fangs Clean = 600+ knots on the clock. Nose Level on a 60K horizon = already out of the fight. That kind of scenario is winnable with AIM-120D. It is not with AIM-9X and certainly not with AIM-9M. Heat shots without HMD are a like a pimp beckoning you into a dark alley with a flash of leg.

>>

Go back as always to my original comment. There is nothing special about a Raptor being flown in an airshow, it's fully loaded with fuel and sometimes has practice ordnance, i.e. its in its wartime configuration. Even w/o missiles on board it doesn't matter because they only add a couple thousand pounds of weight and the rails are always mounted in the jet, and they never hang outside with the drag / fuel penalty associated.
>>

Does he think I'm a moron or is he one?

THIS IS NOT ABOUT PHYSICAL PERFORMANCE! THIS IS ABOUT FIRING MORE THAN YOU HAVE ON A GENERATEABLE DAILY SORTIE RATE!

The F-22 is NOT designed to be stealthy to beat other fighters. It's designed to be stealthy to beat _SAMs_. If it was just 'us vs. them' on a straight up (neutral airspace) pole-out duel, our combination of offboard targeting and 2-way datalink capabilities (turning every fighter into a spare missile rail) as well as superior ECM/ECCM would /still/ let us run rings around them. Because the BVR game is much more about precision intercept sensor work, flown geometry control and timeout of shots than the 'rough maneuvering' of visual range warfare.

OTOH, once you are over enemy airspace, /which is where the Raptor belongs/, particularly given that nobody comes to you, you had damn well better be doing SOMETHING USEFUL against the _primary threat_ which is S2A driven. And as soon as you do that, all of a sudden you are down to 2 longrange shots. Or maybe 4 if assymetric carriage is allowed in the main bays. Switch up to JDRADM and suddenly none of your longrange shots is guaranteed available.

What's more, in this scenario there is no shooter:illuminator or MFFC process because you cannot bring conventional platforms into the arena. Here, you cannot afford to pretend you're an F/A-18C section with one airframe configured as an A2A Bodyguard and another as a Strike platform. Because you are HOLDING UP THE SHOW as much as 'kicking down the door' while the rest of the GSTF and certainly the 'flow in legacy forces' sit with their thumbs for company until you open up the airspace.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 07:06 AM
link   
>>
Add to that there is nothing done to balance the jet better, change its weight around, remove certain equipment to make it lighter / more manueverable for the show, etc. The Raptor is FAR more agile than an F-16, it was designed to be. I've heard people continue to quote this, often from supposed experts, however there's one little thing always missing, they've never flown a Raptor and/or flown it against all these other a/c that are supposedly as good or better than it is. You don't see any Eagle / Viper / Hornet bubbas anywhere saying how they crush the Raptor every time we fly together do you? I don't, and fighter pilots love to brag, BY ITSELF that ought to tell you the whole story...
>>

Nope. All's it says is that _when properly flown_ using strict COE rules to keep it out of 'fair fights', the F-22 can kill with impunity. If it can kill with impunity then it should also be able to /avoid/ fights it doesn't have to. As such, a true test of it's mission utility would be to configure it for strike and provide several random popup emitters and driveby DCA CAPs through which it must penetrate while 'priorly commited' to a ground target. Because then and only then do these NAPFAG elitists have to not simply /work for/ their ace maker engagements but _avoid_ all those which are not specifically obstructing their prosecution of a primary strike target. Ask one of those 'F-15E Bubbas' what the hardest element of their tactical training is. And they will tell you: It's the moment when you have to choose between blowing stuff up and shooting stuff down as you get on with the mission you've been given.

Where there is almost always going to be a primary S2A threat over and above any 'random' A2A one (and this would apply as much to China as Iraq so don't get snarky), and given the Raptors stealth does indeed 'render it invisible' until the shadow crosses the other guys canopy, you have to redefine how you fight as a function of _what you can best do_ to support the extant airwar.

An F-22 playing escort to an F-teen or even an F-35 force which suddenly comes under attack from 3 separate SA-20 sites is _useless_ to that strike package, even if it has bombs of it's own aboard with which to too-few-too-long-a-flyout deal with the battery radars after the fact. But if that Raptor is flying a route tailored to its own signature threshold detection range, then it can engage at least 2 of those Gargoyle sites from over 20nm out. If a division of Su-30MKKs come wandering through the area, it can AVOID them. If those Su-30 are equipped with a late model AESA which can pick up the F-22 at a given distance, he can stagger his engagement to attack each target group as it comes to bear while sprinting clear at the last.

Provided the pilot is trained to recognize and avoid the onset of Steve Canyonitis.

Expand this out to a separate targetset like an airbase or a railway bridge with six airbases in a 150nm radius around it. If you put a BARCAP in front of the exit lane axes on all six of those bases you are still facing upwards of 60 X 4 vs. 4 X6 or 240 vs. 24 shots. If you put 30 Tomahawks into each base using a mix of submunition and unitary hard kill warheads to take out ramps, alert barns, hardened munitions/underground fuel and tower or BOQ then, at a cost of 730 grande per CM or 65.7 million dollars, you can then retrograde your 12 F-22s back to a loose TARCAP ring around the main target itself and wait for whatever survives to respond with 72 shots. While you let 4 F-16s come in with 8 twenty thousand dollar JDAMs to destroy the choke. Or you can send in those same 12 F-22s on their own to blast the bridge with 24 BLU-110 headed GBU-31. At 240 grande, not including the gas. If you only want to tear up the tracks, 4 F-22 can be used with 32 SDB at 1.12 million. Or you can send in four BGM-109 at about 2.9 million and hope that nobody has really good terminal defenses set up.

What you _cannot do_ is predict where the SA-3/6/10/11/15/17/19/20/21/Aster batteries are. Something highlighted in Kosovo where a combination of political restrictions on targeting networked civillian radars and the sheer tenacity of the Serb AD in moving around a lot (admittedly at the cost of effectiveness) kept them players far longer than a 'clean war as a justified war' suggested should have made possible from a political standpoint.

And where the 100 million dollar SA-20 battery can bring down 100-200 million dollars in airframe and pilot capital, you cannot afford to risk it.

An F-22 can do this mission. But it will cost it anywhere from 2 to 4 AIM-120 to achieve it. And the pilot who goes in with the mental notion that he can make up the difference with AIM-9 and Guns is a man over his head.

Sun Tzu once said: 'In war, you can win 25% of the time by knowing your own capabilities. 50% of the time by knowing your capabilities and the ground you fight on. You can achieve victory 75% of the time by knowing yourself, your ground and your enemy. But the only way to beat your opponent is by intimidating him so that he never takes to the field.' The F-22, by denying visible air targets while striking more on the ground than it can shoot from the sky is one of those chief measures by which the ability to attack or bypass given 'rings' of target value or 'steps' in the air dominance as a precursor to strike warfare assurance of air operations, can actually _deescalate_ a given conflict status before the enemy has an ability to stir himself up to a combattive frenzy.

It is (with doctrinal influence on the technology 'spiraling') that good.

>>
Instantaneous & sustained turn rates are very good, and yes it's getting into slow speed and/or post stall where things get really interesting!
>>

Compared to what? Did your instantaneous or sustained rates _beat the missile_ that brought down the jet at RF? If not, why brag? The only shot you beat with 100% assurance is the one which is never taken. Being close in with a live threat is a guaranteed way to end up dead and nobody shoots heat from long range at high speed targets.

Even as, especially with HOBS weapons across the board, you aren't maneuvering against the man much anymore. You are, at best, maneuvering against his sighting system and _awareness_ of you. All of which are compromised by fast entry speeds and downward plays from safe heights to a subsonic fights.

And that is a realm where strict adherence to COE means you win the fight you do not enter.

I remember watching hour after hour of F-15A test footage against the humble F-5E in 1976-77 and how hard the little Tiger had to struggle to stay in frame with the 'mighty hunter' which was continuously wallowing in dutch roll half a cycle out of tracking shot synch with it's rapid bank to bank maneuvering. And I knew that, while the F-5E might never escape, it had more than enough _managed_ energy to make a fight of it, from which position, with an AGILE or CLAW type weapon of its own, the Aggressor pilot could probably severely discourage the F-15 from tailgating.

Equally, I remembered that F-15s had to go to 'sprint and drift' type (burner to 650 then throttle back) tactics so that they could come into the fight without taking constant shots in the teeth from the 'Concept C' (9L boresight mode) drill rounds which were otherwise hammering them as they tried for their typical 550 knot E-is-for-Energy-at-Entry tactics.

Finally, I remembered that Northrop was selling the F-5E for 'twice the going rate' of a MiG-21, around 7-8 million dollars.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 07:06 AM
link   
And I knew then that if we didn't get a decent, ARH+Strapdown, _long range_ weapon into service quickly, we were bound to be lemminged over the cliff when the Russians 'caught up' to the Lima. Lo and behold, they not only caught up, they achieved Concept-D2 (AGILE) type performance in the Archer. We did not. And so the F-15s sitting in Soesterburg and Bitburg HAS' were just so much window dressing wannabes compared to the Pershing II and Gryphons which closed out the cold war by guaranteeing any hot one would go MAD.

>>

The power difference is phenomenal - I've spent about half my Eagle time in -100 motors and half in -220 motors, the later more powerful. There simply is no comparision between this jet and any other in it's combat configuration (read many previous post ref. this subject). I was dual qual'ed for sometime, it's amazing how slow and underpowered an Eagle felt, but I say that only in ref. to the Raptor, w/o having flown both back to back it's hard to know or understand the difference. It's not like the Eagle is a slouch by any stretch, but the Raptor was bred to go fast and it does.

>>

Soooo...what? Does this mean if I bungy his butt to an ASRAAM or a Python 5 or an IRIS-T he will suddenly rip off his shirt and declare he's too sexy for his Raptor? At some level of air combat reasoning, you have to realize and acknowledge that morons don't kill people, guided missiles do. And since we don't have a law banning the sale or export of advanced missiles to morons you must avoid being dead by avoiding the missile envelope. As such the only thing the sidebays on the F-22 do is get an overeager beaver into trouble.

The F-22 has been in development since 1984. It will not reach what I would call useful inventory numbers as a doctrine influencing force asset until 2012-2014, assuming they continue manufacture after the next administration comes in and more importantly, that the F-35 doesn't start to wolf down the budget for next to no reason. What this means is that GIVEN THE THIRTY YEARS since this jet was first conceived and indeed in the 15 since it was originally supposed to have entered service; you can no longer compare it to teen jets as if they were the bar to measure by. Our most wicked opponents will always be those nominally 'other Western' powers who will do /anything/ to whore their own vae victis vickers weapons systems scheme abroad and all of them beat the LGPOS and Albino with ease. And will only continue to get better. Whether that be EJ230s on the Eurofighter Tr3. M88-3 on the Rafale. Or AL-41 on some as yet unnamed PAK-FA cooperative development.

The one thing that our delightful NATO allies have not yet firmly established is the ability to develop, productionize and field VLO capabilities on a fighter performance class platform. And the one thing that that combined performance spectrum lets us hold to is an utter contempt of engagement for the 'dogfight envelope' because we _don't have to be there_.

>>

Having executed it a couple of hundred times I can testify its very easy to outrun anyone in an F-22, if you don't want to be caught, you won't be. I've done drag races for fun with other airplanes, it's amazing to watch what happens once you get into the supersonic region.

>>

Except that SSC is about persistence. i.e. 'What you do AFTER you get there'. And specifically, how long you can hold the Mach point. This is pure MiG-25 stuff of course. Wherein, to kill a Mach 1.78 target at 60,000ft you have to /at a minimum/ be 30,000ft and Mach 1.3 to put a weapon into zone. Or he'll just bump the nose over a few degrees, put it a notch higher into burner and leave your sorry self behind. The thing to remember being that when Russian MiG-25s went to Egypt, they had to have MiG-21 standing CAPs over the base because those pesky Israelis were of a mind to shoot them when they were slow.

And since the USAF is no longer talking honestly about the '750nm radius with half in supercruise' we can only assume that they are back to sprint (which is what a 'drag race' comes down to) discussions. In this, the F-15 can dump fuel and use the VMAX switch to put _the missile_ into envelope. And given sterile conditions, that decrease of up to 12,000lbs on the weight side of the T/Wr equation is all that counts.

Furthermore, this man doesn't even have the balls to compare 'straight across' to the F-16E or F-15K whose -132 engines if not aeros are at least in the same JAFE/IPHTET derived materials and staged compression engineering datum as the F119s. Could it be he's never flown against a jet that has compareable propulsion technology integrated? If so, how can I trust him to know and speak honestly about foreign missiles whose Ps curves make the Raptor look like a ten year old girl when he won't even do a more than an apples to orangatuans comparison with the platforms that shoot our own AAM?

>>

To give you an idea of what it can pull - from a purely training perspective, just to see what it will do, we've tried that, I've sustained over 9 g's for a very long time, and depending on altitude and fuel weight and airspeed, I've been over 9 g's still accelerating (keep in mind that's combat configured - as you know I caveat that alot because others will jump in and tell me, for example, a big mouth Viper will do the same thing - but not if we compare the configurations appropriately, see how well it does with 8 missiles loaded (+ the pylons to carry them and a HARM or targeting pod and an EA pod and the pylons from the fuel tanks he had to punch off in combat to even stand a chance, etc.)...
>>

Don't care. You shouldn't be there. Not simply because 9Gs makes a hell of an aspect-as-heading change 'flash'. But because you have more important things to do. Indeed, the only thing this argument makes clear is that _if the F-16 can't be there_. Either because the S2A threat is too high or the distance too far (_gas_ and ARM and ECM pod). It is because _the Raptor is stealthy and well gassed_ that it can. Yet if your LO means you're not busy and the **bomber** isn't present to do his job for reasons unrelated to the air threat, you are not doing your job which is to make sure he can get MA on his. That means you have to DO his job. And that changes the color of the mission completely.

>>
If we try and do BFM in their non-dogfight configuration its less useful training for us and them because neither pilot is seeing the true performance differential to gauge their skills to the actual performance of their jet.
>>

Ho Boyee! Have you ever played the 'You might be a redneck if...' game? I like to do the same thing with fighter pilots except I call it the "You're a moron for being there."



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 07:07 AM
link   
Let's play: If you flatplate an 840 square foot wing airframe against an imaging threat with a seeker range approaching 20nm, you're a moron for being there. If you can't trust your MAWS + EXCM to seduce all inbound threats sufficient for this 'fantastic' F-22 performance margin to kick in and take you beyond their seeker cone as much as physical envelope, you're a moron for being there. If you decide to play Quick Draw McGraw with 133 million dollars worth of the Taxpayers money and NO OPTICAL DEFENSE BEYOND MANEUVER, you're a moron for being there. If you are bowtie flashing the known RF universe (going round and round or up and down) while flying over an active IADS, you're a moron for being there. If you are _mandatorilly_ using burner to push all that gas around a circle, just so you can declare a fuel emergency 250nm the wrong side of the fence from a tanker, you're a moron for being there. If the other guy has HMDS and HOBS and you're still driving around with Mike and no helmet cue in the side bays, you're a moron for being there. If your mission is to protect the F-16 _bomber_ from any and all attack yet the only justification you can use for your own existence is how badly you beat him up as a 'matchless' air threat, you're a moron for being there. If, as a function of 133 million dollars _X2_ as the basic operating formation as well as all the AWACS and other support platforms available, you choose not to back off and let someone else take the followup-as-cleanup shot while you (AMRAAMlessly) skedaddle, you're a moron for being there. If you cannot blow up what exists in ten times the numbers as you shoot down, you're a moron for being there.

God save us from Morons. It seems to be all that the USAF is now hiring.

>>
The Raptor is always performing at it's maximum because it's always flying in its combat configuration, i.e. how it would hit a merge, so unless we artificially limit the jet, such as using half AB or limiting the alpha we pull to simulate a threat for someone, usually another Raptor, there's no difference for us. But there is for an F-15 for example, that is flying in his training configuration with a centerline fuel tank, that's a huge performance penalty and in combat at a visual merge & turning fight he's very likely going to punch it off to enhance his performance to guarantee he wins.
>>

Nope. The real difference is that the F-15 (excepting the mudhen) is not a bomber by design while you are 'also without performance hit' if you take along a couple JDAM or a quad of SDB. An F-15 will never come across the fence into the SAM thickets because he knows he's flying a barndoor for signature with NO _pylon_ options for ARM that don't essentially destroy his time on station or AB pursuit distance via absent wingtanks (whose drag is actually less than a singleton on the centerline). An F-15E buys back some gas in trade for turning into a cement mixer on roller blades with all the performance hits inherent to not only the Type-IV but also the LANTIRN system and the heavier airframe structure and (for 2/3rds the force) the utterly worthless -220 engines. And even it doesn't have official ARM carriage nor PDF cue.

Why brag about what you cannot effectively replace as the primary system capability the F-15 is missing. While yourself _not bothered_ by the /secondary air threat/ which is not really a threat to you?

Which is an important distinction because, with care, an F-22 can come into the combat area and basically IGNORE the air threat. Loft SDBs from 80nm outside the immediate target area. And /then/ go a-huntin'. Or home. So long as it saves it's LRM for off-government-time and/or mandatory threat clearance. Past which the moron in the Weber needs to again be reminded that _he doesn't own this airframe, the taxpayers do_.

>>

However, on the thrust to weight its not classified numbers. Yes the Raptor is heavier than an Eagle by quite a bit actually. However, you can't draw a decent conclusion from that - why you ask? Well, the Eagle does not go to war clean (nor does any other fighter except the F-22). So, once it loads up full internal fuel, and 8 missiles plus the pylons to support them, plus 3 external fuel tanks, it's actually nearly the same weight as an F-22 fully fueled & loaded for combat. Obvious difference is not only the weight but the drag penalty incurred by all of that hanging chad. Add to THAT the fact the engines are in a thrust class all by themselves, and well, you can start to see what kind of performance we're talking here.

>>

Nope. The real difference is sortie rates. If you have to fly 600-800nm to get to the target area and said target area is, by definition, 'too hot' for the near-S2A-helpless Rodan (A or E), you had damn well better do a good job with what you DO bring to the fight. And you had bloody well better come back soon. An F-22 is not a 757. It doesn't make money on the way with another holdful of human cattle. It justifies it's existence at only TWO points: The Target. And The Turn. While the same can be said for any tacair platform really, the fact of the matter is that, all are not equal in achieving those two endpoints of absolute military performance achievement.

Assuming we can trust the following numbers:

1. Mission Equipped Operational Weight: 66,700lbs.
2. Fuel Fraction: .275.
3. Internal Fuel 18,342lbs
4. .04 pounds of fuel per nm @ Mach 1.5 and 45,000ft.
5. Target radius distance of 800nm

www.cdi.org...

As being a percentage or five of truth. The Raptor should be able to climb out to best profile height within 10 miles of base, hit the Mach and _accelerate_ all the way to a tanker rendezvous in less than two hours. Climb out from the tanker and hit the target, come back to the tanker, top off and come home. In another 2 hrs.

Which radius would take the F-15 the better part of 8-10hrs, depending on how deep into the target area it had to go and how fast it came back out (number of tanks among others). Now -add to this- the dead certainty that that F-15 _would not be coming back_ if the threat was high and it didn't have 'accompaniment' from a whole lot of other (disproportionate cruise profiles/fuel burn rates) mini-me platforms providing EA and DEAD as their only mission, and things get really complicated because now you are staging a tactical fighter drag in which 'all for one' (the F-22 and it's high-fast profile) has become 'the slowest man sets the march'.

I remember a like scenario in the early eighties as a strike pacakage coordinator had an F-111 flight out of Cannon come in late. He had enough bombs (barely) to do the iron work but what he /didn't/ have was fuel for his Weasels. He waved the 111s off the tanker and got a Full Bird so damn mad he called up the Ref to complain against the ruling. The Ref (A Lt. General) said the towel had been thrown and next time he'd better make his rendezvous time or he wouldn't be invited back at all. And the F-111s went home. You can't send an F-16CJ home. Because nobody else on the blue suit team can replace his HARM/HTS. You can't bag a mission because someone has to panty up an extra boom to drag the F/A-18 alternatives forward.

Such is what happens to fluid, responsive, airpower when you have to 'best position' extra gas for special mission capabilities either enroute or within the package to limp the gimp gorilla into the combat area. It so severely screws things up that you can easily find your '3 a day surge' turning into one every 15-17hrs for a joint force you _do not_ need.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 07:10 AM
link   
>>
As for how the F-22 might be used...


No HARM for the F-22 but it's gaining a lot of capability in the next couple of upgrades. The addition of SDB and a number of other new features will really provide for a very deadly F-22 in the A/G & SEAD/DEAD arena and even enhance its A/A capability if you can believe that. In addition, we may be able to take advantage of a few weapons such as laser JDAM, which don't have anything to do with the Raptor program but which we may be able to use as off the shelf technology to add even more to the Raptors tool kit. It already has good ISR capability and that's growing too. It really is a very capable a/c in the arena of 'growth' potential (and a nice benefit is none of this comes at a cost to its performance).
>>

Braggart BS. The F-22 community is /so desperate/ to 'prove their worth' that they would claim to any capability that would justify their existence. Lead into Gold, Raise the Dead, Seven Cities of Cibola (so long as UBL isn't staying there). You name it and they'll say they 'why not'.

1. The only thing the F-22 pilot MUST HAVE to go from dataentry clerk (LAR-LAR And Away!) to /useful/ in the A2G game is high rez SAR. Anything less than that, to the full flyout supported range of the SDB, and it's not an autonomous strike platform but has to depend on someone else for targeting. Someone else who has to come forward into unsuprpressed airspace. Probably at the speed of a Predator. This significantly inhibits it's utility as a flexible target folder aircraft 'ready when you are' to retask, mid mission. Blk.20 should be adding this. But Blk.20 isn't here yet AFAIK.
2. HARM is a 14ft long, 44" wingspan, weapon which will never fit into the F-22s weapons bay. Given the length of EMD stretchout and the obvious problems with the F-16CJ and F/A-18C for range, this little bit of obviousness should have been, ahem, worked out a LONG TIME before now. God knows they wasted enough money on the SHARK program you'd think they'd have /some/ solution ready. Of course there is one, 'eventually' (after the F-35 is in production). That Joint Dual Role Air Dominance Missile or JDRADM is most likely going to be a continued evolution of the AIM-120D with the ability to update target coordinates over the 2-way datalink from the ALR-94, an RC-135 or Satellite and use the INS/GPS strapdown to strike reactive targets like a high speed JDAM. The difference being that if an F-22 is to 'escort' conventional signature targets, it can never be farther from them than the range of the JDRADM can effectively, rapidly, hardkill the enemy before the enemy can **multikill** the 'defended' airframes. Right now, I would expect that to be no more than about 30-35nm for the AMRAAM derivative whereas the HARM is good to 70+ in a loft. While the S-300 can launch up to 24 missiles almost 95 miles downrange in a single guidance-supported salvo. All of which means that: _if the IADS is still up, conventional fighters have no damn business being allowed in the combat area_. PERIOD. Because the trade is not worth it. OTOH, if the F-22 is itself vulnerable to S2A attack then all the more reason for it NOT to be attempting to 'cover for' other airframes in the A2A role. Because high and slow as an RF vacuum is where you get dead fast if someone can see you trying to play Global Hawk.
3. ISR is a cheap and nasty acronumic way to cover the bases of the IMINT, ELINT, COMINT, MASINT subspecialities 'unspecificially'. Yet simply claiming advanced avionics or NCW support architecture for the F-22 doesn't acknowledge three key things:
a. Missouri Rules= Show Me, Show Me, Show Me. Where the F-22 lacks an 'optical channel' it is not an ISR airframe because, particularly today, all targets are either political or tactical or both. JFACC Politicians (with a JAG lawyer at their shoulder) want visible proof they are hitting something worthwhile and not a 'dual use orphanage' in particular. Troops on the ground need a ROVER type capability just to know /who could be hitting them/ from a couple blocks down the road. The F-22 can provide neither of those options and so can ONLY really be tasked to fixed structural or active emitting targets whose value is presumptive.
b. ISR is about persistence. Such that it doesn't matter 'how ferret like' your ELS/RHAWS suite is. Even how many zoom lenses or spectrum colors are in front of your CCD detector. Because if the target isn't there, you ain't gonna see /nothin/. As a function of which, you could be there anywhere from 10 minutes to 10 hours to 10 days looking for a signal that pops up for about 20 seconds and then is gone like a fart in a hurricane. A system designed to capture that fleeting TCT emission or presence must therefore be 'very comfortable' for station durations of 15-17hrs or more. As in MCS with coffee and donuts.
c. Cost Uber Alles. Not simply on a per-airframe inventory basis. Though that too has an effect when you are talking 2 squadrons of 18 airframes instead of 3 at 24. Rather in dollars per flight hour. For which I would say /ignore/ all the new-airframe crap about how good or bad the 22s actual reliability is. Because they are likely still all new airframes function more or less like new cars. And all the things which -can- break are being plotted out for cycles or hours between failures as they fill up the spares pipe. Instead, I simply want you to realize that the F-16C and A-10A+ are running neck and neck at about 5,500 dollars per flying hour. And the twins all /start/ at the 10-12 grande (F-15A/C, depending on user) mark and rapidly spiral up and out of control towards 14-16,000 dollars (F/A-18C, F-15E etc.) thereafter. While a 'new gen F-5' equivalent airframe in which cost of operations was specifically considered in design is running at about 2,500 dollars (JAS-39). If you have 200,000 dollars per day and 35 airframes taskable on the flying schedule, it rapidly becomes clear that you can generate 35+1 single sorties (no wingmen) with an F-16, or 17 single sorties with an F-15.
Where each sortie lasts maybe 6-8hrs before junior gets NTISR cranky and needs to come home and have his nappy changed, to cover 'the full day' leaves you with just 11 orbits over countries, like Iraq (227,000 square miles) or AfG (252,000 square miles), which are nearly the size of Texas. OTOH, if you loft a UAV or UCAV, at say 1,800 dollars per flight hour over a 10-15hr stay then 200,000 dollars per day comes up to about 111 sorties or FIFTY FIVE orbits. Where each of those orbits covers a 5X5 square nm patch of dirt around a specific high value asset or fielded patrol, that's 1,375 square miles vs. just 275 square miles with a manned asset using similar optics resolutions and grazing footprints (and not everybody has a Sniper or an MTS grade pod onboard). Indeed, you had damn well better bring more of these cheaper jets because, in theater, you have more billable hours than airframes to fulfill them.
In this, Bull-Dozering your way past rational thought does nothing to alter the fact that the F-22 IS 'performance compromised' in executing the ISR mission. It would be whether it was in the air or on the ramp. Armed or empty. Because it is designed around a mission spec that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the best way to loiter inobtrusively and drop the occasional IAM. Be it in an FDOW condition or 1,000 days after the end of major combat operations.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 07:11 AM
link   
>>
I think we'll find the Raptor will do more than just kick the door down in a couple of years. [/quote
>>

Why? The F-22 is a _fine_ FDOW strike airframe. Nothing better. I would be among the first to state this as well as the certainty of a REAL NEED to reup yearly production rates to at least the original 60/yr so that, with 450-550 airframes, we can effectively replace ALL F-15/16/14 assets in both the overland A2A and Strike missions within the EAF force structure. While also having Schoolhouse, R&D and Tactics Development reserves and GSTF rapid reinforcement 'to spare'.

I would also like to see us stop kicking this airframe just to prove it's tough. I would like to see them stored in HAS for protection from the elements and casual terrorist attack. I would like to see them flown sparingly and not have the wings ripped off in excessive 'play time as squadron testing' as was done with the F-15A (which was a hangar queen for a lot of reasons unrelated to reliability). I would like to see all the avionics systems and architecture developed for the worthless JSF transfered to the F-22 so that it too can have DAS and EOTS and a Smart HMD along with a moderate range of pylon-ordnance options and particularly an internal powered-SHARK for DEAD.

But most importantly, I would like to see this happen so that we can shift to useful platforms that are NOT dependent on a pilot corps unified front for adequate training account sureties within an affordable peacetime force structure. Nor for direct-escort survival in a wartime mixed force in which 90% of the flying is NOT relevant to the F-22's mission capabilities. And the 10% which are are too dangerous to assume that just because the Raptor is in the theater, everything else will be safe because of it's mere presence.

I especially would like to see the F-22 realize it's FULL capability as a peerless COE interdiction asset. Because the next best Air Superiority Platform is already being built by Boeing and it has a 1.2MW = 1,000km COIL on it's nose.

This doesn't mean you have to overstate the Raptors AAW competencies to avoid abandoning Air Dominance training. Nor that you have to play up 'other roles and missions' for which it is NOT optimized, to ensure that it is not forgotten in missions for which NAPFAG is otherwise a crippling shortcoming. It simply requires that you start training as you plan to fight. And with 8 bombs onboard and the ability to loft them from perhaps 80-100nm out, that means the Raptor should be THE asset we plan to open up both the airspace and the ground environment within our next MTW/MRC warplan commitment. That this must happen on an 'as they come' exploitationally convenient level is a given because the air threat is very low and the ground threat very fluid. That we must LEARN how to react to that kind of 'sucker bait vs. primary target' within weighted mission
rdnance constraints on the Raptor _before all other_ conditions of 'raw performance' are considered is what we have, as yet, not really demonstrated a knack for understanding.


KPl.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   
KPl, you are the best source on the 'net I have ever come across.


Thankyou for answering my query in detail. I also conclude that a RATF would of been the better option. The F-22 is not a dogfighter for sure, can you imagine another Nam style airwar in 10 or 20 years? The decision has been made already, therefore the best we can do is hold on to all the eagles and falcons as support craft.






.



posted on Mar, 18 2007 @ 12:43 AM
link   
SteveR,

>>
The F-22 is not a dogfighter for sure, can you imagine another Nam style airwar in 10 or 20 years?
>>

I can but I think it will be fought with hunting missiles the size of target drones or radar decoys and I believe the solution will be counter missiles and laser weapons which knock them from the sky as soon as they are detected, say at 20-50km out (this will in turn drive the nature and the extent of optical LO techniques towards realization).

Indeed, if a missile like Python or AIM-9X is 'the bar' of terminal intercept performance as regards super manueverability, then it stands to reason to improve the missile, not the fighter and let IT be the one to close up to turn and burn distances.

We have 6ft long, 100lb, decoys which will fly in excess of 230nm with short bursts of Mach 1 performance-

www.designation-systems.net...

Such revolutionary capability renders not merely AMRAAM but SA-20 and Aster utterly pointless endeavors in quick-to-pole, fast-to-miss, Model-T air defense technology.

And the Air Bunny's know it.

Cheap turbines and a little bit of engineering exercise in polarimetric vs. axissymmetric force flight controls (i.e. Bank to steer like an aircraft, backed up by pif-paf type shunt motors) will make these systems 'agile enough' to beat any manned platform on the planet in a turning game while fuel limitations will render COIL systems (20-30 shots on the YABL-1) vulnerable to depletion.

Diode based laser weapons (which are the only ones really suited to airborne employment) will be thermal cycle limited in how fast they can engage saturation attackers.

And so you are back to refusing to be engaged by idiots as a function of _the faster you can supercruise at height_ the harder it is for multiple missiles to mass in front of your velocity vector to make the cutoff.

Even as you remain more flexible in your own weapon system delivery options with the ability to sling long range standoff munitions of your own, far from target DEW defenses (ADM-160 has itself been coined a 'lethal decoy' meaning it can hunt radars as much as fool them, which dive to a short-horizon and bumpy air ingress profile will get you past the notion of long TOF on a gliding GBU-39).

Exposure drives vulnerability. And saturation massing only works to the extent that the target stands in one place and allows it to happen.

Such being yet another of the huge list of 'what's wrong with our Air Force' problems with the JSF.


KPl.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join