Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Sukhoi PAK FA (Russian Fifth-generation fighter)

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Fair points Westy, but on the very last one. As I understand it the LPI does NOT hide its presence (this is impossible for an active detection system) therefore it does not 'give no warning', as I said. It is the pinpointing and targetting of the APG-77 that it is protected from by means of frequency fiddling, no?

Therefore the enemy knows the Raptor is there, he is just stuck for something to do about it. This was the point I was answering, the claim that it can track a target without that target realising it is being painted by a radar.

I'm sure that LPI function will be cracked, its just a matter of when. After all if the Brits cracked enigma in the 1940's I'm sure somebody will be working on the alogarithms somewhere. It stands to reason doesn't it?




posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 10:52 AM
link   
I think what StellarX is trying to say is LOAL, lock on after launch.

Stellar - that capability is useful but at the huge ranges the S-300 and S-400 are firing at it really isnt as effective as you say. The missile probably burns out half way to maximum range, and by the time the stealth aircraft is tracked, the missile doesnt have enough energy to hit it, due to the fact that the stealth aircraft is probably a few degrees off direction from where they fired. Plus altitude.

I also have my doubts that these radars can track the B-2 or F-22 at any useful ranges. They rely on multiple radar exchange to track a target. The concept is good, however by the time one of those radars has a good view of a less stealthy part of the B-2, there is already a cruise missile on the way. This range is probably at least a third of the missiles actual range, especially with the B-2 where the arent really any non stealthy parts of it that the ground can see.

My point is that the firing range of the B-2 and F-22 (which hit a moving target with a bomb 60 miles away) exceeds the range at which a russian SAM can sucessfully guide a missile to it.



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by waynos
As I understand it the LPI does NOT hide its presence (this is impossible for an active detection system) therefore it does not 'give no warning', as I said.


Actually that is precisely what is does, and no it is not impossible in the least.

In Low Probability of Intercept (LPI) mode the AESA radar works like this... Normal radars form one beam at full power and search for targets that way. In LPI mode the radar forms hundreds of very weak but very precise beams. The total power output is the same, but at any one point in time on any one bearing (beam) the signal is basically at the same level as the normal background radiation. The frequencies are also randomized. To a RWR there is nothing but the same background radiation that's always present in the sky.

As such the target is oblivious that it is being painted (ie. tracked) by a Raptor. So no he gets no warning and no indication that his aircraft is being targeted or that there is an F-22 out there somewhere. Which is why as I said before in exercises the only indication US fighters have of the F-22 is when they get a missile warning from the non LPI seeker of the AMRAAM going active. RWR's of standard US fighters cannot detect the presence of the APG-77 while in LPI mode.


originally posted by waynos
It is the pinpointing and targetting of the APG-77 that it is protected from by means of frequency fiddling, no?


No, the LPI mode makes the F-22 VLO through it's entire operating envelope. Instead of just the airframe being hard to detect by means of radar now it's electronic emissions are also very hard to detect as well. Allowing the F-22 to actively search and destroy while the enemy is in blissful ignorance.


originally posted by waynos
I'm sure that LPI function will be cracked, its just a matter of when.


Maybe but at this point it's more a matter of physics than it is one of ingenuity. If the RWR does not know in advance the specific log of when and at what frequency the very weak signals should be arriving at it will only see background static.

Sources

Link 1
Link 2 (PDF)
Link 3



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Oh, right you are then


Thanks for the fascinating links. I still have a hard time accepting that an active system can remain unseen (untracked, yes) but I suppose I will have to read and digest.



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
What do you mean ONLY mach 1.7 supercruise?


Because the Mig-31 can do Mach 2.35 over the same distance as the F-22 ( 700- 800 km's ) while the F-22 can only do Mach 1.7 for 100 NM's ( 1 quarter) of that range.


Ok, fine. It has a reduction in range, that is true. But that reduction is a helluva lot less than other aircraft cruising at mach 1.5+ on half afterburner and chugging fuel.


Actually that's something the Su-27 and other western aircraft ( from the 60's no less) can do as well; it really is not that special and there is a great deal of hype and deception.

Stellar



Originally posted by bdn12
Man stellarx, I love how you are trying to make the F-22 seem like some ordinary fighter with no speed and stealth that doesn't matter.


It's no 'ordinary' fighter as ordinary fighters does not cost two arms and a leg. It does have speed and it does have stealth but it is by no means the type of speed or the type of stealth that is being touted by lying defense officials and the people who believe them.


Oh yeah, I of course already knew the U.S. has troops in many countries, but of course not ones like Russia or China. What I am saying is that in such a large scale war, the reality is that barely any, IF any, troops would be on the enemies soil because it would be way too risky and there would be virtually no way to get in.


Understood....


These troops are in Japan and Korea to train their military and of course have Forward Operating Bases(FOB). They have these in case of a war so they don't need to lug aircraft halfway across the world(you will notice most of the foreign bases are either navy or air force and many of the army ones are for training.


The air and navy bases are as far as i know a minority and i wonder why anyone believes that the US army is there to 'train' the armed forces of any country.



This isn't including guerilla wars like Iraq or Afghanistan.) Also, here are some sources on the F-22 and the "unbeatable" Sukhoi's and Mig's.:


The Mig's and Sukhoi's are perfectly 'beatable', i never claimed otherwise, and the point i am trying to make is that the F-22 is not excluded from the list of beatable aircraft.


www.f22-raptor.com... amazing- meets or exceeds every requirement


No it simply does not as the requirements now are VERY different from the original requirements.

www.pogo.org...


www.af.mil... -all they say is mach 2 class-could mean anything


Could mean Mach 2.0001 and even smaller combat radius.


www.sukhoi.org... mach 2.35 with NO external stores


I somehow missed so feel free to accept my humble apology.
If you interested in some research try find me the top speed for both the F-15 and Su-27 with a 4-6 missile loadout and the same fuel weight; i have been looking for a while now with little result...


www.migavia.ru... max speed of 3000 km/h-no mach 3, sorry


Uh? That's mach 2.8 and what both the Mig 25/31 can do with the Mig-25 just risking a runaway situation and engine burn-out.



www.lockheedmartin.com... -had to include that. notice that almost everything is either "class" or "+".


Odd, yes.


Don't get too hyped about about that speed with Mig-25/31.


If i sounded 'hyped' to you that was not my intent.


Remember, we built the two fastest manned jets and they both cruised at mach 3, no stupid strip the thing down to barebone and see how fast it can go for a few minutes without blowing up, - the XB-70 and SR-71


Well neither carried weapons but both the Mig-25 and Mig-31 can carry air to air missile while flying Mach 2.5, or higher, i don't recall, so that IS something to talk about.

Stellar



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
I think what StellarX is trying to say is LOAL, lock on after launch.


I think that's different as SARH denotes the fact that the missile can be fired with or without 'lock' and can thus be updated as it gets closed and returns beter tracking data to be processed by the battery.


Stellar - that capability is useful but at the huge ranges the S-300 and S-400 are firing at it really isnt as effective as you say.The missile probably burns out half way to maximum range, and by the time the stealth aircraft is tracked, the missile doesnt have enough energy to hit it, due to the fact that the stealth aircraft is probably a few degrees off direction from where they fired. Plus altitude.


The missile does not burn out halfway ( the ranges quoted are EFFECTIVE ranges not maximum against slow moving targets) stealth does not mean there is NO tracking data it means there are normally not enough to get a high explosive warhead close enough hence SARH type missiles that are continuously updated so they stay on course.


I also have my doubts that these radars can track the B-2 or F-22 at any useful ranges.


Well i do not have any serious doubts that the do given what the old Sa-6 could manage against F-117's over Kosovo and Serbia.


They rely on multiple radar exchange to track a target. The concept is good, however by the time one of those radars has a good view of a less stealthy part of the B-2, there is already a cruise missile on the way.


These systems are data linked but they do not in fact require multiple radars for tracking but that may aid in returning more accurate information at extended distances. Interestingly a S-300 battery already employs at least three radars which means each battery can already to a large extent do what you are suggesting to be a 'special' ability of sorts.


This range is probably at least a third of the missiles actual range, especially with the B-2 where the arent really any non stealthy parts of it that the ground can see.


Stealth aircraft are in fact quite visible to ground based low frequency radars and while you may choose to believe that it's only at very short ranges you will probably find it as hard to prove as i will that they are visible at very long ranges.



My point is that the firing range of the B-2 and F-22 (which hit a moving target with a bomb 60 miles away) exceeds the range at which a russian SAM can sucessfully guide a missile to it.


Which must be why the USAF so infrequently successfully attack Russian Sa-6/Sa-3 batteries in Kosovo and Serbia? A moving target with a 'bomb' a 100 km's away? Source?

The real problem i see with your theory is the belief that these radars are fixed and that they will somehow stay there long enough to be attacked...

Stellar



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Oh I love the F-117 over kosovo thing that always comes up in these discussions.

It is widely accepted that this was an extremely lucky shot resulting from a SAM team ripple firing their SAMS. The missile didnt track the F-117, it just managed to hit it, like flak in WWII. It might as well have been fired without radar.

And even if it did track the F-117, the fact that only one stealth aircraft was shot down in history proves my point that stealth aircraft are extremely effective.

Also, newer stealth and newer radars keep the status the same. Yes I do think that stealth has improved just as much as radars, so the newer missiles might bring down a few but the vast majority will get through and hit their targets.

Here is the 60 miles claim. Oh wait apparently I was wrong...its 60NM instead of 60M.

www.af.mil...

And it doesnt matter if the radars are mobile, the SDB is self guided and will track it wherever it goes.

Kosovo...this was a result more of Serbian ingenuity than sucessful radars and SAMS...it had to do with tons of decoys.


[edit on 4-7-2007 by BlackWidow23]



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Slight factoid, any munition will gain kinematic performances when droped from a higher altitude or faster speed. As such a SDB launched from an F-22 will have a significant increase over both standard range and terminal speed, meaning a greater standoff attack envelope.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Slight factoid, any munition will gain kinematic performances when droped from a higher altitude or faster speed. As such a SDB launched from an F-22 will have a significant increase over both standard range and terminal speed, meaning a greater standoff attack envelope.


Edit: Turns out i were wrong.



Originally posted by WestPoint23
Stellar, please provide me with the sources regarding the top speed of any Flanker variant while fully loaded with external weapons, pods and or tanks. And please also cite the source for the time it take a Flanker to burn half it's fuel load while using afterburners and carrying external weapons.


www.fas.org...

www.faqs.org... Both says 1500 Km ' typical' combat radius...

avia.russian.ee... Says it's 1500 Km with max payload.


You should know that the F-22 has no problem reaching or sustaining it's top speed (as well as alt - accel stats). Both in mil (supercruise) and afterburner with a full payload of weapons and fuel since there is no drag increase (internal). The same cannot be said for the F-15 or Su-27...


www.f22-raptor.com...

Then you should read the source material which seems to make it quite clear that the F-22 can not do mach 1.7 over it's entire combat range of 800 Km's on external fuel. Sure it can be refueled but so can others fighters that costs 4 times less with similar general performance margins. I could not find the data that shows as much but as i recall both the Su-27 and F-15 can fly at high supersonic speeds for at least as much time as the F-22. If you can bring sources that show otherwise ( the magical super cruising engines that does not burn fuel) i would be more than happy to accept them as i am not happier than you are that the American people are paying trough the teeth for something that does not even beat the F-15 in high speed dashes or in range.


The F-22's top speed is limited by it's ability to sustain heat build up. From pilot commentary the F-22 is capable of safely handling speeds over Mach 2 but there eventually does come a point where the airframe (ie. canopy first) will start to give. The F119's have more than enough thrust (and can withstand more pressure and heat) to literally "break" the aircraft by accelerating it to critical speeds. Pilots have also commented on the difference between what they are willing to do in peacetime vs. war time. And last but not least the F-22 has no electronic speed limitations built into it.


The Mig-25 did not have electronic speed limitations either and could do mach 2.5 over 500 km; 'better' than the F-22. I just believe the F-22 makes far too many trade-off's for this mythical belief in passive' stealth' and think that it makes a whole lot more sense to have active defenses, that does not destroy flight performance, but at least have 4-5 airframes ( if piloted at all ) that may allow you to accept attrition when your stealth turns out not to be so stealthy. I will however stand corrected if you can bring me some sources that makes the F-22 a plane that has a thirty year general flight performance margin on the F-15.


Source? Neither you no I know the top speed or range or duration in super cruise of the F-22.


www.f22-raptor.com... If LM is lying about the specs, for security reasons i suppose, there is not much i can do about this other than look at similar planes with similar engines and fuel fractions....


However again from pilot comments I have come to the conclusion that the Raptor can supercruise very close to Mach 2.


For say 100- 150 km out of a 'stealthy' ( unrefueled, no drop tanks or external stores) combat range of 700-800, yes....


And that is can also perform an entire mission in supercruise mode, meaning more than just "a few hundred Km's..." With drop tanks the F-22 can very well go a long distance, as was demonstrated by it’s recent trip to the Pacific.


It's ferry range is still substantially less than either the F-15's or Su-27's and for obvious reasons.


Further more you should know that an F-22 can drop both it's tanks and pylons retaining all VLO characteristics instantly if it so chooses. So using tank fuel to just get to the fight seems like an interesting idea.


Never heard of the pylon 'dropping' but seems reasonable and logical enough if it was implemented properly. I am not sure what the internal weapon carriage capacity is when in this 'ferry mode' and it's probably not going to be cruising at any notable speed. Always interested so feel free to source the 'ferry' mission specs.


Source? I can quote pilots saying it is a "Mach 2 class aircraft"...


If at all then on internal weapons only and not for very long! Bit tired of trying to find specifics so feel free to join in and correct me if you can find the material i currently seem unable to.


Stellar

[edit on 5-7-2007 by StellarX]

[edit on 5-7-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
Oh I love the F-117 over kosovo thing that always comes up in these discussions.


So do I.


It is widely accepted that this was an extremely lucky shot resulting from a SAM team ripple firing their SAMS.


Only widely believed by those who are not as informed as they could be.


One F-117 has been lost in combat, to Serbian/Yugoslav forces. On March 27, 1999, during the Kosovo War, the 3rd Battalion of the 250th Missile Brigade under the command of Colonel Zoltán Dani, equipped with the Isayev S-125 'Neva-M' (NATO designation SA-3 'Goa'), downed F-117A serial number 82-806 with a Neva-M missile. According to Wesley Clark and other NATO generals, Yugoslav air defenses found that they could detect F-117s with their "obsolete" Soviet radars operating on long wavelengths. This, combined with the loss of stealth when the jets got wet or opened their bomb bays, made them visible on radar screens. The pilot survived and was later rescued by NATO forces. However, the wreckage of the F-117 was not promptly bombed, and the Serbs are believed to have invited Russian personnel to inspect the remains, inevitably compromising the US stealth technology.[9]

www.answers.com...



THE LOST JET
Stealth Gives Plane Mask, but Not Cloak, Experts Say

By WARREN E. LEARY

WASHINGTON -- The loss of an American stealth fighter in Yugoslavia on
Saturday did not represent a failure of its radar-evading technology,
experts said Wednesday. The F-117A Nighthawk stealth fighter-bomber,
which went down 30 miles west of Belgrade, probably because of enemy
fire, represents an early version of technology that is becoming
increasingly common in military aircraft. The technology, including
materials and design features that cause the craft to absorb rather than
reflect radar beams, was not expected to make planes invisible to radar,
but rather to reduce an enemy's ability to detect them.

The exact cause of the F-117's loss has yet to be determined, but senior
Pentagon officials, speaking on condition that they not be identified,
said the plane was tracked for a time by Yugoslav military radar and
probably was hit by a Russian-made SA-3 surface-to-air missile.
American military officials have not disclosed the operating conditions
of the plane at the time it was lost, or how long it had been visible on
radar.

But private military experts say that under the right conditions,
stealth aircraft can be detected in a variety of ways, including with
certain radars. Still, they said, the planes have great advantages over
conventional warplanes without such "low-observability technology."

www.netwrx1.com...



This event, which occurred during the Kosovo conflict on 27 March, was a major blow to the US Air Force. The aircraft was special: an F-117 Nighthawk stealth bomber that should have been all but invisible to the Serbian air defences. And this certainly wasn't a fluke—a few nights later, Serb
missiles damaged a second F-117.

There were several simple reasons for the loss. For example, the Serbians plugged powerful computers into their air defence system to help generate rough route tracks from the faint, whispery radar returns of the American stealth aircraft. And the missiles they fired were optically sighted and
automatically detonated to avoid giving off radio signals that would reveal their positions to the bomber.

But the real clincher was the mistakes made by US planners. Night after night, their stealth planes used the same route home. Worse still, NATO mistakenly left three early warning radars intact. With these systems still active, the Serbian defences were able to plot the flights of the stealth aircraft for three nights before they finally shot an F-117 out of the sky.

www.newscientist.com...
l

So after it's all said and done they could 'track it' , and i suppose one may choose to believe that they used slide rulers and proximity detonaters and 'flight plans' ( if you go look at the lethal range of the general type S-125/SA-3/6 missile you will understand how unlikely this is given a 12m kill radius) , and shot down one and did enough damage to write off another. You can call it luck all you want....


The missile didnt track the F-117, it just managed to hit it, like flak in WWII. It might as well have been fired without radar.


That's not what Wesley Clarke and others said so tell me why you disagree with their statements.


And even if it did track the F-117, the fact that only one stealth aircraft was shot down in history proves my point that stealth aircraft are extremely effective.


Make that two.


Also, newer stealth and newer radars keep the status the same. Yes I do think that stealth has improved just as much as radars, so the newer missiles might bring down a few but the vast majority will get through and hit their targets.


Which must be why stealth failed against 1960 era weaponry in Kosovo that were decades older than even the first F-117's, why do you think they retired all of them so soon after Kosovo while the F-15's and others soldiers on? Possible to prevent more embarresing losses from scuttling the F-22?


Here is the 60 miles claim. Oh wait apparently I was wrong...its 60NM instead of 60M.

www.af.mil...


My mistake, sorry.


And it doesnt matter if the radars are mobile, the SDB is self guided and will track it wherever it goes.


And in claiming this you show just how ignorant you are. How is the SDB supposed to do this when the HARM type weapons can not hit the target once the radars are switched off?


Kosovo...this was a result more of Serbian ingenuity than sucessful radars and SAMS...it had to do with tons of decoys.


Which may be what you wish to believe but the data does not support your point of view.

Stellar

[edit on 5-7-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 09:09 AM
link   
The F-117 arguement is a waste of time. I honestly do not see why people bring it up. Even in those external sources it shows you need special techniques to detect and shoot down stealth aircraft. Can you not say that is an increase in survivability? That's what stealth is for.

Now, PAK FA, and the F-22, what's the rangs of the F-22 cruising subsonically...?



[edit on 5/7/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Oh come on stellarx, this is a discussion not a poop fliging contest, so lets keep away from the personals eh?

The reasons those radar guided missiles dont hit things that have their radars are switched off? I'm not going to bother explaining this one


Two stealth aircraft? I guess I'm missing something, as far as I know the F-117 is the only one that has ever gone down.

And if these russian radars are so amazing and America didnt destroy and SAMS, than why didnt all of the F-117s go down? Why only one? Those were the most commonly used bombers in the war. Why didnt a B-2 go down? That day was a combination of factors and USAF dropping to ball on many accounts, moist air, lucky shots. Stealth still wins so far. Nothing went down in desert storm, nothing in OIF....so I really dont see that F-117 as a decloration of stealth being ineffective...if something newer goes down, than I'll happily stand corrected.

I'm not going to argue with the F-117 retirement thing, because I agree with you here. Some USAF brass is probably happy that these are going because they ARE vulnerable to newer SAMS, but you fail to see that it is following the same standard USAF retirement cycle. The replacement is coming, the F-35, and so the F-117 is leaving. The reason that the F-15 soldiers on in because it still works, where the F-117 is a maintenance nightmare. It also doesnt do its job as well as it used to. So its being retired faster...that isnt at all a decloration that USAF is afraid it will be hit again, even though some might be afraid, that is not the reason for quick retirement.

The SDB isnt radar guided, its GPS guided. Something russia will have trouble destroying. The F-22 pilot takes off, supercruises to 1.5mach at 50,000 feet, releases it and the sattelite does the rest so who is ignorant here stellar?

www.globalsecurity.org...


[edit on 5-7-2007 by BlackWidow23]

[edit on 5-7-2007 by BlackWidow23]



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
And in claiming this you show just how ignorant you are. How is the SDB supposed to do this when the HARM type weapons can not hit the target once the radars are switched off?


Umm... deny ignorance right? Prior to 1998 when the AARGM program was started largely as a result of the lessons learned in Serbia the main HARM variant was the AGM-88C Block IV. This version did not have GPS guidance nor an active MMW radar set with a two way data link to provide updates and a near real time video stream to command. During the Serbia conflict the version of the HARM employed only had a passive RF seekers that went after signals and an INS system to get to a general point of interest. These missiles were ineffective if the RF source shut down and quickly relocated. As we know this is precisely what the Serbs did (as I'll point out a bit later). Through 2000-2003 GPS, homing on jam (GPS jammers - RF jammers) and a more sophisticated seeker was added to the HARM. Still, the latest effort is the AGM-88E (AARGM), this missile will employ an active MMW radar, precise GPS navigation, two way data link, home on jam and a much more advanced processing (RF seeker) unit. It was designed to deal with radar sets that shut off and relocate. It is so precise it can even target non radar emitting platforms.


The main improvement of HARM Block VI is the incorporation of a GPS navigation system. This greatly increases accuracy when radar lock is lost after emitter switch-off, because the GPS guidance keeps the missile within a narrow box towards the last known emitter position. This is especially desirable in wars, where enemy radar installations are deliberately placed near sensitive civilian areas, like schools or hospitals. This often prevented the use of earlier HARM missiles in the Kosovo campaign, because a deviation after radar loss could lead to unacceptable collateral damage.

A more advanced HARM update program is known as AGM-88E AARGM (Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile). The AARGM is a further improved Block VI missile, which uses not only the AGM-88D's GPS but also an MMV (Millimeter Wave) active radar seeker for terminal homing in its new WGU-48/B guidance section. The MMW seeker will employ active target recognition algorithms, and therefore be able to strike not only the radar emitter, but also e.g. the control vehicle of the site. The program started at the NWC (Naval Weapons Center) China Lake in 1998, and in March 2000, the first test firing of the MMW seeker in a modified HARM was successful. AARGM development continued with modified AGM-88 missiles, and an SD&D (System Development & Design) contract for the production AARGM was awarded to ATK (Alliant Techsystems Inc.) in June 2003. The first AGM-88E flight test of the DT (Developmental Testing) phase occured in May 2007. At that time, LRIP (Low Rate Initial Production) was expected to begin in 2008, and initial fielding in 2009. The CATM-88E will be the captive-carry training variant. A long term goal of the AARGM program is the development of an entirely new stealthy airframe, compatible with the internal weapon bays of the F-22 and Joint Strike Fighter.

Source



The Advanced Anti- Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) Project is a Phase III Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program to develop and demonstrate a dual- mode guidance section on a HARM airframe. The AARGM Phase III technology demonstration program is designed to demonstrate that a Dual- mode (passive Anti- Radiation Homing (ARH)/ active Millimeter Wave (MMW) radar) missile can engage and destroy enemy air defenses in the event that these systems "shut-down" or employ other countermeasures.

The issue of "shut-down" has been a major shortcoming in the suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) element of the offensive counter air mission area for the United States Navy and Air Force. Program objectives are to demonstrate an effective and affordable lethal SEAD capability against mobile, relocatable, or fixed air defense threats even in the presence of emitter shutdown or other Anti- Radiation Missile (ARM) countermeasures. The dual- mode technology being developed in the AARGM program has very high potential to solve the problem of "shut-down" not only in the primary weapon for SEAD, the High Speed Anti- Radiation Missile (HARM), but it could be integrated with many other missile airframes.

Source



The AGM-88 HARM is an air-to-surface supersonic, long range missile designed to seek out and destroy enemy radar systems. It was designed as an advanced follow on to Standard ARM and Shrike anti-radiation missiles. The HARM's guidance package, with full frequency coverage, is locked on enemy's radar systems emissions following them through radar site. Radar systems physical destruction is achieved through a single blast fragmentation warhead.

The AARGM (Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile) will feature the latest software (software seems to be the cornerstone of the HARM missile) and enhanced capabilities. The AARGM is intended to counter radar shutdown. A passive radar and an active millimeter wave seekers will be installed on the AARGM.

Source



The AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) is a medium range, supersonic, air-launched tactical missile whose primary job is to attack and kill enemy radars. The Italian Air Force is expected to procure up to 250 of these successors to the AGM-88 High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM), and AARGM is also a US Navy major acquisition program with around 1,750 expected orders from the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps.

So, why is that such a big deal? Perhaps the story of how a Serbian unit using an antiquated SA-3 battery managed to survive the 1999 NATO air campaign – and eventually shoot down an F-117 Nighthawk stealth plane – will help put things into perspective…

..."In addition to technical modifications to increase the probability of successful engagement of low-RCS targets, Col. Dani also trained his unit to fight against the NATO air armada. Engagements using the shortest possible radiation of the fire-control radar were practiced over and over, and Col. Dani indicated that they focused on engaging targets well within the possible launch zone to reduce the time of flight of the missiles and, therefore, the reaction time available to the target aircraft…"

"Beyond frequent relocation, RF discipline contributed to the 3rd battery's eventual survival, and the unit suffered no human or materiel losses at all. Radiation time of the fire-control radar was kept to a minimum, although with the P-18 they could be more liberal, as this VHF radar – according to their experiences – could not be targeted by NATO's High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARMs). Even with this precaution, though, they were forced to cease radiation and/or missile control 23 times when it became evident from the target-return fluctuations or other indications that a HARM had been launched at them..."


The AARGM is intended to counter these kinds of radar shutdown tactics, and adds advanced capabilities that would foil many of Col. Zoltan's other strategems.

Its multi-sensor system includes an advanced digital Anti-Radiation Homing (ARH) passive radar receiver and and conformal array antenna to help find targets, a tightly coupled GPS/INS system, a Millimeter Wave (MMW) terminal seeker, and more. While ATK did not give details, it's plausible to assume that once the missile either finds a target radar in "on" mode or heads to an area or specific target coordinates via GPS, it then use its own millimeter-wave radar to pinpoint the vehicle/ radar/ designated target and destroy it.

AARGM is also touted as being capable of selectively engaging a variety of strike targets in addition to enemy air defenses, and provides near real-time Weapon Impact Assessments (WIA) to commanders.

Recommended Source



MINNEAPOLIS, June 7 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Alliant Techsystems, the U.S. Navy team of PMA-242, the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division -- China Lake, and the Italian Air Force recently conducted the first Developmental Test (DT) firing of an Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) from an F/A-18 aircraft on the China Lake test ranges on 25 May 2007.

The test firing confirmed the effective integration of AARGM with the F/A-18 aircraft and the continued progress of fielding a long-range, precision strike capability against a wide array of time critical targets. The missile successfully achieved safe separation from the aircraft, navigated over an extended range to the designated target location, and guided to a direct hit. The successful flight test met all test objectives.

Source


As you can see this isn't your daddy's anti radiation missile... lesson learned, technology applied.

Continued...

[edit on 5-7-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 12:54 PM
link   
...Now, for the small diameter bomb (SDB I)...


The GBU-39/B uses a multi-purpose warhead for penetration and blast/fragmentation effects, and is guided by a GPS-enhanced inertial navigation system. The GPS unit is equipped with the latest SAASM/AJ (Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Module / Anti-Jam) technology. The SDB uses flip-out diamond wings to achieve a stand-off range of more than 110 km (60 nm) for high-altitude drops. Boeing also developed the new BRU-61/A bomb rack, which carries four GBU-39/B bombs. The BRU-61/A is mandatory for SDB carriage, and can be employed externally (e.g. F-15E, F-16) or in internal weapons bays (e.g. F-22, F-35, B-2). Although the SDB is significantly smaller than existing bombs, its warhead is still adequate for many typical targets. E.g. its steel and concrete penetration capability is similar to that of the much larger 2000 lb BLU-109/B warhead. Therefore the SDB enables USAF bombers to attack more targets per sortie. The smaller warhead will also tend to reduce collateral damage.

Source


The current version of the SDB I (GBU-39B) can only attack stationary targets via GPS. However the GBU-40/42B (SDB II) which will be fielded starting in 2009 will have the following upgrades...


SDB II's main improvements over the GBU-39/B will be a multi-mode terminal seeker with autonomous target recognition capabilities, and a two-way datalink.


This will allow it to attack moving targets and even mobile SAM systems do to the ISR and EW capability of not only the F-22 but F-35 as well. It is important to note that the SDB II and AARGM will reach IOC as the Raptor fleet nears the end of it's production run and as the F-35 begins it's own. Currently the AARGM will fit into the main bays of the F-35 without any modifications, for the Raptor it might be modified (as was done with the AIM-120C). Given the recent objectives set by the Chief of Staff of the Air Force regarding the F-22 and it's SEAD/DEAD role this modification is very likely.

Further more, the small diameter bomb has already reached IOC on the F-15E with the F-22 and F-16 soon to follow.
Other Sources

Source One
Source Two
Source Three

I apologize for the rather large quotes, I'm just trying to get the information out there. Thanks.

[edit on 5-7-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
The F-117 arguement is a waste of time. I honestly do not see why people bring it up.


Why don't you see why people bring it up? Are you not reading?


Even in those external sources it shows you need special techniques to detect and shoot down stealth aircraft.


In OME of the three such possibilities are raised but why choose them over NATO generals who expressly told you that the Serbs could track them on their 1960 era radars? Talk about selective reading...


Can you not say that is an increase in survivability? That's what stealth is for.


So losing ten percent of your operationl 'stealth' fighter-bomber force did not make a point? Did they lose ten percent of the F-16's?


Now, PAK FA, and the F-22, what's the rangs of the F-22 cruising subsonically...?


Read the sources?

Stellar



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
So losing ten percent of your operationl 'stealth' fighter-bomber force did not make a point?


No matter how you do the math, whether it is the number of F-117's alone, F-117's with combat ready B-2's or F-117's with total B-2 force the percentage of two write off airframes never exceeds four percent. So I'm curious, what numbers are you using?



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 06:43 PM
link   
EDIT :

Originally posted by WestPoint23
No matter how you do the math, whether it is the number of F-117's alone, F-117's with combat ready B-2's or F-117's with total B-2 force the percentage of two write off airframes never exceeds four percent. So I'm curious, what numbers are you using?


For some reason i managed to forget that there are more than double as many F-117's as B-2's and your quite right in stating that losing two is in no way 10%. These offhand remarks is not helping me but if you point out or find very many more i am going to start insisting that you apologise in this exact way whenever i correct you.


I thus stand corrected!


Originally posted by WestPoint23
Umm... deny ignorance right?


Supposedly; at least that's what should be happening around here.



Prior to 1998 when the AARGM program was started largely as a result of the lessons learned in Serbia the main HARM variant was the AGM-88C Block IV. This version did not have GPS guidance nor an active MMW radar set with a two way data link to provide updates and a near real time video stream to command.


And if you don't mind my language why they hell didn't it? The S-300 had been in operation for nearly TWO DECADES? What where they waiting for and what the hell would they have done if a real war ( TM) had broken out in the preceding decades?


During the Serbia conflict the version of the HARM employed only had a passive RF seekers that went after signals and an INS system to get to a general point of interest. These missiles were ineffective if the RF source shut down and quickly relocated. As we know this is precisely what the Serbs did (as I'll point out a bit later).


They were in fact basically ineffective if the source shut down; the systems in use by Serbians can not relocate that fast.


Through 2000-2003 GPS, homing on jam (GPS jammers - RF jammers) and a more sophisticated seeker was added to the HARM. Still, the latest effort is the AGM-88E (AARGM), this missile will employ an active MMW radar, precise GPS navigation, two way data link, home on jam and a much more advanced processing (RF seeker) unit. It was designed to deal with radar sets that shut off and relocate. It is so precise it can even target non radar emitting platforms.


Right and the S-300 and very many other systems have long been able to shoot down HARMS and relatively recently the S-300 even gained a new short range missile that will allow the old TEL to carry 16 of them instead of the normal four. Given the inherent point defense systems that will defend the relatively expensive S-300 it will take a barrage of cruise and HARMS to counter a single S-300 battery and if the battery commander realises this in time he may simply relocate while the cheaper point defense systems protects it.


As you can see this isn't your daddy's anti radiation missile... lesson learned, technology applied.


That's the truth but in my opinion it's hopelessly too late for that. They have been hitting bullets with bullets since the 60's and while the Sa-3 and Sa-6 are not optimized for that sort of thing the S-300 and many others are with missiles that are not just becoming ever cheaper but ever more accurate and mobile.


Originally posted by WestPoint23
...Now, for the small diameter bomb (SDB I)...

The current version of the SDB I (GBU-39B) can only attack stationary targets via GPS. However the GBU-40/42B (SDB II) which will be fielded starting in 2009 will have the following upgrades...


GPS jammers are horrendously cheap but beside that it's a glide bomb that's general ballistic tracjectory makes it quite susceptable to point defenses. All these technologies are coming too late in my opinion and the density of defenses will in my opinion simply be too much for them.


I apologize for the rather large quotes, I'm just trying to get the information out there. Thanks.


You should never apologise for doing the hard work of mustering and presenting information from primary source material; howvever one-side i may consider it and whatever our disagreements in general i only gain respect when people go to this kind of trouble.

As you may or may not know all my claims in this post is easily verified ,in at least a dozen other threads, so if you don't mind i will rather answer other posts than repost material i have shown you in the past.

Stellar

[edit on 5-7-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
It is widely accepted that this was an extremely lucky shot resulting from a SAM team ripple firing their SAMS. The missile didnt track the F-117, it just managed to hit it, like flak in WWII. It might as well have been fired without radar.


widely accepted?


And even if it did track the F-117, the fact that only one stealth aircraft was shot down in history proves my point that stealth aircraft are extremely effective.


Or it shows that Stealth ere neAircraft wver tested against a proper air defense system. The famed "Baghdad Air Defense Network" was nothing more than lots of Visual/Radar guided AA guns



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Because the Mig-31 can do Mach 2.35 over the same distance as the F-22 ( 700- 800 km's ) while the F-22 can only do Mach 1.7 for 100 NM's ( 1 quarter) of that range.


As I said in another thread. No one knows the true capabilities of the F22 raptor. And for good reason. The USAF is not stupid either, at the most your looking at 20% of what the USAF wants you to know about there bird.

Everyone glosses over the fact that russian craft are so maneuverable, and this maybe true, however look at all the crashes at russian airshows, this is because the russians, unlike the americans, do not hold back on the capabilities of there craft, infact they push the airframe past its limits.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast

Originally posted by StellarX
Because the Mig-31 can do Mach 2.35 over the same distance as the F-22 ( 700- 800 km's ) while the F-22 can only do Mach 1.7 for 100 NM's ( 1 quarter) of that range.


As I said in another thread. No one knows the true capabilities of the F22 raptor. And for good reason. The USAF is not stupid either, at the most your looking at 20% of what the USAF wants you to know about there bird.

Everyone glosses over the fact that russian craft are so maneuverable, and this maybe true, however look at all the crashes at russian airshows, this is because the russians, unlike the americans, do not hold back on the capabilities of there craft, infact they push the airframe past its limits.



My friend one can count on one hand how many Russian crashes have happend scince 2000, you act like Russia has the most amount of crashes in the world, as a matter of fact there's a cable show called "The Worlds Most Amasing Crashes Caught on Tape" DUDE it's shocking just how many U.S.A.F. crashes that the U.S. Media has not reported about, just SHOCKING F-14's B-52's do the reseach man you'll get what I'm talking about.






top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join