That's a lot of questions. Straighten 'em out and tell me what you think the answers are
.
Russia demonstrates new fighter jet, page 2
privacy
reply posted on 11-7-2008 @ 10:57 PM by Aim64C
reply to post by Darkpr0
The reality is somewhat different than what you see on TV or even in a number of simulators.
The ATF program began back in the 1970s and finally got approval in the 80s and the contest 'rules' finalized. In 1992, the contract was awarded to Lockheed, and it wasn't until sometime in 2005 before we started seeing F-22s.
You have to remember that, essentially, the F-22 is 20 years old. Radars from 20 years ago are functionally similar, but the filtering capabilities are all together different.
Back in the 80s and early 90s, the computer technology was quite limited. Speed and accuracy of digital systems was just too low with comparison to analog systems. The radar returns were run through analog filters that simply phased out returns under a certain threshold before they were sent to digital filters for further filtering. This was because of memory restrictions and raw limits on computing power at the time. It made real-time digital filtering possible.
Recent advances in massive-scale integration have brought about the ability for the computational power of digital filtering systems on radars to take on increasingly more returns and filtering out noise. Similarly, advances in programming and computer architectures and their related mathematics have further improved the efficiency and accuracy of digital filtering methods.
All of this means that, in modern avionics, a return that is almost infinitely small can be analyzed to provide its angular velocity, altitude, etc - then be displayed as a valid return based on those attributes. Obviously, trees don't move at 800 knots, nor do birds, bugs, etc - so it's obviously a valid return.
Such capability didn't exist at the time of the ATF, F-117, B-2, etc. While those stealth characteristics do still help in eluding even these advanced radars - mostly at extreme range, their main advantage is eluding the terminal guidance phase of missiles - which are not as computationally endowed as other radars.
At this point, geometry of the aircraft begins to play a more significant role in the return signature than the material it is made of or the surface area exposed. Remember that a property of all moving magnetic fields (radios, radar, magnets, etc) is that they induce an electric current in all conducting materials that is 180 degrees out-of-phase with the source. That means... guess what... your plane becomes a giant antenna - so do all structures inside of it (assuming they are not shielded against EMF). That means stealth technology goes well beyond the skin of the aircraft, and goes to the internal structure, the way the internal components are shielded, etc. You could build an aircraft out of composite materials and have a larger RCS than a similar aircraft that had an aluminum or titanium-based airframe.
The F-22 and F-23 differed quite substantially on their geometry. The f-22 has a few parallel edges here and there, but is mostly a horribly disfigured F-15. The F-23 is built around two angles, - something around 35 degrees and 55 degrees (I would have to take measurements - I'm going off of what I remember). The aircraft is a collection of double-trapezoid geometries with nearly every edge being parallel to another (a major factor in induced returns).
The F-23 was a substantially smaller and more "slippery" return than the F-22 because of its design.
However, the advantage was not seen to be of any functional advantage. However, the market didn't exactly play in our favor. China has many highly capable fabrication labs for integrated circuits (computer chips) - most rivaling the capabilities here in America (though the Chinese have yet to actually recognize the full potential of many of their technologies - quality hasn't built their economy, quantity - cheap, raw quantity has).
The U.S. made their investment in stealth technology based on two main ideas - first, that radars would always have to filter out small radar returns, and second that control of digital processing components would be assured to contain the spread of the necessary capability for radars that could endanger stealth aircraft.
Obviously, both of those have been proven to be ill-fated ideas.
That doesn't mean that "stealth" is at all a worthless characteristic. Hitting something your missiles have difficulty seeing is ... well - difficult.
However, it means the face of "Stealth" must change. Radar, while being an important concern, is no longer the primary concern. Modern jamming, countermeasures, and passive reduction ("Stealth") technologies essentially ensure that any two aircraft will have to close to a "merger" before being able to score a kill. Optical and Infra-Red reduction methods are where the future of "Stealth" is.
The reality is somewhat different than what you see on TV or even in a number of simulators.
The ATF program began back in the 1970s and finally got approval in the 80s and the contest 'rules' finalized. In 1992, the contract was awarded to Lockheed, and it wasn't until sometime in 2005 before we started seeing F-22s.
You have to remember that, essentially, the F-22 is 20 years old. Radars from 20 years ago are functionally similar, but the filtering capabilities are all together different.
Back in the 80s and early 90s, the computer technology was quite limited. Speed and accuracy of digital systems was just too low with comparison to analog systems. The radar returns were run through analog filters that simply phased out returns under a certain threshold before they were sent to digital filters for further filtering. This was because of memory restrictions and raw limits on computing power at the time. It made real-time digital filtering possible.
Recent advances in massive-scale integration have brought about the ability for the computational power of digital filtering systems on radars to take on increasingly more returns and filtering out noise. Similarly, advances in programming and computer architectures and their related mathematics have further improved the efficiency and accuracy of digital filtering methods.
All of this means that, in modern avionics, a return that is almost infinitely small can be analyzed to provide its angular velocity, altitude, etc - then be displayed as a valid return based on those attributes. Obviously, trees don't move at 800 knots, nor do birds, bugs, etc - so it's obviously a valid return.
Such capability didn't exist at the time of the ATF, F-117, B-2, etc. While those stealth characteristics do still help in eluding even these advanced radars - mostly at extreme range, their main advantage is eluding the terminal guidance phase of missiles - which are not as computationally endowed as other radars.
At this point, geometry of the aircraft begins to play a more significant role in the return signature than the material it is made of or the surface area exposed. Remember that a property of all moving magnetic fields (radios, radar, magnets, etc) is that they induce an electric current in all conducting materials that is 180 degrees out-of-phase with the source. That means... guess what... your plane becomes a giant antenna - so do all structures inside of it (assuming they are not shielded against EMF). That means stealth technology goes well beyond the skin of the aircraft, and goes to the internal structure, the way the internal components are shielded, etc. You could build an aircraft out of composite materials and have a larger RCS than a similar aircraft that had an aluminum or titanium-based airframe.
The F-22 and F-23 differed quite substantially on their geometry. The f-22 has a few parallel edges here and there, but is mostly a horribly disfigured F-15. The F-23 is built around two angles, - something around 35 degrees and 55 degrees (I would have to take measurements - I'm going off of what I remember). The aircraft is a collection of double-trapezoid geometries with nearly every edge being parallel to another (a major factor in induced returns).
The F-23 was a substantially smaller and more "slippery" return than the F-22 because of its design.
However, the advantage was not seen to be of any functional advantage. However, the market didn't exactly play in our favor. China has many highly capable fabrication labs for integrated circuits (computer chips) - most rivaling the capabilities here in America (though the Chinese have yet to actually recognize the full potential of many of their technologies - quality hasn't built their economy, quantity - cheap, raw quantity has).
The U.S. made their investment in stealth technology based on two main ideas - first, that radars would always have to filter out small radar returns, and second that control of digital processing components would be assured to contain the spread of the necessary capability for radars that could endanger stealth aircraft.
Obviously, both of those have been proven to be ill-fated ideas.
That doesn't mean that "stealth" is at all a worthless characteristic. Hitting something your missiles have difficulty seeing is ... well - difficult.
However, it means the face of "Stealth" must change. Radar, while being an important concern, is no longer the primary concern. Modern jamming, countermeasures, and passive reduction ("Stealth") technologies essentially ensure that any two aircraft will have to close to a "merger" before being able to score a kill. Optical and Infra-Red reduction methods are where the future of "Stealth" is.
reply posted on 12-7-2008 @ 10:03 AM by Daedalus3
reply to post by Aim64C
Thanks for the post. Always good to read a perspective that is not discussed too often on topics that seem to have been flogged to death
Thanks for the post. Always good to read a perspective that is not discussed too often on topics that seem to have been flogged to death
reply posted on 13-7-2008 @ 03:13 AM by Harlequin
reply to post by Daedalus3
i can`t seem to find the link anymore - buts its on ats *somewhere* - but since rules of engagement are so tight then anything much beyond 15 miles is a no no - the israelies have allways closed to wvr to actually see what they are shooting at
i can`t seem to find the link anymore - buts its on ats *somewhere* - but since rules of engagement are so tight then anything much beyond 15 miles is a no no - the israelies have allways closed to wvr to actually see what they are shooting at
reply posted on 13-7-2008 @ 03:25 AM by Harlequin
reply to post by Aim64C
well i allways believed the best aircraft didn`t win - but there we go
i also believe the future in detection is LiDAR but very few seem to be looking at that approach
good post
well i allways believed the best aircraft didn`t win - but there we go
i also believe the future in detection is LiDAR but very few seem to be looking at that approach
good post
reply posted on 13-7-2008 @ 06:28 AM by Daedalus3
Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by Daedalus3
i can`t seem to find the link anymore - buts its on ats *somewhere* - but since rules of engagement are so tight then anything much beyond 15 miles is a no no - the Israelis have always closed to wvr to actually see what they are shooting at
I believe that is true w.r.t. to the 3 wars that Israel fought with Arab nations, and the BVR option was not available for them during most of those times IIRC.
In fact most kills should have been gun kills at the time.
During the 1973 war and after, I believe the kills were mostly Python-2, AIM-9D, AIM 9L, Python III and a couple Python IV.
reply posted on 13-7-2008 @ 02:18 PM by Aim64C
reply to post by Harlequin
You mean LADAR? - Using lasers instead of radar beams?
It is the future - it's far more accurate than radar, lower-power, and very similar to existing systems in operation. It's also far lighter, more efficient, and is just more resistant to noise, jamming, interference, etc.
Though I think it will really be developed as a companion to radar. With radar, you can use the side-lobes to pull off some interesting stuff. It's also better to use as a general search medium (use LADAR to resolve anomalies and provide more accurate forms of BVR identification - as well as tracking and firing solutions).
Though LADAR would make for an almost "in-spoofable" missile... though the main restrictions on LADAR is manufacturing an antenna array that operates at ultraviolet frequencies. Though that will change before much longer.
In reply to the cost-effectiveness of Low-Observable technology
Alright, first - let's straighten things up.
What many people do not understand about Mil-spec parts is what goes into manufacturing them. Civilian parts are given a certain sample size (randomly selected from the line) to be inspected for integrity. Mil-spec parts are 100% analyzed (and those processes are very costly).
For instance - my father is the plant manager of ABM Manufacturing in Sedalia, Missouri (part of Production Castings Companies) [this also means that those clever among you can figure out who I am - more power to you]. They handle aluminum-zinc alloys and have done mil-spec parts before. I am trying to remember if it was every shot (every time metal is injected into the mold under several tons of force) - but I don't think it was - but it was very often that the alloy content must be checked and must be within a certain tolerance (it must be analyzed by a third party), every part must be x-rayed, and all of that is extremely expensive.
On the other hand, the parts that make up your car undergo something less than a 1% analysis. Which is fine, because quality control is (here in America, at least) very good, and any problems in parts are usually caught on the line or discovered in assembly (the assembly machines are brutal as hell on those parts). Though failure on the assembly line is rather rare.
This happened to my father once. A part failed on the assembly line at an automobile assembly plant. From that point on - every one of those parts from that part, back, was suspect to failure and required inspection. The manufacturer of that part is responsible for any down-time of the assembly line due to part failure, and is responsible for inspection and replacement of any defect parts (at their own expense, of course - which is why my father advised the owner against contracting with automotive companies).
Turns out, in the injection process, parts of the metal were cooling before they were supposed to, causing a vortex that disrupted the molecular structure and weakened the part to the point that it could fail under the stress of being bolted to the rest of the assembly (again - those machines are brutal - screwing stuff down with, literally, hundreds of pounds of force or more). Wasn't fun having to inspect all of the parts, listen to the assembly plant send them a "A plane will be at so-and-so airport to pick up the good parts at [insert time], those parts will be on that plane and on their way here by [insert a time a few almost-reasonable moments later], or you will be charged $10000 every extra minute that plane must wait."
Beyond that, many of those mil-spec parts are rather low volume orders, or special-order. Unlike cars, which are made by the million and, literally, billions of spare parts/components for them - military components are made by the thousand, hundred, or even dozen. For some components (like waveguides and antennae for radars), corrosion limits the shelf-life of any spare parts. For others, like Lithium-Ion batteries, chemical structure limits the usefulness of spare parts (Lithium batteries break-down as they get older, pretty much regardless of their use).
You have a low-volume product that requires extreme amounts of quality control.... it's going to inflate the price exponentially (though they still don't pay $50,000 for a hammer - but that stuff goes to "black" projects).
Nothing is being skimmed off of the military's budget - anyone doing so would quickly be skinned alive by regional commanding officers, who are constantly checking in couches for additional funding.
Now, as for it's effectiveness in combat - the reason we still have our high-tech toys to play with is because we plan missions as if we we're using aircraft without "stealth" and "toys." We take as many precautions as we can to ensure the survival of the aircraft. Obviously, it works. We don't fly stealth aircraft right at a radar and say "you can't see me!" - because we know they can - because we can with 60s technology. Getting stuff to hit them is another mater, however. And that's what we use to our advantage.
The thing is that it is useful for "kicking down the door" and opening up areas to our more standard aircraft that can operate with less to restrict them.
Is it Cost-Effective? I think so. By time you take into consideration the emotional stress on crews who lose their pilots in Wild-Weasel missions and SEAD, the loss of manpower from that (as well as the loss of aircraft), etc - it is cost effective merely in the regards that it relieves stress on the crews, which reduces errors (potentially fatal), etc.
When you take into consideration America's military role and posture in the world, "Stealth" will always have a valuable role in our arsenal.
Though I do wish we had a little more focus on 'standard' home-defense aircraft than we seem to presently have... I think that will come back to bite us.
[edit on 13-7-2008 by Aim64C]
You mean LADAR? - Using lasers instead of radar beams?
It is the future - it's far more accurate than radar, lower-power, and very similar to existing systems in operation. It's also far lighter, more efficient, and is just more resistant to noise, jamming, interference, etc.
Though I think it will really be developed as a companion to radar. With radar, you can use the side-lobes to pull off some interesting stuff. It's also better to use as a general search medium (use LADAR to resolve anomalies and provide more accurate forms of BVR identification - as well as tracking and firing solutions).
Though LADAR would make for an almost "in-spoofable" missile... though the main restrictions on LADAR is manufacturing an antenna array that operates at ultraviolet frequencies. Though that will change before much longer.
In reply to the cost-effectiveness of Low-Observable technology
Alright, first - let's straighten things up.
What many people do not understand about Mil-spec parts is what goes into manufacturing them. Civilian parts are given a certain sample size (randomly selected from the line) to be inspected for integrity. Mil-spec parts are 100% analyzed (and those processes are very costly).
For instance - my father is the plant manager of ABM Manufacturing in Sedalia, Missouri (part of Production Castings Companies) [this also means that those clever among you can figure out who I am - more power to you]. They handle aluminum-zinc alloys and have done mil-spec parts before. I am trying to remember if it was every shot (every time metal is injected into the mold under several tons of force) - but I don't think it was - but it was very often that the alloy content must be checked and must be within a certain tolerance (it must be analyzed by a third party), every part must be x-rayed, and all of that is extremely expensive.
On the other hand, the parts that make up your car undergo something less than a 1% analysis. Which is fine, because quality control is (here in America, at least) very good, and any problems in parts are usually caught on the line or discovered in assembly (the assembly machines are brutal as hell on those parts). Though failure on the assembly line is rather rare.
This happened to my father once. A part failed on the assembly line at an automobile assembly plant. From that point on - every one of those parts from that part, back, was suspect to failure and required inspection. The manufacturer of that part is responsible for any down-time of the assembly line due to part failure, and is responsible for inspection and replacement of any defect parts (at their own expense, of course - which is why my father advised the owner against contracting with automotive companies).
Turns out, in the injection process, parts of the metal were cooling before they were supposed to, causing a vortex that disrupted the molecular structure and weakened the part to the point that it could fail under the stress of being bolted to the rest of the assembly (again - those machines are brutal - screwing stuff down with, literally, hundreds of pounds of force or more). Wasn't fun having to inspect all of the parts, listen to the assembly plant send them a "A plane will be at so-and-so airport to pick up the good parts at [insert time], those parts will be on that plane and on their way here by [insert a time a few almost-reasonable moments later], or you will be charged $10000 every extra minute that plane must wait."
Beyond that, many of those mil-spec parts are rather low volume orders, or special-order. Unlike cars, which are made by the million and, literally, billions of spare parts/components for them - military components are made by the thousand, hundred, or even dozen. For some components (like waveguides and antennae for radars), corrosion limits the shelf-life of any spare parts. For others, like Lithium-Ion batteries, chemical structure limits the usefulness of spare parts (Lithium batteries break-down as they get older, pretty much regardless of their use).
You have a low-volume product that requires extreme amounts of quality control.... it's going to inflate the price exponentially (though they still don't pay $50,000 for a hammer - but that stuff goes to "black" projects).
Nothing is being skimmed off of the military's budget - anyone doing so would quickly be skinned alive by regional commanding officers, who are constantly checking in couches for additional funding.
Now, as for it's effectiveness in combat - the reason we still have our high-tech toys to play with is because we plan missions as if we we're using aircraft without "stealth" and "toys." We take as many precautions as we can to ensure the survival of the aircraft. Obviously, it works. We don't fly stealth aircraft right at a radar and say "you can't see me!" - because we know they can - because we can with 60s technology. Getting stuff to hit them is another mater, however. And that's what we use to our advantage.
The thing is that it is useful for "kicking down the door" and opening up areas to our more standard aircraft that can operate with less to restrict them.
Is it Cost-Effective? I think so. By time you take into consideration the emotional stress on crews who lose their pilots in Wild-Weasel missions and SEAD, the loss of manpower from that (as well as the loss of aircraft), etc - it is cost effective merely in the regards that it relieves stress on the crews, which reduces errors (potentially fatal), etc.
When you take into consideration America's military role and posture in the world, "Stealth" will always have a valuable role in our arsenal.
Though I do wish we had a little more focus on 'standard' home-defense aircraft than we seem to presently have... I think that will come back to bite us.
[edit on 13-7-2008 by Aim64C]
reply posted on 13-7-2008 @ 05:33 PM by Willard856
reply to post by Daedalus3
This is true. These days you can take a BVR shot if you meet the ROE, and with the quality and fidelity of Combat ID systems, radar, datalinking and intel feeds, the level of assurity that you are engaging a hostile target is much greater than it was even during Allied Force. And as I've mentioned in previous threads, an F-22 pilot is not going to go to the merge unless there is a great necessity to do so. It is too expensive a platform to risk giving an adversary even a sniff of a kill.
This is true. These days you can take a BVR shot if you meet the ROE, and with the quality and fidelity of Combat ID systems, radar, datalinking and intel feeds, the level of assurity that you are engaging a hostile target is much greater than it was even during Allied Force. And as I've mentioned in previous threads, an F-22 pilot is not going to go to the merge unless there is a great necessity to do so. It is too expensive a platform to risk giving an adversary even a sniff of a kill.
reply posted on 14-7-2008 @ 05:39 AM by Aim64C
reply to post by Willard856
Actually, it's highly unlikely that a BVR shot would score a kill. You would be looking at a less than 10% kill ratio.
The problem is multifold. First, the standard mode for the AMRAAM to use is a datalinked Semi-active-homing mode. Track-While-Scan mode enables the F-22 to give no indication to the target's RWR that he's been illuminated by a tracking radar. However, the Russians aren't stupid. They can detect the datalink, and it's safe to assume their jammers will start singing and jam the datalink. The F-22s fire control system will try and compensate and the missile will likely automatically switch into a passive homing mode to home in on the jamming signal - however, by time the missile realizes it's being jammed, and switches, the Su-35 will have had ample time to slip outside of its acquisition envelope - or slip outside of any possible interception arcs.
So - the only thing to do is fire the missile in "beam riding" mode (another form of semi-active homing) - where the target is illuminated by the host aircraft's radar and the missile intercepts the illuminated target.
However, this causes several problems. First - the target knows you've shot at it. It has several options at this point. It can try and jam you (which is harder to do), or it can turn tail, pour on the dinosaurs, and escape the missile. Now, it can do either of those and fire a missile in passive homing mode (homes in on your radar).
The F-22 is now at a disadvantage, as it has absolutely zero indication that it's been fired on (and the target is too far away to detect the IR plume of the missile). Normally, the radar would pick up this missile-like return, and inform the pilot of this important development. So, now we have our raptor shining a bright-ass tracking light around for everyone to see and a missile closing at a combined speed of over mach 4. I can create a missile in my garage capable of nailing that.
BVR first-strike is of no use against a technologically equivalent (or nearly so) opponent. Or - I should say "extreme BVR" is of no real use. The only viable option is to close within terminal-guidance range of whatever missile you are using and taking the shot there - where the missile can be a genuine "fire and forget."
However, we run into another problem for the raptors. They can't use their radar. If the use it - RWR picks them up and can give a bearing fix for the Su-35s well before you are within "kill" range. I'm not sure if Russia has export models of the missile (or how many are in the inventory of other countries), but one of their missiles uses an inertial guidance system (most accurate self-contained, self-reliant navigational system ever developed) and closes in on a location determined by the fire-control system (can be estimated from RWR interceptions or more accurately from a couple scans with TWS mode). Upon reaching that location, it activates a wide-angle IR or radar terminal guidance phase, and starts searching for the target - it finds it, and knocks it out of the sky.
No data link. No indication you've been fired on (aside from a radar return) - and by time you know it's found you, you have a second or less to react or you are dead. No time to pop countermeasures, and hardly time to jink.
The missile also takes off almost straight up into the air after separating from the aircraft - it is possible that the missile will elude detection even if the F-22's radar is on and scanning.
There are some tricks the U.S. uses to help minimize the effects of some of those things... but the Russians know about them and plan around them, too.
It's all far more tactical than Ace Combat. While I love that game series (they have some of the best musical scores... especially their briefing music.... if only we could get briefing music like that before missions...) - it's far from reality. The missiles don't even behave right.... they "chase after" the plane.... which is silly.... it's like throwing a rock - you throw the rock ahead of the target - you lead the target.... missiles do the same thing - sometimes taking off behind you to get the best angle on the target.
In short... the U.S. shot itself in the foot with missile technology, and failed to develop a missile that could take advantage of the Low-Observable characteristics of the ATF. Thus, they can expect a rather low kill ratio with their shiny golden bird. They'll be lucky if they don't lose a few young hot-shots to stupidity and failure to think about what they are doing. I can just see some 25 year old fighter jock thinking he's going to score a kill on this Su-35 by using SARH mode with constant illumination.... only to be vaporized by an R-77 / AA-12 Adder (AKA: "AMRAAMSKI") slamming through his canopy at a combined velocity of Mach 6+
The only reason the Raptor has so many kills in our wargames is because the entire concept is "once you are fired upon - you are dead" - there's a little bit of "wiggle room" in there - but not a whole lot. The reality is that the AMRAAM wouldn't perform nearly as well as we think it will. Furthermore, they will have to get pretty damned close to ensure a kill - which means a higher chance of being detected and the sooner you can have missiles on top of you and the less chance you have to be warned of it.
Actually, it's highly unlikely that a BVR shot would score a kill. You would be looking at a less than 10% kill ratio.
The problem is multifold. First, the standard mode for the AMRAAM to use is a datalinked Semi-active-homing mode. Track-While-Scan mode enables the F-22 to give no indication to the target's RWR that he's been illuminated by a tracking radar. However, the Russians aren't stupid. They can detect the datalink, and it's safe to assume their jammers will start singing and jam the datalink. The F-22s fire control system will try and compensate and the missile will likely automatically switch into a passive homing mode to home in on the jamming signal - however, by time the missile realizes it's being jammed, and switches, the Su-35 will have had ample time to slip outside of its acquisition envelope - or slip outside of any possible interception arcs.
So - the only thing to do is fire the missile in "beam riding" mode (another form of semi-active homing) - where the target is illuminated by the host aircraft's radar and the missile intercepts the illuminated target.
However, this causes several problems. First - the target knows you've shot at it. It has several options at this point. It can try and jam you (which is harder to do), or it can turn tail, pour on the dinosaurs, and escape the missile. Now, it can do either of those and fire a missile in passive homing mode (homes in on your radar).
The F-22 is now at a disadvantage, as it has absolutely zero indication that it's been fired on (and the target is too far away to detect the IR plume of the missile). Normally, the radar would pick up this missile-like return, and inform the pilot of this important development. So, now we have our raptor shining a bright-ass tracking light around for everyone to see and a missile closing at a combined speed of over mach 4. I can create a missile in my garage capable of nailing that.
BVR first-strike is of no use against a technologically equivalent (or nearly so) opponent. Or - I should say "extreme BVR" is of no real use. The only viable option is to close within terminal-guidance range of whatever missile you are using and taking the shot there - where the missile can be a genuine "fire and forget."
However, we run into another problem for the raptors. They can't use their radar. If the use it - RWR picks them up and can give a bearing fix for the Su-35s well before you are within "kill" range. I'm not sure if Russia has export models of the missile (or how many are in the inventory of other countries), but one of their missiles uses an inertial guidance system (most accurate self-contained, self-reliant navigational system ever developed) and closes in on a location determined by the fire-control system (can be estimated from RWR interceptions or more accurately from a couple scans with TWS mode). Upon reaching that location, it activates a wide-angle IR or radar terminal guidance phase, and starts searching for the target - it finds it, and knocks it out of the sky.
No data link. No indication you've been fired on (aside from a radar return) - and by time you know it's found you, you have a second or less to react or you are dead. No time to pop countermeasures, and hardly time to jink.
The missile also takes off almost straight up into the air after separating from the aircraft - it is possible that the missile will elude detection even if the F-22's radar is on and scanning.
There are some tricks the U.S. uses to help minimize the effects of some of those things... but the Russians know about them and plan around them, too.
It's all far more tactical than Ace Combat. While I love that game series (they have some of the best musical scores... especially their briefing music.... if only we could get briefing music like that before missions...) - it's far from reality. The missiles don't even behave right.... they "chase after" the plane.... which is silly.... it's like throwing a rock - you throw the rock ahead of the target - you lead the target.... missiles do the same thing - sometimes taking off behind you to get the best angle on the target.
In short... the U.S. shot itself in the foot with missile technology, and failed to develop a missile that could take advantage of the Low-Observable characteristics of the ATF. Thus, they can expect a rather low kill ratio with their shiny golden bird. They'll be lucky if they don't lose a few young hot-shots to stupidity and failure to think about what they are doing. I can just see some 25 year old fighter jock thinking he's going to score a kill on this Su-35 by using SARH mode with constant illumination.... only to be vaporized by an R-77 / AA-12 Adder (AKA: "AMRAAMSKI") slamming through his canopy at a combined velocity of Mach 6+
The only reason the Raptor has so many kills in our wargames is because the entire concept is "once you are fired upon - you are dead" - there's a little bit of "wiggle room" in there - but not a whole lot. The reality is that the AMRAAM wouldn't perform nearly as well as we think it will. Furthermore, they will have to get pretty damned close to ensure a kill - which means a higher chance of being detected and the sooner you can have missiles on top of you and the less chance you have to be warned of it.
reply posted on 14-7-2008 @ 06:49 AM by Willard856
With all due respect Aim64C, I think I know one or two things about air combat. And not from a computer game...
Rubbish. Earlier generations of AMRAAM might have had some guidance issues, not so with the current generation. BVR shots are validated during exercises, and I can promise you that the kill ratio for BVR is much greater than 10%.
Rubbish again. The AMRAAM is never semi-active. It uses data-link updates during mid-course guidance until it enters the terminal active phase. A semi-active missile is the AIM-7, or the AA-10.
How long does it take to enter HOJ? How does the the Su-35 magically "slip" outside the engagement envelope? If the shot was valid kinematically, the only thing the target can do is so totally confuse the seeker head that it misses. It won't "slip" outside the "interception arc" (whatever that is!).
Are you sure you know what an AMRAAM is? There is no beam-riding mode. Also, if you can point me in the direction of an effective passive radar homing air to air missile (or even surface to air missile), and then explain how it is effective against an AESA radar, I'd appreciate it.
Uh-huh. In your garage?
Crap. First shot enables you to drive the fight. If you are on a winning timeline, and the adversary appreciates the capabilities of your missile, they have to react. They'll try to slow down the intercept to get their own missile within range, but if you take the shot in the right zone, and with effective mutual support (and the new tactical opportunities that AIM-120D offer), the SU-35 won't win against an F-22. Things become more interesting in 4 to 4.5 gen fight though.
Yeah, accurate until it misses a couple of updates, at which point it flies to totally the wrong piece of sky. I know what you are talking about. It ain't as good as you make out.
Actually, it's called proportional navigation guidance logic, and it's a trajectory. Your throwing rock analogy is more akin to lead angle guidance (or even half-rectified lead angle that some older systems use so that they don't lose target lock). And missiles don't take off behind you. Even high off-boresight missiles like AIM-9X go forward first before manouevering.
There isn't a single semi-active air to air missile integrated onto the F-22 (or the F-35 for that matter). Even us poor Aussies fly almost exclusively with an active/IR mix on our Hornets. And if you think that the AA-12 is in any way comparable to the AIM-120 in anything other than the fact that they are both active air to air missiles, then you really don't know anything about air combat.
Guess you've never heard of kill rules, and how they are used in exercises. They certainly aren't "you shoot - they die". And if it's ok by you, I'll trust the modelling and sim results and user briefs over your AMRAAM assessment. After the rest of your post, I'm not sure if you are talking about the right missile...
Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Willard856
Actually, it's highly unlikely that a BVR shot would score a kill. You would be looking at a less than 10% kill ratio.
Rubbish. Earlier generations of AMRAAM might have had some guidance issues, not so with the current generation. BVR shots are validated during exercises, and I can promise you that the kill ratio for BVR is much greater than 10%.
The problem is multifold. First, the standard mode for the AMRAAM to use is a datalinked Semi-active-homing mode. Track-While-Scan mode enables the F-22 to give no indication to the target's RWR that he's been illuminated by a tracking radar. However, the Russians aren't stupid. They can detect the datalink, and it's safe to assume their jammers will start singing and jam the datalink. The F-22s fire control system will try and compensate and the missile will likely automatically switch into a passive homing mode to home in on the jamming signal - however, by time the missile realizes it's being jammed, and switches, the Su-35 will have had ample time to slip outside of its acquisition envelope - or slip outside of any possible interception arcs.
Rubbish again. The AMRAAM is never semi-active. It uses data-link updates during mid-course guidance until it enters the terminal active phase. A semi-active missile is the AIM-7, or the AA-10.
How long does it take to enter HOJ? How does the the Su-35 magically "slip" outside the engagement envelope? If the shot was valid kinematically, the only thing the target can do is so totally confuse the seeker head that it misses. It won't "slip" outside the "interception arc" (whatever that is!).
So - the only thing to do is fire the missile in "beam riding" mode (another form of semi-active homing) - where the target is illuminated by the host aircraft's radar and the missile intercepts the illuminated target.
However, this causes several problems. First - the target knows you've shot at it. It has several options at this point. It can try and jam you (which is harder to do), or it can turn tail, pour on the dinosaurs, and escape the missile. Now, it can do either of those and fire a missile in passive homing mode (homes in on your radar).
Are you sure you know what an AMRAAM is? There is no beam-riding mode. Also, if you can point me in the direction of an effective passive radar homing air to air missile (or even surface to air missile), and then explain how it is effective against an AESA radar, I'd appreciate it.
The F-22 is now at a disadvantage, as it has absolutely zero indication that it's been fired on (and the target is too far away to detect the IR plume of the missile). Normally, the radar would pick up this missile-like return, and inform the pilot of this important development. So, now we have our raptor shining a bright-ass tracking light around for everyone to see and a missile closing at a combined speed of over mach 4. I can create a missile in my garage capable of nailing that.
Uh-huh. In your garage?
BVR first-strike is of no use against a technologically equivalent (or nearly so) opponent. Or - I should say "extreme BVR" is of no real use. The only viable option is to close within terminal-guidance range of whatever missile you are using and taking the shot there - where the missile can be a genuine "fire and forget."
Crap. First shot enables you to drive the fight. If you are on a winning timeline, and the adversary appreciates the capabilities of your missile, they have to react. They'll try to slow down the intercept to get their own missile within range, but if you take the shot in the right zone, and with effective mutual support (and the new tactical opportunities that AIM-120D offer), the SU-35 won't win against an F-22. Things become more interesting in 4 to 4.5 gen fight though.
However, we run into another problem for the raptors. They can't use their radar. If the use it - RWR picks them up and can give a bearing fix for the Su-35s well before you are within "kill" range. I'm not sure if Russia has export models of the missile (or how many are in the inventory of other countries), but one of their missiles uses an inertial guidance system (most accurate self-contained, self-reliant navigational system ever developed) and closes in on a location determined by the fire-control system (can be estimated from RWR interceptions or more accurately from a couple scans with TWS mode). Upon reaching that location, it activates a wide-angle IR or radar terminal guidance phase, and starts searching for the target - it finds it, and knocks it out of the sky.
Yeah, accurate until it misses a couple of updates, at which point it flies to totally the wrong piece of sky. I know what you are talking about. It ain't as good as you make out.
It's all far more tactical than Ace Combat. While I love that game series (they have some of the best musical scores... especially their briefing music.... if only we could get briefing music like that before missions...) - it's far from reality. The missiles don't even behave right.... they "chase after" the plane.... which is silly.... it's like throwing a rock - you throw the rock ahead of the target - you lead the target.... missiles do the same thing - sometimes taking off behind you to get the best angle on the target.
Actually, it's called proportional navigation guidance logic, and it's a trajectory. Your throwing rock analogy is more akin to lead angle guidance (or even half-rectified lead angle that some older systems use so that they don't lose target lock). And missiles don't take off behind you. Even high off-boresight missiles like AIM-9X go forward first before manouevering.
In short... the U.S. shot itself in the foot with missile technology, and failed to develop a missile that could take advantage of the Low-Observable characteristics of the ATF. Thus, they can expect a rather low kill ratio with their shiny golden bird. They'll be lucky if they don't lose a few young hot-shots to stupidity and failure to think about what they are doing. I can just see some 25 year old fighter jock thinking he's going to score a kill on this Su-35 by using SARH mode with constant illumination.... only to be vaporized by an R-77 / AA-12 Adder (AKA: "AMRAAMSKI") slamming through his canopy at a combined velocity of Mach 6+
There isn't a single semi-active air to air missile integrated onto the F-22 (or the F-35 for that matter). Even us poor Aussies fly almost exclusively with an active/IR mix on our Hornets. And if you think that the AA-12 is in any way comparable to the AIM-120 in anything other than the fact that they are both active air to air missiles, then you really don't know anything about air combat.
The only reason the Raptor has so many kills in our wargames is because the entire concept is "once you are fired upon - you are dead" - there's a little bit of "wiggle room" in there - but not a whole lot. The reality is that the AMRAAM wouldn't perform nearly as well as we think it will. Furthermore, they will have to get pretty damned close to ensure a kill - which means a higher chance of being detected and the sooner you can have missiles on top of you and the less chance you have to be warned of it.
Guess you've never heard of kill rules, and how they are used in exercises. They certainly aren't "you shoot - they die". And if it's ok by you, I'll trust the modelling and sim results and user briefs over your AMRAAM assessment. After the rest of your post, I'm not sure if you are talking about the right missile...
reply posted on 14-7-2008 @ 07:03 AM by Aim64C
reply to post by C0bzz
If you send out a signal from your plane to the missile.... it can be picked up. It's also possible to jam it - though it is not entirely impossible.
Either way, you have a bearing on the launching aircraft.
Remember, RWR has evolved beyond a few coils of wire hooked up to broadband receivers and a simple computer.
In TWS, you're still emitting. You'll light up on their RWR as a search radar. Any pilot worth his weight in rations knows about TWS and depending upon how close the aircraft is when it registers on RWR, would assume they have been fired upon.
I also left out a very critical part of the scenario.
This is set up as the ATF was envisioned - we are on the offensive and have no external support.
The 35s would likely be working closely with AWACS - which would have little trouble picking a raptor up. It would also pick up any missiles once they were fired - even if they were fired in such a way as to not trigger the RWR of the target aircraft.
The advantage is, overwhelmingly, the Su-35s.
You need to close in fast and passive and jump right in their face (though not in a way that will get your head blown off).
The IR of the F-22 isn't that greatly reduced - and once you commit to the merger, you'll have to finish it or take an R-73 up the ass trying to get out. The F-23 wouldn't have had much problem with this, and could have come and gone as it pleased (within some reason). Being faster and far stealthier than the F-22 would pay off in this role as well.
If you send out a signal from your plane to the missile.... it can be picked up. It's also possible to jam it - though it is not entirely impossible.
Either way, you have a bearing on the launching aircraft.
Remember, RWR has evolved beyond a few coils of wire hooked up to broadband receivers and a simple computer.
In TWS, you're still emitting. You'll light up on their RWR as a search radar. Any pilot worth his weight in rations knows about TWS and depending upon how close the aircraft is when it registers on RWR, would assume they have been fired upon.
I also left out a very critical part of the scenario.
This is set up as the ATF was envisioned - we are on the offensive and have no external support.
The 35s would likely be working closely with AWACS - which would have little trouble picking a raptor up. It would also pick up any missiles once they were fired - even if they were fired in such a way as to not trigger the RWR of the target aircraft.
The advantage is, overwhelmingly, the Su-35s.
You need to close in fast and passive and jump right in their face (though not in a way that will get your head blown off).
The IR of the F-22 isn't that greatly reduced - and once you commit to the merger, you'll have to finish it or take an R-73 up the ass trying to get out. The F-23 wouldn't have had much problem with this, and could have come and gone as it pleased (within some reason). Being faster and far stealthier than the F-22 would pay off in this role as well.
reply posted on 14-7-2008 @ 07:11 AM by kilcoo316
reply to post by Aim64C
Good post.
A point I've often made is that the RCS of the F-22 is now essentially fixed, minor improvements can be made through updated RAM.
Meanwhile processing power for radar back ends doubles every 18 months. How long before even a relatively lightweight radar set can grab an F-22 out of the clutter?
Good post.
A point I've often made is that the RCS of the F-22 is now essentially fixed, minor improvements can be made through updated RAM.
Meanwhile processing power for radar back ends doubles every 18 months. How long before even a relatively lightweight radar set can grab an F-22 out of the clutter?
First flight for \'flapless\' plane - the Evolution of Aviation
Posted 14 days ago with 4 member flags
Posted 14 days ago with 4 member flags
Dassault Rafale wins India\'s biggest fighter deal for $10.4 billion
Posted 11 days ago with 1 member flags
Posted 11 days ago with 1 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
The Scale of the Universe- Amazing, Controllable Flash Animation!
Fragile Earth, Posted 17 hours ago, 26 flags
Fragile Earth, Posted 17 hours ago, 26 flags
Renowned Geophysicist Says Strange Sky Sounds Are Real
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 9 hours ago, 23 flags
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 9 hours ago, 23 flags
CPAC; Ron Paul won 2 years in a row; they change to electronic voting and he comes in 4th today?
US Political Madness, Posted 7 hours ago, 23 flags
US Political Madness, Posted 7 hours ago, 23 flags
ATS Live: 96: Super powers, Falklands Woes, Stan Deyo Interview, Syria, Telepathy, The Devils Chord.
ATS Live, Posted 11 hours ago, 19 flags
ATS Live, Posted 11 hours ago, 19 flags
Parenting 101: how to instill respect for others.
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 14 hours ago, 16 flags
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 14 hours ago, 16 flags
Book of Thoth. Secret Societies. truth seekers This is a good read!
Philosophy and Metaphysics, Posted 10 hours ago, 16 flags
Philosophy and Metaphysics, Posted 10 hours ago, 16 flags
The One Party System replaces the Two Party system in the U.S.
Above Politics, Posted 14 hours ago, 11 flags
Above Politics, Posted 14 hours ago, 11 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
Parenting 101: how to instill respect for others.
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 14 hours ago, 127 replies
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 14 hours ago, 127 replies
First thread, Possible Ghost picture I took myself, Would appreciate your opinion on this.
Paranormal Studies, Posted 10 hours ago, 74 replies
Paranormal Studies, Posted 10 hours ago, 74 replies
Why Argentina WILL Invade the Falklands & How Iran are Involved
General Conspiracies, Posted 13 hours ago, 71 replies
General Conspiracies, Posted 13 hours ago, 71 replies
Second most devastating oil spill? Massive oil spill in Venezuela
Fragile Earth, Posted 15 hours ago, 52 replies
Fragile Earth, Posted 15 hours ago, 52 replies
Minus -18 in uk last night expected to drop even lower
Fragile Earth, Posted 17 hours ago, 41 replies
Fragile Earth, Posted 17 hours ago, 41 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.687 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.687 seconds
