It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Every aircraft with a radar is its own mini-AWACs.
Indeed the argument could be made that information saturation will eventually (if not already) result in degrading performance, as too much unnecessary information needs to be filtered to obtain the key info.
Another argument could be made that the F-22's datalink is being made less secure by transmission of such nice, but usually useless information. Why make a 0.2 second transmission of the armaments, FCS, fuel and airframe states when a 0.05 second transmission getting the radar picture out is all that is really needed.
The guy you've allocated the target to gets on the radio and says he is out of AMRAAMs...
not exactly complex is it?
Whlie the PAK-FA, is not likly going to be used by the russians at all, seems more and more likly that it's to be a pure low-cost high manuver fighter for export purpuses.
I'll go on record to predict it will be just another flanker with a different name the Russian planes are very unoriginal with only very minimal improvements.
Just google for Pavel Ufimtsev and you will find out that structural stealth technology utilised in all US stealth planes is based on theories developed by a Russian scientist in 1957 (+/- a couple of years - not sure of exact date)
Or, the Russians perhaps didn't think it was worth the investment, and instead sought to develop other ideas, or buy more aircraft with the money? I don't think it was in Russias best interest to spend a great deal of money on the F-117 which is expensive, maintainence heavy, aircraft, that evidently, the Russians would of never used; they don't usually have their own versions of the first Gulf War...
Why? we can only speculate about the reasons (like plasma cloud being a better solution).
But after abandoning that thechnology Russians stared to developp radars with separated transmitter and receiver which simply don't care whether a plane has stealth shape or not. They can see it anyway.
Maneuverability? NO. Any modern Flanker with OVT will outmaneuvre the F-22 due to a better airfraime and much more advanced vector thrust. Needless to say that according to approved technical requirements (which are publicly available) the PAK FA is going to be much more capable then any modern version of Flanker.
Avionics? YES and NO. F-22's major advantage can in certain circumstances become it's nightmare. F-22 can see enemy planes using data from AWACS communicated through a comm satellite. That's good when you are invading weak countries like Yugoslavia, Iraq or, maybe even Iran. However, it will be no good in a large scale conflict with a nation capable of destroying AWACS planes and communication and GPS satellites. With that infrastructure being unavailable I wouldn't give an F22 a chance against any Flanker with modern radar and OVT.
Every aircraft with a radar is its own mini-AWACs.
The F-22 is no different in that regard.
Source: Highbeam reasearch. www.highbeam.com
Title: FIGHTER EW.
Date: 7/1/2000; Publication: Journal of Electronic Defense; Author: Sweetman, Bill
At the same time, the fighter's classic tool for situational awareness -- a powerful search radar -- can render its stealth characteristics moot. Low-probability-of-intercept (LPI) techniques are not very compatible with continuous searches over a large volume. The fighter's stealth is also of little use if it has to close to visual range in order to identify its targets. Passive search and track and non-cooperative target recognition (NCTR) are not luxuries for a stealthy air-superiority fighter.
The solution to this problem on the F-22 is sensor fusion. The principal sensors are the Northrop Grumman APG-77 radar and the Sanders ALR-94 passive receiver system. The fighter also has two datalink systems: one using the standard VHF/UHF radio frequencies and the other, the intraflight datalink (IFDL), a low-power LPI link which connects two or more F-22s at close range. The sensors are apertures connected to the fighter's Common Integrated Processor (CIP) banks in the forward fuselage.
The APG-77 and ALR-94 are unique, high-performance sensors. The APG-77 has an active, electronically scanned array (AESA) comprising some 1,200 transmitter and receiver modules. One vital difference between an AESA and any other radar that has a single transmitter (including a passive electronically steered array) is that the AESA is capable of operating as several separate radars simultaneously. An AESA can change its beamform very readily, and its receiver segments can operate in a passive or receive-only mode. Unlike a mechanical antenna, too, its revisit rates are not constrained by the antenna drive, and it can concurrently revisit different points within its field of regard at different rates. The F-22 has space, weight and cooling provision for auxiliary side arrays on either side of the nose. If installed, these would provide radar coverage over almost 270[degrees]. The ALR-94, meanwhile, is the most effective passive system ever installed on a fighter. Tom Burbage, former head of the F-22 program at Lockheed Martin, has described it as "the most technically complex piece of equipment on the aircraft."
A target which is using radar to search for the F-22 or other friendly aircraft can be detected, tracked and identified by the ALR-94 long before its radar can see anything, at ranges of 250 nm or more. As the range closes, but still above 100 nm, the APG-77 can be cued by the ALR-94 to search for other aircraft in the hostile flight. The system uses techniques such as cued tracking: since the track file, updated by the ALR-94, can tell the radar where to look, it can detect and track the target with a very narrow beam, measuring as little as 2[degrees] by 2[degrees] in azimuth and elevation. One engineer calls it "a laser beam, not a searchlight. We want to use our resources on the high-value targets. We don't track targets that are too far away to be a threat."
High-priority emitters -- such as fighter aircraft at close range -- can be tracked in real time by the ALR-94. In this mode, called narrowband interleaved search and track (NBILST), the radar is used only to provide precise range and velocity data to set up a missile attack. If a hostile aircraft is injudicious in its use of radar, the ALR-94 may provide nearly all the information necessary to launch an AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missile (AAM) and guide it to impact, making it virtually an anti-radiation AAM.
Unlike the Eurofighter Typhoon , the F-22 does not have an electro-optical (EO) system for target identification. F-22 program managers have said consistently that they believe that the F-22 pilot will be able to identify any target -- emitting or not -- beyond visual range (BVR). "We are confident that we can demonstrate to our leadership that we know what's out there, and that we will operate with rules of engagement that reflect that fact," USAF program manager Gen Mike Mushala remarked at a conference in 1997.
www.f-16.net...
The Iranian airforce use there tomcats are AWACS shepherds for the F-5`s , so you don`t need the latest whizz bang tech to be used for AWACS ability - just a radar to direct those that have smaller ones or none at all.
the brits did it with F3 Torandao and Hawk combo.
As for the "new paint scheme", well if an Su-27 and, say, an SU-35BM or SU-37 look alike when you see them it doesn't mean that the only difference they have is a paint scheme. In fact, I would call an SU-35BM a huge technological leap from Su-27.
True, just like any other plane with a radar...
Anyway, my point was that during a large scale conflict you would not necessarily have all the infrastructure in place in which case your "mini-AWACS" is no better then a 4+ gen Flanker with a 5th gen radar (IRBIS). Though that kind of situation would only occur if USA decides to bring democracy to Russia (which, I hope, is very unlikely).
And is the F-22 unique in that regard?
Hell no!
Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by C0bzz
so? other aircraft can perform awacs role - which is the point im making
F22 is a good plane... But can you tell me what exactly makes it such a huge leap in technology?
Stealth capabilities? NO. Just google for Pavel Ufimtsev and you will find out that structural stealth technology utilised in all US stealth planes is based on theories developed by a Russian scientist in 1957 (+/- a couple of years - not sure of exact date). For some reason this route was abandoned by Russian design centres in mid 60-es. Why? we can only speculate about the reasons (like plasma cloud being a better solution). But after abandoning that thechnology Russians stared to developp radars with separated transmitter and receiver which simply don't care whether a plane has stealth shape or not. They can see it anyway.
Maneuverability? NO. Any modern Flanker with OVT will outmaneuvre the F-22 due to a better airfraime and much more advanced vector thrust. Needless to say that according to approved technical requirements (which are publicly available) the PAK FA is going to be much more capable then any modern version of Flanker.
Avionics? YES and NO. F-22's major advantage can in certain circumstances become it's nightmare. F-22 can see enemy planes using data from AWACS communicated through a comm satellite. That's good when you are invading weak countries like Yugoslavia, Iraq or, maybe even Iran. However, it will be no good in a large scale conflict with a nation capable of destroying AWACS planes and communication and GPS satellites. With that infrastructure being unavailable I wouldn't give an F22 a chance against any Flanker with modern radar and OVT.
And then there is the Raptor's super cruise capability that lets it fly at supersonic speed without using fuel-guzzling afterburners as required by other fighters.
"That saves us a lot of gas and opens up a whole host of things when you start talking about dropping bombs," Krumm said. "You can imagine if you are 60,000 feet doing mach 1.9 (about 1,400 mph) and these bombs are flying out of your airplane, the swath of hell you can produce going through a country saying 'I'll take that target, and that target'."
As a result the F-22A is the only production fighter in existence with a genuine supersonic cruise capability and the enormous kinematic advantages this affords in combat. This analyst had the opportunity to discuss the practical aspects of supercruise capability with one of the F-22A test pilots some years ago. Not only were chase fighters unable to keep up, but in mock intercepts flown by F-16Cs and F-15Cs against development F-22A airframes, even modest 20 degree heading changes caused the teen series fighters to abort their intercepts, having burned their fuel down to bingo levels.
Originally posted by Juliodone
I feel that any Aircraft project delivered by Russia will be inferior to current US offerings in the 5th gen arena as the Russians "lost" 15 years of research and development due to lack of funds during their post soviet economic crisis.
The F22 is a culmination of 20 years of air superiority research and an almost unlimited governmental budget by a country who's main business is War.
America has also been developing the idea of a digital battlefield and I believe the investment in support technology for recon and long range detection/engagement means that even if the Russians continue to develop more manouverable planes; this is inconsequential in the digital battlefield as no human piloted vehicle will ever be designed that can outmanouvre its modern missile counterpart.
Originally posted by C0bzz
If the infrastructure is not in place for the Americans, then it's reasonable to assume the same will be true for the Russians.
Originally posted by BlueRaja
The US had 2/3D TVC before any Flanker, and decided that 2D would be better for the Raptor as it already met it maneuver requirements, and the lower IR/Radar signature would be more beneficial(If your IR and radar signature are higher, that's not an advantage.)
In regards to radars, yes, Irbis-E is indeed PESA. I've confused it with the one with no name so far (or, is there a name?) which was created for PAK FA based on Irbis. The new one is AESA.
Quick question for those who would know more than I: How precisely does the F-22 reduce its IR signature? As far as I know, at high speed the leading surfaces will still heat up, and there's still a vast plume of hot gas following the aircraft due to the necessity of engines. I admit that air could be mixed in as it exits the turbine, but on a low-bypass engine there doesn't seem to be enough airflow through the system to sufficiently cool the exhaust gases. My question is, therefore, what measures were taken on the F-22 to make it less visible in the IR spectrum than, say, an F-15 or a Su-27?
Thrust vectoring isn't the only way to achieve high maneuverability.