Eurofighters at Langley AFB for joint training with the F-22s

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by ThePeaceMaker
 


It wasn't radar though - The Rapier 2000 system is optical/IR guided.

That said though, I knew of a project around 10 years ago to use cellphone signals to detect stealth aircraft called CELLDAR. It must have got results, as they are now using the same technique to track individual raindrops:

www.bbc.co.uk...

Thing is, stealth doesn't mean invisible to radar, just difficult to detect. Long wave radar can pick up an aircraft like the B2, but because the resolution of the radar is so big it can't be used for targeting as you can only narrow down the aircraft's location to a few hundred metre - so I am told, anyway.


They're doing more than that, they are considering using TV signals as a replacement for ATC Radar!

www.bbc.co.uk...


The proposed system works by utilising the TV transmitters that are dotted around the UK.

Each will receive the same TV signal but at a slightly different time because of the reflections and interactions with aircraft flying in their vicinity.

The received signals are then compared to the original broadcast, and the difference is used to locate the position of the aircraft.

The two-year research project is being funded by the Technology Strategy Board, a government agency set up to find innovative ways of using technology.

Thales believes that the large number of TV transmitters means the system could provide a more reliable infrastructure than the current one which typically relies on one radar per airport.




posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   
www.flightglobal.com...


"The exercise gives us valuable interaction with our allies as well as a great opportunity to integrate with the Typhoon," he says. "It's important for us as coalition partners to have that level of familiarity to make us more tactically proficient should the time ever come to utilize this training."


I don't see any indication thus far that the two planes will be flying against each other rather than with each other (as these types of diplomatic training exercises usually go) against either a virtual threat or simulated through F-15/F-16.

edit on 15-2-2013 by Pants3204 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


There is a system on the B-2, and I assume the F-22 as well, that renders Celldar and other long wave systems, significantly less effective against the aircraft.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Stands to reason - if we, the Germans, Russians etc were developing these systems the the Yanks must have been too...



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


I don't know about other countries, but what I've learned about our system is rather impressive. Although it tends to leave a hell of a mess when it fails.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


A little geeky I know and really my focus is more on a typical airport radar (where basically you trust everyone out there is your own). Some of our auto-track radars are amazing in what they can see, when they can see them and how many they can track individually at the same time (more of the end-user side).

Interestingly enough though, there is a fantastic system, though it breaks often, that is a marriage between radar concepts and laser; aptly dubbed a LIDAR. Currently in the civilian side it is utilized in a Doppler type fashion in arid environments to help detect winds and "weather" when there is no actual precipitation (well none that a typical weather radar will pick up) in the air.

I can see more of our systems going that route as the wavelengths are shorter, but more accurate in a sense. A mix between an auto-track radar with laser tracking capabilities would probably be able to track elusive radar defeating targets.

Im done geeking out and it is fun meeting someone from the optical side of the world.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by stumason
 


I don't know about other countries, but what I've learned about our system is rather impressive. Although it tends to leave a hell of a mess when it fails.


I assume you're talking about some kind of ECM, possibly active radar spoofing, right?

How could something like that "leave a hell of a mess", or does it just mean "put craft in a vulnerable position, or make craft radiate more and appear more visible?"

If there are ECM systems only turned "on" for combat---is it also possible there are ground and aircraft tracking radar modes which themselves are only turned "on" for combat, so nobody really knows how good the Best Stuff vs Best Stuff actually is.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


Correct that defensive system will not have their ECMs in an "on" status until needed. For instance, anti-radiation missiles are an obvious choice to take out a radar site (considering it should be the highest amount of RF in the area). Typically, decoys are deployed but not utilized and are controlled by classified software/hardware that is designed to detect the signature of such missiles inbound to a forward deployed radar site.

I would assume that an aircraft does the same thing. Counter-measures are not utilized until they are needed or warranted. Such measures or moving rapidly to electronic-warfare type measures and each gives off an electromagnetic or radiation signature which can be countered. Leading me to believe that each side is engaged in a deadly game of chess coupled with poker; moving to place yourself at better odds of winning while not showing your hand to your opponent.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


It's sort of ECM, but it does a lot more than just countermeasures. It has the effect of working as countermeasures, but that's not the primary purpose of it, just a nice side effect.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Pants3204
 


I'm sure there will be no official 1v1. But, boys will be boys and stuff happens



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Maybe we can turn this into a general discussion thread, cuz I have a whole bunch of dumb questions.

What happened to the Phoenix Missle? Didn't it have a much better range than an Amraam? I gather it was pricey.

Also, I understand that in the early days of the Raptor, the occasional meeting took place with Raptors and Tomcats out over the Atlantic before the F-14s were parked. Anyone here about that?

F-14 vs F-15, both with top drivers, who wins? BVR? BCM?



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by nwtrucker
 


The AIM-54 used a solid fuel that developed issues as it aged. The missile itself also developed cracks that would cause failures in tests. While it was long ranged, it wasn't very effective against single targets, or maneuverable targets. It would climb up to very high altitude, and dive down on the target. This allowed what you were shooting at to see it coming from a long way away.

The F-22 did go up against some F-14s early in its career. The Tomcat fared as well as everything else against it.

As for the F-14 v F-15, the -15 is the better WVR aircraft. The F-14 was designed as an interceptor, not a dogfighter, and it performed that role perfectly. The F-15 was designed for the same role, but due to the large wing, and the fact that the fuselage acts as a wing, it performs excellently in the WVR role as well as the BVR role.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


So the variable wing geometry of the 14 wasn't enough to give it the edge over the 15 in BCM? Is that correct?



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by nwtrucker
 


No, it actually made it slightly less maneuverable in certain aspects of flight. That, and the F-15 had a higher thrust to weight ratio than that Tomcat had. In certain aspects of flight the variable wings gave it an advantage, but at other aspects, the F-15 had the advantage. The Eagle had a much bigger advantage with thrust to weight though. During the flight demonstration for the Shah of Iran, one of the reasons that the Tomcat won, was because while the Eagle was doing the demonstration flight, the Tomcat sat burning fuel the whole time. They only had 2500 pounds of fuel at take off, which gave them a similar thrust to weight ratio to the Eagle.

Overall they were pretty close in WVR combat, but the Eagle had the edge with that wing, and with a 1:1 thrust to weight ratio.
edit on 2/16/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


very cool! thanks!!

That Iran story is funny! Sounds like a slick move by the squids!! LOL



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by nwtrucker
 


They decided to do a touch and go after the demonstration, and almost paid for it. From what I heard, they ran out of fuel on the runway after they landed. They almost didn't make it with the touch and go, because they used afterburners to get back in the air.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by nwtrucker
 


The wings on the Eagle are amazing! I saw that Israeli You Tube video of the 15 that lost it's complete right wing at altitude and landed the thing! The pilot didn't know the wing was gone due to fuel spraying out on the right side. It was a hoot!



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by nwtrucker
 


The F-15 is about the only plane that can do that. If you look at the fuselage, it's shaped like a wing, with a large flat bottom, and slightly curved upper surface. By flying fast enough, the fuselage generates lift. That, along with good piloting, and convincing the flight control computer to do things it wasn't born to do, allowed them to land the aircraft in one (well two actually) piece.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 01:08 PM
link   
OK. 1 to 1 T/W ratio. The early chatter was the 22 was going to break a bunch of Eagle records. Yet the "books" showed a lower T/W for the Raptor than the F-15.

Official USAF sites say 35,000 lbs. thrust. At one PW site under specs. it stated 37,600 lbs. thrust. Fan sites, f-16.net type sites regularly stated 39,000 lbs thrust. That's a huge difference and, I'd guess, a huge tacitical difference.

Just like any engine, running it flat out decreases it's lifespan. Throw in the non-export status of the f-22 and "need to know" trumps the PR gains of bragging on the F-119.

So many videos with pilot comments, almost all F-15 drivers seem to be in awe of the power the 22 has.

Some obvious contradictions here.LOL. Reading between the lines, I'd guess the official numbers are a tad understated. Unlike the EF and Raffy activists and the potential export dollars to be gained, the Raptor is getting a bit underestimated in general...yes?



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by nwtrucker
 


Engine thrust is kind of a ballpark figure. It changes based on where you're at, air density, etc. It's always going to be in the same ballpark, but it can vary. You get fan wear, and you lose a little, you get out in the desert where the air is hotter, you lose a little, etc. You also have to take into account whether you're reading the dry thrust, or wet thrust for the engine. That's going to increase or decrease thrust a good bit. The 35,000lbs+ is at full thrust, with afterburner, I'll almost guarantee it. Dry thrust is probably closer to the F-15/F-16 in the 24-27,000lb range.

The engine was designed to push the F-22 supersonic without afterburners, so it's going to appear to have much more power than the F-15 engine, when in reality the F-22 has a T/W ratio of 1.09, or 1.26 loaded with 50% fuel. It's basically the Tim Taylor approach of more power.

The F-22 runs into energy problems in WVR when they're trying to do high alpha maneuvering. Apparently it bleeds off energy and is slow to recover under certain conditions.





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join