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.

 

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

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   

It is generally accepted that the F-35 has inferior stealth and A2A capability compared with the F-22, but superior A2G application on a readily disposable platform.


Why would anybody want that instead of a UCAV?




posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


Because a UCAV isn't capable of air to air combat at this point. The lag time between control input, and receipt of the command at the UCAV is about 1 second. That's an eternity in air to air combat.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by mbkennel
 


Because a UCAV isn't capable of air to air combat at this point. The lag time between control input, and receipt of the command at the UCAV is about 1 second. That's an eternity in air to air combat.


OK, why would anybody want a F-35 instead of Typhoon + UCAV?



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


Because of the stealth features of the -35. The RCS difference between the F-35 and the F-22 with a full internal load isn't as big as it's made out to be, and the F-35 has an outstanding combat radius.

The Typhoon has a combat radius of between 100 miles, and 750 miles depending on the mission profile. A ground attack lo-lo-lo is 325 nm, a lo-hi-lo is 750 nm, air defense with a 3 hour loiter is 100 nm, and a 10 minute loiter is 750 nm. Optimum radius is in the 300 nm range area from what I understand.

The F-35A has a combat radius of 584 nm on internal fuel.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


This is true but as I stated....the F/A-22 is designed and it's tactics taught to it's pilots are specific for it's Stealth Charachteristics. The Eurofighter or any other Russian or European Fighter Aircraft would not stand a chance against it in real combat operations.

The current games are designed to allow the Eurofighter a chance as if the F/A-22 was to enguage the Eurofighter as it would enguage an enemy aircraft during war being undetectable by either Radar or IR-Detection...this would be a waste of time as a War Excersize as the Eurofighter would be shot out of the sky before it even knew the F/A-22 was even close to it.

Split Infinity



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   
darkPr0, OK, we're back to the question you said the Canadian gov't won't answer. What is their "profile"? What do they need and want? You seem to have a better idea of it than they do!



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by nwtrucker
darkPr0, OK, we're back to the question you said the Canadian gov't won't answer. What is their "profile"? What do they need and want? You seem to have a better idea of it than they do!


That short question has a very long answer. To explain the 'profile' I have to go into the history of the Canadian F-35 purchase.

The CF-18s have needed a replacement for some time, and everyone sort of expected we would be getting new aircraft before too long. In 2010 the Canadian government announced that we would be purchasing F-35s, There was no sign of any other aircraft being looked at during any point in time, and as a result the decision came under some fire. Great debates raged over the usefulness of stealth in Canadian defence, the F-35's capabilities (which were far less known several years ago), and whether other aircraft would be of better use to us. Somehow these debates seem all too familiar.

What everyone did agree on was that the decision, seemingly out of the blue, was ill-conceived. This was not helped when some aerospace companies raised a ruckus about their aircraft not being fairly considered. In response, the gov't told everyone that the F-35 was the only aircraft that matched their list of requirements, but absolutely refused to release the actual list. In most eyes this was taken as an implication that the selection process was a sham.

(A related issue that occurred at this time was that government officials were selling the F-35 as a good idea because it was allegedly the cheapest one available at the time. It has recently come into the public eye that the budgetary work behind this was incredibly faulty and so the claims being made by the gov't are meeting with some well-deserved skepticism)

The F-35 really came into everyone's living room after the gov't was dissolved in 2012 from a non-confidence vote, and many political parties made various claims about what they would do to solve was was widely considered a political scandal. Cost overruns and risk in the program pissed a lot of people off. Near the end of the year the Canadian gov't starting asking some of the European aerospace companies about their potential offers, and the F-35 purchase was largely considered cancelled.

So this is where the Canadian purchase decision stands. The gov't is, at the very least, putting forward the image of looking at the decision again. They have not yet told anyone about that mythical list of requirements from the original selection process (though some points have come out as dubious leaks), and the financial work that went on with the decision is currently under intense fire.

To answer your question directly, what do they need and want? They want the F-35 and whatever comes along with it. I would conclude from the RFIs going out now that the original selection process consisted of choosing the F-35 or choosing the F-35. What do they need? I suspect that is a question more difficult to answer.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Here's a thought, when LM is ready, have the French, the Euros, the russians and the Americans bring their toys and have a shoot-off.

Everyone displays the required abilities the best they can and decide based on performance, cost and longevity.

No more hype/airshow displays like a fashion show.

Where the rubber meets the road decides it.....
edit on 23-2-2013 by nwtrucker because: spelling error



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:57 PM
link   
so much for that idea, won't happen of course...

Another dumb question...is this "losing too much energy" when using TV actually not true in some circumstances? If by using TV I can get the nose pointed at the enemy and loose a missile, doesn't that force him into a defensive mode? In which case, the raptor has the time to regain energy/maintain first shot, first kill.

If that is true, then who cares about the energy loss? The other guy is fighting for his life, not moving in for a kill shot. Yes??
edit on 23-2-2013 by nwtrucker because: spelling errors



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by nwtrucker
 


If it's 1v1 then it doesn't matter. But while you're sitting there nose high, low energy, taking him out what is his wingman doing? Probably sitting there dumbfounded at the luck of having an F-22 dead to rights. All it takes is for one lucky missile shot, or a lucky guns shot and you just downed an F-22. Being low energy is the best way to ensure that happens.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


OK, But if he has a "wingman" then it isn't 1v1. It's 1v2, a whole different ballgame.LOL...supercruise time


I would like to think that in all likelyhood, it would be more 2v1 due to the BVR capablities of the F-22. ??



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by nwtrucker
If by using TV I can get the nose pointed at the enemy and loose a missile, doesn't that force him into a defensive mode? In which case, the raptor has the time to regain energy/maintain first shot, first kill.


With the advent of all-aspect, high off-boresight capability missiles like the AIM-9X and R-73 family this has become less of an issue. You can launch IR missiles at enemy aircraft from some crazy angles, so getting the nose pointed right at the target is not really vital. Doing so using TVC will put you at some very severe angles of attack and you'll bleed kinetic energy far faster than you can get it back. You may get one kill, but you should do so with one hand on the ejection handle if the fight is larger than just you and him.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by nwtrucker
 


I'm thinking it's more like 4 v 8 or 2 v 6, or something along those lines more than 1 v 2. But regardless, that's how at least one F-22 was "shot down" during ACM training.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkpr0
 


The F-22 can't take advantage of the AIM-9X. They can do some off boresight shots, but they can't do the over the shoulder, or extreme angle shots with it.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Zaphod58, maybe you could provide a link on those comments by Wells, the wing commander of the Xl squadron on the agility of the F-22 with TV.

It seems to imply that tactics have been developed since Red Flag Alaska to counter the EF or perhaps we showed a bit more to the Brits than we did to the germans....
edit on 24-2-2013 by nwtrucker because: spelling error



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Here are a couple of excerpts. It makes for a very interesting read, and he raises some very good points.


We have all been around long enough to recognize there is not a single sensor able to turn the night into day, nor a unique aerodynamic design feature capable of ensuring by itself air dominance if implemented.

The effectiveness of an air superiority fighter relies on the successful combination of a range of design elements including thrust-to-weight ratio, wing loading, avionics and weapons integration. Furthermore, : appropriate tactics and valuable aircrew training must be developed to exploit the full potential of the weapon system.

Typically, when time comes to decide how to achieve the required “nose pointing capability” for high thrust-to-weight ratio airplanes three solutions are on the table:

- extremely high short term sustained Angle of Attack values (characteristic of twin tailed airplanes);
- High Off-Bore-Sight Weapons, preferably supported by Helmet Cueing;
- Thrust Vectoring.



Moreover, Thrust Vector operation requires the pilot to “create the opportunity” for its usage, spending valuable time in manoeuvring the aircraft to achieve a suitable condition and managing the activation of the Thrust Vector Control.

If you are “defensive” and your aircraft has Thrust Vectoring, you can possibly outturn your enemy, but that most likely won’t prove to be a great idea: an energy fighter like the Typhoon will conveniently “use the vertical” to retain energy and aggressively reposition for a missile or gun shot. Also the subsequent acceleration will be extremely time (and fuel) consuming, giving your opponent the opportunity to tail chase you for ever, exploiting all its short range weapon array.

If you are “neutral”, when typically vertical, rolling and flat scissors would accompany the progressive energy decay, similarly performing machines would remain closely entangled, negating the opportunity for Thrust Vector activation.

If you are “offensive”, probably stuck in a never ending “rate fight”, Thrust Vector could provide the opportunity for a couple of shots in close sequence. Make sure nobody is coming to you from the “support structure”, otherwise that could be also your last move.

theaviationist.com...

One of the big things, that I think is a huge mistake, is that the F-22 won't be able to take full advantage of the AIM-9X capabilities when it goes fully operational. To get a true high off boresight shot with the missile requires a helmet mounted sight of some kind, something the Air Force chose not to go with in the Raptor. I'm not sure if there are any plans to correct this, but right now, to get an over the shoulder, or 90 degree shot, they have to use targeting from another Raptor to aim their missile.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Sorry this might seem a dumb question to be honest I haven't read the whole thread but what do you mean by 'low energy'

I'm not questioning your knowledge I just don't have a clue what it means lol



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
One of the big things, that I think is a huge mistake, is that the F-22 won't be able to take full advantage of the AIM-9X capabilities when it goes fully operational. To get a true high off boresight shot with the missile requires a helmet mounted sight of some kind, something the Air Force chose not to go with in the Raptor. I'm not sure if there are any plans to correct this, but right now, to get an over the shoulder, or 90 degree shot, they have to use targeting from another Raptor to aim their missile.


HMS would definitely be a handy system, but as a solution for obtaining off-boresight shots I would say that its use is largely ergonomic. I can't believe that helmet-mounted cueing is the only way to take advantage of the missile. There are far too many ways to get pilot cues on targets that would probably be more easily integrated into a non-HMS environment for me to believe that the Raptor will always have such a glaring hole in its capabilities. I don't know how well a Raptor could track a target that was at really awkward angles with IR, though, which could definitely put a damper on things.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ThePeaceMaker
 


In Within Visual Range (WVR) combat (also known as dogfighting) speed equals energy. The more speed you have, the harder you can maneuver, or you can extend and get out of the fight. If you are at a low speed, you are in danger of stalling, or being in a situation where you can't turn hard, and your opponent pops you right out of the sky.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkpr0
 


There have been several articles I've read lately that talk about the Raptor not being able to take full advantage of the -9X because they don't have the helmet mounted sight.

This is from an F-22 pilot:


Even after the US Air Force's fleet of Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor air superiority fighters starts receiving full Raytheon AIM-9X Sidewinder high off-boresight missle capability in 2017, the aircraft needs a helmet-mounted cueing system (HMCS) to use the weapon to its full potential. That is even taking into account the AIM-9X Block I and Block II's helmetless high off-boresight (HHOBS) capability.

"Without a helmet, that means the missile will need a very tight cue from somewhere," one F-22 pilot says. "[That's] something that is not always available in a dynamic, turning environment."

To be clear, the AIM-9X is a huge improvement over the AIM-9M version even without a HMCS . "Don't get me wrong, it will still be better than having a 9M, but it won't be anything close to what a fighter with a helmet and an externally carried missile has," the pilot says. "Hence, probably not the savior we've all been waiting on."

www.flightglobal.com...




top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join