F/A-22: To Fly High or Get its Wings Clipped

[Ths]

The discussion of one versus two engines has raged since Frank Whittle revolutionised vacuum-cleaning.

The documentation I've seen is inconclusive (with a very slight advantage to two-engined) and refers to tactics as the major factor for survival - Big surprise.

I think a far more important factor is that it is do difficult to produce a jet engine at all, let alone a good one.
All engine designs (and pumps by the way) have a range where you can tune them for a specific application. This range is rather narrow.
So when design decision have to be made the choise is often: Do you go with one (two) well developed but mediocre or two (one) new developments that will give all sorts of problems, but might be superior.

The F-14/F-15 situation illustrates what I mean rather well:

F-14: There really wasn't an adequate engine for the Tomcat, so they took 2 mediocre units, that were pressed hard (some would say over the limit) - used every trick in the book to get it of the carrier: And ended up with a maintainence nightmare.

F-15: McDonnell-douglas gambled on a new design - the F-100 - (or rather the USAirForce did), and dispite the usual misery of teething troubles - got lucky.

Significantly the Navy stuck with the CorsairII and did not make a one engined Tomcat to drop bombs.

My point is: Compared to the limitations of what engines are available the one-two argument is frivolous.

 

[PETER671BT]

The flankers we got from Russians have pretty archaic radar and avionics in general. But it seems to me that the avionics development over the past few years have been quite rapid for PLAAF. It is in my opinion only a matter of time before they have the technology to cheaply mass produce the T/R modules needed for AESA radar. You can see all of the new platforms coming out in China using various types of AESA radar.

Actually I need to ask a question on flanker,jsk.f-22.What radar has the larger range,I heard it was flanker.How would it be when f-22 has far better cockpit technology.

 

[Francois]

Actually I need to ask a question on flanker,jsk.f-22.What radar has the larger range,I heard it was flanker.How would it be when f-22 has far better cockpit technology.

Stealth, AWACS and C4I makes long range radars useless.
Japan would not have much more restriction that when they purchased the F-15s. Only the nuke-capability had been removed then.
And AFAIK, F-15s are good enough as mudmovers.

 

[Scorpion82]

Actually I need to ask a question on flanker,jsk.f-22.What radar has the larger range,I heard it was flanker.How would it be when f-22 has far better cockpit technology.

The radar is only one factor which makes a combat aircraft, much more parameters has to be considered. You can find a lot of range data about the different radars, but the extrem long ranges given for russian systems are mostly against relative large targets. The detection/tracking range of russian systems like N-011M ot N-035 seem to be much lower against a 3 m² than that of the AN/APG-77.
Technological the Raptor is far more advanced than any current Flanker derivate. Only the new proposed Su-35, which should fly for the first time this year (some sources suggest tests have already begun 2006) could come close in some areas, though I doubt they will reach the level of the F-22 avionics at all.

 

[tphuang]

Actually I need to ask a question on flanker,jsk.f-22.What radar has the larger range,I heard it was flanker.How would it be when f-22 has far better cockpit technology.

let's ignore the junk on su-27 and just focus on Irbis, that generates about 5 kW of power on average for su-35, compared to 8 kW on F-22 (I could be really wrong here). But there is a disparity in the processor and software used on APG-77 vs Irbis. APG-77 wins hands down.

 

[Das Kardinal]

In the air-to-air realm there is no way past the F-22. Eurofighter would be option number two. Both planes are available now, although I agree the EF2k much easier, but also quite less capable. Rafale is a very nice plane, but more a fighterbomber than a fighter, plus not really mature. But I simply don't believe that Japan goes for Euro-equipment. And the F-35 is not a fighter.

Just a nitpick : the Typhoon isn't more mature than the Rafale... Rafale has seen operational deployment in the navy version (F1, air-to-air). Recently delivered aircrafts are F2 now (operational in the AdA), which adds ground strike capability and a "full SPECTRA suite", whatever it really means. I read in Air Fan magazine that Rafales F2 managed during the latest Tiger Meet in Spain to locate a Hawk SAM through SPECTRA and "destroy" it with AASM guided bombs.
Plus no Rafale prototype ever crashed

Anyway, considering Japan's close ties with the USA, I'd be really surprised too if they chose a non-US plane.

 

[ashkon]

The problem with operating B-1B is apparently it's cost. It apparently costs far more than the B-52h or the B-2 in operational service, AFAIK.

The other major problem is the same as if we introduced Tomahawk into RAN service. Yes, it would massively increase our offensive strike capability, however it is NOT Government policy of EITHER party to obtain high level strike capabilities. Such a move would be seen as VERY provocative and would most likely be counter productive.

Look at the arguments WE have over the merits of F-22 etc because of the "threat" which is extant or might become so in SE Asia. The reverse would happen if WE were to obtain such a high level of capability and one that is considered unnecessary by larger world powers than us (UK, France, Germany etc).

I don't think that we should necessarily restrict our force structure, because of what our neighbours might think of us, but we should bear it in mind. It's a definite possibility that if we heavily invest in strike capability that our neighbours will do so as well, and then it becomes an arms race. Can we sustain such a race with our rapidly ageing population and the expected costs of supporting such an "ancient" population???

Maybe, maybe not, but neither major Political Party (and definitely none of the minor ones) are interested in finding out. Maintaining a SLIGHT technological advantage and "over match" on our regional neighbours is the best we'll do.

A B-1B purchase, no matter the price or affordability would alter this balance significantly and thus is unlikely to ever happen.

Some very good points there AD, i'm wondering that in the likelyhood of a regional neighbour starting an arms race(a scenario highly unlikely..i hope) we may not have a choice, but to sustain an arms race.
What did our neighbours think when we put in our order for the JSF?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Some very good points there AD, i'm wondering that in the likelyhood of a regional neighbour starting an arms race(a scenario highly unlikely..i hope) we may not have a choice, but to sustain an arms race.
What did our neighbours think when we put in our order for the JSF?

We haven't yet placed an order for any next generation combat aircraft, either SH OR JSF. We have committed funds to the development phase of the JSF program only.

However our neighbours are hardly standing still either. Indonesia is buying SU-27/30 aircraft, Malaysia is buying SU-30 aircraft and wants to buy Super Hornets as well and Singapore is buying F-15SG AND is a lower level partner in the JSF program.

IF further advanced capabilities are introduced into our region, then I sure the Defence Capability Plan will be modified to reflect that circumstance.
Out of interest, there's some talk that the AWD's will definitely acquire a BMD capability from the word go of their service.

This appears related to the acquisition of Ballistic missiles most directly by North Korea and Iran, but probably also due to the acquisition of such by China, India and Pakistan, not that they are direct threats, but mainly to go some way to "maintaining the status quo"...

 

[rickshaw]

Might it be more because of the Chinese supposedly planning to use ballistic missiles against naval task forces? Their value as a defence against a general ballistic missile threat against land installations would be IMHO rather slim. You simply wouldn't want them tied up on such duties, when they would be far more valuable at sea.

 

[Tasman]

Might it be more because of the Chinese supposedly planning to use ballistic missiles against naval task forces? Their value as a defence against a general ballistic missile threat against land installations would be IMHO rather slim. You simply wouldn't want them tied up on such duties, when they would be far more valuable at sea.

Good point rickshaw.

In the event of a ballistic missile attack on Sydney how far from the target could an AWD be and still be able to fire an SM-3 missile on an intercept course? The following link suggests a max range of 500 km but obviously the ship would need to be a lot closer to Sydney than this.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-161.html


Cheers

 

[alexsa]

Might it be more because of the Chinese supposedly planning to use ballistic missiles against naval task forces? Their value as a defence against a general ballistic missile threat against land installations would be IMHO rather slim. You simply wouldn't want them tied up on such duties, when they would be far more valuable at sea.

Where to you get slim from? The Aegis DDG-51 Class Destroyers equipped for Long Range Surveillance and Track (LRS&T). LRS&T provides a capability to detect and track LRBMs and to report the track data. The modified Aegis system combined with SM3 has the capbility of engaging short and medium range BM. The tests to date have been encouraging.

Our problem would be the the early detection of a launch. However if a rouge state was threaterning to lob a medium range BM at us I think at sea, up threat is exacly where you want the AWD to be, no matter what the hit probablity would be. And if it take the beasty out then it really has earned its keep.

 

[alexsa]

Good point rickshaw.

In the event of a ballistic missile attack on Sydney how far from the target could an AWD be and still be able to fire an SM-3 missile on an intercept course? The following link suggests a max range of 500 km but obviously the ship would need to be a lot closer to Sydney than this.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-161.html


Cheers

Actually the link is a good reason for spending money on the SM3 capbilty as it show the current growth path of the missile. If we were defending against a BM threat you would not poistions the AWD near the target as Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) is designed to intercept an incoming ballistic missile outside the earth’s atmosphere. As such the ship located within cooee of the problable flight path with the intent of knocking the thing down mid course. Getting in the flight path is not a huge problem when you have an idea where the misile is coming from as this is driven by simple ballistics.

As such if North Korea decide to do the untinkable having an AWD (better still two) up north in the flight path give pretty good cover.

Mod edit: I know I'm guillty of it myself guys, but perhaps we should take this discussion over to the Aus AWD thread, where it belongs? Just so "noses" don't get out of joint... Cheers AD.

 

[Tasman]

Actually the link is a good reason for spending money on the SM3 capbilty as it show the current growth path of the missile. If we were defending against a BM threat you would not poistions the AWD near the target as Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) is designed to intercept an incoming ballistic missile outside the earth’s atmosphere. As such the ship located within cooee of the problable flight path with the intent of knocking the thing down mid course. Getting in the flight path is not a huge problem when you have an idea where the misile is coming from as this is driven by simple ballistics.

As such if North Korea decide to do the untinkable having an AWD (better still two) up north in the flight path give pretty good cover.

Your right of course. The path that any BM attack on Sydney (other than from a submarine, which would be unlikely if we are just looking at countries like North Korea, would certainly come in over the north so that is where the AWD would need to be stationed. Whilst rickshaw is correct that it would be a bad idea to tie such ships up in this role (unless more were purchased) it would be nice to have the capability if a threat arose.

What about air launched BMD? Is there an air launched weapon under development that would enable an F35, etc, to be used in the BMD role in the future?

Cheers?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Your right of course. The path that any BM attack on Sydney (other than from a submarine, which would be unlikely if we are just looking at countries like North Korea, would certainly come in over the north so that is where the AWD would need to be stationed. Whilst rickshaw is correct that it would be a bad idea to tie such ships up in this role (unless more were purchased) it would be nice to have the capability if a threat arose.

What about air launched BMD? Is there an air launched weapon under development that would enable an F35, etc, to be used in the BMD role in the future?

Cheers?

Lockheed Martin is studying an air launched variant of the Patriot PAC-3 missile system.

This might be the closest thing in the West for some years yet to such a capability.

You can read the press release here:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=18129&rsbci=0&fti=111&ti=0&sc=400

A few rough calculations by someone more knowledgeable than me, shows that such a weapon in air launched configuration could have a 400k range without too many dramas...

 

[chrisrobsoar]

The ERINT missile is used with the ground based Patriot PAC-3 missile system.

Deploying the ERINT anti-missile missile on an aircraft has merit. It takes the fight to the enemy. If a missile can be engage early in the boost phase the debris will fall close to the launch site (or at least in the launching country), this could provide a deterrent from using missiles armed with WMDs.

The ground based PAC-3 system has to be placed close to all likely targets, if the opposition decides that the original target is too well defended he can select other targets. If the approximate area where missiles are expected to be launched can be patrolled this could reduce the number of missiles fired, giving the other elements of the “Scud Hunting” team a chance to locate and destroy the missiles on the ground. If missiles get through the boost phase attack, then they would be engaged by other airborne platforms or ground based units.

This missile could also be used as a long-range AAM (definitely 200+, but rather less than 400km I would suspect). In this regard it is limited somewhat by the extremely short range Ku-band seeker (~10km). The aircraft firing the missile (or other platform) has to provide mid-course corrections to get the missile into the basket.

However, even if the fighter has to track the target until the missile is very close to the target, there are benefits to using this weapon as a long range AAM.

If a LO fighter could get within (Long Range AAM) range of the target (say a high value asset such as an AWAC) without the opposing fighters (equipped with medium range AAM) being near enough to attack the fighter, the missile could be launched and directed to the target before the opposing fighters could get close to the launch aircraft, requiring it to break track and engage the opposing fighter. If, as is likely, other LO fighters would accompany the launch aircraft, they should be able to engage the opposing fighters protecting the launch aircraft.

There would also be a deterrent affect, the enemy knowing that there was a threat from a long range AAM, then the AWAC would have to be deployed further from the front, reducing the search range behind the front.

The deployment of ERINT missiles on LO aircraft would provide a useful additional capability.

It should be capable of installing the missile in the internal weapons bays of the F-22 & F-35 aircraft on the A-A weapons stations, providing the F-22 with a maximum load out of 6 missiles and 4 for the F-35 A & F-35C aircraft, however, it would probably be too tight a fit to get two ERINT missiles into the internal weapons bay of the F-35B.


Chris

 

[Grand Danois]

A sidenote is that the MEADS PAC-3 MSE will increase the range of the heritage ground based version with approx 50% and slightly increase max altitude. Not bad for a 345 kg missile. This is the missile that will be used for an airborne variant...

 

[chrisrobsoar]

More on MEADS PAC-3 MSE here.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/11871.pdf

The main improvements are and increased range (I still think that 400km might on the high side), improved agility, very important duting the closing phase on an A-A engagement.


The following article gives more detail into the use of the missile when launched from an aircraft. I have snipped out the salient points.

DoD Studies Patriot Missiles on F-15s
By Ashley Roque, InsideDefense 4/1/07
Jan 11, 2007, 11:57

“If a Scud was launched from a barge or if a cruise missile was launched outside territorial waters attacking the United States, obviously if you had an F-15 up and it had a PAC-3 on it you could do long-range cruise missile defense or [tactical ballistic missile] defense,” Trotsky explained.

Two feasible concepts for employing the weapon.

First, fighters equipped with PAC-3 missiles could be assigned to fly routine Civil Air Patrol. In the second scenario, the Defense Department could “scramble” PAC-3 equipped fighters as needed, Trotsky explained.

In addition to MDA’s funding of the Air Launched Hit-to-Kill effort, the agency has advanced a $2 million proposal for Lockheed Martin to build an Infrared Search and Tracking System (IRSTS), which would be used with the Air Launched Hit-to-Kill technology, an MDA official said. The agency has requested the funding via the director of defense research and engineering’s Quick Reaction Special Projects program. A decision on this initiative is expected late next month, MDA said.

The IRSTS would have utility for both the Air Launched Hit-to-Kill effort as well as another initiative known as the Net Centric Airborne Defense Element, the MDA official said.

“Unfortunately, the IRSTS will arrive too late to support the first proposed Net Centric Airborne Defense Element (NCADE) flight test later this year,” the MDA official wrote. “NCADE, another air-launched concept under contract with Raytheon, utilizes major components from existing air-to-air missiles. The initial NCADE flight test will likely take place this summer on the White Sands Missile Range, with the objective of verifying the NCADE seeker’s capability of differentiating plume from hard body in a boost-phase intercept.”

http://www.ocnus.net/artman/publish/article_27477.shtml




The phrase $2M to develop on IRST system is rather interesting. For a start $2M doesn’t buy very much, this is either just a feasibility study/ technology demonstrator, or as I suspect a derivative or an existing system. Most of the work funded by Quick Reaction Special Projects program is carried out within one year. There are also special provisions where if giving the project priority leads to delays in other programs that will also be funded. For listed companies the execution of Quick Reaction Contracts is mandatory.

IRSTS are very good at tracking objects but have to be cued to look at the correct volume of airspace as they are not very efficient at volume searches, hence the reference to the NCADE. In this case other sensors could locate the approximate location of a potential target allowing the IRSTS to get a lock on. In turn having acquired the target accurate steering information could be provided to the PAC-3 MES to for mid-course updates.

This could allow other platforms (P-3 etc) to participate in the enterprise.

The other phrase that caught my eye was “another air-launched concept under contract with Raytheon, utilizes major components from existing air-to-air missiles”. This is likely to mean using the seeker-head from the AMRAAM-120C or the AIM-9X missiles or possibly another dual-mode seeker.

It appears that the pressure is on to develop a capable air launch AMM/long range AAM ASAP.



Chris

 

[gf0012-aust]

The other phrase that caught my eye was “another air-launched concept under contract with Raytheon, utilizes major components from existing air-to-air missiles”. This is likely to mean using the seeker-head from the AMRAAM-120C or the AIM-9X missiles or possibly another dual-mode seeker.

It appears that the pressure is on to develop a capable air launch AMM/long range AAM ASAP.



Chris

The US has been working on tri-mode seeker capability for the last 3 years.

SAMs "retrieved" in 2003 had modified seekers attached from other systems as a retro fit. So working examples are also available of how disconnected technologies or disparate seekers can be adapted to existing stable launch systems

 

[alexsa]

A bit more on ABM defence using ari launched PAC3. This is from DIAR so I cannot provide a link will work.

PAC-3 EQUIPPED FIGHTERS TO NEUTRALISE CRUISE MISSILES: Lockheed Martin (LM) has received a US$3m contract from the US Missile Defense Agency to continue the air-launched ‘hit-to-kill’ (ALHTK) initiative, designed to enable military fighter aircraft to carry and launch ‘Patriot’ Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) missiles to intercept hostile ballistic and cruise missiles, and thus defend deployed forces and other strategic targets. According to officials, “equipping fighter jets with PAC-3 Missiles would provide Combat Air Patrols or scrambled aircraft the ability to defeat cruise missiles and intercept ballistic missiles in asymmetric defence and boost phase applications.” The initial operational concept is to have the new capability fit in with North American Air Defense (NORAD) operational architecture, and flying aboard F-15C fighter aircraft. Future spiral development plans may look to equipping other aircraft with the capability. [17.01.07]

 

[rjmaz1]

The F-22 with AMRAAM already has the ability to chase and kill cruise missiles. This is one of its key features.

An F-15 with a Patriot missile wont be much better than an F-22 with an AMRAAM.

The F-22 can detect cruise missiles from further away than the F-15 can. The F-22 can also travel much quicker on an intercept course and get closer to the target. The F-22 can also fly higher. This makes up for the shorter range of the AMRAAM.

An F-22 flying supersonic at 80,000ft could have a shot at all the ballistic missiles that will be operated by Iran and North Korea.

Instead of spending 10 billion dollars on developing an air launched Pac-3 missile and equiping a squadron of F-15's the money could be used to buy another squadron of F-22's which would serve many other purposes.

This inefficient spending shits me up the wall!!