5th gen
Whether the F-22 (F-35) should enter service is largely academic. Our 'teen' airframes are wearing out.
The F-22 tactical use issues (never mind F-35, not even worth discussion) are:
1) Primary main weapon range / Newton’s second law of motion.
2) ECM detection of mid-course update transmission(s) for main weapon.
3) Thermal signature(s) platform & main weapon.
4) Daylight contrail(s) platform & main weapon.
5) Super-cruise only at high altitude.
Reason(s)
1) Despite claim(s) of an AIM-120D version, dimensions may be the issue. First, what is the amount of propellant possible in standard AIM-120 round? Second, FMRAAM (ramjet version) fitment inside F-22 weapons bay? The Europeans who were partnered on the AIM-120 program have since embarked on a more suitable weapon, the Meteor.
If the 'kinematics' augment is to be advanced by F-22 proponents as a key capability, to sweep the airspace of enemy fighters then there are several problems. They include: combined closure rate, maneuverability, airframe thermal heating due to air friction and hot exhaust exposure.
Simplified Condition: Initial head-on frontal aspect intercept of Flanker (firing R-77M) by F-22 (firing AIM-120C). A flight of 4 to 6 Flankers flying at 500 knots, against flight of 4 Raptors flying in super cruise at 1500 knots. The combined closer rate of all aircraft would be 2000 knots (500 + 1500).
The 'kinematics' augment says that F-22 will use its faster speed to 'push' its AIM-120 missiles towards Flanker, If both opposing flights of aircraft fire their weapons, both attacker and defender missile range benefit from a head-on engagement via the closure rate. F-22 fires AIM-120C sooner but also effectively flies INTO Flankers R-77M (!) Missile range = launch aircraft speed + missile velocity + target speed. Raptor faces additional problems at higher speeds because of simple physics, Thermal airframe heating (IRST detection) and reduced maneuvering potential due to the limits of pilot G-loads. Flanker moving at 500 knots would have enormous advantage in defensive maneuvering (AIM-120 avoidance) and to turn and fire on exiting Raptor.
Whatever the remaining aircraft, they now flash past each other at approximate 2000 knots and initiate turns, Raptor now exposes it’s hot exhaust to Flanker as F-22 make a wide sweeping turn due to it 1500 knot speed/pilot G-limit. The engagement then starts all over again. Typically this involves into a classic tuning/maneuvering contest...the dogfight.
This whole this boils down to this. If F-22 press their attack, closure rates will be so high and air-air weapons malfunctions (missiles fly wide) such a regular occurrence (on both sides) that F-22 aircrews will be in a dogfight within moments after calling "fox-3" Against the advanced Flanker, this is truly a nightmare scenario.
2) Flanker will most certainly be equipped with a Threat Warning System that listens for Raptors AIM-120 mid-course update (data burst transmission) after F-22 weapon release. From here two (2) things could happen. First, the Threat Warning System triggers automatic release of expendables (chaff/flares). See page 41 'c'. Second, Flanker pilot then initiates a defensive 'beaming' or 'beam-turn' maneuver. See page 36-37 'c', page 97 ’d’.
3) IRST
Flanker uses as primary system for gun firing solution. Development/advancement cycles for IRST systems would be orders of magnitude more frequent than F-22 airframes changes, combined with IR-versions of the R-77 (R-77M1) missile being the first problem. The second is Flanker radar (slaved to IRST). The IRST may see something and then point its main radar straight at F-22, (straight to ‘track’).
The canard equipped versions of the Flanker is an astonishing aircraft. Not only has if beaten the F-15 time to clime records, but Cope India has shown the F-15 weapons package (effectively the same as US 5-Gen) is vulnerable to "less-advanced" aircraft using proper tactics/training, (i.e. Mig-21 Bison, and Su-30MK, note not MKI).
4) Self-evident
5) F-22 low-bypass engines are the key to its high altitude super cruise capability. Low bypass engines require more use of reheat (afterburner) at lower maneuvering speed and/or altitudes. This is plainly evident if one watches video of Raptor during displays.
Also F-22 unusual 'speed-brake' control scheme may also reveal its true nature as an aircraft more akin to the Lockheed YF-12, than the plane it replaces, the F-15.
If Raptor is to be flown at high altitudes and high speed vs. Advanced Flanker a situation similar to what occurred in the early stages of the Falkland conflict could emerge. Argentine Mirages stayed at high altitudes while Royal Navy Harriers remained at medium altitudes (neither side content to give away his advantage) in what is best described as a series of 'non-engagements'.
The Russians were forced to counter our superb F-14, F-15, F-16 and F-18. The Flanker appears to be able to that job (F-14 w/AIM-54 was a big maybe) very (very) well. Cope India was a nasty shock to air force brass. Yes the analysts tried to diminish the results, but they said the same thing about the cobra maneuver, (which the F-22 has been out copying). Now as we all know this maneuver was just a hint at Flankers jaw dropping agility – the analysts were wrong.
An astute observer may also notice things like published range for the F-16 and even the F-15 is always with drop tanks; the Mig-29 and Sukhoi are published without tanks.
The Mig-25 was designed to counter the North American Mach-3 XB-70, the B-58 Hustler and the B-52. There is some method to their madness. The Russians still have the Mig-1.44, Su-47 and a moving target called PAK-FA. Whether they build them or not is likely an issue of need rather than finances.
The excellent range of Flanker has to do with geography/history. Russia is the largest country on earth and its history has seen Genghis Khan to the Panzer Divisions.
All Flanker (and Mig-31) really need to do is scare off our AWACS, (Joint Stars) and tankers. Bottom line is the next war will likely start and end during the flight time of an anti-awacs KS-172.
The Flanker airframe has enormous growth potential typified by the Su-27M and Su-34. The Advanced Flanker Series (canard/thrust vectoring) might just be….the most significant fighter aircraft since the Spitfire of WWII.
The Europeans tested the non-mid-course-update version of AMRAAM (AIM-120), and its kill probability dropped below that of their existing Skyflash weapon.
One last comment. If Mr. Clancy's comments are correct: that a future opponent would need to indeed track every object down to say the size of an insect to 'see' the F-22 Raptor. Uh well, they'd just focus on "insect" sized object(s), flying in a straight line, line abreast of say about a mile separation, at high altitude, around 1.5+ Mach....
Those should be your F-22s.
The Russians appear to have thought through all these issues with the precision of a chess grand master.
Checkmate?
Note: China is in possession of large numbers of Flanker. Historically however the Chinese Air Force combat performance would best be described as abysmal.
- Olaf Brescia / Sacramento, CA
c) Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units In Combat- Cooper, Tom; Bishop, Farzad; Osprey Publishing, 2004.
d) ...And Kill MiGs, Air to Air Combat From Vietnam to the Gulf War (3rd), Squadron/Signal Publications, Lou Drendel.
e) Air War South Atlantic - Ethell, Jeffrey L.; Price, Alfred - New York, NY, USA: MacMillan, 1983.
Whereas the US already has one 5th generation aircraft (F-22) and is developing another (F-35), many European countries are "stuck" with their EF, Rafale and Gripen -- all very capable aircraft that can match other aircrafts out there today and for some time to come.
However, Russia, India and Brazil are working on their own 5 gen, VLO aircraft; so does China, and it seems even Korea and Japan are moving in this direction. It will take them some time to get there (20 - 30 years?). When they do the European 4.gen aircraft may suddenly seem inadequate. What should the Europeans do? One possibility could be to purchase F-35s, some countries are already moving in this direction. Another, unlikely, scenario could be to develop a European F-35 (I don't think this will happen)
I suggest that there may be an alternative that may give a more powerful and flexible system at a lower cost: Instead of buying the F-35 one could consider a combination of 4.gen fighters and UCAV. UCAVs/UAVs will not completely replace manned fighters however for the few missions where manned aircrafts would be needed, 4.gens may do the job. One example where manned aircrafts could be needed, are "air-policing" and intercept of foreign aircrafts in peace time; I suggest a 4.gen perhaps supplemented with UAVs/UCAVs should be able to do this fine also 20-40 years into the future. For much of the rest, go UCAV.
One possible use of 4.gen fighters in "far-future" combat could be to remotely control UCAVs; in such a scenario the manned Rafale/EF/Gripen would be outside the radar range of the enemy, controlling the stealthy UCAVs operating in enemy territories. Why buy an F-35 if you can keep (and update) what you already got and use that in combination with 6.gen aircrafts?
Comments?
V.
Again I'm talking about a heavily networked AD with practically everything datalinked. After all that seems to be the direction that warfare is moving in.