Europe and 5th generation aircraft

[DarthAmerica]

Noone is saying any other plane can supercruise at M1.7, but supercruise isnt M1.7, its >M1 with weapons loadout. if you want M1.7 to have an exclusive right to a sufix, call it ultracruise or sumfing

No I'll just say fly like the F-22 because of it kinematics which offer it advantages no other fighter would enjoy. That should not surprise anybody least of all the various engineers of these planes. F-22's fly and fight high and fast by design to achieve specific advantages you can't get in any other plane.

Remember, once detected, IF detected, you still have to get in position to fight with an F-22. If you are a fighter, you probably don't have the fuel for this. If you are a missile, in a stern shot your rate of closer is not as great as it would be vs a Typhoon, Rafale or Gripen. This means the missile will take longer to reach the F-22 which in turn means burning more fuel/energy. Since missiles have limited amounts of fuel/energy the effective range is reduced against an F-22. Head on or in a crossing shot, the greater speed will require better performance from the microprocessor inside the guidance section of the missile and physically demand harder maneuvers from the missile to merge with the F-22 for a kill. That means more energy and potentially shorter effective range. And all this depends on actually being able to detect and track it all the way to destruction which the F-22 is specifically designed to prevent. Other fighters except the F-35 do not enjoy this and even the F-35 doesn't have the kinematic advantages.

Against a modern IAD or threat aircraft this will make a difference. We have already seen the F-117 and SR-71 prove the benefits of both stealth and high speed. Thousands of hours over hostile airspace for only one loss to enemy fire.

A legacy aircraft directing a UCAV would potentially be more vulnerable since they are not hidden and chained to LOS communications. The alternative is UHF SATCOM which would allow more standoff. But in that case, why even have the fighter there in the first place since the UCAV can be controlled safely from the ground even in another continent.

Typhoon guiding Taranis(offspring) or Rafale guiding nEUROn(offspring), remember both are tech demos, into battle is not realistic as a substitute for a true stealthy platform designed to survive a high threat IAD. Thats why Europe and others will fly F-35s. Also, by the time something like a UCAV is ready for mainstream service in these roles AI will be advanced enough that they would'nt need remote direction. Just supervision while to go about their deadly work.

-DA

 

[DarthAmerica]

Nobody is saying that other aircraft have the same performance as the F-22. You are either ailing to understand what is pretty clear to almost everyone else, or deliberately misrepresenting others posts. Neither reflects well on you.

The point at issue is whether a particular term is only applicable to the performance of the F-22 (and, of course, some aircraft no longer flying, such as Concorde), not whether the performance of aircraft A matches the performance of aircraft B.

I'm neither ailing or misrepresenting anything. You are playing semantics with me and that doesn't reflect well on you. I don't care what term you or anyone else wants to use to describe a particular aircraft. If we use different terms then fine. I use what people I know use in common speak and that includes fellow DoD employees. When we say supercruise we are referring to the unique performance of the F-22.

Thats relevant in the context of this thread because legacy aircraft would be at a disadvantage. To rectify this a new design or major upgrade would be necessary for Europe's current fighters to have similar performance advantages.


-DA

 

[Dr Freud]

Trust me, i consider speed just as crucial as you, for the reasons you just mentioned, but keep in mind, that the EF has the exact same speed advantage over F35, as the F22 has over EF. ~30% speed advantage. (even more then Me262 had over its opponents). Perhaps you and your buddies should use the word ultracruise when you are referring to the unique performance of the F-22. ?

 

[DarthAmerica]

Network?
The F-22?!!! Better rephrase that...

I'm referring to the F-22's battle management capability which is further enhanced by its ability to operate inside contested airspace with a high fidelity LPI sensor which means it can see further into enemy territory and pass that data to friendlies.

-DA

 

[swerve]

I'm neither ailing or misrepresenting anything. You are playing semantics with me and that doesn't reflect well on you. I don't care what term you or anyone else wants to use to describe a particular aircraft. If we use different terms then fine. I use what people I know use in common speak and that includes fellow DoD employees. When we say supercruise we are referring to the unique performance of the F-22....

-DA

When you (& your fellows) say it does not make it the only meaning of the word. There are many internal, company or institution or trade-specific meanings of words which are accepted as the meaning within that limited circle, but not outside it. Ditto with national meanings, e.g. "liberal" in US usage, which is close to the opposite of the original, still current in the rest of the English-speaking word, meaning of the word. You need to widen your horizons. And indeed, I am "playing semantics". Semantics is about meaning, & meaning matters. I object to you claiming that your particular use of a term is the only one, when it had a perfectly good meaning before LM redefined it for marketing purposes, & had that redefinition accepted within the US military. If you want a more restrictive term for what the F-22 does that no other fighter does, invent one.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Trust me, i consider speed just as crucial as you, for the reasons you just mentioned, but keep in mind, that the EF has the exact same speed advantage over F35, as the F22 has over EF. ~30% speed advantage. (even more then Me262 had over its opponents)

No the Typhoon doesn't have the same advantage over the F-35, F-teens, Su, Mig, Rafale ect. and this is why I'm making it such a big deal. First of all, the Typhoon and F-35 were no designed to shoot each other down. They were designed to fight together. Second the F-35 has a huge fuel advantage, fights at high subsonic speeds like the Typhoon and like the Typhoon can dash to supersonic speeds. The marginal difference between M0.9 and M1.2 would mean little to a SAM bearing down on you. The difference between M.9 and M1.7 or greater(and it's been in OSINT that F-22 can cruise faster) is huge.

You should also read the conditions a Typhoon would have to be at to get to M1.2. We are talking take off, climb to altitude accelerate. Or from the loiter at altitude accelerate to M1.2 from cruise speed. Do the math using the specific fuel consumption and you will see the impracticality. Keep in mind that the Electric Lightning could fly ~this fast too. That would not be an advantage however for obvious reasons. When you say 30% we are talking about a brief 100 to 200 knot difference at best vs a sustained ~500-700 knot difference.


-DA

 

[DarthAmerica]

When you (& your fellows) say it does not make it the only meaning of the word. There are many internal, company or institution or trade-specific meanings of words which are accepted as the meaning within that limited circle, but not outside it. Ditto with national meanings, e.g. "liberal" in US usage, which is close to the opposite of the original, still current in the rest of the English-speaking word, meaning of the word. You need to widen your horizons. And indeed, I am "playing semantics". Semantics is about meaning, & meaning matters. I object to you claiming that your particular use of a term is the only one, when it had a perfectly good meaning before LM redefined it for marketing purposes, & had that redefinition accepted within the US military. If you want a more restrictive term for what the F-22 does that no other fighter does, invent one.

BTW, nobody mentioned your health, & it's not relevant, so why do you bring it up?

You said I was "ailing" to understand. You brought it up. See your previous post. Perhaps you made a typo or you are using the word in a different way. Ailing is defined here...

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ailing


-DA

 

[swerve]

You said I was "ailing" to understand. You brought it up. See your previous post. Perhaps you made a typo or you are using the word in a different way. Ailing is defined here...

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ailing


-DA

Typo - should have been "failing". My apologies. I've removed the comment.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Typo - should have been "failing". My apologies. I've removed the comment.

Thank You

 

[Sintra]

I'm referring to the F-22's battle management capability which is further enhanced by its ability to operate inside contested airspace with a high fidelity LPI sensor which means it can see further into enemy territory and pass that data to friendlies.

-DA

It would if the F-22 had that capability.
Right now the only "passing" capability that the fleet has, his the UHF voice radio and a VERY narrowband datalink who can connect with another three Raptor´s...
If the TTNT data link proves to be the asset that Rockwell advertises (and yes, i´m aware of the JEFX-08 tests, those are good news), if the money to equip the entire Raptor fleet his found, if the USAF, US Navy, Marines, rest of NATO, etc, are equiped with the same kind of IP based "net" THEN, and only then you can think of using the Raptor on that kind of mission profile.
So if you are want to use the F-22 has a strategic recon asset think again, at least for a loooonnnngggg time (next decade?).

Cheers

 

[merkboy]

F-22 is a advanced and decent aircraft, but it sure isn't cheap, and only restricted to certain countries. Hopefully a cheaper and downgraded model would be sold to other nations across the world, just like what the Soviets did to their T-72s, but to a limited extent.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

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.

I dont know why no one has addressed this yet but I will.

I have a major problem with your analysis, you look at individual capabilities in a vacuum.

1) A few points:

a) R-77M does not exist.

b) FRAAM has been cancelled, the next gen BVRAAM will be the Boeing JDRAAM, and it wont be ramjet powered.

c) AIM-120D can be updated from a 3rd party so launch platform can remain EM cold.

d) at 60,000ft and 1500 knots AIM 120D will have an engagement envelope in excess of 200km vs a flanker at say 30,000 ft, so the F-22 can egress after launch. You seem to think that the Raptor will continue to charge headlong at the incomeing flankers. Theres no frigging way a raptor would get anywere near a merge in that situation.

e) BVR launch is not feasible for a Flanker equiped with R-77M, its primary sensor's capability is reduced to tactically insignificant range performance by VLO. BVR launch is most definatly viable for F-22.

f) It boils down to the F-22A's only need to be at those speeds at launch to enjoy all the kinematic missile advantages, they can then maneuver any way they want.

2) Are you kidding me? What is this system? A RWR? ESM? Its going to pick up a low power data-link and somehow know its a missile being uptadeted and its the target. That is a huge leap of logic. The AIM-120D can be updated by a 3rd party and in the real world there's going to be plenty of datalinks iradeiateing the battlespace. Even if the missiles uplink can be detected (which uses LPI techniques) at those ranges how will it know its a threat. the russians must have leapfroged the EW game significantly lately, AFAIK thats the sort of thing you need something as big, expenceive and complicated as a Rivet Joint for. Now its a RWR? Those russians are pretty darn clever...

3) IRST will ALLWAYS have generic limitations. It will never be able to see through the weather, it will allways have trouble with volume search, i.e. try looking through a straw. Then theres the whole range determination issue. IRST will never keep up with fighter radar missile combinations, which is the point.

a) F-15C weapons package is no were near the "same" as a 5th gen avionics/weapons combination. This statement pretty clearly illustrates the lack of objectivity in this piece of "analysis". A slotted, plannar array radar, analogue RWR and EWSP suite with no offenceive EW capability vs a 3rd gen AESA, digital RWR/EWSP suite and significant EA capability. Yeah identical...

b) cope india was a joke. It was an exercise designed to train indian pilots and the ROE's were constructed to further that goal. Makeing conclusions on capability from this exercise is an "exercise" in futility...

4)Your going to target a weapon on a contrail? And you think this fantasy is comperable to a 3rd gen AESA AIM-120D combination?

5) You seem miss the whole information dominance thing. Advanced flanker variants will not be able to see a F-22, will not be able to engage an F-22, they wont be able to spit at an F-22. You speak of this like its a legacy platform, its NOT...

Cobra maneuver....:lol3

How are you going to track insect sized objects outside of the threat stand off weapon envilope against an opponant who enjoys significant EW overmatch (which the USAF does in the real world). Again you speak of fantasy as if its reality.

Checkmate? This get better and better.....

Flankers have less advanced radar missile combinations, less advanced EW/EWSP suites, less advanced HUI's, less advanced kinematically and they have no VLO. And you somehow think they are more capable... Now i know why no one has responded yet. Jesus...

 

[Sintra]

Ozzy Blizzard

That was a fine post. But in one single point you over stated the AIM-120D capabilities, 200 Nautical Miles! That´s 370 km´s!
You could shoot an AIM-120D from an SR-71 at full speed that you wouldn´t have that kind of range.
On a "real world" shot, you can divide that range by five, at least if you want a decent chance of a hit.

Cheers

 

[Dr Freud]

I wouldnt count out IRST range either: a Defense Support Program (DSP) satellite with a <550 kg IR sensor can today see an aircraft from space! and that sensor is a decade or so old. Had IR sensors been so inferior to radar, why not use radar instead ?

 

[Grand Danois]

I wouldnt count out IRST range either: a Defense Support Program (DSP) satellite with a <550 kg IR sensor can today see an aircraft from space! and that sensor is a decade or so old. Had IR sensors been so inferior to radar, why not use radar instead ?

The IR radiation a sat detects has passed through perhaps a tenth less atmosphere, than the IR radiation a IRST at 100km detects.

 

[DarthAmerica]

It would if the F-22 had that capability.
Right now the only "passing" capability that the fleet has, his the UHF voice radio and a VERY narrowband datalink who can connect with another three Raptor´s...
If the TTNT data link proves to be the asset that Rockwell advertises (and yes, i´m aware of the JEFX-08 tests, those are good news), if the money to equip the entire Raptor fleet his found, if the USAF, US Navy, Marines, rest of NATO, etc, are equiped with the same kind of IP based "net" THEN, and only then you can think of using the Raptor on that kind of mission profile.
So if you are want to use the F-22 has a strategic recon asset think again, at least for a loooonnnngggg time (next decade?).

Cheers

First, I didn't say how the Raptor could pass the data, only that it could. I'm not going to speculate on how as you are. There are a lot of things about the Raptor we don't know for security reasons. It does however get mentioned very often by official sources that its sensors and data harvesting abilities are unique. It's a concept that's been validated and unique. Also, money is not a problem if the USAF want's the capability. Remember this is the "USAF", aka 13 trillion dollar economy, so money is not an object for anything deemed mission essential.

Anyway, this link...

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/aw010807p1.xml

...sums up in detail what I've been trying to explain about UCAS, 4th Gen fighters, Supercruise, Raptors, modern IAD and EW. The Raptor is already a very capable ISR platform and there is no need to wait decades for that.

-DA

 

[DarthAmerica]

The IR radiation a sat detects has passed through perhaps a tenth less atmosphere, than the IR radiation a IRST at 100km detects.

No to mention the substantially greater source! IRST is a secondary sensor and nowhere near as efficient as a radar for covering huge volumes of sky.



-DA

 

[Dr Freud]

Well, most of the atmospheric mass is confined in the lowest 100 km from sea level, and half the mass is below 5.5 km. But if you are cruising with your IRST at 11 km, as airliners do, you are above 78% of the atmosphere, same as an space based IR sensor, So the IR radiation a sat detects has passed through perhaps 20% less atmosphere.
If the space based IR sensor can see 500 km, the plane based IR sensor can thus see ~400 km.
On top of that, there is no interference with ultra-high energy cosmic ray events that may be expected to occur in volumes of the viewed atmosphere.

 

[Dr Freud]

No to mention the substantially greater source! IRST is a secondary sensor and nowhere near as efficient as a radar for covering huge volumes of sky.

Yet still the upcoming replacement for DSP, SBIRS, isnt going to use radar to cover all the world, its going to use even more sensitive IR sensors for covering huge volumes of sky.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Yet still the upcoming replacement for DSP, SBIRS, isnt going to use radar to cover all the world, its going to use even more sensitive IR sensors for covering huge volumes of sky.

Three things you should consider. The attenuation is not linear so your numbers are incorrect and the signatures are much more intense. Think about that. Also, think about the kind of data you get from an IR sensor which is passive vs an active radar(hint:transceiver vs receiver). What do you think the DSP and SBIRS satellites do with the data they collect?


-DA