Europe and 5th generation aircraft
- Thread starter Vivendi
- Start date
- Status
NO that is not how it works. The IR sensors detect the heat plume of a rocket motor firing a very intense heat signature orders of magnitude more powerful than an F119 or other jet engine and they cue a RADAR to track the ascending rocket. The energy from the radar goes to, makes contact with and returns to the receiver which processes the signal and determines the actual location of the missile in 3D so that it can be tracked in space and time and a trajectory calculated. Only then can and attempt at an intercept take place.
Also, some radars such as the one in the Raptor, are LPI and quite stealthy. But you need a radar to attempt long range missile shots. The benefits of a radar outweigh by far the draw backs. And radar is by far superior to IRST.
-DA
It seems all the data suggest otherwise. Folks, IRST is not a new technology nor is it something that was neglected when stealth aircraft were designed. IRST is a poor substitute for a radar and an aircraft forced to rely solely on a IRST for detecting opposing fighters while itself detected by radars would be at a huge disadvantage.
Before tossing out acronyms like IRST or SBIRS people should read up a little bit on how they work and what their purpose is. There are reasons why every major defense aviation company are spending top dollar to make their new aircraft, UAV, UCAV and even weapons LO to radars. There are also reasons why non LO aircraft are being forced more and more into using very long ranged stand off munitions. It's not because of IRSTs.
-DA
Do you want to know why? Because they aren't looking for relatively cool jet engines that have IR-signature management flying close to the Earth! They are looking for rocket motor exhaust from huge ballistic missiles that have to expel enough exhaust to make an intercontinental trip. Apples and Oranges especially if you are using this as the basis for an IRST claim against stealth aircraft.
-DA
Cope India
Correct. Stand off weapons keeps the air crews at a safer distance. And that's my point (on the Raptor). The AIM-120D is still a pipe dream. The AMRAAM is too small and has size/carriage restrictions on an F-22. Cope India proves there is no substitute to tactics/training. So if we used our go-to-war gear, then the kill ratio would go from 90% to say 50% ..?!! Still unacceptable. This is a typical response. It was so lopsided that even a Mig-21 was "a surprise"??! Good god, we got our clock cleaned! The more recent Cope India exercises have almost no information coming out...so you know it's not going that well. The Typhoon faired no better either (against Flanker).
Correct. Stand off weapons keeps the air crews at a safer distance. And that's my point (on the Raptor). The AIM-120D is still a pipe dream. The AMRAAM is too small and has size/carriage restrictions on an F-22. Cope India proves there is no substitute to tactics/training. So if we used our go-to-war gear, then the kill ratio would go from 90% to say 50% ..?!! Still unacceptable. This is a typical response. It was so lopsided that even a Mig-21 was "a surprise"??! Good god, we got our clock cleaned! The more recent Cope India exercises have almost no information coming out...so you know it's not going that well. The Typhoon faired no better either (against Flanker).
Aim-120 "d"
Look at a Raptor video, tons of heat out the back. Also all this talk of an aim-120d is silly. It DOES NOT EXIST. My references to R-77M refer to the IR version (whatever the name) which DOES EXIST. And lastly helmet sighting (advanced Flanker) eases weapon system compute power requirements as the pilot decides where the target might/should be...the seeker heads simply look where the pilot looks. Bada-bing
Look at a Raptor video, tons of heat out the back. Also all this talk of an aim-120d is silly. It DOES NOT EXIST. My references to R-77M refer to the IR version (whatever the name) which DOES EXIST. And lastly helmet sighting (advanced Flanker) eases weapon system compute power requirements as the pilot decides where the target might/should be...the seeker heads simply look where the pilot looks. Bada-bing
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Cope India proves absolutely.... nothing. You are aware of the exercise limitations on the USAF weaps, sensors and tactics? They were not fighting as the USAF, but were simulating the capabilities of another force.
Last edited:
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Laser range finder? Isn't that for ground targets? I.e not practical over 30 km range? Atmosphere again.
IRST on F-35? Because it is part of the hugely integrated sensor system - acts as warning and attack sensor. Not only as IRST.
Edit: the curious thing is really why so few current non-VLO fighters actually field IRST sensors as a fleetwide fraction.
It's a niche capability.
Last edited:
No one is saying IRST doesn't have a use. But that use has been grossly misunderstood in this thread. In fact you find one example of an IRST having a successful engagement in BVR combat without a radar involved somewhere in the kill chain?
Also in your previous post your criticism of the AMRAAM is unfounded. There are no issues with it's use from F-22's and it is considered the standard for radar guided missiles. It's probably the most well regarded radar guided missile with a highly successful combat record to match.
-DA
An R-77M or any other IR-BVR missile would still need RANGE data to successfully engage targets beyond visual ranges. BVR missiles do not fly straight at a target in pursuit. They fly an arc after a short rocket burn and use the energy from the initial rocket motor burn to reach targets. In order to calculate a correct trajectory THEY NEED range data that an IRST alone cannot provide. Otherwise they would run out of kinetic energy and fall to the Earth long before reaching a distant target. METEOR is different in that it is powered throughout its flight by an air breathing engine. It's a radical departure from the traditional paradigm. But it is not in service.Look at a Raptor video, tons of heat out the back. Also all this talk of an aim-120d is silly. It DOES NOT EXIST. My references to R-77M refer to the IR version (whatever the name) which DOES EXIST. And lastly helmet sighting (advanced Flanker) eases weapon system compute power requirements as the pilot decides where the target might/should be...the seeker heads simply look where the pilot looks. Bada-bing
Also, you cannot visually determine by looking at an F119 exhaust how hot it is or how an IR seeker would see it. Moreover, there are methods to reduce the intensity of such exhaust on stealth aircraft. Methods that are not publicly available or discussed for obvious reasons. But like I said, thousands of combat hours and no kills for IR missiles vs Stealth aircraft. Also, someone was arrested not to long ago for trying to steal information relating to the IR signature of the B-2A's engines. So that should give you an idea that the stealth features of modern planes is not limited to the RF spectrum.
-DA
Grand Danois
Entertainer
However, in practice, they max out at 120-140 km. And usually they would have much less range. The limitations with volume search and discrimination and that is IIR is prone to the weather. Also the objects angle determines how much radiation will reach the sensor, ie head on, not much is seen.
EDIT: Remember curvature of earth? a sensor lofted to 10km looking for an object at similar altitude will have its ray pass through lower parts of the atmosphere, in this case 6.8 km at the closest (and 400 km of other atmosphere with all the other effects).
Lofted IR sensors do have much more range than groundbased, though.
VLO is also about managing signatures in the IR spectrum, mixing exhaust with air, shielding hot parts like the nozzle from view, using internal fuel as a heat sink, etc.
Last edited:
Before this post continues on.
Can we NOT have some posters make empirical claims about how technology works (esp IRST) when it's patently clear that the basics are not being understood.
If you don't know:
Can we NOT have some posters make empirical claims about how technology works (esp IRST) when it's patently clear that the basics are not being understood.
If you don't know:
- don't make it up
- don't extrapolate that technical misunderstanding to build your own responses
- understand the science
- understand the limitations
Hardly a pipe dream. Production has begun, IIRC.
Foxhounds can fly up to mach 3. Does that mean they get a huge advantage in A2A combat against other fighters? It seems strange to me that you're so focused on speed as the F-22's main advantage. It's main advantage is it's avionics, radar, stealth, and to some extent TVC. Speed is part of it, but only a part. Not the main or even the critical advantage.
Sure. Against primarily third world air forces and AD. With that regard I can claim the Russian airforce is incredibly powerful based on it's Chechen war performance.
Then there is the JDRADM to consider too. Not sure about the specs but if its got good BVR range it would seem to make an awesome addition to the Raptor or even a UCAV like Reaper or something new.
-DA
Grand Danois
Entertainer
A non-AWACS supported, non-BVR capable, etc. force.
You want more? Search DT threads - it's an ad nauseam item.It is very common that a visitor doesn't use own strategies and tactics, but emulate another threat.
Btw, doing maneuvers to break radar lock is a myth. It may have worked in the 70-80's, now it just sucks the energy out of the target and leaves it as a sitting duck.
(Edit: I am talking about doppler returns, specifically, in response to a post elsewhere.
)
Last edited:
The Foxhounds(or Foxbat) speed is a huge advantage in certain circumstances. But the Foxhound and Foxbat are much more specialized aircraft with an emphasis on long range interception of bombers and recon. In those roles they are terribly deadly/effective.
The F-22 is more of a general purpose fighter and it's performance advantages are revolutionary and just as crucial to its success as it's stealth capabilities. Even without stealth features the F-22 would still be the single most deadly fighter in the world by far. It can literally outfly any competition and "choose" when and where to engage or "choose" not to engage or disengage at will. That is a tremendous advantage. Similarly it makes engaging it very difficult. It's easier to catch a turtle vs a rabbit is it not? The same is true of the Raptor which again is slying 15,000 to 30,000 feet above and nearly 2x as fast as an opposing fighter. That means it has an energy advantage over other fighters going into the fight. Velocity=energy and altitude can be converted into velocity by pionting the nose down and using gravity to accelerate. These are fundamental principles of air combat. Google the phrase "Speed is Life". What makes the Raptor so exceptional in this regard is its ability to out accelerate other fighters to high speeds and then maintain those speeds for long duratins without using the burner. That is unique.
Also, do not be so quick to judge those third world IADs. Remember who set them up in the first place. A lot of effort went into taking them down nd it was no cakewalk. And you would be right to consider the Russian airforce very powerful because it is.
-DA
- Status