Europe and 5th generation aircraft

[Grand Danois]

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.

IIRC The Iraqi IADS during Desert Storm had the high density and quite good sophistication, comparable to the WARPAC IADS in Eastern Europe. Very capable. All IADS suffer from the same weakness: if you can't take the fight to the enemy, it is only slowing the attacker down; a matter of time before it [IADS] is rolled back or irrelevant.

 

[obrescia]

Note high mounted location of IRST on Flanker (hint hint)...should work great on a supersonic object at high, cold, thin altitudes. Here comes an IR seeker R-77!

 

[Dr Freud]

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.

And since at least 1989 when advanced DSPs began to be launched, they have also watched for the afterburner plumes of hostile aircraft, possibly headed to attack U.S. aircraft carriers. So the spacecraft provide a degree of limited aircraft attack warning in certain theaters. If, for example, Iranian jet fighters were to take off on afterburner to begin high-speed attacks toward U.S. or British ships in the Persian Gulf, DSPs monitoring that area have the capability to observe and immediately report this from their positions 22,300 mi. in space.

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/e...y.org/org/news/2007/070408-china-missiles.htm
but nevermind, i just lost interest

 

[DarthAmerica]

IIRC The Iraqi IADS during Desert Storm had the same density and quite good sophistication, comparable to the WARPAC IADS in Eastern Europe. Very capable. All IADS suffer from the same weakness: if you can't take the fight to the enemy, it is only slowing the attacker down; a matter of time before it [IADS] is rolled back or irrelevant.

In my travels over the past year I've seen quite a bit of whats left of those IADs. A LOT of wreckage! AAA and destroyed launchers ect. I don't envy the men and women who had to fly over it while it was operational. I agree with you though. You can't hide behind a defense in modern war and hope to win. Once an attacker has had time to make an assessment a weakness with be found and exploited. If you are not doing the same and doing it faster you will lose eventually. Our assessments of those weaknesses were 50 years in the making prior to ODS so anyone who thinks the USAF went in and had it easy doesn't appreciate the full spectrum of what it takes to win a war IMHO.

-DA

 

[DarthAmerica]

And since at least 1989 when advanced DSPs began to be launched, they have also watched for the afterburner plumes of hostile aircraft, possibly headed to attack U.S. aircraft carriers. So the spacecraft provide a degree of limited aircraft attack warning in certain theaters. If, for example, Iranian jet fighters were to take off on afterburner to begin high-speed attacks toward U.S. or British ships in the Persian Gulf, DSPs monitoring that area have the capability to observe and immediately report this from their positions 22,300 mi. in space.

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/e...y.org/org/news/2007/070408-china-missiles.htm

You aren't serious are you? OK in order to make this contextually relevant...

1. DSP satellites are an asset belonging to who?

2. F-22's which are designed with IR stealth features flying at cruise speeds dry in random location vs afterburning primitive F-4s taking off from known locations

3. USAF/USN with complete dominance of space and the oceans would not allow the survival of a threat satellite constellation that had the potential to reduce their survivability and have demonstrated the means to deal with things like this "repeatedly".

4. F-22s are not invisible, just harder to detect. This is why no threat ever has to worry about an attack from a single F-22. Just the entire DoD and whatever it takes to ensure the right form of attack backed up with 13 trillion dollars


...Soooo this is relevant how exactly? I referenced stealth aircraft specifically and in a completely different context than this. Tell me how a DSP discriminates and classifies what type of fighter is making the exhaust plume in a random location?

-DA

 

[DarthAmerica]

Note high mounted location of IRST on Flanker (hint hint)...should work great on a supersonic object at high, cold, thin altitudes. Here comes an IR seeker R-77!

Possibly at R-73 range. Beyond that you would be wasting a shot unless you used a radar to get the BVR data.

-DA

 

[obrescia]

Everybody is missing the big picture here. F-22 is hi up; the opponent is low down...and nobody is going to want to give away his advantage. So they fly around a look at each other. Now what? A full composite Su-33/30MKi/27M type airplane with all our wiz-bang gear in it….wow!! Super ass kicker!...and you can hang whatever you want under it!! It was already proposed years back for the US Navy.

 

[Grand Danois]

Everybody is missing the big picture here. F-22 is hi up; the opponent is low down...and nobody is going to want to give away his advantage. So they fly around a look at each other. Now what? A full composite Su-33/30MKi/27M type airplane with all our wiz-bang gear in it….wow!! Super ass kicker!...and you can hang whatever you want under it!! It was already proposed years back for the US Navy.

So the concept of snap down missiles is new to you?

Using the Falklands War as a ref for dotrine and technology today is flawed. The Argentinians only had SR IR/RF missiles.

 

[obrescia]

with links

Whether the F-22 (F-35) should enter service is largely academic. Our 'teen' airframes are wearing out.

The Gulf of Sidra incident, January 4, 1989; just about says all anyone needs to say on this subject matter. (Audio recording of engagement) Select download MP3 file

http://www.ka8vit.com/sd/shootdown.htm

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.

See:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Raptor.html

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.

R-77 See:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/weapons/q0261.shtml

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 see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infra-red_search_and_track

http://www.aviapedia.com/video/new-mig-35-ols-video


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.
Please see: (w/sound)
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1o3rov7cB4"]YouTube - Su-37 presentation video[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xY0t_mPv6I4"]YouTube - Sukhoi SU-30 Flight Demonstration[/ame]

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/000976.html

Beaten the F-15 time to clime records,
http://www.ausairpower.net/flanker.html

http://www.air-races.com/aircraft/Sukhoi Su-31.htm

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, see:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUgPscDjf7U"]YouTube - F22 Langley 2007 Friday Evening Demo[/ame]


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, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12

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.

A astute observer may also notice things like published range for the F-16 and even the F-15 are 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.

Mig-21 was designed to counter the high flying B-52. The Mig-31 was designed to counter the low flying FB-111 and B-1A.

The excellent range of Mig-31 and Flanker has to do with geography/history. Russia is the largest country on earth and it’s 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 a KS-172.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novator_KS-172_AAM-L

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyflash

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.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Wow. I appreciate your passion but one thing has become very clear. YOu have a profound misunderstanding of this subject matter. Do you have any technical support for your claims other than assertions? None of your positions are supportable by facts and in some cases direct knowledge or experience of others with whom you are talking. I'd suggest asking questions at this point if I were you...



Regards
DA

 

[Sintra]

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...


...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

Are you serious? You have made an awfull lot of claims based on personal knowledge of the system and after being challenged on a well known "soft spot" of "you favorite aircraft", it´s networking ability, the answer his "i wont speculate"?!


Well, if you like AW´s work better read this:
(h)ttp://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_dti_story.jsp?view=story&id=news/DTINETS.xml

 

[Dr Freud]

about IADS iraq http://www.sci.fi/~fta/storm-02.htm

 

[DarthAmerica]

Are you serious? You have made an awfull lot of claims based on personal knowledge of the system and after being challenged on a well known "soft spot" of "you favorite aircraft", it´s networking ability, the answer his "i wont speculate"?!

I am always serious. I intend to be taken that way at all times which is why I won't speculate about things I don't know. I do know the F-22 has a very significant ISR role and battle management networking and thats what I said. It is others who went and "speculated" that I was referencing a particular method of data xmission...

h*tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network

Be more careful or feel free to ask questions. Also, this is no soft spot of the F-22 or any other platform. Network should imply to people that we are dealing with a system level issue. Also, I don't have favorite aircraft, I'm a professional. These aircraft are all just tools to me to be used when appropriate. Finally, any claims I make are merely recitals of open source facts that a simple google search can verify.


-DA

 

[obrescia]

Link (below) seems to show F-22 with exellent "corner speed". I never said F-22 wasn't manuverable in the pitch axis (!) All my point was is that Advanced Flanker is like no other airplane our aircrews may face. And that's what's the nightmare.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=f-22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv

 

[DarthAmerica]

Link (below) seems to show F-22 with exellent "corner speed". I never said F-22 wasn't manuverable in the pitch axis (!) All my point was is that Advanced Flanker is like no other airplane our aircrews may face. And that's what's the nightmare.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=f-22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv

Obrescia,

This board has had numerous Flanker debates. Nothing that has been brought up about the Flanker in this thread is particularly revealing. In fact, a lot of people would be surprised to learn what features of the "Advanced Flankers" don't exist in actual operational production Flankers. Like being able to fire the R-77 for instance. Most of them can't do that.

Look, the Russians are military aviation masters. They have a looooong history of building fighters to counter the worlds proven best fighters. So no one should question the brilliance behind the engineering that went into the Flanker. However, fundamentally, it's not any different than many other operational warplanes pilots could face. Its of conventional design, not stealthy. About as fast as other 4th Gen planes. Carries about the same amount of armament. It's radar is approximately on par with western designs of the time. It's EW capabilities are varied from poor to good depending on who the operator is. Aerodynamically its OPERATIONALLY configured flight performance is on par with western 4th Gens. It's very reasonably priced. Other than that, the primary difference is that it could be encountered much further out than past Russian planes because it carries a lot of gas. Its a solid 4th Gen Heavy Fighter Jet. THATS IT.

Stop trying to make it into something it's not. But I'll agree with one thing you said. The Advanced Flanker variants you keep bringing up are so Advanced that they are still prototypes and demonstrators! So indeed they are planes our pilots wont face.

Now if you want to put the Flanker into context. Then we should be talking about European airforces who will not be flying the F-35 or using Meteor. To them, the Flanker in some cases warrant concern because the attrition in a conflict could get excessive. But if for example some tin pot dictator or failed state decides to starve more of it's people and buys a dozen or so Flankers it isn't a big deal. Think about it from an economic stand point as well. For example, is it really a threat to France because some North African nation buys Flankers? No.

France can build Rafales at will, maintain them, replace losses and support it Rafales with a well rounded military. Meanwhile, country x is losing Flankers to the French Military and can't afford to buy more, can't import them through the blockade or French politicians and French allies have bought off the Russians who suddenly can't fulfill a new order because of a parts shortage. That's how this works in real life. The Only Flanker operator western pilots need to worry about are the Chinese and then really only in the case of Taiwan in the unlikely event of an invasion or bombardment attempt.

Anybody else would be overwhelmed by the totality of the system arrayed against them. Especially if they are relying on a single platform for salvation. The only "nightmare" here is the time we waste having to explain this over and over ect...

-DA

 

[obrescia]

..be nice!

The number of debates is irrelevant. Advanced Flanker Series (canard/thrust vectoring) and its systems have no western equal in many (many) respects. Both F-22 and Flanker have flight control to limit g-loads. The F-22 proponents also “fire” non-existent “D” versions of the AIM-120 with ranges that simply defy the law of physics and dimension limits. So don’t condescend or preach to me about this subject matter. Stop flying your PC-Sim.

 

[DarthAmerica]

The number of debates is irrelevant. Advanced Flanker Series (canard/thrust vectoring) and its systems have no western equal in many (many) respects. Both F-22 and Flanker have flight control to limit g-loads. The F-22 proponents also “fire” non-existent “D” versions of the AIM-120 with ranges that simply defy the law of physics and dimension limits. So don’t condescend or preach to me about this subject matter. Stop flying your PC-Sim.

You mean the AIM-120D that is blowing drones up over New Mexico and is being funded? Also, why would Western nation seek to build Flanker equals when their requirements are different? You don't even get the basic concepts of what being discussed. Whats funny is I actually did learn a lot of this stuff from commercial flight sims. I even still have the manual to the original Su-27 flight sim. You could learn a lot by reading it. Humble yourself or proceed down that path of muppetism. Your choice.

Regards
-DA

EDIT: BTW have you ever heard about an X-31? Hint, it had canards and thrust vectoring. Manufacturers don't just add things like that just because or for aesthetic value.

 

[Feanor]

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.

My simple point was that speed is not the main advantage a Raptor has. You seem to be preoccupied with it's speed, which is only of it's advantages and in my humble opinion it's not even the critical advantage.

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

They weren't networked nearly well enough, usually lacked latest generation of SAMs (Iraq had no S-300's) and were usually an order of magnitude behind in digitalization and computerization. They also usually weren't well coordinated with AD fighter planes and ground forces. The Iraqi AD in this regard was not anything spectacular (though it was quite extensive).

IIRC The Iraqi IADS during Desert Storm had the high density and quite good sophistication, comparable to the WARPAC IADS in Eastern Europe. Very capable. All IADS suffer from the same weakness: if you can't take the fight to the enemy, it is only slowing the attacker down; a matter of time before it [IADS] is rolled back or irrelevant.

I beg to differ. If the AD is properly networked and datalinked with air defense fighters, then even without general air superiority it can still effectively keep the enemy air from your ground troops (which is it's purpose). What it can't do is win air superiority, or for that matter contest it if it's not support by effective ground defences, AD fighters in the sky, and proper C2 structures.

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

Please name this system, and what variants of the Flanker it has been installed on. Remember the Su-37 was a tech demo for TVC engines. The shiny and new Su-35BM is years away from mass production. The best currently out there are the MKI and MKM export variants, with the VVS struggling to get a hold of some SM variants (~36 delivered so far). So:

1) what is this system called (a link to your source too please)
2) What variants is it installed on (again source please) and
3) Who has this variant of the Flanker and how many of them? (you guessed it, source again please)

 

[DarthAmerica]

Feanor,

I'm afraid we just have to disagree. The Raptors kinematic capabilities by far exceed that of any other fighter. You can't catch a Raptor, you can't escape a Raptor and your weapons ranges are reduces as a result of it's performance. That's just as crucial as it's LO signature. It is like comparing the speed and altitude differences between a Mig-17 and F-15. It is no small matter to routinely operate at twice the height and speed of your opponent when "energy" is a key to success.

Also, the S-300 would not have saved the Iraqis any grief. Perhaps, and just perhaps, they may have shot down a handful of coalition jets. But thats it. The Iraqi defense would still have been mapped, targeted and destroyed by many different methods methodically until it was gone. Remember, they sent in U.S. Army Attack Helos to strike key Iraqi ISR systems. The DoD would simply have adjusted its methods to go after the S-300 weaknesses.

-DA

 

[Atilla [TR]]

obresica are the same guy behind Actual you talk in the same way and manner, and you keep on quoting a book, same book he quoted.


Seriously Iran did not have 156 kills, for goodness sakes, some anaylists say the F-14 where sabotaged by American Engineers when they left, I believe this more then the F-14 having more then 15 kills in the Iran Iraq war.