Twinblade
Member
You are imagining a scenario which is highly unlikely. If the MiG-29 is wvr of the raptor, too many things have already gone too wrong in the theater
F-22 can't fire AIM-9X !!
- Thread starter destructivetouch
- Start date
Just like all those F15, F-16 and F/A-18 series fighters with JHMCS and AIM-9x / ASRAAM / IRIS-T have done "so well" against the F-22A?
Okay...
In reality the MiG-29 will be "deaf, dumb and blind" and will be shot down by said F-22 at BVR ranges before the engagement gets anywhere near a merge.
Or maybe the USAF is going to decide to fight stupidly and not exploit it's overwhelming advantages (numbers AND quality AND support assets AND overall networking AND EW) and just go to the merge for the hell of it and fight 1 v 1 engagements only?
Tally ho chaps! I can see scarves, goggles and leather hats making a comeback here...
@ destructivetouch, you are taking like a fanboy because air warfare is not about platforms alone. In fact, there are so many deficiencies with your posts, it is hard to know where to begin but I shall try to point out the 8 most obvous points:-
1. The USAF alone has around 185 F-22s (with an operational inventory of about 150 F-22s), they will also continue to operate up to 176 upgraded F-15Cs (AN/APG-63(V)3 AESA radar), 217 upgraded F-15Es (AN/APG-82(V)1 AESA radar) and over 300 A-10Cs. The USN will continue to operate around 515 Super Hornets and 114 Growlers. Therefore, the range of aircraft operated by the US will operate within a powerful force construct without peer in the world. Given that the F-22s will operate in concert with other assets that include AWAC support, strike packages with SEAD capabilities, and other EW capabilities - you are crazy to declare that MiG-29 (see Greg Goebel's article on the MiG-29) has a good chance against F-22s (see Greg Goebel's article on the F-22).
2. I've given some numbers but numbers don't tell the whole story - you'll also need to look at specialist tools and other force multipliers. For example, it has been estimated that North Korea operates 655 combat aircraft (including MiG-29s) but they are not a match for S. Korea's 451 combat aircraft (mainly teen series fighters). North Korean airpower, the equivalent to six US wing equivalents in size, corresponds to only two F-16 wing equivalents in estimated net capability. North Korean doctrine, military readiness and morale are also key factors in determining actual military performance. Don't get me wrong, I'm very fond of the MiG-29 and I think it brings a lot to the table at a fantastic price point but would hesitate to call it a F-22 killer.
3. Before you make a greater fool of yourself, you might want to consider reading this article called: "FACT versus FICTION: The Truth about Australia’s New Air Combat Capability", as a backgrounder.various sources said:
4. In the context of an intelligent discussion on VLO and air warfare - you must understand that D + 1 and D + nn days of war are going to be conducted differently and to understand the F-22 program you must understand this basic conceptual point. This approach enhances the survivability of sympathetic platforms and will obviously bring some changes to the way of war. As I said before, there are three different ways of thinking about air superiority:-
(i) one, control of space;
(ii) two, control of time; and
(iii) finally, control of geography or a combination of those three.
(ii) two, control of time; and
(iii) finally, control of geography or a combination of those three.
5. Depending on intent and tasking, the USAF/USN can seek to attain air superiority over a specific area. The attainment of air superiority should not be an end in itself. Please note that all fights occur at systems level but even for air forces with tertiary capabilities, they are not equal. you have to think in terms of a systems fight (i.e. everything that a notional air force can bring to the table) and not just focus on a platform. All modern air forces fight as a system. Other factors to consider include:
(i) training;
(ii) number of first line combat aircraft;
(iii) technology (AESA radar, SAR, ESM, ground sensors & UAVs for ISR and so on);
(iv) platforms (radar, targeting pods & other tools like ground control radar, SIGINT, EW & AWAC support, if any); and
(v) the level of C4I systems integration.
(ii) number of first line combat aircraft;
(iii) technology (AESA radar, SAR, ESM, ground sensors & UAVs for ISR and so on);
(iv) platforms (radar, targeting pods & other tools like ground control radar, SIGINT, EW & AWAC support, if any); and
(v) the level of C4I systems integration.
6. A platform — that is, an aircraft — does not equate to an effective capability. It’s the total system that matters and at a systems level, the USAF/USN combinaton is without peer. For example, if the Battle of Britain were refought today with the Luftwaffe flying Hurricanes and Spitfires and the Royal Air Force (RAF) flying Bf-109s, the result would still be the same. This is because the RAF’s excellent early warning radar network, superior leadership and the RAF pilots were fighting over their own air space, pre-warned on the heading and size of the Luftwaffe formation. The key thing to remember is tactics must suit the plane and not the other way round.
7. You need to understand that different aircraft play different roles in air warfare due to their different characteristics. My objection with your MiG-29 example is that there is little or no evidence that the Russians have been able to develop an effective 'kill chain' counter. There is simply no "magic bullet" solution to address VLO fighter aircraft and an effective adversary's response must arise at a systems level. If you read the various threads in this forum, you would know the following:-
(i) engagement of a VLO target requires more than simple radar detection. To engage, the adversary needs detection, tracking, acquisition and engagement. If a VLO target manages to break ANY one of these aspects of an engagement, it will more likely than not result in an unsuccessful engagement. Detection, tracking, acquisition and engagement is otherwise known as the 'kill chain'. VLO design is not about making the target invulnerable or totally undetectable. The goal is to allow the VLO platform, like the F-22, have the capability to employ it's weapon systems before an opposition can target it; and
(ii) as said by gf0012-aust in other threads, the future is in co-operative battlespace managers which can run primary or hand off where appropriate. This means the F-22s in US service will work with support from AWACs, Rivet, Compass and so on. The F-22s will not work alone, in fact, they will work with F-35s too to provide advanced ISR, communications and computational capabilities (though there are some issues that need to be worked out). Since 1982, it's been demonstrated that air warfare is not about the platform alone and every tertiary air force demonstrates that awareness.
(ii) as said by gf0012-aust in other threads, the future is in co-operative battlespace managers which can run primary or hand off where appropriate. This means the F-22s in US service will work with support from AWACs, Rivet, Compass and so on. The F-22s will not work alone, in fact, they will work with F-35s too to provide advanced ISR, communications and computational capabilities (though there are some issues that need to be worked out). Since 1982, it's been demonstrated that air warfare is not about the platform alone and every tertiary air force demonstrates that awareness.
8. The Russians want to differentiate their aircraft so that they can employ different tactics but other air forces don't have to play their game. It is important to remember that different aircraft have different strengths and weaknesses — so different users will use different tactics. If I may use an analogy. Imagine that you are a bicycle owner and you argue that the bicycle has lower fuel consumption than a Ducati bike. The bicycle always wins in lower fuel consumption as it has no engine. The approach that you have taken on comparing the the F-22 with the MiG-29 is like the bicycle owner, where you argue context does not matter, when it clearly does.
Rhetorical Question: Which MiG-29 operator is a peer threat to the USAF/USN?
You don't even demonstrate a basic understanding of the air power issues involved and your approach to air warfare is comical, dated and wrong. Please go read the relevant threads at DT before coming back to me.
Last edited:
No, they don't have even one single confirmed kill against any Western fighter aircraft.
Apart from the shoot down of a Cessna by a Cuban Air Force NUB, have Fulcrums shot down anything? The only air to air engagements I can think of that involved Fulcrums were the Eriteria/Ethopian war and Kosovo. I doubt if they were any air to air engagements involving Fucrums in Moldova and Nargano Karabah war. Flankers got quite a few kills in the Eriteria/Ethopian war but I don't think the Fulcrums did.
Well, they say even a blind squirrel finds an acorn given enough time...
Sprey's batting average isn't good - he spent a lot of time campaigning against the F15, describing it as big, heavy and too complex to work in combat. The F15 is running at what, 82-0 in air to air combat?
That might give you a clue as to where Sprey sits in the reality of matters. He was one of the "lightweight fighter mafia" who basically opposed the introduction of the F16 in the form it arrived (they campaigned for a simple day/clear weather fighter in larger numbers, the F16 became a radar equipped multi role strike aircraft with BVR capabilities and worked out just fine, despite their concerns.)
Sprey basically isn't someone I'd be paying too much attention to.
destructivetouch
Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #29
If you want to use an IIR seeking missile like AIM-9X then it would help if you could see what the missile sees.
One of its party tricks is to display an image of the target in the cockpit display to allow the pilot to pick a part of the target aircraft to lock and home in on. To display that live image of the target you would need an onboard computer network that can handle video feed at a decent frame rate.
Using an Amiga 500 in the mid 1980s waiting several seconds for a HAM (hold and modify) picture image to load which it did a few lines at a time... in combat that would not be acceptable.
The F-22 is touted as the super jet of the 21st Century, but it seems its guts are old junk. [Mod Edit: Warning issued for trolling and any further attempts at trolling will be met with adminstrative sanctions from the Mod Team.
Do not delete this Mod warning.]
Last edited by a moderator:
destructivetouch
Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #30
Yes it is likely true ,but the crucial question is : true AGAINST WHICH and WHO ?
To fully understand the sense of this question let take, as example, the bigger war fought by NATO (and particularly USAF) in the last 30 years : GW1 ; to even only prepare ( clear? only PREPARE ....) the GW1 air campaign against the Iraqi IAD - KARI - ( just some hundreds of times weaker than the weakest node of the URSS's IAD of the time Very Happy ) ,designed by French to repel attacks from a maximum of 60 aircraft for single sector and only from East and West (and NATO obviously attacked KARI from South ) [Mod Edit: Provide a source for this statement within 24 hours or face adminstrative sanctions from the Mod Team.], was necessary for NATO's Coalition more than six months...SIX MONTHS of frantic strategic airlift, dense aircraft transfers and logistical arrangement of the necessary assets and local base's arrangement !!
This titanic operation not only required the big financial support of all the "aligned" nations in the Gulf but also the assent, by part of Saudi Arabia, to literally give to NATO almost all its airfields and ports for the logistical operations and to render possible the same war missions .
Now some little questions :
- What type of organic, extensive IAD and defensive ground network all those crucial assets in Saudi Arabia ,indispensable for NATO ,had to defend themselves and to prevent that even only the most elementary attack with ballistic/cruise missiles or ground forces offensive would have reduced them and all the NATO equipments and assets present to a pile of smoking rubble ?
Response : None.
But we can go even further : What organic, extensive ,high end IAD are present at defend the most crucial and highly widespread USA airbases around the world (let put Diego Garcia or Elmendorf AFBs) from obliteration through the military means previously mentioned ?
Response : None.
Note: This is the main reason for the strict ban or control of long range missiles (in particular ballistic ones) in international Arm Control Agreements ,while aircraft like F-22 , PAKFA or J-20 are not subject to any of those Treaties.
- What type of high-end theatre and strategic level weapons Iraq had in its arsenal capable to render even only the initial NATO preparative operations a true suicide .
Response : None. In GW1 Iraq had in total...12 working Long range bombers ,practically all export versions -or chinese versions- of early TU-16s moreover totally incapable to employ any type of stand-off missiles (only for comparison : in URSS, not in 1991 but 25 years before, was operative more than 870 domestic not downgraded versions of TU-16 bomber !!) and had only few mobile Scud launchers of the older type ,export version, with very limited payload and CEP in the order of 1,5 / 1,7 kilometers. Clear the concept?
[Mod Edit: The Mod Team notes that you have not provided sources for your misguided opinions and have failed to understand the guidance provided to you by senior members and the Mod Team. Stop and read instead of posting more rubbish. Learn from your mistakes rather than trying to impose you mistaken beliefs on other members.
Do not delete this Mod warning.]
At the end of the day ,therefore, what you have said is surely true "USAF is going to use it's advantages (numbers AND quality AND support assets...." , and also at the basis of its doctrine, but this NATO "air centric" doctrine ,requiring for work very widespread bases around the world ,naturally impossible to insert and defend in a serious IAD , is founded on the rational that any opponent so advanced and/or powerful to have the military means to capitalize the extreme vulnerability (to the limit of the impracticability) of a similar doctrine to high end offensive means coming from area under the protection of enormous multilayered IADs, would be effectively "frozen" by the MAD element of nuclear equilibrium.
Last edited by a moderator:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Ahmedfire, it seems as though you are looking for an argument and therefore are referencing facts which have SFA to do with military kit and where/how it operates and why.
There is the civilian/commercial computing and electronics operating environments, and then there are the military/naval electronics and avionics operating environments.
The two environments, while related in some respects, are also completely different.
A civilian computer is unlikely to ever be exposed to the sorts of environmental variations that a military computer can expect to be exposed to, nevermind continue running during such exposures. Similarly, except in rare medical/first responder instances, a computer crash is not a fatal event, just shut down and reboot. Shutting down and rebooting a jet fighter's computer during combat is not a option.
In short, you are comparing apples and oranges. Persisting in doing so will likely lead to being put on members' Ignore lists.
Last edited by a moderator:
Already ignoring him Tod he obviously an F22/F35 hater reading from the APA play book now he's going on about MAD what a way to kill a thread.
CD
they don't need or use a graphic - TADLs are pure code - faster and compact - for a reason
2525c does not use video for a reason - again, if you knew anything about how tracking is done you'd realise that your claims about need are nonsensical - esp for a fighter
because in combat you don't need it - you only want and need to track the object of interest - that does not require huge bandwidth
and now you're showing maturity issues as well as technical deficiencies
before you carry on any further I suggest that you take a primer in tactical networking and how and why it works.
video link and feed is more important for tasked C4ISR assets - and the F-22 feeds and hands off to those assets in the fight anyway
you do realise that the software used to track and intercept cruise missiles operates at a byte level?
bigger and fatter bandwidth is not automatically better - esp for fighters.
Last edited by a moderator:
the moon landing was basically conducted on an 8kb computer - ie less onboard processing than what could be found on your casio watch from 10 years ago
Mmm...no - you just need to inject a designator box into the HUD - and that's something you could do with transistors and valves back in the 70's.
Or, put another way, what kind of computing capability is inside the Mig29, if it's being touted as demonstrably superior due to it's HMS and missile combination?
As far as I'm aware, the Mig29 HMS doesn't give a cue as to what the missile is locked to - certainly it was true of the former East German airframes - there's a very comprehensive description of operations with the Mig29 by a US pilot floating around, and it's quite illuminating as to how crude the whole thing is compared to western aircraft.
There's a few reasons why the former Warsaw pact kit has come right at the bottom of the pile in every conflict and *none* of those reasons are due to what sort of computing power is inside either platform.
I'd suggest training (western jet operators spend a lot of time and money in putting their stuff into the sky in large, well scriped DACT exercises), and situational awareness (both inside the cockpit and out!) are both more relevant than how many gigaflops are on tap.
If it did come down to raw computing power, the former pact jets would be thoroughly screwed as the Russian computer industry is far behind in terms of development and manufacture of high end computer systems.
Last edited by a moderator:
Now that's what I call a rant! Well done sir, you've certainly got your crazy hat out today.
But one very important fact seems to escape you (though you prescribe it toward the East).
Like many modern academics, you prescribe an enormous amount of effectiveness to ballistic missiles from the one side, whilst simultaneously assuming that the launch of said ballistic missiles will only happen from that one side...
I find it astonishing the mindset that assumes that the possessor of one of the largest ballistic missile fleets on the planet is going to sit by and watch ballistic missile after ballistic missile rain down upon their capital assets, destroying same and taking them out of the fight and not respond in kind.
That kind of thing sir, is quite frankly insane. It has no relationship to reality, but like true insanity, it thinks it does...
And now that we've completely strayed from the thread topic and you've been answered, let's get back to discussing why F-22's can't fire AIM-9x's, otherwise this thread will not continue.
Last edited by a moderator:
Apologies for getting off-topic for a while.
Crude it may have been, like many things Russian, but I think the SHCH-3UM was pretty impressive when it came out. I was under the impression that the Russians were the first to field an HMS but it seems the SAAF was the first with a locally developed HMS for its Mirage F1AZ [got that from Wiki so I can't vouch for it's accuracy].
Some info on the Ukrainian SHURA HMS which has been adopted by some Flanker users.
SURA Helmet-Mounted Target Designation System (HMTDS) (Ukraine) - Jane's Avionics
destructivetouch
Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #39
Most word processing and email that people do now on 8 core 3.5 GHz computers is not hugely different from the sort of thing they could have done in the 1980s on an Amiga 500 at something like 7.4 MHz clock speed.
As you point out there is a difference between military and commercial, but a faster higher performance processor operating in a larger bandwidth has very important flow on effects in terms of capabilities.
If you want sensor fusion then you need a system that can in real time combine raw data coming in from multiple sources (RHAW, IR sensors, Radar, and off platform sources and combine it all into a real time picture of everything around the aircraft.
An 8 bit or 16 bit architecture will limit the number of memory addresses... even in a 32 bit environment Windows cannot recognise more than about 3 GB of RAM, which might not sound like a big deal but the amount of data a modern AESA radar can generate means you need as much grunt as you can get.
Just as an example the original ZASLON radar of the Mig-31 was a very powerful set and its volume of scanning was enormous, but its range was not very impressive because of a lack of processing power.
The current upgrades AFAIK use the same radar with the same antenna with almost double the range because of a much more powerful radar.
A dedicated processor that is hard wired to a task doesn't need to be fast... do a search on my chats with Flanky about UAVs taking over the role of JSTARS in the Russian Air Force and even my chats with Vlad about making computer chips.
A calculator can have a very slow processor but still do the job of calculations very very quickly, the problem is that in the 1980s as processors got faster the computers in military equipment moved from pretty much custom designed chips used for specific roles in specific aircraft where an upgrade means a whole new chip and hardware needs to be developed to a generic off the shelf chip where upgrades are just a question of a software patch or upgrade.
Again, this us supposed to be the best of the best... some even claim it should be called a 6th gen fighter because it is so much better than 4th gen fighters...
Looking through the glass monocle the pilot sees a reticle or aiming sight pattern and to use it he turns his head to put the target aircraft in the centre of the reticle and presses a button on his control stick which slaves the selected missiles seeker to his line of sight, so it turns to where he is looking and gets a lock on that target. When lock is acquired the pilot is free to pull the trigger and launch the missile.
When this system entered service his NATO equivalent looked around in the sky for the enemy and when he located them he had to turn his entire aircraft to point his nose at the target and then activate his missile seeker to scan for the target. If there is a group of targets EVEN IF HE GETS A RADAR LOCK that means nothing because there is no link between his radar and his IR guided missiles so his radar might lock on one target and his IR guided missile might lock on a different target altogether...
It is amusing the west calls the Soviet system crude because the US equivalent didn't enter service till at least 20 years later, has no clear advantages over the Soviet system though it is heavier, more complex and orders of magnitude more expensive so only a small percentage of US fighters actually have it... and that does not include their F-22s. On the other hand every model from the oldest to the newest Mig-29 and Su-27 have it fitted as standard.
Also what is not widely recognised is that the R-27T and R-27ET are also high off boresight IR guided AAMs which benefit from the helmet mounted sight...
I'd suggest that it is par for the course... the Super aerial Cray computer is actually a white elephant that will likely be a hangar queen for some time to come...
And the Memdelev Table was also developed without computers... what is your point?
My point is that even a bog standard Mig-29 uses 486 level computer hardware, so what is all this crap about the F-22 being a super computer with wings?
it doesn't matter whether you talk to bill gates. you don't demonstrate an understanding that the principle tool for a fighter is the TADL - and thats small byte for a reason. Fighters don't need imaging software capability to fight.
a calculator as an example? maybe thats why most combat systems use RISC chips rather than X86 or 64bit CPU's
and its about a systems capability within the tactical fight construct. what bit are you not getting?
again, your comprehension of how weapons systems are cued for the platform seems to be based on video games and bears no relationship to all the other contributing assets and systems in play - and that the weapons launch can be handed off from any other TADL connected asset
and the pre-eminent power is.......
considering you don't demonstrate any comprehension of how TADLs actually work - then your other comments about into C5ISR are somewhat suspect
its about code efficiency - not about CPU power
and now you demonstrating more infantile behaviour....
lift your game or go elsewhere - think about it while you're on holiday