Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

F22 analysis expanded

Discussion in 'The Americas' started by Picard, Apr 13, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MiG-23MLD

    MiG-23MLD Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2011
    Messages:
    3,887
    Likes Received:
    1,467
    Power emission is the real problem of Radars, stealth aircraft were designed with some power emission in mind, you can see a F-22 on day light simply because the light emited by the sun has a power density enough to make it visible.

    Nothing is stealth at all, the old radars the soviets used can be fooled and that is "fooled" since the serbs were able to target a second F-117
    http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/06/09/DSC02333.JPG

    Also the Su-35 and Rafale have good IRST systems, the problem for these fighters is they are not stealthy as F-22 so they will be detected before the F-22 unless they have AWACs to guide them, something Russia and China have. also satellites can see Stealth aircraft this is another reality.

    Stealth aircraft are LO only from some angles, from others they are pretty visible, T-50 and J-20 are not going to have the limits Rafale or Su-35 have.

    The Russians know they will have the ability to detect and jam stealth fighters




     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 12, 2014
  2. DrSomnath999

    DrSomnath999 Major RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    Messages:
    2,664
    Likes Received:
    1,514
    Country Flag:
    France
    well thats why the F22 relies on mini awacs concept ,u know very well that that LPI is a very difficult technology to master,To be fair enough US may be the 1st country to master it .Of course one may argue that LPI word is a myth as all latest ESM can counter it ,but for the sake of stealth reason the pilots usually turn off their radar & rely on awacs or passive detection (through
    ESM /IRST)

    & regarding daylight thing not sure ,but can it be used for targetting a stealth aircraft (illumination Part)
    kindly explain elaborately Visible in what sense ( IR or EM radition)?????

    hmm interesting pics but one must not forget the no of sorties F117 flew Is init??
    well F117 was a primitive stealth jet ,but it was far ahead of his time on stealth grounds & it had not been shot down in Gulf war in iraq,IRAQ also had soviet air defences ,correct me if i am wrong

    BUt l had told u earliear nodoubt IRST can detect F22 from 100km but whther IR detection can be used to cue a EM guided missile
    needs to be seen .SEE u know very well IR guided missile cant be effective at such long range .??
    If IR detection can be used to cue an EM guided missile then it is a great thing.

    sorry AWACS is ineffective here as awacs cant detect F22 at such long range as it is a stealth jet (simple common sense) ,yes if
    an AWACS is armed with latest ESM then it can detect F22 raptor if it is in active mode (i.e radar turn on) also LPI Thing is another
    factor.

    REGARDING satellites do u mean (nano satellites /satelllites based radar).would it be effective ????& can it be used for targetting??
    Kindly elaborate

    well stealth jet doesnt mean the plane is invincible .But still then it is required/sufficient to evade the the most highly fortified air defences whether air based or land based.

    WELL yes russians & chinese have developed it to give them fair chance to fight against a stealth jet or elze they would be handicapped on that ground in aerial warfare .But who would prevail in war thats a different thing

    see the motto of war is there is counter weapon to a weapon,& to counter that counter weapon countries build counter weapon to
    counter that counter weapon.
    RUSSIA /SOVIET UNION since cold war had always tried to counter US air supremacy with some sort of counter weapon whether
    it is SAM/ jets or may be anything.SO who knows they might be developong some weapon/technology to counter US stealth jets.
    But in IMO bistatic radar is the closest thing russians may pursue regarding anti stealth weapon.
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2012
  3. smestarz

    smestarz Lt. Colonel REGISTERED

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    Messages:
    4,653
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    That is really interesting dude, I just believe that you do not really know what you are talking.

    a) In most of the Wars as also the image that you posted, Americans have used all available planes, the Teens, even B-2 as you pointed here, but F-22 was not used.
    So either as you say there was no need for it.. but then why to use B-2 the cost of which is 10 times more than F-22 or its just that the Americans really know of some of the problems with F-22 and do not want to burst the bubble. Or another option is that they are afraid that it might be shot down and then lose all the technology.
    But logically speaking, if America is risking much expensive B-2 to Bomb, and not use F-22 which is just less than 10% price of B-2 that might actually point fingers to the capability. F-22 as most believe is excellent Air superiority plane but it was not deployed anywhere, but at the same time the Teens are used for all sort of roles. Even during the conflict in Libya, the Americans used F-15 and in one instance it was shot down/malfunctioned. but it was lost, but even then the americans did not use the superiority available.




    I thought all along the post you made you were stressing on how invincible F-22 was, weren't you?


    Exactly the point F-117 was considered superior and was shot down by S-300 battery, and the wreck was sold to china,
    B-2 apparently was deployed successfully but, F-22 was not deployed outside USA.
    Even F-22 was not allowed to go to Paris where it seems that the Americans were worried that the Rafale might soak up all the trons and then be analysed by Dassault.
    Strangely it seems you did not read or you are just ignorant, in my earlier post, nowhere did i mention B-2, I was just posting about F-22, and strangely the picture that you posted to "prove" was bombing by B-2, Now how does a photo about how B-2 was successful in bombing, prove the case for F-22 ? Please enlighten me.
    F-117 was deployed and SHOT DOWN AT LEAST ONCE,
    B-2 on other hand was more successful without any operational loss but F-22 was never deployed out of USA.
    You might argue all day long that there is no need for it ..



    So what is your point?


    Loss of F-16 was nothing incredible, but when an F-117 is shot down, a plane that is apparently the Stealth fighter which USA did claim that "you will not even notice in your back yard" was apparently noticed, tracked and shot down , not by luck but by very capable S-300 Triumpf. Would you deny that F-117 was shot down by Triumf battery? Or would be recorded as avionics malfunction (after it was hit)


    Well it takes a lot of time, and as F-35 shows , its still going on, and surely with all the technologies that have been put into F-22 and there is no denying it that is very decent looking and wondeful plane, but the point that I am making is that F-22 would not be deployed overseas, not because there is "no need for it" but there can be some other reason too as I pointed out.


    F-117 was developed after developing the teens so apparently F-117 is supposed to be better than the Teens considering that F-117 was stealth technology.
    Now, if you see overseas deployment. B-2 was deployed successfully,
    F-117 was deployed and apparently shot,
    And when you say better Stealth knowledge and technology, means that apparent stealth on F-117 was not effective as claimed? At least the result shows that S-300 missiles were able to look past the stealth.

    You do say that F-117 was retired because you got better technology, its wonderful to know that, since the much older teers are still still flying inspite of being decade behind the F-117, and what better stealth fighter you have?
    F-22 ? F-35 ?
    F-22 yes therotically at least, but as I point out again F-22 was not deployed overseas as F-117 was fatally deployed, America does not want to do the same mistake again.
    F-35,, still having its teething problems and not yet worth saying "we got something better" where as the Jv partners are saying "We are not getting any"
     
    2 people like this.
  4. DrSomnath999

    DrSomnath999 Major RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    Messages:
    2,664
    Likes Received:
    1,514
    Country Flag:
    France
  5. Picard

    Picard Lt. Colonel RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,865
    Likes Received:
    3,024
    In short, hunting AWACS, tankers etc.

    Which makes me wonder what USAF thinks when they are replacing F16 - a dogfighter - with BVR-only F35.

    Low Pk for BVR missiles, IFF unreliability, anti-radiation missiles will all work to make BVR combat as impractical as ever.

    Put a sniper into a house against a man with AK-47. Or in a forest. He'll get killed.

    You missed a point. Completely.

    What you are talking about is detecting a small radar signature. But what I was talking about has nothing to do with it.

    RCS is not set in stone; it varies, depending on size and shape of object, materials it is made of, wavelength of radar being used to detect it.

    Last one is why VHF and HF radars are useful against VLO planes.

    With VHF radar, key shapings of F22 are in either resonance or Rayleigh scattering regions. In latter, RCS of these shapings against VHF/HF radars will be dependant purely on their physical size; neither shaping features or RAM coating will do anything to reduce it.

    In resonance region, shaping features being comparable in size to radar's wavelength will result in electrical charges over skin of target, vastly increasing RCS.

    So it is not an issue of detecting a bird in the flock. It is issue of detecting a flying elephant in a flock of sparrows.

    As for "birds" quote, I have already explained it is a mistake on my part. So stop beating a dead horse.

    I wasn't talking about that rule. I was talking about realities of air combat. USAF generals and military theorists cannot change reality; and ignoring it will result in catastrophe.

    F22 spends 30 hours in maintenance for every hour in flight. And it costs 61 000 USD per hour of flight.

    With so small number of F22s, and F35 that looks poised to repeat F22s force reduction spirale, what is going to stop them?

    It isn't like enemy won't have standoff weapons or cruise missiles.

    F22 is also expensive enough to discourage high volume purchase by USAF, and its heavy maintenance requirements and unreliability harm pilot training.

    US generals, apparently. And you are constantly trying to "prove" it.

    Actually, wrong. One F16 was shot down, as was one F117. Another F117 was also hit, but returned to base, never to fly again.

    So "stealth" didn't really increase survivability.
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2012
  6. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,359
    Likes Received:
    2,379
    Country Flag:
    United States
    But a hard cold fact...
     
  7. Picard

    Picard Lt. Colonel RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,865
    Likes Received:
    3,024
    If you are lucky to face an incomplete plane with incompetent pilots, that is.
     
  8. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,359
    Likes Received:
    2,379
    Country Flag:
    United States
    Its more then luck when its 140 times in the F15 alone.
     
  9. druid

    druid REGISTERED

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2012
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am sure even the most ardent F-22 supporters will agree that F22 project hasn't been as successful as was envisaged when it was started.The pitiful number of aircraft actually procured,187, rather than the number initially anticipated, 750, proves it, no matter how you try to spin it.Even if the plane is as good as its supporters say, the planes own operators(USAF) think its does not provide value for money, which they initially thought it would.

    So the project is a failure IMO, albeit not a complete failure.Rather, a very expensive mistake,with the bright side of giving a decent deterrent till a 6th gen plane can be developed.
    USA can not make another mistake like F22 if they want to ensure continued air superiority.
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2012
  10. Picard

    Picard Lt. Colonel RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,865
    Likes Received:
    3,024
    I didn't say it was luck; it was technology - export versions Arabs used lacked most of weapons and sensors that genuine Russian aircraft used - pilots, tactics and numbers. Last three are far more important than technology.
     
  11. DrSomnath999

    DrSomnath999 Major RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    Messages:
    2,664
    Likes Received:
    1,514
    Country Flag:
    France
    LLOLLLZ do u have a crystall balll that u can predict or see SU 35 would go in flames like rest other russian fighter which u calll russian junk.:bunny:
     
  12. Picard

    Picard Lt. Colonel RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,865
    Likes Received:
    3,024
    No, he's just a hardcore nationalist... he can't accept that anything US is not better than everything any other state has in that area. According to him, M4A1 Sherman tank would be superior to T-80, simply because it is "Made in USA".
     
    1 person likes this.
  13. DrSomnath999

    DrSomnath999 Major RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    Messages:
    2,664
    Likes Received:
    1,514
    Country Flag:
    France
    welll all i can say is freedom of speech .HAAA.HHAA
     
  14. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,359
    Likes Received:
    2,379
    Country Flag:
    United States
    Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
    Albert Einstein
    140 times Russian planes went up against F15 and your are expecting differant results.
     
  15. Picard

    Picard Lt. Colonel RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,865
    Likes Received:
    3,024
    Except it wouldn't be the same... you call a flying can without most electronics an airplane?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page