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, News and Updates

Discussion in 'The Americas' started by Picard, Feb 25, 2012.

  1. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,359
    Likes Received:
    2,378
    Country Flag:
    United States
    The next most powerful military in the world to the USA is China. USSR is long gone, Russias about as much threat as France or Spain, which is none. China, not a threat to the USA>

    Right now even India's military could give the China military a hard timne

    China isn't a particularly GOOD military, they're just big. America has more ways of killing people than China has people, and our air force would wipe out 90%+ of the chinese air force with less than 10% losses in the first two weeks. Please don't make me dig up the source for that.

    When the air force is gone in a modern war, with smart bombs and drones for finding the enemy the war is over. Without an airforce your soldiers are quite literally screwed.

    The chinese air force has the newest and most powerful russian/indian/chinese fighter in existance: The PAK FA.

    The PAK FA has been obsolete by american standards for 15 years. It rivals the Jf35, which is easily and utterly outclassed by the f22. America is the only nation to have access to the f22.

    The 2 largest air forces in the world are, in order
    1. The US Air Force
    2. The US Navy.

    We also are the only country to have access to the b2, which is quite literally invincible. It can deliver an ungodly amount of bombs completely undetected and unescorted deep behind enemy lines.

    The US army is equipped with technology the chinese are only starting to realize for their special forces. We have the Navy SEALs, the MOST DANGEROUS MILITARY FORCE IN THE WORLD.

    Chinese marines are a joke.
    American marines... well just ask what's left of germany and japan.

    US navy is bigger than the next 3 countries combined... including china's. Our navy is not only bigger, but more experienced and much, much better. China's navy doesn't even compete with India's at this point.
    (Granted india has a *very* powerful navy, especially for a third world country.

    America's militarily relevant allies include:
    France (arugably, but still.)
    Canada
    Finland
    India (Maybe)
    Australia
    Israel
    Japan
    Britain
    and South Korea

    China's relevant military allies include:
    Russia (Prob not.)
    Iran
    North Korea


    The chinese military is only JUST getting around to purchasing second rate (by OUR standards, for the chinese it's god's gift) military equipment, other than the aforementioned PAK FA. Which still isn't great, as it loses flat out to the f22, and the jf35 can put up a fight.

    We have drones.
    They have suicide platoons



    so no, china is going to be very, very smart in avoiding a war with the USA. There is no way for them to win

    At the present time we dont need more F22 or F35 and I expect that combat drones will replace them befor they are ever built in any large numbers. A number of force multipliers have been added to the US arsenal that the US military is ten times as power as 10 years ago. If we can destroy the next powerful military in the world and with a ten percent loss of our military at the most, we just dont need more military power.
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2012
    1 person likes this.
  2. gambit

    gambit FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2012
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    96
    In every war since man created societies and civilizations, wars have always been fought in the typical x-y axes. Now one of the goals of war is to attack the enemy from as many different directions as possible and directions includes dimensions or axes -- the 3rd dimension. That is why we have an air force and a submarine force, each to attack the enemy from that 3rd axis.
     
    1 person likes this.
  3. gambit

    gambit FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2012
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    96
    Post 60 explained why the centimetric bands, specifically the X-band, is popular for radar detection of dynamic targets. This will explain how 'stealth' came to be.

    [​IMG]

    The above illustrate how a radar system 'sees' a target -- a cluster of voltage spikes. The final user -- you, me, the pilot, air traffic controller -- simply see the typical 'blip' of light on a 'scope'.

    Like this...

    [​IMG]

    Each voltage spike have a source: a physical structure, that reflects radar signals under radar bombardment. Each structure can be a simple flat plate, a curvature, or combinations of. In combinations of structures, we have constructive and destructive interferences where reflected signals collide with each other. Constructive is when the signals built up to a single strong signal. Destructive is when the signals cancels or 'destroy' each other out. Both can occurs in different degrees and often at the same time.

    [​IMG]

    In the above, there is currently no way to predict what type of interference that cluster of structures will produce from one moment to the next.

    But if the goal is control radar cross section (RCS), then:

    - Constructive interference = Bad.
    - Destructive interference = Good.

    One example of constructive interference is the 'corner reflector' or 'target corner reflector'...

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    In itself, the 'corner reflector' is neither 'good' nor 'bad'.

    In marine safety, the 'corner reflector' device is 'good'...

    http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/07/howto/radar/index.htm
    But for a military aircraft on a hostile mission into enemy territory or 'contested airspace', then a 'corner reflector' is bad, very bad...

    [​IMG]

    An airliner is a 'cooperative' target, meaning it WANT to be seen. In doing so, the airliner will fly well inside the radar horizon and with its design filled with many 'corner reflectors', most notably the vertical-horizontal stabilators combination structure, it will stand out with that structure producing the highest voltage spike.

    On the other hand, a military aircraft on a hostile mission into contested airspace DOES NOT WANT to be seen. But if its design is filled with corner reflectors -- and pre F-117 fighters are -- then it must fly below the radar horizon. No radar impingement, no RCS, and therefore no detection. This make it a 'non-cooperative' target.

    Flying below the radar horizon or avoiding radar nets are one form or tactic of 'stealth'. No radar impingement, no RCS, and therefore no detection.

    But that tactic has limitations and one of them is that if he flies below the enemy's radar horizon, he is flying with limits on his own radar view as well. So what we have today is physical 'stealth' or shaping for 'stealth'. We do this in two ways AT THE SAME TIME: Reduce the energy level of each reflected signal and if there are any redirect said reflection away from source direction.

    That does not mean we abandon the other tactic of 'stealth'. No, we should still avoid radar nets if possible by flying around them, find gaps in coverage and exploit them, fly below the radar horizon aka 'nap-of-the-earth' flying when possible. What shaping for 'stealth' or more accurately 'low radar observability' does is that in the event we are under radar bombardment for no matter how long it may be, our shape will reduce the odds of producing a credible RCS for the seeking radar.

    A radar cross section (RCS) value is derived from:

    - Freq
    - Amplitude
    - Size
    - Shape
    - Aspect angle

    Freq and amplitude are from the seeking radar and from the target from those reflected signals. Target size and shape are two different items. Two different objects can have the same size but different shapes, like a sphere and a cube with the same volume. In radar detection, the sphere is simplest body and is often used in calibration. The plate is not so simple. It is actually more complex than the sphere. All other shapes -- cube, pyramid, or star -- are far more complex than the sphere.

    So we will try to follow this:

    - No radar impingement, no RCS, and therefore no detection.

    But if not, our shape will produce this:

    - Under radar bombardment, reduced RCS, ignored by the seeking radar.

    Nothing is 'invisible' in radar detection. The US never claimed it. Our scientists never claimed it. Only popular media releases used that word. So how does our shape, which truly is detected by the seeking radar, get ignored by that same radar?

    Clutter rejection.

    What is 'clutter' is not definitive. It is a word to describe what we do not want to DISPLAY. There is a great difference in what the radar system see, which is pretty much everything, and what we PROGRAMMED the system to DISPLAY.

    For a meteorologist, hydrometeors are not clutter or 'junk'. He wants to study the formation of rain clouds or hurricanes, so for him, the airliner is clutter or 'junk'. For scientists studying bird migrations, the airliner is also clutter or 'junk'. For the air traffic controller, all three items are relevant to him at different times, with one radar system he does not want to see weather but only what airliners are out there, with another radar system he want to see if there are any birds that could endangered landing aircrafts, with another radar system he want to see what weather formations are there so he can issues safe instructions.

    In essence, clutter is arbitrary. What is 'junk' to someone is 'treasure' to another. But even though it is arbitrary, all radar systems have a 'clutter rejection threshold'. It is a virtual line where 'stuff' simply will not be displayed at all.

    Under this threshold, all signals have some characteristics common to each other, notably energy level. When a radar system detect a signal, regardless if it came from a bird, a building, or an aircraft, the signal is analyzed for matching of certain criteria. If yes, then the signal is DISPLAYED. If no, then the signal is virtually discarded.

    The goal of 'stealth' is to insert the aircraft into the clutter rejection threshold. In other words, the aircraft is very much detected but its RCS characteristics conformed to certain criteria and is immediately discarded.

    So to dispel a lot of misconceptions about 'stealth': In radar detection, nothing is 'invisible', the radar sees all. It is only what is being discarded, as in do not display, that 'stealth' aircrafts exploits.
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2012
  4. gambit

    gambit FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2012
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    96
    Never said it was. But you failed to explain why the 'jack-of-all-trades' class is undesirable in the first place. Everything in society, we want the 'jack-of-all-trades' to be standing by. A 'handyman' does not build a house, he only maintains a completed house. His skills are 'good enough' that an architect, a builder, a concrete layer, or a plumbing specialist, are not required at all times. In this, the F-16 as a 'jack-of-all-trades' is a spectacular success.

    Today, no air force can afford specialized weapons systems to the extent the US have and the once USSR once had. How many can afford the SR-71? Not even the Soviets could develop something halfway close to it. How many can afford a fleet of 'bombers', aircrafts designed specifically to carry large quantities of bombs? How many can afford a fleet of dedicated air superiority fighters? How many air forces can afford the logistics for all of them?

    The answer to all of those questions is: One.

    So the 'jack-of-all-trades' is a highly desirable class and probably will be the only one standing, as in for purchase by the world's air forces.

    Your criticisms against the F-16 and the F-35 as a 'jack-of-all-trades' is spectacular fail. The F-35 is intended to raise the standards for those trades currently set by the F-16 and its competitors.

    They? You mean IR imaging technology. Not merely sensor. IR imaging goes several steps beyond merely sensing an IR source. Most IR guided missiles today are of sensor, not imaging type. The AIM-9X is imaging technology equipped.

    Then you obviously do not understand what I meant. No military experience will do that to ya.

    LPI uses spread spectrum. I wonder if you know what it really mean.
     
  5. Picard

    Picard Lt. Colonel RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,865
    Likes Received:
    3,024
    Just a nitpick: Serbs shot down one F117 and damaged another by using VHF radar / IR missile combination.
     
  6. Picard

    Picard Lt. Colonel RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,865
    Likes Received:
    3,024
    Wrong. One variant uses it; but F22's variant of LPI radar uses frequency hopping.

    F35 is: too complex, too heavy, too costly, will be underperforming in every single role it is supposed to do (F16 is exception rather than rule, and as I have already explained, it does FAR less different tasks than F35 is supposed to do, and even then its AtA performance suffered somewhat).

    But he can't build a house. F35 will be good enough to fight Iraq-like air force (no radars, no passive sensors, no ECM) but what about enemies it is - allegedly - supposed to counter?

    I know. But that doesn't mean Swiss knife of a plane is desirable - you don't have to cram all possible roles into single airframe, having two or three different airframes is good enough.

    And already fails, spectacularly (too costly, too heavy, underperforming manouverability).
     
  7. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,359
    Likes Received:
    2,378
    Country Flag:
    United States
    I cant find any example of air to air combat by US planes since 1985, 3rd world countries might engage in dogfighting with their primitive technology but with the US airforce its a thing of the past. I can understand their refusual to accept the fact that the F22 and F35 along with other technology, makes their airforce obsolete and useless. I expect Japan, Israel and UK understand that but I really doubt if its something 3rd world countries can accept.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue2QndclzeU
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2012
  8. gambit

    gambit FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2012
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    96
    Only one? If what Zoltan Dani did was so effective, why only one F-117 was lost? If it was so effective against the F-117, it should be one hundred times more effective against 'non-stealth' aircrafts, right? And yet, out of about 38,000 sorties NATO flew, including 45 B-2 sorties, only one F-117 and one F-16 was lost.

    Here is what Zoltan Dani said...

    USATODAY.com - Serb discusses 1999 downing of stealth
    Good Radar God in Heavens...!!! Let me alert IEEE and the Nobel Committee. I have no idea that radar detection involve 'electromagnetic waves'. Did you?

    Pilots called that 'spray and pray'. Two kills out of 38,000 is not an air defense combat record to boast about at the bars. The North Vietnamese did much better.
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2012
    Qwertyness and Averageamerican like this.
  9. gambit

    gambit FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2012
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    96
    Radar is a stochastical process, fancy word for statistics.

    [​IMG]

    The above illustrate the foundation of a typical pulsed radar transmission. It also illustrate something not labeled: A 'pulse train'.

    A pulse is a finite entity. It has a beginning and an end, call leading and trailing edges. It is also a finite quantity of energy because of this on/off operation. A series of pulses is called a 'pulse train' and this entity also have a leading and trailing edges, or more specifically points.

    If, in a pulse train of 100 pulses, that 40 pulses produced returns (echoes), is that a statistically legitimate ratio for the system to call 'target'? Some would say yes, some would say no, but most likely everyone will say no. What if 60 pulses produced returns? Now we can take seriously an electronic 'claim' of sorts that there is <something> out there. What if 70-80 pulses produced returns? What if 90 pulses produced returns?

    Because of this statistical process, the initials LPI stands for Low Probability of Interception. The word 'Interception' mean a determination -- by the target -- that IT is being 'scanned', or to put it another way, the receiver finally determine that based upon impinging signals characteristics, there is a pulse train from a seeking radar nearby. The returns (echoes) are also 'intercepted' by the seeking radar and determined that there is <something> out there.

    What 'low probability' means for the seeking radar is to produce pulse trains that are low in energy intensity with occasional rise above a threshold...

    [​IMG]

    Since a pulse is a finite entity, in LPI mode, in order to give us some credible returns, perhaps we should increase pulse duration, employ different freqs (hopping), and/or modulate the amplitude even from pulse to pulse in a pulse train. These are called 'parameters agility'. The greater the capability of the hardware, the better the ability of the system to produce these 'parameter agility' and to remember their characteristics from pulse to pulse, and from pulse train to pulse train.

    So you go right on and believe the F-22's LPI mode employs ONLY frequency agility, and nothing else. Keep in mind that if I can explain it here and support my arguments using publicly available sources, what else does the F-22 classified system is truly capable of doing.

    Nothing here explains why the trend is moving towards this 'jack-of-all-trades' type of fighter aircraft. And this trend is not even new. Back in WW II, the B-25 Mitchell medium bomber was modified to become gunships, some carried up to 10 .50 cal machine guns, some modified to carry a 75mm cannon along with a few more .50 cal machine guns. Along with bombs, of course. Look at the various multi-role fighters coming out of Europe.
     
    Qwertyness likes this.
  10. DrSomnath999

    DrSomnath999 Major RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    Messages:
    2,664
    Likes Received:
    1,512
    Country Flag:
    France
    Qwertyness and Firemaster like this.
  11. MiG-23MLD

    MiG-23MLD Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2011
    Messages:
    3,887
    Likes Received:
    1,467
    F-22 the best fighter still, i like it
     
    1 person likes this.
  12. MiG-23MLD

    MiG-23MLD Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2011
    Messages:
    3,887
    Likes Received:
    1,467
    definitively F-22 is the best fighter now, not perfect, but definitively the best
     
  13. MiG-23MLD

    MiG-23MLD Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2011
    Messages:
    3,887
    Likes Received:
    1,467
    with honestly the analysis is flawed, F-22 has the edge over Rafale, Su-35BM, Eurofighter, J-10B, it only will be challenged by F-35, T-50 or J-20
     
  14. jagjitnatt

    jagjitnatt Major ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,352
    Likes Received:
    1,563
    F-22 is best because countries that have the technology don't have enough money to spend on fighters, and countries that have the money don't have the technology to build a F-22 killer.

    For some reason I like it that way.

    Russians won't beat the Raptors, Chinese won't beat it either, and India won't be able to beat it also. Raptor would be beaten by another American fighter. :harley:
     
    1 person likes this.
  15. MiG-23MLD

    MiG-23MLD Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2011
    Messages:
    3,887
    Likes Received:
    1,467
    i will confess i have read lot of Russian claims, some can be considered as plausible, others as without evidence.

    There is more evidence of Russian jets destroyed than US fighters, and true Russian sources have some veracity but sometimes they can prove not many of their claims
    This unidentified jet could be a MiG-25 or F-15 downed in 1982, it looks more like a MiG-25 to me over the bekka valley, minute 1:02, Russian sources claim Israel lost F-15s in 1982

    Первое крупное столкновение с участием МиГ-23 состоялось 19 сентября 1979г., когда сирийские МиГ-23МС атаковали над Ливаном израильский разведчик Макдоннел-Дуглас RF-4 Фантом II, однако не достигли успеха. В июне 1982г. началось вторжение Израиля в Ливан. В небе долины р. Бекаа завязались ожесточенные бои между сирийской и израильской авиацией, кульминацией которых явилось воздушное сражение 10 июня. В бой было вовлечено 350 самолетов с обеих сторон. Сирийцы потеряли 22 истребителя (в том числе 4 МиГ-23МФ и 8 МиГ-23МС). Потери израильской авиации составили 10 истребителей. В целом ВВС Сирии с 6 по И июня, когда было заключено соглашение о прекращении огня, сбили в воздушных боях 23 и потеряли 47 самолетов. Двукратный перевес в сбитых самолетах объяснялся не только техническим превосходством F-15 над МиГ-23 первых модификаций, но и широкое использование Израилем самолетов ДРЛО и РЭБ, а также лучше отработанной тактикой боевого применения истребительной http://d-pankratov.blog.ru/6925699.html



    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 12, 2014

Share This Page