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. Mr Hit Smith

    Mr Hit Smith 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2011
    Messages:
    368
    Likes Received:
    114
    You Failed to take other factors into account ?
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2012
  2. gambit

    gambit FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2012
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    96
    In other words, you do not like being challenged, only praised.

    This is one of the greatest misconceptions about 'stealth' that it definitely deserve its own post.

    First...The Doppler component is what give us velocity. But the Doppler effect does not exist if the moving body is moving across our (radar) face, in other words, the best Doppler effect is when the body is moving either directly towards us or away from us. When there is an angular difference, the Doppler component degrades in accuracy until when the body is moving across our face, then the Doppler effect ceases to exist. This fact is well known and whenever it is (mis)used in criticism of 'stealth', it speaks more of the person's ignorance of the subject of 'stealth' in particular and of science in general than of anything else.

    Second...Birds, insects, flora, and hydrometeors, the last a fancy word for water related atmospheric 'stuff', are considered 'volumetric RCS', meaning they are measured as a volume, extremely seldom as individuals.

    IEEE Xplore - Envelope radar cross section analysis of faired composite bodies
    What 'volumetric radar cross section' (RCS) mean is that sometimes certain bodies are so small that it is best to measure them in a cluster or group. What happens in this cluster or group is that the radar signal repeatedly bounces off these bodies and the cumulative constructive interference give us a 'radar cross section' (RCS).

    If a bird drop out of the flock, if a leaf fall off the tree, or if an insect depart from the swarm, that individual WILL NOT be detected by the radar. Further, a bird's body with its curvature is quite already 'stealthy' and its layers of feathers are already very much radar absorbant materials (RAM). In radar detection of an individual bird, it is the beak with its hard angles that will produce the highest radar return.

    So does it mean it is impossible to detect an individual bird? Absolutely not. It is very possible to detect an individual bird, insect, leaf, or even a single raindrop.

    Avian Radar Validation | CEAT Airport Safety Management Program at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
    About Avian Radar | CEAT Airport Safety Management Program at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
    TP 8240 - Airport Wildlife Management Bulletin No. 36 - Transport Canada
    Take note of the highlighted freqs these radar systems uses to discriminate individual birds even when they are in a flock (cluster). The freqs are the very same ones that the American 'stealth' fighters are shaped to exploit against.

    Tracking radar tested for birdstrike prevention | Aviation International News
    The figures cited in the above source is very much an example of 'volumetric RCS' and of its best guesstimation of how many birds were there. Even if this ground radar system is capable of discriminating over 1,000 Doppler components, the fact that there are so many of them so close together that all Doppler signals would be contaminating each other, again -- constructive and destructive interferences. It is already impossible for this hypothetical VHF radar to discriminate individual birds, let alone trying to process out over 1,000 contaminated Doppler components to weed out a few that travels at several hundreds km/h.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2012
    Qwertyness and Firemaster like this.
  3. gambit

    gambit FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2012
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    96
    The idea is not new, only pending the available technology, which is still in its infancy. The American Silent Sentry system is one such.

    First...There is no such thing as a 'passive' radar. No such animal no matter how many press releases are there. Radar detection is a two-parts process: Transmission and Reception. The VERA-E and Silent Sentry are the 'Reception' half. They are unusual because radar detection is generally understood as the 'Transmission' half is under the direct control of the single operator. With VERA-E and Silent Sentry, the 'Transmission' half is under someone else's jurisdiction. So they should be correctly labeled as 'passive' detector systems.

    A visual example is necessary...

    [​IMG]

    When the transmission is under the direct control of the single operator, everything about the transmission is known to the receiver half, from freq to pulse characteristics. Data processing is confined to those known and EXPECTED transmission parameters.

    But when the transmission is under the control of someone else's, such as television, radio, cellular communication, reflections from terrain features of all of those signals, data processing difficulties increases in trying to keep track of which type of signals occurs when and where. It is not impossible but it is difficult to implement. The solution for the passive receiver/detector is to limit the quantity of signal TYPES to use to try and detect a 'stealth' body. The problem for the passive receiver system is that if the signal type being used does not exist in the area, or does not exist at certain time of day, or is unpredictable in existing during any time period, then the system is effectively blind during that time. So this is not a credible tactic against 'stealth' to the point where one should place all one's chips.

    The solution for the 'stealth' attacker?

    How about degrading or destroying the city's electrical supply? Gaps galore. How about ECM prior to a physical attack on the enemy's valuable national assets? The passive receiver system would be overwhelmed to the extent that the 'stealth' attackers could fly through with relative safety.
     
    Qwertyness likes this.
  4. Picard

    Picard Lt. Colonel RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,865
    Likes Received:
    3,024
    First, AESA radars are not that easy to jam, althought it is possible.
    Second, principles I was talking about are:
    1) BVR is unreliable
    2) IFF is unreliable
    3) you need visual confirmation of enemy's identity
    4) if plane radiates, it is going to get detected

    No it doesn't. If everyone jams everyone else, we're back in Korean war in regards to BVR.

    Yes, at set-up exercises with bullshit assumptions. If it ever goes into combat, F22 is going to perform far worse than F15.

    Yeah, right. I already explained it, I won't do it again. It can be detected. Radar can be detected, IFF can be detected, and one without another is useless.

    And what have I said, Mr. Genius? EXACTLY THAT. But easier logistics are no good if airplane cannot do any of jobs it is expected to do.

    You ignore proven reality of air combat while repeating Lockheed Martin promotional bullshit. And what have you exactly debunked?

    These were goddamn exercises; it wouldn't have been used. Or is F22 going to use it in war?

    Bullshit. As I said, it is completely new analysis, NOT update of old one.

    You really have a holey brain. Not surprising.

    It isn't only Doppler effect unless airplane is moving directly towards radar.

    I never said it is new.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2012
  5. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,359
    Likes Received:
    2,379
    Country Flag:
    United States
    So far the F22 against every thing we can throw at it, the most sophisticated advanced systems in the world and it cant be touched.. also its designed to continually be upgraded agains new threats, a number of those upgrades have already been developed but not added due lack of threats or cost constraints.
     
  6. Picard

    Picard Lt. Colonel RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,865
    Likes Received:
    3,024
    RULE 1: Weapons are not the most important ingredient in winning wars. People come first; ideas are second and hardware is only third.

    RULE 2: Not all weapons are equally important in war. Their importance is unrelated to their cost.

    RULE 3: You can’t tell effective weapons from useless ones without a clear definition of each combat-essential effectivenes scharacteristic and that definition must be derived directly from combat evidence.

    RULE 4: To understand the characteristics that separate weapons effective in combat from mediocre or useless ones, read ten times more combat histories than research and development (R&D) sagas or weapons technology eulogies. Most useful are combat histories from the foxhole, cockpit or periscope point of view.

    RULE 5: For any weapon, the list of essential effectiveness characteristics must include the weapon’s direct effect on the user’s skill, combat adaptability and training (people first!) and, equally important, the effect on the number of weapons (i.e. the force level actually delivered on the battlefield. Any definition of effectiveness lacking these two elements is useless.

    RULE 6: In sorting good weapons from bad, relying on R&D test results for assessing combat accuracy, probability of kill, reliability, effective range, etc. is disastrous. Sadly, operational or field test results have become almost equally useless, except for occasionally uncovering unanticipated problems. Unfiltered, non-anecdotal samples of combat results trump everything else.

    RULE 7: When judging weapons effectiveness, seek out informed skeptics, both in and out of uniform. Weigh carefully their insights on weapons shortcomings. Ignore the corporate flacks, military procurement program managers, acquisition command flag officers, civilian high tech advocates and, above all, the “experts” and “experienced users” trotted out by the military services whenever their favorite programs are under attack.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2012
  7. Picard

    Picard Lt. Colonel RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,865
    Likes Received:
    3,024
    Passive detector systems is too generic - it includes radar detector systems (which, again, include radar warners and passive radars), laser warning receivers, optical detection systems, infra-red search and track systems, all of them vastly different.
     
  8. Picard

    Picard Lt. Colonel RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,865
    Likes Received:
    3,024
    This is what retired Colonel Everest E Riccioni has to say about similar situation with another stealth aircraft:

    More about USAF "tests":

     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2012
  9. Picard

    Picard Lt. Colonel RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,865
    Likes Received:
    3,024
    As a final enlightening item—a general asked the Chief of Staff of the USAF the question — “Do you really believe the claims you are making about the F-22 program?” The Chief’s reply was candid and priceless — “I express opinions about the F-22 that I am told to express.”
     
  10. Picard

    Picard Lt. Colonel RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,865
    Likes Received:
    3,024
    The major causes of this typical failed development are—
    1. The adherence of the DoD to its distorted pronouncements — like the need for a new air
    superiority aircraft in a post Cold War world, and the need for its air-to-surface variants — all without
    valid justification.
    2. An incredible, unreasonably long development time caused by lack of understanding and
    excessive complexity — a gestation time so long that the world situation and our enemies changed.
    3. Current world affairs define our present and future enemies. The new enemies make the aircraft
    irrelevant. The DoD and The Congress cannot forget the old enemies, and cannot recognize the new.
    4. Military contractors that promise the USAF anything—even the physically impossible—just to
    stay in business.56 Equivalently military program personnel were not competent to recognize the
    impossibilities. And the development system does not give the contractors the freedom to tell
    The Truth about their science.
    5. Military and contractor test pilots are neither critical nor evaluative. They are in a friendly
    cooperative venture to advertise the program — believing that it guarantees their personal success.57
    6. The flawed integrity of USAF officers on the F-22 and on acquisition matters in general.
    7. The lack of insight and the prostitution of study groups and the pantheon of pundits.
    8. The lack of courage on the part of DoD executives and the military to face reality and cancel a
    program that has gone bad.58 59 This, despite funding shortages generated by an expensive war.
    9. The failures of DoD officials to admit the real justification for the aircraft is to sustain a
    business venture, not to improve our nation’s military or defensive capability.
    10. Congressional failure to provide real oversight, and their uncritical approval of every request
    for funds. The Senate and House Armed Services Committees do not check service veracity, and
    frequently lack the expertise to evaluate both Cost and Effectiveness.
    11. Failure of the media to make the obvious distortions evident to the voting public. They fail for
    lack of insight, conviction, courage, and lack of dedication to public service.
     
  11. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,359
    Likes Received:
    2,379
    Country Flag:
    United States
    I have come to the conclusion that Picard is a Genius - he has the ability to produce fantastic amounts of equally fantastic bullshit that all makes perfect sense” In Texas we have a saying bullshit talks, walk the walk and we have seen what the B2 did over Baghdad and Croatia, we know from Red Flag Exercises that the F22 is invulnerable, and all the bullshit in the world does not change that fact.
     
  12. Vritra

    Vritra Major ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    2,109
    Likes Received:
    908
    And you've got the apt platitude of dispensing with reason, the ability to form an argument around rhetoric and backing it up with an equally unrelated quote.

    Picard is attempting to be technical, while you're spitting quotes and baseless arguments repeatedly, like you have this hope that your actual lack of afore mentioned argument will not present itself for others to see. At which you, sir, have failed.

    And so you turn to personal attacks, as usual. And people call you on it, following which you scram. Vamoose. Lurking somewhere till the opportune moment to jump out, spill more mindless garble onto the page, and leave once more.

    Picard here has present his argument, which Gambit has countered. And all you've done, like the broken record you are, is repeat over and over that F-22 has done this, done that, despite the fact that your statements have situational applicability at best. Failing that, what you've done is try to turn the spotlight from your obvious lack of know-how to how Picard is 'delusional'. Congratulations, you've finally outdone yourself.
     
    1 person likes this.
  13. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,359
    Likes Received:
    2,379
    Country Flag:
    United States
    What is important is facts, satistics dont lie but liars use satistics, the fact is so far in the real world in actual combat and exercises the B2 and F22 have no competion in the modern world, and there is nothing even close.
     
  14. MiG-23MLD

    MiG-23MLD Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2011
    Messages:
    3,887
    Likes Received:
    1,467
    look you can write what ever you wish, i am a great fan of MiGs, i have read lots of Russian sources, and you know what? F-15 ruled, yes i did not liked it, how my loved MiG-23 was trashed in 1982, how my loved MiG-29 was downed, the F-22 has been tested versus F-15s and F-18s that are in avionics as good as any Eurocanard or MiG, the reality is F-22 is the top dog only challenged by J-20 or T-50
     
  15. MiG-23MLD

    MiG-23MLD Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2011
    Messages:
    3,887
    Likes Received:
    1,467
    average american in this is very right, picard is fantasizing, the F-15 or F-18E are as good as Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen, J-10 or Su-35BM in avionics and weaponry.

    F-15s are not inferior as he infers or as he claims, they are fighters that have parity at least in avionics and just slight worse in kinematics, but the americans can fix that with TVC nozzles, but they went for F-22 and HMS and AIM-9Xs,

    They train using their F-18Es or F-15s that are really good versus F-22s and they know F-22 rules

    [​IMG]

    the difference between these pictures is F-18E pilots know F-22 is very good, while the french boast, F-18Es have win but once in a while, according to french sources Rafale did not win a single time, difference is french boasst but F-18E pilots know how good is the F-22 because they train with F-22 flying at full aspect stealth something the french did not do[​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2012

Share This Page