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. gambit

    gambit FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2012
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    96
    Does it make my argument invalid? No, it does not.

    Prove me wrong...

    - That radar is NOT a two-parts process.

    - That the vast majority of systems deployed, civilian and military, where EACH system is under the control of a single operator.

    When you, or anyone else for that matter, use the phrase 'passive radar', even though it is technically incorrect, you are referring to the 'Receive' half of this two-parts process. This is a feeble attempt to distract from the fact that you have been called out -- that you do not know what you are talking about.
     
    Qwertyness likes this.
  2. gambit

    gambit FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2012
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    96
    US air power is the world's most experience, negative and positive. I grew up on the pre-Internet days. I can remember when all the pundits were talking about how the US was going to incur massive casualties, air and ground, in Desert Storm, as I was getting readied for deployment. I take it you speak from extensive personal experience in aviation?

    That you are wrong on using long wavelengths as an effective counter to 'stealth'. For one.

    Now why would we enhance the F-22's RCS in war? But this response to a new fact reveals your inexperience and ignorance in both technical and non-technical issues.

    News flash for you -- ALL exercises are rigged to some degrees. In Red Flag, Top Gun, and Fighter Weapons School, the least rigged exercises have limits on altitude and live weapons. And I have been to several Red Flags.

    Rigged exercises often have the aggressors the victors. Guess you did not know that, did you? Rigged exercises are often about the students, not the instructors. Rigged exercises are for training of new tactics to the experienced and instilling current tactics into the inexperienced or freshly graduated pilots. Rigged exercises often have the instructors set themselves up in the superior positions to teach students how to counter them, or set the students up in the superior positions to teach them how an adversary could turn it against them. The variations are endless and it is in these rigged exercises that made ours the world's most coveted by every air forces.

    So if the F-22 flies with enhancers in an exercise, it should be understood in the context that we do not know the intentions of a specific exercise for that day. And if an F-22 flies WITHOUT enhancers, you can bet your next year's salary that no such intentions are going to be made public. Foreign pilots who have flown against non-enhanced F-22s have left the US figuratively dazed at the ease that the F-22 can 'kill' them while remaining unseen.

    No, it is nothing but a rehash of the old and calling it 'analysis' is being generous.

    The Doppler component is most prominent whenever a target is moving directly towards or away from the viewer. In order to calculate speed without Doppler, you need to maintain constant track. So in order to detect a 'bird' that is moving at several hundreds km/h, you need to maintain constant tracks of several HUNDREDS birds of diverse sizes. This tells me you have no idea of what you are talking about.

    So here is another factoid for you to search and learn: There is a great difference between 'Detect Before Track' versus 'Track Before Detect'.

    IEEE Xplore - Track-Before-Detect Strategies for STAP Radars
    Track Before Detect (TBD) is another proposed tactic against 'stealth'. Like bi-static radars. Both have technical issues that make each currently not practical against 'stealth'. Do not think that the phrase 'weak moving' targets' speaks of moving across 3D space. It mean 'weakly detected' while the body is moving across 3D space.

    From what I have seen so far, am willing to bet that the passive detection concept is new to you. And it is even newer that it can be defeated, even quite easily at this time.
     
  3. Picard

    Picard Lt. Colonel RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,865
    Likes Received:
    3,024
    I do know what I am talking about; you can continue strawmaning, it changes nothing. You can call it way you want; it is irrelevant.

    Those who said that US will incur massive casualties forgot the fact that Iraqi air forces did not even have ECM or even radar/missile warners in some case.

    For one, it is one of dozen possible countermeasures.

    Two, can you explain why scientists whose job is to design radars beleive VHF radar can counter stealth technology?

    If it is about clutter, I have explained how it can be eliminated. If it is about physics, then you're wrong.

    It is not any news to me. But one thing is to rig exercise so as to simulate various possibilities and prevent accidents - completely another is to rig exercise to point of being completely unrealistic as a part of marketing campaign.

    Rigged exercises are also good for selling new planes or arguing with Congress about funding.

    As well as the opposite.

    Rehash, beacouse it is with many old and some new sources. And yes, I know you don't like conclusions beacouse you like to beleive that F22 is super-fighter.

    And you have except when you "forget" some parts that don't fit your conclusions.

    Using brain must be quite new concept for you.

    And passive detection system can be defeated by target not sending out any signals at all - which, in case of fighter jets, is impossible.

    You forgot that 1) RCS varies with wavelength (longer wavelenght = greater RCS); 2) RAM cannot absorb VHF radar signals.

    And yes, "normal" radar can easily detect even VLO planes. Only question is range, which is greater with long wavelenght radar.
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2012
  4. Picard

    Picard Lt. Colonel RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,865
    Likes Received:
    3,024
  5. Mr Hit Smith

    Mr Hit Smith 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2011
    Messages:
    368
    Likes Received:
    114
    Knew it! YOU are from TEXAS.......... :rofl:
     
  6. gambit

    gambit FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2012
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    96
    There is a difference between P-hit and P-kill.

    If the discussion is confined to air-air combat, then the bullet, up to the large 20mm caliber cannon shell, have a very low P-hit AND P-kill. The level of damages produced and lethality depends on the caliber of the bullet versus the size and type of the target and the location of the impact.

    Since the bullet is an unguided missile, it have an inherent low P-hit made even lower when faced against a dynamic target in 3D space. This is why a pilot have to spend a lot of time, relatively speaking, and expend a large amount of these unguided missiles in any engagement, and even then a kill of the target is not guaranteed. A related example of this is the use of unguided rockets in air-air combat in WW II where these larger and powered still unguided 'bullets' were successful only against non-maneuvering targets like dirigibles and bombers. Not against much more agile fighters.

    On the other hand, a guided missile, even small as the American AIM-9 have pretty much a guaranteed P-kill. It is the attempted guidance that its P-hit does not match its P-kill. It is the attempted guidance that gave the guided missile progress while the bullet remain quite primitive. No one is saying the 'dogfight' is over but only that the burden of the 'dogfight' is transferred to the another, namely the missile since the bullet is non-powered and non-maneuverable and therefore an unsuitable candidate.

    So if we go by the statistics per engagement, then a missile kill have a less successful rate than the gun. But if we go by the statistics per expended projectile, then the guided missile is the more cost effective in terms of everything. One projectile for one kill. How much does a Vulcan M61 20mm cannon assemble cost -- per aircraft -- and not counting the bullets? And how many bullets must hit the target and where in order to have a successful kill -- in this engagement? This is not taking into consideration the fact that the pilot must place himself into greater danger by engaging the enemy in pretty much a physical fight.

    Guns and IR guided missiles -- excluding the IR imaging technology -- require the pilot to place himself at the enemy's rear quarter (RQ). In this statistics, the argument for the inevitable evolution of air-air combat towards guided projectiles cannot be more clear. In an RQ engagement, the enemy is at a gross disadvantage and a guided bullet would increase P-kill in THIS engagement. But we went beyond a guided bullet and created a guided and powered bullet called a 'missile'. The RQ engagement is still the same. Only the lethality of the projectile differed.

    A radar guided missile expanded the engagement type into 'all aspects' meaning the missile is now not confined into the RQ type, where the pilot still has to place himself into greater physical danger, but that he can send another 'fighter' to do his dirty work, so to speak.

    Here is an example of that...

    The Last Ace - Magazine - The Atlantic
    Basically, both combatants have radar lock on each other. The American pilot happened to shoot first and his guided missile had a matching P-hit to P-kill. A US SpecOps team recovered the MIG's HUD avionics hardware and we now have the world's only 'last sight' of a combatant of any type of combat before he died. The AIM-7 was radar guided and that made it an 'all aspects' missile. That was no artist's rendering of the last moment. It was an electronic record of that last moment.

    There is no physical barrier -- as in the laws of physics -- that say at X-distance, radar signals and its associated hardware will fail to operate. Beyond or within visual range is about relativity. If we can make an alternate 'dogfighter' who does not hesitate to kill itself for the sake of its owner at 20km, we can certainly make one at 100km distance. If radar guided missiles are so terrible, then why are surface to air (SAM) missiles so feared and they are launched at the same BVR condition against the same type of highly dynamic targets in 3D space?

    So how much money spent on bullets so far, from WW I to today?
     
    Qwertyness likes this.
  7. Picard

    Picard Lt. Colonel RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,865
    Likes Received:
    3,024
    You obviously don't understand what cost-effective means. Yes, you need lot of bullets to hit and kill a target. But even when we consider expense of building and fitting a gun PLUS expense of all bullets fired, cannon is still far more cost-effective than IR missile, and IR missile far more cost-effective than radar-guided missile.

    And Pk is calculated per trigger squeeze.

    And how much guidance system for missile costs?
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2012
  8. gambit

    gambit FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2012
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    96
    Much better than you do.

    The problems with guns are many. When Boyd criticized the military establishment, he focused more on the piloting skills of his pilotss in a 'knife fight in the phone booth' situation more than he cared about gunnery. He was not so shortsighted as to dismiss technology if it would give him an advantage. His criticisms were about the wrong application of technology at an inappropriate time.

    There are many TECHNICAL reasons why it require so many bullets to kill a single aircraft.

    Flexible guns proved to be impractical in WW I. A flexible gun is one that can be fired in any direction but it require a two-man aircraft. So the flexible gun system eventually came to be the system for defensive aircrafts -- the bomber.

    The fixed guns system have its own technical issues.

    Firing through the props require complex synchronization mechanisms, which inevitably limit the rate of projectiles the fighter can bring to bear. Wing mounted guns require alignments and there were no compensatory system to counter the yawing effect created by recoil from one wing guns when the other wing guns ran out of ammo. It was up to the pilot to provide such a compensatory effort.

    MK 103 cannon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Wing mounted guns and ammo affect aircraft maneuverability. Ever heard of centrifugal forces? How about asymmetrical centrifugal forces? Another problem is 'bullet dispersion' with this system...

    Emerald | Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology | Disposition of Fighter Armament: Firing Error Due to Installation in the Wings
    If the guns (plural) are relatively close or grouped together or clustered around the aircraft's centerline, it is effectively 'boresighted' and will give reasonable projectile density in any given area, the most important compensatory mechanism for this configuration would be for gravity drop by the sighting system for a selected guesstimated distance in front of the aircraft. But for the wing mounted system we have bullet dispersion, projectile density (or lack thereof), and gravity drop. Huge gaps or 'holes' in the bullet patterns. If ground based sharpshooters have to deal with gravity's effect on their bullets, what make you think airborne shooters are exempted?

    The solution for the wing mounted guns problem?

    - Point harmonization.

    Interrupter gear - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    What point harmonization does is to realign each gun to create the maximum bullet density at a guesstimated distance (singular) from the aircraft. This alignment process involve angling each wing gun slightly inward.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    As we can see from the illustrations above, gun harmonization for the wing mounted system (P-40) is considerably different than for the boresighted or centerlined system (P-38). Each fighter must have its own point harmonization criteria because none are exactly alike with their guns' positions. We can also see that for the wing mounted system (P-40) using point harmonization, beyond that point bullet dispersion return. We have bullet dispersion before that point and after that point.

    This is why for the wing mounted guns, the point harmonization method was used rarely and when used it was for exceptional pilots who are confident that they can maneuver their targets into that crucial point that exists the maximum bullet density to ensure a kill.

    For the 'average' pilots, and using the word 'average' respectfully here since getting to be a pilot is exceptional enough by itself, the pattern harmonization method is common.

    [​IMG]

    See Note 2.

    What happened in pattern harmonization was that individual gun -- per wing -- is slightly angled up or down and left or right to produce a reasonable spread of bullets at a wider range of distances (plural) than for point harmonization. Bullet density is inevitably much lesser than for point harmonization but at least the pilot will have greater odds of P-hit per bullet.

    Point harmonization is a rifle bullet. Pattern harmonization is a spray of shotgun pellets.

    The problems related to air-air combat gunnery have not changed because the laws of physics do not change. They existed back then and they continue to place limits on us today. Jet powered fighters have their own technical issues with guns, particularly the recoil gas powered type. The jet engines cannot ingest gun exhaust gas -- compressor stalls and flameouts. The result is the rotating barrels type gun.

    Phalanx CIWS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The M61 Vulcan, even if we really 'low ball' the cost, each cannon would still cost as much as an AMRAAM with no inherent increase in P-hit which affect P-kill. It is only the electronic sighting system ON THE AIRCRAFT that will increase P-hit.

    So based upon cost alone, the missile is the clear superior choice. If we can make a superior projectile for the rear quarter (RQ) engagement situation, as in the IR guided Sidewinder, and since we have a proven all-aspects radar guided WVR missile, the BVR type is inevitable and it is here -- AMRAAM.

    You do not know what you are talking about.
     
    1 person likes this.
  9. Picard

    Picard Lt. Colonel RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,865
    Likes Received:
    3,024
    Statistics prove you thoroughly wrong.

    No, you don't.

    Let me quote myself:

    So gun is few dozen times more cost-effective than Sidewinder, which is six times more cost-effective than Falcon, which, in turn, is 5,56 times more cost-effective than Sparrow.

    Training costs are also higher for missiles. And before you go "but it was Vietnam!" - Pk hasn't really changed in modern combat. As shown in Desert Storm and Serbia, BVR missile has 50% chance to miss a non manouvering fighter-sized target equipped with no countermeasures and sensors whatsoever.

    Yes, I KNOW all of that. But fact remains that missiles have both MINIMUM and MAXIMUM range, are relatively easy to fool - especially BVR missiles - and are thus not always practical to use.

    Yes, I do know, unlike you. You can go technical all you want, but combat is only real judge and it proves you wrong. BVR is impractical. IR missiles are good, but you still need gun, and gun has twice Pk of IR missiles. I'm not arguing that we should go back to gun-only dogfight; but gun is far from obsolete, and is integral part of system.

    Really, you are a technical theoretic with no knowledge of reality of combat and no will to gain that knowledge throught research. People like you declared that guns are outdated before Vietnam, and as result US pilots during early war had no close-in weapon system; result? F4 got its gun back but quite a few US pilots died needlessly before it happened.

    Not only that, but most WW2 pilots chose to get that point as close to possible to aircraft (150 - 250 meters) to ensure a kill.
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2012
  10. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,359
    Likes Received:
    2,379
    Country Flag:
    United States
    There have been about 70 air to air combat incidents involving the F-16, and maybe double that many for all forces since Vietnam. Many have involved clearly inferior and non-upgraded planes against a more modern F-16. Many newer model fighters and upgrades to older ones have never been tested in combat.

    A Cessna with the stealth abilities of the F22 would be superior to any other combat aircraft in the world today, first look first kill technologies really work. Vietnam was 35 years ago, the planes used in vietnam were 45, 50 year old technology, from a technology stand point air craft have advanced in the last 35 years as much as all the technology since the beginning of time. If there is ever another dog fight by the USA it will either be an accident, or just some pliot finishing the job.
     
  11. Picard

    Picard Lt. Colonel RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,865
    Likes Received:
    3,024
    Missiles and radars aren't only thing that have advanced. IRST did, planes did, countermeasures did... between comparable or near-comparable (numerically and technologically - and that is not counting stealth) opponents there will always be dogfights.
     
  12. gambit

    gambit FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2012
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    96
    No, you do not. Going by your statistics and arguments from them, air defense MUST return to guns and bullets, and yet, we see the opposite.

    :lol: Now you have just debunked yourself. No one is saying that the gun is obsolete and it is only your assumption that I am or would be among the crowd that say so. On the contrary, 10 yrs active duty during the Cold War on the F-111 and the F-16 give me a view of military aviation that you do not have. Like it or not, air combat is no different than ground combat in that all combatants are both restrained and freed by technology. The gun is not obsolete but given the choice between the gun and the AIM-9X, the pilot would chose the missile due to its higher P-hit and P-kill.

    By your own statistics of guns versus IR missiles, which I generously did not questioned since you could have pull them out of your ass, the gun have ALREADY been relegated to secondary or backup status. Same for that Atlantic magazine article where the Iraqi fighter was shot down by an AIM-7. Did the American pilot closed in for a gun kill? No, he waited until his weapons system informed him that according to its calculations, he can kill his target with assurance at X-distance, he exercised that option and was successful. Further confirmation that the gun will remain in that secondary or backup status for a looooooong distance into the future.

    You have yet to show us any credible arguments as to what distance constitute 'BVR' where the laws of physics behave differently. If the AIM-7 is successful under parent radar guidance, why is it impossible for the AMRAAM to be successful under its own guidance. I do look forward to this.
     
  13. gambit

    gambit FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2012
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    96
    :lol: How is it any different than when Boyd radioed: 'Guns! Guns! Guns!' into the mike after he outmaneuvered his opponent and forced concession of engagement?
     
  14. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,359
    Likes Received:
    2,379
    Country Flag:
    United States
    The F-22’s central integrated processor (CIP) isthe equivalent of 2 Cray supercomputers,
     
  15. smestarz

    smestarz Lt. Colonel REGISTERED

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    Messages:
    4,653
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Buying Cray super computers is impossible due to exorbitant prices.
    But guess buying 1 F-22 solves the matter of number crunching.. (more capable than 2 super computers)
    Really? Come on you are just joking yes?
     

Share This Page