F-16.net

03fomoco wrote:

This isn't rocket science, oh wait it is. Our LM and EC and ECM folks have a few brain cells and to keep this subject in the "safe zone" if the target is actively jamming an inbound weapon you have now made the job EASIER for the weapon. If you think a data link is easy to jam, you might be dead wrong, with a spread spectrum frequency hopping system, just like the link the newer consumer rc planes use the signal can handle active jamming as well as an incredible "noise floor" being introduced. This is at the consumer level, now imagine mil spec requirements. Anyone can get lucky with a golden BB, on the flip side what if the 22 doesn't pull off a one shot one kill ratio, crtl, alt, del and try again. The deck is stacked in our corner and our greatest military weakness is sadly from people who have never dressed up as a tree and served.

Not necessarily. Actively jamming aircraft ahead for more success against incoming missiles than the other way around. In fact the trend is for more comprehensive electronic countermeasures, even in stealthy aircraft. Since the offensive missile, and the defensive fighter, are both relying the electromagnetic spectrum for success or failure, ultimately the issue boils down to intelligence and physics.

With regard to physics it'll be a matter of power generation. The fighter aircraft will clearly have an advantage in this respect. The further away the missile gets from the fighter that fired it, the less secure and robust communications links. Also the power density of the jamming will increase. So, it is not quite as simple as home on jam. Long-range air to air missiles also do not do a direct pursuit. The missile must rely on telemetry from the firing fighter in order to properly position itself to use its own seeker. Emissions from the firing aircraft are not provide the same kind of data.

Also, the side with the most comprehensive intelligence and understanding of the enemy electronic order of battle, will have considerable advantages.

Finally, I thought the military subordinate to civilian leadership has always been one of America's greatest strengths. Civilians set policy the armed forces execute that policy within the limitations defined by civilians.

-DA

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

Newbie Joined: Nov 07, 2007 Posts: 14 Status: Offline

As far as active jamming I agree. The means exist that if an object is being actively jammed by it's target that it can use that as a source of guidance, with the future of AA weapons they will be smarter, i.e. use infrared, target generated RF, data link from both defensive aircraft and fed through other sources and finally synthetic vision. We all know this can not be discussed further on here...... At a consumer level of discussion a data link that that is narrow band FHSS is hard to jam as to jam the signal you need a very large amount of power over a very wide bandwidth the "hopper" only needs to get a few packets through. We have experimented with FHSS systems and raised the "noise floor" above the data stream and I was surprised how many packets were still received intact, it gets even better with a FHSS system with a DSM carrier and error correction. As for the original intent of this subject the MIG has one major issue and that is the pilot has to fly the aircraft and employ it. The Raptor pilot's duties of flying the aircraft have become so "integrated" that he can spend his time employing it. The best part is that most of the MIG's capabilities are known to us and that the old adage applies to the Raptor that "The best kept secrets are the ones you don't know about".

As for the military / civilian issue. I agree to an extent but just watching what a congress can do to funding has had the single most devastating impact to our military capabilities, not the talented engineers, pilots, good contractors etc... sorry for that confusion.

03fomoco wrote:

As far as active jamming I agree. The means exist that if an object is being actively jammed by it's target that it can use that as a source of guidance, with the future of AA weapons they will be smarter, i.e. use infrared, target generated RF, data link from both defensive aircraft and fed through other sources and finally synthetic vision. We all know this can not be discussed further on here...... At a consumer level of discussion a data link that that is narrow band FHSS is hard to jam as to jam the signal you need a very large amount of power over a very wide bandwidth the "hopper" only needs to get a few packets through. We have experimented with FHSS systems and raised the "noise floor" above the data stream and I was surprised how many packets were still received intact, it gets even better with a FHSS system with a DSM carrier and error correction. As for the original intent of this subject the MIG has one major issue and that is the pilot has to fly the aircraft and employ it. The Raptor pilot's duties of flying the aircraft have become so "integrated" that he can spend his time employing it. The best part is that most of the MIG's capabilities are known to us and that the old adage applies to the Raptor that "The best kept secrets are the ones you don't know about".

As for the military / civilian issue. I agree to an extent but just watching what a congress can do to funding has had the single most devastating impact to our military capabilities, not the talented engineers, pilots, good contractors etc... sorry for that confusion.

Just very quickly, as I don't think it's worth too much discussion as the proposed method to counter a Raptor AMRAAM strike struck me as so patenly absurd on its face, you can rest assured that just as the F-22's radar is LPI, its datalink to AMRAAM is even more so. To describe it as "pencil thin" is probably, well, too thick. Plain and simple, if there is one thing an enemy fighter's RWR won't pick up is the Raptor's AMRAAM data link. Same principle as with the IFDL. Signature management applies to all aspects of an intercept, and to think that the Raptor's designers would have been so bone-headed as to forget to include the data link to the missile in that equation is simply foolish. The first indication an enemy fighter will have that it is being engaged by an AMRAAM is when the missile's seeker goes active, and when it is being employed by the Raptor, that won't give the enemy fighter more than a few seconds warning such that it will be very unlikely to live through the missile's NEZ.

Regarding the ability of Congress to lay waste to a defense program, more often than not the culprit is actually the Pentagon. Just look at the F-22. If we get more than 183 it will be because Congress kept the program alive contrary to the wishes of the current and former secretaries of defense.

How to kill an F-22 fly it through a flock a seagulls

Obamanite wrote:

Regarding the ability of Congress to lay waste to a defense program, more often than not the culprit is actually the Pentagon. Just look at the F-22. If we get more than 183 it will be because Congress kept the program alive contrary to the wishes of the current and former secretaries of defense.

Why does there have to be a culprit? Sometimes because of passion,our view of the situation can become quite myopic. Sometimes, it's necessary to clinically detach oneself from a situation. This is so that you can get a broad view and make the best choices overall. Air superiority is only one area of military discipline. There are many others of equal importance. Great care must be taken to ensure balance. Over emphasis in one area could lead to great neglect in others. It is the role of the Secretary of Defense to set policy with this broader view in mind. I'm a huge fan of the F-22. However, I would be disingenuous to say that under the current situation we need very many more. The United States Air Force enjoys overwhelming superiority especially in the domain of air to air combat. That is a situation unlikely to change for the next 10-20 years. In light of that, United States Air Force can rely on its technological and numerical strategic depth with regard to air superiority, while more attention is paid to other missions that have been woefully lacking in some cases. I realize that some of these words are to make some of you want to strap me to an ejection seat! However I encourage you to read carefully what I said through objective eyes.

In my opinion and from my experience, United States Air Force increased emphasis on the following areas. Strategic, tactical and intra-theater airlift. The obvious airborne tanker issue. Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capability. The joint communications infrastructure. Unmanned aerial systems. Missile defense, special operations, cyber warfare and space warfare. I would even argue that the last three or more of a distraction for the United States Air Force, not to mention the other services, and serious consideration should be given to consolidating them into an independent branch of the armed forces just as the Air Force was many decades ago.

As a compromise as well as just a bit more depth I think that a total of 250 raptors would not be unreasonable for all parties concerned. Anymore beyond that number and I think that a very thorough and comprehensive study should be conducted independent of the Air Force and balanced against other defense priorities.

-DA

what I discussed before was an anti-raptor offense. That does little good if you lose the initiative and are attacked first which is usually the modus operandi of the United States Air Force. Defensively, things are much more challenging.

The F-22 not only reduces detection range, it also compresses time so that when it is detected, threats have very little time to engage it. Then when they do engage it, they have to overcome its tremendous aerodynamic performance. When analyzed at the system level, it's easy to see why the F-22 is all but invulnerable to most threats who assume a defensive posture. The F-22 effectively challenges the entire observe Orient decide act loop. The obvious solution is to shorten the loop.

The problem for adversaries is shortening of the is technologically prohibitive. Key to any serious defensive effort against such an aircraft is the communications architecture. The detecting platform may not be an optimum position to engage. So at best, it can only warn of an inevitable attack and then probably too late. What is needed is the electronic equivalent of a spider web. That and a very fast acting spider. The spider must sense any disturbances in the web and then respond to it before its prey is able to get free. Necessarily his web must be very large and redundant. Because of that, a single "spider" would probably not be fast enough to counter the F-22. So rather than a single spider, a network of spiders all sharing the same web is needed. These spiders do not have to be of the same kind. In fact it's better if they are not. The spiders may even be the least crucial part of the network.

The United States Navy operates a system like this. It's called Cooperative engagement capability. It is a capability that was developed over many decades.in essence, it decreases the reliance on local data confuses data from all sources to form a shared common operating picture. Against an air defense like that, even the F-22 would face serious challenges to survivability. Again, when you understand the magnitude of the U.S. Navy's Cooperative engagement capability and what it took to get there, you'll see why the F-22 will fly circles around any potential adversary for many years to come. There are a few nations that could rapidly field such technology in the near term but on a much smaller scale. However, it would not be survivable in the physical or electromagnetic domains to resist the DoD for very long. It would be a higher tech and much more expensive version of the Iraqi IADS of Operation Desert Storm. Probably very effective against threats from similarly capable nations but unable to cope with something the magnitude of the DoD especially as an inherently defensive system. It would need an effective offensive compliment backed by a survivable nuclear capability in order to keep the conflict from escalating beyond it's means to control.

-DA

I'm going to add my two cents into this fray... let me remind folks that when the Air Force has gone to war or as of right now at war we deploy not one SINGLE weapons system - we deploy several into the theater. You all really think we are going to war with just the F-22s?

I can remember the same argument about not enough F-117s or not enough F-15Es... but yet when we went to war we deployed only two squadrons of each.

As I read some of the comments I began to realize some people have been reading too many Tom Clancy novels! If you some of guys been in the Air Force long enough you will know that alot of the scenarios mentioned.. ie key personnel being killed... runways being cratered are exercised all the time! I can remember in Korea having the BOQ of some A-10 pilots getting hit with a chemical SCUD.

The composition of a fighter squadron is normally 2-3 pilots per aircraft so if you have a squadron of 18 planes... you normally have 30+ pilots. And a fighter squadron normally has 250-300 people assigned (that includes the maintenance folks). When you deploy and you do not have a certified person to fly or do criticial duties... you grab someone from the other squadron or a wing puke comes and augments your squadron. Even instructor pilots and fighter weapons instructors become temporarily assigned to a unit deployment if need be. Another thing to remember.. F-22 squadrons have ANG and Reserve units associated with them. Alaska and Holloman have AF reserve squadrons - Langley has the VA ANG... Hickam will be an ANG squadron with an active duty associate squadron so thats actually twice the number of pilots and personnel. Thats alot of key personnel to take out!

I just want to enlighten some people... cheers!

Siesta wrote:

I'm going to add my two cents into this fray... let me remind folks that when the Air Force has gone to war or as of right now at war we deploy not one SINGLE weapons system - we deploy several into the theater. You all really think we are going to war with just the F-22s?

I can remember the same argument about not enough F-117s or not enough F-15Es... but yet when we went to war we deployed only two squadrons of each.

As I read some of the comments I began to realize some people have been reading too many Tom Clancy novels! If you some of guys been in the Air Force long enough you will know that alot of the scenarios mentioned.. ie key personnel being killed... runways being cratered are exercised all the time! I can remember in Korea having the BOQ of some A-10 pilots getting hit with a chemical SCUD.

The composition of a fighter squadron is normally 2-3 pilots per aircraft so if you have a squadron of 18 planes... you normally have 30+ pilots. And a fighter squadron normally has 250-300 people assigned (that includes the maintenance folks). When you deploy and you do not have a certified person to fly or do criticial duties... you grab someone from the other squadron or a wing puke comes and augments your squadron. Even instructor pilots and fighter weapons instructors become temporarily assigned to a unit deployment if need be. Another thing to remember.. F-22 squadrons have ANG and Reserve units associated with them. Alaska and Holloman have AF reserve squadrons - Langley has the VA ANG... Hickam will be an ANG squadron with an active duty associate squadron so thats actually twice the number of pilots and personnel. Thats alot of key personnel to take out!

I just want to enlighten some people... cheers!

I suppose I should take that as a compliment. After all Tom Clancy did write about airliners crashing into the Capitol building long before 9/11. Also I cannot recall a specific instance of anyone mentioning F-22's fight alone. Possibly selective reading of my part, but I certainly never suggested that.

With regard to killing key personnel. This is a combat proven technique. EMPHASIS ON, "Key personnel". It's impractical and unnecessary to kill every single pilot. However, there are individuals whose loss would greatly affect the operational effectiveness of the unit. Also as has been demonstrated in similar attacks, there are ways to directly target every member of a squadron simultaneously. With a small force, security procedures and high visibility force protection is an issue and could be exploited.

It sounds like military fiction now, it certainly won't over the next 10-15 years. This is the only effective means to fight back. Or was 9/11 not enough to teach these lessons.

-DA

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1034 Status: Offline

DarthAmerica wrote:

In my opinion and from my experience...

Well your opinion, and others here as well, demonstrates a lack of experience concerning the Air Force. Maybe if some of you actually worked a line, you'd understand why we need more Raptors. Its not always 'just because we want them', but more to the effect of, 'its just because we need them'. The 15's are worn out and being gutted for parts to keep the others flying...we had six gutted jets when I left Langley IN 2005. The 16's are close behind as far as airframe life although some units have received newer jets.

checksixx wrote:

DarthAmerica wrote:

In my opinion and from my experience...

Well your opinion, and others here as well, demonstrates a lack of experience concerning the Air Force. Maybe if some of you actually worked a line, you'd understand why we need more Raptors. Its not always 'just because we want them', but more to the effect of, 'its just because we need them'. The 15's are worn out and being gutted for parts to keep the others flying...we had six gutted jets when I left Langley IN 2005. The 16's are close behind as far as airframe life although some units have received newer jets.

WHY BECAUSE I DO NOT BELIEVE WE NEED 750 F-22'S? Perhaps, if the Air Force made a more compelling case, there would be more. Perhaps I should say if they had a more compelling case. I hate to break the news to you but there's more going on than air superiority in the world. Also the United States Air Force is only one branch of the military. The Department of Defense has to prioritize spending where it is needed most. Right now, that is not on F-22's.

Rather than incorrectly guessing about what experiences I have, why don't you try to make a compelling argument that goes beyond a myopic US Air Force view. I assure you, if you take a drive down main supply route Tampa, funding for F-22's would be a very low priority. Sailors and Marines would say the same thing from their points of view. Even within the Air Force, a KC 135 crewmember might strongly disagree with you. You need to do a better job of explaining yourself.

-DA

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1034 Status: Offline

DarthAmerica wrote:

WHY BECAUSE I DO NOT BELIEVE WE NEED 750 F-22'S? Perhaps, if the Air Force made a more compelling case, there would be more. Perhaps I should say if they had a more compelling case. I hate to break the news to you but there's more going on than air superiority in the world. Also the United States Air Force is only one branch of the military. The Department of Defense has to prioritize spending where it is needed most. Right now, that is not on F-22's.

Rather than incorrectly guessing about what experiences I have, why don't you try to make a compelling argument that goes beyond a myopic US Air Force view. I assure you, if you take a drive down main supply route Tampa, funding for F-22's would be a very low priority. Sailors and Marines would say the same thing from their points of view. Even within the Air Force, a KC 135 crewmember might strongly disagree with you. You need to do a better job of explaining yourself.

-DA

I never said that many...but certainly maybe another four squadrons worth of them. The Air Force has made the case...no one wants to listen. But you can be sure they'll bitch down the road when there is a shortfall due to the numbers. The other services that need funding are already getting it...the Navy and Air Force have been giving up money to them for years now. Its not our fault they've mis-managed their budgets for years. Everyone I saw last time I was in country had body armor and 90% were driving vehicles with armor. There is no absolute protection from bullets and bombs and no magic super armor. What were using does work. Thank God they never gave up money for ordering Dragon Skin!!!! What a scam that was!

As for my opinion on your AIR FORCE experience, from what you've stated so far, its right on the money....and we ARE discussing Air Force issues in this thread. There is a reason our ground troops have not had to face enemy air assets for many years. I've explained it very well...if you don't understand it, I'm sorry. Let me try putting it this way:

1. 90% Air Force aircraft - very old - lack of spare parts.

2. Get new aircraft or old aircraft will slowly stop flying (already happening for years).

3. 99% of policy makers (yes, even some who oppose it now) wanted the F-22.

4. The F-22 (and soon the F-35) is now what we have available.

5. Not getting a decent (needed) amount of jets will simply equal a huge sum of wasted development money.

Last edited by DarthAmerica on Jul 15, 2008 - 02:26 PM; edited 1 time in total

checksixx wrote:

DarthAmerica wrote:

WHY BECAUSE I DO NOT BELIEVE WE NEED 750 F-22'S? Perhaps, if the Air Force made a more compelling case, there would be more. Perhaps I should say if they had a more compelling case. I hate to break the news to you but there's more going on than air superiority in the world. Also the United States Air Force is only one branch of the military. The Department of Defense has to prioritize spending where it is needed most. Right now, that is not on F-22's.

Rather than incorrectly guessing about what experiences I have, why don't you try to make a compelling argument that goes beyond a myopic US Air Force view. I assure you, if you take a drive down main supply route Tampa, funding for F-22's would be a very low priority. Sailors and Marines would say the same thing from their points of view. Even within the Air Force, a KC 135 crewmember might strongly disagree with you. You need to do a better job of explaining yourself.

-DA

I never said that many...but certainly maybe another four squadrons worth of them. The Air Force has made the case...no one wants to listen. But you can be sure they'll bitch down the road when there is a shortfall due to the numbers. The other services that need funding are already getting it...the Navy and Air Force have been giving up money to them for years now. Its not our fault they've mis-managed their budgets for years. Everyone I saw last time I was in country had body armor and 90% were driving vehicles with armor. There is no absolute protection from prioritize spending no magic super armor. What were using does work. Thank God they never gave up money for ordering Dragon Skin!!!! What a scam that was!

As for my opinion on your AIR FORCE experience, from what you've stated so far, its right on the money....and we ARE discussing Air Force issues in this thread. There is a reason our ground troops have not had to face enemy air assets for many years. I've explained it very well...if you don't understand it, I'm sorry. Let me try putting it this way:

1. 90% Air Force aircraft - very old - lack of spare parts.

2. Get new aircraft or old aircraft will slowly stop flying (already happening for years).

3. 99% of policy makers (yes, even some who oppose it now) wanted the F-22.

4. The F-22 (and soon the F-35) is now what we have available.

5. Not getting a decent (needed) amount of jets will simply equal a huge sum of wasted development money.

Yes, we do have body armor. All combat vehicles have armor. But that did not happen overnight. Because we went to war "with the Army we had" rather than the Army we needed, we're sitting at about 4000+ dead. Subtracting of course noncombat fatalities but you get the point. Even more numerous are the injuries which is have a greater effect in numbers far more than 4000. This is because we started operation Iraqi freedom, we did so with a military to technologically bias in favor of the Air Force. Granted hindsight is 2020 but that is the truth. I'm not blaming the United States Air Force. The Air Force simply pursue programs that thought necessary. I am blaming the Pentagon for not ensuring more balance.

The last two defense secretaries understand the situation. That's why the Air Force leadership has been decapitated and replaced. Failure to adapt. Now having said all that, I'm not so sure why you chose to disagree with me? I did after all suggest that we should get a few more F-22's. Imagine a coincidence where I also suggested about four squadrons more myself! Unless of course, you did not read where I said that about 250 (187 + 63 = 250) would be a good compromise. Our numbers differ by a mere 33 aircraft! Not very much difference you agree? So what are you talking about?

By the way, F-22 production has not been terminated, merely halted so that a decision on further production can be decided by the next administration. Certainly you would agree that 187 is enough to last until the decision can be made during the next administration.

Your criticisms are unfounded. Best regards,

-DA

checksixx wrote:

As for the numbers, who said I disagreed with you? I simply pointed out that your train of thought about the Air Force was from an unexperienced point of view.

Why does that matter? This is an open forum. Also, the people deciding the F-22's fate aren't even pilots. So why would any persons opinion be irrelevant? This is so typical of certain personalities in the USAF. They tend to think the world revolves around air superiority and air to air combat in the face of obvious facts to the contrary. I have the benefit of a more broad view and I'm simply looking at the issue from that point of view. To me, every discipline and skill set in the military are nothing more than tools to be applied to specific problems. Sometimes certain tools are more critical than others depending on the situation. That's what I'm trying to get you to understand. Stop looking at it from "the line" and see the big picture.

If you do that and you still think the USAF fighter fleet attrition and wear and tear demand a more aggressive plan to reconstitute the fighter fleet, make a case. If I'm guilty of debating from an "unexperienced Air Force" point of view. You are guilty of debating this from a "unexperienced Department of Defense" point of view. There, both of our biases are laid out for all to see. Now put up or shut up and explain what and why you have the opinions you do.

My Positions:

I think that right now and at least through 2020~2025, the USAF...

a. Has enough of a lead on likely air to air threats to spend more money and time on other things besides F-22's and can deal with the gradual attrition of the current fighter fleet
b. Has neglected logistics and nuclear weapons and needs to clean up it's act
c. Will get enough F-35A fast enough to deal with any threat through 2025
d. should wait until FY2009-FY2010 before deciding to procure more F-22's
e. Has been set on the right track by SecDef Gates
f. Needs to focus much more on developing UAS/UCAS technologies over F-22's
g. Needs to address the issue of long ranged strike/EW capability even if that means no more F-22's are produced

So there. Share with me your positions so that we can exchange views. Also, explain this to me. People often say that the F-15's and older F-16's are falling apart and the F-22 needs to be produced in greater numbers. However, Lockheed only makes two F-22's a month. That is about 1 squadron annually. How does that compare to the rate in which F-Teens are being retired? Even if production is continued past 2011, by 2016 the F-35 will be coming off of production lines at 230(130 for the DoD) a year IIRC. The USAF will not be getting all of those of course. But in total the DoD should have ~651 F-35's of various types by the end of CY2016. How does 4 more Raptor squadrons significantly change things and how will not having them hurt U.S. national security?

I haven't heard anyone address this issue to my satisfaction with hard data. If you can explain it with numbers, then you really have something for me to consider. I look forward to anybody making this case and especially you! I look forward to your attempt with an open mind.

-DA

What we need is more sharks with lazurs.

JAM THAT!

Cylon

Newbie Joined: Jul 15, 2008 Posts: 1 Status: Offline

Hi,

I'm a new poster here, some great chat about the next-gen planes.

Thought I'd add some debate, as I have to agree, to take out an F-22 you'd have to think outside the box, not take it on face to face.

I'd probably look at taking out the hubs that give it information, such as the satellite links that feed intel information to the pilot, I wonder if the pilot might be too dependent on the information fed from such links? Are they trained enough to switch to a plan b? and could that switch over be exploited by opposing aircraft?

How hack proof are the computer systems and can they be exploited? I'm guessing at the moment the answer is that they are 100% hack-proof but 10-20 years down the line is a long way in computer technology, hackers can be very good at exploiting any weaknesses that appear and the Chinese Military (and most other ones too) employ lots of personnel who spend significant time learning to hack into military networks.

The Air Force only have around half of the F-22's they feel they need in battle and the resources that they have are going to get stretched to the very limit, that in itself brings in lots of other problems, like pilot fatigue e.t.c.

Over a war lasting a long span of time could the F-22 be vulnerable to a lack of spares? maintenance problems e.t.c. at forward bases outside of the US it might be more difficult for a ground crew to ensure that the plane flies out every time with its low signature intact.

The F-22 might be the best fighter flying today but in tomorrows world it might have some serious challenges to face up to.

F-16.net

Forum: F-22A Raptor

How to kill an F-22?