Forum: F-22A Raptor

Elite 1K Joined: May 26, 2005 - 08:39 PM Posts: 1496

nam11b wrote:

Alright, fine, no stealth talk. Can we have an indepth discussion of ECM and deception techniques?

I'm going to go with "no".

F-16.net Sponsor

runi_dk wrote:

My guess is none Neutral

That would be my guess to.

aw2007 wrote:

Interest article here by Dr. Carlo Kopp:

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-Low-Band-Radars.html

He seems to suggest than B-2, due to its size, allows it to adopt a stealthier alignment/shaping to defeat the low band radars(VHF, UHF), as opposed to fighter sized stealth aircraft(including the Raptor, I assume). On the other hand, he maintains the Raptor is still survivable againts those radars, but relies more on supercruise and stand off weapons(SDB) than stealth. The F-35, however, is a different story since it doesn't have the all around stealth(ie, B-2) nor the high altitude and supercruise capabilities of the Raptor. Any stealth experts here?

If you didn't catch it the first time, the paper also says that the F-35 should meet its stealth requirements. The paper if anything warns the reader that the F-35 and F-22 were designed to work together. Top USAF tacair experts have stated the same thing over and over.

In this case, after various wide-band threats are taken out, the F-35 should do quite well facing a variety of X-band threats - those things most likely to kill you soon. Also one should consider it is the seller of the aircraft making all the wild claims of combat prowess above and beyond using PowerPoint and hype.

If they figure everything out, the F-35 should be a pretty useful tactical fighter. Waiting on proof for all this is not unreasonable.

As for the B-2, it like other designs that don't have vertical tails will always be stealthier and the ability to face a variety of threats that occupy a broader frequency band range. Like the X-45, X-47, UCAS-D etc, they trade away performance for maximum stealth.

Part of the red-force look at designing the advanced fighter program that gave us the F-22 was that USAF didn't want to just depend on stealth alone. Extreme airframe performance had to be part of the requirement too. Enter the need for vertical tails resulting in a narrower focus on what kinds of radars one can be stealthy against.

Today, according to LM, 95 percent of the F-22 line maintenance actions do not require compromising Low Observable material where it has to be taken into the L.O. barn for refurb. The aircraft was designed to be maintenance friendly. Most of the down time you have heard about is USAF trying to bring up the learning curve on L.O. refurb at the unit level. Obviously they now have that figured out with one unit doing a 100 percent MC rate in an exercise. Pretty impressive.

For the F-35, according to Lord PowerPoint, only 2 percent of its line maintenance actions at the unit level will require L.O. refurb. Part of that is because the L.O. observable design was built to requirements. Wink

(export friendly stealth, the fact that the F-22 would take out serious threats and so on )

F-35 Powerpoint slides dated before 2007 stated that only 1 percent of maintenance actions required L.O. refurb. Note that the increase in the 1 percent comes from the time when USAF was having some challenges figuring out man hours, procedure and effort needed in the F-22 L.O. refurb barn. Lessons learned from the F-22 indeed.

The Radar Game By Rebecca Grant (PDF)
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-7924.html

Doug Richardson, Stealth, Deception, Evasion and concealment in the air, 1989, First Edition, ISBN 0-517-57343-1

Recently found this link on some polish military forum:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... esign.html

Regards

elp wrote:

[

Today, according to LM, 95 percent of the F-22 line maintenance actions do not require compromising Low Observable material where it has to be taken into the L.O. barn for refurb. The aircraft was designed to be maintenance friendly. Most of the down time you have heard about is USAF trying to bring up the learning curve on L.O. refurb at the unit level. Obviously they now have that figured out with one unit doing a 100 percent MC rate in an exercise. Pretty impressive.

The Radar Game By Rebecca Grant (PDF)
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-7924.html

Doug Richardson, Stealth, Deception, Evasion and concealment in the air, 1989, First Edition, ISBN 0-517-57343-1

That is the biggest load of SH!T that I've heard in a long time. It is funny what the government and LM will spoon feed the public to buy into these programs, and what the people that actually work on them will tell you. If the public knew half of the story they would never have bought into either one of these programs. Especially with the F-35 being completely unproven. I am sick of the power point mafia trying to sell, and getting away with selling multi billion dollar (unproven, except in their little computer world) to the DoD that cost the tax payers more money to use on a daily basis than legacy systems that aren't even close to obsolete yet.

Raptor_DCTR wrote:

That is the biggest load of SH!T that I've heard in a long time.

Cae to explain why you feel that as you didn't really say why in your, how shall I put it, rant.

Because I would say 95% of line maintenance on the Rapor REQUIRES L.O. intrusion (maybe not that high but it is a hell of a lot higher than 5). As far as maintenance friendly goes? There are more tight spaces and stupid places to put things on this jet than there ever was on a Viper. Also, LM likes to tell everyone that most of the work is done through quick access panels from the ground. That's absolutely false as I would say half (if not more) is done from the top of the jet. I've worked on this thing for almost 2 years now and pray everyday that I can get off this airframe when I am done with my current assignment. What it can do when it works right is pretty awesome, but there's the problem. It hardly ever works right. They put this thing into operational service way to soon and the same thing is going to happen with the F-35 and it's costing you and me (the taxpayers) billions to put these things into service when there is no cost benefit. It is wildly expensive to maintain these 5th gen jets even compared to the oldest legacy fighters in the fleet, which coincidentally, no one has been able to match in performance since the early 70's. We would be just as well off to buy new vipers and eagles at way cheeper prices in both unit cost and maintainability.

Raptor_DCTR wrote:

Because I would say 95% of line maintenance on the Rapor REQUIRES L.O. intrusion (maybe not that high but it is a hell of a lot higher than 5).

Well actually that is not what the LM statement said Raptor_DCTR. It said "do not require *compromising* Low Observable material where it has to be taken into the L.O. barn for *refurb*". I think the key words in LMs statement are *comprimising* and *refurb*. Sounds to be like they are saying the work that has to be done can be done without damaging the stealth and then having to repair it? Not that 95% of the work on it can be done without having to come in contact with anything stealth on it. At least that's the way I read it. I don't think you are saying that 95% of the work on the Raptor damages the steath and therefore requires a trip to the LO barn for repairs are you?

As far as maintenance friendly goes? There are more tight spaces and stupid places to put things on this jet than there ever was on a Viper. Also, LM likes to tell everyone that most of the work is done through quick access panels from the ground. That's absolutely false as I would say half (if not more) is done from the top of the jet. I've worked on this thing for almost 2 years now and pray everyday that I can get off this airframe when I am done with my current assignment. What it can do when it works right is pretty awesome, but there's the problem. It hardly ever works right. They put this thing into operational service way to soon and the same thing is going to happen with the F-35 and it's costing you and me (the taxpayers) billions to put these things into service when there is no cost benefit. It is wildly expensive to maintain these 5th gen jets even compared to the oldest legacy fighters in the fleet, which coincidentally, no one has been able to match in performance since the early 70's. We would be just as well off to buy new vipers and eagles at way cheeper prices in both unit cost and maintainability.

Sorry, but all of what you just said sounds more like a disgruntled employee. I think we have all saw people on various boards that work on or are involved with the Raptor in some manor and you are the first I recall to absolutely rant over what a waste it apparently is to you? Overwhelmingly, the talk from people that are actually involved with the Raptor has been nothing short of outright praise for the a/c. And that is in every area ranging from maintenance to performance. If people that were involved directly with the a/c were popping up all over the place sounding like you, then I think there would be cause for alarm. Seeing how it is actually completley opposite from your view, I think any reasonable person would have to go with the majority opinion of those actually involved.

I am sure there is more to your story then we see on here. Maybe you could let us in on what has happened to you in the USAF that has caused your negativity? Obviously something has not gone your way and you're unhappy with your current job.

Just my observations,

Beazz

Beazz wrote:

Well actually that is not what the LM statement said Raptor_DCTR. It said "do not require *compromising* Low Observable material where it has to be taken into the L.O. barn for *refurb*". I think the key words in LMs statement are *comprimising* and *refurb*. Sounds to be like they are saying the work that has to be done can be done without damaging the stealth and then having to repair it? Not that 95% of the work on it can be done without having to come in contact with anything stealth on it. At least that's the way I read it. I don't think you are saying that 95% of the work on the Raptor damages the steath and therefore requires a trip to the LO barn for repairs are you? [/color]

------->I don't see where the disconnect is. "Compromising" the L.O. means digging into that L.O. to get to parts that need to be replaced. If you need to get into an area that is covered with L.O. you need to "compromise" said L.O. material. You need to "refurb" that L.O. after digging into it, requiring a trip to L.O. barn. So I don't see where the confusion is. Also I never said that 95% of repairs require L.O. intrusion. I said that number is a lot higher than the L.M. claim of 5%.

Sorry, but all of what you just said sounds more like a disgruntled employee. I think we have all saw people on various boards that work on or are involved with the Raptor in some manor and you are the first I recall to absolutely rant over what a waste it apparently is to you? Overwhelmingly, the talk from people that are actually involved with the Raptor has been nothing short of outright praise for the a/c. And that is in every area ranging from maintenance to performance. If people that were involved directly with the a/c were popping up all over the place sounding like you, then I think there would be cause for alarm. Seeing how it is actually completley opposite from your view, I think any reasonable person would have to go with the majority opinion of those actually involved.

I am sure there is more to your story then we see on here. Maybe you could let us in on what has happened to you in the USAF that has caused your negativity? Obviously something has not gone your way and you're unhappy with your current job.

Just my observations,

Beazz

I am a less than disgruntled employee. I've had a great career in the AF. Graduated top of my class in tech school, made BTZ, made staff in less than 3 years, won many awards at the squadron, group, wing, NAF, and MAJCOM levels, been to Iraq, and have enjoyed nothing but success in the AF. I have greatly enjoyed my time in the AF and love serving my country. The AF has never "wronged" me. I just feel that the public has been seriously misled about both the Raptor and the F-35. Both programs have drained the defense budget and caused the military to operate at less than ideal levels due to a lack of funds that have been sucked into these programs and other rediculous, un-needed programs. There are always going to be people that love and or hate working on a particular airframe. I knew plenty of people from my Viper days that hated that jet and a lot that loved it. I know a lot of people that hate working on the Raptor and a lot that love it. I am entitled to my opinion as are you. My opinion is that the Raptor does not save the DoD any money compared to legacy fighters. I believe the Raptor will be necessary at some point, but right now we can do the same job with fighters that are proven in combat for many years. It was put into service before is was tested completely as will the F-35 and we will go through many years of headaches with that jet as we have with the Raptor. I don't know what else to say other than that is my opinion of the Raptor, and I don't want this to turn into some grudge match to try and prove or disprove the viability of these weapons systems. I was simply stating my opinion and offering some basic facts/observations from my time on the Raptor and I was told that I am a disgruntled employee, I have had a bad experience in the AF, called an unreasonable person, and I don't enjoy my job. I don't even know what to say about that other than you have no idea who I am and could not possibly make any guesses as to my experiences or observations during my service. Like I said, you are entitled to your opinion as am I, but I ask you not to make any conjectures as to my service record or my experiences and observations while directly working with these jets. I think I have a pretty good foot to stand on working on this airframe day in and day out. You will not get any further response from me as I have stated my opinion and backed it up with first hand experience and I refuse to get sucked into a shouting match over the internet.

Raptor_DCTR out.......

Raptor_DCTR wrote:

Raptor and the F-35. Both programs have drained the defense budget

Is that a remotely accurate statement? I have my doubts, very big doubts over that.

Quote:

what makes me more successful than said competitor

Hard work and innovative thinking, no doubt. Wink

Quote:

electrogravatics

Wow, I've heard of plasma or electro-plasma, but never this one. Are you suggesting gravity manipulation? Laughing

Quote:

Always rambling on about the technology used in the latest noise cancellation headphones, and how it may apply to submarine warfare. Apparently, acoustic signatures may be canceled, modified, etc... I guess I'm thinking more about canceling out the electromagnetic radiation beamed at you in some fashion, or re emitting it, perhaps.

Quite possible. Rafale is said to rely on that capability (apart from a reduced RCS construction). And if a $80mln fighter can have that, you'd certainly want to give that to your gazillion-dollar super-bomber.

elp wrote:

Most of the down time you have heard about is USAF trying to bring up the learning curve on L.O. refurb at the unit level. Obviously they now have that figured out with one unit doing a 100 percent MC rate in an exercise.

That is very interesting. Because I got the impression that it's actually due to a faulty stealth coating. And the recent story of a former LO engineer suing LM seems to reinforce that.

Quote:

Obviously something has not gone your way and you're unhappy with your current job.

There's a big difference between not liking a job in its entirety and whining all around and between being critical of something specific. In the latter case, someone could actually make a use of that criticism and try to make some improvements.

That said, I can't see how the need to do maintenance work standing /sitting / kneeling on top of an aircraft would be such an unusual or unpleasant thing as opposed to working from underneath. I'm just a total layman here, but to me it's obvious that roughly half of a fighter's surface is pointed upwards, so if you want to fix something in that area, you actually have to get your a$$ up there. Wink

[quote="Axure"]

Quote:

electrogravatics

Wow, I've heard of plasma or electro-plasma, but never this one. Are you suggesting gravity manipulation? /(quote]

I'm not suggestiung it no, however, others have suggested it. I will leave you to find out who... (screwed up quote, sorry)

Quote:

It cracks me up how many times I see people delve into classified topics; I really wonder how many foreign intelligence services watch f-16.net!

I heard on AFN last night (so it's public, keep me out of trouble) that in a field guild acquired from some terrorist organization that 80 percent of everything they want to know can be found here on the web. It was used to bring to light the importance of OPSEC. First thing i thought of was this forum, and ASB.

(necro post but.... w/e)

TC wrote:

Anyway, all jackassery aside, any information about radar cross section are classified, and should not be discussed on these boards.

Remember, Big Brother is out there, and he is watching. Consider this your warning shot across the bow.

Oh yeah look out! The kids quoting things that have been written about in greater detail years and years ago! Oh man, better call the FBI on him... he said "supercruise" ... Whoa, this is really getting into classified stuff. The B2 stealthier than the F-22 being mentioned in public? Oh my god, he's a Chinese spy? Lets see, a fighter designed for speed and for turning versus a flying wing. Hmmm.... I wonder what is stealthier. Could it be the B2? No... its gotta be the Superbug. Everyone who can read can read many books and public literature on electromagnetics on how that "size matters not."

To be fair, there is nothing wrong with speculation regarding the RCS of various aircraft, provided that it's based on open source data and people who work on such programmes do not comment. If there was any wrong with that, then I think most people on this forum would be in the slammer...

Forum: F-22A Raptor

B-2 stealthier than F-22??