Forum: F-22A Raptor

sewerrat wrote:

There actually are real technologies to defeat 'stealth'. LIDAR coupled with IRST at very close range should be quite effective. The question is how to stack said technologies on the battlefield to actually be effective. For the time being, all aspect passive 'stealth' coupled with active 'stealth' is still a tough bear to take down. Hence the AF pursuing stealth over performance with the B-2 (B-3 if its still under development), the F-35, and UCAVs.

really nice one,thx man Smile

F-16.net Sponsor

The B-2 does deal well with long wave early warning radars. And Raptors have been flying with B-2's.

SpudmanWP wrote:

AESA AWACS will be detected by the F-22/35 LONG before the AWACS can detect the F-22/35.

There will then be an inbound AAM headed to the AWACS.

This, ofcourse, assumes there Raptor is in range for an AMRAAM shot - AWACS range is far greater and its surrounded by CAP fighters miles behind any front line.

fasteagle wrote:

SpudmanWP wrote:

AESA AWACS will be detected by the F-22/35 LONG before the AWACS can detect the F-22/35.

There will then be an inbound AAM headed to the AWACS.

This, ofcourse, assumes there Raptor is in range for an AMRAAM shot - AWACS range is far greater and its surrounded by CAP fighters miles behind any front line.

The question is whether or not the AWACS can detect the F-22, before it's within AMRAAM range. That's not likely with the D model.

I've heard that in several exercises Raptors have waxed AWACS without being seen so anecdotally the F-22 has the signature to get in close enough to kill a AWACS.

BDF

Those are not AESA AWACS though. Still impressive.

I think people tend to forget the full implications of stealth technology. It's not about being invisible, that we all understand here, I think. It's about being apparently small enough to slip through cracks in detection systems: not just gaps in radar coverage between different ground sites, AWACS platforms, or what have you, but to slip between the gaps inherent in the physics of any individual radar system. Whether a radar is made of mutiple emitters or hops frequencies, or whatever, doesn't change the fact that it broadcasts radiation at some radio wavelength, which gives resolution enough to detect an object of a certain minimum apparent size (RCS). Can a radar be made powerful enough to detect a target so small that it's indistinguishable from random static? Sure, but then you'd be detecting every bit of static out there, and your screen would be just as blank.
Granted, filters and computer trickery can improve the situation somewhat (eg, it sure is odd that this sparrow would be at FL 50 doing 800KIAS..), but, as has been said, every increase in power exponentially exposest the sensor to counterdetection. Stealth won't be insurmountable forever, but it has the inherent advantage. And when the stealthy platform has its own sensors that're better than yours, well..I won't say a machine like the F-22 is unbeatable, ultimate truths have no place in war, but I may say that the F-22 and machines like it are not consistently beatable with existing technology.

Forum: F-22A Raptor

AWACS wiht AESA finally beats raptor‘s stealth or not