Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Thanks for the info.

So the RAF's Eurofighters don't have the HMD in operational service yet eh? Same thing with us as we don't have the F-22 Raptor with JHMCS intergrated yet. Currently, the JHMCS for the Raptor is delayed due mainly to funding. Sometimes, hard to justify it at times when the effectiveness of the Raptor shows it least needs it.

You only saw one RAF pilot wearing the HMD so far? Maybe it's suppose to work like in this video on the Eurofighter official website:

http://www.eurofighter.com/Medialibrary/Video/

Go to the bottom left hand corner for the video titled "Eurofighter, Nothing Comes Close" near the end. I have to hand it BAE (and Dassault and SAAB, for that matter) for making exciting marketing videos of their aircraft. You won't see Lockheed Martin producing a video like this for the Raptor. Sad

Maybe there is hope for the F-35 as it's designed for export though.

F-16.net Sponsor

Sofar, what we know is that systems like Pirate, Front Section Optronics (FSO, Rafale), Sniper XR have a published range of approx 150 km / 81 nm. Ground based IRSTs like the Thales Sirius, Mirador, Zeiss HAWK EO System have a range from 40 km to over 50 km (22 - 27nm). Typhoon pilots tell us that they can detect the F-22 between 8 -80 km (4.3- 43 nm). The FSO is a combined thermal imaging / optical imaging system, the others are thermal imaging system. They need a couple of degrees Celsius temperature difference, with a minimum of 0.07 deg. Celsius, to create an image.
There is another breed of IR devices called: intensifying imager. They need residual light with a minimum of 0.5 mLux, which is intensified by 25.000 times to produce a clear greenish monochrome image.
Then you have the optical daylight sights which also operates in the near-IR spectrum.
The quality of all these systems is affected by: humidity, fog, clouds; temperature, the atmosphere is less turbulence at temp. below 0 deg. C. then say at 25 deg C.; dust levels, caused by human activity and/or by nature, for example: Sahara sand can be carried away thousands of kilometers by strong winds; smog.

So the best place to put IR/optical sensors is at high altitudes, above 50.000 ft / 15.250 m the atmosphere starts getting very thin; the stratosphere contains 19% of all atmospheric gasses, there is not much moisture, dust and clouds and the air in the stratosphere is not turbulent.

Can the Eurocanards, Migs and Su-xx cruise at these altitudes?
The HALE Grob G600, Grob Strato 2c (max alt of 24 km/ 78.700 ft) and Scaled Proteus can do this, or we can put IR/optical sensors on board of a zeppelin cruising at 21.350 m /70.000 ft and staying there for 1 month.

The Raptor uses several ways of lowering it's IR signature: (shiny) topcoat paint, cooling of the leading edges and maybe some black technology, who knows.

So let's use a combo of above mentioned thermal imaging systems and an optical daylight/ near IR sight integrated in a fleet of (un)manned HALE planes and/or zeppelins supplemented by mobile SAM systems equipped with IR/EO sensors, for example: The Germans upgraded their Roland SAM with an IRST and a daylight telescope in the nineties to prevent unwellcome visits by things like ALARM, HARM.

For the optical/near IR I choose the Kodak/Recon CA-990 long range oblique photography (LOROP) camera.
Specifications: total length= 3.35m /11ft , diameter= 0.70 m, weight= 570kg / 1.257 lbs, focal lenght=2.78 m / +9 ft, the Charged Coupled Device (CCD) works in the visual and near IR spectrum with a minimum wavelenght of 0.85 micron. At an altitude of 40.000 ft / 12.200 m, a max. range of over 300 km/ 162 nm is not a problem, identification range of individual (armoured) vehicles = approx 135 km/ 73 nm, ID range of aircraft insignia = 50 km / 27 nm. The CCD can magnify every pixel 64 times and the CA-990 has active stabilisation and reduces vibration by 99%. In 6 seconds an area of 1.000 sq. km can be covered. Note: the first airborne test of the CA-990 was in January 1989, so this is not really state-of-the-art.

As I wrote in an earlier post, range can be calculated in an optical/near IR system if the dimensions of the target are known. With a thermal imager this can be done too, but with this kind of device the range data is not accurate enough for a successful interception.

Off topic: Yes ELINT systems like Raptors' ALR-94, Rafale SPECTRE, Typhoon DASS? can detect, track, locate and analyse every radar within 500 km/ 270 nm and we know that the Raptor uses a LPI AESA radar, AESA gives better reliability and range than a mechanically scanning radar.
When a radar designer was asked approx 15 years ago, what is the best way to counter stealth (Observation Counter Measures), he answered: a better quality radar. That means much more range, reduced or cancelled sidelobes and Low Probability of Intercept. AESA offers this. LPI can also be applied in mechanically scanning radars by use of frequency modulation (continuous wave), in other words: average power equals peak power, in order to stay below the 'noisefloor'. Maybe we can use datalinks to link signal- and data-processors of several radars directly together in order to find the Raptors, it is low-observable not non-observable!
How will the ALR-94 deal with a distributed mobile network of multi/hyper-spectral IR/EO/laser/LPI radar sensors?

Now we have the sensors to hunt the Raptors down, next step is smoking them out of their hole.
Remember, ounce there was a country with well motivated/trained/skilled warriors and commanders, they had very good and revolutionary tactics and strategy, which are still taught at West Point Academy.
They had the best tanks (Panther & KingTiger), best piston engined fighter (Kurt Tanks' Fw-190), very good submarines, an infantry weapon which formed the basis for the AK-47, the first jet fighter with swept wings with a jet engine which formed the basis for the GE J-79 and SNECMA Atar armed with revolutionary Mauser MK213c 30 mm guns which formed the basis for the M-39, Aden and DEFA. The first pulse jet propelled cruise missile, the first liquid-fuelled tactical ballistic missile guided by an inertial nav system which formed the basis for the Russian Scud and Saturnus 5 rocket.
But oops Herman Goering, Edwin Rommel: No petrol, No battle! And do not forget that moronic leader who faded away because of Parkinson. We know the end result, so fighting Raptors and Spiders (F-35) is not so suicidal as most of you think.
Let's get rollin' boys and girls, an opposing air force of let's say Eurocanards, MiG-35s, Su-35s, J-10s or PAK-FAs, or a combination of these planes. Off course Raptors outclass these creatures by quality, this can be equalled by outnumbering the F-22. Supplemented by multi-layered, LPI multi-spectral sensor/ mobile SAM/AAA systems (longrange SAM= S-300/400, or Aster-30) . SAM sites, radarstations, C3I centers and other high value targets are protected by several means: OCM, hardening, spreading, ECM, smoke-generators to jam LGBs, close-in weapons like Phalanx, Goalkeeper, Oerlikon 'shrapnell-grenade' guns or even laserguns like the Nautilus to neutralise nasty stuff like SDB, JDAM etc.

Our warplanes operate from an airbase infrastructure, which is similar to the Swedish air force. We operate from many small airbases well spread out over the country and also from prepared pieces of highway and even from unpaved runways. Our fighters use 3D-vectoring nozzles for excellent agility, 7-8% better flight performance throughout the whole envelope and for ExtraSTOL, so we can use very short runways. In other words, we do not have all aspect stealthy warplanes, but we do have stealthy airbases and ground-based air defense.

When the Raptors do get into our firing range, we launch long range SAMs, like the S-300/400, usually when soldiers get 'under fire', their brains pour out of their ears like water and sometimes they start crying for their mothers. To provoke the Raptor drivers to launch their expensive AMRAAMs, we launch decoys like the Delilah, by the way let's rename it the Sandy Bar, a nice looking girl from a well-known tiny Meditteranean country.
All the BVR weps are gone, now it is time to launch the fighters. Remember Raptor drivers , you are outnumbered in a dogfight! Because our fighters operate from well spread airbases, they do not need to carry a lot of fuel, that is good for the TW-ratio no need for draggy RCS improving external tanks and means less vulnerability.

Obi Raptor Jedi Kenobi, I am waiting for you to join the Dark side. Then the Force will be really with you.

You make it sound all too easy

No, No Des, war is never 'all too easy', at this forum you can find numerous posts. Which give US scenarios in which an opposing force is destructed within a couple of days (Elp posts). I quote Miyamotot Musashi:'If you think Here is a Master of ..... (fill in: technology, tactics, strategy), then you will surely lose'. In the thread 'Here's is why the F-22 is needed' page 8, I pointed out that the Americans think that they can win a war easily by technological superiority. Well in the harsh reality there are a lot of factors which determin the outcome of a war, in my personal opinion approx 20% of these factors are not even controllable. And remember the above mentioned scenario is Defensive Counter Air only, I did not add the Offensive Counter Air scenario. In which airbases, tankers, AWACS, JSTARS, RivetJoints, C3I centers, sattelites etc. are attacked by a combination of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, UCAVs and special forces.

Quote:

No, No Des, war is never 'all too easy', at this forum you can find numerous posts. Which give US scenarios in which an opposing force is destructed within a couple of days (Elp posts). I quote Miyamotot Musashi:'If you think Here is a Master of ..... (fill in: technology, tactics, strategy), then you will surely lose'. In the thread 'Here's is why the F-22 is needed' page 8, I pointed out that the Americans think that they can win a war easily by technological superiority. Well in the harsh reality there are a lot of factors which determin the outcome of a war, in my personal opinion approx 20% of these factors are not even controllable. And remember the above mentioned scenario is Defensive Counter Air only, I did not add the Offensive Counter Air scenario. In which airbases, tankers, AWACS, JSTARS, RivetJoints, C3I centers, sattelites etc. are attacked by a combination of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, UCAVs and special forces.

Your error in quoting Musashi though is that he was speaking about another person. In other words, if you walk into the battle with the mindset that the other person is already better than you, you have already lost the battle. It must be in your heart, mind and in your hands that wield the sword that in any instant, no matter what happens, you will cut the other guy down regaurdless of what he does and you will abosolutely crumble him in combat. The quote applies to you more than to Elp as your the one who refuses to give in to the supperiority and earns to think of a means of defeating it.

Also; I've never see the mindset of any American who believed that it's countries technological edge would win him any war. Technology is merely a facit in the whole machine of tactics to begin with. That is why fighters are designed with specific purposes and roles now. If we truly believed that technology would allone win our wars then we wouldnt bother to continue practicing BMF, or small team tactics, or engagement scenarios, or whatever different military units practice.

Just my 2 cents.

-Aaron

Hey LOCUM, the Germans had probably the best trained and motivated troops, the best technology, eventually the best tanks, submarines; the best fighter in the Me 262. During Case Yellow(a curious name!), the German invasion of France, the French Charvee`s were considered a superior tank to the German early mark tanks.
The superior German tactics won the battle. Tactics make a huge difference.

The Germans were ultimately beaten by weight of numbers though, attacked on 3 fronts. I agree with you about some things in your post, like tactics. There are only two countries that could conduct a large scale offensive counter air war against the US. The US has not faced this kind of conflict for 50 years, and then only in the Pacific against the Japanese. If you look at history, the F-22 is suited to nearly all of the warfighting scenarios the US has had to face, so the F-22 is the right aircraft for the times.

The topic of this thread was about ONE particular weapon system, the F-22. You are right that the F-22 will be just one factor in any war plan. The allies would have loved a superior tank in WW2, thousands of allied servicemen died wishing they had better armour and wished that their industry had made them.

The lack of a decent tank has haunted the British army since WW2 to the extent that they never wanted to put anything but a tank with the best protection on the battlefield ever again, hence the Challenger II. Probably the best protected tank in the world with it`s Dorchester armour (successor to Chobham).

My point is that the service men and women want and demand the BEST weapons that their country can make, the F-22 is one of these. If China and Russia could afford them , they would DEFINITELY be building them right now. The F-22 is a product of the worlds biggest economy, I expected no less than the F-22 to be honest. The Raptor is the ultimate evolution of aircraft like the F-15, air superiority monster that it has PROVEN to be. Against Serbian opposition in MIG 29s, they handed them their A@@es! That is more proof that a fighter with the best attributes can be a winner, look at the combat record of the Eagle, beyond debate.

Yes an all out war with a powerful adversary like Russia or China, god forbid, may be different, but the pilots of the USAF, indeed any air force flying the BEST fighter in the sky stands more of a chance to survive than someone in an older, less capable design. I have said this before, you ask ANY fighter pilot which aircraft he would rather go to war in, the F-22 will be top of that poll, can you tell me why? Even with everything you have said LOCUM, a pilot would STILL rather go to war in the Raptor! Now, long range, the fight would be pretty one sided, in WVR, i have seen a great quote, " In WVR all things being equal, everybody dies at the same rate". If the F-22 gets in a knife fight, it has screwed up it`s mission. It`s job is to pick off fighters from long range.

I am NOT saying the F-22 in invincible, no-one is. Eventually it will be countered. I would prefer it on my side though!

Feedback to TenquNoHi & Snypa777.

Sorry TenquNoHi, writting is a profession and I did not clearly write about Musashi's quote: I wrote this about other, read Anglo-Saxian persons. With this quote I was pointing at A-Saxian views regarding their (technological) superiority. It is my personal opinion that Americans are to much focussed on this superiority.
I disagree with you regarding the mindset 'if you already know that your enemy is better, you gonna lose' and 'crumble your enemy absolutely in combat'. If I go to war, I try to assess my enemy as accurately as possible, I will do this mostly by using human intelligence, secondly by ELINT/ SIGINT/ COMINT and IMINT. HUMINT is a weak spot in US defense. If the enemy is better, I still have a chance of overcoming him and overcoming your enemy is something different than (totally) destruct him. Look at my 'WWII German superiority' example. Were/when you are strong, I will withdraw and hide. Were/when you are weak, I will strike preferably by using the element of surprise.

In my Defense Counter Air scenario I took the German superiority in (and sometimes revolutionary) weapons, personel, tactics and strategy as a GENERAL example. To illustrate that platinium/ gold plated revolutionary and superior weapons like the Raptor can be defeated by outnumbering them. O.K. the Germans did loose WWII not only because of outnumbering, also by other factors like: big tactical/ strategical mistakes, huge logistical problems at all 3 fronts (No petrol, no battle).

Shooting down a Raptor via IR tracking: I got a little bit off topic by purpose, because I do not see the Raptor as an individual weapon. I see it 'fleet-wise', a system of systems: a herd of Raptors cooperating with other fighters, UCAVs, AWACS, JSTARS, RC-135V/ W etc.
I want to track it down by a large number of spread-out surface-, air-, and eventually space based multi-spectral sensors working together in a network. I do not believe in a small number of easy to detect sensors like AWACS based in a B707, B737, Il76 and static radarstations.

Off topic: Yes post-WWII British are good, Centurion (Sho'ot); Chieftain, it outclassed the M-60 and T-72; and Challenger II. Although I prefer the Merkavah (Chariot) and Leopard IIA6.

Outnumbering the Raptor has it's price: I do expect that a lot of pilots will get a rough ride provided by a Martin baker or Zvezda product, or worse their mission will end up in an eternal flight.

Of course, service (wo)men want to take the best to the battlefield. In my opinion 'best' means: equal or better performance than the enemy, ALSO easy to operate & to maintain, simple, robust and reliable. Kurt Tank did not only design an outstanding performing FW-190, but he also paid a lot of attention to the other mentioned qualities because of his own combat experience.
On the other hand, Manfred 'the Red Baron' von Richthofen said once, for a well-trained & skilled pilot it does not matter, what kind of warplane you fly. Of course, if the performance gap is too big you have a problem. An example: Swiss Mirage III pilots have won air combats against the F-18.

Yes Snypa, fighting the Raptors at BVR is very unhealthy. That is why I first use long range SAMs, at least to keep the tacticians which sits under that large canopy busy, worse to prevent them to think tactically/ rationally as they come under fire, worst to shoot them down.
Second, I launch RPV/UAV decoys, just like the Israelis did in 1982 over the Bekaa valley. The density of SAM systems in the Bekaa valley was unmatched anywhere in the world including the USSR. RPVs gave a decisive edge. In case of the Raptor herd, I want them to provoke to launch all their AMRAAMs in order to strip them of their BVR capabilities.
In WVR all things being equal, every dies at the same rate.

Quote:

I disagree with you regarding the mindset 'if you already know that your enemy is better, you gonna lose' and 'crumble your enemy absolutely in combat'. If I go to war, I try to assess my enemy as accurately as possible, I will do this mostly by using human intelligence, secondly by ELINT/ SIGINT/ COMINT and IMINT. HUMINT is a weak spot in US defense. If the enemy is better, I still have a chance of overcoming him and overcoming your enemy is something different than (totally) destruct him. Look at my 'WWII German superiority' example. Were/when you are strong, I will withdraw and hide. Were/when you are weak, I will strike preferably by using the element of surprise.

In order to understand what Musashi was trying to say you have to take his analogy from the Book of Earth about Men and Battlefields. That is, no matter how large or small a battle, it is fought the same as two men in conflict. Musashi would have equated an armie's accetts to parts of the human body. Cavalry would have been legs, spearmen would be arms, the heart would be the officers in command, the eyes would be the scouts and the brain would have been the intelligence supplied to an army. As in a fist fight, the physical health of the human body is very important, where as the same here. A strong unit of spearmen might provide you good arms however you must fight to compensate your weak legs, or your failing cavalry. Just as in sword play, Musashi saw that you could attack the weak assetts of the body first to easily cripple the rest of the bodies ability to fight back. A man with no legs simply cannot chase you or outmaneuver you to hit you despite how strong his arms are. Now, obviously what Musashi saw, was that the health of the body was only half of the equation. The skill of the opponent was the other half. In swordplay this was the warrior and how well he managed his body to complete his goal of hacking the other person down. On the battlefield it's the general and how well he manages his assetts given to him. Now this is important because if one takes his time to overtrain his assetts but never employs them correctly, or lacks confidence in their ability, then they become inefficient like General McClellan from the American Civil War. Your example of an attacking and retreating army falls into this whole scenario. In wresteling or grappling, when two opponents are locked up, they are taught that when the opponent pushes, you should pull, and you will gain the initiative. If the opponent pulls, and you push, then you will gain the initiative. However, the timing and effort put into the movment must be very precise or your opponent will simply stumble for a second, not long enough to take him down, and when he recovers he will regain the initiative. It is for this reason that many tacticians or strategist view the recieving of enemy power not as defense, but as counter offense which is employed effectivly or not so effectivly. Most every great warrior/tactician/general out there has conceeded that there is very little to do with "defense" in combat and it is more of a constant flow of offensive blows that may happen to defend oneself in the proccess.

Using this same scenario in your belief, Americans MAY HAVE a great deal of confidence in their technology. I personally disagree but lets look at it on the spectrum of individual combat. Perhaps you were the warrior that bought the sword and the American was the warrior that bought the spear. Now the rest of his body may be crippled and hard to beat, but his technological edge, the spear, stands in between you and that weakness. Your means to get around that spear before you can cripple his body further. For a swordsman, disarming a spear is an extremely difficult task. Thus I feel Musashi would have felt that Technology always handicaps a weaker foe.

-Aaron

locum wrote:

Yes Snypa, fighting the Raptors at BVR is very unhealthy. That is why I first use long range SAMs, at least to keep the tacticians which sits under that large canopy busy, worse to prevent them to think tactically/ rationally as they come under fire, worst to shoot them down.

Talking about fighting only one of our team players misses the point. While I wouldn't want to fight the F-22. Just as bad is I would not want to go up against our ELINT/SIGINT/COMINT abilities as the stand now. That, teamed up with various C2ISR stuff, tied into an NCW environment..... is not something a conventional force will do well with if they have drawn the interest of the great satan. Laughing

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 - 09:19 AM Posts: 1092

avon1944 wrote:

When the F-22 pilot wants to keep his IR detection to a minimum, he can supercruise at (say) Mach 1.2, 50,000+ and, nose pitched up to a maximum of 25°.... hiding any and all hot spots. The best angle to detect the F-22 is directly behind it.

Say what? Nose pitched up to a maximum of 25° at Mach 1.2 and 50,000 ft? This makes no sense to me, but perhaps you can clarify. If you are trying to imply that the F-22 can maintain LEVEL flight at 50,000 ft. and Mach 1.2 while simultaneously maintaining 25° angle of attack, I can assure you that's not possible. Even at 50,000 ft, the AoA required for level flight at Mach 1.2 is MUCH lower than 25°. In fact, I think you'd probably rip most aircraft apart if you went up to 25° AoA at Mach 1.2. That would probably equate to a G load much higher than 9 G. But again, perhaps I misunderstood you. Please clarify.

The laws of physics don´t apply to the F22, at least that´s what the fanboys believe

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

And according to the likes of you it'll explode when given a hard stare. LMAO

The laws of physics DO apply to the F-22, as they do to any systems designed to bring it down!
Something else that may apply....history.

There once was a fighter designed to be years ahead of it`s peers. Built to beat everything else put into the sky to oppose it. The most powerful, hard turning, heavily armed warplane around with the best AI radar.(sound familiar?). Designed to stay ahead of the pack for years.

Ohhh, it was called the Eagle, wasn`t it? As I mentioned in my last post, over 100 kills to NOTHING in A2A.

What I want to know is...why is it hard to believe that the same feat cannot be done with another aircraft?
F-22 step up please! I really don`t know, it`s not combat proven, we will just have to wait and see. It happened with the F-15. Everything is relative, the Eagle had it`s big threats against it in it`s day, the F-22 has a new set of threats, with new ways of dealing with them. Please nobody tell me that it isn`t possible. Twisted Evil

Simplistic maybe, but relevant yes.

snypa777 wrote:

F-22 step up please! I really don`t know, it`s not combat proven, we will just have to wait and see.

The "Fighting Eagles" at Langley AFB, have 20 Raptors in total. Twelve are deployable at any time. Any place.

The real question: Is anybody willing to put their lives on the line with whatever they've got to go up and see just how good the F-22 really is? In REAL combat?

Are F-22s flying Noble Eagle patrols right now? Along the US east coast?