F-16.net

Active Member Joined: Aug 28, 2006 Posts: 191

I don't think satallites as a realistic planform for detecting stealth. But lets say hypothetically speaking that the typical SU whatever can pick up an F-22 at 18 miles. If you can triple the detection range while you're still within the envelope of the Aim -120, it still gives you a fighting chance you woundn't have other wise. Now you're in a Mach 2 supercruiser a/c with high maneuverability. So you don't get the first shot, but does that mean you can't dodge the first and get in you're own shot???

F-16.net Sponsor

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 01, 2006 Posts: 1003 Status: Offline

The problem is that tripling the detection range requires a 100 times output increase from the SU's radar. Improving sensitivity helps a little but current radars are pretty close to mopping the noise floor as it is so not much more can be done there.

As far as dodging missiles are concerned, you can usually outrun one in an energy contest if it is shot at the outer edge of its envelope. But trying to dodge a 35~60G AAM in a 7~12G fighter is an exercise in futility. You cannot out turn the missile no matter how agile your aircraft is. If you cannot jam or decoy it, your only hope flying a course which maximize the chance that it'll run out of fuel and kinetic energy before it hits you and generally its not about pulling the hardest turns but winning the energy contest through proper strategy. It it unlikely that a stealth opponent is going to give you that opportunity by firing a missile at the edge of the envelope. If it is done it may be done as a two shot strategy where one missile may be fired early and one well within the no escape envelope. You probably won't detect the AAMs until they are pretty close in (maybe ~30km or when they go active) And what will probably happen is that the stealthy opponent will break and fly out of your detection and engagement ranges while you are busy trying to evade the incoming shot(s). If you are fortunate enough to survive the shot(s) you may be back to scratching your head as to where the enemy is.

Of course things can go wrong and screw ups can happen on the part of the stealth pilot such that you end up in a close range dogfight. In that case, in this era of HOBS missiles with focal plane seekers, you are both likely to get dead. But this will be the exception rather than the rule.

Active Member Joined: Aug 28, 2006 Posts: 191

Sorry but I really don't buy what you're saying. A 1982 Furmula one car was the best that could be built at that time. How would that compete today? When radars can count the wing beats of a nat then maybe "not much more can be done there." Just as submarines can catalog the noise signature of a particular sub, not just a class, but a specific sub, then radar in time will be tuned to pick up the signature of a F-22.

What if the Russians build a stealth a/c comparable to the F-117, that is a mach 2+ supercruiser with Mach 3.5 dash speed? Sound easy to deal with??? (and don't tell me they can't because they can)

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 01, 2006 Posts: 1003 Status: Offline

bf-fly wrote:

Sorry but I really don't buy what you're saying. A 1982 Furmula one car was the best that could be built at that time. How would that compete today? When radars can count the wing beats of a nat then maybe "not much more can be done there." Just as submarines can catalog the noise signature of a particular sub, not just a class, but a specific sub, then radar in time will be tuned to pick up the signature of a F-22.

What if the Russians build a stealth a/c comparable to the F-117, that is a mach 2+ supercruiser with Mach 3.5 dash speed? Sound easy to deal with??? (and don't tell me they can't because they can)

If they successfully build such an aircraft then they would have built a better plane than the F-22 at least from a detectability and dynamic performance stand point. Whether they can or not remains to be seen. But it is something which the USA with its greater resources and best effort was unable to do. It requires a lot of faith to believe that the Russians can at this point.

But trying to concur stealth through radar improvements is quite an impossible task. Basically you are going to get only about 1/1000th to 1 /10000th of the radar return from a Raptor compared to what an F-16 is going to send back. That is going to severely impact the effective range of your radar no matter what.

Speaking of Submarines it has also gotten to the point where subs are having problems finding each other. In the case of subs it has been a stealth contest for decades, not one where one side adopts stealth and the other makes active sonars thousands of times more powerful than before.

Active Member Joined: Aug 28, 2006 Posts: 191

"If they successfully build such an aircraft then they would have built a better plane than the F-22 at least from a detectability and dynamic performance stand point"

Actually no they don't. They can approximate detectibility and exceed it's dynamic performance and have a hell of an airplane.

Active Member Joined: Aug 28, 2006 Posts: 191

How long did it take Kelly Johnson to design, build and produce the SR-71? How long did it take the F-22? )from concept to the flight line) 5-6 times longer?

Was the difference in time solely because of the sophistication of the F-22? Or the miles of red tape? How much red tape do you think the Russians have? They have started later, (assuming the money for developement), have newer supercomputers available, talented engineers, and less restrictions. They may build a POS, but I suspect not. It will fall somewhere between the Typhoon and the F-22, closer to the F-22 and a lot cheaper to buy.

Active Member Joined: Aug 28, 2006 Posts: 191

And available to anyone.

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 01, 2006 Posts: 1003 Status: Offline

bf-fly wrote:

How long did it take Kelly Johnson to design, build and produce the SR-71? How long did it take the F-22? )from concept to the flight line) 5-6 times longer?

Was the difference in time solely because of the sophistication of the F-22? Or the miles of red tape? How much red tape do you think the Russians have? They have started later, (assuming the money for developement), have newer supercomputers available, talented engineers, and less restrictions. They may build a POS, but I suspect not. It will fall somewhere between the Typhoon and the F-22, closer to the F-22 and a lot cheaper to buy.

Actually, it was because the F-22 was pushing the envelope that it took so long. You are assuming that Russian engineers, development processes and industrial base are superior. Their track record suggests otherwise.

If you ask me, I'll say that the PAK FA will be a decent fighter -- an improvement over the SU-30. It will probably be stealthier and it will probably supercruise. Because LO is NOT easy -- and garnering all the know how may be more expensive and require more research than the Russians can afford or can achieve given their proclaimed timetable -- they will probably have to accept 2nd rate LO. Perhaps between the EF and the F-117 in effectiveness (perhaps around 0.05~0.1 sq-m RCS). They will probably focus a little more on dynamic performance and agility than the contemporary American designs, not because they think these are more important but because these are things they know how to do. The relaxed LO objectives also makes the aerodynamic shaping and/or engine performance required to achieve a dynamic performance improvement over say an F-35 easier to achieve. I predict a cruise speed in the Mach 1.2~1.6 bracket and a Mach 1.8 to 2.2 dash speed, internal weapons carriage of at least 4 AAMs and internal fuel load equalling the SU-30 if not slightly higher. Such a fighter will probably defeat Rafales and Typhoons handily -- because detectability is roughly half that of the Eurocanards while dynamic performance is better for the most parts. Against the F-35 or F-22, they'll be at a big disadvantage but they would do better than the Eurocanards for instance. But again, these are my opinions. If you want to know for sure, wait 10 years and find out!

bf-fly wrote:

What if the Russians build a stealth a/c comparable to the F-117, that is a mach 2+ supercruiser with Mach 3.5 dash speed? Sound easy to deal with??? (and don't tell me they can't because they can)

F117 is less stealth then Raptor. And who tells you that the 22 aren't yet able to supercruise at mach 2, or maybe it would be at the right moment with upgraded engines?..

Elite 3K Joined: May 10, 2004 Posts: 3098 Status: Offline

Funny thing about Mach 2+ cruise and Mach 3.5 dash speed - it seems to heat up the airframe Wink

. Just go look at what the temps were for leading edges on the SR-71.

Now try to imagine building something out of LO composites to withstand that and then try formulating the coatings to withstand it, too. Now imagine trying to keep those coatings functional on the leading edges where the most heat will occur and where it's most important.

Tough all around. Can it be done? Probably. How much would it cost? Probably more per jet than the Raptor. Why do I think it's unlikely? Just look at most of the former Soviet Navy rusting away. If you can't afford to operate your submarines, would you really spend that much on an airframe?

Maybe, but I don't think so.

Active Member Joined: Aug 28, 2006 Posts: 191

I love it. I go to a site that's got mostly eastern European types on it from time to time. They have polls for example. Never does an American aircraft come out on top for anything. So I tell them about how biased they are. Well, I come here and see the same biases.

Here's a news flash, the SU 27, 30, 34 etc are a more capable group of airplanes overall than the F-15C/E. That's just the way it is. The SU's & Mig 29's are quite capable compared to 15's, 16's and 18's. They built theses planes at a slightly later time frame than the US and equaled if not bettered them.

Will the 22 be hard to top? you bet. Will they do it? Not likely. But don't for a second discount their abilities and creativeness. How many years did we laugh at or dismiss Russian designs? Right up until the first Cobra was seen after the wall fell. (don't lie and say you didn't look down upon them)

Part of the reason why the F-22 took so long has nothing to do with performance. It pushed no barriers that hadn't been pushed before by the 117 and B-2. It wasn't the first stealth. Performance wise yes, but not dramatically so. It's the combination of each that makes it what it is. The 22 was first put to paper in the early 80's, and entered squadron service 20 years later. A fair percentage of that time was BS time. Ask Ben Rich of F-117 fame, or read his book. If pressed, on a wartime footing like WWII, or as the SR-71 was built, the US could have built an airplane with 95% of the capabilities of the F-22 in about 4-5 years. Am I telling you that the Russians "are assuming that Russian engineers, development processes and industrial base are superior." No, but to dismiss them is a big mistake.

They have the advantage (as almost always) of being second. Having a clear goal, seeing what's required and having the advantage oflater tech to work with. They have always done amazing stuff with limited resources. to not think so it to close your eyes to bias.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1035 Status: Offline

bf-fly wrote:

Ask Ben Rich of F-117 fame, or read his book.

Well no offense man, but your credibility with me was just shot with that statement. The fact that you don't know Ben died in 1995 is appalling as he was the 'jedi master' of the stealth world.

Check

Active Member Joined: Aug 28, 2006 Posts: 191

Once again you guys take it so literal. I was only saying read what he wrote about red tape in the US programs.

Active Member Joined: Aug 28, 2006 Posts: 191

Should I say "ask Rommel", does that shoot my credibility too? Or is it simple a literary choice of words? I thought Rich was dead but not sure. Does that make my point less valid? Or his?

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1035 Status: Offline

No, it was also these statements to which I've added bold replies too.

bf-fly wrote:

I love it. I go to a site that's got mostly eastern European types on it from time to time. They have polls for example. Never does an American aircraft come out on top for anything. So I tell them about how biased they are. Well, I come here and see the same biases.

Seemingly adding yourself to those biases by way of your own replies??

Here's a news flash, the SU 27, 30, 34 etc are a more capable group of airplanes overall than the F-15C/E. That's just the way it is. The SU's & Mig 29's are quite capable compared to 15's, 16's and 18's. They built theses planes at a slightly later time frame than the US and equaled if not bettered them.

Well are they more capable or just quite capable?? I'd disagree either way. Maneuverability only gets you so far. Training and employment of what you do have is the key.

Will the 22 be hard to top? you bet. Will they do it? Not likely. But don't for a second discount their abilities and creativeness. How many years did we laugh at or dismiss Russian designs? Right up until the first Cobra was seen after the wall fell. (don't lie and say you didn't look down upon them)

Not sure about the rest of the world, but the US was specifically concerned with the capabilities of the designs. Those were many reasons 90% of the current defense programs are running now...ie...Fighter/Sub programs.

Part of the reason why the F-22 took so long has nothing to do with performance. It pushed no barriers that hadn't been pushed before by the 117 and B-2. It wasn't the first stealth. Performance wise yes, but not dramatically so.

It in fact pushed MANY barriers...from the canopy design to the LO coating (paint if you will) developed for it.

They have always done amazing stuff with limited resources. to not think so it to close your eyes to bias.

Absolutely true, but if you cannot train your folks how to employ it properly, what good is it? Same argument everyone brings up from time to time is the Cope India exercises. What a load of crap I say. All the participants are bound by the ROE put forth by the Indian Military! That is only hurting the pilots of the Indian Military. Basically it would be like the UK bringing the Typhoon to fight at Red Flag and the US telling them, "Okay, you can't fight the way you train, you have to fight according to our ROE's". You can bet that if they got spanked, and everyone was talking about it, they would bring up that little factoid of information to argue against the results. Not to mention, it wouldn't be a true test of the capabilities of the aircraft seeing how there hasn't been a complete systems integration into the airframe yet....AESA, IRST and A2G capabilities are just starting to come online for the Typhoon. Anyways, I don't doubt the capabilities of the Russian designs at all. I doubt the capabilities of the pilots driving them.

F-16.net

Forum: F-22A Raptor

F-22 Raptor bashing courtesy of Pravda