F-22 in dogfights

Anything goes, as long as it is about the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

count_to_10

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2060
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post01 Sep 2012, 16:18

tacf-x wrote:I'm pretty sure there's a big difference between blinding a missile and initiating all out structural failure of an aircraft wing via rapidly applying a heat load to the wing fuel tank.

If you can blind the missile, you can blind the aircraft. More, there is reason to believe that optical filters will make it impossible to blind a missile without destroying it. Further, you have a lot more burn time to take down a fighter than you have to take down a missile closing in on you.
When the long range missile is made obsolete, it will be in favor of even longer range weapons, not for a return to gun fighting.
Offline

FlightDreamz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 718
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 17:18
  • Location: Long Island, New York

Unread post01 Sep 2012, 16:25

Considering that the YAL-1 was just sent to the <a href="http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/08/one-airborne-laser-gift-wrappe.html">boneyard</a> I think we're a way's off from seeing a laser shoot down an enemy fighter. Blind a missiles sensors, sure - blind a pilot (hopefully not one of ours) - maybe, but not down an aircraft (not yet anyway) my :2c:!
Image

Image
Last edited by FlightDreamz on 02 Sep 2012, 13:59, edited 1 time in total.
A fighter without a gun . . . is like an airplane without a wing.— Brigadier General Robin Olds, USAF.
Offline

count_to_10

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2060
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post01 Sep 2012, 16:49

FlightDreamz wrote:Considering that the YAL-1 was just sent to the <a href="http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/08/one-airborne-laser-gift-wrappe.html">boneyard</a> I think we're a way's off from seeing a laser shoot down an enemy fighter. Blind a missiles sensors, sure - blind a pilot (hopefully not one of ours) - maybe, but not down an aircraft (not yet anyway) my :2c:!
Image

My understanding is that laser technology had progressed beyond YAL-1.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2109
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post02 Sep 2012, 01:16

count_to_10 wrote:
FlightDreamz wrote:Considering that the YAL-1 was just sent to the <a href="http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/08/one-airborne-laser-gift-wrappe.html">boneyard</a> I think we're a way's off from seeing a laser shoot down an enemy fighter. Blind a missiles sensors, sure - blind a pilot (hopefully not one of ours) - maybe, but not down an aircraft (not yet anyway) my :2c:!
Image

My understanding is that laser technology had progressed beyond YAL-1.


DIRCM isn't powerful enough to shoot a missile down, much less an aircraft. It merely prevents the seeker from being able to see.
Offline

FlightDreamz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 718
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 17:18
  • Location: Long Island, New York

Unread post02 Sep 2012, 01:18

count to 10
My understanding is that laser technology had progressed beyond YAL-1

Perhaps, I've even heard the idea floated of using the space in the F-35B (where the front lift engine is attached) to power a laser but my point is where not at the point yet where a laser is a reliable weapon. (:shrug:)
Maybe someone should start a separate thread on the topic of lasers in future air combat?
A fighter without a gun . . . is like an airplane without a wing.— Brigadier General Robin Olds, USAF.
Offline

count_to_10

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2060
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post02 Sep 2012, 03:29

wrightwing wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:
FlightDreamz wrote:Considering that the YAL-1 was just sent to the <a href="http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/08/one-airborne-laser-gift-wrappe.html">boneyard</a> I think we're a way's off from seeing a laser shoot down an enemy fighter. Blind a missiles sensors, sure - blind a pilot (hopefully not one of ours) - maybe, but not down an aircraft (not yet anyway) my :2c:!
Image

My understanding is that laser technology had progressed beyond YAL-1.


DIRCM isn't powerful enough to shoot a missile down, much less an aircraft. It merely prevents the seeker from being able to see.

That's not really the issue. Because missile seekers can be shielded against laser energy by filters, it's likely that any effective directed energy missile defense will have to physically destroy missiles.
Offline

awsome

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 77
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2008, 03:11
  • Location: vancouver

Unread post02 Sep 2012, 15:23

If your missile won't track in a dogfight, it's not as good as guns; it's inferior to guns


Sorry to quote something from the first page but I was wondering about the above statement. If the guns aiming solution is calculted by the fighters computer I am assuming it gets the opposing aircrafts location from It's radar. If the opposing aircraft is VLO would this not make guns as good as missiles at best? If you can't lock up a HOBS missile can you get an accurate fix for guns?
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1640
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post02 Sep 2012, 16:12

guns also have a "dummy" mode
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-Project Engineer
Offline

count_to_10

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2060
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post02 Sep 2012, 17:56

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:guns also have a "dummy" mode

Which really doesn't do you any good if the missiles are better than your eye at tracking targets in the first place.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2109
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post02 Sep 2012, 20:19

count_to_10 wrote:

That's not really the issue. Because missile seekers can be shielded against laser energy by filters, it's likely that any effective directed energy missile defense will have to physically destroy missiles.


This is true, but that's not necessarily a 100% solution(shielding), and it may be that a DIRCM is powerful enough to physically damage the seeker, but not necessarily powerful enough to damage the missile's airframe.
Offline

count_to_10

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2060
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post02 Sep 2012, 23:34

wrightwing wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:

That's not really the issue. Because missile seekers can be shielded against laser energy by filters, it's likely that any effective directed energy missile defense will have to physically destroy missiles.


This is true, but that's not necessarily a 100% solution(shielding), and it may be that a DIRCM is powerful enough to physically damage the seeker, but not necessarily powerful enough to damage the missile's airframe.

If it's strong enough to do that, it can also blind the fighter's sensors and the pilot. If you can burn through a filter in the time of flight of a missile, an order of magnitude more will probably let you burn down an aircraft.
Offline

PhillyGuy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 553
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2006, 03:07

Unread post04 Sep 2012, 22:41

FlightDreamz wrote:Considering that the YAL-1 was just sent to the <a href="http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/08/one-airborne-laser-gift-wrappe.html">boneyard</a> I think we're a way's off from seeing a laser shoot down an enemy fighter. Blind a missiles sensors, sure - blind a pilot (hopefully not one of ours) - maybe, but not down an aircraft (not yet anyway) my :2c:!


[]


The airframe yes, but the internal components and technology could in the future be transferred to a different platform. If not miniaturized even further. It's a damn shame too, because it was a great concept. Its orbits would have been no further than those of tankers and sentries, and it was hardly more vulnerable.
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
Offline

batu731

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 122
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2010, 23:26

Unread post10 Sep 2012, 23:01

count_to_10 wrote:
FlightDreamz wrote:Considering that the YAL-1 was just sent to the <a href="http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/08/one-airborne-laser-gift-wrappe.html">boneyard</a> I think we're a way's off from seeing a laser shoot down an enemy fighter. Blind a missiles sensors, sure - blind a pilot (hopefully not one of ours) - maybe, but not down an aircraft (not yet anyway) my :2c:!
Image

My understanding is that laser technology had progressed beyond YAL-1.


IIRC YAL-1 used chemical laser. These days solid state laser is considered to be more favorable for military use.
Previous

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests