Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

I worked on that agreement. He's right. There are multiple ways to skin a cat and we don't know them all.

I will say though I was against it. Not only did I know it was still at risk of cancellation, but also the requirements were still real soft; I was afraid (1) we would lead the Brits down the wrong road or (2) we would continue to wobble on what we wanted and let the Brits drive the requirements, leaving us stuck with something they could afford but was less than we wanted/needed.

Sometimes it sucks to be proven right... Sad

F-16.net Sponsor

Has JUCAV been killed off officially?

Stealth research in europe has been a reality for 25 years.....Here are two pictures showing that. The first, BAEs Replica of the early nineties, the other a German effort called Lampyridae (Firefly).

Roscoe wrote:

I worked on that agreement. He's right. There are multiple ways to skin a cat and we don't know them all.

I will say though I was against it. Not only did I know it was still at risk of cancellation, but also the requirements were still real soft; I was afraid (1) we would lead the Brits down the wrong road or (2) we would continue to wobble on what we wanted and let the Brits drive the requirements, leaving us stuck with something they could afford but was less than we wanted/needed.

Sometimes it sucks to be proven right... Sad

Exactly, the current US stealth designs seem to use what could be termed, passive stealth where the shape plays a big part in the stealthiness... the UK according to Flight International in 2003; are developing an active stealth technology.

And no its not the fabled Russian Plasma Stealth Wink

... the University of Sheffield has developed a panel which has small emitters embedded in front and back of the panels.... the emitters actively cancel out radar waves that make contact with the panel OR can actively retransmit these waves as false signatures... ie. aircraft size and/or velocity. Feeding an attacking radars tracking and targetting system with completely inaccurate parameters.

A quote from the developer said it could be turned on and off "at a flick of a switch" in the cockpit. Using this method, an aircraft retrofitted with this technology (eurofighter, tornado) would in theory have the stealth characteristics of an aircraft such as the F-35; regardless of its shape.

Just another example of how different people approach things from a different angle Wink

. Shame its still in the testing phase!

Andy

I am sure each method has a classified risk/reward to it. Wink

'Boff180, Shame its still in the testing phase', Oeps active cancellation is already applied in an Eurocanard: the Rafale.

Quote:

And no its not the fabled Russian Plasma Stealth ... the University of Sheffield has developed a panel which has small emitters embedded in front and back of the panels.... the emitters actively cancel out radar waves that make contact with the panel OR can actively retransmit these waves as false signatures... ie. aircraft size and/or velocity. Feeding an attacking radars tracking and targetting system with completely inaccurate parameters.

AS has been stated about the French system, when one scource is radiating in one direction on one frequency this might work well. What about new AESA radars that switch frequency constantly and very quickly, along with multiple radars on different bands coming from different frequencies and directions all hitting these panels. or retransmitters, or whatever they are. Wouldn't they be prone to being overloaded in the combat environment? Think of how many Radars are lighting up the aircraft in a battlefield environment. The computing power needed to figure out what is hitting it, on what freqs and which directions, then figuring out which shift to make to retransmit to these different directions has got to be taxing. Think of the computing power needed. Fooling an AMRAAM's radar seems much more possible than making an aircraft shift positions, or even disappear. I would think these re- transmissions themselves would be trackable, just as would be a moving plasma generator. All guesses obviously, as I'm not an expert or even close to it. JL Raleigh NC

It's the same argument against active camoflouge I've come up with every time. It's easy to disguise yourself from one direction, it's bloody near impossible to do it from every direction. The problem is that the transmitters can only do so much. Which radar do you want to mess with? You might be able to get several radars duped based on location (ideal circumstance) but what happens if something changes? This tech would make great missile avoidance stuff, but may not be as feasible in full scale engagements. How fast can you change frequency and can enemies adapt tactics to get what they need. Think about active sonar, it's just one ping. The system may not be able to react if it's just pinged or react fast enough to do something about it. Is there any more information on this system?

Roscoe wrote:

1) Yes, the U-2 has more capability than the GH although with planned mods the gap is narrowing (bigger wings, bigger payload, and bigger generators). GH is however much more economical to fly, and the the decreased capability is not significant enough to the operators to justify the higher cost of the Dragon Lady. Plus, with the longer sorties, it has less down time, more target coverage, and therefore more flexibility. I presented a classified operational summary of GH to a "foreign country" interested in procuring it and trust me, even with the bird being developmental (with the associated growing pains) it was more effective than dreamed and proved to be quite satisfactory.

2) GH may not fly as high, but it flies high enough. After all, not even the U-2 is immune to SAMs (Google Francis Gary Powers).

Roscoe, do you work for Northrop/Grumman or one of the GH subcontractors? You must be, otherwise you'd be talking to the same East Coast Staffers that we do, and you'd have first hand knowledge of what has transpired in recent meetings about the issue. Sounds to me like you've "drunk the Kool-Aid".
And for the high altitude issue, it's not all about SAM avoidance. It's about getting the sensors (that's "sensors"; plural; something GH doesn't have yet; and ASIP is a long ways off) up higher for better collection. That's what recce platforms do: collect. Higher is usually better. If you have the hourly altitude performance for the RQ-4B (the big wing version), take a look at it. Not very impressive, is it? It takes a long time to "get high".
Five bucks says Roscoe works for Northrop/Grumman!!!

huggy wrote:

Roscoe wrote:

1) Yes, the U-2 has more capability than the GH although with planned mods the gap is narrowing (bigger wings, bigger payload, and bigger generators). GH is however much more economical to fly, and the the decreased capability is not significant enough to the operators to justify the higher cost of the Dragon Lady. Plus, with the longer sorties, it has less down time, more target coverage, and therefore more flexibility. I presented a classified operational summary of GH to a "foreign country" interested in procuring it and trust me, even with the bird being developmental (with the associated growing pains) it was more effective than dreamed and proved to be quite satisfactory.

2) GH may not fly as high, but it flies high enough. After all, not even the U-2 is immune to SAMs (Google Francis Gary Powers).

Roscoe, do you work for Northrop/Grumman or one of the GH subcontractors? You must be, otherwise you'd be talking to the same East Coast Staffers that we do, and you'd have first hand knowledge of what has transpired in recent meetings about the issue. Sounds to me like you've "drunk the Kool-Aid".
And for the high altitude issue, it's not all about SAM avoidance. It's about getting the sensors (that's "sensors"; plural; something GH doesn't have yet; and ASIP is a long ways off) up higher for better collection. That's what recce platforms do: collect. Higher is usually better. If you have the hourly altitude performance for the RQ-4B (the big wing version), take a look at it. Not very impressive, is it? It takes a long time to "get high".
Five bucks says Roscoe works for Northrop/Grumman!!!

You lose...I'll give you the address you can send your 5 bucks Smile

I retired from the USAF office responsible for export policy, and I was responsible for all USAF UAV export issues (among other things). I worked very closely with the AF/XOIRC office that managed all recce assets.

You're hung up on one parameter...altitude. Big deal. Altitude helps in SIGINT, and like you said it doesn't have a SIGINT package yet. It will happen. U-2's aren't going away tomorrow. Given current budget constraints, cost is becoming critical, and the GH is simply more cost effective.

You sound like someone with a personal vested interest in the Dragon Lady. Hey, no shame in that, it was and still is an amazing system. I have directly supported that program in previous lives. But fact is the cost to operate the aircraft is escalating and it's time to pour that money into our future, not our past.

PS I work for a small DC engineering company that supports DoD specializing in survivability and have no connection with NG. Pay up Very Happy

Dang it! I always lose these bets! That's why I avoid Nellis/Vegas as much as I can.
I do see that many want to pull the $$ away from the U-2 and push them into the GH. Dollars are finite, despite what we often proclaim on this forum.
There are some O-6 and higher folks that are admitting in staff meetings that, in effect, they haven't done their homework, with respect to the U-2 cuts in PBD 720. No, I'm not hung up on altitude, but in capability and "alleged savings". N/G has overstated their case for years, and is sucking the $$ at an enoumous rate. Compared to what they've delivered, many find it to be criminal. SecDef, however, wants new and shiny equipment. Gen Jumper hated the U-2, and loves UAV's. It seems their mind is made up.
Briefings are just like statistics: you and I can go to different briefings, and come out with totally different numbers and capes. Bottom line: staffers are selling their soul (nothing new). The facts are left out.
Yes, I'm big on the U-2. I'll retire probably before the first jets go away, so it doesn't affect me directly. But I know what the U-2 does, and I trust what I was told this week by the REAL smart guys on the east coast. I never know what's classifed vs. not, so I'll leave it at that until I can figure it out. One thing is certain: The Train is moving, and building momentum. Stopping it will be tough.

I just re-read this thread after 4.5 years.
Global Hawk is fast approaching it's 3rd Nunn-McCurdy Breach.
Where's the SIGINT? How's that ability to fly in icing or turbulence coming along?
Are there any realized cost savings with an "unmanned" vehicle yet?
Is it "better" than the U-2 now?

huggy wrote:

I just re-read this thread after 4.5 years.
Global Hawk is fast approaching it's 3rd Nunn-McCurdy Breach.
Where's the SIGINT? How's that ability to fly in icing or turbulence coming along?
Are there any realized cost savings with an "unmanned" vehicle yet?
Is it "better" than the U-2 now?

Yeah, I think the only way you're going to be seeing that anytime soon is if they can strap a U-2, a la your uplink pod, to the top of the Global Hawk.

Just because the AF at the Pentagon level, the DOD and Congress wants something to work, doesn't mean its going to. For the $$'s they've poured (dumped?) into the GH, you guys could probably have had all new aircraft, or at least an Ops budget you could only dream of.

Other thing I noticed in this thread is the title itself. "B-52's U-2's and F-117's axed for more Raptors", yeah, that worked out well. Didn't they sell the F-22 as a somewhat F-117 'replacement'? Somehow I don't think there are a lot of air-to-ground training missions being flown in the Raptor community...

Mike

MKopack wrote:

Somehow I don't think there are a lot of air-to-ground training missions being flown in the Raptor community...

Actually I think you may be wrong there, if you read:
http://www.f-16.net/news_article4176.html

you will see it says that "The local area also provides a chance for specialized training since the airspace and terrain allows the F-22 to employ air-to-air and air-to-ground capabilities in mountainous areas, a vast difference from the environment they usually conduct training in."

I have that feeling i've read other reports recently of A-G practice happening but haven't got the time to go search for it at the moment. I'm pretty sure there is one squadron in particular that practices A-G stuff in the Raptor alot, I could be wrong though of course.