Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

popcorn wrote:

Offboard targeting coordinates may be available from other sources via Link 16… The Raptor can receive Link 16 transmissions after all.

True. But even with OFS 9.3, AIM-9X datalinks with its launch aircraft. So, years from now when F-22 can use AIM-9X in HOBS mode, it might have to have two way comm with the targeting a/c to pass the data and status back and forth for the initial setup, and Raptor is only two way with another Raptor. I kind of wonder, though, in the kind of quick reaction situation that an AIM-9x (as opposed to a -120) would be used, would we even be considering offboard targeting.

F-16.net Sponsor

wrightwing wrote:

aaam wrote:

Not changing my story at all. All I ever said was that, "I'm not convinced that the AF of those days put that high a priority on IR stealth in a fighter". Those would be reflected in whatever (still classified) requirements AF solicited. Northrop/MDD put a significant premium on them. Clearly, the Secretary of the Air Force had other things that were valued more highly.

If both aircraft have significant IR reduction, then I'm not sure how you can say that it was an afterthought by the USAF. It was a requirement though, or neither company would've spent the time/effort/money.

Never said it was an afterthought. It was in there from the start. Simply said that I thought that AF in those days did not put that high a priority on IR stealth (as it did on other things).

BTW, here's something you don't see that often, an interesting IR video of F-22 from FLIR systems. They make good stuff, but this system doesn't have as high a capability as modern IRSTs, it's for a different purpose, after all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58N6Plr17GU

aaam wrote:

popcorn wrote:

Offboard targeting coordinates may be available from other sources via Link 16… The Raptor can receive Link 16 transmissions after all.

True. But even with OFS 9.3, AIM-9X datalinks with its launch aircraft. So, years from now when F-22 can use AIM-9X in HOBS mode, it might have to have two way comm with the targeting a/c to pass the data and status back and forth for the initial setup, and Raptor is only two way with another Raptor. I kind of wonder, though, in the kind of quick reaction situation that an AIM-9x (as opposed to a -120) would be used, would we even be considering offboard targeting.

BACN allows the Raptor to engage in 2-way data comms .with other platforms AFAIK.

All things concidered the IR of the Raptor in mil power is impressive. No visible plume from the front, surface only glows where the nozzzels are, no real friction heating to be seen though. I wonder what the relative dynamic pressure is. Or the heating effects of a shock wave. When AB is engaged it positively glows.

Um.. just an observation.
I was at MAKS 2011 airshow. The F-15E, Rafale, Su-27/30/34/35 had no plume and that was with Full AB too.
Unless you are looking directly from back view into the nozzle. Then you could see the blue flame inside the nozzle..

Observe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jVbb1sU49o

popcorn wrote:

Offboard targeting coordinates may be available from other sources via Link 16… The Raptor can receive Link 16 transmissions after all.

Or IFDL for that matter.

aaam wrote:

Never said it was an afterthought. It was in there from the start. Simply said that I thought that AF in those days did not put that high a priority on IR stealth (as it did on other things).

BTW, here's something you don't see that often, an interesting IR video of F-22 from FLIR systems. They make good stuff, but this system doesn't have as high a capability as modern IRSTs, it's for a different purpose, after all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58N6Plr17GU

That video is irrelevant. Of course when the F-22 is using afterburners, it's going to show up nicely on FLIR. That's not the point. Aside from fuel economy, one of the major benefits of supercruise, is NOT having to use the afterburners. THAT is one way of reducing the IR signature, along with shaping, materials, cooling/obscuring the exhaust, paints, active cooling measures, etc... Additionally, it's much easier to spot an afterburning target on a FLIR, at an airshow, from WVR, than an non-afterburning target at BVR distances.

wrightwing wrote:

aaam wrote:

Never said it was an afterthought. It was in there from the start. Simply said that I thought that AF in those days did not put that high a priority on IR stealth (as it did on other things).

BTW, here's something you don't see that often, an interesting IR video of F-22 from FLIR systems. They make good stuff, but this system doesn't have as high a capability as modern IRSTs, it's for a different purpose, after all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58N6Plr17GU

That video is irrelevant. Of course when the F-22 is using afterburners, it's going to show up nicely on FLIR. That's not the point. Aside from fuel economy, one of the major benefits of supercruise, is NOT having to use the afterburners. THAT is one way of reducing the IR signature, along with shaping, materials, cooling/obscuring the exhaust, paints, active cooling measures, etc... Additionally, it's much easier to spot an afterburning target on a FLIR, at an airshow, from WVR, than an non-afterburning target at BVR distances.

My understanding of the video is that the camera was manually operated as well, and the distance never exceeded a mile. It's not a FLIR in operation, it's a FLIR's camera set to who-knows-what gain setting, and still needed someone who could already see the aircraft to point the camera where it needed to be to see it. There are clearly saturation issues (look at the pixelation; evidence of the camera being tuned far outside of its actual operating range -- it can only tell about ten different temperature gradients), but notice the glow of the skin ahead of and between the engines is just as bright as the AB plume. So either the F-22's skin is at a few thousand degrees (as if) or the AB plume is not necessarily as hot as it looks.

popcorn wrote:

aaam wrote:

popcorn wrote:

Offboard targeting coordinates may be available from other sources via Link 16… The Raptor can receive Link 16 transmissions after all.

True. But even with OFS 9.3, AIM-9X datalinks with its launch aircraft. So, years from now when F-22 can use AIM-9X in HOBS mode, it might have to have two way comm with the targeting a/c to pass the data and status back and forth for the initial setup, and Raptor is only two way with another Raptor. I kind of wonder, though, in the kind of quick reaction situation that an AIM-9x (as opposed to a -120) would be used, would we even be considering offboard targeting.

BACN allows the Raptor to engage in 2-way data comms .with other platforms AFAIK.

BACN allows Raptors to share/receive information from other platforms/aircraft. Raptors can already see what other aircraft see though, as has been mentioned in articles about various exercises. The Raptors were able to see which aircraft were targeting what targets, to ensure that no one was double targeting.

Last edited by haavarla on Mar 09, 2012 - 09:48 AM; edited 1 time in total

I was not aware that F-22 have installed a 2-ways data coms.. Are there any sources on this?
I thought it only made F-22 seeing, but not transmitting out(to other units than F-22).

popcorn wrote:

aaam wrote:

popcorn wrote:

Offboard targeting coordinates may be available from other sources via Link 16… The Raptor can receive Link 16 transmissions after all.

True. But even with OFS 9.3, AIM-9X datalinks with its launch aircraft. So, years from now when F-22 can use AIM-9X in HOBS mode, it might have to have two way comm with the targeting a/c to pass the data and status back and forth for the initial setup, and Raptor is only two way with another Raptor. I kind of wonder, though, in the kind of quick reaction situation that an AIM-9x (as opposed to a -120) would be used, would we even be considering offboard targeting.

BACN allows the Raptor to engage in 2-way data comms .with other platforms AFAIK.

F-22 can only transmit data to other F-22s. This was supposed to be addressed by adding the F-35's MADL. However, the current F-22 upgrade plans, which extend out to 2020, do not envision the capability being added. To the best of my knowledge, the only way an F-22 operationally can transmit to anything but another F-22 is by voice.

The US has several BACN aircraft on hand and on order. These act as middlemen and handle sharing IFDL data via Lick-16, SATCOM, etc.

Last edited by aaam on Mar 09, 2012 - 09:43 PM; edited 2 times in total

wrightwing wrote:

aaam wrote:

Never said it was an afterthought. It was in there from the start. Simply said that I thought that AF in those days did not put that high a priority on IR stealth (as it did on other things).

BTW, here's something you don't see that often, an interesting IR video of F-22 from FLIR systems. They make good stuff, but this system doesn't have as high a capability as modern IRSTs, it's for a different purpose, after all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58N6Plr17GU

That video is irrelevant. Of course when the F-22 is using afterburners, it's going to show up nicely on FLIR. That's not the point. Aside from fuel economy, one of the major benefits of supercruise, is NOT having to use the afterburners. THAT is one way of reducing the IR signature, along with shaping, materials, cooling/obscuring the exhaust, paints, active cooling measures, etc... Additionally, it's much easier to spot an afterburning target on a FLIR, at an airshow, from WVR, than an non-afterburning target at BVR distances.

I didn't post the video to slam the F-22. I posted it because it was an interesting illustration of what we are talking about regarding IR. However, if you watch the video, you'll see that the plume is clearly IR visible even when not in afterburner. It's dramatically more, though, when 'burners are lit. Also, you'll see distinct sources on the upper surface of the a/c well away from the engines. Yes, this was at an airshow, but in combat the a/c will also be silhouetted against a (IR) dark sky, which will tend to amplify the contrast. And, modern IRSTs are very, very good, as are the seekers designed in the las 15 yeas or so.

If you search around, you'll see IR shots using the same system (which wasn't even an IRST) of other current a/c in much the same setting (including Typhoon and F-16) and relative to some of them Raptor looks quite good. BTW, avoid the Rafale fanboy comparisons. According to them, the Rafale has an IR signature only slightly greater than that of an ice cube, and then only if the pilot is smoking a cigarette.

Sheesh! All this because I said that IMO during the ATF selection AF didn't consider IR stealth that high a priority? Didn't say they didn't consider it at all, just that it wasn't that high.

SpudmanWP wrote:

The US has several BACN aircraft on hand and on order. These act as middlemen and handle sharing IFDL data via Lick-16, SATCOM, etc.

So, once Increment 3.2b (if it doesn't get cut) is deployed in significant numbers years from now and Raptor gets HOBS/LOAL AIM-9X capability, there might be offboard targeting capability (can Raptor transmit securely to BACN?) for AIM-9X (something that kind of defeats the purpose of the missile), as long as there happens to be an EQ-4 or E-11 (if they don't get cut) already in the area, along with the sensing aircraft provided those a/c

Isn't this getting kind of complex for the concept of dogfighting? The F-22 should be able to do quite well on its own.

I was not saying this was optimal, just possible.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

F-22 in dogfights