Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

aaam wrote:

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.

This is false. F-22s can share data with other platforms, using BACN. IFDL is only compatible with other F-22s, which is why BACN exists.

F-16.net Sponsor

aaam wrote:

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.

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.

You're still missing the point here. The Raptor was already in visual range, when that imagery was taken. It's quite another thing, when trying to spot one at 100km. Stealth doesn't mean invisibility. It means that the range at which you can detect/track/target, is greatly reduced, so that the stealthy aircraft will spot you first. At this point, it can either approach from an optimal angle to engage, or avoid the foe altogether.

aaam wrote:

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.

The F22 already has third party targeting. It can either share data from other F22s, or receive data from other platforms. BACN allows F22s to provide third party targeting to other platforms.

wrightwing wrote:

aaam wrote:

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.

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.

You're still missing the point here. The Raptor was already in visual range, when that imagery was taken. It's quite another thing, when trying to spot one at 100km. Stealth doesn't mean invisibility. It means that the range at which you can detect/track/target, is greatly reduced, so that the stealthy aircraft will spot you first. At this point, it can either approach from an optimal angle to engage, or avoid the foe altogether.

Been away for a bit, again.

Once more, Sheesh!

I posted the link just so folks could see what we were talking about. This was not a system that would be used in a fight. It's from a commercial FLIR, not an advanced IRST. The thing an IRST "looks" for is not the same kind of imagery and IRST would, although having seen what the original AN/AAS-42 could do years ago, I was surprised at the quality of image it produced as a byproduct. Could a modern IRST detect at 100 km? Probably. Could it establish a track? Again, probably. Now would that produce a firing solution against an F-22 at those ranges...that's another story.

Anyway, we're supposed to be talking "dogfighting" here. No one "dogfights" at 100 km, except possibly the Cylons and the Colonials, or maybe the Empire and the Rebel Alliance. So, we're talking much closer distances here., "...already in visual range". The radar evading stealth is still valuable, but now IR comes into play and my whole premise was that AF didn't consider that kind of stealth as important as some others do.

This is quite consistent with AF's oft stated position that opposing a/c won't get in close enough to use IR "dogfight" missiles, It will use its radar stealth (and high altitude) to shoot from far out before it is detected. This non-detection will become increasingly important as it is not that far fetched that Raptor will start encountering missiles that outtrange its AIM-120Ds (once those are operational on Raptor). One of the F-22's strengths, though, is that doesn't matter if you've got the longer ranged missile if you don't know the other guy is out there but that's outside the scenario of "dogfighting".

Regarding BACN: Assuming that F-22 will get the necessary enhancements to deploy with, and not just demonstrate, it, are we saying that we assume that one of AF's handful (if they don't get cut) of Global Express bizjets or equipped Global Hawks will be wherever and whenever we need them? And they they won't be treated as ripe fruit by the opposing force?

I'm just thinking that we're getting awfully complex here for a "dogfight"...

So very true. And you could also add the IFF restrictions, which proved to be a real pain in the @ss in the desert Storm.
Even all those AWACS could not provide positive IFF before most of the Iraq fighter entered VWR. Most missile kills was in fact in VWR range.

aaam wrote:

Been away for a bit, again.

Once more, Sheesh!

I posted the link just so folks could see what we were talking about. This was not a system that would be used in a fight. It's from a commercial FLIR, not an advanced IRST. The thing an IRST "looks" for is not the same kind of imagery and IRST would, although having seen what the original AN/AAS-42 could do years ago, I was surprised at the quality of image it produced as a byproduct. Could a modern IRST detect at 100 km? Probably. Could it establish a track? Again, probably. Now would that produce a firing solution against an F-22 at those ranges...that's another story.

The F-22's signature reduction is designed to keep the F-22 from having to dogfight in the first place, unless the F-22 pilot decides to merge with a foe. That's the point of multi-spectral signature reduction- contempt of engagement.

Quote:

This is quite consistent with AF's oft stated position that opposing a/c won't get in close enough to use IR "dogfight" missiles, It will use its radar stealth (and high altitude) to shoot from far out before it is detected. This non-detection will become increasingly important as it is not that far fetched that Raptor will start encountering missiles that outtrange its AIM-120Ds (once those are operational on Raptor). One of the F-22's strengths, though, is that doesn't matter if you've got the longer ranged missile if you don't know the other guy is out there but that's outside the scenario of "dogfighting".

Whether or not a foe has a missile that outranges the AIM-120D or not, is irrelevant for the F-22/F-35. They won't be able to take advantage of that range, as the F-22 will still enjoy the first look, first shoot capability. Or in other words, you may have a 400km missile, but if you only have a <40km detection/tracking ability, then the practical effective range of the missile, is <40km. This is why the USAF hasn't been insistent on building huge AAMs. The AIM-120D will far outrange the detection ability of foes(especially when fired from 60+k feet and M1. Cool

.

Quote:

Regarding BACN: Assuming that F-22 will get the necessary enhancements to deploy with, and not just demonstrate, it, are we saying that we assume that one of AF's handful (if they don't get cut) of Global Express bizjets or equipped Global Hawks will be wherever and whenever we need them? And they they won't be treated as ripe fruit by the opposing force?

In the near term, were F-22s used in combat, they would sanitize the threats, before the BACN nodes would be used. Long term, I suspect they'll be equipped with MADL, just like the F-35s, B-2s.

Getting back to dogfights though, once the -9X Block II HOBS capability is integrated, the Raptor will be an even more daunting opponent close in, as it will have the advantages that the F-35 have, in terms of maintaining airspeed rather than having to point its nose at a foe.

haavarla wrote:

So very true. And you could also add the IFF restrictions, which proved to be a real pain in the @ss in the desert Storm.
Even all those AWACS could not provide positive IFF before most of the Iraq fighter entered VWR. Most missile kills was in fact in VWR range.

The F-22(along with AESA equipped F-15s, F-18s), have far better NCTR/IFF capabilities, than existed in Desert Storm.

wrightwing wrote:

The F-22(along with AESA equipped F-15s, F-18s), have far better NCTR/IFF capabilities, than existed in Desert Storm.

Indeed, one must be careful in trying to use twenty year old conflicts as examples of how things work as so much has changed since then, for example the systems wrightwing mentions.

wrightwing wrote:

The F-22's signature reduction is designed to keep the F-22 from having to dogfight in the first place, unless the F-22 pilot decides to merge with a foe. That's the point of multi-spectral signature reduction- contempt of engagement.

Whether or not a foe has a missile that outranges the AIM-120D or not, is irrelevant for the F-22/F-35. They won't be able to take advantage of that range, as the F-22 will still enjoy the first look, first shoot capability. Or in other words, you may have a 400km missile, but if you only have a <40km detection/tracking ability, then the practical effective range of the missile, is <40km. This is why the USAF hasn't been insistent on building huge AAMs. The AIM-120D will far outrange the detection ability of foes(especially when fired from 60+k feet and M1. Cool

.

In the near term, were F-22s used in combat, they would sanitize the threats, before the BACN nodes would be used. Long term, I suspect they'll be equipped with MADL, just like the F-35s, B-2s.

Getting back to dogfights though, once the -9X Block II HOBS capability is integrated, the Raptor will be an even more daunting opponent close in, as it will have the advantages that the F-35 have, in terms of maintaining airspeed rather than having to point its nose at a foe.

...I'm dropping the quotes of my previous posts so this thing won't be so large it becomes cumbersome.

Seems like we're mixing things a bit here. Yes, F-22's stealth is designed to keep it from having to engage in a dogfight unless it chooses to, or gets bounced. But since this topic is about the F-22 in dogfights, for the purposes of the discussion we have to assume that the situation has taken place. The F-22's remarkable radar stealth depends on very precise maintenance and care, and possibly avoiding hailstorms, otherwise it becomes progressively less stealthy. My whole treatise is that when the F-22 engages in a dogfight it gives up a number of its unique advantages. Also that IR stealth doesn't seem to be that important (that's not the same as unimportant) to USAF. Keep in mind that on those few occasions where we acknowledge an F-22 has been "killed" in an exercise, it's been with an IR missile.

We mostly agree on the impact of longer ranged missiles. It isn't that important how far a missile can fly if the target isn't being tracked. As long as the F-22 maintains sufficient stealth relative to however the incoming missile guides it compensates for encountering longer ranged missiles, although longer range can also translate into a greater ease of climbing to the F-22's altitude and having more energy left when it gets there. Still, if you can't track it, you can't hit it, except through dumb luck. USAF hasn't been that interested in the development of longer ranged (not talking 400 km) missiles because that was one of the arguments they used to justify the F-22: there was no need for such a weapon since the Raptor would close to within AIM-120C range before the foe knew it was there. The issue of what if you're not flying an F-22 was ignored. The second reason, of course, is that given the size of the F-22's bay a longer ranged missile, even FMRAAM would require at best a reduction of missiles carried, or possibly it couldn't be carried at all. Again, though, we're moving away from dogfights here.

Regarding BACN, assuming it doesn't get cut and assuming F-22 will be operationally equipped to use it: If the threats are already sanitized, why would you need it? And, we still have the problem of BACN assets being where you need them when you need them. To illustrate, we lost an EQ-4 in Afghanistan las August due to an improperly tightened electrical connection. At the time it represented 50% of the entire UAF inventory of BACN enabled Global Hawks. Not to worry, USAF has recently awarded a contract to Northrop Grumman to convert more RQ-4s to EQ-4. Once completed, USAF will have a grand total of three. Anyway, BACN still seems to me to be an awfully complicated way to engage in AIM-9 kinds of fights.

As I mentioned earlier, there are no plans in any identified increment to equip F-22 with MADL.

aaam wrote:

...I'm dropping the quotes of my previous posts so this thing won't be so large it becomes cumbersome.

Seems like we're mixing things a bit here. Yes, F-22's stealth is designed to keep it from having to engage in a dogfight unless it chooses to, or gets bounced. But since this topic is about the F-22 in dogfights, for the purposes of the discussion we have to assume that the situation has taken place.

Compared to threat aircraft, the F-22 has a lower IR signature. Add that to its other capabilities, and it's apparent that it is a very capable WVR fighter. When the new capabilities are added, it'll be even better. How's that for concise?

Quote:

The F-22's remarkable radar stealth depends on very precise maintenance and care, and possibly avoiding hailstorms, otherwise it becomes progressively less stealthy.

This is why stealth maintenance takes up a good bit of the maintenance time.

Quote:

My whole treatise is that when the F-22 engages in a dogfight it gives up a number of its unique advantages. Also that IR stealth doesn't seem to be that important (that's not the same as unimportant) to USAF. Keep in mind that on those few occasions where we acknowledge an F-22 has been "killed" in an exercise, it's been with an IR missile.

As I said above- the F-22 still has a lower IR signature than threat aircraft. To be fair, the F-22 defeated 3 F-16s with JHMCS and HOBS IR missiles. That doesn't really look like it has given up a lot of advantages.

Quote:

We mostly agree on the impact of longer ranged missiles. It isn't that important how far a missile can fly if the target isn't being tracked. As long as the F-22 maintains sufficient stealth relative to however the incoming missile guides it compensates for encountering longer ranged missiles, although longer range can also translate into a greater ease of climbing to the F-22's altitude and having more energy left when it gets there.

It doesn't matter how much kinematic energy a missile has, if the threat aircraft hasn't detected the F-22. That's the whole point of stealth- minimizing the effective engagement ranges of enemy weapon systems.

Quote:

Still, if you can't track it, you can't hit it, except through dumb luck. USAF hasn't been that interested in the development of longer ranged (not talking 400 km) missiles because that was one of the arguments they used to justify the F-22: there was no need for such a weapon since the Raptor would close to within AIM-120C range before the foe knew it was there. The issue of what if you're not flying an F-22 was ignored.

Considering that the majority of the tactical air power will be made up, of F-22/F-35s, that was one reason. Another reason was assessment of threat weapon capabilities. The C7 outranges threat missiles now. The D/D+ will provide even more range margins.

Quote:

Regarding BACN, assuming it doesn't get cut and assuming F-22 will be operationally equipped to use it:

The F-22 can already operationally use it. That's not a future capability. MADL is the future capability.

Quote:

If the threats are already sanitized, why would you need it?

By sanitized, I mean to the extent that conventional fighters are able to operate in the airspace in question. That's when the F-22 would need to communicate with Link 16 equipped aircraft.

Quote:

Once completed, USAF will have a grand total of three. Anyway, BACN still seems to me to be an awfully complicated way to engage in AIM-9 kinds of fights.

BACN isn't for WVR fighting with AIM-9Xs.

Quote:

As I mentioned earlier, there are no plans in any identified increment to equip F-22 with MADL.

That's because the F-35 isn't operational, and equipped with MADL. The F-22s can already talk to one another with IFDL.

wrightwing wrote:

aaam wrote:

...I'm dropping the quotes of my previous posts so this thing won't be so large it becomes cumbersome.

Seems like we're mixing things a bit here. Yes, F-22's stealth is designed to keep it from having to engage in a dogfight unless it chooses to, or gets bounced. But since this topic is about the F-22 in dogfights, for the purposes of the discussion we have to assume that the situation has taken place.

Compared to threat aircraft, the F-22 has a lower IR signature. Add that to its other capabilities, and it's apparent that it is a very capable WVR fighter. When the new capabilities are added, it'll be even better. How's that for concise?

Quote:

The F-22's remarkable radar stealth depends on very precise maintenance and care, and possibly avoiding hailstorms, otherwise it becomes progressively less stealthy.

This is why stealth maintenance takes up a good bit of the maintenance time.

Quote:

My whole treatise is that when the F-22 engages in a dogfight it gives up a number of its unique advantages. Also that IR stealth doesn't seem to be that important (that's not the same as unimportant) to USAF. Keep in mind that on those few occasions where we acknowledge an F-22 has been "killed" in an exercise, it's been with an IR missile.

As I said above- the F-22 still has a lower IR signature than threat aircraft. To be fair, the F-22 defeated 3 F-16s with JHMCS and HOBS IR missiles. That doesn't really look like it has given up a lot of advantages.

Quote:

We mostly agree on the impact of longer ranged missiles. It isn't that important how far a missile can fly if the target isn't being tracked. As long as the F-22 maintains sufficient stealth relative to however the incoming missile guides it compensates for encountering longer ranged missiles, although longer range can also translate into a greater ease of climbing to the F-22's altitude and having more energy left when it gets there.

It doesn't matter how much kinematic energy a missile has, if the threat aircraft hasn't detected the F-22. That's the whole point of stealth- minimizing the effective engagement ranges of enemy weapon systems.

Quote:

Still, if you can't track it, you can't hit it, except through dumb luck. USAF hasn't been that interested in the development of longer ranged (not talking 400 km) missiles because that was one of the arguments they used to justify the F-22: there was no need for such a weapon since the Raptor would close to within AIM-120C range before the foe knew it was there. The issue of what if you're not flying an F-22 was ignored.

Considering that the majority of the tactical air power will be made up, of F-22/F-35s, that was one reason. Another reason was assessment of threat weapon capabilities. The C7 outranges threat missiles now. The D/D+ will provide even more range margins.

Quote:

Regarding BACN, assuming it doesn't get cut and assuming F-22 will be operationally equipped to use it:

The F-22 can already operationally use it. That's not a future capability. MADL is the future capability.

Quote:

If the threats are already sanitized, why would you need it?

By sanitized, I mean to the extent that conventional fighters are able to operate in the airspace in question. That's when the F-22 would need to communicate with Link 16 equipped aircraft.

Quote:

Once completed, USAF will have a grand total of three. Anyway, BACN still seems to me to be an awfully complicated way to engage in AIM-9 kinds of fights.

BACN isn't for WVR fighting with AIM-9Xs.

Quote:

As I mentioned earlier, there are no plans in any identified increment to equip F-22 with MADL.

That's because the F-35 isn't operational, and equipped with MADL. The F-22s can already talk to one another with IFDL.

The comment about the length of this wasn't regarding how concise you were, but rather referring to how bad (lazy) I am at handling multiple quotes.

Yes, the F-22 probably has a lower IR signature that comparable aircraft, but that's not the question. The question is when engaged in a dogfight does it have a sufficient IR signature that a modern IR seeker can detect it to give warning and can lock on to it. I would argue that the answer is yes.

Yes, I would expect an F-22 to do very well against its opponents. It's got to, given how few of them we'll have, which is why I hope it'll avoid dogfights whenever possible. The issue in the example cited is we don't know the conditions, and it's USAF conducting the evaluation. Now, I'm not saying that anything like this did happen, but if a mock combat came out with an even or nearly even or even negative exchange ratio, I doubt if we'd hear much about it. Also, I wouldn't want to be facing the wrath of a General if I commanded the squadron that achieved such a feat.

We agree on the merits of long range vs. stealth, although a thought did occur to me. What if the other guys used their longer ranged missiles against AWACS, tankers or the occasional BACN target (oops! I meant "asset") before the Raptor they couldn't see was close enough for its shot? Who is going to be able to get Meteor, anyway? Again, we're outside the realm of dogfight, here.

F-15 and F-16 are going to be around for quite a while, yet, especially given the ridiculously few combat capable F-22s we'll be able to bring to bear in a given situation. Those guys will certainly benefit as would the Super Hornet. With existing -120D production slowed due to motor problems, I'm not sure when or even if we'll get the pulse-motor D+ (E?), and there's nothing following ARMAAM for now.

AS far as i know, although there have been demonstrations of the use of BACN with Raptor, including using it to update cruise missiles, the decision to actually equip the fleet with the capability has not been made. MADL may be the future, but not for the F-22. There are no plans to incorporate it, rather there is talk of another system, further out in the future.

I've always said that BACN isn't that good an idea for WVR and AIM-9X, but it was introduced into this discussion in that context.

No, F-35 isn't operational with MADL, but that wouldn't prevent it from being scheduled in one of the planned F-22 increments for the time it was expected to be ready. However, MADL isn't in any of the Raptor's planned upgrades and those are already identified out to the ones beginning in 2020. We know that F-22s can talk to each other, but they can't talk to anything else except by voice (also see BACN discussion). It would be nice if they could talk to the -15Cs or -15Es or ground or naval forces they might be working with without having to hope there's a bizjet around.

aaam wrote:

Yes, the F-22 probably has a lower IR signature that comparable aircraft, but that's not the question. The question is when engaged in a dogfight does it have a sufficient IR signature that a modern IR seeker can detect it to give warning and can lock on to it. I would argue that the answer is yes.

I don't think any amount of IR reduction will render one invulnerable, if you're within visual range. The idea, is to lower your signature enough, to where the foe can't easily spot you at extended ranges. allowing the F-22 to approach from an advantageous aspect, in relation to its intended target.

Quote:

Yes, I would expect an F-22 to do very well against its opponents. It's got to, given how few of them we'll have, which is why I hope it'll avoid dogfights whenever possible.

If the F-22 pilot flies smartly, it can get within AIM-9 range undetected. For exercise purposes, the F-22s were already visible to the F-16s, so that there'd be some training value. In real engagements, the F-22 pilots wouldn't be as magnanimous.

Quote:

We agree on the merits of long range vs. stealth, although a thought did occur to me. What if the other guys used their longer ranged missiles against AWACS, tankers or the occasional BACN target (oops! I meant "asset") before the Raptor they couldn't see was close enough for its shot? Who is going to be able to get Meteor, anyway? Again, we're outside the realm of dogfight, here.

Long range missiles are intended for AWACS, and other high value targets, not fighters. There's a 0% Pk at hundreds of kilometers, against a manuevering target. The F-22s(or other escorts) would be flying >100km(and probably >200km) in front of the AWACS, so any foe would be firing missiles at extremely long ranges, and then having to break contact. The AWACs would likely go EMCON, and change heading, to defeat such a tactic.

Quote:

F-15 and F-16 are going to be around for quite a while, yet, especially given the ridiculously few combat capable F-22s we'll be able to bring to bear in a given situation. Those guys will certainly benefit as would the Super Hornet. With existing -120D production slowed due to motor problems, I'm not sure when or even if we'll get the pulse-motor D+ (E?), and there's nothing following ARMAAM for now.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2012 ... MRAAM-Buys

Quote:

Van Buren said the quality of the missiles that have been delivered is “fine,” but the weapons can’t be produced in quantity due to a high rejection rate for the rocket motors being built.

“I wouldn’t characterize it as a defect, I would characterize it as a through-put issue,” he said. “The through-put of acceptable motors is not meeting production schedules.”

The D+ uses a different motor, so it's not the same issue, that has happened with the motor production on the standard models.

And we continue to drift further away from dogfights...

No one implied that one could be IR invulnerable (actually 'invisible' would be a better description, IMO). My point again was that USAF did not attach that high a a priority to IR signature reduction as it did other things. The YF-23 was clearly more concerned with it than the YF-22, but that didn't seem to be that big a factor. The F-22 is going to be detectable via IR, arguably at a greater distance than with radar as long as the skin is undamaged. Now what that buys you is matter of conjecture.

As far as real world vs. exercise goes, the F-22 would appear to use the tactic that has proven most effective throughout the history of air combat: Sneak up on the other guy, fire like mad and keep going to get out of range of possible return fire. Of course, that isn't dogfighting, but it works real good. Radar stealth will be a big factor in this. In the cited exercise, it must be remembered that our F-16s don't have modern IRSTs, so they're going to have to literally "see" the Raptors to engage.

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that long range missiles would be ineffective against a fighter target. For the purposes of this discussion I'm referring to "long range" as a missile with at least a 50% greater range than what we're carrying. Any long range A/A missile is going to have onboard terminal guidance, which takes over once you're in the general vicinity. This goes all the way back to the AIM-54, which went active at 16 km distance. A newer such missile would naturally do much better. As far as a Pk of 0%, it's a fact that the late, lamented AIM-152 was designed to engage highly maneuverable targets as well as against lumbering missile sponges. You just didn't shoot at the most extreme distance possible so you'd have more power left at the endgame (AIM-152 and Meteor are both designed to be under power at the terminal phase when encountering fighters).

The tactic of putting F-22s way out in front assumes you know where the foe is going to come from. Otherwise you'd hold them closer in undetected so they can cover more aspect--remember, we aren't going to have that many of them in most cases. As far as an E-3 (what about tankers and bizjets?) going EMCON -effectively blinding the force- the missile wouldn't be homing on that anyway, and he's still got a radar return the size of Cleveland. Regarding changing heading, I'm not sure how effective the E-3's less than Thunderbirds level of agility would benefit it against something with five or more times its speed and at least 10 times its agility, especially since it wouldn't have a good idea of where the incoming was for most of its flight (turned off the radar, remember?).

I'm aware that the AIM-120D+ (if it doesn't get cut) will use a different, pulse motor than the D.. BTW, the GD/Westinghouse proposal for AIM-152 used the same concept. In the rarefied air of the Elites in Washington, though, problems with one version of something often translate in everything that even sounds similar getting pushed to the right, and that's my concern.

aaam wrote:

And we continue to drift further away from dogfights...

No one implied that one could be IR invulnerable (actually 'invisible' would be a better description, IMO). My point again was that USAF did not attach that high a a priority to IR signature reduction as it did other things. The YF-23 was clearly more concerned with it than the YF-22, but that didn't seem to be that big a factor. The F-22 is going to be detectable via IR, arguably at a greater distance than with radar as long as the skin is undamaged. Now what that buys you is matter of conjecture.

As far as real world vs. exercise goes, the F-22 would appear to use the tactic that has proven most effective throughout the history of air combat: Sneak up on the other guy, fire like mad and keep going to get out of range of possible return fire. Of course, that isn't dogfighting, but it works real good. Radar stealth will be a big factor in this. In the cited exercise, it must be remembered that our F-16s don't have modern IRSTs, so they're going to have to literally "see" the Raptors to engage.

We're talking in circles here. The F-22 has demonstrated excellent dogfighting abilities, when it was forced to start out within visual range of the other aircraft in exercises. It has also demonstrated excellent BVR capabilities, due to reduced RF and IR signatures. The bottom line is that F-22s won't be using 4th generation tactics. They'll be exploiting a foe's weaknesses, while emphasizing their advantages. Whether the F-22's IR reduction was as significant as the YF-23's is irrelevant. That doesn't mean that it was of no consideration, or that no efforts were made. The LM design simply arrived at a different design, to achieve signature reduction, while increasing agility.

Quote:

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that long range missiles would be ineffective against a fighter target. For the purposes of this discussion I'm referring to "long range" as a missile with at least a 50% greater range than what we're carrying. Any long range A/A missile is going to have onboard terminal guidance, which takes over once you're in the general vicinity. This goes all the way back to the AIM-54, which went active at 16 km distance. A newer such missile would naturally do much better. As far as a Pk of 0%, it's a fact that the late, lamented AIM-152 was designed to engage highly maneuverable targets as well as against lumbering missile sponges. You just didn't shoot at the most extreme distance possible so you'd have more power left at the endgame (AIM-152 and Meteor are both designed to be under power at the terminal phase when encountering fighters).

The Meteor, and the AIM-152 are not what I'm referring to here. I'm talking about missiles such as the R-37/KS-172(300-400km range). Neither of these missiles are currently in service, and no one is carrying missiles with a 50% greater range than the C7/D. In fact, no one is carrying missiles of equal range to those missiles, much less greater range. The Meteor will have a similar range to the D model, with perhaps better terminal performance, at extended ranges. As for terminal guidance- if a missile goes active to soon, then this gives a foe warning of an inbound missile, and the opportunity to employ countermeasures/take evasive action. Secondly, against a stealthy fighter, a missile's tiny seeker is going to have difficulty maintaining lock, until it is extremely close. This is why stealthy fighters aren't going to be engaged at extreme BVR. Not only can the fighter's fire control radar not detect them, but it'll be difficult for the missile to, as well.

Quote:

The tactic of putting F-22s way out in front assumes you know where the foe is going to come from. Otherwise you'd hold them closer in undetected so they can cover more aspect--remember, we aren't going to have that many of them in most cases.

Well, there are only so many directions a foe could approach from, so the fighter screen could certainly cover that. Also, once those foes do approach, they'll be detected at fairly significant distances, due to the networked nature of the CAP package.

Quote:

As far as an E-3 (what about tankers and bizjets?) going EMCON -effectively blinding the force- the missile wouldn't be homing on that anyway, and he's still got a radar return the size of Cleveland.

The force will be networked still, even if the AWACS goes EMCON, and they'll be closer to the enemy(for detection purposes anyhow). Nobody is going to be firing a 300-400km shot, using their fire control radar to guide the missile. At those distances, unless you had third party targeting, it simply isn't feasible. The missiles would be operating in ARM mode, and would lose sight of the target if it went EMCON.

Quote:

Regarding changing heading, I'm not sure how effective the E-3's less than Thunderbirds level of agility would benefit it against something with five or more times its speed and at least 10 times its agility, especially since it wouldn't have a good idea of where the incoming was for most of its flight (turned off the radar, remember?).

Again, the missile launches would be limited to a finite number of azimuths. An E-3 doesn't have F-16 like agility, but it certainly has time to turn around if there's a 400km distance between it, and the missile. Once it's heading in the oppositie direction, that missile's effective range is greatly diminished(less than a third of the range than against an approaching target).

Quote:

I'm aware that the AIM-120D+ (if it doesn't get cut) will use a different, pulse motor than the D.. BTW, the GD/Westinghouse proposal for AIM-152 used the same concept. In the rarefied air of the Elites in Washington, though, problems with one version of something often translate in everything that even sounds similar getting pushed to the right, and that's my concern.

I was talking about the C7/D, not the D+ which will have even greater terminal maneuvering ability.

We may indeed be talking in circles.

The F-22 is unquestionably the best pure fighter in the world. It does things that no other fighter can do (as far as we know). There's no better fighter for striking quickly through its combination of supercruise, high altitude, ability tp approach undetected and kinematic performance. My initial discussion was simply that when it chooses to enter a dogfight, or is forced into one by being bounced at lower altitudes it gives up many of the things that make it so great in order to do the classic dogfight. It is more maneuverable than its contemporaries, but close-in it may not be that much more maneuverable, we are approaching the limits of what aerodynamics allow and the human body can stand. Radar stealth doesn't help that much when you're within visual or IR range. You're not supercruising in a maneuvering dogfight, and you're down at the altitudes of your opponent.

My discussion of IR infers that while USAF is interested in IR signature reduction, it doesn't consider it that important. This is a reflection of long standing USAF philosophy. I linked those videos(remember, they weren't shot with a modern IRST) simply to illustrate IR hotspots on the F-22 that can be exploited at shorter ranges as a reflection of what happens WVR. The YF-23 was introduced as an illustration of a similar performing design where IR stealth was definitely more important. It is not a great leap to claim that an F-23 would be harder to detect and track than an F-22. Clearly, this was not considered a major problem by USAF.

I wasn't referring to those missiles with humongous ranges that show up in brochures or displays every so often but never seem to actually be in service (athough India may eventually deploy it as the K-100). If they did enter service, though, they would be a serious threat to AWACS, tankers, Global Hawks and bizjets. They wouldn't be launched at their maximum range, but rather at a range where they would still have sufficient range to run down their not very agile targets. For example, one might launch a 170-200 KM distance, which would allow quite a lot of distance available for overtake. The way such an encounter would take place would be that after detection (and an aircraft a jet altitudes is well above the horizon for a long way), the missile would be targeted to the area with terminal aiming once it "arrives" in the area. However, this is waaayyy out of the dogfight realm.

My understanding is that Meteor can be used a number of ways. The primary profile provides better speed and a larger no-escape zone than AIM-120D through virtue of being powered all the way. Remember, AIM-120D gets its range increase through its ingenious repackaging of its electronic components which permits a larger propellant load. The other profile would be to travel slower and farther with a reduction in no-escape. This would allow a launch before an defending AIM-120, and meteor clearly is going to have much more maneuvering capability than any of the a/c I mentioned would be able to counter.

Given the roles we ask of our forces, we can not assume that we'll have the luxuries we've had where the attack will only come from an expected vector. In fact, even in those cases we've had a problem insuring the other plane is an enemy...an opponent may not be under such restrictions.

I realize that you were talking C7/D+. What I was saying was that to Washington, a problem with the D could be morphed into a reason to delay the D+ ("They've both got D in their name, don't they"?), logical or not.

Again back to dogfights: If all the announced upgrades come to fruition we'll have at most around 150 combat coded units in the entire world. It is really unlikely anyone is going to come up with the at least $3.6 billion or so needed just to restart production (let alone the cost of then building the planes) even if those who made the decision were willing to reverse themselves (doesn't happen in DC). Figure in the portion of the fleet down for maintenance, and that means there never will be that many that can be brought to bear at any given time. For example, the initial phases of the Libyan operation would been made to order for exactly what the F-22 was designed for, but even given the time we had while the situation grew, none were in position to be used.

So we're back to what I said in my first post on this topic: "... part of what makes Raptor the Raptor is the ability to usually avoid getting in there in the first place or staying around long enough for the other guy to shoot". The F-22 is a formidable aircraft, but it's not an invulnerable aircraft. While it could certainly dogfight very, very well, that's not where its greatest strengths lie. To engage in them when they are avoidable is wasteful and threatens what we are paying so dearly for.