Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Seeing as how we have no footage of a YF-23, being viewed through a FLIR at WVR, it's kind of difficult to state just how different the signature would be. Bottom line, the F-22 uses more IR reduction methods, than any other fighter in service. As far as upgrades, I think that it's safe to say that the F-22 will receive continual upgrades over its career, just like every other fighter, especially being the premier air superiority fighter. As far as dogfights go, the F-22 is more than capable of inducing G LOC. It has bested multiple F-16s, with JHMCS/AIM-9X, Super Hornets, Rafales, etc... I won't argue that it is invulnerable, or that the best use, is killing at BVR. It clearly can handle itself in any conceivable situation though, and will only become more lethal with cheek arrays, MLD upgrades, AIM-120D/D+/9X Block II, etc... As for datalink upgrades, I don't think that it's a matter of if, but when. As far as the Meteor's performance, I agree that if fired from the same speed/altitude as an AMRAAM, it'll have a larger NEZ. This would be of greatest importance at the outer ranges of its envelope.

F-16.net Sponsor

I don't think anything is "stealthy" inside of gun range. If you can see it with your eyes, the heat-seekers can probably track it.

count_to_10 wrote:

I don't think anything is "stealthy" inside of gun range. If you can see it with your eyes, the heat-seekers can probably track it.

Absolutely..There is no such thing as '' stealthy'' except BVR situations. The Raptor can be detected and targeted as any other fighter.

duplex wrote:

count_to_10 wrote:

I don't think anything is "stealthy" inside of gun range. If you can see it with your eyes, the heat-seekers can probably track it.

Absolutely..There is no such thing as '' stealthy'' except BVR situations. The Raptor can be detected and targeted as any other fighter.

Not entirely. One, at modern combat speeds and distances, your eyeball can't compensate the lay of the gun for relative and actual airspeeds and altitudes over arbitrary distances. For that you need radar. The radar can probably detect the Raptor at gun distances. But remember that a stealth fighter has very different radar returns at various angles. The radar will have great difficulty accurately measuring a maneuvering Raptor. And regardless of anything else, its jammers and the theater jammers have less to hide, so what would be a failed jam with another fighter may not be a fail when a Raptor or Lightning II does it.

Similar with IR. There is less signature to obscure, and much more directional variation to its signature. If you get a straight-on lock up the tailpipe and on its afterburners, when it turns it's a much more different target than would be true of other fighters. Your blinding lasers and flares have much less to obscure, and another fighter's fail may still be a success for you.

You also have a major sampling error you ignore. What you are basically saying is, "If it's in range where my sensors can track it, then my sensors can track it." Meaningless tautology. The range your sensors can track will always be less than the range your same sensors could track anything else. And the most important contributor to IR stealth is radar stealth. If you can't see it on radar, you can't deliberately close with it to IR range. No, it's not invisible. Yes, the Raptor could could give you a scenario where it is trackable. But that scenario is much harder for you to force than it is for any other aircraft. To a very great extent, unless a Raptor chooses to let you track it, you can't.

Every aircraft has a different RCS at various aspect angles and the same is true for IR signatures. To believe that a Raptor can't be tracked is somewhat ignorant. Of course it's much harder to detect and track a Raptor than other (mostly non stealthy) types and that doesn't distract from the F-22's advantages, but still you must be quite optimistic when you believe that late generation sensors including IIR seekers on 5th generation missiles will have an overly hard time to track such an aircraft. The same goes for onboard sensors be it EO/IR or the ever improving radars or even passive RF sniffing systems. Technology is evolving on both fronts.

Don't forget that F-22s have already flown in exercises against other planes, and those other planes' pilots have commented that even if they do get close enough to see an F-22 through the canopy with their eyes, they still can't get their weapons to see a target.

Scorpion82 wrote:

Every aircraft has a different RCS at various aspect angles and the same is true for IR signatures.

The difference is more extreme for a stealth aircraft, and the change more sharp. And at all angles except maybe a few very sharp peaks, the signature is much smaller than for a conventional aircraft. Tracking relies on signal to noise ratios, not signature magnitudes. Signature magnitudes matter because magnitudes smaller than noise are very hard to find. And of course, the converse: with a smaller signal magnitude, you need a smaller magnitude of noise to hide. When your own signature jumps sharply, and quietly even in its louder peaks, it looks more like noise. Add real noise, from your own jammers or a Growler nearby, and your Raptor hides better than other targets, even up close.

Quote:

Of course it's much harder to detect and track a Raptor than other (mostly non stealthy) types ...

That's a critical point. It's true at all ranges that the Raptor's signature is less than that of other fighters. It is not impossible to track it. But "stealth" is not useless in WVR combat either. Less effective, but far from useless. The Raptor will, at all ranges, have a better chance of jamming or decoying their opponent.

Quote:

... you must be quite optimistic when you believe that late generation sensors including IIR seekers on 5th generation missiles will have an overly hard time to track such an aircraft. The same goes for onboard sensors ...

Pilots who have flown exercises against Raptors have said that even when they can see the Raptor with their own eyes, they can't put a weapon on it. Others have said there's a very short time window where you can get an IR lock with a Sidewinder. Once the Raptor's countermeasures are on (nobody's ever said what that means), that window is gone and they can't put an IR missile on it either. So yes, I'm optimistic.

It also ignores the fact that not every banana republic can afford to upgrade their air defenses to PAK-FAs and 5th generation missiles, and relegate their current inventory to the scrapheap. Is it technologically possible to develop countermeasures to the Raptor? Of course, given enough money and time. But that doesn't help most of the bad parts of the world. And it will never help the bulk of the old stockpiles many of those places have, even if they gold-plate the tip of it.

And it ignores my single most important point: with radar stealth AND (comparatively more limited) IR stealth, the Raptor can avoid getting close enough for IR sensors to track it. It's only when you artificially force the Raptor into sensor range as part of an exercise or airshow that you can actually track it in the first place. It can stay out of its opponents' radar detection range, which puts it very comfortably outside their IR detection range. Saying it's detectable if you get close enough is like saying you can reliably down a Raptor if you have a mole plant a bomb inside it before it takes off. It's true in a literal sense, but it's not realistic to plan on it.

A pilot has commented on it some years ago and it's actually unknown how his aircraft was ultimately configured and armed. Hiding the IR signature is considerably more difficult than reducing the RCS and airframe heating through friction can't by hidden in that well at all. You may isolate the internal heat and somewhat mask, diverse and cool the engine exausts, but sophisticated IR devises will offer a more robust performance. You are also talking about a range of counter measures neither present nor planned for the Raptor at this point in time. Up to date there is no DIRCM scheduled and the only jamming comes from its radar within its narrower frequency and angular coverage.

I agree however that most potential adversaries are likely lacking the resources to afford advanced technologies in that field.

duplex wrote:

Absolutely..There is no such thing as '' stealthy'' except BVR situations. The Raptor can be detected and targeted as any other fighter.

Especially when it's wearing its Lüneberg lens. Rolling Eyes

.
.
.

river_otter wrote:

with radar stealth AND (comparatively more limited) IR stealth, the Raptor can avoid getting close enough for IR sensors to track it. It's only when you artificially force the Raptor into sensor range as part of an exercise or airshow that you can actually track it in the first place. It can stay out of its opponents' radar detection range, which puts it very comfortably outside their IR detection range. Saying it's detectable if you get close enough is like saying you can reliably down a Raptor if you have a mole plant a bomb inside it before it takes off. It's true in a literal sense, but it's not realistic to plan on it.

That reminds me of another quote about frustration from an opposing pilot: not that he couldn't point weapons at it even when he could see it, but that in one engagement after another, his routine was to get "shot down" early without having detected the plane that did it in any way at all.

Scorpion82 wrote:

You are also talking about a range of counter measures neither present nor planned for the Raptor at this point in time. Up to date there is no DIRCM scheduled and the only jamming comes from its radar within its narrower frequency and angular coverage.

We don't necessarily know everything that the Raptor has under the hood, so to speak.

em745 wrote:

duplex wrote:

Absolutely..There is no such thing as '' stealthy'' except BVR situations. The Raptor can be detected and targeted as any other fighter.

Especially when it's wearing its Lüneberg lens. Rolling Eyes

.
.
.

Wow thanks for posting that. It will prove to be powerful material in the fight against any French people I encounter online.

In real life the Raptors are likely training for the occasion where they do come across advanced IRST systems and are working out an approximate range where these systems are able to detect the Raptor's IR signature out of the noise and from which aspect this occurs first (most likely rear) and then develop tactics to combat aircraft with sophisticated IRST systems. Once the F-35 enters service its EOTS coupled with its other passive sensors should make for a useful simulation of such EO/IR detection systems for the Raptors to train off of.

tacf-x wrote:

In real life the Raptors are likely training for the occasion where they do come across advanced IRST systems and are working out an approximate range where these systems are able to detect the Raptor's IR signature out of the noise and from which aspect this occurs first (most likely rear) and then develop tactics to combat aircraft with sophisticated IRST systems. Once the F-35 enters service its EOTS coupled with its other passive sensors should make for a useful simulation of such EO/IR detection systems for the Raptors to train off of.

They don't even need to wait that long. They can fly against F-15s, 16s, and 18s, using IR. The Sniper/Litening/ATFLIR all have A2A IRST capabilities, which can be used to help develop tactics. Conversely, our 4th Gen aircraft can practice tactics against stealthy, and highly agile aircraft, to help against 4.5/5 Gen adversaries.

In just about every engagement the F-22 has been in (against the best weapons and systems we have operated by some of the best personnel), it doesn't matter. The F-22 won. The toughest opponents and engagements the F-22 has ever faced has been our own replicating the best anticipated threat(s) it could face now and in the foreseeable future.

That said, the Raptor community does not and will not show it's true potential / capabilities in international exercises for obvious reasons.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

F-22 in dogfights