NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's another well-produced video from Lockheed Martin that demonstrates some of the capabilities of the F-22. Some of the things I haven't seen publicly before are the HUD displays while in flight and a tail-slide where the pilot announces he's recovering at -50 KIAS.

Enjoy...

http://www.airshowbuzz.com/videos/view.php?v=b512534b

I wish Australia had bought these instead of those vapour-ware JSFs ... :cool:

I wish Australia had bought these instead of those vapour-ware JSFs ... :cool:

indeed

The nice part about the plane is that there isn't another fighter aircraft on the planet that can detect it in flight (except visually). Since the F-22 relies on beyond visual range shooting, and since only one of the F-22s in a flight needs to have its radar on (the others can share its firing data without emitting), you could shoot down entire flights of opponents with no warning to said opponents that they were being targeted or were under fire (they would know they were illuminated by tracking radar, but would not know they were being locked on for a firing solution).

The opponents would never see the F-22 at all.

The nice part about the plane is that there isn't another fighter aircraft on the planet that can detect it in flight (except visually). Since the F-22 relies on beyond visual range shooting, and since only one of the F-22s in a flight needs to have its radar on (the others can share its firing data without emitting), you could shoot down entire flights of opponents with no warning to said opponents that they were being targeted or were under fire (they would know they were illuminated by tracking radar, but would not know they were being locked on for a firing solution).

1.All serious interceptors are BVR. Including F-16 and MiG-25 (back in the '70s...)
2.The MiG-25 uses datalink since the mid-70s. The MiG-31 uses symmetrical datalink between the interceptor flight, the awacs and the land-based radars.
3.You have to switch from RWS to TWS to pass the other planes the data. Once you go from RWS to TWS, the target's radar alert will show its pilot that he's being tracked.
4.Russian missiles outrange all US missiles since the US Navy has scrapped the F-14/Phoenix system.

Of course, if the opposition is Iran, I guess that the F-22 is almost invincible, but I wouldn't bet on a F-22 against an EFA, the latest Fulcrum variant or the PAK-FA.

The opponents would never see the F-22 at all.

Like they said about the F-117. Oops, how come the Serbs took down just the single aircraft no-one should have been able to shoot at?

indeed

Thirded.

I want a forward swept wing aircraft though (whether a future Sukhoi or Cessna, it doesn't matter).

1.All serious interceptors are BVR. Including F-16 and MiG-25 (back in the '70s...)
2.The MiG-25 uses datalink since the mid-70s. The MiG-31 uses symmetrical datalink between the interceptor flight, the awacs and the land-based radars.
3.You have to switch from RWS to TWS to pass the other planes the data. Once you go from RWS to TWS, the target's radar alert will show its pilot that he's being tracked.
4.Russian missiles outrange all US missiles since the US Navy has scrapped the F-14/Phoenix system.

Of course, if the opposition is Iran, I guess that the F-22 is almost invincible, but I wouldn't bet on a F-22 against an EFA, the latest Fulcrum variant or the PAK-FA.

Like they said about the F-117. Oops, how come the Serbs took down just the single aircraft no-one should have been able to shoot at?

The F-117 uses older technology. In addition, the F-117 (and not the F-22) is susceptible to bistatic radar.

The F-22 cannot be locked onto or hit by any current missile in anyone's inventory, including the US inventory.

1.All serious interceptors are BVR. Including F-16 and MiG-25 (back in the '70s...)
2.The MiG-25 uses datalink since the mid-70s. The MiG-31 uses symmetrical datalink between the interceptor flight, the awacs and the land-based radars.
3.You have to switch from RWS to TWS to pass the other planes the data. Once you go from RWS to TWS, the target's radar alert will show its pilot that he's being tracked.
4.Russian missiles outrange all US missiles since the US Navy has scrapped the F-14/Phoenix system.

Of course, if the opposition is Iran, I guess that the F-22 is almost invincible, but I wouldn't bet on a F-22 against an EFA, the latest Fulcrum variant or the PAK-FA.



Like they said about the F-117. Oops, how come the Serbs took down just the single aircraft no-one should have been able to shoot at?Er.. tripe!

I wish Australia had bought these instead of those vapour-ware JSFs ... :cool: The thing about the JSF as the British gov has found , is that Lockheed Martin will not let customers have the details of the RAM coatings or the basic machine codes for the avionics so that they can service their own planes! This is after congress and pres Bush ordered them to! And to think Britain GAVE America Radar, centrimetric radar, The all moving tail plane, Chobham composite armour. Selfish bastards!

The serbs shot down the f117 using an amazing detection system called the mark one eyeball.

The F-117 uses older technology. In addition, the F-117 (and not the F-22) is susceptible to bistatic radar.

The F-22 cannot be locked onto or hit by any current missile in anyone's inventory, including the US inventory. Apart from heat seekers. Still got two big hot engines at the back!

Thirded.

I want a forward swept wing aircraft though (whether a future Sukhoi or Cessna, it doesn't matter).

Sukhoi don't look bad at all

I wish Australia had bought these instead of those vapour-ware JSFs ... :cool:
It couldn't if it wanted to, the US has the F-22 on strict export controls.

The F-117 uses older technology. In addition, the F-117 (and not the F-22) is susceptible to bistatic radar.

The F-22 cannot be locked onto or hit by any current missile in anyone's inventory, including the US inventory.

Ok... that's what the USAF (or, to be more accurate, the manufacturers) claim/s. They also claimed that it was impossible to shoot at the F-117, so I guess we can't really trust them about this.

Neither can USAF pilots... and it's their hides, not ours, that are at stake.;)

PS. No aircraft we have is immune to low frequency radar which is becoming more popular.

The serbs shot down the f117 using an amazing detection system called the mark one eyeball.

wiki is MY friend...:D


One F-117 has been lost in combat, to Serbian forces. On March 27, 1999, during the Kosovo War, the 3rd Battalion of the 250th Missile Brigade under the command of Colonel Zoltán Dani (Serbian: Золтан Дани), equipped with the Isayev S-125 'Neva-M' (NATO designation SA-3 'Goa'), downed F-117A serial number 82-806 with a Neva-M missile.[19] According to NATO Commander Wesley Clark and other NATO generals, Serb air defenses found that they could detect F-117s with their radars operating on unusually long wavelengths. This made them visible on radar screens for short times.


And, iirc, the F-117 is used by night and painted black to avoid Eyeball Mk.1 tracking. Oh well.

PS. No aircraft we have is immune to low frequency radar which is becoming more popular.
It's not like these are actually practical. There are still many problems with weather. DSP can work wonders but I don't think it's providing mature LF radar, yet.

The serbs shot down the f117 using an amazing detection system called the mark one eyeball.

Not quite, but I would expect that we have tried to exploit what we have learned in order for it not to happen again...

PS. No aircraft we have is immune to low frequency radar which is becoming more popular.

So sure are you...

So sure are you...
It is fact that returns get much stronger where LF radar operates. But there are many problems with enviromental interference that need some pretty slick signal processing to overcome.

On the other hand, one would expect that the makers of low-observables are working just as hard to make them low observable in this low frequency range, as well. I very much doubt they are just sitting back and whining about how it isn't fair...

It is fact that returns get much stronger where LF radar operates. But there are many problems with enviromental interference that need some pretty slick signal processing to overcome.

On the other hand, one would expect that the makers of low-observables are working just as hard to make them low observable in this low frequency range, as well. I very much doubt they are just sitting back and whining about how it isn't fair...

I imagine that's why the stealth technology on the F-22 doesn't bear much resemblance to the stealth technology on the F-117.

I personally like the SU-35/7 more. Apparently its faster than most US missiles :P
Of course, Russians being Russians, they tend to say that ALL of their military equipment is super-de-duper powerful prior to people actually finding out about it.
152mm linear gun on the Black Eagle, anybody?

'Course, its really too bad they cant AFFORD any of the shiney new tanks and airplanes their arms industry is pumping out.

I personally like the SU-35/7 more. Apparently its faster than most US missiles :P

The Su-35 has a max speed of mach 2 (a little under, actually). An AMRAAM goes at mach 4, as does the Sparrow.

Even the Sidewinder is faster, at 2.5 mach...

Both the Flanker-E and Flanker-F are outdated by the F-22.

I wish Australia had bought these instead of those vapour-ware JSFs ... :cool:

How precisely has the JSF earned the term "vapor-ware"?

The Su-35 has a max speed of mach 2 (a little under, actually). An AMRAAM goes at mach 4, as does the Sparrow.

Even the Sidewinder is faster, at 2.5 mach...

Both the Flanker-E and Flanker-F are outdated by the F-22.

Thats not what the Russian news sources were saying about the plane just before it went fully public :P

I imagine that's why the stealth technology on the F-22 doesn't bear much resemblance to the stealth technology on the F-117.
I suppose everyone knows this, but I tell the story anyway.

The F-117 started as Have-Blue. This was based on a paper that was discovered in an open-sourced Soviet magazine. A Lockheed engineer read the paper, did some computer simulations and decided it would work. In a technical meeting with the Air Force, an officer asked about the size of the radar signature. Ben Rich threw out a couple small ball bearings and told him that it was a little less than one of those...

Ah, the good old days when black meant something...Innovation, funding, neat stuff for us geeks.

Ah, the good old days when black meant something...Innovation, funding, neat stuff for us geeks.

SO last century. Get with the new millenia. Black is for funding the interrogation of enemies of the state in Nigeria now. Silly.

SO last century. Get with the new millenia. Black is for funding the interrogation of enemies of the state in Nigeria now. Silly.
Yes and innovative engineering has been stifled by armies of accountants that do the torture for the GAO.

I prefer the Su-47

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/S-37_in_flight1_jno_rvb.jpg

Yes and innovative engineering has been stifled by armies of accountants that do the torture for the GAO.

I thought they were using opera to tourture people now.

I thought they were using opera to tourture people now.
Maybe, but there's good Opera. There's no such thing as a good GAO accountant.

It couldn't if it wanted to, the US has the F-22 on strict export controls.

But Australia are trusted allies - you can't even sell us a few planes?

Yes and innovative engineering has been stifled by armies of accountants that do the torture for the GAO.

HAve you ever seen the movie The Pentagon Wars (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144550/)? You find yourself laughing at the absurdity whilst simultaneously wanting to beat your head against a hard surface due to the fact that it is essentialy a true story.

Has the F-22's anti-radar systems/what have you been combat tested yet? It's all well and good to hear claims, but the case of similiar claims with the F-117 does make me a bit skeptical.

Like they said about the F-117. Oops, how come the Serbs took down just the single aircraft no-one should have been able to shoot at?

The Serbs got a bit lucky. NATO was so arrogant at the time to fly the same damn flight path night after night with the Nighthawks. They set up their AD specifically to take advantage of this NATO f-up. What I would have done after they shot it down was to bomb the wreckage site when they were sifting through it.

The Serbs got a bit lucky. NATO was so arrogant at the time to fly the same damn flight path night after night with the Nighthawks. They set up their AD specifically to take advantage of this NATO f-up. What I would have done after they shot it down was to bomb the wreckage site when they were sifting through it.

If that's true, that was pretty damned stupid of NATO. Even I, someone who has no military training, can tell you why flying the same flight path even two nights in a row is a really stupid idea. No matter how good your plane is at avoiding detection by radar, they'll notice something like that and take advantage of it.

Has the F-22's anti-radar systems/what have you been combat tested yet? It's all well and good to hear claims, but the case of similiar claims with the F-117 does make me a bit skeptical.

I hear that they work just as good as the rest of their avionics.... (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/02/14/212102/pictures-navigational-software-glitch-forces-lockheed-martin-f-22-raptors-back-to-hawaii.html)


Lockheed Martin is rushing a software fix to Hawaii after 12 US Air Force F-22A Raptors en route to Japan for the stealth fighter’s first overseas deployment had to turn back because an unspecified problem with their navigation systems.

The F-22s, of the 27th Fighter Squadron from Langley AFB in Virginia, were en route from Hickham AFB in Hawaii to Kadena AB on Okinawa for a three- to four-month deployment. They are expected to try again by the end of the week, after the software fix is incorporated and tested.

Asked to comment on rumours the problem related to crossing the international dateline, the USAF said: "The aircraft experienced a software problem involving the navigation system en route from Hickam to Kadena. For operational security reasons we will not discuss specific aircraft systems or locations."


What apparently happened was that, on crossing the international dateline their entire nav and comm systems failed, and wouldn't restart. Fortunately their tankers were around to guide them back home.

Plus, you have to remember, only one F-117 was ever shot down out of how many thousands of sorties? That's bloody damn good all things considering, and it still took a bit of luck and laziness on NATO's part for the Serbs to get that hit.

The Su-35 has a max speed of mach 2 (a little under, actually). [...]
Both the Flanker-E and Flanker-F are outdated by the F-22.

Actually, wiki rates the speed of the Su-35 at 2450 km/h (that is, more than Mach 2).

while, about the F-22 (claiming speed about Mach 2.0 but never tested)

The absence of variable intake ramps may make speeds greater than Mach 2.0 unreachable, but there is no evidence to prove this.
:rolleyes:Meh.

Also, to attain speed in the order of Mach 2.0, the F-22 needs to go on full afterburner, hence becoming basically a big IR flare in the sky, very easy to kill if you have an all-aspect IR like the IR version of the AA-11.

Really, the USAF would have got a better aircraft if they built a canard version of good ol' F-15.

added. still from wiki


[...] anti-aircraft systems like SA-21 'Growler' [, which] may be capable of detecting stealth planes since there is information exchange with neighbor radars, which observes the appropriate zone via different angles and form of signal.
Hence, better being able to evade than to lose maneuverability to stealth.

same source, most interesting:
In March 2005, United States Air Force Chief of Staff General John P. Jumper, then the only person to have flown both the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Raptor, gave a verbal comparison on the two aircraft. He said that "the Eurofighter is both agile and sophisticated, but is still difficult to compare to the F-22 Raptor." "They are different kinds of airplanes to start with," the general said. "It's like asking us to compare a NASCAR car with a Formula 1 car. They are both exciting in different ways, but they are designed for different levels of performance."

I'd guess that the Eurofighter is a pure interceptor, while the F-22 is more on the multirole/attack side of the thing. The F-15's "not a pound for air-to-ground" has been abandoned.

HAve you ever seen the movie The Pentagon Wars (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144550/)? You find yourself laughing at the absurdity whilst simultaneously wanting to beat your head against a hard surface due to the fact that it is essentialy a true story.
Yeah, but a lot of times it's the other way around (judging by the plot summary on NetFlix). A contractor can develop a good, fast, and cheap product, but it's tied up with the documentation that is required in a government program.

I did a project for NASA once -- never again -- The test reports easily outweighed the device I built by at least 100:1. I understand the concept of reliability, but the CDRLs easily tripled the cost of the product...

1.All serious interceptors are BVR. Including F-16 and MiG-25 (back in the '70s...)
2.The MiG-25 uses datalink since the mid-70s. The MiG-31 uses symmetrical datalink between the interceptor flight, the awacs and the land-based radars.
3.You have to switch from RWS to TWS to pass the other planes the data. Once you go from RWS to TWS, the target's radar alert will show its pilot that he's being tracked.
4.Russian missiles outrange all US missiles since the US Navy has scrapped the F-14/Phoenix system.

Of course, if the opposition is Iran, I guess that the F-22 is almost invincible, but I wouldn't bet on a F-22 against an EFA, the latest Fulcrum variant or the PAK-FA.



Like they said about the F-117. Oops, how come the Serbs took down just the single aircraft no-one should have been able to shoot at?

Yeah, why do Russian missiles outrange US missiles so ridiculously? Our primary AA missile, the AMRAAM, needs to have longer range...we need a 100-mi range missile. Europe has one, no?

The only reason there aren't more shot down USA planes is cuz USA attacks only 3rd world countries with almost no defenses.

BTW on the official unveiling of Su-37, why didn't the F-22 accepts its challenge(simulated dogfight)? If the F-22 is sooooooo powerful surely it can take on a Su-37? Well it didn't dare accept which again proves americans are only talk and no action.

But Australia are trusted allies - you can't even sell us a few planes?

Which is why you are getting the F35 Lightning, the Raptor is ubersecret US black magic.

1.All serious interceptors are BVR. Including F-16 and MiG-25 (back in the '70s...)
Except the radar on board this fighters is insufficient to detect the F-22 before the F-22 enters missile range.




Like they said about the F-117. Oops, how come the Serbs took down just the single aircraft no-one should have been able to shoot at?

Laziness, poor operational security, timing, a clever AA commander, good intelligence and good/bad luck.

NATO was flying the F-117s on a set route, at a regular pace and at a set time.

What the Serbian military managed to do was station a spy outside of Aviano to watch when the stealth's would take off. They were able to correlate the time of take off to the time when the plane would fly over a specific area. A uniquely clever Serb AA commander stationed his battery in this area, and waited for the signal from the spy outside of Aviano. When he received the signal, he started a count. At the specific point in time that the Serb commander and his unit were able to work out, they filled the air with SAM's, flak and anything else that could shoot. He nailed the F-117 with a golden bullet...a missile operating with only IR guidance.

It is a feat that has not since been replicated, because the error has been recognized and accounted for.

Ok... that's what the USAF (or, to be more accurate, the manufacturers) claim/s. They also claimed that it was impossible to shoot at the F-117, so I guess we can't really trust them about this.

Neither can USAF pilots... and it's their hides, not ours, that are at stake.;)

You are entirely clueless about the incident over Serbia with the F-117, so I'd advise that you keep your trap shut.

wiki is MY friend...:D



And, iirc, the F-117 is used by night and painted black to avoid Eyeball Mk.1 tracking. Oh well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-117#Combat_loss

Clark was wrong, read what Dian said he actually did.

The Mk. 1 Human Eyeball dearie, is the detection system he utilized.

The F-22 cannot be locked onto or hit by any current missile in anyone's inventory, including the US inventory.

That would be why an F-16 got one with a missile lock at Red Flag then...

That would be why an F-16 got one with a missile lock at Red Flag then...

Do you know what the kill ratio at Red Flag was for the F-22? Something like 100 kills per one loss.

I even read that one of the F-22s flew up behind and beneath the F-16, took some photos of it from like 5 feet away, then flew away. The first the F-16 pilot knew of it was when he saw the photographs.

Do you know what the kill ratio at Red Flag was for the F-22? Something like 100 kills per one loss.

I even read that one of the F-22s flew up behind and beneath the F-16, took some photos of it from like 5 feet away, then flew away. The first the F-16 pilot knew of it was when he saw the photographs.

Yes. I know.

The fact remains that RO was (as usual) overhyping.

I failed to mention that the F-16's shot was a last-gasp kill before IT got blown away by the Raptors ASRAAM (IIRC).

The point stands, the Raptor CAN be detected. It's not easy (witness reports of pilots seeing it with their eyes before their sensors saw a thing) but it's doable with the kit on the LAST generation of aircraft.

Eurofighter (to pick an example) a few years down the line is gonna have better radar and better prgramming, possibly to the point where it can utilise the Meteor against the F-22 before it enters AMRAAM range.

Don;t get me wrong, the F-22 is far and away the best combat aircraft in the world (until JSF which will probably come pretty close behind) but less advanced airframes WILL be able to beat it with increasing frequency as time goes by, simply because their Radar can be upgraded before the F-22's airframe can be.

The only reason there aren't more shot down USA planes is cuz USA attacks only 3rd world countries with almost no defenses.

BTW on the official unveiling of Su-37, why didn't the F-22 accepts its challenge(simulated dogfight)? If the F-22 is sooooooo powerful surely it can take on a Su-37? Well it didn't dare accept which again proves americans are only talk and no action.

First off, we have gone against nations with sophisticated aircraft and air defense systems. Serbia had aircraft as advanced as the MiG-29, the equivalent of an F-16. Iraq (1991) had Mirages, advanced MiGs, and one of the most heavily defended pieces of airspace in the world (Baghdad).

We defeated them.

Second off, it is not a cheap matter to just "fly off" to go at someone playground call for a competition. Especially someone from a country we are not the most friendly with, and one that is working on designs to combat the F-22. We don't give intelligence to people trying to figure out how best to shoot us down.

Realistically, the Su-37 is not a competitor to the F-22, it is a competitor to the F-15C or F-15E, or block 50/60 F-16s.

The Russian aircraft comparable to the F-22 is the Sukhoi PAK FA, which hasn't even had a first flight of a prototype. The F-22 had a flight of an initial prototype about 15 years ago, and a production aircraft 4 years ago. The F-22 is now in active service including overseas deployments.

The Sukhoi PAK FA might fly in another year. It also might not fly until later, or never. Even if it does fly next year, how long until a production version is developed? How long until deployment? Do we really even know if an aircraft we've yet to even see is equal to or better than the F-22?