|
If the F-22 is such a superweapon, wouldn't it be wiser not to use it to intercept Russian Bears? I have to assume they're just jammed full of RF equipment trying to characterize it as much as possible.
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 08:42
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:04 |
|
|
PittTheElder posted:If the F-22 is such a superweapon, wouldn't it be wiser not to use it to intercept Russian Bears? I have to assume they're just jammed full of RF equipment trying to characterize it as much as possible. Maybe the F-22's they're being intercepted by are subtly altered so they're gathering incorrect information! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 09:36
|
|
|
Godholio posted:
Thanks, that was a fun read and confirms what a lot of other sources are saying. This was a pretty good article as well: http://aviationintel.com/in-response-to-reports-of-simulated-f-22-raptor-kills-by-german-eurofighters/ PS. If you have more personal stories to tell about the F-22 or other fighter, please go ahead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 12:59
|
|
|
- excellent flight characteristics, allowing the pilot to decide when and when not to engage - LO and powerful radar combined lead to usually being the first to shoot - datalinks to other fighters mean good situational awareness - reliable BWR and WVR weaponry Is this a decent general understanding of what makes the Raptor (or hypothetical aircraft like it) a good modern air dominance fighter? Not getting into the bigger picture of air combat like AWACS support, sortie rate and what have you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:If the F-22 is such a superweapon, wouldn't it be wiser not to use it to intercept Russian Bears? I have to assume they're just jammed full of RF equipment trying to characterize it as much as possible.  With wing mounted tanks, there's no way to get a "signature" on it, and I imagine all intercepts observe EMCON. So basically we're just dangling it out in front of them, just out of reach.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
brakeless posted:- excellent flight characteristics, allowing the pilot to decide when and when not to engage Until pretty recently the F-22 didn't technically fall in the good data links category because it uses a distinct system. They are working to fix that through new targeting/comms pods for legacy fighters, and I think some changes to the AMRAAM in the D model (not sure about this at all, they might already have everything needed in the C7). There's actually quite a bit of interesting information about the most modern targeting pods, things like giving the Super Hornet IRST through a modified centerline fuel tank (lot harder to just dump at the merge though), the newest gen of ground targeting pods being capable of basic air to air IRST, and stuff like TALON HATE that bundled several capabilities into what looked like one big rear end pod. Mazz fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Feb 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
brakeless posted:- excellent flight characteristics, allowing the pilot to decide when and when not to engage Add to that how fast and high they can be, and how fancy their radar is as well as how good their avionics are, and it seems to be a pretty good picture. Sure, plenty of airplanes can sprint to F-22 speeds or higher, but the F-22 can supercruise around with a full load of missiles, meaning they have even greater ability to determine where the fight is held on top of already having a fantastic radar. Also, Increment 3.1+ Raptors can do electronic attack, IIRC. And as far as how much AWACS or GCI have to micromanage fighters, Raptors are rather hands off and can be more effective with less painstaking control than legacy fighters. They're just super good and the primary limitations so far aren't so much a problem with the Raptor as they are with the weapons it can carry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
Red Crown posted:
I take it you mean that the drop tanks have such a huge radar profile that they dwarf any return from the actual airframe? Also: god drat modern fighters are huge. I suspect there's a lot of perspective issues in that particular image, but an F-22 is still half as large as a Tu-95. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Feb 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Also: god drat modern fighters are huge.  It's still 14 meters long though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
The lack of a high quality datalink on the F-22 is baffling to me. That radar is the absolute best thing on the block right now and it should be employed right now today as a networked search, ID, and fire control radar for as many airframes and interceptors as we can get in a given piece of sky. I realize that the design is already almost 25 years old but I have to think that someone back in the early 90s had the thought that integrated fire control was a good idea and maybe we should consider that. I also don't really get why we didn't simultaneously develop a heavy AAM for use by Raptors or by other aircraft leveraging the Raptor's sensor suite.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
So apparently that Bear that was messing up commercial airspace over the English Channel the other day had nuclear-tipped missiles onboard. edit: actually, this hasn't been fully verified yet. We'll see. StandardVC10 fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Feb 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:So apparently that Bear that was messing up commercial airspace over the English Channel the other day had nuclear-tipped missiles onboard. any links?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:So apparently that Bear that was messing up commercial airspace over the English Channel the other day had nuclear-tipped missiles How do we know that? I'd think that the radiation wouldn't be detectable, but I guess it is?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
I really doubt the radiation would be detectable from any practical distance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
joat mon posted:any links? This is old news already. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/555454/Intercepted-Russian-bomber-was-carrying-a-nuclear-missile-over-the-Channel
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:So apparently that Bear that was messing up commercial airspace over the English Channel the other day had nuclear-tipped missiles onboard. Wtf, really? Read the link, are they trying to start world war three?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
Dr. Klas posted:How do we know that? I'd think that the radiation wouldn't be detectable, but I guess it is? Radio intelligence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:I really doubt the radiation would be detectable from any practical distance. There's no way you'd detect any radiation signature unless you literally sat the detector on the bomb. Sintilation counters are loving hard to calibrate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Might have been leaked by the Russians themselves, as a nice little gently caress you for investigating the polonium incident. Putin can be rad like that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Shoot it down, send divers to retrieve the warheads 
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
OhYeah posted:Radio intelligence. So my first instinct was right after all then... So this could also just be Putin loving with us by leaking false information.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
bewbies posted:The lack of a high quality datalink on the F-22 is baffling to me. That radar is the absolute best thing on the block right now and it should be employed right now today as a networked search, ID, and fire control radar for as many airframes and interceptors as we can get in a given piece of sky. I realize that the design is already almost 25 years old but I have to think that someone back in the early 90s had the thought that integrated fire control was a good idea and maybe we should consider that. There was a debate over whether it should transmit any signal over an appreciable distance (which could be detected) or not. Also a thousand debates over the cost of every feature of every piece of hardware. No transmit won, but common sense once again has reared its ugly head at (I assume) a much higher monetary cost than it would've been originally. And F-22s have proven to be mediocre controllers, as expected by the entire ABM community and plenty of fighter pilots. It's really easy to get distracted from any particular asset you're controlling, and that's without even flying your own plane.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Shoot it down, send divers to retrieve the warheads We have a huge excess of bomb fuel, I think we actually want to get rid of a lot of it. Shoot it down, say the Ukrainians did it. Deal with that one Russia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Nahh try and pick it up from the seabed like with Project Jennifer/Azorian, and then find out that Soviet thermonuclear warhead designs use potatoes instead of lithium deuteride as their secondary or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
OhYeah posted:This is old news already. I'm...skeptical of this, because unless the bomber was transmitting essentially in the clear, this would mean "One senior RAF source" was spilling some serious beans on the UK's listening ability. I'd take this with a grain of salt.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Red Crown posted:I'm...skeptical of this, because unless the bomber was transmitting essentially in the clear, this would mean "One senior RAF source" was spilling some serious beans on the UK's listening ability. I'd take this with a grain of salt. Supposedly this info came from the Norwegians who intercepted the radio communications of the Russians.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
That doesn't change anything. Either the RAF guy is diming out Norway's capabilities after the info was shared or he's broadcasting Norway's ability to intercept Russian comms AND the UK's ability to intercept Norwegian Intel. Or it's bs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
Has anyone argued that the F-22 would be targetable by VHF/UHF radars that can independently guide in a SAM or AAM at long range via datalink then let it go active when its within range to acquire the Raptor, which would be flying at a specific flight-envelope most of the time? The Raptor would in theory only get notified when the missile is itself active, assumedly with alot of energy to spare to ensure a high probability of a kill. Russian dude I'm talking with says thats how they'd be countered, and it sort of makes sense. Is there in theory any counter to this, or is he overestimating radar's ability to get the missile into range to go active versus the F-22? It seems like a pretty valid hard-counter to stealth aircraft really. Would actively employed ECM in theory minimize the chances of this occurring via false-signatures and loving with the missile's datalink? Or is this OPSEC poo poo? Russians are hard to argue with 
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Any chance that Putin is rattling the old saber in an attempt to induce some panic and drive up the price of oil? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
Dandywalken posted:Has anyone argued that the F-22 would be targetable by VHF/UHF radars that can independently guide in a SAM or AAM at long range via datalink then let it go active when its within range to acquire the Raptor, which would be flying at a specific flight-envelope most of the time? The Raptor would in theory only get notified when the missile is itself active, assumedly with alot of energy to spare to ensure a high probability of a kill. How in the gently caress can you 'guide' anything on those wavelengths. Is he arguing in favor of shooting down aircraft with anti-air missiles that have the energetic ability of an ICBM and terminal guidance with the power consumption of a medium-sized city? I'm all in favor of that poo poo, hook me up with whatever scifi book does that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
Koesj posted:How in the gently caress can you 'guide' anything on those wavelengths. Is he arguing in favor of shooting down aircraft with anti-air missiles that have the energetic ability of an ICBM and terminal guidance with the power consumption of a medium-sized city? I'm all in favor of that poo poo, hook me up with whatever scifi book does that. Not so much AAM's but stuff like the S-400. For some reason he did use AAM too though, so I assume he was referring to potential future Russian analogues to the Meteor missile. Not AA-12 poo poo, which just dont have the range to accomplish anything in that scenario. Dandywalken fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Feb 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
I wish basic physics courses were required before engaging in this sort of thing. That's like trying to see the reflection of your disposable camera flash off of the surface of the moon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Why would you waste the ten million dollar missile on an intermittent contact. Also when is it supposed to start guiding itself to get even a 50/50 chance of acquiring the target into its seeker fov. I don't see it working out but hey I don't know poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Dietrich posted:Any chance that Putin is rattling the old saber in an attempt to induce some panic and drive up the price of oil? Nah, it's the Tu-95 Bear shorters who've given up for now  The common explanation given is the 90+ drop in rig count in the US meaning more than the strike, but eh 
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Why would you waste the ten million dollar missile on an intermittent contact. Also when is it supposed to start guiding itself to get even a 50/50 chance of acquiring the target into its seeker fov. I don't see it working out but hey I don't know poo poo. Same. I'll withdraw the question :P
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
Dietrich posted:Any chance that Putin is rattling the old saber in an attempt to induce some panic and drive up the price of oil? Even dead cats bounce. More serious answer: a whole poo poo-ton of the recent development in the US (shale oil in particular) requires prices to be above a certain amount to make it profitable to operate them. Luckily for us those wells are (comparatively at least) cheap and quick to both start up and shut down. This is probably due more to people in North Dakota dialing back operations in the face of the sharp downturn in the price.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Dandywalken posted:Has anyone argued that the F-22 would be targetable by VHF/UHF radars that can independently guide in a SAM or AAM at long range via datalink then let it go active when its within range to acquire the Raptor, which would be flying at a specific flight-envelope most of the time? The Raptor would in theory only get notified when the missile is itself active, assumedly with alot of energy to spare to ensure a high probability of a kill. This can work as he describes. In fact, the US and I assume everyone else is working right now on concepts that involve, for example, releasing long-range missiles against "suspected" or "virtual" targets with the intent that the target is acquired by some sort of sensor while the interceptor is in-flight. The big limitation for everyone and in particular in this proposed scenario is that the even the biggest, baddest, most powerful seeker on an active radar interceptor is tiny and weak and ineffective by comparison to any other radar. Remember, it has to be battery powered, and it has to be miniaturized significantly...which means that its range, envelope, and fidelity are pretty poor. Obviously the exact numbers are classified, but generally speaking all US missiles have to have the target actively tracked by a big sensor in order to get a bird anywhere near close enough to the target for the active seeker to work properly. We might eventually get to the point where a variety of sensors can fuse their data into a single operating picture that gives enough fidelity to guide an interceptor to a target, but the US is decades away from that tech level. I'm guessing the Russians are not in any better shape. The other issue is that every seeker I know of works in the bands the F-22 is least observable in so it isn't like that particular issue is overcome. LO doesn't mean invisible but it does mean it is harder to track, so even if you're using a low frequency radar to generally locate a target you still have to acquire the target with a higher frequency system for terminal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
Here's everyone's favorite F-22/F-35 source on the subject: AusAirPower. It's worth saying the article does a decent job of explaining the idea a bit more in depth in terms of the S-400 and its supporting systems. https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-Low-Band-Radars.html#mozTocId555292 Mazz fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Feb 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
Without getting all OPSEC there are things you can do to the F-22 that change its radar signature like hanging tanks from the wings. I seriously doubt the Ruskies are getting anything useful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:04 |
|
|
bewbies posted:This can work as he describes. In fact, the US and I assume everyone else is working right now on concepts that involve, for example, releasing long-range missiles against "suspected" or "virtual" targets with the intent that the target is acquired by some sort of sensor while the interceptor is in-flight. The big limitation for everyone and in particular in this proposed scenario is that the even the biggest, baddest, most powerful seeker on an active radar interceptor is tiny and weak and ineffective by comparison to any other radar. Remember, it has to be battery powered, and it has to be miniaturized significantly...which means that its range, envelope, and fidelity are pretty poor. Obviously the exact numbers are classified, but generally speaking all US missiles have to have the target actively tracked by a big sensor in order to get a bird anywhere near close enough to the target for the active seeker to work properly. We might eventually get to the point where a variety of sensors can fuse their data into a single operating picture that gives enough fidelity to guide an interceptor to a target, but the US is decades away from that tech level. I'm guessing the Russians are not in any better shape. I could imagine doing this with an eo/ir missile that gets to the vicinity of a stealthy target before going active but there would still be a wide variety of technical challenges to overcome.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 23:43
|
|