In 2010 USAF made an estimation of prolongation of production. Additional 75 units would cost 17bil resulting in 227kk (not 150kk) per unit. 150kk per unit is a fairy tale, no more. Extend RnD costs to these 75 units and the cost of unit exceeds 300kk per unit. And those are still purely theoretical figures. Lets try different approach. F22 RWR is the most comlex system of the entire aircraft © some top brass. PAK FA has huge RWR antennas that occupy the entire frontal section of the wing © advertisement leaflets Why oh why, do you think that Europeans are so dumb in electronic warfare? (Personally I do no know, have failed to find anything). If they still live in the previous century, is it OK if I add a ECM pod to my wing in 10 on 10 case? Can we try to reverse the situation? What would you do if you wear the Eurofighter commander? Please note. F22 will not see you from 200km if you dive to the ground. F22 will not see you from 100km if you go head on, to reduce your radar profile. Be aware of flanking maneuvers!!! F22 FoF system, datalink between F22s, AIM-120 control angles, has its limits (well it should ).
Yeah...because is 2010, the F-22 was no longer in full production. It was nearing cancellation. Was a fairy tale? Yeah, I gave you sources, a actual legitimate source. 1) Because RWR is always handicapped against a radar that big. Think about it. You have tiny little receivers spread out all around the plane, vs a very high processed radar that can hop frequencies, change bandwith unpredictability, move around in narrow gain but very quickly. Unless your plane is very stealthy, your are likely to be spotted by enemy radar before you spot his radar frequencies. 2) Since an AESA radar does all these tricks, you will not likely track these signals effectively, let alone use it as fire-control data. 3) The standard Typhoon ECM/ESM is wingtip pods I believe. They are very small wingtip mounted. They are mainly used as defensive DRFM countermeasures. That is untrue. Look down shoot down technology has negated ground clutter problems. Not to mention the F-22 is only few planes that use Inverse sythetic appeture which can spot airplanes with high quality pictures just by using radar. And how will the Tyhpoon know where the F-22 is or if it's even in the battlespace to do these low altitude flanking maneuvers? Remember at low altitude, there is more drag, so it's not a practical mission flight. You run out of fuel too soon for less range.
They have not been needed for air targets, simply because we have RADAR and IR tracking. We have had the capability to use air to air HARM missiles, but why? And also, they are big. On a standard hard point a fighter can load 4 AIM-9 SIDEWINDERS, or 4 AIM-120 AMRAAMS. Oh, and still have room to load another 2 AIM-120s. Or they can load a single AGM-88 HARM. Well, this seems like just common sense to me, 6 missiles per point, or 1? Plus they would still need to do a lot of work on them for real use against air targets. They are so effective against ground targets because they have a "memory" of where the radiation is coming from. Turn off the RADAR, the missile will still home in at where it was last seen. Now this is great for a ground target which can not move in less then 30 minutes, or a ship target that moves relatively slowly. But for use against another aircraft, turn off the RADAR and now it is just plain FUBAR. Those calculations are for ground based targets, not air targets. And you do not need any of those fancy calculations, they simply make it Yea, the R-27EP is a big unknown. It has never been used in combat, and little is known about what it's capabilities (or how it tracks a moving target with no RADAR emissions). I think it would be used more as a deterence stand-off weapon myself. It has no other seeker head, so turn off the RADAR and it is effectively blind. As a kind of "stealth missile" it might be effectice, only so long as the target aircraft keeps it's RADAR going. But a good use might be for example in keeping AWAC birds in the dark. Have a pesky AWAC bird 100 km away, fire one of these things at it. They will immediately turn off their RADAR and go into evasive movements, accomplishing the goal if you shoot it down or not. So having a few fighters with these loaded in a CAP would keep them at bay. But for shooting down aircraft purely on RADAR, only if the pilot does not realize that a missile is inbound. Since they have no active RADAR themselves, they are much harder to detect (like an IR homer). But they can still be picked up on RADAR and visually. Turning off RADAR and diving for the deck (or climbing) will loose them pretty easily though, since they have no other way to track and acquire targets.
You can do it without RWR but it's very inaccurate and impractical. I wasn't talking about HARM because it's not meant for air-air targets, but RWR guidance in general. The same principles of an air target still apply. For air-air you need to measure range and velocity otherwise the missile will miss since fighters move so fast. The only way is to use triangulation. Of course the enemy turning off radar and back on again will screw this up. Probably mainly for a suped up Home-on-Jam only weapon. Most AMRAAMs today have home-on-Jam that aid their active homing capabilities.
But they still track primarily via an active RADAR system on the missile itself. And the aircraft being attacked will detect that RADAR and take appropriate measures. If the missile is RADAR tracking, you engage jammers and chaff. But you do not deploy flares, those are useless if you get a RADAR signal. And by the same measure, if you have a missile on your RADAR and no RADAR emissions anywhere close by, you do not engage jammers or chaff. You change course to try and get it to loose your heat signature and deploy flares. The R-27EP has no RADAR in the warhead at all, nor does it have a heat seeker. It only fixes on and goes after targets with the appropriate RF transmission frequencies. Jammers, chaff, flares, those will do not good against this weapon, but turning off the RADAR and changing course would probably be enough for it to be worthless.
Sorry, Im missing the point. You want links proving my point (I took it from F22 Wiki, checked them, but did not bother to record), or you are trying to explain why the cost of the airframe have doubled? (this matters not, I am talking about the resulting figures) Agrr . Because radar is always handicapped against a RWR that big. Think about it. RWR consists of tiny receivers spread around the plane and the radar array itself, as they work together. Modern RWR is the most sophisticated part of F22 and it is much more complex that the radar or the engine. Well its not that bad, nothing really complicated but a pain to develop. I am quite sure same applies to Europeans. Hoping frequencies is very nice in terms of countering radar jamming but is much less effective versus radiation detection. Think about it. You send a concentrated ping through 200km of air and water, it reaches point A, than the ping reflects from the target and spreads (the target is specially designed to reflect the ping in direction other than you), reflected signal or 0.0001% of what is left of it, travels back 200km through air and water and reaches point B, where you try to pick it up. At which point it is easier to pick the ping, A or B? Well all we have to do is to wait 20-30 years till the classification will be lifted. At the moment we know that both systems are developed by same sort of people, with same education level, with roughly same costs in terms of $per brain hour, but my system does not irradiate all around with super powerful search pings! I serrriously doubt . They say RWR and radar are fused together, whatever that means. There is no theoretical solution to full elimination of ground clutter issue, except for sociological aspect when you brainwash the client till he believes in it . Countering is possible, that is what we do. But with development of stealth, the problem significance is rising even higher than before. No matter what we do detection of a fox in the forest will be more complicated than detection of the same fox hanging in the blue sky. And no high quality pictures of airplanes that employ a lot of fiber in construction. And not from any serious distance. Ships yes, small targets - no, and no practical reason actually. Though convenient in some cases. And the technology is not old, it is very old There is a chance that there is something we do not know, that Eurofighter might not notice F22 when its radar is in observation mode (From long distance in complicated radio sky conditions, e.t.c.). Though I do not see a reason why. Yet. And the more I think about it, like 10 advanced RWRs, possibly working in conjunction as an array But there is no chance of Eurofighter not noticing a lock. The moment F22 will lock, the moment Eurofighter will have direction on F22. Than you try to lock the enemy, if failed due to F22 stealth, you dive so that you wont shine like a Christmas tree elevated to 30000 feet above a battlefield.
Oh, I see it as a very useful weapon. But much more for the purpose of detering the actions of an adversary then actually shooting them down. The most important use is probably for use in a combat theatre where the opposition uses an AWACs type of aircraft. Those really are a combat multiplier for those that use them, and are kept well back of the combat zone with a good amount of fighter cover. Now trying to penetrate in deep enough to get one would likely be very costly. However, getting it to turn off it's RADAR and go into evasive maneuvers would be almost as effective in a real-time battlespace as actually destroying it. So having an air-2-air HARM type long range missile to fire at it would do that without a doubt. Let it be known that you have these in a theatre (say via a press release for your own domestic population), then fire one off at the offending AWAC bird. Boom, RADAR goes off, AWAC evades and then leaves the immediate area for a period of time, mission accomplished. During that time you can even have your own offensive operation planned, simply waiting for the AWAC to go off the air. I really do see things like this as a giant chess game. But without an aircraft like an AWAC, the missile is really of little use against other air targets. But against that one very important target it can make a huge difference.
You need to know the difference between unit cost and program cost. The reason why you are getting big numbers is because of the research/development added in. Also, unit cost isn't constant depending on year. So "advanced" means it can detect the F-22 correct? Why didn't the Eurofighter maul the Raptor at Red Flag in the BVR engagements? Rather it was the Eurofighter pilots that said the F-22 can only be countered in close range dogfights which was a "small spectrum of air combat" You are thinking of very simplistic views. There is more to that such as gain, pulse moderation, noise waveform etc. So? A radar will usually always detect targets before RWR does due to it's superior gain. If radar is such a big "shoot me" target, why haven't militaries completely dropped radar for passive sensors? 20-30 years? When Raptor and Eurofighter will be obsolete. No they are not. I think you are thinking of sensor fusion, which simplifies control pannels by having sensors and computers sharing information..but they are not one sensor doing everything. Yes there is. It is negated by look down shoot down radar. Clutter will always be there and detection range against a ground target will always be shorter than an aerial target, but the difference is negligible. ISAR and SAR are so accurate they can form images of targets. These are radar images btw. 1. Radar penetrates atmospheric conditions 2. The F-22 does not need it's own radar to shoot at target. (another F-22 out of missile range provide missile info) 3. RWR can't provide effective fire control. 4. Again Look-Down-Shoot down radar has negated clutter problems. F-22 is one step ahead with it's ISAR.
Advanced generally refers to a great many things, but has little to nothing to do with the ability of an aircraft to detect another aircraft. Until somebody is able to come out with a visual-IR detection system that is sensitive enough to pick out aircraft without having to emit some form of electromagnetic wave, that will be the case for the forseable future. Well, actually the reverse is true. An RWR (Radar Warning Receiver) can generally pick up a RADAR at a much greater distance than the RADAR can pick up the aircraft itself. Remember, for a RADAR system to be effective it must have eoungh power in the signal to reach it's target, and then return to it's originating site. So if a given RADAR is good for say 150 miles, then it's signal can then be detected out to at least 300 miles straight line from the source. But of course you are primarily talking about the much smaller airborne units. Myself, all of my experience is in the much larger gound based units, where a 100 KW RADAR is on the low end of the spectrum. On a ground based system, you want to see as far as you possibly can, as opposed to an air based system, where you only want to see a little further than you can shoot. And in the modern battlefield, there is often EM (Electro Magnetic Radiation) flying all over the place. Your own aircraft, enemy aircraft, friendly and enemy ground stations. But both have one thing in common, the RADAR shifts when it goes from detect to fire mode. And that is what RWR is all about. Not letting you know that somebody is possibly seeing you with a RADAR, but that somebody is actively trying to shoot you down with a RADAR guided missile. RWR largely ignores conventional tracking type RADAR systems, they simply lack the resolution and power to guide munitions. Otherwise every time they operate around an air base they would be going off all the time. But aim at them a frequency and power used to guide a missile, and they really pay attention and give out a warning. Sometimes. There it all depends on terrain and conditions. Give a largely flat and uninterupted surface (say the desert or ocean), and ground target RADAR is pretty good at picking out targets. After all, the targets are largely standing on their own on a largely flat surface. But if the terrain is rocky or irregular, then it is often ineffective to the extreme. There is no single answer here. 1. RADAR penetrates atmospheric conditions, but can be greatly degraded by them. I know that when the dust storms rose up in the ME, our RADAR performance was basically cut in half. Dust may not seem like a big deal, but when you are penetrating dozens of miles or more of it it has a serious impact. But this is largely not an issue in the air, which is above the effects of such ground based issues. 2. No aircraft needs RADAR to shoot down a target, only if it is firing a RADAR guided missile. If you are firing a heat seeking missile, you only need the missile to "see" the heat signature in order to fire. 3. Very true, it is a detection system, not a fire control system. And it detects all kinds of RADAR, it's own processors simply ignore whatever it was told to ignore. It is 100% passive, and emits nothing. At most it might be linked to some kind of HARM munition, but that is about it. 4. Nothing can really eliminate "clutter", it is simply a fact of terrain and local ground conditions. Having laid in probably over 100 PATRIOT locations, ground clutter is a major concern every time we lay in a site (although for us it is more of an issue of ground obsticles that can obstruct our view - but we will also use such obsticles to reduce the ability for us to be spotted from the air). And we are on the ground, where we are static and have much more control of where we are located. In fact, we often try to use the effect of this clutter in placing our sites. In planning movement from one location to another we actually consider the effect of terrain on aircraft hoping to hit us before we can set up again. Movement through valleys is always prefered, or in wooded areas as it reduces the effectiveness of ground seeking RADAR from the air. Remember, RADAR is largely unidirectional. It does not look around corners, it does not look into holes unless you are pointing straight down. If your path is south at 180 degrees and a target is directly south of a steep mountain, it is simply impossible to see it until you are almost directly overhead. Because everything behind the mountain is in the "shadow" as far as the RADAR is concerned. Your picture is nice, from almost straight up in what is largely "uncomplicated" terrain. Now imagine the target is 25km away and the terrain is more like the Rocky Mountains. Then your resolution and ability to detect is going to be pretty much limited to what you can visually see. When we operated at Fort Bliss (flat West Texas) or the Middle East, the way and where we laid in our sites was very different then when we were operating around Yuma, Arizona (which was full of mountains and canyons). And BTW, ISAR (Inverse Synthetic Aperture RADAR) is not really a RADAR technology, as much as it is a RADAR signal processing technology. Basically, it is the ability of the software to detect moving objects that are within view of the RADAR. So if ISAR detects a truck moving on the ground it alerts the operator (pilot). But if the target is not moving, then ISAR really does no good at all. ISAR can pick up a truck moving on a highway. It can even pick up a missile heading for the aircraft. But it is no better than good old SAR (Synthetic Aperture RADAR) in picking up a static target. Also, ISAR is really only effective in about a 20-25 degree cone in front of the RADAR itself. Outside of that and it lacks the resolution and definition (plus the distortions) to make it of much use. Yea, the problem here is that I know and understand these issues, and do not try to beat down everybody with huge amounts of jargon. I try to keep things simple and easy to understand, for a great many reasons.
And BTW, that image is impossible to be a "real RADAR image". Now it may be a visual image that is somehow enhanced by RADAR, but that is no RADAR image. And I can prove it with a single word. Shadows. Look at the length of the shadows there, this was either early morning or late afternoon. The shadows from the treed are long and highly distinct. Now I am more then aware that RADAR images also have shadows, but they are in relationship to the RADAR itself. In a look-down RADAR items direct under will have no shadow, and as you move away the shadow will be out in relationship to the RADAR source itself. But all of the shadows in this image are from the exact same source, which is 99% the Sun itself. Far left, far right, ahead, behind, pretty much the same shadow. This is not how things would have really looked if this was really a RADAR image.
You need to do an effort and learn to accept reality. F22 do not magically appear out of the blue sky. In this particular reality, additional 75 units will cost you 227kk per unit without RnD costs and 305kk with RnD cost (RnD cost calculated for 181 + 75 units for the sake of conversation only) In some other reality, where complete batch of 800 units wear acquired, RnD cost was spread through 800units and became marginal, relatively. We have received a fighting force of excellent aircraft that could stand their ground even if Stealth concept failed due to some reason. We received a working and breathing development program that would lay on the table new and updated versions of F22 every couple of years. We received a manufacturing base that given time, would serve as a base for future, who knows what projects. But all that happened in another reality, not in ours. In our reality, RnD cost is enormous because only 181 units wear acquired. In our reality, this made the cost of F22 way to high, so that even 75 additional units will not be acquired. And a production of F22 is unlikely to be resumed, ever. We live, in this reality, not the other one. Why F22 would loose to Eurofighter 1 on 1? The question is what will happen 1 on 3 or 1 on 2! On equal terms. Besides, do you have any idea of what actually happened? Are you sure that next time they will not write that f22 was detected from a surprisingly large distance? Once again Looks like you are not reading my posts As I have stated earlier, I agree that there is a lconsiderable theoretical possibility that the enemy will not notice F22 when it is in LPI in observation mode. If you make one scan per minute, enemy will receive 1-2-3 pings (multiple multi frequency ping) per minute. But when you lock, when you do up to a 10-1000 pings per second, there is no chance that enemy system will overlook a sudden, unexpected and unexplainable rise of static noise in a single, extremely precise point in the sky. It is a statistics and software issue, your Iphone computing capabilities are sufficient to deal with this task. You can have such a system installed even in a Sabre if someone wants to bother Please take in consideration. There is no certainty that the enemy will not detect LPI in observation mode, all, absolutely all relative documents state that the enemy will have hard time detecting the LPI ping, not that the ping is undetectable. The noise is called noise because it is noise, it is already received by the antenna. The only question - do you filter it or do you analyze it. A transition is in progress before your very eyes. F22 RWR system is more complicated than Radar system (Well, there is such a statement). Do you have any idea on modern submarine 1 on 1 combat? The one who pings first is the one who dies first. Well, theoretically . I presume in quite a short time radar will be launched on a drone, to hang above the battlefield as a sort of expandable AWAKs, to illuminate the battle and to be replaced when shot down. While all others will roam quietly in its shadow and mind their own business For F22, theoretical limits for 1sqm are 210km for aerial target, 70 km for ground target. So the calculation stars with a factor of 3. (My example is a stupid one as the calculation is , all depends on the ground conditions) Look down shoot down is fielded for 40 years or so, nope, havent defeated the clutter so far. And no idea how to do that in theory, if you know please do not share or we might not see you again And no, this picture is not radar image it is likely to be a marketing advertisement poster. Radars have difficulties mapping leaves on the trees, and detection of shadows on the ground is a problem at the moment
No. Because an additional batch would be considered full production. The reason why F-22 costs were so high at the end of 2010 because production was stopping. If in full production, the fighter would cost $150 million each. And if they bought enough of it, if divided with R&D cost it will be lower than $300 million per unit program cost. The lack of opponents, the upgradability of the fighter, and maintenance costs killed the F-22. Of course program cost total increases as time goes by due to maintenance. So it is never a set number. There is no accurate measurement on program costs of the F-22 v Eurofighter because they are both designed for different needs of different nations. Mission time for example will need more maintenance cost which all goes to sustainment...which increases the program cost. The cost to manufacture a F-22 isn't much higher than a Typhoon. If the Eurofighter was going out of production and was ordered in it's final years, it's unit costs will go high as well. Remember, the F-22 had 241-0 kill ratios against the Super Hornet, F-15, and F-16. Is the Eurofighter some sort of magic European fighter? Give me a break. It's a 4th Generation Fighter which was even considered to be replaced by the F-35A. And was marked as inferior to the Super Hornet btw recently in the Danish Fighter competitions. Again I don't know why you get the 3-1 number. Or 2-1. And those are numbers the F-22 can easily handle. A unstealthy target like the Eurofighter? It's not going to be 10km detection vs 200 km detection. You can lock on with LPI and frequency hopping. Locks are pretty quick, you just need fire data on velocity, range, bearing and fire your missile. This isn't SAHR AIM-7s anymore where you need to keep your radar on the target constantly. And what happens when the Eurofighter does detect the F-22's radar? Track it? That is even harder? Fire a missile at it? The enemy will easily laugh on that attack. Debatable with the APG-77 being upgraded with the more advanced T/R Modules. This is not f*cking sonar. It's AWACs not AWAKs How will the emitting enemy die? RWR cannot accurately guide missiles on an enemy! 240 km vs 1m2 target is estimated range. However these were estimates form the f*cking 90s, and the F-22 have been getting more powerful upgrades such as using the more advanced T/R modules on the F-35 ie. the APG-77v1. 70 km for a ground target? Yeah.....a Eurofighter can do so much harm towards the F-22 at those distances flying so slow due to the drag... Learn how ISAR works. The F-22 can image moving targets accurate enough for Non-Cooperative target reconition.
^Like you said. Even if the Eurofighter magically detects the Raptor's radar signal, and not only that..... miraculously track it to enough accuracy to the point where the enemy fighter is located at....it is not much of a threat. RWR can't lock on moving enemies with enough accuracy especially at a 70 km range where missiles loose their all their fuel and only rely on trajectory like a glider. Not to mention, if flying at very low altitudes, missiles fired upwards are very ineffective due to the drag performance of the boost.
Oh. Ok. In general, we are moving in a proper direction, I hope. Now tell me: 1. The F22 production have stopped at 181 units, making it 300+kk for a foreign client? 2. The F22 production have stopped at 800 units, making in 150+kk for a foreign client? Yep. That is my main concern. How a top 5 gen will stand against mass 4th gen in terms of budget vs budget. As far as I remember Mig17 scored quite a number of F-4s in Nam. As far as I remember the same words wear said, Soviet equipment is crap, forget about close engagements, we are the champions, yeah You will have to maintain lock all the way because in any given time, the Eurofighter might slightly change course and AIM-120 will not have a new intercept point where it will switch to its own radar. Why change course regularly? Because a F22 might sneak up on you and fire its AIM-120 from a long distance! Yes, this is interfering with our plans, but do you we want to get killed? No, we do not want to get killed. And all this applies only if Eurofighter does not detect your lock, I do not know why she would not. Can you explain why? You can continue laughing, than you are likely to be dead. You can evade, than your Missiles that you have launched at me loose guidance. The principals are alike. Well if you dont apply the second half of Dualism Theory where the particles come in play Oh God, and why should it? RWR will give you a warning and a vector, that is all that you need. Yes, you will have to bush the buttons yourself! But you are paid for it! It is not that hard! It would be nice to do triangulation to have distance. But F22 radar can shine in a 2 degrees narrow beam. That is a lot on 200km. But will I have second Eurofighter in this beam on a proper distance, can we exchange RWR data, is our RWR precise enough? I do not know. Theoretically not a problem, future systems will have no problems, with Eurofighter I do not know. Not 240. It is 86 percent probability to intercept 1sqm at 193km (Jane's Radar and Electronic Warfare Systems 2004c) stop behaving like a large baby and increasing strength of your killer bot against my killer bot with every page of this discussion! No, it is not going to be 70km, we are using a dopler radar. A mowing target with some certain elevation will be recognized at a longer range. I say we should split in half, like at 100km. But all depends on the background. If it is a populated are with a lot of metal than it is 50km. If it is a calm sea where clutter is easy to filter, it will be 150km. (Stationary target detection is a different story. I believe that 70km applies to this part). But do not forget, you will be detected at 50km, my speed is around 800km/h, it will take some time for you to react and to reach Eurofighter, you will not kill them all with one volley, you missiles will have hard time detecting me due to clutter, e.t.c. Look, I do not touch a subject of detecting a skirt of compressed air around F22 when it travels in supersonic with a weather radar and you do not touch subjects which we both do not understand, OK? Guys. Do you agree that 10 on 10 scenario, shown above, is crap and that Eurofighters will try to behave in a manner that will not get them killed instead of performing of a public suicide?
The issue with stealth aircraft is not actually detecting them, but getting enough of a RADAR lock to act upon the detection. Even US PATRIOT systems can detect our own stealth aircraft. But the problem is that they tend to be almost "ghostly", phantoms that come in and out and might almost be missed as background static. But the aircraft has to be damned close before there is enough of a RADAR return to actually fire at it. Actually, US sub doctrine is to almost never use it's active SONAR at all. This is why we were considered the master of submarine operations since early in the Cold War. Russia tended towards a blunt-force approach, and relied heavily on active SONAR systems. These are the ones that actually "ping" their potential targets. The US on the other hand relied almost exclusively on passive SONAR. No "pings" sent at all, they listened for unusual noises among the background sounds. By US doctrine, active SONAR was to be avoided if at all possible because of the same reason as RADAR, it could be detected at great distances. And to give an idea how effective the US passive SONAR was, consider the loss of the USS Scorpion in 1968. This submarine was lost Southwest of the Azores, roughly 2,000 miles from the GIUK SOSUS line. And yet these passive SONAR detectors were able to detect the sounds of the submarine's destruction. From over 2,000 miles away, in 1968, with only passive detection. US submarines are the best example of stealth technology. I have known several sub operators over the years (both fast attack and boomers), and one was a SONAR tech. He said that even US equipment can almost never detect our own subs unless they are damned close. Boomers he told me were the best at it, and about the only way to find them was to look for the "black hole" in the background noise. Kind of like the modern technique of detecting exoplanets by the light dimming when they pass in front of their star, listening (or actually watching) for the decrease in background noise was about the only way to detect them. Heck, the current generation of stealth are the only stealth fighters that even have RADAR in the first place. Most do not realize that the F-117 (which was actually a misnomer, it should have been the A-117) did not even have a RADAR system installed. It relied only upon visual IR cameras for targeting information.
From what I know it has to be very close as well to detect it, since stealth aircraft have lower radar cross sections.
We don't know because at 800 units the sustainable and procurement costs are not calculated. All we is the unit cost can be $150 million for one year with enough investment. And how did the MiG-17 perform? It was crap, getting buttraped by the F-4, compared to the MiG-21 which was the F-4's main foe, which only suffered due to the lack of pilot training. Because, you don't need a solid lock like in SAHR....you can gain range, velocity, and bearing data on frequency hopping and LPI and that information being transfered by datalinks which can allow a shooter's missiles to be guided by another friendly fighter etc. If the Eurofighter really detected the F-22 during the lock, it will be more trying to dodge the missile than to change course rather than fight the F-22. Depends if the active radar homing seeker can detect it. No they are not. I don't even know what you mean here. Theoretically – not a problem, future systems will have no problems, [/QUOTE] No the reason RWR cannot track down modern radar because they are so evasive. As software improvements RWR it will improve radars as well. And you are the one with all these similey faces and explanation points. 2004...yeah the F-22 has it's radar upgraded since. And? A F-22 at 150 km can send datalinks to an non-emitting fighters at 50 km which can fire at those ranges. Doppler radar as in pulse dolper radar? Those are obsolete. Where are you getting the 50 km number? ? No. Even if RWR detects the emitting F-22s, they won't detect those emitting which can use datalinks received to get the coordinates of the enemy fighters and kill them while still passive.
There is always a return. It is just that to be able to fire a RADAR guided missile it has to be a damned strong return. Remember, having a lower cross-section does not make them invisible. It lowers the return, it does not eliminate it.
Keep in mind, the most expensive part on the F-22 and F-35s is the avionics and software....not the stealth. They are far more advanced than cheaper fighters. Notice how no European got AESA till 2010s when the F-15 and Super Hornet already had them? Kash proposed scenario is ridiculous with made up numbers. Jane's numbers are from 2004 where the F-22 was equipped with older APG-77. Now they use the more powerful APG-77v1 radar.150 km/50km/70 km are numbers pulled out nowhere. Asshat numbers. The ground clutter weakness is just BS. Look down shoot down radars are good enough for frigging helicopters. Airplanes MOVE. I remember the US Air Force tested F-15s and helos, and their radars were able to acquire them(helos usually have low RCSs) excess of 64 km! - - - Updated - - - But radars detection is limited to their detection vs a certain radar cross section. It will just be confused with noise if it's not strong.
Not if the operator knows what they are looking for, and knows that stealth aircraft are in the area. On the Air Defense side of the house, if we detect such signals we generally pass along the information to the ATC side and let them dispatch a fighter or two to check out the contact. I have participated in exercises where they pitted stealth aircraft against the PATRIOT RADAR system. Yes, we detected it. We knew he was in the area, and were able to determine that the return was indeed an aircraft and not random background clutter. But it had to be damned close before we would be able to shoot at it (well within range of him to engage us). However, that would not be the case if a fighter was sent after it. They have other weapons, including cannons that do not rely upon RADAR to take out their target. "Noise" generally stays and re-appears in the same area regularly. If the "noise" is coming in and out of detection going at a trajectory, speed, and altitude consistant with a fighter, we will treat it as a fighter. And while we can not take it out, we are in contact with the ATC that can dispatch fighters to investigate the contact. But interesting that "Ground clutter is BS", which is basically what you are saying. Makes me wonder, who much experience do you have operating RADAR systems? Because every single time I was involved in either picking a site to place a PATRIOT unit, or actually emplacing it, the effects of terrain and "ground clutter" was a major consideration.
The new systems coming online are going to obsolete RADAR, and everything else mentioned here, probably within a decade. As I said in another thread, the new tech is already becoming economically viable for light commercial applications in the last few years, and the advanced stuff is already decades along. Here is a small hint of things to come, and already being implemented in commercial aircraft today. http://www.dlr.de/dlr/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-10081/151_read-7615/year-all/#/gallery/11637 After the measurement flight campaign has been successfully concluded, the data will be analysed. Thanks to the comprehensive measurement results on CAT, the researchers will not only be able to demonstrate their new technology the unique data set will also provide them with important information on the formation mechanisms and on complex atmospheric processes. The long-term goal is to develop an integrated detection system for avoiding air turbulence. In future, pilots might then be able to put out a message in the aircraft cabin asking passengers to return to their seats and fasten their seat belts, or even fly around the affected region. About the project DELICAT is a joint project sponsored by the European Union. It was launched in 2009 and will end in March 2014. In total 12 partners from seven EU countries are participating in the joint project: project coordinator THALES, the German Aerospace Center (DLR), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Hovemere, Météo France, Nationaal Lucht- en Ruimtevaartlaboratorium (NLR), Office National d'Etudes et de Recherches Aérospatiales (ONERA, the French Aerospace Lab), National Institute of Research and Development in Optoelectronics (INOE), A. M. Obukhov Institute of Atmospheric Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Laser Diagnostic Instruments, Interdisciplinary Centre for Mathematical and Computational Modelling/Warsaw University, and EADS Deutschland GmbH. The project is made possible by the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Commission (FP7/2007-2013) under Grant Agreement No. 233801. This is itself a spin off of military projects started in the late 1980's, at UC Berkeley and Lawrence Livermore, under the umbrella of the now defunct fusion project. The military models are of course much further along, but still expensive and won't be available on commercially for a long time yet. This article barely touches on just a few applications developed: http://www.ausairpower.net/ASPC-LIDAR-Mirror.html 1. Introduction Laser Remote Sensing techniques are an established and mature scientific method used extensively in civilian research such as environmental monitoring and atmospheric research. This paper discusses specific problems inherent with established technologies applied to Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Bomb Damage Assessment, and proposes specific applications for Laser Remote Sensing methods, which resolve the ambiguities which may result from the use of established Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Bomb Damage Assessment sensors. As I said in a previous thread, these systems are getting smaller and smaller, while their ranges of operation are increasing, and as I also mentioned in the other thread, the 'chirping' effect is key. The best accuracy in Lidar spectrometers has been achieved by the use of DIAL (DIfferential Absorption Lidar) techniques. A DIAL Lidar will transmit a pulse at the wavelength of interest, followed by a pulse at a slightly different wavelength which is, importantly, not absorbed by the chemical substance of interest. Subtracting the two returns from the two pulses yields the absorption due the chemical traces of interest. This elegant and simple method automatically compensates for atmospheric losses, terrain reflectivity and any other beam losses. The use of DIAL techniques dictates a precisely tunable pulsed Laser in the instrument. Because most chemicals of interest absorb in the mid InfraRed wavelength region, the Laser will need to cover a number of wavelengths between 2.5 and 6 microns. As noted, such lasers are difficult to build. The best technological option at this time is the use of a frequency tripled or doubled pulsed Carbon Dioxide gas laser, which can deliver the necessary power to provide a range of several miles. Frequency doubling and tripling employs Parametric Oscillator techniques, where an optically non-linear crystal excited by the 10 micron band Laser emits at one half or one third the wavelength of the exciting Laser. A number of tuning techniques exist, all of which are based upon the idea of suppressing the Laser's oscillation at wavelengths which are not of interest. A recce sensor which must sweep across a broad spectrum of wavelengths will need to produce a "chirped" train of pulses, each at a different wavelength. Arrangements which use a rotating multifaceted mirror and a diffraction grating will produce exactly this effect. I spent a couple of weeks calibrating and tuning yet another commercial application spun off of this core research at Singapore's new LG port for their natural gas storage depot. The Euriopeans are also coming along with commercial designs based on it as well.
And, the above is my last post here. Enjoyed many of you here, but I've found a board that actually does moderate its trolls and mentally ill ***** and maintains a higher level of discourse, and will be spending most of my free time there. GO USA, and (*)(*)(*)(*) anybody who doesn't like it.
If you are going over to the DP (Debate Politics) Forum a WARNING ! They are over moderated and extremely PC, just posting "GO USA" could get you infracted and a temporary suspension. I remember a few years ago US Conservative started a thread on Memorial Day honoring American vets who fought in France during WW ll and one of the moderators who was a frog (French) was so offended and infracted and suspended US Conservative. I suppose she was a Vichy French.
No one is saying that Look down does not work. The problem of the radar is that due to clatter the distance of solid lock will considerably decrease. Look: The J-Catch is 1978. In this time F15 is armed with APG-63. The adversaries are Mi8 and Mi24 (Russian helicopters). Both are large machines and they both have large radar cross sections, same as fighters of their times. Let us presume that 64km is the normal detection range (not just the best case during the exercise). Lets presume it was the true look down, not the case when the aircraft had to ingress on low alt to silhouette the Heli above horizon level (which is not a true look down) In normal mode these helicopters would be acquired by APG-63 at 144km. www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA142071. In Look down as it is stated in the document, they are acquired at 64km Look down factor vs normal detection range for F15 is 144/64=2.25 Is it clear now? Look down decreases a detection range of medium sized fighter by 2.25 I have proposed that F22 will detect Eurofighter at 100 km, in Look down mode versus 200km in normal mode bringing the factor to 2. If you wish. Lets use the factor proven by J-Catch. 200/2.25 = 88kms. This is the distance F22 will locate Eurofighter in Look down. No more asshat numbers! OK?
