AIM-120 AMRAAM

well I do certainly believe what ISS told. Basically what Garry is emphasising is that at some angle & some profile AMRAMMs (Russian/Americans) can be dodged...However a well aimed AAM by either side can whack enemy plane surely like ISS says. The only future I see are robust electronics** (jammers/trackers) that can giv you situational awareness before being whacked so you can atleast use any jammer or countermeasure at your disposal instead of facing a SURPRISE demise

**I based my opinion on the credibility of highly complex propulsion systems being developed & displayed in the face of Meteorite AAM & out-manoeuvring them isn't a good choice

In real combat 50% of the time pilots that weren't getting 400 hours flight time per year didn't get whacked and they didn't have ESM suites or jammer equipment and they didn't get warning of what was coming.

There's a whole host of things that could of gone wrong, including shooting early or shooting late, or aiming too high/too low, etc, etc. And no, that "50% untrained pilots" did not always live, if the first missed a second missile was shot.

But surely with 400 hours per year training they wouldn't shoot early or late or too high or low...

And no, that "50% untrained pilots" did not always live, if the first missed a second missile was shot.

...ummm please reread what I said... I said pilots that got less than 400 hours per year training.

Are you actually trying to suggest that a pilot that gets 395 hours per year flight training is "untrained"???

what will happen if he fired aim-120 from 80 km (prob of kill will be low ) but he will fire AIM 9 (in the time where i'm busy to evade aim-120 ) so he could take me down with aim9..... ??

i asked that coz i see most of 5th gen missiles are medium short ranges ,it seems medium ranges is the real combat engagements then close combat and dog fight...

so, i think the ques is the senario of using long ranes missiles.. correct me if i'm wrong..

can he lock up on me from 80 km ??






http://www.x-plane.org/home/urf/aviation/text/missiles/aam.html

what will happen if he fired aim-120 from 80 km (prob of kill will be low ) but he will fire AIM 9 (in the time where i'm busy to evade aim-120 ) so he could take me down with aim9..... ??

i asked that coz i see most of 5th gen missiles are medium short ranges ,it seems medium ranges is the real combat engagements then close combat and dog fight...

so, i think the ques is the senario of using long ranes missiles.. correct me if i'm wrong..

can he lock up on me from 80 km ??

It all comes down to warning and situational awareness.

If the target is an Su-35 with a high quality targeting pod it should be able to detect a missile launch plume from 80km simply because to have any chance of reaching the Flanker it would need to be launched from high altitude and high speed.

The first reaction of the flanker would be to climb and accelerate to boost its available energy... flying at mach 1.2-1.4 all of a sudden the incoming missile will be flying to interception points kilometres in front of the actual aircraft so burning a bit of fuel will waste a lot of energy for the missile and make interception very unlikely.

While accelerating and climbing the Flanker can fire several of its own missiles including long range IR and SARH missiles like the R-27ET and R-27ER. The target plane will be rapidly closing to make a sidewinder shot so it should enter well within the range of the two Alamos just fired which would immediately be followed by an 80 degree turn to one side followed 1 minute later by a 160 degree turn in the opposite direction as the plane continues to climb and accelerate.

By the time the attacking aircraft is within sidewinder range the Flanker will have been able to launch several long range AA-10 missiles of various guidance options and of course a few R-77s and R-73s because all these missiles out range Sidewinders.

The AA-10s will get their chance for a kill fairly early on... well before the Sidewinders are in range and as they climb and then dive on their target they will likely arrive before the attacking missile arrives. The advantage of using 350kg missiles is their high flight speed over long ranges gets them to their targets quickly.

The thing the western fighter pilots learned in their practise sessions against German Mig-29 pilots is that while the enemy has working helmet mounted sights and high off bore sight missiles dogfighting will be trading aircraft for aircraft and should be avoided at all costs.

Tactics like firing a long range missile followed by a short range missile don't make sense from long range.

The long range missile travels much faster than the launch platform so firing an AMRAAM at 80km will arrive on target long before the launch aircraft is any where near launch range for Sidewinder.

It would make much more sense to try to sneak up to 20km from the target at high altitude and high speed and fire an AMRAAM and then a Sidewinder together at the same target. But even then the AMRAAM will likely get there first.

And assumes the enemy wont detect you and fire on you first.

Such a tactic... to be fully effective would require two missiles of similar performance like an upgraded pair of AA-10 missiles with an active homing version and an imaging IR version both using datalinks and lock on after launch. Both missiles are fired towards the target with the ARH missile fired first and the IIR missile fired about 30 seconds later. The ARH homing missile will arrive in the target area first and turn on its radar seeker to find its target and start chasing it down.
The target aircraft will lose a lot of energy manouvering to evade the incoming missile and can either remain in that low energy state or use AB to regain energy.

When the IIR missile arrives it arrives to a target either in a low energy state or in AB... both greatly increase the chance of a kill by IIR missile.

IIR missiles will not be distracted by flares or the rocket motor of the ARH missile in front of it.

first of all thnx Garry for nice info.

i think AA missile with 60:70 km with good seeker and awacs would be better than amissile with 110 km i think<<look at mica ,derby, bython ,irst-t,and R73 etc<<it's the future missiles and even not 100 km range <so it seems the real combat ranges bet 50 to 70 km...

It really comes down to speed and seeker type.

Active radar homing which is the long range standard right now is of course active and gives the game away once it starts scanning for targets.

A fully passive IIR seeker however can be looking from launch all the way for potential targets with a datalink back to the launch aircraft warning it if the target has made a significant course or speed change that might lead it to not be where it was expected when the missile was launched.

Obviously the faster the missile the sooner it gets to the interception area and the less time the target has to alter its course and speed and end up somewhere else.

A very high speed missile makes very long range shots easier, but a scramjet or ramjet powered missile offers better fuel management... if you can imagine that a scramjet powered missile with thrust vectoring would be a very agile aircraft and would not require lots of control surfaces to fly which would make it very low drag and very high speed.

Meteor is the best known example on its way and should be engaging targets at ranges of 120-150km or so.

Being liquid fuelled such weapons could even have their range extended by carrying external fuel tanks at the cost of enormous drag on the aircraft and initially in flight the engine could be throttled back to fly the first part of the interception at subsonic speed. External tanks would offer so much drag that trying to fly a missile at supersonic speed in such a configuration would be an enormous waste of energy, but flying the first component at subsonic speed would be the equivalent of flying the aircraft much closer to the target before launching the missile except the actual launch aircraft can stand off in safety.

While being limited to subsonic speeds the external fuel can be used to climb to high altitude and cruise a lot closer to the target area before the external tanks are jettisoned and the solid rocket booster that would normally accelerate the missile to supersonic speed off the weapon rail could accelerate the missile through the sound barrier and up to a useful high speed and the main jet engine that has been used up until now as a ramjet could open the throttle and accelerate to enormous speed and start looking for targets.

Potentially this could be a 600km+ range missile that could be fired into enemy territory to fly orbits around enemy airfields to pick off any aircraft in the area.

In many ways it is like an anti aircraft mine, or the anti radiation missile ALARM.

The real issue with ultra long range missiles is finding targets at that range with the shift to LO and stealth.

In many ways the IIR seeker and scramjet propulsion for AAMs with long range is like solutions for other problems like the SLAM missile where there are no observers near the target so the TV seeker of the missile transmits an image of the target area to the launch platform and the weapon operator can move the crosshair onto the desired target and the missile will guide itself to that target.
There is no way to target such things from long distance without a real time satellite feed, so using SLAM and a datalink is the next best thing.

With an IIR missile and high speed and a datalink a Su-35 with its L band wing mounted AESA might detect a datalink transmission in open space where its X band radar sees nothing or a tiny blip.

Fire an IIR missile on that bearing at very high speed to prevent time for whatever it is from moving away and if the missile as it flys along detects the IR signature of an F-22 then the Flanker pilot can command it to attack and perhaps launch another weapon on a similar bearing to see if it is alone.

The Su-35 would be able to carry 8 or more of these missiles so launching a few on a bearing wont leave the aircraft unarmed and vulnerable.

Ok,
Next tactic ,firing 2 amramms ,would be smarter than firing aim-120 then sidewinder...

i also found anice point

Air Combat Past, Present and Future

ahmedfire wrote:i also found anice point

Israel has only 150 amraam , they depend on medium-short ranges like derby,python and sidewinder, how can they win afight with medium-short ranges against enemy have more than these ranges ?!! (jordan has AIM-120 and saudi arabia ),

egypt also depend on medium - short ranges missiles,american refused to give us Aim-120 coz we refused to sign CISMOA and participate in any coming war against Iran ,but seems we don't care...

All excellent points but the lethality of close range high off bore sight missiles means that close in dogfighting is a bad choice... even if you line the other plane up and fire a missile if they fire a missile back at you before you missile hits them there is a good chance of both aircraft being shot down.

Trading plane for plane is not good for quality over quantity air forces.

With an IIR missile and high speed and a datalink a Su-35 with its L band wing mounted AESA might detect a datalink transmission in open space where its X band radar sees nothing or a tiny blip.

Fire an IIR missile on that bearing at very high speed to prevent time for whatever it is from moving away and if the missile as it flys along detects the IR signature of an F-22 then the Flanker pilot can command it to attack and perhaps launch another weapon on a similar bearing to see if it is alone.

The Su-35 would be able to carry 8 or more of these missiles so launching a few on a bearing wont leave the aircraft unarmed and vulnerable.

There is a big problem with this. The L-Band wingtip radars are too small to actually detect something as stealthy as say, a Raptor from beyond the Raptor's firing range (IIRC, the L-Band's range is 40 km). 40 km isn't far, but it's farther than the Su-35's Irbis to see a Raptor from. However, you can argue that the Su-35 pilot "detected" a radio transmission from the F-22, however unlikely that maybe, that's easily countered by not talking. Anyways, IIRC, the Su-35's RCS is about 0.1 m2 (no idea if it was clean or not), so, that means that the AN/APG-77 can see the Su-35 from over 110 km way, and because it's an AESA, the AN/APG-77 can also intercept any chatter the Su-35 is having. AFAIK, the AIM-120D's range is now 180 km, so 2-3 shots at the Su-35, if not more, if not than run, etc.

Sorry to expand it into a F-22 v.s. Su-35 topic :v

There is a big problem with this. The L-Band wingtip radars are too small to actually detect something as stealthy as say, a Raptor from beyond the Raptor's firing range (IIRC, the L-Band's range is 40 km). 40 km isn't far, but it's farther than the Su-35's Irbis to see a Raptor from. However, you can argue that the Su-35 pilot "detected" a radio transmission from the F-22, however unlikely that maybe, that's easily countered by not talking. Anyways, IIRC, the Su-35's RCS is about 0.1 m2 (no idea if it was clean or not), so, that means that the AN/APG-77 can see the Su-35 from over 110 km way, and because it's an AESA, the AN/APG-77 can also intercept any chatter the Su-35 is having. AFAIK, the AIM-120D's range is now 180 km, so 2-3 shots at the Su-35, if not more, if not than run, etc.

Sorry to expand it into a F-22 v.s. Su-35 topic :v

IronsightSniper from what you have just writed i get the impression that you use the comical figures and ideas widely spreaded on low level media by people with ,at best,very scarce knowledges,if anything, on the subjects of which they talks .
The often cited (and often out of turn) figures of RCS for LO/VLO aircraft ,in the order of -30 or -40 dBSM refer to very narrow,almost academic,reradiating cones for co-planar radar wave incidence in high frequency scattering regimes,an occurrence almost completely utopical in the three dimensional "many vs many" engagements with net-linked aircraft and corollary aid assets on both sides characterizing a conflict against a serious enemy.
Even only very small angular variations from that "ideal" inception angle produce exponential increases in relative RCS, up to some orders of magnitude in few dozen of degrees of variation.
That is the motivation for which Eurofigther consortium declared that from internal simulations resulted that a group of 4 Typhoons in OCA operation at protection of an AWACS was capable to win 85% of times against an attacking squadron of 8 F-35s, mantaining a formation allowing a relative overlapping of the radar footprint from angles of 25 degrees or more.


That is also the motivation for which russian experts (and here i remember to you that almost the whole theoretical structure at the basis of modern stealth was developed in URSS and litteraly imported in USA) prefer to employ with LO/VLO objects the effective average area of refraction ; the figures associated to that measure are surely less "mythical" or "hollywoodian" than the purely academic RCS figures for narrow perfect head-on angles,but represent the REAL order of magnitude of the effective refraction area of VLO aircrfat in operative situations.
Aircraft like F-22 or PAKFA have effective area of refraction in the range of 0,3 - 0,5 square meters,light years far from the promoting sensationalistic figures selled in open media.



www.inosmi.ru/army/20100313/158588233.html

the AIM-120D's range is now 180 km, so 2-3 shots at the Su-35, if not more, if not than run, etc.

From where come out from those comical figures, designation-system . net ? F-16 . net ?

Any professional, serious source give to AIM-120D at range at maximum in the 100-110 Km area ,

www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.181/pub_detail.asp

and also here wee talk obviously of an head-on engagement with a cooperative target.
Truly IronsightSniper ,try to push quickly out of the window ,that immense series of comical platitudes on those subjects (including an X band AESA radar used to intercept data links in different bands...ha ha) which you can ear in low level media, because them are a true offence to your intelligence.

Mindstorm wrote:

There is a big problem with this. The L-Band wingtip radars are too small to actually detect something as stealthy as say, a Raptor from beyond the Raptor's firing range (IIRC, the L-Band's range is 40 km). 40 km isn't far, but it's farther than the Su-35's Irbis to see a Raptor from. However, you can argue that the Su-35 pilot "detected" a radio transmission from the F-22, however unlikely that maybe, that's easily countered by not talking. Anyways, IIRC, the Su-35's RCS is about 0.1 m2 (no idea if it was clean or not), so, that means that the AN/APG-77 can see the Su-35 from over 110 km way, and because it's an AESA, the AN/APG-77 can also intercept any chatter the Su-35 is having. AFAIK, the AIM-120D's range is now 180 km, so 2-3 shots at the Su-35, if not more, if not than run, etc.

Sorry to expand it into a F-22 v.s. Su-35 topic :v

IronsightSniper from what you have just writed i get the impression that you use the comical figures and ideas widely spreaded on low level media by people with ,at best,very scarce knowledges,if anything, on the subjects of which they talks .
The often cited (and often out of turn) figures of RCS for LO/VLO aircraft ,in the order of -30 or -40 dBSM refer to very narrow,almost academic,reradiating cones for co-planar radar wave incidence in high frequency scattering regimes,an occurrence almost completely utopical in the three dimensional "many vs many" engagements with net-linked aircraft and corollary aid assets on both sides characterizing a conflict against a serious enemy.
Even only very small angular variations from that "ideal" inception angle produce exponential increases in relative RCS, up to some orders of magnitude in few dozen of degrees of variation.
That is the motivation for which Eurofigther consortium declared that from internal simulations resulted that a group of 4 Typhoons in OCA operation at protection of an AWACS was capable to win 85% of times against an attacking squadron of 8 F-35s, mantaining a formation allowing a relative overlapping of the radar footprint from angles of 25 degrees or more.


That is also the motivation for which russian experts (and here i remember to you that almost the whole theoretical structure at the basis of modern stealth was developed in URSS and litteraly imported in USA) prefer to employ with LO/VLO objects the effective average area of refraction ; the figures associated to that measure are surely less "mythical" or "hollywoodian" than the purely academic RCS figures for narrow perfect head-on angles,but represent the REAL order of magnitude of the effective refraction area of VLO aircrfat in operative situations.
Aircraft like F-22 or PAKFA have effective area of refraction in the range of 0,3 - 0,5 square meters,light years far from the promoting sensationalistic figures selled in open media.

www.inosmi.ru/army/20100313/158588233.html

Quick FYI, we're not simulating actual battle conditions as that is far more complex than a simple discussion regarding the Su-35's L-Band radars, thus, I am sorry to inform you that this "simulation" is 1v1, head-to-head, somewhere over the ocean, and some altitude, without any support.

the AIM-120D's range is now 180 km, so 2-3 shots at the Su-35, if not more, if not than run, etc.

From where come out from those comical figures, designation-system . net ? F-16 . net ?

Any professional, serious source give to AIM-120D at range at maximum in the 100-110 Km area ,

www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.181/pub_detail.asp

and also here wee talk obviously of an head-on engagement with a cooperative target.
Truly IronsightSniper ,try to push quickly out of the window ,that immense series of comical platitudes on those subjects (including an X band AESA radar used to intercept data links in different bands...ha ha) which you can ear in low level media, because them are a true offence to your intelligence.

Carlo Kopp says 130 km but since I couldn't find the 180 km source, I'll retract that. Anyways, I'd admit that I for one, don't know much about AESA's datalink interception capability, none the matter. The point still stands, F-22 sees first, F-22 shoots first, F-22 kills first. All you've done is attack the "American"-styled analysis but haven't actually attacked the argument itself. Until than, I bid you luck

Quick FYI, we're not simulating actual battle conditions as that is far more complex than a simple discussion regarding the Su-35's L-Band radars, thus, I am sorry to inform you that this "simulation" is 1v1, head-to-head, somewhere over the ocean, and some altitude, without any support.

IronsightSniper even in the most simple 1vs1 engagement model a perfect head-on angle of radar illunination is an istance very ,very rare .
Aircraft in combat missions change very often altitude and the vector of theirs motion (and that happen both in offensive and defensive tasks,to be less predicable and not offer to your enemy solid empyrical elements for choice the best attack or evasion route) and,as you can easily image, already at the first radar contact the two aircraft almost ever are placed on vectors of motions on different planes which continue to variate almost continuously.
That render physically impossible for an aircraft to actively realizate a situation in which both it and its opponent lie perfectly on the same vector,with opposite spin, "nose to nose" for obtain the "famous" RCS figures so often cited.
That occurrence become even more rare if one of the two aircraft,the F-22,is designed to supercruise at very high altitude and become an event totally impossible in "many vs many" engagements between data sharing aircraft (the rule,not the exception in conflicts against advanced enemies).


"Carlo Kopp says 130 km but since I couldn't find the 180 km source, I'll retract that. Anyways, I'd admit that I for one, don't know much about AESA's datalink interception capability, none the matter. The point still stands, F-22 sees first, F-22 shoots first, F-22 kills first. All you've done is attack the "American"-styled analysis but haven't actually attacked the argument itself. Until than, I bid you luck "

The last time i checked that was an hypothetical figure for a very high altitude (about 14 km of altitude) delivery supercruising at Mach 1.7, elements capable to add, in Kopp's opinion, up to 30% in range to the delivered missile ;also in that hypothetical model,like you can see, the range of AIM-120D remain in the 100 km range.
When the chief of Russian 'Tactical Missiles Weapon Corporation' Boris Obnosov was asked ,in an interview ,to comment on the charactheristics of latest AA missiles (those offered for export !!!) against western corrispectives it responded for short range missiles: "...the combat range of RVV-MD exceeds AIM-9X almost twice" for long ranege missile: "I should not say the number. I can only say that it's very long. At the current moment no one aircraft missile of this class has such characteristics." and for medium range missile: "As far as the weapon of medium distance is concerned, our missiles have approximately 10 percent higher combat distance".
Like you can see,also that assertion collimate perfectly with the 110 km of RVV-SD against the 100 km of AIM-120D.

The datalink communication via NATO Link 16 or whatever it is called is L band.

The datalink between all US fighters and their AMRAAMs is L band.

They use the frequency as a datalink channel.

Does it not make sense that an AESA of L band antenna in a horizontal array might be used to give precise directional information about such datalink traffic?

In addition to a very large and powerful X band radar and an IRST system do you not think these sound like the tools a hunter would carry when hunting stealth aircraft?

Even if AMRAAMs range was 1,000km there are a few problems... active radar homing missiles can be jammed and defeated by various means using countermeasures, plus detection and positive identification of the target at 1,000km is going to be an issue... the actual seeker of the AMRAAM can only lock on to targets at about 20km range so accelerating to shift the interception point 20km in any direction away from where it was when the missile was launched will mean the launch aircraft will need to send course correction information to its missile using a non directional data link that can be detected by an L band AESA.

BTW as a rule of thumb most radar sensors can detect emissions in their frequencies two times further than the emitter can detect them, so if the AMRAAM can fly to 180km and receive datalink transmissions at that range then all the Flankers within 360km RADIUS of that US aircraft that launched that missile will detect its communication with that missile... something like 400,000 sq kms.

The point still stands, F-22 sees first, F-22 shoots first, F-22 kills first. All you've done is attack the "American"-styled analysis but haven't actually attacked the argument itself. Until than, I bid you luck.

The F-22 is an excellent aircraft but with only 189 of them and their limit to only carrying AMRAAM as a long range weapon I think your view of the situation is a little narrow.

AMRAAM is not a super weapon as seen above in stats shown. It has less than 50% success rate against unaware targets. When those AMRAAM seekers light up for terminal homing info the Su-35s are not just going to keep flying straight and level with their EW systems turned off.

The F-22 is based around the 'American' styled war, it is optimised for flying high over 1960s level air defence networks and super cruising around taking on all comers.

Problem is that modern double digit SAMs are a real threat to that concept, but there is no B plan.

Now as Russia and possibly even China start on their 5th gen fighters the US is in trouble because despite its huge military budget it can't really afford to put the F-22 back into production and the F-35 is hardly better than the Su-35 let alone the new stealth aircraft on the way.

The solution seems to be a copy of what Russia did... Silent Eagle.

[quote="Mindstorm"]

....The point still stands, F-22 sees first, F-22 shoots first, F-22 kills first.

Sever the undersea cables, take out the satellites in space, the F-22 starts losing some "eye" sight.

Have a couple submarines release a disposable radar jammer that were attached to them under the sea...they float up and start doing some jamming.

Send in some cheapo disposable pusher prop UAV's towing an array to make them look like something else...while the F-22 is busy hunting down things it thinks it sees....

Somebody sneaks up from the deck for the kill.

Anything can be defeated. The F-22's "see first-kill first" is a flop. And why the US has gone to UCAV's. UCAV's are cheaper, harder to see, harder to hit....and will be the first things firing on the battlefield.

Smaller is the new "in thing".

A: for costs
B: because its practicle for the surprise attack before signal denial starts to happen for UAV's.

Likely by now they are fully autonomous and even trying to jam the radio spectrum to try and block UAV controls would be in vain.

Robots will fight soon.

@Garry

A fully passive IIR seeker however can be looking from launch all the way for potential targets with a datalink back to the launch aircraft warning it if the target has made a significant course or speed change that might lead it to not be where it was expected when the missile was launched.

The R-27ET missile does not possess a data-link?

The R-27ET missile does not possess a data-link?

No. It has no lock on after launch capability.

It is just a missile that can chase down aircraft that try to run.

Remember the Soviets were largely interested in interception rather than dogfighting and during an intercept the intercepting aircraft is fairly unlikely to meet its target head on unless its target was on a mission to hit the interceptors base.

Generally GCI would generate an interception position that got the interceptor above and behind the incoming threat so it could use its height and speed to extend the flight range of any missiles fired at the perhaps heavily laden targets.

Depending on the target however it could just as easily have been a closing target interception with a head on target too. In the former case an IR guided missile has an advantage, while in the latter case a SARH missile is more useful.

Getting close enough to be able to fire both missiles means a relatively short range engagement which would maximise the chance of a kill.

GarryB wrote:

The F-22 is an excellent aircraft but with only 189 of them and their limit to only carrying AMRAAM as a long range weapon I think your view of the situation is a little narrow.

Couldn't the F-22 see the target, pass target information to a B-2 overhead...B-2 rotisserie could release an air to air missile to take out target the F-22 isn't carrying?

If it was possible this is how a single F-22 with a B-2 could take out a hoard of Chinese J-17's all by themselves.

Can the B-2 carry air to air missiles to help the F-22 out? Upon release the bomb bay doors open would give it away, whatever it released would have to strike target before target could strike it. Maybe longer air to air missiles with more range for such battle tactic? Russian pilot seeing 10 air to air missile coming from area X....may think there are many F-22's and turn and run...not realizing it was just a B-2 releasing air to air missiles.

"Make Russian pilot poops his pants and try to turn and run...and get shot in the keister when chaff runs out tactic?"

Couldn't the F-22 see the target, pass target information to a B-2 overhead...B-2 rotisserie could release an air to air missile to take out target the F-22 isn't carrying?

Surely the much better question would be if you could fit lots of AMRAAMs into a B-2, why do you need the F-22 for?

You could get an enormous X band AESA radar in a B-2... in fact it would be the ideal platform for an enormous leading wing edge L band radar too.

To put it in Russian terms they will almost certainly use T-50s with Su-35s where the T-50s can operate much closer to the enemy... finding targets and threats and passing that info back to higher and faster flying Su-35s that can use their larger weapon capacity to take shots at the enemy with extra visibility created by the AESA radars fitted to the T-50 (X band and L band).

The US combination will be F-22s and F-35s but the Su-35 will carry missiles and jamming pods and have towed decoys... the US aircraft would give up their stealth advantage if they used jamming pods and towed decoys and they can't carry as many missiles as the Flanker can.

Clearly the US has seen the problem and are looking at Silent Eagle, but likely they will try to go too far and the Silent Eagle will probably end up more expensive than the F-35.

Can the B-2 carry air to air missiles to help the F-22 out?

The problem is that there are only 20 B-2s so the problem is even worse for them than it is for the F-22s. Also if Russian and US fighters are fighting it out the B-2s will be busy doing something else no doubt.

Upon release the bomb bay doors open would give it away, whatever it released would have to strike target before target could strike it.

The B-2 will have RHAWs sensors and will likely know when most radars are scanning it. When it is not being scanned opening the bomb bay doors for 2 seconds to launch a missile should not be a problem unless they are very unlucky.

Besides the AMRAAM is an active radar homing missile and its rocket motor burns hot. At a peak speed of mach 4 the nose of the missile will be over 300 degrees C so any IR sensor will see it coming from quite a distance anyway.

Russian pilot seeing 10 air to air missile coming from area X....may think there are many F-22's and turn and run...not realizing it was just a B-2 releasing air to air missiles.

The L band radar in the Russian pilots wing will tell him that all of the missiles are being controlled from one point so he can fire a few of his own long range missiles into that area and then turn to evade the incoming threat missiles.

"Make Russian pilot poops his pants and try to turn and run...and get shot in the keister when chaff runs out tactic?"

Evading 10 AMRAAMs actually might sound impossible, but a towed decoy emitting a jamming signal will attract those missiles like bees to honey.
The Su-25TM had a 130mm rocket that emitted a jamming signal that could be used as a decoy to penetrate enemy air defence systems. The rocket pod carries 5 tubes each so with two fitted that is 10 decoys/jammers per pair of pods.

Without the B-2 a flight of 4 F-22s would use up most of their missiles to launch 10 AMRAAMs in the direction of some Russian fighters.

This whole debate,founded on totally "creative" CONOPS and almost comical operational capabilities imaged for B2 bomber is truly an immense non-sense; should be good habit to leave similar self-embarassing discussions to F-16 . net, startegypage and similaria...

On a more serious note we must remember that in conflicts between advanced opponents air attacks (independently from the type of platform used : conventional or LO/VLO ) will be tracked - even if only with a margin of dozen of kilometers- by both sides at litterally thousands of km of distance by the national strategical early warning OTH radars,therefore any major air attack would see the conbined forces of AD units, EW units, ELS units and Air Force elements largely prepared at neutralize the inbound menaces in this possible "area of enemy presence" .


"Surprise" attacks with B-2 and F-22 is surely a possible scenario ,but only against immensely inferior opponents - also because between major powers ,even in an exclusively conventional conflict scenario, a massive attack with intermediate and theatre ballistic/cruise missile to enemy C4 and airfields are options hundreds of times more efficient, devastating and difficult to repel, capable to obtain in few minutes even to effectively rule out the same air attack option for the enemy !!! -.

Moreover real operative average RCS figures for LO/VLO has nothing to do with the sensationalist perfect head-on figures often cited; them are several order of magnitude greater than those purely academic RCS linked the narrow angle in frontal isoplanar reradiating cones .

The figure for average reradiating area for VLO aircraft like F-22 or PAKFA are in the order of 0.3-0.5 square meters ,the flying object now operative in arsenal worldwide, with the lowest average reradiating area are obviously cruise missile (at least until someone will manage to reduce scattering fields generated by enormous solid adn conducting surfaces like wings,beam airbody,engine nacelles,tailerons etc.etc..to a level inferior to.....air ).
That is the motivation for which Tikhomirov NIIP have proudly asserted that IRBIS-E radar have the capability to detect at 90 km a "super low observable" target(not simply a "very low observable") with an effective reradiating area of 0,01 square meters ,because a similar super-low-observable target(at now represented only by the most advanced and costly strategic cruise missile) would have an effective average reradiating area more than an order of magnitude smaller than an aircraft like F-22 or PAKFA.

The unexpected is a military tactic. Nobody disputes a B-2 can't be loaded up with air to air missiles and JDAM's.


The new P-8 submarine hunter is going to have externally mounted bombs/missiles. It's going to also be able to take fire control commands from the F-22 when needed. Maybe also fire off AMRAAM's.


But back on to the threat about breaking an AMRAAM lock on.....who's to say the AMRAAM now isn't what you think it is?

The Raytheon 'Network Centric Airborne Defense Element' started taking AMRAAM's and clicking on solid fuel boosters so those missiles can also be used against Ballistic Missiles....greater range.

Who's to say the same solid fuel added AMRAAM's can't be fired from B-2's....or even dropped from Navy helicopters off of Japan to strike Russian fighters far far away?

I'm sure they've also yanked the circuit boards out and sensors and gave the AMRAAM more 'eyes'.....to hunt better without kicking on it's radar to give itself away too soon.

Since nobody knows the capability of the super AMRAAM's....you could never break it's lock on you if you don't know its already on your tail with no radar on. AMRAAM's now part of the US Missile Defense Shield with solid fuel added on for more range....it was cheap to do. So was changing sensors and software.