Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Regarding those two videos gloriousfatherland just posted, they were amusing and largely accurate, but it is important to keep in mind that with regards to the first video that most aircraft have problems, and corrosion and metal fatigue are constant problems for all aircraft and vessels.

I wouldn't write the F-22 off as an incapable fighter, but with the benefit of hindsight... which the Russian engineers have in developing the PAK FA... they pretty much built the wrong aircraft.

A smaller, cheaper simpler aircraft paired with an even more attack/bomber oriented F-35 probably would have resulted in a more useful balance.

Regarding the second video you need to keep in mind that the vast majority of the countries of the world can't afford to buy and maintain the sort of integrated air defence network the Russians and to a lesser extent the Chinese have, so the ability of the US and NATO to bully little countries will not be as effected as they try to imply.

BTW regarding corrosion issues... what is wrong with these engineers?

It is basic physics that you put different metals together with water and electrolysis will greatly accelerate corrosion...

I would say Mig-31BM and Su-35 will be more than enough against F-22. Both have big and strong PESA radar, capable IRST and data link as well as new long range missiles and ECM suit.

Corrosion could be a big problem for F-22 and F-35, because corroded parts could reduce stealth caracteristics and I don't know if they could use anti corrosion colors and RAM coat. Usual non stealth planes could normally use anti-corrosion colors and normal colors after them, because that will not change much its RCS, but I'm not sure if the same could do stealth planes.

I don't know how much it is true, but I read somewhere years ago, That F-117 have to avoid clouds and rain, because water reduce its stealth capabilities.

medo wrote:I would say Mig-31BM and Su-35 will be more than enough against F-22. Both have big and strong PESA radar, capable IRST and data link as well as new long range missiles and ECM suit.

Corrosion could be a big problem for F-22 and F-35, because corroded parts could reduce stealth caracteristics and I don't know if they could use anti corrosion colors and RAM coat. Usual non stealth planes could normally use anti-corrosion colors and normal colors after them, because that will not change much its RCS, but I'm not sure if the same could do stealth planes.

I don't know how much it is true, but I read somewhere years ago, That F-117 have to avoid clouds and rain, because water reduce its stealth capabilities.

I read that exact same thing, and from a engineering point of view it sounds plausible

- Finally i have some freetime after three ot four days literally hellish at work.

Well after reading that article on the F-22 I am far less impressed by it than I was before.

32 bit 25MHz processing power? That is 486 level stuff!!!

Can't carry AIM-9X sidewinder missiles!

GarryB some two years ago i pointed out, in a debate on another site, that one of the main reasons for F-22s being prohibited by USAF to engage in WVR/near WVR's missile engagements in pasted international exercices with foreign Air Forces (to the contrary to the internal "staged" ones where USAF can do and.... claim what it want) was that the Raptor lacked even only the basis weapon suit -signally HOBS missiles- to fight similar engagements at even with its opponents.
You cannot even imagine what was the hysterical reactions to this simple reality 's attestation : Raptor, incapable to employ AIM-9X still in 2010 ? (a missile,moreover ,designed with the aim to attempt to close the wide gap with....basis R-73 !! ) A true blasphemy for the horde of ignorant, fanatical zombies ,loving to live in theirs immaginary Hollywood-like world.



In reality the quick U-turn on the permission to F-22 to participate in international WVR exercices with missiles engagements was ,likely, son of early bad exeperiences (naturally urgently covered under a thick mist in majority of media).
In this extract from the article of “International Air Power Review “ - 2006 - issue 20, page 45 this appear clear :

"more recently, there have been repeated reports that two RAF Typhoons deployed to the USA for OEU trails work have been flying against the F-22 at NAS China Lake, and have peformed better than was expected. There was little suprise that Typhoon, with its world-class agility and high off-boresight missile capability was able to dominate "Within Visual Range" flight, but the aircraft did cause a suprise by getting a radar lock on the F22 at a suprisingly long rate. The F-22s cried off, claiming that they were "unstealthed" anyway, although the next day´s scheduled two vs. two BVR engagement was canceled, and the USAF decided they didn´t want to play any more."

"When this incident was reported on a website frequented by front-line RAF aircrew a senior RAF officer urged an end to the conversation on security grounds"

To prevent the repeat of a similar awkward scenario against another highjly advanced aircraft equiped with HOBS missiles , in the last DACT exercices against French Rafale USAF allowed F-22 to participate only in WVR gun engagement .

[/quote]

To prevent the repeat of a similar awkward scenario against another highjly advanced aircraft equiped with HOBS missiles , in the last DACT exercices against French Rafale USAF allowed F-22 to participate only in WVR gun engagement .

[/quote]
if its red flag ur talking about, i heard the frenchies just went to spyzzz on le american radars

F-22 isn't getting AIM-9X till 2017.

Wow.

Would be like the Abrams keeping its original British 105mm rifled gun instead of its German 120mm smooth bore...

Here is one potential to cancel out the F22s against the legacy fighters or rather any fighter in the air. We have already discussed similar system against the JDAMs.

Based on ARENA type system to protect the tanks from RPGs, this system for planes should have two dozen foot long advanced sensor based missiles with HE rounds. When F22s fires its missiles then IRST will be able to track them from 60 Kms distance. When these missiles are 1-2 kms away then defender missiles get a lock on the incoming beauties and meet them to destroy, cripple or deflect them from reaching the plane. May be some sort of anti material rifle based system like M82 Barrett with muzzle velocity of 1000 ft/second or old Soviet PTRS-41 at 1100m/second can also do the job.

They will counter with making stealth missiles and hypersonic deals but IRST will still find them at 60 kms and hypersonic factor will have to be dealt with, even at 3 km/second there is still 20 seconds to deal with this threat.

F22s can fire and expend all their missiles and go home...........all unnoticed....but then who cares if their tail numbers still remained a secret.

F-22 will be detected. Its not invisible. Now when will it be detected? It would be detected at a distance safe enough to kill it. PAK and i think Su-35S will have dual radars. f-22 is only LO to Xband radars not the proposed Lband radars. Even so, im sure russian planes have Radar Warning Recivers, which agains makes it not invisible if it uses its radar. It it doesnt use rader the Irfrared Optical Suit would detect it. Its trumped in practically every senario.

The point is to prepare for a layered scenario. Let's say the lone S-400 and radars protecting an area is bombed out some how. Planes will still take to air if it all comes to that. In that scenario they need to a) Shoot down the F22 or b) Negate its ability to shoot down the opposing bird.

Shooting down F22 might require coming within the visual range as some NATO pilots have reported getting a lock on F22 has been a problem even in WVR. If F22 expends its missiles then it will have a better choice to run away rather than fight with its cannon only. Any system that kills its missiles or wastes them would leave this high priced taxi no other option but to run away. Have also heard that F22 is not that good a dogfighter and has issues in that environment.

There is another scenario that F22s will only be a part of bigger legacy attacking force. It will lurge in the back distance and help the legacy guys out if they are in need. Kind of like force multiplier. This became a strategy more so when F22s numbers were reduced from 700 to 189. It is said F22 radar might soon be finding out opposing birds from 400 km distance without them even able to recognize that they are being stalked. With so many secret tech onboard, it might be better to focus on negating F22s missiles rather than the whole package.

Planes will still take to air if it all comes to that. In that scenario they need to a) Shoot down the F22 or b) Negate its ability to shoot down the opposing bird.

victor7 i know that it is wasted time ,but i will attempt another time to shake you from your slumbering state. (....even if i must admit that your interventions in the
Strategic Rocket and Space Forces section are so funny and comical that would be a pity to lose suddenly them )

1) F-22 has not...NOT ....clear ?....N...O....T.....an average RCS of 0,0001 square meters (or other similar fairytale-like figures ); similar sensationalistic figure are in reality linked merely to hypercritical ,very very narrow ,co-altitude head-on angle of illumination , the average ,profitable ,area of diffraction of an aircraft like F-22 in a typical "many vs many " air engagement between data sharing aircraft (the typical engagement against an advanced enemy )is instead in the area 0,2 - 0,4 square meters and here we talk of X band airborne radar.
When you ear of the capability of a very low observanble aircraft to ,eventually, engage its opponent without that it was aware and realized the original position from where a simialr attack came from ,you must remember that those situations DON'T refere to the capability of a simialr aircraft to come directly within effective engagement range of its missiles without that its opponent has any chance to track it,but to the exploitation of a positional advantage offered by stealth .
Effectively similar aircraft,when the tactical scenario allow it, capitalize the tracking advantage enjoyed for effectively get around the footprint area of coverage of the enemy radar ,attacking its opponent from a vector included in one of its blind angles.
Even you can realize as this tactic ,very easy to apply in staged exercices ,become harder and harder (up to its complete inapplicability) at the grow of the number of the data sharing enemy aircraft and at the increase of theirs sophistacation .

2) Aircraft of a nation so advanced to be equipped with S-400 ,naturally, wouldn't take the air after that aircraft like F-22 would start to attack but would take-off and follow an inteception route even before that a similar aircraft would be even only be at some hundreds of km outside the border of the country , a nation so advanced to have S-400 as a part of its IAD,in fact, would surely own very advanced, modern, very long range early warning radars .
Those radars would provide to the Air Force's interception squadrons an approximate positional update of the ,potential, enemy attacking units (in a way totally unrelacted to any type of RCS reduction feature present in theirs design) and ,eventually, erase from the track selection of the interception aircraft any target already indentified as drone/decoys.
The task of the interception units wouldbe merely to follow the update up to the area indentified employing alternate multi-angle radar pulses and in-built IRTS/OLS to track the enemy and engage it.


Obviously if instead you talk of Lebanon or Lybia or Ethiopia or any other immensely inferior enemy attacked by the whole NATO ,all what said would lose any importance.
In this situation squadrons after squadrons of USAF's F-22s could come in the airfields near the borders of those enemy nations without any fear to be disintegrated in few minutes even before the first take-off, could confidently rely on the guidance of few available E-3 AWACS ,the support of EA/18 and in fly refueling thanks to KC-135s, without any fear that them was selectively and easily attacked and destroyed ,moreover could engage ,like in the past,at maximum 15-20 enemy fighter aircraft (likely of '80 years ) ,enjoying the usual numerical advantage of 14-15 to one.
If you want to talk of possible conventional conflict scenarios against advanced enemies you must multiply for some thousands of times the capabilities owned by NATO enemies in pasted wars.

Mindstorm,

Happy to amuse you again and this time SRF section! What was really funny in the small paragraph written anyways

The new issue is to kill off the missiles launched by the F22. DeTacK i.e. detect, track and kill via a SAM is not the question. The new question is to how to stop F22 from eating up your airforce. And like you said, the country is not Russia with S-400s. Lets say country is China or India or Syria or Iran or anyother for that matter.

The issue is to kill the missiles launched by the F22 and by some anti-missile platform or system on the fighter aircraft itself. If the kill is missed then pilot in the air will have to find ways to evade the missiles like Serbians did in the first night of Kosovo war. One pilot evaded upto 5 missiles before getting shot down and still survived luckily and was rescued.

It is said F22 radar might soon be finding out opposing birds from 400 km distance without them even able to recognize that they are being stalked. With so many secret tech onboard, it might be better to focus on negating F22s missiles rather than the whole package.

The F-22 has datalink receivers but not transmitters, so even if it could detect targets at 400km it wont be able to tell F-15s and F-16s and even F-35s about it without giving away its own position.

Next.. when dealing with a problem like the F-22 you don't just pick one aspect to defeat, you try lots of different things.. IRST, L band Radar, X band AESA radar, defeating AMRAAMs with jamming, with towed decoys, and with AAMs that can shoot down other missiles... (Note the latter could be the Morfei short range missile use as a CIWS for land and navy forces cold be used to shoot down incoming enemy AAMs and SAMs).

The latter would be an interesting development like the mini AAMs carried by Firefox in that silly US movie of the same name.

The simplest way to defeat AMRAAM is to have a towed decoy with a noise jammer fitted to it... use a 1,000m long cable and tow the jammer behind the aircraft. Using the ESM suite of the aircraft to track the incoming AMRAAM via its heat signature (missiles moving at supersonic speed heat up through friction with the air) and just as it approaches the decoy turn off the jammer... the missile will lose the signal it was homing in on (home on jam) but will not have time to reacquire any target before it blows past the decoy...

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/05/irans-new-anti-missile-artillery/

The above is a link to Iran's development of system based on Bofors 40MM AA Artillery.........similar to JDAM killer issue discussed on this thread.

I can't believe anti missile kill tech is not on the birds yet except for jammers and flares etc. Btw, kill probability of AAM missiles now is 60% for AIM-9 types.
http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Evading-Missiles.html

Can any planes now fire backwards so that moves like Cobra and Kulbit (useless anyways) are not needed..........Yes! here is the link, watch from 2:25 on the video.
360 degree situation awareness via having radars and sensors all round the aircraft. I hope it is true also for Su-35s and most definitely for PakFa.

http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/f35targeting/assets/eodasvideo.html

It is basic physics.

Fire a gun with a guided bullet in the opposite direction to where the target is and greatly reduce its range performance.

A missile is like a bullet because for the first fraction of a second it accelerates up to flight speed and then coasts to the target. The more it has to manouver the more energy it wastes and the shorter its effective range is.

Firing a missile forward from a wing pylon and making it turn 180 degrees to chase a target behind the launch energy means the effective range of the missile behind the aircraft is about 10% of its range against targets in front of the aircraft.

Suddenly racking the nose of the aircraft 120 degrees and pointing the missile directly at the target means the missile has no hard manouvers to make on launch and can accelerate directly towards the target greatly increasing range and terminal energy.

Those useless manouvers you talk about are not useless because they show an ability to point the primary weapons and sensors of the aircraft at any target in any direction at will without the fear of losing control of the aircraft.

Getting your primary weapons and sensors pointed directly at the target is the basis of dogfighting... 70 years ago it also meant getting on your targets tail because the enemy aircraft tended to be totally vulnerable there with no weapons facing backwards so they were no threat to you either.

These days with radar homing missiles and all aspect IR and IIR seeking missiles the need to get on the enemies tail is to be safer from his weapons and in his blind spot.

The simple fact of the matter is however that WVR combat is deadly and any fighter can kill any other fighter and it becomes vital to shoot down your enemy before they even see you are there because if he can get lock and launch a missile before your missile hits him he could still hit you even after you have shot him down if his missile hits you.

Hense the focus has shifted to BVR combat.

But with stealth aircraft flying around the place dogfights are much more likely as medium range detection and engagement becomes much harder.

It doesn't matter if the F-22s AESA radar can detect the PAK FA at 400km (which it can't), it has to be able to get a lock with an AMRAAM with a tiny non AESA radar in its nose... without a datalink transmitting target information the chances of an AMRAAM kill is low, but with datalink updates the F-22 becomes detectible... because the L band datalink it uses to communicate to its missile can be detected and located with the L Band AESA antennas in the Su-35 and Pak Fas.

The presence of anti AAM platform should lead to use of Lasers, Direct Energy Weapons and EMP bombs. Direct Energy is already on F22 as its radar can harm the opposing one so this might be a nearer scenario. We do not know how many other secret techs has F22 going. But ability to evade/erode its missiles should make it less threatening to any legacy air force. USAF still fields the numbers advantage and that too by vast figures. But the point is not to attack the US but defend from its leaders 'toying and joying' with one's country at will and for silly reasons.

The potential of X-band fighter radars with power ratings in excess of 20 kiloWatts to be used as Directed Energy Weapons,

Irbis-E radar has enough power to use it as directed energy .

http://stratrisks.com/geostrat/4999

NATO Could Not Handle Intervention in Syria

Without USAF, NATO is an athlete with multiple cramps. With F22s and F35s in check, the USAF has little flexibility to take on any operation at will. World will be much more peaceful that way.

The potential of X-band fighter radars with power ratings in excess of 20 kiloWatts to be used as Directed Energy Weapons,

Irbis-E radar has enough power to use it as directed energy .

Not quite.

Irbis can direct 20kW of power at a single target, but an AESA that can direct 1kW from each element can therefore direct 1,500 kW at a single target in theory if it has 1,500 AESA elements.

The main problems are obviously does the aircraft have enough onboard power to actually use all its AESA modules at full power at one time, and does it have the cooling capacity to stop the nose from catching fire if it did.

More importantly such a weapon might be effective against an enemy radar guided missile but would have very little effect on a long range Russian IR guided missile... and considering the target is stealthy they are actually more likely to be firing IR guided missiles than radar guided ones.

The final problem of course is that the S-400 battery will have a huge 2,500km range AESA radar with significantly more power per module and probably 10 times more modules per radar than anything you could fit in the nose of an aircraft.

The information posted above about the F-22s suggests that most do not and will not have the capability to use their AESAs as directed energy weapons because of funding issues.

BTW the US ABL has had its funding cut, and the Russian equivalent is being fully funded except its purpose is not to shoot down BMs, but to interfere with US EO and IR satellite sensors and aerial IR and EO recon sensors...

Garry, i don't mean Irbis-E had equal directed energy to AESA , i said Irbis has enough power to use it as DE,Carlo copp als said something like this :

The potential of X-band fighter radars with power ratings in excess of 20 kiloWatts to be used as Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) is an issue in its own right [2].

The Russian response to the surge in US AESA production was to launch the development of the 20 kiloWatt peak power class Irbis E radar, an evolution of the N011M BARS. This radar is to be carried by the new Su-35S (formerly Su-35BM and Su-35-1) Flanker variant.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker-Radars.html

32 bit 25MHz processing power? That is 486 level stuff!!!

Can't carry AIM-9X sidewinder missiles!

On which bit and speed AIM-9X is fired ?

I think it can carry the M version.

Btw, has the EMP technology advanced enough to throw a say baseball size EMP bomb at a flying jet and fry its electrical circuits to disable it. Or by EMP bombs they mean like a whole big bomb over a city.

If matters come down to US vrs Russia or China, the first item that might be used is the EMP bomb to disable a big and critical portion of the response mechanism. Makes sense. Do the new planes like Su-35S come as EMP hardened or is that a new industry on the horizon.........$2M to EMP harden your SuperFlanker squadron.

Garry, i don't mean Irbis-E had equal directed energy to AESA , i said Irbis has enough power to use it as DE,Carlo copp als said something like this :

Normally I have a bit of respect for Carlos, but in this case...

AESA gets its supposed usefulness in terms of being a directed energy weapon because each transmitter receiver module sends its own signal, so while each transmitter is individually weaker than that of a PESA or other radar type it results in a concentrated energy beam because there are literally thousands of emitters all focussing their energy on one point.

It is like the difference between a flat sheet of glass transmitted a powerful beam like a searchlight and a lens that takes that powerful beam energy and focuses it onto a point to set fire to something.

On which bit and speed AIM-9X is fired ?

I think it can carry the M version.

Sorry they are two very different issues. I would rather suspect if you ever tried to play video, or indeed tried to use a CD burner or indeed burn live streamed video that you would know that doing it on what equates to a very slow 486 computer would be pointless...

Now obviously, as I tried to point out to Flanky a few times that while consumer electronics have moved on and that modern multi core CPUs have fantastic performance, the hardened ruggedised CPUs they put in military equipment needs serious testing in terms of temperature and vibration and dust so the latest CPU out right now doesn't go straight into a PAK FA... many modern fighters use the equivalent of a 486 level processor, though 25 Mhz is a bit slow... some models got to 66MHz at least...

An AIM-9X receives target data before it is launched, and if it is a 64 bit based weapon, which would make transmission of target information via an IRST or targeting pod like Lightning III, then it might have problems with an interface with a slower computer network.

The M model Sidewinder has no high off boresight capability and is inferior to the 1980s model of the R-73..

Btw, has the EMP technology advanced enough to throw a say baseball size EMP bomb at a flying jet and fry its electrical circuits to disable it. Or by EMP bombs they mean like a whole big bomb over a city.

Both Russia and the US are believed to have EMP bombs that can generate high power pulses to disable electronics.

Putting that in a missile and launching it towards an enemy aircraft the problem becomes if it needs to get within a specific distance to be effective, is that distance much bigger than the distance standard HE would be effective at?

ECM pods sould deal with missile threats due to the weakness of the onbard radars.This is why dogfighting still exists and fighters are built to be manueverable.

It's true, that main Su-35 Irbis X-band radar is PESA, but Su-35 also have L-band AESA radar, which supplement Irbis radar.