Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

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

Wow.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Garry:
I think they're based on 386DX 40's

there are any number of modern combat systems based on 32bit or I960 processors for interoperability issues.

have a look at military messaging as an example, they are shovelling 8kb data streams

16bit will kill you as good as 64bit.

I think its not about the specific bus, its about the delivery chain .

And we should remember that AIM-9M and AIM-120C, both of which can be fired within visual range.

Did F-22 have a helmet for guiding HOBS shots ?

medo wrote: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.

Su-35 has AESA in addition to PESA? Since when?

Do you mean those wing mounted arrays? Certainly not fitted yet.

L-bands only for PAK-fa from what this video shows.

Its a multirole fighter