"The F-22, even after it has expended all of its ordnance, is still a very useful asset because it can fly unchallenged into SAM envelopes."
This is what the USAF says ~and no-one else~ and without any proofs , allow me to dare to doubt .
Go ahead and doubt, who cares? Let everyone doubt, fine with me. When the time comes, they'll learn first-hand.
----
The B2 has been spotted on radar over UK and over Europe and don 't tell me that is because it was emitting but because some radars can detect LO aircrafts .
You are aware that when LO aircraft are not flying real-world operational missions, they deploy radar-enhancing shapes to increase their signature, aren't you? Even if they have been detected over the UK and Europe while in total LO mode, I don't care, and the reason I don't is because we aren't going to fight the UK and Europe. Only a total a$$ talks about the ability of NATO countries to engage American aircraft as if it's a serious consideration.
"There, it can pinpoint SAM sites and hand off targets to SEAD platforms"
What with ? (pinpointing and handing off ?)
With its ALE-94 ESM system and a simple voice call.
"the reason the F-22 does not implement Link-16 transmission is because Link-16 transmission requires constant emissions. It is not stealthy."
There , you make more sense . Nevertheles , it 's better to use the link-16 than nothing when you want to share datas with link-16 equipped legacy fighters , at least for now . In fact , it 's an excuse Phaid .
The F-22 is just ~as I said earlier~ un unfinished aircraft .
That's at least the third time just in this thread that this has been explained to you, and it's been the same reason all along. Apparently you're new to this knowledge, but we've known it for years. It was recognized several years ago that it would be even better than the great weapon system it already is, if it can also transmit data to non-F-22 aircraft, and it will. In case this is a news flash to you, I think I can guarantee that there will be other improvements to the F-22 over the next 30 yearsjust like every aircraft type that has ever flown has also undergone continual improvements over their service lives.
Let 's be honest here , just for a minute : the USA don 't need the F-22 as it is now . The USA have some much better aircrafts to bring to the enemy than the F-22 , a Viper Blk 60 or a SH Blk2 will do more dammage to the enemy by a long way .
The F-22 is the USA life insurance in the air supremacy for the next 15 years but for now , it is an unfinished aircraft to say the least .
There are no aircraft that can bring the air superiority fight to the enemy better than the F-22 can. It can already do everything it needs to do in order to be the best. That doesn't sound "unfinished" to me. Of course, there are improvements that can be added, and over the next 30 years there will be more improvements made to it.
"An aircraft that generates a tiny radar return is simply much easier to protect via electronic warfare than one with a large return."
Hurray !!! AT LAST !
Leroy , I thank you . At last you unconciently acknowledge Dassault/Thales thinking when they built the Rafale and SPECTRA . Now , re-read what I said all theses years with your newly open mind !
What Leroy said has been the same philosophy we have been using all along with all our LO aircraft. Once again, you are confused about the difference between France's idea of EW and aerial warfare in general and America's. All you ought to need to see is that we have more SEAD aircraft than you have Rafales (probably at least three times as many). We don't have to make each of our aircraft perform all the missions each aircraft needs to benefit from during its sortie. Some missions can be performed by different aircraft, and jamming support for LO aircraft can come from off-board. Furthermore, the F-22 and F-35 certainly do or will have jamming capabilities; it just remains to be seen just how much they do or will have. Can't wait to find out? Gee, that's too bad.
"The F-22 has a world class electronic warfare system that is absolutely second to none.""
Do you mean right now ??? Until you back up your claims , I don 't believe you .
We don't care if you do or not.
""It is public information that its primary philosophy does not call for active jamming because such an approach is simply not necessary""
Wow ??! Wtf ??? If the people behind the jet are really thinking like that , they are not Americans !!! It cannot be !
The only other solution is the following : Leroy is talking out of his a$$ again . Why do you think the AESA radar jamming modes are working out if it is not for active jamming ??? You 're stupid Leroy ...
No, nitwit, the *primary* American LO philosphy is to remain passive and rely on an extremely small RCS to remain undetected/untracked/unengaged. It's only in the most challenging circumstances that call for additional assurance to maintain our margin of safety that we resort to jamming. When we do, because our signatures are so small already, any jamming is much more effective than it would be in support of non-stealthy aircraft.
StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy