This is the usual excuse we 've been hearing and reading for years and the USAF can use the excuse because the F-22 supposed to be undetectable , well what a beautifull vicious circle for LM to use ;-)

 

This is the usual strawman claim we hear only from F-22 critics who claim that the F-22 supporters claim that it is undetectable.  Of course, F-22 supporters--being by definition the people who actually understand air-to-air combat--never claim anything is undetectable, and only claim that the F-22 is VLO.

 

In the real world the F-22 is exactly what it is supposed to be, no more and no less, and part of what it is supposed to be is a machine that is far more capable at attaining and maintaining air supremacy than anyother fighter.  And the more realistic the scenario, the more likely it is to do so.

There is no evidence that the F-22 is dominated in any regime, and as for tracked in this engagement--assuming this anecdote in some fanzine is even accurate--about all that means is it was tracked further away than someone thought it would be.  Huh.  Well, if someone thought it could not be tracked by an EF more than 10km away, but it turned out to be tracked on one occassion (like maybe while it was showing its topview to the EF; after all, they *were* dogfighting!) at 15km, then that would be much further away than someone thought it could be tracked.  Wow.  Gee, that would be really earth-shattering.  Quick, Rafale fans can feel good about themselves again, the F-22 might merely be a much superior fighter and not a greatly superior fighter!  Hoody hoo!

 

 

I deal in actual averages; and detection threshholds, you idiot. You do know what that means right?

 

Herald

 

Herald , go away with your poor excuses .

 

Warpig :

We know from Aviation week in an article piblished in Augist issue 2005 that the Raptors were not in the ir at the tome of the alleged in cident and that even if they were in  the air that the raptors would be flying with their radar navigation tracking and IFF targets in the reveal position.;

 

I don't take orders from you either, poster.

 

I suggest that you now be silent instead of continuing this lie.

 

herald 

 

Damn this keyboard!

 

Misspellings are my typing, folks. 

Herald :

To Herald :

 

""IFF works on a two channel system, with one frequency (1030 megahertz) being the uplink, or the interrogator signals, and the other (1090 megahertz) being the downlink, or the reply signal. This system is further broken down into four SIF modes of operation (two for Military and Civilian use, and two for Military use only) and one secure mode (Mode 4). Each mode of operation gathers specific information from the aircraft being interrogated.

• Mode 1: Mode 1 has a possible total of 64 reply codes. It is used by the military Air Traffic Control (ATC) to determine what kind of aircraft is being interrogated, and what type of mission it is on.
• Mode 2: Mode 2 is also for military use. It requests the tail number of the aircraft. (The plane's ID number). There are a total possible 4096 codes available for Mode 2.
• Mode 3/A: Mode 3/A (three-alpha) is for use by military and civilians internationally, and is the standard Air Traffic Control mode. Along with identification, Mode 3/A can be used to signal emergencies and/or radio failures.
• Mode C: Mode C is, quite simply, the altitude of the aircraft. If you interrogate an aircraft using Mode C, the response will be the altitude of the aircraft to the nearest 100 feet.
• Mode 4: Mode 4 is the only true IFF mode which returns a Hostile or Friendly reply. This is not to say that every time a hostile reply is located a Stinger missile is launched at the offending target. In fact, Mode 4 does not even interrogate an aircraft in the same way that the SIF modes do. Mode 4 looks at the environment in a specific location, and determines hostile or friendly based on information which I'm not entirely sure isn't classified. So I'll just leave it at that. Anyway, hostile doesn't necessarily mean an enemy is there - only that something is there that needs to be looked at with some scrutiny.

Here's why.

 

Irrelevant during excercises like the various "Flags" , "Tiger" , "J-Tex" , etc for the simple reason that the onboard software can be switched from "Blue" to "Red" and from "Red" to "Blue" , depending on which team you are for the very purpose to hide (encode) the IFF . Nowadays IFF are very different than the ones used during Desert Storm where Coalition aircraft use to switch the thing off to stay discret .

Brief yourself .

 

"Eurofighter Radars Didn't Spot F/A-22s
Aviation Week & Space Technology
10/03/2005, page 23

Edited by David Bond
Printed headline: Eurorumor Mill

Herald , we all know this article from 2005 . At this time , maybe the US Officials were simply lying or at least hiding information from the media .

 

Then , in 2006 Air Power published the article I posted , then in 2007 the same Air Power published another article (I also posted it) giving again more informations .

Since we can 't find on the Net any denial from the USAF or LockMart regarding the Air Power papers , we have to believe that the guys are correct .

Since , the story has been discussed on many forums .

 

Cheers .

Since we can 't find on the Net any denial from the USAF or LockMart regarding the Air Power papers , we have to believe that the guys are correct .

seriously, you are nothing but a troll.  APA, Goon, Kopp, Jensen, Miles, Palmer - all of their credibility on this topic and these issues have been discussed ad-nauseum.

I was at the the hearings in front of the commission late 2007 when APA's comments were comprehensively refuted by serving and exchange pilots from the RAAF.

If you think that APA have credibility then you're cementing publicly that you have no idea.  Still, for someone who posts airshow footage as proof of life of aerodynamic combat astuteness - then why am I surprised.

Again, these are the same morons quoting RAND and yet didn't know the difference between Falconview and Brawler - and yet claimed inside information from disgruntled USAF officers (its a bit of a worry if a combat pilot is claiming that Falconview is for air combat simulations).

If you're going to make claims - then at least demonstrate a basic understanding of the issues.   

 

gf :

GF, to be fair to BW, he is typing "Air Power" as a shorthand for "International Air Power Review," not "Air Power Australia."  It doesn't make this anecdote any greater proof of anything, but at least it might actually be more credible than if it were from APA.  ;-)

 

BW, once again, all that this one anecdote (that apparently has been retreaded/repackaged once or twice) serves to illustrate is precisely just how awesome the F-22 actually IS!  The Europeans have to dig and whine, and all they can manage to "uncover" is one possible occurrence with vague and disputed details that prove essentially nothing other than what every professional already knows:  if this story is true it merely shows that of course nothing is undetectable nor invulnerable at all times.  But at what cost to the Eurotrash-talkers' case?  They can't do any better than this, such that they are even reduced to rehashing the same alleged incident over again in order to have something to talk about!  Even then, the details are so vague that it doesn't even proove that the hype about the F-22 is wrong in the least.  "Surprisingly long range..."  Big-frickity-whoop.  The truly reasonable conclusion to draw from the incredible scrutiny the F-22 has received for over a decade is that if this is the best the nay-sayers can do, then the F-22 must totally rule.