Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: 6*F-22 vs 6*Typhoon vs 6*Rafale in the UAE?!
giblets    11/16/2009 4:48:58 AM
According to both Flight Global, and Defence News, other than attending the Dubai airshow, the USAF, RAF, and FAF each sent 6 of their finest fighter aircraft to the desert Kingdom to take part in multinational exercises. Other than adding much fuel to the fire for forum members here! It raises many questions (such as why the USAF was unable to send 1 F-22 to Paris, and can now send 6 to the UAE, despite no drop in operational tempo). And will the F22 and Typhoon not be in the air at the same time again?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
gf0012-aust       12/3/2009 2:15:13 PM
There's a reason why Top Gun graduate sorties sometimes end up fighting F-86s, F-4s, and even F4Us...because you never know.

 
training training training
a few years back at a Red Flag event a RAAF F-111  managed to "kill" an overconfident F-16 driver who tried to deal with the F-111 in its element, ie down low and "fast"...  
"things" happen.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       12/3/2009 2:24:16 PM
just to add further to DACT and WHITE's status as "god"

BLUE has had assets pulled and added to RED mid event.
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       12/3/2009 5:22:06 PM
Am I the only one to have spotted this enormous mistake from Warpig ?
He said :
 
""8)  Of course F-22 relies on its LO throughout the Ka, K, Ku, X, C, S, L, UHF, and into the VHF range--that's the whole point of LO.""
 
Why nobody said anything ? 
Warpig , or you are mistaking greatly or you are lying and you know it . Using Wiki to name few radar bands is not fooling me .
The F-22 is LO under the X , C and S bands only (from 2 to 8 GHz) . It is of no use to try to fool people . Any radar using more than a 0.50m wavelength will have a clear lock on anything flying , LO or not . Regarding the L band , B-2s and F-22s have been detected and tracked . It seems that recently , 2 F-22s have been shot in a simulated exercise . They were tracked by a Dutch L band radar which passed on the infos to a APAR radar , 4 ESSMs were fired getting 2 "simulated" kills . Take this info with a grain of salt , it hasn 't been confirmed yet .
Warpig , you also said :
 
""9)  I am going to laugh so hard at FS and BW if and when it turns out that the F-22 and F-35 have jamming equipment on-board already or will gain it""
 
The F-35 HAS a jamming suite , the AN/ASQ-239 .
 
The rest of your post is just bla-bla , sorry to say .
 
Cheers .
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       12/3/2009 6:10:02 PM

""8)  Of course F-22 relies on its LO throughout the Ka, K, Ku, X, C, S, L, UHF, and into the VHF range--that's the whole point of LO.""

Why nobody said anything ? 

Warpig , or you are mistaking greatly or you are lying and you know it . Using Wiki to name few radar bands is not fooling me .

The F-22 is LO under the X , C and S bands only (from 2 to 8 GHz) . It is of no use to try to fool people . Any radar using more than a 0.50m wavelength will have a clear lock on anything flying , LO or not . Regarding the L band , B-2s and F-22s have been detected and tracked . It seems that recently , 2 F-22s have been shot in a simulated exercise . They were tracked by a Dutch L band radar which passed on the infos to a APAR radar , 4 ESSMs were fired getting 2 "simulated" kills . Take this info with a grain of salt , it hasn 't been confirmed yet .


""9)  I am going to laugh so hard at FS and BW if and when it turns out that the F-22 and F-35 have jamming equipment on-board already or will gain it""

The F-35 HAS a jamming suite , the AN/ASQ-239 .

The rest of your post is just bla-bla , sorry to say .



No one said anything because no one else thinks it isn't correct.  Professionals who actually have any first-hand knowledge of what LO actually is don't repeat the internet slander spread by people trying to run-down and de-emphasize the advantage of LO by saying it only works against radars up in the multiple-GHz frequency range, or that LO aircraft are tracked by L-band radars.
 
Once again, I will repeat that if F-35 is primarily meant for air-to-ground, and F-117 and B-2 are entirely meant to drop bombs, then answer these two questions:
1)  What is the operating frequency range of virtually all early warning and target acquisition radars in every IADS in the world, both ground- and air-based?
2)  Given that, how have F-117s and B-2s been nearly undetected so far (as have F-22), and F-35 will also be--if their LO only works against X, C, and S bands?
 
The AN/ASQ-239 is not a *jamming* suite even just by casual observation of the nomenclature.  Furthermore, the only jamming that has been openly associated with it is the use of the aircraft's AI radar, the AN/APG-81--AS I EXPLICITLY ALLOWED FOR.
 
If your posts would even rise to achieve the level of being at least "bla-bla" that would be an improvement.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       12/3/2009 6:17:51 PM
...or that LO aircraft are tracked by L-band radars.*

 

* at ranges similar to the ranges at which they can track non-LO aircraft.  LO aircraft aren't invisible, and of course there are situations where some early warning radars can track some LO aircraft, but at what would be considered extremely close range for any non-LO aircraft.
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       12/3/2009 6:32:32 PM

...or that LO aircraft are tracked by L-band radars.*



* at ranges similar to the ranges at which they can track non-LO aircraft.  LO aircraft aren't invisible, and of course there are situations where some early warning radars can track some LO aircraft, but at what would be considered extremely close range for any non-LO aircraft.


 
What some people forget about LO aircraft is that they reduce reaction time. It's not a matter of if you can detect them. It's how soon. If the LO features allow them to get in close enough before you can properly respond then all this other stuff is irrelevant. Finally, it LO wasn't worth it, all of the worlds airforces would not be breaking their banks to either build or purchase the capability.

-DA 



 
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       12/4/2009 1:55:52 AM






but the point is that within gun range that opposing aircraft could not get a weapon sensor, IR, or radar lock on that Raptor is lost on our resident Rafale defender. That was a SUPER HORNET that could not do that!  The SHs eat Rafales for lunch. The camera/"gun"  kill the SH scored was Mark 1 eyeball and good pilot exploitation of a Raptor driver's mistake.     



It was a RAAF exchange pilot flying an aggressor F-15C who claimed he couldn't put his weapons on the F-22, even when he could see it through the canopy. The "kill" was achieved by an F-16 and there is a EA-18G with a kill badge of an F-22 on its fuselage. No idea if that was the same aircraft where we saw the HUD shot, which was reportedly achieved by breaking the ROEs of the exercise.

The Super Hornet incident was as described, but thanks for adding the others to reinforce the point.  
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       12/4/2009 5:19:22 PM
Warpig :
""No one said anything because no one else thinks it isn't correct""
 
Wrong , no one said anything because no one has the knowledge or did the needed research .
It is not that hard to find excellent studies on the subject . 
 
""internet slander spread by people trying to run-down and de-emphasize the advantage of LO by saying it only works against radars up in the multiple-GHz frequency range, or that LO aircraft are tracked by L-band radars.""
 
It is not internet slander and yes , LO technology can be defeated by using various frequencies . In this regard , the Russians are probably the best and France is also highly rated .
 
""Once again, I will repeat that if F-35 is primarily meant for air-to-ground, and F-117 and B-2 are entirely meant to drop bombs""
 
I agree (obviously) , but it has very little to do with the matter at hand . 
 
""1)  What is the operating frequency range of virtually all early warning and target acquisition radars in every IADS in the world, both ground- and air-based?""
 
First , it is important to separate early warning systems and acquisition systems (tracking allowing a missile to be fired and guided at the target) .
To answer your question , the bands most commonly used for long range detection are : VHF , UHF and L . 
For short to medium range detection , the bands S and C are also used .
For general purposes , the bands X and Ku are widely used .
Naming every radar using VHF , UHF , L , S and C bands would take about 3 pages .There are hundreds of them ...
 
""2)  Given that, how have F-117s and B-2s been nearly undetected so far (as have F-22), and F-35 will also be--if their LO only works against X, C, and S bands?""
 
For a very simple reason : US LO aircraft don 't usually fly over Countries equipped with VHF , UHF and L bands based radars . They don 't like it for a reason . Ask yourself why the F-22 (exemple) never came to France (or in Russia) for an airshow or an excercise . We (the French) would have known exactly how to kill the beast .
Furthermore , all US LO platforms have been tracked by French radars when entering the UK airspace , even the B-2 which is the finest stealth US aircraft so far (this bird can hide from L band based radars because of its size) .
 
Now , I am not saying that stealth is defeated for good . As long as AWACs and Fighters will use the GHz bands for detection , aircraft like the F-22 will be hard to shot (from the air) .
However , a well made IADS will use multiple means (bands , frequencies , solid state arrays , phased band arrays , etc) to cover all possible wavelength . Civilians means like cell phone band or even TV broadcast can also be used to good extent .
Then , a good system integration will take charge of the detection , traking and firing by using multiple sources , one for each task . Basicaly , it works by lowering the box size until a good Pk is archived . Ask the Russians why the S-300 or S-400 batteries are equipped with 2 and sometimes 3 different radars linked to each other ... You could also ask them how these systems can defeat weapons like HARM or "beam riding" weapons .
I give you some clues but look it up by yourself : Metric wavelength , full digital signal processing , electronic sequential lobing , active sidelobe cancellation , random frequency hoping (AESA) , etc .
Check it .
France and Russia have military radars capable to track and lock LO targets at 60km while being under heavy jamming and at 280km if no jamming is used .
Check it .
If you want to talk stealth and radars with me , don 't come up a dollar short . I know what I am talking about .
It is also why I can tell to DA that he is wrong . 
 
Cheers .
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       12/4/2009 7:13:19 PM

""1)  What is the operating frequency range of virtually all early warning and target acquisition radars in every IADS in the world, both ground- and air-based?""

First , it is important to separate early warning systems and acquisition systems (tracking allowing a missile to be fired and guided at the target) .

To answer your question , the bands most commonly used for long range detection are : VHF , UHF and L . 


""2)  Given that, how have F-117s and B-2s been nearly undetected so far (as have F-22), and F-35 will also be--if their LO only works against X, C, and S bands?""

For a very simple reason : US LO aircraft don 't usually fly over Countries equipped with VHF , UHF and L bands based radars . They don 't like it for a reason .
Furthermore , all US LO platforms have been tracked by French radars when entering the UK airspace , even the B-2 which is the finest stealth US aircraft so far (this bird can hide from L band based radars because of its size) .

Basicaly , it works by lowering the box size until a good Pk is archived . Ask the Russians why the S-300 or S-400 batteries are equipped with 2 and sometimes 3 different radars linked to each other ...
If you want to talk stealth and radars with me , don 't come up a dollar short . I know what I am talking about .



To start with, neither early warning (EW) nor target acquisition (TA) radars are used to guide missiles to the target.  That's what target tracking and missile guidance radars are for.  Many relatively modern SAM systems, such as S-300, combine the various weapons- and target-related functions into one radar, which typically is called a target engagement (TE) radar.  But the way an IADS works is that long before any SAM battalion achieves a lock-on to the target and fires SAMs at it, first the targets must be detected, identified, and tracked.  This function is performed by early warning radars.  Then the air defense C2 element at the filter center/sector operations center/etc. for that region of the country decides which weapons systems to commit to engage which tracks, and passes the orders along with the target tracking derived from the EW radars to the weapons C2 element.  They assign the target track to the specific SAM battalion (in the case of a SAM engagement) which takes the track data and uses that to cue its own target acquisition radar to find the target track.  Once the  SAM battalion's own local target acquisition radar has established tracking on the target, THEN the track is handed off to the actual SAM engagement radar(s) and the SAMs are actually launched at the target track.
 
The above process is necessarily present in order to put the "I" into "IADS."
 
So you see, FIRST the LO aircraft MUST be tracked by EW and TA radars BEFORE any target engagement radars enter the picture AT ALL.  So, getting back to my question, what is the frequency range of nearly all those EW and TA radars?  The answer is some in the S band, and most in the L, UHF, and VHF bands.  It's only some of the TA radars for short-range SAMs and the TE radars of all SAMs that are in the S, C, and X bands.  Now, why when we flew over a thousand missions with F-117s over Iraq in 1991 were they never tracked, even though they had many dozens/hundreds of EW and TA radars that operated in the L, UHF, and yes [shock!] even in the all-mighty VHF bands, including TALL KINGs and SPOON RESTs, both of which are VHF radars?  The same, albeit to a lesser degree, was true for F-117s and B-2s over Serbia in 1999.
 
Furthermore, not only was it true for our last two opponents, but obviously it will be true for our future opponents, and therefore we will need to be prepared for them.  Since every IADS in the world relies on EW and TA radars, and the large majority of them are L band, UHF, and VHF radars, then we sure better be right about how effective LO really is!  It is grossly misleading and substantially wrong to say that LO aircraft are easily trackable, or even just as trackable as non-LO aircraft, to radars that operate in the L, UHF, or even VHF bands.
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       12/4/2009 8:05:57 PM
Well Warpig , we agree on most things . It 's a good start and I 'm glad .
 
You said (sorry for the long quote) :
 
""To start with, neither early warning (EW) nor target acquisition (TA) radars are used to guide missiles to the target.  That's what target tracking and missile guidance radars are for.  Many relatively modern SAM systems, such as S-300, combine the various weapons- and target-related functions into one radar, which typically is called a target engagement (TE) radar.  But the way an IADS works is that long before any SAM battalion achieves a lock-on to the target and fires SAMs at it, first the targets must be detected, identified, and tracked.  This function is performed by early warning radars.  Then the air defense C2 element at the filter center/sector operations center/etc. for that region of the country decides which weapons systems to commit to engage which tracks, and passes the orders along with the target tracking derived from the EW radars to the weapons C2 element.  They assign the target track to the specific SAM battalion (in the case of a SAM engagement) which takes the track data and uses that to cue its own target acquisition radar to find the target track.  Once the  SAM battalion's own local target acquisition radar has established tracking on the target, THEN the track is handed off to the actual SAM engagement radar(s) and the SAMs are actually launched at the target track.""
 
Generally speaking , I agree 100 percent . We have no argument there . Sorted :-)
You responded to your own question with :
 
""So, getting back to my question, what is the frequency range of nearly all those EW and TA radars?  The answer is some in the S band, and most in the L, UHF, and VHF bands""
 
I said :
""To answer your question , the bands most commonly used for long range detection are : VHF , UHF and L .""
 
We agree again because we both know how things work . Again , no argument .
Where I disagree a wee bit is when you say :
 
""Now, why when we flew over a thousand missions with F-117s over Iraq in 1991 were they never tracked, even though they had many dozens/hundreds of EW and TA radars that operated in the L, UHF, and yes [shock!] even in the all-mighty VHF bands, including TALL KINGs and SPOON RESTs, both of which are VHF radars?  The same, albeit to a lesser degree, was true for F-117s and B-2s over Serbia in 1999.""
 
I don 't want to be offensive to the Iraqi people but they are crap at waging war in our present time . They simply don 't understand the technology they use from more advanced Nations . GW 1 was a walk over like the World had probably never seen before . The radars you are talking about (read my lips) never had any software written to use the technology to detect and track LO platforms , period . At the time , not a lot of people and certainly not the Iraqis had something relevant to counter the F-117 . Warpig , you know it .
Serbia was better equipped than Iraq but they still had a hell of a time to shot 2 F-117s (one kill , one damaged) . They 've never seen the B-2s .
Of course , it is useless to compare the actual Russia , China or even Iran with Serbia and Iraq .
I believe that you can 't compare apples and oranges . It is why you are completly wrong when you say :
 
""Furthermore, not only was it true for our last two opponents, but obviously it will be true for our future opponents""
 
This is silly ...
Btw , Syria is not capable to counter the US LO platforms .
 
You also wrote :
 
""It is grossly misleading and substantially wrong to say that LO aircraft are easily trackable, or even just as trackable as non-LO aircraft, to radars that operate in the L, UHF, or even VHF bands.""
 
I have never said that LO aircraft were as easily trackable than non LO aircraft . The detection range is more than often reduced and excellent FCS are needed to hit . I only pointed out that LO aircraft can be shot if the defender is well equipped and clever . Just try to send stealthily 2 B-2s and 4 F-22s 2moro over Moscow , Paris or L
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics