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
warpig       12/4/2009 11:32:46 PM

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 London . You 'll see what happen ... You 're gonna get SU-35s , Rafales and Typhoon to check what you 're doing in no time .
 
 
First, you've misquoted/misunderstood me above, as the "it" that will be true with our future opponents is that they will use many EW and TA radars that operate in the L, UHF, and VHF bands, just like our last two opponents did, and therefore we had better be right about whether or not our LO is effective in those bands.  Of course we could dismantle Syria's IADS with relative ease, and I'm sure we could do it without losing any LO aircraft.  However, as I've stated many times here, Syria has a more formidable air defense network than most of our likely opponents, including Iran, for example.  As long as we approached them like we did Iraq in 1991, we'd crush them with very little loss.  If there is any subject I write about on StrategyPage that you ought to trust me on, it's regarding my opinions of air defense capabilities of threat nations.

Regarding the Iraqi radar not having the software to track LO aircraft, I'd say that while that is true, it's primarily because their radars were mostly from the era of analog hardware before the use of digital computers in performing automatic plot extraction.  Of course, it's actually very hard for automatic track forming to correlate intermittent and faint returns better than an experienced operator can by watching the raw video.  Automation pays off in handling a far greater volume of tracks than human operators can.
 
Howerver, there was nothing third-rate about the Iraqis air defense C2 network.  It's the French that sold them the KARI C2 system that formed their IADS air defense command and control network only a few years prior to the war, and it was certainly a quite modern network at that time.  It was French-supplied digital computers running French-written software that was used for forming tracks at the radar posts, sending them to the SOCs, displaying them to the air defense commanders, and sending target tracks and commands to the SAM battalions to engage them.  Considering that we lost several aircraft to the Iraqi SAM network, it's not like it didn't work.  However, even though it did work as designed and certainly could track our other aircraft, it still couldn't track the F-117s even though it used plenty of radars that operated below S band--just like I've been saying.
 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       12/5/2009 12:52:55 AM

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 .

far be it for me to defend warpig (and there is no need to anyway), and having the advantage of knowing what warpigs background is, I can but just sit back and reach for the popcorn to watch the show....

the last one who should be accusing anyone of lying is you - perhaps we should start trotting out your prev indiscretions

eg hows that RAM coated flange point research going?

 


 
Quote    Reply

RedParadize       12/5/2009 7:05:13 AM
Thanks Warpig for your condensed and clear explanation of how works SAM site&co. I feel sorry that you need to explain this over and over again.(to me also lol)
 
PS: I have some question about the Silent Sentry. if you could do a quick and clear explanation about its capability and usage I would really appreciate. It don't have to be posted here of course.
 
Bluewings12
 
I think you are shooting the messenger here. LO aircraft may or may not have this or that weakness, nothing is perfect. But you can bet that the most professional and experienced air force of the world won't let any enemy exploit its weakness that easy.
 
Yon can be pround tha France still have the capacity to do a fighter alone,  Canada, like many contry had this capacity and lost most of it in the 60s with the downfall of Avro. Don't go crasy everytime someone critics the Rafale. Rafale is a very good aircraft, and bashing the Raptor won't make it any better. 
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    tHE PROBLEM IS THAT WARPIG   12/5/2009 7:55:30 AM
knows as well as I do, that when you break the chain of acquisition, at any point in the various telemetry hand-offs, that the LO aircraft defeats all of the IADS.
 
Ir only makes sense to defeat the detection, acquisition, track, and engagement at each link of the chain. And yes each link os defeated a different way.
 
As for saying that the reason the Iraqis failed was because they didn't know how to use their gear or have the software or the programming skills to use it? That is bull. They had the best FRENCH and RUSSIAN hired experts to teach them how to use their gear.
 
Those "experts:" were just beaten by BETTER ones who knew what to do to beat them. 
 
 
 
 

 
   
 
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       12/5/2009 9:13:04 AM
RP:
 

We did talk about systems like that recently, in the thread you started here:

 

*ttp://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-64126/page1.aspx

Radar versus Stealth: Passive Radar and the Future of U.S. Military Power

 

One comment I made was that systems like SILENT SENTRY have been discussed before in earlier threads, including this one:

 

*ttp://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/30-100739.aspx

 

and this one:

 

*ttp://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/7-2108.aspx

 

and that I am pretty sure there are other threads that mention PCL radar systems as well.
 
-----
 
Hamiclar:
 
Agreed, like many of us have said many times, any break anywhere along the kill chain means a failure to shoot down the target.  That's why even if LO only was effective against just the very high frequency radars used in the large majority of fire control systems, it would still be a huge advantage, so even if it was true that there were lower frequency radar systems that could easily track LO aircraft, that in no way necessarily means that "stealth is defeated."  I've only dug my heels in on this one because I see the implications/conclusions from this sort of thing (RCS dependence on radar frequency) misunderstood/misrepresented by many people in various forums.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       12/5/2009 2:29:16 PM
Warpig , what you 're saying is making sense but I still disagree slightly with the following :
 
""First, you've misquoted/misunderstood me above, as the "it" that will be true with our future opponents is that they will use many EW and TA radars that operate in the L, UHF, and VHF bands, just like our last two opponents did, and therefore we had better be right about whether or not our LO is effective in those bands.""
 
First , the USAF knows perfectly well how their LO platforms perform under various radar bands . You have tested your LO jets for years and I trust you in this regard . In fact , you know better than anyone else what can defeat the F-22 , the B-2 or the F-35 .
Secondly , you talk about your "future opponents" . Who they could be ?
Since the West will certainly not fight itself for the foreseeable future , since Russia is quiet with Europe , not a lot of "decent" military nations left . China ? No way . India ? I doubt it . N-Korea ? Well , what for ?
What left is the Middle-east : Syria , Iran , Saudi Arabia . I doubt that these Nations could counter the LO threat or with great difficulties . It sounds good for the USAF ;-)
 
""Regarding the Iraqi radar not having the software to track LO aircraft, I'd say that while that is true, it's primarily because their radars were mostly from the era of analog hardware before the use of digital computers in performing automatic plot extraction.  Of course, it's actually very hard for automatic track forming to correlate intermittent and faint returns better than an experienced operator can by watching the raw video.  Automation pays off in handling a far greater volume of tracks than human operators can.""
 
I agree .
 
""Howerver, there was nothing third-rate about the Iraqis air defense C2 network.""
 
I disagree , it was a third-rate C2 . The Iraqis had a "bastard" mix of very various systems , some made to work with each other , others not . 

""It's the French that sold them the KARI C2 system that formed their IADS air defense command and control network only a few years prior to the war, and it was certainly a quite modern network at that time.""
 
Well , the KARI C2 system was also a mix of various systems (French and non french) . We made it specially for them (KARI in reverse is IRAK) .
From Globalsecurity :
 
""Iraq uses the KARI IADS, a French-supplied command, control, and communications system completed in 1986-1987. (KARI is Iraq spelled backwards in French.) KARI is a mix of technologies from different nations with uncertain integration. KARI was rapidly overwhelmed by Coalition air operations during the 1990-91 Gulf War for several reasons. First, KARI was very hierarchical, so that when the SOCs or ADOC were destroyed, the IOCs were unable to operate effectively. Also, much of the communications, data processing, and software for the integrated air defenses (IADs) were not up to the task of successfully defeating a modern, Western air campaign.""
 
France made a lot of money with the KARI system (half of it paid in crude oil) , it was a bastardize system destinated to more or less link to each other the various many systems Iraq had at the time . I don 't rate it very highly ...
 
""Considering that we lost several aircraft to the Iraqi SAM network, it's not like it didn't work.""
 
It did work a bit against non LO aircraft only ... Keep in mind that the Iraqis are not the 'Billy the Kid' of IADS .
You also said :
 
""My point has been to de-bunk this false notion that the mere fact of radar frequency alone is sufficient to overcome/erase the effectiveness of LO treatments ("signals management" as gf would say)""
 
I 've never said so Warpig , re read what I posted . Detecting and killing a LO platform are two different things .
Some can , others not .
I am not going to imagine a scenario just to make my point but we know what must be done to attack an adverse IADS .
Prior to any bombing operation , we need to open a breach (or multiple breaches) in the IADS . L
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       12/5/2009 6:09:19 PM
Urgh,
 
BW, 3 industry professionals are telling you incredibly politely that you are wrong. It's amazing that whilst US radars are unable to track their own LO aircraft, the French (as with everything else they have ever done) have found a way to do it at ranges of 100km! 
 
BW, your knowledge of this is at a certain level, but you should make sure you always indicate that it is limited (and I do not use this term insultingly) as an enthusiast, that means you aren't really qualified to argue about US stealth detection ranges because you have never been in any position of knowledge in this respect. How on earth would anyone be qualified without having ever been professionally involved? I think you are somewhat guilty of overstating the degree of erm.. "strength" of what you know. You are a highly-knowledgable amateur (and again, that is no insult) but not an air-defense professional.

Not trying to be rude just saying..
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       12/5/2009 6:52:59 PM
If nobody minds , I would like to go back on the topic of the Tiffies , Raffies and Rapties (lol) having a go at each other .
 
So far , I am unable to find anything credible on the Net about a possible confrontation , only gossips .
Do you have anything ?
The last time the Rafales were "invited" against US aircraft was just before RedFlag with the F-16s from Luke and it was (apparently) simulated gunfight only .
 
Such "fair" duels are very interesting as it shows the pure dogfighting capabilities of the involved aircraft and the quality of the pilots . I do like simulated gunfight scenarios :-)
 
As far as I know , the Typhoon and the Rafale never met in simulated cannon dogfight . Honestly , I don 't know who would get the most kills after 10 rounds . If I had to make a bet , I would probably go 6-4 in favor of the Rafale but that 's just me . It could go 6-4 in favor of the Typhoon .
The unknown quantity is the F-22 . 
Again , I have been watching videos of the 3 aircraft and I carefully watched the F-22 . As I said before on a different thread , the F-22 seems to be the weakest of the 3 . It is not as fast as the Eurocanards during long and hard manoevers , its acceleration in the vertical plane seems slow . Its instantaneous turning rate is good because of the help of the TVC and it can keep a constant angle of attack of 60 deg (!) , but the fighter is strickly limited to 9g
People in the know understand what it means :-(
 
When a Typhoon , Rafale or F-22 has run out of missiles and decide to finish the job with the cannon(s) , it tries to enter the dogfight with as much energy as it can , obviously . The speed is bound to be rather high , as the Gs .
the first "pass" is crucial and if one fighter can ~at the same speed than the other fighter~ pull 13 Gs while the other is limited to 9Gs , it will end up in its 6 O'clock very quickly . 
Roll rate and vertical climb is also of the utmost importance . There , the French fighters rule since the Mirage III .
The Typhoon is also excellent and hard to beat in this regard .
If you want to beat a M2000-5F , go very low and turn , turn  , turn and turn again .
This is not going to work against the Rafale .
 
To resume , in a cannon fight only , I rate the Typhoon and the Rafale higher than the F-22 .
 
Cheers .
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       12/5/2009 7:02:41 PM
Reactive :
""BW, 3 industry professionals are telling you incredibly politely that you are wrong. It's amazing that whilst US radars are unable to track their own LO aircraft, the French (as with everything else they have ever done) have found a way to do it at ranges of 100km!""
 
The US are perfectly capable to detect , track and kill their own LO platforms . Make no mistake .
Don 't downgrade the US capabilities to try to make a point against me . The USA know what they are doing .

""You are a highly-knowledgable amateur (and again, that is no insult) but not an air-defense professional. ""
 
I humbly agree and I thank you .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       12/5/2009 8:17:52 PM
Reactive :
""the French have found a way to do it at ranges of 100km !""
 
Yes . This technology is for ~as I said~ medium to low altitude stealth flying targets . We have other means for high altitude stealth flying targets and trust me , we are not the only one to have the capability .
 
I was talking with a friend of mine (MK2-5F pilot) not long ago about how the airbase here in Dijon could be defended in case of War .
The Dijon BA-102 airbase is where the -5Fs are based (they are the "flying Cops" in the French airspace) . Dijon is very far from any Sea and attack by cruise missiles (from Subs and Ships) are very unlikely to say the least . To be in range of the airbase , one would have to fly deep into French , Swiss , German , Italian or Belgium airspace .
First , my friend said to me that we had excellent close range protection around the base itself and that we could track anything flying within a 300km diameter circle . So , I talked about our over the horizon radar ~Nostradamus~ and other military systems , some of them (like the HA-100) using civilians means (bands and frequencies) and my friend smiled to me . If we set up 3 HA-100 radars at around 20km away from the airbase , these radars would use up to 14 FM relays around Dijon to get a picture of what is flying around the area (that is 14 targets to kill before the passive radars stop working) . Anything flying like a supersonic long range cruise missile would be detected , tracked and shot before reaching the airbase . 
During the cold war , the "Dijonnais" (people who lives there) were very affraid of a Russian nuclear strike as it was the only way to take out the airbase . I know personaly one neighbors who built a "nuclear proof" bunker in his garden (!?) .
 
Just to give some insights ...

Cheers .
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics