You have a problem understanding history here.
You mean your perception of history written by those you trust is more accurate than my perception of history written by those I trust?
Both the MIG-25's and F-111's first flights were in 1964. The F-111's failure as an air combat platform was quickly evident even before its first flight.
The first flight of the swing wing single tail fin F-111 is irrelevant.
Its main problem was it was too heavy for carrier operation. The radar and missile and weapon system and even the engines seemed to work to a basic level in the F-14A.
Seemed to work OK in the F-14D so if the F-111 had been made lighter I see no fundamental reason for it not to work if the same changes were made.
If anything, it was highly probable that the Soviets, in designing the MIG-25, copied the North American A-5 Vigilante, which first flew in 1958...
Except that a Tu-4 looks like a B-29 and the Soviet Buran looks like a Space Shuttle, and an R-3 looks like an early model Sidewinder. The Mig-25 looks quite unlike an F-111 or A-5 Vigilanete. The F-15 has the same layout as the Mig-25. The F-15 looks nothing like an F-111 or A-5.
So look up the A-5 and compare it against the MIG-25 for yourself.
I fail to see the similarity.
Why should we copy the MIG-25's shape when we already have a high altitude and Mach capable shape in inventory to improve upon in the A-5? The F-111's swing wing for the F-X was an attempt to compensate for the A-5's low subsonic flight behavior.
Because the plane they were working on was a failure, they see a Soviet plane and they need a plane to beat it and they have no time to develop it from scratch so they copy what they are trying to compete with. The exact same story for the Tu-4, the Sidewinder, and the Space Shuttle. The Soviets had 4 engined bombers in 1933. In fact the single engined ANT-25 flew 9,000km in 1937 to the US and that was what shocked the American congress into continuing funding for what was to become the B-17 which was going to be cut.
Same with the Sidewinder, they already had their own missiles, but the Sidewinder was so different they had nothing like it. It was so simple and basic and modular that rather than wait 5 years for the concept of modular design to be absorbed in the AAM design industry they chose to copy the layout and design, though they used their own sensors and rocket motors, just like with the Tu-4 they used their own engines and defensive guns and bombs of course.
The USSR had no SR-71 peer. Why not?
They had plenty of mach 3 plus designs, mostly bombers. The main reason they were not built was because ICBMs were more promising and they would have no use for an SR-71 type aircraft. The Mig-25 recon model was good enough for most of their needs.
The reason why the Soviets had no SR-71 peer was because they could not manufacture an aircraft with the same technology to achieve the same performance criteria. If the Soviets could, their version would look very similar to the SR-71.
Interesting logic, but flawed. After looking at the heavy steel used in the manufacture of the Mig-25 western experts also claimed it was because of the backwardness of Soviet manufacturing technology and lack of skills with Titanium.
The amount of Titanium used in one Alpha class sub could have made 1,000 Mig-25s.
The Mig-25 met the requirements of the Soviets, they didn't care that it was heavy, or that it was cheaper to make.
Both the US Space Shuttle and the Soviet Buran are multi-stage rocket vehicles. How each get the main craft into orbit is independent of the craft itself. In this, the Buran was truly a copy of the Space Shuttle and evidenced by the years spanned between the two as well as its shape. The Buran's first (and only) flight was in Nov 1988. The Space Shuttle's operational flights began in 1982.
The Buran was much better system that was based on learning from the mistakes of the Space Shuttle. Every Shuttle launch was enormously expensive because those solid fuel rockets are very very expensive to run. Those large fuel tanks had to be recovered and returned to original shape and then thoroughly checked before it could be reused which is of course very expensive too. The 10 tons of rocket engine the Space Shuttle has in its rear end to burn all that fuel in the main fuel tank is dead weight for the rest of the flight.
It was supposed to be cheaper but ended up being much more expensive. Each shuttle flight cost over 600 million dollars, compared to about 20 million to replace an ISS crew by Russian rocket. It is very useful for some missions and about 3/4 or Shuttle missions were military, but as a shuttle to move people to and from a space station it was a white elephant.
Buran would be cheaper but not overly better than the shuttle for transfering crews. Where Buran would be totally superior is in constructing the space station itself. Simply by taking the Buran off the rocket and replacing it with 100 ton components to build the ISS they could have taken the entire existing station up in about 4 missions. Construction in space is enormously difficult and slow and making large components on the ground and taking them up in one piece would greatly speed up building the station and getting it operational.
Unfortunately they only had the US Space Shuttle which cannot be seperated from the rockets that get it to space so you take up 90 tons of dead weight with a 10 ton payload. So 10 times more missions and long periods between missions fitting all the smaller components together in space.
The Soviet copied the external aerodynamic shape but they clearly learned from the design faults of the US space shuttle to produce a clearly superior vehicle. Of course by the time it was ready there were economic problems and not being necessary it was amongst the first item to be cut.
It was a nice try...To explain the true history of the F-15's development, not the false one that you would like gullible people to believe.
So if they already had a Mach 2+ high altitude fighter what exactly made them suddenly want to develop a plane that looked like the Mig-25?
Fear. They saw this plane at an airshow, which at the time they thought was the Mig-23 and from its layout they worked out it was a mach 3 fighter. They knew from intel that the Mig-23 was replacing the Mig-21 as the standard Soviet fighter so they copied the layout to ensure the performance would be similar and then they put in the best radar and best engines and best of everything they could manage to try to give their aircraft superiority because surely merican engines and radar and stuff would make it better. The problem was that it wasn't the standard fighter, it was a custom designed interceptor of very specialist design. Doesn't mean they didn't copy the external shell.
The MIG-25's radar was 'optimized'? For what? If it was 'optimized' for anything, it was simply powerful enough to burn through some ECM tactics.
Of course the radar was optimised... it was designed specifically for the aircraft for the interception role. It had no ground mapping or sea mapping capability. It was matched with the missiles and other systems for a specific role... it was optimised.
As for its speed, if the engines had to be trashed after every Mach 2 flight, that made the MIG-25 severely limited in deployment. Do we need to review its combat radius...???
The engines were fine up to Mach 2.85 and were only trashed when that speed was exceeded for more than a few minutes. The Mig-25 was used by the PVO air defence forces and were deployed to shoot down incoming US bombers so it is hardly surprising they weren't deployed to Frontal Aviation bases.
Its combat radius was 10 times bigger than any other interceptor aircraft flying at faster than mach 2.
Sorry, buddy...But even though the world can mock US for grossly overestimating its capabilities, that was nothing compared to the shock that such a power like the Soviet Union can produced such an inferior product.
Hahahahaha... you are a funny guy. A 300km radius of action would be a mach 2.85 which is only matched today by one interceptor in service... the Mig-31.
and maximum range on internal fuel (at subsonic speeds) was only 744 miles (1,200 km) at low altitude (< 1000 meter).
And when would a Mig-25 operate at below 1,000m altitude? The Answer is twice... takeoff and landing. It operates normally at mach 2.5 plus and that can't happen for any aircraft below 1,000m.
It means that based upon 'current' radar technology and applications, the F-117 was effectively 'invisible' to any radar that operate under certain configurations.
It is very interesting that the first attacks of desert storm were attacks by low flying Apache helicopters on radar bases before the radar invisible F-117s entered Iraqi airspace.
The L, N, or X bands do not tell the readers any more relevant information than 'high' or 'low' freqs. Those letters are merely groups, not characteristics, descriptors. Words like 'decimetric' or 'centimetric' give the readers far more information about a signal's characteristic, which is its wavelength. Am willing to bet that you did not know of these terms before I came on here.
A reader that doesn't know what an X band radar probably wont be enlightened by being told it is a radar with a bandwidth inside centimetric wave band... or that the S band is also in that frequency range but the centimetric range is 100 times bigger than the milimetric range and the S band is a very small subset of that centimetric band. X, and L bands are more specific and precise than centimetric and milimetric bands. The AM band is a range of radio frequencies used to transmit AM radio, the FM band is a higher range that allows more information to be transmitted, including stereo signals. Telling someone the band width makes rather more sense than saying the signal is measured in centimetres or milimetres or tens of metres (ie decimetres). And if you take that bet you lose.
You are still talking about specialized applications of the mm wavelengths. Look at the distance: 10-12km. That is visual range. Because the mm wavelengths are borderline infrared, coupling infrared, a passive sensor, to generalize a heat source, and use radar, an active sensor, make a more precise target location, make sense.
Except that for an air to air missile visual range doesn't necessarily means the target is visible due to weather conditions like cloud or heavy rain. It is certainly not impossible to fit an Imaging infrared seeker together with a MMW radar seeker, but most of the time that will be redundant. You would need to analyse the expected results, of course you might find the IIR is good enough on its own, or that the computing power needed for the MMW seeker and its on board library of targets means another seeker will not fit. You could equally go the way the Russians have gone with one seeker head they have shown in public with an active radar homing seeker in the centre with passive radar sensors around the outer edge. The main radar seeker has a range of 20km in ARH mode but the passive sensors have a range of over 200km against an emitting target. Future seekers are likely to become multisensor.
But if, as Chappell witnessed, that despite the F-22 being within visual range of the pilot, the F-22 still make it difficult for its enemy to get a radar lock, what make you think radar can get such a fix from beyond visual?
He was in an F-15, perhaps if he was in a Mig-29 or Su-27, or for that matter a Su-35 he could use his IRST to get an initial lock or simply use his helmet mounted sight and lock an R-73 on the target.
The array must be continuous.
Why? The Zaslon-M radars of 4 seperate Mig-31s flying 200km apart are not continuous, yet their data can be combined into an antenna coverage 1,000km in width.
The "failed" attempt to put a large radar in the nose and tail of a Nimrod aircraft to provide 360 degree coverage as an AWACS aircraft failed, but the fact that they tried suggests it is possible.
You make this argument because you do not know what an aircraft look like under its skin.
I make the arguement because from the photo of the array it is difficult to tell how long it would be or how many could be fitted to each wing.
This is not one continous array but of several small arrays.
And you are trying to correct me? It is one continuous array, the array consists like any array of array elements. An array of arrays would be each element in this case being an AESA radar on its own and it clearly is not.
Another thing you do not seem to understand is that the antenna is NOT the array.
As I mention above I know what an antenna is and that several radars can be linked together to make a larger antenna by using more and spaced arrays. Each Array is a collection of array elements.
If anything, the F-22 will see this as a 'Here I am come get me' beacon by the PRAT-FALL and shoot it down without using its own radar.
Hahaha... and a missile that guides to L band emissions would spell the end of stealth aircraft too... NATO operates it netcentric management system in L Band datalinks.
Of course... no one else in the world could ever develop a stealth UCAV. Russia can have stealthy cruise missiles but not stealthy UCAVs.
BTW the performance of the SKATE will probably be comparable to the F-117 in that it will deliver two guided bombs in the 1,000-1,500kg range to about 2,000km flight radius at about 800km/h.
The fact that you do not deny that sonar does transmit make the laugh on you.
Active IR exists too... what is your point?
Radar and sonar contain structurally distinct sections: transmit and receive. If a submarine is 'noisy' in anyway, be it deliberate or accidental, it does not negate the fact that sonar does transmit, aka 'ping'.
And aircraft transmit IR radiation too... are you getting to a point any time soon?
So your argument that sonar is a passive sensor is wrong. Just because a person listen (passive) more than he speaks (active) does not make him any less of a transmitter of audio signals.
SONAR and RADAR and IR can all be passive and/or active. As a passive sensor sonar can determine range without being used actively. Just as my point was that IR sensors could also use the same or similar methods to be used passively to determine range. They can be accurate to within 1km and still be good enough because they are not being used for terminal guidance, they are being used to set up a shot.
In both cases the weapon launched, whether it be a BVR AAM or a torpedo has its own seeker that might be active or passive that will take care of the terminal phase.
Now who is the joke here? You speak as if the fighter's radar has 360deg capability. It does not. Or is Russia exempt from the laws of physics? If an infrared sensor detect a target that is outside of the radar's physical sweep (scan) limits, then all you have are less than ideal range estimation, and I know that it is possible to have IR target range estimation, and general target direction. If a missile is launched in that direction, it will be at a disadvantage because of the lack of initial target radar information. In exercises, we will give %100 assurance to the helmet mounted cueing system. But in the real world, things will be quite different.
What I mean is if a pilot detects a target on his IRST he doesn't need to scan the entire sky with radar to find the target as this will give his position away to all aircraft nearby. He just needs to direct a ranging pulse of radar at the target and use the return information to determine range and closing speed. If he has to manoeuvre to get the target inside his radar field of view I am sure he will bother to take the time for the information it will deliver. I would suggest that considering the R-27ET is reported to have an air to air head on range of about 60km at medium to high altitudes that if the IRST has detected the target it will not likely be much further than that away from the launch aircraft and is worth a shot especially if the target didn't appear on radar before.
The main reason why flares are released in salvos is because flares do not have the same aerodynamics characteristics as the parent aircraft.
? So. Do you think the incoming missile sees the salvo of flares and things... oh oh that isn't flying like a plane... I will ignore it.
I think you Americans have taken your own terminology too far... smart weapon indeed.
I stand by what I said originally.
It does not matter if the IR sensor can distinguish gradients of IR emissions on a body if its sensor view is completety blanketed by a greater IR emission, be it from one or more flares. That is the goal of chaff and flares: To blanket the appropriate sensor's view for as long as possible. This is why aircrafts make violent maneuvers after these discharges.
A modern IIR seeker like on AIM-9X creates an image like a thermal imager that is not fooled by lots of hot points of flares. Even the R-73 had a UV filter that could determine that a burning flare emitting UV energy was not an aircraft surface... which of course does not emit UV radiation... unless it has 60,000 V running through it then it might like high tension power cables.
With the F-117, it was a better result.
3 cruise missiles would give you the same result without risking a pilot and for a fraction of the cost.
Just amused at the lengths that some people would go in trying to downplay the effectiveness of low radar observability.
I just think it is over rated. But then most American things are overhyped, but perhaps that is because of the sophisticated American marketing capacity... in other words it is not a fault it is just something else you are better at than anyone else...
Sarcasm about our stuff does not elevate Russian stuff.
I don't need to elevate Russian stuff. You missed the point completely.
F-22 is a cold war aircraft optimised to fight the cold war. Its job is to breach Soviet air defences and clear the skies of Soviet aircraft so that NATO aircraft can have their way.
Your current problems however seem to be rather different and the F-22 has no role in either Iraq, Afghanistan or Iran.
And before you say the F-22 could be used to strike Irans WMD program I would say that was the dumbest suggestion I have heard all week. A US or Israeli attack on Iran would be the most painful stab in your own foot that you could possibly think of short of shooting your own troops yourself.
(Can I just say that up until now what the US has done in Iraq and Afghanistan has suited Iran very well. The US got rid of the Sunni Baath Party and Saddam himself in Iraq so that the Shia majority now get a vote. (Note shia muslims have mullahs... Iran is a Shia state). In Afghanistan the Taleban were the enemies of Iran because they were supported by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (both sunni muslim states).
You have removed from power in its two neighbouring countries two great enemies of Iran. Now they just want you to leave and they will be happy. If you bomb them watch the MANPADs and ATGMs flood over both borders. Denying the US air transport means travelling by road. Denying road and air transport suddenly makes both countries death traps for US forces and their allies. Need I go on about what will happen when the roads and the air are no longer safe?)
The Cold War may be over but human conflicts continues. You are just upset that Russia is no longer as influential as when the Soviet empire existed.
Actually the actions of Bush et al has made Russia rather more popular internationally than you seem to realise.
But you are the radar expert. You know that radar invisibility does not exist and that in practical terms it means reduced detection range. Therefore a radar that can detect targets at 400km could still detect a stealth aircraft at 20km. This means all the radars need to be plotted and their effective range calculated with the detection rings plotted and flight paths routed around these rings. It is called mission planning.
Spare me your crocodile tears for our morals and ideals. Try to remain in the technical realm.
Of course, the west and the US in particular find it necessary to lecture the world on what is right and what is wrong but the signal is on transmit and not receive.
We achieved this without the F-22. You are dreaming with your IR sensors.
You have never taken on a decent air defence system, it was either poorly used (ie Iraq) or lacked the right tools for the job (Serbia).
I might be dreaming about IR sensors yet the Russians continue to fit all their fighters with them and improve them. Mig-29, Mig-31, Su-27, Mig-35, Su-35, T-50... all have IRSTs fitted. All have IR guided BVR missiles too.
A Stealth book by Keypublishing. Can't remember the title off hand.
The reason why moving target indicator (MTI) radar works is because the target was not so rejected. In other words, BEFORE the MTI indicator is active for a target, the radar system ALREADY considered it a valid target and displayed its Doppler component.
The An-2 almost has no stall speed and can actually fly backwards in a strong headwind. Its speed over the ground could be zero if it is flying into a 45km/h wind.
You will be tracking a lot of cars before you start tracking An-2s.
When you begin to exaggerate the PRAT-FALL's radar capabilities, you made radar detection a parallel issue.
What prat fall radar? I am talking about the Tikhomirov NIIP AESA. If it is not for tracking targets the nose mounted X band AESA radar can't track then what do you suppose is its purpose? If you were designing for Sukhoi right now why would you incorporate an L band wing mounted AESA radar?
We knew of this from the F-117 days. But the problem with the HF bands is array dimensions, as in meters wide. Sorry...But the wing leading edge does not qualify because the word 'wide' here mean both width and height.
They have plenty of those sorts of radar on the ground, they don't need that in their aircraft.
No...The Soviets did not.
You use a past tense. Great way to discuss things. I can claim the US has no lead in stealth design at all... because I mean 3,000 years ago when the US didn't exist.
Then do explain why now everyone, from the Russian to the Chinese, are jumping on this 'stealth' bandwagon. Your desperation is hilarious.
Because when the other side has a technology it makes sense to both develop that technology for yourself and to devise ways to defeat that technology. And From the Russians to the Chinese they are doing both.
Your attempt to distinguish the US from NATO regarding the F-117 made NATO irrelevant. The F-117 was an American product, flown by American pilots.
NATO was irrelevant in Kosovo. F-117s were irrelevant in Kosovo. You can use air power all you want but without ground forces it only goes so far. Thought you learned that from Iraq?
Hmmm, I ask you a question... "And how many SAM sites were destroyed by these Wild Weasels that are designed to defeat SAM sites?" and you reply:
The fact that Zoltan Dani managed to launch several missiles meant that Wild Weasels missions were not %100 successful. This is funny. First you want to give Dani exaggerated technical credits, now you are trying to make it as if the Serbian air defense were completely helpless. Make up your mind.
The 'spray-and-pray' tactic is tried and true.
Never heard of suppressive fire? You can't apply spray and pray tactics with guided SAMs. They are either guided or they are not.
Same for air defense missile training where multiple launches are advised even for a single hostile.
That is an application of the mathematics of probability. Improving the probability of a kill by increasing the number of missiles fired. The problem is that with a guided missile that has no lock the probability is zero so launching more missiles does not change the kill probability.
Yup...Just two out of tens of thousands of sorties. Not an air defense combat record to boast about. Not even for 'spray-and-pray' tactic.
The purpose of any air defence network is to survive first and foremost, and secondly to survive to continue to make the task of enemy air power difficult.
After what... 74 days of complete air supremacy (without F-22s) they took out 13 tanks and a few other items that wouldn't even cover the cost of one F-117.
And lets be clear this was a superpower and her cronies pretty much operating from home soil with all their latest and greatest for OVER A MONTH!
And at the end of that period the Serbia air defence force was as much a threat as it was on day one. NATO was beaten. They knew it.
But the issue here is result and two out of tens of thousands sorties is a sorry result.
The sad fact is that if NATO hadn't intervened Kosovo would never have declared independence, and Russia would not have opened its borders to South Ossetia and Abkhazia and Georgia likely would not have invaded leading to Russia recognising the independance of both regions. Still it showed NATO as being a largely paper tiger because of its internal divisions and its committee management would make it vulnerable in a situation where it found it self up against an enemy that actually was properly equipped and half as well motivated and trained as the Serbs were.