Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

I am nearly confident that F22 already has some secret technologies that its adversaries do not know about and thus not spend efforts in finding counter measures. Direct Energy, Blinding or Killing lasers, even mini EMPs can all be possible on F22 and F35s already.

Victor7 i agree perfectly with you, rather i think that Raptor has also an antimatter gun and some sort of energy shield activated directly with mere thought by the pilot (also if ,obviously, F-22 wouldn't never employ it because no enemy can see it).

If i would be in you ,i would start a good thread of F-16.net on the subject ; i am sure you would very quickly collect a big herd.....cough....i intended group...group....of happy fans celebrating your ideas.
After that you could start other threads named ,for example : " F-22 Raptor vs Klingon starship" or " F-22 Raptor and B2 Spirit 10th or 11th generation aircraft ?" , i can barely image the success you could obtain.

Time and again, USAF sources have said that F22 vrs 6 or so F15s is not even a fair fight. Many have termed Raptor as a 6th generation plane..........got to give some value to these statements. USAF does not like to boast and post wrong figures.

Oh yes ,sure ... .
CLAIMS are cheap ,do you know...but outside world of WORDS we only see that :

1) F-22 in the only instance where was allowed to participate in a not USAF controled DACT exercise vs allied RAF ,with both WVR and BVR engagements, has been not only dominated WVR (for the lack of any type of even '80 years level HOBS missiles) but was also tracked at very surprising long range by Thypoon.

2) Since the "incident" F-22 was never allowed anymore to participate in any DACT exercise with not american-controled Red groups ,in spite that.... SUPPOSEDLY..... F-22 shouldn't risk anything in the BVR engagement , if it was TRULY as undetectable as CLAIMED,in fact, those engagement would finish with the Raptor engaging the enemy aircraft completely undetected and,therefore ,with virtually zero risks for its classified capabilities.
The UNIQUE RISK that a similar USAF choice would avoid would be the EXACT OPPOSITE :
- that F-22 would result much,much more detectable than what selled usually in the PR oriented CLAIMS

3) F-22 has never participated (even only in a purely symbolic way) in any international mission where any foreign aircraft was present .
Anyone can easily realize how the possible rational behind this odd choice by part of USAF strangely correspond to that of the previous point

4) F-22 raptor has been discontinued after just few years from its IOC...strange...VERY STRANGE , isn't ?


Victor7, even escaping to the points i have exposed, try to reason for some seconds ;do you find credible that one F-22 armed with six....SIX....AIM-120C (a missile that have proved in actual operations a PK of 0,46 against.... vastly outdated targets literally not employing any type of countermeasures and not attempting any manoeuvre to avoid them !!! ) can even only have one chance on 100 to win ?

Please Victor7 REASON !!!!

do you find credible that one F-22 armed with six....SIX....AIM-120C (a missile that have proved in actual operations a PK of 0,46 against.... vastly outdated targets literally not employing any type of countermeasures and not attempting any manoeuvre to avoid them !!! ) can even only have one chance on 100 to win ?

Where did you get this information? PK of AIM-120C is 60% and two by some reasoning is 75% taking in other factors also. This is as per the Ausairpower website. If AIM-120C/D was so bad then USAF pilots would have refused to fly with it as it would risk their own lives. It would have been a big scandal coming out on 60 Minutes type programs.

Bro, in my reasoning a soldier a pilot or naval cadet is........not a cannon fodder from a poor family of some Russian village in Siberia. If system for defense is not in place then better to keep away, the 'human being' from the harm's way and more so because that individual is the country mate. Do not feed in false stories to the teenage soldiers and send them to their destruction, in other words, PROVIDE ACTUAL MEALS TO THE SOLDIERS AND NOT ASK THEM TO FIGHT HUNGER BY JUST IMAGINING 'WAITERS COMING WITH BIG MEALS' WHILE THEY ARE BURIED IN SNOW OF -40 CELSIUS TEMPERATURES.

FEEDING FALSE STORIES AND THEN MAKING SOLDIERS BEG DOOR TO DOOR FOR FOOD IN CHECHNYA IS BEYOND SHAMELESSNESS.

F-22 raptor has been discontinued after just few years from its IOC...strange...VERY STRANGE , isn't ?

Raptor was discontinued due to economy related reasons. Also in a new strategy couple of F22s will be helping out two whole squadrons of F15/F16s and act as a force multiplier. Borrowing few capabilities of F22s makes legacy jets even more effective. New strategy does not call for two whole squadrons on F22s on the onset unless opposing force is Russia or China......Chances of that are very slim like less than 5%.

Also the vast number of quality legacy jets in USAF/USN call for no immediate need for another 100 or 200 Raptors. Once Pakfa comes out and USAF checks it then they might or might not go for additional F22s.......this is my guess atleast.

but was also tracked at very surprising long range by Thypoon.

if that is actually true, then Typhoon has something special going for itself. Soon Raptor will be detecting Legacy jets from 400kms........deal with that! What if USAF modifies its AMRAAMs to go over 200 Kms, that would be something tough to deal with.

victor7 wrote:

To attack Iran would be pointless because it will create the very thing they fear... a unified and focussed Iran bent on creating a nuclear weapon.

The attack on Iran has several goals. One major goal is the regime change in the Russia friendly nations. Second goal is to access the Central Asian energy sources via Iran and thus further reducing Russia's influence in the CIS. Many other goals can be listed, however final goal is Russia.

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/05-04-2012/121003-missile_defense_retaliation-0/

Maximum range of R-73 is 40km, Maximum range of IRSTs is 60KM.......would not work well against F22s, IMHO. It will first burn off your radar from 200Km then from around 100 Kms it will fire AIM-120. Your IRST will find it at around 60 km giving giving you 50 odd seconds at most to evade.

For 25 years this stealth technology has been breathing down the necks of the adversary air forces and no solution yet reached to DeTacK it. Better focus on beating its missiles and bombs and also on increasing the range of IRST based identifiers.

Point has been repeatedly made that Russia has tools to handle stealth but if one by one Russia's friends are taken out then that is much more of a threat to the RF than F22s going on hunting missions against Russia's national interests.

Actually the current lock range of IRST operating on Su-35s are 80km
And yes the Euro-typhoons were able to track the raptor at far distances. Guess the americans didn't use their stealth tech in that exercise eh

victor7 wrote:Bro, in my reasoning a soldier a pilot or naval cadet is........not a cannon fodder from a poor family of some Russian village in Siberia.

Cant you say the same about US Forces. Where they are sent to Iraq on bunch of lies. They are a cannon fodder for corporate interests put forward as spreading democracy and freedom for Iraqis. What do you think?

Cant you say the same about US Forces. Where they are sent to Iraq on bunch of lies. They are a cannon fodder for corporate interests put forward as spreading democracy and freedom for Iraqis. What do you think?

I can reply in detail to that but do not want to change from the main topic of the thread. However, US doctrine gives most importance to the safety and well being of its men and women in uniform or even in civilian aspects.



Regarding, Raptor - its chances are great from BVR and if it does not kill from there then it better run away as it is not proven to be an excellent dogfighter.

In the BVR, your missiles are only as good as your radar is. If Raptor radar is way advanced then there is the main advantage right there.

Where did you get this information? PK of AIM-120C is 60% and two by some reasoning is 75% taking in other factors also.

Do you know all the point of stealth SHOULD be to engage enemy aircraft from BEYOND visual range -BVR- , if you intend to include missile shoot well WITHIN visual range to attempt to obtain a figure of almost 60% ( 0,59 PK for the precision) i see the picture for your F-22 become more and more gray......; even more important ,we must add that this PK of 0,46 has been achieved against aircraft vastly downgraded ,devoid of any type of defensive suit, manned often by not proficient pilots, completely unaware to be under attack (none of them had ever begun any evasive manoeuvre against the incoming missiles) and of any type of offensive weapon allowing them to react ,fighting against an enemy outnumbering them 17 to 1 and with support of AWACS.

Note : To be fair, we should remember that in practically ALL the air to air kills obtained by NATO in pasted war ,except two ,even the few obtained at "BVR" , was conducted well within tracking range of even the older OEPrNK-29 optoelectronic tracking suit of MiG-29 Fulcrum and also well within engagement range of R-73.]

If AIM-120C/D was so bad then USAF pilots would have refused to fly with it as it would risk their own lives. It would have been a big scandal coming out on 60 Minutes type programs.

AIM-120’s capabilities are more than sufficient for the typical opponent of NATO ; with your line of reasoning USA Navy operators would have shout to scandal for 40 years because all theirs weapons was dozen of times inferior to those available to Soviet in the same period and the same was true for ground forces ,air delivered missiles etc…etc..
The reality is that between the two blocks was URSS at believe that an offensive "strangling" conventional war against NATO was possible not the opposite ; NATO's strategists ,instead, has always computed that any other option ,except a full nuclear response, was deemed to conduct to a complete defeat of the organization in a full scale Soviet offensive scenario in Europe and Great Britain.

Also today USA and Russia are aware that the only weapons that would have any importance in an....apocalyptic... conflict between them would be quality and effciency of nuclear weapons and of respective national strategic ABM system ; and the move by part of USA to exit unilaterally from ABM treaty in 2002 and begin the BM shield in East Europe is just an attempt to find a remedy for a very big and faster growing technological gap in nuclear delivery systems against Russia , a factor that with the post-Cold War reduced number of missiles menaced to become irremediable for USA .

IRST missile canceller

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkkWya-oun0&feature=related

IRST going out of business soon it seems if we go by this video.

http://www.gizmag.com/adaptiv-ir-invisibility-cloak/19748/

Also today USA and Russia are aware that the only weapons that would have any importance in an....apocalyptic... conflict between them would be quality and effciency of nuclear weapons and of respective national strategic ABM system

This logic is no different from Drunk Yeltsin's policies in 1990s that starved the defense research and hollowed the Russian defense structures. Keep on counting on the nukes.........you have good going till 2015, when BMDs are all over Europe and US treating Russia like it treats Iran today. Hope Not but luck sides with the one who is well prepared.

i meant old mig-29s that havn't upgraded yet ,but the upgraded MIGs are good in combat missions ,but old MIGs that havn't upgraded yet have low chances in compraison with new western aircrafts ,

Isn't that a logical truth though?

The whole purpose of the design of an aircraft is to meet a need and that need is to generally compete as well if not better than the similar class aircraft made by rivals.

Therefore by definition the purpose of any upgrade is to improve performance to either give it an edge or to address some weakness found.

A case in point is with the F-4 Phantom that later had a gun added... they believed it would not be necessary because it was a big expensive heavy fighter with long range missiles and the enemy was never going to get close enough for the F-4 to need a gun.

Enter the real world and those long range missiles were not as effective as they thought they would be and they realised they needed a gun so it was upgraded.

Now lets look back at what you said...

"i meant old mig-29s that havn't upgraded yet ,but the upgraded MIGs are good in combat missions ,but old MIGs that havn't upgraded yet have low chances in compraison with new western aircrafts , "

So old aircraft would have problems with old aircraft that had been upgraded after experience in testing against Mig-29s and new aircraft designed with Mig-29s in mind.

Yes, I think that is fair to say that, but equally even just a few simple upgrades... like a modern self defence suite, a new more powerful radar and a new set of modern digital AAMs and all of a sudden for 10-20 million dollars you suddenly have a world class aircraft again.

There are lots of people who don't think much of the Mig-29 and I think in a lot of cases that is down to ignorance. I am not suggesting people who disagree with me are ignorant, what I am saying is that most people get their information from western sources who have an agenda... they need a boogy man to promote sales and for a while that was the Mig-29 which for a while was depicted as a carbon copy of a Hornet, but now that boogy man is the Su-27 and its later models and the Mig-29 is underrated because it turns out it is not as good as they expected/pretended. Of course with upgrades it is actually rather better than they even thought it was before, but now it is considered bad it would need to go to war and be successful... and what chance is it that a country with Mig-29s could win a war... it would pretty much be down to India unless you are impressed by Mig-29s shooting down Israeli designed Georgian owned drones.

I know of at least one person who didn't like the Mig-29 at all who did a bit of research and ended up thinking it was clearly not as bad as everyone thinks but most people don't bother.

i apologise if i wrongly wrote a hateful speech,i'm already a russian stuff fan ,that's why i'm here

It is always important to be clear... you can think the Mig-29 is rubbish... it certainly isn't perfect and the early models had clear deficiencies, and these were made to appear worse with comparison with the F-16.

Keep in mind that not being able to out turn an F-16 is only important if you don't have all aspect IR guided R-73s and a helmet mounted sight... because an R-73 can out turn an F-16.

Dogfighting is all about getting on the tail of an enemy and staying there till you have shot them down.

High off boresight missiles and helmet mounted sights is about seeing first and killing first.

The latter is the most critical thing about a dogfighter and a HMS and high off boresight missile are the best tools to achieve that.

The attack on Iran has several goals. One major goal is the regime change in the Russia friendly nations. Second goal is to access the Central Asian energy sources via Iran and thus further reducing Russia's influence in the CIS. Many other goals can be listed, however final goal is Russia.

But an attack on Iran will unite the Iranian people against the attacker whether it is the US or NATO or Israel... and would create huge support for any country that opposes the attack... in other words it will likely actually make Iran more dependent on Russia which would be the opposite of the stated goals...

Maximum range of R-73 is 40km, Maximum range of IRSTs is 60KM.......would not work well against F22s, IMHO. It will first burn off your radar from 200Km then from around 100 Kms it will fire AIM-120. Your IRST will find it at around 60 km giving giving you 50 odd seconds at most to evade.

First of all the tactics used by the F-22 are critical... it will prefer to fly high and fast which will add energy to its missiles and take energy away from missiles fired by aircraft flying slower and lower.

The thing is that a supersonic aircraft generates heat friction on its front and even though it is not using AB it will still be generating lots of heat through full dry thrust and friction generated hot spots over the front of the aircraft.

40km range is the ideal range for R-73, but a supercruising F-22 is the ideal target.

The R-27ET has a range of 60km head on and uses the same seeker as the R-73.

A super cruising target flying very high means no earth background with a hot target so I would expect the look up range against an F-22 for an IRST would be rather more than 60km.

An AMRAAM fired from 100km would be much easier to defeat than any other missile because the F-22 can only carry C model AMRAAMs which means 100kms is their max range.

For 25 years this stealth technology has been breathing down the necks of the adversary air forces and no solution yet reached to DeTacK it.

Who said there is no solution?

The F-22 cannot send information to other planes in the USAF so anything they detect they never talk about to others because that would reveal their positions.

LPI might be true in the 1980s but with modern computer processors and sensors any radar signal coming from what appears to be empty space is a huge clue.

BTW for 25 years the Russians have been working on the problem but the military only started buying the solutions after about 2008, and there are a few things that have needed to be worked out first but they are well on their way to getting into service systems like S-400 and Vityaz and S-300V4 and Su-35 and indeed PAK FA.

Better focus on beating its missiles and bombs and also on increasing the range of IRST based identifiers.

Without AMRAAMs the F-22 is a fairly mediocre dog fighter... a UCAV with two IIR seeking missiles and a single small engine would be ideal for killing F-22s... assume a flight of 24 F-22s operating over a region in Russia... space and ground based radar will detect them fairly rapidly but what do you do about it?

Send up 50 UCAVs that are armed with IIR missiles... the goal is not some super UCAV that costs hundreds of millions of dollars... just a simple basic transonic UCAV with maybe 4 IIR missiles... two heavy BVR missiles and two agile short range WVR missiles... right now I would go for 2 x R-27ETs and 2 x R-73s with datalinks directing them to where the F-22s have been located.

The absolute maximum weapon load for the F-22s is 6 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinders... if the carried external missiles they wouldn't be stealthy any more and you could deal with them the same way you'd deal with an F-15C.

Completely ignoring the Sidewinders that means the entire flight... which will not be flying together... will have a max of 6 x 24 AMRAAMs which means 144 AMRAAMs to evade... now that is a lot of missiles (but it is also more than 10% of the USAF fleet of F-22s) but there are advantages. Our UCAV can be designed to pull 15 or 20 gs so it should be able to evade incoming AMRAAMs simply by performing predesigned manouvers that it can immediately start performing as soon as it detects an AMRAAMs seeker going active.

The UCAV wont have a radar so the AMRAAM can't engage it passively in any way.

When the UCAV gets to close proximity of where the F-22s are it can scan the area with its IR sensors and engage the targets with its missiles and then return to base.

Sending up a force of 50 UCAVs even if not one F-22 is shot down they will likely have expended an enormous amount of fuel and energy and be rather low on missiles too... which is when you send up the Su-35s together with PAK FAs.

Of course they don't have the UCAVs now so I am projecting this engagement into the 2020 time period so the UCAVs will have advanced multi spectrum QWIP optical sensors and 2 x IIR seeking 280km range RVV-BD based weapon and two 9M100 Morfei short range IIR guided lock on after launch missiles... it would be very formidible...

And 3/4 of Luftwaffe was on Russian front...

The History Channel and the Discovery Channel and most in the US military seem to believe that it was strategic bombing of europe by the west and then D day that defeated nazi germany in wwii.

My comment was meant to show that the USAF lie or at the very least can be wrong and therefore when they say the F-22 is perfect and can defeat anything you don't have to take them at their word.

They are hardly going to say a $350 million dollar and airframe aircraft is slightly better than an F-15C.

so bad then USAF pilots would have refused to fly with it as it would risk their own lives.

So Serb pilots defending their country getting into Mig-29s that had not be serviced and had radars that didn't work are braver than USAF pilots?

Actually they probably were, but refusing to fly an aircraft is not something pilots do very often... they don't tend to remain pilots for long and in war time they can be shot for that sort of thing.

FEEDING FALSE STORIES AND THEN MAKING SOLDIERS BEG DOOR TO DOOR FOR FOOD IN CHECHNYA IS BEYOND SHAMELESSNESS.

And British tank crew dying because they have cheap old ineffective body armour is a crying shame too but no armed force is perfect and problems occur.

Considering your sources regarding the F-22 are you sure of your sources regarding the Russian military in general?

Raptor was discontinued due to economy related reasons. Also in a new strategy couple of F22s will be helping out two whole squadrons of F15/F16s and act as a force multiplier. Borrowing few capabilities of F22s makes legacy jets even more effective. New strategy does not call for two whole squadrons on F22s on the onset unless opposing force is Russia or China......Chances of that are very slim like less than 5%.

That isn't going to work and is completely ridiculous... if they are talking about not opposing a capable force then WTF do they need the F-22s for in the first place. They could have spent the 350 million and about a dozen F-16s.

But in reality they were expecting the F-35 to be in service now so they are saving money by not upgrading the legacy fighters like the F-15 and F-16 so these aircraft will be going to the bone yard and the US will be replacing relatively cheap but capable aircraft with capable aircraft that are ridiculously expensive.

Their main problem is production gap the F-15 and F-16 are 1970s aircraft and putting them back into full production would not be cheap or easy for that matter.

For the Russians their aircraft are newer and can still be put in production in their latest model forms that are competitive.

Duties like policing airspace or even just engaging enemy UAVs and cruise missiles don't require 350 million dollar aircraft... nor does dropping a satellite guided bomb.

The gold plated USAF will be very expensive to maintain yet in real terms it still cannot take on a nuclear power with no chance of retaliation.

Once Pakfa comes out and USAF checks it then they might or might not go for additional F22s.......this is my guess atleast.

The F-22 is dead. More F-22s would kill the 3,000 odd F-35s they want to make.

Personally, I would cancel the F-35 VSTOL version and redesign the other two to be more efficient... because they went for a unified design the conventional models design is largely dictated by the needs of the VSTOL version which makes them less efficient and more expensive.

I would also be rather less arrogant than the US and actually collaborate on the design of the avionics so the export models can have fully international avionics and if you want the domestic model can have different equipment you want to keep secret... but at the end of the day they think it is a US aircraft that they will let their allies pay for and use but they are always US aircraft....

Soon Raptor will be detecting Legacy jets from 400kms........deal with that! What if USAF modifies its AMRAAMs to go over 200 Kms, that would be something tough to deal with.

Are you not listening?

You are talking about individual planes... you watch too many American movies perhaps?

A ground based passive sensor array like Orion detects an F-22 fly overhead... it doesn't emit anything so the F-22 has no idea it is there and no idea it has been detected. The information goes by fibre optic cable to HQ and passed to the entire network.

That legacy fighter 450km from the F-22 that the F-22 can't detect yet already knows the F-22 is there.

When the Legacy fighter is 350km the F-22 still doesn't know they are there till he scans for him using his radar... the legacy fighter suddenly detects a blip of energy over a broad band of radar frequencies at once... and 30 years ago would have ignored it as noise, but after the last upgrade the new ESM suite will take the datalinked info dated a few minutes ago showing an F-22 in the area that blip came from and puts two and two together and calculates the angle and approximate range based on signal strength to the target and transmits back to the network the new information. Other aircraft in his group do the same and with each piece of information together with a time stamp it is not rocket science to triangulate the rough area the F-22 is operating in.

A long wave anti stealth radar in the area to a quick scan while another few also in the area remain radar silent but listen for reflections of long wave radar energy and the resulting data can be processed like it is one giant bi static radar and a very accurate location for the threat will be achieved... accurate enough for a few IIR long range missiles to be fired into the general area.

Actually the current lock range of IRST operating on Su-35s are 80km

And that would be against normal targets... a supercruising target will be detectible from greater distances.

For instance the SR-71 could be detected by the IRST of the Mig-25 at 120 miles... which is further than it could detect it with its radar.

US doctrine gives most importance to the safety and well being of its men and women in uniform or even in civilian aspects.

By sending them to third world sht holes to ensure the price of oil stays low to fight and die in countries that are no threat to the US at all?

In the BVR, your missiles are only as good as your radar is. If Raptor radar is way advanced then there is the main advantage right there.

Wrong.

In BVR the critical things are 1: is the target aware of the attack and when do they become aware of the attack, and 2: what options does the target aircraft have to defeat the incoming missile.

A plane can be able to pull a million gs and have the best defence ESM suite available, but if they don't see it coming they are probably dead.

If the target knows it is coming then there are plenty of things they can do and the kill probability plummets to very low figures.

Powerful radars mean nothing... to fire a BVR missile all you need is the range to the target and its location and the flight speed and direction of the target. With that info you know where he is right now and where he will probably be by the time your missile gets there so you fire your missile at that latter location because that should be where he is when your missile gets there. When the missile gets to 10km from where it expects the target to be it will turn on its own radar and scan for the target... if it is not there then the missile has missed.

The launch aircraft can do one of two things... fire the missile and forget about it and leave, or it can stay and keep tracking the target... if the target changes course or speed or both then the launch aircraft can calculate a new position for interception and send the new target area to the missile which will change its flight path to the new interception point.

The thing is if you keep tracking the target the target will know it is probably under attack... especially when it detects the datalink signals with the course corrections sent to the missile.

The simple fact is the greater the range the further the target can move the harder the interception likelyhood.

400km range against legacy fighters will not help the F-22 against the PAK FA it is like wearing camouflage at night but using a brighter torch so you can see further to find people not wearing camouflage... they are going to see you too because of your big powerful torch...

In the BVR, your missiles are only as good as your radar is. If Raptor radar is way advanced then there is the main advantage right there.

First of all that video had nothing to do with IRSTs and everything to do with IIR array systems like thermal sights.
Second Nakidka reduces the thermal and radar signature of a vehicle at a fraction of the cost, but still IR systems are not obsolete... just as radar jammers and radar decoys have not made radar obsolete.

IRST going out of business soon it seems if we go by this video.

Don't believe the marketing hype. Modern thermal sights have been around for some time and there are plenty of methods out there countering such systems... the move to 5th generation includes what is called sensor fusion and using QWIP based sensors that will combine long wave IR with medium and short wave IR arrays in addition to visible light arrays and laser arrays and even MMW and Cm wave radar sensors a computer processor will analyse the data and detect such systems as those depicted in the videos.

The Russians are already working on Image Intensifiers that can detect artificial colours, so a camouflage uniform would glow despite being exactly the same colour and pattern and its background.

Combining such technology to optically detect targets by their surface colour even at night with thermal and digital imaging devices and I don't think these systems will "defeat" IR sensors completely.

Keep on counting on the nukes.........you have good going till 2015, when BMDs are all over Europe and US treating Russia like it treats Iran today. Hope Not but luck sides with the one who is well prepared.

The US ABM system will cost them trillions of dollars and has zero chance against a mature nuclear power like Russia or even China for that matter. Even assuming they don't do anything to directly attack the ABM system it will never be able to handle the thousands of decoys that will be deployed by Russian missiles, and if they persist then Russia will simply make more missiles and more decoys and look to alternative ways to defeat it... the US is looking at nuclear powered UAVs, so nuclear powered cruise missiles could go on the table...

They could make Granit sized missiles with a nuclear powered scramjet propulsion... they could fit them to OSCAR class subs... their unlimited range means you could launch them near Antarctica and have them fly up south america and enter US airspace from the south at mach 18 at high altitude and when they get to US airspace they could drop down to 100m or so at mach 7 or more... the shockwave would be lethal on its own.

But most importantly let the US know you plan to make them and all it would take to cancel the idea would be for the US to cancel this ABM crap. They can have ABMs in the US if they want to waste their money but not on anyone elses territory and Russia will agree to the same limitation...

victor7 wrote:
IRST going out of business soon it seems if we go by this video.

http://www.gizmag.com/adaptiv-ir-invisibility-cloak/19748/

This is an off-topic straw man argument. The subject is air-to-air engagement. As long as jet engines emit hot plumes, IRST will never go out of business. Newer IRST using QWIP detectors will greatly extend the detection range.

Besides, it's much more cost effective to protect ground assets with IR-absorbing nettings.
IR camouflage net

Protecting technology as shown on BAE video is mostly meant for ground vehicles, which could easier carry additional weight and additional power generator and fuel, because they don't need to fly. There are also other means to reduce IR/thermal signature, but mostly used for ground equipment.

Blinding laser equipment, I think you have in mind DIRCM and this is known thing and Russians also have it. Ka-52 is first serial helicopter standardly equipped with it. By your definition Ka-52 could be very dangerous helicopter to F-22 or F-35. It have modern RWR, LRW and MAWS together with DIRCM, chaffs and flares launcher, mmw radar and EO ball. With ECM pod Ka-52 could deny both AMRAAM and sidewinder from F-35 or F-22 and trying to engage Ka-52 with gun will be very hazardous because of unic maneuvering capabilities of Ka-52 (coaxial rotor), 30 mm gun and R-73 or Igla AAMs.

Flankers don't use only R-73 IR AAM, but also R-27T with 70 km range and R-27ET with 120 km range.

IRST missile canceller

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkkWya-oun0&feature=related

IRST going out of business soon it seems if we go by this video.

http://www.gizmag.com/adaptiv-ir-invisibility-cloak/19748/

Victor7 if you want to begin to talk seriously of similar subjects you must learn to control your "creative" vein.

Those type of solutions -Russia use since several years "Nakidka" camouflage system which significantly reduce not only IR footprint of the vehicle protected but also enormously reduce its reflection in high radar bands- are obviously NOT applicable to aircraft( in fact is not for chance that also in the video you posted no aircraft was shown as the possible vehicle on which was possible to mount the system )

I image that you can easily realize why : primary IR emission's sources in an aircraft

1) Engine nozzle and exhaust. (on which similar solutions applicable to ground vehicles and big helicopters become totally useless)
2) Boundary of aerodynamics surfaces for effect of the huge air friction produced in the manoeuvring flight (also here similar solutions would be inapplicable for incompatibility with the aerodynamic layout)
3) The main radar and some other systems such as tactical jamming pods (also here no possibilities to use similar systems).

Victor7, as you can see, the best behavior for you would be to attempt to resist with all your strenght to your "creative" urge ; the alternative is to free totally it in a place where a similar mindset become even a quality widely appreciated by the horde of fanatical ignorants, [at example at F-16 . net].

This logic is no different from Drunk Yeltsin's policies in 1990s that starved the defense research and hollowed the Russian defense structures. Keep on counting on the nukes.........you have good going till 2015, when BMDs are all over Europe and US treating Russia like it treats Iran today. Hope Not but luck sides with the one who is well prepared.

Maybe you have not perfectly clear how stand really the situation: in the last twenty years the technological gap between Russian and USA nuclear delivery systems has grown wider and wider (and with the new generation of Russian nuclear delivery systems to be completed in the decade the situation will become even more black for USA) up to a situation where by Americans experts was stimed that is almost impossible to catch up even in the mid/long period.

In particular the situation became unsustainable for USA with the introduction of Topol-M class ICBM, those ICBMs rendered suddenly outdated the whole US national ABM system because practically immune to any ABM solution (except in the boost/near boost phase) and thanks to its outstanding speed and precision was capable to attack in a "unacceptably"...for NATO... brief time window both ground and sea based NATO nuclear delivery systems opening to the scenario of a Russian first strike option with a very,very limited response by part of NATO.

For effect of this situation was USA at be forced to react abandoning UNILATERALLY ABM treaty ,not Russia.

Protecting technology as shown on BAE video is mostly meant for ground vehicles, which could easier carry additional weight and additional power generator and fuel, because they don't need to fly. There are also other means to reduce IR/thermal signature, but mostly used for ground equipment.

The point was that IRST cancelling techs are intensely being worked on and it is only a matter of time before IRST also becomes like stealth on airplanes. F22s are already near to being invisible to human eye or something like that.

A long wave anti stealth radar in the area to a quick scan while another few also in the area remain radar silent but listen for reflections of long wave radar energy and the resulting data can be processed like it is one giant bi static radar and a very accurate location for the threat will be achieved... accurate enough for a few IIR long range missiles to be fired into the general area.

So this means that putting radars both active and silent in an arc or half a circle should help in catching the reflected waves. This might work although might need quite a few radars.

Send up 50 UCAVs that are armed with IIR missiles... the goal is not some super UCAV that costs hundreds of millions of dollars... just a simple basic transonic UCAV with maybe 4 IIR missiles

Can the signal to these UCAVs be jammed by F18-Growler types or other ECM measures.

Why has Russia fallen so behind on UCAV or even simple drones technology.


http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/raptor-combat-finally/#more-76838

The F-22 entered service seven years ago with its air-to-air weapons mostly in place, but with only rudimentary bombing systems. Likewise, the roughly $200-million F-35 will possess only a fraction of its expected capabilities when it finally enters service sometime after 2018. That could force the Air Force to hold onto older fighters far longer than it ever expected, in order to buy time for the new jet’s spiral upgrades.

victor7 wrote:

Protecting technology as shown on BAE video is mostly meant for ground vehicles, which could easier carry additional weight and additional power generator and fuel, because they don't need to fly. There are also other means to reduce IR/thermal signature, but mostly used for ground equipment.

The point was that IRST cancelling techs are intensely being worked on and it is only a matter of time before IRST also becomes like stealth on airplanes. F22s are already near to being invisible to human eye or something like that.

Uh....what?

How exactly is F-22 anything invisible to the human eye?

[This is an off-topic straw man argument. The subject is air-to-air engagement. As long as jet engines emit hot plumes, IRST will never go out of business. Newer IRST using QWIP detectors will greatly extend the detection range.

If we look at the real world track record... anti aircraft guns and missiles and radar have not led to the obsolescence of aircraft. Anti tank missiles and guns have not led to the obsolescence of tanks and armour. ABM systems have existed for decades and BMs exist in enormous numbers too.

The torpedo and submarine have not rendered surface shipping obsolete, the sonar and depth charge have not rendered the sub obsolete.

The point was that IRST cancelling techs are intensely being worked on and it is only a matter of time before IRST also becomes like stealth on airplanes. F22s are already near to being invisible to human eye or something like that.

Please Victor... has the world stopped building helicopters and CAS because of the existence of Igla and Stinger and Mistral? The British have come up with a technology for attempting to hide ground vehicles and they talk about its potential for aircraft and ships but have no prototypes of either.

THere are three bands of IR energy that the atmosphere does not block... they care called long wave IR, medium wave IR and short wave IR. Each has its different characteristics and faults and capabilities. Newly designed QWIP sensors offer the chance to create a sensor chip like the CCD chip in a digital video camera or a digital still camera.

Most of these CCD chips are actually sensitive to IR light... if you don't believe me then take a digital camera and point it at your TV remote control and push a button on the remote. Looking through the viewer on the camera you will see a flashing light from the remote that is not visible to your eyes normally.

That doesn't mean your camera is a thermal imager thermal imagers operate at different frequencies of IR light. The frequencies thermal imagers operate at all things emit energy. To get an object to emit energy in the visible light range you have to apply heat energy... heat a rifle barrel to a few hundred degrees C and it will start to emit orange glow of visible light... not very practical, but through a thermal sight the barrel will glow even at room temperature.

Most thermal sights are optimised for a specific range of temperatures so 25-35 degrees C is set to white and anything colder than that is different shades of gray... in an open field in total darkness a human will appear white because of the body heat they emit... at night the ground will be colder than this so the human target will stand out... the point is that without any new fangled super anti IR technology you can go and stand under a tree with lots of leaves. Alternatively you can set fire to the grass in lots of places and then put on some heavy well insulated clothes to block your heat signature and protect you from the fires and it suddenly changes from finding the one white dot on the black background... which is very easy, to finding the gray dot amongst all the white burning bits and black background...

QWIP technology will allow optical sensors to detect energy in long, medium, short wave IR... AND visible light... including low light, and also in ultraviolet as well. With a bit of computer processing to optimise the image and even the best camouflage will have problems.

Equally those metal panels they use to heat up and cool down to give a false IR image will likely reflect radar really well, so a MMW radar sensor will defeat them too.

Your attitude that this technology will make IRSTs useless so forget about developing them is short sighted. Not everything will be fitted with this Anti IRST technology. And with work there might be fairly simple ways to defeat this new anti IRST technology. Remember that there are many stealth aircraft that are already overweight and couldn't afford to have this technology added. Equally I rather suspect that in places like Russia and the US they are working on very similar technology with much much smaller elements where the goal is not to change the heat signature of the vehicle... this system would be useless against the taleban because the taleban have no thermal sights or thermal guided weapons, but a system with smaller elements that changed colour.... would be much more useful.

So this means that putting radars both active and silent in an arc or half a circle should help in catching the reflected waves. This might work although might need quite a few radars.

Any active radar can receive radar signals... that is how it works... it first transmits some radar waves and then uses the same radar to listen for their return. The scenario I suggested would simply require one radar in one battery near the suspected location of the F-22 to scan that entire area. Other SAM sites will have the same radar vehicle and will have data about the suspected location of the F-22 and can simply point their radar antennas at the suspected location area of the F-22. Radar waves don't occur naturally, so any beams reflected in their direction can only have come from an object in the sky.

Using the adjusted network time, the time the radar signal was transmitted and the time the signals were received by all the different radars you can easily triangulate the position of the F-22. Each radar emission can be coded as it scans so moving left to right is could have 1,000 different little frequency variations... the specifics of which can be used to determine what part of the search box the target is in.

That is the whole point of an Integrated Air Defence system... much better resource management.

Can the signal to these UCAVs be jammed by F18-Growler types or other ECM measures.

What signal? They are UCAVs, not remote control planes. Before takeoff they are fed the location of the target area and given the IR signature of the F-22. It will take off and fly to the area and look for F-22 shaped targets. You might have the drones transmit a video data feed to ground stations and after they have taken off you might want to redirect them to a different target area, but your datalinks will be encrypted so even if the enemy monitors them they wont know what you know and they wont be able to command the drones themselves. The energy required to jam them would mean flying in Russian airspace which would be a death sentence for a Growler... you could simply command 5 of the UCAVs to detect jammers and engage them...

Why has Russia fallen so behind on UCAV or even simple drones technology.

Why has the US fallen behind in ICBM technology? How many truck mounted ICBMs does the US have?

Very simply the Soviets and Russians invested money and time and effort into ICBMs. The US has invested time and money and effort into UAVs.

Both have results. The Russians are safe from US first strike, and the US has the ability to kill people with impunity all over the place with its UCAVs.

It is like anything after you spend billions of development and deployment and get experience operating them which leads to changes and modifications to make them better eventually you get a mature system that does what you want it to do. The US did that during the 1990s and the Russians are starting to do it now.

The point was that IRST cancelling techs are intensely being worked on and it is only a matter of time before IRST also becomes like stealth on airplanes. F22s are already near to being invisible to human eye or something like that.

As I mentioned above I am sure there are lots of people working on a version of this british system that works with visible light with the intention of making their aircraft appear invisible.

Also as I mentioned above the Russians have found that in their development of image intensifiers that the light from natural objects is different from the light from artificially coloured things. This means if you wear white camouflage and go out and stand in the snow and to the naked eye you are incredibly hard to see if not impossible to see from any distance, this new Image Intensifier technology will make you glow clearly as being distinctly different from the background. It doesn't involve heat signature, but the fact that light is effected differently from snow as from white fabric. This technology could be applied to the light captured by a QWIP sensor sensitive to visible light and processed by computer for low light level conditions for night vision use.

The QWIP sensors will initially expensive but soon after become very cheap... eventually they will be able to stamp them out like CDs in their millions.

[quote="victor7"]

The point was that IRST cancelling techs are intensely being worked on and it is only a matter of time before IRST also becomes like stealth on airplanes. F22s are already near to being invisible to human eye or something like that.

Moi drug, nye soglasna:
1. Stealth doesn't equal invisibility
2. I'm sure WVR you would see a F-22, a black plane against a blue back drop
3.How welll would IRST cancelling tech work? The engine whether supercrusing or not gives of infrared radiation that heats the airframe. In the thermal shot of the F-22 the infrared given off by the turbines were clearly mapped out on the F-22 fusealge. The exhaust was lso very brigth. So until they develop engines using magnetism IRST would always work. The boeing company in their prototype for the US 5th generation program, used heat absorbant tiles which wehere more advanced than those used on the space shuttle over the area in which the engines were housed.The aslo added some at the ehaust.The F-22 skin used RAM in order to attain its RCS. Thus it could not and will not use these tiles at the creases between the tiles would compromise its stealthyness. Also the electrical components in the F-22 such as Jammers, Radars etc use a high power houtput and thus some of this power would go into electrical heating adding to hotter spots whereeve these are housed. In addition frictional airflow which creates drag along the body of the aircraft adds to heating. Take a drive with your car on the highway after a good hour or so of driving feel its body, in theory not only would it be hot but alo statically charged. When an F-22 is up at 60000 feet , these factors increase its ability to be found on IRST, and thus as mentioned, untill new level of propulsion comes to the aviation industry this would perpetually be an issue
4. Invisibily from my understanding you make me believe that an F-22 is invisible. So lets have a little discussion on invisiblity. Their are 2 perceptions of invisibility, physical and then electromagnetic. Now the reason we are able to see each other is becuase our body refelcts colour whilst abosrbing some of the in the visible light specrum of EM radiation.In order to be invisible by sight, the F-22 will have to use a body that abosrbs white light and doest reflect/ emitt any. This mateial doesn't exist. If such material did exist it would still have a particulate nature and thus still be tracked by radar since they operate in the other longer wavelength bands.Another method to achieve invisibilty is to travel faster than light as seen in star wars as the "hyperdrive" using a "hyperdrive speed generator" . You would now be travelling at a speed greater than 3*10^8 m/s which is impossible at the moment. You would not be seen but again still be tracked as you would still have a particulate nature thus still not entirely possible to be truly invisible. Last case I can think of is not being matter. If you are not matter you would not occupy space an thus cant be seen. But if you dont occcupy space you would not exist, thus making it impratical. You cant say you would transfor into "enerygy" because most energy exist as a mass or a wave.So this carries us back to the wave theories mentioned above. So "invisibility" is form a physics point of view really impossible theoretically as it violates laws of physics.

Agree or not does not matter, the point is to have a good discussion on various possibilities and hybrid techs. If possibilities, even if naive or out of spectrum, are not raised then legit counter points will not have chance to show up.

Btw, is there a way to track a plane by its 'unique turbulence' signature or on the easier mode just track a plane by the turbulence that it creates. I think both US and Russians used to track each others submarines by their unique sonar or something like that. I am sure turbulence of F22 should be different from that of F15.

victor7 wrote:Agree or not does not matter, the point is to have a good discussion on various possibilities and hybrid techs. If possibilities, even if naive or out of spectrum, are not raised then legit counter points will not have chance to show up.
Btw, is there a way to track a plane by its 'unique turbulence' signature or on the easier mode just track a plane by the turbulence that it creates. I think both US and Russians used to track each others submarines by their unique sonar or something like that. I am sure turbulence of F22 should be different from that of F15.

I am sure turbulence of F22 should be different from that of F15.

I would think that the fact that the F-15 turbulence path has an F-15 in front of it might be the give away...

I have read of many different things the Russians have looked at and currently they deploy the widest range of seekers available... SARH, ARH, passive radar homing, and IR guided. They also have deployed these types on both long and short range missiles.

I have read they were working on a homing system that detects burnt fuel from a jet engine... very much like sensors used during WWII to try to detect Submarines by sniffing for diesel fumes.

victor7 wrote:Agree or not does not matter, the point is to have a good discussion on various possibilities and hybrid techs. If possibilities, even if naive or out of spectrum, are not raised then legit counter points will not have chance to show up.

Btw, is there a way to track a plane by its 'unique turbulence' signature or on the easier mode just track a plane by the turbulence that it creates. I think both US and Russians used to track each others submarines by their unique sonar or something like that. I am sure turbulence of F22 should be different from that of F15.

They track submarines with MAD (magnetic anomaly detector) and this is decades old tech. Turbulence signature could be followed with weather radar and actually all radars could see weather picture, when they work with crude radar picture without filters.

With visual invisibility like cameleon, it is difficult for plane, because background is not the same from different angles and is changing too quickly to follow. Also this kind of coat means additional weight for planes and adding additional power generator, computers and fuel for that and you will quickly see that this kind of technology is for ground equipment, where weight is not such problem and background is not changing that quickly. Also IR and EO sensors work in different specters, so placing RAM coat and invisible coats for different light specters and plane will be soon so heavy it will hardly take off to fly. And placing this coat over RAM mean plane is no more stealth for radar and placing RAM over this coat make this coat useless.

Gentlemen,

This discussion is academic if not moot. Under the present political leadership (President Obama) there is no interest in further projection of power. After all the U.S. is planning a pull out from Afghanistan. The past incursion in Libya and the present incursion in Africa are political ploys to give Obama a place in the coming global government under the U.N. By the way Obama deployed these forces via Executive Order without notifying the Congress which is an impeachable offense (however not one representative has yet to start the impeachment process.) Obama is anti Israel so Iran and the middle east would have nothing to fear from the U.S. Obama is favoring the Russian leadership by "promising" non intervention with respect to Russian missile defense. At home the Democratic party has been wanting to ratify treaties with the U.N. which will basically eliminate U.S. sovereignty. The U.S. military 2013 budget is being cut to the point $0 will be spent on the KC-46 program (KC-10 airframe time to be extended), various weapon systems and defense R&D programs are being killed (i.e. C-130 laser program), training and pilot currency hours reduced, manpower reductions etc.
Also, since Obama killed the F-22 program and DoD planners may see the end of the F-35 (lower funding increasing cost) USAF and USN will be forced to keep F-15s, FA-18s and F-16s longer. finally, the U.S. economy may end up defaulting if the Congress can't agree on how to manage the fiscal dilemma soon.

They track submarines with MAD (magnetic anomaly detector) and this is decades old tech. Turbulence signature could be followed with weather radar and actually all radars could see weather picture, when they work with crude radar picture without filters.

MAD only works at very short ranges... you basically need to know the area the enemy sub is in before MAD becomes useful.

I think what he is talking about in regard to subs is the fact that a sub operating underwater churns up water as it passes so even if it is operating a few hundred metres below the surface with a thermal camera you can see the wake of mixed temperature water where a sub has passed for hours.

Under the present political leadership (President Obama) there is no interest in further projection of power.

Obama has pretty much continued the work of Bush of trying to get into bed with Georgia and the Ukraine, and wanting to build ABM systems that surround Russia that exclude Russia from the operation of said ABM systems.

After all the U.S. is planning a pull out from Afghanistan.

The planned pull out dates for Iraq and Afghanistan were not set by Obama... he is just enforcing them.

Obama is anti Israel so Iran and the middle east would have nothing to fear from the U.S.

Obama is not anti Israel. He is just not Blind Pro Israel no matter what.

Obama is favoring the Russian leadership by "promising" non intervention with respect to Russian missile defense.

Sorry... what does this mean? You make it sound like the ABM system in europe is being suggested by Russia and the only thing stopping it is US objections, when in reality it is a US system and to listen to the US government comments nothing will stop it.

At home the Democratic party has been wanting to ratify treaties with the U.N. which will basically eliminate U.S. sovereignty.

Perhaps if the US backed off from some of its activities regarding its sovereignty in other countries then it would get a lot more respect and a lot more support and cooperation. Right now the US's sovereign right to put ABM systems in Europe and to surround Russia and its sovereign rights to tell Iran it can't have a nuclear weapons program even though it claims not to have one and the US has no proof yet is still trying to cripple it with economic if applied to the US the US would call an act of war, makes the US look like a colonial bully, and a country that is difficult to deal with on any terms but theirs.

the U.S. economy may end up defaulting if the Congress can't agree on how to manage the fiscal dilemma soon.

Economics 101... live within your means... spend less than you earn... save for a rainy day etc... etc...

Obama is favoring the Russian leadership by "promising" non intervention with respect to Russian missile defense.

Russia has been played up by sweet talks and about-turn promises in the last 20 years. Enough is enough is the tone from Kremlin now. I would not be surprised if Russia backs out of the START and goes on to pile Topol-Ms type missiles in thousands.

[quote="victor7"]

Russia has been played up by sweet talks and about-turn promises in the last 20 years. Enough is enough is the tone from Kremlin now. I would not be surprised if Russia backs out of the START and goes on to pile Topol-Ms type missiles in thousands.

When the West assisted in the dissolving of the USSR, they agreed to not expanding Nato further east. 20 years later, it seems it is only Russia left. The hipocracy is daming. The only agreement which the west upheld was the deal not to invade Cuba it seems. Yeltsin was probably drunk when he and the three others decided to go Independent in believing in the western fantacies fed to them in the non-expansionist nature of Nato. If there is to be a world government its not going to be under the UN its either NATO or US