F-22 Raptor swallows pilot

[takao]

I agree that stealth technology is far from a panacea. However, if the enemy has linked radars on the ground, the USAF has linked AWACS, J-STARS and other airborne sensors that constantly feed a strike package or even a lone aircraft information that will lead them through the weakest areas in the enemy air defense network. And unlike the F-117 or B-2, the F-22 can fight its way out of trouble in the event of detection.

on the other side someone has to think about the definition of weakness.. for example what might look like a weakness might be literally plastered with mobile AA missiles or infrared guided AA guns .. an old school trap

Reliance on stealth technology is IMO overstated by the press and also purposely by the USAF for psychological effect. The only people that know how stealthy they are are Iraqi and Sebian radar operators. They got an F-117 during Allied Force, but that aircraft is significantly less stealthy than a B-2 (and flies lower and slower) and can't fight it's way out of trouble like the F-22 or F-35.

seriously i'm pretty sure most bigger countries know the capabilities of the f-117 and B-2 already.. nearly all went through/over most european countries already and thus nearly all have their radar profiles saved i guess

i somehow doubt they flew them across the world with open weapon bays just for increasing radar profile

and fighting it's way out only works as long as you have plenty of chaffs and flares left (afaik there are already modern missiles out there who are dual guided and can factor in flares and chaffs)

 

[Lord Blackadder]

on the other side someone has to think about the definition of weakness.. for example what might look like a weakness might be literally plastered with mobile AA missiles or infrared guided AA guns .. an old school trap

A good point. It's up to the mission planners to judge whether a stealth mission is desirable - if the area is too hot it's better to send F-15Es or other fighter-bombers, either in addition to or instead of the stealth strike. Also, current doctrine calls for cruise-missile strikes from B-52s, B-1s or nuclear subs to aid in the SEAD mission and reduce risk to the bombers.

seriously i'm pretty sure most bigger countries know the capabilities of the f-117 and B-2 already.. nearly all went through/over most european countries already and thus nearly all have their radar profiles saved i guess

i somehow doubt they flew them across the world with open weapon bays just for increasing radar profile

and fighting it's way out only works as long as you have plenty of chaffs and flares left (afaik there are already modern missiles out there who are dual guided and can factor in flares and chaffs)

Well, in the US the stealth aircraft generally fly with a towed radar target for ferry flights or other non-training flights. I doubt they do that when transiting to a combat area, but if they had a scheduled flight through foreign airspace you can bet they would "make themselves big" on purpose. They may have tried to sneak around on occasion, just to see how sharp you guys are over there.

Another point is that though stealth aircraft can be tracked, the returns are generally marginal (if the USAF does its job) and easily lost in a busy airway (or bad weather). Tracking is one thing, but intercepting is something else. It can be done, but stealth technology is not designed to make an aircraft disappear - it just makes you smaller and a radar operator has to be very sharp to maintain contact. Mobile launchers are the biggest challenge because they can be anywhere.

Missiles continue to evolve - the F-22 combats them with both high manueverability and stealth. Between those and other standard countermeasures there's no aircraft harder to shoot down than a Raptor. Chaff and flares are still very effective against even the latest missiles but they are far from something you'd want to rely on.

 

[sushi]

A lot of speculation going on here.

To anyone interested about stealth, I would highly recommend reading Skunk Works by Ben Rich. It contains some very good nuggets of information concerning stealth.

Remember, the F117A was designed in the 70's and ready for operation in the early 80's. It was held for use until the first Iraqi war almost 10 years later. During that period there were various opportunities to use the F117A but those in charge thought better of it.

On a side note, the F117A flies at night and not during the day. It's normal profile is to attack from a very high altitude say around 20,000 feet. So the normal air to air type engagement would be very unusual. But even if an air to air engagement did occur, what type of on board tracking/guidance system could track the F117A? Even today?

Additionally, just because an aircraft is newer does not mean that the stealth or whatever is better or worse than an existing aircraft.

Another issue to consider with the Raptor stealth fighter is how does it track an object without loosing it's stealthiness? Once an aircraft emits any kind of signal, stealth is out the window. All tracking radars, even the huge passive ones, have some radiation. So once the Raptor goes active it no longer retains it's stealthiness.

Stealthiness of an airframe is only part of the total picture. Avionics, weapons systems, exhaust, etc. contribute greatly to the overall stealthiness. Stealth is not easy to accomplish.

 

[patrick0brien]

A lot of speculation going on here...

-sushi

Hmm, excellent point. The full extent of the specs and performance capabilties of these aircraft are classified out the wazoo. So how can we engage in a reasonable debate on this?

 

[takao]

Well, in the US the stealth aircraft generally fly with a towed radar target for ferry flights or other non-training flights. I doubt they do that when transiting to a combat area, but if they had a scheduled flight through foreign airspace you can bet they would "make themselves big" on purpose. They may have tried to sneak around on occasion, just to see how sharp you guys are over there.

yeah and risking their airplanes in the process of sneaking through... atually legally this overflight of the f-117 could have been interpreted as an act of war if somebody wanted ...

if i would have been responsible i would have forced the f-117 to land and confiscated it... that would have teached the USAF quite a lesson on not trying to play games with countries who are neither allied nor granted right of passage to their armed planes

Another point is that though stealth aircraft can be tracked, the returns are generally marginal (if the USAF does its job) and easily lost in a busy airway (or bad weather). Tracking is one thing, but intercepting is something else. It can be done, but stealth technology is not designed to make an aircraft disappear - it just makes you smaller and a radar operator has to be very sharp to maintain contact. Mobile launchers are the biggest challenge because they can be anywhere.

well if an 20-25 year old radar guiding an interceptor designed/protype from 1955 so close to an stealth aircraft that pictures can be taken i guess somebody has to worry about

Missiles continue to evolve - the F-22 combats them with both high manueverability and stealth. Between those and other standard countermeasures there's no aircraft harder to shoot down than a Raptor. Chaff and flares are still very effective against even the latest missiles but they are far from something you'd want to rely on.

you can't design a fighter who will beat everything else ... even the Typhoon gets beaten in turn/rolling rates by the old mig-29 ...

 

[Lord Blackadder]

A lot of speculation going on here.

Is that just anice way of saying we're full of it?

I admit I speculate, as an armchair aviation enthusiast I like to read about developments in technology but something like stealth technology is hard to have an educated discussion about in more than broad generalities. I won't pretend I know too much of what I'm talking about...

On a side note, the F117A flies at night and not during the day. It's normal profile is to attack from a very high altitude say around 20,000 feet. So the normal air to air type engagement would be very unusual. But even if an air to air engagement did occur, what type of on board tracking/guidance system could track the F117A? Even today?

IIRC this profile was designed to operate in the face of the Soviet PVO with all their fixed radars, SAMs and dedicated interceptors like the MiG-25. But in the real world it has not had to face that level of air defence yet. The MiG-25/31 was designed to counter ECM by simply burning through it with a massively powerful radar. That radar would probably have the ability to diminish the benefits of stealth, and the big MiG can get up to altitude very fast (it was designed to try and intercept the A-12 after all). But would it be able to catch an F-117? The Iraqis failed to do it with their MiG 25s, but we had F-15's chasing them around. In a deep-strike scenario like the one the B-2 was designed for there will be no fighter support.

Another issue to consider with the Raptor stealth fighter is how does it track an object without loosing it's stealthiness? Once an aircraft emits any kind of signal, stealth is out the window. All tracking radars, even the huge passive ones, have some radiation. So once the Raptor goes active it no longer retains it's stealthiness.

From what I've read the way that the Raptor avoids this is to not use its sensors all the time; rather, it is fed info from other sources (other aircraft for example) that interface with the F-22's weapons and sensor suite to allow it to "see" things without looking at them itself. Thus it turns on its sensing equipment less often to minimize the chance of being tracked.

Stealthiness of an airframe is only part of the total picture. Avionics, weapons systems, exhaust, etc. contribute greatly to the overall stealthiness. Stealth is not easy to accomplish.

I mentioned that earlier, and I agree that the airframe is probably the lesser component of the weapons system as a whole when compared to the avionics/sensors/data link. A MiG-21 or F-4 with a totally up-to-date avionics and weapons package is a a very real threat to 4th-gen combat aircraft if used with skill.

 

[Black&Tan]

Let us hope these computers aren't using some variation of Windows or the next headline we'll see is "Microsoft's Blue Screen Of Death Kills 2 Russian Pilots"

Actually the Navy's had some issues with the windows software on its warships. They've actually been dead in the water due to Windows malfunctions.

 

[Kingsly]

I would love to seen some Su-37's (or even 47's) take on and equal amount of F-22's in simulated combat... see who wins. (And its possible, now that we're friends and all... )

 

[iGav]

i wouldn't bet any success on stealth nowadays .. at least in countries who can afford it, linked together radar system are considered standard

This reminds me of an air show in the UK a few years ago, which was blessed with the attendence of one of the U.S.'s new (at the time) stealth planes that hadn't been seen in the UK before, much was made of it's stealth capabilities at the time... that is until some of the RAF boys began tracking it. heh.

 

[Airforce]

I would love to seen some Su-37's (or even 47's) take on and equal amount of F-22's in simulated combat... see who wins. (And its possible, now that we're friends and all... )

F-22s detect Su-37s, fires guiders hundreds of miles away...
Su-37s detect F-22s, fires guiders hundreds of miles away....

Both miss, go home...

 

[Kingsly]

F-22s detect Su-37s, fires guiders hundreds of miles away...
Su-37s detect F-22s, fires guiders hundreds of miles away....

Both miss, go home...

No no no, what would be funny (and likely) would be if they both blew each other out of the sky.

Seriously though, do fighter pilots ever see the enemy anymore? When was the last time an actual dogfight took place?

(stealth does remove [for now, until they get updated] the threat of shoulder fired AA missiles... I couldn't imagine one being able to track and kill an F-22... then again, I'll probably hear of that happening sooner than later!)

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

No no no, what would be funny (and likely) would be if they both blew each other out of the sky.

Seriously though, do fighter pilots ever see the enemy anymore? When was the last time an actual dogfight took place?

(stealth does remove [for now, until they get updated] the threat of shoulder fired AA missiles... I couldn't imagine one being able to track and kill an F-22... then again, I'll probably hear of that happening sooner than later!)

Vietnam was the last dog fights but with planes that dont need pilots in them and ground and air based lasers coming the day of the fighter pilot may be ending.

 

[sushi]

-sushi

Hmm, excellent point. The full extent of the specs and performance capabilties of these aircraft are classified out the wazoo. So how can we engage in a reasonable debate on this?

Difficult at best.

Some of what has been said it right on the mark. Other parts are way off base. Knowing which is the 64 dollar question!

Is stealth the end all panacea?! Probably not. Different methodologies will evolve that will allow tracking. Then there will be new counter measures. Then new stealth technologies. And then more counter measures.

The RS-71 was the first Air Force aircraft to utilize stealth technologies. That was in the early 60's. A lot had changed since then and will continue to change. At the same time, these days it takes longer for an aircraft to get from the design to deployment stage.

Here is a question to spur the conversation. Why is the F117A a flat panel design while the B-2 is rounded shape type design?

 

[sushi]

Vietnam was the last dog fights but with planes that dont need pilots in them and ground and air based lasers coming the day of the fighter pilot may be ending.

As I understand, there were a couple during DS one.

Here's a trivia question. Based on Vietnam air to air experiences, what device was added to the F15 that was projected to save more pilots from being shot down/captured than anything else?

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Rear view mirror? I dont know but i also didnt know a F15 was ever shot down.

 

[redAPPLE]

The $180,000 dollar repair job wont hurt the budget too much though, considering the plane cost $134 mil.

134 mil $? was that fully tanked with kerosene or whatever fuel they are using with that thing?

 

[redAPPLE]

All those millions of dollars and the damn window won't roll down Figures

according to my sources, they are using the microsoft windows xp raptor edition .

unfortunately, or should i say, accordingly, the window crashed.

 

[redAPPLE]

And I wonder how much military tech USA stole from Germans after WWII ended Check out: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/x-29.htm it mentions that Germans had that forward wing design in works since beginning of WWII (Germans also had an F117-like design back in those days), actually military technology largest leap was during WWII, definately Germans are the pioneers of it all. If Hitler wouldn't attack Russia during winter (the biggest reason they lost WWII), who knows how it all would turn out to be. But thats getting off the topic

volkswagen is a german company. maybe the wwII planes would have similar problems.

 

[Airforce]

according to my sources, they are using the microsoft windows xp raptor edition .

unfortunately, or should i say, accordingly, the window crashed.

Someone toss a tomato at this guy, lol

 

[pilotError]

Stealth

yeah and risking their airplanes in the process of sneaking through... atually legally this overflight of the f-117 could have been interpreted as an act of war if somebody wanted ...

I would be surprised if they didn't have permission, but deniability is a healthy thing for a government and the US is more than willing to take the short term anger from the "Shocked" local population.

 

[quagmire]

During testing a Raptor engaged and "killed" a squadron of Top Gun pilots in, I believe, F-18's. At debriefing the pilots said they never saw (visually or on radar) the offending F-22. One by one they just magically were blown out of the sky.

It was the F-15 Eagle. As the F-22 is replacing the F-15 as the next gen air superiority fighter. The Air Force wanted to see how effective the Raptor can be against its predecessor. You're right on the 2nd part. The F-22 virtually shot down all F-15's without the pilots even knowing where it was. The F-35 in the Navy variant will be replacing the now retired( as of February) F-14 Tomcat( RIP). In the Marine variant, the Harrier, and in the Air Force variant the F-16. I hope the F-35 is put against its predecessors as was the F-22 was. That would mean a F-14 equipped with the Phoenix long range missile. So if the F-35's stealth capabilities work, the F-14 won't be able to see it before it is too late.

Northrop Grumman knows how to make planes as much as Lockheed does. Many say part of the reason why the Lockheed F-22 was chosen over the YF-23 was because Lockheed promised to employ more then Northrop was saying. But, both planes were awesome and my bias towards Northrop Grumman says the YF-23 should of been chosen over the Raptor. The B-2 is marvel of technology. Northrop hit the nail on the head with this bomber. The wing design was impossible back in the Post-WWII era when a similar looking bomber to the B-2 was developed by Grumman as the wing design posed many dangers. An example of this is that if the plane stalled, the bomber would go into a unrecoverable spin. Which led to the planes cancellation. What makes the wing design possible now is that the B-2 has ton of computers that will not allow the pilot to bring the B-2 to a stall situation.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

The RS-71 was the first Air Force aircraft to utilize stealth technologies. That was in the early 60's. A lot had changed since then and will continue to change. At the same time, these days it takes longer for an aircraft to get from the design to deployment stage.

Of course its speed was its real defense - I don't think that aircraft could be intercepted even today.

Here is a question to spur the conversation. Why is the F117A a flat panel design while the B-2 is rounded shape type design?

I don't know. I do know that the flying-wing form factor gives it a very low physical (and radar) profile in the horizontal plane, and it makes use of supposedly more effective radar-absorbant material.

As I understand, there were a couple during DS one.

Also recent wars not involving the US have seen classic dogfighting - the India/Pakistan conflicts and wars between the Arab states and Isreal to name two. Both of these conflicts involved a large array of different aircraft, some of them totally modern.

Here's a trivia question. Based on Vietnam air to air experiences, what device was added to the F15 that was projected to save more pilots from being shot down/captured than anything else?

A 20mm cannon?

 

[pilotError]

Dogfights

As I understand, there were a couple during DS one.

I thought there was one during Gulf War I.

** edited ** stupid comment DS = Desert Storm duh...

 

[Stridder44]

^^That's because that part of the design was done courtesy of Volkswagen. It shares the same opening mechanism as the crappy power windows feature in 1998-2003 Jettas.

Don't kno what you're talking about


/*hugs my 04 Golf*

 

[Jesus]

The B-2 is marvel of technology. Northrop hit the nail on the head with this bomber. The wing design was impossible back in the Post-WWII era when a similar looking bomber to the B-2 was developed by Grumman as the wing design posed many dangers. An example of this is that if the plane stalled, the bomber would go into a unrecoverable spin. Which led to the planes cancellation. What makes the wing design possible now is that the B-2 has ton of computers that will not allow the pilot to bring the B-2 to a stall situation.

But the Nazi's did it in WWII without computers...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229