Thread: F-22, stuff you should know

Originally Posted by highsea

Lol, it says 50,000 ft ceiling and 7.9 G limit too.

IOW, it's classified.

So much for the discussion!

If it is indeed classified then, IMHO, lets wait till US invades Iran.

Arg, I promised myself I wouldn't get into another silly discussion about this, oh well. :P

Originally Posted by lurker

Have you seen the lightning? Is it slow?

Do you know how much power a bolt of lightning puts out, not to mention the effect only lasts for a split second.

Originally Posted by lurker

Simply speaking. The thing in stealth is to fiind a matherial (and/or geometry) which wave resistance is matching the environment. So in radio-wave front there is no (or as less as possible) refractions.
So to the wave - stealth object would look as a as transparrent obstacle of infinite depth. Have you seen for example a clean cube of ice in water?

Your assuming the enviroment has a static return type. Weather and pressure changes can be read on radar, also different bands of radar see the enviroment in different ways. Thats why weather monitoring radar uses specific frequencies. Ideally you'd want something that can absorb or deflect a wide range of frequencies.

Originally Posted by lurker

The same thing with plasma. Theoretically you can match the plasma frequency so it's active impedance will match the wave impendace of the air.
And you don't NEED a high power to absorb the wave, since amount of energy that reached the aircraft is already very little.

Fair enough, but to maintain an ionized field around an aircraft travelling at high speed will require your aircraft being ionizing ALOT of air.

Does anyone know the approximate volume of air that flows around a fighter (any fighter) travelling at mach 1?

Originally Posted by Maximus

According to airforce.com F-22s top speed is said to be Mach 1.58 (1.7 with afterburners).

Certainly less than what I've played in flight sims, and stated otherwise as well.

Usually the U.S releases numbers lower then what the actual performance is but in this case I'm assuming it has to do with not damaging the RAM coating on the aircraft which limits its speed.

Just doing a bit Reading/Reaserch and came across this..... dont know if its valid or old news.....I Heard a while back that th Brits were able to detect and monitor stealth plane.... I knoe that the Brits have been working with the yanks on steakth since the 50s/60s.....trying to see if i can find more info about it..!! Anyone with any insight..???

Anyway heres part of the article..!!
-------------------------------------------
The most fundamental problem, however, is that stealth planes are hardly undetectable to enemy defenses. The B-2 is nearly as visible as a 747 to a ground observer, one reason that it -- like the F-117 -- flies only at night. Furthermore, the Pentagon's supposedly invisible stealth aircraft fly into action with the same radar-jamming escort planes that accompany conventional warplanes. Demand for jammers was so high during the Kosovo conflict that the Pentagon had to redeploy electronic warfare planes from Turkey, where they are being used in the ongoing air campaign against Iraq. "For stealth planes, jammers are just like American Express," says a military analyst who works with Congress. "Don't leave home without them."

It's impossible to know just how stealthy stealth planes really are since the Pentagon has made the entire program highly classified, which means that it operates virtually without oversight from Congress or watchdog groups. There are, however, disturbing signs that stealth planes are far from invulnerable. During the Gulf War, the British Royal Navy infuriated the Pentagon by announcing that it had detected F-117 stealth fighters from 40 miles away with 1960s-era radar. The Iraqis used antiquated French radar during that conflict, and they, too, claimed to have detected F-117s. The General Accounting Office, Congress' watchdog agency, tried to verify the Iraqi claim, but the Pentagon refused to turn over relevant data to GAO investigators. Likewise, the Pentagon has revealed no specific details about the F-117 shot down over Kosovo, but Yugoslav sources and news accounts say the Serbs brought the plane down with a Russian SA-3 missile, a 35-year-old model. General McPeak calls the incident a "lucky shot."

Abundant evidence exists, also, that stealth technology can be trumped with relatively inexpensive surveillance systems. The Stealth Program was designed to defeat the high-frequency radars used extensively by the former Soviet Union. But stealth planes are relatively easy to spot -- if not to pinpoint -- with older air-defense radars that use low frequencies. Russia and the Czech Republic both manufacture low-frequency systems, which they say can detect stealth. The former is marketing its version to all bidders, as were the Czechs before they joined NATO in 1999. Russia and France -- as well as the United States -- have built prototypes of radars that operate using the full range of frequencies. These too, some experts say, will have no trouble detecting stealth craft.

Even more worrisome are the emerging heat-sensitive Infrared Search and Track (IRST) systems. Stealth aircraft have special systems that cool exhaust gases and mask hot parts of the plane. Nonetheless, the plane's surface will always be hotter than background levels, and exhaust gases cannot be entirely cooled. Both of these factors produce heat signatures detectable by infrared systems.

The Scandinavians, French, and Germans are already building cheap, effective IRST systems. In fact, according to Rex Rivolo, a tactical aircraft and weaponry specialist at the Institute for Defense Analysis, a federally funded think tank that works exclusively for the Secretary of Defense, a college student with computer programming expertise and $30,000 could assemble an IRST system with off-the-shelf parts. "There's nothing difficult here," he says. "Without too much trouble you could have a decent IRST on your kitchen table and use it to track stealth and other aircraft in clear weather." Rivolo predicts that IRST and low-frequency radars "will vitiate the benefits of stealth."
------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Simullacrum

Just doing a bit Reading/Reaserch and came across this..... dont know if its valid or old news.....I Heard a while back that th Brits were able to detect and monitor stealth plane.... I knoe that the Brits have been working with the yanks on steakth since the 50s/60s.....trying to see if i can find more info about it..!! Anyone with any insight..???

Anyway heres part of the article..!!
-------------------------------------------
The most fundamental problem, however, is that stealth planes are hardly undetectable to enemy defenses. The B-2 is nearly as visible as a 747 to a ground observer, one reason that it -- like the F-117 -- flies only at night. Furthermore, the Pentagon's supposedly invisible stealth aircraft fly into action with the same radar-jamming escort planes that accompany conventional warplanes. Demand for jammers was so high during the Kosovo conflict that the Pentagon had to redeploy electronic warfare planes from Turkey, where they are being used in the ongoing air campaign against Iraq. "For stealth planes, jammers are just like American Express," says a military analyst who works with Congress. "Don't leave home without them."

It's impossible to know just how stealthy stealth planes really are since the Pentagon has made the entire program highly classified, which means that it operates virtually without oversight from Congress or watchdog groups. There are, however, disturbing signs that stealth planes are far from invulnerable. During the Gulf War, the British Royal Navy infuriated the Pentagon by announcing that it had detected F-117 stealth fighters from 40 miles away with 1960s-era radar. The Iraqis used antiquated French radar during that conflict, and they, too, claimed to have detected F-117s. The General Accounting Office, Congress' watchdog agency, tried to verify the Iraqi claim, but the Pentagon refused to turn over relevant data to GAO investigators. Likewise, the Pentagon has revealed no specific details about the F-117 shot down over Kosovo, but Yugoslav sources and news accounts say the Serbs brought the plane down with a Russian SA-3 missile, a 35-year-old model. General McPeak calls the incident a "lucky shot."

Abundant evidence exists, also, that stealth technology can be trumped with relatively inexpensive surveillance systems. The Stealth Program was designed to defeat the high-frequency radars used extensively by the former Soviet Union. But stealth planes are relatively easy to spot -- if not to pinpoint -- with older air-defense radars that use low frequencies. Russia and the Czech Republic both manufacture low-frequency systems, which they say can detect stealth. The former is marketing its version to all bidders, as were the Czechs before they joined NATO in 1999. Russia and France -- as well as the United States -- have built prototypes of radars that operate using the full range of frequencies. These too, some experts say, will have no trouble detecting stealth craft.

Even more worrisome are the emerging heat-sensitive Infrared Search and Track (IRST) systems. Stealth aircraft have special systems that cool exhaust gases and mask hot parts of the plane. Nonetheless, the plane's surface will always be hotter than background levels, and exhaust gases cannot be entirely cooled. Both of these factors produce heat signatures detectable by infrared systems.

The Scandinavians, French, and Germans are already building cheap, effective IRST systems. In fact, according to Rex Rivolo, a tactical aircraft and weaponry specialist at the Institute for Defense Analysis, a federally funded think tank that works exclusively for the Secretary of Defense, a college student with computer programming expertise and $30,000 could assemble an IRST system with off-the-shelf parts. "There's nothing difficult here," he says. "Without too much trouble you could have a decent IRST on your kitchen table and use it to track stealth and other aircraft in clear weather." Rivolo predicts that IRST and low-frequency radars "will vitiate the benefits of stealth."
------------------------------------------------------------

Very old, very prejudicial, and basically worthless article.

Save yourself the hassle, and dismiss everything you just read.

LOL...

Another article....
---------------------------
A number of methodologies to detect stealth aircraft at long range have been developed. Both Australia and Russia have announced that they have developed processing techniques that allow them to detect the turbulence of aircraft at reasonably long ranges (possibly negating the stealth technology).

Passive (multistatic) radars are known to detect stealth aircraft better than receivers connected to the transmitters (active or monostatic radars), since stealth technology reflects energy away from the transmitter's line of sight, effectively increasing the radar cross section (RCS) in other directions, which the passive radars monitor. In addition, it has been suggested that use of low frequency broadcast TV and FM radio signals as the illuminating source produces a much higher RCS than high frequency monostatic radars as the long wavelengths cause whole structural portions of the targets to resonate. Target detection, even at very low Signal to Clutter Ratios (down to –100 dB) is theoretically possible. Target tracking, in three-dimensional position and velocity should be more accurate with a multistatic system than with a monostatic system, using either triangulation or hyperbolic (or both) target location strategies. Wide usage of such broadcast signals (esp. in inhabited regions) means a continuous and reliable coverage and source of energy, that cannot easily be neutralized by an attacker. Researchers at the University of Illinois with support of DARPA, have shown that it is possible to build a synthetic aperture radar image of an aircraft target using passive multistatic radar, possibly detailed enough to enable Automatic Target Recognition (ATR).

The United Kingdom has announced a system that uses the signals broadcast from the huge number of cellular telephone towers to generate a synthetic picture, although it is not clear if this method is actually practical. A general feature of these systems is that they use a large number of low-accuracy radar systems (or signal sources) combined with heavy computer processing to generate tracking information. For this reason they tend to be useful only in the early warning role, and have limited applicability to guidance radars for missile systems, and are rarely portable. The problem of successfully countering stealth aircraft on the battlefield remains essentially unsolved.

Stealth aircraft can also be passively detected from their electromagnetic emissions (terrain-following radar, radio communications, missile guidance communications etc.). Stealth aircraft typically attempt to minimize these emissions (using low probability of intercept radars, satellite communications etc.).

To this date, the only systems that have been shown to successfully detect stealt aircraft are very old, and use long wave radar systems that have a low resolution. The shooting down of an F-117 over Yugoslavia was attributed to the tracking of the vortexes produced by the poor aerodynamic shape of stealth aircraft. The F-117 was also dected by a British ship during the first Gulf War, in this case because the wavelength of the radar was twice the length of the aircraft. This caused the entire aircraft to act as a dipole, leading to a very strong radar return.

I have a birthday present for the thread creator.

http://www.pro-american.com/forums/p...6&page=1&pp=15

Look, your kindred spirit!

Rusky and all Russians like him are envious of the F-22 and the JSF. This explains this bs thread coming from non-realiable sources ending with an ".ru" URL.

Is this info on the F-22 true?

The F-22 is the first aircraft to know the pilot! Sensors in his suit and helmet measure the pilot's rate of eye blinking, duration of eye blinks, heart rate -duration of beats as well as frequency, blood pressure, resporatory rate, resporatory amplitutde, EEG Alpha Power, EKG Delta Power, humidity at the skin surface, etc.. A total of twenty-four biological parameters that measures the pilot's mental workload. If the pilot is almost overloaded with work and something must be done, the computer will do the task and informed the pilot at the earliest possible time!

Helicopters and even cars use biometrics - since the 1970s, nothing new. The F-22 could be a flying MRI scan, but thats not gonna help. I mean, what if an F-22 finds its young nervous pilot's heartbeat rate too high? Would it fly him back to base automatically out of harmsway from all the speedy Migs? That would be the worst thing an interceptor could do