F-22, stuff you should know

Expat Canuck · 08-21-2007, 00:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rusky

Factual information in it is not.

Actually, yes it is, if it wasn't you guys wouldn't be trying to develop a less expensive JSF. Just read, its not hard. Also i am gonna trust the American Senate on what they consider expensive and what not over what you think, no hurt feelings i hope.

The article was written before pentium for came out. Also once again i am going to go with US senate to know more about F-22 avionics then you.

The JSF is for export. The F-22 from what I understand will be in the US only.

You post an old article and use it for the basis of a flame the US thread. I'm not American so I'll refute the predictable comment about being a dumb Yank first off. The US Senate are elected representatives of the US people and are in no position to know anything about the avionics of the F-22. Furthermore I'm quite positive that a lot of data on the F-22 is classified which makes most of your rant utter ******** anyway.

Expat Canuck · 08-21-2007, 00:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horrido

If they supposedly shot down ONE F-117 with such radar, why no B-2's or other '117's were lost (we have also lost ONE F-117 at an airshow, perhaps our opponents should start putting on airshows, as well?).

The Serbs did shoot one down, I've seen the peices in a museum in Serbia. I think it was knocked down by regular old run of the mill AA guns.

Dumb luck can beat stealth!

gunnut · 08-21-2007, 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Expat Canuck

The Serbs did shoot one down, I've seen the peices in a museum in Serbia. I think it was knocked down by regular old run of the mill AA guns.

Dumb luck can beat stealth!

No it was not dumb luck.

This incident was discussed at length on this forum.

It was a combination of the laziness/carelessness on the part of the NATO/US mission planner and the supreme initiative on the part of the Serbian commander to have scored this kill.

The Serb commander figured out the pattern of the nightly raid (same one every night) and placed his battery directly in the path of the F-117.

F-117 isn't invisible to radar. It's just very hard to spot. If you know one is coming your way and you start to stare at your radar screen intently, you can find it.

He figured it out and brought one down.

urmomma158 · 08-21-2007, 17:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TIN MAN

Hi folks, new to the board! I will jump straight in as my way of saying hello!!
I think this cellphone idea is an interesting one...
This question was posted on a board I frequent about a year ago and was put to a very experienced USAF test pilot type. He raised it with some of his radar troop buddies who thought about it and said it seems feasible...However, they qualified it with this..." The system would need MASSIVE processing power, satellite integration etc.. It would also be taken out as a first day of war target! Cellphone system infrastructure isn`t hardened and would be easy to take apart with a few JDAM and TLAM aimed at vital hubs...

So maybe a non-starter?

Civilian infra structure isn't even EMP hardened not one bit. I think an idea they had before DS was to detoante a low yield nuke and knock out most of Iraq's infra structure.The idea was scrapped because the idea of ballistic launch could ignite a nuclear war. And as Cell Phone towers get more sophisticated they get more vulnerable since less power would be required to upset the system due to the fact that more sophisticated electronics the more delicate the components. Maybe a conventionally armed BM specialized ofr EMP would be great. We could alert our allies and Russia and China and launch it. A few shots at vital hubs like you said would kill the system.Lower power pulses might even corrupt the data flow.

having said that PCL systems have many shortcomings.

Let me quote Highsea from another board. This is defencetalk.

Quote:

That describes a PCL system. They use "emitters of opportunity", such as cell towers, FM and TV broadcasts. The UK's "Celldar" and Lockheed's "Silent Sentry" are examples of PCL technology. You can google for more information.

One of the biggest obstacles with these systems is synchronizing the signal and receivers. Monostatic systems are synchronized by direct connection between the emitter and receiver, and obviously you can't do this with receivers that are widely spaced. There is a professor at the University of Washington that has developed a PCL system that uses GPS time signals for synchronization, and he has been able to get accuracy of ~50nm for aircraft in the Puget Sound area using an FM transmitter on Mt. Ranier and low-cost PC based receivers in Eastern Washington.

The technology is evolving slowly, but there are still some significant obstacles. The more receivers you use, the more complex the algorithms get, and they are not exactly simple to start with, since they use reflections that do not scatter off the target in a predictable direction. Bistatic PCL systems don't work when a target is on the baseline between the receiver and emitter, because the signal does not scatter at 180 degrees. Multistatic systems can work around this by offsetting the receivers, but the computational power to do this efectively is still out of reach for most countries, and the only known working examples are very localized (IIRC, Celldar only covers Heathrow Airport, and Silent Sentry covers Andrews AFB).

Russia and China are reported to be working on PCL systems also, but little is known about their progress. At some point in the future, they will become a threat, when mobile emitters are employed and the synchronization issues are resolved and the computational power needed becomes more affordable. Even so, searching is not targeting, and you still short wavelengths to target an AC or missile.

Incidentally, all US stealth AC are designed with bistatic as well as monostatic RCS in mind, and it's a known quantity, though obviously classified.

Super radar detecting US stealth plane - Page 2 - Defence Tech | Defence Talk Forum

post #26

Quote:

Well those sort of exist in the form of the SARH missile (which incidentally is probably the most common example of a bistatic radar system). But with very low RCS targets, the missile's own radar isn't powerful enough to get a lock until it's very close to the target.

I suppose for the sake of our discussion you would want something that can operate in a high ECM environment, and be as undetectable as possible, so maybe an inertially guided missile with jam-resistant mid-course updates (possibly a laser, but atmospheric conditions, clouds, etc. will degrade the datalink), and an autonomous IIR seeker for the terminal phase. I suppose you would integrate these launchers with the receivers, so each launcher could provide guidance for it's missiles, and the missiles need to be very inexpensive so they can be fired in massive salvos in hopes of getting lucky enough to get one close enough for it's seeker to spot the target.

The whole system has to be tied together so that multiple launchers can be cued together at a specific volume of airspace. You could build a large scale fiberoptic network for this, and that would solve the synchronization problems, but it would be very expensive. You would need redundant data paths and data processing centers so that the entire network was not dependent on a single processing center or data pathway. Maybe some kind of ELF/SLF radio communications, that travel through the earth (like submarines use) could be applied here? I imagine you would run into bandwidth problems, lol.

One of the problems with PCL is that the emitters are not optimized for the purpose. FM and TV transmitters typically broadcast a signal that is focused low to the horizon to maximize their range and power- TV and FM radio reception at 35,000-50,000 feet (where the stealth AC are operating) isn't that great. And cellphone towers don't have the power to saturate an airspace that high up either. And all of these types of transmitters are juicy targets for first day airstrikes with cruise missiles.

This brings us full circle to large, low-frequency area search systems as emitters, which can saturate large volumes of airspace, but are tempting targets and expensive to build.

Super radar detecting US stealth plane - Page 2 - Defence Tech | Defence Talk Forum

post#28

correction 50nm is about 15nm(you might as well be usinga long wave VHF radar lol)

Quote:

he guy I mentioned earlier from the UW (John Sahr) showed that it can be done, at least in principle. He used a PC with a standard digitizer card and a single VHF transmitter. I have it on acrobat format, I went back and reviewed it, I should make a couple corrections. Timing was via GPS signals, as I mentioned, accurate to ~100ns (15m in range) and ~.01 Hz in Doppler (1cm/sec in velocity). The transmitter was in the Puget Sound basin, not on Mt. Ranier, so his receiver and transmitter was separated by a good sized mountain range (The Cascades). He demonstrated quasi-real time imagery of the ionosphere out to a range of ~1000 km, and routinely detected aircraft

Super radar detecting US stealth plane - Page 2 - Defence Tech | Defence Talk Forum
post#30

Rusky simply using a long wave radar isn't enough there is criteria son

1Frequency of detection(number of paints in a given amount of time.)
2accuracy of detection
3range of detection

I suggest you read this entire article to udnerstand how an air defense system really works....

Quote:

" AWACS And Air Defense Systems Before we look at how we can best use an AWCS, we'll have a closer look at air defense systems in general. Contrary to much mythology, AWACS birds are not some great, all conquering denizens of air combat, they are just a way by which we can do some necessary things very efficiently. This is a modified and updated version of something I wrote about three years ago.

The backbone of an integrated air defense system is a series of command centers. The lowest level of these are the Local Operations Centers (LOC) which simply gather information from sensors assigned to them and pass that up the tree. The LOCs also receive instructions and issue orders to the defenses. LOCs are very often mobile and in some cases built into the radar itself. Giraffe is the most notable of the systems where the LOC is built into the radar. Everybody outside IADS professionals laughed at Ericsson for doing it that way then made themselves scarce when the Iraqi IADS went down. The LOC can be compared to an infantry platoon fighting is own private little war and not really knowing or caring whats going on around it.

Next up the tree is the Sector Operations Center (SOC). This takes the information from the LOCs, deconflicts it (this means assembing all the LOC pictures, resolving any contradictions between them and ensuring that multiple reports of the same contact are identified as such) and adds in additional material such as safe routes for own aircraft, secure operating zones, details of prohibited and special-threat areas etc to construct a tactical picture of what is actually happening in the sector in question. Note that a LOC doesn't really know what is going on, it is reliant on the SOC telling it what is happening and putting its data into context. This is a very important thing to remember; the guys at the front DON'T know what is happening; they only know what they can see and thats usually very misleading. SOC is the tactical command of the air battle. In Army terms it can be compared to a company or battalion command.

One step higher is the Regional Operations Center or ROC. The ROC takes the tactical picture assembled by the SOCs and adds yet more data, of own operations, specific requirements, logistical considerations etc. Usually it is at this level that information from other services is added to the pool so that a rounded picture can be obtained. The ROCs then issue instructions to the SOCs who convert them into operational orders for the LOCs.Its also at ROC level that assets are distributed, threats assessed and a general overview of the picture kept. In a real sense, its the ROC that actually has the best idea of what is happening. In a way, the ROC is the operational command of the air battle. In Army equivalence, it can be thought of as the Divisional command level.

Finally, at the top of the hill is the National Operations Center or NOC. This takes all the information from the ROCs and assembles a nation-wide picture of how the battle is going. Ideally, the role of the NOC should be one of masterly inactivity, doing nothing but watch, intervening only if there is a matter of overriding national importance in question. This all sounds very clumsy but it isn't, provided its computerized and works. If it isn't and/or doesn't then the defense has problems. The NOC is the strategic command of the air battle.

The eyes of the air defense system are mainly its radars. The nomenclature we'll use here is the modern one wherein radar frequency bands run from A to P increasing in frequency as we go up. As a rule of thumb, the lower the frequency, the longer the range but the less precise the contact. The higher frequencies give us much more precise contacts but have shorter ranges and are much more restricted in their search ability. As we go from A to P, antennas get progressively smaller (P-band radars fit in the nose of small missiles). This convention replaces the old L, S, C, X and Ka/Ku band convention

The primary radars used are the long-range air surveillance radars (sometimes these are called Volume Search Radars or VSRs). Up to the late 1980s, these almost invariably operated in the E and F bands since this offered the best compromise between range and precision. Since the early 1990s, the D-band solution is becoming more popular since modern processing has greatly improved precision while D-band gives better coverage in bad weather and is more difficult to jam. These days VSRs are mostly 3-D systems; the old days saw two radars used for this role, a 2-D VSR and a seperate height-finding radar. The VSRs provide long-range coverage (typically 300 - 400 miles) but their use is tricky. Because their range is so long, their coverage is actuially quite spotty; things like mountains get in the way creating terrain shadows, the radars can't look into valleys etc. This can be reduced by placing the radar high up - eg on a mountain. the ultimate expression of that, of course is to put the VSR on an aircraft. Another problem is lobing. Although most artwork shows radar coverage as a symetrical mushroom, this is far from the truth. In fact, coverage is a series of layered lobes (rather like the cross section on a hamburger) and its quite possible for an attacking aircraft to detect the null areas between these lobes and fly through them.

Another problem is datarate, the number of strikes per second that the radar gains on a given targe. For VSRs, this rate is low, often as low as six paints per minute. This means the track can fall behind what the target is trying to do. Yet another is deployability. These radars are large and relatively immobile (even the "mobile" ones can take a couple of hours to strike down ready for moving). Moving these radars is not a good idea for a number of reasons, one being that it makes deconfliction almost impossible. Also, because of the terrain problems, the number of suitable sites is limited. Even then, there will be areas that are completely masked out by inconvenient mountains. These voids in coverage are usually covered by so-called "gap filler" radars that are positioned as needed and add their input to that of the primary VSRs. The LOC gets all this data and tries to make common sense of it before handing it up the chain. By the way really good air defense systems have another level of radars that have ranges of 3,000 - 5,000 miles. These backscatter radars are so imprecise that they are only able to warn the network that something is coming; nevertheless, that limited role is very valuable, particularly in missile defense.

Once the order has been given to engage a target tracked by the VSRs, that target has to be located with enough accuracy to allow it to be fired on. This is the role of the Target Aquisition Radar or TAR. These days these are often called MFRs or multi-functional radars since modern signals processing means they can do part of the VSR and part of the fire control job as well as their own. The TAR takes the imprecise track of the VSR and refines it with great precision. TARs usually operate in the G and H bands and have data rates of around 1 paint per second. The TARs report to the LOC but their data does not usually go up the chain - their role is to ensure that the target is being tracked and its the LOCs job to ensure the TAR is tracking the right target. Once all that is done we go to the final stage.

For this we drop to the last class of radar, the Fire Control System or FCS. This is a high-frequency (normally I or J bands but increasingly K band) radar that doesn't scan. Its pointed at the target by the TAR and once contact is made, follow that contact only. The FCS can feed the range, altitude course and velocity data to anti-aircraft guns or steer missiles to targets or coach fighters into the attack.

So now we come to weapons (note, right at the end of a prolonged system). Some will be batteries of very long range missiles. these strike at high-altitude targets, those just entering the defended zone, those coming in along anticipated routes or just launched to shake up the attackers. They have a lot of roles other than shooting down aircraft; they break up carefully calculated formations, force the attackers to burn fuel with evasive manoeuvers, and add to the general air of gloom and despondancy. Its quite possible that inexperienced pilots under this type of attack will fly into the ground trying to evade missiles that are actually of little threat to them. The long-range missiles will have big warheads that can damage aircraft even if it doesnt kill them. These big missiles can be equated to barrage fire from artillery - the kill rate isn't high but thats not the point (although against an unsophisticated or careless enemy these long-range missiles can be devastating).

Intermediate range missiles basically provide area coverage against intruders. These are the workhorses of the system; they are the ones that brings specific aircraft under fire and attempt to stop them penetrating the system. Remember (this is very important) the function of the system is NOT to shoot down aircraft, its to make the results they achieve not worth the effort made to achieve them. An aircraft forced to abort is as much a success as one shot down; each aircraft forced to divert its efforts to attacking the ADS is as much a victory as one left burning in a field. This is a key phrase and if you remember nothing else from this lesson, remember these two words. Virtual Attrition. Each aircraft mission used to penetrate the defense, each hardpoint used for fuel or ECM instead of weapons, each aircraft flying tanker instead of strike, each fighter escorting the strike aircraft or tankers instead of dropping bombs is as much a loss to the attacker as if it had been shot down. Virtual attrition is crucial, war winning stuff. Look at it this way, if the IADS works well it will kill around 10 percent of each attacking wave but if it forces each aircraft to divert one of its four hardpoints to an ECM pod instead of a bomb, its inflicted 25 percent casualties - without firing a shot.

In this world, numbers are key. The more missiles there are, the more sustained the assault on the attacking aircraft and the greater the variety of threats those aircraft have to face. Large numbers of missiles also gives the air defense system the option of putting batteries in non-optimum locations as nasty surprises. In many ways, the Soviets had the right idea, it doesn't matter how good the individual missiles are, the important thing is to wallpaper the country with them. The fabulous Nike system worked the same way; everything expensive was on the ground and reusable; the missiles themselves were barely more complex than a child's toy rocket.

Short range missiles basically defend key points. They defend the air defense system itself plus provide last-ditch defenses around airfields, SAM site and the various levels of OC.To some extent it may appear their deployment represents a failure of the Air Defense System since it implies that aircraft have actually penetrated the main defenses but actually this is misleading. The presence of the short-range missiles means that aircraft penetrating the net have to reserve enough combat capability to hande the last line. This can be the last straw. Its easy to imagine an attack aircraft expending its defensive munitions penetrating the screen and having to abort because its got nothing left (or has been too badly damaged)to chance the point defenses.

Where do guns fit into this? Often dismissed as obsolete, they have advantages all of their own. They and their ammunition are cheap. They are not dependent on radars to work - if all else fails they can spew bullets skywards and hope. They are simple to operate. Their tracers scare the living daylights out of inbound pilots and may distract that pilot from the less obvious threat of an inbound missile.

The important thing is to see how interlinked and how interdependent this system is. The long-range systems break up attacks to give short-range system easier targets, Short range systems protect long range ones. Ground-based defenses provide safe havens over which airborne command posts can fly; the airborne command posts provide coverage that can't be matched by ground-based systems.

A curious thing about these systems is that, when they are subject to systems analysis, it becomes obvious that dramatic improvements in capabilities of one system component are virtually meaningless unless matched throughout the system. On the other hand, small, incremental improvements replicated throughout the air defense system can have a dramatic effect on capability. This is particularly true of communications - so much communicating goes on that even a small increase in its efficiency significantly upgrades the system as a whole. So there we have an Air Defense System. The systems integrator dusts the consoles and hands the keys to the national command authority and its up and running. And waiting.

So where does the AWACS fit into all this? The problem with an IADS is that it all has to work together. If it can be discombobulated (that is, broken into its individual elements) it can be taken down quite easily. The key is to knock out the SOCs and ROCs (the LOCs are of no great concern and the NOC should only be attacked out of undiluted sadism. On the first night of an air offensive, generals have better things to do than shoot at eachother. But if we take out the ROCs and SOCs the whole system falls apart. The LOCs can't shoot because if they do, they could be downing their own planes, and they don't know where the enemy comes from. Without the ROCs and SOCs, the radars have no tactical picture to work from and will be picked off by the bombers. Thats why such attacks on the operating centers are called knocking the enemy's SOCs off. With the radars going down the weapons don't know whats happening and they get hit. With the weapons gone, the system can be penetrated and the targets it protects destroyed. The problem is, next morning, the ROCs and SOCs can't be set up again until the radars are back on line; they can't be fixed until the missiles and guns are back in operation to defend them and that won't happen until the ROCS and SOCs tell them whats going on. Uhhh bad problem guys. Next night the bombers come back and head for the NOC - which is why the defending commanders have rippled their pants and taken to the hills.

Now imagine that first night seen from the air through an ESM system. We have the twinkling little lights of the defense system. Suddenly they all start going out along some specific axes. This is where the AWACS comes in. Its mobile so it can be deployed where the threat is developing; its agile so it can't be bombed (note that any competent attack will know exactly where every part of the defense system on the ground is). It can be "got at" but it can shelter in the unaffected parts of the system and fight the battle over the downed section. It sends in fighters, relays communications - now see how valauble the C4I built into Giraffe is - it means the LOC can hook to an AWACS and keep fighting the battle. The AWACS can track the attacking aircraft, determine which are real threats, which are escorts, which are tankers. Its ESM can pick out the enemy Wild Weasels and vector fighters in on them. Again, its synergy. The ground air defense system protects the AWACS by giving it sheltered areas to fly in; the AWACS protects the IADS by fighting the attacks aimed at it.

There are two ways of doing AEWC. The first is to put everything in into the AEWC aircraft. This includes the radar, the datalinks, the data processing computers and the associated ESM and IFF equipment. This makes the aircraft is completely independent so that it can be redeployed as and when its owners wish . One deployed, possibly many hundreds or thousands of miles from its base it can manage an air battle all on own. The facilities built into the E-3 are the reason why it costs so much. Its not the airframe; whether the baseline is an old 707 or new 767 is not really significant. Nor is it the radar; its the C4I built into aircraft. For American purposes this approach is ideal because the US requires a strategically deployable system

The other approach is to put radar on aircraft with a special-purpose dedicated datalink to a ground station that contains all the necessary facilities. This gives very cheap way of getting an airborne radar. It also means we can use much smaller aircraft with a small crew. Most birds of this type have three perhaps four crewmembers. A side advantage is that the data processing capability can be much better since it does not have the weight or volume restrictions imposed by the aircraft. The problem is that it is undeployable since the system configuration means that aircraft must operate with an existing ground system.

The Russian A-50 is a superb example of the fact that offer the Russians two ways to do something and they'll find another. The A-50 has datalinks to Mig-31 fighters but also Mig-31 have datalinks back. This means that the A-50 can take radar information from fighters and add to own picture. It also means it is possible to have a much greater area covered and to get the fighters to the scene of the action. The A-50 can even fly the MiG-31 fighters from its own
stations and can even fire the weapons from the MiGs. That means it can deploy its fighters down the threat axis and then take radar information from those fighters to extend radar coverage down that threat axis. Imagine a circle changing to an ellipse as the fighters move down the threat axis. Now imagine two of three such combinations working together and merging their picture. Its not a system the USAF wants or needs but its one the Russians find greatly suited to their requirements. By the way, you may like to think about F-14s partnering with E-2s the same way.

The large powerful flying radar part of an AWACS gets most of the attention but the basic idea has been around for over 50 years. We can expect to see some suggestions of its offensive use during that time. The most prominent was the use of EC-121 Warning Stars over Laos during the Vietnam War; there they monitored activity at Vietnamese airfields and warned US crews operating over Vietnam of developing threats. They could also vector air-to-air configured aircraft in to intercept the defending fighters before they could get to the air-to-ground configured aircraft. Earlier airborne radar aircraft did much the same thing over Korea.

It's the other side of the equation that was really important; the battle management capability. What that means is that an AWACS can sit behind its own defensive screen and use its radar to monitor hostile air activity deep into enemy territory. It can then use that data to construct a tactical picture of whats going on. For example hubs of air activity represent important enemy bases; an "important base" on the map that lacks air activity may be a decoy. Enemy air operations can be monitored and friendly interceptors sent out to meet them. Friendly aircraft can be warned of threats developing to them. The AWACS can also do resource allocation; for example one outbound strike package (bombers and escorting fighters) faces no threats but another is the focus of developing air-to-air threats; so the AWACS can strip fighters from the one and reassign them (or send reinforcements to) the other.

If AWACS is used the way its supposed to be used (that is as the airborne complement to a ground air defense system), its a very difficult target to take down. We're hitting our old friend virtual attrition again; every aircraft diverted to taking down an AWACS is one that isn't doing something else. One way is to use ultra-long-range air-to-air missiles. The Soviets played with this one with proposed air-to-airs that could reach out 400 kilometers. One variant shown at Farnborough was passive radar homing. The beauty of that was that (if it worked) it would force the AWACS to shut down its radar. Thats working virtual attrition the other way, force the AWACS to shut down its radar and its as good as shot down even if it never gets scratched. Another way to threaten an AWACS is to mount a co-ordinated attack preferably under the control of a friendly AWACS. EW birds to jam the radar and the data-links, fighters to engage the defensive fighters, other fighters to punch through and go for the AWACS. Thats a lot of assets, virtual attrition again.

And THAT is why AWACS is a stabilizing factor. It makes the air defense system much harder to penetrate. In enhances the level of both actual and virtual attrition to the point where the enemy cannot penetrate the system. That means one-blow airstrikes of the sort that took the Egyptian Air Force out in 1967 become almost impossible. Since they are going to be hard and expensive, people will think twice before doing them. That means they are less likely to do them and (also) the guys on the other side of the defense line are going to be less jumpy. Security and Stability are good, they stops wars. The better the defenses the less likely the war. And stopping wars is why defense forces exist."

AWACS And Air Defense Systems

By Stuart Slade

Remeber stealth does not equal invisible. It reduces detection,tracking,and fire control ranges so the enemy will be in the Stealth aircrafts envelope while the reverse won't be true. A Sam site such as the S300 will only be able to lock onto lets say an F-117 or F 35 at a distance of about a few nm (closer to 10-12nm). Where as the stealth aircraft can lob all sorts of PGM's at you such as SDB's.Your best bet to defeat one will be to set up an efective SAM trap using good CCD,decoys,obscurants etc to hide yourself,place the SAM trap along the threat axis of the stealth aircraft and activate it when its close by. You need to have good intelligence and CCD to do this. It also depends on how good the enemy sensors are.....

Stealth is no magic bullet but it sure does make them more surviveable and deadly.

Rusky please stop flaming and trolling and plz stop posting bullsh*t.We would take you more seriously if you did things ian more responsible way such as doing actual research and trying to uderstand the concepts.

BTW The F -22 B 20 which has already been delivered has COTS CIP processors and the Block 10 CIP's although not state of the art still packs a wallop of computing power.

F-22 Raptor

avon1944 · 09-06-2007, 17:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urmomma158

The F -22 B 20 which has already been delivered has COTS CIP processors and the Block 10 CIP's although not state of the art still packs a wallop of computing power.

I keep hearing this charge yet nothing is being introduced with greater processing power. The time it takes to design and integrate a computer into a new fighter, does anyone reasonably expect that any new aircraft will have with all the toys a new PC will have. New fighters will definitely have more processing power than any PC today. That plus the way the computer for the F-22 is designed, it will be able to accept newer circuits as they reach the commercial market plus, the computer's processing capability can be increased by over forty percent.
Some of the first information out about the F-22's computer stated it had a clock rate of 10.5 giga-hertz. That turned out to be incorrect. It has the processing 'rate' of 10.5 FLOPS (FLoating point Operations Per Second). This refers to parallel processing. The F-22A does not have a bunch of black boxes, it has one computer that takes care of all the aircraft's needs.
Does anyone feel the A-3xx series or the B-787 transports have a more advanced flight computers?

Quote:

Originally Posted by urmomma158

Remeber stealth does not equal invisible. It reduces detection,tracking,and fire control ranges so the enemy will be in the Stealth aircrafts envelope while the reverse won't be true.

Your best bet to defeat one will be to set up an efective SAM trap using good CCD,decoys,obscurants etc to hide yourself,place the SAM trap along the threat axis of the stealth aircraft and activate it when its close by.

Stealth is no magic bullet but it sure does make them more surviveable and deadly.

Stealth by itself does not insure a plane won't get shot down, the USAF's combat laboratories had concluded this before the F-22's first flight. A combination of tactics and stealth gives the offensive the element of surprise again.
While, stealth aircraft are detectable, most of the other aircraft (F-15's, F-16's, etc.) in the area will need jamming support. This will make stealthy aircraft even more difficult to detect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Expat Canuck

The Serbs did shoot one down, I've seen the peices in a museum in Serbia. I think it was knocked down by regular old run of the mill AA guns.

No, the F-117 Nighthawk was shot down by the 3rd Division of the 250th Rocked Brigade of the Serbian Air Defense (JRViPVO) and its SA-3 Goa.
TV crews were at the crash site with live TV programming showing parts of the aircraft that was unmistakable F-117. All the while the USAF was denying a plane had been lost. This "official line" was continued until the CSAR recovered the pilot, then the USAF admitted it had lost an F-117.

Adrian

gunnut · 09-06-2007, 17:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avon1944

It has the processing 'rate' of 10.5 giga FLOPS (FLoating point Operations Per Second).

I think you meant giga flops.

Intel's Core 2 has 10 giga flops per core. The average laptop has 2 cores. My nephew's new computer has 4 cores. Core 2 Quad is rated at greater than 40 giga flops. All that can be had for $300.

Is it possible to design fighter computers with modular CPU? So when a new batch of CPU with higher speed or new generation architechture comes onone we just just plug them in and make it work.

avon1944 · 09-08-2007, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnut

I think you meant giga flops

Aaah yeah.... 'flops' is an acronym.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnut

Intel's Core 2 has 10 giga flops per core. The average laptop has 2 cores. My nephew's new computer has 4 cores. Core 2 Quad is rated at greater than 40 giga flops. All that can be had for $300.

This computer unlike desktops or laptops is designed from massive data problems like workstations. The Intel "i960" processor operates at 160MHtz. Intels PC's run far faster than the workstations which are used to design the microprocessors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnut

Is it possible to design fighter computers with modular CPU? So when a new batch of CPU with higher speed or new generation architecture comes onone we just just plug them in and make it work.

Oh yes, this processor is very modular. The F-22 has two computers with room for one more computer. Each computer has ninety-nine slots or printed circuit cards/slots. The first production F-22A's used sixty-six slots. An upgrade has occupied two more slots, the last I heard.
The computers are liquid cooled. Extremely modular in that the individual circuits can upgraded and provisions to modify to an extent the architecture!
As for software in Block #10, there were 1.7 million lines of code (more than the first variant of the E-3 AWACS) with lots of room in both hard drive and RAM to increase performance capability.

Adrian

Bella · 09-09-2007, 02:51 AM

I don't have much data on the F-22 and i'm no expert, but what I do know is this artical that says basically the F-22 is a piece of junk is B.S.
It sounds like another jelious person trying to down-play U.S. technology.
Currently the U.S. has pretty much perfected stealth technology to a point that 99.999999999% of combat missions are successful.
For the U.S. to spend billions of dollars on a fragile plane that doesn't work, is nonsence.
Also, to say that the plane has a out dated computer system sounds pretty bogus to me! Maybe you guys would know more than me, but doesn't the U.S. have the best technology in the world when it comes to computers?

Thanks

gunnut · 09-09-2007, 03:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bella

For the U.S. to spend billions of dollars on a fragile plane that doesn't work, is nonsence.

Have you heard of the LCS?

Jimmy · 09-10-2007, 16:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bella

Also, to say that the plane has a out dated computer system sounds pretty bogus to me! Maybe you guys would know more than me, but doesn't the U.S. have the best technology in the world when it comes to computers?

You dont always put the best and newest on a front-line combat system...you but the best and most reliable and practical up there. There's a lot more to consider than raw computer speed.

Bella · 09-10-2007, 22:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnut

Have you heard of the LCS?

I know what you mean

It's just to me, the F-117 and the B-2 have done so well...I find it hard to believe the U.S. would not carry the same technology over to a air superior fighter.

avon1944 · 09-13-2007, 15:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bella

I don't have much data on the F-22 and i'm no expert, but what I do know is this artical that says basically the F-22 is a piece of junk is B.S.

It's just to me, the F-117 and the B-2 have done so well...I find it hard to believe the U.S. would not carry the same technology over to a air superior fighter.

The USAF has a winner in the F-22 and like the F-4, F-15, etc. it will be the benchmark for quite some time. All the arguments against the F-22 were against the F-14 and F-15. The USAF realized after the F-15 that it would be decades before Congress would be willing to go into full production of a replacement fighter for the F-15. With that background, the USAF planned and designed an aircraft that would be superior to anything the Soviet Union could produce in the time span of 1990 to 2010. This was all based upon the Cold War continuing.
The more you read of the F-22, the more you realize how extensive the innovations of the F-22 really is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy

You dont always put the best and newest on a front-line combat system...you but the best and most reliable and practical up there. There's a lot more to consider than raw computer speed.

America has consistently done just this. Take a look at the following weapons America introduced with new technology available only to the US forces at that time;
US Army -The Apache AH-64 (first aircraft with HMDS), M-1 Abrams (first with Chobram armor, interior fire suppression systems, laser range finder, etc.), MLRS, etc.

US Navy -The Aegis ships, Nimitz Class carriers, Seawolf class subs, E-2 Hawkeye, F-14 Tomcat, V-22, Top Gun (ACMI Aggressor Programs)

USAF -The P-51 Mustang, F-86 Sabre, F-4 Phantom (set the pattern for all aircraft designed since then), F-15 Eagle, F-16 F. Falcon, etc.

You never want to go to war with second best equipment (remember the first M-16 versus the AK-47?). Having great numbers is good but, what aircraft is being produced in large numbers other than the F-16 (4,400 produced and over 400 on order). Since 1970, the F-16 is the only aircraft produced in more than 2,000 airframes. So combat doctrines and tactics must, reflect this reality, some air forces have not.

How did or do you feel when you hear the kill ratio of the American air forces of ≈2:1 in the Viet Nam War? How about alter when you hear of the kill ratio of the F-15? The USAF never again wants the sort of kill ratios below what the USAF had in Korea. All the best features of the F-22 are being incorporated in designs in progress and the future. They are waiting for the cost to come down.

>> jergenshandlotion <<
>> It comes as a shock that a US naval carrier could be struck. <<
Any target can be attacked with success. Taking it out of operational status is another issue. There is no other class of ship past or present that can withstand the damage a Nimitz class carrier can.
There is a piece written by a member of the E-2 community. Entitled, "Badgers, Buccaneers and Bears…" about an exercise in the Norwegian Sea, where the Soviet forces try, locate and simulate an attack on the carrier. How the "orange forces" (NATO forces simulating Soviet forces) attack at the same time the Soviet forces did! It is difficult at times to read due to some terms/abbreviations and acronyms if you are not into naval aviation. URL;
Steeljaw Scribe Â» Badgers, Buccaneers and Bears...(Pt 1) (A North Atlantic tale from the "good ole days")

>> Cowlan <<
>> Jaguars don't carry any kind of weapon that could seriously cripple a Nimitz class carrier. <<
I agree with your position that the only ASCM's that are a threat to a Nimitz class carrier are the large supersonic sea skimming ASCM's. This class of ships have 2½ inches thick then, three layers of compartments/rooms lined with kevlar armor before it could get to the interior sections of the carrier (40+ fuel, ammunition magazines, nuclear reactors-propulsion, etc.). The Nimitz class was designed to sustain hits from the Soviet designed anti ship missiles with the one ton warheads. The missile capable of inflicting the greatest damage to the carrier are the 65cm keel hunter torpedos.

Adrian

SteeljawScribe · 09-13-2007, 16:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avon1944

>> jergenshandlotion <<
>> It comes as a shock that a US naval carrier could be struck. <<
Any target can be attacked with success. Taking it out of operational status is another issue. There is no other class of ship past or present that can withstand the damage a Nimitz class carrier can.
There is a piece written by a member of the E-2 community. Entitled, "Badgers, Buccaneers and Bears…" about an exercise in the Norwegian Sea, where the Soviet forces try, locate and simulate an attack on the carrier. How the "orange forces" (NATO forces simulating Soviet forces) attack at the same time the Soviet forces did! It is difficult at times to read due to some terms/abbreviations and acronyms if you are not into naval aviation. URL;
Steeljaw Scribe Â» Badgers, Buccaneers and Bears...(Pt 1) (A North Atlantic tale from the "good ole days")
Adrian

Thanks for the link

One item I would point out, the Bears and Badgers were detected and intercepted well outside their surveillance/weapons envelope of the CVBGs. You'd be amazed how hard it can be to find a CVBG exercising real emissions control and some deception in the open ocean. Also, being bluewater ops, we would not have had the same ViD concerns as is the case in the littorals today, and were well prepared to employ the AIM-54 Phoenix...

And for any who need terminology help, just drop me a note

- SJS

glyn · 09-13-2007, 16:47 PM

M-1 Abrams (first with Chobram armor, interior fire suppression systems, laser range finder, etc.),

You are wrong there avon. Chobham armour , named after the British Army experimental research centre has been used in British AFVs for years. The Chieftain MBT was the first in the world to be equipped with laser rangefinders (around 1971 IIRC). I'm pretty sure the Brits have had interior fire suppression systems too.

avon1944 · 09-14-2007, 01:29 AM

>> SteeljawScribe <<
>> You'd be amazed how hard it can be to find a CVBG exercising real emissions control and <<
>> some deception in the open ocean. Also, being bluewater ops, we would not have had the <<
>> same ViD concerns as is the case in the littorals today, and were well prepared to <<
>> employ the AIM-54 Phoenix... <<
I have known for a long time that carriers were difficult to detect when they don't want to be detected. One of the trajedies of the walker spy family was, it let the Soviet Navy know how and why the US carriers were so difficult to find during a crisis situation. When nothing was going on, finding US carriers was no problem but, in a crisis they were nowhere to be found. The inability to find the US carriers in crisis times is what changed the minds of the Soviet Navy and they started to build a carrier fleet.
I know of two incidents where the Soviet Naval Aviation (SNA) aircraft and ships lost contact with a CVBG for over a week. Both took place in the late 1970's and early 1980's.
One is when one US carrier lost the SNA east of Cam Ranh Bay, Viet Nam and third-teen days later they were detected by the SNA north of the Kuril Islands, when the carrier no longer practiced ECOM. The other was another one of the exercises in the Norwegian Sea. A CVBG was undetected for ten days! All the time conducting flight operations. The SNA knew it was still there because each day the COD's from the UK continued their routine. In this case, the carrier darted around litoral islands and even ducked into a fjord to avoid detection. The fresh water from the fjords and rivers complicated the sonar picture. It also used islands to shield the carrier from direct path detection by sonar and from long range radar.
In the story, "Badgers, Buccaneers and Bears…", I found it interesting or original that an SNA followed an E-2 home! I learned some good things -thanx. The 'Orange air' using the Russia air asset's jamming to aid in their penetration of the carrier's defenses..... Wow!
There is a good article about carriers evading SNA surveilance. "How to Hide a Task Force" By Andy Pico, URL;
How to Hide a Task Force

I have only read of this once in AW&ST, I have met only one other person who remembers reading the article.
The incident was in the mid-1990's, it was another naval exercise in the Norwegian Sea. The PVO Su-27's were harassing Norwegian P-3's Orions. On the last full day of the exercise, two F-14D's accompanied one P-3 on its patrol east of Bear Island and North Cape. The P-3 was hunting a Russian boomer! The F-14D's stayed in tight formation with the P-3 so they would appear as one aircraft on radar. When the Su-27's came out to harrass the P-3, the F-14's 'bounced' them.
The article in the "Filter Center" did not state what happened but, it did state, there was a big party that night on the carrier!

>> glyn <<
>> You are wrong there avon. <<
>> The Chieftain MBT was the first in the world to be equipped with laser rangefinders <<
>> the Brits have had interior fire suppression <<
I stand corrected on all three counts! -Adrian

Adrian

09-13-2007, 16:47 PM	#254 (permalink)
glyn *Military Professional* Join Date: 09-15-06 Location: Penzance, Cornwall UK Posts: 6,884	M-1 Abrams (first with Chobram armor, interior fire suppression systems, laser range finder, etc.), You are wrong there avon. Chobham armour , named after the British Army experimental research centre has been used in British AFVs for years. The Chieftain MBT was the first in the world to be equipped with laser rangefinders (around 1971 IIRC). I'm pretty sure the Brits have had interior fire suppression systems too. __________________ Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

09-14-2007, 01:29 AM	#255 (permalink)
avon1944 Contributor Join Date: 04-26-05 Location: Silicon Valley Posts: 331	RE: Badgers, Buccaneers and Bears… >> SteeljawScribe << >> You'd be amazed how hard it can be to find a CVBG exercising real emissions control and << >> some deception in the open ocean. Also, being bluewater ops, we would not have had the << >> same ViD concerns as is the case in the littorals today, and were well prepared to << >> employ the AIM-54 Phoenix... << I have known for a long time that carriers were difficult to detect when they don't want to be detected. One of the trajedies of the walker spy family was, it let the Soviet Navy know how and why the US carriers were so difficult to find during a crisis situation. When nothing was going on, finding US carriers was no problem but, in a crisis they were nowhere to be found. The inability to find the US carriers in crisis times is what changed the minds of the Soviet Navy and they started to build a carrier fleet. I know of two incidents where the Soviet Naval Aviation (SNA) aircraft and ships lost contact with a CVBG for over a week. Both took place in the late 1970's and early 1980's. One is when one US carrier lost the SNA east of Cam Ranh Bay, Viet Nam and third-teen days later they were detected by the SNA north of the Kuril Islands, when the carrier no longer practiced ECOM. The other was another one of the exercises in the Norwegian Sea. A CVBG was undetected for ten days! All the time conducting flight operations. The SNA knew it was still there because each day the COD's from the UK continued their routine. In this case, the carrier darted around litoral islands and even ducked into a fjord to avoid detection. The fresh water from the fjords and rivers complicated the sonar picture. It also used islands to shield the carrier from direct path detection by sonar and from long range radar. In the story, "Badgers, Buccaneers and Bears…", I found it interesting or original that an SNA followed an E-2 home! I learned some good things -thanx. The 'Orange air' using the Russia air asset's jamming to aid in their penetration of the carrier's defenses..... Wow! There is a good article about carriers evading SNA surveilance. "How to Hide a Task Force" By Andy Pico, URL; How to Hide a Task Force I have only read of this once in AW&ST, I have met only one other person who remembers reading the article. The incident was in the mid-1990's, it was another naval exercise in the Norwegian Sea. The PVO Su-27's were harassing Norwegian P-3's Orions. On the last full day of the exercise, two F-14D's accompanied one P-3 on its patrol east of Bear Island and North Cape. The P-3 was hunting a Russian boomer! The F-14D's stayed in tight formation with the P-3 so they would appear as one aircraft on radar. When the Su-27's came out to harrass the P-3, the F-14's 'bounced' them. The article in the "Filter Center" did not state what happened but, it did state, there was a big party that night on the carrier! >> glyn << >> You are wrong there avon. << >> The Chieftain MBT was the first in the world to be equipped with laser rangefinders << >> the Brits have had interior fire suppression << I stand corrected on all three counts! -Adrian Adrian

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Stuff that'll make you laugh!	ASG	World Affairs Board Pub	3	02-15-2007 07:40 AM
Your Thoughts on David Icke?	joey2	World Affairs Board Pub	12	12-29-2006 07:55 AM
The Stuff of Life	Leader	Science & Tech	3	10-05-2005 16:46 PM
Soviet guns in Afghanistan (interview)	troung	Small Arms and Personal Weapons	44	08-30-2005 23:55 PM
Whatever This Guys Is "high" On, Its Good Stuff!	visioninthedark	International Defense Topics	4	10-18-2004 05:04 AM

09-09-2007, 02:51 AM	#248 (permalink)
Bella Contributor Join Date: 09-03-07 Location: Chicago Posts: 312 Country:	I don't have much data on the F-22 and i'm no expert, but what I do know is this artical that says basically the F-22 is a piece of junk is B.S. It sounds like another jelious person trying to down-play U.S. technology. Currently the U.S. has pretty much perfected stealth technology to a point that 99.999999999% of combat missions are successful. For the U.S. to spend billions of dollars on a fragile plane that doesn't work, is nonsence. Also, to say that the plane has a out dated computer system sounds pretty bogus to me! Maybe you guys would know more than me, but doesn't the U.S. have the best technology in the world when it comes to computers? Thanks

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)