GGTharos

Yup ... but they used as a force multiplier.

There are some rumours that the F-22 has an active IR supression system - circulating cold fuel about the heating edges ... modern IRSTs can certainly see a 747 80nm out, but a head on-fighter, even a non-stealth one, likely much more difficult and shorter ranged (possibly short enough to make it effectively useless ... you don't see radars going out of style, do you?)

So? A fighter could easily out-maneuver a 54C at long range anyway, like any missile. The AIM-120D will likely have a useable 60nm range ... the important part here will be the Rtr, which will likely be well over 10nm.

But no real disadvantage either, whereas the new AIM-9X, and JHCMS allows the raptor to attack with both 9X and 120C/D at high off-bore angles while confidently employing countermeasures to evade a return shot (active IR supression, remember? It makes things more difficult) . You're assuming that when things get down to WVR, the Sues actually know about it! They will likely not know, and that's a huge factor.

Eh ... no. Absolutely, positively and /completely/ wrong. Those aircraft THEMSELVES depend on GCI and AWACS. If anything, the Raptor can be /far/ more independent and more likely to nail -their- AWACS ... and the fighters themselves.

Both GCI and AWACS are an important part of any Air force's repertoire. The one that doesn't have any is in trouble - and the side that has no raptors is the one that will end up without any AWACS planes either, sooner rather than later.

zraver

How much use an IRST will be of is debateable. Fighters are small specally head on, and they are fast. The Su will probalby be dead long before the IRST comes into range. Speically since the F-22 with its superior speed, range, ands tealth can manuver to attack posistion undetected.

obrescia

a) Air force asked for 380. [F-15 replacement]

b) Sensor technology design cycles [improvement/cost] historically outpace airframe technology cycles by an order of magnitude. If IRST can see (?) missile nose cone heating, so pump fuel anywhere…irrelevant, you’ll have jet/missile exhaust plume(s).

c) Same goes for R-77, AIM-9X playing catch-up to R-73. Same augments was made in the fifties. Missiles improve, planes improve, and countermeasures improve … so it’s a wash.

d) IFF is essential. In 91 Gulf War for max range AIM-7 shots by F-15. You either have AWACS do your IFF or fly into IRST envelope to do yourself. You lob a missile at your AWACS, everybody will be yelling on the radio away. Last point: F-22 drivers “talk” on their radios…those are energy emissions as well.




There are some rumours that the F-22 has an active IR supression system - circulating cold fuel about the heating edges ... modern IRSTs can certainly see a 747 80nm out, but a head on-fighter, even a non-stealth one, likely much more difficult and shorter ranged (possibly short enough to make it effectively useless ... you don't see radars going out of style, do you?)

So? A fighter could easily out-maneuver a 54C at long range anyway, like any missile. The AIM-120D will likely have a useable 60nm range ... the important part here will be the Rtr, which will likely be well over 10nm.



But no real disadvantage either, whereas the new AIM-9X, and JHCMS allows the raptor to attack with both 9X and 120C/D at high off-bore angles while confidently employing countermeasures to evade a return shot (active IR supression, remember? It makes things more difficult) . You're assuming that when things get down to WVR, the Sues actually know about it! They will likely not know, and that's a huge factor.



Eh ... no. Absolutely, positively and /completely/ wrong. Those aircraft THEMSELVES depend on GCI and AWACS. If anything, the Raptor can be /far/ more independent and more likely to nail -their- AWACS ... and the fighters themselves.

Both GCI and AWACS are an important part of any Air force's repertoire. The one that doesn't have any is in trouble - and the side that has no raptors is the one that will end up without any AWACS planes either, sooner rather than later.[/quote]

GGTharos

Right, yep.

That's because you're thinking the use of IRST's was somehow not anticipated ... rather your statement is irrelevant. A missile nose cone is a little point of energy which can be detected at some range - you can reduce temperature, not much area. The F-22 can't reduce area a whole lot, but it sounds like it can reduce temperature and thus contrast ... and such things work.
There's M1A1's with experimental IR shielding that makes them invisible to FLIR at VERY short ranges ... on the order of 500m.

No, it isn't a wash. The 9X is well ahead of the 73. It's ahead in seeker and electronics technology - far ahead. Kinematics aren't a whole lot different probably.
The R-77 is the inferior of the AIM-120 technologically also. This is why Russia's looking for a replacement .. the 77 has no real advantages over the 120.

Right ... and? You still haven't explained how the sues are going to avoid getting smacked around by F-22's
F-22's have excellent IFF capabilities, including NCTR.

obrescia

I think I just did?

F-22 can not out flight perform the SU
F-22 AIM-120 less maneuverable/range than R-77. Same for AIM-9X vs. R73. F-22 will be forced to use AWACS CI to maximize AIM-120 max shot range, as not to risk IRST unknowns. Anti-radiation [Comm. Radio homing?] version of R-77 do exist.
F-22 radiates IFF interrogation and comm signals
F-22 is susceptible to all other detection mediums it fly’s in
F-22 was anticipated for 10-20 years

F-22 double $$ of SU
==================
2x F-22 vs. 4x SU: outcome F-22 likely win
4x F-22 vs. 8x SU: outcome one or two F-22 likely lost
6x F-22 vs. 12x SU: outcome three to all F-22 likely lost

but! the F/A-22 is sexier!!

4thGuards

R-77 does not have a bigger range than AIM-120 , where did you get that info , AIM-120 has a range of about 180km , similar to R-77 , and il give my money on AIM-9X any day over any other short range missile.

zraver

not really
The F-22 can fly higher and faster and can pick the time and plac eof the engagement. That is out performing in any book.

proof?

F-22 will be forced to use AWACS CI to maximize AIM-120 max shot range, as not to risk IRST unknowns. Anti-radiation [Comm. Radio homing?] version of R-77 do exist.[/quote]

Not really, homing weapons need a steady transmission. Not frequncy hopping burst transmissions form an object traveling hundreds of miles an hour.

in close combat, not likely they don't have to worry about being targeted

by fighter sized detection assets not liklely when gorund based assets with masive arrays and unlimite dpower can't detect them.

And Russia's been broken for 20 years.

Russian pilot to another Russian pilot before both are shot down, I can see him but my missiles and my radar can't. err wait American pilots with far superior electronics have already said that. Not to mention the F-22's AESA is said to be undetectable and capable of frying incoming missiles.

6 F-22 vs 12 SU+ 12 dead Sukois

4thGuards

It highly depends on the situation and where the fight is taken , but on the open , with only 6 F-22 vs 12 Su-27's taken fight , Su-27's would not stand much of a chance , the R-77 is comparable to AIM-120 , but Raptor has stealth , and before Su-27's could see him on the radar they would probably be dead already.

gunnut

I don't think you understand the true capabilities of the F-22. Which is exactly what the USAF wants.

Some tidbits we've heard so far that are declassified include NATO pilots complaining that their gunsights can't lock on to F-22 eventhough they can see it with their own eyes; F-22s show up unannounced just about anytime, anywhere; trying to overwhelm the F-22s with numbers was not successful, and so on.

A 4 ship F-22 formation will likely take out more than 3 squadrons of SUs, and that's assuming comparable pilots at the controls.

However, the newer SUs are superior to F-22s at strike missions. F-22 is a no compromise figher. It's not very good at trucking bombs. Or so I think.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

YellowFever

Somehow...I Just knew that post was coming from glyn..

__________________
...If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space!

obrescia

[quote] I don't think you understand the true capabilities of the F-22. Which is exactly what the USAF wants.

A) I think I’m starting to… that’s the problem. Stealth great for bombers/strike. The F-117 has been retired for a bit now [Balkans SA-4 or SA-6 shoot down]. But bad for fighters that must maneuver. Having said that the F-22 is THE most agile manned stealth aircraft ever!

[quote] Some tidbits we've heard so far that are declassified include NATO pilots complaining that their gunsights can't lock on to F-22 eventhough they can see it with their own eyes; F-22s show up unannounced just about anytime, anywhere; trying to overwhelm the F-22s with numbers was not successful, and so on.

A) The Su-30, 33, 35 [actually all 27s] use the IRST [incorporating a laser rangefinder, is more accurate than radar] to engage during dogfight. No issue for Sukhoi.

[quote] A 4 ship F-22 formation will likely take out more than 3 squadrons of SUs, and that's assuming comparable pilots at the controls.

A) Typical to use 2 (two) Fox shots per target. Also 1 missile on each [likely an AIM-120] F-22 will have a mechanical issue or just not guide. This is typical for all air-air missiles regardless of builder or country of origin. In addition F-22 drivers will be chatting away on their radios calling out the “fox” # then “pit-bull”...not good for steathiness. The Europeans are ditching the "long-range" version of the AIM-120 for the Meteor [?!!]

obrescia

Vympel R-77 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vympel R-73 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Infra-red search and track - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

obrescia

Does anyone know how good/bad the IRST system might be? The Mig-35 OLS seems very interesting as well.

4thGuards

Yes bigger range than AIM-120C , but I was talking about the new AIM-120D which will have a range of 180km~ which is the same as R-77

wabpilot

[quote=obrescia;393049] No. RO is not only good for fighters, it's great. The F-22, Rafale, Typhoon and F-18E/F all have some degree of reduced observability. Among them, the F-22 has the lowest radar cross section. Yet, the F-22 is dynamically unstable, and thus maneuverable in the extreme. While its corner speed is still highly classified, my own experience tells me it is higher than the F-16s. That means the F-22 is going to have a major energy advantage, not just in the first turn, but also all subsequent ones. I'll take that any day.

Big issue for the Su-27 and 30 series. The ability to super cruise is not just about speed. It also means the engines have a much cooler signature at those speeds. Cooler signature, less chance of IR detection.