PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 29 Jul 2010 22:57

Can we advance the discussion to what specifically the weaknesses are? I don't think anyone denies the Raptor has weaknesses. But at the same time there's another side, the Raptor is also trying to exploit your weakness. Who does it first?

prastor · Post by **prastor** » 30 Jul 2010 15:24

I see a lot of F-22 Raptor "fanboyism" in this thread. I say fanboyism because of the lack of any citations on any of the claims most people are making about an F-22 Raptor's strengths.

Did anybody bother to provide a credible source that talks about the F-22s proven reliability?
Anybody wonder why F22s are not being used in Afghanistan or Iraq currently?

Here are two sources that talk about the weaknesses of the F-22 Raptor and why even the American DoD found it very impractical.

Oh! By the way, I also read an article the other day about the reluctance of the US Navy to buy into the F35 program. They are not satisfied with the performance of the fighter thus far, apparently. I'll try and find that article for you guys.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03020.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaoYz90giTk
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaoYz90giTk[/youtube]

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 30 Jul 2010 15:27

Prastor-> Pray tell me why is the F-22 required in Afganistan or Iraq, neither of the opponets have airforce or a proper anti aircraft systems,

prastor · Post by **prastor** » 30 Jul 2010 15:32

I would like to highlight a specific 2 parts of the article in Washington Post that I shared in my previous post.

While most aircraft fleets become easier and less costly to repair as they mature, key maintenance trends for the F-22 have been negative in recent years, and on average from October last year to this May, just 55 percent of the deployed F-22 fleet has been available to fulfill missions guarding U.S. airspace, the Defense Department acknowledged this week. The F-22 has never been flown over Iraq or Afghanistan.

"It is a disgrace that you can fly a plane [an average of] only 1.7 hours before it gets a critical failure" that jeopardizes success of the aircraft's mission, said a Defense Department critic of the plane who is not authorized to speak on the record. Other skeptics inside the Pentagon note that the planes, designed 30 years ago to combat a Cold War adversary, have cost an average of $350 million apiece and say they are not a priority in the age of small wars and terrorist threats.

prastor · Post by **prastor** » 30 Jul 2010 15:37

Aditya_V wrote:Prastor-> Pray tell me why is the F-22 required in Afganistan or Iraq, neither of the opponets have airforce or a proper anti aircraft systems,

Well, then why do they have F-15s, F-16s and F-18s stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan? What use do they have for them? Isn't it just better to have a few gunships (Apache?) and a few drones (predator?) then!!! My point is, planes are not deployed only for the sake of countering the enemy's planes. There are other roles they are used for.

Also, the article from Washington Post that I shared above answers why an F-22 is not used in Iraq and Afghanistan today.

The Air Force has declined to discuss the cause, but a classified internal accident report completed the following month states that the plane flew into the ground after poorly executing a high-speed run with its weapons-bay doors open, according to three government officials familiar with its contents. The Lockheed test pilot died. Several sources said the flight was part of a bid to make the F-22 relevant to current conflicts (read Iraq and Afghanistan) by giving it a capability to conduct precision bombing raids, not just aerial dogfights.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 30 Jul 2010 16:23

prastor wrote:
Aditya_V wrote:Prastor-> Pray tell me why is the F-22 required in Afganistan or Iraq, neither of the opponets have airforce or a proper anti aircraft systems,
Well, then why do they have F-15s, F-16s and F-18s stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan? What use do they have for them? Isn't it just better to have a few gunships (Apache?) and a few drones (predator?) then!!! My point is, planes are not deployed only for the sake of countering the enemy's planes. There are other roles they are used for.

While I am a critic of F-22 myself, I cannot help but disagree with your rationale (which is baffling at its best). Apache and other attack helicopters would be susceptible to enemy rpgs. Also, they may have made some changes in Apache recently(I seem to remember reading that they have but I am not too sure) but at the start of the Afgan War, Apaches were unable to fly to many high altitude areas there. Now to predator. Read up on how many a2g munitions it can carry.
F-22's advantage is that it can evade enemy radar. What radar does Taliban operate?
F-22's only (and a huge) problem is its manufacturing and operating cost. But even its most staunch critics cannot doubt its performance.

prastor · Post by **prastor** » 30 Jul 2010 16:48

Gaur wrote: While I am a critic of F-22 myself, I cannot help but disagree with your rationale (which is baffling at its best). Apache and other attack helicopters would be susceptible to enemy rpgs. Also, they may have made some changes in Apache recently(I seem to remember reading that they have but I am not too sure) but at the start of the Afgan War, Apaches were unable to fly to many high altitude areas there. Now to predator. Read up on how many a2g munitions it can carry.
F-22's advantage is that it can evade enemy radar. What radar does Taliban operate?
F-22's only (and a huge) problem is its manufacturing and operating cost. But even its most staunch critics cannot doubt its performance.

Hi! Gaur,

I completely agree with you. I was trying to make the same point, if you notice. Aditya_V asked me what use an F-22 has in Iraq/Afghanistan. I used reverse logic to make my point that an F-22 can be used to do the job of an F-15 or an F-18 being used in missions. I provided a source to show that USAF even tried to deploy the F-22 for these missions, but ditched the effort after a fatal crash of an F-22 in Los Angeles during a mock precision-bombing exercise. Whatever caused the crash scared the USAF from deploying it till date.

As far as the cost limitations go, that again works heavily against the F-22. What is the point of a fighter that you are too scared of flying and maintaining due to the overshadowing costs?

Read the Washington Post article that I shared. Most of the mentioned problems still persist into 2010, as per the latest interview of Pierre Sprey by Nova.

Ajatshatru wrote:Is this a PAK-FA and FGFA thread or a F-22 thread?

I was just discussing the weaknesses of the F-22 (as the western analog of our FGFA/PAKFA) so as to analyse and see how the PAK FA is being designed to avoid the same pitfalls and how it will take advantage of these weaknesses of the opponent!

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 30 Jul 2010 17:08

^^
Then we are on the same page. And yes the Washington post article is a good read. It was posted on BR when it was published.
Also, I kind of agree with Ajaishatru. The F-22 discussion is derailing the thread. This will be my last post regarding this topic in this thread. I also hope that other members would take the discussion to the appropriate thread. I will report the posts (including mine) to bring this to the attention of mods. Hopefully, the posts will be moved.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Jul 2010 18:21

prastor wrote:I see a lot of F-22 Raptor "fanboyism" in this thread. I say fanboyism because of the lack of any citations on any of the claims most people are making about an F-22 Raptor's strengths.

Did anybody bother to provide a credible source that talks about the F-22s proven reliability?
Anybody wonder why F22s are not being used in Afghanistan or Iraq currently?

Here are two sources that talk about the weaknesses of the F-22 Raptor and why even the American DoD found it very impractical.

My response, OT for this thread is below.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 89#p914089

prastor · Post by **prastor** » 30 Jul 2010 18:45

shiv wrote:
My response, OT for this thread is below.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 89#p914089

Thanks Shiv. I'll take that leg of my discussion to the other thread

Is there any credible info on what kind of radar absorbing mechanism (paints/coats) are going to be used in the PAK FA program? Is it similar to the iron-ball type coating that the F22 is having a terrible time with? I tried looking up for some information on this, but with no success.

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 30 Jul 2010 23:23

Gaur wrote: I would be infinitely grateful if you would give sources to your claims. F117 matches PAK-FA in stealth? PAK-FA and F117 use totally different concepts to achieve stealth from their design. B2, F-22, F-35 and PAK-FA use planform allignment while F-117 uses faceting. Two totally different concepts. Also, please provide me a credible source stating that PAK-FA uses "plasma tech". I mean no disrespect but you clearly know little about stealth and have no idea of what you are talking about. So, it would be much appreciated if you could give some credible sources to support your weird claims.

Saar, I mean no disrespect ,but I think you have totally made a wrong conclusion of my post ..
I meant that F22 is just not stealth, there is much more inside it which is unknown, like stealth technology itself was unknown until it was used brutally. My point is that it should be explored by the expertrs ,what americans can fill into that much volume of a stealthy body like f22 wrto the current american capabilities,. Only then it can be found whether any other aircraft is capble to shoot it down or not ,. Until then all such claims about f22 remain as dubious as possible.. .

Rishirishi · Post by **Rishirishi** » 31 Jul 2010 01:37

The details of the Raptors are a closly guarded secret. And here people are posting as if they know the plane and its capability inside out. Then there is this Prof. Das, whose article is one of the most suspect I have ever read. He draws conclusions like kids talk about cars. Most probably he has not even spoken to anyone who has trained against f-22.
Fact of the matter is that the Hornets are more then capable to meet any challenge anywhere. Why would the americans want to send in their most valuable assets?
No one here knows the true capabilities of the raptors, It is however certain that they probably are the most capable fighters in the world.

prastor · Post by **prastor** » 31 Jul 2010 05:34

Nobody knows the weak points of both PAK FA or Raptor. But, there are no credible figures supporting the claims of their strengths either.

People talk of stealth on 5th generation fighters and so confidently sketch out scenarios where these 5th generation fighters have perfect stealth capabilities where the enemy is too dumb to develop detection mechanism that render the so-called stealth useless. We neither know if anybody has such effective detection systems, nor do we know if stealth even really works as they advertise (unless someone can provide official RCS figures, other than rhetoric like bumble bee or golf ball).

So, every time someone argues about the credibility of a critic of a 5th generation fighter or its specific features, also apply the same rule of thumb to yourself while using terms like "certainly the best" or "no match for it". Knock him/her down with facts and not some more baseless 'fanboyistic-assumptions'.

And Rishirishi, with regards to your claim that the reason for not deploying their most valuable assets overseas is the effectiveness of the F-18, I'd beg to differ. I have quoted the wahingtonpost article in one of my posts above where in the USAF and Lockheed Martin acknowledged that they had the intention of deploying the F22 Raptor in Iraq and Afghanistan for certain roles. But, they had to drop their plans after the F-22 failed to pass the tests in Los Angeles because it could not open it's bay doors at low altitudes as required (it crashed). So, I'd say the reason is tilted more to the ineffectiveness of the 5th generation aircraft rather than anything to do with the effectiveness of an F-18.

After all, it would only make sense to deploy a new weapons system in low level (low risk) conflicts first to iron out any initial glitches of operation before confidently using it in full scale wars.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 31 Jul 2010 06:13

What would an F-22, designed for A2A combat do in Iraq? Using it for ground attack seems like a waste.

prastor · Post by **prastor** » 31 Jul 2010 10:25

Carl_T wrote:What would an F-22, designed for A2A combat do in Iraq? Using it for ground attack seems like a waste.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Raptor.html

F-22A Raptor assigned to the 27th Fighter Squadron of the 1st Fighter Wing, Langley, Virginia, the first operational unit to fly the F-22A, releasing a GBU-32 JDAM satellite/inertial smart bomb. The US Air Force intends to replace the F-117A Nighthawk stealth fighter with the F-22A providing a precision strike capability against the most heavily defended targets. Two F-22A squadrons are to be assigned to the 49th Fighter Wing at Holloman, New Mexico, replacing all existing dedicated F-117A strike aircraft. Since the F-22A was conceived during the 1980s, its basic role has expanded considerably. Early production F-22As will be used both as a penetrating strike fighter and air combat fighter, and medium term planning envisages an Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance role, Suppression of Enemy Air Defence role, and an Electronic Attack derivative. (US Air Force).

I guess that establishes the F-22 Raptor as a Multirole Stealth Fighter. And, like I already quoted another source in my previous post, an F-22A fighter crashed when being tested for low-altitude strike capabilities (for ground support) and though no official report has been released to public as to what caused it, the source I mentioned quotes defense officials blaming the F-22's inability to attack (open bay doors) while below a certain altitude. Which is kind of ok, because the close combat support role is mostly for the F35 anyway.

Here is where the PAK FA looks to shine brighter than the F22 and F35 put together. It has almost the same strengths of the F22, but sacrifices a little stealth in some places to do stuff the F-35 is being built to do (which the F22 is struggling with). Dr Carlo Kopp's assessment of the PAK FA, which was acclaimed by Bill Sweetman (Editor in Chief for Defense Technology at Aviation Week), throws some light on this special role the PAK FA is going to play in the near future.

PAK FA is being designed to be universally deployed on both land and on carriers, while also focusing on its effectiveness in close combat support, just like the F35. The F22 lacks such versatility. Yet, the PAK FA has none of the weaknesses that the F35 has, like low range, internal weapons load congestion, lack of maneuverability and so on. It is definitely going to be cheaper than both the American fighters.

IMHO, there was more to the F-22 program cancellation than just budget cuts. And, the Russians probably took notice of the pitfalls and playing it safe and being smart with the PAK FA project. It might not look like an F-22 killer, but then the F-22 is already dead.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 31 Jul 2010 11:01

The Raptor as bomber
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Magazi ... aptor.aspx

prastor · Post by **prastor** » 31 Jul 2010 11:16

shiv wrote:The Raptor as bomber
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Magazi ... aptor.aspx

The FB-22 program was canceled in 2006, I guess. Looks like US is focusing its funds on next generation unmanned fighters & bombers.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 31 Jul 2010 11:38

We may see a tactical bomber version of PAK-FA ( much like what Su-34 does today ) in decades ahead its a low risk option for a stealth tactical bomber much like FB-22.

Rishirishi · Post by **Rishirishi** » 02 Aug 2010 05:05

The raptors main role is air superiority. Stelth comes at great design cost. All your wepons have to be inside, your aerodynamics are compromised, and you have to take care of heat from the engines.

The main point with Raptors are to take out key enemy infrastructure (like radar, bridges, communications centeres etc). Their main strength is the ability to opperate in areas that is dominated by the enemy forces. And then of course to gain command of the air.

No one really know the strengths and weaknesses of the Raptors. But for certain they will be near impossible to get a lock on with a conventional missile (heat seeking or radar).
The rapotors may most possibly have some weak spots, but as long as the enemy does not know about them, then they cant take any adantage of the weak spots.

As for PAK-Fa. It does not look as if it is a stelth aircraft in its real sence. I have some interest in aerodynamics and it seems as if the Ruskis have not craked all the issues reagarding stelth design. I strongly doubt if it will be a match to the JSF or the Raptor. But then again, just my speculations.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Aug 2010 10:38

Rishirishi wrote:The raptors main role is air superiority.
<snip>
The main point with Raptors are to take out key enemy infrastructure

These two statements contradict each other.

The Raptor carries a grand total of 2 PGMs internally (make that 8 if you reduce the weight to miniscule 100 kg each). So how come the US doctrines of "bomb truck" and "mud mover" and "Rolling thunder" suddenly changed to "2 bombs are enough" just to suit Raptor proponents?

Even those 2 PGMs have shown ability to be accurate from a distance of 40 km at which ranges the Raptor can be picked up both by enemy radar and enemy IR. So its attack ability is very limited and very secondary and is nowhere near the assertion that the "main point with Raptors are to take out key enemy infrastructure"

The Raptors role certainly is air superiority, but air superiority is nothing without an ability to attack. And if those attacking aircraft are unstealthy they can be picked up and suitable tactical traps laid for Raptors who can be surmised to be in the area but at BVR ranges, possibly supercruising with hot IR detectable skin.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Aug 2010 11:27

raptor will be retained for limited 'teach-a-lesson/psyops' type wars vis Noko and Iran and the unlikely case of a full blown war with China. it will shoot down 10 iranian migs or phantoms and polish its already superb internet resume

or even better a dozen Noko Mig21s

it is a plane without any real urgent role in the next 20 yrs...a skill-building/TD if you will but 179 of them.

meantime with JSF belly being slimmer than a supermodels, and efforts to make 50kg PGMs not furnishing the desired impact
on hard targets, the work to make external and conformal stealthy weapons and weapons containers will gather some momentum.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 02 Aug 2010 19:19

shiv wrote:Even those 2 PGMs have shown ability to be accurate from a distance of 40 km at which ranges the Raptor can be picked up both by enemy radar and enemy IR. So its attack ability is very limited and very secondary and is nowhere near the assertion that the "main point with Raptors are to take out key enemy infrastructure"

How did you arrive at the figure of 40km?

With regard to this point, while air superiority is most certainly its primary role, it will also be tasked with first-day strikes to neutralize enemy air defences and open up a corridor for other strike aircraft. Its a role that the F-35 may pick up depending on effective it finally is.

The Raptors role certainly is air superiority, but air superiority is nothing without an ability to attack. And if those attacking aircraft are unstealthy they can be picked up and suitable tactical traps laid for Raptors who can be surmised to be in the area but at BVR ranges, possibly supercruising with hot IR detectable skin.

Why is air superiority nothing without an ability to attack? The F-15 Eagle was a very successful design and performed only air superiority missions. Also, two 1000lb JDAMs while less than what a fourth gen aircraft would carry on a typical mission, is sufficient to take out a high-priority target (eg. S-300 radar site) which is what the F-22's ground attack capability is intended for, in the first place.

With regard to the Raptor weaknesses, rest assured every aggressor pilot at Red Flag would have been itching to try every theory of his against the Raptor. And every news report about every exercise the F-22's been involved in says the same thing - it was a walkover for the Raptor. It reportedly went up against the Rafale in the UAE -

F22A contre Rafale
Intouchable Raptor

Si les aviateurs français se sont largement étalés sur les "tôle" mises par leurs Rafale au Typhoon britaniques lors du dernier exercice ATLC aux Emirats arabes unis, peu de choses ont été dites sur la confrontation entre le delta Dassault et les F-22A américains présents sur place. Lors des engagements hors de portée visuelle, les Raptor américains n'ont pas même daigné allumer leurs radars, restant invisibles au RBE2 et au Spectra tout en localisant avec précision les émissions électromagnétiques du chasseur français, sécurisant ainsi leur tirs d'AMRAAM à distance de sécurité. A deux reprises au moins, les F22A se sont aussi "enroulés" avec les Rafale en combat rapproché, assurant à chaque fois un "gun kill" sans grande difficulté.

(Air & Cosmos)

F22A cons Rafale
Untouchable Raptor

If the French airmen were widely distributed over the "iron" their latest Rafale by Typhoon british TRA in the past year in the UAE, little has been said about the confrontation between the delta and the Dassault F-22A U.S. present site. During engagements beyond visual range, the Raptor Americans did not even deign to turn on their radar, remaining invisible to RBE2 and Spectra while locating accurately the electromagnetic emissions of the French fighter, thus securing their fire AMRAAM Distance security. Twice at least, the F22A were also "rolled" with the Rafale in close combat, such that each time a 'gun kill' without much difficulty.

negi · Post by **negi** » 02 Aug 2010 19:58

Raptor being detected by a radar at 40km ? Well if we do some crude number crunching using Radar equation with following assumptions:

1. There exists an airborne radar which can detect a target of 1msq RCS at 100km.
2. RCS of F-22 is '0.01msq' (100 times the figure of 0.0001 being quoted on the web)

Only in that case the F-22 stands a chance of being 'DETECED' at about ~32km.

About OLS-35 or likes I don't know , there are claims of 35 km detection range for head on targets(what kind ? )

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Aug 2010 20:16

Heh heh

Not radar. IR

Why is everyone trying to track Raptor with radar? IR is the only way.

Having said that the Raptors radar invisibility is exaggerated as per this apologetic American article from Airforces magazine
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Magazi ... ealth.aspx

There has been great exaggeration about countering stealth. It is based in part on a lingering misconception that stealth aircraft are not detectable. The aircraft were never intended to be invisible, nor was it claimed they would be.

http://www.aviapedia.com/video/new-mig-35-ols-video

New OLS is intelligence system of technical vision to work in realtime of fast combat environment. In air combat complex allows:
- detect not-afterburning target on the 45km range and more;
- identify this target on 8-10km range;
- estimate aerial target range up to 15 km.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Aug 2010 20:23

F22A contre Rafale
Intouchable Raptor

Si les aviateurs français se sont largement étalés sur les "tôle" mises par leurs Rafale au Typhoon britaniques lors du dernier exercice ATLC aux Emirats arabes unis, peu de choses ont été dites sur la confrontation entre le delta Dassault et les F-22A américains présents sur place. Lors des engagements hors de portée visuelle, les Raptor américains n'ont pas même daigné allumer leurs radars, restant invisibles au RBE2 et au Spectra tout en localisant avec précision les émissions électromagnétiques du chasseur français, sécurisant ainsi leur tirs d'AMRAAM à distance de sécurité. A deux reprises au moins, les F22A se sont aussi "enroulés" avec les Rafale en combat rapproché, assurant à chaque fois un "gun kill" sans grande difficulté.

(Air & Cosmos)

The Raptor has been flown against others in only one much publicised exercise in 2007 where it achieved those 144:1 ratios. Recall that the F-15, when new was claimed to have a 782:1 advantage advertised - which dropped as described below:

negi · Post by **negi** » 02 Aug 2010 20:31

There has been great exaggeration about countering stealth. It is based in part on a lingering misconception that stealth aircraft are not detectable. The aircraft were never intended to be invisible, nor was it claimed they would be.

That is simply silly, arrey it is obvious that stealth=!invisible that is why the ruckus around the RCS (even the fanboys don't claim RCS=0 for F-22 which is what is implied when one says invisible).

New OLS is intelligence system of technical vision to work in realtime of fast combat environment. In air combat complex allows:
- detect not-afterburning target on the 45km range and more;
- identify this target on 8-10km range;
- estimate aerial target range up to 15 km.

Yes so in an ideal case 15km is the maximum distance at which Mig-35 will be able to actually que its AAM using the OLS at the target type used for this calibration.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Aug 2010 20:36

That French story sounds like a joke.

That is because the Raptors were never brought in to anything less than BVR range. There is a huge assumption that Raptors can sit 100 Km away and shoot down everything in sight 100 km away. That of course is delusional. If any serious targets (eg an airfield) have to be hit the Raptors cannot do it with their piddly 2 bombs. They have to serve as escorts for better loaded unstealthy fighters but stay out of radar detection range hoping to shoot down opposing aircraft.

At BVR the AMRAAM is only about 50% effective (probably less) and two will be needed for a kill. So technically a Raptor (at best) can kill 3 opponents. Even that is unlikely. If defenders get close to the attacking bombers/fighters the Raptors will not be able to do IFF and will be forced to close in or stay far away. If they stay far away - they can't kill. If they close in they will be seen and the nature of their radar returns figured out at closer ranges- a data point that the US is not revealing to anyone.

negi · Post by **negi** » 02 Aug 2010 20:40

Fwiw longest range BVR kill made by any of the NATO members is around 20(+/- 5)km, IFF was done by AWACS.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Aug 2010 20:42

negi wrote: Yes so in an ideal case 15km is the maximum distance at which Mig-35 will be able to actually que its AAM using the OLS at the target type used for this calibration.

But what is not stated by the US is the radar returns of the F-22 at say 30 Km. It will obviously be something that they are not revealing - by keeping Raptors at BVR ranges. It is hardly zero. There are some angles at which there are clear radar returns but that keeps changing with movement. There are systems that can actually direct a radar beam at a target after spotting it with IR.

An IR missile need not hit a Raptor. A missile launch warning will make him take evasive action and that reduces his effectiveness. "reducing enemy effectiveness" is what the Raptor is intended to do. The enemy can do just that if he adopts the right tactics.

And recall that one Raptor mission will put it out of action for 30 hours or more. If the rain does not get its electronics.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Aug 2010 20:43

negi wrote:Fwiw longest range BVR kill made by any of the NATO members is around 20(+/- 5)km, IFF was done by AWACS.

There were blue on blue BVR kills in Bosnia and Iraq with zero opposition

negi · Post by **negi** » 02 Aug 2010 20:46

Shiv ji Iirc I have seen pics of Raptors with external fuel tanks flying alongside the Tu-142 bears , so Russians might have some idea about the RCS of the raptor. There is even a RCS graph in a paper written by Sukhoi's GD M. Pogosyan where he vaguely plots RCS for F-22 somewhere between 0 and 1 (

) just below the PAKFA.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Aug 2010 20:52

negi wrote:Shiv ji Iirc I have seen pics of Raptors with external fuel tanks flying alongside the Tu-142 bears , so Russians might have some idea of the RCS of the raptor.

Probably. But the Russians do give great credit to the Raptor which is undoubtedly a great technological achievement even if it is not as mission ready as it should have been. My only fight is against needless myth building leading to fanboy statements that say "Hey the Raptors are here. Don't even bother taking off"

I have asked at least two questions on the "Countering future tech" thread which nobody has taken a shot at. All my Raptor related posts are there.

1) What would the result be if India had 150 Raptors and Pakistan had 100 Raptors
2) What tactics would Pakistan China develop to fight the Raptor with JF 17s and J 10s/F 16s in numbers.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 Aug 2010 20:56

The OLS on Mig-35 is IIR with TV channel and as such should be considered a generation ahead compared to what we see on old flanker and fulcrum including the MKI.

This should be quite effective in target resolution and discrimination against countermeasures when seen in context of tracking LO aircraft. If used in conjunction with newer IIR missile like Python 5 or the longer range IIR missile like RVV-MD can be effective against LO target.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 02 Aug 2010 22:39

shiv wrote: 1) What would the result be if India had 150 Raptors and Pakistan had 100 Raptors.

Both having Raptors?!!

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 03 Aug 2010 02:12

negi wrote:Shiv ji Iirc I have seen pics of Raptors with external fuel tanks flying alongside the Tu-142 bears , so Russians might have some idea about the RCS of the raptor.

Were you speaking of this
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... _TU-95.jpg

Small nitpick, it is a Tu-95.

Rishirishi · Post by **Rishirishi** » 03 Aug 2010 02:35

shiv wrote:That French story sounds like a joke.

That is because the Raptors were never brought in to anything less than BVR range. There is a huge assumption that Raptors can sit 100 Km away and shoot down everything in sight 100 km away. That of course is delusional. If any serious targets (eg an airfield) have to be hit the Raptors cannot do it with their piddly 2 bombs. They have to serve as escorts for better loaded unstealthy fighters but stay out of radar detection range hoping to shoot down opposing aircraft.

At BVR the AMRAAM is only about 50% effective (probably less) and two will be needed for a kill. So technically a Raptor (at best) can kill 3 opponents. Even that is unlikely. If defenders get close to the attacking bombers/fighters the Raptors will not be able to do IFF and will be forced to close in or stay far away. If they stay far away - they can't kill. If they close in they will be seen and the nature of their radar returns figured out at closer ranges- a data point that the US is not revealing to anyone.

I saw an interview with British and Argentinian poilots. Both sides gave account of the numerous dogfights/missions/raids etc. It was really cool. They would first interview one of the pilots and then the other side. Particularly I remember an account where RAF Harrier got behind a mirage and got a lock on. But the Argentinian did not eject. In stead of shooting down, the RAF pilot fired a salvo and cripled the Arg. Finally the Arg. ejected. The RAF pilot was full of praise and admiration of the Arg. pilot.
Any way. both pilots and several other from both sides agree that the Sidewinder was the main reason for the RAF Air dominance (which pretty much was key to the victory).

So what has this to do with Raptors? If you are 15% better, it does not mean that you win 15% more. Rather you win 95% of the fights.
No mater how much you argue, fact of the matter is that the US has the best tech. It is not only stelth but a whole range of other technologies as well. Raptor is their best fighter, they have spent a massive ammount on the plane. It probably is a very very good plane, or the USAF would not have bothered with it. Yes a single raptors would not be able to take on the whole of IAF. But then that would not be the case would it. If they need to take out a ground radar, they will send 12 Raptors. 8 with Air superiority configuration and 4 with ground attack configuration. If you have 50 Aircrafts to intercept the bandits, perhaps you may kill the mission and at best manage to take out a raptor. But it will come at a huge cost.

negi · Post by **negi** » 03 Aug 2010 02:36

Yes that's the one , Indranilroy thanks for the correction.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 03 Aug 2010 02:49

HOW IS ALL THIS RELATED TO PAK-FA & FGFA???
This ain't the MMRCA thread, ONE is ENOUGH!!!! PLEASE, LET'S NOT DERAIL THIS THREAD

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Aug 2010 07:26

Rishirishi wrote: No mater how much you argue, fact of the matter is that the US has the best tech. It is not only stelth but a whole range of other technologies as well. Raptor is their best fighter, they have spent a massive ammount on the plane. It probably is a very very good plane, or the USAF would not have bothered with it.

Where have I argued with all this? Too many people feel hypersensitive that Sri Sri Sri Raptor theirself are being insulted jut because someone wants to talk about what can be done by a force who must fight a war facing the Raptor. Why are you doing exactly that?

We are in agreement about what you have written above. All I am saying is that it is unlikely to be invincible after all that and might not even be a war winner despite all the fan mail. But I never intended to talk about that in this thread.There is a thread for that and my reply is there:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 55#p915855

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 03 Aug 2010 09:38

shiv wrote:Heh heh

Not radar. IR

Why is everyone trying to track Raptor with radar? IR is the only way.

The F-22 was designed from the outset to have a minimal infra-red signature. As a matter of fact, in this regard even the PAK-FA(unless the development throws up some surprises) is unlikely to be anywhere close to a match.

Having said that the Raptors radar invisibility is exaggerated as per this apologetic American article from Airforces magazine
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Magazi ... ealth.aspx

Well the exaggeration is in assuming that the F-22 is invisible. The point being made is that the F-22 outranges every other aircraft i.e. it sees its adversary long long before showing up on anyone else's radar.