PDA

View Full Version : F-22 joins US fleet as top fighter



georgeo76
12-16-2005, 03:35 PM
here (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2005-12-15T165508Z_01_SIB560880_RTRUKOC_0_US-ARMS-USA-FIGHTER.xml&archived=False)

georgeo76
12-16-2005, 03:35 PM
here (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2005-12-15T165508Z_01_SIB560880_RTRUKOC_0_US-ARMS-USA-FIGHTER.xml&archived=False)

LStarosta
12-16-2005, 03:39 PM
Yay! Lets take on China!

Tooz_69GIAP
12-16-2005, 03:46 PM
Possibly the last manned combat fighter aircraft to be used by the US. Should be interesting to see how they fair in combat.

berg417448
12-16-2005, 03:50 PM
I used to work with a guy whose brother was a test pilot for the F-22. Here are some of his comments and thoughts about his final flight:

07/06/05
F22 Raptor Pilot Report
Aircraft: 4002 Date: 10 June 2005
Flight: 2-664 Takeoff: 1042L
Pilot: Randy Neville Land: 1141L
Test Conductor: N/A Flt Time: 1.0 Hr
Chase : JB Brown ECS: File 54
OFP: 54

Overview

This was the final flight for 4002 before it returns to storage. It was also my final Raptor flight before moving to Seattle. The flight went smoothly, although I encountered some highly localized showers upon exiting the aircraft.

As I leave the program with a bit over 600 hours in this amazing machine, I realize just how fortunate I have been to have the opportunity to be involved in the development of the incredible blend of technologies that the Raptor represents.

I can remember the early days of working with the engineering IPT's and helping with the training of the First Flight control room team. When Paul Metz got airborne in 4001 for the first time, I was the "Voice of Raptor", narrating events to flight line guests over a PA system and to various program sites via a live video feed. I was fortunate to fly the first flight on 4005, which was also the first time we flew with the Block 3.0 software and actually demonstrated sensor fusion. The 2-year surge to complete envelope expansion was quite a ride, including the Mach 2.0 split-s's and even the -11g fini-flight on 4003. Some may express concern at the pace of developing new technology, but, frankly, looking back as EMD slows down and operational units ramp up, it is hard to believe how far the program has come. From the days of 1998 when we had an annual goal of 183 flight hours, to the massive ramp up to support the envelope expansion surge along with Initial OT&E when we flew over 2800 hours in FY2004, we have had a constant string of challenges. Hidden to many, but obvious to those of us on the program, every single one of those flight hours has a story behind it, punctuated by the dedication, ingenuity, frustration, exhilaration, brains, and sweat of a huge team of motivated professionals. It has been an honor to be associated with this program and with all the professionals everywhere on the team. Thanks for the ride.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

FYI, for your reading pleasure (or not), I have attached an article that I originally drafted as a potential light-hearted, PR-type article for casual perusal. It is notably non-technical, and has nothing to do with the flight today, but for lack of anything better to do with the article, I stuck it here. Enjoy.

You've probably known someone who could be categorized as a "layman's philosopher". You know - the type of person who can condense life's vagaries into a bumper sticker slogan. The great baseball hall-of-famer Yogi Berra was a gold mine of such philosophy. Some of his more memorable comments were:

"It's like déjà vu all over again", and "It ain't over till it's over".
Or, my personal favorite: "When you come to a fork in the road, take it."

Well, speaking of catch phrases, our original concepts of "minimize housekeeping" and "carefree maneuvering", although not stated with Yogi's flare for hidden eloquence, have perfectly captured the essence of the F-22 airframe. It makes me think that we as test pilots could be more descriptive in our evaluations. We describe this marvel of technology with such mundane, techno-geekish descriptions as "very responsive", "has good damping", or "matches predictions", when what we really mean is "This baby flies like a dream."

The ringer that this aircraft has been put through would make most rational pilots cringe. We have done full aft stick split-s maneuvers, starting at over Mach 2, to seen if flying qualities and structural loads were ok. They were, so we did it again with a weapon bay door open. Then we did again while firing a missile. Oh, please‚‚ā¨¬¶ stop the madness!

Well, actually, the airplane did not seem too concerned at all about the crazy maneuvering it was forced to endure. While at 60‚? angle of attack, cycling controls to maximize horsepower extraction, and banging the throttles from idle to AB, most pilots would run away screaming that it's just wrong to treat an airplane that way. But the engines never coughed and the airplane flew benignly on. The zero speed tailslides, and the aircraft simply flops down and smoothly recovers. During high-g maneuvering and abruptly throw in full ailerons, and the airplane consistently gives you the best roll rate available, without going out of control or over stressing parts of the structure. There is some pretty cosmic stuff the flight controls are doing to make all that happen

Even more impressive to me, I have had a glimpse of what the future of air combat holds, seeing how this exceptional airframe will be mated to an avionics suite that will provide the pilot an unprecedented amount of information. I think of this airplane as a flying antenna, soaking information all around it. A major part of the capability of this airplane comes from sensor fusion. Sensor Fusion is one of those key phrases associated with the Raptor. It yields a capability that is a leap in avionics technology. So‚‚ā¨¬¶Sensor Fusion‚‚ā¨¬¶.what's up with that?

"90% of the game is half mental."

Allow me a brief semi-technical excursion. The concept of sensor fusion is usually simplistically defined as taking target information from multiple sensors and fusing - i.e. filtering, evaluating, and combining - that information to present to the pilot a very intuitive display of a highly defined target. As the name implies, target information is received from the individual sensors, develops track files, and then fuses that track information. It evaluates the kinematic and identification data from the sensor reports and determines if multiple targets are present or if the sensors are seeing the same target. The sensors are typically divided among 3 major subsystems: thee radar, the Electronic Warfare suite, and the Communication, Navigation, and Identification suite. The integration of the various components of the avionics suite only begins with a fused track. Then some real brain power takes over. Mission software, without any further actions by the pilot, evaluates the position, maneuvering, and threat potential of the target and decides how accurately the target should be tracked, how frequently the track should be updated, and if another sensor should be used to better track or identify the target. The sensors are then re-tasked to get further information on that target, and the entire closed-loop process continues. In other words, it is not just target information that is fused, but rather the sensors themselves that are fused. It becomes transparent to the pilot what the various sensors are doing - they simply go about their business of autonomously collecting the best target information available.

So, what does all this mean to the pilot?

"You can observe a lot by watching."

A key point is buried in this discussion. The entire closed-loop process of detecting, evaluating, updating tracks is performed automatically. The pilot no longer spends time adjusting his radar controls, then looking at his radar display, and then repeating the process with his EW controls and displays. Sensor fusion operates continuously, requiring no pilot action in order to develop an intuitive God's-eye view of the airspace. The end result is that the pilot is presented a tremendous amount of information with very low workload. As we like to say, the avionics suite allows the pilot to be a tactician, not a sensor operator or data analyst. Or, in pilot-speak, it saves me lots of brain cells for the really complex stuff back in the office, like trying to comprehend Travel Manager software. The information is presented to the pilot on a glass cockpit, consisting of three 6" x 6" and one 8" x 8"color displays, with symbols that are shaped and color-coded according to their identification as friendly, enemy, or unknown targets.

Well, how does the F-22 avionics perform their magic of seeing everybody, closely watching the important guys, and occasionally updating the unimportant guys? (Sort of like the intriguing thermos bottle mystery: Keeps the hot things hot, and the cold things cold, but‚‚ā¨¬¶ how do it know?).

Most of the magic takes place via massive parallel processing in the Common Integrated Processors, of CIPs. These are racks that contain multiple modules, many with dual 32-bit microprocessors. The processing may be optimized for signal processing, data manipulation, or other functions, with data shuffled around on various data busses. The massive amount of processing gives us a lot of amazing capability, but it also can be a nightmare making all the 0's and 1's talk to each other. Throw in the vibrations and temperatures associated with slipping the surly bonds, and you have a local area network that would make even Bill Gates sleepless in Seattle.

So given all that technical background, how have avionics flights gone?

"It was hard to have a conversation - there were too many people talking."

Yogi must have been trying to do flight test in the Atlanta Center airspace when he said that. On our early avionics flights from Marietta, GA, I launched into what must have been prime time for Delta Airlines. Ground delays had been caused by airframe and avionics problems, most of which had been seen before. It is interesting to note that the line between airframe and avionics problems blurs a bit with the F-22. The avionics must properly talk to various subsystem controllers to keep everything running smoothly. (ie the good news‚‚ā¨¬¶the F-22 is highly integrated. But the bad news is‚‚ā¨¬¶the F-22 is highly integrated.)

In any case, those early flights identified numerous issues that have been resolved over the years. Since that time, we have thoroughly evaluated all the sensors and the software that integrates all their information. We have proven some amazing systems, such as the Inflight Data Link, that allows us to silently communicate with the other members of our formation. They could be miles away, unseen and unheard, yet each pilot will know the exact position, fuel state, weapons info, and targeting information, all without speaking a word over the secure voice channel. Pretty powerful capability when heading into harm's way.

Looking ahead, I get very excited about matching this outstanding air vehicle to a powerful integrated avionics suite. I have a coffee cup on my desk that I got as a souvenir at the Farnborough Airshow in 1988. I had a chance to get a demo of some early helmet mounted cuing systems, and got the coffee cup which says "I flew the future". Well, looking at this leap in technology represented by the Raptor, it compels me to put a positive spin on another of Yogi's observations as it relates to air combat:

"The future ain't what it used to be."

Indeed.

Airmail109
12-16-2005, 04:09 PM
I highly doubt its the last manned fighter, human stupidity is still more intelligent than artificial intelligence.

LStarosta
12-16-2005, 04:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tooz_69GIAP:
Possibly the last manned combat fighter aircraft to be used by the US. Should be interesting to see how they fair in combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

JSF...

chris455
12-16-2005, 04:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
I highly doubt its the last manned fighter, human stupidity is still more intelligent than artificial intelligence. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No worries, the human stupidiity will still be present, it's just that it will be on the ground, where it won't limit the G-laoding of the airframe of the UAV. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JG53Frankyboy
12-16-2005, 05:11 PM
"........Moseley said on Tuesday he hoped to buy 183 F-22s, four more than currently in the budget and enough for seven combat-ready squadrons, down from the 750 F-22s once planned.."

outch !

Tooz_69GIAP
12-16-2005, 05:19 PM
What I meant is, that it is likely to be (apart from the JSF - which looks bloody ugly, BTW) the last fighter aircraft to have a pilot sat within the airframe, as it is the pilot which is holding back development of aircraft because of G-loading.

I would expect in the next few years to start seeing airframes with pilots sat in a control room somewhere, rather than in the cockpit.

WWSensei
12-16-2005, 05:30 PM
I live near Langley and have been watching Raptors fly overhead for a couple of months now. They really are sleek looking.

Yesterday was a four ship overhead doing 8 second pattern breaks landing short finals by the numbers...it was sweet looking...

Hydra444
12-16-2005, 05:37 PM
So what does the future hold for the F-15?Its much too valuable,IMO,to just be completely phased out.Is it gonna be used in a secondary function?I think it will likely see service in Air Guard units for some years before being completely phased out.

berg417448
12-16-2005, 05:39 PM
Since they can only afford to buy 180 or so F-22's I'd say that the F-15 will have to be around for a while in one form or another.

huggy87
12-16-2005, 06:02 PM
UAV's (or UAS's as they are soon to be renamed) require datalink. Datalink may be interfered with...

WTE_Ibis
12-17-2005, 01:50 AM
I haven't been interfered with for a while http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Airmail109
12-17-2005, 06:18 AM
Id like to see them try long range deep strike missions with unmanned fighers, a lot to go wrong with them....what if one can cut the link between the pilot on the ground and the actual aircraft. I think being unmanned would be a strength but also the aircrafts greatest weakness...would it not be simpler to try and find ways of making the human body more resistant to g-force....

LStarosta
12-17-2005, 12:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
Id like to see them try long range deep strike missions with unmanned fighers, a lot to go wrong with them.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's called a cruise missle. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Xiolablu3
12-17-2005, 12:59 PM
Will be interesting to see if the Typhoon can compete at all when Britain goes to war with USA!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

LStarosta
12-17-2005, 01:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Will be interesting to see if the Typhoon can compete at all when Britain goes to war with USA!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Highly doubt it 97%.

neural_dream
12-17-2005, 01:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Will be interesting to see if the Typhoon can compete at all when Britain goes to war with USA!http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

These planes aren't to go to war m8, they are to bring money from little countries. They go on parade over helpless muslims, show off and get higher selling prices to South American and Eastern European buyers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.


Btw, when was the last dogfight between actual fighters? Does anyone know?

LStarosta
12-17-2005, 01:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neural_dream:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Will be interesting to see if the Typhoon can compete at all when Britain goes to war with USA!http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

These planes aren't to go to war m8, they are to bring money from little countries. They go on parade over helpless muslims, show off and get higher selling prices to South American and Eastern European buyers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.


Btw, when was the last dogfight between actual fighters? Does anyone know? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Capitalism at its best! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

berg417448
12-17-2005, 01:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neural_dream:



Btw, when was the last dogfight between actual fighters? Does anyone know? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You might have to define the word dogfight. In 1999 several Mig 29's were shot down by F-15 and F-16 fighters. All kills were with missiles. Do they count?

Bremspropeller
12-17-2005, 01:28 PM
Wasn't Britain also willing to purchase some squadrons of F-35s ?

AFAIK the Royal Navy's hot about them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


Beat me, but I grow to like the F/A-22 and F-35 in terms of looks and performance.


Although nothing compares to the Typhoons brutal yet graceful lines.

skabbe
12-17-2005, 01:31 PM
the F-22, if it wasnt so ugly i would have like it. I hope it will do well for all its money, but still i havnt seen a preformance vid jet http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

but why do you need stelth if its made for defence? gossip raidar system back home?

Xiolablu3
12-17-2005, 01:32 PM
The F-35 is a Joint project between Britain and USA. The Lockheed Martin JSF team includes Rolls Royce so lets hope they can do as well as they did with the Merlin http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

USA and UK both needed a cheap, versitile fighter, to replace things like the Harrier, which is 35 years old now and still performs a role that no other plane can do.

Hence 'Joint' Strike Fighter.

I think there are other countries involved too. Its going to be the NATO 'workhorse' fighter isnt it?

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/jsf/


Will be a real force to contend with F22's and Typhoons flying cover with B2's and F35's delivering precision bombs.

I think between us the Western world has its security pretty much sewn up for 20 years http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

berg417448
12-17-2005, 01:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Wasn't Britain also willing to purchase some squadrons of F-35s ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Last I heard the UK was a partner in funding the development of the JSF. I have read that Israel and Turkey have indicated that they want to buy the JSF.

ploughman
12-17-2005, 01:37 PM
Yes, we're into buying several hundred of the them. The vertical landing version is for the RN/RAF and, I think, the USN. BAe and Rolls Royce is/are developing both the automatic landing system and the fan used for VTOL. Of course this version is going to be heavier than the CTOL, and currently is having problems, but seen as the ships the things'll be operating off are not likely to be operational until 2015, they've plenty of time to work it out. The ships are currently envisioned as operating the STOVL version, mit ski jumps, but are designed to be able to evolve into CTOL carriers in the future. The two new RN carriers'll actually be proper carriers for once, each displacing 60,000 tons.

Xiolablu3
12-17-2005, 01:43 PM
Yes but they forsaw the problems with the engine.

They built the fighter for a FUTURE engine , the idea is that taking engine development in mind there WILL be an engine powerful enough once they are ready to go into full production.

Good idea really, it means that the plane isnt out of date the after acouple of years. Build for the engine that WILL be available, not whats there at the time. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I have to say, I love the looks of the F22, also the F35 looks cool and the Typhoon too.

Estocade85
12-17-2005, 01:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I would expect in the next few years to start seeing airframes with pilots sat in a control room somewhere, rather than in the cockpit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the day when the computer geek steals the hot wife of the fighter jock!

Xiolablu3
12-17-2005, 01:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Estocade85:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I would expect in the next few years to start seeing airframes with pilots sat in a control room somewhere, rather than in the cockpit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the day when the computer geek steals the hot wife of the fighter jock! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes! There is hope for us Armchair pilots after all.

Plus you just gave me a great excuse for playing more IL2/FB. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But Darling, I'm training for when they call me up to fight in WW3 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Slickun
12-17-2005, 02:41 PM
In the first gulf war there was a dogfight that involved turning. The Iraqui plane flew into the desert.

One reason for the big cost/plane for the F-22 is the reduction in numbers ordered.

That is a standard ploy of the anti-military folks, don't divide all the r&d, cost etc by the ORIGINAL order, do it by the final, reduced order. Makes it all look like cost overruns, waste, too expensive, etc.

Actually the F-22, from what I've read, was remarkably on original cost and time estimates, from the original big order. Reduce that order by half, and one can see how that plays out.

VW-IceFire
12-17-2005, 02:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
Yes, we're into buying several hundred of the them. The vertical landing version is for the RN/RAF and, I think, the USN. BAe and Rolls Royce is/are developing both the automatic landing system and the fan used for VTOL. Of course this version is going to be heavier than the CTOL, and currently is having problems, but seen as the ships the things'll be operating off are not likely to be operational until 2015, they've plenty of time to work it out. The ships are currently envisioned as operating the STOVL version, mit ski jumps, but are designed to be able to evolve into CTOL carriers in the future. The two new RN carriers'll actually be proper carriers for once, each displacing 60,000 tons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The F-35B is the type that the RN/RAF and USMC want. Its got the vertical takeoff ability and hover like the Harrier. The F-35C is a enlarged wing version for the USN. The F-35A is for the USAF. I imagine other NATO nations will be buying A, B or C depending on needs.

neural_dream
12-17-2005, 02:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neural_dream:
Btw, when was the last dogfight between actual fighters? Does anyone know? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You might have to define the word dogfight. In 1999 several Mig 29's were shot down by F-15 and F-16 fighters. All kills were with missiles. Do they count? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sure it counts, but which war was this one? Forgive my ignorance.

berg417448
12-17-2005, 02:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neural_dream:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neural_dream:
Btw, when was the last dogfight between actual fighters? Does anyone know? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You might have to define the word dogfight. In 1999 several Mig 29's were shot down by F-15 and F-16 fighters. All kills were with missiles. Do they count? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sure it counts, but which war was this one? Forgive my ignorance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Kosovo-OPERATION ALLIED FORCE
MARCH-JUNE 1999

http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/aerial_victo...on_allied_force.html (http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/aerial_victory_credits/avc_operation_allied_force.html)

neural_dream
12-17-2005, 02:57 PM
Was there still a war against Serbia in 1999? Alright, didn't know that.

edit: I just googled that a bit and saw that exactly then Greece ordered another 60 F-16s. I remember the Greeks were pretty uneasy with the war, 'cause they felt they would be the next targets. No, not the government, but the everyday people.

ImpStarDuece
12-17-2005, 03:03 PM
Does anyone have any information on the countermeasures that nations are working on to counter stealth technologies?

Last I heard there was some interesting work going on in Russia using low-frequency and/or backscatter radar. The MoD in the UK was supposed to have been giving B2 crews fits by using some form of microwave radar to track flights. Apparently the RAM material wasn't designed to absorb wave-lenghts in those frequencies.

berg417448
12-17-2005, 03:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Does anyone have any information on the countermeasures that nations are working on to counter stealth technologies?

Last I heard there was some interesting work going on in Russia using low-frequency and/or backscatter radar. The MoD in the UK was supposed to have been giving B2 crews fits by using some form of microwave radar to track flights. Apparently the RAM material wasn't designed to absorb wave-lenghts in those frequencies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From what I've read it was known from day one that low frequency radar could track stealth (or any aircraft) at long ranges. The reason that it was never a large concern is that those radars are apparently not good for getting a missile lock for shootdown.

Much more interesting to me is the work on "active stealth" and the development of a laser weapon with a range of 6 to 10 miles for the JSF.

ploughman
12-17-2005, 03:26 PM
There are lots of avenues of investigation. Some detection systems might either.

Detect the aircraft using differrent frequencies than the aircraft's stealth is designed to defeat. Ie. Low Frequency radar.

Detect the aircraft using more powerful systems which overwhelm the aircraft's stealth.

Detect the aircraft using existing systems by interpreting the data differently. (A UK Type 42 destroyer tracked F-117s during the Gulf War by virtue of a trained operator noticing faint but repeated signals.)

Detect the aircraft using IR. B-2 Bombers over the UK were tracked using IR detection systems.

Detect the turbulence generated by the aircraft and deduce the presence of the aircraft. This is a derivation of various technologies, such as a French satellite based system designed to detect submerged subs based on slightly elevated sea levels over the submarine, and radar systems designed to detect turbulent air in the vicinity of airports.

Detect the aircraft against a background of artificial radiation, such as emitted by the widespread use of mobile phones. The plane flies through the 'soup' and is detected. I have no idea how this works.

There are certainly others. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SkyChimp
12-17-2005, 07:31 PM
I think the JSF will tuyrn out OK, but ya gotta admit, the Harrier is a helluva tough act to follow.

Badsight.
12-17-2005, 09:17 PM
Harrier's only problem is its age , sure its nothing like it was when it first went into service but it still cant go supersonic

the JSF looks & sounds like a POS (the VTOL version) , overly complex & heavy . if it was my money i was going to be spending i would have picked its competitor

apparently the JSF is magnitudes more stable & easy on the pilot in its VTOL regime

Maj_Death
12-18-2005, 03:58 AM
I don't think the F/A-22 and F-35 will be the last fighters with pilots in them. AI is absolutely terrible at this point and there are no signs of it getting any better any time in the next 1000 years so that is a no go http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif. The only other way is remotely operated via a radio or some other mechanism and I assure you, no matter how fancy it is, it can still be jammed or even hijacked (although it could be difficult). Also, agility is just one aspect of a fighter. There is also speed. Engine design is what really limits modern fighters. 40 years ago the fastest fighters did around Mach 2, they now do Mach 2.5. Not a huge advancement IMHO. However several replacements for the old turbine are currently in the works. I suspect that in the next 10-15 years the first hypersonic fighters will come about. At which point the F/A-22 will be a sitting duck. Fortunately for F/A-22 drivers, those hypersonic fighters will almost certainly be on their side as I don't see North Korea or Iran devoloping them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif.

Oh and BTW, I rather like the way the F/A-22 looks.

skabbe
12-18-2005, 07:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Maj_Death:
I don't think the F/A-22 and F-35 will be the last fighters with pilots in them. AI is absolutely terrible at this point and there are no signs of it getting any better any time in the next 1000 years so that is a no go http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif. The only other way is remotely operated via a radio or some other mechanism and I assure you, no matter how fancy it is, it can still be jammed or even hijacked (although it could be difficult). Also, agility is just one aspect of a fighter. There is also speed. Engine design is what really limits modern fighters. 40 years ago the fastest fighters did around Mach 2, they now do Mach 2.5. Not a huge advancement IMHO. However several replacements for the old turbine are currently in the works. I suspect that in the next 10-15 years the first hypersonic fighters will come about. At which point the F/A-22 will be a sitting duck. Fortunately for F/A-22 drivers, those hypersonic fighters will almost certainly be on their side as I don't see North Korea or Iran devoloping them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif.

Oh and BTW, I rather like the way the F/A-22 looks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

good point there... But i wonder how creativ modern pilots are, seem to be quite strikt unless you are in a dogfight.

neural_dream
12-18-2005, 07:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Maj_Death:
I don't think the F/A-22 and F-35 will be the last fighters with pilots in them. AI is absolutely terrible at this point and there are no signs of it getting any better any time in the next 1000 years so that is a no go http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's right.
In the academic community AI is generally considered the field with the worse results/grants "ratio". Consequently, after several decades of extensive funding it is now gradually being abandoned. Hard to attract funding and fewer people interested in. So, don't expect AI miracles, unless something really big happens and funding goes back there. Could be, but definitely not very soon.

WTE_Ibis
12-19-2005, 02:57 AM
Maj_Death

Posted Sun December 18 2005 02:58
I don't think the F/A-22 and F-35 will be the last fighters with pilots in them. AI is absolutely terrible at this point and there are no signs of it getting any better any time in the next 1000 years so that is a no go Hammer. The only other way is remotely operated via a radio or some other mechanism and I assure you, no matter how fancy it is, it can still be jammed or even hijacked (although it could be difficult). Also, agility is just one aspect of a fighter. There is also speed. Engine design is what really limits modern fighters. 40 years ago the fastest fighters did around Mach 2, they now do Mach 2.5. Not a huge advancement IMHO.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You are right about that.
Here's the stats for a 1950s fighter as posted by someone else on these forums.
-------------------------

"The Lightning‚‚ā¨ôs performance is excellent not just by 1950s or 1960s standards but compared with modern operational fighters. Its initial rate of climb is 50,000 ft per minute (15 km/min). The Mirage IIIE climbed initially at 30,000 ft/min (9 km/min); the F-4 Phantom managed 32,000 ft/min (10 km/min); the MiG-21 could only manage 36,090 ft/min (11 km/min); the initial rate of the F-16A is 40,000 ft/min (12 km/min), and the Tornado F-3 43,000 ft/min (13 km/min).

The official ceiling was a secret amongst the general public and low security RAF documents simply stated 60,000+ ft (18,000 m) referring to the altitude, although it was well known within the RAF to be capable of much greater heights. Recently the actual operating ceiling has been made public by Brian Carroll, a former RAF Lightning pilot and ex-Lightning Chief Examiner, who reports taking an F-53 Lightning up to 87,300 feet (26,600 m) at which level "Earth curvature was visible and the sky was quite dark". In 1984, during a major NATO exercise, Flt Lt Mike Hale intercepted an American U-2 at a height which they had previously considered safe from interception. Records show that Hale climbed to 88,000 ft (26,800 m) in his F3 Lightning. Hale also participated in time-to-height and acceleration trials against F-104 Starfighters from Aalborg. He reports that the Lightnings won all races easily, with the exception of the low level supersonic acceleration, which was a dead-heat.

Carroll reports in a side-by-side comparison that the F-15C Eagle is "almost as good, and climb speed was rapidly achieved. Take-off roll is between 2,000 & 3,000 feet [600 and 900 m], depending upon military or maximum afterburner-powered take-off. The Lightning was quicker off the ground, reaching 50 feet [15 m] height in a horizontal distance of 1,630 feet [500 m]".

In British Airways trials, Concorde was offered as a target to NATO fighters including F-15s, F-16s, F-14s, Mirages, F-104s - but only the Lightning managed to overtake Concorde on a stern intercept. During these trials Concorde was at 57,000 ft and travelling at Mach 2.2."


.

OldMan____
12-19-2005, 04:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neural_dream:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Maj_Death:
I don't think the F/A-22 and F-35 will be the last fighters with pilots in them. AI is absolutely terrible at this point and there are no signs of it getting any better any time in the next 1000 years so that is a no go http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's right.
In the academic community AI is generally considered the field with the worse results/grants "ratio". Consequently, after several decades of extensive funding it is now gradually being abandoned. Hard to attract funding and fewer people interested in. So, don't expect AI miracles, unless something really big happens and funding goes back there. Could be, but definitely not very soon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem is that AI, in the sense presented by Hollywood, is a problem that is classified as sensient to context. A mathematical category of problems that is mathematicaly proved that computers CANNOT SOLVE!! EVER!!! AI research is in euristhics, to aproximate the results that coudl be generated by a true Inteligence. We would need a completely different paradigm of " thinking machine " to achieve AI.

neural_dream
12-19-2005, 05:09 AM
Oh yes. And if that happens it will not be soon.

The general public though still believes AI is advancing and we'll soon see all kinds of miracles promised by Hollywood.