F-22 Raptor Thread

[Inst]

The F-22 as I argued, is designed to be the best fighter in the USAF with upgrades to make it even more effective. Same as that current F-15s, SU-30s etc. are way more effective than their original variants. The F-22 and perhaps the F-35 are the only fighters that have stealth characteristics that are nessesary to fight the J-20 or the PAK-Fa, that is to survive the BVR engagement. Therefore, it's also the most effective figher to counter those threats compared to F-15s, F-16s, F-18s etc.

The problem with stealth aircraft is that they tend to be a lot less extensible than their 4th generation counterparts. Any change to the airframe requires considerable re-engineering to control for its effect on RCS; with regards to stealth, details as small as unaligned screws after routine maintenance can create large RCS spikes, making it significantly troublesome to modify the feature-set of the F-22.

In my opinion they only need to "cut a hole, place the sensor and add a radar deflective cover". It shouldn't be that difficult if the space is there. Although it'd be more costly compared having it installed from day one. Adding an IR sensor to the MAWS instead of developing it as a seperate detection method like the PIRATE system may not necessarily mean that its current IR detection is "inferior", as it'd depend on your reference measure. Upgrading systems can be the result of advancing your technological lead compared to competitors and may not necessarily mean lagging behind. Second, it cannot be concluded that it's too cumbersome to add a dedicated IR sensor, as I can use the same argument to conclude that close range IR detection is irrelevant, because they didn't add it to the Raptor.

As I've mentioned before, modifying stealth aircraft isn't easy. For example, if you were to cut a hole in the aircraft, would the micro-details of that hole be conducive to RCS reduction? Perhaps the jagged edges of the hole would be improperly aligned, and that would result in minuscule corner reflectors that would spike RCS similar to how unaligned screws ruined the stealth of F-117s. Placing the sensor, by the way, might no longer be doable, since the IRST system was canned in 1999, while the F-22 IOC-ed in 2005. While the F-22 might have a hole where the IRST is supposed to be labeled "insert IRST here", it's also likely that the space for the IRST was replaced by other flight systems to increase the space and weight efficiency of the F-22, as well as maintaining the aircraft's aerodynamic balance.

With aircraft being designed to be highly efficiency for space and weight to reduce drag and improve aerodynamics, it's likely that for the F-22, it's not as simple as "cut a hole in the airframe, place the sensor, and [add a RAM cover]".

At this point in time I yet need to find a reliable source that says that an IR system will be deployed around 2017 that can track a stealthy target from 100km+. Don't forget, Raptors don't supercruise the entire flight. It's only when they acquire the target(s), they will accelerate to supersonic speeds and cruise at that speed to engage and disengage. Supercruising without any targets to pick a fight with is only a waste of fuel. Furthermore, advances in coating to minimize IR detections are developed and applied. An example is the TOPCOAT coating. So dismissing any advances in this area as "no matter what techniques are used" is a bit far fetched. Furthermore, atmospheric conditions can also interfere with IR sensors.

OLS-50 on the Su-35 claims that it can detect subsonic fighter aircraft beyond 80km. Against IR-reduced targets it's harder to say, but I think it's reasonable to expect decent detection ranges against the F-22.

With regards to supercruising, first, the entire point of supercruising is so that you can go supersonic without having to engage afterburners; that's the definition. While supercruising isn't as efficient as subsonic cruise, it's far more efficient than afterburner supersonic, which means that you can now realistically supercruise for large parts of your flight plan. And the supercruise matters, because by reducing the amount of time spent in transit, you can increase your sortie rate and thus increase the total amount of firepower issued out by your aircraft. As far as fighters supercruising once they enter combat zones, this is now less likely due to BVR combats being highly determined by infra-red emissions. Fighters are more likely to slow down as they enter air combat zones to reduce their IR signature.

Concerning IR reductions coatings, the problem is that there's only so much you can do once you hit supersonic flight. In subsonic flight, the primary heat-source happens to be your engines, so that using IR absorbent coatings as well as heat-sink systems like fuel cooling pipes, you can significantly reduce your emissions, but when supersonic the primary emitter happens to be heated air surrounding your aircraft and there's little you can do about that. As far as TOPCOAT goes, it does prove that IR reflective products are possible, but the problem with IR absorbent materials is that unlike RAM, the emitter is the target itself, so that if you reflect IR away, you're reflecting it back into the aircraft, meaning that you still need a way to dispose of the heat of the aircraft, and when the heat is disposed of you'll still have an IR signature.

There's no way to know for sure that the RCS and radar detections are, but let's assume those figures are right. What that means is that at around 40 - 50 kms, a distance that can be closed very rapidly if both fighters are flying towards each other at (near) supersonic speeds, the fight is getting into a WVR fight. If both the J-20/PAK-Fa and the F-22 carries a HOBS missile (and assuming even pilot skill, similar HOBS missile performance etc.), it'll probably be a mutual kill situation. It'll only come to that because both fighters have stealth characteristics. So an F-15 wouldn't even get to use its aim-9x because it'll be shot down at BVR. So why wouldn't the F-22 be the most effective fighter to counter the J-20 and PAK-Fa? It only demonstrates that more of them should have been built and that the Raptor should have had the aim-9x from the beginning with the associated HMCS.

With regards to BVR, 50-60 kms is actually considered BVR distances, if you'd be willing to believe me. The first American BVR missile, the AIM-7 Sparrow, only had a maximum range of 50 km in its final version. If you look at the definition of BVR on Wiki, the minimum for BVR distance is 40 km, and that's actually well below the expected combat ranges between fifth generation aircraft.

I'm not an aero-engineer, but classic numbers such as weight, wing-loading and thrust-to-weight ratio don't mean much. If I'm not mistaken, the F-22 has a higher weight, wing-loading and a slightly lower thrust-to-weight ratio compared to the F-15, yet it's kinematically much better. L/D ratio's is one of the many other variables that need to be taken into account. Furthermore, as I've said earlier, we currently know that a Raptor can sustain a turn rate of 28 degree per second. The instantaneous turn rate is unknown to me. Similarly, it's unclear what the instantaneous or sustained turn rate of the J-20 or the PAK-Fa is.

I agree with you that the J-20 and PAK-Fa will provide the Raptor with much more challenge than any 4th generation fighters would, but to state that the Raptor is absolutely useless, inferior or anything alike is just too extreme.

With regards to wing loading and TWR ratios, these are still significant figures, although not the only figure. For instance, the high sustained turn rate of the F-22 and F-35 is enabled by their high-AOA design, which allows them to achieve stable flight at high AOAs, something most other aircraft either cannot do or require canards to pull off. But one big difference, if you look at the 5th gens compared to 4th gen aircraft, is that all the 5th gen aircraft have internal weapons bays. This means you have a radical reduction in drag compared to 4th gen aircraft, which accounts in large part for their gains in maneuverability.

Take the F-35, for instance. It is stated to have superior maneuverability compared to the F-16, but that's only in comparison to a loaded F-16, where draggy external stores and missiles ruin its maneuverability. An unloaded F-16 could potentially outperform an F-35, but then it'd have no missiles and would have to rely on guns, which isn't an ideal circumstance.

Inst has failed fighter 101 with his last few posts, he has no desire to be informed of the truth, only to propagate more negative nonsense about the worlds only fifth generation fighter aircraft, the F-22 Raptor. The F-35, J-20, PAK-FA and J-31 have all been built to a downgraded standard, because the one true criticism of the F-22, is that it is a Mega Bucks Babe, non of these other birds have two engines of the F-119 caliber, it is very doubtful that any of the follow on birds will be nearly as stealthy, super-cruise nearly as fast, or include supermaneuverability in a very stealthy platform. They will all be good at some things, they may be very agile, or fast, and have excellent L/O qualities, but not one of them will be the "total package" as the F-22 is, because the technology is NOT easily replicated, and if you are able to replicate the technology, it will be very very expensive. Piere Spey has gone from being a very bright credible man, to a member of the "clown club", the label given by the DT boys, for Sweetman, Spey, even Dr. Kopf??? just not able to accept the reality of the new century.

Well, I see you're very possessive of your F-22, but the unfortunate fact is that it's a 1980s design that reached IOC in 2005. Comparing it to the F-35, J-20, and PAK-FA, they've all chosen new solutions to the same problems and given the advantages of time they are likely to do a better job of handling it. While the F-22 is definitely stealthier than its later 5th generation rivals, that definitely didn't do much to save the YF-23 program, which ended up being defeated by the less stealthy YF-22 prototype.

 

[Scyth]

The problem with stealth aircraft is that they tend to be a lot less extensible than their 4th generation counterparts. Any change to the airframe requires considerable re-engineering to control for its effect on RCS; with regards to stealth, details as small as unaligned screws after routine maintenance can create large RCS spikes, making it significantly troublesome to modify the feature-set of the F-22.



As I've mentioned before, modifying stealth aircraft isn't easy. For example, if you were to cut a hole in the aircraft, would the micro-details of that hole be conducive to RCS reduction? Perhaps the jagged edges of the hole would be improperly aligned, and that would result in minuscule corner reflectors that would spike RCS similar to how unaligned screws ruined the stealth of F-117s. Placing the sensor, by the way, might no longer be doable, since the IRST system was canned in 1999, while the F-22 IOC-ed in 2005. While the F-22 might have a hole where the IRST is supposed to be labeled "insert IRST here", it's also likely that the space for the IRST was replaced by other flight systems to increase the space and weight efficiency of the F-22, as well as maintaining the aircraft's aerodynamic balance.

With aircraft being designed to be highly efficiency for space and weight to reduce drag and improve aerodynamics, it's likely that for the F-22, it's not as simple as "cut a hole in the airframe, place the sensor, and [add a RAM cover]".

My "cut a hole" statement was a bit simplistic, but nevertheless, it shouldn't be difficult to add a sensor if they wanted to. Whether the center of gravity will be altered dramatically depends on the weight of the sensor and whether other upgrades can counter the weight shift. Without access to classified building schematics none of us can prove their point beyond reasonable doubt.

OLS-50 on the Su-35 claims that it can detect subsonic fighter aircraft beyond 80km. Against IR-reduced targets it's harder to say, but I think it's reasonable to expect decent detection ranges against the F-22.

1) Sukhoi will claim anything to make their Flanker sales spike before the PAK-Fa is introduced.
2) They claim they can detect a fighter beyond 80km, but is this
a) from its rear end or what angle?
b) is the IR sensor slaved to the target by another sensor (radar) to aid in detection?
c) as you've mentioned what is their claimed detection range against a stealthy target? You say "reasonable", but I previously already gave my "reasonable" guess based on a EF pilot, which was 50 km, and you refuted that, claiming that 100km would be more likely.
d) detection =/= tracking range and engagement. I guess everyone in a fighter wouldn't care too much that they can be detected from 100km away as long as they can't be tracked or engaged beyond 40km or so.

With regards to supercruising, first, the entire point of supercruising is so that you can go supersonic without having to engage afterburners; that's the definition. While supercruising isn't as efficient as subsonic cruise, it's far more efficient than afterburner supersonic, which means that you can now realistically supercruise for large parts of your flight plan. And the supercruise matters, because by reducing the amount of time spent in transit, you can increase your sortie rate and thus increase the total amount of firepower issued out by your aircraft. As far as fighters supercruising once they enter combat zones, this is now less likely due to BVR combats being highly determined by infra-red emissions. Fighters are more likely to slow down as they enter air combat zones to reduce their IR signature.

1) When have I said I didn't know what supercruise is, that it is useless or more efficient than subsonic cruising etc.?

2) Note: fighters are more likely to increase their speed before launching a BVR missile in order to give the missile more energy.

Concerning IR reductions coatings, the problem is that there's only so much you can do once you hit supersonic flight. In subsonic flight, the primary heat-source happens to be your engines, so that using IR absorbent coatings as well as heat-sink systems like fuel cooling pipes, you can significantly reduce your emissions, but when supersonic the primary emitter happens to be heated air surrounding your aircraft and there's little you can do about that. As far as TOPCOAT goes, it does prove that IR reflective products are possible, but the problem with IR absorbent materials is that unlike RAM, the emitter is the target itself, so that if you reflect IR away, you're reflecting it back into the aircraft, meaning that you still need a way to dispose of the heat of the aircraft, and when the heat is disposed of you'll still have an IR signature.

The Raptor has an IR signiture, whether it's large enough to be tracked/engaged is another matter.

With regards to BVR, 50-60 kms is actually considered BVR distances, if you'd be willing to believe me. The first American BVR missile, the AIM-7 Sparrow, only had a maximum range of 50 km in its final version. If you look at the definition of BVR on Wiki, the minimum for BVR distance is 40 km, and that's actually well below the expected combat ranges between fifth generation aircraft.

I said it'll quickly turn into a WVR fight, not that 50km is a BVR fight.

With regards to wing loading and TWR ratios, these are still significant figures, although not the only figure. For instance, the high sustained turn rate of the F-22 and F-35 is enabled by their high-AOA design, which allows them to achieve stable flight at high AOAs, something most other aircraft either cannot do or require canards to pull off. But one big difference, if you look at the 5th gens compared to 4th gen aircraft, is that all the 5th gen aircraft have internal weapons bays. This means you have a radical reduction in drag compared to 4th gen aircraft, which accounts in large part for their gains in maneuverability.

Significant yes, I said that other like L/D figures are more important and we don't have them (at least I don't). Therefore, it's impossible to arrive at good conclusions about the maneuverability.

Take the F-35, for instance. It is stated to have superior maneuverability compared to the F-16, but that's only in comparison to a loaded F-16, where draggy external stores and missiles ruin its maneuverability. An unloaded F-16 could potentially outperform an F-35, but then it'd have no missiles and would have to rely on guns, which isn't an ideal circumstance.

Because it was designed to be a bomb-truck. The planners thought F-16 like maneuverability is good enough. The Raptor on the other hand was designed to be the best without any compromise. Although cost became the sole reason that its capabilities were downgraded.

Well, I see you're very possessive of your F-22, but the unfortunate fact is that it's a 1980s design that reached IOC in 2005. Comparing it to the F-35, J-20, and PAK-FA, they've all chosen new solutions to the same problems and given the advantages of time they are likely to do a better job of handling it. While the F-22 is definitely stealthier than its later 5th generation rivals, that definitely didn't do much to save the YF-23 program, which ended up being defeated by the less stealthy YF-22 prototype.

Yes I like the Raptor as its design and capabilities are top notch, but I'm not saying that the Raptor is invincible or so. I just want to argue with you that the Raptor is no lemon either. I mean the PAK-Fa looks a lot like the Raptor, so LM must have done something right, right?

How is the YF-23 vs YF-22 relevant to this discussion? The YF-22 was supposed to be more maneuverable and less risky. So the decisionmakers probably thought that the F-22 was stealthy enough as at that point in time no other country had stealth fighters (in development).

The designers of the PAK-Fa en the J-20 have a benchmark that they can aim on. They need to design something that's better than the Raptor and in some areas they may be. The Raptor did not have that advantage, yet it's still (until the J-20 or the PAK-Fa in their final form) the best fighter in service today. Whether the Raptor is a 80s design or not doesn't matter. What matters is the hard capabilities. Like I said, currently no other fighters is known be able to match the kinematics of the Raptor or its stealth or other characteristics. Whether upcoming 5th gen fighters can (in some areas) is to be seen.

I'm not continuing this discussion with you as I feel we'll never agree with each other.

 

[Air Force Brat]

My "cut a hole" statement was a bit simplistic, but nevertheless, it shouldn't be difficult to add a sensor if they wanted to. Whether the center of gravity will be altered dramatically depends on the weight of the sensor and whether other upgrades can counter the weight shift. Without access to classified building schematics none of us can prove their point beyond reasonable doubt.



1) Sukhoi will claim anything to make their Flanker sales spike before the PAK-Fa is introduced.
2) They claim they can detect a fighter beyond 80km, but is this
a) from its rear end or what angle?
b) is the IR sensor slaved to the target by another sensor (radar) to aid in detection?
c) as you've mentioned what is their claimed detection range against a stealthy target? You say "reasonable", but I previously already gave my "reasonable" guess based on a EF pilot, which was 50 km, and you refuted that, claiming that 100km would be more likely.
d) detection =/= tracking range and engagement. I guess everyone in a fighter wouldn't care too much that they can be detected from 100km away as long as they can't be tracked or engaged beyond 40km or so.




1) When have I said I didn't know what supercruise is, that it is useless or more efficient than subsonic cruising etc.?

2) Note: fighters are more likely to increase their speed before launching a BVR missile in order to give the missile more energy.





The Raptor has an IR signiture, whether it's large enough to be tracked/engaged is another matter.



I said it'll quickly turn into a WVR fight, not that 50km is a BVR fight.




Significant yes, I said that other like L/D figures are more important and we don't have them (at least I don't). Therefore, it's impossible to arrive at good conclusions about the maneuverability.


Because it was designed to be a bomb-truck. The planners thought F-16 like maneuverability is good enough. The Raptor on the other hand was designed to be the best without any compromise. Although cost became the sole reason that its capabilities were downgraded.



Yes I like the Raptor as its design and capabilities are top notch, but I'm not saying that the Raptor is invincible or so. I just want to argue with you that the Raptor is no lemon either. I mean the PAK-Fa looks a lot like the Raptor, so LM must have done something right, right?

How is the YF-23 vs YF-22 relevant to this discussion? The YF-22 was supposed to be more maneuverable and less risky. So the decisionmakers probably thought that the F-22 was stealthy enough as at that point in time no other country had stealth fighters (in development).

The designers of the PAK-Fa en the J-20 have a benchmark that they can aim on. They need to design something that's better than the Raptor and in some areas they may be. The Raptor did not have that advantage, yet it's still (until the J-20 or the PAK-Fa in their final form) the best fighter in service today. Whether the Raptor is a 80s design or not doesn't matter. What matters is the hard capabilities. Like I said, currently no other fighters is known be able to match the kinematics of the Raptor or its stealth or other characteristics. Whether upcoming 5th gen fighters can (in some areas) is to be seen.

I'm not continuing this discussion with you as I feel we'll never agree with each other.

While the YF-23 was marginally more stealthy and faster, it would NOT carry the load the F-22 will, nor was it nearly as agile, so the Air Force made the logical decision to buy the Raptor, not to negate the YF-23 as a beautiful capable aircraft, but its ability to carry weapons internally and to match the super-maneuverability, were lacking, as it did NOT have OVT, and the weapons bays were/are to small!

IMHO opinion, none of the new build aircraft will match the Raptor in capability, they have each compromised certain design criteria, the T-50 will compromise on L/O technology, and the J-20 does not have OVT, and the engines are significantly down on thrust compared to the Raptor, the J-31 is designed to be smaller, and its engines are the Russian made RD-93s at present, and the F-35 is a single engine, lacking supercruise or OVT, has a reduced design requirement for L/O, and although the F-135 is a very potent powerplant, there is only one due to the requirement for a STOVL aircraft by the Marine Corp, and Great Britain.

Now as to electronics, yes there have been a great many improvements, and the F-35 is one "trick" pony, with situational awareness, and a helmet mounted gun sight allowing off bore sight shooting and launch and leave, it will be very capable, and the new birds will all have a very potent electronics suites, so they will be very good, but they will not be "alien birds", and have the "overwhelming" capabilities of the Raptor, the newer electronics are also easier to hack and jam, a flaw the Raptor does not have, due to its highly complex, and difficult to modify computer, also giving it a great deal of "integrity".

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

First, Raptor vs Fifth Gens. what fifth generation?
As it stands today the Only operational Fifth generation fighters are the Raptor and the Lightning. Earliest claimed introduction to service is 2016 for T50 mind you that's a optimistic estimate and may be delayed. The J20 is estimated between 2017-2019. and even then it would take years to get up to threat numbers. this means Raptor has time for upgrades including a modified version of the AN/AAR-56 Missile Launch Detector (MLD) to provide Infrared Search and Track functionality which is slated for 2017 with likely upgrades added as needed.

Second when modification are made to the physical structure of Raptor or Lightning they will not be haphazard bolt on bits. on of the issues for forth gen fighters is that as parts are added they tend to be bolt on adding drag and RCS. Raptor and Lightning placed in such would likely be mounted conformally or flushed into the hull. Lockheed Martin would likely decide what parts to integrate and where to place them. They would likely design replacement body panels to place over any added apertures these replacement panels would likely be rapid prototype'd using the same advanced computer algorithms used to design LO aircraft to assist in RCS stream lining well still allowing it to fit in the existing hull.

 

[thunderchief]

I'm not an aero-engineer, but classic numbers such as weight, wing-loading and thrust-to-weight ratio don't mean much. If I'm not mistaken, the F-22 has a higher weight, wing-loading and a slightly lower thrust-to-weight ratio compared to the F-15, yet it's kinematically much better.

Not necessarily. Clean F-15 is slightly faster then F-22. It would be very interesting to see what could lightly armed F-15 ( let's say only 2 air-to-air missiles ) equipped with latest avionics do against F-22 in close combat . Remember that Rafale did just fine in similar circumstances .

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Real domain of F-22 is BVR - to approach undetected, fire from higher altitude & speed then opponent and depart rapidly .

 

[Air Force Brat]

Not necessarily. Clean F-15 is slightly faster then F-22. It would be very interesting to see what could lightly armed F-15 ( let's say only 2 air-to-air missiles ) equipped with latest avionics do against F-22 in close combat . Remember that Rafale did just fine in similar circumstances .

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Real domain of F-22 is BVR - to approach undetected, fire from higher altitude & speed then opponent and depart rapidly .

There is an un-official kill ratio of 8 to 1 for the F-15 vs the F-22, and I'm rather certain that LOTS of clean Eagles have been put up against dirty Raptors, the Rafale on the other hand is a very light, canard equipped aft mounted delta, if I recall the helmet mounted sight was the Rafale's advantage, though it likely has a very high rate of pitch transition. All that speed of the Eagle, in this case means you'll likely just die sooner if you're going head to head. Ha ha ha ha ha,,,, hah, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,,,,,,,,,or if you're running that you'll just die tired!

The Raptor wins every even fight, and most of those that are disproportionately un-even, the RAPTOR, is the Bird of Prey!

 

[Jeff Head]

There is an un-official kill ratio of 8 to 1 for the F-15 vs the F-22, and I'm rather certain that LOTS of clean Eagles have been put up against dirty Raptors, the Rafale on the other hand is a very light, canard equipped aft mounted delta, if I recall the helmet mounted sight was the Rafale's advantage, though it likely has a very high rate of pitch transition. All that speed of the Eagle, in this case means you'll likely just die sooner if you're going head to head. Ha ha ha ha ha,,,, hah, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,,,,,,,,,or if you're running that you'll just die tired!

The Raptor wins every even fight, and most of those that are disproportionately un-even, the RAPTOR, is the Bird of Prey!

As we have discussed in the past...ROE, ROE, ROE.

When the Raptor loses, it is precisely because the ROEs for that "scenario," or "exercise," are whittled down to take away many of the F-22s innate advantages to force the aircraft into a fight with the OPFOR that allows whatever advantages the OPFOR may have to come into play.

Bully for them...but it is not what would happen in a live, no holds barred, full open exercise. Whenever that type of exercise is run, the Raptor enjoys a many, many, many times over kill ratio.

 

[Jeff Head]

Oldies but goodies for you Brat!

​

 

[Inst]

I think our argument is over, but forgive my desire to give a few parting shots.

First, regarding bomb truck supercruise, bomb trucks actually do benefit from supercruise as supercruise reduces attack latency, as well as decreasing sortie time, allowing you to launch more bombs in less time. The F-35 would benefit from being able to supercruise, but it was already subjected to a rather drastic aerodynamic design requirement, given its emphasis on cost, 4th-gen-level maneuverability, the placements for lift-fans, as well as stealth, so supercruising was dropped.

Second, regarding F-22 IRST, the best evidence that the F-22 cannot install a full IRST seems to be that they've chosen to install IRST upgrades onto the MAW system, instead of reactivating the IRST slot. But as you've said, it's hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the F-22 cannot have proper IRST installed, there's other possibilities as to why they're bothering with upgrading the MAW to support IRST capabilities, such as the MAW upgrade being a contingency plan while a full IRST system is being prepared for installation.

Third, regarding Sukhoi stats, you are right to cast doubt and you are correct that it is very hard to find good stats of the Sukhoi IRST capability. But consider this. If you've spent any time doing photography or engineering of photographic equipment, you'd notice that having a larger sensor drastically improves your picture quality. It roughly comes out to that by quadrupling your aperture area, you gain twice the detection range / resolution. By that logic, even independent of technology upgrades, all you need to do to achieve 100 km detection range on an IRST using PIRATE technology is to double its diameter. Then you have 100 km detection range without needing any technology updates.

Fourth, while we're discussing aperture factors, one other weakness of the F-22 is that while it's optimized for BVR combat, it also has a glaring weakness with regards to radar. The F-22 actually has one of the smallest radar apertures of any major air superiority fighter, having a radar aperture actually smaller than that on the F-15, so that in counter-stealth operations, the F-22 ends up being escorted by an F-15 as a sort of torch-holder. Both the PAK-FA and J-20 remedy this issue by sporting a larger radar aperture, using radar apertures roughly 10% and 20% larger respectively. While you can argue that you can't actually use your radar in stealth vs stealth combat, your radar is still going to be active passively, so that if you have a torch-holder emitting waves for reflection like the F-15, the PAK-FA and J-20 will have 5% and 10% more sensitive radars.

Fifth, as far as fighters increasing their speed before launching a BVR missile, this may no longer be true in stealth vs stealth engagements. The point of using high speed while launching BVRs is to increase missile kinematics, but the goal of increasing missile kinematics is to increase the No Escape Zone of the BVR missile. The trick is that in 5th generation combat, detection might actually matter more than NEZ for missiles, because the effect of stealth is that you're not going to be firing missiles at maximum missile range or at missile NEZ, you're going to be firing missiles at maximum detection range, and that's likely to be within missile NEZ, so taking a byline from Lockheed Martin, not only is fighter maneuverability irrelevant, so is missile maneuverability.

Sixth, as far as IR reduction systems go, the thing is, IR stealth works just the same way as radar stealth. Neither of these stealth systems will make you completely invisible to enemy radar, the effective result is that for a given angle your tracking and detection range will be reduced. As far as what we've seen from our airshow video, the F-22 will still have an IR signature, and even from angles where the IR plume ought to be concealed, you can still observe the exhaust of the engines.

Seventh, quickly turning into a WVR fight from 50km is 1.5 minutes if you're given two objects traveling towards each other at Mach 1. There's still enough time to launch missiles and run away; NEZ tends to be about 40-60% of maximum missile operational range, the first variants of the PL-12 have 100km range for 50 km NEZ, the newest AIM-120Ds have 200km+ range for ~100 km NEZ.

Like I said, currently no other fighters is known be able to match the kinematics of the Raptor or its stealth or other characteristics. Whether upcoming 5th gen fighters can (in some areas) is to be seen.

I'm not continuing this discussion with you as I feel we'll never agree with each other.

I could say again that the PAK-FA almost certainly will exceed the Raptor in kinematics at the cost of stealth, but as you've said before, we'll never agree with each other. On the other hand, I appreciate this as a useful learning experience; internet arguments almost never result in one party convincing the other, but both sides get good debating practice and have the time and focus to do research on their points.

 

[thunderchief]

There is an un-official kill ratio of 8 to 1 for the F-15 vs the F-22, and I'm rather certain that LOTS of clean Eagles have been put up against dirty Raptors

Unofficialy, there are rumors that Air Force purposely mislead public about those mock combats, in order to gather more support for new birds. This may, or may not be true, but you got to remember that current lot of USAF F-15s is not equipped with latest gadgets for WVR combat , while potential adversaries will be . Anyway, I somehow doubt that F-22 could single-handedly beat 8 F-15s in close combat , if they attack all at once . More likely those encounters were one-on-one duels , where F-22 won 8 times in a row.

Fourth, while we're discussing aperture factors, one other weakness of the F-22 is that while it's optimized for BVR combat, it also has a glaring weakness with regards to radar. The F-22 actually has one of the smallest radar apertures of any major air superiority fighter, having a radar aperture actually smaller than that on the F-15, so that in counter-stealth operations, the F-22 ends up being escorted by an F-15 as a sort of torch-holder.

Well, it is not that easy . For one airplane to use radar signals from another plane, you would need time base synchronization and precise difference in coordinates between two aircraft to calculate position of the target . Therefore, F-15 would have to first detect F-22 and then transmit both the radar signal and its own relative position and time to F-22 . F-22 would then calculate position of the target with information from F-15 and reflected signal from the target .

In reality , more likely approach will be triangulation . For example,AWACS will stay behind and emit at maximum power, while 2 F-22 move forward without emission and listen for reflected signal from different angles, and then exchange information via data-link .