F-22 Raptor Thread

[Miragedriver]

I know that this really is not the place for this post, however the claim being made is interesting and is intended to counter the F-22


These new sensors are able to detect any stealth aircraft. They are able to detect a Lockheed Martin F-22A at 110 km and a B-2 at 150 km.
Beijing tech show highlights advances in Chinese fighter sensors
Richard D Fisher Jr, Washington, DC - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly

China's Jiangsu A-Star Aviation Industries Company (A-Star) used the first Beijing exhibition promoting "civil-military integration" to reveal new combat aircraft electro-optical systems, some of which may be slated for the country's fifth-generation fighters.

A-Star's booth featured images of a Shenyang Aircraft Corporation J-31 fifth-generation export fighter to highlight two electro-optical systems, although it is not clear that A-Star's systems will equip future developments of this fighter, revealed as the FC-31 at the November 2014 Zhuhai Air Show.

A-Star's EORD-31 appears to be a conventional infrared search and tracking (IRST) system but with a faceted sensor dome; and the claimed ability to detect a F-22. (Via Top81 web page)A-Star's EORD-31 appears to be a conventional infrared search and tracking (IRST) system but with a faceted sensor dome; and the claimed ability to detect a F-22. (Via Top81 web page)

The EOTS-89 resembles the Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) of the Lockheed Martin F-35, which combines Forward Looking Infrared and Infrared Search and Track (IRST) capabilities. The similarity includes the use of two tracking mirrors and a flat-facetted optical window, with bottom fuselage placement just aft the radar radome. Such a system was so placed on the large mock-up of the FC-31 seen in November 2014.

The AUEODS system by A-Star uses two wingtip mounted pods that combine a domed IRST with a conventional targeting pod. (Via Top81 web page)The AUEODS system by A-Star uses two wingtip mounted pods that combine a domed IRST with a conventional targeting pod. (Via Top81 web page)

Shown placed on the front starboard side of the J-31 canopy, A-Star's EORD-31 serves as an IRST, similar to the OLS-27 series used by the Russian Sukhoi Su-27 fighter. However, instead of a spherical dome cover, the EORD-31 is flat and facetted. Chinese press reports claimed the system may be able to detect a Lockheed Martin F-22A at 110 km and a Boeing B-2 at 150 km.

Also on display was an image of A-Star's "AUEODS" system, which uses TX-S55 and TX-S56 pods which combine a conventional targeting pod with an over or under-mounted domed IRST. These two pods were shown on a Su-27 on the wingtip position taken by SORBITSYA electronic warfare pods.

A promotional image from A-Star indicated that its new F-80 medium range air-to-air missile may have a ground attack capability. (Via Top81 web page)A promotional image from A-Star indicated that its new F-80 medium range air-to-air missile may have a ground attack capability. (Via Top81 web page)

Chinese press reports claimed it can detect targets out to 200 km, or 70 km for the F-22A and 120 km for the B-2. The reports also claim it can detect a Tomahawk cruise missile out to 18 km.

A-Star used the 2014 Zhuhai Air Show to reveal its F-80 medium-range air-to-air missile with a unique five flat facet for its infrared/imaging seeker. While its range has not yet been disclosed, A-Star used the recent Beijing exhibition to indicate it has a ground-attack capability.

A-Star's EORD-31 IRST uses a unique faceted sensor dome. (Via Top81 web page)A-Star's EORD-31 IRST uses a unique faceted sensor dome. (Via Top81 web page)

A-Star's range of products also includes the five-seat German Extra EA-400 turboprop powered light aircraft, obtaining co-production rights in 2013.

Link:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Back to bottling my Grenache

 

[strehl]

"Chinese press reports claimed it can detect targets out to 200 km, or 70 km for the F-22A and 120 km for the B-2. The reports also claim it can detect a Tomahawk cruise missile out to 18 km."

I'm not following the logic here. If they can see a B-2 from 120 km out, I would think they would see a Tomahawk the moment the skipper gets the notion to press the firing button. If people actually believed this I would imagine the company making these sensors will single handedly restore the Chinese stock market with all the investors and customers that will be flocking to them. I think I'll wait before I send in my purchase agreement.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Well, the US Navy has had great experience with the likes of the A-4 Skyhawk, the F-8 Crusader, and the A-7 Corsair II. Those aircraft were in service with the US Navy, flying off of carriers from 1954 with the A-4, and for the US Navy, the A-7 was retired in 1992.

But the F-8 Served with the French Navy until 2001, and the A-7 with the Greeks until 2014. So that was a total of 60 years of service...and of course, A-4s still serve on today in small numbers by Brazil, and by Draken International as aggressor aircraft.

So, we were able to build them then to be reliable and get the job done off of the carriers., and I believe the F-35 C will can do the same now.

True, But? that was then, the navy had operated single engine recips off the carrier exclusively, except for the Grumman F7F Tigercat, and then came the Sub Hunters and CODs, and then the F9Fs up through A7s were primarily single engine aircraft, then came the F4s, F-14s, and now the F-18, and the Super Bug, all twins, that other engine helps u sleep at night bruda.

Pilots are used to risk, in fact every take-off, cat-shot, lift off is a little trip down the "high-way to the Danger Zone??? LOL but when your son Johnny says Daddy, what happens "when" the engine quits, not if but when?? my old man said, we'll just "shut it down and fly on the other three", when I enquired further, he said I can fly that airplane all day on ONE engine.

Now present day, Central Obamastan, 08:09 hours, the AFB has flown lots of single engine night ops, but I never, never, didn't think about where to park that airplane when it got quiet, and yes I have made a "dead stick landing". It is worse at night, it is much worse "over water"??? truth is that we "manage" risk, and we accept risk, my best friend lost an engine going in to Chicago Midway, no sweat, shut it down and flew his approach into Midway, no sweat, "his words". Two weeks later on his first night departure in THAT airplane, 271MA, he died, on his second trip down the runway, he aborted the first due to a problem with a fuel controller, taxied back and that was his last take-off.

 

[Air Force Brat]

I know that this really is not the place for this post, however the claim being made is interesting and is intended to counter the F-22


These new sensors are able to detect any stealth aircraft. They are able to detect a Lockheed Martin F-22A at 110 km and a B-2 at 150 km.
Beijing tech show highlights advances in Chinese fighter sensors
Richard D Fisher Jr, Washington, DC - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly

China's Jiangsu A-Star Aviation Industries Company (A-Star) used the first Beijing exhibition promoting "civil-military integration" to reveal new combat aircraft electro-optical systems, some of which may be slated for the country's fifth-generation fighters.

A-Star's booth featured images of a Shenyang Aircraft Corporation J-31 fifth-generation export fighter to highlight two electro-optical systems, although it is not clear that A-Star's systems will equip future developments of this fighter, revealed as the FC-31 at the November 2014 Zhuhai Air Show.

A-Star's EORD-31 appears to be a conventional infrared search and tracking (IRST) system but with a faceted sensor dome; and the claimed ability to detect a F-22. (Via Top81 web page)A-Star's EORD-31 appears to be a conventional infrared search and tracking (IRST) system but with a faceted sensor dome; and the claimed ability to detect a F-22. (Via Top81 web page)

The EOTS-89 resembles the Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) of the Lockheed Martin F-35, which combines Forward Looking Infrared and Infrared Search and Track (IRST) capabilities. The similarity includes the use of two tracking mirrors and a flat-facetted optical window, with bottom fuselage placement just aft the radar radome. Such a system was so placed on the large mock-up of the FC-31 seen in November 2014.

The AUEODS system by A-Star uses two wingtip mounted pods that combine a domed IRST with a conventional targeting pod. (Via Top81 web page)The AUEODS system by A-Star uses two wingtip mounted pods that combine a domed IRST with a conventional targeting pod. (Via Top81 web page)

Shown placed on the front starboard side of the J-31 canopy, A-Star's EORD-31 serves as an IRST, similar to the OLS-27 series used by the Russian Sukhoi Su-27 fighter. However, instead of a spherical dome cover, the EORD-31 is flat and facetted. Chinese press reports claimed the system may be able to detect a Lockheed Martin F-22A at 110 km and a Boeing B-2 at 150 km.

Also on display was an image of A-Star's "AUEODS" system, which uses TX-S55 and TX-S56 pods which combine a conventional targeting pod with an over or under-mounted domed IRST. These two pods were shown on a Su-27 on the wingtip position taken by SORBITSYA electronic warfare pods.

A promotional image from A-Star indicated that its new F-80 medium range air-to-air missile may have a ground attack capability. (Via Top81 web page)A promotional image from A-Star indicated that its new F-80 medium range air-to-air missile may have a ground attack capability. (Via Top81 web page)

Chinese press reports claimed it can detect targets out to 200 km, or 70 km for the F-22A and 120 km for the B-2. The reports also claim it can detect a Tomahawk cruise missile out to 18 km.

A-Star used the 2014 Zhuhai Air Show to reveal its F-80 medium-range air-to-air missile with a unique five flat facet for its infrared/imaging seeker. While its range has not yet been disclosed, A-Star used the recent Beijing exhibition to indicate it has a ground-attack capability.

A-Star's EORD-31 IRST uses a unique faceted sensor dome. (Via Top81 web page)A-Star's EORD-31 IRST uses a unique faceted sensor dome. (Via Top81 web page)

A-Star's range of products also includes the five-seat German Extra EA-400 turboprop powered light aircraft, obtaining co-production rights in 2013.

Link:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Back to bottling my Grenache

They have to say those things or they won't be selling their equipment, since we don't know who tested it, and we don't know what their standard of "truth" is? we allow in the back of our minds that while it might or might not be possible, is it likely?, and if its NOT likely, what is likely or probable. I'm going to call this questionable? I could write market hype, and I kinda love to read it, if its not to far out of the realm of probability?? LOL

Now the Tomahawk is an obvious typo? prolly 180 klicks is what they meant??? So here we go, suffice it to say, if I were assigned to go downtown as a solo, two ship, four ship, or a squadron, I WOULD be flying an F-22, nothing else, not even close? If I had to choose second, it WOULD be an F-35. Signed with real internet BLOOD, you have my WORD on it!

So can they detect a Raptor?, sure, but getting targeting data is a whole nother matter, and I would bet my last Benjamin, I would be long gone!

 

[Miragedriver]

They have to say those things or they won't be selling their equipment, since we don't know who tested it, and we don't know what their standard of "truth" is? we allow in the back of our minds that while it might or might not be possible, is it likely?, and if its NOT likely, what is likely or probable. I'm going to call this questionable? I could write market hype, and I kinda love to read it, if its not to far out of the realm of probability?? LOL

Now the Tomahawk is an obvious typo? prolly 180 klicks is what they meant??? So here we go, suffice it to say, if I were assigned to go downtown as a solo, two ship, four ship, or a squadron, I WOULD be flying an F-22, nothing else, not even close? If I had to choose second, it WOULD be an F-35. Signed with real internet BLOOD, you have my WORD on it!

So can they detect a Raptor?, sure, but getting targeting data is a whole nother matter, and I would bet my last Benjamin, I would be long gone!

Interesting that the article was written by IHS Jane's Defence Weekly, so really I don’t know what to believe. I know that the Chinese invent some equipment, however it seems (at least to me) that all they really do (most of the time) is improve on existing Russian radars/avionics and electronics.


Back to bottling my Grenache

 

[kwaigonegin]

True, But? that was then, the navy had operated single engine recips off the carrier exclusively, except for the Grumman F7F Tigercat, and then came the Sub Hunters and CODs, and then the F9Fs up through A7s were primarily single engine aircraft, then came the F4s, F-14s, and now the F-18, and the Super Bug, all twins, that other engine helps u sleep at night bruda.

Pilots are used to risk, in fact every take-off, cat-shot, lift off is a little trip down the "high-way to the Danger Zone??? LOL but when your son Johnny says Daddy, what happens "when" the engine quits, not if but when?? my old man said, we'll just "shut it down and fly on the other three", when I enquired further, he said I can fly that airplane all day on ONE engine.

Now present day, Central Obamastan, 08:09 hours, the AFB has flown lots of single engine night ops, but I never, never, didn't think about where to park that airplane when it got quiet, and yes I have made a "dead stick landing". It is worse at night, it is much worse "over water"??? truth is that we "manage" risk, and we accept risk, my best friend lost an engine going in to Chicago Midway, no sweat, shut it down and flew his approach into Midway, no sweat, "his words". Two weeks later on his first night departure in THAT airplane, 271MA, he died, on his second trip down the runway, he aborted the first due to a problem with a fuel controller, taxied back and that was his last take-off.

If you have flamout in a fast mover better pray you have altitude and lots of big empty space for dead sticking the bird. Most jets have glide ration of 1:1 or less depending due to the unstable nature of the aerodynamics.
FBW and computers can keep it flyable however once he firewalls the thrust lever most likely would end in crash. I guess this is what the Aces II are for

 

[Scratch]

Perhaps fitting for the topic at hand. I came across this one years ago.

I've also heared the logic that if you have an engine fail in a dual engine A/C you go back home just the same. So one engine failing is a mission abort anyhow. Now in a jet with two engines, the likelyhood to experiance an engine failure is higher, since there is two engines that can go wrong with a certain possibility. Therefore single engine provides higher chances of mission success.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Interesting that the article was written by IHS Jane's Defence Weekly, so really I don’t know what to believe. I know that the Chinese invent some equipment, however it seems (at least to me) that all they really do (most of the time) is improve on existing Russian radars/avionics and electronics.


Back to bottling my Grenache

Exactly so, and on the other hand, I sleep with one eye open, the Mig 15 of Korea was built because somebody allowed the Russians a couple of Rolls Royce Nenes? they put those in the bank, and made real hay with those girls, the Mig 15 was a handful, the Mig 17 was a real airplane, with an after-burner, not a big burner, and yes I have seen and heard one fly? LOL, but I would remind everyone, the Mig 17 continued to fly into Vietnam, and was a very real threat, a much safer airplane than the Mig 21?
Both the Mig 15 and 21 were still very real threats, and the Chinese versions of each were very nice airplane, and would do the job?

Perhaps fitting for the topic at hand. I came across this one years ago.

I've also heared the logic that if you have an engine fail in a dual engine A/C you go back home just the same. So one engine failing is a mission abort anyhow. Now in a jet with two engines, the likelyhood to experiance an engine failure is higher, since there is two engines that can go wrong with a certain possibility. Therefore single engine provides higher chances of mission success.

Heh! Heh! Heh! spoken by a tender hearted fellow who hasn't strapped his butt into a flying machine? That sounds like some accountant who is worried about spending somebody else's money, so when you go to spend YOUR life, you will appreciate that extra engine.

So any concern of carrying out the mission is over when an engine fails, or any other major system on that aircraft, a single engine bird is 90% gonna be a total loss, a twin engine aircraft handled skillfully is 90% certain to be saved. If you lose an engine off the CAT in the daytime, 100% certain your bird is DEAD, in good weather, calm seas?? you got a 50/50 chance of being as Dead as your bird, may be a little better, may be a little worse, night time the odds against you go way up??? maybe 60/40, add some bad weather, or really rough seas?? or both??? its likely you are "Dead Meat", but maybe a 20 to 30% chance of survival, more likely you will drown if you do survive the ditching or ejection? that second engine off the CAT will give you life, if you aren't to far off shore, you WILL divert to a land base? worst case you can eject at an optimal altitude after you have rescue equipment in place, you odds go way up.

Lots of missions have been completed after losing an engine, in the AFBs scoring system the mission is not a success unless everyone comes home safe?

 

[Air Force Brat]

Exactly so, and on the other hand, I sleep with one eye open, the Mig 15 of Korea was built because somebody allowed the Russians a couple of Rolls Royce Nenes? they put those in the bank, and made real hay with those girls, the Mig 15 was a handful, the Mig 17 was a real airplane, with an after-burner, not a big burner, and yes I have seen and heard one fly? LOL, but I would remind everyone, the Mig 17 continued to fly into Vietnam, and was a very real threat, a much safer airplane than the Mig 21?
Both the Mig 15 and 21 were still very real threats, and the Chinese versions of each were very nice airplane, and would do the job?


Heh! Heh! Heh! spoken by a tender hearted fellow who hasn't strapped his butt into a flying machine? That sounds like some accountant who is worried about spending somebody else's money, so when you go to spend YOUR life, you will appreciate that extra engine.

So any concern of carrying out the mission is over when an engine fails, or any other major system on that aircraft, a single engine bird is 90% gonna be a total loss, a twin engine aircraft handled skillfully is 90% certain to be saved. If you lose an engine off the CAT in the daytime, 100% certain your bird is DEAD, in good weather, calm seas?? you got a 50/50 chance of being as Dead as your bird, may be a little better, may be a little worse, night time the odds against you go way up??? maybe 60/40, add some bad weather, or really rough seas?? or both??? its likely you are "Dead Meat", but maybe a 20 to 30% chance of survival, more likely you will drown if you do survive the ditching or ejection? that second engine off the CAT will give you life, if you aren't to far off shore, you WILL divert to a land base? worst case you can eject at an optimal altitude after you have rescue equipment in place, you odds go way up.

Lots of missions have been completed after losing an engine, in the AFBs scoring system the mission is not a success unless everyone comes home safe?

The Honey Badger and Badgerettes shopping for homecoming "dresses", two in fact, and Nick, playing mall body-guard left me with time to go to the book store for a little research?

Apparently an Osprey was fired up in "maintenance mode", which leaves it at about 50% or so power, with the levers all the way forward, there were no warning lights or safety's showing. The two pilots and two crew chiefs lifted off the boat, and the aircraft slid over to the side as they often do for departure and decended to the ocean surface as they attempted to climb away. The fuselage became awash, and they began to take on water? the pilots ordered the two crew chiefs to abandon ship and they attempted to do so, weighed down by their heavy flak vests etc, they each had difficulty trying to inflate their vests, and one crew chief was unable to hang on to the other with the un-inflated vest, he subsequently drowned and was "lost at sea".

The two pilots were trying to save the aircraft, and the heavy rotor downwash likely contributed to the loss of the crew chief, the windscreens became obstructed by salt encrustation, but the aircraft hovering beside the ship was unable to lift off, even though the thrust levers were set to maximum. Finally after at least 10 minutes the aircraft was able to break the surface tension and lift off, miraculously the pilots were able to climb back to the deck and land the aircraft back on deck.

This is just one illustration, that in spite of the best training in the world, there was no notation in the Dash One?? There is now, and there is also an override on the maintenance mode, that brings the aircraft up to full military power.

Operating any aircraft from a vessel is very risky, and BD could certainly tell you that many Naval Aviators have given their lives in situations such as I have described. I am a fan of the F-35, I am in particular enamored with the C, and I think it is a beautiful carrier aircraft, it would be my number two choice in the world today to go out and fight enemy aircraft, I do know for a fact that a single engine platform, gives many Naval Aviators pause for thought, in fact almost all critical aircraft systems have redundancy built in, even General Aviation recips have two magnetos, a right and a left, and they are each tested during "run-up" prior to departure.

The single engine design was necessitated by the STOVL Bravo, which I believe is also a very fine airplane, it is the airplane that the UK will fly off it two QE vessels, and that the US Marines will eventually replace the AV-8B with. It will no doubt be much safer than the Harrier.

My point was, had the USN opted to develop the Naval ATF, they would already be in possession of a very stealthy twin engine aircraft, with that margin of fly-away safety.

 

[kwaigonegin]

Perhaps fitting for the topic at hand. I came across this one years ago.

I've also heared the logic that if you have an engine fail in a dual engine A/C you go back home just the same. So one engine failing is a mission abort anyhow. Now in a jet with two engines, the likelyhood to experiance an engine failure is higher, since there is two engines that can go wrong with a certain possibility. Therefore single engine provides higher chances of mission success.

I'm not sure if that 'logic' was sarcasm or not lol