F-22 Raptor Thread

[dtulsa]

Till it fails or turns on its users cyborg anyone

 

[Brumby]

So basically Denfense News spins and speculate the story about a single Chinese scientistYang Yunchun as the source for why the Chinese AESA system is a reversed engineer of the Israeli one. And this is your source as "credible" evidence to your argument?

Just the facts don't add up. China is still developing its first generation AESA, don't have a developed AESA product that it is prepared to showcase and clearly not one it is ready to market. This story is about a unknown firm marketing an AESA product which happens to be identical to the Israel product. The point is this is likely vaporware.

Yes keep under estimating China's innovative ability at one's own peril. NO it doesn't have anything to do with China being "communist" therefore it can't innovate. Remember this is the country that has two successful ASBM program going on (DF-21D and DF-26) and their HGV successful launched record are no match as well.

You are making up stuff I did not say. Btw, please stop using the ASBM program and HGV as a substitute to argue success in other areas. It is straw man reasoning.

 

[Brumby]

IRST and EOTS are widely credited with being able to detect the IR emissions from fighter sized aircraft. After all, they all use jet engines to burn fuel, and the end result is the same amount of heat that has to go somewhere.

Examples include the Eurofighter PIRATE and the Chinese arms shows where these sorts of sensors are available for export, and where the detection specifications are published. So EOTS doesn't seem to be particularly special these days.

There are different technologies/generations in IRST just as there are different radar technologies. EOTS represents leading edge IR optical imaging using staring arrays. There is no equivalent product in the market. PIRATE uses scanning arrays and is one generation behind EOTS. OLS-35 (SU-35) and OLS-27 (SU-27) are non imaging IR system and is 1-2 generation behind IR imaging system like PIRATE. There is simply no evidence that the Chinese have caught up or have a product similar in capabilities to EOTS..

Plus you're disparaging Chinese data buses and signal processing for a Su-27 pod solution?

I am not disparaging, just stating the facts as I know of it. There is a reason why the F-35/F-22 are using data buses that can transmit in excess of 1 Gbps because sensors are increasing complex (like EOTS) and they move a lot of data around. The Chinese are still using ARINC data buses in the J-10A/B which are at least two generations behind.

That is a very stupid comment because we're in the computing age where a smartphone attached to a EOTS pod has vastly more signal processing power than the EOTS systems from 5 years ago. In the civilian realm, we can see that Huawei/Baidu have better commercially deployed speech/image/signal processing systems than their US counterparts.

In this field, it's all about deploying commercial technology as fast as possible for military use. Note that China runs at China speed and prefers to leverage off commercial technology for its military projects, whereas the US military is noted for being slow, bureaucratic and preferring custom solutions.

Military and commercial applications certainly have cross over and the use of COTS is proven but there are some military specifications that require higher technological development. There is no evidence that the Chinese have achieved EOTS type product even if there is a marketing brochure.

 

[Jura The idiot]

As the article said it was a dogfight which is even money. Stealth is build for BVR and when the ROE's is to dogfight it basically removes what the F-22 is primarily build for i.e. kill from a distance. I would be interested in any red flag where the F-22 got canned at BVR.

I think the reliance on BVR is delusional, as Likely Opponents (SDF Rules forbid discussing specific war scenarios) would shoot volleys of anti-radiation missiles at your "mini-AWACSes" right after they lit up the targets for long-range AAMs, heck, OPFOR might even shoot anti-radiation missiles "preemptively" ... but as with AFB, I think our opinions on modern air-combat are too different: I'm NOT going to believe your terrific kill ratios ("so cool"), and I feel you disbelieve the grim scenarios of considerable losses among Raptors which I have presented in
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/f-22-raptor-thread.t6557/page-60#post-393776
and
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/f-22-raptor-thread.t6557/page-61#post-394005
(I repeat these scenarios took into account numerically superior OPFOR), so as I said to AFB yesterday, thanks for arguing, you may have the last word, to which I'm not going to respond

 

[Brumby]

I think the reliance on BVR is delusional,

BVR scenarios are driven by increasing sensor ranges and sensor types matched by increasingly capable AAM's that comes with multi seeker with 2 way links. These are facts and not opinions. The advantage rest with the F-22 because of its VLO in any given exchange.

would shoot volleys of anti-radiation missiles at your "mini-AWACSes" right after they lit up the targets for long-range AAMs,

AESA emission are LPI's by nature and anti radiation missiles don't work too well against highly mobile targets with ECM to match. Additionally, there is the option of passive cue and missile lock after launch.

heck, OPFOR might even shoot anti-radiation missiles "preemptively" ...

My friend, I hope you are not serious about pre-emptive launch with no targeting information to match.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Another of those mind boggling kill ratios depending on your degree of believability to such exercises. I understand from unconfirmed source that in that particular exercise, the blue force achieved an overall 241-2 kill ratio by leveraging the F-22 capabilities.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Far from a nameless source Mr. Brumby, this team received the " National Aeronautics Associations 2006," "Collier Trophy", it is highly coveted, and the most prestigious award in aviation--- read your linked article?? and do a little research on the "Collier Trophy".

You have redeemed the Raptor with the truth, and a fine piece of reporting? you will be receiving the SDF "snoop award" for a great bit of "sleuthing", that award is among the most prestigious and reputable in the world??? The Raptor is in fact the "alien bird", maybe even my favorite skeptic will get the picture??? Haw!, Haw!, Haw!

No, I'm not talking about my Bruda Jura, but Bruda you really should put more faith in your old BRAT??

 

[Equation]

Just the facts don't add up. China is still developing its first generation AESA, don't have a developed AESA product that it is prepared to showcase and clearly not one it is ready to market. This story is about a unknown firm marketing an AESA product which happens to be identical to the Israel product. The point is this is likely vaporware.
QUOTE]

Who cares about "showcase", that is NOT the sole evidence to confirm anything exist to the world. China just producing their own defense technology for it's own use and later on sell it to the market under it's own time and terms.

You are making up stuff I did not say. Btw, please stop using the ASBM program and HGV as a substitute to argue success in other areas. It is straw man reasoning.

How do you know for sure that I'm making "stuff up"? The ASBM program and HGV are proven technology that the Pentagon has confirmed it's existence therefore had already have to adjust defense policy and strategy because of those two programs alone. My entire argument is that there are defense technology that the US are behind China and are having difficulty simulating that. This is important because it would help the US or anybody to understand how the overall technology works and to counter measure that. Computer models alone is not enough to replicate the real deal.

 

[Jura The idiot]

...


My friend, I hope you are not serious about pre-emptive launch with no targeting information to match.

one more, and last, sentence, then: I'm completely serious as I believe OPFOR would act in so called crazy way for example launching UNaimed AAMs in order to disrupt your formation, put you off balance, whatever you don't expect (now

 

[Air Force Brat]

I think the reliance on BVR is delusional, as Likely Opponents (SDF Rules forbid discussing specific war scenarios) would shoot volleys of anti-radiation missiles at your "mini-AWACSes" right after they lit up the targets for long-range AAMs, heck, OPFOR might even shoot anti-radiation missiles "preemptively" ... but as with AFB, I think our opinions on modern air-combat are too different: I'm NOT going to believe your terrific kill ratios ("so cool"), and I feel you disbelieve the grim scenarios of considerable losses among Raptors which I have presented in
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/f-22-raptor-thread.t6557/page-60#post-393776
and
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/f-22-raptor-thread.t6557/page-61#post-394005
(I repeat these scenarios took into account numerically superior OPFOR), so as I said to AFB yesterday, thanks for arguing, you may have the last word, to which I'm not going to respond

Gents, lets stick to the subject at hand, this is after all the F-22 thread, and Bruda if you choose to disbelieve that the Raptor/F-35 team offer incredible "Air Superiority" over any of our potential OP/FORS??? so what????

These two 5th Gen aircraft have a "depth" of design/engineering/build(think F-119 and F-135 for example), that can NOT, and will NOT be replicated by our opponents?

As Mr. Brumby so wisely pointed out, Fanboys and Vaporware only win on the WWW, kinda like the World Wrestling Federation, lots of bluster and big talk!

 

[Air Force Brat]

one more, and last, sentence, then: I'm completely serious as I believe OPFOR would act in so called crazy way for example launching UNaimed AAMs in order to disrupt your formation, put you off balance, whatever

You're entirely right here master Jura, in the "undersea botten" I'm thinking "Crazy Ivan"?, yeah, something I am rather certain we would expect, one of the reasons that we are presently moving assets to Eastern Europe.