F-22 production ends at 187, F-35 production accelerated

[GTX]

a canard (retractable?) f-22 instead.

Of quite questionable design at that - come on, "Nosewheel door lifting canards", which no-one else has used being low risk????

Also their latest NOTAM (see here) is just getting ridiculous with the emotional side - see the picture at the top to see what I mean.

Mind you, if CK and APA want to argue what the USA and UK should do then fine, that way Australia doesn't need to put up with them alone .

Regards

Greg

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Considering how much of Air Power Australia's arguments depend on accepting that they, the F-22 and fellow travelers are all victims of a massive conspiracy I am quite surprised they haven't drawn the obvious connection. Allowing the F-22 production line to wind up is obviously a plot by SKYNET and another step on the path to Judgment Day. Now if only APA can send someone back in time to takeout the mother of Robert Gates then they can save humanity from the machines...

 

[donnage99]

Looks like both the top heads of Air Force, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and General Norton Schwartz, have endorsed Gate's proposal. Nothing surprising since the the guys who supported the f-22 got kicked out of office by Gates earlier already.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/usPoliticsNews/idUKTRE53C67520090413

 

[flateric]

Of quite questionable design at that - come on, "Nosewheel door lifting canards", which no-one else has used being low risk????

well, I suppose the next stage of APA Acme Shop mods would be F-22 VTOL version, 'easy field modification' using pair of RD-180s and conformal fuel tanks...hmm, Raptor-based orbital strike platform being the next?

 

[voidmage]

donnage99,GTX,Abraham,flateric,we cannot hide ourself behind a finger for ever. We all know perfectly who,for a fraction of only ONE of the several,expected,cost's growth,at now,of JSF program,(like the cited increase of 33,5 billion of dollar for the "acceleration"in production...the cost of about 6 and half Nimitz class Supercarriers!),USA could have realized the "adaptations" necessary to a navalized and a ground attack opmtimized F-22,with uncomparable better performances.
The only,deep,true but inadmissible motivation to this,otherwise inexplicable,choice is the perceived risk to surrender,in this way, a crucial,strategic and exclusive technology to possible opponents, be enough only thinking if ,in incidents of carrier’s fly over by enemy aircraft and UAV(with connected and public spreaded images,radar and infrared scanning),instead of F-18 was present F-22....
No nation(my nation comprised) have,operatively, something to gain from JSF over a true multirole and updated F-22, the only gain is(for USA) the “preservation”of a strategic technological edge.
“The F-22 is the most advanced tactical fighter in the world and, when combined with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, will provide the nation(personal note: only USA) with the most capable mix of fifth-generation aircraft available for the foreseeable future,” he said.

The F-22, to replace the legacy F-15 fleet, brings “tremendous capability” and is a critical element of the department’s overall tactical aircraft force structure, Lynn said. The F-35, on the other hand, “will provide the foundation for the department’s tactical air force structure.”

Words of William Lynn ,Obama’s deputy defense secretary, citing Major Gen. Charles R. Davis www.defenselink.mil/News/newsarticle.aspx?id=52717 .
For my nation(Europe is in a different strategic theatre)this is not a problem,but i understand perfectly Australia’s problems and Kopp’s position; its unlucky geographical position(above all the proximity to two emerging superpower: India and China,and its distance from NATO allies and from the same USA)with the connected strategic implications of that,is only an annoying detail for the enormous,worldwide political and monetary interests who have moved JSF program.
Last note: It seem who this same interests are....allergic, to experimentations (and not only at those proposed by Kopp, read : www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/10/infamous-jsf-report-precedes-a.html ) .It seem the typical situation in which a robber do arrest its discoverer calling it “thief”....(the call to "conspiracy" is from JSF program's officials, this is the fourth scientist's head -2 australians ,1 german and 1 danish -who fall or is silenced with the accusation of "have a secret agenda"...)

 

[Abraham Gubler]

hmm, Raptor-based orbital strike platform being the next?

They've already done it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eytUPz3bsg&feature=related

Well Michael "Explosions!" Bay has...

 

[AeroFranz]

donnage99,GTX,Abraham,flateric,we cannot hide ourself behind a finger for ever. We all know perfectly who,for a fraction of only ONE of the several,expected,cost's growth,at now,of JSF program,(like the cited increase of 33,5 billion of dollar for the "acceleration"in production...the cost of about 6 and half Nimitz class Supercarriers!),USA could have realized the "adaptations" necessary to a navalized and a ground attack opmtimized F-22,with uncomparable better performances.

I don't know about a "ground optimized" F-22, that's probably in the realm of the feasible, but historically there have been no successfull airforce aircraft adapted to carrier use. Not even those that were designed to do so from the start (F-111B). If you were serious about taking an F-22 on an aircraft carrier, you would have to

-drastically beef up the landing gear (air force sinkspeed requirement =15fps, navy 24fps)
-get rid of any material susceptible to corrosion
-strengthen all the airframe to take cat and trap loads
-bigger wing, better high lift devices. The simply hinged flaps don't do much for lift...
-Wing fold, complicated by LO requirements
-abide by all Navy requirements such as being able to drop the engines down for maintenance, as opposed to back (I don't know how that is done on the -22)

I'm probably frogetting some. But if you put all of these together, i think you are better off starting with a new design altogether.

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

Why didn't the US Navy get it's own ATF program

 

[GTX]

Considering how much of Air Power Australia's arguments depend on accepting that they, the F-22 and fellow travelers are all victims of a massive conspiracy

It does seem like that doesn't it. Mind you, I do get tired of their ramblings.

I wonder how they reacted to this picture (see below)? ;D

Regards,

Greg

 

[GTX]

Why didn't the US Navy get it's own ATF program

Err, they did - see here.

Regards,

Greg

 

[robunos]

but historically there have been no successfull airforce aircraft adapted to carrier use

Harriers???? ;D

cheers,
Robin.

 

[voidmage]

I don't know about a "ground optimized" F-22, that's probably in the realm of the feasible, but historically there have been no successfull airforce aircraft adapted to carrier use. Not even those that were designed to do so from the start (F-111B). If you were serious about taking an F-22 on an aircraft carrier, you would have to

-drastically beef up the landing gear (air force sinkspeed requirement =15fps, navy 24fps)
-get rid of any material susceptible to corrosion
-strengthen all the airframe to take cat and trap loads
-bigger wing, better high lift devices. The simply hinged flaps don't do much for lift...
-Wing fold, complicated by LO requirements
-abide by all Navy requirements such as being able to drop the engines down for maintenance, as opposed to back (I don't know how that is done on the -22)

I'm probably frogetting some. But if you put all of these together, i think you are better off starting with a new design altogether.

Russian have managed to navalize SU-27 With SU-33 (SU-27K). The most important changes implemented was: the addition of canards to reduce take-off distance,the increase of wing area(to increase maneoeuvrability),the shorting and convessing reshape of rear radome(to gain space for the tail hook).
I think who ,with some work, not even too risky or costly,(above all concentrated in recalculating radar refraction for the little airframe's sectors involved in the changes)it is possible to do the same with F-22.

 

[donnage99]

donnage99,GTX,Abraham,flateric,we cannot hide ourself behind a finger for ever. We all know perfectly who,for a fraction of only ONE of the several,expected,cost's growth,at now,of JSF program,(like the cited increase of 33,5 billion of dollar for the "acceleration"in production...the cost of about 6 and half Nimitz class Supercarriers!),USA could have realized the "adaptations" necessary to a navalized and a ground attack opmtimized F-22,with uncomparable better performances.

I'm sorry, Voidmage, but I do not find cutting up words of William Lynn a serious attempt of debate. In the same manner, I can find for you multiple quotations that said f-35 to be the most advanced fighter. As far as the word "advance" being used, the f-22 need 8 billions dollars just to bring 100 already built aircraft up-to-date, this isn't even talking about actual modification to the aircraft structures, and rework of the whole f-22 production line process to make it a true multirole, which would require several times of that 8 billions. And even then, the capabilities of the f-22 would match all that of the f-35 is still doubtful. And here Carlo Kopp suggesting a navalized version of the f-22 while arguing that the f-35 is risky and costly? This is not even considering his suggestion of a marine version of the f-22. And what would the marines do with a f-22 that can't operate from foward and unproven bases, amphibious decks, and doing a job (air superiority supercuising at 60,000 feet) that put a question mark for the whole foundation of marines doctrine. Saying the JSF program is a waste of money, while suggesting a marine version of f-22 is like telling people that they are wasting food while you spend thousands of dollars gambling. Suggesting that the JSF ordeal is too risky and provide limited capabilities while suggesting navalized version of the f-22 is like telling people not to play with knife while buying a shotgun for your 5 yrs old son for his birthday.

I don't want to sound like an anti f-22, since I do recognize its enormous capabilities. However, I am forced to say these things when faced by Kopp's conflicting argument. It seems that any proposal (anyone remember the magical f-111 missileer) that he suggests can automatically skip the "reality check" while he's busy doing a reality check for everyone else'.

 

[r16]

"As compared to other web forums Secret Projects has always concentrated on facts not unsupported conjecture and opinions from armchair experts, and I am reluctant to see this distinction lost." is what Overscan said yet the comment of retired general McInerney as linked by Flateric is so gross that it would put any armchair expert to shame , me included . So ı will use the opportunity for some conjectures of my own , if ı may ,especially now that the Americans have their captured captain back .

ı think the general is one of the McInerney brothers of whom ı distinctly remember reading about as veterans of Vietnam . One was in the Ryan's Raiders , the F-105 outfit that no doubt used gunfire on another set of undesirables and the other brother was in the first F-4E squadron at a time when USAF had almost mythical belief in the problem solving abilities of the M-61. If not , the said general is no doubt still related to them , which means he has listened to some first hand stories that probably won't be heard about . Which might have coloured his views somewhat .

out of the blue ı will claim that it appears the Americans and the rest of the Western world are not reading from the same page when it comes to worst case scenarios ; it is obvious - to me - even the Americans are not unified about their views . The American worst of the worst case appears to be molded primarily by US Navy , is quite old and was seriously modified after the the experience of early Japanese operations into 1942 . It advises to be careful ; a realistic assesment of needs should be multiplied as the enemy might turn out to be more capable as the Japanese proved to be quite good pilots despite the lack of carrots in their diet and their infantry could march while all the scientific evidence of the time said they should not . Ernest Hemingway mentions that in 1938 Popular Mechanics said the Japan would be beaten in two months . Enemy might use proxies to suck in American attention and power before attacking just like an European power that supposedly called one of its allies to stop patrolling Gibraltar so that Barbary Pirates could roam the ocean to pick on helpless American merchantmen in early 1800s , and of course this is why the USN became a service ,as the American leaders of the time were not exactly keen on having military power . And enemy capability might well be supported by internal sabotage ; in this context it is very hard for someone to say Pearl Harbour was all Japanese success . All of these views support the notion that Uncle Sam needs his hardware in far excess of realistic needs as , say , one half might go up in flames in the enemy first strike .

in return friends of America are very suspicious of this , it appears as if America is trying to dominate the planet and everybody knows she is not even 250 yet . End result is everytime America makes up a new plan to ensure its own safety , through various means it is stalled so that the next generation has to do it again . So they say anyone who opposes the F-22 will be run over by it and we are all discussing the end of a programme in this very thread that would produce 750 planes , by 1997 - a mistaken assumption by me but it always comes to my mind . Does anyone know anybody run down lately by the Raptor ?

now it has to be somewhere in this forum that how USAF had to hold the Bronco down to the extent of removing M-60s out of them at times ( which sounds weird to this amateur , what happened to point fifties ? ) to remain under the 4 000 Phantom cap .

or to save enough money to buy that much.

the thing is this perceived threat forces Pentagon to make fantastic lists of requirements to be funded by money that won't be available and as the yearly day of reckoning comes American officers , not knowing what they are supposed to be fighting , fight between themselves for mere percentages of what they probably believe to be essential , easing the work of companies who by definition sell their wares ,let alone some un or ill defined outside parties .

as it is the time of change , America should either give up the worst case or define it , declare it and arm accordingly .

the famous Youtube Colonel also talks highly of the Raptor gun and it is undoubtedly a coincidence that some Turkish Matthias Rust pulls a trick about the time the new President making waves here . No problem with me , we all wish success for change . And as ı was saying including a change in the worst case scenario might be a right thing to do . It is not as old and -depending on your views- sacrosanct as the Bible , is it ? It might well save McInerney from further disgrace , assuming there is some relevancy in my thesis and he claims to be part of an oldguard that knows what should be done to keep America safe .

of course there are Americans bent on world domination but they are of the type that think they alone walk on water , they don't need such sophistication or F-22s . And naming country A or B as a threat doesn't work much , although it can sure make enemies . All things considered it would be profitable for anyone for new thinking as the endless delaying drives up weaponry costs for those who might need them . When ı was involved in some "anti-JSF activities" nearly a decade ago , ı was informed about a local estimation of costs really unbelievable , ı think the number was about 91 million USD and ı used it despite my misgivings of "Who on earth would believe that , nearly 3 times of newspaper price ?" . Feels good when you are proved nearly right , once in a while . For the record , ı didn't like JSF when there were 3 candidates , opposed somehow at two candidates , and ı am not a covert commercial threat . ı have no emnity and why , my dear Americans , you can have ours , ı like them that much .One nerd in a nation of 70 million plus, ı am entitled to it and compared to the average '35 hater , ı can really put my money where my mouth is . The point is ı have been out of work with no fiscal responsibility , no tax paying which means ı am not paying for any F-35 .

 

[r16]

now that ı have heard Carlo Kopp striking once again (hadn't seen the site for nearly a year ) ı see he has paid a great homage to the F-35 in declaring it a modern day F-105 . But as always ı will evade when questioned on this ...

 

[flateric]

Russian have managed to navalize SU-27 With SU-33 (SU-27K). The most important changes implemented was: the addition of canards to reduce take-off distance,the increase of wing area(to increase maneoeuvrability),the shorting and convessing reshape of rear radome(to gain space for the tail hook).
I think who ,with some work, not even too risky or costly,(above all concentrated in recalculating radar refraction for the little airframe's sectors involved in the changes)it is possible to do the same with F-22.

I think that you are not quite understand the difference between Su-27 and Su-33, US aircraft carriers and Kuznetcov, catapult and ski-jump aircraft launch, and level of modifications actually needed to navalize F-22. Of course, Lockheed engineers were idiots, offering VG-wing NATF (with 25% commonality with basic ATF airframe) - they just wanted to make things much more complicated to entice Navy, while Dr.Copp did it in 5 minutes with MSFS SDK.

 

[donnage99]

Flateric, this brings me to an interesting question, though off-topic, that Northrop claimed their NATF bid to be 75% commonality with their atf-23 program.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGIjJbBVyOU

And here I thought that the yf-22 was favored more by the Navy.

 

[voidmage]

I can find for you multiple quotations that said f-35 to be the most advanced fighter.

donnage99 i seriously think who all you can find is "F-35 is the most recent figther" and,above all,i am almost certain who you cannot find also only one instance in which someone(of authorative) assert who F-35 is a more capable fighter than F-22; not even in ground attacks in SAM defended airspace(read the same statements of Charles Davis on “the most difficult mission of F-35”.......this sound like Kopp's scientifically documented models on the vulnerability of F-35 vs “double digit” russian SAM will ,another time,like for the cost problem,hit the mark).
For William J.Lynn question, i remind to you who it is not a politician "out of the field", it was executive director of the Defense Organization Project from 1982 to 1985 at the Center of Strategic and International Studies and director for program analysis and evaluation from 1991 to 1997,and its major field of specialization was aircraft and airspace defence...then it know perfectly real implications of its words.

Only an unprepared can also only think who F-35 can compete in an air to air engagements with F-22 and for all other nation at world (USA excluded) that is the discriminating factor in order to evaluate capacity to defend its own air space(for Australia you must multiply the veracity of this statement for 100).

Of course, Lockheed engineers were idiots, offering VG-wing NATF (with 25% commonality with basic ATF airframe) - they just wanted to make things much more complicated to entice Navy, while Dr.Copp did it in 5 minutes with MSFS SDK.

No is the opposite, Lockheed(and General dynamics and ,in little part also Boeing, if we talk of this program,see this: books.google.it/books?id=VO8BAdZJ7SsC&pg=PA397&lpg=PA397&dq=NATF+Naval+Advanced+Tactical+Fighter&source=bl&ots=UkBlmmY6sE&sig=c-fNxJC8-MZQMEoTyMllNZbCt3w&hl=it&ei=mhbmSdfONsOX_Abey_yGCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9#PPA397,M1) engineers and phisicists are among the best at world (and,believe me nobody know that better than Kopp; it is friend with a lot of them and ,with two in particular, it has also writed at four hands some chapter of some “staple”scientific books,like the last edition "Radar Handbook") and this same scientist was,at the times,very confident(almost certain) in theirs capacity to develop a navalized swing-wing F-22 –NATF- (from the studies of Dr. Dan Raymer and its unclassified relations this appear absolutely evident).
Now i do to you a question: do you know when was reached the decision to don’t prosecute with the navalized F-22?........ The response is April 1991 ,do you tell you something? Yes,this is exactly the same month of the same year in which F-22-ATF- was selected for Air Force and the decision to “protect” its technology was taken (otherwise you would have seen navalized F-22,no much different than that proposed by Kopp,fly around USA carriers from about 10 years).
The motivation for this choice is very simple and,in some way,also sharable. Be enough to think at a similar situation: you are on a carrier,radars indicate a russian bombers with 2-4 escort Su-27/30 in course of approach to the naval group (likely this can be the very,very common russian bomber reconnaissance’s-testing- group),what you do? At now, you simply “scramble” 3 or 4 F/A 18 against them,but within the alternate reality(that with the navalized F-22) you,instead,simply....cannot do this! In fact with this simple,usual,nearly banal procedure you have,just now, surrended one of the most crucial,precious and discriminating strategic secret of your armed forces :aspect RCS of F-22 and its aspect IR “visibility”, to a “for the purpose” equipped false bomber or aircraft. From this precise istant at maximum 3 years,the capacity of all your top tier “stealth” platforms versus this same opponent is more than halved.

 

[GTX]

I'm sorry but this is all starting to read like some conspiracy theory ramblings

Reagrds,

Greg

 

[donnage99]

donnage99 i seriously think who all you can find is "F-35 is the most recent figther" and,above all,i am almost certain who you cannot find also only one instance in which someone(of authorative) assert who F-35 is a more capable fighter than F-22;

You missing the point, man! Nobody is crazy enough to argue that the f-35 will in anyway be more capable than the f-22 on one to one platform comparison in air to air, and to some extend, in air to ground. The f-22 possesses, most importantly, better stealth, raw powers, bigger radar, more embedded antenna counts than that of the f-35. I'm not saying the f-35 is more capable, I'm saying, in simplistic wording, the f-35 is more advanced. There's a huge difference in the meaning behind "advance" and "capable." And as far as the word "advance" go, refer back to the rest of my previous post.

No is the opposite, Lockheed(and General dynamics and ,in little part also Boeing

I think you missed the point of Flateric, also. He's being sarcastic of Kopp. He's basically saying that if the canard worked, Lockheed would have adopted for its bid NATF (and later A/F-X) already instead of a swing wing design (which is a hell lot more expensive, risky and complicated). It just went on to show Kopp's canard propose is a delusional joke with complete disregard for the differences in operational requirements on a Russian carrier and US ones. He's saying that the professionals at Skunk Works spent months (if not years drawing from the NATF to A/F-X) and only could come up with swing wing (which according to Kopp, is its downfall since it is too different from the original f-22 and thus boost up cost and risk) while Kopp, an amateur in this regard, draws a childish connection between the su-33 to the f-22 and propose a "better" solution, all drafted in less than 5 minutes.

As for your theory on why ATF wasn't navalized. It does sound alot like conspiracy rambling! It doesn't have a single ounce of logic, less evidence. If that logic follows through, why bothered making any stealth aircraft at all, since if it go to battle, it will give up its aspect RCS and IR? I apologize, but I find this to be a rash reasoning with little thorough consideration while completely ignore the obvious: (1) Navy was poor and afraid of cost and risk after the ATA program, (2) afraid of repeating the mistake of f-111 program, by inserting navy requirements onto an existing Air Force aircraft. As far as I know, reason #1 carries itself over to the later A/F-X program also. Kopp agreed with the reason that the NATF failed to follow through due to reason of money (back to swing wing).

 

[voidmage]

Conspiracy? GTX 7-8 years from now, when the italian aircraft carrier "Cavour" in Mediterranean Sea,the british HMS "Queen Elisabeth" in North Sea or the american Gerald R. Ford in Atlantic,will find yourself in the the situation i have just described, all aspect RCS- IF emissions of F-35 will be perfectly knowed by the rest of world....from China to Iran,from Russia to North Korea,but this is not an unexplainable planning's mistake,that has been already, largely esteemed.
In the same years ,the same parameters of F-22 and B-2 will ,still, be a secret jealously protected .
GTX this is the opposite of a "smoky" theory; Italy,Denmark,Turkey or Norway will not have easly analysable and reproduceable top end, state of art USA military technology, but only the technology stricly necessary to give NATO’s forces an“unified”,updated strike platform against its more likely enemies (who, for Australia unluck, not include Russia,India or China).
I know that, you know that, all of us deeply know perfectly that ,but is more (irrationally)reassuring persuade themselves of the contrary.
Best regards.

 

[GTX]

I know that, you know that, all of us deeply know perfectly that ,but is more (irrationally)reassuring persuade themselves of the contrary.

I'm sorry, but having worked in the Defence/Aerospace Industry for years now and having served in the RAAF before that, I do not know that (but maybe I'm part of the conspiracy :).

taly,Denmark,Turkey or Norway will not have easly analysable and reproduceable top end, state of art USA military technology, but only the technology stricly necessary to give NATO’s forces an“unified”,updated strike platform against its more likely enemies

What rubbish is this???

 

[voidmage]

If that logic follows through, why bothered making any stealth aircraft at all, since if it go to battle, it will give up its aspect RCS and IR?

Because in 4-8-10-15 (those you retain necessary) "encounters" in peace time,you can try various complex-wave: form,composition and incidence angle( for IR ptimal aspect, frequency,and “coesive-persistence”of emissions ),return to your "workshop",modify and re-try until you have "degraded" at a critical point this not upgradable resource(“stealth”shape, by far the more incident in RCS reduction,and to a less extent RAM). Time and reiterability are priceless resources for a scientist (believe me,i know perfectly that)...give a F-22 for one month at Zaitsev’s equipe at Russian Academy of Science's Institute of Radio Engineering and Electronics of Moscow and after you must litterally throw it in the garbage.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

In the same years ,the same parameters of F-22 and B-2 will ,still, be a secret jealously protected .

It seems to be from time to time a job I have on this forum is to point out to prolific posters of craziness like Voidmage the wrongness of what they write.

You seem to be saying that somehow the F-35 will be compromised if the Russian air force is able to scan it with their radars? You also seem to be saying that because the F-22 and B-2 are air force platforms not deployed on carriers this won't happen to them. What a load of bollocks.

Firstly even sticking a F-35 or other LO aircraft up on a mast at your own RCS range is not going to give you any kind of advantage. Sure you can measure its RCS and work out that the 0 degree boresight radar return by an S band radar at such a such peak output and look up angle will only get a -31.35478902 decibel per square metre return on a clean and dry F-35A. But so what? Knowing that doesn't make it reflect more RF back at you...

Also the B-2 has flown into places where it has been unfriendly scanned by radar, from France to Iraq with stops at Serbia on the way... This hasn't compromised its VLO capability.

No wonder you believe the nonsense churned out by Air Power Australia, you are right up their alley...

 

[GTX]

In addition, remember that a military capability has more to it than simply technical specifications. Effective logistics support, training, tactics and political will behind it all contribute. In fact, I will boldly state that a Fokker Eindecker will beat a F-22 if all of these aspects are applied/not applied effectively.

Regards.

Greg

 

[voidmage]

Abraham Gubler i image you know perfectly who RCS is NOT a costant! Its value is a resultant of many factors and can change also hundreds of times at the variation of thousands of other parameters like: wave lenght, frequency and,above all, composition-with litterally hundreds of billions of possible combinations!-(in a aircraft's "stealth" design relative diffraction's values are crucials,not reflection)and this not counting angle of incidence ,position of emission's receiver,residual processing etc...

I have already suggested,to the member i have knowed for first, to read some "capital" books on the arguments like : "Radar Handbook",the "Bible" of radar's phisics , last year edition(you can read also 2 chapter co-writed by Kopp..) and P.Ya. Ufimtsev, “Fundamentals of the Physical Theory of Diffraction”, Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey, 2007 (it is difficult to find it and ,often, is horribly "cutted" or sophisticated,but in some scientific library is still possible to find a “faithful” edition).
On internet almost nothing is present,the only nearly serious i have finded for the other member(it is very simple,but anyhow, well realized),is here www.microwaves101.com/encyclopedia/absorbingradar2.cfm#phenomenology, give it a look.
Best regards.

 

[GTX]

Abraham Gubler i image you know perfectly who RCS is NOT a costant! Its value is a resultant of many factors and can change also hundreds of times at the variation of thousands of other parameters like: wave lenght, frequency and,above all, composition-with litterally hundreds of billions of possible combinations!-(in a aircraft's "stealth" design relative diffraction's values are crucials,not reflection)and this not counting angle of incidence ,position of emission's receiver,residual processing etc...

and so???? Doesn't this discount your own arguments?

Regards,

Greg

 

[donnage99]

Because in 4-8-10-15 (those you retain necessary) "encounters" in peace time,you can try various complex-wave: form,composition and incidence angle( for IR ptimal aspect, frequency,and “coesive-persistence”of emissions ),return to your "workshop",modify and re-try until you have "degraded" at a critical point this not upgradable resource(“stealth”shape, by far the more incident in RCS reduction,and to a less extent RAM).

How is this countering what I was saying?? Man, I'm seriously confused, no joke, no sarcasm. I have no idea what is your point at all, Voidmage. I'm saying if you don't make an navalized version of f-22 because you are afraid of after, according to you, about three years, its stealth will not be as effective due to it giving away its RCS and IR, then why bothered designing all those previous stealth aircraft, f-117, b-2, ATA, f-22. All intended to fly during war time over USSR head. If your logic followed, the US military would have withdrawn from making these aircraft in the first place, since sooner or later, its stealth will not be as effective. How does the navalized f-22 intercepting incoming Soviet bombers scenario any different from the f-22 flying over alaska or northern europe intercepting russian aircraft (bases ATF was designed to operate)? Why bother making f-22 in the first place then?

Time and reiterability are priceless resources for a scientist (believe me,i know perfectly that)...give a F-22 for one month at Zaitsev’s equipe at Russian Academy of Science's Institute of Radio Engineering and Electronics of Moscow and after you must litterally throw it in the garbage.

Of course, you don't even have to give to Russia, China or India, will do just fine. However, again, how does this fit into your argument? ???

 

[voidmage]

why bothered designing all those previous stealth aircraft, f-117, b-2, ATA, f-22. All intended to fly during war time over USSR head.If your logic followed, the US military would have withdrawn from making these aircraft in the first place, since sooner or later, its stealth will not be as effective. How does the navalized f-22 intercepting incoming Soviet bombers scenario any different from the f-22 flying over alaska or northern europe intercepting russian aircraft (bases ATF was designed to operate)? Why bother making f-22 in the first place then?

donnage99 it is possible who i don't explain myself well, because the sense of my previous post is not
simple...... it is even obvious!
The difference between war’s operations dynamics and “peace time” one ,are the difference from day to night!
Pratically all parameters ,from times ,to order of distances involved between assets of the oppopsite sides, from modality of development of the single engagement to number,variety and interaction-suppression of the systems in play, from purpouse of the strategic deployment and tactical manoeuvres,to attrition’s impact, contribute to render an adaptative, “incremental”,proactive research’s process like that by me,previously described, absolutely impossible to realize in war’times.
When a russian bomber with 3 escort aircraft, turn around you,at less than 18 km,for most than 20 minutes (like in 29 February "scramble")in peace times you cannot down it, rather,some times, you must also escort them outside your competence zone for another 10-15 minutes! In peace times this bomber return to base,give the data collected,in 2 months a improved wave or OLS is developed,the necessary modify maked and a new "try" is prepared...at each of this common,usually harmless situation,a incremental fraction of one of your more crucial secret get lost for ever.
The same motivation of the"classification" systems(and ,in particular that related to this specific field) is exactly that;in fact, when ,in a hypothetical war’s scenario,the enemy come in contact with its “functioning” it can do nothing (or very,very little) to contingently capitalize this knowledge.

I give you an example: when a Air Force take part to a exercitation with a “not alligned” foreign aeronautics( like Red Flag ) all aircraft keep its radar frequency and data link connections jealously hiddens (nearly always turned off or in “training”mode),this custom has exactly the aim to preserve the reliability and efficacy of this vital systems in a hypothetical war scenario against this same opponent, unfortunately you can “turn out” RAM or “stealth”- shape airframes- and this is the true reason for which F-22 has never taked part to this type of exercitations (not even with its most trustworty allies and that element,synergycly ,reinforce my previous hypothesis).
Like a “aimed” jamming pod for a “compromised” enemy’s radar or missile’s seekers can degrade it until to uselessness, a “aimed” complex radar wave (also in the bands against which this particular “stealth” design is optimized!),can litterally increase of various hundreds of times the Pr(Power returned)of a VLO aircraft neutralizing so, effectively, its operative effectiveness.

Last note: donnage ,you are a very intelligent person,don’t let yourself to be tempted from a easy(but absolutely incorrect) mind’s associations ; among the platforms cited by you ,only B-2 and ,before it,also F-117(at least in the initial,incorrect, plans of its makers)was designed to try to penetrate and attack in URSS air space, the reason is who a fighter-size VLO aircraft chance of surviving in a overlapping, exstensive VHS radar covered airspace is proximum to 0(i remind who are russian scientists who have developed phisics theoretical models of radar diffraction designs and know perfectly the faculties of long radar waves against smaller discontinuities segments of fighter-size airframes).
I remind also to you who we don’t talk of Iraq or Serbia ,the high altitude iraqi defense in 1990,comprised five battery of export [downgraded] version of SA-5 [1962],in the same year in URSS was present about 56 battallion of S-300 and 34 of S-300V!! –also now considered absolutely deadly for legacy fighters and bombers!!-, instead of export version of SA-6[1970, 11,5 Km altitude of engagement,1 target at the time only] URSS had BUK-M1[22 km altitude,6 targets at the same time] !! instead of SA-8 [1971]litterally thousands of TOR M1 and 9K22 Tungusta!! instead of SA-7[1968] , 9k38 IGLA!! and we are talking of the same year and only of SAM (this reasoning exclude hundreds of MIG-31, hundreds of SU-27,hundreds of MIG 29M and icomparable radars and C3 etc..). But for this inexplicable,but very common misconception,i will open another thread. Best regards.

 

[GTX]

and this is the true reason for which F-22 has never taked part to this type of exercitations (not even with its most trustworty allies and that element,synergycly ,reinforce my previous hypothesis).

Err, F-22s have taken part in Multi-national exercises including Red Flag.

As for the rest, I'm with donnage99 and Abraham Gubler - none of this is making any sense unless you follow the conspiracy theory line or live in the fantasy worlds of some of those like the APA gang.

Regards,

Greg

 

[donnage99]

donnage99 it is possible who i don't explain myself well, because the sense of my previous post is not
simple...... it is even obvious!
The difference between war’s operations dynamics and “peace time” one ,are the difference from day to night!
Pratically all parameters ,from times ,to order of distances involved between assets of the oppopsite sides, from modality of development of the single engagement to number,variety and interaction-suppression of the systems in play, from purpouse of the strategic deployment and tactical manoeuvres,to attrition’s impact, contribute to render an adaptative, “incremental”,proactive research’s process like that by me,previously described, absolutely impossible to realize in war’times.

Alright, I understood what you meant now. However, I still disagree. It would sound logical to the case of the b-2, and f-117, as intercept is not their intended role, but what about f-22? Like I said, what's the difference between the NATF intercepting russian bomber and the ATF doing the same thing over Alaskan sea? The f-22 are frequently flying patrol over Alaska, ready to intercept and escort any Tu-95. And if such is the case, then why did the Navy spawn the A/F-X program? And there's a simple way to counter what you said: put some crap on the NATF to distort its RCS, such as fuel tanks, hard points, air traffic control devices (like the one the f-22 carry when they flown to intercept the Bear).

And even if all of what you said somehow makes sense, that doesn't mean it's the reason the Navy canceled the NATF. It does not have a single ounce of evidence while there's another much more logical, with much more evidence reason that I have listed (even Carlo Kopp agreed).

Last note: donnage ,you are a very intelligent person,don’t let yourself to be tempted from a easy(but absolutely incorrect) mind’s associations ; among the platforms cited by you ,only B-2 and ,before it,also F-117(at least in the initial,incorrect, plans of its makers)was designed to try to penetrate and attack in URSS air space, the reason is who a fighter-size VLO aircraft chance of surviving in a overlapping, exstensive VHS radar covered airspace is proximum to 0

Both the ATA and ATF were designed to penetrate soviet airspace. ATA is also a flying wing like B-2. So I guess it's just down to the f-22 that you're talking about. As I have said in our private debate, distribution of stealth techniques other than shape is not even through out the airframe. The detail on techniques as well as how effective they are are classified, and then there's a whole lot of other issues that revolve around it, such as tactics, how effective they are, cooperation with other assets, how effective they are, the aircraft's own defensive systems, etc. All this taken into account, I don't think I can make a conclusion whether the f-22 can survive or not in a hyphothetical flying over USSR scenario. I don't know if Lockheed, after spending a decade studying this, know this, but I am sure that russian engineers know even less to be saying anything, because Lockmart can set up a RCS testing range with overlapping radars to test the f-22 (I'm certain they have and are continuing doing it), but russian engineers don't have the f-22 to test their radars against.

 

[voidmage]

Like I said, what's the difference between the NATF intercepting russian bomber and the ATF doing the same thing over Alaskan sea? The f-22 are frequently flying patrol over Alaska, ready to intercept and escort any Tu-95.

Donnage99 i image you refere to Aleutian Islands scramble of 27 November 2007 because it is the only istance at now happened of a similar situation...after that,in fact,never again a F-22 has been also only alerted to repeat the same procedure,despite multiple times TU-95SM and TU-160 have traveled in this same ADIZ(Air Defence Identification Zone)of the same air base command competence’s airspace(like in 26 March,13 May,18 August, 25 October,12 December in 2008 and 27 January ,18 February in 2009 in all this istance only F-15 has been used...).
If you read the description of this,at now,absolutely unique event,you realize who also 2 F-15 taked off togheter with the Raptor and only when the nature and “conventionality” of this TU-95SM(anyhow the “older” among all russian bombers) was verified the F-22 approached it in safety(like you can see,the surprised russian strategists have, after that day, hoped diverse times who the “miracle” repeat himself...but in vain) .
Of course,you can easly realize who a carrier in the middle of the ocean, has not the same possibility...if ,instead of F/A-18 ,F-22N would be present on it, in the last 14 years,is it who would scramble enemy aircraft and UAV more than a hundreds of times and without any “assurance” by incommensurably more efficient and powerful ground based,warning and control radar and ESM systems.
For the question of test of radar wave on a F-22, russian (or,for better say,any cultured person at world)have Law of Physics from theirs side.
Your assertion have sense only if we talk of multicomponential centimetric and millimetric bands wave(and anyhow yes...after so many years ,probably Lockheed’s physicists and engineers know dozen of uniques complex waves terrifyingly capable against its own creation...russian,conversely, almost certainly, none ....and this,one more time, send back us to the danger of the previous scenario),but you can bet your head without any risk, who in USA like in Ghana or Korea or Burundi,a F-22 is very visible at VHS radar waves..you cannot do nothing-except to change universe- to modify that.

 

[voidmage]

none of this is making any sense unless you follow the conspiracy theory line or live in the fantasy worlds of some of those like the APA gang.

GTX ,please, can you point to me a exercitation among USAF and a foreign Air Force in which F-22 has taked part? With ranges ,rules and results of engagements? I offer thanks to you already from now.

Ah and, because you have worked in Defence/Aerospace industry for years and also served in the RAAF ,and lately, any oppositive,unbeatable rational reasoning become,suddenly,only the result of a “conspiration”theory,i invite you to do a experiment: when,more likely,whitin 7-8 years you will have under your arms(i presume you are a technician-a physicist,like me, or a engineer-) the new “fantastic” F-35,absolutely identical tho the USA one, try at the first chance (like a military Air force bilateral official cerimony)only to approach the hangar of a “old” F-22...i am certain you will not have any problem to do it, because USAF don’t have nothing to hide from its great ,old allies; in fact in your hangar you have dozen of ready and easly analysable( absolutely identical to USA one)last wonders of its military industry: the powerful JSF.....all who assert the contrary is only a mad,a stupid adept of a conspiracy theory.....yes..yes is so (in fact,because i am a blinded conspiracy adept,i am sure who in this situation,within few seconds,i would observe the F-22’s hangar from the asphalt’s perspective,with 3 or 4 man or my back,but probably for you is all different....... because you “do not know that”).
Best regards.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

try at the first chance (like a military Air force bilateral official cerimony)only to approach the hangar of a “old” F-22...i am certain you will not have any problem to do it, because USAF don’t have nothing to hide from its great ,old allies;

Both the RAF and RAAF have had or have at the moment exchange pilots flying the F-22. I'm a civilian without a current security clearance and I've been in a hangar with a B-2A, had to walk under the wing...

There will be a crap load of anti-tamper software loaded onboard F-35As, even for partner nations, but the American intent is more commercial than national security. Hiding stealth aircraft away is not a reasonable means to protect their secrets. The basic theories of VLO technology are well known around the world. What protects the US possession of this capability is the extreme cost of developing it from theory to practice.

 

[donnage99]

If you read the description of this,at now,absolutely unique event,you realize who also 2 F-15 taked off togheter with the Raptor and only when the nature and “conventionality” of this TU-95SM(anyhow the “older” among all russian bombers) was verified the F-22 approached it in safety(like you can see,the surprised russian strategists have, after that day, hoped diverse times who the “miracle” repeat himself...but in vain) .

The original plan called for 650 f-22 would be ordered, that's pretty much replacing the entire f-15 air superiority fleet. So imagine who would fly to intercept a Tu-95 most of the time then, if the cold war didn't end?

Of course,you can easly realize who a carrier in the middle of the ocean, has not the same possibility...if ,instead of F/A-18 ,F-22N would be present on it, in the last 14 years,is it who would scramble enemy aircraft and UAV more than a hundreds of times and without any “assurance” by incommensurably more efficient and powerful ground based,warning and control radar and ESM systems.

Again, then why did the Navy spawn the A/F-X program if they canceled the NATF for the reason you given?

 

[GTX]

I'm retiring from this thread - as I have unfortunately found out before (and should have realised much earlier this time) it is pointless to try to hold a rational argument with "the believers". :

Regards,

Greg

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.

- attributed to George Bernard Shaw

 

[mz]

I think it's reasonable to assume the Russians would like to test their radars on the F-22 as much as possible. And as they get to do that, they might know little by little what works better against it.

I don't know why some things have to be turned into a black and white confrontation and exaggeration here.

 

[donnage99]

I think it's reasonable to assume the Russians would like to test their radars on the F-22 as much as possible. And as they get to do that, they might know little by little what works better against it.

I don't know why some things have to be turned into a black and white confrontation and exaggeration here.

Of course, Russian undoubtly wants to confront the f-22 as much as possible so hopefully they can get something out of it. The thing I disagree is not in that matter, however. It's in the stretch between that to the whole navy canceled NATF for that reason.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

To an extent, yes, but there is no "magic technique" to detecting an F-22 one can discover by looking at it. You can analyse the F-22's signature til the cows come home, its not going to change its radar cross section. If, for example, the RAM was less effective in a certain waveband, that doesn't get around the low observable shaping, and requires you to build new radars and SAMs to use that waveband, which hardly seems cost effective.