What's new

JF-17 Thunder: Made for the PAF

What if the fighter X has very a potent IRST? Things may not be so invisible for it.

Also, the number of Raptors deployed (in my humble opinion) will be not be more than one third of its total fleet strength at any single theatre of conflict even if it is at all deployed. Because the US will never leave itself exposed at home and other potential conflict theaters.

The point is that it is not whether the F-22 will kick ***, it most certainly will. But will it be enough for winning a conflict, without paying a bloody cost in lives lost and equipment destroyed. Against a formidable adversary in its own backyard and having a huge numerical superiority and having a decent weapons technology level of its own, like say over the South China Sea theater of conflict?

There is a saying, "You cannot ignore the quality of quantity".
Bieng invisible is totally baloney, the stealth mean low observability that is its difficult to detect because the signal return after deflection is supressed and that to certain range of frequency.

First point of the potent IRST which is the passive infrared sensor that detect the heat produced by the fighter plane, problem here is that IRST is the best when it is behind the fighter plane and not from the forward. F-22 have certain measures to surpress the heat signature even from the nozzle with its flat nozzle. and it is completely hidden with its tail from the side. One more thing is that IRST does possess important sensor in the plane but its range is very less than the conventional radar.

I don't want to go to the decission to deployed F-22 in the forward battle or for the defensive deployment. But it was meant to give some glimse of the raptor fighting technique or strategy. I failed to tell one one more aspect of it the truck load of the BVR i.e the slow subsonic Plane like C-130 with the pylon mounted with multiple bvr ejectors with each loaded with 20 BVR getting its radar cordinates from the F-22 raptor, the same idea I tried to tell @Mastan Khan and may be what he was trying to say for couple of days.

Against China or against the whole world USA will come out victorious several time. All the F-35 and fifth generation fighter development and the whole MELA of the different countries for the que of F-35 is point of amusement how beautifully USA is developing its 6th gen or may be 7th gen weapons disguised behing F-35 and the weapons associated like swamp missile with their money LOLZ.

I agree with you, but with assembly you can directly control and manipulate the hardware and find or utilize shortcuts and increase precision while also decreasing time to get results with programming in that or that language then compiling into other language and machine code isn't as efficient in hardware utilization and compilers have limitations.

We humans love to use shortcuts or something that makes it easier to get results, but not as efficient, that is why in lets say video rendering and video games we use shaders instead fixed function GPU's which are twice as fact as shader based rendering is 90% of things and consume less power/electricity and less heat for same result with same number of transistors or less.
What precisely you want to say I am unable to get you. You want to use assembly language for developing the softwares in the mission computer, radars cpu, avionics that what you want to say.

GPU have limited functions than the processor and the way it executes its funtion for the same task is different than the processor. The diffrence is the same way how two processor i64 and atom processor perform same task but with different approach.
 
.
@zebra7

Assembly is low level language and closest to the metal while programming languages that can be compilled are medium to even high level language is being used when compilled, compillers are used to cut development time and depend on hardware to process it with "brute force" thus you need big chips like i8/i10 to process it also all Intel CPU's are basically APU's because they have IGPU thus some calculation is being done on GPU's.

You are a bit out of date about GPU's, latest GPU's can do many tasks like CPU's such as AI pathfinding and processing video images faster and more efficiently than CPU's per watt thus free's up resources on CPU for things that CPU do better than GPU's.

If lets say a drone used cutting edge AMD's APU and the largest one and the drone's AI and OS is being written in assembly then it would have enough computational performance to make a drone fighter jet that can operate on its own.
 
.
Graphics processors (GPUs) provide a vast number of simple, data-parallel, deeply multithreaded cores and very high memory bandwidths
@zebra7

Assembly is low level language and closest to the metal while programming languages that can be compilled are medium to even high level language is being used when compilled, compillers are used to cut development time and depend on hardware to process it with "brute force" thus you need big chips like i8/i10 to process it also all Intel CPU's are basically APU's because they have IGPU thus some calculation is being done on GPU's.

You are a bit out of date about GPU's, latest GPU's can do many tasks like CPU's such as AI pathfinding and processing video images faster and more efficiently than CPU's per watt thus free's up resources on CPU for things that CPU do better than GPU's.

If lets say a drone used cutting edge AMD's APU and the largest one and the drone's AI and OS is being written in assembly then it would have enough computational performance to make a drone fighter jet that can operate on its own.

Graphics processors provide a vast number of simple, data-parallel, deeply multithreaded cores and very high memory bandwidths. GPU is specialized for compute-intensive, highly parallel computation – exactly what graphics rendering is about – and therefore designed such that about 80% of transistors are devoted to data processing rather than data caching and flow control Because the same function is executed on each element of data with high arithmetic intensity.

Hardware wise, GPUs and CPUs are similar but not identical. If we looked at the very building block of each, the transistors, we can see that most GPUs already rival CPUs in transistor count. The specialized nature of GPUs means that it can do its task much faster than a CPU ever can, but it is not able to cover all of the capabilities of the CPU.

GPU could be used in various airborne equipment like radars and mission computers for the manipulation of the datat and processing the image from various sensors and who knows its already been used but problem with the GPU would be that it would be difficult to program. I remember there was person who used its core -7 system with 4 GPU with 2gb ram to crack the password efficiently.
 
.
Bieng invisible is totally baloney, the stealth mean low observability that is its difficult to detect because the signal return after deflection is supressed and that to certain range of frequency.

Invisible as in not being able to detect it (undetectable) when needed to most. Don't take it so literally. In my limited capacity I do know that stealth is low observability.

First point of the potent IRST which is the passive infrared sensor that detect the heat produced by the fighter plane, problem here is that IRST is the best when it is behind the fighter plane and not from the forward. F-22 have certain measures to surpress the heat signature even from the nozzle with its flat nozzle. and it is completely hidden with its tail from the side. One more thing is that IRST does possess important sensor in the plane but its range is very less than the conventional radar.

Infrared sensors are passive. There is no such thing as passive infrared sensor. Also, let us agree to leave what the distances at which a good IRST might detect an F-22 as moot. We don't know. We can speculate and have conjecture, but it is most likely to be better than the radar detection ranges against the F-22 ... but that is just my opinion.

Against China or against the whole world USA will come out victorious several time. All the F-35 and fifth generation fighter development and the whole MELA of the different countries for the que of F-35 is point of amusement how beautifully USA is developing its 6th gen or may be 7th gen weapons disguised behing F-35 and the weapons associated like swamp missile with their money LOLZ.

Well that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. There are many who have the same opinion and I think no less or more of them because of it. I have nothing to prove that you or them wrong and in the same way neither have you or they have a definite way to prove what you or they believe to be the absolute truth. I am neither for or against that opinion. I am just not inclined to make sweeping conclusions yet about what an outcome of a certain hypothetical confrontation would be, in the absence of true comparable data in front of me. That is why my statement was in the form of a question in my previous post.
 
.
Invisible as in not being able to detect it (undetectable) when needed to most. Don't take it so literally. In my limited capacity I do know that stealth is low observability.
Good to know know that you have fair knowledge of the topic we are discussing.

Infrared sensors are passive. There is no such thing as passive infrared sensor. Also, let us agree to leave what the distances at which a good IRST might detect an F-22 as moot. We don't know. We can speculate and have conjecture, but it is most likely to be better than the radar detection ranges against the F-22 ... but that is just my opinion.

IRST detection range depends on various things e.g
  • clouds
  • altitude
  • air temperature
  • target's attitude
  • target's speed
I don't which IRST pod you want to compare lets see if its one of the best i.e Eurofighter's PIRATE with FLIR its detection range max for the subsonic plane is 50 km from the front and 90 Km from the back. IRST have better angular accuracy if its close enough. Tommorow I will give you the link which will answer to this your question but for the hint it is the laser device to burn the circuits of the Infrared sensors. Anyway if I am the pilot i would aproach the target from sides and different altitute rather that straight.

Sorry gotta go to home its too late and nice talking to you see you in future
 
. .
ok,

lets break it down.... assume your aircraft detects a launch from an f22 (all aspect stealth) at 35kms.

Your aircraft Launches a PL15 at the same - direction with a OLS sensor.

It will take the missile at mach 4 speed i.e 1.372km/sec.... so to traverse 35kms it will tale the missile 48.02 seconds.

Now lets see where the f22 can be in 48.02 sec at a measly 1 mach i.e 0.343km/sec supercruise speed. 16.46 kms from the supposed target zone.

Assume the F22 doesn't worry at all, and decides not have any erratic maneuvers. and take any straight path between a 60 degree envelope....


Take a radius of 16 kms, and your arc area 136.5 sq kms and 16.87kms in arc length just in the X plane...

So the location of the aircraft could be anywhere in that 16.87km radius, assuming the f22 driver didn't event care to change his altitude.

no matter how many OLS and FLIR's you put in there, you won't see a a sliver of that f22, but mst likely the same f22 that you launched against will with ease guide another AIM120 to you....

And this mighty complication is just at the horizontal plane, I haven't even considered the vertical altitude traverse. In reality that 16.87 can be in any plane the F22 choses to be in.

Projecting this 16.87km as the diameter of a cone If you give it a x and y plane you are looking at an instantaneous cross sectional area of 223.408 sq kms base cone with aircraft origin being vertex and the f22 can be at any point within that 223.408 sq km,

So I am sorry mastan sir, I disagree with your hypothesis.

@Oscar what is your take on this intuitive BVR -missile brain?


At 1.372KM/s it will take about 25 seconds, not 48 to cover 35kms.

anyhow, to detect stealth aircraft or any body that moves fast enough as a combat aircraft (of course it has to be man made), you will have to rely on InfraRed spectrum. Today's IR sensors are good, but just not enough detection and classification range. The FSO or the Optics on f-35 are good, but even if they can detect IR emissions 100km out, the F-22 can still shoot in a longer range radar guided missile.

Unless and until IR catches up to the detection range of the radio/radar, i don't see much chance of F-22 losing out anytime soon.
 
.
@MilSpec @MastanKhan Sir, its ok you came up with some idea which is great and try to explain some with calculation of speed and direction etc. I want to add something in your discussion ignore if you find it unnecessary and rubbish. I will limit only to the F22 against the X fighter plane with loads of BVR which will be fired on F22.

First F-22 is the airsuperiority fighter with the stealth, powerfull radar, center fussion of various passive and active sensors and extremely powerful calculating mission computer (rumor is that they are using intel core i-8 or 10 who knows)and long range modified BVR aim120E, which give the f-22 a distinctive advantage of over the top attack profile.
As a airsuperiority fighter F-22 have very power Aesa radar with 2000 modules for first detect, first shoot capability.
All your calculation of the radars and the detection range have a flaw and that is it is only valid in the ideal condition and on paper that is both planes are coming in the perfect opposite direction and at the same altitude. The radar could be visualize in mind like the torch light with the conical shape in the dark which is in search of the enemy. The one with the bigger and powerful radar have much chances to detect the target, the same rules also follows for the AWAAC which will have the most powerfull radar airborne but it does not indicates that it will detect all air target outside the beam shape of the radar. F-22 distintive advantage of the passive sensors makes it possible for the pilot to avoid the radar range and even target it with the passive weapons. This technique has been tried by the european somehow in the form of SPECTRA with limited ways. Now in dark if you turn you torch on then you loose all your stealth and you will show your location to the enemy, so F-22 will keep its radar off, but by doing that it won't get the enemy location and could not target the enemy with its BVR, then how it will achieve its target is explained bellow.

Coming to the 1 bvr fired to the highly agile fighter plane scenario, first the modern BVR which is 50g capable and 4mach speed have very large turn radius as compare to the 9g 1mach fighter plane and the pilot could outperform or dodge the bvr missile with various aerodynamic turn technique like barrel roll, etc and certainly TVC is not required for achieving it only problem is the speed of BVR gives pilot less time to decide like 15-25 sec max.

For targetting F-22 as the Mastan sir have suggested that the barrage of BVR fighter, will give more chances in the sucessful. targetting, but for that you need to first detect the airsuperiority target which have more advantage which is explained bellow.

1. F-22 can use other F-22 radar for acquiring the clear picture off the battle field and also can target using that.
2. F-22 have the modified AIM 120c7 BVR with the top attack capability which increases the overall range (no oem discloses its true range, the range told are only the marketing value), and give him the distincive protection against the ECM jammers, stealth from MAWS etc.
3. F-22 have much powerful mission computer or the supercomputer airborne which is capable of doing calculation thousands time for the passive detection and thus even allow the pilot to check the location of the enemy out of the range of its sensors.
4. F-22 acts more like the sniper aka the enemy could not see him but it can target the enemy from the long distance. Now if 3 F-22 and 12 X are going face to face, the first F-22 is flying way backward that its other 2 F-22 and only him have its radar turn on and others F-22 are getting the information or the radar pictures passively with the unique datalink with high and fast bandwidth. The enemy X could only see first F-22 which is outof range of firing BVR but the two F-22 which are 20-30 km more forward is invisible to the enemy, who would be indulging in marking the targets the X enemy in the memory of the mission computer which will fire the barage of the BVRs automatically with the computer aided targeting and say 10 X fighter planes are distroyed due to the fact the distance from which the BVR was fire gives the BVR no space to dolge and 2 X survives using their flares and other countermeasures.
5. The remaining 2 X planes will be then enganged with the 2 F-22 in dogfight in which it is an expert with 3-d TVC and high manuverability.

This is all for the time being folks. He He

@Z4ZOHAIB Challo janab aap hi ko hamari bakwas achi lagi, thanx

Hi,

Thank you very much for the post. In the next 5 years---the F 22 won't be invincible----. Counter measures to defeat this aircraft are the first and foremost priority of china and Russia and any other country where the scientists want to prove their mettle----.

If these two nations have something to work with now---they won't say a lot because they don't want the americans to make any corrections----. Most of the real information will come out from ex Russian allies-----because their scientists would want to make a name for themselves and make money as well;

F22's only weak link is the moment it launches its BVR missile---and show its profile. A lots of stuff being talked about the F22's potency is also to create a fear factor amongst the opponent---fear makes the operator make errors and mistakes----.

Flares will only work for a couple of missiles----and electronic counter measure will also work against so many missiles---but not all of the. As I stated in my other post---that te F22 has supposedly evaded over a 1000 missiles---but have you read anywhere if it has evaded 12--20 missiles launched at it at one time----. Because that is what is going to happen.

Also the enemy is going to track the air to air refueller----calculating the time of take off from the base and approximate time to target matching with the air to air refueller can give a proximity of the time and general location of a strike...


There is an old engineering adage----if it is built by a man---then it can be taken down by a man---.



At 1.372KM/s it will take about 25 seconds, not 48 to cover 35kms.

anyhow, to detect stealth aircraft or any body that moves fast enough as a combat aircraft (of course it has to be man made), you will have to rely on InfraRed spectrum. Today's IR sensors are good, but just not enough detection and classification range. The FSO or the Optics on f-35 are good, but even if they can detect IR emissions 100km out, the F-22 can still shoot in a longer range radar guided missile.

Unless and until IR catches up to the detection range of the radio/radar, i don't see much chance of F-22 losing out anytime soon.

Hi,

Then you might want to target the refueller---and if gets real bad---then there might be consideration of mini mini nuc tipped BVR missiles or surface to air missiles---with a proximity fuse that can be exploded in an air burst in a general proximity of the aircraft.
 
Last edited:
.
IRST has solid value in future air to air combat, and valuable system for Block 3 upgrade. I am sure we will see some kind of IRST addition to future JF17 batches.

But have you seen Israeli tech, that allows them to hide tanks and vehicles from IR/Heat signature detection? Saw it on discovery, it totally hide vehicle on IR systems. That may be used for jet in future.
 
.
The bvr missile is launched at the position of the launch---. The brain of the missile calculates the approximate speed of the aircraft that launched it and adjusts itself to its approximate distance travelled that aircraft.
Not exactly.

When the missile is launched, it will immediately know its own flight conditions, meaning if the missile is launched at 5000 meters altitude and 300 KIAS, it will uses that information to calculate its own flight path. So it is redundant for the parent aircraft to have anything like a 'pre-conditioning' process if that is what you are trying to say. When a missile is launched, the facts that matters are target information, not parent aircraft's flight conditions. Pre-conditioning the missile of target information, such as heading, airspeed, and altitude, are much more important.

It does not have to have a MISSILE lock.
Depends on the missile. The reality is that lock prior to launch is the ideal launch condition, but given the unpredictability of combat, we developed the 'fire and forget' type of missile. Of course, we also joked with a lot of truth that we can forget about hitting the target with that kind of missile.

Assuming radar guided for now, a missile's sensor view is severely limited compared to parent aircraft's and that is why the early generations of BVR missile required constant parent's radar lock on the target for the radar guided missile to succeed. Even as sensor sophistication grows, the missile just become less dependent on the parent aircraft, not fully independent from it. The dependency comes in several forms, such as initial target radar information or manual pilot queuing like the helmeted high off boresight method. The goal for 'fire and forget' type missiles is always the same: The sooner the missile is oriented towards the target, the better the odds of success, so if the target can be acquired by the missile prior to launch, all the better.

You have to keep in mind the necessity and history of the development of the BVR missile.

Guns required visual range proximity and it does not matter who you are, as a combatant, ground or air, you want to kill from as far away as possible. Today, we are developing guided bullets for the long distance sniper. Then from guns we developed missiles and installed some types of guidance on them. When I said 'installed' I do not mean physically but also conceptually. Some of my students/trainees from long ago have a difficult time understanding that difference.

Am going back to my 'instructor' mode and am going to have to compress two days of lessons into one post...

The early days of air-air missiles were not missiles but merely unguided rockets and against what are called 'STEADY STATE' targets -- bombers. Steady state targets are also known as 'cooperative targets'. They are cooperative, not in the sense that the bomber pilot will allow himself to be shot, but in the sense that they are:

- Ignorant of their status as targets
- The bomber aircraft is not very maneuverable
- The mission require the aircraft to be flown in a predictable manner

But even with favorable target conditions, unguided air-air rockets did not have a very good record.

The problem had little with aerodynamics because the same people who designed aircrafts designed those rockets and they are technically well versed. The problem was that when the rocket encounter anything that make it deviate from the 'steady state' target, it had no point of reference to reorient itself, whether that target is an aircraft or a ground fixture. The rocket was essentially a giant bullet.

So from the conceptual necessity for human involvement, we physically installed a connection to the rocket to make it a missile: the wire guided missile.

Obviously, the wire guided method have limitations so we relegated that method to the ground forces where targets are confined to 2D space and within line-of-sight. A more sophisticated guidance method is needed for (3D) airborne targets, even against steady state targets.

Then conceptually, we decided to slave the missile to the parent launch aircraft via an EM 'leash'. That EM leash is reflected radar signals from the target. Cannon rounds do not travel dozens of km, but human visual acuity does. So the initial radar guided missile were still within visual range (WVR) mode. We electronically illuminated the target to use the target itself as a point of re-orientation and in the 3D battlespace, re-orientation is a constant activity and is measured in microseconds. It does not matter if the target is completely ignorant of being a target. Every time the missile received an echo pulse, that is a command for re-orientation, even if the 'error' or 'displacement' figure from the previous pulse is mathematically zero.

When the target becomes 'non-cooperative', aka maneuvering and/or using distraction/seduction methods, that error or displacement figure gets larger and larger and this complicate things for the guided missile.

Ideally, I would rather have constant target updates in millimeter increments, for example. If the target move from zero to one millimeter, I want to know about it. But let us say the target is agile enough that from one microsecond to the next, it moved one meter. Now I have to put extra efforts to re-orient myself to keep the target inside my sensor view. But not only is the target so agile, it also uses things to obscure my sensor view, such as chaff or clouds or a mountain top. Each one of these compound that error or displacement figure, making me work harder and harder to keep the target in view. It turns out this EM connection is not as secure as conceptually thought when it was presented as a leash. I have to rely on a third party -- the parent aircraft -- to produce and sustain this connection. As if that is not difficult enough, there could be interference in the production of EM signals onto the target and on the echo signals that I must rely upon.

The next stage is to give the missile its own sensor but because there are technical constraints, the missile's sensor is severely limited in capability compared to the parent aircraft. Still, any sensor is better than no sensor. Now the missile have two sets of radar guidance, one from the parent aircraft and one from itself. But precisely because the missile's sensor view is much smaller than the parent aircraft's, the missile still needs some kind of initial target information.

Assume the missile's view -- straight ahead -- is zero degree as a reference.

If the initial target information is also zero, as in the target is literally in front of me, my initial flight path will be zero. No fuel necessary for re-orientation.

If the parent aircraft tells me who is on the starboard wing that the target is 30 degrees to port, which is out of my view, I have no choice but to have faith that the parent is correct. Fuel is necessary to make initial course correction.

If the target is non-cooperative prior to launch, that 30 degree error or displacement signal may become larger or smaller, forcing me to constantly recalculate my initial course correction. Remember, the parent aircraft is constantly feeding me these updates.

This leads to day two's lesson, the designs of missiles...

Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us -
Missile Control Systems


Why do WVR missiles have canard controls and BVR missiles have tail controls ?

Tail control is probably the most commonly used form of missile control, particularly for longer range air-to-air missiles like AMRAAM and surface-to-air missiles like Patriot and Roland. The primary reason for this application is because tail control provides excellent maneuverability at the high angles of attack often needed to intercept a highly maneuverable aircraft.
Radar guided missiles predicts where the target is going to be then calculate an interception to that spatial point. If the target is non-cooperative, meaning maneuvers and/or uses EM countermeasures to create large error/displacement signals, rapid nose (sensor view) re-orientation is necessary, hence the high angles of attack. The 'attack' is not the target but that spatial point where the target is suspected/guessed going to be. This is where a lot of people have a difficult time envisioning.

Canard control is also quite commonly used, especially on short-range air-to-air missiles like AIM-9M Sidewinder. The primary advantage of canard control is better maneuverability at low angles of attack, but canards tend to become ineffective at high angles of attack because of flow separation that causes the surfaces to stall.
The AIM-9 is passive sensor -- infrared. Because there is no target feedback like an EM stream, passive sensor-ed missiles are tail chase missiles. The missile is not looking ahead of the target, just at its tail. So as far the sensor is concerned, as long as the target is within view, any target aspect change is a low angle of attack change. This is also where a lot of people have a difficult time envisioning.

Sensor type dictate interception laws which in turn affect the implementation of the flight control type, such as tail or canard control.

All of this lead up to the question: Does the missile require target lock prior to launch ?

For the AMRAAM, and its alleged peers from other countries, the requirement will depends on the immediate situation. The further the target is from the planned launch position, the more the desire for that target to be cooperative, meaning ignorant of its prey status in relationship to the hunter, which mean 'No', not required. That does not mean the pilot can launch at max range. He does not know if the target will become non-cooperative.

But if the target is non-cooperative at the same planned launch position, then the hunter will have to get closer in order to secure missile lock and/or be in a favorable position so his missile do not have to work as hard to secure its own target lock.

It is not a blanket 'Yes' or 'No' answer applicable to all missiles and situations. The pilot that does not know his weapons, advantages and limitations, will end up wasting his ammo and probably end up dead. At least figuratively, as in shot down, if not literally dead.
 
.
The F 22 missile launch will leave a signature---. With the coming radars and sensor suites---the missile launch will absolutely be detected---no ifs and buts----. So the research is more towards---" control the controlable "----. So---if you have the tech to see the missile launch---then you know that an aircraft is within the proximity of that launch---.
Not likely.

People say that when the F-22 opens its weapons bay doors, its RCS will increase enough for its 'stealth' to be compromised. That is assuming a radar is looking at the F-22 in the first place, which the F-22 pilot will know if anyone is looking at him. But put that away for now.

What kind of 'signature' are we looking for ? EM ? Data link between F-22 and its AMRAAM ? The F-22's radar will be in LPI mode, which will make it extremely difficult for anyone's RWR to secure and secure long enough to triangulate. Data link between F-22 and its AMRAAM will be in burst, not continuous. People misuse and confuse between the words 'consistent' and 'continuous'. Consistency implies persistence, but not necessarily contiguous, as in one set of target update abuts the previous set in a stream. While the AMRAAM is in flight, the F-22 will have consistent periodic monitor of the target and if there are any changes in target aspects, such as heading or altitude, a burst of information will be transmitted to the AMRAAM as to those changes.

At Mach 4, at 100 km distance, the flight will be about 1.5 min. But if the AMRAAM is launched at mid-range, the target will have less than 45 secs to respond. If the target's RWR does not detect any kind of seeking radar signals, there will be no maneuvers, hence no aspect changes, to update the AMRAAM. That is the intent of being low radar observable and LPI capable, to catch the target unaware of its status: That it is prey and ignorant of it.

So your missile that you shoot will also have sensors to calculate the approximate time to the destination---how much distance that launch vehicle has travelled and where it would be----the little pea brain would also have the actual picture of the type of aircraft in it----and to top that off----it will also have 100's of FOGGY pictures of the targeted aircraft in different variations of stealth------plus it would also have sniffer for temperature change---which means if a warm body has passed thru---it will leave a heat signature----it would also have memory telling it how much of a heat signature the aircraft would eave and what would be the heat signature range detected when the missile is in the proximity of the aircraft body----so that the trigger can blow up the missile warhead.
Not true. There are no such 'pictures' in storage. At best, if the missile is equipped with any kind of library of signatures, it will be EM, not image based.

We already have this capability since the Cold War. A jet engine is a complex structure that have predictable EM patterns due to its construction. We are able to ID specific jet engines that are normally associated with specific aircrafts. A library of EM signatures, not of jet engines but of physical profiles, is much less storage intensive than an image based library, assuming that a missile is equipped with such a capability.

As for the proximity fusing, it is about a level of IR intensity that will detonate the warhead, not how much a body is supposed to have. The assumption here is that once an IR level is breached, it means the body is close enough to the missile. That is why a common evasion tactic is to distract the IR missile with the sun, even to this day.
 
.
@gambit

Thank you very much for a very informative post.

I think that the future missile may be headed for AI---a live video feed from multiple cameras in the front of the missile to a memory bank in the electronic motherboard----.
 
Last edited:
.
Thank you very much for the post. In the next 5 years---the F 22 won't be invincible----. Counter measures to defeat this aircraft are the first and foremost priority of china and Russia and any other country where the scientists want to prove their mettle----.
Thank you very much sir, and I am a fan of yours specially your idea of the simple plane with load of bvr which couple of members are unable to digest and making fun of yours. But you are on the right track but the post needs little finishing and polishing a bit.
I agree to your point that F-22 won't be invisible for long but not in anyway in 5 years but needs 10-15 years to defeat the lion of the sky. Every counter measures have its own counter measures and its the continous process, and US is several decades ahead of the world specially in electronics and Radars.

If these two nations have something to work with now---they won't say a lot because they don't want the americans to make any corrections----. Most of the real information will come out from ex Russian allies-----because their scientists would want to make a name for themselves and make money as well
Both China and Russia have the potential to do that and need each other but don't see anything bombastic right now. China is still long way to learn to develop decent engine and in electronics as well she falls way behind and all the development needs the help of the Russian scientists, since all the leap forward jump in the sensors, radar tech and various critical tech and its IPR she could get from the former Soviet Union aka CAR, specially UKraine have been taken with the huge amount of money pumped in have been taken and now the two problem i.e Engine and Radars/avionics are in deep inside the Russia which is now suspectible with the event of direct copy of SU 27 in the form of various J series like J16 etc. Russians are also the leaders in Radars but she have the problem related to the money needed for R&D and with the crisis with the ukraine and its economical condition dosen't see anything coming too substaintial.
F22's only weak link is the moment it launches its BVR missile---and show its profile. A lots of stuff being talked about the F22's potency is also to create a fear factor amongst the opponent---fear makes the operator make errors and mistakes----.
Explained by @gambit rather too beutifully and in detailed. If you read my first post I have show not in very detailed how the targetting plane and the BVR launch plane are different and how its highly efficient closed data link gives true pictures to be distributed among themself using only one radar which will be the only one which will be visible in the Radar Screen. The all expect sensors like MAWs could be able to pick the launch and missile but not the launch plane.
Flares will only work for a couple of missiles----and electronic counter measure will also work against so many missiles---but not all of the. As I stated in my other post---that te F22 has supposedly evaded over a 1000 missiles---but have you read anywhere if it has evaded 12--20 missiles launched at it at one time----. Because that is what is going to happen.
First the bad news There is no plane in the world that could evade the 1000 BVR missile but good news is that if there is no platform plane survived in the sky then there will be no threat of any bvr missile left other than that bvr could be spoofed, dodged, jammed, fooled with the ariel decoys, ew countermeasures like DRFM based aesa jammers etc. As a matter of fact you cannot fire the so called 1000 missile if there is no target detected in the range and only one which is visible is out of range and which is in range is invissible. Its just like fighting with the sniper who is completely camouflauged and who have long range gun with 6X scope and that too silent and the spotter giving him the true picture of the battlefield with real time updates.
Also the enemy is going to track the air to air refueller----calculating the time of take off from the base and approximate time to target matching with the air to air refueller can give a proximity of the time and general location of a strike...
As a matter of fact who have the best air superiority platform and who have the air superiority in the air rules the sky and there is no limitation to fly anywhere and let any other birds to fly undisturbed whether tanker or anything. BTW tankers fly in the safer zones its the enemy who have to ground and hide its air accets including AWAACS below earth.

There is an old engineering adage----if it is built by a man---then it can be taken down by a man---.
If some level have been set by US any one who one to reach that level should not forget that till he is able to reach that level the US would have created several more higher level. Work has been started for Gen 6 and world is strugling with Gen 5 and still decades behind for the deployment.

What kind of 'signature' are we looking for ? EM ? Data link between F-22 and its AMRAAM ? The F-22's radar will be in LPI mode, which will make it extremely difficult for anyone's RWR to secure and secure long enough to triangulate. Data link between F-22 and its AMRAAM will be in burst, not continuous. People misuse and confuse between the words 'consistent' and 'continuous'. Consistency implies persistence, but not necessarily contiguous, as in one set of target update abuts the previous set in a stream. While the AMRAAM is in flight, the F-22 will have consistent periodic monitor of the target and if there are any changes in target aspects, such as heading or altitude, a burst of information will be transmitted to the AMRAAM as to those changes.

At Mach 4, at 100 km distance, the flight will be about 1.5 min. But if the AMRAAM is launched at mid-range, the target will have less than 45 secs to respond. If the target's RWR does not detect any kind of seeking radar signals, there will be no maneuvers, hence no aspect changes, to update the AMRAAM. That is the intent of being low radar observable and LPI capable, to catch the target unaware of its status: That it is prey and ignorant of it.
If you talking about the F22 modified BVR aka AIM 120c7 or c9 whatever you say it have top attack profile aka the missile rose to the higher altitute and attack from the top. Advantage of this profile is that the missile have greater range and it surpasses any detection and countermeasures like MAWs, EW Jammer suites, why because the direction and the range of these sensors and equipment works in the bottom, forward, and sides hemisphere. If there is no detection where will be the flares and chaffs.

Data Link of the F-22 are different and more faster, over interlink secured network, its more faster which distributes clear, wide, real time picture of the whole battlefield and the pilot can chose the time and position of the attack from the list of option created by the mission computer automatically. The mission computer is very powerful and makes all calculation and preassumptions thus relieved the pilot from the work load.
 
.
this thread made for jf-17 and paf but people are discussing f-22. f-22 lovers need to make another thread for f-22
Ya even I agree with you on this. But with the discussion actually the main idea is to break the myths of BVR range, Radar range, who will detect whom first typo formulla LOLZ
 
. .

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom