Do you see me citing
product brochures to complement my arguments in my posts? LOL
Scores of citizens, journalists, lawyers and analysts perceived Vietnam War as a failure.
To relatively smarter minds (military officials in particular); Vietnam War offered a great deal of insight for developing new kinds of weapon systems and doctrines that would revolutionize conventional warfare tactics in the years to come. Consequently, American battlefield performance in the Persian Gulf War (1991) stunned the entire world.
Back in the days of the Vietnam War, some of the premium combat aircraft of the time such as F-4 Phantom II, F-100 Super Sabre and F-105D Thunderchief suffered numerous losses in the battlefield. In the aftermath, a new generation of aircraft emerged such as F-14, F-15, F-16 and F-18 and each has performed well in various conflicts around the world to date. In-fact, F-15 series aircraft have most impressive combat record in history.
You mentioned Tomcats in the list of failures. Are you kidding me? F-14 has a very impressive combat record.
PAC-1 system (intended to provide AA/AD coverage to key installations in the Persian Gulf War 1991) was
premature in the aspect of intercepting ballistic missiles. Its successors in PAC-2 and PAC-3 (latest) represent a major technological leap in the role of intercepting ballistic missiles, with numerous kills in the battlefield. For example:
http://www.operationtelic.co.uk/documents/32aamdc-oif-patriot-sep03.pdf
----
F-22 Raptor is the outcome of a wide range of lessons drawn from various conflicts around the world and designed to operate in the most hostile of environments. The true extent of its capabilities are classified but even its
known aspects are sufficient to invoke "shock and awe" emotions in readers. You may ignore
product brochures but you need to read this report:
http://www.davi.ws/avionics/TheAvionicsHandbook_Cap_32.pdf
Also, read the book from Bill Sweetman. Very informative.
Imperfections of that article notwithstanding (see the responses below it); if you are referring to the 2014 incident, are you in the position to assert that the F-22 Raptor (in question) was not equipped with an RCS enhancer* at the time?
*
Luneburg lens device
Additionally, is the technique (in question) reliable enough to ensure successful implementation of the KILL CHAIN process on time?
Nope.
Food for thought:
1. EMCON
2. LPI
3. Non-emitting devices
4. APG-77
You may also find this discussion enlightening:
https://www.quora.com/How-can-passi...itions-of-the-F-22-and-other-stealth-aircraft
F-22 Raptor is stealthy in numerous ways, not only in the aspect of its shape. Unless you have a great deal of understanding of the design and capabilities of this aircraft (unlikely), you are not in the position to assert with any degree of confidence that what kind of system is effective against it. At most, you will find some 'theoretical assumptions' on the web. Equally bothersome is the observation that you do not seem to be acquainted with the limitations of a passive radar system. Let me help you in this regard:
http://canadianartillery.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/9-Passive-and-Low-Frequency-Radar.pdf
http://aviationweek.com/technology/new-radars-irst-strengthen-stealth-detection-claims
You will notice that much of the emphasis in the aforementioned articles is on the shape of the aircraft but a complete lack of argument about other principles of stealth.
The arm-chair generals here may brag about some countermeasures against the most sophisticated stealthy aircraft in existence; did it ever occur to you that why Russia and China continue to pour billions of dollars in stealth-related projects?
The fact that Americans managed to develop F-22 Raptor in the 1990s, affirms only one thing: their defense sector is laughably ahead of the same in other states.
"A declassified 1985 CIA report correctly predicted that the Soviet Union’s first major counterstealth effort would be to develop new VHF radars that would reduce the disadvantages of long wavelengths: lack of mobility, poor resolution and susceptibility to clutter."
Americans anticipated this shit in 1980s; possibly earlier.
Americans have extensive experience in developing powerful radar systems (of all sorts) themselves. They don't need insight from Russia and/or China in regards to looking for ways to detect a stealthy aircraft; they are in a good position to experiment in all sort of ways themselves. In-fact, Australia have a 'more convincing solution' than either Russia or China at present.
F-22 Raptor minimizes its chances of detection in a number of ways and not only through its shape; I have provided some hints above. This discussion also offers meaningful insight:
https://www.quora.com/How-is-that-t...iving-a-chance-for-the-enemy-to-trace-it-back
Another thing to keep in mind is that how USAF operates on the whole. It specializes in NETWORK-CENTRIC warfare techniques and takes cues from a number of surveillance capabilities at its disposal from land, sea and space to acquire unprecedented situational awareness in the battlefield. I do not have the time to explain to you how different kinds of [USAF] assets work in tandem to disable/destroy a wide-range of targets in an hostile environment. However, it shall be kept in mind that one of the earliest targets they are going to hit are the radar systems.
[Humor]If you are near a radar system and you learn about USAF operating in the region, run as far from it as possible.[/Humor]
On May 2, when the raid on Abbottabad occurred; stealthy choppers weren't the only assets in use. A number of other assets were employed to negate Pakistani defenses because the intent was to prevent an effective response from PAF by
blinding it.
ACM of the time confessed in the
Abbottabad Commission Report that none of the [active] radar systems picked up any unusual activity during that night. When the two F-16 jets were scrambled to intercept any intruder after the alert from COAS, their 'situational awareness' was terribly low at the time.
To give you an idea:
It might be possible to counter a semi-stealthy drone (RQ-170 for instance)
in isolation with the right kind of defenses in the right place at the right time as witnessed in Iran (their account is dubious by the way because the possibility of malfunction cannot be ruled out) but when a wide-range of sophisticated assets are working in tandem [NETWORK-CENTRIC warfare techniques], they tend to overcome shortcomings of each other with their respective strengths and the resultant kinetic force is virtually impossible to tackle for a country like Pakistan. Even Russia and China are lacking in this spectrum.
---
J-20 is noticeably different aircraft than F-22 Raptor and capabilities of both are not expected to be similar. Chinese advances in the domain of stealth are not clearly understood but certain shortcomings are known. What we get to see on the surface does not tells us much about the level of sophistication beneath. Both China and Russia do not match US in this area, IMO. Nonetheless, Chinese advances in this area are impressive in their own right. Decent information here:
http://www.css.ethz.ch/en/services/digital-library/articles/article.html/192616/pdf
See above.
It may not be jamming but they made sure that our radar systems would not capture 'unusual activity' during the course of that raid. How they pulled it off, only they can tell.
I do not expect 'shooting of a drone' to lead to full-scale war (God forbid) but Trump administration is unpredictable and this kind of incident [might] open the door to "unforeseen consequences." If this administration is taking Afghanistan seriously then the best course of action is to define SOPs for them in regards to Pakistan.
F-22 Raptors were active over Syrian airspace at the time.
http://aviationweek.com/defense/how-f-22-deconflicting-us-russia-operations-over-syria
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...over-syria-lockheed-martin-f-22-stealth-20110
Dude, seriously?
F-22 and F-35 are equipped with some of the most powerful sensors yet devised and you need to understand how they function. Go through all the links that I have provided above. This discussion will also help you:
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9268
For the F-35:
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/unde...on-system-of-f-35-jsf-for-the-dummies.472240/
Even if you (somehow) manage to interfere with the sensors of a single aircraft (F22 or F35), it can draw information from other assets (F22; F35; AWACS; more). For example:
http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/21st-Century-Approach-to-Tron-Warfare.pdf
Google "TRON warfare."
Right.
F-117 is nowhere close to the capabilities of F-22 Raptor, unfortunately.
In an exercise, F-22 seem to be operating at close proximity to other aircraft and relevant restrictions are enforced. Under these circumstances, they can be spotted and/or engaged.
In-fact, look at this story:
https://theaviationist.com/2016/07/...hermal-camera-of-a-crime-fighting-helicopter/
A helicopter could see a [stationary] F-22 Raptor via thermal imaging. Unfortunately, their is no time for these kind of stunts in a war.
F-22 Raptor is designed to execute "first-look, first-kill" mission protocols in a war.
FYI:
Behind this first-look, first-kill capability is the F-22’s ability to establish superior situational awareness concerning target detection, location, identification, and lethality. The IAS provides the pilot situational awareness well Beyond Visual Range (BVR). Data fusion from multiple sensors is used to achieve longrange detection, high confidence BVR-Identification (BVRID) and highly accurate target tracking for BVR weapons employment and/or threat avoidance. The IAS directly contributes to increased survivability by providing threat warning and countermeasures against threat systems. This first-look, first-kill requirement depends on the ability to collect data from multiple onboard sensors, to develop a highly accurate track file on enemy targets, and to do so before the F-22 is detected by enemy sensors. Each target track file is continually and automatically updated without pilot intervention. Targets receive increasingly tighter tracking accuracies as they penetrate a series of tactical engagement boundaries surrounding the F-22 as shown in Figure 32.1. From outermost inward, these “globes” are called (1) Situation Awareness Initial Track/ID, (2) Engage/Avoid Decision, (3) BVRID Initial AMRAAM Launch, (4) Initial Threat Missile Launch, and (5) Threat Missile Lethal Envelope. The globe boundary concept, inherent in the tactical software design, supports both (1) efficient sensor usage and (2) automated sensor tasking. It provides the pilot adequate time to make tactical decisions (such as engage, avoid, commit weapons, or expend countermeasures) instead of controlling sensors.
Source:
http://www.davi.ws/avionics/TheAvionicsHandbook_Cap_32.pdf
You won't witness any dogfights or games in a war much like in the exercises; targets will be wiped out as soon as they are spotted.
F-22 Raptor is evolving by the hour as we speak.
https://scout.com/military/warrior/...New-Weapons-Upgraded-AIM-9X-Missile-101452349
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-mip.htm
https://defensesystems.com/articles/2017/03/14/f22.aspx
