F/A-22: To Fly High or Get its Wings Clipped

rjmaz1 said:

No they wouldn't be effective anymore which makes gf0012-aust post redundant. Send a B-2 by itself into China or Russia on red alert and it probably wont be coming back.

Click to expand...

As usual,you make the grandiose comments which lack any form of support. Somehow I think I'll listen to a bloke who is a TAC planner than someone who gets some basics wrong. To say that they won't be effective anymore is so damn simplistic its unbelievable. How long do you think ferret missions have been around, do you seriously think that a nation that defined tactical and strategic bombing, is on its 4th generation of stealth weaponry, hasn't worked out how to get into some of the targets with minimal losses? TAC and Strategic bombing is more than B1's and B2's. Its certainly not F-22's that will be doing deep strike.

rjmaz1 said:

When the B-2 entered service it would have been a piece of cake to strike anywhere inside Russia or China. Radar power has improved so much that stealth aircraft are starting to be detected further and further away. During the Gulf War very few radars in the world were powerful enough to detect the F-117 at a useful range. Now alot of radar systems across the world can detect the F-117 at beyond visual range.

Click to expand...

In actual fact military radar systems that were hot did not see the F117's when they were on short finals.

Please tell us what systems can detect the F117 under its normal op conditions? (ie, antennas down and comms cold)

rjmaz1 said:

The F-117 or B-2 cannot rapidly change direction and accelerate to Mach 2 in seconds to take the aircraft out of an enemy missiles no escape zone.

Click to expand...

The whole idea of TAC planning is that you fly around the threat as much as possible - incl f-22 missions which you seem to think have changed the dynamic so much that its all a new way to get in and strike with relative impunity.

Again, I'm staggered that you seem to think that you know how the F-22, B2 and B1 fight when a current TAC planner has different ideas. As this TAC planner is current, it's not as if he's outside of the loop. His job is to define how the B2 and F-22, JSF will work in future. You're turning this into a biggles sideshow.

Yet you blithely trot out examples which some of already know are not the way business will be done.

Again, what is your background? You have been asked numerous times and repeatedly - and by people who are qualified aviation engineers, systems specialists and flight test engineers. This gets down to an issue of competency and deserves qualification

I see the same kind of answers coming back about supersonic cruise missiles being invincible - and yet I have yet to see one advocate of supersonic cruise missiles identify any of the critical technologies that can be used to neutralise them. The no escape zone for a ship against a supersonic cruise missile is a lot narrower - and yet we know of ways to negate them. Its the same with aircraft and SAMs.

rjmaz1 said:

No they wouldn't be effective anymore which makes gf0012-aust post redundant. Send a B-2 by itself into China or Russia on red alert and it probably wont be coming back.

When the B-2 entered service it would have been a piece of cake to strike anywhere inside Russia or China. The B-2 has been operational for more than a decade, radar power has improved 1000 fold since its introduction. Stealth aircraft are starting to be detected further and further away. During the Gulf War very few radars in the world were powerful enough to detect the F-117 at a useful range. Now alot of radar systems across the world can detect the F-117 at beyond visual range.

The F-117 or B-2 cannot rapidly change direction and accelerate to Mach 2 in seconds to take the aircraft out of an enemy missiles no escape zone.

Click to expand...

What are the radar systems that can detect an F117 that is flying in "stealth mode" and what are your sources for this information?

What systems have now made it unlikely that a B2 could no longer penetrate and strike Russian or Chinese targets and, again, what are your sources for this information?

Cheers

B-2, F-117 and B-1b cannot enter enemy airspace unescorted if there is even the slightest chance of there being enemy fighters. These aircraft are far from invisible and are defenceless. They also have massive restrictions on day operations unless your fighting with arabs carrying AK-47's.

Click to expand...

I didn't read all the posts in this thread. Just in case nobody called this rubbish yet let me be the first to do so. These 3 aircraft were designed from the beginning to attack in enemy air space unescorted. I don't remember a single time we ever escorted these warplanes, two of which usually transverse 1/2 the globe on their missions.

The first two enter thru LO Tech and the B1b thru speed and low altitude penetration.

AH, forgive me, I see a few posters have jumped on this silly comment already.

No they wouldn't be effective anymore which makes gf0012-aust post redundant. Send a B-2 by itself into China or Russia on red alert and it probably wont be coming back.

Click to expand...

Do tell us why?

Now a lot of radar systems across the world can detect the F-117 at beyond visual range.

Click to expand...

And which radars are those? RJMaz I'm starting to think you just enjoy busting up threads with your silly comments.

For everyone else, why would anyone even think about spending 200 m per fighter and then making it a bomb truck? Yes we were able to do it with the F-15 but that was a different type of airplane that didn't rely on LO tech to do its missions and the design of the Eagle lent itself to further development along those lines. I see no such growth potential in the F-22, short of designing a almost new FB-22, and again you'd be left with the question, "why spend so much on a intermediate range bomber when you have the F-35 with standoff weapons?, supported by refueling? whilst having a strategic bomber force? and especially since the Raptor already gave you air superiority?

rjmax your sweeping, unsupported, comments are starting to get real old. Try researching a post before you hit the send button. If the rest of us can do that then so can you.

JSF/Australia

Re the JSF and Australia,
It's all a depressing a re-run of history, and also bad defence economics. (The latter driven by people who got to the top by being educated in class-rooms after coming from the right schools, instead of grunting-it out in the heat in a smelly and unpleasant location with real soldiers, charged with a real mission.)
This is F-111 all over gain .. grandioseley expensive, definitely late to the flight line in Ozz (so, whoops, buy some Super Hornets for the gap, never mind the cost), I will also bet under-capable when delivered, and will require on-going and very expensive up-dates once received. Thereby reducing the flight-line available numbers while the successive up-grades (err, sorry, 'block' re-dating as this is called now), and combined with the fantastic unit cost, and up-grade costs on-going, making each machine so fantastically expensive per item that they will never be risked for actual combat work unless surrounded by an even more expensive cast.
Complete military and financial nonsense.
Just like the F-111, supposed to be all things .. but won't be.
Too small to be a bomber or missile launcher of any serious capability in a big stoush, not able to sustain a real long-distance multi-adversary stoush as a fighter on it's own . . and it's costs will compromise basic equipment and pay for the guys on the ground for years. Military and financial nonesense.
Frankly, 100 Sukhois at half the cost would have made far more sense militarily and financially, but you don't get lunch at the White House that way.
A trophy project, and a waste of resources.

:shudder

Regarding S-400 = glorified S-300... there is no real leap in technology.

rjmaz1 said:

No they wouldn't be effective anymore which makes gf0012-aust post redundant. Send a B-2 by itself into China or Russia on red alert and it probably wont be coming back.

Click to expand...

Here we go again...

What makes you think the B-2 hasn't already penetrated Sino/Russian airspace? Back in the days of the Cold War that was the final proving ground for such systems. Why do you think they saw so many UFOs over Vladivostok?

rjmaz1 said:

When the B-2 entered service it would have been a piece of cake to strike anywhere inside Russia or China. The B-2 has been operational for more than a decade, radar power has improved 1000 fold since its introduction. Stealth aircraft are starting to be detected further and further away. During the Gulf War very few radars in the world were powerful enough to detect the F-117 at a useful range. Now alot of radar systems across the world can detect the F-117 at beyond visual range.

Click to expand...

A thousand fold? Radar power has been reduced... not increased. Stealth aircraft have never been detected by radar outside of US influence. The F-117 was never detected by radar and never will be now that she is retired. Active radar detection is not the advances that have been made to radar over the past couple decades... it is passive detection. JORN and systems like it are the only thing that have a chance in hell of picking these aircraft up and then it is only possible if atmospheric conditions are perfect. None of the US' potential adversaries have ANYTHING like it.

rjmaz1 said:

The F-117 or B-2 cannot rapidly change direction and accelerate to Mach 2 in seconds to take the aircraft out of an enemy missiles no escape zone.

Click to expand...

As GF explained we pre-plan our missions, much of our flight time is used deciding how we are going to attack a target and memorizing where the threats are. They will skirt the envelop of the integrated defense installation so they have time... even the first Gulf War had gaps big enough to do this and no country has a better system than that was. The only kind of defense that thick would be around Moscow I would imagine.

Rich said:

I don't remember a single time we ever escorted these warplanes, two of which usually transverse 1/2 the globe on their missions.

Click to expand...

Every B-2 mission in Operation Allied Force the B-2's could not be used unless EA-6B Prowler were in the area.

Also the F-117's in the gulf war also had electronic warfare aircraft in the area.link.

Not one US Aircraft embarked on its mission in Kosovo without being accompanied by a Prowler.

Click to expand...

- source

Tasman said:

What are the radar systems that can detect an F117 that is flying in "stealth mode" and what are your sources for this information?

Click to expand...

A british ship detected an F-117 in the first gulf war.

A better question to ask is what systems has the F-117 flown against? Of course a 1970's radar will not detect it.

Unescorted the B-1b is toast and the B-2 is at risk.

Big-E said:

What makes you think the B-2 hasn't already penetrated Sino/Russian airspace?

Click to expand...

What makes you think the B-2 has already penetrated Sino/Russian airspace?

The fact that the USAF wont even risk the B-2 without prowlers against a low tech enemy is enough proof.

I cant believe people think stealth means invisable. Against a modern enemy it only reduced their reaction time. Its only when you add speed and stealth together do you get your silver bullet.

Big-E said:

A thousand fold?

Click to expand...

If you have an aircraft you can detect at 50 miles if you reduce the radar cross section of it to 1/100th then all you need you need to do is increase the radar power by 100 times and you will still detect it close to 50miles.

The fact that AEGIS has an output of 3kw is show that radar power is definitely incresing, and its processing power even more so.

Big-E said:

As GF explained we pre-plan our missions, much of our flight time is used deciding how we are going to attack a target and memorizing where the threats are.

Click to expand...

You can thank this excellent mission planning for the downing of the F-117. They did an excellent job memorizing where the threats were.

Big-E said:

Why do you think they saw so many UFOs over Vladivostok?

Click to expand...

Too much vodka.

I was going to answer this guy but decided it was just easier to put him on ignore. rjmaz1 makes no contribution to this forum and I wont miss reading his goofy, unsupported, ridiculous posts.

Rich said:

I was going to answer this guy but decided it was just easier to put him on ignore. rjmaz1 makes no contribution to this forum and I wont miss reading his goofy, unsupported, ridiculous posts.

Click to expand...

I must admit that I did like rjmaz1's last answer in his last post. 'Vodka' was at least a possible answer to Big E's question so that made it more realistic, IMO, than the other responses in the post!

Cheers

gf0012-aust said:

Exactly, they were designed to go into the most heavily sensored and defended airspace in modern history.

The B2 is LO because it was meant to lift the penetration chances.

Click to expand...

Maybe its me but frankly I never understood the need for making the Raptor into any sort of multi-role combatant. It was designed from the outset as an air superiority fighter. Mind you its nice to have SDB capability (maybe to target an air defense system although my mind boggles at using it in a Wild Weasel type role).

Rich said:

I was going to answer this guy but decided it was just easier to put him on ignore. rjmaz1 makes no contribution to this forum and I wont miss reading his goofy, unsupported, ridiculous posts.

Click to expand...

I don't even bother answering anymore. I just shake my head and move to the next post.

Despite repeated requests from the Mods and forum members alike to reveal his credentials, RJMAZ1 continues to insist he has a better insight and understaning of these matters than a 2000+ hour USN Hornet pilot, a highly experienced FTE (who graduated from the USN Test Pilot's School), and various industry insiders and commentators alike.

Mods??? :unknown

Magoo

Yes, we have been hearing about RJMAZ, meeting behind closed doors:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=99181#post99181

Thanks and Enjoy!

rjmaz1 said:

A british ship detected an F-117 in the first gulf war.

Click to expand...

the platform doctrine (SOP) for GW1 dictated that F117's be comms cold when over allied/blue/open assets. like the rapier incident, the plane would have been in a non LO config due to SOPs. Thats why their antenna(s) are folded when on mission finals, as even the antenna(s) not seated properly will lift their visibility.

when running missions they are given a predefined corridor. all other assets are cleared from that corridor - they are not told why. the NOTAM just says no entry. again, I point out that F15's with look down capability and WVR could not and did not see (electronically) F117's inbound when in transit on a lower corridor. Some of those pilots indicated that they obviously looked for the plane as they knew that a closed corridor during a hot war meant something special was inbound. they literally did not see them even though they were WVR

rjmaz1 said:

A better question to ask is what systems has the F-117 flown against? Of course a 1970's radar will not detect it.

Click to expand...

Serbia was the most intense GBAD in modern times - only the russians are able to field a more focussed effort and the general view was that they would not have had the same level of GBAD saturation as they were not at war. If you think that Serbia was 1970's GBAD, then you are sorely mistaken. If you think that Bagdhad was a milk run, then again you're either being technically negligent, or you are pulling things out again.

As for Serbia and the golden bb, If it wasn't for major brunel, cavalier pilot planning and a lateral thinking serbia ground commander, the odds are that the plane would not have been detected.

rjmaz1 said:

Unescorted the B-1b is toast and the B-2 is at risk.

Click to expand...

How? In light of how missions for deep strike are planned, in light of the fact that there is no public information on what defensive systems the B1 has access to and can deploy, or what sympathetic systems are available en-route, then I wonder what makes you so sure.

The USAF is not in the habit of detailing what responses and systems they have access to. (which is why any discussion that talks about single platform capability is a joke) Again, the full capability of F117 wasn't starting toleak until some 10 years after GW1, and at that stage it was already regarded as being less LO than the F-22. Now we know that the F-22 is superior to the F117 in LO.

Maj Brunel was the French military officers convicted for treason for giving air traffic information to the Serbs.

Serbs also had spies near the Airbase in Italy providing details of Nato traffic to Serb air defenses.

Any idea what happened to the shot down F-117? I don't recall the downed aircraft being targeted for destruction after it crashed. I have seen photos of Serb soldiers standing on the wreckage. I assume the Chinese got it in lieu of the support they provide the Serbs in the conflict.

Was the B-1 not originally designed to be supersonic but was scaled back to technical difficulties/ cost over runs? And would you call a B-1 stealth? LO? I have never really heard it called either?

Mikestro said:

Any idea what happened to the shot down F-117? I don't recall the downed aircraft being targeted for destruction after it crashed. I have seen photos of Serb soldiers standing on the wreckage. I assume the Chinese got it in lieu of the support they provide the Serbs in the conflict.

Click to expand...

No idea. the tech was not regarded as sensitive in the sense that the F-22 has a lower detection and emissions profile. Some of the tech has been available in commercial airliners for the last 8-10 years (Magoo might be able to add more light on this, but it was hilighted in congress as a result of technology transfer issues. One of the arguments hilighted was that some of Boeings current airliners were using superior technology that made F117 technology issues redundant

Mikestro said:

Was the B-1 not originally designed to be supersonic but was scaled back to technical difficulties/ cost over runs? And would you call a B-1 stealth? LO? I have never really heard it called either?

Click to expand...

Not sure I've argued that B1 is stealth or LO. In contemporary terms for the period it was LO, but its not LO in current contemp comparisons. ie, its relative.

original B1 was supersonic until the programme got hammered by carter (??). The plane was derated to keep the project alive. (Thanks to Reagan)

My concern with the remaining technology on the downed F-117 was the surface coatings mainly, and other items/tech that contribute to stealth. I understand many components were from other non stealth US military aircraft. I am just interested in potential adversaries developing stealth/LO aircraft or countermeasures.

Mikestro said:

My concern with the remaining technology on the downed F-117 was the surface coatings mainly, and other items/tech that contribute to stealth. I understand many components were from other non stealth US military aircraft. I am just interested in potential adversaries developing stealth/LO aircraft or countermeasures.

Click to expand...

I think that this was actually the whole issue behind the congressional concerns.

it was regarded that commercial airliners actually have a greater tech edge as far as laminates and compounds are concerned . hence the loss of materials in the shootdown was not regarded as a major event in tech leakage terms..

others better informed on specifics might add further detail

Mikestro said:

Maj Brunel was the French military officers convicted for treason for giving air traffic information to the Serbs....

Click to expand...

Oh no, not this old internet myth again. . .

Pierre-Henri Bunel (not Brunel) was convicted in December 2001 of passing secret documents to a Serb officer in 1998. He was arrested on 19th October 1998, so unless he was able to obtain, & pass on, air traffic information from his cell, he did not give the Serbs any information on what NATO was doing during the air campaign, as it didn't begin until 24th March 1999. Since it was known what he'd handed over (perhaps even before his arrest), I can't imagine any of it was of any immediate tactical use to the Serbs. Its only value can have been to indicate the kind of campaign NATO was thinking of waging, & that NATO was making serious plans. The Serbs clearly chose to disregard the latter.

Tried to post this late last night (early this morning?)

Mikestro said:

My concern with the remaining technology on the downed F-117 was the surface coatings mainly, and other items/tech that contribute to stealth. I understand many components were from other non stealth US military aircraft. I am just interested in potential adversaries developing stealth/LO aircraft or countermeasures.

Click to expand...

IIRC shortly after the F-117 was downed, a Russian transport flew into Serbia to pick up pieces of the aircraft. From what I remember, while there was some concern at the time, the US wasn't all that alarmed. At the time, the use of composites was (is) expanding in non-milspec aircraft, and Russia wasn't in a position to "make a composite bike frame, nevermind an aircraft" or words to that effect. I haven't heard of China getting any parts from the F-117. As for the onboard avionics, etc. I'd be disturbed if the Russians were able to gain anything valueable from them... AFAIK the F-117 was sort of an adhoc project where existing (at the time) components like F-104 avionics was used, instead of developing specific new components just for the F-117. Incidentally, I believe part of the F-117 retirement decision has to do with the rise in operating/maintenance costs and corresponding decline in aircraft availability due to age of legacy onboard systems.

As for the "increase" in radar power and ability to detect LO aircraft... I'm no expert, but I see a number of problems with this assertion

rjmaz1 said:

When the B-2 entered service it would have been a piece of cake to strike anywhere inside Russia or China. The B-2 has been operational for more than a decade, radar power has improved 1000 fold since its introduction. Stealth aircraft are starting to be detected further and further away. During the Gulf War very few radars in the world were powerful enough to detect the F-117 at a useful range. Now alot of radar systems across the world can detect the F-117 at beyond visual range.

Click to expand...

From what I'm aware of, the relationship between power/detection range vs. RCS is not linear, i.e. a 1kW radar has a detection range of 10km vs. a 1 sq m target, but a 4 kW radar does not have a 40km detection range against the same target. Instead, the detection range might only be 20km. Or in other words, to double the range, the emitter needs quadruple the power. (Please note, all data and examples supplied by the WAG Institute )

Another problem with simply increasing radar output to detect LO targets, is that there will be an increase in the numbers of radar returns received. Most radars are tuned to ignore certain ranges of radar return, because returns of different sizes are assumed to be something other than what the operator is trying to locate, such as a bird in flight. It might be possible for something like a weather radar array to detect a LO target, since those radars IIRC are tuned to detecting smaller and more difuse radar returns, though the system is likely to confuse the LO target with natural phenomenom like clouds, etc.

Again, not an expert so if there's anything wrong here with the info, by all means set me straight.

-Cheers

swerve said:

Oh no, not this old internet myth again. . .

Pierre-Henri Bunel (not Brunel) was convicted in December 2001 of passing secret documents to a Serb officer in 1998. He was arrested on 19th October 1998, so unless he was able to obtain, & pass on, air traffic information from his cell, he did not give the Serbs any information on what NATO was doing during the air campaign, as it didn't begin until 24th March 1999. Since it was known what he'd handed over (perhaps even before his arrest), I can't imagine any of it was of any immediate tactical use to the Serbs. Its only value can have been to indicate the kind of campaign NATO was thinking of waging, & that NATO was making serious plans. The Serbs clearly chose to disregard the latter.

Click to expand...

To add some further clarity to this.

My clear understanding is that Maj Brunel was never directly linked to the shootdown. the problem was that Brunel was part of a cohort of senior officers who sympathised with the serbs and who were unable to be identified. Brunel was clearly regarded as being part of a cohort as information provided was outside his provence of access, and so could only have come from other officers.

my point, (in raising his name) was that the F117 being downed was a legacy of multiple systems failures (systems in the process sense, not platform sense), as well as a very competent lateral thinking ground commander.

again, LO aircraft are not invisible or invincible, they have an operational edge that needs to be neutralised if challenged. In the case of the Serb shootdown, all those opportunities converged.

gf0012-aust said:

To add some further clarity to this.

My clear understanding is that Maj Brunel was never directly linked to the shootdown. the problem was that Brunel was part of a cohort of senior officers who sympathised with the serbs and who were unable to be identified. Brunel was clearly regarded as being part of a cohort as information provided was outside his provence of access, and so could only have come from other officers.

my point, (in raising his name) was that the F117 being downed was a legacy of multiple systems failures (systems in the process sense, not platform sense), as well as a very competent lateral thinking ground commander.

again, LO aircraft are not invisible or invincible, they have an operational edge that needs to be neutralised if challenged. In the case of the Serb shootdown, all those opportunities converged.

Click to expand...

Bunels (BTW, why persist with the r - his name isn't Brunel) defence was that he was ordered to hand over the documents as part of an attempt to make the Serbs back down, by showing them that NATO was serious. That was rejected by the court, but one never knows. He did get a light sentence.

I reacted the way I did because I've often seen the F-117 shooting attributed directly to him, & it looked superficially like another instance of that error.

Agreed about the F-117. The Germans are reported to have lost rather more UAVs than they should have done, & got far less information than they should have done from those the Serbs didn't shoot down, for much the same reasons.