You cant see the F-22. If you cant see it, you can have a ICBM that can shoot down aircraft and still be hapless against it. 20 J-11s can carry 200 PL-15s and they still will only see the F-22 when it comes within the range where their radars can generate a strong enough return from it. Considering it has the RCS close to a mosquito at some angles.. I highly doubt that any of your "fears" are placed in technical grounding.
How does one lock onto a stealth target, the phrase itself is self contradictory @gambit ?
The phrasing is problematic.
I have said in the past that in radar detection, nothing is invisible. The word 'stealth' is used to describe a target that is extremely difficult for most, and even impossible for some, radar systems to see. Those systems for which the word 'impossible' is applicable are so technically inadequate, as in old designs, that 'impossible' is the best descriptor for them. The target's signals are there. For those old systems, there is nothing to be done for them.
We all know by now that effective detection range of any target is highly dependent upon the receiver's sophistication, so that mean a target's RCS and its effective detection range varies from radar to radar.
If you have 100 identical radars in 100 identical fighters, you will have 100 identical level of difficulty (or ease) of detection of any target. If fighter number 1 can detect the Goodyear blimp at 200 km, fighters number 2 to 100 will have the same result.
Now spread out those 100 or 1000 fighters over several countries and air forces and you will have many air forces around the world having the same level of ease of detecting the Goodyear blimp at 10 or 100 or 200 km distance.
When the word 'stealth' is used to describe target X, it is to describe the
INITIAL impression that X will be difficult to detect for
MOST systems out there. It means that if I claim that I can detect X, in order to separate myself from my competitors, I must say something about X that will at least imply that my competitors are some ways inadequate to mine, and the best way to do that is point out that X is
ALREADY difficult for them. Then to describe mine, I will continue to use the word 'stealth', as in "I can detect 'stealthy' targets."
I am saying that X is 'stealth' for them, but not for me. It is very much a sales pitch.
Basic radar detection will have
EVERYONE detect X at 10 km distance, but how would mentioning that make my product more attractive ? It does not.
But how can I prove that I can detect X at a much greater distance than everyone else ? I cannot simply because I do not have access to their products to make any credible technical comparison to mine. Worse yet, what if I do have access to their products and it turned out theirs are better than mine ?
Laboratory conditions are not merely useful but necessary in the development of anything, whether it is a new tire tread design or a new jet fighter. But laboratory conditions are controlled environment with incremental releases of factors that are not under the authority of the experimenter. First you test the new tire under dry conditions, then you add water, then loose gravel, and so on. You do not know when the driver will encounter wet or non-paved roads, correct ?
Does anyone have the F-22 in his possession to start ? The real F-22 under the command of a pilot with instructions to do everything in his power to evade detection is the ultimate uncontrolled and unpredictable factor.
So whenever I read, on this forum or anywhere else, that so-and-so country claimed to be able to detect the F-22, then the claimant gleefully use what happened to one F-117 in Yugoslavia as example, I just move on.
Thanks for your input. What I really wanted to ask is in an air to air encounter what is a typical loadout of say an F16 and an F 15/18. The only reason for asking this question is in relation to the need for more hardpoints. My contention is that if you have a dual ejector rack you could potentially have 4 BVR +2WVRs on a typical A2A encounter and this would be what most ACs would be carrying in any case. So do you see any advantage in carrying for instance 6 AMRAAMS instead of 4 and what are the chances of an Airman actually using all 6 AMRAAMS effectively in an encounter. Obviously please shàreonly that which you are comfortable sharing on an open forum.
Your loadout will depends on your mission, even if your sortie is air-air, as much as we can assign any level of 'typical-ness' to it.
For example, if you are doing intercepts and you are required to
VISUALLY ascertain targets, then most likely any encounter you have will be WVR. A BVR missile will have different flight and fusing conditions than something short range like an IR guided AIM-9. On the other hand, if your intercepts are under war time conditions, meaning your targets are already assured as hostiles, or will be so assured from a third party assist like an AWACS, then more BVR type missiles would better.
More hardpoints will give you greater flexibility no matter what.
A multiple ejector rack (MER), whether for bombs or missiles, does come with a caution...
"A-4 Weapons Racks" | A-4 Skyhawk Association
The sequence for weapons released off of a TER are 1. Aft Center, 2. Forward Center, 3. Aft Left, 4. Forward Left, 5. Aft Right, and 6. Forward Right.
Unlike the movies, there are specific and unique release sequences, depending on designs. For an MER, the general consensus is that the munition that is lowest is dispensed first.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/JDAM_GBU30_MER.jpg
If you fire and the missile, or bomb, become 'hung', then you have a serious problem on your hand. Yes, your weapons system overall should be sophisticated enough to auto-select for you the next available munition, but every pilot is always afraid that if one munition became 'hung' on a rack, others maybe as well. In a way, it is better to have one 'hung' munition on a hardpoint than on a rack.
. Sorry, the conversation was getting so heated that I thought I'd throw in a tension breaker!!
