PAF and the JXX Fifth Gen Fighter

[gambit]

Merry Christmas to ol' curmudgeon Gambit. While you possess a repertoire of military knowledge, your enthusiasm caused you to lose this skirmish (e.g. my opinion). It's okay to be wrong every now and then. No one is perfect.

I wish you my best.

Best regards,

Martin

The person who lost is YOU, as in credibility. You have no military experience and that immediately place you at a disadvantage when we are talking about training. Nowhere have I disputed the fact that an IR-type missile cannot be used, but the issue here is how low observable the F-22 is in the radar sensory regime and that was why I brought up the Red Flag example. When a pilot said within 'visual' range, it does not mean his opponent filled his vision, but rather that he can distinguish his opponent from background clutter and from among other aircrafts in the area, if there are any. So against the F-22, it make no sense for any opposition pilot to lie about his inability to get a radar lock. If he can, then everyone will know about it. If he cannot and lie, then everyone will know about it. This is Red Flag where aircrafts are equipped with recorders, not some air junket in China where Photochop skills are expected of participants.

 

[gambit]

You're hopeless.

Nope...It is YOU who are hopeless.

Let me address your latest point. As previously posted, I informed Gambit that RAAF squadron leader Chappell gave absolutely no details in the article on the Red Flag exercise. The only thing that we know for a fact is that Mr. Chappell was within eyeball range of the F-22.

Here is what he actually said...

Raptor debuts at Red Flag, dominates skies

"The thing denies your ability to put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it through the canopy," said RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, F-15 exchange pilot in the 65th AS. "It's the most frustrated I've ever been."

Stop using hyperboles to exaggerate yourself. Eyeball......Yeah...You are indeed hopeless.

Mr. Chappell and Gambit both gushed about the invincibility of the F-22.

Care to show where the word 'invincible' was used by me?

I indirectly reprimanded Gambit for his unprofessional fanboy response to Mr. Chappell's unsubstantiated claim.

You 'reprimanded' me?

As I reminded Gambit and of which he is fully aware, a F-22 is most vulnerable in close combat. Mr. Chappell's claim is hard-to-believe and he gave us no information to support his assertion that a F-22 is unbeatable in close combat. It is simply hogwash.

Any competent combat pilot would have attempted to maneuver behind the F-22 in close combat and use the F-15's cannons or AIM-9X Sidewinder to win the Red Flag exercise. Mr. Chappell is either incompetent or a fanboy of the F-22.

This is peace time training, we do not shoot live weapons at each other in training. And we do not 'win' at Red Flag.

That's it. I'm done repeating myself.

It is understandable that one could get tired from repeating the same debunked garbage.

 

[Thomas]

I don't understand. I thought jammers only jammed radars.

Sidewinders are heatseekers that passively detect IR, how would you jam them?

I know F-22 has IR reducing technology, but these only reduce the IR signature - not eliminate it. I also read somewhere that IR sensors (QWIP) are being developed that can detect cooler objects at much greater distances (BVR). Many experts predict that these new QWIP sensors will be game changers.

Don't modern IR missiles have flare decoy avoiding ability as well?

The F-22 can use it's ASEA radar to disrupt radar locks. it is something that has been known for some time.

The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

"When operating as a radar, the AN/APG-77 transmits waveforms that change from burst to burst, and are sent at random frequencies. Such a changing signal is very difficult for an enemy to detect and analyze. If adversaries do manage to detect the signal, they must then try to get a radar lock on the F-22 so it can be attacked. The F-22's stealthiness makes this tricky in the first place, but to make matters more troublesome, the AESA also analyses the enemy's radar and sends out a jamming burst to disrupt the lock. The AESA then goes on to other tasks until the enemy radar begins its lock cycle again. "


As far as IR protection global security has a nice technical description of how this is attained with the F-22

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-stealth.htm

 

[siegecrossbow]

The F-22 can use it's ASEA radar to disrupt radar locks. it is something that has been known for some time.

The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

"When operating as a radar, the AN/APG-77 transmits waveforms that change from burst to burst, and are sent at random frequencies. Such a changing signal is very difficult for an enemy to detect and analyze. If adversaries do manage to detect the signal, they must then try to get a radar lock on the F-22 so it can be attacked. The F-22's stealthiness makes this tricky in the first place, but to make matters more troublesome, the AESA also analyses the enemy's radar and sends out a jamming burst to disrupt the lock. The AESA then goes on to other tasks until the enemy radar begins its lock cycle again. "

This is really interesting. In effect the radar itself could be used as a
"directed energy weapon of sorts". Thnx for the post.

 

[siegecrossbow]

I don't understand. I thought jammers only jammed radars.

Sidewinders are heatseekers that passively detect IR, how would you jam them?

I know this may sound stupid but technically couldn't you disrupt the IR sensor with a highpowered laser (for future fighters)? I think they are working on a system mounted on helicopters.

 

[Thomas]

This is really interesting. In effect the radar itself could be used as a
"directed energy weapon of sorts". Thnx for the post.

Most of the electronic warfare ability of the AESA is a closely guarded secret. Theoreticly it can actually fry SAM radars as well.

 

[gambit]

I know this may sound stupid but technically couldn't you disrupt the IR sensor with a highpowered laser (for future fighters)? I think they are working on a system mounted on helicopters.

Already deployed...

AN/ALQ-144 Countermeasures Set [CMS]

The AN/ALQ-144 system is an omni-directional active infrared Countermeasures Set which protects the EH-1H, EH-1X, EH-60A, MH-60K, UH-60A, AH-1F, AH-64A, OV-1D, and RV-1D aircraft from air-to-air and ground-to-air heat seeking (infrared) missiles.

 

[SomeGuy]

I know this may sound stupid but technically couldn't you disrupt the IR sensor with a highpowered laser (for future fighters)? I think they are working on a system mounted on helicopters.

Already deployed...

AN/ALQ-144 Countermeasures Set [CMS]

Wouldn't such a device mounted on a stealth fighter become counter productive to stealth though?

 

[link16]

the phototype may not settle ASEA radar, it just test aerodynamics and structure ! I think !

 

[SomeGuy]

The F-22 can use it's ASEA radar to disrupt radar locks. it is something that has been known for some time.

The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

"When operating as a radar, the AN/APG-77 transmits waveforms that change from burst to burst, and are sent at random frequencies. Such a changing signal is very difficult for an enemy to detect and analyze. If adversaries do manage to detect the signal, they must then try to get a radar lock on the F-22 so it can be attacked. The F-22's stealthiness makes this tricky in the first place, but to make matters more troublesome, the AESA also analyses the enemy's radar and sends out a jamming burst to disrupt the lock. The AESA then goes on to other tasks until the enemy radar begins its lock cycle again. "

Interesting.

Would missiles employing passive detection modes be affected by this jamming? I read somewhere that newer missiles such as PL-12/SD-10 has passive modes that can home in on EW emissions without using the launch aircrafts radar or its own active seeker.

As far as IR protection global security has a nice technical description of how this is attained with the F-22

F-22 Stealth

Yet IR detection remains a factor that enemies will look to exploit, no?

 

[SQ8]

Off course the fans mate, after seeing this pic, I see PAF fans are changing to Jxx than their previous stand of JF-17 + J-10+F16.

I think earlier I only hear from T-Faz to go to Jxx instead of J-10, but that time, hardly any takers for that..

Well..
Let them have their fun then..even if for a grainy picture.

 

[Storm Force]

For Pakistan the problem is balancing their Finances.

If They go for 200 Thunders with steady improvement its fine but it will eat up $4 billion in 10 years ie 2010-2020.

That will leave some careful juggling to do ie

FC20 X 36 OR 72 = $1.5 OR $3 BILLION

or more used F16s on the cheap with some more F16.52 thrown in

Save the money and buy a $70-$90m JXX IN 2020

 

[gambit]

Wouldn't such a device mounted on a stealth fighter become counter productive to stealth though?

It would depend on how such a device is designed and deployed on a body like an F-22. On a helo, the rotors pretty much negate any low radar observability the helo's body may be shaped to be that way, so it would not matter much as to how such an infrared countermeasure device may look like.

 

[gambit]

Interesting.

Would missiles employing passive detection modes be affected by this jamming? I read somewhere that newer missiles such as PL-12/SD-10 has passive modes that can home in on EW emissions without using the launch aircrafts radar or its own active seeker.

Electronics CounterMeasures (ECM) is broad in definition, so for proper context here, let us add the word 'active' for clarity's sake.

Active ECM is when there are transmissions intended to reduce the effectiveness of other transmissions. Active ECM can be preemptive or responsive. A 'beamrider' missile operate in the 'passive' mode, meaning it does not produce any transmissions for target discrimination but relies on the generosity of EM transmitters in the immediate area to lead it to a transmission source. If there are data on transmission signatures, the missile can be programmed to change direction towards the general direction of a particular signature, even if there are multiple transmissions/signatures in the area. But that is another issue/discussion altogether.

Remember...

The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

...the AESA also analyses the enemy's radar and sends out a jamming burst to disrupt the lock.

The 'beamrider' missile does not transmit, so there is nothing to 'analyze' and to counter. So if there are no transmissions, be it from a seeking radar operation or from a responsive ECM operation, a missile in 'beamrider' mode will have nothing to go by.

Yet IR detection remains a factor that enemies will look to exploit, no?

EM transmissions are 'at will', meaning the aircraft can chose to transmit a radar or not, to talk or not. But if the engine is shut off, then the aircraft become severely limited in operation. That mean for now infrared emissions can be reduced but not eliminated. The method of reduction varies but the vulnerability remains, albeit in lesser degree.

There is a necessary context to the word 'reduction' here and it can be difficult to understand...

Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Engine exhaust passes over the aircraft's horizontal stabilizer and between the twin tails, decreasing the A-10's infrared signature and lowering the likelihood that the aircraft can be targeted by heat-seeking missiles.

The A-10's engine exhaust infrared output is not being negated at the source, meaning the aircraft itself, but the infrared emissions have been made more difficult to 'view', in a manner of speaking, by the engines' placement. As the IR sensor moves from direct view to either sides or to below the aircraft, its IR detection has been 'reduced' and that is the proper context of the word.

It is very rare that an IR seeker will be in such direct view of an IR source, as in action movies situations rare. That is why IR seeker technologies are being constantly researched and upgraded whenever possible to exploit those high off-axis angles of detection, made worse because those engine IR sources are highly maneuverable themselves.

 

[SQ8]

Uh gambit.. would not the newer generation IR seekers that pick up the heat at the leading edges and in some cases the complete airframe itself..ala.. Python 5...or 9x..negate the IR suppression advantage??