USAF to Pay US$7.4 Billion to Upgrade F-22 jets

[gambit]

I know this is a theoretical question more than anything...if we leave aside the unquestionable superiority the USAF enjoys and, for the sake of argument, have the Russians and Chinese go at it with their low observable aircraft and you have similar detection distances...would medium range missiles still play a decisive role? In other words, in a stealth on stealth fight between any nations, except the US, produce BVR combat consistently?

No. In my opinion, other than US, a 'stealth' on 'stealth' engagement will result in a within-visual-range fight. Against US, we will have the BVR advantage. And sorry, am not saying any more about this. We already know how to deal with the F-117 while it was active duty.

---------- Post added at 02:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:29 PM ----------

Wire a bunch of radars along with S-300, S-400 then F-22 will be visible any moment. So far, F-22 "stealth" is only proven to outsiders against a bunch of banana republics with ancient hardwares.

How?? please explain

Yes, please explain. This I will enjoy seeing and probably debunking.

 

[ViXuyen]

No. In my opinion, other than US, a 'stealth' on 'stealth' engagement will result in a within-visual-range fight. Against US, we will have the BVR advantage. And sorry, am not saying any more about this. We already know how to deal with the F-117 while it was active duty.

---------- Post added at 02:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:29 PM ----------


Yes, please explain. This I will enjoy seeing and probably debunking.

More sets of radars mean you can extend the range of coverage and create a larger network of overlapping; hench you can detect the F-22 much sooner than just say having just one set of radar.

 

[gambit]

More sets of radars mean you can extend the range of coverage and create a larger network of overlapping; hench you can detect the F-22 much sooner than just say having just one set of radar.

Wrong. All wrong. Try again.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Hey gambit.. are you a fighter pilot?

 

[ViXuyen]

Wrong. All wrong. Try again.

Ok, then explain to us.

Just state your opinion if you think F-22 can penetrate Moscow or Beijing airdefence network nor not?

 

[Bharthi]

More sets of radars mean you can extend the range of coverage and create a larger network of overlapping; hench you can detect the F-22 much sooner than just say having just one set of radar.

This is a good method ,for a defensive strategy.I guess.

 

[gambit]

Hey gambit.. are you a fighter pilot?

No.

Just state your opinion if you think F-22 can penetrate Moscow or Beijing airdefence network nor not?

Yes to both. With ease.

 

[ViXuyen]

No.


Yes to both. With ease.

What makes you think the F-22 will not show up in the thick layer of radars of those two cities?

 

[gambit]

What makes you think the F-22 will not show up in the thick layer of radars of those two cities?

Because it is 'stealth'?

 

[ViXuyen]

Because it is 'stealth'?

"Stealth" will become non-stealth when it flies into a thick network of radars of those two cities.

 

[Jon Snow]

Although i never doubted the capabilities of the F-22, i have to say that shooting down eight planes would never happen... the moment you fire the first missile you made the enemy aware.

The APG can engage multiple enemies..... so it wont be the first shot - it will be 8 shots at 8 targets

 

[gambit]

"Stealth" will become non-stealth when it flies into a thick network of radars of those two cities.

Overlapping coverage is not good. The stations can jam each other. So all radar net inevitably have gaps. Plus, radar coverage is line-of-sight, meaning the lower the antenna height, the shorter the coverage range. Terrain create gaps. Meteorological phenomena create distractions. The list of weaknesses is already considerable and 'stealth' will expand that list even more.

 

[ViXuyen]

Overlapping coverage is not good. The stations can jam each other. So all radar net inevitably have gaps. Plus, radar coverage is line-of-sight, meaning the lower the antenna height, the shorter the coverage range. Terrain create gaps. Meteorological phenomena create distractions. The list of weaknesses is already considerable and 'stealth' will expand that list even more.

How about adding over-the-horizon radar to extend range coverage?

 

[gambit]

How about adding over-the-horizon radar to extend range coverage?

I wrote many explanations on basic radar principles here. You need to look them up and read them. But to respond to you now: No, extending coverage range will not help.

 

[amalakas]

How about adding over-the-horizon radar to extend range coverage?

Russians have radars that can provide an initial "ping" on a LO target, so they are fairly confident they will know when a stealth aircraft has entered their airspace. What they have a real problem with is tracking said targets in a way as effective for air defence as with non LO craft. They have gaps in their network, yes, but I don't think an F22 would get to moscow easily.
I know for a fact the S-300 radar can track accurately enough for a shot, targets the size of a tomahawk at about 60-80 miles out... but I don't remember any F-22 flying into our network to see if it comes on the screen.

Now beijing .. I am not so sure about, I think an F-22 would make a proper air show over china before anyone knew it was there.