| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Tech | |
| Measuring the F-22 Advantage | |
| 2005-05-11 | |
| May 11, 2005: How far ahead of the pack is the F-22? Especially when compared to European fighters like the Rafale, Eurofighter, and Gripen? This is something that matters a lot to the Air Force, which thinks the F-22 is vital to maintaining air superiority — replacing the F-15C as soon as possible, even at the expense of reducing the buy of the F-35. How valid is the Air Force's claim? First, one needs to look at how visible the aircraft in question are on radar. The F-15C is probably the most visible, entering service just as Lockheed began work on the F-117 Nighthawk. The Rafale and Eurofighter have taken steps to reduce their radar-cross section from the front. The Gripen has not had as much work on this front. The F-22, however, has the lowest radar-cross section and has it on all aspects. It also has another major advantage in this regard when compared to these European fighters: the F-22 carries its weapons internally, while all three of the European fighters carry the weapons externally. While some missiles like the Storm Shadow and SCALP have reduced radar cross-sections, some weapons still reflect radar well. This means that the Rafale and Eurofighter will still be at a huge disadvantage. The next question is how good the radars are. The F-15's APG-70 has been upgraded over the years, to the point where it can distinguish an aircraft using Non-Cooperative Target Recognition (NCTR). The Air Force does not reveal much about the system, but NCTR is said to be capable of revealing the model and even variations on a given model of a target being tracked by radar. The Rafale's RBE2 is capable of searching out and tracking targets in the air and on the ground or sea, as well as classifying those targets, and it also is a low-probability of intercept radar, which means that it can track targets with less chance of the target knowing it is a target. The Eurofighter's CAPTOR (a variant of the Blue Vixen used on the retiring Sea Harrier F/A.2s) has a unique three-channel system that gives it additional ability in electronic counter-counter measures (ECCM) as well as air-search and surface-search capabilities. The F-22's radar is designed to use spread spectrum transmission to locate and track targets before they even know the F-22 is there. The F-22 also has the most advanced NCTR system put into a fighter aircraft. Finally, how good are the countermeasures? The Rafale, Gripen, and Eurofighter rely on active jamming systems. These put out energy to distract radar. However, these systems will still advertise the presence of the aircraft and provide ample warning. These days, missiles can be programmed to home in on jamming — and that means life could be exciting and short for pilots who use them. The F-22, on the other hand, does not rely on jammers as much as they rely on diverting and absorbing radar waves. Comparing these systems is difficult, since information about systems used in electronic warfare (including jamming and systems like NCTR) is usually classified. Even though stealth is wrapped in cloaks of secrecy, two things are apparent: First, the United States has a significant head start on stealth technology — mostly because of the head start of ten to fifteen years that was gained by the successful protection of the F-117's gestation. France is working on a stealthy UAV, which will supposedly have a lower RCS than the F-22 or F-35, but that is not yet proven. The United Kingdom is also rumored to be working on a stealth aircraft called HALO, with D-Notices allegedly being issued to press outlets to keep sightings from making news. Second, the stealth race is on, and efforts are being made to catch up with the United States.
| |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #15 Your info is wrong and/or out of date Chuck. The Air Force does not use the sparrow anymore. The AAMRAM AIM-120 missle is used now and has greater range and kill ration than the sparrow. It is nicknamed the "slammer", since it has never missed in air-to-air combat. Last count I am aware of is that it was fired 9 times and resulted in 9 kills. Better than the 20% kill rate of the sparrow. The F-22 also is MUCH faster than the F-15. It can go supersonic without afterburners and with the gas punched on reaches past mach 2.5 (real top speed is classified). |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-05-12 00:03 |
| #14 CS: F-22 is slower than the F-15, and its missles don't have enough range when compared to Russians and to the Sparrow. Actually, I believe the F-22 and the F-15 have top speeds of 2462.4 mph and 1600 mph respectively. What's more important is that the F-22 can cruise at 1100 mph, which the F-15 requires turning on the (gas-guzzling) afterburners to do. Bottom line is that the F-22 can go further and faster - pretty much what an air superiority fighter is all about. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-05-11 23:03 |
| #13 Mr. Simmins: Stealth may be worth the trade-offs. After all, our subs are slower and cannot dive as deeply as those of the Russians, but are far quieter and have better sensors. Submarines are not aircraft (really!), but I'd bet there are similarities. Think of the advantages of being so difficult to find. Plus, if you restrict yourself to using an RWR to find him, and an AIM-9X rather than an AIM-120C, they don't even see it coming. There are a lot of advantages to be purely passive, especially if you have ground radars or an AWACS (or UAVs) to do the active stuff. Will those advantages overcome the aerodynamic and cost penalties? I have no idea. |
| Posted by: jackal 2005-05-11 22:28 |
| #12 F-22 is slower than the F-15, and its missles don't have enough range when compared to Russians and to the Sparrow. It can't outrun a MIG-29 or a MIG-31. We've gone slower and with less reach in order to get stealth. I'm not convinced it's a good trade. |
| Posted by: Chuck Simmins 2005-05-11 20:38 |
| #11 Aussies OK and Brits (if they put Galloway's head on a pike, eject the worst of the Islamists, and bar the EU from getting near one). No canucks (out of spite at the gov't and elites, more than anything), although they don't have a need..... OK, that's my list |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-05-11 17:26 |
| #10 Japan's flying F-15Js now.... they were more advanced in their time than the F-22. I just figure the more build the more the USAF can afford. Besides, we keep some of the good stuff :) |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-05-11 16:58 |
| #9 Wrong there wasnt any Mirage 2000 in Iraq air force only Mirage F1s a 70's design; The US superiority in Iraq is more atributable to Comand and Control with Electronic Inteligence technology and assets= Awacs, Link16 sharing data , Elint Comint aircrafts etc. |
| Posted by: Hupomoque Spoluter7949 2005-05-11 14:57 |
| #8 No one,, shipman. Remember all the technology the Japanese companies sold to the USSR? I'd probably trust the Brits in isolation, but as they get further sucked into the EU, I'll trust them less and less, as they are less British and more European. Sorry, Bulldog; I'd trust you but not Gordon Brown. I'd probably trust the Aussies, but could they afford the F-22? |
| Posted by: Jackal 2005-05-11 14:51 |
| #7 [T]he F-22 carries its weapons internally, while all three of the European fighters carry the weapons externally. ... This means that the Rafale and Eurofighter will still be at a huge disadvantage. And the UK version of the Eurofighter doesn't even have an internal gun. Our Government, in its wisdom, saved the country a whopping £2m by eliminating the gun from our version of the aircraft. It's costing £87.5m to install a non-functioning gun, the functioning version of which would be £90m. It makes one proud. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2005-05-11 14:40 |
| #6 Australia? Japan? Israel? The UK? |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-05-11 13:27 |
| #5 good - don't let NATO have one. Exactly. The F-22 is for the USAF, and the USAF only. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-05-11 13:02 |
| #4 FrankG - Hopefully the US doesn't sell the F-22 to ANYBODY. We have already given enough high tech weapons to other countries, some of the countries are not are allies either. The F-16 and F-15 can and will still defeat any other aircraft out there except for the F-22, so sell other countries the older stuff. |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-05-11 13:02 |
| #3 good - don't let NATO have one. Jacques and Dominique will have their Chinese friends scouring it within 24 hrs |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-05-11 12:39 |
| #2 I've read a lot on the F-22 and have been watching closely since it won the contract. From everything I've seen, it is the most advanced and best fighter out there. The Stealth aspect will be viable for at least 15-20 years from now, while the Rafale and the Eurofighter are almost obsolete when it comes to stealth. I've also read reports from the pilots and mechanics of the Eurofighter that claim it is a huge piece of crap. Prone to breakdowns, hard to work on, shortage of parts (including sensor and jamming equipment that should have been installed on the plane), and not real user friendly (what do you expect from a commitee design?). The shortage of parts will be fixed when more aircraft will be brought online, but the other problems will remain. The Rafale, aside from its stealth, is no more advanced than the Mirage 2000, and the F-15 blew them out of the sky without difficulty during the Iraqi wars. I have also read rumors that the F-22 has a highly advanced infared scope which can detect targets up to 15 nautical miles (don't know if it is true or not). This capability, along with real time feads from JSTARS would allow the F-22 to track and fire at targets without ever turning on its own, highly advanced radar system. The AIM-120 anti-air missle has its own software to receive JSTAR information and launch and stear itself to the last know location of the enemy plane. The AIM-120 also has its own onboard radar tracking that it turns on 5 miles away from the last know position of the enemy plane for a final correction to target. All that tech put together spells real danger for any enemy who is foolish enough to send aircraft against the F-22, which is why the Air Force is so thrilled with the plane. |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-05-11 12:30 |
| #1 I prefer that we have a huge (and unshared) advantage over any eurofighters, inasmuch as China will likely be flying them against us in the next big confrontation. Thanks for nuthin', french assholes |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-05-11 10:26 |