Question about the F-22 and it's radar.

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...

Eh? The E-8 is operating at that range--you think that the range error of
the E-8's ISAR itself increases significantly through the depth of its
coverage? The platform doing the weapons release would have to be about on
top of the target. This configuration, using AMSTE, was credited with a
successful strike in its first test drop, from what I have read. Of interest
would be how much the E-8 "sees"--can it also pick up the aircraft dropping
the munition (regular JDAM in this case)(as I believe the follow-on E-10
will be able to do)? If so, then it would appear to offer the dropping
aircraft the same accuracy enhancement that its own SAR would afford--the
E-8 would have the target and the delivery platform in the same frame of
reference, so any ranging error would be largely negated?

Brooks

You are contradicting your fatuous "facts(?)" brooks. Now you are
saying the the E-8 and E-10 will participate directly in putting
ordnance on target. In a previous post you spouted this "fact(?)":
"The fact that the USAF,USN, USA, etc., are not going to place those
assets
in a situation of undue risk is patently obvious."

Meanwhile, suppliers to potential adversaries are realizing a market
to counter tactics you are postulating...
http://www.ainonline.com/Publication...1agatpg85.html
"If used on a long-range missile airframe, the ARGS-PD could give an
opposing air force the ability to take out strategic targets at
distances outside of the normal interception envelopes of U.S. or
other NATO fighters. Boeing E-3 AWACS or E-8 JSTARS aircraft–platforms
that U.S. forces depend heavily upon in time of conflict–would be
vulnerable as never before."

The long range missle airframes are in development as well, despite
your
"facts(?)"...
"Russian guided-weapons builder Novator is continuing to work, albeit
slowly, on an ultralong-range air-to-air missile, with a version on
offer for export to a select customer set.
Designated article 172, the weapon was included on a model of the
Su-35 derivative of the Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker, on display during the
Dubai air show.

Ground based threats also exist and are proliferating as well. Imagine
a cagey foe with some of these puppies who take real umbrage to
emitting aircraft wishing to do them harm...
http://in.news.yahoo.com/031020/43/28nkk.html
"Islamabad, Oct 20 (IANS) A Chinese missile termed an 'AWACS killer'
is to play a key role in Pakistan's strategy to counter the airborne
Phalcon radars that India is acquiring, media reports said Monday."

So which is it brooks? Either C4ISR assets are *never* put in harms
way? Or will we use them in hot tactical scenarios to target
ordanance?

Your "facts(?)" are mutually exclusive here.

sid wrote:
You are contradicting your fatuous "facts(?)" brooks. Now you are
saying the the E-8 and E-10 will participate directly in putting
ordnance on target. In a previous post you spouted this "fact(?)":
"The fact that the USAF,USN, USA, etc., are not going to place those
assets
in a situation of undue risk is patently obvious."

Naw, the F/A-22s will be the bomb droppers with Super Hornets providing
targetting and air to air cover and Growlers doing the jamming.

-HJC

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
sid wrote:
You are contradicting your fatuous "facts(?)" brooks. Now you are
saying the the E-8 and E-10 will participate directly in putting
ordnance on target. In a previous post you spouted this "fact(?)":
"The fact that the USAF,USN, USA, etc., are not going to place those
assets
in a situation of undue risk is patently obvious."

Naw, the F/A-22s will be the bomb droppers with Super Hornets providing
targetting and air to air cover and Growlers doing the jamming.

Henry, how on earth can you be a big fan of the Super Bug, with all of its
shortcomings? You don't like the F/A-22, you don't like the F-35, you
ridicule the USAF in general...yet you think the Super Bug is the creme de
la creme? It'd take three tankers to keep the Bugs within radio range of the
F/A-22...

And the gent (mercifully plonked a while back) who took exception with the
bit about the E-8 being involved has obviously not read the standoff
distance that this *test* was conducted at--about 100 km for the E-8, which
gives you plenty of leeway to keep the GMTI birds away from the teeth of the
threat (and it was mentioned that the Global hawk could also perform this
kind of support).

Brooks


-HJC

Kevin Brooks wrote:
Henry, how on earth can you be a big fan of the Super Bug, with all of its
shortcomings? You don't like the F/A-22, you don't like the F-35, you

I like the F-35.

ridicule the USAF in general...yet you think the Super Bug is the creme de
la creme? It'd take three tankers to keep the Bugs within radio range of the
F/A-22...

Given that your jammer options are EB-52 or G-18, who you gonna call?

-HJC

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
Henry, how on earth can you be a big fan of the Super Bug, with all of
its
shortcomings? You don't like the F/A-22, you don't like the F-35, you

I like the F-35.

ridicule the USAF in general...yet you think the Super Bug is the creme
de
la creme? It'd take three tankers to keep the Bugs within radio range of
the
F/A-22...

Given that your jammer options are EB-52 or G-18, who you gonna call?

Reliability - Availability - Revenue

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message And the gent (mercifully plonked a while back) who took exception with the
bit about the E-8 being involved has obviously not read the standoff
distance that this *test* was conducted at--about 100 km for the E-8, which
gives you plenty of leeway to keep the GMTI birds away from the teeth of the
threat (and it was mentioned that the Global hawk could also perform this
kind of support).

Brooks

Its a shame you didn't see the links that refute your precious
"facts(?)" brooks. In the interests of fair play...Choke on this
one...

You are contradicting your fatuous "facts(?)" brooks. Now you are
saying the the E-8 and E-10 will participate directly in putting
ordnance on target. In a previous post you spouted this "fact(?)":
"The fact that the USAF,USN, USA, etc., are not going to place those
assetsin a situation of undue risk is patently obvious."

Meanwhile, suppliers to potential adversaries are realizing a market
to counter tactics you are postulating...
http://www.ainonline.com/Publication...1agatpg85.html
"If used on a long-range missile airframe, the ARGS-PD could give an
opposing air force the ability to take out strategic targets at
distances outside of the normal interception envelopes of U.S. or
other NATO fighters. Boeing E-3 AWACS or E-8 JSTARS aircraft–platforms
that U.S. forces depend heavily upon in time of conflict–would be
vulnerable as never before."

Since the E-10 is nearly stillborn, the MP-RTIP equipped UAV is the
way to go.

"s.p.i." wrote in message
om...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message And the gent
(mercifully plonked a while back) who took exception with the
bit about the E-8 being involved has obviously not read the standoff
distance that this *test* was conducted at--about 100 km for the E-8,
which
gives you plenty of leeway to keep the GMTI birds away from the teeth of
the
threat (and it was mentioned that the Global hawk could also perform
this
kind of support).

Brooks

Its a shame you didn't see the links that refute your precious
"facts(?)" brooks. In the interests of fair play...Choke on this
one...

You are contradicting your fatuous "facts(?)" brooks. Now you are
saying the the E-8 and E-10 will participate directly in putting
ordnance on target. In a previous post you spouted this "fact(?)":
"The fact that the USAF,USN, USA, etc., are not going to place those
assetsin a situation of undue risk is patently obvious."

Whoever you are, you silly little cretin...go back and read the thread. The
E-8 was 100 klicks away, and has been credited with a maximum effective GMTI
range of some 200 plus klicks in an open source (FAS). Now where does that
require the E-8 to journey into a zone of "undue risk"? It can loiter fifty
klicks to the rear of the FLOT and still support engagements 150 klicks the
other side of the FLOT, you idiotic ninny.

Brooks

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...
Whoever you are, you silly little cretin...go back and read the
thread. The
E-8 was 100 klicks away, and has been credited with a maximum
effective GMTI
range of some 200 plus klicks in an open source (FAS). Now where does
that
require the E-8 to journey into a zone of "undue risk"? It can loiter
fifty
klicks to the rear of the FLOT and still support engagements 150
klicks the
other side of the FLOT, you idiotic ninny.

Sorry to disturb your cozy little world of "facts(?)" brooks...Well,
on second thought, no I'm not.
Ever hear of the S-300PMU brooks? S-400? What are their ranges brooks?
No wait, let me answer that for you brooks since I don't want reality
clouded by your "facts(?):
200km for the S-300 PMU and the S-400 400km. Thats f-o-u-r
h-u-n-d-r-e-d kilometers brooks.
How about the FT-2000 brooks?
Your head is too locked up in the Cold War set-piece scenarios of the
last century brooks. Your Korean Glory Days are H-I-S-T-O-R-Y brooks.
A more plausible-and troubling scenario is outlined below...Learn
something new brooks:
http://www.uscc.gov/researchreports/...leandspace.htm

If your artery-hardened peabrain absorbed that material. Try this one:
http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publicati...the_Anti-A.pdf
[T]he more worrisome challenge lies in so-called double-digit SAMs
such as the Russian S-300PMU-2 Favorit (the export version of the SAM
NATO codenamed the SA-10) and S-400 Triumph (codenamed the SA-20).12
To give a sense of the area-denial potential of these systems, the
S-300PMU-2 (or SA-10D) is credited with a maximum range of some 109
nautical miles (nm) (200 kilometers) using the 48N6E2 missile, and the
Russians have advertised that, with a new missile, the S-400 will have
a reach approaching 400 kilometers.

A related operational risk is that double-digit SAMs such as the SA-20
are designed for rapid relocation. In 1999 the Serbs, drawing on Iraqi
experiences in 1991, had considerable success using periodic
relocation of their SAMs over short distance to deny
precision-targeting information to NATO aircraft. In a full-blown AD
contingency involving advanced SAMs, one would expect that the use of
such tactics could result in F/A-22 pilots suddenly finding themselves
inside the burn-through distances of individual sites that had moved
while they were en route to their target areas. Without precise,
real-time surveillance of all existing SAM sites, which may well be
difficult to achieve, pop-up SA-10s or SA-20s could lead to unexpected
attrition, even of F/A-22s.

This prospect raises the broader issue of achieving persistent,
wide-area surveillance—especially against deep targets beyond the
range of the E-8C Joint Surveillance and Target Attack System
(JSTARS). Because JSTARS is hosted on a Boeing 707 airframe, it cannot
risk operating inside hostile or denied airspace. Using a standard
racetrack pattern located some 90 kilometers inside
friendly airspace, JSTARS can track moving targets to maximum depth of
less than 100 nm inside enemy territory.57 There is no reason,
however, why mobile launchers for ballistic missiles designed for AD
against US power-projection capabilities cannot be located deeper in
enemy territory. Further, combat experience in Iraq as well as
analytic simulations since 1991 have argued that near-continuous
surveillance over large areas is essential to have much chance of
targeting mobile-missile launchers after they have fired a missile,
much less of destroying them before they have fired at least once.

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
Henry, how on earth can you be a big fan of the Super Bug, with all of its
shortcomings? You don't like the F/A-22, you don't like the F-35, you
ridicule the USAF in general...yet you think the Super Bug is the creme de
la creme? It'd take three tankers to keep the Bugs within radio range of the
F/A-22...

And the gent (mercifully plonked a while back) who took exception with the
bit about the E-8 being involved has obviously not read the standoff
distance that this *test* was conducted at--about 100 km for the E-8, which
gives you plenty of leeway to keep the GMTI birds away from the teeth of the
threat (and it was mentioned that the Global hawk could also perform this
kind of support).

Brooks

Your "fact(?)" based assumption that the E-8 (and other "support"
aircraft) will *always* remain safely ensconsed in airborne
sanctuaries is not borne out by recent history brooks:
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?...7&archive=true
To fly that many combat missions, pilots relied on Air Force tanker
aircraft to keep their planes juiced.

Air Force strike planner Col. Mace Carpenter said one of the war's
"real heroes" were the air tankers that kept fighters and bombers
fueled to penetrate deep into Iraq and drop ordnance.

Army units moved so fast that fighters were having problems going from
Saudi Arabia, where the tankers were, to south of Baghdad to destroy
the Iraqi forces. So commanders made the bold decision to move tankers
over Iraq to make sure the fighters could fuel up.

Many of the lumbering tanker aircraft were fired at by both artillery
and surface-to-air missiles. Carpenter said that commanders were
willing to risk a tanker and its crew to get the fighters to Baghdad
and protect the fast-moving ground forces.

Pilots flew vulnerable tanker aircraft with no radar-warning
equipment, chaff or flairs to evade missiles.

"These guys were gutsy," Carpenter said.

Commanders expected to lose at least one tanker, but none of them was
hit.

....Given the limited numbers of C4ISR aircraft that will be bought,
and the even fewer that will be available to be deployed in any given
AOR, their vulnerability may well make them a real albatross for a
commander instead of a real asset.

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 18:52:54 -0700, Henry J Cobb wrote:

sid wrote:
You are contradicting your fatuous "facts(?)" brooks. Now you are
saying the the E-8 and E-10 will participate directly in putting
ordnance on target. In a previous post you spouted this "fact(?)":
"The fact that the USAF,USN, USA, etc., are not going to place those
assets
in a situation of undue risk is patently obvious."

Naw, the F/A-22s will be the bomb droppers with Super Hornets providing
targetting and air to air cover and Growlers doing the jamming.

-HJC

And the F/A-18G will be along shortly.

Al Minyard