A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old April 9th 04, 11:09 PM
s.p.i.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.
  #122  
Old April 9th 04, 11:28 PM
John Cook
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

veil Dank!

Cheers
John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :-
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk
  #123  
Old April 9th 04, 11:36 PM
s.p.i.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.
  #124  
Old April 10th 04, 12:35 AM
Brian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...
And the F/A-18G will be along shortly.


Shortly? Last I saw the first deliveries will be around 2009.


  #125  
Old April 11th 04, 09:17 PM
Alan Minyard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 19:35:42 -0400, "Brian" wrote:


"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
.. .
And the F/A-18G will be along shortly.


Shortly? Last I saw the first deliveries will be around 2009.

Hey, for us retired folks that *is* shortly :-))

Al Minyard
  #126  
Old June 9th 04, 11:32 AM
John Cook
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 08:31:44 +1000, John Cook
wrote:



Call me an old cynic

But it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see a news release (in
the next week or so) about F/A-22 and JDAMs testing from the USAF....

Now would't that be completly froody!!.


Ah Haa.... Froody ALERT!!! not bad it was 3 weeks...


http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123007616

On the 30 april 2004

"Edwards officials will continue to develop the Raptor design,
focusing more on developing air-to-ground attack capabilities, General
Pearson said.

"With the recent successful drop of the first bomb from the Raptor's
weapons bay, Edwards will continue to expand this line of testing
until we have successfully developed the required ground-attack
features," General Pearson said.

Operational testers have already started planning for the follow-on
test and evaluation phase of the Raptor, which includes JDAM release
testing, Colonel Freeman said."

Which means they might have dropped a JDAM by now!, but I have not
found any reference to it yet. Can anyone help?.

Cheers
John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :-
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk
  #127  
Old June 12th 04, 12:43 PM
John Cook
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 02:23:27 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"John Cook" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 22:16:28 -0700, Scott Ferrin
wrote:




Gotta question about the following:

""USAF officials also rejected the forecast that the service will need
to spend $11.7 billion to introduce air-to-ground capabilities in the
F/A-22. Roche says planned upgrades, including a new radar and
small-diameter bomb, are budgeted and would cost less than $3.5
billion. . . ""



So when they say "new radar" are the talking about replacing the
APG-77 with an APG-XX or are they just talking about new software or a
mod of the -77? I'd ask what the hell they need a new radar for as
the F-22 itself is not even in service yet and it's *current* radar
should be considered "new" but seeing how it's been over a decade
since the YF-22 flew it's no wonder.


OK this is from memory... and the sources are not strictly 'official'.

I had heard some rumours that the F-35 and F-22 AESA antennae will be
merged because the MMIC's from the F-35 will be retrofitted to the
F-22's ( they are very expensive and larger.)

The number of MMIC's may also be the same in both aircraft to make a
common 'cheap' AESA antennae (1200 IIRC).



See
http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/p....mhtml?d=59037

"Northrop Grumman Begins Flight-Testing New Radar for F/A-22 Raptor
BALTIMORE, June 11, 2004 -- Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC)
has successfully conducted the first flight test of a new,
fourth-generation variant of the AN/APG-77 active electronically
scanned array radar for the U.S. Air Force's F/A-22 Raptor air
dominance fighter aircraft.

The new design is intended to reduce the production and maintenance
costs of the Raptor's third-generation radar by adapting the design
that was implemented successfully in the AN/APG-81 radar for the F-35
Joint Strike Fighter and the AN/APG-80 for the Block 60 F-16 fighter.
This newest variant requires significantly fewer parts than the
third-generation, and the production line relies on a greater degree
of automation.

In addition, Northrop Grumman's Electronic Systems sector is
developing software for the new radar that will enable it to perform
high-resolution mapping of ground targets. This will permit true
all-weather, precision strike capability that will transform the air
dominance fighter into a multi-mission asset.

"We are proud to have developed this new capability for the F/A-22,"
said Jerry Dunnigan, director of F/A-22 Radar Programs at Northrop
Grumman. "We believe that the transformational capabilities of
high-resolution ground-mapping and automatic target cueing will ensure
that Raptor pilots have all the information they need when they go in
harm's way."

Based on current Department of Defense plans, Northrop Grumman will
deliver approximately 203 of the new radars. These include retrofits
for some of the third-generation radars already in service on
operational aircraft. Northrop Grumman is conducting the flight-test
program aboard one of its BAC 1-11 flying testbed aircraft. The
company produces the radar under contract to The Boeing Company's
(NYSE:BA) Integrated Defense Systems unit, which has responsibility
for integrating the avionic systems for the F/A-22 program, which is
led by Lockheed Martin's (NYSE:LMT) Aeronautics Company. Raytheon
Systems of McKinney, Tex., is a joint-venture partner on the radar. "


Cheers
John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :-
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk
  #128  
Old June 12th 04, 01:40 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Cook" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 02:23:27 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"John Cook" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 22:16:28 -0700, Scott Ferrin
wrote:




Gotta question about the following:

""USAF officials also rejected the forecast that the service will need
to spend $11.7 billion to introduce air-to-ground capabilities in the
F/A-22. Roche says planned upgrades, including a new radar and
small-diameter bomb, are budgeted and would cost less than $3.5
billion. . . ""



So when they say "new radar" are the talking about replacing the
APG-77 with an APG-XX or are they just talking about new software or a
mod of the -77? I'd ask what the hell they need a new radar for as
the F-22 itself is not even in service yet and it's *current* radar
should be considered "new" but seeing how it's been over a decade
since the YF-22 flew it's no wonder.

OK this is from memory... and the sources are not strictly 'official'.

I had heard some rumours that the F-35 and F-22 AESA antennae will be
merged because the MMIC's from the F-35 will be retrofitted to the
F-22's ( they are very expensive and larger.)

The number of MMIC's may also be the same in both aircraft to make a
common 'cheap' AESA antennae (1200 IIRC).



None of the above was from me, so why did you leave me in the poster list?

Brooks


See
http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/p....mhtml?d=59037

"Northrop Grumman Begins Flight-Testing New Radar for F/A-22 Raptor
BALTIMORE, June 11, 2004 -- Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC)
has successfully conducted the first flight test of a new,
fourth-generation variant of the AN/APG-77 active electronically
scanned array radar for the U.S. Air Force's F/A-22 Raptor air
dominance fighter aircraft.

The new design is intended to reduce the production and maintenance
costs of the Raptor's third-generation radar by adapting the design
that was implemented successfully in the AN/APG-81 radar for the F-35
Joint Strike Fighter and the AN/APG-80 for the Block 60 F-16 fighter.
This newest variant requires significantly fewer parts than the
third-generation, and the production line relies on a greater degree
of automation.

In addition, Northrop Grumman's Electronic Systems sector is
developing software for the new radar that will enable it to perform
high-resolution mapping of ground targets. This will permit true
all-weather, precision strike capability that will transform the air
dominance fighter into a multi-mission asset.

"We are proud to have developed this new capability for the F/A-22,"
said Jerry Dunnigan, director of F/A-22 Radar Programs at Northrop
Grumman. "We believe that the transformational capabilities of
high-resolution ground-mapping and automatic target cueing will ensure
that Raptor pilots have all the information they need when they go in
harm's way."

Based on current Department of Defense plans, Northrop Grumman will
deliver approximately 203 of the new radars. These include retrofits
for some of the third-generation radars already in service on
operational aircraft. Northrop Grumman is conducting the flight-test
program aboard one of its BAC 1-11 flying testbed aircraft. The
company produces the radar under contract to The Boeing Company's
(NYSE:BA) Integrated Defense Systems unit, which has responsibility
for integrating the avionic systems for the F/A-22 program, which is
led by Lockheed Martin's (NYSE:LMT) Aeronautics Company. Raytheon
Systems of McKinney, Tex., is a joint-venture partner on the radar. "


Cheers
John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :-
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk



  #129  
Old June 13th 04, 01:23 AM
John Cook
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



None of the above was from me, so why did you leave me in the poster list?

Brooks


My deepest apologies, its a lesson we all can learn from in this NG

Cheers.






John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :-
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.