Low RCS versus airframe performance

[vanir 0]

In the US the armament industry sales push is Low RCS. It's the bee's knees, the golden pinapple. Buy this because it's got *gasp* low RCS engineering. But at what cost has this amazing armchair based technology been attained?

We know from the development process of the FX project way back when (1965 iirc), the assumption became the Russians had achieved some unknown performance advantages in mass produced fighter manufacture and the emphasis became high transonic performance capability, with good BVR and CC/dogfight aspects, long ferry range for European deployment and high survivability features like twin engine reliability and excellent avionics. As it turned out the Russians were cheating somewhat, overstating genuine air to air performance capabilities and letting western speculators confuse very high strategic capabilities with tactical ones. As it turned out the Eagle would doubtlessly trump a Foxbat score for score in any aerial combat (it is a given that one of the main design requirements for the Foxbat was interception of high flying cruise missiles which were in the early stages of development at the time, it appears to my research the oft claimed Valkyrie counter is mislain though some consideration was given to interception of CIA controlled "black ops" over Russian territory in the Blackbird series through the sixties...it could hardly have been a concern when the Foxbat project was mooted in 1958).

 

I wanted to firstly deal with general forum member impressions of the balance between actual airframe performance and high survivability features taken as emphasis is current US airframe manufacture. I'm talking pragmatism here, let's not get caught up with fanciful exaggerations like "high Mach performance" where the actual demonstrated performance of the Raptor is 1.8 Mach and the Lightning is closer to 1.5 topping out between 1.6-1.8 depending on conditions due to inlet geometry alone.

Are we looking at a policing emphasis in US military culture with some degree of abandonment to actual, all out contemporary air to air performance capabilities? Effectively a very, very expensive NY cop car? If so, what happens when somebody brings a knife to a gunfight? What if...heaven forbid, the recent US movements into the Black Sea region collapse into a diplomatic nightmare with Russia...what if you've got three Raptors based in Bulgaria flying patrol over US stockpiles in Rumania, which is frequently subject to border disputes with the Ukraine, and suddenly you're staring down the big daddy of the East, two Su-27S and an Su-30 datalink controller going intercept?

 

Let's look at a matchup. Raptor cannot compete with time to altitude, no way, no chance. It's got transonic subsonic performance but everything in the full supersonic range is clearly in the realm of the Flankers. The current models are looking at phased array installation and with datalinked it's like your own little personal AWACS running around the battlefield with full air to air capability. Not to mention signals are many and varied, coming from and intercepted from a wide variety of directions covering approximately 300km of airspace by these three a/c with their datalink function, low RCS isn't such a big deal when it's like you're running into an aerially mounted early warning system, the only place you're deflecting signals is straight into another phased array antenna with 10 missiles on board.

 

Clearly in converse to the US low RCS sales pitch, Russian doctrine stresses high airframe performance and new avionics developments in manufacture.

So what do we think, stars and stripes all the way? Or will the Eastern Bear threaten to claw these high transonic capable warplanes into easy meat when the chips fly head to head?

[FastCargo 412]

You have no idea what the Raptor can actually do. Aircraft performance, sensor, counter-sensor tech.

 

Not a clue.

 

Not based on sales pitches either.

 

FC

Edited September 3, 2009 by Kowalski.

[+Gepard 11,320]

Why the people only want to fight yesterdays wars! Neither the Raptor nor the Flanker are usefull in our todays conflicts. You spent enourmous amounts of money for nothing. Its like building battleships between WW1 and 2. Worth for nothing.

Today we need combat helicopter and planes like the A-10 or Su-25.

[Stick 773]

Excellent point, Gepard.Thats a real hoot.

Vanir, what you are missing is the fact that the SU-27 is now a thirty year old fighter-and no matter how modified or souped up its still Russian, and old to boot Patriotism even got the better of my judgment back in the day, but the truth does rear its ugly head eventually.

Theres a big reason why an American made plane costs so much as compared to a Russian aircraft-take the example of our recent SU-30 crash;the ejection seat didnt work;can you imagine what that pilot must have felt in his last moments? These planes are brand new and the maintenance standards are the best in the country-so in my opinion I think Ivan should really get some quality control implemented.

Another thing have you seen a SU-27 or 30 close up-the finish and build of the aircraft is ghastly to say the least. My father who is an A330 pilot was appalled at what our air-force flies on any given day.Its quite an accomplishment that our air-force is actually doing its job with the equipment it is provided with.

[Caesar 305]

Meeh...another this vs that thread. Hope this one remains civil too.

 

Going to go with FC on this one. Most of the Raptor's capabilities are classified, and unless you fly the plane, you're probably not going to know very much about its true potential or performance. Though as some foreshadowing, it achieved a 244 to 2 kill to loss ratio against F-15's, F-16's and F/A-18's in a recent Red Flag event, and 144 to 0 at Northern Edge in '07. Considering those aircraft are comparable to the Flanker, I have an idea of how the Raptor would do.

[Fubar512 1,350]

Just for grins & giggles:

 

SR-71 Dry weight = 67,500 lbs

SR-71 total thrust = 63,000 lbs...still the fastest operational military aircraft ever made

 

F-22 Dry weight = 43,430 lbs...over 20% lighter than the SR-71

F-22 total thrust = 70,000 lbs...more thrust at S/L than the SR-71

 

Still think the Flanker can even hold a candle to it?

 

Su-27 Dry weight = 36,100 lb

Su-27 total thrust = 55,200 lbs

[FastCargo 412]

Theres a big reason why an American made plane costs so much as compared to a Russian aircraft-take the example of our recent SU-30 crash;the ejection seat didnt work;can you imagine what that pilot must have felt in his last moments? These planes are brand new and the maintenance standards are the best in the country-so in my opinion I think Ivan should really get some quality control implemented.

 

Stick,

 

I was very sorry about hearing that sometime ago...I was flying with a Su-30MKI pilot (he was doing an exchange tour) from your country when we heard about it.

 

FC

[vanir 0]

sorry, wrong site for critical appraisal and speculation. No way going to get in a head to head with mods, that's just stupid. Not big on a starring role in kick the dog. Consider it dead.

[Stick 773]

Well you cant expect every one to share your particular point of view just because you are entitled to yours. Thats why its called a discussion or a debate.

[+Jimbib 747]

It's amusing that anyone could think that the current flankers in numerous services would be anything but raped when up against a raptor.

[FastCargo 412]

Vanir,

 

What, someone posts contrary data to what you posit and you take your toys and go home?

 

Disagreeing with a moderator happens, but as long as it's handled respectfully (and doesn't relate to board moderation) it's not a big deal. So don't play the 'it's unfair' card here...that don't fly.

 

That being said, this is not a publically owned board. This is a private message board, mostly run and administrated by folks in 'the West' for lack of a better term (I haven't forgotten you Gr. Viper ). Therefore, you can expect some bias. But there are certainly plenty of 'Red Side' fans here, and more aircraft are being made everyday...so you can certainly have a discussion.

 

The main reason most people don't participate in this sort of discussion much anymore was hit on the head by Caesar in his blog (I suggest you read it). A lot of these arguments are based on the hypothetical, but people post like it's gospel. These discussions can quickly head south as each side tries to convince the other and eventually the shouting starts.

 

This kind of crap simply gets old and turns into a 'who's schlong has a higher PK'.

 

And your initial post certainly wasn't unbiased by any stretch, so don't pretend you planned to have a neutral discussion.

 

FC

[JediMaster 451]

Apparently any other response than "oh, we're all duped, the Russians are so much better" is unwelcomed?

 

Again, why do people keep playing these silly F-22 vs Su-30 games? Combat doesn't occur in a vacuum.

 

How many US fighters have been shot down by enemy fighters in the last 20 years? Just 1? That Hornet in Desert Storm I think?

How many US fighters have been shot down? Many. Too many. How?

 

SAMs and AAA.

 

RCS is about survivability against radar threats. If the guy doesn't know you're there, he can't hurt you. If he knows you're there but not exactly where, he can't hit you. If he knows where you are, he has to get closer to hit you. Forget fighters, the threat is the SAMs and AAA. We lost far more planes to SAMs and AAA in Vietnam than fighters, too.

 

The picture of the way data links work is inaccurate. Stealth deflects radar signals away from the transmitter. Planes in a formation will fly line abreast, so if the signal is deflected 45 degrees or more off axis there won't be any planes in the network to receive the signal! You'd have to arrange the planes in a semicircle with the focus on the stealth plane which indicates you already know where it is...how likely is that?

[MiGMasher 0]

Why the people only want to fight yesterdays wars! Neither the Raptor nor the Flanker are usefull in our todays conflicts. You spent enourmous amounts of money for nothing. Its like building battleships between WW1 and 2. Worth for nothing.

Today we need combat helicopter and planes like the A-10 or Su-25.

 

Excellent point!

 

...And I would add that, in my opinion, tactical and strategic airlift capability must be increased! I think it's a good idea to purchase significantly more C-17's and get an improved tactical airlifter with greater load capacity and better STOL perfromance than the C-130's. Max payload for C-130's is, what, like 45,000lbs? And combat vehicles are getting larger and heavier. Even the ones that are/were earmarked for air delivery have approached, and in the case of the Stryker, exceeded the C-130's capacity.

 

Compared to the F-22, airlifters like the C-17 represent more value for money.

 

The recent decision to cap the production of the F-22 Raptor at 187 examples was a good decision. The F-22 is a great aircraft. It has achieved extraordinary kill ratios in exercises.

 

However it hasn't been used in combat, and since the name of the game these days is mudmoving it would be like using a gold-plated knife/fork/spoon set to eat a cheap meal, or any meal for that matter. The A-10's in Afghanistam can do the mudmoving job many times better than the F-22! The can fly low and slow, can take hits, can carry a wide assortment of weapons, and has good loiter ability! Sure the F-22 can drop JDAM's from 30K ft but as recent events have proved, it's not about the accuracy but real-time intel and on-scene observation that are more important. If there was an AFAC (maybe an OA-10) on the scene (last Friday?) do you think those 70-90+ non-combatants would be still alive today?

 

And if those massive kill ratios are to be believed, then why do the Americans need anymore airplanes beyond the 187 that are budgeted for?

 

I believe the F-22 program may have been a victim of it's own hype, amongst other things like rumours surrounding maintenance issues/problems with the aircraft! It is simply too expensive at this point in time and there hasn't been any return on investment.

 

Many people have been vocal on the supposed stupidty of ending the Raptor production program. I like to ask those people, how many Raptors do you think the USAF needs, and how do you think it can be paid for? Where are you going to get the money? And please don't mention China! China is NOT a threat, and neither is North Korea! If anything the US is much more of a threat to them than they are to the US. Just take a look at how many bases the US military has near those two countries as opposed to them having bases near the US.

[MigBuster 2,884]

Excellent point!

 

 

No its a point not an excellent point which he seems to have made a few times before for some reason:

 

http://forum.combatace.com/index.php/topic/44833-now-f-35-is-in-a-bit-of-trouble/

 

 

However it hasn't been used in combat, and since the name of the game these days is mudmoving it would be like using a gold-plated knife/fork/spoon set to eat a cheap meal, or any meal for that matter. The A-10's in Afghanistam can do the mudmoving job many times better than the F-22!

 

No thats the name of the game in Afghanistan only - the F-22 is also there to defeat a modern IADS if required which do exist and are a bigger threat than any AF - and is also something an A-10 also wouldn't be much use against.

 

 

The can fly low and slow, can take hits, can carry a wide assortment of weapons, and has good loiter ability! Sure the F-22 can drop JDAM's from 30K ft but as recent events have proved, it's not about the accuracy but real-time intel and on-scene observation that are more important. If there was an AFAC (maybe an OA-10) on the scene (last Friday?) do you think those 70-90+ non-combatants would be still alive today?

 

Not sure flying low and slow taking hits is where they want to be - the A-10 is not bullet proof everywhere - usually they would be above small arms range and only come down at high speed to strafe if required from accounts I've read.

Its all about accuracy - especially in regards to avoiding civilian casualties - on scene ground FACs can provide GPS coords to any jet with a JDAM that can get there quick enough.

 

 

 

 

And if those massive kill ratios are to be believed, then why do the Americans need anymore airplanes beyond the 187 that are budgeted for?

 

 

Probably attrition for one thing - how many will be good to go in 20 years time? - of course even if there are none its okay because the world will be a peaceful utopia by then and still be flying 4th Gen ****

 

 

Many people have been vocal on the supposed stupidty of ending the Raptor production program. I like to ask those people, how many Raptors do you think the USAF needs, and how do you think it can be paid for? Where are you going to get the money? And please don't mention China! China is NOT a threat, and neither is North Korea! If anything the US is much more of a threat to them than they are to the US. Just take a look at how many bases the US military has near those two countries as opposed to them having bases near the US.

 

done and done http://forum.combatace.com/index.php/topic/44701-rip-f-22/

Edited September 6, 2009 by MigBuster