F-22 vs Typhoon

[Pielstick]

Perhaps you misunderstand what I meant by "vintage". I wasn't inferring the aircraft were old. However, I'm sure you are aware of the Soviet practice of exporting downgraded so called "monkey models" to non-Warsaw Pact clients. Downgraded radar, weapons, defensive avionics etc. In the case of the Serbian MiG-29s in 1999 they had been starved of spare parts for years and were flying with no functioning radar or radar warning receiver.

As for the blog I linked, I agree there are quite a few things in the blog I don't agree with. As you say, much is made of the AIM-54 which I believe was a somewhat overrated missile. However, the point about IR detection of aircraft like the F-22 remains. Screaming around the stratosphere with two massive F119 engines strapped to your bum, there really isn't a lot you can do to hide yourself from a good IRST. To coin a phrase used by a famous Scottish engineer - Ye cannae change the laws of physics!

I think maybe you're thinking I'm jumping to a conclusion that I'm not. I'm not trying to infer that Typhoon or another IRST equipped fighter has an advantage over F-22 in the BVR arena, I'm simply saying that there may be a bit of a hole in the whole stealth first look first shot first kill philosophy when it's entirely conceivable that a modern IRST might be able to detect an F-22 before he gets that first shot.

I also think it's maybe a bit of a stretch to say that a contemporary fighter like Typhoon, Rafale, Super Hornet which although not stealthy per se, feature RCS reduction - particularly from a frontal aspect - can be detected - even by an APG-77 - at 150nm. If we're going to credit the APG-77 with such speculative abilities then in the interests of fairness at least credit PIRATE with the ability to detect an F-22 at 50nm+.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Pielstick

[Pielstick]

Maybe it's your monitor, but the heat splash from the F-22 was significantly less than the other two until the burners went on.

And I'd be very careful about quoting from internet blogs that were set up specifically to trash US defence developments and act as a cheerleader for European defence interests.

Check out the F-22's air intakes and the leading edges of the wings and tail surfaces when it turns towards the camera.

As I've said already, whatever you make of the motives or indeed bias of the blog - the physics can't be argued. Sitting up in the stratosphere, with no clouds or precipitation, travelling around with two 160kN class engines and frictional heating of the airframe.... with an atmospheric window between 3 and 4 microns where IR atmospheric attenuation is only 10%...... it doesn't take a massive stretch of the imagination to see that an aircraft like the F-22 could potentially have a hole in it's stealth.

However, I understand we are talking about the F-22, and Heaven forbid it should have a chink in its infallible stealth armour.

Could you please point out how and why The Boresight trashes US defence development? I genuinely don't know who wrote that blog or what their association or interests are. I simply Googled IR detection systems and found it was a pretty good explanation of how a modern IRST might be able to detect a supersonic stealth aircraft. As I explained to Giorgio, there's quite a bit in the blog I don't necessarily agree with. I linked it for the explanation of how IR might be a viable method of detecting a stealth fighter at beyond visual ranges.

I stand by my comments about RAND - was it not set up by Douglas to provide research to the US Government? Last time I checked Douglas were a company in the business of selling aircraft to the US Government. Is RAND not funded by both the US Government and private corporate interests? Given where it gets its money from, is RAND completely free of commercial or political interests?

I'll ask again...

If EOTS (not EODAS as I said earlier) on the F-35 can detect and track a ballistic missile from over 400nm, what's so hard to believe about PIRATE being able to detect and track an F-22 at 50nm? Particularly given F-22's huge engines and frictional heating of the airframe especially at supercruise.

Now my point is 50nm is way beyond the range at which F-22 could currently take a realistic shot with an AIM-120C. If we give the F-22 a brand new two stage motor AIM-120D 50nm could still be a real push when launched against a target with the kinematic characteristics of Typhoon.

In which case there is a significant chance the F-22 gets detected before he gets that missile off, which then presents a problem for the whole "5th gen" stealthy first look first shot kill chain.

I'm not trying to paint F-22 as a piece of junk or Typhoon as being better. They are fundamentally different aircraft. However, there are plenty of people who think that the F-22 is all unicorns with rainbows coming out of their bums - a notion that the USAF and Lockheed would love to promote because of the astronomical - obscene even - amounts of money spent to get 187 airframes. My argument is that there is potentially a flaw in the 5th gen concept that can be exploited by supposedly inferior fighters.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Pielstick

[Alan P]

You're giving this a good go, and I respect your persistence Pielstick

I think maybe you're thinking I'm jumping to a conclusion that I'm not. I'm not trying to [imply] that Typhoon or another IRST equipped fighter has an advantage over F-22 in the BVR arena, I'm simply saying that there may be a bit of a hole in the whole stealth first look first shot first kill philosophy when it's entirely conceivable that a modern IRST might be able to detect an F-22 before he gets that first shot.

That's a fair comment. But as in all these comparisons it doesn't take account of the other characteristics of an F-22 (that would not be working alone) that would negate the dubious advantage of an IRST ident.

Could you please point out how and why The Boresight trashes US defence development? I genuinely don't know who wrote that blog or what their association or interests are.

It's clear from the blogger's posts that he is against US defence spending and "American might is right" (ie anti-Republican). He uses European comparisons, particularly Russian, to try to make a case for reduced spending and simplification of US defence requirements to reduce political and industrial dependence on the US defence budget. To say therefore that it is neutral and non-political would be wrong, and he obviously would have an opinion on high-value projects like the F-22 and F-35.

To say the RAND Corporation is still linked to Douglas, ergo the US Government would be like saying Britain is still in hock to the Saxons. RAND broke away from Douglas in the '40s. Douglas ceased to be in the 60s, and is, if it's anything, now called Boeing. The RAND Corporation continues to be independent and non-profit. I'd be naive to suggest that it doesn't have political characteristics (in the same way you won't find many Labour apologists in the higher echelons of the CBI) but their analysis is still greatly respected.

Of course, the trouble with politics (there's that word) is that people on one side rarely, if ever, give credence to what "the other side" is saying, even when it's reasonable and/or correct. C'est la guerre!

Anyway, that's gonna be my last thought on the subject.

Al

[charley420]

This debates way above my head what with pirates and eots etc, maybe the only way to settle the debate is to ask harry hill to organise a fiiiiiiiggggghhhhhtttt!

[pte1643]

This debates way above my head what with pirates and eots etc, maybe the only way to settle the debate is to ask harry hill to organise a fiiiiiiiggggghhhhhtttt!

I was thinking that myself while scrolling down...

Typhoon Vs F-22... There's only one way to find out.

I don't pretend to be an expert in all of this... But it seems to me that the F-22 relies a lot on Satellite links to/from the AWACS to enhance it's own capabilities, whereas the Typhoon has the "All seeing eye" built in.

Easy really... All the Typhoon has to do is knock out the AWACS, and the F-22 is toast.

[Pielstick]

You're giving this a good go, and I respect your persistence Pielstick

I even manage to win an argument with my wife on occasion!

I'll have a better look at some of the other articles in that blog later, you may very well be right. To be fair I do think the Americans spend an unnecessary amount of money (to put it mildly) on defence, but as you say that's political and another discussion entirely.

Still, I always find such dicussions interesting!

[Pielstick]

Easy really... All the Typhoon has to do is knock out the AWACS, and the F-22 is toast.

The problem there being that the AWACS will be sitting pretty deep behind lots of air defences and pretty hard to get to. The Russians have some interesting ideas though involving very big missiles which home in on the AWACS' radar emissions... whether or not they can take them beyond a model at a trade show is another matter.

I also seem to remember reading a few accounts of some upsets in exercises when the RAF contingent got uncomfortably close to the enemy AWACS.

There is a train of thought that AWACS may be of less importance in the future, with the amount of datalinking going on it's possible that you could maybe get better coverage by simply having all the sensors on and above the battlespace sharing their data. It's also a lot more robust as you don't have a single high value asset which might be of interest to said big Russian missiles

Edited January 28, 2014 by Pielstick

[pte1643]

Easy really... All the Typhoon has to do is knock out the AWACS, and the F-22 is toast.

The problem there being that the AWACS will be sitting pretty deep behind lots of air defences and pretty hard to get to.

Yeah, no doubt.

I was oversimplifying a little.

[Head in the clouds.]

If I may, and I dont understand half the tech speak going on here but I would like to put this to you, how many BVR kills have been recorded since these missiles came along as opposed to gun and Aim 9 style weapons ? Does the latter out number the former by a wide margin ? I know stealth is as yet unproven in a dogfight senario but that is what most engagements become,a duel between two sets of Mk1 eyeballs and flying excellence. Also politicians are a bit twitchy about using BVR, that remark may be a little tenious but in this age of limited combat the full potential of F22 may never be called upon.

Gary

[-Neu-]

Pielstick... I understand what you're trying to suggest, but I'm a bit dismayed by your responses. I find it extremely frustrating when you admit your lack of knoweldge on a subject, state your intention to do more research, only to return with information that supports your views. Is that being open minded?

Its most evident in regards to the RAND corporation. Based on my personal experience with people at RAND, they are generally scrupulous about their integrity and dedication to research. While I might not agree with everything they say, your claims about some inherent bias in their work based on a link with the Douglas corporation or profit making is completely unsupportable. It is extremely problematic to me that you're willing to give absolute credence to some random person's blog post, and in the same breath completely discredit a research document that has a scientifically based research methodology, clearly stated research aims and the like, because 70 years ago it was spun off from a corporate body.

Anyways, on to the meat and potatoes.

If F-22 is of a new generation, distinct and superior to all that has gone before... why does it not have an IRST?

Simple, its because you keep ignoring what I've explained to you. The F-22 doesn't have IRST because back in 1989 the YF-22 team faced a hard cap of 9 million dollars for per-unit cost of the avionics suite; they looked at the capabilities that gave a value added and saw that IRST wasn't a stated requirement. Neither were side scanning arrays. Why? Because the AESA array + networked sensor would be the main A2A detection system. The F-22's low observability and the LPI nature of the APG-77 allows it to be used with a low risk of being detected. you have a distributed network of LPI radars that communicate with each other and aircraft that are not easily discoverable themselves.

Most other fighters that are mounting IRSTs don't have those three capabilities in place. MIDS is not considered the same as MADL or the F-22's IFDL, none of them are truly low observable, though AESA radars are becoming more common. Put together, it far reduces the need for IRST. The lack of the other three features together means that other fighters gain far more value out of mounting IRST. Without a true LPD/LPI high bandwidth datalink, or stealth features, having a passive detection system (albeit with less range) is a huge value.

Why does it not have a helmet mounted display/sight/cueing? Why does it not have a HOBS missile? Why is its primary weapon a rather old missile that has enjoyed rather mediocre success in real shooting wars?

A key problem is that the avionics suite requires a massive redesign in order to add new capabilities, which the USAF has been dealing with. Relatedly, the post-2009 cuts to the defence budget also pushed out a lot of these upgrades and other programs to the backburner. the F-22's increments have been delayed over time, but they are still happening. The aircraft will have have the Scorpion helmet integrated by sometimes next year, and the AIM-9X by 2015 (its included in the FY2015 budget).

. Did I mention that F-35 has the kinematic performance of an F-4? What gen is the F-4? Well nobody used the rather arbitrary generation system to classify fighters when the F-4 was around so let's retrospectively call it 3rd gen. So we've got a 5th gen F-35 with the transsonic acceleration and sustained turn performance of a 3rd gen aircraft. We need to sell lots of them though so let's keep calling it 5th gen because that sounds good.

I'm sorry, this is just incorrect. The F-35 actually has about the same kinematic performance of an F-16 or F/A-18C with similar loadouts and fuel. Based on my conversations with people who actually fly the aircraft and can make comparisons, they are pretty clear about how well the F-35 compares or exceeds current aircraft in key performance areas. As for something other than word of mouth, the Elements of Power blog (run by a USAF weapons analyst) basically rips the F-4 comparison in to shreds here (comparing sustained Gs):

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.ca/2013/05/the-f-35-and-infamous-sustained-g-spec_26.html

Then goes and on to compare it to the F-16A (likely the best in this category.)

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.ca/2013/06/the-f-35-and-infamous-sustained-g-spec.html

In reality the F-35 wasn't really designed for sustained G: its main strength will be instantaneous turn, which is much more useful in the age of all aspect high PK missiles.

BTW, forgot to tell you that I absolutely agree with your comments above about Typhoon being very expensive and a poor multi role choice. I'd go further and say the failure of the partner nations to get off their backsides and develop Typhoon to meet its potential in a timely manner has almost certainly cost it several very lucrative export orders, and has perhaps left it as something of a white elephant. Then again I'm not much of a fan of Rafale or Super Hornet either.

Of those three aircraft, the Super Hornet provides real effective combat power at a reasonable cost (far cheaper than the Eurofighter, Rafale and around that of the Gripen NG, if Saab's actually meets their projections). The Super Hornet and the F-16 has been the backbone of combat air power for the United States. Its not been a white elephant; the spiral design process has provided the USN with exceptional capability over the past decade and a half. Of course you don't hear that in the press... because its not a particularly salacious piece of information.

At the moment I'm quite liking the Gripen, and the Gripen NG in particular. I was most impressed to read that the eight Gripens sent by the Swedish AF to support operations in Libya in 2011 required only 35 groundcrew. Likewise when the Czechs sent their Gripens to do the NATO Baltic air policing they only needed something like 65 support staff, yet when the Germans sent their Typhoons they needed 200 support staff. It would seem that if you want bang for your defence buck then Gripen NG is going to be hard to beat.

Actually, the Gripen is probably one of the most overblown capabilities currently out on the market... during our initial evaluation of options of the Gripen both Saab and the Swedish government make absolutely fanciful claims about cost and performance. They did the same to our parliament, claiming the aircraft's CPFH was $5000. Since then the Swiss have poked holes in that number. Similarly SAAB has stated the aircraft's range figures were, frankly, implausible.

The deployment requirements is pretty evident of this pattern. The Swedes claim 35 personnel support eight aircraft? Four personnel per aircraft? That's ridiculous. Canada often deploys two or three pilots for EACH aircraft. Does one man load the aircraft with a 750kg reconnaissance pod by himself, another guy refuels the aircraft, by himself, then another does the maintenence, by himself? (btw.. that's all ridiculous.)

By comparison the Czechs require 65 for four aircraft. I can believe that figure... its about 16 personnel per aircraft. Canada, with older CF-18s, require about 24 or so (maybe a little less). I know other countries deployments are probably around that. Nevertheless its a constant din from the internet about how great the gripen is ect and so forth.

If EOTS (not EODAS as I said earlier) on the F-35 can detect and track a ballistic missile from over 400nm, what's so hard to believe about PIRATE being able to detect and track an F-22 at 50nm? Particularly given F-22's huge engines and frictional heating of the airframe especially at supercruise.

First, F-22s probably won't be super-cruising around that much, especially if they know they are entering a combat zone. Its just a dead giveaway and eats up fuel at the expense of range.

Second, an ICBM is not even close to the same level as an jet engine in terms of heat. The brightest IR source is actually the metal of the engine. With a huge exposed engine bell or nozzle, its going to be a massive IR Source. Second, if the ICBM uses a solid rocket fuel then a large part of that plume will be much more reflective than a gas one (due to the presence of burning metallics in the fuel in that plume). It could be an order of magnitude hotter than the nozzle design on modern jets.

Third, 5th generation aircraft like the F-22 (the same goes for the Super Hornet as well), will always attempt to point their nose towards a target, which gives their low observable features their best effect. For the IR field it blocks a target from seeing both the exhaust and the hot engine components. Look at the F-35: the exhaust is buried deep in the fuselage and it is blocked by the tail and other surfaces... that helps to dissipate much of the heat. Cruising around at subsonic speeds and pointing the nose at an opponent, should make it very difficult to spot with the FLIR. The best example of a straight aspect FLIR sees it can see would be around the 1:51 or 2:03 second mark of the Farnborough video... you can't see the engine and there is almost no plume visible behind the aircraft.

Finally, air friction: it might make a difference, but not much. At 32000 feet, an F-22 at Mach 1.2 should only reach 0c through heating (about ~50 degrees difference against the ambient temperature), its also much lower at subsonic speeds, and as mentioned before, the F-22 has leading edge cooling. So a 50 degree (or much less) difference. Yes that might seem like alot, but its not, especially when you are searching an absolutely a 180 area in front of you for contacts over 50nm away. This isn't to say that IRST is useless, but its utility must be understood against what is possible.

So to directly answer your question: Can it detect something at 50nm? I'm not sure, butI'd say its highly dependent on the situation, but possibly less likely. I'll ask a friend of mine who is more familiar with this area and get back to you.

Edited January 29, 2014 by -Neu-

[-Neu-]

If I may, and I dont understand half the tech speak going on here but I would like to put this to you, how many BVR kills have been recorded since these missiles came along as opposed to gun and Aim 9 style weapons ? Does the latter out number the former by a wide margin ? I know stealth is as yet unproven in a dogfight senario but that is what most engagements become,a duel between two sets of Mk1 eyeballs and flying excellence. Also politicians are a bit twitchy about using BVR, that remark may be a little tenious but in this age of limited combat the full potential of F22 may never be called upon.

Gary

I don't have my references in front of me and I only know the United States. Since 1992 there have been 10 kills, I believe 7 were likely BVR, 3 WVR. All of them with the AIM-120.

There is really much less of a worry now about target ID than back in the 1960s. First, we have much greater jointness due to the Goldwater Nichols Act: the US military and its allies work together much better. Second, the networking revolution has added much more effective command and control systems that allow us to track where our units are... while civilian aircraft are given clear warnings about warzones.

Edited January 29, 2014 by -Neu-

[Driver66]

Not an expert here, just a genuine question- 10 kills since 1992 - where were they ( some in the Balkans I guess), and against what aircraft? Where they all achieved by USAF aircraft ? Where there some blue on blues aswel ( thinking a couple of Blackhawks Northern Iraq in the early nineties ).

Just like to pick your brains.

[-Neu-]

Not an expert here, just a genuine question- 10 kills since 1992 - where were they ( some in the Balkans I guess), and against what aircraft? Where they all achieved by USAF aircraft ? Where there some blue on blues aswel ( thinking a couple of Blackhawks Northern Iraq in the early nineties ).

Just like to pick your brains.

3 were in Iraq, 7 were in the balkans. The 1994 UH-60 was a WVR confirmation. I should also note that I counted the Dutch shootdown in this total, but the rest of them were USAF.

[JohnT]

I even manage to win an argument with my wife on occasion!

No Nick trust me, you only think you do

Great discussion guys and all kudos to everyone for the civilised way positions are being defended and critiqued

Of course the rest of us know a P51 is really what's best .........

[Pielstick]

Thanks Neu, some interesting points to ponder. I'll write more tomorrow when I get a chance.

[Murph]

Two points. First, clouds. Second, an IRST does not provide range which is needed to cue a radar guided missile.

Regards,

Murph

[j_jza80]

The F22 is a specialised tool, and is exceptional at its designated task, and it's unit cost is actually quite similar to that of Typhoon. However, it is nowhere near as versatile as the Typhoon, and it's running costs are far higher.

Within visual range, it would probably come down to pilot skill, which would be great contest between two of the best trained airforces in the world (RAF vs USAF). If you could only choose one though, the Typhoon wins hands down.

[colin]

Two points. First, clouds. Second, an IRST does not provide range which is needed to cue a radar guided missile.

Regards,

Murph

Would cloud come into it with the heights their likely to be operating at

[Murph]

Would cloud come into it with the heights their likely to be operating at

Thunderstorms go up to ridiculous heights. I don't know of any fighter pilot that wouldn't use a cloud deck to their advantage.

Regards,

Murph

[Giorgio N]

Two points. First, clouds. Second, an IRST does not provide range which is needed to cue a radar guided missile.

Regards,

Murph

Modern units like the one used on the Typhoon do provide some indication of range, but not as accurate as those given by a radar