How to Defeat the F-22

[monitor]

---

---

latest Typhoon fighter have figured out how to shoot down the Lockheed Martin-made F-22 in mock combat. The Germans’ tactics, revealed in thelatest Combat Aircraft magazine, represent the latest reality check for the $400-million-a-copy F-22, following dozens of pilot blackouts, and possibly a crash, reportedly related to problems with the unique g-force-defying vests worn by Raptor pilots.
In mid-June, 150 German airmen and eight twin-engine, non-stealthy Typhoons arrived at Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska for an American-led Red Flag exercise involving more than 100 aircraft from Germany, the U.S. Air Force and Army, NATO, Japan, Australia and Poland. Eight times during the two-week war game, individual German Typhoons flew against single F-22s in basic fighter maneuvers meant to simulate a close-range dogfight.
The results were a surprise to the Germans and presumably the Americans, too. “We were evenly matched,” Maj. Marc Gruene told Combat Aircraft’s Jamie Hunter. The key, Gruene said, is to get as close as possible to the F-22 … and stay there. “They didn’t expect us to turn so aggressively.”
Gruene said the Raptor excels at fighting from beyond visual range with its high speed and altitude, sophisticated radar and long-range AMRAAM missiles. But in a slower, close-range tangle — which pilots call a “merge” — the bigger and heavier F-22 is at a disadvantage. “As soon as you get to the merge … the Typhoon doesn’t necessarily have to fear the F-22,” Gruene said.


This is not supposed to be the sort of reaction the F-22 inspires. For years the Air Force has billed the Raptor as an unparalleled aerial combatant. Even former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who in 2009 famously cut F-22 production to just 187 copies, called the stealth jet “far and away the best air-to-air fighter ever produced” and predicted “it will ensure U.S. command of the skies for the next generation.” And it’s slowly getting taken off the probation it incurred after seemingly suffocating pilots.
Admittedly, advanced air forces plan to do most of their fighting at long range and avoid the risky, close-in tangle — something Gruene acknowledged in his comments to Combat Aircraft. But there’s evidence that, in reality, most air combat occurs at close distance, despite air arms’ wishful thinking. That could bode poorly for the F-22′s chances in a future conflict.
In a 2008 study , the Air Force-funded think tank RAND warned against assuming long-range missiles will work. RAND looked at 588 air-to-air shoot-downs since the 1950s and counted just 24 that occurred with the attacker firing from beyond visual range. Historically, American long-range air-to-air missiles have been 90-percent less effective than predicted, RAND asserted.
Despite the historical facts, there persists in Air Force circles “a hypothetical vision of ultra-long range, radar-based, air-to-air combat,” to quote air power skeptic Pierre Sprey, co-designer of the brute-simple F-16 and A-10 warplanes.
It remains to be seen whether the Raptor and its AMRAAM missiles can reverse these trends. If long-range tactics fail, the F-22 force could very well find itself fighting up close with the latest fighters from China, Russia and other rival nations. And if the Germans’ experience is any indication, that’s the kind of battle the vaunted F-22s just might lose.
Update, July 31: Some commenters claim the Red Flag exercise is not indicative of the way the F-22 would fight in the real world. In an actual shooting war, an F-22′s opponent “won’t make it to visual range,” one reader asserted. The Raptor’s stealth would allow it to sneak up high and fast and kill the enemy from long range using an AMRAAM missile, commenters insist.
But that’s assuming two things. One, that the rules of engagement in a future conflict will allow to the Air Force to shoot down targets without visually identifying them — a risky assumption given the world’s increasingly crowded airspace. Two, that the AMRAAM even works. Missile-maker Raytheon hasn’t delivered a new AMRAAM in two years after it was found that the weapon’s rocket motor doesn’t work in a cold environment, which is exactly where the high-flying F-22 is most at home.
Even when the AMRAAM functions as designed, it’s still not a reliable long-range killer. Since the AMRAAM entered front-line service in 1992, it has been used by Air Force F-15s and F-16s in at least nine aerial battles resulting in the destruction of nine Iraqi and Serbian aircraft. But that’s pretty much all we know. Public data “does not include the number of shots taken or the engagement range,” Air Force Lt. Col. Patrick Higby wrote in a 2005 paper.
Higby, for his part, concluded that at least four of the AMRAAM kills occurred within visual range. In the balance, long-range missiles are not as effective as the Air Force has long hoped, Higby wrote. “Air-to-air combat has not transformed into a long-range slugfest of technology.”
How to Defeat the Air Force's Powerful Stealth Fighter (Updated) | Danger Room | Wired.com

[Skull and Bones]

L band radar.

Don't even need to read the article to say that.

There isn't anything like absolute stealth, even F-22 will be visible within a range of 20-30 km in X-band radar range. While high power L-band can detect it at more than 150 km.

But here's the problem, resolution of L-band is too poor to identify and target F-22 with BVR missiles.

[Akash A.]

Crashing it himself is the only way to defeat a fifth gen. aircraft in 2012

[Esc8781]

The only way to defeat an f-22 is to play this



Moderators please ban me if I hurt your ears.

[gambit]

Wonder how many read the responses to the article? Probably none.

[danger007]

simple throw stones on raptor if you can...

[vinod bholia]

germans must be saying the truth....ofcourse they are a professional airforce.

[Luffy 500]

Chinese have their j20 coming up and off course the russiand have s-500 now. Nothing in this world is invincible and everything has a weakness including this F22 no matter how much of an engineering marble it is.

[Peaceful Civlian]

Very difficult to kill F22.
F22 is very very less visible in radar.
How to fire missile when it is not shown in radar.

[gambit]

Chinese have their j20 coming up and off course the russiand have s-500 now. Nothing in this world is invincible and everything has a weakness including this F22 no matter how much of an engineering marble it is.

Buddy, no one -- NO ONE -- on this forum is a greater believer in 'stealth' than I, and no one -- NO ONE -- will be able to find a quote from me that say the F-22 is 'invisible' or 'invincible'.

[Skull and Bones]

Wonder how many read the responses to the article? Probably none.

Sir, as the surface of of F-22 absorbs most of the incident radio waves within X-band (8-12 GHz) range, and as the energy of the radio wave is directly proportional to the frequency. So doesn't it increase the IR signature of the aircraft more than it's non stealth counterpart, thus making it vulnerable to IRST detectors?

[vinod bholia]

Sir, as the surface of of F-22 absorbs most of the incident radio waves within X-band (8-12 GHz) range, and as the energy of the radio wave is directly proportional to the frequency. So doesn't it increase the IR signature of the aircraft more than it's non stealth counterpart, thus making it vulnerable to IRST detectors?

the surface dosent absorbs most of the waves within x-band...where did u got this from?

[Skull and Bones]

the surface dosent absorbs most of the waves within x-band...where did u got this from?

Most radar of greater resolution is made in X band frequency, and stealth is designed keeping X-band in consideration and RAM absorbs most of the incident radio waves.

F-22 is visible in L and S band by a fair distance.

[vinod bholia]

Most radar of greater resolution is made in X band frequency, and stealth is designed keeping X-band in consideration and RAM absorbs most of the incident radio waves.

F-22 is visible in L and S band by a fair distance.

sir F-22 is not visible in L AND S band by fair distance....where did u read this?

[gambit]

---

---

Sir, as the surface of of F-22 absorbs most of the incident radio waves within X-band (8-12 GHz) range, and as the energy of the radio wave is directly proportional to the frequency. So doesn't it increase the IR signature of the aircraft more than it's non stealth counterpart, thus making it vulnerable to IRST detectors?

No, it does not. The inverse square law applies in both directions: From the seeking radar to the target, then from the target back to the seeking radar.

So in order for EM conversion to infrared due to surface impedance to be effective at over 100 km distance, the EM impact at the target would have to be in the thousands of megawatt range or higher in bad weather AFTER that distance.

Sea-based X-band Radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The array requires over a megawatt of power.

That does not mean the array is putting out one megawatt of antenna power. And we are talking an X-band array that is many times larger than what a fighter class aircraft could carry.

USS Oklahoma City Talos Missile Fire Control System

These were very high power monsters (about 3 megawatts) that were 19 feet high, 17 feet wide, and weighed 22 tons. The megawatt radar beam was hot enough to cause flesh burns on anyone close by that was unfortunate enough to be in the beam, and it could damage electronic devices. During the Apollo missions to the moon Talos ships were issued orders to avoid tracking the spacecraft, or even transmitting signals into space while a spacecraft was overhead.

I do not know whence this idea that surface impedance on an absorber equipped body will generate enough infrared for an IRST sensor to pick it up at over 100 km, but it is a hilarious one wherever you got it.