# What could combat the F22?



## Konigstiger205 (Jun 13, 2008)

I want your opinions about the Russians attempt to modernize their Mig29 under the name of Mig35 and other planes that could successfully hold out against the F22.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 13, 2008)

Hello Konigstiger 205,

Taking the present state of art in regards to electronics, radar, missile and stealth technology into account, I would forward that there is no other aircraft at the moment that could pose a serious threat to an F-22. (If all these data’s are proven) besides the “patronized” information that is fed into the market solely by the producer and the USAF.

Second runner up would be the Eurofighter – Typhoon, and possible even the right now #1 aircraft in regards to “proven” data’s. 

As for the Russian or Chinese latest or newest aircrafts I would forward, that besides speed and agility there isn’t anything else that comes even close to Europe’s or the US best aircrafts and existing technology. 

The F-15SG model is capable enough to handle Russia’s and Chinas best, but due to the F-22 sales need – it’s fantastic capabilities are totally downplayed.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## drgondog (Jun 13, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Hello Konigstiger 205,
> 
> Taking the present state of art in regards to electronics, radar, missile and stealth technology into account, I would forward that there is no other aircraft at the moment that could pose a serious threat to an F-22. (If all these data’s are proven) besides the “patronized” information that is fed into the market solely by the producer and the USAF.
> 
> ...



I happened to engage an RAF Wing CO six weeks ago at Davis Monthan OC. Over a few brews he actually echoed the same words.

He was quite happy to engage with the F-15 and F-16's at Nellis and felt the Tyhoon was very capable against them, particularly in energy manueverabilty.
He also felt if he could get close enough to 'see' the F-22 that the a/c would be nicely matched... that was the rub.

They were at DM to get joint tasking experience with the A-10 teams as well as F-16 and F-15 CAS tactics..

Very sharp group of guys - as well as the A-10 drivers at DM


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Jun 14, 2008)

Well I didn't realize that the Eurofighter Typhoon was so advanced. I like the plane a lot and I'm very happy to hear that its so good. I really hope the wise a*ses from the Romanian Air Forces will be smart enough to choose it to replace our aging and rusting Mig 21's. But returning to the topic I also like the Sukhoi 47 Berkut wich looks really mean, although its just a prototype at the moment and I don't know how advanced it is in terms of avionics.


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 14, 2008)

It is just a demonstrator.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 14, 2008)

Unmanned drones capable of 30G turns and cheap enough to be expendable is the weapon that we should be deploying now. All they need to do is crash into an enemy fighter to be successfull.

The manned fighter is becoming a thing of the past.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 14, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Unmanned drones capable of 30G turns and cheap enough to be expendable is the weapon that we should be deploying now. All they need to do is crash into an enemy fighter to be successfull.
> 
> The manned fighter is becoming a thing of the past.



Hello syscom,

That is about just what I stated in another thread; Europe or in that specific case Germany is allocating its funds into UCAV’s instead of following up on the F-22 policy.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 14, 2008)

Yeah you guys are building the Barracuda, right Kruska? I thought I just read that you just approved some follow on airframes for your tech eval work.


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 14, 2008)

EADS Barracuda


----------



## drgondog (Jun 14, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Hello syscom,
> 
> That is about just what I stated in another thread; Europe or in that specific case Germany is allocating its funds into UCAV’s instead of following up on the F-22 policy.
> 
> ...



I would like to be in a Preliminary Design meeting as they start to define the overall cross section (radar and engines) and wing for the air to air mission..and command/control communication lag times in 'hot' scenarios.

These are among the more interesting design issues - which may drive AI and Pattern Recognition into places not currently contemplated


----------



## Kruska (Jun 14, 2008)

Hello Matt308,

Actually I forward, that Germany is using its limited recourses to develop UCAV’s to enter service by 2020-2040 and that in the meantime the existing aircrafts will be upgraded by RaSigma in order to close the gap till then.

BTW, the US is still leading on the UCAV technology. However it might lose its lead since even the US wouldn’t have the $$ to peruse the F-35, F-22, UCAV and other stealth projects at the same time. 

Nice picture though. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Kruska (Jun 14, 2008)

drgondog said:


> These are among the more interesting design issues - which may drive AI and Pattern Recognition into places not currently contemplated



Hello drgondog, 

The problem still plaguing the RaSigma RCS verification print is the development of the necessary algorithms to translate RCS ID into onboard Incoming readings for sure identification. This will be the milestone on any future UCAV development or let’s rather say mission effectiveness. The Hologram application is limited due to weather conditions and reading range. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## drgondog (Jun 14, 2008)

That makes sense - 

I can't help but believe two criteria are required that haven't been solved - namely positively ID an unidentified a/c (100%), and second, when given command to shoot it down, have the requisite intelligence (and sensors) to detect what the other guy is doing to enable a 'kill' solution if manuever is required... out of communication link connection.

Satellites will be targeted so have to provide for intermittant or disconnected situations - because even egress may not be feasible


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 14, 2008)

Not to mention ECM in the traditional form of RF energy, but also technology related to plasma appliques.

Yes the US is spending money on manned airplanes with stealth characteristics. But then again the mission profiles of the US are significantly different than from a nation whose primary defensive posture is their immediate borders. Once your operational enviroment moves beyond border protection, the ability to rely upon AI to identify, classify, and prioritize weapon weapon release becomes much more complex with political realities. Programs (and I'm referring to those that are not black) like the X-45 and X-47 are indicative of the airframes that are leading these evaluations. The use of UASs, UAVs, UCAVs is less a technology issue than it is an order of battle/integration issue with existing force application.

While unmanned aircraft are the thing of the future, manned aircraft will form the backbone in a future netcentric warfare scenario. Unmanned aircraft require high bandwidth communication to account for the lack of autonomous decision making that affect human life. This can be too easily denied. Thus, a squadron level manned aircraft able to penetrate air defences on par with unmanned aircraft are vitally important to operations for those countries who wish to project power.

While your comments about about your countries RCS prowess is well taken, that is only a sliver of the overall needs for one which wishes to affect battlefield change outside of their borders.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 14, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Unmanned drones capable of 30G turns and cheap enough to be expendable is the weapon that we should be deploying now. All they need to do is crash into an enemy fighter to be successfull.
> 
> The manned fighter is becoming a thing of the past.



Don't kid yourself - the same thing was said in the 1950s (as previously discussed). I believe we'll see both manned and UAVs operating together, but the days of building several hundred manned fighters is over. I see a day were you'll see say 100 manned fighters and 1000 UAVs making up a modern fighter force.


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 14, 2008)

Man I wish I hadn't effed up this thread with that big Barracuda pic.


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Jun 15, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Man I wish I hadn't effed up this thread with that big Barracuda pic.



I liked it since I had no idea of such a project


----------



## Kruska (Jun 15, 2008)

Well, this is what this forum is all about right?  

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 15, 2008)

Me effing things up?


----------



## Kruska (Jun 15, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Me effing things up?



*As long as it is German, I wouldn't see a problem at all  *

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 15, 2008)

Okay how about the French Neuron. She's a beauty.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 15, 2008)

The Neuron (small men’s B-2) is expected to have its first flight by 2011. It could be seen as a contra-productive product on behalf of France and others in regards to the EADS group, which is involved in this project as well.

Germany and partners favors a fighter concept with Multi-role-function, whilst France and its supporters prefer a differentiation between Ground Attack vehicles and fighter.

In the end a competition will decide which UCAV project is going to be continued or not or both since it will be a highly political inspired controversy.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 15, 2008)

Is the Neuron under the EADS effort too? I thought it was an indigenous French effort only.


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 15, 2008)

...and here is the Russian Skat UCAV. Much less further along in development however.


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 15, 2008)

Notice the laterally bifurcated engine inlet.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 15, 2008)

I would design a medium sized drone, cruising along at 100,000 feet, carrying several smaller kamikazi UAVs. No radars are needed as all targeting data is from external sources, linked to the this drone.

Once an enemy aircraft is detected, the drone drops the UAV, which then dives onto its target and kills it by kinetics (and maybe a simple proximity fuse). This is similar to what the Phoenix missle system did, in that you dive onto your target from above, where its radar signature is high.

This could cover the battlefield 24/7.

As for current UAV's .... I bet the wizz kids in area 57 have some damn neat things in the hangers.


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 15, 2008)

...like UAVs that are capable of months or even a year on station? Yep, good idea and being pursued. It is interesting what persistence and payload can accomplish in formulating change on the order of battle.

Like a carrier group stationed in Hawaii called to an Asian flash point. Lauch UCAVs for immediate reconnaisance, comm links and strike while the carrier groups are en route. Or having ISR UAVs capable of directing ECM activity from Prowlers/Growlers like a artillery spotter as the carrier group approaches the activity zone. The transformational ideas for the use of UASs is truly leading edge. And as I said before, it is less about the UAS technology and more about their integration into the modern battlefield.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 15, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Is the Neuron under the EADS effort too? I thought it was an indigenous French effort only.



It is a very confusing mix-up of industries. The nEUROn project was announced between EADS, Dassault Aviation and Thales in 2003. There are six countries and eight companies involved.
The major difference between the two projects, Neuron and Barracuda besides its mission spectrum is the guidance system. Whereas the Neuron is still a joystick operated platform, Barracuda is similar to the Global Hawk guidance system and even incorporates an autonomous terrain following radar.

Main difference between the future US developed UCAV’s and those of Europe, is the strategic role on behalf of the US and the tactical emphasis’s on Europe’s developments.

Page 45 on the QDR report 2006.

Restructure the Joint Unmanned Combat Air System (J-UCAS) program and develop an
unmanned longer-range carrier-based aircraft capable of being air-refueled to provide greater
standoff capability, to expand payload and launch options, and to increase naval reach
and persistence. 

One of the reasons for the US to cancel projects similar to the Europeans such as X-47 or X-45.

The main reason is however as i forwarded before:

Quote......,Supporters of both efforts note that the unmanned bomber assessment may have support at the Pentagon, but so far hasn't engendered much interest among Air Combat Command where future requirements for such a system would normally be generated. One FB-22 advocate noted that the Air Force doesn't have the money for a new program, and that a derivative of the F-22 would be much cheaper than starting a bomber project. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## eddie_brunette (Jun 19, 2008)

Wow those UCAV's are awesome. 
I'm not to clued up on modern aviation, so jokingly I will say the best competition for the F22 is a WW2 pilot, as those pilots only stealth and radar, were due to there brilliant eyes and skills.


----------



## starling (Jun 19, 2008)

i am a novice here,but tornado f.3 with its foxhound look down radar,with amraam and firestreak missiles would have a chance.starling.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 19, 2008)

starling said:


> i am a novice here,but tornado f.3 with its foxhound look down radar,with amraam and firestreak missiles would have a chance.starling.



Hello Starling,

You would be very wrong. In today’s air combat scenarios – the deciding factors in regards to interception and elimination of an aircraft - happens at BVR (Beyond Visual Range), meaning the whole package is done decided by radar and electronics. It all comes down to the simple fact of “First look – first shoot”. 
Now based on the present technical knowhow status, nothing would come close into combating an F-22 if one acquits to the actual practical status of the F-22, which so far is only forwarded by the producer and pilots of the F-22. 
In regards to dogfights which can’t be out ruled now or in the future the practical flight demonstrations by the F-22 would leave a Tornado F3 without the slightest chance.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## seesul (Jun 19, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Hello Starling,
> 
> You would be very wrong. In today’s air combat scenarios – the deciding factors in regards to interception and elimination of an aircraft - happens at BVR (Beyond Visual Range), meaning the whole package is done decided by radar and electronics. It all comes down to the simple fact of “First look – first shoot”.
> Now based on the present technical knowhow status, nothing would come close into combating an F-22 if one acquits to the actual practical status of the F-22, which so far is only forwarded by the producer and pilots of the F-22.
> ...



I´m not an expert but am curious...What´s your opinion of the comparison F-22 with Mig-35?


----------



## seesul (Jun 19, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Man I wish I hadn't effed up this thread with that big Barracuda pic.



You can remove the picture, downsize it under 100 kB and put it back...


----------



## Kruska (Jun 19, 2008)

seesul said:


> I´m not an expert but am curious...What´s your opinion of the comparison F-22 with Mig-35?



Dobriden seesul,

Presently its “enhanced” technology is merely provided by 2-3 existing frontline aircrafts. So besides the Indians having thoroughly evaluated this aircraft – little to nothing is actually known to the outside.

The Zhuk-AE, the OLS or its RD-33MK engines are surly indication towards a highly performing aircraft but leave little actual evidence in regards to practical performance. Within the next 2 years an improved version with vector thrust nozzles is going to be presented.

The statement of an AESA Radar reaching to a 130 km does not indicate much in regards to its beam detection strength and the probability of its intercept, or the interface to its missile links and the performance of Russian AAM’s as such. The RaSigma installation in Germany has tested the MiG 29 thoroughly and also found its weakness in regards to antenna positioning and restricted counter ECM features. The quality of the surface structure is the actual Achilles heel of this aircraft and any other Russian aircraft. 

So to put it together IMO, the MiG 35 is for sure a very capable attack aircraft but its lock on capability or defensive survival chances against a Eurofighter or F-22 are doubtful.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## seesul (Jun 19, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Dobriden seesul,
> 
> Presently its “enhanced” technology is merely provided by 2-3 existing frontline aircrafts. So besides the Indians having thoroughly evaluated this aircraft – little to nothing is actually known to the outside.
> 
> ...



Vielen Dank für den Vergleich!


----------



## starling (Jun 20, 2008)

ladies and gents,i would like to apologise to you all,if i have offended anyone on this thread,with my remarks,and indeed any other threads.it seems my harpoon notebook is quite clearly wrong.yours,lee. .


----------



## seesul (Jun 20, 2008)

starling said:


> ladies and gents,i would like to apologise to you all,if i have offended anyone on this thread,with my remarks,and indeed any other threads.it seems my harpoon notebook is quite clearly wrong.yours,lee. .



...what for ...what happened?


----------



## seesul (Jun 20, 2008)

Few pics from an old thread: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/pics-f-22-a-12776.html


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 20, 2008)

starling said:


> ladies and gents,i would like to apologise to you all,if i have offended anyone on this thread,with my remarks,and indeed any other threads.it seems my harpoon notebook is quite clearly wrong.yours,lee. .



No worries starling. It's the "internets" and there are infinite places to play. I think this pic says it all anyways.


----------

