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

In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
AIWS kicked off in March 1987: IAM went public in 1988 and in 1991
Friedman was speculating about how its accuracy could be improved if GPS
were used as a complement to inertial guidance. (IAM, not GAM, was
flying before 1991 - my mistake)

So we are back to the fact that we have not seen any GPS guided rounds
(minus that SLAM sort-of-GPS-guided-but-with-a-separate-terminal-seeker)
flying around until the latter part of the nineties.

Fielded in 1996 (GAM) and production hardware delivered in 1998 (JDAM)
means flying for a few years before that.

Flight trials of the GPS Guidance Package for JDAM started in 1993 as
far as I can tell (INTEGRATED INS/GPS TAKES OFF IN THE US, INTERNATIONAL
DEFENSE REVIEW, February 1993)


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
"The USAF who will fly and fight the aircraft", or "the USAF press
releases and contractual acceptance schedules"? Big difference.

In your mind.

And to the operators.

British and several other nations, including the US.

I don't think so.

Based on what experience? Is this your informed opinion from experience
in the field, or a knee-jerk reflex?


I have. Release certification and clearance to carry and drop the live
weapon.

Good on you--you go keep those USAF types in line, Paul; God only knows how
we have managed to muddle through thus far without your editorial input to
the folks who fly these things and fight in them.

So, when have they flown a warshot, or released even an inert training
round? Nothing published, nothing announced that I can find: just some
scale model wind-tunnel work.

That's not "editorial input", that's reality.

So far all that's been published is some wind-tunnel model work. Nowhere
near actual operational utility.

Tell it to the USAF. Go ahead--tell them they just HAVE to delete any
reference to the F/A-22 being JDAM capable when it enters front-line service
'cause you say so...

Why? It's an accepted convention that "capable" means "should be able to
accept once there's time and money to get the clearances". That you're
spinning that into a complete operational clearance is your error of
understanding, not mine.

Been there, done that, seen the pencil-whipping. Give me a single F/A-22
JDAM warshot drop. There must be _some_ news article _somewhere_ to
report an event like that.

Or is it "fully operational" except that the first actual live-fire test
will be in combat? Yeah, *that* has worked really well in the past.

Note that it has yet to enter into front-line combat unit service; those
fielded thus far are either at Edwards or joining the conversion/opeval unit
at Tyndall.

In other words, again, "capable" doesn't actually mean "cleared to carry
and use".

I'm not paying for the 'A' designator and it's not my military trusting
that 'capability' will mean 'can actually put warheads on target'.

Who really cares at this point.

The pilots and planners might have some views on the subject.

USAF says it will be JDAM capable when it
enters operational service--you say it won't be.

It's "capable" now, it just hasn't been reported as cleared to carry and
use the weapon.

Don't you understand the difference?


"Capable" means the weapon should fit and nobody can see any good reason
why it can't be persuaded to work safely.

"Cleared" means it's been tested and confirmed that the weapon and its
interfaces fits, remains secure through the flight envelope, and can be
safely released (and jettisoned) without getting hung up or recontacting
the airframe.

Most folks will accept the
USAF version unless you can prove they are lying.

You do realise that both versions can be correct? It certainly *should*
be "capable" but that tells you very little about its actual ability to
deliver warshots.

Kind of hard for you to do
at this point.

Never once claimed they were lying, just that they haven't done (for
example) store separation tests yet.

Airframe 4003/91-4003 is intended to carry out the JDAM integration
testing: point being "intended", meaning that testing lies in the future
rather than the past.


Or to quote John Manclark, director of test and evaluation at US Air
Force Headquarters:
"IOT&E exercises will assess a four-ship employment of Raptors in likely
combat scenario. The 31-week evaluation will focus on four key
capabilities: global deployment; effectiveness in counter-air missions;
survivability in an air-to-air and surface-to-air environment; and
sortie-generation. It will culminate in a sortie surge demonstration.

IOT&E will identify areas for improvement before the aircraft achieves
its initial operational capability milestone that is expected before the
end of 2005. Before IOC, the service will conduct follow-on operational
test and evaluation to validate JDAM release from the Raptor."

Again, the F-22 is 'capable' - just not certified or cleared yet. That's
not my opinion, that's a current statement from the USAF.


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
AIWS kicked off in March 1987: IAM went public in 1988 and in 1991
Friedman was speculating about how its accuracy could be improved if
GPS
were used as a complement to inertial guidance. (IAM, not GAM, was
flying before 1991 - my mistake)

So we are back to the fact that we have not seen any GPS guided rounds
(minus that SLAM sort-of-GPS-guided-but-with-a-separate-terminal-seeker)
flying around until the latter part of the nineties.

Fielded in 1996 (GAM) and production hardware delivered in 1998 (JDAM)
means flying for a few years before that.

Flight trials of the GPS Guidance Package for JDAM started in 1993 as
far as I can tell (INTEGRATED INS/GPS TAKES OFF IN THE US, INTERNATIONAL
DEFENSE REVIEW, February 1993)

But gee, Paul, if you can't show, on the web, where there were by-golly
*release* trials, etc., at that time, then you have...nothing! They might as
well not exist! That is your argument elsewhere, right?

Brooks



--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
Flight trials of the GPS Guidance Package for JDAM started in 1993 as
far as I can tell (INTEGRATED INS/GPS TAKES OFF IN THE US, INTERNATIONAL
DEFENSE REVIEW, February 1993)

But gee, Paul, if you can't show, on the web, where there were by-golly
*release* trials, etc., at that time, then you have...nothing! They might as
well not exist! That is your argument elsewhere, right?

No.

Development of a weapon's sensor requires captive-carry flight early in
development, with carriage and release trials of the all-up round later.
The contention was that GPS-aided weapons weren't flying until late last
decade: in fact development work and flight trials of the guidance unit
started about five years before that, leading to fielded weapons by 1997
or so.

However, integration of a weapon onto an aircraft isn't complete until
you've demonstrated fit, function and safe separation, and got whoever
your equivalent of DOSG is to certify it fit for live carriage.

Different discussions, different criteria.


At this rate I'm going to have to charge you for lessons.




--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In article , "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


Eh? The E-8 is operating at that range--you think that the range error of
the E-8's ISAR itself increases significantly through the depth of its
coverage? The platform doing the weapons release would have to be about on
top of the target. This configuration, using AMSTE, was credited with a
successful strike in its first test drop, from what I have read.

What weapon was used? A 2000lb bomb with it's large blast radius is easy
to use to claim a kill. Doing the same thing with the 500 lb version is much
more difficult and requires higher accuracy and better systems.
See the point? The reason for developing AMSTE and other systems of the
type is to use smaller weapons so more can be carried, or the a/c has longer
range. That requires the development of high accuracy GPS, INS, and
targeting systems.
It's like deer hunting. If you're a really expert shot you can use a .223 and
take head or spine shots. If you're not so good you use a cannon and try
to hit him wherever you can. (not good sportsmanship though)

Of interest
would be how much the E-8 "sees"--can it also pick up the aircraft dropping
the munition (regular JDAM in this case)(as I believe the follow-on E-10
will be able to do)? If so, then it would appear to offer the dropping
aircraft the same accuracy enhancement that its own SAR would afford--the
E-8 would have the target and the delivery platform in the same frame of
reference, so any ranging error would be largely negated?


Seeing something is not good enough for targeting.
Resolution matters, and resolution is linear with distance.

There are a lot of variables to consider, and frankly, due to my job,
I'm not comfortable running through the whole thing in an open forum.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


Eh? The E-8 is operating at that range--you think that the range error
of
the E-8's ISAR itself increases significantly through the depth of its
coverage? The platform doing the weapons release would have to be about
on
top of the target. This configuration, using AMSTE, was credited with a
successful strike in its first test drop, from what I have read.

What weapon was used? A 2000lb bomb with it's large blast radius is easy
to use to claim a kill. Doing the same thing with the 500 lb version is
much
more difficult and requires higher accuracy and better systems.
See the point? The reason for developing AMSTE and other systems of the
type is to use smaller weapons so more can be carried, or the a/c has
longer
range. That requires the development of high accuracy GPS, INS, and
targeting systems.

I'd think a three meter miss would likely be good enough for the 500 pound
variant; an inert 2000 pounder achieved that level of accuracy in a test
with a single E-8 providing the targeting fix:

"In the July 24 test, an Air Force E-8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack
Radar System (Joint STARS) provided target data to an F-16 equipped with an
inert, 2,000-pound, seeker-less, data link-equipped JDAM. The F-16, flying
at 20,000 feet, released the weapon nearly six miles away from the target.
Joint STARS directed the JDAM to a point where it engaged the truck, which
was traveling at 23 mph, shortly after the truck passed another vehicle at
an intersection. The weapon struck within three meters of the target, well
inside the lethal zone of a live JDAM."
www.capitol.northgrum.com/press_releases/ ngpress081203.html

Using two separate SAR inputs (one from an E-8 operating some one hundred
klicks away, the other from a JSF radar mounted on a test airframe some
thirty-five klicks distant), a 2000 pound live munition acheived a direct
hit on a moving M60 MBT target in a cluttered environment:

www.spacedaily.com/news/gps-03zzh.html

Av leak indicates that the reason for using the two radars is not related to
ranging problems:

"The reason Amste uses two radars is that Ground Moving Target Indication
Radars produce very accurate range estimates, but less precise estimates in
azimuth. By overlaying two simultaneous radar observations, a process called
bi-lateration, accuracy of azimuth is improved."
www.aviationnow.com/content/publication/ awst/20021202/avi_stor.htm

And I disagree with you as to why AMSTE was developed. While it will allow
the use of smaller weapons, it mainly was developed to give JDAM a
capability against moving targets, which the vanilla JDAM does not really
have.

It's like deer hunting. If you're a really expert shot you can use a .223
and
take head or spine shots. If you're not so good you use a cannon and try
to hit him wherever you can. (not good sportsmanship though)

No, in this case the program is designed to give you an assurance of hitting
and killing a running deer--while the vanilla approach is more like having
your rifle set in a fixed mount which is fine for killing Bambi while she is
motionless but not-so-fine for killing her while she meanders around or
bounds for cover.


Of interest
would be how much the E-8 "sees"--can it also pick up the aircraft
dropping
the munition (regular JDAM in this case)(as I believe the follow-on E-10
will be able to do)? If so, then it would appear to offer the dropping
aircraft the same accuracy enhancement that its own SAR would
afford--the
E-8 would have the target and the delivery platform in the same frame of
reference, so any ranging error would be largely negated?


Seeing something is not good enough for targeting.
Resolution matters, and resolution is linear with distance.

Seems to have worked OK during that E-8 only test. I believe that Av leak
source indicates the resuloution on the E-8 as is is some 12 feet, and the
folks at Northrup have supposedly tweaked it a bit via the software to have
an even lower resolution.

Brooks


There are a lot of variables to consider, and frankly, due to my job,
I'm not comfortable running through the whole thing in an open forum.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

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!!.

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

In article ,
John Cook writes:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 10:38:01 -0700, (Harry
Andreas) wrote:

In article , John Cook
wrote:

Harry

Quick question - I just read that F-22 crew now carry cell phones for
when the systems go down, so they can talk to ground control, is this
true??

LOL, I have not heard that. But then again, like I said, I'm working
other programs, not F-22.
I'l ask the F-22 crew if they/ve heard that one.

Thanks again...

Heres what I read, Unfortunatly its in German and I'm very rusty
now..

interviewer: Letzte Frage. Weil ich gestern wieder Neuigkeiten über
die F-22 gelesen habe. Eine Menge Troubles. Es gehen sich finanziell
nur noch 217 Stück aus und erst im Dezember wird man wissen ob man,
wann man in Serie und nicht nur in stückweise genehmigter Vorserie
produzieren wird können. Was sagst du dazu?

Test Pilot: Gemessen an der Zeitspanne - also wenn man überlegt wann
die zuerst geflogen sind (Erstflug 29.09.90), haben wir denen jetzt
schon drei bis vier Jahre abgeknöpft. Und das was ich sehe und was ich
höre...
Letzten Sommer war ich in Edwards, wo wir Probeflüge gemacht haben für
unser Helmdisplay in einer F-16. Und da haben die Amerikaner so in
bisschen über Raptor gesprochen. Und die müssen extreme Probleme
haben. Die haben halt in das Flugzeug alles integriert über einen
einzigen Computer - da ist so ein riesen Computer drinnen der ausser
Flugsteuerung eigentlich alles macht. Und da bin ich eigentlich sehr
froh über unsere Avionikarchitektur. In diese "fünf Familien" ist sehr
viel Redundanz eingebaut. Wenn uns etwas ausfällt, dann übernimmt ein
anderer Computer die wesentlichen Funktionen des defekten Systems.
Die Amerikaner haben halt das Problem, dass wen dieser Computer
abstürzt oder Fehler hat, dann geht alles unter - inklusive
Kommunikation, Navigation und allem. Und die Piloten haben erzählt,
sie haben jetzt Vorrichtungen im Cockpit wo sie ein Handy eingebaut
haben, damit der Pilot mit unten telefonieren kann wenn nichts mehr
geht. Da muss ich sagen, was wir bei uns haben ist ein serienreifes
Flugzeug und in USA ist das immer noch im Prototypenstadium.

Well, my German's about as rust as you can get, and still order Beer,
but what I make of the above is that he's commenting on the high level
of integration of ancilliary systems, and that it's tough for
Third-Party (Not on the System Prime) team to integrate their stuff
into the aircraft. I don't read "unten telefonieren" as Cell Phone
though. In context, and allowing for what appears to be a bit of
circular translation, it's more like a "backup voice radio" than
anythig else. Which could be anything from a standard UHF/VHF set in
the panel to a handheld in the Pilot's Pubs Bag. (Which is pretty
much the norm - when I've been flying things that need a radio, I
always bring a handheld, just in case, and whe my brother's off in his
767, he's got a handheld in his Jepp Case. (Along with a Maglite, the
appropriate sectionals, etc.) Which would just be prudent.

Think about it - in this context, an Aviation Band transceiver makes
much more sense than a cell phone.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...

Eh? The E-8 is operating at that range--you think that the range error of
the E-8's ISAR itself increases significantly through the depth of its
coverage? The platform doing the weapons release would have to be about on
top of the target. This configuration, using AMSTE, was credited with a
successful strike in its first test drop, from what I have read. Of interest
would be how much the E-8 "sees"--can it also pick up the aircraft dropping
the munition (regular JDAM in this case)(as I believe the follow-on E-10
will be able to do)? If so, then it would appear to offer the dropping
aircraft the same accuracy enhancement that its own SAR would afford--the
E-8 would have the target and the delivery platform in the same frame of
reference, so any ranging error would be largely negated?

Brooks

You are contradicting your fatuous "facts(?)" brooks. Now you are
saying the the E-8 and E-10 will participate directly in putting
ordnance on target. In a previous post you spouted this "fact(?)":
"The fact that the USAF,USN, USA, etc., are not going to place those
assets
in a situation of undue risk is patently obvious."

Meanwhile, suppliers to potential adversaries are realizing a market
to counter tactics you are postulating...
http://www.ainonline.com/Publication...1agatpg85.html
"If used on a long-range missile airframe, the ARGS-PD could give an
opposing air force the ability to take out strategic targets at
distances outside of the normal interception envelopes of U.S. or
other NATO fighters. Boeing E-3 AWACS or E-8 JSTARS aircraft–platforms
that U.S. forces depend heavily upon in time of conflict–would be
vulnerable as never before."

The long range missle airframes are in development as well, despite
your
"facts(?)"...
"Russian guided-weapons builder Novator is continuing to work, albeit
slowly, on an ultralong-range air-to-air missile, with a version on
offer for export to a select customer set.
Designated article 172, the weapon was included on a model of the
Su-35 derivative of the Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker, on display during the
Dubai air show.

Ground based threats also exist and are proliferating as well. Imagine
a cagey foe with some of these puppies who take real umbrage to
emitting aircraft wishing to do them harm...
http://in.news.yahoo.com/031020/43/28nkk.html
"Islamabad, Oct 20 (IANS) A Chinese missile termed an 'AWACS killer'
is to play a key role in Pakistan's strategy to counter the airborne
Phalcon radars that India is acquiring, media reports said Monday."

So which is it brooks? Either C4ISR assets are *never* put in harms
way? Or will we use them in hot tactical scenarios to target
ordanance?

Your "facts(?)" are mutually exclusive here.

sid wrote:
You are contradicting your fatuous "facts(?)" brooks. Now you are
saying the the E-8 and E-10 will participate directly in putting
ordnance on target. In a previous post you spouted this "fact(?)":
"The fact that the USAF,USN, USA, etc., are not going to place those
assets
in a situation of undue risk is patently obvious."

Naw, the F/A-22s will be the bomb droppers with Super Hornets providing
targetting and air to air cover and Growlers doing the jamming.

-HJC