Not to sound like an F-22 cheerleader but I thought this was interesting. . .

"“We’re way ahead of where people expected us to be,” Secretary Roche
said of the Raptor’s initial operational test evaluation trials.

The secretary used the results of a recent combat simulation to
describe the Raptor’s capabilities. “We had five F-15 Eagles against
one Raptor,” he said. “The engagement was over in three minutes. None
of the F-15s even saw the Raptor. The Raptor simply went down the line
and, in simulation, took out all five of the F-15s.”

One reporter asked if the simulations were fair, since the F/A-22
pilots had previously flown the F-15.

“They never get into dogfights, so it makes no difference,” Secretary
Roche said. “The fact that (the Raptor) flies very high, very stealthy
and at (Mach 1.6) without afterburner makes it very tough for anybody
else to have a fire control solution. The F-15s, with very good
radars, were not able to pick up and understand where the F/A-22s
were, and the F/A-22 was looking at the F-15s all the time.”

Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley explained the
situation further. “Real combat is an interactive event,” he said.
“You’re not looking for a fair fight; you’re looking for the game to
be called in the second inning, not having to play out all nine
innings."

The F-15s, with very good
radars, were not able to pick up and understand where the F/A-22s
were, and the F/A-22 was looking at the F-15s all the time.�

As I said numerous times no old fashioned backscatterer radar,no matter how
good they are,no matter if they are airborne or ground based, wont be able to
see f22 frontally,until its too late.
Thats the reason why air force develops an "airborne" multistatic system using
UCAVs.
Secretary of course forgat to mention that.

On 18 May 2004 14:54:31 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

The F-15s, with very good
radars, were not able to pick up and understand where the F/A-22s
were, and the F/A-22 was looking at the F-15s all the time.”

As I said numerous times no old fashioned backscatterer radar,no matter how
good they are,no matter if they are airborne or ground based, wont be able to
see f22 frontally,until its too late.
Thats the reason why air force develops an "airborne" multistatic system using
UCAVs.
Secretary of course forgat to mention that.


He also forgot to mention all the countries using such a system. Oh
yeah. There aren't any.

He also forgot to mention all the countries using such a system. Oh
yeah. There aren't any.

He should demonstrate f22(or any other stealth plane) capabilities aganist
silent sentry not aganist 5 or 50 F15s.Or he should have mentioned something
about air forces own UCAV based multi static detection system development
program.
BTW as far as I can remember I used the word "develops" not "uses" in my post.
Ground based silent sentry is in use but UCAV based system is still in
development.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
"They never get into dogfights, so it makes no difference," Secretary
Roche said. "The fact that (the Raptor) flies very high, very stealthy
and at (Mach 1.6) without afterburner makes it very tough for anybody
else to have a fire control solution. The F-15s, with very good
radars, were not able to pick up and understand where the F/A-22s
were, and the F/A-22 was looking at the F-15s all the time."

I wonder how it would do against Mig-29s with their IRST? It probably
wouldn't make much difference (even if the Migs knew where the F/A-22 was
they probably couldn't get a missile lock) but it might make for a more
realistic test.

On 18 May 2004 16:15:08 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

He also forgot to mention all the countries using such a system. Oh
yeah. There aren't any.

He should demonstrate f22(or any other stealth plane) capabilities aganist
silent sentry not aganist 5 or 50 F15s.Or he should have mentioned something
about air forces own UCAV based multi static detection system development
program.

Maybe you could provide us with a link to this UCAV program that is
"in developement"?


BTW as far as I can remember I used the word "develops" not "uses" in my post.
Ground based silent sentry is in use

By who?


but UCAV based system is still in
development.

So is antimatter propulsion but I'm not expecting it to enter service
any time soon.

On Tue, 18 May 2004 10:08:36 -0700, "David Pugh"
wrote:

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .
"They never get into dogfights, so it makes no difference," Secretary
Roche said. "The fact that (the Raptor) flies very high, very stealthy
and at (Mach 1.6) without afterburner makes it very tough for anybody
else to have a fire control solution. The F-15s, with very good
radars, were not able to pick up and understand where the F/A-22s
were, and the F/A-22 was looking at the F-15s all the time."

I wonder how it would do against Mig-29s with their IRST?


I'd think a F-14D would be a better choice. Most people seem to
forget it's also got an IRST and it's APG-71 is FAR better than a
Fulcrum's radar.



It probably
wouldn't make much difference (even if the Migs knew where the F/A-22 was
they probably couldn't get a missile lock) but it might make for a more
realistic test.

"David Pugh" wrote
"Scott Ferrin" wrote
"They never get into dogfights, so it makes no difference," Secretary
Roche said. "The fact that (the Raptor) flies very high, very stealthy
and at (Mach 1.6) without afterburner makes it very tough for anybody
else to have a fire control solution. The F-15s, with very good
radars, were not able to pick up and understand where the F/A-22s
were, and the F/A-22 was looking at the F-15s all the time."

I wonder how it would do against Mig-29s with their IRST? It probably
wouldn't make much difference (even if the Migs knew where the F/A-22 was
they probably couldn't get a missile lock) but it might make for a more
realistic test.

People are missing something here. M1.6 and high altitude for long periods
makes it difficult for_any_fighter to get a fire control solution,
regardless of detectability. Or at least that's what some of the fighter
drivers said here about doing (or trying to do) intercepts on MiG-25s some
years back. The envelope for a successful intercept is small and once the
nil detection range for fire control radars gets folded in...

It's all very well to apply handwavium multistatic techology that you just
happen to have in your hip pocket but how are you going to guide a weapon
using it? Inquiring minds...

On 18 May 2004 16:15:08 GMT, Denyav wrote:
He also forgot to mention all the countries using such a system. Oh
yeah. There aren't any.

He should demonstrate f22(or any other stealth plane) capabilities aganist
silent sentry

What is "silent sentry"?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

On Wed, 19 May 2004 00:57:56 +0100, phil hunt wrote:

What is "silent sentry"?

From http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/jaws/sentry.pdf

The heart of Silent Sentry is its innovative Passive Coherent Location
(PCL) technology developed by Lockheed Martin Mission Systems, which uses
everyday broadcast signals, such as those for television and radio, to
illuminate, detect and track objects. A passive detection system for U.S.
government civil agency and military purposes, Silent Sentry transmits no
radio frequency (RF) energy as conventional radar does and has no RF
"signature" to alert enemy threats. Instead, it can use the energy that
already exists in airspace for detection purposes, and does not adversely
affect or harm the environment.

--

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com