Stealth episode of Dogfights

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi:

Last night the History Channel had on an episode of Dogfights covering Stealth aircraft. The planes featured included the F-22, the F-117A, the Rafale (not really a stealth craft, but it does have a reduced radar cross signature), the planned F-35 and various Russian craft including the forward swept wing Su-47 Berkut (of which only a single prototype exists).

The various combats were set from 2012 thru 2020 and demonstrated the advanced features of data linking and vectored thrust maneuvers. The show got a bit far fetched with the use of an AWACs type plane with a nose mounted laser as well as SCRAM jet fighters with lasers fighting on the edge of the atmosphere.

One point that was brought up that confused me concerned the SCRAM jets not using missiles since they wouldn't work in space. I was under the impression that guided missiles carried their own oxidants in their fuel whether it is solid or liquid. Am I wrong here?

[Kyle Holgate]

Hi:

Last night the History Channel had on an episode of Dogfights covering Stealth aircraft. The planes featured included the F-22, the F-117A, the Rafale (not really a stealth craft, but it does have a reduced radar cross signature), the planned F-35 and various Russian craft including the forward swept wing Su-47 Berkut (of which only a single prototype exists).

The various combats were set from 2012 thru 2020 and demonstrated the advanced features of data linking and vectored thrust maneuvers. The show got a bit far fetched with the use of an AWACs type plane with a nose mounted laser as well as SCRAM jet fighters with lasers fighting on the edge of the atmosphere.

One point that was brought up that confused me concerned the SCRAM jets not using missiles since they wouldn't work in space. I was under the impression that guided missiles carried their own oxidants in their fuel whether it is solid or liquid. Am I wrong here?

I was confused about the missiles for the same thing Ed, 'till I remembered that to guide to target missiles use fins that require air to do any good. In space the missile would have to be a strait line weapon, no turning without some sort of attitude thrusters!
I did not know before the show that low frequency radar worked to spot stealth platforms. From what I know of radar it makes sense, but there would be problems as they pointed out: LF radar has lots of clutter, and LF radar is less accurate in fixing an exactly location to an object.

It was an interesting show - though they still have that bug up their butts about the US or the allies always winning every dogfight or battle.
I think it would be a more interesting show if they were more objective and studied dogfights from a neutral perspective. IF they did then you could have one on Max Immelman and some of the WW1 fights where once on a while the Germans did win (No, say it ain't so!).

[Warship NWS]

IMHO, the show got some things ok.. but others highly questionable. For one, just because Russia sells off fighters to other nationalities does NOT mean they will give their latest and greatest technology to them and it sure as heck does not mean the other nations will have the training to use them effectively much less the maintenance required for the advance avionics, ordnance, special mechanical requirements etc.. The USAF is definitely working in the direction of "upgradeable" systems however, they got that part dead on. The F-22 seen now is the start, not the end, much like the F-16 is up to Block 50+ now. There is no more of the "build it and forget it after C and D model" type thing going on any more. Even the AH-1 is likely to surpass the "Z" letter of the alphabet in terms of upgrades.

In the end, it is very hard to know where we will be exactly by 2017+ as everything in the technology field is moving very rapidly.. for all we know, the F-22/35 could be the last manned fighters we field for some time which means maneuverability limitations due to the frailty of human beings may be a thing of past with ultra-maneuverable high G aircraft which may be a requirement to aid with evasive maneuvers vs high-G thrust vectoring missiles.

Thanks.

[old_pop2000]

Hi:

Last night the History Channel had on an episode of Dogfights covering Stealth aircraft. The planes featured included the F-22, the F-117A, the Rafale (not really a stealth craft, but it does have a reduced radar cross signature), the planned F-35 and various Russian craft including the forward swept wing Su-47 Berkut (of which only a single prototype exists).

The various combats were set from 2012 thru 2020 and demonstrated the advanced features of data linking and vectored thrust maneuvers. The show got a bit far fetched with the use of an AWACs type plane with a nose mounted laser as well as SCRAM jet fighters with lasers fighting on the edge of the atmosphere.

One point that was brought up that confused me concerned the SCRAM jets not using missiles since they wouldn't work in space. I was under the impression that guided missiles carried their own oxidants in their fuel whether it is solid or liquid. Am I wrong here?

First, missiles use solid rocket boosters. The AIM-155 will use a solid rocket booster and possibly a ramjet. The solid rocket booster will accelerate the missile to ramjet speed, then the ramjet will take over. This should give better speed and range.

Just note: If an F-22 maneuvers, it usually loses stealth. If it goes beyond mach 1, it loses stealth. If it opens its missile bays, it loses stealth. If it uses active scanning radar, it loses stealth. It's primary advantage is a reduced radar cross section allowing it to get into missile firing range quicker without being detected. Stealth can be maintained only when all EM emissions are silent. If you transmit, your enemy can and probably will detect the transmission, triangulate and have you on target acquisition.

The idea of the F-22 stealth was to make it affordable stealth without compromising its aerodynamic ability and mission capability.

This tape will self destruct in 10 secs, Good Luck, Ed.:p

[Warship NWS]

The idea of the F-22 stealth was to make it affordable stealth without compromising its aerodynamic ability and mission capability.

This tape will self destruct in 10 secs, Good Luck, Ed.:p

You may lose some stealthiness with various aspects of air combat.. but considering the fact that to date not a single F-22 has been shot down in any fighter combat excersizes, that we know of, I would take an F-22 up over an F-15 any day of the week and in actual combat the F-15 has never been shot down. ;)

[Kyle Holgate]

but considering the fact that to date not a single F-22 has been shot down in any fighter combat excersizes,


F-22's have "shot down" other F-22's...:D

[Kyle Holgate]

I was surprised that their crystal ball to the future didn't have unmanned fighters. I think that we're going to get there eventually.
For the Russian built stuff - I totally agree that the ones that are exported likely won't be the best they have or be the best maintained. I think they were playing with a "what if they are?" scenario though, just for kicks.

[Warship NWS]

F-22's have "shot down" other F-22's...:D

Well gee.. in an even fight someone has to die right? ;)

[Warship NWS]

I was surprised that their crystal ball to the future didn't have unmanned fighters. I think that we're going to get there eventually.
For the Russian built stuff - I totally agree that the ones that are exported likely won't be the best they have or be the best maintained. I think they were playing with a "what if they are?" scenario though, just for kicks.

The lack of unmanned fighters surprised me also -- it is the wave of the future - recon aircraft are just the start. As to "what if".. it is always best to prepare for the worst and hope for the best.. never underestimate your opponent, we have done this since the Cold War started and it has paid off in spades.

[djcyclone]

Hi:

Last night the History Channel had on an episode of Dogfights covering Stealth aircraft. The planes featured included the F-22, the F-117A, the Rafale (not really a stealth craft, but it does have a reduced radar cross signature), the planned F-35 and various Russian craft including the forward swept wing Su-47 Berkut (of which only a single prototype exists).

The various combats were set from 2012 thru 2020 and demonstrated the advanced features of data linking and vectored thrust maneuvers. The show got a bit far fetched with the use of an AWACs type plane with a nose mounted laser as well as SCRAM jet fighters with lasers fighting on the edge of the atmosphere.

One point that was brought up that confused me concerned the SCRAM jets not using missiles since they wouldn't work in space. I was under the impression that guided missiles carried their own oxidants in their fuel whether it is solid or liquid. Am I wrong here?



I am suprised that they used the F-117A. The Nighthawk is actualy a miniture bomber and nothing else. It is unable to paticipate in dogfights because it has no air to air radar and other tracking equipment. It only carries two dumb bombs that can be laser guided by ground parties, or simply droped via glide bombing.

I was always confused as to why it was called the F-117A instead of the B-117A. It does not even have chaff and flares for defensive countermeasures. If the enemy is lucky enough to get a heat signature on a nighthawk then the game is over, and the nighthawk is going down.

[old_pop2000]

I am suprised that they used the F-117A. The Nighthawk is actualy a miniture bomber and nothing else. It is unable to paticipate in dogfights because it has no air to air radar and other tracking equipment. It only carries two dumb bombs that can be laser guided by ground parties, or simply droped via glide bombing.

I was always confused as to why it was called the F-117A instead of the B-117A. It does not even have chaff and flares for defensive countermeasures. If the enemy is lucky enough to get a heat signature on a nighthawk then the game is over, and the nighthawk is going down.
The F-117A was a fighter-bomber, it was designated a fighter attack aircraft. That's why the designation as a fighter. I suspect the USAF was attempting to deceive opponents into believing it had a limited AA capability, which it did not.

[Ed Rotondaro]

First, missiles use solid rocket boosters. The AIM-155 will use a solid rocket booster and possibly a ramjet. The solid rocket booster will accelerate the missile to ramjet speed, then the ramjet will take over. This should give better speed and range.

Just note: If an F-22 maneuvers, it usually loses stealth. If it goes beyond mach 1, it loses stealth. If it opens its missile bays, it loses stealth. If it uses active scanning radar, it loses stealth. It's primary advantage is a reduced radar cross section allowing it to get into missile firing range quicker without being detected. Stealth can be maintained only when all EM emissions are silent. If you transmit, your enemy can and probably will detect the transmission, triangulate and have you on target acquisition.

The idea of the F-22 stealth was to make it affordable stealth without compromising its aerodynamic ability and mission capability.

This tape will self destruct in 10 secs, Good Luck, Ed.:p

Dennis:

I don't know if you saw the show, but they had one of the F-22s missiles get jammed into position and this caused its stealth profile to weaken to the point where the plane was targeted and shot down by an AA missile.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The lack of unmanned fighters surprised me also -- it is the wave of the future - recon aircraft are just the start. As to "what if".. it is always best to prepare for the worst and hope for the best.. never underestimate your opponent, we have done this since the Cold War started and it has paid off in spades.

Chris:

Considering the long lead time required to put a modern aircraft into service, they most likely skipped unmanned birds as not being available in the near future.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I am suprised that they used the F-117A. The Nighthawk is actualy a miniture bomber and nothing else. It is unable to paticipate in dogfights because it has no air to air radar and other tracking equipment. It only carries two dumb bombs that can be laser guided by ground parties, or simply droped via glide bombing.

I was always confused as to why it was called the F-117A instead of the B-117A. It does not even have chaff and flares for defensive countermeasures. If the enemy is lucky enough to get a heat signature on a nighthawk then the game is over, and the nighthawk is going down.

DJ:

They included the F-117As so that the F-22 Raptors could escort them. IIRC, the F-117As also had some air to air missiles and used radar guidance from other planes to help out in the dogfight.

[old_pop2000]

DJ:

They included the F-117As so that the F-22 Raptors could escort them. IIRC, the F-117As also had some air to air missiles and used radar guidance from other planes to help out in the dogfight.
F-117A's never had an air to air missile although the USAF did consider using sidewinder's on them.

[William Miller]

Not to mention that the F117 has now been officially retired...the last one went into reserve storage recently.

[old_pop2000]

Not to mention that the F117 has now been officially retired...the last one went into reserve storage recently.
Heh Heh! Yup, that is true. Doesn't mean that could be removed. Some are headed to AMARC, others might be going back to Tonapah. That's where they used to fly from, that maybe an indication that they could be used for secret missions involving black operations. They could be used for killing high profile terrorist leaders or groups, flying singly in areas without good radar coverage.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Not to mention that the F117 has now been officially retired...the last one went into reserve storage recently.


William:

That I did not know. Guess they have high hopes for the F-35 Lightning.

[Kyle Holgate]

The F-117A was a fighter-bomber, it was designated a fighter attack aircraft. That's why the designation as a fighter. I suspect the USAF was attempting to deceive opponents into believing it had a limited AA capability, which it did not.

That we know of...;)

[old_pop2000]

That we know of...;)
Well, we are pretty certain. The F-117 did not have an AI radar, so unless another aircraft illuminated the target and tracked it, no sparrow. The sidewinder has to be tuned and locked onto the target before launch. This has to be accomplished in the open, not in an enclosed bomb bay. So, unless the F-117 carried them externally which would negate stealth, I don't really see how they could carry them. Also, as soon as the launch was effected, everyone is going to know an aircraft is in the area, again giving away your position.

I don't thing they probably had missiles.

[Warship NWS]

Chris:

Considering the long lead time required to put a modern aircraft into service, they most likely skipped unmanned birds as not being available in the near future.

We are already arming UAVs with various light weight weapons. Arming one with an IR AAM would not be difficult at all. It would take a lot less lead time to develop and design a combat capable UAV then a full combat jet that requires a human in the cockpit, especially since UAVs are already available and easily upgradeable.

[Warship NWS]

William:

That I did not know. Guess they have high hopes for the F-35 Lightning.

The F-22 is stealthier then the F-117A .. stealth technology has evolved quite a bit since the F-117A first came along, and it was not the first "stealthy", or RCS reduction, aircraft - it was just the first one armed with bombs. The F-35 is not as stealthy as the F-22 but it is stealthier, in certain flight profiles and loadouts, then the F-117.

[djcyclone]

I think it was an F-117 that we lost in Kosovo, when we where there. I remember something on the news about a stealth aircraft being shot down, and how it brought up so many questons about if the enemy had found a way to detect our stealth fighters.

The ground forces immiedietly moved on the location of the downed aircraft with force to make sure nothing was taken by the enemy. If I remember right they ended up blaming it on some sort of malfunction, but that could have just been a cover up. It may have been a lucky shot from an AAA gun, or maybe an enemy fighter got a heat signature on the nighthawk. As I said before, if you get a heat signature on a nighthawk, then it is game over because they do not have anything to counter that. They do not carry flares or chaff, and they do not have powerfull enough engines to manuver effectivly against a missle. Now that I think of it, I am not sure Kosovo even has fighter jets, but I cannot be certain of that.

It was a long time ago, and I do not remember that much about it, but I do remember the news report vaguely.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I think it was an F-117 that we lost in Kosovo, when we where there. I remember something on the news about a stealth aircraft being shot down, and how it brought up so many questons about if the enemy had found a way to detect our stealth fighters.

The ground forces immiedietly moved on the location of the downed aircraft with force to make sure nothing was taken by the enemy. If I remember right they ended up blaming it on some sort of malfunction, but that could have just been a cover up. It may have been a lucky shot from an AAA gun, or maybe an enemy fighter got a heat signature on the nighthawk. As I said before, if you get a heat signature on a nighthawk, then it is game over because they do not have anything to counter that. They do not carry flares or chaff, and they do not have powerfull enough engines to manuver effectivly against a missle. Now that I think of it, I am not sure Kosovo even has fighter jets, but I cannot be certain of that.

It was a long time ago, and I do not remember that much about it, but I do remember the news report vaguely.

DJ:

The word is that the Nighthawk was downed when a mobile SAM launcher got a radar lock when it opened its bomb bay door. Maybe a 1 in ten chance, but it was enough to push the need for better stealth features. But this stuff is still so classified as to make it hard to determine what happened.

[old_pop2000]

DJ:

The word is that the Nighthawk was downed when a mobile SAM launcher got a radar lock when it opened its bomb bay door. Maybe a 1 in ten chance, but it was enough to push the need for better stealth features. But this stuff is still so classified as to make it hard to determine what happened.
The planning in Kosovo was poor. They kept using the same flight path for ingress and egress. Eventually, even Kosovan's can figure out where you are. I suspect that they barraged the path with SA-3 missiles and got lucky. Nothing more, nothing less.

However, let's keep it in perspective. After 6900+ combat flight hours and 2040 bombs dropped, they finally got one under dubious circumstances. And those are just Desert Storm figures, not including Panama, War on Terror, Kosovo and Iraqi Freedom. I'd say the plane is still pretty safe.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The planning in Kosovo was poor. They kept using the same flight path for ingress and egress. Eventually, even Kosovan's can figure out where you are. I suspect that they barraged the path with SA-3 missiles and got lucky. Nothing more, nothing less.

However, let's keep it in perspective. After 6900+ combat flight hours and 2040 bombs dropped, they finally got one under dubious circumstances. And those are just Desert Storm figures, not including Panama, War on Terror, Kosovo and Iraqi Freedom. I'd say the plane is still pretty safe.

Dennis:

Good point. Bet a lot of Skyraider pilots would have loved to fly a Nighthawk.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Good point. Bet a lot of Skyraider pilots would have loved to fly a Nighthawk.
Ed:
I doubt it. Pilots who flew sandy's were a rare breed. These are the guys who like to fly, low and slow, and shoot at anything that moves, in broad daylight. Flying at night, dropping one JDAM would not suit this group. They like broad daylight, 20mm cannons and 500 lb. slicks. They like to roll in on the target, with a sharp aileron roll and diving attack. They are the archetypal pilots that created the expression "There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old bold pilots".

[Warship NWS]

Ed:
I doubt it. Pilots who flew sandy's were a rare breed. These are the guys who like to fly, low and slow, and shoot at anything that moves, in broad daylight. Flying at night, dropping one JDAM would not suit this group. They like broad daylight, 20mm cannons and 500 lb. slicks. They like to roll in on the target, with a sharp aileron roll and diving attack. They are the archetypal pilots that created the expression "There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old bold pilots".

Agreed.. totally different mindset for example when you compare the follow up to the A-1 Skyraider, the A-10 Warthog, to flying a F-117A. F-117A flights.. lots and lots of planning.. bomb one darn target.. fly home. A-10.. move mud, shoot armor, loiter.. big difference.

[Kyle Holgate]

The planning in Kosovo was poor. They kept using the same flight path for ingress and egress. Eventually, even Kosovan's can figure out where you are. I suspect that they barraged the path with SA-3 missiles and got lucky. Nothing more, nothing less.

However, let's keep it in perspective. After 6900+ combat flight hours and 2040 bombs dropped, they finally got one under dubious circumstances. And those are just Desert Storm figures, not including Panama, War on Terror, Kosovo and Iraqi Freedom. I'd say the plane is still pretty safe.

From what they said on the Dogfights show - the "fighter" was downed by using low frequency radar, something stealth aircraft are theoretically vulnerable to at least as far as detection. LF radar tends to be very inaccurate though, and getting a missile to a specific plane with it would be problematical. I don't know how much is classified about how radar specifically works - target radar anyway so I'll leave it at that (I remember too much sometimes...).

[Warship NWS]

From what they said on the Dogfights show - the "fighter" was downed by using low frequency radar, something stealth aircraft are theoretically vulnerable to at least as far as detection. LF radar tends to be very inaccurate though, and getting a missile to a specific plane with it would be problematical. I don't know how much is classified about how radar specifically works - target radar anyway so I'll leave it at that (I remember too much sometimes...).

I seriously doubt that was the case as to how the F-117A was shot down. Some SAMs have backup tracking systems such as IR/Optical either due to manufacturing upgrades or field modification and/or as happened during Vietnam.. if you fire enough big rockets in the sky you might just hit something. The first priority of stealthy flights is to NOT let the enemy have any idea of when or where you will be flying.. if you fly the same path at around the same times, or estimated time frames, eventually someone will ping you. Dennis got that part dead on and that was a critical factor in how the F-117A was downed, also note it was operating with earlier generations of stealth technology and it is a low performance aircraft with its only primary asset being the ability to hide. If it is spotted it is fairly vulnerable.

Thanks.

[old_pop2000]

I seriously doubt that was the case as to how the F-117A was shot down. Some SAMs have backup tracking systems such as IR/Optical either due to manufacturing upgrades or field modification and/or as happened during Vietnam.. if you fire enough big rockets in the sky you might just hit something. The first priority of stealthy flights is to NOT let the enemy have any idea of when or where you will be flying.. if you fly the same path at around the same times, or estimated time frames, eventually someone will ping you. Dennis got that part dead on and that was a critical factor in how the F-117A was downed, also note it was operating with earlier generations of stealth technology and it is a low performance aircraft with its only primary asset being the ability to hide. If it is spotted it is fairly vulnerable.

Thanks.
The SA-3 Goa is a medium ranged missiles. The P-15 Flat Face can guide three missiles at the same time. There is no reason that the SAM's could not be ripple fired in a barrage. The NVA did exactly the same thing in the later stages of the air war in Viet Nam. Two P-15 can be used as a bistatic system with one acting like the transmitter widely separated from the other, acting like a receiver. You could even use an FM radio transmitter as one portion of the bistatic system. If the barrage caused the F-117 to jink violently to miss the barrage, it would become visible to radar during the maneuver, then another, more accurate firing solution would be possible. There could have been problems in the plane, that caused it to become visible, many things are possible. The most plausible is the routing issue. Remember that this aircraft had already dropped one of its JDAMS. That meant opening its bomb bay doors, which would have given the Serbs at least a brief fix on the target, then with simply math, they could calculate a course based on speed and time; D=RT. Simple navigation could have given them the necessary data to lob some missiles and get lucky.

[old_pop2000]

I was just doing some figuring on Google earth about this shootdown.

If the Serbians had witnessed the takeoff's at Aviano night after night, this would give them time T=0. They know the route and now get T=1 as the aircraft crosses the coast. They know the distance and time, which now gives them the rate or speed of flight. The next time is T=2 which is the first bomb. Using the calculated speed plus T=2, they can estimate T=3 and the area in which plane must be located, based on the speed and how far it could travel in X number of minutes. They could focus all their radars on that area, get some brief fixes and barrage or ripple fire their missiles into that area, and hope that the IR terminal guidance gets lucky. It would be a low probability strike, but it could work without sophisticated methods.