F-22A "Raptor": the best in the world and the most ...
Poking around in what the adversaries had done about their wonderful F-22A aircraft, I came up with one thing: it's just a flying (sometimes) bag of contradictions. On the one hand, it is touted as the best aircraft in the world, the equal of which is not only not there, but is not even expected, and if it is foreseen, then again, exclusively from the United States. On the other hand, it is already so outdated and dilapidated that it needs to be urgently changed to something more modern.
But even despite the second, the Raptor is presented as something invisible and deadly, which, if necessary, will shoot Russian Su-35s from a distance of 150 kilometers, like ducks.
It’s not easy with the Su-35 at all, the plane was very unlucky and for some reason it was appointed in the world to be the main rival of the F-22A and they began to disperse this topic. As a result, our aircraft got even as many rumors and myths as the Raptor, but today we are not talking about the Su-35.
Yes, and we will talk about the F-22A not from the point of view from which this aircraft is discussed and confronted in comparisons. Just because the F-22A is all out of print, finally landed, retired, and so on. Call it what you want, he's not a fighter, whatever one may say. Yes, about a hundred aircraft will be in storage "just in case", but it is very doubtful that we will ever see the F-22A in a real combat clash with the Su-35S. But I will allow myself to speak about this at the very end.
Myth #1. About the almost complete invisibility of the F-22A
Almost every self-respecting "expert", speaking of the F-22A, cites some magical RCS figure of 0,0001 sq.m. What does she mean?
In general, EPR is a newly invented quantitative measure of stealth. It had to be invented to show how well the aircraft "shines" on the radar screens, that is, how well radio waves are generally reflected from the aircraft.
It is really measured in square meters, the standard is a metal sheet with an area of 1 sq.m. Naturally, no one is going to lift it into the air, everything is done by calculation.
But here the physics, and therefore the EPR (Effective Scattering Surface) can be seriously different even with a slight turn of the aircraft, the use of RPMs (radio absorbing materials) and so on.
So, about 0,0001 sq.m. the F-22A. For a very long time I tried to find out who gave out this figure at all, and with the help of no less stubborn comrades, I found it.
There is such a magazine in the USA as Avianedelya. Aviation Week & Space Technology has been published since 1916. With its audience and good circulation. But as a publication that has crossed the century, employees feel somewhat at ease there, and therefore from time to time they give out something sort of, semi-fantastic. Not often, but they give out. All these "our unnamed source in circles close to ...".
Well, you already understand.
In one of these materials, it sounded, in fact, that the RCS of the F-22 is 0,0001 sq. m for all distances, angles and wavelengths. Magic materials of the case, magic calculations of the geometry of corners, magic materials of the RPM ... In general, such a solid Hogwarts.
In fact, of course not, this simply cannot be.
In general, such a hefty crap like the Raptor simply cannot physically “glow” like an object the size of a tile in your bathroom. No matter how you coat it with RPM, how many layers of different materials you don’t apply (but you have to), there is an opinion that yes, such ultra-small values \uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbcan be achieved, but in a limited segment of the millimeter range. And not from any angle.
And how will it look in different centimeter ranges? From S and X to Ku? It is clear that in the "light" of the radar with different wavelengths, the F-22A will look different and there's nothing to be done about it. So either the Americans came up with some kind of their own physics, or their statements, to put it mildly, are completely unscientific.
Everything turned out like in a song by Vysotsky: “The elephant said without understanding: it’s clear that there will be a flood!”. And the Raptor was written into something that was generally invisible to radar.
At the same time, it should be noted that the US Air Force made simply titanic efforts so that the F-22A did not fly where it could be “felt” behind the belly by different radars. Especially Russians and Chinese. Well, so as not to spoil the overall picture of the superplane.
But even without that, there were more than enough people who wanted to spin the Raptor on a computer in 3D model mode. And they cheated that the EPR of the F-22A, excluding RPM, would be something around 0,3-0,4 sq.m. Taking into account that RPMs in the USA are very good, the RCS can be safely reduced to 0,03 sq.m for the X-band.
But here it already becomes clear that 0,03 and 0,0001 are different things. And instead of a “black hole”, a really inconspicuous plane appears. And yes, here we should not forget that the EPR value is directly dependent on the change in wavelength and angle, moreover, it changes non-linearly. That is, simply by putting a well-known organ to the nose, it is impossible to purely assume how the F-22A will look in the S-band. You have to try, as they say.
So the myth that the Raptor will look equally beautiful in all angles and on all radio wave bands - alas, no. Physics vs. Somewhere the plane will be really very inconspicuous, and somewhere it will be visible in full. But all this is already on the conscience of the guys from Avianedelka.
Myth #2. On the versatility of the F-22A airborne radar antenna.
Here everything is somewhat more complicated. The myth goes like this:
“The AN / APG-77 radar antenna canvas can be divided into several zones, due to which the F-22 can simultaneously survey and search for air targets using radar, use weapons, jam, operate in RTR mode.”
In fact, theoretically, all this is possible. Indeed, the AFAR antenna can be divided into several sectors and each can be loaded with its own task. And here everything is just on the way, the power of the onboard generators and computing systems would be enough. And in practice, it really could well be that our F-22A flies, fired a rocket there, sent a packet of interference there, at the same time painted on the trajectory of an ally's rocket - all so multifunctional and invulnerable.
Cool, right?
But now, as a shadow of Armageddon, a question arose behind with big black letters EMC - “electromagnetic compatibility”. And the issue of EMC completely kills this fairy tale about the so-called multifunctionality.
Let's take a look at a very simplified example. We have a certain AFAR with 1000 cells, which are called PPM - a transceiver module. That is, each such cell is able both to shoot somewhere with a signal of a certain frequency, and to receive the reflected part of this signal. In fact, modern AFARs have under two thousand anti-tank guns, but let's take a thousand, so it will be easier for one lazy person to count. And yes, each cell can really be selected, grouped with a number of others, and set a separate task for them.
And here we are such a theoretical prem somewhere on the F-22A. Engines hum, radar draws color pictures, everything goes on as usual. But then some kind of radar station appears, which begins to stretch its tentacles towards us. And, in accordance with our tasks, saving missiles that may be useful in the future, this radar should be illuminated with interference.
Again, in theory, it looks like this: out of the 1000 PPM we have, we take and allocate 200 PPM for this task. Yes, we will decide that the signal power of one module is 1 W. And so we form a packet with interference and send them to the enemy. As they say, for all 200 watts of power. We send, as you understand, in the X-band, in the same one that air radars work with. And ours as well.
And here a number of questions immediately arise from our on-board equipment:
1. Will 20% of the antenna power be enough to deliver high-quality jamming greetings to the enemy?
2. And how will the signals of our radar be received at this time, given that a jamming transmitter is operating ten centimeters from the receiver? And how high is the probability that part of the sent interference will not return back, albeit in a weakened form and will not confuse the head of its radar?
3. How much will the “squeezed out” 20% of the PPM reduce the capabilities of the radar in terms of range and accuracy? Hypothetically, considering the same 20%, at a radar operating distance of 200 km, 20% is just minus 40 km. That is, for some time the radar will “see” at 160 km.
Moreover, it is also worth noting here that it is not very convenient for an aircraft pilot to engage in this balancing act. Now, if there was a navigator, then all these switching and appointments could easily be put on him, and in general, a combat fighter pilot has something to do in flight without these frills.
In general, it turns out that somehow it’s not a myth, but it doesn’t look like a reasonable undertaking either.
But if you use the ENTIRE surface of AFAR to perform ONE task with the help of an elementary switch, then there is something in it. But this is already being used by pilots and not only on the F-22A, alternating between the modes of review, capture and tracking of the target, and jamming. But all the same, according to many who understand, it is much more effective to use ... a jammer as a jammer! Yes, from a regular set of weapons or in a hanging container, it doesn’t matter so much. More importantly, he will cope with the task more calmly and better than AFAR switched to another mode.
The only example of multitasking that can take place is the simultaneous scanning of airspace and the earth's surface. This mode of operation is possible easily, the main thing here is that the radar viewing angles allow.
Myth #3. Chudo-BRLS AN / APG-77
The AN / APG-77 radar can operate in passive mode, because it belongs to AFAR radars, which, in turn, are capable of operating in the mode of masking the operation of the radar under a noise signal, thereby providing additional stealth.
This scarecrow in various interpretations has been roaming the Internet almost since the advent of AFARs. Let's go through the alphabet.
What is AFAR? It is, first of all, an antenna.
Fancy, but nonetheless. How can the active or passive operation of the radar depend on it at all? No way. Reception is such a thing, it can be on its own reflected signal, active, it can be on strangers, that is, passive. They turned off the transmitter, leaving the receiver - here you have the change of asset to liability. But the antenna will receive in any case.
As for the operation of the radar in the "radio silence mode", then everything is even simpler. A scattered broadband signal was able to be recognized 20 years ago. I won’t take it upon myself to say how well this was implemented in the Raptor avionics, but in our Su-30MKI (that is, since 1992, as a fighter went into production), this was easily used, moreover, on the H011 Bars radar, which is not AFAR at all.
The algorithm was as follows: after detecting a target at a long range, the target coordinates are automatically fixed, the station goes into radio silence mode. When the aircraft approaches the optimal range weapons, the system launches missiles. It is possible that the Americans have something similar, but this is a completely common occurrence.
Myth number 4. Super speed and super maneuverability F-22А
The message is this: the F-22A superengines (of course, the fifth generation!) provide the aircraft with unparalleled speed characteristics and super-maneuverability no worse than those of Russian aircraft.
This is where everything really needs to be laid out.
In general, I would like to start with the fact that such an aircraft is a compromise. A compromise between stealth and speed and maneuverability (especially) qualities. This can be clearly seen in the example of Russian aircraft, which sacrifice stealth in favor of super-maneuverability.
What does the F-22A have with its F119-PW100 engines? Yes, everything is not bad really: impressive afterburner thrust, non-afterburning supersonic ... But there are nuances. For the sake of high afterburner thrust, the bypass ratio had to be cut in order to reduce the inductive resistance. Accordingly, the engine became louder, the fuel consumption increased significantly, the temperature of the exhaust jet increased, which is also not very pleasant for the aircraft (missiles welcome).
It so happened that the most efficient F-22A engines in terms of supersonic without afterburner at altitudes of 10-12 km. At other heights - very so-so and with a creak. But here it is worth remembering that the F119-PW100 was created almost in the last century, so it’s a breakthrough, whatever one may say.
The aerodynamics of the F-22A is generally something. If you look closely and with a magnifying glass at the plane, in this respect it is close to the F-14 or our MiG-23. The integral aerodynamic layout, due to the requirements of stealth, the wing was made flat, and the fuselage is also assembled from the most flat surfaces. There are no influxes, the forms are generally simplified as much as possible.
But this bears fruit precisely on supersonic sound, where the Raptor is really quite good. But the same cannot be said about subsonic speeds. The subsonic maneuverability of the F-22A is sad and, at best, can be compared with 4th generation fighters. Therefore, it’s simply not worth talking about some kind of super-maneuverability in general: the F-22A is good at a speed of 1-1,2M, but it’s completely useless where super-maneuverable Russian aircraft perform miracles of aerobatics.
Myth number 5. The hunter is invisible and deadly
The F-22A has an AIM-120D air-to-air missile with a maximum range of 180 kilometers. Using stealth and all of the above, the F-22A can destroy any aircraft in the world long before it detects the Raptor.
Reading all the reports regarding the fact that the AIM-120C-8 missile (namely, as it was called before being renamed AIM-120D) has a flight range of about 180 km, to be honest, I was very surprised. If you look at the manufacturer's website, it is indicated in English letters that the engine of the rocket is similar to the AIM-120C-5/6 engine, and the C-7 version is launched by the same engine. And the flight range there is in the region of 120-130 km. Where did 180 km come from - the question.
In addition, do not forget that the maximum range is usually indicated for relatively slow non-maneuverable targets. A transport aircraft, a tanker aircraft, an AWACS aircraft, and even one flying on a missile carrier.
But with a highly maneuverable and high-speed target, everything is much more complicated. The launch range can easily be reduced by 2-3 times if the target begins to “exhaust” the missile upon detecting its launch. And the same Su-35 can arrange this matter in such a way that 6-7 seconds after the launch, the rocket will generally lose interest in it due to the complete exhaustion of fuel. And without the engine running, the electronics don't work either, so that's it. The life of a rocket is generally a short matter. So here, super-maneuverability is not particularly needed at such distances, just decent maneuverability and speed are enough.
“Shoot and forget” is also not entirely correct. Even for missiles with an active seeker, not everything is so simple. No, of course, this is possible when shooting "point-blank" at aviation measure (10-20 km), when the GOS of the missile can capture the target while still on the pylon. But then - sorry, the radar on the GOS is a very weak thing, if it sees a target for several tens of kilometers, it can also lose it. That is, even when launched on a large and slow target, the missile must be corrected by the radar of the carrier. Otherwise, catch it somewhere over the horizon.
An active radar seeker is a very good thing, and different from a missile with a passive missile launcher. What really does not require guidance from an aircraft on the final segment of the trajectory, the rocket must cope on its own. But to say that the rocket itself, without fine-tuning, will fly 180 km towards the target is from the realm of fairy tales.
That is, the Raptor, which is in radio silence, not detected, crept up to 180 km and launched a rocket “out of nowhere” is, alas, a myth.
Myth number 6. Multifunctionality.
The F-22 is said to be a multifunctional aircraft capable of solving a wide range of tasks on a variety of types of targets.
This is the most rollicking fairy tale of all today. For lunch, so to speak.
When gentlemen from across the ocean talk about multifunctionality, I would recommend that they not re-read the nomenclature of what can be hung / stuffed into the Su-34 not at night. And imbued with the understanding that there are many functions from destruction.
What does the F-22 have? Never mind! We don’t take a 20-mm chirp for weapons at all, this is purely for drone flinch, nothing more. Two types of air-to-air missiles and three types of bombs: JDAM, GBU-39 and SDB-53/B. Bombs are luxurious, it's not worth arguing, but can all problems be solved by operating with these bombs? No, not all.
I read an article in which our well-known Hunt from The Drive wrote in all seriousness that there simply cannot be a worse enemy than the F-22 for our S-300 / S-400, thanks to the presence in the arsenal of guided bombs with a range of up to 110 kilometers. Say, a complete nightmare and horror for the Russians: an almost invisible plane throws very accurate and almost invisible bombs that will destroy these S-300s.
In general, yes, only the F-22 can cope with such a task: at a speed of 1,5 M, at an altitude of 12-15 km, drop this same SDB so that it really flies 100 km. The rest of the carriers of this ammunition either have the wrong speed / altitude, or speed limits with such blanks under the wings.
Another question - what about the detection of the carrier, which is the F-22 radar S-300? Many experts openly say that at such heights this will be done very quickly. Yes, these are comfortable heights for the F-22, but they are also comfortable for anti-aircraft missiles. This is not a drone to drive at 50 meters, you need to understand.
And in the end, it’s really a little bit of tar: there are only three types of bombs on the ground. From optics, only a missile detector (though decent in every sense) attacking an aircraft, containers with aiming devices, reconnaissance equipment, electronic warfare are not and will not be, of course. During the operation, the onboard electronic warfare station was never made, but this is “suppression” with the help of radar - well, this is simply not serious. EW for the poor.
And so it turns out that you can talk as much as you like that the F-22 is the most combat aircraft in the world, but in reality, alas, not very science fiction. And the image that is being very successfully imposed on the whole world is, for some reason, very far from what it really is.
In general, yes, the plane is good. Like any aircraft that does not fight against us, right?
Information