Gripen , Typhoon , Rafale vs F-15C , F-16C ,F-15E , Su-27 , Mig-29

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

The difficultly wasn't why it went away. They tested multiple assemblies locations and the window assemblies were tested in 1996.This was not the problem. US fighters before and after the F-22 have had IRST's and GE (Now LMEM) was the industry leader in the US in that domain . If they need an IRST, I'm sure Lockheed could revive its plan and sensor as long as there is still SWaP to install one. During the ATF, Lockheed Martin had developed the sensor enough to begin testing it in the lab.

With the ASISST awards they have given Northrop an opportunity to get back into this field for the NG systems, so you could potentially have two competitors for an IRST if you wanted something in the future (without NG having to go out to SELEX like they do today). However, as I had mentioned earlier, this if considered, will be a far out capability for the F-22 so forget about an IRST in the next 10 years given other more important priorities for Increment 3.3 and beyond.

https://s15.postimg.org/8nswude2z/Lockheed_ATF_IRST.jpg

https://s3.postimg.org/nmqrvlpir/Lokcheed_ATF_IRST1.jpg

Member for

14 years 1 month

Posts: 8,850

Well I'm sorry you think that but IIR missiles with 90deg HOBS and LOAL are game changers. It previously wasn't possible to hit enemy fighters that were on your tail and immunity to flares is a big deal.
I personally think that medium range IR guided missiles, like MICA IR, too, are game changers. But since except Russians and French the others don't field any, they obviously don't count..

I'm quoting fact.
In fact, you're not.. You're claiming the missile not having LOAL but you are wrong.. Your source says "the missile lacks capability of manoeuvering before lock" not launching before lock.. The fact is there is a way of firing it well beyond the seeker range and it's not a blind shot as the carrier aircraft has IRST. Yes, there is the 15deg limitation but 15deg at ~60km that's a huge box of airspace. How far can you escape in those 45secs you got left, or even start launching flares if you don't even know the R-27ET is coming?

I would definitely rate the likes of a MICA IR well above it.
MICA IR is a beast, no doubt..

Member for

7 years 7 months

Posts: 949

I personally think that medium range IR guided missiles, like MICA IR, too, are game changers. But since except Russians and French the others don't field any, they obviously don't count..

In fact, you're not.. You're claiming the missile not having LOAL but you are wrong.. Your source says "the missile lacks capability of manoeuvering before lock" not launching before lock.. The fact is there is a way of firing it well beyond the seeker range and it's not a blind shot as the carrier aircraft has IRST. Yes, there is the 15deg limitation but 15deg at ~60km that's a huge box of airspace. How far can you escape in those 45secs you got left, or even start launching flares if you don't even know the R-27ET is coming?

MICA IR is a beast, no doubt..


Quite wrong, ASRAAM has similar kinematic capabilities compared to MICA and there is an ASRAAM upgrade that will use CAMM components being worked on as we speak. The problem is the R-27ET isn't medium range in practice because it's seeker-limited and the historical combat performance stats of other R-27 variants hasn't really inspired confidence. However, none of this really applies to dogfights, which were the original topic.

Okay, but that's no different to an AIM-9M, which isn't regarded as LOAL. Essentially any IR AAM can be fired without lock, hoping that it will meet an aircraft on its travels, but in the field that isn't known as a capability, it's known as a Hail Mary. The missile can't even be sent to a specific INS position, nor does it have a datalink, nor an IRST function, it's just fired straight (hopefully) and if the enemy aircraft moves outside its 15deg cone, it misses. Friendly flies across that cone during flight and it's 'oops'. So whilst you can argue technicalities, by the widely accepted definition of LOAL, it's not LOAL because it lacks all of the 3 key attributes of the industry-defined LOAL capability. Therefore my statement was accurate to the definition of LOAL used in Western defence.

Member for

9 years 8 months

Posts: 1,123

The difficultly wasn't why it went away. They tested multiple assemblies locations and the window assemblies were tested in 1996.This was not the problem. US fighters before and after the F-22 have had IRST's and GE (Now LMEM) was the industry leader in the US in that domain . If they need an IRST, I'm sure Lockheed could revive its plan and sensor as long as there is still SWaP to install one. During the ATF, Lockheed Martin had developed the sensor enough to begin testing it in the lab.

With the ASISST awards they have given Northrop an opportunity to get back into this field for the NG systems, so you could potentially have two competitors for an IRST if you wanted something in the future (without NG having to go out to SELEX like they do today). However, as I had mentioned earlier, this if considered, will be a far out capability for the F-22 so forget about an IRST in the next 10 years given other more important priorities for Increment 3.3 and beyond.

For the long term the USAF is working on staring IRST, so maybe it would make more sense to replace the MLD sensors with IRST staring arrays if it's possible. But for the short term they could look at an off the shelf system with minimum mods for stealth. Think like what the Japanese did for their F-15s.

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

For the long term the USAF is working on staring IRST, so maybe it would make more sense to replace the MLD sensors with IRST staring arrays if it's possible. But for the short term they could look at an off the shelf system with minimum mods for stealth. Think like what the Japanese did for their F-15s.

Even with advanced requirements you would be hard pressed to get high performing long range IRST sensor fitted within the MLD. That would be a very giant leap if it were possible, and something one would be best advised not to take as a given until they come out and claim such a thing.

Additionally, as I have mentioned, there is no 'short term' requirement for an IRST on the F-22. There are a lot of things that they would want to do over the next decade and they would be extremely lucky to have them all funded. Out of those things that are currently funded beyond Inc. 3.2, the OMS is the most important aspect and it would be rather foolish and pointless to seek a major hardware addition prior to it. If for some unforeseen reason urgent or emergent requirements for an IRST emerge then they will try to incorporate systems that are currently funded which could mean a derivative of the IRST-21, or its Northrop/Selex competitor both of which would have been evaluated by the USAF and USN and one or both of which would have had serious DOD $$ behind it in terms of investment and further development. The Navy just contracted Boeing (and through them Lockheed) for follow-on development work for the IRST-21 sensor and the USAF is funding 1 or 2 design teams for a future system.

If there still is SWaP for the IRST as was the case in 1997 then they could have other options. Digging into some old articles about the F-22 IRST-drop it leads me to believe that they still have that space reserved for it somewhere. I've now come across 3 articles from the early to late 90's that claim that they could add it back on during the mid-life upgrade which would line up quite nicely with the new systems being developed. They also 'flight-tested' two systems (One each for the Northrop and Lockheed teams) during DemVal so it went much beyond just 'lab testing'.

Member for

9 years 8 months

Posts: 1,123

The PAK-FA and and even more so the J-20 turned out to be stealthier than expected, so the need for an IRST is likely to become urgent as both will soon enter service.

There are a lot of things that the USAF would like to afford but can't, it's not just a matter of requirements.

Member for

7 years 7 months

Posts: 949

The PAK-FA and and even more so the J-20 turned out to be stealthier than expected, so the need for an IRST is likely to become urgent as both will soon enter service.

There are a lot of things that the USAF would like to afford but can't, it's not just a matter of requirements.


Where's the evidence they turned out stealthier than expected?

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

The PAK-FA and and even more so the J-20 turned out to be stealthier than expected, so the need for an IRST is likely to become urgent as both will soon enter service.

I was reffering to actual 'urgent need' and not something someone thinks is an urgent need. There are processes and procedures out there to rush emergent and urgent needs and rapidly acquire the capability but NONE exists for an IRST for the F-22. The USAF is currently pursuing a requirement for IRST's on its other tactical fighters.

There are a lot of things that the USAF would like to afford but can't, it's not just a matter of requirements.

First goals is to accommodate as many things as they can according to the priorities they assign to each one. As I had mentioned, there is ZERO talk of an IRST capability but there are other current funded upgrades that will go beyond 3.2. OMS is one such example. IRST has not emerged as a need at this point, and is highly unlikely over the next decade. In the 2025-2030 time frame it is a possibility especially with the next generation IRST's that should be mature by that point.

Where's the evidence they turned out stealthier than expected?

Who's expectation are we talking about here?

Member for

7 years 7 months

Posts: 949


Who's expectation are we talking about here?

Another valid question.

Member for

9 years 8 months

Posts: 1,123

Between what the USAF wants and what it can afford there is a big difference. The pilots have have wanted an HMS and 9X for a long time and they won't even have them for a couple of years. If they are putting IRSTs on F-15s and F-18, it is because there is a need. The F-22 being a primary fighter, it is hard to argue that it doesn't have the same need. The USAF does what can be afforded with the limited funds available.

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

Between what the USAF wants and what it can afford there is a big difference.

Precisely. That's why I said :

There are a lot of things that they would want to do over the next decade and they would be extremely lucky to have them all funded.

So they'd be lucky to get the things they currently plan on having and OMS is the biggest one beyond inc. 3.2. They have never reffered to an IRST demand over the next upgrade cycle so that's not even something they are looking to get, leave aside actually getting it paid. That could change but then anything could change and we may be seeing the production restart, engine replacement etc etc etc

The pilots have have wanted an HMS and 9X for a long time and they won't even have them for a couple of years.

True. That is more reason to believe that an IRST isn't happening since there isnt even a requirement for it yet.

f they are putting IRSTs on F-15s and F-18, it is because there is a need.

Precisely! There is a requirement for IRST's on F-15's and F-18's.

The F-22 being a primary fighter, it is hard to argue that it doesn't have the same need. The USAF does what can be afforded with the limited funds available.

The USAF determines need and how needs are prioritized given finite resources. There are always competing priorities. I'll say again, there is no current requirement for an IRST on the F-22 and it would be foolish to do it before you have finished the OMS switch.

Member for

9 years 8 months

Posts: 1,123

LOL! You have a way of sayings things that is rather funny! You think that it is all a matter of requirements, and that requirements are always met with actual programs. The reality is that sometimes the money is so tight that it takes a very long time to meet even the most basic requirements.

Just check what this F-22 pilot says here regarding the helmet:

"We've been screaming for years that the F-22 needs to have the capability fielded, and fast," the Raptor pilot says.

Basically the F-22 pilots have wanted a helmet desperately since the beginning.

So NO, the USAF doesn't fund anything it wants, even things that would be a great capability. The F-15 and F-18 are receiving IRSTs , even those that are receiving the AESA radar, because they are so much easier to upgrade and the upgrade path of the F-22 is already full because the plane is hugely expensive to upgrade.

Fact is the PAK-FA and J-20 will soon be coming online, it won't happen in the late 20's.

It is also rather funny that the F-35 proponents repeat that the F-35 will have the advantage of having an IRST? Why would it be an advantage if there is no need for one?

Member for

7 years 7 months

Posts: 949

When you spend $700bn/year on defence I'm inclined to believe it is about requirements. Even the HMS and AIM-9X were probably put off on the basis that the F-22's objective is to kill enemy aircraft well before such items become useful.

I think the confusion is between requirements and nice-to-haves. Requirements are to meet core needs and objectives. Nice-to-haves are things that would be a useful capability upgrade but not essential to core needs.

Member for

9 years 8 months

Posts: 1,123

The US defense budget is much less than 700 billions now. Take into account the huge amount of waste and you end up with the current state of the USAF, which is constituted for the most part of old planes in significantly smaller numbers, and most of them not significantly upgraded. And also the USAF will face a fighter shortfall of several hundreds planes within a decade or so.

They go by priority obviously, but sometimes they are forced to chose between a HIGH priority and a MEDIUM priority, so obviously they chose the HIGH one.

Who would have predicted 10 years ago that the J-20 would be VLO? Even the PAK-Fa has surprised western analysts. So there is clearly a need for an IRST when these planes enter service, which should not take long now.

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

LOL! You have a way of sayings things that is rather funny! You think that it is all a matter of requirements, and that requirements are always met with actual programs.

I haven't actually said that if you bothered to read it. I said was that the USAF, much like any other US Government financed agency sets up requirements and then looks to fund them. Often they do not get enough money to fund all that is on their wishlist, and sometimes they can't even get all the requirements fully funded. They would consider themselves lucky if all that was on their wishlist actually found its way into a requirements document and then it was fully funded and delivered.

Now consider for a second that in a situation where they would be lucky to have their entire set of requirements funded by congress, what are the chances of actually getting stuff funded for which requirements do not currently exist? An IRST in the short term would fall into that category. Do note that 'requirements' in this context is a document crafted by the USAF that spells out what the program is to deliver within a specified time-frame. It isnt a synonym for 'need' or 'wish' but a technical set of capabilities specified by the end-user that the program sets out to get funded and eventually deliver.

"We've been screaming for years that the F-22 needs to have the capability fielded, and fast," the Raptor pilot says.

And how is that inconsistent with anything that I have said?

Basically the F-22 pilots have wanted a helmet desperately since the beginning.

And if you actually bothered to read what I have been writing over the last couple of pages, you would have noticed that I have on multiple occasions referred to the fact that the USAF, placed a requirement for HOBS, IRST, and HMS in their original ATF proposal and that they were subsequently cut, or deferred for budgetary and/or schedule reasons. The requirements for HOBS missiles came back with Increment 3.2 and therefore the Aim-9X has been integrated with full capability expected over the next year or so. HMS is next on the list. However, unlike these two capabilities, there was no IRST requirement ever advanced in any of the short term upgrades planned for the future be it Inc. 3.2A, 3.2B or 3.2C (Now 3.3).

It is also rather funny that the F-35 proponents repeat that the F-35 will have the advantage of having an IRST? Why would it be an advantage if there is no need for one?

You are pulling yet another strawman. Who is arguing that the IRST would not be an advantage for the F-22? Could you point to an occasion where I actually said that? The requirements process looks at competing priorities and balances those with expected funding sources. As I have mentioned on a number of occasions OMS and HMS is their next big priority beyond the incremental upgrades to the EW, and software that they do with every sub block. They had also wanted cheek arrays. Beyond this, no hardware changes have ever been proposed for Increment 3.3 (that we know of) and beyond 3.3 you are essentially looking at post mid 2020's.

Member for

9 years 8 months

Posts: 1,123

So there was a need in the 90's for an IRST ( given that it was in the requirements ), but there is still no need for the near future now, knowing that the Russians and Chinese are designing planes that have small or very small RCS, and that these airplanes will soon enter serice. This is ridiculous. Fact is that they will continue to go with what is THE MOST PRESSING, given the fact that the plane is hugely expensive to upgrade.

YOU say that there is no need for an IRST relatively quickly against the PAK-FA and J-20, but the argument doesn't hold water. Obviously an IRST would be of great help against these planes.

If there was not so much waste in the DOD, they could do a lot more than they actually do.

Member for

7 years 7 months

Posts: 949

Oh okay, $600bn.

Compare it to say the RuAF. How many old planes in there? 180+ F-22s and several dozen F-35s - that's more stealth fighters than most European nations have fighters in total. Also about 500 F-18E/Fs with AESA, which are hardly old, 100 EA-18Gs, several hundred Eagles with AESA too. How many cruise missiles? A few thousand maybe.

More a case of what they need relative to current threats. Right now, nobody else has stealth fighters, so job done. In 4 years maybe the first enemy stealth fighters will be entering service and then they'll have probably several hundred F-35s with IRST and DAS, so again, requirement covered and enemy threat countered.

Err... everyone would have predicted that was the aim. How stealthy is it with those canards? Don't see any other stealth fighter with them. Jet nozzles, non-stealth design. Rear of canards not aligned with rear of wings. PAK-FA - that IRST bubble on ts own has the frontal RCS of several hundred F-22s. What's the point in an internal weapons bay when that's on the outside of your aircraft? Non-aligned surfaces, those nozzles. I think it's yet to be proven that they even are VLO. LO maybe.

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

So there was a need in the 90's for an IRST ( given that it was in the requirements ), but there is still no need for the near future now, knowing that the Russians and Chinese are designing planes that have small or very small RCS, and that these airplanes will soon enter serice. This is ridiculous. Fact is that they will continue to go with what is THE MOST PRESSING, given the fact that the plane is hugely expensive to upgrade.

That is not what I have been saying. The F-22's capability was watered down in an effort to reduce cost and schedule. That is something the whole world knows. Going beyond that, there are a dozen different things you can do to improve it and only some of those things find their way through each sub-block. HMS for example missed both Increment 3.1 and 3.2 even though in the 1990's it was determined as one capability they would want to have. Similarly, Aim-9X missed 3.1 and came in late with 3.2. The reason for that is obviously that there isn't enough money or schedule (when they'd like these capability drops) to fund everything they want so they prioritize and then have a look over their shoulder to see how the F-22 modernization plan is funded internally within the service's budget. The things that miss a particular sub-block aren't all of a sudden 'un-important, or not-needed' but just lower down on the priority list when all things considered together and then balanced with the anticipated budget.

Fact is that they will continue to go with what is THE MOST PRESSING, given the fact that the plane is hugely expensive to upgrade.

Precisely! IRST isn't on their list, at least of the things they have spoken publicly about when it comes to Increment 3.3.

YOU say that there is no need for an IRST relatively quickly against the PAK-FA and J-20, but the argument doesn't hold water. Obviously an IRST would be of great help against these planes.

I haven't said that. I said that there are no 'requirements' for an IRST in the short term. There are other things they are funding or plan to fund with the money they think they are likely to get over the next 5-10 years. If the money increases more things will come in, and if it appears to be going down, more things will be pushed to the right.

Will the F-22 benefit from an IRST? Absolutely! It will also benefit from Lasers and adaptive engines but they try to match their requirements with their funding through a process that is actually mandated by the DOD. In any event, the reason they are so aggressively pursuing OMS switch on both the F-22, and even the F-35 is for making hardware integration more competitive, affordable and more frequent - This will benefit things like IRST and other sensor integration and/or upgrade down the road.

Member for

9 years 8 months

Posts: 1,123

AHAHAH You crack me up!! :D

You live in lalaland if you think that capabilities are cut because there is no need anymore, and not because of budget constraints and cost overruns.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/chinas-j-20-stealth-fighter-vs-japans-f-15-who-wins-14112

The J-20 appears to have a nose cone large enough to conceal an advanced active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, giving it the ability to detect distant targets and attack them with radar-guided missiles. Newer prototypes appear to be equipped with an infra-red search and track system and an electro-optical targeting system for air-to-ground attacks.

http://su-27flanker.com/2015/03/29/chinese-stealth-chengdu-j-20/#

The J-20 made its first flight on 11 January 2011, and is expected to be operational in 2017–2019.

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

AHAHAH You crack me up!!

You live in lalaland if you think that capabilities are cut because there is no need anymore, and not because of budget constraints and cost overruns.

Could you please point me to an instances where I said that capabilities are cut because there is no need anymore? While you are digging that up could you also clarify, who 'expected' the PAKFA and J-20 to be less stealthy than they have actually turned out to be, and also share what those initial expectations were, and how stealthy they are in reality.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?139875-Gripen-Typhoon-Rafale-vs-F-15C-F-16C-F-15E-Su-27-Mig-29&p=2335113#post2335113

and not because of budget constraints and cost overruns.

That's exactly what I said. Two reasons they are cut is due to cost or schedule. I've actually said it on more than one occasion.

I have on multiple occasions referred to the fact that the USAF, placed a requirement for HOBS, IRST, and HMS in their original ATF proposal and that they were subsequently cut, or deferred for budgetary and/or schedule reasons.