F-22 RAPTOR SCORES DIRECT HIT IN TESTING OF SUPERSONIC, HIGH-ALTITUDE JDAM DROP(50,000ft.drop)

lockheedmartin.com ^

[MARKUSPRIME]

A U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptor air dominance fighter, flying at a speed of Mach 1.5 and an altitude of 50,000 feet, released a GPS-aided Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) from a range of 24 nautical miles, destroying a small ground target in the F-22's fastest and highest JDAM delivery yet.This was another milestone testing event for the Combined Test Force of Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT], The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] and U.S. Air Force pilots who conducted the joint developmental and operational test in early May at White Sands Missile Range, N.M., using a 1,000-pound Mk-83 JDAM with live warhead supplied by Nellis Air Force Base, Nev. The ability to release a munition at supersonic speeds and standoff ranges greatly enhances the aircrew's survivability against heavily defended targets.“We've already demonstrated the airplane's ability to operate with virtual impunity in the air-to-air realm and have had many successful JDAM deliveries previously, but successfully attacking a ground target at this speed, altitude and standoff range with a live weapon shows that to be true in the air-to-ground mission as well,” said pilot Lt. Col. Raymond “Buzz” Toth following the test. “The Raptor is ready to fight and is uniquely capable of supporting Air Force and Joint Command objectives against any enemy.”

[brazzaville]

Good afternoon.
"Also, just like the F-117 and B-2, the F-22 is detectable by low band search radars."

Unlike either of those aircraft, the Raptor can dash in at high speed, release a precision weapon at high speed from far away, and beat feet. It doesn't rely on it's stealthiness alone and the weapons are deadly accurate.

Michael Frazier

[MARKUSPRIME]

The F-22 is a much better plane than the JSF. The F-35 would get destroyed in an air to air engagment with an F-22. The F-35 is more along the lines of the F-16 role and doesnt have the same air dominace features as the F-22. Yes it will be a good multirole aircraft just not an air dominace fighter.

[Dick Vomer]

Please educate one not in the know, would this be more kudo's to the Raptor or to the design of the munition?

both

[BJClinton]

Except the bad guys wouldn't be able to paint them early enough due to stealth.

[TXnMA]

No prob. The A-10 is my all-time favorite aircraft. In fact, I have a "Bluenose" dummy/practice/feed-function testing GAU-8 30mm round here on my desk as a paperweight... :-)

The only computer "game" I have on any of my computers is the (now-discontinued) A-10 flight simulator... About the only things it doesn't simulate are the vibration and the feel of being thrust forward against the seat harness when the GAU-8 fires -- and slows the aircraft... '-{

Take a good look at a movie of the A-10 firing the GAU-8. The pilot's head snaps forward so violently it looks like he is going to hit his helmet on the HUD. '-)

[Delta 21]

You will have to be satisfied with 2 - 1000 pounders.

In 1994, the USAF asked Lockheed Martin to develop an air to surface capability
for the F-22. Provisions were later made to the lower weapons bays to
accommodate one 1,000 pound GBU-30/32 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM)
per side. A simple GPS (Global Positioning System)/inertial system will guide the
weapon to its target. Eventually later versions will have increased precision attack
capability by including a programmable radar seeker. The F-22's air-to-surface
operations will be carried out courtesy of its onboard synthetic aperture radar (SAR) mode.

[poindexter]

I thought the Tomahawk could already beat this from a greater distance without risking s pilot or an airplane.

Tomahawks are about $1M per shot. JDAM is a fin kit that's fitted to a dumb iron bomb...I'd be surprised if the cost is $250K per shot.

[StJacques]

"You will have to be satisfied with 2 - 1000 pounders."

Well, I didn't know that.

This is what I love about FR. I get to exchange info with people who actually know something.

But since I notice the information you posted -- and thanks for that by the way -- referred to bomb bays, that raises questions in my mind about the release technique that was employed, which I did not see discussed, though I haven't read every post in this thread. It seems to me that, at Mach 1.5, something would have to be done to create separation between the F-22 and the JDAM. I don't think they could trust a straight and level release, since that seems to imply, from my amateurish viewpoint, a problem with getting the bomb pushed back against the bay itself by the kinds of G-Forces I would expect at that speed. Wouldn't they likely have to use some kind of toss? I'm not an expert on these matters, but I am fascinated by this news.

Do you -- or anyone else reading this for that matter -- have any thoughts on how they did this?

[A.A. Cunningham]

SAMs and radio waves travel at much higher speeds than F-22s do.

[A.A. Cunningham]

Incorrect. You might want to talk to the Nighthawk pilot who got himself shotdown over the Balkans. You obviously don't know much about low band radars.

[null and void]

fixed your typo:

50,000ft! I can't imagine any fused bomb being dropped from that high detonating post-impact unless you're trying to damage the Earth's a buried reactor core.

[null and void]

Why isn't this classified info?

Sometimes you want the enemy to know.

Yes, but the... whole point of the doomsday machine... is lost... if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?

[tortoise]

You might want to talk to the Nighthawk pilot who got himself shotdown over the Balkans.

Uh, the Nighthawk has almost no technological relation to the F22. We are talking 20 years and two conceptual generations of technology. The engineering principles behind the stealth in the F22 are pretty much orthogonal to those in the F117.

It would be kind of like trying to predict the capabilities of DDX based on your familiarity with WW2 destroyer technology. In principle the functions are roughly the same, but the properties and capabilities of the technology are very different.

[brazzaville]

Good evening.
"SAMs and radio waves travel at much higher speeds than F-22s do."

They were both faster than F-4s and A-6s too, but they couldn't bring down every one, try as they might and no matter how many SAMs they fired.

You seem determined to disregard the abilities of the Raptor and the state-of-the-art weapons it can deliver. Hopefully we won't find out who is right, but I'm guessing we will.

In another post you mention Gary Powers and, in another you mention the F-117 shot down in bill clinton's war.

It took several missiles to knock down the slow moving U-2 and luck played a part there.

I understand the Nighthawk was flying at a medium to low altitude and relatively slow to boot. I could be wrong, feel free to correct me if I am, but I was under the impression that the Serbs threw up a wall of fire and got lucky, sort of like the Soviets with the U-2.

Fast, nimble, stealthy aircraft with modern electronic countermeasures and smart weapons won't be easy to hit no matter what is fired at them. When the weapons they can deliver are as accurate from as far away as we now know they are, and when the pilots are as good a ours are, the odds are that the defenses used against them won't be very successful or long lived.

Michael Frazier

[Delta 21]

I too have wondered about the aerodynamics of high speed drops from an internal bay. At that speed (and with this technology) it should only take a minute positive G pull at the right time to "throw" the ordinance free of the plane. And at that altitude and range, the "smart" bomb has plenty of time to get oriented and locked on.

All this from a heavy armor man.....so I claim absolutly no knowledge of the subject.

[StJacques]

Alright Delta, thanks for the feedback. And whether you claim no specific knowledge or not, you are quite well-informed from my perspective nonetheless.

I found this story to be one of the most encouraging I have heard in recent years in terms of a qualitative leap in our capabilities. We can get in and out untouched, the destructive power we can deliver is significant, and the accuracy and efficiency are most impressive.

Like almost everyone else I want to avoid war. But if we have to fight one I definitely want to know we can win it.

And I must be honest and say that I am definitely thinking of Iranian nuclear sites when I see this story. I hope it doesn't come to that, but there are "bunker buster" versions of the JDAM that could be very nice to have if we have to take action.

Thanks again Delta 21!

[A.A. Cunningham]

Do yourself a favor and read The Myth of Stealth.

F-22s are detectable by low band search radars just like the F-117 and B-2.

[null and void]

I claim absolutly no knowledge of the subject.

That has never stopped anyone from posting before...

[A.A. Cunningham]

You seem to be under the false impression that the F-22 is "invisible" to radar which is a gross error on your part. You also seem to disregard the fact that the F-22, just as the F-117 and B-2, is detectable by low band search radar, which is another error on your part. Perhaps you've been drinking too much USAF kool aid.

You seem determined to disregard the abilities of the Raptor and the state-of-the-art weapons it can deliver.

No, I'm simply a realist who has heard all of these USAF "claims" before.

In another post you mention Gary Powers

Indeed I did; I also mentioned Rudolph Anderson who was shotdown over Cuba in a high flying U-2 by a SAM, as a response to someone who claimed that flying at 50K the F-22 was out of reach of a SAM, which it isn't. Next time read carefully. By the way, what's the maximum effective altitude of an SA-2?

in another you mention the F-117 shot down in bill clinton's war.

Indeed I did and if you were more familiar with that shootdown you'd know that arrogance and poor tactics on the part of the USAF combined with the shortcomings of the F-117 coupled with the skill of the Serbs, it wasn't just dumb luck and a wall of fire, led to the loss of a plane that the Air Force had repeatedly claimed was invisible to radar. A claim which those of us in the EW community knew was a load of crap since the day that aircraft first took to the skies.

Fast, nimble, stealthy aircraft with modern electronic countermeasures and smart weapons won't be easy to hit no matter what is fired at them.

They won't be easy to hit but they can be hit, which is the whole point. A look at the susceptibility and emissions data on the F-22 will indicate where the holes are and every platform has holes. The question is will the Air Force develop tactics that will minimize those holes or not. If history is an accurate indicator then the answer to that question is no. They'll be reactive instead of proactive.

There's a reason why B-2s and F-117s are accompanied on strikes by EA-6Bs and there's a reason why F-22s will be accompanied by SEAD platforms when they execute strikes in the future. For every measure one takes in avoiding detection a countermeasure either already exists or is being developed to defeat it. Technology in and of itself is no guarantee of success and impunity.

[brazzaville]

Good morning.
"You seem to be under the false impression that the F-22 is "invisible" to radar which is a gross error on your part."

I never said the aircraft is invisible and I didn't say that the Raptor is undetectable by any type of radar at all.

I did say that it is stealthy, fast and nimble and that it will be hard to knock down. I also commented on the plane's ability to deliver accurate weapons from far away. The 50k altitude is less important than the fact that the bomb will travel 24 miles after being dropped and fly through the bad guy's front door. I'm exaggerating with the front door part, so don't bother with some asinine comment about errors or kool-aid

That was a slick way you avoided responding about the shootdown of Gary Powers. I'm not sure of a SAM-2's effective range. I assume it is somewhere around 60,000 meters. Why don't you look it up for me. While you are at it, look up the maximum effective range of the SAMs. As to Powers, I believe I remember it taking 14 SAMs to knock him down. That was in a slow, unstealthy aircraft with ancient, if any, countermeasures. I think the Soviets also shot down one of their own aircraft in the same incident.

I am familiar with the F-117 shootdown and while I agree with you about the arrogance and poor tactics used by the Air Force, you have to remember who was CIC at the time and what he was doing to the military. What I find I telling is the fact that no other Nighthawks have been shot down since, even though they have been use to attack well defended targets. The Iraqis must have been less skilled than the Serbs. They could have been less lucky, too, I guess.

Of course Raptors can be hit. Nothing is invulnerable, though I use to think I was, and I have been so far.

As to countermeasures, of course they are being developed. As to the tactics that will be devised, I believe that bill clinton is gone and I have more faith in W and Rummy.

Michael Frazier