"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"

[mike]

Inside the Air Force - 4/24/2009

GENERAL: PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY

The Defense Department and a handful of allies have launched an effort
to ensure the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is capable of
conducting the most devastating mission in modern warfare --
delivering a nuclear bomb.

A senior Pentagon official announced the initiative, which aims to
fulfill a long-standing requirement for the stealthy fighter, two days
after The Wall Street Journal reported that cyber spies had
successfully penetrated the $300 billion JSF program -- the most
expensive weapons program in history.

“We have a cooperative effort under way to move the F-35 into nuclear
capability,” Maj. Gen. Donald Alston, assistant Air Force chief of
staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration, said during an
April 22 speech to a group of military and civilian officials in
Arlington, VA. “All the right deliberate steps are under way.

“This involves the nations together who are involved in that program
to come together, but we’ve been working in the Pentagon -- let alone
inside the Air Force -- and with the allies,” the two-star continued.
“The right next deliberate steps are being made with that, and we’ll
hope to see that come to conclusion here in the near term.”

F-35 partners include a number of nuclear-capable NATO alliance
members and Israel, an undeclared nuclear power. Four non-nuclear NATO
countries -- Belgium, Germany, The Netherlands, Italy -- have a
nuclear strike mission.

Air Force B-2 and B-52 bombers and F-15E and F-16 fighters are the
only Air Force aircraft that can currently deploy nuclear weapons.
Aircraft that carry nuclear weapons require special circuity that is
different from the technology used in conventional weapons.

Pentagon officials declined to provide additional details about plans
to add nuclear-strike capability to the F-35, such as whether all
variants will be configured for the strategic mission.

"Nuclear capability has been an F-35 requirement since the program's
beginnings, but it is not a component of the current system
development and demonstration phase," a program official said in an
April 23 e-mail.

In December 2008, a task force led by former Defense and Energy
Secretary James Schlesinger reported that some allies “are already
pursuing an option for replacing their [dual-capable aircraft] fighter
forces by investing in the development of the F-35, which has an
operational requirement for delivery of nuclear weapons.”

The highly publicized report concluded that the Pentagon “must ensure
that the dual-capable F-35 remains on schedule” and that “further
delays would result in increasing levels of political and strategic
risk and reduced strategic options for both the United States and the
Alliance.”

The F-35 is designed to carry two large 2,000-pound Joint Direct
Attack Munitions. Some nuclear weapons weigh around 500 pounds and are
roughly the same size as a 500-pound JDAM.

The F-35 is still several years away from entering full-rate
production and only a handful of test jets currently exist. The Marine
Corps jets are not expected to reach their initial operational
capability until the beginning of next decade.

“Usually way before this stage of the program you’re beginning to hear
about that sort of thing,” Richard Aboulafia, a senior aviation
analyst at the Teal Group said in an April 22 interview.

Part of the certification would include the development of a mission
attack profile, according to Aboulafia.

“What is your plane expecting to do when it drops the bomb; there’s
all kinds of performance parameters,” he said.

Early-generation fighters were designed to launch and then pull
straight up in order to propel the bomb away from the plane, the
analyst noted.

“You’ve got to make the plane technically able to get away fast after
launching, so . . . there’s all sorts of calculations there,” he
said.

Placing nuclear weapons on the JSF would also have treaty
restrictions, which limit the number of nuclear capable aircraft the
United States can operate.

Air Force and Lockheed Martin officials referred all questions about
the JSF’s nuclear strike capabilities to the F-35 joint program office.

[Ian B MacLure]

Mike > wrote in news:6f05e99e-7caa-4a68-b6c8-
:

> Inside the Air Force - 4/24/2009
>
> GENERAL: PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY

As long as the PAL (or whatever it is these days) H/W can interface
with the JSFs avionics it shouldn't be that difficult to manage.

IBM

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Mike ha scritto:
> Inside the Air Force - 4/24/2009
>
> GENERAL: PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY
>
> The Defense Department and a handful of allies have launched an effort
> to ensure the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is capable of
> conducting the most devastating mission in modern warfare --
> delivering a nuclear bomb.

Ugh.....

let's cross well the fingers, there's already a mess, and a -D version,
available to select few, has all the potential to sink the entire
program......

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

[Ian B MacLure]

"dott.Piergiorgio" > wrote in
:

> Mike ha scritto:
>> Inside the Air Force - 4/24/2009
>>
>> GENERAL: PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY
>>
>> The Defense Department and a handful of allies have launched an effort
>> to ensure the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is capable of
>> conducting the most devastating mission in modern warfare --
>> delivering a nuclear bomb.
>
> Ugh.....
>
> let's cross well the fingers, there's already a mess, and a -D version,
> available to select few, has all the potential to sink the entire
> program......

Why another version? It would simply be a Block X update to
whatever was fielded. What after all is the difference between
nuclear and non-nuclear capable aircraft? Basically some form
of safety gear related to weapon fusing.

IBM

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Ian B MacLure ha scritto:
> "dott.Piergiorgio" > wrote in
> :
>
>> Mike ha scritto:
>>> Inside the Air Force - 4/24/2009
>>>
>>> GENERAL: PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY
>>>
>>> The Defense Department and a handful of allies have launched an effort
>>> to ensure the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is capable of
>>> conducting the most devastating mission in modern warfare --
>>> delivering a nuclear bomb.
>> Ugh.....
>>
>> let's cross well the fingers, there's already a mess, and a -D version,
>> available to select few, has all the potential to sink the entire
>> program......
>
> Why another version? It would simply be a Block X update to
> whatever was fielded. What after all is the difference between
> nuclear and non-nuclear capable aircraft? Basically some form
> of safety gear related to weapon fusing.

Indeed, but the "select few" in the end actually is a "select one" (the
other reliable US ally is well-known for their penchant for indigenous
solutions), and other partecipating countries have a public opinion more
or less against nuke weapons, and at least a pair of said countries has
serious issues with their Defence budget.... it's easy to draw the
(inauspicious) conclusions, IMVHO.

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

[Dan[_12_]]

wrote:
>> And, yet, in the past the list of NATO allies that sat alert with
>> tactical nuclear weapons on small jets was pretty long:
>>
>> Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Turkey, Greece, Italy, W. Germany,
>> France, UK...
>
> Not to mention the Luftwaffe lot of Pershing MRBMs...
>
>> Somehow decisions on strategic defense were not made in the court of
>> public opinion, which is a good thing.
>
> It was granted, no need for a debate back then. Yet as the notion of
> proliferation creeps in, I bet a few European governments from the
> list are getting nervous about the perspective of having to open a
> public case, some day.


Why? In the Cold War several NATO allies who didn't have their own
nuclear weapons were loaned them so they could sit alert. The weapons
were always under positive control and have long since been returned to
the lending nations as far as I know. Proliferation from that point of
view is a non starter.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[[email protected]]

> * *Why? In the Cold War several NATO allies who didn't have their own
> nuclear weapons were loaned them so they could sit alert. The weapons
> were always under positive control and have long since been returned to
> the lending nations as far as I know. Proliferation from that point of
> view is a non starter.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Wasn't referring to that "proliferation". The whole intra-European
debate about basing some limited ABM kit to negate some wacko's
potential threat has revealed some stress lines within Alliance
members. Then there's NATO enlargement indecisiveness (divisions)
probably a contributing factor to the Georgian episode. Turkey being
politely booted out of the club's buffet, etc.

That's toolbox NATO is turning into NATO Redux.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

ha scritto:
>> And, yet, in the past the list of NATO allies that sat alert with
>> tactical nuclear weapons on small jets was pretty long:
>>
>> Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Turkey, Greece, Italy, W. Germany,
>> France, UK...
>
> Not to mention the Luftwaffe lot of Pershing MRBMs...
>
>> Somehow decisions on strategic defense were not made in the court of
>> public opinion, which is a good thing.
>
> It was granted, no need for a debate back then. Yet as the notion of
> proliferation creeps in, I bet a few European governments from the
> list are getting nervous about the perspective of having to open a
> public case, some day.

eh.... how to not forget about the bizarre nuke race between three
improbable countries named Italy, Yugoslavia and... *Switzerland* prior
of their ratification of the NPT ?

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Dan ha scritto:

>>> Somehow decisions on strategic defense were not made in the court of
>>> public opinion, which is a good thing.
>>
>> It was granted, no need for a debate back then. Yet as the notion of
>> proliferation creeps in, I bet a few European governments from the
>> list are getting nervous about the perspective of having to open a
>> public case, some day.
>
>
> Why? In the Cold War several NATO allies who didn't have their own
> nuclear weapons were loaned them so they could sit alert. The weapons
> were always under positive control and have long since been returned to
> the lending nations as far as I know. Proliferation from that point of
> view is a non starter.

This is what I want to point in first place, but I was unsure about the
exact version of the F-104 involved (aleks, please ?) and I fear of
comparing apples with oranges, variant-wise, and I ended writing in a
broader terms.
Anyway, the basic fact remain that AFAICT only UK has the needs & means
to have single or double-key nukes with US support.

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

[[email protected]]

> eh.... how to not forget about the bizarre nuke race between three
> improbable countries named Italy, Yugoslavia and... *Switzerland* prior
> of their ratification of the NPT ?

Can't say for the first two, but can certify each ass was safe in
Switzerland, you know, they called it "shelters" :-) If you believe
that, then you're happy while singing "paper tiger!" in Appenzell,
which should at least **** off those who've invested in MAD.

Then most certainly, there wasn't any nuclear vacuum in Europe. You
could read that even Sweden had some secret underground nuclear plant
of some sort. NATO prevented actual proliferation and local electorate
over stress.

[Ian B MacLure]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:26:10 +0200, "dott.Piergiorgio"
> > wrote:
>
>>Ian B MacLure ha scritto:
>>> "dott.Piergiorgio" >
>>> wrote in :
>>>
>>>> Mike ha scritto:
>>>>> Inside the Air Force - 4/24/2009
>>>>>
>>>>> GENERAL: PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE
>>>>> CAPABILITY
>>>>>
>>>>> The Defense Department and a handful of allies have launched an
>>>>> effort to ensure the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is capable
>>>>> of conducting the most devastating mission in modern warfare --
>>>>> delivering a nuclear bomb.
>>>> Ugh.....
>>>>
>>>> let's cross well the fingers, there's already a mess, and a -D
>>>> version, available to select few, has all the potential to sink the
>>>> entire program......
>>>
>>> Why another version? It would simply be a Block X update to
>>> whatever was fielded. What after all is the difference
>>> between nuclear and non-nuclear capable aircraft? Basically
>>> some form of safety gear related to weapon fusing.
>>
>>Indeed, but the "select few" in the end actually is a "select one"
>>(the other reliable US ally is well-known for their penchant for
>>indigenous solutions), and other partecipating countries have a public
>>opinion more or less against nuke weapons, and at least a pair of said
>>countries has serious issues with their Defence budget.... it's easy
>>to draw the (inauspicious) conclusions, IMVHO.
>>
>>Best regards from Italy,
>>Dott. Piergiorgio.
>
> And, yet, in the past the list of NATO allies that sat alert with
> tactical nuclear weapons on small jets was pretty long:
>
> Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Turkey, Greece, Italy, W. Germany,
> France, UK...

Kanuckistan. Their 104s had a nuclear strike role before
"Turdeau" took over.

IBM

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Apr 30, 11:07 pm, Ian B MacLure > wrote:
> Ed Rasimus > wrote :
....
> > And, yet, in the past the list of NATO allies that sat alert with
> > tactical nuclear weapons on small jets was pretty long:
>
> > Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Turkey, Greece, Italy, W. Germany,
> > France, UK...
>
> Kanuckistan. Their 104s had a nuclear strike role before
> "Turdeau" took over.
> IBM

It's a bad idea to give F-35's nuke capability, it's expensive,
unnecessary and useless, in fact worse than useless,
because we are openly working to go non-nuclear weapons.
Ken

[[email protected]]

On May 1, 10:08*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Apr 30, 11:07 pm, Ian B MacLure > wrote:
>
> > Ed Rasimus > wrote :
> ...
> > > And, yet, in the past the list of NATO allies that sat alert with
> > > tactical nuclear weapons on small jets was pretty long:
>
> > > Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Turkey, Greece, Italy, W. Germany,
> > > France, UK...
>
> > * * * * Kanuckistan. Their 104s had a nuclear strike role before
> > * * * * "Turdeau" took over.
> > * * * * IBM
>
> It's a bad idea to give F-35's nuke capability, it's expensive,
> unnecessary and useless, in fact worse than useless,
> because we are openly working to go non-nuclear weapons.

It's pointless to work with anybody in the pentagon on weapons
issues,
since the only thing any of them even know about weapons is the
The Lockheed Times. So that's why the educable people with actual
post-1942
brains in weapons, science, engineering, and medicine all work on
GPS,
AUVs, Drones, Digital-Terrain Mapping, Laser-Guided Phasors,
Optical Computing,
Microcomputers, C++, Distributed Processing, HDTV debuggers, MP3,
MPEG,
CD+rw, DVD-rom, Holograms, Fiber Optics, Cell Phones, On-Line
Banking,
On-Line Publishing, Self-Assembling Robots, Microwave Cooling,
Biodiesel, Pv Cell Energy, Fiber Optics, Light Sticks, Compact
Flourescent Lighting,
Cruise Missiles, Phalanx, Self-Replicating Machines, and Post GM
wheel bearings.








> Ken

[Derek Lyons]

Ian B MacLure > wrote:
>Why another version? It would simply be a Block X update to
>whatever was fielded. What after all is the difference between
>nuclear and non-nuclear capable aircraft? Basically some form
>of safety gear related to weapon fusing.

- Installation of the PAL hardware, which (probably) means changing
out the connectors at the bomb rack, installation of cabling, and
installation of the cockpit panel.

- Possible modifications to the mechanical systems of the bomb racks.

- Probable modifications to the aircraft flight control and weapons
delivery software.

- Development, testing, and implementation of delivery techniques.

- Updating the maintenance, operations, and familiarization manuals.

- Training the pilots and ground crews on all of the above.

Etc... Etc...

No showstoppers certainly, but not trivial or simple - and a lot more
than just 'some safety gear and wiring'.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

[hcobb]

I think everybody overlooked the most important word here:

On Apr 28, 7:06 pm, Mike > wrote:
> The Defense Department and a handful of allies

So this is not for an American nuclear capability.

It's for Israel.

-HJC
Hey gang, let's all sing "Bomb Iran" with McCain!

[Ian B MacLure]

(Derek Lyons) wrote in news:49fb25e3.1218094140
@news.supernews.com:

[snip]

> No showstoppers certainly, but not trivial or simple - and a lot more
> than just 'some safety gear and wiring'.

Here in Cobb World ya gotta keep it simple.
Mentioning things like comuters and software just confuses
old Corny even further.

IBM

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 01 May 2009 15:25:07 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:

>>It's a bad idea to give F-35's nuke capability, it's expensive,
>>unnecessary and useless, in fact worse than useless,
>>because we are openly working to go non-nuclear weapons.
>>Ken
>
>It is certainly not "expensive"--it is simply adding the spec to the
>construction for wiring to some of the weapon stations to provide for
>monitor and control of special weapons. It is not new technology and
>it isn't major modification stuff.

Concur. Even the old S-2E/G had the capability (nuclear depth
charges; useful in a limited way against subs but also useful for
other things).

Still, the Big Question is not whether we add some wires and boxes but
whethe we have leadership with the fortitude to address serious
problems. Sadly, that's been lacking for a while.

Bill Kambic
Gracefully Aging RAFS Member

[Ian B MacLure]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

[snip]

> Now let's not go around insulting Mr. Cobb.

Then why have a Loon Mallet, #9, 1ea if you aren't going to use it?
Cobb is a loon and therefore material for the mallet.

[snip]

> And there's the problem Ed, a mini-atomic bomber without
> any concievable target, that would only be redundant.

Your inability to conceive of a possible adversary doesn't
preclude the possibility that one exists.

[snip]

> Ed, somehow, your using the limitation of the Vietnam
> conflict, and the NATO cold-war tactical nuke deployment
> as being relevent to the F-35+nuke debate. Let's plan for
> the future, good planning will provide the future we want.

The only limitation of the Veitnam conflict that matters
is the determination of the Dhimmicraps to lose it and the
subsequent determination by wiser heads that would never
happen again.
The only people stuck with a Vietnam mindeset were Dhimmicraps
notably Ivan Felchgoat Trotsqerry and his ilk. Hell they even
tried out Winter Soldier again. Got their asses handed to them
because they didn't realise times and technology had changed.

[snip]

> I could just as easily say it's you Ed, who lacks the
> critical understanding, especially in grand strategy,
> quite apart from politics. I respect Reagan's desire
> to reduce dependancy on nukes to a minimum, and
> I think Obama will follow that.

No, Soetaro's going to try and bilaterally disarm ( us and
the Russians ). He'll attempt to ignore China and the
looney-toon regimes ( Iran and North Korea )

[snip]

> To be on the safe side, we bought a gallon of Vicks
> Vapo-rub.

What? Soetaro hasn't nationalised it already?

[snip]

> Very nice Ed.
> We won't need #1 and #2 if we have #3, so now that
> returns to the problem of geopolitically defining and
> encouraging "Rational leadership".

Sez you. Evidently bunches of folks who know far more about
the topic disagree.

[snip]

> Why, did you respect Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace"

And you think this was a peacenik panaceaea?

> plan? Ever read his "Military Industrial Complex" speech?

Did you understand it? Sounds like you didn't.

> How about the 1963 CIA evaluation of Vietnam involvement?

And the Dhimmicraps went ahead anyway. Vietnam was doable
just not the way Kennedy and Johnson went about it.

> Is caring for the casualties in Vietnam "emotional drivel"?
> Of course you have, I connect the dots.

Casualty care in Vietname was actually pretty good. You
had a better chance of surviving than in previous con-
flicts. By the time Iraq I & II popped up your odds
were even better.

IBM

[Ken S. Tucker]

It's Saturday, Ian is enjoying his schnops :-).

On May 2, 9:07 am, Ian B MacLure > wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote :
....
> > And there's the problem Ed, a mini-atomic bomber without
> > any concievable target, that would only be redundant.
>
> Your inability to conceive of a possible adversary doesn't
> preclude the possibility that one exists.

There may be alligators under my bed, so I sleep
with a shot-gun?

> > Ed, somehow, your using the limitation of the Vietnam
> > conflict, and the NATO cold-war tactical nuke deployment
> > as being relevent to the F-35+nuke debate. Let's plan for
> > the future, good planning will provide the future we want.

Below \, I'm seeing politics, that is thread drift.
Ken

> The only limitation of the Veitnam conflict that matters
> is the determination of the Dhimmicraps to lose it and the
> subsequent determination by wiser heads that would never
> happen again.
> The only people stuck with a Vietnam mindeset were Dhimmicraps
> notably Ivan Felchgoat Trotsqerry and his ilk. Hell they even
> tried out Winter Soldier again. Got their asses handed to them
> because they didn't realise times and technology had changed.
>
> [snip]
>
> > I could just as easily say it's you Ed, who lacks the
> > critical understanding, especially in grand strategy,
> > quite apart from politics. I respect Reagan's desire
> > to reduce dependancy on nukes to a minimum, and
> > I think Obama will follow that.
>
> No, Soetaro's going to try and bilaterally disarm ( us and
> the Russians ). He'll attempt to ignore China and the
> looney-toon regimes ( Iran and North Korea )
>
> [snip]
>
> > To be on the safe side, we bought a gallon of Vicks
> > Vapo-rub.
>
> What? Soetaro hasn't nationalised it already?
>
> [snip]
>
> > Very nice Ed.
> > We won't need #1 and #2 if we have #3, so now that
> > returns to the problem of geopolitically defining and
> > encouraging "Rational leadership".
>
> Sez you. Evidently bunches of folks who know far more about
> the topic disagree.
>
> [snip]
>
> > Why, did you respect Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace"
>
> And you think this was a peacenik panaceaea?
>
> > plan? Ever read his "Military Industrial Complex" speech?
>
> Did you understand it? Sounds like you didn't.
>
> > How about the 1963 CIA evaluation of Vietnam involvement?
>
> And the Dhimmicraps went ahead anyway. Vietnam was doable
> just not the way Kennedy and Johnson went about it.
>
> > Is caring for the casualties in Vietnam "emotional drivel"?
> > Of course you have, I connect the dots.
>
> Casualty care in Vietname was actually pretty good. You
> had a better chance of surviving than in previous con-
> flicts. By the time Iraq I & II popped up your odds
> were even better.
>
> IBM

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 1, 8:18 pm, wrote:
> On Fri, 01 May 2009 15:25:07 GMT, Ed Rasimus
>
> > wrote:
> >>It's a bad idea to give F-35's nuke capability, it's expensive,
> >>unnecessary and useless, in fact worse than useless,
> >>because we are openly working to go non-nuclear weapons.
> >>Ken
>
> >It is certainly not "expensive"--it is simply adding the spec to the
> >construction for wiring to some of the weapon stations to provide for
> >monitor and control of special weapons. It is not new technology and
> >it isn't major modification stuff.
>
> Concur. Even the old S-2E/G had the capability (nuclear depth
> charges; useful in a limited way against subs but also useful for
> other things).

AFAIK, CVN's (and USN surface fleet) is not nuclear
offensive, so the navalized F-35 doesn't need nukes,
and no "allie" wants or needs them.

> Still, the Big Question is not whether we add some wires and boxes but
> whethe we have leadership with the fortitude to address serious
> problems. Sadly, that's been lacking for a while.

There was fortitude, it's been shaken by faulty intel
Collin Powell delivered on WMD's in Iraq. Personally
I trusted him, but we now have no evidence to support
that rationale to invade Iraq then. Cost is approaching
30,000 casualties + $Trillion, so I rather resent the
suggestion America lacks fortitude.

> Bill Kambic
> Gracefully Aging RAFS Member

Regards
Ken
PS:What's RAFS?

[Ian B MacLure]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> It's Saturday, Ian is enjoying his schnops :-).

That's "schnaps" and I don't drink as a rule.

> On May 2, 9:07 am, Ian B MacLure > wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote
>>
>> m:
> ...
>> > And there's the problem Ed, a mini-atomic bomber without
>> > any concievable target, that would only be redundant.
>>
>> Your inability to conceive of a possible adversary doesn't
>> preclude the possibility that one exists.
>
> There may be alligators under my bed, so I sleep
> with a shot-gun?

I'll bet you duck to avoid low flying turtles as well.

>> > Ed, somehow, your using the limitation of the Vietnam
>> > conflict, and the NATO cold-war tactical nuke deployment
>> > as being relevent to the F-35+nuke debate. Let's plan for
>> > the future, good planning will provide the future we want.
>
> Below \, I'm seeing politics, that is thread drift.
> Ken

Your point being what exactly?
And I'm pretty sure the drift started elsewhere.

IBM

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 2 May 2009 22:29:25 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
> wrote:

>> Concur. Even the old S-2E/G had the capability (nuclear depth
>> charges; useful in a limited way against subs but also useful for
>> other things).
>
>AFAIK, CVN's (and USN surface fleet) is not nuclear
>offensive, so the navalized F-35 doesn't need nukes,
>and no "allie" wants or needs them.

You don't know anything of the sort because it's policy not to discuss
whether it is or is not.

>> Still, the Big Question is not whether we add some wires and boxes but
>> whethe we have leadership with the fortitude to address serious
>> problems. Sadly, that's been lacking for a while.
>
>There was fortitude, it's been shaken by faulty intel
>Collin Powell delivered on WMD's in Iraq. Personally
>I trusted him, but we now have no evidence to support
>that rationale to invade Iraq then. Cost is approaching
>30,000 casualties + $Trillion, so I rather resent the
>suggestion America lacks fortitude.

Resent away. Doesn't change the facts.

>> Bill Kambic
>> Gracefully Aging RAFS Member
>
>Regards
>Ken
>PS:What's RAFS?

Real Aviators Flew Stoofs.

http://www.r-a-f-s.org/

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 3 May 2009 06:47:16 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
> wrote:

>Did you see this?
>
>Alberta pigs likely infected with flu from worker: CFIA official
>Number of confirmed Canadian cases now 85, all believed mild
>Last Updated: Saturday, May 2, 2009 | 7:56 PM ET
>Comments242Recommend108
>CBC News
>
>In what would be the first reported case of its kind, a farm worker
>with the swine flu virus is believed to have infected about 200 pigs
>in Alberta, a top official with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
>said Saturday.

<balance snipped for brevity>

Kind of a "man bites dog" story, eh??? :-)

[Dan[_12_]]

Jack Linthicum wrote:

<snip>

> In what would be the first reported case of its kind, a farm worker
> with the swine flu virus is believed to have infected about 200 pigs
> in Alberta, a top official with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
> said Saturday.

I don't think I will ask what the man was doing with the pigs. What
a man does in his private life is no one's business but his.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[BlackBeard]

On May 3, 6:15*am, wrote:
> On Sat, 2 May 2009 22:29:25 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker
>
> >AFAIK, CVN's (and USN surface fleet) is not nuclear
> >offensive, so the navalized F-35 doesn't need nukes,
> >and no "allie" wants or needs them.
>
> You don't know anything of the sort because it's policy not to discuss
> whether it is or is not.
>

By presidential order (Bush the 1st) all tactical nuclear weapons were
removed from USN surface ships and Submarines. Ordered in 1991
finished by 1992.

BB

[Jack Linthicum]

On May 3, 10:01*am, Dan > wrote:
> Jack Linthicum wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > In what would be the first reported case of its kind, a farm worker
> > with the swine flu virus is believed to have infected about 200 pigs
> > in Alberta, a top official with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
> > said Saturday.
>
> * * I don't think I will ask what the man was doing with the pigs. What
> a man does in his private life is no one's business but his.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

They were engaged

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 3, 6:47 am, Jack Linthicum > wrote:
> On May 1, 2:35 pm, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
> > On Fri, 1 May 2009 08:56:50 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
....
> > >Just this AM, because of a sniffle in Mexico a school
> > >in our neighbourhood (Vernon BC) was closed for a
> > >week.
>
> > Apparently Canada is as subject to Biden-induced anxiety as the
> > sheeple of the US.
....
> Did you see this?
>
> Alberta pigs likely infected with flu from worker: CFIA official
> Number of confirmed Canadian cases now 85, all believed mild
> Last Updated: Saturday, May 2, 2009 | 7:56 PM ET
> Comments242Recommend108
> CBC News

Canada, especially Toronto lost 50-100 people over that
SARs thing, so I guess they're siding on caution.
Ken

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 3, 6:15 am, wrote:
> On Sat, 2 May 2009 22:29:25 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
>
> > wrote:
> >> Concur. Even the old S-2E/G had the capability (nuclear depth
> >> charges; useful in a limited way against subs but also useful for
> >> other things).
>
> >AFAIK, CVN's (and USN surface fleet) is not nuclear
> >offensive, so the navalized F-35 doesn't need nukes,
> >and no "allie" wants or needs them.
>
> You don't know anything of the sort because it's policy not to discuss
> whether it is or is not.
>
> >> Still, the Big Question is not whether we add some wires and boxes but
> >> whethe we have leadership with the fortitude to address serious
> >> problems. Sadly, that's been lacking for a while.
>
> >There was fortitude, it's been shaken by faulty intel
> >Collin Powell delivered on WMD's in Iraq. Personally
> >I trusted him, but we now have no evidence to support
> >that rationale to invade Iraq then. Cost is approaching
> >30,000 casualties + $Trillion, so I rather resent the
> >suggestion America lacks fortitude.
>
> Resent away. Doesn't change the facts.

The US, Brits + more have had an armed presence in
Iraq (or around), since 1991, 18 years, in Afgh since
2001, 8 years. A lack of fortitude might be argued in
the way those conflicts were resolved.

> >PS:What's RAFS?
>
> Real Aviators Flew Stoofs.
> http://www.r-a-f-s.org/
Ken

[Dan[_12_]]

Jack Linthicum wrote:
> On May 3, 10:01 am, Dan > wrote:
>> Jack Linthicum wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> In what would be the first reported case of its kind, a farm worker
>>> with the swine flu virus is believed to have infected about 200 pigs
>>> in Alberta, a top official with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
>>> said Saturday.
>> I don't think I will ask what the man was doing with the pigs. What
>> a man does in his private life is no one's business but his.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> They were engaged


All 200 of them? Polygamy gone wild.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 3 May 2009 11:48:59 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard >
wrote:

>On May 3, 6:15*am, wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 May 2009 22:29:25 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker
>>
>> >AFAIK, CVN's (and USN surface fleet) is not nuclear
>> >offensive, so the navalized F-35 doesn't need nukes,
>> >and no "allie" wants or needs them.
>>
>> You don't know anything of the sort because it's policy not to discuss
>> whether it is or is not.
>>
>
>By presidential order (Bush the 1st) all tactical nuclear weapons were
>removed from USN surface ships and Submarines. Ordered in 1991
>finished by 1992.

Would this not mean that by presidential order they could be put back?

[BlackBeard]

On May 3, 6:08*pm, wrote:
> On Sun, 3 May 2009 11:48:59 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard >
> wrote:
>
> >On May 3, 6:15*am, wrote:
> >> On Sat, 2 May 2009 22:29:25 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker
>
> >> >AFAIK, CVN's (and USN surface fleet) is not nuclear
> >> >offensive, so the navalized F-35 doesn't need nukes,
> >> >and no "allie" wants or needs them.
>
> >> You don't know anything of the sort because it's policy not to discuss
> >> whether it is or is not.
>
> >By presidential order (Bush the 1st) all tactical nuclear weapons were
> >removed from USN surface ships and Submarines. *Ordered in 1991
> >finished by 1992.
>
> Would this not mean that by presidential order they could be put back?

Sure, and by Presidential order he could require the military to wear
pink tutu's. But AFAIK from recent visits to operational units they
haven't changed anything in regard to the aforementioned topic.

BB

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 3 May 2009 19:52:13 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard >
wrote:

>On May 3, 6:08*pm, wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 May 2009 11:48:59 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On May 3, 6:15*am, wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 2 May 2009 22:29:25 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker
>>
>> >> >AFAIK, CVN's (and USN surface fleet) is not nuclear
>> >> >offensive, so the navalized F-35 doesn't need nukes,
>> >> >and no "allie" wants or needs them.
>>
>> >> You don't know anything of the sort because it's policy not to discuss
>> >> whether it is or is not.
>>
>> >By presidential order (Bush the 1st) all tactical nuclear weapons were
>> >removed from USN surface ships and Submarines. *Ordered in 1991
>> >finished by 1992.
>>
>> Would this not mean that by presidential order they could be put back?
>
>Sure, and by Presidential order he could require the military to wear
>pink tutu's. But AFAIK from recent visits to operational units they
>haven't changed anything in regard to the aforementioned topic.

The point is that they were taken off by executive order and can be
returned by executive order (a/k/a The Stroke of a Pen). Such orders
need not be made public. Under such conditions claims that we KNOW
the weapons status of any given vessel are incorrect. All we KNOW is
that there is an unrescinded, public executive order removing the
weapons.

[frank]

On Apr 29, 11:20*pm, Ian B MacLure > wrote:
> "dott.Piergiorgio" > wrote :
>
> > Mike ha scritto:
> >> Inside the Air Force - 4/24/2009
>
> >> GENERAL: PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY
>
> >> The Defense Department and a handful of allies have launched an effort
> >> to ensure the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is capable of
> >> conducting the most devastating mission in modern warfare --
> >> delivering a nuclear bomb.
>
> > Ugh.....
>
> > let's cross well the fingers, there's already a mess, and a -D version,
> > available to select few, has all the potential to sink the entire
> > program......
>
> * * * * Why another version? It would simply be a Block X update to
> * * * * whatever was fielded. What after all is the difference between
> * * * * nuclear and non-nuclear capable aircraft? Basically some form
> * * * * of safety gear related to weapon fusing.
>
> * * * * IBM

Its a bit more than that. Takes a lot of work to be nuclear certified.

[frank]

On May 3, 8:08*pm, wrote:
> On Sun, 3 May 2009 11:48:59 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard >
> wrote:
>
> >On May 3, 6:15*am, wrote:
> >> On Sat, 2 May 2009 22:29:25 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker
>
> >> >AFAIK, CVN's (and USN surface fleet) is not nuclear
> >> >offensive, so the navalized F-35 doesn't need nukes,
> >> >and no "allie" wants or needs them.
>
> >> You don't know anything of the sort because it's policy not to discuss
> >> whether it is or is not.
>
> >By presidential order (Bush the 1st) all tactical nuclear weapons were
> >removed from USN surface ships and Submarines. *Ordered in 1991
> >finished by 1992.
>
> Would this not mean that by presidential order they could be put back?

We'd have to break some arms control treaties to do it.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 3, 10:20 pm, frank > wrote:
> On May 3, 8:08 pm, wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 3 May 2009 11:48:59 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard >
> > wrote:
>
> > >On May 3, 6:15 am, wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 2 May 2009 22:29:25 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker
>
> > >> >AFAIK, CVN's (and USN surface fleet) is not nuclear
> > >> >offensive, so the navalized F-35 doesn't need nukes,
> > >> >and no "allie" wants or needs them.
>
> > >> You don't know anything of the sort because it's policy not to discuss
> > >> whether it is or is not.
>
> > >By presidential order (Bush the 1st) all tactical nuclear weapons were
> > >removed from USN surface ships and Submarines. Ordered in 1991
> > >finished by 1992.
>
> > Would this not mean that by presidential order they could be put back?
>
> We'd have to break some arms control treaties to do it.

My understanding of the current calculus is CVN's
are only for conventional warfare, and IF the lunatic
switch starts WW3, they are ignoreable.
However, making CVN's F-35 nuke able, that big
fat floating target is quick to sizzle.
Ken

[BlackBeard]

On May 3, 8:17*pm, wrote:
> On Sun, 3 May 2009 19:52:13 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On May 3, 6:08*pm, wrote:
> >> On Sun, 3 May 2009 11:48:59 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On May 3, 6:15*am, wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 2 May 2009 22:29:25 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker
>
> >> >> >AFAIK, CVN's (and USN surface fleet) is not nuclear
> >> >> >offensive, so the navalized F-35 doesn't need nukes,
> >> >> >and no "allie" wants or needs them.
>
> >> >> You don't know anything of the sort because it's policy not to discuss
> >> >> whether it is or is not.
>
> >> >By presidential order (Bush the 1st) all tactical nuclear weapons were
> >> >removed from USN surface ships and Submarines. *Ordered in 1991
> >> >finished by 1992.
>
> >> Would this not mean that by presidential order they could be put back?
>
> >Sure, and by Presidential order he could require the military to wear
> >pink tutu's. *But *AFAIK from recent visits to operational units they
> >haven't changed anything in regard to the aforementioned topic.
>
> The point is that they were taken off by executive order and can be
> returned by executive order (a/k/a The Stroke of a Pen). *Such orders
> need not be made public. *Under such conditions claims that we KNOW
> the weapons status of any given vessel are incorrect. *All we KNOW is
> that there is an unrescinded, public executive order removing the
> weapons.

No, the point was you said "You don't know anything of the sort
because it's policy not to discuss whether it is or is not."
Yet the information was discussed, and published by the US Government
in open sources. I spent years spewing the "... neither confirm nor
deny..." line in official capacity. But the CiC can do what he wants
regardless of standing policy.

BB

[BlackBeard]

On May 4, 1:05*pm, Ed Rasimus > wrote:


>
> 2.) Disabuse yourself from the notion that a CV is any sort of easy
> target. I spent a lot of years trying to successfully do just that in
> exercises. It is damn close to impossible. Whoever attempts it will
> suffer severe losses in the process and even then may not succeed.

Well, from the air or surface maybe... ;)

BB

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 4 May 2009 13:27:39 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard >
wrote:

>On May 4, 1:05*pm, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>
>
>>
>> 2.) Disabuse yourself from the notion that a CV is any sort of easy
>> target. I spent a lot of years trying to successfully do just that in
>> exercises. It is damn close to impossible. Whoever attempts it will
>> suffer severe losses in the process and even then may not succeed.
>
>Well, from the air or surface maybe... ;)

Well, no.

I've sat on many an SSN over the years. They are tough to catch but
I've yet to meat the submariner that's 7 feet tall, bullet proof, and
immortal. :-)

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 3 May 2009 22:20:20 -0700 (PDT), frank
> wrote:

>> Would this not mean that by presidential order they could be put back?
>
>We'd have to break some arms control treaties to do it.

Which ones?

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 4 May 2009 10:57:39 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard >
wrote:


>No, the point was you said "You don't know anything of the sort
>because it's policy not to discuss whether it is or is not."
>Yet the information was discussed, and published by the US Government
>in open sources. I spent years spewing the "... neither confirm nor
>deny..." line in official capacity. But the CiC can do what he wants
>regardless of standing policy.

Indeed. And you don't KNOW what's in a magazine until you eyeball it.

[Dan[_12_]]

wrote:
> On Mon, 4 May 2009 13:27:39 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard >
> wrote:
>
>> On May 4, 1:05 pm, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> 2.) Disabuse yourself from the notion that a CV is any sort of easy
>>> target. I spent a lot of years trying to successfully do just that in
>>> exercises. It is damn close to impossible. Whoever attempts it will
>>> suffer severe losses in the process and even then may not succeed.
>> Well, from the air or surface maybe... ;)
>
> Well, no.
>
> I've sat on many an SSN over the years. They are tough to catch but
> I've yet to meat the submariner that's 7 feet tall, bullet proof, and
> immortal. :-)
>

Erm, "meat?"

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[hcobb]

On May 3, 10:20 pm, frank > wrote:
> We'd have to break some arms control treaties to do it.

Well that's (along with President BHO's tight military budgets) what's
grounded the 2018 bomber.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/NGB042209.xml&headline=USAF%20Bomber%20Grounded%20by%20More%20th an%20Budget&channel=defense
In fact, there were two key, inter-related issues that created the
bomber reassessment: adding a nuclear weapons carrying capability and
renewed Start arms control treaty negotiations with the Russians.

The fix is to make it nuclear capable, but not operationally nuclear
armed. In the sense that it's tested to be survivable on the nuclear
battleground, but not tested with carrying any actual nuclear weapons.

By taking the non-nuclear mission away from the Spirits it would
improve the nation's overall nuclear posture and we could go into the
next round of treaties and bargain away the nuclear capabilities of
the BONE and BUFF.

-HJC

[Dan[_12_]]

hcobb wrote:
> On May 3, 10:20 pm, frank > wrote:
>> We'd have to break some arms control treaties to do it.
>
> Well that's (along with President BHO's tight military budgets) what's
> grounded the 2018 bomber.
>
> http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/NGB042209.xml&headline=USAF%20Bomber%20Grounded%20by%20More%20th an%20Budget&channel=defense
> In fact, there were two key, inter-related issues that created the
> bomber reassessment: adding a nuclear weapons carrying capability and
> renewed Start arms control treaty negotiations with the Russians.
>
> The fix is to make it nuclear capable, but not operationally nuclear
> armed. In the sense that it's tested to be survivable on the nuclear
> battleground, but not tested with carrying any actual nuclear weapons.
>
> By taking the non-nuclear mission away from the Spirits it would
> improve the nation's overall nuclear posture and we could go into the
> next round of treaties and bargain away the nuclear capabilities of
> the BONE and BUFF.
>
> -HJC


Egad, even in cobb world none of that makes sense.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[BlackBeard]

On May 4, 3:16*pm, wrote:
> On Mon, 4 May 2009 13:27:39 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard >
> wrote:
>
> >On May 4, 1:05*pm, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>
> >> 2.) Disabuse yourself from the notion that a CV is any sort of easy
> >> target. I spent a lot of years trying to successfully do just that in
> >> exercises. It is damn close to impossible. Whoever attempts it will
> >> suffer severe losses in the process and even then may not succeed.
>
> >Well, from the air or surface maybe... *;)
>
> Well, no.
>
> I've sat on many an SSN over the years. *They are tough to catch but
> I've yet to meat the submariner that's 7 feet tall, bullet proof, and
> immortal. *:-)

And I served in SSN's and we expended more green flares than I could
count. Confined to a small box, wearing a noisemaker, and still
scoring the big tonnage.

BB

[BlackBeard]

On May 4, 3:17*pm, wrote:
> On Sun, 3 May 2009 22:20:20 -0700 (PDT), frank
>
> > wrote:
> >> Would this not mean that by presidential order they could be put back?
>
> >We'd have to break some arms control treaties to do it.
>
> Which ones?

None. The decision to remove the tactical nukes from our Navy was a
unilateral one made by Bush the 1st and carried out by Cheney in
1992. It was NOT covered by the INF treaty which would be the closest
in relative weapon "size."

BB

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 4 May 2009 19:12:11 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard >
wrote:

>On May 4, 3:17*pm, wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 May 2009 22:20:20 -0700 (PDT), frank
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Would this not mean that by presidential order they could be put back?
>>
>> >We'd have to break some arms control treaties to do it.
>>
>> Which ones?
>
>None. The decision to remove the tactical nukes from our Navy was a
>unilateral one made by Bush the 1st and carried out by Cheney in
>1992. It was NOT covered by the INF treaty which would be the closest
>in relative weapon "size."

Didn't think so. Thanks for the confirmation.

[Andrew Swallow[_2_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
[snip]

>
> The US, Brits + more have had an armed presence in
> Iraq (or around), since 1991, 18 years, in Afgh since
> 2001, 8 years. A lack of fortitude might be argued in
> the way those conflicts were resolved.

The Arabs etc. remember the USA left Vietnam that choose
not to remember the Americans stayed longer than the
Iran-Iraq War.

Andrew Swallow

[hcobb]

On May 5, 9:23 pm, Andrew Swallow > wrote:
> The Arabs etc. remember the USA left Vietnam that choose
> not to remember the Americans stayed longer than the
> Iran-Iraq War.
>
> Andrew Swallow

They have a much closer example (in time and space) in Somalia.

-HJC

[J[_2_]]

On May 4, 4:05*pm, Ed Rasimus > wrote:

> 2.) Disabuse yourself from the notion that a CV is any sort of easy
> target. I spent a lot of years trying to successfully do just that in
> exercises. It is damn close to impossible.

Ed,

Were you ever successful? (To the extent you can say.)

Thanks . . . J

[Ian B MacLure]

frank > wrote in
:

> On Apr 29, 11:20*pm, Ian B MacLure > wrote:
>> "dott.Piergiorgio" > wrote
>> inn
> :
>>
>> > Mike ha scritto:
>> >> Inside the Air Force - 4/24/2009
>>
>> >> GENERAL: PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE
>> >> CAPABILITY
>>
>> >> The Defense Department and a handful of allies have launched an
>> >> effort to ensure the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is capable
>> >> of conducting the most devastating mission in modern warfare --
>> >> delivering a nuclear bomb.
>>
>> > Ugh.....
>>
>> > let's cross well the fingers, there's already a mess, and a -D
>> > version, available to select few, has all the potential to sink the
>> > entire program......
>>
>> * * * * Why another version? It would simply be a Block X update
> to
>> * * * * whatever was fielded. What after all is the difference be
> tween
>> * * * * nuclear and non-nuclear capable aircraft? Basically some
> form
>> * * * * of safety gear related to weapon fusing.
>>
>> * * * * IBM
>
> Its a bit more than that. Takes a lot of work to be nuclear certified.

It is however doable and the process is well understood.

IBM

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 6, 6:54 pm, J > wrote:
> On May 4, 4:05 pm, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>
> > 2.) Disabuse yourself from the notion that a CV is any sort of easy
> > target. I spent a lot of years trying to successfully do just that in
> > exercises. It is damn close to impossible.
> Ed,
>
> Were you ever successful? (To the extent you can say.)
> Thanks . . . J

Ed's comment was directed to me on May 4th.
I *think* he's suggesting a fighter attack on a CVN.
Currently, cruise missiles and/or MRBM's, because
of the wide spread availability of precision electronic
guidance, basically has a CVN as equivalent to a
heavily armored *blimp* in a fluid.
IIRC, the last war where severe attacks were waged
on CV's with a large defensive screen was off Okinawa,
with kamikazes operating as missiles.
Ken

[Keith Willshaw[_4_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
...
> On May 6, 6:54 pm, J > wrote:
>> On May 4, 4:05 pm, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>>
>> > 2.) Disabuse yourself from the notion that a CV is any sort of easy
>> > target. I spent a lot of years trying to successfully do just that in
>> > exercises. It is damn close to impossible.
>> Ed,
>>
>> Were you ever successful? (To the extent you can say.)
>> Thanks . . . J
>
> Ed's comment was directed to me on May 4th.
> I *think* he's suggesting a fighter attack on a CVN.
> Currently, cruise missiles and/or MRBM's, because
> of the wide spread availability of precision electronic
> guidance, basically has a CVN as equivalent to a
> heavily armored *blimp* in a fluid.

Neither MRBM's nor most cruise missiles are well suited to
attacks on moving targets. The guidance systems on ballistic
missiles are designed to hit a given set of co-ordinates and
the flight dynamics make terminal manoeuvering very difficult
even if you had sensors capable of penetrating the plasma
around the vehicle.

Cruise missiles have the problem of being targets in their own
right and so typically fly low which makes searching for the
target very difficult and makes for a high likelihood of
attacks on the wrong vessel (see Atlantic Conveyor and Falklands)

There are a few systems like the Russian Granit designed to
operate in swarms where one missile will pop up to medium altitude
to provide course correction information for the others but that
of course leaves them open to spoofing and meaconing.


> IIRC, the last war where severe attacks were waged
> on CV's with a large defensive screen was off Okinawa,
> with kamikazes operating as missiles.
> Ken
>

Okinawa was rather unusual. The CV's were tied to small area by
the requirement to provide air cover for the invasion fleet.
Worse still they were within range of the enemies (large) air force.

That said such refinements as AEW radar rose directly from that
experience.

Keith

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Ed Rasimus ha scritto:

>>>
>>> That being said, I had a flight of four kill Indianapolis (thinking it
>>> was America until we were in the pop-up) in one exercise
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)

I can justapoxe (sp?) these two lines ? ;)

(wondering how happens to mix CVN and SSN blips...)

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 7, 12:32 am, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
>
>
>
> > On May 6, 6:54 pm, J > wrote:
> >> On May 4, 4:05 pm, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>
> >> > 2.) Disabuse yourself from the notion that a CV is any sort of easy
> >> > target. I spent a lot of years trying to successfully do just that in
> >> > exercises. It is damn close to impossible.
> >> Ed,
>
> >> Were you ever successful? (To the extent you can say.)
> >> Thanks . . . J
>
> > Ed's comment was directed to me on May 4th.
> > I *think* he's suggesting a fighter attack on a CVN.
> > Currently, cruise missiles and/or MRBM's, because
> > of the wide spread availability of precision electronic
> > guidance, basically has a CVN as equivalent to a
> > heavily armored *blimp* in a fluid.

As a back-drop, 27 years ago,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet#Falklands_Conflict
(Seems like yesterday).

> Neither MRBM's nor most cruise missiles are well suited to
> attacks on moving targets. The guidance systems on ballistic
> missiles are designed to hit a given set of co-ordinates and
> the flight dynamics make terminal manoeuvering very difficult
> even if you had sensors capable of penetrating the plasma
> around the vehicle.

Things could have changed. I have a good idea
of what's *technically* possible, I hope you're
right.

> Cruise missiles have the problem of being targets in their own
> right and so typically fly low which makes searching for the
> target very difficult and makes for a high likelihood of
> attacks on the wrong vessel (see Atlantic Conveyor and Falklands)

ditto.

> There are a few systems like the Russian Granit designed to
> operate in swarms where one missile will pop up to medium altitude
> to provide course correction information for the others but that
> of course leaves them open to spoofing and meaconing.

It's a bit difficult to hide a CVN from a satellite.

> > IIRC, the last war where severe attacks were waged
> > on CV's with a large defensive screen was off Okinawa,
> > with kamikazes operating as missiles.
> > Ken
>
> Okinawa was rather unusual. The CV's were tied to small area by
> the requirement to provide air cover for the invasion fleet.
> Worse still they were within range of the enemies (large) air force.
> That said such refinements as AEW radar rose directly from that
> experience.

I deviated the topic to F-35 (nuke able) for the navy
is to be absolutely unnecessary and of nil usefulness.
(The A-5 Vigilante again).
I'll go further, all nuke weapons should be banned by
treaty from international waters and air space.
Ken

[Peter Skelton]

On Thu, 07 May 2009 19:02:12 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:

>On Thu, 07 May 2009 18:59:39 +0200, "dott.Piergiorgio"
> wrote:
>
>>Ed Rasimus ha scritto:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That being said, I had a flight of four kill Indianapolis (thinking it
>>>>> was America until we were in the pop-up) in one exercise
>>> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>>
>>I can justapoxe (sp?) these two lines ? ;)
>>
>>(wondering how happens to mix CVN and SSN blips...)
>
>Sorry. My mis-remembering. It was California--a guided missile
>cruiser, not a SSN. It was thirty years ago!
>
>Even on a good day, the F-4 radar wouldn't pick up many subs!

You need Harrier radar for that.


Peter Skelton

[[email protected]]

> >Even on a good day, the F-4 radar wouldn't pick up many subs!
>
> You need Harrier radar for that.

After the engine failed.

[Keith Willshaw[_4_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
...
> On May 7, 12:32 am, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 6, 6:54 pm, J > wrote:
>> >> On May 4, 4:05 pm, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>>
>> >> > 2.) Disabuse yourself from the notion that a CV is any sort of easy
>> >> > target. I spent a lot of years trying to successfully do just that
>> >> > in
>> >> > exercises. It is damn close to impossible.
>> >> Ed,
>>
>> >> Were you ever successful? (To the extent you can say.)
>> >> Thanks . . . J
>>
>> > Ed's comment was directed to me on May 4th.
>> > I *think* he's suggesting a fighter attack on a CVN.
>> > Currently, cruise missiles and/or MRBM's, because
>> > of the wide spread availability of precision electronic
>> > guidance, basically has a CVN as equivalent to a
>> > heavily armored *blimp* in a fluid.
>
> As a back-drop, 27 years ago,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet#Falklands_Conflict
> (Seems like yesterday).
>

Delivered by aircraft as a standoff weapon, the target identification
was down on board the aircraft.

>> Neither MRBM's nor most cruise missiles are well suited to
>> attacks on moving targets. The guidance systems on ballistic
>> missiles are designed to hit a given set of co-ordinates and
>> the flight dynamics make terminal manoeuvering very difficult
>> even if you had sensors capable of penetrating the plasma
>> around the vehicle.
>
> Things could have changed. I have a good idea
> of what's *technically* possible, I hope you're
> right.
>
>> Cruise missiles have the problem of being targets in their own
>> right and so typically fly low which makes searching for the
>> target very difficult and makes for a high likelihood of
>> attacks on the wrong vessel (see Atlantic Conveyor and Falklands)
>
> ditto.
>
>> There are a few systems like the Russian Granit designed to
>> operate in swarms where one missile will pop up to medium altitude
>> to provide course correction information for the others but that
>> of course leaves them open to spoofing and meaconing.
>
> It's a bit difficult to hide a CVN from a satellite.
>

Sure but getting real time location from a satellite is difficult and
VERY expensive

1) Any given low earth recon birds will only revisit any given spot
at infrequent periods typically measured in daysor at best hours
rather than minutes

2) Standard recon satellites use optical or infrared methods which
limits their effectiveness in case of clud cover

3) Even if your satellite happens to fly over a CVN you have to
have people analysing the data in real time.

To get round the problems the Soviets launched a whole series
of Radar satellites (RORSAT). These were BIG and typically
powered by type BES-5 nuclear reactors. They weighed in at
around 4 tons and to get decent coverage of even a fairly small
part of the planet they had to launch a whole constellation of
them at vast expense.

AFAIK there have been no such satelllites in service for more
than a decade.

>> > IIRC, the last war where severe attacks were waged
>> > on CV's with a large defensive screen was off Okinawa,
>> > with kamikazes operating as missiles.
>> > Ken
>>
>> Okinawa was rather unusual. The CV's were tied to small area by
>> the requirement to provide air cover for the invasion fleet.
>> Worse still they were within range of the enemies (large) air force.
>> That said such refinements as AEW radar rose directly from that
>> experience.
>
> I deviated the topic to F-35 (nuke able) for the navy
> is to be absolutely unnecessary and of nil usefulness.
> (The A-5 Vigilante again).
> I'll go further, all nuke weapons should be banned by
> treaty from international waters and air space.
> Ken
>

There goes the US nuclear deterrent

Keith

[Jeb in Richmond]

On May 7, 4:15*pm, Ed Rasimus > wrote:

> On the surface with the sail broadside at short range...
>
> On some attacks we were almost running in their environment! On that
> cruiser attack we had laid a chaff corridor with ALE-38 dispensers at
> 200 feet above the water and ran in the descending chaff the last 100
> miles to the boat.

Holy ****. I'd ask how terrifying that must have been but you were
probably too busy to notice. Would that sort of approach present a FOD
danger, BTW? I always assumed chaff went behind/between the attackers.

[frank]

On May 7, 3:09*pm, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
>
>
>
> > On May 7, 12:32 am, "Keith Willshaw"
> > > wrote:
> >> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
> >> ...
>
> >> > On May 6, 6:54 pm, J > wrote:
> >> >> On May 4, 4:05 pm, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>
> >> >> > 2.) Disabuse yourself from the notion that a CV is any sort of easy
> >> >> > target. I spent a lot of years trying to successfully do just that
> >> >> > in
> >> >> > exercises. It is damn close to impossible.
> >> >> Ed,
>
> >> >> Were you ever successful? (To the extent you can say.)
> >> >> Thanks . . . J
>
> >> > Ed's comment was directed to me on May 4th.
> >> > I *think* he's suggesting a fighter attack on a CVN.
> >> > Currently, cruise missiles and/or MRBM's, because
> >> > of the wide spread availability of precision electronic
> >> > guidance, basically has a CVN as equivalent to a
> >> > heavily armored *blimp* in a fluid.
>
> > As a back-drop, 27 years ago,
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet#Falklands_Conflict
> > (Seems like yesterday).
>
> Delivered by aircraft as a standoff weapon, the target identification
> was down on board the aircraft.
>
>
>
> >> Neither MRBM's nor most cruise missiles are well suited to
> >> attacks on moving targets. The guidance systems on ballistic
> >> missiles are designed to hit a given set of co-ordinates and
> >> the flight dynamics make terminal manoeuvering very difficult
> >> even if you had sensors capable of penetrating the plasma
> >> around the vehicle.
>
> > Things could have changed. I have a good idea
> > of what's *technically* possible, I hope you're
> > right.
>
> >> Cruise missiles have the problem of being targets in their own
> >> right and so typically fly low which makes searching for the
> >> target very difficult and makes for a high likelihood of
> >> attacks on the wrong vessel (see Atlantic Conveyor and Falklands)
>
> > ditto.
>
> >> There are a few systems like the Russian Granit designed to
> >> operate in swarms where one missile will pop up to medium altitude
> >> to provide course correction information for the others but that
> >> of course leaves them open to spoofing and meaconing.
>
> > It's a bit difficult to hide a CVN from a satellite.
>
> Sure but getting real time location from a satellite is difficult and
> VERY expensive
>
> 1) Any given low earth recon birds will only revisit any given spot
> at infrequent periods typically *measured in daysor at best *hours
> rather than minutes
>
> 2) Standard recon satellites use optical or infrared methods which
> limits their effectiveness in case of clud cover
>
> 3) Even if your satellite happens to fly over *a CVN you have to
> have people analysing the data in real time.
>
> To get round the problems the Soviets launched a whole series
> of Radar satellites (RORSAT). These were BIG and typically
> powered by type BES-5 nuclear reactors. They weighed in at
> around 4 tons and to get decent coverage of even a fairly small
> part of the planet they had to launch a whole constellation of
> them at vast expense.
>
> AFAIK there have been no such satelllites in service for more
> than a decade.
>
>
>
> >> > IIRC, the last war where severe attacks were waged
> >> > on CV's with a large defensive screen was off Okinawa,
> >> > with kamikazes operating as missiles.
> >> > Ken
>
> >> Okinawa was rather unusual. The CV's were tied to small area by
> >> the requirement to provide air cover for the invasion fleet.
> >> Worse still they were within range of the enemies (large) air force.
> >> That said such refinements as AEW radar rose directly from that
> >> experience.
>
> > I deviated the topic to F-35 (nuke able) for the navy
> > is to be absolutely unnecessary and of nil usefulness.
> > (The A-5 Vigilante again).
> > I'll go further, all nuke weapons should be banned by
> > treaty from international waters and air space.
> > Ken
>
> There goes the US nuclear deterrent
>
> Keith

Back when 'those were the days' the Soviets though nothing of putting
up stuff weekly, even if it had to be replaced in a few months due to
low orbits. Would even launch recon sats just for an exercise. Overfly
this battle group or whatnot.

Way different than how the US did it. But, our stuff was like the
Energizer bunny, kept going and going and going....
cost real money too. No wonder the had a black budget.

[frank]

On May 4, 5:16*pm, wrote:
> On Mon, 4 May 2009 13:27:39 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard >
> wrote:
>
> >On May 4, 1:05*pm, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>
> >> 2.) Disabuse yourself from the notion that a CV is any sort of easy
> >> target. I spent a lot of years trying to successfully do just that in
> >> exercises. It is damn close to impossible. Whoever attempts it will
> >> suffer severe losses in the process and even then may not succeed.
>
> >Well, from the air or surface maybe... *;)
>
> Well, no.
>
> I've sat on many an SSN over the years. *They are tough to catch but
> I've yet to meat the submariner that's 7 feet tall, bullet proof, and
> immortal. *:-)

Knew more than a few bubbleheads who thought the Naval Aviators
weren't as invincible as they thought they were.
Then again, you can count on one hand who could get within a carrier
battle group. Us, Soviets at their prime. Maybe. But, like anything
else, get enough of a wolfpack, somebody will cause a world of hurt.

I was always amazed nobody ever tried to hit one of the charter
aircraft we seemed to use a lot of to move troops. Or the civilian
shipping. Either inability to do it or some sort of unspoken rule.
Still.....

[Jack Linthicum]

On May 7, 4:32*pm, frank > wrote:
> On May 7, 3:09*pm, "Keith Willshaw"
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
>
> > > On May 7, 12:32 am, "Keith Willshaw"
> > > > wrote:
> > >> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
> > >> ...
>
> > >> > On May 6, 6:54 pm, J > wrote:
> > >> >> On May 4, 4:05 pm, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>
> > >> >> > 2.) Disabuse yourself from the notion that a CV is any sort of easy
> > >> >> > target. I spent a lot of years trying to successfully do just that
> > >> >> > in
> > >> >> > exercises. It is damn close to impossible.
> > >> >> Ed,
>
> > >> >> Were you ever successful? (To the extent you can say.)
> > >> >> Thanks . . . J
>
> > >> > Ed's comment was directed to me on May 4th.
> > >> > I *think* he's suggesting a fighter attack on a CVN.
> > >> > Currently, cruise missiles and/or MRBM's, because
> > >> > of the wide spread availability of precision electronic
> > >> > guidance, basically has a CVN as equivalent to a
> > >> > heavily armored *blimp* in a fluid.
>
> > > As a back-drop, 27 years ago,
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet#Falklands_Conflict
> > > (Seems like yesterday).
>
> > Delivered by aircraft as a standoff weapon, the target identification
> > was down on board the aircraft.
>
> > >> Neither MRBM's nor most cruise missiles are well suited to
> > >> attacks on moving targets. The guidance systems on ballistic
> > >> missiles are designed to hit a given set of co-ordinates and
> > >> the flight dynamics make terminal manoeuvering very difficult
> > >> even if you had sensors capable of penetrating the plasma
> > >> around the vehicle.
>
> > > Things could have changed. I have a good idea
> > > of what's *technically* possible, I hope you're
> > > right.
>
> > >> Cruise missiles have the problem of being targets in their own
> > >> right and so typically fly low which makes searching for the
> > >> target very difficult and makes for a high likelihood of
> > >> attacks on the wrong vessel (see Atlantic Conveyor and Falklands)
>
> > > ditto.
>
> > >> There are a few systems like the Russian Granit designed to
> > >> operate in swarms where one missile will pop up to medium altitude
> > >> to provide course correction information for the others but that
> > >> of course leaves them open to spoofing and meaconing.
>
> > > It's a bit difficult to hide a CVN from a satellite.
>
> > Sure but getting real time location from a satellite is difficult and
> > VERY expensive
>
> > 1) Any given low earth recon birds will only revisit any given spot
> > at infrequent periods typically *measured in daysor at best *hours
> > rather than minutes
>
> > 2) Standard recon satellites use optical or infrared methods which
> > limits their effectiveness in case of clud cover
>
> > 3) Even if your satellite happens to fly over *a CVN you have to
> > have people analysing the data in real time.
>
> > To get round the problems the Soviets launched a whole series
> > of Radar satellites (RORSAT). These were BIG and typically
> > powered by type BES-5 nuclear reactors. They weighed in at
> > around 4 tons and to get decent coverage of even a fairly small
> > part of the planet they had to launch a whole constellation of
> > them at vast expense.
>
> > AFAIK there have been no such satelllites in service for more
> > than a decade.
>
> > >> > IIRC, the last war where severe attacks were waged
> > >> > on CV's with a large defensive screen was off Okinawa,
> > >> > with kamikazes operating as missiles.
> > >> > Ken
>
> > >> Okinawa was rather unusual. The CV's were tied to small area by
> > >> the requirement to provide air cover for the invasion fleet.
> > >> Worse still they were within range of the enemies (large) air force.
> > >> That said such refinements as AEW radar rose directly from that
> > >> experience.
>
> > > I deviated the topic to F-35 (nuke able) for the navy
> > > is to be absolutely unnecessary and of nil usefulness.
> > > (The A-5 Vigilante again).
> > > I'll go further, all nuke weapons should be banned by
> > > treaty from international waters and air space.
> > > Ken
>
> > There goes the US nuclear deterrent
>
> > Keith
>
> Back when 'those were the days' the Soviets though nothing of putting
> up stuff weekly, even if it had to be replaced in a few months due to
> low orbits. Would even launch recon sats just for an exercise. Overfly
> this battle group or whatnot.
>
> Way different than how the US did it. But, our stuff was like the
> Energizer bunny, kept going and going and going....
> cost real money too. No wonder the had a black budget.

Difference between communications from orbit and the Soviet
requirement to land the bird to get the film out.

[William Black[_1_]]

"frank" > wrote in message
...

I was always amazed nobody ever tried to hit one of the charter
aircraft we seemed to use a lot of to move troops. Or the civilian
shipping. Either inability to do it or some sort of unspoken rule.

---------------------------------------

It's difficult to tell the difference between one of those and a civilian
passenger jet.

Shoot one of those down and you discover that nobody loves you...

--
William Black

Razors pain you;
Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you;
And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful;
Nooses give;
Gas smells awful;
You might as well live.

[Keith Willshaw[_4_]]

"Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
...

>> Back when 'those were the days' the Soviets though nothing of putting
>> up stuff weekly, even if it had to be replaced in a few months due to
>> low orbits. Would even launch recon sats just for an exercise. Overfly
>> this battle group or whatnot.
>>
>> Way different than how the US did it. But, our stuff was like the
>> Energizer bunny, kept going and going and going....
>> cost real money too. No wonder the had a black budget.

> Difference between communications from orbit and the Soviet
> requirement to land the bird to get the film out.

Incorrect, the RORSAT's were not optical but radar devices and
the data was sent back to base via telemetery. The problem for the
RORSAT was that because the strength of the return signal from
radar is inversely proportional to the fourth power of the distance.
This meant they had to be in a very low orbit that decayed rapidly.
To avoid radioactive contamination the reactor core was supposed
to be ejected and boosted into a high orbit at the end of a service life
that was typically around 3 months.

This is a very different mission profile to an optical reconnaissance
satellite.

Keith

[Jack Linthicum]

On May 7, 6:29*pm, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:
> "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> Back when 'those were the days' the Soviets though nothing of putting
> >> up stuff weekly, even if it had to be replaced in a few months due to
> >> low orbits. Would even launch recon sats just for an exercise. Overfly
> >> this battle group or whatnot.
>
> >> Way different than how the US did it. But, our stuff was like the
> >> Energizer bunny, kept going and going and going....
> >> cost real money too. No wonder the had a black budget.
> > Difference between communications from orbit and the Soviet
> > requirement to land the bird to get the film out.
>
> Incorrect, the RORSAT's were not optical but radar devices and
> the data was sent back to base via telemetery. The problem for the
> RORSAT was that because the strength of the return signal from
> radar is inversely proportional to the fourth power of the distance.
> This meant they had to be in a very low orbit that decayed rapidly.
> To avoid radioactive contamination the reactor core was supposed
> to be ejected and boosted into a high orbit at the end of a service life
> that was typically around 3 months.
>
> This is a very different mission profile to an optical reconnaissance
> satellite.
>
> Keith

This is what I was responding to.

"Back when 'those were the days' the Soviets though nothing of putting
up stuff weekly, even if it had to be replaced in a few months due to
low orbits. Would even launch recon sats just for an exercise. Overfly
this battle group or whatnot.

Way different than how the US did it. But, our stuff was like the
Energizer bunny, kept going and going and going....
cost real money too. No wonder the had a black budget."

no RORSATs, the sats I was talking about were optical camera sats.
Please pay attention.

[frank]

On May 7, 3:48*pm, Jack Linthicum > wrote:
> On May 7, 4:32*pm, frank > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 7, 3:09*pm, "Keith Willshaw"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
>
> > > > On May 7, 12:32 am, "Keith Willshaw"
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
> > > >> ...
>
> > > >> > On May 6, 6:54 pm, J > wrote:
> > > >> >> On May 4, 4:05 pm, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>
> > > >> >> > 2.) Disabuse yourself from the notion that a CV is any sort of easy
> > > >> >> > target. I spent a lot of years trying to successfully do just that
> > > >> >> > in
> > > >> >> > exercises. It is damn close to impossible.
> > > >> >> Ed,
>
> > > >> >> Were you ever successful? (To the extent you can say.)
> > > >> >> Thanks . . . J
>
> > > >> > Ed's comment was directed to me on May 4th.
> > > >> > I *think* he's suggesting a fighter attack on a CVN.
> > > >> > Currently, cruise missiles and/or MRBM's, because
> > > >> > of the wide spread availability of precision electronic
> > > >> > guidance, basically has a CVN as equivalent to a
> > > >> > heavily armored *blimp* in a fluid.
>
> > > > As a back-drop, 27 years ago,
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet#Falklands_Conflict
> > > > (Seems like yesterday).
>
> > > Delivered by aircraft as a standoff weapon, the target identification
> > > was down on board the aircraft.
>
> > > >> Neither MRBM's nor most cruise missiles are well suited to
> > > >> attacks on moving targets. The guidance systems on ballistic
> > > >> missiles are designed to hit a given set of co-ordinates and
> > > >> the flight dynamics make terminal manoeuvering very difficult
> > > >> even if you had sensors capable of penetrating the plasma
> > > >> around the vehicle.
>
> > > > Things could have changed. I have a good idea
> > > > of what's *technically* possible, I hope you're
> > > > right.
>
> > > >> Cruise missiles have the problem of being targets in their own
> > > >> right and so typically fly low which makes searching for the
> > > >> target very difficult and makes for a high likelihood of
> > > >> attacks on the wrong vessel (see Atlantic Conveyor and Falklands)
>
> > > > ditto.
>
> > > >> There are a few systems like the Russian Granit designed to
> > > >> operate in swarms where one missile will pop up to medium altitude
> > > >> to provide course correction information for the others but that
> > > >> of course leaves them open to spoofing and meaconing.
>
> > > > It's a bit difficult to hide a CVN from a satellite.
>
> > > Sure but getting real time location from a satellite is difficult and
> > > VERY expensive
>
> > > 1) Any given low earth recon birds will only revisit any given spot
> > > at infrequent periods typically *measured in daysor at best *hours
> > > rather than minutes
>
> > > 2) Standard recon satellites use optical or infrared methods which
> > > limits their effectiveness in case of clud cover
>
> > > 3) Even if your satellite happens to fly over *a CVN you have to
> > > have people analysing the data in real time.
>
> > > To get round the problems the Soviets launched a whole series
> > > of Radar satellites (RORSAT). These were BIG and typically
> > > powered by type BES-5 nuclear reactors. They weighed in at
> > > around 4 tons and to get decent coverage of even a fairly small
> > > part of the planet they had to launch a whole constellation of
> > > them at vast expense.
>
> > > AFAIK there have been no such satelllites in service for more
> > > than a decade.
>
> > > >> > IIRC, the last war where severe attacks were waged
> > > >> > on CV's with a large defensive screen was off Okinawa,
> > > >> > with kamikazes operating as missiles.
> > > >> > Ken
>
> > > >> Okinawa was rather unusual. The CV's were tied to small area by
> > > >> the requirement to provide air cover for the invasion fleet.
> > > >> Worse still they were within range of the enemies (large) air force.
> > > >> That said such refinements as AEW radar rose directly from that
> > > >> experience.
>
> > > > I deviated the topic to F-35 (nuke able) for the navy
> > > > is to be absolutely unnecessary and of nil usefulness.
> > > > (The A-5 Vigilante again).
> > > > I'll go further, all nuke weapons should be banned by
> > > > treaty from international waters and air space.
> > > > Ken
>
> > > There goes the US nuclear deterrent
>
> > > Keith
>
> > Back when 'those were the days' the Soviets though nothing of putting
> > up stuff weekly, even if it had to be replaced in a few months due to
> > low orbits. Would even launch recon sats just for an exercise. Overfly
> > this battle group or whatnot.
>
> > Way different than how the US did it. But, our stuff was like the
> > Energizer bunny, kept going and going and going....
> > cost real money too. No wonder the had a black budget.
>
> Difference between communications from orbit and the Soviet
> requirement to land the bird to get the film out.

Jettison film packs were de rigeur for a while. Soviets obviously had
large enough land mass to make it work.

Amazing what sort of job security there were in various types of
specialties. One was counting film packs and matching them to bird in
orbit. Out of film, expect a new launch.

Both sides did this. Paid for lots of brewskis and chiles.

Newer technology is downlinking all that data. Interestingly, a lot
were doing stuff like take film, process in orbit, read it then scan
it and send data down. Engineers got smart and did away with film as
intermediate step. some engineers are smart. Do good stuff.

As opposed to the one who sit as GIB and when told not to touch
anything, not to pull tape off of knobs and dials, do it anyway. Why
they were not ejected is a mystery. Wonder what happens if I pull this
up....

[frank]

On May 7, 5:29*pm, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:
> "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> Back when 'those were the days' the Soviets though nothing of putting
> >> up stuff weekly, even if it had to be replaced in a few months due to
> >> low orbits. Would even launch recon sats just for an exercise. Overfly
> >> this battle group or whatnot.
>
> >> Way different than how the US did it. But, our stuff was like the
> >> Energizer bunny, kept going and going and going....
> >> cost real money too. No wonder the had a black budget.
> > Difference between communications from orbit and the Soviet
> > requirement to land the bird to get the film out.
>
> Incorrect, the RORSAT's were not optical but radar devices and
> the data was sent back to base via telemetery. The problem for the
> RORSAT was that because the strength of the return signal from
> radar is inversely proportional to the fourth power of the distance.
> This meant they had to be in a very low orbit that decayed rapidly.
> To avoid radioactive contamination the reactor core was supposed
> to be ejected and boosted into a high orbit at the end of a service life
> that was typically around 3 months.
>
> This is a very different mission profile to an optical reconnaissance
> satellite.
>
> Keith

Yeah but what we had was never told. What they had was replaceable.
Often. Obviously lots of Workers of the Soviet Union making boosters
that worked. Sometimes they didn't get core or other stuff either in
ocean or into higher orbit. Got Canadians mad at least once. Late 70s,
I seem to remember, 78? Something like that. Some bits and pieces were
picked up.

God knows what they were doing for safety issues. Don't know if they
had tree huggers demonstrating like we did once.

Soviets had some really bizarre stuff up there. Optical, RADAR.

Lots more launches that we ever did.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 7, 1:09 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
....
> > As a back-drop, 27 years ago,
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet#Falklands_Conflict
> > (Seems like yesterday).
>
> Delivered by aircraft as a standoff weapon, the target identification
> was down on board the aircraft.

Keith, I was rather hoping the "27 years ago" might
be a hint.
....
> > It's a bit difficult to hide a CVN from a satellite.
>
> Sure but getting real time location from a satellite is difficult and
> VERY expensive

This works, it's civilian,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RADARSAT-1

> 1) Any given low earth recon birds will only revisit any given spot
> at infrequent periods typically measured in daysor at best hours
> rather than minutes
>
> 2) Standard recon satellites use optical or infrared methods which
> limits their effectiveness in case of clud cover
>
> 3) Even if your satellite happens to fly over a CVN you have to
> have people analysing the data in real time.
>
> To get round the problems the Soviets launched a whole series
> of Radar satellites (RORSAT). These were BIG and typically
> powered by type BES-5 nuclear reactors. They weighed in at
> around 4 tons and to get decent coverage of even a fairly small
> part of the planet they had to launch a whole constellation of
> them at vast expense.
>
> AFAIK there have been no such satelllites in service for more
> than a decade.

Today, using conventional ordinance, an MRBM
put in the ballpark of a CVN will terminal guide to a
probable direct hit, even choosing where to hit.

If the CVN+fleet is converted into a floating nuke
strike base, it becomes #1 target to MIRV, as in
10 100kt bombs detonated over a fleet.
....
> > I deviated the topic to F-35 (nuke able) for the navy
> > is to be absolutely unnecessary and of nil usefulness.
> > (The A-5 Vigilante again).
> > I'll go further, all nuke weapons should be banned by
> > treaty from international waters and air space.
> > Ken
>
> There goes the US nuclear deterrent
> Keith

Maybe the nuke subs lurkin' off the US coasts on hair
trigger can go home, if it's ok with American citizens.
Ken

[frank]

On May 8, 1:38*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On May 7, 1:09 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
>
> > wrote:
> > "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
> ...
> > > As a back-drop, 27 years ago,
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet#Falklands_Conflict
> > > (Seems like yesterday).
>
> > Delivered by aircraft as a standoff weapon, the target identification
> > was down on board the aircraft.
>
> Keith, I was rather hoping the "27 years ago" might
> be a hint.
> ...
>
> > > It's a bit difficult to hide a CVN from a satellite.
>
> > Sure but getting real time location from a satellite is difficult and
> > VERY expensive
>
> This works, it's civilian,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RADARSAT-1
>
>
>
> > 1) Any given low earth recon birds will only revisit any given spot
> > at infrequent periods typically *measured in daysor at best *hours
> > rather than minutes
>
> > 2) Standard recon satellites use optical or infrared methods which
> > limits their effectiveness in case of clud cover
>
> > 3) Even if your satellite happens to fly over *a CVN you have to
> > have people analysing the data in real time.
>
> > To get round the problems the Soviets launched a whole series
> > of Radar satellites (RORSAT). These were BIG and typically
> > powered by type BES-5 nuclear reactors. They weighed in at
> > around 4 tons and to get decent coverage of even a fairly small
> > part of the planet they had to launch a whole constellation of
> > them at vast expense.
>
> > AFAIK there have been no such satelllites in service for more
> > than a decade.
>
> Today, using conventional ordinance, an MRBM
> put in the ballpark of a CVN will terminal guide to a
> probable direct hit, even choosing where to hit.
>
> If the CVN+fleet is converted into a floating nuke
> strike base, it becomes #1 target to MIRV, as in
> 10 100kt bombs detonated over a fleet.
> ...
>
> > > I deviated the topic to F-35 (nuke able) for the navy
> > > is to be absolutely unnecessary and of nil usefulness.
> > > (The A-5 Vigilante again).
> > > I'll go further, all nuke weapons should be banned by
> > > treaty from international waters and air space.
> > > Ken
>
> > There goes the US nuclear deterrent
> > Keith
>
> Maybe the nuke subs lurkin' off the US coasts on hair
> trigger can go home, if it's ok with American citizens.
> Ken

You must have missed Cheney's memo. Its all peace love and
tranquility. Ed has long hair, throws rose petals. They all luv us. no
more hair triggers.

Now, it takes what minutes to get back to a hair trigger alert, but
most people don't understand that.

Guess the politicians are happy. Slip them another beer.

[Keith Willshaw[_4_]]

"Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
...
On May 7, 6:29 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:
> "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> Back when 'those were the days' the Soviets though nothing of putting
> >> up stuff weekly, even if it had to be replaced in a few months due to
> >> low orbits. Would even launch recon sats just for an exercise. Overfly
> >> this battle group or whatnot.
>
> >> Way different than how the US did it. But, our stuff was like the
> >> Energizer bunny, kept going and going and going....
> >> cost real money too. No wonder the had a black budget.
> > Difference between communications from orbit and the Soviet
> > requirement to land the bird to get the film out.
>
>> Incorrect, the RORSAT's were not optical but radar devices and
>> the data was sent back to base via telemetery. The problem for the
>> RORSAT was that because the strength of the return signal from
>> radar is inversely proportional to the fourth power of the distance.
>> This meant they had to be in a very low orbit that decayed rapidly.
>> To avoid radioactive contamination the reactor core was supposed
>> to be ejected and boosted into a high orbit at the end of a service life
>> that was typically around 3 months.
>>
>> This is a very different mission profile to an optical reconnaissance
>> satellite.
>>
>> Keith

> This is what I was responding to.

> "Back when 'those were the days' the Soviets though nothing of putting
> up stuff weekly, even if it had to be replaced in a few months due to
> low orbits. Would even launch recon sats just for an exercise. Overfly
> this battle group or whatnot.

> Way different than how the US did it. But, our stuff was like the
> Energizer bunny, kept going and going and going....
> cost real money too. No wonder the had a black budget."

The US used film recovery systems during the Corona Program from 1959
to 1972, between June 1959 and Sept 1960 the US launched 10 systems
but only recovered 1 film capsule

> no RORSATs, the sats I was talking about were optical camera sats.
> Please pay attention.

Trouble is we were discussing systems usable for tracking CVBG's

This is not possible using optical sats using film recovery

Keith

[Keith Willshaw[_4_]]

"frank" > wrote in message
...
On May 7, 5:29 pm, "Keith Willshaw"

>
>> Incorrect, the RORSAT's were not optical but radar devices and
>> the data was sent back to base via telemetery. The problem for the
>> RORSAT was that because the strength of the return signal from
>> radar is inversely proportional to the fourth power of the distance.
>> This meant they had to be in a very low orbit that decayed rapidly.
>> To avoid radioactive contamination the reactor core was supposed
>> to be ejected and boosted into a high orbit at the end of a service life
>> that was typically around 3 months.
>>
>> This is a very different mission profile to an optical reconnaissance
>> satellite.
>>
>> Keith

> Yeah but what we had was never told.

Google for Corona Satellite

> What they had was replaceable.
> Often. Obviously lots of Workers of the Soviet Union making boosters
> that worked.

Between Feb 1962 and Dec 1963 the US launched 26 Corona-M birds

> Sometimes they didn't get core or other stuff either in
> ocean or into higher orbit. Got Canadians mad at least once. Late 70s,
> I seem to remember, 78? Something like that. Some bits and pieces were
> picked up.

That was a RORSAT that didnt have its reactor core boosted into
high orbit, lots of radioactive debrid

> God knows what they were doing for safety issues. Don't know if they
> had tree huggers demonstrating like we did once.

Take it from someone who worked for a British Chemical firm in
the USSR in the 70's , tree huggers were not tolerated.


> Soviets had some really bizarre stuff up there. Optical, RADAR.

> Lots more launches that we ever did.

The RADAR satellites were necessary to allow the Soviets to
track US Carrier battle groups in real time, the US didnt have
the same problem, such soviet surface groups as existed could
be tracked using a combination of surface vessels, submarines
and SOSUS.

As to numbers there's less in that than you think. Soviet birds did tend to
the large though. The Zenit first gen optical satellites were
essentially modified Vostok capsules and returned not
just the film but the cameras as well which could be reused.

Keith

[Keith Willshaw[_4_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
...
> On May 7, 1:09 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>> ...
> ...
>> > As a back-drop, 27 years ago,
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet#Falklands_Conflict
>> > (Seems like yesterday).
>>
>> Delivered by aircraft as a standoff weapon, the target identification
>> was down on board the aircraft.
>
> Keith, I was rather hoping the "27 years ago" might
> be a hint.
> ...
>> > It's a bit difficult to hide a CVN from a satellite.
>>
>> Sure but getting real time location from a satellite is difficult and
>> VERY expensive
>
> This works, it's civilian,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RADARSAT-1
>

<Quote>
the satellite is in exactly the same location and can take the same image
(same beam mode and beam position) every 24 days.
</Quote>

Not much good for real time target tracking

>> 1) Any given low earth recon birds will only revisit any given spot
>> at infrequent periods typically measured in daysor at best hours
>> rather than minutes
>>
>> 2) Standard recon satellites use optical or infrared methods which
>> limits their effectiveness in case of clud cover
>>
>> 3) Even if your satellite happens to fly over a CVN you have to
>> have people analysing the data in real time.
>>
>> To get round the problems the Soviets launched a whole series
>> of Radar satellites (RORSAT). These were BIG and typically
>> powered by type BES-5 nuclear reactors. They weighed in at
>> around 4 tons and to get decent coverage of even a fairly small
>> part of the planet they had to launch a whole constellation of
>> them at vast expense.
>>
>> AFAIK there have been no such satelllites in service for more
>> than a decade.
>
> Today, using conventional ordinance, an MRBM
> put in the ballpark of a CVN will terminal guide to a
> probable direct hit, even choosing where to hit.
>

And just what combination of sensors and steering do you think
can do that ?


> If the CVN+fleet is converted into a floating nuke
> strike base, it becomes #1 target to MIRV, as in
> 10 100kt bombs detonated over a fleet.
> ...

First find your fleet then target the missiles and get launch authorisation.

Oops the fleet has now moved miles from that location.

>> > I deviated the topic to F-35 (nuke able) for the navy
>> > is to be absolutely unnecessary and of nil usefulness.
>> > (The A-5 Vigilante again).
>> > I'll go further, all nuke weapons should be banned by
>> > treaty from international waters and air space.
>> > Ken
>>
>> There goes the US nuclear deterrent
>> Keith
>
> Maybe the nuke subs lurkin' off the US coasts on hair
> trigger can go home, if it's ok with American citizens.
> Ken
>

Maybe but the Russian boats wont

Keith

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 8, 12:51 am, frank > wrote:
> On May 8, 1:38 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 7, 1:09 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
> > ...
> > > > As a back-drop, 27 years ago,
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet#Falklands_Conflict
> > > > (Seems like yesterday).
>
> > > Delivered by aircraft as a standoff weapon, the target identification
> > > was down on board the aircraft.
>
> > Keith, I was rather hoping the "27 years ago" might
> > be a hint.
> > ...
>
> > > > It's a bit difficult to hide a CVN from a satellite.
>
> > > Sure but getting real time location from a satellite is difficult and
> > > VERY expensive
>
> > This works, it's civilian,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RADARSAT-1
>
> > > 1) Any given low earth recon birds will only revisit any given spot
> > > at infrequent periods typically measured in daysor at best hours
> > > rather than minutes
>
> > > 2) Standard recon satellites use optical or infrared methods which
> > > limits their effectiveness in case of clud cover
>
> > > 3) Even if your satellite happens to fly over a CVN you have to
> > > have people analysing the data in real time.
>
> > > To get round the problems the Soviets launched a whole series
> > > of Radar satellites (RORSAT). These were BIG and typically
> > > powered by type BES-5 nuclear reactors. They weighed in at
> > > around 4 tons and to get decent coverage of even a fairly small
> > > part of the planet they had to launch a whole constellation of
> > > them at vast expense.
>
> > > AFAIK there have been no such satelllites in service for more
> > > than a decade.
>
> > Today, using conventional ordinance, an MRBM
> > put in the ballpark of a CVN will terminal guide to a
> > probable direct hit, even choosing where to hit.
>
> > If the CVN+fleet is converted into a floating nuke
> > strike base, it becomes #1 target to MIRV, as in
> > 10 100kt bombs detonated over a fleet.
> > ...
>
> > > > I deviated the topic to F-35 (nuke able) for the navy
> > > > is to be absolutely unnecessary and of nil usefulness.
> > > > (The A-5 Vigilante again).
> > > > I'll go further, all nuke weapons should be banned by
> > > > treaty from international waters and air space.
> > > > Ken
>
> > > There goes the US nuclear deterrent
> > > Keith
>
> > Maybe the nuke subs lurkin' off the US coasts on hair
> > trigger can go home, if it's ok with American citizens.
> > Ken
>
> You must have missed Cheney's memo. Its all peace love and
> tranquility. Ed has long hair, throws rose petals. They all luv us. no
> more hair triggers.

They/us ??? Recently I'm amazed that the value of a house
in Kansas drops 30%, and so Chinese workers can't afford to
buy Big Macs in Beiging.

> Now, it takes what minutes to get back to a hair trigger alert, but
> most people don't understand that.

Basing SSBN's in national waters provides recallability,
if sent enroute to launch stations, and a moment of sanity
pause.

> Guess the politicians are happy. Slip them another beer.

It's been suggested we gather all interested politicians
to witness an H-bomb detonation every few years, also
we could all do scientific experiments, it would be a
"clean bomb".
Imagine a bunch of them sitting around in their lawn
chairs in the Sahara desert, enjoying a beverage, then
BOOM, fun stuff. It would be a real tourist draw too.

We could build a pipeline from the Mediterrean to make
some beach front property, (some clothing optional for Ed).
Do it every 4 years like the Olympics.

Frank you have a lot of stimulating ideas.
Ken

[frank]

>
> Frank you have a lot of stimulating ideas.
> Ken

Best one was when Ronnie was president. They decided to dust off the
old how to survive a nuclear war bit. drive 40 minutes to bunkers that
would have food, water for weeks. Single road to get there.

I told them I'd drive home, put the Nikon on a tripod, get a six pack
and wait for a good shot of the flash and cloud. They were not
amused.

I think they wanted volunteers to do a test one weekend. See if
everybody could drive out there. Don't remember if they ever did. Knew
the engineer who was to look at 'fallout shelters' one was one of
those old hangars with glass windows. You know the type. All over the
AF bases. They weren't thrilled when he asked when fallout shelters
would have glass windows. Not to mention what the probability of glass
breaking.

At least White Sands took it seriously enough to practice it every
year. Printed tons of paper manuals. Went out and played war games.
When was done, had annual hunt for 7 - 10 days of deer if you were
base personnel. Can't beat that. Pretty much blew off October as far
as getting real work done. But for a training and doctrine base, took
stuff seriously. Ever if we were an AF unit on it.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 8, 1:30 am, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
>
>
>
> > On May 7, 1:09 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
> > > wrote:
> >> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
> >> ...
> > ...
> >> > As a back-drop, 27 years ago,
> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet#Falklands_Conflict
> >> > (Seems like yesterday).
>
> >> Delivered by aircraft as a standoff weapon, the target identification
> >> was down on board the aircraft.
>
> > Keith, I was rather hoping the "27 years ago" might
> > be a hint.
> > ...
> >> > It's a bit difficult to hide a CVN from a satellite.
>
> >> Sure but getting real time location from a satellite is difficult and
> >> VERY expensive
>
> > This works, it's civilian,
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RADARSAT-1
>
> <Quote>
> the satellite is in exactly the same location and can take the same image
> (same beam mode and beam position) every 24 days.
> </Quote>
>
> Not much good for real time target tracking

We'd sit out after sunset in the dark, having a few brew
around a fire, with the stars above. Every 5 minutes or
so a North - South sat would fly over, visible because
they're still in the sunlight, practically a traffic jam up
there.

> >> 1) Any given low earth recon birds will only revisit any given spot
> >> at infrequent periods typically measured in daysor at best hours
> >> rather than minutes
>
> >> 2) Standard recon satellites use optical or infrared methods which
> >> limits their effectiveness in case of clud cover
>
> >> 3) Even if your satellite happens to fly over a CVN you have to
> >> have people analysing the data in real time.
>
> >> To get round the problems the Soviets launched a whole series
> >> of Radar satellites (RORSAT). These were BIG and typically
> >> powered by type BES-5 nuclear reactors. They weighed in at
> >> around 4 tons and to get decent coverage of even a fairly small
> >> part of the planet they had to launch a whole constellation of
> >> them at vast expense.
>
> >> AFAIK there have been no such satelllites in service for more
> >> than a decade.
>
> > Today, using conventional ordinance, an MRBM
> > put in the ballpark of a CVN will terminal guide to a
> > probable direct hit, even choosing where to hit.
>
> And just what combination of sensors and steering do you think
> can do that ?

Just simple stuff. What would you use?

> > If the CVN+fleet is converted into a floating nuke
> > strike base, it becomes #1 target to MIRV, as in
> > 10 100kt bombs detonated over a fleet.
> > ...
>
> First find your fleet then target the missiles and get launch authorisation.
> Oops the fleet has now moved miles from that location.

Well, it's not going to happen.

> >> > I deviated the topic to F-35 (nuke able) for the navy
> >> > is to be absolutely unnecessary and of nil usefulness.
> >> > (The A-5 Vigilante again).
> >> > I'll go further, all nuke weapons should be banned by
> >> > treaty from international waters and air space.
> >> > Ken
>
> >> There goes the US nuclear deterrent
> >> Keith
>
> > Maybe the nuke subs lurkin' off the US coasts on hair
> > trigger can go home, if it's ok with American citizens.
> > Ken
>
> Maybe but the Russian boats wont
> Keith

It's a good treaty to ratchet things down. Everybody want's
it, so let's get it done.
Ken

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 9, 10:14 pm, frank > wrote:
> > Frank you have a lot of stimulating ideas.
> > Ken
>
> Best one was when Ronnie was president. They decided to dust off the
> old how to survive a nuclear war bit. drive 40 minutes to bunkers that
> would have food, water for weeks. Single road to get there.
>
> I told them I'd drive home, put the Nikon on a tripod, get a six pack
> and wait for a good shot of the flash and cloud. They were not
> amused.
>
> I think they wanted volunteers to do a test one weekend. See if
> everybody could drive out there. Don't remember if they ever did. Knew
> the engineer who was to look at 'fallout shelters' one was one of
> those old hangars with glass windows. You know the type. All over the
> AF bases. They weren't thrilled when he asked when fallout shelters
> would have glass windows. Not to mention what the probability of glass
> breaking.

About that same time I considered taking a position designing
buildings to be resistant to "severe overpressures", like 100kt
1 mile away, that I regard as very important research since it can
translate into civil building codes to improve structural
survivability
during hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes, the nuke scenario
being a good excuse to pay for the research.

> At least White Sands took it seriously enough to practice it every
> year. Printed tons of paper manuals. Went out and played war games.
> When was done, had annual hunt for 7 - 10 days of deer if you were
> base personnel. Can't beat that. Pretty much blew off October as far
> as getting real work done. But for a training and doctrine base, took
> stuff seriously. Ever if we were an AF unit on it.

Do you think the Atomic Age has arrived?
Ken

[Andrew Chaplin]

"frank" > wrote in message
...
>
>>
>> Frank you have a lot of stimulating ideas.
>> Ken
>
> Best one was when Ronnie was president. They decided to dust off the
> old how to survive a nuclear war bit. drive 40 minutes to bunkers that
> would have food, water for weeks. Single road to get there.
>
> I told them I'd drive home, put the Nikon on a tripod, get a six pack
> and wait for a good shot of the flash and cloud. They were not
> amused.
>
> I think they wanted volunteers to do a test one weekend. See if
> everybody could drive out there. Don't remember if they ever did. Knew
> the engineer who was to look at 'fallout shelters' one was one of
> those old hangars with glass windows. You know the type. All over the
> AF bases. They weren't thrilled when he asked when fallout shelters
> would have glass windows. Not to mention what the probability of glass
> breaking.
>
> At least White Sands took it seriously enough to practice it every
> year. Printed tons of paper manuals. Went out and played war games.
> When was done, had annual hunt for 7 - 10 days of deer if you were
> base personnel. Can't beat that. Pretty much blew off October as far
> as getting real work done. But for a training and doctrine base, took
> stuff seriously. Ever if we were an AF unit on it.

I was at CFB Chatham as the Ops O of an air defence battery back in Reagan's
second term. My CO sent me on a pleasant waste of time in the form of a recce
to find a hide for the battery off the base in case a nuclear exchange
threatened. The aim was to shield the battery's men and equipment from a
nuclear attack on the airfield -- it had a 12,000' runway and much of what you
might need in a dispersal or diversion field for large aircraft -- so to be
available for deployment post-strike. I did a dead ground trace for a likely
maximum burst height and looked among the "shadows" for some place to hide
upwards of 200 troops and 70 vehicles. I ran the results by the base ops
staff; they were somewhat horrified. In order for the battery to deploy with
its essential kit, it would have taken about four hours to get it on the road:
two hours to recall personnel and then two hours to draw weapons, stores,
consumables and to issue orders. To get to the hide we had to move the battery
north across the Miramichi on a two lane bridge to the Tabusintac River, some
40 Km north as the crow flies, 50 km by road. IIRC, it was Indian land, and I
am not sure how they would have viewed us landing on their doorstep
unannounced, I obviously could not consult them about the plan. Here's the op
area: http://preview.tinyurl.com/ovcyyr. While the plan showed initiative on
the part of my CO, I really think I was on a fool's errand.

Fortunately, the battery changed command and the successor CO concentrated on
getting the battery ready for where it was likely to deploy for operations
(Germany or Norway). We never exercised the plan.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Keith Willshaw[_4_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
...
> On May 8, 1:30 am, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 7, 1:09 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
>> > > wrote:
>> >> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>> >> ...
>> > ...
>> >> > As a back-drop, 27 years ago,
>> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet#Falklands_Conflict
>> >> > (Seems like yesterday).
>>
>> >> Delivered by aircraft as a standoff weapon, the target identification
>> >> was down on board the aircraft.
>>
>> > Keith, I was rather hoping the "27 years ago" might
>> > be a hint.
>> > ...
>> >> > It's a bit difficult to hide a CVN from a satellite.
>>
>> >> Sure but getting real time location from a satellite is difficult and
>> >> VERY expensive
>>
>> > This works, it's civilian,
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RADARSAT-1
>>
>> <Quote>
>> the satellite is in exactly the same location and can take the same image
>> (same beam mode and beam position) every 24 days.
>> </Quote>
>>
>> Not much good for real time target tracking
>
> We'd sit out after sunset in the dark, having a few brew
> around a fire, with the stars above. Every 5 minutes or
> so a North - South sat would fly over, visible because
> they're still in the sunlight, practically a traffic jam up
> there.
>

The number of Soviet Optical satellites in orbit at any one time
was rarely more than one. The active life of a satellite was 30 days

<snip>

>>
>> > Today, using conventional ordinance, an MRBM
>> > put in the ballpark of a CVN will terminal guide to a
>> > probable direct hit, even choosing where to hit.
>>
>> And just what combination of sensors and steering do you think
>> can do that ?
>
> Just simple stuff. What would you use?
>

Its not simple stuff, a MRBM is doing anything up to 4,000 m/sec
on rentry. The plasma around the reentry vehicle is going to make
most sensors useless while also making radical manoeveurs next
to impossible.

Note that while Pershing II used a synthetic aperture radar system
for terminal guidance this was an ancillary to the INS and compared
radar maps of the terrain with the on board maps. Its inclusion
was simply to reduce the CEP from the 400m of the Pershing I to
30m. This system did not have the capability to search for, locate and
guide the warhead to a moving target that may be 30 miles from the aim
point.

Keith

[frank]

On May 10, 2:02*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On May 9, 10:14 pm, frank > wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Frank you have a lot of stimulating ideas.
> > > Ken
>
> > Best one was when Ronnie was president. They decided to dust off the
> > old how to survive a nuclear war bit. drive 40 minutes to bunkers that
> > would have food, water for weeks. Single road to get there.
>
> > I told them I'd drive home, put the Nikon on a tripod, get a six pack
> > and wait for a good shot of the flash and cloud. They were not
> > amused.
>
> > I think they wanted *volunteers to do a test one weekend. See if
> > everybody could drive out there. Don't remember if they ever did. Knew
> > the engineer who was to look at 'fallout shelters' one was one of
> > those old hangars with glass windows. You know the type. All over the
> > AF bases. They weren't thrilled when he asked when fallout shelters
> > would have glass windows. Not to mention what the probability of glass
> > breaking.
>
> About that same time I considered taking a position designing
> buildings to be resistant to *"severe overpressures", like 100kt
> 1 mile away, that I regard as very important research since it can
> translate into civil building codes to improve structural
> survivability
> during hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes, the nuke scenario
> being a good excuse to pay for the research.
>
> > At least White Sands took it seriously enough to practice it every
> > year. Printed tons of paper manuals. Went out and played war games.
> > When was done, had annual hunt for 7 - 10 days of deer if you were
> > base personnel. Can't beat that. Pretty much blew off *October as far
> > as getting real work done. But for a training and doctrine base, took
> > stuff seriously. Ever if we were an AF unit on it.
>
> Do you think the Atomic Age has arrived?
> Ken

No, but at least they had their head in right spot. Could be anything,
nuclear, terrorism, weather related. Major traffic incident. Anything.
Don't train or talk to people, real mess when something happens and
you find out can't communicate, talk to hospitals, find barricades,
whatever.

County I used to live in had bus run into a semi, mass casualty.
Luckily they had planned for that, all agencies worked together. Sort
of woke up the, nothing ever happens here crowd.

Like most places we sort of talk about stuff, when we actually sat
down and looked as all the classified we had to destruct, was a whole
different game rather than saying we'd do it.

Luckily we had a lot of diesel for the generators and would use that
but Pueblo and the recent China Navy aircraft capture shows how some
stuff is just hard to get rid of. Best I guess would be data wipes
then just turn the cooling off so circuits overhead and fry. Or
engineer that in. Add in something corrosive and ability to dump parts
out of an aircraft or ship into the briny deep easily.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 10, 4:13 am, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
>
>
>
> > On May 8, 1:30 am, "Keith Willshaw"
> > > wrote:
> >> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
> >> ...
>
> >> > On May 7, 1:09 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
> >> >> ...
> >> > ...
> >> >> > As a back-drop, 27 years ago,
> >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet#Falklands_Conflict
> >> >> > (Seems like yesterday).
>
> >> >> Delivered by aircraft as a standoff weapon, the target identification
> >> >> was down on board the aircraft.
>
> >> > Keith, I was rather hoping the "27 years ago" might
> >> > be a hint.
> >> > ...
> >> >> > It's a bit difficult to hide a CVN from a satellite.
>
> >> >> Sure but getting real time location from a satellite is difficult and
> >> >> VERY expensive
>
> >> > This works, it's civilian,
> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RADARSAT-1
>
> >> <Quote>
> >> the satellite is in exactly the same location and can take the same image
> >> (same beam mode and beam position) every 24 days.
> >> </Quote>
>
> >> Not much good for real time target tracking
>
> > We'd sit out after sunset in the dark, having a few brew
> > around a fire, with the stars above. Every 5 minutes or
> > so a North - South sat would fly over, visible because
> > they're still in the sunlight, practically a traffic jam up
> > there.
>
> The number of Soviet Optical satellites in orbit at any one time
> was rarely more than one. The active life of a satellite was 30 days

Yes, we are sure the Kremlin keeps Keith up to date :-),
what is your ref?

> >> > Today, using conventional ordinance, an MRBM
> >> > put in the ballpark of a CVN will terminal guide to a
> >> > probable direct hit, even choosing where to hit.
>
> >> And just what combination of sensors and steering do you think
> >> can do that ?
>
> > Just simple stuff. What would you use?
>
> Its not simple stuff, a MRBM is doing anything up to 4,000 m/sec
> on rentry. The plasma around the reentry vehicle is going to make
> most sensors useless while also making radical manoeveurs next
> to impossible.

It's a sub-orbital ballistic missile that breaks to subsonic
at high altitude, then it has a lot of time (by electronic
standards) to search, select, aim and fire.

> Note that while Pershing II used a synthetic aperture radar system
> for terminal guidance this was an ancillary to the INS and compared
> radar maps of the terrain with the on board maps. Its inclusion
> was simply to reduce the CEP from the 400m of the Pershing I to
> 30m. This system did not have the capability to search for, locate and
> guide the warhead to a moving target that may be 30 miles from the aim
> point.
> Keith

Things haved changed. A missile can shoot down a satellite
going 15,000 mph, yet you Keith steadfastly hold to the idea
that hitting a huge CVN doing 30 mph is very difficult.

Electronics has revolutized warfare as much as atomic
energy has. I've been in and out the business since 68,
and the pace is astounding, Star Trek type communicators
are now used by 12 yo girls for "sexting".
Keith, a young fella like yourself has probably never seen a
Telex machine.
Classified military electronics is likely 10-15 years ahead of
what is publically known.
Ken

[Dan[_12_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
<snip>
>
> Things haved changed. A missile can shoot down a satellite
> going 15,000 mph, yet you Keith steadfastly hold to the idea
> that hitting a huge CVN doing 30 mph is very difficult.
>

An orbit is predictable. A seagoing vessel's course isn't. A
satellite can't change course 90º, a CVN can.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 10, 10:59 am, Dan > wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > Things haved changed. A missile can shoot down a satellite
> > going 15,000 mph, yet you Keith steadfastly hold to the idea
> > that hitting a huge CVN doing 30 mph is very difficult.
>
> An orbit is predictable. A seagoing vessel's course isn't. A
> satellite can't change course 90º, a CVN can.

Dan, you're teasing me ;-).
So can fighter jets, Air-to-Air guided missiles work at
quite long ranges, such as the Pheonix, against evasive
(turning) targets, using 1970's technology.

> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Ken

[Paul J. Adam[_2_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On May 10, 4:13 am, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
>> Its not simple stuff, a MRBM is doing anything up to 4,000 m/sec
>> on rentry. The plasma around the reentry vehicle is going to make
>> most sensors useless while also making radical manoeveurs next
>> to impossible.
>
> It's a sub-orbital ballistic missile that breaks to subsonic
> at high altitude, then it has a lot of time (by electronic
> standards) to search, select, aim and fire.

Making itself a marvellous TBMD target for a SM-3... and suddenly much
of the attraction of an anti-ship ballistic missile is gone.

>> Note that while Pershing II used a synthetic aperture radar system
>> for terminal guidance this was an ancillary to the INS and compared
>> radar maps of the terrain with the on board maps. Its inclusion
>> was simply to reduce the CEP from the 400m of the Pershing I to
>> 30m. This system did not have the capability to search for, locate and
>> guide the warhead to a moving target that may be 30 miles from the aim
>> point.
>> Keith
>
> Things haved changed. A missile can shoot down a satellite
> going 15,000 mph, yet you Keith steadfastly hold to the idea
> that hitting a huge CVN doing 30 mph is very difficult.

The satellite's location is known and its ability to change speed and
direction very limited. A carrier can cover thirty miles in an hour, in
any direction it chooses: this gets you not only the physics problem of
manoevering to hit it, but the target identification issue.

> Keith, a young fella like yourself has probably never seen a
> Telex machine.

Keith's older than I am and we had a Telex in Registry until relatively
recently.

> Classified military electronics is likely 10-15 years ahead of
> what is publically known.

Having worked on the stuff, fielded military electronics is a few years
behind civilian. Back in the 1970s, the military took something like 25%
of all integrated-circuit production and could set standards and lead
technology: now it's probably not even one per cent and the innovation
is pushed from the civilian sector. Hence the demise of MILSPEC
components... manufacturers weren't interested in getting the
certification for the size of orders available.


When you want a few thousand ruggedised CPUs for your guided weapon
(total production run over several years) you get in the queue behind
the motor manufacturers who are buying that many every *week*. You
design to the planned "next best thing" and keep options open, because
when you start the design process Intel are talking about possibly
taking the 486 CPU to fifty megahertz and memory costs forty pounds a
megabyte.

By the time you've got a frozen design it's getting hard to source a
ruggedised 486 and nobody sells SDRAMs smaller than eight megabytes.

By the time the production contract gets placed the 486 is a distant
memory and the question now is "dual or quad core, and how many
gigabytes of RAM would Sir like with that today"?

And that's to get stuff off the drawing board and into service. Once
it's fielded and frozen, you'll find logos of long-lost companies on
mission critical kit (the Ferranti logos scattered around the Radar 911
tracker office, for example).


--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

[Keith Willshaw[_4_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
...

>>
>> The number of Soviet Optical satellites in orbit at any one time
>> was rarely more than one. The active life of a satellite was 30 days
>
> Yes, we are sure the Kremlin keeps Keith up to date :-),
> what is your ref?
>

Start with
Space weapons and US strategy
By Paul B. Stares

As an online resource try

http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/histind/Recces/Feniks.htm


>> >> > Today, using conventional ordinance, an MRBM
>> >> > put in the ballpark of a CVN will terminal guide to a
>> >> > probable direct hit, even choosing where to hit.
>>
>> >> And just what combination of sensors and steering do you think
>> >> can do that ?
>>
>> > Just simple stuff. What would you use?
>>
>> Its not simple stuff, a MRBM is doing anything up to 4,000 m/sec
>> on rentry. The plasma around the reentry vehicle is going to make
>> most sensors useless while also making radical manoeveurs next
>> to impossible.
>
> It's a sub-orbital ballistic missile that breaks to subsonic
> at high altitude,

Name one missile that does so and the mechanism it uses for braking.
Note that a profile such as that you describe would make the thing
much easier to intercept which is generally thought to be a bad
thing by those who fire them. The Aegis cruisers that accomapany a
CVBG would swat such a target without breaking sweat.

> then it has a lot of time (by electronic
> standards) to search, select, aim and fire.
>

And be shot down by a Standard 2 missile - oops

>> Note that while Pershing II used a synthetic aperture radar system
>> for terminal guidance this was an ancillary to the INS and compared
>> radar maps of the terrain with the on board maps. Its inclusion
>> was simply to reduce the CEP from the 400m of the Pershing I to
>> 30m. This system did not have the capability to search for, locate and
>> guide the warhead to a moving target that may be 30 miles from the aim
>> point.
>> Keith
>
> Things haved changed. A missile can shoot down a satellite
> going 15,000 mph, yet you Keith steadfastly hold to the idea
> that hitting a huge CVN doing 30 mph is very difficult.
>

Looking up at a missile with a large phased array radar is a lot easier
than looking down from a small set from a fast moving warhead even
if you dont have to do it through plasma.

> Electronics has revolutized warfare as much as atomic
> energy has. I've been in and out the business since 68,
> and the pace is astounding, Star Trek type communicators
> are now used by 12 yo girls for "sexting".


> Keith, a young fella like yourself has probably never seen a
> Telex machine.

This 'young fella' is in his late 50's and did his first programming on
an IBM 360 using teleprinter terminals with the code on paper tape

> Classified military electronics is likely 10-15 years ahead of
> what is publically known.
> Ken
>

Actually the microprocessors used in military electronics are typically
5 years or more BEHIND those used commercially . The requirement
to harden them against EMP and provide TEMPEST protection
pretty much ensure that. The processor in my cellphone is probably
more capable than that in the F-22.

None of which can alter the laws of physics.

Keith

[Keith Willshaw[_4_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
...
On May 10, 10:59 am, Dan > wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > Things haved changed. A missile can shoot down a satellite
> > going 15,000 mph, yet you Keith steadfastly hold to the idea
> > that hitting a huge CVN doing 30 mph is very difficult.
>
>> An orbit is predictable. A seagoing vessel's course isn't. A
>> satellite can't change course 90º, a CVN can.

> Dan, you're teasing me ;-).
> So can fighter jets, Air-to-Air guided missiles work at
> quite long ranges, such as the Pheonix, against evasive
> (turning) targets, using 1970's technology.

Phoenix was designed for use against large bombers such
as the Bear and Backfire. Its record against turning targets
is almost non existent with only two combat launches in service
with the USN and no confirmed kills.

Keith

[Paul J. Adam[_2_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On May 10, 10:59 am, Dan > wrote:
>> An orbit is predictable. A seagoing vessel's course isn't. A
>> satellite can't change course 90º, a CVN can.
>
> Dan, you're teasing me ;-).
> So can fighter jets, Air-to-Air guided missiles work at
> quite long ranges, such as the Pheonix, against evasive
> (turning) targets, using 1970's technology.

And anti-ship missiles like Granit work at long ranges against ships.
But since neither are ballistic missiles, that success tells us nothing
about the operational practicality of an anti-ship ballistic missile.

Might as well claim that since a reasonable shot can break clay pigeons
most of the time, the US doesn't need a national missile defence
program: one man atop the Washington Monument with a shotgun and a box
of cartridges can take out any incoming ICBMs just fine.

--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 10, 12:21 pm, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > On May 10, 4:13 am, "Keith Willshaw"
> > > wrote:
> >> Its not simple stuff, a MRBM is doing anything up to 4,000 m/sec
> >> on rentry. The plasma around the reentry vehicle is going to make
> >> most sensors useless while also making radical manoeveurs next
> >> to impossible.
>
> > It's a sub-orbital ballistic missile that breaks to subsonic
> > at high altitude, then it has a lot of time (by electronic
> > standards) to search, select, aim and fire.
>
> Making itself a marvellous TBMD target for a SM-3... and suddenly much
> of the attraction of an anti-ship ballistic missile is gone.

((what's TBMD?)), anyway, I'll play this game a bit more.
The inbound is changing velocity rapidly and unpredictably,
reducing interception probability. It's subsonic at 80k feet,
strips, and fires at 75k, (consider 1960's ASROC).
Suppose they fire 10 $1million missiles at an asset (CVN)
with a value of $10Billion, then successive vollies.
We need to understand the problem before we can solve
it, and *rose-colored* glasses won't work.

> >> Note that while Pershing II used a synthetic aperture radar system
> >> for terminal guidance this was an ancillary to the INS and compared
> >> radar maps of the terrain with the on board maps. Its inclusion
> >> was simply to reduce the CEP from the 400m of the Pershing I to
> >> 30m. This system did not have the capability to search for, locate and
> >> guide the warhead to a moving target that may be 30 miles from the aim
> >> point.
> >> Keith
>
> > Things haved changed. A missile can shoot down a satellite
> > going 15,000 mph, yet you Keith steadfastly hold to the idea
> > that hitting a huge CVN doing 30 mph is very difficult.
>
> The satellite's location is known and its ability to change speed and
> direction very limited. A carrier can cover thirty miles in an hour, in
> any direction it chooses: this gets you not only the physics problem of
> manoevering to hit it, but the target identification issue.

So the enemy peppers the region.

> > Keith, a young fella like yourself has probably never seen a
> > Telex machine.
>
> Keith's older than I am and we had a Telex in Registry until relatively
> recently.

Well I always enjoy youthful optimistic exuberance.

> > Classified military electronics is likely 10-15 years ahead of
> > what is publically known.
>
> Having worked on the stuff, fielded military electronics is a few years
> behind civilian. Back in the 1970s, the military took something like 25%
> of all integrated-circuit production and could set standards and lead
> technology: now it's probably not even one per cent and the innovation
> is pushed from the civilian sector. Hence the demise of MILSPEC
> components... manufacturers weren't interested in getting the
> certification for the size of orders available.
>
> When you want a few thousand ruggedised CPUs for your guided weapon
> (total production run over several years) you get in the queue behind
> the motor manufacturers who are buying that many every *week*. You
> design to the planned "next best thing" and keep options open, because
> when you start the design process Intel are talking about possibly
> taking the 486 CPU to fifty megahertz and memory costs forty pounds a
> megabyte.
>
> By the time you've got a frozen design it's getting hard to source a
> ruggedised 486 and nobody sells SDRAMs smaller than eight megabytes.
>
> By the time the production contract gets placed the 486 is a distant
> memory and the question now is "dual or quad core, and how many
> gigabytes of RAM would Sir like with that today"?
>
> And that's to get stuff off the drawing board and into service. Once
> it's fielded and frozen, you'll find logos of long-lost companies on
> mission critical kit (the Ferranti logos scattered around the Radar 911
> tracker office, for example).

What you wrote is correct, (in my experience),
but there is much more to it than the CPU!
Consider imagers and transducers that feed CPU.
Ken

[Paul J. Adam[_2_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On May 10, 12:21 pm, "Paul J. Adam"
> > wrote:
>> Making itself a marvellous TBMD target for a SM-3... and suddenly much
>> of the attraction of an anti-ship ballistic missile is gone.
>
> ((what's TBMD?)),

Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence.

anyway, I'll play this game a bit more.
> The inbound is changing velocity rapidly and unpredictably,
> reducing interception probability. It's subsonic at 80k feet,
> strips, and fires at 75k, (consider 1960's ASROC).

It's dead by then: SM-3 is an exoatmospheric interceptor, capability
demonstrated at 133 miles up.

> Suppose they fire 10 $1million missiles at an asset (CVN)

You're not going to get these missiles with the capability you describe
for a million dollars each. These are going to be expensive beasts...

> with a value of $10Billion, then successive vollies.
> We need to understand the problem before we can solve
> it, and *rose-colored* glasses won't work.

Okay - according to you these missiles can't be stopped, can't miss,
and are so cheap they can be fired in hundreds. We all die and nothing
can be done. So why worry?

>> The satellite's location is known and its ability to change speed and
>> direction very limited. A carrier can cover thirty miles in an hour, in
>> any direction it chooses: this gets you not only the physics problem of
>> manoevering to hit it, but the target identification issue.
>
> So the enemy peppers the region.

So instead of firing dozens of missiles at *one* aimpoint, you're now
trying to saturate a whole ocean? Just how many of these missiles do you
have anyway?

I think Red have their own rose-coloured lenses welded firmly to their
face here...

>> Having worked on the stuff, fielded military electronics is a few years
>> behind civilian.

> What you wrote is correct, (in my experience),
> but there is much more to it than the CPU!
> Consider imagers and transducers that feed CPU.

Same issues, often more so. If you're running a bespoke R&D project to
produce special-purpose components, you can completely forget a $1
million price tag per missile...


--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 10, 9:47 am, frank > wrote:
> On May 10, 2:02 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 9, 10:14 pm, frank > wrote:
>
> > > > Frank you have a lot of stimulating ideas.
> > > > Ken
>
> > > Best one was when Ronnie was president. They decided to dust off the
> > > old how to survive a nuclear war bit. drive 40 minutes to bunkers that
> > > would have food, water for weeks. Single road to get there.
>
> > > I told them I'd drive home, put the Nikon on a tripod, get a six pack
> > > and wait for a good shot of the flash and cloud. They were not
> > > amused.
>
> > > I think they wanted volunteers to do a test one weekend. See if
> > > everybody could drive out there. Don't remember if they ever did. Knew
> > > the engineer who was to look at 'fallout shelters' one was one of
> > > those old hangars with glass windows. You know the type. All over the
> > > AF bases. They weren't thrilled when he asked when fallout shelters
> > > would have glass windows. Not to mention what the probability of glass
> > > breaking.
>
> > About that same time I considered taking a position designing
> > buildings to be resistant to "severe overpressures", like 100kt
> > 1 mile away, that I regard as very important research since it can
> > translate into civil building codes to improve structural
> > survivability
> > during hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes, the nuke scenario
> > being a good excuse to pay for the research.
>
> > > At least White Sands took it seriously enough to practice it every
> > > year. Printed tons of paper manuals. Went out and played war games.
> > > When was done, had annual hunt for 7 - 10 days of deer if you were
> > > base personnel. Can't beat that. Pretty much blew off October as far
> > > as getting real work done. But for a training and doctrine base, took
> > > stuff seriously. Ever if we were an AF unit on it.
>
> > Do you think the Atomic Age has arrived?
> > Ken
>
> No, but at least they had their head in right spot. Could be anything,
> nuclear, terrorism, weather related. Major traffic incident. Anything.
> Don't train or talk to people, real mess when something happens and
> you find out can't communicate, talk to hospitals, find barricades,
> whatever.
>
> County I used to live in had bus run into a semi, mass casualty.
> Luckily they had planned for that, all agencies worked together. Sort
> of woke up the, nothing ever happens here crowd.
>
> Like most places we sort of talk about stuff, when we actually sat
> down and looked as all the classified we had to destruct, was a whole
> different game rather than saying we'd do it.
>
> Luckily we had a lot of diesel for the generators and would use that
> but Pueblo and the recent China Navy aircraft capture shows how some
> stuff is just hard to get rid of. Best I guess would be data wipes
> then just turn the cooling off so circuits overhead and fry. Or
> engineer that in. Add in something corrosive and ability to dump parts
> out of an aircraft or ship into the briny deep easily.

That "China Navy" incident is borderline Tom Clancy
spook vs spook stuff, except of course the Chinese
pilot was killed which is too bad.
Cooking the drives with a bit of slow burning solid fuel
is simple stuff,
"This tape will self-destruct in 5 seconds".
But then, doing the spook twist, the stuff on the drives
was meant to be seized, in a worst case scenario, to
mislead.
Ken

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 10, 12:23 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
>
>
>
> >> The number of Soviet Optical satellites in orbit at any one time
> >> was rarely more than one. The active life of a satellite was 30 days
>
> > Yes, we are sure the Kremlin keeps Keith up to date :-),
> > what is your ref?
>
> Start with
> Space weapons and US strategy
> By Paul B. Stares
> As an online resource try
> http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/histind/Recces/Feniks.htm

Memo to CIA, services no longer required.
Out-sourced to Mr. Stares.

> >> >> > Today, using conventional ordinance, an MRBM
> >> >> > put in the ballpark of a CVN will terminal guide to a
> >> >> > probable direct hit, even choosing where to hit.
>
> >> >> And just what combination of sensors and steering do you think
> >> >> can do that ?
>
> >> > Just simple stuff. What would you use?
>
> >> Its not simple stuff, a MRBM is doing anything up to 4,000 m/sec
> >> on rentry. The plasma around the reentry vehicle is going to make
> >> most sensors useless while also making radical manoeveurs next
> >> to impossible.
>
> > It's a sub-orbital ballistic missile that breaks to subsonic
> > at high altitude,
>
> Name one missile that does so and the mechanism it uses for braking.

Sputnik, returned dogs safely in the 50's. They used
speed brakes, then parachutes. You should aquaint
yourself with that simple program.

> Note that a profile such as that you describe would make the thing
> much easier to intercept which is generally thought to be a bad
> thing by those who fire them. The Aegis cruisers that accomapany a
> CVBG would swat such a target without breaking sweat.

Nope. See my post to Mr. Adams.

> > then it has a lot of time (by electronic
>
> > standards) to search, select, aim and fire.
>
> And be shot down by a Standard 2 missile - oops

Maybe 80% of the time, but you forget PROBABILTY.

> >> Note that while Pershing II used a synthetic aperture radar system
> >> for terminal guidance this was an ancillary to the INS and compared
> >> radar maps of the terrain with the on board maps. Its inclusion
> >> was simply to reduce the CEP from the 400m of the Pershing I to
> >> 30m. This system did not have the capability to search for, locate and
> >> guide the warhead to a moving target that may be 30 miles from the aim
> >> point.
> >> Keith
>
> > Things haved changed. A missile can shoot down a satellite
> > going 15,000 mph, yet you Keith steadfastly hold to the idea
> > that hitting a huge CVN doing 30 mph is very difficult.
>
> Looking up at a missile with a large phased array radar is a lot easier
> than looking down from a small set from a fast moving warhead even
> if you dont have to do it through plasma.

So what? They still have real time tracking.

> > Electronics has revolutized warfare as much as atomic
> > energy has. I've been in and out the business since 68,
> > and the pace is astounding, Star Trek type communicators
> > are now used by 12 yo girls for "sexting".
> > Keith, a young fella like yourself has probably never seen a
> > Telex machine.
>
> This 'young fella' is in his late 50's and did his first programming on
> an IBM 360 using teleprinter terminals with the code on paper tape

Oh, you're a newbie, jumped in at DTL technology.
My first digital computer was a abacus,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abacus

> > Classified military electronics is likely 10-15 years ahead of
> > what is publically known.
> > Ken
>
> Actually the microprocessors used in military electronics are typically
> 5 years or more BEHIND those used commercially . The requirement
> to harden them against EMP and provide TEMPEST protection
> pretty much ensure that. The processor in my cellphone is probably
> more capable than that in the F-22.

Why is my BS detector pinned at 100% ??? :-).
Ken

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 10, 1:31 pm, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > On May 10, 12:21 pm, "Paul J. Adam"
> > > wrote:
> >> Making itself a marvellous TBMD target for a SM-3... and suddenly much
> >> of the attraction of an anti-ship ballistic missile is gone.
>
> > ((what's TBMD?)),
>
> Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence.
>
> anyway, I'll play this game a bit more.
>
> > The inbound is changing velocity rapidly and unpredictably,
> > reducing interception probability. It's subsonic at 80k feet,
> > strips, and fires at 75k, (consider 1960's ASROC).

> It's dead by then: SM-3 is an exoatmospheric interceptor, capability
> demonstrated at 133 miles up.

1st stage cheap solid, 2nd stage ditto, the ballistic
course is set, and the 3rd stage is lobbing, however,
when the 3rd stage separated, 5 decoys also blow
off.
"A saturation campaign my boy", 6 missiles is 30
inbound targets.

> > Suppose they fire 10 $1million missiles at an asset (CVN)
>
> You're not going to get these missiles with the capability you describe
> for a million dollars each. These are going to be expensive beasts...

Not really, mass production reduces cost.

> > with a value of $10Billion, then successive vollies.
> > We need to understand the problem before we can solve
> > it, and *rose-colored* glasses won't work.
>
> Okay - according to you these missiles can't be stopped, can't miss,
> and are so cheap they can be fired in hundreds. We all die and nothing
> can be done. So why worry?

It's like a game of chess. We're trying to discuss
the vulnerability of a CVN fleet to conventional
missile attack, especially going forward 20 years.
Ed covered the fighter attack scenario.

> >> The satellite's location is known and its ability to change speed and
> >> direction very limited. A carrier can cover thirty miles in an hour, in
> >> any direction it chooses: this gets you not only the physics problem of
> >> manoevering to hit it, but the target identification issue.
>
> > So the enemy peppers the region.
>
> So instead of firing dozens of missiles at *one* aimpoint, you're now
> trying to saturate a whole ocean? Just how many of these missiles do you
> have anyway?

One with a real time update is likely sufficient.

> I think Red have their own rose-coloured lenses welded firmly to their
> face here...

Do you agree a CVN is slower and less maneuveurable
than a Blimp?

> >> Having worked on the stuff, fielded military electronics is a few years
> >> behind civilian.
> > What you wrote is correct, (in my experience),
> > but there is much more to it than the CPU!
> > Consider imagers and transducers that feed CPU.
>
> Same issues, often more so. If you're running a bespoke R&D project to
> produce special-purpose components, you can completely forget a $1
> million price tag per missile...

You should buy a digital camera, they are amazing.
Ken




> --
> He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

[Paul J. Adam[_2_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On May 10, 12:23 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
>>> standards) to search, select, aim and fire.
>> And be shot down by a Standard 2 missile - oops
>
> Maybe 80% of the time, but you forget PROBABILTY.

I'm well acquainted with PROBABILITY. This is why you do
"shoot-look-shoot" - and suddenly your threatening track now only has a
4% chance of surviving. (And this assumes that you only have time for
one follow up) Note that any soft-kill countermeasures still get to play
with the surviving threat seekers.

>> Looking up at a missile with a large phased array radar is a lot easier
>> than looking down from a small set from a fast moving warhead even
>> if you dont have to do it through plasma.
>
> So what? They still have real time tracking.

Which is a weak link in the chain. Hit that and the system collapses
before the birds fly...

Weapons are part of a system, not isolated items.

>> Actually the microprocessors used in military electronics are typically
>> 5 years or more BEHIND those used commercially . The requirement
>> to harden them against EMP and provide TEMPEST protection
>> pretty much ensure that. The processor in my cellphone is probably
>> more capable than that in the F-22.
>
> Why is my BS detector pinned at 100% ??? :-).

Because you're reading it wrong?

--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

[Paul J. Adam[_2_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On May 10, 1:31 pm, "Paul J. Adam"
> > wrote:
>> It's dead by then: SM-3 is an exoatmospheric interceptor, capability
>> demonstrated at 133 miles up.
>
> 1st stage cheap solid, 2nd stage ditto, the ballistic
> course is set, and the 3rd stage is lobbing, however,
> when the 3rd stage separated, 5 decoys also blow
> off.
> "A saturation campaign my boy", 6 missiles is 30
> inbound targets.

Only six of which are emitting and manoeuvering. The problem with making
decoys Really Convincing is that they end up as expensive as the
platform they're meant to be protecting...

The trouble is, a reusable ship can host a lot more sensor output and
processing power than a one-shot missile and its expendable decoys,
which makes discrimination that much easier. Or you throw a lot of money
at your decoys... at which point you're no longer launching a cheap missile.
>> You're not going to get these missiles with the capability you describe
>> for a million dollars each. These are going to be expensive beasts...
>
> Not really, mass production reduces cost.

No, it doesn't. It spreads the cost more thinly across more platforms,
but you don't get cheaper development from a longer run. The development
cost is what it takes: if it costs ten billion dollars to design the
system, then you need to produce ten thousand missiles to get the
per-unit development cost down below a million apiece - even before you
worry about any manufacturing and material costs. Halve the run and you
make each weapon appear to cost more - but the development costs don't
get any bigger, just the share heaped on each unit.

>> Okay - according to you these missiles can't be stopped, can't miss,
>> and are so cheap they can be fired in hundreds. We all die and nothing
>> can be done. So why worry?
>
> It's like a game of chess. We're trying to discuss
> the vulnerability of a CVN fleet to conventional
> missile attack, especially going forward 20 years.

Which requires realistic assumptions going in, rather than simply giving
Red implausible capabilities and unrealistic budgets.

>> So instead of firing dozens of missiles at *one* aimpoint, you're now
>> trying to saturate a whole ocean? Just how many of these missiles do you
>> have anyway?
>
> One with a real time update is likely sufficient.

What if the real-time update is spoofed?

What if the "one" missile is shot down by a SM-3 while still outside the
atmosphere?

Please keep those goalposts in one place. Are the enemy firing massive
salvoes to saturate wide areas, or targeting precisely and firing aimed
singles?

>> I think Red have their own rose-coloured lenses welded firmly to their
>> face here...
>
> Do you agree a CVN is slower and less maneuveurable
> than a Blimp?

In what weather?

>> Same issues, often more so. If you're running a bespoke R&D project to
>> produce special-purpose components, you can completely forget a $1
>> million price tag per missile...
>
> You should buy a digital camera, they are amazing.

My mobile phone has a five-megapixel camera built into it and that's now
routine rather than exciting. But that particular handset sold its
millionth unit (just in the UK) six months after it launched.

Military hardware lags because civilian kit is where the sales and the
profits are.

--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

[Keith Willshaw[_4_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
...
> On May 10, 12:23 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
>>
>> Name one missile that does so and the mechanism it uses for braking.
>
> Sputnik, returned dogs safely in the 50's. They used
> speed brakes, then parachutes.

No it didnt, Sputnik was not recoverable and the dog Laika died in space

> You should aquaint
> yourself with that simple program.
>

Pot Kettle Black

>> Note that a profile such as that you describe would make the thing
>> much easier to intercept which is generally thought to be a bad
>> thing by those who fire them. The Aegis cruisers that accomapany a
>> CVBG would swat such a target without breaking sweat.
>
> Nope. See my post to Mr. Adams.
>

You do know that Mr Adam worked for a guided weapons manufacturer
dont you ?

>> > then it has a lot of time (by electronic
>>
>> > standards) to search, select, aim and fire.
>>
>> And be shot down by a Standard 2 missile - oops
>
> Maybe 80% of the time, but you forget PROBABILTY.
>

No I just recalled the VLS silo on a Tico and the fact that it can
salvo missiles at multiple targets. They practise against supersonic
manoeuvering targets, your missile is a turkey shoot.

>> >> Note that while Pershing II used a synthetic aperture radar system
>> >> for terminal guidance this was an ancillary to the INS and compared
>> >> radar maps of the terrain with the on board maps. Its inclusion
>> >> was simply to reduce the CEP from the 400m of the Pershing I to
>> >> 30m. This system did not have the capability to search for, locate and
>> >> guide the warhead to a moving target that may be 30 miles from the aim
>> >> point.
>> >> Keith
>>
>> > Things haved changed. A missile can shoot down a satellite
>> > going 15,000 mph, yet you Keith steadfastly hold to the idea
>> > that hitting a huge CVN doing 30 mph is very difficult.
>>
>> Looking up at a missile with a large phased array radar is a lot easier
>> than looking down from a small set from a fast moving warhead even
>> if you dont have to do it through plasma.
>
> So what? They still have real time tracking.
>

You dont know much about real time racking do you ?

>> > Electronics has revolutized warfare as much as atomic
>> > energy has. I've been in and out the business since 68,
>> > and the pace is astounding, Star Trek type communicators
>> > are now used by 12 yo girls for "sexting".
>> > Keith, a young fella like yourself has probably never seen a
>> > Telex machine.
>>
>> This 'young fella' is in his late 50's and did his first programming on
>> an IBM 360 using teleprinter terminals with the code on paper tape
>
> Oh, you're a newbie, jumped in at DTL technology.
> My first digital computer was a abacus,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abacus
>

Ho Ho


>> > Classified military electronics is likely 10-15 years ahead of
>> > what is publically known.
>> > Ken
>>
>> Actually the microprocessors used in military electronics are typically
>> 5 years or more BEHIND those used commercially . The requirement
>> to harden them against EMP and provide TEMPEST protection
>> pretty much ensure that. The processor in my cellphone is probably
>> more capable than that in the F-22.
>
> Why is my BS detector pinned at 100% ??? :-).
> Ken
>

Because you are pretty ignorant about these devices. The Nokia 5800
uses an Arm 11 32 bit processor has inbuilt GPS , WLAN networking
full video capabilities and oh yes you can make phone calls on it too.

The Arm 11 range of processors can deliver up to 2600 Mips Dhrystone

The F-22 is reported to use a Hughes processor that is essentially
a militarised Intel i960, a CPU dropped from the civilian market a
decade ago.

Keith

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 10, 4:24 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
>
> > On May 10, 12:23 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
>
> >> Name one missile that does so and the mechanism it uses for braking.
>
> > Sputnik, returned dogs safely in the 50's. They used
> > speed brakes, then parachutes.
>
> No it didnt, Sputnik was not recoverable and the dog Laika died in space

And the other 24 dog missions ?
Please aquaint and get back to us.
Ken
[...]

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 10, 3:42 pm, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > On May 10, 12:23 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
> > > wrote:
> >>> standards) to search, select, aim and fire.
> >> And be shot down by a Standard 2 missile - oops
>
> > Maybe 80% of the time, but you forget PROBABILTY.
>
> I'm well acquainted with PROBABILITY. This is why you do
> "shoot-look-shoot" - and suddenly your threatening track now only has a
> 4% chance of surviving. (And this assumes that you only have time for
> one follow up) Note that any soft-kill countermeasures still get to play
> with the surviving threat seekers

Hmm, I was generous enabling the 80%.
Paul you pushed to 96%...

You (Paul & Keith) are pushin' our BS detector off scale!!!
Have either of you ever designed and fired a missile?
Ken
....

[Paul J. Adam[_2_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On May 10, 3:42 pm, "Paul J. Adam"
> > wrote:
>> I'm well acquainted with PROBABILITY. This is why you do
>> "shoot-look-shoot" - and suddenly your threatening track now only has a
>> 4% chance of surviving. (And this assumes that you only have time for
>> one follow up) Note that any soft-kill countermeasures still get to play
>> with the surviving threat seekers
>
> Hmm, I was generous enabling the 80%.
> Paul you pushed to 96%...

Because you shoot once and get the 80% you credit us with. Then you
either do kill assessment and launch again, or you double-tap if time is
short and the protected unit valuable, and get another 80% shot. At that
point your Pk is 96%.

It's PROBABILITY, dear Ken, PROBABILITY. Reality is a little more
complicated but we're playing on your terms.

> You (Paul & Keith) are pushin' our BS detector off scale!!!
> Have either of you ever designed and fired a missile?

Er....

Yes.


Next question?


--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

[Bill Shatzer[_2_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:

> On May 10, 4:24 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
>
>>"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
>>
>>
>>>On May 10, 12:23 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
>>
>>>>Name one missile that does so and the mechanism it uses for braking.
>>
>>>Sputnik, returned dogs safely in the 50's. They used
>>>speed brakes, then parachutes.
>>
>>No it didnt, Sputnik was not recoverable and the dog Laika died in space

> And the other 24 dog missions ?
> Please aquaint and get back to us.
> Ken
> [...]

Dunno, but the first Soviet canine passengers successfully returned from
orbit weren't in the 1950s.

[Bill Shatzer[_2_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:

> On May 10, 3:42 pm, "Paul J. Adam"
> > wrote:
>
>>Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>
>>>On May 10, 12:23 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>standards) to search, select, aim and fire.
>>>>
>>>>And be shot down by a Standard 2 missile - oops
>>
>>>Maybe 80% of the time, but you forget PROBABILTY.
>>
>>I'm well acquainted with PROBABILITY. This is why you do
>>"shoot-look-shoot" - and suddenly your threatening track now only has a
>>4% chance of surviving. (And this assumes that you only have time for
>>one follow up) Note that any soft-kill countermeasures still get to play
>>with the surviving threat seekers

> Hmm, I was generous enabling the 80%.
> Paul you pushed to 96%...

He said "shoot-look-shoot". If you fire two 80% missiles, you've got an
94% chance of obtaining a kill.

Do the math.

[frank]

On May 10, 5:57*pm, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > On May 10, 1:31 pm, "Paul J. Adam"
> > > wrote:
> >> It's dead by then: SM-3 is an exoatmospheric interceptor, capability
> >> demonstrated at 133 miles up.
>
> > 1st stage cheap solid, 2nd stage ditto, the ballistic
> > course is set, and the 3rd stage is lobbing, however,
> > when the 3rd stage separated, 5 decoys also blow
> > off.
> > "A saturation campaign my boy", 6 missiles is 30
> > inbound targets.
>
> Only six of which are emitting and manoeuvering. The problem with making
> decoys Really Convincing is that they end up as expensive as the
> platform they're meant to be protecting...
>
> The trouble is, a reusable ship can host a lot more sensor output and
> processing power than a one-shot missile and its expendable decoys,
> which makes discrimination that much easier. Or you throw a lot of money
> at your decoys... at which point you're no longer launching a cheap missile.
>
> >> You're not going to get these missiles with the capability you describe
> >> for a million dollars each. These are going to be expensive beasts...
>
> > Not really, mass production reduces cost.
>
> No, it doesn't. It spreads the cost more thinly across more platforms,
> but you don't get cheaper development from a longer run. The development
> cost is what it takes: if it costs ten billion dollars to design the
> system, then you need to produce ten thousand missiles to get the
> per-unit development cost down below a million apiece - even before you
> worry about any manufacturing and material costs. Halve the run and you
> make each weapon appear to cost more - but the development costs don't
> get any bigger, just the share heaped on each unit.
>
> >> Okay - according to you *these missiles can't be stopped, can't miss,
> >> and are so cheap they can be fired in hundreds. We all die and nothing
> >> can be done. So why worry?
>
> > It's like a game of chess. We're trying to discuss
> > the vulnerability of a CVN fleet to conventional
> > missile attack, especially going forward 20 years.
>
> Which requires realistic assumptions going in, rather than simply giving
> Red implausible capabilities and unrealistic budgets.
>
> >> So instead of firing dozens of missiles at *one* aimpoint, you're now
> >> trying to saturate a whole ocean? Just how many of these missiles do you
> >> have anyway?
>
> > One with a real time update is likely sufficient.
>
> What if the real-time update is spoofed?
>
> What if the "one" missile is shot down by a SM-3 while still outside the
> atmosphere?
>
> Please keep those goalposts in one place. Are the enemy firing massive
> salvoes to saturate wide areas, or targeting precisely and firing aimed
> singles?
>
> >> I think Red have their own rose-coloured lenses welded firmly to their
> >> face here...
>
> > Do you agree a CVN is slower and less maneuveurable
> > than a Blimp?
>
> In what weather?
>
> >> Same issues, often more so. If you're running a bespoke R&D project to
> >> produce special-purpose components, you can completely forget a $1
> >> million price tag per missile...
>
> > You should buy a digital camera, they are amazing.
>
> My mobile phone has a five-megapixel camera built into it and that's now
> routine rather than exciting. But that particular handset sold its
> millionth unit (just in the UK) six months after it launched.
>
> Military hardware lags because civilian kit is where the sales and the
> profits are.
>
> --
> He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

Not to mention once design is put in place for military its pretty
much set in stone. I remember in the 80s, B-52 CTF spent a ton of
money upgrading B-52s so they could quit using vaccuum tubes. Might be
current when designed, I wouldn't be surprised if F-22 is still loaded
with electronics with 90s technology. Look at the Space Shuttle, even
when upgraded, still behind civil aviation.

Late 80s worked on the F-111 was trying to get digital flight control
system bought by USAF or RAAF. neither bought it, Cheney killed F-111
in the Peace Dividend.

One thing is its hard to retrofit an airframe with say new technology
such as fly by wire. sometimes easier to just build a new airplane.
And with F-22 designed in late 80s........

[Keith Willshaw[_4_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
...
> On May 10, 4:24 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>> ...
>>
>> > On May 10, 12:23 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
>>
>> >> Name one missile that does so and the mechanism it uses for braking.
>>
>> > Sputnik, returned dogs safely in the 50's. They used
>> > speed brakes, then parachutes.
>>
>> No it didnt, Sputnik was not recoverable and the dog Laika died in space
>
> And the other 24 dog missions ?

There were 5 Sputnik missions which carried dogs (2,5,6,9 and 10) , three of
those safely returned the dog to earth, of those only the first carrying the
dog
Laika happened in the 50's, the rest were in the 60's

> Please aquaint and get back to us.

Good advice - please take it

Keith

[Peter Stickney[_2_]]

Paul J. Adam wrote:

> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> On May 10, 1:31 pm, "Paul J. Adam"
>> > wrote:
>>> It's dead by then: SM-3 is an exoatmospheric interceptor, capability
>>> demonstrated at 133 miles up.
>>
>> 1st stage cheap solid, 2nd stage ditto, the ballistic
>> course is set, and the 3rd stage is lobbing, however,
>> when the 3rd stage separated, 5 decoys also blow
>> off.
>> "A saturation campaign my boy", 6 missiles is 30
>> inbound targets.
>
> Only six of which are emitting and manoeuvering. The problem with making
> decoys Really Convincing is that they end up as expensive as the
> platform they're meant to be protecting...

Which, in fact, was the genesis of the U.S. Cruise Missile resurrection in
the 1960s. Both the Boeing ALCM and the Tomahawk had their roots in SCAD
(Subsonic Cruise Armed Decoy). The old Quails were no loner up to the job,
you see, and th idea was that even if the Bad Guys did figure out which
blips were decoys, you'd still have to intercept them if they had warheads
aboard.

> The trouble is, a reusable ship can host a lot more sensor output and
> processing power than a one-shot missile and its expendable decoys,
> which makes discrimination that much easier. Or you throw a lot of money
> at your decoys... at which point you're no longer launching a cheap
> missile.

>>> You're not going to get these missiles with the capability you describe
>>> for a million dollars each. These are going to be expensive beasts...
>>
>> Not really, mass production reduces cost.
>
> No, it doesn't. It spreads the cost more thinly across more platforms,
> but you don't get cheaper development from a longer run. The development
> cost is what it takes: if it costs ten billion dollars to design the
> system, then you need to produce ten thousand missiles to get the
> per-unit development cost down below a million apiece - even before you
> worry about any manufacturing and material costs. Halve the run and you
> make each weapon appear to cost more - but the development costs don't
> get any bigger, just the share heaped on each unit.
>
>>> Okay - according to you these missiles can't be stopped, can't miss,
>>> and are so cheap they can be fired in hundreds. We all die and nothing
>>> can be done. So why worry?
>>
>> It's like a game of chess. We're trying to discuss
>> the vulnerability of a CVN fleet to conventional
>> missile attack, especially going forward 20 years.

Well, if he's going to phrase it that way...
The idea is plausible only to the point of discussion if the ballistic
missiles are carrying large area-effect warheads. (For values of large
equal to several megatons. Conventional-warhead missiles will require
several direct hits, and given the flight times, which can't be changed
materially for a ballistic missile, you'd have to saturate an incredibly
huge area to have a reasonable chance,
Here's the upshot - the idea only works as a first shot - The results of
throwing a large number of your strategic nuclear weapons at a Carrier
Battlegroup has just raised the ante to where your country is a Trinitite
Mine, and any survivors are being hunted down by the folks who were
downwind. Trying it with conventional warheads means that you now have,
among other things, an extremely ****ed off Carrier Battle Group off your
shores, with the exact location of your launchers all dialed in. (And,
given ELINT vs. the sensors and Command and Control net, your eyes nd
brains, too.)
Either strategy accomplishes the demise of your regime, at best, and your
nation, at worst, in record time.

Paul, I just realized that we may know some of the same people.
Drop me an Email to see if that's so.

--
Pete Stickney
The better the Four Wheel Drive, the further out you get stuck.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 10, 8:37 pm, Bill Shatzer > wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > On May 10, 4:24 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
> > > wrote:
>
> >>"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
>
> >>>On May 10, 12:23 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
>
> >>>>Name one missile that does so and the mechanism it uses for braking.
>
> >>>Sputnik, returned dogs safely in the 50's. They used
> >>>speed brakes, then parachutes.
>
> >>No it didnt, Sputnik was not recoverable and the dog Laika died in space
> > And the other 24 dog missions ?
> > Please aquaint and get back to us.
> > Ken
> > [...]
>
> Dunno, but the first Soviet canine passengers successfully returned from
> orbit weren't in the 1950s.

The discussion involves sub-orbital, (IRBM's or MRBM's),
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_space_dogs
to prove sub-orbital re-entry capability, see it in 1951.
(Keith went off track with Laika).
Ken

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 10, 5:00 pm, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > On May 10, 3:42 pm, "Paul J. Adam"
> > > wrote:
> >> I'm well acquainted with PROBABILITY. This is why you do
> >> "shoot-look-shoot" - and suddenly your threatening track now only has a
> >> 4% chance of surviving. (And this assumes that you only have time for
> >> one follow up) Note that any soft-kill countermeasures still get to play
> >> with the surviving threat seekers
>
> > Hmm, I was generous enabling the 80%.
> > Paul you pushed to 96%...
>
> Because you shoot once and get the 80% you credit us with. Then you
> either do kill assessment and launch again, or you double-tap if time is
> short and the protected unit valuable, and get another 80% shot. At that
> point your Pk is 96%.
>
> It's PROBABILITY, dear Ken, PROBABILITY. Reality is a little more
> complicated but we're playing on your terms.

Yes, more complicated, like no second chance.

> > You (Paul & Keith) are pushin' our BS detector off scale!!!
> > Have either of you ever designed and fired a missile?
>
> Er....
> Yes.
> Next question?

Would you provide us with a brief overview of your
experience designing missiles?
(an online ref is fine)
Ken

[Ron]

On May 10, 11:51*pm, frank > wrote:
> On May 10, 5:57*pm, "Paul J. Adam"
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > > On May 10, 1:31 pm, "Paul J. Adam"
> > > > wrote:
> > >> It's dead by then: SM-3 is an exoatmospheric interceptor, capability
> > >> demonstrated at 133 miles up.
>
> > > 1st stage cheap solid, 2nd stage ditto, the ballistic
> > > course is set, and the 3rd stage is lobbing, however,
> > > when the 3rd stage separated, 5 decoys also blow
> > > off.
> > > "A saturation campaign my boy", 6 missiles is 30
> > > inbound targets.
>
> > Only six of which are emitting and manoeuvering. The problem with making
> > decoys Really Convincing is that they end up as expensive as the
> > platform they're meant to be protecting...
>
> > The trouble is, a reusable ship can host a lot more sensor output and
> > processing power than a one-shot missile and its expendable decoys,
> > which makes discrimination that much easier. Or you throw a lot of money
> > at your decoys... at which point you're no longer launching a cheap missile.
>
> > >> You're not going to get these missiles with the capability you describe
> > >> for a million dollars each. These are going to be expensive beasts....
>
> > > Not really, mass production reduces cost.
>
> > No, it doesn't. It spreads the cost more thinly across more platforms,
> > but you don't get cheaper development from a longer run. The development
> > cost is what it takes: if it costs ten billion dollars to design the
> > system, then you need to produce ten thousand missiles to get the
> > per-unit development cost down below a million apiece - even before you
> > worry about any manufacturing and material costs. Halve the run and you
> > make each weapon appear to cost more - but the development costs don't
> > get any bigger, just the share heaped on each unit.
>
> > >> Okay - according to you *these missiles can't be stopped, can't miss,
> > >> and are so cheap they can be fired in hundreds. We all die and nothing
> > >> can be done. So why worry?
>
> > > It's like a game of chess. We're trying to discuss
> > > the vulnerability of a CVN fleet to conventional
> > > missile attack, especially going forward 20 years.
>
> > Which requires realistic assumptions going in, rather than simply giving
> > Red implausible capabilities and unrealistic budgets.
>
> > >> So instead of firing dozens of missiles at *one* aimpoint, you're now
> > >> trying to saturate a whole ocean? Just how many of these missiles do you
> > >> have anyway?
>
> > > One with a real time update is likely sufficient.
>
> > What if the real-time update is spoofed?
>
> > What if the "one" missile is shot down by a SM-3 while still outside the
> > atmosphere?
>
> > Please keep those goalposts in one place. Are the enemy firing massive
> > salvoes to saturate wide areas, or targeting precisely and firing aimed
> > singles?
>
> > >> I think Red have their own rose-coloured lenses welded firmly to their
> > >> face here...
>
> > > Do you agree a CVN is slower and less maneuveurable
> > > than a Blimp?
>
> > In what weather?
>
> > >> Same issues, often more so. If you're running a bespoke R&D project to
> > >> produce special-purpose components, you can completely forget a $1
> > >> million price tag per missile...
>
> > > You should buy a digital camera, they are amazing.
>
> > My mobile phone has a five-megapixel camera built into it and that's now
> > routine rather than exciting. But that particular handset sold its
> > millionth unit (just in the UK) six months after it launched.
>
> > Military hardware lags because civilian kit is where the sales and the
> > profits are.
>
> > --
> > He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.
>
> Not to mention once design is put in place for military its pretty
> much set in stone. I remember in the 80s, B-52 CTF spent a ton of
> money upgrading B-52s so they could quit using vaccuum tubes. Might be
> current when designed, I wouldn't be surprised if F-22 is still loaded
> with electronics with 90s technology. Look at the Space Shuttle, even
> when upgraded, still behind civil aviation.
>
> Late 80s worked on the F-111 was trying to get digital flight control
> system bought by USAF or RAAF. neither bought it, Cheney killed F-111
> in the Peace Dividend.
>
> One thing is its hard to retrofit an airframe with say new technology
> such as fly by wire. sometimes easier to just build a new airplane.
> And with F-22 designed in late 80s........

Actually I believe there was an F-111 avionics upgrade program in the
90s, but the F-111
was retired in 96 I think, with the EF Spark Varks going in 98.

[Jeb in Richmond]

On May 10, 7:55*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On May 10, 3:42 pm, "Paul J. Adam"
>
> > wrote:
> > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > > On May 10, 12:23 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
> > > > wrote:
> > >>> standards) to search, select, aim and fire.
> > >> And be shot down by a Standard 2 missile - oops
>
> > > Maybe 80% of the time, but you forget PROBABILTY.
>
> > I'm well acquainted with PROBABILITY. This is why you do
> > "shoot-look-shoot" - and suddenly your threatening track now only has a
> > 4% chance of surviving. (And this assumes that you only have time for
> > one follow up) Note that any soft-kill countermeasures still get to play
> > with the surviving threat seekers
>
> Hmm, I was generous enabling the 80%.
> Paul you pushed to 96%...
>
> You (Paul & Keith) are pushin' our BS detector off scale!!!
> Have either of you ever designed and fired a missile?

Who do you mean by "our"? What they're saying is perfectly valid, and
probably even understating the actual use. Operationally, I would
expect a USN carrier group's guided missile ships to loft multiples
EACH if an inbound ballistic was detected. What does the Pk for a half-
dozen SM-3 guiding on a target that's mid-apex and not maneuvering
look like? And assuming that nothing even gets a mission kill on the
target, you're still tracking it and the battle group's got dozens
more SM-3 in the cells ready to go.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 10, 8:40 pm, Bill Shatzer > wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
....
> > Hmm, I was generous enabling the 80%.
> > Paul you pushed to 96%...
>
> He said "shoot-look-shoot". If you fire two 80% missiles, you've got an
> 94% chance of obtaining a kill.

That's not the way it works. If the 1st fails, the chances
for the 2nd is ~20%, also recall the inbound is -delta v,
followed by image=>lock then +delta v to target.
Also account for multiple conventional warheads from
the same missile.

> Do the math.

OK, (4/5)*(1/5) ~ 20%,

When I was a tiny punk, a Vet gave me a model of a
destroyer ship, bristling with guns, and I asked if any
thing could kill it, even airplanes, well yes.
Same thing for the Limey Lancs and Flying Fortress.

Consider 1 Me-109 vs 1 Lanc, VFRules, which do you
want to be in?
What was the name of the Marginot line?
Ken

[Paul J. Adam[_2_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> Would you provide us with a brief overview of your
> experience designing missiles?
> (an online ref is fine)

Fourteen years with GEC-Marconi, topping out as acting Systems
Engineering Manager for a guided weapon's mid-life upgrade. Currently up
to my eyeballs getting HMS Daring into service (primarily, gripping Sea
Viper) and providing some advice on FLAADS(M) and the Common Airframe
Modular Missile that's the currently preferred solution.

--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 11, 9:11 am, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > Would you provide us with a brief overview of your
> > experience designing missiles?
> > (an online ref is fine)
>
> Fourteen years with GEC-Marconi, topping out as acting Systems
> Engineering Manager for a guided weapon's mid-life upgrade. Currently up
> to my eyeballs getting HMS Daring into service (primarily, gripping Sea
> Viper) and providing some advice on FLAADS(M) and the Common Airframe
> Modular Missile that's the currently preferred solution.

Hi Mr. Adams.
Had to look up,
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/Introducingthe-Sea-Viper.4926226.jp
((I did some business with those companies you mentioned,
very respectable, I'd rank them A+, naturally we're bound by
commercial level confidentiality, so naturally I forget why)).

The "Common Airframe Modular Missile" concept is very much
a desirable SOP, and you being an "Engineering Manager" you
know the value of a *Block Diagram*, and so as primitive as it
sounds, use Lego blocks, even if you glue them together to
form the modules, and it may be instructive to field personel,
like me.
Cheers
Ken

[Keith Willshaw[_4_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
...
> On May 10, 8:37 pm, Bill Shatzer > wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> > On May 10, 4:24 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> >>"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>> ...
>>
>> >>>On May 10, 12:23 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
>>
>> >>>>Name one missile that does so and the mechanism it uses for braking.
>>
>> >>>Sputnik, returned dogs safely in the 50's. They used
>> >>>speed brakes, then parachutes.
>>
>> >>No it didnt, Sputnik was not recoverable and the dog Laika died in
>> >>space
>> > And the other 24 dog missions ?
>> > Please aquaint and get back to us.
>> > Ken
>> > [...]
>>
>> Dunno, but the first Soviet canine passengers successfully returned from
>> orbit weren't in the 1950s.
>
> The discussion involves sub-orbital, (IRBM's or MRBM's),
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_space_dogs
> to prove sub-orbital re-entry capability, see it in 1951.
> (Keith went off track with Laika).
> Ken
>

Actually the person who raised the issue of dogs in Sputnik
was you. Laika was the ONLY dog to fly in a sputnik
in the 1950's.

Keith

[financialtools1]

In my opinion, every fighter plane ,like the F-35, needs a choice of 2
engines, to keep costs down and avoid any politics on it, it's a no-
brainer, the USA cannot end up depending on just one source, in this
case P&W, for such an important line of product, 2 sources will make
sure that later , when new ram/scramjet/etc. solutions come on line,
there are options and fair competition , and the one billion dollar
needed to deliver that second engine ( in this case a G.E. / RR ) can
easily come from the absurdly expensive and un-needed ( and never
asked for ) new subs, destroyers, FCS that so far is just a
contractor's kid wish list ( the trucks were bottom-flat , still !!! )
and other missile bunga-lungas that were designed so that the
Contractor's chairman and Board members could get a new 200 foot boat
with helicopter, what a criminal shame ! another massive corrupt
hole just discovered is that even when for the last 3 years, steel,
alloys and other key materials have come down in price, the Pentagon
never demanded from the contractors to adjust the price, they paid
always the same old top price !!!! who is in charge ? the
contractor's kid.

There are 50 billion dollars a year in the Pentagon budget that must
be taken out from the waste basket.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 11, 11:30 am, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
>
>
>
> > On May 10, 8:37 pm, Bill Shatzer > wrote:
> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >> > On May 10, 4:24 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
> >> > > wrote:
>
> >> >>"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
> >> ...
>
> >> >>>On May 10, 12:23 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
>
> >> >>>>Name one missile that does so and the mechanism it uses for braking.
>
> >> >>>Sputnik, returned dogs safely in the 50's. They used
> >> >>>speed brakes, then parachutes.
>
> >> >>No it didnt, Sputnik was not recoverable and the dog Laika died in
> >> >>space
> >> > And the other 24 dog missions ?
> >> > Please aquaint and get back to us.
> >> > Ken
> >> > [...]
>
> >> Dunno, but the first Soviet canine passengers successfully returned from
> >> orbit weren't in the 1950s.
>
> > The discussion involves sub-orbital, (IRBM's or MRBM's),
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_space_dogs
> > to prove sub-orbital re-entry capability, see it in 1951.
> > (Keith went off track with Laika).
> > Ken
>
> Actually the person who raised the issue of dogs in Sputnik
> was you. Laika was the ONLY dog to fly in a sputnik
> in the 1950's.
> Keith

I'm sorry Keith, the ref disagrees with you.
But I'll agree node my head.
Good Bye.
Ken

[Andrew Swallow[_2_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
[snip]

> For instance using ADC (Analog to Digital) and DAC
> (Digital to Analog) converters going into an Elektronic
> Brain....was nearly sci-fi.

It still is sci-fi.

Although nowdays it is the analog side they do not know about.

Andrew Swallow

[frank]

On May 12, 5:13*pm, Andrew Swallow > wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > For instance using ADC (Analog to Digital) and DAC
> > (Digital to Analog) converters going into an Elektronic
> > Brain....was nearly sci-fi.
>
> It still is sci-fi.
>
> Although nowdays it is the analog side they do not know about.
>
> Andrew Swallow

Not really. We were collecting analog data as late as early 90s. Some
were doing digital , most data was analog. Had to do conversions, did
that on tape systems, read analog tape, created digital tape, ran
digital tape as input to computer systems. I don't know if they do
digital data recordings directly, now, would make sense but there are
reasons not to do it. you can get higher frequency of data with analog
data. highest was FM, could get 1000 samples / sec. Real interesting
looking at realtime data. Usually wouldn't print it until right at
where you needed data. Recorders spit out tons of thermal paper. Fun
to watch. Vast majority was 20 samples / sec at most, which was fine
for analog. I had some data requirements at 10000 cycles / sec, what
they did was run it at 10th of the speed it was recorded at. For some
reason, analog to digital was a 1:1 time write to tape. One hour of
data took one hour to convert to digital record. Then we had to run
the digital tape through some other programs to make sense of it all.
Usually was just a voltage point. Conversion created say acft, tail,
flight #, date, time, mach #, alt and whatnot. Lots of the conversion
literally was a patch board hookup. Flight data reels in raw format
were probably an inch, inch and a half wide, weighed about 50 lbs. One
wasn't bad, two were real strain to carry. Most fighters had one tape
recorder. Easier to do analog data right off of transducers.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 13, 1:03 am, frank > wrote:
> On May 12, 5:13 pm, Andrew Swallow > wrote:
>
> > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
> > > For instance using ADC (Analog to Digital) and DAC
> > > (Digital to Analog) converters going into an Elektronic
> > > Brain....was nearly sci-fi.
>
> > It still is sci-fi.
>
> > Although nowdays it is the analog side they do not know about.
>
> > Andrew Swallow
>
> Not really. We were collecting analog data as late as early 90s. Some
> were doing digital , most data was analog. Had to do conversions, did
> that on tape systems, read analog tape, created digital tape, ran
> digital tape as input to computer systems. I don't know if they do
> digital data recordings directly, now, would make sense but there are
> reasons not to do it. you can get higher frequency of data with analog
> data. highest was FM, could get 1000 samples / sec. Real interesting
> looking at realtime data. Usually wouldn't print it until right at
> where you needed data. Recorders spit out tons of thermal paper. Fun
> to watch. Vast majority was 20 samples / sec at most, which was fine
> for analog. I had some data requirements at 10000 cycles / sec, what
> they did was run it at 10th of the speed it was recorded at. For some
> reason, analog to digital was a 1:1 time write to tape. One hour of
> data took one hour to convert to digital record. Then we had to run
> the digital tape through some other programs to make sense of it all.
> Usually was just a voltage point. Conversion created say acft, tail,
> flight #, date, time, mach #, alt and whatnot. Lots of the conversion
> literally was a patch board hookup. Flight data reels in raw format
> were probably an inch, inch and a half wide, weighed about 50 lbs. One
> wasn't bad, two were real strain to carry. Most fighters had one tape
> recorder. Easier to do analog data right off of transducers.

Let me guess, corrections invited.
Today, software and computer enhanced flying is
well known to a military pilot. (The rumor that the
F-22's crossing the International dateline caused
the computer - via software glitch - to crash is a
typical example).
In a sense, software removes pilots burden.
When was software first used? I'm guessing it was
1st used to automatically control the F-111 wing
sweep.
Ken

[Kurt R. Todoroff]

In article
>,
"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> On May 13, 1:03 am, frank > wrote:
> > On May 12, 5:13 pm, Andrew Swallow > wrote:
> >
> Let me guess, corrections invited.
> Today, software and computer enhanced flying is
> well known to a military pilot. (The rumor that the
> F-22's crossing the International dateline caused
> the computer - via software glitch - to crash is a
> typical example).
> In a sense, software removes pilots burden.
> When was software first used? I'm guessing it was
> 1st used to automatically control the F-111 wing
> sweep.
> Ken

Ken,

The pilot commanded the F-111 wing sweep position via a lever that was
mounted underneath the left canopy rail. It hung underneath the rail
and was hinged to flip up (outboard) to stay out of the way. The pilot
would move his left hand from the throttles up to the handle, grab it
and rotate it down, then push it forward or pull it back. Forward
equals wings move forward, back equals wings move back. When the handle
was stowed in the outboard spring loaded position, it was friction
locked from moving forward or back. The wing sweep control handle was
connected via manual cable (not electrical cable) to the high-lift
control system, which in turn controlled the wing sweep position. Wing
sweep position was directly proportional to wing sweep handle position.
The two hydraulic systems provided control power to move the wings. The
wing sweep actuator was a non-reversible system that prevented the wing
sweep position from being affected by airloads. The forward position
was 16 degrees leading edge sweep. The aft position was 72.5 degrees
leading edge sweep. The wings moved at 3.8 degrees per second. The
aircraft placard G limits were -3.0 to +7.33 symmetric when the wings
were stationary. This were later changed to -1.5 to +7.33. During wing
sweep, the placard G limits were 0 to +4.0 symmetrical. Assymmetric G
during wing sweep was prohibited.

The F-14 Tomcat used a more sophisticated wing sweep system. The
pilot's right throttle contained a five position thumb switch (button)
on the inboard side which was very similar to the trim button on the
stick except that unlike the trim button which was spring loaded to the
center position, the pilot could place the wing sweep button in any of
the five positions. The positions were:

Forward: Sweep wings forward
Aft: Sweep wings aft
Down: Sweep wings to sixty degrees (I think)
Up: Autosweep
Center: No command

In the Autosweep mode, the Central Air Data Computer (an analog device)
commanded the wing sweep position according to Mach number, using a
pressure altitude bias. Furthermore, regardless of wing sweep mode, the
CADC would not allow the wings to be over-sped. If the pilot manually
commanded the wings forward, the CADC would stop the wing sweep movement
when they reached the computed Maximum Safe Mach value. If the pilot
left the wing sweep control in the center (no command) at takeoff
instead of up (Auto) then the CADC would start to sweep the wings aft
during aircraft acceleration to prevent overspeeding the them. The
forward position was 20 degrees leading edge sweep. The aft position
was 68 degrees leading edge sweep. The wings moved at 15 degrees per
second. The aircraft placard G limits were -1.5 to +6.5 symmetric even
during wing sweep. Grumman improved on the F-111's wing box to gain
this capability, unfortunately at the expense of a substantial amount of
extra weight. Variable geometry wings proved to be a great asset to the
F-111 in the interdiction/strike role. In my opinion it provided no
benefit to the F-14 in the A/A role. The F-15A empty weight was 28,500
pounds. The F-14A empty weight was 40,000 pounds. Most of this was due
to the VG component of the aircraft. These two aircraft are nearly the
same length.

The F-14 used a simple fly-by-wire throttle. The interconnect between
the throttles and the engine fuel controls was electrical. The F-16
uses a similar FBW throttle system, that compliments its FBW flight
control system which which GD borrowed from the F-111. GD used the
Vark's triple channel FBW flight control system, added a fourth channel,
and added a few more features (ie. limiters, some of which were
eventually added to the Vark's FBW FCS) and then used it in the F-16.

--


Kurt Todoroff

Markets, not mandates and mob rule.
Consent, not coercion.

[Jeff Crowell[_4_]]

Kurt R. Todoroff wrote:
> Variable geometry wings proved to be a great asset to the
> F-111 in the interdiction/strike role. In my opinion it provided no
> benefit to the F-14 in the A/A role. The F-15A empty weight was 28,500
> pounds. The F-14A empty weight was 40,000 pounds.

A couple of comments: VG helped the Tomcat in the A/A role by
extending loiter time, and in the Fleet Air Defense role they spent
a lot of time at max conserve. And, once the F-14 got decent engines
it was a pretty good dogfighter, some of that because the wing
optimized as you went along. One disadvantage was that, if your
opponent knew what he was doing he could look at you and deduce your
energy state from your wing position. Whether he was able to do
anything about depended on what he flew--for example, the MiG-23,
also VG, could not sweep his wings at more than 2.5G, so if you kept
the pressure on he was pretty well stuck in a non-optimal configuration
regardless.



Jeff

--
Love stinks.
J. Geils

[Kurt R. Todoroff]

In article >,
Jeff Crowell > wrote:

> Kurt R. Todoroff wrote:
> > Variable geometry wings proved to be a great asset to the
> > F-111 in the interdiction/strike role. In my opinion it provided no
> > benefit to the F-14 in the A/A role. The F-15A empty weight was 28,500
> > pounds. The F-14A empty weight was 40,000 pounds.
>
> A couple of comments: VG helped the Tomcat in the A/A role by
> extending loiter time, and in the Fleet Air Defense role they spent
> a lot of time at max conserve. And, once the F-14 got decent engines
> it was a pretty good dogfighter, some of that because the wing
> optimized as you went along. One disadvantage was that, if your
> opponent knew what he was doing he could look at you and deduce your
> energy state from your wing position. Whether he was able to do
> anything about depended on what he flew--for example, the MiG-23,
> also VG, could not sweep his wings at more than 2.5G, so if you kept
> the pressure on he was pretty well stuck in a non-optimal configuration
> regardless.
>
>
>
> Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Crediting VG with extending the Tomcat's loiter time is using circular
reasoning. You don't increase loiter performance by making the aircraft
heavier. A simpler, less costly, method would have been to use a fixed
wing and then regain those eleven thousand pounds and reduce the wing
loading, thus reducing the associated induced drag and the loiter fuel
requirements. The drawback would have been reduced supersonic range
which, prior to the F-22, was overrated by the USAF and USN.

I'm not convinced that the VG wing contributed to the Tomcat's close in
fighting capability over a fixed wing. I would argue the opposite. The
CADC scheduled the wing position according to Mach number, not how hard
the pilot was pulling on the pole, and not according to G loading. The
C_L versus AOA curve on all VG aircraft becomes flatter with
progressively greater wing sweep angle. For pure maneuverability and/or
loiter, the unswept wing provides the greatest benefit of high C_L and
low induced drag. For pure speed, the highly swept wing is the choice.
I would be curious to know how the F-15 carrying six AIM-54s would fare
in the Tomcat's loiter environment. I would like to hear John Carrier's
take on this.

You are correct about the engines. The Tomcat (and the Vark) both
suffered from poor P_s due to their underpowered TF-30 engines. I read
in AW&ST a version of the test report on the flight test program of the
F-14 with the GE F110-GE-400 engines. The Tomcat realized very
significant performance increases in all flight regimes with the GE
engines. The most notable improvements were in engine reliability
during hostile flight environments. During the flight testing, the crew
took the F-14 to FL600, slowed to approach speed, and then cycled one
engine throttle back and forth between Idle and Max AB. Except for one
minor self-correcting hickup, the engines responded and performed
superbly in this environment. Afterburner lightoff and termination were
flawless.

--


Kurt Todoroff

Markets, not mandates and mob rule.
Consent, not coercion.

[Keith Willshaw[_4_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
...

> In a sense, software removes pilots burden.
> When was software first used? I'm guessing it was
> 1st used to automatically control the F-111 wing
> sweep.
> Ken

AFAIK the first aircraft to use a digital flight control system was
a modified F-8C with the F-16 being the first aircraft fitted
with the system on the production line.

Keith

[Jeff Dougherty]

On May 13, 12:27*pm, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
>
> > In a sense, software removes pilots burden.
> > When was software first used? I'm guessing it was
> > 1st used to automatically control the F-111 wing
> > sweep.
> > Ken
>
> AFAIK the first aircraft to use a digital flight control system was
> a modified F-8C with the F-16 being the first aircraft fitted
> with the system on the production line.
>
> Keith

Yep, that was the original NASA prototype. Fun fact, related to how I
originally came across it: the control unit for the computer system
used in the first phase of testing was a surplus Apollo DSKY unit.
Imagine trying to punch in "nouns" and "verbs" at Mach 2, backed up by
a few KB of ferrite-core memory...

-JTD

[Jeff Crowell[_4_]]

Kurt R. Todoroff wrote:
>>> Variable geometry wings proved to be a great asset to the
>>> F-111 in the interdiction/strike role. In my opinion it provided no
>>> benefit to the F-14 in the A/A role. The F-15A empty weight was 28,500
>>> pounds. The F-14A empty weight was 40,000 pounds.

Jeff Crowell wrote:
>> A couple of comments: VG helped the Tomcat in the A/A role by
>> extending loiter time, and in the Fleet Air Defense role they spent
>> a lot of time at max conserve. And, once the F-14 got decent engines
>> it was a pretty good dogfighter, some of that because the wing
>> optimized as you went along. One disadvantage was that, if your
>> opponent knew what he was doing he could look at you and deduce your
>> energy state from your wing position. Whether he was able to do
>> anything about depended on what he flew--for example, the MiG-23,
>> also VG, could not sweep his wings at more than 2.5G, so if you kept
>> the pressure on he was pretty well stuck in a non-optimal configuration
>> regardless.

Kurt R. Todoroff wrote:
> Crediting VG with extending the Tomcat's loiter time is using circular
> reasoning. You don't increase loiter performance by making the aircraft
> heavier. A simpler, less costly, method would have been to use a fixed
> wing and then regain those eleven thousand pounds and reduce the wing
> loading, thus reducing the associated induced drag and the loiter fuel
> requirements. The drawback would have been reduced supersonic range
> which, prior to the F-22, was overrated by the USAF and USN.

You make an excellent point--I wonder what the Turkey's approach
speed would have been with fixed geometry wings which would have
also permitted the sprint speed. I completely agree with your
comments regarding the overemphasis on sprint speed, at least as
regards the top end Mach number of that sprint BUT... Part of the
stated need for the sprint speed was for a late-launching (or out of
position) interceptor to get into position to kill the archer
instead of shooting at arrows. The Backfire and Blackjack were
seen as pretty fearsome opponents. ISTR that the Phantom came
aboard at about 135 knots, there was value seen in reducing that
number with the F-14; again, a lighter aircraft would have done that,
all else equal.

The swing mechanism was a reliability risk, too, though I don't know
how that compared to other maintenance items on the bird.


> I'm not convinced that the VG wing contributed to the Tomcat's close in
> fighting capability over a fixed wing. I would argue the opposite. The
> CADC scheduled the wing position according to Mach number, not how hard
> the pilot was pulling on the pole, and not according to G loading. The
> C_L versus AOA curve on all VG aircraft becomes flatter with
> progressively greater wing sweep angle. For pure maneuverability and/or
> loiter, the unswept wing provides the greatest benefit of high C_L and
> low induced drag. For pure speed, the highly swept wing is the choice.

Well, probably the correct argument to have is how badly do you need
the turning performance of the unswept configuration in a modern (even
modern as-of then) fight. ROE and training to fight the previous war
versus Speed Is Life!


> I would be curious to know how the F-15 carrying six AIM-54s would fare
> in the Tomcat's loiter environment. I would like to hear John Carrier's
> take on this.

Someone with access to an Eagle Dash 1 could probably dope out a similar
drag index and make a stab at it.


> You are correct about the engines. The Tomcat (and the Vark) both
> suffered from poor P_s due to their underpowered TF-30 engines. I read
> in AW&ST a version of the test report on the flight test program of the
> F-14 with the GE F110-GE-400 engines. The Tomcat realized very
> significant performance increases in all flight regimes with the GE
> engines. The most notable improvements were in engine reliability
> during hostile flight environments. During the flight testing, the crew
> took the F-14 to FL600, slowed to approach speed, and then cycled one
> engine throttle back and forth between Idle and Max AB. Except for one
> minor self-correcting hickup, the engines responded and performed
> superbly in this environment. Afterburner lightoff and termination were
> flawless.

Pretty bloody impressive!


Jeff

--
Murphy's Laws of the gunfight:
Always assume there is one more, somewhere.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 13, 5:05 am, "Kurt R. Todoroff" >
wrote:
> In article
> >,
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > On May 13, 1:03 am, frank > wrote:
> > > On May 12, 5:13 pm, Andrew Swallow > wrote:
>
> > Let me guess, corrections invited.
> > Today, software and computer enhanced flying is
> > well known to a military pilot. (The rumor that the
> > F-22's crossing the International dateline caused
> > the computer - via software glitch - to crash is a
> > typical example).
> > In a sense, software removes pilots burden.
> > When was software first used? I'm guessing it was
> > 1st used to automatically control the F-111 wing
> > sweep.
> > Ken
>
> Ken,
>
> The pilot commanded the F-111 wing sweep position via a lever that was
> mounted underneath the left canopy rail. It hung underneath the rail
> and was hinged to flip up (outboard) to stay out of the way. The pilot
> would move his left hand from the throttles up to the handle, grab it
> and rotate it down, then push it forward or pull it back. Forward
> equals wings move forward, back equals wings move back. When the handle
> was stowed in the outboard spring loaded position, it was friction
> locked from moving forward or back. The wing sweep control handle was
> connected via manual cable (not electrical cable) to the high-lift
> control system, which in turn controlled the wing sweep position. Wing
> sweep position was directly proportional to wing sweep handle position.
> The two hydraulic systems provided control power to move the wings. The
> wing sweep actuator was a non-reversible system that prevented the wing
> sweep position from being affected by airloads. The forward position
> was 16 degrees leading edge sweep. The aft position was 72.5 degrees
> leading edge sweep. The wings moved at 3.8 degrees per second. The
> aircraft placard G limits were -3.0 to +7.33 symmetric when the wings
> were stationary. This were later changed to -1.5 to +7.33. During wing
> sweep, the placard G limits were 0 to +4.0 symmetrical. Assymmetric G
> during wing sweep was prohibited.
>
> The F-14 Tomcat used a more sophisticated wing sweep system. The
> pilot's right throttle contained a five position thumb switch (button)
> on the inboard side which was very similar to the trim button on the
> stick except that unlike the trim button which was spring loaded to the
> center position, the pilot could place the wing sweep button in any of
> the five positions. The positions were:
>
> Forward: Sweep wings forward
> Aft: Sweep wings aft
> Down: Sweep wings to sixty degrees (I think)
> Up: Autosweep
> Center: No command
>
> In the Autosweep mode, the Central Air Data Computer (an analog device)
> commanded the wing sweep position according to Mach number, using a
> pressure altitude bias. Furthermore, regardless of wing sweep mode, the
> CADC would not allow the wings to be over-sped. If the pilot manually
> commanded the wings forward, the CADC would stop the wing sweep movement
> when they reached the computed Maximum Safe Mach value. If the pilot
> left the wing sweep control in the center (no command) at takeoff
> instead of up (Auto) then the CADC would start to sweep the wings aft
> during aircraft acceleration to prevent overspeeding the them. The
> forward position was 20 degrees leading edge sweep. The aft position
> was 68 degrees leading edge sweep. The wings moved at 15 degrees per
> second. The aircraft placard G limits were -1.5 to +6.5 symmetric even
> during wing sweep. Grumman improved on the F-111's wing box to gain
> this capability, unfortunately at the expense of a substantial amount of
> extra weight. Variable geometry wings proved to be a great asset to the
> F-111 in the interdiction/strike role. In my opinion it provided no
> benefit to the F-14 in the A/A role. The F-15A empty weight was 28,500
> pounds. The F-14A empty weight was 40,000 pounds. Most of this was due
> to the VG component of the aircraft. These two aircraft are nearly the
> same length.
>
> The F-14 used a simple fly-by-wire throttle. The interconnect between
> the throttles and the engine fuel controls was electrical. The F-16
> uses a similar FBW throttle system, that compliments its FBW flight
> control system which which GD borrowed from the F-111. GD used the
> Vark's triple channel FBW flight control system, added a fourth channel,
> and added a few more features (ie. limiters, some of which were
> eventually added to the Vark's FBW FCS) and then used it in the F-16.
> Kurt Todoroff

Thanks Kurt, We (wife and I) studied your post carefully,
For me, you put me into the F-111 and F-14 cockpit.

In the early 70's there was a kind of renaissance in
aviation, (I was in the bearing business, SKF), and the
F-111 was maturing, as were the F-14, F-15, and the
fighter competition, F-16 and F-17 was hot stuff.
The B-1A was suffering from bearing problems, the
C5-A had wing strength issues.

I agree with your F-14 thesis, the VG weight penalty
was not worth the performance gain, especially in
view of the F-18, but also recognize the subtle diff
where the F-111 and then B-1 is concerned, as you
point out, in the long strike mission.
Regards
Ken

[frank]

On May 13, 3:50*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On May 13, 1:03 am, frank > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 12, 5:13 pm, Andrew Swallow > wrote:
>
> > > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>
> > > [snip]
>
> > > > For instance using ADC (Analog to Digital) and DAC
> > > > (Digital to Analog) converters going into an Elektronic
> > > > Brain....was nearly sci-fi.
>
> > > It still is sci-fi.
>
> > > Although nowdays it is the analog side they do not know about.
>
> > > Andrew Swallow
>
> > Not really. We were collecting analog data as late as early 90s. Some
> > were doing digital , most data was analog. Had to do conversions, did
> > that on tape systems, read analog tape, created digital tape, ran
> > digital tape as input to computer systems. I don't know if they do
> > digital data recordings directly, now, would make sense but there are
> > reasons not to do it. you can get higher frequency of data with analog
> > data. highest was FM, could get 1000 samples / sec. Real interesting
> > looking at realtime data. Usually wouldn't print it until right at
> > where you needed data. Recorders spit out tons of thermal paper. Fun
> > to watch. Vast majority was 20 samples / sec at most, which was fine
> > for analog. I had some data requirements at 10000 cycles / sec, what
> > they did was run it at 10th of the speed it was recorded at. For some
> > reason, analog to digital was a 1:1 time write to tape. One hour of
> > data took one hour to convert to digital record. Then we had to run
> > the digital tape through some other programs to make sense of it all.
> > Usually was just a voltage point. Conversion created say acft, tail,
> > flight #, date, time, mach #, alt and whatnot. Lots of the conversion
> > literally was a patch board hookup. Flight data reels in raw format
> > were probably an inch, inch and a half wide, weighed about 50 lbs. One
> > wasn't bad, two were real strain to carry. Most fighters had one tape
> > recorder. Easier to do analog data right off of transducers.
>
> Let me guess, corrections invited.
> Today, software and computer enhanced flying is
> well known to a military pilot. (The rumor that the
> F-22's crossing the International dateline caused
> the computer - via software glitch - to crash is a
> typical example).
> In a sense, software removes pilots burden.
> When was software first used? I'm guessing it was
> 1st used to automatically control the F-111 wing
> sweep.
> Ken

Good question.

Incidentally, there was a problem in the F-16, I think early mid 80s.
OK, remember all your trig? Yeah, the class you never though made
sense. Had some function, was something divided by cosine of heading,
and something else divided by sine of heading. You guessed it. When
they hit due north, system went nuts. There was a reason they taught
us division by zero didn't work. Would fly great then just go nuts.
Took a while to figure that one out. Fix was if you went to something
divided by zero enter some other function into it.

I think guidance and control was the initial area. IF you ever studied
aero engineering, that was the course that would kill your prospect
for a degree. Yeah, in the real world, all those formulas were really
used. Honest. Except in the real world, you programmed it, not solving
it by hand to get all the sub sub sub sub scripts right. Been there,
did that, you know what I'm talking about.

The more complex the systems, the more problems crop up. Some aren't
found for years. Then the active AF comes back and screams that its
broke and it needs to be fixed. Keeps flight test funded anyway. Its
not like we broke it on purpose. Sometimes we sent it out knowing we
couldn't figure something out. B-1 had nose wheels getting stuck up in
flight. Every airplane probably has something.

Fly by wire in 80s was when computers really came into their own. Some
like the X-29 were all computer controlled. Forward swept wing. Test
pilots said it was real smooth. Feedback was something like 50 times a
second. You would say fly to this point, it would do it smoothly even
in turbulence.

Early B-1A crash, #059 was due to going to test point high speed at
200 ft, wings swept back. When wings went back, all the weight in the
wings caused CG to go aft, once it pitched beyond limits, nose went
up, then everything went South real fast. Couldn't move fuel fast
enough to get over it, departed controlled flight. There was a FCGMS
Fuel Center Gravity Management System but it was turned off. That was
upgraded, pretty much harder to turn off. Spent a lot of time on
stability with vanes on nose of a/c and TF and other stuff.

About mid 80s lots more TF or TA (terrain following, terrain
avoidance) showed up. Some were tied to altimeter, keep this distance
to ground, some looked ahead worked on some sort of mapping data to
figure where they were going. Some were IR systems instead of RADAR.
That got tied into autopilot. Big deal to convince somebody to fly 200
ft at .85 Mach and say, trust me it works. I think that was lowest
limit, at least what we used.

Heard Tornado pilots were absolutely insane. Then again they were RAF
and sort of didn't have to follow our regs. Were supposed to, but its
their airplanes. Heard all sorts of stuff about those guys being just
no fear at all. USAF used to be higher faster farther, they were
pretty much lower & faster.

Once you put computers in airplanes, data increased a lot. B-1 had I
think 6000 possible data points. Not all used at once, not all in one
airplane. Usually 200 or so realtime in a flight test, others post
flight. By the time AC-130U and MC-130H showed up, they were up to
80,000 parameters. Instrumentation Engineers went insane. Then again,
they could add stuff all over the airplane. Pretty much all digital.
Literally took 8 hours to run the program to set up what you were
looking for off the airplane for each flight test, this was to
determine what parameters to look at from the data stream. Data for
instrumentation sort of was like swiss cheese. Think parameters in
columns, rows were calibration coefficients, thickness was flight
number. Insane. Even decades later. Stole it from AEC or whatever it
turned into.

F-22 wanted 2 Gb / second data rate, sent to I think 5 locations real
time, ability to quick look at data instead of strip charts. No ARIA
following it. Forgot how many parameters. Some high data rate. Usually
used 20 samples / sec or less (1991 anyway). That was what RADAR was
set to capture data at. Cameras also, so if you merged RADAR, camera
with other data it all fit at 20 samples / sec. Engineers would slice
and dice data depending on what they were doing tests on.

wing sweep was set initially with a level. Only had a few settings.
Wasn't like you could do 12 degrees, 13 degrees. Was like 15, 30, 67.
On B-1 both wings were at same setting. F-14 had problems where one
was say 50 , one was 15. Real emergency to get it down. That
eventually got fixed, but don't know the details. Don't know if F-111
would have that problem. But, it had other problems to solve. Big one
was fatigue on wings moving in flight. Lost more than a few with wings
coming off. GD eventually solved that but it was pulled when sent to
Vietnam pretty quickly. Got a real reputation as a problem child until
Desert Storm and the Libyan raid.

Considering how far we went with from pretty much levers and all that
to hydraulic controls to computer controlled, its nothing short of
just amazing. Obvious when you look back, at the time pretty much
computers in an airplane?????
Especially when punch cards and 8 inch floppy disks were state of the
art.

[Alan Dicey]

Keith Willshaw wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> In a sense, software removes pilots burden.
>> When was software first used? I'm guessing it was
>> 1st used to automatically control the F-111 wing
>> sweep.
>> Ken
>
> AFAIK the first aircraft to use a digital flight control system was
> a modified F-8C with the F-16 being the first aircraft fitted
> with the system on the production line.
>

Actually, Keith, the initial FCS for F-16 was analog. F-16 didn't get
digital FCS until Block 40, where it was necessary for the LANTIRN
capability. 1989 onwards.

The first production fighter with digital FCS was the F-18 Hornet,
digital from the start. First flight 1980, into service 1983.

Trials aircraft using digital FCS begin with the NASA F-8C, as you note.
1972 is incredibly early for digital systems, the NASA program was
given some support by Neil Armstrong and used digital FCS and inertial
systems from the Apollo LEM. So there's a spinoff from the Apollo
program that you don't often see mentioned - digital fly-by-wire!

The AFTI F-16 program used digital FBW from 1982, and the BAE Systems
FBW Jaguar demonstrator (quad digital FBW) began in 1981.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 14, 1:15 am, frank > wrote:
> On May 13, 3:50 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 13, 1:03 am, frank > wrote:
>
> > > On May 12, 5:13 pm, Andrew Swallow > wrote:
>
> > > > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>
> > > > [snip]
>
> > > > > For instance using ADC (Analog to Digital) and DAC
> > > > > (Digital to Analog) converters going into an Elektronic
> > > > > Brain....was nearly sci-fi.
>
> > > > It still is sci-fi.
>
> > > > Although nowdays it is the analog side they do not know about.
>
> > > > Andrew Swallow
>
> > > Not really. We were collecting analog data as late as early 90s. Some
> > > were doing digital , most data was analog. Had to do conversions, did
> > > that on tape systems, read analog tape, created digital tape, ran
> > > digital tape as input to computer systems. I don't know if they do
> > > digital data recordings directly, now, would make sense but there are
> > > reasons not to do it. you can get higher frequency of data with analog
> > > data. highest was FM, could get 1000 samples / sec. Real interesting
> > > looking at realtime data. Usually wouldn't print it until right at
> > > where you needed data. Recorders spit out tons of thermal paper. Fun
> > > to watch. Vast majority was 20 samples / sec at most, which was fine
> > > for analog. I had some data requirements at 10000 cycles / sec, what
> > > they did was run it at 10th of the speed it was recorded at. For some
> > > reason, analog to digital was a 1:1 time write to tape. One hour of
> > > data took one hour to convert to digital record. Then we had to run
> > > the digital tape through some other programs to make sense of it all.
> > > Usually was just a voltage point. Conversion created say acft, tail,
> > > flight #, date, time, mach #, alt and whatnot. Lots of the conversion
> > > literally was a patch board hookup. Flight data reels in raw format
> > > were probably an inch, inch and a half wide, weighed about 50 lbs. One
> > > wasn't bad, two were real strain to carry. Most fighters had one tape
> > > recorder. Easier to do analog data right off of transducers.
>
> > Let me guess, corrections invited.
> > Today, software and computer enhanced flying is
> > well known to a military pilot. (The rumor that the
> > F-22's crossing the International dateline caused
> > the computer - via software glitch - to crash is a
> > typical example).
> > In a sense, software removes pilots burden.
> > When was software first used? I'm guessing it was
> > 1st used to automatically control the F-111 wing
> > sweep.
> > Ken
>
> Good question.
>
> Incidentally, there was a problem in the F-16, I think early mid 80s.
> OK, remember all your trig? Yeah, the class you never though made
> sense. Had some function, was something divided by cosine of heading,
> and something else divided by sine of heading. You guessed it. When
> they hit due north, system went nuts. There was a reason they taught
> us division by zero didn't work. Would fly great then just go nuts.
> Took a while to figure that one out. Fix was if you went to something
> divided by zero enter some other function into it.

Yes, the heading indicator needed to go from due North to
due South, going over the North pole.
It's peculiar to using "spherical coordinates" with latitude
using 180 degrees and longitude using 360.
(I have a program on that, I'll look it up).

> I think guidance and control was the initial area. IF you ever studied
> aero engineering, that was the course that would kill your prospect
> for a degree. Yeah, in the real world, all those formulas were really
> used. Honest. Except in the real world, you programmed it, not solving
> it by hand to get all the sub sub sub sub scripts right. Been there,
> did that, you know what I'm talking about.

Yes, an Array like A(a,b,c,d). Once the array variables
are properly defined, it really becomes straighforward,
but documentation is the key.

> The more complex the systems, the more problems crop up. Some aren't
> found for years. Then the active AF comes back and screams that its
> broke and it needs to be fixed. Keeps flight test funded anyway. Its
> not like we broke it on purpose. Sometimes we sent it out knowing we
> couldn't figure something out. B-1 had nose wheels getting stuck up in
> flight. Every airplane probably has something.
>
> Fly by wire in 80s was when computers really came into their own. Some
> like the X-29 were all computer controlled. Forward swept wing. Test
> pilots said it was real smooth. Feedback was something like 50 times a
> second. You would say fly to this point, it would do it smoothly even
> in turbulence.
>
> Early B-1A crash, #059 was due to going to test point high speed at
> 200 ft, wings swept back. When wings went back, all the weight in the
> wings caused CG to go aft, once it pitched beyond limits, nose went
> up, then everything went South real fast. Couldn't move fuel fast
> enough to get over it, departed controlled flight. There was a FCGMS
> Fuel Center Gravity Management System but it was turned off. That was
> upgraded, pretty much harder to turn off. Spent a lot of time on
> stability with vanes on nose of a/c and TF and other stuff.

That was a sad experiment. IIRC it was called pilot error.
Reminds me of the the F-23 excursion, the fly by wire
is good, but has limitations, imposed by flight dynamics,
like if it's too tail heavy, the horizontal stabilizer over-shoots,
and complex oscillations set in. The horizontal stabilizer
near a stall condition, drags and so on.

> About mid 80s lots more TF or TA (terrain following, terrain
> avoidance) showed up. Some were tied to altimeter, keep this distance
> to ground, some looked ahead worked on some sort of mapping data to
> figure where they were going. Some were IR systems instead of RADAR.
> That got tied into autopilot. Big deal to convince somebody to fly 200
> ft at .85 Mach and say, trust me it works. I think that was lowest
> limit, at least what we used.
>
> Heard Tornado pilots were absolutely insane. Then again they were RAF
> and sort of didn't have to follow our regs. Were supposed to, but its
> their airplanes. Heard all sorts of stuff about those guys being just
> no fear at all. USAF used to be higher faster farther, they were
> pretty much lower & faster.

Watched some video of Tornadoes during Iraqi war,
it looked like them guys were blowin' dust off the sand,
bet the occasional guy went to 30'.

> Once you put computers in airplanes, data increased a lot. B-1 had I
> think 6000 possible data points. Not all used at once, not all in one
> airplane. Usually 200 or so realtime in a flight test, others post
> flight. By the time AC-130U and MC-130H showed up, they were up to
> 80,000 parameters. Instrumentation Engineers went insane. Then again,
> they could add stuff all over the airplane. Pretty much all digital.
> Literally took 8 hours to run the program to set up what you were
> looking for off the airplane for each flight test, this was to
> determine what parameters to look at from the data stream. Data for
> instrumentation sort of was like swiss cheese. Think parameters in
> columns, rows were calibration coefficients, thickness was flight
> number. Insane. Even decades later. Stole it from AEC or whatever it
> turned into.
>
> F-22 wanted 2 Gb / second data rate, sent to I think 5 locations real
> time, ability to quick look at data instead of strip charts. No ARIA
> following it. Forgot how many parameters. Some high data rate. Usually
> used 20 samples / sec or less (1991 anyway). That was what RADAR was
> set to capture data at. Cameras also, so if you merged RADAR, camera
> with other data it all fit at 20 samples / sec. Engineers would slice
> and dice data depending on what they were doing tests on.
>
> wing sweep was set initially with a level. Only had a few settings.
> Wasn't like you could do 12 degrees, 13 degrees. Was like 15, 30, 67.
> On B-1 both wings were at same setting. F-14 had problems where one
> was say 50 , one was 15. Real emergency to get it down. That
> eventually got fixed, but don't know the details. Don't know if F-111
> would have that problem. But, it had other problems to solve. Big one
> was fatigue on wings moving in flight. Lost more than a few with wings
> coming off. GD eventually solved that but it was pulled when sent to
> Vietnam pretty quickly. Got a real reputation as a problem child until
> Desert Storm and the Libyan raid.
>
> Considering how far we went with from pretty much levers and all that
> to hydraulic controls to computer controlled, its nothing short of
> just amazing. Obvious when you look back, at the time pretty much
> computers in an airplane?????
> Especially when punch cards and 8 inch floppy disks were state of the
> art.

On behalf of the NG, thanks for the post Frank.

For me, it was about 1975 (22yo slow learner) when I
had a "holy ****" moment and realized analog had pretty
much run it's course but digital was unlimited, which I
think is still true.
Once IC's (including OP amps and ADC's) got reliable
and cheap enough that I could buy 1 for a couple of $'s,
the digital revolution had already begun.
Regards
Ken

[Stephen Harding]

Paul J. Adam wrote:
>
> Might as well claim that since a reasonable shot can break clay pigeons
> most of the time, the US doesn't need a national missile defence
> program: one man atop the Washington Monument with a shotgun and a box
> of cartridges can take out any incoming ICBMs just fine.

I'm a pretty good shot but I think I'll not be volunteering for
that assignment!


SMH

[KorbinDallis]

On Apr 29, 7:06*am, Mike > wrote:
> Inside the Air Force - 4/24/2009
>
> GENERAL: PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY
>
> The Defense Department and a handful of allies have launched an effort
> to ensure the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is capable of
> conducting the most devastating mission in modern warfare --
> delivering a nuclear bomb.
>
> A senior Pentagon official announced the initiative, which aims to
> fulfill a long-standing requirement for the stealthy fighter, two days
> after The Wall Street Journal reported that cyber spies had
> successfully penetrated the $300 billion JSF program -- the most
> expensive weapons program in history.
>
> “We have a cooperative effort under way to move the F-35 into nuclear
> capability,” Maj. Gen. Donald Alston, assistant Air Force chief of
> staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration, said during an
> April 22 speech to a group of military and civilian officials in
> Arlington, VA. “All the right deliberate steps are under way.
>
> “This involves the nations together who are involved in that program
> to come together, but we’ve been working in the Pentagon -- let alone
> inside the Air Force -- and with the allies,” the two-star continued.
> “The right next deliberate steps are being made with that, and we’ll
> hope to see that come to conclusion here in the near term.”
>
> F-35 partners include a number of nuclear-capable NATO alliance
> members and Israel, an undeclared nuclear power. Four non-nuclear NATO
> countries -- Belgium, Germany, The Netherlands, Italy -- have a
> nuclear strike mission.
>
> Air Force B-2 and B-52 bombers and F-15E and F-16 fighters are the
> only Air Force aircraft that can currently deploy nuclear weapons.
> Aircraft that carry nuclear weapons require special circuity that is
> different from the technology used in conventional weapons.
>
> Pentagon officials declined to provide additional details about plans
> to add nuclear-strike capability to the F-35, such as whether all
> variants will be configured for the strategic mission.
>
> "Nuclear capability has been an F-35 requirement since the program's
> beginnings, but it is not a component of the current system
> development and demonstration phase," a program official said in an
> April 23 e-mail.
>
> In December 2008, a task force led by former Defense and Energy
> Secretary James Schlesinger reported that some allies “are already
> pursuing an option for replacing their [dual-capable aircraft] fighter
> forces by investing in the development of the F-35, which has an
> operational requirement for delivery of nuclear weapons.”
>
> The highly publicized report concluded that the Pentagon “must ensure
> that the dual-capable F-35 remains on schedule” and that “further
> delays would result in increasing levels of political and strategic
> risk and reduced strategic options for both the United States and the
> Alliance.”
>
> The F-35 is designed to carry two large 2,000-pound Joint Direct
> Attack Munitions. Some nuclear weapons weigh around 500 pounds and are
> roughly the same size as a 500-pound JDAM.
>
> The F-35 is still several years away from entering full-rate
> production and only a handful of test jets currently exist. The Marine
> Corps jets are not expected to reach their initial operational
> capability until the beginning of next decade.
>
> “Usually way before this stage of the program you’re beginning to hear
> about that sort of thing,” Richard Aboulafia, a senior aviation
> analyst at the Teal Group said in an April 22 interview.
>
> Part of the certification would include the development of a mission
> attack profile, according to Aboulafia.
>
> “What is your plane expecting to do when it drops the bomb; there’s
> all kinds of performance parameters,” he said.
>
> Early-generation fighters were designed to launch and then pull
> straight up in order to propel the bomb away from the plane, the
> analyst noted.
>
> “You’ve got to make the plane technically able to get away fast after
> launching, so . . . there’s all sorts of calculations there,” he
> said.
>
> Placing nuclear weapons on the JSF would also have treaty
> restrictions, which limit the number of nuclear capable aircraft the
> United States can operate.
>
> Air Force and Lockheed Martin officials referred all questions about
> the JSF’s nuclear strike capabilities to the F-35 joint program office.

what about the B1B and F/A18E & F are thoes not nuclear strike
aircraft !

[HVAC]

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> Paul J. Adam wrote:
>>
>> Might as well claim that since a reasonable shot can break clay pigeons
>> most of the time, the US doesn't need a national missile defence program:
>> one man atop the Washington Monument with a shotgun and a box of
>> cartridges can take out any incoming ICBMs just fine.
>
> I'm a pretty good shot but I think I'll not be volunteering for
> that assignment!


Now all we need is for the bad guys to yell, "pull".