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

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

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.

"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

"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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.