If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
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. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
"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. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
"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 |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
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. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
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.... |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
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. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
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 |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
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. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
"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 |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Pentagon Wants Kill Switch for Planes" | Jim Logajan | Piloting | 24 | June 16th 08 03:27 PM |
Spinner strobing as a "Bird Strike Countermeasure" | Jim Logajan | Piloting | 259 | December 13th 07 05:43 AM |
Spinner strobing as a "Bird Strike Countermeasure" | Jim Logajan | Home Built | 212 | December 13th 07 01:35 AM |
"British trace missile in copter strike to Iran" | Mike[_7_] | Naval Aviation | 8 | March 10th 07 08:20 PM |
"Pentagon Command Shuffle Rekindles Equity Debate" | Mike | Naval Aviation | 1 | January 26th 07 03:04 PM |