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 |
#191
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
|
#193
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
"Mark Bradford" wrote in message ... wrote in message ups.com... What makes you think UAVs are restricted to props for propulsion? Pain Can you give a cite for a ramjet model? Also, could you please cite a role for a ramjet powered UAV (other than a harpoon/tomahawk - I suppose they could be considered UAVs). Ramjet - D21 :-) The original question was about non-prop power, however. Most of the large UAV's are jets. Like GlobalHawk. The small and medium sized ones are prop driven. |
#194
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
Fred J. McCall wrote: wrote: : :Fred J. McCall wrote: : wrote: [snip] : But you're now turning them from small, light, hard to detect, : relatively cheap platforms into being large, complex, and expensive. :no, no, no, that would be the american route (see Global Hawk and its rice). And its capabilities. you don't need Global Hawk capabilities. Not even Predator. :You don't need it bulletproof. The drone's sting should just have a :reasonable probability to cause damage so that the pilots will have to :be cautious and stay afar And you won't do that on the cheap. Sorry, but within 1000feet is really close. You can get by with much coarser angular resolution then for targetting something 30km away. Not to say about power requirements...(and size). Radically different (and much cheaper) approaches then what is currently used in fighters/UAVs might work well enough. come close to one drone and you might be :fine, but when doing that 10 times the chance that something goes wrong :for you is getting uncomfortably close to 1. Image that shame - "Shot :down by drone!"). Quick and dirty and cheap solutions might work :sufficiently well. "Good enough" , not "super duper". Have one of the :drone's missiles face backwards to cover rear aspect (and do erratic :maneouvers if suspecting attack, e.g. when hearing a helo or gunshots r jet engine; this would also expose side attacks to missile's :seaker). Having the drone be big enough to carry missiles, detect targets for them, and then launch them already carries you out of 'quick and dirty and cheap solutions'. Big (say half a Predator) does not make it expensive. Plastic/wood/metal is cheap. Carrying missiles is not expensive. The missile itself might be expensive, if you want to have reasonable pk (but then, you don't need that high pk and russian manpads are not that expensive...) : If you're going to go that route, just used manned aircraft. After : all, life is cheap in places like Iran. :Good pilots are scarse and cost a lot to train. Even in Iran. And :manned aircraft is not going to be cheap regardless what you do. And neither are drones of the sort you're talking about. If you want to put into it off the shelf military targetting radar or similar overkill, sure. If you do it smart ... don't be surprised. There are essentially three UAV regimes: 1) Micro-UAV - these are the tiny ones with a couple of feet of wingspan that are being discussed. These are the 'small, cheap, and slow' sort. They have a few sensors and a data link sitting on a small composite platform run by a few HP engine with a prop (frequently shrouded internal to the body). 2) Tactical UAV - these are things in the Predator size class. They mount more sensors, are more sophisticated, and quite a bit more expensive. They're large enough to carry tactical weapons but probably not large enough to carry anything like an accurate air-to-air system (good radars are large and expensive). For targetting within 1km you don't need large and expensive radar. You can build cheap in this size (I prefer size 1.5, as size 1 does not give you range/damaging payload). Metal/plastic is cheap. The expensive stuff is sensors and developing the software. With good software, you don't need that fancy sensors, especially if you are happy if it works in good visibility only. 3) Aircraft UAV - these are the big boys like Global Hawk and the Boeing X-45. They're big, sophisticated, capable, and expensive. And country like Iran/India/China does not really need them. You can't get 3) (or even 2) on a 1) budget. You can get 2) with more or less 1) sensor suite on an essentially 1) budget, especially if you are developing and producing in a country with much lover labour costs then US, and do mass production. (How many of Global Hawk/Predators have been produced? What it will do with their unit price if you make a thousand of them?) -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#195
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
wrote:
: :Fred J. McCall wrote: : wrote: : : : : :Fred J. McCall wrote: : : wrote: :[snip] : : But you're now turning them from small, light, hard to detect, : : relatively cheap platforms into being large, complex, and expensive. : :no, no, no, that would be the american route (see Global Hawk and its : rice). : : And its capabilities. : :you don't need Global Hawk capabilities. Not even Predator. You do if you plan on carrying and launching missiles. : :You don't need it bulletproof. The drone's sting should just have a : :reasonable probability to cause damage so that the pilots will have to : :be cautious and stay afar : : And you won't do that on the cheap. : :Sorry, but within 1000feet is really close. You can get by with much :coarser angular resolution then for targetting something 30km away. Not :to say about power requirements...(and size). Radically different (and :much cheaper) approaches then what is currently used in fighters/UAVs :might work well enough. You're real big on using words like 'might' and 'may'. How many weapon systems have you been involved in the design of? : come close to one drone and you might be : :fine, but when doing that 10 times the chance that something goes wrong : :for you is getting uncomfortably close to 1. Image that shame - "Shot : :down by drone!"). Quick and dirty and cheap solutions might work : :sufficiently well. "Good enough" , not "super duper". Have one of the : :drone's missiles face backwards to cover rear aspect (and do erratic : :maneouvers if suspecting attack, e.g. when hearing a helo or gunshots : r jet engine; this would also expose side attacks to missile's : :seaker). : : Having the drone be big enough to carry missiles, detect targets for : them, and then launch them already carries you out of 'quick and dirty : and cheap solutions'. : :Big (say half a Predator) does not make it expensive. :Plastic/wood/metal is cheap. Forming into actual weapons systems is not. :Carrying missiles is not expensive. But shooting them is. :The missile itself might be :expensive, if you want to have reasonable pk (but then, you don't need :that high pk and russian manpads are not that expensive...) But building them into a vehicle that can shoot them with any prayer of hitting anything is. : : If you're going to go that route, just used manned aircraft. After : : all, life is cheap in places like Iran. : :Good pilots are scarse and cost a lot to train. Even in Iran. And : :manned aircraft is not going to be cheap regardless what you do. : : And neither are drones of the sort you're talking about. : :If you want to put into it off the shelf military targetting radar or :similar overkill, sure. If you do it smart ... don't be surprised. And you have how much experience putting together systems that actually work and do things? : There are essentially three UAV regimes: : : 1) Micro-UAV - these are the tiny ones with a couple of feet of : wingspan that are being discussed. These are the 'small, cheap, and : slow' sort. They have a few sensors and a data link sitting on a : small composite platform run by a few HP engine with a prop : (frequently shrouded internal to the body). : : 2) Tactical UAV - these are things in the Predator size class. They : mount more sensors, are more sophisticated, and quite a bit more : expensive. They're large enough to carry tactical weapons but : probably not large enough to carry anything like an accurate : air-to-air system (good radars are large and expensive). : :For targetting within 1km you don't need large and expensive radar. :You can build cheap in this size (I prefer size 1.5, as size 1 does not :give you range/damaging payload). Uh, is that supposed to make sense? :Metal/plastic is cheap. The expensive stuff is sensors and developing :the software. With good software, you don't need that fancy sensors, :especially if you are happy if it works in good visibility only. You really haven't a clue. : 3) Aircraft UAV - these are the big boys like Global Hawk and the : Boeing X-45. They're big, sophisticated, capable, and expensive. : :And country like Iran/India/China does not really need them. And so they don't get the capabilities you want to claim for your 'cheap' system. It won't be shooting at anyone. : You can't get 3) (or even 2) on a 1) budget. :You can get 2) with more or less 1) sensor suite on an essentially 1) :budget, especially if you are developing and producing in a country :with much lover labour costs then US, and do mass production. But you can't shoot anyone with that 1) sensor suite. How many f Global Hawk/Predators have been produced? What it will do with their :unit price if you make a thousand of them?) Not much. -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#196
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
In message , Fred J. McCall
writes "Paul J. Adam" wrote: :In message , Fred J. McCall writes :And your source for saying that a M3M-equipped Lynx can't engage a light :aircraft or UAV is...? Gee, where did I say that, Paul? Making up yet more lies? So, we are that a helicopter can effectively engage a low slow flier, correct? :Be detailed and specific, please, you're arguing against current :doctrine. Follow along with me now. We're talking about NAVIES. You know. Folks who have something besides destroyers. Funny, I could have sworn that a couple of Her Majesty's large grey war canoes were aircraft carriers. In fact, Illustrious is out on OP AQUILA at the moment with a deckful of Harriers. http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.5330 Poor Fred - so much certainty, so few facts... :I did. You say that helicopters can't intercept slow low-flying air :contacts and have no capability against them. Ok, now try reading the words and not lying about what they say. So in fact you agree that helicopters *can* intercept slow low fliers and *do* have capability against them? What were you complaining about, then? I said "we don't use them as interceptors", which means something somewhat different. The noun 'interceptor' means just a bit more than "something that is used to intercept" when talking about aircraft. Really, Fred? A quick perusal of Joint Publication 1-02 (Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms) gives us "interceptor" as "A manned aircraft utilized for identification and/or engagement of airborne objects." Sounds like it fits the bill. :I say they can, and they do. The USN agrees enough that it's sending a :detachment to participate in that phase of NEPTUNE WARRIOR 063. : :I fear one of us must be mistaken, but I doubt it's me - I know who's :writing the exercise orders, and I doubt you do. I fear one of us is a congenital liar. It's most assuredly you. Yes, Fred, if you scream "liar" loud enough then you might eventually convince yourself. :"Intercept' implies they do something other than watch once they get out :there." writes Fred. : :So, a helicopter with a .50" door gun can only watch the UAV, according :to Fred. : :Not a _universally_ shared opinion, but there you go. So, Paul thinks that 'interceptor' means 'helicopter'. How low the Empire has sunk when that's true. If you send a helicopter to investigate a low slow flyer, is it not "a manned aircraft utilized for identification and/or engagement of airborne objects"? According to the US DoD, that's an 'interceptor', but Fred doesn't believe them. :"Intercept' implies they do something other than watch once they get out :there." writes Fred. Where, in that statement, is any acceptance of a :capability against the slow low flyer? : :Is Fred grossly dishonest, or just terribly confused? I'll simply note that Paul has to go find things out of context to insert rather than simply leaving the original quotes and context in. Fred can't cope with his own words, it seems. Is Paul a liar, or ... well, that seems to be the only possibility, doesn't it? Or, perhaps, Paul is right and Fred has to keep screaming "liar!" because he's been caught - yet again - making grossly incorrect statements. :So, is the USN sending helicopters to exercise against "slow low fliers" roof that it's impossible? : :I'm curious. You insist it can't be done and it's not possible and the :aircraft have no capability... and yet on every detail you turn out to :be wrong. Yes, you ARE curious. Most curious is why you are so driven to misconstrue and lie. Is your life THAT dull again these days, Paul? Amusing evasion, Fred. How does the USN HELDET participation in NW063's "slow low-flyer" phase prove me a liar? :Ain't teamwork great? Isn't it useful that not everyone in the :US is as blinkered, arrogant, ignorant and dishonest as Fred? Isn't it useful that not everyone in the UK is the congenital liar that Paul is? When Fred calls you a liar, rejoice - it means he's really out on his facts and knows it. :Remember the origin of the discussion, Fred - "helicopters don't :intercept air targets". Put it back in context again, Paul. What you claim as "the origin of the discussion" isn't. Of course, why would anyone be surprised that you'd lie about that? Answer the question, Fred - can helicopters intercept slow low-flyers or not? Oh, wait, you did. Have you changed your mind? :Like, shooting at small slow ~100kt prop-driven aircraft? Those were the :targets for the TuF. So your logic runs that since there was once a gun intended for this that all guns from then on are? No, Fred - what were you saying about liars? Isn't it a terrible thing to make up false opinions and attribute them to someone? And is not "tu quoque" a despicable loser's tactic? Gee, Britain must be building all those tanks just to bust trench lines then. No - times changed. The .50" stopped being a useful weapon against front-line combat aircraft (and tanks) a long time ago - but it remains effective against low slow fliers (which, oddly enough, are the targets under discussion here) among many other targets: hence its widespread retention and use. Some of us understand these complicated things. Other people, evidently, don't... :The UAVs of concern are small 100kt prop jobs. : :Poor Fred, so fixated on being right, so determined that he can never be :wrong... Paul, this is the sort of remark people have been making for 20 years in an effort to 'win' Usenet fights they pick. And how do I "win a fight" with you, Fred? You'll never admit to being wrong, you'll lie and evade and insult until Hell freezes over rather than ever concede the least error. It's amusing to steer you through your predictable pattern of behaviour, that's all. :You claimed helicopters can't intercept slow low flying air contacts. I made no such claim. You're lying again. "So, Paul thinks that 'interceptor' means 'helicopter'. How low the Empire has sunk when that's true." writes Fred. Perhaps this is actually meant to be an acceptance of Fred's error, wrapped in one of his petty Anglophobic rants? It doesn't exactly scream "yes, I agree, helicopters *can* intercept low slow fliers". But perhaps there's context and meaning hidden there that is too subtle for non-Fred life forms to comprehend. Shall we try a straight question? Earlier, I asked Fred "So, Fred, do naval helicopters intercept some types of aerial category or not?" Fred replies, "No, they do not." Now, Fred denies his denial. Is Fred dishonest or just confused? :You claimed that helicopters can't carry weapons effective against slow :low-flying air contacts. I made no such claim. You're lying again. Fred goes on to tell us "'Intercept' implies they do something other than watch once they get out there." (Actually, to "intercept" is defined as identification and / or engagement, but let's not trouble Fred with more facts than his closed little mind can handle) So to Fred, claiming that helicopters have no ability to engage the target, means they carry effective weapons. Strange logic, but that's Fred for you. :I pointed out that they can and they do. Are you starting to see a pattern here, Paul? Certainly am - every time you call me a liar, it's because I've caught you in an error, and rather than just shrug and say "live and learn" you have to scream "liar!". :And so it goes... every time Fred makes a claim that turns out to be :bold, sweeping and wrong, his reaction is to escalate the pitch of his :"liar!" whine. He never learns, he never reconsiders, he can only accuse :anyone who disagrees with him of lying. Pathetic lowest form of Usenet life, Paul. Well, that is *such* a factual riposte that I'm just floored, Fred. :Which would you prefer, Fred? You love to scream "liar", how do you want :your chance to prove it? Already proven. See above. You've repeatedly claimed I've said things I never said based on your own pathetic misinterpretations. Sorry, Fred, but you're condemned from your own mouth. Unless "No, they do not" means "yes" to you, that is... -- Paul J. Adam |
#197
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
|
#198
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
|
#199
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
I think you are ignoring the direction of COTS technology. For many
years there has been a software suite PVM (Parallel Virtual Machine). This effectively binds together a number of processors together and runs a single program. In Java you program in threads. Each thread can be run independently. The PVM system has the task of deciding which machine should run the thread. Witth UAVs what you do is this - You have a number of processes associated with actually flying the airplane, preprocessing of the sensor suite and firing of the machine gun which are confined to a specific processor - the local on board processor, and other threads concerned with the deeper stategy that will run on any processor. PVM decides which processor to use on the basis of how occupied the processors are and the rate of data transmission possible. The programmer does not have to know the details of how resources are allocated. You hould really not be thinking about knowledge of aircraft position to each other, you should be thinking about a Java program and threads. In Javas I can say class aircraft{ double xpos,ypos,zpos;//Positions. double vx,vy,vz;//Velocities; ...... }; I can say in my main module. int nfriend,nhostile;//Number of aircraft aircraft *friend, *hostile; The threads will constantly be updating this. You will have a thread called "dogfight" which will work out strategy. The prograamer need not know how the data is transmitted. The software to do this is around. |
#200
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
wrote in message
... In article Ad6gg.5190$771.1108@edtnps89, (Ken Chaddock) wrote: The predominantly wooden deHavilland Mosquito was one of the first aircraft to be designed with this capability in mind. Against World War II radar systems, that approach was fairly successful, but it would not be appropriate today. I think stealth came way down the list when the Mosquito was designed, especially as radar was so secret those days. Design of the Mosquito started in 1938 when German Radar was unknown. It was more likely wood was adopted because De Haviland had far more experience with that material than metal. IIRC the DH4 had a monocoque fuselage. My grandfather was the engineer in the RAE's timber mechanics laboratory in Bucks in the 30s and early 40s. AIUI, the idea of low observability just wasn't a factor considered when he did the tests on de Havilland's plywood aircraft construction to prove the concept for combat aircraft. What was important was durability and structural integrity after aerobatic stress or battle damage. If you look up the research in the archives you'll find much of it associated with C.J. Chaplin, M.Sc. -- Andrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GAO: Electronic Warfa Comprehensive Strategy Needed for Suppressing Enemy | Mike | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 27th 05 06:23 PM |
CRS: V-22 Osprey Tilt-Rotor Aircraft | Mike | Naval Aviation | 0 | October 14th 05 08:14 PM |
Air defense (naval and air force) | Mike | Military Aviation | 0 | September 18th 04 04:42 PM |
Naval air defense | Mike | Naval Aviation | 0 | September 18th 04 04:42 PM |
Showstoppers (long, but interesting questions raised) | Anonymous Spamless | Military Aviation | 0 | April 21st 04 05:09 AM |