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 |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
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. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
"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 |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
"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 |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
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. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
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 |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
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. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
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 |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
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 |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
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. |
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 |