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

On May 8, 1:30 am, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in ...



On May 7, 1:09 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
...
...
As a back-drop, 27 years ago,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet#Falklands_Conflict
(Seems like yesterday).

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

Keith, I was rather hoping the "27 years ago" might
be a hint.
...
It's a bit difficult to hide a CVN from a satellite.

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

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

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

Not much good for real time target tracking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just simple stuff. What would you use?

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

First find your fleet then target the missiles and get launch authorisation.
Oops the fleet has now moved miles from that location.

Well, it's not going to happen.

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

There goes the US nuclear deterrent
Keith

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

Maybe but the Russian boats wont
Keith

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

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
...
On May 8, 1:30 am, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
...



On May 7, 1:09 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
...
...
As a back-drop, 27 years ago,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet#Falklands_Conflict
(Seems like yesterday).

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

Keith, I was rather hoping the "27 years ago" might
be a hint.
...
It's a bit difficult to hide a CVN from a satellite.

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

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

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

Not much good for real time target tracking

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


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

snip


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

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

Just simple stuff. What would you use?


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

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

Keith

On May 10, 4:13 am, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in ...



On May 8, 1:30 am, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
...

On May 7, 1:09 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
...
...
As a back-drop, 27 years ago,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet#Falklands_Conflict
(Seems like yesterday).

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

Keith, I was rather hoping the "27 years ago" might
be a hint.
...
It's a bit difficult to hide a CVN from a satellite.

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

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

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

Not much good for real time target tracking

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

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

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

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

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

Just simple stuff. What would you use?

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

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

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

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

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

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
snip

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


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

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

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 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.

Paul J. Adam wrote:

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

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


SMH

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.

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