Singapore down selects three fighters...

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 04:00:52 -0400, "John Keeney"
wrote:


"John Cook" wrote in message
.. .
In short stealth is nice but lots of other factors come into play, eg
Aircraft A is 100% invisible, but aircraft B has a 100% effective
defensive decoy system.

Who wins??

The stealth plane, because he's got a cannon and you can't
decoy ballastic rounds. ;-)

Wrong....

The guns are radar guided, and the actual projectile is explosive and
therefor has to be triggered by something spoof either and that fits
in with a 100% effective decoy system.

The only caveat is in the real world nothing is 100%..

Cheers


John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

Wrong wrong

A -laser- or, simply, colimator "guided" (in the terms of distance/track or
whatever) gun and simple ballistic (read steel, lead)round would make a nice
30 mm hole in aircraft B. It does things to high-velocity turbofan/jet
engines when it contacts turbine blades, y'know...

Unless aircraft b is invisible )))))

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA

John Cook wrote in message ...
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 04:00:52 -0400, "John Keeney"
wrote:


"John Cook" wrote in message
. ..
In short stealth is nice but lots of other factors come into play, eg
Aircraft A is 100% invisible, but aircraft B has a 100% effective
defensive decoy system.

Who wins??

The stealth plane, because he's got a cannon and you can't
decoy ballastic rounds. ;-)

Wrong....

The guns are radar guided, and the actual projectile is explosive and
therefor has to be triggered by something spoof either and that fits
in with a 100% effective decoy system.

The only caveat is in the real world nothing is 100%..

Cheers


John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

In message , John Keeney
writes
"John Cook" wrote in message
.. .
In short stealth is nice but lots of other factors come into play, eg
Aircraft A is 100% invisible, but aircraft B has a 100% effective
defensive decoy system.

Who wins??

The stealth plane, because he's got a cannon and you can't
decoy ballastic rounds. ;-)

Don't decoy the round, screw with the sight: that cannon is aimed by a
predictor system that needs target range and velocity data. Not hard at
all to have the gunsight generate the wrong pointing data. (And the
chance of a hit without a working sight is pretty minimal: not something
to bet an airframe and a mission on)

This also presupposes that you're able to get into parameters for a guns
shot... far from a given.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:16:05 +0100, Paul J. Adam wrote:
In message , John Keeney
writes
"John Cook" wrote in message
. ..
In short stealth is nice but lots of other factors come into play, eg
Aircraft A is 100% invisible, but aircraft B has a 100% effective
defensive decoy system.

Who wins??

The stealth plane, because he's got a cannon and you can't
decoy ballastic rounds. ;-)

Don't decoy the round, screw with the sight: that cannon is aimed by a
predictor system that needs target range and velocity data. Not hard at
all to have the gunsight generate the wrong pointing data.

Very, very difficult, assuming it's a passive sensor. A visual or IR
sensor can see the target -- a decoy would have to be the same size
and shape to work, at the rangres we're talking about. And the sight
could use a rangefinder to measure distance (e.g. 2 sights, one at
the ewnd of each wing, giving the parallax). This would be very
difficult to spoof.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:16:05 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , John Keeney
writes
"John Cook" wrote in message
. ..
In short stealth is nice but lots of other factors come into play, eg
Aircraft A is 100% invisible, but aircraft B has a 100% effective
defensive decoy system.

Who wins??

The stealth plane, because he's got a cannon and you can't
decoy ballastic rounds. ;-)

Don't decoy the round, screw with the sight: that cannon is aimed by a
predictor system that needs target range and velocity data. Not hard at
all to have the gunsight generate the wrong pointing data. (And the
chance of a hit without a working sight is pretty minimal: not something
to bet an airframe and a mission on)

This also presupposes that you're able to get into parameters for a guns
shot... far from a given.


And it's assuming you don't get a dual mode seeker coming after you.
One of the Standards has both semi-active radar AND IR and they'd
kicked around the idea of putting one on Sparrow. Wouldn't be too
difficult to pull of if they felt it necessary. For example say an
F-22 identifies the enemy aircraft at position X and launches an
AMRAAM equiped with an active radar / IIR seeker that looks for a
return that has both a radar return AND an image somewhat resembling
an aircraft, it seems like it would be difficult to decoy. Granted
their isn't such a missile in service to my knowledge but it wouldn't
be particularly difficult to come up with one if they felt the need.

In message , phil hunt
writes
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:16:05 +0100, Paul J. Adam news@jrwlync
h.demon.co.uk wrote:
Don't decoy the round, screw with the sight: that cannon is aimed by a
predictor system that needs target range and velocity data. Not hard at
all to have the gunsight generate the wrong pointing data.

Very, very difficult, assuming it's a passive sensor.

A passive sensor won't give you range and rate information, just bearing
(and you can get that from the pilot's eyeball). A laser rangefinder
will get you range and radial velocity, but not crossing velocity: while
you can use it to drive a gyro gunsight, that requires a tracking shot.
If you want an accurate snapshot capability (rather than spray-and-pray)
you're looking at radar.

A visual or IR
sensor can see the target -- a decoy would have to be the same size
and shape to work, at the rangres we're talking about. And the sight
could use a rangefinder to measure distance (e.g. 2 sights, one at
the ewnd of each wing, giving the parallax). This would be very
difficult to spoof.

All this for a fixed-axis, thousand-yard maximum range weapon?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In message , Scott Ferrin
writes
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:16:05 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:
This also presupposes that you're able to get into parameters for a guns
shot... far from a given.

And it's assuming you don't get a dual mode seeker coming after you.
One of the Standards has both semi-active radar AND IR and they'd
kicked around the idea of putting one on Sparrow. Wouldn't be too
difficult to pull of if they felt it necessary.

Does offer complications, however. Which sensor is in charge and which
is the backup? (It's thoroughly feasible, but has a few wrinkles in the
implementation: sensor fusion is a tricky art)

For example say an
F-22 identifies the enemy aircraft at position X and launches an
AMRAAM equiped with an active radar / IIR seeker that looks for a
return that has both a radar return AND an image somewhat resembling
an aircraft, it seems like it would be difficult to decoy.

Being done for antiship missiles at the moment; it complicates defensive
soft-kill but isn't invincible.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In article ,
Paul J. Adam wrote:
In message , Scott Ferrin

Does offer complications, however. Which sensor is in charge and which
is the backup?

Neither. Or the one which sees only a single target is in
charge.
--
Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
A boundary between the known and the unknown always exists.

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 12:34:30 +0000, Paul J. Adam wrote:
In message , phil hunt
writes
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:16:05 +0100, Paul J. Adam news@jrwlync
h.demon.co.uk wrote:
Don't decoy the round, screw with the sight: that cannon is aimed by a
predictor system that needs target range and velocity data. Not hard at
all to have the gunsight generate the wrong pointing data.

Very, very difficult, assuming it's a passive sensor.

A passive sensor won't give you range and rate information, just bearing
(and you can get that from the pilot's eyeball). A laser rangefinder
will get you range and radial velocity, but not crossing velocity:

Multiple measurements will give you this.

while
you can use it to drive a gyro gunsight, that requires a tracking shot.
If you want an accurate snapshot capability (rather than spray-and-pray)
you're looking at radar.

A visual or IR
sensor can see the target -- a decoy would have to be the same size
and shape to work, at the rangres we're talking about. And the sight
could use a rangefinder to measure distance (e.g. 2 sights, one at
the ewnd of each wing, giving the parallax). This would be very
difficult to spoof.

All this for a fixed-axis, thousand-yard maximum range weapon?

If it works, why not?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

In message , phil hunt
writes
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 12:34:30 +0000, Paul J. Adam news@jrwlyn
ch.demon.co.uk wrote:
A passive sensor won't give you range and rate information, just bearing
(and you can get that from the pilot's eyeball). A laser rangefinder
will get you range and radial velocity, but not crossing velocity:

Multiple measurements will give you this.

Sure, but this takes *time*, which you don't have by definition for a
snapshot. You can in theory use passive acoustics to track aircraft,
given enough time, but theoretical possibility hasn't translated yet
into useful application.

All this for a fixed-axis, thousand-yard maximum range weapon?

If it works, why not?

Cost, weight, and the fact that you usually die before you get to use
it?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk