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

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On May 10, 12:23 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:
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.

I'm well acquainted with PROBABILITY. This is why you do
"shoot-look-shoot" - and suddenly your threatening track now only has a
4% chance of surviving. (And this assumes that you only have time for
one follow up) Note that any soft-kill countermeasures still get to play
with the surviving threat seekers.

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.

Which is a weak link in the chain. Hit that and the system collapses
before the birds fly...

Weapons are part of a system, not isolated items.

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% ??? :-).

Because you're reading it wrong?

--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On May 10, 1:31 pm, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:
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.

Only six of which are emitting and manoeuvering. The problem with making
decoys Really Convincing is that they end up as expensive as the
platform they're meant to be protecting...

The trouble is, a reusable ship can host a lot more sensor output and
processing power than a one-shot missile and its expendable decoys,
which makes discrimination that much easier. Or you throw a lot of money
at your decoys... at which point you're no longer launching a cheap missile.
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.

No, it doesn't. It spreads the cost more thinly across more platforms,
but you don't get cheaper development from a longer run. The development
cost is what it takes: if it costs ten billion dollars to design the
system, then you need to produce ten thousand missiles to get the
per-unit development cost down below a million apiece - even before you
worry about any manufacturing and material costs. Halve the run and you
make each weapon appear to cost more - but the development costs don't
get any bigger, just the share heaped on each unit.

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.

Which requires realistic assumptions going in, rather than simply giving
Red implausible capabilities and unrealistic budgets.

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.

What if the real-time update is spoofed?

What if the "one" missile is shot down by a SM-3 while still outside the
atmosphere?

Please keep those goalposts in one place. Are the enemy firing massive
salvoes to saturate wide areas, or targeting precisely and firing aimed
singles?

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?

In what weather?

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.

My mobile phone has a five-megapixel camera built into it and that's now
routine rather than exciting. But that particular handset sold its
millionth unit (just in the UK) six months after it launched.

Military hardware lags because civilian kit is where the sales and the
profits are.

--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
...
On May 10, 12:23 pm, "Keith Willshaw"

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.

No it didnt, Sputnik was not recoverable and the dog Laika died in space

You should aquaint
yourself with that simple program.


Pot Kettle Black

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.


You do know that Mr Adam worked for a guided weapons manufacturer
dont you ?

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.


No I just recalled the VLS silo on a Tico and the fact that it can
salvo missiles at multiple targets. They practise against supersonic
manoeuvering targets, your missile is a turkey shoot.

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.


You dont know much about real time racking do you ?

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


Ho Ho


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


Because you are pretty ignorant about these devices. The Nokia 5800
uses an Arm 11 32 bit processor has inbuilt GPS , WLAN networking
full video capabilities and oh yes you can make phone calls on it too.

The Arm 11 range of processors can deliver up to 2600 Mips Dhrystone

The F-22 is reported to use a Hughes processor that is essentially
a militarised Intel i960, a CPU dropped from the civilian market a
decade ago.

Keith

On May 10, 4:24 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in ...

On May 10, 12:23 pm, "Keith Willshaw"

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.

No it didnt, Sputnik was not recoverable and the dog Laika died in space

And the other 24 dog missions ?
Please aquaint and get back to us.
Ken
[...]

On May 10, 3:42 pm, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On May 10, 12:23 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:
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.

I'm well acquainted with PROBABILITY. This is why you do
"shoot-look-shoot" - and suddenly your threatening track now only has a
4% chance of surviving. (And this assumes that you only have time for
one follow up) Note that any soft-kill countermeasures still get to play
with the surviving threat seekers

Hmm, I was generous enabling the 80%.
Paul you pushed to 96%...

You (Paul & Keith) are pushin' our BS detector off scale!!!
Have either of you ever designed and fired a missile?
Ken
....

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On May 10, 3:42 pm, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:
I'm well acquainted with PROBABILITY. This is why you do
"shoot-look-shoot" - and suddenly your threatening track now only has a
4% chance of surviving. (And this assumes that you only have time for
one follow up) Note that any soft-kill countermeasures still get to play
with the surviving threat seekers

Hmm, I was generous enabling the 80%.
Paul you pushed to 96%...

Because you shoot once and get the 80% you credit us with. Then you
either do kill assessment and launch again, or you double-tap if time is
short and the protected unit valuable, and get another 80% shot. At that
point your Pk is 96%.

It's PROBABILITY, dear Ken, PROBABILITY. Reality is a little more
complicated but we're playing on your terms.

You (Paul & Keith) are pushin' our BS detector off scale!!!
Have either of you ever designed and fired a missile?

Er....

Yes.


Next question?


--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

Ken S. Tucker wrote:

On May 10, 4:24 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in ...


On May 10, 12:23 pm, "Keith Willshaw"

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.

No it didnt, Sputnik was not recoverable and the dog Laika died in space

And the other 24 dog missions ?
Please aquaint and get back to us.
Ken
[...]

Dunno, but the first Soviet canine passengers successfully returned from
orbit weren't in the 1950s.

Ken S. Tucker wrote:

On May 10, 3:42 pm, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

Ken S. Tucker wrote:

On May 10, 12:23 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:

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.

I'm well acquainted with PROBABILITY. This is why you do
"shoot-look-shoot" - and suddenly your threatening track now only has a
4% chance of surviving. (And this assumes that you only have time for
one follow up) Note that any soft-kill countermeasures still get to play
with the surviving threat seekers

Hmm, I was generous enabling the 80%.
Paul you pushed to 96%...

He said "shoot-look-shoot". If you fire two 80% missiles, you've got an
94% chance of obtaining a kill.

Do the math.

On May 10, 5:57*pm, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On May 10, 1:31 pm, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:
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.

Only six of which are emitting and manoeuvering. The problem with making
decoys Really Convincing is that they end up as expensive as the
platform they're meant to be protecting...

The trouble is, a reusable ship can host a lot more sensor output and
processing power than a one-shot missile and its expendable decoys,
which makes discrimination that much easier. Or you throw a lot of money
at your decoys... at which point you're no longer launching a cheap missile.

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.

No, it doesn't. It spreads the cost more thinly across more platforms,
but you don't get cheaper development from a longer run. The development
cost is what it takes: if it costs ten billion dollars to design the
system, then you need to produce ten thousand missiles to get the
per-unit development cost down below a million apiece - even before you
worry about any manufacturing and material costs. Halve the run and you
make each weapon appear to cost more - but the development costs don't
get any bigger, just the share heaped on each unit.

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.

Which requires realistic assumptions going in, rather than simply giving
Red implausible capabilities and unrealistic budgets.

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.

What if the real-time update is spoofed?

What if the "one" missile is shot down by a SM-3 while still outside the
atmosphere?

Please keep those goalposts in one place. Are the enemy firing massive
salvoes to saturate wide areas, or targeting precisely and firing aimed
singles?

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?

In what weather?

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.

My mobile phone has a five-megapixel camera built into it and that's now
routine rather than exciting. But that particular handset sold its
millionth unit (just in the UK) six months after it launched.

Military hardware lags because civilian kit is where the sales and the
profits are.

--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

Not to mention once design is put in place for military its pretty
much set in stone. I remember in the 80s, B-52 CTF spent a ton of
money upgrading B-52s so they could quit using vaccuum tubes. Might be
current when designed, I wouldn't be surprised if F-22 is still loaded
with electronics with 90s technology. Look at the Space Shuttle, even
when upgraded, still behind civil aviation.

Late 80s worked on the F-111 was trying to get digital flight control
system bought by USAF or RAAF. neither bought it, Cheney killed F-111
in the Peace Dividend.

One thing is its hard to retrofit an airframe with say new technology
such as fly by wire. sometimes easier to just build a new airplane.
And with F-22 designed in late 80s........

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
...
On May 10, 4:24 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
...

On May 10, 12:23 pm, "Keith Willshaw"

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.

No it didnt, Sputnik was not recoverable and the dog Laika died in space

And the other 24 dog missions ?

There were 5 Sputnik missions which carried dogs (2,5,6,9 and 10) , three of
those safely returned the dog to earth, of those only the first carrying the
dog
Laika happened in the 50's, the rest were in the 60's

Please aquaint and get back to us.

Good advice - please take it

Keith