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 |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
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. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
"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 |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
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 [...] |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
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 .... |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
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. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
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. |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
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. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
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........ |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
"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 |
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 |