cruise missiles, EW and opining a doorway for bomber

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Zaphod58

I wonder if that slippery tech works to reduce heat from friction, increases gas mileage, make airframes go faster then their appearance would suggest?

Wonder if it works on all fluids? We left port last night there, how'd we get here by the morning so fast?

I'm sure it might be used on subs, possibly some surface craft. And maybe even hybrid submersibles/aircraft. Imagine a strike aircraft that would travel underwater to an enemy's coastline, then pop up out of the water to deliver the payload..

a reply to: clay2 baraka

Isn't that called a submarine and some stealth cruise missiles?

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Why put a large, crewed platform at risk when you can do the same job with smaller drones?

Inversely, why use aircraft for strike at all if you have submarines with cruise missiles?..

a reply to: clay2 baraka

like all the 'USO's people see down near Puerto Rico, it would seem that if an electric field of enough power or what ever the source of the plasma field is that it would glow like ufos are said to do.

a reply to: clay2 baraka

Well cruise missiles can only travel so far. So a strike aircraft might be needed to go further inland to hit targets out of range from the ocean.

Second. Drone multi-use stealth mini subs. ... Hmmmmm....


.....hmmmmm.

now those could be useful.

a reply to: penroc3
My thoughts exactly and they'd be damned fast..

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: clay2 baraka

Well cruise missiles can only travel so far. So a strike aircraft might be needed to go further inland to hit targets out of range from the ocean.

Second. Drone multi-use stealth mini subs. ... Hmmmmm....


.....hmmmmm.

now those could be useful.

Why not use the ocean as cover for the strike drones?

a reply to: clay2 baraka

Cruise missiles, as they exist now, are slow. Even the stealthy ones. The Tomahawk has a nice range to it, and some of the others have a good range as well, but the drawback is that once launched at a target, they can only evade so much, and only as much as their program allows.

They go in low, to try to avoid radar, which means that a gun system that they didn't know was there at launch could bring them down. An aircraft, with a man in the cockpit can detect and dodge pop up antiair systems the way missiles can't.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: clay2 baraka

Cruise missiles, as they exist now, are slow. Even the stealthy ones. The Tomahawk has a nice range to it, and some of the others have a good range as well, but the drawback is that once launched at a target, they can only evade so much, and only as much as their program allows.

They go in low, to try to avoid radar, which means that a gun system that they didn't know was there at launch could bring them down. An aircraft, with a man in the cockpit can detect and dodge pop up antiair systems the way missiles can't.

Cruise missiles are almost 100 year old technology. Strange that we haven't developed something better?..

a reply to: clay2 baraka

hmmmmmmm


see post above. Cruise missiles are cruise missiles. Other things can do the job just as well. But go back to the drone mini sub thing again?

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: Zaphod58


i heard in Iraq they had a cruise missile that dropped some sort of metallic threads so to speak that disrupted all the power in the city, is that true?

also couldn't you use a DOPLAR type system to see the air disturbances in the wake of an air craft if said aircraft was invisible to radar, if you could track the disturbance in the air why not just aim at that and in the terminal phase of the SAM's flight just use IR or a proximity fuse?

You have to remember that whereas stealth aircraft have a smaller radar signature and closer detection ranges, they are still not invisible.

As for your first question, that is how things are usually done. CM for C&C, AAA, AAM, radar site strikes, to clear the path followed by escorted bombers/strike aircraft with escorts with anti-air capability and/or anti air to ground capability (think the old "Wild Weasel" mission.)

As for the Doppler question, in my old squadron before I changed career paths, we were some of the first with synthetic aperture radar systems on aircraft. Cool stuff.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: clay2 baraka

Cruise missiles, as they exist now, are slow. Even the stealthy ones. The Tomahawk has a nice range to it, and some of the others have a good range as well, but the drawback is that once launched at a target, they can only evade so much, and only as much as their program allows.

They go in low, to try to avoid radar, which means that a gun system that they didn't know was there at launch could bring them down. An aircraft, with a man in the cockpit can detect and dodge pop up antiair systems the way missiles can't.

Also consider that with the terrain conture matching navigation systems, if the terrain changes say, from blowing the crap out of it, the accuracy can be degraded. This happened in the first gulf war, IIR.

a reply to: clay2 baraka

They work, and they work well so why not keep using them. They've been refined to the point that the current cruise missile is nothing like the cruise missile of even Vietnam, but it's incredibly effective. The Tomahawk Block IV allows for retargeting on the fly.

originally posted by: clay2 baraka

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Zaphod58

I wonder if that slippery tech works to reduce heat from friction, increases gas mileage, make airframes go faster then their appearance would suggest?

Wonder if it works on all fluids? We left port last night there, how'd we get here by the morning so fast?

I'm sure it might be used on subs, possibly some surface craft. And maybe even hybrid submersibles/aircraft. Imagine a strike aircraft that would travel underwater to an enemy's coastline, then pop up out of the water to deliver the payload..

I'd have my doubts that plasma stealth would work underwater with the different thermodynamics involved and the solutes in seawater. They've been working on a similar thing using "bubbles" for lack of a better word. "Cavitation" is where the tips of a fast moving propeller cause such a low pressure region that a layer of bubbles are created along the blade. If this is excessive, the propeller loses efficiency and creates a hell of a lot of noise when the bubbles collapse. They term what they have been working on "super cavitation" and the USN is right now doing good work w. GDEB on “Underwater Express”, a 100-knot manned minisub which would give a “really quick and sonar-deafening getaway vehicle” for SEALs near the beach/surf zone.

The process uses rocket propulsion to get the underwater hull/vehicle going fast enough to create a partial-vacuum bubble around itself, eliminating water flow resistance against hull (but not the need to push water around and away from the bow/tip). Rocket engine burning fuel provides thrust allowing very high speed (200 to 300 knots for a sharp-tipped torpedo) not possible using a traditional rotating water screw (as in Ohio class) or pump-jet turbine (as in Virginia class).


The Russians developed a super cavitating 100kt torpedo a while back and so did the US, but we decided to stick with the Mk 48 at the time.

a reply to: NavyDoc

super cavitation, i think the russians have/had a torpedo that used the exhaust gas and used some of the exhaust gasses out the tip to essentially fly in its own bubble threw the water

do they still use wild weasels? when i was an eagle scout i got a tour of a air force/navy bases and saw a few f-4s. what was the side by side carrier based EW

a reply to: penroc3

Yes and no. They have F-16s that perform the mission, but they're not dedicated Weasels like in the past. They still have some of the same sensors, and same weapons, but no backseater, and are missing some of the detection gear. The Navy flies the EA-18 Growler, and EA-6B Prowler that has extra crew members on board, but they mostly use jamming instead of the active hunting the Weasels used to do. They hunt some, but not to the extent that the Raven and Weasel used to.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Zaphod58

I wonder if that slippery tech works to reduce heat from friction, increases gas mileage, make airframes go faster then their appearance would suggest?

Wonder if it works on all fluids? We left port last night there, how'd we get here by the morning so fast?

I wouldn't think it's directly applicable.

Seawater is much more conductive and denser than air. If you just tried to induce a charge separation you'd get only ohmic heating as the current flows to cancel the potential difference. Also, I wonder how much of the drag on a sub is frictional and how much is the necessity to push through pressure---the second can't be ameliorated.

Also, magnetism is a known detection technology to look for submarines, so making excess externally visible electric currents could be bad. (Can the motor currents of diesel-electrics be tracked?)

Finally, nuclear submarines' missions are hardly limited by fuel, unlike aircraft.

a reply to: mbkennel

I was thinking more in terms of surface ships. And only on certain parts of the below water hull & keel. A way to improve mileage or speed

But really what I was getting at was the Drone mini submarine concept and not at all plasma tech. That was the part of his post that triggered my interest.

Also, wouldn't electro magnetic detection equipment work on the planes using plasma stealth. Wouldn't that be detectable from orbit. Heard some interesting things regarding ways to make the hull of ships slippery without the use of bubbles. They were alluding to some sort of electrical method. But I don't know physics. That's you're specialty. can you think of any electrical methodology to decrease drag on a ship in the water? Said it gives higher cruising speed, without the engines having to use more energy.

a reply to: NavyDoc sars on the f4/phantoms? quite a while back