It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

There will be no dominance on F-22

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 11:04 PM
link   
[edit on 3-1-2007 by Oplot84]




posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 10:31 AM
link   
I don't think the United States has to worry about Russia ever gaining a technological advantage over us any time soon. Their society and culture as a whole is one to just mock and copy existing ones and to never have anything significant to call their own.

Money is the biggest factor here.

Russia has subs rotting in the subyard and other issues. Nothing more than a pipe-dream.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
Their society and culture as a whole is one to just mock and copy existing ones and to never have anything significant to call their own.


Yeah... and they all walk around in grey trenchcoats with big cossack hats calling each other comrade.



Christ, sometimes I wonder how some people don't die through lack of oxygen by not being told to breath



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Yeah... and they all walk around in grey trenchcoats with big cossack hats calling each other comrade.



Christ, sometimes I wonder how some people don't die through lack of oxygen by not being told to breath


Haha, but like I said, financial support is a key issue here, I'm sure if they had the funding like United States had for their military they'd be quite the adversary so to speak.

Comrade.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
Haha, but like I said, financial support is a key issue here, I'm sure if they had the funding like United States had for their military they'd be quite the adversary so to speak.

Comrade.



I suggest you check out their (Russia's) economic growth.


Like here: Worldbank



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   
That report doesn't shed enough light on the reality of the situation in Russia right now.

People are suffering a lot in a country destroyed by the United States.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 02:18 PM
link   
I just read something interesting, that china is comming up with a"radar system" that might detect stealth aircraft.

the way stealth aircraft works is this:
Use special material combine with special shape.
infact, a conventional aircraft using composite materials alone will still leave trace to powerful radars, therefore a special edgy layout must then be used to redirect the left over signals, to different directions.

the way this "radar system" works is like this:
all aircraft in this system can pick up eachothers radar signals, and are linked to eachother

the signal sent to a stealth aircraft might be redirected to a different direction, so the original sender doesn't pick up the signal.
but in this radar system, as long as there is a friend aircraft in that direction, it can pick up this signal, and then the location of the stealth aircraft will be spotted, and this information will be sent to all the aircraft within the the radar system

so it doesnt matter who has sent the signal, and who has received the sigal, all aircraft will be able to spot the stealth aircraft.

PS. this radar system idea sounds like that it might work.

[edit on 1/16/2007 by warset]



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   
All basic air to ground radars can "detect" and track LO aircraft.
You also got some of the fundamentals of stealth wrong and this idea to me seems absurd and impractical, and some parts I don't quite get.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Actually the idea isn't absurd at all. It is basically a bistatic receiver system, though the only ones I've heard of are ground based, though aircraft should be the same. The concept is quite correct, stealth aircraft redirect energy away from the source transmitter, and most radars have a co-located receiver, hence why redirection works well currently. But if you could organise a system that could discretely identify the various transmissions (ie this energy came from this transmitter at this time), then you may be able to lower the stealth advantage, and at least have a vector you can send interceptors on, or cue GBAD. The practicality however is a different story, with processing and analysis capabilities still a little ways off. The celldar, PCL concept is similar.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   
He is talking about radar like the Czech Tamara radar system.


One emitter, many distributed receivers. The VLO aircraft redirect the radar away from the emitter, but if the receivers are not at the emitters....

Basically, one receiver 'gets' the aircraft, and puts it on the network.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Wouldn't you need to have a vast and intricate (thereby vulnerable) network of these receives/transmitters at all possible income areas? Also, what if the LO A/C simply does not give off enough RF energy at certain flight profiles be picked up?



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   
What, like cell phone towers?


It is still more a concept than an operational reality, but certain countries have progressed much further than others. And as kilcoo has stated previously, different wavelengths result in an increased RCS. You don't need to be able to track the stealth necessarily (though that would be nice!), but you can cue other resources. Unguided AAA couldn't give a tinker's cuss about stealth, and if you saturate a sector based on an indication that something is there, then you at least give the pilot something to chew on.

When we were in the gulf, I was having a beer with an F-117 pilot, and were talking about the AAA and SAM fire over Baghdad. He was an ex-F-16 driver, and he said the biggest thing for him was seeing the sheer volume of AAA and unguided SAMs, and had to say to himself over and over "I am invisible, they can't see me, I am invisible etc". Guess it worked!



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Indeed guess it worked but they where saturating the airspace for sure sooo either its back to luck or there ir still some advantage we aren't fully aware of. I'm sure the US knows of "china" and other countries that are playing with this un-proven tech while they still have another ace up there sleeve. I know its sounds like a chest thumping USA thing to say but its coming from a canuck who has seen things come to light while seeing "holes" in the statements that we are given that are left black.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 07:19 PM
link   
In the Gulf War F-117's had first generation PGM's (laser guided only), as such I believe they had to be quite close to the target for their LGB's to work properly. How threatening would AAA be against a target flying at 20-40K?



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Yada Yada Yada!

Go drive by Wright Patterson!

Even if we didn't develop the F-22 we are decades ahead of China, Russia, Etc.

Check it out! Where's the Beef on the Russian Plan!




posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 09:56 PM
link   

In the Gulf War F-117's had first generation PGM's (laser guided only), as such I believe they had to be quite close to the target for their LGB's to work properly. How threatening would AAA be against a target flying at 20-40K?


Anything that is shot at you (or near you) is threatening. While your level of comfort increases the more it happens, you never really get into a position where the sight of tracers or air bursts doesn't bother you. In the same way that each critical spike that shows up on your RWRs causes the heart to pound a tad quicker, even if you know you are well outside Rmax for the system.

However, in terms of pure numbers, the higher calibre AAA systems (80mm+) certainly have an ability to effectively target an aircraft from up to 30k feet, with the largest (like the KS-19) being able to effectively target above 40k feet. And these figures are effective altitudes. The round actually travels much higher than this. And if you throw enough lead into the air, and the threat aircraft has to fly through it, then it can be very effective. AAA still accounts for somewhere in the vicinity of 65-70% of all aircraft combat losses if I recall correctly.



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 02:20 AM
link   
Willard856,

>>
What, like cell phone towers?
>>

PCLS doesn't work without power. Power for a centralized transmission to each civillian= exterrnally reliant emitter. Power which, like the towers themselves, has to be fixed to geographic locations for purposes of both adequate distribution coverage and zoned city planning. Find the power, kill the power, and civillian PCLS dies like any other emitter driven system.

Anything left over is a legitimate military target and should be treated as such.

The fact of the matter is that the way you beat the idiots in their sky buggies is by acoustics and EO systems sized similarly to those of range tracking cameras.

Everyone knows it. Everyone denies it. But the fact remains true that if you can see truck sized ground targets with a 6" detector array some 20nm downrange from a Sniper or similar Gen-3 targeting pod, you can jolly well see -at least the same distance- with a 20" optical bore looking for a tennis court sized object against a clear blue sky. Such basic optical technology being available to ANYONE whereas super smart bistatic and PCL RF technology is not.

Similarly, though they actively deny it (ever since it was discovered that Edwards has a major installation) acoustic tracking works quite well. Indeed, the USAF has shut down wind farms because they didn't want to have their precious acoustic tracking system screwed up 'one hillock over' in the Nellis ranges.

Once you get beyond this believe-the-propoganda nonsense, killing airpower as a political exercise in diplomatic adventurism will become an everyday thing and we will have to win wars by accepting real losses of soldiers again. Rather than merely play them like war porn on a VCR.

>>
In the Gulf War F-117's had first generation PGM's (laser guided only), as such I believe they had to be quite close to the target for their LGB's to work properly. How threatening would AAA be against a target flying at 20-40K?
>>

Gee, whodda thunk it? I mean you have a GBU-10I which falls more or less _straight down_ on a parabola so short that the aircraft can do an laydown attack and still kill the target with less than 30`-from-vertical lookback on the overflight. And the GBU-27 which is essentially a GBU-10 tail kit with a GBU-24 front end for 'sideways instead of vertical' trajectory shaping on more or less the same parabola.

The entire F-117 effort reflects the moronic 'boys want to be heroes!' bull# of Luke Skywalker's run down the trench. Senior Trend was a waste of money and resources when it was built because NATO weather doesn't support the attack method sufficient to justify the allocation of support missions.

Particularly when a GBU-32 from a supersonic F-22 will fly out 25nm.

And a GBU-39 will do 80+.

Including HARP, there is not a flak piece in the world that can defend a terminal target on that long a slant and by the time you go 'all Ruhrish on their behinds' the cost of railroad cars worth of AAA exceeds that of the SAM based defensive alternative.

>>
Anything that is shot at you (or near you) is threatening. While your level of comfort increases the more it happens, you never really get into a position where the sight of tracers or air bursts doesn't bother you. In the same way that each critical spike that shows up on your RWRs causes the heart to pound a tad quicker, even if you know you are well outside Rmax for the system.
>>

Blah blah blah. You're /such/ a brave hewoe. Why -yes- -you- -are-.

An F-15E _subsonically_ releases a 250lb glide bomb 57nm from target and you honestly expect to sell that BS to anyone, anywhere? Mind you it's not like the USAF 'didn't know'. What with the PWW being rejected in favor of the CWW (as GBU-15) DAMN NEAR THIRTY YEARS AGO!

_Please_ QUIT. The entire pack of you. So that we can employ robots that are cheaper and better and certainly less puckered up than your stalwart souls ever dreamed of being.

>>
However, in terms of pure numbers, the higher calibre AAA systems (80mm+) certainly have an ability to effectively target an aircraft from up to 30k feet, with the largest (like the KS-19) being able to effectively target above 40k feet. And these figures are effective altitudes. The round actually travels much higher than this. And if you throw enough lead into the air, and the threat aircraft has to fly through it, then it can be very effective. AAA still accounts for somewhere in the vicinity of 65-70% of all aircraft combat losses if I recall correctly.
>>

Given the world has followed once more the U.S. 'lead' in NOT pursuing guided gun rounds as demonstrated in the ATG program down to about 40mm, this is entirely a bogus claim because to get killed by trashfire you have to /go where it lives/ and that can only happen by deliberate choice of poor sensorization and stupid delivery profile selection.

OTOH, undoubtedly some manned airpower uber alles idiot realized that the ballistic dispersion on even a lucky direct-flyover engagement is such that no high caliber round, even perfectly laid for static PK, will impact, there being just too damn many post-muzzle variables on a trans/supersonic delivery vehicle upwards of 40-50,000ft overhead.

Until you add guidance.

Then it becomes the worlds cheapest SAM in a shell case so damn huge 'even a Russian' could stuff the requisite electronics and propulsion inside.

In any case, again, 'everyone knows' that the fraud of manned airpower is sustained by not engineering the RIGHT countermeasure which is simply a target drone level technology that can FLY UP to co-altitude and SIT THERE 'preproximal or hunting' before making multiple passes on a target that cannot runaway fast enough (thanks to our procurement stupidity of subsonic ingress platforms) and indeed _will not_ 'see the tracer' until the paint-it-a-thunderbird weapon does a formation kill right next to the canopy.

Lord knows, you'd think someone on this planet would combine literacy with independent-of-U.S.-dogma cogent thought process sufficiently acute to UNDERSTAND what it means when 1991 Iraqi pilots can be induced to make multiple passes on ADM-141 /gliders/ and 'never see nothin' of a 10", 6ft, grey shape as the F-15s come in like sharks for the glory kill.

Moronicism as innocence is pathetic. Indulging stupidity for a profit is purely and criminally exploitative. Something that our coming defeat in Iraq will prove beyond a doubt as being the 'studied indifference' betrayal by our armed forces of their sacred duty to defend this nation and it's Constitution.

Thank God.

Maybe then we can get someone who can do the job at only half the level of corruption.


KPl.



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466
Willard856,

>>
What, like cell phone towers?
>>

PCLS doesn't work without power. Power for a centralized transmission to each civillian= exterrnally reliant emitter. Power which, like the towers themselves, has to be fixed to geographic locations for purposes of both adequate distribution coverage and zoned city planning. Find the power, kill the power, and civillian PCLS dies like any other emitter driven system.



As usual, I have no idea what the hell most of your post was on about (seems to me that you overly complicate your posts with jargon and sentences that could be half as long), but I do know this much:

In the UK (where I work as a Telecoms Engineer) mast towers, like the rest of the Telecom's network, has UPS backup as it is part of the Critical National Infrastructure. UPs should provide a minimum of 12hrs reserve power for whatever site it is on, probably more. One can summise that if that is the case in the UK, other countries will have similar arrangements.

If it was as simple as taking out a power station, the Telecoms network would be ludicrously exposed and not only in war time, but to simple power failures that happen daily.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 01:29 AM
link   
ch1466..
The bit about obout optical satellite assets..
Weren't they(USAF) trying out LO grade paints on the stealth a/c (F-117s I think) for day usage?
That would hamper EO tracking a bit.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Stumason,

>>
As usual, I have no idea what the hell most of your post was on about (seems to me that you overly complicate your posts with jargon and sentences that could be half as long), but I do know this much:
>>

Not so hard to understand for you to judge it's relevance though, eh?

>>
In the UK (where I work as a Telecoms Engineer) mast towers, like the rest of the Telecom's network, has UPS backup as it is part of the Critical National Infrastructure. UPs should provide a minimum of 12hrs reserve power for whatever site it is on, probably more. One can summise that if that is the case in the UK, other countries will have similar arrangements.

If it was as simple as taking out a power station, the Telecoms network would be ludicrously exposed and not only in war time, but to simple power failures that happen daily.
>>

Whoopy. At 729,000 dollars per Blk. IV Tomahawk vs. 112 million dollars per F-35 (and climbing) 153 cruise missles = 1 JSF.

I'll /give you/ half of those as freebie shoot downs. I'll assign (a ridiculously high) 50 to 2 primary power generation sites in your typical Orangeland Barbaria. That leaves me 26 left overs to plink 'key nodes' in the telecomms grid.

Baddabing!

Your wussian PCLS is forever more 'can you hear me now?' BLASTED offline in _just enough_ of the country to allow conventional jammers and VLO assets to walk in and start dropping civillian infrastructure as the 'only targets big enough' for a stupid moron fighter pilot to reliably plink.

10 days of that and your country is so ruined that the IMF bankers foreclose on your government and 'with the fat lady's last aria' the war's over, everybody tallies up their stat sheet and goes home to brag about how brave they are.

Nobody noticed or cared about these tactics in Kosovo because there was no Minute Man patriotic effect of the e-vile muzzle mutts raping women and then shooting her family right in front of a bunch of feisty Arab witnesses. No little girl on her knees 'praying' when a bullet entered the back of her skull.

CERTAINLY there was no media recording it for the worlds' entertainment.

Such is the human condition that if it comes from far enough away, 'it must be an act of god'. Such is the human condition that if it /works/ it must be moral.

Whether it's a lightning strike or a smart bomb.

As for the telecomms grid being vulnerable, I would rather say that depends on how hard you want to try. There is no emitter off limits to a small enough/precise enough bomb or CM in a _real war_.

And PCLS doesn't render you safe for either covert signal characteristics or target-size. Everybody hears the not-a-LPI carrier. Everybody SEES the damn tower.

Which means it can be hit whether through ELS backtrack. Or purchased civil engineering plans compared to Keyhole photos.

Indeed, particularly today with the GBU-39 being an 8-round wonder per tacjet, 20 F-whatevers comes up to 160 cell towers knackered for daring to play nail to the hammer.

The only way to beat a massed airpower system is with one which either puts the search mode on a throwaway kill mechanism (turbosam and the like _hunting munitions_). Or which puts a DEWS as zero time of flight 'assured kill' under the pointing control of a nation wide passive network where independent power is tied to military landline and/or directional LPI microwave networks to point the damn laser at the target airframe 'as they come' NOT 'as they fly away'. Which is effectively what all contemporary (point defense as _the point_ from which the weapons system can be cued by a local emitter/WEZ kill mechanism combinant).

And none know this better than the U.S. airpower services which is why they sit so tightly on the basics of ALO technology. Not because it's difficult. But because it's _easy_.


KPl.







 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join