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.

 

Raptor Report from Red Flag 2007/1

page: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 09:18 PM
link   


Not be as affected by? Probably. Able to overfly? Absolutely not.

I think that systems like SA-20 and SA-21 might have to wait until the F-22 is within a few miles to launch at it, but the F-22 definately cant overfly these systems. Thats what gary powers thought before he got hit.

Most tactical, mobile SAMS can hit things 10-50 miles away, and I know the raptor cant fly that high.

I hope I am interpreting you statement correctly, correct me if I'm wrong


Yep, I think you are misinterpreting. The maximum kinematic range of a system is based purely on the missile. The Target Tracking/Engagement Radar might have a substantially longer (or shorter) range, and without the radar, the system has nothing. So, for example the SA-20 with it's 100 nm+ range, might only be able to track an F-22 at say 40 nm (I'm plucking these figures people, I don't use classified ranges, I prefer not to do jail time
, and I haven't got a clue what the F-22s true figures are anyway), so straight away you can't just say that a system can hit targets at x range. You need to provide context (RCS, profile, altitude, airspeed, EA/EP, etc). That said, I think SA-20 will be subject to attack by alternative means, why risk a $125 million airframe when you don't have to?

Now, to mobile tactical SAMs, and again your thinking is flawed in saying absolutely nothing can overfly them. I can't think of any that can engage a target out at 50nm as you say for starters. Even SA-17. And for these systems, the max engagement range (again, based on missile kinematics) means the missile has bled so much energy it is actually possible to outmanoeuvre the missile in some instances. SA-2 is a perfect example, even for a heart of the envelope shot. SA-15 is a different story, and much more difficult to get tally of the missile. But for these shorter range system, targets at altitudes such as 65 000 feet, and going at Mach 1.5, mean the missile burns a shed load of energy just to get a pro nav intercept happening. Alter the geometry slightly after launch, and you can invalidate the shot entirely. At which time your ISR sensors are geo-locating the shooter, and his day is about to get real bad. Even in a Hornet there are systems that I know you can fly over without a care in the world. And other systems that you can enter the WEZ, but if you alter the geometry post launch, you still live.

As others will say with a lot more gusto than I, an unmanned platform gives you even more advantages, both in terms of the limits of manoeuvreability (about 9g for most pink things, though there are systems that can improve this slightly), but also in terms of cost benefit (losing a $10 million platform to a SAM is much more logical than losing a $125 million manned platform, not to mention the CSAR/PR cost as well). But I think there is still some work to do before the UCAV can do the full suite of roles that a manned platform can. But then, that's just me




posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Thanks for your info/time Westpoint.
Yeah I do agree with you guys that it will be hard still for the 22 to be detected in 10 years and locked onto and fired at my A2A or G2A missiles but SteveR was right in one point something will be brough up to counter the 22 but what?
I hadn't though about the possible limit on range for the "Celldar" tech either. I personally dont think that this system would work unless vastlly improved in power. that does bring up the processing power but thats only one side of many as kilco etc have all brought up.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 09:59 PM
link   
whats all this 10 year stuff?


10 years the f-22 will be old technology, the ucav's will be on the go (twice as stealthy and 3 times as fast).



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 10:29 PM
link   
WILLARD: Ahh, I see what you are saying now, and I agree completely.

St3ve: Oh bullocks. In ten years we will be arguing about PAK-FA VS J-XX and we will have the F-22B to talk about.

EDIT: Oh, and unless plasma stealth happens you arent going to get 3 times as stealthy and unless we have scramjets you wont get 3 times as fast either and unless we get quantum computing something like that isnt even on the drawing board so as I said before

Bullocks.

[edit on 27-2-2007 by BlackWidow23]



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Actually the processing power doubling bit is also kind of reached a choke point now. That area will cease to progress unless we start looking at radical new approachs like quantum or biocomputing..



Sorry, that is simply not the case.

Intel expect to produce their first 45nm parts before the end of this year (the Penryn core), both AMD and Intel have roadmaps for 32nm between 2008/2009. Both are developing new metal gates for the transistors which improve both current loss and switching speeds.

IBM has also developed DRAM to the point where it can be used for CPU cache, and they claim this effectively doubles CPU speeds immediately.


AMD are also looking to move Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) functions onto the CPU in the not too distant future (as part of the multi core designs - not all cores are the same), the advantage of this being the comparitively enourmous amounts of floating point operations (FPS) a GPU can perform (current GPUs perform around 10 times the number of FPS of the fastest CPUs).


Whatever.. The fact is the molecular boundaries are being reached and we won't have much miniturizability beyond the next decade. Not with current silicon based Xsistors.
I was referring to Moore's Law. Of course there are various interpretations but Moore himself seems to believe that once atomic levels are reached, we will have to find another approach.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
I was referring to Moore's Law. Of course there are various interpretations but Moore himself seems to believe that once atomic levels are reached, we will have to find another approach.


So was I, but it will still take a long time to reach that scale.


You are right, when that level is eventually reached, improvements are going to have to come from elsewhere - but to be honest, I think we'd have all the computing power we'll ever need by then.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 10:09 AM
link   
So is the question how fast we will reach the barrier of moores law? If thats the case there is the educated guess and then the probablity of a major break throughs that would hit that barrier earlier correct?



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316

Originally posted by Daedalus3
I was referring to Moore's Law. Of course there are various interpretations but Moore himself seems to believe that once atomic levels are reached, we will have to find another approach.


So was I, but it will still take a long time to reach that scale.


You are right, when that level is eventually reached, improvements are going to have to come from elsewhere - but to be honest, I think we'd have all the computing power we'll ever need by then.


It was a good point initially, but I think you overlooked the fact that military equipment (especially radars) just aren't upgraded frequently enough to take advantage of a huge boost in processing power. You also mentioned that intel and AMD would be moving to 32nm tech - but how many radars - airborne or otherwise have intel inside? Most military chips aren't OTS components...



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by crusader97
It was a good point initially, but I think you overlooked the fact that military equipment (especially radars) just aren't upgraded frequently enough to take advantage of a huge boost in processing power. You also mentioned that intel and AMD would be moving to 32nm tech - but how many radars - airborne or otherwise have intel inside? Most military chips aren't OTS components...



Erm... I was under the impression that x486 (or was it x386) chips had been used in military equipment before.


Anyway, if the things were designed correctly from a electronics standpoint, retrofitting of new components would be straighforward - you make it "plug and play". However, as you well know - such an approach would rob missile companies of a large revenue stream - making updates more complicated than they are.

Cynical... me.... never!!!



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316

Originally posted by crusader97
It was a good point initially, but I think you overlooked the fact that military equipment (especially radars) just aren't upgraded frequently enough to take advantage of a huge boost in processing power. You also mentioned that intel and AMD would be moving to 32nm tech - but how many radars - airborne or otherwise have intel inside? Most military chips aren't OTS components...



Erm... I was under the impression that x486 (or was it x386) chips had been used in military equipment before.


Anyway, if the things were designed correctly from a electronics standpoint, retrofitting of new components would be straighforward - you make it "plug and play". However, as you well know - such an approach would rob missile companies of a large revenue stream - making updates more complicated than they are.

Cynical... me.... never!!!


I'm sure that there's probably a few x286s still out there somewhere - most mil chips aren't OTS, but of course there are some. I agree completely on the ability to retrofit - but a contractor knows they can make a lot more money if you have to buy a complete upgrade instead of just one or two components! Besides, solid state is typically cheaper and it's all about lowest bidder.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Daedalus,

Here's some info for you (I wasn't sure how much was public knowledge, hence my lack of response thus far!). Hope this answers your question with regards to the RAAF involvement with the Aggressors. Scroll down to the heading "Aussies caught in enemy territory".

RAAF News article on Australian involvement in Red Flag



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Thanks mate.. That was a good read.



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 08:10 AM
link   
...And thanks from me also Willard as it partly helped answer my question about how the F-111's went at the event.

LEE.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join