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.

 

F-22 "Black-out button"

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by masonwatcher
reply to post by TXMACHINEGUNDLR
 


Great! So now the next advance in missiles will a tandem pair. You send up at the F22, when it jinks and side steps the first it will met by the following missile.

Easier to put the pilot in a coma in the aircraft and let a robot fly it at 15+ G indefinitely.


I have a sneaking suspicion that the next fullscale engagement between two world powers will see something only whispered about thus far - nuclear tipped surface to air missiles.

Sod trying to hit the aircraft, just get within 3 or 4 kilometers of it and detonate a 1 kiloton nuke - that aircraft is history.

I have no doubt that nuclear tipped SAMs are already in several countries arsenals.




posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by TXMACHINEGUNDLR
 


I guess I misunderstood the meaning here. I thought the selectable safety feature known as a "black out switch" or "black out button", was/is a button that is engaged while your hands are on the controls. If the pilot faints, blacks out, etc, their hands would fall off the controls and the switch or button would be released and the craft would level off in auto pilot with a constant annoying beep, beep noise until the pilot regained consciousness and resumed control of the aircraft. Not the definition that if selected, the aircraft would make some sort of fancy evasive maneuver in auto pilot. At least that was my understanding, but admittedly, I have never touched an F-22 or even seen one up close.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by TXMACHINEGUNDLR
 

that's funny as Hell & even more: antiaircraft missiles can maneuver too + missile doesn't need to hit target directly: cloud of metallic balls makes its task w\o mercy



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice

Originally posted by masonwatcher
reply to post by TXMACHINEGUNDLR
 


Great! So now the next advance in missiles will a tandem pair. You send up at the F22, when it jinks and side steps the first it will met by the following missile.

Easier to put the pilot in a coma in the aircraft and let a robot fly it at 15+ G indefinitely.


I have a sneaking suspicion that the next fullscale engagement between two world powers will see something only whispered about thus far - nuclear tipped surface to air missiles.

Sod trying to hit the aircraft, just get within 3 or 4 kilometers of it and detonate a 1 kiloton nuke - that aircraft is history.

I have no doubt that nuclear tipped SAMs are already in several countries arsenals.


Not sure when you get your information. Thats not something "whispered" about, SAMs with nuclear warheads were common at one time. It dates from the 1950s with the Bomarc and the Nike missiles. And then there were missiles to protect ICBM fields, the Spartan and Sprint missiles.

But all those have been retired, and I doubt either side has any SAMs with nuclear warheads.

edit on 20-11-2010 by firepilot because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-11-2010 by firepilot because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 05:35 AM
link   
The primary problem I see with this concept is in the idea that you can "u-turn" and evade a missile. It's a concept that a lot of people have trouble with - a missile, in their mind, attempts to follow you - therefor, "looping" or pulling a tight-turn should make it so that the missile loses track of the target or simply cannot make the maneuver.

Missiles, however, are ballistic interceptors - a key difference from something that attempts to follow you. A missile is a sort of bullet (only bigger and faster) that can adjust its trajectory. Rapid changes of direction are only useful when the missile is in very close proximity (an already dangerous situation) - if done too soon, the missile will simply adjust its trajectory by a few degrees and make its intercept. If done too late, you will get caught in the blast-cone of the fragmentary warhead.

This is why the general strategy to evading a missile is to turn 180 from its source and climb (in BVR). Missiles have a far more limited supply of fuel than you do, and will simply lose in a contest of who can climb higher and fly longer. Another strategy would be to fly perpendicular to the interception arc and come around 180 about halfway through intercept, forcing the missile to change its ballistic trajectory unfavorably (and bleed velocity through drag losses involved in changing direction).

Of course, you are rarely ever dealing with only one missile fired at you (there is almost always going to be a second missile fired between five and fifteen seconds off of the first, depending upon the ranges involved) - the best option is simply to fly out of range.

Granted, it is difficult to destroy a target that shoots at you if run away every time it does - but I am merely discussing the best way to preserve your aircraft. Strikes against air defense networks require tact and coordination along with calculated risk.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 05:42 AM
link   
Having had experience of flying frontline jets the only thing I can now see as the 'next' evolution is the REMOVAL of the human pilot. I know we have RPV's flying currently but I do think the next generation of fighter aircraft will be computer or remotely driven.... The end is nigh for the 'organic' part of the jet.....

Regards

PurpleDOG UK



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 




This is why the general strategy to evading a missile is to turn 180 from its source and climb (in BVR).

how can you evade bvr, if craft is being tracked by landed radar? + maneuvering reduces speed.

reply to post by PurpleDog UK
 



I can now see as the 'next' evolution is the REMOVAL of the human pilot. I know we have RPV's flying currently but I do think the next generation of fighter aircraft will be computer or remotely driven...

remote driven vehicle is pure joke on the real battlefield because it can be well-detected even with passive(receiving) radar
workable solutions to unmanned fight systems are too far from reality.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   
that sounds like a neat idea until the missile redirects and re-tracks the plane with a now unconscious pilot...



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by SarK0Y
 



how can you evade bvr, if craft is being tracked by landed radar? + maneuvering reduces speed.


They can track you by radar all they want. A missile that cannot reach its target is a missile that cannot reach its target. While maneuvering does reduce speed, reducing speed when you are, generally, flying towards a missile, is better than continuing to fly towards it.

I would get into paint and draw some arrows and lines to demonstrate, but I'm pressed for time at the moment. I've tried to locate some sites detailing defensive maneuvers - but I seem to be using the wrong keywords.

pdf.aiaa.org...

www.dtic.mil...

Two related resources.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 




While maneuvering does reduce speed, reducing speed when you are, generally, flying towards a missile, is better than continuing to fly towards it.

Amicus, we have not any troubles to calculate good tricks to evade missile -- it's Matter of Fact, but real problem to get working machine is capable of those tricks. + let's get in real, no only one missile launches for one target, but group & that group leads to another strategy:
1. space of possible tricks is divided into segments.
2. each of missiles serves for own segment.
3. clouds of metallic balls has minimal dense.
-------------
in short, to escape from one means to meet another.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by SarK0Y
 


I'm not quite following your way of wording things at all...

Generally speaking - it is rare that you will be having to evade missiles on completely opposite courses - whether air launched or ground launched. Since we have been primarily discussing air-launched missiles, it would be highly unlikely to be dealing with launches that are 180 degrees apart due to the chances of missiles tracking a friendly target and the impracticality in 'surrounding' a target with nominal BVR ranges.

About the most you are going to get is 90-100 degrees.

Most missiles will be fired between 60 and 75% of their effective engagement envelope. The best strategy is to simply climb and max out your dry throttle - select zone five if you see it necessary. The missiles will soon run out of energy and fall helplessly to the ground.

Use of countermeasures and defensive maneuvers is something that should only be done when necessary. Letting the enemy waste missiles that will never be able to score a hit is preferable to giving those missiles a chance to hit.

When you are unable to simply run away from a missile - the best strategy is often to put it on your beam (90 degrees off the nose). Pop countermeasures and turn into the path of the missile when it goes terminal. You want to break contact with its seeker while removing yourself from its trajectory.

There are some strategies detailed in a paper: oai.dtic.mil...

However, the paper is not available online and requires contacting this Defense Technical Information Center. It is approved for public release.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 

mostly, i have a curiosity of landed(surface-to-air) antiaircraft missiles & i mentioned possible strategy of them to prey upon crafts. indeed, air-to-air missiles ain't so effective as it has been advertised.

edit on 22-11-2010 by SarK0Y because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 01:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Naboo the Enigma

This was enough for me.

->They know that in the process he’ll temporarily lose consciousness

So really it should be the "Black out and wake up Dead button".

since while unconscious he or she wont be able to eject from the three other missiles about to slam into the plane.



posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 01:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Naboo the Enigma
all modern air forces have AAMs capable of splatting a Raptor: they can travel much faster and don't have to worry about G whatsoever. Air combat manouvres do not defeat misssiles, counter measures do.


Very true, an AIM 9 or AIM 120 can both pull 40+g's.... so a plane pulling 15 is nothing to one of them.

As for g's in a missile, the Sprint accelerated at 100g's, and that was in the 1970's.
edit on 27-4-2015 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 03:33 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

A resurrected 2008 thread about a fictional button (or at least it's fictional 180 deg turn 15g use).

I was thinking that if it does have a BOB it's more likely to instantly turn off all sources of detection, although I would imagine it's better to turn off systems one by one rather than with a button marked "BOB".



posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 03:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Forensick
a reply to: hellobruce

A resurrected 2008 thread about a fictional button


Damn.... Note to self: Always check dates before replying to see how old thread is!
edit on 27-4-2015 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 03:48 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

my fault. I was told to read it as how great the f22 is against aa missiles in another thread.
edit on 27-4-2015 by mSparks43 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 06:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Forensick

Far as I know the F22 is a Raptor not a Raven.

Only this, and nothing more



posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 06:41 AM
link   
Certainly would not be hard to design and implement such a feature with computers, fly by wire, autopilot etc...in fact you could make it fly and land at home. A step further you could program it to engage the enemy without pilot assistance.

Would have to worry about friendly fire though just in case radar and IFF can't distinguish what its detecting and engaging. Would not have a human brain to decide.

Imagine a missile designed around a 20mm or other gun at how fast stealthy it would be. Single one could take down multiple enemy and when out of ammo blow up its last target. Might even make these to take on ICMB or other missiles
edit on 27-4-2015 by Xeven because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Xeven

Years ago I used to be a systems analyst with a company that supplied "closed loop" technology for the military.
The missiles that the F22 was being designed to evade were able to monitor the target and repeatedly update the position of the center of mass. Its roughly the same principle as keeping a laser on the correct audio track.

Key was that an F22 doesn't move very far in a millionth of a second so the missile doesn't need to pull as many G's.

Been out to Nellis AFB lately?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join