After all our CBR talk...
Los I read about this too today in Hong Kong post. Anyone have more
information one this one?
Griffin.
----Original Message Follows----
NEW YORK (Reuters) -- China is close to fielding a revolutionary new
antiaircraft early-warning defense system that worries U.S. intelligence
analysts because it could defeat current Air Force tactics against enemy air
defences, Newsweek reported on Sunday.
The technology, which could detect U.S. stealth aircraft, including the
F-117 bomber and perhaps even the futuristic F-22 fighter, has so
alarmed the defense community that top military and industry experts have been
called to a secret meeting in December to discuss the strategic implications,
the magazine said in its December 6 issue hitting newsstands on Monday.
"Everyone is wondering about the cost of defending Taiwan" if U.S. air power
was suddenly vulnerable, Newsweek quoted an intelligence source as saying.
Current antiaircraft defenses are cued by radars that detect and track
incoming aircraft. But the radars are vulnerable because their signals can be
jammed or missiles can be launched to ride back down the radar beams and
destroy the transmitters.
Newsweek said China's new Passive Coherent Location (PCL) system tracked the
signals of civilian radio and television broadcasts and picked up aircraft by
analysing the minute turbulence their flight caused in the commercial
wavelengths.
Because PCL does not transmit, its receivers cannot be detected and jammed or
destroyed. The magazine said Lockheed Martin had developed a similar
Silent Sentry system that it was trying to sell for low-cost air defense
or air traffic control.
> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999, Los wrote:
> After all our CBR talk...
Just because the chinese have a slightly more effective system at detecting
air craft, doesn''t mean its going to make the whole force vulnerable. It was
never invulnerable. Stealth reduces the ability to detect a target. It doesn't
make it invisible. The news heads are too focused on the black or white
concept of stealth. Its not
Visible/invisible. Its shades of grey. I also wonder how effective it
really is on the battle field.
Add to that, how are you going to keep all those radio stations operating?
During Desert storm anythings till capable of transmitting after we hit their
power grid got whacked by ARMs. If it came back up, it got whacked with an
even bigger stick. Besides, something with that big an ability to see based on
ambient signals is going to be seen by intel and nailed by a cruise missle or
several 2000lb LGBs.
> Ryan wrote:
The Chinese are cunning, using Western Media against Western Stealth.
Effectively passive EM imaging.
How effective where the first artillery pieces? The first tanks? Or the first
fighter planes? If it works a way will be found to improve it. Also if it
works on ANY transmission waves how are you going to shut them all down
including allies and neutrals in fact it would probably be even more effective
at night which is the time stealth is most usefull.
I gotta laugh...we accept FTL travel almost as a domestic given in the GZG
world yet argue over EM activity on a populated world?
If a country in the 90's has this (alleged) capability now, then the CBR
capability we're talking about isn't that far away....
Cheers,
Owen
> -----Original Message-----
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
> Just because the chinese have a slightly more effective system at
Having watched missile batteries tracking F117s I don't think stealth is that
much use on the battlefield. Where it currently appears to be most useful is
for strikes into enemy areas if the enemy aren't that technologically
advanced.
---
It doesn't surprise me at all. The theory behind multi-faceted stealth
design (aka stealth fighter, F 117) was developed by a Russian mathematician.
The Soviet military rejected it because it would be easy to develop ways to
detect it. One of the methods suggested was by the difference in background
clutter from where the stealth aircraft is. The latest method developed by the
Chinese is a quite believable extension.
The purpose of Stealth is to be able to fly attack aircraft without escorts.
Well, after one F 117 was shot down in Serbia, all stealth aircraft
(F 117 and B 2) were escorted. Stealth is a multi-trillion dollar
failure.
I guess the point flew over your head....
Who cares whether it works now or not, it is a technology that maybe we can
incorporate into our future history somewhere. There were discussion about how
FCR would be shut down by ARMs, jamming or what not. Here's a nascent idea for
a technology to potentially work around that. Just goes to show you for every
problem a solution, then for every solution a new problem.
Los
> At 10:11 PM 11/29/99 -0500, you wrote:
> an ability to see based on ambient signals is going to be seen by
> At 08:26 AM 11/30/99 -0500, you wrote:
The latest method developed by the Chinese is a quite believable extension.
> The purpose of Stealth is to be able to fly attack aircraft without
LOL! I guess it was a failure for the past ten or fifteen years we've been
using it succsefully in combat. haha. By your logic submarines were a failrure
the first time the Hunley was sunk.
> On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, Steve Gill wrote:
> Having watched missile batteries tracking F117s I don't think stealth
Was this a rapier battery at an airshow with the F117 in visual range? Sure
you can track just about anything at visual range. The Difference about
stealth aircraft is that they are less visible at longer ranges. The are more
effective at deep strikes into defended airspace than F15's, F111s and other
aircraft that don't use as much stealth techniology.
Remember its a difference between wearing a ghillie suit and standard camo. In
the proper environment used correctly, the ghillie suit will be
more effective at concealing the user. The Camo is useful too. Would you
prefer everyone fight on the battle field wearing white since someone saw a
guy with a ghillie suit once?
> On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, Imre A. Szabo wrote:
> It doesn't surprise me at all. The theory behind multi-faceted
This was Pyotr Ufimstev, cheif scientist at the Moscow Institute of Radio
Engineering. The paper was very obtuse and hard to understand. Its not like
the technology was proposed to the polit bureau or anything. He wrote a paper
and noone understood it. The concepts the came up with in the paper were the
calculations used to compute radar cross sections. Not the whole process. It
was the Skunk Works crew that did the hard work and built the damn things.
> The purpose of Stealth is to be able to fly attack aircraft without
Sort of. Stealth is there to assist in making deeper penetrations through
defended airspace while having more options for routes through the defending
radar coverage. The F117 that was shot down in Serbia was because the flight
path was the same as the past two nights operations. The serbs were able to
deploy so as to get the best position.
> (F 117 and B 2) were escorted. Stealth is a multi-trillion dollar
Keep in mind this is escorted within the area by EW aircraft. Not escorted in
the same formation. Stealth is no more a failure than a ghillie suit that gets
seen by a countersniper when the guy in the suit crosses a road.
Let's see now. We've spent well over 45 billion dollars in acquisition costs,
not counting R&D costs nor Operationing costs (mega bucks... Think air
condistion aircraft hangers...) That's more then 3 billion dollars a year.
Well now, we could bribe most of our enemies for 3 billion dollars a year and
pocket the R&D and operating costs. As for success use of stealth, it's great
against spear chuckers. But do you need stealth aircraft to bomb spear
chuckers???
You completely mis-understand my logic. Submarines were designed to be
solitary hunters. And they are still a viable in that role 100 years after the
first moderately successful designs. Stealth aircraft were designed to be
solitary bombers. Need no escorts to assist them on their bombing missions.
After 15 years, F 117's are no longer viable in that role. After less then 5
years of opperations, B 2's are no longer viable in that roll. There are no
publicly known improved stealth aircraft technologies that will make stealth
aircraft viable again.
My logic is this. It will cost far less to develop and field stealth detection
system then to develop and field stealth aircraft. Therefore stealth aircraft
is a bad strategy because it will cost far more for the US to get back and
maintain a competative advantage.
> This was Pyotr Ufimstev, cheif scientist at the Moscow Institute of
Not true. The Soviet military did understand it but rejected it because it
could be countered too easily.
> Keep in mind this is escorted within the area by EW aircraft. Not
The stealth aircraft were not supposed to need escorts. Against Serbia they
need only area EW escorts because the Serbs didn't have the new Flanker
varient. If they did, then the stealth aircraft would have needed fighter
escorts as well. This is my point.
True. However the same is true for all aircraft.
It costs less to make an anti-aircraft missile than an aircraft. But I
suspect that aircraft will be used far into the future.
Also, if the new technology can detect stealthed aircraft, how much more so
will it be able to detect non-stealthed aircraft?
> On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, Imre A. Szabo wrote:
> Not true. The Soviet military did understand it but rejected it
Read Ben Rich's book.
> The stealth aircraft were not supposed to need escorts. Against
You guys are making stealth out to be this new technology that was to make our
aircraft invincible. It doesn't. So you say our aircraft are useless. Stop
believing everything the media says. Stealth doesn't make an aircraft
invisible.
The aircraft do solitary penetrations of airspace without fighter escort.
When an A-6 did a penetration it had a MIG CAP in the Area to deal with
problems. The Stealth aircraft are far less vulnerable to airdefenses
than an A-6 is. Get it through your heads, the aircraft aren't a waste
of
money because one got shot down. If that was the case then the F-111
that were used in the gulf war and against Lybia were useless because some
were shot down during vietnam.
The F-117 that was shot down was used in a poorly planned mission. Thats
why it got snagged.
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
It was a Rapier, but it wasn't an airshow and the F117 was tracked from well
before visual contact was possible.
You appear to be pretty much agreeing with me about the uses of the F117, or
are you implying the stealth capability would give it an advantage in direct
battlefield support?
---
> On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, Bell, Brian K wrote:
> True.
I seriously doubt the system in question is useful for a firing solution. If
it has a massive inferometric array of antennas then it will only be useful in
getting a missile launched into the general area. If the missle is remotely
controlled, then sure you can try to get the target in its seaker head,
however, it the target isn't easily resolved by the missile, how are you going
to actually get a hit? Add to that the fact that the missile's command
guidance link is vulnerable to jamming and countermeasures.
Just because I know there is a strike package coming into a general area
doesn't mean I can get my migs or missiles on target.
> On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, Steve Gill wrote:
> It was a Rapier, but it wasn't an airshow and the F117 was tracked
Had it been prepped for combat? If not, then it may have had a transponder
active and that is what the Blindfire was picking up on. I guarantee that if
the bad guys had blindfire radar vans, they'd be prime
targets for ALARMs, HARMs, Shrikes, SideARMs, and Standard ARMS. I'm sure GEC
Marconi has provisions for ALARM to attack Blindfire sets.
> You appear to be pretty much agreeing with me about the uses of the
The F-117 isn't a battle field support aircraft. That will be JSF. Which
given the idea its not going to be uber stealthy, rather mostly stealthy, it
will still be more challenging to hit with ground fire than
an F-15E.
The way people are stating stealth is a waste of money, you'd think they'd be
asking us to go back to slab sided wing roots and straight intake inlets.
Stealth is about reducing RCS. The more you can reduce that Radar Cross
section, the harder it will be for the bad guys to get a firing solution if at
all depending on the range. In the case of the F22, if it means it will be
less visible at long range, then the Fighter Jock will have an easier time
hitting you before you can hit him.
Combine properly used stealth and organized SEAD missions, and it will be hell
for the badguys.
In a message dated 99-11-30 08:13:10 EST, you write:
<<
Having watched missile batteries tracking F117s I don't think stealth is that
much use on the battlefield. Where it currently appears to be most useful is
for strikes into enemy areas if the enemy aren't that technologically
advanced. >>
Keep in mind that the F-117 is a 20+ year old design. I think your right
about it's decreasing utility/survivability against a technologically
advanced or "aware" opponent in the coming decade or so. I think though, in
situations in which you have been able to take down the opponent's C3I
assets, it still has it's deep-strike role to play though at a
significantly higher risk.
Perry
> The way people are stating stealth is a waste of money, you'd think
You're missing the point. Reducing RCS is evolutionary. Stealth was a attempt
at a revolutionary new aircraft. It failed. I do not have a problem with the
R&D phase of the F 117. We learned a lot. I am skeptical about opperational
use of the F 117 and the R&D phase of the B 2. Opperational use of the B 2 is
a huge waste of my tax money.
All an SU-27 has to do to find a stealth aircraft is to be in the right
area. The new radar will do that. The IR sensor built into every
single SU-27 that is integrated into the fire control for both the heat
seeking missiles (both short range missiles and medium range missiles)
and the auto-cannon is capable of picking up the IR signiture of a
stealth aircraft, tracking it, and engaging it.
The US could have gotten a lot more bang for the buck for the amount of money
that has been and is being squandered on the B 2. We probably could have
pulled out the plans for the Montana's, modernized them with nuclear power and
automation to reduce crew size, developed extended range guided projectiles
(probably 200 to 300 nm for the 16" guns), and built, equiped and crewed half
a dozen of them; fixed the 100 B 1B's we already have and equiped them with
conventional ACM's; converted half a dozen Ohio SSBN to SSGN's. Now compare
all of that to 22 B 2's in throw weight, utility, and versitility. Remeber, B
2's can't opperate effectively in the rain. Why? The radar absorbent skin
absorbs water which reflects radar very well.
> On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, Imre A. Szabo wrote:
> You're missing the point. Reducing RCS is evolutionary. Stealth was
RCS reduction got its start with the U2. Read Ben Rich's book. Then come
back and say stealth is a waste. Does it surprise you that RCS reduction
is being incorporated into the Arliegh Burkes?
> attempt at a revolutionary new aircraft. It failed. I do not have a
Skunk works didn't pull Have Blue out of their asses. They built it up on
knowledge from the U2 and SR-71 programs. RCS reduction was used there
as a feature, not as the main focus.
> skeptical about opperational use of the F 117 and the R&D phase of the
> All an SU-27 has to do to find a stealth aircraft is to be in the
What new radar? The new chinese wonder of the world? I'll be that uses a
really large aperature that won't fit on the nose of a Fighter.
> single SU-27 that is integrated into the fire control for both the
So this SU-27 is just flying around and looking for an easy F-117? He's
not worried about those E-3 Sentries seeing him flying around? He's not
worried about getting whacked by an AMRAMM he never sees coming?
> The US could have gotten a lot more bang for the buck for the amount
Please. Take it to Sci.Military.naval and see what Andew and Matt tell you
about that. BB's are great, its an antiquated concept. I'd like to see a naval
bombardment vessel on a DD hull, but a BBsized craft is far off in left field
and won't ever happen. The best you will see is a 20,000 ton vessel with a
navalized 155mm or 203mm in a vertical mount. It won't look anything like a
WWII Post dreadnaught BB.
> nuclear power and automation to reduce crew size, developed extended
The USN isn't doing anything with a Nuke plant that isn't a Nimitz. All the
Ticos are Gas Turbines. All the Arleigh Burkes are Gas Turbines. All
the CGN's are gone.
> range guided projectiles (probably 200 to 300 nm for the 16" guns),
Where are the 16" guns going to be made? Take the ones out of storage? Well,
you need to start up the production line. Ain't gonna happen. 155 RAM rounds
is far more likely with a GPS guidance.
> built, equiped and crewed half a dozen of them; fixed the 100 B 1B's
B1B's are already in the Tactical Role. The B2's were there for Strategic
roles mostly. START and SALT has been doing away with the Strategic Roles for
quite a while.
> dozen Ohio SSBN to SSGN's. Now compare all of that to 22 B 2's in
OHIO's are impractical in that role. The hull size is enormously different.
Where are we going to get the cruise missles to fill up these
huge SSGNs? We barely keep all the Arligh Burks and Tico's filled with TLAMs.
> weight, utility, and versitility. Remeber, B 2's can't opperate
So they operate at high altitude where there isn't rain. Remember that? Its
the open air storage where they have problems with rain...
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, Imre A. Szabo wrote:
Do you not understand English??? I said RCS is evolutionary. You even quoted
me. That means it has a long history, aka U2, Mosquito, etc. I read Ben Rich's
book when it came out. I never said I had a problem with reducing RCS, my
problem is with the attempt at effectively eliminating RCS which is what the F
117 and B 2 tried to do and failed.
> > attempt at a revolutionary new aircraft. It failed. I do not have
Excuse me. Did I say we learned a lot about reducing RCS or did I say we
learned a lot??? To clarify your misconception, we learned a lot
about the multi-faceted aerodynamics (actually how aerodynamic they
aren't), we learned a lot about fully automated trim controls, etc.
> > skeptical about opperational use of the F 117 and the R&D phase of
That's probably why the Chinese picked the SU-27. It has by far the
largest radome then any other fighter. I would be surprised if they
couldn't get it to fit into a SU-27's huge nose.
> > single SU-27 that is integrated into the fire control for both the
Get the point. With the new radar and the existing IR sensor the SU-27
is NOT going to be flying around looking for an easy F 117. That SU-27
is going to swoop in to with in 20 km, the IR is going to lock-on, and
then there is going to be one less F 117. The Chinese will probably use
their 15,000 Mig 21's to keep the E-3's busy. By the way. What is
going to happen when the USAF runs out of AMRAAM's before all 15,000 Mig 21's
are destroyed??? Yes, the Chinese really do have 15,000 Mig 21's.
> > The US could have gotten a lot more bang for the buck for the amount
The North Vietnamese didn't ask for B-52 to be removed from the theater
of operations, nor aircraft carriers. They demanded for the Iowa's to be
removed before negotiations. Why??? Could it be they could counter (SAM's,
Mig's, flack, etc.) the airplanes but they couldn't counter a battleship. Most
of the places in the world where are troops are and going to be deployed in
can no more counter a battleship then the North Vietnamese. The USN's plans
for naval bombardment are horrible, the current situation is even worse. I'm
glad I'm not a leather neck when it comes time to pay the price for this
stupidity.
> > nuclear power and automation to reduce crew size, developed extended
The USN is only putting nuclear power in capital ships and subs. Battleships
have ALWAYS qualified as capital ships. Even the old slow battleships in the
World War II that were only used for shore bombardment qualified as capital
ships. The CGN's your talking about (Virginia class and California class) have
one fifth the displacement of an Iowa...
> > range guided projectiles (probably 200 to 300 nm for the 16" guns),
And how much did it cost to start the production line for B 2's??? How
much is it going to cost to re-open that production line??? How much is
it going to cost to open the production line for the successor to the B 2???
We had the money. We miss spent it. The question is if we are going to fix the
mistakes we made.
> > built, equiped and crewed half a dozen of them; fixed the 100 B 1B's
What really is doing away with the strategic role is the break up of the
Soviet Union and the seemingly eternal collapse of the Russian economy.
The multi-polar world makes strategic systems needed, but with no large
clear enemy.
> > dozen Ohio SSBN to SSGN's. Now compare all of that to 22 B 2's in
We'll maybe well just have to re-open the second TLAM planet that is
located in Florida. You know what else, the cheapest way to deliver ordnance
is the gun. If we had a balanced and versatile force, we probably wouldn't be
running short of TLAM's anyway. Either that or descion makers in Washington
who aren't reckless incompetent idiots...
> > weight, utility, and versitility. Remeber, B 2's can't opperate
And when they try to take off and land. It really $UCK$ having to dry out your
B 2 for a couple of days because it got wet taking off. Doesn't help the
operational sortie rate either. Of course we could just build 4 times the
current number of climate controlled hangers and fly them around so that they
will never be rained on taking off or landing. But that will be a lot more
flight hours... Let's see. Did they ever get the maintenance to flight time
down below 120 hours to 1??? I haven't had a chance to check the latest GAO
reports on this major problem with B 2.
I enjoy this list because of the subject, the low signal to noise ratio, and
the lack of flames.
Your comments seem to be degrading into personal attacks (flames).
> Bell, Brian K wrote:
> I enjoy this list because of the subject, the low signal to noise
And I suppose being told to read a book I already own and have read as well is
not a personal attack.
IAS
> -----
> On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Imre A. Szabo wrote:
> Do you not understand English??? I said RCS is evolutionary. You
I
Sorry, I saw that a revolutionary.
> Excuse me. Did I say we learned a lot about reducing RCS or did I say
Ben Rich specifically states the RCS is like that of a bird. So this new
inferometric system the chinese are using, how easily will it detect a non
stealthy aircraft? What you state is that because one technology has
one countermeasure, then it is a waste of money. Dispite the fact that other
technologies are even less effective.
> That's probably why the Chinese picked the SU-27. It has by far the
Its an existing radome. An inferometric radome is going to be tens of
yards across if not hundred of yards across. Take a look at the big 3-D
Air search radar sets even in use today. There have been general mumblins
about stealth being vulnerable to large scale long wave radar. That kind
of radar has very little precision.
> Get the point. With the new radar and the existing IR sensor the
He's going to easily pick up this low ir signature aircraft on the deck from
altitude and shoot it down easy? If war were that simple.
> their 15,000 Mig 21's to keep the E-3's busy. By the way. What is
All running in tip top shape too I sure. They all have pilots that have been
to Chines Top Gun I bet.
> going to happen when the USAF runs out of AMRAAM's before all 15,000
> The North Vietnamese didn't ask for B-52 to be removed from the
Nor can they counter a CVBG. There is no reason to build a huge 60,000 ton BB
with modern fits. You don't need that. They even looked at doing a cheap hull
arsenal ship concept. That was way over priced cost wise. The
closest thing I've seen to a shore bombardment specific vessel would be a
CG with 2-4 of the 155mm vertical firing howitzers with GPS guided
projectiles.
> current situation is even worse. I'm glad I'm not a leather neck when
You know that the Marines have 5"-45 NGS from several of their Gator
Carriers as well as the new 5"-62 on the Arleigh Burkes right?
> The USN is only putting nuclear power in capital ships and subs.
You want a single purpose huge naval gunfire support ship? right...thats
economically feasable. Given the variety of jobs vessels are getting,
unless you haul a lot of aircraft or troops/gear around its not gonna
get over 10,000 tons.
> And how much did it cost to start the production line for B 2's???
How
> much is it going to cost to re-open that production line??? How much
When they kept cutting the numbers down, it kept costing more and more per
unit. If they had bought more aircraft, we'd have ended up paying far less per
aircraft.
> it going to cost to open the production line for the successor to the
> What really is doing away with the strategic role is the break up of
Which means more tactical strike aircraft are needed. You keep saying they are
a failure. Yet there has been one lost to ground fire. Pretty good for the
number of sorties they've done right?
> And when they try to take off and land. It really $UCK$ having to dry
Show me a major system that was designed recently that doesn't require large
numbers of maintanance? You want to talk maintanance and cost, look at the
cost of a new 50,000 ton BB. You know maintanance costs were why the Iowas
were decommed right?
> On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Imre A. Szabo wrote:
> And I suppose being told to read a book I already own and have read as
Well, its certainly a bit less confrontational...your arguments seem to miss
much of what Ben Rich states in his book. Using your arguments the one U2 that
was shot down would be proof of the program's failure and its lack of
viablity. You know the U2s are still flying? They are called
TR-1s now.
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Imre A. Szabo wrote:
I never said the loss of one F 117 made them obsolete. I said the emergence of
detection methods that make their stealth features mariginal effective do make
them obsolete.
U-2 were just obselet over areas where the Soviet Union could shoot them
down. I've seen several large pieces of Gary Power's U-2. They're on
display at several military musseums in Russia. They're still proud about
shooting him down. I am aware of the details about how the did it.
Personally, I think U-2's would make great ASAT platforms. Very high
altitude and long loiter time; good for launching anti-satalite
missiles. Granted the Raptor/Talon would have been better. But it was
cancelled. Raptor was the name of an un-manned aircraft with a similar
to a U-2 in areodynamics but much smaller. Talons were the kinnetic
kill IR missiles. This system was originally to be used for ballistic missle
defense with a look down shoot up fire control. A look up shoot up fire
control would have been eaiser to develop and perfect ASAT applications in LEO
(Low Earth Orbit). There is no reason we could get
by U-2's instead of the Raptor, but we will still need the Talons or
some other ASAT.
[quoted original message omitted]
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Imre A. Szabo wrote:
Not a problem. I do it myself sometimes.
> > Excuse me. Did I say we learned a lot about reducing RCS or did I
No. What I am saying is that their counter is cheaper. Our counter counter
will cost more then their counter counter counter. Get the picture. This is
what determines good strategic choices from bad ones.
> > That's probably why the Chinese picked the SU-27. It has by far the
Part of the F-22 original R&D specs called for flights and squadrons to
be able to link their radar's into an active inferomter (The specs also
included the ability to hand targeting data, etc. This means only one fighter
has to have its radar on to provide targeting data for the entire squadron.) I
don't know what happen to this, but I do know the USAF was having problems
major problems with the AMRAAM's. The problem was developing an extended range
version of the AMRAAM that could fit
into the internal weapons bays so the F-22 could take advantage of its
radar.
The point of this is that if the US can develop a flying inferometer so can
the Chinese and the Chinesse have both a much larger radome to work with and a
larger weight of avionics. This means they should be able to build it with
much less technologically advanced components.
> > Get the point. With the new radar and the existing IR sensor the
Actually with the new 4th generation or advanced 3rd generations IR sensors it
is not a big problem. The USAF knows this and has already
done some R&D work in cryo-genic cooling system for all high IR
signature areas (the big problem is heating of the skin of the aircraft due to
air flow, very tough to solve). The problem is it will take at least 10 years
to get operational and by then advanced 4th and 5th generation IR sensors will
be out. Note that this assumes that F 117's and B 2's can be refitted. The
jury is still out on that one. Now which do you think is much cheaper to due.
Refit more advanced IR
sensors and update the fire control or re-build an aircraft, update the
avionics, trim controls, etc.
> > their 15,000 Mig 21's to keep the E-3's busy. By the way. What is
Hey I got a great idea. You take one Valley Forge CVA with 6 squadron of ultra
heavy fighters that can be configured at your desire to be attack,
interceptors, or standard. Note you can reconfigure them during play if they
spend one turn on the carrier. I'll even let each fighter
carry two stand off missiles. Either anti-air or anti-ship. All
missiles have a range of 6" to 24" and damage is equivalent to an interceptor
or attack fighter. You can even fire both missiles at the same time and at
different targets. But you can use your gun and missiles. I'll take 20 Valley
Forges with just 120 standard old fifth rate fighters. No missiles, no ultra
heavy defensive bonuses. The ships can't come with in 48" of each other. Want
to bet on who will win??? If you have enough quantity, quality doesn't matter.
By the
way, at least 6,000 of the MIG 21's were being re-furbished into more
advanced and capable version.
> > going to happen when the USAF runs out of AMRAAM's before all 15,000
They did counter the carrier battle groups. The offensive arm of that force
was its aircraft. And the SAM and fighters did reduce USN aircraft
effectiveness, resulting in escort sorties (EW and fighter), etc. They
couldn't do a #$%# thing about the 16" guns. Anything within 16 miles of the
coast was a target. The problem with the arsenal ship was too many eggs in one
very fragile basket. The time of the
battleship has re-emerge because of satellite guided projectiles. There
is no reason why a 16" gun couldn't fire 300 nm's.
> > current situation is even worse. I'm glad I'm not a leather neck
Some how a 5" gun just doesn't compare to a 16" gun. Could it be the fact that
5" guns only have 10% of the throw weight of 16" guns??? Or
is it the fact that 5" guns only have 1/3 the range of 16" guns
(actually, I'm being very generous here and assuming that ultra range guns
aren't based on exponential mathematics, probably a mistake). Or is it the
ease of building bunkers capable with standing 5" shells... And yes I'm well
aware of the totally inadequate naval fire support currently available to
Marines.
> > The USN is only putting nuclear power in capital ships and subs.
With modern satellite guided projectiles your going to have a ship that can
engage in other ships at range of 300 nm's. That whole lot more then just a
fire support ship.
> > And how much did it cost to start the production line for B 2's???
And far more overall. Let's see... We could cut the JSF, or maybe the F 22, or
maybe the M1A2, or maybe TLAM's for the fleet... They are too expensive for
what they can do. This is one of the reasons I call them a failure. It doesn't
matter how good a weapons system is if it is too expensive to field in the
numbers required to do the job.
> > it going to cost to open the production line for the successor to
No. Not considering the opposition the equipment they have gone up against.
> > And when they try to take off and land. It really $UCK$ having to
Wrong. Iowa's have a crew compliment of about 2,270 for 9 x 16" guns. Nimitz
have a ship crew compliment of about 3,300 and an air wing compliment of about
3,000. That 6,300 men for about 90 aircraft. Only
1/3 of which (at most) will be used for offensive operations. The rest
will be defensive, escorts, etc. Flight time for the fighters will usually be
at least an hour by the time strike is formed up. Flight time for a 16" shell
is in seconds. Now which can service a target faster and with more weight???
Iowa's were axed because the military didn't have the money (2 less B 2's and
we would still have 2 Iowa's operational) and the navy is ruled by carrier
admirals (don't take my word for it, ask any squid, (submariner)).
Despite how fascinating this thread is, perhaps the participants would like to
put it on hold for a day or two of general mellowness?
> On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Laserlight wrote:
> Despite how fascinating this thread is, perhaps the participants would
I'm mellow...:>
> Imre A. Szabo wrote:
> developed extended range guided projectiles (probably 200 to 300 nm
Why would anyone try to develop a 200 mile range arty projectile? There is no
way you'll get that range without adding a rocket engine. Do that and what do
you get? A missile! And those are a lot easier to launch from a rail or pod
than from a gun.
> Imre A. Szabo wrote:
> That's probably why the Chinese picked the SU-27. It has by far the
Maybe we're just way ahead in miniaturisation?
> Yes, the Chinese really do have 15,000 Mig 21's.
And my squadron has some 10 jeeps at its disposal. Seven of them are in the
motor pool for repairs though. And they don't even have the age or sloppy
production of Soviet style equipment. Last month we had some Chzech AF
officers over at our base and after hearing them telling about the state of
their forces...
> We'll maybe well just have to re-open the second TLAM planet
The mandatory Full Thrust reference, no doubt ;-)
Ran across this slide show by The US Naval Fire Support Assoc., who advoates
the recommissioning of the Iowa BBs. They make a pretty interesting arguement,
at the very least it's interesting reading. I have no idea how it holds up in
real life.
Some highlights: A 500lb, 8in diameter, 6ft long penatrator round that is
supposed to go through 41ft of concrete Extended range sabotted round that can
go 100nm, GPS guided (I didn't see
anything about 200nm+, though)
Refit the Iowas to carry 128 TLAMs
http://www.usnfsa.com/articles/brief/sld001.htm
BTW, can any naval types tell me what "caliber" refers to on the big guns?
i.e. 5"/54 It's obvious that it's a 5in gun, but I don't know what the
54 refers to.
Thanks, Nathan
[quoted original message omitted]
> From: Nathan Pettigrew [mailto:nathanp@MICROSOFT.com]
Caliber, in navy language, is a rating of the barrel length in terms of its
interior diameter.
ie - 5''/54 cal gun is a 5in gun with a barrel (54*5 =)270 inches in
length.
vargr1 UPP-8D9B85
---------------------------- Omnia dicta fortiora, si dicta latina.
In a message dated 12/2/99 12:51:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> nathanp@MICROSOFT.com writes:
> BTW, can any naval types tell me what "caliber" refers to on the big
When talking naval guns, caliber refers to the length of the barrel in terms
of it's internal diameter. The larger the number, the longer the barrel. It's
why the 16" guns on the "North Carolina" weren't quite as nasty as the 16"
guns on the "Iowa."
Rob
> "An off-topic game, I played in a PBeM Harpoon game years ago"
Since when was this thread on topic?
-M