Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #682083 > unrolled thread

Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft George <george.core@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-23 13:38 +0000
    Re: Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft Dhu on Gate <campbell@neotext.ca> - 2018-04-23 15:45 +0000
      Re: Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-23 15:45 -0500
        Re: Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-23 22:47 -0400
    Re: Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-04-23 14:06 -0700
    Re: Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 21:57 -0700
    Re: Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-23 22:17 -0700
      Re: Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft Juergen Nieveler <juergen@nieveler.org> - 2018-04-24 08:17 +0200
        Re: Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-24 13:50 -0700
          Re: Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-24 14:42 -0700
            Re: Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-25 10:21 -0500
              Re: Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 11:05 -0700
                Re: Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-25 14:06 -0500
                  Re: Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 13:34 -0700
                    Re: Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft jonathan <WriteInstead@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 19:02 -0400
                      Re: Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 22:55 -0700
                      Re: Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2018-04-27 18:56 +0100
                  Re: Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2018-04-27 18:37 +0100
                Re: Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-25 15:29 -0700
                  Re: Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 21:29 -0700
                    Re: Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-26 00:42 -0500
                    Re: Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-26 22:25 -0700
                      Re: Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 02:58 -0700
                        Re: Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-05-01 13:52 -0700
                          Re: Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-01 17:26 -0500
                          Re: Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 17:57 -0700
                            Re: Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-05-01 19:43 -0700
                              Re: Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 07:33 -0700
                  Re: Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft Juergen Nieveler <juergen@nieveler.org> - 2018-04-27 09:17 +0200
                    Re: Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 03:03 -0700
                      Re: Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft Juergen Nieveler <juergen@nieveler.org> - 2018-04-27 14:27 +0200
                        Re: Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-27 11:27 -0500
                          Re: Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft Peter Stickney <p_stickney@verizon.net> - 2018-04-27 16:50 -0400
          Re: Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-24 14:52 -0700
        Re: Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft "dott.Piergiorgio" <chiedetemelo@ask.me> - 2018-04-29 10:16 +0200
    Re: Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> - 2018-04-24 11:56 +0200
      Re: Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-05-01 12:42 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#682406

On 4/25/2018 11:29 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> wrote
> on Wed, 25 Apr 2018 15:29:45 -0700:
> 
>> On 4/25/2018 11:05 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>> Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote on Wed, 25 Apr 2018 10:21:50 -0500:
>>>
>>>> On 4/24/2018 4:42 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>> On 4/24/2018 1:50 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>    On 4/23/2018 11:17 PM, Juergen Nieveler wrote:
>>>>>>> On 24.04.2018 07:17, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>>> Will taking off in an F16 soon be equal to taking off in an F22 wrt
>>>>>>>> the fact that they can both be seen!?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I doubt it will happen "soon"... but it's a stern reminder that
>>>>>>> stealth technology is just a bet against the ingeniousness of physics
>>>>>>> grad students in the next 5 decades...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That has to be interesting to any pilot. They might find themselves up
>>>>>> against a shi% load of active SAM sites. Ahh, well, the SAMS that are
>>>>>> left after the initial barrages of HARM's and JSOW's are fired off by
>>>>>> coalition aircraft.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-88_HARM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Joint_Standoff_Weapon
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The HARMS should target the SAMS, and the JSOW's should make the SAMS
>>>>>> fire off at projected phantom targets.
>>>>>
>>>>> Love it:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Joint_Standoff_Weapon#/media/File:AGM-154_03.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ;^)
>>>>>
>>>
>>> I'll just note that HARMs can't target SAMs.  They can only target the
>>> radars.  
>>
>> Argh! Sorry about that. You are correct. Well, if a SAM's radars are 
>> severely damaged and/or outright destroyed, well, it is kind of rendered 
>> into a highly degraded and somewhat worthless state, in a sense?
>>
> 
> Yep, but if you leave the missiles intact they can just drive in
> another radar.


SAM 6 had terminal IR guidance

> 
>>
>>>
>>> Hence the use of JSOW on the missile emplacements.
>>>
>>
>> Iirc, JSOW can project phantom radar signatures of coalition aircraft 
>> and cause the SAM to fire at them. Then, finally, the JSOW can choose 
>> where to perform its "final mission", to destroy a target.
>>
> 
> Nope.  I think you're thinking of MALD, which looks rather like JSOW
> but is much smaller and has a motor.
> 
>>
>>>>>> JSOW saturation can deplete a SAM of missiles and might force it to be
>>>>>> reloaded. HARM saturation should destroy its radar systems.
>>
>> Ahh. I knew I wrote about HARM's destroying radars. Sorry for any 
>> confusion, and thanks for your correction on my previous statement.
>>
> 
> The idea behind HARM is that it's so fast you don't need to do
> saturation attacks, hence the 'H' in the name.
> 
>>
>>>>>> However, perhaps "in the future", the damn enemy has an experimental
>>>>>> weapon that is "theoretically" immune to HARM and JSOW, and can easily
>>>>>> see and target F-22's. It can also tell the difference between F-16,
>>>>>> F-15, F-22 and F-35 in real time and act accordingly... Oh SHI%! The
>>>>>> coalition must be trying to prevent the enemy from engaging within
>>>>>> this line of experimentation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At least the F-22 is also a superb plane on top of being stealthy, so
>>>>>>> it could still fight on even terms with other fighters with the
>>>>>>> stealth advantage removed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agreed. At least it has that handy Vulcan Cannon for a knife fight.
>>>>
>>>> yep => short range, inaccurate
>>>>
>>>
>>> USAF F-35 also carries a built-in cannon.  It just doesn't carry very
>>> many rounds for it.
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Imvvho, the pilots of an F-22 should not totally rely on hyper
>>>>>> advanced missile attack scenarios. I know they can fire on targets
>>>>>> from a long range via Phoenix, or medium range using AMRAAM. However,
>>>>>> even the newest versions of those missiles can fail to hit their
>>>>>> targets...
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> aircraft have very good countermeasures, IR, microwave, decoys, flares
>>>>
>>>
>>> Phoenix is dead.  The last airplane that could fire it was the F-14
>>> Tomcat.  USAF never owned any even when it was around, so it certainly
>>> was never a provision for F-22.
>>>
>>
>> Does the F-22 carry long range missiles, or just medium range?
>>
> 
> AIM-120 is as good as it gets for pretty much everybody these days.
> Phoenix required an AWG-9 radar.  The only aircraft to ever have that
> were the USN version of the F-111 (F-111B) which was never produced
> and the F-14 Tomcat.  That's not as bad as it might seem, though,
> since the AIM-120D can reach out almost 100 miles and the cruise
> missile carrying bomber air defense role for the Navy is much less
> required than it used to be.

F-111 were maintance nightmare, poor electronics packaging.

> 
>>
>>>>>>> The F-35 is a different topic...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Afaict, F-22's most likely can eat up F-35's for breakfast, lunch and
>>>>>> possibly dinner? Can the F-35 carry the newest Sidewinders? Does it
>>>>>> require an external pylon? If so, there goes stealth. Damn.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> sidewinders need external pylon as they have to lock onto target before
>>>> launch
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not on an F-22 they don't.  On an F-22 they launch from internal bays.
>>>
>>
>> You are right. Thanks again Fred. :^)
>>
> 
> I was in the missile business until a few years ago and do still keep
> some track of what's going on, so I'm not horribly out of date yet.
> 

I used to load sidewinders a while back

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#682569

On 4/25/2018 9:29 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> wrote
> on Wed, 25 Apr 2018 15:29:45 -0700:
> 
>> On 4/25/2018 11:05 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>> Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote on Wed, 25 Apr 2018 10:21:50 -0500:
>>>
>>>> On 4/24/2018 4:42 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>> On 4/24/2018 1:50 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>     On 4/23/2018 11:17 PM, Juergen Nieveler wrote:
>>>>>>> On 24.04.2018 07:17, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>>> Will taking off in an F16 soon be equal to taking off in an F22 wrt
>>>>>>>> the fact that they can both be seen!?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I doubt it will happen "soon"... but it's a stern reminder that
>>>>>>> stealth technology is just a bet against the ingeniousness of physics
>>>>>>> grad students in the next 5 decades...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That has to be interesting to any pilot. They might find themselves up
>>>>>> against a shi% load of active SAM sites. Ahh, well, the SAMS that are
>>>>>> left after the initial barrages of HARM's and JSOW's are fired off by
>>>>>> coalition aircraft.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-88_HARM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Joint_Standoff_Weapon
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The HARMS should target the SAMS, and the JSOW's should make the SAMS
>>>>>> fire off at projected phantom targets.
>>>>>
>>>>> Love it:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Joint_Standoff_Weapon#/media/File:AGM-154_03.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ;^)
>>>>>
>>>
>>> I'll just note that HARMs can't target SAMs.  They can only target the
>>> radars.
>>
>> Argh! Sorry about that. You are correct. Well, if a SAM's radars are
>> severely damaged and/or outright destroyed, well, it is kind of rendered
>> into a highly degraded and somewhat worthless state, in a sense?
>>
> 
> Yep, but if you leave the missiles intact they can just drive in
> another radar.

DOH! Correct again.


>>> Hence the use of JSOW on the missile emplacements.

Indeed. Can JSOW launch a couple of MALD's?


>> Iirc, JSOW can project phantom radar signatures of coalition aircraft
>> and cause the SAM to fire at them. Then, finally, the JSOW can choose
>> where to perform its "final mission", to destroy a target.
>>
> 
> Nope.  I think you're thinking of MALD, which looks rather like JSOW
> but is much smaller and has a motor.

You are absolutely correct on this one. For some reason I thought that 
JSOW can project as well. Well, think of multiple MALD being released 
from a cruise-type Phoenix like missile launched from a stand off aircraft.

A single Phoenix can potentially launch multiple MALD after they "get 
into a certain range". Heck, perhaps even a JSOW can launch some MALD's 
in and of itself. Fractal layers of defense, in a sense?


>>>>>> JSOW saturation can deplete a SAM of missiles and might force it to be
>>>>>> reloaded. HARM saturation should destroy its radar systems.
>>
>> Ahh. I knew I wrote about HARM's destroying radars. Sorry for any
>> confusion, and thanks for your correction on my previous statement.
>>
> 
> The idea behind HARM is that it's so fast you don't need to do
> saturation attacks, hence the 'H' in the name.

Well, imvvho, the more the merrier, high-speed or not. Imvvho, we should 
mass produce these types of countermeasures, and never stop improving 
their capabilities.


>>>>>> However, perhaps "in the future", the damn enemy has an experimental
>>>>>> weapon that is "theoretically" immune to HARM and JSOW, and can easily
>>>>>> see and target F-22's. It can also tell the difference between F-16,
>>>>>> F-15, F-22 and F-35 in real time and act accordingly... Oh SHI%! The
>>>>>> coalition must be trying to prevent the enemy from engaging within
>>>>>> this line of experimentation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At least the F-22 is also a superb plane on top of being stealthy, so
>>>>>>> it could still fight on even terms with other fighters with the
>>>>>>> stealth advantage removed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agreed. At least it has that handy Vulcan Cannon for a knife fight.
>>>>
>>>> yep => short range, inaccurate
>>>>
>>>
>>> USAF F-35 also carries a built-in cannon.  It just doesn't carry very
>>> many rounds for it.
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Imvvho, the pilots of an F-22 should not totally rely on hyper
>>>>>> advanced missile attack scenarios. I know they can fire on targets
>>>>>> from a long range via Phoenix, or medium range using AMRAAM. However,
>>>>>> even the newest versions of those missiles can fail to hit their
>>>>>> targets...
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> aircraft have very good countermeasures, IR, microwave, decoys, flares
>>>>
>>>
>>> Phoenix is dead.  The last airplane that could fire it was the F-14
>>> Tomcat.  USAF never owned any even when it was around, so it certainly
>>> was never a provision for F-22.
>>>
>>
>> Does the F-22 carry long range missiles, or just medium range?
>>
> 
> AIM-120 is as good as it gets for pretty much everybody these days.

Nice, kind of agreed. I would still like to be able to fire off multiple 
very long range cruise missiles, kind of like Phoenix used as a 
supplement of any all out assault. Perhaps Phoenix can be used to deploy 
an little "army" of micro drones? F-14 was kind of assigned to a stand 
off fleet defense role anyway, right?

Also, what about applying that to the radar system of an enemy SAM? Can 
it use a "swarm of drones" as an aspect of its overall radar system? So, 
HARM might be not be quite as useful as it once was?



> Phoenix required an AWG-9 radar.  The only aircraft to ever have that
> were the USN version of the F-111 (F-111B) which was never produced
> and the F-14 Tomcat.  That's not as bad as it might seem, though,
> since the AIM-120D can reach out almost 100 miles and the cruise
> missile carrying bomber air defense role for the Navy is much less
> required than it used to be.

For some reason, I would still launch some F-14's and put them on 
standoff defensive orbits loaded with state-of-the-art AIM-54 and AIM-120's


>>>>>>> The F-35 is a different topic...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Afaict, F-22's most likely can eat up F-35's for breakfast, lunch and
>>>>>> possibly dinner? Can the F-35 carry the newest Sidewinders? Does it
>>>>>> require an external pylon? If so, there goes stealth. Damn.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> sidewinders need external pylon as they have to lock onto target before
>>>> launch
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not on an F-22 they don't.  On an F-22 they launch from internal bays.
>>>
>>
>> You are right. Thanks again Fred. :^)
>>
> 
> I was in the missile business until a few years ago and do still keep
> some track of what's going on, so I'm not horribly out of date yet.

Thank you for taking the time to set me on the right path. Corrections = 
learning! Very nice conversing with you Fred. :^)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#682581

"Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> wrote
on Thu, 26 Apr 2018 22:25:37 -0700:

>On 4/25/2018 9:29 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> wrote
>> on Wed, 25 Apr 2018 15:29:45 -0700:
>> 
>>> On 4/25/2018 11:05 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>> Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote on Wed, 25 Apr 2018 10:21:50 -0500:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/24/2018 4:42 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/24/2018 1:50 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>>     On 4/23/2018 11:17 PM, Juergen Nieveler wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 24.04.2018 07:17, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Will taking off in an F16 soon be equal to taking off in an F22 wrt
>>>>>>>>> the fact that they can both be seen!?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I doubt it will happen "soon"... but it's a stern reminder that
>>>>>>>> stealth technology is just a bet against the ingeniousness of physics
>>>>>>>> grad students in the next 5 decades...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That has to be interesting to any pilot. They might find themselves up
>>>>>>> against a shi% load of active SAM sites. Ahh, well, the SAMS that are
>>>>>>> left after the initial barrages of HARM's and JSOW's are fired off by
>>>>>>> coalition aircraft.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-88_HARM
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Joint_Standoff_Weapon
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The HARMS should target the SAMS, and the JSOW's should make the SAMS
>>>>>>> fire off at projected phantom targets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Love it:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Joint_Standoff_Weapon#/media/File:AGM-154_03.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ;^)
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'll just note that HARMs can't target SAMs.  They can only target the
>>>> radars.
>>>
>>> Argh! Sorry about that. You are correct. Well, if a SAM's radars are
>>> severely damaged and/or outright destroyed, well, it is kind of rendered
>>> into a highly degraded and somewhat worthless state, in a sense?
>>>
>> 
>> Yep, but if you leave the missiles intact they can just drive in
>> another radar.
>
>DOH! Correct again.
>
>
>>>> Hence the use of JSOW on the missile emplacements.
>
>Indeed. Can JSOW launch a couple of MALD's?
>

No.  MALD are generally carried by something like B-52.  MALD flies
long enough and far enough that it can be launched from well outside a
MEZ.  

>
>>> Iirc, JSOW can project phantom radar signatures of coalition aircraft
>>> and cause the SAM to fire at them. Then, finally, the JSOW can choose
>>> where to perform its "final mission", to destroy a target.
>>>
>> 
>> Nope.  I think you're thinking of MALD, which looks rather like JSOW
>> but is much smaller and has a motor.
>
>You are absolutely correct on this one. For some reason I thought that 
>JSOW can project as well. Well, think of multiple MALD being released 
>from a cruise-type Phoenix like missile launched from a stand off aircraft.
>
>A single Phoenix can potentially launch multiple MALD after they "get 
>into a certain range". Heck, perhaps even a JSOW can launch some MALD's 
>in and of itself. Fractal layers of defense, in a sense?
>

No.  MALD is too big to be used as a submunition.

>
>>>>>>> JSOW saturation can deplete a SAM of missiles and might force it to be
>>>>>>> reloaded. HARM saturation should destroy its radar systems.
>>>
>>> Ahh. I knew I wrote about HARM's destroying radars. Sorry for any
>>> confusion, and thanks for your correction on my previous statement.
>>>
>> 
>> The idea behind HARM is that it's so fast you don't need to do
>> saturation attacks, hence the 'H' in the name.
>
>Well, imvvho, the more the merrier, high-speed or not. Imvvho, we should 
>mass produce these types of countermeasures, and never stop improving 
>their capabilities.
>

There are actually two (well, three) versions of MALD.  There's the
baseline MALD, there's MALD-J, which includes patterned jamming, and
there's a version with a little tiny warhead.

>
>>>>>>> However, perhaps "in the future", the damn enemy has an experimental
>>>>>>> weapon that is "theoretically" immune to HARM and JSOW, and can easily
>>>>>>> see and target F-22's. It can also tell the difference between F-16,
>>>>>>> F-15, F-22 and F-35 in real time and act accordingly... Oh SHI%! The
>>>>>>> coalition must be trying to prevent the enemy from engaging within
>>>>>>> this line of experimentation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At least the F-22 is also a superb plane on top of being stealthy, so
>>>>>>>> it could still fight on even terms with other fighters with the
>>>>>>>> stealth advantage removed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Agreed. At least it has that handy Vulcan Cannon for a knife fight.
>>>>>
>>>>> yep => short range, inaccurate
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> USAF F-35 also carries a built-in cannon.  It just doesn't carry very
>>>> many rounds for it.
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Imvvho, the pilots of an F-22 should not totally rely on hyper
>>>>>>> advanced missile attack scenarios. I know they can fire on targets
>>>>>>> from a long range via Phoenix, or medium range using AMRAAM. However,
>>>>>>> even the newest versions of those missiles can fail to hit their
>>>>>>> targets...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> aircraft have very good countermeasures, IR, microwave, decoys, flares
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Phoenix is dead.  The last airplane that could fire it was the F-14
>>>> Tomcat.  USAF never owned any even when it was around, so it certainly
>>>> was never a provision for F-22.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Does the F-22 carry long range missiles, or just medium range?
>>>
>> 
>> AIM-120 is as good as it gets for pretty much everybody these days.
>
>Nice, kind of agreed. I would still like to be able to fire off multiple 
>very long range cruise missiles, kind of like Phoenix used as a 
>supplement of any all out assault. Perhaps Phoenix can be used to deploy 
>an little "army" of micro drones? F-14 was kind of assigned to a stand 
>off fleet defense role anyway, right?
>

Not a workable alternative.  Phoenix got its range by doing a zoom
climb up into the stratosphere and then diving down on the target.
This worked well with bombers, but was less effective with a smaller,
more maneuverable target like a fighter.

>
>Also, what about applying that to the radar system of an enemy SAM? Can 
>it use a "swarm of drones" as an aspect of its overall radar system? So, 
>HARM might be not be quite as useful as it once was?
>

HARM is probably still ahead of ways to try to fool it.

>
>>
>> Phoenix required an AWG-9 radar.  The only aircraft to ever have that
>> were the USN version of the F-111 (F-111B) which was never produced
>> and the F-14 Tomcat.  That's not as bad as it might seem, though,
>> since the AIM-120D can reach out almost 100 miles and the cruise
>> missile carrying bomber air defense role for the Navy is much less
>> required than it used to be.
>>
>
>For some reason, I would still launch some F-14's and put them on 
>standoff defensive orbits loaded with state-of-the-art AIM-54 and AIM-120's
>

F-14 was killed as too expensive to fly.  They aren't even in the
Boneyard anymore.  They were ground up to prevent parts from being
diverted to Iran.

>
>>>>>>>> The F-35 is a different topic...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Afaict, F-22's most likely can eat up F-35's for breakfast, lunch and
>>>>>>> possibly dinner? Can the F-35 carry the newest Sidewinders? Does it
>>>>>>> require an external pylon? If so, there goes stealth. Damn.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> sidewinders need external pylon as they have to lock onto target before
>>>>> launch
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not on an F-22 they don't.  On an F-22 they launch from internal bays.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You are right. Thanks again Fred. :^)
>>>
>> 
>> I was in the missile business until a few years ago and do still keep
>> some track of what's going on, so I'm not horribly out of date yet.
>>
>
>Thank you for taking the time to set me on the right path. Corrections = 
>learning! Very nice conversing with you Fred. :^)
>

You're quite welcome.


-- 
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
                           -- Charles Pinckney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#683205

On 4/27/2018 2:58 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> wrote
> on Thu, 26 Apr 2018 22:25:37 -0700:
> 
>> On 4/25/2018 9:29 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> wrote
>>> on Wed, 25 Apr 2018 15:29:45 -0700:
>>>
>>>> On 4/25/2018 11:05 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>> Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote on Wed, 25 Apr 2018 10:21:50 -0500:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/24/2018 4:42 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/24/2018 1:50 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>>>      On 4/23/2018 11:17 PM, Juergen Nieveler wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 24.04.2018 07:17, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Will taking off in an F16 soon be equal to taking off in an F22 wrt
>>>>>>>>>> the fact that they can both be seen!?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I doubt it will happen "soon"... but it's a stern reminder that
>>>>>>>>> stealth technology is just a bet against the ingeniousness of physics
>>>>>>>>> grad students in the next 5 decades...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That has to be interesting to any pilot. They might find themselves up
>>>>>>>> against a shi% load of active SAM sites. Ahh, well, the SAMS that are
>>>>>>>> left after the initial barrages of HARM's and JSOW's are fired off by
>>>>>>>> coalition aircraft.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-88_HARM
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Joint_Standoff_Weapon
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The HARMS should target the SAMS, and the JSOW's should make the SAMS
>>>>>>>> fire off at projected phantom targets.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Love it:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Joint_Standoff_Weapon#/media/File:AGM-154_03.jpg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ;^)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll just note that HARMs can't target SAMs.  They can only target the
>>>>> radars.
>>>>
>>>> Argh! Sorry about that. You are correct. Well, if a SAM's radars are
>>>> severely damaged and/or outright destroyed, well, it is kind of rendered
>>>> into a highly degraded and somewhat worthless state, in a sense?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yep, but if you leave the missiles intact they can just drive in
>>> another radar.
>>
>> DOH! Correct again.
>>
>>
>>>>> Hence the use of JSOW on the missile emplacements.
>>
>> Indeed. Can JSOW launch a couple of MALD's?
>>
> 
> No.  MALD are generally carried by something like B-52.  MALD flies
> long enough and far enough that it can be launched from well outside a
> MEZ.
> 
>>
>>>> Iirc, JSOW can project phantom radar signatures of coalition aircraft
>>>> and cause the SAM to fire at them. Then, finally, the JSOW can choose
>>>> where to perform its "final mission", to destroy a target.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope.  I think you're thinking of MALD, which looks rather like JSOW
>>> but is much smaller and has a motor.
>>
>> You are absolutely correct on this one. For some reason I thought that
>> JSOW can project as well. Well, think of multiple MALD being released
>>from a cruise-type Phoenix like missile launched from a stand off aircraft.
>>
>> A single Phoenix can potentially launch multiple MALD after they "get
>> into a certain range". Heck, perhaps even a JSOW can launch some MALD's
>> in and of itself. Fractal layers of defense, in a sense?
>>
> 
> No.  MALD is too big to be used as a submunition.
> 
>>
>>>>>>>> JSOW saturation can deplete a SAM of missiles and might force it to be
>>>>>>>> reloaded. HARM saturation should destroy its radar systems.
>>>>
>>>> Ahh. I knew I wrote about HARM's destroying radars. Sorry for any
>>>> confusion, and thanks for your correction on my previous statement.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The idea behind HARM is that it's so fast you don't need to do
>>> saturation attacks, hence the 'H' in the name.
>>
>> Well, imvvho, the more the merrier, high-speed or not. Imvvho, we should
>> mass produce these types of countermeasures, and never stop improving
>> their capabilities.
>>
> 
> There are actually two (well, three) versions of MALD.  There's the
> baseline MALD, there's MALD-J, which includes patterned jamming, and
> there's a version with a little tiny warhead.
> 
>>
>>>>>>>> However, perhaps "in the future", the damn enemy has an experimental
>>>>>>>> weapon that is "theoretically" immune to HARM and JSOW, and can easily
>>>>>>>> see and target F-22's. It can also tell the difference between F-16,
>>>>>>>> F-15, F-22 and F-35 in real time and act accordingly... Oh SHI%! The
>>>>>>>> coalition must be trying to prevent the enemy from engaging within
>>>>>>>> this line of experimentation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At least the F-22 is also a superb plane on top of being stealthy, so
>>>>>>>>> it could still fight on even terms with other fighters with the
>>>>>>>>> stealth advantage removed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Agreed. At least it has that handy Vulcan Cannon for a knife fight.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> yep => short range, inaccurate
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> USAF F-35 also carries a built-in cannon.  It just doesn't carry very
>>>>> many rounds for it.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Imvvho, the pilots of an F-22 should not totally rely on hyper
>>>>>>>> advanced missile attack scenarios. I know they can fire on targets
>>>>>>>> from a long range via Phoenix, or medium range using AMRAAM. However,
>>>>>>>> even the newest versions of those missiles can fail to hit their
>>>>>>>> targets...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> aircraft have very good countermeasures, IR, microwave, decoys, flares
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Phoenix is dead.  The last airplane that could fire it was the F-14
>>>>> Tomcat.  USAF never owned any even when it was around, so it certainly
>>>>> was never a provision for F-22.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Does the F-22 carry long range missiles, or just medium range?
>>>>
>>>
>>> AIM-120 is as good as it gets for pretty much everybody these days.
>>
>> Nice, kind of agreed. I would still like to be able to fire off multiple
>> very long range cruise missiles, kind of like Phoenix used as a
>> supplement of any all out assault. Perhaps Phoenix can be used to deploy
>> an little "army" of micro drones? F-14 was kind of assigned to a stand
>> off fleet defense role anyway, right?
>>
> 
> Not a workable alternative.  Phoenix got its range by doing a zoom
> climb up into the stratosphere and then diving down on the target.
> This worked well with bombers, but was less effective with a smaller,
> more maneuverable target like a fighter.
> 
>>
>> Also, what about applying that to the radar system of an enemy SAM? Can
>> it use a "swarm of drones" as an aspect of its overall radar system? So,
>> HARM might be not be quite as useful as it once was?
>>
> 
> HARM is probably still ahead of ways to try to fool it.
> 
>>
>>>
>>> Phoenix required an AWG-9 radar.  The only aircraft to ever have that
>>> were the USN version of the F-111 (F-111B) which was never produced
>>> and the F-14 Tomcat.  That's not as bad as it might seem, though,
>>> since the AIM-120D can reach out almost 100 miles and the cruise
>>> missile carrying bomber air defense role for the Navy is much less
>>> required than it used to be.
>>>
>>
>> For some reason, I would still launch some F-14's and put them on
>> standoff defensive orbits loaded with state-of-the-art AIM-54 and AIM-120's
>>
> 
> F-14 was killed as too expensive to fly.  They aren't even in the
> Boneyard anymore.  They were ground up to prevent parts from being
> diverted to Iran.
> 
>>
>>>>>>>>> The F-35 is a different topic...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Afaict, F-22's most likely can eat up F-35's for breakfast, lunch and
>>>>>>>> possibly dinner? Can the F-35 carry the newest Sidewinders? Does it
>>>>>>>> require an external pylon? If so, there goes stealth. Damn.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> sidewinders need external pylon as they have to lock onto target before
>>>>>> launch
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not on an F-22 they don't.  On an F-22 they launch from internal bays.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are right. Thanks again Fred. :^)
>>>>
>>>
>>> I was in the missile business until a few years ago and do still keep
>>> some track of what's going on, so I'm not horribly out of date yet.
>>>
>>
>> Thank you for taking the time to set me on the right path. Corrections =
>> learning! Very nice conversing with you Fred. :^)
>>
> 
> You're quite welcome.
> 
> 

Found a fairly decent advertisement from Raytheon:

https://youtu.be/0acJ3xyhaJo

I would love to see a cruise missile deploy a swarm of little MALD's, 
then finally fly off to destroy its "main" target...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#683226

On 5/1/2018 3:52 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 4/27/2018 2:58 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> wrote
>> on Thu, 26 Apr 2018 22:25:37 -0700:
>>
>>> On 4/25/2018 9:29 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> wrote
>>>> on Wed, 25 Apr 2018 15:29:45 -0700:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/25/2018 11:05 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>> Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote on Wed, 25 Apr 2018 10:21:50
>>>>>> -0500:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/24/2018 4:42 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/24/2018 1:50 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>      On 4/23/2018 11:17 PM, Juergen Nieveler wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 24.04.2018 07:17, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Will taking off in an F16 soon be equal to taking off in an
>>>>>>>>>>> F22 wrt
>>>>>>>>>>> the fact that they can both be seen!?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I doubt it will happen "soon"... but it's a stern reminder that
>>>>>>>>>> stealth technology is just a bet against the ingeniousness of
>>>>>>>>>> physics
>>>>>>>>>> grad students in the next 5 decades...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That has to be interesting to any pilot. They might find
>>>>>>>>> themselves up
>>>>>>>>> against a shi% load of active SAM sites. Ahh, well, the SAMS
>>>>>>>>> that are
>>>>>>>>> left after the initial barrages of HARM's and JSOW's are fired
>>>>>>>>> off by
>>>>>>>>> coalition aircraft.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-88_HARM
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Joint_Standoff_Weapon
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The HARMS should target the SAMS, and the JSOW's should make
>>>>>>>>> the SAMS
>>>>>>>>> fire off at projected phantom targets.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Love it:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Joint_Standoff_Weapon#/media/File:AGM-154_03.jpg
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ;^)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll just note that HARMs can't target SAMs.  They can only target
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> radars.
>>>>>
>>>>> Argh! Sorry about that. You are correct. Well, if a SAM's radars are
>>>>> severely damaged and/or outright destroyed, well, it is kind of
>>>>> rendered
>>>>> into a highly degraded and somewhat worthless state, in a sense?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yep, but if you leave the missiles intact they can just drive in
>>>> another radar.
>>>
>>> DOH! Correct again.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Hence the use of JSOW on the missile emplacements.
>>>
>>> Indeed. Can JSOW launch a couple of MALD's?
>>>
>>
>> No.  MALD are generally carried by something like B-52.  MALD flies
>> long enough and far enough that it can be launched from well outside a
>> MEZ.
>>
>>>
>>>>> Iirc, JSOW can project phantom radar signatures of coalition aircraft
>>>>> and cause the SAM to fire at them. Then, finally, the JSOW can choose
>>>>> where to perform its "final mission", to destroy a target.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope.  I think you're thinking of MALD, which looks rather like JSOW
>>>> but is much smaller and has a motor.
>>>
>>> You are absolutely correct on this one. For some reason I thought that
>>> JSOW can project as well. Well, think of multiple MALD being released
>>> from a cruise-type Phoenix like missile launched from a stand off
>>> aircraft.
>>>
>>> A single Phoenix can potentially launch multiple MALD after they "get
>>> into a certain range". Heck, perhaps even a JSOW can launch some MALD's
>>> in and of itself. Fractal layers of defense, in a sense?
>>>
>>
>> No.  MALD is too big to be used as a submunition.
>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>> JSOW saturation can deplete a SAM of missiles and might force
>>>>>>>>> it to be
>>>>>>>>> reloaded. HARM saturation should destroy its radar systems.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ahh. I knew I wrote about HARM's destroying radars. Sorry for any
>>>>> confusion, and thanks for your correction on my previous statement.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The idea behind HARM is that it's so fast you don't need to do
>>>> saturation attacks, hence the 'H' in the name.
>>>
>>> Well, imvvho, the more the merrier, high-speed or not. Imvvho, we should
>>> mass produce these types of countermeasures, and never stop improving
>>> their capabilities.
>>>
>>
>> There are actually two (well, three) versions of MALD.  There's the
>> baseline MALD, there's MALD-J, which includes patterned jamming, and
>> there's a version with a little tiny warhead.
>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>> However, perhaps "in the future", the damn enemy has an
>>>>>>>>> experimental
>>>>>>>>> weapon that is "theoretically" immune to HARM and JSOW, and can
>>>>>>>>> easily
>>>>>>>>> see and target F-22's. It can also tell the difference between
>>>>>>>>> F-16,
>>>>>>>>> F-15, F-22 and F-35 in real time and act accordingly... Oh
>>>>>>>>> SHI%! The
>>>>>>>>> coalition must be trying to prevent the enemy from engaging within
>>>>>>>>> this line of experimentation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> At least the F-22 is also a superb plane on top of being
>>>>>>>>>> stealthy, so
>>>>>>>>>> it could still fight on even terms with other fighters with the
>>>>>>>>>> stealth advantage removed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Agreed. At least it has that handy Vulcan Cannon for a knife
>>>>>>>>> fight.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> yep => short range, inaccurate
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> USAF F-35 also carries a built-in cannon.  It just doesn't carry very
>>>>>> many rounds for it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Imvvho, the pilots of an F-22 should not totally rely on hyper
>>>>>>>>> advanced missile attack scenarios. I know they can fire on targets
>>>>>>>>> from a long range via Phoenix, or medium range using AMRAAM.
>>>>>>>>> However,
>>>>>>>>> even the newest versions of those missiles can fail to hit their
>>>>>>>>> targets...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> aircraft have very good countermeasures, IR, microwave, decoys,
>>>>>>> flares
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Phoenix is dead.  The last airplane that could fire it was the F-14
>>>>>> Tomcat.  USAF never owned any even when it was around, so it
>>>>>> certainly
>>>>>> was never a provision for F-22.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Does the F-22 carry long range missiles, or just medium range?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> AIM-120 is as good as it gets for pretty much everybody these days.
>>>
>>> Nice, kind of agreed. I would still like to be able to fire off multiple
>>> very long range cruise missiles, kind of like Phoenix used as a
>>> supplement of any all out assault. Perhaps Phoenix can be used to deploy
>>> an little "army" of micro drones? F-14 was kind of assigned to a stand
>>> off fleet defense role anyway, right?
>>>
>>
>> Not a workable alternative.  Phoenix got its range by doing a zoom
>> climb up into the stratosphere and then diving down on the target.
>> This worked well with bombers, but was less effective with a smaller,
>> more maneuverable target like a fighter.
>>
>>>
>>> Also, what about applying that to the radar system of an enemy SAM? Can
>>> it use a "swarm of drones" as an aspect of its overall radar system? So,
>>> HARM might be not be quite as useful as it once was?
>>>
>>
>> HARM is probably still ahead of ways to try to fool it.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Phoenix required an AWG-9 radar.  The only aircraft to ever have that
>>>> were the USN version of the F-111 (F-111B) which was never produced
>>>> and the F-14 Tomcat.  That's not as bad as it might seem, though,
>>>> since the AIM-120D can reach out almost 100 miles and the cruise
>>>> missile carrying bomber air defense role for the Navy is much less
>>>> required than it used to be.
>>>>
>>>
>>> For some reason, I would still launch some F-14's and put them on
>>> standoff defensive orbits loaded with state-of-the-art AIM-54 and
>>> AIM-120's
>>>
>>
>> F-14 was killed as too expensive to fly.  They aren't even in the
>> Boneyard anymore.  They were ground up to prevent parts from being
>> diverted to Iran.
>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The F-35 is a different topic...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Afaict, F-22's most likely can eat up F-35's for breakfast,
>>>>>>>>> lunch and
>>>>>>>>> possibly dinner? Can the F-35 carry the newest Sidewinders?
>>>>>>>>> Does it
>>>>>>>>> require an external pylon? If so, there goes stealth. Damn.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sidewinders need external pylon as they have to lock onto target
>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>> launch
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not on an F-22 they don't.  On an F-22 they launch from internal
>>>>>> bays.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You are right. Thanks again Fred. :^)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I was in the missile business until a few years ago and do still keep
>>>> some track of what's going on, so I'm not horribly out of date yet.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for taking the time to set me on the right path. Corrections =
>>> learning! Very nice conversing with you Fred. :^)
>>>
>>
>> You're quite welcome.
>>
>>
> 
> Found a fairly decent advertisement from Raytheon:
> 
> https://youtu.be/0acJ3xyhaJo
> 
> I would love to see a cruise missile deploy a swarm of little MALD's,
> then finally fly off to destroy its "main" target...

good link, great missiles

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#683245

"Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> wrote
on Tue, 1 May 2018 13:52:19 -0700:

>On 4/27/2018 2:58 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> wrote
>> on Thu, 26 Apr 2018 22:25:37 -0700:
>> 
>>> On 4/25/2018 9:29 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> wrote
>>>> on Wed, 25 Apr 2018 15:29:45 -0700:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/25/2018 11:05 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>> Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote on Wed, 25 Apr 2018 10:21:50 -0500:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/24/2018 4:42 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/24/2018 1:50 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>      On 4/23/2018 11:17 PM, Juergen Nieveler wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 24.04.2018 07:17, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Will taking off in an F16 soon be equal to taking off in an F22 wrt
>>>>>>>>>>> the fact that they can both be seen!?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I doubt it will happen "soon"... but it's a stern reminder that
>>>>>>>>>> stealth technology is just a bet against the ingeniousness of physics
>>>>>>>>>> grad students in the next 5 decades...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That has to be interesting to any pilot. They might find themselves up
>>>>>>>>> against a shi% load of active SAM sites. Ahh, well, the SAMS that are
>>>>>>>>> left after the initial barrages of HARM's and JSOW's are fired off by
>>>>>>>>> coalition aircraft.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-88_HARM
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Joint_Standoff_Weapon
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The HARMS should target the SAMS, and the JSOW's should make the SAMS
>>>>>>>>> fire off at projected phantom targets.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Love it:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Joint_Standoff_Weapon#/media/File:AGM-154_03.jpg
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ;^)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll just note that HARMs can't target SAMs.  They can only target the
>>>>>> radars.
>>>>>
>>>>> Argh! Sorry about that. You are correct. Well, if a SAM's radars are
>>>>> severely damaged and/or outright destroyed, well, it is kind of rendered
>>>>> into a highly degraded and somewhat worthless state, in a sense?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yep, but if you leave the missiles intact they can just drive in
>>>> another radar.
>>>
>>> DOH! Correct again.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Hence the use of JSOW on the missile emplacements.
>>>
>>> Indeed. Can JSOW launch a couple of MALD's?
>>>
>> 
>> No.  MALD are generally carried by something like B-52.  MALD flies
>> long enough and far enough that it can be launched from well outside a
>> MEZ.
>> 
>>>
>>>>> Iirc, JSOW can project phantom radar signatures of coalition aircraft
>>>>> and cause the SAM to fire at them. Then, finally, the JSOW can choose
>>>>> where to perform its "final mission", to destroy a target.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope.  I think you're thinking of MALD, which looks rather like JSOW
>>>> but is much smaller and has a motor.
>>>
>>> You are absolutely correct on this one. For some reason I thought that
>>> JSOW can project as well. Well, think of multiple MALD being released
>>>from a cruise-type Phoenix like missile launched from a stand off aircraft.
>>>
>>> A single Phoenix can potentially launch multiple MALD after they "get
>>> into a certain range". Heck, perhaps even a JSOW can launch some MALD's
>>> in and of itself. Fractal layers of defense, in a sense?
>>>
>> 
>> No.  MALD is too big to be used as a submunition.
>> 
>>>
>>>>>>>>> JSOW saturation can deplete a SAM of missiles and might force it to be
>>>>>>>>> reloaded. HARM saturation should destroy its radar systems.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ahh. I knew I wrote about HARM's destroying radars. Sorry for any
>>>>> confusion, and thanks for your correction on my previous statement.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The idea behind HARM is that it's so fast you don't need to do
>>>> saturation attacks, hence the 'H' in the name.
>>>
>>> Well, imvvho, the more the merrier, high-speed or not. Imvvho, we should
>>> mass produce these types of countermeasures, and never stop improving
>>> their capabilities.
>>>
>> 
>> There are actually two (well, three) versions of MALD.  There's the
>> baseline MALD, there's MALD-J, which includes patterned jamming, and
>> there's a version with a little tiny warhead.
>> 
>>>
>>>>>>>>> However, perhaps "in the future", the damn enemy has an experimental
>>>>>>>>> weapon that is "theoretically" immune to HARM and JSOW, and can easily
>>>>>>>>> see and target F-22's. It can also tell the difference between F-16,
>>>>>>>>> F-15, F-22 and F-35 in real time and act accordingly... Oh SHI%! The
>>>>>>>>> coalition must be trying to prevent the enemy from engaging within
>>>>>>>>> this line of experimentation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> At least the F-22 is also a superb plane on top of being stealthy, so
>>>>>>>>>> it could still fight on even terms with other fighters with the
>>>>>>>>>> stealth advantage removed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Agreed. At least it has that handy Vulcan Cannon for a knife fight.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> yep => short range, inaccurate
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> USAF F-35 also carries a built-in cannon.  It just doesn't carry very
>>>>>> many rounds for it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Imvvho, the pilots of an F-22 should not totally rely on hyper
>>>>>>>>> advanced missile attack scenarios. I know they can fire on targets
>>>>>>>>> from a long range via Phoenix, or medium range using AMRAAM. However,
>>>>>>>>> even the newest versions of those missiles can fail to hit their
>>>>>>>>> targets...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> aircraft have very good countermeasures, IR, microwave, decoys, flares
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Phoenix is dead.  The last airplane that could fire it was the F-14
>>>>>> Tomcat.  USAF never owned any even when it was around, so it certainly
>>>>>> was never a provision for F-22.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Does the F-22 carry long range missiles, or just medium range?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> AIM-120 is as good as it gets for pretty much everybody these days.
>>>
>>> Nice, kind of agreed. I would still like to be able to fire off multiple
>>> very long range cruise missiles, kind of like Phoenix used as a
>>> supplement of any all out assault. Perhaps Phoenix can be used to deploy
>>> an little "army" of micro drones? F-14 was kind of assigned to a stand
>>> off fleet defense role anyway, right?
>>>
>> 
>> Not a workable alternative.  Phoenix got its range by doing a zoom
>> climb up into the stratosphere and then diving down on the target.
>> This worked well with bombers, but was less effective with a smaller,
>> more maneuverable target like a fighter.
>> 
>>>
>>> Also, what about applying that to the radar system of an enemy SAM? Can
>>> it use a "swarm of drones" as an aspect of its overall radar system? So,
>>> HARM might be not be quite as useful as it once was?
>>>
>> 
>> HARM is probably still ahead of ways to try to fool it.
>> 
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Phoenix required an AWG-9 radar.  The only aircraft to ever have that
>>>> were the USN version of the F-111 (F-111B) which was never produced
>>>> and the F-14 Tomcat.  That's not as bad as it might seem, though,
>>>> since the AIM-120D can reach out almost 100 miles and the cruise
>>>> missile carrying bomber air defense role for the Navy is much less
>>>> required than it used to be.
>>>>
>>>
>>> For some reason, I would still launch some F-14's and put them on
>>> standoff defensive orbits loaded with state-of-the-art AIM-54 and AIM-120's
>>>
>> 
>> F-14 was killed as too expensive to fly.  They aren't even in the
>> Boneyard anymore.  They were ground up to prevent parts from being
>> diverted to Iran.
>> 
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The F-35 is a different topic...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Afaict, F-22's most likely can eat up F-35's for breakfast, lunch and
>>>>>>>>> possibly dinner? Can the F-35 carry the newest Sidewinders? Does it
>>>>>>>>> require an external pylon? If so, there goes stealth. Damn.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sidewinders need external pylon as they have to lock onto target before
>>>>>>> launch
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not on an F-22 they don't.  On an F-22 they launch from internal bays.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You are right. Thanks again Fred. :^)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I was in the missile business until a few years ago and do still keep
>>>> some track of what's going on, so I'm not horribly out of date yet.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for taking the time to set me on the right path. Corrections =
>>> learning! Very nice conversing with you Fred. :^)
>>>
>> 
>> You're quite welcome.
>> 
>
>Found a fairly decent advertisement from Raytheon:
>
>https://youtu.be/0acJ3xyhaJo
>

It's not bad, but there's something they don't point out.  Practically
all the JSOW belong to the Navy.  MALD is mostly Air Force, although I
think they were integrating it on F/A-18 for the Navy.  Newer HARM is
all Air Force, with the Navy opting to switch to a different (more
expensive) weapon named AARGM.  So seeing all three Raytheon weapons
used the way the ad's notional scenario describes is a little
unlikely.

>
>I would love to see a cruise missile deploy a swarm of little MALD's, 
>then finally fly off to destroy its "main" target...
>

And just where would this notional cruise missile keep all these
little MALDs (which would have to be an entirely new weapon and not
MALD at all) and just how much space could possibly be left for a
warhead?


-- 
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
                           -- Charles Pinckney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#683258

On 5/1/2018 5:57 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> wrote
> on Tue, 1 May 2018 13:52:19 -0700:
> 
>> On 4/27/2018 2:58 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> wrote
>>> on Thu, 26 Apr 2018 22:25:37 -0700:
>>>
>>>> On 4/25/2018 9:29 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> wrote
>>>>> on Wed, 25 Apr 2018 15:29:45 -0700:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/25/2018 11:05 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>>> Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote on Wed, 25 Apr 2018 10:21:50 -0500:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/24/2018 4:42 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/24/2018 1:50 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>       On 4/23/2018 11:17 PM, Juergen Nieveler wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 24.04.2018 07:17, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Will taking off in an F16 soon be equal to taking off in an F22 wrt
>>>>>>>>>>>> the fact that they can both be seen!?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I doubt it will happen "soon"... but it's a stern reminder that
>>>>>>>>>>> stealth technology is just a bet against the ingeniousness of physics
>>>>>>>>>>> grad students in the next 5 decades...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That has to be interesting to any pilot. They might find themselves up
>>>>>>>>>> against a shi% load of active SAM sites. Ahh, well, the SAMS that are
>>>>>>>>>> left after the initial barrages of HARM's and JSOW's are fired off by
>>>>>>>>>> coalition aircraft.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-88_HARM
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Joint_Standoff_Weapon
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The HARMS should target the SAMS, and the JSOW's should make the SAMS
>>>>>>>>>> fire off at projected phantom targets.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Love it:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Joint_Standoff_Weapon#/media/File:AGM-154_03.jpg
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ;^)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll just note that HARMs can't target SAMs.  They can only target the
>>>>>>> radars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Argh! Sorry about that. You are correct. Well, if a SAM's radars are
>>>>>> severely damaged and/or outright destroyed, well, it is kind of rendered
>>>>>> into a highly degraded and somewhat worthless state, in a sense?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep, but if you leave the missiles intact they can just drive in
>>>>> another radar.
>>>>
>>>> DOH! Correct again.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Hence the use of JSOW on the missile emplacements.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed. Can JSOW launch a couple of MALD's?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No.  MALD are generally carried by something like B-52.  MALD flies
>>> long enough and far enough that it can be launched from well outside a
>>> MEZ.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Iirc, JSOW can project phantom radar signatures of coalition aircraft
>>>>>> and cause the SAM to fire at them. Then, finally, the JSOW can choose
>>>>>> where to perform its "final mission", to destroy a target.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.  I think you're thinking of MALD, which looks rather like JSOW
>>>>> but is much smaller and has a motor.
>>>>
>>>> You are absolutely correct on this one. For some reason I thought that
>>>> JSOW can project as well. Well, think of multiple MALD being released
>>> >from a cruise-type Phoenix like missile launched from a stand off aircraft.
>>>>
>>>> A single Phoenix can potentially launch multiple MALD after they "get
>>>> into a certain range". Heck, perhaps even a JSOW can launch some MALD's
>>>> in and of itself. Fractal layers of defense, in a sense?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No.  MALD is too big to be used as a submunition.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> JSOW saturation can deplete a SAM of missiles and might force it to be
>>>>>>>>>> reloaded. HARM saturation should destroy its radar systems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ahh. I knew I wrote about HARM's destroying radars. Sorry for any
>>>>>> confusion, and thanks for your correction on my previous statement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The idea behind HARM is that it's so fast you don't need to do
>>>>> saturation attacks, hence the 'H' in the name.
>>>>
>>>> Well, imvvho, the more the merrier, high-speed or not. Imvvho, we should
>>>> mass produce these types of countermeasures, and never stop improving
>>>> their capabilities.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are actually two (well, three) versions of MALD.  There's the
>>> baseline MALD, there's MALD-J, which includes patterned jamming, and
>>> there's a version with a little tiny warhead.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> However, perhaps "in the future", the damn enemy has an experimental
>>>>>>>>>> weapon that is "theoretically" immune to HARM and JSOW, and can easily
>>>>>>>>>> see and target F-22's. It can also tell the difference between F-16,
>>>>>>>>>> F-15, F-22 and F-35 in real time and act accordingly... Oh SHI%! The
>>>>>>>>>> coalition must be trying to prevent the enemy from engaging within
>>>>>>>>>> this line of experimentation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> At least the F-22 is also a superb plane on top of being stealthy, so
>>>>>>>>>>> it could still fight on even terms with other fighters with the
>>>>>>>>>>> stealth advantage removed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Agreed. At least it has that handy Vulcan Cannon for a knife fight.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> yep => short range, inaccurate
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> USAF F-35 also carries a built-in cannon.  It just doesn't carry very
>>>>>>> many rounds for it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Imvvho, the pilots of an F-22 should not totally rely on hyper
>>>>>>>>>> advanced missile attack scenarios. I know they can fire on targets
>>>>>>>>>> from a long range via Phoenix, or medium range using AMRAAM. However,
>>>>>>>>>> even the newest versions of those missiles can fail to hit their
>>>>>>>>>> targets...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> aircraft have very good countermeasures, IR, microwave, decoys, flares
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Phoenix is dead.  The last airplane that could fire it was the F-14
>>>>>>> Tomcat.  USAF never owned any even when it was around, so it certainly
>>>>>>> was never a provision for F-22.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does the F-22 carry long range missiles, or just medium range?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> AIM-120 is as good as it gets for pretty much everybody these days.
>>>>
>>>> Nice, kind of agreed. I would still like to be able to fire off multiple
>>>> very long range cruise missiles, kind of like Phoenix used as a
>>>> supplement of any all out assault. Perhaps Phoenix can be used to deploy
>>>> an little "army" of micro drones? F-14 was kind of assigned to a stand
>>>> off fleet defense role anyway, right?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not a workable alternative.  Phoenix got its range by doing a zoom
>>> climb up into the stratosphere and then diving down on the target.
>>> This worked well with bombers, but was less effective with a smaller,
>>> more maneuverable target like a fighter.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Also, what about applying that to the radar system of an enemy SAM? Can
>>>> it use a "swarm of drones" as an aspect of its overall radar system? So,
>>>> HARM might be not be quite as useful as it once was?
>>>>
>>>
>>> HARM is probably still ahead of ways to try to fool it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Phoenix required an AWG-9 radar.  The only aircraft to ever have that
>>>>> were the USN version of the F-111 (F-111B) which was never produced
>>>>> and the F-14 Tomcat.  That's not as bad as it might seem, though,
>>>>> since the AIM-120D can reach out almost 100 miles and the cruise
>>>>> missile carrying bomber air defense role for the Navy is much less
>>>>> required than it used to be.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For some reason, I would still launch some F-14's and put them on
>>>> standoff defensive orbits loaded with state-of-the-art AIM-54 and AIM-120's
>>>>
>>>
>>> F-14 was killed as too expensive to fly.  They aren't even in the
>>> Boneyard anymore.  They were ground up to prevent parts from being
>>> diverted to Iran.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The F-35 is a different topic...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Afaict, F-22's most likely can eat up F-35's for breakfast, lunch and
>>>>>>>>>> possibly dinner? Can the F-35 carry the newest Sidewinders? Does it
>>>>>>>>>> require an external pylon? If so, there goes stealth. Damn.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> sidewinders need external pylon as they have to lock onto target before
>>>>>>>> launch
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not on an F-22 they don't.  On an F-22 they launch from internal bays.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are right. Thanks again Fred. :^)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I was in the missile business until a few years ago and do still keep
>>>>> some track of what's going on, so I'm not horribly out of date yet.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for taking the time to set me on the right path. Corrections =
>>>> learning! Very nice conversing with you Fred. :^)
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're quite welcome.
>>>
>>
>> Found a fairly decent advertisement from Raytheon:
>>
>> https://youtu.be/0acJ3xyhaJo
>>
> 
> It's not bad, but there's something they don't point out.  Practically
> all the JSOW belong to the Navy.  MALD is mostly Air Force, although I
> think they were integrating it on F/A-18 for the Navy.  Newer HARM is
> all Air Force, with the Navy opting to switch to a different (more
> expensive) weapon named AARGM.  So seeing all three Raytheon weapons
> used the way the ad's notional scenario describes is a little
> unlikely.
> 
>>
>> I would love to see a cruise missile deploy a swarm of little MALD's,
>> then finally fly off to destroy its "main" target...
>>
> 
> And just where would this notional cruise missile keep all these
> little MALDs (which would have to be an entirely new weapon and not
> MALD at all) and just how much space could possibly be left for a
> warhead?
> 
> 

Need to think more, but perhaps each individual drone can be contained 
in a little cylinder and use some clever origami after it is ejected. 
The missile would carry multiple cylinders. Perhaps, after it releases a 
swarm, it can go on orbit mode and use its radar, instead of warhead, to 
help guide its swarm.

Fractal design would allow the missile to deploy a couple of weapons 
that can go to other targets and deploy their own swarms. A single 
missile can potentially create and try to help guide a swarm of swarms.

Perhaps a squadron of drones can descend upon a ground based target and 
explode in special formations that act as if a hard core cluster bomb 
went off?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#683312

"Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> wrote
on Tue, 1 May 2018 19:43:10 -0700:

>On 5/1/2018 5:57 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> wrote
>> on Tue, 1 May 2018 13:52:19 -0700:
>> 
>>> On 4/27/2018 2:58 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> wrote
>>>> on Thu, 26 Apr 2018 22:25:37 -0700:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/25/2018 9:29 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> wrote
>>>>>> on Wed, 25 Apr 2018 15:29:45 -0700:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/25/2018 11:05 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>>>> Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote on Wed, 25 Apr 2018 10:21:50 -0500:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/24/2018 4:42 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/24/2018 1:50 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>       On 4/23/2018 11:17 PM, Juergen Nieveler wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24.04.2018 07:17, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Will taking off in an F16 soon be equal to taking off in an F22 wrt
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the fact that they can both be seen!?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I doubt it will happen "soon"... but it's a stern reminder that
>>>>>>>>>>>> stealth technology is just a bet against the ingeniousness of physics
>>>>>>>>>>>> grad students in the next 5 decades...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That has to be interesting to any pilot. They might find themselves up
>>>>>>>>>>> against a shi% load of active SAM sites. Ahh, well, the SAMS that are
>>>>>>>>>>> left after the initial barrages of HARM's and JSOW's are fired off by
>>>>>>>>>>> coalition aircraft.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-88_HARM
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Joint_Standoff_Weapon
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The HARMS should target the SAMS, and the JSOW's should make the SAMS
>>>>>>>>>>> fire off at projected phantom targets.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Love it:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Joint_Standoff_Weapon#/media/File:AGM-154_03.jpg
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ;^)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'll just note that HARMs can't target SAMs.  They can only target the
>>>>>>>> radars.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Argh! Sorry about that. You are correct. Well, if a SAM's radars are
>>>>>>> severely damaged and/or outright destroyed, well, it is kind of rendered
>>>>>>> into a highly degraded and somewhat worthless state, in a sense?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep, but if you leave the missiles intact they can just drive in
>>>>>> another radar.
>>>>>
>>>>> DOH! Correct again.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hence the use of JSOW on the missile emplacements.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed. Can JSOW launch a couple of MALD's?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No.  MALD are generally carried by something like B-52.  MALD flies
>>>> long enough and far enough that it can be launched from well outside a
>>>> MEZ.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Iirc, JSOW can project phantom radar signatures of coalition aircraft
>>>>>>> and cause the SAM to fire at them. Then, finally, the JSOW can choose
>>>>>>> where to perform its "final mission", to destroy a target.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope.  I think you're thinking of MALD, which looks rather like JSOW
>>>>>> but is much smaller and has a motor.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are absolutely correct on this one. For some reason I thought that
>>>>> JSOW can project as well. Well, think of multiple MALD being released
>>>> >from a cruise-type Phoenix like missile launched from a stand off aircraft.
>>>>>
>>>>> A single Phoenix can potentially launch multiple MALD after they "get
>>>>> into a certain range". Heck, perhaps even a JSOW can launch some MALD's
>>>>> in and of itself. Fractal layers of defense, in a sense?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No.  MALD is too big to be used as a submunition.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> JSOW saturation can deplete a SAM of missiles and might force it to be
>>>>>>>>>>> reloaded. HARM saturation should destroy its radar systems.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ahh. I knew I wrote about HARM's destroying radars. Sorry for any
>>>>>>> confusion, and thanks for your correction on my previous statement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The idea behind HARM is that it's so fast you don't need to do
>>>>>> saturation attacks, hence the 'H' in the name.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, imvvho, the more the merrier, high-speed or not. Imvvho, we should
>>>>> mass produce these types of countermeasures, and never stop improving
>>>>> their capabilities.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are actually two (well, three) versions of MALD.  There's the
>>>> baseline MALD, there's MALD-J, which includes patterned jamming, and
>>>> there's a version with a little tiny warhead.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> However, perhaps "in the future", the damn enemy has an experimental
>>>>>>>>>>> weapon that is "theoretically" immune to HARM and JSOW, and can easily
>>>>>>>>>>> see and target F-22's. It can also tell the difference between F-16,
>>>>>>>>>>> F-15, F-22 and F-35 in real time and act accordingly... Oh SHI%! The
>>>>>>>>>>> coalition must be trying to prevent the enemy from engaging within
>>>>>>>>>>> this line of experimentation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> At least the F-22 is also a superb plane on top of being stealthy, so
>>>>>>>>>>>> it could still fight on even terms with other fighters with the
>>>>>>>>>>>> stealth advantage removed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Agreed. At least it has that handy Vulcan Cannon for a knife fight.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> yep => short range, inaccurate
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> USAF F-35 also carries a built-in cannon.  It just doesn't carry very
>>>>>>>> many rounds for it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Imvvho, the pilots of an F-22 should not totally rely on hyper
>>>>>>>>>>> advanced missile attack scenarios. I know they can fire on targets
>>>>>>>>>>> from a long range via Phoenix, or medium range using AMRAAM. However,
>>>>>>>>>>> even the newest versions of those missiles can fail to hit their
>>>>>>>>>>> targets...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> aircraft have very good countermeasures, IR, microwave, decoys, flares
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Phoenix is dead.  The last airplane that could fire it was the F-14
>>>>>>>> Tomcat.  USAF never owned any even when it was around, so it certainly
>>>>>>>> was never a provision for F-22.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does the F-22 carry long range missiles, or just medium range?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AIM-120 is as good as it gets for pretty much everybody these days.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nice, kind of agreed. I would still like to be able to fire off multiple
>>>>> very long range cruise missiles, kind of like Phoenix used as a
>>>>> supplement of any all out assault. Perhaps Phoenix can be used to deploy
>>>>> an little "army" of micro drones? F-14 was kind of assigned to a stand
>>>>> off fleet defense role anyway, right?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not a workable alternative.  Phoenix got its range by doing a zoom
>>>> climb up into the stratosphere and then diving down on the target.
>>>> This worked well with bombers, but was less effective with a smaller,
>>>> more maneuverable target like a fighter.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, what about applying that to the radar system of an enemy SAM? Can
>>>>> it use a "swarm of drones" as an aspect of its overall radar system? So,
>>>>> HARM might be not be quite as useful as it once was?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> HARM is probably still ahead of ways to try to fool it.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Phoenix required an AWG-9 radar.  The only aircraft to ever have that
>>>>>> were the USN version of the F-111 (F-111B) which was never produced
>>>>>> and the F-14 Tomcat.  That's not as bad as it might seem, though,
>>>>>> since the AIM-120D can reach out almost 100 miles and the cruise
>>>>>> missile carrying bomber air defense role for the Navy is much less
>>>>>> required than it used to be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For some reason, I would still launch some F-14's and put them on
>>>>> standoff defensive orbits loaded with state-of-the-art AIM-54 and AIM-120's
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> F-14 was killed as too expensive to fly.  They aren't even in the
>>>> Boneyard anymore.  They were ground up to prevent parts from being
>>>> diverted to Iran.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The F-35 is a different topic...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Afaict, F-22's most likely can eat up F-35's for breakfast, lunch and
>>>>>>>>>>> possibly dinner? Can the F-35 carry the newest Sidewinders? Does it
>>>>>>>>>>> require an external pylon? If so, there goes stealth. Damn.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> sidewinders need external pylon as they have to lock onto target before
>>>>>>>>> launch
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not on an F-22 they don't.  On an F-22 they launch from internal bays.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are right. Thanks again Fred. :^)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was in the missile business until a few years ago and do still keep
>>>>>> some track of what's going on, so I'm not horribly out of date yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for taking the time to set me on the right path. Corrections =
>>>>> learning! Very nice conversing with you Fred. :^)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're quite welcome.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Found a fairly decent advertisement from Raytheon:
>>>
>>> https://youtu.be/0acJ3xyhaJo
>>>
>> 
>> It's not bad, but there's something they don't point out.  Practically
>> all the JSOW belong to the Navy.  MALD is mostly Air Force, although I
>> think they were integrating it on F/A-18 for the Navy.  Newer HARM is
>> all Air Force, with the Navy opting to switch to a different (more
>> expensive) weapon named AARGM.  So seeing all three Raytheon weapons
>> used the way the ad's notional scenario describes is a little
>> unlikely.
>> 
>>>
>>> I would love to see a cruise missile deploy a swarm of little MALD's,
>>> then finally fly off to destroy its "main" target...
>>>
>> 
>> And just where would this notional cruise missile keep all these
>> little MALDs (which would have to be an entirely new weapon and not
>> MALD at all) and just how much space could possibly be left for a
>> warhead?
>> 
>
>Need to think more, but perhaps each individual drone can be contained 
>in a little cylinder and use some clever origami after it is ejected. 
>

"Clever origami"?  Does that mean something other than the folding
wings all these things already come with?

>
>The missile would carry multiple cylinders. Perhaps, after it releases a 
>swarm, it can go on orbit mode and use its radar, instead of warhead, to 
>help guide its swarm.
>

What's the use case for this weapon?  What's its intended target set?

>
>Fractal design ...
>

Say what now?

>
>... would allow the missile to deploy a couple of weapons 
>that can go to other targets and deploy their own swarms. A single 
>missile can potentially create and try to help guide a swarm of swarms.
>

It sounds like you're using a lot more space than you have again.

>
>Perhaps a squadron of drones can descend upon a ground based target and 
>explode in special formations that act as if a hard core cluster bomb 
>went off?
>

Perhaps, but it would be more effective against most targets to use a
single large warhead.  If you want multiple blasts, shoot multiple
missiles.  It's cheaper and more effective than trying to design and
use missiles shooting missiles that shoot missiles.


-- 
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
                           -- Charles Pinckney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#682576

On 26.04.2018 00:29, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> Does the F-22 carry long range missiles, or just medium range?

They can carry the AIM-120D, which has a range of more than 160km - the 
exact range of course is secret, but it seems to be almost as long as 
for the AIM-54.

-- 
Juergen Nieveler

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#682583

Juergen Nieveler <juergen@nieveler.org> wrote on Fri, 27 Apr 2018
09:17:06 +0200:

>On 26.04.2018 00:29, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> Does the F-22 carry long range missiles, or just medium range?
>
>They can carry the AIM-120D, which has a range of more than 160km - the 
>exact range of course is secret, but it seems to be almost as long as 
>for the AIM-54.
>

Against today's target set I would much prefer the AIM-120D.  That
being said, there is apparently some concern, according to the press,
that some modern Russian digital jammers can render AIM-120D less than
effective.


-- 
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
                           -- Charles Pinckney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#682587

On 27.04.2018 12:03, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Juergen Nieveler <juergen@nieveler.org> wrote on Fri, 27 Apr 2018
> 09:17:06 +0200:
> 
>> On 26.04.2018 00:29, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> Does the F-22 carry long range missiles, or just medium range?
>>
>> They can carry the AIM-120D, which has a range of more than 160km - the
>> exact range of course is secret, but it seems to be almost as long as
>> for the AIM-54.
>>
> 
> Against today's target set I would much prefer the AIM-120D.  That
> being said, there is apparently some concern, according to the press,
> that some modern Russian digital jammers can render AIM-120D less than
> effective.

Was the radar on the Phoenix strong enough to better burn through the 
jamming?


-- 
Juergen Nieveler

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#682609

On 4/27/2018 7:27 AM, Juergen Nieveler wrote:
> On 27.04.2018 12:03, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> Juergen Nieveler <juergen@nieveler.org> wrote on Fri, 27 Apr 2018
>> 09:17:06 +0200:
>>
>>> On 26.04.2018 00:29, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>> Does the F-22 carry long range missiles, or just medium range?
>>>
>>> They can carry the AIM-120D, which has a range of more than 160km - the
>>> exact range of course is secret, but it seems to be almost as long as
>>> for the AIM-54.
>>>
>>
>> Against today's target set I would much prefer the AIM-120D.  That
>> being said, there is apparently some concern, according to the press,
>> that some modern Russian digital jammers can render AIM-120D less than
>> effective.
> 
> Was the radar on the Phoenix strong enough to better burn through the
> jamming?
> 
> 

burn through the jamming ??
there is the 1/d^2  pathloss
and some jammers can burnout the first amp in radar receiver

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#682642

On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 11:27:59 -0500, Sergio wrote:

> On 4/27/2018 7:27 AM, Juergen Nieveler wrote:
>> On 27.04.2018 12:03, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>> Juergen Nieveler <juergen@nieveler.org> wrote on Fri, 27 Apr 2018
>>> 09:17:06 +0200:
>>>
>>>> On 26.04.2018 00:29, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>> Does the F-22 carry long range missiles, or just medium range?
>>>>
>>>> They can carry the AIM-120D, which has a range of more than 160km -
>>>> the exact range of course is secret, but it seems to be almost as
>>>> long as for the AIM-54.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Against today's target set I would much prefer the AIM-120D.  That
>>> being said, there is apparently some concern, according to the press,
>>> that some modern Russian digital jammers can render AIM-120D less than
>>> effective.
>> 
>> Was the radar on the Phoenix strong enough to better burn through the
>> jamming?
>> 
>> 
>> 
> burn through the jamming ??
> there is the 1/d^2  pathloss and some jammers can burnout the first amp
> in radar receiver

Only if the designer is an idiot.  Incoming power spike, and the seeker 
shunts and switches to Home on Jam. (Which is intrinsic to any Semi-
Active seeker).  This also means that the missile had gone passive - so 
no more emissions to gauge its progress.


-- 
Pete Stickney
“A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many 
bad measures.” ― Daniel Webster

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#682281

On 4/24/2018 1:50 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>   On 4/23/2018 11:17 PM, Juergen Nieveler wrote:
>> On 24.04.2018 07:17, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
[...]
> Imvvho, the pilots of an F-22 should not totally rely on hyper advanced 
> missile attack scenarios. I know they can fire on targets from a long 
> range via Phoenix,

Ahh crap. Can a F-22 fire a Phoenix, or is it just the F-14?

Sorry.


> or medium range using AMRAAM. However, even the 
> newest versions of those missiles can fail to hit their targets...
[...]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#682843

On 24/04/2018 08:17, Juergen Nieveler wrote:
> On 24.04.2018 07:17, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> Will taking off in an F16 soon be equal to taking off in an F22 wrt 
>> the fact that they can both be seen!?
> 
> I doubt it will happen "soon"... but it's a stern reminder that stealth 
> technology is just a bet against the ingeniousness of physics grad 
> students in the next 5 decades...
> 
> At least the F-22 is also a superb plane on top of being stealthy, so it 
> could still fight on even terms with other fighters with the stealth 
> advantage removed. The F-35 is a different topic...

Concur and agree, but in an EU perspective, a de-stealthised -22 became 
a rough equal of the Eurofighter.

de-stealthising the -35, esp. the C ones, can give more problem to 
United States than to USN, because the value of the coalition-building 
increases, how sharply depends on the overall -35C/18E ratio in the 
carrier wings.

so, I guess that France will be very interested in this R&D, to say the 
very least. (notice also the added bonus for La Nationale of weakening 
also the 35B used by the other two (and competing) major European Navies..)

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.

[x-post to spurious NG erased]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#682202

On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 13:38:35 -0000 (UTC), George
<george.core@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft
>
>Stealth aircraft in the Canadian arctic will be no match for a new quantum 
>radar system.

walob...it's just as likely to detect flying pigs or unicorns


-- 
www.abelard.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#683187

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 2:56:52 AM UTC-7, abelard wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 13:38:35 -0000 (UTC), George
> <george.core@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> >Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft
> >
> >Stealth aircraft in the Canadian arctic will be no match for a new quantum 
> >radar system.
> 
> walob...it's just as likely to detect flying pigs or unicorns
> 
> 
> -- 
> www.abelard.org


Hey Abelard, where's Heloise?

Double-A

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web