Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.military.naval > #260275
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.military.naval, sci.physics |
| Subject | Re: Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft |
| Date | 2018-05-01 17:26 -0500 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <pcapj7$1h3r$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | (7 earlier) <pbqvgq$2fb$1@dont-email.me> <0ai2ed5vv7p7poiu5sd8l7fpbct434oiep@4ax.com> <pbuc8g$b2n$1@dont-email.me> <tpr5edhemh5qpkk628froinmqhrqv5l5i4@4ax.com> <pcak26$chp$1@dont-email.me> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
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
Back to sci.military.naval | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
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 "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 Airyx <eweinkam@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 05:22 -0700
Re: Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft Peter Stickney <p_stickney@verizon.net> - 2018-04-27 16:46 -0400
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 Airyx <eweinkam@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 06:47 -0700
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
Long Range US Missiles in the 21st. Century WAS Re: Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft "David E. Powell" <david_powell3006@msn.com> - 2018-04-25 21:20 -0700
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 "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-23 21:50 -0700
Re: Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-07-03 23:05 -0700
Re: Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> - 2018-07-04 11:55 +0200
csiph-web