Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2104
PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2013 10:43 pm
 


One wonders how this kind of development could make "stealth" fighters like the F-35 not worth the price...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... ct-it.html


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 9006
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:24 am
 


15 miles out? If what ever they fired at you is that close you had better pray the CIWS is fully loaded and your luck holds especially if it's travelling at 3 times the speed of sound. 8O

Seeing something and hitting it are two different problems.

As for planes, the range of this radar would appear to be to close to be effective since enemy warplanes can launch from over the horizon and I just don't see a stealth plane attempting to get closer before they launch. Anyway with a little height and a good pair of binoculars the naked eye can see a stealth plane at 15 miles out so who needs 15 mile radar? :D

So the Brits might be better served by building crows nests again and putting people up in them with Big Eyes since relying on this technology will likey result in them piping "brace for impact" far to often to be sustainable.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15780
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:50 am
 


The Daily Mail is a load of old bollocks.

They are best at making assumptions on which big titted chick is getting shagged by whomever (insert cleavage shot here) than commenting on defence matters.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2104
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 8:18 am
 


EyeBrock wrote:
The Daily Mail is a load of old bollocks.

They are best at making assumptions on which big titted chick is getting shagged by whomever (insert cleavage shot here) than commenting on defence matters.


Yeah, it depends what they're commenting on. Their editorial mix is heavy on trashy stories. They're one of the best on line papers for photo coverage though; I don't think anyone else comes close to touching them for large photos that you don't have to squint at, and lots of them, when they cover something like a Mars Rover, or the rebellion in Libya, or wildlife photography, or some such thing.

And if you skip past the trashy stuff ("Unemployed mother of six living in £1.5 million mansion") there are several more serious items every day on which the reporting seems pretty good.

My take on it anyway. I check the Mail most every day.

---

Freakinoldguy wrote:
15 miles out? If what ever they fired at you is that close you had better pray the CIWS is fully loaded and your luck holds especially if it's travelling at 3 times the speed of sound. 8O


Well no combat jet flies that fast (i.e. the F-35 maxes out at mach 1.6). Neither do anti-ship missiles. And if you're talking a carrier with its customary screen of warships, your warning comes a lot sooner. Just a couple of things to consider.

I've written before that I wonder whether stealth technology might not be neutralized by advancements in detection. I thought this new British radar might be a step in that direction.

15 miles out for a tennis ball means that a larger object (stealthy or not) should be visible for much longer ranges, I would think. Stealth isn't Klingon cloaking. :)


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 19059
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 8:33 am
 


15 miles is garbage - the Exocet missile's range is 43 - 110 miles. What good is seeing a missile a few seconds before it hits you? I'd be far more impressed if this radar was that good out to 75 or even 100 miles.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 San Jose Sharks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 45728
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 9:27 am
 


The only target that I can think of that this radar would be good against would be an incoming artillery shell. Like say a 16" round fired from an Iowa class battleship. And like FOG says, all this will mean is that someone will have a chance to say "Brace for impact!"

This system may be more effective at defeating passive stealth systems that deflect energy like what's seen on the F-35 but it will still be useless against the active systems that absorb radar energy like what's on the B-2.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2104
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 9:31 am
 


bootlegga wrote:
15 miles is garbage - the Exocet missile's range is 43 - 110 miles. What good is seeing a missile a few seconds before it hits you? I'd be far more impressed if this radar was that good out to 75 or even 100 miles.


How much bigger is an Exocet than a tennis ball?

I'm thinking more of detecting the plane that launches the missile rather than the missile itself. Picket ships screening a carrier might detect a stealth aircraft far out from a feasible launch point. The whole idea of efficient radar is to extend the detection envelope and give you time to do something. Vector air-cover aircraft to intercept, for example.

Besides, if you know a missile is incoming, don't you pass off the radar signal to a ship defense system like Phalanx? I think that's the name for one of the systems that can put up a cloud of projectiles in the path of an incoming missile.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 19059
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 10:59 am
 


Jonny_C wrote:
bootlegga wrote:
15 miles is garbage - the Exocet missile's range is 43 - 110 miles. What good is seeing a missile a few seconds before it hits you? I'd be far more impressed if this radar was that good out to 75 or even 100 miles.


How much bigger is an Exocet than a tennis ball?

I'm thinking more of detecting the plane that launches the missile rather than the missile itself. Picket ships screening a carrier might detect a stealth aircraft far out from a feasible launch point. The whole idea of efficient radar is to extend the detection envelope and give you time to do something. Vector air-cover aircraft to intercept, for example.

Besides, if you know a missile is incoming, don't you pass off the radar signal to a ship defense system like Phalanx? I think that's the name for one of the systems that can put up a cloud of projectiles in the path of an incoming missile.


Actually when the missile is coming directly at your ship, its cross-section isn't going to be much bigger than a tennis ball. It's only when you spot it going length wise that it is massively bigger than a tennis ball.

Take a look at how well the RN fared against the Exocet during the Falklands - that was due to poor radar range and short range SAMs on their ships. If the Argentines had had more than a few Exocets, the war might have ended with the British fleet retreating with its tail between its legs (if not sunk).

And the Exocet is 40+ year old technology (originally built in 1967) - imagine what a more modern missile can do...sorry, but this doesn't impress me at all.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2104
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 11:31 am
 


bootlegga wrote:
And the Exocet is 40+ year old technology (originally built in 1967) - imagine what a more modern missile can do...sorry, but this doesn't impress me at all.


That's OK. I thought it looked kind of impressive, but maybe it's not.

I did say at the beginning, "One wonders how this kind of development could make "stealth" fighters like the F-35 not worth the price..."

Your reaction that it may do so only minimally (or not at all) may well be correct.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 19059
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 11:52 am
 


I'm not a radar tech, just a military buff. Based on the article, this doesn't sound like a major breakthrough - though it could easily be an important enhancement few other navies have right now.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14198
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:10 pm
 


raydan wrote:
EyeBrock wrote:
The Daily Mail is a load of old bollocks.

They are best at making assumptions on which big titted chick is getting shagged by whomever (insert cleavage shot here) than commenting on defence matters.

I'll only believe this when they publish it in The Sun.


Preferably on Page 3, right next to the boobies. Woooo-hooo, today's redhead day! [drool]


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2340
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 3:16 pm
 


Fixed this for you

EyeBrock wrote:
The Daily Mail is a load of old bollocks.

They are best at making assumptions on which big titted chick is getting shagged by whomever... Image ...

than commenting on defence matters.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14198
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 3:25 pm
 


I give you Britain, 2013 AD: it is a booby place. :mrgreen:


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 9006
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 8:04 pm
 


Jonny_C wrote:
Freakinoldguy wrote:
15 miles out? If what ever they fired at you is that close you had better pray the CIWS is fully loaded and your luck holds especially if it's travelling at 3 times the speed of sound. 8O


Well no combat jet flies that fast (i.e. the F-35 maxes out at mach 1.6). Neither do anti-ship missiles. And if you're talking a carrier with its customary screen of warships, your warning comes a lot sooner. Just a couple of things to consider.

I've written before that I wonder whether stealth technology might not be neutralized by advancements in detection. I thought this new British radar might be a step in that direction.

15 miles out for a tennis ball means that a larger object (stealthy or not) should be visible for much longer ranges, I would think. Stealth isn't Klingon cloaking. :)


I doubt this will make one iota of difference to the current steatlth technology especially since we already have radars that can see over the the horizon which makes stealth somewhat obsolete because they haven't invented missles or tennis balls that don't give away the firing platform at launch which, would likely explain the current doctrine of saturation firing with the hope one of your shots gets through.

But you may be onto something about the distances that they aren't telling us. My guess would be that this is a very very long range over the horizon radar that can see at incredible distances but, the British Gov't being the British Gov't is doing what it's been famous for. Misinformation and deception which the paper glady printed thinking it was onto something new and special.

The only thing I can see this radar being good for is planes of the non stealth variety that are being flown by WWII Japanese pilots.

Misinformation plain and simple.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2104
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 9:04 pm
 


Freakinoldguy wrote:
The only thing I can see this radar being good for is planes of the non stealth variety that are being flown by WWII Japanese pilots.


Heh heh. What was that time warp movie where F-14 Tomcats were shooting down Zero's.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  1  2  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.