Adrian_44RE: Myths of Aviation
> SOC
> If anyone still believes Venik and his BS
I find Venik interesting for there are a whole lot of people in this world who see America and the West the way Venik and those he champions see the world. It is not how I see the world but, accurate or not there are to many people who believe this stuff to ignor!
Do I agree, seldom…. there have been articles such as the positive merits of the OV-22 Osprey back after its major crash and so many in the USA were ready to kill the program.
What I find most disturbing about things I read on his website are analysis from the Soviet/Russian Military and they do not understand the American perspective about saving lives is the foremost important thing in war. The efforts we will go through to save a single life, especially in an undeclared war.
> The only F-14 defection was to Saudi Arabia during the
> Iran-Iraq War
I think what is being discussed here is when an F-14A Tomcat was seen at Ramenskoye Air Base -thirty miles west of Moscow. This happened a couple years after the revolution forced the Shah out. The Iranians needed assistance with keeping the F-14’s flying. So a deal was struct with the Soviet Union to help them in the maintenance of the Tomcats and the Soviets would get time to explore the Tomcat and Phoenix Missile. Now they already had the maintenance manuals that they got when the government changed leaders and confusion ruled.
After studying the design the Soviets were able to “help” provide technical support.
The USA made such a big deal out of the F-14’s getting parts. When the Iran/Iraq War broke out, the A-4 Skyhawk a plane Israel was phasing out of service….. increased its order for spare parts by fifty percent!
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Myths of Aviation
> SOC
> Myth #2-the AIM-54 is ineffective when used against fighter aircraft.
While early in the war an Iraqi MiG.-21 went into a dive and as it pulled out it pulled a little over +9G’s and was able to avoid being killed by a AIM-54 Phoenix.
I checked the ACIG website and found that the F-14A/Phoenix combination accounted for 61 kills out of the total of 123 “confirmed” kills made by F-14A Tomcats.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: does Russia work a new radar similiar to the APG-77 on the F-22
> lider
> does Russia work a new radar similiar to the APG-77 on the F-22
That radar that will go into the next “production” fighter for the Russian Air Force. There are some advancements of which the Russian designers are going to have to make. Aerodynamics wise, the Russian designers are equal to anybody’s designers but, the equal to the F-22 will need more than improved reduced reflexion coatings on their aircraft to give it true stealth.
While the Russians are placing a lot of effort in passive detection the number one effort is the detection of LPI radars. LPI radars is one field they are behind because of the lack of sophistication of their computer and programming industries. They need a solid LPI design, a true fifth generation capability, the ability to detect when they are being detected by LPI radars and, once they know they have been detected a way to counter it.
> dionis
> “Radar Creates the Appearance of the Fifth Generation Fighter,”
> published in the magazines “Military Parade” and “Herald of
> Aviation and Cosmonautics” in 1999
Thank you kindly for the article on the fifth generation radars.
> the russian 5th generation fighter is gonna be done later than
> the F-22 but who cares? It’s a great strategy (like what the
> USSR did)
It is economical, the only problem is that if a conflict occurs while one side has better equipment, the other side will suffer. Much like the Israeli AF versus the Syrian AF over the Bekaa Valley. The Israelis had the advantage in aircraft (F-15’s & F-16’s versus MiG.-21’s & Mig.-23’s), ECCM and, C³. The outcome was very predictable. Along the Inter-German border during the Cold War, the Warsaw Pact had the best armor and more of it than the West until the 1970’s when the Leopard 1 came out.
> US makes something, the Russians counter it
Economical from the standpoint of research versus the cost of spying! The cost of spying is a constant but, it can greatly reduce the cost of R&D.
EXAMPLE:
The KGB during the lightweight fighter competition started bugging the FAX phone lines! So when counter-intelligence tested the voice lines to see if they had been tapped they found nothing. This oversight allowed a reduction of eighty per cent in the R&D cost of the MiG.-29! This information showed all sorts of problems discussed between Northrup and McDD converting the YF-17 to the F/A-18. While these problems did not involve anything directly pertaining to the MiG.-29, there were enough difficult aerodynamic problems that the solutions found by the Americans showed many tried solutions which did not work!! So the MiG. Design Bureau did not have to waste a lot of time on “dead end” situations or attempted solutions.
Several Russian Air Force generals have stated that the Russian aircraft are at least ten to fifthteen years behind their western counter-parts!
The lack of avionics becomes the single largest factor in the development of the fifth generation fighter. Engine technology wise, they are behind but the gap is not insurmountable (sp?). Avionics wise the lack of a consumer market translates into the Russian high tech industry does not have the impetus to constantly improve at the rate of which Dr. Noyce predicted back in the late 1960’s or early 1970’s. Not having this capability to move faster and faster and work with associated technologies means, there are a whole host of industries that are lagging.
It will be a long time before Russia will be able to build integrated circuits to support a server like the Silicon Graphic’s Altix family of chips. The real question is, how long has this technolgy been accessible to organizations that need it, like the NSA, CIA, etc.. Production quantities are not required and prices of tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars -per chip are spent! My estimate is at least “ten years!!”
I remember working at AMI back in 1968 (I think) when North Korea captured the USS Pueblo. All of a sudden our company picked a contract to build a series of chips. Everybody who worked on the project in the company required a security clearance. (Can you imagine the difficulty of being twenty-five years old and having to try and find out the address of where you went to kindergarden in another city twenty years and, the school no longer exist!)
What a lot of people do not realize is that Intel is NOT the leading edge in technology, just the leader in micro proscessors. Intel’s contribution is increasing the “yields” thereby decreasing the price and making circuits that are oriented towards specific markets ie. -PC’s. It has become a broad market but when it started it was a “nitche” market.
While I have learned (recently -humble pie) such micro processors are connected in “some” parallel arrangement, this server delivers over 3.0 Gigabytes per second of sustained I/O bandwidth. A through put speed of 2.0 Gigahertz. The clocking speed for the system is 10.5 Gigahertz!!! There are circuits that integrate the processors to a massive memory! Altix 350 supports such shared memory up to 192GB with as few as one processor.
The problem for the Russians is, it takes time for engineers to fully use new software to its fullest capability. The design engineers must work with new automated tools, look ahead at what would make this better and then software engineers then have to find a way to integrate these new features into the software.
This is where it needs to be an “industry” improvement! One company can buy a software and everybody is happy with it. Another company likes it but hmmmm…..? A third company could feel the software is a complete pile of crap. It is the feedback from the many different companies that drives the next generation of software. Each company operates the product differently which is why there is various opinions about the quality of the software.
Once in a while, a very large company (like Intel) instead of leasing/purchasing software license, will want to purchase the software code, also they can customize it almost immediately! When you are a company going to purchase over a thousand software licenses (at cost over $20,000+ each), you have a lot of clout. You will get some sort of quantity discount but, there are associated aspects of buying as opposed to leasing. Things like maintenance contracts, etc..
> SOC
> Nowadays Russia is countering US developments in the arms
> market not as a matter of national security, but to keep
> competitive in the export market.
Russia realizes its path to the future will not always coincide with the USA like it did in PGW#1. In future Russia or one of its Allies will be involved conflicts between PRC/ROC, ROK/PRK, China Vs VietNam, Maylasia, Philipines, etc. over the oil in the Spratley Island oil reserve could find stronger Russian allies than the US against the US position.
The way arms have been sold around the world the last fifthteen years makes the “grey threat” in aerial combat a high probability.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Torpedo defences in western ships
> Indian1973
> (1) is VL-ASROC still in use ?
Yes, I think it is on the USS Spruance Class destroyers VLA’s
> (3) if Not, what else is used for
> (3a) anti torpedo defence
> (3b) anti submarine work
> in the latest western ships ?
The USN uses a device designated, “SLQ-25A Nixie torpedo countermeasure.” It is a towed array that makes noise similar to the target ship. Now if the Nixie is employed and the surface ship turns on its “Prairie Masker” system, even with wire guidance the sub’s sonar can be fooled!
(There are a bunch of websites on the topic, key words -SLQ-25A Nixie, torpedo countermeasure, ASW, etc..)
There are some European navies that use anti-torpedo mortars. Some have ranges as great as 4,000 yards.
Today’s heavyweight torpedos have ranges in access of 20,000 yards, so detection at a point where there would be time to use motars or many other counter-measures.
Most of the fleet uses helicopters for killing in ASW. If a ship gets close enough to use the Mk.-46 lightweight torpedo, gawd help them.
> KJlost
> intercept system will come out sooner or later
The US, Russian and, Royal navies are working on such a system. About two years ago the University of Pennsylvania designed an anti-torpedo torpedo! It fits it the launch tubes for the sub’s noise makers.
In the early 1990’s the USN started using the Mk.-46 torpedo for this roll on its attack carriers. If the torpedo explodes a little early most likely the sensor of the attacking torpedo has will be destroyed. If the torpedo explodes late then the guidance wires linking the torpedo to the sub will be cut. So the chance that the Nixie will lead the attacking torpedo astray is a lot higher. Either way, the Mk.-46 has been upgraded to the Mk.-50 and later to the Mk.-54.
Which ever country develops an effective system will have the same sort of advantage the USAF has with stealth aircraft.
> JonS
> russia does have few more anti torpedo/submarine which are
> more compact than RPK series
If you look at Soviet/Russian ships you will see they tend to have a larger variety of weapons than ships from other countries. The Russian view is no matter how well you test a weapon system, some systems of which you have high hopes for look great until they become operational then, some flaw is found. Some system of which would be an employment might be nice but, it was not designed to make a major impact. Yet, once operational the weapon becomes everyone’s favorite.
This is why I love the USS Spruance Class destroyer, there are versions (USS Elliot) that have VLA/Standard Missile, ESSM, RAM and CIWS for AAW. ASROC, Mk.-32 launcher for the Mk.-46 torpedo for ASW.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Mirage2k and Raptor Question…
> phrozenflame
> 1:I would like to know that a small fixed canard (?) at the front of the Mirage
The canards/strakes was something that was discussed during early developement of the Mirage 2000 but, at the time was felt was not needed.
The advantage of the canard when integrated into the design is that it really helps with control of stalling and, adds control at high angles of attack.
> 2: What are the advantages and disadvantages of diamond shaped wings like
> in F-22 over others wings
The trailing edge of the F-22 just like that of the F-23 is to reduce the RCS by allowing the designers to design all trailing edges at the same angle and therefore decrease the RCS as oppose to multiple angles which have an increase RCS at many different angles. This way there is only a larger RCS at one angle and when the designer works to decrease the RCS from that angle they decrease the RCS of the entire aircraft. The same goes for the front.
The one thing that a designer needs is to be able to determine is the RCS from any angle and parallel lines simplifies that task.
The diamon shape also allows more wing area for the percentage of total length, give more lift, more area for fuel tanks and, other assets.
> over G
> an truly stealth wing is the f23 concept, increasing to max
Yes the F-23 did have a stealthy wing, the problem was the USAF wanted to be in the TVC buisness and the F-22 had better maneuverability at low speeds.
> those f22 flats (tail controls) could move back the raptor aero-center (by
> mantaining the pressure diference from the main wing)????
When the aircraft flies in its “neutral” position with a slight nose up orientation, the stabilators are level.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: EA-18G
> Phantom II
> Any news on the EA-18G that’s relatively new?
Yeah, some. The unit cost of the F/A-18G will cost (approximately) $85M each.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Whats wrong with EF2000?
> Spectral
> It’s such a shame that due to politics Europe developed
> two aircraft of very similar characteristics, wasting a
> lot of money in the process (and lagging behind the US)…
The Europeans are not behind by much….. provided they have the funds to compete! That is the limiting factor.
The reason the countries could not get together is because of GREED!! One country wants a large share of production, another wants more say so in the design. In essence, though the countries worked together for several years yet on the most critical issues, they were not able to agree.
Look at the USAF’s F-35 (JSF) being produced by many countries to reduce the cost of the overall project. When one looks at the flexibility in design of the F-35, it does cause one to pause and wonder, “could these designs have been combined into one project after all?”
As more information becomes available, I would like to see the real difference between the EF2000 and the Rafale as far as being a “carrier capable” aircraft!
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Su-27 in intercept in Caucasus region
> hallo84
> Are the Old cold war games back on again?
Don’t laugh, these practices have been on the increase on both sides for over five years. The Tu-95 Bear flight over the Artic Ocean and Gulf of Alaska are the recon flights that have increased the most.
Alaska Air Defense sends “intercept packages” (F-15C’s. AWACS and a, KC-135) out to greet the recon flights.
> google
> I believe there was a Su-27/P-3 mid air crash years ago-
> correct me if I’m wrong, but I think it was a Norwegian
> plane, or at least happened somewhere near Norway.
The collision was east of North Cape, Norway. That Orion was hunting a Russian sub.
> pirate
> back in 1987, that time seeing a Su-27 was a rare sight
Yes the PVO was the first command to receive the Su-27.
> YourFather
> who is stupid enough to think that the Orions will do
> something like that?
If you have some program going on and RF signals can be detected from one direction, an EP-3 Orion is a very good platform.
I bet if there was any mechanical problems the EP-3 Orion will NOT land at any Russian “divert field.”
> The US is very persistant on it’s servaillence of other
> nations and this game of “catch me if you can” is always
> played…well it doesn’t alway end safely for both sides
> now does it?
Yes the USA has an extensive programs for surveilance of any country. Problems like the USS Pueblo, USS Liberty, EC-121, EP-3 Orion, etc. have all shown the USA does make mistakes and people have died but, newer and more secure platforms are now being used for such work.
> Flanker_man
> The Russian take on the P-3/Su-27 incident where the P-3
> collided with the Flanker is that it was the P-3’s fault!
I disagree! Example -if you are driving and the car behind you is following very close, if you take your foot off the accelerate and they run into your car, who is at fault for the accident?? The car behind…. the P-3 was on patrol where the Su-27 approached. Now if the Su-27 decided to get nasty the P-3 can not out run or out corner the Su-27 but, if the P-3 wants the Su-27 to provide distance then the only thing the P-3 could do is to slow do. If the Su-27 got sucked into the P-3 by turbulence, then it already was to close.
Just my two cents worth!
> The standard P-3 response to previous intercepts with
> Su-15’s was to throttle back hard – causing the Soviet
> fighter to pull away rather than stall.
> the Su-27, the Soviet pilot was able to keep station
> – resulting in the collision.
Yes, the Su-27 can hold that speed but it uses a lot of fuel for the wings are not carrying the load it is the engines.
> camaro
> why should a man flying a C-130 ignore a pair of
> fighters asking him politely at first and with warning
> shots after… to LAND?
I have wondered about that question also.On April 20th 1978 Korean Air Lines KAL-902 flying from Seoul to Anchorage to Paris, on the second leg of the trip flying over the Artic Ocean made a navigational error and turn south to early! Instead of heading for the Norwegian Sea to Paris they were headed for the Kola Penninsula! The PVO sent up some Sukhoi-15TM but the KAL pilot refused to follow the instructions of the interceptor pilot BECAUSE…. Korea did not have diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union!
(Now if someone points a gun at me, I will do as he says reguardless of his political beliefs.)
Due to the KAL pilot’s refusal the interceptor pilot fired several rounds into the Boeing 707. Having control difficulties the KAL jet crash landed on a frozen lake!
> Blackcat
> look out in the future for modifying the 1934 or 1936 or
> 1939 (which one?, i am confused) treaty which bars the
> entry of carriers into Black Sea area … where by
> American carrier cud sneek in there
Yes there is a treaty which bars carriers from the Black Sea but, the Soviets got around it by classifying their “aviation ships” as “through deck cruisers!”
I can not think of a more hostile action the US Navy could perform other than sinking ship would be the sailing of an attack carrier into the Black Sea.
> to the international norm, a nation’s territorial air
> space extends 19 km from its coast line. The US is the
> ONLY exception and claims air space of 370 km from its
> coast line
The 12 mile soviegn air space but extending two hundred miles out to sea is an “Aircraft Identification Zone.” This gives NORAD time to sort out the good guys from the possible bad guys.
Any aircraft that deviates from its flight path by fifty miles or twenty minutes (I think) off schedule can be declared an unknown, and would be challenged.
To my knowledge, the last aircraft shot down over US airspace was a private aircraft (Cessna or Piper) aircraft which flew into a restricted airspace down in Texas! This was shortly after WW2.
The USAF does not just challenge aircraft that have entered the ID zone, some intercepts of Tu-95’s occur more than five hundred miles from the closest Aleutian Island in the Gulf of Alaska.
> Sens
> It is all handed down at the UN
Thank you for your complete answer.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Russia ahead in BVRAAMs?
> Sens
> How close can a group of 60+ fighters from a hostile
> country come to a huge “AWACS radar” undetected?
The attacking side must operate without the usage of radio. So the control tower would use a signal light to indicate the “go” for takeoff. The plan would have to be precise enough that the group form up before enter the airspace of detection.
If you don’t have enough front line fighters to spare then the usage of second tier fighters would do for part of the outer group. The group must approach the FEBA at high subsonic speed. Even at this the last of the outer escort fighter pilots would realize this is a one way mission! Fuel usage at high subsonic speeds consume fuel. Even if sucessful at blocking the interceptors from attacking the main force, they must continue to engage the interceptors to help keep a corridor open for the return flight.
GCI will be their eyes and only the older fighters can turn on their radars. The newest fighters must keep their radars on “standby.”
The attacking must be heading for some ground target and at some point change direction without being drastic and head towards the AWACS’s path of retreat. There must be at least two groups of jammers along with their own fighter escort to disguish the attack until it gets to the FEBA
The defending country might have many aircraft airborne but, not knowing how many aircraft are in the group. The first alarm will probaly be sounded by one of the defending interceptors in which they defeated the small group of attackers sent to stop them and now they are getting close enough to the group to see its massive size.
It would have to be a sizeable effort since any country which has an AWACS realizes how that one aircraft can change the dynamics of the battle space and what is at stake. Actually this is true for any “high value airborne asset (HVAA)” whether it is a J-STARS or, airborne tankers.
> cru
> So what’s the RCS of the target that could be detected at
> 90 km? 100 sqm (AWACS) or 5 sqm? (fighter)
I don’t know what the RCS is at 90 Km but, on the ACIG website a couple of years ago pertaining to stealth aircraft I came across these figures;
F-15C/Su-27__+06.0db =6.0m²
Typhoon______+00.5db =1.5m²
Rafale_______+00.0db =1.0m²
B-1B/F-18E___+00.0db =1.0m²
LFI__________-20.0db =0.01m²
F-35A/B/C____-30.0db =0.001m²
F-117A_______-35.0db =0.0005m²
F-22A/B-2A___-40.0db =0.0001m²
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Russia ahead in BVRAAMs?
> Srbin
> I was just wondering what everyone thought about the future
> development of Russian AAMs.
Yes I had.
> Derby, etc are all medium range BVRAAMs with some 50+-
> km range.
The Israeli Derby is designed to operate in the area where the WVR & BVR meet! It has more range than most IR dogfight missiles yet less range than most all BVR missiles. In this range bracket next to the Slammer it has the largest no escape zone. This fits the needs of the Israeli AF of having to visually ID the target before firing.
> Then there is the KS-172 which is a 400km long range
> Anti-AWACS AAM, and the R-33S whose range was only
> matched by the Phoenix
The problem with designing missiles like this is coming up with a valid IFF system. The US Navy had a unique set up in defending itself against a mass bomber attack. The airliners will be warned away, no friendly traffic will exist. So anything that shows up on radar is an enemy.
> I think it would be hard to intercept a mach 4+ missile
> like the KS-172.
The conditions would have to be as perfect as they are in making a commercial! The intercepting missile would have to come from head on or within a forty-five degree cone from dead center to the line of travel when the aircraft would have to manuever to one side or another to get a larger RCS, to help guide via data link to the target.
> Moskit
> The way to deal with long range anti-AWACs AAMs is to
> kill the fighter before it can launch its missiles.
That is true, knowing this the attacker knows the West likes small 4Vs4 (or less) doghfights. The attacker needs to send a group of sixty or more aircraft in one massive close formationed group. As the small groups of interceptors come to attack, small numbers of aircraft along the perimeter will turn to meet them. This will leave a group of a half dozen or so fighters from the center that should break through the fighter screen and attack the AWACS from a relatively close range. The enemy must be prepared to lose a fair number of aircraft but, the loss of an AWACS could be worth it.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Does any country need the MiG-31’s capabilities?
> F-18 Hamburger
> Does any country need the MiG-31’s capabilities?
Yes, looking at what the Soviet Union was facing from America and its advanced technology combined with the reality that you must defend borders that cross eleven time zones, it is an exellent system.
The MiG.-25 was already designed so they had a high speed platform to start from. So you had Mach 3.0 (approximately) high altitude performance to start with. Modifications and an increase in size would greater range and an even more powerful radar and other new avionics makes it a tough competitor against any intruder.
From its perch at fifty or sixty thousand feet its missiles will have a range advantage against missiles of the same type and aircraft such as the F-15 or su-27 due to the reality that air is thinner, friction is less and, rocket motors are more efficient at higher altitudes.
China could use its but does not have the full range requirements the Soviet Union does. A group of aircraft such as the MiG.-31 could do an excellent job partolling and maintaining an interceptor “picket line” east of Taiwan beyond the range of Taiwan’s F-16’s. As well as being able to patrol the Straits of Taiwan while safely over mainland China safely protected by SAM sites.
Personally, I would rather have an Su-27 for the same roll. No it does not have the range but, if forced into a dogfight is far more competant than the MiG.-31. Viet Nam and the PGW#1 showed interceptors can be forced into dogfights reguardless of of how the mission profile is supposed to be run.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Did the Russians ever come close to shooting SR-71 Blackbird
> saf2000
> Did the Russians ever come close to shooting SR-71 Blackbird
Yes… in theory they did! Once with a group of MiG.-31’s abreast and another time when the SR-71 was flying parallel to the Russian coast not far from the Kola Penninsula and far to the east some Su-27’s were scrambled. They tracked the SR-71 by IRST and when the SR-71 got to its closest point the Su-27’s changed their radars from standby to on to lock-on! The SR-71 had never entered the Russian air identification zone.
There are areas in which the SR-71 could have flown over the Soviet Union without being shot down but, it could not have flown a route like the U-2 did from Turkey to Norway.
I read once that the SR-71 flew over ground zero when the PRC exploded its first atomic bomb. The SR-71 was at an altitude of 120,000 feet. The researchers in Hollywood found that a SR-71 could go up to 128,000 feet!
> i can’t believe that USAF would not want to retain a/c of
> that capability without replacing it with something that
> has similar performance in terms of speed.
Yes it is a puzzle to me too. If a conflict breaks out in some remote place, it can take as much as three to four days to change an orbit enough to get coverage of where you want.
> GarryB
> the SR-71 was detected by Chinese radars when it took
> off for overflights of South and North Vietnam… it
> was no stealth plane.
No but it was stealthy! While twice the size of an F-14 Tomcat it has only one percent the RCS of one Tomcat! So, for a plane of its size detection range is greatly reduced.
> With SA-5s well able to reach its height and Mig-25s
> able to fly very high too the SR-71s would have had a
> very difficult time of things.
Libya fired dozens of SAM-5’s at SR-71’s. At altutudes above 85,000 feet an increase in speed on 100 mph by the SR-71 after detecting the launch of a SAM-5 would cause the SR-71 to get to the intercept point before the missile gets there -no intercept. Another tactic is to change course by 5° would also throw off the intercept and the SR-71 again escapes.
Aviation Week did a video in which they are overflying Libya and the crew detected a launch and the pilot and the RSO take about twenty seconds to discuss the merits of each of the two methods of evasion and finally decide on increasing the speed by 100 mph to escape.
> A bit like saying no Tu-160 has ever been brought down
> in combat or no Tu-22M3 has ever been shot down.
I do not know the difference between the Tu-22B and the Tu-22M3 but, the Iranian AF shot down four Iraqi Tu-22B’s with AIM-54A’s (three in 1984 and one in 1988).
> Indian1973
> see Jane’s Fighter Combat
Thank you for the information, I appreciate it!
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Did Soviet “spyplanes” ever do overflights of NATO territory?
> Distiller’s
> Did Soviet “spyplanes” ever do overflights of NATO territory?
Yes the MiG.-25 did for several years overfly US Allies. Who, how often and, where were these flights. I did read of incursions over Austria’s and Sweden’s air space. Know of many Tu-95 Bear flights testing NORAD during the Cold War, encluding shuttle flights from the Kola Penninsula down the East Coast of the USA to Cuba!
I knew the MiG.-25’s often flew from Egypt over Israel and back to Egypt. In one such incident IAF air intelligence had found out the day before about an overflight of a MiG.-25. They knew the takeoff time so they positioned a F-4 Phantom 2 at 44,000 feet. The MiG.-25 approached at 72,000 at Mach 3.0. The F-4 was in perfect position and fired a AIM-7 Sparrow Missile at the MiG. and missed. It was concluded that there is no window for the F-4/AIM-7 combination.
> Arthur
> Yep, it was called Aeroflot.
Yes Aeroflot did deviate off its flight path often. When the breach in flight path was to great or approached an area the USA did not want them to be close to, the USA would deny aeroflot landing rights for thirty or sixty days in CONUS
> Tiger_01
> I don’t think they did same as Garry Powers. Flying
> over US with a special spy plane.
No the Soviets did not for they had no aircraft of which to do it and they lacked the geographic location also. Cuba is the Soviet Union’s only ally close to CONUS.
The MiG.-25 could fly high and fast enough but did not have the range to make such flights.
Another reason is that much of the information that can be obtained simply by renting a plane and taking the photographs. The White House is under protected air space but, go up to 20,000 feet and along the border good high angle photographs can be made.
> Entropy
> If I recall right, a Tu-95 on its way to Cuba once flew
> close enough to Andrews AFB
I doubt if it was that close but, it did probably cause interceptors to scramble all along the coast as it flew through the aircraft identification zone.
There was one incident that occurred back in the 1980’s in which a US carrier had left port in Virginia Beach heading across the Atlantic Ocean. I for got the reason but the carrier had to head back to base. Not to lose all efforts the decision to launch the E-2 Hawkeye to give the crew practice.
The E-2 detected an unknown flying south east of the range of land based radar. Data was sent back to the carrier then by satellite to NORAD. NEAD took control and launched two F-15’s. Later the carrier launched two F-14’s which took over the escort duty and maintained for a couple of hours when they were relieved by some F-15’s from a base in the S.E. USA which escorted the Tu-95 until it was half way between Florida and Cuba.
It turned out a test that had to do with Star Wars was being done and the Tu-95 was in position to intercept the RF signals.
Throughout the entire event, the E-2 controlled everything…. vectoring the interceptors, tanker support for the F-14’s, etc..
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Radars!?!
> Swingkid
> “each pulse” is a bit of an exaggeration – changing frequency and power
> level that often would preclude the integration necessary for High and
> Medium PRF operation
Yes, each pulse will have a difference frequency and power level. That is why the AN/APG-77 will be so difficult to detect, to a “radio direction finder” the signal looks like random noise from the background. The antenna will always be canted/angled away from any possible aircraft so the antenna will never accidently reflect a signal back to some other radar.
> Just like “insect-level” radar cross section – sounds good for reporters,
> but really just a way to avoid the inconveniences of an actual numbers.
Numbers have been released, you simply have to look at the right places.
F-15C/Su-27__+06.0db =6.0m^2
Typhoon______+00.5db =1.5m^2
Rafale_______+00.0db =1.0m^2
B-1B/F-18E___+00.0db =1.0m^2
LFI__________-20.0db =0.01m^2
F-35A/B/C____-30.0db =0.001m^2
F-117A_______-35.0db =0.0005m^2
F-22A/B-2A___-40.0db =0.0001m^2
Detection ranges;
1.)AN/AGP-77 operating in LPI mode
2.)AN/APG-63
Tyhpoon ______1.)138nm 2.)66nm
Rafale ________1.)125nm 2.)60nm
B-1B/F-18E ____1.)125nm 2.)60nm
F-15C/Su-27___1.)195nm 2.)94nm
F-117A _______1.)19nm 2.)9nm
F-22A/B-2A ___1.)13nm 2.)6nm
F-35A/B/C ____1.)22nm 2.)7nm
LFI ___________1.)40nm 2.)19nm
I hope this is what you were talking about!
> crobato
> You do need to realize that bulk of revenues Intel, AMD and etc,. makes
> are in the commercial sector.
Before the processes changed so fast Intel, AMD, National Semi, TI, etc. used to spend a couple of million dollars to qualify their processes for MilSpec qualifications. By the time the micro-processor came along, the companies decided to not try and try and qualify their circuits to these standards. They will allow any company to produce their circuits to milspec standards but, no company has desired to do that because it is so costly.
I know the percentage of money that is allowed for R&D. I remember when President Charles Spork threatened the board of directors that, if they did not allow enough money to develope the company’s first microprocessor.
Working at corporate headquarters can have its down side. Such as going to the bathroom, standing at the urinal minding your own buisness and the company president or engineering manager walks up to the next urinal and thirty seconds later….. you find yourself giving a status report on one of the company’s hot projects in developement!
> Quote: -Adrian
> Here in the Valley reverse engineering is very common.
I had many contract drafting projects to help earn the down payment for my home! I worked my regular job during the day and did contract work at night and on the weekends. (My longest work week was 87½ hours!)
Aviation Week (04/29/79) issue on page 72, showed a picture of a Soviet RAM that was almost an exact copy of an Intel production, the”2107B” 4K RAM. The only differences between the Intel and Soviet products were Intel’s logo and copy right notifications were removed, the design draftsman and circuit engineer’s initials and, a shortened but oversized ground bonding pad. The two pieces “P-diffused diagonal” interconnect on each side of the chip.
There was an article that I never read in the 03/19/79 issue of Aviation Week about not selling CDC computers to the Soviet Union.
The President of NBC network came from NYC out to the valley with a team to do a story He talked to many people in the field. Did a lot of investigation and at the end of six monnths concluded there was no story because the practice was so widespread.
> Not without a major lawsuit.
Why go through the effort to get a patent on a circuit, and a year from now someone will make a process that is different with similar results or better results! Patent laws are only broke when you produce something that is virtually identical such as Intel’s products and some of its competitor’s products. If the new product is better than the original product then no patent infringement has been made.
There have been a couple of law suits such as AMD Vs Intel on the “80486” microprocessor and another fair large company killed a small competitor by filling suit and with legal fees and penalties for infringement on its product cause the new start up company to go out of business! In that situation the law suit was used as a weapon to eliminate competition.
We were discussing NS purchasing chips from Hughs and selling them as NS’s products. That sand paper idea was your way of getting rid of the Hugh’s logo so NS could place their logo on the circuit. Statements like this give it away;
> Get a little piece of sandpaper and SCRUB the labels off.
While you are scrubbing one circuit and trying to make sure you don’t leave any marks on the top of the package, a coworker of yours would take a couple hundred circuits place them in a container, pour in acetate and, move around all the circuits. A few minutes later, your coworker is finished and drying off all the circuits he worked on! If you “nick” or make some mark on the top of the package, then that circuit could not be sold! Marks on the top would be the first things that a customer would look for if he has a circuit that for some reason doesn’t work, even in a molded package. The customer has powerful microscopes and scratches will show easily.
A circuit can pass all electrical test at the manufacturer and be damaged by stray voltage at the customer’s facility. If the customer is doing something wrong that is causing the problem, they will send the chips back but, after a while some wiseguy engineer will want to see what is inside and blow the scam.
Lockeed is a public company and stock is traded on the stock exchange, yet the money for the Have Blue/F-117 came into the company used it and nobody was the wiser. Even though the financial books for the Skunk Works were open to company board of director members, Have Blue was well under way and the first contract for the F-117 was awarded when they found out what was going on. Members of the House of Representatives “Armed Services Committiee” did not know about how and where the money came from. The Chairman knew but the other members did not know until they saw a picture of it in magazines like Aviation Week.
It made Congress look like just another mindless “rubber stamp.” Lockeed had some high up officials who felt the same way.
> If you go to a freeplay fab in Taiwan and ask for something in that
> quantity you will get bill.
If there is a circuit of which you want to keep the information about secret, you don’t send the work outside the company. Part of why you won the contract was your ability to do the entire job, securely.
> Also designing A/D converters for such frequencies will be extremely hard
If at all possible! Hell, at that speed why would you want to use an A-D or D-A converter? These converters are used to save “gates.” In many designs the ability to use a converter saves transistors & resistors by using a differential amplifier with a “resistive” feedback loop tie to the positive input and this will solve The Calculus integration math problems! So the usage of logic gates instead or use a ROM. For any given input there is pre-calculated output.
> 128-bit architecture also does not make sense
It does if you are calculating very complex problems far more quickly than the 64-byte processor can.
The F-22 has one two piece computer that does far more than any aircraft ever! This one computer will control the radar, ECM, navigation, flight control, fire control and, communications.
The AN/APG-63 takes 14 seconds to scan the entire volumn of which it is able to detect an object. F-22’s AN/APG-77 takes less than one second. Along with the 10.5GHz clock speed the system has 300 megabytes of memory!
> Why do you think they attempted to put Power Macs in the no export list to China?
Yes, while not up to the latest technology, what the Cray would have given China is far more than what they are currently capable of.
As far as the Power Mac’s go, when they first come someone will purchase one and somehow that unit will wind up in the hands of a Russian diplomatic member. Drive into the embasy grounds, place the unit into “diplomatic pouches” and they are on their way out of the USA. The information obtained is not widely distributed because the people are not supposed to have this unit or knowledge at all.
> Silicon Graphics owns the MIPS RISC architectural design
These are just a couple of dozens of products they produce. They have several dozen layout designers and you can’t keep them working on just one or two products
In interviews with F-22 pilots, they state the F-22 has the computing power of a Cray computer and you don’t get that level of performance with a 25MHz clock.
The radar for the APG-63 for the F-15A transmitted 300,000 pulses per second (RFP) in the long range mode. The APG-63 used analog circuitry but now using digital circuitry and only using a 25MHZ clock, you are sending out one pulse every seven clock pulses. That is to few number of pulses for all the data required to generate and control that number of pulses, it doesn’t match.
If the F-15 sent out 300,000 pulses per what is the likelyhood that the F-22 will transmit the same or less pulses per second? Smart money says more which translates into to little computing power to control all of the radar’s needs. That does not include the computing power required to actively filter the signal from the background. This does not include the computing power for the fire control, inertial navigation, etc.. Each pulse from the F-22’s radar will send a signal at a different frequency across several RF spectrums. The power output will also vary with each pulse. Do you really think a 25MHz processor has the capability to control all of this with a 25MHz or groups of 25MHz processors.
————————————
I found this on Global Security.com part of the “United States Naval Institute Database.” -URL
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-avionics.htm
“Today, the F-22’s Common Integrated Processor main mission computers operate at 10.5 billion instructions per second and have 300 megabytes of memory.”
————————————
By the way (not trying to be insulting but), do you work in the industry? How long, where doing what? You show the knowledge/persection of someone who has learned about semiconductor operations from a magazine like “Popular Mechanics,” etc.. You lack the insight of an “insider,” into both security designing and semiconductors.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: F-80’s
> PhantomII
> the F-80 was incredibly rugged, being able to survive great amounts of
> battle damage.
> Shooting Stars that made it back to base having sustained a ton of
> damage. There’s one photo of an F-80C that made it home after a MiG-15
> put at least two 37-mm rounds through the center of the fuselage.
That was a real surprise to aircraft armament designers, how tough jets were to shoot down. I saw a picture of a MiG.-15 that had a Sidewinder Missile impailed into the fuselage and didn’t explode and the plane landed without any trouble!
> She even killed some MiG’s from time to time as well.
That like the Corsairs that shot down MiG.-15’s testifies to the difference in quality between the two pilots.
Adrian
Sign In
