US two generations behind Russian fighter jets

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Billy T, Jan 6, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,522
    Bearing in mind that the missile can tell which is the front of an aircraft and which is the rear (from simple temperature differentials) then aiming for the cockpit is as "simple" as as "look at the hottest portion but actually aim for 15 feet [or whatever] in front of that"...
    The warhead goes off aimed at where the cockpit is likely to be.
    Any built-in lead, so that the missile doesn't simply chase the aircraft, which has been the case anyway since just after AAMs were introduced (e.g. lead-collision) then the aim-off (offset) accounts for the difference in position between cockpit from exhaust nozzle.

    Oh, and I'm STILL waiting for some reference to these supposed KE (zero-warhead) anti-aircraft missiles you claimed.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    The SM-2 missile has evolved into a mobile Anti-ABM system. Elimaination of the warehead weight was required to let if have the needed acceleration and the guidance system to assure a direct hit on an incoming ICBM was quite a challenge, but That is the sort of think APL does and has since the end of WWII when it made the proximity fuse (a radio transmitter* and tiny propeller on the front to drive a micro generator for safe electric power - only powered after shell is fired with no batteries to die in storage) All this to survive being fire from AA guns of a ship!

    You may remember a little more than a year a go a US satellite with some toxic load was about to reenter the atmosphere. Well APL's newest version of the SM-2 made a direct hit, a KE kill, on the very first try. I will let you search for some references on this.
    -----------
    * Based on a APL designed very rugged vacuum tube as transistor were still in the future.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,522
    Except that the SM-2 is NOT an AAM.
    Plus, of course:
    RIM-174 Standard ERAM
    RIM-66 Standard
    RIM-67 Standard
    RIM-67 Standard
    All from the relevant Wiki pages.

    On the other hand, the SM-3 is a KE "warhead", but is "purely" an ABM system (secondary ASAT in LEO capability).

    Not quite. The SM-3 DOES have a warhead - the LEAP KE kill vehicle. Which just happens to weigh around 20 kg, e.g. roughly equivalent to a decent-sized HE warhead... And also happens to be a powered vehicle in its own right. Which means that the SM-3 does NOT hit the target, it merely delivers another "warhead" close enough to the target for that one to do the damage.
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2010
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Quoting you: Cite that please?

    Dyw, if you had any common sense in that thick assinine skull of yours you would know that there is no way you are in the position to disprove that sort of thing.

    The ability to pull 22 g's is a last ditch defensive maneuver, and if you weren't caught up in the glory of yourself you would realize that once a pilot runs out of countermeasures and a missile is headed right up their ass than maybe, just maybe the pilot deserves the ability to pull a U-turn and escape, even if it means a significantly more vulnerable aircraft afterwards.

    If you have reason to believe that there is no ability to pull 22-g's than you are deluding yourself.

    And I do very much doubt the existance of a "black out button", it's probably a metaphor for a few buttons that have to be pushed to make it work.
     
  8. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Why would a missile aim for the cockpit? That is rather idiotic. It's a big ass sky, aim for that little 50 foot spec and hope to G-d you hit.

    If you hit the plane chances are it is going down, whether you aim for the cockpit, engines, mid section, or wings does not make a damned difference.
     
  9. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,522
    Because killing the pilot (or crew if it's a two-seater) guarantees the bird is dead.

    So you ignored the bit about aiming for aircraft and just offsetting a specific distance ahead of the exhaust? If you can hit the aircraft you can hit the cockpit.

    Really?
    Maybe you should tell that to the guys that decided going for the cockpit was the way to kill...
    Aircraft have multiply-redundant systems, armoured (to a certain extent) critical systems and fail-safe devices.
    Ever seen the video of the Israeli F-15 that came home with one wing missing?
     
  10. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,522
    Cite what?
    The fact that there's no reliable source for YOUR claim?

    Maybe if you had a clue as to what you were talking about these exchanges would go better.

    If you believe that ANY aircraft is capable of pulling 22Gs without falling apart you're more ignorant than I thought.

    Ho ho. The entire idea is bollocks.
    You have nothing but unsourced internet speculation.
     
  11. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Yah but seriously, for every F-15 that survived without a wing there are a dozen that didn't.

    Remember the fact that these missiles have pretty sophisticated fragmentation.

    also, this theory of yours really only works from two angles, perpendicular up or down from the plane. How does a missile aim for a cockpit that is at a very slim angle from the missile?

    Armor doesn't work too well with a rods of steel flying through your engine at mach 3+.

    Also, dyw, consider this, the blast radius of those missiles has got to be around a 50 foot cone on the plane from the proximity detonation. At a perpendicular angle that covers everything from the cockpit to the back of the plane and than some.

    I doubt a missile homes on the cockpit, maybe a sophisticated thermal imaging 5th generation missile, or the 5th generation Israeli missile, but certainly no sort of radar homing missile.
     
  12. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    You have no sources though

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Now are you done yet?

    I'd like to get back to the fact that an SU-30 cannot all of the sudden stop on demand and than accelerate once it's done.
     
  13. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,522
    Offset...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Rods of steel?
    I see you also missed the words "blast fragmentation". The linked rod warhead isn't a feature of every AAM.

    You also missed my CONSTANT reference to IR ...

    I don't need a source. It's not my ridiculous claim.

    It can't. No aircraft can.
    Simple physics.
     
  14. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    You are grossly distorting the meaning of “warhead,” which IMHO always referrers to some chemical HE and not the third stage of a three stage rocket. (The first two were dropped off earlier so only the Kinetic Energy of the third stage is what destroys the target, not one ounce of HE.) Hence, as you own reference states, it is a KE kill not a HE kill.

    I never claimed that air to air combat missiles used KE, only that some missiles already did and that it is a new approach now that terminal guidance has improved. For the same weight delivered to near the SM-3 system’s exo-atmospheric target, the equivalent HE with a direct hit on the target is greater than if HE were delivered. In this case, your reference states that the KE is equal to 31Kg of TNT, yet the entire weight of the third stage which hits the target is only 20Kg.

    The fast moving exo-atmosphere target KE killer benefits in two ways by NOT using HE:

    (1) For the same destructive energy delivered to the target, it weighs less.

    (2) Because of the lower weight, (than with HE) it can accelerate faster to the target. In the case I cited of killing a toxic US satellite uncontrollably re-entering the Earth’s atmosphere, exactly where it would re-enter was not predictable. Thus getting to the intercept point fast is important as it may be further away than you were expecting.

    Also in this historic first case, that great acceleration, without any HE allowed time for a second shot, if the first had missed, but as I predicted a few days before the attempt in a post at Sciforums, APL’s KE kill system, the SM-3 with informational aid from the Aegis ship that launched it, made a direct hit on the first attempt. Later analysis showed that it was not only a direct hit on the satellite but hit very near where it was planned to hit for max destruction of the tank containing the toxins.

    However this is all far off the subject so lets not continue the argument about what the term “warhead” includes. I claim the SM-3 has none, but if you want to call the third stage a warhead, I will not ague more.
     
  15. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,522
    And you're missing the point. The SM missile does not impact the target. It takes a separate kill vehicle within its own distance. It's the LEAP kill vehicle that does the killing.

    Let's see, the topic was air-air combat... and your claim was that MANY missiles go for a direct KE kill. Yet to be shown.
    And again... new approach? The Seawolf was doing this (against 4.5" shells for crying out loud!) in the 70s.

    At least you've got away from stating it's the SM-2. And as for "me" calling it a warhead...
    Wiki.
    Also Wiki.
    http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-161.html
    http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/stardsm3.htm

    Even Raytheon refer to it as a "kinetic warhead".


    Or even:
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/warhead
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2010
  16. dhcracker Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    196
    Alot of arguing over a piece of junk jet. Russian jets are no match guys live with it, they may as well just throw rocks at us.
     
  17. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,522
    Ah, someone else who doesn't face reality.
    What a strange forum we have these days.

    I suggest you take a hard look at what actually drives USAF requirements...
     
  18. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    The Raptor wouldn't be as good as it is if there was nothing pushing it's design.

    Of course it costs more than three times as much as an SU-30, so it should have the edge.
     
  19. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    No the point was that KE kills by missiles, instead of HE kills, are already used.
    I never said the SM-2 “impacts the target” because the kill is by the SM-3 system, which consists of:
    (1) The Aegis launch, radar & data processing center (The SM-3 system’s main intelligence for target tracking, intercept computation and guidance to intercept.)
    (2) Rocket stage 1 part of the SM-2,
    (3) Rocket stage 2 part of the SM-2 and
    (4) Rocket stage 3 also called the LEAP.

    ALL FOUR COMPONENTS of the SM-3 system are needed to achieve the KE kill. You may call item (4) a warhead but there is no HE in it. From your post link I see others are doing that too. I think that adds confusion and ambiguity to the term. If the last stage is to have a separate name, then call it the “interceptor” or as is also done in your link, the “KE kill vehicle” The more any term is broadened to include more, the less it means. For example once “Lady” was only a Lord’s wife. Now cops can apply it to a female lying drunk in the gutter. I.e. “lady” is now essentially equivalent to female and lost it prior utility for precise communication.
    Not what I said. I said:
    Again the SM-3 is a system with four major components.

    Note I only reply to correct false assertions about what I said. This is off topic.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 18, 2010
  20. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Im just gonna sit on the side and watch dyw and billyt strangle each other. Anyone got popcorn?
     
  21. Moran Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    55
    Did any of you guys follow the link that I provided? That boy is gonna make the best two sitter fighter plane ever. Just give him a couple of decades.
     
  22. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Yah, admittedly it would seem to be more of a concept jet right now than anything else.

    I think the true significance in the F-22 isn't in the ability of that jet, but in the amount of technologies pioneered because they were needed for the jet. The actual engine itself is also an innovation in jet fighter sized engines.

    The radar system can overload itself and literally blind enemy sensors by focusing a tight enough beam at them.

    The passive radar detection system is also pretty damn cool.
     
  23. dhcracker Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    196
    Come on guys! The SU-30 couldn't even deal with an f-16 carrying our sophisticated missiles that can simply blast them out of the sky 200 miles away...

    ONly chance an SU has is if we have to visually identify it as a bandit first before we blow it up.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page