|
simplefish posted:I thought part of the AWACS mission was providing intercept vectors so our supersonic object could intercept their supersonic object That's only like 10k ft* or like 2 miles* per scan. I think you misunderstand how big airspace is. *depending on altitude and air pressure, mach to speed, blah blah, I was rounding.
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:48 |
|
|
apseudonym posted:We should be like the Russians and Syrians instead, they don't need drones or PGMs.  Bring back the Snake and Nape
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
simplefish posted:I thought part of the AWACS mission was providing intercept vectors so our supersonic object could intercept their supersonic object It is. But telling fast things where to fly to in order to get fire control quality locks is not the same as getting fire control quality missile locks yourself. See also: every time a surveillance radar operator argues with a fire control radar operator about which way something just turned and how fast it's going.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
simplefish posted:I thought part of the AWACS mission was providing intercept vectors so our supersonic object could intercept their supersonic object Directing something moving at Mach 2+ into the same 50 mi^3 block of airspace is veeery different from directing something moving Mach 4+ onto a 10 m^2 frontal area.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
simplefish posted:I thought part of the AWACS mission was providing intercept vectors so our supersonic object could intercept their supersonic object There's a big difference in the fidelity retired to provide situational awareness to a theater of aircraft or cueing fighter to an adversary vs guiding a missile into contact with a target. Edit: yeah, what they said 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
Godholio posted:There's a big difference in the fidelity retired to provide situational awareness to a theater of aircraft or cueing fighter to an adversary vs guiding a missile into contact with a target. I mean I understand where he's coming from though. Until I worked on writing software for and working on radars then learned the theory behind it I would have thought the same thing. "Well if you can get a fire control from that little antenna surely you can get fire controls on everyone from that big antenna!" e: Yeah that order of things is accurate. Basically get your feet wet with some data structure stuff/writing support functions/classes then learn how the signal processing and some of the physics behind it actually works. Plinkey fucked around with this message at 05:19 on Dec 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
That's overkill. All you need is a physics course and a bit of critical thinking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:That's overkill. All you need is a physics course and a bit of critical thinking. Engineers don't get one of those.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:I mean I understand where he's coming from though. Until I worked on writing software for and working on radars then learned the theory behind it I would have thought the same thing. "Well if you can get a fire control from that little antenna surely you can get fire controls on everyone from that big antenna!" It's actually coming off the back of BVR/SAM chat, actually. Because of this thread, last week I was reading about the Phoenix (and how it never once actually worked when they needed it to work) but mainly about how it switched to active homing during the last 11 miles. I thought it would be possible for an AWACS to get a missile within 11 miles (if we ignore for a moment the problem discussed earlier with getting an AWACS close enough to shoot the missile in the first place). I was also thinking about using AWACS to guide long-range missiles fired from things that would be on the ground or sea, or planes that would otherwise not have space for gigantic powerful radars in the nose, up until the last few miles when the missile could take over.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:Engineers don't get one of those. No wonder you're all so bad at programming 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
simplefish posted:I was also thinking about using AWACS to guide long-range missiles fired from things that would be on the ground or sea, or planes that would otherwise not have space for gigantic powerful radars in the nose, up until the last few miles when the missile could take over. You can put a way more powerful and I think directional, not sure, radar on the ground than you can on an aircraft. Think of a SAM as a giant fire control radar that you'd need a 747 to fly. SAMs are always the answer unless you're not in your own airspace. Mortabis posted:No wonder you're all so bad at programming That's because we're all EEs. e: What you can't make this Radar run Matlab? How am I supposed to make it work!
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
I guess I need to read more about radar. I thought the reason ships had such tall superstructures was to get the radar as high up as possible to get past the horizon problem. I understand that you can put land-based radar on a mountaintop, but surely in the air gets you more range? Or is the tradeoff not worth it? And if that's the case, I think we need to clarify that we're talking about times when ground-based radar isn't available, otherwise why would the AWACS be in the air in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
simplefish posted:I guess I need to read more about radar. I thought the reason ships had such tall superstructures was to get the radar as high up as possible to get past the horizon problem. I understand that you can put land-based radar on a mountaintop, but surely in the air gets you more range? Or is the tradeoff not worth it? You've got the right idea but it's two different roles. On a ship or the ground you've got almost unlimited power relatively. So who cares if your radar is huge and you've got a giant dish. AWACS isn't a fire control it's a facilitator for the fire control guys at stand off range. AWACS is more of a atc in the air with lots more poo poo. Im sure godholio will add more but I only real deal with fire controls and comms.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
^For the past 10 years or so, that's basically all AWACS has been able to do. Without an air war, we'd basically just try to keep those giant magnets called Navy or C-17 airplanes from running into things. The last few posts are pretty much spot on (I can't speak to naval radar design, but that was my assumption as well). Yeah, if you put a radar on a mountain it gets better range. The 729th Air Control Squadron (ACS...the ground equivalent of an AWACS squadron, which is AACS) at Hill AFB has one sitting about 5k feet above the Salt Lake Valley floor for exactly that reason. I believe it's a joint-use radar with the FAA, like the ARSR4s scattered along the coasts. If you're in a position to have an ACS on the ground, yeah you're gonna pick that over AWACS any day. You don't have to worry about a completely new crew showing up for a rapid handover, they've probably got their radios set up in the ideal spots for most of the terrain, and a few other good things. The downside is line-of-sight, for both the radar and the radios. This is a big part of why AWACS has been in Afghanistan despite having the ground radars up and running for years. Lots of mountains that block the deep look, comms, datalinks, etc. The other thing you get with AWACS is mobility. Something kick off a little too close or too far away? Pick a new orbit. Piece of cake. Then there's the rapid deployment aspect. When NATO decided to jump into the deep end of Libya without their water wings, we had a full complement of jets and crews out the door real drat quick. Within hours of our wing getting notified that something might be coming, we had crews built and packing their bags (maintenance was on the same timetable). Then it's a matter of loading the jets and going; with a ground unit there's a LOT more to it and it takes a lot longer...assuming you're even deploying to an environment where it's an option, which Libya was not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 06:29
|
|
|
Thanks for your posts guys, and for not jumping on my back for not knowing much - I enjoy learning about this stuff
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 06:37
|
|
|
Are there even Sentry replacements coming down the pipe anytime soon, or are they just going to be used until parts start falling off planes or crew members start croaking from heat stroke?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 09:17
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:Are there even Sentry replacements coming down the pipe anytime soon, or are they just going to be used until parts start falling off planes or crew members start croaking from heat stroke? This was the last attempt. It was retarded. They'll be replaced eventually but not anytime soon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 09:32
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:This was the last attempt. It was retarded. Probably by a 787 variant that'll not be altered from the original 'catches fire' configuration. "Ooops."
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 11:38
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:This was the last attempt. It was retarded. You wonder how Grumman could have hosed it up considering Boeing already made a AWACS 767 for Japan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 11:40
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:You wonder how Grumman could have hosed it up considering Boeing already made a AWACS 767 for Japan. The Comedy option: Have LockMart develop a militarized version of ERAM. It's already multi-sensor, which means easy compatibility with future sensor upgrades (lol LockMart, you so silly,) and multi-platform environments, and it also uses distributed computing, instead of a centralized mainframe. They were only wildly over budget with ERAM, I'm sure sticking it in an AWACS wouldn't give them any real issues.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 12:42
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:You've got the right idea but it's two different roles. On a ship or the ground you've got almost unlimited power relatively. So who cares if your radar is huge and you've got a giant dish. AWACS isn't a fire control it's a facilitator for the fire control guys at stand off range. AWACS is more of a atc in the air with lots more poo poo. Im sure godholio will add more but I only real deal with fire controls and comms. The other thing is that a radar's theoretical range is, like theoretical line of sight, a function of the emitter's height AND the observed object's height. If you're an AWAC and want to look for two guys in a canoe, you don't need to care of high those guys are because you're so loving high it doesn't matter. If you're a cruiser, every foot you add to your mast gives you a better chance of finding them, curvature of the Earth and all. If you're looking for an airliner, buddy is probably flying high enough that you don't need to worry. Unless you're a merchant ship, in which case you can only see planes on final approach and guys in canoes if they're waving giant foil flags around.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 13:01
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:You wonder how Grumman could have hosed it up considering Boeing already made a AWACS 767 for Japan. "Well, you see, we can't just use the same thing the Japanese bought because our men and women in blue deserve the best..." Translation: "gently caress you, 'cheap' and 'economical' doesn't get me reelected." See: the KC-X debacle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 13:07
|
|
|
Haven't those E767s got the exact same mission hardware as US E3s?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 13:47
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Haven't those E767s got the exact same mission hardware as US E3s? Yes, and no aerial refueling capability for some 'don't rattle China' reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 13:56
|
|
|
Has the USAF looked at the wedgetail e-8?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 14:28
|
|
Chiwie posted:Has the USAF looked at the wedgetail e-8? I think someone here already said it wasnt as good as what we already had.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Target identification and declarations are still more of an art than a science though. Godholio can talk about it better, but a large part is looking at the behavior of a track and evaluating that along with radar returns, emissions, the RoE/SPINs and the operator's own experience and expectations. It has been quite a while since I worked on an ID matrix but I do not ever remember putting a box that allows for judgment calls based on operator experience level. The whole point of criteria and matrices is to remove ambiguity as much as we possibly can. Point being, next generation sensors should bring a much higher fidelity level to electronic identification, which in turn removes ambiguity. This should eventually translate into positive electronic identification replacing visual identification as the gold standard, which of course has a lot of implications for BVR engagements. edit - apparently I should have refreshed the thread prior to typing this Godholio posted:Politics. Technically, we've been really good at ID'ing things with our systems for a couple of decades. The most blatant fratricide incident (the aforementioned Blackhawk Shootdown) was a loving visual ID error. ROE isn't just about saving extraneous lives, it's about saving face. Ironically enough one of the major issues that we are having in selling the most recent AMD concept to FVEY partners is the fact that we can't disclose to them what the new AESA sensors are capable of. "Trust us", we say, "we'll have no issues with misidentifying things, because of radars" and for some inexplicable reason the Brits and Canadians glare at us. bewbies fucked around with this message at 15:20 on Dec 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
Yeah, Target ID shouldn't be art at all. Target prioritization as to what you need to look closer at for ID, what needs to be dealt with RIGHT NOW, etc, is where more of the art comes in. The only caveat is that there can be, among many concrete identifiers, a couple identifiers with vague language, which does play into operator judgment. edit to add: on the visual end of things, when you're talking a pilot looking at another airplane with eyeballs, or a MANPADS/SHORAD operator watching an aircraft fly around, you'll also have judgment calls, of course. It can be difficult to tell apart an aircraft offensively maneuvering to kill you versus one just generally being a jerk to rattle sabers. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Dec 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
That Works posted:I think someone here already said it wasnt as good as what we already had. I did, can't remember who agreed. But yeah the E-737 variants are very capable on a much smaller scale. Within their area of responsibility, they gain a bunch of advantages due to using an AESA radar and just being newer. The E-3, however, can control everything in radio range, assume C2 control from the ASOC or even the AOC and manage the entire air campaign. The AN/APY-1 and 2 (the difference doesn't matter) radars are old but go through so many layers of filtering due to computer limitations that it's full potential has still never been realized. It won't have the kind of beam shaping and some other tricks you can get from a true AESA set, but it's good enough that as the E-3B and C fleet go through the Block 40/45 upgrade (in progress) and roll out as the E-3G, they're not touching the radar. I'd love to know how the all-new computer (first time since it was designed in the 60s) brings besides reliability and faster processing. It's got better range, for the radar and the aircraft, and the other limiting favor for the 737 is that you have far fewer crew positions available. I could have more controllers than the 737 has crew. Also, pieces have been falling off for years. If you get hit by a ceiling panel you get to sign the other side. And an emergency slide fell off 83-0009 and blew away when the crew opened the door to egress on the runway after an aborted takeoff. My expectation is that the replacement will be an airborne radar with ground-based crew. To my knowledge nothing is being pursued though. The E-10 was a flawed concept as mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:
Hahaha oh man this is so true. Engineers are the worst programmers I've ever met. The problem is that they have extremely limited experience and formal training in programming, but they are also extremely clever. They combine these two things to create programming atrocities, because instead of doing what a less clever person would do and google for the canonical solution they will come up with an extremely clever yet bad way to do it with the small number of things about programming that they already know. They also universally love matlab. I don't understand it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted:Hahaha oh man this is so true. Engineers are the worst programmers I've ever met. The problem is that they have extremely limited experience and formal training in programming, but they are also extremely clever. They combine these two things to create programming atrocities, because instead of doing what a less clever person would do and google for the canonical solution they will come up with an extremely clever yet bad way to do it with the small number of things about programming that they already know. Hey man, some of us despise MATLAB. I just can't deal with the whole 'every number is a double' typing. Trying to get it to read three byte 2's complement numbers expressed in hex took a whole day. But MATLAB still makes better plots than any alternative I'm aware of, so I still use it almost every day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 16:24
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
http://timbro.se/bokhandeln/bocker/operation-garbo-del-1 The big Swedish cold war novel is in print again, and available as ebook too. It's pretty bad as far as a novel goes but if you want to nerd out about what the Swedish cold war defense looked like it's pretty accurate since it was written by a bunch of actual officers. Problem is, you have to give Timbro money to get it. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Dec 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
Since we are talking about fantasy planes Here is mine that helped make my lovely website famous. Not just to the public but also caused government inquiries.  You are welcome to read and get mad and disagree with me about it, but I know I am right about what I put into this page http://www.outlawperformance.com/AC-17.htm edit: I made this page many years ago, and many of the things I showed or said on my page have come to fruition as public knowledge. Especially after a C-17 landed at the wrong airport. Also during airshows where the C-17 has been seen "dirtied up" and barely hanging in the air at higher throttle levels. Not only can it "hover" slowly in the air, it can do it better than a C-130. Basically it can do everything a C-130 does in pretty much every performance envelope and do it much better. 
B4Ctom1 fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Dec 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:Since we are talking about fantasy planes I think we're going to need the story here
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted:Hahaha oh man this is so true. Engineers are the worst programmers I've ever met. Hey, engineers, it turns out that to do a very important process, I have to hit 18 switches in perfect sequence and also type in 1,000 characters, and if there's any typo or switch out of step, I have to start the entire thing all over again, and this is a thing we have to do all the loving time. So what kind of engineering solutions can you bring to the table? Do the process perfectly every time.Thanks, engineers, go gently caress yourselves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Hey man, some of us despise MATLAB. I just can't deal with the whole 'every number is a double' typing. Trying to get it to read three byte 2's complement numbers expressed in hex took a whole day. There's a similar problem in JavaScript. Newer browsers have this wonderful hack called typed arrays which can store raw binary data, but if you don't have that the only way is to use a character string to store the digits (possibly with base64 encoding to save space).
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Hey, engineers, it turns out that to do a very important process, I have to hit 18 switches in perfect sequence and also type in 1,000 characters, and if there's any typo or switch out of step, I have to start the entire thing all over again, and this is a thing we have to do all the loving time. So what kind of engineering solutions can you bring to the table?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
simplefish posted:I think we're going to need the story here I got inquiries from the USAF. They actually sent a request to use the picture (which is theirs but that I modified) on one of their websites as well as the information contained in the page, which is sort of theirs to begin with. Additionally, since the website is mine, I have all the access and IP visitor logs. I only initially showed the page to TFR, but somehow knowledge of it spread in a way that only internet things can. Suddenly there was a mass of odd IP traffic. The IP traffic whois showed the USAF, Boeing, General Dynamics, McDonnell Douglas, FLIR obviously, and a ton of other .MIL viewers. The odd one was a ton of people that viewed it using a group of the same IP's that resolves back to a university in Virginia. I can't remember which because it was all a few years ago and I just don't remember. It turns out that a certain 3 letter agency that likes to snoop on us all and collect all the data (all of it) routes some of their traffic through this university to mask their snooping. I found this out during a quick search that probably would have landed me on watch lists if the government didn't already know every loving thing about me already. B4Ctom1 fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Dec 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
Touching back on fuel being used as a coolant. Here's the E-3 schematics. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:48 |
|
|
Holly bloopers do you just keep all the old E-3 manuals in your closet?mlmp08 posted:Hey, engineers, it turns out that to do a very important process, I have to hit 18 switches in perfect sequence and also type in 1,000 characters, and if there's any typo or switch out of step, I have to start the entire thing all over again, and this is a thing we have to do all the loving time. So what kind of engineering solutions can you bring to the table? Human-computer interaction (and usability in general) is a tragically undervalued topic in CS education IMO. I suspect a large part of the reason is that it can't be automatically graded. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 19:44
|
|