|
Sperglord posted:I'm curious, what makes them impressive? They're loving huge, remarkably agile for their size, versatile, and effective. Considering how big, complex, and expensive they are, you might be forgiven to think that they ought to be a boondoggle, but they're pretty good at a lot of roles.
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2020 15:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 01:26 |
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Things just got a little more interesting - let's hope this was an actual accident and 100% unrelated to any other events tonight. To further add to things apparently Iran got struck with an earthquake as well. Welcome to page 1983, the year Petrov saved us from World War 3.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2020 15:32
|
|
|
Cooked Auto posted:To further add to things apparently Iran got struck with an earthquake as well. America's firing up the earthquake machine again!? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2020 15:34
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:America's firing up the earthquake machine again!? Gave it a test run on Puerto Rico
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2020 15:44
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Joanna Piacenza (@jpiacenza) Tweeted: Well, Iran so far away.. Iran all night and day
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2020 15:47
|
|
|
priznat posted:Well, Iran so far away.. Iran all night and day https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rESC64X02y8
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2020 15:55
|
|
|
I think I can make a good first post, so if people could msg me:
I think I can make it good Also, if you want to rehost the images in iyaayas01's first post, that'd be good as fuckin' photobucket is a curse
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2020 16:17
|
|
|
JcDent posted:I have Keep in mind that "stealth" in itself is a nebulous term that is easily confused for broad band, all spectrum LO, which doesn't accurately describe any stealth platform, and for having no returns, which is untrue of everything. Aircraft are meticulously tuned to return minimal signatures in very specific radar frequencies, and even against specific equipment*, such as searching and tracking radars. If you can tune the return down below what the system you're trying to defeat will detect or dismiss, your aircraft is now LO. Again, remember the objective is to minimize detection to give the least warning, not to be invisible; so if your return is detectable, but only at 10% of the full range of the radar, it's still LO. Then you get into aspect-dependent LO, like optimizing your platform for head-on returns since it's a strike aircraft, but trading for larger all-aspect returns from other angles, etc. This is also why you occasionally see those hyped-up news reports saying, "this one Russian radar pierces the F-22's perfect stealth!," when what they're talking about are extremely low resolution over the horizon radars that can basically only tell the operator that something is out there. LO aircraft aren't tuned for those radar freqs because it can't be used for targeting anyways. *SIGINT is invaluable- capture a snapshot of an enemy air defense battery when fully radiating and now you have an exact signature to defeat. Or straight up espionage by stealing a radar system- right out of the Cold War playbook. It works both ways, too: see why selling F-35s to Turkey when they were buying S-400s was verboten- it basically would hand a perfect signature of an F-35 from a S-400 radar to Russia. These signatures are very classified for a reason.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2020 16:23
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:Most radar specs will include a constant false alarm rate or CFAR. The obvious method of meeting this requirement is to attenuate your signal returns until you fall below the threshold. A potential way to do this is described here. OK, hear me out: I still don't get it why you can't just set STC to stop ignoring stuff at F-22ft in the air
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2020 16:24
|
|
|
JcDent posted:OK, hear me out: 1. The F-22 can fly down where birds are. 2. Just because there aren’t real birds at FL400 doesn’t mean the noise floor there is zero. The RADAR set will get phantom returns that need to be ignored one way or another (in electronics or by human attention).
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2020 16:31
|
|
|
JcDent posted:OK, hear me out: the radar operator can increase or decrease the threshold for clutter but will have to deal with a level of clutter that will end up obscuring actual tracks. radars "see" everything in direct line of sight from the transmitter/reciever, plus some extra factors that add even more noise; it's up to the software and/or operator to filter the noise in order to keep the radar usable, and LO exploits that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2020 16:40
|
|
|
glynnenstein posted:I've seen early analysis that these are probably Fateh-110 missiles, but we should all doubt everything for now. Replying to my post to correct this - photos seem conclusive that the missiles, at least some of them, were Qiam-1. Contrary to the Fateh-110, the Qiam-1 is a liquid fueled scud derivative with longer range, bigger payload, and is considered nuclear-capable. I'm going to make a point to link to the place to discuss and speculate further on political/strategic elements of that information so we don't get side-tracked here. I am curious if there is any more open source technical information about the accuracy of the guidance improvements that are implied by the modifications evident vs its ancestor models. Probably only just now going to get non-classified info along those lines, though. edit: I'm not qualified to analyze how accurate this is based on what the specific stuff hit vs not hit was, but that doesn't seem like a bad spread: 
glynnenstein fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Jan 8, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2020 16:43
|
|
|
Interrupting War With Eurasia chat to crosspost from the AI aviation thread, because I guess it's cold war relevantPhy posted:So it turns out somebody did save blueprints to the Avro Arrow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2020 17:19
|
|
|
JcDent posted:OK, hear me out: As the poster above said, what is that in feet? Tree top to 50+k? The entire airspace above and/or below the radar? Heres a table explaining some tradeoffs though. This is from Skolnik's intro to radar, perhaps the most respected textbook on the subject. "MTI" is moving target indicating and PD is Pulse Doppler. PRF is Pulse Rate Frequency If you get into radar at all you'll quickly realize that all media coverage of LO airplanes and radar performance is a useless joke and that there's way too many factors to give a truly useful translation from what they say to operational estimations of performance in a scenario. Radar is one of those things where there's many factors all working together. I'm also lumping tracking and software based clutter suppression in with radar here which is arguably where a lot of the big innovations in the space are coming from rather than hardware changes. (e.g. who cares if the S300 uses the same antenna and power sources if its digital conversion and associated radar computers get major upgrades.) Here is a great video primer on radar systems targeted toward technical people without EE degrees: https://www.ll.mit.edu/outreach/introduction-radar-systems  CarForumPoster fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Jan 8, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2020 17:22
|
|
|
Phy posted:Interrupting War With Eurasia chat to crosspost from the AI aviation thread, because I guess it's cold war relevant A new contender for the CF-18 replacement has appeared!
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2020 17:24
|
|
|
brains posted:LO aircraft aren't tuned for those radar freqs because it can't be used for targeting anyways. And also because physics. Low-frequency = big wavelengths. Platystemon posted:1. The F-22 can fly down where birds are. It cannot, however, fly as slowly as a bird.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2020 18:36
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:It cannot, however, fly as slowly as a bird. This is only because LockMart failed to sell the STOVL version.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2020 19:00
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Well, first of all you aren't going to get a RADAR with as much power or antenna realestate as an AWACS platform into the F-14. Can't exactly fly racetrack patterns behind everything while maintaining coverage with a forward looking RADAR, either. Yeah, but this was their actual AWACS. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_oWmxUCFuU
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2020 23:13
|
|
|
JcDent posted:OK, hear me out: At a certain point, "stuff at F-22ft in the air" includes electrons jiggling around in the sensor electronics that look like stuff at F-22ft in the air. From a detection and tracking standpoint, the universe is filled with tiny flecks of noise flying around and looking like small signal targets. Imagine being in Boston trying to pick up an FM radio station in Mongolia. You can turn up the volume as high as you want, but all you're going to get is louder static.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2020 23:45
|
|
|
When building a radio that can hear a radio station in Mongolia, at what point does it become cheaper to fly to Mongolia and build a radio station with a horn pointing straight at your receiver than continue improving your receiver?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 00:08
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:When building a radio that can hear a radio station in Mongolia, at what point does it become cheaper to fly to Mongolia and build a radio station with a horn pointing straight at your receiver than continue improving your receiver? Rather depends on your feelings toward Airag, I’d say?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 01:19
|
|
|
JcDent posted:OK, hear me out: you definitely can, with most radars at least. The problem is you don't know what that value is going to be, and a lot of the time something with that level of fidelity requires the software modification, it can't be set in real time by the operator. in addition, doing so essentially cripples your ability to detect normal things within that altitude band. the counter solution to this a lot of the time is to develop a sensor that detects the hole in the sky in which there is no return, which is where the LO aircraft is operating at. this discussion however can easily go classified and in any case is well outside of my expertise so I will stop there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 02:07
|
|
|
bewbies posted:the counter solution to this a lot of the time is to develop a sensor that detects the hole in the sky in which there is no return, which is where the LO aircraft is operating at. this discussion however can easily go classified and in any case is well outside of my expertise so I will stop there. As I understand it, this is more or less the current state of submarine tracking.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 02:19
|
|
|
This is all completely hypothetical but EW has probably progressed to the point of hitting enemy electronics with loving code injection broadcasts. The sensor war is rapidly approaching magic/more magic levels of understanding to the layman.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 02:25
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:This is all completely hypothetical but EW has probably progressed to the point of hitting enemy electronics with loving code injection broadcasts. Flares will be replaced with Hedwigs flying out to take the code kill shots.  Alternatively, when do I get to sign up for TRON-force?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 02:39
|
|
|
priznat posted:A new contender for the CF-18 replacement has appeared! A newly elected MP, a law school prof from the University of Toronto who's an expert in corporate governance and shareholder rights, has been cabinetified for the job of buying military and coast guard poo poo for the Government
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 02:55
|
|
|
Correct me if I’m wrong but I recall that during the Islamic revolution there were a number of f14s that Iran either owned or had paid for that we obviously did not return to them. I can’t quite find the search terms to verify this though. E: thank you all! The Iron Rose fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Jan 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 03:00
|
|
Cat Army 
The Iron Rose posted:Correct me if I’m wrong but I recall that during the Islamic revolution there were a number of f14s that Iran either owned or had paid for that we obviously did not return to them. I can’t quite find the search terms to verify this though. 80 delivered. Edit: yeah I can't find poo poo about cancelled or embargoed aircraft. Smiling Jack fucked around with this message at 03:06 on Jan 9, 2020 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 03:02
|
|
|
We're never delivered the later shipments of parts and planes yeah. Not sure of we ever sent back their money or not. Knowing how petty we can be we probably told them to get stuffed Edit: Apparently their homegrown f5 variant uses technology from the f14 they've learned to create for themselves Stravag fucked around with this message at 03:05 on Jan 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 03:03
|
|
|
Dunno about F14s but there was a lot of military hardware that the Shah had written a check for that we yoinked. Like the mini-class (only 4 I think?) of Kidd-class destroyers. They'd been basically built (I think were in final fitting?) when the revolution occurred and ended up commissioned into the USN when they coudn't be delivered to Iran for obvious reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 03:05
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:80 delivered. 80 ordered, 79 delivered. One, 170378, got left behind and was used as a testbed by USN. Also, I think that like a third of Phoenixes got delivered, some 250 of 800 ordered.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 03:23
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:This is all completely hypothetical but EW has probably progressed to the point of hitting enemy electronics with loving code injection broadcasts. Exhibit A: A man glitching and injecting 131 bytes of SNES machine code turning Super Mario Bros into Flappy Bird, via manual hardware controller inputs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB6eY73sLV0
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 03:32
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:When building a radio that can hear a radio station in Mongolia, at what point does it become cheaper to fly to Mongolia and build a radio station with a horn pointing straight at your receiver than continue improving your receiver? A pretty good actual answer is when external noise sources (the RF from other stations of the same frequency, the echoes of the big bang, whatever) are stronger than the signal you want. You can buy off receiver noise; you can't do much about external noise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 03:45
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:This is all completely hypothetical but EW has probably progressed to the point of hitting enemy electronics with loving code injection broadcasts. Straight up bricking a GPS receiver by broadcasting a cleverly broken signal is well within the realm of the possible, by civilians with cheap COTS equipment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 03:55
|
|
|
How long before the F-35 is bricked by hostile radar projections that interfere with its systems? Edit: not that I expect anyone who knows to actually answer, please don't sword missile me Trump I'm just a bored nerd, not a spy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 04:18
|
|
|
Zero days, as they say. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 04:20
|
|
|
Carth Dookie posted:How long before the F-35 is bricked by hostile radar projections that interfere with its systems? That's just what a spy would say.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 04:23
|
|
MRC48B posted:Zero days, as they say. nice
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 04:23
|
|
|
Assuming an average flyaway cost of $115M for these 35As, it's a little under 6 billion worth of airplanes on that runway.   On a unit-cost basis, this picture still wins  Mazz fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Jan 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 04:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 01:26 |
|
|
BAH GAWD, THAT'S DAHIR INSAAT'S MUSIC!
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 05:14
|
|