Re: [Fwd: flanker New China Radar technology threatens US Stealth Aircraft!]

Ryan M Gill wrote:

> On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Imre A. Szabo wrote:
>
> > Do you not understand English???  I said RCS is evolutionary.  You
> even
> > quoted me.	That means it has a long history, aka U2, Mosquito,
> etc.	I
>
> Sorry, I saw that a revolutionary.

Not a problem.	I do it myself sometimes.

>
>
> > Excuse me.	Did I say we learned a lot about reducing RCS or did I
> say
> > we learned a lot???  To clarify your misconception, we learned a lot
>
> > about the multi-faceted aerodynamics (actually how aerodynamic they
> > aren't), we learned a lot about fully automated trim controls, etc.
>
> Ben Rich specifically states the RCS is like that of a bird. So this
> new
> inferometric system the chinese are using, how easily will it detect a
>
> non stealthy aircraft? What you state is that because one technology
> has
> one countermeasure, then it is a waste of money. Dispite the fact that
>
> other technologies are even less effective.

No.  What I am saying is that their counter is cheaper.  Our counter
counter will cost more then their counter counter counter.  Get the
picture.  This is what determines good strategic choices from bad ones.

>
>
> > That's probably why the Chinese picked the SU-27.  It has by far the
>
> > largest radome then any other fighter.  I would be surprised if they
>
> > couldn't get it to fit into a SU-27's huge nose.
>
> Its an existing radome. An inferometric radome is going to be tens of
> yards across if not hundred of yards across. Take a look at the big
> 3-D
> Air search radar sets even in use today. There have been general
> mumblins
> about stealth being vulnerable to large scale long wave radar. That
> kind
> of radar has very little precision.

Part of the F-22 original R&D specs called for flights and squadrons to
be able to link their radar's into an active inferomter (The specs also
included the ability to hand targeting data, etc.  This means only one
fighter has to have its radar on to provide targeting data for the
entire squadron.)  I don't know what happen to this, but I do know the
USAF was having problems major problems with the AMRAAM's.  The problem
was developing an extended range version of the AMRAAM that could fit
into the internal weapons bays	so the F-22 could take advantage of its
radar.

The point of this is that if the US can develop a flying inferometer so
can the Chinese and the Chinesse have both a much larger radome to work
with and a larger weight of avionics.  This means they should be able to
build it with much less technologically advanced components.

>
>
> > Get the point.  With the new radar and the existing IR sensor the
> SU-27
> > is NOT going to be flying around looking for an easy F 117.  That
> SU-27
> > is going to swoop in to with in 20 km, the IR is going to lock-on,
> and
>
> He's going to easily pick up this low ir signature aircraft on the
> deck
> from altitude and shoot it down easy? If war were that simple.

Actually with the new 4th generation or advanced 3rd generations IR
sensors it is not a big problem.  The USAF knows this and has already
done some R&D work in cryo-genic cooling system for all high IR
signature areas (the big problem is heating of the skin of the aircraft
due to air flow, very tough to solve).	The problem is it will take at
least 10 years to get operational and by then advanced 4th and 5th
generation IR sensors will be out.  Note that this assumes that F 117's
and B 2's can be refitted.  The jury is still out on that one.	Now
which do you think is much cheaper to due.  Refit more advanced IR
sensors and update the fire control or re-build an aircraft, update the
avionics, trim controls, etc.

>
>
> > their 15,000 Mig 21's to keep the E-3's busy.  By the way.	What is
>
> All running in tip top shape too I sure. They all have pilots that
> have
> been to Chines Top Gun I bet.

Hey I got a great idea.  You take one Valley Forge CVA with 6 squadron
of ultra heavy fighters that can be configured at your desire to be
attack, interceptors, or standard.  Note you can reconfigure them during
play if they spend one turn on the carrier.  I'll even let each fighter
carry two stand off missiles.  Either anti-air or anti-ship.  All
missiles have a range of 6" to 24" and damage is equivalent to an
interceptor or attack fighter.	You can even fire both missiles at the
same time and at different targets.  But you can use your gun and
missiles.  I'll take 20 Valley Forges with just 120 standard old fifth
rate fighters.	No missiles, no ultra heavy defensive bonuses.	The
ships can't come with in 48" of each other.  Want to bet on who will
win???	If you have enough quantity, quality doesn't matter.  By the
way, at least 6,000 of the MIG 21's were being re-furbished into more
advanced and capable version.

> > going to happen when the USAF runs out of AMRAAM's before all 15,000
> Mig
> > 21's are destroyed???  Yes, the Chinese really do have 15,000 Mig
> 21's.
>
> > The North Vietnamese didn't ask for B-52 to be removed from the
> theater
> > of operations, nor aircraft carriers.  They demanded for the Iowa's
> to
> > be removed before negotiations.  Why???  Could it be they could
> counter
> > (SAM's, Mig's, flack, etc.) the airplanes but they couldn't counter
> a
> > battleship.  Most of the places in the world where are troops are
> and
> > going to be deployed in can no more counter a battleship then the
> North
> > Vietnamese.  The USN's plans for naval bombardment are horrible, the
>
> Nor can they counter a CVBG. There is no reason to build a huge 60,000
>
> ton BB with modern fits. You don't need that. They even looked at
> doing a
> cheap hull arsenal ship concept. That was way over priced cost wise.
> The
> closest thing I've seen to a shore bombardment specific vessel would
> be a
> CG with 2-4 of the 155mm vertical firing howitzers with GPS guided
> projectiles.

They did counter the carrier battle groups.  The offensive arm of that
force was its aircraft.  And the SAM and fighters did reduce USN
aircraft effectiveness, resulting in  escort sorties (EW and fighter),
etc.  They couldn't do a #$%# thing about the 16" guns.  Anything within
16  miles of the coast was a target.  The problem with the arsenal ship
was too many eggs in one very fragile basket.  The time of the
battleship has re-emerge because of satellite guided projectiles.  There
is no reason why a 16" gun couldn't fire 300 nm's.

>
>
> > current situation is even worse.  I'm glad I'm not a leather neck
> when
> > it comes time to pay the price for this stupidity.
>
> You know that the Marines have 5"-45 NGS from several of their Gator
> Carriers as well as the new 5"-62 on the Arleigh Burkes right?

Some how a 5" gun just doesn't compare to a 16" gun.  Could it be the
fact that 5" guns only have 10% of the throw weight of 16" guns???  Or
is it the fact that 5" guns only have 1/3 the range of 16" guns
(actually, I'm being very generous here and assuming that ultra range
guns aren't based on exponential mathematics, probably a mistake).  Or
is it the ease of building bunkers capable with standing 5" shells...
And yes I'm well aware of the totally inadequate naval fire support
currently available to Marines.

> > The USN is only putting nuclear power in capital ships and subs.
> > Battleships have ALWAYS qualified as capital ships.  Even the old
> slow
> > battleships in the World War II that were only used for shore
> > bombardment qualified as capital ships.  The CGN's your talking
> about
> > (Virginia class and California class) have one fifth the
> displacement of
> > an Iowa...
>
> You want a single purpose huge naval gunfire support ship?
> right...thats
> economically feasable. Given the variety of jobs vessels are getting,
> unless you haul a lot of aircraft or troops/gear around its not gonna
> get
> over 10,000 tons.

With modern satellite guided projectiles your going to have a ship that
can engage in other ships at range of 300 nm's.  That whole lot more
then just a fire support ship.

>
>
> > And how much did it cost to start the production line for B 2's???
> How
> > much is it going to cost to re-open that production line???  How
> much is
>
> When they kept cutting the numbers down, it kept costing more and more
>
> per unit. If they had bought more aircraft, we'd have ended up paying
> far less per aircraft.

And far more overall.  Let's see...  We could cut the JSF, or maybe the
F 22, or maybe the M1A2, or maybe TLAM's for the fleet...  They are too
expensive for what they can do.  This is one of the reasons I call them
a failure.  It doesn't matter how good a weapons system is if it is too
expensive to field in the numbers required to do the job.

>
>
> > it going to cost to open the production line for the successor to
> the B
> > 2???  We had the money.  We miss spent it. The question is if we are
>
> > going to fix the mistakes we made.
>
> > What really is doing away with the strategic role is the break up of
> the
> > Soviet Union and the seemingly eternal collapse of the Russian
> economy.
> > The multi-polar world makes strategic systems needed, but with no
> large
> > clear enemy.
>
> Which means more tactical strike aircraft are needed. You keep saying
> they are a failure. Yet there has been one lost to ground fire. Pretty
>
> good for the number of sorties they've done right?

No.  Not considering the opposition the equipment they have gone up
against.

>
>
> > And when they try to take off and land.  It really $UCK$ having to
> dry
> > out your B 2 for a couple of days because it got wet taking off.
> > Doesn't help the operational sortie rate either.  Of course we could
>
> Show me a major system that was designed recently that doesn't require
>
> large numbers of maintanance? You want to talk maintanance and cost,
> look
> at the cost of a new 50,000 ton BB. You know maintanance costs were
> why
> the Iowas were decommed right?

Wrong.	Iowa's have a crew compliment of about 2,270 for 9 x 16" guns.
Nimitz have a ship crew compliment of about 3,300 and an air wing
compliment of about 3,000.  That 6,300 men for about 90 aircraft.  Only
1/3 of which (at most) will be used for offensive operations.  The rest
will be defensive, escorts, etc.  Flight time for the fighters will
usually be at least an hour by the time strike is formed up.  Flight
time for a 16" shell is in seconds.  Now which can service a target
faster and with more weight???	Iowa's were axed because the military
didn't have the money (2 less B 2's and we would still have 2 Iowa's
operational) and the navy is ruled by carrier admirals (don't take my
word for it, ask any squid, (submariner)).

IAS