Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Question: was Re: [SG3]: What if?

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lThere
is actually a significant amount of metal in a bi-plane - the entire
engine is pretty much a solid chunk of steel.  In addition, while having
a
lower radar reflectivity than metal, other materials such a wood and
composites still have a radar signature -(
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-stealth.htm
)

"While not invisible, the F-22's radar cross section is comparable to
the
radar cross sections of birds and bees." (see above web reference)

For radar, the F-22 uses an AN/APG-77 Radar, which is estimated to be
able
to detect modern jets at ranges in excess of 30 miles, most of which
have
smaller radar profiles than a WWI aircraft. In addition the APG-77 is
capable of tracking a 1 square meter target out to 110 nautical miles (
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Raptor.html).

IR of a WWI plane is also not insignificant with a 3.75 micometer
wavelength
window (least background from sun, ground and clouds) being used by most
IR
homing missiles, the energy of reflected sunlight is sufficient for an
IR
missile to track - ( http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-IR-Guidance.html )
Modern
Jets have paints that reduce this to 5-15% reflection, but older paints
reflect as much as 60% of solar IR.  In addition, the heat of a piston
engine is well into the detection range of IR detectors.

Airspeeds of a WWI aircraft are well into the range of modern
helicopters,
and the general consensus is that helicopters are easy pickings for
modern
jets.

A more detailed link on the F-22 Raptor is :
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Raptor.html or the official Air Force
fact
sheet: http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=199

Regarding your other comments - As we move to more UAV's, the computer
systems running them will improve, especially once the people get over
the
idea that an autonomous machine is a dangerous thing.  Most people still
have the hang up that they want a human "in the loop" to make final
decisions.  The newest planes can not be flown mechanically and require
computers to be flown, the pilot merely makes an overall choice and the
computer executes it.  The same will occur with combat overall, the
human
merely makes the decision to engage and the computer will do the rest -
piddling details such as maneuver, target acquisition, weapon selection
and
firing will all be left to the computer. Technology will force human
action
to higher and higher levels of decision making - the minutae will be
handled
by computers, so issues such a communication lag, communication loss
etc.
are moot - the computer knows what it needs to do and will do it, it
doesn't
need to be micromanaged.

-Binhan

On 2/6/08, john tailby <John_Tailby@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>  That's exactly the sort of example I was talking about.
>
> What's the radar signature of a WW1 biplane? there is very little
metal
> used so they could be hard to spot. They fly so low and slow that a
raptor
> would be hard pushed to engage it with it's cannon and even then I'd
bet the
> WW1 plane could out turn it. With radar guided weapons and minimal
infrared
> signature the raptor might have a hard time of engaging.
>
> The WW1 plane has little chance of engaging the Raptor.
>
> I don't know that remote controlled drones can fly as well as manned
air
> combat. They are fine for surveillance but I don't think they could do
air
> -air without an onboard AI and a large amount of bandwidth to transmit
the
> sensor data to the human operators.
>
> The other challenges of using remote control drones is maintaining
> communications. At the speed a warplane travels a few seconds delay to
> bounce the signal from one or more satellites to base and back could
produce
> an unacceptable lag.
>
> There is also the susceptibility of the "droid army" where if you
command
> signal is lost then your remote drone would all lose control and
resort to
> onboard computer backups and preplanned flight paths, Pretty easy for
a
> human operated plane to take apart a drone then.
>
> I certainly see why an airforce that makes fighter pilots the top of
it's
> pecking order wants to keep funding to manned operations. The last
thing you
> want is to be replaced by a geek with a games consol.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Binhan Lin <binhan.lin@gmail.com>
> Would a WWI biplane work as well as an F-22 Raptor?  The difference in
> spotting, propulsion, material and weapon technology is so vast that
they
> really aren't comparable, and yet only 90 years separates the two
levels of
> technology.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gzg-l mailing list
> Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
>
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l<http:/
/mead.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l>
>