Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Μilitary Questions & Answers

    nomadski
    nomadski

    Posts : 1122
    Points : 1128
    Join date : 2017-01-02

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 8 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  nomadski on Fri Oct 04, 2019 12:51 pm

    The Yanks have converted F15 to low RCS with internal bay payload. Can Russia / China do the same with older metal planes, they have or sold? How did they do it? Nano paint? Composite panels stuck to original skin? Or new replacement composite skin panels? Can you guess?  Best solution is replacement panels. Including internal coated shaped panels. Can these be made and sold to different country to change to stealthy airforce? Iranians made coating of carbon nano - tubes also to stealth in some frequency of radar. If plane radar also works in this frequency then jamming by enemy does not reveal plane either. Imagine ordinary Chinese J7 jet with stealth! With low RCS external payload.

    https://youtu.be/Kn6nx_GGERQ

    I think that reducing RCS on a plane is useful to a point. Beyond which we have diminishing returns. That is we get reduction to a point, but never to zero. At very high expense. So high that it affects the number of planes we can produce. As long as the plane RCS is reduced enough to make it look much smaller, then jamming and decoys provide a more cost effective way of making plane hard to hit with radar guided weapons. And that is all  we want. And we achieve it at fraction of cost.

    Older jets can be given new life in this way. Using a combination of paints and shaped composite panels in some places, together with easy replacement of some parts, such as pilot helmet and ejection seat, now of composite materials. The radar cross section of modern jets can never be below a minimum undetectable value for many reasons. Internal bay on opening gives away position. The engine exhaust from rear is metal. And pilot face can not be covered, and is at least as big as pigeon on radar!
    nomadski
    nomadski

    Posts : 1122
    Points : 1128
    Join date : 2017-01-02

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 8 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  nomadski on Mon Oct 21, 2019 9:49 pm


    In 2020, sanction against Iran will end. This means Iran can import military hardware and export also. Regarding the Iranians interest in developing domestic fighter jets, does anyone know if Russia manufacture a suitable turbofan for Iran 's new yasin light fighter / trainer? What size engine would fit? Can there be licenced production of this engine in Iran? What engine would be best suited?
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25957
    Points : 26503
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 8 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  GarryB on Tue Oct 22, 2019 9:22 am

    Thanks for reply. Agree about needing fragments. But what size or weight or numbers?

    Different structures require different sizes and weights... note with the investigation into the BUK shootdown incident in the Ukraine the early model BUKs have different size and shape fragments from the newer models.

    Any choice is going to be a compromise where it is going to be more effective against some targets than it is with others... you need to decide what the primary target is and make the design flexible enough to be able to deal with other types as well.

    Patriot is a good example of a missile designed to bring down manned aircraft by shredding the structure with fragments... its problem in Desert Storm was that when the target is a modified Scud missile moving at a vastly higher speed than the aircraft it was designed to intercept resulted in the missile going for centre mass, but the fusing and speed of the target meant those fragments were hitting the rear of the target. Even if the target was a manned aircraft at mach 7 the patriot would still have destroyed a manned aircraft by essentially shredding the rear portion which most likely would have been the engines... destroy the engines on a level flying high speed aircraft and it will break up and be destroyed. The problem in this case is that by the time of the interception a mach 7 scud is falling ballisticly and its engines are not running so punching thousands of holes through them makes no difference at all to the speed or direction of the already falling object.

    A missile designed to hit such targets like the S-300 families would have targeted the nose of the missile and most likely exploded the warhead... completely destroying the threat and neutralising it completely.

    Another problem for the Patriot was that the Scuds were not being used as they were intended either... the greater range meant they were coming in at speeds they were not designed for so in many cases they were in the process of breaking up anyway, and of course patriot being what it was naturally aimed itself at the biggest parts.... the engines and now empty fuel tanks... leaving the warheads to hit the ground and do their damage.

    The purpose of 30mm Soviet and Russian CIWS on ships is to fire as many HE rounds at the target as quickly as they can in an effort to set off the warhead, which totally eliminates the target as a ballistic threat.

    Are Russian warheads in AA missile still the old soviet types?

    As shown in the BUK case the designs are upgraded all the time. AAMs often have specialised warheads designed to cut structures like wings or tails off rather than punch small holes.

    I don't think we can simply say, it is not armoured. Because too heavy. About blast, this only important for direct or near impact. Since size of warhead in AA is relatively small.

    HE rounds spread the damage beyond the impact point... small calibre rounds like rifle calibre and HMG calibres can be rather weak because their small light projectile size limits how much HE you can pack in so in effect they become and more like frangible rounds that penetrate and break up and spread damage with momentum rather than HE blast damage, but heavier, larger calibre rounds can be very effective in increasing damage or hit probability with air burst and AHEAD type rounds.

    Can not rely on blast effect.

    Most aircraft parts are under stress simply because the aircraft are in the air... blast effect can do all different kinds of hidden damage to aircraft and should not be ignored. Obviously at high altitude blast is much less effective in the very thin air, but at low altitudes blast can shatter rotor blades on a helo and bring it down without doing any damage to the aircraft itself or its engines.

    Also fragmenting warhead with large radius gives more choice as to type of proximity fuse. Large frag radius more deadly than blast.

    The most effective HE round is the one that penetrates the targets skin before exploding. Getting a direct hit makes everything else more effective.
    To get a large blast radius you need bigger heavier fragments that will not be accelerated to the same high speeds smaller lighter fragments are, but will retain speed better through the air. The problem there is that with small targets like cruise missiles with heavier larger fragments there will be much fewer of them which means fewer hits or perhaps no hits even if the missile gets close to the targets. Getting an nice even distribution of fragments in all different directions is hard enough with smaller fragments offering better coverage over shorter distances.

    Agree about thickness needed to act as RAM.  And we know what material used. So another way to estimate thickness. Good idea.  The weight and shape of internal component can be accurately worked out by looking at manufacturer using similar components in earlier model. Unlikely to be very different. Cost too high.

    The whole point of a from scratch stealth design is to shape the aircraft so that radar waves that hit its surface are deflected away and not reflected right back at the source of the original beam. Deflection means redirecting... we are talking mirrors and not clear glass here.

    Unless you can make the entire aircraft out of glass then radar transparent materials are useless... the pointed nose of a fighter jet is both more aerodynamic and more stealthy than a radar invisible nose cone that allows radar waves to enter and hit the radar dish inside it... which is a big flat surface area reflecting radar signals right back.

    The Soviets actually made a glass aircraft during WWII and it was actually very effective, but with use cracks appeared and ruined the effect.

    The idea with stealth design as I said is to design something that is a good aerodynamic and stealthy shape and then go over areas with peak return spots and put RAM and reshape the design so it becomes less of a hotspot.

    Basically to convert an existing type you do the second part but it means you can never get it to the stealthy level because it is governed by the laws of diminished returns.

    What I mean is that I could take a design like a Bear and do all sorts of things to it to reduce its RCS... radar transparent engine blades and various other changes that might take its RCS from 200m square to 20m square for 50 million dollars. Reshaping and new materials and other minor changes would be cost effective and dramatically reduce the RCS. The problem is to take that upgraded aircraft and get more results is 100 times harder and 100 times more expensive and much much less effective.... so the next upgrade to take it down to a 10m square target might cost half a billion dollars, and to halve it to 5m square metres might cost 5 trillion or it simply might not be possible.

    The point is that if you started from scratch with a stealthy base design the same rules apply so starting with an aircraft that is a flying wing and already only has a 10m square RCS then spending 50 million dollars on materials and RAM and making the bits more stealthy to drop down to 5m square will be part of the design and equally getting it down to 1 square metres or less might be possible too but it is going to be expensive... not just to achieve, but to maintain and operate... you might have trouble building the aircraft to that level of precision to get that level of stealth.

    Keep in mind that about 70 years ago in the 1950s making MiG-15s required tolerances of 5mm or better to ensure a flyable aircraft... today for stealth you need build precision much better than that.

    About laser guided AA missile, then Russia in good position to manufacture new types. Since radar and IR becoming less effective against stealthy plane. Leading edge of F35 cooled. So IR head on shot more difficult.

    Everything has a temperature... an imaging sensor can detect cold objects just as easily as very hot ones... being cold wont protect you from IIR guided weapons.

    Lastly you did not mention conversion of existing AA missiles by jacket or coatings. I said this originally as a way of reducing the RCS of plane carrying them externally, before being fired.

    Externally carried ordinance is never going to be stealthy... even conformal mounts means that externally carried weapons will create reflections over the lower surface of the aircraft that can reflect signals that can be detected...

    External weapons would be a RCS nightmare.

    Also for this purpose the AA missile could be carried inside composite RAM tubes. But a coating that fragments  while in flight makes design easier as resin used burns up at high temp Mach 4 flight. If coating burns and create plasma, even better more stealthy to RADAR!

    Internal carriage is still much more effective and stealthy... perhaps a pod in a weapon bay the forms the lower surface of the aircraft that can be lowered to launch weapons inside the pod and then retracted back in to the aircraft to make it stealthy when not in use could work, but this resin coming off your missiles in flight sounds like an ingestion issue waiting to happen... with internally mounted weapons pods there would be no need for RAM coatings.

    The Yanks have converted F15 to low RCS with internal bay payload.

    The Yanks also said the F-35 would be an affordable aircraft that could replace all existing types.

    The F-15 could be made reduced RCS, but certainly not Low RCS or anything like actually stealthy... and an internal payload bay shows you what the country with the most experience with stealth thinks of conformal weapon carriage... the F-15 already had conformal missile points for Sparrow missiles...

    Can Russia / China do the same with older metal planes, they have or sold? How did they do it? Nano paint? Composite panels stuck to original skin? Or new replacement composite skin panels? Can you guess?  Best solution is replacement panels. Including internal coated shaped panels. Can these be made and sold to different country to change to stealthy airforce? Iranians made coating of carbon nano - tubes also to stealth in some frequency of radar. If plane radar also works in this frequency then jamming by enemy does not reveal plane either. Imagine ordinary Chinese J7 jet with stealth! With low RCS external payload.

    Lets be clear... an all stealth aircraft fleet is pointless and expensive and not needed.

    Stealth is needed to penetrate and defeat IADS, but once they are damaged then much simpler and much cheaper aircraft that are not stealthy that carry a lot of ordinance externally like F-16 and F-15 aircraft of old are much more valuable platforms than having half arsed stealth wannabes.

    Making the Super Hornet more stealthy made it slightly less of a RCS light house but massively increased purchase price and operational costs and reduced range and performance in several important regards.

    The Su-35 and MiG-35 are fine and they don't need to make them more stealthy it would just be a waste of money and resources.

    A couple of stealth types with some solid 4th gen aircraft to support them is a vastly better and much more cost effective solution than making everything wanderwaffle that you can't afford in meaningful numbers.

    I think that reducing RCS on a plane is useful to a point. Beyond which we have diminishing returns. That is we get reduction to a point, but never to zero. At very high expense. So high that it affects the number of planes we can produce. As long as the plane RCS is reduced enough to make it look much smaller, then jamming and decoys provide a more cost effective way of making plane hard to hit with radar guided weapons. And that is all  we want. And we achieve it at fraction of cost.

    That is exactly right. You can piss away an enormous fortune with all stealth... but look at the design of the F-35... for the first missions in full stealth mode they have very limited payload capacity. When the enemy is beaten because you took out his airforce and most of his major SAMs and his comms and HQs then you can concentrate on wiping out his armed forces... ie tanks and navy... and for that role the F-35 has external stores... it stops being stealthy.... IT DOESN'T GET ANY CHEAPER THOUGH.

    They could have saved an enormous fortune by saying... well instead of 1,500 F-22s which turned out to be so expensive we made less than 200, and instead of the grandiose plans for 3,500 F-35s to replace everything else we have in service for 1.5 trillion dollars we could have the best of both worlds and have say 400 F-35 stealth fighters that can penetrate and rip up an air defence system and then use upgraded 4th gen aircraft to wipe out the armed force of that third world country we invaded this time.

    Their problem is that the air defence network of Serbia survived all their attention for months... the Russians can actually fight back in terms that can really hurt us... if we need to take 70 days with the Russian air defences then our airfields and our cities and harbours are going to get hammered and we are going to lose a lot of aircraft.

    They think the F-35 will do the job but it doesn't even live up to their expectations let alone what is actually needed.

    The best thing about the F-35 is that it is going to sponge up a lot of funds that could be spent on things that could actually make a difference, or make life better in the west... 1.5 trillion would fix a lot of roads and bridges and build a lot of parks in the US...

    Older jets can be given new life in this way. Using a combination of paints and shaped composite panels in some places, together with easy replacement of some parts, such as pilot helmet and ejection seat, now of composite materials. The radar cross section of modern jets can never be below a minimum undetectable value for many reasons. Internal bay on opening gives away position. The engine exhaust from rear is metal. And pilot face can not be covered, and is at least as big as pigeon on radar!

    Stealth is like camouflage... there is no such thing as completely invisible, but then most things benefit from not being obvious or easy to spot and identify.

    Compromising the entire design so it can't be seen makes little sense if it can now not perform its job.


    Last edited by GarryB on Fri Oct 25, 2019 10:31 am; edited 1 time in total
    nomadski
    nomadski

    Posts : 1122
    Points : 1128
    Join date : 2017-01-02

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 8 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  nomadski on Thu Oct 24, 2019 10:04 am

    Agree about flexible warheads on AA missiles. I think there are anti - Tank warheads that operate in two modes. Blast and penetration. I also like idea of post penetration delayed action fragments. You can achieve a lot more with  this in confined spaces.

    Regarding the relative cost / benefit of conversion of existing aircraft to low RCS, I am afraid I could not answer that. I am not radar engineer or material scientist. But if the experts read this, then they can do tests. But what I can say, is that only the frontal area and leading edges of old aircraft may need to be converted. For low RCS frontal attack.

    Regarding cooled leading edges of  F35. I suspect that cooling of body parts will be controlled to that of surrounding or background temperature. So IR seekers will have difficulty still. I thought about evaporative cooling of missiles and UAV on approach to target.

    I do not see why an aircraft can be low RCS, but missile can not be. Internal payload increases the aircraft cross section and makes it less efficient.  The missile will always have smaller cross section than internal bay with mechanisms for lowering and operating and ejecting. Also a frangible coating only operates when missile skin gets very hot. Well away from aircraft. But I think actual test will provide answer. A shaped triangular or diamond shaped AA missile, will not need frangible coatings.

    Agree about needing limited number of very low RCS planes at higher costs for specific jobs. Such as SEAD . But also refuelling UAV Tankers now being designed. This was weak point in air war. The huge clumsy air Tankers.

    About point I made about Iran purchasing Russian jet engines. I would like a reply if possible. My idea is that sooner or later Iran will manufacture turbojet. And it will start selling planes and being a competitor. But if there is a joint venture, then the path to success is shorter for Iran. And for Russia it will mean sharing in profits of new more cost effective fighters / trainers. The Europeans shared the load. And rewards. Why not Iran / Russia or China?
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25957
    Points : 26503
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 8 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  GarryB on Thu Oct 24, 2019 12:42 pm

    I think there are anti - Tank warheads that operate in two modes. Blast and penetration. I also like idea of post penetration delayed action fragments. You can achieve a lot more with  this in confined spaces.

    A round like a HESH can kill crew and seriously damage even heavily armoured tanks without penetrating, but an APHE is vastly more effective than just AP.

    With a vehicle like a BTR-60 most large calibre AP rounds or HEAT rounds go straight through so as long as you are not in the path you might survive OK... with an APHE round where the round explodes inside the vehicle pretty much everyone dies.

    The Vikhr ATGM actually has a switch on the launch control panel in a Ka-50 and Ka-52 that sets the missile to anti armour or anti soft target... ie anti MBT or anti everything else.

    It is rather easy to visualise... a HEAT warhead has a fuse at the rear centre and then basically a HE warhead that looks like someone has pushed a wine bottle in to its front and lined that surface with a metal cone. The warhead for Vikhr basically adds fragmentation material around the sides and rear of the warhead, and an extra fuse at the front or in the centre. That way before launch if the switch is in anti tank mode the rear fuse is activated... fragments will still be directed sideways, but the main blast will be forwards in a plasma stream made up of that metal liner in a superheated plasma form like a blow torch. If the switch is set for soft targets then the centre fuse detonates the charge and the HEAT warhead blows up like a HE bomb without the armour penetrating beam forming properly, so the blast would be more spherical and even than the focused beam of the Armour piercing action of the HEAT round.

    For Ataka and Shturm there are separate missile types for different roles so you need to carry a balance mix of missiles depending on what you are expecting to encounter.

    Large Soviet SAMs have huge warheads and the newer ones (after the 1970s) and their upgrades tasked with engaging targets from tiny cruise missiles at low altitude to ballistic missiles near space and aircraft and other targets in between use multiple fuses called smart fuses where at the last second before interception the nose sensor determines the actual location of the target and based on the target type will activate the specific fuse to direct the blast of the warhead in the direction of the target depending on the target, so unlike Patriot with a spherical blast, the later model S-300s directed their fragments to intercept a high speed missiles nose (ie warhead) rather than wasting fragments hitting its centre or rear that are no longer active. For manned aircraft it can be set to hit the front of the cockpit... like the old model BUK did... it makes them more effective and efficient.

    But what I can say, is that only the frontal area and leading edges of old aircraft may need to be converted. For low RCS frontal attack.

    And if you spend billions making all your aircraft fronts more stealthy how are you going to feel during defensive operations when you really don't know where the enemy is coming from and even in an attacking role enemy radars will be everywhere... When you are flying to one target, interceptors and SAMs in places on the way will take off to intercept you from the side and from the rear where you are not stealthy at all... all that money spent and that needs to be continuously spent to keep those planes stealthy was wasted... especially the internal weapons loads which will greatly reduce the performance of the aircraft while being stealthy... the F-111 had an internal bomb or weapon bay but 99% of the time it was fitted with a gun and ammo, or a fuel cell... because it was small and limited the performance of the aircraft if that was the only place it could carry weapons.

    You are better off spending a minimum to prevent excessively large RCS for your aircraft and just arm them properly with lots of AAMs and sensors and systems.

    Regarding cooled leading edges of  F35. I suspect that cooling of body parts will be controlled to that of surrounding or background temperature. So IR seekers will have difficulty still. I thought about evaporative cooling of missiles and UAV on approach to target.

    They would seriously struggle to get surface temperature the same as background temperatures... especially with that engine running... and that nose mounted radar might be a LPI AESA, but they generate lots of heat when they are being used too.

    I do not see why an aircraft can be low RCS, but missile can not be.

    Of course they can be, but for every aircraft you will be making hundreds of missiles... which are already expensive... making them vastly more expensive is pointless... they will be visible to IR and just optical sensors no matter what you do, and making them radar stealthy makes a million dollar missile into a 20 million dollar missile that is no more capable and might need special treatment too like air conditioned shelters and to be kept dry and ice free... or they wont be stealthy.

    Of course for ARH missiles it would be totally pointless once they start scanning looking for the target...

    Also a frangible coating only operates when missile skin gets very hot. Well away from aircraft. But I think actual test will provide answer. A shaped triangular or diamond shaped AA missile, will not need frangible coatings.

    If it is going to heat up then wont defensive IR sensors detect it anyway?

    Most self defence EW suites detect incoming threats based on IR sensors, not radar normally.

    Agree about needing limited number of very low RCS planes at higher costs for specific jobs. Such as SEAD . But also refuelling UAV Tankers now being designed. This was weak point in air war. The huge clumsy air Tankers.

    They are necessary for invasions, but most Russian aircraft already have excellent flight range anyway... plus there is the potential for self defence missiles to make them safer... you could use an enormous aircraft like Slon so it could carry enormous amounts of fuel it could offload with 5 or 6 hose reels to refuel larger numbers of aircraft at a time and with external weapons pylons with small self defence missiles... together with some rather potent laser and EM weapon stations that could obliterate the tiny seeker and mind of any missile you might consider directing at it.

    About point I made about Iran purchasing Russian jet engines. I would like a reply if possible. My idea is that sooner or later Iran will manufacture turbojet. And it will start selling planes and being a competitor. But if there is a joint venture, then the path to success is shorter for Iran. And for Russia it will mean sharing in profits of new more cost effective fighters / trainers. The Europeans shared the load. And rewards. Why not Iran / Russia or China?

    That Iranian trainer is about a 5 ton platform, which is about half the weight of the Yak-130 fully loaded.

    I personally think LIFT fighters are a stupid idea... on paper it makes sense to have commonality between aircraft and having a small light cheap aircraft for training that can also deliver real payloads for training and for real sounds ideal because light fighters should be simple and cheap and manouverable.

    Problem is that to be capable you need to start adding some things that make it not so cheap and not so light, and the light weight becomes an issue as the Air Force starts to demand more capability... the electronic self defence suite and radar alone will make it a very expensive aircraft, but if you cheap out and try to save money by not having them and your pilots will die cheaply against real enemies.

    For COIN type ops a light strike plane with cheap dumb weapons can be useful, but when push comes to shove I personally think taking a medium weight aircraft, and putting light weight lower performance equipment in that will give you your commonality and better base performance... ie MiG-29M2 as your cheap light fighter plus MiG-35s as your medium fighter and a few Su-35s or Su-57s for the hard jobs and top units.

    In fact you could modify it a bit... move the engines further apart and fill in the gap with an internal weapon bay and have further weapon locations on the outside of the engine bays so that much of the time you can have wings with no pylons to reduce RCS.... reduce its flight speed to mach 1.6 or so.
    nomadski
    nomadski

    Posts : 1122
    Points : 1128
    Join date : 2017-01-02

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 8 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  nomadski on Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:15 pm


    They say this technology is real and practical. Can it be used on aircraft or tanks to make invisible?

    https://youtu.be/CFiPJjrmmtE

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25957
    Points : 26503
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 8 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  GarryB on Sat Nov 23, 2019 2:58 am

    Just on that still frame without watching the video... I can't see the handles of those pliers... but I can see the piece of material he is holding up and can realise it might be blocking my view of something... if I saw that on a battlefield or flying through my airspace I would shoot it to see what it is hiding.

    Why would a civilian aircraft or vehicle use such technology?

    With the first battle damage or normal wear and tear cracks will it still work?
    Walther von Oldenburg
    Walther von Oldenburg

    Posts : 1198
    Points : 1277
    Join date : 2015-01-23
    Age : 29
    Location : Oldenburg

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 8 Empty experience and casualties

    Post  Walther von Oldenburg on Mon May 18, 2020 5:52 pm

    Are experienced soldiers killed/wounded less often than newbies and if yes, what's the difference.

    I wonder if any studis have been done on this topic.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25957
    Points : 26503
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 8 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  GarryB on Tue May 19, 2020 11:37 am

    Interesting question, there are lots of accounts of soldiers who seem to survive... whether that is because they know where not to stand so they are not volunteered, or their tactics work and they live to fight another day.

    Certainly things like wearing your helmet and keeping your head down and not looking important would be factors... the guys who walk around in the open with bravado probably wouldn't last very long... especially on the Eastern front... I remember reading a germans story where he made fun of some elite german soldiers (SS I think)... and as he said there was a wide variety of soldier in that unit... some were highly skilled, while others appeared to be idiots. Some SS soldiers were prancing around in this town centre they had just captured but not fully cleared yet and the german soldier telling the story seemed to have no respect for them at all.

    I got the feeling that the soldier telling the story fought to take towns while these guys came up and took charge and I think the German telling the story seemed to think their behaviour gave the German army a bad name.

    Anyway several of the SS men were shot by snipers till they started taking their enemy a bit more seriously.

    Considering the fierce fighting in the first months of the war, the best chance for surviving would be to lose the uniform and blend in with the locals and join the resistance. Lots of other situations on the eastern front there would not be too much chance of survival at all...

    I am sure lots of things went on that here and now we might call cowardice, but in the same situation there was little other choice.

    nomadski
    nomadski

    Posts : 1122
    Points : 1128
    Join date : 2017-01-02

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 8 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  nomadski on Sun May 24, 2020 9:37 am



    Many countries developing ship based lasers. Are lasers effective? I was thinking that lasers can be overcome by :


    ( 1 ) Drone or missile, cooling it's body, by evaporative cooling.

    ( 2 ) Rotation of body shell around axis.

    ( 3 ) Sensors on drone / missile, using laser for beam riding to target. Need heavy duty sunglasses.

    ( 4 ) Zig Zag to target. Laser can not track.

    If these are practical. Then lasers against drone or missile useless. Still may use against aircraft or sattelite.


    https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/22/asia/us-navy-lwsd-laser-intl-hnk-scli/index.html


    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25957
    Points : 26503
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 8 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 24, 2020 3:01 pm

    Well my first choice would be to fit your drone with a mirror surface so most of the laser energy is reflected away.

    Another possibility would be to add a glass material with a liquid inside... the glass material is transparent to the laser but the liquid is not so the energy of the laser will essentially be wasted boiling the liquid...

    Lasers will consume a lot of energy and will be expensive to use, so the best solution is to make lots of very cheap drones and get them to waste their energy on otherwise harmless drones before the real threats arrive...
    nomadski
    nomadski

    Posts : 1122
    Points : 1128
    Join date : 2017-01-02

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 8 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  nomadski on Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:23 am

    They claim fire and explosion happened, during service of ship in the well area. ( Area containing the floating Dock).  I have some questions, about this claim. If anyone knows, can answer please.

    ( 1 ) Ship was docked at port for sometime. Is it likely it carried live ammo still, that could catch fire?

    ( 2 )  Was there any planes or helicopters on deck at that time?

    ( 3 ) What is position of boiler and Turbine , in relation to fire?

    ( 4 )  What fuel is used?  Does it ignite with naked flame or spark?

    ( 5 ) Does position of and colour of smoke correspond to fire below deck in fuel tank?

    https://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2020/07/12/navy-ship-fire-san-diego-uss-bonhomme-richard-sot-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/top-news-videos/

    If it turns out to be accidental, then no more questions. But if not, then two possibility. Either it was Usrael false flag or Iranian retaliation. I think the attack on Natanz more likely Usrael. Since the Americans had a headache recently in Assad base. Also it is the tail that wags the dog. Usrael has great advantage to drag Yanks into war. Not the other way around. Also unlikely that, even if attack on Natanz was from Americans, then this response from Iran at this stage would be  escalation. Remember the response from Iran, for Soliemani, far worse situation, was very limited. No attack on American soil. These are somethings the Iranians are less likely to miscalculate.

    I think the attacks in Iran, were done by man portable devices. Small drones do not have the warhead size. But 120 mm GPS guided mortar, has the range and type of damage inflicted. It is also pre - programmable and not too large. Enabling indirect fire from hilly area.  Also accuracy low, as evident from hit on corner, and not centre of building. The Iranians, should be able to recover fragments. I think if these are Usrael, then they should present evidence to Trump and the world.  And if evidence of false flag also presented. He will be in hot water with his Usrael friends. But if the evidence is proof of yank involvement, then they should not present evidence. ( if in practice they will expell them) Irrespective of if this incident is termed accident or otherwise. In that case just help Yanks out of ME region.  IMHO.

    https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2020/07/14/2306847/irgc-quds-force-chief-us-navy-ship-fire-result-of-washington-crimes

    Here at least, Iran is denying involvement. But also saying this to be no accident. Therefore they say it is false flag by Americans themselves. Although I don't rule out Usrael  involvement.

    Iran simply did not have enough time to analyse the Natanz attack and decide what action to take. And I doubt they would act rashly or hastily.  ( And this explosion came way too quickly and conveniently.) Iran would especially not  attack on US on own soil. So it is important to find cause. Because the Neocons could cover up sabotage by own CIA forces or Usrael false flag. Then they will try to blame Iran for it. American sailors must provide evidence to a world body or press, about any info on possible false flag ops. This increasing likely, if explosion inside ship was cause. And not attack on deck. The latter could possibly be Iranian. But Iran has no capability to attack inside ship. But  Zionist sympathisers or yank CIA Neocon Pompeo or themselves do have access to inside of ship.

    Edit : since it has been decided rightly to strike openly and directly at USA. Then this should be done after open display of detterent by Iran. And strike limited to Americans in neutral territory of open waters.
    ahmedfire
    ahmedfire

    Posts : 1332
    Points : 1510
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : The Land Of Pharaohs

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 8 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  ahmedfire on Wed Aug 05, 2020 10:39 pm

    I was collecting some data regarded GPS guided munitions and i have a questions here Smile

    Before Glonass ,did Russia ever has tested GPS guided bombs ?

    If yes ,these kits had supposed to work with Coarse Acquisition (C/A-code) because AFAIK the  P-code is designed for US authorized military users ,so what was the CEP for the Russian GPS bomb ?

    I'm wondering if the C/A code could be sufficient for a good CEP ,so that the exported russian platforms (like Mig and Sukhoi to Egypt ) could use this signal for precision guided munitions (if Glonass wasn't available) along with INS and IIR or other guide kits ,at least using the C/A code for mid course and leave the final targeting to other kits .

    Scalp missile is supposed to use GPS in mid course too (i'm not sure the P code could be available for Egyptian Rafale ,so the missile GPS kit is there but would work may be on C/A code only !)

    The French AASM INS/GPS , Once the coordinates have been entered in the weapon, the INS enable it to hit the target without requiring a GPS signal, if it is unavailable. And the IIR version would allows the bomb to recalculate its trajectory during the last few seconds prior to impact using image recognition algorithms.

    So ,what is the need for the military GPS signal if we can use the civilian one in the mid-course and then other kits will complete the job ! or we can use only INS for mid course . Is it all about jamming resistance and more little accuracy ? scratch

    Actually Iran has produced a GPS/INS version of it's Ghassed bomb which means they got a good CEP using C/A code but at the end GPS could be turned off there as US did over Georgia .
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25957
    Points : 26503
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 8 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  GarryB on Thu Aug 06, 2020 6:31 am

    Before Glonass ,did Russia ever has tested GPS guided bombs ?

    They didn't have access to the military signals of Navstar, and in times of conflict the civilian signal is normally not accurate enough and also was turned off.

    The US control Navstar and can turn areas off as they please... which makes it useless for military purposes.

    If yes ,these kits had supposed to work with Coarse Acquisition (C/A-code) because AFAIK the P-code is designed for US authorized military users ,so what was the CEP for the Russian GPS bomb ?

    They didn't make any.

    I'm wondering if the C/A code could be sufficient for a good CEP ,so that the exported russian platforms (like Mig and Sukhoi to Egypt ) could use this signal for precision guided munitions (if Glonass wasn't available) along with INS and IIR or other guide kits ,at least using the C/A code for mid course and leave the final targeting to other kits .

    If you were going to use Russian systems it makes no sense to then sabotage that by using US sourced and control guidance channels... once the decision is made the US could and would turn off the civilian signal where and when they like... they did it in Georgia in 8 8 08... and any conflict the US didn't approve of they could do it over Israel and Egypt and Libya etc etc.

    Scalp missile is supposed to use GPS in mid course too (i'm not sure the P code could be available for Egyptian Rafale ,so the missile GPS kit is there but would work may be on C/A code only !)

    I am guessing the intertial nav system on Scalp would be pretty good and with terminal homing... not getting a GPS fix on the way wont hurt it much at all... just possibly more manouvering needed in the latter stages of the attack.

    So ,what is the need for the military GPS signal if we can use the civilian one in the mid-course and then other kits will complete the job ! or we can use only INS for mid course . Is it all about jamming resistance and more little accuracy ?

    The Civilian signal might not be there when you need it...

    Actually Iran has produced a GPS/INS version of it's Ghassed bomb which means they got a good CEP using C/A code but at the end GPS could be turned off there as US did over Georgia .

    Well it all depends if GPS means navstar or just what it says... global positioning system... which could be the US or Russian or Chinese or European systems and any combination of their civilian signals...

    Normally when you take off on a mission you zero your navigation system at a fixed point at the airfield that is known with extreme precision.

    At which point you can look at where the GLONASS receiver says you are and a Navstar receiver says you are and a Galileo receiver says you are... and the combined results give you an average figure... the average figure error from where you know you actually are can be used to calculate the actual figure when you are in flight on the way to the target area making it much more accurate than any civilian system on its own.... on or off.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6207
    Points : 6199
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 8 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  Isos on Thu Aug 06, 2020 10:03 am

    Russia will jamm GPS 24/7 in any conflict anyway. Why would they use it then ?
    ahmedfire
    ahmedfire

    Posts : 1332
    Points : 1510
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : The Land Of Pharaohs

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 8 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  ahmedfire on Fri Aug 07, 2020 12:03 am

    They didn't have access to the military signals of Navstar, and in times of conflict the civilian signal is normally not accurate enough and also was turned off.

    I've read before that civilian GPS could be used effectively if it could be used along with a good INS for mid-course and additional guidance kits for last stage.

    You can save the coordinates of the highly important bases or fixed target of your enemy like big early warning radars and use them at war time by uploading  them at bombs computers and with the help from INS it will find their way to the targets even if the GPS was interrupted or jammed ,with additional final stage kits ,you will score a good CEP .

    Also using diffrential GPS would make it better .

    If you were going to use Russian systems it makes no sense to then sabotage that by using US sourced and control guidance channels... once the decision is made the US could and would turn off the civilian signal where and when they like... they did it in Georgia in 8 8 08... and any conflict the US didn't approve of they could do it over Israel and Egypt and Libya etc etc.

    I guess it's better to use both systems combined .

    I am guessing the intertial nav system on Scalp would be pretty good and with terminal homing... not getting a GPS fix on the way wont hurt it much at all... just possibly more manouvering needed in the latter stages of the attack.
    That's what i thought too , improving the INS and adding other guidance kits to correct the coordinates that was uploaded during launch time even if it was completely wrong .


    Russia will jamm GPS 24/7 in any conflict anyway. Why would they use it then ?

    I was searching for anyone who has used the civilian signal and to which level it could be accurate .

    Isos ,do you have any informations about the GPS guidance kit on SCALP if it use automatically the GPS military signal or it needs some kind of decryption or authentication which US only provide ? I mean if Egypt launched the SCALP now ,will it use the P code or it's not allowed by ITAR or other US shit  censored  and only it will use C/A code ?
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25957
    Points : 26503
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 8 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 07, 2020 6:56 am

    Russia will jamm GPS 24/7 in any conflict anyway. Why would they use it then ?

    Even if they don't, if the US even suspects Russian military personel might be using civilian Navstar receivers they will turn it off in that area for the duration of the conflict.

    Right now I would think part of Ratnik one will be GLONASS receivers for navigation so every Russian soldier already has access to location data from GLONASS satellites at the very least. It probably uses signals from Navstar and the other two networks but wont be dependent on them because they could be turned off without warning anyway.

    AFAIK Navstar doesn't work above certain speeds and altitudes and probably would not work anywhere near an Israeli nuclear reactor or US military base in the US for instance...

    I've read before that civilian GPS could be used effectively if it could be used along with a good INS for mid-course and additional guidance kits for last stage.

    Inertial navigation systems use precise timers and accelerometers to measure speed and angle and drift... over time they lose accuracy but you can compensate for that. A terrain comparison guidance system looks at the target area for features like hill tops or identifyable bends in rivers or where roads fork into two or more rivers or roads. When programming a cruise missile attack you look at where the enemies known air defence systems are and so if there is a row of low hills nearby you would plan to fly on the other side of those out of view of the air defence systems. Say along the line of hills there is a river valley your missile can turn down to get to its target... the river valley is a fixed point so no matter how far the missile has flown to get there once it gets there it can now accurately pinpoint its position. If on the other side of those hills having come through the river valley there is a hard left turn and your target is right there it is an ideal way to send the missile because as the missile heads down the river valley when it gets to the end it can see its position in the air in relation to that point and calculate its exact position in 3D space... a hard left turn and the target should be right there... no need for satellite signals.

    Flying down a road or river was how pilots used to navigate across country... with a map on their knee and a stopwatch they could fly on a heading for x number of seconds at y speed and work out where they should end up on the map and then look around on the map to see what should be visible from there... and so then you fly there and look to see if you can see what you should be able to see.... for instance are you between two tall peaks, or flying over a 5 road intersection... or is there a large area of planted fields to your left or whatever.

    For a missile... check the air pressure and then send a super weak radio signal to the ground to determine your height above ground and with the air pressure determine your height above sea level... does that match the land height where you are currently flying.... look around you.... do the highest points of ground match the terrain around you on your digital map.... if you have a GLONASS signal check that too.

    You can save the coordinates of the highly important bases or fixed target of your enemy like big early warning radars and use them at war time by uploading them at bombs computers and with the help from INS it will find their way to the targets even if the GPS was interrupted or jammed ,with additional final stage kits ,you will score a good CEP .

    These days with cheap storage you can upload a complete 3D map of the terrain heights in the region and based on the location at launch from the aircraft carrying you you could work out where the target is and a useful flight path to get there... a jet powered cruise missile is just an unmanned plane really and the targeting system its autopilot.

    Also using diffrential GPS would make it better .

    If it is on... yes.

    Most modern civilian GPS devices use both Navstar and GLONASS... because both receivers are cheap and it makes it more accurate to use both.

    That's what i thought too , improving the INS and adding other guidance kits to correct the coordinates that was uploaded during launch time even if it was completely wrong .

    Modern ring laser gyros are so accurate if you put it on a table it could detect the rotation of the earth. They use fibre optic cables and are very accurate...

    Having points on your flight path where precision can reset the error clock to zero of course makes it even better.

    Isos ,do you have any informations about the GPS guidance kit on SCALP if it use automatically the GPS military signal or it needs some kind of decryption or authentication which US only provide ? I mean if Egypt launched the SCALP now ,will it use the P code or it's not allowed by ITAR or other US shit censored and only it will use C/A code ?

    I don't know, but would suspect the whole purpose of Gallieo is that either the europeans can get guaranteed access to the military Navstar codes, or they don't fully trust the US. Either way I would suspect a European missile would use both european and US GPS for better accuracy and redundancy.

    ahmedfire likes this post


    Sponsored content

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 8 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Sep 29, 2020 9:44 am