rail gun

namelessfly wrote:Looks like the B-52 with avionics upgrades might be the ultimate fighter of the 21st century.

Nah, obviously the crapload of money spent on it´s ECM suite was just wasted, so since it´s totally unarmoured it´s just an easy target, i´m sure of it!

namelessfly wrote:Looks like the B-52 with avionics upgrades might be the ultimate fighter of the 21st century.

Flight of the Old Dog

Tenshinai wrote:

Well, Tenshai, all you did in your post was prove you do not have a clue how RADAR works.

It´s rather pathetic how you keep saying things like that and then go on ranting about something i already know perfectly fine.

Not from your comments it would not appear so.

You just said bottom/top/rear RADAR do not work.

Of course every modern fighter has them already. Your favorite babies Suckhoi has such on all their fighters.

Your statements align with design constraints of forward looking only RADAR. Was I discussiong forward looking only RADAR? No. Is anyone designing a top of the line fighter worried about forward only looking RADAR? NO. Your favorite worship of Suckhoi has AESA RADAR on the sides as well now with their 35. Effectively it is the first with 4 axis RADAR. Forward, rear, both sides angled... where again? DOWN. Something you just got done saying was... Useless.

You also obviously do not have a clue how RADAR Works. Why? It has little to do with power and far more to do with signal processing. You state with such certainty that such and such a wattage RADAR can "only" see 'x' far.

Range at which you can distinguish objects has 3 defining factors.

1) Power. You got one right!
2) AD conversion S/N ratio BOO! You missed the obvious
3) SIGINT of the digital data BOO! You missed the obvious

Lovely, you achieved a 33% score on your test. You failed basic understanding of what a RADAR is.

You bring up the Grippen who can, woo hoo, see really well, dead ahead. Grippen is selling to the lowest cost bracket. BIG long range detection numbers look REALLY cool on paper. Of course no one reads the fine print that says, "Only useful agaisnt objects the size of a mountain."

You keep trying to make this arguement a Grippen, Euro fighter, MIG, Suckhoi verses F-22 etc debate. My argument all along has nothing to do with a singular fighter type. My arguement all along is that the F-22 is passe without actually saying it directly. I have been all along trying to get you to think of the FUTURE of where fighter tech was going. Of what tech developments will change fighter design.

You just said bottom/top/rear RADAR do not work.

What?



Sorry no such luck. You seriously need to learn to R E A D.

Then you could use a few lessons in understanding what you just read rather than jumping to random conclusions drawn from your own delusions.

Let´s quote myself shall I?
"Doesn´t work very well." =/= "do not work"
Oops, logic fail on your part, how odd.

And if you had a shred of real knowledge here, you would know perfectly well how much effort has been put into getting functional radar outside of the nosecone. AND, that the effectiveness of those are generally of the limited kind.

Of course every modern fighter has them already.

You also obviously do not have a clue how RADAR Works. Why? It has little to do with power and far more to do with signal processing. You state with such certainty that such and such a wattage RADAR can "only" see 'x' far.

Learn to read yet? Apparently not.

Lovely, you achieved a 33% score on your test.

Yes because i soooo totally adore wasting time on ignorant people that i write out every specific detail of every little item ever mentioned in the text.

You bring up the Grippen

Do learn to spell as well will you?

Of course no one reads the fine print that says, "Only useful agaisnt objects the size of a mountain."

Ah yes, because USA didn´t get severely pissed off when Iran tried to buy the Erieye system that just happens to use the same technology and just happens to be one of the current systems that is best at locating stealthy aircraft at long distances.

Well that pretty much does it, you´re useless.

And i guess you never heard of STRIL-2000 at all. And if you did you probably didn´t understand anything i guess.

The ability to shoot a longrange missile against a target while not emitting yourself, because the target is seen by another plane, a groundbased radar, an AWAC or even just by a tank...

You keep trying to make this arguement a Grippen, Euro fighter, MIG, Suckhoi verses F-22 etc debate.

No, i use them as examples of what exists in the real world, you know, that colourful and variable thing you can see through your eyes, at least as long as there´s light and your eyes are open.

My arguement all along is that the F-22 is passe without actually saying it directly.

Figured as much. Which is rather funny, because you may be correct even though for the wrong reason. That is really one plane that needs a severe debugging.

I have been all along trying to get you to think of the FUTURE of where fighter tech was going. Of what tech developments will change fighter design.

Oh i´ve done that. Your claimed knowledge and expertise is pretty much beyond laughable.

Even the folks claiming(again for about the 3rd time if you count decades) that we will have hoardes of drone fighters as our next generation aircraft are probably more correct.

Michael Everett wrote:
Explanation

Explanation[/quote]

thanks for the popcorn.

namelessfly wrote:

Michael Everett wrote:
Explanation

Explanation

thanks for the popcorn.[/quote]

Hmmmm Popcorn!!!

Just remember though, that duckk is cracking down harder on flaming, so be a bit more courteous guys(and gals).

What is great is putting the popcorn gif as your background.
________________________________________

I agree, the tech is readily available for CM/RPG for aircraft. When? Hmm.

PS. J6P I know you are new to the forum, but I have learned over the years regarding historical relevance and tactics etc, are Tenshai's cup of tea. He is very knowledgeable in that forum. Over arching themes, requiring a stretching of the mind without defined goal posts are not. In fact, they are not most anyone's cup of tea. You are arguing basic engineering hurdles. He is arguing placing said system on a current aircraft with no modifications to airframe or change in tactics. No he has not said those exact words, but that is what he is stating, over and over and over. You point out a different aircraft would be needed. He ignores this obvious base statement and brings up multiple strawmen without relevance to the argument. Why? I honestly do not know. But: Base starting points are complete opposites. He either cannot(does not have the background for[most do not]), or is unwilling to wrap his mind around the engineering obstacles to implementation. You made the pitfall of partially responding to his strawmen completely derailing the theme of your initial post.

PPS. Rear/Down/Up/Side RADAR work just fine if you are willing to place equivalent installations as on the nose. Though for the scenario of tracking a close in missile and firing a counter missiles or RPG, one does not need such heavy, volume and power hungry installations. CM, or IMO far more likely, RPG, would engage around the 100m mark. Certainly no further than 1000m. Uh, Tenshai. RADAR is RADAR. It does not give a damn about its orientation. Yea, a little clutter can be introduced via terrain. Stating emphatically, something cannot be done as there was a previous failure, is a failure in and of itself on your part. That is old fart syndrome. Stuck in your ways syndrome. BAH HUMBUG scrooge syndrome. It does force one to contemplate farther than a check box though. Why 'x' failed will certainly never be revealed outside the initial R&D circles doing the testing. Gives a leg up to the competition. Never reveal your knowledge one learned from failures or successes. Forces the opposition, be it a country or another company to duplicate everything. Including the failures. That type of stuff NEVER sees the light of day from system integration engineering cave land. If it does, is due it being so extreme it made it into a journal as a major case study or due to political pressure. Uh, scapegoating.

PPPS. Guys take a chill pill.

Tenshinai wrote:It´s funny though how you seem to not know about the primary problem with trying to fire missiles in any direction.

Concerning applicability of counter objects to an aircraft.

This quoted is your argument along with it was "tried" way back when? Simply listing the Vympel R-77 missile as an argument ? Here I am assuming you are worried about its closing speed? When you know where the missile will be?(impacting your aircraft)

Ok there. You wedded yourself into a very small box.

Lets look at the practicality and the very basic Aerodynamics.

Intercepting these missiles at 100km is pretty stupid. So, lets ignore this scenario. One is not trying to intercept these missiles at 10km either. While J6P never stated the distance he would intercept them, Wastedfly stated 100m with no more than 1000km in previous post. Think I would go with 200m myself.

There is realistically only two directions one needs to fire counters in. Rearward and orthogonal to the longitudinal axis. Via maneuver forward can be eliminated, though it is the easiest of the bunch to implement. Rearward is also straightforward and easy. Sideways has to exit the slipstream. This would require a tube launch system for initial dV velocity faster than the aircraft. I can see a basic need for a change in tactics compared to modern fighter missile dodging as well. Suppose we could get into dodging tactics and changed needed, but honestly why bother at the moment. Have to be able to hit a missile from a non maneuvering airframe to start with.

So, rearward/forward, a true counter missile would be doable. But not in the longitudinal orthogonal directions. This would require a tube launched dV. Upthread RPG was stated by J6P. This would be required for the longitudinal orthogonal directions.

Tactics for fighter dodge, or no dodge in this case for optimum result would force the fighter in question to partially align its internal tube launched counter measures with the incoming missile. A go no go light or chime would be applicable here to the pilot.

Now, the practical. Where to place the tubes in question? Would have to go above the turbines pointed, down/up on a slant. As nothing goes below the turbines(maintenance). Forward/aft is easy enough as it aligns with the turbine direction. So, its possible with a change in fuel placement and a larger aircraft body(drag-weight)

No, you are not going to carry these buggers under a wing on a pylon. If one did, the only orientation you could have would be rearward for close in interception. If shot it forward and then maneuver to the side, would require essentially same weight as a full up missile due to its longer burn time while giving a ton of Aerodynamic drag under normal cruising conditions. A very limited solution. Internal tube launch with pop covers.

How many are you going to carry? No reload mech as there is not space for it. Besides are not carrying many. So group of single launch tubes. How many offensive missiles do you carry? A decent ratio of CM to offensive is going to be what? Fewer CM than offensive. Can still dodge, hide, etc.

How much do lasers weigh? Way too much currently and they do not missile kill even from the largest current installations. Rather try to burn. Then again, fighters are pretty much sitting ducks in the sky right now as well.

No free lunch.

Plenty of popcorn to go around.

Snacks!

Carry ON!

I am shocked, shocked, two posters actually addressed the fundamental aspects of my original post. No strawmen. Holy cow, it must be the end of the internet!