Varyag aircraft carrier
Timur
Mark Test
news:cfda09ce-5122-4fe2...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> http://x.bbs.sina.com.cn/forum/pic/4e286bac010472cv
Here's a site with good photos (some as recent as Arpil '09).
http://www.jeffhead.com/redseadragon/varyagtransform.htm
Mark
jkochko68
> http://x.bbs.sina.com.cn/forum/pic/4e286bac010472cv
I would not be overly worried about that carrier. Our recon. sats will
have eyes on it 24/7 and with B-52s with tomahawks its a sitting duck.
It does not change the balance of power much as China lacks the other
effective arms to go with the carrier. Their submarine capabilities
are a joke as is their surface navy as a whole. China should have been
smart and built a real navy 1st and eventually grew into a carrier.
One carrier will prove much easier to sink than an entire navy. I
don't see why China bought that carrier unless they really want to use
it to confront the U.S. which they are nowhere near in a position to
effectively do unless they are crazy or very smart and certain our
weak and inept president will back down. That can't be do much the
case though b/c they bought the carrier and started to re-fit it long
before *we* elected a communist.
JK
mkf
There has been some speculation that they will use it as a blueprint
for later carriers, since they don't have any experience building them
on their own. That is their real goal here. Anyway, I don't see any
real indicators in China's foreign policy that would lead them to
start a war with the U.S.
Keith Willshaw
"jkochko68" <jkoc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e20e4d77-c631-4b96...@q16g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 2, 1:56 pm, Timur <appareg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://x.bbs.sina.com.cn/forum/pic/4e286bac010472cv
> I would not be overly worried about that carrier. Our recon. sats will
> have eyes on it 24/7 and with B-52s with tomahawks its a sitting duck.
There are a couple of problems with this theory
1) Recon satellites are not able to monitor a given ship 24/7
They are typically in polar orbits and a given satellite will only overfly
a specified target for a matter of minutes per day
2) The typical antiship missile used by the B-52 is the AGM-84 Harpoon
Since this has a relatively short range you wouldnt want to risk
an unescorted B-52 that close to a carrier.
Keith
Jack Linthicum
<ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "jkochko68" <jkochk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I think some of the shots of the carrier building in the Ukraine, way
back when, surprised the Soviets when they were published. Perhaps
some improvement in oblique shots.
Eugene Griessel
Wonder why? I saw some satellite shots - way back when (early
eighties perhaps?) - of the prototype of the Tupolev 160, strangely
enough parked next to a Tu-144 that was claimed to be in the process
of conversion to a bomber (or had been converted). They were obliques
and distressingly clear. They were published in a military magazine
- so had obviously been declassified by then. I am trying to find the
magazine - but I literally have thousands dating back to the sixties
so have little hope of immediately locating it. In my mind I somehow
associate 1983 with it? Anyway the Rooskies must have known about the
satellite photgraphic technology by then!
Eugene L Griessel
I want to die quietly in my sleep like my grandpa, not shouting
and screaming like the passengers in his car.
- I post only from Sci.Military.Naval -
Jack Linthicum
They knew, and, because their version was just about the quality of
the various KH's that dropped the film in a capsule, assumed our
electronic version couldn't be better. Actually, I think they had no
clue, unless someone was passing information.
There was a lot of fuzzing of earlier pics to give the impression we
were not doing well. Then that noise about license plates and the guy
reading the newspaper. Those and the one I saw of a soldier pissing
behind a building, really frost the NRO.
The National Reconnaissance Office hates that stuff because Congress
is always asking them for piucs of some recent event.
Eugene Griessel
<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>They knew, and, because their version was just about the quality of
>the various KH's that dropped the film in a capsule, assumed our
>electronic version couldn't be better. Actually, I think they had no
>clue, unless someone was passing information.
>
>There was a lot of fuzzing of earlier pics to give the impression we
>were not doing well. Then that noise about license plates and the guy
>reading the newspaper. Those and the one I saw of a soldier pissing
>behind a building, really frost the NRO.
>
>The National Reconnaissance Office hates that stuff because Congress
>is always asking them for piucs of some recent event.
Just been looking at the photographs, identified as taken by a KH-11,
of an "aircraft carrier building in the Nikolaev shipyard" and
released in 1984. Mmmmm. I'm no photographic interpreter but unless
they had other info I don't even see how they could tell it was going
to be a carrier! In two pieces with no sign of a flightdeck. They do
state that the photos are "less detailed" than the originals (probably
meaning they have been fuzzed or whatever) but other than the length
it could just as well have been a fleet oiler at that stage of the
construction! However some wisearsed analyst was already confidently
predicting an airwing of 80 aircraft, three steam catapaults and 3
elevators. Also found some rooskie snaps of Area 51 - taken in 1988,
not obliques - verticals - and pretty good they are too!
Eugene L Griessel
Never frighten a little man. He'll kill you.
Jack Linthicum
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 11:46:55 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
>
I seem to remember that one. I had been out of CIA for about 12 years
and saw it in the papers or AvWeek or some such. Went to a party and
heard a lot of jabber about the CV and the aviation that went with it.
You have to understand that almost anything the Soviets did was
political, so articles in their specialized papers like Red Star could
be interpreted. The group I worked with when I was CIA started out
reading the obituaries in those papers and interpreting who signed
what and in what capacity.
My favorite was a very large campaign in two or more newspapers about
dirigibles. "We need dirigibles", "Wasting the state's money on
dirigibles", etc. It had the flavor of the present Health Care contest.
Eugene Griessel
To quote Mr Churchill (I think) "the truth should always have a
bodygaurd of lies". Which is why I love it when the public get all
hot and bothered by some "failure" of intelligence - especially as
that "failure" might very well have been planned to give the opposing
side a wrong impression. I think it was Lord Cherwell who said that
the worst intelligence situation was when you have succeeded and the
enemy hasn't - the hiding of your success, or even the fact you made
the attempt at, can be very complex
Eugene L Griessel
We live in a deteriorating society which is falling apart because it
is ceasing to be a society and becoming an economic arrangement held
together by a romantic awe of technology.
Jack Linthicum
That's why the story behind the Man Who Never Was seems to be kind of
hard to accept. In the movie this is backed up by the "girlfriend's"
crying spree over "Willie". The British went to great lengths to sell
the idea and were, I think, lucky to get someone on the other side who
connected the dots the way he was supposed to.
The My-4 going round and round, the Mig-25, the SS-6, the Tallinn
"ABM" all tried to tell a story that just didn't make sense to anyone
not in USAF intelligence.
Eugene Griessel
<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>That's why the story behind the Man Who Never Was seems to be kind of
>hard to accept. In the movie this is backed up by the "girlfriend's"
>crying spree over "Willie". The British went to great lengths to sell
>the idea and were, I think, lucky to get someone on the other side who
>connected the dots the way he was supposed to.
Never saw the movie - or if I did alzheimers has wiped it from my
memory - but I did read various accounts, including Montagu's book on
the subject (and he should have known, being one of the principals in
the affair!) They realised that coatdragging seldom works with
intelligence and you have to give your enemy enough subtle clues so he
can piece it together for himself. Something the XX committee used to
great effect also. Toss in a dozen jigsaw puzzle pieces from varying
sources and when the opposing intelligence piece it together
(especially if it is missing some bits and they have to invent them)
it's "their" discovery and they are inclined to defend it beyond
normal criticism. Getting back to Mincemeat and "Major Martin" - they
were very subtle and one or two of the jigsaws were not put together
as they would have liked but overall it had the effect they wanted. I
believe the Major Martin story actually started with a suggestion by
Ian Fleming, IIRC. However his idea was as usual far more flamboyant
an idea as could reasonably be sold to the Germans! One of the things
British intelligence did not reckon on - and I'm not talking mincemeat
here - was just how fertile their opposing numbers in Germany could
be, with the result that the ideas they were trying to put across so
subtly often got inflated, by the Germans, to the point that they
became slightly unbelievable.
Postwar analysis of the Mincemeat operation, from material recovered
from the German archives, showed that, overall, the deception had been
believed.
Eugene L Griessel
There is nothing wrong with sobriety in moderation.
Jack Linthicum
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 13:04:24 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
>
Hmmm Nazis, USAF, Curtis LeMay, My-4....yeah they would buy it
We had an Air Force Colonel assigned to our group to study our
methods. He was a nice guy, understood they way we worked but
absolutely refused to stray from the Air Force view of things like the
MIG-25 and the Tallinn missiles. I think he had to toe the line even
if he didn't believe. Used to wear a version of the Peace Sign which
had morphed into a B-52 with the slogan "Drop It"
jkochko68
> There are a couple of problems with this theory
>
> 1) Recon satellites are not able to monitor a given ship 24/7
> They are typically in polar orbits and a given satellite will only overfly
> a specified target for a matter of minutes per day
True but a ship can only move so far each day and once you start using
multiple
sats you can get the location of the carrier down well enough for a
maritime recon.
BUFF to get a fix. Then you always have the shadow ships, subs, planes
SOSUS (if in area) ...
Its not like we are talking about Brazil having a potent navy with
(pehaps) few major Air Force
and Navy bases in theatre. We have Taiwan to help out, Japan, S. Korea
etc. and major bases. With
the end of the Cold War we have a large lack of true demand for our
naval assets especially our submarines...the Navy
would gladly track that ship to ensure its budget.
>
> 2) The typical antiship missile used by the B-52 is the AGM-84 Harpoon
> Since this has a relatively short range you wouldnt want to risk
> an unescorted B-52 that close to a carrier.
Easier solution. Two or three F/A-22s with LGB bunker busters into the
flight deck. It would probably be the fastest carrier to sink.
JK
>
> Keith
Chris
[Re: Soviet appraisals of quality of KH-11]
> Actually, I think they had no
> clue, unless someone was passing information.
William Kampiles sold the KGB documents normally described as
'technical manuals' in the open source world (don't know how detailed
they actually were) to the KGB for $3,000 in 1977.
Chris Manteuffel
frank
SOSUS was retired and shut down. Little thing with Walker giving away
the candy store to the SU on how we tracked subs.
Also you don't need bunker busters to take out a carrier.
Probably use a more modern platform than a B-52 on the anti ship
missiles. We really get mad we can sow the probably lanes of transit
with air dropped mines. From either a B-2 or a B-1.
Thinking about it, wouldn't take much to sew up the China coast with a
bunch of air dropped mines. Start losing shipping, insurance rates go
up, shippers won't go there.
Jack Linthicum
I would hope he spent the money before they put him away. I have
worked in the same CIA ops center than Kampiles is said to have done.
You do not give a bunch of editors and rewrite people the final
technical details of the primary source of information. The manual
probably had the details on how much orbital change the box could take
and how often it would pass over a certain point. I think this is
probably the time when all of the Communist world went on night-time
operations. I wonder if they ever realized.
Chris
> SOSUS was retired and shut down. Little thing with Walker giving away
> the candy store to the SU on how we tracked subs.
Completely wrong. SOSUS is still operational, though there are fewer
NAVFAC's operating and now SURTASS is generally preferred: both
because of the operational flexibility that the T-AGOS have and the
vastly easier maintenance (and upgrade) opportunities that they
provide.
And Walker doesn't really match the timelines for when the IUSS (the
acronym for the combination of the two) started to decline: the fall
of the USSR and the dramatic drop in the number of submarines we
needed to track in the open ocean does (the drawdown seems to start in
the mid 1990's).
Chris Manteuffel
Keith Willshaw
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:2358e5b8-12e4-4b40...@n31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 5, 12:20 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
<ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "jkochko68" <jkochk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e20e4d77-c631-4b96...@q16g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 2, 1:56 pm, Timur <appareg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://x.bbs.sina.com.cn/forum/pic/4e286bac010472cv
> > I would not be overly worried about that carrier. Our recon. sats will
> > have eyes on it 24/7 and with B-52s with tomahawks its a sitting duck.
>
> There are a couple of problems with this theory
>
> 1) Recon satellites are not able to monitor a given ship 24/7
> They are typically in polar orbits and a given satellite will only overfly
> a specified target for a matter of minutes per day
>
> 2) The typical antiship missile used by the B-52 is the AGM-84 Harpoon
> Since this has a relatively short range you wouldnt want to risk
> an unescorted B-52 that close to a carrier.
>
> Keith
= I think some of the shots of the carrier building in the Ukraine, way
= back when, surprised the Soviets when they were published. Perhaps
= some improvement in oblique shots.
I am sure they hav BUT good photos of a shipyard are a far cry form real
time surveillance.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
>
>> There are a couple of problems with this theory
>>
>> 1) Recon satellites are not able to monitor a given ship 24/7
>> They are typically in polar orbits and a given satellite will only
>> overfly
>> a specified target for a matter of minutes per day
>
> True but a ship can only move so far each day and once you start using
> multiple
> sats you can get the location of the carrier down well enough for a
> maritime recon.
At 25 knots you can move move a hell of a long way in 24 hours. Do the math
the area to search is pi*r*r where r is 24*25 in nautical miles, thats a
LARGE
search area
> BUFF to get a fix. Then you always have the shadow ships, subs, planes
> SOSUS (if in area) ...
B-52's dont have good maritime search radar
> Its not like we are talking about Brazil having a potent navy with
> (pehaps) few major Air Force
> and Navy bases in theatre. We have Taiwan to help out, Japan, S. Korea
> etc. and major bases. With
> the end of the Cold War we have a large lack of true demand for our
> naval assets especially our submarines...the Navy
> would gladly track that ship to ensure its budget.
None of which helps find a carrier using recon birds or defends a B-52 if it
strays within
Harpoon range of a carrier.
>>
>> 2) The typical antiship missile used by the B-52 is the AGM-84 Harpoon
>> Since this has a relatively short range you wouldnt want to risk
>> an unescorted B-52 that close to a carrier.
>
> Easier solution. Two or three F/A-22s with LGB bunker busters into the
> flight deck. It would probably be the fastest carrier to sink.
>
> JK
>
First find your carrier - its harder than you think.
Second - defend the strikke assets from carrier fighters.
Keith
Dan
So, when do you think America will ever elect a communist???
Don't even try to look even more foolish and claim we already have...
Dan
Dan
Back during the depths of the Cold War I thought it would have been
fun to tweak the Soviet's version of SOSUS by deliberately sinking a
retired U.S. submarine in such a way the Soviets would detect it. It
would have been a gas to sit back and watch the Soviets going nuts
trying to figure out what happened.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
jkochko68
> At 25 knots you can move move a hell of a long way in 24 hours. Do the math
> the area to search is pi*r*r where r is 24*25 in nautical miles, thats a
> LARGE
> search area
I'm not an expert but won't a sat in a polar orbit, orbit the Earth
once every 90 minutes? So like I said before if you
are using three, four or more sats its going to get darn near
impossible to evade detection assuming your carrier and rest
of the strike group are not stealthy and actually get to where you
need to go in order to conduct your mission. Of course
you can attack the sats but that shoots the hell out of the catching
your foe unprepared and perhaps will be viewed as a major
provocative act. If China and Taiwan get hot that may be viewed as one
thing but if China goes after strategic U.S. assets...
jkochko68
sure Taiwan will have to re-structure its air defense to deal
with this carrier. Most of their Patriot and early warning radar
systems are probably oriented to the west generally. I guess that
depends on how close the Chinese air bases are to Taiwan. I figure its
about 200 miles from the Chinese coast to Taiwan and back and if you
come in from the east you would probably stay at least 100 miles out
from Taiwan before attacking assuming the air defense is thinner
on the eastern side. That would eat up a decent amount of combat
radius in their strikers.
So a carrier strike group could create a somewhat credible threat to
Taiwan if its air wing could cripple Taiwan's air force before
evacuating to using the major
highway system. There have been rumors of a plan to do just that if
China can take out its runways. The logistics of that would be truly
nightmarish though...
David E. Powell
Like a retired GUPPY (Or pre Guppy) sunk in a deep spot right near
their cable?
frank
yeah but its the SU that had all the LEO sats that they spit out like
popcorn kernals. Ours were higher. Mostly. They were pretty good at
launching for specific targets of opportunity. we never did that.
frank
Didn't you get your Bircher newsletter? Ike was the first. Had Commies
in State, Treasury, the Army, The HEALTH DEPT by God, floridation.....
Birchers are co sponsoring the Conservative Causus this year. Stay
tuned could get really interesting.
frank
Not even close to what it was. In large part due to prop design on
their end. Some other engineering stuff.
Walker did a ton of damage. Pollard came close for a lot of other
reasons. Unfortunately both are well fed. I could see civic programs
to find old fallout shelter supplies and ship them to those two in the
prison system. Without a can opener. Give them some incentive in their
cells.
Eugene Griessel
<dhssres...@netscape.net> wrote:
>Walker did a ton of damage. Pollard came close for a lot of other
>reasons. Unfortunately both are well fed. I could see civic programs
>to find old fallout shelter supplies and ship them to those two in the
>prison system. Without a can opener. Give them some incentive in their
>cells.
Of course - they were dirty, filthy, rotten spies whereas US - er,
"operatives"? - are good, honest, patriotic people doing their duty
and when caught should be treated nicely?
Eugene L Griessel
Ours is the age which is proud of machines that can think
and suspicious of men who try to.
Dan
Henry Wallace, one of FDR's vice-presidents had definite communist
tendencies.
Keith Willshaw
>
>> At 25 knots you can move move a hell of a long way in 24 hours. Do the
>> math
>> the area to search is pi*r*r where r is 24*25 in nautical miles, thats a
>> LARGE
>> search area
>
> I'm not an expert but won't a sat in a polar orbit, orbit the Earth
> once every 90 minutes?
More like 100 and the earth rotates under it so it doesnt return to the
same spot. Any given location will be visited once a day or so.
The very detailed pictures that recon birds return paradoxically
makes searching the returned pictures for the carrier group
a painstaking job. Imagine using Google StreetView to scan a
medium sized town for a single vehicle.
Satellite orbits are predictable and minimising their overflight is
a tactic that any competent naval commander understands.
Reconnnaisance satellites are excellent tools for examining
a specified location but they are very limited when it comes
to real time maritime search. This is why the US uses the P3 Orion
> So like I said before if you
> are using three, four or more sats its going to get darn near
> impossible to evade detection assuming your carrier and rest
> of the strike group are not stealthy and actually get to where you
> need to go in order to conduct your mission.
Incorrect and the assumption that you know the mission is likely
to be wrong. In Dec 1941 the USN thought the mission of the
IJN carriers would be Malaya , the NEI or the Phillipines.
Oops
> Of course
> you can attack the sats but that shoots the hell out of the catching
> your foe unprepared and perhaps will be viewed as a major
> provocative act. If China and Taiwan get hot that may be viewed as one
> thing but if China goes after strategic U.S. assets...
China cannot realistically interdict strategic US assets with a carrier.
Its much more likely they want to project power tactically in disputed
areas such as the Spratly's where their rivals dont have that capability.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
"Eugene Griessel" <eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote in message
news:61f8k5l43ntgkfo9g...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 23:13:13 -0800 (PST), frank
> <dhssres...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>Walker did a ton of damage. Pollard came close for a lot of other
>>reasons. Unfortunately both are well fed. I could see civic programs
>>to find old fallout shelter supplies and ship them to those two in the
>>prison system. Without a can opener. Give them some incentive in their
>>cells.
>
> Of course - they were dirty, filthy, rotten spies whereas US - er,
> "operatives"? - are good, honest, patriotic people doing their duty
> and when caught should be treated nicely?
>
They have spies we have intelligence assets :)
Keith
Jack Linthicum
<ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
You have to know that it is there, the state of its being complete
before you can target the place for further information. I would say
the knowledge that it was an aircraft carrier, hole for the elevator
gave it away I seem to remember, is enough to start on.
Jack Linthicum
And reveal that we knew where their cable was, what it was used for
and perhaps that we were running submarines they couldn't detect into
their defense zone?
Jack Linthicum
Which were?
Timur
http://china-arsenal.blogspot.com/2010/01/j-14-aircraft-hi-res-images.html
Richard Casady
<ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>B-52's dont have good maritime search radar
Where did you get that idea?
Casady
jkochko68
program of their own and building a launch
complex out at Vanderberg they had a abort base up in Alaska so if
something went wrong the shuttle could land
their after only one orbit or even abort to it if it could not make
orbit for some reason. There was a requirement that
it had to have about 200 miles of cross range min. so it could make
use of different fields not directly along its glidepath.
Those larger wings may even help it bank hard on reentry back and
forth to high AOA to bleed to bleed off its speed.
The 200 mile cross range was b/c thats roughly how far away one pt. on
Earth would be after a 90 minute orbit.
> More like 100 and the earth rotates under it so it doesnt return to the
> same spot. Any given location will be visited once a day or so.
> The very detailed pictures that recon birds return paradoxically
> makes searching the returned pictures for the carrier group
> a painstaking job. Imagine using Google StreetView to scan a
> medium sized town for a single vehicle.
>
> Satellite orbits are predictable and minimising their overflight is
> a tactic that any competent naval commander understands.
Yeah but dodging multiple sats.,,, and I seriously doubt
our intel would be studying photos of the ocean. More likely they
would
look at thermal and radar blimps the computer brought to their
attention. Its
likely the task force would not be using the shipping lanes so they
would further stand out.
JK
Richard Casady
<jkoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The 200 mile cross range was b/c thats roughly how far away one pt. on
>Earth would be after a 90 minute orbit.
What is that supposed to mean?
Casady
Dean
> J-14 aircraft hi-res images:http://china-arsenal.blogspot.com/2010/01/j-14-aircraft-hi-res-images...
Nice CGI pics....
Jack Linthicum
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 04:43:19 -0800 (PST), jkochko68
>
> >The 200 mile cross range was b/c thats roughly how far away one pt. on
> >Earth would be after a 90 minute orbit.
>
> What is that supposed to mean?
>
> Casady
The orbit at 90 degrees takes about 100 minutes, during that time the
Earth has rotated about 200 miles at the latitude of Alaska. Most
reconnaissance satellites are launched at inclinations less or greater
than 90 degrees, to provide better coverage of areas away from the
poles. 68 degrees gets most of the places that would be of interest.
Chris
> There was a requirement that
> it had to have about 200 miles of cross range min. so it could make
> use of different fields not directly along its glidepath.
This might be true (I've never heard of a AOA abort site in Alaska,
but I wouldn't be surprised if there was one) but it was not the main
imposition on cross range that the USAF put in. The USAF demanded over
a thousand miles of cross range for Reference Mission 3A and 3B. Those
two missions were for a spacecraft to take off from VAFB, going south,
either release or recover a satellite, and land back at VAFB after a
single orbit.
> The 200 mile cross range was b/c thats roughly how far away one pt. on
> Earth would be after a 90 minute orbit.
You can see just from first principles that this must be wrong. The
earth takes 24 hours to rotate all the way around. So 90 minutes would
be 1/16th of the total rotation. The earth's mean circumference is
40,041 KM. 1/16th of that is 2,502 KM, or 1,555 miles. That is
roughly how far away one point on earth would be after a 90 minute
orbit. The farther away from the equator you go, the smaller the
number, until you get to the Pole (best case) where it's 0, but that's
the worst case; average case would be half that, or 777 miles.
Perhaps 200 miles of cross range would be enough for an abort to
Alaska- but Reference Mission 3A and 3B required landing at VAFB, from
whence the Shuttle had come. That was because there simply wasn't
enough time to release a sat (or recover one) if you were going to
make a landing in Alaska.[1] And at VAFB's latitude, one needs about
1200 miles of cross range to account for the rotation of the earth and
have a bit of a safety factor. So that was a major design constraint
on the space shuttle.
> Yeah but dodging multiple sats.,,, and I seriously doubt
Is not that hard.
For the infamous NORPAC '82 exercise, the USS Midway and USS
Enterprise operated for 4-5 days about 200 nm off Petropavlovsk,
launching alpha strikes each day (but on the reciprocal heading to the
Soviet naval base) without being detected by airplanes, sats, or subs
(as best we can tell by Soviet reaction). And that was against the
Soviet ship detection capabilities: they invested a heck of a lot more
in that than we did, because they were far more threatened by the USN
than we were by the fUSSR Navy. They had a great number of Bears,
launched quite a few satellites (both RADSATs and Ferrets), etc. So it
is surely not impossible.
> Its
> likely the task force would not be using the shipping lanes so they
> would further stand out.
Why do you think that? If the enemy knows that avoiding shipping lanes
makes you stand out, why wouldn't they use shipping lanes? It's not
that hard to be on a shipping lane but not seen by any green ships if
you have a 10+ knot speed advantage over them and can run your civ nav
radars. Also, bad weather and night are quite handy for hiding in.
[1]: RM-3 was built around the concern that multiple orbits by the
big huge shuttle would make it easy for the Soviets to figure out the
exact orbit of the spy sat, so we wouldn't give them much time to get
their tracking perfect by simply doing it so quickly: one pass over
the USSR and back down. Now, by 1977 the USAF/NRO seems to have
decided that RM-3 wasn't important any more, and focused more on RM-4
(a bit more payload, but not the tight single orbit requirements)
after they thought more about how to use spy sats, but the shuttle
design was already finalized at that point. Faget's original design
track, which would have provided much less cross range (on the order
of a few hundred miles) had been binned, in favor of the big heavy
delta wings necessary to provide enough lift in the hypersonic region
of the flight to get 1500 miles of cross range that the military
demanded for RM-3.
Chris Manteuffel
Eugene Griessel
wrote:
>You can see just from first principles that this must be wrong. The
>earth takes 24 hours to rotate all the way around. So 90 minutes would
>be 1/16th of the total rotation. The earth's mean circumference is
>40,041 KM. 1/16th of that is 2,502 KM, or 1,555 miles. That is
>roughly how far away one point on earth would be after a 90 minute
>orbit. The farther away from the equator you go, the smaller the
>number, until you get to the Pole (best case) where it's 0, but that's
>the worst case; average case would be half that, or 777 miles.
It's the cosine of the latitude multiplied by 15 mulitplied by 60 to
give nautical miles. Mulitply by 1.852 to get kilometres or 1.15 to
get statute miles. (This will only be approximate as oblate
spheroidity adds a spot of complexity).
eg = at 45 degrees latitude the earth turns
15 x cosine(45) degreees per hour
or 15 x cosine(45) x 60 minutes per hour (1 minute - 1 nautical mile)
or 15 x .707 x 60 = 636.4 nautical miles per hour or 1179 km/h or 732
mph.
HTH.
Eugene L Griessel
Why aren't there any guilty bystanders?
Keith Willshaw
> Well I recall that when the Air Force was considering a shuttle
> program of their own and building a launch
> complex out at Vanderberg they had a abort base up in Alaska so if
> something went wrong the shuttle could land
> their after only one orbit or even abort to it if it could not make
> orbit for some reason. There was a requirement that
> it had to have about 200 miles of cross range min. so it could make
> use of different fields not directly along its glidepath.
> Those larger wings may even help it bank hard on reentry back and
> forth to high AOA to bleed to bleed off its speed.
>
> The 200 mile cross range was b/c thats roughly how far away one pt. on
> Earth would be after a 90 minute orbit.
>
Very interesting but entirely irrelevant to the subject at hand
>> More like 100 and the earth rotates under it so it doesnt return to the
>> same spot. Any given location will be visited once a day or so.
>> The very detailed pictures that recon birds return paradoxically
>> makes searching the returned pictures for the carrier group
>> a painstaking job. Imagine using Google StreetView to scan a
>> medium sized town for a single vehicle.
>>
>> Satellite orbits are predictable and minimising their overflight is
>> a tactic that any competent naval commander understands.
>
> Yeah but dodging multiple sats.,,, and I seriously doubt
> our intel would be studying photos of the ocean. More likely they
> would
> look at thermal and radar blimps the computer brought to their
> attention.
What radar blips ?
Radar satellites are an entirely different animal to recon birds. They
require
large power sources and typically have low orbits that decay rapidly.
The former USSR spent large amounts of cash on RORSAT's , they were nuclear
powered and rather expensive. Now there are a number of SAR satellites out
there
which are typically used for weather surveillance. In theory such birds can
be used to track ships wakes but you still need to confirm you are dealing
with
a carrier not a container ship.
U.S. Air Force and Space Command are developing a satellite constellation
known
as Space-Based Radar which will have martimime recon capability however the
first operational spacecraft will not be launched before 2015 and the plans
call for a
constellation of only nine satellites
Work is proceeding on using commercial SAR for semi-autonomous ship
detection systems.
Dedicated algorithms can yield information on ship size, shape and even
speed
based on Doppler effects extracted from displaced ship wakes in the SAR
signal.
but these systems are not yet fielded in quantity and still only give you an
indication
of ship size and speed. There are an awful lot of bulk carriers, Panamax
container ships
and tankers that will provide similar radar returns to a carrier.
> Its
> likely the task force would not be using the shipping lanes so they
> would further stand out.
>
Not a wise assumption if you consider such a force a serious threat.
Keith
frank
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 08:43:59 -0800 (PST), Chris <cmant...@gmail.com>
But Shuttle is maneuverable, so there's no reason it couldn't use any
of the Kennedy launch abort fields. Main reason for getting VAFB as a
launch was to put up some high inclination orbit AF sats. Launch out
over the Pacific and get up to a higher inclination orbit. Part of the
reason it got killed was probably cost, and SLC-6 their launch complex
had some really bad engineering flaws. I seem to recall one of the
concrete transport paths was really off in alignment when they met in
the middle. Or at least what their VAB was going to be.
The number of military missions pretty much died off, early on there
were a few. I'd bet for what they were putting up there, using the
Shuttle wasn't worth the extra effort.
But, way back when , part of the justification to build the thing was
the military mission. That pretty much went by the wayside a lot
quicker that people were led to believe.
VAFB is pretty much still the place to launch a lot of the polar
orbital stuff, just uses old boosters and simple launch complexes.
They also test launch ICBMs out to Kwaj missile range or the Ronnie
Reagan Test Range. Kennedy launches mostly in the other direction
towards Africa.
Jack Linthicum
Smaller distance at higher latitudes. One source gives 9,905.2 miles,
ie your 1/16th would be 619 miles. If you are only going the distance
from Vandenberg to Alaska the distance is something like 1500 miles.
The speed of an orbital launch is about 26000 feet per second,
traveling that 1500 miles in about 5 minutes. Your precession is then
in the 165 mile region, fudging makes it 2000 miles.
Jack Linthicum
> Richard Casady <richardcas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> :On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 00:54:37 -0000, "Keith Willshaw":<ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> :
> :>B-52's dont have good maritime search radar
> :
> :Where did you get that idea?
>
> Uh, because they don't? Their AN/APQ-166 Strategic Radar is intended
> for LAND targets.
>
> --
> "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
> man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
> all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
> --George Bernard Shaw
Question, is this statement valid?
B-52 and S-3 Compete
by James Dunnigan
February 22, 2008
Maritime reconnaissance has been revolutionized with the introduction,
and combining, of lightweight search radars and targeting pods. Two
years ago the U.S. Navy began equipping its carrier based S-3 patrol
aircraft with Lantirn targeting pods. The S-3 was originally designed
as an anti-submarine aircraft, and served in that capacity from its
introduction in the mid 1970s, to the late 1990s. The end of the Cold
War ended most of the submarine threat, and since 1999, the S-3 has
served as a patrol aircraft, and aerial tanker. In the next decade,
the S-3 will be retired, and replaced (for patrol and taker duties) by
F-18F aircraft. But for now, the S-3, with the long range (ten hours
per sortie), day/night video capability of the Lantirn, and
lightweight search radar, make it a much more effective maritime
patrol aircraft. The Lantirn pod costs two million dollars, and is
hung off a hard point like a bomb or fuel tank.
The search radar, that can spot ships fifty or more kilometers away,
enable an S-3 to quickly scan a huge chunk of ocean in a few hours.
But the key element here is the targeting pod, which eliminates the
need to fly down low to visually confirm what the ship (that is easily
spotted by the radar) is. With the targeting pod, you can stay high
(20,000 feet) and far away (over twenty kilometers) and still get a
close look. The S-3 can also carry Harpoon anti-ship missiles, in case
the ship below is hostile.
This combination is being used in the P-3 maritime reconnaissance
aircraft, as well as U.S. Air Force B-52 bombers. The S-3's advantage
is that it can operate from an aircraft carrier, enabling a carrier to
quickly establish a detailed picture of what ships are moving in the
vicinity (meaning anything several hundred kilometers from the
carrier).
Keith Willshaw
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:cb36c39b-f4c2-4aec...@34g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 6, 12:08 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Richard Casady <richardcas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> :On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 00:54:37 -0000, "Keith
> Willshaw":<ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> :
> :>B-52's dont have good maritime search radar
> :
> :Where did you get that idea?
> :
>
> Uh, because they don't? Their AN/APQ-166 Strategic Radar is intended
> for LAND targets.
>
> --
> "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
> man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
> all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
> --George Bernard Shaw
= Question, is this statement valid?
= B-52 and S-3 Compete
= by James Dunnigan
= February 22, 2008
= Maritime reconnaissance has been revolutionized with the introduction,
= and combining, of lightweight search radars and targeting pods. Two
= years ago the U.S. Navy began equipping its carrier based S-3 patrol
= aircraft with Lantirn targeting pods. The S-3 was originally designed
= as an anti-submarine aircraft, and served in that capacity from its
= introduction in the mid 1970s, to the late 1990s. The end of the Cold
= War ended most of the submarine threat, and since 1999, the S-3 has
= served as a patrol aircraft, and aerial tanker. In the next decade,
= the S-3 will be retired, and replaced (for patrol and taker duties) by
= F-18F aircraft. But for now, the S-3, with the long range (ten hours
= per sortie), day/night video capability of the Lantirn, and
= lightweight search radar, make it a much more effective maritime
= patrol aircraft. The Lantirn pod costs two million dollars, and is
= hung off a hard point like a bomb or fuel tank.
Well given that the last S-3's decommisioned in 2009 what do you think ?
The S-3 had a decent radar fit for maritime recon, the B-52 has the 40 year
old
APQ-166 Strategic Radar which was designed to find ground targets, monitor
weather and conduct navigation. The Air Force would like to replace it but
it hasnt
happened yet.
Keith
Andrew Swallow
{snip}
>
> Wonder why? I saw some satellite shots - way back when (early
> eighties perhaps?) - of the prototype of the Tupolev 160, strangely
> enough parked next to a Tu-144 that was claimed to be in the process
> of conversion to a bomber (or had been converted). They were obliques
> and distressingly clear. They were published in a military magazine
> - so had obviously been declassified by then. I am trying to find the
> magazine - but I literally have thousands dating back to the sixties
> so have little hope of immediately locating it. In my mind I somehow
> associate 1983 with it? Anyway the Rooskies must have known about the
> satellite photgraphic technology by then!
I suspect 'Need to know'. Useful information is kept to the people
at the top. Also most security people think putting up signs banning
cameras stops the outside of buildings being photographed.
Andrew Swallow
Mark Test
news:h1a1n.1871$Qm6...@newsfe08.ams2...
Decent? I'll say....the S-3B used the APS-137 Inverse Synthetic Aperture
Radar....
> APQ-166 Strategic Radar which was designed to find ground targets, monitor
> weather and conduct navigation. The Air Force would like to replace it but
> it hasnt
> happened yet.
>
P-3's have a similar radar (APS-134)....could be fitted on a 52 but why?
The P-8 should hit the fleet in 2012.
Mark
tankfixer
@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, jackli...@earthlink.net says...
Not that we would EVER do such things.. ;')
Mark Test
news:MPG.25af0fd...@news.bytemine.net...
> In article <01fc4d1c-6a6e-4840-b78a-f85f58d971a7
> @j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, jackli...@earthlink.net says...
>>
>> On Jan 5, 9:04 pm, "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com> wrote:
>> > On Jan 5, 8:14 pm, Dan <B24...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > Chris wrote:
>> > > > On Jan 5, 6:15 pm, frank <dhssresearc...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > > >> SOSUS was retired and shut down. Little thing with Walker giving
>> > > >> away
>> > > >> the candy store to the SU on how we tracked subs.
>> >
>> > > > Completely wrong. SOSUS is still operational, though there are
>> > > > fewer
>> > > > NAVFAC's operating and now SURTASS is generally preferred: both
>> > > > because of the operational flexibility that the T-AGOS have and the
>> > > > vastly easier maintenance (and upgrade) opportunities that they
>> > > > provide.
>> >
over 24 ships, now there are 4.
>> > > > And Walker doesn't really match the timelines for when the IUSS
>> > > > (the
>> > > > acronym for the combination of the two) started to decline: the
>> > > > fall
>> > > > of the USSR and the dramatic drop in the number of submarines we
>> > > > needed to track in the open ocean does (the drawdown seems to start
>> > > > in
>> > > > the mid 1990's).
>> >
>> > > > Chris Manteuffel
>> >
>> > > Back during the depths of the Cold War I thought it would have
>> > > been
>> > > fun to tweak the Soviet's version of SOSUS by deliberately sinking a
>> > > retired U.S. submarine in such a way the Soviets would detect it. It
>> > > would have been a gas to sit back and watch the Soviets going nuts
>> > > trying to figure out what happened.
>> >
>> > > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>> >
>> > Like a retired GUPPY (Or pre Guppy) sunk in a deep spot right near
>> > their cable?
>>
>> And reveal that we knew where their cable was, what it was used for
>> and perhaps that we were running submarines they couldn't detect into
>> their defense zone?
>
> Not that we would EVER do such things.. ;')
SOSUS has been integrated into IUSS (Integrated Undersea Surveillance
System),
a small part of a larger network. So, SOSUS is still alive, but much
smaller due to
a much smaller ASW threat. Also, newer systems had to be developed to
counter
quieter submarines.
http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/iuss.htm
Mark
tankfixer
says...
>
> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.25af0fd...@news.bytemine.net...
> > In article <01fc4d1c-6a6e-4840-b78a-f85f58d971a7
> > @j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, jackli...@earthlink.net says...
> >>
> >> On Jan 5, 9:04 pm, "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com> wrote:
> >> > On Jan 5, 8:14 pm, Dan <B24...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > Chris wrote:
> >> > > > On Jan 5, 6:15 pm, frank <dhssresearc...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > >> SOSUS was retired and shut down. Little thing with Walker giving
> >> > > >> away
> >> > > >> the candy store to the SU on how we tracked subs.
> >> >
> >> > > > Completely wrong. SOSUS is still operational, though there are
> >> > > > fewer
> >> > > > NAVFAC's operating and now SURTASS is generally preferred: both
> >> > > > because of the operational flexibility that the T-AGOS have and the
> >> > > > vastly easier maintenance (and upgrade) opportunities that they
> >> > > > provide.
> >> >
> Really? Then how come the SURTASS fleet has been retired? We once had
> over 24 ships, now there are 4.
Mark, please check your attributions..
I didn't write the bit above.
I was reffering to Ivy Bells..
Iain Rae
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 13:04:24 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
> <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> That's why the story behind the Man Who Never Was seems to be kind of
>> hard to accept. In the movie this is backed up by the "girlfriend's"
>> crying spree over "Willie". The British went to great lengths to sell
>> the idea and were, I think, lucky to get someone on the other side who
>> connected the dots the way he was supposed to.
>
> Never saw the movie - or if I did alzheimers has wiped it from my
> memory - but I did read various accounts, including Montagu's book on
> the subject (and he should have known, being one of the principals in
> the affair!)
Although how much of the writings of a master of deception should you
believe :) I suspect that Ewan Montagu is sitting somewhere with a wry
smile on his face given all the Glyndwr Michael/HMS Dasher claims and
counter claims.
<snip>
>
> Postwar analysis of the Mincemeat operation, from material recovered
> from the German archives, showed that, overall, the deception had been
> believed.
Yes, but much to Montagu's horror someone on the german side had cocked
up the dates of some of the evidence when transcribing the agents
signals into a file, such that the timeline that he and his collegues
had so carefully set up was impossible. Fortunately the germans didn't
realise at the time.
Given my Grandfather was in the second wave of landings at Sicily I have
a certain fondness for Lt. Cmdr. Montagu and Major Martin.
Timur
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.military.naval/browse_thread/thread/8a69ac0547c99ccc/dc8ab06e7daf4fe7?lnk=raot#dc8ab06e7daf4fe7