Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft

[George]

Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft

Stealth aircraft in the Canadian arctic will be no match for a new quantum
radar system.

Researchers at the University of Waterloo are developing a new technology
that promises to help radar operators cut through heavy background noise and
isolate objects—including stealth aircraft and missiles—with unparalleled
accuracy.
"In the Arctic, space weather such as geomagnetic storms and solar flares
interfere with radar operation and make the effective identification of
objects more challenging," said Jonathan Baugh, a faculty member at the
Institute for Quantum Computing (IQC) and a professor in the Department of
Chemistry who is leading the project with three other researchers at IQC and
the Waterloo Institute for Nanotechnology (WIN). "By moving from traditional
radar to quantum radar, we hope to not only cut through this noise, but also
to identify objects that have been specifically designed to avoid detection."
Stealth aircraft rely on special paint and body design to absorb and deflect
radio waves—making them invisible to traditional radar. They also use
electronic jamming to swamp detectors with artificial noise. With quantum
radar, in theory, these planes will not only be exposed, but also unaware
they have been detected.
Technology to improve national defence
Quantum radar uses a sensing technique called quantum illumination to detect
and receive information about an object. At its core, it leverages the
quantum principle of entanglement, where two photons form a connected, or
entangled, pair.
The method works by sending one of the photons to a distant object, while
retaining the other member of the pair. Photons in the return signal are
checked for telltale signatures of entanglement, allowing photons from the
noisy environmental background to be discarded. This can greatly improve the
radar signal-to-noise in certain situations.
But in order for quantum radar to work in the field, researchers first need
to realize a fast, on-demand source of entangled photons.
"The goal for our project is to create a robust source of entangled photons
that can be generated at the press of a button," said Baugh.
To date, quantum illumination has only been explored in the laboratory. The
Government of Canada, under the Department of National Defence's All Domain
Situational Awareness (ADSA) Science & Technology program, is investing $2.7
million to expedite its use in the field.
The 54 North Warning System (NWS) radar stations, based in the Arctic and
operated by the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), are nearing
the end of their life spans and could need to be replaced as early as 2025.
"This project will allow us to develop the technology to help move quantum
radar from the lab to the field," said Baugh. "It could change the way we
think about national security."


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-04-quantum-radar-expose-stealth-
aircraft.html#jCp

[Dhu on Gate]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 13:38:35 +0000, George wrote:

>
> Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft
>
> Stealth aircraft in the Canadian arctic will be no match for a new quantum
> radar system.
>

There is nothing hidden that will not be known.

Dhu


--
Je suis Canadien. Ce n'est pas Francais ou Anglaise.
C'est une esp`ece de sauvage: ne obliviscaris, vix ea nostra voco;-)

http://babayaga.neotext.ca/PublicKeys/Duncan_Patton_a_Campbell_pubkey.txt

[Sergio]

On 4/23/2018 10:45 AM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 13:38:35 +0000, George wrote:
>
>>
>> Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft
>>
>> Stealth aircraft in the Canadian arctic will be no match for a new quantum
>> radar system.
>>
>
> There is nothing hidden that will not be known.
>
> Dhu
>
>

corollarys-

There is nothing known that will not be hidden.

That is known hidden will not be nothing there.

[Double-A]

What? After all those billions we spent developing stealth bombers and missiles?

Double-A

[benj]

On 4/23/2018 4:45 PM, Sergio wrote:
> On 4/23/2018 10:45 AM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 13:38:35 +0000, George wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft
>>>
>>> Stealth aircraft in the Canadian arctic will be no match for a new quantum
>>> radar system.
>>>
>>
>> There is nothing hidden that will not be known.
>>
>> Dhu
>>
>>
>
> corollarys-
>
> There is nothing known that will not be hidden.

"kensi" and Nads Try and Try but it's an uphill battle!

[Steve BH]

On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 6:38:38 AM UTC-7, George wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_radar

[Chris M. Thomasson]

Will taking off in an F16 soon be equal to taking off in an F22 wrt the
fact that they can both be seen!?

[Juergen Nieveler]

On 24.04.2018 07:17, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> Will taking off in an F16 soon be equal to taking off in an F22 wrt the
> fact that they can both be seen!?

I doubt it will happen "soon"... but it's a stern reminder that stealth
technology is just a bet against the ingeniousness of physics grad
students in the next 5 decades...

At least the F-22 is also a superb plane on top of being stealthy, so it
could still fight on even terms with other fighters with the stealth
advantage removed. The F-35 is a different topic...

--
Juergen Nieveler

[abelard]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 13:38:35 -0000 (UTC), George
<georg...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft
>
>Stealth aircraft in the Canadian arctic will be no match for a new quantum
>radar system.

walob...it's just as likely to detect flying pigs or unicorns


--
www.abelard.org

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 4/23/2018 11:17 PM, Juergen Nieveler wrote:
> On 24.04.2018 07:17, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> Will taking off in an F16 soon be equal to taking off in an F22 wrt
>> the fact that they can both be seen!?
>
> I doubt it will happen "soon"... but it's a stern reminder that stealth
> technology is just a bet against the ingeniousness of physics grad
> students in the next 5 decades...

That has to be interesting to any pilot. They might find themselves up
against a shi% load of active SAM sites. Ahh, well, the SAMS that are
left after the initial barrages of HARM's and JSOW's are fired off by
coalition aircraft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-88_HARM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Joint_Standoff_Weapon

The HARMS should target the SAMS, and the JSOW's should make the SAMS
fire off at projected phantom targets.

JSOW saturation can deplete a SAM of missiles and might force it to be
reloaded. HARM saturation should destroy its radar systems.

However, perhaps "in the future", the damn enemy has an experimental
weapon that is "theoretically" immune to HARM and JSOW, and can easily
see and target F-22's. It can also tell the difference between F-16,
F-15, F-22 and F-35 in real time and act accordingly... Oh SHI%! The
coalition must be trying to prevent the enemy from engaging within this
line of experimentation.

> At least the F-22 is also a superb plane on top of being stealthy, so it
> could still fight on even terms with other fighters with the stealth
> advantage removed.

Agreed. At least it has that handy Vulcan Cannon for a knife fight.

Imvvho, the pilots of an F-22 should not totally rely on hyper advanced
missile attack scenarios. I know they can fire on targets from a long
range via Phoenix, or medium range using AMRAAM. However, even the
newest versions of those missiles can fail to hit their targets...

> The F-35 is a different topic...

Afaict, F-22's most likely can eat up F-35's for breakfast, lunch and
possibly dinner? Can the F-35 carry the newest Sidewinders? Does it
require an external pylon? If so, there goes stealth. Damn.


Btw, I forgot about mentioning hardcore AAA fire:

https://youtu.be/XNucO0IZ0EU

Shit!

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 4/24/2018 1:50 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>  On 4/23/2018 11:17 PM, Juergen Nieveler wrote:
>> On 24.04.2018 07:17, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> Will taking off in an F16 soon be equal to taking off in an F22 wrt
>>> the fact that they can both be seen!?
>>
>> I doubt it will happen "soon"... but it's a stern reminder that
>> stealth technology is just a bet against the ingeniousness of physics
>> grad students in the next 5 decades...
>
> That has to be interesting to any pilot. They might find themselves up
> against a shi% load of active SAM sites. Ahh, well, the SAMS that are
> left after the initial barrages of HARM's and JSOW's are fired off by
> coalition aircraft.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-88_HARM
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Joint_Standoff_Weapon
>
> The HARMS should target the SAMS, and the JSOW's should make the SAMS
> fire off at projected phantom targets.

Love it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Joint_Standoff_Weapon#/media/File:AGM-154_03.jpg

;^)

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 4/24/2018 1:50 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

>  On 4/23/2018 11:17 PM, Juergen Nieveler wrote:
>> On 24.04.2018 07:17, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

[...]

> Imvvho, the pilots of an F-22 should not totally rely on hyper advanced
> missile attack scenarios. I know they can fire on targets from a long
> range via Phoenix,

Ahh crap. Can a F-22 fire a Phoenix, or is it just the F-14?

Sorry.

> or medium range using AMRAAM. However, even the
> newest versions of those missiles can fail to hit their targets...

[...]

[Sergio]

yep => short range, inaccurate

>>
>> Imvvho, the pilots of an F-22 should not totally rely on hyper
>> advanced missile attack scenarios. I know they can fire on targets
>> from a long range via Phoenix, or medium range using AMRAAM. However,
>> even the newest versions of those missiles can fail to hit their
>> targets...
>>

aircraft have very good countermeasures, IR, microwave, decoys, flares

>>
>>> The F-35 is a different topic...
>>
>> Afaict, F-22's most likely can eat up F-35's for breakfast, lunch and
>> possibly dinner? Can the F-35 carry the newest Sidewinders? Does it
>> require an external pylon? If so, there goes stealth. Damn.
>>

sidewinders need external pylon as they have to lock onto target before
launch

[Fred J. McCall]

Sergio <inv...@invalid.com> wrote on Wed, 25 Apr 2018 10:21:50 -0500:

>On 4/24/2018 4:42 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 4/24/2018 1:50 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>   On 4/23/2018 11:17 PM, Juergen Nieveler wrote:
>>>> On 24.04.2018 07:17, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>> Will taking off in an F16 soon be equal to taking off in an F22 wrt
>>>>> the fact that they can both be seen!?
>>>>
>>>> I doubt it will happen "soon"... but it's a stern reminder that
>>>> stealth technology is just a bet against the ingeniousness of physics
>>>> grad students in the next 5 decades...
>>>
>>> That has to be interesting to any pilot. They might find themselves up
>>> against a shi% load of active SAM sites. Ahh, well, the SAMS that are
>>> left after the initial barrages of HARM's and JSOW's are fired off by
>>> coalition aircraft.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-88_HARM
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Joint_Standoff_Weapon
>>>
>>> The HARMS should target the SAMS, and the JSOW's should make the SAMS
>>> fire off at projected phantom targets.
>>
>> Love it:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Joint_Standoff_Weapon#/media/File:AGM-154_03.jpg
>>
>>
>> ;^)
>>

I'll just note that HARMs can't target SAMs. They can only target the
radars. Hence the use of JSOW on the missile emplacements.

>>>
>>> JSOW saturation can deplete a SAM of missiles and might force it to be
>>> reloaded. HARM saturation should destroy its radar systems.
>>>
>>> However, perhaps "in the future", the damn enemy has an experimental
>>> weapon that is "theoretically" immune to HARM and JSOW, and can easily
>>> see and target F-22's. It can also tell the difference between F-16,
>>> F-15, F-22 and F-35 in real time and act accordingly... Oh SHI%! The
>>> coalition must be trying to prevent the enemy from engaging within
>>> this line of experimentation.
>>>
>>>
>>>> At least the F-22 is also a superb plane on top of being stealthy, so
>>>> it could still fight on even terms with other fighters with the
>>>> stealth advantage removed.
>>>
>>> Agreed. At least it has that handy Vulcan Cannon for a knife fight.
>
>yep => short range, inaccurate
>

USAF F-35 also carries a built-in cannon. It just doesn't carry very
many rounds for it.

>>>
>>> Imvvho, the pilots of an F-22 should not totally rely on hyper
>>> advanced missile attack scenarios. I know they can fire on targets
>>> from a long range via Phoenix, or medium range using AMRAAM. However,
>>> even the newest versions of those missiles can fail to hit their
>>> targets...
>>>
>
>aircraft have very good countermeasures, IR, microwave, decoys, flares
>

Phoenix is dead. The last airplane that could fire it was the F-14
Tomcat. USAF never owned any even when it was around, so it certainly
was never a provision for F-22.

>>>
>>>> The F-35 is a different topic...
>>>
>>> Afaict, F-22's most likely can eat up F-35's for breakfast, lunch and
>>> possibly dinner? Can the F-35 carry the newest Sidewinders? Does it
>>> require an external pylon? If so, there goes stealth. Damn.
>>>
>
>sidewinders need external pylon as they have to lock onto target before
>launch
>

Not on an F-22 they don't. On an F-22 they launch from internal bays.


--
"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

[Sergio]

I had heard long ago that the gun in aircraft are wanted by the pilots
even though they are mostly ineffective now.

>
>>>>
>>>> Imvvho, the pilots of an F-22 should not totally rely on hyper
>>>> advanced missile attack scenarios. I know they can fire on targets
>>>> from a long range via Phoenix, or medium range using AMRAAM. However,
>>>> even the newest versions of those missiles can fail to hit their
>>>> targets...
>>>>
>>
>> aircraft have very good countermeasures, IR, microwave, decoys, flares
>>
>
> Phoenix is dead. The last airplane that could fire it was the F-14
> Tomcat. USAF never owned any even when it was around, so it certainly
> was never a provision for F-22.
>
>>>>
>>>>> The F-35 is a different topic...
>>>>
>>>> Afaict, F-22's most likely can eat up F-35's for breakfast, lunch and
>>>> possibly dinner? Can the F-35 carry the newest Sidewinders? Does it
>>>> require an external pylon? If so, there goes stealth. Damn.
>>>>
>>
>> sidewinders need external pylon as they have to lock onto target before
>> launch
>>
>
> Not on an F-22 they don't. On an F-22 they launch from internal bays.
>
>

they got it tucked into a bay!

bet they have a digital link to/from aircraft now

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQZAdWYamk0

[Fred J. McCall]

Sergio <inv...@invalid.com> wrote on Wed, 25 Apr 2018 14:06:33 -0500:

>On 4/25/2018 1:05 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>
>> USAF F-35 also carries a built-in cannon. It just doesn't carry very
>> many rounds for it.
>>
>
>I had heard long ago that the gun in aircraft are wanted by the pilots
>even though they are mostly ineffective now.
>

USAF pilots still think they're doing air-to-air, even though the F-35
is more of a strike aircraft. So they shoehorned in a gun with around
a third of the ammo you'd like to have if you were actually going to
use it.

>>>
>>> sidewinders need external pylon as they have to lock onto target before
>>> launch
>>>
>>
>> Not on an F-22 they don't. On an F-22 they launch from internal bays.
>>
>
>they got it tucked into a bay!
>
>bet they have a digital link to/from aircraft now
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQZAdWYamk0
>

The way it works is that there's a digital link that tells the AIM-9
where to look, then just before launch it extends out of the bay on a
trapeze so the seeker head can get a look at the target. This system
(sensor on the aircraft plus trapeze) was viewed as too expensive to
put on F-35, since it wasn't supposed to primarily be air-to-air. So
what they get are a couple of 'cranked' external pylons to carry
AIM-9X. Stealth is somewhat compromised when they're mounted.

The newest AIM-9X has a command datalink that allows LOAL.


--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 4/25/2018 11:05 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Sergio <inv...@invalid.com> wrote on Wed, 25 Apr 2018 10:21:50 -0500:
>
>> On 4/24/2018 4:42 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> On 4/24/2018 1:50 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>   On 4/23/2018 11:17 PM, Juergen Nieveler wrote:
>>>>> On 24.04.2018 07:17, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>> Will taking off in an F16 soon be equal to taking off in an F22 wrt
>>>>>> the fact that they can both be seen!?
>>>>>
>>>>> I doubt it will happen "soon"... but it's a stern reminder that
>>>>> stealth technology is just a bet against the ingeniousness of physics
>>>>> grad students in the next 5 decades...
>>>>
>>>> That has to be interesting to any pilot. They might find themselves up
>>>> against a shi% load of active SAM sites. Ahh, well, the SAMS that are
>>>> left after the initial barrages of HARM's and JSOW's are fired off by
>>>> coalition aircraft.
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-88_HARM
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Joint_Standoff_Weapon
>>>>
>>>> The HARMS should target the SAMS, and the JSOW's should make the SAMS
>>>> fire off at projected phantom targets.
>>>
>>> Love it:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Joint_Standoff_Weapon#/media/File:AGM-154_03.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>> ;^)
>>>
>
> I'll just note that HARMs can't target SAMs. They can only target the
> radars.

Argh! Sorry about that. You are correct. Well, if a SAM's radars are
severely damaged and/or outright destroyed, well, it is kind of rendered
into a highly degraded and somewhat worthless state, in a sense?

> Hence the use of JSOW on the missile emplacements.

Iirc, JSOW can project phantom radar signatures of coalition aircraft
and cause the SAM to fire at them. Then, finally, the JSOW can choose
where to perform its "final mission", to destroy a target.

>>>> JSOW saturation can deplete a SAM of missiles and might force it to be
>>>> reloaded. HARM saturation should destroy its radar systems.

Ahh. I knew I wrote about HARM's destroying radars. Sorry for any
confusion, and thanks for your correction on my previous statement.

>>>> However, perhaps "in the future", the damn enemy has an experimental
>>>> weapon that is "theoretically" immune to HARM and JSOW, and can easily
>>>> see and target F-22's. It can also tell the difference between F-16,
>>>> F-15, F-22 and F-35 in real time and act accordingly... Oh SHI%! The
>>>> coalition must be trying to prevent the enemy from engaging within
>>>> this line of experimentation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> At least the F-22 is also a superb plane on top of being stealthy, so
>>>>> it could still fight on even terms with other fighters with the
>>>>> stealth advantage removed.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed. At least it has that handy Vulcan Cannon for a knife fight.
>>
>> yep => short range, inaccurate
>>
>
> USAF F-35 also carries a built-in cannon. It just doesn't carry very
> many rounds for it.
>
>>>>
>>>> Imvvho, the pilots of an F-22 should not totally rely on hyper
>>>> advanced missile attack scenarios. I know they can fire on targets
>>>> from a long range via Phoenix, or medium range using AMRAAM. However,
>>>> even the newest versions of those missiles can fail to hit their
>>>> targets...
>>>>
>>
>> aircraft have very good countermeasures, IR, microwave, decoys, flares
>>
>
> Phoenix is dead. The last airplane that could fire it was the F-14
> Tomcat. USAF never owned any even when it was around, so it certainly
> was never a provision for F-22.

Does the F-22 carry long range missiles, or just medium range?

>>>>> The F-35 is a different topic...
>>>>
>>>> Afaict, F-22's most likely can eat up F-35's for breakfast, lunch and
>>>> possibly dinner? Can the F-35 carry the newest Sidewinders? Does it
>>>> require an external pylon? If so, there goes stealth. Damn.
>>>>
>>
>> sidewinders need external pylon as they have to lock onto target before
>> launch
>>
>
> Not on an F-22 they don't. On an F-22 they launch from internal bays.

You are right. Thanks again Fred. :^)

[jonathan]

On 4/25/2018 4:34 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Sergio <inv...@invalid.com> wrote on Wed, 25 Apr 2018 14:06:33 -0500:
>
>> On 4/25/2018 1:05 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>
>>> USAF F-35 also carries a built-in cannon. It just doesn't carry very
>>> many rounds for it.
>>>
>>
>> I had heard long ago that the gun in aircraft are wanted by the pilots
>> even though they are mostly ineffective now.
>>
>
> USAF pilots still think they're doing air-to-air, even though the F-35
> is more of a strike aircraft. So they shoehorned in a gun with around
> a third of the ammo you'd like to have if you were actually going to
> use it.
>

When was the last time a US fighter shot down
another fighter with a cannon Fred?

When was the last time a US fighter was in a
dogfight Fred?

It's been 36 years Fred for the latter and
probably 45'ish years for the former.

And considering it's going to be US stealth
against foreign 4th gen fighters, now that
the Russian stealth fighter program just died
with India pulling out, when do you think
the next time a dogfight using cannons or
otherwise will take place?

Hint: it's much less likely now.

Maybe the F-35 should pack a musket in case the pilot
finds himself in a civil war era dual.




--

[Fred J. McCall]

"Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chr...@invalid.invalid> wrote
on Wed, 25 Apr 2018 15:29:45 -0700:

Yep, but if you leave the missiles intact they can just drive in
another radar.

>
>>
>> Hence the use of JSOW on the missile emplacements.
>>
>
>Iirc, JSOW can project phantom radar signatures of coalition aircraft
>and cause the SAM to fire at them. Then, finally, the JSOW can choose
>where to perform its "final mission", to destroy a target.
>

Nope. I think you're thinking of MALD, which looks rather like JSOW
but is much smaller and has a motor.

>
>>>>> JSOW saturation can deplete a SAM of missiles and might force it to be
>>>>> reloaded. HARM saturation should destroy its radar systems.
>
>Ahh. I knew I wrote about HARM's destroying radars. Sorry for any
>confusion, and thanks for your correction on my previous statement.
>

The idea behind HARM is that it's so fast you don't need to do
saturation attacks, hence the 'H' in the name.

>
>>>>> However, perhaps "in the future", the damn enemy has an experimental
>>>>> weapon that is "theoretically" immune to HARM and JSOW, and can easily
>>>>> see and target F-22's. It can also tell the difference between F-16,
>>>>> F-15, F-22 and F-35 in real time and act accordingly... Oh SHI%! The
>>>>> coalition must be trying to prevent the enemy from engaging within
>>>>> this line of experimentation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> At least the F-22 is also a superb plane on top of being stealthy, so
>>>>>> it could still fight on even terms with other fighters with the
>>>>>> stealth advantage removed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed. At least it has that handy Vulcan Cannon for a knife fight.
>>>
>>> yep => short range, inaccurate
>>>
>>
>> USAF F-35 also carries a built-in cannon. It just doesn't carry very
>> many rounds for it.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Imvvho, the pilots of an F-22 should not totally rely on hyper
>>>>> advanced missile attack scenarios. I know they can fire on targets
>>>>> from a long range via Phoenix, or medium range using AMRAAM. However,
>>>>> even the newest versions of those missiles can fail to hit their
>>>>> targets...
>>>>>
>>>
>>> aircraft have very good countermeasures, IR, microwave, decoys, flares
>>>
>>
>> Phoenix is dead. The last airplane that could fire it was the F-14
>> Tomcat. USAF never owned any even when it was around, so it certainly
>> was never a provision for F-22.
>>
>
>Does the F-22 carry long range missiles, or just medium range?
>

AIM-120 is as good as it gets for pretty much everybody these days.
Phoenix required an AWG-9 radar. The only aircraft to ever have that
were the USN version of the F-111 (F-111B) which was never produced
and the F-14 Tomcat. That's not as bad as it might seem, though,
since the AIM-120D can reach out almost 100 miles and the cruise
missile carrying bomber air defense role for the Navy is much less
required than it used to be.

>
>>>>>> The F-35 is a different topic...
>>>>>
>>>>> Afaict, F-22's most likely can eat up F-35's for breakfast, lunch and
>>>>> possibly dinner? Can the F-35 carry the newest Sidewinders? Does it
>>>>> require an external pylon? If so, there goes stealth. Damn.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> sidewinders need external pylon as they have to lock onto target before
>>> launch
>>>
>>
>> Not on an F-22 they don't. On an F-22 they launch from internal bays.
>>
>
>You are right. Thanks again Fred. :^)
>

I was in the missile business until a few years ago and do still keep
some track of what's going on, so I'm not horribly out of date yet.

[Sergio]

SAM 6 had terminal IR guidance

F-111 were maintance nightmare, poor electronics packaging.

>
>>
>>>>>>> The F-35 is a different topic...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Afaict, F-22's most likely can eat up F-35's for breakfast, lunch and
>>>>>> possibly dinner? Can the F-35 carry the newest Sidewinders? Does it
>>>>>> require an external pylon? If so, there goes stealth. Damn.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> sidewinders need external pylon as they have to lock onto target before
>>>> launch
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not on an F-22 they don't. On an F-22 they launch from internal bays.
>>>
>>
>> You are right. Thanks again Fred. :^)
>>
>
> I was in the missile business until a few years ago and do still keep
> some track of what's going on, so I'm not horribly out of date yet.
>

I used to load sidewinders a while back

[Fred J. McCall]

jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote on Wed, 25 Apr 2018 19:02:03
-0400:

>On 4/25/2018 4:34 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> Sergio <inv...@invalid.com> wrote on Wed, 25 Apr 2018 14:06:33 -0500:
>>
>>> On 4/25/2018 1:05 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>
>>>> USAF F-35 also carries a built-in cannon. It just doesn't carry very
>>>> many rounds for it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I had heard long ago that the gun in aircraft are wanted by the pilots
>>> even though they are mostly ineffective now.
>>>
>>
>> USAF pilots still think they're doing air-to-air, even though the F-35
>> is more of a strike aircraft. So they shoehorned in a gun with around
>> a third of the ammo you'd like to have if you were actually going to
>> use it.
>>
>
>When was the last time a US fighter shot down
>another fighter with a cannon Fred?
>

Why do you think that's relevant, Jonathan?

>
>When was the last time a US fighter was in a
>dogfight Fred?
>

Why do you think that's relevant, Jonathan? So why bother with
air-to-air weapons at all?

>
>It's been 36 years Fred for the latter and
>probably 45'ish years for the former.
>

So what sort of restrictive definition are you using for 'dogfight'?
The last air-to-air kill was last year by the USN. The one before
that was almost 20 years ago by the USAF. When was the last time a
stealth airplane got an air-to-air kill? I think the number you're
looking for is 'never'.

So, given those facts, by your 'logic' we should be bothering with
stealthy aircraft at all (never gotten a kill) and should perhaps just
do away with the Air Force (almost 20 years since their last kill).

As for the gun (and all those stealth aircraft), it's better to have
one and not need it than to need one and not have it, as we learned to
our sorrow the last time we designed a fighter without a gun.

>
>And considering it's going to be US stealth
>against foreign 4th gen fighters,
>

Perhaps 30-40 years from now, but I wouldn't bet on it even then.

>
>... now that

>the Russian stealth fighter program just died

>with India pulling out, ...
>

Well, no. The withdrawal of the Indians will certainly affect some
potential improvements, but the Su-57 is hardly dead.

>
>... when do you think

>the next time a dogfight using cannons or
>otherwise will take place?
>

It hardly matters. Again, I'd rather have a gun and not need it than
need a gun and not have it. The Navy is trained such that when
something fails, you try something different. In last year's
shootdown the first weapon fired was an AIM-9X. It went stupid and
missed the target. Immediate reengagement with an AIM-120. If that
had failed, guess what was next?

>
>Hint: it's much less likely now.
>
>Maybe the F-35 should pack a musket in case the pilot
>finds himself in a civil war era dual.
>

Perhaps you should pull your head out of your ass and stop licking
your own balls?


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

[Chris M. Thomasson]

DOH! Correct again.

>>> Hence the use of JSOW on the missile emplacements.

Indeed. Can JSOW launch a couple of MALD's?

>> Iirc, JSOW can project phantom radar signatures of coalition aircraft
>> and cause the SAM to fire at them. Then, finally, the JSOW can choose
>> where to perform its "final mission", to destroy a target.
>>
>
> Nope. I think you're thinking of MALD, which looks rather like JSOW
> but is much smaller and has a motor.

You are absolutely correct on this one. For some reason I thought that
JSOW can project as well. Well, think of multiple MALD being released
from a cruise-type Phoenix like missile launched from a stand off aircraft.

A single Phoenix can potentially launch multiple MALD after they "get
into a certain range". Heck, perhaps even a JSOW can launch some MALD's
in and of itself. Fractal layers of defense, in a sense?

>>>>>> JSOW saturation can deplete a SAM of missiles and might force it to be
>>>>>> reloaded. HARM saturation should destroy its radar systems.
>>
>> Ahh. I knew I wrote about HARM's destroying radars. Sorry for any
>> confusion, and thanks for your correction on my previous statement.
>>
>
> The idea behind HARM is that it's so fast you don't need to do
> saturation attacks, hence the 'H' in the name.

Well, imvvho, the more the merrier, high-speed or not. Imvvho, we should
mass produce these types of countermeasures, and never stop improving
their capabilities.

>>>>>> However, perhaps "in the future", the damn enemy has an experimental
>>>>>> weapon that is "theoretically" immune to HARM and JSOW, and can easily
>>>>>> see and target F-22's. It can also tell the difference between F-16,
>>>>>> F-15, F-22 and F-35 in real time and act accordingly... Oh SHI%! The
>>>>>> coalition must be trying to prevent the enemy from engaging within
>>>>>> this line of experimentation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At least the F-22 is also a superb plane on top of being stealthy, so
>>>>>>> it could still fight on even terms with other fighters with the
>>>>>>> stealth advantage removed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agreed. At least it has that handy Vulcan Cannon for a knife fight.
>>>>
>>>> yep => short range, inaccurate
>>>>
>>>
>>> USAF F-35 also carries a built-in cannon. It just doesn't carry very
>>> many rounds for it.
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Imvvho, the pilots of an F-22 should not totally rely on hyper
>>>>>> advanced missile attack scenarios. I know they can fire on targets
>>>>>> from a long range via Phoenix, or medium range using AMRAAM. However,
>>>>>> even the newest versions of those missiles can fail to hit their
>>>>>> targets...
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> aircraft have very good countermeasures, IR, microwave, decoys, flares
>>>>
>>>
>>> Phoenix is dead. The last airplane that could fire it was the F-14
>>> Tomcat. USAF never owned any even when it was around, so it certainly
>>> was never a provision for F-22.
>>>
>>
>> Does the F-22 carry long range missiles, or just medium range?
>>
>
> AIM-120 is as good as it gets for pretty much everybody these days.

Nice, kind of agreed. I would still like to be able to fire off multiple
very long range cruise missiles, kind of like Phoenix used as a
supplement of any all out assault. Perhaps Phoenix can be used to deploy
an little "army" of micro drones? F-14 was kind of assigned to a stand
off fleet defense role anyway, right?

Also, what about applying that to the radar system of an enemy SAM? Can
it use a "swarm of drones" as an aspect of its overall radar system? So,
HARM might be not be quite as useful as it once was?

> Phoenix required an AWG-9 radar. The only aircraft to ever have that
> were the USN version of the F-111 (F-111B) which was never produced
> and the F-14 Tomcat. That's not as bad as it might seem, though,
> since the AIM-120D can reach out almost 100 miles and the cruise
> missile carrying bomber air defense role for the Navy is much less
> required than it used to be.

For some reason, I would still launch some F-14's and put them on
standoff defensive orbits loaded with state-of-the-art AIM-54 and AIM-120's

>>>>>>> The F-35 is a different topic...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Afaict, F-22's most likely can eat up F-35's for breakfast, lunch and
>>>>>> possibly dinner? Can the F-35 carry the newest Sidewinders? Does it
>>>>>> require an external pylon? If so, there goes stealth. Damn.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> sidewinders need external pylon as they have to lock onto target before
>>>> launch
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not on an F-22 they don't. On an F-22 they launch from internal bays.
>>>
>>
>> You are right. Thanks again Fred. :^)
>>
>
> I was in the missile business until a few years ago and do still keep
> some track of what's going on, so I'm not horribly out of date yet.

Thank you for taking the time to set me on the right path. Corrections =
learning! Very nice conversing with you Fred. :^)

[Juergen Nieveler]

On 26.04.2018 00:29, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> Does the F-22 carry long range missiles, or just medium range?

They can carry the AIM-120D, which has a range of more than 160km - the
exact range of course is secret, but it seems to be almost as long as
for the AIM-54.

--
Juergen Nieveler

[Fred J. McCall]

"Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chr...@invalid.invalid> wrote

on Thu, 26 Apr 2018 22:25:37 -0700:

No. MALD are generally carried by something like B-52. MALD flies
long enough and far enough that it can be launched from well outside a
MEZ.

>
>>> Iirc, JSOW can project phantom radar signatures of coalition aircraft
>>> and cause the SAM to fire at them. Then, finally, the JSOW can choose
>>> where to perform its "final mission", to destroy a target.
>>>
>>
>> Nope. I think you're thinking of MALD, which looks rather like JSOW
>> but is much smaller and has a motor.
>
>You are absolutely correct on this one. For some reason I thought that
>JSOW can project as well. Well, think of multiple MALD being released
>from a cruise-type Phoenix like missile launched from a stand off aircraft.
>
>A single Phoenix can potentially launch multiple MALD after they "get
>into a certain range". Heck, perhaps even a JSOW can launch some MALD's
>in and of itself. Fractal layers of defense, in a sense?
>

No. MALD is too big to be used as a submunition.

>
>>>>>>> JSOW saturation can deplete a SAM of missiles and might force it to be
>>>>>>> reloaded. HARM saturation should destroy its radar systems.
>>>
>>> Ahh. I knew I wrote about HARM's destroying radars. Sorry for any
>>> confusion, and thanks for your correction on my previous statement.
>>>
>>
>> The idea behind HARM is that it's so fast you don't need to do
>> saturation attacks, hence the 'H' in the name.
>
>Well, imvvho, the more the merrier, high-speed or not. Imvvho, we should
>mass produce these types of countermeasures, and never stop improving
>their capabilities.
>

There are actually two (well, three) versions of MALD. There's the
baseline MALD, there's MALD-J, which includes patterned jamming, and
there's a version with a little tiny warhead.

Not a workable alternative. Phoenix got its range by doing a zoom
climb up into the stratosphere and then diving down on the target.
This worked well with bombers, but was less effective with a smaller,
more maneuverable target like a fighter.

>
>Also, what about applying that to the radar system of an enemy SAM? Can
>it use a "swarm of drones" as an aspect of its overall radar system? So,
>HARM might be not be quite as useful as it once was?
>

HARM is probably still ahead of ways to try to fool it.

>
>>
>> Phoenix required an AWG-9 radar. The only aircraft to ever have that
>> were the USN version of the F-111 (F-111B) which was never produced
>> and the F-14 Tomcat. That's not as bad as it might seem, though,
>> since the AIM-120D can reach out almost 100 miles and the cruise
>> missile carrying bomber air defense role for the Navy is much less
>> required than it used to be.
>>
>
>For some reason, I would still launch some F-14's and put them on
>standoff defensive orbits loaded with state-of-the-art AIM-54 and AIM-120's
>

F-14 was killed as too expensive to fly. They aren't even in the
Boneyard anymore. They were ground up to prevent parts from being
diverted to Iran.

>
>>>>>>>> The F-35 is a different topic...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Afaict, F-22's most likely can eat up F-35's for breakfast, lunch and
>>>>>>> possibly dinner? Can the F-35 carry the newest Sidewinders? Does it
>>>>>>> require an external pylon? If so, there goes stealth. Damn.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> sidewinders need external pylon as they have to lock onto target before
>>>>> launch
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not on an F-22 they don't. On an F-22 they launch from internal bays.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You are right. Thanks again Fred. :^)
>>>
>>
>> I was in the missile business until a few years ago and do still keep
>> some track of what's going on, so I'm not horribly out of date yet.
>>
>
>Thank you for taking the time to set me on the right path. Corrections =
>learning! Very nice conversing with you Fred. :^)
>

You're quite welcome.

[Fred J. McCall]

Juergen Nieveler <jue...@nieveler.org> wrote on Fri, 27 Apr 2018
09:17:06 +0200:

Against today's target set I would much prefer the AIM-120D. That
being said, there is apparently some concern, according to the press,
that some modern Russian digital jammers can render AIM-120D less than
effective.

[Juergen Nieveler]

On 27.04.2018 12:03, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Juergen Nieveler <jue...@nieveler.org> wrote on Fri, 27 Apr 2018
> 09:17:06 +0200:
>
>> On 26.04.2018 00:29, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> Does the F-22 carry long range missiles, or just medium range?
>>
>> They can carry the AIM-120D, which has a range of more than 160km - the
>> exact range of course is secret, but it seems to be almost as long as
>> for the AIM-54.
>>
>
> Against today's target set I would much prefer the AIM-120D. That
> being said, there is apparently some concern, according to the press,
> that some modern Russian digital jammers can render AIM-120D less than
> effective.

Was the radar on the Phoenix strong enough to better burn through the
jamming?


--
Juergen Nieveler

[Sergio]

burn through the jamming ??
there is the 1/d^2 pathloss
and some jammers can burnout the first amp in radar receiver

[Andrew Swallow]

On 25/04/2018 20:06, Sergio wrote:
> On 4/25/2018 1:05 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:

{snip}

>>
>> USAF F-35 also carries a built-in cannon. It just doesn't carry very
>> many rounds for it.
>
> I had heard long ago that the gun in aircraft are wanted by the pilots
> even though they are mostly ineffective now.
>

{snip}

That sounds like the army officer's revolver. The main fighting is done
by privates with rifles but if the officer needs it he has a short range
self defence weapon.

[Andrew Swallow]

On 26/04/2018 00:02, jonathan wrote:
>
> When was the last time a US fighter shot down
> another fighter with a cannon Fred?
>
> When was the last time a US fighter was in a
> dogfight Fred?

Does 9/11 count?

Does the US Air Force have any other weapons that can shoot down $1000
drones carrying a grenade without bankrupting the country?

[Peter Stickney]

Only if the designer is an idiot. Incoming power spike, and the seeker
shunts and switches to Home on Jam. (Which is intrinsic to any Semi-
Active seeker). This also means that the missile had gone passive - so
no more emissions to gauge its progress.


--
Pete Stickney
“A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures.” ― Daniel Webster

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Concur and agree, but in an EU perspective, a de-stealthised -22 became
a rough equal of the Eurofighter.

de-stealthising the -35, esp. the C ones, can give more problem to
United States than to USN, because the value of the coalition-building
increases, how sharply depends on the overall -35C/18E ratio in the
carrier wings.

so, I guess that France will be very interested in this R&D, to say the
very least. (notice also the added bonus for La Nationale of weakening
also the 35B used by the other two (and competing) major European Navies..)

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.

[x-post to spurious NG erased]

[Double-A]

Hey Abelard, where's Heloise?

Double-A

[Chris M. Thomasson]

Found a fairly decent advertisement from Raytheon:

https://youtu.be/0acJ3xyhaJo

I would love to see a cruise missile deploy a swarm of little MALD's,
then finally fly off to destroy its "main" target...

[Sergio]

good link, great missiles

[Fred J. McCall]

"Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chr...@invalid.invalid> wrote

on Tue, 1 May 2018 13:52:19 -0700:

It's not bad, but there's something they don't point out. Practically
all the JSOW belong to the Navy. MALD is mostly Air Force, although I
think they were integrating it on F/A-18 for the Navy. Newer HARM is
all Air Force, with the Navy opting to switch to a different (more
expensive) weapon named AARGM. So seeing all three Raytheon weapons
used the way the ad's notional scenario describes is a little
unlikely.

>
>I would love to see a cruise missile deploy a swarm of little MALD's,
>then finally fly off to destroy its "main" target...
>

And just where would this notional cruise missile keep all these
little MALDs (which would have to be an entirely new weapon and not
MALD at all) and just how much space could possibly be left for a
warhead?

[Chris M. Thomasson]

Need to think more, but perhaps each individual drone can be contained
in a little cylinder and use some clever origami after it is ejected.
The missile would carry multiple cylinders. Perhaps, after it releases a
swarm, it can go on orbit mode and use its radar, instead of warhead, to
help guide its swarm.

Fractal design would allow the missile to deploy a couple of weapons
that can go to other targets and deploy their own swarms. A single
missile can potentially create and try to help guide a swarm of swarms.

Perhaps a squadron of drones can descend upon a ground based target and
explode in special formations that act as if a hard core cluster bomb
went off?

[Fred J. McCall]

"Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chr...@invalid.invalid> wrote

on Tue, 1 May 2018 19:43:10 -0700:

"Clever origami"? Does that mean something other than the folding
wings all these things already come with?

>
>The missile would carry multiple cylinders. Perhaps, after it releases a
>swarm, it can go on orbit mode and use its radar, instead of warhead, to
>help guide its swarm.
>

What's the use case for this weapon? What's its intended target set?

>
>Fractal design ...
>

Say what now?

>
>... would allow the missile to deploy a couple of weapons

>that can go to other targets and deploy their own swarms. A single
>missile can potentially create and try to help guide a swarm of swarms.
>

It sounds like you're using a lot more space than you have again.

>
>Perhaps a squadron of drones can descend upon a ground based target and
>explode in special formations that act as if a hard core cluster bomb
>went off?
>

Perhaps, but it would be more effective against most targets to use a
single large warhead. If you want multiple blasts, shoot multiple
missiles. It's cheaper and more effective than trying to design and
use missiles shooting missiles that shoot missiles.

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 4/23/2018 10:17 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

> On 4/23/2018 6:38 AM, George wrote:
>> Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft
>>

[...]

>
> Will taking off in an F16 soon be equal to taking off in an F22 wrt the
> fact that they can both be seen!?

Check this crap out:

https://youtu.be/ldFWBdVnuFU

Fractal like drone swarms?

[Chris M. Thomasson]

Fwiw, some decent video game footage:

https://youtu.be/jwK4oKIKrts

Imvvho, it is fairly interesting! Gun and missile engagements.

[abelard]

On Tue, 3 Jul 2018 23:05:17 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<invalid_chr...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 6/23/2018 9:50 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 4/23/2018 10:17 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> On 4/23/2018 6:38 AM, George wrote:
>>>> Quantum radar will expose stealth aircraft

if only you could invent quantum radar

--
www.abelard.org