Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: funkedup on February 18, 2003, 01:00:22 PM
-
And the Iraqis didn't shoot at it!
This is a very encouraging sign.
-
And to think this was going to be a thread about Bono getting nominated for the Nobel Political Peace Price.
-
Speaking of U-2's can someone fill me in on the logic please?
A typical WMD is roughly the size of a refrigerator. A pretty safe bet is that Saddam has hidden these somewhere in Iraq...presumably indoors or underground.
How will the U2s aid in finding those?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Speaking of U-2's can someone fill me in on the logic please?
A typical WMD is roughly the size of a refrigerator. A pretty safe bet is that Saddam has hidden these somewhere in Iraq...presumably indoors or underground.
How will the U2s aid in finding those?
Infra-red? X-ray? They can tell if stuff is underground these days, can't they? Or would a "lead-lined" bunker defeat that?
-
Hey...who paid for that U-2? What as the nationality of the pilot who flew it? Who paid for the fuel? How about the film? Who built that bird?
Hmmmmm.......
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Speaking of U-2's can someone fill me in on the logic please?
A typical WMD is roughly the size of a refrigerator. A pretty safe bet is that Saddam has hidden these somewhere in Iraq...presumably indoors or underground.
How will the U2s aid in finding those?
Do they still use U2s? I thought they had been superceded by the TR-1.
As for how useful they may be, I expect that's a closely guarded secret. Remote sensing equipment has come a long way since Gary Powers, and even if they can't find the WMD they can read documents pertaining to them from 30,000ft....
Intelligence is a much more nebulous weapon of war than simply looking for something and finding it. You gather as much as you can without targetting your search too directly. Then the really tedious process of collating and cross referencing your information begins.
You never know what you may uncover, completely by chance. Sending in the TR1 too look for refridgerator sized objects would be, as you say, largely futile. But to be able to distinguish between tracks of different vehicles, or spot heat exchangers or air con outlets in odd places, or identify individuals etc. is a vital part of the intelligence effort, whether it comes to war or not.
In a way, I think the spyplanes and the satellites are the most crucial systems of all in this conflict.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Hey...who paid for that U-2? What as the nationality of the pilot who flew it? Who paid for the fuel? How about the film? Who built that bird?
Hmmmmm.......
Jeez. Why don't you tell us.
-
U-2's can carry a LOT of sensors. Optical, IR, radar, radiation detection, chemical detection, so on and so forth. U-2's were DESIGNED to find WMD sites in the USSR.
-
Only nuclear WMD:s. It wont do any good looking for B&C WMD:s.
I have no doubt the U2 has excellent sensors etc, I seriously doubt it is able to look into every basement in Baghdad to see if there is a refrigerator sized crate hidden underneath a bed or something like that.
C-WMDs would give off some chemicals that could be detected if you are close with a sniffer, not if you're cruising along at 40 000 feet though.
B-WMDs doesnt give off any signature at all. Unless its "detonating".
Sorry, I am of the opinion that these U2s are just a red herring. They might be good if Saddam is moving stuff around, but I doubt he's doing that right now.
-
Someone asked about the TR-1. In 1992, the TR-1 was redesignated the U-2R, which is kinda confusing because there was an earlier U-2R designation given to an upgraded U-2 design in the 1960s (the TR-1 first flew in 1981), but the TR-1 is essentially identical to the U-2R and nobody was fooled, so they named it the U-2R.
Of interest, the original reason they called it the TR-1 (for tactical recon) was apparently to appease the British (who built many of the TR-1 subsystems and were the original primary customer) who thought the name U-2 had a spotty history.
-
I'm suprised they agreed to it.
It may help the inspectors but I can just imagine the delight of commanders preparing to invade when they get the "take" from these sorties.
If the sortie rate jumps up... watch out.
-
Toad, are the U2s really that much better than the Keyholes?
I mean, from my layman view those seem good enough...
-
That's an interesting observation, Toad, because the amount weapons expended on Iraq since March 2002 has increased. I'm not sure whether this is entirely down increased Iraqi fly-zone infringements - no info on that.
-
Better is a relative term.
They can do some things a satellite cannot and vice versa.
Let's just say why would we bother to build, maintain and fly them (it is an expensive program) if we didn't think we were getting our money's worth?
:D
-
It would seem that the advantager the U-2 has over the Keyhole would be its flexibility.
A U-2 can linger over a suspected site, or map a gid. A satellite is tough to fly in a circle.
-
the iraq's were moving things around btween satellite passes, they needed the U2 to fill in the blanks
heard on TV the french and russians may use spy planes to over fly iraq. then i thought , what if some iraq missile operator shoots down a french spy plane?
-
I know that the Mirage IV can be used for strategic reco.
But I have no idea of the performance of this plane (build in the 60's)
-
Keyhole orbits are well known, so it switches from a technology issue to merely a logistics issue of doing stuff you want hidden between passes. Iraq can download a schedule off the internet as easily as I can, so they know when it is safe to move their strategic assets (of the kind that they must hide) without being spied on.
Like other posters imply, there are no U-2 schedules that they can download. A U-2 could be around anytime.
The photographic resolution of the cameras on modern U-2Rs has got to exceed what the KH-12 family can do, just by virtue of being X-hundred miles closer to the target then the satellites. Without adaptive optics (which put out an active EM signature (laser light)) there are real limits to what a spy sat can see from orbit due to atmospheric distortion. I'd bet that physical limits were reached in the 1980s as to the max resolution, and that advances since then have been mainly in terms of tracking moving objects (using national technical means to look at satellites and things moving real real fast) and in digital image storage and recall.
-
Mirage IV:
http://www.vectorsite.net/avmir4.html (http://www.vectorsite.net/avmir4.html)
-
Yeah, but at the same time, the Keyholes can reposition too...or change angle, to throw the Iraqis off. Would cost precious fuel though...
-
Don't believe the movies.
Keyhole sats can NOT change their orbits like they do in the movies. They can, at best, change which direction they are pointing, meaning that the swath of possible coverage can be a few hundred miles wide. They change which direction they point without using fuel, they have CMGs that spin up and spin down to change orientation, just like the Hubble. You do not want to expel gas (eg, fire a rocket) near a mirror that's polished as highly as theirs are.
Just because someone in "Enemy of the State" or "The Peacemaker" says 'I've retasked a KH-12 to follow the target' doesn't mean that's how it works.
-
No but what I meant was look the other way or how to put it.
-
The MiG-25RB is capable of carrying eight heat-resistant FAB 500 bombs at speeds up to mach 2.85. Despite seeing service in several middle eastern wars, it is doubtful this system has been used in the strike capacity. Bombing accuracy from the high altitudes and speeds the FOXBAT is capable of, make anything other than a nuclear payload useless against a point target. The MiG-25RB has been used extensively by former Soviet client states, most notably Egypt, in its reconnaissance role. A MiG-25Rb was clocked by the Israelis at mach 3.1 while overflying Israel.
I think you could shoot one down much easier than an SR-71 (which by the way is called the Habu by its pilots and not the Blackbird)
-
Of interest, I read somewhere (probably here) that a Mig-25 doing a Mach 3+ run can expect to need a new engine when it is done.
-
I know they tried to use Mig-25's to shoot down SR-71's without result.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Hey...who paid for that U-2? What as the nationality of the pilot who flew it? Who paid for the fuel? How about the film? Who built that bird?
Hmmmmm.......
Russians will be doing flights too from what I heard ;)
...other countries will be as well...
So hmmmhmmhmmm.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Well, of interest, the Mig-25R's (not RB) that overflew Israel were Soviet in Egyptian colors. The Mig-25 would need its engines overhauled after a Mach 3 flight. Both the SR-71 and the Mig-25RM cruise above 80.000 feet at speeds close to Mach 3 or more. To say that it's easier to shoot down one or the other is just silly.
The only Iraqi fighter that managed to shoot down a US jet during the Gulf War was a Mig-25E. Using its speed it dashed south launched its missiles downing an F-18C. By tapping the throttle a little he then dashed back north, avoiding the F-15 escorts. The fate of the F-18 pilot is still unknown. The Iraqis claim he died in the crash, but the ejection seat was found at a distance from the crash site.
where did you get that mig-25 picture?
what does the last sentence mean after MiG-25R?
-------------------------------------------------------
does BnZ still exist in modern dogfight?
-
I heard that the UN gave the Iraqis a 48 hour warning of the U2 flight. That makes them an even more effective recon platform. I am sure the found tremendous amounts of intel.
-
GSCHOLZ: "ACM is just B&Z these days. Boom within missile range, launch, and Zoom out before the enemy can retaliate with his own missiles."
Not so sure about that, - when the going gets tough, good ACM capabilities will help. Anyway, you might need them to get a proper missile lock.
Initial steps of dogfight: Avionics, speed, armament and tactical situation is vital.
But once your missiles are gone, it may well develop into the old dogfight.
Rolling, looping, turning and slashing it out with cannons really.
Look at engagements like those in Vietnam, where US fighters had to be hastily refitted with cannons.
Well, the missiles got better. Look at the Falklands then. Argentinians sporting 10 aircraft to 1 of the British, including the Mirage III, being twice as fast as the Harriers, scored NO air-to-air victory (well, they claimed a lot, hehe) against the slower, better equipped and much more agile Harriers.
All depends really. An F15 pilot told me that the opponents he would worry about were the SU37's (think I have the right series) because of their maneuverability as well as speed.
Just my 2 cents :D
-
So....Simple ACM's. Hit and run, the faster plane with more missiles and avionics and back support wins.
Brings one to something else, - do we still need pilots? A remote controlled pilotless RAMjet, relatively cheap could be used to eliminate much more expensive enemy hardware in a sophisticated conflict that is.
But what about countermeasures? Missile jammings, flares, chaff, planes that don't appear on radar? A small conflict, say 2 vs 2 could easily get into "out of missiles" situation, right?
-
WOW, where do you find that stuff.
Anyway, are none of these remote controlled? A video camera instead of a Pilot, and us AH'ers are in business:D :D :D
Seriously, a thing like these is plain scary. "Pilot" immune to G-loads, plane small and cheap, see a enemy raid coming in and launch a few of them
They don't panic, theill kill in cold blood, and they don't give a rats arse about surviving as long as they can kill more value of enemies. With these around things are going to change, and yes, maybe in our lifespan.
Still curious about the AI aspect though. Will AI control nowadays beat a clever human pilot? In those Sims, it sure does not.
-
Holy cow!!!!!!!!!
You're right, really. The human part would be only to make the bigger decisions, and things like planning and so on.
Once in a furball, even our G-load-fatique independed computer FE would be to slow, - small little nasties like these would simply be too fast for our brain!!!!!
Holy Cow again Gscholz!!!!
-
Originally posted by GScholz
.
About the AI issue, consider this: A human pilot's adaptability and cleverness is mostly applied in planning a mission and adapting the plan as the battle progresses. The human controller can still do this with the information the UAV relays back. Now when contact is made consider this: 50 UAV's clash with a similar number of piloted fighters. The fighter pilots use radio and data-link to coordinate the battle, giving check six' and missile warnings. They strain under heavy G-loads trying to evade missiles while alarms ring in their ears, they gray out and really have no idea where their friends are except maybe for wingmen, they get their missiles off the rails, but with little coordination. The UAV's know exactly were everyone is, they never fire at the same target, they sort out the bandits threat level in milliseconds and launch their missiles the millisecond their within optimal range. Their maneuverability match or even exceed that of the incoming missiles. They buzz back and forth crossing each other's radar signatures in a display that would put the Red Arrows to shame confusing both missiles and pilots while constantly jamming everything ... except the rotating frequencies used by their sensors at that particular millisecond. The outcome is pretty much predetermined ... don't you think?
I would say it would be time to launch a proton torpedo!
-
Yeah, it'd be like bullseye'ing womprats in my T-16 back home.
I'm waiting for someone to build a special Sidewinder magazine (like the ones on B-52s that are used for firing Tomahawks, revolver style) to mount in a plane (like a C-130 or B-52) that could take targetting data on multiple inbound targets, assign a target to each missile, then pickle off 10-20 Sidewinders at once from the internal launcher.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The UAV's know exactly were everyone is, they never fire at the same target, they sort out the bandits threat level in milliseconds and launch their missiles the millisecond their within optimal range. Their maneuverability match or even exceed that of the incoming missiles. They buzz back and forth crossing each other's radar signatures in a display that would put the Red Arrows to shame confusing both missiles and pilots while constantly jamming everything ... except the rotating frequencies used by their sensors at that particular millisecond. The outcome is pretty much predetermined ... don't you think?
Unless Microsoft win the contract for the software...
-
These have to be the source of many UFO sightings, right? What freaky looking things.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
This Boeing technology demonstrator shows the shape of things to come. Technology developed in this and other projects will undoubtedly be used in future UAV's. IMHO it is likely that within our lifetimes we will have the dubious "pleasure" to see fully autonomous machines "predating" upon human beings.
I'm not pickin' on ya here GScholz but your statement reminded me of the old Star Trek episode where war between a couple of planets was conducted by computer and the calculated casualties simply reported to the disintegration chambers on their own.
James Kirk saved them from their prolonged war by disabling their computer if i remember correctly.
Anyhow, while it made an entertaining hour episode it was bullsh*t. War hasn't stopped throughout our past millennia simply because it was up close, personal, and brutal. Rather we've simply gotten more effective at it.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Lol guys! When I'm eighty-something watching the news in the retirement home and I see a report of how the US drone-carrier "USS Grunherz" or perhaps the EU "KM Judge Hortlund" have swatted the air force of a small 3rd would country, I'll be yelling; "Hey diapersqueak! Get me the vidphone, I'm gonna call Cairboy and Habu! ... What?! Their dead you say?! ... Well darn, I guess I'll tell them when I see them in hell ... I told you so!" :D
Edit: Fixed a misidentification.
I hope you live to 110 GScholz and the last thing you hear is my voice coming over the voice com asking how you are doing.