Articles: "Nuclear Warfare 101".

[SilverHawk]

Everyone who loves nuclear weapons ought to read the second paragraph of this page, from 'The Air Force and Deterrence 1951-1960'. Nuclear weapons are conventional!

This was during the time peroid where the Army wanted nuclear tanks! So I'm not sure if I should laugh or be a bit worried. (Mostly about tactical nuclear weapons being usable in a Limited War.)

[Sea Skimmer]

Really? I didn't know JANES was that poor a source, if they aren't good, then I guess I don't really have anything.

Not everything Janes publishes is bad. The trouble is because they don’t actually do the analysis job they claim to specialize in, as a reader one has no way of telling what is reasonably true and what is just republished defense contractor propaganda pamphlets. Most of what they do is just collecting together all those pamphlets that are freely available, putting them inside a shinny binding and then charging 2,000 dollars to read it.

Some of the books they publish that they actually did write themselves are a real joke too. Like the classic Janes Fighting Ships books for WW1 and WW2 have been in publication since 1914 and 1946 respectively… and yet are riddled with errors not a single one of which has been corrected. They still claim 18in belt armor for Iowa class battleships for example, which aside from its obvious physical impossibility was pure USN propaganda that was admitted too back in the 1970s. You might well call them a company famous for being famous. They don't have anything else. Books and essays from the Naval Institute Press are overwhelmingly better on average.

This was during the time peroid where the Army wanted nuclear tanks! So I'm not sure if I should laugh or be a bit worried. (Mostly about tactical nuclear weapons being usable in a Limited War.)

A major debate took place on if limited war could even exist, no one was really sure, but the Air Force got the most money out of making all warfare nuclear so of course this is the position they mostly supported. You can download the whole thing from here.
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault ... /doc09.pdf

[SilverHawk]

Really? I didn't know JANES was that poor a source, if they aren't good, then I guess I don't really have anything.

Not everything Janes publishes is bad. The trouble is because they don’t actually do the analysis job they claim to specialize in, as a reader one has no way of telling what is reasonably true and what is just republished defense contractor propaganda pamphlets. Most of what they do is just collecting together all those pamphlets that are freely available, putting them inside a shinny binding and then charging 2,000 dollars to read it.

Some of the books they publish that they actually did write themselves are a real joke too. Like the classic Janes Fighting Ships books for WW1 and WW2 have been in publication since 1914 and 1946 respectively… and yet are riddled with errors not a single one of which has been corrected. They still claim 18in belt armor for Iowa class battleships for example, which aside from its obvious physical impossibility was pure USN propaganda that was admitted too back in the 1970s. You might well call them a company famous for being famous. They don't have anything else. Books and essays from the Naval Institute Press are overwhelmingly better on average.

Well, I learn something new everyday! I shall endeavour to rebuild my knowledge with sources that you know...actually research what they are talking about.

This was during the time peroid where the Army wanted nuclear tanks! So I'm not sure if I should laugh or be a bit worried. (Mostly about tactical nuclear weapons being usable in a Limited War.)

A major debate took place on if limited war could even exist, no one was really sure, but the Air Force got the most money out of making all warfare nuclear so of course this is the position they mostly supported. You can download the whole thing from here.
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault ... /doc09.pdf

Doing so now, reading Cold War stuff is always the best.

[Pelranius]

So if stealth is going to get seriously neutered by the advent of fully digital radars, does that mean China and Russia have really misplaced their bets on the JXX and PAK-FA fighters?

[SilverHawk]

So if stealth is going to get seriously neutered by the advent of fully digital radars, does that mean China and Russia have really misplaced their bets on the JXX and PAK-FA fighters?

It's never a bad thing to be harder to spot. What is bad is cost bloat that stems from building stealth into your airframe. Which reduces the amount of airframes you can field and therefore how many losses you can sustain in wartime. You become risk-adverse, etc.

[Simon_Jester]

So then the question depends on how these new 5th generation Russian and Chinese fighters are configured. If, like the F-22 (or even more extremely, the B-2) they accept major performance tradeoffs for a bit of extra stealth, then that was a bad idea on their part. If they don't make such big tradeoffs, it might pan out for them with the resulting aircraft being stealthy "enough" while still retaining good performance.

Though I'd think the Russians and Chinese are both doing well if they get a fighter that places them on comparable terms with the F-35, let alone the F-22. For the Russians, because turning out a plane that capable will have many nations wanting to buy (basically everyone we won't sell the F-35 to), and for the Chinese, because they actually have the capacity to build such a fighter in enough quantity to let them even up the odds against us in the air, by matching the performance of our F-35 heavy future Air Force.

It arguably doesn't matter if they take a bit too much stealth, since their only likely competitor will be doing the same thing.

[Sea Skimmer]

Shaping an aircraft to be stealthy looking isn't that hard now that anyone can computer model radar cross section calculations with some reliability. The worst areas you see on the calculations and the range tests you slather in RAM paint. That can get you some dramatic RCS reductions but the enemy will still see you somewhere around 90-100km away. That kind of distance anyway. That’s still a lot better then being spotted at 400-500km; as far as the enemy can physically see with direct path airborne radar. But going the rest of the way requires incredibly intricate balance between materials science, detail design methods and above all the production tolerance to actually build the plane as designed and in a manner that you can maintain while in service. The B-2 really sucks at that last bit. It needs 40-80 man hours of work per flying hour depending on who's numbers you use, and missions can last as long as 40 hours. This is not good.

Russia and China are not known for being in the front rank of production quality, and that isn’t going to change anytime soon. China is only just starting to move into high tech manufacturing, and Russia shut itself off from the world for decades of advancement and now has to play catch up too. For that and many other reasons its not very likely that the PAK-FA or anything China produces anytime soon will be even close to US stealth fighters. Building something like the F-117 would be easier since the thing just has to be able to FLY.

The question becomes if going that last 10% of insane detail is worth it. FLIR/IRST improvements and the myriad of different radar systems make it look like no, it really isn’t. The enemy has too high of odds of finding an exploit in the stealth to push his detection ranges back into the same category of the 90% plane which was much cheaper. However since the US threw so much money into stealth, we can make the last 10% work the easiest and thus have the most incentive to stick with it.

Speed and height, and stealth do the same time; reduce the enemy reaction time and engagement envelopes. The trouble is stealth does it with trickery that may be nullified by electronic gadgets. Speed and height does it with raw energy which the enemy can only counter with raw energy in his interceptor and missile performance. This just totally takes many systems out of the equation, which could still barrage fire if nothing else against a subsonic stealth plane. F-22 is so effective because it has all three advantages over current fighter designs. Just by matching speed and height PAK-FA and J-whatever could be credible threats to it. However they will be threatened by more systems in return. If they are any cheeper then an F-22 remains to be seen, the Indians have quoted a price equal to 100 million dollars for what they expect to pay for PAK-FA. But if that's flyaway cost or something else is unknown.

[Stuart]

*waves hand up and down*

OOH OOOH OOOH. CAN I ANSWER? CAN I?

*Stuart waits for an answer from the class, and when none is forthcoming, sighs and points to me*

"It's because the way many radar absorbent materials work -- they absorb the incoming radar energy, and then convert it into a different form of energy -- usually in the form of heat or infrared energy, and then radiate it back outboard.

So if you began to paint a stretch of sky with a MiG-25 radar sweeping back and forth, while the radar might not get a good enough lock on a B-2 due to the low sensitivity of the MiG-25's electronics; the amount of energy being converted to IR/heat by the B-2's stealth coatings would make it stand out on the MiG-25's IRST."

*sits back self confident*

Exactly. Spot-on. A modern surface-based IRSCAN has a 360 degree of coverage and can pick up thermal differences of 0.5 of a degree or less (probably much, much less but that's getting into classified areas). A combination of incident radar energy and waste heat from internal electronic systems means the thermal difference between an aircraft and its surroundings is easily detectable. Oddly, aircraft with low RCS are much more vulnerable to this precisely because they don't reflect that radar energy. Up high where the air is bitterly cold, the differential is very easily picked up. Modern data processing also helps a lot because we can pick up and distinguish heat patterns and compare them to a photo library for identification processes. Aircraft mounted IR scans have a narrower field of vision but do have compensating advantages. Thermal energy was the first chink in low-obervable technology to be exploited although it isn't the only one.

[Stuart]

That's because I quoted it for the F-117A. (which is around the same rcs performance of the B-2A)

That is also a significant error. The radar cross section performance ona B-2 is nothing like that on an an F-117. The two are comparable in only the grossest of characteristics. Somebody with your claimed background would know that and know why that is so.

Also, I fail to see how increasing the capability of a platform is a "waste of resources".

When it costs money and offers no significant improvment in the performance of its operational role. Giving a stand-off aircraft penetration capabilities that multiply its cost by an order of magnitude is not cost-effective.

I don't live for your approval, so you can stuff it on what you do or do not believe about me.

On the contrary. You're making your arguments using your claimed background as support. Therefore the veracity of your claims are important. You don't talk in ways compatible with your background, you don't speak the language (and are substituting inappropriate language for what you don't know). You don't know what you should know. In short your behavior and performance is not compatible with your claimed background. That dents your credibility very severely.

Because above mach 3.5 the SR-71 ate it's own air shock and the engines quit? Yeah, I know about that.

No, that isn't the problem. Not a major one anyway. However, that simply points to the fact that you quoted a 120,000 feet altitude knowing or believing that it was incorrect.

I already knew about this, it's just a refinement of principle on long wave emission radars. There was talking of using cell phone signal towers to create oceans of emissions to wade through, causing stealth aircraft to leave notable wakes and holes in the emission pattern.

Really? or did you only "know about it" once it had been already mentioned. "I knew that" is a very weak argument. I've already noticed that if nobody gives you information in an answer on a specific area, you just flounder around.

Sorry, I had to turn in my Military/Geneva Convention ID when I mustered out and I have no intention on showing people on the internet my discharge papers.

There is, however, a simple designation you could quote that would help your case. One which most people who have been in know and those who have not don't.

[Simon_Jester]

Stuart, you are basing your criticism of SilverHawk's failure to provide support for his background in reference to his claim that he's done military air traffic control, yes? Or have I missed something? I don't think he's been using that statement of background as supporting evidence for his claims about stealth aircraft, or at least I can't find the place where he has.

[Shroom Man 777]

Thermal energy was the first chink in low-obervable technology to be exploited although it isn't the only one.

Is that why the Soviet Union/Russians kept IRSTs on their fighters? Like, they caught wind of the Americans developing stealth technology, decided that it was too expensive to match the Amerikanski's new stealth planes, and decided just to put IRSTs on their own planes as an attempt to counter it?

[Stuart]

Stuart, you are basing your criticism of SilverHawk's failure to provide support for his background in reference to his claim that he's done military air traffic control, yes? Or have I missed something? I don't think he's been using that statement of background as supporting evidence for his claims about stealth aircraft, or at least I can't find the place where he has.

Let me give you a bit of background on this. Some years ago, we had a member on HPCA who called himself Mark Global. He claimed he was an RAF officer who was doing various things in said organization. He actually lasted for quite some time but we started getting suspicious of him at an early date (remember HPCA has a lot of military veterans from many armed services). We couldn't actually pin anything down; he knew just enough to make his comments plausible and was skating around enough to make pinning him hard. For example, he had an elementary knowledge of Mess etiquette. Eventually we caught him out because he claimed to have been transferred to a specific building in London. The unfortunate part of that was that we already have a member who works in that particular building. It took him a couple of minutes to prove that Mark Global was a fraud. Given that he had claimed access to a seriously restricted building, other people got interested in his identity and they traced him very quickly. As a matter of courtesy, they gave us the bare bones of what they'd found out. Essentially, "Mark Global" (they didn't give us his real name) had been a member of the air cadets at university but had been washed out as unfitted to wear the uniform (they had a bureaucratic title for it but that was what it amounted to). He then worked at the DVLA in Swansea. That explained pretty much everything; especially his low level of knowledge but detailed within those limits.

Now, Silverhawk is behaving almost identically to Mark Global (I doubt if they are the same person although its not impossible) and that raises my suspicions. Also, he gets things wrong that, as an air traffic controller, he shouldn't get wrong. Also, he doesn't look for information in the right place. You've seen how MarkS gets information - he knows where to go and what to get. He goes to USAF documents, manuals, etc. That's where Silverhawk would go to document things. Not Wikipedia or magazine articles of only minor relevence. His language isn't USAF either. As an example, his use of "angels" for altitude was anachronistic; I've never heard people using that term in casual conversation. Essentially, he was trying too hard to sound like the identity he claimed. Then he gave us a name and I checked it out. It's civil air patrol. Now, at the student level, they are basically ground puppies who assist the air force at air shows etc, helping to park cars and so on. In short, it's exactly the sort of organization Mark Global came from. So,based on 30 plus years knowledge of how Air Force people speak, behave, and what they know and how (if Silverhawk really was an Air Traffic Controller he would know a lot about aircraft operating behavior and patterns that he demonstrably doesn't know here; that 120,000 feet thing for the SR-71 was a dead give-away as were a few others that I'll keep under my hat for now) my presumption is that he's a CAP washout who's trying to live here the career he would like to have had.

Agreed, he hasn't used that alleged identity explicitly to support arguments but by claiming a knowledgable position, he's using it indirectly.

[Stuart]

Is that why the Soviet Union/Russians kept IRSTs on their fighters? Like, they caught wind of the Americans developing stealth technology, decided that it was too expensive to match the Amerikanski's new stealth planes, and decided just to put IRSTs on their own planes as an attempt to counter it?

Exactly; the Russians very explicitly did that. IRSCAN equipment was their first instant response to the "Stealth" outbreak in the U.S. To an IRST-equipped Su-27 or MiG-29, an F-117 or B-2 is a sitting duck (which, by the way, is also why the Su-27 sells so well). That was also one of the instigations behind the F-22; the big problem with both the F-117 and the B-2 was that they were one-trick ponies. Different tricks but same species of pony. Take their stealth away and they were just flying targets. So, the F-22 was sort of the next generation, a stealthy aircraft that could fight and defend itself (or more precisely to unto others before they could do it unto her). Unfortunately, development took so long that by the time it was entering service, the whole stealth idea was on the wane.

[MKSheppard]

Is that why the Soviet Union/Russians kept IRSTs on their fighters? Like, they caught wind of the Americans developing stealth technology, decided that it was too expensive to match the Amerikanski's new stealth planes, and decided just to put IRSTs on their own planes as an attempt to counter it?

Ahem.

Comrade SHROOMSKI. I hate to break it to you....but we had those too.


F-101 IRST.


F-106 IRST (notch on nose)

Basically; they're useful for ambushing bombers with no radar emissions from your plane.

The Soviet use of IRST, I suspect was driven more by their needs for an all-purpose fighter fleet that could double as interceptors -- remember that the Soviets had a lot of crap planes as late as the 1980s. This way; a MiG-29 can replace older interceptors and increase the combat capability of the PVO/VVS substantially, by providing swing-role aircraft which aren't limited to one super-specialized mission.

[SilverHawk]

Really? or did you only "know about it" once it had been already mentioned. "I knew that" is a very weak argument. I've already noticed that if nobody gives you information in an answer on a specific area, you just flounder around.

Uh, perhaps you should look at this part of my post on page 10. (Before anything was mentioned.)

Stealth is only as good as the people using it are, I would like to think that the B-2A pilots are some of the most experienced and well trained in SAC .(Then ACC, then SAC again.) We all saw what happened when you get operationally lazy with your aircraft because you have Stealth in Bosnia when the Nighthawk was lost to Vietnam Era bracket SAM fire and jury rigged long wave emission radars.

There is, however, a simple designation you could quote that would help your case. One which most people who have been in know and those who have not don't.

1C151?

Now, Silverhawk is behaving almost identically to Mark Global (I doubt if they are the same person although its not impossible) and that raises my suspicions. Also, he gets things wrong that, as an air traffic controller, he shouldn't get wrong. Also, he doesn't look for information in the right place. You've seen how MarkS gets information - he knows where to go and what to get. He goes to USAF documents, manuals, etc. That's where Silverhawk would go to document things. Not Wikipedia or magazine articles of only minor relevence. His language isn't USAF either. As an example, his use of "angels" for altitude was anachronistic; I've never heard people using that term in casual conversation. Essentially, he was trying too hard to sound like the identity he claimed. Then he gave us a name and I checked it out. It's civil air patrol. Now, at the student level, they are basically ground puppies who assist the air force at air shows etc, helping to park cars and so on. In short, it's exactly the sort of organization Mark Global came from. So,based on 30 plus years knowledge of how Air Force people speak, behave, and what they know and how (if Silverhawk really was an Air Traffic Controller he would know a lot about aircraft operating behavior and patterns that he demonstrably doesn't know here; that 120,000 feet thing for the SR-71 was a dead give-away as were a few others that I'll keep under my hat for now) my presumption is that he's a CAP washout who's trying to live here the career he would like to have had.

1. You can have Stardestroyer.net do an IP check on me, you will find we are not the same people.
2. It's the Internet, I loving using the word Angels and I wasen't aware there was a restriction on these boards from using certain words for certain things. I shall continue to use Angels as the mood strikes me, deal with it.
3. Again with the SR-71 max ceiling, maybe you should have looked up the definition of "reputed" in a dictionary.

reputed past participle of re·pute (Verb)
1. Be generally said or believed to do something or to have particular characteristics.
2. Be generally said or believed to exist or be of a particular type, despite not being so.

[Shroom Man 777]

Is that why the Soviet Union/Russians kept IRSTs on their fighters? Like, they caught wind of the Americans developing stealth technology, decided that it was too expensive to match the Amerikanski's new stealth planes, and decided just to put IRSTs on their own planes as an attempt to counter it?

Ahem.

Comrade SHROOMSKI. I hate to break it to you....but we had those too.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3557/336 ... c3f1ac.jpg
F-101 IRST.

http://www.alexstoll.com/AircraftOfTheMonth/MA-1.jpg
F-106 IRST (notch on nose)

But Comrade Shepilov, the Amerikanskis ditched the IRSTs after the century series, did they not? While the Russkies continued on using IRSTs and improving them, for some reason (maybe like the advent of amerikanski stealthski bomberskis!).

Did the Europeans keep IRSTs as well? Or was it just the Russians who kept the IRSTs for, like, forever? I know the Americans are putting IRSTs back on their planes now, with the F-35's thinggy and the F-14D's thinggy.

Basically; they're useful for ambushing bombers with no radar emissions from your plane.

The Soviet use of IRST, I suspect was driven more by their needs for an all-purpose fighter fleet that could double as interceptors -- remember that the Soviets had a lot of crap planes as late as the 1980s. This way; a MiG-29 can replace older interceptors and increase the combat capability of the PVO/VVS substantially, by providing swing-role aircraft which aren't limited to one super-specialized mission.

Mmm... and, plus, they'd also come in handy against amerikanski stealthski!

Yay, Stuart backed me ups! I have sound logics!

Exactly; the Russians very explicitly did that. IRSCAN equipment was their first instant response to the "Stealth" outbreak in the U.S. To an IRST-equipped Su-27 or MiG-29, an F-117 or B-2 is a sitting duck (which, by the way, is also why the Su-27 sells so well).

Woah, really? So the F-117 and B-2 can still be shot down by MiG-29s and Su-27s using IRSTs? So against a relatively modern enemy with functional IADS and not-shit fighters, even WITHOUT new anti-stealth technologies, these old MiGs and Su-27s would still pose quite a threat to stealth bombers?

[SilverHawk]

Did the Europeans keep IRSTs as well? Or was it just the Russians who kept the IRSTs for, like, forever? I know the Americans are putting IRSTs back on their planes now, with the F-35's thinggy and the F-14D's thinggy.

Don't forget the F-16E/F BLOCK 60.

Woah, really? So the F-117 and B-2 can still be shot down by MiG-29s and Su-27s using IRSTs? So against a relatively modern enemy with functional IADS and not-shit fighters, even WITHOUT new anti-stealth technologies, these old MiGs and Su-27s would still pose quite a threat to stealth bombers?

They'd have to get closer then if they could use their radars at normal ranges, but they could easily spot them at around 50+ miles for normal aircraft (MiG-29). (Not sure about Stealth aircraft.)

[Simon_Jester]

Now, Silverhawk is behaving almost identically to Mark Global (I doubt if they are the same person although its not impossible) and that raises my suspicions. Also, he gets things wrong that, as an air traffic controller, he shouldn't get wrong. Also, he doesn't look for information in the right place. You've seen how MarkS gets information - he knows where to go and what to get. He goes to USAF documents, manuals, etc. That's where Silverhawk would go to document things. Not Wikipedia or magazine articles of only minor relevence. His language isn't USAF either. As an example, his use of "angels" for altitude was anachronistic; I've never heard people using that term in casual conversation. Essentially, he was trying too hard to sound like the identity he claimed. Then he gave us a name and I checked it out. It's civil air patrol. Now, at the student level, they are basically ground puppies who assist the air force at air shows etc, helping to park cars and so on. In short, it's exactly the sort of organization Mark Global came from. So,based on 30 plus years knowledge of how Air Force people speak, behave, and what they know and how (if Silverhawk really was an Air Traffic Controller he would know a lot about aircraft operating behavior and patterns that he demonstrably doesn't know here; that 120,000 feet thing for the SR-71 was a dead give-away as were a few others that I'll keep under my hat for now) my presumption is that he's a CAP washout who's trying to live here the career he would like to have had.

Well, I'll stay out of this one since I most certainly don't have the kind of specialist knowledge to spot fake experts (or vouch for real experts) reliably.

I asked because I've seen your "fraud/psycho detected!" alarm go off under circumstances that looked very much like a false positive to me before, so I appreciate your explaining your reasoning to me.

[Shroom Man 777]

Did the Europeans keep IRSTs as well? Or was it just the Russians who kept the IRSTs for, like, forever? I know the Americans are putting IRSTs back on their planes now, with the F-35's thinggy and the F-14D's thinggy.

Don't forget the F-16E/F BLOCK 60.

According to wiki, which is a shit-source, it only makes mention of IRST on the F-16IN, the "most advanced F-16 ever" for the Indian Air Force or something.

[SilverHawk]

Did the Europeans keep IRSTs as well? Or was it just the Russians who kept the IRSTs for, like, forever? I know the Americans are putting IRSTs back on their planes now, with the F-35's thinggy and the F-14D's thinggy.

Don't forget the F-16E/F BLOCK 60.

According to wiki, which is a shit-source, it only makes mention of IRST on the F-16IN, the "most advanced F-16 ever" for the Indian Air Force or something.

This is much better.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article10.html

[Shroom Man 777]

It says FLIR, not IRST. Though I have no idea what's the difference between the two. What IS the difference between FLIR and IRST?

[Steel]

It says FLIR, not IRST. Though I have no idea what's the difference between the two. What IS the difference between FLIR and IRST?

At a guess Forward looking IR only looks forward, but IR search and track looks all around (or over a larger area). Perhaps some additional software components to keep tracking of the objects it sees as they move around as well.

[SilverHawk]

It says FLIR, not IRST. Though I have no idea what's the difference between the two. What IS the difference between FLIR and IRST?

It's an IFTS. (Internal FLIR and Targeting System.)

[Sea Skimmer]

Don't forget the F-16E/F BLOCK 60.

No. An internally carried FLIR and laser designator pod setup and an IRST are not the same thing at all. I guess they didn’t cover that in stealth school when they bothered to tell you all the highly classified details on the F-117 but not the mundane stuff that's actually relevant to a non pilot?

[SilverHawk]

All the stuff I mentioned is public knowledge. So no, I didn't go to a stealth school, though if it was a real thing, it'd be pretty cool to go to.