LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuotePCL with cell phone towers is a **** idea. But the US haters won't wanna hear this ****(Captain Drunk).Originally Posted by Jimmy
I know right, and you can't scan the enemy's airspace only your's which also sucks ass. Not to mention they're very easy to jam. The Cell phone tower idea is ****. Roke manor can suck their ****ing cocks for all i care.
PCL with cell phone towers is a **** idea. But the US haters won't wanna hear this ****(Captain Drunk).
At today's rate of improvement, I bet we can have desktops that can do what a Cray7 does inside 10 years.
Our desktops today, well, mine at least, can render 3D animations that took Cray mainframes weeks to do in the early 90s...in real time. My computer is ancient 2003 technology, obsolete for gaming use 2 years ago.
Cell phone transmitters as radars? I don't think so.
Cell phone towers transmit in microwave, meaning it's very directional. Where do you think those dishes are aimed at? The ground. Not the sky. Why? The customers are on the ground. Where do air planes come from? The sky. Cell phone towers might be able to be used as stealth detectors, but the sacrifice is you lose all coverage on the ground. No more cell phone use. Your customers won't be happy. So there goes the idea of a practical radar solution using cell phone towers.
Cell phone towers are easy to jam. If they're not good enough for fire control and can be easily jammed what's the point. Also you can make different RAMS to use on frequencies celll phone towers which I read in a popsci article by Bill Sweetman.I say silent sentry is much better really. It's unjammable and has a better range.
Why use Cray7's when you can use the Cray XT3,it's the best cray has to offer!! http://www.cray.com/products/xt3/index.htmlAt today's rate of improvement, I bet we can have desktops that can do what a Cray7 does inside 10 years.
Our desktops today, well, mine at least, can render 3D animations that took Cray mainframes weeks to do in the early 90s...in real time. My computer is ancient 2003 technology, obsolete for gaming use 2 years ago.
It's ranked #10 in the world currently. If you're going to use it you might as well buy one of these.
Last edited by urmomma158; 12 May 06, at 23:47.
And it uses AMD's Opteron processor.
I've been thinking about building myself a new computer based on a dual core Opteron. Now if only I can obtain some funding...
Hi folks, new to the board! I will jump straight in as my way of saying hello!!
I think this cellphone idea is an interesting one...
This question was posted on a board I frequent about a year ago and was put to a very experienced USAF test pilot type. He raised it with some of his radar troop buddies who thought about it and said it seems feasible...However, they qualified it with this..." The system would need MASSIVE processing power, satellite integration etc.. It would also be taken out as a first day of war target! Cellphone system infrastructure isn`t hardened and would be easy to take apart with a few JDAM and TLAM aimed at vital hubs...
So maybe a non-starter?
Also pretty darned useless when you're sitting in your Su-35 while an F-22 is pinging you.
So the cell phone system tells you it's there ... great. Too bad it won't tell you where exactly, or provide guidance for your weapons. In the time it took you to think about all this, the Raptor pilot has shot you down, too.
Also pretty darned useless when you're sitting in your Su-35 while an F-22 is pinging you.
So the cell phone system tells you it's there ... great. Too bad it won't tell you where exactly, or provide guidance for your weapons. In the time it took you to think about all this, the Raptor pilot has shot you down, too.
Potentially more problematic to Stealth are BI-STATIC radar systems, however the system would have to cover HUGE areas otherwise you would have to rely on a Stealth aircraft to obligingly fly between the antennae!
On another note, earlier in this thread there was mention of the F-117 shoot-down over Yugoslavia. AFAIR, that was the result of very poor planning whereby the the F-117 took the same ingress route to target three nights running, right over a "SAM school" training area. They just waited for the regularly scheduled flight! I also recall that the opposing forces had very good intel` on F-117 movements due to poor COMMS discipline on the part of other, non-US NATO forces. Under those circumstances even I could have hit it with a .22 rifle! The memory dims and I certainly am not in the "know", but this is what I have seen suggested...It is suggested that it wasn`t actually down to new, whizz-bang technology or "anti-stealth" fantasy weapons as claimed by some.
I disagree: A bistatic system can, again, tell you the thing's there, and maybe where it is, but it cannot guide weapons. You may as well just use long-wave radar.
Potentially more problematic to Stealth are BI-STATIC radar systems, however the system would have to cover HUGE areas otherwise you would have to rely on a Stealth aircraft to obligingly fly between the antennae!
That is what has basically been said officialy by both sides to some degree or another, plus or minus some detail.On another note, earlier in this thread there was mention of the F-117 shoot-down over Yugoslavia. AFAIR, that was the result of very poor planning whereby the the F-117 took the same ingress route to target three nights running, right over a "SAM school" training area. They just waited for the regularly scheduled flight! I also recall that the opposing forces had very good intel` on F-117 movements due to poor COMMS discipline on the part of other, non-US NATO forces. Under those circumstances even I could have hit it with a .22 rifle! The memory dims and I certainly am not in the "know", but this is what I have seen suggested...It is suggested that it wasn`t actually down to new, whizz-bang technology or "anti-stealth" fantasy weapons as claimed by some.
Bi-static, long wave, cell phone towers...
Potentially more problematic to Stealth are BI-STATIC radar systems, however the system would have to cover HUGE areas otherwise you would have to rely on a Stealth aircraft to obligingly fly between the antennae!
This stuff is why stealth aircraft have jammers. The jammers will take care of this stuff while the non-jammable radars can't find your stealth plane anyway.
BTW, the B-2 has plenty of extra electronic gadgetry on board to form multiple layers of defense if it gets found. Stealth, heavy ECM, towed decoys, chaff-flare, weather and the the run away option. If the F-22 gets found, it will just destroy it's finder, or otherwise use it's TVC and supercruise to get out of there before coming back and then destroying it's attacker.
No, it isn't. You turn a jammer on, you become findable. Stealth is there to help keep you undetected, but also, most importantly, it causes weapons to fail to track on you even when you have been detected.
A jammer is just a beacon for a missile on the other hand.
Stealth can't cover everything - so it is designed to cover the threats .. ie. anything that uses the range of radio frequencies typically used to guide weapons.
Long wave radars, cell phone towers - none of those do that, and you've zero reason to jam them.
Yep, pretty much.BTW, the B-2 has plenty of extra electronic gadgetry on board to form multiple layers of defense if it gets found. Stealth, heavy ECM, towed decoys, chaff-flare, weather and the the run away option. If the F-22 gets found, it will just destroy it's finder, or otherwise use it's TVC and supercruise to get out of there before coming back and then destroying it's attacker.
After re-reading hello's post, I think he meant more a jamming escort than a jamming pod on a stealth aircraft. In that case, he could be right.
I have no idea what kind of electronics wizardry is on the B-2...but if they did have some kind of jamming equipment, it would be the absolute last resort. When RWR (if they have it) is screaming that somebody has a radar lock and you know they're within X miles, you hit the switch and hope for the best. Jamming is not going to be a pre-emptive tactic.
I promised myself I would ignore this thread because it went downhill so quickly...but I can't ignore some of the suppositions and conclusions.
1. It appears that many of the senior members of the forum are staying away from the thread entirely. Dosn't that say anything to you good gentlemen?
2. Russia, and the Soviet Union before them, have an aerospace industry second to none on the planet. I learned this first hand as a uniformed enemy of the USSR between 1977 and 1983. I was grateful to go home to mamma without being killed by those folks, or having to kill some babushka's son in turn.
3. I wish the Russians only the best in thier endeavers, now that the communist government has fallen and a nominally democratic regime has replaced it.
4. Having said that: GOOD GOD RUSSKIE! (And all you other Russian contributers to the thread). Do you really pin your hopes on ANYTHING the American political opposition says about in-development American weapon systems?!
America's left-wing will lie, cheat and steal to defeat almost ANY new weapon in the pipeline. According to 'senate sources' during the 1970s, the M-1 Abrams couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from inside the barn. It has turned out to be one of the three or four best tanks ever built, has been built in very large numbers, has served over a quarter century as our frontline tank and is, to this day, one of the best weapons in America's arsenal.
Major American newspapers and news magazines ran authoritative articles disparaging the capabilities of the M-2 Bradley IFV, The Spruance destroyer, The HUMVEE, the F-16 Fighting Falcon, E-3 Sentry AWACS, The Sgt York (and they might have been right about that one), the C-17 airlifter and the new V-22 Osprey tilt-roter.
Please don't fall for the canard that a weapon system is inneffective because an American, or Russian, periodical, news network or government official claims it dosn't work.
(Remember that some Western civilians long thought, many still think, that most MiGs and Sukhois were/are worthless junk. The USAF has never had that opinion. The F-22 is the end result of a serious concern over USAF's continued ability to maintain battlefield air supremecy in the face of numbers of Su-xx 'super-fighters'. The advanced capabilities of the F-22 are, in effect, a compliment to the Russian Su- series 'Flanker' aircraft. Take a bow and accept the compliment.)
History will hang the F-22 if it is a failure and history will applaud it as a worthy successor to the P-51 Mustang/F-86 Sabre/F-4E Phantom and F-15 Eagle if it succeeds at iot's mission.
Finally: Russians as a people do not suffer from an inferiority complex. Quite the contrary, they often seem to harbor a sense of SUPERIORITY to anybody outside the Rodina. Good for them. No harm in that. Russians, whatever else you might think about them, are not stupid.
Neither are the Isrealis, and they really want a couple squadrons of Raptors. Not because the F-22 is a fake/loser, etc... but because it is the most advanced, capable, purely destructive air-supremecy fighter ever concieved.
The Japanese can afford the F-22 and they also want some. They are not fooled by an anti-weapons/anti-Pentagon party in the U.S. Senate, nor by anti-American rhetoric on Russian web pages.
International observors at the most recent Red Flag exercise out of Nellis AFB a few months ago saw the F-22 pilots take bets on how long they would survive in the confrontation with the best adversary pilots on Earth. They collected thier winnings and went home laughing. I will always bet on the Raptor.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: