WaPo? People stand where they sit WaPo have heavy involvement with MIC especially CIA Jeff Bezos practically is Mr. Burns of Simpsons and Dr. Evil from Austin Powers come to real life
Future PLAN naval and carrier operations
- Thread starter Tam
- Start date
Brumby
Major
I don't believe LM would make such specific comments and if it did it would be widely quoted. That said, AWST did published some figures on what it considered to be the engagement distance of the S-400 against both the F-35 and F-22.
Brumby
Major
I suggest you read up any book on electronic warfare pertaining to how ESM actually works.
It is about maneuvering to avoid detection, the collective fusion of networked sensors to address issues like aspect angle targeting and relying on passive sensors when appropriate. It is the collective effort of a group delivering on the principle that the sum of the parts is greater than the individual parts.
Traditional saturation is simply each missile being pre-designated with targets or with re-targeting for those with data links to host sensors. The swarming technology that we are talking about in the 21st century as with the LRASM is not just re-targeting autonomously (not controlled through host sensors) but also the decision making on targeting and profiling of attacks are collectively determined within the swarm. Cooperative by definition means two way data exchange and in the case of swarms is multi data exchanges within the swarm. The so called swarming of the P-700 is simply a one way communication.
Brumby
Major
Is the LRASM virtually undetectable? It is the context that is important. The F-22 is generally considered to be an order of magnitude more stealthy than the F-35. According to the AWST pictorial, the S-400 has a engagement range of 34 kms for the f-35 as opposed 21 kms for the F-22. This is a function of their RCS difference
.
The LRASM's RCS is classified and so I don't know how stealthy it really is. Given that the F-22 is at least one order of magnitude lower than the F-35, it is not inconceivable that the LRASM has two order of magnitude or even three lower than the F-35. Translated this means the following engagement range :
2 X = 11 kms
3 X = 7 kms
At this range, the engagement window is extremely small. The prospect of collateral damage on the target is very high even if the LRASM is destroyed prior to impact.
No reason to believe that LRASM has lower RCS than even an F-35. A missile does not have enough space for sufficient RAM. RAM effectiveness is dependent on its thickness because the matrix or honeycombs within it, as well as ferrite particles embedded would need to be of a certain size to resonate against a particular radio frequency. No missile can afford the thickness required even for C-band or much less S-band. Thus a missile, solely optimized against X-band, will have increasing RCS against bands that have a lower frequency VHF > L band > S band > C band > X band < Ku band. A navy ship is equipped to cover an extensive spectrum. Something that can be detected first by VHF, L and S bands from a distance, even for a VLO object, will have the search radars queue the X-bands FCR right at its direction, and the result of this the X-bands will have a longer dwell time upon the target.
Optimum RCS is also frontal, and RCS changes and increases depending on the viewpoint. Search radars from a set of ships can also illuminate the target from all directions, CEC can gather all these dots, and the CMS will bring them all together.
Ship ESM can also pick up the missile's radar as it targets the ship, as well as the missile's datalink communication with its source.
To be fair, similar techniques can be employed as well against a Chinese LRASM.
Why is the F-22 "at least one order of magnitude lower than the F-35" instead just partially better and why should "it is not inconceivable that the LRASM has two order of magnitude or even three lower than the F-35" so people will come to their conclusion based on some hearsay from some "AWST pictorial" from some amateur hobby magazine as gospel bible of perfectly spied military spec intel of S-400 vs F-22/35? Thats a lot of chains made up of lots unsubstantiated very weak logical reasoning links jumping to hypothetical inference just like so called " the collective fusion of networked sensors" and then "maneuvering to avoid detection" and then "aspect angle targeting and relying on passive sensors" and then "It is the collective effort of a group delivering on the principle that the sum of the parts is greater than the individual parts" all the while we all know Russia have very capable if not the best in electronic warfare jamming and China is leading in 5G and AI too and they will just do nothing and let all this complex network fusion operation" happen in perfect Mozart like symphony without bother to disrupt any kill chain
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
You're still writing random crap like this? LOLOL That's like saying, "MiG-29 can reach mach 2.25; MiG-31 can get to mach 3.1, so even though Su-57's speed is classified, it's not inconceivable that it can reach mach 4.5 or 6!" After a sentence like that, the rest of the conclusions are founded solidly on your imagination.
Jura The idiot
General
ManQ can you please stop posting cartoons I mean I disagreed with Brumby yesterday here, but cartoons are unnecessary to make a point, aren't they?
thank you for consideration
and here we gp, 21 miles, and 13 for the Raptor.......
Brumby
Major
The P-700 was developed in the 70's. Do you seriously think that that we talking about the same technology and capabilities? The P-700 basically adopts a sequential instruction set in allocating an Alpha missile for target distribution in an attrition scenario. The communication and instructions is one way. This is entirely different to that of the LRASM as it is AI driven algorithm with no pre-assigned Alpha but rather operating in a swarm like manner with action sets driven by algorithm based on real time assessment of the electronic order of battle (EOB) as gathered through their collective ESM..
Do you have any evidence that the product is just sales talk or the technology itself is somehow unattainable? Is it the miniaturization of the ESM? Is it the use of AI.instruction sets? Is it the networking of data? What is it?
Firstly do you have any evidence that the LRASM is highly dependent on RAM for its RCS reduction because 90 % of reduction is by way of shaping?
Secondly, missiles by nature has a lower RCS than fighter plane as a starting point. For example, a conical non VLO ballistic missile has a 0.01m2 RCS Can you nominate any fighter plane that is not dependent on shaping but simply RAM to have such level of RCS? You are simply making up an argument without reference to the technology or the context.
.
Last edited: