F-16 versus F-15

Agreed, it will never be a fair fight but how would the F-16 match up against the ... ?
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

lamoey

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1070
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2004, 17:44
  • Location: 77550

Unread post09 Jan 2005, 02:16

Every GPS satellite has a passive heat sensor to detect rocket launches or atomic explotions, but to see a small jet is a different story.
Former Flight Control Technican - We keep'em flying
Offline

hansundfranz

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 239
  • Joined: 19 Sep 2004, 10:47

Unread post09 Jan 2005, 17:43

I wasn´t thinking of heat but of electromagnetic emissions.

Project Prometheus: Nuclear propulsion for long distance space travel, does not have a lot to do with Satelie energy sources.

I´d also guess that such a system would only be used once the spaceship has left the earth atmosphere.
Offline
User avatar

lamoey

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1070
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2004, 17:44
  • Location: 77550

Unread post09 Jan 2005, 21:32

There are already space vehicals out there with a nuclear reactor for electrical energy, but not propulsion that I am aware of. If there are any in earth orbit I don't know. I would be surprised if there were none.
Former Flight Control Technican - We keep'em flying
Offline

hansundfranz

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 239
  • Joined: 19 Sep 2004, 10:47

Unread post09 Jan 2005, 22:45

Reactors as energy source have been quite popular in the past. Nowadays they are rarely (if ever) used becuase they learned to live with less energy, build more effective sun collectors, because satelittes come down again eventually and no one wants the enviromental risk, and because every extra pond to shoot up costs a shitload of money. But well it could be used for military applications if the USA gets some heavy lift capacity (which they don´t have at the moment) again.
Offline

Hookturn

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 70
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2004, 09:49

Unread post10 Jan 2005, 00:13

[OT]

Actually, only Russians back in the sixties-seventies launched satellites with nuclear reactors. Today there are several spacecrafts up there using nuclear powered batteries. Not a hint of a traditional fission reactor there.

[/OT]
Offline

parrothead

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3280
  • Joined: 10 May 2004, 23:04

Unread post10 Jan 2005, 05:42

Just for clarification, I was speaking of nuclear batteries, not reactors. The US has launched several interplanetary probes with nuclear batteries on normal rockets, not the space shuttle, so heavy lift isn't really required. I just figured that with the nuclear batteries, it would be much easier to boost signal strength if that was required. I wouldn't be too worried about the satellites being detected as they'd be pretty difficult to take down.
No plane on Sunday, maybe be one come Monday...
www.parrotheadjeff.com
Offline

cru

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 217
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2004, 08:25

Unread post11 Jan 2005, 07:46

My guess that heavy jamming and the chances of passive detection (if you increase output power of your datalink to counter the jamming) will make the usage of all that very difficult,


The Link 16 is almost impossible to jam. It is a directional link, so the only way to jam it would be for the electronic attack plane to position itself between the two planes that are communicating. And don't forget that there are around 128 planes in the net.

Also you need to jam the frequency that the emitter have. But the frequency hops 77 800 times per second!

Passive detection systems like Tamara or Kolchuga are far less effective against datalinks than they are against radars. They need at least 10-20 seconds of continuous emission in the same frequency in order to locate the emitter. Or an MIDS-like datalink would never do this.
Offline

hansundfranz

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 239
  • Joined: 19 Sep 2004, 10:47

Unread post11 Jan 2005, 20:33

Pretty good information what the link 16 is and does
http://www.tpub.com/content/fc/14103/css/14103_73.htm

IMHO cru is overly optimistic. Sure they did a lot to make jamming harder but its definetly not impossible.

To counter frequency hopping just jam on all used frquencys.

The directional feature can be counered by imperfections of the recieving antenna (similar to side lobe clutter in RADARS) and simply by placing lots of jammers all over the area you want to protect. One of them is bound to be in between the AWACS/Jstars and the fighters,

BTW with quick browsing I found no hint that it is directional as cru suggests.
Of course it is litited to line of sight as any UHF system but that does not mean it emmits and/or recieves signals only from a narrow angle.
Offline

parrothead

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3280
  • Joined: 10 May 2004, 23:04

Unread post11 Jan 2005, 20:59

To counter frequency hopping just jam on all used frquencys.


There are a couple of problems with this. First, you have to know which frequencies are being used, which is most likely a classified bit of information. Assuming your intelligence assets delivered this to you, you'd still have the problem that you probably use some of the same frequencies for different things, so you'd be limiting your own warfighting capabilities.

I'm no expert on the costs of different military systems, but I'd think that jammers don't come cheap. Placing lots of jammers all over the place would require a very large monetary expenditure. Then you have another problem - jammers actively transmit to accomplish thier mission. Because they're sending out so much energy, they're probably easy targets for detection and destruction. The different datalink and radar systems that hop frequencies as fast as they do make themselves less prone to detection due to the fact that they don't transmit on any given frequency for any length of time. Jammers have to cover all the frequencies used by these systems all the time to make sure they jam the right one at any given nano second.

If the system is directional and if you jam one aircraft's link, you've done the equivalent of cutting off one user in a large network. The system will notice it. After the loss of link is noticed and jamming is suspected your jammer will probably be selected for destruction on a very short timetable.
No plane on Sunday, maybe be one come Monday...
www.parrotheadjeff.com
Offline

hansundfranz

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 239
  • Joined: 19 Sep 2004, 10:47

Unread post12 Jan 2005, 00:25

I´d prefer the Americans spening the 500,000$ harms on my 100,000$ jammers over takeing out my Sams.

I´d prefer the americans targeting ym jammers with their LGBs and JDAMs over targeting my Sams.

If you want to go head to head with the USA you have 2 options.

Have equal or better datalink then they have or make datalink (and GPS) unususable for everybody.
Offline

hansundfranz

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 239
  • Joined: 19 Sep 2004, 10:47

Unread post12 Jan 2005, 00:29

Frequencys classified:
Link 16 has been used since 10 years in all NATO countries. I am sure everybody really wanting to knows, knows everything there is to know about this system.
Offline

cru

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 217
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2004, 08:25

Unread post12 Jan 2005, 07:12

Frequencys classified:


There are 51 frequencies between 960-1215MHz (band L) with 3 MHz between the cheanels

To counter frequency hopping just jam on all used frquencys.


You can't if you are not sincronized in the network ( "Net Time Reference")

I'm no expert on the costs of different military systems, but I'd think that jammers don't come cheap


They are very expensive, contrary to the MIDS terminal, wich become affordable (~ 350 000 $/piece for fighter version) because the US teamed with UK, France, Italy, Germany and Spain.

By cutting one link you don't acomplish much. The system will redirect: if the connection between A and B is out, A will transmit through C, D,... to B
Offline

parrothead

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3280
  • Joined: 10 May 2004, 23:04

Unread post12 Jan 2005, 08:07

I´d prefer the Americans spening the 500,000$ harms on my 100,000$ jammers over takeing out my Sams.


I´d prefer the americans targeting ym jammers with their LGBs and JDAMs over targeting my Sams.


Gladly :D ! I think you'll run out of SAM and radar guided AAA before we run out of HARMs and JDAMs :wink: . We have lots and lots in the inventory and the JDAMs can be dropped by F-117s and B-2s so you won't know anything is wrong until the first bombs hit 8) . Also, we have lots and lots of $$$...

If you want to go head to head with the USA you have 2 options.

Have equal or better datalink then they have or make datalink (and GPS) unususable for everybody.


Not necessarily. Having a datalink is useful, but you also need the proper data, people, and tactics to use that data.

Another thing to consider is that the US is constantly testing all of its equipment against the best ideas to defeat it for better performance in combat. Even with jamming, the JDAMs are still pretty darn reliable.

OK, let's assume that the GPS system completely went down the toilet :o . So what would the US do :? ? Well, we still train to use the old school methods of navigation and bomb delivery :D . As far as I know, BUFF crews still carry sextants for navigation and I wouldn't be surprised if the BONE and Spirit crews do, too. Of course the inertial nav system would have to go down before they'd have to resort to sextants... :wink: Thermal cameras give a pretty good picture of what you want to hit once you get to the target area (remember Desert Storm?) and laser and TV guided munitions and HARMs work just fine without GPS, too :D .

Now let's assume all the datalink frequencies are jammed :o . We managed pretty well before datalinks, so I don't think it would be that big of an issue. First, we select the targets before the mission launches. If there's a change in plans after launch, we can still communicate via radios and those would've been jammed long ago if it was possible :) . Speaking in code is old hat for the military, so we wouldn't really have to worry about someone listening in. In the past campaigns against IRAQ, we even used the people listening in to our advantage - all the EA-6B crews had to do was call out the code word for firing a HARM and the Iraqi air defense dudes would shut off their radars, leaving them blind without even firing a shot :wink: . If all else failed, we'd probably bring the Navajo code talkers back and use them just like we did in WWII :D .

So go ahead and please spend as much as you want to on jammers 'cause we'll either outspend you or fall back on other proven methods :wink: ! WE WILL WIN :twisted: !!!
No plane on Sunday, maybe be one come Monday...
www.parrotheadjeff.com
Offline

hansundfranz

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 239
  • Joined: 19 Sep 2004, 10:47

Unread post12 Jan 2005, 19:32

Supposedly, what would be a smart plan for your upcoming nation (think a mix between China and India with some good development done) to beat the USA in a local war?

What equipment would you get? would you try to beat the USa at their own game or try to find a way they are not really prepared to fight against.

Also You guys must honsetly admit that the US forces (at least the Air forcre) train for what they most likely have to do: beat a 3rd world country quickly and cost effective.
There is only limited thought and training on what smart and capable adversaries could do.
Offline

parrothead

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3280
  • Joined: 10 May 2004, 23:04

Unread post12 Jan 2005, 20:29

Supposedly, what would be a smart plan for your upcoming nation (think a mix between China and India with some good development done) to beat the USA in a local war?

What equipment would you get? would you try to beat the USa at their own game or try to find a way they are not really prepared to fight against.

My best advice is not to get into a fight in the first place. Your best bet until recently would have been to buy off UN members and get them to block any action. Thankfully, we've seen that the UN doesn't have as much influence over US defense policy lately as they used to. I say thankfully because we've recently seen in a program called "Oil for food" just how corrupt the UN can be. The best way to avoid an attack now is to expel all terrorists from your territory and cease WMD research and development. I'm not trying to get overly political or anything here, but it seemed to work for Lybia. They handed over their nuclear program to the US and we lifted quite a few sanctions.

Also You guys must honsetly admit that the US forces (at least the Air forcre) train for what they most likely have to do: beat a 3rd world country quickly and cost effective.
There is only limited thought and training on what smart and capable adversaries could do.


Not necessarily. The military, as I understand it, trains for just about every eventuality. We have to train for the worst case scenario because of situations like Taiwan and China. Take this one for example. If China decided to "repatriate" their "renegade province," the US has an agreement to defend Taiwan. The US policy as I understand it is to train for the worst case scenario so that we're ready for it and the small stuff will be that much easier.

It's the same philosophy that justifies the F/A-22 Raptor - we won't settle for just as good as the other guy or even a bit better, we want to have complete and total dominance. There was a thread a while back about four F-16s vs one F/A-22 and the response was basically that it was better for the Vipers to stay on the ground. I've read that the Air Force sent up multiple F-15s against one Raptor and even when the Eagles were given vector to the Raptor, they died before they were able to ascertain its position and they only saw it when it passed close by.

It's good military practice to train for what to do when the brown smelly stuff hits the fan. It's actually good practice in general. It's why pilots, even civilian ones, train for engine out landings and failed systems such as bad instruments in IFR conditions and cockpit lights that go out at night. I carry a set of tools, jumper cables, a first aid kit, water, a decent bit of cash, hard candy, a cell phone, a blanket, and some simple games like a travel chess set and a deck of cards any time I drive out of town, especially when I decide to drive between Las Vegas and San Diego. Why? Because there's not a whole lot of anything but dirt, rocks, rattle snakes, and scorpions in that part of the US. I may have a spare tire, but what happens if I have two flat tires? What if an eighteen wheeler throws a tire or a large rock and damages my car badly enough that I can't continue? What if a surprise storm comes up in the Cajon pass and I get snowed in? It would probably be hours before help arrived, especially with the long distances involved and the low number of police out there. The temperatures in that area regularly top 100 degrees fahrenheit with very low humidity, so even if you're only a few miles away from civilization, you're not likely to fare well without a lot of water. I'd rather be prepared than sorry I wasn't.

My preparations are completely optional and voluntary, but military preparation isn't. Putting bombs on target isn't an option and any pilot who's given a mission is expected to complete it unless the aircraft is mechanically unable to or the crew can't cope with medical issues such as wounds received during that mission. Don't think for a second that we're unprepared for anything...
No plane on Sunday, maybe be one come Monday...
www.parrotheadjeff.com
PreviousNext

Return to F-16 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests