NationStates Jolt Archive

Kamata: Its just that in an earlier post you said it skipped, skimmed on the water, and went slightly under.

Wavy water isn't really so bad, it just gives more static.

One of the best parts about it being based on over-the-horizon radar is it can be converted back into it. With the added antenna space aboard naval vessels, this shouldn't be a problem.

I'd also like to know how you will see 700km away.

[Mach 7 at sea level? Jesus Christ, you people have no right to critisize the feasibility or so-called uberness of the Doujin class.]

Sorry a lot about the misunderstanding. But yes, the missile is above the water, and the intakes to have small metal shields to prevent any sprays of water from entering the system and causing a flare-up in the engine. So, is the hydroskipping missile cleared up then?

If the water creates static, couldn't I just create a static field around my fleet and help mask it from the radar system?

And as to how I can see that far away, not only other nations have satellites. All I have to do is beam a picture to the attacking fleet and a suggested route of attack from the satellite. The same satellite can also track missile progress, and say things such as "4 seconds ago, the missiles were here".

Also Wyrd Wyrm, about the thousands of penny sized holes, it doesn't matter if the armor is weakened there, because nothing will happen when it is breached, the area behind that armor is by default filled with water. If that design was used, that armor would not only have to be breached, but also blown out of the way in order to hit the engines.

Ok, and? It's already a given that scads of whatever goes boom or causes damage will have to be used... heck, something sticky and inflexible to jam all the holes... or sticky, inflexible, and explosive... or sticky, inflexible, and targetable...

My radar, and why it is mathematically impossible to fool (http://www.freewebs.com/bluebomber2/aerospacetech.htm), obviously its being modified slightly for naval use.


You know, the great thing about knowing something can be done, is it drastically increases the ability to do it. Having how it is done available makes it that much easier.

Industrial espionage at it's best.

We know the ground level and angle from GPS preprogramming, the ionosphere conditions from various friendly sources and calibration pings, the angle it hits the target and the return angles are based on the frequency and power that was sent out to that direction compared to its return, etc. etc. Need I remind you that I'm post/supermodern and I have the supercomputers and antennas needed for it...

But in this case a watered down(bad pun) version works perfectly fine on naval vessels, especially because the ocean is about as flat as you could hope for and you have multiple sources checking eachothers notes....Wouldn't it be quite useless if the water was wavy? Like... I don't think it would work in a storm too well. The radar would be flying into random insanity.

No, he's removing that random jamming element by adding lots (however many ships, etc are using the radar and communicating) of checks and balances. The weakness is the interlink between, but the system itself effectively shuts down normal forms of jamming as a real seagull is 3D, and hence appears the same to all directions of radar, whereas a jamming signal is usually monodirected, or limited directions.

Now, a device (ala Tesla) to screw up the ionosphere is going to play havoc with his system...

Impressive indeed. Hats off to you.

Oh yes, just to keep up with everything -

In the post by Doujin about what happened during a naval engagement, a turret DID jam by a missile hitting the track.

Ergo, it CAN be done and IS a flaw in the system.

Scandinavian States, please review - that was an apt and useful idea which you shot down with a "can't be done". As it WAS done, it CAN be done.

Jamming turrets to reduce firepower is functional as a tactic. Next?

I still don't understand how you could figure out where something is using that system... tehre are two many blind steps. it's like throwing a ball into a dark box and figuring out what's inside by where the ball comes out.

And agreed... mach 7 at sea level is silly.

Mach 7 at sea level is not silly.

Just think for a second, the faster the missile goes, the more air is pumped into the intakes. That makes the air go out faster as well. Not to mention that hydrogen is highly explosive and would push anything quite a ways.

Thats true... but the air is so dence it would rip the missile appart...

What is the missile made of?

I'm also wondering what the missile detonation system is, considering the gross pressure of air against the missile... and the impact of water splashes at mach 7 would be much like hitting concrete...

and since even Sea State 7 has 25 foot waves...

KILL DOUJIN NOW!!!
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=6662494#post6662494

Kamata: I didn't mean static electricity, I meant blurriness on the readout(sorry)

Vastiva: If you even think of ripping off the radar system(which I developed myself) I will break a naval sized antenna off in your ass :)

Also the tesla thing about disturbing the ionosphere actually exists, its called the HAARP, and it will rape any type of radar regardless.

Chardonay: I'm going to use your box and ball model to demonstrate.

The world is a large box, the inside of which is covered in wet paint.
The only way to find out whats inside the box is to send a little bouncing ball in. This ball(radar) shrinks as it loses power, and has paint stick to it.
To read normal radar, one drops the ball in, and catches it when it bounces back up. By looking at how large the ball is, you can tell how far it went. By reading the color of paint on it, you can tell what it hit.
When the ball comes back really tiny, it is harder to read. This is passive stealth.
When the ball doesn't come back at all, something inside caught it. This is active radar cancelling.
Sometimes the ball comes back normal, but it isn't the original ball. This is a false return.

In HSCDEADGR, there isn't just one box. Instead, the big box is split up into many smaller boxes, each of which get pinged seperately, and from several different directions.(before that, it fires off a few tuning pings to get an idea of how to calibrate its detailed scan). As the balls come back, sometimes with multiple layers of paint, we scratch them off an fit them into the bigger picture.
When one ball comes back really tiny, but the surrounding ones don't, we can tell there is passive stealth.
Since there are so many balls passing through, if someone catches one, it will probably be the wrong one for their location. If they catch all of them, we can really tell something is up(because on the box grid a cone will be missing, the tip of which is the location of the enemy).
The person in the box really doesn't know what a normal ball looks like to us, so they can try and send a false return, but if its wrong, we know where they are.


Anyway, I stick with my protest to the Mach 7 speed.

Vastiva: If you even think of ripping off the radar system(which I developed myself) I will break a naval sized antenna off in your ass :)


PBBBBBTTTTTTTTTTTHHHHHHHHHPPPPPPPP!!!!! You're not my type. ;)

Or we could make this really easy and form at least diplomatic connections so I could begin research into the matter without offending.



Also the tesla thing about disturbing the ionosphere actually exists, its called the HAARP, and it will rape any type of radar regardless.

Ssssshhhh, you're ruining all my good lines! ;)



Chardonay: I'm going to use your box and ball model to demonstrate.

The world is a large box, the inside of which is covered in wet paint.
The only way to find out whats inside the box is to send a little bouncing ball in. This ball(radar) shrinks as it loses power, and has paint stick to it.
To read normal radar, one drops the ball in, and catches it when it bounces back up. By looking at how large the ball is, you can tell how far it went. By reading the color of paint on it, you can tell what it hit.
When the ball comes back really tiny, it is harder to read. This is passive stealth.
When the ball doesn't come back at all, something inside caught it. This is active radar cancelling.
Sometimes the ball comes back normal, but it isn't the original ball. This is a false return.

In HSCDEADGR, there isn't just one box. Instead, the big box is split up into many smaller boxes, each of which get pinged seperately, and from several different directions.(before that, it fires off a few tuning pings to get an idea of how to calibrate its detailed scan). As the balls come back, sometimes with multiple layers of paint, we scratch them off an fit them into the bigger picture.
When one ball comes back really tiny, but the surrounding ones don't, we can tell there is passive stealth.
Since there are so many balls passing through, if someone catches one, it will probably be the wrong one for their location. If they catch all of them, we can really tell something is up(because on the box grid a cone will be missing, the tip of which is the location of the enemy).
The person in the box really doesn't know what a normal ball looks like to us, so they can try and send a false return, but if its wrong, we know where they are.

I think I said this...


Anyway, I stick with my protest to the Mach 7 speed.

So far, yes. There might be a way to do it, but I've yet to hear it.

>Also Wyrd Wyrm, about the thousands of penny sized holes, it doesn't matter if the armor is weakened there, because nothing will happen when it is breached, the area behind that armor is by default filled with water. If that design was used, that armor would not only have to be breached, but also blown out of the way in order to hit the engines. <

Water is sucked through jets to manouvre ship.

First submunitions destroy any shielding (prefailed armour holed sufficiently to let in enough water to propel a 1km long ship will not be structurally sound enough to prevent this).

Following sub munitions are sucked in through the resulting gap.

They explode, in water, in a very confined space, inside the ship.

Things exploding, in water, in a confined space, inside a ship. I'm not entirely sure I can come up with a worse scenario for a ship.

Not exactly an impact detonator. When the missile suddenly stops, the warhead flies forward to the front and presses a detonator button.

The front will extend into the ship in most cases as well, creating an even bigger hole.

No... what you explained is how a multisourse radar works, like Aegis. You didn't explain how you can bounce a radar beam off three things consecutively and find the location of each one from the final return.

Chardonay: We don't find all three from one bounce, thats what I just explained. One beam is tasked to detect one location, all the data from the hundreds of beams is compiled to form the complete picture.

Chardonay: We don't find all three from one bounce, thats what I just explained. One beam is tasked to detect one location, all the data from the hundreds of beams is compiled to form the complete picture.

What Chardonay is missing is the supercomputers role in things.

AEGIS was a baby idea of this. Sileetris has drastically increased the data received and how the data is interpolated - not only the bounce, but when the bounces arrive v. when they were projected to arrive, etc.

Supercomputers are definitely a big part of this.

You would need litterally hundreds, if not thousands of sources. And yes, supercomputers would help compiling the data... but you NEED the data. I suppose that you might be able to do this, considering you're post modern, but it's impossible with current tech.

Well, I never said I was modern.......But a crippled version could be used by a modern navy.......

Actually, one of the best things about radar, or anything similar to radar, is that even if it presents a horribly distorted and untrue view to the operator, if it goes into detail it is still quite useful. Distortion is in the eye of the beholder, and if the beholder has no other form of senses, they see no distortion. For that reason, a missile can be guided by badly bent and innaccurate radar because it is basing all its decisions on it, and views itself in relation to it. To get from point A to point B, a missile simply sees which direction brings it closer, it doesn't matter that the operator sees them several miles away from their actual position. True to life accuracy isn't as important as detail, if a radar with exact, true to life scale and layout can't detect a stealth plane, whats the point of using it in combat(out of combat is different)?

Sileetris, while I give you credit for thinking up your system, I believe I've detected flaws.

With passive stealth, both the kind that breaks up radar returns and absorbs them, you get an incomplete picture at best, so not only is it likely (in the case of NS aircraft that use stealth) that you're going to get back only a couple of small pieces of the ball, they're probably not going to be the same "color". This is damn confusing to pretty much any radar (and hence confusing to the operater and missiles the radar guides) and most radars are programmed to dismiss that kind of signal as a "ghost" return. You can combat this by turning up that gain on a radar, but doing that amps up the power and by the time you can get a solid return you're killing every bird and frying the electronics of every aircraft in the vicinity, including your own.

As for detecting active stealth, I don't think that's possible, unless of course your radars get returns on air molecules, in which you'd be blinding your own detection system. The Radar/Sonar Black Hole argument doesn't work because of the fact that you simply don't get returns on things like air and water, radars and sonars work by trying to detect what isn't supposed to be there. Active stealth like Athena Pallas works by simulating what is supposed to be there, hence why radars don't detect aircraft using such a system.

Now, a smart aircraft designer will use both active and passive stealth, so it takes hugely expensive and complex systems involving all (and probably extremely advanced) aspects of C3i to cover a relatively limited area of airspace.

Passive stealth is detected because they can't absorb radar perfectly. All those chopped up ghost signals coming from one point signify theres something there. As opposed to air where you get no return at all. We avoid having to turn up the gain by using multiple sources; one uber-fry everything radar could detect it easily, but so can 20 normal radar pulses compared to eachother. The difference between a stealth plane and a seagull is apparant(not only because seagulls can't travel mach 1....) because a stealth plane doesn't give back the same radar signature every time, whereas a seagull will.

You don't get returns on air(water you get some, especially if its choppy) but you do lose power. When you hit something solid you lose a whole lot more power but you get a return. Pallas Athena and similar systems are designed to combat normal radar, which comes straight-on from one point(or straight-on from many seperate points), but in this case the radar is coming from angles and many points. Thinking it is normal radar, it responds with a straight-on empty signal, but that is nowhere near correct in this case because they assume the sender is in a direct path. They end up sending their decoy signal to a bounce point, thinking that is where the sender is. The sender, who isn't at the point they sent it to, is tipped off by an obviously wrong return. In essence, active stealth gives itself away by default because it has no proper way to respond.

I'm still seeing holes in this system.

1) An F-117 only returns, at most, 30% of the source signal. RAM probably reduces that signal to a point where the signal that the source gets back is minimal. The 5th and 6th generation stealth aircraft that are prevelant in NS are even worse for radars trying to get a strong return.

2) Pulse Doplar radars are omni-directional send/recieve. This means that while you can configure them to send a direct beam to a relay, it's no different from a normal radar and by bouncing it off a relay you're weakening any correct return that can be futher weakened by passive stealth.

3) I'm just going to quote NE, he explains it better than I do:

Both these systems were rendered vulnerable by a new form of radar pioneered by Sileetris. Designed specifically to defeat Active Radar Canceling sets that had progressed to the point where they return a signature of empty air rather than simply a blank space, it used that very capability against them. Immediately, the Dominion and the UCSNE met to discuss this threat. Together, they were able to design a software update that would allow Athena MkII systems and up to identify and counter such radars by producing the correct return for empty air rather than the tell-tale ARC-response.

Rather than stopping there, however, the two nations took it one step further, producing a fourth Mark of Athena Stealth System, dubbed Pallas Athena. An active radar canceling system, Pallas Athena is based around a superconducting "Cold Frame" computer of Dominion manufacture. Using primarily USCNE software, Pallas Athena cycles 600-times per second, responding to inbound radar signals with the appropriate return for the atmospheric conditions in which the aircraft is currently operating.

Pallas Athena, however, combines the RCS-modifying function of Athena MkIII, allowing it to appear to be other aircraft, or atmospheric phenomena with the radar ghost function of the Michael TSCS, allowing it to project false returns. This means that an aircraft equipped with Pallas Athena could appear to be escorting a B-52H heavy bomber into enemy territory, however, when enemy fighters, or SAM sites come into range and attempt to engage, it could return to its ARC mode, and dissapear. If facing threat-force fighters, it could then engage with a missile shot. If the targets were SAM sites, then Anti-Radiation Missiles could be employed.

That's still direct return.

In order to fool Sileetris' radar, you would have to have a system which sent out thousands of false images on thousands of different vectors in order to recombine at each different site as whatever you were trying to be. On top of that, you need perfect absorbtion, as discrepancies are going to show up because of the linked-resolution of Sileetris' system. The larger the fleet, the more sendings and receivings, the more exact a picture has to be to fool the system.

In other words, to each ship in the fleet, the return would have to be exactly the same, regardless of the different distance factored in, in a manner which would fool all the supercomputers and their many comparisons of data per second, repeatedly, even when each ship knows their movement and sending rate, and what each is getting back.

In short - nope, doesn't work, try again. You might fool one ship or one station, but each additional increases the data geometricly, and your system is unable to produce such a signal with that precision.

1) I just explained, a strong signal is unnecessary when many weak signals compared to each other reveal the same thing. The information returned by the radar is compiled and analyzed by a supercomputer that can examine all the ghost signals and determine logically which are real, it isn't like a standard radar that simply shows you one set of returned data with the 'glitches' cut out.

2) The idea of sending the signal to bounce off something first is that the enemy doesn't realize where the actual source is. As well as providing returns from multiple points of view.

3) That info is a bit out of date, the radar he was referring to was one of my earlier systems. HSCDEADGR will defeat any version of Pallas Athena guaranteed and NE is aware of it......

Vastiva gets the idea at least :) although even fooling one unit would be difficult, the best you could do is maybe cause their returns to flicker.

I'll invest billions just to have production rights when it comes out.

1) I just explained, a strong signal is unnecessary when many weak signals compared to each other reveal the same thing. The information returned by the radar is compiled and analyzed by a supercomputer that can examine all the ghost signals and determine logically which are real, it isn't like a standard radar that simply shows you one set of returned data with the 'glitches' cut out.

2) The idea of sending the signal to bounce off something first is that the enemy doesn't realize where the actual source is. As well as providing returns from multiple points of view.

3) That info is a bit out of date, the radar he was referring to was one of my earlier systems. HSCDEADGR will defeat any version of Pallas Athena guaranteed and NE is aware of it......

Vastiva gets the idea at least :) although even fooling one unit would be difficult, the best you could do is maybe cause their returns to flicker.

Theres one more problem with Pallas Athena - delay. It has to absorb the signal sent, consider which is to be sent back, and transmit. This causes a delay. Even one-six hundreth of a second delay, repeated constantly from a predictable range, would indicate there was a ship there of some sort. At that point, all the readings could be compared and the ship would show up like a backlit walrus.

One unit -could- be fooled, because of the level of comparison. It is still looking at the strong and weak returns to -one- point. The advantage of the system comes when you are looking at returns to dozens of points - sheer numbers exceed the ability of the countermeasure to counter because it has to provide exact returns to too many locales.

"You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all of the time".

First of all, having thousands of pulse doplar radars is prohibitively expensive and having that complex a system makes it more so. Second, even if it weren't, you couldn't have that many radiating in the same air space, it would blind every radar in the area. Third, it says nothing about direct return, just that the method of return was adjusted. Fourth, pulse doplars still radiate energy further than it can read returns, so Pallas knows where the radar is even before it enters detection range, which means it can differentiate between a relay and the actual radar. Pallas is configured to remember where the radars are and return it to the correct one, which is what NE meant when he mentioned the software fix.

Production rights to what?

Also, Pallas has 400 Crays worth of computing power, which means it has 400 gigahertz worth of power, doing twenty returns is a snap.

Also, Pallas has 400 Crays worth of computing power, which means it has 400 gigahertz worth of power, doing twenty returns is a snap.

Making it decisively future tech, so really this doesn't concern many people here.

Making it decisively future tech, so really this doesn't concern many people here.

The F-22 radar has 200 Crays worth of computing power, military hardware does not use desktop processors. It's well within the confines of the 2020 limit.

EDIT: Oh, you'll be interested to know that there will be an EW pod for the B-52 that does the exact same thing as Pallas. It will be operational by next year.

First of all, having thousands of pulse doplar radars is prohibitively expensive and having that complex a system makes it more so. Second, even if it weren't, you couldn't have that many radiating in the same air space, it would blind every radar in the area. Third, it says nothing about direct return, just that the method of return was adjusted. Fourth, pulse doplars still radiate energy further than it can read returns, so Pallas knows where the radar is even before it enters detection range, which means it can differentiate between a relay and the actual radar. Pallas is configured to remember where the radars are and return it to the correct one, which is what NE meant when he mentioned the software fix.

And this is exactly why you fail miserably with multiple sources - there are many sources reading, not one. Pallas returns correctly to one, it's going to return incorrectly to others, the supercomputer will catch it, and the invisibility is eliminated.

Each radar on each vessel is doing this - send, receive, compare. So your cost statement is removed.

Who cares if you know about it beforehand? You enter it, you start failing to give correct returns, and you are found out.

In short, Pallas is overwhelmed by this and is useless as a countermeasure.

Also, Pallas has 400 Crays worth of computing power, which means it has 400 gigahertz worth of power, doing twenty returns is a snap.

Considering the system takes into account weak and strong returns, you're talking about upwards of two hundred million returns per second per impact to diverse sources. And again, the matter of pause is there - the more sources, the longer the pause as the system has to discern each individual counterpulse and send it.

Still way too low, Pallas is still discovered rapidly in any mode.

Not only does pallas athena need to calculate the return that should be recieved if the vehicle weren't there (which is virtually impossible, you would need to be scanning with active radar to find the probable return) but you would also need to actively negate the incoming signal... I've heard of people attempting to do this by transmitting a beam in antiphase, but that wouldn't work with a frequency-shifting radar and would also require the skin of the aircraft to be litterally covered with transmitters. Also, the active negation of one radar return would get picked up by a detached passive sensor array.... though it is concievable that you could produce the return on direct line of sight back to the transmitter, if you don't know where the reciever is you can't target the return propperly.

And as for Sileetris's system... I admit it would be possible to pick up a moving object using the radar by comparing previous returns to current returns... but that would only really work if the object being detected was moving rather quickly... a slow moving vehicle would blend into the clutter. And the return wouldn't be accurate enough to actually determain what it is. And the radar would need to have been scanning for a while previously in order to get a baseline reading. But as a long range, fixed, constantly active system... I suppose it would be able to detect stealthed aircraft at a large enough range for smaller, more powerful focused arrays to target the bogeys.

Chardonay simply uses a series of high powered radar transmitters and thousands of passive receivers scattered allong the coastline, which then relay the returns back to a command post where a picture is formed.

It knows where the source radars are and it knows where the relays are, how can it give incorrect returns? If it knows what to expect it simply can't give false returns unless programmed to do so. Twenty radars isn't going to overwhelm the latest Athlon 64, never mind 400 Ghz worth of RISC processors.

The F-22 radar has 200 Crays worth of computing power, military hardware does not use desktop processors. It's well within the confines of the 2020 limit.

EDIT: Oh, you'll be interested to know that there will be an EW pod for the B-52 that does the exact same thing as Pallas. It will be operational by next year.

Let us hope that someone does not come up with Sileetris' radar system in the meantime, because it will completely shut down Pallas and require a new method of EW.

If you don't know where the reciever is, how can you target the return on it?

Considering the system takes into account weak and strong returns, you're talking about upwards of two hundred million returns per second per impact to diverse sources. And again, the matter of pause is there - the more sources, the longer the pause as the system has to discern each individual counterpulse and send it.

Still way too low, Pallas is still discovered rapidly in any mode.

Millions of returns per second? Do me a favor and watch the weather report some time, the cloud movement you see is detected by pulse doplar radars. You'll notice the updates come rather slowly, that's because even large pulse doplar radars don't have the processing power to update as fast as they get returns. As it is, Sileetris has admitted he's not below the 2020 tech line, so his system isn't something I need to worry about.

But how would you defeat a system with multiple, detatched active and passive sensors?

Vastiva: The Russians came up with something similar in the '80s, there isn't a working example of it in operation, so the feasibility of such a radar system isn't likely to fix itself in the near future.

Chardonney: My point was that it does know where the radars are, unless of course Sileetris has come up with some way to mask outgoing radio waves and still get a return.

But how would you defeat a system with multiple, detatched active and passive sensors?

The radars are the return points, a radar still radiates detectable energy even when it's turned away from an aircraft, so it's not hard to determine their position. Passive sensors are only good against heat sources and actively radiating radars, stealth aircraft minimize both if they're to be effective.

Millions of returns per second? Do me a favor and watch the weather report some time, the cloud movement you see is detected by pulse doplar radars. You'll notice the updates come rather slowly, that's because even large pulse doplar radars don't have the processing power to update as fast as they get returns. As it is, Sileetris has admitted he's not below the 2020 tech line, so his system isn't something I need to worry about.

Perhaps you missed the line about the system taking into account both strong AND weak returns, meaning not only the direct lines, but the bounces it can expect, the later pulses, etc. In other words, you not only have to send back a false signal, but a false signal that reflects correctly off each object the system already expects to be there.

You can't do it.

As to the clouds - you figure civilian weather radar works the same as military gear? Naive.

Vastiva: The Russians came up with something similar in the '80s, there isn't a working example of it in operation, so the feasibility of such a radar system isn't likely to fix itself in the near future.

Chardonney: My point was that it does know where the radars are, unless of course Sileetris has come up with some way to mask outgoing radio waves and still get a return.

Many Russian systems failed because of a lack of computing power and corruption in government and suppliers, naught else. They have superior mathematical ability, always have. Sileetris does not suffer from such difficulties.

Perhaps you missed the line about the system taking into account both strong AND weak returns, meaning not only the direct lines, but the bounces it can expect, the later pulses, etc. In other words, you not only have to send back a false signal, but a false signal that reflects correctly off each object the system already expects to be there.

You can't do it.

As to the clouds - you figure civilian weather radar works the same as military gear? Naive.

There isn't much difference, if anything civilian tech is always updated from a military migration. As it is, there isn't, and won't be, a computer that can do floating point calculations that fast for at least twenty years, if not more. That's above my tech bracket, so I'm not going to worry about his system. Anyway, I've brought this to NE's attention, he knows his own system better than I do, so he'll explain it better.

I meant passive radar. My recievers and transmitters are widely separate. Stealth aircraft reduce the radar return to the TRANSMITTER, and usually scatter stronger returns away from the transmitter. RAM doesn't actually do too much, almost all of the stealth is in the shape. by separating the two, the recievers can pick up those scatters.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_42/b3854113.htm

Aditionally... Pallas athena practically IS an active radar system... passive systems would ahve a feild day.

It depeds on the mode it operates in, a sensor suite would have to be dedicated to each mode of the Pallas system and if things really got hairy it could just go pure jamming and put out enough power to fry any radar within active cancellation range.

Greetings From Criminal Minds. We would love to assist your nation and any nations willing to devise such wepons. See as though we are too busy makig money in our country to build our own. So We would gladly fund this project of your in exchange for being one of the first to get our hands on the finished product. Just let us know the cost and we will see if it is in our best interest.

It depeds on the mode it operates in, a sensor suite would have to be dedicated to each mode of the Pallas system and if things really got hairy it could just go pure jamming and put out enough power to fry any radar within active cancellation range.

First, if you KNOW what is going to be produced in the next 20 years, I'd like to get the lottery numbers from you, you must be psychic.

Pallas has three problems so far - delay, activity, multiple sources. We could go into how the skin has to be solid transmitters and any scuff, mark, burn, etc would render the entire completely useless, but I'm sure you know all about that already.

Yep, you could turn on your radar and hope the frying works. But seeing as that problem has been around for quite some time, and most people know how a fuse works, a solution is likely to be had long before a Doujin is built.

There isn't much difference, if anything civilian tech is always updated from a military migration. As it is, there isn't, and won't be, a computer that can do floating point calculations that fast for at least twenty years, if not more. That's above my tech bracket, so I'm not going to worry about his system. Anyway, I've brought this to NE's attention, he knows his own system better than I do, so he'll explain it better.

Computers, you say, aren't going to advance that much in 20 years... hmmm... lets look backwards... 1980 to 2004... you sure about that prediction? You are aware of the various advances in computer technology, the new directions?

Want to recant now?

[You can't compare Pallas and a Doujin. Pallas will have an operational counterpart next year, there will never be a Doujin IRL because it's an absolute resource hog that's too expensive to build in any setting except for NS.

And no, I don't care to recant. There wasn't much in the way of serious computer breakthroughs until the 1980s and even then the technology wasn't still up to Moore's Law standards. As it is, current processors aren't going to be doubling once every 18 months ever again, they've hit stratospherical growth limit. It's why both Intel and AMD are going to be introducing MPCs in the next couple of years. As for non-commercial processor archetectures like RISC, there hasn't been a major update in 15 years, just slow and steady speed upgrades.]

I've attached a diagram showing why its impossible to track HSCDEADGR with passive radar.....

If you want to continue the whole radar discussion btw, I think it would be more suited to my thread about my fighter(see sig), instead of a thread about developing anti-capship torpedos.

Nnnngh...
*rubs eyes*

Ok, SS called me here, but can someone outline the problems here for me?

Oh, and to be honest, I didn't invent Athena. Stephen Coonts did. For those of you who don't know, he's an author. A very good author. Wrote flight of the intruder, among other things. Minotaur was a great spy novel about designing a replacement for the intruder, sort of like the A/X. In this he came up with a system called Athena, which I assume you all know the specifics of now. It appeared again in Fortunes of War, where Japanese stealth aircraft used it to great effect against the F-22. I thought this was a great idea, and decided that it was probably above 2020 tech. Later, after talking about it with a number of nations, I decided it was modern tech, and it came out with my first self designed fighter.

Now, before you start calling bullshit, that's just some writer, let me point you to something the AF wants to deploy.


ELECTRONIC BATTLEFIELD: Building the EB-52



July 28, 2004: The U.S. Air Force is working to introduce an electronic-warfare (EW) version of the B-52 bomber as soon as possible. Service officials are reworking current budgets to accelerate the development and fielding of an under-wing electronics pod that can precisely jam enemy radars over long distances. An initial purchase of 12 pods, along with modifying 16 B-52s to carry them, would take place in the 2005 budget, with a follow-on request the following year to buy an additional 24 pods and modify another 60 aircraft.

Only the B-52 can carry a pod big enough to pack in the electronics gear necessary to complete the mission. B-52s will have to be extensively modified to put out enough power through a wing pylon to do the job. A larger pod also has an advantage, since designers can build larger antennas to more effectively perform jamming and other tasks rather than trying to cram them into a smaller space for a pod designed to be carried by a fighter. Fighters don’t have excess electronic power to spare, either. With four crew positions, the B-52 also carries enough people to effectively manage electronic warfare attacks against advanced air defense missile systems being sold and deployed by Russia.

Since the B-52 presents one of the largest radar returns of any U.S. military aircraft in service, putting high-powered jamming equipment on the plane is a logical step. The B-1B and B-2 were designed from the ground up with lower radar cross-sections for enhanced survivability and they would be much larger targets with external EW pods.

The new EW pod would be able to deceive enemy radars in several ways, including altering radar return signals to change a penetrating aircraft’s speed, range, and location. It would be able to produce false targets and actively generate signals to [b]partially or completely cancel out radar returns.[b]

EB-52s would also be capable of carrying cruise missiles with high-power microwave (HPM) warheads to scramble surface to air missile system computers. Initially, the aircraft would use HPM versions of the newer, stealthy JASSM missile and the older, battle-tested Conventional Air-Launched Cruise Missile (CALCM). Later, the EB-52 would carry a number of smaller-sized MALD missiles carrying HPM warheads. The baseline MALD missile is roughly 90 inches long, 6 inches in diameter, with a wingspan of 25 inches and weighs in at 89 pounds at launch. Using a miniature turbojet engine, MALD can fly more than 460 kilometers and costs around $30,000 per missile. For comparison, the JASSM missile is 168 inches long, weighs in at 2250 pounds, and costs around $400,000 per unit. It was designed to carry a 1,000 lb warhead to a range of of at least 320 kilometers – Doug Mohney


So, what are the issues here? I'm not a frigging engineer, so if it's something extremely technical, don't bother.

Basically, my point is that since the athena system wouldn't know WHERE the reciever is, it wouldn't be able to tailor it's countermeasures to defeat a radar system with separated recievers and transmitters. Against airborn radar transievers, yes, it might be possible to cancil out a single radar, but I really doubt it would be able to engage multiple platforms that way. Producing false targets and jamming are legitimate, and there are ways to counter them (multiple recievers, frequency jumping, increasing gain)... it's the active canciling that bothers me

Also... Coonts isn't actually that good. he's decent =)

There isn't much difference, if anything civilian tech is always updated from a military migration. As it is, there isn't, and won't be, a computer that can do floating point calculations that fast for at least twenty years, if not more. That's above my tech bracket, so I'm not going to worry about his system. Anyway, I've brought this to NE's attention, he knows his own system better than I do, so he'll explain it better.

Well, currently the fastest (supercomputer) can do 40960 gigaflops (or 40.9 teraflops), and the next supercomputer being desinged and built is supposed to be capable of 100 teraflops. *shrug*

Millions of calculations per second is going to stress even that fast of a computer and that supercomputer can't fit into an aircraft, now can it? Fitting sixty RISC processors into an aircraft isn't a problem, fiting a few hundred or thousand most certainly is.

there will never be a Doujin IRL because it's an absolute resource hog that's too expensive to build in any setting except for NS.


You do realize, this one sentence effectively terminates any arguement you have ever had about the "realism" of a system of any sort?

Gotta love it when you do my work for me.

Well, currently the fastest (supercomputer) can do 40960 gigaflops (or 40.9 teraflops), and the next supercomputer being desinged and built is supposed to be capable of 100 teraflops. *shrug*

Nice sinking of arguement there.

Millions of calculations per second is going to stress even that fast of a computer and that supercomputer can't fit into an aircraft, now can it? Fitting sixty RISC processors into an aircraft isn't a problem, fiting a few hundred or thousand most certainly is.

Well, thank you again for proving that Pallas Athena isn't going to work against Sileetris' system. Please, continue.

Nnnngh...
*rubs eyes*

Ok, SS called me here, but can someone outline the problems here for me?

Oh, and to be honest, I didn't invent Athena. Stephen Coonts did. For those of you who don't know, he's an author. A very good author. Wrote flight of the intruder, among other things. Minotaur was a great spy novel about designing a replacement for the intruder, sort of like the A/X. In this he came up with a system called Athena, which I assume you all know the specifics of now. It appeared again in Fortunes of War, where Japanese stealth aircraft used it to great effect against the F-22. I thought this was a great idea, and decided that it was probably above 2020 tech. Later, after talking about it with a number of nations, I decided it was modern tech, and it came out with my first self designed fighter.

Now, before you start calling bullshit, that's just some writer, let me point you to something the AF wants to deploy.



So, what are the issues here? I'm not a frigging engineer, so if it's something extremely technical, don't bother.

Too many returns to effectively fake - Sileetris' system does not take one return, or one direction of return, but all radar returns from multiple angles.

Frankly I'm not going to worry about this radar of his, it's so far out of my tech bracket it isn't even funny. Hell, I'm not even sure it's in NE's tech bracket, any of them.

Whereas an effective Pallas Athena that works the way you say it does against multiple targets is only 2050? Lol... you haven't addressed any of my concerns about multiple passive recievers with a few powerful active emmittors.

Don't bother him, he got all pissed off when he lost the arguement on the other thread(linked in my sig, the valefor one).

"I get a Doujin and Pallas Athena - but you can't have countermeasures because they're future-tech, outside my bracket!"

Mmmmhmmmm. Mighty selective in that decision making process... sometimes you gotta suck up that your technology is (a) outdone (b) outdated (c) outthought or (d) outside your "tech bracket".

Which really doesn't make sense in the first place. If the first Doujin hull was laid in 2000 and completed in 30 years, its 2030 (at least) for you.. how many have been built, at 30 years a pop? Do you really want to go that direction?

Lack of consistancy is killing your arguements. If someone makes a system, it's going to get countered within two years tops, less with espionage and a decent foe. So Pallas is not perfect and isn't going to be, particularly against someone technologically oriented. Superior technology wins wars, not superior age or superior numbers. And in this case, someone has puzzled out a countermeasure. Deal.

Ok, I don't see how the Doujin vessel proves sh*t about Pallas except for dumbass whining on both sides.

1. The Doujin is possible, should any nation have the need for a ship that size and trillions of dollars of resources to spend. But if you want to argue that one, take it up with Doujin.

2. Sileetris admitted his radar, when mounted on fighters, was out of SS's tech bracket. However, I run at multiple ones, with a 'modern' (now-2015) and a postmodern (2015-2050). That is only out of the modern tech bracket. However, in my postmodern stuff, Sileetris' radar is a very real threat.

3. As for the backscatter radars, Athena knows the radar profile of the aircraft. Before a mission, the computer accesses the fighter's master computers, and determines what kind of aircraft it is, what it is carrying, and so on. So, when Radar A transmits it, Athena figures out the direction the signal is coming from, figures out where things would be bouncing, and then transmits energy in the proper direction.

However, this takes some huge amounts of calculations, and whenever systems like these (Especially multiple ones, and OTH-B) are used in RPs, Athena has a tendency to fail, or even worse, crash. This is why my aircraft also use passive stealth features (No horizontal tail, few right angles, RAM, so on, so forth). Athena can also be easily defeated by just damaging the aircraft. A good portion of the craft gets damaged, well, hope nobody is doing radar readings from there.

Oh, and Sileetris's radar is not the modern counter. It's _Taiwan's NPI Radar.

*Waits for others to rip post apart*

"I get a Doujin and Pallas Athena - but you can't have countermeasures because they're future-tech, outside my bracket!"

Mmmmhmmmm. Mighty selective in that decision making process... sometimes you gotta suck up that your technology is (a) outdone (b) outdated (c) outthought or (d) outside your "tech bracket".

Which really doesn't make sense in the first place. If the first Doujin hull was laid in 2000 and completed in 30 years, its 2030 (at least) for you.. how many have been built, at 30 years a pop? Do you really want to go that direction?

Lack of consistancy is killing your arguements. If someone makes a system, it's going to get countered within two years tops, less with espionage and a decent foe. So Pallas is not perfect and isn't going to be, particularly against someone technologically oriented. Superior technology wins wars, not superior age or superior numbers. And in this case, someone has puzzled out a countermeasure. Deal.

Yeah its pretty funny when people say that they only play with xyxy year tech, does time stand still in NS? Or does the tech year just stand still.

1. Everything about the doujin is possible but the guns. I hate the guns.
2. I know. he does, however, claim that a modernversion would work, albeit in larger vehicles. I don't dispute that, I just think there are cheaper and more effective ways to detect stealthed aircraft.
3. So it negates all EM emmissions? That's amaizing... does it use a terrain following radar? Surface search radar? Any active emmissions will light the thing up. Further, a aircraft mounted system like that would have very specific power limits. By simply boosting the gain, using powerful ground based radar for illumination, Athena could be burned through really easily.

1. Yeah, talking to Vavista.
2. Of course, and the best way to do that is with NPI, because it's cheap, doens't require much existing mods to radar, and can be used on aircraft.
3. My aircraft, when using Athena, can use radar, but they have to turn off transmitters on part of the nose to use it. However, in full stealth situations, the aircraft use a downlink from a satellite (When possible), or LIDAR. Sometimes passive radars are used, but not often.

If by power you mean computer power, well, yeah, you turn on a very powerful radar, it's gone. But if you mean electrical power, well, my aircraft have so many systems that the aircraft can use the turbines to generate electricity... And when you need power for stealth systems, it's common sense you can't be flying too fast anyway (IR signature, airwake, so on, so forth)

However, Athena is also very useful for Wild Weasel missions, because you can 'firefly' your signature, wait for them to turn on a high power radar, and then hit them with a HARM. But basically, you start using huge radars, well, what aircraft isn't screwed?

I'm not actually sure how NPI works... not well aquainted with it.

An aircraft using athena could not use active radar... it would light up on enemy passive sensors like a christmas tree, and LIDAR can be detected passively too.

By power, I meant electrical power... athena can only produce so much power... a very powerful AWACs or ground based radar could burn right through it. Not only can a plane never produce as much power as a ground based radar can draw on, but the actual emmitter can't draw enough to counter a powerful active search.

athena as active canciling is useless against radar systems with scattered transmitters and recievers... I have said that before, and no one has managed to produce evidence to the contrary. Athena as an advanced ECM jammer is possible.

Talk to _Taiwan for NPI info.

Athena is active cancelling only for use against aircraft and some naval radars. Otherwise it's for ECM, wild weasel stuff.

The NPI (No-Probability-Intercept) series of radars are a follow-on to the LPI radars of last century. The AN/APG-77 mounted on the F/A-22 is a LPI radar. LPI radars are very hard to detect, as they change frequency and spectrum very quickly, fooling other radars that detect the waves into thinking they are background noise.

While this was fine for that period in time, Moore's Law kicked into action and computing power increased to the point where even these LPI radars could be detected and rendered susceptible to active radar cancellation. To regain the technolgical advantage, NPI radars have been developed with processing powers of several magnitudes greater than LPI radars to generate more complex signal and change frequency/spectrum many times more quickly.

That's pretty much what NPI is : a follow-on to LPI.

[Bah, Moore's Law is dead.]

"I get a Doujin and Pallas Athena - but you can't have countermeasures because they're future-tech, outside my bracket!"

Mmmmhmmmm. Mighty selective in that decision making process... sometimes you gotta suck up that your technology is (a) outdone (b) outdated (c) outthought or (d) outside your "tech bracket".

Which really doesn't make sense in the first place. If the first Doujin hull was laid in 2000 and completed in 30 years, its 2030 (at least) for you.. how many have been built, at 30 years a pop? Do you really want to go that direction?

Lack of consistancy is killing your arguements. If someone makes a system, it's going to get countered within two years tops, less with espionage and a decent foe. So Pallas is not perfect and isn't going to be, particularly against someone technologically oriented. Superior technology wins wars, not superior age or superior numbers. And in this case, someone has puzzled out a countermeasure. Deal.

If a Doujin is laid down in 2000 it's 2000 tech, you don't lay down a ship with the hope that the required technology is going available by the expected fitting out date, that's a good way to waste resources. As for Pallas, I point -again- to the new B-52 pods, that's well inside my tech bracket, so I have absolutely no reason to treat Pallas as outside my tech bracket. And I don't have a problem with people being able to counter Pallas, I use the one radar that is in my tech bracket that can manage to counter Pallas.

there isn't just one radar...

[As far as I know, there's only one radar in my tech bracket that can deal effectively with Pallas. I have no doubt that there are plenty beyond what I RP, but that makes sense considering that there's a greater pool of technology available.

I believe he means the one radar that can be used by a single fighter...

Unless someone else has something I have not heard of yet (And I don't think there is, because people tend to flaunt Athena related stuff in front of me before I buy it or counter it.)

SS, don't snarl at me, I'm modern tech too, and we have radar systems that can defeat Athena. Airborn radar systems. Not fighter based, but definately airborn.

[Oh, well that's nothing incredibly special. Hell, give an E-767 enough of a computer upgrade or switch out the radar with a large LIDAR array and anything using Pallas or similar that comes into the area is screwed. And I wasn't snarling, if I were I would have used... less than polite words to go with those italics. I was just emphasizing a point.]