[FoRK] "Two faces of the Tea Party"

mdw at martinwills.com mdw at martinwills.com
Sun Jun 27 13:55:25 PDT 2010


>
> On Jun 27, 2010, at 10:19 AM, mdw at martinwills.com wrote:
>>
>> This is an important issue that you fail to understand.  When the
>> external
>> hardpoints are populated, the F-22 loses ALL STEALTH capabilites and
>> becomes a $138 million dollar target.
>
>
> You aren't the first person to think of this. The design intent is that
> the external stores are covered with a disposable shroud or pod that
> maintains the stealth characteristics. Working through the engineering
> details and testing of a stealthy bomb shroud that could be deployed in
> supersonic flight was something planned for after the basic platform was
> released.
>
>

The F-22 is designed to fight in high-g, high speed environments.  Have
you thought through what you are writing?  There is no such thing as a
stealthy bomb shroud and especially in excess of 1000 kts or pulling 6
g's. The majority of the stealth in F-22 is radar absorbing materials and
odd angles when mechanically available.  A 200 - 1000 bomb CANNOT BE MADE
STEALTHY unless carried internally.  It has the radar reflection of a
battleship because it is made out of iron/steel which really likes to
bounce electromagnetic waves.  Cellulose bombs are worthless in
anti-armor/bunker usages.


>> This is wrong.  The SAM's in the 70's were truck mountable only and not
>> shoulder mounted.
>
>
> MANPADS were generally introduced in the 1960s. The A-10 was designed in
> the 1970s. Some design elements of the A-10 only make sense in the context
> of resisting the MANPADS of that era.
>

There were 4 A-10's shot down during Gulf War I -- They were shot down by
surface to air missiles.  Not a single one was shot down by gunfire. 
Although I do note that I made a mistake.. :-(  The titanium bath tub was
designed to stop 23 mm projectiles.

>
>> This is also incorrect. The major funds being spent, are for kinetic
>> kill
>> devices and rail guns.  They have a several hundred miles range, can be
>> LAV/Tank mounted and have the potential to be guided to target in route.
>
>
> Railguns are a long way from battlefield deployment, they haven't even
> worked out the kinks under optimal deployment parameters never mind in a
> form factor that would work on a conventional battlefield.
>

I have friends "in the know", who are working on these platforms for the
firms doing the development for the U.S. Army and U.S. Navy, and they are
closer that you might think. (a rail gun prototype was tested in 2006 by
the Navy).

> The current hyperkinetic battlefield platforms are based on a new kind of
> compact rocket motor. Range is around 10km. While a longer range version
> could be built, I am not aware of any such program (not that I really
> follow these things).
>

This has been under development since the Reagan administration.  It was
one of the concepts for the Star-Wars initiative.  They are currently
being developed under "black budgets" and they already have a space based
working prototype they tested in 1996.

>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FoRK mailing list
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
>

Regards,
Martin





More information about the FoRK mailing list