By: Mercurius
- 8th September 2014 at 15:08Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not to forget; in particular fields, public domain (which academia is) state-of-art lags years behind industrial state-of-art.
I do not think that is a fair generalisation. Take someone like Douglas Barrie, the Senior Fellow for Military Aerospace and the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Until a few years ago he worked for Aviation Week, and these days can still be seen at aerospace and defence exhibitions gathering information just as zealously as he did in earlier days.
The very existence of open-source intelligence gathering shows that public-domain information sources can sometimes be as useful and timely as traditional intelligence sources. I can think of a few instances when information from open source files was news to the 'spooks'.
By: halloweene
- 8th September 2014 at 18:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
you mean this one ???? http://indiandefence.com/threads/eurofighter-typhoon-v-s-dassault-rafale-analysis.22158/page-949
but they say it 10 nm not 20 nm , also passive sensor here could mean the rafale FSO or DDG-ng rather than spectrA , also the range is too short so may be possible to attack target without knowing exact range because missiles dont have to fly a ballistic course ,just like when pilot using helmet mounter system to lock target and launch aim-9X https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpBpzuDRt0A ( btw Picard isnot a pilot , he lying if he said so )
CAN YOU POSTED A PICTURE OF the conversation between you and the pilot on FB here ? ( screen shot )
By: Mercurius
- 8th September 2014 at 19:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
By all means, what is in the public domain may well be as much information as competitors/intelligence agencies have on a particular item/subject.
But that is not typically as much information as is held internally by the company developing the product in question.
OK - I now understand what you meant by your use of the word 'industrial'.
Obviously companies will have a huge amount of data on recent developments on file. But some can be quite bold in publicising their advanced R&D concepts. MBDA regularly holds exhibitions to publicise many of the future concepts it is studying.
New
Posts: 4,472
By: Nicolas10
- 8th September 2014 at 19:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Submarines can measure target range and speed using passive sonar, so I seek no reason why the same could not be done using a sufficiently accurate ESM system.
The way subs measure course & distance is completely different to DRFM ranging. You have to identify it in order to know the number of knots per propeller RPM. Then only you can cross speed & different bearings that you have got compared to your own ship to try to guess the target's range. Most of the time you have to change your own course to get an accurate enough figure, and cross fingers the enemy sub doesn't change course too often.
Nic
New
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos
- 8th September 2014 at 20:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
oh i think i understand now , with target on ground you can you use sin cos tan equation to calculate range to target because you know your aircraft altitude and the bearing of target (like 1 angle and 1 edge of the triangle ) but again enemy fighter you cant do that because all you know is bearing ( only know the angle in the triangle )
Exactly.
New
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos
- 8th September 2014 at 20:33Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You are tiresome... I told you on another (indian) forum that i had asked to pilot the distance of the first shoot you mention, even copy/pasted a Facebook dialog i had with him, and you keep denying... A shot mentioned in an article, and a photo illustrating this article do not imply that the shot was done at the exact same moment the photo was taken. When directly involved pilots or industrial engineers are kindly reported to you by forumers, it maybe time for you to realize that facts can contradict your Faith no?
Anw about the above mentioned shot, a picture will be released as soon as pilot got Dassault, french AdA and DGA clearance.
As are you sir. Pilots... journalists... show me hard physical evidence. I asked for the altitude of this 20nm range over the shoulder shot with MICA and everything went quiet. Why? The BS processors burnt out, that's why.
Meanwhile I offer this evidence of a 10nm range shot requiring 2 aircraft and laser:
So all you really have, with entirely passive targeting, is a 7.8nm shot as kindly demonstrated here:
In a defesanet article, a brazilian pilot claimed a rearwards passive shot over a Mirage 2000 C (apparently becuase of the code on screenshots "India", aka RDI radar).
Here is the photo we're discussing about. (on left side mid screen, btw interesting feature is the little red "rocket like" symbol, meaning highest degree of alert from spectra, lil gift info)
[ATTACH=CONFIG]231570[/ATTACH]
So yes, the range was 7.8 NM at the moment the photo was taken.
I know the pilot, talked to him while i was writing about DDM-NG etc. He did confirm me that the effective range of shot was 20NM.
I posted a copy paste of dialog on FB on IDF, still Lukos denied it with arguments like "even pilots tend ro say porkies" "if you trust FB" etc. Complete denial...
It would be tideous for me to search for it again, but you can find it on MMRCA thread on Indian Defence Forum (or typhoon vs Rafale or Typhoon, can't remember)
So thanks, passive targeting will work after you've been killed dozens of times with active targeting from over 20nm away.
Shot was taken at 20nm but somehow the target got to 7.8nm? Okay LOL.
New
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos
- 8th September 2014 at 20:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Submarines can measure target range and speed using passive sonar, so I seek no reason why the same could not be done using a sufficiently accurate ESM system. But right now I do not have the time to search for evidence that ESM systems are being used in this manner, or if the results would be good enough to target a LOAL missile. With the preliminary report on the loss of MH17 due for release about 20 hours from now, I anticipate being rather busy this week.
Submarines are very slow, as are their targets. Torpedoes are also large and sophisticated and can also loop round even if they miss. Non-equivalent comparison.
On a side note, MH17 was lost due to the negligence of civil aviation authorities and procedures and nothing else.
New
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos
- 8th September 2014 at 20:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
By: Amiga500
- 8th September 2014 at 20:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Obviously companies will have a huge amount of data on recent developments on file. But some can be quite bold in publicising their advanced R&D concepts. MBDA regularly holds exhibitions to publicise many of the future concepts it is studying.
By: halloweene
- 8th September 2014 at 21:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As are you sir. Pilots... journalists... show me hard physical evidence. I asked for the altitude of this 20nm range over the shoulder shot with MICA and everything went quiet. Why? The BS processors burnt out, that's why.
Meanwhile I offer this evidence of a 10nm range shot requiring 2 aircraft and laser:
By: mig-31bm
- 9th September 2014 at 03:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Submarines can measure target range and speed using passive sonar, so I seek no reason why the same could not be done using a sufficiently accurate ESM system. But right now I do not have the time to search for evidence that ESM systems are being used in this manner, or if the results would be good enough to target a LOAL missile.
i think you get a little bit of confusion here
there 2 kind of sonar
1 - active sonar ( basically just like radar but it send sound wave rather than electrical wave ) so it can detect range and speed of enemy target
2 - passive sonar doesnot emit but listen to the sound of enemy Submarine or destroyer , however it cannot calculate range to target unless there are many sonar used together using triangulation ( required many sub or Sonobuoy at significant distance from the others , i guess it can still calculate enemy speed due to the sound from propeller ( different ship have different sound )
that not the same as ESM on fighter
Active sonar transducers emit an acoustic signal or pulse of sound into the water. If an object is in the path of the sound pulse, the sound bounces off the object and returns an “echo” to the sonar transducer. If the transducer is equipped with the ability to receive signals, it measures the strength of the signal. By determining the time between the emission of the sound pulse and its reception, the transducer can determine the range and orientation of the object.
. Passive sonar cannot measure the range of an object unless it is used in conjunction with other passive listening devices. Multiple passive sonar devices may allow for triangulation of a sound source.
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sonar.html
also sonar range are actually very very short , it can normally detected a Arleigh Burke from about 6-7 km , and another submarine from 3-4 km
You can shoot at any parameters, the better the parameters, the better the Pk,
a rear shot over 10 nm away the missile range is a limiting factor, depending if the target counter or not.
this missile start out with a negative speed that it will spend all its fuel to rectify before it can do any actual intercept
that depend, in a a rear shot enemy aircraft flying at the missiles so it will have to fly less distance compared to a forward shot but enemy aircraft is flying away
By: mig-31bm
- 9th September 2014 at 03:52Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It is a painful process to scroll up long conversations on FB. I already did once, now you will have to trust me. or not.
Cheers
but if you scroll up the conversation and take a screen shot it not only make your words more believable but also next time when anyone as about it you dont have to explain , just posted that picture
btw if you already did that once you can find that picture and posted it here ? it probably still in your laptop
By: mig-31bm
- 9th September 2014 at 04:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Of course it is!
Not with a second of tracking data, but given a reasonable time frame and choice manoeuvres from the sensing aircraft it is absolutely 100% possible.
Anyone that thinks otherwise is totally brain-dead and should be utterly ignored forthwith.
can you explain how ? like the principal of the method ..etc because
there are many ESM system that allow aircraft to geolocate and attack ground target such as APR-38 ( F-4G ) , APR-45 ( F-4G ) , ALQ-213 (F-16 C/D ) , ELS ( tornado ECR ) , AN/ASQ-239 ( F-35 ) , Falcon Edge ( F-16 block 60 ) , ALR-94 ( F-22 ) ,ALQ-218 ( EA-18G ) but untill now still none declare that they can allow aircraft to attack enemy aircraft without the help from radar or IRST
[ATTACH=CONFIG]231580[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]231581[/ATTACH]
none of that allow one aircraft to calculate range and speed of another aircraft based on ESM alone
Posts: 2,163
By: Amiga500 - 8th September 2014 at 13:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Of course it is!
Not with a second of tracking data, but given a reasonable time frame and choice manoeuvres from the sensing aircraft it is absolutely 100% possible.
Anyone that thinks otherwise is totally brain-dead and should be utterly ignored forthwith.
Posts: 1,348
By: Mercurius - 8th September 2014 at 15:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I do not think that is a fair generalisation. Take someone like Douglas Barrie, the Senior Fellow for Military Aerospace and the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Until a few years ago he worked for Aviation Week, and these days can still be seen at aerospace and defence exhibitions gathering information just as zealously as he did in earlier days.
The very existence of open-source intelligence gathering shows that public-domain information sources can sometimes be as useful and timely as traditional intelligence sources. I can think of a few instances when information from open source files was news to the 'spooks'.
Posts: 2,163
By: Amiga500 - 8th September 2014 at 17:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Now, now... that is a subtle twist on what I said.
By all means, what is in the public domain may well be as much information as competitors/intelligence agencies have on a particular item/subject.
But that is not typically as much information as is held internally by the company developing the product in question.
[As before, this applies to particular fields and is not a broad brush.]
Posts: 4,168
By: halloweene - 8th September 2014 at 18:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Look, I SAID "more than 10 NM" at the time because i wasn't sure to be cleared to say 20 NM.
FSO can't be included in a rearward shot, DDM-NG definitely was.
Sme infos about DDM-NG capabilities (bloggish style and in french, , sorry about that, but it is due to audience : http://www.portail-aviation.com/2014/02/exclusif-le-ddm-ng-un-detecteur-de_8513.html)
Picard is not a pilot, and never claimed to be
The original article is here http://www.defesanet.com.br/rafale/noticia/10893/Shooting-Down-an-Aggressor-on-My-Six--Vive-la-difference-/
It is a painful process to scroll up long conversations on FB. I already did once, now you will have to trust me. or not.
Cheers
Posts: 1,348
By: Mercurius - 8th September 2014 at 19:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
OK - I now understand what you meant by your use of the word 'industrial'.
Obviously companies will have a huge amount of data on recent developments on file. But some can be quite bold in publicising their advanced R&D concepts. MBDA regularly holds exhibitions to publicise many of the future concepts it is studying.
Posts: 4,472
By: Nicolas10 - 8th September 2014 at 19:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The way subs measure course & distance is completely different to DRFM ranging. You have to identify it in order to know the number of knots per propeller RPM. Then only you can cross speed & different bearings that you have got compared to your own ship to try to guess the target's range. Most of the time you have to change your own course to get an accurate enough figure, and cross fingers the enemy sub doesn't change course too often.
Nic
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos - 8th September 2014 at 20:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Exactly.
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos - 8th September 2014 at 20:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As are you sir. Pilots... journalists... show me hard physical evidence. I asked for the altitude of this 20nm range over the shoulder shot with MICA and everything went quiet. Why? The BS processors burnt out, that's why.
Meanwhile I offer this evidence of a 10nm range shot requiring 2 aircraft and laser:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/new-radar-could-boost-rafale39s-export-prospects-318499/
So all you really have, with entirely passive targeting, is a 7.8nm shot as kindly demonstrated here:
So thanks, passive targeting will work after you've been killed dozens of times with active targeting from over 20nm away.
Shot was taken at 20nm but somehow the target got to 7.8nm? Okay LOL.
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos - 8th September 2014 at 20:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Submarines are very slow, as are their targets. Torpedoes are also large and sophisticated and can also loop round even if they miss. Non-equivalent comparison.
On a side note, MH17 was lost due to the negligence of civil aviation authorities and procedures and nothing else.
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos - 8th September 2014 at 20:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
10nm, 7.8nm, 20nm, weren't sure you were cleared... Facebook... FAIL!
Posts: 2,163
By: Amiga500 - 8th September 2014 at 20:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Processes, tools and data.
Concepts don't matter a crap - anyone can dream.
Posts: 2,163
By: Amiga500 - 8th September 2014 at 20:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Indeed.
Its much harder to get range and speed for a slowly moving target from a slowly moving platform.
Posts: 4,168
By: halloweene - 8th September 2014 at 21:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Your usual blah blah...
Posts: 4,168
By: halloweene - 8th September 2014 at 21:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why don't you just ask him by mail? His adress is quoted in article. Stop getting more and more ridiculous please, its becoming no fun...
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos - 8th September 2014 at 22:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Easier, especially for targeting purposes.
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos - 8th September 2014 at 22:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Take a chill pill bro'. Your fake sales pitch no longer works, deal with it.
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos - 8th September 2014 at 22:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why don't I write to an unknown e-mail address and ask or information? Good idea. Real good idea. Fail. Try again.
Posts: 2,014
By: mig-31bm - 9th September 2014 at 03:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
i think you get a little bit of confusion here
there 2 kind of sonar
1 - active sonar ( basically just like radar but it send sound wave rather than electrical wave ) so it can detect range and speed of enemy target
2 - passive sonar doesnot emit but listen to the sound of enemy Submarine or destroyer , however it cannot calculate range to target unless there are many sonar used together using triangulation ( required many sub or Sonobuoy at significant distance from the others , i guess it can still calculate enemy speed due to the sound from propeller ( different ship have different sound )
that not the same as ESM on fighter
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sonar.html
also sonar range are actually very very short , it can normally detected a Arleigh Burke from about 6-7 km , and another submarine from 3-4 km
that depend, in a a rear shot enemy aircraft flying at the missiles so it will have to fly less distance compared to a forward shot but enemy aircraft is flying away
Posts: 2,014
By: mig-31bm - 9th September 2014 at 03:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
but if you scroll up the conversation and take a screen shot it not only make your words more believable but also next time when anyone as about it you dont have to explain , just posted that picture
btw if you already did that once you can find that picture and posted it here ? it probably still in your laptop
Posts: 2,014
By: mig-31bm - 9th September 2014 at 04:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
can you explain how ? like the principal of the method ..etc because
there are many ESM system that allow aircraft to geolocate and attack ground target such as APR-38 ( F-4G ) , APR-45 ( F-4G ) , ALQ-213 (F-16 C/D ) , ELS ( tornado ECR ) , AN/ASQ-239 ( F-35 ) , Falcon Edge ( F-16 block 60 ) , ALR-94 ( F-22 ) ,ALQ-218 ( EA-18G ) but untill now still none declare that they can allow aircraft to attack enemy aircraft without the help from radar or IRST
[ATTACH=CONFIG]231580[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]231581[/ATTACH]
none of that allow one aircraft to calculate range and speed of another aircraft based on ESM alone