clipka wrote:

> Stefan Viljoen schrieb:
> 
>> Makes sense. As far as I know the US military is one of THE most prolific
>> users of the EM spectrum in the world. He's probably got his radar on or
>> in a specific mode - I've read that the "ground tracking" mode on the
>> Hughes / Westinghouse (?) "APG" sets US Navy F-18s (among others) use
>> tend to do this. Apparently the F-22 (or is it the F-35?) have a "burn
>> 'em down" mode on their radars - they are powerful enough to fry the
>> electronics in an enemy plane with a single sweep, instead of shooting it
>> down with a missile.
> 
> Heh, that's cool... they'll never see it coming... they'd better be sure
> to not "burn down" their friendlies though. And enemy fighter jets may
> be hardened against EM radiation. At least I'd expect the newest US
> fighter jets to be.

I'd think that's where IFF would come in. You'd have your radar in some kind
of "auto-burn" mode - first sweep is IFF interrogate, and if the correct
coded response isn't achieved, next sweep is a "burn" sweep.
 
> I guess it'll bee the F-22 though, which in terms of performance as a
> fighter jet seems to be superior to the F-35 (except at being a
> comparatively inexpensive "bread and butter" fighter, which is what the
> F-35 was designed to be). I guess there's a reason why the F-35 is on
> offer to allies, while the F-22 is not.

Well at the prices their quoting, the -22 'd better make coffee, give its
pilot a massage, and take the dog for a walk too.

I'm seriously doubtful about the USAF planning regarding these aircraft. The
F-22 specifically, it is so HORRIBLY expensive, and they have bought much
less than the Air Force generals wanted. If they get into a fight with,
say, China, which has got thousands of Mig-21s and comparable aircraft, I
think they'll get whipped.

The simple reason being the F-22 is so expensive that the budget won't allow
for enough AIM-120's or whatever to be bought. So you got, say, 70 F-22s
sent to Korea or Taiwan for a fight with China (bear with my simplistic
view of international politics.) They take along 200 of the available 600
AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles. They use those to shoot down (perfectly, and at
great range) 175 old, 1950's era MiGs.

But China has a thousand of those cheap aircraft. And the entire USAF has
only 600 AMRAAMs, of which many still have to be shipped to Taiwan or S.
Korea in order to get into the fight.

What happens next? The F-22s go "Winchester" - they have to engage in gun to
gun duels, at low level (where the 60+ year old Chinese Mig-17, for
example, is a KING of maneuverability.) The F-22 now has to go "low and
slow" in the weeds, against a fighter that was DESIGNED for that, while
itself is a beyond-visual-range 30 000 feet plus rather neurotic
thoroughbred. 

It's the Vietnam paradigm all over again, losing a tens of millions of
dollars price F-4 Phantom in blowing up a bamboo bridge that is
reconstructed that very night, with $3 Chinese bicycles once more carrying
ammunition across it for the Viet Cong.

> Hm, are they sure about that? Valve tubes are delicate things, too,
> aren't they? Give the EMP any place to couple in, and the voltages might
> kill the cathodes, I'd guess.

Could be, I'm not sure. I do suspect that valves though, physically larger
and more widely separated than densely packed transistors on a chip, might
have a better survivability? They might "twinge" to different frequencies
on the circuits they are in... plus I'd guess they have a
higher "capacitance" - i. e. they'd be able to absorb more voltage and / or
amperage before failing.

Plus, if they fail, they are much easier to fix, I'd guess. Open the radar
up and simply swop out the ones that have stopped glowing.
-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message