Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: What is considered an authoritative source?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> RE: What is considered an authoritative source? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: What is considered an authoritative source? - 8/16/2019 9:50:17 PM   
ARCNA442

 

Posts: 138
Joined: 4/7/2018
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RoryAndersonWS

I think the structural difference between F-117 and SR-71 shows that fundamentally SR-71 isn't stealthy.



If your only idea of stealth is what the F-117 looks like and you saw an F-22 or F-35 for the first time without being told anything about them, would you think that they are stealthy?

Honestly, the nose chines, canted tail fins, smooth blended body, and wing geometry of the SR-71 are all quite reminiscent of modern stealth aircraft.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PN79

SR-71 and A-12 were never an issue for eastern radars. They were visible very early. The issue was speed and height.


That is far from the impression I got from the documents you linked.

"The radar cross section of the two aircraft in a clean configuration is relative low for both the SR-71 and the A-12"

"North Vietnamese Air Defense Radar networks have tracked the aircraft and have steadily improved their tracking capability"

"the Controller congratulated the Battalion on their being the 'first unit to be able to pick it up and launch"

If detecting an SR-71 was "never an issue" then why did both US and Vietnamese think it worth commenting on?

(in reply to PN79)
Post #: 31
RE: What is considered an authoritative source? - 8/16/2019 10:07:12 PM   
CV60


Posts: 733
Joined: 10/1/2012
Status: offline
The declassified source that I provided (https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/lockheed-a-12-and-sr-71-projects.3780/ ) indicates that the SR-71 could be tracked by the USSR. The issue is not so much whether it could be detected and/or tracked, but rather whether it could be detected with sufficient time to be tactically useful to the defender. Usually, the SR-71's combination of speed and smaller RCS made it impossible or almost impossible to intercept.

(in reply to ARCNA442)
Post #: 32
RE: What is considered an authoritative source? - 8/16/2019 10:07:26 PM   
PN79

 

Posts: 98
Joined: 1/3/2015
Status: offline
There is a difference between tracking the aircraft as air controller and as a SAM operator. Contrary to that F-117 was special in that way that Iraqi and Yugoslav air controllers were not able to track them reliably (if at all). But SR-71 and A-12 were never an issue in detection and observation of their flight path. To "lock" them and engage them with SA-2 was however something completely different as SA-2 has minimal window of opportunity to engage them.

For example Czechoslovak air controllers were easily observing SR-71 flying along West German/East German and West German/Czechoslovak border but MiG-23 trying to intercept it head on was unable to "lock" it.

EDIT: I will add that I don't know what should be ideal RCS in CMANO. I just want to point that actual stealth aircrafts (F-117 and later) are something completely different regarding their abilities.

< Message edited by PN79 -- 8/16/2019 10:14:01 PM >

(in reply to ARCNA442)
Post #: 33
RE: What is considered an authoritative source? - 8/16/2019 11:00:45 PM   
Dfox071


Posts: 17
Joined: 8/8/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PN79

There is a difference between tracking the aircraft as air controller and as a SAM operator. Contrary to that F-117 was special in that way that Iraqi and Yugoslav air controllers were not able to track them reliably (if at all). But SR-71 and A-12 were never an issue in detection and observation of their flight path. To "lock" them and engage them with SA-2 was however something completely different as SA-2 has minimal window of opportunity to engage them.

For example Czechoslovak air controllers were easily observing SR-71 flying along West German/East German and West German/Czechoslovak border but MiG-23 trying to intercept it head on was unable to "lock" it.

EDIT: I will add that I don't know what should be ideal RCS in CMANO. I just want to point that actual stealth aircrafts (F-117 and later) are something completely different regarding their abilities.


They are completely different in as much as the F-117 takes some of what was done on the SR-71, refines it, and adds the discoveries made regarding radar reflection from Petr Ufimtsev. I don't think anyone has suggested that the SR-71 should have a cross section (or more accurately the dB rating) similar to that of the F-117 (approx 0.003 sq.m according to global security). Making such a comparison, respectfully, seems like a straw man.

What has been suggested, and what I advocate for, is that the current level of "low observability" is likely substantially off, and too easily detected, for the SR-71 in reality. Obviously this is difficult to pinpoint for a myriad of reasons, but several have claimed here that the SR-71 is not a stealth aircraft, but this is demonstrably wrong given that the source material, and anecdotes from the era, clearly indicate that low observability was a design goal, and in use the SR-71 was considered something unusual, and difficult to track given it's size.

So, no, no one here is thinking 0.003 Sq.m. On the other hand, the current value of RCS (derived from dB) of 11.5 Sq.m seems unjustifiably large, even for a 100 ft aircraft due to the construction of the SR-71 itself having a substantial focus on low observability. Also, multiple sources indicate the RCS of something around 1 to 2 square meters, and some much lower than that, and none over 10 Sq.m.

Several sources, some first hand from the manufacturer, and some previously classified list the RCS of about 1 Sq.m or about the same as "a man". I, personally, believe these sources to be the most trustworthy.

So, having said that, as I asked way back when, if we are going by the available information, why is the RCS of the SR-71 around 11.5 when no source suggests it's that high, and multiple, reputable sources suggest it is more likely around 1 to 2 Sq. m? What justifies the 11.5 number other than a very basic "look how big it is" argument. Such an argument is not backed by any source whatsoever, right?


< Message edited by Dfox071 -- 8/16/2019 11:02:08 PM >

(in reply to PN79)
Post #: 34
RE: What is considered an authoritative source? - 8/16/2019 11:53:56 PM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 4157
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
I'm just thinking that this is one aircraft type - 3 DB entries, it flies at 80-90,000 feet @ Mach 3 out of reach of the vast majority of potential threats - and is rarely used in scenarios.

Is it a big issue?

_____________________________

Check out our novel, Northern Fury: H-Hour!: http://northernfury.us/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/

(in reply to Dfox071)
Post #: 35
RE: What is considered an authoritative source? - 8/17/2019 12:11:27 AM   
ARCNA442

 

Posts: 138
Joined: 4/7/2018
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

I'm just thinking that this is one aircraft type - 3 DB entries, it flies at 80-90,000 feet @ Mach 3 out of reach of the vast majority of potential threats - and is rarely used in scenarios.

Is it a big issue?


I have to agree that there are much larger problems with much more commonly used DB entries (ie the Nimitz-class armor scheme) and if the OP had posted in the DB3000 thread his information would probably have gone without comment.

However, I don't think that is really the purpose of this thread (just look at the title) - it is more about what information should be considered for the DB. While I side with the OP on the question of the SR-71 RCS, I think this thread is amply demonstrating why the CMANO team tends only edit stuff if they have a black and white number from a published source - doing anything else opens them up to endless debate.

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 36
RE: What is considered an authoritative source? - 8/19/2019 3:53:49 PM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1100
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline
1 sq. m rcs = 0 dbsm.

quote:

'm not sure as to exactly how this translates into a dB measurement, although this 1 Sq. m seems to be around what an F-18 or Rafale would have, and seems considerably better than what's currently in the DB for the SR-71.

(in reply to Dfox071)
Post #: 37
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> RE: What is considered an authoritative source? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.119