Thing is, wikipedia at the very least 100% confirms my take on it. Hence, either GP has a much better source, or he's talking about things he just doesn't understand.
No offence, but pulse form of radars is not "new". It's what came with early PESAs. That was in 70s, 40 years ago.
Regardless, you're still talking about search radars anyway. Fire control radar needs to have power to burn through jamming. You're not going to do that with a 60 watt radar against military grade multi-spectrum jammer. Modern ships use radars that are rated in megawatts for this, aircraft usually push into tens of kilowatts range.
It is certainly true that most search radars can operate in low power mode to reduce visibility. It is completely and utterly unfeasible for that kind of power to do anything to a modern jammer. And it is even more unfeasible to expect a fire control radar to get any kind of result with those power ratings.
You should keep on reading till the end then. Wikipedia is knowledgeable enough to tell you exactly what I told you in above post about the actual firing mode. "Fire and forget" means that pilots doesn't have to think about guiding the missile. It doesn't mean that plane's system has the same luxury. In fact, the best known counter action to AIM-120 long range launch is to lock your own fire control radar on the enemy and open fire. This will likely force enemy fighter to flee, and AIM-120 will self destruct without mid life update.
While we don't know the exact specs for obvious reasons, it would take quite a state of art radar to provide accurate fire control data at 200km+. As of typing this, F-22's radar has stated detection range of 100-200km (search radar). Active fire control radar is typically far more limited in range as it has to fire a tight beam and collect far more accurate data. About the only fighter aircraft in existence that can pull off a maneuvre you're describing and is not a dedicated AWACS aircraft with huge radar antenna is MiG-31, which is specifically designed for this task and isn't really a fighter - it's more like an AWACS married to a plane that can launch missiles.
A far more likely scenario is for planes to fire up radars in short bursts one by one to provide mid life updates to one another to confuse the enemy a bit like P-700 missile swarms do, but with interlinked planes taking turns with quick "fire-ups". However this will most likely happen in "danger zone" where enemy can engage as well due to range issues.
There are a LOT of things that retrofits were planned for in case of F-22 program. They were almost all canned because of exploding costs of the program.
Officially F-22 is designed to be used with AIM-120 AMRAAM which is not capable of what you're describing in any of its current or known planned variants. I assume you have some sort of classified information available, as most missiles known to be used in US Air Force today require data from aircraft they're being fired from for both initial and mid life course updates. Their own radar is typically very short range terminal stage one, designed for terminal guidance purposes.
According to news on wired, there's a total of seven aircraft in entire US airfoce that can handle the task. AWACS is incapable of it, they have special retrofitted civilian aircraft with this communications system and standard data link.
Actually the main reason was because our multinationals controlled these just fine until recently, and wars were often used by said multinationals to improve their extraction terms with locals.
And nowadays we cannot really go to open war with China that uses its state companies to do the same thing.
I don't think you know how RADAR works. To get a "lock on" you need radio illlumination. To illuminate, someone, you or someone else needs to radiate energy towards the target. That is what fire control radar does - it fires a thin, concentrated beam of energy at the target in a certain pattern, and tracks the reflections. That is something that F22 cannot use when stealthed. Unless someone else illuminates the target for it, in which case it will need exact data on how illumination was done, or unless target itself radiates energy in which case it can use anti-radiation systems to get a passive lock.
Or clued in politicians with certain agenda diverting attention from things their handlers told them to divert attention from and diverting said attention to things their handlers told them to divert attention to.
I can see this as legit rabidly anti gay politician using this as escape:
"It's the emancipation's fault I got caught having sex with this person dressed as a cowperson. I totally I wanted to order a cowgirl, but I used a politically correct term and got a cowboy instead! It's liberals fault!"
Far more importantly, these are wars fought where people involved actually live. There is a massive disconnect in the Western countries about the entire concept of war, largely driven by mass media.
You see, even modern wars fought by West, like Iraq and Afghanistan are fought on the ground. The main difference is that one party only has army living out the realities of the war, while its civilian population is far away and doesn't have to experience any of the harsh reality of wars. Wars like Iraq and Afghanistan, only the enemy civilians are exposed to the war.
And yes, I know that official propaganda line is that they're not the enemy. It doesn't change the fact that they are treated like enemy civilians of occupied enemy nation, and the fact that they react like such civilians, by widely supporting local guerilla freedom fighters who are fighting asymmetric war against far more powerful invader that has no non-mercenary civilians of its own exposed to the war.
A good question is how much radar data from passive only F22 is to a typhoon that has its active radar powered up. F22 essentially cannot fire up its radar and stay stealthy for obvious reasons, so its passive radar only. The major part of data link is sharing targeting data. F22 is designed to feed off allied aircraft's search and fire control radar data for both target acquisition and weapon guidance.
Not having proper communications link is a bitch, that's certain. But F22 is just not designed to be fighting alongside aircraft it needs to talk to in the first place. It's the silent hunter that doesn't really see anything on its own, and just listens to what allied aircraft tells it via datalink or what it can scrounge up from passive sensor data, and then performs interception based on that data. It apparently can also occasionally fire up its own fire control radar in short pulses to minimize risk of detection, but it's simply not intended to be an actively radiating aircraft.
The stupidity here is that it has no standard NATO datalink for cases where it has to perform other roles. It's one of the reasons why F22 hasn't seen any combat to date. There are no pure air superiority missions in the modern world for US airforce, and F22 is pretty incapable of doing anything properly else because of the way it was designed. Lack of common data link is just one of the design choices that hurts that aircraft really badly when it comes to doing anything else.
Africa is still full of old school wars. We just don't see them talked about on news because it's not really in interests of anyone to have voting sheep know that real wars are still fought, and as a result start thinking that wars aren't about sexy hardware and war heroes and supporting your troops (several from safety of at least one ocean away). Not having modern weaponry, good support base far away from conflict and hatred for your neighbour that can only be born from cohabiting for millenia makes for a wonderful pot dish of war.
100% reliability is not possible with any hardware.
The question is not about being one hundred percent, but being more reliable then other options when measured over large amount of drives, and by how much.
As noted in other places, the issue here is purely physical. You have two key points in any drive: logic (controller) and hardware (platter and read/write head with all related mechanisms in HDD, NAND flash in SSD).
Controllers are far less reliable in SSDs simply because they have to be far more complex. And as various techniques of SSD handling improve, controllers will grow more and more complex, and by extension less and less reliable.
Hardware wise, it's pretty much physics. NAND has far greater issues then HDDs, and that is well documented.
The variable that remains in the equation is manufacturing quality. That's why I pointed out that when at equal manufacturing quality, SSD can't really match HDD in reliability. But they're rarely if ever equal under any circumstances.
That depends. Are you comparing budget WDs or WDs that are positioned in a similar way to intel's, for reliable high end market?
Former may be about even or even worse. Latter, pretty much universally better. This is because both controller and drive technology is significantly more reliable in case of HDD in comparison to NAND flash based SSD.
These are about running games like BF3 at highest quality at those resolutions in 3d (120FPS). Current gen high end chokes unless in SLI when doing this.
Start with monitor. Running something like this needs a good monitor to show the results on. That likely means some sort of 4k 3D 120FPS monitor.
That also means you'll probably want a lot of RAM, a high end i7 and SSD to feed it, and obviously if you're about high fidelity you'll likely drop another 1k on sound card and 5.1 or even 7.1 system to output signal to (through for gamers 7.1 kinda sucks, most games can only do 5.1).
Slashdot Mirror
That's not really hard to "learn" when you're oceans away from everyone who could even remotely oppose you.
Thing is, wikipedia at the very least 100% confirms my take on it. Hence, either GP has a much better source, or he's talking about things he just doesn't understand.
No offence, but pulse form of radars is not "new". It's what came with early PESAs. That was in 70s, 40 years ago.
Regardless, you're still talking about search radars anyway. Fire control radar needs to have power to burn through jamming. You're not going to do that with a 60 watt radar against military grade multi-spectrum jammer. Modern ships use radars that are rated in megawatts for this, aircraft usually push into tens of kilowatts range.
It is certainly true that most search radars can operate in low power mode to reduce visibility. It is completely and utterly unfeasible for that kind of power to do anything to a modern jammer. And it is even more unfeasible to expect a fire control radar to get any kind of result with those power ratings.
You should keep on reading till the end then. Wikipedia is knowledgeable enough to tell you exactly what I told you in above post about the actual firing mode. "Fire and forget" means that pilots doesn't have to think about guiding the missile. It doesn't mean that plane's system has the same luxury. In fact, the best known counter action to AIM-120 long range launch is to lock your own fire control radar on the enemy and open fire. This will likely force enemy fighter to flee, and AIM-120 will self destruct without mid life update.
While we don't know the exact specs for obvious reasons, it would take quite a state of art radar to provide accurate fire control data at 200km+. As of typing this, F-22's radar has stated detection range of 100-200km (search radar). Active fire control radar is typically far more limited in range as it has to fire a tight beam and collect far more accurate data. About the only fighter aircraft in existence that can pull off a maneuvre you're describing and is not a dedicated AWACS aircraft with huge radar antenna is MiG-31, which is specifically designed for this task and isn't really a fighter - it's more like an AWACS married to a plane that can launch missiles.
A far more likely scenario is for planes to fire up radars in short bursts one by one to provide mid life updates to one another to confuse the enemy a bit like P-700 missile swarms do, but with interlinked planes taking turns with quick "fire-ups". However this will most likely happen in "danger zone" where enemy can engage as well due to range issues.
There are a LOT of things that retrofits were planned for in case of F-22 program. They were almost all canned because of exploding costs of the program.
That's why it's called top secret technology. It wouldn't be top secret if random people on internet forum such as ourselves would know, would it?
Officially F-22 is designed to be used with AIM-120 AMRAAM which is not capable of what you're describing in any of its current or known planned variants. I assume you have some sort of classified information available, as most missiles known to be used in US Air Force today require data from aircraft they're being fired from for both initial and mid life course updates. Their own radar is typically very short range terminal stage one, designed for terminal guidance purposes.
Dare I ask for a source?
According to news on wired, there's a total of seven aircraft in entire US airfoce that can handle the task. AWACS is incapable of it, they have special retrofitted civilian aircraft with this communications system and standard data link.
Actually the main reason was because our multinationals controlled these just fine until recently, and wars were often used by said multinationals to improve their extraction terms with locals.
And nowadays we cannot really go to open war with China that uses its state companies to do the same thing.
I don't think you know how RADAR works. To get a "lock on" you need radio illlumination. To illuminate, someone, you or someone else needs to radiate energy towards the target. That is what fire control radar does - it fires a thin, concentrated beam of energy at the target in a certain pattern, and tracks the reflections. That is something that F22 cannot use when stealthed. Unless someone else illuminates the target for it, in which case it will need exact data on how illumination was done, or unless target itself radiates energy in which case it can use anti-radiation systems to get a passive lock.
Or clued in politicians with certain agenda diverting attention from things their handlers told them to divert attention from and diverting said attention to things their handlers told them to divert attention to.
I can see this as legit rabidly anti gay politician using this as escape:
"It's the emancipation's fault I got caught having sex with this person dressed as a cowperson. I totally I wanted to order a cowgirl, but I used a politically correct term and got a cowboy instead! It's liberals fault!"
Far more importantly, these are wars fought where people involved actually live. There is a massive disconnect in the Western countries about the entire concept of war, largely driven by mass media.
You see, even modern wars fought by West, like Iraq and Afghanistan are fought on the ground. The main difference is that one party only has army living out the realities of the war, while its civilian population is far away and doesn't have to experience any of the harsh reality of wars. Wars like Iraq and Afghanistan, only the enemy civilians are exposed to the war.
And yes, I know that official propaganda line is that they're not the enemy. It doesn't change the fact that they are treated like enemy civilians of occupied enemy nation, and the fact that they react like such civilians, by widely supporting local guerilla freedom fighters who are fighting asymmetric war against far more powerful invader that has no non-mercenary civilians of its own exposed to the war.
Personally I recommend BBC's Bomb Alley.
A good question is how much radar data from passive only F22 is to a typhoon that has its active radar powered up. F22 essentially cannot fire up its radar and stay stealthy for obvious reasons, so its passive radar only. The major part of data link is sharing targeting data. F22 is designed to feed off allied aircraft's search and fire control radar data for both target acquisition and weapon guidance.
Not having proper communications link is a bitch, that's certain. But F22 is just not designed to be fighting alongside aircraft it needs to talk to in the first place. It's the silent hunter that doesn't really see anything on its own, and just listens to what allied aircraft tells it via datalink or what it can scrounge up from passive sensor data, and then performs interception based on that data. It apparently can also occasionally fire up its own fire control radar in short pulses to minimize risk of detection, but it's simply not intended to be an actively radiating aircraft.
The stupidity here is that it has no standard NATO datalink for cases where it has to perform other roles. It's one of the reasons why F22 hasn't seen any combat to date. There are no pure air superiority missions in the modern world for US airforce, and F22 is pretty incapable of doing anything properly else because of the way it was designed. Lack of common data link is just one of the design choices that hurts that aircraft really badly when it comes to doing anything else.
F22s can talk to each other, but it requires a special data link that is apparently top secret and cannot be given out to allied aircraft.
Africa is still full of old school wars. We just don't see them talked about on news because it's not really in interests of anyone to have voting sheep know that real wars are still fought, and as a result start thinking that wars aren't about sexy hardware and war heroes and supporting your troops (several from safety of at least one ocean away). Not having modern weaponry, good support base far away from conflict and hatred for your neighbour that can only be born from cohabiting for millenia makes for a wonderful pot dish of war.
Those thinking this is "nonsense" should stop for a moment and recall what happened when pilots didn't take smoke warning seriously:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_Flight_111
You don't have any idea what you're talking about if you seriously, even a for a moment think that game grade ray tracing is possible on modern cards.
100% reliability is not possible with any hardware.
The question is not about being one hundred percent, but being more reliable then other options when measured over large amount of drives, and by how much.
As noted in other places, the issue here is purely physical. You have two key points in any drive: logic (controller) and hardware (platter and read/write head with all related mechanisms in HDD, NAND flash in SSD).
Controllers are far less reliable in SSDs simply because they have to be far more complex. And as various techniques of SSD handling improve, controllers will grow more and more complex, and by extension less and less reliable.
Hardware wise, it's pretty much physics. NAND has far greater issues then HDDs, and that is well documented.
The variable that remains in the equation is manufacturing quality. That's why I pointed out that when at equal manufacturing quality, SSD can't really match HDD in reliability. But they're rarely if ever equal under any circumstances.
That depends. Are you comparing budget WDs or WDs that are positioned in a similar way to intel's, for reliable high end market?
Former may be about even or even worse. Latter, pretty much universally better. This is because both controller and drive technology is significantly more reliable in case of HDD in comparison to NAND flash based SSD.
These are about running games like BF3 at highest quality at those resolutions in 3d (120FPS). Current gen high end chokes unless in SLI when doing this.
Start with monitor. Running something like this needs a good monitor to show the results on. That likely means some sort of 4k 3D 120FPS monitor.
That also means you'll probably want a lot of RAM, a high end i7 and SSD to feed it, and obviously if you're about high fidelity you'll likely drop another 1k on sound card and 5.1 or even 7.1 system to output signal to (through for gamers 7.1 kinda sucks, most games can only do 5.1).
Try running at 2140p at 120FPS for 60FPS 3D on highest settings. It's been tried. Result: you need 2x680 in SLI not to get severe FPS drops.