Forum Policy | Howto | Asiawind Homepage | China the Beautiful | CTB forum | Forumites' comments | Feedback
Forums : | World2 | ZhengHe | ChineseCulture | Hakka | Overseas | SciTech | Life! | HealthMed | Foods | OurWorld[ReadyOnly]

Google
 
Web asiawind.com

Our World Forum II at Asiawind
 Forum List  |  New Topic  |  Go to Top  |  Go to Topic  |  Threaded View  |  Search  |  Log In   Newer Topic  |  Older Topic 
 US. has SCIFI war ship to attack china
Author: tom Dragon 
Date:   06-05-12 21:00

http://news.yahoo.com/us-navy-hopes-stealth-ship-answers-rising-china-065329046.html

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: US. has SCIFI war ship to attack china
Author: hohoyan888 
Date:   06-06-12 09:28

Nowadays, radar is not enough to detect anything.

I bet that the Chinese know how to use remote cameras from the space to snapshot the sea real time and use simple algorithms to compare the before and the after looks of the pictures. It may be hard to with airplanes but it is much easier to do with slower ships. Sonar is another mean to detect ships. What they have to do is to lie the coastal floor with cable attached with sonars.

You probably can beat some small countries with this but against countries like China or Russia is a waste of taxpayers' money. A false sense of security !

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: US. has SCIFI war ship to attack china
Author: suen.kuen 
Date:   06-06-12 10:07

I suggest the best response to this new stealth toy is for the Chinese to show alarm....and admiration at the gringos' ingenuity. Shower them with praises....and let them have the upper-hand feelings by admitting we are years and decades or even 3/4 century behind on such things.
I mean....what's there to lose to let them go wild and keep churning out 3 billion $ a pop together with their F35's !!

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: US. has SCIFI war ship to attack china
Author: tom Dragon 
Date:   06-06-12 10:31

You are obviously not Martin Su, am waiting what he has to say or post to counter this kind of threat as he did with the US F22 :)

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: US. has SCIFI war ship to attack china
Author: tom Dragon 
Date:   06-06-12 10:40

and then you have to figure how to hit the thing as the target moves fast.
the chinese commander's way of sending out a fleet of dynamide loaded boats might not work either. most likely you got hit by this new warship and sank first.

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: US. has SCIFI war ship to attack china
Author: tom Dragon 
Date:   06-06-12 10:45

maybe a human piloted torpido would do but you 'll be detected too.

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: US. has SCIFI war ship to attack china
Author: FM Liew 
Date:   06-06-12 15:05

chinese commander's way of sending out a fleet of dynamide loaded boats might not work either. most likely you got hit by this new warship and sank first.
=============

If the war ship ever enter Chinese territorial water without informing Chinese government, it's a declaration of war.

China, have every right to sink the ship...which is quite easy with todays PLAN weapon, and technology. The ship will be fragmented like Lego.

To be honest, that ship looks like a casket with a pointed tip....I hope it's not to serve that purpose; to bury the crews.

It'll be classified for sure.

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: US. has SCIFI war ship to attack china
Author: charles koon 
Date:   06-07-12 01:59

So, what do you suggest, China should surrender now? :-)

关 红 星

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: US. has SCIFI war ship to attack china
Author: suen.kuen 
Date:   06-07-12 04:44

That's the whole point, isn't it.
Should them la-la(s) be in China's shoes, they'd be talk'n about 'Terrorisim'.....'Pre-Emption'.....'Everything on the table' to warn America to behave like a civilized, and with acceptable behaviour nation.

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: US. has SCIFI war ship to attack china
Author: hohoyan888 
Date:   06-07-12 10:42

Send in a drone.

Tom, put your home address on this site, (you can use google map to do the same)


http://itouchmap.com/latlong.html

It will find your GPS location.

Just send a drone with this destination GPS location to deliver a big Mac to you.

Do you know how easy it is ? It is a simple illustration. Of course, the real version is a lot more advanced.

Some how the Google (google map, Google earth, etc) and the government closely work together to defend the country.

If the stupid terrorists send in enough low cost drones, I wonder how many can you defend. Luckily the terrorists are not that smart yet.

You can apply the same principle to the sea. So, you can build a lot of cheap high speed drone boats loaded with bombs and if it all comes at the same time, I wonder what kind of radars do you need to defend your big yacht.

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: US. has SCIFI war ship to attack china
Author: hohoyan888 
Date:   06-07-12 11:11

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/11/press-kept-out-of-drone-base/all/1?utm_source=Contextly&utm_medium=RelatedLinks&utm_campaign=Previous

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: US. has SCIFI war ship to attack china
Author: hohoyan888 
Date:   06-07-12 11:25

http://www.businessinsider.com/check-out-these-next-generation-drones-2012-6

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: US. has SCIFI war ship to attack china
Author: hohoyan888 
Date:   06-07-12 11:38

http://www.businessinsider.com/navy-analyzed-in-taiwanese-animation-by-nma-world-edition-2012-6

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: US. has SCIFI war ship to attack china
Author: Chow Lee 
Date:   06-07-12 14:07

O'h...so it is all about attacking China?

Okay then. Don't sweat it...you have nukes.

We will never attack China.

But....don't try to claim what is not yours.

Chow Lee

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: US. has SCIFI war ship to attack china
Author: FM Liew 
Date:   06-07-12 14:30

Stupid isn't it?

But ..but USA has a score to settle with China. USA and gang was defeated by 3rd class PLV foot soldiers in Korea, and Nam.

USA never stop trying....

I heard that recent US defense official visited Vietnam...something like wanting to rent NAM's harbor..

Like said before, Chinese PLA defeated US on land & air...perhaps USA can't wait to be defeated at sea.

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: US. has SCIFI war ship to attack china
Author: Chow Lee 
Date:   06-07-12 17:25

"But ..but USA has a score to settle with China. USA and gang was defeated by 3rd class PLV foot soldiers in Korea, and Nam"

If the border in Korea reamined the same after NK attacked the South, just how do you figure China won?

Vietnam? Yes, they defeated America. China did not. Now Vietnam wants the USA to have deep water military ports because of "friendly" China ?

Chow Lee

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: US. has SCIFI war ship to attack china
Author: tom Dragon 
Date:   06-07-12 20:14

The article says it's built with goal to kill chinese warship, that's like attacking china, in chinese water

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: US. has SCIFI war ship to attack china
Author: Chow Lee 
Date:   06-08-12 00:35

Sort of reminds me of the Chinese "carrier busting" missile.

.......O'h if the article has the opinion of a journalist...then it "must" be true?

I have some good swamp land to sell you!

Chow Lee

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: US. has SCIFI war ship to attack china
Author: charles koon 
Date:   06-08-12 01:05

""But....don't try to claim what is not yours.""


Not surprising; you have sold out your ancestral land !

关 红 星

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: US. has SCIFI war ship to attack china
Author: FM Liew 
Date:   06-08-12 01:07

If the border in Korea reamined the same after NK attacked the South, just how do you figure China won?

===========
Of course China won in the korean war.
Political objective is what was won. US didn't mange to colonise the entire Korea.

As for NK attacking SK..is really none of Chinese business..they are afterall siblings.

If once again they fight against one another like in the past, China will not take side not intervene, unless US and gang comes into the picture....which I doubt will ever happen in the near future; given the facts that the tails is still tucked tightly between the GIs hind legs.

As for Nam's "friendly" gesture towards the stupid ass called USA, is a trap...

The military port will certainly be futile. Vietcong....will ask US govenment to settle all birth-defects caused by USA's chemical/biological weapon called; "Agent orange" - past and present.

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: US. has SCIFI war ship to attack china
Author: hohoyan888 
Date:   06-08-12 11:09

Was it what Bill Clinton did back in Whitewater ?

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: US. has SCIFI war ship to attack china
Author: Chow Lee 
Date:   06-08-12 13:35

Not even close, Charles.

I simply believe in one people...all of us. No boundries, no flags.

Chow Lee

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: US. has SCIFI war ship to attack china
Author: Kobo-Daishi 
Date:   06-10-12 04:42

Dear all,

Since each of these ships cost $3 billion, I'm sure the Chinese hope the US spends her money buying plenty of them. ;-0

Kobo-Daishi, PLLA.

Reply To This Message
 
 USA borrowed from Chinese
Author: FM Liew 
Date:   06-10-12 11:35

Since each of these ships cost $3 billion, I'm sure the Chinese hope the US spends her money buying plenty of them. ;-0

==========

USA borrowed close to 2 trillion from Chinese hard earned money just so that USN could built these ship, and use it to invade China?

What an ingrate...my pet dog is more human than American...

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: USA borrowed from Chinese
Author: Kobo-Daishi 
Date:   06-10-12 16:23

Dear all,

From the article linked to above:

One outspoken admiral in China has scoffed that all it would take to sink the high-tech American ship is an armada of explosive-laden fishing boats.

XXXXXX

This reminds Kobo of something he wrote in the thread titled "Chinese Fishing Boats Form Major Part Of Her Military? ;-)" (found at the following link: http://www.asiawind.com/forums/read.php?f=11&i=170991&t=170991 ).

Kobo wrote:

Low-intensity warfare?

I remember the Chinese government saying that there are so many fishing boats out there that they can't police them all.

Could these fishing boats really be militarized? ;-0

Hundreds of junks, sampans laden with explosives. ;-0

Think the USS Cole. ;-0

We could have hundreds of vessels disguised as fishing boats. In actuality, speedboats full of explosives ready to speed into action when required. ;-0

XXXXXX

Does this outspoken Chinese admiral read our forum or is this a case of great minds thinking alike? ;-0

Kobo-Daishi, PLLA.

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: USA borrowed from Chinese
Author: Kobo-Daishi 
Date:   06-10-12 16:46

Dear all,

This is a snippet from an article posted to the thread titled "The End For U.S. Aircraft Carriers?" (found at the following link: http://www.asiawind.com/forums/read.php?f=11&i=165128&t=164987 ):

The USS Gerald R. Ford was supposed to help secure another half century of American naval supremacy. The hulking aircraft carrier taking shape in a dry dock in Newport News, Va., is designed to carry a crew of 4,660 and a formidable arsenal of aircraft and weapons.

But an unforeseen problem cropped up between blueprint and expected delivery in 2015: China is building a new class of ballistic missiles designed to arc through the stratosphere and explode onto the deck of a U.S. carrier, killing sailors and crippling its flight deck.

XXXXXX

And Kobo wrote at that thread:

Is China really working on such capabilities?

And would this render U.S. aircraft carriers no more than potential huge floating coffins?

Is this the end for U.S. aircraft carriers? ;-)

XXXXX

If Chinese missiles could destroy aircraft carriers, couldn't they also destroy this sci-fi super stealthy warship? ;-0

You know stealthy doesn't mean it's actually invisible. ;-0

It only means that conventional radar aren't able to pick it out. ;-0

Wouldn't Chinese satellites be able to track these hulking monsters? ;-0

From the article linked to in the original post:

Navy officials also say the technologies developed for the ship will inevitably be used in other vessels in the decades ahead.

But the destroyers' $3.1 billion price tag, which is about twice the cost of the current destroyers and balloons to $7 billion each when research and development is added in, nearly sank it in Congress. Though the Navy originally wanted 32 of them, that was cut to 24, then seven.

Now, just three are in the works.

"Costs spiraled — surprise, surprise — and the program basically fell in on itself," said Richard Bitzinger, a security expert at Singapore's Nanyang Technological University. "The DDG-1000 was a nice idea for a new modernistic surface combatant, but it contained too many unproven, disruptive technologies."

XXXXX

A whopping $7 billion on unproven technology? ;-0

Sure would be funny if during actual combat it doesn't do anything. ;-0

Just a whirring sound. ;-)

Kobo-Daishi, PLLA.

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: USA borrowed from Chinese
Author: Chow Lee 
Date:   06-10-12 19:46

Who is invading china? Not America.

Chow Lee

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: USA borrowed from Chinese
Author: Chow Lee 
Date:   06-10-12 19:48

America will not need aircraft carriers in 15 years. Soon thereafter China will aquire the same technology through spying and she will not need them either.

Chow Lee

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: USA borrowed from Chinese
Author: suen.kuen 
Date:   06-11-12 03:16

"Does this outspoken Chinese admiral read our forum or is this a case of great minds thinking alike? ;-0"

Ha ! Ha!.....get a hold on yourself; at this rate of matching up with "great" minds, soon the most 'devilish' ones will also be out-matched by you!!

As the saying goes....the difference between a good cop from a bad cop is only paper thin!

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: US. has SCIFI war ship to attack china
Author: hohoyan888 
Date:   06-11-12 11:14

Drone in action

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-pentagon-thinks-these-miniature-kamikaze-drones-are-the-answer-to-its-problems-2012-6?utm_source=sailthrusuggest&utm_medium=rightrail&utm_term=&utm_content=&utm_campaign=recirc

Reply To This Message
 
 USA better pay up when times are due
Author: FM Liew 
Date:   06-11-12 14:49

Not America.
============

Are you stupid....USA won't dare to take on China alone...'mano a mano'...

Whiteman likes to play dirty.......esp not when GIs tails are still tucked between the hind legs...since 1950s.

US is looking for partnership or outsource the jobs to overseas..like the dumb pinoys, wacky Indians..or even the European panhandler...

Japanese is out of the picture...they don't want to be nuked the third times, Koreans are too busy with the brother...anyway Koreans are weak.

South East Asia...would stay neutral - who ever harbor US military base in Asia is within PLA's missile range...even Australia.

Rogue state across the straits is to near for comfort...

Uucle Sam wanted to stir the weather in Asia. But Sam is broke..no money, no honey.

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: USA better pay up when times are due
Author: Chow Lee 
Date:   06-11-12 15:16


"Are you stupid....USA won't dare to take on China alone...'mano a mano'...
"

Rule #1 - Never fight a ground war in China

Rule #2 - Engage China's Navy no less than 500 miles off their coast.

Rule #3 - Let China fire the first shot.


I could care less about the rest of your post, little fella.

Chow Lee

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: USA better pay up when times are due
Author: FM Liew 
Date:   06-11-12 15:48

Rule #1 - Never fight a ground war in China

Rule #2 - Engage China's Navy no less than 500 miles off their coast.

Rule #3 - Let China fire the first shot.

==========
#1 right..very true.

#2 wrong...dead wrong. PLAN's mights are the "noisy" subs...Sam can run, but can not hide...all US electronic equipments can not detect the latest mines hidden underneath the water.

#3 China don't need to fire a single shot and win the war. It is found in Chinese five thousand years old war doctrine...while European were still living in caves and eating raw.

#4 PLAF downed many US planes and created the "Mig corridors" back in the fifties ...I don't think USAF would dare to challenge PLAF so to be embarrassed once again.

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: USA better pay up when times are due
Author: hohoyan888 
Date:   06-11-12 16:42

Did we make up the story about the North Vietnam firing the first shot before ? My grandfather used to tell us about the Korean War and how we made up the story to counterattack the North Korea and the Chinese back then. We almost won both wars.

Can we do the same to the Chinese ?

What we have to do is to setup enough PR to convince the world that we are the victim of the Chinese aggression. We did that to Iraq with the WMD. We are doing it to Iran now with the cyber warfare.

Making up stories by the media and the government is our used-to-do. No big deal here.

Well, just invade the Chinese. Take their women and eat their Chinese food.

You need a new rule #3.

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: USA better pay up when times are due
Author: Kobo-Daishi 
Date:   06-11-12 20:49

Dear all,

Hohoyan888 wrote:

Did we make up the story about the North Vietnam firing the first shot before ? My grandfather used to tell us about the Korean War and how we made up the story to counterattack the North Korea and the Chinese back then. We almost won both wars.

Can we do the same to the Chinese ?

What we have to do is to setup enough PR to convince the world that we are the victim of the Chinese aggression. We did that to Iraq with the WMD. We are doing it to Iran now with the cyber warfare.

Making up stories by the media and the government is our used-to-do. No big deal here.

Well, just invade the Chinese. Take their women and eat their Chinese food.

You need a new rule #3.

XXXXX

The only difference between China and Iraq/Iran is that we know China has the bomb and the capability to deliver it to the United States.

And missile defense is an unproven commodity. ;-)

I know that China says that she won't "be the first to use nuclear weapons at any time or under any circumstances" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use , but, come on. Let's be realistic.

Under any circumstances?!?!?! ;-)

I know if Trayvon USA was on top of me and pounding the sh*t out of me. Smashing my head into the concrete, and I knew I had a gun, I wouldn't hesitate.

But then Kobo's a bit of a coward. ;-0

Perhaps, after Zimmerman passed out Trayvon would have just left without killing him. (Hey, I thought Zimmerman was a Jewish surname. As in Bob Dylan otherwise known as Robert Zimmerman. How come he's a Latino? Is he like Juan Epstein on Welcome Back, Kotter? A Puerto Rican Jew? ;-) )

Maybe China's more of a gentleman than either Kobo or Zimmerman and wouldn't retaliate. Just take the beating.

Still if threatened with the loss of their women and especially their Chinese food, would the Chinese really stand idlly by? They really love their Chinese food. ;-)

You don't think they'd nuke L.A.?

Didn't a Chinese general once threaten to do so?

What did he say? I think he said that he figures the US cares more for L.A. than Taiwan or something to that effect.

Kobo just hopes he's not in downtown L.A. when they strike. ;-0

How large is the zone of destruction from an atomic blast? How far does radiation reach?

Hopefully not into the suburbs. ;-0

But then what would Kobo do for his job if the downtown has been nuked?

How long does radiation last? How fast can we rebuild L.A.? Would the other states deliver us food like they did for Katrina victims? ;-)

Would the other states be around? ;-0

MAD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction , mutual assured destruction. Don't you just love it? ;-)

Kobo-Daishi, PLLA.

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: USA better pay up when times are due
Author: tom Dragon 
Date:   06-12-12 14:16

there are an excess of 100,000 islands in the seas south of china in the whole Pacific yet china did not menage to get one.
china is to retake the Americas that I know.

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: USA better pay up when times are due
Author: Kobo-Daishi 
Date:   06-12-12 20:37

Hey, Tom.

Shouldn't you be showing the graphic of the Dharmic religious (Hinduism and Buddhism) countries surrounded by the Abrahamic religious (Christianity, Islam, & Judaism) countries to the Nigerians so they'd stop killing each other? ;-0

And also show it to the Israelis so they'd stop rioting and rounding up African immigrants. ;-0

Kobo-Daishi, PLLA.

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: USA better pay up when times are due
Author: tom Dragon 
Date:   06-13-12 10:32

The Abrahamists will continue to attack and kill those who are weak and weaponless.

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: USA better pay up when times are due
Author: Chow Lee 
Date:   06-13-12 13:29

Perhaps every nation should have its own immigratin policy. If Israel determines it can no longer accept more immigrants from Africa, why should it? Seems as though China wants her own immigration policy too.

I guess the only nation that can't have its own immigration policy is America. She should just swing the doors open to 20,000,000 more undocumented people.

Chow Lee

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: USA better pay up when times are due
Author: FM Liew 
Date:   06-13-12 14:28

80% - 90% of todays Israelis are immigrants from Europe..of European origins. Indigenous Israelis are not as racist the European breed. European are racist by birth....get what I mean?

What immigration policy?

Implementation to suits an individual..or a race of pariahs..

Pay up....

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: USA better pay up when times are due
Author: Chow Lee 
Date:   06-13-12 15:53

80-90% of the people in Israel had family members that immigrated. However the 80-90% that you reference are born in Israel...Israel even then had immigration policies. She has the right to determine who enters the nation. It is an internal matter, and I am not even pro-Israel. Nations can only accept "X" unskilled workers while still supoorting their own economy. Come on little fella!

Chow Lee

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: USA better pay up when times are due
Author: FM Liew 
Date:   06-13-12 16:17

80-90% of the people in Israel had family members that immigrated. However the 80-90% that you reference are born in Israel...Israel even then had immigration policies.
===========

Implementation to suits an individual..or a race of pariahs..?

Back then the immigration policy were European's NOT from the idigenous Palestinian Jews.

Under duress, the Palestinian have no say on the immigration policy imposed by the European.

By any law, any thing passed under duress are illegal..go ask a lawyer.

Those European pariahs were indeed refugees, and refugees are not in the position to implement laws on the host country.

I thought you are a global citizen..did you just change color..again?

Okey...this is a chicken and egg thingy....I know it is kind of tough on you.

Reply To This Message
 
 DDG-1000 is easily detectable by acoustic and infrared detectors
Author: Martin Su 
Date:   06-13-12 16:36

I hate it when clueless journalists write about military technology that they do not understand.

Everyone knows the DDG-1000 is failed technology, because the US Navy canceled it after 3 prototypes (see citation below).

The biggest problem with the Zumwalt destroyers is their inability to provide fleet air defense. In contrast, the current Arleigh-Burke destroyers provide invaluable air defense to protect an aircraft carrier.

The idea of a 15,000-ton DDG-1000 "stealth" ship is completely ludicrous. To move a ship of that size, you need massive engines (e.g. 78 MegaWatts). There is no way to realistically shield the heat emissions of a ship that size. The DDG-1000 can be easily detected by infrared sensors.

Also, to move a 15,000-ton ship, you need massive propellers. Those propellers must push through the water to provide forward thrust. If you think pushing a tiny recreational boat with propellers is noisy, wait until you try to push a 15,000-ton ship with propellers.

China can hear the giant propellers pushing the 15,000-ton DDG-1000 all the way across the Pacific. Stealth ship, my foot.

----------

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Zumwalt_%28DDG-1000%29

"The prohibitive cost of the ships has decreased the originally planned 32 Zumwalt class ships to 3."

Martin Su

Reply To This Message
 
 An acoustic signature can be pinpointed by triangulation
Author: Martin Su 
Date:   06-13-12 17:05

To finish the discussion of precisely locating the position of a DDG-1000 or any other large capital ship, the use of triangulation from multiple acoustic detectors (whether buried in the seabed like the American SOSUS/"Sound Surveillance System" system, buoys, or submarines) can easily pinpoint a DDG-1000.

A simpler method is to use satellites with infrared detectors and look at the ocean. You can't miss the hot infrared signature of 78-MegaWatt engines from a DDG-1000 against the background of cold ocean water.

Assuming the U.S. shoots down all Chinese infrared satellites, it is a simple matter to see a DDG-1000 with the infrared detectors on a fighter aircraft or UAV. See FLIR (forward looking infrared) citation below).

Excerpt for FLIR: "detect warm objects against a cooler background"

I think 78 MegaWatts blazing against a background of cool ocean water is impossible to miss.

Also, see IRST (infra-red search and track) citation below. The IRST on a jet fighter can detect the small heat emissions from an enemy fighter or helicopter. Detecting a 78-MegaWatt 15,000-ton ship is like looking at the Sun. You have to be blind not to see it.

----------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_looking_infrared

"Forward looking infrared (FLIR) cameras, typically used on military aircraft, use an imaging technology that senses infrared radiation.[1]

http://i.imgur.com/EQgeu.jpg
Navigation infrared pod by Thales

The sensors installed in forward looking infrared cameras, as well as those of other thermal imaging cameras, use detection of infrared radiation, typically emitted from a heat source, to create the "picture" assembled for the video output, they can be used to help pilots and drivers steer their vehicles at night, and in fog, or detect warm objects against a cooler background. The wavelength of infrared that thermal imaging cameras detect differs significantly from that of night vision, which operates in the visible light and near infrared ranges (0.4 to 1.0 μm)."

----------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infra-red_search_and_track

"An infra-red search and track (IRST) system (sometimes known as infra-red sighting and tracking) is a method for detecting and tracking objects which give off infrared radiation such as jet aircraft and helicopters.[1]

http://i.imgur.com/EQM2Y.jpg
IRST sensor on the Su-27.

IRST is a generalized case of forward looking infrared (FLIR), i.e. from forward-looking to all-round situational awareness. Such systems are passive, meaning they do not give out any radiation of their own, unlike radar. This gives them the advantage that they are difficult to detect.

However, because the atmosphere attenuates infra-red to some extent (although not as much as visible light) and because adverse weather can attenuate it also (again, not as badly as visible systems), the range compared to a radar is limited. Angular resolution at short ranges is better than radar due to the shorter wavelength."

Martin Su

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: DDG-1000 is easily detectable by acoustic and infrared detectors
Author: Chow Lee 
Date:   06-13-12 17:36

Wasn't this program due to costs being 181% of original contract versus "failed technology"?

Acoustic and infared signatures can be quite easily masked. If you want to study Prarie-Masking go here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prairie-Masker

Here are a couple cool photos of what a masker looks like while engaged. Note the trail of the destroyer vesus the oiler. The destroyer literally rides a cushion of air that clouds sonar like a rain storm moving across the display.

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=prairie+masker&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&qscrl=1&nord=1&rlz=1T4ADFA_enUS437US437&biw=1518&bih=621&tbm=isch&tbnid=xvViNIcNJssEBM:&imgrefurl=http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/prairie.htm&docid=vr5BTItsjxX6iM&imgurl=http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/dd-964-DNSC9400810_JPG.jpg&w=600&h=480&ei=VhXZT5j2O4ie6AG9z938Ag&zoom=1

Chow Lee

Reply To This Message
 
 Check this too...
Author: Chow Lee 
Date:   06-13-12 17:40

Even though I provided the text please visit the page because it has great illustrations.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/prairie.htm

"Air bubbles can be employed to mask potential targets or to provide alternate targets. The large difference in characteristic impedance (c) between the air bubbles and the surrounding water make them very efficient as reflectors of acoustic energy. Very little sound will penetrate a curtain of air bubbles, making them very efficient as masking for noise sources. Prairie-Masker is used during both active and passive undersea warfare operations. Gas turbine ships routinely operate systems inport and at sea, to avoid marine growth from plugging holes in blade tips and masker belts. During ASW operations, there is no instantaneous way of determining if the airflow rates are accurate at any given time. Improper Prairie/Masker airflow rates are an ASW mission degrade. MACHALT Proposals Under Development will replace Prairie/Masker air system portable flow meters with an electronic airflow monitoring system.

Masker air forms an air bubble screen around the hull of the ship, reducing transmission of machinery noise to the surrounding waters. Masker creates acoustic impedance mismatch between hull and water, by way of the masker belts located around the hull, putting a blanket of air bubbles between the hull's machinery noise and the water. Masker air disguises low frequency machinery noise that radiates through the hull and cools bleed air for use in engine starting and motoring. The Masker Air System uses air from the ship's bleed air system via the bleed air cooler for discharge through emitter belts located around the underwater girth of the ship. The masker regulator valve reduces masker air pressure from 75 to 28 psig. After leaving the reducing valve, the air supply divides into two branches supplying air to the forward and aft emitter belts. On the FFG-7 the Emitter Belts are located at frames 177 and 253. Each belt is divided into port and starboard halves. Each belt has a separate air connection. Each emitter belt uses a solenoid operated valve to control air flow. The ACC controls these solenoid valves. Masker air discharges through each connection at a rate of 425 squared cubic feet per minute (SCFM) at approximately 12 psig. Perforations in the emitters allow discharge of Masker air from the keel to the water line. An orifice plate in the port side emitter belt balances air flow.

The Prairie Air System supplies air along the propeller blade leading edge to reduce the hydrodynamic noise originating at the propeller. This fills the vacuum left by the rotating blades as the water "boils," allowing cavitation bubbles to contract more slowly as area of underpressure is minimized. Prairie Air is drawn from the bleed air header, sent through a cooler then through the propulsion shafting to the propeller hubs where it is emitted from small holes on the propeller blades. Each engine room has its own prairie air system to supply air to its associated propeller. The air passes through a network of apertures along each stabilizer's leading edge, suppressing flow noise and cavitation. For instance, on the FFG-7 Prairie air flows at 400 SCFM from a branch of the bleed air system through the prairie air cooler. The cooler uses seawater from the Firemain system as a cooling medium. From the cooler, prairie air flows through a flow meter into the roto-seal at the Oil Distribution Box (OD Box) and into the prairie air tubing to the propeller. At the propeller hub after end, the air enters drilled passages in the hub body. The passages direct the air to the base of each propeller blade. Air reaches each blade through a bushing connection between the blade base and the hub body. Air then flows through an air channel in the blade leading edge and discharges through 302 orifices. Two check valves prevent entry of water when the air supply is secured. The Fin Stabilizers use prairie air supplied directly from the discharge side of the prairie air cooler. "

Chow Lee

Reply To This Message
 
 Attenuation is too minor
Author: Martin Su 
Date:   06-13-12 17:45

The official explanation is the "too costly" excuse that we also saw with the cancellation of the Boeing Airborne Laser. The United States wants to save face and claim the new technology is too expensive. However, the whole point of a superweapon is to gain a major advantage against a potential adversary.

The real problem is that these cutting-edge technologies don't work against a near-peer like China. You can minimize the radar signature through shaping for a DDG-1000 destroyer, however it is still extremely vulnerable to detection through other types of sensors. It is virtually impossible to shield a warship from ALL forms of detection.

I didn't want to bother to delve into the issue of which radar band the DDG-1000 is supposedly hardest to see in. I'm guessing it's radar signature is minimized in the X-band and still vulnerable in S-band and L-band.

The bottom line is the DDG-1000 was canceled, because the Navy realized the ship is a sitting duck and it's a waste of money to pour resources into a loser.

----------

Regarding your citation for minimizing the sounds from a propeller, it is pointless against modern sensors and digital signal processing algorithms on modern computers. There are expensive design techniques that can somewhat attenuate the propeller sound, but it accomplishes too little.

It's like saying you want to muffle the blast of a howitzer. Sure, you can lessen it a bit at the margin. However, you can't really shield it. The same problem exists in trying to shield the propeller sound of a 15,000-ton ship that is powered by 78-MegaWatts. It is impossible.

Your citation regarding wake reduction is irrelevant. I never discussed wake-homing torpedoes.

Martin Su

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: Attenuation is too minor
Author: Chow Lee 
Date:   06-13-12 17:49

Sounds like the Navy mad the correct decision to me.

Hence, "face saved".

Chow Lee

Reply To This Message
 
 Chinese C-802 infrared seeking anti-ship missle can easily sink DDG-1000
Author: Martin Su 
Date:   06-13-12 17:55

How do you completely shield 78 MegaWatts of power? The DDG-1000 is releasing 78 million Joules per second. Where does the energy go? Some of it is transferred into the propellers, which partially generates a lot of acoustic energy. A portion of the 78 MegaWatts is radiated as infrared energy, which a Chinese C-802 anti-ship missile can easily detect (see citation below).

Excerpts: "dual guidance, which include: radar and imaging infrared guidance, television and imaging infrared guidance, dual band (infrared and imaging infrared) guidance, and television and infrared guidance."

"A datalink associated with the radar seeker and the dual radar and infrared guidance seeker armed C-802 was added enabled the missile to receive target information provided by aircraft and this later became a standard feature."

"Based on the datalink associated with the radar seeker, a newer datalink that was compatible with all three types of seekers was also successfully developed, enabling the missile to significantly improve its attack capability by allowing the pilot of the aircraft or the crew of the ship to view the images provided by the television or the imaging infrared seekers, and thus to select the potential targets, just like the way A-10 pilots used the images provided by the imaging infrared seekers of AGM-65 Maverick Air-to-surface missiles for targeting during the Persian Gulf War."

----------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-802

"As the imaging infrared seeker and the television seeker are significantly smaller than the radar seeker, the manufacturer has taken advantage of the extra space to develop a variety of combined seekers for dual guidance, which include: radar and imaging infrared guidance, television and imaging infrared guidance, dual band (infrared and imaging infrared) guidance, and television and infrared guidance. These combined seekers can also be fitted at naval bases. According to domestic Chinese news media the manufacturer says that as of the last quarter of 2006 no orders for had been received for any of the combined seekers except the radar and infrared guidance, due to funding problems.

A datalink associated with the radar seeker and the dual radar and infrared guidance seeker armed C-802 was added enabled the missile to receive target information provided by aircraft and this later became a standard feature. The first successful test fire of the C-802 with the datalink was conducted with Harbin SH-5 ASW equipped with British radar, and soon after, with Y-8X Maritime Patrol Aircraft equipped with Litton Canada radar. This datalink was originally developed for YJ-83/C-803, the successor of the YJ-82/C-802, and adopted for the YJ-82/C-802 upgrade.

Based on the datalink associated with the radar seeker, a newer datalink that was compatible with all three types of seekers was also successfully developed, enabling the missile to significantly improve its attack capability by allowing the pilot of the aircraft or the crew of the ship to view the images provided by the television or the imaging infrared seekers, and thus to select the potential targets, just like the way A-10 pilots used the images provided by the imaging infrared seekers of AGM-65 Maverick Air-to-surface missiles for targeting during the Persian Gulf War. Land attack capability is the greatest beneficiary since mobile targets on land can be engaged as a result, though only when the missile is equipped with television and imaging infrared seekers, but not the radar seeker. Like the datalink only associated with the radar seeker, the newer datalink allows the operators to alter the course of the missile and change targets after launching. However, there are no reports to support the claim that the operator can terminate the attack via the datalink like that of the Harpoon missile. This new datalink has very little difference from radar seeker associated datalink it is developed from in terms of hardware, the major difference is the software programs."

Martin Su

Reply To This Message
 
 Clear FLIR picture of "turned off" small boat engine in infrared
Author: Martin Su 
Date:   06-13-12 18:37

http://i.imgur.com/BtOte.jpg
PACIFIC OCEAN (May 6, 2012) Alleged drug traffickers are seen in this still frame from a forward-looking infrared (FLIR) video camera from a U.S. Navy helicopter during interdiction operations in the eastern Pacific

In infrared, we can easily see the bright signature from the "turned off" engine from a small boat. A small boat engine has a maximum of approximately 25 horsepower. Each horsepower is equivalent to 745.7 watts. The maximum power from a small boat engine is 18.6 kilo-Watts.

A DDG-1000 generates 78 MegaWatts. The infrared signature of a DDG-1000 is 4,194 times brighter than the infrared picture shown above for a dinky little boat.

The point is that there is no way to hide the infrared signature of a 78 MegaWatt 15,000-ton ship on cool ocean water. It is impossible with current known technology.

Hence, the U.S. Navy canceled the DDG-1000. Only an idiot would spend $7 billion per DDG-1000 that the Chinese can sink with a $1 million C-802 infrared-seeking anti-ship missile.

----------

Reference: http://www.southcom.mil/media/pictures/Main/Forms/DispForm.aspx?ID=815

Martin Su

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: Clear FLIR picture of "turned off" small boat engine in infrared
Author: Chow Lee 
Date:   06-13-12 20:34

Are we fighting a war? Why do you want war so bad and always post war-like stuff? War is not good for anyone.

By the way, engine heat on aluminium hulled vessels is very easly masked internally and through the smoke staks using massive mist sprinkler systems inside the smoke stack itself.

But you are correct a cheap missile can sink a ship. China's new carrier will be exceptionally vunerable.

As far as designing the destroyer, I can assure any engineer with his salt will harvest and incedible amount of "spin-off" technology from the project.

Chow Lee

Reply To This Message
 
 Where does the smoke stack heat go? To the environment.
Author: Martin Su 
Date:   06-13-12 21:19

Where does the smoke stack heat go? That's right. Right up the chimney to become easily visible to an infrared detector.

You have two choices. You can either severely degrade the engines and lower the combustion temperature and try to cool the exhaust steam. This is fine if you want your 15,000-ton destroyer to travel at 5 miles per hour.

However, if you want a modern destroyer with reasonable speed and fuel efficiency then it becomes apparent that it is unacceptable to add massive and inefficient heat diffusers/systems on a destroyer and lower the combustion temperature.

The heat diffusion system on a tiny Apache helicopter is questionable at best. The problem is that the sensitivity of the enemy infrared detector (e.g. FLIR or IRST) is the determinant, not your marginal efforts at infrared suppression.

The concept of trying to suppress the heat signature of a 78-MegaWatt destroyer is just absolutely mind-bogglingly impossible. The only real way to do it is to never turn on the engine. Keep the DDG-1000 moored at San Diego harbor and you have a "stealth" ship.

Once you turn on the engines, the DDG-1000 is vulnerable to any competent opponent with half-decent infrared detectors and anti-ship missiles. In addition to China's indigenous anti-ship missiles (e.g. C-802), China has an inventory of 500 Russian ramjet-powered Mach 3 supersonic missiles.

The Chinese are also building a stealthy subsonic HN-2000 missile with a supersonic terminal phase. China can easily screw an infrared seeker onto a HN-2000. That would be a nightmare for the DDG-1000 to defend against. If the DDG-1000 emits low-band radar and actively searched for a Chinese stealth anti-ship missile, it will reveal its own position. Talk about a dilemma.

Any American admiral that sends a capital ship into Chinese waters should be court-martialed. It is not survivable.

The other serious problem with a DDG-1000 is that the second it fires its weaponry, it also lights up the infrared detectors. The exhaust plume from a missile launch or the firing of the main gun would reveal the location of a DDG-1000.

The DDG-1000 may be partially stealthy in X-band. It is unlikely the DDG-1000 is also stealthy in S-band, L-band, and low-bands (e.g. VHF or UHF). The DDG-1000 sure as hell is not stealthy acoustically (e.g. propeller sound propagates in a wave and not via line-of-sight) or in infrared.

The only question that I have is why did the U.S. Navy spend $21 billion to build 3 DDG-1000s? It's obvious that it's a waste of money and only dumb journalists believe it's stealthy.

At Lars, there is no point in getting upset at me. It's just physics.

Martin Su

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: Where does the smoke stack heat go? To the environment.
Author: Chow Lee 
Date:   06-14-12 02:32

The heat is cooled by the water mist in the stack. The stacks are triple hulled like a submarine with space between each layer of aluminium. The inner mot stack is filled with a massive misting system akin to a celing fire sprinkler. The platform that launches the missile will have to do it very close to pick up any signature.

Chow Lee

Reply To This Message
 
 You may enjoy this...
Author: Chow Lee 
Date:   06-14-12 02:34

http://www.wrdavis.com/docs/pub/lowering_warship_signatures.pdf

Chow Lee

Reply To This Message
 
 B.S. modeling claims that have never been built in a real ship
Author: Martin Su 
Date:   06-14-12 03:19

I appreciate your effort Lars. However, the brief PDF file has no real citations. At the end, there are four references to "simulations" and "modeling" from 1998.

With all due respect, I give most of the weight to real-world ships and proven ideas. The short paper deals with some totally unproven concepts. I have never heard of a real-world ship with massively reduced acoustic or infrared signature.

I will explain why no known acoustic or infrared signature reduction has ever been shown in the last 40 years to my knowledge. The purpose of a surface ship is to remain above-water and use its radar and interceptor missiles to defend the airspace (to protect a carrier).

By nature, a surface ship must be moved quickly with propellers. You can come up with laboratory ideas for toy-sized model ships that might reduce the propeller signature.

However, in the real world, it is impossible to significantly reduce the acoustical energy caused by the spinning of propellers to move a 10,000 to 15,000 ship at 30 knots. It doesn't exist.

Similarly, the purpose of 78-MegaWatt engines is to maintain high temperatures and high pressures to drive the massive shaft that spins the gigantic propellers.

You seem to misunderstand the source of the infrared signature. It comes from the 78-MegaWatt engines. The primary infrared source is not the waste heat. The waste heat is a secondary source.

You might be able to reduce the waste heat to a limited extent. However, the idea of significant reduction of the waste heat generated by a destroyer has never been shown. "Modeling" and "simulation" are only unproven ideas. They don't mean anything unless you can prove real-world relevance, which has not happened.

The goal is not to reduce the engine temperature. If you do that, the efficiency and power generated by the engines will fall dramatically.

Anyway, I did enjoy your PDF file on waste heat reduction. However, I remain unconvinced. That ivory-tower academician has never tried to completely mask 78-megawatts of power. He has some heat-attenuation ideas, but their effectiveness remains unproven.

I have my own heat reduction ideas, but they are unworkable on a destroyer. For example, I would extend a long pipe (shaped hydrodynamically) deep into the cold water layers to dissipate the heat. However, the ship would become absurdly massive and have unusable fuel mileage.

The problem isn't the idea of heat dissipation. I could easily come up with heat vanes suitable for a water environment. The problem is scale and impairing the functionality of a destroyer. Dissipating 78-MegaWatts of power beyond the discrimination of modern infrared detectors is almost impossible (e.g. one-degree difference can be detected).

Also, adding all of these theoretical massive contraptions onto a 10,000+ ton ship would burden the destroyer with the mobility of an oil platform.

In summary, there is a plethora of heat dissipation ideas. To my knowledge, no known large capital ship has ever been built with true infrared or acoustical stealth. If you can't provide real-world examples to the contrary, I'm afraid I will continue to claim no significant infrared or acoustical stealth for real-world military capital ships.

By the way, you have not addressed the problem of infrared signatures caused by the launch plume of missiles and the firing of the main gun on the DDG-1000. Whether it's infrared from the DDG-1000, missile launch plume, or firing of the main gun, the DDG-1000 should be easily detectable with infrared sensors.

This is my last reply on this topic, because I think I've said everything that I wanted to say.

Martin Su

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: B.S. modeling claims that have never been built in a real ship
Author: tom Dragon 
Date:   06-14-12 08:22

problem is once you have detected Infra red of the sci fi ship you already got hit, within 100 yards.
you have to see the ship miles and miles away, hit it , and don't let it get close to you, but the sci-fi ship can hit you a mile away to sink your ship.

Reply To This Message
 
 IRST can track a small infrared target at 90km and lock on aerial target at 20km
Author: Martin Su 
Date:   06-14-12 14:34

As far as I know, there is only very limited infrared suppression on the DDG-1000. Against a technologically near-peer opponent, infrared suppression is a waste of time.

If you read Lars' link on infrared suppression, the optimal theoretical reduction based on computer modeling is to reduce the plume exit temperature from 350 degrees Celsius to 230 degrees Celsius. To incur expensive costs and massive weight penalties, we can only hope for an optimally-reduced 230 degrees Celsius plume that is easily seen by a FLIR sensor.

If you look carefully at the FLIR picture of the small boat engine that I posted earlier, you would also see the bright infrared signatures of the people on the boat. Modern infrared detectors are extremely sensitive. The people on the small boat are only 37 degrees Celsius (or 98 degrees Fahrenheit) and they are very bright targets on the FLIR.

Many people, including myself, believe it is a waste of time trying to suppress infrared emissions beyond detectability. It can't be done. Reducing the temperature of the exhaust plume from 350 degrees Celsius to 230 degrees Celsius means no effective difference to a modern FLIR or IRST sensor.

To quote from Lars' link: "Some argue that there is no point to suppressing the internally generated sources (plumes, uptakes, hot spots) because it is not possible to suppress the external sources."

----------

An IRST can track the infrared signature of a tiny jet aircraft at 90km. It can lock onto the infrared signature of a tiny jet aircraft at 20km or a ground target (e.g. truck) at 30km.

A 600-feet DDG-1000 is clearly much much larger than a 60-foot aircraft. A DDG-1000 should be trackable from hundreds of kilometers and locked at 100km or more. The DDG-1000 is a sitting duck for an anti-ship missile and that's why the U.S. Navy canceled it.

----------

Reference:

http://www.uacrussia.ru/en/models/military/su-35/su-35_design/printable.php?print=1

"The second advanced subsystem of the fire control system is a multichannel Optical Location System - infrared search-and-track (IRST) system of high precision and high jamming resistance. The IRST allows to acquire targets through their thermal radiation and track them at a range of up to 90 km. The system can also range aerial targets out at 20 km and ground targets out at 30 km. The IRST ensures laser illumination of ground threats to cue laser-guided bombs to the target. The podded optronic system enhances piloting and navigation capacities of the aircraft in the air-to-surface mode."

Secondary citation:

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/su-35/

"Infrared search and track

The infrared search and track fire control system, OLS-35 IRST, includes an infrared sensor, laser rangefinder, target designator and television camera. The accuracy of the laser rangefinder is 5m CEP (circular error probability), to a maximum range of 20km against airborne targets and 30km against ground targets. The OLS-35 is a high-performance system with ±90° azimuthal and +60°/-15° elevation coverage.

The system's acquisition range against a non-afterburning target is 50km forwards and 90km rearward. The Su-35 can also be fitted with a UOMZ Sapsan targeting and laser designation pod."

Martin Su

Reply To This Message
 
 A drone seeking out Infra Red
Author: tom Dragon 
Date:   06-14-12 22:12

send out a drone would do the job

Reply To This Message
 Forum List  |  New Topic  |  Go to Top  |  Go to Topic  |  Threaded View  |  Search  |  Log In   Newer Topic  |  Older Topic 


 Forum List  |  Need a Login? Register Here 
 User Login
 User Name:
 Password:
   

All messages are the expression of the contributors, who are solely responsible for the content. The forum does not endorse any views.

Google
 
Web asiawind.com
phorum.org The Asiawind forums are provided to you by InTechTra Inc.