berman-andrew@YALE.ARPA (Andrew P. Berman) (08/02/89)
From: "Andrew P. Berman" <berman-andrew@YALE.ARPA> I have a few questions about the B-2. First, does it use radar? If it does, then couldn't a combination visual sighting + radar seeking missile knock it down? Second, I recall an exposition on flat surfaces deflecting radar waves away from the sender. In that case, could two enemy aircraft working together as sender & receiver, find and track the Stealth? Third, how did they knock down enemy aircraft before the invention of radar, and could those tactics be used against the B-2? Andrew P. Berman (apberman@yale.cs.edu) P.S. : I'd appreciate it if people were careful to define their acronyms in their postings. Some of us readers are coming to this group with little to no military knowledge. Thanks in advance
amos@decwrl.dec.com (Amos Shapir) (08/03/89)
From: nsc!nsc.com!taux01!taux01.UUCP!amos@decwrl.dec.com (Amos Shapir) In article <8751@cbnews.ATT.COM> berman-andrew@YALE.ARPA (Andrew P. Berman) writes: >Third, how did they knock down enemy aircraft before the >invention of radar, and could those tactics be used against the B-2? They used observers. During the 'war of attrition' between Israel and Egypt (1967-70) the Egyptians used a network of observers and control centers to track down low flying Israeli bombers, quite effectively. Since this method is of Soviet origin, it could probably be used against the B-2. Never underestimate the power of low-tech methods. -- Amos Shapir amos@taux01.nsc.com or amos@nsc.nsc.com National Semiconductor (Israel) P.O.B. 3007, Herzlia 46104, Israel Tel. +972 52 522261 TWX: 33691, fax: +972-52-558322 34 48 E / 32 10 N (My other cpu is a NS32532)
djm@castle.ed.ac.uk (D Murphy) (08/04/89)
From: D Murphy <djm@castle.ed.ac.uk> In article <8751@cbnews.ATT.COM> berman-andrew@YALE.ARPA (Andrew P. Berman) writes: > > >From: "Andrew P. Berman" <berman-andrew@YALE.ARPA> > > >I have a few questions about the B-2. First, does it use radar? >If it does, then couldn't a combination visual sighting + radar seeking >missile knock it down? Depends. At high altitude the B-2 wouldn't need to use radar anyway until it was setting up its targetting - and even then it'd probably be possible to pulse the radar to make things difficult for HARM-type (Highspeed Anti Radar Missile) missiles. Once the targetting is complete the missile has lost its guidance. Also, at high altitude visual targetting would be difficult - systems that use semi-visual targetting such as the BAe Rapier are low-level devices. > Second, I recall an exposition on flat surfaces >deflecting radar waves away from the sender. In that case, could two >enemy aircraft working together as sender & receiver, find and track >the Stealth? Where from ? This would probably need 2 AWACS-like aircraft which would presumably be susceptible to either defensive missiles carried by the B-2 (does it have this capability ?) or to escorting fighters. In any case - in a BBC news report during the height of the Iranian missile attacks on Gulf shipping mention was made of radar-absorbing paint being used on commercial shipping. If they can make the stuff available for supertankers I dare say they've got something far more effective (and expensive :-)) for the B-2. > Third, how did they knock down enemy aircraft before the >invention of radar, and could those tactics be used against the B-2? > If you think about it this wasn't really a problem. The only time that countermeasures anything like those which would have to be taken against B-2s (or any strategic strike aircraft) were against Zeppelins and Gothas in WWI. The problem with the Zeppelins was that until the introduction of the SE5 the RFC (Royal Flying Corps - Army Air Wing which was the progenitor of the RAF) had nothing that could reach them and ground based anti aircraft guns were not very good. The Gotha's usually raided at night, and there was little that the RFC pilots could do except fly around and try to find them (they didn't even have radio and often couldn't find their way back). The first time air defence became really important was during WWII - and by then we had radar. 50 years to solve the problem is a helluva long time. I suppose you could keep lots of spotters flying about - but the logistics of doing this are awful and the system would be very prone to errors. > >Andrew P. Berman (apberman@yale.cs.edu) > > >P.S. : I'd appreciate it if people were careful to define their acronyms in >their postings. Some of us readers are coming to this group with little to >no military knowledge. Thanks in advance I only mentioned high altitude above - presumably low altitude approaches would use unfrared lasers for terrain following. Here's a question - there are devices called masers (microwave.....) which were actually developed a few years before lasers were. These produce narrow coherent microwave emissions - are these devices used instead of conventional magnetrons and such - as the coherent radiation would provide a more intense signal which would make ranging and resolution better ? Murff..... This one is: djm@uk.ac.ed.castle "War occurs to develop the weapons with djm%ed.castle@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk to fight the next one."
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (08/04/89)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: "Andrew P. Berman" <berman-andrew@YALE.ARPA> >... how did they knock down enemy aircraft before the >invention of radar, and could those tactics be used against the B-2? The quick answers are "with difficulty" and "yes, but". They used what they could: binoculars by day, searchlights by night, listening equipment to spot engine noise, intelligence reports on aircraft movements and possible targets. It didn't really work terribly well, which is why radar was such a tremendous improvement. If you want an example, look at the trouble Britain had during WW2. They had a good early-warning radar network looking outward, but virtually no radar coverage within the country. This led to a lot of groping in the dark (sometimes literally, for night raids!) when it came to actually putting fighters into contact with bombers. The pre-radar methods, and modern versions of same, are probably good enough to cause serious attrition in a stealth-bomber force in a prolonged campaign. Stopping a single attack cold, which is what's really wanted for a nuclear war, is much harder. With something of effectiveness comparable to radar, it *might* be feasible; without, no. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
mmm@apple.com (08/07/89)
From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@apple.com In article <8751@cbnews.ATT.COM> berman-andrew@YALE.ARPA (Andrew P. Berman) wr >Third, how did they knock down enemy aircraft before the >invention of radar, and could those tactics be used against the B-2? I remember seeing pictures of device used during WW2 which looked like giant ear trumpets. Depending on the weather, you might hear a plane before you can see it. By the time you hear a B-2, however, it will probably be too late. [mod.note: similar gizmos were used to locate enemy artillery for counterbattery purposes. - Bill ]
dritchey@ihlpb.att.com (Donald L Ritchey) (08/09/89)
From: dritchey@ihlpb.att.com (Donald L Ritchey) Summary: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@apple.com: In article (Message-ID: <8831@cbnews.ATT.COM>), you wrote > Approved: military@att.att.com > > > > From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@apple.com > In article <8751@cbnews.ATT.COM> berman-andrew@YALE.ARPA (Andrew P. Berman) wr >>Third, how did they knock down enemy aircraft before the >>invention of radar, and could those tactics be used against the B-2? > > I remember seeing pictures of device used during WW2 which looked like > giant ear trumpets. Depending on the weather, you might hear a plane > before you can see it. By the time you hear a B-2, however, it will > probably be too late. > > > [mod.note: similar gizmos were used to locate enemy artillery for > counterbattery purposes. - Bill ] To the best of my knowledge, these may still be in use in less developed countries and (probably) the Warsaw Pact (they never seem to throw ANYTHING away). The system is called a "sound ranging base" and used an array of very carefully surveyed low-pass microphones that fed to a central measurement base. The arrival times of the shock waves of the muzzle bursts were plotted on special charts and maps and could fairly accurately locate a firing battery in a reasonable amount of time. The system usually worked in conjunction with flash locating bases (sometimes co-located with the sound bases) to tell the sound base when to turn on the equipment and start to record. The flash bases worked on a triangulation system somewhat like the fire and smoke location towers for the forest service (remember the Smokey the Bear public service spots.) The system was limited to a small number of targeting attempts per hour (not sure of the exact number) and the interference of multiple simultaneous firing points also degraded the results. The modern counter-battery radar system can track multiple set of incoming rounds and project firing points in near-real time, but the disadvantage is that it is an active system and the other side can tell when you have turned it on. The flash and sound bases were passive and used land-line and thus were very difficult to determine if they were in place and/or active. Every military advance carries some trade-offs, you just have to evaluate whether the advantages outweigh the costs. Here the ability to catch an artillery battery on the first or second volley and accurately reverse to the firing point was very worth the added risks of an active radar signature. Don Ritchey dritchey@cbnewsc.att.com (or in real life) dritchey@ihlpb.att.com AT&T Bell Labs IH 1D-409 Naperville, IL 60566 (312) 979-6179 [ Note to Moderator: this is second hand from memory of old artillery education films when I was in the Army, you might want to solicit comments from those who KNOW what they are talking about. It might prove to be an enlightening discussion line, particularly about the cost/benefit ratio for the various counter-battery options. Don. ]
willey@arrakis.nevada.edu (James P. Willey) (08/09/89)
From: willey@arrakis.nevada.edu (James P. Willey) From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@apple.com In article <8751@cbnews.ATT.COM> berman-andrew@YALE.ARPA (Andrew P. Berman) wr >Third, how did they knock down enemy aircraft before the >invention of radar, and could those tactics be used against the B-2? Before radar became widely used, a network of visual outposts were set up. When men were drafted for war, women filled the ranks of many of these posts. Their primary instruments were a pair of binoculars, a telephone, and a good pair of eyes. One of these posts can be seen in the movie In Harm's Way [with John Wayne of course :-)]. As to whether or not it would be useful today, it would work just as well against low flying targets. I would imagine that by now something has been developed that would work better for the higher altitudes, but I don't know much about vision aids. Anybody in net.land know of anything that would work? As for various listening devices, they would be useful for initial detection, but there's no substitute for a good visual identification.