gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
Right...That mean just because YOU have no relevant experience and does not exercise critical thinking skills, therefore these technical problems does not exists...I think the burden is on professor Arthur Ding to clearly explain the details behind his claim. I have not read a similar claim by other experts.
You are making a fool out of yourself. The reason why the F-16's flight control system able to control a negative stability aircraft is NOT of processing power, although such power is important, but about the response mechanisms that made up a 'flight control system'. The A/B models were analog. The FCLS computer sends commands to the flight control hydraulics, which operate with 3000lb/psi, to motivate flight control surfaces that weighs anywhere from tens to hundreds of lbs.The challenge seems pretty straightforward. A sensor provides targeting data for an incoming warhead. A giga-hertz computer processor (that can execute a billion instructions per second) makes continuous minute adjustments to the steering fins of the warhead and guides it to its target. What exactly is the problem?
We already know that modern flight computers make continuous adjustments to keep an unstable airplane in the air. Similarly, a modern computer should easily be able to make continuous adjustments to the "air fins" of a warhead.
Professor Ding gave us a conclusion. He needs to provide details and connect the dots if he wants to make a persuasive case. Currently, I am not persuaded.
Computers in Aviation
"The General Dynamics (now Lockheed-Martin) F-16, which entered service in the late 1970s and has been built in large numbers, was the first operational jet fighter to use an analog flight control system. The pilot steers the rudder pedals and joystick, but these are not directly connected to the control surfaces such as the rudder and ailerons. Instead, they are connected to a "fly-by-wire" flight control system. Three computers on the aircraft constantly adjust the flight controls to maintain the aircraft in flight and reply to the commands from the pilot. The F-16 is inherently unstable by design, meaning that it would fly out of control if the computers failed (which is why there are three of them). The designers made it unstable in order to improve its maneuverability. The computers constantly readjust the flight surfaces to keep the plane flying. Initially, pilots often referred to the F-16 as "the electric jet." But computer control systems have become so common that they are no longer unusual."
This is what a warhead container look like...
There is no room in EACH warhead to hold a hydraulic generator to produce that kind of pressure. The F-16 analogy is also inappropriate in that the aircraft was design with negative stability but nuclear warheads are NOT so design. These things do not have their own power. A warhead descends because of gravity and that speed, its shape demands positive aerodynamic stability to maintain consistent trajectory. An aircraft has the ability to return to any spatial point, as long as its fuel holds out. A nuclear warhead is unpowered, other than what gravity provides, therefore its spatial translation is ONE-WAY. An aircraft has the ability to control its velocity in either direction. A solely gravity powered nuclear warhead can only lose, not gain, velocity, that mean a nuclear warhead has only one chance to hit a moving target.