jha
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 10,962
- Reaction score
- -8
- Country
- Location
This is new news to me
Now this is news to me...You did not know about NIRBHAY before..??
India OKs $6.5B Plan To Build Stealth Destroyers
- Thread starter Choppers
- Start date
Now this is news to me...You did not know about NIRBHAY before..??
Laughing Buddha
BANNED
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2010
- Messages
- 175
- Reaction score
- 0
The Nirbhay
Indian defense scientists and military planners are now considering development of cruise missile options, in addition to the BrahMos. [44] On July 20, senior defense scientists announced the proposed development of a new multi-platform, terrain-hugging, subsonic cruise missile, titled Nirbhay (Fearless). The system would have a range of 1,000 km, putting it in the same class as the U.S. Tomahawk. [45] According to the plan, a technology demonstrator for the Nirbhay will be ready by early 2009. [46] With its longer range, the missile will be able to strike targets at greater distances than the 290-km range BrahMos. [47] Indian defense scientists point out that the range of the proposed Nirbhay would be significantly greater than that of Pakistan's 500- to 700-km range Babur. [48] They have also stated that the Nirbhay's low-altitude flight path will enhance its ability to evade enemy radars. [49]
Finally, there have been reports that in a bid to counter Pakistan's growing cruise missile strength, New Delhi has concluded an initial agreement with Israeli Aircraft Industries for development of a cruise missile interceptor that is based on a "naval point defense system," in which the interceptor missile is launched vertically and subsequently leans and moves toward its target. [50] According to some reports, the system, based on Israel's Barak-8 missile, will be meant for the Navy as well as the Air Force. [51] Other reports spoke of the proposed system in the context of defense against Pakistan's land attack capabilities. [52]
Indian defense scientists and military planners are now considering development of cruise missile options, in addition to the BrahMos. [44] On July 20, senior defense scientists announced the proposed development of a new multi-platform, terrain-hugging, subsonic cruise missile, titled Nirbhay (Fearless). The system would have a range of 1,000 km, putting it in the same class as the U.S. Tomahawk. [45] According to the plan, a technology demonstrator for the Nirbhay will be ready by early 2009. [46] With its longer range, the missile will be able to strike targets at greater distances than the 290-km range BrahMos. [47] Indian defense scientists point out that the range of the proposed Nirbhay would be significantly greater than that of Pakistan's 500- to 700-km range Babur. [48] They have also stated that the Nirbhay's low-altitude flight path will enhance its ability to evade enemy radars. [49]
Finally, there have been reports that in a bid to counter Pakistan's growing cruise missile strength, New Delhi has concluded an initial agreement with Israeli Aircraft Industries for development of a cruise missile interceptor that is based on a "naval point defense system," in which the interceptor missile is launched vertically and subsequently leans and moves toward its target. [50] According to some reports, the system, based on Israel's Barak-8 missile, will be meant for the Navy as well as the Air Force. [51] Other reports spoke of the proposed system in the context of defense against Pakistan's land attack capabilities. [52]
Laughing Buddha
BANNED
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2010
- Messages
- 175
- Reaction score
- 0
Flanking Maneuver
India intends to integrate a variant of its Nirbhay long-range cruise missile on the Suhkoi Su-30MKI Flanker strike aircraft, following the weapon’s initial development in the ground-launch configuration.
The addition of the Nirbhay to the Flanker’s weapons inventory would give the platform a long-range—and potentially strategic—strike capability. While details on the Nirbhay program remain scant, Indian officials have suggested the weapon will have a range of 800-1,000 km. (500-620 mi.).
An air-launched derivative of the Nirbhay would be a candidate platform for the air force element of India’s strategic nuclear triad ambitions. Packaging of a warhead in the constrained space of a cruise-missile body is a key technical challenge. The current Indian air force nuclear weapon capability consists almost certainly only of free-fall weapons.
The Nirbhay project is being led by India’s Defense Research and Development Organization’s (DRDO) Hyderabad-based Advanced Systems Laboratory.
The overall design and aerodynamic study work has been completed, as has the design of the propulsion system. There are suggestions that a mock-up of the design could be displayed at the AeroIndia show in 2011. A transporter erector launch vehicle is already being developed for the ground-launched version of the cruise missile by the DRDO’s Pune-based Research and Development Establishment (Engineering).
The acquisition of a 1,000-km.-class cruise missile is part of New Delhi’s strategy to match and surpass systems being developed by Islamabad. Pakistan is working on a ground-launched cruise missile called the Babur, likely with substantial Chinese help, and is probably receiving support from South Africa in developing the Ra’ad air-launched weapon. The Babur was unveiled in 2005 and the shorter-range Ra’ad was announced in 2007. The service status of both weapons remains uncertain.
Development of the Nirbhay apparently began at least five years ago. It would be the third indigenous weapon to equip the Su-30MKI, joining the Brahmos supersonic cruise missile—a variant of the NPO Mashinostroenia 3M55 (SS-N-26)—and the Astra medium-range air-to-air missile. The Nirbhay would have three times the range of the Brahmos. The army is also acquiring a ground-launched land-attack version of the Brahmos alongside the system in development for the air force.
An air-launched variant of the subsonic Nirbhay “is in the initial stages,” says an Indian industry official. There are “plans for it, but not immediately,” he adds.
The Nirbhay likely adopts a conventional cruise missile configuration with some form of flip-out mid-body wing and cruciform tail surfaces. The turbofan engine most likely will be recessed in the airframe body, given the requirement that the weapon be canister-launch-capable.
It is not yet clear which turbojet India plans to use for the Nirbhay. It did strike a deal with Russia over the supply and in-country manufacture of the Saturn 36MT engine in 2006, though the extent to which this deal has been implemented is uncertain.
There are also suggestions that India’s development program has had some technical support from Israel.
Given the size of the Nirbhay—reports suggest it is 6 meters (19.6 ft.)—the Su-30MKI would likely carry one or two of the missiles. To maximize platform range, the aircraft could carry one weapon on a pylon in the tunnel between the two engine bays. This is the approach being taken with the Brahmos missile, which is now scheduled to begin initial launch trials from a test aircraft in 2011. If the aircraft were to carry two Nirbhays, one could fit under each inboard wing-station.
New Delhi has also yet to disclose what kinds of mid-course and terminal guidance the Nirbhay will use. India and Russia did, however, strike a deal this year allowing Indian access to the high-precision signal of Moscow’s Glonass satellite navigation system.
In terms of medium-range standoff weapons, the Indian air force’s Su-30MKI can carry the Russian Missile Corp. Kh-59M (AS-18 Kazoo). A conventional variant of the Nirbhay, with the requisite level of accuracy, would provide a long-range precision-strike complement to the Kh-59M.
India intends to integrate a variant of its Nirbhay long-range cruise missile on the Suhkoi Su-30MKI Flanker strike aircraft, following the weapon’s initial development in the ground-launch configuration.
The addition of the Nirbhay to the Flanker’s weapons inventory would give the platform a long-range—and potentially strategic—strike capability. While details on the Nirbhay program remain scant, Indian officials have suggested the weapon will have a range of 800-1,000 km. (500-620 mi.).
An air-launched derivative of the Nirbhay would be a candidate platform for the air force element of India’s strategic nuclear triad ambitions. Packaging of a warhead in the constrained space of a cruise-missile body is a key technical challenge. The current Indian air force nuclear weapon capability consists almost certainly only of free-fall weapons.
The Nirbhay project is being led by India’s Defense Research and Development Organization’s (DRDO) Hyderabad-based Advanced Systems Laboratory.
The overall design and aerodynamic study work has been completed, as has the design of the propulsion system. There are suggestions that a mock-up of the design could be displayed at the AeroIndia show in 2011. A transporter erector launch vehicle is already being developed for the ground-launched version of the cruise missile by the DRDO’s Pune-based Research and Development Establishment (Engineering).
The acquisition of a 1,000-km.-class cruise missile is part of New Delhi’s strategy to match and surpass systems being developed by Islamabad. Pakistan is working on a ground-launched cruise missile called the Babur, likely with substantial Chinese help, and is probably receiving support from South Africa in developing the Ra’ad air-launched weapon. The Babur was unveiled in 2005 and the shorter-range Ra’ad was announced in 2007. The service status of both weapons remains uncertain.
Development of the Nirbhay apparently began at least five years ago. It would be the third indigenous weapon to equip the Su-30MKI, joining the Brahmos supersonic cruise missile—a variant of the NPO Mashinostroenia 3M55 (SS-N-26)—and the Astra medium-range air-to-air missile. The Nirbhay would have three times the range of the Brahmos. The army is also acquiring a ground-launched land-attack version of the Brahmos alongside the system in development for the air force.
An air-launched variant of the subsonic Nirbhay “is in the initial stages,” says an Indian industry official. There are “plans for it, but not immediately,” he adds.
The Nirbhay likely adopts a conventional cruise missile configuration with some form of flip-out mid-body wing and cruciform tail surfaces. The turbofan engine most likely will be recessed in the airframe body, given the requirement that the weapon be canister-launch-capable.
It is not yet clear which turbojet India plans to use for the Nirbhay. It did strike a deal with Russia over the supply and in-country manufacture of the Saturn 36MT engine in 2006, though the extent to which this deal has been implemented is uncertain.
There are also suggestions that India’s development program has had some technical support from Israel.
Given the size of the Nirbhay—reports suggest it is 6 meters (19.6 ft.)—the Su-30MKI would likely carry one or two of the missiles. To maximize platform range, the aircraft could carry one weapon on a pylon in the tunnel between the two engine bays. This is the approach being taken with the Brahmos missile, which is now scheduled to begin initial launch trials from a test aircraft in 2011. If the aircraft were to carry two Nirbhays, one could fit under each inboard wing-station.
New Delhi has also yet to disclose what kinds of mid-course and terminal guidance the Nirbhay will use. India and Russia did, however, strike a deal this year allowing Indian access to the high-precision signal of Moscow’s Glonass satellite navigation system.
In terms of medium-range standoff weapons, the Indian air force’s Su-30MKI can carry the Russian Missile Corp. Kh-59M (AS-18 Kazoo). A conventional variant of the Nirbhay, with the requisite level of accuracy, would provide a long-range precision-strike complement to the Kh-59M.
flaming arrow
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 685
- Reaction score
- 0
jha
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 10,962
- Reaction score
- -8
- Country
- Location
^^^ hahahaha..NP..
BTW at first even i was under impression that we are developing a new one..
(Who knows we might be
)..Cant say anything about missile development and Navy these days...Both are sprinting these days..
BTW at first even i was under impression that we are developing a new one..
(Who knows we might be
)..Cant say anything about missile development and Navy these days...Both are sprinting these days..
gowthamraj
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2009
- Messages
- 1,288
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
I love this so much 
. Come quick, come quick
. Come quick, come quick
Kyusuibu Honbu
BANNED
- Joined
- May 21, 2010
- Messages
- 15,305
- Reaction score
- -21
- Country
- Location
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
Ships that are 'stealthy'...??? Let us have some basic info before the discussion gets to the fantastic...
A ship is a much more complex body than an aircraft. It is larger, is composed of many individual facets, and those facets comes in many shapes and sizes. The above is how a radar computer sort of 'sees' a ship -- a composition of many facets. Actually, each facet is more like a voltage spike with the larger facets having the highest spikes.
The above is called a 'corner reflector' and is lethal for a ship.
RAWIN_construction
If the seeking radar is shore based, then the radar computer would see a cluster of spikes, facets and corner reflectors, against empty background. The word 'empty' here should not be taken literally. It mean a clutter rejection threshold, aka electronic 'junk' that we do not want to see. Cosmic background radiation is considered clutter by the military but not by astronomers. If the radar is airborne, then there would be a cluster of spikes against a water background, which is also clutter but with different characteristics. The goal for a 'stealthy' ship is to reduce as much as possible facets, large and small, that can be laterally seen by a shore based radar, or more accurately any radar that is on the same plane as the ship itself.
A frontal assault on any ship is undesirable because of the far lesser available electronic returns from those facets. That is why missiles' programmings are biased towards side assaults on any ship. Much more available radar returns for a statistical analysis to focus on a target and to help, not ensure, in defeating electronic countermeasures such as chaff. So tactically speaking, reducing lateral radar returns make sense. Reducing lateral radar returns also increases, not guarantee, chaff effectiveness in defense against Exocet-type missiles.
It is easier said than done on designing a 'stealthy' ship by removing corner reflectors and facets, particularly facets that can be perpendicular to a radar. Vents, stairs, hatches, portholes, communication antennas, radar antennas, exhaust stacks, railings, etc...etc...Items common on deck must be electronically 'sterilized' somehow. Either stowed away below or redesigned to deflect radar echoes away from the seeking radar, aka 'incident angle' or direction. Louvered vents are structurally natural radar echoes producer and amplifiers. Out with it. Now how are you going to vent potentially lethal exhaust gases from below deck?
Just because an item is redesigned so that it cannot be a corner reflector by itself, that does not mean that when placed next to another item on deck that the two items do not create a larger corner reflector. That mean every redesigned item MUST be electronically verified that it will not be a corner reflector COMPONENT when the ship is virtually assembled in a CAD simulation. A radar low observable ship is not a design project for any Joe's shipyard precisely because of the risk that EVERY item can be either a corner reflector or a component of a reflector when placed next to each other.
Your potential enemy is not going to do you a favor by telling you how screwed up your 'stealth' ship really is. And if you have a kind ally, by the time he is done with helping you testing your ship with his radar, the cost of redesigning to repair the electronic flaws may be prohibitive. All that money wasted. You have to get it right the first time.
A ship is a much more complex body than an aircraft. It is larger, is composed of many individual facets, and those facets comes in many shapes and sizes. The above is how a radar computer sort of 'sees' a ship -- a composition of many facets. Actually, each facet is more like a voltage spike with the larger facets having the highest spikes.
The above is called a 'corner reflector' and is lethal for a ship.
RAWIN_construction
So just because small boats want to be seen by large ships, does that mean warships also want to be seen in amplified fashion by other warships? Absolutely not. The next time any one goes on a ship, try to count how many corner reflectors are there. Do not be surprised if you lose count.
If the seeking radar is shore based, then the radar computer would see a cluster of spikes, facets and corner reflectors, against empty background. The word 'empty' here should not be taken literally. It mean a clutter rejection threshold, aka electronic 'junk' that we do not want to see. Cosmic background radiation is considered clutter by the military but not by astronomers. If the radar is airborne, then there would be a cluster of spikes against a water background, which is also clutter but with different characteristics. The goal for a 'stealthy' ship is to reduce as much as possible facets, large and small, that can be laterally seen by a shore based radar, or more accurately any radar that is on the same plane as the ship itself.
A frontal assault on any ship is undesirable because of the far lesser available electronic returns from those facets. That is why missiles' programmings are biased towards side assaults on any ship. Much more available radar returns for a statistical analysis to focus on a target and to help, not ensure, in defeating electronic countermeasures such as chaff. So tactically speaking, reducing lateral radar returns make sense. Reducing lateral radar returns also increases, not guarantee, chaff effectiveness in defense against Exocet-type missiles.
It is easier said than done on designing a 'stealthy' ship by removing corner reflectors and facets, particularly facets that can be perpendicular to a radar. Vents, stairs, hatches, portholes, communication antennas, radar antennas, exhaust stacks, railings, etc...etc...Items common on deck must be electronically 'sterilized' somehow. Either stowed away below or redesigned to deflect radar echoes away from the seeking radar, aka 'incident angle' or direction. Louvered vents are structurally natural radar echoes producer and amplifiers. Out with it. Now how are you going to vent potentially lethal exhaust gases from below deck?
Just because an item is redesigned so that it cannot be a corner reflector by itself, that does not mean that when placed next to another item on deck that the two items do not create a larger corner reflector. That mean every redesigned item MUST be electronically verified that it will not be a corner reflector COMPONENT when the ship is virtually assembled in a CAD simulation. A radar low observable ship is not a design project for any Joe's shipyard precisely because of the risk that EVERY item can be either a corner reflector or a component of a reflector when placed next to each other.
Your potential enemy is not going to do you a favor by telling you how screwed up your 'stealth' ship really is. And if you have a kind ally, by the time he is done with helping you testing your ship with his radar, the cost of redesigning to repair the electronic flaws may be prohibitive. All that money wasted. You have to get it right the first time.
ganimi kawa
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2010
- Messages
- 840
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
^^ Some nice info there, going through it would definately curtail the number of imaginative posts here ( so far there haven't been any!) Just highlighting a few points from the above post for those trigger happy posters who like to skip technical looking longish posts and head straight for quick reply box.
In nutshell guys, do not make assumptions about P 15b ships by watching the "invisible stealth ship" from the bond movie "Tomorrow never dies"
In nutshell guys, do not make assumptions about P 15b ships by watching the "invisible stealth ship" from the bond movie "Tomorrow never dies"
ganimi kawa
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2010
- Messages
- 840
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
@ Gambit, I am a bit confused about the reason for which these two paras were added to your post.
What are you trying to convey in relation to this thread? India does have good experience in ship designing and has taken the incremental approach towards designing "stealth" ships. Starting from shivalik class, the ships will be more and more LO as capabilities mature.
We do have the capabilities to assess how stealthy our ships actually are! And few friends like Russia and Israel will also help us.
What are you trying to convey in relation to this thread? India does have good experience in ship designing and has taken the incremental approach towards designing "stealth" ships. Starting from shivalik class, the ships will be more and more LO as capabilities mature.
We do have the capabilities to assess how stealthy our ships actually are! And few friends like Russia and Israel will also help us.
Last edited:
STD
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2010
- Messages
- 109
- Reaction score
- 0
Ships that are 'stealthy'...??? Let us have some basic info before the discussion gets to the fantastic...
A ship is a much more complex body than an aircraft. It is larger, is composed of many individual facets, and those facets comes in many shapes and sizes. The above is how a radar computer sort of 'sees' a ship -- a composition of many facets. Actually, each facet is more like a voltage spike with the larger facets having the highest spikes.
The above is called a 'corner reflector' and is lethal for a ship.
RAWIN_construction
So just because small boats want to be seen by large ships, does that mean warships also want to be seen in amplified fashion by other warships? Absolutely not. The next time any one goes on a ship, try to count how many corner reflectors are there. Do not be surprised if you lose count.
If the seeking radar is shore based, then the radar computer would see a cluster of spikes, facets and corner reflectors, against empty background. The word 'empty' here should not be taken literally. It mean a clutter rejection threshold, aka electronic 'junk' that we do not want to see. Cosmic background radiation is considered clutter by the military but not by astronomers. If the radar is airborne, then there would be a cluster of spikes against a water background, which is also clutter but with different characteristics. The goal for a 'stealthy' ship is to reduce as much as possible facets, large and small, that can be laterally seen by a shore based radar, or more accurately any radar that is on the same plane as the ship itself.
A frontal assault on any ship is undesirable because of the far lesser available electronic returns from those facets. That is why missiles' programmings are biased towards side assaults on any ship. Much more available radar returns for a statistical analysis to focus on a target and to help, not ensure, in defeating electronic countermeasures such as chaff. So tactically speaking, reducing lateral radar returns make sense. Reducing lateral radar returns also increases, not guarantee, chaff effectiveness in defense against Exocet-type missiles.
It is easier said than done on designing a 'stealthy' ship by removing corner reflectors and facets, particularly facets that can be perpendicular to a radar. Vents, stairs, hatches, portholes, communication antennas, radar antennas, exhaust stacks, railings, etc...etc...Items common on deck must be electronically 'sterilized' somehow. Either stowed away below or redesigned to deflect radar echoes away from the seeking radar, aka 'incident angle' or direction. Louvered vents are structurally natural radar echoes producer and amplifiers. Out with it. Now how are you going to vent potentially lethal exhaust gases from below deck?
Just because an item is redesigned so that it cannot be a corner reflector by itself, that does not mean that when placed next to another item on deck that the two items do not create a larger corner reflector. That mean every redesigned item MUST be electronically verified that it will not be a corner reflector COMPONENT when the ship is virtually assembled in a CAD simulation. A radar low observable ship is not a design project for any Joe's shipyard precisely because of the risk that EVERY item can be either a corner reflector or a component of a reflector when placed next to each other.
Your potential enemy is not going to do you a favor by telling you how screwed up your 'stealth' ship really is. And if you have a kind ally, by the time he is done with helping you testing your ship with his radar, the cost of redesigning to repair the electronic flaws may be prohibitive. All that money wasted. You have to get it right the first time.
Ok Ok ,we know you are a military professional,no need to show off,we can get the same data using a service called "GOOGLE"
Laughing Buddha
BANNED
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2010
- Messages
- 175
- Reaction score
- 0
These features are being tested for project 15B
The Adaptive Water Curtain Technology (AWCT) is intended to deflect and scatter enemy radar waves thus reducing the ship’s radar cross section (RCS). It consists of (highly conductive) sea water sprayed in a fashion that effectively creates an angled radar reflective curtain around the ship.
To reduce the ship’s remaining RCS, the water curtain can be "modulated" such that the returns appear as "Sea Clutter." This could be done by determining the surrounding Sea State--either locally, or from satellite Sea State data, i.e., deriving the Sea Clutter Spectrum; and applying the appropriate coefficients to the modulating process for optimum mimicry.
This approach is suggested as an "Add-On" to existing surface ships, an interim measure until the next generation DD(X) of stealthy surface ships has replaced this class. The Arleigh Burke class Destroyer--which has rudimentary stealth technology, is used as an example of a recipient ship for this technology. Although this class of ship has a reduced RCS over its predecessor, it can still benefit significantly from the proposed technology.
This technology can reduce a surface ship's vulerability to Radar cross-section (RCS), Infrared signature (IR), and Visual signature reduction
FEATURES:
1)_ Reduced RCS.
2)_ IR Signature Mitigation of Ship Stacks by the use of "Pre-Cooled" Water Curtain.
3)_ Reduced Visual Signature (Camouflage).
4)_ Possible EMP Protection. more
5)_ System able to mimic Sea Clutter.
6)_ Water streams can be "Modulated" for enhanced concealment.
7)_ Uses Fire Fighting Technology.
8)_ Compensation for finite Water Stream boundaries (gaps), using Spray and Misting.
9)_ System uses Feedback for accurate positioning of Water Stream "Landing zone."
10)_ Able to (actively) Resist Wind Loading on Water Curtain.
11)_ Can Selectively open Gaps in Water Curtain for Radar, IR, Communications, etc.
12)_ Satellite (or RPV) for Interactive Sensing and Alignment for Stealth Optimization.
13)_ System Cleaning by Periodic Flushing with brackish or clean water.
Optimizing Mimicry, Interactively-
Satellite Sea State Data could either be taken from the NOAA database, or for better accuracy, certain DoD satellites could be tasked to directly observe the ship’s unique signature in real-time, while interactively ‘tweaking’ for optimum stealth. There could also be a locally launched UAV to do this same interactive alignment.
Fundamental questions to be answered:
1)_ Wind Effects: wind loading on solid stream, tables, and/or plots.
2)_ Radar properties of sea water, solid stream, breaking stream, spray, misting: absorption, scattering, refraction, and reflection.
3)_ The effect of 'pre-cooled' water curtain on IR signature of exhaust stacks.
4)_ Effect of falling water (from water curtain) on ship's acoustic signature.
5)_ Maximum (GPM) amount of water required for optimum effectiveness.
6)_ Features required for optimum mimicry of local sea state, i.e., boundary between water curtain and sea surface..
The Adaptive Water Curtain Technology (AWCT) is intended to deflect and scatter enemy radar waves thus reducing the ship’s radar cross section (RCS). It consists of (highly conductive) sea water sprayed in a fashion that effectively creates an angled radar reflective curtain around the ship.
To reduce the ship’s remaining RCS, the water curtain can be "modulated" such that the returns appear as "Sea Clutter." This could be done by determining the surrounding Sea State--either locally, or from satellite Sea State data, i.e., deriving the Sea Clutter Spectrum; and applying the appropriate coefficients to the modulating process for optimum mimicry.
This approach is suggested as an "Add-On" to existing surface ships, an interim measure until the next generation DD(X) of stealthy surface ships has replaced this class. The Arleigh Burke class Destroyer--which has rudimentary stealth technology, is used as an example of a recipient ship for this technology. Although this class of ship has a reduced RCS over its predecessor, it can still benefit significantly from the proposed technology.
This technology can reduce a surface ship's vulerability to Radar cross-section (RCS), Infrared signature (IR), and Visual signature reduction
FEATURES:
1)_ Reduced RCS.
2)_ IR Signature Mitigation of Ship Stacks by the use of "Pre-Cooled" Water Curtain.
3)_ Reduced Visual Signature (Camouflage).
4)_ Possible EMP Protection. more
5)_ System able to mimic Sea Clutter.
6)_ Water streams can be "Modulated" for enhanced concealment.
7)_ Uses Fire Fighting Technology.
8)_ Compensation for finite Water Stream boundaries (gaps), using Spray and Misting.
9)_ System uses Feedback for accurate positioning of Water Stream "Landing zone."
10)_ Able to (actively) Resist Wind Loading on Water Curtain.
11)_ Can Selectively open Gaps in Water Curtain for Radar, IR, Communications, etc.
12)_ Satellite (or RPV) for Interactive Sensing and Alignment for Stealth Optimization.
13)_ System Cleaning by Periodic Flushing with brackish or clean water.
Optimizing Mimicry, Interactively-
Satellite Sea State Data could either be taken from the NOAA database, or for better accuracy, certain DoD satellites could be tasked to directly observe the ship’s unique signature in real-time, while interactively ‘tweaking’ for optimum stealth. There could also be a locally launched UAV to do this same interactive alignment.
Fundamental questions to be answered:
1)_ Wind Effects: wind loading on solid stream, tables, and/or plots.
2)_ Radar properties of sea water, solid stream, breaking stream, spray, misting: absorption, scattering, refraction, and reflection.
3)_ The effect of 'pre-cooled' water curtain on IR signature of exhaust stacks.
4)_ Effect of falling water (from water curtain) on ship's acoustic signature.
5)_ Maximum (GPM) amount of water required for optimum effectiveness.
6)_ Features required for optimum mimicry of local sea state, i.e., boundary between water curtain and sea surface..
Last edited:
Kyusuibu Honbu
BANNED
- Joined
- May 21, 2010
- Messages
- 15,305
- Reaction score
- -21
- Country
- Location
Desi Sher
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2010
- Messages
- 303
- Reaction score
- 0
Ok Ok ,we know you are a military professional,no need to show off,we can get the same data using a service called "GOOGLE"
You are new, But Perhaps You dont know that the Person whom you criticized is the Most respected member In Here.... You are embarrassing non other than Yourself dear
Similar threads
