Quote: Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
Hmm, compare a pen size laser pointer designed to point at something vs a MTHEL that in best case fits in the largest avaliable truck, designed to destroy incoming missiles...or a hand held police speed-radar gun vs AWAC.
This analogue is flawed, they have different goal and purpose.
The point i was making is one of scale and technological advancement, which you obviously missed.
Quote:
Both satellite and plane mounted IR detectors will want to be as sensitive as possible, in order to detect at as far range as possible.
So you think a 30 year old analogue missile seeker and a brand new satalite sized system should be comperable in capability becasue they both have the same goal, to be as capable as possible, without considering the difference in cost? That is a flawed line of logic my friend.
Just because two systems are designed to be as capable as possible (which they are not, there are designed to do to very different jobs with two different sets of cost consitraints) does not somehow mean they will be comperable in capability, when they are totally different in terms of scale and sophistocation.
Look at the difference in ARH misille vs AEW&C capability. Again a contemporary ARH missile like AMRAAM may have a detection footprint vs a fighter of maybe 20km~30km. Modern AEW&C ~500km. An order of magnitude of difference. Same thing, i tiny little analogue seeker in a 100kg (seeker weight may be 5~10kgs) missile vs a several hundred kg IIR sensor with a much larger apature and proscessing capability. Pluss the most important point, the analogue seeker in the R-73 was designed in the 1970's and wasnt particularly world beating at the time, SBIRS sensors will be 2 generations more advanced.
Perhapse the most pertinant comparison would be between an FPA IIR seeker like those equiping the AIM-9X and SBIRS because they are actually technogically comperable. Lets say the AIM 9X seeker can detect a target at 40km in a clear air mass, to detect the same target from LEO (lets say ~500km) SBIRS would only have to be 10~15 times more capable, and the satelite would easilly be 10~15 times larger (probably significantly more that that). And of cource SBRIS would be technologically much more advanced that the AIM-9X's FPA seeker, and would cost a heap more in normalised terms. Now replace the AIm-X's FPA IIR seeker with the less advanced R-73's analogue seeker. Get the picture?
Basically its a much larger system and its a much more advanced system.
Quote:
This leaves it up to how large is the detector, and what obstacles in their respective environment.
No it doesent, what matters is the generic capability of your system, the size, type & sensitivity of the apature and sohistocation of both the sensor itself and the prosessing power of the computers. Only if all of those things are equal (and they aren't, not by a long shot), then the differecnece in operateing environement should be considered.
Quote:
Obstacles such as cloud cover in the observed atmosphere, and the fraction of ultra-high energy cosmic ray events that may be expected to occur in volumes of the viewed atmosphere non-obscured by clouds, and last but not least, background, sky or ground.
And your point is?
Apart from some specifics of the environment of space, the difference in operational environment is minimal. i.e. they're both looking at the same sky.
Quote:
It is unrealistic that one of these systems is 1000 times better then the other.
30%, at best, either way, sounds more reasonable.
You think a satelite sized IIR sensor that is still under development by the US DOD that will cost over $10 billion will be 30% more capable than a 1970's vintage, 3~7kg, analogue, missile seeker which is 2 generations less advanced? Are you frigging kidding me?
Quote:
Bullying doesn't have any sense if the victim doesn't know who's bullying- school bully's wisdom...
They would have known it was the russians from the radar track.
