Read the forum code of contact
By: - 30th March 2010 at 19:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm not following your logic. Your pdf contains information on how radio signal processing can be handled by up to 128 GPU cores. It has nothing to do with actual radar operations beyond a mere 32 potential beams. Add into the results that each GPU is tasked with a single purpose for the entire test, whereas there are only 8 of 13 benchmarks the GPU did well. Memory bandwidth was a constraint for the tests. We also don't know if these simplified theories break down in more rigorous testing such as with the range of the signal being lengthened; it has to wait for the signal's echo to go out and come back before processing each block/grid. Don't write too much into the paper. It says nothing how stealth one form is compared with another.
By: - 30th March 2010 at 20:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
heck does it really matter if the article doesnt support his view ?
as for slagging the f-35, if there's a will there's a way, even the colour will be wrong
By: - 30th March 2010 at 20:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
First of all I didn't see anything in that paper talking about countering LO/VLO targets(or the physics behind radar energy in terms of how it may be reflected away from the source, absorbed, etc...). You can improve filtering, but you still have to get a strong enough return to filter in the first place.
In otherwords, as long as you're using X band, you're going to have the same physical limitations. Processor speed, isn't going to render everyone visible again. Combinations of other sensor types is going to be a much more likely(and fruitful) way to go. Of course then you still have EA, jamming, ARMs, etc...which can degrade these systems.
Secondly, you keep repeating the falsehood that the F-35 isn't survivable due to its lack of manueverability. It's more agile than F-16s/F-18s, and has better acceleration.
By: - 30th March 2010 at 20:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm not following your logic.
Proof of concept. Nothing more, nothing less.
It demonstrates the back end of radars will be seeing massive improvements in the coming years. Far beyond any linear relationship related to Moore's law.
Improved signal processing improves the ability to pick out targets amongst clutter from high powered sets, and the ability to localise targets using longer wavelength radars.
By: - 30th March 2010 at 20:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
heck does it really matter if the article doesnt support his view ?
Article? What "article"?
You could probably do with opening the damn pdf before drawing your own conclusions.
Not that that would stop you drawing completely the wrong conclusions right enough. :rolleyes:
By: - 30th March 2010 at 20:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
First of all I didn't see anything in that paper talking about countering LO/VLO targets
"First of all" do you expect a complete solution on a f__king plate?
Use your brain to make the connections, thats what it is there for.
Secondly, you keep repeating the falsehood that the F-35 isn't survivable due to its lack of manueverability. It's more agile than F-16s/F-18s, and has better acceleration.
"Secondly" Have I mentioned the F-16 or F-18 in this thread? :confused:
404PostNotFound....
By: - 30th March 2010 at 20:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"First of all" do you expect a complete solution on a f__king plate?Use your brain to make the connections, thats what it is there for.
Did you read the rest of what I wrote, or did you immediately start responding once you saw that I didn't accept your assertion hook, line, and sinker?
"Secondly" Have I mentioned the F-16 or F-18 in this thread? :confused:404PostNotFound....
this may refresh your memory
The aircraft in question will need to fall back onto the traditional strengths of a combat aircraft, namely speed and maneuverability.
The F-22 has both properties in abundance. The F-35 does not.
So.......unless you're saying that an aircraft that is more agile(and quicker)than either of these aircraft doesn't possess the traditional strengths of a combat aircraft, I have to raise the BS flag. I'll grant you that the F-35's top speed is lower than either the F-22 or PAK FA, but so is every other recent fighter's.
By: - 31st March 2010 at 07:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So.......unless you're saying that an aircraft that is more agile(and quicker)than either of these aircraft doesn't possess the traditional strengths of a combat aircraft, I have to raise the BS flag. I'll grant you that the F-35's top speed is lower than either the F-22 or PAK FA, but so is every other recent fighter's.
I thought it was not about top speed but rather kinetic energy?
What about Typhoon, Su-30, Su-35 and Rafale? I thought they would all be more agile and also offer more kinetic energy than F-16/F-18. Since AFAIK the F-35 is supposed to be in the F-16/F-18 class when it comes to those traditional capabilities I would assume that the abovementioned a/c would all be stronger than the F-35 in this respect.
What kills a fighter today? I believe mainly missiles, and mainly SAMs.
I think it's very seldom these days that modern fighters end up in a dog fight. However in a dog fight I may actually prefer the Typhoon to the F-35....
And before anybody comments on the fact that the F-35 has been compared to a "clean F-16"; first, a Typhoon I believe do have some advantages to F-16 in general, and second; if you end up in a dog fight you are most likely in a "clean config". A "clean" F-35 vs a "clean" Typhoon in a dog fight; if we assume both pilots have the same skills I would bet on the Typhoon.
But to repeat what I said above; it's not the dog fight that kills the modern fighter. It's the missile. And I believe that F-35 will be more survivable in most scenarios due to it's stealth than any other fighter out there today (with the notable exception of F-22).
Better radars and better algorithms will make it easier to detect a VLO a/c like F-35; however it will also make it easier to detect LO a/c like Typhoon, Rafale, and Gripen NG.
What could be a bigger problem for VLO a/c could be multistatic radars, since they may make it as easy to detect and track a VLO than a LO a/c...
The Swedes have a design ready I believe -- it will be interesting to see if they actually start building such a network of radars when the PAK FA starts flying...?
Posts: 2,163
By: Amiga500 - 30th March 2010 at 19:14
http://www.hpcsweden.se/files/RadarSignalProcessingwithGraphicsProcessors.pdf
In a near 130 page document, it is quite hard to condense everything to a few lines. But basically it looks at using GPGPU acceleration for radar filtering algorithms.
It should be noted this work was completed on an FX4800, which has been replaced with the Fermi uarch. While crap for gaming, Fermi will accelerate the speedups to >200x vs. a CPU.
Thus, in the not too distant future, no manned aircraft will be invisible to cutting edge SAM radar within 50 miles, probably more like 100 miles. The aircraft in question will need to fall back onto the traditional strengths of a combat aircraft, namely speed and maneuverability.
The F-22 has both properties in abundance. The F-35 does not.
I am assuming the PAK-FA will be much closer to the F-22 than it will be to the F-35 (I think that is a fairly safe assumption).