Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Book Explains Guidance System

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • hairog
    replied










    Leave a comment:


  • Aber
    replied
    Originally posted by hairog View Post
    When it looks like they are about to have to admit they were wrong, that's when they start making stuff up.

    Leave a comment:


  • hairog
    replied
    I get tired of the BS sometimes. There actually is some good information that is posted. You just have to sift through the mostly pertinent information to weed out the stuff that pulled out of their ass.
    When it looks like they are about to have to admit they were wrong, that's when they start making stuff up.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michele
    replied
    I simply can't believe you have the patience to reply to this stuff! It does make for a good laugh, but taking it apart point by point... wow.

    Leave a comment:


  • hairog
    replied
    Damn. lost track of this one.
    I’ll bite and take on a few of these before getting to the meat of the matter.
    Singapore was lost primarily because of two reasons: First, the Commonwealth troops there were almost all very green recruits with little training beyond their basic skills. Second, the command was hidebound and bureaucratic not taking all precautions against attack.
    Why were there only green recruits and bad command assigned to the empires premier fortress in the Pacific? Answer: It was racism pure and simple. The British establishment, along with the US, just couldn’t wrap their minds around the threat Japan posed. “Caricatures of them began to display disproportionately large heads, distinctly small and squinted eyes, improbably large glasses, and laughably prominent front teeth.”












    The Blitzkrieg in France succeeded mainly because the French had an incredibly poor military doctrine.
    Caused by failure to recognize a good idea when it was presented to them by their own Charles de Gualle.

    In Poland it was simply overwhelming the Polish Army. The "Blitz" really made no difference.
    Same reason as above for France.

    Pearl Harbor was a case of a peacetime military being surprised attacked.
    Racism once again along with the British.

    Let's simplify this set of statements.

    Are you are contending that there are every idea is rejected solely on a logical and factual basis? That such things as politics, other agendas, religion, stupidity, racism, lack of imagination etc. have no bearing on the rejection of innovative ideas? If you are, you are dead wrong.

    I would state that you don't get to choose the engagement angle most of the time, particularly with the SAM's. But, since for roughly 70 to 80% of the flight of a Wasserfall clone the bird won't even see the target, it is unlikely it's going to hit anything anyway. At 15 miles (about the max possible range for such a missile) the target is the same as viewing a 1/72nd scale B-29 model at 1100 feet, nearly a quarter of a mile.
    Are you saying that a pilot closing at a rate of 600 mph could not ram a B-29? Happened close to a hundred times over Japan near the end of the war when the Japanese were on their last legs. Russians had a special unit to do just that. Best angle to attack a B-17 was from 12 o'clock high. If you wanted to survive you had to fire at between 800 and 300 feet and then evade. If you wanted to hit the bomber you could do that.

    For shits and grins I created a mission in IL2 1946 Flight Simulator.

    I know…I know T.A. will dismiss this out of hand. He will disregard all the factors that the new modded simulator has incorporated, denigrate it and dismiss it out of hand. I personally trust a bunch of anal retentive programmers more than a fellow who cherry picks facts and occasionally makes them up so he never has to admit he’s wrong. For others who know how much time and effort it took the programmers to get the physics correct, you will appreciate this.

    At a closing speed of 1500 kph I was able to hit a B-29 with a Me 163 Comet three out of 20 times and come close enough to set off a proximity type fuse 50% of the time. As T.A. said it is very hard.

    Three out of 20 is 15%. I have a 10% hit rate in my story, so not too bad.

    Next T.A. will go on about the proximity fuse. My answer to that is, you can teach a pigeon to hit a special detonation button when the planes got to be a certain size. Peck, peck at images on the screen when they get big enough peck the red button, WHAM. Pretty easy to do actually.

    Video here

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNlT...ature=youtu.be

    That assumes clear atmosphere. Haze, clouds, sun position, will all shorten that viewing range substantially. It's not like Russia has nice sunny weather most of the year.

    For example, your story has the US attacking Leningrad. Cloud cover there is almost a certainty. The median cloud cover there is overcast with 97% cloud. Therefore, your missile system is dealing with the attackers being invisible to ground observation and would be for most of a missile's flight.
    I acknowledged that if the US knew that the missile was visually guided they could do many things to defeat it. Flares would not work however, as Skinner tested the birds and they passed and never missed a peck.

    From data on the V2 which performed ballistically very similarly. It pulled 8G's during its boost phase of flight.
    And of course there would be no maneuvering at 8 Gs and even if there was the birds would still perform. Skinner tested that too as I have informed you already.

    I am amazed at your ability to reject the scientific method, meticulous data collection, controlled experiments, rigorous attention to detail, and highly realistic simulated conditions and just plain common sense in your quest to be contrary. I have to assume that you have a problem with logical thinking if you can reject out of hand Skinner’s studies and experiments for no apparent reason. Nobody and I mean nobody has found any flaws in Skinner's experiments. They were performed to the highest scientific standards and still stand today as a model of how to conduct an experiment.

    By the way do you still reject that global warming is man-made? How about Intel flights over the USSR etc.? Just another example of your inability to look at the facts objectively and come to a logical conclusion if it makes you look bad. Just asking.

    This is just a mis-mash of logical fallacies. Taking real examples: A Sagger missile operator with thousands of training launches simulated and real hits a stationary tank at 3000 meters just 80% of the time and a moving one less than 40% of the time. Slower target, slower missile, larger sight picture.
    Larger sight picture but more ground clutter than a big silver airplane in a bright blue sky going in a straight line, with a contrail pointing out their location. Sorry not comparable.

    So, yes, I'm trying to tell you that a mach 2 missile closing on a target moving several hundred miles an hour and from a range of say a mile or two which it will cover in a matter of under 5 seconds is going to miss using optical control, particularly an optical system with a very limited field of view.

    The SA-2 Guideline SAM in Vietnam against maneuvering aircraft had about a 6% success rate. Against non-maneuvering aircraft it was about 15%. In the face of countermeasures it fell to about 1%.
    Not a maneuvering target, not going mach 2, Kamikaze and the German fighters closed on their attacks on US bombers from the front when they hit with bullets and their planes and there no counter measures. And I have a 10% success rate in my story.

    The main outcome is creating holes and breaking up the bomber formations so the Soviet fighters have a better success rate. There is no wiping the skies clean, no replacing the interceptor just another tool in the toolbox.

    The US and Britain aren't stupid. They'd know what the planted stuff was in short order and determine it couldn't do what was being observed.
    How in the world could you possibly make such a jump of ill-logic without knowing the circumstances etc. You know the real story on how the British won the Battle of the Beams...right? Look up The M Room by Helen Fry. Could the US and Brits have broken the Enigma without the Polish providing an actual machine? You do know how badly our rocket program was going before we brought Van Brown into the mix...oh that's right, you’re going to go into another one of your revisionist histories.

    You are simply brushing aside the technical issues to make the idea workable. PFM is fine in fiction, if you are willing to admit it's PFM.
    No, you are just brushing aside the scientific method, logic, facts, recorded successful demonstrations, data collection, yada yada yada. You seem to come to conclusions by piecing together handpicked, esoteric and unrelated data that may or may not be accurate or in your case just plain made up. In the Wasserfal matter and others, you were shall we say, economical with the truth.

    FYI
    1. Pigeons have the capacity to share attention between different dimensions of a stimulus, but (like humans and other animals) their performance with multiple dimensions is worse than with a single stimulus dimension.
    2. Pigeons can be taught relatively complex actions and response sequences, and can learn to make responses in different sequences.
    3. Pigeons readily learn to respond in the presence of one simple stimulus and withhold responding in the presence of a different stimulus, or to make different responses in the presence of different stimuli. Loud noises, bright lights, female pigeons,
    4. Pigeons can see much better than humans.
    5. Pigeons readily learn to make discriminative responses to different categories of stimuli, defined either by arbitrary rules (e.g. green triangles) or by human concepts (e.g. pictures of human beings).
    6. It has been proven that pigeons can withstand huge G forces.
    7. A pressurized capsule that would keep one pigeon alive and pecking long enough and be small enough to replace the original wire guidance system of the X-4 AAM.
    8. Pigeons seem to have difficulty in dealing with problems involving classes of classes. Thus they do not do very well with the isolation of a relationship among variables, as against a representation of a set of exemplars.
    9. Pigeons can remember large numbers of individual images for a long time, e.g. hundreds of images for periods of several years.


    Deming is the tip of an enormous iceburg on the subject of manufacturing and industrial engineering, my degree background. GM failed in the 70's and 80's primarily through over application of automation on assembly lines. They did this to reduce labor costs because the UAW had overpriced autoworker labor. Toyota (and other manufacturers) continued to use more manual labor in the assembly process getting higher reliability.GM went bankrupt primarily because of the cost of union retirement plans. That is what Obama's bail out of them was primarily for.
    Your Alma mater should ask you to give back your diploma. Where did you go to school the University of Iacocca Planned Obsolescence College or how about Jack Welsh Ship Jobs Overseas University or maybe Friedman Privatize and Steal Graduate School? This one… How to Not Pay Taxes, The Exon Mobil Campus? How about the Carl Icahn Steal Pension Funds State University. I know it’s The Trickle Down Chicago School of Regressive Economics. No wait, I got it..., The Six Days to Create the Flat Earth, Creationism, and Revisionist School of John Barton.

    Sorry to tell you, but your marginal grasp of these subjects just doesn't cut the mustard outside of fictional stories.
    Your revisionist take on history and unsupported economic theories, are of no interest to me. I wasted a lot of time in the past tracking down your calculated and intentional errors on the Wasserfal, the start of US intelligence overflights of the USSR, and a number of other subjects.

    The end result is that I no longer value your opinion. I certainly don’t care what you think about me or the quality and quantity of my knowledge base. I would much rather make the occasional error and correct it rather than compromise my integrity in order to continue the documented facade of infallibility.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by hairog View Post
    This kind of thing is why a ridged mentality could not comprehend a good idea when it was presented. Skinner could not get through exactly the kind of type of mind set you are presenting.
    That doesn't address the previous objections, it is simply an ad hominem.

    Did you read the paper? This is exactly why Billy Mitchel was court-martialed. This is exactly why the Gatling gun and the Spencer did not end the American Civil War 2 years earlier. This is exactly the kind of thinking that lost Singapore, created the conditions for Pearl Harbor and The Blitzkrieg
    .

    Yes, not impressed by it.

    And, you are wrong on the rest.

    Billy Mitchell was court martialed for disobeying orders. The tests on the Ostfriedland were carefully designed to allow the observers to discover exactly what kind of damage a battleship could and would take from aerial bombing. Nobody present thought that bombing the ship could never sink it. That's a myth.
    Mitchell, instead of following orders decided on his own to load much larger bombs than called for and sink the ship as a publicity stunt. He was court martialed for it because his arrogant desire to "prove" air power over came his duty to do his job.
    The Ostfriesdland incident got him demoted to Colonel. His court martial came later as a result of continued outspokenness and arrogance towards higher command. The actual court martial was for insubordination.

    The Gatling was turned down because the early models regularly jammed in use, used non-standard cartridges, and had other design issues. Once these were cleared up the US Army (and other militaries) bought the guns for use.

    The Spencer was, like the Sharps, and Henry Volcanic, an expensive and difficult gun to manufacture. Ammunition cost much more and most arsenals and manufacturers couldn't make it as it required dies and stamping / forming machinery to make the cartridges. Post war the Spencer was taken out of service for several reasons, not all justified. As for your statement "ending the civil war two years earlier..." that is pure speculation without any foundation.
    About 700,000 M1861 Springfield rifled musket were manufactured during the war. 900,000 Enfield rifled muskets were imported. Against that about 95,000 Spencer rifles and carbines were manufactured and issued, not an inconsequential amount. But, it also shows there is no way it could have become the predominant arm of the Union simply because they couldn't have made enough.
    Singapore was lost primarily because of two reasons: First, the Commonwealth troops there were almost all very green recruits with little training beyond their basic skills. Second, the command was hidebound and bureaucratic not taking all precautions against attack.
    The Blitzkrieg in France succeeded mainly because the French had an incredibly poor military doctrine. In Poland it was simply overwhelming the Polish Army. The "Blitz" really made no difference.
    Pearl Harbor was a case of a peacetime military being surprised attacked.


    Come on T.A., you really can’t conceive of how easy this would be??!?!??! If you read the paper you would have known that the birds retained their training for years and were cooped up by Skinner for up to 36 hours and still preformed perfectly… yes perfectly. During his presentation the evaluators even opened the capsules to see what the birds were doing. The birds did not miss a beat and kept on pecking ignoring the intruding light and humans. READ the paper and you’ll see how ridiculous your objections are.

    In my story the Soviets had advanced knowledge of the first couple of raids which set the stage for the preparations.
    No, I can't because it won't work for reasons already given. Beam riding AAM's and SAM's were tried all the way into the 60's and uniformly found to have a low Pk. The US, French, British, and Russians all figured that out.


    I would conjecture that a closing rate of 600 mph from the rear would do just fine aimed at a bomber stream. Yes the birds could be taught to approach from the rear or any other angle and even what particular bomber in a normal bomber box to target. I have them concentrating on the leaders of the bomber boxes.
    I would state that you don't get to choose the engagement angle most of the time, particularly with the SAM's. But, since for roughly 70 to 80% of the flight of a Wasserfall clone the bird won't even see the target, it is unlikely it's going to hit anything anyway. At 15 miles (about the max possible range for such a missile) the target is the same as viewing a 1/72nd scale B-29 model at 1100 feet, nearly a quarter of a mile.
    That assumes clear atmosphere. Haze, clouds, sun position, will all shorten that viewing range substantially. It's not like Russia has nice sunny weather most of the year.
    For example, your story has the US attacking Leningrad. Cloud cover there is almost a certainty. The median cloud cover there is overcast with 97% cloud. Therefore, your missile system is dealing with the attackers being invisible to ground observation and would be for most of a missile's flight.

    https://weatherspark.com/averages/33...ian-Federation


    Who said anything about 8Gs? Where did you get that figure and guess what, they were tested and performed very well.
    From data on the V2 which performed ballistically very similarly. It pulled 8G's during its boost phase of flight. Nike Ajax, the world's first operational and successful SAM pulled 25 G's on launch for the 3 seconds of boost by the solid fuel first stage. It then continued to accelerate to maximum speed at about 10 G's on the liquid fuel second stage.

    Are you trying to tell me that a jet, going mach 2, piloted by a human could not collide into a B-29? Could Such a suicidal pilot could be trained to follow a flight path that would take him on a slow half roll and hit the bomber from behind? Of course he could and so can a pigeon. Operative conditioning is very powerful and the pigeon is very capable of learning all manner of complex actions and retains them for years.
    This is just a mis-mash of logical fallacies. Taking real examples: A Sagger missile operator with thousands of training launches simulated and real hits a stationary tank at 3000 meters just 80% of the time and a moving one less than 40% of the time. Slower target, slower missile, larger sight picture.

    So, yes, I'm trying to tell you that a mach 2 missile closing on a target moving several hundred miles an hour and from a range of say a mile or two which it will cover in a matter of under 5 seconds is going to miss using optical control, particularly an optical system with a very limited field of view.

    The SA-2 Guideline SAM in Vietnam against maneuvering aircraft had about a 6% success rate. Against non-maneuvering aircraft it was about 15%. In the face of countermeasures it fell to about 1%.

    So, what I'm saying is your missile has about the same probability of hitting as an unguided one does since for 80% + of it's flight it is unguided.


    Yes the birds would need fairly clear weather and as soon as the US found out the missiles were optically guided then they would be fairly limited in their use. That is why it is such a closely guarded secret in my story and why the Soviets planted dummy rockets full of old German radio direction gear to fool the US that they were guided by radio control etc.
    Too bad you have crappy weather over the targets you picked for your story nearly every day of the year...

    The US and Britain aren't stupid. They'd know what the planted stuff was in short order and determine it couldn't do what was being observed.

    You’re just being contrary again. The setup for one bird is minimal about the size of a liter bottle of soda. CO2 sized cartridges would give plenty of air and pressure etc. Until launch air could be fed through a valve and hose. It would be one third the size of the following and probably lighter than the wire guidance system it would replace…
    You are simply brushing aside the technical issues to make the idea workable. PFM is fine in fiction, if you are willing to admit it's PFM.

    Shooting in the general direction of the bomber stream like the V2 system. Camera like shutters covering the contact plate timed to open when the missile hits a certain altitude, birds take over and start to search for targets.
    And in the meantime, flight control is by what means...? A vertical launch and ballistic flight path alone won't get the missile to the target. Wasserfall has a maximum range of about 15 miles. This gives a launch site about a 6 minute window at absolute maximum to fire on a bomber. As you decrease the engagement range the time you have to take on a target decreases too.






    Agreed but first someone would have to convince someone like you that the missiles are pigeon guided.




    No, all it proves is that as usual stagnant, ridgid, minds and the usual unimaginative thinkers who cannot see outside of the box where in control of the decision. At least one of them was pretty stupid. He chose to ignore the facts and go with his gut feeling and he convinced the group that Skinner’s data was “too good” to be true. It wasn’t. It was dead on accurate.
    All this whole thread proves is that crazy ideas when examined in detail are just crazy ideas. PFM is fine for fiction as I said, but you have to accept it's PFM not reality involved.

    Not one project stopping, practical reason was ever given. They just thought it was silly, like many of you and probably cost thousands of American lives. Imagine having a guided bomb in 1944.
    The US had several. AZON, BAT, GORGON, among others.

    Gorgon in various configurations:





    BAT: Used in the Pacific in late 1944 - 45



    USAAF radio guided glide bombs: The GB 1 in 1942 - 43.



    AZON guided bomb used in Burma 1944.




    The evaluation team exhibited the same kind of mirth presented here. That does not mean it wouldn’t have worked.

    Edwards Deming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming presented his ideas of quality control to every American car manufactured and they all showed him the door and laughed behind his back. The Japanese listened and started kicking our butt. Toyota became the biggest car manufacturer and GM went bankrupt. Sorry to tell you but the world is round and the earth revolves around the sun, both ideas that took centuries to become common knowledge. There are literally hundreds of ideas that took a long time to be adopted and hundreds more that were never adopted because different or more timely options came along.
    Deming is the tip of a enormous iceburg on the subject of manufacturing and industrial engineering, my degree background. GM failed in the 70's and 80's primarily through over application of automation on assembly lines. They did this to reduce labor costs because the UAW had overpriced autoworker labor. Toyota (and other manufacturers) continued to use more manual labor in the assembly process getting higher reliability.
    GM went bankrupt primarily because of the cost of union retirement plans. That is what Obama's bail out of them was primarily for.

    Sorry to tell you, but your marginal grasp of these subjects just doesn't cut the mustard outside of fictional stories.
    Last edited by T. A. Gardner; 21 Oct 15, 20:29.

    Leave a comment:


  • hairog
    replied
    This kind of thing is why a ridged mentality could not comprehend a good idea when it was presented. Skinner could not get through exactly the kind of type of mind set you are presenting.

    Did you read the paper? This is exactly why Billy Mitchel was court-martialed. This is exactly why the Gatling gun and the Spencer did not end the American Civil War 2 years earlier. This is exactly the kind of thinking that lost Singapore, created the conditions for Pearl Harbor and The Blitzkrieg.

    “That requires supplying oxygen and having a pressurization system installed, along with heating, etc. Also, that system has to be sufficiently large that it can remain operational from insertion of the animal on the ground until termination after launch. That might be hours, even days.
    That brings up another problem: How long is the system viable for? After all, if the defenders don't know when a raid is coming they would have to prepare the missiles sometime in advance.”
    Come on T.A., you really can’t conceive of how easy this would be??!?!??! If you read the paper you would have known that the birds retained their training for years and were cooped up by Skinner for up to 36 hours and still preformed perfectly… yes perfectly. During his presentation the evaluators even opened the capsules to see what the birds were doing. The birds did not miss a beat and kept on pecking ignoring the intruding light and humans. READ the paper and you’ll see how ridiculous your objections are.

    In my story the Soviets had advanced knowledge of the first couple of raids which set the stage for the preparations.

    Quote:
    2. Missiles are slowed down.

    That will greatly decrease their accuracy. Post WW 2, subsonic AAM's were found to be nearly worthless and quickly replaced by sonic ones. That doomed the JB-3 Tiamat for example as it's accuracy was very low being slow. Shortening the intercept time means less time for the attacked to respond as well as less time involved in movement of the target. Slowing a Wasserfall for example would reduce the intercept range which is already short.

    Everybody (US, Britain, USSR, everybody) figured out that fast = more probability of a hit.
    I would conjecture that a closing rate of 600 mph from the rear would do just fine aimed at a bomber stream. Yes the birds could be taught to approach from the rear or any other angle and even what particular bomber in a normal bomber box to target. I have them concentrating on the leaders of the bomber boxes.



    Quote:
    3. "Tolerance of small animals to acceleration.
    Chae EU.
    Abstract
    Mice, rats, rabbits, finches, pigeons, and roosters were exposed to +Gz, minus Gz, and minus Gx inertial forces due to acceleration. The range of body weight of all animals was from 14 g to 1.6 kg. The magnitude of G and duration of exposure time were within*130 G and 20 min*and the average rate of changes of G was 2.8 G/s. The G tolerances of these animals were compared with one another at 50% mortality. The tolerance of each species was expressed as the area under the tolerance curve. Changes of tolerance were obtained by the changes of direction of G force. The tolerance ratio of minus Gz to +Gz force was 0.58 and that of minus Gx to +Gz was 2.12. Body weight was inversely related to the threshold G-value at which animals are resistant to the prolonged acceleration.
    PMID: 1131134 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]"
    Birds, Bats And Insects Hold Secrets For Aerospace Engineers
    Date:
    February 9, 2008
    Source:
    University of Michigan

    "Select military aircraft can withstand gravitational forces of 8-10 G. Many birds routinely experience positive G-forces greater than 10 G and up to 14 G."

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0204172203.htm

    None of that has anything to do with those animals performing a complex function like these pigeons would be. Simple survival isn't enough. They have to function and do complex reasoning. Ain't happening with 8G's put on them.
    Who said anything about 8Gs? Where did you get that figure and guess what, they were tested and performed very well.

    Are you trying to tell me that a jet, going mach 2, piloted by a human could not collide into a B-29? Could Such a suicidal pilot could be trained to follow a flight path that would take him on a slow half roll and hit the bomber from behind? Of course he could and so can a pigeon. Operative conditioning is very powerful and the pigeon is very capable of learning all manner of complex actions and retains them for years.

    “Skinner then added a new tactic. He found he could feed the birds at regular time intervals or after a certain number of pecks. After a while, the pigeons learned to rap out as many as four pecks a second for more than two minutes without a break, and would work feverishly to prevent the target image from moving off dead center.

    In one final test, Skinner put each bird into a hand-operated trainer. A person sat behind each pigeon and moved a color photo projected on the screen, at the same time operating the food magazine. The pigeon had to peck correctly or he got no food at all. According to the report on these experiments: ‘There wasn’t a single washout in the entire class of 64. Every bird earned his wings with an A grade.’

    Other experiments followed to test the birds’ psychological fitness for battle. Target pistols were fired only a few inches from a bird’s head. The pigeons didn’t miss a peck, didn’t even look up. Other extremely loud noises were introduced. Again, the pigeons stayed at their task. Skinner also put the pigeons in a pressure chamber, setting the altitude at 10,000 feet. They were also whirled around in a centrifuge, put on pure oxygen and exposed to bright flashes, simulating shell bursts. High vibrations were also introduced, and the birds were subjected to massive G forces without harmful effects.

    Following the success of those experiments, pigeons were placed in three, five and seven tandem positions in a missile to see whether, if one or more birds became obstinate or lazy, the majority could override any incorrect signals and keep the missile on course. The final test was to see whether a male pigeon placed alongside a female would abandon his task or vice versa. Once more, the birds’ dedication to the mission was paramount. They pecked away at the target; hunger overcame any other desires. Skinner also learned that pigeons were seemingly fearless when feeding on hemp seed. They worked faster when it was used in place of the standard grain.”


    Quote:
    4. Missiles are shot a bomber stream of US B-29s. No foes to be confused with and a pigeon can tell the difference of aircraft types especially when one is huge and silver.

    Unless there are clouds when the intercept range would diminish anything up to less than a mile, maybe down to zero. The same is true if the bombers came at night. I know, you won't let that happen but it very well could be the case.
    There are also escorts. If anything, contrails would just confuse the problem as these are*clouds*restricting visibility of targets behind or beyond them.
    If the visual range decreased to under a mile for a Wasserfall you are talking less than 1 second to correct for targeting error.
    Yes the birds would need fairly clear weather and as soon as the US found out the missiles were optically guided then they would be fairly limited in their use. That is why it is such a closely guarded secret in my story and why the Soviets planted dummy rockets full of old German radio direction gear to fool the US that they were guided by radio control etc.

    Quote:
    5. A one pigeon setup would not take up that much room. X-4 could be enlarged.

    Now you don't have an X-4. You have a larger missile requiring more engine to produce more thrust to push more weight and drag. That means more fuel and then with pressurization of the bird compartment more equipment to make that happen. So, you might end up with something the size of a JB-3 Tiamat (600 to 900 lbs. and about quadruple the size of an X-4).
    That's start over on design time...
    You’re just being contrary again. The setup for one bird is minimal about the size of a liter bottle of soda. CO2 sized cartridges would give plenty of air and pressure etc. Until launch air could be fed through a valve and hose. It would be one third the size of the following and probably lighter than the wire guidance system it would replace…




    Quote:
    6. If anti-aircraft, fighters, etc. can see the bombers so can a trained bird. Contrails would be a dead give away. Being shot in the general direction then picking up on bombers as they got closer etc.

    Not necessarily. We don't know what a pigeon's visual resolution is.
    Yes we do and it is several time better than a human.

    We also don't know when the bird is going to actually spot the potential target in the firing sequence.
    How, for example, is the missile initially aimed at the target? That is, a Wasserfall is launched vertically and ballistically. That means the bird is looking up at essentially nothing in the boost phase. What gets the missile heading at the target more or less before the bird tries to home on it?
    Shooting in the general direction of the bomber stream like the V2 system. Camera like shutters covering the contact plate timed to open when the missile hits a certain altitude, birds take over and start to search for targets.

    Quote:
    The pigeon pecks at over 2 times per second and is not distracted by noise, lights, explosions or even a female in pigeon in heat. They are totally focused on getting the hemp seed. Yes hemp.

    How does that translate into course corrections? How does the bird initially pick up the target? What happens if multiple birds decide on the same target?
    Pigeons can be trained in pattern recognition and are very good at it. Each could be trained to look for a certain pattern and home in a particular position in a bomber box.

    The following link is everything you’d ever want to know about the amazing pigeon and it visualization prowess.

    http://www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/avc/

    Quote:
    7. Yes, Yes it would. if the US bomber command found out that the missiles were visually guided that would limited their use. But the US doesn't know that until one of the characters in the book figures it out. Then they have to convince a person like you that it is pigeon guided. You can see the problem with that I'm sure.

    I can see SAC in such a case deciding on cheap and quick counter measures to this too. One would be extremely bright flares designed to obscure the target by light. Another would be painting the planes in low visibility camouflage paint. I could come up with lots of other, even weird, means to defeat this that are simple and were tried for some reason or another against other systems at the time.
    Of course, coming at night pretty much ends the whole program's usefulness.
    Agreed but first someone would have to convince someone like you that the missiles are pigeon guided.


    Quote:
    If you read the paper you would discover that it was not "proved" impractical by any means. One evaluator decided that the data had been "too good" to be real. He had no proof what so ever he just decided that a pigeon guided missile could not produce the simulated hit rate that was amply demonstrated by Skinner...dozens of times. The clown shut down the project because he "thought" it was too good to be true. No proof, just conjecture.

    Yea, it was such a good idea it was adopted... NOT! The proof is in historical choices. I don't think the people evaluating this idea were idiots.
    No, all it proves is that as usual stagnant, ridgid, minds and the usual unimaginative thinkers who cannot see outside of the box where in control of the decision. At least one of them was pretty stupid. He chose to ignore the facts and go with his gut feeling and he convinced the group that Skinner’s data was “too good” to be true. It wasn’t. It was dead on accurate.

    They figured out that it was impractical for any number of reasons and dropped it because of that.
    Not one project stopping, practical reason was ever given. They just thought it was silly, like many of you and probably cost thousands of American lives. Imagine having a guided bomb in 1944.

    The evaluation team exhibited the same kind of mirth presented here. That does not mean it wouldn’t have worked.

    Edwards Deming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming presented his ideas of quality control to every American car manufactured and they all showed him the door and laughed behind his back. The Japanese listened and started kicking our butt. Toyota became the biggest car manufacturer and GM went bankrupt. Sorry to tell you but the world is round and the earth revolves around the sun, both ideas that took centuries to become common knowledge. There are literally hundreds of ideas that took a long time to be adopted and hundreds more that were never adopted because different or more timely options came along.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marmat
    replied
    Maybe ...

    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Maybe this was not the answer he was looking for...
    ... maybe not, but the truth had to be told.



    Oh alright, I'm just messin' with ya!
    Last edited by Marmat; 20 Oct 15, 11:33.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Maybe this was not the answer he was looking for...

    Leave a comment:


  • Marmat
    replied
    Pheromones, ...

    ... or rather, pigeon pheromones in a highly concentrated form, sprayed over the enemy missile guidance training facilities. Why? Because really, REALLY smart people, like science types, and the most brutal of warriors, go gaga over pigeons:

    'Tesla used to take walks to the park to feed the pigeons. He developed an unusual relationship with a white pigeon which used to visit him every day.

    "I loved that pigeon as a man loves a women, and she loved me. As long as I had her, there was a purpose to my life," Tesla once said.

    Source: Tesla Society and Tesla Universe'



    Remember,

    "Make pigeon love, not war" (in a high squeaky voice)
    - Mike Tyson




    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Another counter measure (more tongue in cheek than serious as this whole idea is a joke anyway) would be for the Allies to train predator birds to prefer lighting near missiles and aircraft such that they terrorize the pigeons in much the same way those owl decoys people put on their roofs would.

    Another would be to introduce avian disease into the pigeon population by releasing your own pigeons to mix with the ones the enemy is using.

    Of course, since it takes up to 3 pigeons to operate one missile and the rate of fire would easily exceed a thousand that means you need to set up a huge training program, train handlers, set up pigeon coops at bases using them, add veterinary staff, potentially have to retrain or periodically refresh the birds, the cost and complexity of just training them to begin with would be a massive undertaking.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Another counter measure (more tongue in cheek than serious as this whole idea is a joke anyway) would be for the Allies to train predator birds to prefer lighting near missiles and aircraft such that they terrorize the pigeons in much the same way those owl decoys people put on their roofs would.

    Another would be to introduce avian disease into the pigeon population by releasing your own pigeons to mix with the ones the enemy is using.

    Of course, since it takes up to 3 pigeons to operate one missile and the rate of fire would easily exceed a thousand that means you need to set up a huge training program, train handlers, set up pigeon coops at bases using them, add veterinary staff, potentially have to retrain or periodically refresh the birds, the cost and complexity of just training them to begin with would be a massive undertaking.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Now, if I were doing this, the RIM 8 Talos is the way to go. That missile started in 1944 as Project Bumblebee.

    The missile itself is a ramjet with a solid fuel booster to get it up to speed.

    It flies a ballistic trajectory to target using a very tight telemetry radio system and the missile for most of its flight is not electronically visible to the target. That is, there is no terminal fire control radar painting the target and the telemetry system is not aimed at the target but rather a ballistic flight path that puts the missile falling on the target in the terminal phase.

    Terminally, the target is painted by radar and the missile uses four antenna and an interferometer to correct flight path. That is, the signals are received unequally at the antennas when the missile isn't pointed at the target and equal when it is. This is determined by a simple Wheatstone bridge circuit.

    It worked well for its era.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by hairog View Post
    Good stuff T.A.

    1. Pressurized capsule,
    That requires supplying oxygen and having a pressurization system installed, along with heating, etc. Also, that system has to be sufficiently large that it can remain operational from insertion of the animal on the ground until termination after launch. That might be hours, even days.
    That brings up another problem: How long is the system viable for? After all, if the defenders don't know when a raid is coming they would have to prepare the missiles sometime in advance.

    2. Missiles are slowed down.
    That will greatly decrease their accuracy. Post WW 2, subsonic AAM's were found to be nearly worthless and quickly replaced by sonic ones. That doomed the JB-3 Tiamat for example as it's accuracy was very low being slow. Shortening the intercept time means less time for the attacked to respond as well as less time involved in movement of the target. Slowing a Wasserfall for example would reduce the intercept range which is already short.
    Everybody (US, Britain, USSR, everybody) figured out that fast = more probability of a hit.

    3. "Tolerance of small animals to acceleration.
    Chae EU.
    Abstract
    Mice, rats, rabbits, finches, pigeons, and roosters were exposed to +Gz, minus Gz, and minus Gx inertial forces due to acceleration. The range of body weight of all animals was from 14 g to 1.6 kg. The magnitude of G and duration of exposure time were within 130 G and 20 min and the average rate of changes of G was 2.8 G/s. The G tolerances of these animals were compared with one another at 50% mortality. The tolerance of each species was expressed as the area under the tolerance curve. Changes of tolerance were obtained by the changes of direction of G force. The tolerance ratio of minus Gz to +Gz force was 0.58 and that of minus Gx to +Gz was 2.12. Body weight was inversely related to the threshold G-value at which animals are resistant to the prolonged acceleration.
    PMID: 1131134 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]"
    Birds, Bats And Insects Hold Secrets For Aerospace Engineers
    Date:
    February 9, 2008
    Source:
    University of Michigan

    "Select military aircraft can withstand gravitational forces of 8-10 G. Many birds routinely experience positive G-forces greater than 10 G and up to 14 G."

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0204172203.htm
    None of that has anything to do with those animals performing a complex function like these pigeons would be. Simple survival isn't enough. They have to function and do complex reasoning. Ain't happening with 8G's put on them.


    4. Missiles are shot a bomber stream of US B-29s. No foes to be confused with and a pigeon can tell the difference of aircraft types especially when one is huge and silver.
    Unless there are clouds when the intercept range would diminish anything up to less than a mile, maybe down to zero. The same is true if the bombers came at night. I know, you won't let that happen but it very well could be the case.
    There are also escorts. If anything, contrails would just confuse the problem as these are clouds restricting visibility of targets behind or beyond them.
    If the visual range decreased to under a mile for a Wasserfall you are talking less than 1 second to correct for targeting error.

    5. A one pigeon setup would not take up that much room. X-4 could be enlarged.
    Now you don't have an X-4. You have a larger missile requiring more engine to produce more thrust to push more weight and drag. That means more fuel and then with pressurization of the bird compartment more equipment to make that happen. So, you might end up with something the size of a JB-3 Tiamat (600 to 900 lbs. and about quadruple the size of an X-4).
    That's start over on design time...


    6. If anti-aircraft, fighters, etc. can see the bombers so can a trained bird. Contrails would be a dead give away. Being shot in the general direction then picking up on bombers as they got closer etc.
    Not necessarily. We don't know what a pigeon's visual resolution is. We also don't know when the bird is going to actually spot the potential target in the firing sequence.
    How, for example, is the missile initially aimed at the target? That is, a Wasserfall is launched vertically and ballistically. That means the bird is looking up at essentially nothing in the boost phase. What gets the missile heading at the target more or less before the bird tries to home on it?

    The pigeon pecks at over 2 times per second and is not distracted by noise, lights, explosions or even a female in pigeon in heat. They are totally focused on getting the hemp seed. Yes hemp.
    How does that translate into course corrections? How does the bird initially pick up the target? What happens if multiple birds decide on the same target?

    7. Yes, Yes it would. if the US bomber command found out that the missiles were visually guided that would limited their use. But the US doesn't know that until one of the characters in the book figures it out. Then they have to convince a person like you that it is pigeon guided. You can see the problem with that I'm sure.
    I can see SAC in such a case deciding on cheap and quick counter measures to this too. One would be extremely bright flares designed to obscure the target by light. Another would be painting the planes in low visibility camouflage paint. I could come up with lots of other, even weird, means to defeat this that are simple and were tried for some reason or another against other systems at the time.
    Of course, coming at night pretty much ends the whole program's usefulness.


    If you read the paper you would discover that it was not "proved" impractical by any means. One evaluator decided that the data had been "too good" to be real. He had no proof what so ever he just decided that a pigeon guided missile could not produce the simulated hit rate that was amply demonstrated by Skinner...dozens of times. The clown shut down the project because he "thought" it was too good to be true. No proof, just conjecture.
    Yea, it was such a good idea it was adopted... NOT! The proof is in historical choices. I don't think the people evaluating this idea were idiots. They figured out that it was impractical for any number of reasons and dropped it because of that.

    Leave a comment:


  • hairog
    replied
    Good stuff T.A.

    1. Pressurized capsule,

    2. Missiles are slowed down.

    3. "Tolerance of small animals to acceleration.
    Chae EU.
    Abstract
    Mice, rats, rabbits, finches, pigeons, and roosters were exposed to +Gz, minus Gz, and minus Gx inertial forces due to acceleration. The range of body weight of all animals was from 14 g to 1.6 kg. The magnitude of G and duration of exposure time were within 130 G and 20 min and the average rate of changes of G was 2.8 G/s. The G tolerances of these animals were compared with one another at 50% mortality. The tolerance of each species was expressed as the area under the tolerance curve. Changes of tolerance were obtained by the changes of direction of G force. The tolerance ratio of minus Gz to +Gz force was 0.58 and that of minus Gx to +Gz was 2.12. Body weight was inversely related to the threshold G-value at which animals are resistant to the prolonged acceleration.
    PMID: 1131134 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]"

    Birds, Bats And Insects Hold Secrets For Aerospace Engineers
    Date:
    February 9, 2008
    Source:
    University of Michigan

    "Select military aircraft can withstand gravitational forces of 8-10 G. Many birds routinely experience positive G-forces greater than 10 G and up to 14 G."

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0204172203.htm


    4. Missiles are shot a bomber stream of US B-29s. No foes to be confused with and a pigeon can tell the difference of aircraft types especially when one is huge and silver.

    5. A one pigeon setup would not take up that much room. X-4 could be enlarged.

    6. If anti-aircraft, fighters, etc. can see the bombers so can a trained bird. Contrails would be a dead give away. Being shot in the general direction then picking up on bombers as they got closer etc.

    The pigeon pecks at over 2 times per second and is not distracted by noise, lights, explosions or even a female in pigeon in heat. They are totally focused on getting the hemp seed. Yes hemp.

    7. Yes, Yes it would. if the US bomber command found out that the missiles were visually guided that would limited their use. But the US doesn't know that until one of the characters in the book figures it out. Then they have to convince a person like you that it is pigeon guided. You can see the problem with that I'm sure.

    If you read the paper you would discover that it was not "proved" impractical by any means. One evaluator decided that the data had been "too good" to be real. He had no proof what so ever he just decided that a pigeon guided missile could not produce the simulated hit rate that was amply demonstrated by Skinner...dozens of times. The clown shut down the project because he "thought" it was too good to be true. No proof, just conjecture.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    It wouldn't work. There are several reasons involved:

    1. Altitude. The birds couldn't survive above about 15,000 feet both on the lack of oxygen and the outside air temperature.

    2. Speed. A high subsonic missile or supersonic missile is going too fast for the bird to make input corrections on what would be a fleeting and tiny target for most of the missile's flight.
    With the Wasserfall going roughly Mach 2, give or take, the time between launch and interception at a max range of about 15 miles is less than 30 seconds. A target bomber moving 300 mph will have moved nearly 2.5 miles in the same time. If the missile is moving on a non-tail chase flight path it needs to be aimed ahead of the target such that it will arrive at the target when it too gets to that point.
    Against a large, slow moving ship from a distance of just a few miles the system might work with a bomb moving 400 mph or less. With a missile as described, never.


    3. G force. If the launch and acceleration exceed about 4G you have serious problems here. This is also a problem if you have to make serious course corrections like hard turns to stay on a target.
    Wasserfall has an initial acceleration of about 8 to 10G given it has a thrust velocity of 1900 m/sec. That's not unusual for ballistic / ground launched missiles.

    4. In an aerial battle the birds couldn't tell friend from foe either. I doubt that you could train a pigeon to know the difference between two aircraft types.

    5. It isn't uncomplicated and it takes considerable room in the missile. The X-4 is really tiny so it would never fit.

    6. Target size. To give you an idea of the size of the target, take a 1/72nd scale model of a B-29 and place it 500 feet from you. That is proportional to an actual B-29 flying at 35,000 feet. It's a mere speck.

    7. It would be limited to clear weather and daytime. Clouds would negate the system.




    Project Pigeon was used with the BAT guided bomb / missile (as a variant sometimes called Pelican). In the bomb configuration it was intended primarily as an anti-ship weapon. Launch would normally be at low altitude by low altitude maritime patrol aircraft like the PB4Y. The bomb was a glide weapon so launch was gentle and the speed of flight low.

    As it was, the system proved impractical and was abandoned.
    Last edited by T. A. Gardner; 12 Oct 15, 01:26.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X