| 作者 |
 標題  |
|
|
Manfred
路人甲乙丙
Canada
1957 Posts |
 Posted - 09/17/2011 : 20:16:08
|
| 戰沙上正好有此一問,被Ra大refer到這裡來求教。同問火力通道的英文如何叫法。多謝! |
|
|
cobrachen
管家
4513 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2011 : 04:14:23
|
| 你可能要解釋一下是甚麼意思，很可能因為翻譯的觀點不同而會出現不同的看法。 |
 |
|
|
dasha
版主
41764 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2011 : 09:42:02
|
| 一個名詞可能對應多種情境,或許該說說是在怎樣的討論中冒出這名詞的? |
|
|
|
Manfred
路人甲乙丙
Canada
1957 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2011 : 10:31:55
|
是小弟疏忽了。兩岸對一些名詞的叫法可能有所不同。請看下貼。
小弟只是粗通戰史,對兵器可以說是一竅不通,我記得在大概是05年的時候,當時的戰沙還是開放性的,所以來了不少FF,記得有個FF就主動挑釁rafa,他以為rafa是臺灣人(當時rafa用繁體字),就說“你們花重金買的美國人七十年代的吉德艦連一個大隊的戰機都擋不住”,當時rafa就說:“不要說是吉德艦就是神盾艦也擋不住一個大隊戰機的攻擊,但問題是一個大隊的戰機能否同時攻擊一艘軍艦?知道最善於玩飽和攻擊的俄國人在攻擊軍艦時才能保證幾條火力通道?你該不會以為戰機攻艦時只需要按下發射反艦導彈的按鈕再用雷達show一下就OK了吧?如果你以為戰機的攻艦能力=掛載反艦導彈數量×導彈射程的話,這個世界上最強的戰機叫做F2,在空自服役,可惜空自的幕僚長沒你那麼樂觀”
http://www.historysalon.com/dispbbs.asp?boardid=10&Id=1373
Ra大還特地讓我來請教蛇大和大俠兄。
|
|
|
|
MACOS8
路人甲乙丙
3316 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2011 : 14:19:12
|
| 老實說，我只有在對岸的文章看過這個字: Number of firepower passage |
|
|
|
閒遊之人
我是老鳥
6805 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2011 : 14:37:16
|
該不會是指指揮頻寬
和可攻擊路線的縱合稱呼? |
|
|
|
rockitten
我是老鳥
Australia
8191 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2011 : 14:57:42
|
I see, that is "fire channel": how much missile can be guided at the same time.......
小貓不會作模型，小貓只愛玩模型；看似小貓玩模型，其實模型玩小貓：
A B 補土白膠條，樹脂改套蝕刻片；凹線凸線凹凸線，乾磨水磨銼刀磨；
水性油性消光漆，乾掃手掃噴槍掃；模型一盒三百幾，零件一堆三千幾；
多買多作進步多，買了不作口水多；花錢耗時傷精神，小貓是隻敗家喵。 |
|
|
|
Bryan C
路人甲乙丙
USA
1455 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2011 : 15:29:41
|
Kidd has 3 fire control radars, can control 3 SM-2 at terminal guidance, and each can control 22 missile in flight in the mid course guidance mode, for total of 69 missile in flight...
This is the same with Burke DDG, since it also has only 3 fire control radars. Tico CG has 4 fire control radars, therefore can control 4 missiles in the terminal guidance mode, and another 88 missiles in flight in the mid course guidance mode...... |
Edited by - Bryan C on 09/18/2011 15:32:10 |
|
|
|
閒遊之人
我是老鳥
6805 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2011 : 16:18:01
|
不過sm2不是有主動導引的
這樣還須要照明嗎?
還是需要管理
以免互撞? |
|
|
|
HOTARU
路人甲乙丙
3584 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2011 : 16:43:42
|
| SM2是半主動尋標頭,SM6才是主動導引. |
|
|
|
Skyshade
路人甲乙丙
1317 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2011 : 21:55:20
|
| line of fire ，俄文原文不知。英文裡的對應是 axis of attack 。 |
|
|
|
Captain Picard
我是老鳥
9654 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2011 : 23:50:44
|
>and each can control 22 missile in flight
是指這套系統理論上的最大值嗎？感覺實戰中很難做到。
=========================
天佑吾「王」！ |
|
|
|
Bryan C
路人甲乙丙
USA
1455 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2011 : 02:52:29
|
In theory, as long as the axis of attack or threat axis is the same direction(enemy missile or aircraft is coming in the same direction to create saturation attack to burn through the defense), then the fire control radar doesn't need to move much during the SM-2's terminal phase guidance, while the 22 other SM-2 missile launch and assigned to the same fire control radar channel would be in a "stream" in flight and depends on the missile's autopilot and mid course guidance/correction to go where expected its own target interception will take place.
The other way to burn through defense is use Time on Target by position all the attacking platforms or missiles to converge on the target area from all direction all at once. This has to take in quit a few control abilities and factor in each platform's differences in speed, and their missile's performances and speed, in order to achieve that. US Navy can do a ToT attack, with missiles(like Harpoon and Tomahawk) has waypoint programming and just need to get the carrier aviation people to start the attack on the same page. Russia/Soviet Navy tried a few time on their exercises, rumors had it was all big screw up.....
But for defense against ToT in a task force, it's really just shoot off what you got, and start praying.... |
Edited by - Bryan C on 09/19/2011 02:56:09 |
|
|
|
Captain Picard
我是老鳥
9654 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2011 : 05:31:09
|
這是指一套MK74這樣的飛彈射控系統，最多能區分22個不同的在空飛彈並為每一個提供一個照射頻道；假設出現第23枚在空飛彈，就會超出這套系統能承擔的上限？
=========================
天佑吾「王」！ |
|
|
|
BlueWhaleMoon
我是老鳥
12957 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2011 : 08:27:44
|
Time on Target一般似乎翻譯為"飽和攻擊", 但是這似乎很容易誤解只要飛彈灑夠多就可以達成.
比較恰當的翻譯應該是"同時彈著攻擊" |
|
|
|
Bryan C
路人甲乙丙
USA
1455 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2011 : 10:00:15
|
>>>這是指一套MK74這樣的飛彈射控系統，最多能區分22個不同的在空飛彈並為每一個提供一個照射頻道；假設出現第23枚在空飛彈，就會超出這套系統能承擔的上限？
Well, you can order the extra missile to self destruct....
But seriously, SM-2 needs terminal guidance for the final few seconds, the radar can shift to other targets. This is call time share arrangement. The radar can't light it up for all 22 missiles at the same time, but for the last few seconds when the SM-2 missile about to intercept the target.
Also, chance of more than 22 missiles going to assign to the same radar channel is slim, well, because Kidd, Tico, and Burke don't have that many more SM-2 on board. Kidd has about 80 SM-2, Tico can carry 122/126 and Burke 90/96 missiles of various types, but Tico and Burke most likely will carry lots of other weapons in the Mk 41 VLS, besides just SM-2. |
|
|
|
Bryan C
路人甲乙丙
USA
1455 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2011 : 10:09:15
|
>>>Time on Target一般似乎翻譯為"飽和攻擊", 但是這似乎很容易誤解只要飛彈灑夠多就可以達成.
>>>比較恰當的翻譯應該是"同時彈著攻擊"
ToT was figured out by USAF in Vietnam War, when it used B-52 forces to attack the same target. But using formation for carpet bombing, you're going to have one section of bombers after another one. For the enemy defending the target, this give them more time to react, and only need to deal with just few bombers at at time, and already figure out where the enemy bombers are coming from what direction and height. USAF decided to use spoked wheel attack---B-52 bombers coming in from all directions all at once, and converge over on the target in different altitude. This way, enemy defense can only handle limited number of B-52 bombers in that short period of time.
Later on, they call it Time on Target attack, just the same idea with the artillery method..... |
|
|
|
Manfred
路人甲乙丙
Canada
1957 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2011 : 21:33:38
|
| 諸位,有沒有關于上述內容的入門級諮詢可供學習?中英文皆可。多謝! |
|
|
|
Bryan C
路人甲乙丙
USA
1455 Posts |
|
| |
標題 |
|
求科普火力通道
