 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Saw "Geezers In Space" (aka "Space Cowboys") and looks like there are Sovtek 6922's mounted on one of the circuit boards on the orbiting Soviet tactical nuke satellite supposedly launched in 1983. I know about the EMP advantage, but does it make sense to launch something with vacuum tubes and expect no maintenance requirements in 17 years?
Follow Ups:
Don't know, but saw something on Wings channel about MIGs using tubes. Also, besides EMP, you have to consider cosmic rays. A lot of NASA stuff uses rather old LSI technology because the etching is much larger than newer electronics and much less apt to be destroyed by a stray proton. Tubes would be ok if you could find a way to make the heater work more reliably... possibly coat it with something that will emit electrons at lower temperatures than usual so they could operate without that cheery red glow. Sorta depends on what you use them in too though... re-creating the Eniac on a satellite would not be practical, but using them in communications backup systems etc. would.
***Don't know, but saw something on Wings channel about MIGs using tubes.Well, not today. The current state of the art in modern planes, including latest MIG's, is electronically sreered phase array radars, secure spread-spectrum communication, agile jammers, sensor fusion technology, HUD's and multi-function flat dispays, helmet-mounted sights - that sort of stuff. None of them can be built with tubes.
That tube story probaby goes back to the 1975 and Belenko's MIG-25 that landed in Japan. That one was still loaded with tubes. And they 'kind of' worked.
One funny element of the story was in the Belenko's statement that his plane had a 'jam-proof' radar. When the Western engineers heard that story, they smiled - only West had the technology for that. However, they had quickly discovered the tru nature of the Russian sledge hammer approach. When they lacked the processing resources, they simply installed on that plane the most powerful radar ever. So powerful that no jammer could overcome the direct return. So it was indeed 'jam proof' by Russian standards.
The plane was also made of steel and rusted, and its engines had to be rebuilt after just few Mach 3 dashes.
Lots of Western firms are now retrofitting the existing Russian planes with modern avionics (there is one huge market for that nowdays) and I can assure you no one is putting tubes there.
It is true that the Russians have been ahead of the West in understanding and protecting against the EMP and radiation pulse phenomena - thirty years ago that was a routine for them. I suspect today the situation is reversed - once the West accepts the need, there is no stopping its technology.
***Saw "Geezers In Space" (aka "Space Cowboys") and looks like there are Sovtek 6922's mounted on one of the circuit boards on the orbiting Soviet tactical nuke satellite supposedly launched in 1983. I know about the EMP advantage, but does it make sense to launch something with vacuum tubes and expect no maintenance requirements in 17 years?I shall not pretend to be a "true" military expert, I just spent some time in that area of development.
The answer to your question is basically NO. EMP is only one of many things you need to consider. If your equipment can survive EMP but can't see the target because it has limited processing capability - I don't think this is a good compromise.
In the Soviet military electronics the technological resources. Once it started, however, it was clear that this was the way of the future - all EMP be damned. As far as I know the systems were converted to solid state as fast as it was possible, because with every such conversion PERFORMANCE was improved by a great degree. Most military systems - missles, aicraft - have very long service lives on their bodies, frames, etc. It is avionics that needs to be upgraded constantly. Look at B-52's, F-15's, F-16's, etc - how they had evolved over 20years or so. Little changes to the airframes, HUGE changes in electronics.
So if you ask me is it possible that a particular piece of equipment was designed with the sole objective of surviving the EMP and therefore was tube-based - I would say it is possible, but perhaps that is not the best possibility. But as the general approach - tubes are leaving. They are hindrance to better performance, simple as that. Are tubes still flying in the US and Russia? As far as I know still yes in both cases.
> If your equipment can survive EMP but can't see the target because it has limited processing capability - I don't think this is a good compromise.Only comment is that for once we are talking about scoring points for getting close as in "horse shoes, hand grenades and Atom weapons"
I shall not pretend to be a "true" military expert, I just spent some time in that area of development.The answer to your question is basically NO. EMP is only one of many things you need to consider. If your equipment can survive EMP but can't see the target because it has limited processing capability - I don't think this is a good compromise.
*****In the Soviet military electronics the transistorization started years behind the US - due to significant shortage of the technological resources.**** Once it started, however, it was clear that this was the way of the future - all EMP be damned. As far as I know the systems were converted to solid state as fast as it was possible, because with every such conversion PERFORMANCE was improved by a great degree. Most military systems - missles, aicraft - have very long service lives on their bodies, frames, etc. It is avionics that needs to be upgraded constantly. Look at B-52's, F-15's, F-16's, etc - how they had evolved over 20years or so. Little changes to the airframes, HUGE changes in electronics.
So if you ask me is it possible that a particular piece of equipment was designed with the sole objective of surviving the EMP and therefore was tube-based - I would say it is possible, but perhaps that is not the best possibility. But as the general approach - tubes are leaving. They are hindrance to better performance, simple as that. Are tubes still flying in the US and Russia? As far as I know still yes in both cases.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
