HAWK Aquisition by RoAF

Actually there is one important difference between radio waves and X-rays. Even if both of them could be described as EM radiation, the X-rays are ionising while radio waves are not. And this means a huge difference in the magnitude of the biological effects generated by them.

I didn't reply to all your post because I didn't see any point in it. The original message is on the same page and quite easy to view if you scroll up. I only quoted what I thought it was neccessary. Besides, you have quoted only parts of other people's posts yourself. For instance, in this thread you have done it twice already.

Getting back to the topic. I am sorry if I misunderstood, but you should have made it clear that you are giving X-rays as an example (like write a "for example" of a "for instance" in your post). People with less knowledge, like the journalist that wrote the article, might interpret your post that a radar uses X-rays, which is false.

Brushing aside your pointless ironies (or should I call them "mistouri de doi lei"?) regarding my knowledge on the subject and the advice to learn more about the issue, I will stick to my idea that X-rays and microwaves are different. Sure they are both EM radiation, but they are pretty far appart in the spectrum. Thus they have different energies for their particles and different applications. X-rays aren't used to heat up or cook food, aren't use for communications or for detecting incoming targets. There are differences even between the radar microwave bands. The X-band (8 to 12 GHz) mentioned here is where the first important absorbtion of EM radiation by the atmosphere appears. Thus the range of a radar operating in this band is more affected by the level of humidity in the atmosphere than, for exampple, one operating in the C-band (4 to 8 GHz).

Wow! That's a lot of peak power, when you consider that the WWII Wuerzburg had some 8 kW peak power. Sure, that power is channeled onto the narrow direction indicated by the antenae's characteristic and it is emitted only for the short interval of the impulse (I see it is roughly 1 ms or less). Let's presume that kind of directional antenna has a gain of some 30 dB, that still leaves 1 kW of power to be feeded to it. If this kind of power leaks from the wave guide, than it's really dangerous. I have seen on the net that you can buy microwave shields that can introduce a loss of up to 30 dB at a given frequency in the interval between 5 and 20 GHz. Simplifying to the extreme and supposing that shields will be installed, that would bring the unwanted emissions to 1 W. Still potentialy dangerous. There are access points produced by a company I won't name that have an output power of 24 dBm (some 0.25 W) and they recommend a safe distance of 2 m.

But that since the technology exists and there are pretty good microwave engineers in Romania, the possibility to better protect the radar operators exists. They should at least try to do it.

I didn't reply to all your post because I didn't see any point in it. The original message is on the same page and quite easy to view if you scroll up. I only quoted what I thought it was neccessary. Besides, you have quoted only parts of other people's posts yourself. For instance, in this thread you have done it twice already.

Getting back to the topic. I am sorry if I misunderstood, but you should have made it clear that you are giving X-rays as an example (like write a "for example" of a "for instance" in your post). People with less knowledge, like the journalist that wrote the article, might interpret your post that a radar uses X-rays, which is false.

Brushing aside your pointless ironies (or should I call them "mistouri de doi lei"?) regarding my knowledge on the subject and the advice to learn more about the issue, I will stick to my idea that X-rays and microwaves are different. Sure they are both EM radiation, but they are pretty far appart in the spectrum. Thus they have different energies for their particles and different applications. X-rays aren't used to heat up or cook food, aren't use for communications or for detecting incoming targets. There are differences even between the radar microwave bands. The X-band (8 to 12 GHz) mentioned here is where the first important absorbtion of EM radiation by the atmosphere appears. Thus the range of a radar operating in this band is more affected by the level of humidity in the atmosphere than, for exampple, one operating in the C-band (4 to 8 GHz).

Eveything in the article is about EM radiations.So was my idea to give an example in the form of X-Rays.Yes,X-Rays and microwaves are diferent things.One thing remains:EM radiations are dangerous.Read again my post ,that what I said.People think some are more dangerous than the others.They aren't.
Even high voltage is dangerous if you are in the area for a long time.There are thousand of cases , and not only in Romania ,USA having few notorious cases (a famous one inspiriring a movie).
I do have "mistouri de doi lei".I keep them in store for whenever the moment comes to be released.But in that case was just irony.Pointless if you want.You guess you were the lucky winner.

Carol,radio waves can cause big problems for the health.They can be ionised as well.And you don't need special devices to do that.Every place has free electrons waiting to be accelerated.Accelerated electrons -> ionized electrons.But I guess you knew that.

Well they are. X-rays are indeed more dangerous than radiowaves. People are allowed to put a radioemitter (mobile phone) close to their heads for quite a long time. At the same time they are not allowed to lean on an X-ray source even for a short time. It all has to do with the magnitude of the biological effects of these two things.

I have not denied that long exposures to radio waves are totally harmless (see here). However, you are mixing things. Radio waves cannot be 'ionised' as they do not carry electrical charge. Nor are they ionising as their energy is very low. 'Ionising' refers to the ability of the radiation to release a bound electron. It is not the same thing as setting in motion a free electron. And, even if radio waves set in motion free electrons, the energy of the electrons is also below the ionisation threshold. "But I guess you knew that."

The bottom line is that there are considerable differences between radio waves and X-rays.

Do those hawk have a good anti ecm so they cna counter enemy "wild weasels"?
And at 250 thousand usd a missile its a pretty expensive system.Actually the best option would have been the replacement of those sa-2,sa-6 and sa-3 that Romania has with a russian thor s/m altitude wich would be a pain in teh ass if coceiled in forest areas and a s-300 bvr system to shoot down bombers/tbms .And if those to systems who have had a data uplink with the fps-117 the serbian air defence system would have looked like a puppy compared to the romanian one.

You do realise that at 250 a missile , is actually cheaper than a Patriot.
And you just can't make a datalink between systems that are not designed to work on the same hardware...

Ive just compared the technical data from the Hawk system to a 9m111Pantsyr S-1 russian system .This russian baby outclasses hawk in every characteristic except its range wich is limited to 20 kms and 11 kms altitude.But it cna engage aerodynamic targets flying at 1300 m/s compared to a hawk(800m/s) and it also has his own radar system incorporated ,has 2A38 twin-barrel automatic gun capable of firing 500 rounds a minute and if jammed by enemy ecms or is searched by enemy "wild weasels" it can engage his targets with his Tv-opticla system.Given the fact that this thing is mounted on chassis (tracked,wheeled) it can engage his target,fire,leave his position confusing enemy aircraft.

And you just can't make a datalink between systems that are not designed to work on the same hardware. : tell that to the greek air defence system wich has both western and eastern ads linked up together.All you have to do is to change the hardwares charactersitics so that it works in the same wave lenght.

If only would be that simple ...

I quess that we are stupid enough to pay 400 Milions on the Lancer upgrades when all we need to do was to make them work on same wavelength...

No man ... you are comparing apples with oranges.
Pantsir is not medium Range defensive system. Is Short range one, acting in the role of the old Shilka extending the range with missile fire capability.

HAWK is equivalent with more or less SA-6 or KUB system.
The Thor is not datalinked with anything... It doesn't need to be... is Mobile defence missile system acting as cover for the Armour and infantry brigades. The system is self contain. What we have in that role is the ol' ROMB system.

This post has been edited by tomcat1974 on September 14, 2005 01:38 pm

My mistake,you should read in my post that RW can accelerate free electrons ,thus already unbound ,which in turn can ionize

Sorry but there are devices RW/RF based that can accelerate electrons at way more than 1eV which is what ionizing radiations have as energy.

Sorry but I didn't said that there is no difference.I just said they are as well dangerous.

There are a lot of things unclear.read here : http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getd...-r-327-ch02.pdf . But I also think you knew that as well

The hawk can engage targets at altitudes of up to 9,14kms and ranges of up to 40 kms while the pantsyr can enage them at altitudes of 10kms and 20kms in range and that makes it a s-m range,medium altitude defence system.Fo your info a short range air defence systme or shorad is something like the redeye,stinger,sa-7,sa-9,(well the majority of manpads),teh su avenger.Pantsyr is a crosss between a short and a medium range systme.His missiles can engage medium range targets and his guns are for the short range mode some kind of a ciws.

Here we start again.

It is not as simple as you suggest. First you have to specify the intensity of the radio waves. High intensity radio waves = dangerous; low intensity radio waves = relatively harmless. High intensity X-rays = lethal; low intensity X-rays = dangerous. Here you have the difference. It all resides in the frequency of the radiation. The frequency of the electromagnetic radiation increases progressively from radiowaves to microwaves to infrared to visible light to ultraviolet to X-rays. The radio waves and the X-rays are almost at the opposite ends of the electromagnetic spectrum. In between you have the visible light. According to your previous statement ("EM radiations are dangerous. ... People think some are more dangerous than the others.They aren't."), visible light is equally dangerous. Could you please explain this? I have a desk lamp on above my keyboard. What is the danger I am exposed to?

You are probably referring to dedicated particle accelerators using high intensity electric fields, with frequencies sometimes in the radio band. It is not quite the same thing as "any radio waves". Besides, the 1 eV threshold you mentioned refers to ionisations in solid state materials. But electrons with this energy will never have the chance of exiting the material in which they were produced, hence they are practically harmless. You need energies several orders of magnitude higher to speak about practical ionisations.

Which is not true.

Nothing unclear there. The link you provided is to a safety document around particle accelerators. As it is stated there, the major concern is the particles that are accelerated (kind of particles, particle energy, beam power, target material etc.). Other secondary sources include only very high intensity radio waves or electric fields (kV or MV range), again not your usual radio wave.

Actually I do.

You do realize that you just talking nonsense...
Sa-9 manpad??
Shorad is an system that has short range coverage. Which Pantsyr does. Pantsyr is nothing else than a "Wheels" Tunguska (plus some small updates to the guidance system and better performace missile)
Its maximum range is 12 KM with maximum altitude of 8000 m.Tha's barrely in the visible range. This is for the missiles.

look here
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/pantsyr/specs.html